Recliner

"Andrew Robert Breen" <azb@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:j9l3l5xnbk.ln2@news.aber.ac.uk
> In article
> <a2ed70d2-c25d-4611-9080-9640b1080ec4@m3g2000hsc..com>,
> <thagor2008@> 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
construnction, which should make them lighter, just as it has in cars
such as the Jaguar XJ and XK. I have an XJ, and although it's much
bigger and has more gizmos than my previous BMW, it's also a fair but
lighter, and gets away with a smaller engine without loss of
performance. But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more power
than their steel predecessors.