Goring Gap/AONBs and Electrification of the GWML

[Who Cares]

Mod Note: Split from this thread.

Anyone know how the Thames bridge at Maidenhead will be done? It seems to me that the most visually satisfactory method would be T-shaped supports based in the centre of the four-track layout, if the structure allows it, with each side arm of the T holding up the wires for two tracks.

Could this arrangement work as mitigation through the Goring Gap ??

Current plans don't seem to include this 'solution' for the Gatehampton and Moulsford viaducts....

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Could this arrangement work as mitigation through the Goring Gap ??

Current plans don't seem to include this 'solution' for the Gatehampton and Moulsford viaducts....

No.

Foundations in the middle of running lines is a major issue for track renewals and tamping, as is fitting them around drains which are placed in the middle of the pair of running lines for some of the route.

It also needs additional spacing between the pair of lines to fit a pair of twin track cantilevers or additional steelwork to make a back to back twin track cantilever strong enough to do its job.

Space is typically the one thing we don't have in abundance.

 

[Who Cares]

OK....Thanks....

By the way - you were about Friday's meeting....People who went said it was a bit of a non-event in terms of the NR people there having any technical knowledge relating to the project....

 

[WatcherZero]

Goring Parish Council, North Wessex Downs and the Chilterns Conservation Board have complained the newly installed overhead Supports are ugly so Network Rail has launched a consultation on swapping them out for a different design, subject to Dft funding.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Goring Parish Council, North Wessex Downs and the Chilterns Conservation Board have complained the newly installed overhead gantries are ugly so Network Rail has launched a consultation on swapping them out for a different design, subject to Dft funding.

If it succeeds it will be the cue for every council on the route (and elsewhere) to try it on.
I suppose they could put the cost on the local Council Tax? That's what "localism" should mean.
I think it will look better when the wires are up and operational - at least it will be seen to have a purpose then.
I can't imagine what replacing several miles of steelwork will do to the wiring timetable, not to mention the disruption from the possessions required.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Goring Parish Council, North Wessex Downs and the Chilterns Conservation Board have complained the newly installed overhead gantries are ugly so Network Rail has launched a consultation on swapping them out for a different design, subject to Dft funding.

There's no 'different design' so god only knows what end of the stick has been got hold of and by whom.

 

[route:oxford]

Goring Parish Council, North Wessex Downs and the Chilterns Conservation Board have complained the newly installed overhead gantries are ugly so Network Rail has launched a consultation on swapping them out for a different design, subject to Dft funding.

It would have been helpful if the three groups had offered to fund the difference.

Oh wait. It's essentially 3 government organisations "fighting" another government organisation.

And we wonder why there is so little money to go around...

 

[WatcherZero]

Noticed a typo, I said overhead gantries when I meant overhead support columns.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Noticed a typo, I said overhead gantries when I meant overhead support columns.

There's still nothing else available - the options are single track cantilever, twin track cantilever or gantry portal structures with monoboom anchor portal structures for tensioning.

It might be possible to replace some of the portals with single track cantilever masts, but given the cost and complication of using portals initially, it would be unlikely to be easily done, possibly needing track slews to create the space necessary for individual masts.

 

[Domh245]

Don't forget that a consultation would be preceded by a study where some consultant (Mr. Plopp?) will be paid to take 5 minutes to write 'No alternatives available, sorry'. This would then hopefully lead to NR offering something along the lines of

'There are no alternative designs. Therefore, you can just deal with it, or cough up some money to have the masts replaced by painted ones' or words to that effect

 

[steverailer]

There's still nothing else available - the options are single track cantilever, twin track cantilever or gantry portal structures with monoboom anchor portal structures for tensioning.

It might be possible to replace some of the portals with single track cantilever masts, but given the cost and complication of using portals initially, it would be unlikely to be easily done, possibly needing track slews to create the space necessary for individual masts.

These cannot be changed at all unless you come up with a magical way of tensioning or go back to the old A frame portal as on WCML which are larger and look worse.

Sorry but its a bit late in the day to be challenging the design.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

These cannot be changed at all unless you come up with a magical way of tensioning or go back to the old A frame portal as on WCML which are larger and look worse.

Sorry but its a bit late in the day to be challenging the design.

We could 'side tension' but it breaches the design criteria of having above track tensioning to avoid tail wires crossing over the adjacent track for three and more track routes.

That means dewirements can result in damage to the adjacent track's OLE, which the entire system has been designed to avoid.

 

[WatcherZero]

Didn't The government, RIBA and HS2 run a competition to design aesthetically pleasing column designs that were mechanically compliant with current standards?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Didn't The government, RIBA and HS2 run a competition to design aesthetically pleasing column designs that were mechanically compliant with current standards?

Yes they did/are, but HS2 won't be a big fat 4-track route except in a few places, so will not have many gantries.
The 2-track GW route west of Didcot and to Oxford/Newbury will only have slim single cantilevers, except at loops and stations.
I see there is an item on this on the Chilterns AONB site - we seem to have seen some of the arguments before!
http://www.chilternsaonb.org/news/248/19/Fight-to-protect-the-Goring-Gap.html

It is hoped these efforts will persuade Network Rail to meet its legal obligations and modify the electrification equipment to reduce the harm on the sensitive landscapes of the Chilterns and North Wessex Downs AONBs.
The Board and local residents will be pursuing this desired outcome with great tenacity - See more at: http://www.chilternsaonb.org/news/248/19/Fight-to-protect-the-Goring-Gap.html#sthash.McoLaK93.dpuf

 

[Domh245]

Didn't The government, RIBA and HS2 run a competition to design aesthetically pleasing column designs that were mechanically compliant with current standards?

I seem to remember an OHLE person, possibly on a different forum, going through them all and for the most part dismissing all of them as impractical/impossible as they were shown.

 

[Who Cares]

We could 'side tension' but it breaches the design criteria of having above track tensioning to avoid tail wires crossing over the adjacent track for three and more track routes.

That means dewirements can result in damage to the adjacent track's OLE, which the entire system has been designed to avoid.

PHILIP.....

Your suggestion about 'side tension' as a possibility....

Could this be a 'local solution' for the 4 or 5 miles of track we are discussing through the Goring Gap only ?

If so, together with painting the steelwork ( yes, I know....Should have been done before delivery / erection ) it seems a reasonable solution - using statistics, formulae, whatever, it might be possible to estimate the likelihood of such an event as you describe on just , what, 3% of the total track between Paddington and Cardiff ?

 

[Lurpi]

Good god. If this consultation leads to the masts being torn down it will be the icing on the cake for the problems this project has run into.

I can only hope and pray that the consultation leads where it should, i.e. the nimbys being told there's nothing to be done.

For what it's worth (very little as it turns out) here's a local paper's take on the story: http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=41575

“We want to see something with a lower impact and believe it is Network Rail’s statutory duty to provide this. There are illustrations of more elegant designs in circulation so it would not be starting completely from scratch.

I particularly like the picture of a speculative design for an HS2 gantry.

The CCB seems to think that the statutory undertaker's obligation to "have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB" means the same as "conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB". Wait till they hire a lawyer to tell them what it actually means...

 

[JamesRowden]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore the obvious method to produce "something with a lower impact" is to fix the people rather than the hardware. I would suggest offering the critics the opportunity to pay for all of the costs (including those related to subsequent project delays) related to altering the masts to make them more attactive. I am pretty sure that the critics would then conclude that the present design is infact the most beautiful considering the circumstances

 

[Philip Phlopp]

PHILIP.....

Your suggestion about 'side tension' as a possibility....

Could this be a 'local solution' for the 4 or 5 miles of track we are discussing through the Goring Gap only ?

If so, together with painting the steelwork ( yes, I know....Should have been done before delivery / erection ) it seems a reasonable solution - using statistics, formulae, whatever, it might be possible to estimate the likelihood of such an event as you describe on just , what, 3% of the total track between Paddington and Cardiff ?

It would require the design of some bespoke components and some different masts to fit the tensioning equipment to, and as I say, it breaches the core design criteria of not running tail wires over adjacent tracks. That's going to be costly at this late stage, but if the local council and park authority were to pay the costs, it could be viable.

Today's news that DfT has agreed to a 30% budget reduction pretty much guarantees what's happening though - there's now no way the DfT or Network Rail will be able to afford changing the portals on the route, and I believe this is what you're likely to be told. There might be some money left for a little tree planting, but beyond that, it's game over for your challenges, I'm afraid, unless someone else covers NR's costs here.

 

[AM9]

.... but if the local council and park authority were to pay the costs, it could be viable.

Maybe this is the way ahead where local interests think that proven functional designs don't look attractive enough for them. As Philip has pointed out several times, the robustness of the OLE is critical to operation of the railway for decades to come. The UK has had working experience of 100mph OLE designs for over 55 years now. The scrimping of costs in the '70s & '80s produced designs that whilst slightly more aesthetically appealing to some, have proven to be a reliability disaster, both in the frequency of their failures and the increased consequences of each failure. With speeds above 100mph and multiple pantograph working, these dysfunctional designs are simply not fit for purpose so there is no justification for wasting public funds deploying them.
So there could be scope for local authorities/organisations to provide not only the additional capital cost, but also any through-life incremental operational costs arising from the enforced use of a substandard design.

 

[steverailer]

For what it's worth (very little as it turns out) here's a local paper's take on the story: http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=41575

From the above newspaper link,

The company, which put up the plain grey structures in preparation for the electrification of the Great Western main line, is to launch a retrospective public consultation in the new year.

Think by the time the public consultation starts the wires will already be up in the affected area so adding to the cost of change

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Today's news that DfT has agreed to a 30% budget reduction pretty much guarantees what's happening though - there's now no way the DfT or Network Rail will be able to afford changing the portals on the route, and I believe this is what you're likely to be told. There might be some money left for a little tree planting, but beyond that, it's game over for your challenges, I'm afraid, unless someone else covers NR's costs here.

Beware of the headline "30%" DfT cuts.
They are cumulative at 8% a year, so not as drastic as might appear.
Then it's a cut to DfT's departmental budget, which is civil servants and consultants, and probably franchise subsidies.
However it should not affect NR's 5-year budget agreed by ORR.
Of course NR has massive problems with this budget anyway (hence the Hendy review), but I don't think we are looking at NR CP5 budget cuts.

 

[Radedamer]

It would have been helpful if the three groups had offered to fund the difference.

Oh wait. It's essentially 3 government organisations "fighting" another government organisation.

And we wonder why there is so little money to go around...

It's democracy in action! An expensive way of governing...

Probably the local council, once they've had talks with NR engineering bods, understand it's not possible; but they need to respond and be seen to respond to the demands of their local residents, who have not talked to anyone.

 

[Envoy]

Surely, it can't cost much (or anything) more to produce an attractive / less obtrusive design that still will provide reliability & potentially higher speeds into the future?

Consideration should also be given to how obtrusive the poles are on the eyes of those travelling on the trains. (Hopefully lifeline bushes/ trees will be removed so that passengers can have more open views across the landscape).

It is not just in the Goring area that the GWML passes through attractive / sensitive landscapes; e.g. the section through the Vale of Glamorgan west of Cardiff/ the line between Chippenham & Bristol.

Then we have the issue of shadows being cast onto houses/ gardens of properties that lie north of the tracks - especially in winter when the sun is low. Anything that can be done to mitigate this would surely be welcome.

 

[AM9]

Surely, it can't cost much (or anything) more to produce an attractive / less obtrusive design that still will provide reliability & potentially higher speeds into the future?

It has been explained many times on here that the requirement is for an OLE that will be stable when supplying trains travelling at speeds up to 140mph, with multiple pantographs operating. The design also specifies that if a catenary is pulled down by a train it is restricted as far as possible to the track involved. The GWML at this point has four tracks with little more than a standard '6 foot' space between them so there is no space for posts or masts between them.
So given all of that, there is only one currently proven style of support that will meet the requirements and it certaily isn't any form of headspan arrangement. So the only visual enhancement that is possible would be different shaped/coloured portals but with the same strength and rigidity.
I'm sure that minds far greater than most of those posting here have tried to create viable cost-effective solutions to requests like that for use in far more sensitive areas. If National Rail and the industry is going to start on a crusade for 'prettier' hardware then forget about programmes and budgets for electrification in the UK for another 10 years. That may be exciting for NIMBYs near lines that are due to be modernised and of course for diesel fans.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Surely, it can't cost much (or anything) more to produce an attractive / less obtrusive design that still will provide reliability & potentially higher speeds into the future?

How about we just don't bother with electrification at all ?

I'm getting rather weary repeating why things have been done the way they have been done, but just to repeat once again.

Portal structures are not cheap, they're not a default solution, they're the solution in light of specific problems which prevent single or twin track cantilevers.

That, in the case of the GWML, is mainly track geometry issues with tracks laid out slightly differently from 'as built' layout to allow 125mph/140mph running, where variances in the broad gauge trackbed has resulted in a different layout making TTCs unsuitable, where signal sighting issues cause problems for masts on their own, where drainage or signalling systems preclude a mast in a specific location, so a portal is used to work over the top of such an issue.

If you've got some crayons, I'd really be interested to see a different design of portal structure - I don't want to see regurgitated National Grid pylon crap which ignore the presence of contact wire, catenary wire, droppers, ATF feed, return feed, earthing bars and isolation equipment to try and look elegant in a newspaper, but in reality are unusable.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm getting rather weary repeating why things have been done the way they have been done, but just to repeat once again.

I suspect you're not the only one around here who is starting to feel that way...

 

[Who Cares]

It would require the design of some bespoke components and some different masts to fit the tensioning equipment to, and as I say, it breaches the core design criteria of not running tail wires over adjacent tracks. That's going to be costly at this late stage, but if the local council and park authority were to pay the costs, it could be viable.

Today's news that DfT has agreed to a 30% budget reduction pretty much guarantees what's happening though - there's now no way the DfT or Network Rail will be able to afford changing the portals on the route, and I believe this is what you're likely to be told. There might be some money left for a little tree planting, but beyond that, it's game over for your challenges, I'm afraid, unless someone else covers NR's costs here.

PHILIP –

As always, genuine Thanks for your reply – at least it is technically possible, then….Although I completely agree with you that it is highly unlikely that this will be offered or suggested by NR given the massive delays and £1.7bn (and counting) overspend that this Project has already managed to rack up….

However, to expect the Parish Councils or the AONB’s to pay for the additional works is obviously a non-starter (pay the extra costs themselves for NR’s ‘forgetfulness’ ??? ) so the challenges will continue….

Legal advice received so far is that NR have not followed statutory procedures and have not complied with the requirements of their own Environmental Statement produced by Atkins in 2012 therefore it is worth taking the case to court if NR do not provide mutually acceptable solutions to the mess which they have now got themselves into….

Timely consultation, compromise and agreement with the AONBs and residents of the Goring Gap on the design and mitigation before the engineering work started ( as is happening in Bath ) would have been the correct statutory procedure and probably would have been able to achieve a successful outcome for everyone….

But quite simply, NR have failed in this respect….

As it now stands, the courts would probably be asked to decide whether NR –

(1) Were simply incompetent in being unaware of their statutory requirements, although this is highly unlikely….

(2) Were aware of their statutory requirements and social responsibilities but deliberately chose to ignore them, for whatever reason….

(3) Took a strategic decision to ‘push these under the carpet’, and start the engineering works in the Goring Gap as soon as possible, and then deal with any problems later if the sh*t hit the fan, in order not to delay completion of the Test Track and therefore win back a bit of credibility once the full Project’s likely delays and cost overspends became known internally within NR….

I’ll leave you guys to decide which….

 

[AM9]

.... Legal advice received so far is that NR have not followed statutory procedures and have not complied with the requirements of their own Environmental Statement produced by Atkins in 2012 therefore it is worth taking the case to court if NR do not provide mutually acceptable solutions to the mess which they have now got themselves into….

Timely consultation, compromise and agreement with the AONBs and residents of the Goring Gap on the design and mitigation before the engineering work started ( as is happening in Bath ) would have been the correct statutory procedure and probably would have been able to achieve a successful outcome for everyone….

But quite simply, NR have failed in this respect….

As it now stands, the courts would probably be asked to decide whether NR –

(1) Were simply incompetent in being unaware of their statutory requirements, although this is highly unlikely….

(2) Were aware of their statutory requirements and social responsibilities but deliberately chose to ignore them, for whatever reason….

(3) Took a strategic decision to ‘push these under the carpet’, and start the engineering works in the Goring Gap as soon as possible, and then deal with any problems later if the sh*t hit the fan, in order not to delay completion of the Test Track and therefore win back a bit of credibility once the full Project’s likely delays and cost overspends became known internally within NR….

I’ll leave you guys to decide which….

Whatever a court may decide, the fundamental problem for those objecting to the current design is that there isn't an alternative that ticks all the boxes for the specification of the line and its suitability for running services over the next 50+ years. Aside from minor tweaks to the design such as the tensioners that Philip alludes to (which would make the system not fully fit for purpose in that a single line failure would frequently close at least one other), the requirement for a high perfomance line would still hold true and the line will open as one with all the OLE paraphenalia required.
The best that a challenge could hope for would be that the court would find against Network Rail in that they didn't follow the consultation process correctly. The objectors might get their legal expenses back, so they would come away with a principle established, but no court is going to say that the project should be stopped of dumbed-down to make the line less than the UK trunk railway it already is.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

However, to expect the Parish Councils or the AONB’s to pay for the additional works is obviously a non-starter (pay the extra costs themselves for NR’s ‘forgetfulness’ ??? ) so the challenges will continue….

The problem you're going to encounter is that Network Rail have full permission to do whatever they want on the route, dating back to the Acts of Parliament which authorised the original construction.

The public consultations aren't strictly necessary, unfortunately, and what they generally involve isn't how the electrified railway will look, but how local communities will deal with road closures for bridge reconstruction, level crossing closures, alterations to station access - practical day to day issues.

That's not to say people won't want specific issues relating to the masts and wiring dealt with, but essentially NR have the standard masts, cantilevers and portals available, and other than moving them around a little bit (feet and inches, not miles) there's going to be very little that can be changed at these public consultations, because, as I've said, NR don't need to consult on operational infrastructure matters.