phil-b259

Well said Simon. If only others would take notice if this before rushing to condemn NR.

Firstly power stations (as with trunk road, railway improvements) are generally the domain of the national planning authority the Government have set up to try and get round / speed up the process where local residents can effectively block things that are deemed to be "in the national interest" Secondly you can always do what they have done with nuclear or the Biomas conversion at Drax - namely reuse an existing site, which has the added benefit of keeping those employed at the previous installation in work - something councils in unemployment blackspots are only too well aware of.

Please remember that door control systems are not the same across trains. Broadly speaking those ordered since privatisation have provided guards door controls throughout the train so that the guard does not have to return to the rear cab. This is what gives rise to the 'shut all doors except the one the guard is standing at' syndrome. The Merseyrail 507 & 508 fleet, like the 455 fleet in south London, or the 313s, or 317s, or 321s etc do not have intermediate door controls fitted and the guard must operate them from the rear cab, a factor which has both advantages and disadvantages, depending on the situation.

Thats because the GWR used a heavy mechanical linkage to directly connect the regulator in the cab to a lever in the driving position of the autocoach. As such it was pretty tough for the driver in the autocoach to operate the regulator with even just one coach and there are plenty of tales of the 'driving' being done by the fireman on the loco with the driver only using the brake. Putting the loco in the middle where 2 or more autocoaches was therefore done to try and keep the mechanical linkage a bit easier to operate. By contrast the SR used a compressed air system and the LMS a vacuum system - neither of which presented the same issues as the GWR system and thus enabled the loco to stay at one end of the formation, however many coaches were included.

Lots - which is why we have to import it from places like the USA. Don't get me wrong there are lots of issues around whether Biomas is a sustainable option as it takes land out of cultivation for food, but on the other hand I recently saw an article about how vast quantities of veg were being discarded here at home (If its a good harvest the supermarkets get very picky about the shape and size of items they will accept from farmers) which suggests that Biomas is not quite as bad as is assumed for the food supply. However given the policy seems to be "you can burn anything other than coal" it does provide a means of keeping traditional power stations operating in the future whilst at the same time making the Government sound and look good.

I take it you are not aware of recent offical policy changes in China then? Scepticism as to whether the objectives will be achieved is not surprising (and given past performance something I tend to agree with), but IF China can do it then its the UK that should be ashamed of itself for not being more ambitious. http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/08/06/beijing-ditch-coal-use-2020

This is indeed a big issue that applies to every sector though and trying to vilify Biomas compared to any other source of fuel is nonsense. If you are going to factor in transport emissions etc for Biomas then you have to do the same for Coal. Coal production in the UK for example is expensive and requires much specialised kit to extract or has a big impact on the landscape in the case of open cast mining. You also need to remember that virtually all coal we burn in the UK now comes from overseas, which means transport costs (both monetary and environmental) are just as much of a factor as they are for Biomas. Nuclear energy may be cheap and clean at point of use - but safe storage and handling of the waste is expensive and just as much of an environmental hazard as fosel fuels Gas / Oil is expensive to extract and transporting is not cheap either. Put it this way do you honestly think any politician will press ahead if it is going to get them chucked out of office? - how many of us on this forum would turn round and cut them some slack in such a situation. No a solution WILL be found - even if it is simply a case of pushing back the end date so as to give more time for more nuclear to come on stream.

With respect you and several others are failing to understand that phasing out of burning coal AS A FUEL doesn't necessary mean the power station itself shuts. I refer you to Drax - have any of the existing coal fired plants been obliterated ? - NO they have been successfully converted to burning biomass using much of the same fixed infrastructure and producing just as much electricity as their coal fired predecessors - the big changes needed being largely to do with dry storage / handling for the fuel and revised boilers. No need for expensive planning enquiries etc.because the power station is still there. As such it is entirely possible to convert ALL our coal burning power plants to burn Biomas - WHICH IS NOT COAL - within 10 years without compromising the amount of energy output. Whether that results in increased emissions is rather irreverent given the stated policy which focuses on the fuel, not the pollutants coming from the chimney. The bottom line is this - no Government is going to let the continuity of our electricity supply be disrupted by party politics because they know we, the voters won't forgive them for it. As such a solution* will be found to 'keep the lights on' and people need to stop being scaremongering. *Of course that doesn't mean the methods taken are necessarily the best from an economic, financial, or even environmental point of view, but a solution WILL be found.

Please remember that previously coal burning power stations like Drax are heavily investing in Biomas burning - and as the calorific content of Biomas is a lot lower than coal you need to increase the supply volumes acordingly. Burning Biomas is also seen as a 'cleanish' source of power generation so is not affected by any moves to 'stop burning coal' the Government or industry may trumpet in the press. What does all this mean for rail - well all those 66s are just as capable of hauling trains of wood pellets around as coal - though the wagons are not (but that doesn't prevent bits like bogies being recycled into new Biomas wagons).

You might also wish to do something about the end of the vac pipe stick out in your photo. While it doesn't look too bad with coaches (or another loco) coupled next to it, such pipes would in reality have to be correctly stowed on the 'plug' (which is moulded onto the vac pipe assembly) if not being used or otherwise the loco would never have been able to generate enough vacuum to release the train brakes. I solved the issue by a small dab of superglue gel and pushing the free end of the pipe back and sticking it to the vertical bit next to the bufferbeam.

Probably because there is nowhere else to add it. Please remember that the designers have needed to find space for a DCC decoder and a small speaker - both of which many people on here regard as essential. If you don't have DCC then obviously the space for the chip can be filled with weights of some description, but that cannot be something a manufacturer can do from the outset. I have two of these beauties (with another on the high seas) and as far as I can tell the designers have done the best they can as the choice of materials when it comes to trying to get weight where it is needed.

Apologies to Birmingham tram enthusiasts but... How is allowing to trains into the same platform for them to join up not platform sharing? Think about it from the perspective of the signalling system - how exactly is the signalling system supposed to differentiate between a train which has split and two trains that have entered the same platform - but not coupled, leaving as two separate parts. Things like the prohibition of platform sharing (where call ons are provided) can only be done via paperwork and box instructions - the signalling system itself cannot prevent such moves happening. So Platform 0 WILL get the signalling facility to allow platform sharing - otherwise the joining and splitting of services cannot take place. Whether the written procedures will allow the signallers to perform such moves is a different matter (there are places where call on signals are provided and still maintained in working order - yet the signal box instructions prevent their use), however given the need to Reverse trains from Reading / Gatwick (and Tonbridge at some times of the day), frankly I would be surprised if platform 0 is treated any differently from platforms 1 & 2 which have never had mid platform marker boards or mid platform signals but quite happily utilise platform sharing many times a day. (Note Brighton and London Victoria use platform sharing with no intermediate marker boards / signals, while Haywards Heath, Three Bridges, Gatwick, Purley and East Croydon all have signalling capable of doing so)

Why would the S15 chassis need to be modified when they have a perfectly good Arthur chassis design already (which includes the plug coupler mod).

Erm - what "won't clear". ANBs are NOT INTERLOCKED WITH THE SIGNALLING! I In a situation such as this the first thing anyone will know about it (unless someone uses the emergency telephones of course) is 2 minutes after the sequence started when the signalman should get his 'barriers failed alarm (upon receipt of which he / she should replace the normally automatic signals on the approach to the crossing to red). Far too late to do anything about the train that triggered the sequence* because that will either be long gone or will have hit what is on the crossing. * From a train setting off the sequence to it being on the crossing is approximately 30 seconds Also ringing the NR helpline on your mobile is not a good response to issues at level crossings. The first reaction should be to use the direct dial telephones (painted yellow usually) to the signal box, starting your call with the words "This is an Emergency call". This gives the best chance of a speedy and appropriate response without the need for the operator to establish where you are and where the supervising signal box is located.

That sounds like someone making excuses to me (and possibly is cover for the fact that there are insufficient signalling design / installers / testers to do anything in the short term). Platform sharing was perfectly acceptable at Reading when the NEW platforms were built there and it will be installed with NEW Platform 0 at Redhill.

http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/sidebyside.cfm#zoom=16&lat=51.2500&lon=-0.1575&layers=10&right=BingHyb

The Purley - Coulsdon - Merstham - Redhill lines was authorised as part of the London & Brighton railway and construction began under that company. Shortly after, MPs displaying their usual "we know best" despite having no expertise in the subject concerned, decided that only a single railway outlet was needed to the south, so they forced the L&B to sell the Coulsdon - Redhill section to what became the South Eastern Railway, although the L&B retained running powers over this section. Hence Redhill, and the key junctions became managed by the SER, who, particularly after completion of the Reading via Reigate) line sought ever opportunity to delay Brighton trains. Although things got better over time, it was only after the LBSCR built the Quarry lines and the SER completed their Tonbridge - London (via Sevenoaks) cut off did things really settle down as both company's express traffic was able to avoid Redhill

I think a lot of this is the perceived need by those in positions of power to 'dumb down' technical or complex projects in the belief that the gerneral public will not understand, or doesn't want to know the specifics, but just wants Twitter style soundbytes. From TV programmes that incessantly 'recap' what went on 15 minutes ago before the last add break, to 'breaking news' updates on the BBC or indeed Government publications, its all about style and impression rather than the detail. As for the specifics, I'm sure that the engineers in charge are well aware of the importance of this particular bridge - and as with HS1 where similar concerns will have been present, the engineers will devise a suitable method of construction that minimises local inconvenience.

The SECR and LBSCR had joint running powers from London Bridge to Redhill, Bo-peep Junction to Hastings, Woodside (via Selsdon and Oxted) to [the curve linking the Redhill - Tonbridge line to the Oxted - East Grinstead line]. They ran alongside each other on non - connected tracks between Clapham High Street - Peckham Rye, wile a number of the connecting chords in the Clapham junction area were jointly owned. The LBSCR also had running powers into the SECR station in Tunbridge Wells - but such was the rivalry, regular trains between the LBSCR West station and the SECR didn't happen until grouping when both became part of the SR.

It should do if you plan to transfer to bus at Reigate. For clarification the current hourly service from Gatwick calls at:- Redhill, Reigate Dorking Deepdene, Guildford Ash North Camp Wokingham and Reading. This is the service that will be duplicated to give the half hourly Gatwick - Reading service with an identical calling pattern to the current service. At present the 2nd train on the route has to start at Redhill and calls at the likes of Betchworth or Gomshall, etc on an alternate basis (giving such stations one train every 2 hours) This train will also remain (but will obviously be less attractive to passengers travelling from end to end), with the faster trains overtaking it at Guildford.

While it is correct to say the LBSCR equipment was indeed designed and supplied by a German company (though possibly not Siemens) and the board did have an eye to electrification of the main line to Brighton, firm proposals were only published on the eve of grouping. The focus in terms of planning and resources was very much geared to completing the suburban network before heading south of Coulsdon - something which WW1 prevented from happening as originally planned.

Correct! The LBSCR used a similar setup when it electrified the South London Line because they recognized that AC transmission was far superior to DC methods and that providing the frequency was kept low enough DC traction motors could be used without the need for conversion of the supply. The only reason long length DC schemes became economic was the invention around 1930 of the Mercury Arc rectifier, thus permitting unmanned compact substations over the large, staffed rotary converters needed in earlier schemes to turn AC into DC.

Ahh I see - the significant thing is (i) it was before the nationwide installation of TPWS made the risks attached to such a operation minuscule and (ii) It was also in an era before ROGS, where the HMRI had much more direct involvement in the specifics of infrastructure modifications where as now its less about them saying an absolute yes / no to a proposal and more about the infrastructure provider proving the propose solution addresses all risks and can be operate safely. Were platform sharing to be proposed today then assuming suitable signalling (inc TPWS, etc) was installed then I see no reason why it wouldn't happen. However given the pressure on signalling resources I wouldn't expect that to happen any time soon.

Do you have a source for this statement? I ask because through the use of TPWS and approach controlled signals there is no reason why the potential for a collision between two trains cannot be eliminated, which means such a move is perfectly safe. Also what about platform sharing without mid platform signals which is used extensively across the network using call on signals to allow a second train into the occupied platform. This is due to go in on the 100% new build platform at Redhill.

There is a definite plan that when Platform 0 at Redhill is built next year (signalling surveys and ground investigations have been underway for a while now), the North Downs service will go to 3tph. Two limited stop Reading - Gatwick trains at evenly spaced 30 minute intervals with a 1 tph all stations stopper between Reading and Redhill. The fasts will overtake the stoppers at Guildford I believe.