GWML Electification

[The Stationmaster]

There has been talk of rebuilding Wantage Road for years - it always falls down over lack of capacity on the (mainly) double track section from Didcot to Wootton Bassett

 

Not absolutely correct I'm afraid.  There was a proposal (yet again) in the very late 1980s/early '90s to reopen a station at Wantage Road and for it to be served by the then proposed hourly Regional Railways service from Swindon to Peterborough.  This could have easily been accommodated, even within the sort of frequency increases then being talked about for Bristol and Cardiff/Swansea services plus the maximum level of Avonmouth - Didcot coal trains required by the CEGB.  The station platforms would have been on the new Relief Lines more or less where they previously existed.  And when I was planning the coal traffic train plans and infrastructure. including recreating the Relief Lines I not only took the planned RR service, operated by Class 158s, into account but duly included it on my timetable graphs as part of capacity assessment.

 

That particular Wantage Road reopening fell by the wayside following the introduction of the sector based BR reorganisation in 1992 and due to preparations being made for privatisation however apart from some initial work on assessment of costs I understand the scheme was never put forward for financial authority for any sort of scheme development.  Apart from the physical lack of space due to sale of land it would also have been practicable to include reopening of Challow (aka Faringdon Parkway) as it too would have had platforms on the Relief Lines however Grove/Wantage Parkway (late Wantage Road) has always been considered to offer the best option for a new station because of massive development in the area plus potential for car parking.

 

Without the coal trains (plus 387s running at their maximum permitted speed) it would take an even greater increase in frequencies to Bristol and Cardiff to deny the chances of a station at the site of Wantage Road platforms.  There is also of course space available to create Relief Lines, paired by direction, in various places west of Steventon mainly on land previously occupied by the various Relief Lines and loops removed in the 1960s and in fact GWR boundary markers have long existed (if they are still there?) alongside the existing route  for much of the distance from Steventon to Swindon as the land was acquired as part of the GWR's intention, restated in 1947, to quadruple throughout from Didcot to Wootton Bassett.

[The Stationmaster]

I think the point is that current agreements between GWR and its unions mandate each IET service carries a guard on board.

 

By contrast Thames valley suburban operations have been DOO since Network SouthEast introduced the Turbos to the route.

 

The limit of DOO operation westbound is presumably Bedwyn, Didcot and Banbury. Anything going beyond that needs a guard.

 

Thus for the 387s to be used to form 'extras' when sporting events are being held in Cardiff, they will require guards beyond Didcot  even if the train itself can be worked in DOO mode.

 

What I have suggested is that IF 387s regularly operate beyond Didcot to Swindon, then the DfT are likely to push for the DOO boundary to move to Swindon too - and thus provoke yet another industrial relations dispute.

 

The only 'boundary' applying to DOO operation of passenger trains is that imposed by the infrastructure - either it is suitable for DOO passenger trains or it is not.  With GSM radio now in place alongside long installed, and recently renewed, signalling which meets DOO requirements there is no practical limitation on extending DOO operation of passenger trains to Swindon (or beyond) provided suitably equipped trains are used.  Whether or not 387s used to carry passengers between Didcot and Swindon would or wouldn't have a Guard is down to what the operator. currently GWR, happens to agree (or otherwise) with its staff.    The only 'boundary' is one of industrial relations and no doubt the Class 387 ECS trains between Didcot & Swindon will not have a Guard - there's no reason at all for them to have one.

[Fat Controller]

Nothing to do with Rover this was pure Honda in fact by the time this branch was built Rover was no longer existing

 

This is the South Marston SDC line that was built with the aim to have both parts delivered by train....many of Hondas suppliers at the time had plants in Eastern Europe so it was seen as an option

 

Also for delivery of cars for export to Bristol Or Southampton

 

 

Apart from a publicity train I'm not aware of it being used regularly. Line 2 at Honda Jazz and Civic has fluctuated in use over the years and output now may not make the rail option feasible

 

It was a great idea at the time

 

 

Colin

Honda did despatch cars by rail through the Channel Tunnel a couple of years ago; however, they were loaded at Portbury, as this is where distribution of new cars is based.

[D1059]

Not absolutely correct I'm afraid.  There was a proposal (yet again) in the very late 1980s/early '90s to reopen a station at Wantage Road and for it to be served by the then proposed hourly Regional Railways service from Swindon to Peterborough.  This could have easily been accommodated, even within the sort of frequency increases then being talked about for Bristol and Cardiff/Swansea services plus the maximum level of Avonmouth - Didcot coal trains required by the CEGB.  The station platforms would have been on the new Relief Lines more or less where they previously existed.  And when I was planning the coal traffic train plans and infrastructure. including recreating the Relief Lines I not only took the planned RR service, operated by Class 158s, into account but duly included it on my timetable graphs as part of capacity assessment.

 

That particular Wantage Road reopening fell by the wayside following the introduction of the sector based BR reorganisation in 1992 and due to preparations being made for privatisation however apart from some initial work on assessment of costs I understand the scheme was never put forward for financial authority for any sort of scheme development.  Apart from the physical lack of space due to sale of land it would also have been practicable to include reopening of Challow (aka Faringdon Parkway) as it too would have had platforms on the Relief Lines however Grove/Wantage Parkway (late Wantage Road) has always been considered to offer the best option for a new station because of massive development in the area plus potential for car parking.

 

Without the coal trains (plus 387s running at their maximum permitted speed) it would take an even greater increase in frequencies to Bristol and Cardiff to deny the chances of a station at the site of Wantage Road platforms.  There is also of course space available to create Relief Lines, paired by direction, in various places west of Steventon mainly on land previously occupied by the various Relief Lines and loops removed in the 1960s and in fact GWR boundary markers have long existed (if they are still there?) alongside the existing route  for much of the distance from Steventon to Swindon as the land was acquired as part of the GWR's intention, restated in 1947, to quadruple throughout from Didcot to Wootton Bassett.

 

Thanks - intriguing. ISTR a lot of newspaper articles in the local rags talking about it since your work in the 90s, but, of course never coming to anything. Then, more recently, there was the LOX airport proposal which (I think) included a large station at, or near,  Wantage Road

[dibber25]

There are times when it may be worth questioning became a candidate for listing in the first place - on its own merits as a Brunel designed bridge , or because getting it listed would obstruct progress with the railway, when being attributable to Brunel is simply a convenient peg on which to argue for listing?

 

At face value, it is just another brick arch bridge, of which there are thousands all over the country. Even the "elliptical" arch is common enough (although in practice, these arches function more as segmental circular arches. Maidenhead's real claim to fame is not that it is elliptical, but its span in relation to its flatness.

 

Operationally, there is always the option of coasting through, pan(s) down, if travelling at more than 60mph.

 

Jim

Jim

 

There was a document produced, long before any work started, jointly by English Heritage and Network Rail (it may even have been as long ago as Railtrack) in which the entire route of electrification was surveyed and every structure and feature rated according to the desirability of its retention. I recall working my way through the document on line - it took many hours because of the level of detail, the history and the reasoning behind what was expendable and what wasn't. I found it somewhat depressing that so many features of the railway were considered expendable because their originality had already been compromised - sometimes a long time ago. I suspect that all those which weren't compromised before, have now been. (CJL)

[locoholic]

There was a document produced, long before any work started, jointly by English Heritage and Network Rail (it may even have been as long ago as Railtrack) in which the entire route of electrification was surveyed and every structure and feature rated according to the desirability of its retention. I recall working my way through the document on line - it took many hours because of the level of detail, the history and the reasoning behind what was expendable and what wasn't. I found it somewhat depressing that so many features of the railway were considered expendable because their originality had already been compromised - sometimes a long time ago. I suspect that all those which weren't compromised before, have now been. (CJL)

It wouldn't be so bad if the new railway wasn't so irredeemably ugly, whereas the old railway often made a great effort to be both functional and aesthetically pleasing. The national railway network has to change - I look at the semaphore signals we have here in Herefordshire and wonder what on Earth they are doing still working in the 21st century - it's just a shame we can't build an attractive modern railway.

[Coryton]

- it's just a shame we can't build an attractive modern railway.

 

I know a lot comes down to cost, and I'm sure that people do consider aesthetics. But it's still a bit disappointing how things seem often seem to end up looking.

[Zomboid]

It wouldn't be so bad if the new railway wasn't so irredeemably ugly, whereas the old railway often made a great effort to be both functional and aesthetically pleasing. The national railway network has to change - I look at the semaphore signals we have here in Herefordshire and wonder what on Earth they are doing still working in the 21st century - it's just a shame we can't build an attractive modern railway.

Most of the old stuff is purely functional. We've just grown used to yet another brick arch bridge and find them aesthetically pleasing. Some structures made a statement (Clayton tunnel, Knucklas viaduct etc), and that remains the case now (the new bride in Manchester). Whether we individually like these things or not is subjective, but it's essentially the same as it every was just with different architectural fashions. At the time there would have been people who thought St Pancras was an over the top parody just as today there are those who dislike the new station at Reading.

[Coryton]

Most of the old stuff is purely functional. We've just grown used to yet another brick arch bridge and find them aesthetically pleasing. Some structures made a statement (Clayton tunnel, Knucklas viaduct etc), and that remains the case now (the new bride in Manchester). Whether we individually like these things or not is subjective, but it's essentially the same as it every was just with different architectural fashions. At the time there would have been people who thought St Pancras was an over the top parody just as today there are those who dislike the new station at Reading.

 

Yes I'm sure there's a subjective element to it.

 

Nevertheless I still think that in modern times we're much more likely to go for the purely functional no matter how ugly than - say - 100 years ago.

 

And no matter how much I try to convince myself that in a hundred years time we'll view bare concrete flyovers as a pleasing and harmonious addition to the countryside in the same way as, say, the Ribblehead viaduct, I fail completely.

 

Maybe I just don't have enough imagination.

[Zomboid]

My point is really that the Victorians didn't build brick arches etc because they look nice, they built them because that was what the technology of the time allowed.

 

If they could have built Ribblehead out of concrete, they probably would have. The people who built our railways cut as many corners as they thought they could get away with, so let's not kid ourselves that they chose arches for a bridge in the middle of nowhere that hardly anyone was ever going to see (at the time) for aesthetic reasons.

 

I doubt that we'll ever appreciate the M6 through Birmingham as an architectural marvel, though. But who knows what the tastes of the future will hold?

[corneliuslundie]

Just remember how opinions of Victorian architecture have changed since the beginning of the 20th century. St Pancras, mentioned above, is an excellent example. We now love it but our predecessors thought it an abomination and wanted it demolished. And think how minimalist Danish design was welcomed when it arrived in the UK.

What we frequently do today though is produce a pastiche of traditional forms, with brick slips stuck onto concrete structures etc. And it is often the detailing which gives it away rather than the overall design, sometimes details which were included for good practical reasons which have been forgotten.

When i look at the old and new Newport station buildings, I ask myself why they bothered with the new one. But no doubt at some time in the future it will get listed - at least it is not Clasp style.

One difference of course between the brick arch bridge and the concrete flyover is that the bricks are made from materials similar in colour to the surrounding natural features, whereas concrete is normally a very different colour.

Another difference is that when you are building from scratch you can use techniques which take time and would cause disruption to the operating railway. If you are building around an operating railway there are enormous constraints. You can't usually build a brick arch and leave the formwork in place until the cement cures (shades of Brunel!), so you use a design where the bridge is formed of beams which can be prepared offsite and swung into position overnight. 

Note that this is not always the case even today. Some minor roads around here have been closed for several months while bridges over them have been built for the Newtown bypass, and even an A road was closed for two weeks while a new roundabout was connected up.

So really no easy answers. And until we run out of petrol (how far in the future?) we shall need roads, and more of them even if the rate of traffic growth is slowing just at the moment. 

Which is of course what will eventually be the cause of the demise of the two much discussed level crossings.

Jonathan

[locoholic]

Most of the old stuff is purely functional. We've just grown used to yet another brick arch bridge and find them aesthetically pleasing. Some structures made a statement (Clayton tunnel, Knucklas viaduct etc), and that remains the case now (the new bride in Manchester). Whether we individually like these things or not is subjective, but it's essentially the same as it every was just with different architectural fashions. At the time there would have been people who thought St Pancras was an over the top parody just as today there are those who dislike the new station at Reading.

That is simply not true. So much of the old railway was adorned with ornamentation, from ornate finials on top of signal posts to polished brass boiler fittings. All done to make them look attractive, both at the time and now. Modern railway structures are designed almost purely for function. Some of the new trains look like they may have had some conscious effort put into their external appearance, but the interiors look more like they've been designed to ensure that people feel uncomfortable and won't clog up the trains for longer than absolutely necessary.

[Coryton]

My point is really that the Victorians didn't build brick arches etc because they look nice, they built them because that was what the technology of the time allowed.

 

If they could have built Ribblehead out of concrete, they probably would have. 

 

Glenfinnan viaduct was built from concrete. And it still looks a lot nicer than modern concrete constructions. Well, maybe they didn't know any better or didn't have the techniques to make ugly bridges then. And perhaps viaducts aren't a good example. But in general I still think (maybe I'm wrong) that aesthetics were given more importance in those days and now we tend to go much more for a functional approach.

 

(Unless we're talking about train liveries where we can't sully a nice design with useful things like yellow stripes for first class).

 

 

That is simply not true. So much of the old railway was adorned with ornamentation, from ornate finials on top of signal posts to polished brass boiler fittings. All done to make them look attractive, both at the time and now. Modern railway structures are designed almost purely for function. Some of the new trains look like they may have had some conscious effort put into their external appearance, but the interiors look more like they've been designed to ensure that people feel uncomfortable and won't clog up the trains for longer than absolutely necessary.

 

Quite.

 

Another example is machinery in general where we have gone from rather ornate designs to a much simpler functional look. (Compare, say, an old drill press to a modern one).

[Mike Storey]

Terrific stuff guys! Keep it coming.

 

On the other hand, I am struggling to locate the source of many passenger complaints about the external look of a train, a tunnel or a fence in the past ninety years. We may mourn the (dubious) aesthetics of Victoriana, but the very mundane experience of most 19th C and most 20th C travellers is rather less than we imagine, especially so after the effects of smoke, grime and ineffective cleaning.

 

Far more genuine complaint surrounds the amount of legroom, seat comfort and window spacing. But on the other hand, many modern commuters experience little of that anyway. At least the GWIP programme will deliver many extra seats, for most (but not all!) and I would guess most existing users will say "amen" to that.

[locoholic]

Terrific stuff guys! Keep it coming.

 

On the other hand, I am struggling to locate the source of many passenger complaints about the external look of a train, a tunnel or a fence in the past ninety years. We may mourn the (dubious) aesthetics of Victoriana, but the very mundane experience of most 19th C and most 20th C travellers is rather less than we imagine, especially so after the effects of smoke, grime and ineffective cleaning.

 

Far more genuine complaint surrounds the amount of legroom, seat comfort and window spacing. But on the other hand, many modern commuters experience little of that anyway. At least the GWIP programme will deliver many extra seats, for most (but not all!) and I would guess most existing users will say "amen" to that.

I'm sure we can "keep it coming" for ages.

 

The attitude that you seem to be promoting requires passengers to be grateful that there are any trains at all, and we should not expect to feel comfortable either at a station or on a train, and certainly not expect to enjoy the experience.

 

With all the new materials at designers' disposal, why should we not expect our experience of rail travel to be (for the want of a better word) nicer that in the past, rather than an ugly, brutalist, crowded, utilitarian, wipe-clean nightmare?

[corneliuslundie]

I agree in general with a lot of the above. However, don't be sure that what we think of ass decoration was always put there purely to be decorative. Sometimes it had a function which we have forgotten about. For example, finials I suspect had a role in protecting the tops of the roof timbers from getting soaked when it rained etc., something which is certainly true for signal posts.

Mind you that doesn't explain the carvings, all different, on the stonework between the windows at Newtown station, or the different designs of platform seat castings found around the country.

Jonathan

[The Stationmaster]

The mention of finials has returned me to the subject of GWML electrification (sorry!) where all the masts formed of rectangular tube have no sort of cover on the top, and in more than a few cases appear to be completely devoid of any sort of drain hole at the bottom.  Is the idea that being galvanised it's alright for them to gradually fill with water (hence their considerable number of securing bolts in order take the extra weight) or has 'somebody' overlooked the fact that water will enter an open tube and collect within it until it overflows?

[Titan]

The mention of finials has returned me to the subject of GWML electrification (sorry!) where all the masts formed of rectangular tube have no sort of cover on the top, and in more than a few cases appear to be completely devoid of any sort of drain hole at the bottom.  Is the idea that being galvanised it's alright for them to gradually fill with water (hence their considerable number of securing bolts in order take the extra weight) or has 'somebody' overlooked the fact that water will enter an open tube and collect within it until it overflows?

 

There is a drain hole in the middle of the plate at the bottom. You wont be able to see it once the mast is installed.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Titan

[locoholic]

The mention of finials has returned me to the subject of GWML electrification (sorry!) where all the masts formed of rectangular tube have no sort of cover on the top, and in more than a few cases appear to be completely devoid of any sort of drain hole at the bottom.  Is the idea that being galvanised it's alright for them to gradually fill with water (hence their considerable number of securing bolts in order take the extra weight) or has 'somebody' overlooked the fact that water will enter an open tube and collect within it until it overflows?

A drain hole at the bottom would be a point of weakness, to be avoided if at all possible. Perhaps Network Rail will order a special Electrification Mast Draining Train, to suck the water out of the masts at regular intervals?

 

If the masts are allowed to fill, there is a danger that the combination of water, metal and high-voltages will create "heavy electricity", as highlighted by the BBC "Brass Eye" programme a few years ago. :-)

[The Stationmaster]

There is a drain hole in the middle of the plate at the bottom. You wont be able to see it once the mast is installed.

 

I wonder how well that will function on the masts that are mounted on concrete filled foundation tubes?

[Siberian Snooper]

When I was involved with fabrication, we used to be able to get plastic plugs that fitted standard hollow sections.

[Titan]

I wonder how well that will function on the masts that are mounted on concrete filled foundation tubes?

 

They are all bolted base, so there will be a bit of clearance between the bottom of the mast and the foundation.

[Hellzapoppin]

I wonder how well that will function on the masts that are mounted on concrete filled foundation tubes?

The hole is full of concrete, the metal tube you see above ground is a sleeve which only goes a short way into the hole.

[The Stationmaster]

They are all bolted base, so there will be a bit of clearance between the bottom of the mast and the foundation.

 

I hope so because quite a few of them look to be pretty tightly fastened down onto the concrete.

[Trog]

Even if there is a drain hole, if the top is open how long before some of them start to fill with leaves, birds nests etc. Which will rot down into a nice acidic mulch that will also hold enough water to keep the inside of the tube damp.