On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 10:10:16 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 28/04/2024 09:51, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 08:30:24 +0000
>> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>> I don't think any railway engineers would ever have been so foolish.
>>>
>>> Hm.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomotor_bogie
>>
>> "large diameter electric motors, mounted rigidly on their frame ...
>> This increased their unsprung weight "
>>
>> Huh? Surely if the motor is on the frame rather than in the bogie it would
>> reduce its unspring weight?
>>
>> "Two 1,500 V DC prototype Co-Co locomotives for the SNCF Class CC 7100...
>> During tests in 1954 they achieved extremely high test speeds of 300
>> kilometres per hour (190 mph)"
>>
>> !!
>>
>> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
>> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.
>>
>
>Quote:
>In March 1955 CC 7107 and Bo-Bo locomotive BB 9004 both attained 331
>kilometres per hour (206 mph) on separate high-speed runs between
>Bordeaux and Dax, Landes. CC 7107 hauled a three car train with
>streamlining modifications to reduce aerodynamic drag.

According to wikipedia the normal max speed of that class is 87mph.
I simply don't believe they could have more than doubled it and to boot
got enough power from 1500V DC to achieve that with a barn door front end
loco on standard 1950s track which simply wouldn't have been up to the
stresses involved. I suspect someone has got their facts wrong.

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 08:30:24 +0000
> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>Recliner wrote:
>>> I don't think any railway engineers would ever have been so foolish.
>>
>>Hm.
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomotor_bogie

> "large diameter electric motors, mounted rigidly on their frame ...
> This increased their unsprung weight "

> Huh? Surely if the motor is on the frame rather than in the bogie it would
> reduce its unspring weight?

If you want to reduce that unsping weight, you may build
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_drive

> "Two 1,500 V DC prototype Co-Co locomotives for the SNCF Class CC 7100...
> During tests in 1954 they achieved extremely high test speeds of 300
> kilometres per hour (190 mph)"

> !!

> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.

Why? It was on the Facture - Morcenx section.

But indeed, not all what SNCF published about this record
with two locos (one per train) seems to be true.

Panto and OHL were molten after test runs.

Regards, ULF

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 10:10:16 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 28/04/2024 09:51, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 08:30:24 +0000
>>> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>> I don't think any railway engineers would ever have been so foolish.
>>>>
>>>> Hm.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomotor_bogie
>>>
>>> "large diameter electric motors, mounted rigidly on their frame ...
>>> This increased their unsprung weight "
>>>
>>> Huh? Surely if the motor is on the frame rather than in the bogie it would
>>> reduce its unspring weight?
>>>
>>> "Two 1,500 V DC prototype Co-Co locomotives for the SNCF Class CC 7100...
>>> During tests in 1954 they achieved extremely high test speeds of 300
>>> kilometres per hour (190 mph)"
>>>
>>> !!
>>>
>>> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
>>> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.
>>>
>>
>>Quote:
>>In March 1955 CC 7107 and Bo-Bo locomotive BB 9004 both attained 331
>>kilometres per hour (206 mph) on separate high-speed runs between
>>Bordeaux and Dax, Landes. CC 7107 hauled a three car train with
>>streamlining modifications to reduce aerodynamic drag.

> According to wikipedia the normal max speed of that class is 87mph.
> I simply don't believe they could have more than doubled it and to boot
> got enough power from 1500V DC to achieve that with a barn door front end
> loco on standard 1950s track which simply wouldn't have been up to the
> stresses involved.

They had to change it after some test runs. IIRC, braking
also involved opening windows on the passenger carriages.

Regards, ULF

Am 28.04.2024 um 11:29 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:

>
> According to wikipedia the normal max speed of that class is 87mph.
> I simply don't believe they could have more than doubled it and to boot
> got enough power from 1500V DC to achieve that with a barn door front end
> loco on standard 1950s track which simply wouldn't have been up to the
> stresses involved. I suspect someone has got their facts wrong.
>
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidVMVQ8H9A

On 28/04/2024 10:29, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 10:10:16 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/04/2024 09:51, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 08:30:24 +0000
>>> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>> I don't think any railway engineers would ever have been so foolish.
>>>>
>>>> Hm.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomotor_bogie
>>>
>>> "large diameter electric motors, mounted rigidly on their frame ...
>>> This increased their unsprung weight "
>>>
>>> Huh? Surely if the motor is on the frame rather than in the bogie it would
>>> reduce its unspring weight?
>>>
>>> "Two 1,500 V DC prototype Co-Co locomotives for the SNCF Class CC 7100...
>>> During tests in 1954 they achieved extremely high test speeds of 300
>>> kilometres per hour (190 mph)"
>>>
>>> !!
>>>
>>> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
>>> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.
>>>
>>
>> Quote:
>> In March 1955 CC 7107 and Bo-Bo locomotive BB 9004 both attained 331
>> kilometres per hour (206 mph) on separate high-speed runs between
>> Bordeaux and Dax, Landes. CC 7107 hauled a three car train with
>> streamlining modifications to reduce aerodynamic drag.
>
> According to wikipedia the normal max speed of that class is 87mph.
> I simply don't believe they could have more than doubled it and to boot
> got enough power from 1500V DC to achieve that with a barn door front end
> loco on standard 1950s track which simply wouldn't have been up to the
> stresses involved. I suspect someone has got their facts wrong.
>
>

Well, that would be SNCF, they have been claiming that record since
1955, backed up with technical details from recording instruments on the
trains. Next time you are passing Mulhouse, nip in to the museum and
have a look at BB 9004 which still has the plaque celebrating the
achievement.

Here is a contemporary documentary:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC5QRP1BnLY>

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall wrote:

> On 28/04/2024 10:29, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 10:10:16 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 28/04/2024 09:51, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 08:30:24 +0000
>>>> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> I don't think any railway engineers would ever have been so foolish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomotor_bogie
>>>>
>>>> "large diameter electric motors, mounted rigidly on their frame ...
>>>> This increased their unsprung weight "
>>>>
>>>> Huh? Surely if the motor is on the frame rather than in the bogie it would
>>>> reduce its unspring weight?
>>>>
>>>> "Two 1,500 V DC prototype Co-Co locomotives for the SNCF Class CC 7100...
>>>> During tests in 1954 they achieved extremely high test speeds of 300
>>>> kilometres per hour (190 mph)"
>>>>
>>>> !!
>>>>
>>>> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
>>>> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quote:
>>> In March 1955 CC 7107 and Bo-Bo locomotive BB 9004 both attained 331
>>> kilometres per hour (206 mph) on separate high-speed runs between
>>> Bordeaux and Dax, Landes. CC 7107 hauled a three car train with
>>> streamlining modifications to reduce aerodynamic drag.
>>
>> According to wikipedia the normal max speed of that class is 87mph.
>> I simply don't believe they could have more than doubled it and to boot
>> got enough power from 1500V DC to achieve that with a barn door front end
>> loco on standard 1950s track which simply wouldn't have been up to the
>> stresses involved. I suspect someone has got their facts wrong.
>>
>>

> Well, that would be SNCF, they have been claiming that record since
> 1955, backed up with technical details from recording instruments on the
> trains. Next time you are passing Mulhouse, nip in to the museum and
> have a look at BB 9004 which still has the plaque celebrating the
> achievement.

> Here is a contemporary documentary:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC5QRP1BnLY>

Later they admitted both locos did not make the same maximum
speed but they wanted "equal treatment" for the loco builders.

Regards, ULF

On 28/04/2024 11:17, ulf_kutzner wrote:
> Graeme Wall wrote:
>
>> On 28/04/2024 10:29, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 10:10:16 +0100
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 28/04/2024 09:51, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 08:30:24 +0000
>>>>> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't think any railway engineers would ever have been so foolish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomotor_bogie
>>>>>
>>>>> "large diameter electric motors, mounted rigidly on their frame ...
>>>>>    This increased their unsprung weight "
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? Surely if the motor is on the frame rather than in the bogie
>>>>> it would
>>>>> reduce its unspring weight?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Two 1,500 V DC prototype Co-Co locomotives for the SNCF Class CC
>>>>> 7100...
>>>>>    During tests in 1954 they achieved extremely high test speeds of
>>>>> 300
>>>>>    kilometres per hour (190 mph)"
>>>>>
>>>>> !!
>>>>>
>>>>> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best
>>>>> 1950s
>>>>> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quote:
>>>> In March 1955 CC 7107 and Bo-Bo locomotive BB 9004 both attained 331
>>>> kilometres per hour (206 mph) on separate high-speed runs between
>>>> Bordeaux and Dax, Landes. CC 7107 hauled a three car train with
>>>> streamlining modifications to reduce aerodynamic drag.
>>>
>>> According to wikipedia the normal max speed of that class is 87mph.
>>> I simply don't believe they could have more than doubled it and to boot
>>> got enough power from 1500V DC to achieve that with a barn door front
>>> end
>>> loco on standard 1950s track which simply wouldn't have been up to the
>>> stresses involved. I suspect someone has got their facts wrong.
>>>
>>>
>
>> Well, that would be SNCF, they have been claiming that record since
>> 1955, backed up with technical details from recording instruments on
>> the trains. Next time you are passing Mulhouse, nip in to the museum
>> and have a look at BB 9004 which still has the plaque celebrating the
>> achievement.
>
>> Here is a contemporary documentary:
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC5QRP1BnLY>
>
> Later they admitted both locos did not make the same maximum
> speed but they wanted "equal treatment" for the loco builders.

IIRC CC7107 was fractionally faster but they were both inside the
margins of error.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 08:30:24 +0000
> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>Recliner wrote:
>>> I don't think any railway engineers would ever have been so foolish.
>>
>>Hm.
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomotor_bogie

> "large diameter electric motors, mounted rigidly on their frame ...
> This increased their unsprung weight "

> Huh? Surely if the motor is on the frame rather than in the bogie it would
> reduce its unspring weight?

> "Two 1,500 V DC prototype Co-Co locomotives for the SNCF Class CC 7100...
> During tests in 1954 they achieved extremely high test speeds of 300
> kilometres per hour (190 mph)"

> !!

> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.

They made it 1900V, at least the day before...

Regards, ULF

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <v0icdn$8ogs$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:19:03 on Sat, 27 Apr
> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <v0fnqq$3iqjg$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:15:22 on Fri, 26 Apr
>>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <v0flhe$3i9u4$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:36:14 on Fri, 26 Apr
>>>>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m still of the belief (and I admit it’s more of a belief than a
>>>>>> proven fact) that in most cases cost is a good proxy for energy use.
>>>>>> Rail tickets, if you include subsidy, are usually more expensive than
>>>>>> air tickets for comparable routes.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I agree the general principle, the energy cost isn't just that of
>>>>> the prime mover's fuel. Trivially, it also includes the energy cost of
>>>>> the staff required to operate it (which is in turn more than the fuel
>>>>> for their commute to work).
>>>>
>>>> Energy cost of constructing and maintaining the infrastructure, cost of
>>>> running the stations, cost of running the train maintenance etc etc.
>>>
>>> Yes all of those. But be careful to differentiate between "cost", and
>>> "the fare", because the latter is often highly subsidised.
>>
>> Which is exactly why I used the word cost.
>
> Meanwhile you'll have a difficult time getting almost anyone to answer
> the question "What did your Manchester to Liverpool ticket cost", other
> than the price they paid.
>
> Even if you average it out (for example Swiss rail tickets costing, last
> time I looked, five times the ticket price; ditto Atlanta MARTA 3x).

Lots of people misuse or misunderstand words. I’m not going to write every
posting is the form of a legally binding contract.

Marland wrote:

> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/04/2024 07:32, ulf_kutzner wrote:
>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:59:58 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/04/2024 13:00, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Colloquially, it's an Evoque,*not*  a Range Rover. It's deliberately
>>>>>>> misleading to refer to it as just a 'Range Rover'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it has RANGE ROVER across the front of the car.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Other cars have SMART plastered on them....
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> If Roland had a Smart, he'd call it a Mercedes-Benz.
>>>
>>> They don't call it that way.
>>>
>>> Regards, ULF
>>
>> Reasonable to do so - after all Smart is part of Mercedes Benz.
>> QUOTE
>> was then absorbed by DaimlerChrysler (later Daimler AG) in 2006, making
>> smart a marque within the Mercedes-Benz Cars division
>> UNQUOTE
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_(marque)
>>

> The motor industry is so intwined that most manufactures have different
> brands and ranges,
> would anyone get away with calling their BMW a Rolls Royce , they would
> look aa right twerp.

> Though Aston Martin in an effort to offset the emissions of their large
> cars did something similar
> by thinking a poshly trimmed Toyota sold at 3 times the price could make
> people think they had an Aston Martin.
> Sales figures showed not enough were convinced .

> There sold only about 130 Aston Martin Cygnets in the UK and 600 abroad,
> far less than the 4000
> target.

Smartville was sold to a British boxy car maker in 2020, by the way.
Ineos continued producing Smart Fortwo MkIII until last month.

Regards, ULF

On 28/04/2024 10:14, Certes wrote:
> On 28/04/2024 09:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <v0icdn$8ogs$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:19:03 on Sat, 27 Apr
>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <v0fnqq$3iqjg$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:15:22 on Fri, 26 Apr
>>>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <v0flhe$3i9u4$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:36:14 on Fri, 26 Apr
>>>>>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’m still of the belief (and I admit it’s more of a belief than a
>>>>>>> proven fact) that in most cases cost is a good proxy for energy use.
>>>>>>> Rail tickets, if you include subsidy, are usually more expensive
>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>> air tickets for comparable routes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I agree the general principle, the energy cost isn't just
>>>>>> that of
>>>>>> the prime mover's fuel. Trivially, it also includes the energy
>>>>>> cost of
>>>>>> the staff required to operate it (which is in turn more than the fuel
>>>>>> for their commute to work).
>>>>>
>>>>> Energy cost of constructing and maintaining the infrastructure,
>>>>> cost of
>>>>> running the stations, cost of running the train maintenance etc etc.
>>>>
>>>> Yes all of those. But be careful to differentiate between "cost", and
>>>> "the fare", because the latter is often highly subsidised.
>>>
>>> Which is exactly why I used the word cost.
>>
>> Meanwhile you'll have a difficult time getting almost anyone to answer
>> the question "What did your Manchester to Liverpool ticket cost",
>> other than the price they paid.
>>
>> Even if you average it out (for example Swiss rail tickets costing,
>> last time I looked, five times the ticket price; ditto Atlanta MARTA 3x).
>
> Cost is a complicated concept.  We seem to be implicitly discussing the
> average cost.  However, a more relevant question might be "What did the
> railway spend that wouldn't have been spent if I'd stayed at home?". The
> marginal cost of carrying one more passenger is usually close to zero.
> Selling another ticket at a fifth of the average cost may reduce losses.

It might, but clearly that argument doesn't go on for ever. Eventually
enough "one more" passengers requires the provision of a whole new
train. You never really know whether your one extra passenger is using
the last free space or was the straw that drove the decision to run one
more train.

nib

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:38:22 +0000
Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
>> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.
>
>Why? It was on the Facture - Morcenx section.

So what? Its top speed was 87mph. You might as well say a Lada can reach
190mph as long as it has a long enough straight bit of road!

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 11:35:24 +0000
Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
>> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.
>
>They made it 1900V, at least the day before...

They must've done more than that to multiply a locos max speed 2.5x. Probably
regeared and new motors at the very least along with I'd imagine reprofiling
the wheels, new suspension, improved brakes, the list goes on.

On 28/04/2024 16:47, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:38:22 +0000
> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
>>> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.
>>
>> Why? It was on the Facture - Morcenx section.
>
> So what? Its top speed was 87mph. You might as well say a Lada can reach
> 190mph as long as it has a long enough straight bit of road!
>

If you watch the doco you will see they carried out various mods to the
locos, including increasing the voltage supply and altering the gear
ratios. Also the train was modded to improve its aerodynamic
performance, unlike the standard coaching stock.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 16:58:49 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 28/04/2024 16:47, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:38:22 +0000
>> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
>>>> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.
>>>
>>> Why? It was on the Facture - Morcenx section.
>>
>> So what? Its top speed was 87mph. You might as well say a Lada can reach
>> 190mph as long as it has a long enough straight bit of road!
>>
>
>If you watch the doco you will see they carried out various mods to the
>locos, including increasing the voltage supply and altering the gear
>ratios. Also the train was modded to improve its aerodynamic
>performance, unlike the standard coaching stock.

Something doesn't smell right here. I'll bet the loco was virtually rebuilt
from the inside out and only the bodyshell and frame was original.

On 28/04/2024 17:01, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 16:58:49 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/04/2024 16:47, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:38:22 +0000
>>> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
>>>>> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.
>>>>
>>>> Why? It was on the Facture - Morcenx section.
>>>
>>> So what? Its top speed was 87mph. You might as well say a Lada can reach
>>> 190mph as long as it has a long enough straight bit of road!
>>>
>>
>> If you watch the doco you will see they carried out various mods to the
>> locos, including increasing the voltage supply and altering the gear
>> ratios. Also the train was modded to improve its aerodynamic
>> performance, unlike the standard coaching stock.
>
> Something doesn't smell right here. I'll bet the loco was virtually rebuilt
> from the inside out and only the bodyshell and frame was original.
>

You can argue all you want, it happened 70 years ago and directly led to
the development of the TGVs, amongst others.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 17:04:29 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 28/04/2024 17:01, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 16:58:49 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 28/04/2024 16:47, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:38:22 +0000
>>>> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
>>>>>> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? It was on the Facture - Morcenx section.
>>>>
>>>> So what? Its top speed was 87mph. You might as well say a Lada can reach
>>>> 190mph as long as it has a long enough straight bit of road!
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you watch the doco you will see they carried out various mods to the
>>> locos, including increasing the voltage supply and altering the gear
>>> ratios. Also the train was modded to improve its aerodynamic
>>> performance, unlike the standard coaching stock.
>>
>> Something doesn't smell right here. I'll bet the loco was virtually rebuilt
>> from the inside out and only the bodyshell and frame was original.
>>
>
>You can argue all you want, it happened 70 years ago and directly led to
>the development of the TGVs, amongst others.

The original of which was far more streamlined, more powerful and yet slower.
Go figure.

On 28/04/2024 17:15, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 17:04:29 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/04/2024 17:01, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 16:58:49 +0100
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 28/04/2024 16:47, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:38:22 +0000
>>>>> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
>>>>>>> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? It was on the Facture - Morcenx section.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what? Its top speed was 87mph. You might as well say a Lada can reach
>>>>> 190mph as long as it has a long enough straight bit of road!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you watch the doco you will see they carried out various mods to the
>>>> locos, including increasing the voltage supply and altering the gear
>>>> ratios. Also the train was modded to improve its aerodynamic
>>>> performance, unlike the standard coaching stock.
>>>
>>> Something doesn't smell right here. I'll bet the loco was virtually rebuilt
>>> from the inside out and only the bodyshell and frame was original.
>>>
>>
>> You can argue all you want, it happened 70 years ago and directly led to
>> the development of the TGVs, amongst others.
>
> The original of which was far more streamlined, more powerful and yet slower.
> Go figure.
>

The original of what?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 28/04/2024 17:15, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 17:04:29 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/04/2024 17:01, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 16:58:49 +0100
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 28/04/2024 16:47, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:38:22 +0000
>>>>> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
>>>>>>> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? It was on the Facture - Morcenx section.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what? Its top speed was 87mph. You might as well say a Lada can reach
>>>>> 190mph as long as it has a long enough straight bit of road!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you watch the doco you will see they carried out various mods to the
>>>> locos, including increasing the voltage supply and altering the gear
>>>> ratios. Also the train was modded to improve its aerodynamic
>>>> performance, unlike the standard coaching stock.
>>>
>>> Something doesn't smell right here. I'll bet the loco was virtually rebuilt
>>> from the inside out and only the bodyshell and frame was original.
>>>
>>
>> You can argue all you want, it happened 70 years ago and directly led to
>> the development of the TGVs, amongst others.
>
> The original of which was far more streamlined, more powerful and yet slower.
> Go figure.
>

TGV001 was a gas-turbine powered train that reached 318 kph on test in 1972

The first electric TGV record was set by set 16 at 380 kph in 1981.

The current record is 574.8 kph by set 4402
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <v0l40r$vc8k$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:14:03 on Sun, 28 Apr
2024, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>On 28/04/2024 09:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <v0icdn$8ogs$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:19:03 on Sat, 27 Apr
>>2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <v0fnqq$3iqjg$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:15:22 on Fri, 26 Apr
>>>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <v0flhe$3i9u4$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:36:14 on Fri, 26 Apr
>>>>>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’m still of the belief (and I admit it’s more of a belief than a
>>>>>>> proven fact) that in most cases cost is a good proxy for energy use.
>>>>>>> Rail tickets, if you include subsidy, are usually more expensive than
>>>>>>> air tickets for comparable routes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I agree the general principle, the energy cost isn't just
>>>>>>that of the prime mover's fuel. Trivially, it also includes the
>>>>>>energy cost of the staff required to operate it (which is in turn
>>>>>>more than the fuel for their commute to work).
>>>>>
>>>>> Energy cost of constructing and maintaining the infrastructure, cost of
>>>>> running the stations, cost of running the train maintenance etc etc.
>>>>
>>>> Yes all of those. But be careful to differentiate between "cost", and
>>>> "the fare", because the latter is often highly subsidised.
>>>
>>> Which is exactly why I used the word cost.
>> Meanwhile you'll have a difficult time getting almost anyone to
>>answer the question "What did your Manchester to Liverpool ticket
>>cost", other than the price they paid.
>> Even if you average it out (for example Swiss rail tickets costing,
>>last time I looked, five times the ticket price; ditto Atlanta MARTA
>>3x).
>
>Cost is a complicated concept. We seem to be implicitly discussing the
>average cost. However, a more relevant question might be "What did the
>railway spend that wouldn't have been spent if I'd stayed at home?". The
>marginal cost of carrying one more passenger is usually close to zero.
>Selling another ticket at a fifth of the average cost may reduce losses.

I was wondering when someone would mention the marginal cost fallacy.
--
Roland Perry

In message <v0lmcp$138hs$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:27:37 on Sun, 28 Apr
2024, nibble <news@caffnib.co.uk> remarked:
>On 28/04/2024 10:14, Certes wrote:
>> On 28/04/2024 09:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <v0icdn$8ogs$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:19:03 on Sat, 27 Apr
>>>2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <v0fnqq$3iqjg$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:15:22 on Fri, 26 Apr
>>>>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <v0flhe$3i9u4$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:36:14 on Fri, 26 Apr
>>>>>>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’m still of the belief (and I admit it’s more of a belief
>>>>>>>>a proven fact) that in most cases cost is a good proxy for
>>>>>>>>energy use. Rail tickets, if you include subsidy, are usually
>>>>>>>>more expensive than air tickets for comparable routes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I agree the general principle, the energy cost isn't just
>>>>>>>that of the prime mover's fuel. Trivially, it also includes the
>>>>>>>energy cost of the staff required to operate it (which is in
>>>>>>>turn more than the fuel for their commute to work).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Energy cost of constructing and maintaining the infrastructure,
>>>>>>cost of running the stations, cost of running the train
>>>>>>maintenance etc etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes all of those. But be careful to differentiate between "cost", and
>>>>> "the fare", because the latter is often highly subsidised.
>>>>
>>>> Which is exactly why I used the word cost.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile you'll have a difficult time getting almost anyone to
>>>answer the question "What did your Manchester to Liverpool ticket
>>>cost", other than the price they paid.
>>>
>>> Even if you average it out (for example Swiss rail tickets costing,
>>>last time I looked, five times the ticket price; ditto Atlanta MARTA
>>>
>> Cost is a complicated concept.  We seem to be implicitly discussing
>>the
>> average cost.  However, a more relevant question might be "What did the
>> railway spend that wouldn't have been spent if I'd stayed at home?". The
>> marginal cost of carrying one more passenger is usually close to zero.
>> Selling another ticket at a fifth of the average cost may reduce losses.
>
>It might, but clearly that argument doesn't go on for ever. Eventually
>enough "one more" passengers requires the provision of a whole new
>train. You never really know whether your one extra passenger is using
>the last free space or was the straw that drove the decision to run one
>more train.

In practice they don't [run one more train]. Even when there's 20 people
crammed in every vestibule.
--
Roland Perry

In message <v0lfl7$11tg8$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:40 on Sun, 28 Apr
2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <v0icdn$8ogs$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:19:03 on Sat, 27 Apr
>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <v0fnqq$3iqjg$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:15:22 on Fri, 26 Apr
>>>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <v0flhe$3i9u4$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:36:14 on Fri, 26 Apr
>>>>>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’m still of the belief (and I admit it’s more of a belief than a
>>>>>>> proven fact) that in most cases cost is a good proxy for energy use.
>>>>>>> Rail tickets, if you include subsidy, are usually more expensive than
>>>>>>> air tickets for comparable routes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I agree the general principle, the energy cost isn't just that of
>>>>>> the prime mover's fuel. Trivially, it also includes the energy cost of
>>>>>> the staff required to operate it (which is in turn more than the fuel
>>>>>> for their commute to work).
>>>>>
>>>>> Energy cost of constructing and maintaining the infrastructure, cost of
>>>>> running the stations, cost of running the train maintenance etc etc.
>>>>
>>>> Yes all of those. But be careful to differentiate between "cost", and
>>>> "the fare", because the latter is often highly subsidised.
>>>
>>> Which is exactly why I used the word cost.
>>
>> Meanwhile you'll have a difficult time getting almost anyone to answer
>> the question "What did your Manchester to Liverpool ticket cost", other
>> than the price they paid.
>>
>> Even if you average it out (for example Swiss rail tickets costing, last
>> time I looked, five times the ticket price; ditto Atlanta MARTA 3x).
>
>Lots of people misuse or misunderstand words. I’m not going to write every
>posting is the form of a legally binding contract.

It would be more helpful to say what you meant by "cost" (of tickets):
the retail price, or the expense of providing the trains.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <v0lfl7$11tg8$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:40 on Sun, 28 Apr
> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <v0icdn$8ogs$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:19:03 on Sat, 27 Apr
>>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <v0fnqq$3iqjg$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:15:22 on Fri, 26 Apr
>>>>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <v0flhe$3i9u4$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:36:14 on Fri, 26 Apr
>>>>>>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’m still of the belief (and I admit it’s more of a belief than a
>>>>>>>> proven fact) that in most cases cost is a good proxy for energy use.
>>>>>>>> Rail tickets, if you include subsidy, are usually more expensive than
>>>>>>>> air tickets for comparable routes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I agree the general principle, the energy cost isn't just that of
>>>>>>> the prime mover's fuel. Trivially, it also includes the energy cost of
>>>>>>> the staff required to operate it (which is in turn more than the fuel
>>>>>>> for their commute to work).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Energy cost of constructing and maintaining the infrastructure, cost of
>>>>>> running the stations, cost of running the train maintenance etc etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes all of those. But be careful to differentiate between "cost", and
>>>>> "the fare", because the latter is often highly subsidised.
>>>>
>>>> Which is exactly why I used the word cost.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile you'll have a difficult time getting almost anyone to answer
>>> the question "What did your Manchester to Liverpool ticket cost", other
>>> than the price they paid.
>>>
>>> Even if you average it out (for example Swiss rail tickets costing, last
>>> time I looked, five times the ticket price; ditto Atlanta MARTA 3x).
>>
>> Lots of people misuse or misunderstand words. I’m not going to write every
>> posting is the form of a legally binding contract.
>
> It would be more helpful to say what you meant by "cost" (of tickets):
> the retail price, or the expense of providing the trains.

I actually meant the environmental cost, which I’d hoped had been clear
from the context of my original point, namely that I doubted that rail
travel was as green as is normally claimed.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 08:30:24 +0000
> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>> Recliner wrote:
>>> I don't think any railway engineers would ever have been so foolish.
>>
>> Hm.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomotor_bogie
>
> "large diameter electric motors, mounted rigidly on their frame ...
> This increased their unsprung weight "
>
> Huh? Surely if the motor is on the frame rather than in the bogie it would
> reduce its unspring weight?
>
> "Two 1,500 V DC prototype Co-Co locomotives for the SNCF Class CC 7100...
> During tests in 1954 they achieved extremely high test speeds of 300
> kilometres per hour (190 mph)"
>
> !!
>
> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.
>
>

I remember that as a child in book I had, it isn’t an error . They did
things like put fairings between coaches and greased the overhead line,
possibly they boosted the voltage a bit as well.
Its well recorded anyway, may even be on You Tube.
The greasing of the overhead was a mistake ,it produced enough smoke it got
in the way of the camera trained on the pantograph.

Here we go .
<https://youtu.be/1KRM1jAlpB0?si=pHzbpMdJtfaf8X4Z>

GH

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:38:22 +0000
> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> That can't be right. 190mph by a 1500V DC loco running on at best 1950s
>>> infrastructure?? That has to be an error.
>>
>>Why? It was on the Facture - Morcenx section.

> So what? Its top speed was 87mph. You might as well say a Lada can reach
> 190mph as long as it has a long enough straight bit of road!

IIRC, the modified the gear on TGV speed trials but not
sure about these locos.

Most electric locos are made for top speed with more than
three carriages, and reaching top speed after a stop with
reasonable acceleration.

Zhigatsar, by the way, is said to be fast but
I do not promise 190 mph.

Regards, ULF