Electricity transmission line above a railway? Old photograph

[lachlan]

While carrying out some research for a project for uni I came across this image from 1932 of a 132kV transmission line directly above a railway. The paper doesn't appear to state where this was taken. Does anybody recognise the area?

Source: https://www.telecommunicationtower..../Transmission-tower-development-in-the-UK.pdf

 

[AndyPJG]

Thought it might be here , near Mixbury NW of Finmere, but that's the trackbed of the Great Central, so not single track.

 

[michael74]

Driver to Guard: I have put the pan up we are now averaging Warp Speed 6....

 

[AndrewE]

I haven't seen anything like that before, but it reminds me of the distinctive power lines which used to run along the Leeds and Liverpool canal in north Liverpool.
There were gantries spanning the canal which carried 3 big cables on insulators. They have gone now, but I am surprised that I can't find any pictures of them. Unless I misinterpreted what I saw, or have mis-remembered, Wikipedia is wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddersfield_Narrow_Canal when it says

On the western side of the Pennines, the canal runs through the legs of an electricity pylon at Heyrod, near Stalybridge.

The pylon had been erected during the period when the canal was closed and the only viable route for restoration was through the legs.

No other such cases are known on navigable waterways worldwide although other pylons have been constructed across former waterways that have been filled in with rubble and soil

but you could split hairs and say a gantry is not a pylon!

 

[lachlan]

Thought it might be here , near Mixbury NW of Finmere, but that's the trackbed of the Great Central, so not single track.

Thanks for this. Was the Great Central double-track throughout? Looking at Google Earth historical view there is a 1945 image which doesn't appear to show the tower, so looks like the transmission line was added later, perhaps after the railway was removed.

Driver to Guard: I have put the pan up we are now averaging Warp Speed 6....

Haha never mind difficulties with electrification, I imagine it would be impossible to ensure the safety of workers and/or trains nowadays when either the railway or the transmission line require maintenance

 

[bangor-toad]

Hi there,
Taken from the St Helen's Star:
"The railway line is the Eccleston branch of the old St Helens Railway Company (opened in March 1859) which was initially built to serve Gillars Green Colliery, but with the intention of connecting with the Liverpool and Manchester Railway at Huyton."
Here's a picture of the pylon in-situ:

Here's the link to the article: Clicky

And here's a link to the NLS map of the area (1949-1970). You can see there were actually two pylons over the railway. (The small squares are the pylon locations)
https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/sid...45179&lon=-2.76195&layers=193&right=ESRIWorld

Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[Springs Branch]

I haven't seen anything like that before, but it reminds me of the distinctive power lines which used to run along the Leeds and Liverpool canal in north Liverpool.
There were gantries spanning the canal which carried 3 big cables on insulators. They have gone now, but I am surprised that I can't find any pictures of them. Unless I misinterpreted what I saw, or have mis-remembered . . . . .

You didn't mis-remember, I recall those distinctive electricity pylons above the L&L canal being landmarks in the north docks on the journey into Liverpool Exchange by train.

I believe the "staddle pylons" followed the canal a fair way north through Bootle - as far as Litherland, according to my old OS map, although photographs are surprising rare (maybe no-one was game to pull out a camera in this part of Liverpool back in the day!)

If you scroll through to around about image #27 in this link:- http://www.canalscape.net/Photography/Gallery.htm

or scroll down in this link: http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk/tour97/page12.html you'll recognise those characteristic old structures.

 

[Dai Corner]

You didn't mis-remember, I recall those distinctive electricity pylons above the L&L canal being landmarks in the north docks on the journey into Liverpool Exchange by train.

I believe the "staddle pylons" followed the canal a fair way north through Bootle - as far as Litherland, according to my old OS map, although photographs are surprising rare (maybe no-one was game to pull out a camera in this part of Liverpool back in the day!)

If you scroll through to around about image #27 in this link:- http://www.canalscape.net/Photography/Gallery.htm

or scroll down in this link: http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk/tour97/page12.html you'll recognise those characteristic old structures.

I can see the attraction of following the canal from the electricity company's point of view. They'd only have to negotiate with one landowner instead of hundreds.

 

[John Webb]

I haven't seen anything like that before, but it reminds me of the distinctive power lines which used to run along the Leeds and Liverpool canal in north Liverpool.
There were gantries spanning the canal which carried 3 big cables on insulators. They have gone now, but I am surprised that I can't find any pictures of them. Unless I misinterpreted what I saw, or have mis-remembered, Wikipedia is wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddersfield_Narrow_Canal when it says

but you could split hairs and say a gantry is not a pylon!

There are numerous aerial photos showing these gantries over the canal on the "Britain from Above" website - for example: https://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPR000235
But they are not easy to see due to their relatively lightweight structure. You really need to join the website (free!) which allows you to use the 'Zoom' feature for a closer view.

 

[AndrewE]

Thanks all, I hadn't remembered them being so complicated!
A

 

[Ashley Hill]

The Eccleston branch has long closed but is the pylon still there?

The Eccleston branch has long closed but is the pylon still there?

Answering my own question it’s not. The area is now very built up and the St Helen’s stadium is now Cunningham Grange. The cutting in which the pylon stood still appears to lurk amongst some trees.

 

[nw1]

Amazing the pylons date from as long ago as 1932.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Here’s a guide to design.

The Gorge - Electricity Pylon Design

www.gorge.org

And for £15 you could join this:-

Pylon Appreciation Society - Pylon Appreciation Society

 

[RichardAsh1981]

The 132kV tower line feeding the Melrosegate substation east of York were run along the Derwent Valley Light Railway formation (which is in cutting at that point), but I think were to one side of the line rather than straddling it. The current Google Earth images suggest the towers have been removed since 2007 when I last saw it.

The 132kV tower line between Capenhurst Supergrid Substation and Bromborough runs alongside the Birkenhead & Chester railway (both sides at different points, outside the railway fence) as far as Eastham. It then heads off down to the power station site at Bromborough via what looks like a random route through the urban area, but is actually following the land purchased by Lever Brothers in the 1930s to create a better (second) rail link into Port Sunlight and the other industrial sites at Brombrough Pool / Bromborough Dock / Bromborough Port. If the (tightly S-bend curved!) railway had been built it would have certainly been "under the wires" although I don't think actually under the towers. By the 1960s the towers were up but the railway plans were abandoned and the land sold for housing. Someone managed to get maps from the Levers archive and did some extensive forum posts, but I can't now find or remember which forum they were on.

 

[lachlan]

Hi there,
Taken from the St Helen's Star:
"The railway line is the Eccleston branch of the old St Helens Railway Company (opened in March 1859) which was initially built to serve Gillars Green Colliery, but with the intention of connecting with the Liverpool and Manchester Railway at Huyton."
Here's a picture of the pylon in-situ:

Here's the link to the article: Clicky

And here's a link to the NLS map of the area (1949-1970). You can see there were actually two pylons over the railway. (The small squares are the pylon locations)
https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/sid...45179&lon=-2.76195&layers=193&right=ESRIWorld

Cheers,
Mr Toad

That must be it, thank you!

 

[Tangent]

The plans for railway nationalisation drawn up under the Lloyd George coalition in 1919 envisaged not just railway nationalisation, but also the combination of electrification of the railways with the creation of the National Grid, as this would provide easy wayleaves. As a result, the new Ministry of Transport was given responsibility for electricity generation, and retained it throughout the inter-war period, only relinquishing it during the war.

It is certainly strange to imagine this scene being repeated across the main lines.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Here’s a guide to design.

The Gorge - Electricity Pylon Design

www.gorge.org

And for £15 you could join this:-

Pylon Appreciation Society - Pylon Appreciation Society

Slightly off topic - but you might be able to answer a question that has buzzed in my mind for a number of years. It follows a minor disagreement I had with a translator (native language Serbian) a few years ago. When I tried to correct her at a conference that the correct English word was 'pylon', she insisted the word in the professional electricity world in English was "tower".

Now I'm more aware than the average person of engineering terms, but not an expert in high-voltage transmission lines, so I didn't argue further. Thoughts?

 

[Ashley Hill]

Slightly off topic - but you might be able to answer a question that has buzzed in my mind for a number of years. It follows a minor disagreement I had with a translator (native language Serbian) a few years ago. When I tried to correct her at a conference that the correct English word was 'pylon', she insisted the word in the professional electricity world in English was "tower".

Now I'm more aware than the average person of engineering terms, but not an expert in high-voltage transmission lines, so I didn't argue further. Thoughts?

Im not a member of that society but was aware of their website. I think being the Pylon Appreciation Society suggests the preferred termination is Pylon. I’ve always called them pylons. Perhaps ‘Tower’ is an earlier name,it sounds a bit American.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Yes, 'Tower' is American. Wikipedia reminds me that in Canada they are sometimes known as 'Hydro Towers' at least in most of the Eastern side of the country where Ontario Hydro and Hydro-Quebec were (are?) the fully integrated electricity generator and supplier. But 'pylon' in the UK.
The 132kV network was mostly built pre-war (then effectively superseded by the 275kV and 400kV networks, ie. taller/wider towers), so anything of 132kV voltage can be assumed to have been built during the Grouping period of UK rail history. Presumably the LMS (in this case) welcomed the little bit of income they would have got from the wayleave right?

 

[lachlan]

Slightly off topic - but you might be able to answer a question that has buzzed in my mind for a number of years. It follows a minor disagreement I had with a translator (native language Serbian) a few years ago. When I tried to correct her at a conference that the correct English word was 'pylon', she insisted the word in the professional electricity world in English was "tower".

Now I'm more aware than the average person of engineering terms, but not an expert in high-voltage transmission lines, so I didn't argue further. Thoughts?

Having just completed our report for uni, I used "tower" as I read on a National Grid document somewhere that it was the correct term, not "pylon". But in day to day language I would say pylon.

 

[RichardAsh1981]

"Pylon" has become the word in everyday language. Pedants would insist that the six (normally) arms holding the insulators are technically "pylons" (to match the use in aircraft to describe the external mounts for engines, weapons etc.), although most online dictionaries now record the everyday usage.

Inside the electricity industry in the UK at least the term "tower" is normally used (as per National Grid document), partly to distinguish from "pole" (wooden unless otherwise specified). Within the industry the six things sticking out to carry the insulators are "cross-arms".

I would have to disagree about assuming that 132kV structures date from the Grouping period - whilst that covers the first build of the National Grid from 1927, the first 275kV lines are not built until 1953, and there was a lot of construction going on between 1948 and 1953 as electricity demand expanded, and life-expired pre-war assets were replaced. There has also been quite a lot of new 132kV construction since 1953, where the demand for electricty did not, and was not ever expected to, justify the much greater expense of higher voltage lines, larger substations and so on. A "typical" 132kV tower is now probably a 1960s structure, as many of the original pre-war ones have been taken down (usually because a 275kV / 400kV route has been built to replace them). There are apparently subtle design differences which indicate which period a given structure comes from, due to changes in the conductor technology they were designed to support.

 

[nw1]

"Pylon" has become the word in everyday language. Pedants would insist that the six (normally) arms holding the insulators are technically "pylons" (to match the use in aircraft to describe the external mounts for engines, weapons etc.), although most online dictionaries now record the everyday usage.

Inside the electricity industry in the UK at least the term "tower" is normally used (as per National Grid document), partly to distinguish from "pole" (wooden unless otherwise specified). Within the industry the six things sticking out to carry the insulators are "cross-arms".

I would have to disagree about assuming that 132kV structures date from the Grouping period - whilst that covers the first build of the National Grid from 1927, the first 275kV lines are not built until 1953, and there was a lot of construction going on between 1948 and 1953 as electricity demand expanded, and life-expired pre-war assets were replaced. There has also been quite a lot of new 132kV construction since 1953, where the demand for electricty did not, and was not ever expected to, justify the much greater expense of higher voltage lines, larger substations and so on. A "typical" 132kV tower is now probably a 1960s structure, as many of the original pre-war ones have been taken down (usually because a 275kV / 400kV route has been built to replace them). There are apparently subtle design differences which indicate which period a given structure comes from, due to changes in the conductor technology they were designed to support.

(Disclaimer - not a professional, but a layperson's observations...)

Most of the 132kv lines now are used in local networks, to distribute electricity from a substation on the main grid to local, 132 to 33kv substations.

I have noticed relatively subtle differences between the older pre-war designs (used in the early grid) and newer designs. The older designs appear more squat and chunky, while the new designs are slimmer and maybe a little taller. Good examples of the older designs include the line alongside the railway near Hedge End/Botley and the line alongside the M1 in the Watford/Luton area (which runs alongside a 275 or 400 kv line).

It's interesting looking at old maps from around 1945, as they show only the original 132kv lines. Many of these have since disappeared but some remain as they were reused for local networks. Some were re-routed: it appears the Hedge End/Botley line was originally part of a line which originated in central Southampton, doubled back in the Totton/Nursling areas, and then headed east via the Eastleigh area. Much of the line has now gone but it's been diverted to a new substation in the woods behind Thornhill.

In 1982 when the old Shoreham power station still seemed to operate, I remember a very large number of old 132kv lines head north towards the Downs. These have now largely gone. And does anyone remember the green 132kv pylons near Knutsford? (They still exist but are no longer coloured green).

 

[swt_passenger]

Interesting point about the 132 kV system is that in the case of the ECML power upgrade at Marshall Meadows, which is using a pair of SFCs, the existing pair of single phase 132 kV supplies from the Berwick substation are being upgraded to a pair of 3 phase supplies along the same route, with the existing two single wooden pole runs upgraded to pairs of “H-poles”. (I think they’re the twin poles with a crossbar?). According to the planning application this sort of online upgrade has an exemption as long as they stay fairly close (within 60m) to the existing route.

 

[RUFJAN15]

"Pylon" has become the word in everyday language. Pedants would insist that the six (normally) arms holding the insulators are technically "pylons" (to match the use in aircraft to describe the external mounts for engines, weapons etc.), although most online dictionaries now record the everyday usage.

Inside the electricity industry in the UK at least the term "tower" is normally used (as per National Grid document), partly to distinguish from "pole" (wooden unless otherwise specified). Within the industry the six things sticking out to carry the insulators are "cross-arms".

I would have to disagree about assuming that 132kV structures date from the Grouping period - whilst that covers the first build of the National Grid from 1927, the first 275kV lines are not built until 1953, and there was a lot of construction going on between 1948 and 1953 as electricity demand expanded, and life-expired pre-war assets were replaced. There has also been quite a lot of new 132kV construction since 1953, where the demand for electricty did not, and was not ever expected to, justify the much greater expense of higher voltage lines, larger substations and so on. A "typical" 132kV tower is now probably a 1960s structure, as many of the original pre-war ones have been taken down (usually because a 275kV / 400kV route has been built to replace them). There are apparently subtle design differences which indicate which period a given structure comes from, due to changes in the conductor technology they were designed to support.

'Pylon' may be the preferred term in everyday language, but as you suggest the technically correct term is 'tower'.

Common industry technical standards for much of the world are established by the International Electrotechnical Commission (generally abbreviated to IEC), who publish the International Electrotechnical Vocabulary (IEV). This can be viewed on line at https://www.electropedia.org/

The definition of a tower is 'a support which may be made of such material as steel, wood, concrete, and comprising a body which is normally four-sided, and cross-arms'. Interestingly the French translation of this term is 'pylône', which is presumably the origin of the name 'pylon'. The IEV does not recognise pylon as a technical term in English.

Finally, I would disagree that changes in tower design have been driven by conductor technology. The fundamental principles of the high voltage conductor system are the same today as they were in 1927; there are other factors that drive the design of the supporting towers, in which aesthetics often plays a major role. The new 'T Pylons' which National Grid has recently installed in Somerset (https://www.powerpylons.com/t-pylon) carry the same conductors as the conventional lattice steel towers, they are just designed to have a more visually appealing form.

And yes, the new tower design is almost universally referred to as a 'T Pylon', even though this description is not recognised in technical standards!

 

[mmh]

Haha never mind difficulties with electrification, I imagine it would be impossible to ensure the safety of workers and/or trains nowadays when either the railway or the transmission line require maintenance

Is there really a safety difference between that and the countless places where power lines cross railway lines?

 

[70014IronDuke]

"Pylon" has become the word in everyday language. Pedants would insist that the six (normally) arms holding the insulators are technically "pylons" (to match the use in aircraft to describe the external mounts for engines, weapons etc.), although most online dictionaries now record the everyday usage.

Inside the electricity industry in the UK at least the term "tower" is normally used (as per National Grid document), partly to distinguish from "pole" (wooden unless otherwise specified).

Thanks to you and others on this clarification. I'm not sure of the logic regarding 'pole' and tower, but there it is. The translator was quite right! Regards.

 

[RichardAsh1981]

I have noticed relatively subtle differences between the older pre-war designs (used in the early grid) and newer designs. The older designs appear more squat and chunky, while the new designs are slimmer and maybe a little taller. Good examples of the older designs include the line alongside the railway near Hedge End/Botley and the line alongside the M1 in the Watford/Luton area (which runs alongside a 275 or 400 kv line).

This is what I meant about conductor technology. Original designs were to support Aluminium Conductor with Steel Reinforcing (ACSR), which required a certain set of span lengths / heights / tensions. When aluminum demands for the second world war meant that copper had to be substituted, the towers were built taller by adding another section of lattice into the structure. After the war, the tower design did not change back when use of ACSR resumed, but rather heavier conductors were strung (more power flow) taking advantage of the additional height. Current standard is All Aluminium Alloy Conductor (AAAC) and has allowed further increases in power flow.

Interesting point about the 132 kV system is that in the case of the ECML power upgrade at Marshall Meadows, which is using a pair of SFCs, the existing pair of single phase 132 kV supplies from the Berwick substation are being upgraded to a pair of 3 phase supplies along the same route, with the existing two single wooden pole runs upgraded to pairs of “H-poles”. (I think they’re the twin poles with a crossbar?). According to the planning application this sort of online upgrade has an exemption as long as they stay fairly close (within 60m) to the existing route.

H pole is indeed two poles sharing a single cross arm (more often found supporting a transformer on a second, lower, cross-arm when it looks more like a capital letter 'H'). Slightly surprised that this is needed, because 3-phase 132kV on a single wood pole is very much a thing ("Trident Line", because the insulators splay out from the cross-arm, like the right hand picture here https://www.spenergynetworks.co.uk/pages/our_proposals.aspx). But a trident line requires very thick poles, so it may be easier to put a second pole next to each existing one, rather than dig the current ones out and put thicker ones in place of them for an upgrade. Changing the pole spacing is a very disruptive thing to do!

Is there really a safety difference between that and the countless places where power lines cross railway lines?

Quite a big one, because maintenance requires the tower to be climbed, where as the middle of the span is very rarely accessed. The tower has to be painted for instance (about very 10 years). If you drop the paint pot from most towers, it goes in a field and nobody cares too much. From this tower, it lands on the active railway line. Not to mention needing trackside access to get to the bottom of the tower and start climbing.

 

[swt_passenger]

H pole is indeed two poles sharing a single cross arm (more often found supporting a transformer on a second, lower, cross-arm when it looks more like a capital letter 'H'). Slightly surprised that this is needed, because 3-phase 132kV on a single wood pole is very much a thing ("Trident Line", because the insulators splay out from the cross-arm, like the right hand picture here https://www.spenergynetworks.co.uk/pages/our_proposals.aspx). But a trident line requires very thick poles, so it may be easier to put a second pole next to each existing one, rather than dig the current ones out and put thicker ones in place of them for an upgrade. Changing the pole spacing is a very disruptive thing to do!

Thanks for that extra detail. Interesting that you suggest they could add second poles all along the route. I think I’ll have another look at the planning application - yes it refers to “additional poles”, rather than replacements.

The Northumberland council planning reference and description is:
“21/03293/ELEGDO”
“Refurbishment of overhead line including installation of additional wood pole supports and new conductors (wires) along length of existing line routes to provide increased electricity supply to Network Rail to facilitate new fleet of electric trains on East Coast Mainline. | Land Running From Berwick Substation To Marshall Meadows Berwick-Upon-Tweed Northumberland”

I‘m pretty sure that the spacing along the run, ie overall numbering, is basically the same as existing.