[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail
colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Thu Jun 11 11:50:50 UTC 2020
On 2020-06-11 13:28, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote:
> At the risk of being called pedantic, or frivolous, surely it should be, "1st+2nd+3rd+4th rail" (after all, it won't work without the 1st and 2nd rails)!
> ...or (almost getting serious now) we could just assume that, if the 3rd rail is mentioned, then the 1st and 2nd must be there (otherwise it wouldn't be 3rd rail) and, if the 4th rail is mentioned, then the 1st, 2nd and 3rd must also be there.
There might be a maglev system somewhere using two conductor rails,
which would then be the 1st and 2nd?
Remember we are discussing the power supply, not the running rails. The
power supply only needs the 3rd and 4th. Take away the running rails,
jack up the train, and you could still get the motors to turn (safety
A serious question arises though... The Wuppertaler Schwebebahn get its
power from the 2nd rail (it's a suspended monorail). What do we do with
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging