View Single Post
  #79   Report Post  
Old November 29th 08, 04:52 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
Christopher A. Lee Christopher A. Lee is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Mar 2005
Posts: 41
Default Bakerloo Line beyond Harrow & Wealdstone

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:26:38 -0800 (PST), MIG
wrote:

On Nov 29, 2:52*pm, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:06:54 -0000, wrote:
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:32:20 -0000, wrote:


Is a fourth rail really necessary out that way, however?


It is if you want the same train to work both there and on the
Underground.


Was the 38 stock on Island Line modified to work only on third rail? What
did that require, if that was the case?


I always understood
that they were really needed only for the tub sections of the tube, to
help
power flow into the motors.


No the LU 4-rail power supply is intended to keep the traction current
within the two conductor rails and not find its way back via other
bits of metal with consequent damage.


In case of flooding, perhaps?


No. Current leaking to ground and causing electrolytic corrosion.

Remember, there were already pipes etc under London before the tubes
were built, and the tubes were lined with cast iron segments..

Tram and streetcar track had the running rails at minus 10 volts so
that stray current leaked from ground to the rails instead of vice
versa.

LU's centre rail is I believe at minus 200 volts.


That's interesting, because I was under the impression that there was
no danger from the middle track, but 200 V could presumably give a
whack if there was any current.


There isn't much current if there's nothing in section. You used to
see track workers hopping on and off the centre rail and walking along
it.