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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121   Report Post  
Old April 11th 21, 02:34 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Apr 2021
Posts: 1
Default LO lines to be named

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:28:55 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 10:56:04 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:41:53 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
That matters for long distance lorries and buses for whom suitable

batteries
would be a ridiculous size, but for cars its not even an issue right now,
never mind as technology advances. Yes, they're maybe half a ton heavier
than an equivalent ICE car at most, but the vehicle size is the same, if
not a bit smaller.

Which is why H2 is mainly being considered for larger, heavier vehicles:
trains, trucks, long distance buses, large SUVs, perhaps even short range
airliners. It's not needed nor viable for ordinary cars.

Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no
bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too
expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about
no more 3rd rail and lay that instead.



Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it?

And some more specificaly electric legislation IIRC which works
against inadequately protected conductors within reach.
Also not forgetting that 3rd rail involves fairly inefficient
distribution and there is an increasing amount of dual-voltage capable
stock.


Legislation is just words on paper. It can be changed or recinded. If it
doesn't break the laws of physics then it can be done.



  #122   Report Post  
Old April 11th 21, 02:41 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Mar 2020
Posts: 57
Default LO lines to be named

Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:36:52 on Sat, 10 Apr
2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:32:14 on Sat, 10 Apr
2021, remarked:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:16:50 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson wrote:
wrote:
H2 has over batteries is recharge time, other than that its hopeless.

That’s a not inconsiderable advantage!

It is, but otoh once - one hopes - street recharging via some sort of
infrastructure built into street lights or similar for those who don't have
driveways becomes the norm in a decade or 2, that advantage will become
redundant except for the very few people who need to do ultra long journeys
without much in the way of stopping.

The main issue with EVs isn't the battery vs H2 argument , its where
the power
is going to come from to power them all in the first place because right now
the generating capacity simply isn't there

And nor of course is there much more than 13A ring main linking up the
streetlights in any one street.

Streets and pavements are dug up often enough for other reasons, that doing
it again to upgrade the wiring/install a parallel circuit, isn't the end of
the world.


I think you underestimate the scale of the project.


The various cable TV/internet companies, now all(?) under the Virgin
umbrella, laid new cable along the pavement of a decent proportion of the
country in the 1990s(?).

This time, for a start, only roads which people actually park along will
need to be covered. That rules out a good proportion of residential roads
which are sufficiently provided with off-street parking.


Anywhere with rows of terraces houses (England, Wales, N.Ireland) or
tenements (Scotland) will be tricky, then.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as

Spit the dummy to reply
  #123   Report Post  
Old April 11th 21, 02:42 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2018
Posts: 217
Default LO lines to be named

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/04/2021 12:08, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:15:18 on Sun, 11 Apr
2021, Graeme Wall remarked:

Rather than laying a whole new cable, can't the existing cable
supplying every house be used?

Not enough capacity and doesn't necessarily go where you think it
would.

I've lived in two village now where about half the houses are [still]
supplied by 240v wiring on poles, which looks a bit like phone cables,
unless you know better.


Which reminds me....

It’s oft been stated that we can’t hang optic fibre cables off power poles
in rural areas (which would make it so very much cheaper and easier)
because we don’t/can’t possibly do that sort of thing because the power
companies and phone companies couldn’t possibly safely work together etc
etc.


Who said that?


It is one those things that has probably been said for the past 100 years.
The reality is that power cables were not put on telegraph / telephone
wires.
This was more to do with the specification of pole used as one designed to
hold up light weight phone lines would not be strong enough to hold heavier
electric cables coming along later nor tall enough to allow a safe working
zone beneath the power lines for the telephone man
Other way round no problem if the power pole was there first and the phone
line has to be below the power so that telecom engineers can work on their
components without personal danger and disruption to the electric supply.

However, those sharing agreements date back to when we had state run
entities whose staff applied a little common sense.
Now we have infrastructure owned by private companies and guess what, if
openreach or other fibre installer want to attach a fibre cable to the
power poles the power distribution company says sorry,
Fibre is new technology not covered by the old agreements so we want a lot
of dosh.
So the telecom company prefers to provide its own and more than likely
under ground as that gives better protection anyway.
Fibre is often run on distribution networks anyway for their own purposes,
cables with a fibre component within have been available for years, I think
it was the 1970’s when the lightening
protection cable linking the pylons out of Fawley was replaced by a new
combined cable developed by BICC as one of the first experimental links to
use it.

GH
  #124   Report Post  
Old April 11th 21, 02:46 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,704
Default LO lines to be named

On 11/04/2021 15:29, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/04/2021 14:00, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/04/2021 12:28, Recliner wrote:
Marland wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:41:53 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
That matters for long distance lorries and buses for whom suitable batteries
would be a ridiculous size, but for cars its not even an issue right now,
never mind as technology advances. Yes, they're maybe half a ton heavier
than an equivalent ICE car at most, but the vehicle size is the same, if
not a bit smaller.

Which is why H2 is mainly being considered for larger, heavier vehicles:
trains, trucks, long distance buses, large SUVs, perhaps even short range
airliners. It's not needed nor viable for ordinary cars.

Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no
bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too
expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about
no more 3rd rail and lay that instead.



Don’t know about that but now that having multi system trains is easier now
than it once was then I wonder if electrification at 25,0000 volt and all
the clearance work that has to be done thus raising costs is always the
best solution. If you are not building for high speed or heavy loads then
1500 or 3000 DC may suffice for short parts of the network. The tram train
concept in Yorkshire shows the electrical side is achievable. Just
surmising but if 25.000 ever gets to Penzance would you really need it to
Barnstaple , Okehampton Looe, Falmouth etc if using stock that could use
1500 DC with trolley wire electrification and no need to rebuild bridges
would save costs even though you may need a few more substations. OTOH
presumably it is easier to hook a DC substation into the existing
electricity supply network as the rectifiers connected to all 3 phases
don’t unbalance it in the way single phase 25,000 can without careful
planning.

The current bright idea is discontinuous electrifcation. Trains/trams are
fitted with short range batteries so the difficult/scenic bits don't need
OHL. The first UK example is the Birmingham Metro extension.

Hitachi is offering class 800 variants with traction batteries rather than
big diesel engines so they will be able to run for a few miles without OHL.
That will save the cost of rebuilding low bridges or disfiguring historic
areas.

It could also save money by bridging the non-electrified islands or
branches in otherwise electrified networks, such as the Uckfield or
Marshlink lines. The proposal is to retrofit batteries to some third rail
Electrostar units.


I wonder if that would work on the North Downs Line? I suspect the
section from Shalford to Redhill is probably too long for battery working.


Isn't that much shorter than the Marshlink line?



It's around 18 miles. There's another 11 miles non-electrified from
Wokingham to Ash.


Ta, I was assuming the Wokingham-Ash section was within the capabilities
of a battery unit.




Though as they're only separated by around 5.5miles, you need to consider
the effect that one will have on the other (or effectively consider it as
one, 29-mile, section).


That is the imponderable, would there be enough time between Ash and
Shalford to recharge the batteries sufficiently.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

  #125   Report Post  
Old April 11th 21, 02:55 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 10,122
Default LO lines to be named

In message , at 14:42:30 on Sun, 11
Apr 2021, Marland remarked:

I think it was the 1970’s when the lightening protection cable
linking the pylons out of Fawley was replaced by a new combined cable
developed by BICC as one of the first experimental links to use it.


The Energis Internet backbone.
--
Roland Perry


  #126   Report Post  
Old April 11th 21, 02:56 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,377
Default LO lines to be named

On 11/04/2021 13:52, Roger Lynn wrote:
On 11/04/2021 12:04, Basil Jet wrote:
On 11/04/2021 11:46, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:15:18 on Sun, 11 Apr
2021, Graeme Wall remarked:

*Rather than laying a whole new cable, can't the existing cable
supplying* every house be used?

Not enough capacity and doesn't necessarily go where you think it
would.

I've lived in two village now where about half the houses are [still]
supplied by 240v wiring on poles, which looks a bit like phone
cables, unless you know better.


Can Mr Google's Streetview Emporium back you up on that?


You seriously doubt that overhead LV distribution is common in rural areas?


No doubt at at all, I just wanted to see what it looks like, although
admittedly my phrasing was perverse.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
1994 - The Sound Your Eyes Can Follow - Moonshake
  #127   Report Post  
Old April 11th 21, 04:02 PM posted to uk.transport.london,uk.railway
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2019
Posts: 879
Default LO lines to be named

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/04/2021 13:06, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/04/2021 12:28, Recliner wrote:
Marland wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:41:53 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
That matters for long distance lorries and buses for whom suitable batteries
would be a ridiculous size, but for cars its not even an issue right now,
never mind as technology advances. Yes, they're maybe half a ton heavier
than an equivalent ICE car at most, but the vehicle size is the same, if
not a bit smaller.

Which is why H2 is mainly being considered for larger, heavier vehicles:
trains, trucks, long distance buses, large SUVs, perhaps even short range
airliners. It's not needed nor viable for ordinary cars.

Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no
bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too
expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about
no more 3rd rail and lay that instead.



Don’t know about that but now that having multi system trains is easier now
than it once was then I wonder if electrification at 25,0000 volt and all
the clearance work that has to be done thus raising costs is always the
best solution. If you are not building for high speed or heavy loads then
1500 or 3000 DC may suffice for short parts of the network. The tram train
concept in Yorkshire shows the electrical side is achievable. Just
surmising but if 25.000 ever gets to Penzance would you really need it to
Barnstaple , Okehampton Looe, Falmouth etc if using stock that could use
1500 DC with trolley wire electrification and no need to rebuild bridges
would save costs even though you may need a few more substations. OTOH
presumably it is easier to hook a DC substation into the existing
electricity supply network as the rectifiers connected to all 3 phases
don’t unbalance it in the way single phase 25,000 can without careful
planning.

The current bright idea is discontinuous electrifcation. Trains/trams are
fitted with short range batteries so the difficult/scenic bits don't need
OHL. The first UK example is the Birmingham Metro extension.

Hitachi is offering class 800 variants with traction batteries rather than
big diesel engines so they will be able to run for a few miles without OHL.
That will save the cost of rebuilding low bridges or disfiguring historic
areas.

It could also save money by bridging the non-electrified islands or
branches in otherwise electrified networks, such as the Uckfield or
Marshlink lines. The proposal is to retrofit batteries to some third rail
Electrostar units.


I wonder if that would work on the North Downs Line? I suspect the
section from Shalford to Redhill is probably too long for battery working.


Isn't that much shorter than the Marshlink line?


Appears to be around 15-18 miles compared with 26 miles for Marshlink,
so yes.


When you consider that lots of battery cars have 200-300 mile ranges,
50-100 miles (including a reserve) should be quite easy with trains, which
have proportionately much less wind resistance and rolling friction. The
weight and size of the batteries should also be much easier to accommodate
under a train floor than a car floor.

And, indeed Vivarail claim a range of up to 100 miles, with a 10 minute
recharge:
https://vivarail.co.uk/battery-trains-and-decarbonisation-of-the-national-network/
  #128   Report Post  
Old April 11th 21, 04:02 PM posted to uk.transport.london,uk.railway
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2019
Posts: 879
Default LO lines to be named

Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/04/2021 14:00, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/04/2021 12:28, Recliner wrote:
Marland wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:41:53 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
That matters for long distance lorries and buses for whom suitable batteries
would be a ridiculous size, but for cars its not even an issue right now,
never mind as technology advances. Yes, they're maybe half a ton heavier
than an equivalent ICE car at most, but the vehicle size is the same, if
not a bit smaller.

Which is why H2 is mainly being considered for larger, heavier vehicles:
trains, trucks, long distance buses, large SUVs, perhaps even short range
airliners. It's not needed nor viable for ordinary cars.

Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no
bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too
expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about
no more 3rd rail and lay that instead.



Don’t know about that but now that having multi system trains is easier now
than it once was then I wonder if electrification at 25,0000 volt and all
the clearance work that has to be done thus raising costs is always the
best solution. If you are not building for high speed or heavy loads then
1500 or 3000 DC may suffice for short parts of the network. The tram train
concept in Yorkshire shows the electrical side is achievable. Just
surmising but if 25.000 ever gets to Penzance would you really need it to
Barnstaple , Okehampton Looe, Falmouth etc if using stock that could use
1500 DC with trolley wire electrification and no need to rebuild bridges
would save costs even though you may need a few more substations. OTOH
presumably it is easier to hook a DC substation into the existing
electricity supply network as the rectifiers connected to all 3 phases
don’t unbalance it in the way single phase 25,000 can without careful
planning.

The current bright idea is discontinuous electrifcation. Trains/trams are
fitted with short range batteries so the difficult/scenic bits don't need
OHL. The first UK example is the Birmingham Metro extension.

Hitachi is offering class 800 variants with traction batteries rather than
big diesel engines so they will be able to run for a few miles without OHL.
That will save the cost of rebuilding low bridges or disfiguring historic
areas.

It could also save money by bridging the non-electrified islands or
branches in otherwise electrified networks, such as the Uckfield or
Marshlink lines. The proposal is to retrofit batteries to some third rail
Electrostar units.


I wonder if that would work on the North Downs Line? I suspect the
section from Shalford to Redhill is probably too long for battery working.


Isn't that much shorter than the Marshlink line?



It's around 18 miles. There's another 11 miles non-electrified from
Wokingham to Ash.


Ta, I was assuming the Wokingham-Ash section was within the capabilities
of a battery unit.




Though as they're only separated by around 5.5miles, you need to consider
the effect that one will have on the other (or effectively consider it as
one, 29-mile, section).


Wouldn't 5.5 miles be enough to add at least 50% battery charge? If the
nominal range on a 100% charge is 100 miles, that route should be fine,
year round.
  #129   Report Post  
Old April 11th 21, 04:47 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Mar 2020
Posts: 57
Default LO lines to be named

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:42:30 on Sun, 11
Apr 2021, Marland remarked:

I think it was the 1970’s when the lightening protection cable
linking the pylons out of Fawley was replaced by a new combined cable
developed by BICC as one of the first experimental links to use it.


The Energis Internet backbone.


And later similar techniques by Scottish Power/Scottish Telecom/thus/Cable
& Wireless/Vodafone. I think the rump is still in the Vodafone empire.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as
Spit the dummy to reply
  #130   Report Post  
Old April 11th 21, 05:15 PM posted to uk.transport.london,uk.railway
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,377
Default LO lines to be named


I wonder if that would work on the North Downs Line? I suspect the
section from Shalford to Redhill is probably too long for battery working.

Isn't that much shorter than the Marshlink line?

It's around 18 miles. There's another 11 miles non-electrified from
Wokingham to Ash.

Ta, I was assuming the Wokingham-Ash section was within the capabilities
of a battery unit.


Though as they're only separated by around 5.5miles, you need to consider
the effect that one will have on the other (or effectively consider it as
one, 29-mile, section).


Wouldn't 5.5 miles be enough to add at least 50% battery charge? If the
nominal range on a 100% charge is 100 miles, that route should be fine,
year round.


Perhaps the electrified section would need to be beefed up, since the
trains on it would be not only drawing enough power to move 5 miles but
enough power to move 20.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
1991 - Laughing Stock - Talk Talk


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
Stations named after commercial entities [email protected] London Transport 62 August 11th 09 06:44 PM
Stations named after commercial entities Recliner[_2_] London Transport 6 August 11th 09 07:36 AM
Harrow and Wealdstone named London rail station of the year JWBA68 London Transport 9 April 21st 04 01:45 PM
Kings Cross fire (1987) : final victim named John Rowland London Transport 6 January 22nd 04 06:26 PM
1987 King's Cross fire victim named Nick Cooper 625 London Transport 1 January 21st 04 12:03 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017