Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t2niur$ish$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:52:43 on Thu, 7 Apr 2022,
> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>> On 07/04/2022 19:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> This photo appears to show the new trains in a station which still has
>>> the centre 3rd rail:
>>> <https://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2016/02/i875/mail.jpg
>>
>> My DW bought us a ride on the mail train, and it is definitely interesting.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the carriages are tiny. She is 5'3" and she was
>> uncomfortable. I am a lot taller, and it was really, really cramped.
>
> I've had a ride on it too, soon after it opened. No problem with
> legroom, but it didn't really seem wide enough for two-abreast unless
> you were already good friends.

Yes, agreed. It wouldn't fit two of me side-by-side.

Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2022 14:12:15 +0100, Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Meant to include the link for the planning application:
>>> https://data.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P19/V0755/FUL
>>
>> I'm surprised how far it is from the current site: 28 miles. I was under
>> the impression that he planned to move it to a
>> nearby, larger site.
>>
>> Does this mean that he was also planning to move house to somewhere near
>> (or in) the new site?
>
> Planning permission had been obtained for a house on the site before
> he bought it. At what was to have been the last BLR open day all he
> was saying about the move was that it was 'near Wantage' so I set
> myself the challenge of finding the planning application for a
> railway, as I knew there would be one.
>

Did he say why he was moving it?

On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 06:55:35 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2022 14:12:15 +0100, Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Meant to include the link for the planning application:
>>>> https://data.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P19/V0755/FUL
>>>
>>> I'm surprised how far it is from the current site: 28 miles. I was under
>>> the impression that he planned to move it to a
>>> nearby, larger site.
>>>
>>> Does this mean that he was also planning to move house to somewhere near
>>> (or in) the new site?
>>
>> Planning permission had been obtained for a house on the site before
>> he bought it. At what was to have been the last BLR open day all he
>> was saying about the move was that it was 'near Wantage' so I set
>> myself the challenge of finding the planning application for a
>> railway, as I knew there would be one.
>>
>
>Did he say why he was moving it?

The new site appears to have a slightly smaller and more self-contained
house, but a larger railway. Given his increasing disability, I wonder
if at least part of the motivation for the move is to enable him to live
somewhere that is more easily adaptable for his needs. He wouldn't be
the first retiree to make that kind of move! But, of course, he's not
the average retiree in terms of financial resources, so he can easily
afford to move the railway with him.

Having said that, planning permission for the railway was granted in
September 2019. So if he hasn't made a start by September this year, it
will expire and he'll need to re-apply if he still wants to move it.

Mark

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:50:35 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t2n9fs$far$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:11:08 on Thu, 7 Apr 2022,
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:11:56 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> Given the Volks Eletric Railway in brighton seems to survive with a
>>>>>live low
>>>>> voltage 3rd rail and people wandering around nearby without dozens
>>>>>of deaths
>>>>
>>>>> from electrocution ever month, I wonder why the same couldn't be done for
>>>> the
>>>>> post office trains, especially in the now re-opened museum section of the
>>>> line
>>>>> which seems to have spent a fortune on battery trains and removed the 3rd
>>>> rail
>>>>> on sections they run on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can't comment for Volks' 3rd rail, but the 3rd rail on Mail Rail was
>>>> removed to allow the floor height of the passenger trains to be lower, to
>>>> allow precious inches more space for people within the train. It was
>>>> between the rails rather than at the side.
>>>
>>> Fair enough. Given the 3rd rail has been switched off I presume that was for
>
>>> clearance reasons, not just safety reasons to avoid a flashover?
>>
>>Yes, I presume the floor of the carriages is as close to the running rails
>>as it can be, and therefore too close to, or foul of, the 3rd rail which
>>sits higher than the running rail.
>
>This photo appears to show the new trains in a station which still has
>the centre 3rd rail:
>
> <https://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2016/02/i875/mail.jpg

Thats not one of the new trains. I'm guessing thats one of the original PO
engineers train. These are the new ones:

https://www.postalmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/mail-rail-ride-red.jpg

On Thu, 07 Apr 2022 20:46:27 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Another unusual feature of the PO Railway's traction supply was that
>it was not constant voltage but worked a bit like a model railway with
>speed and braking controlled by the stepped voltage level. Before
>considering safety, that probably makes it easier just to use a
>battery vehicle rather than attempt to retain and modify the traction
>supply.

Thats a good point.

In message <t2p4hu$1k7s$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:59:10 on Fri, 8 Apr
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:50:35 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t2n9fs$far$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:11:08 on Thu, 7 Apr 2022,
>>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:11:56 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Given the Volks Eletric Railway in brighton seems to survive with a
>>>>>>live low
>>>>>> voltage 3rd rail and people wandering around nearby without dozens
>>>>>>of deaths
>>>>>
>>>>>> from electrocution ever month, I wonder why the same couldn't be done for
>>>>> the
>>>>>> post office trains, especially in the now re-opened museum section of the
>>>>> line
>>>>>> which seems to have spent a fortune on battery trains and removed the 3rd
>>>>> rail
>>>>>> on sections they run on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't comment for Volks' 3rd rail, but the 3rd rail on Mail Rail was
>>>>> removed to allow the floor height of the passenger trains to be lower, to
>>>>> allow precious inches more space for people within the train. It was
>>>>> between the rails rather than at the side.
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough. Given the 3rd rail has been switched off I presume
>>>>that was for
>>
>>>> clearance reasons, not just safety reasons to avoid a flashover?
>>>
>>>Yes, I presume the floor of the carriages is as close to the running rails
>>>as it can be, and therefore too close to, or foul of, the 3rd rail which
>>>sits higher than the running rail.
>>
>>This photo appears to show the new trains in a station which still has
>>the centre 3rd rail:
>>
>> <https://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2016/02/i875/mail.jpg
>
>Thats not one of the new trains.

Yes, silly me. But it does show the central rail, which is unchanged in
recent pictures.

>I'm guessing thats one of the original PO
>engineers train. These are the new ones:
>
>https://www.postalmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/mail-rail-ride-red.jpg

--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:38:00 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>>>
>>>This photo appears to show the new trains in a station which still has
>>>the centre 3rd rail:
>>>
>>> <https://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2016/02/i875/mail.jpg
>>
>>Thats not one of the new trains.
>
>Yes, silly me. But it does show the central rail, which is unchanged in
>recent pictures.
>
Last May I went on a walking tour of the Mail Rail system and judging
by my photographs the the third rail was removed from the running
line. The moveable components of points have also been removed.
Incidentally, and looking at the photographs, I'd be surprised if
removal of the third rail had any effect on the design of the Mail
Rail trains.
Some of my pictures here:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.4347017381976141&type=3
(I think the picture that you linked to was taken on the occasion of a
system tour for London area media before the Mail Rail conversion
works were started.)

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t2n9fs$far$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:11:08 on Thu, 7 Apr 2022,
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:11:56 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> Given the Volks Eletric Railway in brighton seems to survive with a
>>>>> live low
>>>>> voltage 3rd rail and people wandering around nearby without dozens
>>>>> of deaths
>>>>
>>>>> from electrocution ever month, I wonder why the same couldn't be done for
>>>> the
>>>>> post office trains, especially in the now re-opened museum section of the
>>>> line
>>>>> which seems to have spent a fortune on battery trains and removed the 3rd
>>>> rail
>>>>> on sections they run on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can't comment for Volks' 3rd rail, but the 3rd rail on Mail Rail was
>>>> removed to allow the floor height of the passenger trains to be lower, to
>>>> allow precious inches more space for people within the train. It was
>>>> between the rails rather than at the side.
>>>
>>> Fair enough. Given the 3rd rail has been switched off I presume that was for
>>> clearance reasons, not just safety reasons to avoid a flashover?
>>
>> Yes, I presume the floor of the carriages is as close to the running rails
>> as it can be, and therefore too close to, or foul of, the 3rd rail which
>> sits higher than the running rail.
>
> This photo appears to show the new trains in a station which still has
> the centre 3rd rail:
>
> <https://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2016/02/i875/mail.jpg>
>

That's not the battery-powered passenger train used for the MailRail
passenger rides.

> And this photo (the walls painted white for a Santa Train, allegedly):
>
> <https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/q_auto,w_900,c_fill,g_auto,h_506,ar_
> 16:9/http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F160204162405-im
> g-5755.jpg>

Do you have the link to the page that's taken from, to provide a bit more
context?

If it's the same time as the first pic you posted, I suspect it's before
the line was converted for passenger use.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Another unusual feature of the PO Railway's traction supply was that
> it was not constant voltage but worked a bit like a model railway with
> speed and braking controlled by the stepped voltage level. Before
> considering safety, that probably makes it easier just to use a
> battery vehicle rather than attempt to retain and modify the traction
> supply.
>

I'd love a demonstration of that system in operation!

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t2p4hu$1k7s$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:59:10 on Fri, 8 Apr
> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:50:35 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t2n9fs$far$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:11:08 on Thu, 7 Apr 2022,
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:11:56 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Given the Volks Eletric Railway in brighton seems to survive with a
>>>>>>> live low
>>>>>>> voltage 3rd rail and people wandering around nearby without dozens
>>>>>>> of deaths
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from electrocution ever month, I wonder why the same couldn't be done for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> post office trains, especially in the now re-opened museum section of the
>>>>>> line
>>>>>>> which seems to have spent a fortune on battery trains and removed the 3rd
>>>>>> rail
>>>>>>> on sections they run on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't comment for Volks' 3rd rail, but the 3rd rail on Mail Rail was
>>>>>> removed to allow the floor height of the passenger trains to be lower, to
>>>>>> allow precious inches more space for people within the train. It was
>>>>>> between the rails rather than at the side.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough. Given the 3rd rail has been switched off I presume
>>>>> that was for
>>>
>>>>> clearance reasons, not just safety reasons to avoid a flashover?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I presume the floor of the carriages is as close to the running rails
>>>> as it can be, and therefore too close to, or foul of, the 3rd rail which
>>>> sits higher than the running rail.
>>>
>>> This photo appears to show the new trains in a station which still has
>>> the centre 3rd rail:
>>>
>>> <https://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2016/02/i875/mail.jpg
>>
>> Thats not one of the new trains.
>
> Yes, silly me. But it does show the central rail, which is unchanged in
> recent pictures.
>

The third rail has been removed from the tracks which the new train runs
on. It remains on some other tracks which the new train doesn't use. It's
difficult, obviously, to get pictures of the track from aboard the train
which is running on it, but here are my photos of the curve from the depot
(museum, and passenger station) down to the mail station complex; the new
train uses both tracks here
<https://twitter.com/annanoyddryver/status/1512449827367444480>

Here are some Google images results which show third rail removed from the
tracks the new train uses; if you can find any showing new trains on 3rd
rail-fitted lines, I'd love to see them.
<https://twitter.com/annanoyddryver/status/1512449834707566600>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 06:55:35 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2022 14:12:15 +0100, Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Meant to include the link for the planning application:
>>>>> https://data.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P19/V0755/FUL
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised how far it is from the current site: 28 miles. I was under
>>>> the impression that he planned to move it to a
>>>> nearby, larger site.
>>>>
>>>> Does this mean that he was also planning to move house to somewhere near
>>>> (or in) the new site?
>>>
>>> Planning permission had been obtained for a house on the site before
>>> he bought it. At what was to have been the last BLR open day all he
>>> was saying about the move was that it was 'near Wantage' so I set
>>> myself the challenge of finding the planning application for a
>>> railway, as I knew there would be one.
>>>
>>
>> Did he say why he was moving it?
>
> The new site appears to have a slightly smaller and more self-contained
> house, but a larger railway. Given his increasing disability, I wonder
> if at least part of the motivation for the move is to enable him to live
> somewhere that is more easily adaptable for his needs. He wouldn't be
> the first retiree to make that kind of move! But, of course, he's not
> the average retiree in terms of financial resources, so he can easily
> afford to move the railway with him.
>
> Having said that, planning permission for the railway was granted in
> September 2019. So if he hasn't made a start by September this year, it
> will expire and he'll need to re-apply if he still wants to move it.
>
> Mark
>

Making a start can be as easy as just putting a mini digger on site and
scraping of some turf can’t it?
On a development I witnessed that was stalled the developer actually
purchased a very worn out
digger ,dug a short trench and then left it on site for a year or two.
Apparently that was enough
to say work had started.
Perhaps A. Shooter could lay a length of contractors light weight track
and place some skip wagons on it to move spoil. Many large developments
used to use that method until dumpers took over in the
1950’s onwards leaving the use of temporary site railways confined to
special operations like tunnelling.

In message <c0k05h5uvh78pkrbhm8cs1lofs1tqtree4@4ax.com>, at 16:22:07 on
Fri, 8 Apr 2022, Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> remarked:
>On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:38:00 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>>This photo appears to show the new trains in a station which still has
>>>>the centre 3rd rail:
>>>>
>>>> <https://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2016/02/i875/mail.jpg
>>>
>>>Thats not one of the new trains.
>>
>>Yes, silly me. But it does show the central rail, which is unchanged in
>>recent pictures.
>>
>Last May I went on a walking tour of the Mail Rail system and judging
>by my photographs the the third rail was removed from the running
>line. The moveable components of points have also been removed.
>Incidentally, and looking at the photographs, I'd be surprised if
>removal of the third rail had any effect on the design of the Mail
>Rail trains.
>Some of my pictures here:
>https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.4347017381976141&type=3

It may well be partly still in place, which means there isn't a
clearance issue. In this photo for example, I'm assuming the train comes
back out of the left hand tunnel (or if not, the RH track).

<https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/12/02/
12/mailrail0212c.jpg?width=990>

>(I think the picture that you linked to was taken on the occasion of a
>system tour for London area media before the Mail Rail conversion
>works were started.)

--
Roland Perry

In message <t2pk1l$q4b$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:23:33 on Fri, 8 Apr 2022,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>> And this photo (the walls painted white for a Santa Train, allegedly):
>>
>> <https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/q_auto,w_900,c_fill,g_auto,h_506,ar_
>> 16:9/http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F160204162405-im
>> g-5755.jpg>
>
>Do you have the link to the page that's taken from, to provide a bit more

>If it's the same time as the first pic you posted, I suspect it's before
>the line was converted for passenger use.

Yes, It's possible it was pre-conversion, but did they take children on
rides when it was still operating?

<https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/london-mail-rail/index.html>
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t2pk1l$q4b$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:23:33 on Fri, 8 Apr 2022,
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>
>>> And this photo (the walls painted white for a Santa Train, allegedly):
>>>
>>> <https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/q_auto,w_900,c_fill,g_auto,h_506,ar_
>>> 16:9/http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F160204162405-im
>>> g-5755.jpg>
>>
>> Do you have the link to the page that's taken from, to provide a bit more
>
>> If it's the same time as the first pic you posted, I suspect it's before
>> the line was converted for passenger use.
>
> Yes, It's possible it was pre-conversion, but did they take children on
> rides when it was still operating?
>
> <https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/london-mail-rail/index.html>
>

Presumably so, as that's all written in the past tense, and pre-conversion.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 15:23:33 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Another unusual feature of the PO Railway's traction supply was that
>> it was not constant voltage but worked a bit like a model railway with
>> speed and braking controlled by the stepped voltage level. Before
>> considering safety, that probably makes it easier just to use a
>> battery vehicle rather than attempt to retain and modify the traction
>> supply.
>>
>
>I'd love a demonstration of that system in operation!
>
First find your TARDIS ;-)
Rough description from memory-
No voltage - [spring] brakes on
Intermediate voltage/s - stations and vicinity
Full voltage - main line between stations.

A bit like old Hornby Dublo four-position controllers apart from the
brakes aspect. Starting the train was done by pulling down a handle at
the station which energised the local section until the train was out
of the station.

On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 15:23:33 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Another unusual feature of the PO Railway's traction supply was that
>> it was not constant voltage but worked a bit like a model railway with
>> speed and braking controlled by the stepped voltage level. Before
>> considering safety, that probably makes it easier just to use a
>> battery vehicle rather than attempt to retain and modify the traction
>> supply.
>>
>
>I'd love a demonstration of that system in operation!
>
>
A bit late getting back to this but 440v DC gave speeds of up to
35mph, depending on the load and gradient, on the main running lines.
150v in stations reduced speed to 8mph.