At least according to the Observer, which has published rubbish
before.

"The Stobart train is scheduled to leave Valencia on Tuesday on a
two-day trip to the company's railhead in Dagenham, east London. It
will carry 30 refrigerated containers crammed with tomatoes, lemons,
oranges and other fruit and vegetables that will be brought, in an
eco-friendly manner, to the larders and dining tables of Britain.

"The expedition represents the longest single rail journey in
Europe, says the company. It will also be the first time
refrigerated rail containers will have passed through the Channel
rail tunnel. Even better, it will prevent thousands of tonnes of
carbon from being pumped into the atmosphere, said William Stobart,
the company's chief executive."

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/25/eddie-stobart-lorries-rail>

The article does not say what will happen to the containers when
they reach Dagenham, so presumably they will be put on
diesel-burning, fume-belching lorries. However, even if sent on by
train at least some of the handful of Stobart trains in the UK use
diesel-burning, fume-belching locomotives, or as
<http://www.stobartgroup.co.uk/NewsCentre/NewsArticle/StobartsLaunchRailFreightService/>
calls them, "environmentally friendly Class 66 locomotive(s)".



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

David Hansen wrote:
> At least according to the Observer, which has published rubbish
> before.
> 
> "The Stobart train is scheduled to leave Valencia on Tuesday on a
> two-day trip to the company's railhead in Dagenham, east London. It
> will carry 30 refrigerated containers crammed with tomatoes, lemons,
> oranges and other fruit and vegetables that will be brought, in an
> eco-friendly manner, to the larders and dining tables of Britain.
> 
> "The expedition represents the longest single rail journey in
> Europe, says the company.

I'll open the bidding with the Paris - Moscow through car(s).
Any advance?

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

David Hansen wrote:
> At least according to the Observer, which has published rubbish
> before.

> "The expedition represents the longest single rail journey in
> Europe, says the company. It will also be the first time
> refrigerated rail containers will have passed through the Channel
> rail tunnel.

It can only be a few months since that was claimed as a first by some other 
freight outfit... (unless it was a trial and has been airbrushed from 
history of course.)

Paul

Am Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:13:11 UTC,  schrieb David Hansen 
  auf uk.railway :

> At least according to the Observer, which has published rubbish
> before.
> 
> "The Stobart train is scheduled to leave Valencia on Tuesday on a
> two-day trip to the company's railhead in Dagenham, east London.

  At least I can say that Spanish trainspotters (hello, Bruce!) have 
spotted the containers, or at least the notices that those will arrive
via Port Bou, in Spain. 

  I'd be interested on various items: 
- gauge change at the Spanish/French border (the Transfesa way? Or 
more complicated?)
- who is providing traction
-- in France
-- in Spain
and by which kind of locomotive. 

  I know that Stobart has contracted DB Schenker Rail UK for their 
rail partner, 
> <http://www.rail.dbschenker.co.uk/cmsnews/news_article.asp?guid={4FDE532C-B0D3-4E27-BDE1-3A45D2B6A5C7}>
but what about from the Channel Tunnel onwards? 

  Ah, I just found part of the answer in an August 4 press release by 
Stobart
> <http://www.stobartgroup.co.uk/NewsCentre/NewsArticle/Stobart-Announces-Launch-Of-Valencia-Service/>
saying, among other stuff, "The proposition is unique in that all rail
traction is provided by a single rail freight operator across three 
countries, with the involvement of DB Schenker's European 
subsidiaries: Euro Cargo Rail in France and Spain."

  Except for crossing the Channel Tunnel, DBS will probably use its 
"environmentally friendly" Class 66, also in France. The TRAXX MS-140 
which ECR has acquired have recently reached a milestone of acceptance
for operating in France, but I don't know if they are already so far 
operational everywhere (I have recently seen some of them parked at 
Kassel, still labeled "D-BTK", BTK = Bombardier Transportation 
Kassel). 

  BTW, the press release by DB Schenker Rail UK (formerly EWS) linked 
to above says, among other things, that "The new arrangement will also
see electric locomotives being used for the first time on Stobart's 
service from the Midlands to Scotland. DB Schenker's Class 92 electric
locomotives enable CO2 reductions of 30%, compared to diesel 
locomotives, and will deliver an annual carbon saving of 7,500 tonnes 
on Stobart's existing traffic."


Cheers,
L.W.


---------------------------------------------------------------

Am Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:13:11 UTC,  schrieb David Hansen 
  auf uk.railway :

> "The Stobart train is scheduled to leave Valencia on Tuesday on a
> two-day trip to the company's railhead in Dagenham, east London."
 
  I just found the 12 slides of a presentation given on this service 
to the RFG (Rail Freight Group) meeting in Oxford on 2009-09-16 as PDF
at
> <http://www.rfg.org.uk/files/r90916DavidKerr.pdf>
by a David Kerr of DB Schenker Rail and Graeme Undy of Stobart, in 
which one finds, among other stuff, that they will switch to "Electric
rail traction in France from early 2010". 

  It did not answer my question about the gauge changing at the 
French/Spanish border. 


Cheers,
L.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------

David Hansen wrote:

> The article does not say what will happen to the containers when
> they reach Dagenham, so presumably they will be put on
> diesel-burning, fume-belching lorries. However, even if sent on by
> train at least some of the handful of Stobart trains in the UK use
> diesel-burning, fume-belching locomotives, or as
> <http://www.stobartgroup.co.uk/NewsCentre/NewsArticle/StobartsLaunchRailFreightService/>
> calls them, "environmentally friendly Class 66 locomotive(s)".

DRS have recently lost the Stobart contract to DB Schenker, on 
the basis that Class 92s will be used where possible.

Hence 'Eddie the Engine' appearing on Nuclear Flask Trains recently.

Charlie

Am Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:07:57 UTC,  schrieb Charlie Hulme 
  auf uk.railway :

> DRS have recently lost the Stobart contract to DB Schenker, on 
> the basis that Class 92s will be used where possible.

  According to the common Stobart/DBS press release, it was mainly 
because DB Schenker could offer Europe wide traction, as shown in the 
agreement on the Murcia/Valencia - Dagenham train, and the 
"environment friendly" was just the icing of the cake: 

-------- cut -------------

Stobart Group's CEO Andrew Tinkler said "Firstly I wish to express my 
gratitude to Direct Rail Services for their service and support over 
the years in operating the rail service. The move from DRS was not a 
reflection on either service or performance and was simply due to the 
rapid expansion of the business and move into Europe following the 
recent collaboration with DB Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd. These are both 
exciting and challenging times and by using electric locomotives where
possible, we and our customers will ensure we further reduce our 
carbon emissions."

----------------- off ---------------------

  It is always great to talk about reducing carbon emissions. 

  Actually, according to the presentation which I had linked to in a 
previous message, DB Schenker plans to replace for this Stobart train 
their Class 66 by electrical locos in France "early in 2010" ("early" 
could possibly strech until June 30). The TRAXX F 140 MS should be 
fully certified by then (they got a provisional certificate by EPSF on
July 3, 2009, for six months). 


Cheers,
L.W.



---------------------------------------------------------------

Shurely just a bunch of ''green'' marketing BS!

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:01:44 +0100 someone who may be "Willms"
<l.willms@domain.invalid> wrote this:-

>  I just found the 12 slides of a presentation given on this service 
>to the RFG (Rail Freight Group) meeting in Oxford on 2009-09-16

Thanks, that was interesting. Time will tell what they do in terms
of gauge changing and locomotives.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On 25 Okt., 21:47, "Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:

>
>   I'd be interested on various items:
> - gauge change at the Spanish/French border (the Transfesa way? Or
> more complicated?)
>

Containers are normally "transboarded" at Port Bou. Axles are only
changed on wagons where loading/unloading would be too complex or time
consuming. For containers this is obviously not the case.

On 25 Okt., 20:45, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:

> I'll open the bidding with the Paris - Moscow through car(s).
> Any advance?
>


Demonstartion freights have been run from China to Germany and in the
longer term there are plans to run these regularly.

Am Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:40:50 UTC,  schrieb David Hansen 
  auf uk.railway :

> >  I just found the 12 slides of a presentation given on this service 
> >to the RFG (Rail Freight Group) meeting in Oxford on 2009-09-16
> 
> Thanks, that was interesting. Time will tell what they do in terms
> of gauge changing and locomotives.

  After sending my message, the text "Port Bou - Gauge Transfer" on 
the map showing the route (slide 7) sprung into my eyes. If they are 
no fools, they would use Transfesa wagons and use the Transfesa gauge 
changing facility (only wheelsets are changed instead of complete 
bogies) at Port Bou, but that might have just been clarified in the 
discussion period after that presentation. And we have not been there.


  As to the locos, the TRAXX F 140 MS of ECR 
> <http://www.railcolor.net/index.php?nav=1405130&lang=1>
should be ready and fully certified soon. 
> <http://www.securite-ferroviaire.fr/fr/index.php?mod=1&id=80>


Cheers,
L.W.


---------------------------------------------------------------

atrollwitesback@you.org twisted the electrons to say:
> Shurely just a bunch of ''green'' marketing BS!

Well the Stobart Group webpage that was linked to indicated that for
their, already running, "Tesco Train" is uses 71% less fuel than the
equivalent road journeys.  It's going to have be a pretty filthy 66 to
make up for that!
-- 
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

On 26 Okt., 11:01, "Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:

>   After sending my message, the text "Port Bou - Gauge Transfer" on
> the map showing the route (slide 7) sprung into my eyes. If they are
> no fools, they would use Transfesa wagons and use the Transfesa gauge

Could be I'm mistaken but my understanding was that gauge changing is
done at Cerbere, and trans-loading at Port Bou, so if it is
specifically Port Bou and not Cerbere then I assume the containers are
being shifted from one set of wagons to another.

Also remember that the maximum train length permitted in Spain is
quite short. Possibly the Spanish leg would have to be taken in two
parts and hence it's not really one through train at all but more a
number of coordinated trains.

Andrew

Alistair Gunn wrote:
> atrollwitesback@you.org twisted the electrons to say:
>> Shurely just a bunch of ''green'' marketing BS!
>
> Well the Stobart Group webpage that was linked to indicated that for
> their, already running, "Tesco Train" is uses 71% less fuel than the
> equivalent road journeys.  It's going to have be a pretty filthy 66 to
> make up for that!

They've already said in previous press releases,  that part of the reason 
for transferring the contract to DBS was so that 92s can be used on the the 
main part of the service.

Paul

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:50:11 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be amogles
 wrote this:-

>Containers are normally "transboarded" at Port Bou. Axles are only
>changed on wagons where loading/unloading would be too complex or time
>consuming. For containers this is obviously not the case.

Presumably they are prepared to accept the reduced payload of
containers as it simplifies operations in the UK by lorry. Can't
have too many of those train things in the UK and supermarkets are
set up in the UK for a lorry based distribution model.

Using wagons instead would increase the payload. Is it less energy
intensive and quicker to regauge wagons compared to lifting
containers from one wagon to another? Almost certainly. Perhaps
when/if the UK is sorted out the stuff could be transported in
wagons. Note that I'm not getting into food miles in this
discussion.

Two or more short trains in Spain could easily be combined/split
into one long one for going through France.

Does this mean that the loops on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link will
finally see some use?



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On 26 Okt., 11:58, David Hansen 
wrote:

>
> Using wagons instead would increase the payload. Is it less energy
> intensive and quicker to regauge wagons compared to lifting
> containers from one wagon to another? Almost certainly. Perhaps
> when/if the UK is sorted out the stuff could be transported in
> wagons. Note that I'm not getting into food miles in this
> discussion.
>

I'm no expert on regauging but I don't this need automatically be the
case.

To transship containers you just need two parallel tracks and a crane
or similar to lift them off one train and place them on the other.

To regauge a train you need specialised lifting equipment, and
additionally you need to split the train and shunt it as the lifting
shed can only take a small number of wagons at any one time.
Furthermore, you would need specialised wagons, in this case wagons
that fit through the UK loading gauge, and that are capable of being
regauged. I don't know how many such wagons ar available.

Andrew

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:44:17 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be amogles
 wrote this:-

>To regauge a train you need specialised lifting equipment,

Depends how one does it.

Lifting bodies and replacing the bogies/wheels involves lifting the
whole wagon and will almost certainly be more energy intensive than
just lifting a container, the time is perhaps a little longer too.

On the other hand unlocking the wheels, sliding them along the axles
and re-locking them can be done relatively easily and relatively
quickly. While I wouldn't be keen on doing this on a high speed
train, there is just too much to go wrong and the price of failure
could be another Eschede, I think that the risks of doing this on
wagons are far less and are acceptable.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

Am Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:27:36 UTC,  schrieb amogles 
 auf uk.railway :

> Could be I'm mistaken but my understanding was that gauge changing is
> done at Cerbere, and trans-loading at Port Bou, so if it is
> specifically Port Bou and not Cerbere then I assume the containers are
> being shifted from one set of wagons to another.

  That is what I now read in an article on "Trainspotting Buekkes" 
> <http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/stations_cerbere.php>
(taken from Rail Passion 75, Novembre 2003, article provided by Wesley
van Drongelen; translation by Alan Reekie): 

  "This is because Cerbère currently specialises, with Transfesa, in 
replacing the axles of freight waggons while Port Bou deals with the 
job of transhipping freight between broad-gauge and standard-gauge 
waggons - both involving an intricate series of shunting moves."

  for which the article also gives some times: 

  "In practice, the time needed between the arrival of a waggon on one
gauge and the moment that its load is ready for departure on the other
varies from 4 minutes for trans-shipment of a container and 5 minutes 
to change the gauge of a Transfesa van or flatcar to 14 minutes for a 
car-carrying waggon, 20 minutes for a cereal hopper unloaded by means 
of a pipe with an Archimedes screw, 45 minutes for trans-shipping a 
load of steel beams and an hour for a carload of scrap metal."

> Also remember that the maximum train length permitted in Spain is
> quite short. 

  The aboved quoted article says 500 meters, but recently I had read 
600 meters. In France it is 750 meters overall, with parts here and 
there allowing longer trains. 


Cheers,
L.W.


-------------------------------------------------------------

On 25 Oct, 19:13, David Hansen 
wrote:
> At least according to the Observer, which has published rubbish
> before.
>
> "The Stobart train is scheduled to leave Valencia on Tuesday on a
> two-day trip to the company's railhead in Dagenham, east London. It
> will carry 30 refrigerated containers crammed with tomatoes, lemons,
> oranges and other fruit and vegetables that will be brought, in an
> eco-friendly manner, to the larders and dining tables of Britain.
>
> "The expedition represents the longest single rail journey in
> Europe, says the company. It will also be the first time
> refrigerated rail containers will have passed through the Channel
> rail tunnel. Even better, it will prevent thousands of tonnes of
> carbon from being pumped into the atmosphere, said William Stobart,
> the company's chief executive."
>
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/25/eddie-stobart-lorri...> The article does not say what will happen to the containers when
> they reach Dagenham, so presumably they will be put on
> diesel-burning, fume-belching lorries. However, even if sent on by
> train at least some of the handful of Stobart trains in the UK use
> diesel-burning, fume-belching locomotives, or as
> <http://www.stobartgroup.co.uk/NewsCentre/NewsArticle/StobartsLaunchRa...> calls them, "environmentally friendly Class 66 locomotive(s)".
>
> --
>   David Hansen, Edinburgh
>  I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
>  http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

Hmmm
Not at all green to use a train rather than a ship. And, I guess, we
don't need to import most of the stuff anyway.

Hello!

David Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:44:17 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be amogles
>  wrote this:-
> 
>> To regauge a train you need specialised lifting equipment,
> 
> Depends how one does it.
> 
> Lifting bodies and replacing the bogies/wheels involves lifting the
> whole wagon and will almost certainly be more energy intensive than
> just lifting a container, the time is perhaps a little longer too.
> 
> On the other hand unlocking the wheels, sliding them along the axles
> and re-locking them can be done relatively easily and relatively
> quickly. While I wouldn't be keen on doing this on a high speed
> train, there is just too much to go wrong and the price of failure
> could be another Eschede, I think that the risks of doing this on
> wagons are far less and are acceptable.
> 
Here 
(http://www.unichanger.es/ficheros/actividades/publicas/Changeover_systems.pdf) 
is an overview of the situation in Spain. You will be shocked to learn 
that they are actually gauge-changing (quasi-)high-speed trains in daily 
operation. They are aiming for the Unichanger which will also be 
compatible with freight cars.

Johannes.

Am Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:35:21 UTC,  schrieb David Hansen 
  auf uk.railway :

> >To regauge a train you need specialised lifting equipment,
> 
> Depends how one does it.
> 
> Lifting bodies and replacing the bogies/wheels involves lifting the
> whole wagon 

  no, it would just require to hold the wagon while one wheelset is 
being replaced. The wagon does not have to be lifted, just being 
supported as it is. At least that is how the Transfesa regauging 
facility works. 

> and will almost certainly be more energy intensive than
> just lifting a container, the time is perhaps a little longer too.

  if the regauging is done the Transfesa way, transboarding the 
container might be faster, but with more energy. 


> On the other hand unlocking the wheels, sliding them along the axles
> and re-locking them can be done relatively easily and relatively
> quickly. While I wouldn't be keen on doing this on a high speed
> train, 

  it is being done in Spain on a regular basis. With HighSpeed being 
limited to 250 km/h, if I am not mistaken. 


Cheers,
L.W.
  
 
-------------------------------------------------------------

Am Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:49:32 UTC,  schrieb Jeff 
  auf uk.railway :

> Not at all green to use a train rather than a ship. And, I guess, we
> don't need to import most of the stuff anyway.

  Grow citrus in the Midlands? 

  Interesting idea. 


Cheers,
L.W. 

---------------------------------------------------------------

"Willms" <l.willms@domain.invalid> writes:
>> Not at all green to use a train rather than a ship. And, I guess, we
>> don't need to import most of the stuff anyway.
>
>   Grow citrus in the Midlands? 

Eat onions instead; still a bit acidic.... :)

[The selection of produce available in a many modern grocery stores is
somewhat surreal...  some of it seems to come from halfway around the
world, and I can't imagine much of it would stand a train journey, much
less a ship...]

-Miles

-- 
Suburbia: where they tear out the trees and then name streets after them.

amogles wrote:
> On 25 Okt., 20:45, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> I'll open the bidding with the Paris - Moscow through car(s).
>> Any advance?
>>
> 
> 
> Demonstartion freights have been run from China to Germany and in the
> longer term there are plans to run these regularly.

IIRC that plan has been put on hold for the time being, pending economic 
recovery.

Are there any through services from western Europe to the limits of 
Europe in the Caucasus? There could be some pretty hefty journeys just 
in European Russia.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

amogles wrote:
> On 26 Okt., 11:58, David Hansen 
> wrote:
> 
>> Using wagons instead would increase the payload. Is it less energy
>> intensive and quicker to regauge wagons compared to lifting
>> containers from one wagon to another? Almost certainly. Perhaps
>> when/if the UK is sorted out the stuff could be transported in
>> wagons. Note that I'm not getting into food miles in this
>> discussion.

In this example, surely it is Spain which needs sorting out, not 
Britain. They have the "wrong" gauge (for now), not us.

> I'm no expert on regauging but I don't this need automatically be the
> case.
> 
> To transship containers you just need two parallel tracks and a crane
> or similar to lift them off one train and place them on the other.

Which are presumably pretty standard kit, available from any branch of 
Logistics Equipment R Us. There must be a lot more vanilla wagons 
available in the world than ones made for gauge-changing.

> To regauge a train you need specialised lifting equipment, and
> additionally you need to split the train and shunt it as the lifting
> shed can only take a small number of wagons at any one time.
> Furthermore, you would need specialised wagons, in this case wagons
> that fit through the UK loading gauge, and that are capable of being
> regauged. I don't know how many such wagons ar available.

Are the gauge changing systems proprietary technology?

AIUI transshipping containers is also generally done on the eastern side 
of 1520-land, as it is easier than using specialist rolling stock. The 
ease of handling containers may well outweigh any theoretical loss of 
capacity compared to "normal" wagons - shifting containers between 
vehicles is something the logistics industry is pretty good at these days.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

David Hansen  writes:

> "The Stobart train is scheduled to leave Valencia on Tuesday on a
> two-day trip to the company's railhead in Dagenham, east London. It
> will carry 30 refrigerated containers crammed with tomatoes, lemons,
> oranges and other fruit and vegetables that will be brought, in an
> eco-friendly manner, to the larders and dining tables of Britain.
>
> "The expedition represents the longest single rail journey in
> Europe, says the company. 

maps.google.com calculates 1830km on the road.

Duisburg - Istanbul is calculated at 3263 km, running weekly since 2005.

http://www.schenker-seino.co.jp/content/view/110/141/ 
http://www.arkas.com.tr/english/pages/arkas_news/mayis_2005/haber4.html

-- 
"Der letzte Wahlleiter in diesem Land, der derart undemokratisch mit
 kleinen und anderen Parteien umgesprungen ist, ist 1946 von einem
 alliierten Militärtribunal hingerichtet worden."

Am Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:04:11 UTC,  schrieb Arthur Figgis 
<afiggis@example.com.invalid>  auf uk.railway :

> Are there any through services from western Europe to the limits of 
> Europe in the Caucasus? 

  Well, at least from Central Europe (Berlin) with through coaches. 
With D64 MOSKWA-EXPRESS from Berlin to Irkutsk, Saratov, Novosibirsk, 
Astana, Tschelkabinsk, Ufa, Rostov, Adler. Another train with through 
coaches to Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa, Donetsk, Simferopol. 


Cheers,
L.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Am Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:32:26 UTC,  schrieb Arthur Figgis 
<afiggis@example.com.invalid>  auf uk.railway :

> Are the gauge changing systems proprietary technology?
 
  Yes. 

  In Spain they have quite often double installations, some switchable
between CAF and Talgo systems. 
  
  RENFE is pushing for a non-proprietary solution. This was mentioned 
by somebody else on this thread. 


Cheers,
L.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Am Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:32:33 UTC,  schrieb frank paulsen 
  auf uk.railway :

> > "The expedition represents the longest single rail journey in
> > Europe, says the company. 
> 
> maps.google.com calculates 1830km on the road.
> 
> Duisburg - Istanbul is calculated at 3263 km, running weekly since 2005.

  The "longest in Europe" is very probably meant for rail journeys 
linking Great Britain and Europe (GB, although being Europe's largest 
island, is not seen as part of Europe). 


Cheers,
L.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Willms wrote:
> Am Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:32:33 UTC,  schrieb frank paulsen 
>   auf uk.railway :
> 
>>> "The expedition represents the longest single rail journey in
>>> Europe, says the company. 
>> maps.google.com calculates 1830km on the road.
>>
>> Duisburg - Istanbul is calculated at 3263 km, running weekly since 2005.
> 
>   The "longest in Europe" is very probably meant for rail journeys 
> linking Great Britain and Europe (GB, although being Europe's largest 
> island, is not seen as part of Europe). 

No, as they are saying "in Europe". If they explicitly meant the longest 
link to Britain, they would say "from Europe" or "from the Continent 
(unless it is foggy)".

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:52:25 +0100 someone who may be "Willms"
<l.willms@domain.invalid> wrote this:-

>  it is being done in Spain on a regular basis. With HighSpeed being 
>limited to 250 km/h, if I am not mistaken. 

Thank you for alerting me. I now know to look out for such things
and avoid them.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:49:32 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Jeff
 wrote this:-

>Not at all green to use a train rather than a ship.

Debatable. Environmental costs of ships vary enormously, depending
largely on the speed. We are no longer in the days of 8 knot cargo
ships. Energy consumption goes up sharply, particularly over around
20 knots. Ships can also not be powered by renewables.

>And, I guess, we don't need to import most of the stuff anyway.

That is one of the reasons why I have qualms about this operation.
However, if it is to be done it is better done by train. I feel much
the same about other things, such as coal and spent nuclear fuel
rods.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:08:47 +0100 someone who may be "Willms"
<l.willms@domain.invalid> wrote this:-

>(GB, although being Europe's largest 
>island, is not seen as part of Europe)

It is not seen as part of Europe by some, perhaps most, in the UK,
many of whom appear to think it is somewhere off the US coast,
presumably somewhere south of Greenland.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

Am Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:38:52 UTC,  schrieb David Hansen 
  auf uk.railway :

> >Not at all green to use a train rather than a ship.
> 
> Debatable. Environmental costs of ships vary enormously, depending
> largely on the speed. We are no longer in the days of 8 knot cargo
> ships. Energy consumption goes up sharply, particularly over around
> 20 knots. Ships can also not be powered by renewables.

  How did they sail the oceans before steam ships came up? 

  Acutually, there is at least one cargo ship which also has a sail to
use the wind for propulsion, still in a more or less experimental way.


  Then I saw a few days ago a TV item about a luxury yacht being 
built, with a very wide body, and whose roof is to be covered by solar
panels. 


Cheers,
L.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Am Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:50:12 UTC,  schrieb Arthur Figgis 
<afiggis@example.com.invalid>  auf uk.railway :

> >   The "longest in Europe" is very probably meant for rail journeys 
> > linking Great Britain and Europe 

> No, as they are saying "in Europe". If they explicitly meant the longest 
> link to Britain, they would say "from Europe" or "from the Continent 
> (unless it is foggy)".

  Yeah, they would, if they would always talk as they intended to do. 
I think it was just a sloppy formulation. 


Cheers,
L.W. 

---------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:26:51 +0100 someone who may be "Willms"
<l.willms@domain.invalid> wrote this:-

>  How did they sail the oceans before steam ships came up? 

Not even at 8 knots, let alone 20. Excluding specialist ships like
clippers [1] IIRC 5 knots was a good average speed for a wind
powered cargo ship.

>  Acutually, there is at least one cargo ship which also has a sail to
>use the wind for propulsion, still in a more or less experimental way.

I saw film of a tanker fitted with an auxiliary sail in the late
1970s. Difficult to fit to a modern container ship though, which has
containers stuffed into every corner and towering above the main
deck.


[1] Cutty Sark is recorded as having made a good 17 knots on one
occasion, though that was not the average for the voyage.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On 26 Okt., 20:52, "Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:

>
>   Grow citrus in the Midlands?
>
>   Interesting idea.
>

Not in the Midlands but I know of a hobby gardener who is growing
citrus in the Thames Valley.

Back in Rennaissance times, cultivating citruses was a hobby of the
rich and famous across all Europe and the orangeries of many stately
homes and even of Versailles hark back to those days.

It couldn't be done on a commercially competitive basis of course, but
don't scorn the possibilities.

In message 
          "Willms" <l.willms@domain.invalid> wrote:

> Am Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:38:52 UTC,  schrieb David Hansen 
>   auf uk.railway :
> 
> > >Not at all green to use a train rather than a ship.
> > 
> > Debatable. Environmental costs of ships vary enormously, depending
> > largely on the speed. We are no longer in the days of 8 knot cargo
> > ships. Energy consumption goes up sharply, particularly over around
> > 20 knots. Ships can also not be powered by renewables.
> 
>   How did they sail the oceans before steam ships came up? 
> 
>   Acutually, there is at least one cargo ship which also has a sail to
> use the wind for propulsion, still in a more or less experimental way.

That's been around since the mid 80s IIRC.  I'm rather surprised it still
doesn't appear to have been developed further.

> 
> 
>   Then I saw a few days ago a TV item about a luxury yacht being 
> built, with a very wide body, and whose roof is to be covered by solar
> panels. 
> 

Problem with things like container ships is that there's not a great deal of
space where you could put solar panels. VLCCs are different.

-- 
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Willms twisted the electrons to say:
>   Acutually, there is at least one cargo ship which also has a sail to
> use the wind for propulsion, still in a more or less experimental way.

That's been going on for ages, on and off (depending on fuel prices)
since at least the 80s.
-- 
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

In article <3d6cc1b050%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
rail   wrote:
>In message 
>          "Willms" <l.willms@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Am Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:38:52 UTC,  schrieb David Hansen 
>>   auf uk.railway :
>> 
>> > >Not at all green to use a train rather than a ship.
>> > 
>> > Debatable. Environmental costs of ships vary enormously, depending
>> > largely on the speed. We are no longer in the days of 8 knot cargo
>> > ships. Energy consumption goes up sharply, particularly over around
>> > 20 knots. Ships can also not be powered by renewables.

Maesk lines, of course, disagree, running their latest container ships
at around 10 knots. Makes for //big// fuel savings.

>>   How did they sail the oceans before steam ships came up? 
>> 
>>   Acutually, there is at least one cargo ship which also has a sail to
>> use the wind for propulsion, still in a more or less experimental way.
>
>That's been around since the mid 80s IIRC.  I'm rather surprised it still
>doesn't appear to have been developed further.

Problem with masted rigs, like most of the ones which have been tried, is 
that what you save when going downwind is largely negated by the 
aerodynamic drag of the rigging when going against the wind (this isn't a 
new thing: the abandonment of masted ships for distant-water cruiser work 
by the Admiralty in the 1880s came as a result of studies which showed 
that the added weight and drag of the rig pretty much offset any saving in 
fuel from its use).
A promising direction seems to be the use of kites instead of sails - no
mast required, so no added drag upwind, and the added benefit of putting 
the aerofoil surface up high into stronger wind flow.

http://www.kiteship.com/

refers. Considerable potential there, methinks.

>> 
>> 
>>   Then I saw a few days ago a TV item about a luxury yacht being 
>> built, with a very wide body, and whose roof is to be covered by solar
>> panels. 

There have been a few big yachts like that: solar generation plus a small 
diesel generator and a big battery pack. Really only works with 
catamarans, though, as you need the deck space.

An alternative approach is the one used in the (very cool) MarySlim 
design, which combines a very efficient hull form with auxiliary sail
(again, a kite rather than a masted rig).

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

On 26 Okt., 23:04, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:

>
> Are there any through services from western Europe to the limits of
> Europe in the Caucasus? There could be some pretty hefty journeys just
> in European Russia.
>


There is a train ferry from Mukral (spelling?) on the island of Rügen
on the German baltic coast to St Petersburg. The ferry itself is broad
gauge and the gauge changing facilities are integrarted in the German
port. Some wagons continue their journey into Germany and others are
transshipped (many of them onto lorries unfortunately). Some broad
gauge wagons that start there take the Trans-Siberian route to
destinations on the Eastern edge of Siberia.

David Hansen  writes:

> I saw film of a tanker fitted with an auxiliary sail in the late
> 1970s. Difficult to fit to a modern container ship though, which has
> containers stuffed into every corner and towering above the main
> deck.

there is a german company experimenting with some kind of computer
controlled kites:

http://www.skysails.info/english/products/skysails-for-cargo-ships/

-- 
"Der letzte Wahlleiter in diesem Land, der derart undemokratisch mit
 kleinen und anderen Parteien umgesprungen ist, ist 1946 von einem
 alliierten Militärtribunal hingerichtet worden."

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:01:41 +0100 someone who may be frank paulsen
 wrote this:-

>http://www.skysails.info/english/products/skysails-for-cargo-ships/

The owners will be disappointed at the loadings of that ship. There
"should" be at least two more layers of containers.

However, kites are a very good idea for use on the open sea, if they
can be handled properly and make a useful difference I'm in favour.
The one in the video seemed a bit small to me though.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:38:38 +0000 someone who may be azb@aber.ac.uk
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote this:-

>Maesk lines, of course, disagree, running their latest container ships
>at around 10 knots. Makes for //big// fuel savings.

Good for them, it proves my point. The last time I looked, years if
not a decade ago, 22-24 knots was supposed to be the optimum speed
for container vessels and the like. I don't suppose the typical
car/passenger ferry is much faster, if at all faster.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

Am Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:44:47 UTC,  schrieb amogles 
 auf uk.railway :

> There is a train ferry from Mukral (spelling?)

  Mukran is the name. With an "n" at the end. It neighbours Sassnitz, 
or is even part of it. 

> on the island of Rügen on the German baltic coast to St Petersburg. 

  acutally there is one ferry which goes to Klaipeda, which is now in 
independent Lithuania, and to Baltijsk in the Kaliningrad Oblast, with
a continuation from there to St. Petersburg. 

> english: <http://www.faehrhafen-sassnitz.de/en/index-fl.htm>


Cheers,
L.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Am Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:01:41 UTC,  schrieb frank paulsen 
  auf uk.railway :

> there is a german company experimenting with some kind of computer
> controlled kites:
> 
> http://www.skysails.info/english/products/skysails-for-cargo-ships/
 
  That's the one I had in mind. 

  Thanks for the link! 


Cheers,
L.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:36:40 +0100 someone who may be "Willms"
<l.willms@domain.invalid> wrote this:-

>Baltijsk in the Kaliningrad Oblast, with
>a continuation from there to St. Petersburg. 

Presumably railways in the area were re-gauged in 1945 or shortly
afterwards, as part of the Russification of the former East Prussia.
A dark period which "freedom loving" western governments did not
emerge from smelling of roses.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:36:40 +0100 someone who may be "Willms"
> <l.willms@domain.invalid> wrote this:-
> 
>> Baltijsk in the Kaliningrad Oblast, with
>> a continuation from there to St. Petersburg. 
> 
> Presumably railways in the area were re-gauged in 1945 or shortly
> afterwards, as part of the Russification of the former East Prussia.

Yes, though AIUI there are standard gauge link(s) in from Poland.

Broad gauge even got to Berlin briefly.

> A dark period which "freedom loving" western governments did not
> emerge from smelling of roses.

Let Patton keep going and see how far he got, or nuke Moscow while we 
had the chance? Get rid of their dodgy leadership then join with the 
Wehrmacht against the "real" enemy?

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"David Hansen"  wrote in message 
news:4b89e5l3ptgaa7s5um8tpn8s6cllhm9kqm@4ax.com...
>
> "The Stobart train is scheduled to leave Valencia on Tuesday on a
> two-day trip to the company's railhead in Dagenham, east London. It
> will carry 30 refrigerated containers crammed with tomatoes, lemons,
> oranges and other fruit and vegetables that will be brought, in an
> eco-friendly manner, to the larders and dining tables of Britain.
>
> "The expedition represents the longest single rail journey in
> Europe, says the company.

I thought there was already a Ford "Channel Tunnel Express", which I saw, 
er, in Valencia:

    http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/p56947176.html

 - I assume that if it came via the Channel Tunnel, its journey would be at 
least as long as the Stobart service.

-- 
Tim
http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/
http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:10:56 -0000, "Tim Fenton"
 wrote:

>I thought there was already a Ford "Channel Tunnel Express", which I saw, 
>er, in Valencia:
>
>    http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/p56947176.html
>
> - I assume that if it came via the Channel Tunnel, its journey would be at 
>least as long as the Stobart service.

Possibly longer.  At one point (may still do), Ford were running
something through the Channel Tunnel from Halewood.  (Well, that or
they parked the clearly-marked-for-the-purpose wagons in Allerton
depot for a laugh).

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Am Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:10:56 UTC,  schrieb "Tim Fenton" 
  auf uk.railway :

> > "The expedition represents the longest single rail journey in
> > Europe, says the company.
> 
> I thought there was already a Ford "Channel Tunnel Express", which I saw, 
> er, in Valencia:

  this Stobart train is to end/start in Murcia, further south from 
Valencia. 
  
  Where does Ford have factories in Spain? 


Cheers,
L.W. 

---------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:16:58 +0100, "Willms" <l.willms@domain.invalid>
wrote:
>
>Where does Ford have factories in Spain? 


Sites include Valencia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ford_factories

"Willms" <l.willms@domain.invalid> wrote in message 
news:czd2LKcn8EGd-pn2-kP926H8i5eH6@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de...
>
>  this Stobart train is to end/start in Murcia, further south from
> Valencia.
>
>  Where does Ford have factories in Spain?

Valencia, I think. It's where they built the mark 1 Fiesta back in the 
1970s.

-- 
Tim
http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/
http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/

In message 
          "Tim Fenton"  wrote:

> 
> "Willms" <l.willms@domain.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:czd2LKcn8EGd-pn2-kP926H8i5eH6@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de...
> >
> >  this Stobart train is to end/start in Murcia, further south from
> > Valencia.
> >
> >  Where does Ford have factories in Spain?
> 
> Valencia, I think. It's where they built the mark 1 Fiesta back in the 
> 1970s.
> 

I remember being harangued by a prototype little englander back then for
driving a foriegn car (I had a Peugeot at the time).  Why couldn't I be
patriotic and buy British he almost screamed at me and then got into his Ford
Fiesta...

-- 
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Am Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:40:14 UTC,  schrieb rail 
  auf uk.railway :

> > Valencia, I think. It's where they built the mark 1 Fiesta back in the 
> > 1970s.
> > 
> 
> I remember being harangued by a prototype little englander back then for
> driving a foriegn car (I had a Peugeot at the time).  Why couldn't I be
> patriotic and buy British he almost screamed at me and then got into his Ford
> Fiesta...

  While, ironically, your Peugeot might have been assembled on Great 
Britain in the Peugeot factory at Ryton/Warwickshire (closed in 2007; 
from the Rootes group, passed to PSA via Chrysler Europe/Simca). They 
had produced the 309, 405, 306, and 206 there (according to the French
language Wikipedia article "Usine PSA de Ryton"). 


Cheers,
L.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------

In message 
          "Willms" <l.willms@domain.invalid> wrote:

> Am Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:40:14 UTC,  schrieb rail 
>   auf uk.railway :
> 
> > > Valencia, I think. It's where they built the mark 1 Fiesta back in the 
> > > 1970s.
> > > 
> > 
> > I remember being harangued by a prototype little englander back then for
> > driving a foriegn car (I had a Peugeot at the time).  Why couldn't I be
> > patriotic and buy British he almost screamed at me and then got into his
> > Ford Fiesta...
> 
>   While, ironically, your Peugeot might have been assembled on Great 
> Britain in the Peugeot factory at Ryton/Warwickshire (closed in 2007; 
> from the Rootes group, passed to PSA via Chrysler Europe/Simca). They 
> had produced the 309, 405, 306, and 206 there (according to the French
> language Wikipedia article "Usine PSA de Ryton"). 
> 

Mine was a 104 so yer actual French[1]

[1] For Lüko's benefit that's a quote from an old radio comedy show.

-- 
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

"rail"  wrote in message 
news:24b366b150%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
>> >
>> >  Where does Ford have factories in Spain?
>>
>> Valencia, I think. It's where they built the mark 1 Fiesta back in the
>> 1970s.
>
> I remember being harangued by a prototype little englander back then for
> driving a foriegn car (I had a Peugeot at the time).  Why couldn't I be
> patriotic and buy British he almost screamed at me and then got into his 
> Ford
> Fiesta...

He'd have had even more difficulty with a Ford Galaxy: not built in the UK, 
and not even built in a Ford factory.

-- 
Tim
http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/
http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/

Am Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:13:11 UTC,  schrieb David Hansen 
  auf uk.railway :

> 
> "The Stobart train is scheduled to leave Valencia on Tuesday on a
> two-day trip to the company's railhead in Dagenham, east London. It
> will carry 30 refrigerated containers crammed with tomatoes, lemons,
> oranges and other fruit and vegetables that will be brought, in an
> eco-friendly manner, to the larders and dining tables of Britain.

  Today, "Via Libre", the Spanish railway journal, publishes an 
article on this traffic with several photos of the train on Spanish 
soil, from entering the country at Port Bou with a Class 66 in front, 
shunters of SNCF and ADIF (the Spanish infrastructure entity) at Port 
Bou, and a Euro 4000 (Vossloh, Spanish class 335) diesel locomotive of
ECR (Eurocargo Rail) Spain and the train on its way to Murcia with 
this loco in front. 

> <http://www.vialibre.org/noticias.asp?not=4368&cs=oper>

  The article also gives a new meaning to the widely debated phrase of
"the longest single rail journey in Europe", specified here as the 
longest one being operated end-to-end by a single railway operator, 
namely DB Schenker/ECR. 

  The article also says that the trains carrying 60 containers have a 
maximal length of 467 meters, transport up to 1'400 tons of goods, and
make the trip to Dagenham Railport in less than 60 hours. 

  The article features the the Spanish infrastructure entity ADIF and 
its efforts to increase international rail traffics and the 
colloboration with other infrastructure entities (RFF in France, 
Eurotunnel, and Network Rail on Great Britain). 

  The article also links to a presentation of a government plan to 
amplify the network for, among others, more freight traffic on rails. 
> <http://www.vialibre-ffe.com/noticias.asp?cs=oper¬=3290>
> <http://www.vialibre-ffe.com/noticias.asp?not=2895&cs=infr>


Cheers,
L.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------

In message 
          "Tim Fenton"  wrote:

> 
> "rail"  wrote in message 
> news:24b366b150%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> >> >
> >> >  Where does Ford have factories in Spain?
> >>
> >> Valencia, I think. It's where they built the mark 1 Fiesta back in the
> >> 1970s.
> >
> > I remember being harangued by a prototype little englander back then for
> > driving a foriegn car (I had a Peugeot at the time).  Why couldn't I be
> > patriotic and buy British he almost screamed at me and then got into his 
> > Ford
> > Fiesta...
> 
> He'd have had even more difficulty with a Ford Galaxy: not built in the UK,
> and not even built in a Ford factory.
> 

Wasn't even a gleam in a designer's eye then.

He'd probably have a heart attack these days, buy British - drive a Honda!

-- 
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Am Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:13:11 UTC,  schrieb David Hansen 
  auf uk.railway :

> "The Stobart train is scheduled to leave Valencia on Tuesday on a
> two-day trip to the company's railhead in Dagenham, east London. It
> will carry 30 refrigerated containers crammed with tomatoes, lemons,
> oranges and other fruit and vegetables that will be brought, in an
> eco-friendly manner, to the larders and dining tables of Britain." 

  Eurotunnel informed that the train passed the tunnel during the 
night of Thursday 29, Friday 30 October 2009: 

------------ cut ---------------------

30/10/09 - Eurotunnel innovates with a new weekly rail service for 
refrigerated freight between Spain and the UK


In line with its programme to develop cross-Channel rail freight, 
Eurotunnel provided access to the first freight train composed 
entirely of 30 refrigerated containers during the night of Thursday 29
- Friday 30 October 2009.

The train organised by major international transport operator, Stobart
Group, carried fruit and vegetables (oranges, lemons, tomatoes.) from 
their origin in Valencia, Spain, to Dagenham.

The new service will initially be run weekly. Stobart Rail has 
announced that they envisage raising the frequency to 5 trains per 
week by the end of 2010.

Jacques Gounon, Chairman and Chief Executive of Eurotunnel, stated: 
"The launch of this new service is perfectly in line with our 
initiatives to re-launch rail freight with open access, in particular 
via the introduction of new intermodal services. Eurotunnel is the 
only operator to offer its customers such a wide range of solutions 
under the best conditions for crossing the Channel."               
 
------------------------ off -------------------------

> <http://www.eurotunnel.com/ukcP3Main/ukcCorporate/ukcMediaCentre/ukcNewsReleases/ukcNews2009/ukcOctober2009/ukpPr0930EurotunnelNewWeeklyRailService.htm>

  No mention of the traction company DBS...

  BTW, hasn't the TRAXX locomotive (or a specific model of that 
family) received a security certificate for crossing the tunnel? If 
so, EuroCargo Rail could use their TRAXX locomotives from Port Bou on 
the Spanish-French border up to Dollands Moor at the norther 
Eurotunnel mound, once they replace the Class 66 by the TRAXX F140 MS.

 

Cheers,
L.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Am Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:37:46 UTC,  schrieb "Willms" 
<l.willms@domain.invalid>  auf uk.railway :

>   BTW, hasn't the TRAXX locomotive (or a specific model of that 
> family) received a security certificate for crossing the tunnel? 

  I think my memory mixed that up with the EC certification of 
conformance with the Technical Specifications of Interoperability 
(TSI) 'Safety in Railway Tunnels' (SRT). 
> <http://bombardier.com/en/transportation/media-centre/press-releases/details?docID=0901260d8006d13c>

---------- quote ---------------------
December 19, 2008 - Berlin

Cross-border Use of TRAXX Locomotives Gets Even Easier

While Europe's Internal Borders are becoming less significant, 
cross-border transportation using BOMBARDIER TRAXX locomotives is 
becoming even easier. The Bombardier TRAXX platform has now become the
first locomotive family in the world to receive EC (European 
Community) certification in accordance with the technical 
specifications for interoperability (TSI)' 'Safety in Railway Tunnels'
(SRT).

The certificate is part of a program to standardise the technical 
basis for cross-border rail transport launched by the European Railway
Agency (ERA). The certification is applicable to the entire TRAXX 
product family and was granted in just three months. With it, the 
TRAXX platform now conforms to the technical specifications for rail 
vehicles for cross-border transport three years ahead of the end of 
the legal transition period.
[...]
In line with the new TSI standard, special flameproof materials are 
used to provide fire protection in the driver's cab and redundant 
drive systems are installed, which become effective in case of an 
emergency. In addition, previously existing fire safety planning and 
certificates were incorporated seamlessly into the homologation 
process.
[...]
The TSI SRT, which came into effect on 1 July 2008, encompasses all 
aspects which are important for safe rail operation in tunnels. It 
affects the structural subsystems, the 'infrastructure' and the 
'vehicles'.


----------------- off quote --------------


Cheers,
L.W.

Am Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:13:11 UTC,  schrieb David Hansen 
  auf uk.railway :

> "The Stobart train is scheduled to leave Valencia on Tuesday on a
> two-day trip to the company's railhead in Dagenham, east London. It
> will carry 30 refrigerated containers crammed with tomatoes, lemons,
> oranges and other fruit and vegetables that will be brought, in an
> eco-friendly manner, to the larders and dining tables of Britain." 

  To complete the documentation, here are the links to two press 
releases by ECR France about that service. The second reports about an
event at Valenton (in the Paris region) with representatives of RFF 
(the French infrastructure company) and of the national government to 
celebrate the service.

  Both texts, of course, in french: 

> <http://www.eurocargorail.com/downloads/CP%20Le%20Service%20Frais%20Express%20FR.pdf>

> <http://www.eurocargorail.com/downloads/CP%20Inauguration%20du%20Service%20Frais%20Express%20FR%20%C3%A0%20Valenton%20051109.pdf>


Cheers, 
L.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------

On Oct 27, 8:08 am, "Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Am Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:32:33 UTC,  schrieb frank paulsen
>   auf uk.railway :
>
> > > "The expedition represents the longest single rail journey in
> > > Europe, says the company.
>
> > maps.google.com calculates 1830km on the road.
>
> > Duisburg - Istanbul is calculated at 3263 km, running weekly since 2005>   The "longest in Europe" is very probably meant for rail journeys
> linking Great Britain and Europe (GB, although being Europe's largest
> island, is not seen as part of Europe).
>
> Cheers,
> L.W.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------

GB, although being Europe's largest
island, is not seen as part of Europe

Great Britain covers more than one island!

On Oct 27, 11:35 am, amogles  wrote:
> On 26 Okt., 20:52, "Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> >   Grow citrus in the Midlands?
>
> >   Interesting idea.
>
> Not in the Midlands but I know of a hobby gardener who is growing
> citrus in the Thames Valley.
>
> Back in Rennaissance times, cultivating citruses was a hobby of the
> rich and famous across all Europe and the orangeries of many stately
> homes and even of Versailles hark back to those days.
>
> It couldn't be done on a commercially competitive basis of course, but
> don't scorn the possibilities.

It couldn't be done on a commercially competitive basis of course,
but
don't scorn the possibilities.

That depends on what you mean by "commercially competitive"!  I would
speculate that in the future more and more importance will be placeed
on lowering carbon emission s and thereby cutting the hidden extra
costs of seemingly price competitive foods. Time to start digging over
that garden for an allotment!

Am Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:00:01 UTC,  schrieb "Willms" 
<l.willms@domain.invalid>  auf uk.railway :

>   To complete the documentation, here are the links to two press 
> releases by ECR France about that service. 

> > <http://www.eurocargorail.com/downloads/CP%20Le%20Service%20Frais%20Express%20FR.pdf>

  I should have included that this press release gives some 
information about the traction, namely that the train is pulled on 
British soil by "electrical locos of DB Schenker, to be relayed at the
tunnel exit by diesel locos of Class 77 [they mean Class 66]. These 
will soon be replaced by electrical locomotives BR186 [i.e. TRAXX F 
140 MS] as soon as these get the authorisation to circulate on the 
French network." [my additions]. As mentioned earlier, in Spain the 
train is pulled by Vossloh Euro 4000 diesel locomotives, series 335 in
Spain. 


Cheers,
L.W.



-------------------------------------------------------------

Am Sat, 7 Nov 2009 06:11:47 UTC,  schrieb Paul   
auf uk.railway :

> > Back in Rennaissance times, cultivating citruses was a hobby of the
> > rich and famous across all Europe and the orangeries of many stately
> > homes and even of Versailles hark back to those days.
> >
> > It couldn't be done on a commercially competitive basis of course, but
> > don't scorn the possibilities.

  Climate change with global warming might make that commericially 
viable. Think about the far end of Cornwall which sports some rather 
subtropical looking vegetation. 


cheers,
L.W. 

---------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:06:53 -0800 (PST), Paul 
wrote:

>Great Britain covers more than one island!

Surely the United Kingdom covers more than one island, one of which is
Great Britain?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Willms wrote:

>   Climate change with global warming might make that commericially 
> viable. Think about the far end of Cornwall which sports some rather 
> subtropical looking vegetation. 
> 

Some experts say that global warming (etc) will disrupt the gulf 
stream and Britain will become as cold as other places at the 
same latitude ...

Charlie

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:08:48 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:

>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:06:53 -0800 (PST), Paul 
>wrote:
>
>>Great Britain covers more than one island!
>
>Surely the United Kingdom covers more than one island, one of which is
>Great Britain?
>
Interpretation of "Great Britain" depends on context. The big island
between Ireland and Europe is Great Britain when considering
non-political lumps of land but when considering the political
entities collectively known as "Great Britain" then it includes any
islands associated with a mainland authority, the Isle of Wight,
Eileanan Siar (previously the Western Isles), the Shetland and Orkney
Islands, Anglesey and the Scilly Isles.

Am Sun, 8 Nov 2009 02:25:06 UTC,  schrieb Charles Ellson 
  auf uk.railway :

> >Surely the United Kingdom covers more than one island, one of which is
> >Great Britain?
> >
> Interpretation of "Great Britain" depends on context. The big island
> between Ireland and Europe is Great Britain when considering
> non-political lumps of land but when considering the political
> entities collectively known as "Great Britain" 

  Is there a political entity named "Great Britain"? 
What are its political institutions -- president, governor, 
parliament, etc? 


Cheers,
L.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 7, 7:38 am, "Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:

>   I should have included that this press release gives some
> information about the traction, namely that the train is pulled on
> British soil by "electrical locos of DB Schenker, to be relayed at the
> tunnel exit by diesel locos of Class 77 [they mean Class 66].

< pedant >

Except if you translate the numbers of the new deliveries [not the ex
UK ones] into UK terms, they are 77s not 66s.

66 by type maybe, but 77 [*] by UK number, or 077 if one much think in
six digis.

Their UIC numbers are in the series 92 87 0 077 0xx-x F-ECR, and as
they're are 60 of them, 01 <= xx <= 60, there is not a single ''66''
appearing amongst their numbers.

< / pedant >

> These
> will soon be replaced by electrical locomotives BR186 [i.e. TRAXX F
> 140 MS] as soon as these get the authorisation to circulate on the
> French network." [my additions]. As mentioned earlier, in Spain the
> train is pulled by Vossloh Euro 4000 diesel locomotives, series 335 in
> Spain.

[*] I guess but do not know that the 77xxx series was adopted to fit
with SNCF diesels numbering where main line diesels are in the  7xxxx
range .

--
Nick

On Nov 2, 9:37 am, "Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:

>   BTW, hasn't the TRAXX locomotive (or a specific model of that
> family) received a security certificate for crossing the tunnel?

No. No.No.

What was reported [by me if we are refering to discussion in this
forum] is that the rebuilt Eurotunnel BoBoBo - those renumbered into
the 98xx is that the new components used in the rebuild come from the
standard Mitrac range that are used for Traxx.

All I was suggesting - and no-one really should have interpreted
otherwise - was that since ET locos now use Mitrac parts then it might
make  safety certification for actual traxx locos a little bit easier
because the parts and reliability and safety case issues would be
known and proven proven.

There is no certified actual Traxx, no.


> so, EuroCargo Rail could use their TRAXX locomotives from Port Bou on
> the Spanish-French border up to Dollands Moor at the norther
> Eurotunnel mound, once they replace the Class 66 by the TRAXX F140 MS.


I am sure this will come in time though.

It is my belief that one version of Traxx will be the first loco type
to gain channel tunnel approval, if and when anyone gets around to
doing it. SNCF / France influence may dicate a Prima must be seen to
be the same, but Prima are not a lot of use to most operators for
*real* pan-European work as they have a rahter more limted approval
(and appeal).

There will of course now be a queue of uk.railway contributors to
state why ''it can't be done'' ...

--
Nick

Am Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:00:34 UTC,  schrieb D7666   
auf uk.railway :
  
 ECR 
> > diesel locos of Class 77 [they mean Class 66].

> 66 by type maybe, but 77 [*] by UK number, or 077 if one much think in
> six digis.
> 
> Their UIC numbers are in the series 92 87 0 077 0xx-x F-ECR, and as
> they're are 60 of them, 01 <= xx <= 60, there is not a single ''66''
> appearing amongst their numbers.

  Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was just sloppyness. But 
the "77" appeared in several press releases. 

  Well, "Class 66" has become kind of a generic name for that type of 
locomotive. Sure, better would be to use the manufacturers type ID, 
but that is a idiosyncratic sequence of letters and numbers which I 
have never managed to memorize. And I am certainly not alone with this
problem. 


Cheers, 
L.W.
 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8, 12:04 pm, "Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:

> locomotive. Sure, better would be to use the manufacturers type ID,
> but that is a idiosyncratic sequence of letters and numbers which I


Yeh I have that problem.

JT42-blah-blah covers a lot of things that might mean a very different
locomotive type, and what EMD seems tomthink is important to put in
the blah-blah is not really a lot of pratical use. I've never really
understood wht the number of cylinders in the power unit os so
important to them, one would have thought number of powered axles or
engine hp might be more useful.

Because of the weird nature of (ex-) EMDs model system,  Irish 201s
get to be JT42-somethings [*] as well as 66/77s. And I can't be
bothered to remember them [*]  - it is a pointless exercise as
describing SNCB 5200/5300/5400 as AA16C  not only fails to demarcste
differences between those three types, but from the different 5500,
also AA16C.


[*] I don't need anyone to tell me what the - something is, I know
where to find it out. My point is I don;t need to know because it
conveys no useful information.


--
Nick

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:25:07 +0100 someone who may be "Willms"
<l.willms@domain.invalid> wrote this:-

>  Is there a political entity named "Great Britain"? 

Yes. It consists of England, Wales and Scotland.

>What are its political institutions -- president, governor, 
>parliament, etc? 

They are something of a fudge, as with other constitutional
arrangements within the UK.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

Am Sun, 8 Nov 2009 13:48:02 UTC,  schrieb David Hansen 
  auf uk.railway :

> >  Is there a political entity named "Great Britain"? 
> 
> Yes. It consists of England, Wales and Scotland.

  These are three separate political entities. Where is the 
encompassing one named, as you say "Great Britain"? 


Cheers,
L.W. 

---------------------------------------------------------------

On 8 Nov, 15:53, "Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Am Sun, 8 Nov 2009 13:48:02 UTC,  schrieb David Hansen
>   auf uk.railway :
>
> > >  Is there a political entity named "Great Britain"?
>
> > Yes. It consists of England, Wales and Scotland.
>
>   These are three separate political entities. Where is the
> encompassing one named, as you say "Great Britain"?

GB is a convenient and expressive shorthand for TUKOGBANI; GB doesn't
exist as a political entity, but it rolls off the tongue more
easily.   The English are entirely at ease with the fiction of GB-as-
state/country/nation; in the non-English areas they see such matters
differently.

Am Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:00:01 UTC,  schrieb "Willms" 
<l.willms@domain.invalid>  auf uk.railway :

> > "The Stobart train is scheduled to leave Valencia on Tuesday on a
> > two-day trip to the company's railhead in Dagenham, east London. It
> > will carry 30 refrigerated containers crammed with tomatoes, lemons,
> > oranges and other fruit and vegetables that will be brought, in an
> > eco-friendly manner, to the larders and dining tables of Britain." 
> 
>   To complete the documentation, here are the links to two press 
> releases by ECR France about that service. The second reports about an
> event at Valenton (in the Paris region) with representatives of RFF 
> (the French infrastructure company) and of the national government to 
> celebrate the service.

  RFF itself has also released information to the press about that 
event, and a number of photos. See
> <http://www.rff.fr/fr/presse/communiques/2009/rff-accueille-sur-son-reseau-un-nouveau-service-de-transport-refrigere>

  Stobart and DB Schenker/ECR have made really a big fuss about their 
new baby. 


Cheers, 
L.W.
 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------

Willms wrote:
> Am Sun, 8 Nov 2009 13:48:02 UTC,  schrieb David Hansen 
>   auf uk.railway :
> 
>>>  Is there a political entity named "Great Britain"? 
>> Yes. It consists of England, Wales and Scotland.
> 
>   These are three separate political entities. Where is the 
> encompassing one named, as you say "Great Britain"? 

Attempting to apply German/trainspotter/mathematical logic to the 
British constitution, political geography and identity is doomed to 
failure.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

Am Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:56:03 UTC,  schrieb Arthur Figgis 
<afiggis@example.com.invalid>  auf uk.railway :

> Attempting to apply German/trainspotter/mathematical logic to the 
> British constitution, political geography and identity is doomed to 
> failure.

  I do apply political analyis.  

  Radical analysis, as a certain immigrant in London called for: going
to the root of things without fear of the consequences, including for 
the own prejudices. 


Cheers,
L.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------

In message 
          Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:

> Willms wrote:
> > Am Sun, 8 Nov 2009 13:48:02 UTC,  schrieb David Hansen 
> >   auf uk.railway :
> > 
> >>>  Is there a political entity named "Great Britain"? 
> >> Yes. It consists of England, Wales and Scotland.
> > 
> >   These are three separate political entities. Where is the 
> > encompassing one named, as you say "Great Britain"? 
> 
> Attempting to apply German/trainspotter/mathematical logic to the 
> British constitution, political geography and identity is doomed to 
> failure.
> 

Attempting to apply any form of logic is probably doomed to failure.

-- 
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

On Nov 8, 6:56 pm, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:

> Attempting to apply German/trainspotter/mathematical logic to the
> British constitution, political geography and identity is doomed to
> failure.


I just can't understand why the districts, counties, provinces and
islands don't have numbers.

Even French Departments have numbers,

--
Nick

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:10:16 -0800, D7666 wrote:

> On Nov 2, 9:37 am, "Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>   BTW, hasn't the TRAXX locomotive (or a specific model of that
>> family) received a security certificate for crossing the tunnel?
> 
> No. No.No.
> 
> What was reported [by me if we are refering to discussion in this forum]
> is that the rebuilt Eurotunnel BoBoBo - those renumbered into the 98xx
> is that the new components used in the rebuild come from the standard
> Mitrac range that are used for Traxx.
> 
> All I was suggesting - and no-one really should have interpreted
> otherwise - was that since ET locos now use Mitrac parts then it might
> make  safety certification for actual traxx locos a little bit easier
> because the parts and reliability and safety case issues would be known
> and proven proven.

 But it's more than components, the Eurotunnel BoBoBo locos have a 
specific internal structure as well, with multiple internal firewalls 
separating the equipment groups and the cabs. If the safety people insist 
on a fire in one converter group being absolutely contained so that other 
group can continue to work at full capacity, a standard Traxx might be in 
trouble.

 They key point of the Traxx family is the SAME shell (and largely the 
same equipment) is used across the entire family.
 I've seen a Bombardier promo recently that says the Traxx DE has the 
same bogies and traction motors at the electric family, even though the 
Diesel puts out HALF the power of the electric converter groups. But the 
focus is on mass production of common parts, so the DE version gets 
traction motors twice as powerful as it can use just to keep the parts 
inventory down and thus DE and electric Traxx locomotive bogies are 
identical and can be swapped.

 If the tunnel safety authority insists on too much change over the basic 
platform, either Bombardier would walk away from the contract or the 
price will be adjusted (significantly upwards) to compensate for the loss 
of commonality.
 
 I doubt the Traxx platform as it stands would pass the strict standards, 
just as a current ICE3M and a TGV Duplex wont either.

 Probably a similar issue with a 'Traxx UK'. The standard shell is too 
large, so any Traxx UK will be a 'custom' build, with a 'custom' price 
tag.

On Nov 8, 8:31 pm, Matthew Geier
 wrote:

>  But it's more than components, the Eurotunnel BoBoBo locos have a
> specific internal structure as well, with multiple internal firewalls
> separating the equipment groups and the cabs. If the safety people insist
> on a fire in one converter group being absolutely contained so that other
> group can continue to work at full capacity, a standard Traxx might be in
> trouble.


I noticed you snipped this bit :

>
> There will of course now be a queue of uk.railway contributors to
> state why ''it can't be done'' ...


QED


--
Nick

D7666 wrote:
> On Nov 8, 6:56 pm, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Attempting to apply German/trainspotter/mathematical logic to the
>> British constitution, political geography and identity is doomed to
>> failure.
> 
> 
> I just can't understand why the districts, counties, provinces and
> islands don't have numbers.
> 
> Even French Departments have numbers,

Do French areas get chopped around as much as our places do? I guess 
there is Alsace...

It wouldn't really help if Berkshire/Middlesex/Peterborough have to keep 
getting renumbered every time someone has a new idea of what to do with 
them.

And no doubt Londoners would move around any spaces in their number(s) 
to confuse things.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

Am Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:31:42 UTC,  schrieb Matthew Geier 
  auf uk.railway :

>  I doubt the Traxx platform as it stands would pass the strict standards, 
> just as a current ICE3M and a TGV Duplex wont either.

  As I mentioned in another message, the TRAXX has passed the tests 
for the "safety in tunnels" TSI, and got the corresponding 
certificate. 

  So I would not see any hindrance to get certified for cross Chunnel 
workings. 

  This Stobart fruit train could then be brought by a single 
locomotive from Port Bou on the French/Spanish border up to the 
Dagenham Rail Port -- under condition that the train can use the HS1 
line, since the TRAXX does not support Third Rail DC, and might be too
big for the English loading gauge. Then at least up the the Dollands 
Moor rail yard. 


Cheers, 
L.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:53:17 +0100, "Willms" <l.willms@domain.invalid>
wrote:

>Am Sun, 8 Nov 2009 13:48:02 UTC,  schrieb David Hansen 
>  auf uk.railway :
>
>> >  Is there a political entity named "Great Britain"? 
>> 
>> Yes. It consists of England, Wales and Scotland.
>
>  These are three separate political entities. Where is the 
>encompassing one named, as you say "Great Britain"? 
>
It was created by the Treaty of Union in 1707 and has not yet been
abolished. The following Acts of Union in 1800 did not cause Great
Britain to cease to exist but added Ireland to the United Kingdom.
Note that "entity" has the simple meaning of something that exists; GB
is a political entity in the sense that it is commonly legislated upon
or dealt with for many political purposes in isolation from Northern
Ireland (and vice versa). The United Kingdom is a political entity but
so are the various sub-divisions of the UK.

Willms wrote:

> Am Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:56:03 UTC,  schrieb Arthur Figgis 
> <afiggis@example.com.invalid>  auf uk.railway :
> 
>> Attempting to apply German/trainspotter/mathematical logic to the 
>> British constitution, political geography and identity is doomed to 
>> failure.
> 
>   I do apply political analyis.  
> 
>   Radical analysis, as a certain immigrant in London called for: going
> to the root of things without fear of the consequences, including for 
> the own prejudices. 

Nothing wrong with going for the roots. The big problem is in imagining
that anything one encounters in the process must be buried treasure.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633107.html
(56 085 at Stockport, Jun 1985)

Graeme wrote:

> Attempting to apply any form of logic is probably doomed to failure.

Today, you are Kurt Goedel, AICMFP.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632885.html
(33 111 at Poole, May 1985)

Matthew Geier wrote:

> so the DE version gets traction motors twice as powerful as it can use
> just to keep the parts inventory down and thus DE and electric Traxx
> locomotive bogies are identical and can be swapped

Why is this a bad thing?

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683741.html
(142 040 at Shaw and Crompton, 26 Feb 2001)

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:58:05 +0000 someone who may be Chris  Tolley
<cj.tolley@bogus.co.uk (ukonline really)> wrote this:-

>> so the DE version gets traction motors twice as powerful as it can use
>> just to keep the parts inventory down and thus DE and electric Traxx
>> locomotive bogies are identical and can be swapped
>
>Why is this a bad thing?

In itself being able to swap bogies can be a good thing, provided
the locomotives are maintained close together and this flexibility
can be used. The sort of thing which maintenance people like.

However, a bogie with more powerful motors is a heavier bogie. That
possibly means more damage to the track and certainly means more
fuel is used to move the extra mass around. Engineering is full of
having to balance various factors.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

David Hansen wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:58:05 +0000 someone who may be Chris  Tolley
> <cj.tolley@bogus.co.uk (ukonline really)> wrote this:-
> 
>>> so the DE version gets traction motors twice as powerful as it can use
>>> just to keep the parts inventory down and thus DE and electric Traxx
>>> locomotive bogies are identical and can be swapped
>>
>>Why is this a bad thing?
> 
> In itself being able to swap bogies can be a good thing, provided
> the locomotives are maintained close together and this flexibility
> can be used. The sort of thing which maintenance people like.
> 
> However, a bogie with more powerful motors is a heavier bogie. That
> possibly means more damage to the track and certainly means more
> fuel is used to move the extra mass around. Engineering is full of
> having to balance various factors.

Is it automatically going to be heavier? I can see why in some cases it
might be, but I do not believe that it must be so.

And even if it is, over the lifetime of the said bogie, if indeed it is
swapped over between different traction modes, such a heavier bogie will
sometimes find itself using no on-board fuel, and imparting a lower
force to the track, on the grounds that what it is supporting is rather
lighter when it doesn't contain a fuel tank and a generator. the
lifetime costs of such a bogie may well be less than for a lighter,
custom, diesel-only bogie.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632980.html
(43 168 at London Paddington, 30 Apr 1999)

In message <1fxtxw1b2zs3p.b4tb89dge97t$.dlg@40tude.net>
          Chris  Tolley <cj.tolley@bogus.co.uk (ukonline really)> wrote:

> Graeme wrote:
> 
> > Attempting to apply any form of logic is probably doomed to failure.
> 
> Today, you are Kurt Goedel, AICMFP.

Damn, rumbled! 

Could be worse, could have been Kurt Jurgens...

-- 
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:09:44 +0000, David Hansen wrote:

 
> However, a bogie with more powerful motors is a heavier bogie. That
> possibly means more damage to the track and certainly means more fuel is
> used to move the extra mass around. Engineering is full of having to
> balance various factors.

 Given the rest of the bogie construction has to be similar to take a 
similar weight in locomotive, the only thing you would be changing (other 
than springs and damper settings) would be the motors. The difference in 
weight between the different motors is probably very small with the 
modern 3 phase types.
 Small enough that the commonality of parts is far more important than 
the small amount of weight saved by having a motor with lighter wiring in 
the coils.

 After all, these days the manufacturer is going to have to commit to 
being able to supply parts for at least 20 years. The less parts they 
have to source across their entire product line, the better.

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 14:31:54 +0000 someone who may be Chris  Tolley
<cj.tolley@bogus.co.uk (ukonline really)> wrote this:-

>> However, a bogie with more powerful motors is a heavier bogie. That
>> possibly means more damage to the track and certainly means more
>> fuel is used to move the extra mass around. Engineering is full of
>> having to balance various factors.
>
>Is it automatically going to be heavier?

Yes and no.

If using the same engineering then the answer is going to be yes,
though as another poster has indicated the difference may not be as
great these days as it was once.

If using different engineering then the answer may well be no. For
example if the less powerful motor was a traditional series wound
motor and the more powerful one somehow managed to use
superconducting magnets in "real life" then the latter may well be
lighter.

In most cases I suggest apples should be compared with apples and
then the answer is yes.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On 7 Nov., 12:08, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:

> >Great Britain covers more than one island!
>
> Surely the United Kingdom covers more than one island, one of which is
> Great Britain?
>

so the Isle of Wight (for example) isn't part of Great Britain?

And what about the Isle of Dogs?

On 8 Nov., 21:31, Matthew Geier
 wrote:

>
>  Probably a similar issue with a 'Traxx UK'. The standard shell is too
> large, so any Traxx UK will be a 'custom' build, with a 'custom' price
> tag.-

Unless they use HS1 and only work as far as the London area, which
would already mark a considerable improvement on the current situation
as it would eliminate one loco change.

Many onward destinations within Britain would require diesel traction
anyway, so this final change of locomotive is unlikely to be
eliminated until there has been further expanison of electrification.

In message 
          amogles  wrote:

> On 7 Nov., 12:08, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
> wrote:
> 
> > >Great Britain covers more than one island!
> >
> > Surely the United Kingdom covers more than one island, one of which is
> > Great Britain?
> >
> 
> so the Isle of Wight (for example) isn't part of Great Britain?

Politically it is, geographically it isn't.

> 
> And what about the Isle of Dogs?

Isle of Dogs is technically not an island.

-- 
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Graeme wrote:

> In message 
>           amogles  wrote:
> 
>> On 7 Nov., 12:08, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> >Great Britain covers more than one island!
>>>
>>> Surely the United Kingdom covers more than one island, one of which is
>>> Great Britain?
>>>
>> 
>> so the Isle of Wight (for example) isn't part of Great Britain?
> 
> Politically it is, geographically it isn't.
> 
>> 
>> And what about the Isle of Dogs?
> 
> Isle of Dogs is technically not an island.

How about "Noman"? I hear that _is_ an island.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683775.html
(144 014 at Knaresborough, 1 Aug 1998)

In message <u0242s3jte68$.1dfw4d0vgh8j1.dlg@40tude.net>
          Chris  Tolley <cj.tolley@bogus.co.uk (ukonline really)> wrote:

> Graeme wrote:
> 
> > In message 
> >           amogles  wrote:
> > 
> >> On 7 Nov., 12:08, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> >Great Britain covers more than one island!
> >>>
> >>> Surely the United Kingdom covers more than one island, one of which is
> >>> Great Britain?
> >>>
> >> 
> >> so the Isle of Wight (for example) isn't part of Great Britain?
> > 
> > Politically it is, geographically it isn't.
> > 
> >> 
> >> And what about the Isle of Dogs?
> > 
> > Isle of Dogs is technically not an island.
> 
> How about "Noman"? I hear that _is_ an island.

It's an artificial one out in the Solent :-)

'Scuse me there's a bell tolling...

-- 
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Graeme wrote:

> In message <u0242s3jte68$.1dfw4d0vgh8j1.dlg@40tude.net>
>           Chris  Tolley <cj.tolley@bogus.co.uk (ukonline really)> wrote:
> 
>> Graeme wrote:
>> 
>>> In message 
>>>           amogles  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 7 Nov., 12:08, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> >Great Britain covers more than one island!
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely the United Kingdom covers more than one island, one of which is
>>>>> Great Britain?
>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> so the Isle of Wight (for example) isn't part of Great Britain?
>>> 
>>> Politically it is, geographically it isn't.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> And what about the Isle of Dogs?
>>> 
>>> Isle of Dogs is technically not an island.
>> 
>> How about "Noman"? I hear that _is_ an island.
> 
> It's an artificial one out in the Solent :-)
> 
> 'Scuse me there's a bell tolling...

Don't ask... ;-)
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633044.html
(47 488 at Kensington Olympia, Apr 1995)

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:49:33 +0000, Graeme 
wrote:

>In message 
>          amogles  wrote:
>
>> On 7 Nov., 12:08, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > >Great Britain covers more than one island!
>> >
>> > Surely the United Kingdom covers more than one island, one of which is
>> > Great Britain?
>> >
>> 
>> so the Isle of Wight (for example) isn't part of Great Britain?
>
>Politically it is, geographically it isn't.
>
Don't geographers have some kind of definition that effectively makes
it part of the same land mass while still an island ? 

>> 
>> And what about the Isle of Dogs?
>
>Isle of Dogs is technically not an island.
>
You can leave out "technically" as it is not surrounded by
unrestrained water although knocking out some lock gates might change
that if it doesn't result in one watercourse out-draining the other.

In message 
          Charles Ellson  wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:49:33 +0000, Graeme 
> wrote:
> 
> >In message 
> >          amogles  wrote:
> >
> >> On 7 Nov., 12:08, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > >Great Britain covers more than one island!
> >> >
> >> > Surely the United Kingdom covers more than one island, one of which is
> >> > Great Britain?
> >> >
> >> 
> >> so the Isle of Wight (for example) isn't part of Great Britain?
> >
> >Politically it is, geographically it isn't.
> >
> Don't geographers have some kind of definition that effectively makes
> it part of the same land mass while still an island ? 

That's political geography!

River islands, such as the eyots in the Thames, probably come under the
definition you are thinking off[1] but IoW has open sea on two sides.

The other inclusive term would be archipelago.

> 
> >> 
> >> And what about the Isle of Dogs?
> >
> >Isle of Dogs is technically not an island.
> >
> You can leave out "technically" as it is not surrounded by
> unrestrained water although knocking out some lock gates might change
> that if it doesn't result in one watercourse out-draining the other.

I believe it was formerly an island with marshes at the northern end.  There
are other ex-islands like that, such as Thanet.

[1] They are not included in my Shell Book of the Islands of Britain.

-- 
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:48:35 +0000, Graeme 
wrote:

>In message 
>          Charles Ellson  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:49:33 +0000, Graeme 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >In message 
>> >          amogles  wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 7 Nov., 12:08, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
>> >> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > >Great Britain covers more than one island!
>> >> >
>> >> > Surely the United Kingdom covers more than one island, one of which is
>> >> > Great Britain?
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> so the Isle of Wight (for example) isn't part of Great Britain?
>> >
>> >Politically it is, geographically it isn't.
>> >
>> Don't geographers have some kind of definition that effectively makes
>> it part of the same land mass while still an island ? 
>
>That's political geography!
>
No, I was thinking of something I had encountered some time ago which
excluded e.g. anything you could walk to at low tide as being an
"island" for geographical purposes and had a more localised version of
the "continental shelf" argument which is used for some claims.

>River islands, such as the eyots in the Thames, probably come under the
>definition you are thinking off[1] but IoW has open sea on two sides.
>
>The other inclusive term would be archipelago.
>
>> 
>> >> 
>> >> And what about the Isle of Dogs?
>> >
>> >Isle of Dogs is technically not an island.
>> >
>> You can leave out "technically" as it is not surrounded by
>> unrestrained water although knocking out some lock gates might change
>> that if it doesn't result in one watercourse out-draining the other.
>
>I believe it was formerly an island with marshes at the northern end.  There
>are other ex-islands like that, such as Thanet.
>
Well, Wonkypaedia describes it as a "former island" which naturally
raises doubts. ;-)
What seems to go against the island claim is that ongoing development
seems more on the lines of creating waterways rather than filling them
in. It would help if there was some kind of historical map to show the
extent of the marshes.

>[1] They are not included in my Shell Book of the Islands of Britain.

In message 
          Charles Ellson  wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:48:35 +0000, Graeme 
> wrote:
> 
> > In message 
> >          Charles Ellson  wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:49:33 +0000, Graeme 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In message
> > > > 
> > > >          amogles  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On 7 Nov., 12:08, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > Great Britain covers more than one island!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Surely the United Kingdom covers more than one island, one of
> > > > > > which is Great Britain?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > so the Isle of Wight (for example) isn't part of Great Britain?
> > > > 
> > > > Politically it is, geographically it isn't.
> > > > 
> > > Don't geographers have some kind of definition that effectively makes
> > > it part of the same land mass while still an island ? 
> > 
> > That's political geography!
> > 
> No, I was thinking of something I had encountered some time ago which
> excluded e.g. anything you could walk to at low tide as being an "island"
> for geographical purposes and had a more localised version of the
> "continental shelf" argument which is used for some claims.

You'd be hard pushed to walk to the Isle of Wight!

> 
> > River islands, such as the eyots in the Thames, probably come under the
> > definition you are thinking off[1] but IoW has open sea on two sides.
> > 
> > The other inclusive term would be archipelago.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > And what about the Isle of Dogs?
> >> >
> >> >Isle of Dogs is technically not an island.
> >> >
> >> You can leave out "technically" as it is not surrounded by
> >> unrestrained water although knocking out some lock gates might change
> >> that if it doesn't result in one watercourse out-draining the other.
> >
> > I believe it was formerly an island with marshes at the northern end. 
> > There are other ex-islands like that, such as Thanet.
> >
> Well, Wonkypaedia describes it as a "former island" which naturally
> raises doubts. ;-)

Oh ye of littel fathe...

> What seems to go against the island claim is that ongoing development
> seems more on the lines of creating waterways rather than filling them
> in. It would help if there was some kind of historical map to show the
> extent of the marshes.

None of the conventional historical (contemporary) maps of London depict that
far east until the development of the docks.  London literally ended at the
Tower.


-- 
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

"D7666"  wrote in message 
news:93d77d69-4890-4905-a972-acfc346ff0fa@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 8, 12:04 pm, "Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:

> locomotive. Sure, better would be to use the manufacturers type ID,
> but that is a idiosyncratic sequence of letters and numbers which I


Yeh I have that problem.

JT42-blah-blah covers a lot of things that might mean a very different
locomotive type, and what EMD seems tomthink is important to put in
the blah-blah is not really a lot of pratical use. I've never really
understood wht the number of cylinders in the power unit os so
important to them, one would have thought number of powered axles or
engine hp might be more useful.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

JT42 ... C (in your blah-blah) gives axles (6: Co-Co). T42 gives the hp 
range (3000 for traction). J gives the cab arrangement. I understand it, up 
to a point .... but haven't a clue about some other manufacturers' codes, or 
for that matter the station TLAs so many in this NG use with impunity. Sorry 
you don't like their system, but you don't have to use it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Because of the weird nature of (ex-) EMDs model system,  Irish 201s
get to be JT42-somethings [*] as well as 66/77s. And I can't be
bothered to remember them [*]  - it is a pointless exercise as
describing SNCB 5200/5300/5400 as AA16C  not only fails to demarcste
differences between those three types, but from the different 5500,
also AA16C.


[*] I don't need anyone to tell me what the - something is, I know
where to find it out. My point is I don;t need to know because it
conveys no useful information.


--
Nick

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The same is true of the many Australian variants ....  subtle differences 
for different clients, or for different sets of haulage applications for the 
same client. In the US, not all SD40s or for that matter SD70s are alike.

DW downunder