Recent content by Intellectual98

Two higher speed at high temperatures and potentially due to buckling. The third was slow speed in a depot early when it was still cool. Two might be related, the other almost certainly not.

It passed on the opposite track going the other way according to signal maps. As for the definition of ten foot, that's the middle bit of 4 track layout.

In my opinion it's more likely they stopped and RECed it, and/or got showered in ballast smashing the windscreen as they passed. Thankfully it went down the embankment not into the six foot.

Unfortunately I don't have the privilege of easy access to toilet facilities while in a train cab, unlike in an office. Therefore occasionally I need to urinate, or in emergencies even defecate, in the cabs. So no, I do not want CCTV in the cabs at all, unless every train comes with it's own...

Sounds like the driver did exactly as would have been expected of him; Put in the brakes, if its not stopping stick it in emergency. It must have been scary. I wish him the best and as above hope he is well looked after. I do hope this brings light to the potential severity of low adhesion

There's a lot more computer systems on these 345s, you also have the issue of installing and validating multiple new and untested signalling systems on each 7>9 car conversion. I suspect the testing of the signalling systems will take dozens of hours on each converted unit before it can be...

Hopefully the 9>7 car conversions can be put back to 9 quite quickly, the spare carriages are sitting in Old Oak, and I assume the CBTC/ETCS computers are still in situ just disabled.

Adding a passing loop or double track platforms would need the whole route to be signalled. Currently as there's only ever one train allowed on it there's only one signal to worry about.

Yep, 30mph the whole way. Improved acceleration over the 315 will make minimal difference at such low top speeds. For a 4 minute turn around you would need 2 drivers due to minimum turnaround times, one would have to drive each way, but that still doesn't leave a lot of time to use the toilet.

You are a huge bundle of negativity, but haven't provided much in the way of other solutions. Pumped hydro is great, but not a long term solution, there's not enough glens in Scotland even if we filled them all, and I'm pretty sure there will be some losses in the 300 miles to get the leccy back...

1, All EVs have battery heaters for very cold operation 2, A large fraction is available, but usually wouldn't be used except in extreme circumstances. 3, Night time will be the cheapest for the foreseeable future, until we no longer rely on nuclear to cover our base load. 4, Most will be used...

Most EVs barring the leaf have great thermal management and a daily cycle would only use a small fraction of the capacity of the battery. Considering most EVs can fast charge at nearly 100KW, I'm sure the thermals on a 7.2KW V2G system would be perfectly within its capabilities. The batteries...

"v2g is unforortunately going to be hopelessly uneconomic, the losses from going all the way from the HV system to the LV system, into the car, out of the car, through the LV system back to the HV system are just enormous." V2G is already economical. Nothing different here to large scale...

The only mandate I am aware of is for smart chargers, which could potentially give load balancing but there's currently no central way to control this. If your smart charger isn't directly supplied by your energy supplier then there's no load balancing available. I'm not aware of any...

I totally agree of cutting corners and underinvestment being an issue along with poor long and mid term planning. All caused by sucsessive governemnts.However there are other solutions to this problem rather than idling fossil generators and that was my point.