Was watching an old episode of Secrets of the underground last night and they
were down the waterloo and city. Something I wondered about - the tube was
originally electrified to 4th rail to avoid corrosion on the cast iron tunnels
from current leakage , so how did the W&C get away with 3rd rail
electrification in similar tunnels for 100 years?

In message <uiamdc$ffmf$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:44 on Mon, 6 Nov
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:

>Was watching an old episode of Secrets of the underground last night and they
>were down the waterloo and city. Something I wondered about - the tube was
>originally electrified to 4th rail to avoid corrosion on the cast iron tunnels
>from current leakage , so how did the W&C get away with 3rd rail
>electrification in similar tunnels for 100 years?

Maybe they didn't, are we sure there weren't consequences?
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 11:32:03 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <uiamdc$ffmf$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:44 on Mon, 6 Nov
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>
>>Was watching an old episode of Secrets of the underground last night and they
>>were down the waterloo and city. Something I wondered about - the tube was
>>originally electrified to 4th rail to avoid corrosion on the cast iron tunnels
>
>>from current leakage , so how did the W&C get away with 3rd rail
>>electrification in similar tunnels for 100 years?
>
>Maybe they didn't, are we sure there weren't consequences?

Dunno, thats why I'm asking.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 11:32:03 +0000
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uiamdc$ffmf$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:44 on Mon, 6 Nov
>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>
>>> Was watching an old episode of Secrets of the underground last night and they
>>> were down the waterloo and city. Something I wondered about - the tube was
>>> originally electrified to 4th rail to avoid corrosion on the cast iron tunnels
>>
>>> from current leakage , so how did the W&C get away with 3rd rail
>>> electrification in similar tunnels for 100 years?
>>
>> Maybe they didn't, are we sure there weren't consequences?
>
> Dunno, thats why I'm asking.

I can't find any reports of 'consequences'. It's a very small, simple
line, with no more than two short trains accelerating at any one time, so
return currents would be small, probably not enough to cause any problems.

On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 11:28:55 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Dunno, thats why I'm asking.
>
>I can't find any reports of 'consequences'. It's a very small, simple
>line, with no more than two short trains accelerating at any one time, so
>return currents would be small, probably not enough to cause any problems.

Maybe, though AFAIK it used 750V, not 630, so making current leakage more
likely.

The only reason I can think of for 3rd rail given it was a self contained line
built from scratch with one off stock is to drive the trains under their own
power to a maintenance depot on the surface one they'd been lifted out.

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 16:12:07 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 11:28:55 GMT
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Dunno, thats why I'm asking.
>>
>>I can't find any reports of 'consequences'. It's a very small, simple
>>line, with no more than two short trains accelerating at any one time, so
>>return currents would be small, probably not enough to cause any problems.
>
>Maybe, though AFAIK it used 750V, not 630, so making current leakage more
>likely.
>
>The only reason I can think of for 3rd rail given it was a self contained line
>built from scratch with one off stock is to drive the trains under their own
>power to a maintenance depot on the surface one they'd been lifted out.

Yes, that was one reason. But, simply, the LSWR just wanted to use the same electrification kit as it did on the main
line. It seems not to have been a problem.

On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 16:28:25 +0000
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 16:12:07 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 11:28:55 GMT
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> Dunno, thats why I'm asking.
>>>
>>>I can't find any reports of 'consequences'. It's a very small, simple
>>>line, with no more than two short trains accelerating at any one time, so
>>>return currents would be small, probably not enough to cause any problems.
>>
>>Maybe, though AFAIK it used 750V, not 630, so making current leakage more
>>likely.
>>
>>The only reason I can think of for 3rd rail given it was a self contained
>line
>>built from scratch with one off stock is to drive the trains under their own
>>power to a maintenance depot on the surface one they'd been lifted out.
>
>Yes, that was one reason. But, simply, the LSWR just wanted to use the same
>electrification kit as it did on the main
>line. It seems not to have been a problem.

Which perhaps begs the question of whether the tube really needed 4th rail or
it was just an over abundance of caution especially on the sub surface lines
where corrosion isn't an issue anyway.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 16:28:25 +0000
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 16:12:07 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 11:28:55 GMT
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dunno, thats why I'm asking.
>>>>
>>>> I can't find any reports of 'consequences'. It's a very small, simple
>>>> line, with no more than two short trains accelerating at any one time, so
>>>> return currents would be small, probably not enough to cause any problems.
>>>
>>> Maybe, though AFAIK it used 750V, not 630, so making current leakage more
>>> likely.
>>>
>>> The only reason I can think of for 3rd rail given it was a self contained
>> line
>>> built from scratch with one off stock is to drive the trains under their own
>>> power to a maintenance depot on the surface one they'd been lifted out.
>>
>> Yes, that was one reason. But, simply, the LSWR just wanted to use the same
>> electrification kit as it did on the main
>> line. It seems not to have been a problem.
>
> Which perhaps begs the question of whether the tube really needed 4th rail or
> it was just an over abundance of caution especially on the sub surface lines
> where corrosion isn't an issue anyway.

With many more, much heavier, faster accelerating trains in a section,
there are much greater return currents to deal with on the Tube. The SSL
share tracks with Tube trains, so they need to use the same system.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 16:12:07 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 11:28:55 GMT
> >Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> >>> Dunno, thats why I'm asking.
> >>
> >>I can't find any reports of 'consequences'. It's a very small, simple
> >>line, with no more than two short trains accelerating at any one time, so
> >>return currents would be small, probably not enough to cause any problems.
> >
> >Maybe, though AFAIK it used 750V, not 630, so making current leakage more
> >likely.
> >
> >The only reason I can think of for 3rd rail given it was a self contained line
> >built from scratch with one off stock is to drive the trains under their own
> >power to a maintenance depot on the surface one they'd been lifted out.
>
> Yes, that was one reason. But, simply, the LSWR just wanted to use the
> same electrification kit as it did on the main line. It seems not to have
> been a problem.

The W&C was the second electric tube line (1898), the C&SLR was the first
(1890) and that was (according to wikipedia) initially 3rd rail. I don't
know whether galvanic corrosion in tunnels was understood at the time, but
it seems that 3rd rail was the simplest electrification scheme and there
weren't enough problems to install 4th rail. The initial 3rd rail system
worked, so there was no reason to change.

The LSWR didn't electrify their lines until 1915 (with the exception of the
District, 1905).

Theo

On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 17:12:19 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Which perhaps begs the question of whether the tube really needed 4th rail or
>
>> it was just an over abundance of caution especially on the sub surface lines
>> where corrosion isn't an issue anyway.
>
>With many more, much heavier, faster accelerating trains in a section,
>there are much greater return currents to deal with on the Tube. The SSL

Were the old stock on the W&C particularly slow accelerating? I have no idea,
think I only ever rode them once.

>share tracks with Tube trains, so they need to use the same system.

Yes, but at the time they were electrified they didn't so could have used
3rd rail.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 16:28:25 +0000
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 16:12:07 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 11:28:55 GMT
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dunno, thats why I'm asking.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't find any reports of 'consequences'. It's a very small, simple
>>>>> line, with no more than two short trains accelerating at any one time, so
>>>>> return currents would be small, probably not enough to cause any problems.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe, though AFAIK it used 750V, not 630, so making current leakage more
>>>> likely.
>>>>
>>>> The only reason I can think of for 3rd rail given it was a self contained
>>> line
>>>> built from scratch with one off stock is to drive the trains under their own
>>>> power to a maintenance depot on the surface one they'd been lifted out.
>>>
>>> Yes, that was one reason. But, simply, the LSWR just wanted to use the same
>>> electrification kit as it did on the main
>>> line. It seems not to have been a problem.
>>
>> Which perhaps begs the question of whether the tube really needed 4th rail or
>> it was just an over abundance of caution especially on the sub surface lines
>> where corrosion isn't an issue anyway.
>
> With many more, much heavier, faster accelerating trains in a section,
> there are much greater return currents to deal with on the Tube. The SSL
> share tracks with Tube trains, so they need to use the same system.
>
>
Mutleys question is one I have wondered about myself The W&C line
electric wasn’t quite the same as that later used on the LSWR the
conductor rail was central between the running lines and IIRC the original
voltage was 500.
The W&C is a self contained line but the same question could be applied to
the Central London Railway which also used a central third rail until LT
standardised it in 1940 and that was a much bigger operation.
The 4th Rail std started on the District and Metropolitan after the latter
gave up ideas of using 3 phase AC and as the District was part of the
Yerkes group it made sense to standardise across that organisations lines.
I wonder if one of the reasons for the District Railway choosing 4th rail
was because it was pioneering the use of track circuits and automatic
signals and keeping those and returning traction current separate. The
reduced leakage was an added benefit .
The LSWR main suburban electrification actually started quite late , it
wasn’t practical to use the system of the W&C as central third rail has
more gaps at point work whereas side mounted can change sides, also by 1915
the District had already commenced electric running on LSWR territory.
By adopting the same conductor rail position as the Districts Positive
conductor rail
it was relatively straight forward to have 3 and 4 rail trains share a
route , though you need a gap between true 4th rail with its + and -
voltages relative to earth and the shared route with the positive
at full voltage and the middle rail at ground.

GH

In message <Tp83N.25$0tU.11@fx09.ams1>, at 17:12:19 on Thu, 9 Nov 2023,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 16:28:25 +0000
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 16:12:07 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 11:28:55 GMT
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dunno, thats why I'm asking.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't find any reports of 'consequences'. It's a very small, simple
>>>>> line, with no more than two short trains accelerating at any one time, so
>>>>> return currents would be small, probably not enough to cause any
>>>>>problems.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe, though AFAIK it used 750V, not 630, so making current
>>>>leakage more likely. The only reason I can think of for 3rd rail
>>>>given it was a self contained line built from scratch with one
>>>>off stock is to drive the trains under their own power to a
>>>>maintenance depot on the surface one they'd been lifted out.
>>>
>>> Yes, that was one reason. But, simply, the LSWR just wanted to use the same
>>> electrification kit as it did on the main
>>> line. It seems not to have been a problem.
>>
>> Which perhaps begs the question of whether the tube really needed 4th rail or
>> it was just an over abundance of caution especially on the sub surface lines
>> where corrosion isn't an issue anyway.
>
>With many more, much heavier, faster accelerating trains in a section,
>there are much greater return currents to deal with on the Tube. The SSL
>share tracks with Tube trains, so they need to use the same system.

While it's clear the configuration was installed because of
expediency/cost we have no data on the adverse consequences. Meanwhile I
suspect you aren't sufficiently aware how short each electrified system
is on the rest of the network. Amongst other things this is why DC
re-gen braking doesn't work so well (there may be few if any trains
nearby enough to soak the power up) and of course in a wider context why
much higher voltage (and correspondingly lower current) AC systems are
preferred elsewhere.
--
Roland Perry

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 11:28:55 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Dunno, thats why I'm asking.
>>
>> I can't find any reports of 'consequences'. It's a very small, simple
>> line, with no more than two short trains accelerating at any one time, so
>> return currents would be small, probably not enough to cause any problems.
>
> Maybe, though AFAIK it used 750V, not 630, so making current leakage more
> likely.

It initially used 550V, later raised to 600V when the surface lines were
electrified and they shared the power supply.

On 10 Nov 2023 09:50:30 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>The LSWR main suburban electrification actually started quite late , it
>wasn’t practical to use the system of the W&C as central third rail has
>more gaps at point work whereas side mounted can change sides, also by 1915

Interestingly (or not) the Volks Electric Railway down on Brighton sea front
uses a slightly offset central 3rd rail. Can just imagine what the H&S response
would be if someone today suggested a new 3rd rail tourist railway on a beach
even at only 100ish volts :)

I'm amazed it survived frankly. Even the southend pier railway switched to
diesel and that's a fully fenced off RoW.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 11:01:28 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 11:28:55 GMT
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> Dunno, thats why I'm asking.
>>>
>>> I can't find any reports of 'consequences'. It's a very small, simple
>>> line, with no more than two short trains accelerating at any one time, so
>>> return currents would be small, probably not enough to cause any problems.
>>
>> Maybe, though AFAIK it used 750V, not 630, so making current leakage more
>> likely.
>
>It initially used 550V, later raised to 600V when the surface lines were
>electrified and they shared the power supply.

On Secrets of the Underground they said 750V so who does one believe?

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 11:01:28 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 11:28:55 GMT
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dunno, thats why I'm asking.
>>>>
>>>> I can't find any reports of 'consequences'. It's a very small, simple
>>>> line, with no more than two short trains accelerating at any one time, so
>>>> return currents would be small, probably not enough to cause any problems.
>>>
>>> Maybe, though AFAIK it used 750V, not 630, so making current leakage more
>>> likely.
>>
>> It initially used 550V, later raised to 600V when the surface lines were
>> electrified and they shared the power supply.
>
> On Secrets of the Underground they said 750V so who does one believe?

It's 4th rail 750V now, but not in the early years. In the third rail era,
it went from 550 to 600 to 660V.

The old class 487 stock had a maximum speed of 35 mph, and each power car
had only 380hp (the 92TS have 1984hp). The W&C trains don't need much
power, as they accelerate downhill out of the stations, and decelerate
uphill into them. As each station is a terminus, they arrive slowly.

On 10/11/2023 11:13, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2023 09:50:30 GMT
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> The LSWR main suburban electrification actually started quite late , it
>> wasn’t practical to use the system of the W&C as central third rail has
>> more gaps at point work whereas side mounted can change sides, also by 1915
>
> Interestingly (or not) the Volks Electric Railway down on Brighton sea front
> uses a slightly offset central 3rd rail. Can just imagine what the H&S response
> would be if someone today suggested a new 3rd rail tourist railway on a beach
> even at only 100ish volts :)
>
> I'm amazed it survived frankly. Even the southend pier railway switched to
> diesel and that's a fully fenced off RoW.
>

Southend Pier is back on electricity, though battery operated.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 09:50:48 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <Tp83N.25$0tU.11@fx09.ams1>, at 17:12:19 on Thu, 9 Nov 2023,
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 16:28:25 +0000
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 16:12:07 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 11:28:55 GMT
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dunno, thats why I'm asking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't find any reports of 'consequences'. It's a very small, simple
>>>>>> line, with no more than two short trains accelerating at any one time, so
>>>>>> return currents would be small, probably not enough to cause any
>>>>>>problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe, though AFAIK it used 750V, not 630, so making current
>>>>>leakage more likely. The only reason I can think of for 3rd rail
>>>>>given it was a self contained line built from scratch with one
>>>>>off stock is to drive the trains under their own power to a
>>>>>maintenance depot on the surface one they'd been lifted out.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that was one reason. But, simply, the LSWR just wanted to use the same
>>>> electrification kit as it did on the main
>>>> line. It seems not to have been a problem.
>>>
>>> Which perhaps begs the question of whether the tube really needed 4th rail or
>>> it was just an over abundance of caution especially on the sub surface lines
>>> where corrosion isn't an issue anyway.
>>
>>With many more, much heavier, faster accelerating trains in a section,
>>there are much greater return currents to deal with on the Tube. The SSL
>>share tracks with Tube trains, so they need to use the same system.
>
>While it's clear the configuration was installed because of
>expediency/cost we have no data on the adverse consequences.

There clearly weren't enough 'adverse consequences' to force a switch to fourth rail while it remained under BR. That
was almost 90 years of operation with third rail, with no publicly reported problems.

> Meanwhile I
>suspect you aren't sufficiently aware how short each electrified system
>is on the rest of the network.

They vary, of course, but can be several km long. That's much longer than the W&C.

> Amongst other things this is why DC
>re-gen braking doesn't work so well (there may be few if any trains
>nearby enough to soak the power up)

The other train(s) would need to be accelerating at the exact instance that a train is regenerating. That might need
quite a few trains in a section to have a good chance of it happening, thus making the section too long.

> and of course in a wider context why
>much higher voltage (and correspondingly lower current) AC systems are
>preferred elsewhere.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2023 09:50:30 GMT
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> The LSWR main suburban electrification actually started quite late , it
>> wasn’t practical to use the system of the W&C as central third rail has
>> more gaps at point work whereas side mounted can change sides, also by 1915
>
> Interestingly (or not) the Volks Electric Railway down on Brighton sea front
> uses a slightly offset central 3rd rail. Can just imagine what the H&S response
> would be if someone today suggested a new 3rd rail tourist railway on a beach
> even at only 100ish volts :)
>
> I'm amazed it survived frankly. Even the southend pier railway switched to
> diesel and that's a fully fenced off RoW.
>
>

Down here in Hampshire we still have the Hythe Pier Railway with third
rail at 250V .It
Is fenced off from the walkway and out of reach from the platforms but not
drastically so.
As an aside when the installation was commissioned in the early 1920’s the
Electrical Engineer who oversaw it was someone who was previously employed
by London Electric Railways ,must have been quite a change.
One of the Locos carries his
name<https://www.flickr.com/photos/9003948@N05/52763991969>
Have any of the other well known names associated with the development of
the UndergrounD such as Yerkes or Holden been similarly commemorated ?

GH

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 11:38:37 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 11:01:28 GMT
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 11:28:55 GMT
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dunno, thats why I'm asking.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't find any reports of 'consequences'. It's a very small, simple
>>>>> line, with no more than two short trains accelerating at any one time, so
>>>>> return currents would be small, probably not enough to cause any
>problems.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe, though AFAIK it used 750V, not 630, so making current leakage more
>>>> likely.
>>>
>>> It initially used 550V, later raised to 600V when the surface lines were
>>> electrified and they shared the power supply.
>>
>> On Secrets of the Underground they said 750V so who does one believe?
>
>It's 4th rail 750V now, but not in the early years. In the third rail era,
>it went from 550 to 600 to 660V.

Except the LU bod they interviewed in the W&C depot said they use the same
750V as was there before it became part of LU. *shrug*

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 14:58:35 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 10/11/2023 11:13, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On 10 Nov 2023 09:50:30 GMT
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The LSWR main suburban electrification actually started quite late , it
>>> wasn’t practical to use the system of the W&C as central third rail has
>>> more gaps at point work whereas side mounted can change sides, also by 1915
>>
>> Interestingly (or not) the Volks Electric Railway down on Brighton sea front
>> uses a slightly offset central 3rd rail. Can just imagine what the H&S
>response
>> would be if someone today suggested a new 3rd rail tourist railway on a beach
>
>> even at only 100ish volts :)
>>
>> I'm amazed it survived frankly. Even the southend pier railway switched to
>> diesel and that's a fully fenced off RoW.
>>
>
>Southend Pier is back on electricity, though battery operated.

Yes, the new trains look nice. Its on my visit list as its been a number of
years since we last went to the pier.

On 10 Nov 2023 16:01:28 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>Down here in Hampshire we still have the Hythe Pier Railway with third
>rail at 250V .It

Wow, thats a fairly unknown little gem!

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 11:38:37 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 11:01:28 GMT
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 11:28:55 GMT
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dunno, thats why I'm asking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't find any reports of 'consequences'. It's a very small, simple
>>>>>> line, with no more than two short trains accelerating at any one time, so
>>>>>> return currents would be small, probably not enough to cause any
>> problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe, though AFAIK it used 750V, not 630, so making current leakage more
>>>>> likely.
>>>>
>>>> It initially used 550V, later raised to 600V when the surface lines were
>>>> electrified and they shared the power supply.
>>>
>>> On Secrets of the Underground they said 750V so who does one believe?
>>
>> It's 4th rail 750V now, but not in the early years. In the third rail era,
>> it went from 550 to 600 to 660V.
>
> Except the LU bod they interviewed in the W&C depot said they use the same
> 750V as was there before it became part of LU. *shrug*

Yes, the change to 4th rail 750V was made when the class 482 (1992TS) was
introduced in 1993. The transfer to LU was a few months later, in April
1994.

On 10/11/2023 16:01, Marland wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On 10 Nov 2023 09:50:30 GMT
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The LSWR main suburban electrification actually started quite late , it
>>> wasn’t practical to use the system of the W&C as central third rail has
>>> more gaps at point work whereas side mounted can change sides, also by 1915
>>
>> Interestingly (or not) the Volks Electric Railway down on Brighton sea front
>> uses a slightly offset central 3rd rail. Can just imagine what the H&S response
>> would be if someone today suggested a new 3rd rail tourist railway on a beach
>> even at only 100ish volts :)
>>
>> I'm amazed it survived frankly. Even the southend pier railway switched to
>> diesel and that's a fully fenced off RoW.
>>
>>
>
> Down here in Hampshire we still have the Hythe Pier Railway with third
> rail at 250V .It
> Is fenced off from the walkway and out of reach from the platforms but not
> drastically so.
> As an aside when the installation was commissioned in the early 1920’s the
> Electrical Engineer who oversaw it was someone who was previously employed
> by London Electric Railways ,must have been quite a change.
> One of the Locos carries his
> name<https://www.flickr.com/photos/9003948@N05/52763991969>
> Have any of the other well known names associated with the development of
> the UndergrounD such as Yerkes or Holden been similarly commemorated ?
>

I assume the naming is fairly recent, don't recall it last time I
travelled on the line, which was July 2019.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/11/2023 16:56, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 14:58:35 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2023 11:13, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On 10 Nov 2023 09:50:30 GMT
>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> The LSWR main suburban electrification actually started quite late , it
>>>> wasn’t practical to use the system of the W&C as central third rail has
>>>> more gaps at point work whereas side mounted can change sides, also by 1915
>>>
>>> Interestingly (or not) the Volks Electric Railway down on Brighton sea front
>>> uses a slightly offset central 3rd rail. Can just imagine what the H&S
>> response
>>> would be if someone today suggested a new 3rd rail tourist railway on a beach
>>
>>> even at only 100ish volts :)
>>>
>>> I'm amazed it survived frankly. Even the southend pier railway switched to
>>> diesel and that's a fully fenced off RoW.
>>>
>>
>> Southend Pier is back on electricity, though battery operated.
>
> Yes, the new trains look nice. Its on my visit list as its been a number of
> years since we last went to the pier.
>

Last time I was there was 1974! Still had the 1949 AC Cars trains
operating then.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.