ATF Feeder Installed outside the Network Rail Operational Land Boundary

[Johnttt]

Good Afternoon Team Members and experts,

Can anyone help me to understand the consequences and risk from the existing ATF that was installed outside the Network Rail operational boundary? . Is there any temporary risk mitigation until the issue is fixed completely.

I am looking forward to your replies.

Best Regards,

John

 

[Surreytraveller]

ATF?

 

[PG]

Good afternoon and welcome to the forum

I'm unable to assist with your query but in the interests of clarity (and forum rules) would ATF refer to an autotransformer feeder cable? If so then it might be more appropriate to post in the Infrastructure & Stations section of the forum.

 

[swt_passenger]

ATF?

Auto transformer feeder takes the usual abbreviation ATF. So the word “feeder” in the title seems to be superfluous.

But the original query would make a lot more sense with a location given...

 

[PeterC]

ATF?

It's a make of turkey feeder.

But it might be an auto transformer feeder but given the history of some projects I wouldn't be sure.

 

[Elecman]

is the OP sure it’s an ATF , And not an Ariel earth wire ? T would be most unlikely a Live cable at 25kV would be installed outwith Network Rails boundary

 

[GRALISTAIR]

----it might be more appropriate to post in the Infrastructure & Stations section of the forum.

I am inclined to agree.

But the original query would make a lot more sense with a location given...

Again, I agree. Location would really help. Also a picture paints a thousand words.

It would be most unlikely a Live cable at 25kV would be installed outside Network Rails boundary

Yes - again. I would be shocked (no pun intended).

 

[PG]

Auto transformer feeder takes the usual abbreviation ATF. So the word “feeder” in the title seems to be superfluous.

Much like the word "number" is superfluous when preceded by PIN. ..

 

[XAM2175]

Auto transformer feeder takes the usual abbreviation ATF. So the word “feeder” in the title seems to be superfluous.

Much like the word "number" is superfluous when preceded by PIN. ..

No, 'ATF' is commonly taken to be "autotransformer" alone. The word 'feeder' isn't redundant.

 

[WAO]

I think that the history of the acronymn is that we used the abbreviation FS for Feeder Station (later Site) for where the juice hits the wires. This was a little ambiguous as there are really two parts to a FS: the Network Operator (N Grid)'s step-down transformers and the railway's switchgear and connections. Then, when the intensive use of higher powered trains exceeded the capacity of the classic system, the Auto transformer system was adopted in places, so the FS became ATFS. The F is important to distinguish it from the ATS which could be regarded as equivalent to a "booster" site.

An ATFS is much bigger than a FS and is fed from a much higher Voltage. Mostly the voltage step-down to 25kV will be in a bay of a Grid substation with a short or long wired connection to the trackside. Integrated sites include the latest at Braybrooke and the first at Patford Bridge.

Those clever Electricals have now devised another called a Passive Frequency Converter or PFC; imagine a mobile phone charger but on a massive scale, delivering 25kV from a wider range of sources.

EOE

WAO

 

[td97]

Sounds like this could be Lostock ATF/ Autotransformer feeder

 

[Elecman]

ATS is the Autotransformer is the AT equivalent of the classic Track Section cabin

In some locations the Network Rail property boundary is far greater than just the immediate operational line side boundary

 

[Ploughman]

It would not be the first time a mast of whatever type has been planted outside the boundary.
I can think of 2 on the Leeds - Skipton line, One near the Canal towpath at Kirkstall and another near Cononley, where a piece of additional land had to be purchased to put the mast on the Right side of the fence. A number of years after the line was wired up.

 

[Nottingham59]

@Johnttt , welcome to the forum. Could you give us more details please about which specific ATF or ATF cable you mean, and what the issue is that may need risk mitigation?

This document talks about safety clearances, if it helps pinpoint what the issue is: https://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/de...ng/nr_a_guide_to_overhead_electrification.pdf
"Network Rail A Guide to Overhead Electrification 132787-ALB-GUN-EOH-000001"

 

[thecrofter]

I am inclined to agree.



Again, I agree. Location would really help. Also a picture paints a thousand words.

Yes - again. I would be shocked (no pun intended).

In the early days of WCML AT installation, there were a number of locations where the ATF was installed actually oversailing third party property (in fact the installation guidance notes allowed it) with appropriate risk assessment and authorised derogation. One in particular I recall was over the M1 on the Northampton Loop as there was no other means of meeting the electrical clearances within the railway boundary. Dispensation was sought from the Highways authority but of course the risk remains that should a live conductor fall over third party land then that has inevitable consequences. That original guidance was subsequently challenged and amended.

 

[plugwash]

the risk remains that should a live conductor fall over third party land then that has inevitable consequences.

Surely the same could be said about conductors owned by national grid or by one of the electricity distribution network operators.

 

[thecrofter]

Surely the same could be said about conductors owned by national grid or by one of the electricity distribution network operators.

Indeed. They however, will have the necessary wayleaves / easements in place and statutory powers including insurance cover for doing so. Network Rail doesn’t. That was a key element in getting NGET (National Grid Electricity Transmission) when building the AT feeder stations, to retain ownership of any lengthy interconnecting cables e.g. under Watford High Street, in case of faults, as NR wouldn’t be able to just come along and dig it it up!

 

[WiredUp]

Good Afternoon Team Members and experts,

Can anyone help me to understand the consequences and risk from the existing ATF that was installed outside the Network Rail operational boundary? . Is there any temporary risk mitigation until the issue is fixed completely.

I am looking forward to your replies.

Best Regards,

John

Hi John,

there should not be any ATF (aerial or cabled at low level) outside of the NR operational boundary. Whereabouts is this located?

Can you upload a photo so it can be confirmed that this is not a Return Conductor (same applies) or an aerial Earth Wire. Please show the OLE structures either side of it so the type of insulator that attaches the cable to the mast can be identified. The masts should have a structure ID plate attached to them which looks like this - please capture this if you can:


Thanks