<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.
>
>

Unlike LU, Network Rail procedures allow a lot of trackside work to take
place in the daylight, with trains running and power switched on. Also to
access the switches to turn the power off locally, usually seems to involve
walking trackside along the track.

And it’s not me getting my knickers in a twist; I'm just quoting what I
believe to be the facts in this situation - that the same health and safety
at work regulations which prohibit you from having exposed conductors
within reach, intentional or otherwise, of workers in a factory, also
prohibit new installation of 3rd rail where track workers may be required
to access it with the power switched on.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>

Only on LU. Not on NR. If it was so, then 3rd rail would presumably be
allowed for new projects. But it isn't, so it isn't.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

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.
>

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

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>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 14/02/2022 09:23, Roland Perry wrote:
> 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.

It is not just temporary traffics, they will be supplied by an outside
contractor who will usually have a man sitting in his van reading his
copy of The Sun at each end and sometimes another one driving the convoy
vehicle.

But in Scotland they often just close the road completely and try to get
it closed 1800 until 0800 when the diversion might be an extra 100 miles.

In message <sudo1b$qf3$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:59 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:

>>>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
>>

>> 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.

Although Thameslink doesn't serve it (but there is the necessary signage
for drivers to know where to stop) the extension of the "other" hourly
Electric service from London to Ely helped a lot. Although it was
possible to get a local train to Cambridge, and change, the timings
weren't particularly useful - and it was a long walk at Cambridge from
the island to platform 1.

And now the London trains are 8-car all the way to Kings Lynn.

There have been quite a few sightings of Class 700 at Ely (which must be
on the fast Kings Cross services), and isolated reports of Class 700
north of Ely, but I have not yet gone to look at the stations to see if
they are also signed.

We are currently blessed with at least two red Gatwick Express branded
Electrostars, which normally run coupled to a regular white one. I have
just once seen an entirely red train.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sudt9f$73a$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:42:40 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 14/02/2022 09:23, Roland Perry wrote:

>> 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.
>
>It is not just temporary traffics, they will be supplied by an outside
>contractor who will usually have a man sitting in his van reading his
>copy of The Sun at each end and sometimes another one driving the
>convoy vehicle.

I've not seen a convoy vehicle locally at any of them, and they only
seem to have the Sun-reader at daytime closures on trunk roads.

The ones I mentioned are on unclassified roads (but mainly stretches
that used to bits of A10 before being bypassed years ago) and are in
place 24x7 typically for a week at a time.

You'd need an awful lot of copies of the Sun to monitor those.

>But in Scotland they often just close the road completely and try to
>get it closed 1800 until 0800 when the diversion might be an extra 100
>miles.

--
Roland Perry

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>
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver

The ones that I have heard of in Canada are not bus terminals, but
rather stand-alones.

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.

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.

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

So what? Depends on the circumstance.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:48:19 +0000
Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>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.

A bit less dangerous that stepping in front of a moving car. If the workers
can avoid trains they can avoid stepping on rails. Plus its the job they're
paid to do and there are hundreds (thousands?) of miles of 3rd rail in
the UK and you don't hear of workers getting killed on it that often.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:23:53 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>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.

The motorway works speed limit was supposed to have been raised to 60mph.
Seems no one has told the crew building a new junction on the M11 yet.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 14:54:35 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>Unlike LU, Network Rail procedures allow a lot of trackside work to take
>place in the daylight, with trains running and power switched on. Also to
>access the switches to turn the power off locally, usually seems to involve
>walking trackside along the track.

Well thats not a fault of the tech is it.

>And it’s not me getting my knickers in a twist; I'm just quoting what I
>believe to be the facts in this situation - that the same health and safety
>at work regulations which prohibit you from having exposed conductors
>within reach, intentional or otherwise, of workers in a factory, also
>prohibit new installation of 3rd rail where track workers may be required
>to access it with the power switched on.

As I've already said, there are different rules for different situations.

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.

Robin

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.
--
Roland Perry

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.

Am 14.02.2022 um 17:45 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> 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.

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.

Rolf

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.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>
>

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.

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
> 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.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:30:24 +0000, Tweed 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
> 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.

A quick search for "electric shock" on the RAIB site shows one fatal in
2006 near Deal from 3rd rail and one severe injury in 2014 at Sutton
Weaver from a fallen bit of overhead. Both drivers, getting out of trains.

nib

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.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
>

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.

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>

GH

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.

See also frequent references here to Swiss railways spending lots of time
in stations to make sure the timetable works and connections are made.

Sam

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

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".

--
Colin