Goring Gap/AONBs and Electrification of the GWML

[highdyke]

That is possible. But people can be managed, and it is a lot more cost-effective and time-efficient than hacking people off. It's like saying "please" - fairly meaninless but tends to break down barriers.

Here here. At times the railway industry comes across as arrogant and unable to communicate effectively, it has a real PR problem at all levels and regularly gets itself into fixes over 'The wrong sort of x', appalling treatment of passengers and a certain arrogance towards its users and neighbours.

It's the real Jeremy Clarkson of industries without with humour up there with banks and the energy industry.

The GW electrification project is fast becoming WCML2, just awaiting the public scandal on paying for trains that can't be used and the forthcoming cock-up with the ETCS Level 2 overlay.

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

However, your latest couple of posts leave me in despair – the morals and ethics of NR’s Management ( or would it be more accurate to call it mismanagement ) associated with this Project are lower than a snake’s bolleaux and I now have nothing but utter and complete contempt for NR and its tax-payer funded and bonused-for-failure Mismanagers….

You and many others. NR needs breaking up and put into commercial reality.

 

[Hellzapoppin]

Might be worth remembering that the project isn't being delivered by NR, its the commercial reality that's causing delays and overspend and that some levels of NR management are fighting tooth and claw to change things. Sadly that's a slow process but I can assure you it's happening.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It was designed by Brunel and occupied by Brunel during the construction of the GWR….Well done NR.

Brunel would be delighted to see electrification outside 'his' house. Goring is only an area of outstanding natural beauty by virtue of some bizarre legislation, it's hardly outstanding, it's not natural and it's arguable whether it's even beautiful.

The letter sent in December still has a number of problems which I pointed out to you before it was sent, and which haven't been taken on board.

The RIBA design competition entries (http://www.ribacompetitions.com/ols/shortlisted.html) are, in every case, not viable for one reason or another, in all cases such significant work would be needed to make the designs viable for any sort of 25kV electrification system that they would look very much like the currently planned system.

There's nothing in the RIAB competition linked to in the letter which is suitable for four tracks, and which could fit the site at Goring. The designs are also grossly deceptive (that's not your fault) and build unrealistic expectations.

1. Bow - single track design, plan shows no insulator, cantilever or registration arm details. No return cable or AT cables shown.

2. The High Speed T - twin track design with central mounting, which we don't use for drainage reasons, no registration arms shown, no AT cables shown, may show return cable, but unclear.

3. Tomahawk - single track design, otherwise fully featured, but with bespoke single track cantilever which would need standardised. Not suitable for four track locations is its only real design issue.

4. VelocitY - twin track design with central mounting which we don't use, vague registration arm details, AT feed missing, bespoke catenary wire mounting an issue.

5. Tuning Fork - headspan design, unrealistic spacing, unsuitable design, unrealistic visibility for headspan in any case.

6. Needle System - almost identical to Series 1 but with a slightly 'hipper' design.

7. Origami Birds - single track design, vague registration arm details, poor catenary/contract wire fixings which wouldn't survive terribly long

8. Integrated OLS - single track design, no insulators to dissipate forces during a dewirement and no defined 'hot' and 'cold' areas for safety, so a complete non starter of a design, no return wire or AT wire shown either.

9. Responsive Overhead Line Structures - looks like something out of Harry Potter, and no less low profile than the masts up at Gatehampton Bridge or the older design on the Royal Border Bridge. Vague contact, catenary, return and AT wire details, vague registration details, vague insulator details etc.

10. Overhead Rhythmic Structures - no lower profile than Series 1, but better looking. Bespoke and very complex cantilever arms etc, much like BR Mark 1 OLE, which isn't the most reliable.

It's also untrue to say Series 1 isn't low profile - it's a considerable improvement over the old double gantry used on the GEML.

http://www.old-dalby.com/images/14-02-03_new portal frame.jpg

Now, just to recap, the design needs to be as it is - it's unavoidable.

Headspans are out for reliability and line speed improvements, we're ripping them out along by Heathrow right now (probably right now, as I type this, in fact). That leaves either single masts, twin track cantilevers or portals.

We've been over this before, no matter what the masts look like, they will be essentially the same design and have the exact same wiring. The best that can happen is they'll be pretified slightly.

The masts have a specific height about the portal or cantilever structure to attach the 25kV ATF cable in a position of safety, where an insulator failure will cause the cable where it will earth on the structure and not hit signalling or other electrification components.

There then needs to be a return cable running alongside the structure to complete the wiring circuit.

Above the track you have a catenary for each line - cantilever arm, registration arm, insulator assembly, with the contact wire and catenary wire bottom and top respectively, joined by droppers.

There needs to be tensioning at appropriate intervals, now spring loaded tensioning units from Tensorex, they're nice and tidy too, but require braced structures due to the tensions involved (16.5kN for contact wire).

The portals could be tweaked (though I think they're a fair design given the GEML double height units) but everything on or under the portal will be the same, there's no leeway at all to change wires, registration arms, insulators etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You and many others. NR needs breaking up and put into commercial reality.

Yes, because that went ever so well the last time. It's needing to be left alone to get on with things, not perpetually pestered by communities who want a certain type of line, signal box, crossing gate, station or type of train (believe me, we've had the lot).

 

[snowball]

PHILIP...

You are repeating yourself ad nauseum….

That's because you keep repeating the same incorrect statements and he keeps correcting you.

 

[highdyke]

Yes, because that went ever so well the last time. It's needing to be left alone to get on with things, not perpetually pestered by communities who want a certain type of line, signal box, crossing gate, station or type of train (believe me, we've had the lot).

That will only happen when the industry learns to sell itself, control costs, have positive industrial relations and active discussions with stakeholders at all levels. Granted the structure and funding doesn't always lend itself to these ideals (one for the politicians) and there's far to many barriers to entry with too few people with the required knowledge naming their price.

Nevertheless given the PR disaster that is HS2 (especially through the Chilterns) with much negatively drummed up by residents en-route, you would have thought the [rail] industry would have leant some valuable lessons.

Given your general view is 'We don't have to consult end of', this appears not to be the case. You may be legally correct (that's for a court to decide) but this project has been going on for years, why at this late stage have we now run into yet more problems? Consultations should have happened years ago after it was signed off in likely 'problem' areas. It doesn't show much insight frankly. This will be a warm up for what is likely to happen at Oxford...

 

[Lurpi]

Looking at this letter, it seems that there are a lot of if's involved.

Very professional of the Save Goring Gap mob not to black out the mobile phone number of the NR executive who sent them the letter! These people really are the limit.

When is someone as shouty and entitled as them going to advocate for the status quo? If the only people shouting are idiots, then idiocy is what we are going to get I fear.

So, not only does the consultation have to suggest that there should be works, which I imagine would have to involve a number of factors such as overwhelming local support and a viable alternative, but NR would also have to convince the treasury to give it some more money to throw at it. Even if NR can come up with an alternative, they would be very hard pressed to get it installed, unless it costs about as much as NR can find down the back of the proverbial sofa.

Since government has just had to bung NR an extra £700 million to help it complete (most of) its CP5 programme on time, we must hope and pray that they draw the line at yet another bit of extra cash to placate the conservation mafia. A rare occasion when Treasury intransigence would actually help the railway.

 

[Saint66]

That's because you keep repeating the same incorrect statements and he keeps correcting you.

We need a like button sooner, rather than later!

 

[mewstone]

My personal opinion is that the only design change that will placate the situation in the Goring Gap is to use some kind of headspan arrangement, as some seem to feel this is more aesthetically pleasing than the portal structures that have been installed. I do, however, suspect that this is more subjective than objective as it appears the vertical structures are taller for the headspan configuration. It has also been excellently explained to us that headspans are not an option, backed up by some of them being removed from the existing Heathrow Express electrified section. I am sure I have also read somewhere that to create a more robust electrification infrastructure for the Great Western, the spacing between the structures has been reduced from 70 metres apart to around 50, so I suspect this makes the ironmongery more dense than on previous electrification schemes? Again, perhaps only my personal opinion, is it is probably the best option to allow time to become the great healer and once the bright "freshness" of the galvanised surfaces begin to discolour and everyone gets used to them, they will blend more naturally into the landscape. Of course, as to how well they eventually achieve this will significantly vary from person to person!

 

[yorksrob]

You and many others. NR needs breaking up and put into commercial reality.

Speaking as someone who's never worked on the railway, this sounds alarmingly like the type of old tripe we were peddled during the 1990's during which, various problems caused by Government (under-investment during the 1980's, complete lack of electrification for fifteen years, then suddenly trying to do it at once currently) were blamed on the railway and (surprise surprise) some form of sell-off was supposed to be the magic bullet.

There's already a four track railway at the location. I fail to see what aesthetic difference some gantry's are going to make.

 

[Andyjs247]

Brunel would be delighted to see electrification outside 'his' house.

Yes I rather think Brunel would approve and he would appreciate the progress and improvements that have been made to electrification design over time.

It's also untrue to say Series 1 isn't low profile - it's a considerable improvement over the old double gantry used on the GEML.


Now, just to recap, the design needs to be as it is - it's unavoidable.

Headspans are out for reliability and line speed improvements, we're ripping them out along by Heathrow right now (probably right now, as I type this, in fact). That leaves either single masts, twin track cantilevers or portals.

We've been over this before, no matter what the masts look like, they will be essentially the same design and have the exact same wiring. The best that can happen is they'll be pretified slightly.

The masts have a specific height about the portal or cantilever structure to attach the 25kV ATF cable in a position of safety, where an insulator failure will cause the cable where it will earth on the structure and not hit signalling or other electrification components.

There then needs to be a return cable running alongside the structure to complete the wiring circuit.

Above the track you have a catenary for each line - cantilever arm, registration arm, insulator assembly, with the contact wire and catenary wire bottom and top respectively, joined by droppers.

There needs to be tensioning at appropriate intervals, now spring loaded tensioning units from Tensorex, they're nice and tidy too, but require braced structures due to the tensions involved (16.5kN for contact wire).

The portals could be tweaked (though I think they're a fair design given the GEML double height units) but everything on or under the portal will be the same, there's no leeway at all to change wires, registration arms, insulators etc.

I have to say I quite like the series 1 design. I think that people may not appreciate what an improvement it is compared with previous designs not just technically but aesthetically especially in terms of visual clutter.

There must be 100s of suitable photos to show the different systems installed at various 4-track settings - eg lattice structures on the WCML between Euston and Roade or around Crewe vs newer portals in the Trent Valley installed for TV4, headspans on ECML in the Vale of York vs GEML between Liverpool Street - Shenfield.

For example, I find the old lattice structures look really cluttered especially from a drivers eye view, and since AT wiring has been added. The newer sections in the Trent Valley are neater. The height of the rather substantial masts for headspans eg on the ECML means they stand out and can be seen for some distance - miles even. And IIRC the older GEML 4 track sections also seemed somewhat "cluttered" but less so than the lattice structures on the WCML (been a while since I've travelled that way).

Not sure if there any fully wired sections using series 1 yet for comparison... Perhaps when people can see some real examples they may be more sympathetic.

 

[highdyke]

Speaking as someone who's never worked on the railway, this sounds alarmingly like the type of old tripe we were peddled during the 1990's during which, various problems caused by Government (under-investment during the 1980's, complete lack of electrification for fifteen years, then suddenly trying to do it at once currently) were blamed on the railway and (surprise surprise) some form of sell-off was supposed to be the magic bullet.

There's already a four track railway at the location. I fail to see what aesthetic difference some gantry's are going to make.

Who said anything about a sell off? Rather like my thread on guards again, people just read into things their brains already tuned into what they THINK people are saying, it could be regional benchmarking. Nothing threatens the future of the railway more than sloppy project management and cost escalation, especially now NR's magic credit card has been torn up by the treasury. This is why we have the Shaw review. Transport is the bottom of voters concerns, if the railway industry cannot deliver next time the money will be diverted into other schemes. Especially given the 'up yours' attitude by NR/the Unions/various other bodies.

 

[SPADTrap]

Who said anything about a sell off? Rather like my thread on guards again, people just read into things their brains already tuned into what they THINK people are saying, it could be regional benchmarking. Nothing threatens the future of the railway more than sloppy project management and cost escalation, especially now NR's magic credit card has been torn up by the treasury. This is why we have the Shaw review. Transport is the bottom of voters concerns, if the railway industry cannot deliver next time the money will be diverted into other schemes. Especially given the 'up yours' attitude by NR/the Unions/various other bodies.

I'd say transport is probably the main concern of many voters?

 

[Haydn1971]

I'd say transport is probably the main concern of many voters?

Hardly...

 

[yorksrob]

Who said anything about a sell off? Rather like my thread on guards again, people just read into things their brains already tuned into what they THINK people are saying, it could be regional benchmarking. Nothing threatens the future of the railway more than sloppy project management and cost escalation, especially now NR's magic credit card has been torn up by the treasury. This is why we have the Shaw review. Transport is the bottom of voters concerns, if the railway industry cannot deliver next time the money will be diverted into other schemes. Especially given the 'up yours' attitude by NR/the Unions/various other bodies.

The best way to have well managed and properly budgeted projects is to have experienced teams of people who can move from one project to the next, building on experience and developing knowledge. The fact that we don't have this is precisely because of the type of upheaval caused by central government's half baked interventions over the past twenty years. A break-up of Network Rail (which you directly allude to) will be yet another half baked intervention which will throw everything up into the air again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hardly...

It's one of those things that would feature a lot more in people's concerns if you suddenly took it away from them.

 

[highdyke]

Keep putting your figures in your ears, and shouting la, la, la. When the money runs out change will come, whether anyone likes it or not. That's the reality for us all.

 

[yorksrob]

Keep putting your figures in your ears, and shouting la, la, la. When the money runs out change will come, whether anyone likes it or not. That's the reality for us all.

It will be a lot easier for the railway to deal with if some bunch of clowns doesn't come along and put everything back to square one by fragmenting it all again.

 

[highdyke]

It will be a lot easier for the railway to deal with if some bunch of clowns doesn't come along and put everything back to square one by fragmenting it all again.

It doesn't have to be fragmented further. It could be regional businesses that run everything like the water industry, public or private. Again, jumping to conclusions. The ORR say themselves, NR has a problem with missing financial or project targets, so something is wrong, especially as they [NR] have been about for 15 years. Most people don't give a stuff what rail executives and other staff get paid as long as deliver in a cost effective way. The situation we have now is some of the highest fares in Europe (value for money being the number one passenger concern) and some of the highest paid executives and workforce. We keep getting told this is to attract talent to the industry, no doubt in some cases this true. Nevertheless there seems to be an overall problem with delivery. Granted government interference and micromanagement really doesn't help, nor do NIMBYs. But it's no excuse frankly given the sums of money involved.

 

[yorksrob]

It doesn't have to be fragmented further. It could be regional businesses that run everything like the water industry, public or private. Again, jumping to conclusions.

Whatever it is, it's likely to be an upheaval.

For what it's worth, I would like to see a rolling electrification schemes established which would move from one line to the next. This would act like a portable factory with a good level of knowledge, purpose built kit and a developed supply chain.

However, you have to start somewhere and since we've had a fifteen year hiatus, that somewhere is now.

 

[highdyke]

Whatever it is, it's likely to be an upheaval.

There were constant reorganisations under BR, in some cases they caused more problems than they were worth. We both agree on these points. These reorganisations will always happen however when an industry is perceived to be not delivering financially or for its users. Isn't that what we have here again? The GWR were in existence for 112 years, because by and large, they worked. We'd all like nothing more than the current railway to succeed and not be changed, but politicians and the public's patience is limited. The railway needs to manage it's image far more in order to change this view, yet once again its walked into an avoidable situation. This is my point.

 

[Who Cares]

Oh look. I can see the march of electricity pylons towards the back of the picture...

The power pylons were there before the AONB....

And will perhaps be removed ( as many others have - including in the Goring Gap - over the past 20 years ) by an industry with a bit more social conscience than NR....

http://www2.nationalgrid.com/Mediac...o-reduce-the-visual-impact-of-overhead-lines/

 

[mewstone]

"The power pylons were there before the AONB....

And will perhaps be removed ( as many others have - including in the Goring Gap - over the past 20 years ) by an industry with a bit more social conscience than NR...."

To be fair to Network Rail they don't really have the option of burying their overhead cables underground

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The power pylons were there before the AONB....

The railway was present before the AONB was established, and it was fitted with enormous signalling and telegraph wiring along the trackside from new (we've had this discussion before).

http://freepages.nostalgia.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cyberheritage/cary2.jpg

 

[yorksrob]

There were constant reorganisations under BR, in some cases they caused more problems than they were worth. We both agree on these points. These reorganisations will always happen however when an industry is perceived to not delivering financially or for its users. Isn't that what we have here again?

Reorganisations of this sort will alter the day to day running of the organisation (NR has moved from centralised to regional for example). But I can't see this having much of an effect on management of major upgrades and projects since these are already locally managed. Here, experience and supply chains etc are what counts.

If it was up to me, I would have done the MML after the GWML. But then again, I don't think the HST's are all going to turn into pumpkins in 2019, unlike the various local councils and politicians who seem keen to replace them.

 

[mewstone]

"The railway was present before the AONB was established, and it was fitted with enormous signalling and telegraph wiring along the trackside from new (we've had this discussion before).

http://freepages.nostalgia.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cyberheritage/cary2.jpg

That photograph wonderfully illustrates that where possible the Railway have over the years reduced the visual impact it has on the landscape.

 

[highdyke]

To be fair to Network Rail they don't really have the option of burying their overhead cables underground

This is an important point, therefore what should have happened was.

1 NR should have identified potentially problem areas where objections are likely to surface - this seems to have happened in Bath.
2 Engage with local communities in these places, using 3d visualisations of what things are going to look like so tweaks could have been made to designs, colours changed, mitigation discussed.

BR managed this in Durham and the Royal border bridge in the 1980s pre desktop 3d/photoshop/ etc. Sorry no excuse, NR have brought this upon themselves.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The sense of entitlement to mollycoddling that pervades these Nimby posts is unbelievable. I suggest we encourage the government to remove the AONB designation, after all it's clearly not outstandingly beautiful any more.

BTW "highdyke" Please start a thread specifically about privatising NR and take your axe grinding there. Then we could get back on topic.

privatising NR has never been mentioned, their **** poor management has. Which this issue pretty much highlights, or is that too difficult for you to understand?

 

[Class 170101]

It's one of those things that would feature a lot more in people's concerns if you suddenly took it away from them.

Or goes wrong - like Dawlish Sea wall.

 

[Who Cares]

Was merely responding to routexford's sarcastic comment....

 

[Tw99]

The railway runs in either the Chilterns or North Wessex Downs AONB from just west of Purley,to somewhere near Didcot. Are the Goring campaigners asking for this whole stretch to be prettified, in defence of the "principle of AONBs" or just the mile or two that affects them directly ?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Does anybody have a copy of http://www.savegoringgap.org.uk/uploads/1/6/0/7/16078996/1348131_orig.jpg prior to electrification - ideally as close a replica of that shot as possible (with no trains in shot).

Thanks in advance.

 

[ainsworth74]

We seem to have a discussion going off onto a bit of tangent about the GWML electrication project at large so I've moved the last few posts of that discussion into the main thread here. If you wish to respond to an issue raised by that discussion please do so on the main thread leaving this one clear for discussion around the Goring Gap issue only.

Many thanks