Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> There were some children zapped by the OHLE climbing on wagons in a DB
> yard. I’m just curious as to the actual risk of the two systems vs the
> perceived risk. The 3rd rail might just look so damn dangerous that people
> take care to avoid it.
>
Interesting, I have heard people say the opposite as it just sits there
looking just like another rail,
and some who don’t have a technical interest in railways do not seem to be
triggered by the fact the rail is sitting on insulators.
There have been fatalities on the line through the New Forest in the past
where campers on a particular site situated by the line who got lost at
night decided to use the line as walking route as they knew it would lead
them back. Comments by a surviving friend usually mention that where they
come from electric trains work from wires above the track, but its not
always such people .
I find it incredible that local teenagers who use the railway have never
appreciated the presence or reason for the third rail but t many don’t.
This girl survived though has scars , she has made a film to warn others.

<https://www.edgepicture.com/network-rail-tegans-story/>

this lad a year later did not

Hampshire coroner urges live rail warnings after teen death
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-57158300>

Ok both were being stupid but their friends claim they did not know the
dangers of the third rail.

GH

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 14/02/2022 16:48, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:36:58 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Last time I looked I didn't have to wear a hard hat and hi-vis in my
>> office. As I said, different rules.
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> You've not visited many harbours have you. Plenty of opportunity for the
>> stupid to kill themselves when the tides out.
>>
> I recall being on site when two HSE inspectors arrived to investigate an
> accident. Luckily I was there as a rep of the shipping company, not the
> port operator. The HSE tried to demand full fencing along all edges and
> the port saftey officer had a hell of a job explaining that there was no
> practicable way to fence a quay edge and also be able to moor vessels.
> Luckily sense prevailed, but after a lot of "discussion".
>

Not quite the same sort of quay now but.

Early April 21.
Railings start to be installed , for Summer only to be removed in Autumn.
< https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-56744779>

Later in April 21 HSE says “We didn’t actually say they had to be
installed”

<https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/19236011.weymouth-harbour-railings-hse-did-not-require-council-put-barrier-place/>

Autumn 21.
Oh we want keep them now.
<
https://news.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/2021/10/13/update-on-safety-railings-at-weymouth-harbour/>

Thats what happens when local government swallows up smaller authorities
and control moves to outsiders.

The same larger authority also wasted no time in ripping out the quayside
tramway on the grounds that too many cyclists were falling off rather than
just fill in the flange ways and retain the route as a feature on the
grounds the sleepers were rotting, turned out a good proportion of the
route had concrete sleepers. With the tramway gone and key clamp railings
along the wall the harbour edge has lost a lot of charm. And its not as if
the railings stop people sitting on the wall that was on the edge anyway,
they now duck under them and still sit on edge and probably a little more
precariously than before.
<https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/19252762.weymouth-harbour-railings-cost-revealed/>

GH

On 14/02/2022 22:13, Marland wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <suduvm$16ab$3@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:11:33 on Mon, 14 Feb
>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 14/02/2022 15:30, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> In Switzerland, Leukerbad bus terminal (really just a bus stop, IIRC
>>>> there's only one bay) is enclosed, with doors which open and close to let
>>>> the bus in and out every few minutes
>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/ygw4w29HLpYzBcxB7>
>>>> <https://www.bus-bild.de/1200/llb-setra-s-415-ul-115972.jpg>
>>>
>>> The ones that I have heard of in Canada are not bus terminals, but
>>> rather stand-alones.
>>
>> When I was going to school on a bus, there was a sort of cattle pen
>> enclosed bus shelter in the High Street with a barrier down most of the
>> centre for the queue to weave round, and quite small [always open] entry
>> and exit doorways. Big enough for maybe 30 pax.
>>
>> I've done some Google image searches, and can't find anything even
>> remotely similar.
>
> Some areas had quite tidy bus shelters which were far more enclosed than
> the present day styles.
> The areas of Sussex served by Southdown or Brighton and Hove were one area
> I recall simply because I slept overnight in one somewhere on the outskirts
> of Brighton after some travel plans got disrupted by fog.
> The shelter was very close in design to this one which is still in place in
> Brighton showing it’s age a bit and missing a door but still offering more
> protection from the weather than a bit of perspex between some metal poles.
>
> <https://goo.gl/maps/ZcHZuW3AMQM1fSVm9>
>

One of the problems with those, especially in places like Brighton, is
that in the evenings they were popular with courting couples and,
inevitably, with drug-dealers and users.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 17:56:50 +0100
Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>On 2022-02-14 16:45:46 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:02:20 +0100
>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-14 08:55:32 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Which completely defeats the point. You wouldn't get the French saying
>> "We can run our TGVs at 186 but we'll limit them to 170 so we can recover
>> the timetable if they're running late". Its a utter farce and it'll be
>> exactly the same nonsense on the ECML I can guarantee it.
>
>Given the length of HS1, the difference between 125 mph timings and 140
>mph timings is going to be something like 2 minutes. Two minutes of
>recovery time seems a reasonable ammount of padding to include on
>routes like these.

Problem is you can use that argument reducto as absurdum. The timing
difference between 120 and 100mph would also be slight over that distance
so why not reduce it down to 100? Ditto 100 and 70 etc etc. In the end
you'd be down to the speed of horse drawn carraiges.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 16:58:21 +0000
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 16:45:46 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:02:20 +0100
>>Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>On 2022-02-14 08:55:32 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>Which completely defeats the point. You wouldn't get the French saying
>>"We can run our TGVs at 186 but we'll limit them to 170 so we can recover
>>the timetable if they're running late". Its a utter farce and it'll be
>>exactly the same nonsense on the ECML I can guarantee it.
>
>Actually, TGVs usually do cruise at a little below 300km/h (or 320, on the
>newer lines). And Eurostars always cruise at
>less than 300km/h on HS1.

Thats probably due to the roller coaster nature of a lot of the line
and a lot of tunnels rather than deliberately hobbling it for timetable
reasons.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:51:01 +0100
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>Am 14.02.2022 um 17:45 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> Which completely defeats the point. You wouldn't get the French saying
>> "We can run our TGVs at 186 but we'll limit them to 170 so we can recover
>> the timetable if they're running late". Its a utter farce and it'll be
>> exactly the same nonsense on the ECML I can guarantee it.
>
>No, but the Germans. DB built their first set of "Highspeed" lines for
>a speed of 280 km/h (175 mph). At some point a speed restriction of 250
>km/h (155 mph) was imposed inside bidirectional tunnels.
> From this point onwards, DB decided to limit the speed outside those
>tunnels to 155 mph as well except to catch up on time, considering the
>tracks remaining open for 175 mph running were so short they didn't want
>to waste that much energy to save a minute or two. As a consequence of
>this, they ordered the ICE4 generation with a top speed of 160 mph.
>
>In combination with "Deutschland-Takt 2030", DB is now investigating how
>to achieve 175 mph between Mannheim and Stuttgart again and odering
>trains for 200 mph running ("ICE 3 neo") like France.

I imagine we'll have the same issue with HS2 here when (if) it gets built.
Personally I don't see the point of > 200mph between London and Birmingham
or even Manchester but we'll see what happens.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:38:28 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Grandfather Rights. Similar to the reasons why, for example, old cars which
>> don't meet current safety and emissions regulations can still be used, but
>> you couldn't build a new one to the same spec.
>>
>>
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>
>>
>
>Safety usually follows the principle of reducing risks to as low as
>*reasonably* possible. It’s unreasonable to close down the existing 3rd
>rail network. Banning new 3rd rail where better alternatives exist is
>reasonable. That’s why extensions are allowed, as it would be unreasonable
>not to allow, say, an extra siding. Being reasonable is a difficult concept
>to some around here.

I would say its entirely reasonable to lay 3rd rail to Uckfield and
Reading via Dorking given both lines are fimrly in 3rd rail territory and
already have 3rd rail at one end.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 22:49:08 +0000
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>On 14/02/2022 16:48, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> You've not visited many harbours have you. Plenty of opportunity for the
>> stupid to kill themselves when the tides out.
>>
>I recall being on site when two HSE inspectors arrived to investigate an
>accident. Luckily I was there as a rep of the shipping company, not the
>port operator. The HSE tried to demand full fencing along all edges and
>the port saftey officer had a hell of a job explaining that there was no
>practicable way to fence a quay edge and also be able to moor vessels.
>Luckily sense prevailed, but after a lot of "discussion".

From stories I've heard like that it seems to me H&S inspectors are a bit
like some teachers - not good enough to get a job in the discipline they
teach/monitor , so they remain at arms length telling others what to do.

On 15/02/2022 09:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:38:28 -0000 (UTC)
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Grandfather Rights. Similar to the reasons why, for example, old cars which
>>> don't meet current safety and emissions regulations can still be used, but
>>> you couldn't build a new one to the same spec.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Safety usually follows the principle of reducing risks to as low as
>> *reasonably* possible. It’s unreasonable to close down the existing 3rd
>> rail network. Banning new 3rd rail where better alternatives exist is
>> reasonable. That’s why extensions are allowed, as it would be unreasonable
>> not to allow, say, an extra siding. Being reasonable is a difficult concept
>> to some around here.
>
> I would say its entirely reasonable to lay 3rd rail to Uckfield and
> Reading via Dorking given both lines are fimrly in 3rd rail territory and
> already have 3rd rail at one end.
>

Reading - Dorking even more so as it has the Guildford third-rail island
in the middle. Someone has posted the correct mileages in the past but I
think it adds up to less than 10 route miles to be converted in two
bits. If the 769s ever get into service that will partially solve the
problem in the relatively short term. The longer term solution is
probably battery-electric hybrid units. Also discussed on here in the
past. That will probably work out cheaper than either electrification
system.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 15/02/2022 09:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 15/02/2022 09:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:38:28 -0000 (UTC)
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Grandfather Rights. Similar to the reasons why, for example, old
>>>> cars which
>>>> don't meet current safety and emissions regulations can still be
>>>> used, but
>>>> you couldn't build a new one to the same spec.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Safety usually follows the principle of reducing risks to as low as
>>> *reasonably* possible. It’s unreasonable to close down the existing 3rd
>>> rail network. Banning new 3rd rail where better alternatives exist is
>>> reasonable. That’s why extensions are allowed, as it would be
>>> unreasonable
>>> not to allow, say, an extra siding. Being reasonable is a difficult
>>> concept
>>> to some around here.
>>
>> I would say its entirely reasonable to lay 3rd rail to Uckfield and
>> Reading via Dorking given both lines are fimrly in 3rd rail territory and
>> already have 3rd rail at one end.
>>
>
> Reading - Dorking even more so as it has the Guildford third-rail island
> in the middle. Someone has posted the correct mileages in the past but I
> think it adds up to less than 10

Doh, 20, sorry.

> route miles to be converted in two
> bits. If the 769s ever get into service that will partially solve the
> problem in the relatively short term. The longer term solution is
> probably battery-electric hybrid units. Also discussed on here in the
> past. That will probably work out cheaper than either electrification
> system.
>

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> 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."

You need to read just a little further. In the very next message Recliner
wrote:

“That record-breaking distance is 25% higher [later corrected to lower]
than Inverness-Wick. The reliable, operational range will be much less, of
course.

I suppose the solution would be to have 2-3 top-up stations en route, …”

And the conversation proceeded on that basis.

Sam

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

On 2022-02-15 08:59:55 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:

> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 17:56:50 +0100
> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-02-14 16:45:46 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:02:20 +0100
>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-14 08:55:32 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Which completely defeats the point. You wouldn't get the French saying
>>> "We can run our TGVs at 186 but we'll limit them to 170 so we can recover
>>> the timetable if they're running late". Its a utter farce and it'll be
>>> exactly the same nonsense on the ECML I can guarantee it.
>>
>> Given the length of HS1, the difference between 125 mph timings and 140
>> mph timings is going to be something like 2 minutes. Two minutes of
>> recovery time seems a reasonable ammount of padding to include on
>> routes like these.
>
> Problem is you can use that argument reducto as absurdum. The timing
> difference between 120 and 100mph would also be slight over that distance
> so why not reduce it down to 100? Ditto 100 and 70 etc etc. In the end
> you'd be down to the speed of horse drawn carraiges.

It's a question of how much recovery time, perhaps measured as a
proportion of the overall journey time, is appropriate, and of what the
top speed of the available rolling stock and infrastructure would
permit. A recovery time of 2 minutes for an hour of journey is not
unreasonable. Because journey time and speed follow an inverse
relationship, a given absolute increase in speed has a much more
significant impact at lower speeds than at higher speeds.

For the HS1 services, it is also worth bearing in mind that the stops
on the route aren't that far apart. For a train running from St
Pancras to Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford, once acceleration and
braking for the stops is accounted for, the actual ammount of time the
train would be able to exceed 125 mph is quite limited. With moderatly
closely spaced stops, acceleration rather than top speed has a far
greater impact on journey times. This was demonstrated when GNER hired
a class 90 to supplement the class 91s on Leeds runs. Due to its
higher acceleration, but lower top speed, the class 90 set was able to
maintain class 91 timing on the route.

The situation is different for a Eurostar travelling non stop from
London to Paris, as it has so few stops that it can run at line speed
for a considerable period of time.

Robin

On 2022-02-14 19:51:57 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:

> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I’d be genuinely interested in figures that compared electrocution
>> (electric shock not necessarily involving death before we start the
>> argument about the definition of electrocution again) per installed km of
>> track of 3rd rail vs 25kV OHLE.
>>
>
> For 25kV, I'm only aware of one such incident involving staff, in the last
> decade or so:
> <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/558803de40f0b615b600001a/R072015_150624_Sutton_Weaver.pdf>.
>
> The various injuries to/deaths of trespassers (usually children) must be
> listed somewhere, presumably? Two or perhaps three come to mind.

Another safety issue is that due to the low voltage, 3rd rail systems
need to be able to provide a truely huge current as part of normal
operations, while 25 kV lines do not. A short to ground on a 25 kV
line will pretty easily trigger the circuit breakers. On a 3rd rail
line, if a fault is not a very highly conductive short, the current
flowing may well be insufficient to trigger the circuit breakers as it
may be less than the starting current of a couple of longer trains.

Robin

On 2022-02-15 09:04:21 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:

> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 22:49:08 +0000
> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/02/2022 16:48, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> You've not visited many harbours have you. Plenty of opportunity for the
>>> stupid to kill themselves when the tides out.
>>>
>> I recall being on site when two HSE inspectors arrived to investigate an
>> accident. Luckily I was there as a rep of the shipping company, not the
>> port operator. The HSE tried to demand full fencing along all edges and
>> the port saftey officer had a hell of a job explaining that there was no
>> practicable way to fence a quay edge and also be able to moor vessels.
>> Luckily sense prevailed, but after a lot of "discussion".
>
> From stories I've heard like that it seems to me H&S inspectors are a bit
> like some teachers - not good enough to get a job in the discipline they
> teach/monitor , so they remain at arms length telling others what to do.

Most of the stories of "H&S gone mad" turn out, upon closer inspectin,
to be either risk averse insurance companies, or management not
actually trained in H&S demanding things that the HSE don't actually
require.

Robin

On 15/02/2022 10:50, Bob wrote:
> On 2022-02-15 09:04:21 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 22:49:08 +0000
>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 14/02/2022 16:48, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> You've not visited many harbours have you. Plenty of opportunity for
>>>> the
>>>> stupid to kill themselves when the tides out.
>>>>
>>> I recall being on site when two HSE inspectors arrived to investigate an
>>> accident. Luckily I was there as a rep of the shipping company, not the
>>> port operator. The HSE tried to demand full fencing along all edges and
>>> the port saftey officer had a hell of a job explaining that there was no
>>> practicable way to fence a quay edge and also be able to moor vessels.
>>> Luckily sense prevailed, but after a lot of "discussion".
>>
>> From stories I've heard like that it seems to me H&S inspectors are a bit
>> like some teachers - not good enough to get a job in the discipline they
>> teach/monitor , so they remain at arms length telling others what to do.
>
> Most of the stories of "H&S gone mad" turn out, upon closer inspectin,
> to be either risk averse insurance companies, or management not actually
> trained in H&S demanding things that the HSE don't actually require.

I found all my dealings with the HSE inspectors most rewarding. They
have a wealth of experience and expertise and always gave helpful advise
where needed.

I suspect most of the adverse comments come from individuals and
organisations not particularly willing to keep their employees or
colleagues safe.

My favourite inspector also covered funfairs. He had great admiration
for the skill which the fairground families maintained their rides in
spite of their limited literacy.

In message <sufvtt$tvh$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:39:57 on Tue, 15 Feb
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:

>For the HS1 services, it is also worth bearing in mind that the stops
>on the route aren't that far apart. For a train running from St
>Pancras to Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford, once acceleration and
>braking for the stops is accounted for, the actual ammount of time the
>train would be able to exceed 125 mph is quite limited.

I agree that Stratford is very close to St Pancras. Stratford to
Ebbsfleet is about 17 miles, and Ebbsfleet to Ashford around 33 miles.

Timings outbound: 7min, 11min and 20min.
--
Roland Perry

On 15/02/2022 09:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 15/02/2022 09:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:38:28 -0000 (UTC)
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Grandfather Rights. Similar to the reasons why, for example, old
>>>> cars which
>>>> don't meet current safety and emissions regulations can still be
>>>> used, but
>>>> you couldn't build a new one to the same spec.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Safety usually follows the principle of reducing risks to as low as
>>> *reasonably* possible. It’s unreasonable to close down the existing 3rd
>>> rail network. Banning new 3rd rail where better alternatives exist is
>>> reasonable. That’s why extensions are allowed, as it would be
>>> unreasonable
>>> not to allow, say, an extra siding. Being reasonable is a difficult
>>> concept
>>> to some around here.
>>
>> I would say its entirely reasonable to lay 3rd rail to Uckfield and
>> Reading via Dorking given both lines are fimrly in 3rd rail territory and
>> already have 3rd rail at one end.
>>
>
> Reading - Dorking even more so as it has the Guildford third-rail island
> in the middle. Someone has posted the correct mileages in the past but I
> think it adds up to less than 10 route miles to be converted in two
> bits. If the 769s ever get into service that will partially solve the
> problem in the relatively short term. The longer term solution is
> probably battery-electric hybrid units. Also discussed on here in the
> past. That will probably work out cheaper than either electrification
> system.
>
Maybe battery would be cheaper than electrification, but at what
environmental cost? The manufacture of current battery technology relies
on rare metals which have a significant environmental legacy with
extraction. Maybe recycling of batteries will help this in the future but...

--
Colin

On 15/02/2022 10:50, Bob wrote:
> On 2022-02-15 09:04:21 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 22:49:08 +0000
>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 14/02/2022 16:48, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> You've not visited many harbours have you. Plenty of opportunity for
>>>> the
>>>> stupid to kill themselves when the tides out.
>>>>
>>> I recall being on site when two HSE inspectors arrived to investigate an
>>> accident. Luckily I was there as a rep of the shipping company, not the
>>> port operator. The HSE tried to demand full fencing along all edges and
>>> the port saftey officer had a hell of a job explaining that there was no
>>> practicable way to fence a quay edge and also be able to moor vessels.
>>> Luckily sense prevailed, but after a lot of "discussion".
>>
>> From stories I've heard like that it seems to me H&S inspectors are a bit
>> like some teachers - not good enough to get a job in the discipline they
>> teach/monitor , so they remain at arms length telling others what to do.
>
> Most of the stories of "H&S gone mad" turn out, upon closer inspectin,
> to be either risk averse insurance companies, or management not actually
> trained in H&S demanding things that the HSE don't actually require.
>
> Robin
>

Agree with you Bob, but there are always exceptions as I found out
above! However, the HSE have tried, effectivly, to clarify matters:
https://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/

--
Colin

On 15/02/2022 08:45, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 14/02/2022 22:13, Marland wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <suduvm$16ab$3@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:11:33 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 14/02/2022 15:30, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> In Switzerland, Leukerbad bus terminal (really just a bus stop, IIRC
>>>>> there's only one bay) is enclosed, with doors which open and close
>>>>> to let
>>>>> the bus in and out every few minutes
>>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/ygw4w29HLpYzBcxB7>
>>>>> <https://www.bus-bild.de/1200/llb-setra-s-415-ul-115972.jpg>
>>>>
>>>> The ones that I have heard of in Canada are not bus terminals, but
>>>> rather stand-alones.
>>>
>>> When I was going to school on a bus, there was a sort of cattle pen
>>> enclosed bus shelter in the High Street with a barrier down most of the
>>> centre for the queue to weave round, and quite small [always open] entry
>>> and exit doorways. Big enough for maybe 30 pax.
>>>
>>> I've done some Google image searches, and can't find anything even
>>> remotely similar.
>>
>> Some areas had quite tidy bus shelters which were far more enclosed than
>> the present day styles.
>> The areas of Sussex served by Southdown or Brighton and Hove were one
>> area
>> I recall simply because I slept overnight in one somewhere on the
>> outskirts
>> of Brighton after some travel plans got disrupted by fog.
>> The shelter was very close in design to this one which is still in
>> place in
>> Brighton showing it’s age a  bit and missing a door but still offering
>> more
>> protection from the weather than a bit of perspex between some metal
>> poles.
>>
>> <https://goo.gl/maps/ZcHZuW3AMQM1fSVm9>
>>
>
> One of the problems with those, especially in places like Brighton, is
> that in the evenings they were popular with courting couples and,
> inevitably, with drug-dealers and users.
>

Or the other extreme:
https://unst.org/web/only-in-unst/unst-bus-shelter/

--
Colin

On 15/02/2022 11:41, ColinR wrote:
> On 15/02/2022 08:45, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 14/02/2022 22:13, Marland wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <suduvm$16ab$3@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:11:33 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 14/02/2022 15:30, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Switzerland, Leukerbad bus terminal (really just a bus stop, IIRC
>>>>>> there's only one bay) is enclosed, with doors which open and close
>>>>>> to let
>>>>>> the bus in and out every few minutes
>>>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/ygw4w29HLpYzBcxB7>
>>>>>> <https://www.bus-bild.de/1200/llb-setra-s-415-ul-115972.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>> The ones that I have heard of in Canada are not bus terminals, but
>>>>> rather stand-alones.
>>>>
>>>> When I was going to school on a bus, there was a sort of cattle pen
>>>> enclosed bus shelter in the High Street with a barrier down most of the
>>>> centre for the queue to weave round, and quite small [always open]
>>>> entry
>>>> and exit doorways. Big enough for maybe 30 pax.
>>>>
>>>> I've done some Google image searches, and can't find anything even
>>>> remotely similar.
>>>
>>> Some areas had quite tidy bus shelters which were far more enclosed than
>>> the present day styles.
>>> The areas of Sussex served by Southdown or Brighton and Hove were one
>>> area
>>> I recall simply because I slept overnight in one somewhere on the
>>> outskirts
>>> of Brighton after some travel plans got disrupted by fog.
>>> The shelter was very close in design to this one which is still in
>>> place in
>>> Brighton showing it’s age a  bit and missing a door but still
>>> offering more
>>> protection from the weather than a bit of perspex between some metal
>>> poles.
>>>
>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/ZcHZuW3AMQM1fSVm9>
>>>
>>
>> One of the problems with those, especially in places like Brighton, is
>> that in the evenings they were popular with courting couples and,
>> inevitably, with drug-dealers and users.
>>
>
> Or the other extreme:
> https://unst.org/web/only-in-unst/unst-bus-shelter/
>
The worst shelter I know of is on Grangetown railway station. For those
who don't know the area the station is located on an embankment. The
shelter has a curved roof with no sides and, as you can imagine, is
useless in typical Welsh weather. These are the only pictures I can find.

https://foursquare.com/v/grangetown-railway-station-gtn/506999653d7cfe42e733a902

It must have been designed and signed off by people who hate the Welsh.

On 15/02/2022 11:28, ColinR wrote:
> On 15/02/2022 09:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 15/02/2022 09:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:38:28 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> Grandfather Rights. Similar to the reasons why, for example, old
>>>>> cars which
>>>>> don't meet current safety and emissions regulations can still be
>>>>> used, but
>>>>> you couldn't build a new one to the same spec.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Safety usually follows the principle of reducing risks to as low as
>>>> *reasonably* possible. It’s unreasonable to close down the existing 3rd
>>>> rail network. Banning new 3rd rail where better alternatives exist is
>>>> reasonable. That’s why extensions are allowed, as it would be
>>>> unreasonable
>>>> not to allow, say, an extra siding. Being reasonable is a difficult
>>>> concept
>>>> to some around here.
>>>
>>> I would say its entirely reasonable to lay 3rd rail to Uckfield and
>>> Reading via Dorking given both lines are fimrly in 3rd rail territory
>>> and
>>> already have 3rd rail at one end.
>>>
>>
>> Reading - Dorking even more so as it has the Guildford third-rail
>> island in the middle. Someone has posted the correct mileages in the
>> past but I think it adds up to less than 10 route miles to be
>> converted in two bits. If the 769s ever get into service that will
>> partially solve the problem in the relatively short term. The longer
>> term solution is probably battery-electric hybrid units. Also
>> discussed on here in the past. That will probably work out cheaper
>> than either electrification system.
>>
> Maybe battery would be cheaper than electrification, but at what
> environmental cost? The manufacture of current battery technology relies
> on rare metals which have a significant environmental legacy with
> extraction. Maybe recycling of batteries will help this in the future
> but...
>

Any material other than wood has a significant environmental legacy with
extraction. It's a matter of balancing the whole life environmental
costs of each option.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 15/02/2022 11:28, ColinR wrote:
> On 15/02/2022 09:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 15/02/2022 09:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> I would say its entirely reasonable to lay 3rd rail to Uckfield and
>>> Reading via Dorking given both lines are fimrly in 3rd rail territory
>>> and already have 3rd rail at one end.
>>
>> Reading - Dorking even more so as it has the Guildford third-rail
>> island in the middle. Someone has posted the correct mileages in the
>> past but I think it adds up to less than 10 route miles to be
>> converted in two bits. If the 769s ever get into service that will
>> partially solve the problem in the relatively short term. The longer
>> term solution is probably battery-electric hybrid units. Also
>> discussed on here in the past. That will probably work out cheaper
>> than either electrification system.
>>
> Maybe battery would be cheaper than electrification, but at what
> environmental cost? The manufacture of current battery technology relies
> on rare metals which have a significant environmental legacy with
> extraction. Maybe recycling of batteries will help this in the future
> but...

I hope that worn-out vehicle batteries will find a second home as
static backup, either on premises or at grid level, where the lower
power to weight ratio matters less. However, they'll still need to
be scrapped eventually.

On 2022-02-15 12:33:01 +0000, Certes said:

> On 15/02/2022 11:28, ColinR wrote:
>> On 15/02/2022 09:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 15/02/2022 09:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> I would say its entirely reasonable to lay 3rd rail to Uckfield and
>>>> Reading via Dorking given both lines are fimrly in 3rd rail territory
>>>> and already have 3rd rail at one end.
>>>
>>> Reading - Dorking even more so as it has the Guildford third-rail
>>> island in the middle. Someone has posted the correct mileages in the
>>> past but I think it adds up to less than 10 route miles to be converted
>>> in two bits. If the 769s ever get into service that will partially
>>> solve the problem in the relatively short term. The longer term
>>> solution is probably battery-electric hybrid units. Also discussed on
>>> here in the past. That will probably work out cheaper than either
>>> electrification system.
>>>
>> Maybe battery would be cheaper than electrification, but at what
>> environmental cost? The manufacture of current battery technology
>> relies on rare metals which have a significant environmental legacy
>> with extraction. Maybe recycling of batteries will help this in the
>> future but...
>
> I hope that worn-out vehicle batteries will find a second home as
> static backup, either on premises or at grid level, where the lower
> power to weight ratio matters less. However, they'll still need to
> be scrapped eventually.

The materials and construction of Li-ion batteries makes them quite
easy to recycle, and the cost of the raw materials makes it cost
effective to do so also. The reason we don't yet have a large scale
recycling industry for them is that there isn't yet a significant
stream of end-of-life Li-ion batteries in large enough form factors to
make it worthwhile.

Robin

On 15/02/2022 12:33, Certes wrote:
> On 15/02/2022 11:28, ColinR wrote:
>> On 15/02/2022 09:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 15/02/2022 09:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> I would say its entirely reasonable to lay 3rd rail to Uckfield and
>>>> Reading via Dorking given both lines are fimrly in 3rd rail
>>>> territory and already have 3rd rail at one end.
>>>
>>> Reading - Dorking even more so as it has the Guildford third-rail
>>> island in the middle. Someone has posted the correct mileages in the
>>> past but I think it adds up to less than 10 route miles to be
>>> converted in two bits. If the 769s ever get into service that will
>>> partially solve the problem in the relatively short term. The longer
>>> term solution is probably battery-electric hybrid units. Also
>>> discussed on here in the past. That will probably work out cheaper
>>> than either electrification system.
>>>
>> Maybe battery would be cheaper than electrification, but at what
>> environmental cost? The manufacture of current battery technology
>> relies on rare metals which have a significant environmental legacy
>> with extraction. Maybe recycling of batteries will help this in the
>> future but...
>
> I hope that worn-out vehicle batteries will find a second home as
> static backup, either on premises or at grid level, where the lower
> power to weight ratio matters less.  However, they'll still need to
> be scrapped eventually.

By then there should be recycling capabilities to recover the useful bits.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <sufuvg$ogc$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:23:44 on Tue, 15 Feb
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sub73d$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."
>
>You need to read just a little further. In the very next message Recliner
>wrote:
>
>“That record-breaking distance is 25% higher [later corrected to lower]
>than Inverness-Wick. The reliable, operational range will be much less, of
>course.
>
>I suppose the solution would be to have 2-3 top-up stations en route, …”
>
>And the conversation proceeded on that basis.

Indeed so. This subthread has been lagging the general discussion
somewhat.
--
Roland Perry