Good to see common sense has prevailed and stations like Bedwyn, Hungerford etc are retaining their through services to Paddington.
-
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!
Great Western Electrification Progress
- Thread starter 76020
- Start date
- Status
Good to see common sense has prevailed and stations like Bedwyn, Hungerford etc are retaining their through services to Paddington.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,237
Is the last photo in this set showing the limit of the wiring, given that the tension devices are on masts at the side of the track, rather than on the usual portals?
"Done"? Does this mean wired up, or lengthened for IETs?
3973EXL
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 2,741
Correct.
Distance passed the west crossover allows an EMU to shunt from the down side to the up.
No plans to wire Bedwyn!
Exactly, that's why I asked!
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,237
Yes, the Bedwyn turnback is an IEP facility rather than “electrification” related, but all the previous discussion seems to have found its way into this thread. Possibly too late to worry now.
Because rightly or wrongly Newbury is where the DfT decided the wires should end.
The DfT did ask Network Rail to cost up an extension of the wires to Bedwyn but that was before the massive cost overruns so i guess this got quietly forgotten !
I thought it was dropped when the whole scheme was still at the design stage. The benefit/cost ratio didn't justify it - even on the costs that were being assumed then, let alone as they are now.
59CosG95
Established Member
One of the main factors for costs spiralling out of control the way they did was that design works were still ongoing during construction IIRC. But that's beside the point - Newbury is the end of the wires for now.
Bedwyn services, as covered at length earlier upthread, will be 80x operated, with diesel used west of Newbury.
59CosG95
Established Member
Tying up some loose ends here and there, away from the B&H Blockades.
Bristol Parkway now has some SPS up on *some* of the TTCs in the station.
Additionally, another hefty TTP appears to have gone up over the P2/3 lines at the country end, as seen in this photo here.
More masts have gone up in the Undy area (west of STJ), as seen here.
East Usk Yard is looking more complete too, as seen here.
Masts in many forms have now reached Newport ADJ; it looks like the yard is being left out of the wiring equation for the time being.
Pengam Jct has gained SPS all along one portal boom; seen here on the 22nd of July.
Cardiff Central itself has aso gained a few piles at the eastern edge, just east of Penarth Rd Overbridge (at the station's eastern throat).
4 brackets for OLE also appear to be in place on the viaduct over the Taff (in front of the first tank in this photo).
Bristol Parkway now has some SPS up on *some* of the TTCs in the station.
Additionally, another hefty TTP appears to have gone up over the P2/3 lines at the country end, as seen in this photo here.
More masts have gone up in the Undy area (west of STJ), as seen here.
East Usk Yard is looking more complete too, as seen here.
Masts in many forms have now reached Newport ADJ; it looks like the yard is being left out of the wiring equation for the time being.
Pengam Jct has gained SPS all along one portal boom; seen here on the 22nd of July.
Cardiff Central itself has aso gained a few piles at the eastern edge, just east of Penarth Rd Overbridge (at the station's eastern throat).
4 brackets for OLE also appear to be in place on the viaduct over the Taff (in front of the first tank in this photo).
PointsWest
Member
- Joined
- 26 May 2014
- Messages
- 7
Not sure if its already been mentioned, but the remains of the old footbridge at Newport are due to be lifted this coming weekend.
59CosG95
Established Member
That's welcome news indeed. AIUI that was the final obstacle to be removed in the station before the wires could arrive.
jyte
Member
Extensions to Newbury and Westbury both had benefit:cost ratios of less than 1, and that's before costs went and...well, rose.
Charlie M.
Member
Was looking out a HST window and not much work? Not that much depth to see though.
ArchieWoodbine
Member
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 260
Perhaps some vegetation clearance works have exposed some already in situ? I can say with a fair degree of certainty that no OLE structural works are happening West of Chippenham until further notice from the DfT.
Wychwood93
Member
I remain somewhat puzzled that OLE did not continue slightly west of Chippenham - surely better for an up start to have 25kw available? On the other hand, had they ended west there may, perhaps, have been a need to have 'suitable' wiring towards both Melksham and Bath. Apologies if covered before - as now page 249 I am not going to surf through the previous 248!
A number of uprights were installed in the Thingley junction area earlier in the year, so that may be what was seen, or if a crew was available for a shift, could not do any work elsewhere and the right steelwork was to hand, can't see why you would not send them to a place they could do something productive irrespective of any 'moratorium'.
After all, time and money was put into installing the isolated group of uprights south of Appleford last year - since when nothing has been done to fill the gap from there to Didcot.
Below is from 59CosG95's most recent update of electrification progress
Last edited:
As I said, I couldn't be sure the stuff was new as although I travel the line every day I don't always look out of the window. There has been no significant vegetation clearance to the point that some of the masts are now completely engulfed in trees. The things that jumped out at me as new were the mast and TTC just west of the A350 bridge and the masts just West of the melksham branch which are the furthest West masts on the line. They were probably there all along. It does all look so close to completion with TTCs all along the embankment that it's hard to believe that will be just left to rot.
ArchieWoodbine
Member
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 260
If a shift of steelwork installers was cancelled at such short notice (say 48hrs) that they still had to be paid for, moving them elsewhere would be unlikely.
At that point, adding a new non-emergency worksite or possession would be almost impossible. All of the plant and materials would have to be hauled by HGVs to a new location. The new location may require different sized materials with a lead time.
At this point, taking the hit of the cancelled shift is probably the cheaper, if not the only option.
http://democratic.whitehorsedc.gov....Overbridge High Street Steventon - Report.pdf
I note that listing building consent to demolish bridge at Steventon was denied last week, over the objection of the council planning officers who recommended consent be given in the national interest despite all the good local objections
http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P17/V1154/LB
I note that listing building consent to demolish bridge at Steventon was denied last week, over the objection of the council planning officers who recommended consent be given in the national interest despite all the good local objections
http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P17/V1154/LB
As it has been raised again, I do think that if conditions had been imposed on materials and design, to reflect the history of the structure, that would have been a way forward. To raise irrelevant issues about temporary community severance on a LB consent application, when the statutory body EH, itself, does not object, is a recipe for costing local council taxpayers a packet at appeal, IMO, and I expect council officers' opinion too.
DidcotDickie
Member
Spot on. As a Vale of White Horse Council taxpayer, I'm less than impressed. I've seen the planning committee go against the advice of its officers previously for good reasons - and this is not one of them. I expect Network Rail to take them to the cleaners on appeal.
IMO as a local (tho I don't live in Steventon), the whole kerfuffle about the replacement of this bridge has been about access to the village, with people (not unreasonably) being concerned about a 10 month closure which will kill some of the businesses in the village as well as cause congestion elsewhere, particularly when there's a prang on the adjacent section of the A34.
3973EXL
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 2,741
B&H Wiring
As far as I can tell, the ONLY wiring still to be completed is;
Reading West station country end crossover.
Southcote Junction, crossover between up & down B&H (used by up Basingstoke services).
Up Basingstoke to down B&H (catenary wire up).
Theale East both lines. Wire runs through the crossovers, just the 2 straight wire runs to do.
MP51 1/4 for just under 3/4 mile on both lines (Kennet Viaduct).
Newbury
Next possession (including Southcote J) Saturday night 11/08.
As far as I can tell, the ONLY wiring still to be completed is;
Reading West station country end crossover.
Southcote Junction, crossover between up & down B&H (used by up Basingstoke services).
Up Basingstoke to down B&H (catenary wire up).
Theale East both lines. Wire runs through the crossovers, just the 2 straight wire runs to do.
MP51 1/4 for just under 3/4 mile on both lines (Kennet Viaduct).
Newbury
Next possession (including Southcote J) Saturday night 11/08.
Last edited:
Do you not get the process involved here?
All the planning committee was being asked to do was decide whether or not to grant listed building consent (and please don't write things like 'LB consent' in posts) to Network Rail to demolish the existing bridge. Such an application has nothing at all to do with what might happen afterwards.
If we ever get to the prior approval process under which Network Rail will be putting forward its proposed design for a replacement structure, things like materials can be discussed - but prior approval is not the same thing as an application for planning permission, so the local planning authority cannot impose any conditions, just give its views on what is proposed, as I said back up the thread.
Indeed and very reasonably so, that locals have concerns, but as you point out, that has no bearing on the Listed Building (LB) consent (apologies for my use of initials, also EH is English Heritage). If NR (Network Rail
) just wanted to demolish the bridge and had no commitment to replace it, that of course would be a different matter, as the road is a public right of way (I assume).- Status