Mark Brader:
The book includes a long footnote which says, among other things,
that the first use of the Ganz system in commercial service was on
the Valtellina line near Lake Como in September 1902; and that
technical details of the system and an illustration of a Valtellina
line locomotive can be found in "History of the Electric Locomotive"
(1969) by F.J.G. Haut.

Looking around on the Web for photos showing such a locomotive,
I only find this one, although it's on several web pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ka...an_mozdony.jpg

So I suspect it's the same one as in Haut's book. Anyway, the
interesting thing is the collector that contacts the overhead wires,
which looks more like a big bow collector than anything else --
one collector contacting both wires. Obviously there must have
two separate contacts on that horizontal bar, with insulation
between them.

Also note how high the arm is above the locomotive. You'd never
fit that thing into a Metropolitan or District tunnel. They must
have had a different sort of collector in mind.

This page shows that photo and a couple of other ones of the Ganz
3-phase system, before moving on to related subjects. They all
appear to have those high collectors.

http://erojr.home.cern.ch/erojr/cont...pe/kanprot.htm
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "What Europe needs is a fresh, unused mind."
| -- Foreign Correspondent

My text in this article is in the public domain.

On Oct 26, 11:22*pm, (Mark Brader) wrote:

one collector contacting both wires. *Obviously there must have
two separate contacts on that horizontal bar, with insulation
between them.


Also note how high the arm is above the locomotive. *You'd never
fit that thing into a Metropolitan or District tunnel. *They must
have had a different sort of collector in mind.


I've never really looked into the three phase ideas of the Met but I'd
always thought they were looking at the three phase "two wire" system
(i.e. three phases of two conductors and one running rail return) not
with overhead wires but rails, with lower supply voltage than Ganz.
Conductor rails something like the centre and outer rail (like todays
DC) would be the equivalent to Ganz two wires, and the running rails
the return in the same way as Ganz. That way you don't need to expand
tunnels. My interpretation of "not suitable for tunnels" was not
something about not enough wire clearances but one of having all
track rails in a three phase system at a voltage too high for exposed
ground level conductors. Like I said its not something I looked into,
so maybe I misunderstood the whole thing.

If you really wanted to run three phase for the tubes I suggest you
simply use a side contract pickup for all three phases - its complex
at points and crossings but providing one car of the set is in contact
you still have power, and thats no different to a lot of DC section
gaps on todays tube.

--
Nick

Mark Brader:
Also note how high the arm is above the locomotive. You'd never
fit that thing into a Metropolitan or District tunnel. They must
have had a different sort of collector in mind.

"Nick":
I've never really looked into the three phase ideas of the Met but I'd
always thought they were looking at the three phase "two wire" system
...not with overhead wires but rails, with lower supply voltage than Ganz.

As I indicated in my previous posting, "A History of London Transport"
is quite explicit that it was Ganz and overhead wires.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Something doesn't become ethical just because
| you can get away with it." --Barry Margolin

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:52:33 +0100, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:22:33 -0500, (Mark Brader) wrote:

Mark Brader:

the Valtellina line near Lake Como in September 1902; and that
technical details of the system and an illustration of a Valtellina
line locomotive can be found in "History of the Electric Locomotive"
(1969) by F.J.G. Haut.

Looking around on the Web for photos showing such a locomotive,
I only find this one, although it's on several web pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ka...an_mozdony.jpg

So I suspect it's the same one as in Haut's book. Anyway, the
interesting thing is the collector that contacts the overhead wires,

Also note how high the arm is above the locomotive. You'd never
fit that thing into a Metropolitan or District tunnel. They must
have had a different sort of collector in mind.

Bonnet mounted collectors have been used on some electric locos where
there were limited clearances.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45127721@N05/6581147453
is an example on a UK industrial system that survived till the late
1980's.
In a tunnel setting arcing from such a low collector in the drivers
view can cause disruption to vision and I shouldn't think it would do
much for the health of the eyes either.

That can be avoided by using the rear collector if two are fitted as
on the Italian locomotives in :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-p...lectrification

On the subject of Italy, I hadn't realised they were still using
3-phase into the 1970s :-
http://www.photorail.com/phr1-leFS/e432.htm
(with an interesting effect caused by smoke/steam/fumes coming from a
"chimney" at one end)

Trolley poles would be another possibility. Used in the original
Cascades tunnel electrification in the United States which was a 3
phase system.

Distance memory's of trolley buses and dewirements suggest they would
be impractical on a system with many junctions like the Metropolitan
even though a railed vehicle would have less tendency to pull the
booms offline.

G.Harman

On 27 Oct, 11:40, wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2012 6:29:11 PM UTC+1, D7666 wrote:
On the subject of 25 kV Met, Marylebone etc etc, I am still of the

view that a better Thameslink upgrade would not have been to link the

ex Midland lines to GN as KX/SP but to have linked the Midland to the

Met/GC at West Hampstead, with trains being able to both switch

between both routes. This could have been done using the sites to the

south of the present West Hampstead stations, and incorporated the NLL

station at a higher level.

This could have allowed the ML to retain its Moorgate link (but some

trains switching to the MET), allowed relief of Baker Street junction

(by having some MET trains switch to TL), and give and electrified

Chilterns route access to TL (solving the longer/more trains at

Marylebone issue).

It would also give a better spread of trains through the TL core - one

of the issues is GN realistically can't take more than 8 TPH off TL

but 24 TPH means 16 TPH have to head for the Midland which is not so

sensible. If those were (say) inner suburbans from (one time)

Wimbledon loop or other southern metro line those logically go to

Watford Met or Uxbridge, while some of the faster TL core trains can

go to [say] Aylesbury as well as Bedford.

Before some nitwit comments, it assumed that all surface lines and

Chilterns works will be to 12cars or 8car SDO where uneconomic - don't

say it is *impossible - uk.railways said 4car NLL and 12car TL was

impossible but now are reality.

If this had been done with the TL works, you'd now have a 25 kV wired

Chilterns, and linking with other matters taking AC that way towards

Banbury (for Birmingham) would result in considerable synergy and

economy of scale with the current electric Spine project.

GN capacity in my view should be dealt with by new construction from

around Finsbury Park - thats where *Crossrail 2 should *go on the

north side.

--

Nick

Spot on.

Agreed, way to go! Although rather than taking Crossrail 2 to
Finsbury Park, I would prefer to see the Northern City extended
southwards.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
D7666 wrote:
installing anything in tunnels provided the tunnel is big enough, so

Well thats the problem isn't it. In the UK there seems to be a culture in
civil engineering to get away with as small as you possibly can. You see this
everywhere in roads, buildings and of course the hopeless railway loading gauge.

B2003

On Oct 29, 9:35*am, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:11:13 -0700 (PDT)

D7666 wrote:
installing anything in tunnels provided the tunnel is big enough, so

Well thats the problem isn't it. In the UK there seems to be a culture in
civil engineering to get away with as small as you possibly can. You see this
everywhere in roads, buildings and of course the hopeless railway loading gauge.

Not to mention the size of homes. I have seen bedrooms in which it
would be impossible to fit the smallest bed.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
On Oct 29, 9:35=A0am, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:11:13 -0700 (PDT)

D7666 wrote:
installing anything in tunnels provided the tunnel is big enough, so

Well thats the problem isn't it. In the UK there seems to be a culture in
civil engineering to get away with as small as you possibly can. You see =
this
everywhere in roads, buildings and of course the hopeless railway loading=
gauge.

Not to mention the size of homes. I have seen bedrooms in which it
would be impossible to fit the smallest bed.

Indeed. Some new builds in particular are pretty disgraceful especially given
the price is usually on par with much bigger older houses.

B2003

In message
, at
02:39:29 on Mon, 29 Oct 2012, 77002 remarked:
Well thats the problem isn't it. In the UK there seems to be a culture in
civil engineering to get away with as small as you possibly can. You see this
everywhere in roads, buildings and of course the hopeless railway loading gauge.

Not to mention the size of homes. I have seen bedrooms in which it
would be impossible to fit the smallest bed.

Not seen one quite that small, but the bed in my 4th bedroom only fits
in one direction, the other it's about an inch too long (and that would
be after removing the skirting boards). It is slightly longer than
average [single] bed though.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:36:23 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
Not to mention the size of homes. I have seen bedrooms in which it
would be impossible to fit the smallest bed.

Not seen one quite that small, but the bed in my 4th bedroom only fits
in one direction, the other it's about an inch too long (and that would
be after removing the skirting boards). It is slightly longer than
average [single] bed though.

Your 4th bedroom? Obviously you must live in a cramped hovel. How do you
manage?

B2003