Blackpool - Manchester Electrification

[edwin_m]

Platform staff on the GWML routes should have had training about telling passengers to keep such things (plus foil balloons, fishing rods etc) clear of the OLE.

The issue wouldn't arise in this way if the Government banned metal umbrellas, many golfing and fishing umbrellas these days tend to be composite or graphite material which is electrically insulated to protect the user from lightning strikes.

But would they still be insulated when wet? Which umbrellas sometimes are.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

But would they still be insulated when wet? Which umbrellas sometimes are.

No different to a wet insulator pot. Lightning tends to happen during showers.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The issue wouldn't arise in this way if the Government banned metal umbrellas, many golfing and fishing umbrellas these days tend to be composite or graphite material which is electrically insulated to protect the user from lightning strikes.

Philip - my second bachelors degree is in material science - so not wishing to contradict you but - graphite is conductive unless you make it part of a composite.

 

[Domh245]

Philip - my second bachelors degree is in material science - so not wishing to contradict you but - graphite is conductive unless you make it part of a composite.

IIRC, graphite doesn't conduct in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the lattice structure.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Philip - my second bachelors degree is in material science - so not wishing to contradict you but - graphite is conductive unless you make it part of a composite.

I've got one with some sort of lightning safe graphite shaft (or that's what the manufacturer claims, anyway) which is what I was meaning by graphite which is electrically insulated.

I don't know what they do to make them electrically insulated or lightning safe - could be some sort of polymeric type thing for all I know, I've never bothered to find out.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

http://www.whycenter.com/why-does-graphite-conduct-electricity/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite

https://www.reference.com/science/graphite-conduct-electricity-35d74730c9b43387#

 

[Philip Phlopp]

http://www.whycenter.com/why-does-graphite-conduct-electricity/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite

https://www.reference.com/science/graphite-conduct-electricity-35d74730c9b43387#

It's one of these (albeit slightly differently branded).

https://www.function18.com/accessories/footjoy-dryjoys-golf-umbrella-5762.html

 

[CAF397]

. There is at least one bridge on Phase 4 which now needs reconstruction (it didn't previously) but its location means the costs involved are staggering (and beyond the project's budget).

This isn't "Crossleys Bridge" the A587 Plymouth Road bridge in Layton, Blackpool is it? 3-4 years ago it had new angled coping stones put on, along with other bridges between Blackpool and Preston that weren't removed or rebuilt.

Now it is being replaced, which is a surprise, but given your reasonings about OLE heights it is just off the platform at Layton station, and does look very low compared to the recent footbridge that was installed.

 

[snowball]

This isn't "Crossleys Bridge" the A587 Plymouth Road bridge in Layton, Blackpool is it? 3-4 years ago it had new angled coping stones put on, along with other bridges between Blackpool and Preston that weren't removed or rebuilt.

Now it is being replaced, which is a surprise, but given your reasonings about OLE heights it is just off the platform at Layton station, and does look very low compared to the recent footbridge that was installed.

Preston to Blakpool is phase 3. Phase 4 is Manchester to Euxton.

A newspaper item linked in #2785 says Crossley's Bridge is being replaced because of the condition of the steel. But it also says the bridge will be "heightened". There's also this new item:

http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/n...-bridge-starts-earlier-than-planned-1-7988077

 

[LeylandLen]

I know its not directly connected financially to the electrification of Manchester/ Preston but Leyland station now fully open ; both car parks in use with spaces today at 1200 ! Still a £1 a day for car park . Lifts appear to be working tho did not use one.

 

[Whistler40145]

This isn't "Crossleys Bridge" the A587 Plymouth Road bridge in Layton, Blackpool is it? 3-4 years ago it had new angled coping stones put on, along with other bridges between Blackpool and Preston that weren't removed or rebuilt.

Now it is being replaced, which is a surprise, but given your reasonings about OLE heights it is just off the platform at Layton station, and does look very low compared to the recent footbridge that was installed.

Indeed it is Crossleys Bridge or to give it's correct name, Plymouth Road Bridge, the clearance does look rather low compared with the newish Footbridge. I wonder how much higher level the replacement will be?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[CAF397]

Having worked the route in both ways today, I'm intrigued on this bridge.

The suspect ones at stations, that haven't been rebuilt, are;

Lostock,
Bolton,
Salford Crescent.

Lostock shouldn't cost that much if it is to be rebuilt, it is just a standard road bridge. It would cause local issues for access, but financially shouldn't be too much.

I'd hazard a guess that Bolton and Salford Crescent would cost a fortune to rebuild as they carry very busy main roads. However, Bolton could afford to lose some of its platform under the bridge to alleviate any OLE issues. So that leaves Salford Crescent as the problem? To be honest, it didn't look that low.

Chorley has 2 bridges on the Manchester side of the station, but one of the tracks has already been lowered, and the other one should be lowered when the new platform opens later this year. I can't imagine that bridge is an issue.

So, any chance of any clues as to this problem bridge?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

- Leyland station now fully open ; both car parks in use with spaces today at 1200 ! Still a £1 a day for car park .

That is not bad value at all.

 

[snowball]

Indeed it is Crossleys Bridge or to give it's correct name, Plymouth Road Bridge, the clearance does look rather low compared with the newish Footbridge. I wonder how much higher level the replacement will be?

TBSchenker was asking whether that bridge (which is on Phase 3) is the same bridge Joseph Locke was referring to (which JL said was on Phase 4). Are you claiming to know which bridge JL was referring to, or have you misread TBSchenker's question?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Indeed it is Crossleys Bridge or to give it's correct name, Plymouth Road Bridge, the clearance does look rather low compared with the newish Footbridge. I wonder how much higher level the replacement will be?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

You'll need to wait for Joseph Locke, but from what data I've got, it's a straight deck replacement to deal with a very badly rotten steel beam reinforced concrete deck (road salt related). The bridge had already been cleared for electrification, which is why the parapet height was increased in 2012.

It was, by the way, assessed safe for 44 tonne vehicles (parapets withstanding) in 2010 but it suffered some unexpected damage and a second inspection revealed it's about ready to fall down, to head off the inevitable queries about why NR spent money on a bridge that's needing to be rebuilt.

If there's an increase in height and clearance, I don't know if it's explicitly planned, or just a result of a different deck design/construction.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I can re-confirm its a phase 4 bridge, not previously in scope. Can't comment on other phases or on which bridge it actually is, sorry.

Using Bolton as an illustration though, it isn't a matter of short-ending the platforms as there is a limit on how rapidly the OLE can rise and fall relative to the track, based on speed. At Bolton this would be 1 in 100, meaning that to gain a metre of wire height takes at least 100m. The interaction of requirements is complex ...

 

[SodTheDrummer]

I can re-confirm its a phase 4 bridge, not previously in scope. Can't comment on other phases or on which bridge it actually is, sorry.

Using Bolton as an illustration though, it isn't a matter of short-ending the platforms as there is a limit on how rapidly the OLE can rise and fall relative to the track, based on speed. At Bolton this would be 1 in 100, meaning that to gain a metre of wire height takes at least 100m. The interaction of requirements is complex ...

Interesting & mysterious as ever Mr Locke! I assume whatever council it affects is now screaming like a Banshee! Especially if it's Crescent - Trinity Street in Bolton would be very bad, but the A6 past SLD would be catastrophic and create many, many (more) angry motorists..

So, say if either Bolton or Crescent were the locations in question, (looking at Bolton today, it does look low tbh - I'm not a great judge of height, but it looks like the OLE will need to drop a bit to get under Trinity Street) what will happen now? Is it a case of everything stops until funding can be agreed to rectify whichever bridge it is? Or can they carry on putting mast bases/masts up and all the other ancillary stuff in the meantime?

And i take it track lowering isn't an option?

 

[notlob.divad]

Just coming back to this thread after a week or so away. I notice up thread

This means that there now has to be (retrospectively*) 370mm electrical clearance to metallic or conductive structures (was 270mm) and 3.5m clearance between and place a person may stand and any live part (was 2.75m).

*yes, all the existing low wire heights at existing stations MUST now be addressed or their retention subjected to a massive and costly risk assessment process.

(I have shortened slightly for ease of reading)

I am therefore assuming there is a massive task of assessing every station on the network, irrespective of what style of OHLE electrification exists, where there maybe a 'low structure' in the vicinity to work out if any retrospective modifications are required and thus implementing any required modifications. whilst this clearly has an impact on the Phase 4 of NW electrification as mentioned, it will presumably have a bigger impact upon further electrification projects as resources (time and money) are taken up re -engineering solutions at these problem locations.

 

[Mordac]

Interesting & mysterious as ever Mr Locke! I assume whatever council it affects is now screaming like a Banshee! Especially if it's Crescent - Trinity Street in Bolton would be very bad, but the A6 past SLD would be catastrophic and create many, many (more) angry motorists..

So, say if either Bolton or Crescent were the locations in question, (looking at Bolton today, it does look low tbh - I'm not a great judge of height, but it looks like the OLE will need to drop a bit to get under Trinity Street) what will happen now? Is it a case of everything stops until funding can be agreed to rectify whichever bridge it is? Or can they carry on putting mast bases/masts up and all the other ancillary stuff in the meantime?

And i take it track lowering isn't an option?

I'm wondering this too. It seems everytime an unexpected problem is encountered in an electrification project, the reaction of contractors is to stop everything going on in the whole project. Wouldn't it be better to continue everything else, even from a political point of view, as it would be much easier to persuade the Treasury to cough up the extra money if everything else was done and all the infrastructure along the line kept reminding passengers of the issue...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I'm wondering this too. It seems everytime an unexpected problem is encountered in an electrification project, the reaction of contractors is to stop everything going on in the whole project. Wouldn't it be better to continue everything else, even from a political point of view, as it would be much easier to persuade the Treasury to cough up the extra money if everything else was done and all the infrastructure along the line kept reminding passengers of the issue...

EXACTLY what I was thinking too.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You'll need to wait for Joseph Locke, but from what data I've got, it's a straight deck replacement to deal with a very badly rotten steel beam reinforced concrete deck (road salt related). The bridge had already been cleared for electrification, which is why the parapet height was increased in 2012.

It was, by the way, assessed safe for 44 tonne vehicles (parapets withstanding) in 2010 but it suffered some unexpected damage and a second inspection revealed it's about ready to fall down, to head off the inevitable queries about why NR spent money on a bridge that's needing to be rebuilt.

If there's an increase in height and clearance, I don't know if it's explicitly planned, or just a result of a different deck design/construction.

Out of interest - sorry if this is badly informed, but - if it's a road bridge that's at some point suffered damage and so needs rebuilding, how is that the responsibility of Network Rail? Don't the local council (or Government depending on the road categorization) have responsibility for maintaining the roads?

 

[SodTheDrummer]

I'm wondering this too. It seems everytime an unexpected problem is encountered in an electrification project, the reaction of contractors is to stop everything going on in the whole project. Wouldn't it be better to continue everything else, even from a political point of view, as it would be much easier to persuade the Treasury to cough up the extra money if everything else was done and all the infrastructure along the line kept reminding passengers of the issue...

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to suss out the location of said bridge or to try and put Mr JL Esq. in an awkward position (not that he would bite anyway!) - we all welcome his and Mr Phlopp's (et seq) contributions on here and I would not wish to jeopardize this valuable insider insight! I speak as an outsider, but have learned a great deal from the posts of those who are kind enough and take the trouble to share what they are able to share.

It's just that those 2 bridges are ones I pass under frequently and do seem quite low compared with the new footbridges and recently replaced road bridges etc.

Main thought though is that contractors could carry on in the meantime whilst the planners/money men/women sort out the bridge/cash issue. I presume it's not as easy as that though, I'm learning that every seemingly "simple" job on the railway has a multitude of knock on effects on other "simple" jobs!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Out of interest - sorry if this is badly informed, but - if it's a road bridge that's at some point suffered damage and so needs rebuilding, how is that the responsibility of Network Rail? Don't the local council (or Government depending on the road categorization) have responsibility for maintaining the roads?

EXACTLY -but as usual railways get screwed

 

[Senex]

EXACTLY -but as usual railways get screwed

Seems particularly harsh on the railway if the damage is indeed road salt related - it's not the railway that scatters the salt on the bridge in winter!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Out of interest - sorry if this is badly informed, but - if it's a road bridge that's at some point suffered damage and so needs rebuilding, how is that the responsibility of Network Rail? Don't the local council (or Government depending on the road categorization) have responsibility for maintaining the roads?

The local authority are paying for its replacement in this case.

NR covered the cost for the parapet height increase prior to that, as they do with almost every bridge which only needs replacement or modification to permit electrification.

 

[Chrism20]

Article in today's gazette regarding the planned closure during winter 17/18. Nothing we don't already know but thought I'd post it for info.

http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/o...il-line-to-close-for-up-to-18-weeks-1-7998994

Rail services between Blackpool and Preston could be halted for up to 18 weeks to allow the completion of upgrade works.

The shutdown, revealed in a report prepared for Wyre Council, would take place in the winter of 2017/18 and would see all services between Blackpool, Poulton, Kirkham and Preston replaced by buses.

Network Rail has promised to electrify the route by May 2018 and is also replacing outdated signalling and other infrastructure along the line.


The work is expected to include a significant rebuild at Blackpool North – including the lengthening and straightening of platforms – a remodelling of the railway at Kirkham and Wesham and the resignalling of the stretch between Poulton and Blackpool which is still operated using semaphore signals and bells.



Read more: http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/o...se-for-up-to-18-weeks-1-7998994#ixzz4Ddui4OBi

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Article in today's gazette regarding the planned closure during winter 17/18. Nothing we don't already know but thought I'd post it for info.

The entire line is semaphore signalled I think, apart from the intial bit off the WCML.
NR will have to resignal the lot, not just Poulton-Blackpool.

 

[Chrism20]

The entire line is semaphore signalled I think, apart from the intial bit off the WCML.
NR will have to resignal the lot, not just Poulton-Blackpool.

When I read it in the paper this afternoon I did think to myself that there was more than that but assumed I was wrong as I must admit that although I use the line monthly visiting my parents I don't pay that close attention to it.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The entire line is semaphore signalled I think, apart from the intial bit off the WCML.
NR will have to resignal the lot, not just Poulton-Blackpool.

Closure of one or two boxes then.

 

[Elecman]

Closure of one or two boxes then.

Will be 5 boxes