GWML Electification

[HillsideDepot]

 

From 19 August to 15 September 2017, we’ll be working day and night along the railway between Royal Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire, and Patchway/Filton junctions, South Gloucestershire.

As part of the Greater West Programme, we are electrifying the line to bring passengers quieter, more frequent and more reliable services between London Paddington and Cardiff.

 

What does the work involve?

Over the entire four weeks, we’ll be working from the outskirts of Royal Wootton Bassett, through Brinkworth, Little Somerford, Rodbourne, Hullavington, Acton Turville, Old Sodbury, Chipping Sodbury and Yate to Westerleigh Junction.

From 2 September to 15 September 2017, our work area will extend to include Westerleigh Junction, Coalpit Heath, Winterbourne, Stoke Gifford and Bristol Parkway station, up to Patchway/Filton junctions.

The work includes:

• Carrying out the piling required to install the foundations which will support the electrification equipment.
• Installing the equipment, including trackside masts and overhead wires at some locations.
• Installing electrification equipment in Chipping Sodbury and Alderton tunnels.
• Improving flood resilience at Chipping Sodbury sidings.
• Preparing Bristol Parkway station for the arrival of new InterCity Express trains.

Unfortunately, some of the work will be noisy and we would like to thank our neighbours in advance for bearing with us. In addition, deliveries of materials to our compounds along the route will be made by road, and some settlements will see an increase in traffic.

From the NR website.

Of note is the comment "installing... overhead wires at some locations". Previously it was worded more along the lines of "if everything goes well we might get some wires up", so the latest version looks like an advance on what they had expected to do.

[Christopher125]

Down through Filton to Temple Meads, no electrification works, but contractors are very busy widening the trackbase. Tracks or reserved bus lanes?

It's the 'Filton Bank Four Tracking' scheme, which will reinstate the extra pair of tracks.

 

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/western/great-western-mainline/city-of-bristol/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jUYViwle1c

[The Stationmaster]

It's the 'Filton Bank Four Tracking' scheme, which will reinstate the extra pair of tracks.

 

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/western/great-western-mainline/city-of-bristol/

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder if it's being referred to 'inside' as 're-quadrification'?  Mind you I wonder if there are actually any senior people on the Zone who were about (or even born?) at the time of the 'de-quadrification' as it was called back in the 1980s?  

 

Sometimes I get this sense of 'I counted them all out and I counted them all back' with some of these re-quadrification schemes where I seem to have started the ball rolling with my scheme to put back the Relief Lines been Wantage Road and Challow back in the 1990s (although I very purposely didn't call it re-quadrification but presented it, quite accurately, as dynamic loops - complete with the graphs to prove that).

 

Edit to correct typo.

Edited August 14, 2017 by The Stationmaster

[Northroader]

Then there's the Swindon Kemble job, the Oxford Worcester, Salisbury Exeter, and so on...

[Zomboid]

Those routes probably don't need quadrification.

Swindon to Kemble has been doubled a few years back though.

[Fat Controller]

Those routes probably don't need quadrification.

Swindon to Kemble has been doubled a few years back though.

Re-doubled in the case of the Swindon- Kemble and Oxford- Worcester lines; the Salisbury- Exeter has seen some of the loops extended, but I don't believe there's been any full-scale redoubling thus far.

[phil-b259]

Re-doubled in the case of the Swindon- Kemble and Oxford- Worcester lines; the Salisbury- Exeter has seen some of the loops extended, but I don't believe there's been any full-scale redoubling thus far.

 

Just to note that the Oxford - Worcester has NOT been redoubled. What has actually occurred is the addition of a long dynamic passing loop to facilitate a more frequent service. As with the Salisbury - Exeter line quite a lot remains single track still with no firm plans to add any more.

 

Swindon - Kemble by contrast saw the entire section restored to double track throughout.

[Geoff Endacott]

Maybe it's the efforts to electrify the line to Bristol which need to be redoubled.

 

Geoff Endacott

Edited August 14, 2017 by Geoff Endacott

[jim.snowdon]

Maybe its the efforts to electrify the line to Bristol which need to be redoubled.

 

Geoff Endacott

I believe the electrification into Temple Meads is dependent upon the completion of the works associated with the four-tracking to Filton. The situation elsewhere is perhaps better described as lamentable, at least when seen from the public perspective.

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

I believe the electrification into Temple Meads is dependent upon the completion of the works associated with the four-tracking to Filton. The situation elsewhere is perhaps better described as lamentable, at least when seen from the public perspective.

 

Jim

 

Rather more complex that that so I understand Jim.  It seems there has been some considerable debate over the new track layout at Temple Meads East with one plan showing it so drastically reduced as to make it unworkable while - according to one source - the proposal to provide a realistic track layout caused the bean counters to get somewhat upset.  Chuck in the cost of bringing the old station back into use plus the need to complete the resignalling in order to allow demolition of the panel box structure in order to permit access to the old station and it all seems to have turned into expenditure too far for Notwork Rail.  

 

Which leaves me wondering if their grand ideas for Bristol were ever (properly) costed before they announced what they intended to do?

[Great Western]

From what I've seen of the plans to transfer signalling control from, Bristol Panel (in part) to TVSC there is very very little new in terms of signals or points. Pretty much as now just additional mid way platform signals in place of the St Andrews Crosses, current issues surround how it's going to be manned at TVSC, single or double and if the latter arrangement how.

[caradoc]

Just to note that the Oxford - Worcester has NOT been redoubled. What has actually occurred is the addition of a long dynamic passing loop to facilitate a more frequent service. As with the Salisbury - Exeter line quite a lot remains single track still with no firm plans to add any more.

 

Swindon - Kemble by contrast saw the entire section restored to double track throughout.

 

Sorry phil-b259 but that is somewhat incorrect; Charlbury/Ascott (3.75 miles approx) and Moreton-in-Marsh/Evesham (15 miles approx) have been redoubled. A bit more than a dynamic passing loop !

[The Stationmaster]

Sorry phil-b259 but that is somewhat incorrect; Charlbury/Ascott (3.75 miles approx) and Moreton-in-Marsh/Evesham (15 miles approx) have been redoubled. A bit more than a dynamic passing loop !

 

Judging by all the various timetable/infrastructure studies I did on the western end of the Cotswold Line  Moreton to Evesham is really a dynamic loop in most respects.  If it were really going double the logical extension would go a good way west of Evesham as well (where there are potentially greater timetabling and perturbation recovery benefits) but that takes section would take things into a far higher cost bracket because of various complexities such as Norton Jcn.

 

With today's speeds you are probably looking at around 10 miles to get a decent dynamic loop capability.

Edited August 15, 2017 by The Stationmaster

[The Stationmaster]

From what I've seen of the plans to transfer signalling control from, Bristol Panel (in part) to TVSC there is very very little new in terms of signals or points. Pretty much as now just additional mid way platform signals in place of the St Andrews Crosses, current issues surround how it's going to be manned at TVSC, single or double and if the latter arrangement how.

But is it a transfer of control (as was done initially at Reading) or a complete transfer with new remote interlocking (as came later with Reading)?   Whichever it happens to be change of control is a long way short of the drastic layout alterations and total re-signalling with axle counters and a new interlocking (at TVSC) that would be required for electrification.

[phil-b259]

But is it a transfer of control (as was done initially at Reading) or a complete transfer with new remote interlocking (as came later with Reading)?   Whichever it happens to be change of control is a long way short of the drastic layout alterations and total re-signalling with axle counters and a new interlocking (at TVSC) that would be required for electrification.

 

One advantage of transferring control to a new computer based interlocking is the relative ease with which it can be updated (i.e. downloading fresh software to it rather than making lots of hard wired alterations to relays). Thus if NR was looking to go for a more sagged / phased approch with respect to the track layout at Bristol, then it could be attractive to re-control the Bristol area first with a WestLock / Smartloc interfaced solution, then carry out the rest of the work in smaller byte sized chunks. This also produces an easy win in getting rid of annoying interlocking faults due to high resistance contacts - but does of course rely on robust data links if you don't want a repeat performance of the debacle that prevented your attendance at Taunton this year.

 

(Not that any of what I wrote will be unknown to a man of your experience Mike )

[jim.snowdon]

One advantage of transferring control to a new computer based interlocking is the relative ease with which it can be updated (i.e. downloading fresh software to it rather than making lots of hard wired alterations to relays). Thus if NR was looking to go for a more sagged / phased approch with respect to the track layout at Bristol, then it could be attractive to re-control the Bristol area first with a WestLock / Smartloc interfaced solution, then carry out the rest of the work in smaller byte sized chunks. This also produces an easy win in getting rid of annoying interlocking faults due to high resistance contacts - but does of course rely on robust data links if you don't want a repeat performance of the debacle that prevented your attendance at Taunton this year.

 

(Not that any of what I wrote will be unknown to a man of your experience Mike )

It is, in theory, but putting all of the interlocking in one place can make even simple changes very expensive. Computer based interlocking has its value compared to relay interlockings, but it has always seemed more sensible to my mind to keep the interlocking in site-based chunks and use non-vital communications to drive all the remote interlockings from one operations centre. Part of the thinking is that operational control systems, including the signalling and train control, should be designed for failure, not optimistic reliability, as sooner or later failures will occur and the important task is keeping the railway going, not having everything stopped pending arrival of the S&T technician.

 

Jim

[Edwin_m]

It is, in theory, but putting all of the interlocking in one place can make even simple changes very expensive. Computer based interlocking has its value compared to relay interlockings, but it has always seemed more sensible to my mind to keep the interlocking in site-based chunks and use non-vital communications to drive all the remote interlockings from one operations centre. Part of the thinking is that operational control systems, including the signalling and train control, should be designed for failure, not optimistic reliability, as sooner or later failures will occur and the important task is keeping the railway going, not having everything stopped pending arrival of the S&T technician.

 

Jim

However remote relay based interlockings have more recently not been provided with local control panels so effectively the TDM link back to the control centre is another source of unreliability.  And at least with the interlockings in the control centre there is probably a technician on site, not having to drive out to a remote interlocking many miles away. 

[The Stationmaster]

However remote relay based interlockings have more recently not been provided with local control panels so effectively the TDM link back to the control centre is another source of unreliability.  And at least with the interlockings in the control centre there is probably a technician on site, not having to drive out to a remote interlocking many miles away. 

 

But then the point of remote failure can move away from the interlocking and you're no better off - as happened on the GWML in April when an electronic unit failed in a remote location cupboard disabling several miles of signalling ion the mainline between Didcot and Swindon and the spare part came with a man from Doncaster.

 

Distributed interlockings as mentioned by Jim have the potential advantage that if one fails the others don't or local failures at one could be used to create a through routes situation and keep trains moving.  WR RRIs had numerous remote interlockings supervised by TDM but the Region had very few emergency local control panels (I can only immediately think of one off hand) but interlockings could go into through routes with supervisory links down and they were still working as interlockings.  The idea of putting all the eggs in a York, Didcot or Cardiff basket comes with certain penalties when that basket hits problems and its entire control area is on stop.

[jim.snowdon]

It isn't all that long ago that an equipment cabinet at Hayes & Harlington failed and stopped the entire GWML for a substantial period. At that point (and everywhere east of Didcot) is four tracked and operates as two parallel railways, which makes it sensible to signal it that way, so that a single failure at least leaves the other two tracks operable. It's the principle of making systems failure tolerant, something that aircraft designers understand very well, whereas the railway approach seems more aligned to armour-plated design, ie making equipment so robust that, all being well, it will not fail. Parkinson's Law dictates that everything will fail sooner or later, usually when you least expect it. What seems to be disappearing from today's railway is the traditional principle of keeping traffic moving, with the result that when failures do occur, as they do, everything stops whilst someone from the diminishing band of maintenance technicians is despatched from far away to locate and fix the problem.

 

Jim

[Geoff Endacott]

I wonder how long the GWML electrification scheme would have taken if the Big Ben method had been adopted - close it down until the work has been completed.

 

Geoff Endacott

[jamie92208]

I wonder how long the GWML electrification scheme would have taken if the Big Ben method had been adopted - close it down until the work has been completed.

 

Geoff Endacott

Well Big Ben with a worksite only 200 long, albeit vertically, is taking 4 years....

 

Jamie

[37114]

Very visible progress near Wooton Basset can be seen from the M4, nearly all of the drop arms are now installed on that section, none were in place last week.

[APOLLO]

Found this whilst on another railway website. Published 31 July 2017, The Hansford Review, an independent review of contestability in the UK rail market, to consider third party investment in and infrastructure delivery on the national rail network.

 

https://thehansfordreview.co.uk/

 

PDF  https://16cbgt3sbwr8204sf92da3xxc5m-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-Hansford-Review.pdf

 

It's mostly a bit beyond me, but a paragraph on page 23 caught my eye

 

Throughout the consultation a common theme has been the lack of parity between Network Rail and third parties when it came to their ability to manage and absorb risk. With a large portfolio of assets Network Rail has the ability to oversee, manage and diversify risk across the network. Network Rail is backed by government and can absorb risk, which would potentially overwhelm a private organisation. Any attempt to push undue risk towards third parties is a significant barrier if they cannot manage, mitigate or absorb it.

 

Third parties have also reported a perception that they are faced with a higher risk apportionment for their projects than Network Rail applies to its own. There is pressure to accept emerging cost contracts leaving all design and delivery risk with the third party, even if this is due to an error or omission on the part of Network Rail. Consultees have also cited a lack of asset information, lack of clear acceptance criteria, and unpredictable access as significant risks which hinder their appetite to invest in or deliver rail infrastructure works.

 

During interviews with third party investors, one party cited £200 million as being the minimum size of project that warranted detailed negotiations on asset and delivery risk, due to the significant cost of employing lawyers and commercial dealmakers. Employing such skills would potentially be prohibitively expensive for smaller projects, and a barrier to negotiating a successful deal.

 

Seems to me that big rail projects are a gravy train (!!) for everyone and their dog to jump on.

 

Edited to add - Network rails response to the report

 

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-commercial-partners/third-party-investors/network-rail-open-business/

 

Brit15

Edited August 23, 2017 by APOLLO

[The Stationmaster]

Well Big Ben with a worksite only 200 long, albeit vertically, is taking 4 years....

 

Jamie

 

So abut the same length of time it has taken to fully complete all the electrification work between Scours Lane and Didcot; so NR are clearly quicker per foot run of site so should be taking on Big Ben   

 

And now the latest - quite why the entire railway has to be shut for what appears to be 48 hours to 'test the overhead wires' is somewhat beyond my understanding, especially as it includes closures of sections of railway with no overhead wires and on which dmu sets have in the past been outstabled.   One can but assume that NR might be expecting problems (I wonder if they've done that insulator at Reading?) and it's no wonder the scheme is costing so much when you see things like this happening.  ( I wonder what might happen if I present my pass to the driver of the X 80 'bus - that could be fun.  Mind you in the past one the driver of one replacement 'bus told me he'd seen 'lots of those' but I was the first that day)

 

https://www.gwr.com/travel-updates/planned-engineering/reading2017

[HillsideDepot]

Very visible progress near Wooton Basset can be seen from the M4, nearly all of the drop arms are now installed on that section, none were in place last week.

 

...and here they are (or at least the ones slightly further up the hill towards Callow Hill).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not an expert, but these don't look too far off from being wired. There are 4 plain masts in a row alongside the Up side a little way from the road bridge, and not really photographable as there is a works compound opposite them, but visible in the last photo above the horizontal part of the railings to the access point,which I assume need something fitting to them, but other than that they look ready.