Talk:Dual electrification
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dual electrification article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Track versus train
[edit]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)
Dual Electrification
[edit]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. Roberttherambler (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Both systems live
[edit]"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. 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)