<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:59:49 -0000 (UTC)
>
>>
>>
>> The rules haven't changed since last time we discussed this topic. Fancy a
>> length of 750V DC live rail across the middle of your office?
>
> I'll take that any day over 25KV in the ceiling.
>

You have 5m high ceilings in your house? Awesome! Where do you live,
Windsor Palace?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 12/02/2022 15:24, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>> Change them back again.
>
> And how achievable do you think that actually is?
>
>> Frankly if you want to be safe don't get a job
>> maintaining railway infrastructure that involves hundreds of tons of
>> machinery and lethal voltages.
>>
>>
>
> Any other rules you'd like to change while we're at it? Get twelve year
> olds back up chimneys and in cotton mills, perhaps? Make asbestos legal
> again?
>

I'm sure if Rees-Mog has his way when scrapping EU "unnecessary"
regulations we're have all that back again. The fun bit will be how
many UK inspired ones he'll get rid off.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:24:02 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> How do you get around the health and safety at work regulations?
>>
>> Change them back again.
>
>And how achievable do you think that actually is?

We're talking about over the top safety rules, not immutable laws of physics.
Changing them would be no problem if there was a will.

>> Frankly if you want to be safe don't get a job
>> maintaining railway infrastructure that involves hundreds of tons of
>> machinery and lethal voltages.
>>
>>
>
>Any other rules you'd like to change while we're at it? Get twelve year
>olds back up chimneys and in cotton mills, perhaps? Make asbestos legal
>again?

Perhaps we should just go back to horses pulling trains at 5mph, don't want any
of that dangerous electricity or flammable diesel do we!

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:35:33 +0000
martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>On 12/02/2022 15:24, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Any other rules you'd like to change while we're at it? Get twelve year
>> olds back up chimneys and in cotton mills, perhaps? Make asbestos legal
>> again?
>>
>
>I'm sure if Rees-Mog has his way when scrapping EU "unnecessary"
>regulations we're have all that back again. The fun bit will be how
>many UK inspired ones he'll get rid off.

Oddly the drivers on steam railways don't seem too concerned about all the
risks. The bollock free tossers on the national railways - probably RMT members
- OTOH are another matter. Still, this is what you get with an increasingly
feminised society. Witness all the neurotics still wearing facemasks even
in their own cars.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>
>
> Oddly the drivers on steam railways don't seem too concerned about all the
> risks. The bollock free tossers on the national railways - probably RMT members

If by Steam Railways you mean preserved lines I would hope anyone in the
responsible positions connected with running a railway where the public are
carried or even be affected by the railways presence will be taking the
role seriously and not just continue as if they playing with a large train
set.

There has been more than one incident where a heritage operation hasn’t
taken things serious enough that injuries have happened or there has been a
near miss, eg sending a coach into service
with the toilet floor missing and an inadequately secured door.
Doing something unpaid because you like to do so as a hobby won’t stop a
manslaughter charge.

> - OTOH are another matter. Still, this is what you get with an increasingly
> feminised society.

Like all those female civil engineers wheeled out on programmes about
Crossrail etc always with immaculate white boiler suits and hands that have
never held a shovel.

Perhaps a bloke swearing at some workers to get an effin move on gets a
bit of a result as the chaps
know he has done it, whereas a 20 something girlie fresh out of uni hasn’t
got the presence required.
Maybe that is why such projects always overun.

GH

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:24:02 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> How do you get around the health and safety at work regulations?
>>>
>>> Change them back again.
>>
>> And how achievable do you think that actually is?
>
> We're talking about over the top safety rules, not immutable laws of physics.
> Changing them would be no problem if there was a will.
>

I'm talking about the same thing. In the real world, right now, with
current politicians, and current public attitudes, how likely do you think
it will be to get rid of the legislation which prevents the installation of
new, exposed, high-voltage live conductors at ankle height, around the
workplace?

>>> Frankly if you want to be safe don't get a job
>>> maintaining railway infrastructure that involves hundreds of tons of
>>> machinery and lethal voltages.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Any other rules you'd like to change while we're at it? Get twelve year
>> olds back up chimneys and in cotton mills, perhaps? Make asbestos legal
>> again?
>
> Perhaps we should just go back to horses pulling trains at 5mph, don't want any
> of that dangerous electricity or flammable diesel do we!
>
>

Electricity and liquid fuels are perfectly safe if handled properly, eg
putting the conductors out of reach, or covering the most easily touched
parts with insulation. Which, oddly enough, is what we're permitted to do.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:35:33 +0000
> martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> On 12/02/2022 15:24, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> Any other rules you'd like to change while we're at it? Get twelve year
>>> olds back up chimneys and in cotton mills, perhaps? Make asbestos legal
>>> again?
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure if Rees-Mog has his way when scrapping EU "unnecessary"
>> regulations we're have all that back again. The fun bit will be how
>> many UK inspired ones he'll get rid off.
>
> Oddly the drivers on steam railways don't seem too concerned about all the
> risks. The bollock free tossers on the national railways - probably RMT members
> - OTOH are another matter.

Which steam railways have 3rd rail?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 12 Feb 2022 16:31:42 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Oddly the drivers on steam railways don't seem too concerned about all the
>> risks. The bollock free tossers on the national railways - probably RMT
>members
>
>
>If by Steam Railways you mean preserved lines I would hope anyone in the
>responsible positions connected with running a railway where the public are
>carried or even be affected by the railways presence will be taking the
>role seriously and not just continue as if they playing with a large train
>set.

I meant in the sense of burning coal, high pressure steam well above 100C
and a "cab" thats all to easy to fall out of if you're not careful.

>> - OTOH are another matter. Still, this is what you get with an increasingly
>> feminised society.
>
>Like all those female civil engineers wheeled out on programmes about
>Crossrail etc always with immaculate white boiler suits and hands that have
>never held a shovel.

Well they either wheel out a woman or one of the few ethnics in the team. The
fact that most of the work is done by white males isn't something the media
wokery want to think about.

>Perhaps a bloke swearing at some workers to get an effin move on gets a
>bit of a result as the chaps
>know he has done it, whereas a 20 something girlie fresh out of uni hasn’t
>got the presence required.
>Maybe that is why such projects always overun.

They always overrun because the bidding teams at contract time always under
estimate the time, the cost or both.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:42:25 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:24:02 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> How do you get around the health and safety at work regulations?
>>>>
>>>> Change them back again.
>>>
>>> And how achievable do you think that actually is?
>>
>> We're talking about over the top safety rules, not immutable laws of
>physics.
>> Changing them would be no problem if there was a will.
>>
>
>I'm talking about the same thing. In the real world, right now, with
>current politicians, and current public attitudes, how likely do you think
>it will be to get rid of the legislation which prevents the installation of
>new, exposed, high-voltage live conductors at ankle height, around the
>workplace?

Why do you keep calling it a workplace? An office its a workplace, a railway
is a site, different rules apply. And frankly I doubt anyone would care about
from the RMT who no doubt would call a strike and be ignored.

>> Perhaps we should just go back to horses pulling trains at 5mph, don't want
>any
>> of that dangerous electricity or flammable diesel do we!
>>
>>
>
>Electricity and liquid fuels are perfectly safe if handled properly, eg
>putting the conductors out of reach, or covering the most easily touched
>parts with insulation. Which, oddly enough, is what we're permitted to do.

3rd rail is perfectly safe if you don't do something stupid like touching it.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:42:25 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:35:33 +0000
>> martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2022 15:24, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> Any other rules you'd like to change while we're at it? Get twelve year
>>>> olds back up chimneys and in cotton mills, perhaps? Make asbestos legal
>>>> again?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure if Rees-Mog has his way when scrapping EU "unnecessary"
>>> regulations we're have all that back again. The fun bit will be how
>>> many UK inspired ones he'll get rid off.
>>
>> Oddly the drivers on steam railways don't seem too concerned about all the
>> risks. The bollock free tossers on the national railways - probably RMT
>members
>> - OTOH are another matter.
>
>Which steam railways have 3rd rail?

The risks of steam power. Do try and keep up.

In message <su87fr$1qg3$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:59:55 on Sat, 12 Feb
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:

>25KV advocates forget just how fuck ugly and intrusive it looks. Not
>to mention falling trees tend to make a total mess of it and there are a lot
>of trees in surrey.

And tree huggers. At one point the main objection to doubling the runway
at Gatwick appeared to be the need to fell just one tree which was in
the way.
--
Roland Perry

In message <su7p0v$alr$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:53:03 on Sat, 12 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <su64cp$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:
>>
>>>> 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?
>
>Yes, the arrangements vary depending how much run-off wiring there is
>around the branch.

I was envisioning a situation with no run-off wiring. I don't think any
of the three diverging-off-OHL routes at Ely have it, for example.

>One of our locations has the pan-down (and pan up)
>signage on the branch. The other locations have the "changeover ahead",
>"diesel" and "pan must be down" signs with an arrow underneath them
>indicating the route for which they apply [1]. Junctions for routes where
>IETs and 769s don't currently operate don't have such signs.
>
>[1] or in one instance, where the diesel line is geographically straight
>ahead and the electric route diverges, but with equal speeds across the
>junction, the signage includes a three-letter code indicating the route to
>which it applies.
>
>
>Anna Noyd-Dryver

--
Roland Perry

On 12/02/2022 11:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> 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 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.
>
> Its still a very exposed live conductor and if you brushed your leg against
> it you'd probably be just as dead.
>

You'd have to get into a very convoluted position to brush your leg
against the exposed bit.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 12/02/2022 06:55, Roland Perry wrote:
> 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:
>> 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?

No, we need to deploy the battery units on a more suitable line, and
cascade the nicest of their redundant DMUs to the Wick and Kyle routes.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 12/02/2022 11:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Not at all. The ban applies to exposed live conductors in the workplace;
>>> shielded bottom-contact 3rd rail is and continues to be acceptable.
>>
>> Its still a very exposed live conductor and if you brushed your leg against
>> it you'd probably be just as dead.
>>
>
> You'd have to get into a very convoluted position to brush your leg
> against the exposed bit.
>

<https://railwaymatters.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/dlr-contact-system-diagram.png>

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su7p0v$alr$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:53:03 on Sat, 12 Feb
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su64cp$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:
>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>
>> Yes, the arrangements vary depending how much run-off wiring there is
>> around the branch.
>
> I was envisioning a situation with no run-off wiring. I don't think any
> of the three diverging-off-OHL routes at Ely have it, for example.
>

There are only two locations on the GWML where there's no run-off wiring at
the junction. Everywhere else has at least a few yards of run-off wiring
beneath which to put the "zero balise" which will ping the pan down, should
the driver manage to ignore all the signage and other cues.

One is largely ignored, because there's at most two ECS IETs per day booked
over that route. [1]

The other is a different situation than yours because the only electrified
route that goes onwards from that location is for a shunt move; the zero
balise is right beyond the signal. So the outward part off the shunt move
is done on diesel by IETs. 387s don't have the zero balise equipment (it's
part of the APCO, Automatic Power Changeover, equipment which isn't used as
such on the GWML but is still active to provide zero balise functionality).
Presumably the assumption is that you're less likely to try to drive an EMU
onto a non-electrified route, than to forget to change over a bi-mode
train.

There is another similar location, electric services terminate but diesel
services run through, and the wires end immediately after the station (the
pan down signage always allows space for the changeover to fail and the
train can still be stopped under the wires). At this station, terminating
IETs change over to diesel on approach because the zero balise is before
the station. After terminating the train can revert to electric.

[1] There are also two non-passenger loops which IETs could potentially use
but aren't wired and don't have signage

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>
> I think the project has stalled or been abandoned for other reasons but
> that would make the scheme to close Watford Met and reroute the trains to
> Watford junction via the proposed Croxley link
> almost impossible to accomplish with existing stock. So I doubt that it
> will be revived at all though it would be a remote possibility anyway.
>

In theory, at least the Met 4th rail tracks would be replacing existing 3rd
rail track, so it would not be a new installation.

On 12/02/2022 20:45, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <su7p0v$alr$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:53:03 on Sat, 12 Feb
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <su64cp$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:
>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Yes, the arrangements vary depending how much run-off wiring there is
>>> around the branch.
>>
>> I was envisioning a situation with no run-off wiring. I don't think any
>> of the three diverging-off-OHL routes at Ely have it, for example.
>>
>
> There are only two locations on the GWML where there's no run-off wiring at
> the junction. Everywhere else has at least a few yards of run-off wiring
> beneath which to put the "zero balise" which will ping the pan down, should
> the driver manage to ignore all the signage and other cues.
>
> One is largely ignored, because there's at most two ECS IETs per day booked
> over that route. [1]
>
> The other is a different situation than yours because the only electrified
> route that goes onwards from that location is for a shunt move; the zero
> balise is right beyond the signal. So the outward part off the shunt move
> is done on diesel by IETs. 387s don't have the zero balise equipment (it's
> part of the APCO, Automatic Power Changeover, equipment which isn't used as
> such on the GWML but is still active to provide zero balise functionality).
> Presumably the assumption is that you're less likely to try to drive an EMU
> onto a non-electrified route, than to forget to change over a bi-mode
> train.
Interestingly the 387 services to and from Cardiff have a class 9 headcode:-
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G80781/2022-02-14/detailed
Presumably to remind the signallers they're electric only.
>
> There is another similar location, electric services terminate but diesel
> services run through, and the wires end immediately after the station (the
> pan down signage always allows space for the changeover to fail and the
> train can still be stopped under the wires). At this station, terminating
> IETs change over to diesel on approach because the zero balise is before
> the station. After terminating the train can revert to electric.
>
> [1] There are also two non-passenger loops which IETs could potentially use
> but aren't wired and don't have signage
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
>

kRecliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>>> 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
>>>
>> I think the project has stalled or been abandoned for other reasons but
>> that would make the scheme to close Watford Met and reroute the trains to
>> Watford junction via the proposed Croxley link
>> almost impossible to accomplish with existing stock. So I doubt that it
>> will be revived at all though it would be a remote possibility anyway.
>>
>
> In theory, at least the Met 4th rail tracks would be replacing existing 3rd
> rail track, so it would not be a new installation.
>
>
>

I did wonder if that would apply, ( and of course it was 4th rail at one
time) but hasn’t the Croxley branch actually been closed now for some years
rather than just lying disused. I would have thought that any grandfather
rights would have extinguished with the closure and the new link between
the Met and the branch though short would not have any.
GH

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> kRecliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> I think the project has stalled or been abandoned for other reasons but
>>> that would make the scheme to close Watford Met and reroute the trains to
>>> Watford junction via the proposed Croxley link
>>> almost impossible to accomplish with existing stock. So I doubt that it
>>> will be revived at all though it would be a remote possibility anyway.
>>>
>>
>> In theory, at least the Met 4th rail tracks would be replacing existing 3rd
>> rail track, so it would not be a new installation.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I did wonder if that would apply, ( and of course it was 4th rail at one
> time) but hasn’t the Croxley branch actually been closed now for some years
> rather than just lying disused. I would have thought that any grandfather
> rights would have extinguished with the closure and the new link between
> the Met and the branch though short would not have any.
>

I'm not sure, but nobody has mentioned that as an objection, so I guess the
grandfather rights did apply.

In message <su92oi$ghj$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:45:22 on Sat, 12 Feb
2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>On 12/02/2022 06:55, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <su64co$lr3$5@dont-email.me>, at 16:54:48 on Fri, 11 Feb
>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>>> 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?
>
>No, we need to deploy the battery units on a more suitable line, and
>cascade the nicest of their redundant DMUs to the Wick and Kyle routes.

Yes, that's the obvious solution. Net zero doesn't mean gross zero.
--
Roland Perry

In message <su968n$91m$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:45:11 on Sat, 12 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Yes, the arrangements vary depending how much run-off wiring there is
>>> around the branch.
>>
>> I was envisioning a situation with no run-off wiring. I don't think any
>> of the three diverging-off-OHL routes at Ely have it, for example.
>
>There are only two locations on the GWML where there's no run-off wiring at
>the junction. Everywhere else has at least a few yards of run-off wiring
>beneath which to put the "zero balise" which will ping the pan down, should
>the driver manage to ignore all the signage and other cues.

Does that mean run-off wiring would have to be installed at those three
junctions near Ely (and the two near Peterborough, and wherever else
en-route) to facilitate this battery-train charging on the fly scheme?
--
Roland Perry

In message <fnrc0h1uanq1um6ua6cto3pd8oejftipvc@4ax.com>, at 14:14:26 on
Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 17:54:20 +0000, 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).
>
>Yes, as you know I've said several times. There would need to be at
>least two charging points along the route, and I've
>suggested possibilities.

I've suggested one that actually has a grid connection handy. As well as
moving the northern one to Thurso (which has) rather than Wick (which
doesn't).

>>Aren't multiple charging stations diametrically opposed to the
>>proposition that there's now a mythical train that can do end-to-end
>>on one charge?
>
>There isn't.

So it seems, despite claims early in the thread, that were based on
mileage myths, as much as airbrushing out only-charge-at-the-ends
operational issues.
--
Roland Perry

On 12/02/2022 12:44, Marland wrote:

> I think the project has stalled or been abandoned for other reasons but
> that would make the scheme to close Watford Met and reroute the trains to
> Watford junction via the proposed Croxley link
> almost impossible to accomplish with existing stock. So I doubt that it
> will be revived at all though it would be a remote possibility anyway.

There is/was a study looking at gadgetbahns for the area.

--
Arthur Figgis

On 2022-02-12 11:55:30 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:

> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:57:23 -0000 (UTC)
> 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.
>
> Which will never be used just as it hasn't on the ECML.

With the resignalling to ETCS2 on the ECML (as discussed in another
thread recently), the issues preventing >125 mph running on the ECML
will be resolved, and it will be possible to run trains at higher
speeds. Too late for the 91s, though.

Robin