In message , at 16:47:51 on Sun, 11 Apr
2021, Sam Wilson remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:42:30 on Sun, 11
Apr 2021, Marland remarked:

I think it was the 1970’s when the lightening protection cable
linking the pylons out of Fawley was replaced by a new combined cable
developed by BICC as one of the first experimental links to use it.

The Energis Internet backbone.

And later similar techniques by Scottish Power/Scottish Telecom/

That's right, the Scottish Equivalent of Energis.

thus/

Mainly the old Demon empire, bought by ST; rebranded.

Cable & Wireless/Vodafone. I think the rump is still in the Vodafone
empire.

C&W bought Energis and thus; and later Vodafone bought C&W.

--
Roland Perry

On 11/04/2021 15:29, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/04/2021 14:00, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/04/2021 12:28, Recliner wrote:
Marland wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:41:53 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
That matters for long distance lorries and buses for whom suitable batteries
would be a ridiculous size, but for cars its not even an issue right now,
never mind as technology advances. Yes, they're maybe half a ton heavier
than an equivalent ICE car at most, but the vehicle size is the same, if
not a bit smaller.

Which is why H2 is mainly being considered for larger, heavier vehicles:
trains, trucks, long distance buses, large SUVs, perhaps even short range
airliners. It's not needed nor viable for ordinary cars.

Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no
bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too
expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about
no more 3rd rail and lay that instead.



Don’t know about that but now that having multi system trains is easier now
than it once was then I wonder if electrification at 25,0000 volt and all
the clearance work that has to be done thus raising costs is always the
best solution. If you are not building for high speed or heavy loads then
1500 or 3000 DC may suffice for short parts of the network. The tram train
concept in Yorkshire shows the electrical side is achievable. Just
surmising but if 25.000 ever gets to Penzance would you really need it to
Barnstaple , Okehampton Looe, Falmouth etc if using stock that could use
1500 DC with trolley wire electrification and no need to rebuild bridges
would save costs even though you may need a few more substations. OTOH
presumably it is easier to hook a DC substation into the existing
electricity supply network as the rectifiers connected to all 3 phases
don’t unbalance it in the way single phase 25,000 can without careful
planning.

The current bright idea is discontinuous electrifcation. Trains/trams are
fitted with short range batteries so the difficult/scenic bits don't need
OHL. The first UK example is the Birmingham Metro extension.

Hitachi is offering class 800 variants with traction batteries rather than
big diesel engines so they will be able to run for a few miles without OHL.
That will save the cost of rebuilding low bridges or disfiguring historic
areas.

It could also save money by bridging the non-electrified islands or
branches in otherwise electrified networks, such as the Uckfield or
Marshlink lines. The proposal is to retrofit batteries to some third rail
Electrostar units.


I wonder if that would work on the North Downs Line? I suspect the
section from Shalford to Redhill is probably too long for battery working.


Isn't that much shorter than the Marshlink line?



It's around 18 miles. There's another 11 miles non-electrified from
Wokingham to Ash.


Ta, I was assuming the Wokingham-Ash section was within the capabilities
of a battery unit.




Though as they're only separated by around 5.5miles, you need to consider
the effect that one will have on the other (or effectively consider it as
one, 29-mile, section).


"We apologise for the delay of this service at Guildford. We are
waiting to enable charging of the batteries. We anticipate a further
delay of 15 minutes."

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:47:51 on Sun, 11 Apr
2021, Sam Wilson remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:42:30 on Sun, 11
Apr 2021, Marland remarked:

I think it was the 1970’s when the lightening protection cable
linking the pylons out of Fawley was replaced by a new combined cable
developed by BICC as one of the first experimental links to use it.

The Energis Internet backbone.

And later similar techniques by Scottish Power/Scottish Telecom/

That's right, the Scottish Equivalent of Energis.

thus/

Mainly the old Demon empire, bought by ST; rebranded.

Our dealings were mainly with the non-Demon side; ST people at various
points thanked the Scottish University MANs (metropolitan area networks,
though that was a slight misnomer given the geography of Scotland) for
giving them the impetus to build out their dark fibre backbones.

Cable & Wireless/Vodafone. I think the rump is still in the Vodafone
empire.

C&W bought Energis and thus; and later Vodafone bought C&W.

Yes, and my former employer is still leasing dark fibre from Vodafone which
was installed by SP/ST. There was a bit of a wobble when thus were
swallowed by C&W - C&W tried to insist that they weren’t in the market for
leasing dark fibre and our thus contacts (who retained their separate
identity for some time) had to work hard to suggest that we were valued
customers who weren’t going to be happy replace their dark fibre with
shared managed services. Vodafone don’t seem to have minded.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as
Spit the dummy to reply

Marland wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/04/2021 12:08, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:15:18 on Sun, 11 Apr
2021, Graeme Wall remarked:

Rather than laying a whole new cable, can't the existing cable
supplying every house be used?

Not enough capacity and doesn't necessarily go where you think it
would.

I've lived in two village now where about half the houses are [still]
supplied by 240v wiring on poles, which looks a bit like phone cables,
unless you know better.

Which reminds me....

It’s oft been stated that we can’t hang optic fibre cables off power poles
in rural areas (which would make it so very much cheaper and easier)
because we don’t/can’t possibly do that sort of thing because the power
companies and phone companies couldn’t possibly safely work together etc
etc.

Who said that?


It is one those things that has probably been said for the past 100 years.
The reality is that power cables were not put on telegraph / telephone
wires.
This was more to do with the specification of pole used as one designed to
hold up light weight phone lines would not be strong enough to hold heavier
electric cables coming along later nor tall enough to allow a safe working
zone beneath the power lines for the telephone man
Other way round no problem if the power pole was there first and the phone
line has to be below the power so that telecom engineers can work on their
components without personal danger and disruption to the electric supply.

However, those sharing agreements date back to when we had state run
entities whose staff applied a little common sense.
Now we have infrastructure owned by private companies and guess what, if
openreach or other fibre installer want to attach a fibre cable to the
power poles the power distribution company says sorry,
Fibre is new technology not covered by the old agreements so we want a lot
of dosh.
So the telecom company prefers to provide its own and more than likely
under ground as that gives better protection anyway.
Fibre is often run on distribution networks anyway for their own purposes,
cables with a fibre component within have been available for years, I think
it was the 1970’s when the lightening
protection cable linking the pylons out of Fawley was replaced by a new
combined cable developed by BICC as one of the first experimental links to
use it.


A couple of decades ago, some farmers apparently cottoned on to the fact
that they wayleaves for the overhead cable routes across their land often
specified 'power' and that if the companies wanted to string fibre up too,
they could pay for the privilege...


Anna Noyd-Dryver

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/04/2021 15:29, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/04/2021 14:00, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/04/2021 12:28, Recliner wrote:
Marland wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:41:53 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
That matters for long distance lorries and buses for whom suitable batteries
would be a ridiculous size, but for cars its not even an issue right now,
never mind as technology advances. Yes, they're maybe half a ton heavier
than an equivalent ICE car at most, but the vehicle size is the same, if
not a bit smaller.

Which is why H2 is mainly being considered for larger, heavier vehicles:
trains, trucks, long distance buses, large SUVs, perhaps even short range
airliners. It's not needed nor viable for ordinary cars.

Hummer have already built 2 large battery SUVs. And H2 trains makes no
bloody sense whatsoever - just electric the damn lines and if its too
expensive for overhead then they should recind that moronic rule about
no more 3rd rail and lay that instead.



Don’t know about that but now that having multi system trains is easier now
than it once was then I wonder if electrification at 25,0000 volt and all
the clearance work that has to be done thus raising costs is always the
best solution. If you are not building for high speed or heavy loads then
1500 or 3000 DC may suffice for short parts of the network. The tram train
concept in Yorkshire shows the electrical side is achievable. Just
surmising but if 25.000 ever gets to Penzance would you really need it to
Barnstaple , Okehampton Looe, Falmouth etc if using stock that could use
1500 DC with trolley wire electrification and no need to rebuild bridges
would save costs even though you may need a few more substations. OTOH
presumably it is easier to hook a DC substation into the existing
electricity supply network as the rectifiers connected to all 3 phases
don’t unbalance it in the way single phase 25,000 can without careful
planning.

The current bright idea is discontinuous electrifcation. Trains/trams are
fitted with short range batteries so the difficult/scenic bits don't need
OHL. The first UK example is the Birmingham Metro extension.

Hitachi is offering class 800 variants with traction batteries rather than
big diesel engines so they will be able to run for a few miles without OHL.
That will save the cost of rebuilding low bridges or disfiguring historic
areas.

It could also save money by bridging the non-electrified islands or
branches in otherwise electrified networks, such as the Uckfield or
Marshlink lines. The proposal is to retrofit batteries to some third rail
Electrostar units.


I wonder if that would work on the North Downs Line? I suspect the
section from Shalford to Redhill is probably too long for battery working.


Isn't that much shorter than the Marshlink line?



It's around 18 miles. There's another 11 miles non-electrified from
Wokingham to Ash.


Ta, I was assuming the Wokingham-Ash section was within the capabilities
of a battery unit.




Though as they're only separated by around 5.5miles, you need to consider
the effect that one will have on the other (or effectively consider it as
one, 29-mile, section).


That is the imponderable, would there be enough time between Ash and
Shalford to recharge the batteries sufficiently.



I think it would depend on the specifications of the stock concerned, and
the power supply capability of the intermediate 3rd rail section.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

Basil Jet wrote:

I wonder if that would work on the North Downs Line? I suspect the
section from Shalford to Redhill is probably too long for battery working.

Isn't that much shorter than the Marshlink line?

It's around 18 miles. There's another 11 miles non-electrified from
Wokingham to Ash.

Ta, I was assuming the Wokingham-Ash section was within the capabilities
of a battery unit.

Though as they're only separated by around 5.5miles, you need to consider
the effect that one will have on the other (or effectively consider it as
one, 29-mile, section).

Wouldn't 5.5 miles be enough to add at least 50% battery charge? If the
nominal range on a 100% charge is 100 miles, that route should be fine,
year round.

Perhaps the electrified section would need to be beefed up, since the
trains on it would be not only drawing enough power to move 5 miles but
enough power to move 20.


Yes, in some cases that might be necessary.

wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:42:42 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson wrote:
wrote:
power
is going to come from to power them all in the first place because right now
the generating capacity simply isn't there and short termist politicians
don't seem to be interested in providing it, merely exchanging like for like
with coal and gas gen replaced by wind farms so they can polish their green
halos.

That’s true. Maybe they’re thinking ahead to a time when we might have to
accept a change in lifestyle rather than trying to find “sustainable� ways
to maintain our current ones.

Even full lockdowns only led to a 7% reduction in CO2 so the sustainability
part is little to do with personal transport and a lot to do with home power
and manufacturing it would seem.

I’m not sure there’s a sequitur there, but what the heck.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as
Spit the dummy to reply

wrote:


Hydrogen power is an enviromental dead end. I wish politicians would realise.


No doubt you think energy companies need your advice as well:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottishpower-plans-uks-biggest-green-hydrogen-plant-in-glasgow-8qjsscnl6?shareToken=51bc327aa4999e0edc07659fe907a 0eb

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 21:32:58 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:42:42 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson wrote:
wrote:
power
is going to come from to power them all in the first place because right
now
the generating capacity simply isn't there and short termist politicians
don't seem to be interested in providing it, merely exchanging like for
like
with coal and gas gen replaced by wind farms so they can polish their green

halos.

That’s true. Maybe they’re thinking ahead to a time when we might have
to
accept a change in lifestyle rather than trying to find “sustainable�
ways
to maintain our current ones.

Even full lockdowns only led to a 7% reduction in CO2 so the sustainability
part is little to do with personal transport and a lot to do with home power

and manufacturing it would seem.

I’m not sure there’s a sequitur there, but what the heck.

Whats the problem? Less people have been travelling during the lockdown hence
the reduction in admissions. Any increases in home power usage has been
offset by the reduction in office power usage so where does the other 93%
of emissions come from? Answer, normal home power usage regardless of lockdown
freight transport, manufacturing, construction and agriculture.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:05:11 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:


Hydrogen power is an enviromental dead end. I wish politicians would realise.



No doubt you think energy companies need your advice as well:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...st-green-hydro
gen-plant-in-glasgow-8qjsscnl6?shareToken=51bc327aa4999e0edc07659fe907a 0eb

If energy companies don't understand basic physics thats not my problem.
But then most of them believe they can send "green" electrons down the pipe
simply by you signing up with them so go figure.