| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:45:15 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,138 |
| Messages: | 111,067 |
Surprised no one has mentioned this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2l7ry7zp5po
Sounds great, except it only went up to 40mph, probably had all the internal lights and air con off and didn't have to stop and restart at stations.
Also a nice flat route without much in the way of gradients.
On 21/08/2025 16:11, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Surprised no one has mentioned this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2l7ry7zp5po
Sounds great, except it only went up to 40mph, probably had all the
internal
lights and air con off and didn't have to stop and restart at stations.
Also a nice flat route without much in the way of gradients.
The route from Paddington to Reading is uphill virtually all the way,
albeit very gentle. Reading to Oxford is more undulating.
200 miles is a figure for comparison, like the range advertised for
electric cars, rather than a number achievable in the real world.
On 21/08/2025 16:36, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 21/08/2025 16:11, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Surprised no one has mentioned this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2l7ry7zp5po
Sounds great, except it only went up to 40mph, probably had all the
internal
lights and air con off and didn't have to stop and restart at stations.
Also a nice flat route without much in the way of gradients.
The route from Paddington to Reading is uphill virtually all the way,
albeit very gentle. Reading to Oxford is more undulating.
Batteries are good at undulating. They recharge on the way down.
200 miles is a figure for comparison, like the range advertised for
electric cars, rather than a number achievable in the real world.
Surprised no one has mentioned this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2l7ry7zp5po
Sounds great, except it only went up to 40mph,
probably had all the internal
lights and air con off and didn't have to stop and restart at stations.
Also a nice flat route without much in the way of gradients.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 15:11:48 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Surprised no one has mentioned this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2l7ry7zp5po
Sounds great, except it only went up to 40mph,
Where does it say they didn't exceed 40mph?
The video shows the lights on, and lots of performance measuring kit as well.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 12:58:30 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 15:11:48 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Surprised no one has mentioned this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2l7ry7zp5po
Sounds great, except it only went up to 40mph,
Where does it say they didn't exceed 40mph?
Read it somewhere. However this modern railways article confirms it.
https://www.modernrailways.com/article/great-western-railway-battery-train-world-record
Obviously, the real-world range with a higher top speed, stop-start
running, aircon, doors opening and closing, etc, will be much less than the >230 or so miles this 230 could have managed, but most non-electrified GWR >branches should be well within its range.
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:51:42 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Obviously, the real-world range with a higher top speed, stop-start
running, aircon, doors opening and closing, etc, will be much less than the >> 230 or so miles this 230 could have managed, but most non-electrified GWR
branches should be well within its range.
Unfortunately battery trains will have the same issue as battery cars - the real world range is never going to match the theoretical range to do external factors that can't be predicted. Sure for branch lines they'll be fine, but
I get the nasty feeling that politicians thing they're a viable replacement for
DMUs over long distance instead of wiring up the routes. Time will tell I guess.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:51:42 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Obviously, the real-world range with a higher top speed, stop-start
running, aircon, doors opening and closing, etc, will be much less than the >>> 230 or so miles this 230 could have managed, but most non-electrified GWR >>> branches should be well within its range.
Unfortunately battery trains will have the same issue as battery cars - the >> real world range is never going to match the theoretical range to do external
factors that can't be predicted. Sure for branch lines they'll be fine, but >> I get the nasty feeling that politicians thing they're a viable replacement >forIt might be a viable technology for some of CrossCountryrCOs routes. Much of >their running is Diesel under the wires with a few non electrified gaps.
DMUs over long distance instead of wiring up the routes. Time will tell I
guess.
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 14:19:26 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:51:42 GMTIt might be a viable technology for some of CrossCountryrCOs routes. Much of >> their running is Diesel under the wires with a few non electrified gaps.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Obviously, the real-world range with a higher top speed, stop-start
running, aircon, doors opening and closing, etc, will be much less than the
230 or so miles this 230 could have managed, but most non-electrified GWR >>>> branches should be well within its range.
Unfortunately battery trains will have the same issue as battery cars - the >>> real world range is never going to match the theoretical range to do external
factors that can't be predicted. Sure for branch lines they'll be fine, but >>> I get the nasty feeling that politicians thing they're a viable replacement >> for
DMUs over long distance instead of wiring up the routes. Time will tell I >>> guess.
Thats fine if the battery trains have pantographs and transformers, but the GWR ones required their own special charging system that couldn't be used on the move. Its some kind of 3rd rail jobby in between the tracks. Obviously using standard 3rd rail shoes and a rail wasn't cutting edge enough so a brand
new proprietary system was devised. You have to wonder sometimes.
On 31/08/2025 15:36, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 14:19:26 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:51:42 GMTfor
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Obviously, the real-world range with a higher top speed, stop-start
running, aircon, doors opening and closing, etc, will be much less than the
230 or so miles this 230 could have managed, but most non-electrified GWR >>>>> branches should be well within its range.
Unfortunately battery trains will have the same issue as battery cars - the
real world range is never going to match the theoretical range to do external
factors that can't be predicted. Sure for branch lines they'll be fine, but
I get the nasty feeling that politicians thing they're a viable replacement
DMUs over long distance instead of wiring up the routes. Time will tell I >>>> guess.It might be a viable technology for some of CrossCountryAs routes. Much of >>> their running is Diesel under the wires with a few non electrified gaps.
Thats fine if the battery trains have pantographs and transformers, but the >> GWR ones required their own special charging system that couldn't be used on >> the move. Its some kind of 3rd rail jobby in between the tracks. Obviously >> using standard 3rd rail shoes and a rail wasn't cutting edge enough so a brand
new proprietary system was devised. You have to wonder sometimes.
Centre third rail is hardly new tech, Hornby had it around a century ago :-)
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 14:19:26 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:51:42 GMTIt might be a viable technology for some of CrossCountryrCOs routes. Much of >> their running is Diesel under the wires with a few non electrified gaps.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Obviously, the real-world range with a higher top speed, stop-start
running, aircon, doors opening and closing, etc, will be much less than the
230 or so miles this 230 could have managed, but most non-electrified GWR >>>> branches should be well within its range.
Unfortunately battery trains will have the same issue as battery cars - the >>> real world range is never going to match the theoretical range to do external
factors that can't be predicted. Sure for branch lines they'll be fine, but >>> I get the nasty feeling that politicians thing they're a viable replacement >> for
DMUs over long distance instead of wiring up the routes. Time will tell I >>> guess.
Thats fine if the battery trains have pantographs and transformers, but the GWR ones required their own special charging system that couldn't be used on the move. Its some kind of 3rd rail jobby in between the tracks. Obviously using standard 3rd rail shoes and a rail wasn't cutting edge enough so a brand
new proprietary system was devised. You have to wonder sometimes.
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 18:25:04 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/08/2025 15:36, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:So did the Central London Railway thus making it somewhat appropriate
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 14:19:26 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:Thats fine if the battery trains have pantographs and transformers, but the >>> GWR ones required their own special charging system that couldn't be used on
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:51:42 GMTfor
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Obviously, the real-world range with a higher top speed, stop-start >>>>>> running, aircon, doors opening and closing, etc, will be much less than the
230 or so miles this 230 could have managed, but most non-electrified GWR
branches should be well within its range.
Unfortunately battery trains will have the same issue as battery cars - the
real world range is never going to match the theoretical range to do external
factors that can't be predicted. Sure for branch lines they'll be fine, but
I get the nasty feeling that politicians thing they're a viable replacement
DMUs over long distance instead of wiring up the routes. Time will tell I >>>>> guess.It might be a viable technology for some of CrossCountry-As routes. Much of
their running is Diesel under the wires with a few non electrified gaps. >>>
the move. Its some kind of 3rd rail jobby in between the tracks. Obviously >>> using standard 3rd rail shoes and a rail wasn't cutting edge enough so a brand
new proprietary system was devised. You have to wonder sometimes.
Centre third rail is hardly new tech, Hornby had it around a century ago :-) >>
at Greenford.
On 31/08/2025 15:36, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 14:19:26 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:51:42 GMTfor
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Obviously, the real-world range with a higher top speed, stop-start
running, aircon, doors opening and closing, etc, will be much less than the
230 or so miles this 230 could have managed, but most non-electrified GWR >>>>> branches should be well within its range.
Unfortunately battery trains will have the same issue as battery cars - the
real world range is never going to match the theoretical range to do external
factors that can't be predicted. Sure for branch lines they'll be fine, but
I get the nasty feeling that politicians thing they're a viable replacement
DMUs over long distance instead of wiring up the routes. Time will tell I >>>> guess.It might be a viable technology for some of CrossCountryrCOs routes. Much of
their running is Diesel under the wires with a few non electrified gaps.
Thats fine if the battery trains have pantographs and transformers, but the >> GWR ones required their own special charging system that couldn't be used on >> the move. Its some kind of 3rd rail jobby in between the tracks. Obviously >> using standard 3rd rail shoes and a rail wasn't cutting edge enough so a brand
new proprietary system was devised. You have to wonder sometimes.
Centre third rail is hardly new tech, Hornby had it around a century ago :-)
On 31/08/2025 15:36, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 14:19:26 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:51:42 GMTfor
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Obviously, the real-world range with a higher top speed, stop-start
running, aircon, doors opening and closing, etc, will be much less than the
230 or so miles this 230 could have managed, but most non-electrified GWR >>>>> branches should be well within its range.
Unfortunately battery trains will have the same issue as battery cars - the
real world range is never going to match the theoretical range to do external
factors that can't be predicted. Sure for branch lines they'll be fine, but
I get the nasty feeling that politicians thing they're a viable replacement
DMUs over long distance instead of wiring up the routes. Time will tell I >>>> guess.It might be a viable technology for some of CrossCountryrCOs routes. Much of
their running is Diesel under the wires with a few non electrified gaps.
Thats fine if the battery trains have pantographs and transformers, but the >> GWR ones required their own special charging system that couldn't be used on >> the move. Its some kind of 3rd rail jobby in between the tracks. Obviously >> using standard 3rd rail shoes and a rail wasn't cutting edge enough so a brand
new proprietary system was devised. You have to wonder sometimes.
There won't be any feed suitable for a third rail thereabouts. It would
be a safety risk for being exposed in an area where no one expects a
live rail, and probably illegal. (The system used is only live when
covered by a train.)
Though I don't have figures, I believe standard third rail shoes can't deliver enough amps to charge the batteries in the available layover.
OHLE might have been a better solution, as it's often lying around
at the station where an unpowered branch meets a main line. Perhaps it
was impossible or prohibitively expensive to use a design with a
pantograph and transformer (or to wire the bay).
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:51:42 GMTIt might be a viable technology for some of CrossCountryrCOs routes. Much of their running is Diesel under the wires with a few non electrified gaps.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Obviously, the real-world range with a higher top speed, stop-start
running, aircon, doors opening and closing, etc, will be much less than the >>> 230 or so miles this 230 could have managed, but most non-electrified GWR >>> branches should be well within its range.
Unfortunately battery trains will have the same issue as battery cars - the >> real world range is never going to match the theoretical range to do external
factors that can't be predicted. Sure for branch lines they'll be fine, but >> I get the nasty feeling that politicians thing they're a viable replacement for
DMUs over long distance instead of wiring up the routes. Time will tell I
guess.