GWML Electification

[Edwin_m]

My personal loathing of all things EEC/EU stems from the above in that we have been on a slow descent into accepting some forms and the overarching concept of Napoleonic Law. Our policemen and safety regulators have been in the lead here - Firstly by charging folk with utterly trivial offences as a means of generating case law - in one sense it doesn't even matter if the cases are thrown out by the judiciary as nonsensical - the trivia sticks in the mind of those who have heard about it. Secondly, forbidding everything makes the de jure ultimate safety case! - And if you don't make a decision, then you can never make the wrong one....

I think you're 180 degrees out on this.  Firstly David made the point that a safety case is a British idea, with the mainland European authorities preferring to rely on standards, so you can't equate safety cases with a European imposition.  Secondly, as noted in previous posts, the problem is with the ORR applying the standard not with the standard itself.  And thirdly the basis of the European Common Safety Method is that a particular hazard can be addressed by one of three methods: compliance with a relevant standard, demonstration of precedent on a comparable application elsewhere, or assessing the risk from first principles.  Thus the means is in principle available to argue that a particular standard is excessively stringent and safety can be assured by other means.  Unless, of course, someone goes and writes the standard into law...

[corneliuslundie]

British standards (with a small s but including those with a big S) have had the concept of proving the case from first principles as an option for a long time. However, it can be expensive and difficult, so the tendency has been to opt for an easier option. BTW, can you PROVE something is safe?

And a question. The Crossrail tunnels were finished some time ago. Are they also going to have to be enlarged? That will be somewhat dificult to explain to Parliament.

Jonathan

[Titan]

The ironic thing is that GL/RT1210 does not mandate 370mm minimum clearance anyway, giving the 'Normal' clearance as 270mm, same as it was on BR.

 

You can read it here, top of page 12:

 

http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GLRT1210%20Iss%201.pdf

 

You can no longer use the 'Reduced' and 'Special Reduced' clearances which were only rarely needed anyway.

 

It mentions elsewhere of 370mm providing 'basic' insulation, which many seem to have interpreted as the mandatory minimum, as it appears in the Roger Ford article. Not so.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Titan

[david.hill64]

I think you're 180 degrees out on this. Firstly David made the point that a safety case is a British idea, with the mainland European authorities preferring to rely on standards, so you can't equate safety cases with a European imposition. Secondly, as noted in previous posts, the problem is with the ORR applying the standard not with the standard itself. And thirdly the basis of the European Common Safety Method is that a particular hazard can be addressed by one of three methods: compliance with a relevant standard, demonstration of precedent on a comparable application elsewhere, or assessing the risk from first principles. Thus the means is in principle available to argue that a particular standard is excessively stringent and safety can be assured by other means. Unless, of course, someone goes and writes the standard into law...

Thanks for the reminder about the Commin Safety Method. It would appear that ORR has thrown this out of the window too. Demonstration on a comparable application clearly should have been sufficient.

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks for the reminder about the Commin Safety Method. It would appear that ORR has thrown this out of the window too. Demonstration on a comparable application clearly should have been sufficient.

 

I wonder if this is related to the ORR's RM3 audit procedure they are now trying to get into wider use in the industry (it's y compulsory for mainline operators)?

[DavidB-AU]

Severn Tunnel electrification installation completed

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/severn-tunnel-electrification-installation-completed.html

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by DavidB-AU

[corneliuslundie]

But will they now have to dig a bigger tunnel to give the revised clearances?

Tongue only half in cheek

Jonathan

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Severn Tunnel electrification installation completed

 

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/severn-tunnel-electrification-installation-completed.html

 

 

Interesting aerial views of Patchway and Pilning.

 

Looks like the footbridge was still at the latter station; is it due for removal or replacement?

[Bristol_Rich]

The footbridge at Pilning was due for removal during the closure IIRC. The Patchway bridge remains.

[royaloak]

What on the face of it appears to have happened is that the ORR did not ensure there was an application for a derogation in accordance with the provisions of the 2012 act which introduced the new procedures. 

Maybe they had taken their eye off the ball trying to force DOO on everyone?

 

Sorry for infecting another thread with DOO but it could be relevant!

[phil-b259]

I wonder if this is related to the ORR's RM3 audit procedure they are now trying to get into wider use in the industry (it's y compulsory for mainline operators)?

Any chance you can expand on this Mike as it is all a bit too technical for me - I mean if a procedure is compulsory for mainline operators why would the ORR need to push it?

Edited October 28, 2016 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

Maybe they had taken their eye off the ball trying to force DOO on everyone?

 

Sorry for infecting another thread with DOO but it could be relevant!

I sometimes wonder whether their eyes were even on the ball in the first place.

[The Stationmaster]

Maybe they had taken their eye off the ball trying to force DOO on everyone?

 

Sorry for infecting another thread with DOO but it could be relevant!

 

 

Any chance you can expand on this Mike as it is all a bit too technical for me - I mean if a procedure is compulsory for mainline operators why would the ORR need to push it?

They're now trying to push it onto the minor railways and seemingly wider than just the main operators on the national network (although the latter would be a very good thing in some respects of course).  However it does involve, so I'm told, some different methodolgy in the approach to the consideration and application of risk assessments which is more in line with the wider European approach than the historical situation in Britain.  Basically it is all about auditing but it is also a consideration of what is being audited.

 

I am told there is some resistance to it because in some respects it differs from long established procedures that have grown up from H&S legislation but I don't know if the mainline operators and NR are objecting to it although some people in the wider railway safety field are.

[corneliuslundie]

I have now read Roger Ford's article quoted above in the printed issue. Within the article is a box headed "Not all bad news" which quotes Phil Verster, Managing Director, Scotrail Alliance, as saying, inter alia about what he calls the "international specification for electrification", "The original programme had a Network Rail standard that we thought could be delivered, but our risk assessments led us to a decision to adopt the European standard." (my bold type)

Apart from the fact that "international specification" later becomes "European standard", what could possibly have been risk assessed? Certainly not the electrification system (which has been risk assessed anway in the past), so perhaps the risk of him losing his job or the contract being cancelled?

I really hate this misuse of the term by people who think it is trendy but do not have a clue what it means.

Jonathan

[The Stationmaster]

I have now read Roger Ford's article quoted above in the printed issue. Within the article is a box headed "Not all bad news" which quotes Phil Verster, Managing Director, Scotrail Alliance, as saying, inter alia about what he calls the "international specification for electrification", "The original programme had a Network Rail standard that we thought could be delivered, but our risk assessments led us to a decision to adopt the European standard." (my bold type)

Apart from the fact that "international specification" later becomes "European standard", what could possibly have been risk assessed? Certainly not the electrification system (which has been risk assessed anway in the past), so perhaps the risk of him losing his job or the contract being cancelled?

I really hate this misuse of the term by people who think it is trendy but do not have a clue what it means.

Jonathan

 

It also depends on how the risk assessments are carried out and to what standard - this the changes referred to in my posts (which of course came from the ORR) might be what has altered things.

[Edwin_m]

I have now read Roger Ford's article quoted above in the printed issue. Within the article is a box headed "Not all bad news" which quotes Phil Verster, Managing Director, Scotrail Alliance, as saying, inter alia about what he calls the "international specification for electrification", "The original programme had a Network Rail standard that we thought could be delivered, but our risk assessments led us to a decision to adopt the European standard." (my bold type)

Apart from the fact that "international specification" later becomes "European standard", what could possibly have been risk assessed? Certainly not the electrification system (which has been risk assessed anway in the past), so perhaps the risk of him losing his job or the contract being cancelled?

I really hate this misuse of the term by people who think it is trendy but do not have a clue what it means.

Jonathan

"Risk" is a much overused word and it could indeed be a reference to what is called "project risk" - the risk of the project not succeeding for reasons that may not be safety related. 

 

Trying to get derogation on a new standard is going to take time and may be unsuccessful at the end, by which time re-designing the affected parts could delay the whole project and might even involve re-work on site.  This could be much more serious in cost and delay terms than just taking account of the new standard when it appears, which could still be relatively early in the design process.  The cost, delay and likelihood of failing to get a derogation must be balanced against the cost of changing the design and any extra construction that results. 

Edited October 29, 2016 by Edwin_m

[4630]

.

Edited November 12, 2016 by 4630

[caradoc]

In the past I have defended Network Rail, partly through being an employee (now ex-employee), however this is now indefensible and is, basically, a complete shambles. It looks as if the only route to be completed is Paddington-Cardiff, plus presumably Reading-Newbury; Neither Oxford nor, more importantly, Bristol, are to get electric trains any time soon. What will this mean for train services; Will the Oxford/Paddington stoppers now have an enforced change at Didcot, from DMU to EMU ? I take it Bristol will be served by bi-modal trains, changing between electric and diesel power at Bath (or Bristol Parkway).

 

I have wondered for some time why electrification was not being carried out progressively, ie firstly extending the wires from Airport Jc to Slough and Reading, then to Oxford and Newbury (allowing a number of services to convert fully to electric traction), and then along the main line to Bristol, Cardiff and eventually Swansea. The current situation at Reading sums up the state of this project perfectly; Despite the massive rebuilding, no lines through the station are yet wired, however all 4 lines from Tilehurst to Didcot are wired ! And there is still a massive gap between Airport Jc and Reading, which, as above, I would have thought should be the first section to be completed.

 

This is without doubt now a major embarassment for Network Rail.

[Fat Controller]

DfT announce a 'deferrment' of part of the electrification on the Great Western route;

 

As a result of this scrutiny from the Hendy review I have decided to defer 4 electrification projects that are part of the programme of work along the Great Western route. The 4 projects being deferred are:

• electrification between Oxford and Didcot Parkway
• electrification of Filton Bank (Bristol Parkway to Bristol Temple Meads)
• electrification west of Thingley Junction (Bath Spa to Bristol Temple Meads)
• electrification of Thames Valley Branches (Henley & Windsor)

Full details here;

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/rail-update-rail-investment-in-the-great-western-route

So no electrification to Bristol Temple Meads for the present? Give the effort already expended on Box Tunnel, that's a bit silly. 

[The Stationmaster]

DfT announce a 'deferrment' of part of the electrification on the Great Western route;

 

As a result of this scrutiny from the Hendy review I have decided to defer 4 electrification projects that are part of the programme of work along the Great Western route. The 4 projects being deferred are:

• electrification between Oxford and Didcot Parkway
• electrification of Filton Bank (Bristol Parkway to Bristol Temple Meads)
• electrification west of Thingley Junction (Bath Spa to Bristol Temple Meads)
• electrification of Thames Valley Branches (Henley & Windsor)

Full details here;

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/rail-update-rail-investment-in-the-great-western-route

 

Well that sounds a bit daft.  GWR say they now have enough 387s coming to replace their Turbo fleet in the Thames Valley but it would seem they aren't going to be able to use them, and the Turbo's made redundant by electrification are booked to cascade to elsewhere.  So what happens to out Thames Valley train services - certainly not the halfbaked garbage peddled by this dumbo -

 

This is because we can bring in the benefits expected by passengers - newer trains with more capacity – without requiring costly and disruptive electrification works. This will provide between £146 million to £165 million in this spending period, to be focused on improvements that will deliver additional benefits to passengers. We remain committed to modernising the Great Western mainline and ensuring that passenger benefits are achieved.

This decision underscores the government’s approach to wider rail investment; that passenger outcomes must be delivered in conjunction with achieving the best value from every pound spent.

Similarly we might reasonably ask what happens to the proposed improved and more frequent services between London and Bristol some of which were intended to run via Badminton and Filton Bank.  Presumably they will now - if they happen - be run by Class 800s running on diesel power at slower times than the HSTs they are allegedly going to 'improve on'

So all in all a major failure on the part of Notwork Rail which leaves the operating company and its passengers with major questions and, in all likelihood very few answers.  So as a major priority we need to keep the HSTs and let the Ministry of No Trains leave its Class 800s rusting in sidings.  

 

And what does it say about the Hendy Review and all the other claptrap uttered by NR in the past 12 months - let's hope they never have charge of an alcoholic occasion in a  brewery.

 

PS Maybe the title of this thread should be changed to GWML NON-Electrification?

Edited November 8, 2016 by The Stationmaster

[31A]

Where does this leave the DMU cascade that is supposed to facilitate (some of) the service enhancements in the Northern franchise, I wonder?

[4630]

.

Edited November 12, 2016 by 4630

[phil-b259]

So no electrification to Bristol Temple Meads for the present? Give the effort already expended on Box Tunnel, that's a bit silly. 

 

Two points - Firstly the elements not going ahead are refereed to as 'deferred' not 'cancelled' or 'postponed' so there is every chance that once the Paddington - Cardiff / Newbury sections are up and running the staff can move on straight away to the deferred routes. Secondly, the Government remain committed to the original full scheme in principle so the work done at Box is not wasted and will make things easier once electrification engineers return to the route via Bath.

[lmsforever]

NR do not seem to be able to get their act together on this job,agree that it is disjointed project I can remember when the line I lived next door to was wired in the sixties it was a continuous project.Masts went up as the infrastructure was modified then the wires so simple compared to now and the main lines locally had the same treatment, perhaps nowadays we over specify jobs ,with to many parts that possibly are not needed ,I bow to the experts on here if there are genuine reasons for this project being so poorly delivered.

[phil-b259]

Sadly, I think that's unlikely, Mike.  IIRC the HSTs are already destined for further use in Scotland with leasing arrangements already in place.  

 

Also, thanks to the procurement being handled by the DfT, the 800 / 801 trains are going to be the most expensive fleet to lease in the UK by some distance. The press would have a field day if they have to be stored unused in sidings while the taxpayer foots the bill AND pays for the continued lease on the HST fleet so unfortunately for Mike and others I don't see you avoiding the introduction of the 800s / 801s (with uprated engines) as per the revised DfT plan.