GWML Electification

[Northroader]

Yes, but it will reduce overcrowding on the Central line, which is why Crossrail was built. (I think that's how TfL view the set-up, anyway)

[jim.snowdon]

True, but it is a line trying to be a compromise between a tube line and a suburban railway, with a little too much emphasis on the former.

 

Jim

[JJGraphics]

Wires all buzzin' and sizzlin' at Maidenhead.....

 

 

 

Interesting video. Shame about the "camera work". Felt almost as sick after watching that as after half a hour on a Vomiter.

Edited May 20, 2017 by JJGraphics

[jyte]

Interesting video. Shame about the "camera work". Felt almost as sick after watching that as after half a hour on a Vomiter.

That's not the 'camera work' - just a terrible warp stabiliser added either by youtube or an NLE, but yes I agree - pretty rubbish.

[The Stationmaster]

Although, for the present it is really only Maidenhead and, to a lesser extent, Slough passengers who will benefit from the new trains - as far as I am aware there is just one stopping service diagrammed for electric operation each way on weekdays. Passengers from West Drayton inwards, who already have to suffer quite severe peak time overcrowding will have to continue to suffer their 3- and 5-car 165/166 sets for some time yet.

 

And then, by the time we have all got used to the greater capacity ofthe 8-car 387s, they will get replaced by the Crossrail 345 stock, with fewer seats and more stading space. This will, of course, be trumpeted by TfL as an "improvement" 

 

Jim

 

The July change sees a lot more stopping trains Jim - presumably phased in this way to allow the electrics to 'bed-down' and give time for training plus - most importantly of all - tying in with the track and signal route commissioning at Maidenhead - look at realTime trains for the first full week in July.

 

I hate to think of the reaction when the (makes me very Cross)rail trains arrive.  No doubt TfL will shout to the roof tops that their overgrown UndergrounD trains are an improvement whereas in reality they aren't really fit to go beyond West Drayton with the sideways facing seats (?medically risk assessed for their effect on passengers at speed on tree lined routes?), their back to the 1950s lack of toilets, and enough space to hold a dance but no room to sit for the wallflowers who don't want to join in, oh and how much luggage space will they have I wonder? - they don't even have luggage racks.  Total load of rubbish for longer distance use and a definite help to increasing traffic congestion on the M4 as people seek a comfortable journey (yes 'comfortable' not 'more comfortable').

[The Stationmaster]

True, but it is a line trying to be a compromise between a tube line and a suburban railway, with a little too much emphasis on the former.

 

Jim

I think the word 'compromise' is something of an exaggeration Jim - I can't see any signs at all of any sort of 'compromise' from what is basically an overgrown UndergrounD train meant for short distance journeys.

[Northroader]

There's an interesting story today in the Sunday Times business section "crossrail hits the buffers at Heathrow" to the effect that the consortium owning the airport who put up the money for the rail access want their pound of flesh before crossrail can come in.

Edit, where the GWML comes in on this is Crossrail Heathrow traffic may have to transfer before reaching the airport. "Turning around trains on the GWML would cause a huge headache"

Edited May 21, 2017 by Northroader

[The Stationmaster]

There's an interesting story today in the Sunday Times business section "crossrail hits the buffers at Heathrow" to the effect that the consortium owning the airport who put up the money for the rail access want their pound of flesh before crossrail can come in.

Edit, where the GWML comes in on this is Crossrail Heathrow traffic may have to transfer before reaching the airport. "Turning around trains on the GWML would cause a huge headache"

 

I haven't read it yet but the simple answer would be to terminate the LHR Crossrail trains at Paddington and let Heathrow Connect continue in its present form, or thereabouts, so no problems involved in turning round trains on the GWML although Crossrail wouldn't then be able to grab Heathrow Connection paths.  The only people then inconvenienced by TfL's refusal to face economic reality would be the passengers transferring from Crossrail to Heathrow Connect at Paddington and the inconvenience to them would be no greater than it is at present - at the very worst.

 

I've no doubt that when the Heathrow rail link was financed (by private capital) those who invested expected a particular rate of return  (or repayment) over a certain period and I can't see quite why they should not get that (or, indeed, make a profit on their investment) unless they are properly compensated for it.   But in any case Crossrail will unavoidably have to pay Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd a track access charge and as far as I'm aware that would be an unregulated charge so they can almost charge whatever they can justify from their cost base plus any loss of revenue from the demise of Heathrow Connect (although that might be covered by a revenue sharing agreement of course) and competition possibly adversely affecting Heathrow Express revenue.   And of course there would no doubt be a charge for any use of  various facilities, such as provision for ticket purchase, at the airport itself

 

TfL really have no moral right at all to expect a free ride over somebody else's infrastructure although they seem to be increasingly keen on the idea of getting quite a lot of somethings for nothing.   In reality this is just one way in which they will have to pay a price for what amounts to a land grab by introducing a service wholly operated by them - perhaps the Parisian RER model might have been a more sensible one to follow?   And let's face - TfL have already got one line of their own to the airport.

[Ron Ron Ron]

There is a Crossrail thread further down the index page gents......

 

 

 

.

[Northroader]

See my edit which stated how it does indeed affect GWML use.

[phil-b259]

I think the word 'compromise' is something of an exaggeration Jim - I can't see any signs at all of any sort of 'compromise' from what is basically an overgrown UndergrounD train meant for short distance journeys.

 

Quite so

 

Unfortunately those living within the M25 seem to hold a grudge against those living outside it as when the topic gets mentioned on London related forums such as London Reconnection ( https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/one-of-the-family-crossrails-transition-to-being-a-tube/ ), persons complaining about the things you highlight in your previous post, they effectively get told to lump it* - Crossrail is TfLs trainset we are told and they set the rules - namely massive quantities of standing space and no toilets to facilitate crush loads through the core. Toilets are dismissed as something that should never have been fitted to the Turbos in the first place so say such types  and it is apparently only there because of the way the Turbo units get used on longer distance services beyond Reading or the North Downs route.  Longitudinal we are told should be the norm for commuting services and if we want more seats then Crossrail should take over the residual GWR services instead. It is also apparently regarded as the norm for all TfL services apparently  - the new EMUs being ordered for West Anglia and Goblin services will no doubt join the current Overground EMUs and the tube in featuring this and it may be that South Eastern commuters have been done a favour by Chris Grayling pulling the plug on rail devolution.

 

* As one person put it

 

"We’re talking about faster journeys for anyone not actually going *to* Paddington station itself, with air-conditioning, more space, less kerfuffle. Those complaining that it’s going to spoil the romance of a journey in a massively-overcrowded mouldy old DMU don’t have my sympathy."

Edited May 21, 2017 by phil-b259

[david.hill64]

I've no doubt that when the Heathrow rail link was financed (by private capital) those who invested expected a particular rate of return  (or repayment) over a certain period and I can't see quite why they should not get that (or, indeed, make a profit on their investment) unless they are properly compensated for it.   But in any case Crossrail will unavoidably have to pay Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd a track access charge and as far as I'm aware that would be an unregulated charge so they can almost charge whatever they can justify from their cost base plus any loss of revenue from the demise of Heathrow Connect (although that might be covered by a revenue sharing agreement of course) and competition possibly adversely affecting Heathrow Express revenue.   And of course there would no doubt be a charge for any use of  various facilities, such as provision for ticket purchase, at the airport itself

 

At  the risk of being off topic, I wonder if BAA's hands will be tied by the High Court decision on Open Access Operator's infrastructure charges? It may be that BAA cannot set more than a nominal access charge.

[jim.snowdon]

As a GW suburban commuter, I have a recollectin that when BAA's service opened to Heathrow it was with considerable reluctance that they accepted (possibly were forced to accept) the provision of the all stations service that is currently Heathrow Connect. That was run as a joint effort between Heathrow Express and First and is, I believe, due to be taken over by TfL pre-Crossrail.

 

Later on, once Crossrail was beginning to look like a reality, I am sure I remember reading that Heathrow wanted their own limited stop Heathrow - Canary Wharf service, presumably as the replacement for the Heathrow - Paddington express service that was clearly aimed very much as the Business Class market (and priced to match). They didn't get it, if only because putting non-stopping services into what is intended as a high density all-stations railway results in either a severe reduction in the number of train paths available, or the non-stop service ending up stopping between stations (as the District Railway had discovered decades before).

 

As far as access charges are concerned, I would question whether the Heathrow Airport branch is classed as an Open Access railway, given that it is a privately owned railway and not part of the National network, even though it has a running connection to it. So too has the North York Moors Railway, but that doesn't make it an open access railway either.

 

Jim

[St. Simon]

As far as access charges are concerned, I would question whether the Heathrow Airport branch is classed as an Open Access railway, given that it is a privately owned railway and not part of the National network, even though it has a running connection to it. So too has the North York Moors Railway, but that doesn't make it an open access railway either.

 

But remember the NYMR, as with other heritage railways with mainline connections, are self contained railways where the same organisation owns, operates and maintains the infrastructure and rolling stock, where as the Heathrow Branch is owned by BAA, maintained and operated by Network Rail (under a contract), with the stock run and maintained by Heathrow Express which, although owned by BAA, is a company in its own right, which I think would put in a class of its own really.

 

Simon

[jim.snowdon]

But remember the NYMR, as with other heritage railways with mainline connections, are self contained railways where the same organisation owns, operates and maintains the infrastructure and rolling stock, where as the Heathrow Branch is owned by BAA, maintained and operated by Network Rail (under a contract), with the stock run and maintained by Heathrow Express which, although owned by BAA, is a company in its own right, which I think would put in a class of its own really.

 

Simon

I used the NYMR as an example deliberately, as they run timetabled services over their connection to NR, whereas all of the other preserved lines I could think of that have connections use them only for transferring stock and special services. As far as the Heathrow branch is concerned, that it is maintained by NR is incidental, as NR is merely a contractor in that context, as also applies on the TfL owned parts of the East London Line, and on HS1. Ownership and operation of the stock is a red herring, in as much as it is operated for HAL (BAA ceased to exist some time ago) by a subsidiary of HAL. They have to pay NR access charges for running off their own railway onto the GW Main Line, although there there may well have been a contractual trade-off between access charges and the investment they put in in getting "their" OLE into Paddington (until now, it wasn't used by anything other than HEX and Heathrow Connect services).

 

A parallel example would be the Channel Tunnel, which is itself a private railway, neither NR nor SNCF, but which earns its money by selling train paths to Eurostar and the freight operators. It is an open access railway for purely commercial reasons, although it isn't open access in engineering terms, as only stock equipped to work with its signalling equipment and OLE can operate through the tunnel.

 

Jim

[4630]

Electric services from Maidenhead started today with a handful of peak hour services.  Actually it might be less than a handful as on another forum its reported that power supply issues mean that all the planned for services can't be provided yet.

 

387132 waits to form 1P94, 07.42 Maidenhead to London Paddington. 

 

[david.hill64]

I used the NYMR as an example deliberately, as they run timetabled services over their connection to NR, whereas all of the other preserved lines I could think of that have connections use them only for transferring stock and special services. As far as the Heathrow branch is concerned, that it is maintained by NR is incidental, as NR is merely a contractor in that context, as also applies on the TfL owned parts of the East London Line, and on HS1. Ownership and operation of the stock is a red herring, in as much as it is operated for HAL (BAA ceased to exist some time ago) by a subsidiary of HAL. They have to pay NR access charges for running off their own railway onto the GW Main Line, although there there may well have been a contractual trade-off between access charges and the investment they put in in getting "their" OLE into Paddington (until now, it wasn't used by anything other than HEX and Heathrow Connect services).

 

A parallel example would be the Channel Tunnel, which is itself a private railway, neither NR nor SNCF, but which earns its money by selling train paths to Eurostar and the freight operators. It is an open access railway for purely commercial reasons, although it isn't open access in engineering terms, as only stock equipped to work with its signalling equipment and OLE can operate through the tunnel.

 

Jim

Jim, I raised the point in ignorance of the details of the court's previous determination on allowable charges for use of network rail infrastructure. I know that the HEX branch is a private railway, but I still wonder if they are allowed to charge whatever they like for access. It depends on the details of the previous determination: if anybody knows I would be interested.

[ejstubbs]

I attended a talk about the Edinburgh project by one of the client team before the work actually started.  He spent much of the talk bigging up the project management and particularly the MUD contract (Major Utilities Diversion) he told us how this aspect was always a big variable and they had done such good surveys that they knew exactly what they were going to find under the roadbed.

 

Are you sure that wasn't an Edinburgh Fringe comedy show?

 

I won't name the speaker as he is still involved in light rail but I bet he has some interesting thoughts about what went wrong.

 

On the basis of what you report him as having said before, I wouldn't hold out too much hope of those 'interesting thoughts' having much to do with reality.  Or am I being too harsh?

 

While waiting for my bus to negotiate the TTLs at one of the holes in the carriageway forming part of Edinburgh's annual Roadworks Festival (which seems to start just after Hogmanay and run until about March), I observed once again a bunch a guys in hi-vis and hard hats standing staring into the hole and looking puzzled.  It set me to wondering how much information the utility companies and their contractors retain and share with each other about what they each find under the road when they dig it up.

 

I was reminded of the 3D laser scanning technology that was showcased in that short series that Alexander Armstrong presented recently on the Beeb, where it was used to build holographic recreations of historic structures in various Italian cities. Just a wild idea but I wondered how difficult it would be to make it a requirement for anyone digging up a road to make such a 3D scan before they start filling it in again, and then lodge that in a repository somewhere so that if someone subsequently needs to go dig there again, they can take a look and maybe not be quite so surprised at what they find down there...

 

Then again, to paraphrase that well-worn Internet disclaimer: I Am Not A Civil Engineer.

Edited May 23, 2017 by ejstubbs

[Budgie]

I know it's shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, but shouldn't the government make it illegal to destroy records of what utilities are where in the country's infrastructure? Obviously that should have been done before the railways were privatised, but then hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[bimble]

I was reminded of the 3D laser scanning technology that was showcased in that short series that Alexander Armstrong presented recently on the Beeb, where it was used to build holographic recreations of historic structures in various Italian cities. Just a wild idea but I wondered how difficult it would be to make it a requirement for anyone digging up a road to make such a 3D scan before they start filling it in again, and then lodge that in a repository somewhere so that if someone subsequently needs to go dig there again, they can take a look and maybe not be quite so surprised at what they find down there...

 

Then again, to paraphrase that well-worn Internet disclaimer: I Am Not A Civil Engineer.

 

You wouldn't even need a 3D scanner... you could easily pick up any exposed detail with a GPS pole or a theodolite with more than enough required detail. The problem then is having that information in a place where anyone who might need it can access it. A surveyor with such equipment isn't standard for most roadwork jobs, and having to call one in if you happen to find something obviously adds time and costs to each job.

[The Stationmaster]

Electric services from Maidenhead started today with a handful of peak hour services.  Actually it might be less than a handful as on another forum its reported that power supply issues mean that all the planned for services can't be provided yet.

 

387132 waits to form 1P94, 07.42 Maidenhead to London Paddington. 

 

387132 1P94 Maidenhead 22052017 - RMWeb.jpg

 

Hardly surprising in some respects because as I noted recently (and in common with elsewhere on the GWML scheme) a lot of detail work appeared to be outstanding including connections to substations and the parallel 25kv feeder (which might possibly be involved?).  I've an idea also that substation at Maidenhead West or thereabouts also wasn't fully connected when I passed recently.  And there are still oddments of work going on between Scours Lane and Didcot albeit not much now.

 

It seems that the Crossrail West and GWML's idea of 'electrification commissioned' is somewhat different from the definition used in the past by BR.

[The Stationmaster]

I know it's shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, but shouldn't the government make it illegal to destroy records of what utilities are where in the country's infrastructure? Obviously that should have been done before the railways were privatised, but then hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Doesn't always make much difference where there are records.  back in the 1970s I attended a site meeting at port talbot where the footings were being dug for the extension of PortTalbot panelbox building.  The contractors had come across what was very obviously a fairly high voltage electric cable and wanted to know if it was dead, alive, redundant or occasionally powered up.  The meeting was attended by the S&T, the ODM plant engineer (who had responsibility for some power cables in that area), the local electricity supply concern, BT (in case it belonged to them and was really a 'phone cable), the steel works plant and electricity supply engineer's rep, and the Docks Board engineer.

 

 All of then turned up with whatever drawings they had of their cables in that vicinity - some going back to the 1930s - and nobody laid claim to the cable so it was duly cut with a digger bucket.  Nothing, no flash or bang - just nothing and no idea of who it might ever have belonged to.

[black and decker boy]

It is already a legal requirement for information relating to the construction, maintenance and drvommissioning of Constructions to be recorded and passed to the owners / operators. This is under the CDM regs but doesn't help historic utility ducts & pipes until exposed.

 

It also only helps if the information recorded is accurate and kept and made available to the next relevant person.

 

Working with and around utilities is one of the most arduous, high risk and costly parts of modern day civil engineering with manpower and costs tied up with it. You have to remember though that many cables, ducts and pipes can date back decades or longer and may have served long since demolished buildings, factories etc and even the roads they were laid under may have gone or substantially changed. I have gained many a grey hair dealing with it.

[Hellzapoppin]

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread only a very small number of buried services have been hit, in fact I only know of 3 and only one of those has caused problems. It seems that these services or the lack of drawings has caused the project to fail. Utter hogwash and before you ask, yes I do know what I'm talking about.

[Trog]

I always used to hate re-ballasting or laying track drains between platforms, you never knew what you would find under the ballast. Cables, pipes, drains you name it, it is down there waiting for you. At the same station at different times I found the hard way, a water pipe presumably serving the station buildings knocked down thirty years before. (After some searching we found a stop cock and turned off the supply, although it did take the local water board two days to find out why the local village had no tap water.) Two brick built locomotive inspection pits that had been cut down to a couple of inches under the sleepers and forgotten, one of which was under a road overbridge. So at 3am on a Sunday morning in the days before mobile phones you have to decide do I take this out or not. The most troublesome find however was an S&T underline crossing just a couple of feet down and running both above and below the drain pipe I was replacing. Staff being in short supply I was working with two JCB's about a quarter mile apart, while checking the work of the northern one I was told the other had cut some cables. The lads who had been watching the second machine for me asked if I thought they were anything important, I looked at the three black signals at the south end of the station turned round and saw two more at the north end of the station and thought Oh ****. Luckily the SPT's were still working so I was able to ring the box and make the signalman's day by advising him that he did not have an indication failure but had really lost the signalling on five miles of the WCML.

 

For the next station drainage job at a station where a colleague had years before removed a redundant pipe that used to run to a water crane, only to find that it was still connected to a redundant water tower full of redundant water. (Apparently it is quite impressive how much water you can get though a 12" pipe with 30' of head on it.) I was for some reason feeling rather cautious, so I had a really good search in the plan room and eventually found a set of plans showing all the drainage and culverts at this station. Result it was marked LNWR 1899 but at least it was data.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Trog