| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dual electrification article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I have removed the section beginning: "The building of the Channel Tunnel between England and France required triple electrification of the motive power..." This is not relevant to double electrification of the track. Biscuittin ( talk) 18:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The term "double electrification" is one that I have never come across in over 20 years of designing electric traction systems. The term "Dual Electrification" is a recognised term. If this article is to remain (dubious), then it really needs to be renamed. -- Bhtpbank ( talk) 10:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Here is a link. [1] Roberttherambler ( talk) 23:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"Premagnetisation of the substation transformers of the AC system can occur". I don't see how, because there is no electrical connection between the third rail and the overhead line, and premagnetisation seems to be a good thing anyway. [2] I always thought the objection to dual electrification was possible interference with signalling track circuits. When the traction supply is DC, the track circuits are AC and vice-versa. If there are both AC and DC traction supplies, then one of them is liable to interfere with the track circuits. Roberttherambler ( talk) 08:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- A Neutral Zone between 2 sections will solve this. A recent example would be Jiangtiao line in Chongqing, CN. Johnson.Xia ( talk) 17:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dual electrification article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
| This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I have removed the section beginning: "The building of the Channel Tunnel between England and France required triple electrification of the motive power..." This is not relevant to double electrification of the track. Biscuittin ( talk) 18:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The term "double electrification" is one that I have never come across in over 20 years of designing electric traction systems. The term "Dual Electrification" is a recognised term. If this article is to remain (dubious), then it really needs to be renamed. -- Bhtpbank ( talk) 10:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Here is a link. [1] Roberttherambler ( talk) 23:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"Premagnetisation of the substation transformers of the AC system can occur". I don't see how, because there is no electrical connection between the third rail and the overhead line, and premagnetisation seems to be a good thing anyway. [2] I always thought the objection to dual electrification was possible interference with signalling track circuits. When the traction supply is DC, the track circuits are AC and vice-versa. If there are both AC and DC traction supplies, then one of them is liable to interfere with the track circuits. Roberttherambler ( talk) 08:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- A Neutral Zone between 2 sections will solve this. A recent example would be Jiangtiao line in Chongqing, CN. Johnson.Xia ( talk) 17:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)