Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
Great Western Passengers' Forum [home] and [about]
Current travel advice (as at 19.7.2021)
Forum in and beyond Coronavirus
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 05:35 26 Sep 2021
- Covid-19: Ireland ends mandatory hotel quarantine for travellers
- Canary Islands: Airport closed as volcano intensifies
- Taxi gardens and Egypt's pharaohs on a pencil - stories you may have missed
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 28/09/21 - Ask a stupid question (1)
30/09/21 - Ask a stupid question (2)
16/10/21 - Coffee Shop AGM
17/10/21 - Wiltshire Climate Consultation
Random Image
Train RunningCancelled
09:58 Exeter St Davids to Penzance
10:25 Bristol Parkway to Reading
10:37 Swindon to Cheltenham Spa
11:55 Cheltenham Spa to Swindon
12:34 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
17:57 Exmouth to Paignton
18:10 Bristol Temple Meads to Taunton
20:15 Weston-Super-Mare to Bristol Temple Meads
Short Run
06:03 Reading to Gatwick Airport
06:11 Gatwick Airport to Reading
08:15 Gatwick Airport to Reading
16:17 Paignton to Exmouth
19:45 Paignton to Exmouth
Delayed
06:57 Reading to Gatwick Airport
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
September 26, 2021, 05:46:33 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[129] SWR promoting issue of own senior railcards WHY?
[109] Closures - Ireland
[90] Storing petrol
[79] Railway bridges struck by road vehicles - merged topic, ongoin...
[52] Lorry driver crisis made worse by Covid - Shapps
[44] Macron announces big investment in French railways
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Poll
Question: What should be running From Ryde to Shanklin in 5 years time?  (Voting closed: June 26, 2018, 04:57:05 pm)
Current trains - 2 (7.7%)
Newer cascaded tubes - 11 (42.3%)
Next generation tube trains - 5 (19.2%)
Trams / light rail with streeet running - 7 (26.9%)
Buses - 0 (0%)
Something else - 1 (3.8%)
Total Voters: 26

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11
  Print  
Author Topic: Isle of Wight futures.  (Read 26906 times)
paul7755
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4909


View Profile
« Reply #120 on: July 20, 2021, 05:00:58 pm »

Now rumours of another problem.

Suggestions the new trains won't run past the Esplanade and onto Ryde Pier

https://www.islandecho.co.uk/ryde-pier-toll-to-be-abolished-this-week-but-50p-added-to-fastcat-journeys/

Quote
There has been some suggestion that Island Line trains won’t be running to Ryde Pier Head when services finally resume, which could explain today’s news, although an announcement from South Western Railway is yet to be made.
Might be a 2+2 = 5 situation, from what I’ve read before the present contract only covers the platform overlay work at Pier Head, there is a separately funded NR» (Network Rail - home page) project to overhaul the pier structure itself that was always planned to happen later.  So maybe there is another separate closure period planned - unless they can generally work from below…

Paul
Logged
paul7755
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4909


View Profile
« Reply #121 on: July 23, 2021, 11:23:31 am »

The “on the Wight” website has a completely different story about the pier (compared to the earlier news in reply #118)  - based on questions to Network Rail this time, and much more positive:

https://onthewight.com/ryde-piers-railway-line-is-having-work-carried-out-on-it-heres-what-weve-found-out/

Paul
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5763


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #122 on: July 23, 2021, 02:21:55 pm »

The “on the Wight” website has a completely different story about the pier (compared to the earlier news in reply #118)  - based on questions to Network Rail this time, and much more positive:

https://onthewight.com/ryde-piers-railway-line-is-having-work-carried-out-on-it-heres-what-weve-found-out/

Paul

It isn't often that an inspection by anybody, let alone NR» (Network Rail - home page), reveals that the condition of the item being examined isn't as bad as was assumed. Usually, there is a sharp intake of breath...
Logged

Now, please!
paul7755
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4909


View Profile
« Reply #123 on: July 24, 2021, 01:58:27 pm »

The “on the Wight” website has a completely different story about the pier (compared to the earlier news in reply #118)  - based on questions to Network Rail this time, and much more positive:

https://onthewight.com/ryde-piers-railway-line-is-having-work-carried-out-on-it-heres-what-weve-found-out/

Paul

It isn't often that an inspection by anybody, let alone NR» (Network Rail - home page), reveals that the condition of the item being examined isn't as bad as was assumed. Usually, there is a sharp intake of breath...

It’s odd, but the whole project seems to have been a “pessimism magnet” for years. How many times have we read that the track is shot, the entire third rail power system is life expired, the trains won’t fit the tunnels, and lastly that the pier is about to fall over...  Huh

Paul
Logged
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3605


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: July 24, 2021, 06:09:38 pm »


the entire third rail power system is life expired,


It was certainly in need of a lot of work doing to it, which it has now had
Logged

Neither a wise man nor a brave man lies down on the tracks of history to wait for the train of the future to run over him.     
Dwight D. Eisenhower
paul7755
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4909


View Profile
« Reply #125 on: July 25, 2021, 11:48:42 am »


the entire third rail power system is life expired,


It was certainly in need of a lot of work doing to it, which it has now had
I was thinking of suggestions a few years back in various places it would almost certainly be removed. Probably by battery fans, determined to force a prototype into use where it wasn’t needed…
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5763


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: July 25, 2021, 01:55:41 pm »

I was thinking of suggestions a few years back in various places it would almost certainly be removed. Probably by battery fans, determined to force a prototype into use where it wasn’t needed…

My wife has a battery fan, which I think cost €1.99, and is practically useless.

On the matter of battery powered trains, I keenly await the entry into service of something battery powered, so we can see how it works in real life. Perhaps then, we can forget all about it, other than maybe for very short gaps in electrical feed, and move on to proving that hydrogen is no use for railway vehicles. I may very well be wrong, and will accept that with my customary good grace if and when it happens.
Logged

Now, please!
mjones
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 408


View Profile
« Reply #127 on: July 25, 2021, 07:14:11 pm »

Hydrogen  may have a role, but its fans seldom mention that ~60% electrolysis efficiency x ~60% fuel cell efficiency means you are losing nearly two thirds of your energy.  There has to be a lot of "spare " renewable energy around to make that make sense. The technology should improve,  but is it really going to get up to say 80% for  both steps so that overall losses are lower than what you end up with?
Logged
bobm
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8832



View Profile
« Reply #128 on: July 25, 2021, 09:13:07 pm »

Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse.

https://www.islandecho.co.uk/flood-warning-in-force-as-a-months-worth-of-rain-falls-in-just-hours/

Quote
Environment Agency (EA) officials say that the water level in the Monktonmead Brook continues to rise with a month’s worth of rainfall recorded in just 4 hours – a total of 55mm.

According to the EA, water could flow from the railway tracks into the main buildings at the Ryde St John’s train station depot. It could also flood outbuildings and plant and vehicles near Park Road.
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4318



View Profile
« Reply #129 on: July 26, 2021, 05:14:06 pm »

Hydrogen  may have a role, but its fans seldom mention that ~60% electrolysis efficiency x ~60% fuel cell efficiency means you are losing nearly two thirds of your energy.  There has to be a lot of "spare " renewable energy around to make that make sense. The technology should improve,  but is it really going to get up to say 80% for  both steps so that overall losses are lower than what you end up with?

It is worse than that, Hydrogen for transport use needs to be compressed, and this also uses appreciable energy. Or possibly cooled to a super cold liquid which uses even more energy.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
Western Pathfinder
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1362



View Profile
« Reply #130 on: July 26, 2021, 10:12:18 pm »

Things are looking up for Hydrogen, and without the need for a fuel cell,great performance from ice fuelled by gas alone,being developed beyond prototype by a British company that we've all heard of JCB.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wDKLoLUQgH0&t=14s
Logged
mjones
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 408


View Profile
« Reply #131 on: July 26, 2021, 10:44:23 pm »

Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is even less efficient than using a fuel cell. You would be lucky to get 20% of your energy back.
Logged
Western Pathfinder
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1362



View Profile
« Reply #132 on: July 26, 2021, 11:58:09 pm »

JCB would appear to be getting some very good results with a more efficient percentage.
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4318



View Profile
« Reply #133 on: July 27, 2021, 03:35:09 am »

I was thinking of suggestions a few years back in various places it would almost certainly be removed. Probably by battery fans, determined to force a prototype into use where it wasn’t needed…

My wife has a battery fan, which I think cost €1.99, and is practically useless.

On the matter of battery powered trains, I keenly await the entry into service of something battery powered, so we can see how it works in real life. Perhaps then, we can forget all about it, other than maybe for very short gaps in electrical feed, and move on to proving that hydrogen is no use for railway vehicles. I may very well be wrong, and will accept that with my customary good grace if and when it happens.

I am a little more optimistic about battery trains for both branch lines and for sections of main lines where electrification is problematic.
Whilst a practical test would be best, an ACCURATE forecast of the performance and usefulness of a battery train may be achieved as follows.
Take an existing EMU (Electric Multiple Unit),  used on a route similar in line speed and gradient profile, to that proposed for battery power. Fit a KWH meter to measure the total energy used over a days operation. Assess the size of battery required to supply that many KWH, with a safety margin.
Allow for brief top up charges at the terminus.
Example the metered consumption of the EMU over a typical day was 1000 KWH.
Without any charging during the day, a battery able to supply 1000 KWH is needed in theory. In practice 150% of that figure would be prudent.

More complex example.
A days work consists of 5 return trips on a branch line. Each return trip uses 200 KWH. After each return trip there is a 6 minute layover with charging available at 250 kw.
Total energy used per day is 1000 KWH. But each  of the four 6 minute layovers gives a 25 KWH charge so the battery discharge is 900 KWH.

Even better would be to use for test purposes an existing DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) with ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION on the actual route proposed for battery operation. Fit KWH meters to measure the KWH used in a days work.

A purpose designed battery train should do better than a conversion.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3605


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #134 on: July 27, 2021, 06:59:49 am »

I was thinking of suggestions a few years back in various places it would almost certainly be removed. Probably by battery fans, determined to force a prototype into use where it wasn’t needed…

My wife has a battery fan, which I think cost €1.99, and is practically useless.

On the matter of battery powered trains, I keenly await the entry into service of something battery powered, so we can see how it works in real life. Perhaps then, we can forget all about it, other than maybe for very short gaps in electrical feed, and move on to proving that hydrogen is no use for railway vehicles. I may very well be wrong, and will accept that with my customary good grace if and when it happens.

I am a little more optimistic about battery trains for both branch lines and for sections of main lines where electrification is problematic.
Whilst a practical test would be best, an ACCURATE forecast of the performance and usefulness of a battery train may be achieved as follows.
Take an existing EMU (Electric Multiple Unit),  used on a route similar in line speed and gradient profile, to that proposed for battery power. Fit a KWH meter to measure the total energy used over a days operation. Assess the size of battery required to supply that many KWH, with a safety margin.
Allow for brief top up charges at the terminus.
Example the metered consumption of the EMU over a typical day was 1000 KWH.
Without any charging during the day, a battery able to supply 1000 KWH is needed in theory. In practice 150% of that figure would be prudent.

More complex example.
A days work consists of 5 return trips on a branch line. Each return trip uses 200 KWH. After each return trip there is a 6 minute layover with charging available at 250 kw.
Total energy used per day is 1000 KWH. But each  of the four 6 minute layovers gives a 25 KWH charge so the battery discharge is 900 KWH.

Even better would be to use for test purposes an existing DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) with ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION on the actual route proposed for battery operation. Fit KWH meters to measure the KWH used in a days work.

A purpose designed battery train should do better than a conversion.


The internal meetings I have been involved in regarding battery powered trains revolves around the impact charging has on existing electrification infrastructure. 

Traction power systems are designed with specific duty cycles based on traction loading of classic UK (United Kingdom) locomotives and EMU's   Some of the charging currents are mostly within the current capabilities of the system but the demand exceeds the duty cycle especially when a battery train comes off of a non electrified line into an electrified station / siding where the train turns round quite quickly.

This charging demand has to be added to the traction power demand for the existing timetable.

It is not impossible to resolve engineering wise, its just convincing the proponents of battery trains that addition investment and modifications need to be done to the existing traction power system, often a cost factor they had not considered
Logged

Neither a wise man nor a brave man lies down on the tracks of history to wait for the train of the future to run over him.     
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page