In article ,
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?

Like the Gospel Oak - Barking Line? 12 miles long, electrified lines
at both ends, with links to 4 more electrified lines, fairly heavily
used, and has capacity issues?

I am not holding my breath.

--
:wq

In uk.transport.london message 189d5170-b0b5-4170-a082-fcad1d0f3a3e@s21
g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, Mon, 11 May 2009 13:40:35, disgoftunwells
posted:

A quick google gives 300W/kg for super capacitors, so 1 ton gives a
peak of 300KW.

Wiki supercapacitors gives 30 Wh/kg as the highest in production, and a
link to their use in starting Diesel engines - note, engines not
vehicles.

Wiki Electric locomotive indicates that ordinary engine powers are in
the 5 MW range. Therefore, significantly more than a ton of SCs would
be needed to approach ordinary performance levels And a ton of SCs
would give 0.03 MWh, corresponding to less than half a minute of 5MW.

Ordinary commercial products will be improving, of course; but against
that one must consider that products for use in railway engines need to
be guaranteed for many years of actual use in a moderately unfavourable
environment, or capable of economical replacement.

--
(c) John Stockton, near London.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SoRFC1036)

On 12 May, 15:47, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
* * * * 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?

Like the Gospel Oak - Barking Line? *12 miles long, electrified lines
at both ends, with links to 4 more electrified lines, fairly heavily
used, and has capacity issues?

I am not holding my breath.


Of all the various lines that might get electrified, Gospel Oak -
Barking is probably the most likely to happen. TfL has already be
told, by DfT, that it can develop a scheme to use any left over
contingency funds from the North London Line expansion projects on
this electrification and so the question then becomes whether this
cash will be enough. I seem to recall that the expected cost was GBP40
million (due to all the difficult bits already being wired and some
preparatory work already having been done). If the go ahead comes in
the near future, the rolling stock can be ordered as an add on for the
378s currently under construction. This will release some DMUs as
well.

wrote:
On 12 May, 15:47, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article
,
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?

Like the Gospel Oak - Barking Line? 12 miles long, electrified lines
at both ends, with links to 4 more electrified lines, fairly heavily
used, and has capacity issues?

I am not holding my breath.


Of all the various lines that might get electrified, Gospel Oak -
Barking is probably the most likely to happen. TfL has already be
told, by DfT, that it can develop a scheme to use any left over
contingency funds from the North London Line expansion projects on
this electrification and so the question then becomes whether this
cash will be enough. I seem to recall that the expected cost was GBP40
million (due to all the difficult bits already being wired and some
preparatory work already having been done). If the go ahead comes in
the near future, the rolling stock can be ordered as an add on for the
378s currently under construction. This will release some DMUs as
well.

There was a paragraph about this on the Modern Railways site:

http://www.modern-railways.com/infra...ure/300309.php

not sure if it was in the magazine too...

Paul S

On May 12, 5:10*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

wrote:

Of all the various lines that might get electrified, Gospel Oak -
Barking is probably the most likely to happen. TfL has already be
told, by DfT, that it can develop a scheme to use any left over
contingency funds from the North London Line expansion projects on
this electrification and so the question then becomes whether this
cash will be enough. I seem to recall that the expected cost was GBP40
million (due to all the difficult bits already being wired and some
preparatory work already having been done). If the go ahead comes in
the near future, the rolling stock can be ordered as an add on for the
378s currently under construction. This will release some DMUs as
well.

There was a paragraph about this on the Modern Railways site:

http://www.modern-railways.com/infra...ure/300309.php

not sure if it was in the magazine too...


Interesting. Are we to expect 'breezeblock-basic' work done on the
Camden bridges then?! The funding shortfall for GOBLIN electrification
would still seem to be substantial though.

wrote:

Most trainspotters seem to prefer diesels over electrics.


If you say so.


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


If you say so. I couldn't possibly comment. ;-)

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

Wiki Electric locomotive indicates that ordinary engine powers are in
the 5 MW range. Therefore, significantly more than a ton of SCs would
be needed to approach ordinary performance levels And a ton of SCs
would give 0.03 MWh, corresponding to less than half a minute of 5MW.


Looking at those data another way, 5.0 tonnes of SCs (say) would provide
two and a half minutes of 5.0 MW. That's about 208 kWh.

All of that 208 kWh could come for free, from regenerative braking - in
other words saving about £20 each and every time it gets used.

Lots of assumptions in there. I used 5.0 tonnes because I thought an
extra 1.25 tonnes per axle of a four axle locomotive might just work,
whereas 10 tonnes, giving an extra 2.5 tonnes per axle, would be
considerably more difficult to accommodate. Also, I don't know whether
£20 saved every time the locomotive accelerates would add up to enough
of a saving to more than justify the capital, maintenance and
replacement costs of the SCs. Someone who understands traction design
would know.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On May 12, 5:10 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

There was a paragraph about this on the Modern Railways site:

http://www.modern-railways.com/infra...ure/300309.php

Interesting. Are we to expect 'breezeblock-basic' work done on the
Camden bridges then?! The funding shortfall for GOBLIN electrification
would still seem to be substantial though.

AIUI TfL and NR are satisfied with the latest plan, i.e. up and down freight
loops between Highbury & Islington (exclusive) and Camden Road (exclusive(,
with the existing double track over the Camden Road bridge and through the
station. So the money which would have been needed for the earlier plan, and
which is belatedly available, could be used for Goblin electrification.

Peter

On May 12, 8:41*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote:

On May 12, 5:10 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

There was a paragraph about this on the Modern Railways site:

http://www.modern-railways.com/infra...ure/300309.php

Interesting. Are we to expect 'breezeblock-basic' work done on the
Camden bridges then?! The funding shortfall for GOBLIN electrification
would still seem to be substantial though.

AIUI TfL and NR are satisfied with the latest plan, i.e. up and down freight
loops between Highbury & Islington (exclusive) and Camden Road (exclusive(,
with the existing double track over the Camden Road bridge and through the
station. So the money which would have been needed for the earlier plan, and
which is belatedly available, could be used for Goblin electrification.

Peter

Interesting, thanks - I'm obviously out-of-date on all this! So,
originally we had TfL planning to do up the bridges and quadruple the
line through Camden Road as part of the broader NLL upgrade works;
then TfL (and NR) discovering that this would all cost too much given
the fixed budget they had; then the DfT agreeing to fund it anyway
because it was really important work; now we've got TfL and NR
satisfied with a less costly solution that doesn't involve 'quad-ing'
the track but instead relies on freight loops - is that a fair
summary?

If so, presumably the freight loop plan was devised as a plan B in
case the full works programme at Camden couldn't go ahead (or perhaps
it was devised after TfL realised they hadn't got enough money, but
before the DfT decided to open its chequebook?) - I wonder if it is
really regarded as a somewhat less than optimum solution, but it is
thought of as a necessary sacrifice so as to get the Goblin
electrification off the starting blocks? Of course the Camden Road
quadrupling could always happen at some later stage if it was deemed
necessary (though *if* Goblin electrification happened it would take
some of the pressure of freight traffic off the NLL through Camden
Road).

"Paul Scott" wrote

So exactly what is the extra work DfT are paying for at Camden - as Peter
suggested NR and TfL are happy with the descope, does that mean 'happy for
the time being' or 'four tracking completely abandoned for ever'?

AIUI the only feature that's been lost in the descope which might be of
benefit for the planned train service is the turnback platform at Camden
Road. Instead, trains from Stratford which terminate there will have to go
on to the Primrose Hill line to reverse, where they would block freight.
However, at one time TfL were at least toying with he idea of eventually
extending some ELLX trains down the DC line, at least as far as Queens Park
(perhaps in conjunction with extending the Bakerloo to Watford Junction and
withdrawing the Euston - Watford Junction DC service). This would presumably
need 4-tracking through Camden Road, and a different track layout between HI
and Camden Road.

Peter