Reverting to MKIII OLE

[McRhu]

In view of ever spiralling costs and the possibility that defence may soon be taking a greater fistful of the national wodge is it time to revert to the kind of robust, cheaper MKIII OLE seen on projects like Airdrie - Bathgate - Edinburgh for future schemes? I'm sure I've read that Series 1 and 2 are relatively expensive compared to UK1 and MKIII, with cost savings coming in the longer term, but is it time for a rethink in the here and now?

 

[zwk500]

I suppose the big question would be why was it discontinued? Presumably reusing an existing design was considered as part of the process for selecting the newer kit...

 

[McRhu]

I suppose the big question would be why was it discontinued? Presumably reusing an existing design was considered as part of the process for selecting the newer kit...

I've been told there were a catalogue of design faults (eg: tail wires, balance weights sticking, headspans of course, etc) but also that a lot of the issues were caused by lack of proper maintenance. Also that while the newer designs were more expensive up-front that over the lifespan of the equipment it worked out cheaper (my counter-argument being that in the current climate up front costs are more important) .And of course MKIII wasn't suitable for the kind of speeds envisaged on the GWML. However - for speeds up to 110mph (ie suburban schemes like East Kilbride and numerous others) maybe it might be more economically suitable and more likely to clear the immediate pecuniary hurdles. I don't know what proportion of the cost steelwork accounts for, but compare and contrast the elegance of the BR design to the towering Series 2 masts and portals with their inverted cantilever design; or the extravaganza of steel in the Bismarckian Series 1 installations.

 

[zwk500]

I've been told there were a catalogue of design faults (eg: tail wires, balance weights sticking, headspans of course, etc) but also that a lot of the issues were caused by lack of proper maintenance.

This does not seem a good reason to revert.

Also that while the newer designs were more expensive up-front that over the lifespan of the equipment it worked out cheaper (my counter-argument being that in the current climate up front costs are more important) .

Costs are appraised on a lifetime basis (because they're paid for with borrowing rather than a pot of cash sitting under the treasury's desk) so Up front costs aren't that much more important - the figure they put in the headline can include or exclude many different things, but the BCR will have a whole-life appraisal.

And of course MKIII wasn't suitable for the kind of speeds envisaged on the GWML. However - for speeds up to 110mph (ie suburban schemes like East Kilbride and numerous others) maybe it might be more economically suitable and more likely to clear the immediate pecuniary hurdles. I don't know what proportion of the cost steelwork accounts for,

BIB - very, very little. Design, staff hours, and the cost of connecting the power kit is far more costly than the masts and gantries. Although what series is the 125mph ECML OLE? Not that it doesn't have it's own problems, but I don't think it's substantively different from the late 70s design.

but compare and contrast the elegance of the BR design to the towering Series 2 masts and portals with their inverted cantilever design; or the extravaganza of steel in the Bismarckian Series 1 installations.

Bismarckian is an interesting adjective, I didn't realise the GWML OLE kit was trying to unite the German speaking peoples! (Sorry). The GW stuff is clunky and obtrusive but later installations have quickly refined it to the extent that some of the contemporary Scottish installations are very pleasing to the eye. Also. modern auto-tensioning equipment is vastly more reliable and better for passengers than balance weights, but does require stronger structures to hold the tension.

 

[McRhu]

.... So that's a 'no' then?

Many thanks for that very detailed answer. I suppose it was a forlorn hope, but I do love the look of the older equipment and it's elegance and the way it deftly guides its wires with the lightest of touches rather than constraining it in a mighty vice-like Series 1 grip. And those hefty spring-loaded tensioners just waiting to ping and have somebody's eye out!

Anyway - I'd settle for SieCat which at least has its triangles the right way up. And official recognition from the World OLE Design Panel that MKIII is the prettiest equipment ever. And a song by the Kinks about a society to preserve the last remnants before it eventually disappears.

 

[zwk500]

Many thanks for that very detailed answer. I suppose it was a forlorn hope, but I do love the look of the older equipment and it's elegance and the way it deftly guides its wires with the lightest of touches rather than constraining it in a mighty vice-like Series 1 grip. And those hefty spring-loaded tensioners just waiting to ping and have somebody's eye out!

Anyway - I'd settle for SieCat which at least has its triangles the right way up. And official recognition from the World OLE Design Panel that MKIII is the prettiest equipment ever. And a song by the Kinks about a society to preserve the last remnants before it eventually disappears.

MK3 is neater than most other stuff, but it's far from a RIBA prize winning solution. Take a look at recent Scottish projects, especially with Fibreglass stanchions, and you may well find you like their particular style of elegance. And to be brutally honest, once you get to a 4-track railway if you don't put something beefy up it will have problems. The tensioners are great, far neater to my eyes than the balance weights on the lineside (especially the early ones in A-Frames).

Probably the biggest change that could be made is from Twin-Track Cantilevers to single-track masts, which avoids a lot of the visual intrusion but at the cost of the additional time and risk of drilling a second set of piles along the line. However the current kit is perfectly capable of single-track masts, it's just the problem of getting lineside access to install them that has led to the trend for TTC's which does have a bit more intrusive feel.

 

[D6130]

the towering Series 2 masts and portals with their inverted cantilever design

Please excuse my ignorance, but is the Series 2 design the same as the Italian-designed Bonomi 'Omnia' equipment?

 

[McRhu]

MK3 is neater than most other stuff, but it's far from a RIBA prize winning solution. Take a look at recent Scottish projects, especially with Fibreglass stanchions, and you may well find you like their particular style of elegance. And to be brutally honest, once you get to a 4-track railway if you don't put something beefy up it will have problems. The tensioners are great, far neater to my eyes than the balance weights on the lineside (especially the early ones in A-Frames).

Probably the biggest change that could be made is from Twin-Track Cantilevers to single-track masts, which avoids a lot of the visual intrusion but at the cost of the additional time and risk of drilling a second set of piles along the line. However the current kit is perfectly capable of single-track masts, it's just the problem of getting lineside access to install them that has led to the trend for TTC's which does have a bit more intrusive feel.

I need to get out more and see the latest developments. I'm especially intrigued by the fibreglass stanchions. Thank you.

Please excuse my ignorance, but is the Series 2 design the same as the Italian-designed Bonomi 'Omnia' equipment?

That's the ones. The masts and portals tend to be taller and stouter compared to MK III; probably comparable to MK I.

 

[D6130]

That's the ones. The masts and portals tend to be taller and stouter compared to MK III; probably comparable to MK I.

Thanks for the confirmation. I have to admit that - being an admirer of most things Italian - I prefer the look of the Series 2 catenary to that of the Mark III....although there's not a lot in it. The Bonomi 'Omnia' equipment is now specified as standard for all new non-high speed electrification and renewals and is really just a lighter and more streamlined version of the standard FS catenary design dating back to 1927. As @McRhu says, what makes look top-heavy and clunky in the UK are the tall and heavy steel girder stanchions to which it's usually attached. In Italy it is used in conjunction with lighter and more elegant galvanised steel lattice posts in most cases.

 

[McRhu]

Thanks for the confirmation. I have to admit that - being an admirer of most things Italian - I prefer the look of the Series 2 catenary to that of the Mark III....although there's not a lot in it. The Bonomi 'Omnia' equipment is now specified as standard for all new non-high speed electrification and renewals and is really just a lighter and more streamlined version of the standard FS catenary design dating back to 1927. As @McRhu says, what makes look top-heavy and clunky in the UK are the tall and heavy steel girder stanchions to which it's usually attached. In Italy it is used in conjunction with lighter and more elegant galvanised steel lattice posts in most cases.

Hopefully, as zwk500's post suggests, we in the UK will move back to that same elegance.