Future of the GWR electrification

[takno]

I'm unclear about whether there has been any increase in required clearance under a bridge. Perhaps someone on here can explain. Most of the discussion I've seen has been about such matters as the height of parapets on overbridges, or safety for passengers on platforms carrying helium balloons, selfie sticks, fishing rods etc.

The distance is from publicly accessible locations to wires. If the bridge is in the middle of nowhere then parapets are likely to cover the only nearby public interfaces. If the bridge is close to a station or level crossing, or close to an area where a road runs close to the track, then the low wire height through the bridge may make it impossible to reach the required height through the station or level crossing. For listed or protected bridges it may also be significantly more difficult to raise parapets, leading to a need a lower rails.

 

[zwk500]

I'm unclear about whether there has been any increase in required clearance under a bridge. Perhaps someone on here can explain. Most of the discussion I've seen has been about such matters as the height of parapets on overbridges, or safety for passengers on platforms carrying helium balloons, selfie sticks, fishing rods etc.

From https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/10703/download#:~:text=Previously this had, for the,be justified by risk assessment.

EN50122-1:2011+A1:2011 revised an earlier special UK national condition which recognised the constrained UK loading gauge. Previously this had, for the UK specific case, established an electrical clearance of 2.75m as a minimum for any element of the electrification system , after revision the special national UK condition was removed and any utilisation of dimensions under 3.5m must now be justified by risk assessment.

So in 2011 the minimum electrical clearance from a position which the public may gain access was 2.75m, and now it's 3.5m, However there's another important caveat:

Our policy:

• Duty holders must clearly demonstrate that they have complied with relevant legislation3 which details the clearance dimensions that should be achieved. For standing surfaces in locations where the public may forseeable gain access, the required clearance is 3.5m and ORR considers this to be the minimum required for compliance without further mitigation (such as barriers or screens as specified or equally effective means)
• In all circumstances a risk assessment should show that the duty holder has done all that is reasonably practicable to increase the clearance distances to at least 3.5m and set out what steps have been taken to maximise the electrical clearance where 3.5m cannot be achieved.
• ORR does not believe that the distance of 3.5m has to be achieved irrespective of cost. 3.5m is the minimum clearance which duty holders should aim to achieve and exceed wherever practical. Where that cannot be achieved without grossly disproportionate expenditure then the full range of options to control the risk arising should be identified, evaluated and implemented.
• Where the 3.5m minimum clearance cannot be achieved, the duty holder needs to carry out a site specific risk assessment to clearly identify the hazards and controls that are required to ensure safety equivalent to the 3.5m minimum clearance.
• This should include a demonstration of all the items and factors considered in trying to achieve the 3.5m clearance and clearly evidence that the measures needed to achieve it are not reasonably practicable on the basis that the associated costs are grossly disproportionate.

 

[eldomtom2]

According to the wikipedia list of Route-KM, we are 16th globally. I'd be interested to know what our Route:Track KM ratio looks like in comparison to other countries, but I'd imagine that we're not too bad on that front in Europe. Anybody got a link to some decent statistics on Route and Track KM by electrifcation type?

That's not what Wikipedia says to me - to me it says the UK is 20th in total route km and 47th in route km electrified.

 

[snowball]

Thanks, takno and zwk500. So, as I suspected, on a well-fenced line not near a level crossing or station, there has been no increase in required clearance to the underside of an overbridge.

 

[zwk500]

That's not what Wikipedia says to me - to me it says the UK is 20th in total route km and 47th in route km electrified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_transport_network_size when sorted by Route KM electrified in descending order UK comes 16th.

Which source/page are you using?

 

[Grumpy]

Exactly... it was the politician's justification.

re Windermere I seem to recall one of the forum contributors with inside knowledge commenting that Windermere is not the simple/cheap project everyone assumes (“no brainier”,”simple trolley system” etc). Costly bridges, crossings etc.

 

[eldomtom2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_transport_network_size when sorted by Route KM electrified in descending order UK comes 16th.
View attachment 162403View attachment 162404
Which source/page are you using?

The same one - I was looking at the percentage, not the length.

 

[HSTEd]

So in 2011 the minimum electrical clearance from a position which the public may gain access was 2.75m, and now it's 3.5m, However there's another important caveat:

A cynic might suggest that that statement has the primary purpose of allowing the ORR to escape responsibility for cost increases.

In nuclear at least, such "this is disproportionate" requirements are so onerous as to almost always make simply complying cheaper. And in any case there is never any guarantee that the regulator will ever accept your arguments - it is entirely dependent on their whims in the absence of hard rules about what is or is not disproportionate.

 

[Brubulus]

Would it be possible for the regulations to go back to the old requirement of 2.75m, given the additional costs of conpliance and miniscule safety benefit. Or is it the case that any reduction in perceived safety is impossible.

 

[Energy]

Would it be possible for the regulations to go back to the old requirement of 2.75m, given the additional costs of conpliance and miniscule safety benefit. Or is it the case that any reduction in perceived safety is impossible.

It isn't a massive obstacle, where getting it to 3.5m would be expensive NR can just install solid panels and demonstrate that these control the risks at lower expense.

 

[JamesT]

It isn't a massive obstacle, where getting it to 3.5m would be expensive NR can just install solid panels and demonstrate that these control the risks at lower expense.

I think some pertinent sections of https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/10703 might be worth bearing in mind. (The ORR's statement on electrical clearances from 2016).

* Duty holders must clearly demonstrate that they have complied with relevant legislation which details the clearance dimensions that should be achieved.
For standing surfaces in locations where the public may forseeable gain access, the required clearance is 3.5m and ORR considers this to be the minimum
required for compliance without further mitigation (such as barriers or screens as specified or equally effective means).
* In all circumstances a risk assessment should show that the duty holder has done all that is reasonably practicable to increase the clearance distances to at
least 3.5m and set out what steps have been taken to maximise the electrical clearance where 3.5m cannot be achieved
* ORR does not believe that the distance of 3.5m has to be achieved irrespective of cost. 3.5m is the minimum clearance which duty holders should aim to
achieve and exceed wherever practical. Where that cannot be achieved without grossly disproportionate expenditure then the full range of options to control
the risk arising should be identified, evaluated and implemented.

Which sounds promising for allowing lower clearances, however:

10. ORR notes that no other industry uses a dimension as low as 3.5m to achieve
compliance with EaWR for 25kV systems, so its use already takes into account the
constraints of UK rail infrastructure. As such, the scope for further compromise of this
already significantly reduced clearance distance without accompanying mitigations is
extremely limited

13. Duty holders should aim to maximise clearances wherever possible, beginning at the
design stage of the project. 3.5m is a minimum, and not a design target.

 

[Brubulus]

It isn't a massive obstacle, where getting it to 3.5m would be expensive NR can just install solid panels and demonstrate that these control the risks at lower expense.

The problem with this is that each of the interventions that would not otherwise be necessary cost money. Furthermore there then needs to be the justification. This usually has to be done on a case by case basis and tends to end up being very expensive. It would be significantly cheaper just to restore the 2.75m clearance, as a one time action.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not convinced you could ever convince the regulator to reduce any of the safety distances. The current regulatory and political environment is not going to like such an action at all.
You'd probably have to short circuit the entire apparatus by altering the Electricity at Work REgulations, and that would take buckets of political capital.

This is just how much 25kV electrification costs now.

 

[Energy]

I think some pertinent sections of https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/10703 might be worth bearing in mind. (The ORR's statement on electrical clearances from 2016).


Which sounds promising for allowing lower clearances, however:

The ORR makes it clear that 3.5m is the minimum and for new installations they should try to exceed it. However, for existing installations, they just need to prove that upping it to 3.5m is too expensive and other methods like solid panels can be deployed to mitigate the risks.

For example, many bridges only have guard rails as parapets. If this bridge is too low then a bridge replacement could be very expensive (£1m+ for a road bridge) but changing the fencing for solid panels could increase the distance to 3.5m at a much reduced cost.

The problem with this is that each of the interventions that would not otherwise be necessary cost money. Furthermore there then needs to be the justification. This usually has to be done on a case by case basis and tends to end up being very expensive. It would be significantly cheaper just to restore the 2.75m clearance, as a one time action.

I don't believe that rules like this are what make electrification expensive. The work required is a short risk assessment and typically some new fencing, nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[eldomtom2]

The current regulatory and political environment is not going to like such an action at all.

I think the political environment is actually heading in a more anti-regulatory mood. What are required clearances like in other countries? If it's lower than 3.5m in some places, there may be a case to be made.

 

[AndrewE]

re Windermere I seem to recall one of the forum contributors with inside knowledge commenting that Windermere is not the simple/cheap project everyone assumes (“no brainier”,”simple trolley system” etc). Costly bridges, crossings etc.

see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/is-electrifying-windermere-worth-it.231413/ a whole thread on it. I have just skimmed the early and late posts, I can't see one industry insider saying there would be any problem at all.
I am beginning to suspect that it would have cost less to actually do it than the value of all the electricity taken up by the internet discussion of it since!
J(F)DI

 

[Mikey C]

It's possible NR had a plan to deal with electrification if the bridge wasn't raised through lowering the track, but as the opportunity came up to rebuild the bridge they might as well.

The line is next to a stream, and the area is quite "wet", so lowering the track would probably not be an easy option.

 

[Grumpy]

see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/is-electrifying-windermere-worth-it.231413/ a whole thread on it. I have just skimmed the early and late posts, I can't see one industry insider saying there would be any problem at all.
I am beginning to suspect that it would have cost less to actually do it than the value of all the electricity taken up by the internet discussion of it since!
J(F)DI

I cant see it either. It wasn't necessarily on a Windermere titled thread-possibly a throw away comment on a different subject thread. As here.

 

[AndrewE]

I cant see it either. It wasn't necessarily on a Windermere titled thread-possibly a throw away comment on a different subject thread. As here.

and I don't think it was anywhere else either. I have tried searching the forum, but that function isn't brilliant, so did a Google search instead - which pulls up quite a few (dozens of) threads which include "electrify windermere difficult" but I still haven't found anybody, rail insider or not, saying there would be any difficulty at all. AIUI all the design work has been done (and the physical connection into the WCML sysyem) and it just needs someone to push the financial button to start the rest of it off. Let's put this to bed. It would be easy, and not expensive.

 

[Grumpy]

and I don't think it was anywhere else either. I have tried searching the forum, but that function isn't brilliant, so did a Google search instead - which pulls up quite a few (dozens of) threads which include "electrify windermere difficult" but I still haven't found anybody, rail insider or not, saying there would be any difficulty at all.

Perhaps you need to try harder.
It could have been a post by Joseph_Locke on 8 Sept 2019
"Rather a lot of bridge clearance issues to sort, several level crossings that require upgrade and all this on a single line, so automatically more expensive per stkm than the equivalent twin-track railway. It also included the costs associated with gauge clearing the class 331, IIRC."

 

[BrianW]

Research (Googling!) on Graying and Hansard produced this written statement to IIRC the Transport Committee:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2017-07-20/HCWS85

It includes this re Windermere:

We have listened to concerns about electrification gantries spoiling protected landscapes. Northern, the train operator, will therefore begin work to explore the possibility of deploying alternative-fuel trains on the route by 2021, improving comfort and on-board facilities for passengers whilst protecting the sensitive environment of this World Heritage Site. This trial will pilot an alternative-fuelled train, removing the need to construct intrusive wires and masts in this National Park. Journeys between Windermere and Manchester Airport will be improved sooner and with less disruption to services and local communities. This replaces plans to electrify the line between Windermere and Oxenholme.

The Statement also 'rows back' on electrifying the MML north of Kettering and GWR west of Cardiff ...

 

[snowball]

I remember him saying that, but I think the point is that he doesn't say who has been expressing the concerns. He provides no evidence that any responsible organisations or major groups have complained. He could be referring to a convenient letter from Sid and Doris Bonkers.

 

[The exile]

I remember him saying that, but I think the point is that he doesn't say who has been expressing the concerns. He provides no evidence that any responsible organisations or major groups have complained. He could be referring to a convenient letter from Sid and Doris Bonkers.

Equally - cost per stkm is only really relevant when comparing like with like. The cost, for example, of wiring a short connecting chord with a low bridge would be disproportionately high - but so might the benefits. As for including the costs of gauging new stock - well that has to happen at some point anyway so the only link to electrification is when it’s done.

 

[BrianW]

I remember him saying that but I think the point is that he doesn't say who has been expressing the concerns.

It suited him, and the then Government, of which he was then a part. He heard what he wanted to hear (from one man and his dog maybe?) and took the opportunity to use it in support/ as an excuse/ a 'good reason' to go along with as 'a man of the people'/ a listening government ... etc etc

IIUC, in passing, the 20th of July 2017 (the date of Grayling's statement) was also the day on which Vince Cable became Lib-Dem leader, succeeding Tim Farron, the then and still MP for the Windermere area.

 

[Snow1964]

The cost overruns on the GWR project has made everyone scared to death of authorising any new long distance electrification projects in this country. ( Or any little ones come to that)Overengineered , maybe but it means we fall further behind Europe for number of track miles wired. Also "It's not in London" comes into play ( "It's only the west country").

I'm sure they made the GWR electrification out of solid gold sometimes.

The Government has changed, the focus of just getting on with job witnout gold plating has been proved (this weekends adding of electrified Midland line to South Wigston).

Odd as it may seem, considering some the Government rhetoric over last few years, some parts of Government are not anti-electrification (eg this weeks £680m or €781m underwriting by UK export Finance of British Steel for a Turkish rail line being electrified). If they don't mind potentially spending on foreign electrification then have to question why they wouldn't on UK projects.

 

[Falcon1200]

It's possible NR had a plan to deal with electrification if the bridge wasn't raised through lowering the track, but as the opportunity came up to rebuild the bridge they might as well.

The line is next to a stream, and the area is quite "wet", so lowering the track would probably not be an easy option.

IIRC the track in the Hinksey South area was actually raised a few years ago (and the location cabinets put onto platforms) due to historic flooding!

 

[vic-rijrode]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_transport_network_size when sorted by Route KM electrified in descending order UK comes 16th.

...and only Brazil, Romania and Kazakhstan have a lower percentage of their mileage electrified. But even Brazil and Rumania have more route miles electrified than the UK. How much of the electrified mileage in the UK is on the third rail and how many other countries have a significant proportion of their electrification on this method?

I find that totally disgusting.

 

[zwk500]

...and only Brazil, Romania and Kazakhstan have a lower percentage of their mileage electrified.

If you're sorting by percentage, the UK comes 47th (as already mentioned) out of 79 systems listed with at least 1 route-KM electrified, so 32 countries have a lower percentage of their route-Km electrified.

But even Brazil and Rumania have more route miles electrified than the UK.

Interestingly, if you go to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Brazil page it says brazil has c.1,000 route-km electrified, not the 9,000 claimed in the table. OpenRailwayMap suggests the only Brazilian rail electrification is local trains around Rio and Sao Paulo.

How much of the electrified mileage in the UK is on the third rail

Of the electrified mileage, approximately 1/3rd is third rail and 2/3rds OLE.

and how many other countries have a significant proportion of their electrification on this method?

Outside of Metros, none AFAIK.

I find that totally disgusting.

what is 'that' in this context, you've raised several different points here?

On a more general point, comparison to other countries isn't really that helpful, you'd need to get into comparing traffic patterns, energy production, resource availability, and historic legacies etc to have a meaningful comparison as to why the UK isn't keeping pace, or the problems other countries are having (e.g. Germany/Switzerland/Norway/Sweden being on 1/3rd of their grid frequency).
The key questions is what would our ideal "end-state" electrified network look like, and why aren't we anywhere near even the core of it. There's some gaping holes in our network that on an individual analysis should have been closed long ago - London-Sheffield-Doncaster and London-Bristol come to mind; and we should also be in a position where short infill gives network effects rather than being left massively underutilised.

 

[AndrewE]

Perhaps you need to try harder.
It could have been a post by Joseph_Locke on 8 Sept 2019
"Rather a lot of bridge clearance issues to sort, several level crossings that require upgrade and all this on a single line, so automatically more expensive per stkm than the equivalent twin-track railway. It also included the costs associated with gauge clearing the class 331, IIRC."

The bold just explains why the price would be a bit on the high side, he was not implying that there were any particular difficulties. He also went on to say

A BCR of 0.9 to 1 isn't bad for an electrification project, BTW, particularly as the most desperate WEB items wouldn't have been included

so I don't think this counts as a statement that it would not be a straightforward job.

 

[Mikey C]

On a more general point, comparison to other countries isn't really that helpful, you'd need to get into comparing traffic patterns, energy production, resource availability, and historic legacies etc to have a meaningful comparison as to why the UK isn't keeping pace, or the problems other countries are having (e.g. Germany/Switzerland/Norway/Sweden being on 1/3rd of their grid frequency).
The key questions is what would our ideal "end-state" electrified network look like, and why aren't we anywhere near even the core of it. There's some gaping holes in our network that on an individual analysis should have been closed long ago - London-Sheffield-Doncaster and London-Bristol come to mind; and we should also be in a position where short infill gives network effects rather than being left massively underutilised.

I've always thought that a better percentage to use is the percentage of passenger miles carried on electrified services, as it avoids the distortion of long but unimportant lines like the Highlands or the Heart of Wales not being electrified, the sort that other countries may even have closed down.