On 11/04/2021 11:46, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:15:18 on Sun, 11 Apr
2021, Graeme Wall remarked:

Â*Rather than laying a whole new cable, can't the existing cable
supplyingÂ* 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.

Can Mr Google's Streetview Emporium back you up on that?

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
1992 - Eva Luna - Moonshake

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.


GH

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. Last weekend I was sat in a pretty little Northamptonshire village
looking at a wooden telegraph pole that carried household power
distribution (4 wire along the length of the road, single overhead cable to
the house) and a couple of feet below were the phone cables. The whole
village was so fitted.

Marland wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:


As for they trip hazard problem the most basic solution would be conduits
like slot drains that been used since victorian times to take water from
building downpipes to the gutter, theirs were cast Iron and many are still
in place but modern versions in other materials are available.
You then lay your cable in that .

This is one of the old style ones in Truro from the closed Hotel to the
gutter, there are thousands still in use around the country and people cope
with them.


Whoops forgot the link





GH

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 09:31:21 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 08:17:30 on Sun, 11 Apr
2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:36:52 on Sat, 10 Apr
2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:32:14 on Sat, 10 Apr
2021, remarked:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:16:50 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson wrote:
wrote:
H2 has over batteries is recharge time, other than that its hopeless.

That’s a not inconsiderable advantage!

It is, but otoh once - one hopes - street recharging via some sort of
infrastructure built into street lights or similar for those who
don't have
driveways becomes the norm in a decade or 2, that advantage will become
redundant except for the very few people who need to do ultra long
journeys
without much in the way of stopping.

The main issue with EVs isn't the battery vs H2 argument , its where
the 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 nor of course is there much more than 13A ring main linking up the
streetlights in any one street.

Streets and pavements are dug up often enough for other reasons, that doing
it again to upgrade the wiring/install a parallel circuit, isn't the end of
the world.

I think you underestimate the scale of the project.

The various cable TV/internet companies, now all(?) under the Virgin
umbrella, laid new cable along the pavement of a decent proportion of the
country in the 1990s(?).

Just under the surface (and in many cases very poorly finished), power
cables have to be much deeper - 18" is typical.

This time, for a start, only roads which people actually park along will
need to be covered. That rules out a good proportion of residential roads
which are sufficiently provided with off-street parking.

You'd probably have to do all the ones which currently attract cars
parked on them. Which in a lot of places is pretty much all of them.

The often wandering path of the cable track for cable television
(still visible years later round here) gives away the degree of
shoehorning into place that was needed in many places to fit it
alongside existing services. Any work on electric cables is observed
to involve digging past cable television, telephone, gas, water,
drains, etc. which themselves aren't always neatly arranged.

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.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 10:56:04 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
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.



Health and Safety at Work Act, isn't it?

And some more specificaly electric legislation IIRC which works
against inadequately protected conductors within reach.
Also not forgetting that 3rd rail involves fairly inefficient
distribution and there is an increasing amount of dual-voltage capable
stock.

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.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

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.

I would think it is actually 415v ( if you are using 240).

Were your villages still 4 individual wire for the 3 phases and earth
mounted vertically?
A lot like ours has been replaced by ABC cable. Has the disadvantage you
can’t nick electricity using some welding cables with clamps a wooden
ladder and thick rubber gloves, no I wouldn’t do it but I knew a farmer who
did. It wasn’t the cost of electric so much as it was a convenient way to
get electricity to a lambing shed for a few weeks to run a heater.



Not just villages either quite a few towns were cabled the same way but
have since been changed,
Holsworthy in Devon was changed about 4 or 5 years ago.
I’m pleased from an industrial archaeology point of view that when they
removed the poles either by design or because it was too awkward the grey
post here

https://goo.gl/maps/ByiJCQygU3DoKfGP7

was left in place as it bears the initials of the original private
electricity provider from the early days in the 1920’s.
The bollard did a good job protecting it and the pole over the years.

GH

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?