|
LO lines to be named
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/04/2021 20:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: 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. Even assuming you can distribute enough power to make them function, there aren't enough lamposts available for all the people who are likely to want to use them. So add some extra charging posts, like parking meters of old. There are also charging points which recess flush into the pavement when not in use, already available. The alternative is to provide charging at the other places the car spends most of its time. I've not had access to my charging socket at home for around six months, and have survived quite happily charging at work or at the supermarket. (Nb I'm not in any way claiming that'll work for everyone, but I bet it would work for a lot of people) Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
On 10/04/2021 22:08, Recliner wrote:
Certes wrote: On 10/04/2021 16:57, Graeme Wall wrote: On 10/04/2021 16:36, wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:31:50 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 11:04:28 -0000 (UTC) Well blue hydrogen is a non starter, but even green hydrogen is far less efficient in wind turbine to wheel energy terms taking in every stage + the vehicle itself than simply charging up a battery. Something like 50% for a battery EV vs 30% for green H2 I remember reading. The only single advantage H2 has over batteries is recharge time, other than that its hopeless. Recharge time and capacity. It has a much higher energy density than current and projected future batteries, unless there's a big step change (possible at some stage, but not imminent). . 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. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56678669 [Re yellow lorry image, top] Is the trailer for the batteries? My assumption was that all the cargo was carried in the trailer, with the lorry just hauling the batteries. That would be more practical, insofar as having a goods vehicle that carries around more mechanics than cargo could ever be practical. |
LO lines to be named
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. -- Roland Perry |
LO lines to be named
In message , at 15:37:15 on Sat, 10 Apr
2021, Recliner remarked: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:44:51 on Thu, 8 Apr 2021, Basil Jet remarked: Anglia have liveried trains for the Bittern line, East Suffolk line etc, but I've only ever seen them on the wrong lines! Odd you should mention that... this morning one of the Fen Line GN trains was liveried "Gatwick Express". Which more different to the plain livery than the straying GA Stansted Express ones (which are at least the correct side of the river). Apparently six GatEx 387s have been loaned to GN as temporary 365 replacements. They are having shuffle, then, because we've not seen 365s on the Fen line for a couple of years. AIUI they are only used in peak periods to Peterborough. But with a reduced timetable (now coming to an end) there'd be less demand for those, so must have sent at least one 387 up to Kings Lynn and back. But not for the first time, apparently, here's a similarly liveried (not the bright Orange version) last August: https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnfrombedford/50252872032/ In the medium term, the GA 379s or the cw2c 387s are the more likely replacements. -- Roland Perry |
LO lines to be named
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. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
In message , at 08:17:30 on Sun, 11 Apr
2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked: 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(?). Just under the surface (and in many cases very poorly finished), power cables have to be much deeper - 18" is typical. 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. You'd probably have to do all the ones which currently attract cars parked on them. Which in a lot of places is pretty much all of them. -- Roland Perry |
LO lines to be named
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. To a large extent an ole is an ole, ok it may need to be bit larger for a power cable of the size required but when the area I was then living in got cabled for TV by NYNEX the most memorable part of the disruption they caused was the bloody mess their marker paints caused before hand, we thought there had been a major graffiti attack till we twigged what the various pink etc blobs were for. That was for what was basically an entertainment provider who felt the investment would be worth while even though many properties to which they ran the ducts did not take up the system. Those ducts ISTR were about 25-30mm diameter so a power cable would not be vastly different if it was direct burial though I accept it may need a more prepared surround. One sod who did not take up the system prised the cap off the duct that terminated inside his fence and disposed of his motor oil down it which was a bit mean. If digging up the streets was done fairly effortlessly so that Punters can watch re runs of “I Love Lucy” and the cultural delights of East Enders shouting at each other then doing it again for arguably less frivolous purposes should not be the obstacle you make it out to be. Meanwhile the utility industry is quietly getting on with replacing old Iron gas pipes with plastic as leaks as well as being hazardous also contribute to green house gases even if unburnt. There is a lot of experience out there in digging the ground. GH |
LO lines to be named
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:17:30 on Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked: 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(?). Just under the surface (and in many cases very poorly finished), power cables have to be much deeper - 18" is typical. 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. You'd probably have to do all the ones which currently attract cars parked on them. Which in a lot of places is pretty much all of them. Rather than laying a whole new cable, can't the existing cable supplying every house be used? Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
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. |
LO lines to be named
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:42:42 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson wrote: wrote: 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 short termist politicians don't seem to be interested in providing it, merely exchanging like for like with coal and gas gen replaced by wind farms so they can polish their green halos. That’s true. Maybe they’re thinking ahead to a time when we might have to accept a change in lifestyle rather than trying to find “sustainable” ways to maintain our current ones. Even full lockdowns only led to a 7% reduction in CO2 so the sustainability part is little to do with personal transport and a lot to do with home power and manufacturing it would seem. |
LO lines to be named
On 11/04/2021 09:53, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:17:30 on Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked: 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(?). Just under the surface (and in many cases very poorly finished), power cables have to be much deeper - 18" is typical. 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. You'd probably have to do all the ones which currently attract cars parked on them. Which in a lot of places is pretty much all of them. 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. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
LO lines to be named
On 11/04/2021 09:49, Marland 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. To a large extent an ole is an ole, ok it may need to be bit larger for a power cable of the size required but when the area I was then living in got cabled for TV by NYNEX the most memorable part of the disruption they caused was the bloody mess their marker paints caused before hand, we thought there had been a major graffiti attack till we twigged what the various pink etc blobs were for. That was for what was basically an entertainment provider who felt the investment would be worth while even though many properties to which they ran the ducts did not take up the system. Those ducts ISTR were about 25-30mm diameter so a power cable would not be vastly different if it was direct burial though I accept it may need a more prepared surround. One sod who did not take up the system prised the cap off the duct that terminated inside his fence and disposed of his motor oil down it which was a bit mean. If digging up the streets was done fairly effortlessly so that Punters can watch re runs of “I Love Lucy” and the cultural delights of East Enders shouting at each other then doing it again for arguably less frivolous purposes should not be the obstacle you make it out to be. Meanwhile the utility industry is quietly getting on with replacing old Iron gas pipes with plastic as leaks as well as being hazardous also contribute to green house gases even if unburnt. There is a lot of experience out there in digging the ground. Digging the holes isn't the problem, it is supplying the electrons to go down the cables and some method of getting the electrons from the hole in the ground to the vehicle without causing a trip hazard and legal bonanza. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
LO lines to be named
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. By 'built', you mean announced. They're 2023 models, with lots of details as yet unknown. 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. https://www.railtech.com/rolling-stock/2020/05/20/future-of-mobility-what-is-known-about-hydrogen-trains-in-germany/ |
LO lines to be named
Graeme Wall wrote:
If digging up the streets was done fairly effortlessly so that Punters can watch re runs of “I Love Lucy” and the cultural delights of East Enders shouting at each other then doing it again for arguably less frivolous purposes should not be the obstacle you make it out to be. Meanwhile the utility industry is quietly getting on with replacing old Iron gas pipes with plastic as leaks as well as being hazardous also contribute to green house gases even if unburnt. There is a lot of experience out there in digging the ground. Digging the holes isn't the problem, it is supplying the electrons to go down the cables and some method of getting the electrons from the hole in the ground to the vehicle without causing a trip hazard and legal bonanza. The power supply problem I grant you is yet to be solved but it will be, at least to keep those who are affluent enough to run personal transport the size of a car doing so , ie make it expensive. The rest may just end up in the situation we once had up the 1960’s when car ownership was a dream for many and they had to use other means of getting around. To some extent a future non car owner will be better off than their grandparents and have the choice of using an electric scooter or an electrically assisted bicycle for many journeys whose power demand on the grid will be far less and buy in transport for when they need a bigger vehicle or make a longer journey wether that is a hire car or a taxi like operation. Even turning many 2 car households into a one car plus scooters and bikes will make quite a distance. Many younger people were already going this way anyway, car ownership is no longer seen as a status point reached in life like it was for our generation and assaulted by high accommodation costs plus the need if sensible to start saving for a pension leaves little to run a car ,not having one is no longer something to feel ashamed about ,the status symbol object is the latest smartphone they can order an Uber on. As for they trip hazard problem the most basic solution would be conduits like slot drains that been used since victorian times to take water from building downpipes to the gutter, theirs were cast Iron and many are still in place but modern versions in other materials are available. You then lay your cable in that . This is one of the old style ones in Truro from the closed Hotel to the gutter, there are thousands still in use around the country and people cope with them. Now you won’t what any old joe digging up the pavement as standards would have to be maintained so like dropped pavements for drives are now the local authorities would either do the work or have an approved contractor the resident has to pay for. GH |
LO lines to be named
In message , at 08:53:02 on Sun, 11 Apr 2021,
Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:17:30 on Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked: 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(?). Just under the surface (and in many cases very poorly finished), power cables have to be much deeper - 18" is typical. 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. You'd probably have to do all the ones which currently attract cars parked on them. Which in a lot of places is pretty much all of them. 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. There's also the matter that it's likely to be sized for the number of houses connected, and given than an EV on average doubles the household consumption (that's long term average not instantaneous, so diversity doesn't help here) it'll still overheat. [Of course, the same consideration applies to "too many" households connecting to that cable via their domestic supply and a fast charger for their off-street parking] National Grid has done serious studies into all of this and are quite pessimistic about the capability to support more than 30% EV penetration by 2030. -- Roland Perry |
LO lines to be named
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. -- Roland Perry |
LO lines to be named
In message , at 08:49:15 on Sun, 11
Apr 2021, Marland remarked: Meanwhile the utility industry is quietly getting on with replacing old Iron gas pipes with plastic as leaks as well as being hazardous also contribute to green house gases even if unburnt. There is a lot of experience out there in digging the ground. And having lived in an Edwardian suburb where they re-newed the gas pipes, the effort required and disruption caused was extraordinary! -- Roland Perry |
LO lines to be named
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? Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/04/2021 09:49, Marland 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. To a large extent an ole is an ole, ok it may need to be bit larger for a power cable of the size required but when the area I was then living in got cabled for TV by NYNEX the most memorable part of the disruption they caused was the bloody mess their marker paints caused before hand, we thought there had been a major graffiti attack till we twigged what the various pink etc blobs were for. That was for what was basically an entertainment provider who felt the investment would be worth while even though many properties to which they ran the ducts did not take up the system. Those ducts ISTR were about 25-30mm diameter so a power cable would not be vastly different if it was direct burial though I accept it may need a more prepared surround. One sod who did not take up the system prised the cap off the duct that terminated inside his fence and disposed of his motor oil down it which was a bit mean. If digging up the streets was done fairly effortlessly so that Punters can watch re runs of “I Love Lucy” and the cultural delights of East Enders shouting at each other then doing it again for arguably less frivolous purposes should not be the obstacle you make it out to be. Meanwhile the utility industry is quietly getting on with replacing old Iron gas pipes with plastic as leaks as well as being hazardous also contribute to green house gases even if unburnt. There is a lot of experience out there in digging the ground. Digging the holes isn't the problem, it is supplying the electrons to go down the cables and some method of getting the electrons from the hole in the ground to the vehicle without causing a trip hazard and legal bonanza. Marked spaces and a kerbside supply post. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
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? -- Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to 1992 - Eva Luna - Moonshake |
LO lines to be named
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. GH |
LO lines to be named
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. Last weekend I was sat in a pretty little Northamptonshire village looking at a wooden telegraph pole that carried household power distribution (4 wire along the length of the road, single overhead cable to the house) and a couple of feet below were the phone cables. The whole village was so fitted. |
LO lines to be named
Marland wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote: As for they trip hazard problem the most basic solution would be conduits like slot drains that been used since victorian times to take water from building downpipes to the gutter, theirs were cast Iron and many are still in place but modern versions in other materials are available. You then lay your cable in that . This is one of the old style ones in Truro from the closed Hotel to the gutter, there are thousands still in use around the country and people cope with them. Whoops forgot the link GH |
LO lines to be named
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 09:31:21 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 08:17:30 on Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked: 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(?). Just under the surface (and in many cases very poorly finished), power cables have to be much deeper - 18" is typical. 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. You'd probably have to do all the ones which currently attract cars parked on them. Which in a lot of places is pretty much all of them. The often wandering path of the cable track for cable television (still visible years later round here) gives away the degree of shoehorning into place that was needed in many places to fit it alongside existing services. Any work on electric cables is observed to involve digging past cable television, telephone, gas, water, drains, etc. which themselves aren't always neatly arranged. |
LO lines to be named
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. |
LO lines to be named
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. |
LO lines to be named
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. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
LO lines to be named
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. I would think it is actually 415v ( if you are using 240). Were your villages still 4 individual wire for the 3 phases and earth mounted vertically? A lot like ours has been replaced by ABC cable. Has the disadvantage you can’t nick electricity using some welding cables with clamps a wooden ladder and thick rubber gloves, no I wouldn’t do it but I knew a farmer who did. It wasn’t the cost of electric so much as it was a convenient way to get electricity to a lambing shed for a few weeks to run a heater. Not just villages either quite a few towns were cabled the same way but have since been changed, Holsworthy in Devon was changed about 4 or 5 years ago. I’m pleased from an industrial archaeology point of view that when they removed the poles either by design or because it was too awkward the grey post here https://goo.gl/maps/ByiJCQygU3DoKfGP7 was left in place as it bears the initials of the original private electricity provider from the early days in the 1920’s. The bollard did a good job protecting it and the pole over the years. GH |
LO lines to be named
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? |
LO lines to be named
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? As well as supplying EV charging, the electricity infrastructure will also be required to supply electric heat pumps for domestic heating in the not too distant future. That presents a challenge at least as great as supplying EV chargers. |
LO lines to be named
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. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
In message , at 12:04:10 on Sun, 11 Apr
2021, Basil Jet remarked: 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? Another village, where I didn't end up living, (phone on the left, power on the right) to answer both at once: https://goo.gl/maps/wkbMByMYQzMx17Yw8 -- Roland Perry |
LO lines to be named
In message , at 11:47:47 on Sun, 11 Apr
2021, Marland remarked: 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. I would think it is actually 415v ( if you are using 240). Were your villages still 4 individual wire for the 3 phases and earth mounted vertically? Yes. A lot like ours has been replaced by ABC cable. Has the disadvantage you can’t nick electricity using some welding cables with clamps a wooden ladder and thick rubber gloves, no I wouldn’t do it but I knew a farmer who did. It wasn’t the cost of electric so much as it was a convenient way to get electricity to a lambing shed for a few weeks to run a heater. -- Roland Perry |
LO lines to be named
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. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
LO lines to be named
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. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
LO lines to be named
In message , at 14:16:50 on Sun, 11 Apr 2021,
Roland Perry remarked: In message , at 11:47:47 on Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Marland remarked: 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. I would think it is actually 415v ( if you are using 240). Were your villages still 4 individual wire for the 3 phases and earth mounted vertically? Yes. A lot like ours has been replaced by ABC cable. Has the disadvantage you can’t nick electricity using some welding cables with clamps a wooden ladder and thick rubber gloves, no I wouldn’t do it but I knew a farmer who did. It wasn’t the cost of electric so much as it was a convenient way to get electricity to a lambing shed for a few weeks to run a heater. This is a pole not far from me: http://www.perry.co.uk/images/overhead-wires.jpg Which almost[1] hits the jackpot! Along the street are the 4-wires, to two houses 2-wires, another a single twisted pair; and BT have bounced a phone wire off it too. [1] To do it fully you'd also need a street lamp on a bracket attached to the same pole, but they don't seem to do that round here - I've seen it in Essex though. -- Roland Perry |
LO lines to be named
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? -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
LO lines to be named
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). Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:16:50 on Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Roland Perry remarked: In message , at 11:47:47 on Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Marland remarked: 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. I would think it is actually 415v ( if you are using 240). Were your villages still 4 individual wire for the 3 phases and earth mounted vertically? Yes. A lot like ours has been replaced by ABC cable. Has the disadvantage you can’t nick electricity using some welding cables with clamps a wooden ladder and thick rubber gloves, no I wouldn’t do it but I knew a farmer who did. It wasn’t the cost of electric so much as it was a convenient way to get electricity to a lambing shed for a few weeks to run a heater. This is a pole not far from me: http://www.perry.co.uk/images/overhead-wires.jpg Which almost[1] hits the jackpot! Along the street are the 4-wires, to two houses 2-wires, another a single twisted pair; and BT have bounced a phone wire off it too. [1] To do it fully you'd also need a street lamp on a bracket attached to the same pole, but they don't seem to do that round here - I've seen it in Essex though. Aah, a classic land surveyor's nightmare - you try fitting annotations for TP EP LP (and SP if it has a road sign attached too!) around one dot on the plan! Anna Noyd-Dryver |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk