Great Western Electrification Progress

[SpacePhoenix]

How often do pantograph assemblies get swapped out in general?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Well Brecknell-Willis pantographs have been in regular use on routes where pantographs are raised and lowered up to 20 times per day, (think classes 319, 377, 378, 387 & 395), so unless the original plans for those on the class 800s assume a service action more than once per week, they should last between maintenance operations for the early part of their lives.

Pedantic mode: Class 395 uses a Japanese design of pantograph, but one did gain a proper BR/BW pantograph for Series 1 OLE testing at Old Dalby.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How often do pantograph assemblies get swapped out in general?

Pantograph carbons (and heads) are swapped out when needed, the actual pantograph will be overhauled when needed, or otherwise on an exam cycle basis.

 

[jimm]

I'm not sure we have had services which require pan up/down more than once on a single journey though.
Maybe for a period on NLL services (3rd rail at the west and east ends, AC in the middle) before they were cut back to Stratford.
Let's hope the first service wiring is Stockley-Didcot and not some discontinuous sections in between.
We can also look forward to pan up/down at speed on the Didcot avoiding line - just like Dollands Moor used to be on Eurostar.

Wow, they might have to do it - drum roll - TWICE in a journey. Which might also happen now and again during these trains' working lives if the overhead power is off due to maintenance or faults and if trains are diverted, such as via Gloucester for South Wales, or via Westbury to Bath and Bristol. There aren't going to be multiple gaps in the overhead because it has to be connected up to one of the power feeds.

The French multi-mode regional units somehow cope with doing this sort of thing day in, day out, or going from 25kv AC to diesel, to 1500v DC in the course of a journey... because they were specified, designed and built to handle it, rather like the 800s are specified, designed and built to carry out changes of power mode at speed, as you note.

Going by the sort of diagrams the 180s work and extending them on into late evening - the 180 duties are all arranged to get them back to Old Oak Common every evening whereas some 800s will be stabled overnight at Worcester or Hereford - an 800 running up and down between Worcester and London all day is going to get through seven or eight power changes as a matter of course, for years to come. Are they really going to fall down if asked to double up on that for a few months of their lives?

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm not sure we have had services which require pan up/down more than once on a single journey though.
Maybe for a period on NLL services (3rd rail at the west and east ends, AC in the middle) before they were cut back to Stratford.

It was 5 times a trip until the NLL was upgraded in 2010/11.

Start at Richmond DC
AC at Acton Central
DC at Camden Town
AC at Dalston Jn
DC at Hackney Wick to Startford LL.

 

[hassaanhc]

Progress at Southall of rewiring the original 1990s section: All except one of the twin-track cantilevers on the platforms are in place.

The Relief line ones are now connected to the wires, probably done this weekend (line block on the Reliefs here all weekend):



Which means the Main line ones have not been connected yet (don't think there was a block here last weekend):



The missing mast is by the nearest lamp post n this shot:


The work taking place at the time: Inspection of the platform foundations.

 

[Domh245]

Hmm, the equipment in the first photo didn't look like the typical F&F series 1 stuff?

 

[Taunton]

Another one of the cost inflation issues described by the rail press is the need to handle two pantographs up on the length of a train.

Is that really something not handled a while ago?

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?img...d=0ahUKEwiTxMqG-9nJAhWLaxQKHbiTA60QMwhBKBYwFg

 

[MarkRedon]

Another one of the cost inflation issues described by the rail press is the need to handle two pantographs up on the length of a train.

Is that really something not handled a while ago?

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?img...d=0ahUKEwiTxMqG-9nJAhWLaxQKHbiTA60QMwhBKBYwFg

But not, I think, at 225 km/h...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Another one of the cost inflation issues described by the rail press is the need to handle two pantographs up on the length of a train.

Is that really something not handled a while ago?

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?img...d=0ahUKEwiTxMqG-9nJAhWLaxQKHbiTA60QMwhBKBYwFg

Won't they just use the design used on the Javelins?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Won't they just use the design used on the Javelins?

It's not the pantograph that's the problem.

 

[davetheguard]

Good to see those head-spans at Southall being replaced by something more robust; thanks for the pictures. I noticed something similar seems to happening at the next station along -Hayes & Harlington- when I alighted there a couple of weeks ago.

 

[swt_passenger]

Won't they just use the design used on the Javelins?

The effect on the catenary depends on the actual device performance and also unit speed, total number of pantographs and spacing of pantographs.

Hence forum members might recall that on the WCML 110 mph running with 3 x 4 car 350s couldn't just be introduced overnight, there had to be modifications and endless trials, and 8 car was allowed before 12 car.

It's why trials were undertaken with CL 91 pans up at both ends of a train on the ECML,for IEP.

On the GWML they will have to allow for up to 12 car EMUS with 3 pans up at 110 mph and 5 + 5 IEPs running at 125 mph with any 2 from 4 pans raised - in the latter case the pans could be either 10 cars apart, or 6, or worst case 2. Every one of those modes will have a different effect on the wires.

 

[Henbury Loop]

One assumes NR is keen to keep these reports up to date, especially as they involve local consultation. With that in mind, the Filton bank planned activities are not exactly zooming ahead it would appear. The renewal /replacement of the viaduct over Stapleton Road onwards over the River Frome and M32 will be a major job, for instance.

Yes i do wonder how things are progressing, on the surface not alot appears to have happened regarding the Filton Bank.

Can anyone help me with the following?
I am led to believe the re-quadrupling of Filton Bank may not include the
reinstatement of two extra platforms on Stapleton Road and Lawrence
Hill. This implies a total segregation between express and stopping
services and will store up problems for the future of local trains, express
trains and the development of Stapleton Road railway station as Bristol’s
second station and as a Bristol Temple Meads relief. The implication is
that local trains will not be able to stop at these local mainline stations if
the local track is closed for maintenance. Do local services miss out
these stations and join the Severn Beach line? Can local trains access
the express tracks? Will the points at Narroways Junction cross all four
lines? It will be difficult to explain that despite the increase in the
capacity of Filton Bank in case of track maintenance local trains will
have to be bustituted because they can’t stop at Stapleton Road and
Lawrence Hill due to an omission of extra platforms at these stations.
Due consideration must be given at least to Stapleton Road being rebuilt
with four platforms to allow local trains to call when the local tracks are
closed for engineering work and even be used as Bristol’s relief station.

Your help is appreciated as always.

 

[Class 170101]

Won't they just use the design used on the Javelins?

Similar issue with the Class 350s running at 110mph. If you recall 350/1s were only allowed to run at 110mph singly for a while with software installed to stop overspeeding if in multiple.

 

[HSTEd]

I wonder how much all this strengthening of the equipment is actually costing.
After 100mph rated Mark 3 equipment was approved for use with 125mph with relatively minor upgrades on the East Coast and despite what people like to claim it isn't really that unreliable.

This enormous expenditure on serviceable equipment stinks of gold plating.

 

[Domh245]

I wonder how much all this strengthening of the equipment is actually costing.
After 100mph rated Mark 3 equipment was approved for use with 125mph with relatively minor upgrades on the East Coast and despite what people like to claim it isn't really that unreliable.

This enormous expenditure on serviceable equipment stinks of gold plating.

Careful, Philip Phlopp might garotte you with a Mk3 headspan wire, or beat you over the head with a headspan foundation. You would probably be able to walk away though!

 

[JN114]

Yes i do wonder how things are progressing, on the surface not alot appears to have happened regarding the Filton Bank.

Can anyone help me with the following?
I am led to believe the re-quadrupling of Filton Bank may not include the reinstatement of two extra platforms on Stapleton Road and Lawrence Hill. This implies a total segregation between express and stopping services and will store up problems for the future of local trains, express
trains and the development of Stapleton Road railway station as Bristol’s second station and as a Bristol Temple Meads relief. The implication is that local trains will not be able to stop at these local mainline stations if the local track is closed for maintenance. Do local services miss out these stations and join the Severn Beach line? Can local trains access the express tracks? Will the points at Narroways Junction cross all four lines? It will be difficult to explain that despite the increase in the capacity of Filton Bank in case of track maintenance local trains will
have to be bustituted because they can’t stop at Stapleton Road and Lawrence Hill due to an omission of extra platforms at these stations. Due consideration must be given at least to Stapleton Road being rebuilt with four platforms to allow local trains to call when the local tracks are closed for engineering work and even be used as Bristol’s relief station.

Your help is appreciated as always.

The quadrupling plans I've seen have no platforms on the "new" fast lines between Dr Days and Filton, nor will there be any access from them to the beach at Narroways. There is passive provision however for 2 new stations between Narroways and Filton.

I guess like many many other stations on 4 track railways all over the country, locals will just have to suck it on the odd weekend the orange army come to town.

I'm not sure where this suggestion that Stapleton Road is to be developed as Temple Meads' relief has come from... Stapleton Road isn't exactly best sited to relieve Bristol of anything, it produces traffic to head either into Temple Meads or out towards Parkway and Filton.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Can anyone help me with the following?
I am led to believe the re-quadrupling of Filton Bank may not include the
reinstatement of two extra platforms on Stapleton Road and Lawrence
Hill. This implies a total segregation between express and stopping
services and will store up problems for the future of local trains, express
trains and the development of Stapleton Road railway station as Bristol’s
second station and as a Bristol Temple Meads relief. The implication is
that local trains will not be able to stop at these local mainline stations if
the local track is closed for maintenance. Do local services miss out
these stations and join the Severn Beach line? Can local trains access
the express tracks? Will the points at Narroways Junction cross all four
lines? It will be difficult to explain that despite the increase in the
capacity of Filton Bank in case of track maintenance local trains will
have to be bustituted because they can’t stop at Stapleton Road and
Lawrence Hill due to an omission of extra platforms at these stations.
Due consideration must be given at least to Stapleton Road being rebuilt
with four platforms to allow local trains to call when the local tracks are
closed for engineering work and even be used as Bristol’s relief station.

I really see no circumstances under which Stapleton Road would be a "relief station" anymore. The access simply isn't good enough - any engineering works which close Temple Meads would divert trains to Parkway, any works which close Parkway would divert trains via Temple Meads. The reason Stapleton Road stopped being Bristol's second station is precisely because trains could reverse easily once DMUs started operation, something which wasn't true with locomotive-hauled stock.

There are currently no plans for four platforms at Lawrence Hill or Stapleton Road - no platforms mean through trains can run faster; though local rail campaigners do want four platforms.

From http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/need-avoid-mistakes-Pangbourne/story-15828103-detail/story.html

But Lawrence Hill and Stapleton Road stations will not get back their redundant platforms. The reason for this is they want to realign the track at the back of these stations, for trains to travel faster. But I question whether this is right. The same thing happened at Pangbourne on the Great Western main line which serves trains from Reading and Oxford. Most of these services start or continue as semi-fast services between Reading and London Paddington and run twice an hour. Pangbourne has two platforms, on each of the relief (slow) lines, whilst the fast lines pass behind the station. This is the same set-up as Lawrence Hill and Stapleton Road station. But removing platforms at Pangbourne which served the fast lines has meant that when the relief lines are closed for engineering work local stopping services cannot call at Pangbourne and a replacement bus service is required.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I wonder how much all this strengthening of the equipment is actually costing.
After 100mph rated Mark 3 equipment was approved for use with 125mph with relatively minor upgrades on the East Coast and despite what people like to claim it isn't really that unreliable.

This enormous expenditure on serviceable equipment stinks of gold plating.

A number of points

Mark 3b OLE was never designed for the number of trains per hour/per day that the section west of Paddington will see. There's a very real and valid concern that the sheer number of electric services on all lines out of Paddington will cause a collapse in the reliability of the Mark 3b OLE system as installed.

Reliability isn't good, it's barely acceptable on the ECML as it is, it has needed a lot of work and component replacement to get back to as installed reliability, because of increased usage and numerous design flaws, not all of which we've been able to remove, some, such as the overly generous mast spacing north of Newcastle will need to be resolved by effectively a re-electrification scheme, installing new masts, removing headspans from the few locations they exist at, and tidying up tensioning arrangements, but that's an ECML problem and less of interest to the GWML.

Failure modes though, that's the biggest problem and hits everywhere with headspans, GWML included. Headspan failures on the ECML and MML are disruptive. I think, from the gossip I heard, the last OLE failure on the ECML was 3 days of disruption and something like 20,000 delay minutes billed to NR (I'm sure someone might be able to confirm/clarify).

It's fundamentally a suburban electrification system, designed for EMUs to potter about at 75mph. 100mph is OK, 125mph isn't. When it goes wrong at 125mph, the damage done is huge, not just one headspan is taken out, try a mile of damage, maybe two miles.

You'll lose, obviously, much of the first few headspans where the failure occurs, after that, damaged parts need replaced and every last nut, bolt and component needs to be checked and many elements replaced, from the site of the dewirement forward to where the train came to a halt. And backwards, in case damage occurred to headspans prior to the dewirement.

That's insulators, horizontal tensioning elements, droppers, catenary and contact wire, pulleys, additional wiring elements, brackets, support wiring, tail wires, tensioning elements, feeder cables, return wires and so it goes on.

We can't afford two or three days of disruption on the GWML, CrossRail suspended west of Paddington, no Heathrow trains, no electric trains on the GWR routes, no Oxford services. Mechanically independent registration is not just desirable, it's absolutely vital for service provision on the GWML, it's as vital a step forward over headspans as four aspect light signalling was over home and distant semaphore signalling.

 

[nlogax]

Out of curiosity, what's the scope of F+F equipment being used beyond the GWML? Presumably with the lessons learned from this project it'll see the light of day elsewhere on the UK network - maybe on the MML?

Also, just a quick note of appreciation to Philip Phlopp. I've learned more about UK electrification in the last few months via his posts here than I've managed to find anywhere else via Google. Really fantastic.

 

[HowardGWR]

I really see no circumstances under which Stapleton Road would be a "relief station" anymore. The access simply isn't good enough - any engineering works which close Temple Meads would divert trains to Parkway, any works which close Parkway would divert trains via Temple Meads. The reason Stapleton Road stopped being Bristol's second station is precisely because trains could reverse easily once DMUs started operation, something which wasn't true with locomotive-hauled stock.

There are currently no plans for four platforms at Lawrence Hill or Stapleton Road - no platforms mean through trains can run faster; though local rail campaigners do want four platforms.

From http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/need-avoid-mistakes-Pangbourne/story-15828103-detail/story.html

All true, although I would be surprised if trains would ever exceed the speed limit that would apply on those extra tracks, even if the old alignment were retained. Perhaps the campaigners have a point about future proofing there.

Lawrence Hill's extra platforms were hardly ever used and grew moss, only the likes of rail buffs taking photos, ever treading them. Stapleton Road is no longer quite the busy bus route location it once was, being nearly severed from its main road into the city by a cross-city 'spine' road, a ghastly thing. It's community is recovering from the 'ghetto' period, although there are still crime issues. One could envisage that, when Bristol finally gets trams, one could change there onto a fast tram that takes up a lane of the appalling M32. You gather I didn't like the road-building era much!

So I would consider retaining the current alignment. It would make reinstatement easier if it were needed.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Out of curiosity, what's the scope of F+F equipment being used beyond the GWML? Presumably with the lessons learned from this project it'll see the light of day elsewhere on the UK network - maybe on the MML?

Also, just a quick note of appreciation to Philip Phlopp. I've learned more about UK electrification in the last few months via his posts here than I've managed to find anywhere else via Google. Really fantastic.

MML will be Furrer+Frey equipment, but we're not certain, away from the main lines, whether it'll be Series 1 or the new UK Master Index, which is built around the Series 1 system, but with lower specification parts and lower cost components for areas where speeds and forces don't require the full fat 16.5kN tensioned for 140mph multiple pantograph running Series 1 system.

The Series 2 system is a comprehensively re-engineered version of Mark 3b system (I saw it being referred to as Mark 3b with sunglasses on the other day) and does away with a variety of design flaws, obsolescence issues and makes some general improvements, but the intention is to have one system that can be used everywhere - on 125mph or 140mph primary routes, on lower speed branch lines and secondary routes, freight branches, yards and which can also be used to replace life expired DC to AC conversions and early AC electrification.

The Master Index was supposed to merge Series 1 and Series 2 into one system, with backwards compatibility, but I did hear a rumour that using Series 1 for absolutely everything could be as cheap if volumes of scale can be achieved, and it would provide some additional options for higher speed running when ERTMS rolls out more fully in the coming decades.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Careful, Philip Phlopp might garotte you with a Mk3 headspan wire, or beat you over the head with a headspan foundation. You would probably be able to walk away though!

Headspan foundations are actually OK, it's the single track cantilevers which are pretty shocking (across the Fens in particular).

The headspan foundations and masts can cope with a lightweight Series 1/GWML style lattice portal structure being fitted, provided the registration equipment isn't too heavy. That's more gold plating (or reliability modifications, as we call them in the real world) which will be coming to stretches of the ECML soon.

 

[nlogax]

The headspan foundations and masts can cope with a lightweight Series 1/GWML style lattice portal structure being fitted, provided the registration equipment isn't too heavy. That's more gold plating (or reliability modifications, as we call them in the real world) which will be coming to stretches of the ECML soon.

Thanks again Philip.

Re the ECML mods, this is an expansion of the trial portals that were installed around Potter's Bar earlier this year?

 

[hassaanhc]

MML
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Headspan foundations are actually OK, it's the single track cantilevers which are pretty shocking (across the Fens in particular).

The headspan foundations and masts can cope with a lightweight Series 1/GWML style lattice portal structure being fitted, provided the registration equipment isn't too heavy. That's more gold plating (or reliability modifications, as we call them in the real world) which will be coming to stretches of the ECML soon.

I saw these photos from the Fens the other day, which perfectly show the issue there:

Single line working by Justin Perkins, on Flickr


Next stop Littleport by Justin Perkins, on Flickr

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Thanks again Philip.

Re the ECML mods, this is an expansion of the trial portals that were installed around Potter's Bar earlier this year?

Yeah, complex areas (junctions etc) where dewirement risk is higher or consequences of a dewirement more drastic to be completed first, then the areas where 140mph operation with IEP (when ERTMS comes on line) will be next, and hopefully moving completely to mechanically independent registration (by eliminating headspans) in the fullness of time.

The worry is moving almost everything out of Kings Cross to electric (with multiple pantographs on some coupled services) will really hit the reliability of the OLE, and even further north where headspans are used on loops and junctions, there's going to be TransPennine electric services and perhaps some East Midlands and Northern services using the OLE, so there too, even on nominally two track sections of the ECML, headspans have the potential to cause problems when usage increases.

Really hoping we can do something north of Newcastle in CP6 or CP7 to significantly increase the reliability there too, by bringing in the spacing of the masts and nudging up the tension so high winds are less of an issue.

 

[snowball]

The Series 2 system is a comprehensively re-engineered version of Mark 3b system (I saw it being referred to as Mark 3b with sunglasses on the other day)

That may be because of the dazzle it can reportedlly cause to drivers.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I saw these photos from the Fens the other day, which perfectly show the issue there:

Single line working by Justin Perkins, on Flickr


Next stop Littleport by Justin Perkins, on Flickr

They're the perfect example of why concrete shuttered foundations are now far less popular than previously was the case. The tubular steel piles are very much resistant to rotational movement, though of course the Fens are a little bit special, in that the ground conditions and prevaling wind conditions have contributed to really rotate the masts and their bases here. We wouldn't expect anything as severe as this on the GWML, but it's always a possibility and one which can be practically eliminated by tubular steel foundations.

 

[snowball]

I saw these photos from the Fens the other day, which perfectly show the issue there:

Single line working by Justin Perkins, on Flickr


Next stop Littleport by Justin Perkins, on Flickr

I hadn't heard of autotransformers being fitted on the Anglia lines yet there seems to be a return wire on full-size insulators in those pictures. I take it that where the masts have had to be replaced, they've done that to reduce the difficulty of any future conversion to the AT system?

Edit: Or is that wire something else as there appears to be a separate reurn wire as well?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A number of points

We can't afford two or three days of disruption on the GWML, CrossRail suspended west of Paddington, no Heathrow trains, no electric trains on the GWR routes, no Oxford services. Mechanically independent registration is not just desirable, it's absolutely vital for service provision on the GWML, it's as vital a step forward over headspans as four aspect light signalling was over home and distant semaphore signaling.

Outstanding post sir.

Also, just a quick note of appreciation to Philip Phlopp. I've learned more about UK electrification in the last few months via his posts here than I've managed to find anywhere else via Google. Really fantastic.

I totally concur. Outstanding.

That's more gold plating (or reliability modifications, as we call them in the real world) which will be coming to stretches of the ECML soon.

 

[Radedamer]

Good to hear there is passive provision for two rather than one new stations on Filton Bank, though of course passive provision is not necessarily a sign of intention.

Stapleton Rd the second station of Bristol? I can't see it. Good place for a curry, though.