|
LO lines to be named
On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? Anna Noyd-Dryver I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. |
LO lines to be named
On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Marked spaces and a kerbside supply post. Often not enough spaces for all residents then you get the complication if someone else parks in your space so you have park elsewhere. |
LO lines to be named
MB wrote:
On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. About having exposed electro conductors at floor level? Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too. Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about trespassers, as often claimed. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
MB wrote:
On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Marked spaces and a kerbside supply post. Often not enough spaces for all residents then you get the complication if someone else parks in your space so you have park elsewhere. I wasn't thinking house-specific numbered spaces, but just marked car-length spaces with a charging point each. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Marked spaces and a kerbside supply post. Often not enough spaces for all residents then you get the complication if someone else parks in your space so you have park elsewhere. I wasn't thinking house-specific numbered spaces, but just marked car-length spaces with a charging point each. Anna Noyd-Dryver I still want to know what is to be done about cable theft. Presumably charger cables have some fairly thick copper conductors. I could see someone with insulated bolt cutters chopping their way down a street of plugged in cars in the dead of night. Does an alarm go off if the cable is chopped? |
LO lines to be named
In message , at 10:08:02 on Wed, 14 Apr
2021, MB remarked: 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. That's just the 60/100A spur (and the spur to a streetlight-charger would depend on the number of amps required). The thick cable is what runs along the street and each spur has to be connected to. -- Roland Perry |
LO lines to be named
Tweed wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Marked spaces and a kerbside supply post. Often not enough spaces for all residents then you get the complication if someone else parks in your space so you have park elsewhere. I wasn't thinking house-specific numbered spaces, but just marked car-length spaces with a charging point each. Anna Noyd-Dryver I still want to know what is to be done about cable theft. Presumably charger cables have some fairly thick copper conductors. I could see someone with insulated bolt cutters chopping their way down a street of plugged in cars in the dead of night. Does an alarm go off if the cable is chopped? That could, I suppose, be a problem, but I'm not aware of it happening yet. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
Tweed wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Marked spaces and a kerbside supply post. Often not enough spaces for all residents then you get the complication if someone else parks in your space so you have park elsewhere. I wasn't thinking house-specific numbered spaces, but just marked car-length spaces with a charging point each. Anna Noyd-Dryver I still want to know what is to be done about cable theft. Presumably charger cables have some fairly thick copper conductors. I could see someone with insulated bolt cutters chopping their way down a street of plugged in cars in the dead of night. Does an alarm go off if the cable is chopped? https://www.fleetpoint.org/electric-vehicles-2/thieves-making-200-a-time-stealing-car-charging-cables/ |
LO lines to be named
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:10:17 +0100, MB wrote:
On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 7. All conductors in a system which may give rise to danger shall either– (a)be suitably covered with insulating material and as necessary protected so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger; or (b)have such precautions taken in respect of them (including, where appropriate, their being suitably placed) as will prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger. Mike |
LO lines to be named
Recliner wrote:
Tweed wrote: Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Marked spaces and a kerbside supply post. Often not enough spaces for all residents then you get the complication if someone else parks in your space so you have park elsewhere. I wasn't thinking house-specific numbered spaces, but just marked car-length spaces with a charging point each. I still want to know what is to be done about cable theft. Presumably charger cables have some fairly thick copper conductors. I could see someone with insulated bolt cutters chopping their way down a street of plugged in cars in the dead of night. Does an alarm go off if the cable is chopped? https://www.fleetpoint.org/electric-vehicles-2/thieves-making-200-a-time-stealing-car-charging-cables/ That's talking about whole cables being stolen (presumably to be re-sold whole) by being unplugged (the're supposed to be locked in to both vehicle and charger); one of the suggested solutions is a padlock around the cable, which wouldn't prevent the theft-by-cutting suggested in this thread. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
Mike Humphrey wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:10:17 +0100, MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 7. All conductors in a system which may give rise to danger shall either– (a)be suitably covered with insulating material and as necessary protected so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger; or (b)have such precautions taken in respect of them (including, where appropriate, their being suitably placed) as will prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger. Thanks :) Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message ... MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. About having exposed electro conductors at floor level? Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too. Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about trespassers, as often claimed. Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 It is mainly focused on staff safety. Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing installations on the southern/mersey. James |
LO lines to be named
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:08:02 +0100, MB wrote:
On 11/04/2021 11:44, Roland Perry wrote: Rather than laying a whole new cable, can't the existing cable supplying every house be used? That's even deeper, and is typically about as thick as your arm and a real pig to make connections to. Surely a cable to a house is not that thick? The house supply is about half an inch diameter. A very small house ? You're probably looking at at least 16mm^2 SWA which is about 20.4mm diameter for 2 core; 25mm^2 is about 24.1mm OD. The 100A supply to my house is about an inch over the armour. |
LO lines to be named
James Heaton wrote:
"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message ... MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. About having exposed electro conductors at floor level? Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too. Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about trespassers, as often claimed. Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 It is mainly focused on staff safety. Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing installations on the southern/mersey. James There must be some mechanism to give dispensation in some circumstances Other wise laying down the conductor rails on the Old Dalby test track to test the LU S Stock could not have occurred . A lot of it on there is protected by side protection boards but quite a lot of pictures show a lot is not, And while it can claim to be part of an existing system the extension of the Glasgow Subway Test Track only has side protection boarding in a couple of places. I hadn’t realised how far back along the old Govan branch trackbed after the A8 bridge they had recovered to extend the test track and build facilities. A little further and we could have a mixed gauge interchange. Dropped pin https://goo.gl/maps/npqUH5YqNJafK1aH7 Some pictures of the facilities here. https://www.flickr.com/photos/amacca...n/photostream/ GH |
LO lines to be named
On 14 Apr 2021 22:18:29 GMT, Marland
wrote: James Heaton wrote: "Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message ... MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. About having exposed electro conductors at floor level? Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too. Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about trespassers, as often claimed. Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 It is mainly focused on staff safety. Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing installations on the southern/mersey. James There must be some mechanism to give dispensation in some circumstances Other wise laying down the conductor rails on the Old Dalby test track to test the LU S Stock could not have occurred . A lot of it on there is protected by side protection boards but quite a lot of pictures show a lot is not, Regulation 7 gives you the choice of insulating or taking other precautions "so far is reasonably practicable". Old Dalby doesn't have passengers to worry about so precautions probably rely more on suitable fencing and appropriate training of onsite staff. There is minimal shielding of conductor rails on LU anyway, even on new work. snip |
LO lines to be named
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:08:02 +0100, MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:44, Roland Perry wrote: Rather than laying a whole new cable, can't the existing cable supplying every house be used? That's even deeper, and is typically about as thick as your arm and a real pig to make connections to. Surely a cable to a house is not that thick? The house supply is about half an inch diameter. A very small house ? You're probably looking at at least 16mm^2 SWA which is about 20.4mm diameter for 2 core; 25mm^2 is about 24.1mm OD. The 100A supply to my house is about an inch over the armour. There must be quite a lot of properties who now still use an incomer around a 100 years old, most of those may need uprating,. I was once called to a pub whose landlord was concerned about a strange smell in his Cellar, upon inspection I found that a pitch like substance was dripping from the incomer where it emerged from the cellar wall. Over the years refrigeration and cooking equipment add just been added and the cable was getting hot enough that the pitch like substance which was just under the steel armour outer sheath was getting liquid enough to flow out. GH |
LO lines to be named
On 14 Apr 2021 22:40:08 GMT, Marland
wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:08:02 +0100, MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:44, Roland Perry wrote: Rather than laying a whole new cable, can't the existing cable supplying every house be used? That's even deeper, and is typically about as thick as your arm and a real pig to make connections to. Surely a cable to a house is not that thick? The house supply is about half an inch diameter. A very small house ? You're probably looking at at least 16mm^2 SWA which is about 20.4mm diameter for 2 core; 25mm^2 is about 24.1mm OD. The 100A supply to my house is about an inch over the armour. There must be quite a lot of properties who now still use an incomer around a 100 years old, most of those may need uprating,. I was once called to a pub whose landlord was concerned about a strange smell in his Cellar, upon inspection I found that a pitch like substance was dripping from the incomer where it emerged from the cellar wall. Over the years refrigeration and cooking equipment add just been added and the cable was getting hot enough that the pitch like substance which was just under the steel armour outer sheath was getting liquid enough to flow out. If mine is still the original (and some of the remaining cast iron bits on the fuseboard suggest it is) then it is 96 years old. The original wire main fuses IIRC were 50 or 60A but later changed to an 80A cartridge fuse (when storage heaters were installed about 50y ago) then to the current 100A. |
LO lines to be named
Charles Ellson wrote:
On 14 Apr 2021 22:18:29 GMT, Marland wrote: James Heaton wrote: "Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message ... MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. About having exposed electro conductors at floor level? Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too. Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about trespassers, as often claimed. Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 It is mainly focused on staff safety. Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing installations on the southern/mersey. James There must be some mechanism to give dispensation in some circumstances Other wise laying down the conductor rails on the Old Dalby test track to test the LU S Stock could not have occurred . A lot of it on there is protected by side protection boards but quite a lot of pictures show a lot is not, Regulation 7 gives you the choice of insulating or taking other precautions "so far is reasonably practicable". Old Dalby doesn't have passengers to worry about so precautions probably rely more on suitable fencing and appropriate training of onsite staff. There is minimal shielding of conductor rails on LU anyway, even on new work. snip The reasonably practical measure taken at Old Dalby is presumably not having staff walking at track level without an isolation. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 01:09:01 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On 14 Apr 2021 22:18:29 GMT, Marland wrote: James Heaton wrote: "Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message ... MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. About having exposed electro conductors at floor level? Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too. Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about trespassers, as often claimed. Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 It is mainly focused on staff safety. Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing installations on the southern/mersey. James There must be some mechanism to give dispensation in some circumstances Other wise laying down the conductor rails on the Old Dalby test track to test the LU S Stock could not have occurred . A lot of it on there is protected by side protection boards but quite a lot of pictures show a lot is not, Regulation 7 gives you the choice of insulating or taking other precautions "so far is reasonably practicable". Old Dalby doesn't have passengers to worry about so precautions probably rely more on suitable fencing and appropriate training of onsite staff. There is minimal shielding of conductor rails on LU anyway, even on new work. snip The reasonably practical measure taken at Old Dalby is presumably not having staff walking at track level without an isolation. Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. |
LO lines to be named
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 01:09:01 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On 14 Apr 2021 22:18:29 GMT, Marland wrote: James Heaton wrote: "Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message ... MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. About having exposed electro conductors at floor level? Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too. Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about trespassers, as often claimed. Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 It is mainly focused on staff safety. Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing installations on the southern/mersey. James There must be some mechanism to give dispensation in some circumstances Other wise laying down the conductor rails on the Old Dalby test track to test the LU S Stock could not have occurred . A lot of it on there is protected by side protection boards but quite a lot of pictures show a lot is not, Regulation 7 gives you the choice of insulating or taking other precautions "so far is reasonably practicable". Old Dalby doesn't have passengers to worry about so precautions probably rely more on suitable fencing and appropriate training of onsite staff. There is minimal shielding of conductor rails on LU anyway, even on new work. snip The reasonably practical measure taken at Old Dalby is presumably not having staff walking at track level without an isolation. Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. Given the necessity for short sections with regular feeds, couldn’t you arrange with modern power electronics to keep the power switched off unless there was a train in section? A more practical question though - what is the incidence of electrocution on the third rail network vs the overhead system? |
LO lines to be named
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 01:09:01 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On 14 Apr 2021 22:18:29 GMT, Marland wrote: James Heaton wrote: "Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message ... MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. About having exposed electro conductors at floor level? Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too. Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about trespassers, as often claimed. Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 It is mainly focused on staff safety. Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing installations on the southern/mersey. James There must be some mechanism to give dispensation in some circumstances Other wise laying down the conductor rails on the Old Dalby test track to test the LU S Stock could not have occurred . A lot of it on there is protected by side protection boards but quite a lot of pictures show a lot is not, Regulation 7 gives you the choice of insulating or taking other precautions "so far is reasonably practicable". Old Dalby doesn't have passengers to worry about so precautions probably rely more on suitable fencing and appropriate training of onsite staff. There is minimal shielding of conductor rails on LU anyway, even on new work. snip The reasonably practical measure taken at Old Dalby is presumably not having staff walking at track level without an isolation. Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. We will have to disagree about what “isn’t a lot is “ . Quoting from this website. http://www.old-dalby.com/operation.htm “This line is now electrified with 750v DC conductor rails for approximately 3 miles and the SSL trains are based in the compound during the daily testing. The yard sidings at the former control centre have also been equipped. Power for the DC line is routed from the sub-station at Asfordby. All other functions are now conducted from the new complex at Asfordby, and the SSL trains travel to and from Asfordby each day, hauled by a diesel locomotive.” GH |
LO lines to be named
Marland wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 01:09:01 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On 14 Apr 2021 22:18:29 GMT, Marland wrote: James Heaton wrote: "Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message ... MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. About having exposed electro conductors at floor level? Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too. Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about trespassers, as often claimed. Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 It is mainly focused on staff safety. Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing installations on the southern/mersey. James There must be some mechanism to give dispensation in some circumstances Other wise laying down the conductor rails on the Old Dalby test track to test the LU S Stock could not have occurred . A lot of it on there is protected by side protection boards but quite a lot of pictures show a lot is not, Regulation 7 gives you the choice of insulating or taking other precautions "so far is reasonably practicable". Old Dalby doesn't have passengers to worry about so precautions probably rely more on suitable fencing and appropriate training of onsite staff. There is minimal shielding of conductor rails on LU anyway, even on new work. snip The reasonably practical measure taken at Old Dalby is presumably not having staff walking at track level without an isolation. Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. We will have to disagree about what “isn’t a lot is “ . Quoting from this website. http://www.old-dalby.com/operation.htm “This line is now electrified with 750v DC conductor rails for approximately 3 miles and the SSL trains are based in the compound during the daily testing. The yard sidings at the former control centre have also been equipped. Power for the DC line is routed from the sub-station at Asfordby. All other functions are now conducted from the new complex at Asfordby, and the SSL trains travel to and from Asfordby each day, hauled by a diesel locomotive.” I wonder if the 3rd/4th rails are only powered up when a DC train that needs them is under test? |
LO lines to be named
On 15 Apr 2021 08:32:31 GMT
Marland wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. We will have to disagree about what “isn’t a lot is “ . Quoting from this website. http://www.old-dalby.com/operation.htm “This line is now electrified with 750v DC conductor rails for approximately 3 miles and the SSL trains are based in the compound during the daily testing. The yard sidings at the former control centre have also been equipped. Power for the DC line is routed from the sub-station at Asfordby. All other functions are now conducted from the new complex at Asfordby, and the SSL trains travel to and from Asfordby each day, hauled by a diesel locomotive.” Given we have Old Dalby in the UK why do so many new trains do their testing in the Czech Republic these days? Perhaps there's an argument for one track to be returned to being a regular railway linking Melton Mowbray and Nottingham? |
LO lines to be named
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:07:24 on Thu, 15 Apr 2021, remarked: On 15 Apr 2021 08:32:31 GMT Marland wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. We will have to disagree about what “isn’t a lot is “ . Quoting from this website. http://www.old-dalby.com/operation.htm “This line is now electrified with 750v DC conductor rails for approximately 3 miles and the SSL trains are based in the compound during the daily testing. The yard sidings at the former control centre have also been equipped. Power for the DC line is routed from the sub-station at Asfordby. All other functions are now conducted from the new complex at Asfordby, and the SSL trains travel to and from Asfordby each day, hauled by a diesel locomotive.� Given we have Old Dalby in the UK why do so many new trains do their testing in the Czech Republic these days? Perhaps there's an argument for one track to be returned to being a regular railway linking Melton Mowbray and Nottingham? The stretch from the north end of the Old Dalby line, to Central Nottingham, has been obliterated by various development. Presumably the line closed in the first place because it wasn't heavily used? |
LO lines to be named
wrote:
On 15 Apr 2021 08:32:31 GMT Marland wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. We will have to disagree about what “isn’t a lot is “ . Quoting from this website. http://www.old-dalby.com/operation.htm “This line is now electrified with 750v DC conductor rails for approximately 3 miles and the SSL trains are based in the compound during the daily testing. The yard sidings at the former control centre have also been equipped. Power for the DC line is routed from the sub-station at Asfordby. All other functions are now conducted from the new complex at Asfordby, and the SSL trains travel to and from Asfordby each day, hauled by a diesel locomotive.” Given we have Old Dalby in the UK why do so many new trains do their testing in the Czech Republic these days? Siemens trains are normally tested at its test track at an old RAF base in Wildenrath. Old Dalby is mainly used by British-built trains from Derby and Newton Aycliffe. For example, every S stock train had to be tested there. There is also a planned new test track in south Wales, on a former coal mine site. This will be used particularly by CAF. https://gov.wales/global-centre-rail-excellence-wales Perhaps there's an argument for one track to be returned to being a regular railway linking Melton Mowbray and Nottingham? No, not ony is it not needed, but you don't run service trains through a test site. |
LO lines to be named
Recliner wrote:
Marland wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 01:09:01 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On 14 Apr 2021 22:18:29 GMT, Marland wrote: James Heaton wrote: "Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message ... MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. About having exposed electro conductors at floor level? Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too. Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about trespassers, as often claimed. Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 It is mainly focused on staff safety. Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing installations on the southern/mersey. James There must be some mechanism to give dispensation in some circumstances Other wise laying down the conductor rails on the Old Dalby test track to test the LU S Stock could not have occurred . A lot of it on there is protected by side protection boards but quite a lot of pictures show a lot is not, Regulation 7 gives you the choice of insulating or taking other precautions "so far is reasonably practicable". Old Dalby doesn't have passengers to worry about so precautions probably rely more on suitable fencing and appropriate training of onsite staff. There is minimal shielding of conductor rails on LU anyway, even on new work. snip The reasonably practical measure taken at Old Dalby is presumably not having staff walking at track level without an isolation. Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. We will have to disagree about what “isn’t a lot is “ . Quoting from this website. http://www.old-dalby.com/operation.htm “This line is now electrified with 750v DC conductor rails for approximately 3 miles and the SSL trains are based in the compound during the daily testing. The yard sidings at the former control centre have also been equipped. Power for the DC line is routed from the sub-station at Asfordby. All other functions are now conducted from the new complex at Asfordby, and the SSL trains travel to and from Asfordby each day, hauled by a diesel locomotive.” I wonder if the 3rd/4th rails are only powered up when a DC train that needs them is under test? I would very much imagine so, and the OLE the same. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
wrote:
On 15 Apr 2021 08:32:31 GMT Marland wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. We will have to disagree about what “isn’t a lot is “ . Quoting from this website. http://www.old-dalby.com/operation.htm “This line is now electrified with 750v DC conductor rails for approximately 3 miles and the SSL trains are based in the compound during the daily testing. The yard sidings at the former control centre have also been equipped. Power for the DC line is routed from the sub-station at Asfordby. All other functions are now conducted from the new complex at Asfordby, and the SSL trains travel to and from Asfordby each day, hauled by a diesel locomotive.” Given we have Old Dalby in the UK why do so many new trains do their testing in the Czech Republic these days? Perhaps there's an argument for one track to be returned to being a regular railway linking Melton Mowbray and Nottingham? For a start, Velim is circular, so it allows continuous testing at high speeds, rather than changing ends every few minutes. It's got OLE throughout (rather than only for a few miles of Old Dalby) compatible with all major European systems, so presumably all the manufacturers already have a contract there; in which case it makes sense to utilise the one you already know. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velim_railway_test_circuit Anna Noyd-Dryver |
LO lines to be named
In message , at 09:49:15 on Thu, 15 Apr
2021, Recliner remarked: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:07:24 on Thu, 15 Apr 2021, remarked: On 15 Apr 2021 08:32:31 GMT Marland wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. We will have to disagree about what “isn’t a lot is “ . Quoting from this website. http://www.old-dalby.com/operation.htm “This line is now electrified with 750v DC conductor rails for approximately 3 miles and the SSL trains are based in the compound during the daily testing. The yard sidings at the former control centre have also been equipped. Power for the DC line is routed from the sub-station at Asfordby. All other functions are now conducted from the new complex at Asfordby, and the SSL trains travel to and from Asfordby each day, hauled by a diesel locomotive.� Given we have Old Dalby in the UK why do so many new trains do their testing in the Czech Republic these days? Perhaps there's an argument for one track to be returned to being a regular railway linking Melton Mowbray and Nottingham? The stretch from the north end of the Old Dalby line, to Central Nottingham, has been obliterated by various development. Presumably the line closed in the first place because it wasn't heavily used? It was seen as needlessly duplicating the MML as a route to London (much the same as the similar fate of the Great Central). The local commuter traffic was negligible (no stations in the Nottingham suburbs) and for people wanting to get to Melton, an hourly bus was deemed sufficient (and I bet was more regular than what stopping trains it might have replaced). -- Roland Perry |
LO lines to be named
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 10:17:50 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:07:24 on Thu, 15 Apr 2021, remarked: On 15 Apr 2021 08:32:31 GMT Marland wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. We will have to disagree about what “isn’t a lot is “ . Quoting from this website. http://www.old-dalby.com/operation.htm “This line is now electrified with 750v DC conductor rails for approximately 3 miles and the SSL trains are based in the compound during the daily testing. The yard sidings at the former control centre have also been equipped. Power for the DC line is routed from the sub-station at Asfordby. All other functions are now conducted from the new complex at Asfordby, and the SSL trains travel to and from Asfordby each day, hauled by a diesel locomotive.� Given we have Old Dalby in the UK why do so many new trains do their testing in the Czech Republic these days? Perhaps there's an argument for one track to be returned to being a regular railway linking Melton Mowbray and Nottingham? The stretch from the north end of the Old Dalby line, to Central Nottingham, has been obliterated by various development. Ah ok. I thought there was a tunnel beyond the buffer stops at the end. Hard to tell in google. |
LO lines to be named
Recliner wrote:
Marland wrote: The reasonably practical measure taken at Old Dalby is presumably not having staff walking at track level without an isolation. Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. We will have to disagree about what “isn’t a lot is “ . Quoting from this website. http://www.old-dalby.com/operation.htm “This line is now electrified with 750v DC conductor rails for approximately 3 miles and the SSL trains are based in the compound during the daily testing. The yard sidings at the former control centre have also been equipped. Power for the DC line is routed from the sub-station at Asfordby. All other functions are now conducted from the new complex at Asfordby, and the SSL trains travel to and from Asfordby each day, hauled by a diesel locomotive.” I wonder if the 3rd/4th rails are only powered up when a DC train that needs them is under test? It would make sense, and unlike a regular line there will be little need for staff to be out and about close to the rails when trains are running which as someone commented above would be a practical measure that satisfies the regulations, also avoids them getting run over. GH |
LO lines to be named
In message , at 11:52:30 on Thu, 15 Apr
2021, remarked: On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 10:17:50 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:07:24 on Thu, 15 Apr 2021, remarked: On 15 Apr 2021 08:32:31 GMT Marland wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. We will have to disagree about what “isn’t a lot is “ . Quoting from this website. http://www.old-dalby.com/operation.htm “This line is now electrified with 750v DC conductor rails for approximately 3 miles and the SSL trains are based in the compound during the daily testing. The yard sidings at the former control centre have also been equipped. Power for the DC line is routed from the sub-station at Asfordby. All other functions are now conducted from the new complex at Asfordby, and the SSL trains travel to and from Asfordby each day, hauled by a diesel locomotive.� Given we have Old Dalby in the UK why do so many new trains do their testing in the Czech Republic these days? Perhaps there's an argument for one track to be returned to being a regular railway linking Melton Mowbray and Nottingham? The stretch from the north end of the Old Dalby line, to Central Nottingham, has been obliterated by various development. Ah ok. I thought there was a tunnel beyond the buffer stops at the end. Hard to tell in google. There's a residential development of a couple of dozen houses (on the track and the site of Edwalton Station), you've then got a school carpark (the least of the problems) and a deep cutting that's been filled in. After that it's a nature trail which ends up on an embankment. At the end of the embankment the bridges over Melton Road and Rectory Road are demolished and there's housing most of the way to Bridgford Road (and another demolished bridge). A short nature trail along part of Bridge Field Park, then more housing and industrial (including another ex-bridge over Radcliffe Rd) to Lady Bay Bridge (the road) and the bridge itself (also a road). North of the river more industrial development, the biggest being the City's waste incinerator. -- Roland Perry |
LO lines to be named
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 11:52:30 +0000, MrSpook_tH83opdv wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 10:17:50 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:07:24 on Thu, 15 Apr 2021, remarked: Given we have Old Dalby in the UK why do so many new trains do their testing in the Czech Republic these days? Perhaps there's an argument for one track to be returned to being a regular railway linking Melton Mowbray and Nottingham? The stretch from the north end of the Old Dalby line, to Central Nottingham, has been obliterated by various development. Ah ok. I thought there was a tunnel beyond the buffer stops at the end. Hard to tell in google. The main issue is that Lady Bay Bridge has been converted to road use, so there's no way to get the line into Nottingham station even if you could clear the route. And converting the bridge back isn't going to happen, as both bridges in West Bridgford are very busy roads. Mike |
LO lines to be named
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 06:30:40 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 01:09:01 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On 14 Apr 2021 22:18:29 GMT, Marland wrote: James Heaton wrote: "Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message ... MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. About having exposed electro conductors at floor level? Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too. Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about trespassers, as often claimed. Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 It is mainly focused on staff safety. Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing installations on the southern/mersey. James There must be some mechanism to give dispensation in some circumstances Other wise laying down the conductor rails on the Old Dalby test track to test the LU S Stock could not have occurred . A lot of it on there is protected by side protection boards but quite a lot of pictures show a lot is not, Regulation 7 gives you the choice of insulating or taking other precautions "so far is reasonably practicable". Old Dalby doesn't have passengers to worry about so precautions probably rely more on suitable fencing and appropriate training of onsite staff. There is minimal shielding of conductor rails on LU anyway, even on new work. snip The reasonably practical measure taken at Old Dalby is presumably not having staff walking at track level without an isolation. Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. Given the necessity for short sections with regular feeds, couldnt you arrange with modern power electronics to keep the power switched off unless there was a train in section? A more practical question though - what is the incidence of electrocution on the third rail network vs the overhead system? Humans, dogs or badgers? |
LO lines to be named
On 15 Apr 2021 08:32:31 GMT, Marland
wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 01:09:01 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On 14 Apr 2021 22:18:29 GMT, Marland wrote: James Heaton wrote: "Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message ... MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. About having exposed electro conductors at floor level? Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too. Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about trespassers, as often claimed. Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 It is mainly focused on staff safety. Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing installations on the southern/mersey. James There must be some mechanism to give dispensation in some circumstances Other wise laying down the conductor rails on the Old Dalby test track to test the LU S Stock could not have occurred . A lot of it on there is protected by side protection boards but quite a lot of pictures show a lot is not, Regulation 7 gives you the choice of insulating or taking other precautions "so far is reasonably practicable". Old Dalby doesn't have passengers to worry about so precautions probably rely more on suitable fencing and appropriate training of onsite staff. There is minimal shielding of conductor rails on LU anyway, even on new work. snip The reasonably practical measure taken at Old Dalby is presumably not having staff walking at track level without an isolation. Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. We will have to disagree about what isnt a lot is . Quoting from this website. http://www.old-dalby.com/operation.htm This line is now electrified with 750v DC conductor rails for approximately 3 miles and the SSL trains are based in the compound during the daily testing. The yard sidings at the former control centre have also been equipped. Power for the DC line is routed from the sub-station at Asfordby. All other functions are now conducted from the new complex at Asfordby, and the SSL trains travel to and from Asfordby each day, hauled by a diesel locomotive. The DC electrification seems to be a minor proportion of the length of track travelled in the video. The video is dated 2011 so it is possible some more has been added since. |
LO lines to be named
eCharles Ellson wrote:
On 15 Apr 2021 08:32:31 GMT, Marland The reasonably practical measure taken at Old Dalby is presumably not having staff walking at track level without an isolation. Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. We will have to disagree about what isnt a lot is . Quoting from this website. http://www.old-dalby.com/operation.htm This line is now electrified with 750v DC conductor rails for approximately 3 miles and the SSL trains are based in the compound during the daily testing. The yard sidings at the former control centre have also been equipped. Power for the DC line is routed from the sub-station at Asfordby. All other functions are now conducted from the new complex at Asfordby, and the SSL trains travel to and from Asfordby each day, hauled by a diesel locomotive. The DC electrification seems to be a minor proportion of the length of track travelled in the video. The video is dated 2011 so it is possible some more has been added since. There are more up to date ones which would have been a better choice such as this one from the cab of an S stock train under test. https://youtu.be/ZL8xZrY9SeU GH |
LO lines to be named
Marland wrote:
eCharles Ellson wrote: On 15 Apr 2021 08:32:31 GMT, Marland The reasonably practical measure taken at Old Dalby is presumably not having staff walking at track level without an isolation. Looking at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k7XvFH3pE there isn't a lot of DC track out in the open away from the fenced off "depot" and there is about 200y of shielding at the far end of the DC track (about 5:12) which is rather more than usually seen at transition points. We will have to disagree about what isnt a lot is . Quoting from this website. http://www.old-dalby.com/operation.htm This line is now electrified with 750v DC conductor rails for approximately 3 miles and the SSL trains are based in the compound during the daily testing. The yard sidings at the former control centre have also been equipped. Power for the DC line is routed from the sub-station at Asfordby. All other functions are now conducted from the new complex at Asfordby, and the SSL trains travel to and from Asfordby each day, hauled by a diesel locomotive. The DC electrification seems to be a minor proportion of the length of track travelled in the video. The video is dated 2011 so it is possible some more has been added since. There are more up to date ones which would have been a better choice such as this one from the cab of an S stock train under test. https://youtu.be/ZL8xZrY9SeU Thanks, that was interesting. From the conversation, the 4th rail test track is 4km long, and includes virtual stations and virtual tunnels. The train has to do 500 miles (800km) of testing, so a 100 cycles. |
LO lines to be named
On 14/04/2021 21:23, James Heaton wrote:
"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message ... MB wrote: On 11/04/2021 11:56, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about no more 3rd rail and lay that instead. Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it? I would not have expected the H&S at Work Act to go into detail like that. About having exposed electro conductors at floor level? Apparently it's something specific in electrical regulations too. Either way, the point is that it's about staff safety not about trespassers, as often claimed. Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 It is mainly focused on staff safety. Realistically the only way we're ever going to get more 3rd rail, is with fully protected contact like the DLR - which is incompatible with existing installations on the southern/mersey. James My point was that it is often written that something has to be done (or can't be done) "because of the H&S Act" but it is more likely either in specific regulations like the Electricity at Work Regulations or the various regulations about railways. There might be a requirement for a Risk Assessment which will refer to more specific regulations. |
Test tracks
Recliner wrote:
Marland wrote: There are more up to date ones which would have been a better choice such as this one from the cab of an S stock train under test. https://youtu.be/ZL8xZrY9SeU Thanks, that was interesting. From the conversation, the 4th rail test track is 4km long, and includes virtual stations and virtual tunnels. The train has to do 500 miles (800km) of testing, so a 100 cycles. One thing that strikes me from the various videos of the old Dalby test route is that it is mainly straight. As more trains like the S stock get constructed with full width connections between cars or even articulations that could be an achilles heel. The law of sod if you are testing something says it will be the bit that wasn’t stressed that shows up an unexpected snag . Obviously the S stock has been in service long enough now around the LU system that they must have got it right in that case but there will be other stock in the future. I see plans for the Welsh based Global Centre For Rail Excellence were recently published and like the test tracks in the Czech Republic and Germany will have a continuous circuit available. so it could give Old Dalby competition . https://nation.cymru/news/plans-subm...ence-in-wales/ GH |
Test tracks
Marland wrote:
Recliner wrote: Marland wrote: There are more up to date ones which would have been a better choice such as this one from the cab of an S stock train under test. https://youtu.be/ZL8xZrY9SeU Thanks, that was interesting. From the conversation, the 4th rail test track is 4km long, and includes virtual stations and virtual tunnels. The train has to do 500 miles (800km) of testing, so a 100 cycles. One thing that strikes me from the various videos of the old Dalby test route is that it is mainly straight. As more trains like the S stock get constructed with full width connections between cars or even articulations that could be an achilles heel. The law of sod if you are testing something says it will be the bit that wasn’t stressed that shows up an unexpected snag. I know they have test rigs to repeatedly stress those connections to destruction, with more violent movement in all directions than you'd want to put a real train through. Obviously the S stock has been in service long enough now around the LU system that they must have got it right in that case but there will be other stock in the future. I assume Siemens has sorted out the connections for the new 24TS by now. Of course, being articulated, those trains put the connections under much less stress than the S stock does. I see plans for the Welsh based Global Centre For Rail Excellence were recently published and like the test tracks in the Czech Republic and Germany will have a continuous circuit available. so it could give Old Dalby competition . https://nation.cymru/news/plans-subm...ence-in-wales/ Like the Czech and German test tracks, that one is more for continuous medium or high speed running, to build up the miles. Old Dalby seems to be used more for early stage testing of new designs, but of course also has its dedicated LU section that we saw in the video. The Welsh circuit is responding to the need for a different type of UK test track. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk