62613

18 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Less trees 🤣

Fewer!

Got to ask Dave; was Heworth more or less Felling renamed?

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

That is true - but you have to ask was it a wise trade off....

 

Particularly as there is a fair amount of late 1980s BR stock which could have been refurbished (and achieved much the same effect) rather than replaced (the 321s for example....)

The trains used on my local line date to 1992; 32 years old. We've just had a transfer in of the remainder of the class from the West Midlands. That's not to say they don't do the job; they do!

On 05/03/2024 at 23:51, Tom Burnham said:

In the 1960s and 1970s (so a bit earlier than the OP), EPBs were almost universal on the Dartford lines.  The main exception was the xx.36 from CX and the corresponding up train which were semi-fast to Ramsgate (from memory) and used 2-HAP units, often in 10-car formations. Non-stop from London Bridge to Woolwich Arsenal and I think usually ran via Greenwich, although Lewisham and Blackheath was a possibility.  There was an up train of HAP units that called at Sidcup in the mid afternoon which was a rare appearance of first class there.

I think I saw that service at Dartford one time in the 1970s, as, IIRC, a 6 - HAP. There was a 4.16 p.m. (at London Bridge) in the early 60s, which was LB - Woolwich Arsenal - Erith - Dartford, which was always EPB. Can't remember which way it ran between North Kent East and Charlton, though.

2 minutes ago, DaveF said:

Nice to see this video.  Living in the area I think it is a "good thing" but will be pleased when it is finished and in use.  Meanwhile the traffic delays on the roads can be a nuisance just now while the building is underway.

 

David

"You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs"

On 05/03/2024 at 11:12, DY444 said:

 

No they haven't.  The power systems and heat management systems will have been designed to accommodate the power inherent in a fast charge.  The batteries however are still subject to the laws of physics and the properties of the chemical compounds they employ.  Engineers (except those on the NASA Space Shuttle programme obviously) will be familiar with the truism that is the cost, time, quality mantra.  Current technology batteries have a recharge time, charge range, service life equivalent.  You cannot improve one without degrading one or both of the others. 

 

The optimum state of charge for maximum service life is 20-80% so that chops 40% off your range.  The optimum rate of charge for maximum service life is as slow as possible.  The best service life is thus achieved charging slowly and keeping the state of charge between 20 and 80% so you can't have fast charging and high range if you want maximum service life with present battery technology.  A scaleable battery that offers all 3 is the holy grail and we're not there.   If any routinely fast charged BEMU battery gets anywhere near the claimed battery life I shall be very surprised. 

...and ye cannae change the laws of physics, Jim!

Sorry, had to!

5 hours ago, jpendle said:

As I understand it, they are routed like that to avoid the steep gradient from Man Vic to Miles Platting.

They use the direct route through Victoria and the Atherton lines with the empties.

 

Regards,

 

John P

That also keeps them on "quieter" routes, where it can, or on slow lines

10 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Isn't it bad luck to rename a TBM, like ships?

Ships quite often change name, as they change owner/flag state/different company in the same group.

11 hours ago, Davexoc said:

 

Recent update now posted....

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-68491452

"Supported by £240 million from existing budgets"; so what's losing out?

59 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 

I think it's true of several designs which receive a lot of criticism, problems are more because of short trains with inadequate capacity for the service or inappropriate use rather than the actual trains being bad.

Or adequate for the service levels when designed, but overtaken by the increase in numbers travelling by train? It would be interesting to know how passenger levels now (even after the Covid "drop - off") compare with then?

That G.E, de Glehn looks interesting!

On 29/02/2024 at 11:06, phil-b259 said:

But at the price of requiring more trains, which in turn means more depots space to house them, more crew to drive them, more staff to fix them….

 

It also needs to be remembered that there is a environmental need for the sake of the planet for people to use less polluting forms of transport - we all know that a train is not as confident as a motor vehicle which can transport you from door to door, so having trains which are substantially faster than road transport is an important tool in encouraging modal shift.

Short - haul air as well. I think you mean convenient. 

My old car recently failed its MOT (I expected it). I seriously considered doing without a car; I don't make that many long journeys in the course of a year (two last year, one so far this) as I'm retired. I have an old fogey's bus pass which in Manchester paying an extra £10, I can get anywgere by bus, train or tram for free, if I'm willing to expend the time. I worked out that the basics for my car were costing me £150 a month, that's a lot of money. If you're on not much more than a state pension. In the end, I bought another as at times it's needed.

4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Absolute rubbish!

 

People north of Brum would still gain extra services between the likes of Brum and Manchester plus Manchester and London while the released capacity on the existing network would have allowed extra passenger services between Manchester and Crewe or Manchester and Stoke. Theirs would also have been more paths for freight. Thats in addition to the extra services to / from the South East (which given the proportion of rail journeys which start / finish in the Capital, even from North West England, on a statistical basis is not something to turn your nose up at) plus some journey time savings. 

 

Far too many posters living in ‘the north’ have this attitude that if it’s not happening at the end of their street so to speak then it’s not going to benefit anyone outside of London / the South East and it follows it must be opposed at all costs - which is a pretty selfish and narrow minded thought process. I don’t have (and am never likely to) have kids - if I adopted the same mindset I would be going round whinging like mad about my taxes being wasted in schools because there are ‘loads of childless people who get zero benefit from them'…

 

In something called a ‘society’ it is necessary to accept that what is needed in the wider scheme of things rarely aligns with things which you personally want or which only benefit your local area…..

 

Note:- For what it’s worth HS2 will be of very little use to me personally even though I live in that ‘greedy’ part of the country as I rarely have cause to venture to the Midlands / North of England. Yet in spite of that I am able to set aside emotion or regional bias and look at the project on a factual, long term basis….

At the moment, all the Glossop/Hadfield, Rose Hill Marple, New Mills, TransPennine terminators, and Sheffield via Stockport (and Bredbury) services are concentrated on platforms 1 - 3 at Manchester Piccadilly (it's historical!); almost every time I use the train from my local station, there are delays entering Piccadilly, as the outgoing train clears; that's after a slowing to 20 minutes. Meahwhile, Avanti have the use of platforms 5, 6, and 7 for their London services (out of 12 terminating platforms). If those trains had been removed to the new  Manchester HS2 station, there would be more room for these trains to spread out, maybe providing more services and speeding them up.

On 24/02/2024 at 20:43, martin_wynne said:

 

By licking it off the gate?

 

A few years ago, the A62 over Standedge was heavily gritted; for the next few days, motorists had to be aware that there might be sheep in the road, licking at the salt residue.

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

Potholes

J

Which isn't "investment" but day - to - day spending, yes?

42 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

1) For meney to be saved then you must have it in the first place, but this money was due to be borrowed at some future date when needed for phase 2.

2) So whatever it will get you, (Not much) it will be well into the fiture so it won't be "Rishi" taking credit or blame for it.

3) It hasn't gone anywhere since its not been borrowed yet.

Pretty much what I thought.

Meanwhile, The Express (or The Mail) is trumpeting that "Rishi" is going to spend £5 billion of the "Saved" HS2 money from cancelling Phase 2 on "Boosting Northern transport".

1) is this actual saved money?

2) What would £5 billion actually get you? and

3) Where has the other £31 billion from the estimated price to complete Phase 2 gone?  

There was a meeting between Mossley Town Council, and some of the TRU people last Wednesday evening, to explain the plans for Mossley station. As some who live near that town know, there are problems getting the knitting under Stamford Road bridge (Mossley Brow); the bridge can't really be raised, due to the gradients of the road. This means that either the track and platforms would have to be lowered, or the solution proposed, a new station in a different location. There are problems of access for infirm and disabled people at the existing station

The second solution is going to be adopted; a new station, 300 yards uphill from the existing one with proper disabled access (lifts). This is in the area of the exit from the old goods yard. The existing ticket office is listed and will be repurposed (apparently).

Looking at Greenfield station, some similar problems exist there, IMHO.

9 hours ago, Johann Marsbar said:

 

Surprised that Monkseaton actually seems to be a bit tidier today (albeit with more foliage) than it was in 1981....

 

 

Took that photo this time last year when I had a short break in the area to photograph the old Metro units.  The "Left Luggage Room" pub in the station building itself is well worth a visit.....

Excellent pub!

4 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

Exactly so.  

 

Some of the later EMDs such as Boston's F40PH-3Cs had an extended car body to house a small engine that drove the HEP alternator and allowed the main engine to be idled at rest.  Some commuter rail agencies later had their standard F40PHs rebuilt in a similar fashion.

 

Incidentally, in the US and Canada it is the norm to leave EMD power units running continuously.  I asked a LIRR Engineer friend why this was and he told me that it was because you might not get it to start again.  After initial laughter and taking it as a joke he went on to explain that being a 2-stroke; if it stopped in a certain position it was very difficult to crank the engine over to restart it.  I don't know if it is still the case but the Western Sectional Appendix contained an instruction that diesel locomotives were to be shut down if they were to be stationary at Paddington for any length of time but classes 57, 59, 66 and 67 were specifically exempted from the requirement although no reason was given.  I assumed it was related to what I'd been told.

As a former marine engineer, I find that very difficult to believe, being as the main angines on all the motor ships I was on were 2 - strokes. I remember at college, the marine power plant lecturer drawing diagrams showing how a 3 - cylinder economy Doxford engine could be self - started at any crank position. 

19 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

So much for co-ordination with a view to avoiding customer confusion!

 

CJI.

The world of unregulated (mostly) privatised bus services, where it's almost possible to remove, add, or alter a bus route with very little notice

19 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

"They'll make the whole country into a ULEZ. "

But that won't apply when all the vehicles are electric.

J

19 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

"They'll make the whole country into a ULEZ. "

But that won't apply when all the vehicles are electric.

J

Apparently, ULEZ charges don't apply to 90% of the vehicles using the roads in London now. It doesn't apply to my daughter's 09 reg. Suzuki Swift, for instance.

15 hours ago, john new said:

A Single's unencumbered ability for speed was IIRC why Stirling built No 1 etc. Was he the CME with the (alleged/true?) quote about locomotives with coupled wheels being like a man running with his breeks (trousers) down?

 

For the theoreticians amongst us I wonder what the theoretical maximum speed for say a replica GNR No 1 or the Caley 123 would be with modern laser aligned erection, roller bearings, fully honed steam passages and some form of mechanically aided firing or oil? I guess for stopping power though it would need something like a brake-tender behind it. 

 

Perhaps one for the Imaginary Loco's thread though not this one.

 

Dugald Drummond, no?

12 minutes ago, Southernman46 said:

Exactly ............... the OG display is fine as it is - it is perfectly understandable and don't need this latest tinkering with renaming etc. whatever the names are. It's the need to dumb down everything because people can't seem do the basic things like read maps and follow signs properly anymore I find disappointing.

If I had to name them - broadly on someone's suggestion above

Richmond - Stratford = North London Line

Highbury - West Croydon = East London Line.

Clapham - Peckham Rye = South London Line (or Brunel/ Thames Line cos of the Thames Tunnel)

Clapham - Willesden = West London Line

Gospel Oak - Barking = GOBLIN 

Euston - Watford = Hmmm not sure 

Liverpool St - Chingford etc. = Jazz Link 

As mentioned above. Corrected for you. I too am disappointed that GOBLIN didn't become an official name

Went past Longsight depot last week; still one set in the sidings there