In article ,
(Dave) wrote:

From 1916 until around 1990, the Manchester Victoria-Bury service used
trains operating off a 1200V DC protected third rail - with a
side-contact. This system was replaced by overhead wires when the route
was converted for use as part of the Metrolink system.

FSVO "protected"! There wasn't much protection left when I travelled on
the line shortly before its closure for conversion to trams.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Boltar) wrote:

] (Arthur Figgis) wrote in message
...
Why re-invent the wheel, and introduce an incompatible new system at
huge expense? Internationally 25kV 50 Hz is effectively standard
nowadays, the equipment is available off the shelf (and once we shoot
all the Daily Mail readers, sorry, I mean sort out the important
political issues, we might even be able to get standard foreign trains
running through to Britain on it).

They'll only be able to run on the CTRL, they'd be too big for other
lines. I can't understand why we have such a restricted loading gauge in
this country, I mean we had broad gauge on the GWR for heavens sake,
surely the loading gauge of that line if nothing else must have been
built big enough for european trains?

Although our structure gauge (especially height) is a restriction on the
use of continental stock in this country I thought platform height was
also an issue, with our platforms liable to clash with continental
carriage steps?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

ISTR that the ultra fast maglevs and hover-guideway thingies running at
400km/h, and indeed over 500km/h use conductor rails to supply the juice.
Check if there's any overhead on the Chinese maglev.

I'd suggest that we'd be in strife somewhere above 600km/h for side contact
or bottom contact conductor rail supply - much higher than for catenary
strung overhead contact wire.

DW

"Boltar" wrote in message
m...
: (Nathan Whitington) wrote in message
om...
: However collecting the juice at high speeds is a problem....
:
: WHy should it be? Whats the difference between a contact pushing onto a
wire
: above a train and pushing onto a rail to the side of it? Todays 3rd rail
may
: have problems at high speed but it was designed 100 years ago , I really
can't
: see this being a major problem if a completely new 3rd rail system was
devised.
:
: B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
: ] (Arthur Figgis) wrote in message
...
: Why re-invent the wheel, and introduce an incompatible new system at
: huge expense? Internationally 25kV 50 Hz is effectively standard
: nowadays, the equipment is available off the shelf (and once we shoot
: all the Daily Mail readers, sorry, I mean sort out the important
: political issues, we might even be able to get standard foreign trains
: running through to Britain on it).
:
: They'll only be able to run on the CTRL, they'd be too big for other
lines.
: I can't understand why we have such a restricted loading gauge in this
: country, I mean we had broad gauge on the GWR for heavens sake, surely the
: loading gauge of that line if nothing else must have been built big enough
for
: european trains?

..... and the Great Central, too!

DW

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
: Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
: In message , Arthur Figgis
: ] writes
: FWIW, you don't have to have overhead lines for electric
: trams - London had its conduit, and various places have
: had stud contact, including parts of the brand new tramway
: in Bordeaux.
:
: In fairness though, The Bordeaux system isn't open yet and
: the stud contact hasn't been proved to work successfully.
:
: But it has been used on previous systems I seem to recall (just don't ask
me
: when and where at the mo).
:
:
Marklin?

DW

"Matthew Malthouse" wrote in message
.. .
: On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:29:36 +0100 Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
: } In article , Matthew
: } Malthouse writes
: } } British Rail, very seriously underinvesting,
: } } Nowhere near true.
: } } Read Roger Ford's column in the current (August) Modern Railways.
: } The gist?
: }
: } A detailed analysis of this canard. Basically, BR invested lots.
: }
: } The perception as long as I can remember has been that railways have
: } suffered from lack of funds.
: }
: } Yes, as in there's a lot of improvements that could have been done with
: } more money. But, unlike Railtrack, BR at least invested enough to keep
: } the network stable.
:
: Fine, I'll go with that. ;-)
:
: Come back BR! All is forgiven!
:
: Matthew

I agree. On many fronts, the Sectorised approach worked, except for marginal
infrastructure. The accountants weren't smart enough to give a value to
operational flexibility, and to do risk assessments and adjust cost
allocations accordingly. But certainly, Network South-East seemed to me to
be making headway in turning a system with many pre-Grouping overtones into
a coherant service-based business. They made mistakes, but the break-up by
Major and his loser-mates was a MAJOR punishable sin. The price YOU pay is
BLAIR. - Can't win whichever way you toss the die!

Likewise, I thought InterCity was re-inventing that business in a manner
which was properly cognisant of rail and motorway competition.

The weak link was Regional, and the plurality of PTEs about the place all
doing their own thing. Should have warned us about a bunch of TOCs also all
doing theior own thing.

Anyway, the pre-Major BR was certainly a service based business moving in
the right direction about as fast as it could carry its staff, stakeholders
and customers, with a limited srip feed of Exchequer funds.

I was a paying customer in those years, annual season tickets Zone 1
variously from Stevenage, Hitchin and Leagrave.

David Winter
Armadale,
Western Australia