"Lüko Willms" wrote

Why that? Why shouldn't it be possible to use the Southfleet
Junction to Fawkham Junction link any more?

There won't be any booked trains. After they take the shoes off the E*s the
only trains which will be physically capable of using it (dual voltage and
HS1 signalling) will be the Southeastern 395s (Javelin/Hitachi/Bullet
according to preference) and Southeastern have no plans to use the route.
It's likely to be lifted, though it is also likely to remain in railway
ownership - AIUI the high voltage feeder cable to Fawkham substation runs
along it.

Most of it is the route of the former Gravesend West branch, closed to
passengers in the early 1950s, though freight ran to Gravesend West until
the mid 1960s, and coal as far as Southfleet for the Northfleet cement works
until 1974. IIRC the track for this was not actually lifted until work began
to rebuild the line for E*s. There is a slight deviation at the Fawkham
Junction end, ostensibly to ease the curve so that Es could take the
junction and the curve at 65 mph.

Peter

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

There won't be any booked trains. After they take the shoes off the E*s
the
only trains which will be physically capable of using it (dual voltage and
HS1 signalling) will be the Southeastern 395s (Javelin/Hitachi/Bullet
according to preference) and Southeastern have no plans to use the route.

What about class 92s? Any potential need for them to go that way?

D

In message
"Dave" wrote:



"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

There won't be any booked trains. After they take the shoes off the E*s
the only trains which will be physically capable of using it (dual
voltage and HS1 signalling) will be the Southeastern 395s
(Javelin/Hitachi/Bullet according to preference) and Southeastern have no
plans to use the route.

What about class 92s? Any potential need for them to go that way?


They wouldn't be using HS1 anyway would they?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
In message
"Dave" wrote:

What about class 92s? Any potential need for them to go that way?


They wouldn't be using HS1 anyway would they?

ISTR that at present 92s don't have their signalling configured for HS1. If
any freight is to use HS1, this will have to be done, and 92s will haul any
freight on HS1 between Dollands Moor and Rainham. They *could* use
Southfleet to Fawkham if it's still open, though I can't really see the
point, as freight for south and west London (and Willesden/WCML, at least if
Barking to Gospel Oak doesn't get electrified) might as well use the
existing route via Maidstone East.

Peter

Am Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:13:26 UTC, schrieb "Peter Masson"
auf uk.railway :

ISTR that at present 92s don't have their signalling configured for HS1. If
any freight is to use HS1, this will have to be done, and 92s will haul any
freight on HS1 between Dollands Moor and Rainham.

You mean the "Ripple lane" freight exit just short of the Eastern
portal of the East London tunnel, right? And they would start at
Calais-Fréthun rather than at the island side.

Why and how would the Class 92 locomotives have to be "configured
for HS1"? They do support TVM and KVB, don't they?


Cheers,
L.W.

"Lüko Willms" wrote

Why and how would the Class 92 locomotives have to be "configured
for HS1"? They do support TVM and KVB, don't they?

I think they only have it configured for the Channel Tunnel, which uses
different speed bands from HS1 or LGV. ISTR that when one freight train was
allowed to use the CTRL it had to do so under special regulations as it was
effectively unsignalled.

Peter

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

"Lüko Willms" wrote

Why and how would the Class 92 locomotives have to be "configured
for HS1"? They do support TVM and KVB, don't they?

I think they only have it configured for the Channel Tunnel, which uses
different speed bands from HS1 or LGV. ISTR that when one freight train
was
allowed to use the CTRL it had to do so under special regulations as it
was
effectively unsignalled.

Peter


The TVM configurations are specific to route and stock, as they include the
braking curves for given items of stock under given conditions. In some
instances, a temporary change in braking characteristics may be accomodated
by following a given set of speed restrictions viz the TVM indications shown
in cab. A shuttle rake with a certain number of wagons whose
electro-pneumatic brakes are isolated might only be allowed to travel at 110
kph when the cab indication is 140 kph, for example.
There is also an element of 'route-barring', such that a Shuttle routed in
error towards LGV Nord at the French Portal, or a E* routed towards the UK
terminal loop, would receive a 'stopping sequence' on the in-cab display.
When such a movement has to be carried out- for example when there were
three Class 92 hauled freights conveying out-of-gauge wagons to the UK for
road transhipment- the options are either to give the driver a 'FREP' ( a
numbered message which has to be read out by the signaller and repeated back
by the driver) for each signal or to class the entire route as a work-site
and authorise the driver to proceed at 'marche-a-vue' (a speed at which the
train may be stopped short of any obstruction, with a normal maximum of 40
kph, IIRC) as far as a given 'repere' or other stopping point. Neither is
suitable for 'normal' operation, as you may well imagine. The several
freights that had to use CTRL1 due to an engineering possession on the
normal route via Sandling (3rd/4th April 2004, see
http://www.ews-railway.co.uk/cmsystem/news_article.asp?guid={1550A404-25E1-4384-962C-4887BF3C7C09})
were 66-hauled,I believe, as various CTRL works meant there was no juice
from Dolland's Moor.
The 92s do not have KVB, unless some of those acquired by Europorte have
been so fitted- I shall enquire- but do have BR AWS/TPWS.
Should anyone seek a more in-depth explanation of TVM, I would recommend
page 80-83 of Brian Perren's TGV Handbook.
regards
Brian

In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:


"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
In message
"Dave" wrote:

What about class 92s? Any potential need for them to go that way?


They wouldn't be using HS1 anyway would they?

[snip]
They *could* use Southfleet to Fawkham if it's still open, though I can't
really see the point, as freight for south and west London (and
Willesden/WCML, at least if Barking to Gospel Oak doesn't get electrified)
might as well use the existing route via Maidstone East.


That was my thinking.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html