 |
|
 |
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 16:56:23 +0100, "Peter Masson" <...@privacy.com
"1506" <...@yahoo.com
Indeed. One of the early suggestions for Crossrail was that it would go to
Reading and to Aylesbury via Amersham, taking over the Met's Chesham and
Amersham services.
Peter
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 15, 4:39 pm, 1506 <...@yahoo.com
I doubt that the various schemes will involve any dual
electrification, the only long stretch of this has been phased out on
the North London line, except for the system change over points. Re-
electrification of only the fast lines would have the same underlying
problems with electrical interference that a dual scheme would. Dual
system trains are a lot less of an engineering problem than dual
system infrastructure.
Also, I doubt that Marylebone would have capacity for the current Met
line frequency, on top of the two trains per hour Chiltern service,
from Amersham / Chesham. With electrification, you'd be more likely to
see the Met taking over the Aylesbury via Amersham trains (although
this is probably unlikely too)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:57:48 +0800, "DW downunder" <noname
<...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On May 15, 4:39 pm, 1506 <...@yahoo.com
I doubt that the various schemes will involve any dual
electrification, the only long stretch of this has been phased out on
the North London line, except for the system change over points. Re-
electrification of only the fast lines would have the same underlying
problems with electrical interference that a dual scheme would. Dual
system trains are a lot less of an engineering problem than dual
system infrastructure.
Does anyone here know whether the 4-rail LU system can co-exist with 25kV
OHLE due to the complete isolation of the DC side from the running rails?
David down undef
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 16, 12:57 pm, "DW downunder" <noname
The 4 rail LU system doesn't have to be isolated from the running
rails. The section between Queens Park and Harrow and Wealdstone has
the centre rail linked to the running rails, as it is shared by the
3rd rail, DC line, trains from Euston - Watford Junction. The only
difference here is that the outside rail is at +630V, rather than only
+420V (I think) in the normal LU arrangement and the centre rail is at
0V, rather than -210V. This needs slightly higher insulation ratings,
but modern stock was built with this in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 08:12:16 +0100, Martin Edwards <...@yahoo.com
I was born in Watford and in my youth Bakerloo trains ran to the
junction. Is the full setup still in situ?
--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 17, 8:12 am, Martin Edwards <...@yahoo.com
Nearly, the 4th rail is still in place, but many of the insulators are
missing and it just lies on the sleepers. It is retained to provide an
alternative return path to the running rails. You'd have problems
running a Bakerloo train over it though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 05:11:27 +0100, Charles Ellson <...@ellson.demon.co.uk
Before conversion of the DC line to 3rd-rail the slow lines from
Euston to Camden were both 4-rail and 25kV.
In short, convert the Met. from Harrow northwards to 3rd rail (DC line
style) and make allowance for some use of dual-voltage stock in the
future so that London to Aylesbury (or further north) Met. (or why not
NR ?) trains can run again. South of Harrow might be a bit more
"interesting" as IIRC Met. trains still occasionally use the Jubilee
Line. WRT 25kV ISTR there are measures already in place on the Met.
near Kenton/Northwick Park due to the mere proximity of 25kV
electrification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 17, 5:11 am, Charles Ellson <...@ellson.demon.co.uk
True, I'd forgotten that.
There's really no need to convert to 3rd rail, just convert to the
Bakerloo system, where the 4th rail is equivalent to the running
rails. This way both National Rail and LU stock can share the system,
alternative build the stock with 4th rail pickups. I don't think Met
trains use the Jubilee tracks any more, as the new Jubilee signalling
is already undergoing tests and the A60/62 stock is not fitted with
the system, there is certainly no timetabled use anymore. The measures
in place, on the Met, to deal with 25kV are more to do with the
signalling being protected, than with the actual electrification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:08:19 +0100, asdf <...@invalid.invalid
The Met/Jubilee crossovers at Finchley Road have been removed, so it's
definitely not possible for Met trains to use the Jubilee any more
(without getting stuck).
(Though IIRC last time I looked, the running rails had been removed,
but the conductor rails were still there!)
Incidentally, I saw a fairly new-looking "surface stock 10mph" sign
just before the northbound platform at one of the Jubilee stations on
that stretch of line - presumably now redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 17, 11:08 pm, asdf <...@invalid.invalid
The Jubilee resignalling is not yet at the stage where Met. [or any
other] cannot use the route. In fact, none of the Jubilee is limited
to TBTC fitted trains only yet. It is true however there is no
timetabled use of Met. trains on Jub. tracks and have not been any for
several years.
Only the northbound connection is removed [and signals bagged over].
The SB connection is still there, is occasionally used, Mets. do run
up there very occasionally.
There is one of those approaching Neasden on NB Jubilee.
--
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
I don't disagree with what you say, but if you read carefully what I
wrote, I said there is no timetabled use, maybe I should have been
clearer that the Met line trains will be banned after the Jubilee line
signalling is finally commissioned, which is due in December.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Can TPWS/AWS be installed, or does the centre rail get in the way?
Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 14:40:09 +0100, "Paul Scott" <...@btinternet.com
TPWS is definitely fitted adjacent to trainstops at signals on the East
Putney to Wimbledon section of the District, so that is at least a partial
yes. There are appropriate gaps in the fourth rail, that is all.
Paul S
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 17, 10:40 am, wens...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:
Good question, a quick flick through various Group Standards does not
appear to give an answer on how TPWS is installed on 3+4th rail lines,
and I have never seen an underground standard refering to it at all.
Neither main line GERT8030 for TPWS or GERT8035 for AWS seem to refer
to this case.
--
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:06:05 +0100, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
The Underground doesn't use AWS. It uses trainstops and tripcocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 17, 12:06 pm, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.ukwrote:
We know that ... but this statement since you capitialised the U only
refers to Underground trains on Underground lines.
In places main line trains run over Underground lines, so I read the
original question as being a general one about could a TPWS or AWS
ramp be fitted on a 3/4th rail line, hence my response.
Chiltern 16x units run over Met.line infrastructure, and are tripcock
fitted. In this case I assume there is no TPWS or AWS ? is that right
to assume ?
--
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 14:25:27 +0100, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
AWS and ATP is fitted to Chiltern Rly units although obviously not in use
when on LU metals. The previous Cl 115 units were also fitted and locos
would also have to be equipped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 23:52:20 +0100, Charles Ellson <...@ellson.demon.co.uk
On Sun, 17 May 2009 14:25:27 +0100, "Brimstone"
<...@yahoo.co.uk
AFAIR c313s use AWS north of Harrow and south of Kilburn High Road
(and on the NLL) and tripcocks between Kilburn and Harrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 23:52:20 +0100, Charles Ellson
<...@ellson.demon.co.uk
How do they avoid the AWS "sensor" hitting against the centre rail.
Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 19 May 2009 22:11:22 +0100, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
I'm told there is sufficient clearance without modification. The centre rail
is only 1.5 inches above the running rail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 19 May 2009 23:33:22 +0100, "Peter Masson" <...@privacy.com
"Brimstone" <...@bt.com...
However, locos or units equipped for GWR pattern ATC had to have ATC shoes
hitched up before they could go on to lines electrified using the 4-rail
system. Until 1967 trains into the suburban platforms at Paddington shared a
track with the LT Hammersmith & City line, and had to have their shoes
hitched up by a device in the Westbourne Park/Subway Junction area.
Sometimes this failed, and the train had to be diverted into Paddington
Main, with resultant delay.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 19 May 2009 23:44:06 +0100, "Paul Scott" <...@btinternet.com
So with that fore-knowledge it would have been an obvious design requirement
to make AWS fixed and train equipment work with 4th rail from new?
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On 18 May, 23:52, Charles Ellson <...@ellson.demon.co.uk
The DC lines to Watford originally had tripcocks all the way. I don't
know if this was changed north of Harrow, when the line was
resignalled. I will have to have a look for TPWS grids the next time I
head that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 19 May 2009 22:43:53 +0100, Charles Ellson <...@ellson.demon.co.uk
It was, the giveaway is the AWS bell ringing in appropriate places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On 19 May, 22:43, Charles Ellson <...@ellson.demon.co.uk
But AWS and tripcocks are not mutually exclusive. AWS gives an
indication of signal aspect with an intervention if ignored, a
tripcock will intervene with no warning. TPWS at a signal acts more
like the tripcock setup, except without the physical contact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 20 May 2009 13:42:55 +0100, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
Errr, is a large red light shining in the driver's eyes not a warning?
From experience, I can assure you if one has screwed up, that the greater
chance there is of "hitting the stick" then the bigger the red light appears
to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On 20 May, 13:42, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
Warnings are no good unless acted on.
The point of the tripcock and of TPWS is to stop the train when it
passes the large red shining light, before the chance of an impact.
AWS doesn't do that and replacement of tripcocks with just AWS would
actually have led to a (marginal) increase in risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 20 May 2009 17:22:51 +0100, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
Indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 16 May 2009 17:27:38 -0300, Clark F Morris <...@ns.sympatico.ca
Given that the East River tunnels of the Long Island Railroad plus a
fair stretch of track beyond as well as most if not all of the track
in Pennsylvania Station New York is both third rail and 12,000 volts,
25 cycle AC and has been for at least 70 years, why should dual
electrification be a problem.
>this is probably unlikely too)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 17:27:38 -0300, Clark F Morris
<...@ns.sympatico.ca
And the Euston approaches and platforms 9 and 10, and I think a short
stretch near Hunts Cross. But for some reason S-Bahn-Hamburg were
insistent it wasn't possible there.
Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 16, 11:12 pm, wens...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:
And Watford Junction DF south end. And bits of the North London line.
And Ashford International.
And Farringdon <-Moorgate totally closes.
I have never heard of a problem in Hamburg, but yes now you mention it
the routes are seperated, there is a lot of parallel running but not
dual running.
--
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 05:24:53 +0100, Charles Ellson <...@ellson.demon.co.uk
It keeps things simpler not to mix two systems on the same line as
practised in the effective isolation elsewhere from Watford Junction
to Camden and from Bromley-by-Bow(?) to Upminster. In the case of
parallel services with more than one pair of tracks available the
additional costs might outweigh the benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
It came up when they were planning to extend the S-Bahn from Neugraben
to Stade - they said they couldn't extend the third rail because there
would be problems with having it dual-powered, so instead proposed
dual-voltage EMUs.
Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 17, 10:38 am, wens...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:
Interesting, I shall have to look in to this.
I wonder though if that really came down to cost and it was cheaper to
have dual trains rather than dual track. It does not sound
particularly like teutonic engineering to be unable to solve an
electrical problem.
--
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Another point to consider is that the Hamburg S-bahn is 1200V DC and
the higher DC voltage combined with a lower AC voltage (15kV) in
Germany may lead to more expensive electrical works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 11:44:04 +0100, "Jonathan Morton" <...@btinternet.com
<...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 10:38 am, wens...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:
As a matter of interest, are dual-voltage trains disproportionately
expensive? It's something we may see more of, given some of the assumptions
in the RUS. In particular, the "Reading-Basingstoke-Salisbury at 25kV" idea
is rather surprising, since it would need elements of dual electrification
(Basingstoke to Worting Junction) and dual-voltage trains.
Regards
Jonathan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 17, 11:44 am, "Jonathan Morton"
<...@btinternet.com
I think that all the new units south of the river are dual voltage
capable designs (although the actual coach designs may not have a
space for the pantograph). All the 375/377 certainly are, as are the
450s (the 350/1 are basically 450s with pantograph added). The 365s
are similarly dual voltage, although I don't think they've ever
switched from one system to the other in service. I think that the
458s and 334 are basically the same propulsion system as well, one DC
supplied and other other AC. I'm sure that designs exists for the 444s
to be AC powered too. The point is that the bit of the train doing the
work is the same and it costs little extra to have two different
sources for the power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 13:20:57 +0100, "Andrew Heenan" <...@will.com
"Jonathan Morton" <...@btinternet.com...
Not hugely, provided the duality is added at the design stage. The RUS (and
other documents) consistently argue that having one power system on a givens
section of the line with dual-ability trains is much cheaper than either
dual power delivery, or converting the nation to one system - as early as
1988, 319 units functioned well on either system (snow permitting!), and
were able to change mode on the move, albeit slowly (and against 'official
advice'); newer units can switch effortlessly between modes.
The policy is to install 25kV OLE on all new builds, except where other
systems surround the line (eg the Uckfield line).
Regenerative braking used to be more effective with OLE, but with upgraded
power supplies, NW reckon to save 15-18% of power costs on third rail - much
the same as OLE.
On balance, dual power, other than short sections, junctions and overlapping
bits, is pretty unlikely.
--
Andrew
Interviewer: Tonight I'm interviewing that famous nurse, Florence
Nightingale
Tommy Cooper (dressed as a nurse): Sir Florence Nightingale
Interviewer: *Sir* Florence Nightingale?
Tommy Cooper: I'm a Night Nurse
Campaign For The Real Tommy Cooper
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:10:06 +0100, "Peter Masson" <...@privacy.com
"Jonathan Morton" <...@btinternet.com
They seem to be pretty straightforward these days - e.g. the LM 350s have
easily been fitted with shoes for the Milton Keynes - East Croydon service,
while the 377s have gone to FCC for Thamslink. And DC only 375s and 377s can
apparently be converted easily for dual voltage - they ev en have roof wells
ready to fit a pantograph.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:10:06 +0100, "Peter Masson"
<...@privacy.com
They were already dual-voltage units - the shoes were just removed in
case they ended up getting knocked off or damaged. This is because
they were originally intended for SWT.
The 350/2s, OTOH, do not have the third-rail electrical equipment, so
fitting them would be less trivial.
Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 13:24:37 +0100, Barry Salter <...@nospam.demon.co.uk
Same applies to Networkers, witness the Southeastern 365s being
transferred to WAGN (as was) a few years back.
I'm led to believe that the 165s and 166s can be converted to electric
traction relatively easily as well. (fsvo "relatively easily")
Cheers,
Barry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 15:27:43 +0100, "Peter Masson" <...@privacy.com
"Barry Salter" <...@nospam.demon.co.ukThat only applies to 365s, which were delivered as dual voltage. IIRC the
idea was that they would be used on Thameslink for through GN - SE services.
465s and 466s would need a lot of work (including pantographs and pantograph
wells) to enable them to run on 25 kV AC OHLE, and I can't see that ever
happening.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 17, 1:24 pm, Barry Salter <...@nospam.demon.co.uk
In the original Chris Green Network Southeast Empire scheme of things,
it was intended that diesel networkers eventually would have been
converted to EMU by removing the diesel engine and transmission,
converting to driving/trailers, and inserting new intermediate
electric motor coaches. ISTR it went something like Paddington 16x
would be adapted to Crossrail and Marylebone 16x for Euston
services ... or something like that ... somewhere where the slightyl
larger 16x load gaueg could be accomodated so it was no on the SR
anywhere.
--
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 16, 9:27 pm, Clark F Morris <...@ns.sympatico.ca
Whilst dual system electrifications has been possible for a long time.
It has considerable cost implications in keeping the two electrical
systems separate. With the development of cheap dual system rolling
stock, it has been gradually phased out in the UK, with, as I said,
mainly the switch over spots having both systems. Camden South
Junction - Euston and Primrose Hill - Camden Road East Junction are
now the longest sections in the UK, at just over a mile each. I think
that Dalston - Channelsea Junction (near Stratford) lost the 3rd rail
during the autumn closure. All the other spots have just a couple of
hundred metres at most.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:13:39 +0100, "Peter Masson" <...@privacy.com
<...@gmail.com
Another longer one (though still not all that long) is between Fawkham
Junction and Southfleet Junction, where E*s used to change voltage on the
move - though this stretch doesn't currently have any booked trains (apart
possibly for 395 training runs), and none seem to be likely in the future.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Just to clarify for those less familair with this subject, the above
wording can in one way be interpreted as meaning dual system was once
common and its now being eliminated.
Neither case was really true ... it was never common, its only a
recent phenomenon ... and there are more existing sections and at
least one is about to be added.
Before the North London line was AC wired in late 1980s, it was DC
only. The only real dual system section was that out of Euston itself.
AFAIW not even the chage point at Watfrod Junction existed before 313s
arrived. Other than localised AC/DC changeover locations such as
Drayton Park [313s] and Farringdon [319s] there were then, I think, no
other more AC-DC routes. 1980s NL electrfication then added dual
system routes, and of course more AC/DC change locations came along
with Channel Tunnel works and the West London line, and so on.
Even though parts of the NL dual system are/can be removed with
present engineering works, there are still other more recent large
dual system sections in place that won't all be eliminated.
Ashford International has well over +1 km of dual system from around
about a location adjacent to and a bit west of Ashford C Jn right
through 4 platforms to Ashford East. Thats quite long, its a good deal
more than just the station area at other changeover locations, and
will remain in place for 395s.
The longest is [I think] Dollands Moor where dual 25 kV AC / 750 V DC
exists for something like +2 km from Saltwood Jns along the Up and
Down Mains and the Through Passenger Loop with at least one road
extending almost to CTRL Jns. Now I'm not sure how much of this is now
in use since E* using HS1, and I don't think 92s use it as they all go
via Dollands Moor yard. Last time I looked, the east end of the third
rails looked like they'd never been used.
Also, we are about to get a new dual system location - City Thameslink
to Farringdon - which will be dual to allow a failed system changeover
train to run forward after change failure before reversal. lndeed, had
it not been for alterations to plans, at one time this might have
extended to Blackfriars.
Then there is the East London works.
So IMHO, its not so much true to say that modern VVVF rolling stock is
making dual system routes redundant, but more allowing flexability.
--
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
It was never common, but the length has been considerably cut down to
just 'local' installations, compared to continuous routes with both
systems available.
But the Euston dual system is one of the oldest, having existed since
the WCML was AC electrified in the 1960s. As I said, nearly all the
third rail has now been removed from the North London line, except at
changeover points. I think that Dalston - Channelsea Junction was by
far the longest stretch and this now AC only. Camden Road - Willesden
Junction - Acton was converted to AC in the 1980s, as it was less
hassle than having both systems. Without the 313s, this wouldn't have
been possible, quite why Dalston - Stratford retained both systems, I
don't know, maybe the DC kit wasn't life expired and it was at the
western end.
I make it just over half a mile of route (admittedly a bit longer when
looking at track miles), probably about the same as Camden Junction -
Euston / Camden Road in total.
But this is just another changeover spot, the difference being the
changeover was undertaken when moving, so you need a longer distance.
It also had the advantage of being designed dual-system. As Eurostars
have had their 3rd rail kit decommissioned, I would doubt that the 3rd
rail will see much use now.
But won't the ELL works be all DC only, taking over the current DC
tracks on the North London Line to Highbury. The only connection with
the AC will be empty stock only and the units for the extended East
London line will be DC only.
I think if you compared the dual system track mileage in 2012 with
that in the 1980s/1990s, it will be considerably less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 04:43:40 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T <...@gmail.com
That's my understanding - so presumably only part of the stock
transfer line west of H&I will need to have dual-electrification. The
southern pair of lines from Dalston Junction through to H&I will be
dedicated to the ELLX, hence will only need third rail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 04:53:44 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant <...@googlemail.com
And just how would the empty stock connection be used if the latter is
true? It's planned to stable some of the ELL fleet at Temple Mills on
a daily basis. It's a safe bet that the entire LO fleet will be dual
voltage.
(I know there's some entirely made-up subclass designations floating
around that claim otherwise)
U
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 05:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T <...@gmail.com
On May 17, 12:53 pm, Mr Thant
<...@googlemail.com
I'm pretty sure Andy Purk wasn't suggesting that the LO fleet wouldn't
be all dual-voltage, he was just taking up D7666/Nick on his comment
that the ELLX would be dual-electrified - AFAICS, the only bit that
will need to have both third rail and OHLE is the stock transfer line
west of H&I station, where changeover will occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 17, 1:07 pm, Mizter T <...@gmail.com
Yes, seems I'm wrong. For some reason I had thought there was a
passegner route chunk north of the Thames somewhere that was going to
be dual system. Dunno where I got that idea from.
--
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 17, 12:53 pm, Mr Thant
<...@googlemail.com
So why does every thing I can find about the ELL 378s say that they
will be DC only, even including press releases on the TfL site. I
personally think it would be short sighted to do this, but as TfL
ordered the trains before LOROL took over, it wouldn't surprised me if
DC only had been specified.
Remember that the Silverlink 508 units were based at Bletchley for a
while and needed to be dragged to / from the depot by the 313. The
same would be true for any ELL unit needing being stabled away from
the line.
I personally can't see why ELL stock would need to be stabled at
Temple Mills, it seems like an awfully long way to send units away
from their home line, especially considering there will be no
connection pointing the right way. Sending them back to New Cross Gate
depot seems more sensible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 14:07:27 +0100, "Paul Scott" <...@btinternet.com
Personally I suspect because some of the press releases pre-date the
confirmation of the extension of the ELL to H&I, and they aren't intended to
be too detailed anyway.
This has been discussed here a while back. IIRC it is because there isn't
capacity at New Cross Gate for berthing the whole ELL fleet. The Orient Way
(Temple Mills) berthing requirement, and ECS movements at start and end of
service is discussed at the beginning of a fairly massive file about LO
timetabling and movements available on the ORR track access pages.
"In addition to the North London Railway rolling stock, we included
provision for six ELL units, commencing or finishing service at Highbury &
Islington and stabled overnight at Orient Way."
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s18-NLR_appendix10.pdf
Paul S
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
I have to agree with this ... if allowed to break it down to sub
classes.
I am under the impression that ELL 378 sub class 378/1 are 750 V DC
third rail only.
378/0 - intial NL build - are dual AC/DC - as are the 378/2 growth
build.
The usually 99.99999999999999% accurate P5 spotting books show this as
well
378/0 DMSO+PTSO+(mso)+DMSO
378/1 DMSO+TSO+MSO+DMSO <---------- i.e. no Pantograph car
378/2 DMSO+PTSO+MSO+DMSO
i.e. no PTSO in 378/1.
((( ??? This might be why I tohught there was a dual section, for
378/1 to bridge an otherwise DC gap somewhere ??? )))
Has this been altered then recently ?
--
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 06:52:58 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T <...@gmail.com
The notion that LOROL "took over" from TfL is a bizarre one - the LO
network (i.e. passenger service on the constituent routes) is TfL's
responsibility, and LOROL is TfL's chosen operator (the
"concessionaire").
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 17, 2:52 pm, Mizter T <...@gmail.com
TfL ordered the stock, TfL will not be directly involved in the
commissioning or running of the trains on a day-to-day basis. This is
being dealt with by QW rail leasing as the (future) owners of the
stock and LOROL as the operators, along with the manufacturers. The
point being that TfL had no experience in mainline rolling stock
ordering / commissioning.
Note, I said nothing about the service responsibility, only the
rolling stock, which TfL will NOT own. It wouldn't be the first time
that a government body has screwed up an order because they don't know
what they are doing. Please read carefully, what I wrote, before
calling it 'bizarre' because you are reading into it something that
wasn't there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Then you'd better explain that to TfL who advertise for Overground
operational staff with underground t&c.
--
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
But, with respect, is that TfL hosting job adverts on behalf of their
operating company. If there are running everything themselves, what is
the point of having LOROL? The terms and conditions will be part of
the concession's contract with TfL, but are you saying that TfL are
micromanaging operational staff recruitment as well? If so, I'm very
surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 06:18:17 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant <...@googlemail.com
Because all sources are copying each other.
The only TfL press release I can find that covers the topic is this
one:
"24 dual-voltage three-car trains for the North London Railway from
2009
20 four-car trains for the East London Railway when it opens in 2010"
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/3489.aspx
Which doesn't actually mean the ELL fleet won't be dual-voltage.
New Cross Gate won't be big enough for the whole fleet once the
Highbury extension opens (which requires a few more trains). I suppose
it's possible the main fleet will be DC-only and the few that will
outstable will be dual-voltage.
U
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 17, 2:37 pm, Paul Corfield <...@dsl.pipex.com
Considering the lateness of the initial units, they might be able to
arrange for their compensation to be an extra six-seven units for
phase 2 for free or at cost !! I think Bombardier are going to be hard
pushed to deliver another 22 units by December (and finish off the two
already at Willesden) for the NLL part of the initial order, as well
as the remaining 377 units for Thameslink.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 17, 2:18 pm, Mr Thant <...@googlemail.comwrote:
Depends how you read it, of course. I was going from memory. It's one
of those badly written bits which is open to misinterpretation. I must
have assumed that if the three-car units are described as dual-
voltage, the four-car trains would be DC only.
I thought the extra 3 x 4 car, dual-voltage, units ordered along with
the 4th coaches for the NLL trains were those for the Highbury
extension, these were followed by an order for an extra 7 x 4 car
units were for NLL strengthening. It does seem a bit strange that the
Depot wasn't designed with the latter phases of the project in mind!!
It looks to me like the New Cross depot wouldn't even have been big
enough without the Highbury extension, if 6 units are to be out-based.
The extension will only be just over a mile and even with the planned
frequencies can only need 2 - 3 more units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 14:45:32 +0100, "Paul Scott" <...@btinternet.com
A possible interpretation of that document I linked to is that all the
trains will be allocated to New Cross Gate, and Willesden will be an
outstation. So part of the capacity at NXG is for NLL/WLL/DC trains
undergoing deeper maintenance, and WJ is more of a light maintenance depot,
rather than the full depot it is now?
Paul S
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 07:15:47 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T <...@gmail.com
May I suggest that part of the issue here simply that the space
available for the depot at New Cross is limited - so the depot could
only ever be so big.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 17, 3:15 pm, Mizter T <...@gmail.com
Note, the depot is going to be at New Cross Gate, New Cross was the
site of the old A stock depot.
Quite possibly true, but there is space on the other side of the
London Bridge line, north of the new flyover, that could also have
been used for stabling (and was until relatively recently). Before the
Highbury extension approval, the depot would have had to cope without
out-stabling (unless Selhurst was used). Of course, there is still the
site of New Cross depot for potential overflow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:59:23 +0100, asdf <...@invalid.invalid
Again going from memory, I'm pretty sure that the original tender for
the stock specified the NLL units as dual-voltage, and the ELL units
as DC-only (with the ability for later conversion to AC "desirable" or
similar, i.e. not even a hard requirement!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 04:14:05 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant <...@googlemail.com
On 18 May, 11:46, Paul Corfield <...@dsl.pipex.com
http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/press/release.aspx?Id=692
"The contract [...] is for eight 2-car next generation diesel multiple
units for use on the London Overground network"
However, one of the Mayor's Question Time things says:
"Trains on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line will be lengthened to three
cars by 2010"
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2008/07/mayors-question-time-july-2008.ht ml
Assuming they aren't delivered before 2010, the Dec 2009 would
presumably require the transfer of one or two 165s. I wouldn't be
surprised if we jump straight from there to three-car 172s (or equally
likely, to two-car 172s).
First I've heard of this.
U
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 12:44:01 +0100, Barry Salter <...@nospam.demon.co.uk
The Class 172 "Green" Turbostar orders break down as follows:
12x2-car and 15x3-car for London Midland
8x2-car for London Overground
4x2-car for Chiltern
If memory serves, the London Midland units will have a gangway
connection, whilst the LO and Chiltern ones will have full-width cabs,
with the LO ones having in-cab DOO CCTV monitors.
As for the exact operational details, I guess that's something that'll
have to wait until they enter service, though looking at an aerial view
of South Tottenham suggests there's more room for platform extensions
than it would first appear.
The Eastbound platform could be extended to butt onto the overbridge at
the West end, and beyond the junction at the East end if needed, and I
reckon there's just about enough room beyond the signalbox to extend the
Westbound platform before you reach the junction.
Cheers,
Barry
Cheers,
Barry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:20:37 +0100, "Peter Masson" <...@privacy.com
<...@hotmail.com
Primrose Hill to Maiden Lane was dual voltage for some years from the late
1960s, but AFAIK the wires were removed when the short-lived Maiden Lane
Freightliner Terminal was closed. The wires were reinstated for the NLL AC
scheme, when Primrose Hill to Camden Road and Dalston to Channelsea became
dual voltage, though between Camden Road and Dalston Nos 1 and 2 lines
remained DC only and No. 3 Reversible Line was AC only.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 17, 12:20 pm, "Peter Masson" <...@privacy.com
Never heard of that one :o)
Where is/was Maiden Lane w.r.t. rail infrastructure? I found road of
same name on A2Z atlas north of the NL line almost due north of the KX/
SP complex, near where todays new NL/HS1/SPI junctions are.
--
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 16:42:45 +0100, "Peter Masson" <...@privacy.com
<...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 12:20 pm, "Peter Masson" <...@privacy.com
Never heard of that one :o)
Where is/was Maiden Lane w.r.t. rail infrastructure? I found road of
same name on A2Z atlas north of the NL line almost due north of the KX/
SP complex, near where todays new NL/HS1/SPI junctions are.
That would appear to be the location. The North London Railway opened a
goods yard there in 1854, mainly to serve the Metropolitan Cattle Market off
Caledonian Road (the mind boggles at the thought of cattle being driven on
the hoof along York Way). The site of Maiden Lane goods depot was used as
London's first Freightliner Depot, opened in November 1965. The line from
Primrose Hill (already electrified 4th rail DC) was wired for OHLE from
November 1966. The NLL also had a Maiden Lane passenger station between 1887
and 1916.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:57:17 +0100, Robert <...@gmail.com
On 2009-05-17 16:42:45 +0100, "Peter Masson" <...@privacy.com
I think the LMR's earlier 'Condor' (Container Door to Door) service
which used pre-ISO containers also ran from there to Glasgow as well.
IIRC it was sometimes hauled by the MetroVic Co-Bos and used the Settle
and Carlisle in one of its incarnations.
--
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 23:35:16 +0100, "Martin Rich" <...@city.ac.uk
"Robert" <...@gmailcom...
Drifting way off topic, was this the same goods yard that was used as a
Motorail terminal before Kensington Olympia became a base? My family
certainly travelled by Motorail to Scotland from somewhere around Caledonian
Road circa 1967, but I haven't been able to locate the exact starting point
Martin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 20 May 2009 00:07:48 +0100, "Peter Masson" <...@privacy.com
"Martin Rich" <...@city.ac.ukNo. The York Way Freightliner terminal was on the NLL. Holloway Road Car
Loading Bay was on the ECML. But both started off as cattle docks to serve
the Metropolitan Cattle Market.
Peter
(old enough to have travelled on the Anglo Scottish Car Carrier from
Holloway Road Car Loading Bay - and my sister complained bitterly that there
was no kidney in her portion of steak and kidney pie in the restaurant car
lunch).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 08:07:16 +0100, David Randles <...@nospam.drandles.net
The RUS mentions 25kv OLE from Reading to Basingstoke, Salisbury,
Yeovil Jc and Exeter, which means that Basingstoke to Worting Jc would
be dual OLE and third rail.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 10:46:59 -0700 (PDT), 1506 <...@yahoo.com
On May 18, 12:07 am, David Randles <...@nospam.drandles.netI'm wondering exactly how this will be done. Perhaps Basingstoke's
platform arrangements will remain as now. In which case certainly
there would need to be DC and AC systems west of the Station until
Worting Junction.
On the north side of Basingstoke Station there where once two,
formerly GW, platforms for services from Reading. Assuming these
could be rebuilt, The DC system might narrow to two tracks and some
reversing sidings west of the platforms. The Flyover would be removed
and the AC system would take over the northernmost pair of tracks and
proceed towards Salisbury.
We will have to wait and see what the planners decide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 04:08:29 -0700 (PDT), TimB <...@onetel.net
On May 18, 8:07 am, David Randles <...@nospam.drandles.net
Well, the Salisbury and Southampton tracks can be kept separate.
What's the betting it turns out to be 3rd rail DC to Exeter anyway?
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On 18 May, 12:08, TimB <...@onetel.net
Very low I reckon, as such a long distance would be considerably more
expensive to electrify using 3rd rail than 25kV OHLE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 20:17:38 +0100, Tony Polson <...@googlemail.com
It has often been stated in the past that third rail DC electrification
would be impracticable west of Salisbury for technical reasons connected
with drainage of the formation.
So any future electrification of the LSWR main line has long been
assumed to be at 25kV overhead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 21:50:33 -0700 (PDT), TimB <...@onetel.net
Not that much further than Weymouth - but yes, the need for diversions
off the B&H would be the clincher for 25kV - and Reading-Basingstoke
too then.
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 12:50:08 +0100, rail <...@greywall.demon.co.uk
In message <...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com TimB <...@onetel.net
Not through Basingstoke station I wouldn't have thought.
That would hardly count as an infill to the existing 3rd rail area.
--
Graeme Wall
This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On 18 May, 12:50, rail <...@greywall.demon.co.uk
The cost is one thing, but it is a diversionary route for the B&H and
NR propose that this route is electrified to Plymouth. IEP, or
whatever it's being called today, is OHL not third rail capable. Part
of the justification for going beyond Bristol being that diesel IEPs
are more expensive the electric only version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 18, 12:50 pm, rail <...@greywall.demon.co.uk
''Infill'' will always be subject to interpretation at outer
boundaries.
Someone upthread wrote infill but I think the thread has twisted its
meaining. A quick skim through the NR report uses the word infill
about small or side projects; its does not use it in the context of
750 V DC, only generally.
Also I don't think UIC use the word infill ... I think it it might be
extension to existing, or new metro-only applications.
--
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On 18 May, 12:50, rail <...@greywall.demon.co.uk
The ban on new 3rd rail DC lines only applies to completely new
installations. Extensions to original systems are allowed, otherwise
Weymouth would have been in trouble when it was done in the 80s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 20 May 2009 13:01:55 +0100, rail <...@greywall.demon.co.uk
The difference between Weymouth and Exeter is that there was no practical
alternative to 3rd rail to Weymouth. It was an extension of the only
available electrification system.
On the other hand, the Exeter electrification would primarily be an extension
of the GWML electrification, The SW service would not justify electrification
on its own. Therefore the sensible option is 26kV with SWT acquiring dual
voltage stock for their service.
--
Graeme Wall
This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On 20 May, 13:01, rail <...@greywall.demon.co.uk
I have vague memories that the line west of Bournemouth was considered
for AC electrification, but that dual voltage units were not thought
to be reliable or cheap enough.
But the Basingstoke - Exeter via Salisbury would be an infill scheme,
admittedly a long one. The system chosen would be based on the
economics of doing the work and 25kV would win as it is more suited to
the route, not because the ends will happen to be 25kV. If dual
electrification system units were not so relatively cheap, then a
different solution might be the winner, say 3rd to Salisbury with dual
mode diesel / DC units for the Exeter trains, saving on the cost of
the electrification works and apeing the original setup for the
Weymouth line in the 1960s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 20 May 2009 14:25:25 +0100, rail <...@greywall.demon.co.uk
Which was always a stop-gap bodge and I doubt that anyone would seriously
want to repeat it. Even if dual mode units were an expensive option you
would still electrify[1] at 25kV for the GWML diversions but continue the SWT
service with the current diesels.
In the longer term it would be worth looking at extending the GW
electrification from Oxford to Birmingham and dualling the LSWR main line
between Basingstoke and Southampton thus allowing electric haulage of a
substantial portion of the container traffic from Southampton Docks. I
suspect that would have to wait until the economy improved more than somewhat
though.
[1] Assuming the numbers still worked.
--
Graeme Wall
This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On 20 May, 14:25, rail <...@greywall.demon.co.uk
You call the Weymouth scheme a stop-gap bodge, but similar methods are
being used in France (with bi-mode diesel / 25kV trains) to allow
through trains to continue after electrification of the busy part of
the line. For example the Paris - Provins route, after electrification
of the Paris end of the line, still a stop-gap until full
electrification, but much better than running diesels over an
electrified route for however long it takes to get the rest of the
funding and work done.
I sincerely doubt that there'd be any electrification of such a long
line as Basingstoke - Exeter purely for the occasional diversion!! The
diversion argument can be used to decide the system chosen, but you
can't make a financial case without the main service down the line
being included.
I doubt we'll see dual electrification down to Southampton, much more
likely to see dual system locos used, class 92s are underutilised at
the moment. I personally reckon that we'll see Oxford - Coventry
electrified, then Reading - Basingstoke, before we see Basingstoke -
Salisbury - Exeter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 20 May 2009 15:55:18 +0100, rail <...@greywall.demon.co.uk
I just did :-)
This is not France, we no longer have the motive power to operate such a
scheme and I can't see anything being bought specially when the existing
units would still work adequately until funds were available to replace them
with dual voltage electric stock.
Which is why I would expect to see SWT obtaining dual-voltage units fairly
rapidly. Would also release a batch of DMUs for use elswhere, I'm sure other
TOCS would be fighting over them.
Good point. How many would be available? IIRC there are something like a
dozen freight paths each way currently.
There wouldn't be much point of doing the latter until Reading-Basingstoke
was done if you are going to use 25kV.
I'm not so sure about Oxford-Coventry being an early candidate though. The
main jsutification would be as part of a through freight route and that
depends on Reading-Basingstoke being done.
--
Graeme Wall
This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 20, 3:55 pm, rail <...@greywall.demon.co.uk
...of course, all current SWT stock except for the 455s is already
dual-voltage-capable; just needs the panto sticking on...
(yes, ok, and the transformer screwed into place)
--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
http://www.johnband.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 21 May 2009 13:35:36 +0100, rail <...@greywall.demon.co.uk
Agreed, but the current fleet would not be capable of absorbing the extra
duties an electrified Exeter service would entail so new units would be
needed anyway.
--
Graeme Wall
This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On 20 May, 15:55, rail <...@greywall.demon.co.uk
Except, of course, for the dual-mode IEP units which would be being
used on the GWML. I'm sure that DfT could specify easy conversion to
DC operation as well.
I think by the time this electrification happens, the 158 and 159
units will be heading for scrap!!
That depends, there is some freight which comes from the Oxford
direction and runs towards Paddington and doing this section would
allow some of the WCML freight to run this way electrically hauled.
I'd imagine that it would all be done together though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 21 May 2009 12:59:07 +0100, rail <...@greywall.demon.co.uk
In message
I sincerely doubt that any bi-mode IEP units will ever run in revenue
service.
That is being really pessimistic.
[snip]
Sensibly it ought to be, but when was the last time anybody did anything
sensible about the railways?
--
Graeme Wall
This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On 21 May, 12:59, rail <...@greywall.demon.co.uk
Me too, but as we are talking about grand schemes, rather than agreed
projects, I thought I'd throw it in.
Not really, the units are already 17-20 years old and expected
lifetime for DMUs seems to be 30-35 years, none of the big
electrification is likely to start until the period starting 2014, and
Basingstoke - Exeter wouldn't be one of the first schemes. There is
already talk of the need to replace the 150s, which are only 5 years
older than the 158s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 21 May 2009 14:01:49 +0100, rail <...@greywall.demon.co.uk
Fairy snuff!
[snip]
I thought the second generation units had a design life of 40 years which
would still give them a service life of 7-10 years.
--
Graeme Wall
This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 21 May 2009 15:18:19 +0100, Graham Murray <...@gmurray.org.uk
andy...@gmail.com writes:
As would one starting from Reading instead of Basingstoke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|