Edwin_m

Basically if you can build a trolleybus, you can build a motor or battery bus the same size. And if the guided trolleybuses that ran for a while in Caen and Nancy are a guide, it will use about 50% more energy than an equivalent tram, as well as generating particulate emissions from tyre wear. Trolleybuses are a niche solution with trams being better for high passenger numbers and self-powered more appropriate for low numbers. That niche is getting smaller as battery technology improves, and may disappear completely.

Hence why I hope electrification from Westtown to Leeds is completed before Dewsbury to Westtown, so there is an alternative feed from the Leeds direction rather than spending money on a duplicate supply to that section (I'm assuming there's one somewhere in the area). Although perhaps a duplicated feed isn't so critical while the section is an electric island, as while it remains so all the electric trains using it will be bi-modes that can revert to diesel if the power goes off.

That's the sort of picture I've seen. It's difficult to tell for certain but there looks to me to be enough clearance above the train, certainly for the surge arrestor and insulating paint as per Cardiff if not for a conventional solution. There has indeed been some re-modelling just beyond the bridge. Not sure if the track was lowered, if indeed it needed to be.

According to March Modern Railways the formation is: Driving Trailer First with diesel and pantograph Motor Composite with diesel Trailer Standard with transformer Motor Standard with diesel Driving Trailer Standard with diesel and pantograph There's no particular conflict between a diesel engine and a pantograph, as one's above and one's below. None of the Hitachi 800-810 has a transformer and a diesel on the same vehicle, as they both need the same underfloor space.

Raised pantographs can't be too close together, otherwise the first one sets up vibrations that prevent the second one making good contact. This is one reason why the pan on an EMU is near the middle. The necessary separation is speed-dependent, so the 810s on the MML will have a pan front and rear like the five-car 80x in service with other operators. When two units are coupled they will be raised on the two extreme end cars, and speed will be limited if they have to raise either of the middle ones. I'm not sure if the low clearance at Leicester is actually fact or enthusiast myth, but if it's true and the best/only solution is a neutral section then trains departing southwards would coast for a short distance (those arriving from the south will be coasting anyway). I doubt they would start the diesel except in the extremely rare event of being stranded. Leicester doesn't benefit from HS2 and still needs fast services to London, Derby and Nottingham, and various capacity issues mean it's unlikely that there would ever be more than four London paths per hour. So I suspect that something similar to the timetable shortly to be introduced will persist for many years. This includes the use of 125mph units, as even the slower London-Leicester trains will be non-stop south of Kettering where there are significant stretches cleared for that speed.

I don't quite understand why some (admittedly small) electrification schemes are going on "under the radar" - this is one and Kettering to Market Harborough is another. I would have expected these to be trumpeted by politicians as examples of decarbonisation and "levelling up". Perhaps after all the announcements in the period after 2010 they reckon nobody will believe them, or they don't want to annoy the faction that reckons electrification is unnecessary?

I don't think it would be too difficult technically. The curve at Saddleworth doesn't look extreme enough to require any special measures on its own account, so I expect they'd just work out the minimum spacing required by geometry and tensioning, then reduce that if necessary so each support is fixed above a pier. The same has been done on other visually sensitive viaducts such as Durham and the Royal Border Bridge, where they also used some special support designs to minimise the visual intrusion. The biggest risk is probably that some heritage interest will start questioning whether that's good enough.

I believe the track is supposed to be based on prefabricated concrete panels, which can quickly be taken out if works are needed to utilities underneath. Obviously this still stops the trams (and I think the rails still have to be cut and welded back afterwards), but not for as long. The promoters claim the reduced power consumption of steel wheel as a reason to use this instead of rubber tyre. I guess it helps with the battery range too.

The ones I've heard about are battery with top-up charging at each terminus.

I've seen a couple of online presentations on the project from the parties involved, at least one of which opened with a graphic of Saddleworth Viaduct with OLE added. Clearly someone's looking at it, but policy currently seems to be to treat these projects as separate tranches to be developed and agreed one at a time. There is at least a stated intention to connect the electrification from Dewsbury to Leeds, which probably makes sense from the technical point of view as it would provide an alternative power feed and probably avoid the need for a second feeder within the section. The use of bi-modes means that at least some of the through trains will benefit from whatever electrification is done.

Anyone arrested is innocent until/unless proven guilty, but arrest of traincrew after an accident isn't usual and implies some suspicion of criminal behaviour. It's not really appropriate to speculate on anything beyond that, including the comments on the Echo story. I'm going to suggest this thread is locked due to the prospect of legal proceedings.

Perhaps they could charge more for coaches with windows, to recover the alleged higher cost. They could market it as "First Glass".

But will the shorter trains still have windows?

Short block taken of Line A to allow the RRV to on-track for a longer possession of Line B. RRV incorrectly put on line A and "confirms" block can be lifted. There still seem to be many near-misses coming through relating to possession irregularities, perhaps in areas where this sort of supervision isn't currently the management focus. So I see it as entirely possible that sooner or later a RRV will be put on the wrong track. The signs like the one posted above strike me as far less accident prone than a map. It's very easy to be confused about which line is which or even which way is north when arriving at an unfamiliar site, and there have been incidents where someone has gone to completely the wrong access point. The sign should help confirm location and whether the track to be accessed is the nearer or the further one.

If only one line is under possession and they put the RRV on the other one then there are no marker boards to stop them, unless they see them on the adjacent line and realise.

Partly because of that publicity given to crime stories, the perception (or otherwise) of safety is in some ways just as important as the actual statistics of crimes and accidents. People who feel threatened on the railway are likely to find alternatives or not travel at all, and if they have to use it will consider it a "distress purchase" rather than an enjoyable experience. This makes the railway less inclusive and less relevant to certain sectors of society, and probably makes the actual crime problem worse because there are fewer people around at the times when crimes might be committed. Identifying unconnected compartments by a red stripe, and trying to keep those units off evening workings, were very low-cost measures that strike me as entirely proportionate responses. All the units concerned were withdrawn within a couple of years, just as they would have been even if those things hadn't happened.

The original Mk3 Seconds had four face-to-back seats each side of the central partition, facing away from each other. There would have been much better alignment with the windows, with no loss of seating, if these had been at one quarter and three quarters of the way along the saloon. However one of the other innovations with the Mk3s was attaching the seats to tracks on the floor (I think the later Mk2s did it too). So they could be, and were, re-spaced to increase capacity, so even if they'd been aligned initially they wouldn't have been later on.

The clearance needed for electrification is well known and can be provided even if the OLE itself hasn't been designed (give or take issues of standards changes in the last few years, which hopefully by now is water under the, er, bridge). But as mentioned a lot of design work is needed for the OLE supports themselves, including things like making sure they don't block the view of signals. This treatment comprises surge arrestors to avoid over-voltage in the line due to lighting strikes, and insulating paint. These combine to allow less clearance between the wire and a metallic bridge above, without unacceptable risk of arcing between the two. But it's only applicable to metallic bridges because masonry bridges and tunnels are already insulated. The place it was used with much publicity was the crossing of the Valley Lines over the main line in Cardiff, where raising the Valley lines would have been very difficult and lowering the main line not much easier due to a watercourse underneath. It remains to be seen whether this technique is preferred for other bridges where the alternatives are less problematic. This is one of my real bugbears with our stop-start approach to infrastructure "planning" and development. Some design work is done, then paused, and when it re-starts the first thing to do is to check if it's all still valid, and re-do it if something has changed.

To be clear, this "work" will not include anything on the ground, other than probably some surveys.

There was a wagon that tried to get the freedom or (or from) Horrocksford a few months back, but fell foul of the trap point.

Thanks for these. But why is it called the Flat Iron site?

It's probably meant to do that. By coincidence I was watching another programme on a high-numbered Freeview channel ("How did they build that" on Smithsonian) which featured a market building in Rotterdam and explained that the panes are joined by flexible material and this type of window is able to flex in and out to reduce risk of damage in high winds.

I'm not sure why. It seems sensible to me to try to take account of people's views in a democracy, and to avoid wasting money on developing a scheme until those views have been taken into account.

There's no legislation yet for this section. The promoter is going through a series of consultation exercises and design development to establish which route is most likely to be feasible, cost-effective and acceptable (or least unacceptable). Most of this is required by law and it's sensible to do anyway to avoid spending millions designing something only for it to be shot down in Parliament.

I think the standards for parapets now say they have to have a triangular cross-section, to discourage walking or sitting on the top. I'd like to think they have created electrification clearance one way or another, rather than potentially having to demolish it in a few years time.