On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:25:25 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:29:38 +0200, "Willms"
wrote:

At least it is not counter-intuitive, like calling the DLR
"underground",

It isn't called the Underground any more than the Overground is. But
it's not really much worse than the U3 "Hochbahn" in Hamburg, which is
not very "U" for much of its length (though to be fair a good chunk
is).

There is probably more elevated than tunnel on the New York Subway.

Neil

On Sep 18, 11:44*pm, Charles Ellson
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:17:10 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:





On 18 Sep, 11:10, Sim wrote:
On 18 Sep, 10:47, MIG wrote:

On 18 Sep, 09:44, "John Salmon" wrote:

"Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles

kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does
fourth rail (however wired) exist as far north as Harrow, but the last
time I looked there was quite a lot left further on, although some of
it was lying rather dismally in the four foot rather than perched on
insulators. It was never formally removed, in other words, although
doubtless disconnected.

Previous discussions have suggested that it is still there because it
is still connected. *I think the running rails must be wired to the
fourth rail and then the fourth rail wired to earth in the way that
the running rails are in other third rail systems. *(Not technical,
but I assume that it saved connecting the running rails for one sort
of train and duplicating the connections for another sort of train.)

Question: was this the system at Euston and Broad Street etc, ie
positive to earth, rather than a bit positive to a bit negative?

Presumably for an LU train, the difference between the rails is all
that matters, whereas for a three-rail train it's the difference
between positive and earth that matters, so a NR train on conventional
LU track would only be at 420 V or something?

I really doubt that the old fourth rail is in circuit with anything.
Some is missing, and other sections are lying in the four foot. Not
much continuity there, I would have thought!

It is still wired to the running rails, if you look from a train at
the other track, you can see the connections. The running rails were
never the continuous electrical return and were not bonded together.
The fact that the rail lies in the four foot doesn't matter as it is
earthed,

It isn't deliberately earthed, it just isn't insulated from earth. The
"official" connection to earth is back at the substation. If the
fourth rail was removed it would increase the resistance of the path
through which the traction current flows with consequential wastage of
power.


Earth was the wrong term, I should have said near earth potential, but
I was writing in a hurry. This, slightly dated, document has the
details

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_G...lling%20Stock/
Other/GMTT0108%20Iss%201a.pdf, section 5.4 is especially relevant for
the 'disused' 4th rail north of Harrow & Wealdstone.

missing sections will have been bypassed with cabling and
very little is actually missing if you look for it. If nothing else,
it has to be connected to something, due to possible induction from
the 25kV AC running along side.

ITYF connecting the end distant from the substation to earth would
actually aid any induction by turning it into one half of a
transformer. Counteracting this would require multiple earthing.

See above, it is still better to have the rail 'in circuit' than not.

On Sep 18, 8:34*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:03:37 -0700 (PDT), EE507
wrote:

On Sep 18, 7:36*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
I haven't quite seen the same scale of crowds at Stratford in the peaks
but I have seen crowds a bit smaller than that alight from a train at
Stratford - on a Sunday when the headway is every 30 minutes!

checks timetable

That's ridiculous - second busiest shopping day of the week and all
that. When oh when will we adopt standard 7-day timetables [1]?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2475974.../set-721576156...

Some of the crowd has dissipated by this point - I waited so I stood a
chance of getting the train in the photo!

Ridiculous is the word but it's worth considering that, at present,
there is no service at all on Sundays on the NLL, part of the WLL and
the entire GOBLIN. It's all buses!

I actually think GOBLIN will be more
an issue because a x15 headway will probably unleash a lot of suppressed
demand on that route and 2 car DMUs may struggle to cope.

At least the 172s will provide an extra 6m train length. What is the
proposed seating layout? Is this
http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%...0/DMU_172.html
correct in saying it will be 3+2?

I've not seen or read anything about the layout for GOBLIN other than
the link you provided. Given that LOROL removed some of the 3+2 seating
on the 150s to create more space I'm a bit surprised to see 3+2 seating
proposed for the 172s. Perhaps it will be limited in scale to allow more
standing space closer to the doors?

The Platform 5 Locomotives and Coaching stock book says all the 172s
will be 2+2 seating, but only gives the numbers for the London Midland
order (53+4 tip up and 2 wheelchairs in the DMSL and 68+3 tip up in
the DMS.

On Sep 18, 11:30*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:49:52 +0100, "Paul Scott"

wrote:
All I recall reading is that they will definitely not have the 378's 'tube
style' interior as they want to be able to lease them elsewhere in due
course. I'd presume (in view of the small numbers involved) that they might
just have whatever London Midland and Chiltern are getting...

Surprised LM (or anybody else) are going for 3+2 in a 23m
almost-tilt-profile bodyshell. *That'll be cramped.


The LM units are down to be 2+2 in the all the source I can find.

"MIG" wrote
On 18 Sep, 09:44, "John Salmon" wrote:
"Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details
Charles

kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does
(remainder snipped)
Previous discussions have suggested that it is still there because it
(remainder snipped)

MIG - there is something wrong with your quoting - I didn't write any of the
stuff you've attributed to me. Can you please try and get this right, as it
makes it impossible to tell who wrote what further down the thread.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"Willms" wrote in message

Am Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:17:58 UTC, schrieb Arthur Figgis
auf uk.railway :

No, I think that "London Overground" is perfect companion to
"London Underground", using more or less the same sign just in a
different color (orange instead of red).

But it confuses the public, who for a long time have called all
non-Underground/DLR services "overground", even the services which
the authorities have not now officially called "Overground".

There is 'overground' as generic term, and "London Overground" as a
brand name, using the same barred circle of "London Underground", just
in a different color. I understand that DLR also uses the same form,
just in blue instead of red or orange. It forms a family of products,
stressing the common and the distinct.

At least it is not counter-intuitive, like calling the DLR
"underground", e.g. It just makes some of the overground services
stand out from the rest of it by calling it "London Overground" with
this copyrighted symbol we all know.

And it is different from the "National Rail" with its double arrow
of the late British Railways.

But many Overground trains will use National Rail stations, complete with
double-arrows. In any case, though you may think it's illogical, imperfect
Londoners do tend to refer to all non-Underground/DLR services as
'overground trains'.

That's something that has developed since 1987, when I returned to Oz.
Certainly, none of US called anything the overground. The whole concept of
Network South East was to give the whole home counties and beyond a product
concept built on the Underground model of clarity (if not frequency).

If calling everything local on rails that's not LU "overground" developed in
a generation, by 2027, all will be clear again!

DW downunder

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:25:54 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

On Sep 18, 11:44*pm, Charles Ellson
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:17:10 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:


On 18 Sep, 11:10, Sim wrote:
On 18 Sep, 10:47, MIG wrote:

On 18 Sep, 09:44, "John Salmon" wrote:

"Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles

kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does
fourth rail (however wired) exist as far north as Harrow, but the last
time I looked there was quite a lot left further on, although some of
it was lying rather dismally in the four foot rather than perched on
insulators. It was never formally removed, in other words, although
doubtless disconnected.

Previous discussions have suggested that it is still there because it
is still connected. *I think the running rails must be wired to the
fourth rail and then the fourth rail wired to earth in the way that
the running rails are in other third rail systems. *(Not technical,
but I assume that it saved connecting the running rails for one sort
of train and duplicating the connections for another sort of train.)

Question: was this the system at Euston and Broad Street etc, ie
positive to earth, rather than a bit positive to a bit negative?

Presumably for an LU train, the difference between the rails is all
that matters, whereas for a three-rail train it's the difference
between positive and earth that matters, so a NR train on conventional
LU track would only be at 420 V or something?

I really doubt that the old fourth rail is in circuit with anything.
Some is missing, and other sections are lying in the four foot. Not
much continuity there, I would have thought!

It is still wired to the running rails, if you look from a train at
the other track, you can see the connections. The running rails were
never the continuous electrical return and were not bonded together.
The fact that the rail lies in the four foot doesn't matter as it is
earthed,

It isn't deliberately earthed, it just isn't insulated from earth. The
"official" connection to earth is back at the substation. If the
fourth rail was removed it would increase the resistance of the path
through which the traction current flows with consequential wastage of
power.


Earth was the wrong term, I should have said near earth potential, but
I was writing in a hurry. This, slightly dated, document has the
details

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_G...lling%20Stock/
Other/GMTT0108%20Iss%201a.pdf, section 5.4 is especially relevant for
the 'disused' 4th rail north of Harrow & Wealdstone.

It is interesting to see as much as 60v allowed WRT earth. With the
currents that might be caused by a train drawing full power this would
still seem to leave the opportunity for some damage to be caused by
accidental/unintentional contact between a local (true) earth and the
traction return rail via assorted metallic objects. I've seen the
damage that 50v (200A circuit fuse IIRC) can do to a screwdriver and
other assorted things that should not have been near a busbar and it
isn't pretty.

missing sections will have been bypassed with cabling and
very little is actually missing if you look for it. If nothing else,
it has to be connected to something, due to possible induction from
the 25kV AC running along side.

ITYF connecting the end distant from the substation to earth would
actually aid any induction by turning it into one half of a
transformer. Counteracting this would require multiple earthing.

See above, it is still better to have the rail 'in circuit' than not.

"Willms" wrote in message
...

There is 'overground' as generic term, and "London Overground"
as a
brand name, using the same barred circle of "London
Underground", just
in a different color...

The "barred circle", as you call it, is often known as a roundel.

--
MatSav

"MatSav" matthew | dot | savage | at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com wrote

The "barred circle", as you call it, is often known as a roundel.

It's now the logo of Transport for London, and appears, for example, on the
licence plate on the back of black cabs.

Peter

On 19 Sep, 01:39, "John Salmon" wrote:
"MIG" wrote On 18 Sep, 09:44, "John Salmon" wrote:
"Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details
Charles

kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does
(remainder snipped)
Previous discussions have suggested that it is still there because it

(remainder snipped)

MIG - there is something wrong with your quoting - I didn't write any of the
stuff you've attributed to me. *Can you please try and get this right, as it
makes it impossible to tell who wrote what further down the thread.

Ah, in fact it was your quoting that went wrong. I can see now that
in your reply to Sim, the first line (only) of his/her paragraphs had
a while the rest didn't, so I replied to the paragraph as if it was
from you.

So I was replying to Sim's paragraph in a message from you that had
failed to quote it correctly.

(In fact, I thought I was replying to Sim, and then carelessly clicked
on the latest message which had his/her paragraph unindented, which
was yours.)