Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:57:20 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:46:30 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:14:34 +0000
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/02/2022 10:23, Theo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 769s are currently on training runs for the North Downs Line. AIUI
>>>>>>> current practice is to change from diesel to third rail on the move going
>>>>>>> towards Guildford at Shalford Junction, but when leaving Guildford towards
>>>>>>> Shalford the engine is started in the platform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've only seen them pass through Guildford non-stop so far. Usually when
>>>>>> I'm on the pedestrian bridge so I can't hear whether they are on
>>>>>> electric or diesel. Though if they started the diesel on the fly as they
>>>>>> pass through, I'd see the clag from the exhausts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why the hell don't they just electrify that line along with the Uckfield
>>>>> line beats me.
>>>>
>>>> You know very well why not, and have regularly told us why you disagree
>>>> with the reason.
>>>
>>> The cost argument is BS and we supposed to be decarbonising yet 2 well used
>>> commuter routes in the SE remain diesel. Laying some 3rd rail would cost
>>> buttons in comparison to Crossrail and HS2.
>>>
>>
>> How do you get around the health and safety at work regulations?
>>
> You have a system of work which accords to the requirements of the
> regulations which largely do not address to the finest detail of work
> places and often involve "as far as practically possible" or similar.
>

Large chunks of exposed conductor at ankle height around the workplace is
"the finest detail"?!

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> The real argument with the North Downs line is whether any form of
>> electrification is cost effective for two trains each way per hour.
>> Assuming the answer came out positive there are a number of reasons why
>> in that case third rail would be preferable to OLE. Not the least of
>> which is the NIMBY reaction to electric string appearing in the Surrey
>> Hills. On a more practical note, each end of the line connects with
>> other third rail networks meaning it wouldn't be restricted to a small
>> batch of dedicated stock.
>
> It's interesting that the 769s are the perfect (and only) stock that will do
> all of the North Downs route - diesel for the unelectrified parts, third
> rail for the Southern electrified network, 25kV for Reading to Oxford (which
> has been long planned). If you filled in the unelectrified gap you'd still
> need a dual voltage unit.
>

I'm sure Stadler could build a tri-mode (or dual-voltage) FLIRT if you
asked them.

Something tells me it'd've been in service sooner [1], and be more reliable
than, 769s too.

[1] if it'd been ordered at the same time

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:18:43 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2022 20:28, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:45:31 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/02/2022 06:22, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:29:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/02/2022 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:14:00 +0000
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>>>>>>> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>>>>>>>>> as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure, and
>>>>>>>>> the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>>>>>>>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>>>>>>>> anything better to do?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the Scottish, 76% of all passenger journeys are already electrified.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] It's not entirely clear if that's just the trains, or also the
>>>>>>>> stations etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would station energy usage be significant compared to that of the trains?
>>>>>>> I imagine a large city station would use quite a bit of leccy but how would
>>>>>>> that compare to the energy used by a train?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends how the station is heated.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The only variety at my local station for the passengers is that big
>>>>> yellow thing in the sky. The coal fire in the waiting room went some
>>>>> time in the 1960s.
>>>>
>>>> Is it remotely possible to describe it as a large city station?
>>>>
>>> No but neither would you describe it as a small country station. Even
>>> a large nearly-in-a-city station like e.g. London Bridge can give you
>>> little chance of shelter from the cold on many of its platforms.
>>
>> London Bridge may have draughty platforms but it has lots of retail
>> outlets and offices, all of which will be heated.
>>
> OK for shoppers and shop/office workers but not very useful for a
> passenger waiting for a train.
>

But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing "how much energy is
required to run stations vs run trains".

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think the ban is only on lines accessible by the public, so completely
>>> segregated lines like LU are exempt.
>>>
>>> For NR lines, the ban, in effect, seems to apply even to (significant)
>>> extensions of existing networks.
>>
>> Outside of LU tunnels, when was the last bit of top contact third rail
>> installed?
>>
>> I can think of Redhill-Tonbridge, which was around 1992. Some small
>> lengths at Fawkham Junction to connect with HS1 ~2003.
>>
>> Anywhere else?
>>
>
>
> Old Dalby test track for the S stock testing? circa 2007.
>
>

An interesting one. I suspect that falls under "power is switched off
before anyone can access the track".

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 11/02/2022 22:33, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:18:43 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2022 20:28, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:45:31 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/02/2022 06:22, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:29:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/02/2022 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:14:00 +0000
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>>>>>>> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>>>>>>>>> as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure, and
>>>>>>>>> the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>>>>>>>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>>>>>>>> anything better to do?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the Scottish, 76% of all passenger journeys are already electrified.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] It's not entirely clear if that's just the trains, or also the
>>>>>>>> stations etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would station energy usage be significant compared to that of the trains?
>>>>>>> I imagine a large city station would use quite a bit of leccy but how would
>>>>>>> that compare to the energy used by a train?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends how the station is heated.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The only variety at my local station for the passengers is that big
>>>>> yellow thing in the sky. The coal fire in the waiting room went some
>>>>> time in the 1960s.
>>>>
>>>> Is it remotely possible to describe it as a large city station?
>>>>
>>> No but neither would you describe it as a small country station. Even
>>> a large nearly-in-a-city station like e.g. London Bridge can give you
>>> little chance of shelter from the cold on many of its platforms.
>>
>> London Bridge may have draughty platforms but it has lots of retail
>> outlets and offices, all of which will be heated.
>>
> OK for shoppers and shop/office workers but not very useful for a
> passenger waiting for a train.

That wasn't the question.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 12/02/2022 06:40, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <juod0htshq2mrn918t7jdqkv1ka7enbupn@4ax.com>, at 22:33:17 on
> Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:18:43 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/02/2022 20:28, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:45:31 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/02/2022 06:22, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:29:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/02/2022 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:14:00 +0000
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10
>>>>>>>>> Feb
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel
>>>>>>>>>> forever,
>>>>>>>>>> as it's less polluting than installing barely used
>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure, and
>>>>>>>>>> the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>>>>>>>>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> anything better to do?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the Scottish, 76% of all passenger journeys are already
>>>>>>>>> electrified.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] It's not entirely clear if that's just the trains, or also the
>>>>>>>>>        stations etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would station energy usage be significant compared to that of
>>>>>>>> the trains?  I imagine a large city station would use quite a
>>>>>>>> bit of leccy but how would  that compare to the energy used by a
>>>>>>>> train?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depends how the station is heated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only variety at my local station for the passengers is that big
>>>>>> yellow thing in the sky. The coal fire in the waiting room went some
>>>>>> time in the 1960s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it remotely possible to describe it as a large city station?
>>>>>
>>>> No but neither would you describe it as a small country station. Even
>>>> a large nearly-in-a-city station like e.g. London Bridge can give you
>>>> little chance of shelter from the cold on many of its platforms.
>>>
>>> London Bridge may have draughty platforms but it has lots of retail
>>> outlets and offices, all of which will be heated.
>>>
>> OK for shoppers and shop/office workers but not very useful for a
>> passenger waiting for a train.
>
> I get the impression passengers are supposed to wait down on the
> concourse until just before the train arrives, then go up the long
> escalators to the platform.
>
> Waterloo is much more enclosed. And while St Pancras has cold and windy
> platforms, there's lots of shops, and the E* lounge, all of which need
> heating even if that many shops isn't strictly necessary.

In addition to heating requirements, all those PIS screens add up to a
fair amount of power usage.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su64cp$lr3$7@dont-email.me>, at 16:54:49 on Fri, 11 Feb
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> What do bi-mode trains do when switching from electric to diesel (when
>>> they inevitably have to). Are the engines re-started "just in time" to
>>> take up the traction, and does that ever happen on the fly at junctions
>>> a mile or two from a station, or always at a station stop?
>>>
>>> Maybe Anna can tell us what IETs do.
>>
>> IETs change over on the move where appropriate (OTTOMH I can think of eight
>> signed pan up locations) and at stations where appropriate (six stations
>> with reminder boards). Electric -> diesel changeover can be done anywhere;
>> diesel -> electric (ie pan up) can be done anywhere at a standstill or up
>> to 20mph [1], or at linespeed at signed locations [2]. The engines start as
>> the pantograph drops and are ready to give full power around five seconds
>> later. They're preheated in advance to 40°C by a diesel-fired heater, if
>> necessary.
>>
>> This varies from stock to stock (and perhaps operator to operator); for
>> example Northern's 769s change over at stations only, while I believe gWr's
>> will changeover on the move. I'd be surprised if the Stadlers *can't*
>> change on the move, but I don't know for sure.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> Are there special "pan down" signs at junctions where carry ahead it's
> OK to keep it up, but turning off onto a branch line requires it to be
> dropped?

Yes, the arrangements vary depending how much run-off wiring there is
around the branch. One of our locations has the pan-down (and pan up)
signage on the branch. The other locations have the "changeover ahead",
"diesel" and "pan must be down" signs with an arrow underneath them
indicating the route for which they apply [1]. Junctions for routes where
IETs and 769s don't currently operate don't have such signs.

[1] or in one instance, where the diesel line is geographically straight
ahead and the electric route diverges, but with equal speeds across the
junction, the signage includes a three-letter code indicating the route to
which it applies.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:

>LU regulations regarding access to the track, particularly in tunnels,
>involve the power being off before any staff access the track. NR
>regulations differ from that.

So long ago that it seems like another age (actually the 70s), I
was involved in regular night time testing of the Brush/ GEC
class 314 prototype (converted from a 2-car PEP) on LTS.

The Brush and Railway Technical Centre contingent would
rendezvous at Loughborough station to catch the latest possible
train to St Pancras, then make our way to East Ham. It would
still be far too early for our midnight start, so the adjacent
Indian restaurant was our next call, followed for some by a
cooling lager.

By this time, the last up train would have run, so only the down
platform was open. We marched onto the station, donning our
hi-vi as we went, straight off the ramp and across the
underground lines. Stepping gingerly over two singles and a
double - rather like show jumping, the doubles were the hardest.
One of the BR guys (ex SR) was much more at home, but being
rather short confessed to being concerned about catching the back
of his standard-issue coat on a wet night.

All we had to do then was cross the LTS running lines and we were
on route to the depot, ready to spend the night shuttling between
East Ham and Southend.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think the ban is only on lines accessible by the public, so completely
>>>> segregated lines like LU are exempt.
>>>>
>>>> For NR lines, the ban, in effect, seems to apply even to (significant)
>>>> extensions of existing networks.
>>>
>>> Outside of LU tunnels, when was the last bit of top contact third rail
>>> installed?
>>>
>>> I can think of Redhill-Tonbridge, which was around 1992. Some small
>>> lengths at Fawkham Junction to connect with HS1 ~2003.
>>>
>>> Anywhere else?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Old Dalby test track for the S stock testing? circa 2007.
>>
>>
>
> An interesting one. I suspect that falls under "power is switched off
> before anyone can access the track".
>
>
Indeed, something like a permanent engineering possession. But what
occurred to me as I remembered it is that it is a railway in the open
countryside and so someone determined to trespass to get a photo might get
onto the line while a unit was under test. What sometimes happens when
steam tour goes by shows that some photographers get so focused ( sorry) on
getting the best shot
that they take risks to get to the best location, which might mean crossing
the line when it is live.
Anyone know how substantial the fencing of the route is?

GH

On 11/02/2022 20:40, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2022 15:13:47 +0000 (GMT), Theo
> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think the ban is only on lines accessible by the public, so completely
>>> segregated lines like LU are exempt.
>>>
>>> For NR lines, the ban, in effect, seems to apply even to (significant)
>>> extensions of existing networks.
>>
>> Outside of LU tunnels, when was the last bit of top contact third rail
>> installed?
>>
> The West London Line was 1993, possibly later for the last stretch
> from Battersea into Clapham Junction?
> <snip>

What about the new Southern Region platform at Reading railway station.

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 11/02/2022 20:40, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On 11 Feb 2022 15:13:47 +0000 (GMT), Theo
>> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think the ban is only on lines accessible by the public, so completely
>>>> segregated lines like LU are exempt.
>>>>
>>>> For NR lines, the ban, in effect, seems to apply even to (significant)
>>>> extensions of existing networks.
>>>
>>> Outside of LU tunnels, when was the last bit of top contact third rail
>>> installed?
>>>
>> The West London Line was 1993, possibly later for the last stretch
>> from Battersea into Clapham Junction?
>> <snip>
>
> What about the new Southern Region platform at Reading railway station.
>

I thought we were excluding minor track alterations etc.? If not, then
Waterloo former international platforms must be a contender?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 12/02/2022 11:30, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 11/02/2022 20:40, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> On 11 Feb 2022 15:13:47 +0000 (GMT), Theo
>>> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I think the ban is only on lines accessible by the public, so completely
>>>>> segregated lines like LU are exempt.
>>>>>
>>>>> For NR lines, the ban, in effect, seems to apply even to (significant)
>>>>> extensions of existing networks.
>>>>
>>>> Outside of LU tunnels, when was the last bit of top contact third rail
>>>> installed?
>>>>
>>> The West London Line was 1993, possibly later for the last stretch
>>> from Battersea into Clapham Junction?
>>> <snip>
>>
>> What about the new Southern Region platform at Reading railway station.
>>
>
> I thought we were excluding minor track alterations etc.? If not, then
> Waterloo former international platforms must be a contender?

Sorry. I must have missed that bit.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:57:20 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:46:30 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:14:34 +0000
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/02/2022 10:23, Theo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 769s are currently on training runs for the North Downs Line. AIUI
>>>>>> current practice is to change from diesel to third rail on the move going
>
>>>>>> towards Guildford at Shalford Junction, but when leaving Guildford
>towards
>>>>>> Shalford the engine is started in the platform.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've only seen them pass through Guildford non-stop so far. Usually when
>>>>> I'm on the pedestrian bridge so I can't hear whether they are on
>>>>> electric or diesel. Though if they started the diesel on the fly as they
>>>>> pass through, I'd see the clag from the exhausts.
>>>>
>>>> Why the hell don't they just electrify that line along with the Uckfield
>>>> line beats me.
>>>
>>> You know very well why not, and have regularly told us why you disagree
>>> with the reason.
>>
>> The cost argument is BS and we supposed to be decarbonising yet 2 well used
>> commuter routes in the SE remain diesel. Laying some 3rd rail would cost
>> buttons in comparison to Crossrail and HS2.
>>
>>
>
>How do you get around the health and safety at work regulations?

Change them back again. Frankly if you want to be safe don't get a job
maintaining railway infrastructure that involves hundreds of tons of
machinery and lethal voltages.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:57:21 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> No there isn't if its continuation otherwise how would the northern line
>> extension have been built?
>>
>
>Because LU regulations involve the power being off in tunnels before any
>staff can access the track, and NR regulations don't.

So I guess we should ban anyone working on the roads unless the traffic is
completely stopped? Ok, might mean the M1 closes for 2 years but you can't
be too save right?

>> I very much doubt that.
>>
>
>It's about the provision of power feeds. There are three feeds for the
>entire GWML electrification, and IIRC three feeds for Island Line alone.

And how do they compare in size and cost?

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:29:20 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:59:48 +0000
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:56:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> As you well know, there's an effective ban on laying significant lengths
>
>>> of
>>>>>>> new third rail. That's the reason, not cost,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No there isn't if its continuation otherwise how would the northern line
>>>>>> extension have been built?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's deep underground and fully segregated.
>>>>
>>>> Define fully segregated. The DLR is above ground, 3rd rail and has been
>>>> extensively extended recently.
>>>
>>> It's not top contact.
>>
>> Watch those goalposts move.
>>
>
>Not at all. The ban applies to exposed live conductors in the workplace;
>shielded bottom-contact 3rd rail is and continues to be acceptable.

Its still a very exposed live conductor and if you brushed your leg against
it you'd probably be just as dead.

>>> The GW OHLE cost way more than it should have done, but it also meets specs
>>> way beyond the capabilities of third rail.
>>
>> Specs which are not required for the north downs or uckfield line.
>>
>>
>
>Right, so OLE there wouldn't cost as much as the GWML.

And 3rd rail would cost even less.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:57:23 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:38:04 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> The GW OHLE cost way more than it should have done, but it also meets
>specs
>>>>> way beyond the capabilities of third rail.
>>>>
>>>> Specs which are not required for the north downs or uckfield line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed not, and so OHLE would be much cheaper and simpler on those lines.
>>
>> Why? There was nothing unusual about the GW,
>
>Except 140mph multiple-pan capability, etc.

Which will never be used just as it hasn't on the ECML.

>> it just cost a lot to do the
>> piling for the catenary, no doubt the usual combination of incompetance and
>> theft contributed. The MML was hardly cheap and got cut because of the
>> expense too.
>>
>>> You were the one who cited the GW as an example.
>>
>> Most recent installation.
>>
>
>Goblin?

Was it? Don't know.

>It's the substations and associated power feeds which appear to be the
>expensive part, even if installation of compatible 3rd rail equipment was
>permitted.

I really doubt the expense compares to hundreds of miles of piling for
catenary. We all know the real reason is bed wetters in the HSE.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:59:49 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:54:50 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:14:34 +0000
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/02/2022 10:23, Theo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 769s are currently on training runs for the North Downs Line. AIUI
>>>>>> current practice is to change from diesel to third rail on the move going
>
>>>>>> towards Guildford at Shalford Junction, but when leaving Guildford
>towards
>>>>>> Shalford the engine is started in the platform.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've only seen them pass through Guildford non-stop so far. Usually when
>>>>> I'm on the pedestrian bridge so I can't hear whether they are on
>>>>> electric or diesel. Though if they started the diesel on the fly as they
>>>>> pass through, I'd see the clag from the exhausts.
>>>>
>>>> Why the hell don't they just electrify that line along with the Uckfield
>>>> line beats me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because except in very limited circumstances, it's no longer permitted to
>>> install exposed 750V conductors at ankle level around people's workplaces.
>>> Just like every time the topic comes up here.
>>
>> That doesn't apply to extending current installations. Unless some bed
>wetting
>> pillock has changed that rule too.
>>
>>
>
>As I said, "except in very limited circumstances" eg new sidings or some
>track layout alterations. Not several miles of previously un-powered track.
>
>
>The rules haven't changed since last time we discussed this topic. Fancy a
>length of 750V DC live rail across the middle of your office?

I'll take that any day over 25KV in the ceiling.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:44:26 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 11/02/2022 14:54, Bob wrote:
>> Dual voltage trains are a very mature technology.  3rd rail is more
>> expensive not due to the actual 3rd rail itself, but due to the much
>> more extensive power distribution infrastructure needed because of the
>> frequent substations the system involves.  My understaning is the "ban"
>> was on new installations, and that extensions to existing systems, which
>> these would be, are permitted.  Otherwise it would have been impossible
>> to build the Battersea extension to the Northern line, which clearly has
>> been built because it exists.
>>
>
>A pedant writes: That's not third rail but fourth rail :-)
>
>The real argument with the North Downs line is whether any form of
>electrification is cost effective for two trains each way per hour.

When electrification is installed the frequency tends to go up. It would also
mean EMUs from Gatwick could link to the GWML and hence Heathrow. Right now
PT interchange choice is bus to heathrow or in and out of london.

>Assuming the answer came out positive there are a number of reasons why
>in that case third rail would be preferable to OLE. Not the least of
>which is the NIMBY reaction to electric string appearing in the Surrey

Quite. 25KV advocates forget just how fuck ugly and intrusive it looks. Not
to mention falling trees tend to make a total mess of it and there are a lot
of trees in surrey.

On 12/02/2022 11:51, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> So I guess we should ban anyone working on the roads unless the traffic is
> completely stopped? Ok, might mean the M1 closes for 2 years but you can't
> be too save right?

That tends to happen frequently in Scotland, there are complete road
closure for any road works even when the diversion could be 100 miles.

Usually they announce a closure something like 18:00h until 08:00h,
everyone complains so reduced by an hour so - very obvious they knew
very well that they would not what was originally announced. They do
tend now to reopen for a short time every hour or so.

I have always wondered how were killed in earlier days, I can't remember
reading of lots of accidents.

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-02-11 14:44:15 +0000, Recliner said:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> As you well know, there's an effective ban on laying significant
>>> lengths of new third rail. That's the reason, not cost,
>>> though apparently longer lengths of third rail cost more overall than
>>> 25kV OHLE.
>>
>> Dual voltage trains are a very mature technology. 3rd rail is more
>> expensive not due to the actual 3rd rail itself, but due to the much
>> more extensive power distribution infrastructure needed because of the
>> frequent substations the system involves.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> My understaning is the "ban"
>> was on new installations, and that extensions to existing systems,
>> which these would be, are permitted.
>
> My understanding is that for main line railways, health and safety at work
> legislation regarding exposed conductors in the workplace, prevent all but
> minor extensions (eg adding sidings, or changing the track layout would be
>
I think the project has stalled or been abandoned for other reasons but
that would make the scheme to close Watford Met and reroute the trains to
Watford junction via the proposed Croxley link
almost impossible to accomplish with existing stock. So I doubt that it
will be revived at all though it would be a remote possibility anyway.

GH

On 2022-02-12 11:30:32 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:

> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 11/02/2022 20:40, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> On 11 Feb 2022 15:13:47 +0000 (GMT), Theo
>>> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I think the ban is only on lines accessible by the public, so completely
>>>>> segregated lines like LU are exempt.
>>>>>
>>>>> For NR lines, the ban, in effect, seems to apply even to (significant)
>>>>> extensions of existing networks.
>>>>
>>>> Outside of LU tunnels, when was the last bit of top contact third rail
>>>> installed?
>>>>
>>> The West London Line was 1993, possibly later for the last stretch
>>> from Battersea into Clapham Junction?
>>> <snip>
>>
>> What about the new Southern Region platform at Reading railway station.
>>
>
> I thought we were excluding minor track alterations etc.? If not, then
> Waterloo former international platforms must be a contender?

There were of course plenty of minor alterations associated with the
Thameslink works.

Robin

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> It's the substations and associated power feeds which appear to be the
> expensive part, even if installation of compatible 3rd rail equipment was
> permitted.

Thinking aloud, I wonder if you could do something with batteries at
substations? In other words, a bit like the Vivarail charging pack but with
third rail along the whole route rather than a battery in the train.

It would probably not be cheaper than a BEMU, but might reduce the
requirement for power feeds if it could be charged from the existing grid.
You could run existing third rail EMUs and support regen without another
train in section. You could also fit bigger, cheaper, more resilient
batteries because you aren't constrained by size or weight.

Perhaps an option for somewhere like Uckfield which is an unelectrified stub
of an already busy DC network? Or maybe for filling in the gap on the North
Downs between Ash and Reading, to allow through trains beyond the immediate
route (eg Alton to Reading). Or extending third rail territory for longer
services (Coastway to Salisbury via Southampton)

Theo

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:57:20 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:46:30 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:14:34 +0000
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/02/2022 10:23, Theo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 769s are currently on training runs for the North Downs Line. AIUI
>>>>>>> current practice is to change from diesel to third rail on the move going
>>
>>>>>>> towards Guildford at Shalford Junction, but when leaving Guildford
>> towards
>>>>>>> Shalford the engine is started in the platform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've only seen them pass through Guildford non-stop so far. Usually when
>>>>>> I'm on the pedestrian bridge so I can't hear whether they are on
>>>>>> electric or diesel. Though if they started the diesel on the fly as they
>>>>>> pass through, I'd see the clag from the exhausts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why the hell don't they just electrify that line along with the Uckfield
>>>>> line beats me.
>>>>
>>>> You know very well why not, and have regularly told us why you disagree
>>>> with the reason.
>>>
>>> The cost argument is BS and we supposed to be decarbonising yet 2 well used
>>> commuter routes in the SE remain diesel. Laying some 3rd rail would cost
>>> buttons in comparison to Crossrail and HS2.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How do you get around the health and safety at work regulations?
>
> Change them back again. Frankly if you want to be safe don't get a job
> maintaining railway infrastructure that involves hundreds of tons of
> machinery and lethal voltages.

Here’s your chance:
<https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17603553/sun-readers-tell-me-of-eu-regulation-abolished/>

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 12/02/2022 11:30, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2022 20:40, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>> On 11 Feb 2022 15:13:47 +0000 (GMT), Theo
>>>> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I think the ban is only on lines accessible by the public, so completely
>>>>>> segregated lines like LU are exempt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For NR lines, the ban, in effect, seems to apply even to (significant)
>>>>>> extensions of existing networks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Outside of LU tunnels, when was the last bit of top contact third rail
>>>>> installed?
>>>>>
>>>> The West London Line was 1993, possibly later for the last stretch
>>>> from Battersea into Clapham Junction?
>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> What about the new Southern Region platform at Reading railway station.
>>>
>>
>> I thought we were excluding minor track alterations etc.? If not, then
>> Waterloo former international platforms must be a contender?
>
> Sorry. I must have missed that bit.
>

No wait, my mistake. I forgot that Eurostars used 3rd rail to get into
there also! D'oh! *facepalm*

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:57:20 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:46:30 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:14:34 +0000
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/02/2022 10:23, Theo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 769s are currently on training runs for the North Downs Line. AIUI
>>>>>>> current practice is to change from diesel to third rail on the move going
>>
>>>>>>> towards Guildford at Shalford Junction, but when leaving Guildford
>> towards
>>>>>>> Shalford the engine is started in the platform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've only seen them pass through Guildford non-stop so far. Usually when
>>>>>> I'm on the pedestrian bridge so I can't hear whether they are on
>>>>>> electric or diesel. Though if they started the diesel on the fly as they
>>>>>> pass through, I'd see the clag from the exhausts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why the hell don't they just electrify that line along with the Uckfield
>>>>> line beats me.
>>>>
>>>> You know very well why not, and have regularly told us why you disagree
>>>> with the reason.
>>>
>>> The cost argument is BS and we supposed to be decarbonising yet 2 well used
>>> commuter routes in the SE remain diesel. Laying some 3rd rail would cost
>>> buttons in comparison to Crossrail and HS2.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How do you get around the health and safety at work regulations?
>
> Change them back again.

And how achievable do you think that actually is?

> Frankly if you want to be safe don't get a job
> maintaining railway infrastructure that involves hundreds of tons of
> machinery and lethal voltages.
>
>

Any other rules you'd like to change while we're at it? Get twelve year
olds back up chimneys and in cotton mills, perhaps? Make asbestos legal
again?

Anna Noyd-Dryver