On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 13:32:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <su2rl9$j29$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:07:21 on Thu, 10 Feb
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su1f1u$hp1$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:26:06 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>> On 09/02/2022 13:51, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Yes, Inverness and Wick are both close to sea level, but there are
>>>>> hilly stretches in between.
>>>>> Another consideration is that these trains run through remote areas
>>>>> that can get blocked with snow or other bad weather,
>>>>> so you need to have quite a large reserve fuel supply on board. You
>>>>> can't design a system where they are routinely
>>>>> running at low charge as they get to the next charger.
>>>>
>>>> They would need to always have enough capacity to return to the last
>>>> charge point if there was any blockage.
>>>
>>> That immediately doubles the range required. So for example a train
>>> which set out from Wick/Thurso gets within a mile of Inverness, and
>>> finds the line blocked, requiring a return to where it started.
>>
>>No, as already mentioned, there would need to be a couple of charging
>>points between Thurso and Inverness. I suspect, in really bad weather, the
>>train might be stopped at or close to a charging point.
>
>I've already mentioned the only place near a significant power supply
>node. That desno't mean it shouldn't be so equipped (apart from the 1%
>of 0.4% thing).

The Vivarail chargers don't need significant power supplies.

>
>>> Or would they in practice detrain the pax at the first opportunity
>>> (modulo the almost statutory 3hr wait) and await a Thunderbird?
>>
>>How would a Thunderbird get through?
>
>On the rails, when the landslide or snowdrift has been cleared.

If the track's clear, why would a Thunderbird be needed?

>
>I wasn't expecting it to be helicopter.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > You could run this as a PHEV: battery for the main traction, with a small
> > diesel generator for ETH, low speed running, power outages, extreme weather
> > events etc.
> >
> > It wouldn't be able to keep time on diesel, but would be there to get out of
> > trouble if needed.
> >
> > You wouldn't need to use it as primary, just have the computer run it up
> > once a day (with realistic load) to keep it in working order.
> >
>
> That's a bit like the single diesel in the class 801s.

I hadn't realised they had one, but yes that sounds like a similar idea.
How much does it get used in practice?

Theo

In message <ic5a0ht50rnjpeugilhb780d23ihe16i1l@4ax.com>, at 13:41:41 on
Thu, 10 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 13:32:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <su2rl9$j29$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:07:21 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <su1f1u$hp1$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:26:06 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>> On 09/02/2022 13:51, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, Inverness and Wick are both close to sea level, but there are
>>>>>> hilly stretches in between.
>>>>>> Another consideration is that these trains run through remote areas
>>>>>> that can get blocked with snow or other bad weather,
>>>>>> so you need to have quite a large reserve fuel supply on board. You
>>>>>> can't design a system where they are routinely
>>>>>> running at low charge as they get to the next charger.
>>>>>
>>>>> They would need to always have enough capacity to return to the last
>>>>> charge point if there was any blockage.
>>>>
>>>> That immediately doubles the range required. So for example a train
>>>> which set out from Wick/Thurso gets within a mile of Inverness, and
>>>> finds the line blocked, requiring a return to where it started.
>>>
>>>No, as already mentioned, there would need to be a couple of charging
>>>points between Thurso and Inverness. I suspect, in really bad weather, the
>>>train might be stopped at or close to a charging point.
>>
>>I've already mentioned the only place near a significant power supply
>>node. That desno't mean it shouldn't be so equipped (apart from the 1%
>>of 0.4% thing).
>
>The Vivarail chargers don't need significant power supplies.

How does that help recover a train that's run out of power en-route?

>>>> Or would they in practice detrain the pax at the first opportunity
>>>> (modulo the almost statutory 3hr wait) and await a Thunderbird?
>>>
>>>How would a Thunderbird get through?
>>
>>On the rails, when the landslide or snowdrift has been cleared.
>
>If the track's clear, why would a Thunderbird be needed?

Because it wasn't clear when the landslide/snowdrift caused the
passenger train to stall, and then run out of battery.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 13:06:22 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 10/02/2022 09:14, Roland Perry wrote:
>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>> anything better to do?
>
>And of course the UK is only a small proportion of the world's CO2
>output

True, though some would say that we deserve a disproportionate side of the blame for global warming through having
started the industrial revolution.

> (and many say that CO2 is not the problem anyway).

Yes, but they're Trumpists, not scientists.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:29:15 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 10/02/2022 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:14:00 +0000
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>>>> as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure, and
>>>> the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>>>
>>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>>> anything better to do?
>>>
>>> For the Scottish, 76% of all passenger journeys are already electrified.
>>>
>>> [1] It's not entirely clear if that's just the trains, or also the
>>> stations etc.
>>
>> Would station energy usage be significant compared to that of the trains?
>> I imagine a large city station would use quite a bit of leccy but how would
>> that compare to the energy used by a train?
>>
>
>Depends how the station is heated.

I doubt any are apart from maybe the waiting room and cafe.

On 10/02/2022 15:01, Recliner wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 13:06:22 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/02/2022 09:14, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>>> anything better to do?
>>
>> And of course the UK is only a small proportion of the world's CO2
>> output
>
> True, though some would say that we deserve a disproportionate side of the blame for global warming through having
> started the industrial revolution.
>

You mean when the rest of the world outsourced their pollution to us?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/02/2022 15:22, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:29:15 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10/02/2022 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:14:00 +0000
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>>> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>>>>> as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure, and
>>>>> the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>>>>
>>>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>>>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>>>> anything better to do?
>>>>
>>>> For the Scottish, 76% of all passenger journeys are already electrified.
>>>>
>>>> [1] It's not entirely clear if that's just the trains, or also the
>>>> stations etc.
>>>
>>> Would station energy usage be significant compared to that of the trains?
>>> I imagine a large city station would use quite a bit of leccy but how would
>>> that compare to the energy used by a train?
>>>
>>
>> Depends how the station is heated.
>
> I doubt any are apart from maybe the waiting room and cafe.
>

I would have thought a large city station would have a fair number of
heated areas, eg shops, waiting rooms, ticket offices, staff offices and
so on.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/02/2022 15:01, Recliner wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 13:06:22 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/02/2022 09:14, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>>> anything better to do?
>>
>> And of course the UK is only a small proportion of the world's CO2
>> output
>
> True, though some would say that we deserve a disproportionate side of the blame for global warming through having
> started the industrial revolution.
>
>> (and many say that CO2 is not the problem anyway).
>
> Yes, but they're Trumpists, not scientists.

CO2 is a problem, but by no means the worst:
https://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/co2-equivalents/

NOT a Trumpist website!!

--
Colin

On 10/02/2022 15:38, ColinR wrote:
> On 10/02/2022 15:01, Recliner wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 13:06:22 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/02/2022 09:14, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>>>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>>>> anything better to do?
>>>
>>> And of course the UK is only a small proportion of the world's CO2
>>> output
>>
>> True, though some would say that we deserve a disproportionate side of
>> the blame for global warming through having
>> started the industrial revolution.
>>
>>> (and many say that CO2 is not the problem anyway).
>>
>> Yes, but they're Trumpists, not scientists.
>
> CO2 is a problem, but by no means the worst:
> https://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/co2-equivalents/
>

Vast difference between being not a problem (Trumpist view) and not the
only problem. What's missing from that table is the relative amounts of
each gas that is released into the atmosphere. Exploded tennis balls are
much worse than the equivalent amount of CO2 but the actual amount
released in a given period is in the noise level in comparison to the
sheer amount of CO2 released.

NB I thought hexaflouride was only used in stripey toothpaste?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ic5a0ht50rnjpeugilhb780d23ihe16i1l@4ax.com>, at 13:41:41 on
> Thu, 10 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 13:32:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <su2rl9$j29$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:07:21 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <su1f1u$hp1$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:26:06 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>> On 09/02/2022 13:51, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, Inverness and Wick are both close to sea level, but there are
>>>>>>> hilly stretches in between.
>>>>>>> Another consideration is that these trains run through remote areas
>>>>>>> that can get blocked with snow or other bad weather,
>>>>>>> so you need to have quite a large reserve fuel supply on board. You
>>>>>>> can't design a system where they are routinely
>>>>>>> running at low charge as they get to the next charger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They would need to always have enough capacity to return to the last
>>>>>> charge point if there was any blockage.
>>>>>
>>>>> That immediately doubles the range required. So for example a train
>>>>> which set out from Wick/Thurso gets within a mile of Inverness, and
>>>>> finds the line blocked, requiring a return to where it started.
>>>>
>>>> No, as already mentioned, there would need to be a couple of charging
>>>> points between Thurso and Inverness. I suspect, in really bad weather, the
>>>> train might be stopped at or close to a charging point.
>>>
>>> I've already mentioned the only place near a significant power supply
>>> node. That desno't mean it shouldn't be so equipped (apart from the 1%
>>> of 0.4% thing).
>>
>> The Vivarail chargers don't need significant power supplies.
>
> How does that help recover a train that's run out of power en-route?

They provide multiple locations to return to along the route, and in really
bad weather, trains would remain there, rather than heading off to a
blizzard.

>
>>>>> Or would they in practice detrain the pax at the first opportunity
>>>>> (modulo the almost statutory 3hr wait) and await a Thunderbird?
>>>>
>>>> How would a Thunderbird get through?
>>>
>>> On the rails, when the landslide or snowdrift has been cleared.
>>
>> If the track's clear, why would a Thunderbird be needed?
>
> Because it wasn't clear when the landslide/snowdrift caused the
> passenger train to stall, and then run out of battery.

How would these Thunderbirds be powered?

On 10/02/2022 15:37, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 10/02/2022 15:22, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:29:15 +0000
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 10/02/2022 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:14:00 +0000
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>>>> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>>>>>> as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>>>>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>>>>> anything better to do?
>>>>>
>>>>> For the Scottish, 76% of all passenger journeys are already
>>>>> electrified.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] It's not entirely clear if that's just the trains, or also the
>>>>>       stations etc.
>>>>
>>>> Would station energy usage be significant compared to that of the
>>>> trains?
>>>> I imagine a large city station would use quite a bit of leccy but
>>>> how would
>>>> that compare to the energy used by a train?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Depends how the station is heated.
>>
>> I doubt any are apart from maybe the waiting room and cafe.
>>
>
> I would have thought a large city station would have a fair number of
> heated areas, eg shops, waiting rooms, ticket offices, staff offices and
> so on.
>

At Manchester Piccadilly, the passenger concourse was heated, with
entrance to platforms via sliding doors that opened only when someone
wanted access to or from the platforms, and the area could become
comfortably warmish.

Then, some idiots decided they needed ticket gates; in consequence the
sliding doors were removed, and there were permanently open gaps behind
/ above the gates. If the wind is blowing in the wrong direction, the
station roof can funnel a howling gale into the concourse, making that
area a lot colder, and doubtless wasting a lot of energy if the heating
system is still in use.

In message <su3ak2$9on$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:22:42 on Thu, 10 Feb
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:

>>> Would station energy usage be significant compared to that of the trains?
>>> I imagine a large city station would use quite a bit of leccy but how would
>>> that compare to the energy used by a train?
>>
>>Depends how the station is heated.
>
>I doubt any are apart from maybe the waiting room and cafe.

The now rather ancient (Offices and) Factories Acts would require
areas with employees to be adequately heated. And nowadays maybe even
adequately air conditioned.
--
Roland Perry

In message <su3e1v$lrd$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:21:19 on Thu, 10 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ic5a0ht50rnjpeugilhb780d23ihe16i1l@4ax.com>, at 13:41:41 on
>> Thu, 10 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 13:32:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <su2rl9$j29$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:07:21 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <su1f1u$hp1$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:26:06 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 09/02/2022 13:51, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes, Inverness and Wick are both close to sea level, but there are
>>>>>>>> hilly stretches in between.
>>>>>>>> Another consideration is that these trains run through remote areas
>>>>>>>> that can get blocked with snow or other bad weather,
>>>>>>>> so you need to have quite a large reserve fuel supply on board. You
>>>>>>>> can't design a system where they are routinely
>>>>>>>> running at low charge as they get to the next charger.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They would need to always have enough capacity to return to the last
>>>>>>> charge point if there was any blockage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That immediately doubles the range required. So for example a train
>>>>>> which set out from Wick/Thurso gets within a mile of Inverness, and
>>>>>> finds the line blocked, requiring a return to where it started.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, as already mentioned, there would need to be a couple of charging
>>>>> points between Thurso and Inverness. I suspect, in really bad weather, the
>>>>> train might be stopped at or close to a charging point.
>>>>
>>>> I've already mentioned the only place near a significant power supply
>>>> node. That desno't mean it shouldn't be so equipped (apart from the 1%
>>>> of 0.4% thing).
>>>
>>> The Vivarail chargers don't need significant power supplies.
>>
>> How does that help recover a train that's run out of power en-route?
>
>They provide multiple locations to return to along the route,

Multiple charging stations? (Just checking).

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?

>and in really bad weather, trains would remain there, rather than
>heading off to a blizzard.

Keeping the heating on for the passengers, and awaiting rescue by a
Thunderbird?

>>>>>> Or would they in practice detrain the pax at the first opportunity
>>>>>> (modulo the almost statutory 3hr wait) and await a Thunderbird?
>>>>>
>>>>> How would a Thunderbird get through?
>>>>
>>>> On the rails, when the landslide or snowdrift has been cleared.
>>>
>>> If the track's clear, why would a Thunderbird be needed?
>>
>> Because it wasn't clear when the landslide/snowdrift caused the
>> passenger train to stall, and then run out of battery.
>
>How would these Thunderbirds be powered?

Conventional diesel, as the electrickery has comprehensively failed.

Or is this 1% of 1% of 0.4% which must be eradicated at all costs?
--
Roland Perry

On 10/02/2022 15:01, Recliner wrote:
> True, though some would say that we deserve a disproportionate side of the blame for global warming through having
> started the industrial revolution.

Shouldn't Ug the Caveman be blamed for discovering fire?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su0362$d9u$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:57:22 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <sturgc$ma8$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:40:12 on Tue, 8 Feb 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Nigel Emery <nigele3@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.electricandhybridrail.com/content/news/stadler-sets-world-
>>>>> record-with-flirt-akku-for-longest-distance-travelled-by-a-train-in-bat
>>>>> tery-only-mode>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think this has been mentioned on this group before. Add 10-15%
>>>>> to that and Inverness to Wick becomes possible.
>>>>
>>>> That record-breaking distance is 25% higher 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, such
>>>> that even if one isn't working, trains can still make it. They could use
>>>> the Vivarail charging system, and only need a short charging stop. Maybe at
>>>> places like Tain, Helmsdale and Thurso?
>>>
>>> If we are looking for nodes on the power network, Brora is about
>>> halfway, and I'd ignore Wick versus doing Thurso in both directions.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, it's an awful lot of faffing about for four services
>>> (three units?) a day in each direction.
>>
>> But what about maintenance costs? Presumably a battery pack and electric
>> motors require much less attention than Diesel engines.
>
> It's an issue of scale. All this new equipment for just three units (if
> I've counted the diagrams correctly).
>
> If it was three hundred, it'd be different.
>

Surely if successful, similar units could be rolled out for other
non-electrified routes across the country?

>> Would there be a problem extending the range of such a train by inserting
>> an extra vehicle
>
> With or without corridor connections?
>

The Stadler FLIRT traction packs have a corridor.

>> packed full of batteries?
>
> Careful about the weight.

The Stadler FLIRT traction packs are self-contained vehicles within the
unit, therefore already comply with axle loading etc. Adding an extra one
would indeed increase the unit weight somewhat, but presumably not enough
to lower the range by more than it adds.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su0gv9$dsh$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:52:41 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Nigel Emery <nigele3@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.electricandhybridrail.com/content/news/stadler-sets-world
>>>> -record-with-flirt-akku-for-longest-distance-travelled-by-a-train-in-b
>>>> attery-only-mode>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think this has been mentioned on this group before. Add 10-15%
>>>> to that and Inverness to Wick becomes possible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That record-breaking distance is 25% higher 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, such
>>> that even if one isn't working, trains can still make it. They could use
>>> the Vivarail charging system, and only need a short charging stop. Maybe at
>>> places like Tain, Helmsdale and Thurso?
>>
>> Or to wire some (short-ish?) sections of the line, maybe on rising
>> gradients, to provide a boost to both the batteries and to the train
>> itself.
>
> How do you get the power to those sections of line? It's pretty isolated
> landscape.

Have one end of the sections be at a town with a power supply sufficient to
either supply the power as required, or to trickle-charge batteries to
provide the power as required.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 15:21:36 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <su0l5a$b7o$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:04:10 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <su0gv9$dsh$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:52:41 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Nigel Emery <nigele3@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.electricandhybridrail.com/content/news/stadler-sets-world
>>>>>>> -record-with-flirt-akku-for-longest-distance-travelled-by-a-train-in-b
>>>>>>> attery-only-mode>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think this has been mentioned on this group before. Add 10-15%
>>>>>>> to that and Inverness to Wick becomes possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That record-breaking distance is 25% higher 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, such
>>>>>> that even if one isn't working, trains can still make it. They could use
>>>>>> the Vivarail charging system, and only need a short charging stop. Maybe at
>>>>>> places like Tain, Helmsdale and Thurso?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or to wire some (short-ish?) sections of the line, maybe on rising
>>>>> gradients, to provide a boost to both the batteries and to the train
>>>>> itself.
>>>>
>>>> How do you get the power to those sections of line? It's pretty isolated
>>>> landscape.
>>>
>>> Well, so long as you don’t accuse me of cutting the scope of the project if
>>> these thoughts turn out to be unworkable, you could wire from Inverness to
>>> Dingwall and the Kyle line junction, and from the north, probably at
>>> Thurso, down to Georgemas Junction and to Wick; Orkney and the Pentland
>>> Firth are prime development sites for ocean renewables. I don’t know if
>>> you’d need another stage somewhere in between.
>>
>> For four trains a day? Is really worth it. What's the carbon footprint
>> of all those works.
>
> I think a UK battery train a long way from normal OHLE would be more
> likely to use the Vivarail charger system, so the
> installation would be relatively small and simple.
>

Furrer & Frey also offer a static-train fast-charging system
<https://www.furrerfrey.ch/en/e-mobility0/voltap0.html>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Nigel Emery <nigele3@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> We have some idle musing. There’s no point in burdening our thoughts here
>> with the weight of “proposal”.
>
> That;s correct! All we have is me looking at that Stadler train record
> and saying blimey that's better than I expected and nearly (I accept
> for some valve of nearly) enough to do Inverness to Wick.
>
> One thing that might be relevant is that Stadler have a history of
> small bespoke product runs. Many Swiss mountain railways etc. have
> replaced their old stuff with new Stadler units with the required
> quantity being 2off. They're not going to compete with Vivarail on
> base cost but who knows. There is no harm in idle musing!
>

Plus Stadler have an already-certified UK-compatible FLIRT platform to
easily add battery etc. options onto.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 09/02/2022 13:00, Recliner wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <su0bu6$cr6$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:26:46 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> Is there enough demand from three short trains shuttling back and
>>>>>> forth, to make a return on such an investment?
>>>>>
>>>>> As for making a return on the investment, let's not kid ourselves that any
>>>>> of these zero carbon solutions will be cheaper than existing ICEs. They're
>>>>> favoured for other reasons, and will be a lower priority for
>>>>> decarbonisation than transport and heating in large cities.
>>>>
>>>> I'm suggesting it's so much lower, it's a waste of time imagining it
>>>> might happen at all in the foreseeable future.
>>>
>>> It depends on the political pressure for true net zero. That's currently
>>> high, but will probably drop very soon, when our leader and her big and
>>> small dogs are evicted from Downing St. None of her likely successors are
>>> so keen on it.
>>>
>>
>> Seeing this thead talks of gthe line to Wick / Thurso, it is of
>> relevance that the Sturgeon is beholden to the Greens for her majority.
>> Accordingly she needs to keep up the political pressure (and I believe
>> that she is also in favour). So, whilst Downing Street may implode,
>> there will still be pressure.
>>
>
> Yes, that's a very good point.
>
> I wonder if battery D-Trains would be suitable for those routes? Assume a
> three-car unit (two DM cars plus a trailer carrying lots of batteries. I
> wonder if it's suitable for use in very cold weather? Is the 60mph top
> speed enough?
>

I would suggest that FLIRTs would be a rather better purchase.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 18:31:05 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:

> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <su0gv9$dsh$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:52:41 on Wed, 9 Feb
....
>>
>> How do you get the power to those sections of line? It's pretty
>> isolated landscape.
>
> Have one end of the sections be at a town with a power supply sufficient
> to either supply the power as required, or to trickle-charge batteries
> to provide the power as required.
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver

Back of the envelope calculation, taking 3 return trips per day and 4
charging places, suggests that the average power for 24-hour charging of
local battery would fit into a standard industrial 63A 3-phase connection.

====

I used some figures for a Vivarail Class 230 diesel-electric version,
which suggests 100 L/100km for a 3-car, which is about 15 times a diesel
car. Assuming an electric one takes 15 times an electric car that's about
220 kWh/100km. Each round trip say 560 km is therefore around 1200 kWh.
Spread over 24 hours that's 50 kW or 220 amps at 230 V or 74 amps/phase.

Divided over 4 charging points, one at each end and two on the way,
that's 18 amps/phase. So a 63A connection could support 3 trains.

All guesses!

nib

nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 18:31:05 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su0gv9$dsh$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:52:41 on Wed, 9 Feb
> ...
>>>
>>> How do you get the power to those sections of line? It's pretty
>>> isolated landscape.
>>
>> Have one end of the sections be at a town with a power supply sufficient
>> to either supply the power as required, or to trickle-charge batteries
>> to provide the power as required.
>>
>>
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
> Back of the envelope calculation, taking 3 return trips per day and 4
> charging places, suggests that the average power for 24-hour charging of
> local battery would fit into a standard industrial 63A 3-phase connection.
>
> ====
>
> I used some figures for a Vivarail Class 230 diesel-electric version,
> which suggests 100 L/100km for a 3-car, which is about 15 times a diesel
> car. Assuming an electric one takes 15 times an electric car that's about
> 220 kWh/100km. Each round trip say 560 km is therefore around 1200 kWh.
> Spread over 24 hours that's 50 kW or 220 amps at 230 V or 74 amps/phase.
>
> Divided over 4 charging points, one at each end and two on the way,
> that's 18 amps/phase. So a 63A connection could support 3 trains.
>
> All guesses!

Thanks, that's useful.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su2mcf$gd5$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:37:19 on Thu, 10 Feb
> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>>>> as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure, and
>>>> the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>>>
>>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>>> anything better to do?
>>
>> Back to the Meldrew persona. If you’re not enjoying the conversation why
>> don’t you go and do something more pleasant instead, rather than hanging
>> around here and moaning?
>
> Why is pointing out that 1% of 0.4% is super-woke, something I should be
> prohibited from doing?

No one’s prohibiting you, Roland - I’m sure we’re not bastions of the
cancel culture - but here we are sitting around the fire in our favourite
pub speculating away and you ask us don’t we have anything better to do.
Of course not - that’s not why we’re here. If we were trying to be
realistic we’d be somewhere else.

Sam

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

Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On 10/02/2022 09:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>>>> as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure, and
>>>> the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>>>
>>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>>> anything better to do?
>>
>> Back to the Meldrew persona. If you’re not enjoying the conversation why
>> don’t you go and do something more pleasant instead, rather than hanging
>> around here and moaning?
>
> I *think* Roland is agreeing with me that electrifying the occasional
> stopper to Wick isn't the best use of our green budget.

Could be, but he’s taking this conversation *much* too seriously!

Sam

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

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:29:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 10/02/2022 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:14:00 +0000
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>>>> as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure, and
>>>> the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>>>
>>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>>> anything better to do?
>>>
>>> For the Scottish, 76% of all passenger journeys are already electrified.
>>>
>>> [1] It's not entirely clear if that's just the trains, or also the
>>> stations etc.
>>
>> Would station energy usage be significant compared to that of the trains?
>> I imagine a large city station would use quite a bit of leccy but how would
>> that compare to the energy used by a train?
>>
>
>Depends how the station is heated.
>
The only variety at my local station for the passengers is that big
yellow thing in the sky. The coal fire in the waiting room went some
time in the 1960s.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 18:00:40 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 10/02/2022 15:01, Recliner wrote:
>> True, though some would say that we deserve a disproportionate side of the blame for global warming through having
>> started the industrial revolution.
>
>Shouldn't Ug the Caveman be blamed for discovering fire?
>
If he had never discovered Mrs Ug then maybe a lot of the world's
problems wouldn't exist now.