Thanks, maybe I have mis-remembered, that is a bit slow! I thought there was an established simple low-cost solution ready to go, maybe I picked the wrong one.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Windermere Station Rebuilding Plans
- Thread starter thenorthern
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
It just seems to me a high cost to put up wiring when we have got to the point that batteries (and the means to charge) are almost certainly good enough.
While I accept you don't just pop to Argos to buy a battery train, it really ought to be quicker to sort the train(s) than the wires.. and you don't have to equip every train immediately - you just do it over time. If you are currently using diesel trains then you need to change the rolling stock anyway.
While I accept you don't just pop to Argos to buy a battery train, it really ought to be quicker to sort the train(s) than the wires.. and you don't have to equip every train immediately - you just do it over time. If you are currently using diesel trains then you need to change the rolling stock anyway.
but not yet really established or approved...
Northern have an order in for EMUs, so a few extra won't introduce any time constraint or extra training need at all (apart from for the current DMU drivers.)
A wire from Oxenholme needs no other infrastructure, whereas a charging station at Windermere is a project in its own right - even if you can get a train approved to use it.
I would bet on 6 months for wires, 6 years for new battery-EMU hybrids. I suppose they could piggy-back on a Scottish order but that is still a new class to train on and I don't think there is even a projected introduction date for the Scots ones anyway.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,641
No, the canopies are knackered.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I doubt it.
D6130
Established Member
Are the canopies and platform level buildings at Crewe listed? (....as opposed to listing!
)
Agent_Squash
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2016
- Messages
- 1,271
I'm sure I read a contribution on here from someone "in the know" that that's not the case, and there are some issues with major cost implications.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The National Park wouldn't be paying for it.
If this was a simple "no brainer" it would have been done years ago.
Was that the Burneside LC?
but that's not relevant when saying "they want it" is to point out the error of people saying it would be obstructed
in common with lots of stuff which doesn't benefit the home counties. Like filling potholes: I can never believe the quality of road surfaces in Westminster and some other parts of the SE when I see them...
Agent_Squash
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2016
- Messages
- 1,271
I’m genuinely not sure why your anti the easiest electrification scheme in the country.
It was designed. Evaluated. Shovel ready. It only got cancelled because GWEP was out of money and Chris Grayling knew they weren’t winning the seat.
There is no new feeder infrastructure, the bridges were not an issue, they’d even electrified Oxenholme Platform 3 (arguably the hardest part) ready for it.
Elecman
Established Member
I think its may be Staveley level crossing thats the problem as there is a low bridge not far away from it so you’d go from minimum wire height to maximum very quickly and then there is a DNO overhead feed immediately the other side of the crossing. At Burneside you have a level crossing then the station then another Level crossing so you would ideally keep the wire at maximum height between the 2 level crossings