On 11/02/2022 17:57, Anna Noyd-Dryver 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
> permitted).
>
>> Otherwise it would have been
>> impossible to build the Battersea extension to the Northern line, which
>> clearly has been built because it exists.
>>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
>
I thought that they never de-energised either the 3rd or 4th rails on LUL.

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 11/02/2022 17:57, Anna Noyd-Dryver 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
>> permitted).
>>
>>> Otherwise it would have been
>>> impossible to build the Battersea extension to the Northern line, which
>>> clearly has been built because it exists.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>
>>
> I thought that they never de-energised either the 3rd or 4th rails on LUL.
>

Of course they do, whenever the tracks are being maintained or cleaned. Why
do you think LU
has long maintained a fleet of battery locos?

On 13 Feb 2022 23:28:17 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 12 Feb 2022 12:44:37 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>> Met. S stock trains running into Watford Junction would be doing it
>> under similar electrical conditions as other S stock running to
>> Wimbledon and Richmond, both sharing with different varieties of NR
>> trains.
>>
>
>Thats all very well but please explain how S stock would make its way along
>a rebuilt Croxley branch
>if permission to install conductor rails is not forthcoming.
>
It is an extension to an existing system (or two if you are looking
from the DC line end).

>Looks like the scheme is still dead anyway according to a report from
>Hertfordshire last Summer with other options.
><
>https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/media-library/documents/highways/mlx-alternatives-updated-report-2021-v1.01-accessible-checked.pdf>
>
>Bet it ends up as a cycle route.
>
<cynic>
With a bridge over the intergalactic bypass at more than the cost of a
railway bridge.
</cynic>

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 23:45:05 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
<hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 11/02/2022 17:57, Anna Noyd-Dryver 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
>> permitted).
>>
>>> Otherwise it would have been
>>> impossible to build the Battersea extension to the Northern line, which
>>> clearly has been built because it exists.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>
>>
>I thought that they never de-energised either the 3rd or 4th rails on LUL.
>
Three red (previously white?) lights in a triangle = power off.

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/signalling3.htm

Both conductor rails go off at the same time when current is
discharged; it is a single supply across the conductor rails

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 23:42:02 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
<hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 11/02/2022 14:44, Recliner wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:34:50 -0000 (UTC), 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:
>>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-11 09:21:26 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>>>> Quite possibly so. But it's not an unusual configuration for branch
>>>>>>>>> lines joining electrified lines (see Thorpe/Wensum in another posting,
>>>>>>>>> and the branches east and west off the MML near Leicester).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, but without actually having bimodes running on those lines, we
>>>>>>>> won't see how they are used. Perhaps someone has seen how the units
>>>>>>>> switch modes on approach to Stowmarket, where the junction is a bit
>>>>>>>> further from the station than at Ely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>And that is because they need more step up stations?
>
Step down and rectification from 33kV AC to 750V DC; there are AFAIAA
still some feeds to LUL at 6.6 or 22kV which IME are usually referred
to as legacy/obsolete voltages.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 11:57:55 +0100
Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>On 2022-02-12 11:55:30 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>
>> 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.
>
>With the resignalling to ETCS2 on the ECML (as discussed in another
>thread recently), the issues preventing >125 mph running on the ECML
>will be resolved, and it will be possible to run trains at higher
>speeds. Too late for the 91s, though.

Its *possible* to run the Javelins at 140mph on HS1 but apparently they're
still limited to 125 for [reasons]. So wrt the ECML I'll believe it when I
see it.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 21:49:55 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:51:10 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>
>>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?
>>
>That is exactly what occurs on a regular basis with motorways
>overnight, for the weekend or sometimes longer. Motorways commonly
>have one side closed off for prolonged periods. Other roads are
>frequently closed entirely or with single-line working imposed as
>currently found in the vicinity of Old Oak Common.
><snip>

And the same happens on the railways overnight so quite why Mr Annoyed Driver
is getting his knickers in a twist about workers and 3rd rail is anyones
guess.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 22:15:52 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 13 Feb 2022 15:58:12 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>There is quite a lobby movement to reinstate the section from Uckfield to
>>Lewis to relieve the line to Brighton though I don�t know how the
>>reduction in commuting caused by the Covid if it proves to be permanent as
>>affected the case.
>>It seems a narrow path has to be decided if it was ever to go ahead.
>>A Diesel Island of that length would seem to be against the trend to
>>reduce fossil fuel use but under the rules that have been described using
>>third rail would be difficult to get permission for ,
>>that leaves overhead or battery operation. Would Hurst Green to Lewis
>>justify a section of 25000V overhead with dual voltage stock or a fleet of
>>units which could cover the gap on batteries.
>>
>There is already a lot of dual-voltage -equipped or -convertable stock
>trundling around in third rail territory so that is no longer the
>problem that it was.

The sight of OHLE would go down like a bucket of cold sick in that part of the
world especially when they'll rightly ask why can't the 3rd rail be extended.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 22:18:53 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:05:52 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>>>Electricity and liquid fuels are perfectly safe if handled properly, eg
>>>putting the conductors out of reach, or covering the most easily touched
>>>parts with insulation. Which, oddly enough, is what we're permitted to do.
>>
>>3rd rail is perfectly safe if you don't do something stupid like touching it.
>>
>There is no law preventing stupidity as demonstrated when passengers
>go walkabout on live tracks.

So what? People go walkabouts on dual carraigeways but nobody suggests
closing them. Darwinian selection is a part of life.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 22:24:23 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:56:02 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>>>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.
>>
>How about roughly 1000v on the ceiling?

Whats your point? When workers are on the track the 3rd rail is switched off.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2022 23:28:17 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On 12 Feb 2022 12:44:37 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> Met. S stock trains running into Watford Junction would be doing it
>>> under similar electrical conditions as other S stock running to
>>> Wimbledon and Richmond, both sharing with different varieties of NR
>>> trains.
>>>
>>
>> Thats all very well but please explain how S stock would make its way along
>> a rebuilt Croxley branch
>> if permission to install conductor rails is not forthcoming.
>>
> It is an extension to an existing system (or two if you are looking
> from the DC line end).
>

Extension to existing systems usually involve electrifying an existing
working railway.
Croxley having been closed for some time would not fall into that category
..
In truth on here we can just speculate as we cannot predict how the
powers that be may interpret the rules if there were large practical
reasons to lay down conductor rails.

And this example I don’t think they will ever have to decide, the sweet
spot for the Metropolitan extension has passed.

GH

On 14 Feb 2022 09:28:29 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 13 Feb 2022 23:28:17 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
>>>
>>> Thats all very well but please explain how S stock would make its way along
>>> a rebuilt Croxley branch
>>> if permission to install conductor rails is not forthcoming.
>>>
>> It is an extension to an existing system (or two if you are looking
>> from the DC line end).
>>
>
>Extension to existing systems usually involve electrifying an existing
>working railway.
>Croxley having been closed for some time would not fall into that category

However the watford end is still a working railway. Though its all rather moot
since I suspect that project is deader than the proverbial parrot now. Not
that it ever really made much sense anyway. No one would use it to get to
watford from london with much quicker options so its only purpose would be
as a local railway which I doubt would have many pax.

On 2022-02-14 08:55:32 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:

> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 11:57:55 +0100
> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-02-12 11:55:30 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> With the resignalling to ETCS2 on the ECML (as discussed in another
>> thread recently), the issues preventing >125 mph running on the ECML
>> will be resolved, and it will be possible to run trains at higher
>> speeds. Too late for the 91s, though.
>
> Its *possible* to run the Javelins at 140mph on HS1 but apparently they're
> still limited to 125 for [reasons]. So wrt the ECML I'll believe it when I
> see it.

They are permitted to run at 140. They are timetabled at 125, with the
intention that higher speeds can be used to recover from delays and
ensure reliability of the service.

Robin

On 2022-02-13 23:42:02 +0000, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk said:

> On 11/02/2022 14:44, Recliner wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:34:50 -0000 (UTC), 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:
>>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-11 09:21:26 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>>>> Quite possibly so. But it's not an unusual configuration for branch
>>>>>>>>> lines joining electrified lines (see Thorpe/Wensum in another posting,
>>>>>>>>> and the branches east and west off the MML near Leicester).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, but without actually having bimodes running on those lines, we
>>>>>>>> won't see how they are used. Perhaps someone has seen how the units
>>>>>>>> switch modes on approach to Stowmarket, where the junction is a bit
>>>>>>>> further from the station than at Ely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> And that is because they need more step up stations?

Step down substations, but yes. The low voltage/high current of the
3rd rail means that the system requires supplies every few miles.
Taking two examples of extremities of the network fed from one end
only, where power supply limited the services that could be run, there
is Epping-Ongar formerly on the Central line, and Cambridge-Kings Lynn.
In both cases the length and number of trains that could operate were
significantly restricted by the power supply. Epping to Ongar is a bit
over 6 miles, Cambridge to King's Lynn is about 40 miles. While there
are details and modest measures that can extend these to an extent,
this at least gives a back-of-envelope sense of the different
capabilitties of the two technologies.

Robin

On 2022-02-13 19:07:22 +0000, nib said:

> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:34:02 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>
>> nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 15:58:12 +0000, Marland wrote:
> ...
>>> Have we decided that some form of shielded bottom-contact 3rd-rail is
>>> also not possible?
>>>
>>> If it were, then surely just changing shoe-gear at the ends of the new
>>> bit of line would be better than dual-voltage?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It is permitted, but it's not compatible with the existing 3rd rail
>> equipment.
>>
>>
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
> Do you mean that it wouldn't be possible to design some automated gadget
> to retract one set of shoes and enable another - or is there some
> fundamental reason that you can't combine both on one train?

There are both under-running and over-running 3rd rail systems in New
York, and I believe there are trains that can run on both systems, so
it is technically possible. With the general maturity of dual voltage
technology, though, there really isn't a good reason for not using 25
kV OHLE, even in traditionally 3rd rail territory.

Robin

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:42:25 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:24:02 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> We're talking about over the top safety rules, not immutable laws of
>> physics.
>>> Changing them would be no problem if there was a will.
>>>
>>
>> I'm talking about the same thing. In the real world, right now, with
>> current politicians, and current public attitudes, how likely do you think
>> it will be to get rid of the legislation which prevents the installation of
>> new, exposed, high-voltage live conductors at ankle height, around the
>> workplace?
>
> Why do you keep calling it a workplace? An office its a workplace, a railway
> is a site, different rules apply. And frankly I doubt anyone would care about
> from the RMT who no doubt would call a strike and be ignored.
>

Do people not work there? So it's a place of work, a workplace.

>>> Perhaps we should just go back to horses pulling trains at 5mph, don't want
>> any
>>> of that dangerous electricity or flammable diesel do we!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Electricity and liquid fuels are perfectly safe if handled properly, eg
>> putting the conductors out of reach, or covering the most easily touched
>> parts with insulation. Which, oddly enough, is what we're permitted to do.
>
> 3rd rail is perfectly safe if you don't do something stupid like touching it.
>
>

You could say the same about unfenced drops, but oddly enough they're not
permitted either.

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-60140774>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 11/02/2022 17:57, Anna Noyd-Dryver 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
>> permitted).
>>
>>> Otherwise it would have been
>>> impossible to build the Battersea extension to the Northern line, which
>>> clearly has been built because it exists.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> I thought that they never de-energised either the 3rd or 4th rails on LUL.
>

Every night after the last train passes. There's a procedure which
signallers, line controllers and the person who controls the power, have to
go through to make sure the last train has gone before the power is
switched off.

Engineering crews aren't allowed on the track until the power is off. When
the power is off, these "Rail Gap Indicator" signals automatically light up
red:

<https://twitter.com/signaloftheday/status/1084127146367467522?s=21>
<https://twitter.com/signaloftheday/status/1106611608174895104?s=21>
<https://twitter.com/noddymaccy/status/1376211048282398725?s=21>

They can also have yellow repeaters where necessary:

<https://twitter.com/moretojack/status/839246626732519425?s=21>

That also acts as protection for the crews working on the track, because
the red RGI acts as a red signal, regardless of the aspect of the signal
it's associated with.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 14/02/2022 08:57, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 21:49:55 +0000
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:51:10 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>> That is exactly what occurs on a regular basis with motorways
>> overnight, for the weekend or sometimes longer. Motorways commonly
>> have one side closed off for prolonged periods. Other roads are
>> frequently closed entirely or with single-line working imposed as
>> currently found in the vicinity of Old Oak Common.
>> <snip>
>
> And the same happens on the railways overnight so quite why Mr Annoyed Driver
> is getting his knickers in a twist about workers and 3rd rail is anyones
> guess.

He probably feels that repeatedly stepping over a 750 V conductor is
more dangerous than watching cars go by in a different lane.

On 14/02/2022 11:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:42:25 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:24:02 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> We're talking about over the top safety rules, not immutable laws of
>>> physics.
>>>> Changing them would be no problem if there was a will.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm talking about the same thing. In the real world, right now, with
>>> current politicians, and current public attitudes, how likely do you think
>>> it will be to get rid of the legislation which prevents the installation of
>>> new, exposed, high-voltage live conductors at ankle height, around the
>>> workplace?
>>
>> Why do you keep calling it a workplace? An office its a workplace, a railway
>> is a site, different rules apply. And frankly I doubt anyone would care about
>> from the RMT who no doubt would call a strike and be ignored.
>>
>
> Do people not work there? So it's a place of work, a workplace.
>
>>>> Perhaps we should just go back to horses pulling trains at 5mph, don't want
>>> any
>>>> of that dangerous electricity or flammable diesel do we!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Electricity and liquid fuels are perfectly safe if handled properly, eg
>>> putting the conductors out of reach, or covering the most easily touched
>>> parts with insulation. Which, oddly enough, is what we're permitted to do.
>>
>> 3rd rail is perfectly safe if you don't do something stupid like touching it.
>>
>>
>
> You could say the same about unfenced drops, but oddly enough they're not
> permitted either.
>
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-60140774>
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver

The confusing thing is that no new 3rd rail electrrification is allowed
as it is unsafe, but all existing 3rd rail electrification is safe as it
is not forbidden. If safety ruled then all the SE of England (and
Merseyside etc) would have all rail services shut down until either
replaced by diseasel or OHL. Safety seems not to matter when finances
trump safety.

Either 3rd rail is safe so why not extend. Or it is unsafe so should ALL
be taken out of use. The current hybrid solution is ridiculous.

--
Colin

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 13:02:20 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

>On 14/02/2022 11:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:42:25 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:24:02 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> We're talking about over the top safety rules, not immutable laws of
>>>> physics.
>>>>> Changing them would be no problem if there was a will.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm talking about the same thing. In the real world, right now, with
>>>> current politicians, and current public attitudes, how likely do you think
>>>> it will be to get rid of the legislation which prevents the installation of
>>>> new, exposed, high-voltage live conductors at ankle height, around the
>>>> workplace?
>>>
>>> Why do you keep calling it a workplace? An office its a workplace, a railway
>>> is a site, different rules apply. And frankly I doubt anyone would care about
>>> from the RMT who no doubt would call a strike and be ignored.
>>>
>>
>> Do people not work there? So it's a place of work, a workplace.
>>
>>>>> Perhaps we should just go back to horses pulling trains at 5mph, don't want
>>>> any
>>>>> of that dangerous electricity or flammable diesel do we!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Electricity and liquid fuels are perfectly safe if handled properly, eg
>>>> putting the conductors out of reach, or covering the most easily touched
>>>> parts with insulation. Which, oddly enough, is what we're permitted to do.
>>>
>>> 3rd rail is perfectly safe if you don't do something stupid like touching it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You could say the same about unfenced drops, but oddly enough they're not
>> permitted either.
>>
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-60140774>
>>
>>
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
>The confusing thing is that no new 3rd rail electrrification is allowed
>as it is unsafe, but all existing 3rd rail electrification is safe as it
>is not forbidden. If safety ruled then all the SE of England (and
>Merseyside etc) would have all rail services shut down until either
>replaced by diseasel or OHL. Safety seems not to matter when finances
>trump safety.
>
>Either 3rd rail is safe so why not extend. Or it is unsafe so should ALL
>be taken out of use. The current hybrid solution is ridiculous.

Agreed. I assume it's a balance of power (sorry!) thing: the H&S chiefs are powerful enough to ban new installations,
but not to shut down existing, working railways.

In message <9qui0hhofmtkle0iiu0ve4gml15i2caniv@4ax.com>, at 21:49:55 on
Sun, 13 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:51:10 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>
>>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?
>>
>That is exactly what occurs on a regular basis with motorways
>overnight, for the weekend or sometimes longer. Motorways commonly
>have one side closed off for prolonged periods. Other roads are
>frequently closed entirely or with single-line working imposed as
>currently found in the vicinity of Old Oak Common.
><snip>

I went for a five mile drive yesterday and encountered no less than
three sets of temporary traffic lights'protecting' works which in days
of yore would barely have warranted a line of road cones slightly
narrowing the carriageway.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sub73d$kkl$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:11:41 on Sun, 13 Feb
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sub2h3$kpq$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:53:39 on Sun, 13 Feb
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Aren't multiple charging stations diametrically opposed to the
>>>>>> proposition that there's now a mythical train that can do end-to-end
>>>>>> on one charge?
>>>>>
>>>>> There isn't.
>>>>
>>>> So it seems, despite claims early in the thread, that were based on
>>>> mileage myths, as much as airbrushing out only-charge-at-the-ends
>>>> operational issues.
>>>
>>> The claims were that the current record distance is 15% or 25% short of the
>>> Inverness-Wick distance. There was an initial typo suggesting that the
>>> record was 25% longer, but that was corrected.
>>
>> Given that the consensus is now that charging stations only at the ends
>> is a non-starter, the relevance of the "world record" is bleak.
>
>It always was. I don’t know how you got the idea that it was anything
>other. Perhaps you could go back and check the beginning of the thread
>again?

Original posting:

"Add 10-15% to that [invisible words alert: "World Record"] and
Inverness to Wick becomes possible."
--
Roland Perry

In message <suda57$lnd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:16:07 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-02-13 23:42:02 +0000, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk said:
>
>> On 11/02/2022 14:44, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:34:50 -0000 (UTC), 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:
>>>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-11 09:21:26 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>>>>> Quite possibly so. But it's not an unusual configuration for branch
>>>>>>>>>> lines joining electrified lines (see Thorpe/Wensum in another
>>>>>>>>>>posting,
>>>>>>>>>> and the branches east and west off the MML near Leicester).
>>>>>>>>> Sure, but without actually having bimodes running on those
>>>>>>>>>lines, we
>>>>>>>>> won't see how they are used. Perhaps someone has seen how the units
>>>>>>>>> switch modes on approach to Stowmarket, where the junction is a bit
>>>>>>>>> further from the station than at Ely.
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>> And that is because they need more step up stations?
>
>Step down substations, but yes. The low voltage/high current of the
>3rd rail means that the system requires supplies every few miles.
>Taking two examples of extremities of the network fed from one end
>only, where power supply limited the services that could be run, there
>is Epping-Ongar formerly on the Central line, and Cambridge-Kings Lynn.
>In both cases the length and number of trains that could operate were
>significantly restricted by the power supply. Epping to Ongar is a bit
>over 6 miles, Cambridge to King's Lynn is about 40 miles.

Actually, the stretch in question is two separate ones: Milton to
Littleport (17 miles, a little north of Ely) and Littleport to Kings
Lynn (19 miles). The reason for the restrictions was low-spec
substations, plus a service which was only an hourly 4-car EMU.

There's plenty of spare grid power at Kings Lynn, and more recently the
feeds to the whole Cambridge area have been strengthened; and the
railway substations upgraded. Ely-Cambridge now has half-hourly 8-car
EMUs.

Ironically the supergrid runs up to Kings Lynn almost alongside the
tracks from Littleport, but they've never built a high voltage
substation there, and the town gets a relatively weedy, lower voltage
feed, ultimately from the Kings Lynn area. Literally in the shadow of
the pylons at Littleport there's a farm/light industrial complex which
doesn't appear to be on mains power at all. It has a big diesel
generator.

>While there are details and modest measures that can extend these to an
>extent, this at least gives a back-of-envelope sense of the different
>capabilitties of the two technologies.

--
Roland Perry

On 2022-02-14 13:26:24 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <suda57$lnd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:16:07 on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 2022-02-13 23:42:02 +0000, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk said:
>>
>>> On 11/02/2022 14:44, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:34:50 -0000 (UTC), 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:
>>>>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-11 09:21:26 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>>>>>> Quite possibly so. But it's not an unusual configuration for branch
>>>>>>>>>>> lines joining electrified lines (see Thorpe/Wensum in another posting,
>>>>>>>>>>> and the branches east and west off the MML near Leicester).
>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but without actually having bimodes running on those lines, we
>>>>>>>>>> won't see how they are used. Perhaps someone has seen how the units
>>>>>>>>>> switch modes on approach to Stowmarket, where the junction is a bit
>>>>>>>>>> further from the station than at Ely.
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> 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.
>>> And that is because they need more step up stations?
>>
>> Step down substations, but yes. The low voltage/high current of the
>> 3rd rail means that the system requires supplies every few miles.
>> Taking two examples of extremities of the network fed from one end
>> only, where power supply limited the services that could be run, there
>> is Epping-Ongar formerly on the Central line, and Cambridge-Kings Lynn.
>> In both cases the length and number of trains that could operate were
>> significantly restricted by the power supply. Epping to Ongar is a bit
>> over 6 miles, Cambridge to King's Lynn is about 40 miles.
>
> Actually, the stretch in question is two separate ones: Milton to
> Littleport (17 miles, a little north of Ely) and Littleport to Kings
> Lynn (19 miles). The reason for the restrictions was low-spec
> substations, plus a service which was only an hourly 4-car EMU.
>
> There's plenty of spare grid power at Kings Lynn, and more recently the
> feeds to the whole Cambridge area have been strengthened; and the
> railway substations upgraded. Ely-Cambridge now has half-hourly 8-car
> EMUs.
>
> Ironically the supergrid runs up to Kings Lynn almost alongside the
> tracks from Littleport, but they've never built a high voltage
> substation there, and the town gets a relatively weedy, lower voltage
> feed, ultimately from the Kings Lynn area. Literally in the shadow of
> the pylons at Littleport there's a farm/light industrial complex which
> doesn't appear to be on mains power at all. It has a big diesel
> generator.

Yes, the situation I was referring to has now been fixed, the power
supply situation was altered as part fo the Thameslink program works
specifically to solve the issue of power supply on that line. I had
intended to mention that it no longer applies, but forgot.

Robin

On 11/02/2022 20:32, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 07:35:49 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> I would think the electricity requirement at most of the stations on
>> these remoter lines is very small. Some are really just halts with (if
>> lucky a single room). From what I remember Dingwall just has a ticket
>> office with a few seats, there might be a bit more for staff but I doubt
>> there will be very much.
>>
>> It could be argued that the more isolated stations should have a well
>> heated room of some sort because sometimes will have to wait for a
>> substantial time in very inclement weather with no alternative refuge.
>>
> Most of the time it isn't heating that is required rather than just
> keeping the wind and rain out, something not achieved with a bus-stop
> shelter.

I have heard of cases of enclosed bus stops in Canada.