On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 21:44:57 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>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.

Which IMO actually looked more modern from the outside than the diesels that
replaced them.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 17:17:08 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><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.

Fair enough.

On 11/11/2023 10:23, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 21:44:57 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Which IMO actually looked more modern from the outside than the diesels that
> replaced them.
>
>

Oh come on! They were classic 1940s vehicles.

See
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Southend_Pier_electric_trains.jpg>

Lovely machines. I note the near one has been blessed by the seagulls.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 14:13:14 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 11/11/2023 10:23, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> Which IMO actually looked more modern from the outside than the diesels that
>> replaced them.
>>
>>
>
>Oh come on! They were classic 1940s vehicles.
>
>See
><https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Southend_Pier_electric_tra
>ins.jpg>
>
>Lovely machines. I note the near one has been blessed by the seagulls.

Perhaps I should have just said better looking then though frankly it would
be hard to make an uglier train than the diesels.

On 11/11/2023 17:10, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 14:13:14 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2023 10:23, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> Which IMO actually looked more modern from the outside than the diesels that
>>> replaced them.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh come on! They were classic 1940s vehicles.
>>
>> See
>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Southend_Pier_electric_tra
>> ins.jpg>
>>
>> Lovely machines. I note the near one has been blessed by the seagulls.
>
> Perhaps I should have just said better looking then though frankly it would
> be hard to make an uglier train than the diesels.
>

There I would agree.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 11/11/2023 10:23, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 21:44:57 +0000
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Which IMO actually looked more modern from the outside than the diesels that
>> replaced them.
>>
>>
>
> Oh come on! They were classic 1940s vehicles.
>
> See
> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Southend_Pier_electric_trains.jpg>
>
> Lovely machines. I note the near one has been blessed by the seagulls.
>

I would have used the term stylish rather than modern, some of the
Motorcoaches of the era had a similar classy look to them even if they
were slow and a bit bumpy by later standards.
The 1980’s stock looked a bit too functional compared to the AC cars stock
which seemed to take a cue from the Blackpool Tramways Rail coaches built
about 15 years before, similar livery as well.
GH

In message <qbiski5d9bbim4pn560fij7ic84alsifbv@4ax.com>, at 15:28:11 on
Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>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.

Different budgets.

>That was almost 90 years of operation with third rail, with no publicly
>reported problems.

Very few organisations go public with their operational issues.
Especially before social media was invented.

>> 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.

I don't doubt some lightly trafficed ones are, but you were comparing
with heavily trafficed ones.

>> 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.

Glad you accept that sections are usually too short for that. The other
problem is that while surplus AC can be fed back to the grid, surplus DC
can't (without very complex equipment).
--
Roland Perry