GWML Electification

[Suzie]

What C2C trains to Liverpool St? All the trains on the Up and Down Electric at Stratford are the London Rail Shenfield Service, almost all of which will be diverted down the Crossrail tunnel. The Stratford platforms will only have the same service as now so no need for extra platforms, but the platforms concerned could do with a bit more space, removing the unneccessary buildings would do it.

Regards

 

The off-peak and weekend trains to/from Shoeburyness via Stratford and Barking when Fenchurch Street is closed.

 

I guess it might be cheaper to put in an extra pair of tracks from Forest Gate junction through Stratford rather than do any tunnelling, perhaps move the DLR high level tracks and station (again).

[jim.snowdon]

Never yet grasped how someone can design an electric train and then somehow space can be found to stick in a Diesel engine of equivalent power and associated accessories and the body design will take the additional weight and permitted track axleloads won't be exceeded, and then all the Whitehall crowd are happily running round going let's fit the rest of the fleet while we're at it, cos it don't cost that much extra after all?

There were both electric and bi-mode versions of the IEP from day one. Changing the order for Great Western to all bi-mode came later, almost certainly as a reaction to the GW electrification being late and'or deferred on some routes.

 

Jim

[jim.snowdon]

I have been following this interesting thread from the beginning and several points are repeating through it ,firstly the trains a design no operators want but DAFTsay this is it get on with it.Surely the civil servants talked to the TOC,s to find out just what the units will be required to actually do,but nosomeone decided we had to bolster Japans economic return to a reasonable level.The retro fitting of diesel engines is a return of the 1950,s modernisation plan ,lets make it up as we go along no one is going to moan about the cost or if it works.The interior, has anyone thought about the interior for travellers looking at the picture many will run the risk of being depressed in a big way if traveling for a long time in it. Grey what a cop out by some untrained civil servant who probably was charged with coming up with an idea for it and just could not be bothered or more likely save money by using one colour.Overall the 800,s are designed by an untrained committee governed by equaly untrained government masters.Thats that for the first rant now for the next.   Overhead structures they look heavy enough to withstand a 500mph hurricane and also seem to have far to many especialy when looking at jctns ,if you see what I mean.I looked at the structures at Didcot and was horrified by the bulk of them they dominate the area and the spans over tracks look awful.Last week  I travelled to Glasgow on the WCML and the difference in design is so noticeable why could not DAFT looked at an improved version of this .It works so why did they have to ask the Swiss to inflict these abominations on us.Srely there must be some design company that can do better but it seems beyond the ability of DAFT to do this.   Well that's my view and overall I think DAFT should not be allowed to meddle in technical matters on the railways it should be a collective of TOC,s Rolling stock manufactures,and the companies that actually manufacture the product.Civil servants have no place in this world they are not trained or capable of making the right decisions  .plus their masters in Westminster are decidedly incapable .Rant over but the future of electrification is being slowed by all this and something must be done to put it back on track.

One, the result of a committee decision is quite often a camel - satisfying some of the aspirations of some of the users all of the time, but all of the asprations of all of the users none of the time. Second, as I understand it, bi-mode was always an available option once the bureaucrats had decided against attaching diesel locomotives to electric trains for the sections of route that were never going to be electrified. The interiors are, in relative terms, simply decoration in that each TOC can choose their preferred design with little or no impact on the vehicle itself, and each TOC will want to unveil "their" look individually.

As for the overhead, it is undoubtedly severely over-engineered, but I would look to a combination of contractor-led design and blind observance of Network Rail standards as the recipe for a no-risk design, not the DfT. The application of engineering judgement, as would have happened when BR did the design, is not there once design risk is put out to contract. the solution is for the client to take an element of responsibililty for design decisions, not to seek to offload them all onto the contractor.

 

Jim

[Ron Ron Ron]

Never yet grasped how someone can design an electric train and then somehow space can be found to stick in a Diesel engine of equivalent power and associated accessories and the body design will take the additional weight and permitted track axleloads won't be exceeded,.....

 

 

No need to grasp anything because they haven't.

The electric power equipment (pantographs, transformers etc, etc,) is located in the driving vehicles and the diesel electric generator power packs are under the intermediate vehicles.

So not in the same vehicles.

Traction motors are located on the intermediate vehicles and not on the driving cars.

On the 9-car bi-mode trains, there are two un-powered intermediate trailers, without diesel electric power packs and without traction motors.

 

 

 

.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Ron Ron Ron

[Grovenor]

The off-peak and weekend trains to/from Shoeburyness via Stratford and Barking when Fenchurch Street is closed.

 

I guess it might be cheaper to put in an extra pair of tracks from Forest Gate junction through Stratford rather than do any tunnelling, perhaps move the DLR high level tracks and station (again).

Off peak and weekend is not exactly going to justify such investment is it?

Regards

[Suzie]

Off peak and weekend is not exactly going to justify such investment is it?

Regards

 

Not on its own, but take into account the freight on to the North London line as well, and a C2C route into Fenchurch Street or Liverpool Street via Stratford will provide extra capacity and improved connectivity for the C2C destinations that might justify some infrastructure spend, especially with freed capacity at Liverpool Street no longer used by Shenfield trains.

[Edwin_m]

No need to grasp anything because they haven't.

The electric power equipment (pantographs, transformers etc, etc,) is located in the driving vehicles and the diesel electric generator power packs are under the intermediate vehicles.

So not in the same vehicles.

Traction motors are located on the intermediate vehicles and not on the driving cars.

On the 9-car trains, there are two un-powered intermediate trailers, without diesel electric power packs and without traction motors..

To add to that, because both electric and bi-mode versions were specified from Day 1, Hitachi designed the intermediate cars to accept a diesel engine and associated equipment whether that particular car was planned to have one fitted or not.  Even the electric versions (for the ECML) have one diesel power pack (two in the longer ones I think) to allow low-speed movement and maintenance of on-board services if the overhead power is lost. 

 

So the variation to the contract to make the entire GWML fleet bi-mode was simply to add diesels to cars that had already been designed to accept them.  Simple in technical terms, much more complicated contractually I imagine. 

[jamie92208]

To add to that, because both electric and bi-mode versions were specified from Day 1, Hitachi designed the intermediate cars to accept a diesel engine and associated equipment whether that particular car was planned to have one fitted or not.  Even the electric versions (for the ECML) have one diesel power pack (two in the longer ones I think) to allow low-speed movement and maintenance of on-board services if the overhead power is lost. 

 

So the variation to the contract to make the entire GWML fleet bi-mode was simply to add diesels to cars that had already been designed to accept them.  Simple in technical terms, much more complicated contractually I imagine.

And we all know from hard experience that it's contract variations that make the big profits for contractors. Unfortunately it's a done deal now but we are all going to be paying for these for years to come through our taxes. However we are where we are and I suppose that the upside is that with the design being flexible at least the trains can enter service without the wires. I wonder whether once the wiring is complete, that they'll take some of the engine's off to become maintenance spares and save on Kilowatt hours.

 

Jamie

[Ron Ron Ron]

.....Even the electric versions (for the ECML) have one diesel power pack (two in the longer ones I think) to allow low-speed movement and maintenance of on-board services if the overhead power is lost.....

 

 

The 9-car electric trains have one diesel power pack.

As I understand it, extended versions of between 10 to 12 cars (12 is the maximum length in the IEP spec.), will require a second vehicle to be fitted with the diesel power pack.

 

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

......I wonder whether once the wiring is complete, that they'll take some of the engine's off to become maintenance spares and save on Kilowatt hours.

 

 

The original IEP concept was that the Bi-modes would have their diesel power units removed (apart from the emergency power unit), thus making them all-electric, as electrification extended across the network.

However the project documents didn't rule out redeployment onto other lines where Bi-Mode might be useful and replacing trains with newer all-electric versions of the same train.

 

I suspect there are financial incentives to do this, as I think the engines are subject to separate lease arrangements within the overall lease agreement.

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

I have been following this interesting thread from the beginning and several points are repeating through it ,firstly the trains a design no operators want but DAFTsay this is it get on with it.Surely the civil servants talked to the TOC,s to find out just what the units will be required to actually do,but nosomeone decided we had to bolster Japans economic return to a reasonable level.The retro fitting of diesel engines is a return of the 1950,s modernisation plan ,lets make it up as we go along no one is going to moan about the cost or if it works.The interior, has anyone thought about the interior for travellers looking at the picture many will run the risk of being depressed in a big way if traveling for a long time in it. Grey what a cop out by some untrained civil servant who probably was charged with coming up with an idea for it and just could not be bothered or more likely save money by using one colour.Overall the 800,s are designed by an untrained committee governed by equaly untrained government masters.Thats that for the first rant now for the next.   Overhead structures they look heavy enough to withstand a 500mph hurricane and also seem to have far to many especialy when looking at jctns ,if you see what I mean.I looked at the structures at Didcot and was horrified by the bulk of them they dominate the area and the spans over tracks look awful.Last week  I travelled to Glasgow on the WCML and the difference in design is so noticeable why could not DAFT looked at an improved version of this .It works so why did they have to ask the Swiss to inflict these abominations on us.Srely there must be some design company that can do better but it seems beyond the ability of DAFT to do this.   Well that's my view and overall I think DAFT should not be allowed to meddle in technical matters on the railways it should be a collective of TOC,s Rolling stock manufactures,and the companies that actually manufacture the product.Civil servants have no place in this world they are not trained or capable of making the right decisions  .plus their masters in Westminster are decidedly incapable .Rant over but the future of electrification is being slowed by all this and something must be done to put it back on track.

 

Thank you for your rant; however I could not imagine a more misinformed and inaccurate version of events, than the one you have portrayed.

[Zomboid]

I take issue with people describing the OLE as "over engineered", when is highly likely that those people are neither overhead line engineers nor have they had sight of the specification that they were engineered to.

I'm no OLE engineer myself, so I have no insight to offer on the structures, but I am an engineer of a different type, and nothing gets my back up more than people who don't understand what I do telling me that what I've done is wrong based on some superficial factor.

 

The OLE structures may be ugly and obtrusive, they may even be over specified, but I highly doubt anyone on this forum is qualified to declare them "over engineered", unless they actually designed the things and know that a 200% safety factor was used.

 

I'll get off my soapbox now.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Zomboid

[Titan]

 

As for the overhead, it is undoubtedly severely over-engineered, but I would look to a combination of contractor-led design and blind observance of Network Rail standards as the recipe for a no-risk design, not the DfT. The application of engineering judgement, as would have happened when BR did the design, is not there once design risk is put out to contract. the solution is for the client to take an element of responsibililty for design decisions, not to seek to offload them all onto the contractor.

 

Jim

 

 

 

I take issue with people describing the OLE as "over engineered", when is highly likely that those people are neither overhead line engineers nor have they had sight of the specification that they were engineered to.

I'm no OLE engineer myself, so I have no insight to offer on the structures, but I am an engineer of a different type, and nothing gets my back up more than people who don't understand what I do telling me that what I've done is wrong based on some superficial factor.

 

The OLE structures may be ugly and obtrusive, they may even be over specified, but I highly doubt anyone on this forum is qualified to declare them "over engineered", unless they actually designed the things and know that a 200% safety factor was used.

 

I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

Well despite your doubts as it happens I am more than sufficiently qualified to comment. What Jim has said above is utter rubbish. They are not over engineered, and almost all of what he has said is the exact opposite of reality.

[The Stationmaster]

I take issue with people describing the OLE as "over engineered", when is highly likely that those people are neither overhead line engineers nor have they had sight of the specification that they were engineered to.

I'm no OLE engineer myself, so I have no insight to offer on the structures, but I am an engineer of a different type, and nothing gets my back up more than people who don't understand what I do telling me that what I've done is wrong based on some superficial factor.

 

The OLE structures may be ugly and obtrusive, they may even be over specified, but I highly doubt anyone on this forum is qualified to declare them "over engineered", unless they actually designed the things and know that a 200% safety factor was used.

 

I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

I think the thing about GWML ohle is that it is 'different' (unless you also happen to look at some renewals on the GEML which use the same designs) and I think it is worth considering just what is different about it.  Some of it is undoubtedly far simpler and neater than almost anything which has gone before - particularly the structures carrying the tensioning units but also, very noticeably, the way the registration arms are arranged/insulated/wired and the design (of registration arms) being used on the single line masts which is without doubt the neatest and simplest I have ever seen anywhere on British catenary single line masts.

 

What is undoubtedly more substantial than most of what has gone before is the masts used for all of the portal type structures - they are tall and they are large in cross section.  Whether they are 'over engineered' is a moot point as the have been designed and are installed to a particular remit regarding the overall wind resistance and resilience of the entire ohle system.  And if the GWML avoids the reliability problems of headspan construction they will in my view have been well worth the extra built in strength and resilience.  The design of the various booms and full portal gantry members looks to me in some cases to be little different from what hat has gone before on the earlier BR designs - true some of the metalwork is larger section but some of the 'I' beams look to be no different from those installed years ago on the WCML.

 

Overall of course looking underneath completed catenary from a station platform or the lineside the entire view is very 'busy' and 'framed' - just like any other overhead electrification and totally at odds with the appearance of a line which does not have overhead electrification, and that is bound to impact one's opinion of what could no doubt be seen by some as a ruination of the appearance of Brunel's railway.  But overall as it weathers down a view of the line across the countryside is not unnerving or particularly disruptive - only the masts really tend to stand out as being noticeable. And I say that as someone who doesn't really like the appearance of overhead electrified railways but also as a GWR user who doesn't want his journeys disrupted by collapsing ohle every time a strong wind blows through the Goring Gap.

[locoholic]

From a diagram I've seen, this appears to be the planned arrangement for the junction of Crossrail with the Relief Lines outside Paddington.

 

File2241.jpg

 

I suppose there must be some reason for this rather conflicting layout.

That looks like someone bought a job lot of random Peco Setrack on eBay, and doodled a layout that used up all the points!

 

All that when a flyover and two points would have done the job better.

[jonny777]

Thank you for your rant; however I could not imagine a more misinformed and inaccurate version of events, than the one you have portrayed.

 

Maybe you would like to produce the evidence which shows DfT civil servants are the best qualified to interfere in as many rail vehicle specifications as possible?

[lmsforever]

My opinions might not be good enough for some people but they are formed from the many experts on this thread who I appreciate for their informed comments .It is interesting to read the engineers reasoning for the overhead structures being built now and I can see that reliability is the most important factor but could they have just put a little design into them?Once the 800,s are running will obviously decide wether or not they are successful or not but having to build new features forced on them by mishandled engineering works must be a real headache.The DFT are still I think the root cause of the main problems with poor planning ,changing specs ,not listening to real railway men who should know what is required.It was a great shame that we lost the expertise for electrification works  due to policies forced on the network by DFT over time.I look forward to riding on the new trains and hope that the wires will eventually reach Wales but I am not holding my breath.

[St. Simon]

From a diagram I've seen, this appears to be the planned arrangement for the junction of Crossrail with the Relief Lines outside Paddington.

 

File2241.jpg

 

I suppose there must be some reason for this rather conflicting layout.

 

Hi Peter,

 

I'm quite sure which diagrams your looking at, but from our scheme plans, this has always been the arrangement (for obvious reasons I can't show the scheme plan or anymore detail than this):

 

 

Other than the addition of the Crossrail Lines, the only major change is that Line 6 currently runs in a straight line (on the sketch) all the way to the Up Relief.

 

Simon

[Northroader]

If you stuck a shed in the middle it would look a bit like Queen's Park on the Bakerloo? I hope the new interchange tunnel underneath Paddington is nice and big.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Hi Peter,

 

I'm quite sure which diagrams your looking at, but from our scheme plans, this has always been the arrangement (for obvious reasons I can't show the scheme plan or anymore detail than this):

 

Paddington Crossrail Junction.jpg

 

Other than the addition of the Crossrail Lines, the only major change is that Line 6 currently runs in a straight line (on the sketch) all the way to the Up Relief.

 

Simon

 

Thanks Simon.

 

I didn't include the turnback sidings and entry to the depot - apart from an additional crossover (between lines 4 & 5) on the one I posted, they look the same.

[St. Simon]

Thanks Simon.

 

I didn't include the turnback sidings and entry to the depot - apart from an additional crossover (between lines 4 & 5) on the one I posted, they look the same.

Now I look at them again, they are practically the same, for some reason they didn't look it when I put them side by side on my work computer!

 

Simon

[caradoc]

Having dealt with, as a Controller, more OLE dewirements than I care to recall, I for one am delighted that the GWML OLE seems designed to be as robust and therefore as reliable as possible. 'Wires down' incidents are massively disruptive, causing line closures for many hours and often involving electric trains trapped in dead sections, requiring diesel locos to clear the line and sometimes evacuation of passengers onto the ballast.

[The Stationmaster]

Having dealt with, as a Controller, more OLE dewirements than I care to recall, I for one am delighted that the GWML OLE seems designed to be as robust and therefore as reliable as possible. 'Wires down' incidents are massively disruptive, causing line closures for many hours and often involving electric trains trapped in dead sections, requiring diesel locos to clear the line and sometimes evacuation of passengers onto the ballast.

 

When I used to travel regularly via London to York in the early '90s a one of my colleagues of former ER persuasion always used to ask me if I would be going back southwards on an HST 'in the hope that you'll actually get to Kings Cross'.  Oddly things usually worked out alright but over the course of two years of monthly meetings at York one was cancelled because the wires had come down on the previous day, and another was shifted to Crewe for a  similar reason.

 

Fortunately - or unfortunately depending on how you look at such things - the dates of the budget meetings were never altered but at least I was always first victim on as I had the longest journey home. 

[lmsforever]

 Have a look on the BBC news site probs on the ECML with overhead a nice picture of a bent pantograph  but tis electrification was done on the cheap wasn't it?

[Coryton]

 Have a look on the BBC news site probs on the ECML with overhead a nice picture of a bent pantograph  but tis electrification was done on the cheap wasn't it?

 

I've often seen this said....and I've seen other people disagree...