View Single Post
  #8   Report Post  
Old February 8th 19, 01:46 PM posted to uk.railway,
Marland Marland is offline
external usenet poster
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2018
Posts: 68
Default DfT favours battery trams

bob wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/02/2019 10:58, Bevan Price wrote:
On 08/02/19 4:14, Recliner wrote:
The DfT remains consistent in its dislike of OHLE 175

As usual, the incompetent DfT only thinks about short term costs of
initial construction, not the long term running / operating costs.

Batteries have a finite life. You can recharge them, but they eventually
deteriorate, hold less charge, and have to be replaced - and they are
not cheap to replace.

Moreover, you use additional energy to convey the weight of the
batteries on every journey, instead of getting energy from fixed
overhead wires to move a vehicle that is lighter due to the absence of

And before anyone suggests fuel cells, they also have finite lives, and
to function, they often rely on the presence of rare, expensive,
precious metals (platinum, palladium, rhodium, etc.)

Though once you've done the difficult bit of the infrastructure,
actually getting the tracks in the road, adding OLE later is a much
simpler engineering task.

It is provided you’ve done the work to properly isolate the track return
current to prevent electrolytic corrosion problems. If not, it probably
means ripping the whole lot up again.

Or use twin conductors like a trolley bus.
There was a short section In Greenwich when the Royal Observatory was
still located there where stray current even from normal track would have
affected some instrumentation.
They were rare though and I don’t immediately recall another UK
Having gone to the trouble of avoiding overhead returning a few years later
and putting up twice as much would hardly be popular.