> "Matthew Geier" no.sleeper.no.apana.no.org.no.au> wrote in message
>
> news:487e6ce2$0$1023$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
>

>> There are diesel locomotives that can use their 'starting' batteries to
>> move them selves - intended for workshop moves and short 'light' yard
>> moves - so the main diesel plant doesn't have to be started up (and
>> warmed up, etc, etc) just to move the engine to another maintenance road.

>

>> Just how much extra battery would an EMU have to carry (over what it's
>> already carrying to run the lights, control and safety systems) to move
>> the train a low speed to the next station platform to allow an orderly
>> evacuation ?.

>

>> Providing enough auxiliary power to run at service speed is just plain
>> stupid in an EMU, and even an small diesel aux is a maintenance hassle. ...

>
>Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones is
>better crash protection and air con. Would those really make that much
>difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it adding on a few
>tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.

> In article m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> googlemail.com> wrote:

>>
>>Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones is
>>better crash protection and air con. Would those really make that much
>>difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it adding on a few
>>tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.

>
> Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a family
> car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to crash
> protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
> such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.
>

> In article
> m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> googlemail.com> wrote:

>>
>> Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones
>> is better crash protection and air con. Would those really make that
>> much difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it adding on a
>> few tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.

>
> Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a
> family
> car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to
> crash protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
> such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.

> In message news.aber.ac.uk>
> azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
>

>> Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a family
>> car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to
>> crash
>> protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
>> such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.
>>

>
> NVH?

>In message news.aber.ac.uk>
> azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
>

>> In article m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>> googlemail.com> wrote:

>>>
>>>Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones is
>>>better crash protection and air con. Would those really make that much
>>>difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it adding on a few
>>>tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.

>>
>> Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a family
>> car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to crash
>> protection (with some down to NVH supression...

>"Andrew Robert Breen" aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:j9l3l5xnbk.ln2@news.aber.ac.uk

>> In article
>> m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>> googlemail.com> wrote:

>>>
>>> Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones
>>> is better crash protection and air con. Would those really make that
>>> much difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it adding on a
>>> few tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.

>>
>> Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a
>> family
>> car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to
>> crash protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
>> such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.

>
>Except that they've also (in some cases) switched to aluminium monocoque ...

> In article <1216301883.31232.0@proxy02.news.clara.net>,
> Recliner clara.co_dot_uk> wrote:

>> "Andrew Robert Breen" aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:j9l3l5xnbk.ln2@news.aber.ac.uk

>>> In article
>>> m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>>> googlemail.com> wrote:

>>>>
>>>> Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones
>>>> is better crash protection and air con. Would those really make
>>>> that much difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it
>>>> adding on a few tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.

>>>
>>> Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a
>>> family
>>> car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to
>>> crash protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c
>>> and such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by ...

> In article greywall.demon.co.uk>,
> Graeme Wall greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>In message news.aber.ac.uk>
>> azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen)...