Not to mention that charging from two sources at once is, for all practical purposes, impossible in a high voltage environment. You don’t want the diesel alternator back-feeding into the third rail…
I would be very surprised as there are plenty of facts and reasons:
Just to clarify the electrification of the West London Line, the costs were shared between Clapham Jn / Longhedge Jn and Kensington Olympia by NSE and the Channel Tunnel Project. North of Kensington was wholly funded by Channel Tunnel for access to North Pole Depot and freight traffic. Only a tiny percentage of the proposed CT Freight service exists, Eurostar moved to Temple Mills and the successors to NSE are making full use of the facilities.
The class 197 are part of what is going to replace them and the fact that TFW have taken on extra MK4's with class 67's.
Thanks HWL and Romsey. I am still suspecting that a safety case will go against infilling 3rd rail again.
Why? That would be a dual electrified section.
Having had the class 313's move from the London even though then, that they where going on for 40 years and those came south to Southern to replace 377/3 units on the Coastway services, it would not surprise me if class 156 units did replace class 171 units. However, I think as someone mentioned previously you would have issues with the end doors on the class 156 units in comparison with the doors on the class 171 units.
I cannot find the comment, but someone did comment about the junction to the south of Ashford International prior to turning to travel in the direction of Ham Street that there would be issues installing OHLE.
It was only my thoughts considering the fact that Class 156s have never worked in the area and could imagine Network Rail turning round making an excuse for not clearing them
Knowing they would get a visit from RAIB the first time a 15x met anything coming in the other direction through the reverse curves means they don't need to make an excuse, they have a very valid reason!
Why would you spend serious money on the infrastructure to facilitate the arrival of unsuitable obsolescent near life expired units which no one wants.
The old stats were based on all 3rd rail (and LU 4th rail) risk with out any detail e.g. cause (which might suggest what mitigation measures are available and their effectiveness) and location (Urban /Rural) but just split by passenger / tresspasser / staff, "who" but not the "how" and "where".
Thanks Hwl. If I get time later I will try to find the Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy from last year and have a read.
Some bedtime reading for you: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...sation-Network-Strategy-Executive-Summary.pdf
The Southern calculations for Marsh link were that to provide sufficient charge for the non electrified section trains would have to do a Brighton to Ashford return trip followed by a Brighton to Seaford trip then another Ashford trip. This required a lot more battery units than the 171s they would replace and they concluded that the scheme was not viable on that basis. This also didn't provide a solution for the Peak Rye to Ashford shuttles which do 80 miles off the juice with only a 10 min turnround at Ashford.Interwork the Uckfield to London Bridge services with a London Bridge to Ashford via Redhill service and an Ashford to Brighton service so that all the spare 3rd rail power between Redhill and Ashford can be used to recharge the battery trains
When were these carried out, and do you have a link to a published report into it? I'm not doubting what you're saying in any way, I'd just be very interested to read it.
I've never seen a written report as such, it was a presentation given by a Southern Manager on behalf of GTR to the Marsh link Rail Users group in Rye. It was probably 5 years ago so the battery technology will have improved since then but the Marsh link has also been cut back to Eastbourne.
Ah, thanks. I might have a dig around online to see if that presentation or a summary of it made it's way into a press release.
I think it may have been done as part of a franchise bid that was overtaken by events at London Bridge. It was definitely a big sell at the meeting with both local MPs present. Network Rail were there as well with their improved journey times promises (still not fulfilled after 80 years!).
Thank you Zwk500.
I notice that https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-Strategy-Interim-Programme-Business-Case.pdf is stating some thoughts that I have had, which is stated on page 20 as follows:
Hydrogen trains are and will be very expensive, as is the refuelling infrastructure (most optimum cost wise for a small-medium fleet size), there is no solution to the H2 storage space issues. (they also need large onboard batteries both to recover energy and provide extra peak power)
True. If it is electric power, plus battery but interesting how they setup a charging point at Uckfield and how long the unit needs to be in Uckfield station prior to it's return. If the recharging point is setup using OHLE at Uckfield station using local electricity mains, then if you do Uckfield station that way then it would be just as well to the rest of the line to Oxted where possible, except perhaps in any tunnels where the unit could operate on battery power.
All the restricted tunnels are on the already electrified section, the DNOs 132Kv feeder ends next to the North Portal of Crowborough Tunnel after the overhead route follows the line for 2 miles. It is total nonsense to suggest a charging point at Uckfield Station when the line is single south of Crowborough and for practical purposes off peak has one train south of Ashurst. If the safety concerns can be contained it should be an absolute no brainer, ditto North Downs, ditto Marsh link (ac)
If you read through https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-Strategy-Interim-Programme-Business-Case.pdf, there is other alternatives. But I agree that with considering the safety concerns, it should be OHLE(ac), rather than 3rd rail.
Technically that 132kV line has minimal space capacity because it has to provide some resilience against failure elsewhere on the DNO network.
The reason Uckfield, Marshlink and North Downs are shown as "multiple" in Figure 14 in the report is because they are awaiting the outcome of the 3rd rail safety case review as 3rd rail is first choice.
Minimal as in less than 10 MW peak demand? You could have a maximum of 3 trains drawing 4.5 MW momentarily south of Hurst Green (do 377s even draw 4.5 in 12 car formation?) plus losses plus contingency. I'm not convinced that's a problem tbh.
Persuading UKPN and NG may well be the biggest issue.