LO lines to be named
 

Mike Humphrey wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:10:17 +0100, MB wrote:
On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
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?

I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like
that.

The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989

7. All conductors in a system which may give rise to danger shall either–
(a)be suitably covered with insulating material and as necessary
protected so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger;
or
(b)have such precautions taken in respect of them (including, where
appropriate, their being suitably placed) as will prevent, so far as is
reasonably practicable, danger.


Thanks :)


Anna Noyd-Dryver

LO lines to be named
 

"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message
...
MB wrote:
On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
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?


I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like
that.


About having exposed electro conductors at floor level?

Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too.

Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about
trespassers, as often claimed.

Electricity at Work Regulations 1989

It is mainly focused on staff safety.

Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with
fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing
installations on the southern/mersey.

James

LO lines to be named
 

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:08:02 +0100, MB wrote:

On 11/04/2021 11:44, Roland Perry wrote:
Rather than laying a whole new cable, can't the existing cable supplying
every house be used?

That's even deeper, and is typically about as thick as your arm and a
real pig to make connections to.

Surely a cable to a house is not that thick? The house supply is about
half an inch diameter.

A very small house ?
You're probably looking at at least 16mm^2 SWA which is about 20.4mm
diameter for 2 core; 25mm^2 is about 24.1mm OD. The 100A supply to my
house is about an inch over the armour.

LO lines to be named
 

James Heaton wrote:

"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message
...
MB wrote:
On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
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?


I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like
that.


About having exposed electro conductors at floor level?

Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too.

Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about
trespassers, as often claimed.

Electricity at Work Regulations 1989

It is mainly focused on staff safety.

Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with
fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing
installations on the southern/mersey.

James



There must be some mechanism to give dispensation in some circumstances

Other wise laying down the conductor rails on the Old Dalby test track to
test the LU S Stock
could not have occurred . A lot of it on there is protected by side
protection boards but quite a lot of pictures show a lot is not,

And while it can claim to be part of an existing system the extension of
the Glasgow Subway Test Track only has side protection boarding in a
couple of places.

I hadn’t realised how far back along the old Govan branch trackbed after
the A8 bridge they had recovered to extend the test track and build
facilities.

A little further and we could have a mixed gauge interchange.

Dropped pin
https://goo.gl/maps/npqUH5YqNJafK1aH7



Some pictures of the facilities here.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/amacca...n/photostream/

GH

LO lines to be named
 

On 14 Apr 2021 22:18:29 GMT, Marland
wrote:

James Heaton wrote:

"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message
...
MB wrote:
On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
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?


I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like
that.


About having exposed electro conductors at floor level?

Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too.

Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about
trespassers, as often claimed.

Electricity at Work Regulations 1989

It is mainly focused on staff safety.

Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with
fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing
installations on the southern/mersey.

James



There must be some mechanism to give dispensation in some circumstances

Other wise laying down the conductor rails on the Old Dalby test track to
test the LU S Stock
could not have occurred . A lot of it on there is protected by side
protection boards but quite a lot of pictures show a lot is not,

Regulation 7 gives you the choice of insulating or taking other
precautions "so far is reasonably practicable". Old Dalby doesn't have
passengers to worry about so precautions probably rely more on
suitable fencing and appropriate training of onsite staff. There is
minimal shielding of conductor rails on LU anyway, even on new work.
snip

LO lines to be named
 

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:08:02 +0100, MB wrote:

On 11/04/2021 11:44, Roland Perry wrote:
Rather than laying a whole new cable, can't the existing cable supplying
every house be used?

That's even deeper, and is typically about as thick as your arm and a
real pig to make connections to.

Surely a cable to a house is not that thick? The house supply is about
half an inch diameter.

A very small house ?
You're probably looking at at least 16mm^2 SWA which is about 20.4mm
diameter for 2 core; 25mm^2 is about 24.1mm OD. The 100A supply to my
house is about an inch over the armour.


There must be quite a lot of properties who now still use an incomer around
a 100 years old,
most of those may need uprating,. I was once called to a pub whose
landlord was concerned about
a strange smell in his Cellar, upon inspection I found that a pitch like
substance was dripping from the incomer where it emerged from the cellar
wall. Over the years refrigeration and cooking equipment add just been
added and the cable was getting hot enough that the pitch like substance
which was just under the steel armour outer sheath was getting liquid
enough to flow out.

GH

LO lines to be named
 

On 14 Apr 2021 22:40:08 GMT, Marland
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:08:02 +0100, MB wrote:

On 11/04/2021 11:44, Roland Perry wrote:
Rather than laying a whole new cable, can't the existing cable supplying
every house be used?

That's even deeper, and is typically about as thick as your arm and a
real pig to make connections to.

Surely a cable to a house is not that thick? The house supply is about
half an inch diameter.

A very small house ?
You're probably looking at at least 16mm^2 SWA which is about 20.4mm
diameter for 2 core; 25mm^2 is about 24.1mm OD. The 100A supply to my
house is about an inch over the armour.


There must be quite a lot of properties who now still use an incomer around
a 100 years old,
most of those may need uprating,. I was once called to a pub whose
landlord was concerned about
a strange smell in his Cellar, upon inspection I found that a pitch like
substance was dripping from the incomer where it emerged from the cellar
wall. Over the years refrigeration and cooking equipment add just been
added and the cable was getting hot enough that the pitch like substance
which was just under the steel armour outer sheath was getting liquid
enough to flow out.

If mine is still the original (and some of the remaining cast iron
bits on the fuseboard suggest it is) then it is 96 years old. The
original wire main fuses IIRC were 50 or 60A but later changed to an
80A cartridge fuse (when storage heaters were installed about 50y ago)
then to the current 100A.

LO lines to be named
 

Charles Ellson wrote:
On 14 Apr 2021 22:18:29 GMT, Marland
wrote:

James Heaton wrote:

"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message
...
MB wrote:
On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
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?


I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like
that.


About having exposed electro conductors at floor level?

Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too.

Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about
trespassers, as often claimed.

Electricity at Work Regulations 1989

It is mainly focused on staff safety.

Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with
fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing
installations on the southern/mersey.

James



There must be some mechanism to give dispensation in some circumstances

Other wise laying down the conductor rails on the Old Dalby test track to
test the LU S Stock
could not have occurred . A lot of it on there is protected by side
protection boards but quite a lot of pictures show a lot is not,

Regulation 7 gives you the choice of insulating or taking other
precautions "so far is reasonably practicable". Old Dalby doesn't have
passengers to worry about so precautions probably rely more on
suitable fencing and appropriate training of onsite staff. There is
minimal shielding of conductor rails on LU anyway, even on new work.
snip


The reasonably practical measure taken at Old Dalby is presumably not
having staff walking at track level without an isolation.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

LO lines to be named
 

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 01:09:01 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On 14 Apr 2021 22:18:29 GMT, Marland
wrote:

James Heaton wrote:

"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message
...
MB wrote:
On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
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?


I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like
that.


About having exposed electro conductors at floor level?

Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too.

Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about
trespassers, as often claimed.

Electricity at Work Regulations 1989

It is mainly focused on staff safety.

Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with
fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing
installations on the southern/mersey.

James



There must be some mechanism to give dispensation in some circumstances

Other wise laying down the conductor rails on the Old Dalby test track to
test the LU S Stock
could not have occurred . A lot of it on there is protected by side
protection boards but quite a lot of pictures show a lot is not,

Regulation 7 gives you the choice of insulating or taking other
precautions "so far is reasonably practicable". Old Dalby doesn't have
passengers to worry about so precautions probably rely more on
suitable fencing and appropriate training of onsite staff. There is
minimal shielding of conductor rails on LU anyway, even on new work.
snip


The reasonably practical measure taken at Old Dalby is presumably not
having staff walking at track level without an isolation.

Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there
isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off
"depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC
track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at
transition points.

LO lines to be named
 

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 01:09:01 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On 14 Apr 2021 22:18:29 GMT, Marland
wrote:

James Heaton wrote:

"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message
...
MB wrote:
On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
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?


I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like
that.


About having exposed electro conductors at floor level?

Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too.

Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about
trespassers, as often claimed.

Electricity at Work Regulations 1989

It is mainly focused on staff safety.

Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with
fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing
installations on the southern/mersey.

James



There must be some mechanism to give dispensation in some circumstances

Other wise laying down the conductor rails on the Old Dalby test track to
test the LU S Stock
could not have occurred . A lot of it on there is protected by side
protection boards but quite a lot of pictures show a lot is not,

Regulation 7 gives you the choice of insulating or taking other
precautions "so far is reasonably practicable". Old Dalby doesn't have
passengers to worry about so precautions probably rely more on
suitable fencing and appropriate training of onsite staff. There is
minimal shielding of conductor rails on LU anyway, even on new work.
snip


The reasonably practical measure taken at Old Dalby is presumably not
having staff walking at track level without an isolation.

Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there
isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off
"depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC
track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at
transition points.


Given the necessity for short sections with regular feeds, couldn’t you
arrange with modern power electronics to keep the power switched off unless
there was a train in section?

A more practical question though - what is the incidence of electrocution
on the third rail network vs the overhead system?