GWML Electification

[corneliuslundie]

But if the locals don't want a higher bridge because of the steeper approach ramps, that rules out the jacking up they have suggested, regardless of its feasibility.

Jonathan

[Zomboid]

It seems to an outsider like the locals will happily take contradictory positions to get their way.

 

It could have been done long ago and the disruption forgotten by now...

[Mike Storey]

11 hours ago, 96701 said:

Has every body forgotten the utilities that use the bridge to cross the railway?

1. Obtain agreement for each utility to divert their services across a temporary bridge.
2. Buy/ lease land to build temporary camp.
3. Build temporary bridge for services.
4. Get each service to divert their services across the temporary bridge.
5. Demolish old bridge.
6. Build new bridge.
7. Arrange for services to be diverted over the new bridge (which will be much higher to avoid OLE gradients).
8. Put new road surface on and match to existing surrounding roads (that are now much lower).
9. Remove temporary bridge.
10. Demobilise camp and restore.

Not exactly a five minute job.

 

All very true, but utilities diversions will be a problem in any event, even with the demolish/re-build option favoured. It may well be that a temporary utilities "bridge" is needed, if it is not possible to create alternative supplies/routes in other directions.

 

When we started the works for the GOBlin electrification, we were going to have to demolish/rebuild a few bridges, but could jack in one or two cases (these were not brick arch types), and utilities diversion took up a major part of the planning. I left the industry before any of the major jobs commenced, but I recall utilities bridges were going to be necessary in at least two cases, but in others, utility feeds could be supplied on a temporary basis by other means.

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 10/02/2019 at 14:59, Adam said:

 

 

There are a number of listed structures where, reading the description, it's obvious that the inspector never actually got out of the car, or couldn't get in to look properly. In the trade these are known as 'windscreen listings' (most of west Kent so far as I can tell, for example...).

 

 

 

 

 

Very true. Indeed one wonders what, if any, training the inspectors get. There is a house in Shaftesbury which has a listing that is wrong in just about every aspect.

[jim.snowdon]

28 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

It seems to an outsider like the locals will happily take contradictory positions to get their way.

 

It could have been done long ago and the disruption forgotten by now...

How many of the locals would get rid of the railway, given a chance?

 

Jim 

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

It seems to an outsider like the locals will happily take contradictory positions to get their way.

 

It could have been done long ago and the disruption forgotten by now...

The whole electrification works would have been done and dusted for about 20 years by now, if it had been a follow on from ECML and/or MML electrification.

[Arun Sharma]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Very true. Indeed one wonders what, if any, training the inspectors get. There is a house in Shaftesbury which has a listing that is wrong in just about every aspect.

Reviewing the old "Hovis" advert, it seems that many of the houses on Shaftesbury's High Street list to one side or the other anyway

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist that - I felt a touch of the Endicotts coming on

Edited February 12, 2019 by Arun Sharma
addnl info

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, 96701 said:

Has every body forgotten the utilities that use the bridge to cross the railway?

1. Obtain agreement for each utility to divert their services across a temporary bridge.
2. Buy/ lease land to build temporary camp.
3. Build temporary bridge for services.
4. Get each service to divert their services across the temporary bridge.
5. Demolish old bridge.
6. Build new bridge.
7. Arrange for services to be diverted over the new bridge (which will be much higher to avoid OLE gradients).
8. Put new road surface on and match to existing surrounding roads (that are now much lower).
9. Remove temporary bridge.
10. Demobilise camp and restore.

Not exactly a five minute job.

Agreed but exactly that sort of thing has been done in respect of other bridges which have been rebuilt for not only GWML electrification but for other overbridge rebuildings and modernisations stretching back over many years.  And of course numerous 'construction camps' (mainly in the form of plant /material/office etc space) have sprung up as part of the GWML electrification in recent years and have then - in most cases - reverted back to what they were before work started, largely it would seem a consequence of both the loss of railway sites such as former goods yards and the ever increasing reliance on the use of road-rail vehicles as the scheme as progressed.

[D1059]

AFAIK (from a very well placed source), the last I heard was that the next window NR had for demolition of the existing bridge was one of the B/H weekends in May (can't remember which). Whether the planning situation means it's now too late to use that window I don't know, but suspect it is

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

14 minutes ago, D1059 said:

AFAIK (from a very well placed source), the last I heard was that the next window NR had for demolition of the existing bridge was one of the B/H weekends in May (can't remember which). Whether the planning situation means it's now too late to use that window I don't know, but suspect it is

 

 

Definitely too late from a public timetable publication deadline point of view (although NR does have a record of treating such deadlines in a rather cavalier fashion anyway) and probably too late in any case from a timetable process deadline.

[talisman56]

SWMBO and myself made use of our Senior Railcards again today, a trip from Yatton to Reading. After the 166 from Yatton to Bristol Temple Meads, boarded the 09:30 to Paddington that was way down platform 12. We got into the coach labelled 'B' on the outside display panels of 802007 to find our reserved seats denoted by paper tickets rather than the illuminated traffic lights and displays, and our 'Face direction of travel' seats were in fact, not. As we pulled out of TM, I noticed that our coach was now 'H' on the internal display above the end door, and of all the reserved seats, about 75% were unoccupied. A quick scan of the nearby ones revealed they were booked from TM, so where were all these people who had reserved those seats?

 

Diesel power stayed on until the stop at Swindon, whereupon peace reigned as the coat-hangers were raised and the infernal combustion engines switched off. They rumbled back into life about 6 miles before Didcot Parkway, presumably to negotiate a well-known bridge, and stayed on until the stop at Didcot. Approaching Reading, peered out the left side of the train to see what was about at Reading Traincare &c, noticed quite a few 387s berthed after their rush-hour duties, and they all had their pans up - is this normal practice?

 

On the way back, waited at the point on Reading platform 9 where one would reasonably expect coach B to stop and when the 15:58 arrived it was at the other end of the train - so instead of being in 802020 we had to walk down almost the whole length of the train to 800017. Again our 'facing' seats weren't and to add insult to injury, we were turfed out of our reserved seats to get into 802020 in order to be on the platform at Yatton, rather than being off the up end under the road bridge. Needless to say, with evening rush in full swing, by the time we boarded again, the train was full and standing. Missive to GWR sent, will be interesting to see what they say...

Edited February 12, 2019 by talisman56

[talisman56]

On 10/02/2019 at 17:41, phil-b259 said:

 

 - unless the bridge becomes structurally unsafe and is in immediate danger of collapsing onto the tracks.

 

 

Could that be 'arranged'?

[Mike Storey]

1 hour ago, talisman56 said:

SWMBO and myself made use of our Senior Railcards again today, a trip from Yatton to Reading. After the 166 from Yatton to Bristol Temple Meads, boarded the 09:30 to Paddington that was way down platform 12. We got into the coach labelled 'B' on the outside display panels of 802007 to find our reserved seats denoted by paper tickets rather than the illuminated traffic lights and displays, and our 'Face direction of travel' seats were in fact, not. As we pulled out of TM, I noticed that our coach was now 'H' on the internal display above the end door, and of all the reserved seats, about 75% were unoccupied. A quick scan of the nearby ones revealed they were booked from TM, so where were all these people who had reserved those seats?

 

Diesel power stayed on until the stop at Swindon, whereupon peace reigned as the coat-hangers were raised and the infernal combustion engines switched off. They rumbled back into life about 6 miles before Didcot Parkway, presumably to negotiate a well-known bridge, and stayed on until the stop at Didcot. Approaching Reading, peered out the left side of the train to see what was about at Reading Traincare &c, noticed quite a few 387s berthed after their rush-hour duties, and they all had their pans up - is this normal practice?

 

On the way back, waited at the point on Reading platform 9 where one would reasonably expect coach B to stop and when the 15:58 arrived it was at the other end of the train - so instead of being in 802020 we had to walk down almost the whole length of the train to 800017. Again our 'facing' seats weren't and to add insult to injury, we were turfed out of our reserved seats to get into 802020 in order to be on the platform at Yatton, rather than being off the up end under the road bridge. Needless to say, with evening rush in full swing, by the time we boarded again, the train was full and standing. Missive to GWR sent, will be interesting to see what they say...

 

I don;t doubt at all the frustrations and dissatisfaction of your journey, and do not seek to undermine your post.

 

But in the spirit of historical comparison (perhaps even contemporary), your tale reminds me of many similar complaints we had when the Mark IV's entered service on the ECML, and which continued for many years. These I could understand to some extent, due to set swaps, especially with HST's, and occasionally between the two types of Mark IV formations, and certainly when one coach had been taken out. But I do not understand how it occurs on fixed formation sets such as the 700's, unless yet again these have been subject to swaps with HST's or some such?

 

[St. Simon]

8 hours ago, D1059 said:

AFAIK (from a very well placed source), the last I heard was that the next window NR had for demolition of the existing bridge was one of the B/H weekends in May (can't remember which). Whether the planning situation means it's now too late to use that window I don't know, but suspect it is

 

 

 

The best we can hope for is May next year I think, although I suppose it is possible that it could happen during the Christmas period this year. We are still waiting to hear...

 

Meanwhile work on the extension of electricky from Bristol to Cardiff (and Wootton Bassett to Chippenham, nearly) is ongoing in our office, meaning lots of APCO design is ongoing.

 

Simon

Edited February 12, 2019 by St. Simon

[JJGraphics]

12 hours ago, talisman56 said:

SWMBO and myself made use of our Senior Railcards again today, a trip from Yatton to Reading. After the 166 from Yatton to Bristol Temple Meads, boarded the 09:30 to Paddington that was way down platform 12. We got into the coach labelled 'B' on the outside display panels of 802007 to find our reserved seats denoted by paper tickets rather than the illuminated traffic lights and displays, and our 'Face direction of travel' seats were in fact, not. As we pulled out of TM, I noticed that our coach was now 'H' on the internal display above the end door, and of all the reserved seats, about 75% were unoccupied. A quick scan of the nearby ones revealed they were booked from TM, so where were all these people who had reserved those seats?

 

Diesel power stayed on until the stop at Swindon, whereupon peace reigned as the coat-hangers were raised and the infernal combustion engines switched off. They rumbled back into life about 6 miles before Didcot Parkway, presumably to negotiate a well-known bridge, and stayed on until the stop at Didcot. Approaching Reading, peered out the left side of the train to see what was about at Reading Traincare &c, noticed quite a few 387s berthed after their rush-hour duties, and they all had their pans up - is this normal practice?

 

On the way back, waited at the point on Reading platform 9 where one would reasonably expect coach B to stop and when the 15:58 arrived it was at the other end of the train - so instead of being in 802020 we had to walk down almost the whole length of the train to 800017. Again our 'facing' seats weren't and to add insult to injury, we were turfed out of our reserved seats to get into 802020 in order to be on the platform at Yatton, rather than being off the up end under the road bridge. Needless to say, with evening rush in full swing, by the time we boarded again, the train was full and standing. Missive to GWR sent, will be interesting to see what they say...

 

The inability to run a railway let alone a whelk stall continues.

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I don;t doubt at all the frustrations and dissatisfaction of your journey, and do not seek to undermine your post.

 

But in the spirit of historical comparison (perhaps even contemporary), your tale reminds me of many similar complaints we had when the Mark IV's entered service on the ECML, and which continued for many years. These I could understand to some extent, due to set swaps, especially with HST's, and occasionally between the two types of Mark IV formations, and certainly when one coach had been taken out. But I do not understand how it occurs on fixed formation sets such as the 700's, unless yet again these have been subject to swaps with HST's or some such?

 

Really one for the Class 800 thread where it has been frequently discussed.  A problem with a 2x5 train can occur if the train is running in reverse formation or, as looks to have been the case on their return journey where the London end set was the wrong way round.

[talisman56]

15 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I don;t doubt at all the frustrations and dissatisfaction of your journey, and do not seek to undermine your post.

 

But in the spirit of historical comparison (perhaps even contemporary), your tale reminds me of many similar complaints we had when the Mark IV's entered service on the ECML, and which continued for many years. These I could understand to some extent, due to set swaps, especially with HST's, and occasionally between the two types of Mark IV formations, and certainly when one coach had been taken out. But I do not understand how it occurs on fixed formation sets such as the 700's, unless yet again these have been subject to swaps with HST's or some such?

 

 

Being long in the tooth now, I remember my dad and uncle, both seasoned commuters on the Brighton line, complaining about the new fangled stock introduced in the mid-60s. Commuters of that time really liked the comfort and seclusion of the compartments in a 6PUL...

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, talisman56 said:

 

Being long in the tooth now, I remember my dad and uncle, both seasoned commuters on the Brighton line, complaining about the new fangled stock introduced in the mid-60s. Commuters of that time really liked the comfort and seclusion of the compartments in a 6PUL...

Commuters are never happy!

[Coryton]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Commuters are never happy!

 

I don't know.

 

I'm happy with my commute.

 

And it's normally a Pacer.

 

Make of what what you will...

[jamie92208]

I'm happy with my commute, walk across to the shed to start modelling…...

 

Jamie

[Peter Kazmierczak]

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

I'm happy with my commute, walk across to the shed to start modelling…...

 

Jamie

 

Is your route electrified yet Jamie?

[Banger Blue]

22 hours ago, talisman56 said:

Approaching Reading, peered out the left side of the train to see what was about at Reading Traincare &c, noticed quite a few 387s berthed after their rush-hour duties, and they all had their pans up - is this normal practice?

 

‘Yes, normal practice to leave the Pans up when stabled.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Banger Blue said:

 

‘Yes, normal practice to leave the Pans up when stabled.

 

Which is all quite logical - although the parking brake may stop the train from running away, things like saloon air conditioning, on board computers and the compressor supplying the air brakes need an external power source to work. If no supply is avalible it takes extra time for a driver to prepare the train for service - and even longer to bring the passenger accomadstion up to temperature / cool it down.

 

When the power is turned off for engineering work then the TOC will make special arrangements to allow for these factors - but where possible the units are kept powered up between runs.

[uax6]

And even more so when you realise that most electric units after a very short period of time end up with batteries of less than optimal performance, which can mean getting the pan back up is a trifle difficult!

 

Andy G

[Arun Sharma]

I had cause to drive over the Steventon bridge this morning from the Harwell direction [as opposed to my normal direction from Drayton]. What is more obvious coming from today's direction is that there is a marked hump in the bridge as it passes over the railway. The bridge, as you may know, slopes steeply downwards from the Harwell end towards the Drayton end but has presumably been raised in the middle at some point.

My engineering knowledge relates to sticking metal bits in people rather than masonry but it seems that a direct [and therefore sloping] line between the two ends of the bridge's roadway would therefore not give sufficient clearance for the railway underneath which is presumably why there there is a hump there.

I would be guessing but perhaps that means that any replacement bridge would have to have quite a steep arch with steep take offs from the present road unless a new roadway was built with the take offs set further back.

It seems to me that replacing this bridge poses intriguing engineering puzzles as well as local government/heritage ones.

Edited February 23, 2019 by Arun Sharma
punctutation