Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> 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'?
>
>

Weymouth 1988 and Chester/Ellesmere Port 1994 are the last I can think of
OTTOMH.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<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.
>

DLR has shielded, bottom-contact 3rd rail, installation of which is
permitted, AIUI. Unfortunately for you, it's incompatible with NR's
existing 3rd rail system.

I strongly suspect that the DLR also only allows staff trackside when
trains aren't running, for obvious reasons.

>>>> 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.
>
>

GWEP cost more than anticipated for a number of reasons, AIUI principally
attributable to an inexperienced team due to lack of continuity from
previous projects. By the end they were getting much better at it.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<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.
>

Not at all. The ban applies to exposed live conductors in the workplace;
shielded bottom-contact 3rd rail is and continues to be acceptable.

All of this was determined last time this topic was discussed here.

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

Right, so OLE there wouldn't cost as much as the GWML.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:38:04 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> The GW OHLE cost way more than it should have done, but it also meets specs
>>>> way beyond the capabilities of third rail.
>>>
>>> Specs which are not required for the north downs or uckfield line.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Indeed not, and so OHLE would be much cheaper and simpler on those lines.
>
> Why? There was nothing unusual about the GW,

Except 140mph multiple-pan capability, etc.

> 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.
>

Goblin?

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

It's the substations and associated power feeds which appear to be the
expensive part, even if installation of compatible 3rd rail equipment was
permitted.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

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

As I said, "except in very limited circumstances" eg new sidings or some
track layout alterations. Not several miles of previously un-powered track.

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?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 11/02/2022 14:54, Bob 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.
>

A pedant writes: That's not third rail but fourth rail :-)

The real argument with the North Downs line is whether any form of
electrification is cost effective for two trains each way per hour.
Assuming the answer came out positive there are a number of reasons why
in that case third rail would be preferable to OLE. Not the least of
which is the NIMBY reaction to electric string appearing in the Surrey
Hills. On a more practical note, each end of the line connects with
other third rail networks meaning it wouldn't be restricted to a small
batch of dedicated stock.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 11/02/2022 14:54, Bob 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.
>>
>
> A pedant writes: That's not third rail but fourth rail :-)
>
> The real argument with the North Downs line is whether any form of
> electrification is cost effective for two trains each way per hour.
> Assuming the answer came out positive there are a number of reasons why
> in that case third rail would be preferable to OLE. Not the least of
> which is the NIMBY reaction to electric string appearing in the Surrey
> Hills. On a more practical note, each end of the line connects with
> other third rail networks meaning it wouldn't be restricted to a small
> batch of dedicated stock.
>

Just out if interest, regarding the health and safety at work act, how many
rail workers (as opposed to members of the public) get electrocuted by the
third rail each year?

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:45:31 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 11/02/2022 06:22, Charles Ellson 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.
>>>
>> 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.
>
>Is it remotely possible to describe it as a large city station?
>
No but neither would you describe it as a small country station. Even
a large nearly-in-a-city station like e.g. London Bridge can give you
little chance of shelter from the cold on many of its platforms.

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.

On 11 Feb 2022 15:13:47 +0000 (GMT), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>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?
>
The West London Line was 1993, possibly later for the last stretch
from Battersea into Clapham Junction?
<snip>

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.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.
>>
>
>DLR has shielded, bottom-contact 3rd rail, installation of which is
>permitted, AIUI. Unfortunately for you, it's incompatible with NR's
>existing 3rd rail system.
>
>I strongly suspect that the DLR also only allows staff trackside when
>trains aren't running, for obvious reasons.
>
Not trackside rather than on the track. There are various locations
with immediately adjacent unbarriered walkways and similar (Cutty
Sark?) where notices require control to be contacted before proceeding
onto them.
<snip>

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:57:20 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

><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?
>
You have a system of work which accords to the requirements of the
regulations which largely do not address to the finest detail of work
places and often involve "as far as practically possible" or similar.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The real argument with the North Downs line is whether any form of
> electrification is cost effective for two trains each way per hour.
> Assuming the answer came out positive there are a number of reasons why
> in that case third rail would be preferable to OLE. Not the least of
> which is the NIMBY reaction to electric string appearing in the Surrey
> Hills. On a more practical note, each end of the line connects with
> other third rail networks meaning it wouldn't be restricted to a small
> batch of dedicated stock.

It's interesting that the 769s are the perfect (and only) stock that will do
all of the North Downs route - diesel for the unelectrified parts, third
rail for the Southern electrified network, 25kV for Reading to Oxford (which
has been long planned). If you filled in the unelectrified gap you'd still
need a dual voltage unit.

Theo

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:24:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 11/02/2022 14:54, Bob 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.
>>>
>>
>> A pedant writes: That's not third rail but fourth rail :-)
>>
>> The real argument with the North Downs line is whether any form of
>> electrification is cost effective for two trains each way per hour.
>> Assuming the answer came out positive there are a number of reasons why
>> in that case third rail would be preferable to OLE. Not the least of
>> which is the NIMBY reaction to electric string appearing in the Surrey
>> Hills. On a more practical note, each end of the line connects with
>> other third rail networks meaning it wouldn't be restricted to a small
>> batch of dedicated stock.
>>
>
>Just out if interest, regarding the health and safety at work act, how many
>rail workers (as opposed to members of the public) get electrocuted by the
>third rail each year?
>
Only part of the picture; that needs to be compared with how many were
killed in the past with less stringent safety practices, not
forgetting trespassers and other non-staff.

On 11/02/2022 20:28, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:45:31 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2022 06:22, Charles Ellson 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.
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Is it remotely possible to describe it as a large city station?
>>
> No but neither would you describe it as a small country station. Even
> a large nearly-in-a-city station like e.g. London Bridge can give you
> little chance of shelter from the cold on many of its platforms.

London Bridge may have draughty platforms but it has lots of retail
outlets and offices, all of which will be heated.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 11/02/2022 21:30, Theo wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> The real argument with the North Downs line is whether any form of
>> electrification is cost effective for two trains each way per hour.
>> Assuming the answer came out positive there are a number of reasons why
>> in that case third rail would be preferable to OLE. Not the least of
>> which is the NIMBY reaction to electric string appearing in the Surrey
>> Hills. On a more practical note, each end of the line connects with
>> other third rail networks meaning it wouldn't be restricted to a small
>> batch of dedicated stock.
>
> It's interesting that the 769s are the perfect (and only) stock that will do
> all of the North Downs route - diesel for the unelectrified parts, third
> rail for the Southern electrified network, 25kV for Reading to Oxford (which
> has been long planned). If you filled in the unelectrified gap you'd still
> need a dual voltage unit.
>

165s seem to cope with working all the way :-)

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:18:43 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 11/02/2022 20:28, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:45:31 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/02/2022 06:22, Charles Ellson 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.
>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Is it remotely possible to describe it as a large city station?
>>>
>> No but neither would you describe it as a small country station. Even
>> a large nearly-in-a-city station like e.g. London Bridge can give you
>> little chance of shelter from the cold on many of its platforms.
>
>London Bridge may have draughty platforms but it has lots of retail
>outlets and offices, all of which will be heated.
>
OK for shoppers and shop/office workers but not very useful for a
passenger waiting for a train.

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:38:04 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> The GW OHLE cost way more than it should have done, but it also meets specs
>>>>> way beyond the capabilities of third rail.
>>>>
>>>> Specs which are not required for the north downs or uckfield line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed not, and so OHLE would be much cheaper and simpler on those lines.
>>
>> Why? There was nothing unusual about the GW,
>
> Except 140mph multiple-pan capability, etc.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Goblin?

MML, I think.

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> 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?
>

Old Dalby test track for the S stock testing? circa 2007.

GH

In message <juod0htshq2mrn918t7jdqkv1ka7enbupn@4ax.com>, at 22:33:17 on
Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:18:43 +0000, Graeme Wall
><rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 11/02/2022 20:28, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:45:31 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/02/2022 06:22, Charles Ellson 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Is it remotely possible to describe it as a large city station?
>>>>
>>> No but neither would you describe it as a small country station. Even
>>> a large nearly-in-a-city station like e.g. London Bridge can give you
>>> little chance of shelter from the cold on many of its platforms.
>>
>>London Bridge may have draughty platforms but it has lots of retail
>>outlets and offices, all of which will be heated.
>>
>OK for shoppers and shop/office workers but not very useful for a
>passenger waiting for a train.

I get the impression passengers are supposed to wait down on the
concourse until just before the train arrives, then go up the long
escalators to the platform.

Waterloo is much more enclosed. And while St Pancras has cold and windy
platforms, there's lots of shops, and the E* lounge, all of which need
heating even if that many shops isn't strictly necessary.
--
Roland Perry

In message <lfhd0h1hfkhqjm8a8p7eh3qrkvv11hd392@4ax.com>, at 20:28:53 on
Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:45:31 +0000, Graeme Wall
><rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 11/02/2022 06:22, Charles Ellson 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.
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>Is it remotely possible to describe it as a large city station?
>>
>No but neither would you describe it as a small country station. Even
>a large nearly-in-a-city station like e.g. London Bridge can give you
>little chance of shelter from the cold on many of its platforms.

That's mainly the fault of the rebuild, though.
--
Roland Perry

In message <su64cp$lr3$7@dont-email.me>, at 16:54:49 on Fri, 11 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>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.

Up to a point, but it's partly a marriage between the Nottingham-Cardiff
service and the Birmingham-Stansted. Very little of the former is
electrified.

One of the things that's struck me the last few days (although I had
experienced it many times), looking at timetables, is the number of the
regional/branch services which turn round very quickly. Juggling the
timetable for longer dwells at the ends could result in needing a lot
more sets/drivers.

>>> 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.

Perhaps this is a case of "every little helps" or "you have to start
somewhere". But on it's own it's a drop in the Ocean.

>> 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.

Thanks for the explanation.

Are there special "pan down" signs at junctions where carry ahead it's
OK to keep it up, but turning off onto a branch line requires it to be
dropped?
--
Roland Perry

In message <su64co$lr3$5@dont-email.me>, at 16:54:48 on Fri, 11 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <su3e1v$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*

You'd need a Thunderbird if the train "remained there rather than
heading off into the blizzard". Also if there's only charging at the
ends, not at intermediate places, and you only had sufficient battery
remaining to get to a station.

Even if you had a top-up station halfway between Thurso and Inverness,
it's still be a long way from there to a landslip just outside
Inverness, and back to the centre point of the line. or do we need
three, four, five, intermediate charging points, with all the cost of
installation?
--
Roland Perry

In message <su64cp$lr3$6@dont-email.me>, at 16:54:49 on Fri, 11 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>>>>>>> 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.

Do trains and charging stations really get significantly cheaper, the
more you order? Not convinced there's much economy of scale in doing the
civil engineering to install them and their power feeds either.

--
Roland Perry

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:45:31 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2022 06:22, Charles Ellson 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.
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Is it remotely possible to describe it as a large city station?
>>
> No but neither would you describe it as a small country station. Even
> a large nearly-in-a-city station like e.g. London Bridge can give you
> little chance of shelter from the cold on many of its platforms.
>

A station such as London Bridge will have many areas of toilets, offices,
mess rooms, locker rooms, retail units etc. which will be heated; this
sub-thread ("Would station energy usage be significant compared to that of
the trains?" "Depends how the station is heated") hasn't specified 'only
the public waiting areas of the station'.

Anna Noyd-Dryver