On 03/04/2017 09:07, Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 02/04/2017 18:26, wrote:

Does that mean at the time of my visit it was no longer a funicular
but a very long inclined lift but now it is a funicular again?


Given those cars seem to be articulated as well, when does a funicular
become a funicular and stop being a cable hauled railway?


The cars aren't articulated in a conventional sense.

Do they have "two or more sections connected by a flexible joint"?

(sorry - yes, that is pedantic, but I couldn't think of a better word
at the time, and you clearly understood my meaning)

Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 03/04/2017 09:07, Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 02/04/2017 18:26, wrote:

Does that mean at the time of my visit it was no longer a funicular
but a very long inclined lift but now it is a funicular again?


Given those cars seem to be articulated as well, when does a funicular
become a funicular and stop being a cable hauled railway?


The cars aren't articulated in a conventional sense.

Do they have "two or more sections connected by a flexible joint"?

(sorry - yes, that is pedantic, but I couldn't think of a better word
at the time, and you clearly understood my meaning)

No. They are short, single, almost certainly four-wheeled, cars, so
definitely not articulated. They have tilting floors to compensate for the
highly variable incline on the line.

wrote:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 23:59:30 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2017\04\02 18:26, wrote:

The Funicular dos Guindais in Porto next to lower deck of the Ponte

In 2015 road works encroached on the area of the lower station, how
they affected it I don't really know but the funicular got altered to
a single cabin with a counter weight,

Surely it's more likely that encroachment on the central passing loop
would force a change rather than encroachment on one of the termini.

I must admit I could not see how anything done at the terminus could
affect one cabin and not the other seeing how they share the same
single track below the loop especially as the counterweight just
appears to be the chassis of a cabin with the passenger compartment
removed.
The site I got the information from that it was roadworks affecting it
was this one.
http://www.altrinchamfc.co.uk/opofunic.htm

My own personal theory and without further evidence that is all it is,
was that the roadworks around the lower terminus made access awkward
and by reducing services by 50% it discouraged some passengers or the
numbers dropped anyway. Either way it gave the operators a chance to
remove a cabin and do some work on it.

Yes, that makes sense.

Because the incline is not at a constant slope the cars have a self
leveling mechanism so perhaps they did some maintenance on it.

Yup, the tilting cars must need more maintenance than most funiculars.

On 03.04.2017 11:07 AM, Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 02/04/2017 18:26, wrote:

Does that mean at the time of my visit it was no longer a funicular
but a very long inclined lift but now it is a funicular again?


Given those cars seem to be articulated as well, when does a funicular
become a funicular and stop being a cable hauled railway?


The cars aren't articulated in a conventional sense. They seem to have a
variable tilt mechanism (covered by the bellows) to keep the floor
horizontal, as the angle of the funicular varies markedly. Perhaps that had
failed in the missing car, and it was off being repaired. Rather than shut
the funicular altogether, they ingeniously kept it running with just one
car, using perhaps the undercarriage of the missing car with added weights
for balance?


Do they even need added weights for balance? (Genuine question.) I presume
there is already allowance for imbalance given both cars are never going to
be exactly equally weighted - maybe the motors just had to work a little
harder for a while.

wrote:

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 18:19:32 +0100
BirchangerKen wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:09:35 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:04:22 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\03\31 12:49, Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:

Regarding the Overground, you should experience the peculiar DMU on
the GOBLIN before it dissapears.

There's nothing peculiar about the Goblin trains. There are quite a few
other diesel trains in London: in particular, the Uckfield trains to and
from London Bridge, which are not going to be got rid of any time soon,

Why on earth don't they just electrify that branch and be done with it. What
on earth is the logic for still running diesel to a london commuter town?

It does seem odd. I was at London Bridge quite early one morning
wanting to get to East Croydon and was surprised when a 2-car 171 was
on offer. Seems a bit provincial somehow.

Indeed. The cost of electrifying that small branch line is probably miniscule
compared to the other projects going on right now and Crowbridge and Uckfield
arn't exactly small villages so I wouldn't imagine a longer faster train
service would be welcomed.

See London Reconnections for a different view
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/study-sussex-part-11-diverted-oxted-lines/

--
Mark

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:46:43 +0100
(Mark Bestley) wrote:
wrote:
Indeed. The cost of electrifying that small branch line is probably miniscule
compared to the other projects going on right now and Crowbridge and Uckfield
arn't exactly small villages so I wouldn't imagine a longer faster train
service would be welcomed.

See London Reconnections for a different view
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2...erted-oxted-li
es/

He seems to be saying it wouldn't be worth it because of the low usage of the
line, completely missing the point that the low usage is almost certainly in
part because of the slow infrequent diesel trains. This is something TfL
finally woke up to when they gave the go ahead for the Goblin electrification
and I suspect the same would happen at Uckfield which would turn from a
backwater town in a london commuter town.

--
Spud

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:18:49 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:46:43 +0100
(Mark Bestley) wrote:
wrote:
Indeed. The cost of electrifying that small branch line is probably miniscule
compared to the other projects going on right now and Crowbridge and Uckfield
arn't exactly small villages so I wouldn't imagine a longer faster train
service would be welcomed.

See London Reconnections for a different view
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2...erted-oxted-li
es/

He seems to be saying it wouldn't be worth it because of the low usage of the
line, completely missing the point that the low usage is almost certainly in
part because of the slow infrequent diesel trains. This is something TfL
finally woke up to when they gave the go ahead for the Goblin electrification
and I suspect the same would happen at Uckfield which would turn from a
backwater town in a london commuter town.

Will there be more passenger trains on the GOBLin after
electrification? Isn't the current frequency due to paths taken up by
freight?

--
jhk

On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:52:02 +0200, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
wrote:

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:18:49 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:46:43 +0100
(Mark Bestley) wrote:
wrote:
Indeed. The cost of electrifying that small branch line is probably miniscule
compared to the other projects going on right now and Crowbridge and Uckfield
arn't exactly small villages so I wouldn't imagine a longer faster train
service would be welcomed.

See London Reconnections for a different view
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2...erted-oxted-li
es/

He seems to be saying it wouldn't be worth it because of the low usage of the
line, completely missing the point that the low usage is almost certainly in
part because of the slow infrequent diesel trains. This is something TfL
finally woke up to when they gave the go ahead for the Goblin electrification
and I suspect the same would happen at Uckfield which would turn from a
backwater town in a london commuter town.

Will there be more passenger trains on the GOBLin after
electrification? Isn't the current frequency due to paths taken up by
freight?

No there won't be a higher frequency on the electrified GOBLIN, just
longer trains. There will be the same number of EMUs (eight) as the
172s, but they'll have four, rather than two, carriages.

It would be the same on the Uckfield branch. Electric trains would be
a bit quicker, but there aren't enough paths through East Croydon to
allow a higher frequency (and if there were, they'd be better used for
the Brighton main line). Much more of the mainly singled branch would
also need to be redoubled to support a higher frequency.

The article also points out that there are much better candidates for
infill electrification, such as the North Downs Line to Reading.

On 03.04.17 2:06, John Levine wrote:
and the Boston MBTA transit
blue line switches near Logan Airport.

I think that changeover on the T happens when the train is berthed at
the station, whereas trains on the New Haven do it on the fly.

It's been a while since I've taken the train from the airport but I'm
pretty sure it's on the fly.

For added confusion, Penn Station in New York has both third rail and
OHLE, on different services but sometimes on the same tracks.

Yes, but 3rd rail at Penn is all overriding, whereas Metro-North has
only underriding.

There is a direct connection from the New Haven line into Penn via the
Harlem River Branch, which diverges just west of New Rochelle station.
Amtrak trains are now the only trains to run over that line, though the
MTA would eventually like to see New Haven trains running along it.
One of the potential difficulties for this prospect is that M-2 and M-8
EMU trains have only underriding shoes.

I don't see why that's a problem, since the OHLE runs into Penn
Station and beyond.

It can potentially be a problem.

There's an occasional MTA football special from
New Haven that runs through Penn Station to Secacus for the
Meadowlands stadium.

It's an NJT train with an electric locomotive, which has no shoes, that
runs that particular route.

Or are you saying the shoes would do bad things
with the LIRR's third rail?

Very much so, and vice-versa. An underriding shoe could damage the
LIRR's 3rd rail, while the 3rd rail itself could knock off the shoe.

Or, even worse, once an underriding shoe makes contact with an
overriding 3rd rail, it could remain on the train and cause a great deal
of arcing as well as other problems.

The best option would be for Metro-North to lease a couple of electric
locomotives or to remove the shoes.

There's also the Empire Connection, the former freight-only line down
the west side of Manhattan.

Yeah, it's called the West Side Line.

that allows Amtrak trains from Albany to
come into Penn Station.

.... before which Amtrack trains would run into Grand Central Terminal
until 1991.

It's mostly unelectrified but there's a
little bit of third rail at the end that lets the trains run into Penn
Station.

Locomotives will need to switch their power mode to electric and then
shut down the engine before entering Penn, as diesels are not allowed in
there.

I would imagine that the Amtrak P32s running in and out of Penn have
overriding shoes, which the engineer retracts upon leaving from or the
station, as those shoes could damage Metro-North's underriding 3rd rail.

On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 20:25:45 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:52:02 +0200, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Will there be more passenger trains on the GOBLin after
electrification? Isn't the current frequency due to paths taken up by
freight?

No there won't be a higher frequency on the electrified GOBLIN, just
longer trains. There will be the same number of EMUs (eight) as the
172s, but they'll have four, rather than two, carriages.

It would be the same on the Uckfield branch. Electric trains would be
a bit quicker, but there aren't enough paths through East Croydon to
allow a higher frequency (and if there were, they'd be better used for
the Brighton main line). Much more of the mainly singled branch would
also need to be redoubled to support a higher frequency.

Of course the irony there is that the line could have been used as a
secondary route to/from Brighton if that visionary Beeching hadn't caused it
to be ripped up back to Uckfield.

The article also points out that there are much better candidates for
infill electrification, such as the North Downs Line to Reading.

Hmm. I suspect there are a lot more people who would potentially commute
from Uckfield with a better service than there are who would be bouncing along
under the north downs. There are many similar sized towns to uckfield and
crowborough that are currently commuter towns, there is nothing special about
these 2 other than the abysmal train service.

--
Spud