Re: Network RUS - electrification strategy - consultation draft
1506
> On 15 May, 13:44, "Paul Scott" <notvalidpmsc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Press release:
>
> >http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=...
>
> > "Were the funding secured for further electrification, the RUS recommends
> > that the busiest 3,000miles of non-electrified routes should be electrified
> > as a priority to achieve the greatest benefit. These routes include:
> > The Midland Main Line, including services from London St Pancras to
> > Sheffield
> > Great Western Main Line covering services from London Paddington
> > Strategic infill to provide more diversionary routes
>
> > Consultation document, including line by line discussions of current gaps,
> > and the services electrification would benefit, eg passenger, freight,
> > diversionary etc. Gives some idea of possible sequencing of infill projects:
>
> >http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route...
>
> > Hope this of interest - of course there is still no budget for any of
> > this...
>
> Having had a browse through it, I was interested to see the Chiltern
> services from Marylebone via both High Wycombe and Harrow-on-the-Hill
> down for eventual AC electrification. I hope that the writers realise
> that Harrow - Amersham is already DC electrified (I only see it shown
> on one map), so dual voltage stock will be needed for these trains. I
> also wonder how easy electrifying with AC to Marylebone will be,
> running parallel to the Metropolitan and Jubilee lines, through small
> tunnels, might make DC electrification a better bet, at least as far
> as Wembley (and maybe further given the Central at Ruislip) and
> Harrow.
Not necessarily: The fast pair north of Harrow could be dual
electric. Or, better yet transfer the Amersham and Chesham route to
Network Rail/Chiltern as AC Only. The met would continue to utilize
the slow pair to Watford (preferable Junction), and its branches.
Peter Masson
"1506" <adrian_a...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>Not necessarily: The fast pair north of Harrow could be dual
>electric. Or, better yet transfer the Amersham and Chesham route to
>Network Rail/Chiltern as AC Only. The met would continue to utilize
>the slow pair to Watford (preferable Junction), and its branches.
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
andy...@gmail.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)
DW downunder
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b779da9-a87d-46e1...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
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
andy...@gmail.com
> <andyp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
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.
Clark F Morris
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.
Neil Williams
<cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>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.
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.
d7...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> >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.
> 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.
>
And Watford Junction DF south end. And bits of the North London line.
And Ashford International.
And Farringdon <-> City will be once it is rebuilt (soonly) before
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
andy...@gmail.com
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.
Charles Ellson
Before conversion of the DC line to 3rd-rail the slow lines from
Euston to Camden were both 4-rail and 25kV.
>> David down undef
>
>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.
>
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.
Charles Ellson
>On May 16, 11:12�pm, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
>wrote:
>
>
>> >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.
>
>> 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.
>>
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.
Martin Edwards
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�
andy...@gmail.com
True, I'd forgotten that.
> >> David down undef
>
> >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.
>
> 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.
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.
andy...@gmail.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.
Neil Williams
>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.
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 Williams
>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.
Can TPWS/AWS be installed, or does the centre rail get in the way?
d7...@hotmail.com
> With the development of cheap dual system rolling
> stock, it has been gradually phased out in the UK,
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
d7...@hotmail.com
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.
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
d7...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Can TPWS/AWS be installed, or does the centre rail get in the way?
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
Jonathan Morton
news:29865210-04a9-4da6...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>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.
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
Brimstone
The Underground doesn't use AWS. It uses trainstops and tripcocks.
Peter Masson
"Jonathan Morton" <jonathan.mortonb...@btinternet.com> wrote
>
> As a matter of interest, are dual-voltage trains disproportionately
> expensive?
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
Peter Masson
<d7...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>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.
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
Peter Masson
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>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.
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
andy...@gmail.com
> On May 17, 1:00 am, andyp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > With the development of cheap dual system rolling
> > stock, it has been gradually phased out in the UK,
>
> 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.
>
It was never common, but the length has been considerably cut down to
just 'local' installations, compared to continuous routes with both
systems available.
> 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.
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.
>
> 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.
>
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.
> 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.
>
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.
> 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.
>
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.
> So IMHO, its not so much true to say that modern VVVF rolling stock is
> making dual system routes redundant, but more allowing flexability.
>
I think if you compared the dual system track mileage in 2012 with
that in the 1980s/1990s, it will be considerably less.
andy...@gmail.com
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.
Neil Williams
<peter....@privacy.com> wrote:
>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,
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.
Mizter T
On May 17, 12:34 pm, andyp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 17, 11:16 am, d7...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Then there is the East London works.
>
> 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.
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.
d7...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
> The Underground doesn't use AWS. It uses trainstops and tripcocks.
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
andy...@gmail.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.
Mr Thant
> 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.
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
Mizter T
On May 17, 12:53 pm, Mr Thant
<maha.thray.sithu.u.th...@googlemail.com> wrote:
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.
Andrew Heenan
...
> 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.
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
Barry Salter
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
andy...@gmail.com
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
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.
Paul Scott
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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
Mr Thant
> So why does every thing I can find about the ELL 378s say that they
> will be DC only
Because all sources are copying each other.
> even including press releases on the TfL site.
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.
> 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.
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
Brimstone
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.
andy...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On 17 May, 13:48, andyp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > So why does every thing I can find about the ELL 378s say that they
> > will be DC only
>
> Because all sources are copying each other.
>
> > even including press releases on the TfL site.
>
> 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.
>
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 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.
>
> 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.
>
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.
Paul Scott
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 01:34:48 -0700 (PDT), andy...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Can TPWS/AWS be installed, or does the centre rail get in the way?
>
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
andy...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 06:18:17 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
> what electrical capability they will have? ISTR that 6 trains are
> needed and there is a possibility of a further option being exercised
> with Bombardier. I haven't heard anything about trains being ordered for
> ELLX Phase 2 but I'd have thought they'd need to be getting their skates
> on fairly soon even if it means the fleet being slightly bigger than
> necessary in the short term so as to ensure continuity of production at
> Derby.
>
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.
Mizter T
On May 17, 1:48 pm, andyp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 17, 12:53 pm, Mr Thant
> <maha.thray.sithu.u.th...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 17 May, 12:34, andyp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
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").
Paul Scott
> 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.
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
Mizter T
On May 17, 2:40 pm, andyp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 17, 2:18 pm, Mr Thant <maha.thray.sithu.u.th...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 17 May, 13:48, andyp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
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.
andy...@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.
Peter Masson
"Barry Salter" <sal...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>
> Same applies to Networkers, witness the Southeastern 365s being
> transferred to WAGN (as was) a few years back.
>
That 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
andy...@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.
d7...@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.
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
d7...@hotmail.com
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
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
d7...@hotmail.com
> I'm led to believe that the 165s and 166s can be converted to electric
> traction relatively easily as well. (fsvo "relatively easily")
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
d7...@hotmail.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.
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
Peter Masson
<d7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a58f37cf-f40d-4639...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
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
d7...@hotmail.com
> , TfL will not be directly involved in the
> commissioning or running of the trains on a day-to-day basis.
Then you'd better explain that to TfL who advertise for Overground
operational staff with underground t&c.
--
Nick
andy...@gmail.com
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.
Robert
>
>
> <d7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a58f37cf-f40d-4639...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
On
>
> May 17, 12:20 pm, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@privacy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> 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.
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.
> 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
--
Robert
asdf
>On May 17, 2:18�pm, Mr Thant <maha.thray.sithu.u.th...@googlemail.com>
>wrote:
>> On 17 May, 13:48, andyp...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > So why does every thing I can find about the ELL 378s say that they
>> > will be DC only
>>
>> Because all sources are copying each other.
>>
>> > even including press releases on the TfL site.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>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.
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!).
asdf
>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 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.
d7...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 01:34:48 -0700 (PDT), andyp...@gmail.com wrote:
> >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 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.
>
> 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).
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.
> 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.
There is one of those approaching Neasden on NB Jubilee.
--
Nick
David Randles
>On May 15, 4:39�pm, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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)
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
andy...@gmail.com
> On May 17, 11:08 pm, asdf <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 May 2009 01:34:48 -0700 (PDT), andyp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >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 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.
>
>
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.
TimB
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
Mr Thant
> The Goblin diesels seem to be a mystery as to the number of cars as 8
> trains have been ordered but no firm statement made about the length.
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.html
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).
> We
> also have the mystery as to how 2 car trains operate today but
> apparently a number of GOBLIN platforms are being lengthened in the
> current infrastructure programme.
First I've heard of this.
U
Barry Salter
> The Goblin diesels seem to be a mystery as to the number of cars as 8
> trains have been ordered but no firm statement made about the length. We
> also have the mystery as to how 2 car trains operate today but
> apparently a number of GOBLIN platforms are being lengthened in the
> current infrastructure programme. I know we've done this before in the
> context of South Tottenham and points and not being able to make it
> longer but it all seems a bit uncoordinated.
>
> Anyone know for certain?
>
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
rail
TimB <timbu...@onetel.net> wrote:
Not through Basingstoke station I wouldn't have thought.
> What's the betting it turns out to be 3rd rail DC to Exeter anyway?
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>
andy...@gmail.com
Very low I reckon, as such a long distance would be considerably more
expensive to electrify using 3rd rail than 25kV OHLE.
john.po...@googlemail.com
> In message <faa72665-0366-43a9-a361-8628bd4dc...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
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.
1506
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.
1506
> On May 15, 4:05 pm, andyp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Having had a browse through it, I was interested to see the Chiltern
> > services from Marylebone via both High Wycombe and Harrow-on-the-Hill
> > down for eventual AC electrification. I hope that the writers realise
> > that Harrow - Amersham is already DC electrified (I only see it shown
> > on one map), so dual voltage stock will be needed for these trains.
>
> Not all that long back I suggested maybe the Bombardier Movias for the
> Met.line might have been better off specced for dual voltage - if not
> exactly fitted with pans and transformers for exactly such a combined
> dual system electrifiaction. It is not as if modern VVVF EMU are
> traction system dependant, it is not hard these days to plan this
> stuff in.
>
> As usual the less innovative within uk.railway could not see what on
> earth for. I'd have though the advantages of a few [say] High Wycombe
> [or somehere] to Aldgate at expense of [say] a few Watford or [say]
> Uxbridge to Marylebone might be worth it. Nver mind the possibility of
> some relief to Baker Street with maybe diversion to Marylebone; MB
> does need relief, the route conflicts in MB throat to/from the bays
> arer almost as bad as the Met/Circle line junction.
>
> None of what I'm suggesting is outragious, its no more than a sort of
> Thameslink style link up of two routes, it just don't cross the
> Thames.
>
There might be some merit in linking the Met. and the Chiltern Network
north of the Marylebone throat where the Met surfaces to cross the
Regents Canal. In theory that would allow the Amersham fasts to avoid
al of those Met Line bottlenecks. OTOH it would be a flat crossing.
It is a pity that those empty tunnels under Lord's Cricket Ground
cannot be put to some use considering the traffic load on the Met at
that point.
Tony Polson
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.
Charles Ellson
<brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>d7...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On May 17, 12:06 pm, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The Underground doesn't use AWS. It uses trainstops and tripcocks.
>>
>> 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 ?
>
>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.
>
AFAIR c313s use AWS north of Harrow and south of Kilburn High Road
(and on the NLL) and tripcocks between Kilburn and Harrow.
Barry Salter
> There might be some merit in linking the Met. and the Chiltern Network
> north of the Marylebone throat where the Met surfaces to cross the
> Regents Canal. In theory that would allow the Amersham fasts to avoid
> al of those Met Line bottlenecks. OTOH it would be a flat crossing.
There's barely enough capacity at Marylebone with the existing Chiltern
and WSMR services, let alone trying to squeeze in an extra four Met
trains an hour.
Hint: One of the big operational constraints in Chiltern land is that
it's presently a mainly two track railway all the way from Marylebone to
Birmingham, though Evergreen 3 is designed to alleviate some of that
with strategic "through lines" at key points.
> It is a pity that those empty tunnels under Lord's Cricket Ground
> cannot be put to some use considering the traffic load on the Met at
> that point.
>
If memory serves, aren't the "spare" tunnels on the wrong side of
the Chiltern line to be any use to the Met?
Cheers,
Barry
TimB
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
andy...@gmail.com
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.
DW downunder
"Barry Salter" <sal...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:77ec2aF...@mid.individual.net...
can someone enlighten me, what "spare" tunnels. AIUI, there were 2 tracks
with stations down to Baker St, and the Bakerloo (now Jubilee) replaced the
Stations, leaving 2 through tracks. Did I lose some tracks somewhere along
the way?
David down under
DW downunder
"1506" <adrian_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0bae69a2-5350-47d0...@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On May 19, 7:58 am, "DW downunder" <noname> wrote:
> "Barry Salter" <salt...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
When the Great Central Railway was being constructed (completion
c1899) capacity for seven track was provided under Lords Cricket
ground. Two times two track tunnels and one three.
This was to enable the GC to be widened at a future date without
disturbed the hallowed turf of Lords. The tunnel currently in use is
the one to the East, i.e. next to the Metropolitan. The unused ones
are on to the west.
>>>>
Thanks 1506
So I take it these extra 2 tunnels, total 5 tracks, connect to nowhere but
could be useful storage, or wartime propaganda command HQ ...
David
1506
> "1506" <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Hampstead Station looks as if it was built in such a way that doubling
its width at a future date would be easy. For most of the GC's route
enough land was purchased for the eventual addition of two more
tracks.
1506
When the Great Central Railway was being constructed (completion
c1899) capacity for seven track was provided under Lords Cricket
ground. Two times two track tunnels and one three.
This was to enable the GC to be widened at a future date without
disturbing the hallowed turf of Lords. The tunnel currently in use
Paul Terry
downunder <noname@?.?.invalid> writes
>So I take it these extra 2 tunnels, total 5 tracks, connect to nowhere
>but could be useful storage, or wartime propaganda command HQ ...
They were leased from Network Rail by a property company some years ago,
and the latest I heard is that the MCC (who lease the ground above)
intend to enter into partnership with the new owners to redevelop the
site for flats, which they hope will pay for the redevelopment of Lords.
--
Paul Terry
Tom Anderson
> 1506 wrote:
>
>> There might be some merit in linking the Met. and the Chiltern Network
>> north of the Marylebone throat where the Met surfaces to cross the
>> Regents Canal. In theory that would allow the Amersham fasts to avoid
>> al of those Met Line bottlenecks. OTOH it would be a flat crossing.
>
> There's barely enough capacity at Marylebone with the existing Chiltern and
> WSMR services, let alone trying to squeeze in an extra four Met trains an
> hour.
If you gave Amersham to Chiltern, couldn't you also give them some of the
platforms at Baker Street?
>> It is a pity that those empty tunnels under Lord's Cricket Ground
>> cannot be put to some use considering the traffic load on the Met at
>> that point.
>
> If memory serves, aren't the "spare" tunnels on the wrong side of the
> Chiltern line to be any use to the Met?
Could that be addressed by using some for Chiltern, then giving the
thus-vacated Chiltern lines to the Met? This would obviously take a good
bit of space on either side for the slewing of the alignments.
tom
--
I know thats not really relevant but I've just typed the words and my
backspace key doesn't work. -- phorenzik
d7...@hotmail.com
> That would hardly count as an infill to the existing 3rd rail area.
''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
Neil Williams
<cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>AFAIR c313s use AWS north of Harrow and south of Kilburn High Road
>(and on the NLL) and tripcocks between Kilburn and Harrow.
How do they avoid the AWS "sensor" hitting against the centre rail.
Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Brimstone
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 23:52:20 +0100, Charles Ellson
> <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> AFAIR c313s use AWS north of Harrow and south of Kilburn High Road
>> (and on the NLL) and tripcocks between Kilburn and Harrow.
>
> How do they avoid the AWS "sensor" hitting against the centre rail.
>
is only 1.5 inches above the running rail.
1506
> "1506" <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > So, why not close Charring Cross and sell its site for redevelopment.
> > The four North Kent tracks would become a thru route onto the
> > Southwestern system. By way of example the Dartford Loop and the
> > Kingston loop could be linked.
>
> I would go for a scheme where two tracks from the North Kent system run
> through to the Southwestern. The remaining two tracks from Kent would
> terminate at a 4/5 platform station on a rebuilt Hungerford Bridge, which
> would have:
> a) entrances on both sides of the river.
> b) a *very* convenient interchange with Embankment underground, which would
> probably be substantially rebuilt as part of the same scheme.
>
> If (b) could be done properly then Charing Cross underground station could
> probably be closed altogether.
>
Excellent thinking! I really like this approach. North Kent trains
can still reach the north bank, whilst we also have second east-west
crossrail south of the Thames. Nab, all this, sans expensive
tunneling!
Charles Ellson
It was, the giveaway is the AWS bell ringing in appropriate places.
Martin Rich
"Robert" <copper...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009051722571716807-coppercapped@gmailcom...
> On 2009-05-17 16:42:45 +0100, "Peter Masson" <peter....@privacy.com>
> said:
>
>>
>>
>> <d7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a58f37cf-f40d-4639...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
> On
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
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
Paul Scott
Could you explain the impact of your plans on Thameslink KO2? Not
forgetting all Southeastern stopping services (which you want to link to SW
stopping services) go into Cannon St under the proposed changes.
Paul
Peter Masson
"Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:er-dnfVCt6wevY7X...@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
Paul Scott
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
Peter Masson
"Martin Rich" <M.G....@city.ac.uk> wrote
>
> 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
>
No. 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).
David A Stocks
"Paul Scott" <notvali...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9f2dnbc1BY1FrY7X...@bt.com...
I wasn't aware of this proposal as part of the Thameslink programme - have
you a source? I have a strong feeling the project will shudder to a halt
after the current works at Farringdon and Blackfriars are completed. The
only substantial outcome will be that FCC will run 12-car trains (a mixture
of class 319/377) in the original service pattern.
Anyway, I'm not sure any explanation is required: a proportion of services
to/from Charing X would be diverted to be to/from Southwestern routes
instead. The extra capacity the Thameslink programme provides through
Borough Market and London Bridge may provide opportunities for more through
running to/from the Sothwestern, but other than that it would be a
stand-alone scheme independent of Thameslink.
D A Stocks
Paul Scott
"David A Stocks" <d.a.s...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:guvfcj$ve7$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Could you explain the impact of your plans on Thameslink KO2? Not
>> forgetting all Southeastern stopping services (which you want to link to
>> SW stopping services) go into Cannon St under the proposed changes.
>
> I wasn't aware of this proposal as part of the Thameslink programme - have
> you a source?
Yes - South London RUS. Usual place.
Paul S
David A Stocks
There's still plenty of SE stopping services (including just about
everything via Lewisham) going towards Charing X.
DAS
andy...@gmail.com
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.
andy...@gmail.com
> In message <faa72665-0366-43a9-a361-8628bd4dc...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
> TimB <timburf...@onetel.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 8:07 am, David Randles <use...@nospam.drandles.net> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 16 May 2009 02:15:13 -0700 (PDT), andyp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >On May 15, 4:39 pm, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >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)
>
> > > 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
>
> > 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?
>
>
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.
rail
andy...@gmail.com wrote:
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>
andy...@gmail.com
> In message <683a4a2d-f808-4cf4-a5b7-52fae2a78...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
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.
> 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.
>
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.
Brimstone
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.