ArchieWoodbine
Member
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 260
If that was on Wednesday, there were OLE issues near Slough in the evening peak. I noticed a few IETs leaving PAD on diesel.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Great Western Electrification Progress
- Thread starter 76020
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
No it wasn't then.
R G NOW.
Member
Could we now see a start on electrifying from Chippenham onto Bristol temple meads, now that the contractor has about finished in Cardiff. I suggest one way to get around the problem in the Sydney gardens area is to lower the tracks, would that help. I said that because there are too many listed structures in that area. I suppose Brunel could not see that far into the future back then.
Last edited:
The track was lowered in Sydney gardens to give the required clearances, we had to endure buses for a summer. Box tunnel was also lowered. The problem was the government cancelled due to the costs of the programme as a whole and they sought to make political gain by saving the tax payer the relatively small amount of money that was needed to finish it off after all the major works had been done.
R G NOW.
Member
Sorry could not remember when it was done then. So we are ready then. It beggars belief to cancel such a great thing and spend too much on hs2 and not complete jobs already planned. idiots?.
Even better the piles and many of the masts are in place from Chippenham to Thingley but that got cancelled as well and so instead of being able to change over at Chippenham where everything stops they have to do a running change at Christian Malford several miles to the East. The stumbling block there appeared to be the listed footbridge but pretty sure that could have been resolved with a short neutral section.
It should be remembered that listed buildings are not sacrosanct, even from demolition, let alone alteration, if there are overwhelming reasons why this should be consented to. I think there were some arches on the Northern line electrification that were rebuilt. Was it at Chorley?
Elecman
Established Member
Yes it was the flying arches at Chorley that were removed and then subsequently reinstated after electrification equipment was installed
Envoy
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 2,478
Quite frankly I find is ridiculous that some listed features - such as flying arches - can cause costs to escalate. I really do wonder if Joe Public goes to take photographs of flying arches or old footbridges? The features on the section through Bath are of course in completely a different league and rightly, should be protected as far as possible.
I note that the local authorities in both Bath & Bristol are taking measures to reduce the terrible air pollution caused by traffic. I therefore contend that it is imperative that the government authorise the immediate commencement of works to electrify the rail lines through these cities.
I note that the local authorities in both Bath & Bristol are taking measures to reduce the terrible air pollution caused by traffic. I therefore contend that it is imperative that the government authorise the immediate commencement of works to electrify the rail lines through these cities.
I’ve a question about Steventon, I’ve googled it and read a couple of posts but I’m struggling to understand the chronological order.
As I understand it, NR wanted to demolish and rebuild it, local council rejected. Obviously a work around has been found as there’s talk of through 387 services and 800 series have been running for a while.
would anyone mind writing a brief summary in order of the events that unfolded?
As I understand it, NR wanted to demolish and rebuild it, local council rejected. Obviously a work around has been found as there’s talk of through 387 services and 800 series have been running for a while.
would anyone mind writing a brief summary in order of the events that unfolded?
In all honesty, any summary would not be very brief. You've about got it in broad brush terms, though.
The village parish council has a website page about events over the past three years, though discussion about the future of the bridge was going on before then.
http://www.steventon.info/railway.html
But we are not at the end of the road yet. Network Rail still has an live appeal lodged with the Planning Inspectorate against the refusal of listed building consent to demolish the bridge and may yet ask for it to go forward for a decision at some point this year, or decide to come back at a later date, if the current arrangements are not delivering on-time running.
I’ll search that shortly, but would you mind explaining how the railway have been able to get to that stage? Had any track been partially lowered? Is there a pan drop and coast? Is there wires under the bridge at all?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
They were actually put back well before the OLE went in. They now sit on steel girders and I assume the OLE is fixed to those.
There is wire under the bridge - having wire there was never the problem.
The issue is that to get through the bridge, but then be high enough over the virtually adjacent level crossing, the gradient of the wire relative to the track was extreme - way beyond the system design limits for UKS1 OHLE.
Very steep relative wire gradient is a problem as either - the pan can’t react fast enough and becomes detached from the wires; or in the opposite direction suffers too much compression force and suffers damage.
Simulation and Modelling initially suggested 60mph was the maximum “safe” speed at that wire gradient, and so an EMU60/125 speed limit was installed under the bridge. As IETs could go significantly faster on diesel they were doing changeover, while the 387 ECS moves to Cocklebury EMU Sidings crawled under the bridge. Further modelling and some verification runs showed that if all parties accepted a higher degree of wear to some components 110mph would be possible. Hitachi, GWR and Network Rail agreed and so the speed limit was increased to 110 for all trains under the bridge, and changeover equipment removed for use elsewhere.
The issue is that to get through the bridge, but then be high enough over the virtually adjacent level crossing, the gradient of the wire relative to the track was extreme - way beyond the system design limits for UKS1 OHLE.
Very steep relative wire gradient is a problem as either - the pan can’t react fast enough and becomes detached from the wires; or in the opposite direction suffers too much compression force and suffers damage.
Simulation and Modelling initially suggested 60mph was the maximum “safe” speed at that wire gradient, and so an EMU60/125 speed limit was installed under the bridge. As IETs could go significantly faster on diesel they were doing changeover, while the 387 ECS moves to Cocklebury EMU Sidings crawled under the bridge. Further modelling and some verification runs showed that if all parties accepted a higher degree of wear to some components 110mph would be possible. Hitachi, GWR and Network Rail agreed and so the speed limit was increased to 110 for all trains under the bridge, and changeover equipment removed for use elsewhere.
thank you for that comprehensive but easy to understand summary.
I take it everyone not going to London got turfed out in Cardiff.I bet they were happy.
Wychwood93
Member
RTT would indicate that the 1L13, 0950 ex-Cardiff was held for the 1L12 and departed from platform 1 at 10.03 - the 1L12 from platform 2 at 10.00 1/2 - I would hopefully presume that a cross-platform change would have been advised. If that was not the case then a few miffed folk around.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
It appears it lost 46 minutes at Swansea; was this another coupling up issue?
No, door fault.
devonexpress
Member
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2016
- Messages
- 279
800/802s can already go to Oxford under diesel power, in fact they've replaced 165/166s on the semi fast services between Oxford and London.
If the electrification is done it allows 387s to do the entire Oxford to London stopping service, freeing up a Class 165 that currently does a shuttle between Didcot and Oxford/Banbury
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,418
I think hwl probably meant that 387s would be able to replace some 800/802 as well as the 165...
devonexpress
Member
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2016
- Messages
- 279
Ah right, possibly then
Peter Sarf
Established Member
I imagine we are facing the stage where the electrification teams have little left to do so get disbanded. Wave bye bye to all the hard won skills and experience gained on this project. Thus guaranteeing the next electrification project will be more expensive than needs be. History about to be repeated - again (grammar intended !).
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Sadly I feel you are correct. It really does upset me. It really does.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
I am afraid so. Its really an example of where non-technical management really overlook the value of technical skills. Things only get managed by financial value. For example it is hard to put a figure on quality vs customer satisfaction - only common sense works there.
The same valuation is lacking with re-using skills while you have the chance. Obviously one cannot go round electrifying something just to keep the teams busy long term but the longer view needs to see how far into the future the next major electrification project is. Oh er, I've gone and said it !.
And all these middle aged EMUs on the scrap heap. Not to mention workforce. Some of whom will go to pastures new far away across the channel (and further). They won't come back unless they have to. Just occurred to me that applies to people and rolling stock !.
Last edited:
devonexpress
Member
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2016
- Messages
- 279
Your probably right unless the new government get's in backside in gear(I highly doubt it)
superkev
Established Member
You forgot to mention all the expensive specialist plant rusting away or even scrapped.
Before I retired a colleague coined the phrase "unstoppable march of the clerks" where over promoted clerks seemed to be on a mission to de-skill so as to increase there status and pay. They, along with our clueless politicians still think that experienced engineers, technicians and expensive plant can materialise out of thin air and equally well vanish when not needed.
I remember in BR days the Easten Region engineer who controlled his budget then kept the piling team working up the East coast main line after the initial electrification was finished to Hitchin. Most usefull when the rest if the ECML was approved.
Glad I'm retired away from them all.
K
Retired engineer
- Status