On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.

The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.

You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not pulling
power.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.

The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.

You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not pulling
power.

When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric freight
are hauled by class 90s.

In message , at 15:43:03 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017,
Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:
NR's fault is (once again) lack of project management and performing
checks on what was being designed/manufactured.

Yes, no matter whose fault it is, it's ultimately Network Rail's fault. They
are the project managers and they will have either designed the structures
or else approved someone else's design; ditto with the construction. The
buck stops with them.

I wonder if the problem would have arisen in the days of British Rail when
they (BR) did everything themselves: design, construction, project
management? In other words, how much of the problem is due to the fragmented
chain-of-command not-my-problem nature of modern civil engineering, where
there are loads of different contractors and sub-contractors involved. Has
anyone ever analysed and costed the risk of the fragmented approach?

OTOH I wonder how much is down to dodgy survey work (piles couldn't
actually go where intended - one of the major problems on the GWML AIUI)
and also down to trying to do it in one blockade; AIUI on the GWML there
are planned three month gaps between piling and steelwork, and between
steelwork and wiring - AFAIK the detailed design work on the steelwork
isn't done until they know exactly where the piles actually landed.

And were "lessons learnt", no obviously not.
--
Roland Perry

On 09/02/2017 15:43, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
NY wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
-septe


mber.org, at 09:20:11 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Recliner
remarked:
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...-further-work-


is-required

http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/...ss_release.pdf



It looks like NR is trying to pass the blame on to the contractors:

"Along the 14-mile route, a number of the structures, which
carry the overhead lines, were incorrectly designed and
couldn’t be installed at the planned locations. Late delivery
of materials and structures also led to further delays."

I think NR would have used different words if the faults had
been its own.

NR's fault is (once again) lack of project management and
performing checks on what was being designed/manufactured.

Yes, no matter whose fault it is, it's ultimately Network Rail's
fault. They are the project managers and they will have either
designed the structures or else approved someone else's design;
ditto with the construction. The buck stops with them.

I wonder if the problem would have arisen in the days of British
Rail when they (BR) did everything themselves: design,
construction, project management? In other words, how much of the
problem is due to the fragmented chain-of-command not-my-problem
nature of modern civil engineering, where there are loads of
different contractors and sub-contractors involved. Has anyone ever
analysed and costed the risk of the fragmented approach?



OTOH I wonder how much is down to dodgy survey work (piles couldn't
actually go where intended - one of the major problems on the GWML
AIUI) and also down to trying to do it in one blockade; AIUI on the
GWML there are planned three month gaps between piling and steelwork,
and between steelwork and wiring - AFAIK the detailed design work on
the steelwork isn't done until they know exactly where the piles
actually landed.


Anna Noyd-Dryver


And how much is down to changes in standards for clearances between
electric wiring & nearby structures, imposed after the original designs
had been approved ?? (More nonsense arising from Euroland, I believe.)

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:37:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.

The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.

You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not pulling
power.

When did you last see a class 92 hauling anything? Most electric freight
are hauled by class 90s.

Class 92s tend to be seen with Channel Tunnel traffic, there is no
current reason for them to be preferred over straight 25kV locos away
from such traffic.

There is no sense putting in new 3rd rail between two 25kV areas; it
is obsolete, requires more substations and wastes more energy.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:25:40 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.

The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.

You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not pulling
power.
]
The class 90 is a mixed traffic loco, most of them are allocated to
freight operators.

Try Wikipedia, it might help you......

There isn't much work for the 92's but they are allocated to the
Caledonian Sleepers + some freight..

DC

DC

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In article , d () wrote:

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:17:56 +0000 Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 09:20:11 on Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Recliner
remarked:

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...nd-gospel-oak-
to-baking-route-to-reopen-on-monday-27-february-but-further-work-is-required


http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/...ss_release.pdf

It looks like NR is trying to pass the blame on to the contractors:

"Along the 14-mile route, a number of the structures, which carry the
overhead lines, were incorrectly designed and couldn't be installed at
the planned locations. Late delivery of materials and structures also
led to further delays."

I think NR would have used different words if the faults had been its
own.

NR's fault is (once again) lack of project management and performing
checks on what was being designed/manufactured.

Of course, if they'd simply installed 3rd rail they could have done
it in a couple of months while the line carried on running. But
thanks to stupid DoT rules about no new 3rd rail they've had to close
the line for god knows how long inconveniencing 10s of thousands of
people and spent 100m.

I see our know-nothing Kipper correspondent has just excelled himself with
his ignorance of electrical engineering. Not for nothing has all the third
rail in North London been replaced with 25KV overhead electrification. A
period of self-education would now be in order.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
The vast majority of freight is hauled by class 66 and 70 diesels and the
main electric freight loco the class 92 can run off 3rd rail anyway.

The main electric freight loco is the class 90. Class 92s are little used.

You sure about that? I thought the 90 was a passenger loco that only
occasionally did light freight because its built for high speed, not pulling
power.


12 out of service, 15 in passenger service leaves 23 in freight service.
They've been regularly used for freight since their early days
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_90.

Also don't forget the 17 class 86s still in service with Freightliner, and
DRSs 88s soon to enter service.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

BevanPrice wrote:


And how much is down to changes in standards for clearances between
electric wiring & nearby structures, imposed after the original designs
had been approved ?? (More nonsense arising from Euroland, I believe.)



You mean the failure to apply for a derogation?

I never got round to posting my observations on the other thread, so I'll
do it here.

The changes to the permitted clearances have been detailed in posts in the
other thread, with links to Roger Ford's writings on the topic. Safety
rules generally do change over time, and existing installations are
generally permitted to continue to operate. In this instance IIRC Network
Rail could have applied for a derogation (on a structure-by-structure
basis) but apparently chose not to (but not entirely - some structures
definitely have much tighter clearances than others).

There are three critical dimensions to be considered during this debate,
however. The first is contact wire to train roof (strictly, to the track).
There is of course a minimum for this, but over level crossings that
dimension is much higher. The dimension which Roger seems focussed on is
the catenary wire to bridge clearance. Between these two is the separation
of contact wire from catenary wire. Under bridges this is squeezed much
tighter - under very tight bridges the two wires are together (known as
'contenary', apparently). However on the GWML this happens comparatively
rarely - ie bridges are being raised by *more* than the minimum that they
need to. Presumably this is related to the desire to spec the GWML catenary
for 140mph - and presumably on the basis that if you're replacing a bridge
structure to raise it by X amount, the cost to raise it by another Y amount
is (presumably) comparatively small.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 2017\02\09 20:26, wrote:

I see our know-nothing Kipper correspondent has just excelled himself with
his ignorance of electrical engineering.

Behave yourself, irrelevant political name-calling is not needed in the
group. I'm not aware of Spud ever declaring membership of Ukip.

A period of self-education would now be in order.

Oh the irony.