Great Western Electrification Progress

[ainsworth74]

Right but I wasn't talking about WCML electrification I was talking about ECML electrification.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Perhaps it's less that it felt fast then but that the effect of time on the memory makes it seem like it was faster than it actually was when thinking about it now?

I acknowledge that too! Reminds me of the Monty Python sketch - eee when I were a lad I used to have to get up at 6 o'clock in't morning and lick rorrrd cleeeeen wit tung.

Back OT - it just seems like loads got done in the 1980s.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I seem to remember that the use of the Flat top coaches was withdrawn after an incident near Neville Hill in the mid 90's.
Since then the use of MEWPS and other access platforms has been the norm.

While we are on the subject, why are MEWPS almost invariably left fully extended when not in use despite the H&SE ( and they did confirm this to me in writing ) specifically saying that they should NOT be left extended?

 

[Domh245]

I'd imagine it would be something to do with keeping local undesirables off of them. When the H&SE said that they should not be extended, were there any factors in this, such as proximity to public area, prevailing weather conditions etc? I suppose that if you did a risk assessment of it, you might come to the conclusion that one toppling over is a more preferable outcome to trespassing persons injuring themselves/overs.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I didn't get that much detail, simply that their guidelines state that MEWPS should not be left fully extended when not in use. The reason for asking was because I see so many left like that, often next to active rail tracks - certainly within range of one toppling over - or adjacent to roads.

( I am starting to think that this could go on and a thread abut MEWPS in general discussion might be in order? )

 

[w1bbl3]

Good question - I would love to see hard data. Would it be apples to apples anyway? How would you measure - track kilometres electrified per year? Chat Moss was not easy terrain. Manchester - Blackpool likewise. Perhaps it just seemed faster back then.

Good question - I would love to see hard data. Would it be apples to apples anyway? How would you measure - track kilometres electrified per year? Chat Moss was not easy terrain. Manchester - Blackpool likewise. Perhaps it just seemed faster back then.

You would really need to consider labour employed in the metric to quantify efficiency. Something like electrified route metres per person hour worked. This would measure productive output and thus efficiency of the process I'd expect current processes to be an order of magnitude more efficient. I'd also expect the number of simultaneous work sites to be lower and weekend possessions lower but overall project duration to be far longer.

A similar metric could be used to measure safety performance of the project say lost time incident minutes per person hour worked and lost time incidents per route metre electrified.

 

[HSTEd]

H&S is a good thing. End of.

That is not necessarily the case.
H&S is certainly responsible for a great deal of project price escalation - this means that projects that would have proceeded may not proceed.
Since electric trains and the service improvements brought about by them can be expected to provide significant benefits in terms of reduce transport related mortality and even directly from air quality and accident safety improvements, it is entirely possible that by increasing the cost of carrying out these projects the net effect of H&S regulations is to cause harm.

As to career ending injuries - according to the BRB Progress Report 14 (which marked the end of major ECML modernisation and electrification works) it notes that it has only suffered a single serious accident (bottom of page 3). Involving the incident I mentioned before.

 

[QueensCurve]

Was it, though? The ECML electrification programme took 7 years. 10 if you count the first lot too.

I think it was.

"The First Lot" was King's Cross to Royston - ie the main line to Hitchin. British Rail did Hitchin to Huntingdon in the mid 1980s in anticipation of getting the go ahead to go further.

Huntingdon to Leeds/Edinburgh must have been close to 400 route miles and quite a bit is 4 track. Nethertheless it was started in 1986 and completed on time in 1991. That compares somewhat favourably with Manchester to Parkside in 4 years.

 

[CdBrux]

I do not remember the earlier electrification schemes mentioned, however also worth considering, in addition to total track km / FTE / year or somesuch metric, is were there several projects running concurrently as at the moment as well as maybe possesions etc...

Probably not so easy to come to a conclusion!

 

[swt_passenger]

When people quote ECML timescales they are using pretty arbitrary dates for the start. BR were rebuilding bridges with electrification clearances 20 years before the wires were put up. The whole route (i.e. north of the GN suburban area) was supposed to have followed on from the WCML in the 70s, so do you ignore the years between then and the eventual start? When did the design work start, and is that included in the 86-91 period, or was it already complete in 86?

Did the ECML wiring project start when the drawing office got to work on the plans, or when the first spade went in the ground?

 

[Bald Rick]

When people quote ECML timescales they are using pretty arbitrary dates for the start. BR were rebuilding bridges with electrification clearances 20 years before the wires were put up. The whole route (i.e. north of the GN suburban area) was supposed to have followed on from the WCML in the 70s, so do you ignore the years between then and the eventual start? When did the design work start, and is that included in the 86-91 period, or was it already complete in 86?

Did the WCML wiring project start when the drawing office got to work on the plans, or when the first spade went in the ground?

Quite. The ECML electrification Hitchin - Leeds/Edinburgh was authorised by the Secretary of State for a Transport on 27/7/84, and BR had started physical works (foundations Hitchin - Huntingdon only) prior to that under their own authority. This is in addition to some advance bridge works which were usually done undercover (and budgets) of other projects.

Design work started in 1981.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I do not remember the earlier electrification schemes mentioned, however also worth considering, in addition to total track km / FTE / year or somesuch metric, is were there several projects running concurrently as at the moment as well as maybe possesions etc...

Probably not so easy to come to a conclusion!

Again in the 1984-1991 period there were a few - Liverpool St - Norwich, Liverpool St -Kings Lynn, Hitchin - Edinburgh, Doncaster-Leeds, Bournemouth -Weymouth, quite impressive

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Again in the 1984-1991 period there were a few - Liverpool St - Norwich, Liverpool St -Kings Lynn, Hitchin - Edinburgh, Doncaster-Leeds, Bournemouth -Weymouth, quite impressive

Also Oxted-East Grinstead, Eastleigh-Fareham?
The West London line and Redhill-Tonbridge were also done as part of the Channel Tunnel routes upgrade.
Birmingham Cross City line was started too.

 

[snowball]

Again in the 1984-1991 period there were a few - Liverpool St - Norwich, Liverpool St -Kings Lynn,

I don't think they actually had to start at Liverpool Street for either of those - the London end had been done previously, for example to Bishops Stortford in the case of the Cambridge line.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't think they actually had to start at Liverpool Street for either of those - the London end had been done previously, for example to Bishops Stortford in the case of the Cambridge line.

Yes the 1980s scheme was Bishops Stortford/Royston to Cambridge and Kings Lynn.

 

[swt_passenger]

Eastleigh-Fareham?

As you left it with a question mark, yes there was more to it than that, Portsbridge and Farlington Junctions to St Denys came under the same work. A fairly reasonable add-on for the time.

 

[59CosG95]

Birmingham Cross City line was started too.

They cut corners a lot on that route: only the two outer tracks (i.e. the stopping services tracks) are wired, which means that as and when the XC route is wired from Bristol to Derby via Brum, services between Barnt Green & Kings Norton will be disrupted for weeks, if not months, on end. Still don't see why they couldn't have electrified the fast tracks and the Camp Hill line in preparation for such future projects (and also for stock moves to/from Soho depot if the line via UNI was blocked for some reason or other); but then again it was BR & Centro's decision, not mine.

 

[edwin_m]

Also Oxted-East Grinstead, Eastleigh-Fareham?
The West London line and Redhill-Tonbridge were also done as part of the Channel Tunnel routes upgrade.

The third rail examples aren't too relevant here, as this discussion was to do with sustaining expertise in OLE schemes and the skills for third rail are totally different. I suspect if there was another big third rail scheme it would suffer from similar problems.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The third rail examples aren't too relevant here, as this discussion was to do with sustaining expertise in OLE schemes and the skills for third rail are totally different. I suspect if there was another big third rail scheme it would suffer from similar problems.

I can't see there ever being one, if I'm honest.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The third rail examples aren't too relevant here, as this discussion was to do with sustaining expertise in OLE schemes and the skills for third rail are totally different. I suspect if there was another big third rail scheme it would suffer from similar problems.

I can't see there ever being one, if I'm honest.

I agree

 

[33Hz]

Box Tunnel and lines east of Bath closed for a month http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-32792857

 

[HowardGWR]

Box Tunnel and lines east of Bath closed for a month http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-32792857

This Bath to Pad via Bristol TM idea - would it have not been more sensible to run a shuttle from Bath via the Rhubarb curve and pick up Bath pax at Parkway, (or Stapleton Rd, even)?

Ah, what shuttle, I hear you exclaim. I forget spare stock is a thing of the past. It could have been planned for though perhaps.

Parkway is a bit short on bay platforms though.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Personally I think the idea of running the London bound trains from Bath via Bristol is a great idea. Shows what can be done to make the passenger experience better, rather than just chucking everyone on a RRB or a shuttle service as would normally be done!

 

[LexyBoy]

This Bath to Pad via Bristol TM idea - would it have not been more sensible to run a shuttle from Bath via the Rhubarb curve and pick up Bath pax at Parkway, (or Stapleton Rd, even)?

Ah, what shuttle, I hear you exclaim. I forget spare stock is a thing of the past. It could have been planned for though perhaps.

Parkway is a bit short on bay platforms though.

Am I missing something? What would the advantage of this be over starting the Bristol trains at Bath, and why have a shuttle to Parkway rather than Temple Meads? Also I doubt a typical 2-car unit would cope with the peak Bath-London demand.

I agree that it's a sensible decision and should minimise the inconvenience to passengers.

 

[HSTEd]

Quite. The ECML electrification Hitchin - Leeds/Edinburgh was authorised by the Secretary of State for a Transport on 27/7/84, and BR had started physical works (foundations Hitchin - Huntingdon only) prior to that under their own authority. This is in addition to some advance bridge works which were usually done undercover (and budgets) of other projects.

Design work started in 1981.

That I think is the big difference.
BR had the institutional resources and wherewithal to do something without waiting for the bureaucrats at the DfT to approve every last detail.
That must have saved years compared to the current way of doing things.

 

[QueensCurve]

Quite. The ECML electrification Hitchin - Leeds/Edinburgh was authorised by the Secretary of State for a Transport on 27/7/84, and BR had started physical works (foundations Hitchin - Huntingdon only) prior to that under their own authority. This is in addition to some advance bridge works which were usually done undercover (and budgets) of other projects.

Design work started in 1981.

I stand corrected, I thought it was authorised in 1986.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

That I think is the big difference.
BR had the institutional resources and wherewithal to do something without waiting for the bureaucrats at the DfT to approve every last detail.
That must have saved years compared to the current way of doing things.

I totally agree

 

[The Ham]

That I think is the big difference.
BR had the institutional resources and wherewithal to do something without waiting for the bureaucrats at the DfT to approve every last detail.
That must have saved years compared to the current way of doing things.

There can be a case put both ways on such an argument:

There is an internal resource so it can be used on a rolling program to electrify routes, which means projects just get on with being done. Which speeds things along nicely.

There is an internal resource so it can be used on a rolling program to electrify routes, which means that the best value for money schemes aren't always done first (or always in the right order to get the best value for money) and costs may increase as sections of routes are done, finished part way and completed at a later date as another section/project gets priority. In addition rolling stock may not always match up with electrification very well. Which slows things down as there is less budget to work with.

There maybe some railways which are likely to be electrified by 2020 which aren't as obvious, such as Crossrail which adds a few miles of new electrification to the network (OK it is mostly new build and in tunnels, but the skills to complete it will be relevant to other electrification projects, which could slow down projects when it is being worked on and/or speed up projects when those skills become available).

 

[TheKnightWho]

There can be a case put both ways on such an argument:

There is an internal resource so it can be used on a rolling program to electrify routes, which means projects just get on with being done. Which speeds things along nicely.

There is an internal resource so it can be used on a rolling program to electrify routes, which means that the best value for money schemes aren't always done first (or always in the right order to get the best value for money) and costs may increase as sections of routes are done, finished part way and completed at a later date as another section/project gets priority. In addition rolling stock may not always match up with electrification very well. Which slows things down as there is less budget to work with.

There maybe some railways which are likely to be electrified by 2020 which aren't as obvious, such as Crossrail which adds a few miles of new electrification to the network (OK it is mostly new build and in tunnels, but the skills to complete it will be relevant to other electrification projects, which could slow down projects when it is being worked on and/or speed up projects when those skills become available).

Everyone seems to forget EWR too, which whilst a reopening still keeps the electrification programme going.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

That I think is the big difference.
BR had the institutional resources and wherewithal to do something without waiting for the bureaucrats at the DfT to approve every last detail.
That must have saved years compared to the current way of doing things.

BR several times complained that they had to dismantle electrification teams because the DfT would not authorise more lines in time.
It happened after both WCML schemes, at least, as well as the more recent ECML.
I think BR were more under the cosh than NR is, but possibly with fewer constraints on immediate low-budget spend.

Today, it's easy to blame DfT but as I understand it NR cannot establish unit electrification costs with ORR, who will not release the CP5 cash which has been budgeted.
If you are the paymaster, you are entitled to call the tune.
Failure to start TP electrification doesn't sound like a DfT problem to me.
NR has yet to come up with an acceptable design/cost.