"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:13:24 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Peter
Masson" wrote this:-

Where exactly is Hurst in Kent?

The BBC has a little map that shows the system and rough positions.
This link might take you to it,


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...5263/html/1.st
m

if not then go to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3190143.stm and click on
the "Open" bit in the "POWER CUT SOURCE" box near the bottom.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

Where exactly is Hurst in Kent?

The BBC has a little map that shows the system and rough positions.
This link might take you to it,


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...5263/html/1.st
m

if not then go to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3190143.stm and click on
the "Open" bit in the "POWER CUT SOURCE" box near the bottom.

This looks like somewhere in the Sidcup/Bexley area. The road from near
Sidcup Station to Bexley is Hurst Road, and there's a Hurst Place along it,
so I presume it's somewhere around there, though I've never heard of the
area being called simply 'Hurst'.

If Bill Hayles is looking in he may be able to help, as he was familiar with
Hurst Road.

Peter

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 29 Aug 2003 09:56:23 -0700 someone who may be
(Richard Catlow) wrote this:-

Perhaps a small scale in terms of the number of substations, or even
the geographical area affected, but big in terms of consumers,
megawatts, gigawatt hours and ciruits to which the surface railway are
connected.

Thanks for the information, which I am considering along with the
BBC's map which may be at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...5263/html/1.st
m
as I said in an earlier message.

Of course having this information makes me a terrorist, according to
Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, so you may not hear from me
again for a while.

Yeah, you'll have that FMNT80 bloke posting a reply with...

Concerns sent to or whatever it was.
: )

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
The power failure lasted just over half an hour - and there was no chain
reaction in the way that happened in North America.

Surely the second failure, after 7 seconds, was a chain reaction. Even
if there wasn't a third link in that chain.

I've not seen anything that suggested that the second failure was a
consequence of the first.

--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/

In article ,
Richard J. wrote:
BBC reports that the Greenwich standby generator is "designed to power
safety lights in trains and stations".

The Times said something similar this morning. It seems we may have
been seriously misled about the capability of the Greenwich power
station. All this stuff about LU's legal obligation to have a second
power supply. Not much good if it can't run the trains.

But it would be an absolute disaster if passengers were to be evacuated
from trains into unlit stations.

--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/

Chris Game wrote:

Roland Perry said:

In article , Chris Game
writes
The faults were generally reported as 'unrelated'. Do you know
better?

I haven't seen any reports that used the word "unrelated".

The Energy Minister's comments on the BBC on Friday.

Oh, a politician.

--
James Farrar |
London SE 13 |

David H Wild wrote:
In article ,
Richard J. wrote:
BBC reports that the Greenwich standby generator is "designed to
power safety lights in trains and stations".

The Times said something similar this morning. It seems we may have
been seriously misled about the capability of the Greenwich power
station. All this stuff about LU's legal obligation to have a second
power supply. Not much good if it can't run the trains.

But it would be an absolute disaster if passengers were to be
evacuated from trains into unlit stations.

Of course. That's why Seeboard Powerlink has installed battery lighting in
all stations.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 20:43:42 +0100 someone who may be Paul Terry
wrote this:-

If traction current is lost and the decision is
made to de-train passengers, what do you do if power is restored while
that process is still underway,

Deciding to do so is not a decision made in the blink of an eye. It
needs to be thought-out and communicated to those in charge of the
power supply and signalling [1]. Before evacuating trains staff will
place short-circuiting bars on the conductor rails to prevent them
being energised and then conduct the passengers away. It is a long
slow process and once started finishing will cause far less
disruption than trying to stop it.

[1] From a handful or reports it seems that the BR signalling
continued working on standby generators. Does anyone know how LU
signalling behaves in similar circumstances?

and how do you recover from the mess of
trains stuck half in stations, some clear of passengers and others not,
and of trains stuck in tunnels?

Presumably someone is detailed to walk through a section, checking
for passengers, advising train staff and watching them put
short-circuiting bars back in the train. Then it can be energised.

If you mean that LU should go back to generating
(70% I think it was) of its own power usage, that would mean an enormous
investment (think "tube fares") and I don't know that it would really be
the answer

Probably not. It will be interesting to see how reliable the current
arrangement is over say a decade, compared to the old one (which
suffered several bad power failures).


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Paul Terry said:

Risk is ever-present in life. Managing risk is both an art and a
science, but one must not let the emotions rule. A power-cut such as
this was very much shorter than many cities could even dream of.

The technical issues of what caused the outage should be simple
enough to find out. What the Mayor of London should be asking are
questions about the impact of such events, and the capacity of the
city to cope with thousands of people in various states of anger and
shock all milling about not knowing what to do. How good were the
flows of information about the event and it's resolution, and how
were people informed so they could make sensible choices about what
to do.

--
=============================================

Chris Game chrisgame@!yahoo!dotcodotuk
=============================================

James Farrar said:

I haven't seen any reports that used the word "unrelated".

The Energy Minister's comments on the BBC on Friday.

Oh, a politician.

Presumably talking after a briefing by the National Grid people.

--
=============================================

Chris Game chrisgame@!yahoo!dotcodotuk
=============================================