Many comments were made about how ugly (& costly) the overhead electrification was when the GWR was wired. I now see that similar looking masts have been placed on the south Wales valleys (metro) electrification. Was this a ‘job lot’ left over from the GWR scheme?
There are a number of OLE designs used in the UK of varying 'chunkiness'. Somebody on either the TRU or MML thread posted a comparison.
@Elecman or
@59CosG95 are you able to explain the differences? It needs to be stiff enough to span the tracks, holding the tension and stand up to the expected ground and wind conditions. The use of Twin-Track Cantilevers as you've pictured is preferred because it means only 1 pile rather than 2, speeding up delivery and making less noise for neighbours.
In other areas Portal gantries are used, or single track masts where the support structures can't be co-located or it's better to avoid the cantilever span. Portals are also used where Headspan wires might have been once because of problems with the threadbare 80's installations taking out everything at once.
Why is foreign electrification with higher speeds and usually a more severe climate so less obtrusive? What are they using for the Trans-Pennine Electrification?
Much foreign electrification was installed earlier (certainly in western Europe) and compares pretty similarly to UK kit of similar vintage. In addition, many European railways use 1.5 or 3KV DC which has different tension and insulation requirements and can have much lighter looking equipment. The Germans have long had a preference for lattice masts and structures, which also helps them look lighter. European conventional railways are also in general slower than the UK. There's also the issue of building while maintaining a running railway in between shifts - if you compare lines built with electrification from new (HS1) they have largely the same kit as comparable European routes.
