|
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. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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/ |
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. |
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 |
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 |
LO lines to be named
In message , at 16:47:51 on Sun, 11 Apr
2021, Sam Wilson remarked: 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/ That's right, the Scottish Equivalent of Energis. thus/ Mainly the old Demon empire, bought by ST; rebranded. Cable & Wireless/Vodafone. I think the rump is still in the Vodafone empire. C&W bought Energis and thus; and later Vodafone bought C&W. -- Roland Perry |
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). "We apologise for the delay of this service at Guildford. We are waiting to enable charging of the batteries. We anticipate a further delay of 15 minutes." |
LO lines to be named
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:47:51 on Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Sam Wilson remarked: 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/ That's right, the Scottish Equivalent of Energis. thus/ Mainly the old Demon empire, bought by ST; rebranded. Our dealings were mainly with the non-Demon side; ST people at various points thanked the Scottish University MANs (metropolitan area networks, though that was a slight misnomer given the geography of Scotland) for giving them the impetus to build out their dark fibre backbones. Cable & Wireless/Vodafone. I think the rump is still in the Vodafone empire. C&W bought Energis and thus; and later Vodafone bought C&W. Yes, and my former employer is still leasing dark fibre from Vodafone which was installed by SP/ST. There was a bit of a wobble when thus were swallowed by C&W - C&W tried to insist that they weren’t in the market for leasing dark fibre and our thus contacts (who retained their separate identity for some time) had to work hard to suggest that we were valued customers who weren’t going to be happy replace their dark fibre with shared managed services. Vodafone don’t seem to have minded. Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
LO lines to be named
Marland wrote:
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. A couple of decades ago, some farmers apparently cottoned on to the fact that they wayleaves for the overhead cable routes across their land often specified 'power' and that if the companies wanted to string fibre up too, they could pay for the privilege... Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
Graeme Wall wrote:
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. I think it would depend on the specifications of the stock concerned, and the power supply capability of the intermediate 3rd rail section. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
Basil Jet wrote:
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. Yes, in some cases that might be necessary. |
LO lines to be named
wrote:
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. I’m not sure there’s a sequitur there, but what the heck. Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
LO lines to be named
wrote:
Hydrogen power is an enviromental dead end. I wish politicians would realise. No doubt you think energy companies need your advice as well: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottishpower-plans-uks-biggest-green-hydrogen-plant-in-glasgow-8qjsscnl6?shareToken=51bc327aa4999e0edc07659fe907a 0eb |
LO lines to be named
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 21:32:58 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson wrote: wrote: 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. I’m not sure there’s a sequitur there, but what the heck. Whats the problem? Less people have been travelling during the lockdown hence the reduction in admissions. Any increases in home power usage has been offset by the reduction in office power usage so where does the other 93% of emissions come from? Answer, normal home power usage regardless of lockdown freight transport, manufacturing, construction and agriculture. |
LO lines to be named
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:05:11 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: Hydrogen power is an enviromental dead end. I wish politicians would realise. No doubt you think energy companies need your advice as well: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...st-green-hydro gen-plant-in-glasgow-8qjsscnl6?shareToken=51bc327aa4999e0edc07659fe907a 0eb If energy companies don't understand basic physics thats not my problem. But then most of them believe they can send "green" electrons down the pipe simply by you signing up with them so go figure. |
LO lines to be named
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 21:32:58 -0000 (UTC) Sam Wilson wrote: wrote: 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. I’m not sure there’s a sequitur there, but what the heck. Whats the problem? Less people have been travelling during the lockdown hence the reduction in admissions. Any increases in home power usage has been offset by the reduction in office power usage so where does the other 93% of emissions come from? Answer, normal home power usage regardless of lockdown freight transport, manufacturing, construction and agriculture. So that particular, relatively minor change of lifestyle isn’t going to have the necessary effect to make the world sustainable. It’s therefore, by definition, not the kind of change I was referring to. I don’t know what is, yet. Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
LO lines to be named
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:05:11 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: Hydrogen power is an enviromental dead end. I wish politicians would realise. No doubt you think energy companies need your advice as well: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...st-green-hydro gen-plant-in-glasgow-8qjsscnl6?shareToken=51bc327aa4999e0edc07659fe907a 0eb If energy companies don't understand basic physics thats not my problem. But then most of them believe they can send "green" electrons down the pipe simply by you signing up with them so go figure. Is everyone here really so dumb a to think that green electricity generation and the national grid ought to work by making sure that green electrons travel from the generator to your home? What was that about basic physics? Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
LO lines to be named
On 12/04/2021 10:59, Sam Wilson wrote:
wrote: On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:05:11 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: Hydrogen power is an enviromental dead end. I wish politicians would realise. No doubt you think energy companies need your advice as well: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...st-green-hydro gen-plant-in-glasgow-8qjsscnl6?shareToken=51bc327aa4999e0edc07659fe907a 0eb If energy companies don't understand basic physics thats not my problem. But then most of them believe they can send "green" electrons down the pipe simply by you signing up with them so go figure. Is everyone here really so dumb a to think that green electricity generation and the national grid ought to work by making sure that green electrons travel from the generator to your home? What was that about basic physics? As discussed earlier, AC only makes electrons move a short distance. The supplier simply makes a one-off transfer of green electrons to fill the house, where they continue to oscillate indefinitely. Installation takes place by adding a small DC bias to the supply on a sunny and windy day with low demand, when the grid has plenty of spare green electrons. |
LO lines to be named
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:59:49 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson wrote: wrote: If energy companies don't understand basic physics thats not my problem. But then most of them believe they can send "green" electrons down the pipe simply by you signing up with them so go figure. Is everyone here really so dumb a to think that green electricity generation and the national grid ought to work by making sure that green electrons travel from the generator to your home? What was that about basic physics? I suggest you have another go at reading what I wrote. |
LO lines to be named
Certes wrote:
On 12/04/2021 10:59, Sam Wilson wrote: wrote: On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:05:11 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: Hydrogen power is an enviromental dead end. I wish politicians would realise. No doubt you think energy companies need your advice as well: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...st-green-hydro gen-plant-in-glasgow-8qjsscnl6?shareToken=51bc327aa4999e0edc07659fe907a 0eb If energy companies don't understand basic physics thats not my problem. But then most of them believe they can send "green" electrons down the pipe simply by you signing up with them so go figure. Is everyone here really so dumb a to think that green electricity generation and the national grid ought to work by making sure that green electrons travel from the generator to your home? What was that about basic physics? As discussed earlier, AC only makes electrons move a short distance. The supplier simply makes a one-off transfer of green electrons to fill the house, where they continue to oscillate indefinitely. Installation takes place by adding a small DC bias to the supply on a sunny and windy day with low demand, when the grid has plenty of spare green electrons. OK, thanks, got it now. :-) Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
LO lines to be named
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:59:49 -0000 (UTC) Sam Wilson wrote: wrote: If energy companies don't understand basic physics thats not my problem. But then most of them believe they can send "green" electrons down the pipe simply by you signing up with them so go figure. Is everyone here really so dumb a to think that green electricity generation and the national grid ought to work by making sure that green electrons travel from the generator to your home? What was that about basic physics? I suggest you have another go at reading what I wrote. I wasn’t referring directly to you, but to a general feeling in some of the postings, too diffuse to respond to individually. Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
LO lines to be named
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:48:23 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson wrote: wrote: On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:59:49 -0000 (UTC) Sam Wilson wrote: wrote: If energy companies don't understand basic physics thats not my problem. But then most of them believe they can send "green" electrons down the pipe simply by you signing up with them so go figure. Is everyone here really so dumb a to think that green electricity generation and the national grid ought to work by making sure that green electrons travel from the generator to your home? What was that about basic physics? I suggest you have another go at reading what I wrote. I wasn’t referring directly to you, but to a general feeling in some of the postings, too diffuse to respond to individually. Its too late to back pedal now. Your "What was that about basic physics?" comment was aimed directly at me because either you misunderstood what I was saying or didn't even bother to read it. |
LO lines to be named
In message , at 06:44:08 on Sun, 11 Apr 2021,
Roland Perry 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. Continuing the theme, this afternoon they put a 700/717 (I was too far away to tell) on an Electrostar diagram from Kings Cross to Ely. -- Roland Perry |
LO lines to be named
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 06:44:08 on Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Roland Perry 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. Continuing the theme, this afternoon they put a 700/717 (I was too far away to tell) on an Electrostar diagram from Kings Cross to Ely. The former, surely? |
LO lines to be named
On 12/04/2021 09:01, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:05:11 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: Hydrogen power is an enviromental dead end. I wish politicians would realise. No doubt you think energy companies need your advice as well: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...st-green-hydro gen-plant-in-glasgow-8qjsscnl6?shareToken=51bc327aa4999e0edc07659fe907a 0eb If energy companies don't understand basic physics thats not my problem. But then most of them believe they can send "green" electrons down the pipe simply by you signing up with them so go figure. According to my electriconics lecturer mumblety-plus years ago, all electrons are green anyway: He explained valve theory as little green ball-bearings bouncing from Cathode to Anode, an image that has stuck with me ever since. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
LO lines to be named
In message , at 16:07:36 on Mon, 12 Apr
2021, Recliner remarked: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 06:44:08 on Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Roland Perry 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. Continuing the theme, this afternoon they put a 700/717 (I was too far away to tell) on an Electrostar diagram from Kings Cross to Ely. The former, surely? The train was billed as a GN, and they only have 717s. But Thameslink runs 700's as far as Cambridge. -- Roland Perry |
LO lines to be named
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:07:36 on Mon, 12 Apr 2021, Recliner remarked: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 06:44:08 on Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Roland Perry 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. Continuing the theme, this afternoon they put a 700/717 (I was too far away to tell) on an Electrostar diagram from Kings Cross to Ely. The former, surely? The train was billed as a GN, and they only have 717s. But Thameslink runs 700's as far as Cambridge. Could you see the end, or the length? Class 717s are too slow for mainline duties. |
LO lines to be named
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:48:23 -0000 (UTC) Sam Wilson wrote: wrote: On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:59:49 -0000 (UTC) Sam Wilson wrote: wrote: If energy companies don't understand basic physics thats not my problem. But then most of them believe they can send "green" electrons down the pipe simply by you signing up with them so go figure. Is everyone here really so dumb a to think that green electricity generation and the national grid ought to work by making sure that green electrons travel from the generator to your home? What was that about basic physics? I suggest you have another go at reading what I wrote. I wasn’t referring directly to you, but to a general feeling in some of the postings, too diffuse to respond to individually. Its too late to back pedal now. Your "What was that about basic physics?" comment was aimed directly at me because either you misunderstood what I was saying or didn't even bother to read it. Again no, it was just a convenient place in the thread to hang a comment. It clearly backfired, but it was not intended personally. Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
LO lines to be named
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 12/04/2021 09:01, wrote: On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:05:11 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: Hydrogen power is an enviromental dead end. I wish politicians would realise. No doubt you think energy companies need your advice as well: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...st-green-hydro gen-plant-in-glasgow-8qjsscnl6?shareToken=51bc327aa4999e0edc07659fe907a 0eb If energy companies don't understand basic physics thats not my problem. But then most of them believe they can send "green" electrons down the pipe simply by you signing up with them so go figure. According to my electriconics lecturer mumblety-plus years ago, all electrons are green anyway: He explained valve theory as little green ball-bearings bouncing from Cathode to Anode, an image that has stuck with me ever since. Cathode ray tubes. Green. Of course! Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
LO lines to be named
In message , at 06:31:44 on Tue, 13 Apr
2021, Recliner remarked: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:07:36 on Mon, 12 Apr 2021, Recliner remarked: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 06:44:08 on Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Roland Perry 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. Continuing the theme, this afternoon they put a 700/717 (I was too far away to tell) on an Electrostar diagram from Kings Cross to Ely. The former, surely? The train was billed as a GN, and they only have 717s. But Thameslink runs 700's as far as Cambridge. Could you see the end, or the length? No, it was some way in the distance, and I was driving. Class 717s are too slow for mainline duties. That probably settles it - 717 max speed 85mph, and it's a 100mph diagram. So a fleet swap. -- Roland Perry |
LO lines to be named
Am 11.04.2021 um 12:04 schrieb Recliner:
wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:41:53 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: 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/ This pilot, like many, demonstrates technical feasability. It does not even ask the question whether it's viable without a massive subsidy. |
LO lines to be named
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:09:53 +0200
Rolf Mantel wrote: Am 11.04.2021 um 12:04 schrieb Recliner: 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-sto...lity-what-is-k nown-about-hydrogen-trains-in-germany/ This pilot, like many, demonstrates technical feasability. It does not even ask the question whether it's viable without a massive subsidy. Too many fuel cell demonstrators are nothing more than "Look! We can run this using a fuel cell!". As if thats anything new. They never address the issue of where the H2 is going to come from and whether its actually any greener than simply using diesel. |
LO lines to be named
On 11/04/2021 09:17, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
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(?). We don't have them here but I seem to remember reading a lot of complaints about the mess they made of the pavements. |
LO lines to be named
On 11/04/2021 09:53, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Rather than laying a whole new cable, can't the existing cable supplying every house be used? Is there enough spare capacity in the cable for the extra load - the house's load will have quite possibly increased since the electric supply was originally connected. Many people do not have a drive to park in when charging so the supply is needed at the roadside or in a small car park and has to be one that can be used by anyone. |
LO lines to be named
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk