GWML Electification

[D1059]

 

Thus with a lot of concentrated work effort the fittings could be put in place to allow eastwards extension of the catenary but to do the Relief Lines on the Reading side of Tilehurst East Jcn/Scours Lane will require blockades that will entail diversion of some Southampton container trains - either by reversal somewhere at Reading (if anywhere is long enough?) or via Acton due to the inability to now get from Oxford Road Curve onto the Mains without going over the Reliefs first.

 

Or diversion via Didcot West Curve, Swindon, Melksham, Westbury and Salisbury as has happened in the past.

[phil-b259]

And nothing to do with the Class 700s initially being deemed by the unions as being un-safe and thus would not drive until the crash safety of the cab was proven? Then more significantly the interoperability between the train computer systems and track side equipment surrounding the door operation. I understand this specific issue around the doors has caused delay to the introduction of the Class 700s into service, now are reported to have been re-engineered / software corrected.

If you look back at the history behind the Thameslink train order you will find that the Government wasted valuable design time by procrastinating about where to order them, plus exactly what specification they wanted. Siemens gave a good price - which was even better at one stage thanks to the euro - pond exchange rate, but Bombardier were going round saying there would be big job losses if they lost out. In the end Siemens has cost the Treasury more than having them built in Derby precisely because of the Whitehall delaying the whole process while they made their minds up.

 

Similarly the IEP is WAY more costly than any other high speed train in the world because it's been a DfT led project that started life as a straightforward liked for like HST replacement but has morphed into something very different where the DfT kept changing their mind over what the end spec would be.

 

So yes I accept that the Thameslink trains might still have arrived with flaws, and that those flaws (when it comes to engineering based issues) are the responsibility of Siemens, but that doesn't change the fact that the trains would have been here a good 12 months earlier if the DfT / Treasury had let the professionals in train procurement (the ROSCOs) do the job they were set up to do.

 

(AND before you or others start claiming otherwise, EVERY enquiry into ROSCOs 'big profits' / unwillingness to invest / anti competitive behaviour has come out with the conclusion that such things are happening PRECISELY because the DfT / Treasury keep meddling in / have set up the industry in such a way that the ROSCOs have no choice but to behave as they do).

 

People seem to forget, back in the days of the British a Railways Board you had a very good firewall keeping Politicians and Whitehall away from front line decisions (such as the design of train) that expertise has been lost and NO political party is going to set up a replacement that will be effective - precisely because it gives them less control over the industry.

Edited April 28, 2016 by phil-b259

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Think Freightliners could go via Woking, Feltham, Kensington Olympia, Willesden and the WCML. I know some freights, eg car trains, go this way. Is this route cleared for larger containers?

[The Stationmaster]

Think Freightliners could go via Woking, Feltham, Kensington Olympia, Willesden and the WCML. I know some freights, eg car trains, go this way. Is this route cleared for larger containers?

 

Not cleared for large boxes as far as I know Peter - the primary diversion route is Acton and the alternative is Salisbury, Westbury etc as outlined above by D1059  (they were identified in various NR plans some years back).

 

Some progress observed today - register arms have now appeared on the recently erected structures at Tilehurst but only on the Main Lines side and a single wire has been temporarily strung on pulleys hanging from the Down side of the booms at Tilehurst East Jcn although it doesn't stretch very far towards Reading and definitely isn't present east of Scours Lane - looks most likely to be an earth wire but you never know. 

 

The Tilehurst station based cherry picker fleet seems to have grown in number and a little towards its earlier numbers following a recent decline.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I'm up at my son's place this weekend in SW London, so will have a potter around the GWML if I get the chance to see if any work is being undertaken over the BH weekend west of Stockley Jn.

[lmsforever]

Went through Cholsey yesterday in the car and saw the overhead for the first time in the flesh ,it does not look to bad but only a couple of wires up when are the main ones going up must be soon?

[The Stationmaster]

Went through Cholsey yesterday in the car and saw the overhead for the first time in the flesh ,it does not look to bad but only a couple of wires up when are the main ones going up must be soon?

 

The catenary is gradually spreading but all very bitty with a  section here then a gap of several sections then the next section.  The longest continuous stretch is on the Mains from Purley Marina (just west of Tilehurst) to Basildon (or it was a few weeks ago) but I noticed today that the gap (one catenary section long) on the Relief Lines at Pangbourne has still not been done.

 

No doubt they'll have a  chance this weekend but if they were using the high output train as it allegedly could be used I reckon they ought to be doing at least one section a night every night of the week as a 2 track timetable is not difficult between Reading (Scours Lane/Tilehurst) and Moreton Cutting/Didcot seven nights a week.  Looked at like that the pace of work does seem slow but because of the bitty way stuff has gone up it is only now starting to come together to allow successive sections to be wired - makes the WCML and ECML schemes look like greased lightning in comparison.

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

Just had some briefing information through that the all 4 lines between 37m 67ch, Scours Lane Bridge East of Tilehurst, to 54m 51ch, just east of Milton Junction as well as Didcot East Curve up to 53m 42ch are to be considered 'Live' at 25kv from 23:30 on the 28th May 2016. This does not include Didcot yard, the avoiding line or West curve.

 

Obviously this information is subject to change / alternation, do NOT use this information for operational planning, contact Network Rail for further information.. From my trip to Swindon and back yesterday, I would say that it is possible, but a lot of work needs to be carried out.

 

EDIT: To correct information on Didcot East Curve and to add a warning

 

Simon

Edited April 29, 2016 by St. Simon

[The Stationmaster]

Hi,

 

Just had some briefing information through that the all 4 lines between 37m 67ch, Scours Lane Bridge East of Tilehurst, to 54m 51ch, just east of Milton Junction as well as Didcot East Curve up to 53m 42ch are to be considered 'Live' at 25kv from 23:30 on the 28th May 2016. This does not include Didcot yard, the avoiding line or West curve.

 

Obviously this information is subject to change / alternation, do NOT use this information for operational planning, contact Network Rail for further information.. From my trip to Swindon and back yesterday, I would say that it is possible, but a lot of work needs to be carried out.

 

EDIT: To correct information on Didcot East Curve and to add a warning

 

Simon

 

Interestingly there is a lot on the 'net about major engineering works this weekend but the only mentioned (in detail) work is between Langley and Iver and at Maidenhead although that doesn't mean there won't be a two track timetable between Reading and Didcot of course.

 

Good to see they're talking about Scours Lane as the eastern limit of the May switch on but that means there is an enormous amount of work to do east of Tilehurst station as there are still only register arms and some other fittings on the Main Lines through Tilehurst East Jcn and, as noted above, there is only one wire in place in that vicinity (over one section) as of yesterday.  If they can achieve the sort of work rate that switch on date implies there should be little left to do between Steventon (exclusive) and Marston Crossing East by September with only the A34 bridge - Steventon 'gap' to finish and then from Marston Crossing East into Swindon.  (According to NR's site piling work was in hand last weekend between the A34 bridge and Steventon but not a long duration possession - nothing yet shown for the coming weekend on that section)

[St. Simon]

Interestingly there is a lot on the 'net about major engineering works this weekend but the only mentioned (in detail) work is between Langley and Iver and at Maidenhead although that doesn't mean there won't be a two track timetable between Reading and Didcot of course.

 

Good to see they're talking about Scours Lane as the eastern limit of the May switch on but that means there is an enormous amount of work to do east of Tilehurst station as there are still only register arms and some other fittings on the Main Lines through Tilehurst East Jcn and, as noted above, there is only one wire in place in that vicinity (over one section) as of yesterday.  If they can achieve the sort of work rate that switch on date implies there should be little left to do between Steventon (exclusive) and Marston Crossing East by September with only the A34 bridge - Steventon 'gap' to finish and then from Marston Crossing East into Swindon.  (According to NR's site piling work was in hand last weekend between the A34 bridge and Steventon but not a long duration possession - nothing yet shown for the coming weekend on that section)

 

Hi,

 

Mike, having seen some possession planning orders lying round on printers, I think that most of the wiring etc is happening at night.

 

Simon

[PenrithBeacon]

I was at The GWS bash at Didcot yesterday and the OHLE in the station area looked just terrible. Of all the variations of OHLE since 1900 this has to be the worst aesthetically.

Edited May 1, 2016 by PenrithBeacon

[Southernman46]

Hi,

 

Just had some briefing information through that the all 4 lines between 37m 67ch, Scours Lane Bridge East of Tilehurst, to 54m 51ch, just east of Milton Junction as well as Didcot East Curve up to 53m 42ch are to be considered 'Live' at 25kv from 23:30 on the 28th May 2016. This does not include Didcot yard, the avoiding line or West curve.

 

Obviously this information is subject to change / alternation, do NOT use this information for operational planning, contact Network Rail for further information.. From my trip to Swindon and back yesterday, I would say that it is possible, but a lot of work needs to be carried out.

 

EDIT: To correct information on Didcot East Curve and to add a warning

 

Simon

Yes - as I'd already said earlier ...........................

[The Stationmaster]

I was at The GWS bash at Didcot yesterday and the OHLE in the station area looked just terrible. Of all the variations of OHLE since 1900 this has to be the worst aesthetically.

 

The catenary itself is remarkably simple in appearance - a stark contrast with that on the WCML and the stuff originally installed between Paddington and Heathrow, or indeed just about every previous BR design.

 

The big difference from ore recent schemes is the reversion to portal structures instead of headspan on multiple track and in view of the spans involved on the GWML (where some of the track spacing is the result of gauge narrowing) there are some long spans and things are even worse at some stations - particularly Didcot - where structures have had to fit around existing buildings.  But overall I think it is a price worth paying if it succeeds in its primary aim of keeping the overhead up during strong winds and avoiding the consequent train service shambles to be found on the ECML.

 

But, having said that, the structures where each section of catenary is terminated are far, far simpler and smaller than those used on quadruple track on the WCML.  To me no overhead wiring looks pretty and it is always going to be intrusive but if the stuff is actually going to stay put during string winds and my local train service won't be reduced to nothing then I'm happy to go along with it .

[PenrithBeacon]

There is headspan OHLE on the WCML south of Preston and at Carnforth. It can blow quite hard up there and I've never heard of it coming down (but it might have).

 

The portal design on the WCML is very much of a 'Warren Truss' design. The features of the Warren Truss is it's light weight (so reducing the amount of steel required) and it presents a very low cross section to winds hence it's less vulnerable to storm damage. My concern about the current design of portal is that its chunky design does present a very much greater resistance to the wind and is therefore more vulnerable to storm damage than the original Mark 1 design still in use today on the WCML. I accept that the Headspan Wiring in the ECML is too light in design, but it does seem that the Headspan Wiring on the WCML does the business.

 

The conclusion I reach is that NR has gone OTT and should have revalidated existing designs by BR. But then, the current railway has a distinct prejudice about it's predecessor. The taxpayer pays no matter what.

 

Regards

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Popped down to the line between West Drayton and Hayes & Harlington yesterday. Relief lines were closed beyond Stockley Bridge Jn so trains in/out of Paddington were restricted to the main lines. Much activity on new up airport to up main HEX flyover (in connection with Cross Rail), including some track laid on a concrete base at the start of the flyover itself.

 

Up HSTs (in particular) were being delayed - could see them waiting for the road at Stockley Bridge, with another waiting behind at West Drayton. Unusual to see Heathrow Connect services using the main lines too.

 

No activity re-planting missing masts or any form of wiring yet.

 

Photos to follow..........

[The Stationmaster]

There is headspan OHLE on the WCML south of Preston and at Carnforth. It can blow quite hard up there and I've never heard of it coming down (but it might have).

 

The portal design on the WCML is very much of a 'Warren Truss' design. The features of the Warren Truss is it's light weight (so reducing the amount of steel required) and it presents a very low cross section to winds hence it's less vulnerable to storm damage. My concern about the current design of portal is that its chunky design does present a very much greater resistance to the wind and is therefore more vulnerable to storm damage than the original Mark 1 design still in use today on the WCML. I accept that the Headspan Wiring in the ECML is too light in design, but it does seem that the Headspan Wiring on the WCML does the business.

 

The conclusion I reach is that NR has gone OTT and should have revalidated existing designs by BR. But then, the current railway has a distinct prejudice about it's predecessor. The taxpayer pays no matter what.

 

Regards

 

I'm a bit confused about your reference to 'the current design of portal' as there are several different designs in place in the Thames Valley on of which is little different in appearance from some of those used with dc electrification schemes in the 1950s, one of which is very similar to a design used for Paddington -LHR electrification and another which is already in use on the GER route out of Liverpool St where it could be seen two years ago.  As you were at Didcot I presume you were referring to the very large structures spanning Didcot station which are relatively small in number and are (presumably) only that large in section because of their length.  Very similar designs of that pattern of girder but much lighter in overall section are present elsewhere on the Thames Valley and in fact look little bulkier than the original Swiss design.

 

As far as cantilever (bracket) type structures are concerned there are at least three patterns erected in the Thames Valley and one them is very similar to those erected years ago on the WCML scheme.

 

The two pictures immediately below show what seems to be the most common type of two track bracket structure in use in the Thames Valley with one of the showing the relatively simple arrangement of attaching the catenary to the structure  - far less 'busy' than anything previously used on 25kv schemes with, for example, only a  single insulator which helps to make them less obtrusive.  Below those two views is one of the more usual size of 4 track portal structures used on the GWML  - not exactly 'heavyweight' I would have thought?

 

Finally a view of the structure used to terminate a catenary section; that's it - no weights etc, what you see is the entire structure complete with some catenary already installed.  Compare with the similarly tasked but fairly massive full girder structures used for the same job on the WCML (this type is already in use on theh GEML).

 

As I have already said none of it is pretty *except perhaps in an 'industrial' way?) and it presence is obviously obtrusive but I'm not at all sure how the durability needed for high speed operation could be delivered by anything less substantial?

 

 

 

 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Stockley Bridge Jn - Sunday 1st May

 

Relief lines closed - trains in/out of Paddington have to use the main lines. HSTs, local trains, Heathrow Express and Heathrow Connect all using the same metals.

 

HSTs in particular, were often held for the road at Stockley Bridge. Here an up HST waits for a clear path, as a down HST (on the left) screams past westwards.

 

A local train crosses from the down main to rejoin the down relief beneath the flyover at Stockley Bridge.

[Reorte]

Looks pretty bad, perhaps it won't be quite as bad in time when it weathers a bit (being obviously new always makes things stand out more). I wouldn't say that older ones are always that much better though, the stuff used on Woodhead was quite heavy duty and industrial (and some survives in use, albeit now holding 25 kV AC to Glossop). Or the older still (and long gone) Morecombe line scheme, that wasn't terribly pretty either. Ugly OHLE is all part of the history of the railway it seems.

[Zomboid]

OLE isn't designed to look good, it's generally purely functional. The cost would be (even more) astronomical if aesthetics were a major concern. The stuff through Durham and the Royal Border Bridge is specially designed to look ok, and with reasonable success.

Some foreign OLE looks ok, but its the exception rather than the rule.

[The Stationmaster]

Stockley Bridge Jn - Sunday 1st May

 

DSCN0132.JPG

Relief lines closed - trains in/out of Paddington have to use the main lines. HSTs, local trains, Heathrow Express and Heathrow Connect all using the same metals.

 

DSCN0125.JPG

HSTs in particular, were often held for the road at Stockley Bridge. Here an up HST waits for a clear path, as a down HST (on the left) screams past westwards.

 

DSCN0154.JPG

A local train crosses from the down main to rejoin the down relief beneath the flyover at Stockley Bridge.

 

Looking at that middle picture it is difficult to avoid concluding that it was remarkably advanced thinking when the Down Main was slewed away from the Up Main on the curve west of Dawley many years ago!

[Richard E]

I think the portals actually look, in those pictures, less cluttered than the headspans used in some other places. I suspect it is the lack of insulators in large numbers which can be obtrusive.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Richard E

[brian daniels]

A little while ago I mentioned a signal on the down main at Moreton being mounted on the overhead gantry, well I hung out of an HST and got a bit of it in shot! Believe me at 125mph you could not and should not hang out any more.

Edited May 3, 2016 by brian daniels

[phil-b259]

There is headspan OHLE on the WCML south of Preston and at Carnforth. It can blow quite hard up there and I've never heard of it coming down (but it might have).

 

The portal design on the WCML is very much of a 'Warren Truss' design. The features of the Warren Truss is it's light weight (so reducing the amount of steel required) and it presents a very low cross section to winds hence it's less vulnerable to storm damage. My concern about the current design of portal is that its chunky design does present a very much greater resistance to the wind and is therefore more vulnerable to storm damage than the original Mark 1 design still in use today on the WCML. I accept that the Headspan Wiring in the ECML is too light in design, but it does seem that the Headspan Wiring on the WCML does the business.

 

The conclusion I reach is that NR has gone OTT and should have revalidated existing designs by BR. But then, the current railway has a distinct prejudice about it's predecessor. The taxpayer pays no matter what.

 

Regards

 

Wind speeds are only one part of the equation. As good as it is, the original WCML OHLE kit will NOT cope with a train comprised of two multiple units travelling at 140MPH! A single pantograph at 140MPH (the design speed of a Pendalino) yes, but certainly not two shorter units coupled together as will be the case with the IEP.

 

As such its not NR 'wasting taxpayers money" / "ignoring BR practice" - simply copying the WCML kit will not meet the technical needs of the GWML and thus a new design was required.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Meanwhile at Heathrow Airport Jn last Sunday.....

 

A down local train passes the new flyover under construction to allow up HEX trains to reach the up main without conflicting with down Heathrow Connect/Cross Rail services.

 

Concrete-paved track on the new flyover. Is this just a temporary arrangement? To my eyes it looks like it needs some tweaking.

 

Knocking-off time for some on-track plant.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Peter Kazmierczak

[The Stationmaster]

That is an amazing change in vertical alignment you've captured there Peter - I suspect 'tweaking' means putting an extended vertical transition over a somewhat greater distance.