billbedford Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Many railway lines run through areas with great potential for solar power. I think we should be told where they are in the UK so we can book our package holidays. Almost all are south of the Alps. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted February 25, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 25, 2018 Almost all are south of the Alps. Is that the Hampshire Alps?????? Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DY444 Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 I believe that the author did some alternative proposals for how to electrify the Oxted branch and suggested EMU's with batteries for the last bit and a solar array near the stabling sidings with a battery bank that then recharged the trains overnight. I can't remember which magazine the article was in however. Jamie Probably no more ludicrous than Chris Gibb's recommendation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesperus Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 While it's not of much use to the GWML its surely still worth looking at. Hundreds of miles of railways are powered by DC whether it is LUL and Southern territory or metro systems futher north. We probably can't power the entire network but if it can knock 5% off NR's electric bill (and 5% off the weedkiller bill) its worth a look. Previous discussion We really need a test case in court to go in NR's favour so they can overide objections from villages like Steventon. Ask them if they would like a new bridge because the old one is coming down and the crossings are closing. If it was a road scheme or an airport they would just have to put up with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 25, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 25, 2018 Many railway lines run through areas with great potential for solar power. I think we should be told where they are in the UK so we can book our package holidays. I think we could start by excluding Balcombe - where the railway runs through a tunnel over 1,100 yards long and which no doubt doesn't get much sunlight either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Endacott Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Light pipes are a useful means of getting natural light into the basements of buildings. If they could be used in tunnels, the solar panels would then work. Geoff Endacott 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Is there a long term aspiration for a flyover at Wootton Bassett? Just wondering..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 25, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 25, 2018 Is there a long term aspiration for a flyover at Wootton Bassett? Just wondering..... The GWR were thinking of it back in the late 1940s in connection with the plan for quadruple track all the way to Wootton Bassett. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted February 25, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 25, 2018 Something that is quite eye opening is to calculate the amount of liquid fuel that a given industry uses and then work out the amount of wind capacity that would be needed to make clean hydrogen, or the quantity of material needed to make biofuel or the area of solar units you'd need to decarbonise it and then compare it to what we currently have. I did it for shipping and it puts a lot of things into perspective. Which isn't to say I'm not all up for low carbon alternatives (I am), but it gives you a reality check. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Quite, answers on a postcard to DafT and NR on how that can be done without bankrupting the country. It's a pretty sorry saga really. It is because of the aforementioned DaFT and to a lesser extent NR that we are where we are, if DaFT had listened to what people were telling them much earlier on we wouldnt be in this mess. Telling NR to start electrifying 100s of miles of track with no notice to get people recruited and trained was only going to end one way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adanapress Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Re Traction change times, I think everyone has forgotten what was routinely achieved at Rickmansworth in the days gone by, with LT 4th rail locos changing to Steam. It was amazing to watch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) What was achieved then is impossible today due to the restrictive operating practices and 'modern' signalling systems. Believe it or not they have had to rewrite the rulebook to make the new signalling at Bristol Temple Meads compliant because the new signalling wasn't going to be compliant with the old one, this is new signalling which all operating staff think is stupidly slow and will actually increase operating incidents but what do we know. Edited February 26, 2018 by royaloak Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Western Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Don't get me started on Bristol Temple Meads Resignalling Scheme..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 Don't get me started on Bristol Temple Meads Resignalling Scheme..... Can I assume you are not a fan? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DY444 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 What was achieved then is impossible today due to the restrictive operating practices and 'modern' signalling systems. Believe it or not they have had to rewrite the rulebook to make the new signalling at Bristol Temple Meads compliant because the new signalling wasn't going to be compliant with the old one, this is new signalling which all operating staff think is stupidly slow and will actually increase operating incidents but what do we know. Similar issues at New St. If it is re-signalled to modern standards then you halve the capacity. Needless to say creative interpretations of the standards are being employed to get round this. It is fascinating to watch "moderns standards" being cited as a reason why traction changes can't be done in "Bournemouth REP/TC/33" style efficiency and yet when those self same standards would potentially cripple the train service as at Bristol TM and New St then they (or the rule book) get fudged. What a way to run a railway as someone once said. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 26, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 26, 2018 Similar issues at New St. If it is re-signalled to modern standards then you halve the capacity. Needless to say creative interpretations of the standards are being employed to get round this. It is fascinating to watch "moderns standards" being cited as a reason why traction changes can't be done in "Bournemouth REP/TC/33" style efficiency and yet when those self same standards would potentially cripple the train service as at Bristol TM and New St then they (or the rule book) get fudged. What a way to run a railway as someone once said. As Temple Meads hasn't complied with normal standards ever since it was resignalled over 40 years ago, and as Reading could be said also to not comply (because it is effectively signalled in exactly the same way as Temple Meads was 40+ years ago) I can't really see what the problem is beyond 'obstructionism' from those of very limited brain power and considerable lack of experience. For those not familiar with either station - in both cases the platforms are artificially divided into two sections by marker/stop marker boards and an approaching train receives either a main aspect to indicate the platform is clear to the signal at the far end or it receives a sub indication which indicates that a train may only proceed as far as the relevant stop marker. in many respects the latter is very similar to running in on a subsidiary to an occupied platforms but in the case of both Bristol and Reading there is a physical mark to limit the extent of the movement authorised by the subsidiary. I am certain that a quantitive risk assessment - which has masses of real data to draw on - would indicate that this method of working has relatively little potential for collisions even when compared with a similar assessment of locations where no marker is provided. The modern NR railway really needs to grow a pair. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northroader Posted February 26, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 26, 2018 As I understand it, you don’t get AWS indications on the last section approaching, which may be a cause of bother? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Coryton Posted February 26, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 26, 2018 As Temple Meads hasn't complied with normal standards ever since it was resignalled over 40 years ago, and as Reading could be said also to not comply (because it is effectively signalled in exactly the same way as Temple Meads was 40+ years ago) I can't really see what the problem is beyond 'obstructionism' from those of very limited brain power and considerable lack of experience. For those not familiar with either station - in both cases the platforms are artificially divided into two sections by marker/stop marker boards and an approaching train receives either a main aspect to indicate the platform is clear to the signal at the far end or it receives a sub indication which indicates that a train may only proceed as far as the relevant stop marker. in many respects the latter is very similar to running in on a subsidiary to an occupied platforms but in the case of both Bristol and Reading there is a physical mark to limit the extent of the movement authorised by the subsidiary. I am certain that a quantitive risk assessment - which has masses of real data to draw on - would indicate that this method of working has relatively little potential for collisions even when compared with a similar assessment of locations where no marker is provided. I didn't know about Reading. What do the marker boards look like? (I'm familiar with the big "X"'s used in Bristol). I thought in Bristol that the indication of whether the board could be passed or not was just the platform number in a theatre indicator and I can see why that might be considered unsafe. But if a "calling on" signal is used to indicate that the train needs to stop short of the marker I'm struggling to see how that's any worse than where trains enter an occupied platform without such a board. Even if the driver misses the board, they are presumably driving slowly enough to stop before they hit whatever is in the other half of the platform. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 What I assume the marker boards to be at Reading are white circles with a black triangle on it. How that kind of thing can be outside standards is absolutely staggering. Working trains into occupied platforms is not exactly going to go away, and is in fact crucial to the operation of the railway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 Even if the driver misses the board, they are presumably driving slowly enough to stop before they hit whatever is in the other half of the platform. Until he discovers the train is not in the other half of the platform... https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/collision-at-plymouth-station Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Simon Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 Hi, With regards to compliance with 'Modern' Standards on Resignalling Schemes, there is still a lot that can be done to get around issues, with derogations, but there is a point at which it comes up against a wall which you can get past. Frequently Resignalling schemes that are fully compliant are taken to the approval panel and are then asked to make lots of changes to make the schemes much more operator friendly using derogations against standard. However, anything that is deemed unsafe in terms of non-compliance is not accepted. Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Simon Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 As Temple Meads hasn't complied with normal standards ever since it was resignalled over 40 years ago, and as Reading could be said also to not comply (because it is effectively signalled in exactly the same way as Temple Meads was 40+ years ago) I can't really see what the problem is beyond 'obstructionism' from those of very limited brain power and considerable lack of experience. For those not familiar with either station - in both cases the platforms are artificially divided into two sections by marker/stop marker boards and an approaching train receives either a main aspect to indicate the platform is clear to the signal at the far end or it receives a sub indication which indicates that a train may only proceed as far as the relevant stop marker. in many respects the latter is very similar to running in on a subsidiary to an occupied platforms but in the case of both Bristol and Reading there is a physical mark to limit the extent of the movement authorised by the subsidiary. I am certain that a quantitive risk assessment - which has masses of real data to draw on - would indicate that this method of working has relatively little potential for collisions even when compared with a similar assessment of locations where no marker is provided. The modern NR railway really needs to grow a pair. Hi Mike, As far as I understand it the Rear Clear Markers at Reading aren't considered an end of movement authority the same way as the Crosses at Temple Meads, with trains being signalled either upto the relevant starting signal (for a main aspect) or as far as the driver can see if calling on. It is upto the train driver whether they use the RCM's or not. I would say that the provision of the RCM's is more to do with not using up more than the necessary platform length (by drivers over estimating the length of their train), rather than to prevent an actual risk (although this would of been thought about). None of which isn't compliant, just falling out of favour with TOC's. Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 If the derogations have to be used to make the signalling operator friendly without it affecting safety then the "standards" are clearly wrong in the first place. Glad I'm out of it now. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Simon Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 If the derogations have to be used to make the signalling operator friendly without it affecting safety then the "standards" are clearly wrong in the first place. Glad I'm out of it now. Regards That's not quite what I meant, I mean that additional operational features (above those asked for, as otherwise, they wouldn't even get to the approval panel) would be gained if some derogations are applied for. If the scheme does meet the operational specification laid down by ops, then it doesn't even get past a document review by the project engineer, Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Coryton Posted February 26, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 26, 2018 Until he discovers the train is not in the other half of the platform... https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/collision-at-plymouth-station That's an issue with calling on in general, not a reason not to use calling on with marker boards. And in fact this problem shouldn't arise with the marker board system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now