• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Electrifcation - it's on!

Status
Not open for further replies.

EWS 58038

Member
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Messages
356
Location
Almere (Greater Amsterdam)
Give me one good reason why on earth a TOC should invest in something that is far to expansive for a single TOC to build and mantain for just a couple of years. Who's owning the track.... Not the TOC.. they only USE it and pay for it to the party which does own and mantain the tracks... which is Network Rail in this case. So NR should get the money required and get the wires up.

ROSCO's sould now order trains which are adaptable to electric when they'r up for mid-life renovation.

Don't forget that even electrifying the Chiltern line would still take some years. And not just two... but more like 4. And that is simply becouse you don't want to interupt and cut current services.

The UK made a big mistake many years ago.... and now has to pay for it. It's that simple.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Kneedown

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Messages
1,837
Location
Nottinghamshire
I noticed this week on a run to Leicester, that approx half a mile to the south of East Mid's Parkway a new signal gantry has been erected and is already in use as part of the signalling modifications.
This gantry is considerably taller than the one it replaced, and directly over each track there seems to be some sort of hub or connector. I can only think that it may be a connection for a catenery wire.
Of course, i may be wrong and it could be for something else entirely!
Any ideas?
 

Kneedown

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Messages
1,837
Location
Nottinghamshire
Puzzling.
Can you get a picture?
Not impossible to combine signalling with support of OLE catenery, but certainly not usual.

If i can get a run down there when i'm not actually driving i will try and get a pic.
On complicated track layouts, approach to Man Picc for example, they do mount track identification boards on the signal gantries over the applicable line to minimise the possibility of reading the wrong signal, but in this case it is just a normal 4 track fast/slow layout. Of course, the "crossbar" part of the gantry may be of a design that enables two to be mounted together for larger spans, and mounts for boards may be an integral part of the design.
The nearest i can describe the mount is that it is a cam shape with the pointed end mounted to the gantry by bolt, and hole in the wider part.

As i said as well, the height of the gantry makes me wonder.
Sorry i cant be much help, but i'll try and get a pic if i can.
 

Metroland

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Messages
3,212
Location
Midlands
Thousands of miles of railway track will be electrified under a government plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from transport.

The Midland Main Line and the Great Western Main Line, currently used by diesel trains, are likely to be converted to electricity over the next decade.


At present only 40 per cent of the 20,000-mile network is electrified, one of the lowest levels in Europe.

Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, pledged a “major programme of electrification” today as part of his department’s strategy for reducing CO2 emissions from transport by 14 per cent by 2020.

He also announced a tough emissions standard for cars that will qualify, from 2011, for purchase grants of up to £5,000. Only electric and plug-in hybrid cars that emit 75g per km of CO2 or less will be eligible.

There are a handful of small electric models with a limited range that will qualify but no hybrids, which are far more practical. The best performing existing hybrid, the 2009 version of the Toyota Prius, emits 89g/km.

Lord Adonis announced a new emphasis on “reducing the need to travel”, a phrase the Department for Transport has avoided using in the past five years as it has concentrated on enabling greater mobility.

Much of the low-carbon transport strategy, published today, focuses on measures to encourage walking and cycling for short journeys.

The document says that 21 per cent of CO2 emissions from transport arises from journeys of less than five miles.


Lord Adonis said: “Transport accounts for a significant amount of our domestic emissions. Therefore decarbonising this sector has to be front and centre of efforts to meet our obligations and commitments to tackle climate change.

“Our strategy sets out a long-term vision for a fundamentally different transport system in our country, where carbon reduction is a central consideration in the way we do business.

“If we are to safeguard the future of transport then we must also safeguard the environment that it impacts upon — I am determined to do that.”

He said the strategy would save an additional 85 million tonnes of CO2 over the period 2018-22.

His department forecasts that the number of rail passengers will double over the next 30 years.

Lord Adonis confirmed plans to spend £5 million on improving cycle parking facilities at rail stations.

Although about 60 per cent of the population lives within a quarter of an hour cycle ride of a railway station, only 2 per cent of journeys to and from stations are made by bike, the document says.

The strategy also suggests that advanced speed limiters could reduce emissions from cars by cutting the number of drivers who break the 60mph and 70mph limits. However, the department said it had no plans to make the limiters mandatory.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6714711.ece

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/carbonreduction/
 

43021HST

Established Member
Joined
11 Sep 2008
Messages
1,565
Location
Taunton
I dont know whether I,m for electrification. I prefer comfort rather than speed I also like good looking trains such as 43s not vomitors. But Electrification is a step forward for the railways.
 

Kneedown

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Messages
1,837
Location
Nottinghamshire
Puzzling.
Can you get a picture?
Not impossible to combine signalling with support of OLE catenery, but certainly not usual.

Took a bit of faffing about but i got a couple of pics. Note the height of the gantry compared to the old one on the first pic.
On the second pic i have pointed out the mysterious connectors. Like i said earlier, they may be for attaching boards to, or may even be for lifting the gantry into place (although why have fancy connectors when a few strops would do) but to me they look tailor made for attaching an insulator to.
Maybe some one with a bit more inside knowledge can enlighten me.

RatcliffeoS.jpg


RatcliffeoSa.jpg
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
Took a bit of faffing about but i got a couple of pics.
Well done there!
I don't recognise these fittings, and can't identify the offset cams - sorry.
But there are other clues: the gantry seems to have both a greater load-bearing capacity and resistance to lateral forces (parallel to track) than neccessary for the signalling and catwalk.
The multiple overhead very high voltage power "national grid" lines are nearby.
From the shadows I guess the cams are on the far side of the gantry in the first pic. (the side facing the "national grid" lines).

Elsewhere in Europe I've seen protective netting suspended between gantries, above the OLHE and well below the very high voltage "national grid" which can prevent severe danger if any very high voltage line becomes adrift with the risk of contacting the OLE while both are still live.
So here's a guess:- Perhaps these are fittings for the suspension of a protective mesh above the (future) OLE?
 

jonhewes

Member
Joined
8 Oct 2008
Messages
99
ROSCO's sould now order trains which are adaptable to electric when they'r up for mid-life renovation.

Agreed, though there is a far simpler solution for the longer passenger trains - locos and coaching stock (with a driving coach at the other end in order to be as convenient as a Multiple Unit).

Swapping a diesel loco for an electric loco, or converting a diesel loco to electric will be far simpler from a logistical perspective as only one vehicle per train will need to be modified.

Imagine how challenging it would be to convert a 7 coach 222 into an electric train!
 

thelem

Member
Joined
17 Mar 2008
Messages
550
Agreed, though there is a far simpler solution for the longer passenger trains - locos and coaching stock (with a driving coach at the other end in order to be as convenient as a Multiple Unit).

The IEP is the best of both world - it has all the advantages of an EMU on electrified tracks, but you can plug a loco on the end when needed. (I'm not suggesting doing that in service, but if we found we had a surplus of diesel stock they could easily be converted to electric).
 

twpsaesneg

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2009
Messages
480
Well done there!
I don't recognise these fittings, and can't identify the offset cams - sorry.
But there are other clues: the gantry seems to have both a greater load-bearing capacity and resistance to lateral forces (parallel to track) than neccessary for the signalling and catwalk.
The multiple overhead very high voltage power "national grid" lines are nearby.
From the shadows I guess the cams are on the far side of the gantry in the first pic. (the side facing the "national grid" lines).

Elsewhere in Europe I've seen protective netting suspended between gantries, above the OLHE and well below the very high voltage "national grid" which can prevent severe danger if any very high voltage line becomes adrift with the risk of contacting the OLE while both are still live.
So here's a guess:- Perhaps these are fittings for the suspension of a protective mesh above the (future) OLE?

Gents,

The signal gantries of this type are the standard type going in all over the place (have a look at the ones round Rugby on the West Coast), recent standards changes mean that they are now over-engineered to this level as a matter of course, except for some reason on the Western.

The lugs on the rear face are more than likely lifting points as already mentioned. They certainly aren't any use for OLE attachments as they are far too close to earthed steelwork, and those holes are far too large for attaching anything in the current ranges of equipment.

S&T tech's don't like working that close to OLE anyway, we tried combined structures years ago and went away from them. It's unlikely we'll go back any time soon.

If the National Grid lines were to drop onto our OLE we'd have a slightly bigger flash and bang than if they were to drop onto an earthed net, but it would still drop out the breakers just as well. Generally National Grid will erect netting if they are working on the lines and there's a possibility that they could drop, but these will generally be strung across rather than along track.

As for OLE clearance, the new gantry looks quite good, but at the very least the cage on the cess side will need moving, as I'm reasonably sure the pan will hit it as it. There's certainly the height to run the wires through, which is now a standing brief for all new overline structures (including bridges).

Hope this is of some help!
 

Metroland

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Messages
3,212
Location
Midlands
Stuff like new signal gantries and road overbridges have required OHL clearance since at least the first 1970s Oil crisis.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
The lugs on the rear face are more than likely lifting points
I guess this question was the start of this sub-thread by Kneedown. I'm still not quite clear about them.

If the National Grid lines were to drop onto our OLE we'd have a slightly bigger flash and bang than if they were to drop onto an earthed net, but it would still drop out the breakers just as well. Generally National Grid will erect netting if they are working on the lines and . . . .
I'm sure we've all seen the temp. netting over rail & road (which will be for the safety of personnel above & below). But I'm sure I've seen more long-term mesh above TGV lines where they pass below the grid. (It's frustrasting to recall something without a context, but I have a hunch it may have been
just north of Paris or around the Loire valley crossings in France
.)
Hope this is of some help!
Cheers!
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,051
Location
Reston City Centre
they are now over-engineered to this level as a matter of course, except for some reason on the Western

Seems to be the case with a lot of new infrastructure these days, which I have mixed feelings about. Good to see things built to last, but wonder whether the "gold plating" may make some short term improvements too expensive

Hope this is of some help!

A lot of help - a very useful reply, thanks
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,891
Location
South Wales
I still predit that if the Great western is electrified then the wires will go all the way to swansea as the Welsh assembly want .

It will be interesting to see how they manage to get the wires through the severn tunnel, unless they build another tunnel or brage of sorts across the river severn
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,641
If it involves either another tunnel or barrage, then dont expect to see wires in Wales for 15 years. The amount of faffing about with public enquiries and the costs escalating at every point would probably see the scheme dropped by a different government.
 

mumrar

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2008
Messages
2,650
Location
Redditch
It will be interesting to see how they manage to get the wires through the severn tunnel, unless they build another tunnel or brage of sorts across the river severn
I'm not sure whether they'd be happy with the existing tunnel due to how much water is pumped out of it. A new tunnel or bridge would cost a huge quantity of billions and it would be difficult to tie in to existing infrastructure such as the line from Gloucester and the M4. The construction time for any such structure would also be very long, not including the design and planning stages. We'll see what happens I guess
 

Snapper

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2006
Messages
2,460
Location
All over the place
Electrification through the Severn tunnel is not the issue that it's being made out to be. The tunnel can be wired without major problem.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
HSTs due to be retired 2014-2020, which is not bad for an essentially early 1970s train.

First wires energised 2014 through to the mid 2020s (depending on the scale of what they decide), so HSTs/IC225s will be retired as the IEP comes on stream.

Hang on a sec, the HSTs came out in the 70s fair enough so will need replacing about then will be about 50 odd years old but the 91s are a lot newer, having only by then be getting between 30 and 40 odd years old.

Bearing in mind they were brand new at the start of the 90s as they were supposed to have fully replaced the HSTs.
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,510
There are possible uses for the 91s on the GEML and running alongside new IEP trains. With interior modifications, it would also be possible to run them as longer distance commuter trains from London. And, if there was further electrification, they could also be used on these new routes.

I think the 91s have really good a lot of potential for the 10 years or so after they're displaced, so it'd be a waste to just scrap them. They are good trains with a lot of potential and a lot of life left in them.
 

Waverley125

Member
Joined
2 Sep 2008
Messages
1,010
Location
Leeds, West Yorkshire
personally i don't want SETs on the ECML based on current design. the guy in charge said it wasn't going to be 'a long distance crusier, but a high-density inter-urban train'.

ignoring the fact that THE ECML IS A ****ING LONG DISTANCE CRUISE!

London-Peterborough: 45 mins

Peterborough-Doncaster: 1 hr

Doncaster-York: 25 mins

York-Darlington: 30 mins

Darlington-Newcastle: 30 mins

Newcastle-Berwick: 45 mins

Berwick-Edinburgh: 45 mins

so the shortest stop distance for northbound anglo-scottish expresses will be 25 mins. I can't understand why the people in charge are so blind as to what people want. The Existing 91s and Mk 4s are wonderful, are less than 20 years old, and look a lot younger, both internally and externally. Yes, there are further intermediate stops, and I myself have advocated a London-Leeds service with 7 stops, and a maximum stop interval of about 30 minutes, but the trains work perfectly well as is. The best way to enhance capacity is to lengthen trains, rather than seriously compromise passenger comfort, as we've seen with the diabolical HSTs on the western region.

Personally, I'd want to upgrade the MML & EoEML to 125mph throughout, and introduce SETs with a similar design to the current Mk4s to run these services. Assuming SETs come on stream in 2014, 91s are still only 25 years old. Use the time we have wisely, redesign the SET interior, raise speeds on the lines affected and plan for Electrification along the north east coast of scotland so we won't need diesel trains to run it the London-Aberdeen services.
 

thelem

Member
Joined
17 Mar 2008
Messages
550
I don't know what the tunnel is like, but if the water drips down the walls rather than over the tracks and trains then I don't see why it should be a problem.

If it is over the trains, how about lining the top of the tunnel with a plastic sheet to guide the water away from the wires?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top