GWML Electification

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

It still seems backwards and bizarre, when as mentioned further back, we can destroy whole swathes of urban London for a runway, but we can't rebuild a bridge serving a small village in the sticks.

 

It is - but thats the UK planning system for you!

 

HS2 is being done under a streamlined procedure for 'Nationally important infrastructure projects'* and can by-pass most of the hurdles local authorities can put in its way.

 

Other projects being done under this procedure include Heathrow's 3rd runway, Nuclear power plants, and a proposed Oxford - Cambridge 'expressway' (motorway)

 

The rebuilding of a solitary bridge at Steventon on the other hand is a 'local planning matter' and thus allows NIMBY locals to obstruct progress for no real reason (other than to spare them a little bit of short term disruption that they will forge about within a decade)

[Joseph_Pestell]

18 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

 

I'm no expert on this but I think the problem is the gradient of the catenary between lowest possible under the bridge and highest over the level crossing.  That imposes a lot of forces on a pantograph moving at 125 and both that and the OHLE equipment wear at a high rate.   It may well be that the rapid change of height is outside the designed operating parameters for the pantograph.

 

Jamie

 

 

I was just thinking about the stresses on the wire. I had not given any consideration to what the pantograph would be capable of adapting to.

[Joseph_Pestell]

14 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

If the pantographs can be got under the bridge, as they can, the better solution is to remove the level crossings simply because that removes a whole series of other safety risks associated with them, and fulfills another element of Network Rail policy. Technically, it is doable, but would require some land purchase to create the necessary new road along the south side of the railway. The residents probably wouldn't like it either, as it would make getting between the north and south sides of the village something of a detour.

 

At the moment though, there is always the option of coasting through with the pantograph(s) down, assuming that there are no awkwardly placed wire overlaps or sectioning insulators. Sometimes solutions needs a bit of lateral / interdisciplinary thinking.

 

Jim

 

Totally agree. If the bridge is OK, just close the crossings (replacing with a footbridge).

 

Apart from school runs and chiurchgoers, I can't see that anyone is going to be inconvenienced - quite the reverse, especially for the dozen or so businesses that have premises south of the railway.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the "track" and all the land between it and the railway used to be in railway ownership. Not sure if that is still the case but even if some land purchase is required putting a roadway through there is going to be a lot cheaper and less disruptive than rebuilding the bridge.

[Coryton]

4 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

In the long term I thought that the plan was to take most of the extra diesel engines off the 800's as more routes are wired.  That would make the diesel option more tricky especially trying to make sure that all trains that stopped at Didcot were still diesel fitted.   Longer

this situation has to be sorted.

 

Jamie

 

Well yes, but I think that long term is looking pretty long term now.

 

The wires were originally going to go as far as Swansea, for example and I don't think there much likelihood of that for a long time now.

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

In the long term I thought that the plan was to take most of the extra diesel engines off the 800's as more routes are wired.  That would make the diesel option more tricky especially trying to make sure that all trains that stopped at Didcot were still diesel fitted.   Longer

this situation has to be sorted.

 

Jamie

What we don't know yet is the longer term effects and costs of the extra use of diesel engines on Class 80X trains and where those costs will fall?  There undoubtedly will be a cost compared with the original mainly electric running for some routes and I have suggested to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee that it might be a  potentially revealing question for them to ask at some time. (Yes. I had an acknowledgement thanking for my interest and advising me it will be put to the Committee Chairman, along with other questions about the financial implications of  the changes to GWML electrification which have never been addressed, or certainly have never made the public arena.)

 

Running on diesel at Steventon is in my view no way a long term solution and of course starting away from Didcot on diesel, as I have experienced, clearly reduces acceleration.  I presume coasting with the pantograph(s) down while running on electric might be possible provided the trains are programmed to allow that.

[jim.snowdon]

33 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Totally agree. If the bridge is OK, just close the crossings (replacing with a footbridge).

 

Apart from school runs and chiurchgoers, I can't see that anyone is going to be inconvenienced - quite the reverse, especially for the dozen or so businesses that have premises south of the railway.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the "track" and all the land between it and the railway used to be in railway ownership. Not sure if that is still the case but even if some land purchase is required putting a roadway through there is going to be a lot cheaper and less disruptive than rebuilding the bridge.

I would find it difficult to see that anyone is going to be significantly inconvenienced, but by the same logic (?) that they could get an insignificant bridge listed, I don't doubt that the residents of Steventon, even those north of the railway, will find a way to be "inconvenienced". Their interest lies elsewhere than the railway, and perhaps it is time, as the Scottish Parliament did in respect of some complainers against the Edinburgh tramway, for Parliament to decide that the benefit to the country as a whole outweighs the opposition of the few in Steventon.

 

Jim

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

What we don't know yet is the longer term effects and costs of the extra use of diesel engines on Class 80X trains and where those costs will fall?  There undoubtedly will be a cost compared with the original mainly electric running for some routes and I have suggested to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee that it might be a  potentially revealing question for them to ask at some time. (Yes. I had an acknowledgement thanking for my interest and advising me it will be put to the Committee Chairman, along with other questions about the financial implications of  the changes to GWML electrification which have never been addressed, or certainly have never made the public arena.)

 

Running on diesel at Steventon is in my view no way a long term solution and of course starting away from Didcot on diesel, as I have experienced, clearly reduces acceleration.  I presume coasting with the pantograph(s) down while running on electric might be possible provided the trains are programmed to allow that.

 

Assuming closure of the crossings (which really should have happened long ago), would there be sufficient clearance under the bridge for catenary wire if it was an unpowered section? That way pantographs would not need to be lowered.

[jamie92208]

1 minute ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Assuming closure of the crossings (which really should have happened long ago), would there be sufficient clearance under the bridge for catenary wire if it was an unpowered section? That way pantographs would not need to be lowered.

As I understand it, sufficient clearance has been found under the bridge but there is a standard height for wires above level crossings and it the gradient between the two that is the real problem.   If the crossings weren't there the gradient could be within the relevant standards.  There is a formula that's been mentioned in Roger Ford's articles as to the relationship between speed and wire gradient but my ageing grey matter has forgotten it.

 

Jamie

[Joseph_Pestell]

8 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

As I understand it, sufficient clearance has been found under the bridge but there is a standard height for wires above level crossings and it the gradient between the two that is the real problem.   If the crossings weren't there the gradient could be within the relevant standards.  There is a formula that's been mentioned in Roger Ford's articles as to the relationship between speed and wire gradient but my ageing grey matter has forgotten it.

 

Jamie

 

So closing the crossings (replaced by a footbridge) is the sensible option, with road traffic diverted over an improved Station Lane.

Edited February 9, 2019 by Joseph_Pestell
Clarity

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Assuming closure of the crossings (which really should have happened long ago), would there be sufficient clearance under the bridge for catenary wire if it was an unpowered section? That way pantographs would not need to be lowered.

 

I doubt -it - the problem which has been explained many times already is the gradient of the caternary wire and the wear/ damage this will produce to the pantograph head + wire interfaces at speeds grater than 60mph.

 

It is completely irrelevant whether power is being drawn - we are talking about mechanical wear which is the issue here.

 

A inch or two of movement of the wire under the bridge is unlikely to reduce the gradient by much and I severely doubt you would get much of an improvement from the 60mph restriction currently in place.

 

Its quite simple - either the bridge gets rebuilt or the crossings get shut - the latter no doubt producing just as much rage from the residents as the former*

 

 

* Note that even before the Ufton Nevet level crossing crash, the railway authorities wanted to shut the crossing to vehicle traffic on the basis that there was a bridge only a mile away which would not involve more than a couple of minutes being added to road users journey time. However this was apparently such an assault on the local residents rights that they resisted and the railway eventually had to concede defeat and build a bridge for them. The Stevenson lots (like the 'Goring gap' brigade) seem to be of the same ilk.....

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I doubt -it - the problem which has been explained many times already is the gradient of the caternary wire and the wear/ damage this will produce to the pantograph head + wire interfaces at speeds grater than 60mph.

 

It is completely irrelevant whether power is being drawn - we are talking about mechanical wear which is the issue here.

 

A inch or two of movement of the wire under the bridge is unlikely to reduce the gradient by much and I severely doubt you would get much of an improvement from the 60mph restriction currently in place.

 

Its quite simple - either the bridge gets rebuilt or the crossings get shut - the latter no doubt producing just as much rage from the residents as the former*

 

 

* Note that even before the Ufton Nevet level crossing crash, the railway authorities wanted to shut the crossing to vehicle traffic on the basis that there was a bridge only a mile away which would not involve more than a couple of minutes being added to road users journey time. However this was apparently such an assault on the local residents rights that they resisted and the railway eventually had to concede defeat and build a bridge for them. The Stevenson lots (like the 'Goring gap' brigade) seem to be of the same ilk.....

 

Maybe answers have crossed. My point is that the crossings should be closed. Once that happens the catenary gradient problem disappears.

 

I don't know if you are or have been a regular user of those crossings. I have been and it was nothing uncommon to be stuck there for ten minutes. So for the residents and businesses of South Steventon, an improved Station Lane is surely a better option.

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Maybe answers have crossed. My point is that the crossings should be closed. Once that happens the catenary gradient problem disappears.

 

I don't know if you are or have been a regular user of those crossings. I have been and it was nothing uncommon to be stuck there for ten minutes. So for the residents and businesses of South Steventon, an improved Station Lane is surely a better option.

 

 I'm not a local (and have never driven through Stevenson) but I quite agree - close the crossings is the answer (given the general inability for the UK public to use them correctly these days if nothing else).

 

However even with the 10 minute downtimes currently experienced I doubt the locals will see it that way and will cause just as bigger problems as they have over the bridge.

Edited February 9, 2019 by phil-b259

[The Stationmaster]

5 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Assuming closure of the crossings (which really should have happened long ago), would there be sufficient clearance under the bridge for catenary wire if it was an unpowered section? That way pantographs would not need to be lowered.

I'm not sure about that but there are various other old, if not original, flat arch overbridges dating from broad gauge days on the GWML where the wires have been taken under them with no problems at all and in at least one case without any track lowering.

 

1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

I would find it difficult to see that anyone is going to be significantly inconvenienced, but by the same logic (?) that they could get an insignificant bridge listed, I don't doubt that the residents of Steventon, even those north of the railway, will find a way to be "inconvenienced". Their interest lies elsewhere than the railway, and perhaps it is time, as the Scottish Parliament did in respect of some complainers against the Edinburgh tramway, for Parliament to decide that the benefit to the country as a whole outweighs the opposition of the few in Steventon.

 

Jim

The bridge at Steventon is already Grade II lListed and has had that status since 1988, the 21st anniversary of its listing is 19 February (which strikes me as an auspicious date on which to commence its demolition but it's no doubt too late to get a suitable possession on the GWML).  Oddly, or conspiratorially(?), all sorts of things in and around Steventon were listed from the same date.

[The Stationmaster]

One point which occurs to me is can the contact wire gradient be sufficiently altered if Stocks Lane Crossing is closed and Causeway Crossing is retained? 

 

Ideally of course both crossings should go although even if the money can be found to sort out the lane on the south side of the railway there will no doubt be major cries of anguish about 'cutting the village in two' and presenting traffic hazards to anyone trying to ride their horses along the main road instead of over Causeway Crossing and so on.  Compared with Ufton Crossing, where basically only a couple of householders objected to closure but the District Council supported them, trying to shut even one crossing at Steventon will lead to a vociferous campaign with considerable, somewhat illogical, local support despite the period for which the crossings can be open for road traffic becoming shorter and shorter as the number of trains on the route increases.  

 

Moving those 387 units to stable at Swindon must have added some more early morning and late evening/night closure times for the crossings.

[jamie92208]

It's a good thing that the residents of Steventon didn't live in West Yorkshire in the late 60's when the M62 was planned.  The village of Thorpe, which incidentally was largely built by the Great Northern Railway for it's staff at Ardsley Shed, yard and station, was cut in two and it's subsidiary village of Thorpe on the Hill was cut off as well. A footbridge and a tunnel were provided to give access to the two cut off parts but to this day they are still divided.   

 

Jamie

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

One point which occurs to me is can the contact wire gradient be sufficiently altered if Stocks Lane Crossing is closed and Causeway Crossing is retained? 

 

Ideally of course both crossings should go although even if the money can be found to sort out the lane on the south side of the railway there will no doubt be major cries of anguish about 'cutting the village in two' and presenting traffic hazards to anyone trying to ride their horses along the main road instead of over Causeway Crossing and so on.  Compared with Ufton Crossing, where basically only a couple of householders objected to closure but the District Council supported them, trying to shut even one crossing at Steventon will lead to a vociferous campaign with considerable, somewhat illogical, local support despite the period for which the crossings can be open for road traffic becoming shorter and shorter as the number of trains on the route increases.  

 

Moving those 387 units to stable at Swindon must have added some more early morning and late evening/night closure times for the crossings.

 

But it is not really cutting the village in two. Giving the residents south of the crossing a decent road to the High St will improve their opportunities to take part in village life. All the shops are there as is the pub. Apart from getting over the crossings, The Causeway gets very busy and it can be a long wait at the junction to turn right onto the High St.

 

A lot of the houses are bungalows so probably not that primary school children.

 

As to the listings all dating from the same time; not all that surprising. The operating budget is limited and they often do batches. There are some superb buildings in Steventon with, iirc, at least one featuring at Pendon.

[Adam]

On 09/02/2019 at 14:02, The Stationmaster said:

I'm not sure about that but there are various other old, if not original, flat arch overbridges dating from broad gauge days on the GWML where the wires have been taken under them with no problems at all and in at least one case without any track lowering.

 

The bridge at Steventon is already Grade II lListed and has had that status since 1988, the 21st anniversary of its listing is 19 February (which strikes me as an auspicious date on which to commence its demolition but it's no doubt too late to get a suitable possession on the GWML).  Oddly, or conspiratorially(?), all sorts of things in and around Steventon were listed from the same date.

 

And as I recall, Historic England are actually quite happy for the bridge to be demolished (for precisely the reasons you note, Mike).

 

The date of all those listings being the same comes down to the way listing (and English Heritage as it was then) works. The inspector did a round of their area and noted the buildings that in their view - and obviously, there's a degree of subjectivity in interpreting the criteria - and put those forward. This would have been approved on the date given though the site visit(s) may have been one or several trips depending on access/weather/whim. So it's just coincidence.

 

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...).

 

Adam

 

 

Edited February 10, 2019 by Adam

[rodent279]

Maybe I've missed it earlier in the thread, but is it beyond the wit of the former "workshop of the world" to build a temporary road bridge, do the necessary to the existing bridge, then remove the temporary structure?

If retaining the existing bridge isn't the problem, then surely that's the way forward? It's only got to last for a year, to allow for a bit of faffage.

 

On a secondary note, does Steventon bridge perhaps deserve it's own thread?

[phil-b259]

19 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Maybe I've missed it earlier in the thread, but is it beyond the wit of the former "workshop of the world" to build a temporary road bridge, do the necessary to the existing bridge, then remove the temporary structure?

If retaining the existing bridge isn't the problem, then surely that's the way forward? It's only got to last for a year, to allow for a bit of faffage.

 

On a secondary note, does Steventon bridge perhaps deserve it's own thread?

 

Just because something is physically possible doesn't mean it solves the legal problems - which is basically the crux of the matter.

 

A temporary bridge still requires planning consent - just as demolishing the old one does. It would also probably require the purchase of extra land not in NR ownership - and given the attitude of Stevenson residents I wouldn't mind betting that NR would need to go down the compulsory purchase route to get it (and no doubt  massive legal battle)

 

Until the residents of Stevenson (or to be more accurate their elected representatives) can be persuaded to let demolition happen then NR are powerless to do anything. - unless the bridge becomes structurally unsafe and is in immediate danger of collapsing onto the tracks.

 

The UK may well have once been known as 'the workshop of the world', but it also is known as the place where 'A man's home is his castle' and 'A nation of shopkeepers' - sentiments which both champion the rights of the individual over Government (and NR is a Government body these days). Increasingly these latter sentiments are used by residents to block vital improvements to the nations infrastructure due to worries the sky will fall in if they go ahead....

 

Edited February 10, 2019 by phil-b259

[Mike Storey]

On Steventon, Network Rail is not "powerless" but announced its intention to appeal to HM Planning Inspectorate in August. It originally said it expected to do this in September, but something I read in the Steventon Village News Website suggested this was not done until November (but this could just have been the date they decided to put that news on the website - it is not at all clear due to the way it is written). Despite much search, I can find no further info on the Appeal progression - Appeals do not seem to be listed on the Inspectorate's site, and this does not seem to fall into their National Infrastructure applications, which are listed.

 

The timescales for such an appeal depend very much on how the Inspectorate decide to deal with it - anything between 3 months and 1 year is suggested (the latter being necessary if they decide to hold a further formal enquiry).

 

As much as I understand the local council's (elected members) case, they refused consent, despite the support to NR's position of English Heritage and the CC's own planning officers, and that of the DC, because they believe that bridge jacking is a viable alternative that NR had not sufficiently considered. They argue that would take far less time than a re-build and would retain the "historic" nature of the bridge. They also argue that NR had made an "insufficient" case for the greater interest of rail users. That last point is supported by a local councillor who had acted as the "go-between" for NR and the Council during the application, and who subsequently supported demolition, and who resigned because of criticism for that support.

 

Rail Engineer published an article on railway arched-bridge jacking in 2016 (which appears to be the Council's main evidence) but in an article in a subsequent Rail Engineer, in 2018, reporting on the refusal of consent, it noted the article, but then went on to describe the number of changes to the integrity of the bridge since the 19thC and the fact that its foundations were inadequate. It concluded that demolition and re-building was the only sensible conclusion.

 

Thus we are left wondering if NR's representatives at the final Council meeting (who complained they were not allowed to argue on the basis of the case they had presented) did not field their "A" team, despite the application having been dragged out for four years, and six decision deferrals by the Council. The decision for HM Planning Inspectorate seems black and white, if it is taken in the wider interest, but when local politics are involved these days, who knows?

 

For example, politicians of a certain party in Thanet, were able to campaign successfully for local election on the basis they would ensure that Manston Airport would be retained (utilising nostalgia as much as any real business plan), despite all evidence that there was no national interest involved anymore, nor any likely commercial case. They subsequently  found they had no powers nor budget to do anything of the sort, and the local party broke up in the ensuing fracas. A subsequent re-application for alternative uses was rejected locally, but overridden by the County Council. I do not quite understand why that has not happened here - I fully understand a different legal process is involved, so maybe that's it. But, does someone very influential live in Steventon??

 

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Just because something is physically possible doesn't mean it solves the legal problems - which is basically the crux of the matter.

 

A temporary bridge still requires planning consent - just as demolishing the old one does. It would also probably require the purchase of extra land not in NR ownership - and given the attitude of Stevenson residents I wouldn't mind betting that NR would need to go down the compulsory purchase route to get it (and no doubt  massive legal battle)

 

Until the residents of Stevenson (or to be more accurate their elected representatives) can be persuaded to let demolition happen then NR are powerless to do anything. - unless the bridge becomes structurally unsafe and is in immediate danger of collapsing onto the tracks.

 

The UK may well have once been known as 'the workshop of the world', but it also is known as the place where 'A man's home is his castle' and 'A nation of shopkeepers' - sentiments which both champion the rights of the individual over Government (and NR is a Government body these days). Increasingly these latter sentiments are used by residents to block vital improvements to the nations infrastructure due to worries the sky will fall in if they go ahead....

 

But would a temporary bridge not at least retain uninterrupted access to the village, thus eliminating what I see as the central plank of the local objections?

[Mike Storey]

13 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

But would a temporary bridge not at least retain uninterrupted access to the village, thus eliminating what I see as the central plank of the local objections?

 

If that were a possibility (I don't know) I would have thought the best option would be to build the new bridge alongside the existing, then divert the road, and demolish the old one. But others on here seem to have indicated space for such is very limited.

 

[96701]

On 06/02/2019 at 12:57, tomparryharry said:

3rd rail is the way forward...

 

Ok, back in my cupboard now.

 

Ian.

You need to spend time in your cupboard and think about what you wrote.

[The Stationmaster]

On 10/02/2019 at 19:05, Mike Storey said:

 

If that were a possibility (I don't know) I would have thought the best option would be to build the new bridge alongside the existing, then divert the road, and demolish the old one. But others on here seem to have indicated space for such is very limited.

 

Building alongside the existing bridge would be very difficult as there is a building very close, if not actually in the way, on the north east side and one right in the way on the north west side.  In addition much play was made about the impact on that end of the High street by the ramp down from a much higher bridge over the railway and that was a big point of objection at one time.

 

Jacking would be a virtually impossible job there are large abutments at each end of the bridge and there is then a small arch on each side before the main arch in the middle.  The site cast concrete beams in the small arches I mentioned in an earlier post were obviously but there to brace the piers of the main arch back against the abutments.  If the piers of the main arch were jacked without the abutments being jacked simultaneously the support of the beams would be lost and they would in any case have to be severed before the main arch piers are jacked up.   The chances of simultaneously and evenly jacking the whole of a structure of that size must rank as pretty near impossible added t which the road, and surrounding land slopes down to the bridge on the south side which must result in some pressure against the structure especially under moving traffic from that direction.

 

There might be a quicker solution as looking at the bridge on Google Maps there are a number of cracks in the road surface on the bridge itself and at the north end where it appears to run clear of the abutment structure; there are far fewer cracks in the road once it is clear of the north end of the bridge but a number at the south end where the road is dropping downhill onto the bridge.  I wonder what it looks like after all the recent bad weather?

[96701]

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.