DY444

Just because your dwell time hasn't changed doesn't mean that applies to everyone. Charging infrastructure is not moving at great speed. There are numerous reports out there from people who don't have an axe to grind explaining what the roll out rate needs to be and comparing it with what it is. Not only is the actual rate not in the same ball park, it's not even on the same planet. Even if it was we don't have enough generating capacity in the works to support it or to cover off the 8 to 10 days a year that wind contributes virtually nothing to the power mix. You'd be hard pressed to find a national newspaper more enthusiastic about EVs than The Sunday Times. It's transport editor eulogises about them regularly, in his world there are no problems other than how those in North London town houses can get a cable to their vehicle, it is a utopian solution, he has an answer to everything and the fact that most of his answers rely on tech that doesn't exist is of no concern to him. However three times in 7 weeks the ST has carried pieces by different people who are pro-EV in principle and have tried living with an EV. The story is always the same. Local journeys, commuting moderate distances, charging infrastructure in the centres of the biggest cities: not too bad and largely viable. Travelling distances that require en-route charging: hopeless. Common issues mentioned are unserviceable or limited function charging points, no standard way of paying, and the shear sparcity of charging infrastructure over vast swathes of the country which makes finding a charger difficult, and often means an extended wait because the limited number that are available are in use already. Basically the infrastructure cannot support the number of EVs already out there in many areas. EV growth is running faster than infrastructure growth and so the problem is going to get worse in the short to medium term. You don't have to look very hard on the internet to find EV owners who are saying never again. If you're going to make a change as fundamental as this then you have to take the public with you. If, as seems quite possible as EV numbers increase, the practical difficulties of owning an EV becomes a main stream issue then you risk creating a negative impression in the wider public. Then it becomes an electoral issue and you probably have to water it down or delay it or both. By contrast if you had an infrastructure programme which ensured these issues were mitigated before you started to ban things then you take the public with you. That's before you even get to the charge time/range/battery life conundrum and the likely effect on the residuals/used car market of finite battery life. In short too much ideology and dependence on non-existent tech, not enough practicality and not enough analysis of the wider unintended consequences. I'm not against EVs, I'm against badly thought out plans that have a high probability of failure at huge cost and from my perspective as a wizened old engineer with more laps of the block and T shirts than I can remember, this looks like a text book example. Incidentally most of the issues go away with a longer phased transition via PHEVs but that's not what is proposed.

Er really? The technological developments of the late 1950s, through the 1960s and beyond were largely motivated by the cold war. A lot of computing and electronics development was spawned directly by the threat from the Soviet block and the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programmes for example were vehicles to channel a lot of that development and to provide scope for propaganda on the superiority of western tech.

That's actually a non-trivial issue. The glib answer to the problem of the time it takes to recharge an EV compared to the time it takes to refuel an ICE vehicle is usually something along the lines of "just have a coffee while you wait - what's the problem?" Well the problem is that what the railway would call dwell time is going to increase at service areas. The oldest service areas unsurprisingly tend to be on the oldest motorways which also tend to be the busiest roads, like the southern end of the M1, and the oldest service areas tend to have the smallest car parks. Watford Gap being a good example. Longer dwell time in small car park equals trouble.

I'm afraid the world has moved on. Most of the TOCs are micro-managed by the DfT with virtually all expenditure having to be authorised and with every option for cost reduction being examined. The concept of "encouraging" TOCs to run longer trains simply doesn't exist. They run what the DfT tells them to run, and most of them don't have enough stock anyway. Those that did like Southern have been forced to reduce the fleet size to save money. Similarly the idea of TOCs "running trains for profit" largely doesn't exist either as they are all pretty much running at a loss and receiving subsidy.

Announce a date with no technical solution to replace the thing you're banning. That always works 🤔

You should get a job at the DfT 😉. In my experience basing a transport (or any other) strategy for a nation on something you hope will be developed by a given date is a very good way to maximise the odds of failure. Research is obviously a key pre-requisite for developing anything new but it doesn't guarantee success by a given date or even at all (see cancer and fusion)

Yep, and all the 319s had them too. Behind the cab at one end with two longitudinal bench seats which could be tipped up and stowed out of the way.

There were 3 reasons why the 319 was chosen. a. They were available at the time b. They had minimal equipment under the driving cars so there was theoretically space for the diesel alternator sets, cooling and fuel tanks c. Interfacing to the existing traction equipment was theoretically straight forward Anything without two trailers with minimal underfloor equipment, or that has a traction package which is not inherently capable of accepting a DC supply would have been very difficult if not impossible. The former probably rules out Desiros and Electrostars, and the latter rules out any BR era AC emus with phase angle control (which is most of them). They definitely should have built a prototype 769 because that would have shown that b and c from that list were not as straightforward as they thought. Then they could have either figured that stuff out before going into production or abandoned the whole thing before it ended up where it has.

I'm not sure about the minimal lineside equipment bit. Yes the objective (in some schemes) is to remove the most visible lineside equipment - the signals - but there is still plenty of other stuff. Location case manufacturers should have no fears. The flip side is that the on-train equipment becomes more complex. As to being a world away, there are 3 installations in service - the Cambrian test bed/trial/proof of concept/whatever you want to call it system, Thameslink core and Heathrow branch. All of which cater for either a single traction type, or traction types with a common lineage. Catering for mixed traffic is a more complex conundrum as BigJim of this parish has highlighted in the past about his experiences of taking 97/3s onto the Cambrian system optimised for 158s. The ECML will be the first application which has to do this "properly". Teething troubles are inevitable I suspect.

The DfT quotes have that "written by the ignorant for the benefit of the ignorant" feel to them. Still pedalling the "digital = new" drivel despite SSIs having first appeared over 30 years ago.

And as we know from past experience the DfT will not be told and has to be left to realise the folly of its decisions in its own time. There was a report the other day of the first very tentative signs that the DfT is beginning to realise its extraordinary contortions to avoid proper electrification at all costs might not be such a good idea after all. Let's hope that turns out to be true, a mere 15 years and counting after it made precisely the same mistake previously. This whole saga illustrates again how right Yes Minister was. Sir Humphrey had a great enthusiasm for changes of minister because it meant the department could wipe the slate clean and recycle all the stuff which the previous minister had eventually got wise to. That seems to me to be essentially what has happened with so-called viable electrification alternatives, albeit over a longer timescale.

.. and different underframes on the compressor side. 😉

It's Bournemouth. The up side siding at the Branksome end.

It's getting towards 20 years since the Royal Mail pulled out of rail and the world has moved on and the role of traditional post has too. Whilst the service offer remains as it was, the importance of speed has fallen imo. Anyone entering into a contract for moving more mail by rail will no doubt want clauses to protect themselves against delays and the Royal Mail will probably have to suck that up. I'm actually struggling to see how this can be anything much more than a beefing up of the existing Willesden/Warrington/Shieldmuir/Low Fell operation given the inability of most principal stations to handle mail now. Either way I doubt we'll see mail trains criss crossing the country like we did before. As for the strikes, if they do put Royal Mail off then they probably weren't serious about it anyway. This will be a long term strategic decision if it happens and won't be influenced by the prospect of periodic squabbles with the rail unions.

Strictly speaking Kennington has never been separate arrival and departure platforms in the traditional sense. Most Northern Line timetables over the years have featured at least a few peak trains to/from Morden via Charing Cross so it was possible to depart Kennington CX platform southbound and arrive northbound on those. Of course since the Battersea extension opened this is now possible several times an hour. There are however separate arrival and departure platforms at Waterloo on the W&C and at Bank on the DLR.

I must patent that device which examines electrons flowing down a wire and sorts out those generated by renewable infrastructure from the rest.

Tbh I don't think it is much use in general for people from the south but then again it wasn't really meant to be. The connection at Farringdon off Thameslink might have some uses such as fewer changes to get to Heathrow (once through running starts) and it does open up some step free opportunities which didn't exist previously but I reckon the most likely benefit for those coming from the south is it taking passengers off some of the Underground lines especially the Jubilee.

Standard SR practice was compressors on each unit and the TCs merely continued that. The ETH thing is a bit of a non-issue too because on a "normal" SR EP emu the compressor is able to run as soon as the master switch in any cab in the formation is moved away from Off. It's exactly the same on TCs coupled to a REP or 33/1 because the eth supply is automatically switched on as soon as the master switch is moved away from Off in any cab providing the eth interlock circuit is complete.

The TC units had compressors too.

I know what you mean but I think it probably is the case that the service levels deemed to be sufficient for current traffic drove the process to see if the 455s could be dispensed with. If covid hadn't happened I doubt they would have been withdrawn. So I suspect it is still the dog wagging the tail just, albeit with some collateral damage such as the MK service and a few peak services which ideally should be longer. Still plenty of 10 car circuits off peak in the metro area though but I suspect that may change when they start to withdraw the 313s.

It was cut back in part to reduce the number of units required for the service and thus assist in back filling the gaps left by getting rid of the 455s. Another shake up is coming with the intent to get rid of the 313s so I guess the future return of the MK service will in part depend on the size and utilisation of the Southern fleet at the time.

90006 Modern Railways Magazine/Roger Ford

Strange remark. My Heljan diesels are far better runners than any of my Hornby or Bachmann models, and they need less maintenance too.

But similar to Cannon St, Charing Cross and the Brighton side of Victoria though.

Ah yes the phase when it was decided that the BR conceived SSI and its subsequent descendents must be rubbish and that those with no UK signalling experience could obviously do better. Besides Manchester South, schemes at Portsmouth, Bournemouth and Horsham all used marvellous new to the UK equipment with varying degrees of disastrous results. Lessons learned you would hope. But no. My favourite "money is no object as long as we can throw our weight about", unaccountable for its actions organisation, the incomparable ORR, has decided that NR ought really to be using new signalling suppliers and has commissioned a study into it. So we can all look forward to another go around of massive train service disruption for months with hastily lashed up temporary signalling (like Portsmouth), scope reductions due to technical problems and significant expense in giving older kit a life extension (like Manchester South and Bournemouth) or simply being ripped out without signalling a single train and replaced with something that actually works (like Horsham). I can't wait.