Why a 50 mph restriction on non electrified lines

High risk of obstructions on the line - trees etc.


Tim Rogers wrote:

> Noticed today that there was a 50 mph restriction on non electrified lines.
>
> Why?
>
> Tim

Tim Rogers wrote:
> Noticed today that there was a 50 mph restriction on non electrified lines.
>
> Why?

Because of the risk of debris on the line?

Tim Rogers wrote:
> Noticed today that there was a 50 mph restriction on non electrified lines.
>
> Why?
>
> Tim
>
>
Because trees and other debris is blown on to the lines!

Ricardo
--
The Which Blair Project:
Taking the "Great" out of Britain and dropping us further into the Brown
stuff!

Ricardo wrote:
> Tim Rogers wrote:
>> Noticed today that there was a 50 mph restriction on non electrified
>> lines.
> Because trees and other debris is blown on to the lines!

OK, that to me makes much sense. I would also assume that the
restriction applied to electrified lines too?

--
Jonathan Stott
Canterbury Weather: http://www.canterburyweather.co.uk/
Reverse my e-mail address to reply by e-mail

Jonathan Stott wrote:
> Ricardo wrote:
>
>> Tim Rogers wrote:
>>
>>> Noticed today that there was a 50 mph restriction on non electrified
>>> lines.
>>
>> Because trees and other debris is blown on to the lines!
>
>
> OK, that to me makes much sense. I would also assume that the
> restriction applied to electrified lines too?
>
It did, it was a Network Rail dictate. I think that the electrified
lines (overhead) had far greater problems than, say, here in the west
country where we only have diesel, because of the number of overhead
lines damaged, in addition to clutter on the line.

In the event, looking at the damage reports, NR seem to have got it right.

Ricardo
--
The Which Blair Project:
Taking the "Great" out of Britain and dropping us further into the Brown
stuff!

"Jonathan Stott" <03smj@tnek.ca.ku> wrote in message
news:eooslb$6ch$1@oheron.kent.ac.uk...
> Ricardo wrote:
> > Tim Rogers wrote:
> >> Noticed today that there was a 50 mph restriction on non electrified
> >> lines.
> > Because trees and other debris is blown on to the lines!
>
> OK, that to me makes much sense. I would also assume that the
> restriction applied to electrified lines too?
>
It certainly applied on Southeastern. Whereas Ross and his colleagues could
get under their dogboxen with saws to cut up the trees they hit, you can't
do that on third rail territory without getting someone to isolate the
current - so quite a few stretches in Kent had no trains for hours on end.

Peter

> power is turned off, would anyone actually be allowed to touch a tree
> or branch that was in contact with the rail without turning the power
> off?

None of my electrical safety training from the past has ever suggested
you should touch anything or anybody unless you are certain the supply
is off.

--
Nick

"Peter Masson" <peter.masson1@> wrote in message
news:76CdnfXQAZxKZjLYnZ2dnUVZ8sKlnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Jonathan Stott" <03smj@tnek.ca.ku> wrote in message
> news:eooslb$6ch$1@oheron.kent.ac.uk...
>> Ricardo wrote:
>> > Tim Rogers wrote:
>> >> Noticed today that there was a 50 mph restriction on non electrified
>> >> lines.
>> > Because trees and other debris is blown on to the lines!
>>
>> OK, that to me makes much sense. I would also assume that the
>> restriction applied to electrified lines too?
>>
> It certainly applied on Southeastern. Whereas Ross and his colleagues
> could
> get under their dogboxen with saws to cut up the trees they hit, you can't
> do that on third rail territory without getting someone to isolate the
> current - so quite a few stretches in Kent had no trains for hours on end.
>
> Peter
>
>
I bumped into a former member of my team at Ashford this afternoon. She'd
been the signaller for the bit from Chiselhurst to Sevenoaks yesterday
afternoon, and said that there were a lot of trees down- especially around
Sevenoaks (which some wag rechristened 'Six Oaks, 'cos the other one's in
front of my train'.)
Brian

On 18 Jan 2007 11:22:41 -0800, "James Taylor" <jstlufc@>
wrote:

>High risk of obstructions on the line - trees etc.
>
>
It is not just trees. Lincoln rail and roads are blocked this evening
due to some unsafe scaffolding alongside the line. Scaffolding on an
eyesore of an old 60's office building that is going to look even
worse when they have finished adding a few extra floors and turning it
into upmarket flats.

David H

David Hansen wrote:

> For example, if someone is lying on the ballast and just has a limb
> touching a conductor rail then there are ways of removing the limb
> without getting a shock oneself.

Rubber gloves and a machete, swung from the shoulder?

Ian