Slight misconception , I think. It takes exactly the same amount of energy to go from zero to 60 kph with an acceleration of 1.3 m/s2, as it does with acceleration of 0.6 m/s2. In fact, if air and rolling resistance are taken into account, due to the length of time that these are encountered during acceleration, it takes slightly less energy at the higher acceleration.

The whole point is that the demand on the power supply is much greater, and this is why the American transit authorities called it a ‘power hungry beast’.

But I doubt that there is sufficient room at SPER to allow any PCC to use its max acceleration AND top speed!

Regards

Dudley

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Matthew Geier
Sent: 03 July 2020 09:16
To:tramsdownunder@...
Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] 'Heritage' tram of a different type.

On 2/7/20 10:55 pm, Tony Galloway wrote:
> Let me guess - that’d be the PCC?

Yep, 1014 is one hungry beast when it comes to power consumption.

The PCC was designed for performance not economy.

It would appear at some point in the operating life of the Variotrams
the 'jerk rate' was programmed down, possibly as an economy measure to
lower the maximum demand on the substations. Large customers pay by
maximum demand not by kw/hrs consumed.

Hence this whole flash-charge thing Newcastle is doing inflating the
running costs, as they will be paying dearly for all those sudden peak
loads they apply to the grid.