Bus style opportunity charging often uses the OppCharge system developed by Volvo with industry partners - here the pantograph lowers onto power conductors on the roof of the bus. This system is only for stationary use - typically terminal bus stop layovers between journeys.
Actually, I had to research before saying anything here, as I did not know about this.
I am somewhat surprised, but question how much the railway tried to make itself attractive to local people. Or was it that the railway really did not want the service and applied similar passenger repellant operating logic as it did to former Broad Street services in London?
I've often wondered why there are not mini-wind turbines along the train to create power from wind turbulence as the train moves. I have to assume that its been tried and found wanting.
re: the next step, I think it will be solid state batteries. These will be a 'game changer' and could offer the long awaited solution to rural line electrification.
As an aside, I was impressed by their choosing lithium iron phosphate (lithium ferrophosphate / LFP) batteries rather than the fast-charge lithium titanate which bus industry advocates of 'fast charging' seem to like and I am thankful that they are avoiding the older style of lithium-ion batteries which, in short, are known to be a fire risk. I noted the comments about the safety of LFB batteries, these are also said to use fewer noxious chemicals so are easier to decommission once 'spent'.
BTW, when HS1 opens its possible that 'peak overcrowding' (the title of this thread) will include Euston station.
Maybe the preventative solution would be for the trains which will terminate at Paddington to be extended to Old Oak Common, where (as I understand it) HS1 will have a station. That way passengers could be encouraged to use Crossrail trains (rather than Euston station) for onward travel around London. If the Old Oak Common station was planned properly there could be short walking distances between Crossrail & HS1 at this station. (admittedly a tall order of a suggestion)
I will only believe when the trains are running - even start of construction works counts for nothing with me; trains must be running. After all, experience has shown that construction works can be halted midway.
The various alternatives that float around are unfortunately not suitable for writing on this forum.
Hmm, the mind boggles. But its probably the same in most large corporations.
My view is that the BBC is story only tells what it wants people to hear. In short, its all politics and government bashing, racking up muck and creating the impression that railway stations are unsafe.
A more honest story would have included DLR stations and tram stops - almost all of which were unstaffed from when services commenced. Indeed, most DLR stations also have steps down which people can fall, yet no-one complains.
Open ticket barriers at stations are 'correct procedure'. It would be more newsworthy if they were closed when no-one was about.
Thanks for that information about Goodmayes station. A replacement bay platform would be worth its weight in gold as a way of giving a terminating train extra time to be detrained without delaying following services. Possibly it was felt that the need to dig a new underpass below Goodmayes Road could not be justified. Short sighted penny pinching, in my view!
My wish was that the track for the bay platform was lengthened at Ilford, perhaps even with it extending all the way to Ilford depot. Having three tracks between the depot and the flyover would add flexibility and reduce delays when GA and other trains slowly enter / leave the depot.
I've seen this too... it was never like this when I travelled on this route years ago.
I have a 1980 timetable and in 2014 compared the services in the evening rush hour.
In 1980 between 17:00 and 18:02 there were 22 eastbound departures from Liverpool Street. Four of these terminated in the bay platform at Ilford, 11 at Gidea Park and 7 at Shenfield.
The 2014 timetable showed that in the same timeframe there were just 16 departures, of which nine terminated at Gidea Park and seven at Shenfield.
This is a significant shortfall of six (6) trains!
I also looked at the trains themselves.
In 1980 services were operated by the venerable LNER designed Class 306 trains. These comprised 9 carriages which were 162.39m in length and offered 504 seats - some of which were arranged longitudinally as this increased space for standing passengers.
In 2014 services were operated by British Rail designed Class 315 trains. These comprise 8 carriages which are 158.4m in length and offer 636 seats - all of which are transverse. This seating style is not at all suitable for crush loads with standing passengers.
Is it any wonder that the trains are so grossly overcrowded and in the evening rush hour passengers are unable to board them at Stratford?
Today (2017) there are also some Class 345 Crossrail Line 1 trains which (when in their 9 car format) will be about 45 metres longer than the Class 315 trains. TfL plans to run 16 Crossrail trains per hour in the rush hours and the extra length of these 16 trains equates to 720 metres, which works out at about three and a half Class 345 trains. OK, so we must also remember that there will not be any loss of space at carriage ends (because the trains are fully walk-through) but even so it still does not make up the six train shortfall compared with the 1980 timetable!
As an aside, nowadays (2017) the bay platform at Ilford has been closed (lost to the railway). The closure was done as if offered a cheapo way to facilitate platform lengthening for 9 car Class 345 trains.
I also compared the morning trains but alas do not have that data to hand. All I recall is that it too showed that the trains were more frequent back in the 1980's. However, from memory I know that some trains started their journeys towards London from the Ilford bay platform. For morning services the loss of the bay platform at Ilford could be mitigated (if there was the will) by starting trains from Ilford depot. These trains would provide welcome extra capacity at the three stations between Ilford and Stratford.
TfL Rail introduced a new timetable earlier this week. It is claimed that there are more trains running. To allow for shifting demographics and changes to work patterns I compared 17:00 - 19:00 (5pm - 7pm) for 1980 and 2017.
For 1980 I excluded trains which run fast to Harold Wood - the service which nowadays is part of the Greater Anglia franchise. For 2017 I do not even have this data to hand, as its on a different timetable.
I accept that it would cause horrendous logistical issues whilst being done but if it were possible to make northbound District Line trains from West Brompton directly access the northernmost platform at Earls Court (ie: without conflicting with trains from Richmond / Ealing Bdwy / Olympia) then it would be possible to significantly reduce conflicts here - and hence run more trains to Wimbledon.
Even if a lack of track capacity to Edgware Road meant that some had to terminate at High Street Kensington it would still facilitate a more frequent service on the Wimbledon line.
Would a three month period of works with people working 24/7 be sufficient time? Especially if done after Crossrail has opened there could possibly be a reduction in passenger flows which help cope with the disruption? Maybe passengers who change trains at Hammersmith and travel via Wood Lane and White City (for the Central Line) could be offered some sort of discount as enticements to not switch to the Piccadilly Line? It should be easy to identify these passengers via touch-ins and outs of Oyster / Contactless cards.