Brian Dunn wrote: >>>Write time to the X's drive is a bigger issue for me - it took a solid >>>20 minutes to download each card to the X's Drive II. > > >>I have the same (Dane-Elec) card in 1Gb configuration. It takes about 3 >>minutes to write a full card (90+) to my PC, which is steam powered. You >>must have a really slow card reader. > > > > Possibly interesting trivia: > > Supposedly steam powered locomotives have massive torque and pulling power > and > can reach crazy speeds. They were phased out for other reasons, such as > maintenance and infrastructure support, but speed wasn't really a problem... > > > Brian >
Speed wasn't an issue with steam. But low-end pulling power was. Electrics had replaced steam on several coal roads for that reason, and Diesel-Electrics were even better as they lacked the infrastructure support cost of electrics (Although electrics did offer 10,000HP single units). Steam's advantage wasn't torque (It was clearly outmatched by electric traction motors at low speeds) but horsepower. A single large steam locomotive has 6000+HP compared to 1350-1500HP per unit of an early diesel-electric unit (3000-4500HP on the average unit today). However Diesel-electrics can MU (Have multiple units under the control of one and operating in sequence) while multiple steam locomotives is an exercise in difficulty. In fact today you can MU with diesel-electric locomotives in the middle and rear of the train via radio link. Steam is maintenance intensive, short ranged and required a lot of infrastructure (Water and fuel, especially water). Diesel-Electrics have them beat on all fronts. And now they're even matching the HP, with 6000HP single units in service (GMD SD90MAC-H and GE AC6000). Steam is a whole lot nicer to look at though. -Adam Sometime railfan. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
