Rising electrification costs caused by increased overhead electrification clearances

[snowball]

The UK used a lower minimum clearance than the rest of the EU (and, I suspect, most of the world). This was a result of our own testing in the 1950s.

In a previous column RF said the documentation of those experiments was lost (possibly in one of the reorganisations from BR to Railtrack to NR).

However after that RF piece the head of the EU's rail standardisation process, or some other senior non-UK figure, wrote to Modern Railways to say that in the light of the discussion he would be sympathetic to reducing the EU standard.

 

[coppercapped]

Why would the ORR care? They've never been very enthusiastic about railway electrification

Because it's the ORR's business to support the railway:

We regulate the rail industry's health and safety performance, we hold Network Rail and High Speed 1 (HS1) to account and we make sure that the rail industry is competitive and fair.

From the ORR's website.

Between them, the RSSB - which dropped the important Appendix G from the new standard without telling anyone (by all reports) - and the ORR whose job it was to apply for the derogation for the clearances have screwed up.

As I wrote in another post - in this matter both organisations have been very quiet since the story broke. That in itself is suspicious - normally the ORR at least doesn't lose many opportunities to lambast NR to show what a good job it's doing.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Is there anyone from NR on the RSSB who should have picked up on what the implications of the change in clearances would be?

 

[Chris125]

The following Rail Engineer article appears to explain happened: EGIP - electrification clearance woes

This seems to have been the nub of the matter, Annex G being the former exception for the UK which the relevant British Standards committee (not part of the railway standards process) wanted revised - but if I understand correctly it was simply removed from the new group standard.

...RSSB also mentioned the extensive consultation exercise for the standard that had attracted over 400 comments and that they understood there to be an industry consensus for this proposal. A senior source in Network Rail, however, commented that removing Annex G was a late change that they had not agreed to and that no one in the company had been consulted. Their view is consistent with the impact assessment for GL/RT1201 not mentioning standing surface clearance and stating that it will retain the use of Annex G.

 

[Grumpy]

There was a lot of additional clearance work when the voltage from Liverpool St. was raised from 6.25kV to 25kV. .

Does this mean that if we installed new electrification at 6.25kv the clearances would be easier and hence the initial cost of electrifying reduced, disruption reduced and the process speeded up?
I realise there would be a need for dual voltage stock

 

[D365]

There's more chance of the MML electrification being third rail than there is 6.25kV being used anywhere.

 

[Tio Terry]

Does this mean that if we installed new electrification at 6.25kv the clearances would be easier and hence the initial cost of electrifying reduced, disruption reduced and the process speeded up?
I realise there would be a need for dual voltage stock

No. It would mean greater volt drop meaning you either have to have more feeder stations along with more switching and SCADA equipment or that you would need to use larger OHEL cables which in turn would mean more robust structures to take the additional weight. It would also mean that the installation would not be in accordance with the Energy Technical Standard for Interoperability.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I am one of the greatest cheerleaders for more electrification. Lower costs would help. We have run out of money for this CP. I am confident we will get some in CP6.

6.25kV is NOT the way to achieve this. It would be a major backward step.

 

[twpsaesneg]

I am one of the greatest cheerleaders for more electrification. Lower costs would help. We have run out of money for this CP. I am confident we will get some in CP6.

6.25kV is NOT the way to achieve this. It would be a major backward step.

The problem was mainly the change in clearance requirements and the unfortunate disconnect between civils and OLE designers which still exists to some extent.
Generally, the capital cost of a bridge rebuild isn't hugely different if you add an extra 300mm height, but a lot of the bridges in 2012-2015 were rebuilt just that little bit low, hence loads of rework and more difficult OLE solutions.
Going forward working on early stages of more recent schemes the bridges are being proposed the right heights, and civils are talking to OLE first before finalising things.
Plus of course doing ALL the OLE projects simultaneously has spread talent very thin and pushed rates up - and that was pure political meddling!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The problem was mainly the change in clearance requirements and the unfortunate disconnect between civils and OLE designers which still exists to some extent.
Generally, the capital cost of a bridge rebuild isn't hugely different if you add an extra 300mm height, but a lot of the bridges in 2012-2015 were rebuilt just that little bit low, hence loads of rework and more difficult OLE solutions.
Going forward working on early stages of more recent schemes the bridges are being proposed the right heights, and civils are talking to OLE first before finalising things.
Plus of course doing ALL the OLE projects simultaneously has spread talent very thin and pushed rates up - and that was pure political meddling!

I don't disagree - all points I agree with.

 

[edwin_m]

Has anyone pointed out that the cost increases are caused by higher overheads?

I'll get my hi-vis jacket

 

[twpsaesneg]

Has anyone pointed out that the cost increases are caused by higher overheads?

I'll get my hi-vis jacket

Your rail replacement bus is waiting outside...

 

[MarkyT]

Has anyone pointed out that the cost increases are caused by higher overheads?

I'll get my hi-vis jacket

PMSL (almost!)

 

[snowball]

Network Rail is encouraging suggestions for changes to its standards - could that include electrification clearances?

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds...riers-facing-investors-and-suppliers-reduced/

Network Rail has today announced it is encouraging contractors, suppliers and stakeholders to propose changes to its ‘standards’ – the detailed requirements that underpin how the railway and the delivery of improvement projects are run. The changes are to encourage greater innovation, cost efficiency and third party funding into the rail network, whilst maintaining safety.

 

[Domh245]

I think that Network Rail Standards, and ORR/TSI/other standards are entirely separate.

 

[GreatAuk]

I think that Network Rail Standards, and ORR/TSI/other standards are entirely separate.

Yes I was under the impression that this was an issue with the TSI rather than a Network Rail standard as well...

Maybe one thing within their control is they could investigate whether it's possible to make the risk assessments required in order to get a derogation from the new requirement less onerous... If there was a helpful NR standard covering the risk assessment process and maybe giving some standard numbers for certain situations, it might make it easier to justify reduced OLE height / clearances in certain situations...

 

[Tio Terry]

Yes I was under the impression that this was an issue with the TSI rather than a Network Rail standard as well...

Maybe one thing within their control is they could investigate whether it's possible to make the risk assessments required in order to get a derogation from the new requirement less onerous... If there was a helpful NR standard covering the risk assessment process and maybe giving some standard numbers for certain situations, it might make it easier to justify reduced OLE height / clearances in certain situations...

The Risk assessment Process is the Common Safety Method for Risk Assessment and Evaluation, this is an EU Directive which is enshrined in to UK Law as part of the Railways and other Guided Transport Systems Regulations. It calls for site specific Risk Assessments so the chance of introducing “Standard” derogations is very limited - the reasons for limited clearance issues are very different and diverse, all RA’s would need to justify not making infrastructure changes to meet the TSI requirements. Just saying “it would cost too much” is not acceptable.

A lot of good work was done for the electrification of Paddington platforms 12, 1&2, other Projects would benefit from digesting the RA’s and report for this, it would help them provide what the ORR expect to see.

 

[HSTEd]

And the risk assessments cost astounding amounts of money, in many cases more than simply raising the bridges

 

[Tio Terry]

And the risk assessments cost astounding amounts of money, in many cases more than simply raising the bridges

There’s no reason why they should cost that much and the more that are completed the easier it gets to plagerise one to suit another location.

 

[MarkyT]

There’s no reason why they should cost that much and the more that are completed the easier it gets to plagerise one to suit another location.

All that elaborate cut and pasting has to be done by appropriate expensive consultants however and no doubt independently reviewed and challenged by another set of expensive experts. The problem I see is that the TSI clearance norms are fairly arbitrary anyway, deliberately selected to suit typical structure clearances in mainland Europe. Why shouldn't they be substantially larger or indeed allowed to be generically slightly smaller to suit typical UK structures where we've had over half a century of safe 25kV operation. Of course it helps knowing in advance about the need to do all this paper shuffling. I think a lot of the current electrification trouble and cost has arisen because of unexpected rework when the new rules came into effect. This was a one off problem and shouldn't apply for future schemes clearly, but starting from the assumption of having to provide full continental clearances everywhere is a major cost disincentive to further electrification.

 

[Tio Terry]

All that elaborate cut and pasting has to be done by appropriate expensive consultants however and no doubt independently reviewed and challenged by another set of expensive experts. The problem I see is that the TSI clearance norms are fairly arbitrary anyway, deliberately selected to suit typical structure clearances in mainland Europe. Why shouldn't they be substantially larger or indeed allowed to be generically slightly smaller to suit typical UK structures where we've had over half a century of safe 25kV operation. Of course it helps knowing in advance about the need to do all this paper shuffling. I think a lot of the current electrification trouble and cost has arisen because of unexpected rework when the new rules came into effect. This was a one off problem and shouldn't apply for future schemes clearly, but starting from the assumption of having to provide full continental clearances everywhere is a major cost disincentive to further electrification.

The current Energy TSI was released towards the end of 2014, it was an update to the 2011 version that the UK helped to draft - we won't be able to do that after Brexit - so we all knew what was coming well before it became an EU Directive.

The NR Project Team for the Paddington changes did the bulk of the work to put the RA together but did get it independently verified, the ORR commended it as a very good example of what is expected. It didn't cost that much to put together. The clearances are not exclusive to the rail industry, some are the distances applicable to similar voltages used in the electrical supply industry. Over time the risks associated with electrification change, nobody had selfie sticks about 10 years ago and helium filled "Happy Birthday"balloons didn't used to be carried along electrified platforms, it's important that risks are frequently reviewed to ensure any changes are identified, understood, and adequately managed.

 

[MarkyT]

I see your selfie stick and raise you my huge 1980s promotional golfing umbrella

 

[Southsider]

I see your selfie stick and raise you my huge 1980s promotional golfing umbrella

There’s s presentation online somewhere covering the Paisley Canal electrification. In it there is a diagram of a man on the platform holding just such an umbrella with the addition of some “Scottish weather” to make it interesting. Sadly the last pragmatic approach to electrification we are likely to see.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Unless crude oil continues its climb - already at 68$ per barrel - just needs the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to deliberately block the Straits of Hormuz - and bang - electrification is the only - and I mean only -commonsense solution. All bets will be off.

 

[najaB]

Unless crude oil continues its climb - already at 68$ per barrel - just needs the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to deliberately block the Straits of Hormuz - and bang - electrification is the only - and I mean only -commonsense solution. All bets will be off.

The issue there is that at >$70/bbl the US becomes a net exporter again.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Agreed - and that alters the dynamics to a large degree as of course the US is a friendly (to the UK) country. But if you are the British PM (and I know what I would do if I were), you have to protect the national interest and having a big chunk of your transport system depend on expensive hydrocarbon is just not good in the interest of national security. Use what you have for planes etc. Why have the worry of supply? Generate your own electricity - ideally through renewables/nuclear and power cars, trains etc by electricity wherever possible.

 

[Tio Terry]

I see your selfie stick and raise you my huge 1980s promotional golfing umbrella

Yes and we also have RA’s for demonstration of new carbon fibre fishing rods on platforms dating back to the 80’s. The important thing is to identify and mitigate the new risks while remembering those from the past.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Ah yes, I seem to recall an incident at Luton just after the Midland Suburban Electrification (aka 'Bedpan') was energised when the proud purchaser of a new 19ft carbon fibre rod just couldn't resist assembling it and trying a few casts whilst waiting for his train home.

 

[Tio Terry]

Ah yes, I seem to recall an incident at Luton just after the Midland Suburban Electrification (aka 'Bedpan') was energised when the proud purchaser of a new 19ft carbon fibre rod just couldn't resist assembling it and trying a few casts whilst waiting for his train home.

That’s the one!

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Anyone know what the required height on tunnels in for electrification using OHLE? So what is the height from top of rail to top of tunnel?