GWML Electification

[Edwin_m]

If it's this one then there might indeed be scope to build one alongside, as there is nothing much to the east.  It would probably be more complicated though as land purchase would be required. 

[The Stationmaster]

Lots of problems at Challow motorists most miffed at having to divert and causing problems for local people,when an item about the bridge was on Oxford Today the NR man gave many excuses about length of build.Is there an other way to do this build ie new bridge next to old as when the film was shown there seemed to a lot of space next to the existing bridge so could it have been done?

I'm not surprised - when I came back from Swindon on Sunday it was atrociously signed with various signs saying the road ahead was closed but nothing about diversions.  I duly followed a single diversion sign at Stanford In The Vale but then in the end finished up using a road map to get back to the bridge at Circourt as there were no other diversions signs at all.  I subsequently realised I could have turned off the A417 through Goosey to get to Circourt bridge but by then I was in Denchworth - however still no presence of any signs on the road from Goosey.

 

Coming through Wantage and between there and East Hendred there were several signs saying 'Railbridge closed on A417, diversion via A338' but although I was heading east I was able to read them as they were all facing the wrong way and on the wrong side of the road!!

 

There are several easy ways round the block if you know the area but it's lot of good either telling you after you've turned onto the A417 off the Faringdon bypass or not signing diversions and in most cases they aren't suitable for lorries as the shortest diversions are over roads which are country lanes and not very wide in places.  All in all not a very clever job I thought.

[lmsforever]

Looks like someone didn't do the homework dosent it.

[lmsforever]

Sorry the last post did not come out right, someone at NR didn't do his homework on the local area ,sorry if you thought I was getting at you Mr Stationmaster.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Lots of problems at Challow motorists most miffed at having to divert and causing problems for local people,when an item about the bridge was on Oxford Today the NR man gave many excuses about length of build.Is there an other way to do this build ie new bridge next to old as when the film was shown there seemed to a lot of space next to the existing bridge so could it have been done?

 

In a case like this, where the legal diversion (must be by 'A' road) is so long, they really should make more effort to avoid doing it. I know that area very well and there is plenty of space to have built a new bridge alongside the old.

 

We had the same problem recently for about 6 months at Castle Cary (A371) when they renewed the bridge over the Taunton line (but not the much older bridge over the Weymouth line). They could easily have diverted the road across railway land and, in doing so, removed the dangerous bend in the road between the two bridges. Not much evidence of thinking going on. Hope they put in the new bridge at suitable height for future electrification or we will have to go through it all again.

[The Stationmaster]

To be honest I don't know if there is as much room at Challow as folk might think.  There's plenty of room on the Down side west of the bridge but none at all on the Up side as the entire former station area west of the bridge has been sold off while east of the bridge it's the opposite way round with some space (but no road access) on teh Up side and farmland coming right up to the bridge embankment on the Down side.

 

In addition east of the bridge there is the signal gantry plus various location cupboards so any bridge building (if it is a new span?) would be in a fairly confined space.

 

Incidentally is it a completely new span or is it a jacking job?  The current bridge is relatively new (in terms of bridge span life) on decent piers which are quite well set back because of the former station platforms so it might only be a case of jacking and then increasing the height of the piers.  Just as well we had the signal gantries put in with full electrification clearances when I got the quadruple track reinstated.

 

Addendum - I have now checked the NR details and it appears to be a new bridge span.

Edited September 18, 2014 by The Stationmaster

[Banger Blue]

Perhaps when they CAT scan the bottom of the hole, they should also look up to see whats above them!

 

Last week at Cholsey they somehow managed to get themselves tangled up in some overhead powercables, dragging them down onto the running lines, closing the railway for a number of hours, trapping several trains and knocking out power to around 41 local properties!

[Rugd1022]

To be honest I don't know if there is as much room at Challow as folk might think.  There's plenty of room on the Down side west of the bridge but none at all on the Up side as the entire former station area west of the bridge has been sold off while east of the bridge it's the opposite way round with some space (but no road access) on teh Up side and farmland coming right up to the bridge embankment on the Down side.

 

In addition east of the bridge there is the signal gantry plus various location cupboards so any bridge building (if it is a new span?) would be in a fairly confined space.

 

Incidentally is it a completely new span or is it a jacking job?  The current bridge is relatively new (in terms of bridge span life) on decent piers which are quite well set back because of the former station platforms so it might only be a case of jacking and then increasing the height of the piers.  Just as well we had the signal gantries put in with full electrification clearances when I got the quadruple track reinstated.

 

Addendum - I have now checked the NR details and it appears to be a new bridge span.

 

Mike - apologies for veering off topic but regarding the quadrupling, when you were tasked with looking into this, was there any referal back to the alleged / aborted GW scheme of the '30s to quadruple all the way to Bristol...?

 

Back on topic - OLE shemes are by their nature often ugly, and I'm sure Brunel would approve of the progress being made but I can't help thinking he'd find a way to make it look elegant in some way. Try as I might, I still can't get used to the idea of any part of the GWR being electrified... it was bad enough the first time I saw my beloved Paddington with newly installed knitting up above!

Edited September 18, 2014 by Rugd1022

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...OLE shemes are by their nature often ugly, and I'm sure Brunel would approve of the progress being made but I can't help thinking he'd find a way to make it look elegant in some way...

Brunelectrification^TM  is achieved using a conduit sunk along the centre line of the track within which the live conductor is located. A flexible cover is lifted and replaced by guides on the underside of vehicles drawing power, to give access to the vehicles power collector plunger, while maintaining a safe environment for track workers. Points are coasted through without power, and a small battery pack onboard each powered vehicle enables slow movement off any dead spot, should the vehicle stop there.

[The Stationmaster]

Mike - apologies for veering off topic but regarding the quadrupling, when you were tasked with looking into this, was there any referal back to the alleged / aborted GW scheme of the '30s to quadruple all the way to Bristol...?

 

Back on topic - OLE shemes are by their nature often ugly, and I'm sure Brunel would approve of the progress being made but I can't help thinking he'd find a way to make it look elegant in some way. Try as I might, I still can't get used to the idea of any part of the GWR being electrified... it was bad enough the first time I saw my beloved Paddington with newly installed knitting up above!

I wasn't 'tasked with looking into it' as such Nidge.  I was working up the various proposals for imported coal - which eventually settled on Avonmouth (after work had been done on two other sites; nice cafe in Milford Haven ) and CEGB finally lighted on where the job was actually put in.  They gave us a simple target of how much coal they wanted to move perannum to what power stations and I planned the whole thing from there up - did the Avonmouth loading terminal (BBHT) layout on a piece of A4 scrap paper after a couple of  site visits and my layout plan went to the Civil engineers to do a scale drawing - it just fitted so I was quite proud of my layout planning on that one.

 

I then worked up the train service we needed to operate to shift the tonnage with one of my chaps doing the timing to see if I was getting the plan right and I also selected the train size which had to fit certain infrastructure constraints.  For the basic Didcot & Aberthaw floes I said we needed to double as much as we could of Stoke Gifford - Hallen Marsh Jcn and then into the terminal, the terminal was planned to allow simultaneous loading of two trains and one reason the bunkers are so big was that I specified we should loaded a Didcot train without reclaim and having to top up the bunker.

 

I also did all the infrastructure enroute including mu wizard wheeze of turning the Up Relief between Foxhall Jcn and Didcot West End into a goods line so we could use it to run round (after also considering reinstating something at Moreton Cutting or doing the job on the Goods Lines at Reading - I borrowed a Class 60 and a loaded mgr train to test the latter for reliable timings for the run-round but the Didcot idea worked the best from a resourcing viewpoint.

 

The biggest problem was line capacity between swindon and Steventon so I looked at and graphed various ideas to improve it and reinstating quadruple between Wantage Road and Challow was the best option.  If Didcot had ever risen to the full CEGB forecast I proposed some further quadrupling basically aiming at Knighton Crossing - Shrivenham.  Plenty of room for expansion as my graphs allowed half-hourlu HST services for both Bristol and South wales and a Regional Railways Swindon - Preterborough service calling at a reopened Wantage Road (Grove/Wantage Parkway).  The quadrupling bit which was done took me a weekend to plan and prove but Trainload Coal were n't too keen to tell the CEGB they wanted a big pile of money so they gave it to BR Operational Research to run computer programmes to test my scheme to destruction - took them about 5 weeks but they couldn't fault it so it was built.

 

I spec'd all the signalling apart from the quadruple bit (where I put in certain stipulations) and the then Regional Chief Controller and I specified the crossover arrangement at Wantage Road (to allow parallel working over a double line equivalent with one side of the layout under possession), while a couple of us specifiued all new signal gantry structure to give 25kv ohle clearances.

 

All very satisfying and in reality after it moved off my scrap paper and hand drawn graphs it all worked exactly as I'd intended - so even more satisfying.  Seems some of my best layout plans have been in 12":1ft scale!  only thing which went wrong was that Trainload Coal wanted to (and did) use Class 60s on it whereas I had hoped for, and recommended, pairs of Class 37s - all my layout plans provided for them ... tehehe.

[D1059]

There was an article on the local news a while back about Challow and having to acquire land for a temporary bridge was the reason they gave for basically.............not doing it.

 

NR originally intended to close the bridge at Wantage Road for 6 months, but the County Council told them where to go, and I believe there will now only be closures for a few days at a time (presumably while building a temporary structure)

 

Steventon could be fun - I know a guy on the Parish Council and NR told them some weeks ago they would close it for at least 8 months, which will cause utter traffic chaos, especially when the A34 is blocked by an accident (which is most weeks). No chance of a temporary bridge here without demolishing property. Apparently, NR did offer to surface the Byway that leads down from the south side of the bridge to the first LC - I can see some long queues and p*ss*d off local residents if they do.

[Reorte]

 

Back on topic - OLE shemes are by their nature often ugly, and I'm sure Brunel would approve of the progress being made but I can't help thinking he'd find a way to make it look elegant in some way. Try as I might, I still can't get used to the idea of any part of the GWR being electrified... it was bad enough the first time I saw my beloved Paddington with newly installed knitting up above!

You could put it in a pipe down the middle of the track, with power stations for it every few miles along the line.

[Edwin_m]

You could put it in a pipe down the middle of the track, with power stations for it every few miles along the line.

But we all know that system really sucks .

[JeffP]

Rats!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

They are not a problem. Once a month with nothing operating on the system, gas is fed into the conduit network until the optimum fuel air mix is achieved, when ignition is initiated from Swindon. The resulting blast wave picks up everything loose within the conduits dead or alive, and flings it out through the conduit cover which is an efficient pressure relief valve. So spectacular is the resulting curtain of flame and following shower of flaming debris that many folk stay up until the usual 3 am ignition for this event; usually named for the sound it creates 'GOOOOOSCHH'. (Tales of regular consumption of chargrilled rats are much exaggerated.)

[The Stationmaster]

That's nothing.  Back in the early/mid 1980s when I was devising/working on various infrastructure schemes as the WR's answer to what Mr Serpell was after it became rather obvious that lots of the papers discussed at various meerings were not properly read until the meeting itself if at all.  I duly had a word with my then boss about putting in a paper for a meeting very early in April and duly drafted it on a single page of A4 and it was put on the agenda right at the end and circulated with all the other papers for the meeting, which would, as usual, be chaired by the Deputy General Manager.

 

The paper extolled the benefits of a scheme to improve infrastructure on the main routes of the WR with a view to dramatically increasing train speeds and improving capacity.  As usual the final sentence of the paper asked the meeting to grant authoritry to develop the scheme.

 

The results were hilarious as the Deputy GM, as usual, very carefully read all the papers in advance  and didn't say a word until he got to the final item on the agenda and simply started it off in the same way as any other paper seeking authority to develop a scheme, with all the attendees except my boss listening intently until the punchline was reached.  

And the punchline was that the paper asked for authority to develop a scheme to re-gauge the entire WR to a gauge of 7ft 1/4inch

[Dave Scott]

You could put it in a pipe down the middle of the track, with power stations for it every few miles along the line.

What about the conduit system used by London trams. pipe sunk into middle of track with inverted conductors and a plough pickup. Not sure about manning a change pit at old oak though

[Southernman46]

(Tales of regular consumption of chargrilled rats are much exaggerated.)

Clearly you've never been to Swindon..................

[Titan]

Well I suppose even a Hymek would eat a 25 for breakfast...

 

Plenty of Chargrilled Flying rats (Pigeons) at Ilford from trying to fly through the hole in the depot doors around the 25kV!!

 

(Almost bringing it back on topic!!!)

Edited September 18, 2014 by Titan

[Joseph_Pestell]

There was an article on the local news a while back about Challow and having to acquire land for a temporary bridge was the reason they gave for basically.............not doing it.

 

NR originally intended to close the bridge at Wantage Road for 6 months, but the County Council told them where to go, and I believe there will now only be closures for a few days at a time (presumably while building a temporary structure)

 

Steventon could be fun - I know a guy on the Parish Council and NR told them some weeks ago they would close it for at least 8 months, which will cause utter traffic chaos, especially when the A34 is blocked by an accident (which is most weeks). No chance of a temporary bridge here without demolishing property. Apparently, NR did offer to surface the Byway that leads down from the south side of the bridge to the first LC - I can see some long queues and p*ss*d off local residents if they do.

 

My understanding was that electrification was going to close the two Steventon level crossings. In which case one would need to upgrade Station Lane ("the Byway") anyway as the only access to houses and businesses south of the line. I used to use Station Lane anyway as so often stuck for ages at one of the level crossings.

 

Seems amazing that the newish bridge at Challow was not constructed in such a way as to be suitable for OHLE. Any temporary bridge there would not be great (probably need to be a single-track job with traffic lights) but far better than a long diversion. In reality, it will no doubt lead to a lot of problems on the country lanes as they become rat-runs.

[RJS1977]

Perhaps when they CAT scan the bottom of the hole, they should also look up to see whats above them!

 

Last week at Cholsey they somehow managed to get themselves tangled up in some overhead powercables, dragging them down onto the running lines, closing the railway for a number of hours, trapping several trains and knocking out power to around 41 local properties!

 

Though to be fair I've done platform duty at Cholsey approximately once a month for the last seven years and don't remember seeing any overhead power cables either! (Other than the very high voltage stuff a little to the south of the line).

[Revolution Ben]

Only thing which went wrong was that Trainload Coal wanted to (and did) use Class 60s on it whereas I had hoped for, and recommended, pairs of Class 37s - all my layout plans provided for them ... tehehe.

 

Wow - gets my vote for "most interesting and informative post I've seen on RM Web" - thanks!   Re that last point: from your planning point of view what advantage did a pair of 37s have over a single 60 that led to your recommendation?  Was it just that two power units were less likely to fail?

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Ben A

[The Pilotman]

Wow - gets my vote for "most interesting and informative post I've seen on RM Web" - thanks!   Re that last point: from your planning point of view what advantage did a pair of 37s have over a single 60 that led to your recommendation?  Was it just that two power units were less likely to fail?

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

The noise is much better!

[The Stationmaster]

Wow - gets my vote for "most interesting and informative post I've seen on RM Web" - thanks!   Re that last point: from your planning point of view what advantage did a pair of 37s have over a single 60 that led to your recommendation?  Was it just that two power units were less likely to fail?

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

At that time (early '90s) the Class 60s were still very much an unknown quantity whereas the 37s were very much the opposite with lots of real performance data plus excellent range of the twin (fuel) tank conversions which in effect meant more hours in traffic.  Added to that they were available and crew training costs would have been lower.  Plus I wanted at all costs to avoid Class 56s which had a poor reliability record and would not have been 'helpful' if they had started sitting down on the mainline east of Swindon where some of the timings were fairly tight.

 

But by then traction policy decisions were in the hands of the business sectors and Trainload Coal were getting some of the nice new shiny Class 60s and wanted something to use them on.  And just to make sure someone even sent a Class 60 on the trial train for my Reading runround timing and I have to admit that the cab and forward view was somewhat better than the dear old EE Type 3 (Class 37 by then).

 

But the Bristol BBHT (Bristol Bulk Handling Terminal) run round necks were able to accommodate a pair of Class 37s as were the reception/departure roads.

 

I'm glad you enjoyed reading about it - despite my typos - and fortunately I kept some of my paperwork, particularly the graphs from working up the scheme so i still have some nice memories of what was all-in-all a very satisfying development job.

[Ramblin Rich]

Mike, said it before & I'll say it again - your insights into the background planning works and operations are extremely informative & entertaining too! I still think a book of memoirs would be well received by anyone with an interest in railway workings....