Edwin_m

No there have been no other conversions of diesel traction to electric. The difference with the Meridians/Voyagers is that they have electric transmissions so the motors and much of the other traction equipment are already there. All other current DMU types have mechancial/hydraulic transmissions which would have to be replaced for conversion to electric power (or possibly have electric motors on separate axles which would increase the weight).

Even though the Sheffield-Rotherham tram-train as it stands is proposed to have DC electrification throughout, even on the Network Rail section, they are ordering dual-voltage tram-trains and probably also designing the OLE for easy conversion to 25kV if needed.

The justification for electrification is reduced operating and maintenance cost, lower carbon emissions and less dependence on oil. Any passenger comfort benefit doesn't come into the equation. Having said that, while there is little difference in passenger comfort between an HST and an electric equivalent, most of the trains on the Midland have underfloor engines, as almost certainly would the HST replacements, and I'd say an electric definitely scores over these in reduced noise and vibration.

I think they run the Meridians to Liverpool on Grand National day. It's probably the same situation as the 185s - the ability to go at 100mph on those bits where it is allowed counteracts the inability to use the Sprinter differential restrictions. If they don't get pantograph cars (or perhaps even if they do) it's quite possible the Meridians would end up on London-Plymouth/Penzance, by a process of elimination as there are few other places that will need an InterCity quality* diesel. *allegedly.

Not only that but there is also a mention of Oxford-Cambidge. However this appears to be just a re-announcement of reopening between Bicester and Bletchley with through trains from Oxford as far east as Bedford.

This is excellent news. In Network Rail's 2009 study there was actually a better case for electrification of the Midland than the Great Western. The GW was given the go-ahead, possibly for political reasons but perhaps also because it uses up the EMUs displaced by Thameslink and displaces DMUs so fits with the DfT intention not to buy any new ones. The Midland is purely a long-distance scheme, unless it also includes some add-ons such as Derby-Matlock or Sheffield-Doncaster/Leeds. The same paper claimed that both Midland and GW schemes are justifiable on pure financial grounds without taking account of the socio-economic benefits. If you believe the figures this means that the cost of the work can be borrowed and fully repaid out of future operating cost savings without any extra funding from fares or taxes. There is also a good fit with the idea of pantograph cars for Voyagers on CrossCountry. Many of the CrossCountry services run a lot of mileage under the wires but with significant sections on routes that are a long way down any list for electrification. Having a dual-mode vehicle allows them to take advantage of schemes such as this one and gradually increase their electric mileage. In theory both Nottingham and Sheffield could be served from London via the ECML. However they each have two MML trains per hour, which if diverted to the ECML would trigger the Welwyn four-tracking and various other schemes. Services would also have to continue on the MML for stations between Wellingborough and Derby which don't have any sensible alternative route to London, so you'd probably end up running more trains in total but also providing a less frequent service to most places.

Effectively you just apply the brakes and make sure the train slows down. It also has the function in cold weather of generating a bit of heat to keep the brake gear from freezing solid. The normal brake test on coupling up proves that the air is getting all the way down the pipe but doesn't say anything about whether the brakes themselves are working.

A and C are probably correct but B is debateable. The reason the driver couldn't start away when ready was that the signaller had failed to cancel the route into the platform so the system couldn't set a route out again. The reboot was an inappropriate attempt to solve this problem.

It has protected manual (manual driving supervised by the system) and restricted manual (manual driving with no protection but limited to a certain speed).

Not sure how else they are meant to use those destinations, so the person with the sense of humour must have been the one who specified the flaps!

That's a good one Andi. I was wondering whether something could be done with the limit switches but put off suggesting it by the general flak that seemed to be aimed at anyone suggesting things were not perfect. Dave sums it up well:

If that was the sum of what happened then the railway got a pretty bad bargain. The previous bridges would have been relatively small and simple, and in replacement they would have been lumbered with the maintenance bill for much larger and more complex structures. Also I'm not sure if replacement happened in every case - for example at Warrington I believe the canal is not on a former river alignment and both railways still cross the Mersey a short distance to the north. If this is the deal they were offered, and by a future competitor at that, then it's not surprising the railways did all they could to obstruct the opening of the canal!

Good question! Perhaps by that time, with the canal virtually disused, the company couldn't pay for expensive repairs? Or was it all state owned at the time?

All four rail bridges over the Canal were built by the Canal company, because the railways were there first. All seem to use similar construction elements though there are differences due to the differing spans. I believe the state of the Latchford bridge was one reason why that route was abandoned. I wonder if there have been any similar problems with the much more important structure carrying the WCML and Warrington-Chester line.

The 1984 Baker atlas gives the following which would have been accessed in the Liverpool Street direction from Stratford. "Now" is a 2006 Quail map: Bow Goods, Rugby Cement and Carless oil terminal, all near Pudding Mill Lane but on the north side of the line. Site is now occupied by Bardon Aggregates. Mile End Tarmac stone terminal, about 1.5 miles from Stratford on the south side of the line. Still there but out of use.

Just clicked with me where this is. Peel Ports are transferring containers at Liverpool onto barges for this site. I don't think any "proper" ships call here.

I think the urban explorers visited the one further east underneath the church, whereas Woodenhead's query applies to the flat-topped entrance near the scrapyard, which appears to be a separate tunnel or covered way with its other portal east of the A6.

Thanks for those pics - I remember seeing that in the 70s from trains passing over the viaduct.

Looking at the south of Stockport on Google maps it's pretty heavily built up with houses and I'd say a curve from the south to either of the routes towards Skelton is a non-starter. The link across from Davenport is also pretty much built over too, not to mention missing its bridge over the main line. The remaining unapproved bits of the Northern Hub scheme, principally two more through platforms at Piccadilly, will improve access to Trafford by the existing route - if by then it is still a rail terminal.

No, the Goyt/Mersey is alongside the motorway (presumably diverted southwards when the motorway was built, though the old bridge on Howards Street must span the original course so it can't have moved much) and the Tame comes underneath the motorway so they join at a particularly uninspiring spot 100m or so upstream of Mersey Square. Here is a Bing map.

There is a connection planned between HS2 at Old Oak Common and HS1, which in theory would allow trains to run through calling only at Old Oak*, but it's single track and involves bodging various bits of the North London Line and generally gives the impression of having been an afterthought. *or at least I think it is, but reversal in St Pancras may also be needed. The links from the DfT website are still there but the files themselves have vanished. Birmingham-Paris would be within the 3-4h rail journey time for which rail is reckoned to be competitive with air, so it's just possible we might see a train every couple of hours on that route, but as pointed out the security issues make it very difficult to pick up and drop off at intermediate stations and across the world there are few if any trains that are viable solely on international traffic. The link may have more potential for international parcels trains such as the ones proposed by the company that recently brought a Postal TGV to St Pancras. It also means Euro-standard trains could transfer between the UK and the Continent without having to be split up and transported by road.

Almost certainly they will be using as much 25kV-compatible equipment as possible, to minimise the work they need to do if 25kV reaches Rotherham but also because any non-standard kit probably needs to go through a lengthy type-approval process. I suspect that over this length and with only one or two trams likely to be on the shared section at a time, the standard 25kV catenary and supports will be good at 750V too. They will also need at least one 750V substation.

Thanks for the info on the 25kV - I've not been involved in this scheme and I think the 25kV option is new since I last heard an update, which was at the same conference last year. An interesting example of planning ahead by someone! Some collegues went to that conference this time - I'll have to get a brain dump from them.

Unless the scheme has changed a lot since I last asked, they will be extending DC electrification from the junction with Supertram via Rotherham Central to Parkgate. A 25kV feeder station is an expensive beast but you normally need them only every 20+ miles - having two (in case one is out of use) on such a short section would probably blow the costs out of the water. I guess the Vossloh is available in dual voltage format but is that really what they have ordered? These days non-level boarding isn't acceptable on a new transport system (makes life difficult for pushchairs and even more so for wheelchairs), so all the platforms served have to be the same height as the vehicle entrance. Rotherham Central will have to have sections of both low and high platform on each track. Manchester Metrolink has some tram-train features, but doesn't share track with heavy rail. However the Manchester people are very interested in the potential of tram-train to extend Metrolink-type service onto some of their less attractive suburban routes.

I think they are building out the Down Main platform a bit into the space so as to give enough width for the new bay. This would also make sure that the wires were far enough away that they didn't have to alter the canopy.