|
northwesterntrains
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: June 07, 2011, 11:50:13 » |
|
The DfT» has stated that no more third-rail electrification will go down. Something to do with EU» regs?
Just thought - is that for all tracks or just overground tracks? I can't imagine diesel or OHE▸ being used for a new underground system. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #61 on: June 07, 2011, 11:59:57 » |
|
Overground, I think
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
willc
|
|
« Reply #62 on: June 07, 2011, 12:50:15 » |
|
Call it infill, call it whatever you like, third rail will still be allowed where it is seen as a logical, limited extension of existing networks, hence Merseyside are pushing very hard to be allowed to lay third rail on Bidston-Wrexham themselves, since they don't believe Network Rail's price tag. No-one in their right mind would put 25kv wires up to replace the last outposts of class 171 diesel operation by Southern and I can't imagine anyone would want to work with random bits of 25kv ac and 750v dc between Reading and Redhill, given all the third rail that is already down, not least at the key junction stations.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #63 on: June 07, 2011, 15:20:30 » |
|
I think you're right about in-fill, but would that distance of the North Downs be seen as in-fill? If so, then I'm happy to withdraw my comment.
It might well be one of those arguments that could be used either way. If the DfT» want to electrify it then it's in-fill and permissible, and if they don't want to then they could use it as an excuse not to do so. It is quite a long stretch to be described as in-fill, though I suppose technically it would be two separate in-fill schemes; the 11 miles from Wokingham Junction to Aldershot South Junction and the 17 miles from Shalford Junction to Reigate. It doesn't sound such a long section when you describe it like that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
bobm
|
|
« Reply #64 on: June 07, 2011, 17:35:42 » |
|
Perhaps they could reduce the signalling headways between Wokingham and Guildford at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #65 on: June 07, 2011, 17:52:40 » |
|
The electrifcation RUS▸ stated that third rail would be used for those sections of lines entirely WITHIN the existing third rail network, such as the North Downs line. However it has electrifcation type as 'to be decided' on some routes immediately outside the 'third rail area', such as Redbridge and Eastleigh to Salisbury, and it also explains in the footnotes that the electrifcation type for that line would be business case dependent.
So I suggest that unless there has been a very recent new embargo applied, third rail can still be used for both infill and extensions. After all it's only a few days ago that I was told a NR» employee (at the Reading rebuild displays) said that third rail would be installed on certain of the new platforms at Reading - that must count as an extension presumably?
Paul
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 20:25:16 by paul7755 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #66 on: June 07, 2011, 17:57:52 » |
|
Just thought - is that for all tracks or just overground tracks? I can't imagine diesel or OHE▸ being used for a new underground system.
Doesn't Crossrail count then? It will basically be a new underground system with OHLE at 25 kV... Paul |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bobm
|
|
« Reply #67 on: June 07, 2011, 18:02:55 » |
|
I was told by a NR» employee that third rail would be installed on certain of the new platforms at Reading - that must count as an extension presumably?
Paul
I assume it is only for the new platform adjacent to the current 4a and 4b. There aren't plans to electrify the re-opened tunnel or from New Junction or Spur Junction (can never remember which it is) into the rest of the station are there? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #68 on: June 07, 2011, 18:27:53 » |
|
No definitely the new relief line platforms, presumably dependent on if they can be accessed from the underpass, not all of them can be according to the various track plans knocking about...
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The Grecian
|
|
« Reply #69 on: June 08, 2011, 22:31:02 » |
|
I would imagine that it would be easier to run 165/166s over former GWR▸ lines rather than southern lines which were built to the broad gauge standard. In the west I think (but I could be wrong) that would basically be everything except:
Barnstaple, Exmouth and Gunnislake branches (plus Okehampton if that ever reopens)
Salisbury - Portsmouth Harbour
Dawlish Warren - Teignmouth (this section of line was only doubled after the end of the broad gauge in around 1906)
Swindon - Newport
It is noticeable on a driver's eye view I have that the bridges and tunnels on the Westbury - Weymouth line are quite generous in width even where there's dual tracks. I appreciate there's more to gauging than how 19th century engineers laid out their lines though. The structures that I'd guess would be trickiest for 165/166s on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route would be the Severn, Patchway and Southampton Tunnels. But that may have changed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bobm
|
|
« Reply #70 on: June 08, 2011, 22:46:02 » |
|
That "broad gauge" theory would also include the western end of the Berks & Hants line as the final stretch from Westbury to Cogload Junction was opened in stages between 1900 and 1906.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ollie
|
|
« Reply #71 on: June 08, 2011, 22:54:57 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JayMac
|
|
« Reply #72 on: June 09, 2011, 01:50:01 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"A clear conscience laughs at a false accusation."
"Treat everyone the same until you find out they're an idiot."
"Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity."
|
|
|
|
bobm
|
|
« Reply #73 on: June 09, 2011, 12:27:51 » |
|
Oh dear this could become a Morecombe and Wise type sketch with the Magna Carta signed just before lunch and the Battle of Waterloo being followed by dinner. What do you think of it so far? Sorry way off topic. On the subject of 165/66s how are they faring after 20 years of pretty intensive service. The longevity of the HSTs▸ is much trumpeted - is it a similar story for the 165/66s or do they just look better than they really are? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
anthony215
|
|
« Reply #74 on: June 09, 2011, 17:47:25 » |
|
They seem to be working ok each time i have been on them, but in the case of teh class 166's as has been reported before teh air con does need work.
Chilterns class 165's are lovely to travel on, certainly wouldnt mind if they ordered some more class 172's perhaps for the London Marylebone - Oxford services and displaces some class 168's for the Alyesbury route so that we could have a few of them down in Bristol (providing they fit of course.)
Mind you, i doubt they would fit at the platforms at Bristol TM‡ which are under the large roof.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
