Discussion:
Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak - Barking improvements
(too old to reply)
Basil Jet
2017-02-09 07:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/london-overground-gospel-oak-to-barking-route-to-reopen-on-monday-27-february-but-further-work-is-required

http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20170206_press_release.pdf
Recliner
2017-02-09 09:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/london-overground-gospel-oak-to-barking-route-to-reopen-on-monday-27-february-but-further-work-is-required
http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20170206_press_release.pdf
It looks like NR is trying to pass the blame on to the contractors:

"Along the 14-mile route, a number of the structures, which carry the
overhead lines, were incorrectly designed and couldn’t be installed at the
planned locations. Late delivery of materials and structures also led to
further delays."

I think NR would have used different words if the faults had been its own.

TfL must be secretly relieved that this takes away the pressure to transfer
some old electric 4-car trains on to the line before the new class 710s
arrive.
Roland Perry
2017-02-09 10:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<381388548.508324596.711872.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 09:20:11 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/london-overground-gospel-oak-to-barking-route-to-reopen-on-monday-27-february-but-further-work-
is-required
http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20170206_press_release.pdf
"Along the 14-mile route, a number of the structures, which carry the
overhead lines, were incorrectly designed and couldn’t be installed at the
planned locations. Late delivery of materials and structures also led to
further delays."
I think NR would have used different words if the faults had been its own.
NR's fault is (once again) lack of project management and performing
checks on what was being designed/manufactured.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-02-09 10:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 09:20:11 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/london-overground-gospel-oak-to-barking-route-to-reopen-on-monday-27-february-but-further-work-
is-required
http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20170206_press_release.pdf
"Along the 14-mile route, a number of the structures, which carry the
overhead lines, were incorrectly designed and couldn’t be installed at the
planned locations. Late delivery of materials and structures also led to
further delays."
I think NR would have used different words if the faults had been its own.
NR's fault is (once again) lack of project management and performing
checks on what was being designed/manufactured.
Yup
NY
2017-02-09 12:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 09:20:11 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/london-overground-gospel-oak-to-barking-route-to-reopen-on-monday-27-february-but-further-work-
is-required
http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20170206_press_release.pdf
"Along the 14-mile route, a number of the structures, which carry the
overhead lines, were incorrectly designed and couldn’t be installed at the
planned locations. Late delivery of materials and structures also led to
further delays."
I think NR would have used different words if the faults had been its own.
NR's fault is (once again) lack of project management and performing
checks on what was being designed/manufactured.
Yes, no matter whose fault it is, it's ultimately Network Rail's fault. They
are the project managers and they will have either designed the structures
or else approved someone else's design; ditto with the construction. The
buck stops with them.

I wonder if the problem would have arisen in the days of British Rail when
they (BR) did everything themselves: design, construction, project
management? In other words, how much of the problem is due to the fragmented
chain-of-command not-my-problem nature of modern civil engineering, where
there are loads of different contractors and sub-contractors involved. Has
anyone ever analysed and costed the risk of the fragmented approach?
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2017-02-09 15:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NY
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 09:20:11 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/london-overground-gospel-oak-to-barking-route-to-reopen-on-monday-27-february-but-further-work-
is-required
http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20170206_press_release.pdf
"Along the 14-mile route, a number of the structures, which carry the
overhead lines, were incorrectly designed and couldn’t be installed at the
planned locations. Late delivery of materials and structures also led to
further delays."
I think NR would have used different words if the faults had been its own.
NR's fault is (once again) lack of project management and performing
checks on what was being designed/manufactured.
Yes, no matter whose fault it is, it's ultimately Network Rail's fault. They
are the project managers and they will have either designed the structures
or else approved someone else's design; ditto with the construction. The
buck stops with them.
I wonder if the problem would have arisen in the days of British Rail when
they (BR) did everything themselves: design, construction, project
management? In other words, how much of the problem is due to the fragmented
chain-of-command not-my-problem nature of modern civil engineering, where
there are loads of different contractors and sub-contractors involved. Has
anyone ever analysed and costed the risk of the fragmented approach?
OTOH I wonder how much is down to dodgy survey work (piles couldn't
actually go where intended - one of the major problems on the GWML AIUI)
and also down to trying to do it in one blockade; AIUI on the GWML there
are planned three month gaps between piling and steelwork, and between
steelwork and wiring - AFAIK the detailed design work on the steelwork
isn't done until they know exactly where the piles actually landed.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Roland Perry
2017-02-09 16:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by NY
Post by Roland Perry
NR's fault is (once again) lack of project management and performing
checks on what was being designed/manufactured.
Yes, no matter whose fault it is, it's ultimately Network Rail's fault. They
are the project managers and they will have either designed the structures
or else approved someone else's design; ditto with the construction. The
buck stops with them.
I wonder if the problem would have arisen in the days of British Rail when
they (BR) did everything themselves: design, construction, project
management? In other words, how much of the problem is due to the fragmented
chain-of-command not-my-problem nature of modern civil engineering, where
there are loads of different contractors and sub-contractors involved. Has
anyone ever analysed and costed the risk of the fragmented approach?
OTOH I wonder how much is down to dodgy survey work (piles couldn't
actually go where intended - one of the major problems on the GWML AIUI)
and also down to trying to do it in one blockade; AIUI on the GWML there
are planned three month gaps between piling and steelwork, and between
steelwork and wiring - AFAIK the detailed design work on the steelwork
isn't done until they know exactly where the piles actually landed.
And were "lessons learnt", no obviously not.
--
Roland Perry
BevanPrice
2017-02-09 17:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by NY
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 09:20:11 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Recliner
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by NY
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/london-overground-gospel-oak-to-barking-route-to-reopen-on-monday-27-february-but-further-work-
is-required
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by NY
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20170206_press_release.pdf
"Along the 14-mile route, a number of the structures, which
carry the overhead lines, were incorrectly designed and
couldn’t be installed at the planned locations. Late delivery
of materials and structures also led to further delays."
I think NR would have used different words if the faults had been its own.
NR's fault is (once again) lack of project management and
performing checks on what was being designed/manufactured.
Yes, no matter whose fault it is, it's ultimately Network Rail's
fault. They are the project managers and they will have either
designed the structures or else approved someone else's design;
ditto with the construction. The buck stops with them.
I wonder if the problem would have arisen in the days of British
Rail when they (BR) did everything themselves: design,
construction, project management? In other words, how much of the
problem is due to the fragmented chain-of-command not-my-problem
nature of modern civil engineering, where there are loads of
different contractors and sub-contractors involved. Has anyone ever
analysed and costed the risk of the fragmented approach?
OTOH I wonder how much is down to dodgy survey work (piles couldn't
actually go where intended - one of the major problems on the GWML
AIUI) and also down to trying to do it in one blockade; AIUI on the
GWML there are planned three month gaps between piling and steelwork,
and between steelwork and wiring - AFAIK the detailed design work on
the steelwork isn't done until they know exactly where the piles
actually landed.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
And how much is down to changes in standards for clearances between
electric wiring & nearby structures, imposed after the original designs
had been approved ?? (More nonsense arising from Euroland, I believe.)
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2017-02-09 21:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BevanPrice
And how much is down to changes in standards for clearances between
electric wiring & nearby structures, imposed after the original designs
had been approved ?? (More nonsense arising from Euroland, I believe.)
You mean the failure to apply for a derogation?

I never got round to posting my observations on the other thread, so I'll
do it here.

The changes to the permitted clearances have been detailed in posts in the
other thread, with links to Roger Ford's writings on the topic. Safety
rules generally do change over time, and existing installations are
generally permitted to continue to operate. In this instance IIRC Network
Rail could have applied for a derogation (on a structure-by-structure
basis) but apparently chose not to (but not entirely - some structures
definitely have much tighter clearances than others).

There are three critical dimensions to be considered during this debate,
however. The first is contact wire to train roof (strictly, to the track).
There is of course a minimum for this, but over level crossings that
dimension is much higher. The dimension which Roger seems focussed on is
the catenary wire to bridge clearance. Between these two is the separation
of contact wire from catenary wire. Under bridges this is squeezed much
tighter - under very tight bridges the two wires are together (known as
'contenary', apparently). However on the GWML this happens comparatively
rarely - ie bridges are being raised by *more* than the minimum that they
need to. Presumably this is related to the desire to spec the GWML catenary
for 140mph - and presumably on the basis that if you're replacing a bridge
structure to raise it by X amount, the cost to raise it by another Y amount
is (presumably) comparatively small.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Chris J Dixon
2017-02-10 09:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
You mean the failure to apply for a derogation?
I never got round to posting my observations on the other thread, so I'll
do it here.
The changes to the permitted clearances have been detailed in posts in the
other thread, with links to Roger Ford's writings on the topic. Safety
rules generally do change over time, and existing installations are
generally permitted to continue to operate. In this instance IIRC Network
Rail could have applied for a derogation (on a structure-by-structure
basis) but apparently chose not to (but not entirely - some structures
definitely have much tighter clearances than others).
There are three critical dimensions to be considered during this debate,
however. The first is contact wire to train roof (strictly, to the track).
There is of course a minimum for this, but over level crossings that
dimension is much higher. The dimension which Roger seems focussed on is
the catenary wire to bridge clearance. Between these two is the separation
of contact wire from catenary wire. Under bridges this is squeezed much
tighter - under very tight bridges the two wires are together (known as
'contenary', apparently). However on the GWML this happens comparatively
rarely - ie bridges are being raised by *more* than the minimum that they
need to. Presumably this is related to the desire to spec the GWML catenary
for 140mph - and presumably on the basis that if you're replacing a bridge
structure to raise it by X amount, the cost to raise it by another Y amount
is (presumably) comparatively small.
A tangled tale. I wonder if the figures used for vehicle
clearance have changed, and how they could actually be
accommodated?

Once upon a time... the Class 357 was the base design for the
whole Electrostar family. Strange as it may seem, the range of
wire heights with which it was to be compatible was very poorly
defined. Indeed, at that time, understanding and specifying its
infrastructure was something the railway was very bad at, whilst
somehow magically still wanting everything to be able to run
everywhere. (1)

Work progressed, based on our interpretation of available data,
until a fateful meeting where someone asked "What about
Thameslink?"

When we looked at the new numbers we had been given, it was clear
that, worst case, the wire got alarmingly close to the vehicle
roof, and the downward curving horns at the ends of the
pantograph head were in danger of flashing over to the sides of
the pantograph well. (2).

The mod to the pantograph well consisted of removing a little
aluminium locally from the top of side wall, and adding a section
of insulating capping to ensure that the worst case clearance
distance to metalwork was still sufficient.

IIRC, the suspension was adjusted, to drop the whole train 9 mm.

It was also necessary to move some radio aerials away from the
vehicle centreline to position them a little lower on the roof
curvature.

I simply can't remember now exactly how the mod was rolled out,
but would not have expected them to spend money making the
changes on vehicles to which the pantographs were not fitted.
Likelihood of actually running on Thameslink may also have been a
factor.

(1) Other gauging issues included platform edge/ step plate.

(2) This was much narrower, and had significantly higher sides
than any previous design. I had to fight for every millimetre
increase from the interference fit I inherited from the tender
outline design. A tedious time alongside a draughtsman with a
barely functional 3D graphics package was the only way we could
optimise the clearances between the various bits of HV roof
equipment, which from memory were just over 200 mm.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
***@cdixon.me.uk

Plant amazing Acers.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-09 13:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:17:56 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 09:20:11 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Recliner
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/london-overground-gospel-oak-to-ba
king-route-to-reopen-on-monday-27-february-but-further-work-
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
is-required
http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20170206_press_release.pdf
"Along the 14-mile route, a number of the structures, which carry the
overhead lines, were incorrectly designed and couldn’t be installed at the
planned locations. Late delivery of materials and structures also led to
further delays."
I think NR would have used different words if the faults had been its own.
NR's fault is (once again) lack of project management and performing
checks on what was being designed/manufactured.
Of course, if they'd simply installed 3rd rail they could have done it in a
couple of months while the line carried on running. But thanks to stupid DoT
rules about no new 3rd rail they've had to close the line for god knows how
long inconveniencing 10s of thousands of people and spent > 100m.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-09 15:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:17:56 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 09:20:11 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Recliner
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/london-overground-gospel-oak-to-ba
king-route-to-reopen-on-monday-27-february-but-further-work-
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
is-required
http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20170206_press_release.pdf
"Along the 14-mile route, a number of the structures, which carry the
overhead lines, were incorrectly designed and couldn’t be installed at the
planned locations. Late delivery of materials and structures also led to
further delays."
I think NR would have used different words if the faults had been its own.
NR's fault is (once again) lack of project management and performing
checks on what was being designed/manufactured.
Of course, if they'd simply installed 3rd rail they could have done it in a
couple of months while the line carried on running. But thanks to stupid DoT
rules about no new 3rd rail they've had to close the line for god knows how
long inconveniencing 10s of thousands of people and spent > 100m.
The line also carries freight, which will be hauled by 25kV locos.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-09 16:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:49:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Basil Jet
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:17:56 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 09:20:11 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Recliner
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/london-overground-gospel-oak-to-ba
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
king-route-to-reopen-on-monday-27-february-but-further-work-
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
is-required
http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20170206_press_release.pdf
"Along the 14-mile route, a number of the structures, which carry the
overhead lines, were incorrectly designed and couldn’t be installed at
the
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
planned locations. Late delivery of materials and structures also led to
further delays."
I think NR would have used different words if the faults had been its own.
NR's fault is (once again) lack of project management and performing
checks on what was being designed/manufactured.
Of course, if they'd simply installed 3rd rail they could have done it in a
couple of months while the line carried on running. But thanks to stupid DoT
rules about no new 3rd rail they've had to close the line for god knows how
long inconveniencing 10s of thousands of people and spent > 100m.
The line also carries freight, which will be hauled by 25kV locos.
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-09 16:04:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:49:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Basil Jet
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:17:56 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 09:20:11 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Recliner
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/london-overground-gospel-oak-to-ba
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
king-route-to-reopen-on-monday-27-february-but-further-work-
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
is-required
http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20170206_press_release.pdf
"Along the 14-mile route, a number of the structures, which carry the
overhead lines, were incorrectly designed and couldn’t be installed at
the
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
planned locations. Late delivery of materials and structures also led to
further delays."
I think NR would have used different words if the faults had been its own.
NR's fault is (once again) lack of project management and performing
checks on what was being designed/manufactured.
Of course, if they'd simply installed 3rd rail they could have done it in a
couple of months while the line carried on running. But thanks to stupid DoT
rules about no new 3rd rail they've had to close the line for god knows how
long inconveniencing 10s of thousands of people and spent > 100m.
The line also carries freight, which will be hauled by 25kV locos.
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-09 16:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not pulling
power.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-09 16:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not pulling
power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric freight
are hauled by class 90s.
Charles Ellson
2017-02-09 19:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not pulling
power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric freight
are hauled by class 90s.
Class 92s tend to be seen with Channel Tunnel traffic, there is no
current reason for them to be preferred over straight 25kV locos away
from such traffic.

There is no sense putting in new 3rd rail between two 25kV areas; it
is obsolete, requires more substations and wastes more energy.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-10 09:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not
pulling
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric freight
are hauled by class 90s.
Class 92s tend to be seen with Channel Tunnel traffic, there is no
current reason for them to be preferred over straight 25kV locos away
from such traffic.
So there's no freight on southern region then?
Post by Charles Ellson
There is no sense putting in new 3rd rail between two 25kV areas; it
is obsolete, requires more substations and wastes more energy.
There is sense if it avoids closing a major rail line for months on end with
costs upwards of 100m quid!

Plus its only a few miles from acton to gospel oak. They could easily
re-instate the 3rd rail they ripped up back in the day.
--
Spud
Graeme Wall
2017-02-10 10:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not
pulling
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric freight
are hauled by class 90s.
Class 92s tend to be seen with Channel Tunnel traffic, there is no
current reason for them to be preferred over straight 25kV locos away
from such traffic.
So there's no freight on southern region then?
Al diesel hauled round here, which is why they are discussing the
"electric spine" running 25kV from Reading to Southampton.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2017-02-10 12:22:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not
pulling
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric freight
are hauled by class 90s.
Class 92s tend to be seen with Channel Tunnel traffic, there is no
current reason for them to be preferred over straight 25kV locos away
from such traffic.
So there's no freight on southern region then?
Al diesel hauled round here, which is why they are discussing the
"electric spine" running 25kV from Reading to Southampton.
The problem with electric freight on 3rd rail is that the current drawn to
move a competitive-sized freight at a competitive speed, is very close to
the current at which the circuit breakers trip.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Graeme Wall
2017-02-10 12:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not
pulling
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric freight
are hauled by class 90s.
Class 92s tend to be seen with Channel Tunnel traffic, there is no
current reason for them to be preferred over straight 25kV locos away
from such traffic.
So there's no freight on southern region then?
Al diesel hauled round here, which is why they are discussing the
"electric spine" running 25kV from Reading to Southampton.
The problem with electric freight on 3rd rail is that the current drawn to
move a competitive-sized freight at a competitive speed, is very close to
the current at which the circuit breakers trip.
Which is why, I suspect, the 92s were never very useful.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-10 13:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels
and the main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd
rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that
only occasionally did light freight because its built for high
speed, not pulling power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric
freight are hauled by class 90s.
Class 92s tend to be seen with Channel Tunnel traffic, there is no
current reason for them to be preferred over straight 25kV locos away
from such traffic.
So there's no freight on southern region then?
Al diesel hauled round here, which is why they are discussing the
"electric spine" running 25kV from Reading to Southampton.
The problem with electric freight on 3rd rail is that the current drawn
to move a competitive-sized freight at a competitive speed, is very
close to the current at which the circuit breakers trip.
Which is why, I suspect, the 92s were never very useful.
I thought their main problem was electrical interference fed back into the
power supply and signalling systems. I understand this is still being worked
on with solutions hoped for imminently, by Caledonian Sleepers at least.
Their needs are AC only of course.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Recliner
2017-02-11 12:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels
and the main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd
rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are
little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that
only occasionally did light freight because its built for high
speed, not pulling power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric
freight are hauled by class 90s.
Class 92s tend to be seen with Channel Tunnel traffic, there is no
current reason for them to be preferred over straight 25kV locos away
from such traffic.
So there's no freight on southern region then?
Al diesel hauled round here, which is why they are discussing the
"electric spine" running 25kV from Reading to Southampton.
The problem with electric freight on 3rd rail is that the current drawn
to move a competitive-sized freight at a competitive speed, is very
close to the current at which the circuit breakers trip.
Which is why, I suspect, the 92s were never very useful.
I thought their main problem was electrical interference fed back into the
power supply and signalling systems. I understand this is still being worked
on with solutions hoped for imminently, by Caledonian Sleepers at least.
Their needs are AC only of course.
I think that's right. But the fact that the problem only came to light
with the sleepers indicates just how little the 92s have been used on
25kV main line freights. GBRf thought they were acquiring a mature,
well-proven design, not locos that had mainly been in storage.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-11 17:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70
diesels and the main electric freight loco the class 92 can
run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are
little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that
only occasionally did light freight because its built for high
speed, not pulling power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric
freight are hauled by class 90s.
Class 92s tend to be seen with Channel Tunnel traffic, there is no
current reason for them to be preferred over straight 25kV locos
away from such traffic.
So there's no freight on southern region then?
Al diesel hauled round here, which is why they are discussing the
"electric spine" running 25kV from Reading to Southampton.
The problem with electric freight on 3rd rail is that the current
drawn to move a competitive-sized freight at a competitive speed, is
very close to the current at which the circuit breakers trip.
Which is why, I suspect, the 92s were never very useful.
I thought their main problem was electrical interference fed back into
the power supply and signalling systems. I understand this is still being
worked on with solutions hoped for imminently, by Caledonian Sleepers at
least. Their needs are AC only of course.
I think that's right. But the fact that the problem only came to light
with the sleepers indicates just how little the 92s have been used on
25kV main line freights. GBRf thought they were acquiring a mature,
well-proven design, not locos that had mainly been in storage.
I think the problems were well known, hence the limited use. Some HS1 use
was included though, was it not?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Recliner
2017-02-11 22:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70
diesels and the main electric freight loco the class 92 can
run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are
little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that
only occasionally did light freight because its built for high
speed, not pulling power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric
freight are hauled by class 90s.
Class 92s tend to be seen with Channel Tunnel traffic, there is no
current reason for them to be preferred over straight 25kV locos
away from such traffic.
So there's no freight on southern region then?
Al diesel hauled round here, which is why they are discussing the
"electric spine" running 25kV from Reading to Southampton.
The problem with electric freight on 3rd rail is that the current
drawn to move a competitive-sized freight at a competitive speed, is
very close to the current at which the circuit breakers trip.
Which is why, I suspect, the 92s were never very useful.
I thought their main problem was electrical interference fed back into
the power supply and signalling systems. I understand this is still being
worked on with solutions hoped for imminently, by Caledonian Sleepers at
least. Their needs are AC only of course.
I think that's right. But the fact that the problem only came to light
with the sleepers indicates just how little the 92s have been used on
25kV main line freights. GBRf thought they were acquiring a mature,
well-proven design, not locos that had mainly been in storage.
I think the problems were well known, hence the limited use. Some HS1 use
was included though, was it not?
I think some problems were known, but not the ones that GBRf discovered
when it initially put them into service with the sleeper trains. Yes,
they've had some limited use on HS1, as they're the only UK locos equipped
to run on it, aren't they?
Charles Ellson
2017-02-10 16:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:55:48 +0000, Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not
pulling
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric freight
are hauled by class 90s.
Class 92s tend to be seen with Channel Tunnel traffic, there is no
current reason for them to be preferred over straight 25kV locos away
from such traffic.
So there's no freight on southern region then?
Al diesel hauled round here, which is why they are discussing the
"electric spine" running 25kV from Reading to Southampton.
The problem with electric freight on 3rd rail is that the current drawn to
move a competitive-sized freight at a competitive speed, is very close to
the current at which the circuit breakers trip.
Which is why, I suspect, the 92s were never very useful.
That must be why can be seen hauling trains on the West London Line
south of North Pole Junction.
Graeme Wall
2017-02-10 17:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:55:48 +0000, Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not
pulling
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric freight
are hauled by class 90s.
Class 92s tend to be seen with Channel Tunnel traffic, there is no
current reason for them to be preferred over straight 25kV locos away
from such traffic.
So there's no freight on southern region then?
Al diesel hauled round here, which is why they are discussing the
"electric spine" running 25kV from Reading to Southampton.
The problem with electric freight on 3rd rail is that the current drawn to
move a competitive-sized freight at a competitive speed, is very close to
the current at which the circuit breakers trip.
Which is why, I suspect, the 92s were never very useful.
That must be why can be seen hauling trains on the West London Line
south of North Pole Junction.
A far cry from their intended use.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Charles Ellson
2017-02-10 17:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:07:09 +0000, Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:55:48 +0000, Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not
pulling
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric freight
are hauled by class 90s.
Class 92s tend to be seen with Channel Tunnel traffic, there is no
current reason for them to be preferred over straight 25kV locos away
from such traffic.
So there's no freight on southern region then?
Al diesel hauled round here, which is why they are discussing the
"electric spine" running 25kV from Reading to Southampton.
The problem with electric freight on 3rd rail is that the current drawn to
move a competitive-sized freight at a competitive speed, is very close to
the current at which the circuit breakers trip.
Which is why, I suspect, the 92s were never very useful.
That must be why can be seen hauling trains on the West London Line
south of North Pole Junction.
A far cry from their intended use.
How not ?
North of North Pole - 25kV
South of North Pole - 750V
Even further south - Dollands Moor and Channel Tunnel
Behind the loco - usually a block train, often formed of foreign
vehicles

A quick whizz through today's allocated (but not necessarily used)
freight paths through Shepherds Bush to Dollands Moor shows mainly
diesel haulage but trains from the same origin (usually Wembley or
Trafford Park) can be either diesel or electric hauled, possibly not
always as seen specified in RTT.
BevanPrice
2017-02-10 18:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000 Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC) Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66
and 70 diesels and the main electric freight loco the
class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class
92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger
loco that only occasionally did light freight because its
built for high speed, not
pulling
Post by Recliner
power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most
electric freight are hauled by class 90s.
Class 92s tend to be seen with Channel Tunnel traffic, there
is no current reason for them to be preferred over straight
25kV locos away from such traffic.
So there's no freight on southern region then?
Al diesel hauled round here, which is why they are discussing
the "electric spine" running 25kV from Reading to Southampton.
The problem with electric freight on 3rd rail is that the current
drawn to move a competitive-sized freight at a competitive speed,
is very close to the current at which the circuit breakers trip.
Which is why, I suspect, the 92s were never very useful.
Plus, I understand that an original plan was for Class 92s to take
freights beyond Frethun in France, but for various reasons, that never
happened.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-10 13:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels
and the main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd
rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not
pulling power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric
freight are hauled by class 90s.
Class 92s tend to be seen with Channel Tunnel traffic, there is no
current reason for them to be preferred over straight 25kV locos away
from such traffic.
So there's no freight on southern region then?
Al diesel hauled round here, which is why they are discussing the
"electric spine" running 25kV from Reading to Southampton.
The problem with electric freight on 3rd rail is that the current drawn to
move a competitive-sized freight at a competitive speed, is very close to
the current at which the circuit breakers trip.
Hence my comments on self-education. You just can't get the power out of 3rd
rail systems for heavy and fast trains. Look at the ludicrously low speeds
Eurostars were reduced to on Kent gradients before HS1 enabled them to
abandon the 3rd rail. They just couldn't get enough juice. The issue with
freight trains is even worse. Look at the power ratings of class 86 and 73
electrics. The latter were pitiful compared to the former. Things are far
worse today with 86s puny compared to 90s.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2017-02-10 13:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
You just can't get the power out of 3rd
rail systems for heavy and fast trains. Look at the ludicrously low speeds
Eurostars were reduced to on Kent gradients before HS1 enabled them to
abandon the 3rd rail. They just couldn't get enough juice.
And that was *after* beefing up the power supply from the normal.
--
Roland Perry
David Cantrell
2017-02-13 15:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
So there's no freight on southern region then?
What little of it I see is diesel hauled.
--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

You can't spell AWESOME without ME!
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-13 17:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Cantrell
Post by s***@potato.field
So there's no freight on southern region then?
What little of it I see is diesel hauled.
Apart from engineering trains, I suspect you're right. There is a little
work for class 73s.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
s***@potato.field
2017-02-14 09:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:32:59 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by David Cantrell
Post by s***@potato.field
So there's no freight on southern region then?
What little of it I see is diesel hauled.
Apart from engineering trains, I suspect you're right. There is a little
work for class 73s.
They all seem to have been sent up north in another intelligent move.
Whats the best place to send a 3rd rail equipped electro-diesel? Scotland!
Genius!
--
Spud
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-14 10:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:32:59 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by David Cantrell
Post by s***@potato.field
So there's no freight on southern region then?
What little of it I see is diesel hauled.
Apart from engineering trains, I suspect you're right. There is a little
work for class 73s.
They all seem to have been sent up north in another intelligent move.
Whats the best place to send a 3rd rail equipped electro-diesel? Scotland!
Genius!
They're effectively new diesel locos. Some of the conversions don't even
have a third rail capability now. But the mainly engineering needs on
Merseyside and the old Southern Region are being met by some of the
originally equipped 73s. The conversions were of surplus locos.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
s***@potato.field
2017-02-14 11:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:49:45 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
They all seem to have been sent up north in another intelligent move.
Whats the best place to send a 3rd rail equipped electro-diesel? Scotland!
Genius!
They're effectively new diesel locos. Some of the conversions don't even
have a third rail capability now.
Why doesn't that surprise me. Remove a useful capability no doubt to save
a few grand on upgrading the shoe beams with no thought whatsoever as to
potential future requirements.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-14 16:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:49:45 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
They all seem to have been sent up north in another intelligent move.
Whats the best place to send a 3rd rail equipped electro-diesel? Scotland!
Genius!
They're effectively new diesel locos. Some of the conversions don't even
have a third rail capability now.
Why doesn't that surprise me. Remove a useful capability no doubt to save
a few grand on upgrading the shoe beams with no thought whatsoever as to
potential future requirements.
I'm sure they can put it back if anyone finds a need for any more low
powered third-rail locos. Perhaps you don't know that a class 73 has less
than half the power of a 66?
s***@potato.field
2017-02-14 16:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:15 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:49:45 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
They all seem to have been sent up north in another intelligent move.
Whats the best place to send a 3rd rail equipped electro-diesel? Scotland!
Genius!
They're effectively new diesel locos. Some of the conversions don't even
have a third rail capability now.
Why doesn't that surprise me. Remove a useful capability no doubt to save
a few grand on upgrading the shoe beams with no thought whatsoever as to
potential future requirements.
I'm sure they can put it back if anyone finds a need for any more low
powered third-rail locos. Perhaps you don't know that a class 73 has less
than half the power of a 66?
So? That doesn't stop it being used as a general dogsbody loco on the 3rd
rail or running in pairs.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-14 16:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:15 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:49:45 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
They all seem to have been sent up north in another intelligent move.
Whats the best place to send a 3rd rail equipped electro-diesel? Scotland!
Genius!
They're effectively new diesel locos. Some of the conversions don't even
have a third rail capability now.
Why doesn't that surprise me. Remove a useful capability no doubt to save
a few grand on upgrading the shoe beams with no thought whatsoever as to
potential future requirements.
I'm sure they can put it back if anyone finds a need for any more low
powered third-rail locos. Perhaps you don't know that a class 73 has less
than half the power of a 66?
So? That doesn't stop it being used as a general dogsbody loco on the 3rd
rail or running in pairs.
It seems the need for such things is low. But if you travelled around the
Southern region as much as you spout nonsense, you'd see some:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/27303145281/in/album-72157668319839600/
s***@potato.field
2017-02-15 09:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:44:27 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:15 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:49:45 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
They all seem to have been sent up north in another intelligent move.
Whats the best place to send a 3rd rail equipped electro-diesel? Scotland!
Genius!
They're effectively new diesel locos. Some of the conversions don't even
have a third rail capability now.
Why doesn't that surprise me. Remove a useful capability no doubt to save
a few grand on upgrading the shoe beams with no thought whatsoever as to
potential future requirements.
I'm sure they can put it back if anyone finds a need for any more low
powered third-rail locos. Perhaps you don't know that a class 73 has less
than half the power of a 66?
So? That doesn't stop it being used as a general dogsbody loco on the 3rd
rail or running in pairs.
It seems the need for such things is low. But if you travelled around the
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/27303145281/in/album-72157668319839600/
Thank you for nicely proving my point though I suspect that wasn't your
intention. Never mind eh? ;)
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-15 09:51:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:44:27 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:15 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:49:45 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
They all seem to have been sent up north in another intelligent move.
Whats the best place to send a 3rd rail equipped electro-diesel? Scotland!
Genius!
They're effectively new diesel locos. Some of the conversions don't even
have a third rail capability now.
Why doesn't that surprise me. Remove a useful capability no doubt to save
a few grand on upgrading the shoe beams with no thought whatsoever as to
potential future requirements.
I'm sure they can put it back if anyone finds a need for any more low
powered third-rail locos. Perhaps you don't know that a class 73 has less
than half the power of a 66?
So? That doesn't stop it being used as a general dogsbody loco on the 3rd
rail or running in pairs.
It seems the need for such things is low. But if you travelled around the
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/27303145281/in/album-72157668319839600/
Thank you for nicely proving my point though I suspect that wasn't your
intention. Never mind eh? ;)
You were making a point, rather than just spewing content-free bile? I
suppose there's a first for anything.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-15 10:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:51:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
You were making a point, rather than just spewing content-free bile? I
suppose there's a first for anything.
Are you a Guardian reader? "bile" is their euphamism for anything they don't
agree with but can't argue against.

Oh look, I see you, the ambulance blocker and a few of the others on here
have made it on to youtube.


--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-15 10:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:51:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
You were making a point, rather than just spewing content-free bile? I
suppose there's a first for anything.
Are you a Guardian reader? "bile" is their euphamism for anything they don't
agree with but can't argue against.
Fortunately, I'm a reader. You should try it some time. It's a good way of
learning the language.
Basil Jet
2017-02-15 05:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:49:45 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
They all seem to have been sent up north in another intelligent move.
Whats the best place to send a 3rd rail equipped electro-diesel? Scotland!
Genius!
They're effectively new diesel locos. Some of the conversions don't even
have a third rail capability now.
Why doesn't that surprise me. Remove a useful capability no doubt to save
a few grand on upgrading the shoe beams with no thought whatsoever as to
potential future requirements.
Would anyone like to take part in a sweepstake on how long it will be
until Spud criticizes a railway for wasting a few grand on upgrading
shoebeams on trains which will live in Scotland where there aren't any
third rails?
s***@potato.field
2017-02-10 09:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not pulling
power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric freight
are hauled by class 90s.
I've never seen either on the NLL tbh. When I used to get the ELL from
highbury I saw maybe 1 freight train a week and without exception they
were all hauled by diesels.
--
Spud
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2017-02-10 12:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not pulling
power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric freight
are hauled by class 90s.
I've never seen either on the NLL tbh. When I used to get the ELL from
highbury I saw maybe 1 freight train a week and without exception they
were all hauled by diesels.
Is that perhaps because the GOBLIN hasn't been electrified yet....??


Anna Noyd-Dryver
s***@potato.field
2017-02-10 12:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:02:15 -0000 (UTC)
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and
the
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not
pulling
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
power.
When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric freight
are hauled by class 90s.
I've never seen either on the NLL tbh. When I used to get the ELL from
highbury I saw maybe 1 freight train a week and without exception they
were all hauled by diesels.
Is that perhaps because the GOBLIN hasn't been electrified yet....??
FFS, its like talking to geese.
--
Spud
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2017-02-10 13:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:02:15 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by s***@potato.field
I've never seen either on the NLL tbh. When I used to get the ELL from
highbury I saw maybe 1 freight train a week and without exception they
were all hauled by diesels.
Is that perhaps because the GOBLIN hasn't been electrified yet....??
FFS, its like talking to geese.
There's no electric freight on the NLL because the next bit of line isn't
electrified, so we shouldn't electrify that bit of line because there's no
electric freight? Is there a hole in your bucket?


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Basil Jet
2017-02-10 14:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:02:15 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by s***@potato.field
I've never seen either on the NLL tbh. When I used to get the ELL from
highbury I saw maybe 1 freight train a week and without exception they
were all hauled by diesels.
Is that perhaps because the GOBLIN hasn't been electrified yet....??
FFS, its like talking to geese.
There's no electric freight on the NLL because the next bit of line isn't
electrified, so we shouldn't electrify that bit of line because there's no
electric freight? Is there a hole in your bucket?
For once, Spud is in the right. Look at a map.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/224813/response/560395/attach/3/London%20Connections%20Map.pdf

The trains passing through Highbury, which is a little north-east of
Kings Cross, do not use the Goblin, which is the orange line further
north. If anything, the electrification of the Goblin will reduce
electric freight thorough Highbury.

(The somewhat significant connection from Woodgrange Park to Forest Gate
in east London is not shown on that map.)
s***@potato.field
2017-02-10 14:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:29:21 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:02:15 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by s***@potato.field
I've never seen either on the NLL tbh. When I used to get the ELL from
highbury I saw maybe 1 freight train a week and without exception they
were all hauled by diesels.
Is that perhaps because the GOBLIN hasn't been electrified yet....??
FFS, its like talking to geese.
There's no electric freight on the NLL because the next bit of line isn't
electrified, so we shouldn't electrify that bit of line because there's no
electric freight? Is there a hole in your bucket?
Highbury isn't on the Gospel Oak to barking line you numpty!
--
Spud
David C
2017-02-10 16:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:29:21 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:02:15 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by s***@potato.field
I've never seen either on the NLL tbh. When I used to get the ELL from
highbury I saw maybe 1 freight train a week and without exception they
were all hauled by diesels.
Is that perhaps because the GOBLIN hasn't been electrified yet....??
FFS, its like talking to geese.
There's no electric freight on the NLL because the next bit of line isn't
electrified, so we shouldn't electrify that bit of line because there's no
electric freight? Is there a hole in your bucket?
Anna Noyd-Dryver
So, when Freightliner uses pairs of 86's or a 90 from Ipswich Yard to
Mossend / Coatbridge, how would they reach the West Coat Mainline?

Answer, turn right at Stratford onto the N.L.L., proceed to Camden
Road & either go straight on to Primrose Hill & join the Slow Lines
out of Euston, or, turn right at Camden Road,, proceed to just before
Willesden Jct, H,L. & take the connection to the the slow lines there.

When the Goblin is opened to electric traction, it will provide a
useful short-cut avoiding Stratford & Forest Gate Jct.

Simples............

DC

PS,

As for relaying a DC 3rd rail on a 25kV AC railway, there are
electrical "complications " regarding return currents & signalling.

There are good reasons why " they" reduced the dual voltage sections
of the NLL to the minimum possible length, & why the connecting track
at Highbury isn't electrified.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Basil Jet
2017-02-10 23:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David C
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:29:21 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
There's no electric freight on the NLL because the next bit of line isn't
electrified, so we shouldn't electrify that bit of line because there's no
electric freight? Is there a hole in your bucket?
So, when Freightliner uses pairs of 86's or a 90 from Ipswich Yard to
Mossend / Coatbridge, how would they reach the West Coat Mainline?
Answer, turn right at Stratford onto the N.L.L., proceed to Camden
Road & either go straight on to Primrose Hill & join the Slow Lines
out of Euston, or, turn right at Camden Road,, proceed to just before
Willesden Jct, H,L. & take the connection to the the slow lines there.
When the Goblin is opened to electric traction, it will provide a
useful short-cut avoiding Stratford & Forest Gate Jct.
No, there is no route from Ipswich to the Goblin without reversing at
Forest Gate and Woodgrange Park.
Basil Jet
2017-02-10 23:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by David C
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:29:21 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
There's no electric freight on the NLL because the next bit of line isn't
electrified, so we shouldn't electrify that bit of line because there's no
electric freight? Is there a hole in your bucket?
So, when Freightliner uses pairs of 86's or a 90 from Ipswich Yard to
Mossend / Coatbridge, how would they reach the West Coat Mainline?
Answer, turn right at Stratford onto the N.L.L., proceed to Camden
Road & either go straight on to Primrose Hill & join the Slow Lines
out of Euston, or, turn right at Camden Road,, proceed to just before
Willesden Jct, H,L. & take the connection to the the slow lines there.
When the Goblin is opened to electric traction, it will provide a
useful short-cut avoiding Stratford & Forest Gate Jct.
No, there is no route from Ipswich to the Goblin
... avoiding Stratford ...
Post by Basil Jet
without reversing at Forest Gate and Woodgrange Park.
David C
2017-02-11 11:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Basil Jet
Post by David C
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:29:21 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
There's no electric freight on the NLL because the next bit of line isn't
electrified, so we shouldn't electrify that bit of line because there's no
electric freight? Is there a hole in your bucket?
So, when Freightliner uses pairs of 86's or a 90 from Ipswich Yard to
Mossend / Coatbridge, how would they reach the West Coat Mainline?
Answer, turn right at Stratford onto the N.L.L., proceed to Camden
Road & either go straight on to Primrose Hill & join the Slow Lines
out of Euston, or, turn right at Camden Road,, proceed to just before
Willesden Jct, H,L. & take the connection to the the slow lines there.
When the Goblin is opened to electric traction, it will provide a
useful short-cut avoiding Stratford & Forest Gate Jct.
No, there is no route from Ipswich to the Goblin
... avoiding Stratford ...
Post by Basil Jet
without reversing at Forest Gate and Woodgrange Park.
I forgot that Tilbury Freightliner Terminal is wired & does &/or used
to have 86's working there via Barking.

They also could use the electrified Goblin to avoid Stratford!

DC

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
David C
2017-02-11 01:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by David C
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:29:21 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
There's no electric freight on the NLL because the next bit of line isn't
electrified, so we shouldn't electrify that bit of line because there's no
electric freight? Is there a hole in your bucket?
So, when Freightliner uses pairs of 86's or a 90 from Ipswich Yard to
Mossend / Coatbridge, how would they reach the West Coat Mainline?
Answer, turn right at Stratford onto the N.L.L., proceed to Camden
Road & either go straight on to Primrose Hill & join the Slow Lines
out of Euston, or, turn right at Camden Road,, proceed to just before
Willesden Jct, H,L. & take the connection to the the slow lines there.
When the Goblin is opened to electric traction, it will provide a
useful short-cut avoiding Stratford & Forest Gate Jct.
No, there is no route from Ipswich to the Goblin without reversing at
Forest Gate and Woodgrange Park.
I was thinking of any Class 92 worked trains from the HS1 connection
at Ripple Lane.........

Possibly any Class 88 hauled trains from London Gateway too.

DC

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
David C
2017-02-09 19:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not pulling
power.
]
The class 90 is a mixed traffic loco, most of them are allocated to
freight operators.

Try Wikipedia, it might help you......

There isn't much work for the 92's but they are allocated to the
Caledonian Sleepers + some freight..

DC

DC

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2017-02-09 21:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.
The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.
You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not pulling
power.
12 out of service, 15 in passenger service leaves 23 in freight service.
They've been regularly used for freight since their early days
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_90>.

Also don't forget the 17 class 86s still in service with Freightliner, and
DRSs 88s soon to enter service.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-09 20:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 09:20:11 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/london-overground-gospel-oak-
to-baking-route-to-reopen-on-monday-27-february-but-further-work-is-required
http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20170206_press_release.pdf
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Basil Jet
"Along the 14-mile route, a number of the structures, which carry the
overhead lines, were incorrectly designed and couldn't be installed at
the planned locations. Late delivery of materials and structures also
led to further delays."
I think NR would have used different words if the faults had been its own.
NR's fault is (once again) lack of project management and performing
checks on what was being designed/manufactured.
Of course, if they'd simply installed 3rd rail they could have done
it in a couple of months while the line carried on running. But
thanks to stupid DoT rules about no new 3rd rail they've had to close
the line for god knows how long inconveniencing 10s of thousands of
people and spent > 100m.
I see our know-nothing Kipper correspondent has just excelled himself with
his ignorance of electrical engineering. Not for nothing has all the third
rail in North London been replaced with 25KV overhead electrification. A
period of self-education would now be in order.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Basil Jet
2017-02-09 22:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I see our know-nothing Kipper correspondent has just excelled himself with
his ignorance of electrical engineering.
Behave yourself, irrelevant political name-calling is not needed in the
group. I'm not aware of Spud ever declaring membership of Ukip.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
A period of self-education would now be in order.
Oh the irony.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-10 09:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:26:50 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
Of course, if they'd simply installed 3rd rail they could have done
it in a couple of months while the line carried on running. But
thanks to stupid DoT rules about no new 3rd rail they've had to close
the line for god knows how long inconveniencing 10s of thousands of
people and spent > 100m.
I see our know-nothing Kipper correspondent has just excelled himself with
his ignorance of electrical engineering. Not for nothing has all the third
rail in North London been replaced with 25KV overhead electrification. A
period of self-education would now be in order.
Has it? Guess you haven't been on the ELL at highbury yet then. You'll be
in for a surprise. They only laid it a few years back too.
--
Spud
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-10 11:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:26:50 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
Of course, if they'd simply installed 3rd rail they could have done
it in a couple of months while the line carried on running. But
thanks to stupid DoT rules about no new 3rd rail they've had to close
the line for god knows how long inconveniencing 10s of thousands of
people and spent > 100m.
I see our know-nothing Kipper correspondent has just excelled himself
with his ignorance of electrical engineering. Not for nothing has all the
third rail in North London been replaced with 25KV overhead
electrification. A period of self-education would now be in order.
Has it? Guess you haven't been on the ELL at highbury yet then. You'll be
in for a surprise. They only laid it a few years back too.
A line with n0o connections to the North London network. One was installed
at Highbury (only for stock transfers) but has never been commissioned.

It seems to have escaped your notice that the North London was once 3rd rail
electrified all the way to North Woolwich. None north and east of Mitre
Bridge Junction now.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
s***@potato.field
2017-02-10 11:51:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 05:25:55 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:26:50 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
Of course, if they'd simply installed 3rd rail they could have done
it in a couple of months while the line carried on running. But
thanks to stupid DoT rules about no new 3rd rail they've had to close
the line for god knows how long inconveniencing 10s of thousands of
people and spent > 100m.
I see our know-nothing Kipper correspondent has just excelled himself
with his ignorance of electrical engineering. Not for nothing has all the
third rail in North London been replaced with 25KV overhead
electrification. A period of self-education would now be in order.
Has it? Guess you haven't been on the ELL at highbury yet then. You'll be
in for a surprise. They only laid it a few years back too.
A line with n0o connections to the North London network. One was installed
at Highbury (only for stock transfers) but has never been commissioned.
You said north london, not the north london line. Since you're such a pedant
you should get these things right.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
It seems to have escaped your notice that the North London was once 3rd rail
electrified all the way to North Woolwich. None north and east of Mitre
Bridge Junction now.
I'm prefectly well aware of the that. Your point is what exactly? That because
3rd rail was removed it can't be put back because of some moronic DoT
regulation? No, lets just inconvenience thousands for months and spend 130m
quid instead, far better.
--
Spud
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-10 13:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 05:25:55 -0600
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:26:50 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
Of course, if they'd simply installed 3rd rail they could have done
it in a couple of months while the line carried on running. But
thanks to stupid DoT rules about no new 3rd rail they've had to
close the line for god knows how long inconveniencing 10s of
thousands of people and spent > 100m.
I see our know-nothing Kipper correspondent has just excelled himself
with his ignorance of electrical engineering. Not for nothing has all
the third rail in North London been replaced with 25KV overhead
electrification. A period of self-education would now be in order.
Has it? Guess you haven't been on the ELL at highbury yet then. You'll
bein for a surprise. They only laid it a few years back too.
A line with no connections to the North London network. One was installed
at Highbury (only for stock transfers) but has never been commissioned.
You said north london, not the north london line. Since you're such a
pedant you should get these things right.
Actually, all the third rail had been removed before the East London was
extended northwards to Highbury & Islington.
Post by s***@potato.field
It seems to have escaped your notice that the North London was once 3rd
rail electrified all the way to North Woolwich. None north and east of
Mitre Bridge Junction now.
I'm prefectly well aware of the that. Your point is what exactly? That
because 3rd rail was removed it can't be put back because of some moronic
DoT regulation? No, lets just inconvenience thousands for months and
spend 130m quid instead, far better.
Go and learn some power electricity and stop talking out of your rear
orifice. It was removed because 3rd rail just couldn't meet the needs of
modern electric trains and couldn't meet freight needs at all.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
s***@potato.field
2017-02-10 14:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 07:16:06 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
You said north london, not the north london line. Since you're such a
pedant you should get these things right.
Actually, all the third rail had been removed before the East London was
extended northwards to Highbury & Islington.
And? There is 3rd rail in north london, and not just there - all the way to
watford too.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
I'm prefectly well aware of the that. Your point is what exactly? That
because 3rd rail was removed it can't be put back because of some moronic
DoT regulation? No, lets just inconvenience thousands for months and
spend 130m quid instead, far better.
Go and learn some power electricity and stop talking out of your rear
orifice. It was removed because 3rd rail just couldn't meet the needs of
modern electric trains and couldn't meet freight needs at all.
Sorry, which modern electric trains exactly - the 378s which run on the NLL
*and* the 3rd rail ELL all the way down to crystal palace? Do they run faster
or with better acceleration on the NLL then?
--
Spud
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-10 17:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 07:16:06 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
You said north london, not the north london line. Since you're such a
pedant you should get these things right.
Actually, all the third rail had been removed before the East London was
extended northwards to Highbury & Islington.
And? There is 3rd rail in north london, and not just there - all the
way to watford too.
From Euston because of the interworking with the Bakerloo Line but on no
other routes around there now. And the route almost entirely parallels a
25KV electrified route between Euston and Watford Junction.
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
I'm prefectly well aware of the that. Your point is what exactly? That
because 3rd rail was removed it can't be put back because of some
moronic DoT regulation? No, lets just inconvenience thousands for
months and spend 130m quid instead, far better.
Go and learn some power electricity and stop talking out of your rear
orifice. It was removed because 3rd rail just couldn't meet the needs of
modern electric trains and couldn't meet freight needs at all.
Sorry, which modern electric trains exactly - the 378s which run on
the NLL *and* the 3rd rail ELL all the way down to crystal palace? Do
they run faster
or with better acceleration on the NLL then?
3rd rail is fine for frequent suburban and metro services but increasingly
hopeless for long distance passenger and freight services. The huge benefit
derived from power electronics is that dual system trains are so much
cheaper and more versatile so there is no reason to keep third rail where
25KV would allow bore versatile traffic, hence the electric spine
re-powering project. It may have been ahead of its time but it will come so
freights too heavy for diesel haulage can run in and out of Southampton.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Optimist
2017-02-10 17:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 07:16:06 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
You said north london, not the north london line. Since you're such a
pedant you should get these things right.
Actually, all the third rail had been removed before the East London was
extended northwards to Highbury & Islington.
And? There is 3rd rail in north london, and not just there - all the
way to watford too.
From Euston because of the interworking with the Bakerloo Line but on no
other routes around there now. And the route almost entirely parallels a
25KV electrified route between Euston and Watford Junction.
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
I'm prefectly well aware of the that. Your point is what exactly? That
because 3rd rail was removed it can't be put back because of some
moronic DoT regulation? No, lets just inconvenience thousands for
months and spend 130m quid instead, far better.
Go and learn some power electricity and stop talking out of your rear
orifice. It was removed because 3rd rail just couldn't meet the needs of
modern electric trains and couldn't meet freight needs at all.
Sorry, which modern electric trains exactly - the 378s which run on
the NLL *and* the 3rd rail ELL all the way down to crystal palace? Do
they run faster
or with better acceleration on the NLL then?
3rd rail is fine for frequent suburban and metro services but increasingly
hopeless for long distance passenger and freight services. The huge benefit
derived from power electronics is that dual system trains are so much
cheaper and more versatile so there is no reason to keep third rail where
25KV would allow bore versatile traffic, hence the electric spine
re-powering project. It may have been ahead of its time but it will come so
freights too heavy for diesel haulage can run in and out of Southampton.
Time to bring back 6.25kv for lines with close clearances?
s***@potato.field
2017-02-13 10:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:13:54 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
Sorry, which modern electric trains exactly - the 378s which run on
the NLL *and* the 3rd rail ELL all the way down to crystal palace? Do
they run faster
or with better acceleration on the NLL then?
3rd rail is fine for frequent suburban and metro services but increasingly
hopeless for long distance passenger and freight services. The huge benefit
derived from power electronics is that dual system trains are so much
cheaper and more versatile so there is no reason to keep third rail where
25KV would allow bore versatile traffic, hence the electric spine
re-powering project. It may have been ahead of its time but it will come so
freights too heavy for diesel haulage can run in and out of Southampton.
I understand that all other things being equal 25Kv is the better choice.
However all the 378s are capable of 3rd rail and installing 3rd rail on the
goblin line would have meant little to no disruption of services plus it would
have cost a damn site less. Ok, so freight on the line would still have to use
diesels or 92s. So what - it always hauled by diesels anyway from my experience
probably because the wires don't extend to whatever port or sidings its heading
for anyway, not because the goblin isn't wired up.
--
Spud
news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
2017-02-13 10:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:13:54 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
Sorry, which modern electric trains exactly - the 378s which run on
the NLL *and* the 3rd rail ELL all the way down to crystal palace? Do
they run faster
or with better acceleration on the NLL then?
3rd rail is fine for frequent suburban and metro services but increasingly
hopeless for long distance passenger and freight services. The huge benefit
derived from power electronics is that dual system trains are so much
cheaper and more versatile so there is no reason to keep third rail where
25KV would allow bore versatile traffic, hence the electric spine
re-powering project. It may have been ahead of its time but it will come so
freights too heavy for diesel haulage can run in and out of Southampton.
I understand that all other things being equal 25Kv is the better choice.
However all the 378s are capable of 3rd rail and installing 3rd rail on
the goblin line would have meant little to no disruption of services plus
it would have cost a damn site less. Ok, so freight on the line would
still have to use diesels or 92s. So what - it always hauled by diesels
anyway from my experience probably because the wires don't extend to
whatever port or sidings its heading for anyway, not because the goblin
isn't wired up.
But the reson for electrifying Goblin is for freight thus need 25kV

<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fi
le/209279/PU1524_IUK_new_template.pdf>

"electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking rail corridor, to improve
a key freight
corridor and improving reliability for passengers. "
--
Mark
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-13 14:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:13:54 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
Sorry, which modern electric trains exactly - the 378s which run on
the NLL *and* the 3rd rail ELL all the way down to crystal palace? Do
they run faster or with better acceleration on the NLL then?
3rd rail is fine for frequent suburban and metro services but
increasingly hopeless for long distance passenger and freight
services. The huge benefit derived from power electronics is that dual
system trains are so much cheaper and more versatile so there is no
reason to keep third rail where 25KV would allow bore versatile
traffic, hence the electric spine re-powering project. It may have been
ahead of its time but it will come so freights too heavy for diesel
haulage can run in and out of Southampton.
I understand that all other things being equal 25Kv is the better
choice. However all the 378s are capable of 3rd rail and installing 3rd
rail on the goblin line would have meant little to no disruption of
services plus it would have cost a damn site less. Ok, so freight on the
line would still have to use diesels or 92s. So what - it always hauled
by diesels anyway from my experience probably because the wires don't
extend to whatever port or sidings its heading for anyway, not because
the goblin isn't wired up.
But the reson for electrifying Goblin is for freight thus need 25kV
<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/20
9279/PU1524_IUK_new_template.pdf>
Post by news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
"electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking rail corridor, to improve
a key freight corridor and improving reliability for passengers. "
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.

Is Spud related to Mr Ludd by any chance?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
s***@potato.field
2017-02-13 16:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
"electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking rail corridor, to improve
a key freight corridor and improving reliability for passengers. "
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.
Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then?
I find that hard to believe.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Is Spud related to Mr Ludd by any chance?
No. I'm simply Mr Taxpayer who isn't thrilled by seeing huge wads of cash
spent on this project when there was a much simpler and cheaper alternative.
The whole freight argument is bogus since the vast majority of UK freight is
diesel hauled and there is already a 25KV path for freight across north london
anyway.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-13 16:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
"electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking rail corridor, to improve
a key freight corridor and improving reliability for passengers. "
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.
Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then?
No
Post by s***@potato.field
I find that hard to believe.
Do you *really* not know what trains are being built for the line?
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Is Spud related to Mr Ludd by any chance?
No. I'm simply Mr Taxpayer who isn't thrilled by seeing huge wads of cash
spent on this project when there was a much simpler and cheaper alternative.
The whole freight argument is bogus since the vast majority of UK freight is
diesel hauled and there is already a 25KV path for freight across north london
anyway.
With your expert knowledge of LO, the Goblin, UK railfreight and electric
traction, you must be right. But the people actually putting up the money
thought differently. If only they had had access to some expert consulting
from you!
s***@potato.field
2017-02-13 16:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:15:42 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
"electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking rail corridor, to improve
a key freight corridor and improving reliability for passengers. "
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.
Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then?
No
Post by s***@potato.field
I find that hard to believe.
Do you *really* not know what trains are being built for the line?
Unlike you I have a job to do and don't spend my life researching every little
piece of obscure information about railways.
Post by Recliner
With your expert knowledge of LO, the Goblin, UK railfreight and electric
traction, you must be right. But the people actually putting up the money
thought differently. If only they had had access to some expert consulting
from you!
Ah yes, the people putting in the money. The ones who made sure specs were
being followed in the installation of the wiring. Would those be the guys?
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-13 17:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:15:42 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
"electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking rail corridor, to improve
a key freight corridor and improving reliability for passengers. "
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.
Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then?
No
Post by s***@potato.field
I find that hard to believe.
Do you *really* not know what trains are being built for the line?
Unlike you I have a job to do and don't spend my life researching every little
piece of obscure information about railways.
Post by Recliner
With your expert knowledge of LO, the Goblin, UK railfreight and electric
traction, you must be right. But the people actually putting up the money
thought differently. If only they had had access to some expert consulting
from you!
Ah yes, the people putting in the money. The ones who made sure specs were
being followed in the installation of the wiring. Would those be the guys?
You seem to have, even by your standards, a rather poor understanding of
the difference between putting up the money, and on-the-ground engineering.
I suppose, as always, ignorance is your defence.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-14 09:47:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:17:15 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:15:42 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
"electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking rail corridor, to improve
a key freight corridor and improving reliability for passengers. "
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.
Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin
then?
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
No
Post by s***@potato.field
I find that hard to believe.
Do you *really* not know what trains are being built for the line?
Unlike you I have a job to do and don't spend my life researching every
little
Post by s***@potato.field
piece of obscure information about railways.
Post by Recliner
With your expert knowledge of LO, the Goblin, UK railfreight and electric
traction, you must be right. But the people actually putting up the money
thought differently. If only they had had access to some expert consulting
from you!
Ah yes, the people putting in the money. The ones who made sure specs were
being followed in the installation of the wiring. Would those be the guys?
You seem to have, even by your standards, a rather poor understanding of
the difference between putting up the money, and on-the-ground engineering.
I suppose, as always, ignorance is your defence.
Ah ok. So TfL shouldn't have bothered checking how things were progressing
or putting any men on the ground to double check the work? You should apply
for a job there, you'd be a shoe in.
--
Spud
David Walters
2017-02-13 16:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.
Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then?
I find that hard to believe.
TfL are buying 45 four-car 710s for use on the West Anglia Routes and
the Watford DC, GOBLIN and Romford to Upminster lines
s***@potato.field
2017-02-13 16:50:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:29:45 +0000
Post by David Walters
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.
Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then?
I find that hard to believe.
TfL are buying 45 four-car 710s for use on the West Anglia Routes and
the Watford DC, GOBLIN and Romford to Upminster lines
I should have guessed. Another pointless new EMU design costing extra when
there's already perfectly servicable one in the 378. I guess shiny new toys
are more important than saving money and having interoperability with
existing equipment when its someone elses money you're spending.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-13 17:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:29:45 +0000
Post by David Walters
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.
Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then?
I find that hard to believe.
TfL are buying 45 four-car 710s for use on the West Anglia Routes and
the Watford DC, GOBLIN and Romford to Upminster lines
I should have guessed. Another pointless new EMU design costing extra when
there's already perfectly servicable one in the 378. I guess shiny new toys
are more important than saving money and having interoperability with
existing equipment when its someone elses money you're spending.
By that impeccable logic, they should have ordered some new-build 313s, not
shiny new 378s.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-14 09:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:17:15 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:29:45 +0000
Post by David Walters
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.
Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin
then?
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by David Walters
Post by s***@potato.field
I find that hard to believe.
TfL are buying 45 four-car 710s for use on the West Anglia Routes and
the Watford DC, GOBLIN and Romford to Upminster lines
I should have guessed. Another pointless new EMU design costing extra when
there's already perfectly servicable one in the 378. I guess shiny new toys
are more important than saving money and having interoperability with
existing equipment when its someone elses money you're spending.
By that impeccable logic, they should have ordered some new-build 313s, not
shiny new 378s.
The last 378 car only rolled off the production line a couple of years back.
A slight difference in timescale. But no, lets spec out a new vehicle which is
most likely incompatabile in interoperatibility, driver operation, components
and quite possibily any ATO signalling for ... err, what reason exactly?

If there's a major flaw found in these trains will the 378s be able to
operate the goblin? Or if there's a shortage of 378s will the 710s be able
to run on the NLL and ELL? Probably not.
--
Spud
Basil Jet
2017-02-14 10:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:17:15 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:29:45 +0000
Post by David Walters
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.
Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin
then?
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by David Walters
Post by s***@potato.field
I find that hard to believe.
TfL are buying 45 four-car 710s for use on the West Anglia Routes and
the Watford DC, GOBLIN and Romford to Upminster lines
I should have guessed. Another pointless new EMU design costing extra when
there's already perfectly servicable one in the 378. I guess shiny new toys
are more important than saving money and having interoperability with
existing equipment when its someone elses money you're spending.
By that impeccable logic, they should have ordered some new-build 313s, not
shiny new 378s.
The last 378 car only rolled off the production line a couple of years back.
A slight difference in timescale. But no, lets spec out a new vehicle which is
most likely incompatabile in interoperatibility, driver operation, components
and quite possibily any ATO signalling for ... err, what reason exactly?
If there's a major flaw found in these trains will the 378s be able to
operate the goblin?
They're too long

Or if there's a shortage of 378s will the 710s be able
Post by s***@potato.field
to run on the NLL and ELL? Probably not.
They're too short, and they'll be busy on the Goblin.

Given the problem that befell the Central Line after the motors started
falling off the 92 stock, I am concerned about the New Tube For London
being rolled out across so many LU lines, because a recall will take out
half the tube... having fundamentally different stock on the 4-carriage
and 5-carriage LO lines seems like a good idea, since the lengths
prevent interoperability anyway.

New trains are also improving rapidly at the moment... new trains have
microphones on the axles which listen for odd noises, and then book
themselves in for maintenance without any human involvement, that sort
of thing. (I don't have details of the stock in question, but that's a
generic example.)

I think this is a classic case of if TfL do A, Spud says why didn't they
do B, and if TfL do B, Spud says why didn't they do A.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-14 10:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:19:03 +0000
Post by Basil Jet
Post by s***@potato.field
If there's a major flaw found in these trains will the 378s be able to
operate the goblin?
They're too long
Selective door opening. Works on the ELL.
Post by Basil Jet
Or if there's a shortage of 378s will the 710s be able
Post by s***@potato.field
to run on the NLL and ELL? Probably not.
They're too short, and they'll be busy on the Goblin.
A short train is better than no train.
Post by Basil Jet
Given the problem that befell the Central Line after the motors started
falling off the 92 stock, I am concerned about the New Tube For London
being rolled out across so many LU lines, because a recall will take out
half the tube... having fundamentally different stock on the 4-carriage
The 92 stock was built on the cheap apparently. Though if there'd been
adequate maintenance procedures the bogie issues would have been caught long
before it got to the stage of a motor falling off.
Post by Basil Jet
and 5-carriage LO lines seems like a good idea, since the lengths
prevent interoperability anyway.
See above.
Post by Basil Jet
I think this is a classic case of if TfL do A, Spud says why didn't they
do B, and if TfL do B, Spud says why didn't they do A.
Not really. The tube and LO are different beasts anyway. Most tube lines are
self contained, the LO isn't so it makes far more sense to have a common
EMU operating on all of it just as on the met/circle + district.
--
Spud
Basil Jet
2017-02-13 17:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:29:45 +0000
Post by David Walters
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.
Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then?
I find that hard to believe.
TfL are buying 45 four-car 710s for use on the West Anglia Routes and
the Watford DC, GOBLIN and Romford to Upminster lines
I should have guessed.
No, you should have heard it here several times.
Post by s***@potato.field
Another pointless new EMU design costing extra when
there's already perfectly servicable one in the 378. I guess shiny new toys
are more important than saving money and having interoperability with
existing equipment when its someone elses money you're spending.
West Anglia platforms can only take eight (mostly nine, actually)
carriages, and Emerson Park can only take 4, so five car units would not
be much use in either.

The DC line is mostly 6-carriage platforms.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-14 09:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:51:34 +0000
Post by Basil Jet
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:29:45 +0000
Post by David Walters
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.
Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin
then?
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by David Walters
Post by s***@potato.field
I find that hard to believe.
TfL are buying 45 four-car 710s for use on the West Anglia Routes and
the Watford DC, GOBLIN and Romford to Upminster lines
I should have guessed.
No, you should have heard it here several times.
Post by s***@potato.field
Another pointless new EMU design costing extra when
there's already perfectly servicable one in the 378. I guess shiny new toys
are more important than saving money and having interoperability with
existing equipment when its someone elses money you're spending.
West Anglia platforms can only take eight (mostly nine, actually)
carriages, and Emerson Park can only take 4, so five car units would not
be much use in either.
The DC line is mostly 6-carriage platforms.
I'm sure if TfL/Bombardier got stephen hawking and some rocket scientists on a
retainer they could after some serious brainstorming sessions figure out a way
to build a 6 car 378.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-14 16:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:51:34 +0000
Post by Basil Jet
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:29:45 +0000
Post by David Walters
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.
Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin
then?
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by David Walters
Post by s***@potato.field
I find that hard to believe.
TfL are buying 45 four-car 710s for use on the West Anglia Routes and
the Watford DC, GOBLIN and Romford to Upminster lines
I should have guessed.
No, you should have heard it here several times.
Post by s***@potato.field
Another pointless new EMU design costing extra when
there's already perfectly servicable one in the 378. I guess shiny new toys
are more important than saving money and having interoperability with
existing equipment when its someone elses money you're spending.
West Anglia platforms can only take eight (mostly nine, actually)
carriages, and Emerson Park can only take 4, so five car units would not
be much use in either.
The DC line is mostly 6-carriage platforms.
I'm sure if TfL/Bombardier got stephen hawking and some rocket scientists on a
retainer they could after some serious brainstorming sessions figure out a way
to build a 6 car 378.
Oi, pay attention, the naughty boy at the back!

As already mentioned in this thread and others, the DC line will be getting
new 4-car Aventras to replace the 5-car 378s. So, far from any rocket
scientists, it won't even need any retards like you to figure out a way to
build 6-car 378s. There won't be any more 378s built.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-14 16:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:14 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Basil Jet
The DC line is mostly 6-carriage platforms.
I'm sure if TfL/Bombardier got stephen hawking and some rocket scientists on
a
Post by s***@potato.field
retainer they could after some serious brainstorming sessions figure out a
way
Post by s***@potato.field
to build a 6 car 378.
Oi, pay attention, the naughty boy at the back!
As already mentioned in this thread and others, the DC line will be getting
new 4-car Aventras to replace the 5-car 378s. So, far from any rocket
scientists, it won't even need any retards like you to figure out a way to
build 6-car 378s. There won't be any more 378s built.
So you're answer to why they're not using 378s on the goblin is because
they're not. Right, glad we cleared that up. You're truly a veritable font of
information.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-14 16:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:14 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Basil Jet
The DC line is mostly 6-carriage platforms.
I'm sure if TfL/Bombardier got stephen hawking and some rocket scientists on
a
Post by s***@potato.field
retainer they could after some serious brainstorming sessions figure out a
way
Post by s***@potato.field
to build a 6 car 378.
Oi, pay attention, the naughty boy at the back!
As already mentioned in this thread and others, the DC line will be getting
new 4-car Aventras to replace the 5-car 378s. So, far from any rocket
scientists, it won't even need any retards like you to figure out a way to
build 6-car 378s. There won't be any more 378s built.
So you're answer to why they're not using 378s on the goblin is because
they're not.
Please translate that into English?
Post by s***@potato.field
Right, glad we cleared that up. You're truly a veritable font of
information.
Well, nature abhors the vacuum that you are…
s***@potato.field
2017-02-15 09:39:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:42:55 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:14 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Basil Jet
The DC line is mostly 6-carriage platforms.
I'm sure if TfL/Bombardier got stephen hawking and some rocket scientists
on
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
a
Post by s***@potato.field
retainer they could after some serious brainstorming sessions figure out a
way
Post by s***@potato.field
to build a 6 car 378.
Oi, pay attention, the naughty boy at the back!
As already mentioned in this thread and others, the DC line will be getting
new 4-car Aventras to replace the 5-car 378s. So, far from any rocket
scientists, it won't even need any retards like you to figure out a way to
build 6-car 378s. There won't be any more 378s built.
So you're answer to why they're not using 378s on the goblin is because
they're not.
Please translate that into English?
Sorry, I was trying to comprehend your tortured logic. Clearly I failed
probably because there wasn't any to start with.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-15 09:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:42:55 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:14 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Basil Jet
The DC line is mostly 6-carriage platforms.
I'm sure if TfL/Bombardier got stephen hawking and some rocket scientists
on
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
a
Post by s***@potato.field
retainer they could after some serious brainstorming sessions figure out a
way
Post by s***@potato.field
to build a 6 car 378.
Oi, pay attention, the naughty boy at the back!
As already mentioned in this thread and others, the DC line will be getting
new 4-car Aventras to replace the 5-car 378s. So, far from any rocket
scientists, it won't even need any retards like you to figure out a way to
build 6-car 378s. There won't be any more 378s built.
So you're answer to why they're not using 378s on the goblin is because
they're not.
Please translate that into English?
Sorry, I was trying to comprehend your tortured logic. Clearly I failed
probably because there wasn't any to start with.
I realise English isn't your native language, but I wonder if your
translator generated "you're" instead of "your" in that garbled sentence?
Perhaps you're using obsolete software to translate what passes for your
thoughts into English?

The reason they're not using 378s on the GOBLIN is because it's a new order
for 4-car EMUs, and the winning bidder for the contract proposed a current,
rather than an obsolete, product for which new orders are no longer being
accepted. Strange, that.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-15 09:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:48:06 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:42:55 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:14 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Basil Jet
The DC line is mostly 6-carriage platforms.
I'm sure if TfL/Bombardier got stephen hawking and some rocket scientists
on
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
a
Post by s***@potato.field
retainer they could after some serious brainstorming sessions figure out
a
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
way
Post by s***@potato.field
to build a 6 car 378.
Oi, pay attention, the naughty boy at the back!
As already mentioned in this thread and others, the DC line will be
getting
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
new 4-car Aventras to replace the 5-car 378s. So, far from any rocket
scientists, it won't even need any retards like you to figure out a way to
build 6-car 378s. There won't be any more 378s built.
So you're answer to why they're not using 378s on the goblin is because
they're not.
Please translate that into English?
Sorry, I was trying to comprehend your tortured logic. Clearly I failed
probably because there wasn't any to start with.
I realise English isn't your native language, but I wonder if your
translator generated "you're" instead of "your" in that garbled sentence?
Perhaps you're using obsolete software to translate what passes for your
thoughts into English?
Awww, have you really had to fall back on pointing out typos? Never mind,
don't get upset, you'll think up a proper counterpoint again one day!
Post by Recliner
The reason they're not using 378s on the GOBLIN is because it's a new order
for 4-car EMUs, and the winning bidder for the contract proposed a current,
rather than an obsolete, product for which new orders are no longer being
accepted. Strange, that.
When its a continuation of a previous order that rule generally doesn't apply
which is how they managed to build all those extra cars to extend the ELL
trains to 5 cars.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-15 10:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:48:06 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:42:55 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:14 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Basil Jet
The DC line is mostly 6-carriage platforms.
I'm sure if TfL/Bombardier got stephen hawking and some rocket scientists
on
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
a
Post by s***@potato.field
retainer they could after some serious brainstorming sessions figure out
a
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
way
Post by s***@potato.field
to build a 6 car 378.
Oi, pay attention, the naughty boy at the back!
As already mentioned in this thread and others, the DC line will be
getting
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
new 4-car Aventras to replace the 5-car 378s. So, far from any rocket
scientists, it won't even need any retards like you to figure out a way to
build 6-car 378s. There won't be any more 378s built.
So you're answer to why they're not using 378s on the goblin is because
they're not.
Please translate that into English?
Sorry, I was trying to comprehend your tortured logic. Clearly I failed
probably because there wasn't any to start with.
I realise English isn't your native language, but I wonder if your
translator generated "you're" instead of "your" in that garbled sentence?
Perhaps you're using obsolete software to translate what passes for your
thoughts into English?
Awww, have you really had to fall back on pointing out typos? Never mind,
don't get upset, you'll think up a proper counterpoint again one day!
They're not typos. They're illiteracy.

Your translation software needs upgrading.
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
The reason they're not using 378s on the GOBLIN is because it's a new order
for 4-car EMUs, and the winning bidder for the contract proposed a current,
rather than an obsolete, product for which new orders are no longer being
accepted. Strange, that.
When its a continuation of a previous order that rule generally doesn't apply
which is how they managed to build all those extra cars to extend the ELL
trains to 5 cars.
It's not a continuation of an existing order.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-15 13:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:26:31 -0000 (UTC)
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:48:06 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:42:55 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:14 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Basil Jet
The DC line is mostly 6-carriage platforms.
I'm sure if TfL/Bombardier got stephen hawking and some rocket
scientists
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
on
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
a
Post by s***@potato.field
retainer they could after some serious brainstorming sessions figure
out
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
a
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
way
Post by s***@potato.field
to build a 6 car 378.
Oi, pay attention, the naughty boy at the back!
As already mentioned in this thread and others, the DC line will be
getting
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
new 4-car Aventras to replace the 5-car 378s. So, far from any rocket
scientists, it won't even need any retards like you to figure out a way
to
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
build 6-car 378s. There won't be any more 378s built.
So you're answer to why they're not using 378s on the goblin is because
they're not.
Please translate that into English?
Sorry, I was trying to comprehend your tortured logic. Clearly I failed
probably because there wasn't any to start with.
I realise English isn't your native language, but I wonder if your
translator generated "you're" instead of "your" in that garbled sentence?
Perhaps you're using obsolete software to translate what passes for your
thoughts into English?
Awww, have you really had to fall back on pointing out typos? Never mind,
don't get upset, you'll think up a proper counterpoint again one day!
They're not typos. They're illiteracy.
Your translation software needs upgrading.
You're on thin ice here since I'm damn sure if I searched back through all
your posts I could find some typos but I have better things to do with my
life. If you're idea of a riposte is typo spotting then knock yourself out
but you're simply coming across as desperate.
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
When its a continuation of a previous order that rule generally doesn't apply
which is how they managed to build all those extra cars to extend the ELL
trains to 5 cars.
It's not a continuation of an existing order.
If TfL had had any forsight it could easily have been.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-15 14:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:26:31 -0000 (UTC)
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:48:06 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:42:55 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:14 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Basil Jet
The DC line is mostly 6-carriage platforms.
I'm sure if TfL/Bombardier got stephen hawking and some rocket
scientists
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
on
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
a
Post by s***@potato.field
retainer they could after some serious brainstorming sessions figure
out
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
a
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
way
Post by s***@potato.field
to build a 6 car 378.
Oi, pay attention, the naughty boy at the back!
As already mentioned in this thread and others, the DC line will be
getting
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
new 4-car Aventras to replace the 5-car 378s. So, far from any rocket
scientists, it won't even need any retards like you to figure out a way
to
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
build 6-car 378s. There won't be any more 378s built.
So you're answer to why they're not using 378s on the goblin is because
they're not.
Please translate that into English?
Sorry, I was trying to comprehend your tortured logic. Clearly I failed
probably because there wasn't any to start with.
I realise English isn't your native language, but I wonder if your
translator generated "you're" instead of "your" in that garbled sentence?
Perhaps you're using obsolete software to translate what passes for your
thoughts into English?
Awww, have you really had to fall back on pointing out typos? Never mind,
don't get upset, you'll think up a proper counterpoint again one day!
They're not typos. They're illiteracy.
Your translation software needs upgrading.
You're on thin ice here since I'm damn sure if I searched back through all
your posts I could find some typos but I have better things to do with my
life. If you're idea of a riposte is typo spotting then knock yourself out
but you're simply coming across as desperate.
I know you have trouble comprehending, as well as writing, English,
but if you slowly re-read what I wrote, you may manage to understand
that I was not pointing typos, which we all make.

I was pointing out that your bile generator is illiterate, which makes
many of your posts hard to understand (perhaps that's a mercy?).
Perhaps you could seek the assistance of a native English speaker?
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
When its a continuation of a previous order that rule generally doesn't apply
which is how they managed to build all those extra cars to extend the ELL
trains to 5 cars.
It's not a continuation of an existing order.
If TfL had had any forsight it could easily have been.
Why are you so convinced that TfL would want to be buying more of an
obsolete design, when an improved, more efficient model is available?
Not everyone is as thick as you.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-15 16:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:18:27 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
You're on thin ice here since I'm damn sure if I searched back through all
your posts I could find some typos but I have better things to do with my
life. If you're idea of a riposte is typo spotting then knock yourself out
but you're simply coming across as desperate.
I know you have trouble comprehending, as well as writing, English,
Says the man who just added a redundant comma after "writing" (yes, it is,
don't even bother to argue otherwise). Ah , that nice warm feeling of irony :)
Post by Recliner
but if you slowly re-read what I wrote, you may manage to understand
that I was not pointing typos, which we all make.
Don't back pedal, its pathetic.
Post by Recliner
I was pointing out that your bile generator is illiterate, which makes
many of your posts hard to understand (perhaps that's a mercy?).
No, they're not hard to understand for anyone who isn't in the first stages
of senility unlike you.
Post by Recliner
Why are you so convinced that TfL would want to be buying more of an
obsolete design, when an improved, more efficient model is available?
Not everyone is as thick as you.
I've already stated why. But I guess it was all a bit complex for you to
follow so you decided to hunt for typos instead. I guess being a senior
citizen your get tired quickly and the old brain gets a bit foggy doesn't it?
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-15 17:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:18:27 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
You're on thin ice here since I'm damn sure if I searched back through all
your posts I could find some typos but I have better things to do with my
life. If you're idea of a riposte is typo spotting then knock yourself out
but you're simply coming across as desperate.
I know you have trouble comprehending, as well as writing, English,
Says the man who just added a redundant comma after "writing" (yes, it is,
don't even bother to argue otherwise). Ah , that nice warm feeling of irony :)
Yet again, you illustrate your illiteracy! It seems that it's not just the
use of apostrophes that wasn't covered in your English as a second language
course.
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
but if you slowly re-read what I wrote, you may manage to understand
that I was not pointing typos, which we all make.
Don't back pedal, its pathetic.
It's "it's". You illustrate your illiteracy in every sentence, which was
my point that you've nicely confirmed, again.
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
I was pointing out that your bile generator is illiterate, which makes
many of your posts hard to understand (perhaps that's a mercy?).
No, they're not hard to understand for anyone who isn't in the first stages
of senility unlike you.
At least my memory is intact…
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Why are you so convinced that TfL would want to be buying more of an
obsolete design, when an improved, more efficient model is available?
Not everyone is as thick as you.
I've already stated why. But I guess it was all a bit complex for you to
follow so you decided to hunt for typos instead. I guess being a senior
citizen your get tired quickly and the old brain gets a bit foggy doesn't it?
As I said, by your logic, TfL should just have commissioned more 313s when
it expanded the LO.
Basil Jet
2017-02-15 20:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:26:31 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
It's not a continuation of an existing order.
If TfL had had any forsight it could easily have been.
Were the TfL takeover of the West Anglia lines and the electrification
of the Goblin even on the cards when the 378s were ordered?

r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-13 18:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:29:45 +0000
Post by David Walters
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.
Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin
then? I find that hard to believe.
TfL are buying 45 four-car 710s for use on the West Anglia Routes and
the Watford DC, GOBLIN and Romford to Upminster lines
I should have guessed. Another pointless new EMU design costing extra when
there's already perfectly servicable one in the 378. I guess shiny new
toys are more important than saving money and having interoperability with
existing equipment when its someone elses money you're spending.
They aren't a new design, just a variant of the class 345 Aventras being
bought for Crossrail/Elizabeth Line.

Likewise the 378s were just another variant of the Electrostar.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
David C
2017-02-15 20:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:29:45 +0000, David Walters
Post by David Walters
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.
Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then?
I find that hard to believe.
TfL are buying 45 four-car 710s for use on the West Anglia Routes and
the Watford DC, GOBLIN and Romford to Upminster lines
'Tis true, 31 class 710/1 AC only for Chenford & Romford- Upminster &.
14 class 710/2 AC/DC for Watford & Goblin.

So, spud is correct, 3rd rail would have worked for the local
passenger service on the Goblin but that's all.

Another AC link across NE London "IS A GOOD IDEA" if only to create
the electrified network that this country needs.

We no longer seem to have the commonsense that other countries have,
we shave pennies from new schemes just to save pennies rather than
consider the future.

AFAIK, even the link between the N.L. line & the GWML at Acton
Mainline isn't going to be wired!

Who really cares anyway, the engineers will finish the Goblin wiring &
probably before the new trains arrive, the passengers will have a few
more seats, (untill the Barking Riverside extension opens.....) &
Walthamstow will be a liitle bit quieter.

Maybe (!) Netwirk Raik will learn yet another lession re. project
management, but I think not.

FWIW I was alive & taking an interest in the N.E, London
electrification when B.R. & it's contractors managed to get the job
done on time & without closing down the services.

Progress..........


DC

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-12 00:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think the problems were well known, hence the limited use. Some
HS1 use was included though, was it not?
I think some problems were known, but not the ones that GBRf discovered
when it initially put them into service with the sleeper trains. Yes,
they've had some limited use on HS1, as they're the only UK locos equipped
to run on it, aren't they?
Good point, or are some 66s fitted with the cab signalling system?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Recliner
2017-02-12 00:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think the problems were well known, hence the limited use. Some
HS1 use was included though, was it not?
I think some problems were known, but not the ones that GBRf discovered
when it initially put them into service with the sleeper trains. Yes,
they've had some limited use on HS1, as they're the only UK locos equipped
to run on it, aren't they?
Good point, or are some 66s fitted with the cab signalling system?
No, I don't think any class 66s are fitted with TVM430 signalling, so they
can only run on HS1 in a possession. A few 92s have been fitted, which
gives them a freight monopoly on the line.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-14 19:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:15 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:49:45 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
They all seem to have been sent up north in another intelligent
move. Whats the best place to send a 3rd rail equipped
electro-diesel? Scotland!
Genius!
They're effectively new diesel locos. Some of the conversions don't
even have a third rail capability now.
Why doesn't that surprise me. Remove a useful capability no doubt to
save a few grand on upgrading the shoe beams with no thought
whatsoever as to potential future requirements.
I'm sure they can put it back if anyone finds a need for any more low
powered third-rail locos. Perhaps you don't know that a class 73 has
less than half the power of a 66?
So? That doesn't stop it being used as a general dogsbody loco on
the 3rd rail or running in pairs.
It seems the need for such things is low. But if you travelled around the
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/27303145281/in/album-72157668319839600
/

The need is lower than it was but it's still enough to justify some of the
locos continuing in use in 3rd rail territory. Converting an existing loco
bypasses a number of regulatory hurdles compared to a wholly new one and the
world market for medium power diesel locos is small.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Recliner
2017-02-15 12:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:15 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:49:45 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
They all seem to have been sent up north in another intelligent
move. Whats the best place to send a 3rd rail equipped
electro-diesel? Scotland!
Genius!
They're effectively new diesel locos. Some of the conversions don't
even have a third rail capability now.
Why doesn't that surprise me. Remove a useful capability no doubt to
save a few grand on upgrading the shoe beams with no thought
whatsoever as to potential future requirements.
I'm sure they can put it back if anyone finds a need for any more low
powered third-rail locos. Perhaps you don't know that a class 73 has
less than half the power of a 66?
So? That doesn't stop it being used as a general dogsbody loco on
the 3rd rail or running in pairs.
It seems the need for such things is low. But if you travelled around the
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/27303145281/in/album-72157668319839600
/
The need is lower than it was but it's still enough to justify some of the
locos continuing in use in 3rd rail territory.
And some do remain. There are both the original spec and the
re-powered 73/9s in service in the SR with GBRf.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Converting an existing loco
bypasses a number of regulatory hurdles compared to a wholly new one and the
world market for medium power diesel locos is small.
The 73s have the advantage of being light, so they have an RA of just
6. The class 66 has an RA of 7, while class 67 and 92 have an RA of 8.
Loading...