On 9 Mai, 22:29, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

I don't know about the Italian system but the American one had single
speed locomotives because the AC motors were synchronous.


The Italians used squirrel cage motors which don't strictly require
synchronous running.

Different speed settings could be obtained by the switching of poles.

Resistors were used for the internediate speeds.

So not too different to a DC setup really.

On 6 May, 23:38, Tony Polson wrote:
"Recliner" wrote:
"Tim Fenton" wrote in message

My feeling is that Dave and his jolly good chums are set to visit on
us the same horrors that Thatcher did, having learned nothing from
the post 1979 record. They won't be the ones that have to go without.

They enjoyed 18 years of power after 1979, so maybe their post-179
record wasn't so unpopular after all.

I wonder how the alleged "horrors" of Thatcher's Tories compare with the
"achievements" of NuLabour? *Notably, the latter's two illegal wars, the
near-destruction of the British financial services industry thanks to
inept regulation (or a lack of it) and the massive and apparently
uncontrolled rises in public spending and taxation that show no kind of
return.

Not to mention the control freakery, the sleaze of individual MPs and
the corruption of the Labour Party as a whole. *It was the latter that
caused me to leave Labour, starting with the Ecclestone affair allowing
continuation of tobacco advertising in Formula 1 motor racing in return
for a bribe of £1 million paid to the Labour Party.

John Major's Tory government was accused of sleaze and incompetence but
nothing they did bears more than the slightest resemblance to the
institutionalised gross corruption and negligence of this NuLabour lot.

You need to recall how bad Britian was in 1979. Remember talk of
"managed decline" and the "sick man of Europe"? People wanted to leave
for a better life.

Compare that with 1997: Britain was the fastest growing major economy
in Western Europe, running a major budget surplus, with some of the
most enterprising companies in Europe. People wanted to leave for a
slower life.

Fast forward to 2009: Largest deficit in Western Europe, unemployment
up, confidence down. People once again leaving for a better life. And
we still have one of the worst health services in Europe, and some of
the worst transport, and schools are only looking better because exams
are getting easier.

On 7 May, 10:28, "Tim Fenton" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message

...

My feeling is that Dave and his jolly good chums are set to visit on
us the same horrors that Thatcher did, having learned nothing from
the post 1979 record. They won't be the ones that have to go without.

They enjoyed 18 years of power after 1979, so maybe their post-179 record
wasn't so unpopular after all.

So a decade of three million plus unemployed is OK, then?

What the Tories did manage was to demonstrate that, with the UK's electoral
system, you can get a landslide victory with only 30% of the electorate
making a positive choice for your party. This was also discovered by Labour,
whose positive choice percentage in 2005 was even less.

It'll probably be three decades if you add in Incapacity Benefit.

After 11 years in power Labour appears to have noticed the problem.

wrote:
On 5 Mai, 18:49, D DB 90001 wrote:

and then they can remove that anomaly. Talking of branches there would
still be the outstanding issue of Henley trains which would almost
certainly run under the wires in the peaks on the slows anyway,
because that branch will * never* be electrified.-

ditto for the Marlow and Windsor branches.

But wouldn't these be no brainer candidates for the much vaunted
infill alectrification scheme, if ever it takes off?


Why would they be "no brainer candidates"?

disgoftunwells wrote:
On 6 May, 23:38, Tony Polson wrote:

I wonder how the alleged "horrors" of Thatcher's Tories compare with the
"achievements" of NuLabour? *Notably, the latter's two illegal wars, the
near-destruction of the British financial services industry thanks to
inept regulation (or a lack of it) and the massive and apparently
uncontrolled rises in public spending and taxation that show no kind of
return.

Not to mention the control freakery, the sleaze of individual MPs and
the corruption of the Labour Party as a whole. *It was the latter that
caused me to leave Labour, starting with the Ecclestone affair allowing
continuation of tobacco advertising in Formula 1 motor racing in return
for a bribe of £1 million paid to the Labour Party.

John Major's Tory government was accused of sleaze and incompetence but
nothing they did bears more than the slightest resemblance to the
institutionalised gross corruption and negligence of this NuLabour lot.

You need to recall how bad Britian was in 1979. Remember talk of
"managed decline" and the "sick man of Europe"? People wanted to leave
for a better life.

Compare that with 1997: Britain was the fastest growing major economy
in Western Europe, running a major budget surplus, with some of the
most enterprising companies in Europe. People wanted to leave for a
slower life.

Fast forward to 2009: Largest deficit in Western Europe, unemployment
up, confidence down. People once again leaving for a better life. And
we still have one of the worst health services in Europe, and some of
the worst transport, and schools are only looking better because exams
are getting easier.


You're right in everything you said above. Blair conned a lot of people
(including me) into thinking that "New" Labour was genuinely something
different, but it's exactly the same as Old Labour. Gross economic
mismanagement and gross incompetence at everything else.

I find an interesting parallel between Harold Wilson and Tony Blair.
Each proclaimed that they were new and in touch with the times. With
Wilson it was the "Swinging Sixties" and with Bliar it was "Cool
Britannia".

Then each of them left under a cloud and handed over to someone else who
took us into darker and even more incompetent times.

The despair I feel is exactly the same as in 1978 - one year before an
election that will sweep Labour away for a generation, until some other
young and charismatic leader comes along, and cons us into thinking that
Labour can change. It cannot, it has not, and it will not ever change.

On 12 Mai, 12:37, Tony Polson wrote:


Why would they be "no brainer candidates"?

relatively short diesel-worked lines in an otherwise totally
electrified area?

even if we leave aside the issue of running into Paddington under
wires, wouldn't having a 100% electric fleet lead to savings in
maintenance and the more flexible deployment of rolling stock. I guess
the total number of trains required for these short branches is pretty
insignificant compared to the Crossrail stock, which will more or less
take over rest of the stopper workings in the area.

wrote:

On 12 Mai, 12:37, Tony Polson wrote:


Why would they be "no brainer candidates"?

relatively short diesel-worked lines in an otherwise totally
electrified area?


Except for trainspotters who develop apoplexy at the thought of diesel
trains "under the wires", there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.


even if we leave aside the issue of running into Paddington under
wires,


Best left aside, yes. See above.


wouldn't having a 100% electric fleet lead to savings in
maintenance and the more flexible deployment of rolling stock.


Is that really significant? Does it really matter? Is it worth the
expense of stringing up wires for little used branch lines?

No.


I guess
the total number of trains required for these short branches is pretty
insignificant compared to the Crossrail stock, which will more or less
take over rest of the stopper workings in the area.


So no, it isn't significant. Just as long as the trainspotters can
learn to control their anger at the sight of a diesel train running on
electrified track ...

wrote

even if we leave aside the issue of running into Paddington under
wires, wouldn't having a 100% electric fleet lead to savings in
maintenance and the more flexible deployment of rolling stock. I guess
the total number of trains required for these short branches is pretty
insignificant compared to the Crossrail stock, which will more or less
take over rest of the stopper workings in the area.

When the GEML became an all-electric railway south/west of Marks Tey
(atleast as far as pasenger services were concerned) it initially left
Southminster, Braintree, Romford - Upminster, and Dalston - Stratford -
North Woolwich as diesel-worked branches. The dmus were at life expiry, and
replacement dmus would have needed a new maintenance depot. So the decision
was taken to electrify these lines, Dalston - North Woolwich being
electrified on the 3rd rail dc system and worked as part of the North London
Line. A side benefit was that Braintree and Southminter acquired through
trains to/from London.

It looks as though, when Crossrail opens, Greenford and Bourne End will lose
their through London trains; Windsor Central and Marlow haven't got any
through trains anyway, and Henley will probably make enough noise to keep
some through peak dmus to Paddington. In the longer term it depends whether
other routes served by Reading Diesel Depot get electrified. Reading to
Gatwick already has the juice rail for about 40% of the route. Reading to
Oxford would be electrified as part of any GWML scheme. Reading - Bsingstoke
could well be included if a scheme is developed to get (XC and freight)
electric trains between Southampton and Birmingham. It is however difficult
to see the Berks & Hants line as an early candidate for electrification - I
suspect that if/when electric trains run from Paddington to Exeter/Plymouth
they'll go via Swindon and Bristol.

Peter

On 12 May, 13:07, Tony Polson wrote:
wrote:
On 12 Mai, 12:37, Tony Polson wrote:

Why would they be "no brainer candidates"?

relatively short diesel-worked lines in an otherwise totally
electrified area?

Except for trainspotters who develop apoplexy at the thought of diesel
trains "under the wires", there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

even if we leave aside the issue of running into Paddington under
wires,

Best left aside, yes. *See above.

wouldn't having a 100% electric fleet lead to savings in
maintenance and the more flexible deployment of rolling stock.

Is that really significant? *Does it really matter? *Is it worth the
expense of stringing up wires for little used branch lines?

No.

I guess
the total number of trains required for these short branches is pretty
insignificant compared to the Crossrail stock, which will more or less
take over rest of the stopper workings in the area.

So no, it isn't significant. *Just as long as the trainspotters can
learn to control their anger at the sight of a diesel train running on
electrified track ...

It's exactly the sort of thing that trainspotters turn out in droves
to see, unless there's steam available.

You really need to find a better term for "people I don't agree
with". Or are you parodying yourself? In which case, sorry for
missing the joke.

Most trainspotters seem to prefer diesels over electrics.

So those who argue against electrification most forecefully must be
the greatest of trainspotters?