Great Western Electrification Progress

[Tio Terry]

But you can apply for a derogation. They chose not to, partly because they thought it would reduce their chance of getting EU funds. Ford suggests the size of EU contribution they got was not worth it.

To get a Derogation would probably take about 2 years. Why would the UK seek a Derogation against something it has been consulted on and agreed to? We have representatives on the various working groups in the ERA, having agreed with the other member states what is the best thing for an Interoperable Railway throughout Europe why would we want to apply for a Derogation to not apply it?

 

[snowball]

What Euro trains are going to run on the Great Western? Would any of them fit the loading gauge? Who from the UK agreed to the standards anyway? Was it anyone who had thought in detail about implications for the cost of future electrifications, or did they just nod it through? I've seen recent claim that the UK has tended to ignore developing Euro standards on rail-related matters until it was too late to have a proper input. What other EC member would have failed to seek a derogation in the circumstances?

 

[Tio Terry]

What Euro trains are going to run on the Great Western?

Nobody knows what's going to happen over the next 20, 30, 50 years time. That's the idea of interoperability, it takes many years but eventually the compatibility will be there. Take a look at TENs on the net, Trans European Networks. They cover much more than Railways but that's what's being planned across Europe. Of course, beyond Europe other countries not in the EU are also adopting these standards by choice so that they are also compatible. Is it inconceivable that a freight train could travel from, say, Shanghai to the West Midlands crossing all borders without the need to change anything other than crew?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What Euro trains are going to run on the Great Western? Would any of them fit the loading gauge? Who from the UK agreed to the standards anyway? Was it anyone who had thought in detail about implications for the cost of future electrifications, or did they just nod it through? I've seen recent claim that the UK has tended to ignore developing Euro standards on rail-related matters until it was too late to have a proper input. What other EC member would have failed to seek a derogation in the circumstances?

Apologies but my original reply was made before you edited your post.

We can carry Ships Containers, yes, we've had to do some frigs to get them to fit but that's the main aim, these do fit the Loading Gauge. Representation at the ERA is decided by the DfT they decide who the representatives are and they can choose from a wide range of people, not just their own but also NR and Contractors to the Industry, I know a few myself. Believe me, things do not go through the ERA "on the nod"! The DfT take EU directives very seriously, unfortunately the same cannot be said of NR or the TOC's. I'm sorry but I don't understand your last sentence, as all member states agreed the contents of the TSI for new lines and major renewals why would any of them then seek a Derogation against what they had agreed?

 

[snowball]

I'm sorry but I don't understand your last sentence, as all member states agreed the contents of the TSI for new lines and major renewals why would any of them then seek a Derogation against what they had agreed?

I was suggesting that other EU countries, if they had a line with a restricted loading gauge which was unlikely to be subject to inter-operation with rolling stock from elsewhere, would not miss the opportunity to seek a derogation if they could thereby save a lot of money on a project on such a line.

Edit: As far as I know, all GB lines except HS1 fall into that category.

 

[Tio Terry]

I was suggesting that other EU countries, if they had a line with a restricted loading gauge which was unlikely to be subject to inter-operation with rolling stock from elsewhere, would not miss the opportunity to seek a derogation if they could thereby save a lot of money on a project on such a line.

Edit: As far as I know, all GB lines except HS1 fall into that category.

If you take a look at the Energy TSI sections 7.3 and 7.4 you will see where individual member states have declared their non-compliances that they intend to continue:-

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R1301&from=EN

If you are interested in how the DfT see the TSI being implemented in this country have a look at:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...501009/implementation-plan-for-energy-tsi.pdf

Hope that is of some use.

 

[Peter Sarf]

And all of a sudden this talk of compliance with EU standards seems irrelevant :cry:. I do hope, however, that we stick to something vaguely standard/sensible despite turning our back on the countries in our immediate vicinity .

 

[Tio Terry]

And all of a sudden this talk of compliance with EU standards seems irrelevant :cry:. I do hope, however, that we stick to something vaguely standard/sensible despite turning our back on the countries in our immediate vicinity .

As I have posted elsewhere our railways are regulated by The Railways (Interoperability) (Amendment) Regulations 2013. This is British Law and can stand without the UK being a member of the EU. It does, however, specify compliance with the Technical Standards for Interoperability. This means they will continue to apply until British Law is changed to say otherwise. Bearing in mind the vast numbers of laws that will require amendment following a decision to leave the EU I think it will be several years before anything changes.

 

[76020]

Just a quick update!

Masts going up between Newbury and Thatcham!

I have just travelled from through Newbury to Reading today, I went the other way last Saturday, and there are about 12 steel sticks up on both up and down with a few more lying around ready to go up in the Thatcham area, but the piles installed between Newbury and Reading West has not changed much since I last travelled on this section about 15 months ago, I guess it is only about 25% done and is defiantly on the back burner.

 

[IrishDave]

I went for a ride between Paddington and Reading today, and had a chance to see the progress on electrification. As previous posters have remarked, there's a marked difference east vs. west of Maidenhead: east of Maidenhead has almost all of the masts up, most with horizontal booms and many with registration gear. West of Maidenhead, though, it looks like piling is mostly complete but some don't have masts. There are a few masts with horizontal booms near Maidenhead, but not that many.

More surprisingly, though, I noticed about eight or nine signal gantries (at least four down and four up) between MP25 and MP28½ (Maidenhead-Ruscombe) that really don't look high enough for the wires. Indeed, I'm pretty sure the gantries haven't been changed since the days of Reading PSB, though the signals have fresh LED heads. When are these planned to be removed? I'm sure doing so will require a four-line block through the area, which can't be easy to come by...

On a more technical note, the masts west of Airport Junction seem to be employing a new labelling system. East of Airport Junction, you might have

J
19
07

to indicate the 7th mast in the 19th kilometre from Paddington, "J" indicating the main line from Paddington to the west. But the new labels look like:

MLN
31
348

(MLN is the engineer's line reference for Paddington-Penzance.) Given that this mast was right next to the 19½ milepost, and that 19.5 miles = 31.382km, and judging by the spacing of the masts, I think this must mean the mast is 31 kilometres and 348 metres from the datum point (in this case, Paddington). Where there are two masts at the same distance from the datum, a fourth line is used to indicate which line the mast is on, so you might have

MLN
31
348
DM

(This isn't a real example, but I didn't manage to write down a real one with a line abbreviation.)

Can anyone "in the know" confirm if this is to be the new mast labelling standard for all future electrification schemes?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Can anyone "in the know" confirm if this is to be the new mast labelling standard for all future electrification schemes?

Yes and no - infill and extensions generally use existing schemes, GWML is different particularly with ERMTS signalling overlay coming which switches distance and speed measurement into km and km/h.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yes and no - infill and extensions generally use existing schemes, GWML is different particularly with ERMTS signalling overlay coming which switches distance and speed measurement into km and km/h.

Previous schemes have used a unique route code for electrification structures which was nothing like the ELR.
So London-Glasgow, for instance, is G not LECx, CGJ etc.
Branches link into this scheme, so Manchester-Preston has an MG prefix, Huyton-Wigan is HG etc.
Looks like the GW scheme is doing something different, linked to ELRs.
One fewer "system" to remember I suppose.

 

[snowball]

Previous schemes have used a unique route code for electrification structures which was nothing like the ELR.
So London-Glasgow, for instance, is G not LECx, CGJ etc.

Though "unique" here is something of an exaggeration. There are a number of repeated codes, as recorded on this website:

http://www.railwaycodes.org.uk/electrification/mast_prefix0.shtm

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Previous schemes have used a unique route code for electrification structures which was nothing like the ELR.
So London-Glasgow, for instance, is G not LECx, CGJ etc.
Branches link into this scheme, so Manchester-Preston has an MG prefix, Huyton-Wigan is HG etc.
Looks like the GW scheme is doing something different, linked to ELRs.
One fewer "system" to remember I suppose.

As I say, GWML is doing something different because it's going metric. ECML will follow in due course.

It's all academic, as long as we know whether we're working in miles and chains (or miles and yards, in Scotland) or kilometres and metres in the new ERTMS areas (as per the Cambrian) it doesn't matter.

 

[edwin_m]

May of the more recent electrification schemes numbered their structures by kilometre anyway. In principle you can use any scheme you like, as long as the control room can locate and isolate an emergency situation based on the reference of the nearest structure. However use of the ELR and kilometre distance is as good a system as any other.

 

[snowball]

As I say, GWML is doing something different because it's going metric. ECML will follow in due course.

I think I know what you mean but you've expressed it in a way that could confuse readers. As others have said, the numbering system used for electrification structures on schemes since the 1970s already used kilometres, including, for example, WCML north of Weaver, ECML throughout, and Paddington to Airport Junction.

You could mean either or both of two things:

1) Change from a partially distance-based numbering system (whole kilometres and then count structures) to a wholly distance-based system

2) Everything on the route, not just electrification structures, is to be measured in metric - partly for ERTMS reasons.

I suspect both.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

2) Everything on the route, not just electrification structures, is to be measured in metric - partly for ERTMS reasons.

Yes, sorry.

What will happen (or is planned to happen) is the same as the Cambrian Line, where everything, from speeds to distances, will be measured in km and metres.

It's relatively straight forward for the ECML - when it was electrified, it underwent a thorough survey where everything was measured accurately in kilometres and metres, so that the masts and few portals could be accurately tagged with their distance in kilometres.

The remaining routes - I don't actually know if they went through a proper survey, or if distances were just converted from miles and chains.

 

[Ploughman]

Leeds NW was surveyed as per KM / Metre and all disciplines of OHL, PW and S+T used the same base measurements, with all metreages marked out on the track every 10m.

From my own point of view in Track Renewals this made our job a lot easier not having to convert back to Mile and Chain / yard for everything just the main reference points.

Only one slight hiccup was when the OHL marking team got lost and marked up about a miles worth of the KWVR.

 

[Class 170101]

I'm confused. I thought everything had to be measured in miles and chains as required by law (for ECML WCML etc schemes) and that the requirement to measure in miles and chains was only revoked as a result of the construction / opening of HS1, or am I think of something else?

 

[59CosG95]

Only one slight hiccup was when the OHL marking team got lost and marked up about a miles worth of the KWVR.

Would've at least meant we'd have got OHLE on a preserved line!

 

[Ploughman]

I'm confused. I thought everything had to be measured in miles and chains as required by law (for ECML WCML etc schemes) and that the requirement to measure in miles and chains was only revoked as a result of the construction / opening of HS1, or am I think of something else?

All locations required to be recorded in M+C could be easily done so as all locations are measured from the same base location.
Metric to Imperial conversion is easily done. 0.9144 is one of the main factors used.

 

[Trog]

Not impressed that we now have three different systems for numbering OHL masts. Still it could be worse, on the WCML the P-Way and the OHL use different zero points.

 

[snowball]

To get a Derogation would probably take about 2 years. Why would the UK seek a Derogation against something it has been consulted on and agreed to? We have representatives on the various working groups in the ERA, having agreed with the other member states what is the best thing for an Interoperable Railway throughout Europe why would we want to apply for a Derogation to not apply it?

See discussion in the Blackpool-Manchester electrification thread right now.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who from the UK agreed to the standards anyway? Was it anyone who had thought in detail about implications for the cost of future electrifications, or did they just nod it through? I've seen recent claim that the UK has tended to ignore developing Euro standards on rail-related matters until it was too late to have a proper input.

Representation at the ERA is decided by the DfT they decide who the representatives are and they can choose from a wide range of people, not just their own but also NR and Contractors to the Industry, I know a few myself. Believe me, things do not go through the ERA "on the nod"! The DfT take EU directives very seriously, unfortunately the same cannot be said of NR or the TOC's.

If the second half of your last sentence is true maybe it's NR's fault rather than the DfT's. I wasn't trying to blame one UK organisation rather than another - I don't have the knowledge to do that. However I do have the impression that UK organisations as a totality do not look out seriously enough to protect UK interests in dealing with potential developments in EC directives as they affect the rail industry. Your last half-sentence seems to confirm that, as does this quote from what Philip Phlopp posted just now in the Blackpool-Manchester electrification thread:

though I suspect part of the reason the EU is quite unpopular is our cackhanded handling of EU rules, not the rules themselves.

We now seem to be facing yet further major slippage and cost escalation, and failure to meet Hendy dates. It seems, furthermore, that some at least of this additional time and cost is to meet purely theoretical risks that have never presented themselves in practice. The directive discussed in the other thread will apparently prevent future repetition of previous celebrated cases of ingenious cost reduction like the Paisley Canal wiring. It bodes ill for the prospects for future electrification projects in the UK. It will make them less attractive in cost-benefit analyses and less politically attractive, and will therefore have further bad economic and environmental effects beyond current projects. And it will not do anything to enhance or preserve any chances of UK exports to the EU or anywhere else.

(I voted Remain, by the way!)

 

[Tio Terry]

See discussion in the Blackpool-Manchester electrification thread right now.


Thanks. I've not looked at that thread as it's in a part of the country I'm not familiar with.

It makes reference to costly Risk Assessment processes, Common Safety Method dictates the use of RA so that's why the Group Standard has been changed to reflect this. It's not as bad as it sounds. Paddington Platform 14 has been subjected to this process and the results accepted by the ORR - they commended NR on the thoroughness of their Assessment. Under CSM-RA there are three ways of satisfying the requirements, Specific Risk Assessment (Paddington Platform 14), Code of Practice (which could be an International Standard such as EN 50122) or Reference System (which is something that has been done before elsewhere successfully). On that basis anywhere that has problems meeting the current clearance requirements (which are based on EN 50122) can use the Specific Risk Assessment carried out for Paddington Platform 14 as a Reference System and therefore avoid a Specific Risk Assessment. They just need to ensure that there are no additional HAZARDS to consider.

 

[snowball]

It makes reference to costly Risk Assessment processes, Common Safety Method dictates the use of RA so that's why the Group Standard has been changed to reflect this. It's not as bad as it sounds. Paddington Platform 14 has been subjected to this process and the results accepted by the ORR - they commended NR on the thoroughness of their Assessment. Under CSM-RA there are three ways of satisfying the requirements, Specific Risk Assessment (Paddington Platform 14), Code of Practice (which could be an International Standard such as EN 50122) or Reference System (which is something that has been done before elsewhere successfully). On that basis anywhere that has problems meeting the current clearance requirements (which are based on EN 50122) can use the Specific Risk Assessment carried out for Paddington Platform 14 as a Reference System and therefore avoid a Specific Risk Assessment. They just need to ensure that there are no additional HAZARDS to consider.

It's not clear to me that your comments address this point from the other thread:

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).

(Though when I started this discussion I was talking about something completely different - Roger Ford's comments on the heaviness of Series 1).

 

[reddragon]

Today I did another trip up to London.

There has been general progress throughout, with extra fittings up on the Crossrail section plus some extra wires around Tilehurst junction and the extra return cables above the gantries around Purley.

The big change is west from Maidenhead Station to the east end of Sonning cutting. Large numbers of piles have been completed, numerous posts have gone up, many with gantries and there are many more posts track side ready to go up.

I did notice around 6 old signal gantries that are too low, but also a few that had been raised by new longer supports.

 

[Tio Terry]

It's not clear to me that your comments address this point from the other thread:


(Though when I started this discussion I was talking about something completely different - Roger Ford's comments on the heaviness of Series 1).

Apologies but I don't know anything about the Geographic's of the area in question.

In some other areas lowering of the track has been an effective measure to overcome this problem, but that is not without it's problems in terms of flood prevention measures. I'm quite sure that if Brunel were alive today he would be absolutely aghast at the idea of disturbing his billiard table railway rather than raising a bridge!

Without more information all I can say is has there been a similar situation that has been subject to Specific Risk Assessment under CSM-RA that has been accepted by the ORR? If there has then you have the basis for arguing there is a precedent set that can be followed. If not you can either try Specific Risk Assessment or raise the bridge and meet the TSI requirements.

 

[smiffy9373]

Test section update. Down main wired throughout. Up main missing a very short section at Foxhall jcn. Up and down reliefs are still missing a few sections here and there. None of the crossovers are wired except for Tilehurst between the mains. Looks like switch on for the mains is good for 2nd July.

 

[reddragon]

There is a tiny gap on the up main at Tilehurst junction too.

 

[smiffy9373]

Must have missed that bit.

 

[swt_passenger]

A question that can be skipped by anyone not interested in the really detailed stuff...

Back in March I asked what they would do with the ATF through Pangbourne, as through the station they were using TTCs alongside the back of the down relief platform to support the main line side OHLE. Effectively there would be a gap the length of the station with nowhere to hang the down main side ATF on. http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2504849&postcount=2278

I noticed a coupe of days ago (as highlighted in the photo below) that they seem to have fitted a special clamp to the ATF insulator on the last portal east of the station, with the cable coiled up and hanging below. This suggests that there will be a transition here from bare cable to insulated cable, that will presumably be run in trunking at ground level? Does anyone know exactly how they do this connection, as it must be required elsewhere on the various ATF systems around the country, typically through tunnels as discussed earlier in the thread. Does the connection take place on another insulator?

A supplementary question then, as previous posters have said the ATF is positioned where it cannot 'fall into danger' if damaged, so is the ATF always kept well clear of platforms?