Great Western Electrification Progress

[CdBrux]

Spain painted all the steelwork used on AVE lines a nice dark blue. Personally I think it looks very smart.

I suspect dark blue steework with a dark blue sky behind it....!
But that viaduct... it 'destroys' the valley!!

 

[jimm]

Spain painted all the steelwork used on AVE lines a nice dark blue. Personally I think it looks very smart.

Blue may be the colour used on recently-built AVE lines but there's a lot of galvanised stuff out there too. As for the idea that painting will help catenary to blend in, I think the jury's still out.

http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/12e75f668...elona-girona-figueres-train-leaves-d21t3f.jpg

 

[HowardGWR]

Oldfield Park and Keynsham now have big holes being dug on either side of the tracks.

My technical update for the week

Much appreciated amongst all this appearance discussion.....

But on that............

will the masts in Bath be clad with Cotswold stone?

 

[ScotGG]

Dark blue does stand out more than dark green which I believe is proven the most 'neutral' and thus 'invisible' to most in tests.

If so difficult to paint galvanised steel how have the Spanish managed it, albeit with a colour that wouldn't work well here?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Dark blue does stand out more than dark green which I believe is proven the most 'neutral' and thus 'invisible' to most in tests.

If so difficult to paint galvanised steel how have the Spanish managed it, albeit with a colour that wouldn't work well here?

It's been repeated several times, but galvanised structures provide the lowest visual impact for the UK, which is why they're used.

There's a couple of reasons - firstly, the British public are familiar with galvanised structures - electricity pylons, crash barriers, lamp posts and existing electrification infrastructure. The mind grows used to such structures and will eventually they'll not be something you notice unless consciously paying attention for them.

How many people actually noticed electrification masts on their commute into work this morning, as an example, or how many drivers noticed lamp posts when they were out and about.

Secondly, and it's a bit of a cliché, but Britain is overcast and a bit grey on a large number of days per year, even on sunny days, there tends to be clouds in the sky, so for more days of the year, the masts really blend in to the surrounding skyscape, especially for those railway lines that sit on embankments and the masts are silhouetted against the sky, which is a fair number in the UK.

If Britain enjoyed the sort of weather and frequently clear blue skies that Spain enjoys, we would have a different standard for our electrification infrastructure.

 

[Emblematic]

If so difficult to paint galvanised steel how have the Spanish managed it, albeit with a colour that wouldn't work well here?

It may well be a factory applied coating rather than standard air-dry paint. Most modern cars have galvanised panels with factory applied finishes which outlast the vehicle. These masts may not even be galvanised, the paīnt may be part of the corrosion protection system. Spanish conditions are slightly different to the UK, I suspect galvanised finishes could stay bright for a long time in Spain without weathering.

 

[ian959]

Stainless steel does look ugly.

Well that explains the budget blowout!!

 

[ScotGG]

It's been repeated several times, but galvanised structures provide the lowest visual impact for the UK, which is why they're used.

There's a couple of reasons - firstly, the British public are familiar with galvanised structures - electricity pylons, crash barriers, lamp posts and existing electrification infrastructure. The mind grows used to such structures and will eventually they'll not be something you notice unless consciously paying attention for them.

How many people actually noticed electrification masts on their commute into work this morning, as an example, or how many drivers noticed lamp posts when they were out and about.

Secondly, and it's a bit of a cliché, but Britain is overcast and a bit grey on a large number of days per year, even on sunny days, there tends to be clouds in the sky, so for more days of the year, the masts really blend in to the surrounding skyscape, especially for those railway lines that sit on embankments and the masts are silhouetted against the sky, which is a fair number in the UK.

If Britain enjoyed the sort of weather and frequently clear blue skies that Spain enjoys, we would have a different standard for our electrification infrastructure.

Got any evidence grey/unpainted is less visible? The New Scientist reported that to the human eye very dark green is far better for integration into landscapes for various signs, poles, structures etc, followed by browns and black, then unpainted steel, hence why most lamp posts are painted. Local authority and TfL guidance is always to paint signage and poles, and specifies colours that work best. Unpainted is at the bottom, and grey is now discourage, as it stands out and many find it ugly and drab.

The posts, lights etc that aren't painted in other areas are very often down to penny pinching.

 

[Mintona]

There are a few piles in the ground around Llanwern West Jn alongside the up main - are these the first ones in Wales (other than Maliphant depot)? There's also more lying down ready to be put in on the way up towards Bishton Flyover. Things starting to progress in South Wales
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Forgot to add, there's also quite a lot of piles in, especially on the up side, between Pilning and Patchway Tunnel. Good to see.

 

[76020]

I have just come back from Bristol TM to London today, I did the reverse journey seven days ago, the train went via Bristol Parkway as the line from Swindon to Bath is blocked due to electrification works, so the official line states but I did see some trains advertise to go on this route, single line working perhaps?
Since I travelled on this line six weeks ago this is what caught my eye as regards noticeable progress, these observations on the relief lines, the most advance section is between Tilehurst and Pangbourne where I counted six dangles on the way out last Saturday and twenty coming back today, these are OHLE arms bolted to the cross section above, wiring is still quiet a way off though.
Around the Burham area a lot more masts have appeared, I would say around 40-50 with around half of them with cross arms, there are about six masts just west of Iver Station as well.
Between Airport Junction and Reading I would say completed piling is about 50-55% now, there are none in Sonning cutting, but plenty of scrapes.
Between Didcot and Swindon piling completed is around the 60-65% mark.
I did not travel west of Swindon last time so I cannot comment west of of here but new to me is between Swindon and Wotton Bassett Junction where piling is about 30-35% complete with all of them towards the Wootton Bassett end.
So some good progress I feel, I doing London-Cardiff return in three weeks time so hopefully more good news then.
London-Bristol by end of 2016?, I would not bet on it, but who knows.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There are a few piles in the ground around Llanwern West Jn alongside the up main - are these the first ones in Wales (other than Maliphant depot)? There's also more lying down ready to be put in on the way up towards Bishton Flyover. Things starting to progress in South Wales
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Forgot to add, there's also quite a lot of piles in, especially on the up side, between Pilning and Patchway Tunnel. Good to see.

It would be nice to know if the piles going in west of Bristol Parkway are being done by the HOPS train, or by another team/set of kit.
You'd think the HOPS kit would be concentrated further east to get it done first.
It sounds like we will soon know what length of the relief lines on the SWML is going to be wired - hopefully all of it.

 

[Class 170101]

I hope NR are using the Swindon to Bath closure to install OLE kit on the closed sections of line as part of the Box Tunnel closure but somehow from reading the project's twitter feed it doesn't look like it.

 

[edwin_m]

It sounds to me as if the HOPS train is having problems on certain sections due to ground conditions, signalling cables or some other issues. So it may be that it is now being used on those sections where the problems are thought not to apply, and more conventional equipment being deployed on the more difficult parts of the routes.

 

[swt_passenger]

It sounds to me as if the HOPS train is having problems on certain sections due to ground conditions, signalling cables or some other issues. So it may be that it is now being used on those sections where the problems are thought not to apply, and more conventional equipment being deployed on the more difficult parts of the routes.

Someone posted a link to a NR document a while back (maybe in a different forum though) that revealed that the HOPS train was only ever planned to do about 45% of the work anyway - I don't think it should be seen as the main source of the delays.

 

[trainlogger]

It would be nice to know if the piles going in west of Bristol Parkway are being done by the HOPS train, or by another team/set of kit.
You'd think the HOPS kit would be concentrated further east to get it done first.
It sounds like we will soon know what length of the relief lines on the SWML is going to be wired - hopefully all of it.

Road-rail vehicles operated by Keltbray have been piling in the Pilning area in the last few weeks.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Road-rail vehicles operated by Keltbray have been piling in the Pilning area in the last few weeks.

Excellent - that means all the eggs are not in the HOPS basket, not even on the main line.
I suppose the next question is: when will they start on the Severn Tunnel?
That's going to present some interesting challenges.

 

[trainlogger]

Excellent - that means all the eggs are not in the HOPS basket, not even on the main line.
I suppose the next question is: when will they start on the Severn Tunnel?
That's going to present some interesting challenges.

There are several 50-hour weekend closures scheduled for November/December for "Track/OLE" work.

 

[Class 170101]

I thought Severn Tunnel was meant to be completed by a long blockade?

Edit 12 September to 21 October 2016 - six week closure of tunnel - trains diverted via Gloucester.

 

[snowball]

The latest Modern Railways mentions that a rigid overhead conductor rail will be used in the tunnel. I think that may be the first confirmation on a subject on which there's been speculation here and elsewhere.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought Severn Tunnel was meant to be completed by a long blockade?

Edit 12 September to 21 October 2016 - six week closure of tunnel - trains diverted via Gloucester.

Having multiple 50 hr (weekend) blocks this year as well as a 6 week closure next year isn't really a contradiction though. They'll need as much access as they can possibly get.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Having multiple 50 hr (weekend) blocks this year as well as a 6 week closure next year isn't really a contradiction though. They'll need as much access as they can possibly get.

Presumably NR can also work on the Wootton Bassett-Bristol Parkway section during these blocks.

 

[HowardGWR]

Presumably NR can also work on the Wootton Bassett-Bristol Parkway section during these blocks.

I keep thinking it was a pity that the Holt triangle was not reinstated and then I remind myself that we are using multiple units with driving positions at each end. I suppose the BCR just does not stand up, just for diversions. It (the northern bit) was originally there for the route via Devizes of course.

 

[brad465]

I notice that the service to Temple Meads from Paddington is faster in this 6 week period than before (1h 30m instead of 1h38m), a reminder of the faster less stopping service of the BR era, speaking as someone who always believes fast services should not be getting slower with more station stops.

 

[TheNewNo2]

I have just come back from Bristol TM to London today, I did the reverse journey seven days ago, the train went via Bristol Parkway as the line from Swindon to Bath is blocked due to electrification works, so the official line states but I did see some trains advertise to go on this route, single line working perhaps?
Since I travelled on this line six weeks ago this is what caught my eye as regards noticeable progress, these observations on the relief lines, the most advance section is between Tilehurst and Pangbourne where I counted six dangles on the way out last Saturday and twenty coming back today, these are OHLE arms bolted to the cross section above, wiring is still quiet a way off though.
Around the Burham area a lot more masts have appeared, I would say around 40-50 with around half of them with cross arms, there are about six masts just west of Iver Station as well.
Between Airport Junction and Reading I would say completed piling is about 50-55% now, there are none in Sonning cutting, but plenty of scrapes.
Between Didcot and Swindon piling completed is around the 60-65% mark.
I did not travel west of Swindon last time so I cannot comment west of of here but new to me is between Swindon and Wotton Bassett Junction where piling is about 30-35% complete with all of them towards the Wootton Bassett end.
So some good progress I feel, I doing London-Cardiff return in three weeks time so hopefully more good news then.
London-Bristol by end of 2016?, I would not bet on it, but who knows.

I did the Bristol to London via Parkway trip today, lots of OLE equipment between Cholsey and Tilehurst, and even a borer seen at one point. There also appears to have been some minor works on Filton bank - temporary railings have been installed in places.

I notice that the service to Temple Meads from Paddington is faster in this 6 week period than before (1h 30m instead of 1h38m), a reminder of the faster less stopping service of the BR era, speaking as someone who always believes fast services should not be getting slower with more station stops.

The trip via Parkway was nice, and I also did the trip via Melksham this week for good measure. Moreover quiet coach at the buffer stops at Paddington is nice!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I notice that the service to Temple Meads from Paddington is faster in this 6 week period than before (1h 30m instead of 1h38m), a reminder of the faster less stopping service of the BR era, speaking as someone who always believes fast services should not be getting slower with more station stops.

Modern Railways this month says the IEP timetable is planned to offer journey times of 1h 20m Paddington-Temple Meads with one stop at Bristol Parkway (2tph).
Via Bath 1h34m (also 2tph).

 

[Who Cares]

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.

Not too sure that I have ever implied or attributed 140mph directly to yourself….And if I have, apologies….As I understand it, one of the objectives / benefits of the project is to permit 140mph speeds and is one of the main reasons that NR have said that Lineside masts ( a la ECML ) through the AONB are currently unsuitable for these speeds and is why they were rejected by NR for this project – although earlier this month LNW-GW JOINT stated that they can be adapted ….As for being an Agent for NIMBYs, I think the use of these two words are inaccurate – as I’ve explained previously….We’ve already discussed the Societal need for electrification of the GLR, and I think we will always have tangentially opposed views on this, but NR’s duty is simply to provide the infrastructure and platform for the TOCs to operate their own services….That’s all…. To a Layman such as myself, it’s’ typical of the shambles that is the current UK railway system and network that NR can go ahead and spend £2 billion of taxpayers money to provide a network and platform for the TOC’s to run new equipment, faster trains, more frequent service, etc, etc, but can do nothing about it if the TOCs decide not to or to stick with the same diesel powered equipment - refer to JIMM’s post # 1192 which appears to confirm that none of the freight operators using the Reading > Oxford / Swindon line have yet ordered new electric engines to take advantage of this particular piece of electrification to be provided for them because at the moment they don’t know when they’ll ever be able to run totally ‘point-to-point’ from Southampton throughout the UK….Presumably it’s the same situation with XCountry, but I stand to be corrected….

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.

Nothing against electrification, but electricity doesn’t just ‘appear’ in the UK – you firstly have to transport or pump fossil fuels half way round the world before burning it to produce electricity….Electrification just shifts the pollution from trackside to the area where the fossil fuels are burned to create the electricity – but that’s another debate and nothing to do with why I joined this thread….M40, Christmas Common, etc, I’ve already said I agree with you – but I also asked that we work on the basis that two wrongs don’t make a right….And maybe you could write to NR on my behalf and explain that as this just a ‘sliver’ of mileage along the whole Paddington > Wales / West of England route, maybe they could accommodate the suggestions of those people who are asking for a rethink and changes to the infrastructure which has already been implanted….And quite agree re ‘Stratford Green’ which is why I don’t think I’d trust NR even if they did agree to repaint the pylons and gantries ( or whatever we want to call them ) as they might do the same thing out of spite….Finally, re this Post and your Post # 1210 re the TGVs here – maybe this would make an excellent, but separate thread or let’s talk through personal mail….In a nutshell, I rarely use them….Nothing to do with electrification, etc, as France produces around 75% of its electricity from Nuclear ( and of which I certainly approve and prefer to burning fossil fuels to create electricity ) compared to less than 20% in the UK – it’s just that I live 60+miles from the nearest TGV station and rarely go north of Avignon….

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.

As I said above, although electrification of railways ‘overall’ isn’t in my own opinion such a bad thing, my own conclusion based on the last few months that I have been researching this particular Project is that the Project is the ******* lovechild of NR trying to find work for itself and the then Labour Government agreeing to anything put in front of it as it tried to spend its way out of recession….The result is a dog’s breakfast of a patchwork of an electrified / not electrified UK rail network; massive Project overspend at a time when the UK perhaps can least afford it because it was not properly researched, cost-estimated and planned; will end in a perfect excuse for future governments to distrust every future investment proposal from NR for years, perhaps decades, and, as someone on here said a few months ago, NR’s credit card has now been cut up - you ask, I’ll give you a hundred more opinions, but again that’s not why I came to this forum and thread….Nevertheless, the people in the Goring Gap and AONB for whom I do the research are not, generally, anti-electrification, even not anti this Project….All they are seeking is for NR to honour its social responsibilities re NR’s own Environmental Risk Statement vis-à-vis the electrification of the line through the AONB and, at the very least, just paint the pylons and gantries an anonymous colour – but which, to date, NR have replied with their ‘ we’ll do what we want, how we want, where we want ‘…Agreed already – the AONB isn’t ‘ virtually destroyed ‘ and is, in retrospect, an overstatement – but is certainly severely impacted by this Project ….And you ask for who ? The communities along the Gorng Gap - my mailing list is to individuals and the questions asked / discussed indicates perhaps Tilehurst ( but not sure ), certainly Purley, Pangbourne, Goring, South Stoke, Moulsford , Cholsey, and perhaps but not sure, Culham and Appleford

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?

Interesting, but to what benefit if the local services have to be threaded into the non-electrified Freight movements along the slow lines between Reading and Oxford….Is there any confirmation from FGW that the local stopping services between Paddington > Oxford will have shorter scheduled journey times with electric trains? I’d appreciate it if you can post a link….Thanks….

Are you Simon Jenkins?

If you mean Simon Jenkins journalist / environmentalist, absolutely not….As I said in a previous post, any regular in any bar / restaurant in Bormes-les-Mimosas could most likely tell you my name if you mention X-Trail and useless boules player....

The problem is that progress has to be made, originally cutting the GWR through the North Wessex Downs and Cotswolds changed the landscape for better or worse. Catenary is not permanent infrastructure to extent that a new bridge, cutting or embankment would be. We are ultimately to put some perspective on the matter talking about a total of 11 route miles with the AONB area. It may be that in future years a better method of powering trains is developed and OLE then removed.

Bath by the way is not a AONB but a UNESCO world heritage site.

How would you propose the mitigate the impact of the scheme? The NR environmental impact assessment puts the scheme as moderate adverse and large adverse in the area in question.

From construction and until the mid 80's some 150 years the route had telegraph poles and wire running along side which as has been pointed out where as visually intrusive. There isn't really much that can be done on a practical level the masts are the masts and no matter how hard you wish these can not be made to disappear.

Should NR have consulted with local communities better to explain what was being done and why, yes, would this have any effect on the final scheme probably not.

I’ve already made clear, I hope, that I am connected only with people associated with the Goring Gap and I can only discuss possible mitigation in this area as I haven’t any knowledge / connection with people and the status of this Project outside this area….I’ll post an update tomorrow on the status of mitigation which might have been and might still be possible in the Goring Gap….

 

[NotATrainspott]

To a Layman such as myself, it’s’ typical of the shambles that is the current UK railway system and network that NR can go ahead and spend £2 billion of taxpayers money to provide a network and platform for the TOC’s to run new equipment, faster trains, more frequent service, etc, etc, but can do nothing about it if the TOCs decide not to or to stick with the same diesel powered equipment - refer to JIMM’s post # 1192 which appears to confirm that none of the freight operators using the Reading > Oxford / Swindon line have yet ordered new electric engines to take advantage of this particular piece of electrification to be provided for them because at the moment they don’t know when they’ll ever be able to run totally ‘point-to-point’ from Southampton throughout the UK….Presumably it’s the same situation with XCountry, but I stand to be corrected….

NR does plan electrification alongside the rail operators, ROSCOs and train manufacturers. The GWML electrification is happening alongside the introduction of a new fleet of electric trains, of which some will have the capability to run on diesel power to reach destinations beyond the scope of the electrification project. Indeed, First Great Western and the DfT are in negotiations to sort out replacing the only long-distance trains that would be left not using the overhead wires with ones which would.

The freight operators will not commit to buying new electric locomotives because an electric locomotive is only useful if a freight flow has wires all the way. The new Class 88 locomotive has a last-mile diesel engine which could mean that it wouldn't be necessary to have the wires run all the way from one terminal to another, but it would still be necessary to have wires along 99% of a route. Until the new wires to Oxford are then connected to new wires to the rest of the electrified network, e.g. the electric spine works to Nuneaton or the soon-to-be-electrified East-West rail line to the WCML and MML, there won't be any way electric freight could be run. CrossCountry is in a similar situation, as their Manchester-South Coast trains which will run between Reading and Oxford cannot be converted to electric only running until there are wires to Birmingham. However, as soon as those wires are in place, CrossCountry will be more than willing to switch over as soon as possible as they need to use the diesel trains that would be freed up on other routes to increase capacity.

JIMM – Post # 1192 - Nothing against electrification, but electricity doesn’t just ‘appear’ in the UK – you firstly have to transport or pump fossil fuels half way round the world before burning it to produce electricity….Electrification just shifts the pollution from trackside to the area where the fossil fuels are burned to create the electricity – but that’s another debate and nothing to do with why I joined this thread….M40, Christmas Common, etc, I’ve already said I agree with you – but I also asked that we work on the basis that two wrongs don’t make a right….And maybe you could write to NR on my behalf and explain that as this just a ‘sliver’ of mileage along the whole Paddington > Wales / West of England route, maybe they could accommodate the suggestions of those people who are asking for a rethink and changes to the infrastructure which has already been implanted….And quite agree re ‘Stratford Green’ which is why I don’t think I’d trust NR even if they did agree to repaint the pylons and gantries ( or whatever we want to call them ) as they might do the same thing out of spite….Finally, re this Post and your Post # 1210 re the TGVs here – maybe this would make an excellent, but separate thread or let’s talk through personal mail….In a nutshell, I rarely use them….Nothing to do with electrification, etc, as France produces around 75% of its electricity from Nuclear ( and of which I certainly approve and prefer to burning fossil fuels to create electricity ) compared to less than 20% in the UK – it’s just that I live 60+miles from the nearest TGV station and rarely go north of Avignon….

I would point out that the UK's balance of electricity sources is becoming more and more renewable and zero-carbon every year. Network Rail is the single largest purchaser of electricity in Great Britain, actually, using approximately 1.5% of the entire supply, and so they have enormous leverage to get the carbon footprint of their electricity supply reduced. That isn't just hypothetical: NR actually awarded a 10-year supply contract in 2013 to EDF, with all 3.2TWh being supplied by EDF's nuclear power stations.

 

[Who Cares]

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.

Your post not ignored….As I said last week, I would reply when able….

Of course, take any picture along the, what, 300 or 400 miles of GWR track and there were plenty of miles of track without adjoining trees but with adjoining signal telegraphy posts….

However, I’ll see your picture and raise you mine….

http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=40940

http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=40714

Hardly ‘ taking the railway back to how it looked for the vast majority of its lifetime ‘ as you stated….

These development rights can be traced back to the majority of railway construction authorisation acts and have appeared in subsequent railway/transport and/or planning acts/orders.

The Transport Act, 1962, which established the British Railways Board, gave the British Railways Board and the British Waterways Board the power to develop their land in any way they saw fit, prior to that, the Transport Act, 1947 gave the British Transport Commission almost total carte blanche to do as they pleased, specifically, the BTC was given the powers to construct, manufacture, purchase, maintain and repair anything needed to carry out the authorised business of the BTC, and to do all other things which in the opinion of the Commission are necessary to allow the proper operation of the business.

You also said that works were being carried out under Schedule 2, Part 11 of the 1995 order, but Schedule 2, Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 doesn't give Network Rail any powers of permitted development, it's the part of the order which allows powers granted through separate Acts of Parliament or Orders approved by Parliament to be used to carry out development work. That could be an Act or Order made as a result of Network Rail's application, or anything prior to Network Rail coming into existence, it could be something made prior to the British Railways Board or British Transport Commission coming into existence.

Part 17 is the part which gives Network Rail, as a railway undertaker, specific permitted development powers, and is included to cover instances where previous acts which included specific or permitted development have been repealed, the permitted development needed is unduly complicated because routes were built under two or more Acts of Parliament, or those Acts don't contain the necessary provisions for what Network Rail intends, which comes about because some of these Acts are 150 years old.

Sorry to disappoint you but I can assure you that NR's powers are derived from 19th century - as Philip Phlopp has explained above - and to make sure that everyone understands this, NR appends copies of the original Acts of Parliament to applications for prior consent submitted to planning authorities, such as this one when a new footbridge was built at Honeybourne station. Frightfully old hat, I know, but it is the law of the land...

http://wam.wychavon.gov.uk/WAM/doc/...&contentType=application/pdf&location=volume2

Taken from the full set of thumbnails of the planning documents here

http://wam.wychavon.gov.uk/WAM/show...id=720078&appid=1001&docType=Application Form

And if you want a semi-informed discussion, then perhaps try cutting out silly sweeping statements such as "the virtual destruction of an AONB" and come up with a more informed argument than one along the lines of 'the railway should not be allowed to have overhead electric catenary to power its trains' - despite that being the way that most modern railways do it, PS you still haven't answered my question about whether you use TGVs powered in this frightful fashion through some not unattractive parts of France - and that trees should not be removed even if 30 years ago they wouldn't have been there in the first place and there are some pretty basic safety reasons why they need to be removed, unless your friends are keen on being in the vicinity of 25,000v electrical arcs.

Semantics….The Environmental Statement Volume 1A prepared by Atkins for NR in October 2012 states quite clearly -

1.3 Legislative Basis

1.3.1 The Scheme would be undertaken by Network Rail, using its Permitted Development Rights under the powers of Schedule 2, Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended (GDPO). The Rights allow Network Rail to undertake development authorised by a local or private Act of Parliament, or an Order approved by both Houses of Parliament. The Permitted Development approach also entails the obtaining of Prior Approval Consents from the various Local Authorities to erect, construct, alter or extend any building, bridge, aqueduct, pier or dam, or the formation, laying out or alteration of a means of access to any highway used by vehicular traffic.
1.3.2 Planning Consent could be required for permanent works that extend beyond the existing railway and the Limits of Deviation of the original authorising Acts. Listed Building Consent would still be required for works that require physical change to Listed Buildings or their curtilages.

I agree that this legislation can be traced back to the original railway companies, 170+years ago, but fact is fact,

I’d also suggest that using legislation which was put into place for the needs of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th Century is hardly appropriate for the 21st Century….Call me Strawman, again, if you wish, but I’m not too sure that current NR employees would accept to be paid in tokens issued by NR for exchange at NR shops only, as used to happen to mineworkers and mill workers in the 19th century when the original legislation for the Railway Companies was introduced….That situation was stopped through introduction of appropriate legislation on payment of wages to employees, along with changes to then existing legislation or the introduction of new legislation ( eg, Votes for Women, Laws re Homosexuality, No Contest Divorce, Free Health Services, Race Laws, etc ) which have all changed in line with Social necessities in the 20th and 21st centuries….Maybe it’s about time the basis and updates to the original legislation which NR used to sledgehammer this Project and other projects was brought into the 21st Century also, but that's another discussion....

Your post on NRs lack of Social Responsibility, I will answer in a separate post with the status update.

 

[dysonsphere]

Having followed a lot of the "rants" on the subject of gantries I really fail to see the problem unless you would prefer a smoky steam train of course with the smoke and smuts on washing or of course you could have the 8 lane motorway if you prefer. Its progress and has to be better than diesels and if you dont like electricty theres always gas lights etc

 

[NotATrainspott]

I’d also suggest that using legislation which was put into place for the needs of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th Century is hardly appropriate for the 21st Century….Call me Strawman, again, if you wish, but I’m not too sure that current NR employees would accept to be paid in tokens issued by NR for exchange at NR shops only, as used to happen to mineworkers and mill workers in the 19th century when the original legislation for the Railway Companies was introduced….That situation was stopped through introduction of appropriate legislation on payment of wages to employees, along with changes to then existing legislation or the introduction of new legislation ( eg, Votes for Women, Laws re Homosexuality, No Contest Divorce, Free Health Services, Race Laws, etc ) which have all changed in line with Social necessities in the 20th and 21st centuries….Maybe it’s about time the basis and updates to the original legislation which NR used to sledgehammer this Project and other projects was brought into the 21st Century also, but that's another discussion....

That really is a straw man argument here. Yes, the original enabling acts for the railways were produced in the 19th century and it is the powers set out in them that NR can use to make changes to the railway, but the same sorts of powers are still put in modern legislation for new railway lines. Look at the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act or the current High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill in England and Wales or the Airdrie-Bathgate or Waverley Railway acts in Scotland for an example. I don't know about light rail and metro networks but I can only assume it will be similar.