GWML Electification

[Vanders]

With the power car drawn up to the appropriate Car Stop sign the leading door on the train (usually the TGS) is not only well beyond the anti trespass fence and cones, but the gap between the platform edge (which is at a low level there) and the train is far too wide to physically step across, let alone use in normal service. So with the front power car positioned so that the leading door on the TGS (where the cycle accommodation is) is usable, the rear TF is off the platform, and with the way the SDO controls work being positioned diagonally opposite and not at every door that potentially means the rear two trailers remain locked.

With the number of people who join & leave the train at Bath in 1st Class, that's going to cause som upset I imagine.

[The Stationmaster]

All of which helps the PR people convince us (the travelling public) that the new trains must be bigger, and therefore better. Doubtless, when we get the actual Crossrail services, they will be making much of their being a whole car longer whilst at the same time keeping schtum about the reduction in seating capacity. They are billed as 205m overall, so our prospective 210m platforms will suffice. Their arrival will render a fair number of 387s surplus to requirements (assuming that the 165/166s have by then already left the London area), in which case are these likely to become the basis for the Oxford services (once the electricity has got that far)?

 

Jim

 

Definitely some smoke and mirrors at work.  The GWR talk of 12 coach formations is I suspect a sort of rebuff to Crossrail (12 coaches with more seats than a Crossrail train might be what they have in mind?) but as i said although they've talked of 12 car very few stations will be long enough for them - which might not matter with effective SDO of course.

 

What I think can definitely be read of GWR's intentions in terms of train use is what they have thus far said - so 2 trains per hour semif-fast (Twyford, Maidenhead, Sough, Hayes, & Ealing Broadway) from Reading to Paddington and I reckon at least one of those will have to start from Didcot due to platforming  capacity at Reading.  There might also be a Didcot - Reading stopper in addition, that I expect will depend on whether or not both of the Reading semi-fast stoppers originate at Didcot and whether or not both will call at intermediates between Reading and Didcot but currently there is a half hourly interval in the western Thames Valley and that will at least have to be equalled.  But there then arises the Oxford problem and things also derpend on teh frequency mix to/from there from Reading and Didcot - so a number of as yet unanswerables for December.

 

The 16X fleet situation is also interesting - all the 166s are going west according to GWR but what is not clear is how many 165s will remain at Reading; the Gatwick service need will be, presumably, unchanged; from December there'll only be a need for one set each for the Henley, Bourne End/Marlow, and Windsor branches and no doubt the same for Greenford so that will mean only 4 sets to cover the branches (plus maintenance cover) plus whatever is needed for the B&H - which depends mainly on Class 800 plans - and Reading - Basingstoke, and Didcot- Oxford, plus whatever remains beyond Oxford on either route.  It seems fairly certain that at some stage through Banbury - Paddington workings via Oxford are going to end or be substantially trimmed back.

 

So still quite a few unanswered questions re 165s.  The other question is the surplus 387s of which two can clearly be identified as the sets for the Henley and Windsor branches leaving them the matter of Basinsgtoke (maybe), Newbury and Oxford although i suspect the latter would amount to no more than two sets if we assume 4 car formations.  But what I think might be happening is that GWR are looking to use as much of the 387 fleet as they can by running longer trains - never stated as such but the implication seems to be there, i.e. that way they'll hang on to all of them perhaps?u

[Northroader]

Heading west on an HST accelerating through Tilehurst this afternoon just after four o'clock, and this vision in white tore past on the up relief. The penny was just dropping what it might be, and it was gone, and I hadn't even clocked whether it was functioning with the pans up.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Northroader

[Zomboid]

Heading west on an HST accelerating through Tilehurst this afternoon just after four o'clock, and this vision in white tore past on the up relief. The penny was just dropping what it might be, and it was gone, and I hadn't even clocked whether it was functioning with the pans up.

 

I saw it at Reading. Paused briefly on the platform and then set off again towards London. Definitely on diesel power by that point.

It had been turned at some point in the day too, as the unit with the red splattered end was at the other end to when I saw it on North Pole first thing this morning.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Zomboid

[Banger Blue]

800001 & 800002 (red swirls at one end) were today's pair between Reading / Wantage Rd.

[jim.snowdon]

I saw it at Reading. Paused briefly on the platform and then set off again towards London. Definitely on diesel power by that point.

It had been turned at some point in the day too, as the unit with the red splattered end was at the other end to when I saw it on North Pole first thing this morning.

That must have been what passed my train at about Westbourne Park as I was heading out from Paddington about 17:50 this evening.

 

Jim

[aforsyth]

The beast in question, but back on 28th March (13:47). Photo taken hastily from a passing HST!

 

[Re6/6]

Slightly OT but there's an interesting piece in today's 'RAIL' magazine by Wolmar pointing out the similarities on the very much smaller Barking>Gospel Oak electrification scheme with the woes of the GWML work.

 

Quote "Everything that could go wrong has done so".  "....and it is a sad sight with a few random posts installed some with wires, some not. It all has the hallmarks of a half finished job left to rot in the elements...."

 

Dear me, a sad state of affairs at NR.

[mikejames]

hello

I don't know what others think but this thead is interesting

but I cannot get the 'big picture'

could some one write a summary of the situation

something like

padd - maidenhead - working - trains from may time table

maidenhead - reading -- ?? trains from dec tt

reading didcot ?? most wires in place  but problems at xx

didcot swindon ??

swindon Bristol parkway -a few gantries in place???

seven tunnel ??

 

Newport ??

etc

 

I'm not saying the detail that  appears in this thread isn't interesting

but I need a context

Of course if I knew where to look its probably out there

so point me to an article

 

thank you in advance to someone who can sort out my ignorance

mike james

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Mike,

I think you've asked the $64,000 question.

[HillsideDepot]

I took the opportunity of a sunny spell earlier to get some photos of the works east of Chippenham. There are possessions booked each night this week, so it's a changing scene at the moment.

 

These photos are from near the River Avon at Kellaways.

 

A mast awaits attachment of its arm - this will span both tracks

 

Two masts with arms waiting, and a pile with nothing in between

 

Various types of mast, some with small single line arms, and a complete span

 

A mast with a double track arm in place

 

43185 trails a Down working through the masts

Edited April 26, 2017 by HillsideDepot

[4630]

 

(Germany, pan testing, no "automatic lowering on failure system" installed, the above is the result)

 

That's gonna cost

Vorsprung durch technik - not ?

[HillsideDepot]

And a second batch, taken at Langley Crossing (removed back in the 1970 in preparation for 125mph running, but I still call it that!).

 

Wishful thinking!

 

The view Up, towards the previous photos

 

 

 

 

 

Presumably this will have a complete span attached

 

Masts up, but an unfinished pile at the next location

 

The view Down towards Chippenham

Edited April 26, 2017 by HillsideDepot

[St. Simon]

Dear me, a sad state of affairs at NR.

Without sounding all rose tinted glasses about Network Rail, I'm not entirely sure that all that we are seeing is down to what is seen by some as a poor project team, it could just be that the plan has been enacted in this way due to other, non-published, constraints, the result being what most see as a strange way of doing it.

 

Of course, I have had no dealings with the project team so I can't say one way or the other, but as outsiders maybe we shouldn't be jumping to conclusion, although I will admit I don't quite see the logic in the way that it's happening, but stuff is happening far quick than it has done in the past.

 

Simon

[Peter Kazmierczak]

And a second batch, taken at Langley Crossing (removed back in the 1970 in preparation for 125mph running, but I still call it that!).

 

 

20170426_0034.JPG

The view Down towards Chippenham

 

Wonder why the conduit alongside the line is in part raised, yet comes to ground level at regular intervals?

[Geoff Endacott]

Wonder why the conduit alongside the line is in part raised, yet comes to ground level at regular intervals?

 

Maybe then ran out of straight bits.

 

Geoff Endacott

[Zomboid]

Wonder why the conduit alongside the line is in part raised, yet comes to ground level at regular intervals?

It's post mounted apart from where the masts will be, where it looks to go into ground mounted concrete trough.

I suspect that's partly because for that route the advantages of post mounted routes make it desirable over concrete (I don't know about troughs, so I couldn't speculate as to why), but space at the mast locations dictates concrete is needed.

[The Stationmaster]

Wonder why the conduit alongside the line is in part raised, yet comes to ground level at regular intervals?

 

It's like that over a very considerable distance Peter.  As noted in one of my previous posts I presume it is a completely separate 25kv feeder from Thingley to (presumably) the substation/transformer bank at Wooton Bassett.

 

The full doble track gantry in Adrian's first batch of photos is the type used for the catenary section tensioning drums (see a recent post for a detail picture of one of those - although that one is part of a quadruple track structure).

 

In the meanwhile I wonder if it's worth bothering posting detailed updates when someone doesn't seem to be interested in reading them - but I think some others do and I shall in any case continue to take my own interest in the development (or otherwise) of the scheme and it's useful record for me posting them here.

[uax6]

I know its probably been said before, but those are truly horrific designs of OHL Structures. They seem to be so OTT in their sizes. I do wonder if something along the lines of the old Mk1 lattice masts would not be just as strong and less intrusive.

 

One hopes that these things are not going to be retrospectively installed in OHLE renewals in the future. (although if they used them around here they would fall over into the fen much quicker than our Mk3 structures!)

 

Andy G

[Re6/6]

Slightly OT (actually, quite a bit ) but I reckon not many would like to see this happening anytime soon on the GWML

 

 

(Germany, pan testing, no "automatic lowering on failure system" installed, the above is the result)

 

That's gonna cost

Indeed Vincent! it looked to have damaged a good bit of the wires. It would seem that the pan top hit a catenery wire support strut but not at a place where one should have been...a bit of a puzzle!

Edited April 27, 2017 by Re6/6

[The Stationmaster]

I know its probably been said before, but those are truly horrific designs of OHL Structures. They seem to be so OTT in their sizes. I do wonder if something along the lines of the old Mk1 lattice masts would not be just as strong and less intrusive.

 

One hopes that these things are not going to be retrospectively installed in OHLE renewals in the future. (although if they used them around here they would fall over into the fen much quicker than our Mk3 structures!)

 

Andy G

 

It's a strange mix with some really large components - particularly the masts and some of the booms/full gantry members but at the opposite extreme some of the parts are without a doubt far and away the simplest ever used in Britain for 25kv overhead.  The registration arms in particular as very neat and only need a single insulator between them and whichever structure they're fixed while there is one fitting for attaching the registration arms to single track masts which is also very simple looking but offers very greater stagger for the wire or allows the mast to be further from the rail edge towards the cess area.  The tensioning kit is very simple in overall appearance and while the masts and booms/girders are substantial they're considerably simpler in every respect than structures serving the same purpose on  the WCML.

 

The lattice masts - the modern day exact equivalent of those on the WCML - definitely use larger section material but are probably cheaper to manufacture as they use stock sizes and don't require any special bending of components.  But the most visible thing is the very substantial masts.  However whilst noting the apparent 'sturdiness' of the structures I personally think they are going to be far more likely to be able to sustain the high winds around the Goring Gap than headspan style construction and they are obviously designed from the outset to suit higher speed running.

 

When all is said and done an overhead electrified railway is a far from pretty sight and that is unavoidable, even with headspan, so while this stuff can be hard on the eye my hope is that it will pay back for operators (and passengers) in providing a good robust system.  But whatever it looks like I really wish they could get their act together in installing the stuff and actually avoid going through at least one section installing or dropping off any particular type of material more than once.  Finish the bases before you start unloading masts and definitely before you start erecting them Get all your different types of mast to site on a stretch of route before someone else follows on erecting them - and so on.  Actually start at A with wiring and proceed section by section to B instead of doing a bit here and a bit there.

[Christopher125]

I was alarmed to begin with, but once the wires are up the final result in most cases is impressively uncluttered and continental-looking.

[jim.snowdon]

It's a strange mix with some really large components - particularly the masts and some of the booms/full gantry members but at the opposite extreme some of the parts are without a doubt far and away the simplest ever used in Britain for 25kv overhead.  The registration arms in particular as very neat and only need a single insulator between them and whichever structure they're fixed while there is one fitting for attaching the registration arms to single track masts which is also very simple looking but offers very greater stagger for the wire or allows the mast to be further from the rail edge towards the cess area.  The tensioning kit is very simple in overall appearance and while the masts and booms/girders are substantial they're considerably simpler in every respect than structures serving the same purpose on  the WCML.

 

The lattice masts - the modern day exact equivalent of those on the WCML - definitely use larger section material but are probably cheaper to manufacture as they use stock sizes and don't require any special bending of components.  But the most visible thing is the very substantial masts.  However whilst noting the apparent 'sturdiness' of the structures I personally think they are going to be far more likely to be able to sustain the high winds around the Goring Gap than headspan style construction and they are obviously designed from the outset to suit higher speed running.

 

When all is said and done an overhead electrified railway is a far from pretty sight and that is unavoidable, even with headspan, so while this stuff can be hard on the eye my hope is that it will pay back for operators (and passengers) in providing a good robust system.  But whatever it looks like I really wish they could get their act together in installing the stuff and actually avoid going through at least one section installing or dropping off any particular type of material more than once.  Finish the bases before you start unloading masts and definitely before you start erecting them Get all your different types of mast to site on a stretch of route before someone else follows on erecting them - and so on.  Actually start at A with wiring and proceed section by section to B instead of doing a bit here and a bit there.

When you the compare the structures being used for Crossrail/Great Western against those used by any other railway in Europe, and even the original London - Liverpool/Manchester electrification, they stand out as being seriously over sized, yet they are all holding up much the same weight of wire, in much the same climatic conditions. Even the structures used by the Belgian and Dutch railways, whose DC overhead is heavier by virtue of the higher currents, are lighter. It all has the feel of being designed to a combination of over-onerous requirements in terms of allowable deflection and worst-worst case environmental conditions by risk averse designers in response to a risk averse specification. It was, for example, a well understood feature of tramway and trolleybus overhead, and therefore also of railway overhead, that you planted the poles with a backwards rake on them, so that when the loads from the OLE were applied, they pulled vertical. In contrast, I cannot recall seing any of the cantilver poles that were installed in my part of West London being anything other than bolt upright before even the cantilever brackets were fitted. Even the anchor stays are many times more substantial than the traditional wire or bar stays that were used with even the Heathrow Express wiring when that was first installed out of Paddington.

 

The less visible consequence of over-engineering the bit above ground level is that the piles on which they masts are planted are far deeper than anything previously known for OLE, which in turn has meant that driving them into the ground not only defeated the much-hyped "factory" train but slowed the entire process down and pushed the costs up.

 

The whole sage is symptomatic of a deeper problem, in that the same malaise is affecting over-line signalling structures. The weight they are required to support, ie the signal heads plus the S&T tech. and his mate, has not changed noticeable in the last 50 years, yet there are many structures that have appeared in the last decade that are worthy of being battleship moorings, such is their mass.

 

Jim

[Karhedron]

I think they may be overcompensating for the lightweight structures they used on the ECML where even a stiff breeze tends to bring down the knitting.

[jamie92208]

I think that some of this has been covered before in this thread. As far as I know the main constraint was to have high speed running with multiple pantographs, eg 2 x 5 car IEP's.   This meant that a much higher wire tension was needed and everything stemmed from that.   Roger Ford in his Informed Sources column has covered this and has also written about some poor directions that were given to the design staff who then designed the supporting structure that they were given.   However we are where we are.   From my own observations from trains between Didcot and Reading it doesn't seem to be too bad.  I think that one of the problems is that a lot of the photos that we see are taken with telephoto lenses which make things look much worse than they are. 

 

Jamie