|
|
Post by melikepie on Dec 11, 2017 20:48:41 GMT
Does this mean that they have new orders from another TOC?
|
|
|
|
Post by ducatisti on Dec 12, 2017 10:27:26 GMT
on the subject of batteries and OHLE - if the pantograph technology could be developed[1], imagine how much simple OHLE could be if you didn't need to line all the crossovers/possible movements/low-clearance bridges etc and had a battery with enough power to shift the unit a short (sub-100m) distance?
[1]I appreciate there is all manner of potential for line-ripping chaos which may outweigh the benefits.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 12, 2017 10:52:22 GMT
The battery technology for that already exists. I suspect the answer to the panto issues would be to develop some method of telling the train to lower the pantograph at a given point and raise it at another one - something similar to the techonology used either by AWS* (track-mounted magnets iirc) or RETB* is my first thought.
*Automatic Warning System
*Radio Electronic Token Block signalling
|
|
|
|
Post by ducatisti on Dec 12, 2017 11:08:41 GMT
I suspect the answer to the panto issues would be to develop some method of telling the train to lower the pantograph at a given point and raise it at another one - something similar to the techonology used either by AWS* (track-mounted magnets iirc) or RETB* is my first thought. *Automatic Warning System *Radio Electronic Token Block signalling Oh not it isn't!  On a more serious note, I suspect that would need to be very precise to make sure that the train taking the crossover knew it had to take it's panto down when the train going straight through didn't. Or I suppose you could make everyone down-pantograph before the crossover and back up after the crossover on all lines. Equally, I wonder if a dodgem-car style mesh pick up grid would be simpler over complex pointwork than all the individual lines, and help avoid the pantograph tangling up. Presumably the Southern region electric locos just relied on human observation for changeover. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 12, 2017 12:42:34 GMT
Presumably the Southern region electric locos just relied on human observation for changeover. I think so - Although if the shoes didn't remain live when the pantograph was raised the loco couldn't have got far from the sidings! (I understand the 313s originally had speed limiters when running on dc, to prevent overspeeding in the tunnel sections - perhaps the same idea could have been used on the SR electrics to prevent this, or at least remind a driver to lower the pantograph before leaving the sidings fitted with overhead wires. Here is an example of an SR electriv using the overhead www.hornby.com/media/tinymce_upload/FAVERSHAM_1976-COLOUR_0304.JPGThe battery technology for that already exists. I suspect the answer to the panto issues would be to develop some method of telling the train to lower the pantograph at a given point and raise it at another one. I thought this was already done in a few places, by having dead sections where the wire has to be too close to the underside of a bridge or other obstruction to provide sufficient clearance to avoid flashover. The wire itself forces the pantograph down. |
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Dec 12, 2017 13:21:09 GMT
Presumably the Southern region electric locos just relied on human observation for changeover. I think so - Although if the shoes didn't remain live when the pantograph was raised the loco couldn't have got far from the sidings! (I understand the 313s originally had speed limiters when running on dc, to prevent overspeeding in the tunnel sections - perhaps the same idea could have been used on the SR electrics to prevent this, or at least remind a driver to lower the pantograph before leaving the sidings fitted with overhead wires. Here is an example of an SR electriv using the overhead www.hornby.com/media/tinymce_upload/FAVERSHAM_1976-COLOUR_0304.JPGThe battery technology for that already exists. I suspect the answer to the panto issues would be to develop some method of telling the train to lower the pantograph at a given point and raise it at another one. I thought this was already done in a few places, by having dead sections where the wire has to be too close to the underside of a bridge or other obstruction to provide sufficient clearance to avoid flashover. The wire itself forces the pantograph down. The class 313s (or at least, those operated by Great Northern) so still have a 30mph speed limiter on DC, as they don't need to go any faster than that in the tunnels. As for the dead sections, that's a current proposal for a few places (Steventon Bridge on the Great Western for example), but as far as I can tell, it isn't used anywhere on the network at present. There was the historic practice of having sections that were live at 6.25kV instead of 25kV in places of limited clearance but they didn't last long. It also rather defeats the point of ducatisti 's suggestion about not needing to wire up crossovers and points, for which the mechanical arrangement is complex but electrically simple (generally speaking), although the point about bridges still stands, provided that you don't end up with severe contact wire gradients. As for the automatic raising and lowering of pantographs, I think that this can already be done automatically through the use of balises and might be a part of the system being installed in the Thameslink Core. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 12, 2017 13:54:08 GMT
As for the dead sections, that's a current proposal for a few places . Are there not also dead sections in order to electrically isolate substations from each other? |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 12, 2017 14:04:02 GMT
On a more serious note, I suspect that would need to be very precise to make sure that the train taking the crossover knew it had to take it's panto down when the train going straight through didn't. Or I suppose you could make everyone down-pantograph before the crossover and back up after the crossover on all lines. If it's linked in to the signalling system, then the when the route set for the crossover the code for pan down is broadcast and when it isn't it isn't. Equally, I wonder if a dodgem-car style mesh pick up grid would be simpler over complex pointwork than all the individual lines, and help avoid the pantograph tangling up. OHLE is significantly higher voltage than dogdems, which might raise some difficulties with insulation or arcing (I don't know). It would mean the entire junction was either live or not, with no possibility of isolating one line only. I don't know if either these would be significant or trivial problems though. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 12, 2017 14:06:41 GMT
As for the dead sections, that's a current proposal for a few places . Are there not also dead sections in order to electrically isolate substations from each other? They're generally known as neutral sections, but yes these are a feature of current OHLE setups. Trains have to coast through the sections, so where they are is part of the route knowledge drivers learn. Apparently on some stocks you can very easily tell when you enter and exit neutral sections if you are sitting near the breakers as you can hear them change state - 350s might have been one of the ones mentioned but I'm not positive about this. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Dec 12, 2017 14:08:22 GMT
You could use the same system for lowering the pantograph as you do for lowering the scoop when picking-up water.
Some sort of sign. Zig-zags, perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 12, 2017 14:45:28 GMT
On a more serious note, I suspect that would need to be very precise to make sure that the train taking the crossover knew it had to take it's panto down when the train going straight through didn't. Or I suppose you could make everyone down-pantograph before the crossover and back up after the crossover on all lines. If it's linked in to the signalling system, then the when the route set for the crossover the code for pan down is broadcast and when it isn't it isn't.......... ..........It would mean the entire junction was either live or not, with no possibility of isolating one line only. Doesn't this happen anyway? The usual arrangement of wiring at junctions is to have two wires on the approach to a junction, one of which takes each route at the divergence - I assume this is easier to make than teeing (wyeing?) a branching wire in (like the "frogs" in a trolleybus system). When a pantograph passes through the junction it will be in contact with the wires for both routes until one of them slides off the end of the pantograph head, (or from the point where the head comes in contact with the converging wire, at trailing points) so both wires will be live even if one of them is not being fed directly. |
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Dec 12, 2017 15:12:25 GMT
As for the dead sections, that's a current proposal for a few places . Are there not also dead sections in order to electrically isolate substations from each other? As Chris M says, they do exist, and are known as neutral sections, but they're not really something you want to put in every time you have a low bridge. There are already signs for raising and lowering the pantograph - used almost solely on HS1. It consists of a pair of solid white shapes, each resembling the cross section of a plano-concave lens, against a square black background with a white border (or pictographically image 18.21 on this page). If they're horizontal, lower the pantograph, if they're vertical, raise it. |
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Dec 13, 2017 9:49:23 GMT
The answer is 'Inductive Charging' No electrical connections required between charging station and vehicle. A rechargable electric toothbrush uses this principle. TFL is trialling the technology. Hybrid bus charging |
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 15, 2017 9:22:28 GMT
Does this mean that they have new orders from another TOC? I suspect at the moment the answer is "probably" but some elements of the media do like knocking copy stories especially when it comes to rail projects, so I suspect VivaRail and their customers are keeping very tight lipped about their plans for now. Reading between the lines - OK some may dismiss this development as grant hovering, but why bother? If the project has no realistic buyers then the bean counters would surely be pressing to kill it by now. I can't remember where but a while back I saw Quinton site visitor comments indicating that the VivaRail facility was very busy - presumably modifying D stock trains into class 230 units. Again why bother if you did not have a real customer. The initial idea was Class 230 units would have raft mounted diesel power units allowing some basic servicing to be done away from a depot. Those diesel power units were always going to be bought in as ready to install units from Ford in South Africa. But if new customers are have opted for battery power packs instead of diesel, then it makes sense that VivaRail would also want them made off-site and simply brought in as ready to install modules - which neatly ties in with the County Durham plant announcement. The fun bit now is to speculate what routes would be suitable for either wholly battery powered or battery/diesel mode. I suspect the original trial route may still end up diesel or possibly Diesel/Battery biMode operation. However now that the Greenford shuttle has been cut back thanks to CrossRail, I suspect it would be a great demonstrator route for fully battery operation. It is a nice short route which is not too challenging, complete with a dedicated platform at West Ealing where a small addition to the recent OHLE could allow ample opportunity charging to keep the batteries topped up throughout the day without affecting the freight traffic. The line currently ties up a pair of DMUs which I suspect GWR would probably prefer to allocate elsewhere, and given the mix of short platforms and low passenger flows 2 or 3 car Class 230 variants would easily handle all current passenger traffic. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Dec 15, 2017 10:18:58 GMT
Any of the (remaining) local passenger services in Co. Durham would benefit from these. Perhaps the choice of component supplier is significant.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 15, 2017 11:12:00 GMT
a dedicated platform at West Ealing where a small addition to the recent OHLE could allow ample opportunity charging to keep the batteries topped up Rebuilding the roof to take a pantograph, plus finding space for the necessary transformer and retifier, would be a challenge. Easier to electrify the bay at Greenford on DC, surely? After all, the trains already have DC collection gear. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 20:31:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Feb 7, 2018 22:06:06 GMT
There is a little part of me that thinks that the Vivarail D Train project will not work out on a large scale in the UK...
I would suggest that the team could look towards Europe, however I don't think that we're particularly well liked at the mo [no politically motivated posts please]...
I'm sorry to say that I think most of the former LU D stock cars are probably destined for scrap...
Having said all that, I will be very happy to be wrong 😗 🙄 🤩
|
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Feb 7, 2018 22:22:32 GMT
It has never been a viable large-scale projects; the D-train's niche is the Sam as that of the Parry People Movers - short, self-contained branch lines with specific service requirements and a distance from any major depot. I don't doubt that they will find use somewhere but it was never going to be particularly widespread.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Feb 7, 2018 23:35:44 GMT
Looks like the D train will not be going to Northern The BBC are very slow on the uptake - that's not news - the orders for Northern's 195s and 331s were placed with CAF nearly two years ago and, as the picture shows, the first ones are now almost complete. West Midlands have ordered class 230s for the Marston Vale line. |
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Feb 8, 2018 7:44:53 GMT
A 3 car 230 would be ideal St.Erth-St.Ives shuttle maintained at Penzance. GWR's 150/1's are going North as they are displaced from Bristol by diesels displaced by new electric trains. Paignton- Exmouth is desperate for displaced 150/2s but the depot at Exeter which is shortly to be enlarged has no capacity at the moment. They would have to be outstabled in various sidings. The trains are so packed they cannot keep to time.
|
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Feb 8, 2018 8:01:57 GMT
Looks like the D train will not be going to Northern The BBC are very slow on the uptake - that's not news - the orders for Northern's 195s and 331s were placed with CAF nearly two years ago and, as the picture shows, the first ones are now almost complete. West Midlands have ordered class 230s for the Marston Vale line. no, not slow on the uptake. The BBC were simply reporting on the press trip to Spain to see the first, almost complete trains. This has been reported extensively in the railway press. |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Feb 24, 2018 22:23:25 GMT
new video from Geoff Marshall, covering LT Museum Friends visit to VivaRail:
(try not to spot any lurking Admins!)
|
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 25, 2018 13:11:01 GMT
VivaRail's website has an update giving an insight on developments with the battery variant of the Class 230 units. vivarail.co.uk/battery-train-update/It seems they have found solutions to several of the concerns mentioned in this thread. The island line is only 8.5 miles long but mostly downhill to Ryde. I guess battery demand will be a lot higher on the trip to Shanklin but fairly minimal on the return trip. So that should be well within their stated 40mile battery range needing an 8 minutes top up at each end of the trip to keep the battery full, or a 10 minute charge offering 50 miles range. I can understand why several TOCs are taking close interest on developments at the Quinton Technology Centre. Coupled with the potential to fast charge from battery packs in areas with poor main power supply, these things could eliminate a lot of branch line OHLE proposals - perhaps GOBLIN may be one of the last infill projects to get rid of diesel as it was only 14 miles long. Even adding on the 4km riverside extension the out and back length will still be within the battery variant capability. A bit like the arrival of practical and reliable (but not cheap) Tesla battery cars, those new figures from VivaRail seem quite a game changer when it comes to the future shape of rail vehicles. Once VivaRail have run out of D stock to convert, I suspect that at least one of the major manufacturers will be keen to use their battery technology in new build or indeed just buy VivaRail. |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Mar 1, 2018 11:45:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Mar 9, 2018 14:57:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Mar 9, 2018 15:43:05 GMT
How odd would it be sitting on one of those trains in the US, and thinking about Ealing Common . . . |
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Mar 9, 2018 19:31:33 GMT
How odd would it be sitting on one of those trains in the US, and thinking about Ealing Common . . . I wonder if this is @kentuckytony trying to get a ride on a Underground train    |
|
|
|
Post by orienteer on Mar 10, 2018 15:56:58 GMT
A report on opening the west london (currently freight) line for Overground services from Hounslow and Brentford to Hendon and West Hampstead stated that a visit had been made to a builder of battery operated trains. If this was Vivarail (and who else could it be?) maybe D-stock will be returning to London.  |
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Mar 11, 2018 10:54:01 GMT
Where was this report?
|
|
