Great Western Electrification Progress

[alxndr]

That signal in picture 4 looks like it would be in the way of the OHL to my eye

I don't know the area, so can't say for certain, but that looks to me like one of the newer type of signal gantrys which are higher and fully caged for protection from the OLE.

 

[swt_passenger]

Travelling from Glasgow to Stirling during the Queen St blockade it seemed that the stations were unwired while the route between them had been wired. Is this the usual practice?

That has been a common feature of the GW work so far. I expect it is because work within stations e.g. in and around platform canopies, or behind platforms, is more bespoke, but can also often be done outside of possessions, so it is probably sensible to plan and carry it out separately to the main runs between stations.

 

[fgwrich]

I've attached a couple more shots from Aldermaston & Theale here, taken last weekend. You can see the masts in the distance, but as yet nothing happening around the stations. The open railway does have lots of masts up now, so will try to show that soon.

Perhaps as part of the GWEP, Some opportunity will be taken to modernise Theale station with a potentially better track layout as well. Does the 3rd platform see any use these days, or has it remained virtually out of use since the Reading Blockades finished?

 

[JN114]

Perhaps as part of the GWEP, Some opportunity will be taken to modernise Theale station with a potentially better track layout as well. Does the 3rd platform see any use these days, or has it remained virtually out of use since the Reading Blockades finished?

It sees very occasional use as an emergency turnback - staff were sent to unlock it the other day after an HST failed on the Up Westbury at Southcote, but it got on the move again before staff were on site so we just ran through late to Reading.

I don't see the need to change the track layout at Theale - there's no intention of turning back services on any regular basis, and the existing freight complex is more than adequate for the traffic it sees.

 

[takno]

Perhaps as part of the GWEP, Some opportunity will be taken to modernise Theale station with a potentially better track layout as well. Does the 3rd platform see any use these days, or has it remained virtually out of use since the Reading Blockades finished?

It's listed in the sectional appendix as "Temporary platform - use must be specially authorised"

 

[Dixie]

I'd best interested to know what sections of the routes to be electrified (as set out originally prior to any pruning) will be limited to speeds of 100 mph or less.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'd best interested to know what sections of the routes to be electrified (as set out originally prior to any pruning) will be limited to speeds of 100 mph or less.

Everywhere west of Box/Bristol Parkway, and all the branches.
Short stretch of 110mph through Newbury.

 

[Dixie]

Everywhere west of Box/Bristol Parkway, and all the branches.
Short stretch of 110mph through Newbury.

So is that area being equipped with the new series 1, or catenary similar to that being used in the NW and Scotland which has a maximum speed of 100 MPH, as presumably the later type of catenary is cheaper than the series 1?

 

[swt_passenger]

So is that area being equipped with the new series 1, or catenary similar to that being used in the NW and Scotland which has a maximum speed of 100 MPH, as presumably the later type of catenary is cheaper than the series 1?

AIUI the whole route is getting Series 1 irrespective of current line speed. There was a discussion about this only a few pages back, around page 275 or so...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So is that area being equipped with the new series 1, or catenary similar to that being used in the NW and Scotland which has a maximum speed of 100 MPH, as presumably the later type of catenary is cheaper than the series 1?

The foundations and masts that I have seen in South Wales (4-track) and towards Newbury (2-track) all appear to be of the heavy duty Series 1 type.
In 4-track territory there should be the option to use 100mph catenary on the Relief lines, but the big money will have gone on the portal structures and high-speed catenary on the Main lines.

 

[Thatcham Xing]

Here's some pics I took today of some of what I think is that heavy-duty stuff, looking west from Aldermaston and then Midgham.

 

[JN114]

Lots of piling taken place between Severn Tunnel and Cardiff since my last foray in Cymru (December), although notable gap in the Newport / East Usk area.

 

[Dixie]

Here's some pics I took today of some of what I think is that heavy-duty stuff, looking west from Aldermaston and then Midgham.

This is definitely series 1, the heavy duty stuff, and this is in an area where anything more than 100 mph is quite unlikely?

 

[Thatcham Xing]

Yep, limits on the parts of the B&H to be electrified, off the top of my head are:

100mph from Southcote Jct to curve just W of Midgham (as shown in my second pic) which is 95mph.
100mph from above-mentioned curve to just E of Newbury Racecourse.
110mph from just E of Newbury Racecourse to E of Kintbury (but most of that section is beyond where the wires will run).

 

[JamesT]

Looking back through some of Philip Phlopp's postings, it's not just a simple matter of above a certain speed requires Series 1 so you don't bother below. There's also an issue with multiple pantograph on a train needing the higher tension at lower speeds. There's the IEP with two, but also the possibility of 12-car 387s with three. It's suggested you need Series 1 to do 110mph in that case.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Looking back through some of Philip Phlopp's postings, it's not just a simple matter of above a certain speed requires Series 1 so you don't bother below. There's also an issue with multiple pantograph on a train needing the higher tension at lower speeds. There's the IEP with two, but also the possibility of 12-car 387s with three. It's suggested you need Series 1 to do 110mph in that case.

You don't need Series 1 on the 110mph WCML fast lines for 12-car/3-pantograph 350s, and planned for 387s I think on the ECML.
At the moment, I don't think there are any stretches over 100mph on slow/relief lines, except the 125mph TV4 "slow" lines on the WCML.

There are probably very good reasons for wanting Series 1 everywhere on GW, but Roger Ford has described work to increase the adaptability of the design to suit local requirements better (mainly to do with piling strength/depth etc).

 

[Taunton]

The Paris-Dijon-Lyon electrification at 1500v was done in the early 1950s, nearly70 years ago. Much design work was actually pre-war. Locomotives ran with both pantographs raised at speeds up to 100mph without issue. Some of the trains were so heavy, in the French "infrequent but long" tradition that they were double-headed. That's four pantographs within the length of two locomotives. They would come over the summit at Blaisy-Bas at full power, then run downhill the other side very easily up to 160km/h (100mph). You must have seen the old French diamond-shaped 1500v pantographs in photos.

They even did a world speed record, for its time, in 1954, at 243km/h (160mph) on that line. No whizz-bang, computer-optimised catenary. No substantial payments to Swiss design "consultants". The project doesn't appear to have gone three times over budget. And the original kit is still there.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The Paris-Dijon-Lyon electrification at 1500v was done in the early 1950s, nearly70 years ago.

The Tommys ran over Woodhead double headed with two pants per loco IIRC

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Tommys ran over Woodhead double headed with two pants per loco IIRC

Only at 60mph though!

 

[Noddy]

This is definitely series 1, the heavy duty stuff, and this is in an area where anything more than 100 mph is quite unlikely?

Is it 'quite unlikely' though? In the lifetime of the Series 1 overheads we are almost certainly likely to see the introduction of ETRMS/ETCS, and probably the removal of many level crossings. There are sections of the B&H which are relatively straight. The South Wales mainline, is pretty much straight as far as Cardiff, except round Newport.



It does annoy me when we question why NR are 'over engineering' things - most of the time we are moaning that BR/Railtrack/et al did things 'on the cheap' and thats why they break/don't work as well as they could...

 

[AM9]

... It does annoy me when we question why NR are 'over engineering' things - most of the time we are moaning that BR/Railtrack/et al did things 'on the cheap' and thats why they break/don't work as well as they could...

Hear hear! How many times have posters when hearing of OLE problems said that it would never happen on the European mainland, (think Switzerland, France, Germany etc.). NR have however gone to one of the most experienced providers of OLE in the world and developed a design good enough for 'high-speed' rail services on classic lines. Now there is a chorus for saving cash at all costs.
The MML to Bedford and ECML operators can only dream of the reliability that series 1 should achieve throughout its life.

 

[Hophead]

To add to the preceding comments, there is also the necessity to keep spares in stock for ongoing maintenance. If everything is from the same design, you'll make some savings there ( as well as avoid the embarrassment of turning up for a repair with the wrong parts). In fact, I seem to recall Mr Phlopp emphasising the small number of components that the Series 1 has as being an advantage when it comes to sending a crew out to fix something.

Whether that outweighs the initial outlay is for someone else to decide.

 

[HSTEd]

The MML to Bedford and ECML operators can only dream of the reliability that series 1 should achieve throughout its life.

And other operators can only dream of having OHLE - but won't because they have managed to drive the price through the roof.

 

[AM9]

And other operators can only dream of having OHLE - but won't because they have managed to drive the price through the roof.

Acquisition cost in isolation maybe, - but an OLE installation is a 50 to 100 year infrastructure investment, and costcutting at inception can result in a heavy maintenance costs, rolling stock damage and increasingly costly service disruption. Through-life cost is the only figure that matters and should form a key element in the generation of the BCR.
Meanwhile, those whose needs haven't yet managed to justify the true cost of OLE investment can continue to use diesel.

 

[HSTEd]

Acquisition cost in isolation maybe, - but an OLE installation is a 50 to 100 year infrastructure investment, and costcutting at inception can result in a heavy maintenance costs, rolling stock damage and increasingly costly service disruption. Through-life cost is the only figure that matters and should form a key element in the generation of the BCR.
Meanwhile, those whose needs haven't yet managed to justify the true cost of OLE investment can continue to use diesel.

Through life cost analyses can be made to say anything based on the capital discount rate assigned though.
Costs in 40 years aren't really the problem we face today, the problem is that we will get no electrification at all - and if your desire is to reduce carbon emissions simply condemning the entire railway to endless diesel use is not really a good thing.

And inception cost matters in a world with limited capital expenditures available for these things - which is the one we unfortunately live in.

 

[AM9]

To add to the preceding comments, there is also the necessity to keep spares in stock for ongoing maintenance. If everything is from the same design, you'll make some savings there ( as well as avoid the embarrassment of turning up for a repair with the wrong parts). In fact, I seem to recall Mr Phlopp emphasising the small number of components that the Series 1 has as being an advantage when it comes to sending a crew out to fix something.

Whether that outweighs the initial outlay is for someone else to decide.

PhillipPhlopp mentioned the 'Master Series' which I think was a common range of components based on series 1. A feature of the series 1 design was a minimum high-voltage footprint. That was a safety boon and also meant that only the catenary, contact wire, droppers and registration arms were live and dependent on the support of a single insulator per gantry/cantilever. Everything else is sturdily built and unlikely to be damaged if the wires are pulled down by an errant pantograph.

Yes, reduced spares inventory is a major benefit, moreso as the design ceases to be the current production standard.

 

[Chris125]

And other operators can only dream of having OHLE - but won't because they have managed to drive the price through the roof.

I'd argue the £49m contract to wire the Shotts line suggests that relatively simple, conventional electrification schemes remain affordable.

 

[cle]

Are there any line speed improvements coming to the GWML, or is it purely through accelerate/decelerate, stopping patterns and shorter dwells that journey times come down?

 

[HSTEd]

I'd argue the £49m contract to wire the Shotts line suggests that relatively simple, conventional electrification schemes remain affordable.

Given that is half the price that appears to have been quoted for the Bromsgrove work - I am rather skeptical.

 

[Grumpy]

Hear hear! How many times have posters when hearing of OLE problems said that it would never happen on the European mainland, (think Switzerland, France, Germany etc.). .

But it does. My most recent journey from Dusseldorf to Cologne was delayed (as were many others) due to problems with the overhead lines. They seem to have all the problems we do such as broken escalators at stations, toilets on trains out of use, sardine conditions at busy times.