Eurostar train gets stuck in Channel Tunnel

[rob]

On 24 Sep, 13:04, Steve <st...@hatchwarren.plus.com> wrote:
> On 24 Sep, 12:38, Mizter T <mizte...@**********> wrote:
>
> > > > No, on a Eurostar both pantographs are in use at the same time, and
>
> > > Ah , didn't realise.
>
> > Only on the Eurostar, mind - the train is so long that any
> > oscillations on the overhead line induced by the passing of the first
> > pantograph are considered to have died down sufficiently in time for
> > the passing of the second pantograph.
>
> A brief calculation suggests the elapsed time between the passage of
> the pantographs at full speed is not hugely different between the
> Eurostar and the Pendolino:
>
> E* * *4.8sec
> Pendolino (9 car) * *3.9 sec
> Pendolino (11 car) * *4.8 sec
>
> Admittedly I've taken the train length as the distance between
> pantographs for simplicity
>
> Perhaps we might see the lengthened Pendolini running with both pans
> up?
>
> Steve Adams

Are you taking into account that on a Pendolino that the pantograph is
on the 3rd carriage away from each end?

And that is assuming that the extra cars will be put into the middle,
between the two pantographs - unless that has been confirmed?

[Boltar]

On Sep 24, 2:28 pm, Sam Wilson <Sam.Wil...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> design aim[1] is that each half could operate independently in case of
> emergency[2]. Disconnecting a 25 kV bus line would be difficult.

Why? Disconnecting a 25KV supply is done all the time when a dual
voltage units switches over to DC.

B2003

[Chris J Dixon]

>On Sep 24, 2:28 pm, Sam Wilson <Sam.Wil...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> design aim[1] is that each half could operate independently in case of
>> emergency[2]. Disconnecting a 25 kV bus line would be difficult.
>
>Why? Disconnecting a 25KV supply is done all the time when a dual
>voltage units switches over to DC.
>
The suggestion was automatically splitting the train, thus the
bus line connection would have to be separable quickly, and
without manual intervention.

You may use both sides of the paper. Please show all working ;-)

Chris

[Charles Ellson]

> Boltar wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 12:38 pm, Mizter T <mizte...@**********> wrote:
>>>> The HSE bed wetters strike again. Though perhaps if that had allowed a
>>>> high voltage line along the train but *hadn't* allowed trucks to be
>>>> transported in the tunnel then we'd probably be a lot better off.
>>> HSE - pray tell, where do they come into it? Interesting that in the
>>
>> Don't they have the final say over what can and can't go into the
>> tunnel, at least on the english half anyway?
>>
>>> same paragraph you can then come up with what others might describe as
>>> a health and safety bed wetters solution.
>>
>> I think theres a difference between having an HT cable running along a
>> train (especially given theres one 3 foot above it anyway!) and
>> allowing the carrying of flammable cargo in a 20 mile long undersea
>> tunnel.
>>
>> B2003
>
> I thought it was the Fire Brigade that set the standards...
>
Channel Tunnel Safety Authority (in conjunction with .fr equivalent) via
the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission, n'est ce pas ?

[Roland Perry]

In message <uhc85xzyh.fsf@**********>, at 02:07:10 on Thu, 25 Sep 2008,
Philip <wahspilihp@**********> remarked:
>I'm afraid I can't answer your question, but apparently, the
>pre-refurbishment WC electric locomotives always used the rear
>pantograph, partly in case of damage to the line, as you say, but also
>because any item dislodged from the line would have been more likely
>to land on the first carrige if the rear pantograph was used, whereas
>if the front pantograph was used, such an object would fall on the
>locomotive, possibly hitting the rooftop equipment.

So the passengers are more expendable than the loco <boggle>.
--
Roland Perry

[Peter Masson]

"Philip" <wahspilihp@**********> wrote
>
> I think the idea was that there was the loco cab, the end vestibule,
> and the toilet in between the pantograph and the first seating area. I
> don't have any good reference for train formations of that period, but
> wouldn't there often be a brake at both ends on LHCS well into the
> blue era to save re-marshalling the train at the destination. This
> would add more unoccupied space between the pantograph and the
> passengers.

Until about 1970 it was usual to have a brake vehicle at each end, so that
there would always be a brake vehicle at the rear of a train. For example,
Euston - Manchester/Liverpool trains in 1966 were formed something like BSO
6SO RMB FO 2FK BFK, where all except the Mk RMB and FO coaches were Mk2s.
Around 1970 it became more common to form trains with a BG at one end as the
only brake vehicle. Was this change related to the change from vacuum to air
braking?

Peter

[Jack Taylor]

> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In message <uhc85xzyh.fsf@**********>, at 02:07:10 on Thu, 25 Sep
>> 2008, Philip <wahspilihp@**********> remarked:
>>> I'm afraid I can't answer your question, but apparently, the
>>> pre-refurbishment WC electric locomotives always used the rear
>>> pantograph, partly in case of damage to the line, as you say, but
>>> also because any item dislodged from the line would have been more
>>> likely to land on the first carrige if the rear pantograph was
>>> used, whereas if the front pantograph was used, such an object
>>> would fall on the locomotive, possibly hitting the rooftop
>>> equipment.
>>
>> So the passengers are more expendable than the loco <boggle>.
>
> I think the idea was that there was the loco cab, the end vestibule,
> and the toilet in between the pantograph and the first seating area. I
> don't have any good reference for train formations of that period, but
> wouldn't there often be a brake at both ends on LHCS well into the
> blue era to save re-marshalling the train at the destination. This
> would add more unoccupied space between the pantograph and the
> passengers.

My understanding was that, in the event of a minor dewirement, the train may
be able to coast to the next live section, raise the front pan and continue
to the next station or another suitable point. If the front pan was in use
and brought down the wires on top of the locomotive then the rear pan may
also be damaged, stranding the train in section.

Interestingly, a colleague at Alstom told me that it was the intention for
the Pendolinos to run using the rear pan - but that Virgin insisted on using
the front one for aesthetic purposes!

[rob]

On 24 Sep, 20:03, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:45:14 -0700 (PDT), rob <rob...@**********>
> wrote:
>
> >And that is assuming that the extra cars will be put into the middle,
> >between the two pantographs - unless that has been confirmed?
>
> If they will, why would a bus line not be used?
>
> Neil
>

It would be - but I was curious as to where the previous person was
getting their maths from.