GWML Electification

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, St. Simon said:

 

At risk of repeating myself, whilst it isn't the perfect solution, I'll grant you that, it is the best solution available that best meets the objectives of all those concerned.

 

Simon

Not wishing to shoot the messenger, but if the best solution is one where some electric trains can use the reversing facilities unrestricted, but other electric trains have to resort to diesel power to use the same facilities, it really is an odd definition of best, however many engineers were in the room. If the answer was that it's the best solution within the strictures of the standards, then the standards really ought to have been challenged.

 

Jim

[rodent279]

I guess the aim is to reduce the possibility of driver error leading to pan up on leaving Cardiff?

[St. Simon]

2 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

Can a power changeover balise be conditional on which route is set, or does it enforce diesel mode for every train passing over it regardless of where it is going?  

Hi.

 

No, the zero balise can't be conditional, that's the reason you go into Diesel into Brickyard, and there's no other place you put it at Cardiff other than where it has to force all trains in diesel.

 

The reason a zero balise can't be conditional is that it is as a last line of defence if the driver has failed to do the change over manual and therefore must work every time, therefore adding a condition based on the trains routing (taken from the trains database, the practical use of a 'switchable balise' is still a long way in the future) could lead to a situation where the balise doesn't act when it should.

 

Simon

 

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by St. Simon

[Titan]

I think I see where Simon is coming from. Basically the EMU's will always be signalled on to the electrified route (errors not withstanding, but then that is the same risk anywhere else where an EMU could be signalled on to a non-electrified route). However the bi-modes will regularly be continuing on diesel further west. If due to the constraints of technology and/or infrastructure the only way you can ensure that all trains heading west are on diesel, is to make sure all trains including those off to the sidings are on diesel, then that is what you have to do. This of course is not an issue for trains that are 100% electric.

 

So it is not that it is unsafe for the 800's to go to the sidings on the electric, it is that the system can only tell all or none to change over, and the least risk is for all bi-modes to continue on diesel.

 

Is that basically the gist of it? @st simon

[St. Simon]

14 minutes ago, Titan said:

I think I see where Simon is coming from. Basically the EMU's will always be signalled on to the electrified route (errors not withstanding, but then that is the same risk anywhere else where an EMU could be signalled on to a non-electrified route). However the bi-modes will regularly be continuing on diesel further west. If due to the constraints of technology and/or infrastructure the only way you can ensure that all trains heading west are on diesel, is to make sure all trains including those off to the sidings are on diesel, then that is what you have to do. This of course is not an issue for trains that are 100% electric.

 

So it is not that it is unsafe for the 800's to go to the sidings on the electric, it is that the system can only tell all or none to change over, and the least risk is for all bi-modes to continue on diesel.

 

Is that basically the gist of it? @st simon

 

 

 

Yep, that's basically it!

 

Simon

[The Stationmaster]

5 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

Not wishing to shoot the messenger, but if the best solution is one where some electric trains can use the reversing facilities unrestricted, but other electric trains have to resort to diesel power to use the same facilities, it really is an odd definition of best, however many engineers were in the room. If the answer was that it's the best solution within the strictures of the standards, then the standards really ought to have been challenged.

 

Jim

Having seen the logical explanations above of why it is being done like this I can see the point,  However it does seem to boil down to a very basic distrust of the ability of Drivers working on UK electrified lines and taht distrust is perhaps uppermost in the minds of some engineers (or someone who is telling the egineers what to do?).  

 

When we were carrying out SPAD risk assessment for St Pancras International we came across the somewhat unfortunate situation of a neutral section, on a rising gradient, not very far in rear of the first lineside signal at the exit end of the covered way over the GN mainline.  The group had some misgivings about Driver workload and accordingly called in a couple of CTRL electrification engineers for advice but that didn't get us very far because they immediately started talking about APC magnets so there wouldn't be a problem having a neutral section ther. Their faces were a picture of shock and puzzlement when it was explained to them that there would be no such thing as APC magnets involved so really they needed to work out what they were doing - and put their neutral section somewhere else (which they did).  

 

The general continental attitude seems to follow the line that it is the Driver's responsibility to deal with neutral sections and such things as system changeovers and that they can safely do it for themselves even on, for example, SNCF LGVs.  And having seen SNCF Drivers having to do the job not just on LGVs but in far more complex areas approaching major stations on classic routes or carrying out system changeovers on Eurostar it certainly doesn't seem to faze them in anyway or cause them any problems.

[Zomboid]

39 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Having seen the logical explanations above of why it is being done like this I can see the point,  However it does seem to boil down to a very basic distrust of the ability of Drivers working on UK electrified lines and taht distrust is perhaps uppermost in the minds of some engineers (or someone who is telling the egineers what to do?).  

I wouldn't say trust necessarily, that's rather emotive language.

 

The fact is that when you introduce a human with an instruction, you also introduce the possibility of that instruction not being carried out correctly. As that is an entirely foreseeable situation, you then have to ask about what would happen if said instruction is not carried out and then mitigate against any hazardous consequences.

 

It's perfectly possible to 'trust' drivers to get it right, and still accept that at some point someone will make a mistake. We wouldn't bother interlocking signals with each other if just instruction was sufficient, but that doesn't mean signallers are not 'trusted'.

[royaloak]

9 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

But analysed by whom - signal engineers, railway operators or electrification engineers?  Or all three?

 

No disrespect to any of them, but the railway these days is home to a lot of silo thinking.

 

Jim

Nothing surprises me anymore with this scheme.

[royaloak]

7 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

If the answer was that it's the best solution within the strictures of the standards, then the standards really ought to have been challenged.

 

Jim

They managed to rewrite the 'standards' when they realised LED signals were non compliant because they go black when they are flashing unlike a normal filament signal which merely dims so is always displaying an aspect.

[royaloak]

4 hours ago, Titan said:

I think I see where Simon is coming from. Basically the EMU's will always be signalled on to the electrified route (errors not withstanding, but then that is the same risk anywhere else where an EMU could be signalled on to a non-electrified route). However the bi-modes will regularly be continuing on diesel further west. If due to the constraints of technology and/or infrastructure the only way you can ensure that all trains heading west are on diesel, is to make sure all trains including those off to the sidings are on diesel, then that is what you have to do. This of course is not an issue for trains that are 100% electric.

 

So it is not that it is unsafe for the 800's to go to the sidings on the electric, it is that the system can only tell all or none to change over, and the least risk is for all bi-modes to continue on diesel.

 

Is that basically the gist of it? @st simon

Which translates to-

 

We dont trust the FESWs* to drop the pantograph(s) when proceeding towards Swansea if they very occasionally get to leave them up while shunting at Cardiff.

 

* Front End Seat Warmers, a wonderful term from a driver hating Old Oak Common fitter, sadly no no longer with us, RIP Neil.

Edited November 5, 2019 by royaloak

[royaloak]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Having seen the logical explanations above of why it is being done like this I can see the point,  However it does seem to boil down to a very basic distrust of the ability of Drivers working on UK electrified lines and that distrust is perhaps uppermost in the minds of some engineers (or someone who is telling the engineers what to do?).  

They would love to get rid of us so their wonderful computers can do our job, obviously taking into account all the various problems we encounter this time of year, I mean if it works on the Underground and DLR why not on the 'big' railway!

 

One might question why the electrification wasnt extended a mile or two towards Swansea so the trains could depart Cardiff on electric before panning down saving lots of exhaust emissions in the Cardiff area, they could also fit some fancy bits to the track to automatically do the power change over rather than rely on a driver to pre-heat the engines in good time, start the engines and then switch to electric which is what we have to do at present. If we dont pre-heat the (cold) engines they will start but wont power so the train is effectively (traction) powerless but making a lot of noise about it.

Edited November 5, 2019 by royaloak

[royaloak]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

I wouldn't say trust necessarily, that's rather emotive language.

I would, but they are quite happy to put neutral sections where we will strand the rear pan in when we get stopped at certain signals (Wootton Bassett jn coming up from Chippenham), but thats okay the driver will remember to switch to diesel before pulling away from the red and then raise the pans when the rear of the train is clear of the junction, the simple solution of placing the neutral section 100 yards further back towards Chippenham was obviously far too difficult.

 

There are lots of things which unnecessarily add to our workload (2 workstations sharing signal ID plates for one) but thats obviously fine, but  expecting a driver to remembering to lower the pans before departing Cardiff en route to Swansea because you shunted at Cardiff 3 weeks ago on electric is obviously a step too far.

 

Of course nobody has answered the question about drivers who normally shunt with 387s but then having to remember to fart about with diesel operation on the odd occasion they get an 800 to shunt.

[Siberian Snooper]

Starting and running ic engines for short periods is not good for the engine or the environment  especially when not at full operating temperatures.

 

 

[royaloak]

2 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Starting and running ic engines for short periods is not good for the engine or the environment  especially when not at full operating temperatures.

 

 

They have to be above 40 degrees otherwise they wont power so they have electric pre-heaters, there are also financial penalties  for GWR if we start cold engines, of course sorting the pre-heaters so they actually worked would be useful, I have lost count of the number of units with one (or more) pre-heaters not working.

 

If I am on the depot and a pre-heater isnt working I wont take the unit off depot until Hitachi fitters have attended and invariably started the cold engine and I have informed the depot foreman of the situation, so I dont get the blame and GWR the financial penalty, and yes I have had occasion where the Hitachi fitter has denied all knowledge of starting the cold engine despite all the above.

[Siberian Snooper]

That may be warm enough to start the engine(s), but they still won't work efficiently until the coolant and oil are upto their operating temperatures. I don't use my car for journeys of less than 20 minutes or so until I have got it upto running temperature, although there are the odd exceptions of necessity.

 

 

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

I'm only going to say these things once:

 

1) Drivers are trusted, we just can't guarantee that 100% of drivers will do 100% of our instructions 100% of the time, they are human after all, but we have to ensure that the pantograph is lowered at the correct point every single time without fail, which is why the balise is there.

2) The assessments that actually allow power change-over are based on the high reliability of the train driver.

3) My boss and I changed the original power change-over concept for Western to be far more driver based than it was, as we thought they were more reliable.

4) GWR believe the driver should be relied upon to conduct the power change-over, which is what we have designed.

5) All the designs have been through signal sighting committees and drive ability assessments with driver representatives who don't beat around the bush when telling us what the drivers think.

6) The designs are run past the drivers union within GWR for comment, and then we change it accordingly.

 

So, can we leave off the "nobody talks to the drivers as we can't be trusted" comments?

 

However, whether you like it or not, there have been 6 incidents involve power change-over / OLE run off where the driver was at fault since the electrification extended from Stockley.

 

 Simon

Edited November 5, 2019 by St. Simon

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, royaloak said:

They would love to get rid of us so their wonderful computers can do our job, obviously taking into account all the various problems we encounter this time of year, I mean if it works on the Underground and DLR why not on the 'big' railway!

 

One might question why the electrification wasnt extended a mile or two towards Swansea so the trains could depart Cardiff on electric before panning down saving lots of exhaust emissions in the Cardiff area, they could also fit some fancy bits to the track to automatically do the power change over rather than rely on a driver to pre-heat the engines in good time, start the engines and then switch to electric which is what we have to do at present. If we dont pre-heat the (cold) engines they will start but wont power so the train is effectively (traction) powerless but making a lot of noise about it.

It would strike me as eminently logical to extend the wires almost as far as Leckwith - certainly on any down or bi-directional line particularly as they already going into the brickyard siding.  If nothing eldse it would provide sensible plain line run-off.

16 hours ago, royaloak said:

I would, but they are quite happy to put neutral sections where we will strand the rear pan in when we get stopped at certain signals (Wootton Bassett jn coming up from Chippenham), but thats okay the driver will remember to switch to diesel before pulling away from the red and then raise the pans when the rear of the train is clear of the junction, the simple solution of placing the neutral section 100 yards further back towards Chippenham was obviously far too difficult.

 

 

Having been involved (albeit a good while back) with SPAD risk assessment on signals close to neutral sections that does sound a bit odd to me and it should surely in any have been taken into account in the electrification design which would have known f the position of signals (or should have).  Very strange and I can wholly understand the frustration it would cause.

 

Incidentally while I quote that Simon has quoted some figures in respect of Driver errors it would be interesting to know what sort of numbers the risk assessments came out with which led to the decision to provide 'assisted' operation at the end of overhead sections etc.  I am aware of some of the figures that w came out of Eurostar risk assessments for such things as Driver controlled changeover from overhead to 3rd rail so a comparison with those would be interesting to me (if to nobody else).  There will of course be considerable past information regarding dewirements due to Driver error/inaction on BR/Railtrack/MR infrastructure and I believe such information was used in the Eurostar risk assessments.   I can also understand that the risk potential changes when run-offs are not provided but that would obviously(?) have been taken into account when the ohle was designed (although I know of one case where originally intended run-off was never taken beyond initial site work so presumably any such changes would also have been thoroughly risk assessed as part of the project).

 

u 

[royaloak]

On 05/11/2019 at 08:18, Siberian Snooper said:

How much further west would the knitting need to extend west before it could be used by all electrics in Newbury station?

 

The electrification stops just past the West end of the platform, the wires going over the points and under the bridge are not actually energised because of lack of clearance so the bridge would have to be rebuilt before doing anything else.

Edited November 6, 2019 by royaloak

[SouthernMafia]

Route brief received saying 387s are now cleared for 110mph running between Paddington and Stockley Bridge Jnc from today.

 

Presumably with the introduction of 387s on Heathrow Express this will create a small amount of extra capacity for the timetable change.

[jim.snowdon]

5 hours ago, SouthernMafia said:

Route brief received saying 387s are now cleared for 110mph running between Paddington and Stockley Bridge Jnc from today.

 

Presumably with the introduction of 387s on Heathrow Express this will create a small amount of extra capacity for the timetable change.

All of 39 seconds, optimistically ignoring the fact that it is a fair distance out of Paddington before the line speed gets to more than 100mph, and that trains do not change speed instantaneously. The actual time saving between a 332 limited to 100mph and a 387 limited to 110mph will be rather less.

 

Jim 

[St. Simon]

Hi

 

Thanks to the electrification, we have another ‘prototype for everything’ photo:

http://www.railway-centre.com/november2.html#PhotoSwipe1574029828084

 

(17th November Image)

 

The run is to test the wires at Steventon Bridges, to confirm the mathematical modelling surrounding the new 110mph PSR with a Class 80x pantograph. The class 90 is fitted with a Class 80x pantograph, instead of using a full 80x as they are all needed in service (and are quite expensive to hire for testing).

 

Simon

Edited November 17, 2019 by St. Simon

[Christopher125]

90035 is being used to test the new wires to Cardiff, Gary Keenor explains all in this twitter thread: https://twitter.com/25kV/status/1195098952833601538

 

Quote

This is an OLE test train that's been put together by the @networkrailwest electrification project team. The train is intended to undertake mechanical and electrical testing of the OLE between Bristol and Cardiff in advance of entry into service

The mechanical testing is performed using the pantograph on top of the class 90. It is unusual in two ways: 1) it carries force & acceleration sensors so that it can measure contact force, and 2) it is the only cl 90 carrying an HS-X pan, the type used by @GWRHelp at 125mph

The train can also function as an electrical load bank, by simply using the class 90 to drive the train and draw power from the OLE. Staff in the lineside substations can then measure the electrical behaviour of the system as the train passes through.

 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Christopher125

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

Just to make people aware, Sunday should see electric train operation extended from Bristol Parkway to Newport (with the section through the Severn Tunnel remaining in Diesel) as part of the Timetable change.

 

Regards,

 

Simon

Edited December 11, 2019 by St. Simon

[SouthernMafia]

Timetable change, big day today,was all going well until an axle counter failure at Slough about 06:30, UM shut from Twyford. All the lovely new GWR semi fasts to Padd are not stopping at Twyford and Maidenhead, and Crossrail reduced to half-hourly, lucky punters!

Why does it always happen on an important day!? Media at Reading so no doubt we'll have a report about how badly it's gone for GWR, even thought it's not their timetable that's the problem and it's NR at fault. Sigh.

[jim.snowdon]

It's Parkinson's Law. And what happens when systems (the railway, not just the signalling equipment) do not have sufficient resilience designed into them. One small failure has a disproportionate effect.

 

Jim