|
What's the thoughts on the electrification of the South-West line to Cardiff, as currently there demolishing all the foot/road bridges over the line here and rebuilding them Slightly higher to accommodate the electric trains. Is that really needed? Why do they need to be higher, as the 3rd rail system that I'm used to in SE London didn't seam to need overly tall trains...
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
they're not using 3rd rail. the extra height is for overhead power cables. 3rd rail sucks in comparison as your top speed's much lower and a lot more energy is wasted as heat. it's not been used for anything new, so it's only left in the SE and on Merseyrail. part of the Waterloo to Weymouth line is supposed to be converted from 3rd rail to overhead lines by 2019 as a trial for doing it to the rest of the network.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Renfield posted:What's the thoughts on the electrification of the South-West line to Cardiff, as currently there demolishing all the foot/road bridges over the line here and rebuilding them Slightly higher to accommodate the electric trains. I'm not sure if I'm looking at plans for the right route, but it looks like they'll be doing overhead catenary electrification on there, and possibly leaving extra space for if larger (especially taller) trains are ever planned to go there. Since they're already tearing up and replacing all the bridges that is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Renfield posted:What's the thoughts on the electrification of the South-West line to Cardiff, as currently there demolishing all the foot/road bridges over the line here and rebuilding them Slightly higher to accommodate the electric trains. This is some basic electrical knowledge poo poo but will explain: A train is in the mega watts range so you either need high current or high voltage, there's two options - 25kv at low current or 750v at high current (overhead vs 3rd rail) P = v x i (Power equals Voltage times Current) Power loss via transmission is directly correlated to current so the lower the current the better the distribution, therefore the higher voltage system is much better. It's why there's power cabinets every couple of miles on 3rd rail but a single distribution point can power from London to Didcot on ac.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
At New Cross Gate a massive new set of walkways was built above the platforms, all at the correct height to accommodate overhead lines. The road bridge and station buildings aren't built at this height due to their age so you have the weird situation of there being ramps up to the walkways before you then walk down the stairs to the platforms.
Metrication fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Bozza posted:No TPWS in them days and no slam door stock. Stumbled on reading about the Eltham Well Hall rail crash which I hadn't heard about before. Seems like it's quite a story: quote:The driver Robert Wilsdon was not due to be on duty until the afternoon and had gone to a pub at lunchtime with his brothers who said he spent the afternoon at home. At about 15:20 he booked on duty by telephone with Hither Green depot. The secondman 'smelt something pretty strong' on the driver's breath and when questioned about it, he replied that he had "had some beer at dinner time" and had "ended up going somewhere and drinking some sherry". Nevertheless, at Wilsdon's suggestion, they both went to the nearby Railway Staff Association Club at about 19:00 and drank three pints of light and bitter beer each. Guess what happened next???
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
It has been suggested by TfL that a new Thameslink station in Camberwell could mitigate the bakerloo line going down Old Kent Road instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
lol where the gently caress would they put that? There's no point putting one on Camberwell Station Road where it used to be because of the proximity to Loughborough Junction. Maybe they could squeeze a station back in where the old Walworth Road one used to be, as there's a transport drought around Burgess Park but it'd be a bit of a pain to build a new spec station on curved track by a crowded viaduct. Though as London Reconnection point out: LR posted:So the ex-London Chatham & Dover Railway (LCDR) mainline from Blackfriars down to Loughborough Junction and Herne Hill will become a shadow of its former self. Four tracks between them will carry ten services per hour off-peak and fourteen in the peak. Is this the least intensively used stretch of route so close to the city centre? Arguably this is a woeful waste of infrastructure. It is certainly perplexing when viewed alongside the traffic gridlocked along the nearby Walworth Road, and the calls for Bakerloo or Northern extensions through Camberwell. http://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/blackfriars-safeguarding-the-future/
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
I would've thought Walworth Road too. Camberwell station is probably too close to Denmark Hill to serve all of Camberwell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
So after five months and eleven days, Network Rail have refused to release minutes of meetings with the DfT regarding the electrification of the Transpennine Line. Ministerial veto applied. Of course, that has nothing to do with the fact that the government had promised the electrification in their manifesto then broke the promise in record time. TinTower fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
They've been saying they were getting rid of pacers since I started in 2008 so don't be too surprised if they're still about in 2025.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Bacon Terrorist posted:They've been saying they were getting rid of pacers since I started in 2008 so don't be too surprised if they're still about in 2025.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
The train doesn't smell quite as strongly of diesel fumes as the bus I used to get with the same interior, so I'm sure it's still serviceable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
The main problem they have is that they need to comply with disabled access rules and the toilet on pacers isn't accessible to a wheelchair user. However the 144e addresses that problem. Also everyone seems to ignore that whether you have a single 153 or multiple 153s coupled together there is no way a wheelchair user can access the toilet. No disabled access for toilets on the loco hauled stock either 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
How do they get away with that? Does the Disabilities act or whatever it's called have exception provisions in it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
thehustler posted:How do they get away with that? Does the Disabilities act or whatever it's called have exception provisions in it? New stock has to be compliant from the start but everything else already existing is grandfathered in until 2020(ish).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:New stock has to be compliant from the start but everything else already existing is grandfathered in until 2020(ish). This. The same way all the TOCs have been pushing for a low CO2 railway and new ways to be green then suddenly we're running 37's and they're excluded from the emissions figures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
we will never get rid of pacers
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Hezzy posted:we will never get rid of pacers even when they are retired they will still trundle on in our hearts and also in reality, cos of these guys
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:even when they are retired they will still trundle on in our hearts sadomasochism
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Bozza, I remember that a while ago you posted a wee history of British Rail in the 80s and the way in which we should renationalise the railways. Where might I be able to find it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
It was on a Tumblr ages ago, not sure it still exists. If you can get hold of On The Wrong Line by Christian Woolmar it's a pretty good summary of BR before the break up which is a decent read
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
speaking of Wolmar, he's done a blog post about what renationalisation would actually look like http://labourlist.org/2016/01/renationalising-the-railways-is-not-a-total-panacea-for-the-problems-created-by-the-sell-off/
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Nationalisation happening. Network Southeast being recreated under a different name. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tfl-to-take-command-of-londons-entire-suburban-rail-network-a3161586.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
Don't they just contract a lot of stuff out though? It's not really nationalisation is it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Don't they just contract a lot of stuff out though? It's not really nationalisation is it? Supposedly fares go to TfL, seems pretty close to it. "Unlike most of the existing franchise agreements, income from fares would be handed over to TfL to invest in the network, for example bringing in new walk-through trains with more doors and staffing 100 per cent of stations during operating hours."
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Don't they just contract a lot of stuff out though? It's not really nationalisation is it? The overground is totally controlled by TfL and they get the revenue. Contracting operations out is done, but not like a franchise where they have any control or choice on how the service is run or fares charged. Instead just get paid a set amount for services supplied. Edit: like how buses in London but not the rest on the country Cerv fucked around with this message at 12:04 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Are they really getting all of TSGN? I thought TfL had no desire to run services that go to Brighton. Hopefully they'll see sense and sever the Wimbledon loop from the core (or use this as justification).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
Metrication posted:Are they really getting all of TSGN? I thought TfL had no desire to run services that go to Brighton. Hopefully they'll see sense and sever the Wimbledon loop from the core (or use this as justification). Yes & no. From the article quote:TfL, which will set up a joint management team with the Department of Transport, will run services which operate within the capital's boundaries while DfT officials will be responsible for the wider South East. We'll probably have to wait for each franchise renewal date to come along for exact service details like changes to the Wimbledon loop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
The "as far as" stuff there is weird as gently caress. Croydon and Chessington are both in London so TfL not controlling trains there would be bizarre given that they currently control the busses there (and the trains are all Oystered up etc) - Chessington South is a terminal station which I suppose is why it was brought up but I'm pretty sure that Croydon only has through stations. Or is this the Evening Standard deciding that everything south of the river doesn't count?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
This was TfL's wish list for devolution during the summer: From this article: http://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/devocalypse-now-taking-control-of-south-londons-railways/ So safe to assume these are the services they are going to take over plus Thameslink (as I sad before I really don't understand how that's going to work, TfL didn't want it before because it runs so far outside of London and taking over the parts that are contained inside London would mean there would be two operators on a very intensive and complicated route). quote:TfL, which will set up a joint management team with the Department of Transport, will run services which operate within the capital's boundaries while DfT officials will be responsible for the wider South East. The DfT thing seems to imply they are going to have a single franchise directly controlled by the department? Which would amount to renationalisation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Metrication posted:The DfT thing seems to imply they are going to have a single franchise directly controlled by the department? Which would amount to renationalisation? I wonder if this is an attempt by the Tories to take out possible avenues of attack from Labour? I can't see many people really fervently opposing re-nationalisation anyway, you can see the quiet takeback of Network Rail for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/peace-on-our-line-devolving-londons-railways/ This announcement has, as usual, been vastly overstated by the media. All it really says is "we're going to discuss this and see what's sensible", not actually stating they will devolve anythiny beyond what has already been done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Nationalisation happening. Network Southeast being recreated under a different name. How would that actually work? I mean in the sense of Stock moves , Depots etc... and what would happen to all the rest if they separated them , would they not have to take all or nothing as I do not see money in the pot to build new infrastructure to fulfill anything overly ambitious. I see part of ASLEFS new agreement for night tube is "Transfer of Train Licence Management will pursue a reciprocal agreement with LOROL and TFL rail to allow staff(LU) to move to those companies" . Now that is still being discussed but could that mean in the future if everything goes to TFL do I get to apply as a driver on a potential southeastern route and closer to home from LU? Also theres always been rumours about Wimbledon Depot coming under LU but it would make more sense if it was all managed under TFL. Anyway what do you think is any of this actually feasible?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Brovine posted:http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/peace-on-our-line-devolving-londons-railways/ Ahhh...Thanks for that 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Arriva has no choice to honour the Government Invitation To Tender requirement of 50% trains Driver Only Operation, even if this court case against Merseyrail Conductor Martin Zee goes south and raises huge questions about TOC operating practices in general. Should be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Bacon Terrorist posted:Arriva has no choice to honour the Government Invitation To Tender requirement of 50% trains Driver Only Operation, even if this court case against Merseyrail Conductor Martin Zee goes south and raises huge questions about TOC operating practices in general. Should be interesting. As someone who has only regularly used lines that are already DOO (Thameslink, overground and Great Northern), what is the reason for the opposition to DOO?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Zephirus posted:As someone who has only regularly used lines that are already DOO (Thameslink, overground and Great Northern), what is the reason for the opposition to DOO? Dramatically less safe
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Dramatically less safe Is there something about the existing DOO lines that makes it safer for them to operate like that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
In rural areas if there is an incident that compromises the driver, the passengers would be left without any safety critical staff member to assist them (preventing another train from crashing into the affected one, for instance). An admittedly biased source in the RMT claims sexual assaults have risen dramatically on services that are DOO. ASLEF are opposed to it now as there is an ongoing court case where a conductor was deemed to have done everything correctly but the BTP and CPS charged him with some ancient railway law that could see him sent down for two years: obviously ASLEF prefers conductors in prison to drivers so they are now against DOO being implemented further  In other news this fresh wave of stormy weather has caused a 40ft hole to appear somewhere on the Cumbrian Coast this afternoon, which if true (the railway runs on rumour so what is being described as a 40ft hole could be 4ft) is more fun for the track men to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 16:12
|
|