On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:44:15 +0000
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:34:50 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:46:30 -0000 (UTC)
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:14:34 +0000
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/02/2022 10:23, Theo wrote:
>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-11 09:21:26 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>>> Quite possibly so. But it's not an unusual configuration for branch
>>>>>>>> lines joining electrified lines (see Thorpe/Wensum in another posting,
>>>>>>>> and the branches east and west off the MML near Leicester).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, but without actually having bimodes running on those lines, we
>>>>>>> won't see how they are used. Perhaps someone has seen how the units
>>>>>>> switch modes on approach to Stowmarket, where the junction is a bit
>>>>>>> further from the station than at Ely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 769s are currently on training runs for the North Downs Line. AIUI
>>>>>> current practice is to change from diesel to third rail on the move going
>
>>>>>> towards Guildford at Shalford Junction, but when leaving Guildford
>towards
>>>>>> Shalford the engine is started in the platform.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've only seen them pass through Guildford non-stop so far. Usually when
>>>>> I'm on the pedestrian bridge so I can't hear whether they are on
>>>>> electric or diesel. Though if they started the diesel on the fly as they
>>>>> pass through, I'd see the clag from the exhausts.
>>>>
>>>> Why the hell don't they just electrify that line along with the Uckfield
>>>> line beats me.
>>>
>>>You know very well why not, and have regularly told us why you disagree
>>>with the reason.
>>
>>The cost argument is BS and we supposed to be decarbonising yet 2 well used
>>commuter routes in the SE remain diesel. Laying some 3rd rail would cost
>>buttons in comparison to Crossrail and HS2.
>
>As you well know, there's an effective ban on laying significant lengths of
>new third rail. That's the reason, not cost,

No there isn't if its continuation otherwise how would the northern line
extension have been built?

>though apparently longer lengths of third rail cost more overall than 25kV
>OHLE.

I very much doubt that.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:54:02 +0100, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:

>On 2022-02-11 14:44:15 +0000, Recliner said:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:34:50 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:46:30 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:14:34 +0000
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/02/2022 10:23, Theo wrote:
>>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-11 09:21:26 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>>>> Quite possibly so. But it's not an unusual configuration for branch
>>>>>>>>> lines joining electrified lines (see Thorpe/Wensum in another posting,
>>>>>>>>> and the branches east and west off the MML near Leicester).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, but without actually having bimodes running on those lines, we
>>>>>>>> won't see how they are used. Perhaps someone has seen how the units
>>>>>>>> switch modes on approach to Stowmarket, where the junction is a bit
>>>>>>>> further from the station than at Ely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 769s are currently on training runs for the North Downs Line. AIUI
>>>>>>> current practice is to change from diesel to third rail on the move going
>>>>>>> towards Guildford at Shalford Junction, but when leaving Guildford towards
>>>>>>> Shalford the engine is started in the platform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've only seen them pass through Guildford non-stop so far. Usually when
>>>>>> I'm on the pedestrian bridge so I can't hear whether they are on
>>>>>> electric or diesel. Though if they started the diesel on the fly as they
>>>>>> pass through, I'd see the clag from the exhausts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why the hell don't they just electrify that line along with the Uckfield
>>>>> line beats me.
>>>>
>>>> You know very well why not, and have regularly told us why you disagree
>>>> with the reason.
>>>
>>> The cost argument is BS and we supposed to be decarbonising yet 2 well used
>>> commuter routes in the SE remain diesel. Laying some 3rd rail would cost
>>> buttons in comparison to Crossrail and HS2.
>>
>> As you well know, there's an effective ban on laying significant
>> lengths of new third rail. That's the reason, not cost,
>> though apparently longer lengths of third rail cost more overall than
>> 25kV OHLE.
>
>Dual voltage trains are a very mature technology. 3rd rail is more
>expensive not due to the actual 3rd rail itself, but due to the much
>more extensive power distribution infrastructure needed because of the
>frequent substations the system involves. My understaning is the "ban"
>was on new installations, and that extensions to existing systems,
>which these would be, are permitted. Otherwise it would have been
>impossible to build the Battersea extension to the Northern line, which
>clearly has been built because it exists.

I think the ban is only on lines accessible by the public, so completely segregated lines like LU are exempt.

For NR lines, the ban, in effect, seems to apply even to (significant) extensions of existing networks.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:56:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:44:15 +0000
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:34:50 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:46:30 -0000 (UTC)
>>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:14:34 +0000
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/02/2022 10:23, Theo wrote:
>>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-11 09:21:26 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>>>> Quite possibly so. But it's not an unusual configuration for branch
>>>>>>>>> lines joining electrified lines (see Thorpe/Wensum in another posting,
>>>>>>>>> and the branches east and west off the MML near Leicester).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, but without actually having bimodes running on those lines, we
>>>>>>>> won't see how they are used. Perhaps someone has seen how the units
>>>>>>>> switch modes on approach to Stowmarket, where the junction is a bit
>>>>>>>> further from the station than at Ely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 769s are currently on training runs for the North Downs Line. AIUI
>>>>>>> current practice is to change from diesel to third rail on the move going
>>
>>>>>>> towards Guildford at Shalford Junction, but when leaving Guildford
>>towards
>>>>>>> Shalford the engine is started in the platform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've only seen them pass through Guildford non-stop so far. Usually when
>>>>>> I'm on the pedestrian bridge so I can't hear whether they are on
>>>>>> electric or diesel. Though if they started the diesel on the fly as they
>>>>>> pass through, I'd see the clag from the exhausts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why the hell don't they just electrify that line along with the Uckfield
>>>>> line beats me.
>>>>
>>>>You know very well why not, and have regularly told us why you disagree
>>>>with the reason.
>>>
>>>The cost argument is BS and we supposed to be decarbonising yet 2 well used
>>>commuter routes in the SE remain diesel. Laying some 3rd rail would cost
>>>buttons in comparison to Crossrail and HS2.
>>
>>As you well know, there's an effective ban on laying significant lengths of
>>new third rail. That's the reason, not cost,
>
>No there isn't if its continuation otherwise how would the northern line
>extension have been built?

It's deep underground and fully segregated.

>
>>though apparently longer lengths of third rail cost more overall than 25kV
>>OHLE.
>
>I very much doubt that.

The experts all say that's the case, and the Uckfield line was costed.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the ban is only on lines accessible by the public, so completely
> segregated lines like LU are exempt.
>
> For NR lines, the ban, in effect, seems to apply even to (significant)
> extensions of existing networks.

Outside of LU tunnels, when was the last bit of top contact third rail
installed?

I can think of Redhill-Tonbridge, which was around 1992. Some small
lengths at Fawkham Junction to connect with HS1 ~2003.

Anywhere else?

Presumably new platforms like Redhill platform 0 wouldn't count as
'extensions'?

Theo

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:59:48 +0000
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:56:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>As you well know, there's an effective ban on laying significant lengths of
>>>new third rail. That's the reason, not cost,
>>
>>No there isn't if its continuation otherwise how would the northern line
>>extension have been built?
>
>It's deep underground and fully segregated.

Define fully segregated. The DLR is above ground, 3rd rail and has been
extensively extended recently.

>>>though apparently longer lengths of third rail cost more overall than 25kV
>>>OHLE.
>>
>>I very much doubt that.
>
>The experts all say that's the case, and the Uckfield line was costed.

The GW cost a bloody fortune due to boring works for the catenary. I very
much doubt a 3rd rail solution would have cost anywhere near the same.

On 2022-02-11 14:58:47 +0000, Recliner said:

> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:54:02 +0100, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-11 14:44:15 +0000, Recliner said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:34:50 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:46:30 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:14:34 +0000
>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/02/2022 10:23, Theo wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-11 09:21:26 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>>>>> Quite possibly so. But it's not an unusual configuration for branch
>>>>>>>>>> lines joining electrified lines (see Thorpe/Wensum in another posting,
>>>>>>>>>> and the branches east and west off the MML near Leicester).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure, but without actually having bimodes running on those lines, we
>>>>>>>>> won't see how they are used. Perhaps someone has seen how the units
>>>>>>>>> switch modes on approach to Stowmarket, where the junction is a bit
>>>>>>>>> further from the station than at Ely.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 769s are currently on training runs for the North Downs Line. AIUI
>>>>>>>> current practice is to change from diesel to third rail on the move going
>>>>>>>> towards Guildford at Shalford Junction, but when leaving Guildford towards
>>>>>>>> Shalford the engine is started in the platform.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've only seen them pass through Guildford non-stop so far. Usually when
>>>>>>> I'm on the pedestrian bridge so I can't hear whether they are on
>>>>>>> electric or diesel. Though if they started the diesel on the fly as they
>>>>>>> pass through, I'd see the clag from the exhausts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why the hell don't they just electrify that line along with the Uckfield
>>>>>> line beats me.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know very well why not, and have regularly told us why you disagree
>>>>> with the reason.
>>>>
>>>> The cost argument is BS and we supposed to be decarbonising yet 2 well used
>>>> commuter routes in the SE remain diesel. Laying some 3rd rail would cost
>>>> buttons in comparison to Crossrail and HS2.
>>>
>>> As you well know, there's an effective ban on laying significant
>>> lengths of new third rail. That's the reason, not cost,
>>> though apparently longer lengths of third rail cost more overall than
>>> 25kV OHLE.
>>
>> Dual voltage trains are a very mature technology. 3rd rail is more
>> expensive not due to the actual 3rd rail itself, but due to the much
>> more extensive power distribution infrastructure needed because of the
>> frequent substations the system involves. My understaning is the "ban"
>> was on new installations, and that extensions to existing systems,
>> which these would be, are permitted. Otherwise it would have been
>> impossible to build the Battersea extension to the Northern line, which
>> clearly has been built because it exists.
>
> I think the ban is only on lines accessible by the public, so
> completely segregated lines like LU are exempt.

Railway lines are not accessible to the public. The regulation comes
from health and safety rules about exposed electrical conductors in the
workplace, and relates to railway staff who have to work on the line,
so are in the vicinity of conductor rails.

> For NR lines, the ban, in effect, seems to apply even to (significant)
> extensions of existing networks.

Fawkham Junction to Singlewell junction was electrified relatively
recently, certainly after the rules changed.

Robin

On 2022-02-11 15:55:58 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:

> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:59:48 +0000
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:56:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> As you well know, there's an effective ban on laying significant lengths of
>>>> new third rail. That's the reason, not cost,
>>>
>>> No there isn't if its continuation otherwise how would the northern line
>>> extension have been built?
>>
>> It's deep underground and fully segregated.
>
> Define fully segregated. The DLR is above ground, 3rd rail and has been
> extensively extended recently.

The choice of protected bottom contact 3rd rail for the DLR was made to
be compliant with the relevant safety regulations.

Robin

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:59:48 +0000
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:56:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> As you well know, there's an effective ban on laying significant lengths of
>>>> new third rail. That's the reason, not cost,
>>>
>>> No there isn't if its continuation otherwise how would the northern line
>>> extension have been built?
>>
>> It's deep underground and fully segregated.
>
> Define fully segregated. The DLR is above ground, 3rd rail and has been
> extensively extended recently.

It's not top contact.

>
>>>> though apparently longer lengths of third rail cost more overall than 25kV
>>>> OHLE.
>>>
>>> I very much doubt that.
>>
>> The experts all say that's the case, and the Uckfield line was costed.
>
> The GW cost a bloody fortune due to boring works for the catenary. I very
> much doubt a 3rd rail solution would have cost anywhere near the same.

The GW OHLE cost way more than it should have done, but it also meets specs
way beyond the capabilities of third rail.

On 2022-02-11 15:13:47 +0000, Theo said:

> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the ban is only on lines accessible by the public, so completely
>> segregated lines like LU are exempt.
>>
>> For NR lines, the ban, in effect, seems to apply even to (significant)
>> extensions of existing networks.
>
> Outside of LU tunnels, when was the last bit of top contact third rail
> installed?
>
> I can think of Redhill-Tonbridge, which was around 1992. Some small
> lengths at Fawkham Junction to connect with HS1 ~2003.
>
> Anywhere else?

Platforms 5 and 6 at Ebbsfleet and the connection from there to the
North Kent lines is the newest I can think of. There might be the odd
smattering of new track that came about in the Thameslink program.

Robin

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:29:20 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:59:48 +0000
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:56:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> As you well know, there's an effective ban on laying significant lengths
>of
>>>>> new third rail. That's the reason, not cost,
>>>>
>>>> No there isn't if its continuation otherwise how would the northern line
>>>> extension have been built?
>>>
>>> It's deep underground and fully segregated.
>>
>> Define fully segregated. The DLR is above ground, 3rd rail and has been
>> extensively extended recently.
>
>It's not top contact.

Watch those goalposts move.

>
>>
>>>>> though apparently longer lengths of third rail cost more overall than 25kV
>
>>>>> OHLE.
>>>>
>>>> I very much doubt that.
>>>
>>> The experts all say that's the case, and the Uckfield line was costed.
>>
>> The GW cost a bloody fortune due to boring works for the catenary. I very
>> much doubt a 3rd rail solution would have cost anywhere near the same.
>
>The GW OHLE cost way more than it should have done, but it also meets specs
>way beyond the capabilities of third rail.

Specs which are not required for the north downs or uckfield line.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:27:39 +0100
Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>On 2022-02-11 15:55:58 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:59:48 +0000
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:56:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> As you well know, there's an effective ban on laying significant lengths
>of
>>>>> new third rail. That's the reason, not cost,
>>>>
>>>> No there isn't if its continuation otherwise how would the northern line
>>>> extension have been built?
>>>
>>> It's deep underground and fully segregated.
>>
>> Define fully segregated. The DLR is above ground, 3rd rail and has been
>> extensively extended recently.
>
>The choice of protected bottom contact 3rd rail for the DLR was made to
>be compliant with the relevant safety regulations.

Were those regulations the same in 1987 when bottom contact was chosen?

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:29:20 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:59:48 +0000
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:56:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> As you well know, there's an effective ban on laying significant lengths
>> of
>>>>>> new third rail. That's the reason, not cost,
>>>>>
>>>>> No there isn't if its continuation otherwise how would the northern line
>>>>> extension have been built?
>>>>
>>>> It's deep underground and fully segregated.
>>>
>>> Define fully segregated. The DLR is above ground, 3rd rail and has been
>>> extensively extended recently.
>>
>> It's not top contact.
>
> Watch those goalposts move.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>> though apparently longer lengths of third rail cost more overall than 25kV
>>
>>>>>> OHLE.
>>>>>
>>>>> I very much doubt that.
>>>>
>>>> The experts all say that's the case, and the Uckfield line was costed.
>>>
>>> The GW cost a bloody fortune due to boring works for the catenary. I very
>>> much doubt a 3rd rail solution would have cost anywhere near the same.
>>
>> The GW OHLE cost way more than it should have done, but it also meets specs
>> way beyond the capabilities of third rail.
>
> Specs which are not required for the north downs or uckfield line.
>
>

Indeed not, and so OHLE would be much cheaper and simpler on those lines.
You were the one who cited the GW as an example.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:38:04 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> The GW OHLE cost way more than it should have done, but it also meets specs
>>> way beyond the capabilities of third rail.
>>
>> Specs which are not required for the north downs or uckfield line.
>>
>>
>
>Indeed not, and so OHLE would be much cheaper and simpler on those lines.

Why? There was nothing unusual about the GW, it just cost a lot to do the
piling for the catenary, no doubt the usual combination of incompetance and
theft contributed. The MML was hardly cheap and got cut because of the
expense too.

>You were the one who cited the GW as an example.

Most recent installation.

3rd rail requiring minimal infrastructure and a few substations would cost
buttons in comparison.

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.
>
>

In that specific geographical instance, the 'return from blockage' applies
mostly in the opposite direction. A train finding itself unable to access
Inverness station may wish to return to, perhaps, Beauly, Muir of Ord or
Tain; a train unable to access Georgemas Junction may also wish to
backtrack as far as Tain…

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:

>
>> Don't forget that these lines often have had two locomotives to handle
>> the gradients and the Kyle line had special sidings so they could leave
>> half the trucks behind and then return for them.
>
> How many locomotive hauled trains run on these lines? How many of them
> still need to be split like this? Sounds like something left over from
> steam days.
>

There appear to be paths for one or two a day in each direction on each
line; they're only activated when required (none of them appear to have run
in the last week, for example). I very strongly suspect that the trains
don't leave sections behind in random sidings!

Anna Noyd-Dryver

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

If you've returned to a charging station, why do you still need the
thunderbird? *confused*

Incidentally in Japan, "Thunderbird" is one of their named classifications
of passenger trains, and does not refer to a rescue train.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su3ll9$hl9$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:31:05 on Thu, 10 Feb
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>
>>>>>>> <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?
>
> But you'd need to roll out the charging stations too. The ones at Wick
> are no use to a battery train on the Cromer-Sheringham line.
>

Obviously.

But you get economies of scale for ordering and installing the chargers and
the trains.

>>>> 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.
>
> OK; I wonder if they've tried one of those Akku with two battery packs?
>

I can't find any evidence of a FLIRT with two power modules, but Stadler
GTW units have definitely been produced with two power modules.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su55of$3sj$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:59 on Fri, 11 Feb
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> The Far North line aside, there are other places where these trains could
>> easily be used. Take the Birmingham to Stansted Cross Country service via
>> Leicester.
>
> How big are the gaps? At least Syston to just north of Peterborough (but
> see later) and Peterborough to Ely. I don't recall how far the
> electrification goes out of Birmingham in the Nuneaton direction.
>
> Note also that a least one such service starts in Bristol (thence to
> Birmingham and beyond)
>

That's surely just an artefact of the current timetable and set diagrams,
with no commitment to run it as a through service forever; and could be
tweaked easily to suit new stock.

>> There’s already OHLE at both ends and hopefully at Leicester in
>> a few years.
>
> From what I see of the bi-mode FLIRTs at Ely, they don't change to
> electric on the fly as soon as they get a sniff of it (at Ely North for
> example) but wait until they get to the next station stop.
>
>> Not having the existing stock filling New Street with fumes
>> would be reason enough to consider the change over.
>
> Is a 3-car train once a hour really adding much to that fume-laden
> atmosphere? I find the noise of the idling diesels more objectionable.
>

It'd be nice to get rid of all diesels from there - Voyagers, 170s and WMR
units too.

> What do bi-mode trains do when switching from electric to diesel (when
> they inevitably have to). Are the engines re-started "just in time" to
> take up the traction, and does that ever happen on the fly at junctions
> a mile or two from a station, or always at a station stop?
>
> Maybe Anna can tell us what IETs do.

IETs change over on the move where appropriate (OTTOMH I can think of eight
signed pan up locations) and at stations where appropriate (six stations
with reminder boards). Electric -> diesel changeover can be done anywhere;
diesel -> electric (ie pan up) can be done anywhere at a standstill or up
to 20mph [1], or at linespeed at signed locations [2]. The engines start as
the pantograph drops and are ready to give full power around five seconds
later. They're preheated in advance to 40°C by a diesel-fired heater, if
necessary.

This varies from stock to stock (and perhaps operator to operator); for
example Northern's 769s change over at stations only, while I believe gWr's
will changeover on the move. I'd be surprised if the Stadlers *can't*
change on the move, but I don't know for sure.

[1] Except for underneath the Intersection Bridge at Cardiff.

[2] There's nothing special about the signed locations, no extra
strengthened items, extra tension etc. It's just a plain boring bit of OLE,
away from junctions, wire run changeovers, low bridges, signals (where
changeover might cause a distraction etc.), etc. Two former signed pan-up
locations have been removed as electrification progressed.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Did I inadvertently pick a bad example? The Greater Anglia trial of
> branch-line battery EMUs charging at the junction with the main line,
> launched a blaze of glory, fizzled out.
>

That was an experimental service with a 0th generation experimental unit
and was never intended to be a long-term thing. I'm sure lots of data was
gathered which informed subsequent developments.

> Anyway, in the timetable today, the Sheringham trains only spend 4
> minutes at Norwich (see also discussion of raising and dropping one's
> pants on the fly). How far does the OHL reach beyond Thorpe Junction to
> Wensum and beyond (I don't have a suitable data source handy).
>

Timetables and unit diagrams can be altered to suit, if necessary.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:14:34 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 11/02/2022 10:23, Theo wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The 769s are currently on training runs for the North Downs Line. AIUI
>>> current practice is to change from diesel to third rail on the move going
>>> towards Guildford at Shalford Junction, but when leaving Guildford towards
>>> Shalford the engine is started in the platform.
>>
>> I've only seen them pass through Guildford non-stop so far. Usually when
>> I'm on the pedestrian bridge so I can't hear whether they are on
>> electric or diesel. Though if they started the diesel on the fly as they
>> pass through, I'd see the clag from the exhausts.
>
> Why the hell don't they just electrify that line along with the Uckfield
> line beats me.
>
>

Because except in very limited circumstances, it's no longer permitted to
install exposed 750V conductors at ankle level around people's workplaces.
Just like every time the topic comes up here.

So it'd probably have to be OLE.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

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

>
> The impression I get is that pantographs require rather more maintenance
> than they are generally given, due to their propensity to tear down the
> knitting.

For the number of pan-raised-km, I'd suggest that dewirements are quite
rare. And do you know how many are caused by pantograph faults rather than
OLE faults?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:54:50 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:14:34 +0000
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2022 10:23, Theo wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The 769s are currently on training runs for the North Downs Line. AIUI
>>>> current practice is to change from diesel to third rail on the move going
>>>> towards Guildford at Shalford Junction, but when leaving Guildford towards
>>>> Shalford the engine is started in the platform.
>>>
>>> I've only seen them pass through Guildford non-stop so far. Usually when
>>> I'm on the pedestrian bridge so I can't hear whether they are on
>>> electric or diesel. Though if they started the diesel on the fly as they
>>> pass through, I'd see the clag from the exhausts.
>>
>> Why the hell don't they just electrify that line along with the Uckfield
>> line beats me.
>>
>>
>
>Because except in very limited circumstances, it's no longer permitted to
>install exposed 750V conductors at ankle level around people's workplaces.
>Just like every time the topic comes up here.

That doesn't apply to extending current installations. Unless some bed wetting
pillock has changed that rule too.

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

How do you get around the health and safety at work regulations?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2022-02-11 14:44:15 +0000, Recliner said:
>
>
>>
>> As you well know, there's an effective ban on laying significant
>> lengths of new third rail. That's the reason, not cost,
>> though apparently longer lengths of third rail cost more overall than
>> 25kV OHLE.
>
> Dual voltage trains are a very mature technology. 3rd rail is more
> expensive not due to the actual 3rd rail itself, but due to the much
> more extensive power distribution infrastructure needed because of the
> frequent substations the system involves.

Agreed.

> My understaning is the "ban"
> was on new installations, and that extensions to existing systems,
> which these would be, are permitted.

My understanding is that for main line railways, health and safety at work
legislation regarding exposed conductors in the workplace, prevent all but
minor extensions (eg adding sidings, or changing the track layout would be
permitted).

> Otherwise it would have been
> impossible to build the Battersea extension to the Northern line, which
> clearly has been built because it exists.
>

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

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:44:15 +0000
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:34:50 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:46:30 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:14:34 +0000
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/02/2022 10:23, Theo wrote:
>>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-11 09:21:26 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>>>> Quite possibly so. But it's not an unusual configuration for branch
>>>>>>>>> lines joining electrified lines (see Thorpe/Wensum in another posting,
>>>>>>>>> and the branches east and west off the MML near Leicester).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, but without actually having bimodes running on those lines, we
>>>>>>>> won't see how they are used. Perhaps someone has seen how the units
>>>>>>>> switch modes on approach to Stowmarket, where the junction is a bit
>>>>>>>> further from the station than at Ely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 769s are currently on training runs for the North Downs Line. AIUI
>>>>>>> current practice is to change from diesel to third rail on the move going
>>
>>>>>>> towards Guildford at Shalford Junction, but when leaving Guildford
>> towards
>>>>>>> Shalford the engine is started in the platform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've only seen them pass through Guildford non-stop so far. Usually when
>>>>>> I'm on the pedestrian bridge so I can't hear whether they are on
>>>>>> electric or diesel. Though if they started the diesel on the fly as they
>>>>>> pass through, I'd see the clag from the exhausts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why the hell don't they just electrify that line along with the Uckfield
>>>>> line beats me.
>>>>
>>>> You know very well why not, and have regularly told us why you disagree
>>>> with the reason.
>>>
>>> The cost argument is BS and we supposed to be decarbonising yet 2 well used
>>> commuter routes in the SE remain diesel. Laying some 3rd rail would cost
>>> buttons in comparison to Crossrail and HS2.
>>
>> As you well know, there's an effective ban on laying significant lengths of
>> new third rail. That's the reason, not cost,
>
> 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.

>> though apparently longer lengths of third rail cost more overall than 25kV
>> OHLE.
>
> I very much doubt that.
>

It's about the provision of power feeds. There are three feeds for the
entire GWML electrification, and IIRC three feeds for Island Line alone.

Anna Noyd-Dryver