On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 07:24:39 -0600,
wrote:

In article , (Graeme
Wall) wrote:

On 10/02/2017 12:22, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/02/2017 09:54, d wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000
Charles Ellson wrote:
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.

So there's no freight on southern region then?

Al diesel hauled round here, which is why they are discussing the
"electric spine" running 25kV from Reading to Southampton.

The problem with electric freight on 3rd rail is that the current drawn
to move a competitive-sized freight at a competitive speed, is very
close to the current at which the circuit breakers trip.

Which is why, I suspect, the 92s were never very useful.

I thought their main problem was electrical interference fed back into the
power supply and signalling systems. I understand this is still being worked
on with solutions hoped for imminently, by Caledonian Sleepers at least.
Their needs are AC only of course.

I think that's right. But the fact that the problem only came to light
with the sleepers indicates just how little the 92s have been used on
25kV main line freights. GBRf thought they were acquiring a mature,
well-proven design, not locos that had mainly been in storage.

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 07:24:39 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Graeme Wall) wrote:

On 10/02/2017 12:22, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/02/2017 09:54, d wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000
Charles Ellson wrote:
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.

So there's no freight on southern region then?

Al diesel hauled round here, which is why they are discussing the
"electric spine" running 25kV from Reading to Southampton.

The problem with electric freight on 3rd rail is that the current
drawn to move a competitive-sized freight at a competitive speed, is
very close to the current at which the circuit breakers trip.

Which is why, I suspect, the 92s were never very useful.

I thought their main problem was electrical interference fed back into
the power supply and signalling systems. I understand this is still being
worked on with solutions hoped for imminently, by Caledonian Sleepers at
least. Their needs are AC only of course.

I think that's right. But the fact that the problem only came to light
with the sleepers indicates just how little the 92s have been used on
25kV main line freights. GBRf thought they were acquiring a mature,
well-proven design, not locos that had mainly been in storage.

I think the problems were well known, hence the limited use. Some HS1 use
was included though, was it not?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 07:24:39 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Graeme Wall) wrote:

On 10/02/2017 12:22, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/02/2017 09:54, d wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:42:06 +0000
Charles Ellson wrote:
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.

So there's no freight on southern region then?

Al diesel hauled round here, which is why they are discussing the
"electric spine" running 25kV from Reading to Southampton.

The problem with electric freight on 3rd rail is that the current
drawn to move a competitive-sized freight at a competitive speed, is
very close to the current at which the circuit breakers trip.

Which is why, I suspect, the 92s were never very useful.

I thought their main problem was electrical interference fed back into
the power supply and signalling systems. I understand this is still being
worked on with solutions hoped for imminently, by Caledonian Sleepers at
least. Their needs are AC only of course.

I think that's right. But the fact that the problem only came to light
with the sleepers indicates just how little the 92s have been used on
25kV main line freights. GBRf thought they were acquiring a mature,
well-proven design, not locos that had mainly been in storage.

I think the problems were well known, hence the limited use. Some HS1 use
was included though, was it not?

I think some problems were known, but not the ones that GBRf discovered
when it initially put them into service with the sleeper trains. Yes,
they've had some limited use on HS1, as they're the only UK locos equipped
to run on it, aren't they?

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:13:54 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:
Sorry, which modern electric trains exactly - the 378s which run on
the NLL *and* the 3rd rail ELL all the way down to crystal palace? Do
they run faster
or with better acceleration on the NLL then?

3rd rail is fine for frequent suburban and metro services but increasingly
hopeless for long distance passenger and freight services. The huge benefit
derived from power electronics is that dual system trains are so much
cheaper and more versatile so there is no reason to keep third rail where
25KV would allow bore versatile traffic, hence the electric spine
re-powering project. It may have been ahead of its time but it will come so
freights too heavy for diesel haulage can run in and out of Southampton.

I understand that all other things being equal 25Kv is the better choice.
However all the 378s are capable of 3rd rail and installing 3rd rail on the
goblin line would have meant little to no disruption of services plus it would
have cost a damn site less. Ok, so freight on the line would still have to use
diesels or 92s. So what - it always hauled by diesels anyway from my experience
probably because the wires don't extend to whatever port or sidings its heading
for anyway, not because the goblin isn't wired up.

--
Spud

wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:13:54 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:
Sorry, which modern electric trains exactly - the 378s which run on
the NLL *and* the 3rd rail ELL all the way down to crystal palace? Do
they run faster
or with better acceleration on the NLL then?

3rd rail is fine for frequent suburban and metro services but increasingly
hopeless for long distance passenger and freight services. The huge benefit
derived from power electronics is that dual system trains are so much
cheaper and more versatile so there is no reason to keep third rail where
25KV would allow bore versatile traffic, hence the electric spine
re-powering project. It may have been ahead of its time but it will come so
freights too heavy for diesel haulage can run in and out of Southampton.

I understand that all other things being equal 25Kv is the better choice.
However all the 378s are capable of 3rd rail and installing 3rd rail on
the goblin line would have meant little to no disruption of services plus
it would have cost a damn site less. Ok, so freight on the line would
still have to use diesels or 92s. So what - it always hauled by diesels
anyway from my experience probably because the wires don't extend to
whatever port or sidings its heading for anyway, not because the goblin
isn't wired up.

But the reson for electrifying Goblin is for freight thus need 25kV

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...chment_data/fi
le/209279/PU1524_IUK_new_template.pdf

"electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking rail corridor, to improve
a key freight
corridor and improving reliability for passengers. "





--
Mark

In article ,
(Mark Bestley) wrote:

wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:13:54 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:
Sorry, which modern electric trains exactly - the 378s which run on
the NLL *and* the 3rd rail ELL all the way down to crystal palace? Do
they run faster or with better acceleration on the NLL then?

3rd rail is fine for frequent suburban and metro services but
increasingly hopeless for long distance passenger and freight
services. The huge benefit derived from power electronics is that dual
system trains are so much cheaper and more versatile so there is no
reason to keep third rail where 25KV would allow bore versatile
traffic, hence the electric spine re-powering project. It may have been
ahead of its time but it will come so freights too heavy for diesel
haulage can run in and out of Southampton.

I understand that all other things being equal 25Kv is the better
choice. However all the 378s are capable of 3rd rail and installing 3rd
rail on the goblin line would have meant little to no disruption of
services plus it would have cost a damn site less. Ok, so freight on the
line would still have to use diesels or 92s. So what - it always hauled
by diesels anyway from my experience probably because the wires don't
extend to whatever port or sidings its heading for anyway, not because
the goblin isn't wired up.

But the reson for electrifying Goblin is for freight thus need 25kV


https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...t_data/file/20
9279/PU1524_IUK_new_template.pdf

"electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking rail corridor, to improve
a key freight corridor and improving reliability for passengers. "

And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.

Is Spud related to Mr Ludd by any chance?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 09:54:35AM +0000, d wrote:

So there's no freight on southern region then?

What little of it I see is diesel hauled.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

You can't spell AWESOME without ME!

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
wrote:
"electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking rail corridor, to improve
a key freight corridor and improving reliability for passengers. "

And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.

Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then?
I find that hard to believe.

Is Spud related to Mr Ludd by any chance?

No. I'm simply Mr Taxpayer who isn't thrilled by seeing huge wads of cash
spent on this project when there was a much simpler and cheaper alternative.
The whole freight argument is bogus since the vast majority of UK freight is
diesel hauled and there is already a 25KV path for freight across north london
anyway.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
wrote:
"electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking rail corridor, to improve
a key freight corridor and improving reliability for passengers. "

And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.

Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then?

No

I find that hard to believe.

Do you *really* not know what trains are being built for the line?


Is Spud related to Mr Ludd by any chance?

No. I'm simply Mr Taxpayer who isn't thrilled by seeing huge wads of cash
spent on this project when there was a much simpler and cheaper alternative.
The whole freight argument is bogus since the vast majority of UK freight is
diesel hauled and there is already a 25KV path for freight across north london
anyway.

With your expert knowledge of LO, the Goblin, UK railfreight and electric
traction, you must be right. But the people actually putting up the money
thought differently. If only they had had access to some expert consulting
from you!

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:04:48 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600
And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either.

Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then?
I find that hard to believe.

TfL are buying 45 four-car 710s for use on the West Anglia Routes and
the Watford DC, GOBLIN and Romford to Upminster lines