Am 18.06.2023 um 11:19 schrieb Bob:
> On 17.06.23 17:22, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:22:09 +0200
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 17.06.23 12:31, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> of important mineral resources (in particular mineral ores).  All the
>>>>
>>>> And the rest of Europe didn't?
>>>
>>> In agregate, yes, but generally the easy to access deposits are more
>>> dispersed, meaning transportation was a more significant challenge than
>>> in Britain.
>>
>> The Germans might disagree with you.
>
> Germany doesn't have much in the way of accessible iron ore deposits.
> The iron and steel industry in Germany was very much dependent on ores
> mined in other countries.

The distance from the iron ore deposits in Lorraine and Luxemburg to the
coal mines in Saarland is about 50 miles(plenty of iron ore, sufficient
amounts of coal).

The distance from the iron ore deposits in Potra Westfalica to the Ruhr
area is around 100 miles (pleant of coal, sufficient amounts of iron ore).

Both eminentliy doable once somebody else has invented the railways ;-)

Rolf

On 18/06/2023 16:08, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:26:00 +0100
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:22:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:22:09 +0200
>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17.06.23 12:31, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> of important mineral resources (in particular mineral ores). All the
>>>>>
>>>>> And the rest of Europe didn't?
>>>>
>>>> In agregate, yes, but generally the easy to access deposits are more
>>>> dispersed, meaning transportation was a more significant challenge than
>>>> in Britain.
>>>
>>> The Germans might disagree with you.
>>>
>>>>>> ingenuity in the world is of no value if a marauding foreign army
>>>>>> marches through and razes your factory, and is of no value if there
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't stop the romans, vikings or normans.
>>>>
>>>> Britain wasn't a unified country at that ponit, so the various political
>>>
>>> It was when the normans turned up.
>>>
>> It wasn't. When the Normans turned up there several countries. At no
>> time has there been a single country (rather than a single --state) on
>> the island.
>
> England existed when the normans invaded. I suggest you revisit your school
> history.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelstan
>
>
>>> Anyway, point is an island isn't secure
>>> if you don't have enough ships to defend it.
>>>
>> Ships can't fly.
>
> The normans had aircraft? Didn't know that.
>

Maybe not, but their subsidiary did ....... ;-)
https://britten-norman.com/britten-norman-products/islander/

--
Colin

In message <u6njil$1nno8$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:48:53 on Sun, 18 Jun
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 18.06.23 20:22, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <u6nbop$1mr84$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:35:37 on Sun, 18 Jun
>>2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 18.06.23 17:16, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 11:22:57 +0200
>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 17.06.23 18:21, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:10:38 +0100
>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 09:04:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>> There's pretty good separation of humans and 3rd rail in the UK
>>>>>>>>but that hasn't stopped the bed wetters banning any new
>>>>>>>>installations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is mainly because there is a better way of feeding juice to
>>>>>>> trains along with the less better way of under-running protected
>>>>>>> conductor rail. With common availability of dual-voltage (actual or
>>>>>>> potential) trains there is even less reason to use conductor rails on
>>>>>>> extensions and more reason to use AC if a line requires mass
>>>>>>> replacement of life-expired electrics. The main decider now might be
>>>>>>> the available clearances.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends on your definition of "better" doesn't it. AC overhead is
>>>>>>ugly and requires huge expensive infrastructure work if the
>>>>>>loading gauge isn't large enough. Plus dual voltage trains cost
>>>>>>more than single. Pantographs and transformers arn't cheap.
>>>>>
>>>>> The need for frequent substations on low voltage power supplies for 3rd
>>>>> rail (necessary due to restricted clearance available), and the
>>>>> supporting infrastructure to get power to the substations, makes 3rd
>>>>> rail significantly more expensive in overall cost.
>>
>>>>  Got any figures for that?
>>
>>>>  For short branch lines you'd probably only need 1 or 2 substations
>>>>which would  be the same for AC plus you'd save on the the knitting
>>>>and gantries.
>>>
>>> AC can get a long way without substations. For example when the line
>>>to King's Lynn was wired, the only supply was from the Cambridge end,
>>>with the whole line through Ely to King's Lynn being fed from only
>>>one end.

>> I don't think that's the case, because there's a neutral section at
>>Littleport. So it was fed from both ends, but critically, not also
>>from the middle.
>
>Yes, it was upgraded because the old arrangement imposed a limit on the
>number of units that could be in the section at any time. The new
>feeder at Littleport lifted that restriction.

There is no feeder at Littleport! There's a neutral section just north
of the station which divides the northern half, fed from Kings Lynn,
from the southern half, fed at Milton.

There are still restrictions (maybe even the original "five units" on
the northern half, although now all trains are two units perhaps that's
tight - however they cross-over at Littleport which is in the southern
section with the line from there to Downham Market being single track).

Apart from some additional rush-hour trains, it's just one train which
goes up from Littleport then comes back again[1]

The southern section had a major upgrade to the Milton substation[2],
but will still retain some limits (very likely no electric locos for
example).

[1] xx06 northbound arrives KLN xx30, sets off back as xx42 arr LTP yy06
Untila few years ago they passed at Downham Market, with more dwell
time at KLN, but that mean two trains active on the same section at
once.

[2] Originally one unit 1tph to Kings Lynn most of the time, is now
1tph two units to Kings Lynn, plus 1tph two units to Ely.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 18:38:16 +0200
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 18.06.23 17:08, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> England existed when the normans invaded.
>
>So did Scotland and Wales.

Maybe on a map but not politically. Wales was just jostling tribes and the
"kings" of scotland barely ruled outside of the central belt.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 18:35:37 +0200
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 18.06.23 17:16, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> For short branch lines you'd probably only need 1 or 2 substations which
>would
>> be the same for AC plus you'd save on the the knitting and gantries.
>
>AC can get a long way without substations. For example when the line to
>King's Lynn was wired, the only supply was from the Cambridge end, with
>the whole line through Ely to King's Lynn being fed from only one end.

I'm not really talking about that sort of distance. I'm thinking more of the
welsh valleys where idiotic battery trains are envisaged when it would be
quite simple to lay down some 3rd rail.

According to <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com>:
>>AC can get a long way without substations. ...

>I'm not really talking about that sort of distance. I'm thinking more of the
>welsh valleys where idiotic battery trains are envisaged when it would be
>quite simple to lay down some 3rd rail.

The third rail is easy enough but what about all the substations
and TP huts? Network Rail says third rail needs a feed every mile.

To the extent third rail still makes sense, it's only on busy lines
where the infrastructure supports a lot of trains.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 18:36:26 -0000 (UTC)
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>According to <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com>:
>>>AC can get a long way without substations. ...
>
>>I'm not really talking about that sort of distance. I'm thinking more of the
>>welsh valleys where idiotic battery trains are envisaged when it would be
>>quite simple to lay down some 3rd rail.
>
>The third rail is easy enough but what about all the substations
>and TP huts? Network Rail says third rail needs a feed every mile.

For what, Eurostars? LU managed to get away with no substations on the whole
6 miles of the Ongar branch, albeit with the trains going somewhat slower at
the end.

>To the extent third rail still makes sense, it's only on busy lines
>where the infrastructure supports a lot of trains.

Makes more sense than battery trains ever will.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 18:36:26 -0000 (UTC)
> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>> According to <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com>:
>>>> AC can get a long way without substations. ...
>>
>>> I'm not really talking about that sort of distance. I'm thinking more of the
>>> welsh valleys where idiotic battery trains are envisaged when it would be
>>> quite simple to lay down some 3rd rail.
>>
>> The third rail is easy enough but what about all the substations
>> and TP huts? Network Rail says third rail needs a feed every mile.
>
> For what, Eurostars? LU managed to get away with no substations on the whole
> 6 miles of the Ongar branch, albeit with the trains going somewhat slower at
> the end.

Using a single, low speed, 3-car unit?

On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 16:10:34 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 18:36:26 -0000 (UTC)
>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>> According to <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com>:
>>>>> AC can get a long way without substations. ...
>>>
>>>> I'm not really talking about that sort of distance. I'm thinking more of
>the
>>>> welsh valleys where idiotic battery trains are envisaged when it would be
>>>> quite simple to lay down some 3rd rail.
>>>
>>> The third rail is easy enough but what about all the substations
>>> and TP huts? Network Rail says third rail needs a feed every mile.
>>
>> For what, Eurostars? LU managed to get away with no substations on the whole
>> 6 miles of the Ongar branch, albeit with the trains going somewhat slower at
>
>> the end.
>
>Using a single, low speed, 3-car unit?

IIRC there were 2 units running on it at some point. Plus it was 630V so even
more resistence losses than 750.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 16:10:34 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 18:36:26 -0000 (UTC)
>>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>>> According to <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com>:
>>>>>> AC can get a long way without substations. ...
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not really talking about that sort of distance. I'm thinking more of
>> the
>>>>> welsh valleys where idiotic battery trains are envisaged when it would be
>>>>> quite simple to lay down some 3rd rail.
>>>>
>>>> The third rail is easy enough but what about all the substations
>>>> and TP huts? Network Rail says third rail needs a feed every mile.
>>>
>>> For what, Eurostars? LU managed to get away with no substations on the whole
>>> 6 miles of the Ongar branch, albeit with the trains going somewhat slower at
>>
>>> the end.
>>
>> Using a single, low speed, 3-car unit?
>
> IIRC there were 2 units running on it at some point. Plus it was 630V so even
> more resistence losses than 750.

I don't recall there ever being two units operating on the branch.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:30:36 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> IIRC there were 2 units running on it at some point. Plus it was 630V so even
>
>> more resistence losses than 750.
>
>I don't recall there ever being two units operating on the branch.

What do you think the passing look at north wield was for?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/trains-travel/46405500611

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:30:36 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> IIRC there were 2 units running on it at some point. Plus it was 630V so even
>>
>>> more resistence losses than 750.
>>
>> I don't recall there ever being two units operating on the branch.
>
> What do you think the passing look at north wield was for?
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/trains-travel/46405500611

The line was served by steam trains for most of its existence. In any
case, the fact that trains could pass didn't mean it happened regularly.
They presumably had to make sure that the trains didn't both leave and
accelerate at once.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 16:10:34 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 18:36:26 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>>>> According to <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com>:
>>>>>>> AC can get a long way without substations. ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not really talking about that sort of distance. I'm thinking more of
>>> the
>>>>>> welsh valleys where idiotic battery trains are envisaged when it would be
>>>>>> quite simple to lay down some 3rd rail.
>>>>>
>>>>> The third rail is easy enough but what about all the substations
>>>>> and TP huts? Network Rail says third rail needs a feed every mile.
>>>>
>>>> For what, Eurostars? LU managed to get away with no substations on the whole
>>>> 6 miles of the Ongar branch, albeit with the trains going somewhat slower at
>>>
>>>> the end.
>>>
>>> Using a single, low speed, 3-car unit?
>>
>> IIRC there were 2 units running on it at some point. Plus it was 630V so even
>> more resistence losses than 750.
>
> I don't recall there ever being two units operating on the branch.
>
>

What wasn’t possible was the use of full length trains as used on the
rest of the Central line whose trains tended to be 8 cars in length
comprised of two 4 car units.
The Ongar branch was operated by two 4 car units which passed at North
Weald , with std stock and later the 1959/62 stock and I have read that
care was taken to ensure they didn’t both pull away together.
The passing loop was removed after the two train shuttle was withdrawn in
the late 1970’s. reducing the 20 minutes between departures to roughly
double, a move which further put off potential customers.
Latterly the 1960 stock whose production in large numbers had been
curtailed found itself a niche job as a couple of 3 car units were
assigned to work the branch but only one at a time.

GH

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 16:10:34 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 18:36:26 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>>>>> According to <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com>:
>>>>>>>> AC can get a long way without substations. ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not really talking about that sort of distance. I'm thinking more of
>>>> the
>>>>>>> welsh valleys where idiotic battery trains are envisaged when it would be
>>>>>>> quite simple to lay down some 3rd rail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The third rail is easy enough but what about all the substations
>>>>>> and TP huts? Network Rail says third rail needs a feed every mile.
>>>>>
>>>>> For what, Eurostars? LU managed to get away with no substations on the whole
>>>>> 6 miles of the Ongar branch, albeit with the trains going somewhat slower at
>>>>
>>>>> the end.
>>>>
>>>> Using a single, low speed, 3-car unit?
>>>
>>> IIRC there were 2 units running on it at some point. Plus it was 630V so even
>>> more resistence losses than 750.
>>
>> I don't recall there ever being two units operating on the branch.
>>
>>
>
> What wasn’t possible was the use of full length trains as used on the
> rest of the Central line whose trains tended to be 8 cars in length
> comprised of two 4 car units.
> The Ongar branch was operated by two 4 car units which passed at North
> Weald , with std stock and later the 1959/62 stock and I have read that
> care was taken to ensure they didn’t both pull away together.
> The passing loop was removed after the two train shuttle was withdrawn in
> the late 1970’s. reducing the 20 minutes between departures to roughly
> double, a move which further put off potential customers.
> Latterly the 1960 stock whose production in large numbers had been
> curtailed found itself a niche job as a couple of 3 car units were
> assigned to work the branch but only one at a time.
>

Thanks for the clarification. That explains why I don't recall two-half
unit operation.

Ironically, as a heritage line, it's capable of a more frequent service now
(on festival days) than it had in its final years under LT.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 16:24:47 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:30:36 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> IIRC there were 2 units running on it at some point. Plus it was 630V so
>even
>>>
>>>> more resistence losses than 750.
>>>
>>> I don't recall there ever being two units operating on the branch.
>>
>> What do you think the passing look at north wield was for?
>>
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/trains-travel/46405500611
>
>The line was served by steam trains for most of its existence. In any
>case, the fact that trains could pass didn't mean it happened regularly.
>They presumably had to make sure that the trains didn't both leave and
>accelerate at once.

I'm pretty sure they did back in the 80s during the rush hour.

On 21 Jun 2023 22:37:28 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>The passing loop was removed after the two train shuttle was withdrawn in
>the late 1970’s. reducing the 20 minutes between departures to roughly
>double, a move which further put off potential customers.

I never understood why they didn't leave north wield even if they closed
Ongar as its a convenient P&R location.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2023 22:37:28 GMT
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> The passing loop was removed after the two train shuttle was withdrawn in
>> the late 1970’s. reducing the 20 minutes between departures to roughly
>> double, a move which further put off potential customers.
>
> I never understood why they didn't leave north wield even if they closed
> Ongar as its a convenient P&R location.
>
>

Looking at it on google maps I can see that would have been a good idea
,could have got a reasonable number of cars on the station yard and a lot
more if part of a field was taken as well though green belt rules may have
made that difficult.
Station road might have had to be improved but it seems clear enough to
widen on one side without major building demolition and the junction if you
grab the land used by a car wash could be improved.
I understand Epping station car park reaches capacity very early on
weekdays so having another just up the line would have been sensible,
Wether working patterns since Covid has lessened the demand at Epping I
don’t know.
The Ongar branch suffered by being not in London and Essex CC not willing
to support it despite that many of its own inhabitants may have found it
useful if it had been given a bit more investment such as a power upgrade
that could have allowed full length trains to run to and from London with
no change.
Now you could stick a battery bank at the Ongar end that charges up when
service is quiet and strengthen the supply at peak times.
Not a new idea, the Mersey Railway had a large lead acid installation for
that purpose over a century ago that lasted well into BR days.

GH

On 20/06/2023 16:34, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> The third rail is easy enough but what about all the substations
>> and TP huts? Network Rail says third rail needs a feed every mile.

> For what, Eurostars? LU managed to get away with no substations on the whole
> 6 miles of the Ongar branch, albeit with the trains going somewhat slower at
> the end.
>

Yes, the Lymington branch only has one feed at the spur off the main
line, but it is only 6 miles long.

--
Remove the '+' and replace with 'plus' to reply by email

On 22.06.23 18:06, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2023 22:37:28 GMT
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> The passing loop was removed after the two train shuttle was withdrawn in
>> the late 1970’s. reducing the 20 minutes between departures to roughly
>> double, a move which further put off potential customers.
>
> I never understood why they didn't leave north wield even if they closed
> Ongar as its a convenient P&R location.

If there was a genuine desire to create a P&R location for the green
belt villages in that part of Essex, somewhere further down the M11 such
as Loughton (Debden) or Chigwell would have likely been a more
attractive location, given the ability to avoid the awkward change at
Epping.

Robin

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 22.06.23 18:06, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On 21 Jun 2023 22:37:28 GMT
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The passing loop was removed after the two train shuttle was withdrawn in
>>> the late 1970’s. reducing the 20 minutes between departures to roughly
>>> double, a move which further put off potential customers.
>>
>> I never understood why they didn't leave north wield even if they closed
>> Ongar as its a convenient P&R location.
>
> If there was a genuine desire to create a P&R location for the green
> belt villages in that part of Essex, somewhere further down the M11 such
> as Loughton (Debden) or Chigwell would have likely been a more
> attractive location, given the ability to avoid the awkward change at
> Epping.
>

Given that the Central Line was already running at peak capacity further
in, there wasn't much point in drumming up more business from the Green
Belt. Better for those people to drive to a main line station offering
faster, longer trains to Liverpool Street.

LU's investments have been focused on increasing capacity in inner London,
not expanding the network in the outer zones, particularly not outside
Greater London. Hence the lack of interest in the Watford Junction Met
extension.

On 22 Jun 2023 18:15:21 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>Now you could stick a battery bank at the Ongar end that charges up when
>service is quiet and strengthen the supply at peak times.
>Not a new idea, the Mersey Railway had a large lead acid installation for
>that purpose over a century ago that lasted well into BR days.

Not heard of something like that. Interesting.