Great Western Electrification Progress

[Philip Phlopp]

With the other thread focusing on the Goring fiasco, I wanted to update this one. I've noticed the first piles are being placed at either end of Patchway station, and they look massively bigger (around double the diameter) than the other ones around Pilning. Does anyone know why Patchway needs bigger piles?

Without seeing photos etc, hard to say if it's a difference between single cantilever and twin track cantilevers or portal structures, or if it's for something completely different.

 

[Mintona]

I did wonder if it was because of the double track there as opposed to (sort of) single line around Pilning, but then I remembered the piles around Llanwern will support 4-track gantries and they are of the smaller variety also. Maybe some really heavy duty stuff is going in at Patchway.

I don't get further up towards London than that so can't comment on what they're like compared to the piles up that way.

 

[Domh245]

It could be weather related? Not knowing the area at all, it is possible that the masts around Patchway may be subjected to higher winds than those at Pilning?

 

[Mintona]

I would say no, Pilning is far more exposed. Patchway is quite built up.

 

[Class 170101]

I am surprised they are working here currently.

I would have through Severn Tunnel Jn to Patchway would be done as part of the Severn Tunnel Blockade - assuming that is still the plan.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I am surprised they are working here currently.

I would have through Severn Tunnel Jn to Patchway would be done as part of the Severn Tunnel Blockade - assuming that is still the plan.

Just get as much done as possible, using what access windows are available.

It's worth trying to get foundations and bases in during the winter, so more steelwork erection can be done during the better weather - pointless trying to crane some of the larger portals into place in the middle of winter only for wind speeds to make it too dangerous.

 

[leomartin125]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/138309095@N05/24047234229/in/dateposted-public/

A lot of work done East of Maidenhead, as I live in the area around there I will keep this thread updated with any progress. Between Maidenhead and Reading there seems to be very little, and NR say they are only just piling that section which I can confirm as I have been seeing them do it lately. Here is a machine I caught in the Maidenhead Station Car Park recently. Evidence of progress.

 

[Class 170101]

Just get as much done as possible, using what access windows are available.

It's worth trying to get foundations and bases in during the winter, so more steelwork erection can be done during the better weather - pointless trying to crane some of the larger portals into place in the middle of winter only for wind speeds to make it too dangerous.

Oh I see, the GWEp team are piggybacking on existing disruptive access in conection with other work or using Rules of the Route times.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Oh I see, the GWEp team are piggybacking on existing disruptive access in conection with other work or using Rules of the Route times.

Yes, as long as it's all do-able and one doesn't impact on the other.

There's so much going on between CrossRail and GWep electrification, resignalling, Severn Tunnel maintenance rebasing, IEP route clearance, platform extensions, headspan replacement and routine renewals that there's often a bit of track that can be accessed by a road-rail vehicle and additional work of some type undertaken.

 

[The Planner]

Does Patchway need anything beefier for the IEP depot? isn't the western access on the junction?

 

[59CosG95]

Perhaps, due to its proximity to the Severn, the foundations need to be beefier due to higher groundwater levels.

 

[HowardGWR]

Perhaps, due to its proximity to the Severn, the foundations need to be beefier due to higher groundwater levels.

I suspect you are not familiar with the area. Patchway is several hundred feet above the Hallen Marsh bogs - that's why the Patchway tunnels are there.

 

[Henbury Loop]

Lots of activity going on today, this sign is directing workers up an access track for the Severn Tunnel Eastern Portal - Pilning.

 

[fgwrich]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/138309095@N05/24047234229/in/dateposted-public/

A lot of work done East of Maidenhead, as I live in the area around there I will keep this thread updated with any progress. Between Maidenhead and Reading there seems to be very little, and NR say they are only just piling that section which I can confirm as I have been seeing them do it lately. Here is a machine I caught in the Maidenhead Station Car Park recently. Evidence of progress.

Having seen this picture the other day, I can agree with you there. There's a considerable amount of work from Maidenhead Eastwards for CrossRail and GWEP, and a considerable amount of work from Reading to Didcot for the IEP testing zones, but very little between the edge of Sonning and Maidenhead station. You can see some of the piles in the picture, but a lot less than I'd have expected to see at this time of year / point in the project.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/justinfoulger/24272395155/

 

[59CosG95]

I suspect you are not familiar with the area. Patchway is several hundred feet above the Hallen Marsh bogs - that's why the Patchway tunnels are there.

That is indeed true!
In that case, I haven't the foggiest idea!

 

[edwin_m]

I did wonder if it was because of the double track there as opposed to (sort of) single line around Pilning, but then I remembered the piles around Llanwern will support 4-track gantries and they are of the smaller variety also. Maybe some really heavy duty stuff is going in at Patchway.

I don't get further up towards London than that so can't comment on what they're like compared to the piles up that way.

I'm guessing a twin track cantilever may have to have a bigger foundation than one end of a four track portal (other things being equal) because the TTC has an unbalanced load that is trying to pull the foundation over. The weight of the horizontal part of a portal just goes straight down through the foundations.

 

[Domh245]

Mod Note: This post and posts #1938 and #1939 were split from this thread.

There were constant reorganisations under BR, in some cases they caused more problems than they were worth. We both agree on these points. These reorganisations will always happen however when an industry is perceived to be not delivering financially or for its users. Isn't that what we have here again? The GWR were in existence for 112 years, because by and large, they worked. We'd all like nothing more than the current railway to succeed and not be changed, but politicians and the public's patience is limited. The railway needs to manage it's image far more in order to change this view, yet once again its walked into an avoidable situation. This is my point.

Sir Hendy has been in the job for about half a year and you are calling for things to change? Give the man some time! Firing people and reorganising things may give you nice feeling of 'doing something', but all you are doing is preventing change, as the new incumbent then spends a few months trying to get up to speed with what is happening and trying to figure out how to go from there.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Which this issue pretty much highlights, or is that too difficult for you to understand?

I've talked extensively about the problems with the GWep, but don't let that get in the way of a wide, sweeping generalisation.

Just to recap the so called **** poor management...

The project has been changed by Government several times - remember when IEP was first started (as HST2) we were looking at a modern version of HST and infrastructure planning was around that for a time.

Then electrification was proposed to extend further, then it was moved to Cardiff, then CrossRail took over some of the Maidenhead to Reading route, then Swansea was added. There's been a myriad of other, smaller changes, and the Reading to Basingstoke electric spine route effectively jumped programs, into GWep too.

There's the well known signalling issues - and it was ultimately too ambitious to try electrification and resignalling at the same time, but it's a licence condition that disruption is kept to a minimum and ORR won't let NR split some things out into two programs with two sets of possessions and route closures.

I can imagine the complaining about closing the route one week for resignalling and weeks later taking another closure for electrification, whereas now I hear complaining about being too ambitious. The problems we inherited as a result of past Government directions (no electrification being planned) were always going to take time to resolve, but nobody really thought it would be this bad, and that's having spoken to lots of people, old and new, including the veterans from the ECML scheme.

 

[highdyke]

Totally get all that, fine: All the blame cannot be put at NRs door, we agree on that. I'm actually on your side by and large, but..

Can you explain, why piles were driven into an area where the loss of documentation concerning signalling power, interlocking communication and tail cables. This isn't unusual in construction is it? Surely the normal course of action is to complete a laser site survey as to where utilities are.

Again BR undertook resignalling (north of Doncaster and south of Berwick mainly) when wring the ECML, with incredibly fragile 1930s signalling cables in situ. The same goes for the 60s and 70s on the WCML.

Claiming resignalling AND electrification is problematic when traditionally the two are carried out at once is a bit of an excuse.

BR had certain advantages in possession arrangements granted, but the GWML tends to be 4 tracked or SIMBIDs. Shouldn't the problems of possessions be looked at before work commenced?

Shouldn't the factory train have been tested in the real world before writing a business case? Shouldn't there have been a geological survey first? Shouldn't local people have been consulted in problem areas a long time ago? Shouldn't the train operators/government and NR start talking with each other about the introduction of longer carriages before the product is signed off? Shouldn't the industry have identified the lack of skills in terms of OHL and signalling expertise before these business cases were written? Shouldn't the government and third parties be running more training courses to get railway engineering and operating skills up to speed a long time ago (say about 10 years ago when traffic was growing again). The HSTs have been due to replaced for a long time, saying nobody knew about electrification, which that was a distinct possibility of electric high speed trains, especially in a world of environmental concerns sounds like a lack of forward planning.

Fragmentation is definitely an issue, but some of these 'errors' *seem* to be basic from all concerned.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Totally get all that, fine: All the blame cannot be out at NRs door, we agree on that. I'm actually on your side by and large, but..

Can you explain, why piles were driven into an area where the loss of documentation concerning signalling power, interlocking communication and tail cables. This isn't unusual in construction is it? Surely the normal course of action is to complete a laser site survey as to where utilities are.

How exactly would lasers find buried cables? Lasers are fine dots of concentrated, amplified light. They can't do much for seeing below ground from above. The normal course of action would be a CAT and Genny type survey. This is especially difficult bearing in mind the running rails would more than likely radiate any Genny pulses giving false positives.

Again BR undertook resignalling (north of Doncaster and south of Berwick mainly) when wring the ECML, with incredibly fragile 1930s signalling cables in situ. The same goes for the 60s and 70s on the WCML.

1930s records were probably quite good, meaning the locations of these cables were known with a good amount of accuracy. Something that would certainly not be the case with later BR and Railtrack record keeping. Lessons have been learned from my understanding and an extensive project is underway to improve record keeping.

Claiming resignalling AND electrification is problematic when traditionally the two are carried out at once is a bit of an excuse.

Maybe, but it depends on the individual circumstances of each programme.

BR had certain advantages in possession arrangements granted, but the GWML tends to be 4 tracked or SIMBIDs. Shouldn't the problems of possessions be looked at before work commenced?

Certain advantages in possession arrangements?. They had Carte Blanche to possess as and when required. A huge advantage of a vertically integrated railway. Now TOCs want compensation for every little possession, leaving maintenance and improvements a costly process. BR also designed the track, signalling, trains and electrification all themselves, in the vast majority of cases the construction of said items was all in house, so had the knowledge of what was going to happen from the conceptual stage.
[/quote]

Shouldn't the factory train have been tested in the real world before writing a business case?

Ideally yes. However, where?

Shouldn't there have been a geological survey first?

There more than likely was, however they are only accurate to some degree as the French found in the construction of the Channel Tunnel.

Shouldn't local people have been consulted in problem areas a long time ago?

Again, ideally yes, but then again NIMBY's think they are entitled to the moon on a stick at times, and it would most likely have made the process worse.

Shouldn't the train operators/government and NR start talking with each other about the introduction of longer carriages before the product is signed off?

Yes. However is this specifically NR's fault? The government as the instigator of the IEP project should've started this process with both NR and the operators.

Shouldn't the industry have identified the lack of skills in terms of OHL and signalling expertise before these business cases were written? Shouldn't the government and third parties be running more training courses to get railway engineering and operating skills up to speed a long time ago (say about 10 years ago when traffic was growing again). The HSTs have been due to replaced for a long time, saying nobody knew about electrification, which that was a distinct possibility of high speed trains, especially in a world of environmental concerns sounds like a lack of forward planning.

Yes. But for a long time, diesel was the preferred option. The Labour Government instigated the IEP programme and didn't sanction electrification until near the end of their term. (I'm not specifically blaming Labour for this, as I suspect governments of any colour would've made the same mistake)

With no sanctioning for electrification, why would third parties take the risk of funding courses that may not be needed?

Sounds like **** poor management all round to me, and we've all got to pick up the tab. Many thanks.

It sounds like mismanagement from the very top, with those down below left to pick up the pieces. By the very top, I mean the DfT. But of course they have the advantage of blaming NR. **** rolls downhill afterall!

 

[HSTEd]

Ideally yes. However, where?

Some relatively minor line that would not result in complete disaster if the train turned out not to be able to do the job - but that still had a wide variety of real world things about it so that it was a proper test.

Newark to Lincoln for example.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Totally get all that, fine: All the blame cannot be out at NRs door, we agree on that. I'm actually on your side by and large, but..

Can you explain, why piles were driven into an area where the loss of documentation concerning signalling power, interlocking communication and tail cables. This isn't unusual in construction is it? Surely the normal course of action is to complete a laser site survey as to where utilities are.

Laser survey - not any use for finding signalling cables, that needs ground penetrating radar or other EM based cable detection methods, which unfortunately can compromise signal integrity, so the ability to use that sort of technology is limited.

Again BR undertook resignalling (north of Doncaster and south of Berwick mainly) when wring the ECML, with incredibly fragile 1930s signalling cables in situ. The same goes for the 60s and 70s on the WCML.

Claiming resignalling AND electrification is problematic when traditionally the two are carried out at once is a bit of an excuse.

ECML had less traffic in when it was wired, WCML like wise, loss of signalling integrity was less of an issue in the 1950s to 1980s, it wasn't until the Hidden Report and then things like Ladbroke Grove that really tightened up what can be done when there's a loss of signalling.

The ECML had its fair share of problems, don't think it was much better than the GWep, but the ability of the railway to work round it, to ignore speed limits and for drivers to really motor on to make up lost time following a signalling loss made things a lot easier to recover from than is the case today.

We forget what drivers on a mission could be like and how much time they could save when they needed to - HSTs doing 135mph, Class 47s coming in to platforms so fast then dumping the brake and coming to a halt with smoking brake blocks. There was a lot of drivers who earned every last penny during the ECML, keeping things running.

The ECML also used hand dug concrete foundations in many places, often done with lines still open, unfortunately concrete foundations have rotational issues and coupled with the refusal to allow hand digging of concrete foundations on open lines for GWep, the decision was made to use piled foundations.

This is why we don't like concrete foundations https://www.flickr.com/photos/justindperkins/23102379859/

BR had certain advantages in possession arrangements granted, but the GWML tends to be 4 tracked or SIMBIDs. Shouldn't the problems of possessions be looked at before work commenced?

That's why Series 1 developed the twin track cantilever, the intention is to keep two out of the four tracks open. You think things have been disruptive, it's nothing compared to the disruption that would be caused by not keeping two roads open late on, no ECS movements, no later night services, more rail replacement services.

Shouldn't the factory train have been tested in the real world before writing a business case? Shouldn't there have been a geological survey first? Shouldn't local people have been consulted in problem areas a long time ago? Shouldn't the train operators/government and NR start talking with each other about the introduction of longer carriages before the product is signed off? Shouldn't the industry have identified the lack of skills in terms of OHL and signalling expertise before these business cases were written? Shouldn't the government and third parties be running more training courses to get railway engineering and operating skills up to speed a long time ago (say about 10 years ago when traffic was growing again). The HSTs have been due to replaced for a long time, saying nobody knew about electrification, which that was a distinct possibility of high speed trains, especially in a world of environmental concerns sounds like a lack of forward planning.

HOPS was tested by Windhoff before delivery and at High Marnham. When it works as intended, it's great. When it goes wrong in any way, it's too complex, slow and unwieldly to cope with problems.

The factory train is a combination of the individual components which work well on their own, there's generally not an issue with the individual components, it's a sum of it's parts conundrum which doesn't quite do as well as it should to.

The biggest issue with it is probably speed, it's so damned slow moving around in possessions, it could really have done with a bigger Movax vibrator tool, and probably a Kirow crane, but it's the same technology in a different package.

The problems with signalling cables and not being able to hit output rates initially has resulted in erratic piling, and now more time is being spent than is really necessary moving the stupid thing around in possessions.

The train will pile and wire twice its business case on a good night, if it gets bogged down, it'll do next to nothing a night. The business case itself was very cautious, it just didn't take into account getting next to nothing done each night as problems arose. It did slightly beat its business case over Christmas and into January, from what I've heard, getting an extra 1 or 2 piles per shift.

I know what I would have liked - a proper diesel loco powered pair of trains, one piling, one wiring but the wiring train was designed to try to keep adjacent lines open, doing more with some of the bigger Kirow crane designs needs adjacent line closures for the counterbalancing weights depending on crane size.

Geology - the results are why piles rather than dug concrete foundations are being used (there are some areas where the piles are backfilled with concrete too). There are a few areas where ground conditions are not as uniform as expected, but unless you drill bore holes and do survey work every 50 metres, it's possible to hit a boulder or water or some other feature. Ground conditions haven't been a massive problem, but they've stopped the HOPS from driving home every pile, requiring remedial visits from the higher powered Movax unit, which could have been part of the HOPS train but for the issues I've highlighted already.

Train length isn't an issue, train power was the issue, and for the best part of 20 years, we were told no electrification was going to happen, don't worry about it. That leads to ORR slapping down NR every time suggestions were made to electrification proof the network. It's only in recent years have we decided to use 25kV/750V DC compatible signalling equipment across the network, because 'you never know'.

Consulting local people is fine, but where do you start and stop, if I ask ****ed off commuters on Monday morning, alighting an overcrowded, slow and noisy Turbo at Paddington what they think of Goring residents, I can guarantee they'll be slated for NIMBYism, accused of being self centred and hypocritical, if I ask Goring residents what they think of their duty to people who commute, they'll say it's a lifestyle choice or personal decision and they might want to work locally, work from home etc. Consultation is fine, but the answers you get are beyond useless in many cases. What Goring has got, compared with the earlier F+F GE design of portal, is a good compromise.

OHL and signalling expertise has been building up for several years now, we're not blessed with over capacity, but projects aren't unduly being held up due to lack of staff. If things get out of sequence or behind, it can be an issue, we could do with more signalling staff but it's not something which would have made a massive difference to the GWep. There's generally not an issue with getting guys on the ground to erect wires and things either.

Training, of course, needs a long term plan of action. NR needs to know what it's going to be doing for the next 10 or 15 years to know how many people to train and in what disciplines. It all comes back to the 'no electrification' mantra we had from privatisation through to 2007/2008ish.

NR people wanted electrification, but the official line was no electrification, ORR critiques each spending plan, if we had been allowed more of a 'fitted for but not with' attitude for electrification, things would be much easier, but ORR didn't and doesn't allow NR to spend money or do things which are explicitly against government policy. We were all going to be using diesel trains powered by inexpensive bionic duckweed sourced biodiesel, if you remember the original HST2 documentation. That was government policy which NR focused on following.

I can't remember the precise story, but I believe DfT and NR people ended up on an MTU stall just after the first of the Euro IIIb engine designs were produced, for the then recently announced emissions legislation update, and realised that it wouldn't be possible to fit many diesel engines underneath trains without significant engineering challenges. It suddenly did not matter whether cheap biodiesel would be possible, it wouldn't be easy or cheap to build trains which could make use of it. That's when the official direction changed and the Electrification RUS was the result.

I have a funny feeling either Roger Ford or Ian Walmsley was involved manning the engine stall, and they might have pointed out the engine height/size issues to someone from DfT they knew.

Sounds like **** poor management all round to me, and we've all got to pick up the tab. Many thanks.

It's a catalogue of poor decisions, some are Government, some are DfT, some are ORR, some are industry, all are sitting at NR's door. We're the piggy in the middle.

 

[highdyke]

Thanks for the really good replies above.

Lots of really excellent points, it seems to me fragmentation is one of the root causes of much of these problems. Not that I'm calling for reorganisation, it is coming in some form driven by the poor public image of the railway - sometimes undeserved - costs (NR renationalisation) and the unions who are very much driving the TOC renationalisation cause.

On the NIMBYs briefly, granted some are complete idiots and want their cake and eat it. We however live in an age where campaigns/petitions are very easy to start, while it's tempting to dismiss them out of hand, before you know it they have the ear of decision makers. The railway need to get much more wise to this and in fact industry writers such as Mr Ford and Wolmar. The rail industry needs to get it's side in before 'the story gets legs'.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Certain advantages in possession arrangements?. They had Carte Blanche to possess as and when required. A huge advantage of a vertically integrated railway. Now TOCs want compensation for every little possession, leaving maintenance and improvements a costly process.

I agree with almost all of your points, and thank you for your efforts in helping the understanding of us passengers who want to know more about the railway.

However I don't understand this statement - surely the compensation just represents how much it costs the TOCs to not run trains at these times (and therefore would cost BR just as much). Or are you saying that the compensation is too high?

 

[HowardGWR]

I'm wondering whether the NR compensation payments to TOCs (chiefly GWR) could be FOI'd? I must say I was always amazed at GWR MD Mark Hopwood 's relaxed attitude to all this disruption. Perhaps GWR has made a fortune?

 

[The Planner]

It is dependant on when the blocks are proposed and agreed. You really need them in for version 1 of the EAS or you run a big risk of not getting maximum discount on the schedule 4 possession regime. The closer to the day of the race you try and block it gets stupidly expensive. The TOCs really have the upper hand as they can pick their ball and take it home if they dont agree with the proposals.

 

[snowball]

Certain advantages in possession arrangements?. They had Carte Blanche to possess as and when required.

They had unlimited access to the Australian actress? That must have been nice for them.

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree with almost all of your points, and thank you for your efforts in helping the understanding of us passengers who want to know more about the railway.

However I don't understand this statement - surely the compensation just represents how much it costs the TOCs to not run trains at these times (and therefore would cost BR just as much). Or are you saying that the compensation is too high?

Under BR lost revenue was not estimated in detail nor accounted to projects. Route managers had a pretty good idea what where the valuable trains at various time of day, week and year, and the access to the railway reflected that.

The current system of compensation for access is based on track access contracts; there is differentiation by TOC, service group within the TOC, and peak / off peak. What this means is that cancelling the first service on a Sunday between, say, Cardiff and Paddington, attracts the same compensation as a service at 1700 on a Sunday or for that matter 1700 on a Friday (being off peak in that direction according to the track access contract), regardless of how many people are likely to use it. This makes TOCS much more likely to accept disruption at certain times than others, as they know which disruptions will make them money.

The main issue is how much work was done 'in the good old days' with trains running. I know people who were wiring headspans and installing insulators etc on the ECML with HSTs passing directly beneath them.

 

[The Planner]

And we are not exactly happy with working ALO now either from what I can gather.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The main issue is how much work was done 'in the good old days' with trains running. I know people who were wiring headspans and installing insulators etc on the ECML with HSTs passing directly beneath them.

People don't believe me when I tell them what it was really like, when they're asking why the current schemes are slower and more expensive than the ECML.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/60539035@N02/17039160120

I could have sworn there was a video on YouTube which shows a headspan assembly being fitted in between trains too, but I've not been able to find it in recent years.