ECML vs GWML Electrification masts

[GRALISTAIR]

They remain, however, ugly.

Probably because the original design was carried on through to completion instead of changing part way through because someone new had a whizzy idea to try to save costs which usually ends up costing more and looking like a dogs breakfast.

All we can hope for is that lessons have been learned.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I know that ECML electrification was done on the cheap and the opposite appears to have been acheived out of west London, but why the difference in physical presence between the two? The latter appear very intrusive aesthestically too.

ECML wasn't done on the cheap it was design and engineered to the highest standard that BR could justify to the govt. BRs engineers in the 70's came up with MKIII equipment design which allowed a huge expansion of electrification that just wouldn't have been done otherwise in the 1980s and where would that have left us now. Also at the time the service on any of the lines electrified was far lower than those installations are now required to deliver 30yrs on. Thats not cheap engineering but sound engineering which gave a lot of bang for the buck.

If only the rail industry could match what BR did back then the opportunity for a lot more electrification would be possible.

 

[Spaceflower]

ECML wasn't done on the cheap it was design and engineered to the highest standard that BR could justify to the govt. BRs engineers in the 70's came up with MKIII equipment design which allowed a huge expansion of electrification that just wouldn't have been done otherwise in the 1980s and where would that have left us now. Also at the time the service on any of the lines electrified was far lower than those installations are now required to deliver 30yrs on. Thats not cheap engineering but sound engineering which gave a lot of bang for the buck.

If only the rail industry could match what BR did back then the opportunity for a lot more electrification would be possible.

Sorry if I'm mistaken. I'm sure that I heard that was the case somewhere at some point but it may not have been from a reliable source. Perhaps in comparison to other schemes, it was. And perhaps, in hindsight, 'on the cheap' may not be the best way to describe it. Indeed, it may have been coined at a time when the GWML scheme was being designed which would certainly make sense. Your description sounds much more agreeable given the current context.

 

[Magdalia]

ECML wasn't done on the cheap it was design and engineered to the highest standard that BR could justify to the govt. BRs engineers in the 70's came up with MKIII equipment design which allowed a huge expansion of electrification that just wouldn't have been done otherwise in the 1980s and where would that have left us now. Also at the time the service on any of the lines electrified was far lower than those installations are now required to deliver 30yrs on. Thats not cheap engineering but sound engineering which gave a lot of bang for the buck.

If only the rail industry could match what BR did back then the opportunity for a lot more electrification would be possible.

I'll plead guilty to describing 1980s and 1990s electrification projects as "cheap and cheerful". But that's not meant to be disparaging. I have much admiration for what was achieved, both by the engineers and the people who persuaded the Treasury to fund the projects. "A lot of bank for the buck" is a much better way of putting it, and I agree that the railway could do with a similar approach again now. Those 1980s and 1990s projects showed that delivering "a lot of bank for the buck" can start a virtuous circle of more traffic and more investment.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

To be a little provocative, headspans are widely used in Germany and this has been the case for decades. Now, train reliability there is far from perfect but the problems that occur are those of network congestion, trespassers, train failures and seldom OHLE issues. So headspans can be made to work.

So one of the issues with headspans is that the catenary, the pantos and indeed the track have to be well-maintained to keep the contact within tolerances (including tension) and prevent dewirements etc. etc.. Generally, DB seems to manage this but perhaps less so in the UK? (Years ago, the consequence of not doing was brought home to me with a dramatic loss of pantograph incident on the viaduct near Hertford North: the panto bounced up and down on the contact wire and eventually ripped off the train (speed at c.40mph) with a dramatic bang and arc. The train train managed to cruise into the station.) So one of the reasons for going for the portal approach was, it seems, to mitigate against maintenance issues... but the answer from a total quality perspective should surely have bene to improve the maintenance first, ie prevent problems happening rather than mitigating them! Discuss....

 

[trebor79]

Is that one reason why APT-P was configured the way it was, with both the non-driving motors positioned adjacent to each other in the centre of the unit, so only one pan was required to pick-up the juice?

I think I read also that it avoided a 25kV bus line running through/under/over the passenger vehicles, which was seen as something to be avoided at the time. Of course it's an everyday thing now.

 

[WAO]

In defence of headspans it should be noted that they were installed on a railway that could maintain itself in-house with relative freedom of access. The Infrastructure Maintenance Units that appeared on privatisation tended to lose the skills needed through commercial and even DfT pressures. Hence the push for low maintenance OLE but without the in-house design capability to produce economic structures.

WAO

 

[GraphitProjekt]

So one of the issues with headspans is that the catenary, the pantos and indeed the track have to be well-maintained to keep the contact within tolerances (including tension) and prevent dewirements etc. etc.. Generally, DB seems to manage this but perhaps less so in the UK?

In that way, you could view Series 1 as building an electrification system that requires less maintenance which is a good thing as you'll be paying for maintenance forever. Also, I always thought the headspan thing was only a major issue on southern parts of ECML where the line is 4 track and in a very flat and windy place. I've heard the original Paddington to Hayes mark 3 wires are also unusually unreliable but I'm not really sure why that is and I don't really hear much about MML which is also four tracked and headspanned.

I don't think any part of the GW electrification project could be described as "quick installation".
The low productivity of the high output equipment led directly to delays and increased cost of the project.

Yeah It's a real shame the High Output Train thingy didn't work out. Sounded like a good idea - but if we're serious about innovation you also have to be serious about failure. That being said, the masts and booms installation is much more efficient than with mark 3 equipment. So things like much more factory fitting of cantilevers using simpler materials that require simpler welding - all this shows a big priority for making the most out of possession times. One of the most interesting things I learned from the video mentioned above is that the bulky appearance of the equipment is meant to require less (intrusive) piling as the structure takes more of the forces rather than transferring them to its foundations. You can see this as well in mark 3 equipment where they almost always installed portals (even on a two track line) over viaducts and other structures like that. I think it's to do with rotational forces by the OLE tensions/wind rather than the downward weight of the structure.

 

[Class 170101]

Perhaps its because the rail industry is (quite rightly in my view) building for how should be rather than how the government wants things to be.

How things should be - OLE built to last might be more expensive up front but lasts longer and less disruptive / intrusive maintenance

How govt wants it to be:- Cheap up front and so lasts a few years (til they are out of office) but the ongoing higher maintenance cost is on next Parliament's financial books

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Perhaps its because the rail industry is (quite rightly in my view) building for how should be rather than how the government wants things to be.

How things should be - OLE built to last might be more expensive up front but lasts longer and less disruptive / intrusive maintenance

How govt wants it to be:- Cheap up front and so lasts a few years (til they are out of office) but the ongoing higher maintenance cost is on next Parliament's financial books

Theres a balance to be struck and BR in the 70/80's was in survival mode the car was in the ascendancy and passenger utilisation was going backwards annually so cost effective solutions was the order of the day. Jump forward 30yrs and the railways were being treated differently and resilience was seen as a key deliverable for GWEP but was overengineered and delivery totally screwed up outcome has setback further electrification but good news is an optimal solution has been developed out of that. Just need to convince the politicians of that!!

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

The 'cheap and cheerful' thing really was about the ECML electrification North of Hitchin, in the very late 1980s, the section South having been authorised and built a few years before (and all the way back to 1976 South of Welwyn Garden City and Hertford North.

The section North of Darlington has always been slightly problematic, as the winds are stronger here and the number of feeding points was kept as low as possible (this is now being put right via the ECML Upgrade works). The spec, I seem to recall only envisaged two electric trains in each direction in the whole section between Newcastle and Edinburgh, so the power input was very small.

NR did undertake a major maintenance campaign on some of the route in c. 2010/12 or so because of the high failure rate of 'droppers', esp the junctions between them and the contact wire meant that the latter was often sagging and could easily be damaged by pantographs flying by. This seems to have helped a bit; probably a reminder that maintenance of all track being used for high speeds (eg. 75mph upwards) is relatively expensive (and always was). This tends to get hiddern in the track charging system which is largely based on average costs....

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The 'cheap and cheerful' thing really was about the ECML electrification North of Hitchin, in the very late 1980s, the section South having been authorised and built a few years before (and all the way back to 1976 South of Welwyn Garden City and Hertford North.

The section North of Darlington has always been slightly problematic, as the winds are stronger here and the number of feeding points was kept as low as possible (this is now being put right via the ECML Upgrade works). The spec, I seem to recall only envisaged two electric trains in each direction in the whole section between Newcastle and Edinburgh, so the power input was very small.

That was the spec plus an electric freight (was supposed to have been a batch of 87/1's built). There was also a real issue getting connections off the CEGB as we generally used 132kV for that scheme and the grid infrastructure is pretty thin down the east cost of the UK. The CEGB also put some severe constraints on how much power we could take at certain locations as they were worried about the impact of negative phase sequence currents.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

There's a major power supply upgrade at the moment for ecml. But almost immediately after it was finished there were extra substations being added.

Additionally, I have a hunch that the operational irritation of splitting the ecml between Doncaster and Hornsey electrical control room became enough of an issue that they replaced them with a new unified control room in York IECC. Hornsey was from 1976 but Doncaster was only a decade old and was the most up to date ECR when it closed in about 2000

 

[swt_passenger]

There's a major power supply upgrade at the moment for ecml. But almost immediately after it was finished there were extra substations being added.
[…]

They also deferred the new SFC substation at Marshall Meadows, after work at the site had already started, and permission granted for the new 132 kV 3 phase supply. Which seems to leave a significant limitation, the opposite of adding extras…

 

[The exile]

Is that one reason why APT-P was configured the way it was, with both the non-driving motors positioned adjacent to each other in the centre of the unit, so only one pan was required to pick-up the juice?

It was also because at the time the idea of running a 25kV cable along bits of the train that had passengers in was considered a “no no”.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2025 ==

To be a little provocative, headspans are widely used in Germany and this has been the case for decades. Now, train reliability there is far from perfect but the problems that occur are those of network congestion, trespassers, train failures and seldom OHLE issues. So headspans can be made to work.

Yes, DB uses a lot of headspans - but mostly where running speeds are fairly slow (ie large stations and yards) - rather than where there’s 160+kph running.
A very unscientific observation. The only times where trains I have been on have been directly affected by OHLE damage were in Germany. Of course, in large swathes of the country, the diversionary routes are also electrified, which helps. Doesn’t help when there is a large flash and bang and the whole of Dortmund Hbf goes dead…

 

[paulb1973]

Using the train in Munich (the city centre to the Airport plus a few other journeys) and Dusseldorf (city centre to Leverkusen and Monchengladbach and back) it was possible to view the OHLE - some absolutely enormous headspans there. By that I mean very tall & 'thick' stanchions and huge distances between them, with vast wiring stretched across - this seemed typical on multi-track areas.

 

[59CosG95]

Using the train in Munich (the city centre to the Airport plus a few other journeys) and Dusseldorf (city centre to Leverkusen and Monchengladbach and back) it was possible to view the OHLE - some absolutely enormous headspans there. By that I mean very tall & 'thick' stanchions and huge distances between them, with vast wiring stretched across - this seemed typical on multi-track areas.

Having recently been in Germany myself, most of these headspan masts (and, as it happens, many other mast types) are tapered, lattice masts, which require a great deal more inspection (I would imagine).
See below (taken by Edgar Jansen on Flickr):


The height on some of these masts is absolutely bonkers - the Goring Gap crowd would have a collective coronary if a UK version ever saw the light of day!

 

[The exile]

Having recently been in Germany myself, most of these headspan masts (and, as it happens, many other mast types) are tapered, lattice masts, which require a great deal more inspection (I would imagine).
See below (taken by Edgar Jansen on Flickr):
View attachment 172695

The height on some of these masts is absolutely bonkers - the Goring Gap crowd would have a collective coronary if a UK version ever saw the light of day!

After a flirtation with concrete ones, lattice masts seem to be back in vogue, so they must have something going for them.

 

[paulb1973]

Having recently been in Germany myself, most of these headspan masts (and, as it happens, many other mast types) are tapered, lattice masts, which require a great deal more inspection (I would imagine).
See below (taken by Edgar Jansen on Flickr):
View attachment 172695

The height on some of these masts is absolutely bonkers - the Goring Gap crowd would have a collective coronary if a UK version ever saw the light of day!

Height seems to be linked to the width of track/s to be crossed, which I suppose isn't a great surprise - they are almost pylons! But I did see on my trip, and mentioned here, some huge structures, which makes the 1960's OHLE on the WCML (even with multi-track sections at places such as Wembley, Bletchley, Rugby, Crewe etc) look rather feeble in comparison. Admittedly those areas used portal structures primarily. And the Germans have been installing them for years it seems (all in fetching dark green).

 

[GraphitProjekt]

They also deferred the new SFC substation at Marshall Meadows, after work at the site had already started, and permission granted for the new 132 kV 3 phase supply. Which seems to leave a significant limitation, the opposite of adding extras…

yeah that's quite bad. I suppose it's gone the same way as York 3rd line - indefinitely deferred mid-construction probably the most expensive kind of cancellation. Was Marshall Meadows going to be fed at 50kV (via the SFC) for the autotransformer system, or is it destined to be boosterless classic.

 

[swt_passenger]

yeah that's quite bad. I suppose it's gone the same way as York 3rd line - indefinitely deferred mid-construction probably the most expensive kind of cancellation. Was Marshall Meadows going to be fed at 50kV (via the SFC) for the autotransformer system, or is it destined to be boosterless classic.

I‘m afraid I don’t know for sure about the feed system, but I don’t think any of the Northumberland and Borders area is an AT system.

 

[themiller]

They also deferred the new SFC substation at Marshall Meadows, after work at the site had already started, and permission granted for the new 132 kV 3 phase supply. Which seems to leave a significant limitation, the opposite of adding extras…

Was this deferment to enable a redeployment of resources to speed up work on other projects?

 

[swt_passenger]

Was this deferment to enable a redeployment of resources to speed up work on other projects?

I don’t think the reason was ever officially stated. In the ECML power upgrade thread it was suggested DfT decided it still wasn’t required for the then (2024) agreed timetable. If that was the case, I would ask why was it ever started?

 

[themiller]

I don’t think the reason was ever officially stated. In the ECML power upgrade thread it was suggested DfT decided it still wasn’t required for the then (2024) agreed timetable. If that was the case, I would ask why was it ever started?

At least it’s only deferred and not cancelled! Unfortunately, from experience, when projects have been ‘paused’ after starting, they usually take just as long to complete after restarting.

 

[59CosG95]

I‘m afraid I don’t know for sure about the feed system, but I don’t think any of the Northumberland and Borders area is an AT system.

Correct - the nearest AT system you'll get is the WCML south of Great Strickland! Marshall Meadows would have been boosterless classic.

Was this deferment to enable a redeployment of resources to speed up work on other projects?

Very possibly. I don't know how big or small Siemens' team is, but they've been busy the length and breadth of the country with TRU, MMLE, Scottish Decarb etc. as well as ECPSU Phases 1 & 2.
They likely could only have dealt with so much at once.