GWML Electification

[Great Western]

An IEP and Class 387 are undergoing electric test running between Slough and Didcot Parkway, on both main and Relief lines to test the OHL.

 

Meanwhile at Bristol Pakrway work is being undertaken to ready the layout for the Nov 26 opening of the Platofrk one, and connection to the Filton lines, although the passenger use of P1 won’t happen until after Xmas.

 

Filton four tracking project work is also going on towards Temple Meads, should all be open by morning service Monday.

[Great Western]

One of the two stored Class 387 in Didcot yard well out of sight so hopefully protected from unwanted attention!

Edited November 5, 2017 by Great Western

[jamie92208]

There is mentio in the latest Railway Magazine that up to 16 387's are having to be stored as there isn't enough electrified railway to use them.  Didcot is mentioned as one of the the locations.

 

Jamie

[Edwin_m]

According to an article in Rail Engineer, GWR have also loaned a couple of 387s to Old Dalby for tests of alternative on-board sander configurations. 

[The Stationmaster]

It's doesn't seem to be just one train, but I don't know if the idea was that all the bits would be out at a given time following each other along, or whether different ones were expected to be used on different occasions.

 

The "High Output" bit of the name doesn't seem to quite have lived up to expectations.

 

There are actually two trains although whether the other one is still at Swindon I don't know - it appeared there after refurbishment (i.e. repainting) transferred in from the WCML.  The new train is indeed designed to work/can work as a variety of separate units carrying out several tasks but the use does seem to be a bit disjointed.  Most of the work around Reading and Twyford seems to have been entirely in the hands of road-rail vehicles of which there are quite a fleet of various different task related types.

[The Stationmaster]

Wow, that train was fast, even on the Slow, sorry Relief Line ! It was noticeable that there doesn't appear to be a single OLE structure erected in the Swindon station area, even at this late stage in the project. 

There was a fairly noticeable lack of anything other than bases west of Shrivenham until a few months back but masts have now progressed westwards.  The transformer area west of Swindon station appears to be fairly complete (and has been for some months) and there are mast bases in west of the station.  Swindon otherwise seems to match what has happened elsewhere with stations being left until last on every section of electrification works but at least the signal structures now appear to have been dealt with.

[corneliuslundie]

If NW owns the High Output Train presumably contractors have to hire it. Could it be that road/rail vehicles are cheaper to hire for the same output? Just a thought.

Jonathan

[Fat Controller]

If NW owns the High Output Train presumably contractors have to hire it. Could it be that road/rail vehicles are cheaper to hire for the same output? Just a thought.

Jonathan

It could be that, or it might be that the fragmented manner in which the work has been undertaken is not compatible with the HOT. 

[The Stationmaster]

It could be that, or it might be that the fragmented manner in which the work has been undertaken is not compatible with the HOT. 

 

There are also some other things which fall into the overall picture here.  One is the frequency of lineside work bases (which must in themselves be costing a  pretty penny) complete with road-rail machine access to running lines that has grown considerably in the past couple of years.  There are probably two potential reasons for this, viz: -

 

1. The alleged difficulty in getting possessions and the length of time which is granted when a possession is obtained,

and

2. The lack of stabling/loading sites for the trains away from the Swindon base together with a lack of familiarity on how to arrange possessions using trains (on the part of those supposedly doing that - and there have been some examples of atrociously poor planning in that respect).

 

Fragmentation of contracting has also probably played a role as well as many non-rail contractors seem to have got involved in the foundation works for example.  Thus overall I suspect road-rail vehicles have been seen as a previously uncosted/non-budgetted answer to various prayers on the part of the project team and because the multiplicity of workbases has given them easy access to worksites the method of doing much of the work has changed from what was originally intended (even if it hadn't actually been planned in accordance with what had been intended).  However in turn some of the work has become even more fragmented although I don't entirely put that down to the use of road-rail machines and at Reading - where such machines appear to have been used for most of the work - there seems too have been a more logical work process going on once masts were in place.

 

In many respects it yet again seems to be down to failure to properly plan the project from the start and the consequent confused approach to doing the work has resulted in coast escalation beyond any escalation due to various other shortcomings.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Just thinking out loud really, but what if a short train of some old out-of-gauge containers just happened to run beneath/through a certain bridge

at Steventon in the middle of night and the bridge got, er, slightly damaged beyond repair?

 

Just wondering.........

[lmsforever]

Today I went past the line near Goring and have to admit that the plain line o/h doesnt look to bad and it does seem to blend in the background .

[SouthernMafia]

Just thinking out loud really, but what if a short train of some old out-of-gauge containers just happened to run beneath/through a certain bridge

at Steventon in the middle of night and the bridge got, er, slightly damaged beyond repair?

 

Just wondering.........

Lol, I too have wondered such a thing. It would probably have to be rebuilt to its previous standard !!

[jim.snowdon]

Lol, I too have wondered such a thing. It would probably have to be rebuilt to its previous standard !!

With a bit of luck, it might not meet modern design requirements in its original form.

 

Jim

[Mike Storey]

Just thinking out loud really, but what if a short train of some old out-of-gauge containers just happened to run beneath/through a certain bridge

at Steventon in the middle of night and the bridge got, er, slightly damaged beyond repair?

 

Just wondering.........

 

Whilst not as extreme, don't for one minute believe that re-builds have not been considered rather than other solutions. I have no idea whatsoever about the local situation at Steventon, or elsewhere on the GWML, but where we faced similar problems on the GE, the costs of moving the utilities, especially gas and water mains, with alternative routes whilst a re-build took place, and re-instating them to modern standards, let alone re-grading the approach roads and associated drainage, private property issues and all the other stuff you have to involve these days, made the whole idea utterly extortionate. And that was using the old regulation clearances. Hence our move towards a greater number of neutral, or coasting sections. I am not sure that works for a high speed, double panto railway under the new, mandated clearances regime, as I have never had to worry about it. They are facing exactly the same problems on the GOB and the EGIP electrification works right now.

 

The part I really don't understand is that ORR have accepted, very publicly, that they are amenable to site specific risk assessments showing that the cost of meeting the new clearances are unrealistically high, in order to grant a derogation. Yet they have given no such derogations since the new clearances have become mandatory, unless I have missed something, citing the inadequacy of the risk assessments presented to them. One thing NR has been very good at (unless there has been a total collapse of capability in the last five years) is in the production of detailed risk assessments. Indeed, we used to host meetings of third parties to show them how it was done. Just what is going on?

[SouthernMafia]

https://www.railengineer.uk/2017/11/07/under-the-wires-to-swindon/

 

We know a lot of what's been said here already, but an interesting summary all the same. NR sound confident that the bridge will be rebuilt in 2019.

[RJS1977]

Today I went past the line near Goring and have to admit that the plain line o/h doesnt look to bad and it does seem to blend in the background .

 

From my point of view, the worst thing about the electrification gantries is that I can no longer watch flypasts over Didcot while I'm volunteering at Cholsey!

[david.hill64]

The part I really don't understand is that ORR have accepted, very publicly, that they are amenable to site specific risk assessments showing that the cost of meeting the new clearances are unrealistically high, in order to grant a derogation. Yet they have given no such derogations since the new clearances have become mandatory, unless I have missed something, citing the inadequacy of the risk assessments presented to them. One thing NR has been very good at (unless there has been a total collapse of capability in the last five years) is in the production of detailed risk assessments. Indeed, we used to host meetings of third parties to show them how it was done. Just what is going on?

IIRC Ian Prosser, in a recent letter to Modern Railways, made it clear that the electrification TSI allows no derogations. Compliance with TSI's is an EU regulation against which Parliament has no right of veto or amendment, so the failure of DfT, ORR or whatever government body was responsible to get a generic derogation (as they have for structure gauge issues) prior to implementation of the TSI is the root cause of the problem.

[Mike Storey]

IIRC Ian Prosser, in a recent letter to Modern Railways, made it clear that the electrification TSI allows no derogations. Compliance with TSI's is an EU regulation against which Parliament has no right of veto or amendment, so the failure of DfT, ORR or whatever government body was responsible to get a generic derogation (as they have for structure gauge issues) prior to implementation of the TSI is the root cause of the problem.

 

Thanks, I have not yet seen that. I still don't understand as that seems to contradict the comments he made to, I think, Roger Ford, in an interview some months back. But if that is his position now, at least we have clarity, however completely stupid the whole matter has become.

[corneliuslundie]

It is certainly not what we were told very publicly some time ago. I remember several hundred pages back explaining the status of British Standards as part of that discussion.

I am aware that the European Commission was unhappy about the status of Directives, which had to be implemented by national legislation, but if it is now using regulations (which do not need implementation) then I can understand better those who are suspicious (or  have stronger feelings) about the EU. The irony in this case is that it was not the UK which was being imaginative in implementation legislation but it is us who are now suffering because of the inflexibility of the procedure. However, if as was suggested earlier the regulations requuire adherence to a European Standard then it is partly our own fault for letting through the EN in the form it was approved.

Jonathan

[Mike Storey]

It is certainly not what we were told very publicly some time ago. I remember several hundred pages back explaining the status of British Standards as part of that discussion.

I am aware that the European Commission was unhappy about the status of Directives, which had to be implemented by national legislation, but if it is now using regulations (which do not need implementation) then I can understand better those who are suspicious (or  have stronger feelings) about the EU. The irony in this case is that it was not the UK which was being imaginative in implementation legislation but it is us who are now suffering because of the inflexibility of the procedure. However, if as was suggested earlier the regulations requuire adherence to a European Standard then it is partly our own fault for letting through the EN in the form it was approved.

Jonathan

 

That is exactly where the fault appears to lie, with NR claiming they were not involved in the consultation, other than at a very early stage, and everyone blaming everyone else. Derogations from TSI's have always existed before, so there is no reason why they could not have been for this. There would also appear to be no reason why a further approach could not have been made to seek a derogation from the standard, even after it came into force, on the basis that it was accepted in error. For Ian Prosser to blithely accept that it cannot be altered, when empirical evidence demonstrates no clear incidents arising from the pre-existing standard, and that it is having such massive impact and has probably been a major factor contributing to the govt decision to halt further electrification, is mindblowing.

 

If Brexit does go ahead, but all existing standards are retained, under the Reform Bill, what excuse will he have then not to change it back (or allow others to do so), or at least allow site specific risk assessed derogations?

[royaloak]

Just thinking out loud really, but what if a short train of some old out-of-gauge containers just happened to run beneath/through a certain bridge

at Steventon in the middle of night and the bridge got, er, slightly damaged beyond repair?

 

Just wondering.........

Apart from the fact that installing OHLE under the current bridge is easily done, and it will be done quite soon, its a good plan, as previously stated the problem is the proximity of Stocks Lane LC and the B4017 bridge which means the OHLE has to go from its maximum height over the LC to its lowest height under the bridge and because of the short distance between the two the contact wire would be at too much of an angle causing the pantograph to put too much strain on the wire above about 60mph with the possibility of a dewirement, or in the other direction the pantograph losing contact, which is why there will be a 60mph restriction under the bridge for any trains with pantographs raised.

 

Closing Stocks Lane LC would probably be the best idea as it wouldnt inconvenience too many people as there are 2 alternative routes available, the bridge or Causeway LC.

Edited November 8, 2017 by royaloak

[corneliuslundie]

"Closing Stocks Lane LC would probably be the best idea"

And it would in any case fit with NR's strategy to eliminate level crossings as far as possible. £2M is being spent on the Cambrian main line to eliminate some occupation crossings. I thought there was a dedicated fund for the purpose.

Jonathan

[caradoc]

How about lower than standard (for LCs) OLE at Stocks Lane with solid protection beams to prevent larger vehicles coming into contact with the OLE ? No doubt there is a Standard or Directive preventing that too.

[Edwin_m]

How about lower than standard (for LCs) OLE at Stocks Lane with solid protection beams to prevent larger vehicles coming into contact with the OLE ? No doubt there is a Standard or Directive preventing that too.

 

Alternatively, in the short term at least, why not just drop the pans and coast through?  In the unlikely event of being stranded all the trains have diesels that can be started up to get them moving again.  An article in Modern Railways suggested the diesels would be used on every run, which sounds like a lot of diesel given that they have to be started up well beforehand to warm them up. 

 

(apologies if I've posted this already - I think it was another forum but may have been somewhere in the preceding pages...)

Edited November 8, 2017 by Edwin_m

[jjb1970]

I'm not the biggest fan of the European commission (despite being a europhile) but I have seldom found it's people to be wilfully stupid. If Daft lacked the technical capability to recognise that we needed a derogation and now lack the canjones to make an equivalency case then we really cannot blame Europe for this mess.