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

The claims were that the current record distance is 15% or 25% short of the
Inverness-Wick distance. There was an initial typo suggesting that the
record was 25% longer, but that was corrected.

Sam

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

On 13/02/2022 09:44, Roland Perry wrote:
> 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?

Perhaps they can design a version of the balise which only gives out its
"pan down" signal when the points ahead are set for an unpowered route.

On 12/02/2022 14:44, Sam Wilson 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. 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.
>
> Here’s your chance:
> <https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17603553/sun-readers-tell-me-of-eu-regulation-abolished/>
>
> Sam
>

Mr Muttley does make a valid point in that getting rid of "diesel
islands" on the former Southern Region would be a good, logical idea,
regardless of the initial cost, and there is some overcaution in
prevention of limited extensions.

If 3rd rail is considered deadly dangerous, why is DfT not offering to
finance conversion of all UK 3rd rail systems to overhead
electrification???

In message <sub2h3$kpq$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:53:39 on Sun, 13 Feb
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> 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.
>
>The claims were that the current record distance is 15% or 25% short of the
>Inverness-Wick distance. There was an initial typo suggesting that the
>record was 25% longer, but that was corrected.

Given that the consensus is now that charging stations only at the ends
is a non-starter, the relevance of the "world record" is bleak.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sub2h3$kpq$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:53:39 on Sun, 13 Feb
> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> The claims were that the current record distance is 15% or 25% short of the
>> Inverness-Wick distance. There was an initial typo suggesting that the
>> record was 25% longer, but that was corrected.
>
> Given that the consensus is now that charging stations only at the ends
> is a non-starter, the relevance of the "world record" is bleak.

It always was. I don’t know how you got the idea that it was anything
other. Perhaps you could go back and check the beginning of the thread
again?

Sam

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

Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/02/2022 14:44, Sam Wilson 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. 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.
>>
>> Here’s your chance:
>> <https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17603553/sun-readers-tell-me-of-eu-regulation-abolished/>
>>
>> Sam
>>
>
> Mr Muttley does make a valid point in that getting rid of "diesel
> islands" on the former Southern Region would be a good, logical idea,
> regardless of the initial cost, and there is some overcaution in
> prevention of limited extensions.
>
> If 3rd rail is considered deadly dangerous, why is DfT not offering to
> finance conversion of all UK 3rd rail systems to overhead
> electrification???
>
>

There is quite a lobby movement to reinstate the section from Uckfield to
Lewis to relieve the line to Brighton though I don’t know how the
reduction in commuting caused by the Covid if it proves to be permanent as
affected the case.
It seems a narrow path has to be decided if it was ever to go ahead.
A Diesel Island of that length would seem to be against the trend to
reduce fossil fuel use but under the rules that have been described using
third rail would be difficult to get permission for ,
that leaves overhead or battery operation. Would Hurst Green to Lewis
justify a section of 25000V overhead with dual voltage stock or a fleet of
units which could cover the gap on batteries.

GH.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 15:58:12 +0000, Marland wrote:

> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
....
>> If 3rd rail is considered deadly dangerous, why is DfT not offering to
>> finance conversion of all UK 3rd rail systems to overhead
>> electrification???
>>
>>
>>
> There is quite a lobby movement to reinstate the section from Uckfield
> to Lewis to relieve the line to Brighton though I don’t know how the
> reduction in commuting caused by the Covid if it proves to be permanent
> as affected the case.
> It seems a narrow path has to be decided if it was ever to go ahead.
> A Diesel Island of that length would seem to be against the trend to
> reduce fossil fuel use but under the rules that have been described
> using third rail would be difficult to get permission for ,
> that leaves overhead or battery operation. Would Hurst Green to Lewis
> justify a section of 25000V overhead with dual voltage stock or a fleet
> of units which could cover the gap on batteries.
>
> GH.

Have we decided that some form of shielded bottom-contact 3rd-rail is
also not possible?

If it were, then surely just changing shoe-gear at the ends of the new
bit of line would be better than dual-voltage?

nib

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

Not necessarily, they may decide to use a different system for ensuring
that changeover is done at the appropriate location.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On 13/02/2022 09:44, Roland Perry wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Perhaps they can design a version of the balise which only gives out its
> "pan down" signal when the points ahead are set for an unpowered route.
>

I understand that that is possible, and I'm therefore surprised that it
isn't used at Cardiff.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 15:58:12 +0000, Marland wrote:
>
>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> If 3rd rail is considered deadly dangerous, why is DfT not offering to
>>> finance conversion of all UK 3rd rail systems to overhead
>>> electrification???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> There is quite a lobby movement to reinstate the section from Uckfield
>> to Lewis to relieve the line to Brighton though I don’t know how the
>> reduction in commuting caused by the Covid if it proves to be permanent
>> as affected the case.
>> It seems a narrow path has to be decided if it was ever to go ahead.
>> A Diesel Island of that length would seem to be against the trend to
>> reduce fossil fuel use but under the rules that have been described
>> using third rail would be difficult to get permission for ,
>> that leaves overhead or battery operation. Would Hurst Green to Lewis
>> justify a section of 25000V overhead with dual voltage stock or a fleet
>> of units which could cover the gap on batteries.
>>
>>.
>
> Have we decided that some form of shielded bottom-contact 3rd-rail is
> also not possible?
>
> If it were, then surely just changing shoe-gear at the ends of the new
> bit of line would be better than dual-voltage?
>
>

It is permitted, but it's not compatible with the existing 3rd rail
equipment.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:34:02 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:

> nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 15:58:12 +0000, Marland wrote:
....
>> Have we decided that some form of shielded bottom-contact 3rd-rail is
>> also not possible?
>>
>> If it were, then surely just changing shoe-gear at the ends of the new
>> bit of line would be better than dual-voltage?
>>
>>
>>
> It is permitted, but it's not compatible with the existing 3rd rail
> equipment.
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver

Do you mean that it wouldn't be possible to design some automated gadget
to retract one set of shoes and enable another - or is there some
fundamental reason that you can't combine both on one train?

nib

nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:34:02 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>
>> nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 15:58:12 +0000, Marland wrote:
> ...
>>> Have we decided that some form of shielded bottom-contact 3rd-rail is
>>> also not possible?
>>>
>>> If it were, then surely just changing shoe-gear at the ends of the new
>>> bit of line would be better than dual-voltage?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It is permitted, but it's not compatible with the existing 3rd rail
>> equipment.
>>
>
> Do you mean that it wouldn't be possible to design some automated gadget
> to retract one set of shoes and enable another - or is there some
> fundamental reason that you can't combine both on one train?
>
>

Presumably it would be possible - but I think to have the 'new' equipment
not foul of loading gauge, it'll have to be in effectively the same place
as the existing equipment; and to change over from one to the other will
need a length of track with neither, and sufficiently long that if the
equipment doesn't retract as intended, the train can stop short of wrecking
the other rail when I reaches it…

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 11/02/2022 09:02, Bob wrote:
> On 2022-02-11 08:29:28 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> 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)
>>
>>> 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.
>
> That may just be down to the nearness of Ely to the start of the wires,
> that it's one less thing for the driver to deal with while navigating
> the junctions and station approach, rather than any technical limitation.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> I've been on an IET that left Reading on electric and ran non-stop to
> Oxford, so they certainly can switch to diesel on the fly.  I think
> there are certain restrictions on raising the pantograph at speed in
> certain locations, which would restrict the ability to take up the
> electric power on the fly.  Eurostars, in the era of Fawkham Junction to
> Singlewell Junction routing switched from 3rd rail to OHL on the fly, so
> it is certainly possible.
>
> Robin
>

M8s on the New Haven Line always raise or drop their pantographs on the
fly. Engineers (Drivers) have told me that it is technically possible to
swicth to AC and raise the pans whilst holding at Pelham on the way out,
assuming the train stops there, but that this can cause a rather rough
start.

Changeover is very close to Pelham station, causing the engineers to
concentrate on braking the train, whilst raising the pans and then
assimilating the new power. Hence the original question as to whether it
would simply be easier to bring the consist into the station solely on
air, and then switch modes as well as raise the pans.

It is not possible to change back to DC at stationary as there is no 3rd
rail in Pelham, but only at changeover. Anyway, the pans on dual-mode,
M-series trains automatically come down as soon as one of the shoes
comes into contact with an energised 3rd rail -- regardless if the
engineer has dropped the pans and switched the power mode.

On 12 Feb 2022 12:44:37 GMT, 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.
>
Met. S stock trains running into Watford Junction would be doing it
under similar electrical conditions as other S stock running to
Wimbledon and Richmond, both sharing with different varieties of NR
trains.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:51:10 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:57:21 -0000 (UTC)
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> No there isn't if its continuation otherwise how would the northern line
>>> extension have been built?
>>>
>>
>>Because LU regulations involve the power being off in tunnels before any
>>staff can access the track, and NR regulations don't.
>
>So I guess we should ban anyone working on the roads unless the traffic is
>completely stopped? Ok, might mean the M1 closes for 2 years but you can't
>be too save right?
>
That is exactly what occurs on a regular basis with motorways
overnight, for the weekend or sometimes longer. Motorways commonly
have one side closed off for prolonged periods. Other roads are
frequently closed entirely or with single-line working imposed as
currently found in the vicinity of Old Oak Common.
<snip>

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 07:42:47 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.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?
>>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Large chunks of exposed conductor at ankle height around the workplace is
>"the finest detail"?!
>
Conductor rails supplying traction current are specific to railways
not to the general subject of workplace electrical supplies. Such
things are dealt with in regulations subsidiary to the main statutes
applicable to workplace health and safety or electrical legislation
more concerned with the general distribution and use of electricity.
The specific needs associated with railway safety are better served by
concentrating them into less sources rather than having to pull
information from multiple sources of primary and secondary
legislation.

What I missed from my previous response is that you do not "get
around" regulations rather than finding a way to do something within
regulations or else in the few cases where it is justified you come up
with a new set of regulations tailored to a particular need and not
for use elsewhere.

On 13 Feb 2022 15:58:12 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
wrote:

>Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/02/2022 14:44, Sam Wilson 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. 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.
>>>
>>> Here’s your chance:
>>> <https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17603553/sun-readers-tell-me-of-eu-regulation-abolished/>
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>
>> Mr Muttley does make a valid point in that getting rid of "diesel
>> islands" on the former Southern Region would be a good, logical idea,
>> regardless of the initial cost, and there is some overcaution in
>> prevention of limited extensions.
>>
>> If 3rd rail is considered deadly dangerous, why is DfT not offering to
>> finance conversion of all UK 3rd rail systems to overhead
>> electrification???
>>
>>
>
>There is quite a lobby movement to reinstate the section from Uckfield to
>Lewis to relieve the line to Brighton though I don’t know how the
>reduction in commuting caused by the Covid if it proves to be permanent as
>affected the case.
>It seems a narrow path has to be decided if it was ever to go ahead.
>A Diesel Island of that length would seem to be against the trend to
>reduce fossil fuel use but under the rules that have been described using
>third rail would be difficult to get permission for ,
>that leaves overhead or battery operation. Would Hurst Green to Lewis
>justify a section of 25000V overhead with dual voltage stock or a fleet of
>units which could cover the gap on batteries.
>
There is already a lot of dual-voltage -equipped or -convertable stock
trundling around in third rail territory so that is no longer the
problem that it was.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:05:52 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:42:25 -0000 (UTC)
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:24:02 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> How do you get around the health and safety at work regulations?
>>>>>
>>>>> Change them back again.
>>>>
>>>> And how achievable do you think that actually is?
>>>
>>> We're talking about over the top safety rules, not immutable laws of
>>physics.
>>> Changing them would be no problem if there was a will.
>>>
>>
>>I'm talking about the same thing. In the real world, right now, with
>>current politicians, and current public attitudes, how likely do you think
>>it will be to get rid of the legislation which prevents the installation of
>>new, exposed, high-voltage live conductors at ankle height, around the
>>workplace?
>
>Why do you keep calling it a workplace? An office its a workplace, a railway
>is a site, different rules apply. And frankly I doubt anyone would care about
>from the RMT who no doubt would call a strike and be ignored.
>
>>> 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.
>
There is no law preventing stupidity as demonstrated when passengers
go walkabout on live tracks.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:56:02 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:59:49 -0000 (UTC)
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>><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?
>
>I'll take that any day over 25KV in the ceiling.
>
How about roughly 1000v on the ceiling?

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2022 12:44:37 GMT, 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.
>>
> Met. S stock trains running into Watford Junction would be doing it
> under similar electrical conditions as other S stock running to
> Wimbledon and Richmond, both sharing with different varieties of NR
> trains.
>

That's not the potential problem.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 22:40:21 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 12 Feb 2022 12:44:37 GMT, 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.
>>>
>> Met. S stock trains running into Watford Junction would be doing it
>> under similar electrical conditions as other S stock running to
>> Wimbledon and Richmond, both sharing with different varieties of NR
>> trains.
>>
>
>That's not the potential problem.
>
Which is?

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2022 12:44:37 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
> 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.
>>
> Met. S stock trains running into Watford Junction would be doing it
> under similar electrical conditions as other S stock running to
> Wimbledon and Richmond, both sharing with different varieties of NR
> trains.
>

Thats all very well but please explain how S stock would make its way along
a rebuilt Croxley branch
if permission to install conductor rails is not forthcoming.

Looks like the scheme is still dead anyway according to a report from
Hertfordshire last Summer with other options.
<
https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/media-library/documents/highways/mlx-alternatives-updated-report-2021-v1.01-accessible-checked.pdf>

Bet it ends up as a cycle route.

GH

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 22:40:21 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On 12 Feb 2022 12:44:37 GMT, 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.
>>>>
>>> Met. S stock trains running into Watford Junction would be doing it
>>> under similar electrical conditions as other S stock running to
>>> Wimbledon and Richmond, both sharing with different varieties of NR
>>> trains.
>>>
>>
>> That's not the potential problem.
>>
> Which is?
>

Newly electrified fourth rail tracks.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 22:40:21 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On 12 Feb 2022 12:44:37 GMT, 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.
>>>>
>>> Met. S stock trains running into Watford Junction would be doing it
>>> under similar electrical conditions as other S stock running to
>>> Wimbledon and Richmond, both sharing with different varieties of NR
>>> trains.
>>>
>>
>> That's not the potential problem.
>>
> Which is?
>

Lack of potential if conductor rails are bot allowed to installed.

GH

On 11/02/2022 14:44, Recliner 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,
> though apparently longer lengths of third rail cost more overall than 25kV OHLE.

And that is because they need more step up stations?