I see that today's failure of the overhead lines is near Biggleswade, but Thameslink have not only given up on trains from London to Peterborough (which is understandable) but London to Cambridge as well.

Surely Cambridge trains turn off the main line just north of Hitchin, so I'd expect that power to that line could continue even when the Biggleswade section of the EML has to be turned off? If not that shows a surprising lack of resilience built into the system.

--
Clive Page

In message <jkac2sFgcg7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:29:48 on Tue, 26
Jul 2022, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>I see that today's failure of the overhead lines is near Biggleswade,
>but Thameslink have not only given up on trains from London to
>Peterborough (which is understandable) but London to Cambridge as well.
>
>Surely Cambridge trains turn off the main line just north of Hitchin,
>so I'd expect that power to that line could continue even when the
>Biggleswade section of the EML has to be turned off? If not that
>shows a surprising lack of resilience built into the system.

This conundrum has been ongoing since 8am this morning, and information
is surprisingly thin on the ground. Pax on GN trains which ground to a
halt north of Cambridge getting nothing at all out of the GN's more than
usually useless twitter feed.

I know for a fact that Cambridge to Ely, Cambridge to Royston, and
Royston to Hitchin are three separate OHL sections, so even *if* the
Hitchin-Royston one is a spur off the ECML and can't be separately
isolated [which would be a major design fail anyway] there's something
going on here which hasn't yet been explained.
--
Roland Perry

In message <jkac2sFgcg7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:29:48 on Tue, 26
Jul 2022, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>I see that today's failure of the overhead lines is near Biggleswade,
>but Thameslink have not only given up on trains from London to
>Peterborough (which is understandable) but London to Cambridge as well.
>
>Surely Cambridge trains turn off the main line just north of Hitchin,
>so I'd expect that power to that line could continue even when the
>Biggleswade section of the EML has to be turned off? If not that
>shows a surprising lack of resilience built into the system.

The obfuscation continues: from NRES [Undated] "Trains are now running
as normal following damage to the overhead electric wires between
Peterborough / Cambridge and London."

Meanwhile, from RTT, using Biggleswade as a reporting point:

Last through train was the 05:05 from Leeds to KGX, which passed at
07:02

First resumed service a service from Edinburgh to London an hour late,
which passed at 15:07

Majority of later ECML services (various types) also canceled.

Trains started to trickle on the line through Royston about the same
time, but again the vast majority of services the rest of the day
canceled.
--
RMT Murder by proxy - denying cancer patients their opportunity to travel to
life saving treatment, just so they can get an above-inflation pay increase.

On 27/07/2022 13:41, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <jkac2sFgcg7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:29:48 on Tue, 26
> Jul 2022, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>> I see that today's failure of the overhead lines is near Biggleswade,
>> but Thameslink have not only given up on trains from London to
>> Peterborough (which is understandable) but London to Cambridge as well.
>>
>> Surely Cambridge trains turn off the main line just north of Hitchin,
>> so I'd expect that power to that line could continue even when the
>> Biggleswade section of the EML has to be turned off?   If not that
>> shows a surprising lack of resilience built into the system.
>
> The obfuscation continues: from NRES [Undated] "Trains are now running
> as normal following damage to the overhead electric wires between
> Peterborough / Cambridge and London."
>
> Meanwhile, from RTT, using Biggleswade as a reporting point:
>
> Last through train was the 05:05 from Leeds to KGX, which passed at 07:02
>
> First resumed service a service from Edinburgh to London an hour late,
> which passed at 15:07
>
> Majority of later ECML services (various types) also canceled.
>
> Trains started to trickle on the line through Royston about the same
> time, but again the vast majority of services the rest of the day canceled.

If my interpretation of the Sectional Appendix is correct, using the
locations of neutral sections, then Biggleswade is in an electrical
section that stretches from 2 miles south of Hitchin as far as Barford,
about 8 miles north of Biggleswade.

In message <tbs6ol$2ka3m$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:43 on Wed, 27 Jul
2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>On 27/07/2022 13:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <jkac2sFgcg7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:29:48 on Tue, 26
>>Jul 2022, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>>> I see that today's failure of the overhead lines is near
>>>Biggleswade, but Thameslink have not only given up on trains from
>>>London to Peterborough (which is understandable) but London to
>>>Cambridge as well.
>>>
>>> Surely Cambridge trains turn off the main line just north of
>>>Hitchin, so I'd expect that power to that line could continue even
>>>when the Biggleswade section of the EML has to be turned off?   If
>>>not that shows a surprising lack of resilience built into the system.
>> The obfuscation continues: from NRES [Undated] "Trains are now
>>running as normal following damage to the overhead electric wires
>>between Peterborough / Cambridge and London."

>> Meanwhile, from RTT, using Biggleswade as a reporting point: Last
>>through train was the 05:05 from Leeds to KGX, which passed at 07:02
>>First resumed service a service from Edinburgh to London an hour late,
>>which passed at 15:07

>> Majority of later ECML services (various types) also canceled.
>> Trains started to trickle on the line through Royston about the same
>>time, but again the vast majority of services the rest of the day
>>canceled.
>
>If my interpretation of the Sectional Appendix is correct, using the
>locations of neutral sections, then Biggleswade is in an electrical
>section that stretches from 2 miles south of Hitchin as far as Barford,
>about 8 miles north of Biggleswade.

And not leaching any power towards Cambridge? Given the stages the
electrification was originally done, I wouldn't be surprised if it went
as far as the Letchworth Station/sidings. But from there to Royston a
separate [later] section.

Ditto and even later section Royston to Shelford junction (where it
could well be another section of the Liverpool St line, as far as
Milton).
--
Roland Perry

On 28/07/2022 12:15, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tbs6ol$2ka3m$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:43 on Wed, 27 Jul
> 2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On 27/07/2022 13:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <jkac2sFgcg7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:29:48 on Tue, 26
>>> Jul 2022, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>>>> I see that today's failure of the overhead lines is near
>>>> Biggleswade,  but Thameslink have not only given up on trains from
>>>> London to  Peterborough (which is understandable) but London to
>>>> Cambridge as well.
>>>>
>>>> Surely Cambridge trains turn off the main line just north of
>>>> Hitchin,  so I'd expect that power to that line could continue even
>>>> when the  Biggleswade section of the EML has to be turned off?   If
>>>> not that  shows a surprising lack of resilience built into the system.
>>>  The obfuscation continues: from NRES [Undated] "Trains are now
>>> running  as normal following damage to the overhead electric wires
>>> between  Peterborough / Cambridge and London."
>
>>>  Meanwhile, from RTT, using Biggleswade as a reporting point:   Last
>>> through train was the 05:05 from Leeds to KGX, which passed at 07:02
>>> First resumed service a service from Edinburgh to London an hour
>>> late, which passed at 15:07
>
>>>  Majority of later ECML services (various types) also canceled.
>>>  Trains started to trickle on the line through Royston about the same
>>> time, but again the vast majority of services the rest of the day
>>> canceled.
>>
>> If my interpretation of the Sectional Appendix is correct, using the
>> locations of neutral sections, then Biggleswade is in an electrical
>> section that stretches from 2 miles south of Hitchin as far as
>> Barford, about 8 miles north of Biggleswade.
>
> And not leaching any power towards Cambridge? Given the stages the
> electrification was originally done, I wouldn't be surprised if it went
> as far as the Letchworth Station/sidings. But from there to Royston a
> separate [later] section.
>
> Ditto and even later section Royston to Shelford junction (where it
> could well be another section of the Liverpool St line, as far as Milton).

The Sectional Appendix shows another neutral section a short distance
out of Hitchin on the Cambridge line.

In message <tcc6oa$1odn9$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:59:38 on Tue, 2 Aug
2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>On 28/07/2022 12:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tbs6ol$2ka3m$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:43 on Wed, 27 Jul
>>2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On 27/07/2022 13:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <jkac2sFgcg7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:29:48 on Tue,
>>>>26 Jul 2022, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>>>>> I see that today's failure of the overhead lines is near
>>>>>Biggleswade,  but Thameslink have not only given up on trains from
>>>>>London to  Peterborough (which is understandable) but London to
>>>>>Cambridge as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely Cambridge trains turn off the main line just north of
>>>>>Hitchin,  so I'd expect that power to that line could continue even
>>>>>when the  Biggleswade section of the EML has to be turned off?   If
>>>>>not that  shows a surprising lack of resilience built into the system.
>>>>  The obfuscation continues: from NRES [Undated] "Trains are now
>>>>running  as normal following damage to the overhead electric wires
>>>>between  Peterborough / Cambridge and London."
>>
>>>>  Meanwhile, from RTT, using Biggleswade as a reporting point:  
>>>>Last through train was the 05:05 from Leeds to KGX, which passed at
>>>>07:02 First resumed service a service from Edinburgh to London an
>>>>hour late, which passed at 15:07
>>
>>>>  Majority of later ECML services (various types) also canceled.
>>>>  Trains started to trickle on the line through Royston about the
>>>>same time, but again the vast majority of services the rest of the
>>>>day canceled.
>>>
>>> If my interpretation of the Sectional Appendix is correct, using the
>>>locations of neutral sections, then Biggleswade is in an electrical
>>>section that stretches from 2 miles south of Hitchin as far as
>>>Barford, about 8 miles north of Biggleswade.

Ah yes, Barford, the infamous generating plant which tripped out all
those Thameslink trains.

>> And not leaching any power towards Cambridge? Given the stages the
>>electrification was originally done, I wouldn't be surprised if it
>>went as far as the Letchworth Station/sidings. But from there to
>>Royston a separate [later] section.

>> Ditto and even later section Royston to Shelford junction (where it
>>could well be another section of the Liverpool St line, as far as
>>Milton).
>
>The Sectional Appendix shows another neutral section a short distance
>out of Hitchin on the Cambridge line.

Thanks. Is that after the new-ish flyover rejoins the historic line?

So we have worked out why trains couldn't run from London to Letchworth,
but it's still not clear why they also turned off the power all the way
to Cambridge. Unless that was a separate incident by co-incidence at
about the same time.
--
Roland Perry

On 03/08/2022 06:42, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tcc6oa$1odn9$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:59:38 on Tue, 2 Aug
> 2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On 28/07/2022 12:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tbs6ol$2ka3m$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:43 on Wed, 27 Jul
>>> 2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On 27/07/2022 13:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <jkac2sFgcg7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:29:48 on Tue,
>>>>> 26  Jul 2022, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>>>>>> I see that today's failure of the overhead lines is near
>>>>>> Biggleswade,  but Thameslink have not only given up on trains from
>>>>>> London to  Peterborough (which is understandable) but London to
>>>>>> Cambridge as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Surely Cambridge trains turn off the main line just north of
>>>>>> Hitchin,  so I'd expect that power to that line could continue
>>>>>> even when the  Biggleswade section of the EML has to be turned
>>>>>> off?   If not that  shows a surprising lack of resilience built
>>>>>> into the system.
>>>>>  The obfuscation continues: from NRES [Undated] "Trains are now
>>>>> running  as normal following damage to the overhead electric wires
>>>>> between  Peterborough / Cambridge and London."
>>>
>>>>>  Meanwhile, from RTT, using Biggleswade as a reporting point: Last
>>>>> through train was the 05:05 from Leeds to KGX, which passed at
>>>>> 07:02  First resumed service a service from Edinburgh to London an
>>>>> hour  late, which passed at 15:07
>>>
>>>>>  Majority of later ECML services (various types) also canceled.
>>>>>  Trains started to trickle on the line through Royston about the
>>>>> same  time, but again the vast majority of services the rest of the
>>>>> day  canceled.
>>>>
>>>> If my interpretation of the Sectional Appendix is correct, using the
>>>> locations of neutral sections, then Biggleswade is in an electrical
>>>> section that stretches from 2 miles south of Hitchin as far as
>>>> Barford, about 8 miles north of Biggleswade.
>
> Ah yes, Barford, the infamous generating plant which tripped out all
> those Thameslink trains.
>
>>>  And not leaching any power towards Cambridge? Given the stages the
>>> electrification was originally done, I wouldn't be surprised if it
>>> went  as far as the Letchworth Station/sidings. But from there to
>>> Royston a  separate [later] section.
>
>>>  Ditto and even later section Royston to Shelford junction (where it
>>> could well be another section of the Liverpool St line, as far as
>>> Milton).
>>
>> The Sectional Appendix shows another neutral section a short distance
>> out of Hitchin on the Cambridge line.
>
> Thanks. Is that after the new-ish flyover rejoins the historic line?
>
> So we have worked out why trains couldn't run from London to Letchworth,
> but it's still not clear why they also turned off the power all the way
> to Cambridge. Unless that was a separate incident by co-incidence at
> about the same time.

You might find this interesting.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/information-for-operators/national-electronic-sectional-appendix/

Scroll down the page, ignoring the bit about registering, and you will
find a section labelled Sectional Appendix pdf copies.

Click the link(s) for areas of interest.

These versions are updated periodically whereas the on-line electronic
versions can be updated any time a change is needed.

In article <tcdtdu$28k4q$1@dont-email.me>, Bevan Price
<bevanprice666@gmail.com> scribeth thus
>On 03/08/2022 06:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tcc6oa$1odn9$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:59:38 on Tue, 2 Aug
>> 2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On 28/07/2022 12:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <tbs6ol$2ka3m$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:43 on Wed, 27 Jul
>>>> 2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 27/07/2022 13:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <jkac2sFgcg7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:29:48 on Tue,
>>>>>> 26  Jul 2022, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>>>>>>> I see that today's failure of the overhead lines is near
>>>>>>> Biggleswade,  but Thameslink have not only given up on trains from
>>>>>>> London to  Peterborough (which is understandable) but London to
>>>>>>> Cambridge as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Surely Cambridge trains turn off the main line just north of
>>>>>>> Hitchin,  so I'd expect that power to that line could continue
>>>>>>> even when the  Biggleswade section of the EML has to be turned
>>>>>>> off?   If not that  shows a surprising lack of resilience built
>>>>>>> into the system.
>>>>>>  The obfuscation continues: from NRES [Undated] "Trains are now
>>>>>> running  as normal following damage to the overhead electric wires
>>>>>> between  Peterborough / Cambridge and London."
>>>>
>>>>>>  Meanwhile, from RTT, using Biggleswade as a reporting point: Last
>>>>>> through train was the 05:05 from Leeds to KGX, which passed at
>>>>>> 07:02  First resumed service a service from Edinburgh to London an
>>>>>> hour  late, which passed at 15:07
>>>>
>>>>>>  Majority of later ECML services (various types) also canceled.
>>>>>>  Trains started to trickle on the line through Royston about the
>>>>>> same  time, but again the vast majority of services the rest of the
>>>>>> day  canceled.
>>>>>
>>>>> If my interpretation of the Sectional Appendix is correct, using the
>>>>> locations of neutral sections, then Biggleswade is in an electrical
>>>>> section that stretches from 2 miles south of Hitchin as far as
>>>>> Barford, about 8 miles north of Biggleswade.
>>
>> Ah yes, Barford, the infamous generating plant which tripped out all
>> those Thameslink trains.
>>
>>>>  And not leaching any power towards Cambridge? Given the stages the
>>>> electrification was originally done, I wouldn't be surprised if it
>>>> went  as far as the Letchworth Station/sidings. But from there to
>>>> Royston a  separate [later] section.
>>
>>>>  Ditto and even later section Royston to Shelford junction (where it
>>>> could well be another section of the Liverpool St line, as far as
>>>> Milton).
>>>
>>> The Sectional Appendix shows another neutral section a short distance
>>> out of Hitchin on the Cambridge line.
>>
>> Thanks. Is that after the new-ish flyover rejoins the historic line?
>>
>> So we have worked out why trains couldn't run from London to Letchworth,
>> but it's still not clear why they also turned off the power all the way
>> to Cambridge. Unless that was a separate incident by co-incidence at
>> about the same time.
>
>You might find this interesting.
>
>https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/information-for-
>operators/national-electronic-sectional-appendix/
>
>Scroll down the page, ignoring the bit about registering, and you will
>find a section labelled Sectional Appendix pdf copies.
>
>Click the link(s) for areas of interest.
>
>
>
>These versions are updated periodically whereas the on-line electronic
>versions can be updated any time a change is needed.

Works fine, a lot of reading now needs doing;)...

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In message <tcdtdu$28k4q$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:32:47 on Wed, 3 Aug
2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:

>You might find this interesting.
>
>https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/information-for-op
>erators/national-electronic-sectional-appendix/
>
>Scroll down the page, ignoring the bit about registering, and you will
>find a section labelled Sectional Appendix pdf copies.
>
>Click the link(s) for areas of interest.

A veritable haystack (in whose 536 pages for East Anglia I will later
attempt to find the needle). But thanks for the link.
--
Roland Perry