London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
Old February 8th 19, 03:38 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,172
Default DfT favours battery trams

On 08/02/2019 15:54, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Marland wrote:

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
installation.
Having gone to the trouble of avoiding overhead returning a few years later
and putting up twice as much would hardly be popular.


That would necessitate use of trolley poles, where pantographs are the
current standard fitment for new tramways.


No, trolley poles were needed because trolley buses wander over the
road. A tram could use dual pantographs similar to those sported by
trains using three-phase electrification.

--
Basil Jet - Current favourite song...
What by Bruce
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtJEAud9vao

  #12   Report Post  
Old February 8th 19, 03:51 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 96
Default DfT favours battery trams

Bevan Price wrote:
On 08/02/19 4:14, Recliner wrote:
The DfT remains consistent in its dislike of OHLE

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/battery-powered-trams-to-beat-congestion-pzz3p9jk3?shareToken=d7efc8230f20d995b8ea4bff5daae 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
batteries.

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.)


There are recycling processes for catalysts containing all of those
precious metals. Except in very small quantities they are too precious to
throw away.

--
Jeremy Double
  #13   Report Post  
Old February 8th 19, 03:53 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 96
Default DfT favours battery trams

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

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/battery-powered-trams-to-beat-congestion-pzz3p9jk3?shareToken=d7efc8230f20d995b8ea4bff5daae 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
batteries.

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.


Based on schemes like Sheffield Supertram, the most disruptive and
expensive part of construction is re-routeing all of the underground
utilities to allow the tracks to be laid...

--
Jeremy Double
  #14   Report Post  
Old February 8th 19, 03:58 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,354
Default DfT favours battery trams

In message

, at 16:53:44 on Fri, 8 Feb 2019, Jeremy Double

remarked:

Based on schemes like Sheffield Supertram, the most disruptive and
expensive part of construction is re-routeing all of the underground
utilities to allow the tracks to be laid...


And of course the extension of the Edinburgh tram to Leith.

iirc they diverted most of the utilities and then cancelled the
extension.

How *is* that project going today?
--
Roland Perry
  #15   Report Post  
Old February 8th 19, 03:58 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,372
Default DfT favours battery trams

On 08/02/2019 16:51, Jeremy Double wrote:
Bevan Price wrote:
On 08/02/19 4:14, Recliner wrote:
The DfT remains consistent in its dislike of OHLE

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/battery-powered-trams-to-beat-congestion-pzz3p9jk3?shareToken=d7efc8230f20d995b8ea4bff5daae 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
batteries.

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.)


There are recycling processes for catalysts containing all of those
precious metals. Except in very small quantities they are too precious to
throw away.


There was a claim that sweeping the main roads and processing the dirt
would be more effective than mining for the rare elements used in
catalytic converters as the percentage it contained was higher than in
the crude ore dug from the ground.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.



  #16   Report Post  
Old February 8th 19, 04:00 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,372
Default DfT favours battery trams

On 08/02/2019 16:53, Jeremy Double 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

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/battery-powered-trams-to-beat-congestion-pzz3p9jk3?shareToken=d7efc8230f20d995b8ea4bff5daae 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
batteries.

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.


Based on schemes like Sheffield Supertram, the most disruptive and
expensive part of construction is re-routeing all of the underground
utilities to allow the tracks to be laid...


My point.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

  #17   Report Post  
Old February 8th 19, 04:03 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jan 2015
Posts: 170
Default DfT favours battery trams

Basil Jet wrote:
On 08/02/2019 15:54, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Marland wrote:

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
installation.
Having gone to the trouble of avoiding overhead returning a few years later
and putting up twice as much would hardly be popular.


That would necessitate use of trolley poles, where pantographs are the
current standard fitment for new tramways.


No, trolley poles were needed because trolley buses wander over the
road. A tram could use dual pantographs similar to those sported by
trains using three-phase electrification.


As I said in the text which you snipped:

"I suppose you could have twin pantographs as fitted for 3-phase on certain
mountain railways, though you might get polarity issues on single track
sections, plus I suspect the OLE then needs to be aligned more accurately,
thus making it more intrusive."


Anna Noyd-Dryver

  #18   Report Post  
Old February 8th 19, 04:04 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,172
Default DfT favours battery trams

On 08/02/2019 16:38, Basil Jet wrote:
On 08/02/2019 15:54, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Marland wrote:

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
installation.
Having gone to the trouble of avoiding overhead returning a few years
later
and putting up twice as much would hardly be popular.


That would necessitate use of trolley poles, where pantographs are the
current standard fitment for new tramways.


No, trolley poles were needed because trolley buses wander over the
road. A tram could use dual pantographs similar to those sported by
trains using three-phase electrification.


Sorry for snipping out the bit where you said exactly that... not sure
where my brain was there.

--
Basil Jet - Current favourite song...
What by Bruce
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtJEAud9vao
  #19   Report Post  
Old February 8th 19, 04:22 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2019
Posts: 1
Default DfT favours battery trams

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:54:19 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Marland wrote:
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
installation.
Having gone to the trouble of avoiding overhead returning a few years later
and putting up twice as much would hardly be popular.


That would necessitate use of trolley poles, where pantographs are the
current standard fitment for new tramways.

I suppose you could have twin pantographs as fitted for 3-phase on certain
mountain railways, though you might get polarity issues on single track


Install a bridge rectifier in the trams. Problem solved.

  #20   Report Post  
Old February 8th 19, 04:32 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Apr 2017
Posts: 16
Default DfT favours battery trams

On 08/02/2019 16:58, Roland Perry wrote:
In message

, at 16:53:44 on Fri, 8 Feb 2019, Jeremy Double

remarked:

Based on schemes like Sheffield Supertram, the most disruptive and
expensive part of construction is re-routeing all of the underground
utilities to allow the tracks to be laid...


And of course the extension of the Edinburgh tram to Leith.

iirc they diverted most of the utilities and then cancelled the extension.

How *is* that project going today?


There are no shovels in the ground. The council insists that it is
happening, whilst putting up notices on lampposts asking for suggestions
as to how they can save money to balance their budget.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Borismaster battery Stephen[_2_] London Transport 2 April 24th 12 09:26 PM
Battery loco at Epping martyn dawe London Transport 1 September 3rd 09 09:28 PM
L.U. Battery Locomotives Jon Biglowe London Transport 1 July 23rd 09 01:21 PM
Boris' battery drive - London to go green for electric cars... Mizter T London Transport 26 May 30th 09 02:41 PM
DfT consults on extra rail powers for Mayor TravelBot London Transport News 0 March 12th 06 07:40 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017