On 14 Nov, 11:25, MaxB wrote:
On 13 Nov, 21:26, Ar wrote:

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:26:59 -0800, sweek scribed:

The original plans were to build a tunnel to Waterloo and keep that as
the terminal, but I think it was the borough of Lewisham that didn't
want that, which resulted in the current north London route.

If you remember where you got that info from I'd appreciate it. Never
heard of one borough objecting, but then again, it was a Labour
borough at the time.

It was certainly planned to go underground through South London. In
the small park just north of Peckham Rye station a public tennis court
was removed in preparation for the site to be a vent/construction
access point against some local opposition. It has now been grassed
over. That would be in Southwark, not Lewisham, however.

I can't remember which scheme that was, there have been so many!

MaxB

I think there was a whole lot more planned for that site - BTW it's
Warwick Gardens you're talking of (off Lyndhurst Way). AIUI several
adjacent houses (if not the whole row) on Lyndhurst Road were bought
using compulsory purchase powers by BR and were to be demolished to
make way for this shaft site. I don't know what the exact plan was,
but if I was to take a guess I'd suggest the idea was to use the site
for a major working shaft for use in constructing the tunnels, which
would of course have led to a pretty significant disturbance to the
surrounding residential area.

I certainly recall the fuss about it at the time, and the large number
of "Sink the Link" posters (complete with the BR double-arrows symbol
crossed out) that were all around the area. However back then I didn't
follow the various happenings closely, but now, years later, I'm quite
curious about the whole issue of the CTRL under south London that
never was. I feel a delve into the relevant local studies libraries is
on the cards.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 14 Nov, 11:25, MaxB wrote:
On 13 Nov, 21:26, Ar wrote:

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:26:59 -0800, sweek scribed:

The original plans were to build a tunnel to Waterloo and keep that
as
the terminal, but I think it was the borough of Lewisham that didn't
want that, which resulted in the current north London route.

If you remember where you got that info from I'd appreciate it. Never
heard of one borough objecting, but then again, it was a Labour
borough at the time.

It was certainly planned to go underground through South London. In
the small park just north of Peckham Rye station a public tennis court
was removed in preparation for the site to be a vent/construction
access point against some local opposition. It has now been grassed
over. That would be in Southwark, not Lewisham, however.

I can't remember which scheme that was, there have been so many!

MaxB

I think there was a whole lot more planned for that site - BTW it's
Warwick Gardens you're talking of (off Lyndhurst Way). AIUI several
adjacent houses (if not the whole row) on Lyndhurst Road were bought
using compulsory purchase powers by BR and were to be demolished to
make way for this shaft site. I don't know what the exact plan was,
but if I was to take a guess I'd suggest the idea was to use the site
for a major working shaft for use in constructing the tunnels, which
would of course have led to a pretty significant disturbance to the
surrounding residential area.

I certainly recall the fuss about it at the time, and the large number
of "Sink the Link" posters (complete with the BR double-arrows symbol
crossed out) that were all around the area. However back then I didn't
follow the various happenings closely, but now, years later, I'm quite
curious about the whole issue of the CTRL under south London that
never was. I feel a delve into the relevant local studies libraries is
on the cards.

The idea was to have a junction in tunnel near there, with a portal in
Warwick Gardens where the Waterloo link would have surfaced and joined the
Chatham lines to access Brixton and Linford Street curve.

The flats opposite, on the site of the original South London Line depot (in
the angle between the Denmark Hill and Tulse Hill lines) were fairly new at
the time, and the owners were up in arms because they had just completed
their purchase when the plans for Warwick Gardens were first announced.

Peter

"Lüko Willms" wrote

Why and how would the Class 92 locomotives have to be "configured
for HS1"? They do support TVM and KVB, don't they?

I think they only have it configured for the Channel Tunnel, which uses
different speed bands from HS1 or LGV. ISTR that when one freight train was
allowed to use the CTRL it had to do so under special regulations as it was
effectively unsignalled.

Peter

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

"Lüko Willms" wrote

Why and how would the Class 92 locomotives have to be "configured
for HS1"? They do support TVM and KVB, don't they?

I think they only have it configured for the Channel Tunnel, which uses
different speed bands from HS1 or LGV. ISTR that when one freight train
was
allowed to use the CTRL it had to do so under special regulations as it
was
effectively unsignalled.

Peter


The TVM configurations are specific to route and stock, as they include the
braking curves for given items of stock under given conditions. In some
instances, a temporary change in braking characteristics may be accomodated
by following a given set of speed restrictions viz the TVM indications shown
in cab. A shuttle rake with a certain number of wagons whose
electro-pneumatic brakes are isolated might only be allowed to travel at 110
kph when the cab indication is 140 kph, for example.
There is also an element of 'route-barring', such that a Shuttle routed in
error towards LGV Nord at the French Portal, or a E* routed towards the UK
terminal loop, would receive a 'stopping sequence' on the in-cab display.
When such a movement has to be carried out- for example when there were
three Class 92 hauled freights conveying out-of-gauge wagons to the UK for
road transhipment- the options are either to give the driver a 'FREP' ( a
numbered message which has to be read out by the signaller and repeated back
by the driver) for each signal or to class the entire route as a work-site
and authorise the driver to proceed at 'marche-a-vue' (a speed at which the
train may be stopped short of any obstruction, with a normal maximum of 40
kph, IIRC) as far as a given 'repere' or other stopping point. Neither is
suitable for 'normal' operation, as you may well imagine. The several
freights that had to use CTRL1 due to an engineering possession on the
normal route via Sandling (3rd/4th April 2004, see
http://www.ews-railway.co.uk/cmsystem/news_article.asp?guid={1550A404-25E1-4384-962C-4887BF3C7C09})
were 66-hauled,I believe, as various CTRL works meant there was no juice
from Dolland's Moor.
The 92s do not have KVB, unless some of those acquired by Europorte have
been so fitted- I shall enquire- but do have BR AWS/TPWS.
Should anyone seek a more in-depth explanation of TVM, I would recommend
page 80-83 of Brian Perren's TGV Handbook.
regards
Brian

On 13 Nov, 22:29, Ar wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:44:21 -0000, Paul Scott scribed:

Excellent journalism snipped.

You should apply to the BBC.

Tallent would be wasted in the BBC.

But they might provide speling lessons.

On Nov 14, 7:21 am, "BH Williams" wrote:

Why and how would the Class 92 locomotives have to be "configured
for HS1"? They do support TVM and KVB, don't they?

The 92s do not have KVB, unless some of those acquired by Europorte have
been so fitted

SNCF allegedly found it prohibitivbely expensive and there were space
considerations to KVB fit 92s.

An alternative to SNCF engineering might be cheaper and make it fit -
but so far I've not heard of any plans to do this.

--
Nick

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, BH Williams wrote:

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

"Lüko Willms" wrote

Why and how would the Class 92 locomotives have to be "configured for
HS1"? They do support TVM and KVB, don't they?

I think they only have it configured for the Channel Tunnel, which uses
different speed bands from HS1 or LGV. ISTR that when one freight train
was allowed to use the CTRL it had to do so under special regulations
as it was effectively unsignalled.

The TVM configurations are specific to route and stock, as they include
the braking curves for given items of stock under given conditions.
[...] the options are either to give the driver a 'FREP' ( a numbered
message which has to be read out by the signaller and repeated back by
the driver) for each signal or to class the entire route as a work-site
and authorise the driver to proceed at 'marche-a-vue' (a speed at which
the train may be stopped short of any obstruction, with a normal maximum
of 40 kph, IIRC) as far as a given 'repere' or other stopping point.

This is one of the things that absolutely baffles me about the automated
signalling systems that are being deployed now - why is it the signalling
system that makes decisions about how fast a train should go, and not the
train? The signals should just keep track of each train, set of points,
buffer stop and other thing to avoid running into, and tell the trains
where they are (and tell them about any specific speed restrictions, too).
Computers on the trains can then use their knowledge of the train's
performance to calculate an appropriate speed. Situations like the above
are not exactly unprecedented, and the signalling system should have been
designed to deal with them.

tom

--
The literature, especially in recent years, has come to resemble `The
Blob', growing and consuming everything in its path, and Steve McQueen
isn't going to come to our rescue. -- The Mole

Anyone any idea why a Eurostar would be passing through Queenstown
Road while I was there yesterday?

Never seen one there before

see
http://tonyhunter2814.fotopic.net/p46649528.html
for photo

Tony

"D7666" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 14, 7:21 am, "BH Williams" wrote:

Why and how would the Class 92 locomotives have to be "configured
for HS1"? They do support TVM and KVB, don't they?

The 92s do not have KVB, unless some of those acquired by Europorte have
been so fitted

SNCF allegedly found it prohibitivbely expensive and there were space
considerations to KVB fit 92s.

An alternative to SNCF engineering might be cheaper and make it fit -
but so far I've not heard of any plans to do this.

--
Nick

Follow on from the Newcastle Central pilots of twenty years ago, and couple
a Conflat in front with the gubbins on it..
Brian

tfh of Hednesford wrote:
Anyone any idea why a Eurostar would be passing through Queenstown
Road while I was there yesterday?

Never seen one there before

see
http://tonyhunter2814.fotopic.net/p46649528.html
for photo

Wasn't that the standard route from Waterloo to North Pole Depot?