Pylons .

[Daniel Beardsmore]

56 minutes ago, 25kV said:

I noticed that the apparently unusual Kintore-Beauly line is mentioned a few times (and that tower dimensions were unknown, according to the fascinating pages linked above); since I can almost see said line from my front window, and cycle under it almost daily, figured I might be helpful and go out with a tape measure.

 

6.7 m is 80.4 pixels at my scale of 12 px/m, and I checked my drawing: the base is drawn 79.528 pixels wide. However, what you measured was not the standard height base: that first horizontal bar (directly under the anti-climbing doobrey) represents ground level of standard height (below which is a height extension) so I appear to have drawn them too tall (which is odd).

 

The only other one I drew was D10. I can only draw towers that I can see from straight on, i.e. free from perspective. I can use upwards angles to fill in crossarm bracing and correct other mistakes, but not draw an entire tower.

 

I have more avenues to explore with SSEN so I might get somewhere yet with getting heights. However, my progress to date with industry organisations is limited and may amount to very little in the end.

[25kV]

1 hour ago, Daniel Beardsmore said:

 

6.7 m is 80.4 pixels at my scale of 12 px/m, and I checked my drawing: the base is drawn 79.528 pixels wide. However, what you measured was not the standard height base: that first horizontal bar (directly under the anti-climbing doobrey) represents ground level of standard height (below which is a height extension) so I appear to have drawn them too tall (which is odd).

 

Yep - I only realised after leaving the site that the standard base was the next bar up!  The illustration where I've marked rough heights (based on eyeballing in the "base" I measured and scaling from that) was the closest to straight-on that I could get to today, without a huge amount of perspective.  :)

[pharrc20]

17 hours ago, Daniel Beardsmore said:

 

Conceivably. Maybe if we ever get to see this 85-90% complete tower bible, we might get some of the missing L6 types, like EC and the rest of Eve. Nothing near Thornton matches "LINE_SERIE" = 'L6' AND "TOWER_CONS" IN ('D40', 'D20', 'D15'). All I get for the following query around Thornton is one tower, a DT(0-40): "LINE_SERIE" = 'L6' AND "TOWER_CONS" NOT IN ('D', 'D30', 'D60', 'DT', 'DJT', 'ST').

 

That reminds me: what the devil is a DTV 45° (0-5° entry)? What is the 45° if it’s not the entry angle? This is just an L3 DT that has extended top crossarms for use with a sealing end platform or sealing end compound. National Grid call it DTU45, but “DTU” is an L2 type. (The L3 charts are a complete mess when it comes to terminal and junction towers.) L2 DT45 appears to be 45° entry angle, as the one near me does indeed have the line coming in like that. Eve L16 DT has no entry angle in the name but it happily allows wide entry angles.

Could the 45 relate to either the provision of additional cross arms, at 45 degrees to the main cross arms on either side of the towers making a T shape?. Or is it something to do with the extra 'spurs' for want of a better description that appear on the tips of the cross arms presumably added to allow more downlead options?

[pharrc20]

7 hours ago, L2's are great! said:

Talking of L6 oddities, you've also got this Blaw Knox variant too. I know one another exists at Connahs Quay too but it was a DT before the modifications took place

I believe this and or the pair in the background were the late Flash Bristow's favourite towers at Braintree

[Daniel Beardsmore]

13 minutes ago, pharrc20 said:

Could the 45 relate to either the provision of additional cross arms, at 45 degrees to the main cross arms on either side of the towers making a T shape?. Or is it something to do with the extra 'spurs' for want of a better description that appear on the tips of the cross arms presumably added to allow more downlead options?

 

Interesting — your posts are not visible unless I sign in. I thought you deleted your post after realising that the extra crossarms are at 90°, until your second post also failed to appear.

[pharrc20]

3 hours ago, 25kV said:

My long-dormant casual interest in pylons (sorry, Transmission Towers - my late brother-in-law is turning in his grave), which entirely originated from driving repeatedly past the Ribble Crossing age 4 with my grandparents, has apparently been reawakened by this thread. :) 

I noticed that the apparently unusual Kintore-Beauly line is mentioned a few times (and that tower dimensions were unknown, according to the fascinating pages linked above); since I can almost see said line from my front window, and cycle under it almost daily, figured I might be helpful and go out with a tape measure.

Some photos and rough dimensions from today's bicycle adventure here: http://25kv.uk/B2K.html

Nice one, I believe the D towers are L3c and the corner or deviation towers are a JL Eve design of L3 hence the different look. Off top of me head only one maybe two lines that use this design of JL Eve deviation towers up in Scotland, and in England and Wales, there is the Bishop's Wood to Ludlow line that uses the same deviation towers with JL Eve suspension D towers. Plus part of a line near Pyle in South Wales too and one Terminal tower at Shrewsbury all from a JL Eve design, so I was told some time ago.

 

I did start to collate the Scottish line codes using Google Earth, but not every code shows up on the imagery of course, so any line codes are most welcome to fill in the gaps thanks.

 

Cheers Paul 

[Daniel Beardsmore]

By my reckoning they are taller than L3, and definitely not Blaw Knox L3(c). It’s a whole new tower design. The terminal towers are Eve (very distinctively so) but there is an L3 junction tower used; see here:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/huntsman81/albums/72157625909636114

 

Not impossible that Eve designed it to the L3 spec though; I need to play with 25kV’s measurements.

[IC_225]

3 hours ago, Daniel Beardsmore said:

 

Hm … could be that there is very little internal bracing on those. I assume you are going to model the steel bar thicknesses? A lot of the bars are surprisingly thin compared to the main bars down the corners of the body and crossarms.

 

How old are these models? If they are recent, then you must know where the enhanced tower bible is …

 

 

Each series/family/suite/spec varies as to how sealing end platforms and small compounds are handled. PL16 has extended top crossarms on the DT as standard: never seen a PL16 DT with short top crossarms. L7 has an optional crossarm extension that is normally (but not always) fitted. L6 makes it optional on a DT and DJT. L2 calls the sealing end type “DTU”; L3 calls it DTV 45° but National Grid call it DTU45.

 

PL7 DT has short top crossarms, not suitable for a sealing end platform. Those other ones just have the longer top crossarms needed for that. PL7 is rare; I only know of one, in Wales, with the short top crossarms.

These were my first attempts at modelling and will be updated with steel thicknesses. 

 

I have a copy of the enhanced tower bible as well. As I said earlier me and a contact at national grid tried to complete it as best we could

[Daniel Beardsmore]

3 hours ago, IC_225 said:

These were my first attempts at modelling and will be updated with steel thicknesses. 

 

I have a copy of the enhanced tower bible as well. As I said earlier me and a contact at national grid tried to complete it as best we could

 

Where would one go to download this enhanced tower bible? Is it something that is permitted by National Grid to be shared publicly, or is it a hush-hush thing that gets smuggled from person to person (which is how most material seems to be treated, as lots of things got mentioned here in the past and never saw the light of day).

 

As the original tower bible was already publicly shared in the past, I added it to my sources page where anyone can download it (so long as my site remains online), as well as all the decent plans I have obtained thus far (on the individual series pages), except the new SSE400 as the copyright wording is scary enough that I limited my flagrant violation to just making my own drawings and listing the tower sizes, but not actually uploading it.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

12 hours ago, L2's are great! said:

Here it is, with an ordinary D30 next to it on the right. Thornton sub is just out of site over to the right. This is the line that heads south to Drax. It stands next to Sand Lane

 

There is nothing in that area that National Grid deem to be non-standard, within the limits of their erratic data (full of mistakes). The only tower not filtered out by my query is a DT(0-40) at the substation itself. Whatever that tower is, National Grid do not seem to have given it any special designation. I can’t tell from the photo what it is.

 

[Daniel Beardsmore]

5 hours ago, pharrc20 said:

Nice one, I believe the D towers are L3c and the corner or deviation towers are a JL Eve design of L3 hence the different look. Off top of me head only one maybe two lines that use this design of JL Eve deviation towers up in Scotland, and in England and Wales, there is the Bishop's Wood to Ludlow line that uses the same deviation towers with JL Eve suspension D towers. Plus part of a line near Pyle in South Wales too and one Terminal tower at Shrewsbury all from a JL Eve design, so I was told some time ago.

 

Beauly–Kintore D STD seems to be around 6.3 m wide at the base. If I scale the tower to this size, it is virtually identical to Blaw Knox extended crossarm L3 (which some people have claimed pre-dates L3(c) and is pre-metric). Same crossarm sizes, same phase clearances/separation, but a bit shorter.

 

The yellow bars in the image below represent 6.28 m base and 38 m height. The far right image is L3(c) DS (blue) overlaid onto B–K 275 kV D STD.

 

On the Pylon Appreciation Society forum, Jules Seifert wrote (in a forum members only topic), on 6th Sep 2008:

 

“There are two L3 ranges : Blaw Knox and J.L.Eve, you will find the bulk of the towers on the south-west, some in the north-east. The extended mid crossarm L3 is in Fact L3(c) not L3.”
https://pylons.proboards.com/thread/26/pylon-designs-codenames

 

That topic then fizzled out, and what he wrote was just taken as throwaway comments, and he vanished too. I have made an attempt to reach him but no reply. I may try again, or I may just give up.

 

In any case, there is some evidence to suggest here that this is the Eve L3 that he mentioned. However, not everything he claimed is true. He wrote “L7 was a blaw knox design, L7(c) was J.L.Eve.” — this is false. L7 was a joint BICC–Eve project, hence it looking like a miniature L6(c). (This is why L7 has such a strange mixture of tower designs: half are BICC, half are Eve.)

 

Unfortunately, as you know, Eve did not like naming anything, so SSE may just have these listed as J L Eve. Hence all the confusion over L132/L16/L55.

 

[pharrc20]

As regards Thornton the only thing I know is that the west to east running line 4ZR from Creyke Beck to Osbaldwick first around 1967 and 4VC line running from Norton down to Drax came along in 1971/72 and at Thornton dived under 4ZR using a diamond formation using a pair of low height towers around tower 4ZR 88. So when Thornton switching station was established, both lines were altered and diverted in so that all 8 circuits now 4 lines terminated there. So could the tower in question been the one before the split down to the low height towers?

[Daniel Beardsmore]

16 minutes ago, pharrc20 said:

As regards Thornton the only thing I know is that the west to east running line 4ZR from Creyke Beck to Osbaldwick first around 1967 and 4VC line running from Norton down to Drax came along in 1971/72 and at Thornton dived under 4ZR using a diamond formation using a pair of low height towers around tower 4ZR 88. So when Thornton switching station was established, both lines were altered and diverted in so that all 8 circuits now 4 lines terminated there. So could the tower in question been the one before the split down to the low height towers?

 

All I can say is that the 400 kV lines in that area are all Eve, so either the Blaw Knox towers came later as part of remodelling, or there was a split in contractor work where a few tidbits were tossed to Blaw Knox. There are L12 towers there now, too (L6 if you ask National Grid!), and some others I didn’t try to positively ID. In any case, whatever it is, it just has a normal type designation. It could be an earthwire changeover tower of course: those are missing from L6 BK chart I have.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

18 hours ago, pharrc20 said:

… in England and Wales, there is the Bishop's Wood to Ludlow line that uses the same deviation towers with JL Eve suspension D towers …

 

That line I am guessing is Eve classic L3. Oddly, the top and bottom crossarms seem to be longer than in the extended crossarm type (from a quick glance anyway).

 

Beauly–Kintore is set to have been constructed in the 60s, pre-dating metrication in the 70s, so that would seem to reinforce the idea that extended middle crossarms (and increasing the phase-to-phase clearances) was introduced for Scottish lines to accommodate the harsher weather, and simply classed as an adaptation of L3. It may be that this change was only ever applied to Eve L3, and quite possibly Blaw Knox did not incorporate it into their L3 suite until they metricated it as L3(c). Eve never named anything anyway, so the change would not get a new designation from them.

 

I know that there are said to be pre-metric extended middle crossarm L3 lines up in Scotland (on the PAS forum somewhere Google cannot get to, IIRC), but I have never seen any of them and don’t know who supplied the towers. If they turn out to be Eve, that would make sense. Eve seems to have been a major contractor in Scotland.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

Hmm … It’s awkward trying to juggle multiple unrelated discussions in a single topic on an unrelated forum (not least when there is a whole forum dedicated to the same subject, left lying abandoned) but at the same time, there is just not enough life here to keep a forum going.

A few more notes on L3 from the PAS forum:

 

lesc, 14 Jul 2013: “The L3CDS (or L3 C DS if you must) is a development of the 1950's L3 design by Blaw Knox for the Beauly to Dounreay link (and / or the Tealing / Beauly link) for the then Scottish Hydro. Can run twin .175" or single 0.4". Other areas took it up and can now be seen all over the country. The D5° appears unique to Scotland, though.”

 

Guessing this is the D5:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@58.0704567,-3.9915689,3a,15y,26.66h,96.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4G19rxMB8iD4CLADFk4eUg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

This route is indeed Blaw Knox, so if he is correct, the extended middle crossarm design started with them.

 

lesc, 14 Nov 2012: “Probably L2C D although there's a Scottish variant it appears (Tealing mystery pylon) with LC coining L2C DS as the L3 with extended crossarms is correctly ideed as L3C DS (S = Scottish).”

 

The “Scottish” PL16 D2 is D2S (verified from at least two publicly-available sources), and one would imagine that the double earthwire type is likewise DD2S (no data on this). I didn’t realise that the S in L3 DS has the same meaning, although like everything written on the PAS forum this claim is uncorroborated. There is only proof that it is called DS.

 

yv47r, 7 May 2015: “The L3 with extended middle cross-arms came in 1956 rated at 275kV.”

 

Again uncorroborated. This claim clearly puts L3 DS as a pre-metric type, and if true, it would indicate that L3 DS has nothing to do with L3(c). L3(c) just happens to have made it the official 0° type, supplanting the D. (Kind of like how PL16 D2S became standard I guess.)

 

Nothing thus far would prove that the Eve type is L3. The original D has no earthwire peak at all (the later type did, just like L3 DS), and the medium-lower angle towers have asymmetric crossarms, unlike Blaw Knox L3 where the first asymmetric tower is the D60.

 

Sadly, Bishop’s Wood to Ludlow is 132 kV on 275 kV towers, so not National Grid’s remit, and thus not in their shapefiles. Perhaps whoever operates that line would be willing to offer some clues.

 

I particularly dislike relying on uncorroborated information, as any of it could be totally bogus. Unfortunately, the people who make all these claims never cite any sources (even if just in name) so there is no way to tell guesswork from mistaken recollections from reliable facts.

[pharrc20]

1 hour ago, Daniel Beardsmore said:

Hmm … It’s awkward trying to juggle multiple unrelated discussions in a single topic on an unrelated forum (not least when there is a whole forum dedicated to the same subject, left lying abandoned) but at the same time, there is just not enough life here to keep a forum going.

A few more notes on L3 from the PAS forum:

 

lesc, 14 Jul 2013: “The L3CDS (or L3 C DS if you must) is a development of the 1950's L3 design by Blaw Knox for the Beauly to Dounreay link (and / or the Tealing / Beauly link) for the then Scottish Hydro. Can run twin .175" or single 0.4". Other areas took it up and can now be seen all over the country. The D5° appears unique to Scotland, though.”

 

Guessing this is the D5:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@58.0704567,-3.9915689,3a,15y,26.66h,96.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4G19rxMB8iD4CLADFk4eUg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

This route is indeed Blaw Knox, so if he is correct, the extended middle crossarm design started with them.

 

lesc, 14 Nov 2012: “Probably L2C D although there's a Scottish variant it appears (Tealing mystery pylon) with LC coining L2C DS as the L3 with extended crossarms is correctly ideed as L3C DS (S = Scottish).”

 

The “Scottish” PL16 D2 is D2S (verified from at least two publicly-available sources), and one would imagine that the double earthwire type is likewise DD2S (no data on this). I didn’t realise that the S in L3 DS has the same meaning, although like everything written on the PAS forum this claim is uncorroborated. There is only proof that it is called DS.

 

yv47r, 7 May 2015: “The L3 with extended middle cross-arms came in 1956 rated at 275kV.”

 

Again uncorroborated. This claim clearly puts L3 DS as a pre-metric type, and if true, it would indicate that L3 DS has nothing to do with L3(c). L3(c) just happens to have made it the official 0° type, supplanting the D. (Kind of like how PL16 D2S became standard I guess.)

 

Nothing thus far would prove that the Eve type is L3. The original D has no earthwire peak at all (the later type did, just like L3 DS), and the medium-lower angle towers have asymmetric crossarms, unlike Blaw Knox L3 where the first asymmetric tower is the D60.

 

Sadly, Bishop’s Wood to Ludlow is 132 kV on 275 kV towers, so not National Grid’s remit, and thus not in their shapefiles. Perhaps whoever operates that line would be willing to offer some clues.

 

I particularly dislike relying on uncorroborated information, as any of it could be totally bogus. Unfortunately, the people who make all these claims never cite any sources (even if just in name) so there is no way to tell guesswork from mistaken recollections from reliable facts.

Bishop's Wood to Ludlow was until recently Western Power Distribution but they were acquired by National Grid not so long ago. So NG ought to know about them in some capacity or another now, but should know the Eve towers from those it operates in South Wales from Pyle.

 

The Ludlow line appears to have been built with 275kV in mind and strung accordingly with twin conductors. But up until a few years ago the suspension towers had short 132kV insulators fitted and the deviation towers had twin insulators but a line upgrade saw all that changed over to single conductors and insulators. Apart from providing a 275kV feed to the Ludlow area, I can't think of any other reason to build a 275kV capable line there.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

Just now, pharrc20 said:

Bishop's Wood to Ludlow was until recently Western Power Distribution but they were acquired by National Grid not so long ago. So NG ought to know about them in some capacity or another now …

 

Maybe … When I finally get around to documenting the process of working with their GIS data I’ll download an updated copy. I have no National Grid contacts — I just rely on their shapefile data. Officially National Grid are transmission (275 and 400 kV) only and their GIS data is England and Wales only. Whether they will choose to bring any distribution lines into it, I have no idea.

 

I forget if I tried to even contact Western Power — possibly one of those organisations where I never found a way in. Still trying to make progress with UKPN (my local operator; none so far) and SSE (glacial but some progress).

 

I can only do what I can do …

[L2's are great!]

On 04/05/2023 at 17:02, pharrc20 said:

I believe this and or the pair in the background were the late Flash Bristow's favourite towers at Braintree

Yep that's them.

[L2's are great!]

On 04/05/2023 at 14:29, Daniel Beardsmore said:

 

You can tell that it’s non-standard from something that tiny? There are too few pixels for me to make any call on that.

Looking at it closer up on streetview and from various web photos, its definitely the same as that one at Dunford Bridge. My call is that it's a D20 but i'm not certain

Edited May 6, 2023 by L2's are great!

[L2's are great!]

On 04/05/2023 at 14:30, Daniel Beardsmore said:

 

You think that is different from a normal earthwire changeover tower? I don’t have the drawings for L6 BK D20EC or D40EC so I don’t know what they look like.

Well its got squared off crossarms just like the L2 D40EC and seeing as it splits the line in this circumstance, it would not surprise me if it was a D40. 

[L2's are great!]

On 04/05/2023 at 22:06, Daniel Beardsmore said:

 

There is nothing in that area that National Grid deem to be non-standard, within the limits of their erratic data (full of mistakes). The only tower not filtered out by my query is a DT(0-40) at the substation itself. Whatever that tower is, National Grid do not seem to have given it any special designation. I can’t tell from the photo what it is.

 

All the DT's at Thornton are L12's, One type has the extended upper crossarms and the other ones have normal length crossarms. Interestingly i haven't seen plans for the DT with longer upper crossarms so that's probably the one without special designation

Edited May 6, 2023 by L2's are great!

[L2's are great!]

Whilst we are on the subject of D40EC towers, there are 2 types of what is the BICC equivalent on the Bolney - Ninfield - Dungeness line and looking at it, it looks like a stretched deviation tower with a D60 peak 

[Daniel Beardsmore]

1 hour ago, L2's are great! said:

All the DT's at Thornton are L12's, One type has the extended upper crossarms and the other ones have normal length crossarms. Interestingly i haven't seen plans for the DT with longer upper crossarms so that's probably the one without special designation

 

What do you mean “without special designation”? If you meant the DT(0-40), the only one that was not filtered out, then your own L12 chart here shows a DT(0-40) Mk 3, and that has an extended top crossarm:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/135140-pylons/page/60/#comment-5034158

 

Standard one side, extended on the other, which you do see sometimes, but these drawings appear to be a way to show both options in a single tower. The other approach is to show the extensions in dotted form. It’s so wonky, I decided not to trace it, but I guess I forgot that it had a different DT type to the one I currently show. Something I have tended not to note down is the entry angles for terminal towers, except where it has seemed special in some way.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

1 hour ago, L2's are great! said:

Looking at it closer up on streetview and from various web photos, its definitely the same as that one at Dunford Bridge. My call is that it's a D20 but i'm not certain

 

You mean this, right?

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.8940497,-0.8287061,3a,61.8y,187.01h,112.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPXU6fQF7m8n9WD00U3vxug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

It’s listed as an L6 DT from 1971, tower 4VC276. Height “9.770” … (I guess they mean elevation/altitude.) Certainly the DT is similar in proportions, but it’s not the same design as what the chart I have I depicts for DT.

 

The one with extended top crossarms is 4ZR087B, an L6 DT(0-40) from 1967.

 

The impression I get is that some of the data, in particular tower series/suite and construction year, are treated as global to the whole line, so even if 4ZR087B really is a DT(0-40), the L6 and 1967 might be inherited from the line. I see this a lot: replacement towers show the same series as the rest of the line.

 

I deal with data management in my day job so I know the frustration from the inside of attempting to ensure and maintain data accuracy, completeness and existence … When data is handled badly in hobby spheres, it is only even more soul destroying …

[Daniel Beardsmore]

17 hours ago, L2's are great! said:

Whilst we are on the subject of D40EC towers, there are 2 types of what is the BICC equivalent on the Bolney - Ninfield - Dungeness line and looking at it, it looks like a stretched deviation tower with a D60 peak

 

Hmm … I only have your chart to go on, which depicts D40EC as having a shorter peak and asymmetric crossarms.

 

These two towers are symmetrical. I don’t know which towers they are (no clue where the latter one even is — some place called Horseshoe Lane somewhere) but the first one can only be a D, D30 or D60, as that is all that is there. Neither one is functioning as earthwire changeover, and it looks to be too far from the substation anyway.

 

It’s more like this oddity:

 

 

Tower ZF426, L8 D60 with symmetrical crossarms.