1506 wrote:
On May 8, 6:31 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
07:52:16 on Thu, 7 May 2009,
remarked:

"It is proposed that the OHLE over Maidenhead railway bridge will use
masts with wires suspended from cantilevers, since these will be
visually lighter structures than the gantries to be used along other
parts of the route. The masts will however, have a significant adverse
landscape impact: they will affect important views along the river and
the character of the river corridor; they will affect the setting of the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.
This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like
Would you say the same about electricity pylons through a National Park?
--
Roland Perry

IMHO It is very likely that I Kingdom Brunel would welcome
electrification. He seemed very keen to find a better, cleaner form
of motive power.

He would have insisted on using 3 phase 37.278kV* electrification at
16.25Hz fed through side contact 3rd and 4th rail - and bugger the
through running!

* there is a logic behind this number. See if you can work it out!

On Sat, 9 May 2009, GazK wrote:

1506 wrote:
On May 8, 6:31 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
07:52:16 on Thu, 7 May 2009,
remarked:

"It is proposed that the OHLE over Maidenhead railway bridge will use
masts with wires suspended from cantilevers, since these will be
visually lighter structures than the gantries to be used along other
parts of the route. The masts will however, have a significant adverse
landscape impact: they will affect important views along the river and
the character of the river corridor; they will affect the setting of the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.
This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like
Would you say the same about electricity pylons through a National Park?

IMHO It is very likely that I Kingdom Brunel would welcome
electrification. He seemed very keen to find a better, cleaner form
of motive power.

He would have insisted on using 3 phase 37.278kV* electrification at 16.25Hz
fed through side contact 3rd and 4th rail - and bugger the through running!

* there is a logic behind this number. See if you can work it out!

Dunno, but getting three-phase power through two conductors is an
interesting idea.

tom

--
These spoiled youths forget that when they are shaven they look like
boiled potatoes. -- Tara Singh

Tom Anderson wrote:


IMHO It is very likely that I Kingdom Brunel would welcome
electrification. He seemed very keen to find a better, cleaner form
of motive power.

He would have insisted on using 3 phase 37.278kV* electrification at
16.25Hz fed through side contact 3rd and 4th rail - and bugger the
through running!

* there is a logic behind this number. See if you can work it out!

Dunno, but getting three-phase power through two conductors is an
interesting idea.

tom


.... running rail(s) for the third phase. I'm not making this up, it has
been done before, in Italy and elsewhe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway...urrent_systems

On Sat, 9 May 2009, GazK wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

IMHO It is very likely that I Kingdom Brunel would welcome
electrification. He seemed very keen to find a better, cleaner form
of motive power.

He would have insisted on using 3 phase 37.278kV* electrification at
16.25Hz fed through side contact 3rd and 4th rail - and bugger the through
running!

* there is a logic behind this number. See if you can work it out!

Dunno, but getting three-phase power through two conductors is an
interesting idea.

... running rail(s) for the third phase. I'm not making this up, it has been
done before, in Italy and elsewhe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway...urrent_systems

That seems a little bit ... yikes.

Thinking about it, though, it's no worse than using the running rails for
current return in a one-phase system, is it? I'm not sure why i thought it
would be.

tom

--
We want to make this easy but if you don't understand how this
works, you have no business controlling the fate of the internet. --
web2.0validator.com

On Sat, 9 May 2009 21:16:22 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Sat, 9 May 2009, GazK wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

IMHO It is very likely that I Kingdom Brunel would welcome
electrification. He seemed very keen to find a better, cleaner form
of motive power.

He would have insisted on using 3 phase 37.278kV* electrification at
16.25Hz fed through side contact 3rd and 4th rail - and bugger the through
running!

* there is a logic behind this number. See if you can work it out!

Dunno, but getting three-phase power through two conductors is an
interesting idea.

... running rail(s) for the third phase. I'm not making this up, it has been
done before, in Italy and elsewhe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway...urrent_systems

That seems a little bit ... yikes.

Thinking about it, though, it's no worse than using the running rails for
current return in a one-phase system, is it? I'm not sure why i thought it
would be.

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

Which didn't really matter for the slow speed freight trains in the
Cascades.

tom

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 May 2009 21:16:22 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Sat, 9 May 2009, GazK wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

IMHO It is very likely that I Kingdom Brunel would welcome
electrification. He seemed very keen to find a better, cleaner form
of motive power.

He would have insisted on using 3 phase 37.278kV* electrification at
16.25Hz fed through side contact 3rd and 4th rail - and bugger the
through
running!

* there is a logic behind this number. See if you can work it out!

Dunno, but getting three-phase power through two conductors is an
interesting idea.

... running rail(s) for the third phase. I'm not making this up, it has
been
done before, in Italy and elsewhe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway...urrent_systems

That seems a little bit ... yikes.

Thinking about it, though, it's no worse than using the running rails for
current return in a one-phase system, is it? I'm not sure why i thought it
would be.

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

Which didn't really matter for the slow speed freight trains in the
Cascades.

tom

1) Interesting outcome when one loco in a set failed, the other just sat
there and ground away at the rail, stationary. This was 1920s, no
headlights, the crew had no idea. Can't recall the source - a book I read
somewhere.

2) Back to the 37.278. Well 37.278/ sq rt 2 = 26.34kV ... my AC maths is
too primitive, but sq rt of 2 is a component of the reason.


David down under

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 9 Mai, 20:36, GazK wrote:

... running rail(s) for the third phase. I'm not making this up, it has
been done before, in Italy and elsewhe

is still done on many mountain railways in Switzerland and elsewhere.

"It is proposed that the OHLE over Maidenhead railway bridge will use
masts with wires suspended from cantilevers, since these will be
visually lighter structures than the gantries to be used along other
parts of the route. The masts will however, have a significant
adverse
landscape impact: they will affect important views along the river
and
the character of the river corridor; they will affect the setting of
the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.
This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like
Would you say the same about electricity pylons through a National
Park?

Once a bit of ageing has occurred, a railway doesn't look too bad at all -
just part of the scenery. Compare a four track with overhead wires to any
motorway, and tell me what looks best. And motorways will continue to chip
away at national parks and ancient forests if people continue to oppose the
much less ugly rail solutions. It's known as "Brain Free Conservation", and
has ensured that lunatic road schems STILL get much more investment than
slightly disruptive rail schemes. Go figure. No, actually, don't waste your
brain power.

And in areas where it really does matter, rail has the option of third
rail - though that can limit the service in may ways, at least until someone
applies some original thinking. Third rail outside urban areas is
technically in the dark ages, with no significant development* since about
1923, since there's been no real incentive to make that effort.

As for Brunel; while many of his schemes - including that historic bridge -
are beautiful, that was never his priority; he was single-mindedly (and not
always successfully!) intent on the best engineering solution. If we had a
few clear thinking engineers today, we'd probably not have half the problems
with lard-butt trains, wrong kind of snow, entry gates etc., as they'd have
been engineered for simplicity, not for sophistication and press releases.
Mind you, with today's micro-management from DaFT, Brunel would have
emigarted to a sane country 20 years ago.


--
Andrew


If you stand up and be counted,
From time to time you may get yourself knocked down.
But remember this:
A man flattened by an opponent can get up again.
A man flattened by conformity stays down for good.
- Thomas J. Watson Jr.

*OK, there has been some tinkering with alloys, to save money on good old
fashioned steel - but while that works on metro sytems, it has not really
helped on the main line.

In message , at 11:36:24 on Sun, 10
May 2009, Andrew Heenan remarked:
Once a bit of ageing has occurred, a railway doesn't look too bad at all -
just part of the scenery. Compare a four track with overhead wires to any
motorway, and tell me what looks best.

It does depend quite a lot on whether the OHL is gantries, or masts. I
agree that the ECML doesn't look too bad, but the WCML eg around Rugby
(especially with all the "extra" high level stuff they've put in
recently) is much more ugly.
--
Roland Perry