edwin_m
Veteran Member
It may of course be an empty big grey box, especially positioned to confuse forum readers.It certainly has all the attributes of a transformer. Big, Grey, boxy, heavy.
It may of course be an empty big grey box, especially positioned to confuse forum readers.It certainly has all the attributes of a transformer. Big, Grey, boxy, heavy.
It may of course be an empty big grey box, especially positioned to confuse forum readers.
...for a new Quest reality series - Big Grey Box Truckers, coming to your TV soon...And specially (and deceptively) transported by Allelys!
Piles have already been sunk by "Braybrooke Compound 3". The lone pile outstanding in the Kettering North Jn area is still awaiting installation.According to the "Harborough Mail" "Work will begin by the end of this year to electrify the line between Kettering and Market Harborough". As there are enabling works already happening, does this mean that holes will start to be dug for masts etc as there are none yet. The gantries at Grendon on the MML are still bare.
View attachment 106107
Thanks for this picture, just what I need when I get round to having a go at modelling one of those signal gantries!According to the "Harborough Mail" "Work will begin by the end of this year to electrify the line between Kettering and Market Harborough". As there are enabling works already happening, does this mean that holes will start to be dug for masts etc as there are none yet. The gantries at Grendon on the MML are still bare.
View attachment 106107
Strictly Confidential
TRU and MML are both classified overall as ‘Infrequently Complex’ when evaluated using the
Totalised STK benchmarking measures.
The rating for TRU is heavily influenced by limited access, geography and infrastructure. It is a
mix of two and four track railway with numerous junctions and areas of significant track
curvature, notably between Manchester and Huddersfield. Linespeeds are predominantly less
than 100mph but with some areas of up to 125mph. There are tunnels of significant length on
the route, notably Stalybridge and Scout, which have limited clearance for electrification. The
Mossley area has been a long-standing conundrum in providing suitable electrical safety
clearances to the adjacent cottages. The approach to railway closures, with 3 weeks in 6
available midweek to the east of Manchester Victoria for example, has been developed to offer
a minimum disruptive experience to customers which comes with a trade off against delivery
cost. SPEED principles are leading plans for funding and decision making.
Thanks, would definitely recommend everybody to have a look through the pdf.I saw this on twitter from Noel Dolphin - the costs have been redacted but it was a Freedom of Information request.
Document not too large and I have partially quoted. Applies to Transpennine also
Electrification Costs and Efficiencies v4.3 with challenge panel record Redacted.pdf
www.whatdotheyknow.com
Yes I just reread it to make sure. The north of Derby and Sheffield station caught my eye too. I hadn’t thought it implies Leicester area not as much of a problem.Thanks, would definitely recommend everybody to have a look through the pdf.
Noted that the perceived most complex parts to deliver are North of Derby, Sheffield station and parts of Trent-Nottingham. Suggests we can all relax a bit about Leicester, perhaps.
@GRALISTAIR thanks for posting. This is very illuminating although i can't understand why NR doesn't push this out to demonstrate what its doing to bare down on costs and help the build support the case for electrification across wider society rather than waiting for an FOI albeit very good to get something that isn't too stale. Anyhow plenty to be positive about although i do wonder how wise pushing up span length with higher tension is. The switch to SFC grid connections is sensible as connecting at lower voltage is generally a lot simpler than trying to tap in at 400kV. Then using VCC could save potentially 80 bridge rebuilds between two schemes is worth several hundred million alone.I saw this on twitter from Noel Dolphin - the costs have been redacted but it was a Freedom of Information request.
Document not too large and I have partially quoted. Applies to Transpennine also
Electrification Costs and Efficiencies v4.3 with challenge panel record Redacted.pdf
www.whatdotheyknow.com
is very prescience and lets hope thats already being acted on by NR so solutions are oven ready and not subject to years of approvals.The panel noted that the NR Technical Authority would benefit from additional resource so as to accelerate realisation of the identified new opportunities.
The need is not to demonstrate anything to the public but to demonstrate it to DfT and the Treasury.i can't understand why NR doesn't push this out to demonstrate what its doing to bare down on costs and help the build support the case for electrification across wider society rather than waiting for an FOI
I guess a lot of it is about the increased likelihood of objections on visual grounds, which introduces delays directly and also indirectly if designs have to be changed to address them. I believe there's also a specific problem at Belper with the series of bridges over the cutting which is a major heritage feature, and a bridge over the Derwent a short distance to the north probably prevents track lowering. VCC may have helped here.The the quote 10mile World Heritage Site situated north of Derby (presumably Derwent Valley?) is an area of great complexity is worrying though. These organisations are very worthwhile but the Derwent Valley itself was born out of industrialising many processes and its best protected by removing pollution and noise from the surroundings not by opposing electrification.
I guess a lot of it is about the increased likelihood of objections on visual grounds, which introduces delays directly and also indirectly if designs have to be changed to address them. I believe there's also a specific problem at Duffield with the series of bridges over the cutting which is a major heritage feature, and a bridge over the Derwent a short distance to the north probably prevents track lowering. VCC may have helped here.
I'm not sure why the Nottingham spur should be seen as a problem area. I imagine the re-modelling at Nottingham would have provided clearance under the station bridge and most other bridges on this section are probably modern enough to have provided electrification clearance when built. Exceptions possibly Wilford Street (this was again within the scope of the re-modelling, but there is a watercourse underneath somewhere nearby) and the High Level Lines at Trent (possibly raisable by increasing their gradient, but not cheap). However both Nottingham and Beeston would need risk assessment to justify not complying with the recent standard on clearance from OLE to platforms, due to needing to get the wire under bridges right at the platform ends.
That seems a strange omission, considering that electrification was very much on the cards at the time.I don't think the work at Nottingham featured any changes to clearances under Carrington Street.
I don't think the work at Nottingham featured any changes to clearances under Carrington Street.
If I've been following things in this and other threads correctly, future-proofing isn't always a thing with Network Rail if there's a financial cost. Which, to be fair, is understandable.That seems a strange omission, considering that electrification was very much on the cards at the time.
It is now where electrification is concerned. As part of the Hope Valley scheme they're building a footbridge at Hathersage West to carry a lightly used footpath that could have been diverted. All the procedures for that would probably have cost less than the £750k allocated for the electrification ready foot bridge.If I've been following things in this and other threads correctly, future-proofing isn't always a thing with Network Rail if there's a financial cost. Which, to be fair, is understandable.
Wasn't Nottingham done before the goalposts got moved on what an acceptable clearance is?That seems a strange omission, considering that electrification was very much on the cards at the time.
I believe so. No doubt the clearance to platform will be maximised by minimising the clearance to the station bridge using some of the techniques mentioned in that document, and they may do something like fencing off the bit of platform 5 where the points are so it can't actually ever be used, and where the wire will be relatively low as it's close to the bridge. But I doubt that will result in a fully compliant clearance.Wasn't Nottingham done before the goalposts got moved on what an acceptable clearance is?
I would imagine that the area around Belper will be the most difficult section to electrify north of Derby. The cutting, with stone walls and with many bridges which runs straight through the centre of the town especially near to the station.I guess a lot of it is about the increased likelihood of objections on visual grounds, which introduces delays directly and also indirectly if designs have to be changed to address them. I believe there's also a specific problem at Duffield with the series of bridges over the cutting which is a major heritage feature, and a bridge over the Derwent a short distance to the north probably prevents track lowering. VCC may have helped here.
Almost certainly. The environmental/ecological risks of using concrete also need to be considered along that stretch - imagine the scandal if concrete slurry for new OLE foundations entered the water supply...Could the nature reserve/gravel pit/pools between Trent & Beeston also be an issue? Possibly some challenging ground conditions?
Is there not another material which could be used instead of concrete?Almost certainly. The environmental/ecological risks of using concrete also need to be considered along that stretch - imagine the scandal if concrete slurry for new OLE foundations entered the water supply...
Yes I should have referred to Belper. I will edit the post.I would imagine that the area around Belper will be the most difficult section to electrify north of Derby. The cutting, with stone walls and with many bridges which runs straight through the centre of the town especially near to the station.
The Erewash Valley Line is not included in the electrification scheme even as part of the revised HS2 proposals. I would have thought that would in comparison be a fairly easy route to electrify.
I would imagine that the area around Belper will be the most difficult section to electrify north of Derby. The cutting, with stone walls and with many bridges which runs straight through the centre of the town especially near to the station.
The Erewash Valley Line is not included in the electrification scheme even as part of the revised HS2 proposals. I would have thought that would in comparison be a fairly easy route to electrify.
Objections on visual grounds is a funny one, would they prefer diesel pollution?
Objections on visual grounds is a funny one, would they prefer diesel pollution?
Yes - steel piles can indeed be driven into the ground. However, when the ground isn't that good, the piles need to become much longer. I don't know the ground in that area, but if it isn't very good ground, longer piles will be required (up to a max of 15m; 3 spliced sections of 5m). That may be what has to happen - or concrete (which is very much the last option).Is there not another material which could be used instead of concrete?
For example, could a steel pile just be driven into the ground and leave it at that?