Great Western Electrification Progress

[59CosG95]

Could not DafT have specified the use of Brecknell Willis pantographs?

I believe they are Brecknell Willis pans on the IEPs.

 

[HSTEd]

25kV cable along the train, is it beyond the wit of man to connect 2 units? Even if it is not possible for a 25kV cable to connect 2 units could DafT not have specified longer units?

Running 5-cars most of the time and doubling up to 10-car lashups only when the trains are crush loaded saves the DfT about a dozen vehicles.

That is why we are in this mess.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

That is so ugly by comparison with BR designs or the type used on the French-designed high speed lines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Are we in danger of setting the clock back here?

The 2 pantographs at high speed problem has been known since at least the 1970s. It was the reason why BR built the APT-P with 2 power cars in the middle of the set rather than one at each end - so they could share a pantograph.

Meanwhile, SNCF built the LGV Paris Sud-Est for 270km/h running (167mph) with only a single pantograph by putting a 25kV cable along the roof of the train to supply a power car at the other end. Atmittedly they used stiff OHLE with a high-pressure Faiveley Pantograph.

BR approached the high speed problem differently and developed the Brecknell Willis high speed pantograph which effectively became the British Standard. The design Brief for the new "pan" was - correct me if I am wrong - to work at high speeds (up to 250km/h) and was supposed to obviate, or at least reduce, the standing wave problem with multiple pantographs.

In the early 90s BR trialled 140mph running on the ECML using the new pantograph (albeit only one per train) and the Flashing Green "Fifth Aspect".

But now we will have IEP running on the ECML with 2 Faiveley pantographs per train - so we need to upgrade the ECML OHLE!

Could not DafT have specified the use of Brecknell Willis pantographs?

Since the TGV (and Pendolino???) have demonstrated the safety of the 25kV cable along the train, is it beyond the wit of man to connect 2 units? Even if it is not possible for a 25kV cable to connect 2 units could DafT not have specified longer units?

Just to clear up a few things here.

British Rail cleared their Mk.3 OLE for 140mph use with a single pantograph, using 107mm2 contact wire at 12kN tension with a British Rail Brecknell Willis High Speed Pantograph on a Class 91 electric locomotive. It was and still is a very particular set of circumstances that gives the Mk.3 OLE 140mph capability, and it's really a bit of a fraud, if we're being honest.

British Rail knew, very early on, that the Regional Eurostar sets wouldn't be able to do 125mph on the ECML and breathed a collective sign of relief when the Regional services were cancelled. The rebuilding we see planned today would have been needed for 125mph Eurostar services, or some other form of re-building work for the trainsets would have been needed to get round the issue.

High Speed lines in France and HS1 in the UK can support multiple pantograph operation at 186mph. TGV sets run coupled together in service daily and both sets have one pantograph raised, normally the rear pantograph on each set.

The Eurostar sets run in normal service with both pantographs raised at speeds upto 186mph. It's worth quickly reminding ourselves that one complete Eurostar set is formed from two independent half sets, for the purpose of evacuating the train during an emergency in the tunnel, which is why they don't have a 25kV bus on the roof connecting the two power cars.

The next question (preemptively answering it) is why Eurostar Regional sets couldn't run at 125mph on the ECML - it's all to do with pantograph uplift force, to keep the rear pantograph in contact with the OLE at 186mph, the uplift force has to be fairly aggressive, too aggressive for the wire thickness and tension on the ECML, which is why they were limited to 110mph.

The pantograph uplift force increases with speed, to combat the oscillations in the contact wire which similarly increase with speed, it's for this reason that later iterations of the BR/BW High Speed Pantograph have aerofoils, allowing uplift force to be proportional to train speed.

Onto IEP.

IEP is fitted with 2 x BR/BW High Speed Pantographs per unit, one per driving vehicle. The two pantographs are connected via a 25kV bus feed running along the roof of the intermediate vehicles.

1 single 5 car or 9 car unit will operate in service with just 1 pantograph raised, it will most likely be the rear pantograph and as with the Alstom Pendolino, a change of ends will result in a change in pantograph, to even out wear on the carbon contact strip. The rear pantograph should have less turbulent air flowing over it, allowing a more consistent uplift force and reduced wear on the contact strip. The IEP pantograph design is, as with most BR/BW High Speed Pantographs, fitted with aerofoils, in this case on the pantograph knuckle.

The two pantograph conundrum will arise when 2 units are coupled together in service, in this case I'd expect the front pantograph of the leading set and the rear pantograph of the trailing set to be raised, but it may be that both sets will use the rear pantographs, that's certainly what we've seen modeled.

Finally, could DfT have specified longer trains - yes, they could, but the argument is that 5 car sets are long enough for many services and that 2 x 5 car services allow portion working. Is it the right solution - don't know yet, but running 1 x 9 car set to various places on the network day in, day out, probably isn't the best use of resources and funds. If diagramming works out well, it will be a sensible approach.

 

[jimm]

Since the TGV (and Pendolino???) have demonstrated the safety of the 25kV cable along the train, is it beyond the wit of man to connect 2 units? Even if it is not possible for a 25kV cable to connect 2 units could DafT not have specified longer units?

Well it appears to be beyond the wit of Alstom and SNCF to do it, even after 30 years' experience - how do you think they operate pairs of TGVs? That's right, using two pantographs, with one up on each set. And the sky - and catenary - has not fallen in in Germany where the ICEs happily charge up and down with a pantograph up at either end of the train on the earlier sets with power cars, or with one up on each set when pairs of the more recent distributed-power ICEs are running coupled together.

The reasons for a mixed order of five-car and nine-car trains have been gone through over and over again in various IEP/Class 800 threads in the Traction and Rolling Stock forum - perhaps we could avoid resurrecting it here and confine that discussion to those existing threads, as this one is supposed to be about the electrification project, not the trains.

And the pantogaphs for the Class800/801s are indeed being supplied by Brecknell Lewis, which also supplies those fitted to the 365s and 387s bound for GW-land.

Chard-based Brecknell Willis will provide two twin-strip single arm pantographs for each of the 92 trains for the Intercity Express Programme, which are destined for the newly electrified Great Western Main Line and the East Coast Main Line.

Richard Whitefield, Managing Director for Brecknell Willis and Jamie Foster, Procurement Director for Hitachi Rail Europe marked the event with an official photo opportunity.

The first pantograph systems will be shipped from the UK to Japan for installation and testing on the first three pre-series Class 800 series trains.

http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/hitach...-series-iep-trains-leave-uk-for-japan-1014552

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think anyone has yet attempted to run a 25kV bus line through the end coupling of a unit that is coupled and uncoupled frequently. It's probably do-able in principle but it would be a new development of the kind that has a tendency to be unreliable.

 

[AM9]

I don't think anyone has yet attempted to run a 25kV bus line through the end coupling of a unit that is coupled and uncoupled frequently. It's probably do-able in principle but it would be a new development of the kind that has a tendency to be unreliable.

It would need to be a double sealed connection with a dry air supply. The amount of contamination that the connector gets from water, salt, insects etc. would require a cleaning operation before 25kV was applied. Hardly worth the operational risk. Better to schedule 110 running for those diagrams. How much difference would that make on a run as far as Exeter or Plymouth?

 

[NotATrainspott]

It would need to be a double sealed connection with a dry air supply. The amount of contamination that the connector gets from water, salt, insects etc. would require a cleaning operation before 25kV was applied. Hardly worth the operational risk. Better to schedule 110 running for those diagrams. How much difference would that make on a run as far as Exeter or Plymouth?

It wouldn't make any difference to Exeter or Plymouth because all the GWML electrification will be new and capable of having multiple pantographs up at one time. The pantograph problem is more on the ECML, where two-pan 140mph running will require other changes to be made as well such as closing level crossings. However, nothing that is being proposed on the ECML is unreasonable in itself or would be totally unjustified if 140mph running never happens. Replacing headspans with gantries or cantilevers will benefit everyone, and the replacement and strengthening of the various wires will be helpful when more and more traffic on the line will use electric traction. At the moment, it's only the London commuter services and the IC225s which need the wires, but in the not-too-distant future, it will be diesel services which will be in the minority.

 

[HSTEd]

However, nothing that is being proposed on the ECML is unreasonable in itself or would be totally unjustified if 140mph running never happens. Replacing headspans with gantries or cantilevers will benefit everyone, and the replacement and strengthening of the various wires will be helpful when more and more traffic on the line will use electric traction.

Everyone except those who have to pay for it.
It is weird that a company that has recently squandered so much money on overspends that the electrification programme is in serious jeopardy is now proposing to spend some probably very large sum of money (possessions are going to be very expensive alone) on what is really gold plating.

I would think the leasing charges on the extra vehicles necessary to run 9-car sets instead of 5-car sets occasionally doubled could be paid for an awfully long time by the cost of this work. Even if you start crediting the delay minutes this is going to save - which are very minor as this does not solve the primary reliability issue on the ECML, which is between Newcastle and Edinburgh.

This is just an attempt to cover up how bad a decision the DfT Made with this obsession with doubling up trains.

At the moment, it's only the London commuter services and the IC225s which need the wires, but in the not-too-distant future, it will be diesel services which will be in the minority.

The only services which are going to convert any time soon will be the HSTs when they are replaced by IEPs.

Everything else will still be diesel - especially now the MML project has effectively been axed.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Everyone except those who have to pay for it.
It is weird that a company that has recently squandered so much money on overspends that the electrification programme is in serious jeopardy is now proposing to spend some probably very large sum of money (possessions are going to be very expensive alone) on what is really gold plating.

I would think the leasing charges on the extra vehicles necessary to run 9-car sets instead of 5-car sets occasionally doubled could be paid for an awfully long time by the cost of this work. Even if you start crediting the delay minutes this is going to save - which are very minor as this does not solve the primary reliability issue on the ECML, which is between Newcastle and Edinburgh.

This is just an attempt to cover up how bad a decision the DfT Made with this obsession with doubling up trains.


The only services which are going to convert any time soon will be the HSTs when they are replaced by IEPs.

Everything else will still be diesel - especially now the MML project has effectively been axed.

The ECML scheme is not "gold plating" but providing an OLE system that is fit for purpose. The ECML OLE isn't all that far away from being life expired in any case and technical advancements with newer OLE systems make elements of the Mk.3 OLE very obsolete and undesirable.

It's worth remembering that elements of the ECML electrification are showing significant issues now, there are masts being monitored for rotational movement, as the foundations weren't particularly well thought out for the ground conditions and the actual spacing of single track cantilevers is too far apart resulting in excessive contact wire deflection in high winds, which costs money in speed restrictions, cancellations and dewirements.

We would be looking to increase the contact wire tension and to drop 10 metres of spacing between individual masts, so moving 3 in every 6 masts and adding an extra mast into the space created, that sort of thing.

The headspans on the ECML are a tensioned system, with the pair of horizontal lateral wire runs tensioned manually between each pair of masts, which adds a lateral stress into the five horizontal insulators in each headspan, in addition to the longitudinal stress from the tensioning of the contact and catenary wires and the downwards vertical stresses from the weight of the contact wire and catenary wire and upwards vertical stress from the uplift force when a pantograph passes. There's also lateral stress from wind deflection.

I mentioned earlier, but you're looking at 920kg of contact wire per km, and much the same again with the catenary wire and droppers, with four pairs of wires, the weight of insulators, tensioners, four pulleys on the catenary wire, I'd average it out around 2 tonnes per km per track for the OLE system, four tracks per headspan, gives 8 tonnes per km, split across 20 headspans. 400kg per headspan in weight alone, without wind deflection and pan uplift deflection.

That's a hell of a lot of weight and stress on each headspan, which is why they're getting fairly close to being life expired, they've already had remedial work undertaken when a spate of insulators started failing, and we've fitted polymeric insulators in places, but they have their own issues as they tend to flex rather than abruptly fail, which can allow registration errors and cause more damage in some circumstances, especially with OLE that wasn't designed for polymeric insulators.

The advent of Pfisterer's Tensorex spring tensioning system allows us to eliminate balance weights for tensioning and all of the pulleys and additional cantilevers needed to feed the tail wires too, for obvious reasons, we don't do tensioning with balance weights over the track, instead the wires need to be fed to the side to do this, which is yet more steelwork, masts, cantilevers, SPS and a lot of heavy weights, which obviously need to be situated where a dewirement and loss of tension doesn't result in weights ending up on an adjacent line causing a derailment risk.

If we could eliminate balance weights and switch to above track spring tensioning, life would be a lot easier. The balance weight tensioning system needs so many pulleys, many of which need to be maintained - greasing primarily, which is time consuming. There's so many potential failure points on such a system that it's quite staggering we don't get more dewirements, though we do know when not to run trains and when to run them slowly, so as to avoid dewirement. Not fun for passengers though.

The replacement system should make life a lot easier - lots less spare parts to keep in stock, much less maintenance work - not quite fit and forget but as close as you can get, realistically.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The ECML scheme is not "gold plating" but providing an OLE system that is fit for purpose. The ECML OLE isn't all that far away from being life expired in any case and technical advancements with newer OLE systems make elements of the Mk.3 OLE very obsolete and undesirable.

Very interesting as always.
The WCML OHLE was replaced at around 40 years old, and was considered to be in very fragile condition for quite a time before that.
The ECML OHLE is already 25 years old, 30 years in CP6, so the same "wear and tear" issues are coming up.

I also noticed this week that the WCML north of Warrington now has an AT wire installed in some places (eg in the Lune Gorge), as part of the CP5 plan.
I imagine there is some plan to equip the ECML with this as well, during a future upgrade.
I also saw some auto-tensioners somewhere other than the Liverpool-Manchester scheme - maybe around Stafford, where the OHLE is being altered for the new layout and flyover.
So they must be part of the general OHLE design now.
Presumably they will be used on the GW scheme.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Very interesting as always.
The WCML OHLE was replaced at around 40 years old, and was considered to be in very fragile condition for quite a time before that.
The ECML OHLE is already 25 years old, 30 years in CP6, so the same "wear and tear" issues are coming up.

I also noticed this week that the WCML north of Warrington now has an AT wire installed in some places (eg in the Lune Gorge), as part of the CP5 plan.
I imagine there is some plan to equip the ECML with this as well, during a future upgrade.
I also saw some auto-tensioners somewhere other than the Liverpool-Manchester scheme - maybe around Stafford, where the OHLE is being altered for the new layout and flyover.
So they must be part of the general OHLE design now.
Presumably they will be used on the GW scheme.

The ECML Power Supply Upgrade program is converting the ECML between Wood Green and Bawtry to an Autotransformer feed. The remainder of the route will stay conventionally fed, with an additional feeder at Ardsley.

I've not heard any news from the scheme, but I note route closures for engineering works related to it, so it must be progressing well enough.

 

[petersi]

Kings cross to hitchin will be 40 years old by end cp5

 

[HSTEd]

It may well be that this system will have lower maintenance - but I am really doubting that you will be able to build a positive BCR for the insane amount of work you are proposing. Cutting down fully half the masts and replacing them all? That is going to be enormously expensive - especially since these masts would not necessarily be the ones suffering structural issues.

As to tensioning - it is hardly necessary to do a wholesale replacement of the entire system in order to replace the balance weight tensioners, since there is only roughly one per track kilometre anyway.
And surely the easiest method of dealing with the life expiry of the headspan assemblies are replacement of the single headspans as and when they fail, either with new headspans or these gantries - rather than some wholesale programme.

And the fact remains that the ECML's current arrangements still remain reliable - indicating that the kind of incredibly extensive work you are proposing is unlikely to have a good BCR.
After all - Network Rail's estimates for this kind of work are consistently under.

 

[starlightEXPRESS]

Has the spur line physically been connected to the Chiltern Main Line yet, or is this awaiting a final possession?

 

[Emblematic]

It may well be that this system will have lower maintenance - but I am really doubting that you will be able to build a positive BCR for the insane amount of work you are proposing. Cutting down fully half the masts and replacing them all? That is going to be enormously expensive - especially since these masts would not necessarily be the ones suffering structural issues.

As to tensioning - it is hardly necessary to do a wholesale replacement of the entire system in order to replace the balance weight tensioners, since there is only roughly one per track kilometre anyway.
And surely the easiest method of dealing with the life expiry of the headspan assemblies are replacement of the single headspans as and when they fail, either with new headspans or these gantries - rather than some wholesale programme.

And the fact remains that the ECML's current arrangements still remain reliable - indicating that the kind of incredibly extensive work you are proposing is unlikely to have a good BCR.
After all - Network Rail's estimates for this kind of work are consistently under.

Reliability tends to follow an inverse bathtub curve, teething problems and manufacturing defects disappear rapidly to give good reliability through design life. Once end of service life is reached, failures occur at a rapidly increasing rate, and if timely renewal isn't undertaken you can quickly find your renewal budget being diverted to urgent repairs instead.
Piecemeal replacement of failed headspans would be cripplingly expensive, every failure is disruption to to the railway and large bills for compensation alone, never mind the reputational damage and inconvenience to customers.
When replacement is due, 'do nothing' is rarely an option, unless you want to follow the Railtrack path to oblivion. The BCR you might look at is like-for-like renewal with retention of serviceable components versus new design. Another option might be abandonment, which in this case would mean stripping the wires and reverting to diesel traction - unlikely.

 

[swt_passenger]

Has the spur line physically been connected to the Chiltern Main Line yet, or is this awaiting a final possession?

Is this the right thread?

 

[fflint]

No it isn't!

 

[Chris125]

It may well be that this system will have lower maintenance - but I am really doubting that you will be able to build a positive BCR for the insane amount of work you are proposing.

I can't see a problem producing a positive BCR for this - the OHLE needs significant expenditure anyway, so spending some more to improve reliability, reduce maintenance and allow portion working with the IEP fleet should produce some considerable savings over the coming decades.

 

[76020]

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.

I have just come back from a round trip from London to Cardiff and opposite the Llanwern Steel Works there are around 6 piles on the up side and 4 on the down side, these are installed to cover the relief lines as well but as I said before this does not mean that all four lines will get wired.
As mentioned already elsewhere there has been electrification work in the pilning area, there are around 8 piles on each side of the track here.
Since I last travelled on this line a month ago I have noticed that more masts have gone up west of Burham and now reaches just east of Maidenhead.
The Reading train depot is now nearly fully wired and more support arms have been installed from Tilehurst going west past Pangbourne.
Between Tilehust and the junctions just east of Didcot, masts installed is about 80%, there are gaps through each station, over viaducts either side of Cholsey and one or two missing here are there.
I think the important thing to say here is that if the electrification was between Tilehurst and Didcot only, they would have no problem getting this done by the original target date of Dec 2016, but the rest of it is too far behind, I cannot see the outer suburban electrification being completed in 16 months at the moment never mind getting to Bristol, anyway I hope I am wrong.
Perhaps a way out is if the HST's start to clap out then they could run the Class 801's electric of out Paddington and then diesel mode from Airport Junction!
Next trip for me on the GWML will be just before Christmas so it will be interesting to see the progress, or lack of it!

 

[jimm]

I have just come back from a round trip from London to Cardiff and opposite the Llanwern Steel Works there are around 6 piles on the up side and 4 on the down side, these are installed to cover the relief lines as well but as I said before this does not mean that all four lines will get wired.
As mentioned already elsewhere there has been electrification work in the pilning area, there are around 8 piles on each side of the track here.
Since I last travelled on this line a month ago I have noticed that more masts have gone up west of Burham and now reaches just east of Maidenhead.
The Reading train depot is now nearly fully wired and more support arms have been installed from Tilehurst going west past Pangbourne.
Between Tilehust and the junctions just east of Didcot, masts installed is about 80%, there are gaps through each station, over viaducts either side of Cholsey and one or two missing here are there.
I think the important thing to say here is that if the electrification was between Tilehurst and Didcot only, they would have no problem getting this done by the original target date of Dec 2016, but the rest of it is too far behind, I cannot see the outer suburban electrification being completed in 16 months at the moment never mind getting to Bristol, anyway I hope I am wrong.
Perhaps a way out is if the HST's start to clap out then they could run the Class 801's electric of out Paddington and then diesel mode from Airport Junction!
Next trip for me on the GWML will be just before Christmas so it will be interesting to see the progress, or lack of it!

The intention always was to wire Reading-Didcot first, in order to have somewhere to play with the pre-series Class 800s in 125mph trials and I don't see that changing, though the odds of it happening later this year as previously planned now look slim.

But everything is running late, no two ways about it, hence the talk of wiring the main line out to Swindon as a priority - and using 800s on diesel power further west - then trying to recover the rest of the scheme.

However FGW has already pointed out that without wires to Oxford as early as possible, trying to deliver electric semi-fast services and start sending Turbos west will be impossible/very messy if you make lots of people change at Didcot for some interim period. Key here is likely to be how much, if any track alterations can be carried out to create an interim track layout at Oxford station (to last until the station rebuilding project takes place) during the nine-day resignalling blockade in the Oxford area next February - the signal work has to go ahead then, come what may, both to allow Chiltern to serve the station from next spring and to allow electrification, because the existing signals are life-expired and not immunised against interference from 25kv cables.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But everything is running late, no two ways about it, hence the talk of wiring the main line out to Swindon as a priority - and using 800s on diesel power further west - then trying to recover the rest of the scheme.

That's what is odd about the activity at Pilning/Llanwern.
Why are they bothering with anything west of Stoke Gifford at the moment?
The only reason I can think of is they are trial installations to test the ground conditions.
Either that or it is a completely separate team independent of the HOPS kit.

 

[jimm]

That's what is odd about the activity at Pilning/Llanwern.
Why are they bothering with anything west of Stoke Gifford at the moment?
The only reason I can think of is they are trial installations to test the ground conditions.
Either that or it is a completely separate team independent of the HOPS kit.

There are locations where for various reasons they cannot use the 'high-output' train, Pangbourne being a case in point, so more traditional techniques are used for piling at these sites, which presumably is on a separate work schedule. And it will all have to be done sooner or later, so if the resources are there they might as well crack on, even if it appears a bit hit and miss for the moment.

 

[swt_passenger]

There are locations where for various reasons they cannot use the 'high-output' train, Pangbourne being a case in point, so more traditional techniques are used for piling at these sites, which presumably is on a separate work schedule. And it will all have to be done sooner or later, so if the resources are there they might as well crack on, even if it appears a bit hit and miss for the moment.

I wish I could find the source, but I definitely read somewhere that the HOPS was only ever intended to do about half the overall piling work.

So the likelihood of conventional equipment showing up as observed by LNW-GW Joint shouldn't be surprising. Even then, because the train splits into so many independent parts, even if it isn't piling or putting up masts it may turn up later to do wiring runs...

 

[Class 170101]

The intention always was to wire Reading-Didcot first, in order to have somewhere to play with the pre-series Class 800s in 125mph trials and I don't see that changing, though the odds of it happening later this year as previously planned now look slim.

Why do the IEPs need to be tested on GWML? If its not ready surely the best place to test them is on the ECML where tests have already started? Therefore the only tests needed for IEP should be GWML specific.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Why do the IEPs need to be tested on GWML? If its not ready surely the best place to test them is on the ECML where tests have already started? Therefore the only tests needed for IEP should be GWML specific.

The rolling stock needs to be tested on the route on which it will operate.

The GWML has different OLE, there's a very different signalling system with ATP to test, the gauge is subtly different, and various engineers would want to double check there's no unexpected electrical interference issues with signalling or rolling stock operating on the GWML, either affecting IEP or caused by IEP.

 

[Class 170101]

Can I refer you to the second sentence where I said

Therefore the only tests needed for IEP should be GWML specific.

Surely non-route specific tests can be carried out on the ECML using the IEP test programme currently underway thereby reducing the number of tests required on the GWML and hopefully re-gaining some lost time on the project?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Can I refer you to the second sentence where I said


Surely non-route specific tests can be carried out on the ECML using the IEP test programme currently underway thereby reducing the number of tests required on the GWML and hopefully re-gaining some lost time on the project?

The testing that is being carried out on the Great Western is testing that can only be carried out on the Great Western. We're talking about safety critical signalling system testing, electrical interference and the like, not mundane things like making sure the air conditioning and toilets work.

The completion of the Reading to Didcot OLE shouldn't unduly alter the delivery of other parts of the project, there are different teams responsible for different stages of electrification, the piling team responsible for Reading to Didcot will have moved on and will be piling in another area when the actual catenary is being installed between Reading and Didcot. That's how the electrification scheme was always intended to operate, and that's why the HOPS train is configured the way it is.

 

[HowardGWR]

The testing that is being carried out on the Great Western is testing that can only be carried out on the Great Western. We're talking about safety critical signalling system testing, electrical interference and the like, not mundane things like making sure the air conditioning and toilets work.

The completion of the Reading to Didcot OLE shouldn't unduly alter the delivery of other parts of the project, there are different teams responsible for different stages of electrification, the piling team responsible for Reading to Didcot will have moved on and will be piling in another area when the actual catenary is being installed between Reading and Didcot. That's how the electrification scheme was always intended to operate, and that's why the HOPS train is configured the way it is.

Philip, I hope you will accept how much your inside knowledge is appreciated, by me anyway, and I have a question on that subject. I have wondered why the project team just does not publish the full plans with critical path?

I can't see any down side to doing so and you never know; a keen observer could bring up a potential snag that could be very useful to the project team.

Perhaps naive on my part.

 

[Class 170101]

The testing that is being carried out on the Great Western is testing that can only be carried out on the Great Western. We're talking about safety critical signalling system testing, electrical interference and the like, not mundane things like making sure the air conditioning and toilets work.

The completion of the Reading to Didcot OLE shouldn't unduly alter the delivery of other parts of the project, there are different teams responsible for different stages of electrification, the piling team responsible for Reading to Didcot will have moved on and will be piling in another area when the actual catenary is being installed between Reading and Didcot. That's how the electrification scheme was always intended to operate, and that's why the HOPS train is configured the way it is.

Ok understood, the only reason I kept pushing is because of this project
http://www.railmagazine.com/trains/current-trains/tomorrow-s-train-today

As the article says the train was tested on the Colchester to Clacton branch but they do not operate there instead operating between Liverpool Street / Kings Cross and Peterborough / Kings Lynn.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Philip, I hope you will accept how much your inside knowledge is appreciated, by me anyway, and I have a question on that subject. I have wondered why the project team just does not publish the full plans with critical path?

I can't see any down side to doing so and you never know; a keen observer could bring up a potential snag that could be very useful to the project team.

Perhaps naive on my part.

The outlines for energizing the overheads between Reading and Didcot and the commencement of IEP testing has previously been published - revised dates aren't yet know, as far as I know.

The actual testing - what's done, by whom and for why is confidential, usually for contractual reasons. The IEP sets have various components which are sourced by Hitachi from third party suppliers under contract, these are all large suppliers with significant rail interests, they don't want information passing to competitors nor do they want unsubstantiated rumours and preliminary, unchecked data being released.

The Class 172 exhaust testing debacle has sharpened a few minds when it comes to releasing information early on in the testing program.

There's a fair chunk of information out there though, if you know where to look for it. The testing schedules should be on the Rules of the Route documents, along with all other electrification related route closures. You can put together the testing runs with paths on Real Time Trains to see the pre-series unit(s) being moved around.

And if we're being honest, it's the railway - lots of things can and do go wrong, so the schedule quite often is revised very frequently.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ok understood, the only reason I kept pushing is because of this project
http://www.railmagazine.com/trains/current-trains/tomorrow-s-train-today

As the article says the train was tested on the Colchester to Clacton branch but they do not operate there instead operating between Liverpool Street / Kings Cross and Peterborough / Kings Lynn.

The signalling system on the Great Western route is unique to the Great Western route, with GWML ATP. There is no where else to test the GWML ATP signalling system.

http://www.traintesting.com/GWML ATP.htm is a good article on the trials and tribulations of testing a new signalling system, and http://www.traintesting.com/Class_180.htm about how to introduce new rolling stock on a route with it's own little signalling system.