W12 Loading Gauge Improvements

[Legolash2o]

Hi all,

I thought I would share that there's been a lot of W12 gauge clearances particularly on the WCML, from a W12 permanent gauge certificate. Before and After below.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

So clearly preparing for a huge increase in freight by rail - good news.

 

[59CosG95]

I wonder if EWR will also be W12 cleared once Bicester - Bletchley is fully open?

 

[The Planner]

So clearly preparing for a huge increase in freight by rail - good news.

That is far from given. Bigger box capability doesnt mean more capacity. Two plus two doesnt make four here. We need more W10 first.

 

[swt_passenger]

W12 is only very slightly wider, (10cm), than W10. Only used by a minority of containers intended for short sea crossings, AIUI the vast majority of intercontinental container traffic fits within W10, and there’s no intention to change that.

 

[zwk500]

So clearly preparing for a huge increase in freight by rail - good news.

No, just a contemporary benefit of Electrification - clearance for wires almost always results in clearance for boxes.

I wonder if EWR will also be W12 cleared once Bicester - Bletchley is fully open?

AIUI it will, although it won't be fully OLE-ready.

@Legolash2o would it be possible to make the Overall Loading Gauge views viewable without login, or should I DM you about access (I'm no longer with NR so my old login certainly won't work).

 

[Legolash2o]

I wonder if EWR will also be W12 cleared once Bicester - Bletchley is fully open?

I'm sure I read a while ago that all new lines are built to W12 standard.

AIUI the vast majority of intercontinental container traffic fits within W10, and there’s no intention to change that.

Correct.

No, just a contemporary benefit of Electrification - clearance for wires almost always results in clearance for boxes.

AIUI it will, although it won't be fully OLE-ready.

@Legolash2o would it be possible to make the Overall Loading Gauge views viewable without login, or should I DM you about access (I'm no longer with NR so my old login certainly won't work).

Just send a DM me an email address to send login details to.

 

[zwk500]

I'm sure I read a while ago that all new lines are built to W12 standard.

EWR doesn't technicallly count as a new line

Just send a DM me an email address to send login details to.

Cheers

 

[InOban]

Electrification doesn't necessarily give W12 clearance. An arched bridge or tunnel may well be clear for the wires, but the corners of the boxes foul the arch.

 

[zwk500]

Electrification doesn't necessarily give W12 clearance. An arched bridge or tunnel may well be clear for the wires, but the corners of the boxes foul the arch.

It'd be a rare arch that was clear at the centre but not at the corners, but yes it's theoretically possible.

However when a bridge does need to be rebuilt for electrification it's generally rebuilt for W12 anyway as the cost difference for OLE-only and W12+OLE is pennies in the scheme of things, especially if you're building a beam bridge.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

BTW @Legolash2o - thanks for the maps and the post/thread

 

[Legolash2o]

BTW @Legolash2o - thanks for the maps and the post/thread

Not a problem. I've also got to map the new W7A, W8A, W9A and W10A gauges as well if anyone is interested in seeing those maps.

 

[snowball]

It'd be a rare arch that was clear at the centre but not at the corners, but yes it's theoretically possible.

I would have thought it was quite a common situation. Where an arched bridge exists over a double track line, it will be highest in the middle, and I would have thought it would often happen that that highest point would be higher than the top of the rectangle that defines the required cross section. But the top corners of the rectangle will often be higher than the arch.

 

[zwk500]

Not a problem. I've also got to map the new W7A, W8A, W9A and W10A gauges as well if anyone is interested in seeing those maps.

W10 and W9plus/A would be good to see.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 May 2023 ==

I would have thought it was quite a common situation. Where an arched bridge exists over a double track line, it will be highest in the middle, and I would have thought it would often happen that that highest point would be higher than the top of the rectangle that defines the required cross section. But the top corners of the rectangle will often be higher than the arch.

I'd be surprised if many arch bridges had a small enough arch radius that they were clear for a Pantograph and contact wire but still clipped W12 is all. I don't doubt it happens especially in areas where the dynamic profile for W12 is quite large.

 

[snowball]

W10 and W9plus/A would be good to see.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 May 2023 ==


I'd be surprised if many arch bridges had a small enough arch radius that they were clear for a Pantograph and contact wire but still clipped W12 is all. I don't doubt it happens especially in areas where the dynamic profile for W12 is quite large.

I think we're at cross purposes. I wasn't assuming that the arch would be clear for electrification, merely that it could be higher at its highest point than the minimum height for a hypothetical rectangular-section bridge that was clear for electrification.

But looking back I see that the phrase used by InOban was "clear for the wires" so I'd probably misunderstood him.