Great Western Electrification Progress

[ainsworth74]

Disappointed to hear that normal NR mitigation is basically to ignore the visual impact even in environmentally sensitive and historic areas….There genuinely is no reason or excuse to prevent technological progress and modernisation, but NR’s approach seems to be merely to bring the full clout of their ‘we-don’t-need-to follow-everybody else’s-rules’ and ignore the UK’s heritage and destroy what few genuinely beautiful cities / towns / countryside that this increasingly crowded island has left….

I hadn't realised that the ECML had its heritage ignored and destroyed by BR when the electrification masts went up! I mean York, Newcastle, Darlington, Edinburgh Waverley, the Royal Border Bridge, the High Level Bridge, the King Edward VII Bridge and the views north of Newcastle all ruined by electrification. Heck throw in St Pancras into that!

I'm sorry but I don't buy it. What happened on the WCML in the 60s was cultural vandalism but everything that's happened since then has always been done in a sympathetic way with the heritage of the railway but balancing the needs of the modern railway. BR and Network Rail have all done a very good job in my view.

Perhaps the strangest thing though is that I'm sure that if we could ring up the likes of Brunel and the Stephenson's via a Ouija Board they'd be telling is to tear down their infrastructure and put up some new stuff that did the job that was required and damn the heritage!

 

[LexyBoy]

Don't bank on trees being allowed to re-grow - the Route Directors at Network Rail have been doing detailed sums on vegetation clearance costs versus delay minutes and vegetation clearance is being undertaken in a number of locations. Vegetation clearance even made it into the contract requirement for the new ScotRail franchise and alliance with NR Scotland.

That seems sensible - I wasn't thinking of just trees: a lot of the visual impact from afar is from the bare ballast/chalk which has been exposed, which will be hidden by any level of growth.

The current plans are to seed recently cleared areas with an indigenous wild flower seed mix for bank stability and moisture control, and to prevent the growth of new trees. It'll look rather nice and will provide a nice home for native insect species (bees in particular) that have been under threat from pesticides.

Is there a link to NR's policy/plans? I'd be interested to read it. Don't think wildflowers will keep trees in check mind

I've been thinking that where there is a lot of exposed ground it would be better to deliberately plant it with dense, low growing plants which would keep things in check as well as providing a habitat, rather than leaving it be with periodic slash & burn. Around Reading at the moment there's plenty of it going (and the "hill" which currently has been planted with a small patch of monoculture trees, and that's it).

 

[transmanche]

People do need to remember, as unfortunate a reminder this is, that they have chosen for whatever reason to live next to the railway. GWML electrification isn't HS2, you haven't bought a house in a field only to find a railway being built next to it 10 years later. The railway was there when you bought/inherited your property, it's probably changed quite a bit already from when you bought your property, and there's always the possibility electrification masts, new radio masts or fences will be erected.

It seems only a few years ago that every railway line had masts running alongside every few metres, connected by electric wires. But those are considered 'quaint' and acceptable, whereas modern ones are 'ugly' and unacceptable...


Thorne North Station South Yorkshire November 1969 by loose_grip_99, on Flickr

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I tend to find most people have bought a house near the railway so they can commute by train, and it amuses me no end to see people who appear at these public meetings and complain loudly about NR are to be found standing on the platform of the nearest station the next morning.

My parents bought theirs and I bought mine because with a railway at the back, especially in a cutting like mine, you have privacy. You are not overlooked and have almost zero chance of being so.

 

[jimm]

NR press release:

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...repare-baths-railway-line-for-electrification

I'm puzzled by the reference to Dundas Aqueduct, which I gather is two or three miles south of the main line, on the line to Westbury, which I didn't think was included in the electrification.

Presumably they are taking advantage of the line closures around Bath to do the work on track at the aqueduct on the basis that if the money does materialise in future to wire Newbury-Westbury-Bath then they wouldn't need a separate closure of that route to lower track at the aqueduct.

As for a statement of Network Rail's policy, this press release from April probably gives a fair idea:

Last winter, there were well over a thousand incidents where trees or substantial branches were blown onto the railway. Not only did this cause widespread disruption, each of these incidents posed a potential safety risk to passengers, the worst being a train derailment. Excessive growth of trees and plants by the railway can obscure signals, damage overhead power lines or make our employees workspaces unsafe. Autumn leaves on the tracks are hazardous for trains affecting their ability to accelerate and brake, leading to delays.

We aim to effectively manage this threat by targeting areas that pose the biggest safety and performance risk to the railway and removing potentially dangerous lineside vegetation.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...sponds-to-channel-4-news-item-on-tree-felling

 

[Who Cares]

W1bbl3 – Many Thanks for the info….Again, much appreciated !

It seems I’ve touched a raw nerve amongst many of you who use this forum….I suppose that’s to be expected amongst a group of rail enthusiasts and connaissants….

I agree with much that has been said – I also can’t stand people who, for example, choose to live under the Heathrow Flight Path and then spend the lives complaining about aircraft noise. I also don’t quite follow the logic of some people who are opposed to change just because….

On the other hand, I do have a great deal of sympathy for people who have chosen to live in certain areas / villages / communities, maybe even 40 years ago, who are now defenceless against the all-encompassing statutory powers which NR seem to have been granted but with absolutely no regulatory requirements to ensure sympathetic and socially responsible development of the network vis-à-vis the environment….And this particular project appears to be a typical NR approach of applying their ‘ we’ll do what we want, how we want, where we want ‘ statutory powers….Whereas the rest ( well the majority ) of the UK are subject to statutory regulations – even if you want to build just a 15 sq yd extension to your home or change just the window frames if your house is in an AONB....

If I understand correctly the majority of the arguments and comments since yesterday – we appear to have no need to maintain elements from our history or to protect that which was handed down to us and to maintain it for future generations ?

So absolutely no further need for museums, art galleries, etc….Absolutely no need for Planning Laws, Listed Buildings Regulations, National Trust, English Heritage, Conservation Areas, etc, which regulate how we treat what remains of our countryside and historic buildings in the UK. But which seem not to apply to NR….Why not just close all the museums and art galleries, get rid of the Statutory Bodies and Quango’s which regulate development in the UK, and let everyone else do what they want, how they want and where they want ….Think how much money such a free-for-all could save for Central Government, not having to ensure compliance with all these regulations...

Perhaps it’s just as well NR’s Mangers aren’t in charge of the rest of the country. ‘You want to build a Tesco Metro in the middle of the Stonehenge Circle, did you say ? Go ahead, feel free, that’s modernisation….While you’re at it, how about building a small branch of Sports Direct on the steps outside Westminster Abbey – just think what a life changing improvement that will be for people who don’t have the time to go to the store on Oxford Street….’

Yes, extreme examples I know, but a fair comparison with NR’s current statutory powers and the way they have used them for this particular project….

I’m just wondering what some of you contributors would be saying if NR decided that it was actually too expensive to adapt Brunel’s famous bridges on the GWR, and decided to demolish them and replace them with simple iron girder bridges….

Bricks and glasshouses, no doubt.

 

[The Planner]

But on the other hand, without permitted development rights that NR have not a lot would probably get built....

 

[Bald Rick]

Brunels famous bridges are listed, a quite different cauldron of poissons.

I'm fairly sure any organisation or individual would exercise his/her/its right to do what it wants within the law and planning regulations. That NR and its predecessors was granted such consent by parliament is perhaps a separate debate.

 

[transmanche]

So absolutely no further need for museums, art galleries, etc….Absolutely no need for Planning Laws, Listed Buildings Regulations, National Trust, English Heritage, Conservation Areas, etc.

Straw man argument... :roll:

 

[Class 170101]

NR press release:

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...repare-baths-railway-line-for-electrification



I'm puzzled by the reference to Dundas Aqueduct, which I gather is two or three miles south of the main line, on the line to Westbury, which I didn't think was included in the electrification.

I thought one of the feeder stations was actually being located at (or near) Melksham? Which is on this route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It'll be the line through Pangbourne, which is indeed on a high embankment.

If painting the masts is practical, then it sounds like a nice cheap way of reducing the visual impact to me.

As I recall (and I hope I have this right) there are some space telescopes in the UK that have copper domes that 'rust' green overtime to blend in with their surroundings, usually in rural areas because of lower light pollution.

 

[Who Cares]

Straw man argument ?

No.

Perhaps we should both be in politics.....I'll do the asking, you do the answering....

 

[AM9]

On the other hand, I do have a great deal of sympathy for people who have chosen to live in certain areas / villages / communities, maybe even 40 years ago, who are now defenceless against the all-encompassing statutory powers which NR seem to have been granted but with absolutely no regulatory requirements to ensure sympathetic and socially responsible development of the network vis-à-vis the environment….And this particular project appears to be a typical NR approach of applying their ‘ we’ll do what we want, how we want, where we want ‘ statutory powers….Whereas the rest ( well the majority ) of the UK are subject to statutory regulations – even if you want to build just a 15 sq yd extension to your home or change just the window frames if your house is in an AONB....

Your very last word? in that paragraph sums up the anomaly. AONB means Area of Natural Beauty, - that means NO human intervention. No twee little cottages or stone walls. If they are there, then it has already been spoilt.

If I understand correctly the majority of the arguments and comments since yesterday – we appear to have no need to maintain elements from our history or to protect that which was handed down to us and to maintain it for future generations ?

How many elements do you want to maintain, all of it? That would mean no further development, we just keep painting everything in the same colours and retiling/slating roofs to maintain every little pastiche of the UK landscape.

So absolutely no further need for museums, art galleries, etc….Absolutely no need for Planning Laws, Listed Buildings Regulations, National Trust, English Heritage, Conservation Areas, etc, which regulate how we treat what remains of our countryside and historic buildings in the UK. But which seem not to apply to NR….Why not just close all the museums and art galleries, get rid of the Statutory Bodies and Quango’s which regulate development in the UK, and let everyone else do what they want, how they want and where they want ….Think how much money such a free-for-all could save for Central Government, not having to ensure compliance with all these regulations...

If you want to post such a strawman statement, then go ahead, but what has that to do with NR and the GWML electrification specifically.

Perhaps it’s just as well NR’s Mangers aren’t in charge of the rest of the country. ‘You want to build a Tesco Metro in the middle of the Stonehenge Circle, did you say ? Go ahead, feel free, that’s modernisation….While you’re at it, how about building a small branch of Sports Direct on the steps outside Westminster Abbey – just think what a life changing improvement that will be for people who don’t have the time to go to the store on Oxford Street….’

There's a slight difference with the societal 'need' for yet another Tesco store and the fundamental requirement for rail routes across the country in our mixed economy.

Yes, extreme examples I know, but a fair comparison with NR’s current statutory powers and the way they have used them for this particular project….

Not so much extreme, - more like irrelevant.

 

[HowardGWR]

@Who cares 1841
I am not quoting your whole post because there are a lot of straw man points that it would need a very long post to deal with them.

I an just responding that an AONB designation does not prevent development and is not a designation that has anything to do with when people moved into houses within it and also has nothing to do with window frame designs (which come under separate planning laws). In fact it has nothing to do with home owners and their understandable private concerns at all.

The criteria for allowing damaging development in AONB is whether the aims of the development could be be achieved in a non-damaging way or could be achieved elsewhere instead. The only way I could imagine electrification could be achieved on the line through this area without any significant damage is by third rail. Clearly it can't be achieved elsewhere as one would have to rip up the line and divert it around the AONB . In fairness, a tunnel would do it. I believe a planning inspector would consider that unreasonable as the overhead wire is a small addition to an existing development (the GWML) that is already overwhelming in its impact on visibility and tranquillity grounds.

I do think a sense of realism is needed here. I have been an environmental campaigner for decades, so I do have experience in this area.

 

[DarloRich]

and still we don't have an answer as to why Berkshire should be different to anywhere else

 

[Stompehh]

I thought one of the feeder stations was actually being located at (or near) Melksham? Which is on this route.

Melksham is not on this route, it is on the line between Chippenham & Trowbridge whereas Dundas is between Bath & Trowbridge.

The work at Dundas Aqueduct is actually widening to accommodate the Class 165s. I wonder if work needs to be done at Avoncliff too?

 

[jimm]

W1bbl3 – Many Thanks for the info….Again, much appreciated !

It seems I’ve touched a raw nerve amongst many of you who use this forum….I suppose that’s to be expected amongst a group of rail enthusiasts and connaissants….

I agree with much that has been said – I also can’t stand people who, for example, choose to live under the Heathrow Flight Path and then spend the lives complaining about aircraft noise. I also don’t quite follow the logic of some people who are opposed to change just because….

On the other hand, I do have a great deal of sympathy for people who have chosen to live in certain areas / villages / communities, maybe even 40 years ago, who are now defenceless against the all-encompassing statutory powers which NR seem to have been granted but with absolutely no regulatory requirements to ensure sympathetic and socially responsible development of the network vis-à-vis the environment….And this particular project appears to be a typical NR approach of applying their ‘ we’ll do what we want, how we want, where we want ‘ statutory powers….Whereas the rest ( well the majority ) of the UK are subject to statutory regulations – even if you want to build just a 15 sq yd extension to your home or change just the window frames if your house is in an AONB....

If I understand correctly the majority of the arguments and comments since yesterday – we appear to have no need to maintain elements from our history or to protect that which was handed down to us and to maintain it for future generations ?

So absolutely no further need for museums, art galleries, etc….Absolutely no need for Planning Laws, Listed Buildings Regulations, National Trust, English Heritage, Conservation Areas, etc, which regulate how we treat what remains of our countryside and historic buildings in the UK. But which seem not to apply to NR….Why not just close all the museums and art galleries, get rid of the Statutory Bodies and Quango’s which regulate development in the UK, and let everyone else do what they want, how they want and where they want ….Think how much money such a free-for-all could save for Central Government, not having to ensure compliance with all these regulations...

Perhaps it’s just as well NR’s Mangers aren’t in charge of the rest of the country. ‘You want to build a Tesco Metro in the middle of the Stonehenge Circle, did you say ? Go ahead, feel free, that’s modernisation….While you’re at it, how about building a small branch of Sports Direct on the steps outside Westminster Abbey – just think what a life changing improvement that will be for people who don’t have the time to go to the store on Oxford Street….’

Yes, extreme examples I know, but a fair comparison with NR’s current statutory powers and the way they have used them for this particular project….

I’m just wondering what some of you contributors would be saying if NR decided that it was actually too expensive to adapt Brunel’s famous bridges on the GWR, and decided to demolish them and replace them with simple iron girder bridges….

Bricks and glasshouses, no doubt.

The "all-encompassing statutory powers" were granted to the railways back in the 19th century in the Acts of Parliament authorising their initial construction and inherited by successor companies since then, so you'll have to blame the Victorians for the despoilation of the countryside in the 21st century.

I really have no idea what your beef is when one considers that the M40 was smashed through the Chilterns, the M4 across the North Wessex Downs and the Lune Gorge in Lancashire had the M6 driven through it. Look at a 'before' picture of the Lune Gorge with just the WCML and the A6 road through it and look at an 'after' one showing the land take and visual impact of the motorway and try telling us that the impact of the WCML catenary in that area is in any way comparable.

Many of the other things you are burbling on about are coming to pass as a result of spending cuts and from the Government's plans to sweep away much of the planning system.

Several Brunel bridges have been demolished, as there was no alternative way to achieve the necessary clearances for the catenary.

And could you enlighten us as to exactly what your alternative plan for delivering 25kv traction current to trains is, because I, for one, would be very interested to know how we should be going about it if catenary is just not acceptable to you? Which I thought was your original point before you threw in all this other stuff.

 

[Tio Terry]

In respect of "Brunel's famous bridges" I'm quite sure that if he was still alive he would realise that some of these are no longer fit for purpose given the changes in Railways since they were designed and built. Being an enlightened and progressive Engineer I'm sure he would understand why some needed to go.

I'm equally sure he would be aghast at the plans to lower tracks under some bridges to gain clearance for overhead lines. His abiding legacy is the flat and straight (as possible) track bed, he would most certainly not be happy with putting dips in it under bridges, he would rather they were rebuilt.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

In respect of "Brunel's famous bridges" I'm quite sure that if he was still alive he would realise that some of these are no longer fit for purpose given the changes in Railways since they were designed and built. Being an enlightened and progressive Engineer I'm sure he would understand why some needed to go.

I'm equally sure he would be aghast at the plans to lower tracks under some bridges to gain clearance for overhead lines. His abiding legacy is the flat and straight (as possible) track bed, he would most certainly not be happy with putting dips in it under bridges, he would rather they were rebuilt.

I totally agree +1

 

[edwin_m]

I've a feeling Brunel wouldn't have had much time for electricity, whereas one of the Stephensons is reputed to have predicted it would be the future for rail.

 

[Who Cares]

A few answers due from me this time, I suppose, in relation to questions asked and comments made….

But first, just to make clear to those suspecting me of being a NIMBY….I do not live in the area I’m talking about….Since retiring a few years ago, I live in Provence, in the Var, although I did previously live in a village in this particular AONB for about 15 years….Since visiting friends at Christmas who still live there, and seeing the horrendous environmental results of this particular Project, I offered to help the affected communities in their battles to get NR to live up to their previous commitments to mitigate the effects of the Project on the affected villages and communities but which never actually happened. Thanks to the wonderful combination of retirement and this internet thing, I’m able to do research for these communities before they finally get to have the meetings with NR which should have taken place three or four years ago….A quick Google brought me to this forum and this particular thread and which was the reason for my original question re painting of the pylons ( or whatever is the correct technical term ) for the trackside metallic supports which will carry the overhead wires.

Since then, I’ve received some useful and helpful information and again my Thanks to those contributors. I’ve also received numerous replies and questions which, quite honestly, have ranged from the sarcastic, through the myopic, to a few genuine nuggets which can only have been written by NR staff and ex-staff.

But as I said, a few quick replies of my own to those less than helpful contributors and to those asking me questions….

DARLORICH – Nothing! You have a problem with Berkshire ?

AM9 – After your first sarcastic reply, you have posted two additional replies which denegrate any reference to or justification for AONB’s….I notice you live in Snorlbens, that suburb of easy-on-the-eye Watford (as my ex-colleagues during 20 years working in Amersham used to call and refer to St Albans)….Your comments such as ‘preserved in aspic by those who like them’..’twee little cottages or stone walls’…’pastiche of the UK landscape’…say it all, really, and might cause casual readers on here to think that you’re perhaps a wee bit jealous of people who do live in this particular AONB and other ANOB’s and not in Snorlbens, near Watford….But surely not !!

On a more general note – to AINSWORTH and JIMM I’d say that I understand and agree with you regarding previous examples of insensitive and inappropriate development or development in inappropriate places….But please let’s not work from the basis that two wrongs make a right….

And finally to AM9 ( and courteously this time, without equal sarcasm ) and to JIMM once more, a combined response ….

AM9 – you refer to the societal and fundamental need for rail routes across the country….Just a reminder that the GWR has served the economy well for closing on 200 years, and continues to serve the economy quite well….Is it really worth the virtual destruction of an AONB plus expenditure of £2 billion at a time of not exactly affluence, to cut 20 minutes from the journey time from Sth Wales to West London given the environmental consequences which this Project will leave behind in a particularly beautiful part of the South East of England….There are many thousands of people in the area who happen to think not but were and continue to be denied the opportunities to propose better solutions and mitigation….

Which brings me to JIMM’s question ( and an additional couple of questions from me if I may, please ) of how I would deliver 25kv traction without overhead catenary….Simple answer, I wouldn’t….Why impose the environmental consequences on these communities and this area in general in creating a rail track which will permit speeds up to 140 mph ( is it ? ) when, almost half the traffic between Reading > Swindon / Oxford is Freight Traffic or ‘ All stops to Oxford ‘ which will NOT be able to travel at 140 mph and will still be chugging along at 70 / 80 mph or so…. As NR are currently declining to provide this information, perhaps some of those of you here could provide the answer to two additional questions, please ?

1. Does anyone have the current and projected percentages for Freight movements on the Reading > Swindon / Oxford lines ? In the last 10 years or so, these have risen to perhaps 40% of all traffic between Reading > Swindon / Oxford and appear set to increase from this percentage as more and more freight traffic transitions from road to rail….
2. Have any Fright operators using these lines ( DB Schenker, etc ) yet ordered new engines to take advantage of the electrification and 140mph capability ?

As always, many Thanks in advance….

And finally to HOWARDGWR – Please feel free to expand your reply and mail it to me, if you wish and if you consider that to be the best way to communicate….

 

[AM9]

AM9 – you refer to the societal and fundamental need for rail routes across the country….Just a reminder that the GWR has served the economy well for closing on 200 years, and continues to serve the economy quite well….Is it really worth the virtual destruction of an AONB plus expenditure of £2 billion at a time of not exactly affluence, to cut 20 minutes from the journey time from Sth Wales to West London given the environmental consequences which this Project will leave behind in a particularly beautiful part of the South East of England….There are many thousands of people in the area who happen to think not but were and continue to be denied the opportunities to propose better solutions and mitigation….

I can't see how anything I have written about the GWML electrification in this thread or any other gives rise to comments about cutting 20 minutes from a journey time. If you do, then your understanding of what this electrification is for is as wrong as others' anti-HS2 arguments are. Electrification of mainline railways is about cleaning their act up not only in AONBs but more importantly where people live.
In effect, since electricity generating stations aren't usually located in 'beauty spots', those areas gain by rail electrification as a means of pollution reduction, unless those areas are 'virtually destroyed' (to use your language), by the odd wind turbine being visible, or a couple of power lines.
The 'don't change anything' position seems to underly your comments, so maybe you would preferred the line to stay the same as it was nearly 200years ago, i.e. steam trains running on jointed track on the top of 40ft embankments with little or no screeneing from trees, (to prevent even worse environmental damage).
You claim not to be a NIMBY, but admit that you are an agent for NIMBYs in an area that you once lived in (and presumably still have presonal attachment to). There's not that much difference in your motives, it's just that you don't actually live there.
As far as £2BN goes, trains, track, supporting infrastructure and amenity value of the service all need to be updated form time to time. Not to do so would be irresponsible, as there is a financial as well as societal payback, and whilst all major western economies arestill recovering from a period of low performance, just putting things off doesn't necessarily save money overall, but just think how many schools or hospitals it could build! Not that many actually, and they won't last as long as the rail infrastructure will anyway.

 

[jimm]

I see, so let's forget about silly electric trains and stick with diesels so there isn't any nasty catenary needed. Hardly very environmentally-friendly on a global warming basis but at least there are no oil wells in the Chilterns AONB to spoil the views there, so that's okay. I take it you never set foot on a TGV in France on principle, since they will insist on using electricity to power them.

Suggesting that adding catenary to a sliver of a railway line amounts to

the virtual destruction of an AONB

that covers 830 sq km is laughable, especially when the M1 and M40 already run through it. Any 'harm' that the railway line does pales into insignificance set against Christmas Common cutting on the M40.

Just because some trains aren't running at the maximum line speed doesn't mean they can't benefit from electric traction in terms of improved acceleration, use of regenerative braking etc, etc, such as, er, heavy freight trains. The electrification of the Woodhead route across the Pennines was authorised in the 1930s precisely because of the benefits it would bring in terms of improving the operation of freight traffic, rather than the passenger services.

There are plenty of underemployed electric locos in the UK at the moment, which is why DB is sending 92s to Romania and Bulgaria, which hardly suggests a need to order any more in the short term - and until the electrification muddle is resolved and some sort of schedule for the Electric Spine scheme emerges, no one is going to even bother thinking about ordering any more.

And if you think painting stuff green is going to make it 'vanish' then I suggest you take a look at the footbridge at Stratford-upon-Avon Parkway station http://www.petertandy.co.uk/172216_2S06_SonA_Pway_19121

 

[Starmill]

Which brings me to JIMM’s question ( and an additional couple of questions from me if I may, please ) of how I would deliver 25kv traction without overhead catenary….Simple answer, I wouldn’t….Why impose the environmental consequences on these communities and this area in general in creating a rail track which will permit speeds up to 140 mph ( is it ? ) when, almost half the traffic between Reading > Swindon / Oxford is Freight Traffic or ‘ All stops to Oxford ‘ which will NOT be able to travel at 140 mph and will still be chugging along at 70 / 80 mph or so…. As NR are currently declining to provide this information, perhaps some of those of you here could provide the answer to two additional questions, please ?

Stopping trains need wires more than fast ones - they will see much better jounreytime decreases because of reduced acceleration and deceleration times, and the acceleration is what causes the most emissions.

A lot more electrification than what is actually being done needs doing - at least we are being nice and ambitious - oh wait.

The 'environmental consequences' of putting up overhead wires are tiny - this, this and this on the other hand I wouldn't be so sure of!

 

[Grumpy]

"horrendous environmental results"," virtual destruction of an AONB."
Surely this is a wind up merchant. Cant believe you've fallen for it

 

[Aictos]

I hadn't realised that the ECML had its heritage ignored and destroyed by BR when the electrification masts went up! I mean York, Newcastle, Darlington, Edinburgh Waverley, the Royal Border Bridge, the High Level Bridge, the King Edward VII Bridge and the views north of Newcastle all ruined by electrification. Heck throw in St Pancras into that!

I'm sorry but I don't buy it. What happened on the WCML in the 60s was cultural vandalism but everything that's happened since then has always been done in a sympathetic way with the heritage of the railway but balancing the needs of the modern railway. BR and Network Rail have all done a very good job in my view.

Perhaps the strangest thing though is that I'm sure that if we could ring up the likes of Brunel and the Stephenson's via a Ouija Board they'd be telling is to tear down their infrastructure and put up some new stuff that did the job that was required and damn the heritage!

I quite agree, you have forgotten Kings Cross though when they refurbished it, the OHL is now as discreet as the OHL at the likes of York, Newcastle, Darlington etc....

 

[LexyBoy]

Just a reminder that the GWR has served the economy well for closing on 200 years, and continues to serve the economy quite well….Is it really worth the virtual destruction of an AONB plus expenditure of £2 billion at a time of not exactly affluence, to cut 20 minutes from the journey time from Sth Wales to West London given the environmental consequences which this Project will leave behind in a particularly beautiful part of the South East of England….There are many thousands of people in the area who happen to think not but were and continue to be denied the opportunities to propose better solutions and mitigation….

What are the "better solutions and mitigation" that you propose, and to whom are you making them? Making such overblown claims about the AONB being "destroyed" doesn't help your cause.

I really think that once the masts and trackside work has weathered in a little, and the shock of the new is gone, it just won't be noticed.

Which brings me to JIMM’s question ( and an additional couple of questions from me if I may, please ) of how I would deliver 25kv traction without overhead catenary….Simple answer, I wouldn’t….Why impose the environmental consequences on these communities and this area in general in creating a rail track which will permit speeds up to 140 mph ( is it ? ) when, almost half the traffic between Reading > Swindon / Oxford is Freight Traffic or ‘ All stops to Oxford ‘

You wouldn't electrify? This would leave one of the busiest lines in the country reliant on increasingly expensive (to buy and run), slow, and polluting diesel trains. With noisy engines revving up whenever they leave stations. Why impose the environmental consequences on the rest of the world?

Electrification isn't being done to get 140 mph (there's no immediate plans for that, though the option is there). Faster journeys are a benefit, and this will be greatest in the Thames Valley where the stopping services will be sped up most with faster acceleration. Electric trains are much cheaper to run, last longer and cause less wear on the track, and aren't tied to fossil fuels. These are the reasons NR is keen to electrify, and why many countries did so years ago (such as Switzerland, not famed for its blighted countryside).

I'd be interested to know which villages you represent. Having been to Pangbourne recently for a swim I didn't think the electrification was particularly intrusive. Yes, you can see the masts, but they hardly dominate (any more than the massive embankment of the railway does already). If I lived there (and I nearly did move there last year) I think the noise of the Turbos chugging along out of the station would be more annoying.

---

In "works" news, I noticed this morning that there's a stretch near Tilehurst where the wire-danglers (technical term) have been installed on the gantries.

 

[fgwrich]

Commuter trains chugging around at 70-80 MPH? Oh, So FGW & The Thames Valley isn't getting 100 MPH 365s cascaded from Great Northern for the semi fasts and 110 MPH 387s for the Fast services then?

 

[33Hz]

This poster is either trolling or clutching at straws in order to help out friends and relatives. "Destruction of an AONB" says it all. I say NR should be more bold and paint the things blue like the Spanish have on their high speed tracks. They actually look quite smart.

As for living near the route being upgraded - I actually live next to a route that (hopefully) will be upgraded from 3rd rail to OHLE and I say bring it on. The more freight that can be moved to electric, the better.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

AONB

This has been raised (and ignored) already, but I'm going to raise it again.

This is what the Great Western Railway looked like 100 years ago. I trust you've noticed the simply enormous signal telegraphy posts, the print is too old to show clearly the telegraph wires, but there are something in the region of 60 to 70 wires running parallel to the railway track. The posts here are getting on for some 60ft in height at this location, quite substantially taller than the electrification masts being erected currently.

http://freepages.nostalgia.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cyberheritage/cary2.jpg gives an excellent idea of what the route used to look like in recent memory, in fact, with a modern train for scale.

Electrification is doing nothing but taking the railway back to how it looked for the vast majority of its lifetime, and these images are an excellent indication of how the railway and the surrounding landscape constantly changes and evolves.

 

[AM9]

This poster is either trolling or clutching at straws in order to help out friends and relatives.

I would imagine that we won't see any more posts from him as he's been rumbled.