In message , at 13:00:07 on
Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Scott remarked:
The phrase 'locking the stable door' etc springs to mind when discussing the
environment in that area, hemmed in as it is by the M25 and Heathrow
already.

A long time ago, the Spelthorne council also managed to bar an M3
junction "on their patch", because they didn't want the traffic on their
local roads.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 21 Apr, 12:43, "J. Chisholm" wrote:

I thought the intention was to 'extend' Hex to Staines, to enable
interchange with Reading/Windsor lines. You can only do that if you 25kv
that short bit.

No, they're also investigating adding shoes to the HEx trains.

From the consultation brochu
"Three options for making the change from OHLE to third rail
electrification are currently being considered:
1) change over as close to the tunnel entrance as possible, while
trains are moving. It is possible that in this option the overhead
lines may not need to extend onto the SSSI at Staines Moor
2) change over from OHLE to third rail electrification at the new
Staines High Street station, while trains are stationary
3) run OHLE all the way to the existing Staines station. This option
would allow Heathrow Express services, which currently use OHLE, to
operate to the existing Staines station and is favoured by BAA for
that reason

While *not* allowing any through trains from beyond Staines until someone
got hold of some dual-voltage stock!

tom

--
In-jokes for out-casts

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 21 Apr, 12:43, "J. Chisholm" wrote:

I thought the intention was to 'extend' Hex to Staines, to enable
interchange with Reading/Windsor lines. You can only do that if you
25kv that short bit.

No, they're also investigating adding shoes to the HEx trains.

From the consultation brochu
"Three options for making the change from OHLE to third rail
electrification are currently being considered:
1) change over as close to the tunnel entrance as possible, while
trains are moving. It is possible that in this option the overhead
lines may not need to extend onto the SSSI at Staines Moor
2) change over from OHLE to third rail electrification at the new
Staines High Street station, while trains are stationary
3) run OHLE all the way to the existing Staines station. This option
would allow Heathrow Express services, which currently use OHLE, to
operate to the existing Staines station and is favoured by BAA for
that reason

While *not* allowing any through trains from beyond Staines until
someone got hold of some dual-voltage stock!


Not a problem as such- despite the '450' numbering, the SWT Desiros are just
as 'dual voltage' as any other modern EMU - it has been argued in the past
that they should really be 350s, following the convention adopted for the
Electrostars, which are all 37x whether or not the AC is actually fitted...

Paul S

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Scott wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 21 Apr, 12:43, "J. Chisholm" wrote:

I thought the intention was to 'extend' Hex to Staines, to enable
interchange with Reading/Windsor lines. You can only do that if you
25kv that short bit.

No, they're also investigating adding shoes to the HEx trains.

From the consultation brochu
"Three options for making the change from OHLE to third rail
electrification are currently being considered:
1) change over as close to the tunnel entrance as possible, while
trains are moving. It is possible that in this option the overhead
lines may not need to extend onto the SSSI at Staines Moor
2) change over from OHLE to third rail electrification at the new
Staines High Street station, while trains are stationary
3) run OHLE all the way to the existing Staines station. This option
would allow Heathrow Express services, which currently use OHLE, to
operate to the existing Staines station and is favoured by BAA for
that reason

While *not* allowing any through trains from beyond Staines until
someone got hold of some dual-voltage stock!

Not a problem as such- despite the '450' numbering, the SWT Desiros are just
as 'dual voltage' as any other modern EMU

As in actually having pans, and controls to work them etc?

tom

--
In-jokes for out-casts

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Scott wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

While *not* allowing any through trains from beyond Staines until
someone got hold of some dual-voltage stock!

Not a problem as such- despite the '450' numbering, the SWT Desiros are
just
as 'dual voltage' as any other modern EMU

As in actually having pans, and controls to work them etc?


Er... no - but they and the 444s have the gap in the roof for the pan, and
all the bracketry to fit them. AIUI all the additional electronics goes
under the floor, hence the internal layout of the 350s (London Midland AC/DC
units)is the same as the 450s [not the seating though].

What I meant is they are capable of conversion (at a price obviously), just
like the Electrostars fitted for 'DC only', used by Southern, and discussed
at length regarding conversion for Thameslink...

Paul

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Scott wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Scott wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

While *not* allowing any through trains from beyond Staines until
someone got hold of some dual-voltage stock!

Not a problem as such- despite the '450' numbering, the SWT Desiros
are just as 'dual voltage' as any other modern EMU

As in actually having pans, and controls to work them etc?

Er... no - but they and the 444s have the gap in the roof for the pan,
and all the bracketry to fit them. AIUI all the additional electronics
goes under the floor, hence the internal layout of the 350s (London
Midland AC/DC units)is the same as the 450s [not the seating though].

What I meant is they are capable of conversion (at a price obviously),
just like the Electrostars fitted for 'DC only', used by Southern, and
discussed at length regarding conversion for Thameslink...

Fair enough. Is this the kind of change that can be made cheaply and
quickly enough that it's not worth worrying about in this context? I can
see how it could be - if the trains could be converted by the time the new
track was opened, and at a fraction of the price, then it wouldn't be a
major consideration in choosing the electrification.

tom

--
If the truth can be told so as to be understood, it will be believed.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:06:54 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Scott wrote:


Er... no - but they and the 444s have the gap in the roof for the pan,
and all the bracketry to fit them. AIUI all the additional electronics
goes under the floor, hence the internal layout of the 350s (London
Midland AC/DC units)is the same as the 450s [not the seating though].

Fair enough. Is this the kind of change that can be made cheaply and
quickly enough that it's not worth worrying about in this context?

I doubt they have transformers fitted, they may even have ballast bolted
into that position to keep the weight distribution correct. If they were
fitted with transformers and HV wiring, what state they be in after a
number of years sitting in there doing nothing and receiving no
maintenance.

Of course if the design of the cable paths is half sensible, fitting a
pantograph, new HV wiring, HV circuit breaker and transformer wouldn't
that expensive - or expensive in railway terms. Mention 'railway' and the
price of every day common parts or services seems to have a few extra
zeros added.

"Matthew Geier" wrote in message
u...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:06:54 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Scott wrote:


Er... no - but they and the 444s have the gap in the roof for the pan,
and all the bracketry to fit them. AIUI all the additional electronics
goes under the floor, hence the internal layout of the 350s (London
Midland AC/DC units)is the same as the 450s [not the seating though].

Fair enough. Is this the kind of change that can be made cheaply and
quickly enough that it's not worth worrying about in this context?

I doubt they have transformers fitted, they may even have ballast bolted
into that position to keep the weight distribution correct. If they were
fitted with transformers and HV wiring, what state they be in after a
number of years sitting in there doing nothing and receiving no
maintenance.

Probably not even ballast fitted if the 10 tonne weight difference in the P5
book is realistic?

Of course if the design of the cable paths is half sensible, fitting a
pantograph, new HV wiring, HV circuit breaker and transformer wouldn't
that expensive - or expensive in railway terms. Mention 'railway' and the
price of every day common parts or services seems to have a few extra
zeros added.


Glancing through a cab window of a 450 a few months ago, I'm sure I noticed
a warning sign about lowering the pan for full electrical isolation - at
least one (simple) part of the job is done already!

Paul