Chunnel Choo-choo chokes
Larry Sheldon
Yeah, I know, Chunnel trains don't "Choo Choo". It's Christmas time.
cut me some slack.
--
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
mikekilp...@yahoo.com
you are a fucking idiot, aren't you
as well you are a fucking idiot x-tian as you believe in lies and
fairy tales
you should stay with the idiots on mtr
my suggestion to you is bag and tag yourself with a really big plastic
bag tied tightly around your pencil sized neck
and breathe very deep
no one would miss you, you fucking idiot
Adam H. Kerman
>Larry Sheldon schrieb:
>>Yeah, I know, Chunnel trains don't "Choo Choo". It's Christmas time.
>>cut me some slack.
>For being 103 years late, intellectually? Okay, it's christmas.
>When the Simplon was opened in 1906, they had already understood, that
>they couldn't possibly do it with choo-choos.
I know this one: The punch line is Hannibal and elephants, right?
Yeah, yeah, wrong pass. But Napoleon didn't have elephants.
George Conklin
"Larry Sheldon" <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7p81st...@mid.individual.net...
> http://lawhawk.blogspot.com/2009/12/chunnel-trains-suspended-due-to.html
>
> Yeah, I know, Chunnel trains don't "Choo Choo". It's Christmas time.
> cut me some slack.
Neither are they a good backup for bad weather......
Larry Sheldon
I'll tell you that as I get older, my claustrophobia gets worse--now I
have to consider the possibility of being stuck under the sea.
The old mid-crossing "station" that BART trains stopped at under the Bay
was bad enough.
Does the Chunnel have an escape tunnel like BART does?
Stephen Sprunk
> I'll tell you that as I get older, my claustrophobia gets worse--now I
> have to consider the possibility of being stuck under the sea.
>
> The old mid-crossing "station" that BART trains stopped at under the Bay
> was bad enough.
>
> Does the Chunnel have an escape tunnel like BART does?
The Chunnel is actually three tunnels: two large ones for trains and one
small one for service and emergency vehicles, with regular access points
between them.
They _did_ evacuate people from stranded trains via the service tunnel;
it just took a while because nobody expected five trains to get stuck at
once. The emergency plan was designed around a fire or cave-in
affecting only one train, with any other trains in the Chunnel at the
time being able to escape (forward or backward) under their own power.
I'm sure they're already plotting how to handle this situation better
next time--and how to modify the trainsets to prevent it happening again
in the first place.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk
> Does the Chunnel have an escape tunnel like BART does?
It consists of three parallel tunnels, two running tunnels, with a
smaller service tunnel, usually between then, but I believe it moves
to one side shortly before the portals of the tunnels. Within the
tunnels there are two crossover chambers, dividing them into three
roughly equal lengths, where trains can cross from one tunnel to the
other, enabling part of a tunnel to be closed for maintenance, or i
emergency, such as for repairs after the fire a couple of years ago.
At regular intervals there are cross-passages through which passengers
can be evacuated from a train into the service tunnel. I'm not sure
what vehicles can run in the service tunnel, but I don't think they're
rail-based.
I believe the preferred option is to drag a failed train out of the
tunnel with the passengers on board where possible, rather than
evacuating them via a train in the tunnel, or via the service tunnel.
Exactly what went wrong this time, and why it took so long to sort
out, I don't know.
A Eurostar spokesman said on the radio today that while this was
unpleasant for the passengers they were not in any danger, which does
seem to be the case. He also said that they were hoping to re-start
services tomorrow If test runs today with modified trains were
successful. He didn't say what the modifications were, but presumably
they must be something fairly minor to be done so quickly. Yesterday
their website was saying that ticket sales were suspended until at
least 26th December.
I've only been through the tunnel twice (in each direction), once on a
Eurostar train soon after it opened, and then on a coach (long-
distance bus) on a vehicle shuttle train. Both times everything went
as planned, but the tunnel does seem to have had a number of problems,
including two major fires, in it's fifteen year life.
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk
> Neither are they a good backup for bad weather......
They weren't being used as a backup, but as a normal means of crossing
the Channel. There are three practical means of crossing from England
to France, By train through the tunnel, by air, or by ferry. Of the
three the railway is probably the least affected by bad weather, but
this was obviously not the case this time. This morning almost no
trains were running from my local station, but the buses were running
almost normally. Last year, when we had probably the heaviest snow
since 1963, the roads were almost impassible, and no buses were
running for several days, the trains did better. It's a good idea to
have more than one means of transport available.
rsh...@gmail.com
why don't you tell georgie boy that
in his world air planes are never affected by weather
snow, rain, fog, etc airplanes never have delays, ever, in Georgie
boys world
John Haskey
Would that be the exhaust air duct or the utility tunnel?
---john.
Adam H. Kerman
>But >12 miles /under/ the Alps in a tunnel with a choo-choo, that's
>quite bad an idea, and the Swiss and Italians were clever enough not
>to try, in 1906.
I know. The builders of the London subway weren't that clever. As far as I
know, that was the world's only such attempt.
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk
Not so much not that clever as not having any real alternative.
Atmospheric railways had been problematical and short-lived, and cable-
haulage also had major problems. The first electric train in Britain
wouldn't run for another 25 years, and there wasn't one anywhere in
the World when the Metropolitan opened. Diesel was even further away.
Steam was probably about the only real alternative they had for what
was more like a main-line railway in a tunnel than a modern metro
system.
The Metropolitan Railway opened from Bishops Road to Farrigdon Street,
now the Paddington to Farringdon section of the Hammersmith & City
Line, in 1863 using steam but this was a cut & cover tunnel, and had
many gaps in it. It was far from being a long continuous tunnel; It
was far more 'open' than a typical underground New York Subway line
for example. The Metropolitan locomotives were fitted with condensing
apparatus in an attempt to improve matters somewhat.
Steam haulage of Metropolitan trains lasted, until about 1905, and
London Transport steam locomotives were still used on occasional works
trains through to the city until the last of them were withdrawn in
1971, three years after British Railways ran their last main-line
steam.
When the first deep-level tube railway, (rather than just a short
tunnel under the river) the City & South London from Stockwell to King
William Street, opened in 1990 it used electric locomotives. It was
originally intended to use cable haulage, but this was changed to
electric during construction. By 1901 the short, tightly-curved,
section to King William Street was abandoned and the line extended.
The rest of the route, much altered and enlarged, survives as part of
he Northern line.
There are continuous tunnels on main-line railways which are several
miles long which were previously worked by steam, but these are larger
in section. Conditions in them, especially for the locomotive crews,
were said to be terrible but I can't speak from personal experience.
What did the New York Subway use for engineering trains when power was
turned off; battery locomotives?
Adam H. Kerman
Thanks for the early history of the London subway.
Bernhard Agthe
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> They _did_ evacuate people from stranded trains via the service tunnel;
> it just took a while because nobody expected five trains to get stuck at
> once. The emergency plan was designed around a fire or cave-in
> affecting only one train, with any other trains in the Chunnel at the
> time being able to escape (forward or backward) under their own power.
>
> I'm sure they're already plotting how to handle this situation better
> next time--and how to modify the trainsets to prevent it happening again
> in the first place.
Actually there'd been a fire or two in the tunnel with trains breaking
down and unable to escape under their own power. It may be a bad idea to
try and pull a burning train through the tunnel.
Still I'd have expected the fire train (which they keep at either end)
would be equipped with some kind of "pull" device so they would be able
to haul the stranded train sets out with diesel power or whatever. OK,
diesel operation in tunnels is not really fun, but in a case like this
would be possible. There's enough space at the loading facilities at
either end to park the stranded train sets and passengers would be
unhappy but less uncomfortable "outside"...
Merry Christmas...
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk
> fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk wrote:
>
> Thanks for the early history of the London subway.
The Metropolitan wasn't really a 'Subway' as you would think of it
over there. It started out connecting (passengers, not physically
rails) several main-line railway stations in West and North London.
Remember, London was an old city long pre-dating the railways so the
stations, at least for the lines from the North, tended to be along
the edge of the old city; several of them were along what was then
known as the 'New Road'. The Metropolitan had bigger ideas however.
The aim was to connect two great cities, Manchester and Paris, via a
third, London. It ever happened of course; the technology to build a
channel tunnel simply wasn't there at the time, though there were
several attempts before the present one was completed. It new got
beyond London in that direction, and a station pretty much in the
middle of Nowhere called Verney Junction about 40 miles from London in
the other direction. The junction was with the railway from Oxford to
Cambridge. A few miles before Verney Junction it had a junction with
a light railway known as the Brill Tramway, which ran to the village
of Brill.
So the Metropolitan was more like a main-line railway, it even ran a
couple of Pullman carriages at one time, than a 'subway' type system,
and it still has that feel to it today, at least that part of it that
still exists as part of the London Underground. Cable haulage simply
wouldn't have been practical for this. Later it did use electric
locomotives, but changed to steam for the part of the route beyond the
electrification.
My reason for mentioning the Brill Tramway is that it eventually got a
couple of old Metropolitan steam locomotives and these were in use
long enough, until closure in 1935, for one of them to be preserved;
it's now in the London Transport Museum.
http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10447247
Shows this locomotive with the single coach Brill train, and looks
like it was taken at the junction of the branch with the main line.
The large pipes between the smokebox and the water tanks are part of
the condensing apparatus for working through the tunnels. There's a
picture of the same locomotive as it is today in the museum here:
http://wapedia.mobi/en/File:Metropoltian_Railway_steam_locomotive_number_23.jpg
The museum building is the old flower market building at Covent Garden
in London.
This:
is one of the electric locomotives, a rather later one from 1922.
This one occasionally gets out onto the main line, and another on of
its class, in more original condition, but not in working order, is in
the same museum as the steam locomotive.
There's another picture of the working one here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ydtsu23
I had to shorten that, the original URL was five lines long!
The next picture down is of a Metropolitan Railway milk van; another
indication that this isn't a 'subway' type railway.
Take a look at the map on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_line
This map is pretty much to scale, unlike the usual underground map.
The section in Tunnel is from Aldgate to Baker Street. From there to
Amersham, and on to Verney junction, is conventional surface railway.
Verney Junction is about twice as far as Amersham, so the present
Metropolitan line service is only about half of the original
Metropolitan Railway. The tunnel section is only a small part of the
route; a bit like the Newark City Subway (I still can't get used to
calling it Newark Light Rail) over there.
The picture of the two underground trains shows the two sizes of stock
we have. The larger 'Surface' stock is for the cut and cover lines,
and the smaller 'Tube' stock is for the deeper bored tunnels, which
are about 12 feet in diameter. Surface stock is somewhat smaller than
that which runs on the New York Subway, or on PATH, and about the same
size as our main-line trains. The original City and South London
tunnels were even smaller than the modern tube ones.
This strange looking object:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ltmd-c%26slr-number13-01.jpg
is one of the original electric locomotives for this line. For many
years it was in an out of the way corner of the Science Museum in
London, painted dark brown, until they moved most of their transport
collection to other museums some years ago. Two of these were
originally preserved, the other being at Moorgate station on the line,
but this was destroyed during a bombing raid during World War II. An
axle and traction motor from it was preserved in the Science Museum,
alongside the complete locomotive.
There's another picture of the locomotive, and one of the 'padded
cell' coaches used with them here:
http://www.piccadilly-line.org.uk/city_and_south_london_railway_mo.htm
It's difficult to see from these pictures just how small they were.
Cable haulage, as originally intended, or electricity were about the
only options for this line; steam really wouldn't have been practical;
it was very different to the Metropolitan.
The C&SLR trains were air braked, unusual for this country where the
vacuum brake was more common until quite recent times. The hose for
the train pipe can be seen at roof level, but the locomotives carried
no compressors. The air tanks were replenished at stations, and I
assume that this is what the air hoses at the side of the locomotive
were for. Whether this was done only at terminal stations, in which I
can't see how they managed to carry enough air for a full journey, or
at every station, in which case it must have really slowed things
down, I'm not sure.
Underground trains were very different then, and in the case of the
Metropolitan the use of steam wasn't as impossible as it might sound.
Here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybtsmrk
is a picture of Baker Street station, displayed on the wall of the
same station today. It can be seen how large the tunnel is. Note the
three rails; this was a mixed-gauge railway, standard and Great
Western Railway broad (7' 0.25"), though broad gauge trains only ran
for a short period. Also note the many shafts through which light
could enter the station, and smoke and steam escape. These were
blocked, and built over, many years ago, but in more recent times SON,
and later metal halide, lamps have been installed in them to give an
impression of how the station would originally have looked.
http://album.varulane.pri.ee/albums/london07/016_Baker_street_station.jpg
shows the station as it is today. I think the platforms have been
widened, and the trackbed narrowed, somewhat since it was built.
Metal halide lighting both in the shafts and in the globes, though
that on the platform from which the picture was taken looks like it
needs re-lamping, some of it has gone distinctly green. That on the
other platform looks better.
Larry Sheldon
> On 22 Dec, 11:49, "Adam H. Kerman"<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>> fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the early history of the London subway.
>
> The Metropolitan wasn't really a 'Subway' as you would think of it
> over there. It started out connecting (passengers, not physically
[prune]
> My reason for mentioning the Brill Tramway is that it eventually got a
> couple of old Metropolitan steam locomotives and these were in use
> long enough, until closure in 1935, for one of them to be preserved;
> it's now in the London Transport Museum.
>
> http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10447247
Shows an enclosure ("cab") at the operating station....
[trim}
> There's a
> picture of the same locomotive as it is today in the museum here:
>
> http://wapedia.mobi/en/File:Metropoltian_Railway_steam_locomotive_number_23.jpg
....does not. Was the enclosure added for surface running and removed
again to display tunnel configuration?
Or am I misreading the picture?
Nice collection and interesting narrative. Thanks.
The size of the tunnels intrigued me--I was distinctly uncomfortable (at
6'2") standing (as you generally must) anywhere except on the centerline
of the cars. (No, I don't know which line--daughter lived in Southwark
and among the lines we rode were some that were very deep with
escalators {"[British term belongs here--can't remember it]") out of a
horror movie that go down forever at some, mandatory elevators ("lifts")
at others.)
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk
> Shows an enclosure ("cab") at the operating station....
>
> [trim}
>
> > There's a
> > picture of the same locomotive as it is today in the museum here:
>
> >http://wapedia.mobi/en/File:Metropoltian_Railway_steam_locomotive_num...
>
> ....does not. Was the enclosure added for surface running and removed
> again to display tunnel configuration?
>
> Or am I misreading the picture?
I suspect that you are correct, but I don't know for sure. The
picture of No. 23 taken with the Brill branch train would have been
taken in the early '30s, shortly before the branch closed, and by that
time it was already a very old locomotive, the others of its class had
long been scrapped; I suspect that it was altered quite a bit during
its long life. This thing was built just one year after the American
Civil War ended. The Brill branch was in a pretty remote and exposed
area, so providing the footplate crew with some protection from the
weather when it was sent there, if not before, seems reasonable.
> The size of the tunnels intrigued me--I was distinctly uncomfortable (at
> 6'2") standing (as you generally must) anywhere except on the centerline
> of the cars. (No, I don't know which line--daughter lived in Southwark
> and among the lines we rode were some that were very deep with
> escalators {"[British term belongs here--can't remember it]") out of a
> horror movie that go down forever at some, mandatory elevators ("lifts")
> at others.)
That would have been one of the deep 'tube' lines, probably Northern,
Bakerloo, or if after 1999, Jubilee in that area. You would have been
in a train similar to the small one with the curved roof in the
picture of the two types side by side. It's about 12' in diameter,
but does vary a bit, the Central line tends to be slightly smaller
than the others. The City & South London tunnels were much smaller, I
think it was about 10' 6", you wouldn't have been able to stand
upright in one of the 'padded cell carriages, and neither would
somebody several inches shorter than you.
One of the abandoned (since 1901) tunnels to King William Street
station is now used for ventilation of London Bridge station. There
are lights in this old tunnel, and if they've been left turned on you
can just about make out the old tunnel through a grille in the roof of
the station tunnel underneath; it really does look tiny. Underground
railways have moved on a long way since then, but even in those days
they recognised that steam traction wasn't practical in long
underground tunnels.
We call them escalators as well. The term 'moving stairs' was used at
one time, but long ago. I do remember seeing it once or twice on very
old signs long ago.
Philip Nasadowski
<8652b46f-5817-4abd...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk wrote:
> What did the New York Subway use for engineering trains when power was
> turned off; battery locomotives?
Might have used early gas or diesel cars. Typically, though, they
pretty much never turn the power off. IIRC, it was, and might still be,
common practice to weld the third rail *live*.
Today, there's a few diesels and I think a few dual modes, and a few
pure electrics.. They're strict about running the motor only when
actually moving around. A lot of work trains are old subway cars,
though.
Robert Coe
How deep are the Tubes? The deepest station on the Boston subway is about 120
ft below street level. Do the Tubes go significantly deeper than that?
Bob
gl4...@yahoo.com
Considering the description of the transport options that were operating
(sort of) during this snow storm, I'm not so sure that having Eurostar
have troubles was such a black eye against the equipment design.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8424973.stm
London to Brussels by "quick flight" via Ireland and Paris and French
local train? Taking some two days?
If the airlines were operating normally, and the train shut down, then
maybe it would be a huge issue. However, it is obvious that the airlines
were most certainly not operating at anything like normal.
Of course, it is also obvious that certian company responses to the
problems weren't very good,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8423851.stm
but then from the sounds of it neither were certain airlines.
Also from the sounds of it, Eurostar still hasn't solved the troubles it
has been having.
--
-Glennl
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
Charles Ellson
It varies as the ground above various parts of the Underground is far
from level. The deepest station below ground level is Hampstead with
platforms nearly 192ft below the street, the deepest line below ground
level is at Bull and Bush (the next station north of Hampstead on the
Northern line but which never opened in passenger service) 221ft below
ground level and the deepest point below sea level is "just south of
Waterloo" (Northern Line ?) at -70ft :-
http://underground-history.co.uk/faq.php
(5. Can you tell me some statistics about the London Underground?)
The highest point above ground for tube trains (or any Underground
train for that matter) is the Dollis Brook viaduct in North West
London at around 60ft. Again, this is on the Northern Line but on a
section taken over from British Railways (previously London and North
Eastern Railway, before them the Great Northern Railway) on the line
to Edgware which was cut back to Mill Hill East.
David Lesher
>> What did the New York Subway use for engineering trains when power was
>> turned off; battery locomotives?
>Might have used early gas or diesel cars. Typically, though, they
>pretty much never turn the power off. IIRC, it was, and might still be,
>common practice to weld the third rail *live*.
>Today, there's a few diesels and I think a few dual modes, and a few
>pure electrics.. They're strict about running the motor only when
>actually moving around. A lot of work trains are old subway cars,
>though.
I believe NYCTA has several Diesel pumper cars, used for when a station
floods.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Adam H. Kerman
>fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk schrieb:
>>It ever happened of course; the technology to build a
>>channel tunnel simply wasn't there at the time, though there were
>>several attempts before the present one was completed.
>The technology was certainly there by 1900 or 1905.
Were England and France getting along that year? Or rather, did their business
communities expect them to still be getting along by the time the project
was finished and during the lengthy period in which the bonds would have
to be paid off?
It's little things like that which make it hard to get financing.
Philip Nasadowski
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> "Escalator" was an Otis trademark name.
>
> It is not an USA <-> UK issue, old signs in the USA should be the same,
> if it was no Otis product.
Correct. Sometime after WWII, it became a generic, though, because Otis
didn't defend the trademark. Today, you can say Escalator all you want,
and Otis can't do squat to you.
Xerox is a famous example of a company doing what they can (and arguably
have to) to keep this from happening.
Joseph D. Korman
1954 issue of the TA employee magazine:
http://www.thejoekorner.com/transit-mag/index-54-11-death-3-16.html
The TA has been using diesels more and more in the subway.
Here's the 2007 roster of work cars. The last column on the right tells
if the car was converted from a passenger car. The last line, Work
Motors, are all converted from the R-33 single passenger cars built for
the 1964 World's Fair. These cars were delivered with two automatic
stop arms on each truck, since they were used on car transfers between
the Flushing line and Coney Island Yard. The IRT stop arms are on the
right side and the BMT-IND stop arms are on the left. Having two at
each end allow the cars to be the first and last car on a transfer. Now
that the fleet is out of service, they remain in work service and can
operate anywhere in the system.
http://www.thejoekorner.com/cars/workcars-2007.htm
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
Charles Ellson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>>fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk schrieb:
>
>>>It ever happened of course; the technology to build a
>>>channel tunnel simply wasn't there at the time, though there were
>>>several attempts before the present one was completed.
>
>>The technology was certainly there by 1900 or 1905.
>
>Were England and France getting along that year?
>
It didn't matter, England had been abolished in 1707.
>Or rather, did their business
>communities expect them to still be getting along by the time the project
>was finished and during the lengthy period in which the bonds would have
>to be paid off?
>
The earlier Channel Tunnel companies (there were several whose
practical efforts varied from not a lot to digging pilot tunnels out
from each side of the Channel) seemed to have carried on their
activities without much UK government input other than expressions of
fears of the French or others invading via the tunnel (thus displaying
an apparent lack of knowledge of how to use dynamite). the Wonkypaedia
article :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel
mentions some of the previous history but appears incomplete, having a
bit of a gap between 1882 and 1955; my great uncle, George Ellson,
(later the chief engineer for the Southern Railway) was involved with
one of the Channel Tunnel companies possibly along with some of his SR
bosses so that suggests some early 20th century info is missing.
>It's little things like that which make it hard to get financing.
>
Although money might have been the eventual killer, the earlier
non-starters seem to have stumbled more due to a lack of official
approval.
Charles Ellson
>
>Considering the description of the transport options that were operating
>(sort of) during this snow storm, I'm not so sure that having Eurostar
>have troubles was such a black eye against the equipment design.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8424973.stm
>
>London to Brussels by "quick flight" via Ireland and Paris and French
>local train? Taking some two days?
>
>If the airlines were operating normally, and the train shut down, then
>maybe it would be a huge issue. However, it is obvious that the airlines
>were most certainly not operating at anything like normal.
>
Correct, even if take-off was OK there was the important matter of
landing to be dealt with :-
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ryanair-jet-slides-off-runway-1986080.html
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk
> Neither are they a good backup for bad weather......
I have been strongly critical of the railways in the UK, but they, at
least one line, did very well today. I needed to go from London to
Birmingham for the last day of the huge German Christmas market
there. This is a comparable sort of distance to going from New York
to Philadelphia, perhaps slightly further. There are several possible
ways of doing this journey; I'm not sure if there are any flights from
London to Birmingham, but I doubt if people would use them for so
short a distance. There are two routes by rail, Virgin Trains from
London Euston to Birmingham New Street is the fastest route, but I
refuse to use them due to high fares and restrictions on tickets.
Chiltern Railways run a somewhat slower service, about 2 hours 20
minutes, from London Marylebone to Birmingham Snow Hill, and National
Express run coaches, taking slightly longer than the Chiltern trains,
as long as there are no hold-ups on the roads.
I decided to use the Chiltern Railways service this time, My train
left Marylebone dead on time, and despite the bad weather arrived in
Birmingham just two minutes late. At several points on the route
visibility was very poor, and traffic on the roads was almost at a
standstill. I'm glad I didn't go by coach today.
Coming back the train again departed dead on time, and arrived in
London about three minutes early.
So today the train did much better than the roads, at least in that
area. On Monday, in South London the trains were very badly affected,
while the buses did much better. We really do need more than one
means of transport.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>>>fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk schrieb:
>>>>It ever happened of course; the technology to build a
>>>>channel tunnel simply wasn't there at the time, though there were
>>>>several attempts before the present one was completed.
>>>The technology was certainly there by 1900 or 1905.
>>Were England and France getting along that year?
>It didn't matter, England had been abolished in 1707.
I don't know about that. I know about the Treaty and Acts of Union, but
friends overseas attempt to persuade me that they are separate countries.
Anyway, somebody forgot to tell the Scots that Scotland was abolished when
they revived their parliament.
Whatever comment I make about the UK, one of youse tells me it's wrong.
Thanks for comments about earlier projects.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
>>Were England and France getting along that year? Or rather, did their
>>business communities expect them to still be getting along by the time
>>the project was finished and during the lengthy period in which the
>>bonds would have to be paid off?
>>It's little things like that which make it hard to get financing.
>I think the biggest obstacle were rather irrational fears ("we'll get
>invaded!") in Britain.
"We cannot have the French invading our country, forcing us to eat
food that actually tastes good!"
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk
wrote:
> The technology was certainly there by 1900 or 1905.
But what about in 1880?
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/c/channel_tunnel_1880_attempt/index.shtml
Do you think a tunnel of that size would have been practical?
There's an engraving of one proposed tunnel, though I can't find a
copy at the moment, that shows horses working through a candle-lit
tunnel. I've just found a copy of it, it's the first very small
picture on this page:
http://www.eurotunnel.com/ukcP3Main/ukcCorporate/ukcTunnelInfrastructure/ukcDevelopment/ukpHistory
Note how small the proposed tunnel, in 1802, was in relation to the
horses, and how the depth of the sea water is shown as being less than
twice the diameter of the tunnel; very convenient when you need to
build a ventilation chimney in the middle of it!
To get back to the 1880 tunnel, what sort of motive power could have
been used? How long would it take to cross the Channel by horse
power, even if you could persuade the horses to go through the
tunnel? What about ventilation?
Steam power would be equally impractical for a tunnel of that length.
Cable haulage could almost certainly not be used over that distance;
can you imagine trying to install winding engines in the tunnel to
divide it into sections?
There were no electric or diesel locomotives at that time, and oil and
gas engines were still at an early stage of their development; I don't
think any were in use on locomotives at that time, certainly not for
main-line use.
The Thames Tunnel had been completed in 1843, and taken over for use
as a railway tunnel by 1869, using steam power, but that's a vastly
shorter tunnel than a channel tunnel would need to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tunnel#Use_as_a_railway_tunnel
The Severn rail tunnel was completed in 1886, having taken 13 years to
complete, but even this, at about 7 km, of which about 3.6 km was
under water, was far shorter than a channel tunnel would need to be,
and nothing like as deep.
To take your dates of 1900 or 1905, what sort of underwater tunnels
were being built at that time? This would be roughly contemporary
with the construction of the Hudson & Manhattan tunnels under the
Hudson, a considerable achievement, but still vastly shorter than a
channel tunnel would need to be. At least by that time electric
traction was available. Most of the long tunnels which were being
constructed at this time were cut and cover tunnels, e.g. for the New
York Subway. I seriously doubt that a channel tunnel could have been
constructed, and operated, in 1905.
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk
> >Were England and France getting along that year?
Not for a whole year, surely. :)
> The earlier Channel Tunnel companies (there were several whose
> practical efforts varied from not a lot to digging pilot tunnels out
> from each side of the Channel) seemed to have carried on their
> activities without much UK government input other than expressions of
> fears of the French or others invading via the tunnel.
Fear of invasion by the French does seem to have been a major concern
expressed whenever the construction of a tunnel was proposed,
including the present one. It seems to be a particularly ridiculous
one; a small tunnel mouth, at a known and fixed location, is far
easier to defend than miles of coastline. However it is an argument
which was raised every time.
I wonder if similar fears were expressed in France that it could be
used for an invasion of France by the British? I've never heard of it.
Robert Coe
wrote:
If the tunnel had been built in 1905, might the British have destroyed it
during WWII, to keep it from being used as an invasion route by the Germans,
who had occupied France? Or might the Germans have destroyed it, to keep it
from being used as an invasion route by the Allied Forces? It's a pretty safe
bet that commercial traffic wouldn't have been running through it during that
period.
Might it even have been destroyed during WWI? Since I wasn't around then, I
don't recall how far west in France the Germans managed to get. They did take
over Belgium, IIRC. Actually, if construction of the tunnel had been started
in 1905, I suppose it might not have been completed by the outbreak of WWI.
Bob
Robert Coe
wrote:
: Charles Ellson <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
: >>Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
: >>>fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk schrieb:
:
: >>>>It ever happened of course; the technology to build a
: >>>>channel tunnel simply wasn't there at the time, though there
: >>>>were several attempts before the present one was completed.
:
: >>>The technology was certainly there by 1900 or 1905.
:
: >>Were England and France getting along that year?
:
: >It didn't matter, England had been abolished in 1707.
:
: I don't know about that. I know about the Treaty and Acts of Union,
: but friends overseas attempt to persuade me that they are separate
: countries. Anyway, somebody forgot to tell the Scots that Scotland
: was abolished when they revived their parliament.
Wasn't that done with the grudging approval of the UK Government?
Bob
Charles Ellson
If a tunnel had existed at that time it would have been a means of
supply so the incentive would have been to stop that activity. As a
means of invasion it would have had a disadvantage comparable to that
of Stirling Brig in 1297 where the English army was defeated because
they chose to become involved in a battle which required their troops
to advance over a narrow bridge thus enabling their Scots opponents to
choose their own rate of slaughter. The destruction of the tunnel
would thus be more necessary to stop supplies than to prevent an
invasion which would soon have been stalled by the pile of bodies
which a couple of machine-gun teams could have produced.
Pre-positioned explosives were installed in tunnels and elsewhere in
Switzerland as part of their Cold War policies :-
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Lucerne_yields_up_explosive_secrets.html?cid=3456984
Someone with better knowledge of other European cross-border (road or
railway) tunnels might know whether or not there were other potential
candidates for exploding tunnels.
Charles Ellson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>Charles Ellson <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>>>>fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk schrieb:
>
>>>>>It ever happened of course; the technology to build a
>>>>>channel tunnel simply wasn't there at the time, though there were
>>>>>several attempts before the present one was completed.
>
>>>>The technology was certainly there by 1900 or 1905.
>
>>>Were England and France getting along that year?
>
>>It didn't matter, England had been abolished in 1707.
>
>I don't know about that. I know about the Treaty and Acts of Union, but
>friends overseas attempt to persuade me that they are separate countries.
>Anyway, somebody forgot to tell the Scots that Scotland was abolished when
>they revived their parliament.
>
>Whatever comment I make about the UK, one of youse tells me it's wrong.
>
It is part of the complications when a union is not all-incorporating.
From 1707 both countries** remained as different jurisdictions where
the other's law had no effect (although the same statute could be made
applicable across borders but within the terms of each country's legal
system). From the outside there is no sovereign state less than the
United Kingdom (the context within which England etc. was "abolished"
in 1707) but there is no single jurisdiction so while the politicians
interact on a UK level any legal matters are dealt with individual
jurisdictions, as might have been noticed with the recent goings-on
involving a gentleman from Libya.
**Wales was progressively annexed by England between 1535 and 1543;
until 1967 it was under English Law treated as integral with England.
Adam H. Kerman
So if there is no single jurisdiction, then England does still exist, and
the French are still free to despise the English.
Stephen Furley
> supply so the incentive would have been to stop that activity. As a
> means of invasion it would have had a disadvantage comparable to that
> of Stirling Brig in 1297 where the English army was defeated because
> they chose to become involved in a battle which required their troops
> to advance over a narrow bridge thus enabling their Scots opponents to
> choose their own rate of slaughter. The destruction of the tunnel
> would thus be more necessary to stop supplies than to prevent an
> invasion which would soon have been stalled by the pile of bodies
> which a couple of machine-gun teams could have produced.
Thank goodness somebody can see how ridiculous the idea of invading through
a tunnel is. Many British Members of Parliament, and even leading military
figures couldn't. Even during the construction of the tunnel in the '90s
such concerns were still being expressed by some people.
Adam H. Kerman
If a high enough fence were built around Britain, would it keep out invasion
by airplane?
Stephen Furley
On 25/12/09 07:21, in article
slrnhj8pva.3jf...@Odysseus.Zierke.com, "Hans-Joachim Zierke"
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> The first practical small electric locomotive was shown in 1879. Within
> 4 months, it moved 90000 people over a fairground.
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/EElokSiemens.jpg
Fine as a demonstration of a concept, but a long way from being able to
power full-size trains through an underwater tunnel 20+ miles in length.
Underwater is significant since it pretty much prevents supply of power
other than from the ends. Would anybody seeing this demonstration in 1879
have started to build such a tunnel on the grounds that by the time they'd
finished building it the technology would have advanced to the point where
electric traction through the tunnel would be practical? They certainly
would have been interested in it, and have kept an eye on developments; they
would have been impressed by the early electric underground railways, but I
doubt that they would have rushed out and started building a tunnel on the
grounds that the technology might have developed far enough by the time the
tunnel was completed? I doubt it.
> If we assume, that building a channel tunnel would have needed at least
> 15 years at that time, electric locos had grown up to the necessary size
> and power during that time.
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/B-and-O_electric.jpg
Was that locomotive as early as 1894? I would have guessed about ten years
later. It looks quite similar to some which were used by the North Eastern
Railway. What Voltage was this? I'm doubtful that low Voltage d.c. could
have been used to feed half the length of the tunnel, and underwater rotary
converter substations or coal-fired generating plant would be difficult,
though rotary converters might just have been possible. Medium Voltage
low-frequency a.c. Might have been a better bet. The London Brighton &
South Coast system came into use in 1909, and the similar system to Morcambe
and Heysham in 1908. Both were problematical, though they did work, the
Brighton system remained in use for 20 years, and the Morcambe one for much
longer; it was eventually converted to an experimental 25 kV system,
sometime in the '50s I think. The PRR 11 kV 25 Hz. System started in about
1915 I think, and of course is still in use.
I'm not sure when 1500 V d.c. Was first used, but this Voltage also seems
rather low for the Tunnel.
The Tunnel could certainly have been built long before it was, but I'm
doubtful that a practical tunnel could have been built in 1905 or before.
Later delays were more economic and political than technical, and ten years
of two world wars didn't help the railways in his country; there were more
important things to spend money on. By the '50s modernisation was urgently
required, but we made a total mess of it, and after that few people were
keen to invest in the railways. There was the aborted tunnel in the '70s,
of course.
Merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Charles Ellson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
It depends on the context.
The French could do it officially as a state but the English could not
return the compliment with the same status. ;-)
Robert Coe
wrote:
: > If a tunnel had existed at that time it would have been a means of
Well, of course you wouldn't do it by simply sending an invading army through
the tunnel. You'd have to quietly send a small expeditionary force to seize
the far entrance to the tunnel and hold it for long enough to start bringing
men and equipment through. And you'd need air cover to keep the enemy from
dropping large bombs or guided torpedoes to breach the tunnel.
It would obviously be a difficult operation, but more so now than during the
World Wars, because blowing up the tunnel from the air or from ships would
have been more difficult then. Note that the Allied invaders at Normandy had a
very rough time of it at first, because their sea landing put them at a
serious disadvantage. The losses they suffered might not have been any greater
if they had arrived through a tunnel.
Bob
Robert Coe
wrote:
:
: Stephen Furley schrieb:
:
:
: >> The first practical small electric locomotive was shown in 1879. Within
: >> 4 months, it moved 90000 people over a fairground.
: >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/EElokSiemens.jpg
: >
: > Fine as a demonstration of a concept,
: Yes, it was supposed to convince the public of the possibility.
:
:
: > but a long way from being able to
: > power full-size trains through an underwater tunnel 20+ miles in length.
: More precisely: 15 years.
:
:
: > Underwater is significant since it pretty much prevents supply of power
: > other than from the ends. Would anybody seeing this demonstration in 1879
: > have started to build such a tunnel on the grounds that by the time they'd
: > finished building it the technology would have advanced to the point where
: > electric traction through the tunnel would be practical?
: Baltimore & Ohio decided "yes" in the late 1880s. They started digging
: Howard Street Tunnel in Baltimore 1890, the contract with GE was signed 1892,
: and operation started June 27th, 1895.
:
:
: > They certainly
: > would have been interested in it, and have kept an eye on developments; they
: > would have been impressed by the early electric underground railways, but I
: > doubt that they would have rushed out and started building a tunnel on the
: > grounds that the technology might have developed far enough by the time the
: > tunnel was completed? I doubt it.
: B&O bet on it and won.
:
:
: >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/B-and-O_electric.jpg
: >
: > Was that locomotive as early as 1894?
: 1895.
:
:
: > I would have guessed about ten years
: > later. It looks quite similar to some which were used by the North Eastern
: > Railway. What Voltage was this?
: 675 V, overhead 3rd rails.
:
:
: > I'm doubtful that low Voltage d.c. could
: > have been used to feed half the length of the tunnel, and underwater rotary
: > converter substations or coal-fired generating plant would be difficult,
: > though rotary converters might just have been possible.
: This here is B&Os rotary converter installation of 1895, built by GE,
: delivering 5000 kW:
: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/B%26O_RR_powerhouse.jpg
:
:
: > Medium Voltage
: > low-frequency a.c. Might have been a better bet. The London Brighton &
: > South Coast system came into use in 1909, and the similar system to Morcambe
: > and Heysham in 1908.
: Yeah, but that was late. The "Lokalbahn Aktien-Gesellschaft" in Bavaria
: started commercial operation with 5,5 kV 16 Hz on January 1st, 1905.
: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/LAG-Triebwagen_in_Oberammergau.jpg
:
: But for a channel tunnel started in 1880, GE's solution for the B&O, about
: 700V DC and rotary converters, seems to be the most likely.
:
:
: > Both were problematical, though they did work, the
: > Brighton system remained in use for 20 years, and the Morcambe one for much
: > longer; it was eventually converted to an experimental 25 kV system,
: > sometime in the '50s I think.
: Murnau - Oberammergau operated on 5.5 kV 16 Hz, later 16 2/3 Hz from
: January 1st, 1955, until 1955, when voltage was changed to the standard
: 15kV 16 2/3 Hz.
:
: E 69 01 served the line from 1905 to 1954, operating 1.5 million
: kilometers on a 15 miles branch line. She's now standing in the
: "Lokwelt Freilassing".
:
: E 69 02 of 1909, and the later ones, were converted to 15 kV and
: soldiered on, but for "Katharina" of 1905, this was considered
: unprofitable.
: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/9/9b/E69-01_Freilassing.jpg
:
:
:
:
: > The PRR 11 kV 25 Hz. System started in about
: > 1915 I think, and of course is still in use.
: The PRR system was originally the New Haven system, and started in 1906
: or 1907. I don't look it up, because Phil or others will know that by
: heart. ;-)
:
:
:
:
: > The Tunnel could certainly have been built long before it was, but I'm
: > doubtful that a practical tunnel could have been built in 1905 or before.
: In 1905, after building tunnels like the Simplon, it was possible no doubt.
: 5,5 kV 16 Hz was already in commercial operation, 11 kV 25 Hz one or two
: years later.
IIRC, the Hoosac Tunnel in Massachusetts (7 or 8 km) was older than any of
those named.
Bob
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
>>If a high enough fence were built around Britain, would it keep out invasion
>>by airplane?
>It won't stop all the evils coming from abroad: When Britain wasn't able
>to cope with snow conditions these days, reason was "the fluffy /French/
>snowflake". No, I'm /not/ kidding you.
Two countries, both armed with American nuclear weapons, facing each other
across a narrow channel...
When war finally does break out, perhaps they could have a snowball
fight instead.
Michael Moroney
>IIRC, the Hoosac Tunnel in Massachusetts (7 or 8 km) was older than any of
>those named.
About 7.6 km or 4.7 miles.
It was built when the only choice was steam (started in the 1850s),
however there was (is) a 1000+ foot deep shaft in the center that was used
for steam-powered ventilation.
John Kane
wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
>
> > food that actually tastes good!"
>
> English food, you'll learn that things weren't always that bad.
>
> Hans-Joachim
True, those traditional Anglo-Indian restaurants are pretty.
Actually I've had some good pub meals and a couple of good meals in
what we in Canada would call a 'greasy spoon". A fair number of the
restaurants I've tried were not exactly stellar.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
HankVC
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>Stephen Furley schrieb:
>
>
>>> 4 months, it moved 90000 people over a fairground.
>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/EElokSiemens.jpg
>>
>> Fine as a demonstration of a concept,
>
>
>
>> power full-size trains through an underwater tunnel 20+ miles in length.
>
>
I think you're being a bit optimistic here. The Manhattan IRT was
powered by 11KV 25 Hz fed to rotary converters along the line--basic
engineering done in 1901-2; on-line in 1904. The motors were strictly
DC. The New Haven RR committed to 11KV 25 Hz using universal-wound
AC/DC motors, which were a brand new concept at the time. That
followed the IRT setup 1905-07 and took a couple of years to work the
kinks out of. Most of the technological development began with
Rudolph Eickemeyer and Steinmetz, whom GE bought out in the early
1890's; and Westinghouse's developments of Tesla's ideas. I don't
think Siemens had resources to match Tesla and Steinmetz.
It might have been realistic to draw on prior experience to make an
engineering commitment to an all-AC system ca. 1910, using prior
experience. It was one thing to electrify the 35 miles between
Woodlawn, NY and Stamford in 1905-7, where people were working out in
the open on flat terrain, and I think it would be a very different
matter to go through the development needed in that period in a tunnel
environment.
>Baltimore & Ohio decided "yes" in the late 1880s. They started digging
>Howard Street Tunnel in Baltimore 1890, the contract with GE was signed 1892,
>and operation started June 27th, 1895.
>
And that was a very short distance compared with a 20-mile tunnel.
The same is true for the Boston Tremont St. subway, done 1895-7. Both
relied on streetcar DC technology.
>
>
>
>> Medium Voltage
>> low-frequency a.c. Might have been a better bet. The London Brighton &
>> South Coast system came into use in 1909, and the similar system to Morcambe
>> and Heysham in 1908.
>
>Yeah, but that was late. The "Lokalbahn Aktien-Gesellschaft" in Bavaria
>started commercial operation with 5,5 kV 16 Hz on January 1st, 1905.
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/LAG-Triebwagen_in_Oberammergau.jpg
>
>But for a channel tunnel started in 1880, GE's solution for the B&O, about
>700V DC and rotary converters, seems to be the most likely.
>
You're citing 1905-10 developments, not 1895, for distances on the
order those in a channel tunnel. Keep in mind that GE bought their AC
competence from Eickemeyer, got Steinmetz in the bargain, and
Steinmetz did a great deal of work to establish practical AC
engineering in the decade preceeding the New Haven's electrification.
>
>> The PRR 11 kV 25 Hz. System started in about
>> 1915 I think, and of course is still in use.
>
>The PRR system was originally the New Haven system, and started in 1906
>or 1907. I don't look it up, because Phil or others will know that by
>heart. ;-)
>
The PRR system was completely separate from the New Haven's, and
wasn't begun until the New Haven system was clearly practical. PRR
drew heavily on New Haven experience. The major cross-ferment between
the railroads came when PRR borrowed a New Haven EP3 2-C-C-2 quill
drive motor to compare with their 2-C-2 and 2-D-2, which led to the
development of the GG-1. To all intents and purposes, the GG-1, under
the skin, was a scaled-up version of the EP3. PRR wanted a mixed-mode
motor, while the New Haven's EP (electric-passenger) were high-speed
passenger motors.
>
>> The Tunnel could certainly have been built long before it was, but I'm
>> doubtful that a practical tunnel could have been built in 1905 or before.
>
>In 1905, after building tunnels like the Simplon, it was possible no doubt.
>5,5 kV 16 Hz was already in commercial operation, 11 kV 25 Hz one or two
>years later.
>
The tunneling technology was available before 1900, but suitable AC
machinery was only moving toward adequate maturity in the 1905-10 era.
About the only realistic alternatives to using AC Universal-wound
motors I can think of would have been to use 3-phase induction motors
(fixed speeds) and/or to have carried rotary converters in the
locomotives (serious size and weight problems?). As I recall, Ford
did try an on-board converter setup on the DT&I about twenty years
later.
Hank
Philip Nasadowski
han...@julie.lostwells.net (HankVC) wrote:
> I think you're being a bit optimistic here.
A lot.
> The New Haven RR committed to 11KV 25 Hz using universal-wound
> AC/DC motors, which were a brand new concept at the time. That
> followed the IRT setup 1905-07 and took a couple of years to work the
> kinks out of.
IIRC, the New Haven was very close to tossing in the towel, a few times.
Cos Cob was always too small for them, too.
> It might have been realistic to draw on prior experience to make an
> engineering commitment to an all-AC system ca. 1910, using prior
> experience.
I think by that time, AC was pretty much the winner, save for GE's 3kv
dark horse. 3Kv never caught on in the US much, but the two notable
systems were *very* successful. Third rail's limitations were known by
then, 1.5kv was a total dog, too. The New Haven had already done DC
electrifications and found them to be lacking for main line use.
> It was one thing to electrify the 35 miles between
> Woodlawn, NY and Stamford in 1905-7, where people were working out in
> the open on flat terrain, and I think it would be a very different
> matter to go through the development needed in that period in a tunnel
> environment.
Why? The New Haven's territory was anything but open, even if it was
somewhat flat. The real mistake, in hindsight, was NYC's selection of
DC third rail, and even worse, the PRR's selection of it on the LIRR,
even though the PRR *tested* AC catenary on the LIRR first (!).
Of course, had the NYC, New Haven, and PRR not been such cut throat
competitors, full of NIH, and generally regarding electrics as a cute
sideshow*, maybe they would have pooled their resources into making 11kv
work, sooner, and the face of electrification in the US would be much
different. It was clear the PRR had no clue how to make a high speed
electric, NYC's DC setup was basically limited in ability, and the New
Haven was getting somewhere but never really had much money, and I
suspect development of AC was a big money item for them. The PRR's
foisting of third rail on the LIRR is a problem to this day - extending
the electrification is too expensive.
> And that was a very short distance compared with a 20-mile tunnel.
> The same is true for the Boston Tremont St. subway, done 1895-7. Both
> relied on streetcar DC technology.
DC through a 20 mile tunnel (as a serious system) is a non starter until
you hit 3kv, and I don't think 3kv was around until the 20's.
> You're citing 1905-10 developments, not 1895, for distances on the
> order those in a channel tunnel. Keep in mind that GE bought their AC
> competence from Eickemeyer, got Steinmetz in the bargain, and
> Steinmetz did a great deal of work to establish practical AC
> engineering in the decade preceeding the New Haven's electrification.
Oddly, Westinghouse was the big booster early on. AFAIK, all the MP-54s
and Reading cars were Westinghouse equipped, as were the MUTs and a lot
of locomotives on the New Haven. The GG-1 was split between GE and
Westinghouse - there must be a story to that one.
> The PRR system was completely separate from the New Haven's, and
> wasn't begun until the New Haven system was clearly practical.
The PRR started testing AC in '07 or so on the LIRR. Paoli was 1915.
> PRR drew heavily on New Haven experience.
Only after it was painfully obvious they couldn't self-develop the
technology. There were plenty of one-off failures before the P5 came
around, and even the P5 had issues.
> The major cross-ferment between
> the railroads came when PRR borrowed a New Haven EP3 2-C-C-2 quill
> drive motor to compare with their 2-C-2 and 2-D-2, which led to the
> development of the GG-1.
The GG-1 was given number 4899, the PRR-developed R-1 was given 4800.
It was only after the GG-1 proved superior, that it was given 4800 and
the R-1 became yet another failed PRR attempt...
> To all intents and purposes, the GG-1, under
> the skin, was a scaled-up version of the EP3.
Not that much scaled up, and they're not totally alike. I have the
schematics somewhere. They've got stuff in common, but they're not
identical. FWIW, the MP-85 was a Washboard without third rail shoes -
so the PRR was stealing from the New haven in the 50's :)
> PRR wanted a mixed-mode
> motor, while the New Haven's EP (electric-passenger) were high-speed
> passenger motors.
High speed's a loaded term on the New Haven - I doubt they were geared
for much over 80. The later EP-5s were so optimized for the New Haven's
trackage that they couldn't cut it on the PRR.
> The tunneling technology was available before 1900, but suitable AC
> machinery was only moving toward adequate maturity in the 1905-10 era.
Agreed.
> About the only realistic alternatives to using AC Universal-wound
> motors I can think of would have been to use 3-phase induction motors
> (fixed speeds) and/or to have carried rotary converters in the
> locomotives (serious size and weight problems?).
Great Northern tried both, the latter approach actually worked for them.
But the weight was a headache outside of mountain systems.
*Even into the mid-late 30's, the president of Baldwin was telling the
industry that diesels would never replace steam. Whoops.
David Lesher
>> About the only realistic alternatives to using AC Universal-wound
>> motors I can think of would have been to use 3-phase induction motors
>> (fixed speeds) and/or to have carried rotary converters in the
>> locomotives (serious size and weight problems?).
>Great Northern tried both, the latter approach actually worked for them.
>But the weight was a headache outside of mountain systems.
VFD's are one of the inventions I rate as "just short of magic.."
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Adam H. Kerman
>han...@julie.lostwells.net (HankVC) wrote:
>>It was one thing to electrify the 35 miles between Woodlawn, NY and
>>Stamford in 1905-7, where people were working out in the open on flat
>>terrain, and I think it would be a very different matter to go through
>>the development needed in that period in a tunnel environment.
>Why? The New Haven's territory was anything but open, even if it was
>somewhat flat. The real mistake, in hindsight, was NYC's selection of
>DC third rail, and even worse, the PRR's selection of it on the LIRR,
>even though the PRR *tested* AC catenary on the LIRR first (!).
What else could NYC have done in the terminal area? Obviously third rail
was selected for clearance. Would have made that project rather more expensive
if the Park Avenue cut was deepened for catenary.
Philip Nasadowski
David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> VFD's are one of the inventions I rate as "just short of magic.."
Why? About the only thing they do that's weird is regeneration....
Philip Nasadowski
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> The so-called "Repulsionsmotor" was developed by Oerlikon (Switzerland)
> in 1894. Production in the USA started 1897.
Repulsion motors had limited application in the US. In fact, I think
only Oerlikon really ever made much of them. Most early attempts in the
US tended towards modified DC motors and tap changing.
> They were allowed to use a track of the military as a dedicated test
> track, and electrified it with 10 kV 50 Hz AC (3-phase) in 1901.
3 phase was a cute dead end - there's plenty of obvious reasons why it
was a cute dead end. Well, at least until the inverter came around... ;)
> It can be safely assumed, that by 1904 at the latest, the best engineers
> in the USA, Germany, and Switzerland knew, that single-phase AC
> electrification was the future.
I'm sure others weren't far off, either.
> The roadblock wasn't engineering, but the much lower competence of most railroads.
Witness the PRR's attempts...
> 25 Hz might have been better, but by 1910, the motors for 15 kV 16 2/3
> had been commonly accepted as being "bahnfest", which might be
> translateable as "railroad-proof", describing a conservative assessment
> of reliability in everyday operation.
Wasn't 16 2/3rd Hz also a bit of a standard in Europe? Part of *why*
the US settled on 25Hz was that at the time, it was not an unusual
frequency (40, 50, and 60 were also seen, though) in the US - and it was
rather common in Canada even into the 50's.
> That's true for single-phase AC.
Which, arguably, was the technology that enabled large scale AC
electrification. 3 phase was a dead end everyone tried, and most
abandoned early on. Great Northern used 3 phase for a while, one issue
being that the locomotives had very few speed settings - I don't know if
wound rotor designs existed then or have/had the range to be useful
(wound rotors is still seen in the US in variable speed applications,
sometimes)
mrob...@worldnet.att.net
> In article <slrnhjih3s.49n...@Odysseus.Zierke.com>,
> Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>> 25 Hz might have been better, but by 1910, the motors for 15 kV
>> 16 2/3 had been commonly accepted as being "bahnfest", which might
>> be translateable as "railroad-proof", describing a conservative
>> assessment of reliability in everyday operation.
>
> Wasn't 16 2/3rd Hz also a bit of a standard in Europe?
If you put the document that Hans-Joachim posted earlier
http://www.elektrische-bahnen.de/history/doc/eb_vertrag.htm
through Google translation*, you can see that it has the spec, but also
the justification for the spec. In the justification, they say that
they wanted something around 15 Hz, they knew that they were going to
have to get it from the 50 Hz general power grid, and that there was
also a consideration about how hydro turbines worked, which meant that
it was a Good Thing for the railroad power supply to be an integer
divisor of 50 Hz. So they picked 50/3 or 16 2/3 Hz.
IMHO they knew they were going to have rotary converters, and it would
be cheaper to have the "weird" end of the rotary converter be a "normal"
generator with some of the poles/windings left off or wired differently,
rather than something with a custom rotor or other custom big parts.
(The same idea applies if the railroad is going to have its own power
plant, but I don't know if they were thinking that big at the time.)
That document is also interesting just for how concise the actual specs
are. It basically says "caternary 6 m high, grounded rails, 15 kV,
16 2/3 Hz", "here's how you give the specs for a locomotive, and there
will be a standard test profile", and "we'll look at it again when
better stuff gets invented". Done.
It also may be more down to the bureucratic procedures of the era rather
than transportation, but the guy in Munich signed it, then five weeks
later the guy in Berlin signed it, then about three weeks later the guy
in Baden signed it. Today, DB's reservation system says Munich-Berlin
and Berlin-Baden are each about 6 hours via ICE. (Powered at 15 kV,
16 2/3 Hz. :) )
Matt Roberds
* Standard disclaimers about computer translation apply. In this
particular case, the translation does a reasonable job for casual
use.
Philip Nasadowski
mrob...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> So they picked 50/3 or 16 2/3 Hz.
Makes sense.
> IMHO they knew they were going to have rotary converters, and it would
> be cheaper to have the "weird" end of the rotary converter be a "normal"
> generator with some of the poles/windings left off or wired differently,
> rather than something with a custom rotor or other custom big parts.
More exactly - was 16 2/3rds used for industrial equipment, in general,
at the time? 25Hz was, in the US, used in some factories.
Interestingly, 25Hz hung on long enough in Canada that some TV sets in
the 50's were actually sold for 25hz operation. Contrary to what's
often stated, this did work on the 525 line 60 field system, and no, the
world won't blow up if the field rate and line frequency aren't the same
- in fact, post 1954, the field rate in the US was dropped ever so
slightly, to allow for color (there's some technical reason why they did
it). Even today, an old B&W set's perfectly watchable (via a
converter), though if the supply filter's a tad weak, you get a very
very slight, almost unnoticeable weave in the picture. At least my '57
Setchell-Carlson always did that, I never noticed it on my '53 Bendix
(though that set needs a new 21EP4 - which I finally found last winter
in PA).
Larry Sheldon
I think the rate was changed to make room for the color data in the scan.
But what has puzzled me is what pushe the frequency mdown instead of up.
I'm only guessing here, but I'm thinking that a 400 cycle device that
would fit in your hand would mbe the size of a refrigerator at 16 2/3.
And is there a connectioon between the 16 2/3 here and the rotation
speed of transcription turntables?
--
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
David Lesher
>> VFD's are one of the inventions I rate as "just short of magic.."
>Why? About the only thing they do that's weird is regeneration....
Because they let you dump DC cam-control motors, and use sealed,
trouble-free multiphase AC motors in variable speed applications.
Further, they are input freq and voltage tolerant.
All in all, a lot of pluses in a small package.
Philip Nasadowski
Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And is there a connectioon between the 16 2/3 here and the rotation
> speed of transcription turntables?
No. 16 rpm came about in the 50's, first for Chrysler's 'Hiway hi-fi',
then for 'talking books' and Seeburg's notorious background music
machines.
The first application was a hilariously failed attempt to sell an in car
record player - only Chrysler sold the records (!), they used a (then)
non standard speed and even worse, non standard stylus size.
I've heard of it as a speed for 'talking books', I've never seen a
talking book record, though.
Seeburg sold a background music system that used a nonstandard
size/nonstandard hole 16 rpm record to give you hours of music that's so
bad,it makes muzak look downright nice. Thing was the size of a bread
box. One very evil bread box.
78 rpm (actually 78.26) was somehow arrived at by the record industry
once electric motors came around - speeds varied prior to then. 33 1/3
was arrived at because it was the speed that allowed a 16 inch record to
hold a movie reel's worth of sound, with the technology of the era. CBS
eventually made the 'microgrove' LP and started selling that in the late
40's.
45 came about from pre war RCA studies (though the speed wasn't chosen
at that time). After CBS came out with the LP, Sarnoff told his
engineers to come out with a competing (and different!) system. Thus,
the 45 rpm record. RCA's PR says 45 was chosen after careful studies
and blah blah blah. The cynics quickly realized that 78 - 33 = 45.
On the flip side, it gave us those cute little 45 rpm players that pop
up at garage sales from time to time :)
The 45 would have likely died if it wasn't for RCA cutting a deal with
Seeburg to make a 45-rpm only jukebox, which was also a 100 selection
machine. In an area of newfound variety and selection, such a beast was
an instant hit. Seeburg would actually ship records to operators who
couldn't get them otherwise, and thousands of such machines eating
records every week created an instant market for the things. I suspect
CBS had a counter-offer or something like that - even the M100B's
mechanism can load a 45rpm or a small-hole 33. In the 60's, CBS *did*
try to make a go at 7 inch 33's, and plenty of dual speed jukeboxen were
sold.
Philip Nasadowski
David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> Because they let you dump DC cam-control motors, and use sealed,
> trouble-free multiphase AC motors in variable speed applications.
So? Welcome to the wonderful world of power semiconductors :)
> Further, they are input freq and voltage tolerant.
Almost. They'll trip on over or under voltage situations. Or, if your
facility is on Long Island, they'll trip on under voltage on hot days,
and over voltage on moderate days (been there, done that).
> All in all, a lot of pluses in a small package.
Yeah but they're hardly anything magical. The actual IGBT six packs,
along with brake diodes and sometimes rectifiers, are catalog items from
semiconductor makers, at low power. One little module that's got it
all. Add a microprocessor, some firing logic, and DC link filtering,
and you've got a little inverter.
Medium voltage drives are starting to become a catalog item and less
custom than they used to be (they're semi custom, now - you can order
one but they tend to still have a bit of engineering attached to them.
The 480 and below stuff has been a catalog item for years now - order
part number X, open the box, plug it in, and go). Megawatt class
inverters aren't that common, though you'd be surprised where they pop
up in life...
Michael Moroney
>On 12/28/2009 10:37 PM, Philip Nasadowski wrote:
>> In article<hhbv9s$mt3$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> mrob...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>>> So they picked 50/3 or 16 2/3 Hz.
>>
>> Makes sense.
>>
>>> IMHO they knew they were going to have rotary converters, and it would
>>> be cheaper to have the "weird" end of the rotary converter be a "normal"
>>> generator with some of the poles/windings left off or wired differently,
>>> rather than something with a custom rotor or other custom big parts.
IIRC, picking a frequency that was a submultiple of the other allowed
rotary converters to be designed with one set of rotor cores. If they
picked more unrelated frequencies they'd need to create a contraption
that was essentially a separate motor and generator with a common shaft,
and possibly even gears to change the rotational rates. Unnecessary
complications.
>> More exactly - was 16 2/3rds used for industrial equipment, in general,
>> at the time? 25Hz was, in the US, used in some factories.
There were a few industrial users of 25 Hz power in Buffalo until 2006.
It was shut down a year earlier than planned (by a snowstorm) as it was
not economical to repair for only one more year of use. 25 Hz may still
be in use industrially in nearby areas of Ontario.
>> Interestingly, 25Hz hung on long enough in Canada that some TV sets in
>> the 50's were actually sold for 25hz operation. Contrary to what's
>> often stated, this did work on the 525 line 60 field system, and no, the
>> world won't blow up if the field rate and line frequency aren't the same
If the frequency didn't match and the DC power had powerline AC ripple,
you may see screen flicker at the differences in frequency (35 Hz) which
may be annoying. If the frequencies matched there may be lighter/darker
areas that would be stationary or very slowly moving, probably not
noticeable.
>> - in fact, post 1954, the field rate in the US was dropped ever so
>> slightly, to allow for color (there's some technical reason why they did
>> it). Even today, an old B&W set's perfectly watchable (via a
>> converter), though if the supply filter's a tad weak, you get a very
>> very slight, almost unnoticeable weave in the picture. At least my '57
>> Setchell-Carlson always did that, I never noticed it on my '53 Bendix
>> (though that set needs a new 21EP4 - which I finally found last winter
>> in PA).
>I think the rate was changed to make room for the color data in the scan.
>But what has puzzled me is what pushe the frequency mdown instead of up.
damn. I saw a real good explanation why the vertical rate was redefined
from 60 Hz to 59.94 Hz, but no longer have it. I think the audio
subcarrier frequency was involved somehow, and had to do with dividing
the master color frequency with the primitive equipment of the time.
Stephen Sprunk
The short version is that NTSC's new color subcarrier synced up with
(and slightly overlapped with) the existing audio subcarrier, causing a
"hum" in the audio which couldn't be filtered out. By reducing the two
video subcarriers from 30fps to 29.97fps, they were no longer synced to
the audio subcarrier and the hum went away--or at least became
inaudible. Older B&W sets didn't notice the 0.1% difference in the B&W
video subcarrier, though, and could play it just fine.
This has been an absolute nightmare for the movie/TV/broadcast industry
ever since. We should have done like Europe and developed a completely
new color transmission standard, rather than hacking B&W NTSC, but even
back then politicians didn't have the courage for something like that.
Most digital systems have gone back to 30fps for simplicity, which also
plays just fine on equipment designed for 29.97fps if down-converted to
any analog format _other than_ NTSC (e.g. composite, component, etc.).
Convert it to NTSC, though, and the hum will appear.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Philip Nasadowski
mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> If the frequency didn't match and the DC power had powerline AC ripple,
> you may see screen flicker at the differences in frequency (35 Hz) which
> may be annoying. If the frequencies matched there may be lighter/darker
> areas that would be stationary or very slowly moving, probably not
> noticeable.
That's assuming poor filtering. Off of the first stage filter
capacitors, most TV sets had under 0.5 volts of ripple, and
significantly less at the video output tube's plate resistor. Of
course, Dumont and a few other high end sets had multiple, or regulated
power supplies (the RA-102 did, at least), those didn't have much ripple
at all.
For any TV made after WWII, the high voltage to the CRT was driven off
an RF oscillator or the horizontal output transformer, thus there's no
power supply noise riding on it at all.
Color sets had shunt regulated CRT power, typically a 6BK4 with 25kv on
the top cap of the tube. They glow interesting colors.
The few TVs I've seen for the 25hz market, were specifically designed
with MUCH larger filter capacitors.
The bigger annoyance with color is that any B&W set with the full 4.5mhz
bandwidth, i.e. and RCA 630 or such, will see an interference pattern
when watching color shows. Not bad, but slight enough to be seen. Most
50's B&W sets didn't go the full width, and the cheapies tended to be
even worse (ironically, the one of best pictures I ever saw on an old
B&W TV set was a Philco Predicta, a set that was a notorious dog)
Stephen Sprunk
> The bigger annoyance with color is that any B&W set with the full 4.5mhz
> bandwidth, i.e. and RCA 630 or such, will see an interference pattern
> when watching color shows. Not bad, but slight enough to be seen.
This is one of the problems with backwards compatibility that the tech
industry is constantly fighting: the "better" products tend to go
looking for data in places where there isn't supposed to be any (even
when it is explicitly marked "don't look here" by the then-current
standard), so they start misbehaving when you add new data in that
"unused" space to add new capabilities. The worst products, which do
nothing more than the absolute minimum required, never notice it.
Fortunately, most consumers buy crap, and the ones who aren't buying
crap are the ones who are always upgrading to the latest and greatest
products anyway...
David Lesher
>> All in all, a lot of pluses in a small package.
>Yeah but they're hardly anything magical. The actual IGBT six packs,
>along with brake diodes and sometimes rectifiers, are catalog items from
>semiconductor makers, at low power. One little module that's got it
>all. Add a microprocessor, some firing logic, and DC link filtering,
>and you've got a little inverter.
I suggest you buy a few, borrow Mr. Well's gadget, and go call on the
team building BART's Diablo test track. LBJ was there on opening day, say
hello.
It was as a result of work there that they chose a DC third rail and
DC motor system. I submit sir, that if you'd been there with a few IGBT
multiphase drives, you'd have gotten their full attention, and then
some...& Clarke's Third Law would apply.
{There was a good IEEE Spectrum article on the test track work...}
David Lesher
>> I suggest you buy a few, borrow Mr. Well's gadget, and go call on the
>> team building BART's Diablo test track. LBJ was there on opening day, say
>> hello.
>There must be very special conditions on that test track. I don't think,
>that any 3rd rail DC EMUs in Europe have been delivered without AC drive,
>during the last decade.
Hint, look up the Diablo test track, and giveaway hint, LBJ.
Nobody
Which the Brits for one called "EP's", extended plays.
They fooled a lot of board operators/DJ's well into the 80's who
weren't careful, and who jumped to a conclusion 7" meant 45...
gl4...@yahoo.com
Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
> > About the only realistic alternatives to using AC Universal-wound
> > motors I can think of would have been to use 3-phase induction motors
> > (fixed speeds) and/or to have carried rotary converters in the
> > locomotives (serious size and weight problems?).
>
> Great Northern tried both, the latter approach actually worked for them.
> But the weight was a headache outside of mountain systems.
Actually, the 3 phase system worked OK too, for what was needed for the
Great Northern's short "first Cascade tunnel". That route followed a
long, circuitous slow route where limited preset speeds of the 3 phase
electrification weren't too much of an issue.
When the current 8 mile Cascade tunnel was built to replace this slow
route, trains were heavier, the electrification technology was better, and
the technology chosen somewhat different.
--
-Glennl
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> Misunderstanding here: I do /not/ assume, that AC electrification was
> practical in 1895. It would have been necessary, to route high-voltage
> AC across the tunnel, build some caverns with rotary converters, and
> feed about 700V DC to the trains. Nothing else was available for a
> tunnel started by 1880.
Obviously this is all hypothetical, but it seems to me that the 3 phase AC
electrification systems used on the mountain railways in the Alps could
have been used just fine in such a tunnel. Some of those rack railways
had their electrifications put in very early on. I really don't see how
the fixed speeds would have been that big an issue - such a tunnel is a
very isolated system, just as it is on the mountain railways where it was
first used, and in fact continues to be used on a number of such lines.
Even single phase may have been practical, depending on what they were
planning to run through the tunnel. If built to be light weight wooden
trains counts for much, I'm fairly certain that one of the local electric
railways in the Spokane area was built with single phase AC overhead
around 1895. The electrical system was used to feed several local
industries, including a paper mill, so there was some justification for
having a complete AC system.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> gl4...@yahoo.com schrieb:
>
>
> > Obviously this is all hypothetical, but it seems to me that the 3 phase AC
> > electrification systems used on the mountain railways in the Alps could
> > have been used just fine in such a tunnel.
>
> By 1900 or 1902 or so, yes. Ganz & Cie. was able to deliver in 1902.
>
>
> > Even single phase may have been practical, depending on what they were
> > planning to run through the tunnel. If built to be light weight wooden
> > trains counts for much, I'm fairly certain that one of the local electric
> > railways in the Spokane area was built with single phase AC overhead
> > around 1895.
>
> Yes??? Tell more. I'm not aware of any such attempt before 1902, and
> practical solutions before 1905.
You're right. It looks like our nearby example (Spokane & Inland Empire
was the line I think I was thinking about) opened their longer distance
single phase AC sections in the very early 1900s, (at the latest 1905, but
possibly earlier) and before that was all DC.
Their dual voltage AC / DC cars, for operation on the segments of the
lines that were still DC as well as the newer AC segments, must have had
under-floor motor generator sets. I can't think of anything else that
would have allowed a dual system car that early on. They certainly didn't
have mercury arc rectifiers designed for rail service at that time.