On 5 May, 16:55, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"J. Chisholm" wrote

Have they 'safeguarded' the other end to Gravesend as well, or are they
just 'consulting' on that. For that would you need dual voltage stock as
for Thameslink?

Yes, and yes (confirmed in the Knt draft RUS).

Peter

Exactly what service would they propose to Gravesend? Would they
squeeze in the Crossrail stoppers between the North Kent trains? Would
they remodel Dartford?

It all seems a bit vague. I haven't yet seen anything in the Kent RUS
or S London RUS to suggest what they would plan on doing. Maybe I
missed it..

wrote

Exactly what service would they propose to Gravesend? Would they
squeeze in the Crossrail stoppers between the North Kent trains? Would
they remodel Dartford?

It all seems a bit vague. I haven't yet seen anything in the Kent RUS
or S London RUS to suggest what they would plan on doing. Maybe I
missed it..

It is vague - as there is no current intention to extend Crossrail to
Gravesend. The safeguarding seems to include more land than was envisaged in
the original Crossrail proposals, suggesting that there will be more track,
especially in the Slade Green - Dartford area, and it is clear that a
terminus at Ebbsfleet has been dropped in favour of Gravesend.

Peter

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...


wrote

Exactly what service would they propose to Gravesend? Would they
squeeze in the Crossrail stoppers between the North Kent trains? Would
they remodel Dartford?

It all seems a bit vague. I haven't yet seen anything in the Kent RUS
or S London RUS to suggest what they would plan on doing. Maybe I
missed it..

It is vague - as there is no current intention to extend Crossrail to
Gravesend. The safeguarding seems to include more land than was envisaged
in the original Crossrail proposals, suggesting that there will be more
track, especially in the Slade Green - Dartford area, and it is clear that
a terminus at Ebbsfleet has been dropped in favour of Gravesend.

Peter

1. Safeguarding is a planning tool, a smart one. But can lead to "planning
blight" so there is a downside.
2. Crossrail's scope is clearly constrained by economics.
3. Earlier proposals probably inform us of the potential scope of Crossrail
operation longer term.
4. NO-ONE has mentioned the plethora of hybrid battery-equipped rollingstock
currently prototyped, on trial, in low volume production etc around the
world. Given Crossrail's gestation, can I assert with some confidence that
by then it will be quite normal for trains to extend a moderate distance
beyond the wires or juice rail. 25kV to Reading would not necessarily be a
pre-requisite to CrossRail service by the mid-10s.
5. Also absent from discussion so far has been AirTrack. In some other
forums, we hear that BAA are firmly behind AirTrack. AIUI, provision has
been made in the Heathrow 5 station box for them. The discussion suggests
that HConn/Crossrail will run through to Reading via H5 and AirTrack. Those
with local route knowledge can fill me in here, but once the link is made,
basically would dual-voltage stock (one assumes Bombardier will have
recovered from their supply line and quality management difficulties by
then - ) provide a through Crossrail all-electric service?

From
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2...runway_ plans
we read

January 23, 2009

Greener trains and a direct rail-air link from Reading are among a raft of
transport improvements being outlined alongside confirmed plans for Heathrow's
third runway. Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon confirmed work would be
undertaken to consider electrifying the Great Western Mainline (GWML) as he
gave the go-ahead for the airport's expansion last week.

Network Rail has welcomed the proposals which would mean quieter and
smoother journeys for passengers on eco-friendly trains and "a sustainable
form of travel". Electric trains are cheaper and easier to maintain and
cause less wear and tear on the track, which rail bosses say would lead to
an increase in reliability.

Last year also saw Network Rail start a significant piece of work on
potential further electrification of key rail routes which is expected to be
completed in the spring. The enhancements of the track at Reading as part of
the £425 million station redevelopment would also pave the way for Airtrack
trains to use the station. Network Rail is also working with the Department
for Transport and British Airports Association (BAA) on the scheme to
connect passengers directly to Terminal 5.

Network Rail is carrying out ongoing work looking at the need for new
railway lines which will feed into the work of the Government's new company
High Speed 2. This company will consider fast rail-links between London and
Scotland and could include plans for an interchange station on the GWML to
do be determined later this year.

Rupert Walker, scheme sponsor for Reading re-modelling scheme, said: "The
announcements show that the plan to upgrade the capacity of the railway at
Reading plays an important part in the future of transport in Britain.
Network Rail welcomes Mr Hoon's comments and awaits further announcements
about whether electrification and the Airtrack service to Heathrow will
become a reality."

6. Given the time frames for Crossrail, and the rather modest scope of
AirTrack in comparison, could it be that AirTrack is up, and through
electric services running Paddington - Reading before Crossrail starts?

7. While HConn only goes to H123 (old H Central, made more sense!), AIUI
that's a commercial decision. The AirTrack scheme clearly envisages
HConn/Crossrail coming into the H5 box and extending west out of it. What
happens to HEx and links to H123 then would be influenced by the commercial
imperitives of the day.

8. The discussion about what will happen to this local or that once
Crossrail is extended to Reading via GWML is, IMHO, a tad premature. I'd
suggest that in the perhaps 8 years or so before the earliest that might
happen, the shape of the world as we know it might alter somewhat. If we
look back 8 years, or even more instructive, 15 - how recognisable are the
service patterns and timetables now compared to then? The players involved?
Government policies? That part of the thread seemed to me, at my safe and
comfortable distance down under in Perth, Western Australia as having a
discernable whiff of NIMBYism about it.

9. I am one who was surprised that Crossrail wasn't more firmly tied in with
the Kent HS1 - at Stratford and further out. The safeguarding excercises
give a future Government the opportunity to take some new risks

My 2p for now ...

David down under

In message
"DW downunder" noname wrote:

[snip]
4. NO-ONE has mentioned the plethora of hybrid battery-equipped
rollingstock currently prototyped, on trial, in low volume production etc
around the world. Given Crossrail's gestation, can I assert with some
confidence that by then it will be quite normal for trains to extend a
moderate distance beyond the wires or juice rail. 25kV to Reading would
not necessarily be a pre-requisite to CrossRail service by the mid-10s.

Not mentioned for a very simple reason, battery technology is just not up to
the job, nor is it likely to be in the forseeable future. While it is a
feasable option for low density occasional traffic, eg the battery luggage
vans that used to be used at Dover docks, it just can't cope with the sort of
service that Crossrail will be operating.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Thu, 07 May 2009 10:56:46 +0100, rail wrote:


Not mentioned for a very simple reason, battery technology is just not
up to the job, nor is it likely to be in the forseeable future. While
it is a feasable option for low density occasional traffic, eg the
battery luggage vans that used to be used at Dover docks, it just can't
cope with the sort of service that Crossrail will be operating.

Why add the extra weight and expense of a battery pack that can run the
train at speed, with full auxiliaries running ( many kw of air-
conditioning), so a large heavy battery pack, when you can put up a wire
and feed it 'mains' power ?

Batteries will develop and get cheaper , driven by the world desire to
have personal motor cars, but road transport doesn't have the ability to
use this rather simple and (relatively) cheap means of getting mains
power in via overhead lines.

(I converted a small boat to electric, most people think I'm insane for
not replacing the dead petrol engine with a small diesel).

Given a train can be easily powered by a power rail or overhead lines, I
can't see the advantage of adding the extra weight of a battery pack. If
you are going to add that sort of weight, chuck in a diesel engine.

In message
Matthew Geier wrote:

On Thu, 07 May 2009 10:56:46 +0100, rail wrote:


Not mentioned for a very simple reason, battery technology is just not
up to the job, nor is it likely to be in the forseeable future. While
it is a feasable option for low density occasional traffic, eg the
battery luggage vans that used to be used at Dover docks, it just can't
cope with the sort of service that Crossrail will be operating.

Why add the extra weight and expense of a battery pack that can run the
train at speed, with full auxiliaries running ( many kw of air-
conditioning), so a large heavy battery pack, when you can put up a wire
and feed it 'mains' power ?

Batteries will develop and get cheaper ,

That's not a given, there has been one major change in battery technology in
the last 50 years and despite the amount of R&D being thrown at it, there's
no sign of another one happening anytime soon, regardless of how desirable it
may be perceived to be.


Given a train can be easily powered by a power rail or overhead lines, I
can't see the advantage of adding the extra weight of a battery pack. If
you are going to add that sort of weight, chuck in a diesel engine.

Which won't need replacing in 18 months.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

"Matthew Geier" wrote

road transport doesn't have the ability to
use this rather simple and (relatively) cheap means of getting mains
power in via overhead lines.

I used to enjoy travelling by trolleybus.

Peter

On Sat, 09 May 2009 09:13:15 +0100, Peter Masson wrote:

"Matthew Geier" wrote

road transport doesn't have the ability to use this rather simple and
(relatively) cheap means of getting mains power in via overhead lines.

I used to enjoy travelling by trolleybus.

But has any one ever built a trolley-lorry or a trolley-car ?

Can you imagine a line of cars zipping down the road with a pair of
trolley poles on each ?. And the chaos when one de-wires and the driver
has to hop out and relocate the pole on the wire.

There should be more trolley buses about though.

On May 7, 9:05*am, "DW downunder" noname wrote:
4. NO-ONE has mentioned the plethora of hybrid battery-equipped rollingstock
currently prototyped, on trial, in low volume production etc around the
world. Given Crossrail's gestation, can I assert with some confidence that
by then it will be quite normal for trains to extend a moderate distance
beyond the wires or juice rail. 25kV to Reading would not necessarily be a
pre-requisite to CrossRail service by the mid-10s.

No, you can't.

Batteries are a crap way of storing energy. Making batteries not be a
crap way of storing energy has been a major preoccupation among
engineers and physicists and - even more importantly - the people who
fund them for decades. They've made batteries be a slightly less crap
way of storing energy. They haven't made them not be a crap way of
storing energy. None of the current trials do anything to reverse
that.

At absolute best, a battery train might just about be a solution for
Henley. It would be an insane solution for 6ish tph on the GWML.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

wrote in message
...
On May 7, 9:05 am, "DW downunder" noname wrote:
4. NO-ONE has mentioned the plethora of hybrid battery-equipped
rollingstock
currently prototyped, on trial, in low volume production etc around the
world. Given Crossrail's gestation, can I assert with some confidence that
by then it will be quite normal for trains to extend a moderate distance
beyond the wires or juice rail. 25kV to Reading would not necessarily be a
pre-requisite to CrossRail service by the mid-10s.

No, you can't.

Batteries are a crap way of storing energy. Making batteries not be a
crap way of storing energy has been a major preoccupation among
engineers and physicists and - even more importantly - the people who
fund them for decades. They've made batteries be a slightly less crap
way of storing energy. They haven't made them not be a crap way of
storing energy. None of the current trials do anything to reverse
that.

At absolute best, a battery train might just about be a solution for
Henley. It would be an insane solution for 6ish tph on the GWML.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Thank you, gentlemen - and your sources?

Perhaps a little more depth would help me understand - as I understand you,
with supercapacitors, emerging lithium technologies and our old faithful
lead-acid gel we haven't yet got a package of technologies that can be tuned
to the precise characteristics of suburban/interurban rail - and can't
expect one by the time Crossrail is commissioned? Is it the vibrating
environment, the heating and cooling cycles, the economics of battery life
and charging cycles, or the energy storage per unit mass that is/are the
"fatal" issues from your data sources? Crossrail is at best 5 years out.
Hybrid motor car products are moving into the mainstream, 3rd generation
Prius, local manufacture of larger Hybrids by Toyota outside Japan (hybrid
Camry to be made in Australia, release 2010, for example), more
manufacturers in the market, Obama forcing GM and Chrysler down the hybrid,
ecodiesel, light and green road, etc. With all this putting volume into the
automotive propulsion battery market, you're convinced price and performance
won't trend towards technical and economic viability for transit and urban
rail traction applications?

OK

David down under