Nuneham Viaduct shut - Didcot- Oxford

[87015]

Banbury-Leamington also in trouble at Fenny Compton. Emergency possessions going in today and tonight to try and keep it open for Easter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Banbury-Leamington also in trouble at Fenny Compton. Emergency possessions going in today and tonight to try and keep it open for Easter.

This happening twice is clearly showing very poor asset management. Or has that been rechecked as a result of this?

There's now an argument (if it does have to close) that the WCML work should be pulled as an emergency response. You can't have *no* Birmingham-London service available at all.

 

[class ep-09]

Bumpy ride guaranteed , ending up in water

 

[zwk500]

This happening twice is clearly showing very poor asset management.

Record rainfall, restricted budgets and an unnecessarily long industrial dispute with the maintenance staff won't have helped of course but this does sound like a long-term problem.

Or has that been rechecked as a result of this?

quite possibly, but as you point out it's still poor management for the problem to be there.

There's now an argument (if it does have to close) that the WCML work should be pulled as an emergency response. You can't have *no* Birmingham-London service available at all.

Difficult one, depends what is relying on the WCML work being done to then happen next. The next full block of the WCML is presumably already programmed and you'd be very hard pressed to get another one in before it.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

@class ep-09. That pic is painting a thousand words!

 

[87015]

This happening twice is clearly showing very poor asset management. Or has that been rechecked as a result of this?

There's now an argument (if it does have to close) that the WCML work should be pulled as an emergency response. You can't have *no* Birmingham-London service available at all.

Fenny Compton has been knackered for years. There is regular ESRs on and off for rough rides and it rides like a rollercoaster.

Watford North of course has been cancelled due to a Chiltern infrastructure issue before…

 

[LYRobert]

Looks as if the abutments are founded on aluvial river-bed gravels. It's going to need piling, although the bridge decks look OK. That's a lot of very heavy plant on the scene.

 

[Pinus contorta]

This happening twice is clearly showing very poor asset management. Or has that been rechecked as a result of this?

There's now an argument (if it does have to close) that the WCML work should be pulled as an emergency response. You can't have *no* Birmingham-London service available at all.

Don't know if it's very poor asset management or just that weather events such as the record rainfall in march where we go from boom to bust are pushing the boundaries /parameters further.

 

[A0]

This happening twice is clearly showing very poor asset management. Or has that been rechecked as a result of this?

There's now an argument (if it does have to close) that the WCML work should be pulled as an emergency response. You can't have *no* Birmingham-London service available at all.

Nonsense - of course you can.

In the same way you have *no* London - Manchester or London Liverpool services over this weekend because of the Euston closure (curtailed at Milton Keynes, with bus transfers from Rugby to Kettering or Milton Keynes to Bedford).

It's a silly statement to say "you can't have no Birmingham - London service available at all".

 

[swt_passenger]

Network Rail has been working on the bridge for some weeks already and built a haul road to get equipment on to the site which runs next to the line south of the river, at the edge of the Culham Park Motocross site. There is an access from the road network off Thame Lane, near the north end of the Culham Science Centre site.

I noticed in one of the BBC reports there was an articulated HGV on the scene, so as you say the temporary access must already be fairly well sorted.

 

[webweasel]

Looks as if the abutments are founded on aluvial river-bed gravels. It's going to need piling, although the bridge decks look OK. That's a lot of very heavy plant on the scene.

As I mentioned earlier, the south abutment wasn’t replaced with the 1907 rebuilt (just smartened up) so is probably the only remaining part of the 1850 bridge.

Appleford Viaduct

Nuneham Viaduct

culhamticketoffice.co.uk

 

[Saj8]

Just to bring up the Chiltern v GWR 165 discussion again...

If a Chiltern driver signs a Chiltern 165, then they also sign a GWR 165. Just like we did when we borrowed a Chiltern set for Greenford a few years ago. We were given a 2 page brief describing the differences between the two variants and got on with it. GWR sets do not have DAS, but DAS is not obligatory. They also don't have ATP, but while our HSTs did have ATP, it was not compatible with Chiltern's ATP line side equipment. When we used HSTs on Chiltern diversions during the Oxford blockades a few years ago it was isolated. The same would also apply to IETs. So no reason why our 165s can't use the route sans ATP.

Regarding the ride height mod, during the modification programme, there were modded and unmodded sets running around at the same time. And while efforts were made to not plan a modded and unmodded set to have to be coupled in normal service, invariably one of each would end up having to be coupled. A procedure was briefed to the drivers to use should a modded and unmodded set need to be coupled, which involved partially deflating the suspension airbags on the leading vehicle of the modded set to bring the couplers to the same height, coupling them, and then reinflating the airbags. The same in reverse for splitting (although it was difficult to judge how much to deflate when they were coupled.) I don't see a reason why the same procedure couldn't be used to couple a Chiltern and GWR set. It could only be done on a depot or siding, as the driver would need to access the airbag drain cocks on the outside of the train. As I recall, I think after a couple of months of delays due to using this procedure, it was deemed that the coupler height wasn't really an issue anyway, and we were told to just bang them together as normal.

Of course, all of this is moot if there are platform clearance issues for the RHM sets on the Chiltern line, but the notion that the two fleets are not compatible with each other isnt correct. The main issue is remembering not to drag the chiltern unit from reading to pad at 90mph on the back of a GWR unit... they dont like it!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I've spent most of today updating the dozens of affected Freightmaster Online timetables - one of my busiest days for years!

Well done sir.

 

[MarkyT]

On Google Maps I make the reversing siding 140m from Stop block to dolly, you can knock 2m off for stopping distance at the buffers, and probably 5m off for standing clear of the signal, so 132m. 5x25 = 125m, so I'd only have to be out by 7m (easy enough using Google Maps) for the 5-Car unit to not fit. It's tight, but possible, but as ever there's usually a reason why Control doesn't 'just f***ing do it' without checking first.

The through service, when it ran, used 80x. They have ASDO.

Also, stepping through historic aerial imagery on Google Earth, Bedwyn's reversing siding seems to have been extended by a few metres at the country end between 2017 and 2020, with a panel of concrete- sleepered track, a nice new bufferstop, and a small diversion of the footpath crossing the line there to suit.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

View attachment 132349

Bumpy ride guaranteed , ending up in water

Wow- as has been stated already - a picture paints a thousand words.

 

[plugwash]

Wow- as has been stated already - a picture paints a thousand words.

Note that pictures can sometimes make things look a lot bumpier than they really are.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Note that pictures can sometimes make things look a lot bumpier than they really are.

I agree - telephoto lens distortion etc --- but still!

 

[BanburyBlue]

Banbury-Leamington also in trouble at Fenny Compton. Emergency possessions going in today and tonight to try and keep it open for Easter.

what's wrong at Fenny Compton

 

[sonic2009]

Do GWR drivers other than Paddington sign Greenford - West Ealing anymore? Not sure if 800s are cleared to run Oxford - London Paddington this way?

 

[Snow1964]

View attachment 132349

Bumpy ride guaranteed , ending up in water

One good thing is it is effectively 2 single tracks running parallel, and far enough apart that working on one track shouldn't stop work on adjacent track. Plenty of room for a protective fence down the middle.

A pier has sunk, but not clear if still sinking, or stopped moving. There is potentially a chance deck can be jacked up (or at least one of them, whichever side is least bad) and packed short term.

Might (and I don't know) be possible to reopen one track and put temporary points in each end allowing the worse span to be rebuilt in slower time. Then divert everything over repaired span and do other.

Before anyone says, you would need fancy signalling like on the Hastings line singalled tunnels, so not feasible to do quickly. You don't, instead just need a fixed red light and fixed distant protecting the approach to junctions. If trains are going to have to stop and proceed when authorised at 5mph (or even 10mph) then huge LED signal heads with junction indicators are not going to be much advantage over someone hand signalling with red/green flags or coloured torch using proper protocols on a radio to get authorisations.

 

[Amlag]

One good thing is it is effectively 2 single tracks running parallel, and far enough apart that working on one track shouldn't stop work on adjacent track. Plenty of room for a protective fence down the middle.

A pier has sunk, but not clear if still sinking, or stopped moving. There is potentially a chance deck can be jacked up (or at least one of them, whichever side is least bad) and packed short term.

Might (and I don't know) be possible to reopen one track and put temporary points in each end allowing the worse span to be rebuilt in slower time. Then divert everything over repaired span and do other.

Before anyone says, you would need fancy signalling like on the Hastings line singalled tunnels, so not feasible to do quickly. You don't, instead just need a fixed red light and fixed distant protecting the approach to junctions. If trains are going to have to stop and proceed when authorised at 5mph (or even 10mph) then huge LED signal heads with junction indicators are not going to be much advantage over someone hand signalling with red/green flags or coloured torch using proper protocols on a radio to get authorisations.

If the condition of this structure allows single line working, this would seem a possible option which one hopes, is or has been, considered by NR and its no doubt numerous Consultants.

 

[LYRobert]

Dear Mods, Should this thread be split - a) the merits or otherwise in these circumstances of this or that type of train, and b) The Bridge.
I for one am only interested in the engineering aspect of the bridge - I don't care what sort of stuff runs over it, or in this case doesn't run. And the business of finding alternative routes for traffic hasn't much - well, anything! - to do with repairs to the bridge.

 

[zwk500]

Might (and I don't know) be possible to reopen one track and put temporary points in each end allowing the worse span to be rebuilt in slower time. Then divert everything over repaired span and do other.

Before anyone says, you would need fancy signalling like on the Hastings line singalled tunnels, so not feasible to do quickly. You don't, instead just need a fixed red light and fixed distant protecting the approach to junctions. If trains are going to have to stop and proceed when authorised at 5mph (or even 10mph) then huge LED signal heads with junction indicators are not going to be much advantage over someone hand signalling with red/green flags or coloured torch using proper protocols on a radio to get authorisations.

No need for anything so fancy, the Down line is already bi-di. You'd just work it as a single track between Didcot North (Or Appleford) and Hinksey or Kennington.

 

[paul1609]

Appleford, I assume you mean? Appledore is in Sussex. (There is another one, not rail-served, in Devon)

Thats fighting talk down here! We even have it printed on our tickets to make the point. Appledore station is just on Walland Marsh which is Kent. Appledore level crossing is on the Rhee Wall which is the boundary between Romney Marsh (also Kent) and Walland Marsh. The County boundary is about 5 miles west of Appledore where the line crosses in to Sussex on Guildeford Level.

 

[The Planner]

Dear Mods, Should this thread be split - a) the merits or otherwise in these circumstances of this or that type of train, and b) The Bridge.
I for one am only interested in the engineering aspect of the bridge - I don't care what sort of stuff runs over it, or in this case doesn't run. And the business of finding alternative routes for traffic hasn't much - well, anything! - to do with repairs to the bridge.

Finding alternative routes very much does have a lot to do with the repairs. It will likely define a methodology for it, especially if it is one half at a time.

 

[MarkyT]

No need for anything so fancy, the Down line is already bi-di. You'd just work it as a single track between Didcot North (Or Appleford) and Hinksey or Kennington.

Looks like both tracks are bi-di from the Sectional Appendix. This must have been introduced in recent Oxford resignalling as it wasn't the case in the old installation. The position of existing crossovers makes them quite long single line sections of around 7 to 8 miles, depending on track/direction between Didcot Nth Jn/Appleford Jn and Hinksey Jn/Kennington Jn.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Now this is speculative but------ I feel as if the line had been electrified, civils work done in connection with electrification would have surely seen the bridge "upgraded" at the same time. However, we are where we are as the saying goes!

 

[zwk500]

Looks like both tracks are bi-di from the Sectional Appendix. This must have been introduced in recent Oxford resignalling as it wasn't the case in the old installation. The position of existing crossovers makes them quite long single line sections of around 7 to 8 miles, depending on track/direction between Didcot Nth Jn/Appleford Jn and Hinksey Jn/Kennington Jn.

Not 100% clear what routes are available from here: https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/swindon#LINK_1. But yes, I remember something being said about signals having been installed at one phase that were only commissioned later on. I don't know for sure if the Bi-Di is properly commissioned, and am not in a position to find out.
From OpenTrain Times, it looks like you would be able to work normally up to Appleford Crossover, and then it gets complex at Kennington, because I'm not sure what is a full passenger line and what is a reception road.

Now this is speculative but------ I feel as if the line had been electrified, civils work done in connection with electrification would have surely seen the bridge "upgraded" at the same time.

Probably, because they'd have had to attach at least one set of masts to the bridge, you'd think. However the condition of this bridge may well have been a big factor in deciding to get rid of this part of the scheme.

 

[A0]

Why, oh WHY! have we allowed vehicles which run on our rails to become "Incompatible" with each other? Once (and I remenber it well) coaches, wagons, locos all had a screw-link couplings and a vacuum hose to suck the brakes off, so anything could couple to anything else - and aften did. No doubt drivers' control equipment could have been be made compatible as well, so that any motive power could have moved any vehicle or any train of them train anywhere, any time. But no, fragmentation of the system has meant fragmentation of all that as well. What a pickle !
In the building industry we all have to build to a set of rules (The Building Regulations) but that doesn't stifle innovation - provided everything complies. Why not the railway as well?

Bit in bold - British Railways had 5 different coupling codes for DMUs as far back as the 1960s.

BR also introduced the HSTs without buffer beams or vacuum braking.

I'm not sure you can argue that the "fragmentation" of the railways since privatisation has led to this. After all the Turbos in question were built and delivered to BR spec.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

what's wrong at Fenny Compton

It's a long-term unstable embankment, with a 75mph restriction over more than a mile north of the junction at Fenny Compton.
It used to be 60mph, so it has been improved in the general speeding up of the route to 90/95mph.