Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Given that one crossrail branch heads into woolwich , will the trains
be dual voltage or will they put 25KV overhead on the DC lines there? B2003 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 31, 4:37 pm, Boltar wrote:
Given that one crossrail branch heads into woolwich , will the trains be dual voltage or will they put 25KV overhead on the DC lines there? B2003 It'll use entirely separate lines, won't it? Jonn |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message .com,
Boltar writes Given that one crossrail branch heads into woolwich , will the trains be dual voltage or will they put 25KV overhead on the DC lines there? No running is planned on the existing line through Woolwich. Crossrail will run in tunnel under the Royal Arsenal, with a station just north of the existing Woolwich station. It stays north of the existing railway until just past Plumstead, and then rises to the surface, running parallel to the existing line until the terminus at Abbey Wood - which will become a four-platform station. So the 3rd-rail and overhead systems stay entirely separate. -- Paul Terry |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 31 Oct, 17:20, Paul Terry wrote:
Given that one crossrail branch heads into woolwich , will the trains be dual voltage or will they put 25KV overhead on the DC lines there? No running is planned on the existing line through Woolwich. Crossrail will run in tunnel under the Royal Arsenal, with a station just north of the existing Woolwich station. It stays north of the existing railway until just past Plumstead, and then rises to the surface, running parallel to the existing line until the terminus at Abbey Wood - which will become a four-platform station. So the 3rd-rail and overhead systems stay entirely separate. This is presumably one of the reasons why the Crossrail extension from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet was rejected. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 31 Oct, 17:20, Paul Terry wrote:
No running is planned on the existing line through Woolwich. Crossrail will run in tunnel under the Royal Arsenal, with a station just north of the existing Woolwich station. It stays north of the existing railway until just past Plumstead, and then rises to the surface, running parallel to the existing line until the terminus at Abbey Wood That was the original plan, though with a flyover further east to swap one track over to give cross-platform interchange at Abbey Wood. Adding Woolwich station moved the portal eastwards, so the plan now is to have the north track of the existing line cross over the top of the portal ramp cutting with the Crossrail tracks then rising up between the two other tracks, again giving cross platform interchange at Abbey Wood. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 31, 5:43 pm, John B wrote:
No running is planned on the existing line through Woolwich. Crossrail will run in tunnel under the Royal Arsenal, with a station just north of the existing Woolwich station. It stays north of the existing railway until just past Plumstead, and then rises to the surface, running parallel to the existing line until the terminus at Abbey Wood - which will become a four-platform station. So the 3rd-rail and overhead systems stay entirely separate. This is presumably one of the reasons why the Crossrail extension from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet was rejected. IIRC capacity issues between Abbey Wood and Ebbsfleet were given as the reason for not extending the route. At the time it was muttered that the cut back was adopted to make the overall scheme affordable.A cross platform Eurostar to Canary Wharf connection would have been welcomed by the folks in the big block. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Boltar wrote:
Given that one crossrail branch heads into woolwich , will the trains be dual voltage or will they put 25KV overhead on the DC lines there? There hasn't been a 25kV EMU built since, probably, the 322s that isn't dual voltage under the skin. Modern power electronics means that dual voltage units are completely trivial, basically a question of bolting on a few shoes, and isntalling version X of the software rather than version Y. Robin |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1 Nov, 10:29, "R.C. Payne" wrote:
Given that one crossrail branch heads into woolwich , will the trains be dual voltage or will they put 25KV overhead on the DC lines there? There hasn't been a 25kV EMU built since, probably, the 322s that isn't dual voltage under the skin. Modern power electronics means that dual voltage units are completely trivial, basically a question of bolting on a few shoes, and isntalling version X of the software rather than version Y. AIUI, there hasn't been *any* EMU built [for UK rail use, pedantry fans] since the 322s which isn't dual-voltage under the skin. However, while all 750V stock is legally required to be easily convertible to 25kV [see: panto spaces on the 444s and 450s' roofs], there's no corresponding requirement for 25kV stock. So (for example) I imagine if you wanted to run 390s on 3rd rail, although the power electronics could handle it, the new wiring, finding places to stick the shoes, etc would be something of a headache... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
John B wrote:
On 1 Nov, 10:29, "R.C. Payne" wrote: Given that one crossrail branch heads into woolwich , will the trains be dual voltage or will they put 25KV overhead on the DC lines there? There hasn't been a 25kV EMU built since, probably, the 322s that isn't dual voltage under the skin. Modern power electronics means that dual voltage units are completely trivial, basically a question of bolting on a few shoes, and isntalling version X of the software rather than version Y. AIUI, there hasn't been *any* EMU built [for UK rail use, pedantry fans] since the 322s which isn't dual-voltage under the skin. However, while all 750V stock is legally required to be easily convertible to 25kV [see: panto spaces on the 444s and 450s' roofs], there's no corresponding requirement for 25kV stock. Who is responsible for this "law"? It seems a little silly to me, given that units built for the Southern will almost certainly spend their entire working lives on that system, and if they leave it, will need to be replaced by something else that can work on that system. So (for example) I imagine if you wanted to run 390s on 3rd rail, although the power electronics could handle it, the new wiring, finding places to stick the shoes, etc would be something of a headache... Certainly in the context of Crossrail, the 390s are a red herring, and I suspect the only reason it would be difficult (apart from DC control software not existing yet) to make them work on 3rd rail is because the tilt gear (which has no purpose off the WCML and a few non-Southern other bits) takes up the space that might otherwise be wanted for shoegear. With the class 323, which is not a current design, asside, everything else has been built either as a dual voltage unit, or as part of a standard family that contains members of both sorts. Robin |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1 Nov, 16:25, "R.C. Payne" wrote:
AIUI, there hasn't been *any* EMU built [for UK rail use, pedantry fans] since the 322s which isn't dual-voltage under the skin. However, while all 750V stock is legally required to be easily convertible to 25kV [see: panto spaces on the 444s and 450s' roofs], there's no corresponding requirement for 25kV stock. Who is responsible for this "law"? It seems a little silly to me, given that units built for the Southern will almost certainly spend their entire working lives on that system, and if they leave it, will need to be replaced by something else that can work on that system. Haven't got a cite to be honest - it's something I've picked up here and from the Wiki (so it might be rubbish - but it is certainly true that all DC EMUs post-465s are readily AC-able). And It's already proven useful in the case of 350s (albeit that this happened before they went into service) and 365s, not to mention whatever's about to happen with the Electrostar reshuffles. Certainly in the context of Crossrail, the 390s are a red herring, and I suspect the only reason it would be difficult (apart from DC control software not existing yet) to make them work on 3rd rail is because the tilt gear (which has no purpose off the WCML and a few non-Southern other bits) takes up the space that might otherwise be wanted for shoegear. With the class 323, which is not a current design, asside, everything else has been built either as a dual voltage unit, or as part of a standard family that contains members of both sorts. Obviously the 390s aren't going to be used for Crossrail, and agreed 100% that all new /suburban/ EMUs post-323s are readily AC/DC-able. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Crossrail electrification | London Transport | |||
Chiltern Line Electrification - Roger Ford's solution to WestMidlands Capacity Issues? | London Transport | |||
Network RUS - electrification strategy - consultation draft | London Transport | |||
Network RUS - electrification strategy - consultation draft | London Transport | |||
Network RUS - electrification strategy - consultation draft | London Transport |