wrote:
What exactly needs to be safeguarded anyway?

I assume that if a four track main line is good enough for Crossrail
between Paddington and Maidenhead, then the continuation of the same
four track main line is good enough between Maidenhead and Reading. So
no additional land neeeding to be safeguarded?

Substations?

wrote in message
...

What exactly needs to be safeguarded anyway?

As to clearances for knitting. Aren't all new structures built above
railway lines supposed to allow for a hypothetical future
electrification anyway? And whether that electrification is being done
for Crossrail or as a part of a more extensive GWML electrification
shouldn't surely make any difference to the physical clearances
needing to safeguarded above the line.

From the Crossrail site, you seem to have hit the nail on the head:

"Most land needed is already within the railway estate and the proposal is
to safeguard only such additional land as is necessary (for example works
sites adjacent to bridges that need to be raised) so as to minimise the
impact on adjacent development."

http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk...feguarding.pdf

Nice sounding press release last week, but little real content, now if the
actual safeguarding plans issued to planning departments were available
online...

Paul S

"Dr J R Stockton" wrote in message
nvalid...
In uk.transport.london message
om, Tue, 12 May 2009 20:33:14, Tony Polson
posted:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

Wiki Electric locomotive indicates that ordinary engine powers are in
the 5 MW range. Therefore, significantly more than a ton of SCs would
be needed to approach ordinary performance levels And a ton of SCs
would give 0.03 MWh, corresponding to less than half a minute of 5MW.


Looking at those data another way, 5.0 tonnes of SCs (say) would provide
two and a half minutes of 5.0 MW. That's about 208 kWh.

All of that 208 kWh could come for free, from regenerative braking - in
other words saving about £20 each and every time it gets used.

But you have to add the cost of transporting that five tons, plus the
weight of the gear required to mount and use it - and you have to
compare it with regenerative braking by (in principle, it will not be
that simple) reversing the motors and putting the energy back into the
wires.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05
MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, &
links.
Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- "
(SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " "
(SonOfRFC1036)

Coupla things: 1) the amount of energy required to keep a train rolling,
given steel wheel - steel rail's low rolling resistance is that required to
overcome drag. Drag is not related to mass. Any energy storage system using
regenerative braking to charge, in essence uses its braking force to provide
acceleration. It's not a perpetual motion machine, so there are losses.
Efficiencies in the 80's% are cited. Assuming this is 85%, then basically
15% of the energy needs replacing at each acceleration cycle. Again,
assuming that maximum axleloads for 160km/h running are around 21t, and
current EMU motor cars, under crush passenger load weigh in the 60s of
tonnes, then there's scope for over 10t of storage media. Let's make it 5t.
A total unit mass of around 200t with a crush load of pax (200 ~ 15t in each
car). Then you'd need enough energy to accelerate 205t instead, that's 2.5%
more mass, total increase in consumption of 2.5% (assuming linearity). Now,
as you're regenerating 85% of it, your consumption (for acceleration) is
15.375% of non-regenerative energy usage, a saving of 84.635%. That's what
you pay for the extra hardware with. The cruising energy consumption is
unchanged. The auxilliary energy consumption is unchanged. The big amperage
part, that which strains the supply system, is cut by 84.635%. In essence,
stored energy equipped trains can be used to increase passenger capacity on
electrified routes much more cheaply simply because they do not increase the
instantaneous load on the power supply system. On non-electrified routes, a
major saving in fuel can follow. Indeed, the number of diesel engines needed
can be cut, or better still lighter gas-turbines used, running at constant
power. The lighter internal combustion plant mass allows for more energy
storage media, etc ... until the optimising point is found. I don't have
the formula.

Not all electrified sections can use regenerative braking output; depends on
the substations. Where it is possible, in some cases, it's limited to the
amount of traffic at the time - whether the regenerated energy can be used
by another train in the same electrical section. In other cases, surplus
current can be returned to the grid. All substations have limits on their
current handling. So, on board energy storage media would still have a
place, even when regeneration to the supply network is possible.

2) the following, extracted from
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_v...tteries.ht ml

may be of interest ....

USA: GE Transportation has announced plans for a $100m plant to produce
batteries for hybrid locomotives and heavy-load applications in the marine,
mining, telecoms and utilities sectors. Production is planned to start by
mid-2011, with the capacity to produce 10 million cells a year, equivalent
to 900 MWh, or 1 000 hybrid locomotives.

GE has invested more than $150m developing battery technologies, including a
high energy density sodium-based battery. The first application will be the
Evolution Hybrid locomotive, which uses batteries to recover braking energy.
A demonstrator was unveiled in May 2007, and commercial production is
planned for 2010.

'Hybrid locomotives, and the battery technology on board, could be an
important part of how we ship goods by rail in the future', said Matthew K
Rose, Chairman, President & CEO of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 'The
ability to produce a battery pack designed for rail applications is a
significant milestone to producing a commercially available hybrid
locomotive that will further enhance rail's reputation as the most
environmentally sound mode for moving freight in America.'

end of quote

The US GE company should properly be regarded as a bastion of conservative
railway/railroad engineering. They wouldn't be moving in this direction just
to get a few headlines.

Cheers

David down under

"Paul Scott" wrote

Nice sounding press release last week, but little real content, now if the
actual safeguarding plans issued to planning departments were available
online...

Have you tried the link from this page (it's a 17.6 Mb file)?
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/pages/mai...toreading.html

There's also a link from that page to the Abbey Wood to Hoo Junction page,
which also links to maps.

eter

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...


"Paul Scott" wrote

Nice sounding press release last week, but little real content, now if
the actual safeguarding plans issued to planning departments were
available online...

Have you tried the link from this page (it's a 17.6 Mb file)?
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/pages/mai...toreading.html

There's also a link from that page to the Abbey Wood to Hoo Junction page,
which also links to maps.


Thanks - I'd missed that, but I'd seen the Abbey Wood to Hoo stuff only
recently, which I think was linked from the Crossrail 'bill documents'
pages. It does seem to confirm the earlier note I found, that it's mainly
about providing works access, and modified bridge approach roads etc, rather
than anything more substantial.

Paul S

"Mike Bristow" wrote:
Like the Gospel Oak - Barking Line? 12 miles long, electrified lines
at both ends, with links to 4 more electrified lines, fairly heavily
used, and has capacity issues? I am not holding my breath.

A perfectly reasonable view, after all the wasted time and money on the
railways of recent years ... but I'm actually quite confident about the line
being electrified soon-ish, not because of the boringly obvious reason that
it would be the single most cost effective investment available on London's
railways, but because it's essential for the rail freight network.

While it's easy to argue that railfrieght is the longest running joke in UK
transport (in fact, I can't think of any alternative view!), the government
seems determined to maintain the illusion that rail will one day
miraculously remove a few billion tons off the roads. As if! Continuous
tinkering with small schemes / token gestures appears to be the chosen
method of keeping the dream alive.
--

Andrew

On 13 May, 17:47, wrote:
On May 12, 11:17*am, disgoftunwells
wrote:



On 6 May, 23:38, Tony Polson wrote:

"Recliner" wrote:
"Tim Fenton" wrote in message

My feeling is that Dave and his jolly good chums are set to visit on
us the same horrors that Thatcher did, having learned nothing from
the post 1979 record. They won't be the ones that have to go without.

They enjoyed 18 years of power after 1979, so maybe their post-179
record wasn't so unpopular after all.

I wonder how the alleged "horrors" of Thatcher's Tories compare with the
"achievements" of NuLabour? *Notably, the latter's two illegal wars, the
near-destruction of the British financial services industry thanks to
inept regulation (or a lack of it) and the massive and apparently
uncontrolled rises in public spending and taxation that show no kind of
return.

Not to mention the control freakery, the sleaze of individual MPs and
the corruption of the Labour Party as a whole. *It was the latter that
caused me to leave Labour, starting with the Ecclestone affair allowing
continuation of tobacco advertising in Formula 1 motor racing in return
for a bribe of £1 million paid to the Labour Party.

John Major's Tory government was accused of sleaze and incompetence but
nothing they did bears more than the slightest resemblance to the
institutionalised gross corruption and negligence of this NuLabour lot.

On May 12, 3:13*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Paul Scott" wrote

So exactly what is the extra work DfT are paying for at Camden - as Peter
suggested NR and TfL are happy with the descope, does that mean 'happy for
the time being' or 'four tracking completely abandoned for ever'?

AIUI the only feature that's been lost in the descope which might be of
benefit for the planned train service is the turnback platform at Camden
Road. Instead, trains from Stratford which terminate there will have to go
on to the Primrose Hill line to reverse, where they would block freight.
However, at one time TfL were at least toying with he idea of eventually
extending someELLXtrains down the DC line, at least as far asQueensPark
(perhaps in conjunction with extending the Bakerloo to Watford Junction and
withdrawing the Euston - Watford Junction DC service). This would presumably
need 4-tracking through Camden Road, and a different track layout between HI
and Camden Road.

Peter
IMHO extending the East London Line to Queens Park makes sense. And,
moreover extending them on to Watford makes better sense. It would be
easier then extending the Bakerloo to Watford. The route could be
third rail throughout, except for the short joint Bakerloo stretch.

Watford to west Croydon by way of Whitechapel trains could open up a
world of travel and interchange possibilities.

On May 18, 7:19*pm, 1506 wrote:
IMHO extending the East London Line to Queens Park makes sense. *And,
moreover extending them on to Watford makes better sense. *It would be
easier then extending the Bakerloo to Watford. *The route could be
third rail throughout, except for the short joint Bakerloo stretch.

Watford to west Croydon by way of Whitechapel trains could open up a
world of travel and interchange possibilities.

Why stop there? Extending to Milton Keynes and Gatwick Airport would
provide a useful through link.

--
Abi

On Mon, 18 May 2009, 1506 wrote:

On May 12, 3:13*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Paul Scott" wrote

So exactly what is the extra work DfT are paying for at Camden - as Peter
suggested NR and TfL are happy with the descope, does that mean 'happy for
the time being' or 'four tracking completely abandoned for ever'?

AIUI the only feature that's been lost in the descope which might be of
benefit for the planned train service is the turnback platform at Camden
Road. Instead, trains from Stratford which terminate there will have to go
on to the Primrose Hill line to reverse, where they would block freight.
However, at one time TfL were at least toying with he idea of eventually
extending someELLXtrains down the DC line, at least as far asQueensPark
(perhaps in conjunction with extending the Bakerloo to Watford Junction and
withdrawing the Euston - Watford Junction DC service). This would presumably
need 4-tracking through Camden Road, and a different track layout between HI
and Camden Road.

IMHO extending the East London Line to Queens Park makes sense. And,
moreover extending them on to Watford makes better sense.

How so? How would it help the good people of the Boroughs of Brent and
Harrow get to work? Presumably, most of them who currently commute to work
along that line work in central London, somewhere the N/ELL conspicuously
does not go. So what would they do? Get off at Camden Road and traipse
down to Camden Town? That'll be fun! Or maybe hang on to Highbury &
Islington and change, onto the Vic for the west end (because that's got
*loads* of spare capacity, and getting into town by taking two sides of a
triangle makes perfect sense) or the Northern City for the city (at least
that's only overcrowded, and not going in the wrong direction too). Or
just go to Shoreditch and walk - as long as they work on the north side of
the city.

No, sorry, extending the ELL to Watford makes no sense at all.

It would be easier then extending the Bakerloo to Watford.

Being easy isn't a good enough reason to do something - where's Andrew
Heenan when you (finally) need him?!

The route could be third rail throughout, except for the short joint
Bakerloo stretch.

Watford to west Croydon by way of Whitechapel trains could open up a
world of travel and interchange possibilities.

Not a single one of which would be quicker than a London-crossing
alternative.

tom

--
Space Travel is Another Word for Love!