Connington ECML OHLE Headspan conversions

[jyte]

Sorry for the incorrect spelling. Middlesbrough was fairly high on Northern Sparks priority list iirc

Middlesbrough was part of the proposed TPE electrification at some point, but I think that has now been graylinged, or was some time ago.

 

[nlogax]

graylinged

Ooof. That's an apt, excellent and depressing turn of phrase all rolled into one.

 

[twpsaesneg]

You can see the intermediary stage

here,

the diagram about how the process works

here,

and the end result

here.

Have the costs come down now?
The "prototype" was about £80k for the one structure, which would have made complete replacement substantially cheaper.

 

[jyte]

Have the costs come down now?
The "prototype" was about £80k for the one structure, which would have made complete replacement substantially cheaper.

I'd love a source on that if you have one (not because I doubt it but because I couldn't find one) - but I also doubt that NR would be converting headspans rather than replacing them if new structures were substantially cheaper. Maybe they've got some economies of scale now - or more likely based on what I've read about the Connington Area, creating new foundations in what is effectively a bog would be prohibitively expensive. Lots of the new OHLE around Paddington are in fact new structures (lots of twin track cantilevers) rather than converted headspans, that's certainly true.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Have the costs come down now?
The "prototype" was about £80k for the one structure, which would have made complete replacement substantially cheaper.

As they have got more practiced and thus better I assume costs have come down -yes.

If you were to completely replace as you suggest – you would need a possession to pile new foundations- not easy when you have electric wires etc in place. Then further possessions.

The way they are doing it means you can put the cross-beam in with the power isolated using existing gantries, piles, foundations. Then at leisure do all the other stuff. The crossbeam to produce a portal also has the effect of stabilizing the old structures. They way they are doing it is the best way to my mind.

 

[twpsaesneg]

I'd love a source on that if you have one (not because I doubt it but because I couldn't find one) - but I also doubt that NR would be converting headspans rather than replacing them if new structures were substantially cheaper. Maybe they've got some economies of scale now - or more likely based on what I've read about the Connington Area, creating new foundations in what is effectively a bog would be prohibitively expensive. Lots of the new OHLE around Paddington are in fact new structures (lots of twin track cantilevers) rather than converted headspans, that's certainly true.

Just after the install there was a presentation from the route team where that figure (or thereabouts) was given. There was also a bun fight about installing F+F SIC's at Potters Bar which at the time weren't approved for AWAC catenary, hence the Mk3B Mechanically Independent Registrations going in.

The plan back then was always the complex areas / troublesome areas first. Good to finally see it starting properly.

 

[jyte]

Good to finally see it starting properly.

Totally agreed - I remember Phillip Phlopp explaining the process about 2 years ago on the GWEP page.

 

[twpsaesneg]

As they have got more practiced and thus better I assume costs have come down -yes.

If you were to completely replace as you suggest – you would need a possession to pile new foundations- not easy when you have electric wires etc in place. Then further possessions.

The way they are doing it means you can put the cross-beam in with the power isolated using existing gantries, piles, foundations. Then at leisure do all the other stuff. The crossbeam to produce a portal also has the effect of stabilizing the old structures. They way they are doing it is the best way to my mind.

Indeed this is I believe the most sensible way. However with the headspan conversion you have to do everything at once - i.e. in one block. With a replacement structure you can put your foundations in with pairs of lines only, or a single line if you want to be really clever about it and work Adjacent Line Open. Once you've installed your masts and landed your boom (which should be possible in a midweek night block as you put it above the existing kit) you can then transfer one road at a time to the new structure, again possible during a midweek block. You use compensating weights on the headspan to mimic the weight of the equipment that you take off until all are complete and you can remove the headspan.

It's swings and roundabouts really.

 

[deltic08]

Sorry for the incorrect spelling. Middlesbrough was fairly high on Northern Sparks priority list iirc

Thats with living too much in the States. Even Edinburgh is pronounced Edinborough over there.
If the gap between Stalybridge and York is not being wired, then Northallerton-Middlesbrough hasn't a hope in hell. Probably diesel all the way as it won't be worth going onto electric just for 30 miles York-Northallerton. What a crazy irrational mess non-electrification infill has got us into. Again the bimode has killed it and York-Scarborough, pronounced Scarborough.

 

[jyte]

Maybe the solution *dons tin foil hat* is to further devolve transport spending powers to the North....just like that devolution out current government seems so keen on.

 

[furnessvale]

Maybe the solution *dons tin foil hat* is to further devolve transport spending powers to the North....just like that devolution out current government seems so keen on.

Which would probably diverted to road spending. Only in the south east are railways essential.

 

[InOban]

That used to be the case, but there are more and more cities where rail is crucial to the economy, bringing in people without the attendant cars roads and car parks.

 

[furnessvale]

That used to be the case, but there are more and more cities where rail is crucial to the economy, bringing in people without the attendant cars roads and car parks.

I am as pro rail as the next man and would love to believe that, but sadly even looking at road traffic entering Manchester in the rush hour, let alone checking the percentage split road v rail knocks that argument.

Yes, a loss of rail would increase congestion etc but "crucial"? Rail has to fight for its share and prove itself in the market place, a fight I have been involved in for years.

 

[edwin_m]

I am as pro rail as the next man and would love to believe that, but sadly even looking at road traffic entering Manchester in the rush hour, let alone checking the percentage split road v rail knocks that argument.

Yes, a loss of rail would increase congestion etc but "crucial"? Rail has to fight for its share and prove itself in the market place, a fight I have been involved in for years.

That may be so, but if we want to reduce road traffic and its many disbenefits, it's the non-London cities where we should be concentrating.

Almost all London commuter traffic is on public transport, and anyone driving in has a reason (good or otherwise) to do so and is unlikely to shift. So the opportunity to increase loads on London commuter routes is dependent mainly on increasing employment, and will require major infratsructure work to provide the necessary capacity. Similarly rail probably has most of the intercity market share it is going to get, given that it is uncompetitive for many journeys particularly not to or from a city centre, as there is no obvious route or too much time is needed to access stations each end.

However I believe the larger cities outside London are at a tipping point. Many people who would never consider rail for travelling into London will now think about the train for access into Birmingham or Manchester, due to the increasing cost of parking, hassle of driving on congested urban routes, and decline of buses in many places. The level of demand on some routes is more suited to light than heavy rail, but between the two there is a big opportunity. On the heavy rail side providing the capacity isn't quite as simple as just lengthening all the trains, but far less difficult than in the London area.

Anyway I've just noticed the title of this thread. How did we get here from Connington?

 

[jyte]

Anyway I've just noticed the title of this thread. How did we get here from Connington?

THat's the magic of railforums!

 

[jyte]

Just want to post an update: On a recent run down to London I counted at least a dozen headspans that were in the process of being 'portalified'. Apparently the remaining part of the conversion will go through the next time NR can get an at least 48 hour possession, according to the TM, but the main benefit here is increased structural rigidity due to the horizontal beam.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Just want to post an update: On a recent run down to London I counted at least a dozen headspans that were in the process of being 'portalified'. Apparently the remaining part of the conversion will go through the next time NR can get an at least 48 hour possession, according to the TM, but the main benefit here is increased structural rigidity due to the horizontal beam.

Surely the word is "portalised"!

 

[Whistler40145]

Considering that several locations have suffered from problems with the OHLE and Headspans over many years, how come Network Rail have now decided to remedy the situation.

 

[najaB]

Considering that several locations have suffered from problems with the OHLE and Headspans over many years, how come Network Rail have now decided to remedy the situation.

Because the upcoming ETCS rollout means that 140mph operation on the ECML is on the horizon. What you can just about get away with at 125mph is going to be pants at 140mph.

 

[Whistler40145]

Thanks for your reply

 

[AM9]

Well!

In the event a pan looses proper contact and whips or pulls down a wire, the wires are now (or are becoming) independently mechanically registered, which means the chances of ALL the overhead lines coming down when one is damaged are much lower, which means the system is more reliable.

Interestingly, there's a lot of portals (and sort of portals) in this area already. Between 39:30 and 40:00 on this 2013 shot video you can see that quite a lot of portals in the Connington area. The ones at 39:45 look really similar to some of the ones on the North East Corridor in the US.

Similar portals have been used in the UK, particularly on lines electrified at 1500VDC as planned by the LNER. I remember in the '70s, much of the GEML two track sections had similar structures, (i.e. a single beam portal with corner braces, and with the registration hardware supported on a bracket dropped from the top beam rather than cantilevered from the vertical supports). I can't find any useful video of the GEML OLE but this very rare cab-ride in a class 77 on the Woodhead route clearly shows some with that type of portal:

Maybe the weight of the DC OLE was too much for the structural insulators available then. The lightweight cantlever has been a constant feature of 25kV ole since the early '60s.

 

[snowball]

Some old 1500V DC supports are still in use between Manchester, Hadfield and Glossop

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dinting_Station_from_Glossop_5094.JPG

and on Metrolink between Manchester and Altrincham.

 

[jyte]

Some old 1500V DC supports are still in use between Manchester, Hadfield and Glossop

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dinting_Station_from_Glossop_5094.JPG

and on Metrolink between Manchester and Altrincham.

Lots of droppers of the same style still hanging around Stratford on the GEML as well.

 

[edwin_m]

Lots of droppers of the same style still hanging around Stratford on the GEML as well.

I think what you're referring to is the upside down A-shaped bit whose name I don't know. A "dropper" is the short vertical wire that links the contact wire to the catenary wire.

 

[59CosG95]

I think what you're referring to is the upside down A-shaped bit whose name I don't know. A "dropper" is the short vertical wire that links the contact wire to the catenary wire.

The upside down "A" bit is probably a registration bracket (like a registration arm in SPS but more antique).

 

[jyte]

The upside down "A" bit is probably a registration bracket (like a registration arm in SPS but more antique).

Yeah that's what I meant - SPS/registration arm not dropper.

 

[Chris125]

Because the upcoming ETCS rollout means that 140mph operation on the ECML is on the horizon. What you can just about get away with at 125mph is going to be pants at 140mph.

I'd have thought the IEPs are the more pressing issue - with 2x5-car trains the catenary will need to cope with two pantographs at 125mph.

 

[jyte]

I'd have thought the IEPs are the more pressing issue - with 2x5-car trains the catenary will need to cope with two pantographs at 125mph.

According to old post by Mr Phlopp, the ECML's 'dodgy' catenary can cope with 2*125mph with minor work. 2*140mph will require more considerable changes.

 

[59CosG95]

Any news with further conversions?

 

[londonmidland]

On the MML, just North of Elstree and Borehamwood, there are a few twin track cantilevers and portals which replaced the troublesome headspans a while back.

On both the MML and ECML there are a few headspans leaning inwards quite considerably which look pretty concerning.