• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
Looks like one 387 and one Turbo on the Reading-Newbury shuttles so far today.

1K04/1K11 was also a Turbo today (a first I think!) after being a 387 yesterday (and an HST or 5-car IET over the previous few weeks)

At this point of the day it would only be 1 Electrostar anyway. The tell will be if the 1114 is 387 or not.

1K04 was set swap at Reading - 12/387 to Reading then Turbo vice 4/387 beyond.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
The problems yesterday seemed to be at Midgham and Thatcham? - where the OHLE is high as it passes over level crossings, is this related?

To the best of my knowledge yes, that’s where the issues are; but I wasn’t working yesterday, so it’s second-hand info.
 

Thatcham Xing

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
173
Just went for a look at my local Station, as a couple of 387's called (up and down)

A gent in all-over orange (NR) was on the down platform and appeared to be paying close attention to the pan contact with the wires as they arrived and departed.
 

DidcotDickie

Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
159
Location
Oxfordshire
I assume a Down IET booked to stop at Newbury would lower its pan there too?
Don't know for sure but doubt it. Most likely down IETs booked to stop at Newbury would lower their pans at the same location as non-stoppers, near Newbury Racecourse.

Don't forget the same happens at Didcot. Only up stopping trains change power mode in the station, non-stoppers and all down services (whether stopping at Didcot or not) change at South Moreton.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,477
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
Don't know for sure but doubt it. Most likely down IETs booked to stop at Newbury would lower their pans at the same location as non-stoppers, near Newbury Racecourse.

Don't forget the same happens at Didcot. Only up stopping trains change power mode in the station, non-stoppers and all down services (whether stopping at Didcot or not) change at South Moreton.
Ah yes, fair point that.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
0806 Paddington to Newbury 387-operated throughout today; albeit passengers had to change to a different unit at Reading.
 

duesselmartin

Established Member
Joined
18 Jan 2014
Messages
1,902
Location
Duisburg, Germany
Don't know for sure but doubt it. Most likely down IETs booked to stop at Newbury would lower their pans at the same location as non-stoppers, near Newbury Racecourse.

Don't forget the same happens at Didcot. Only up stopping trains change power mode in the station, non-stoppers and all down services (whether stopping at Didcot or not) change at South Moreton.


Used the Oxford to Paddington 11:01 Service on the 29th . It switched off its engine and went on electric just after the junction at Didcot while on the move.

Martin
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
Are all 387s banned from the Berks Hants line or just the ones affected by the issues this week?

All except 6 or 7 units (I forget which off the top of my head) that have been checked as ok to work on the B&H.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
So the 387s were faulty?

No, the OHLE is set slightly higher over 4 crossings on the B&H than NR initially specified - to the exact height the overheight sensors are set to on the 387s. The tolerances we’re talking is single-figure cm here.

It’s easier to modify the 387s to work with the OHLE as installed than adjust the OHLE back to what was specified.
 

Grumbler

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2015
Messages
508
No, the OHLE is set slightly higher over 4 crossings on the B&H than NR initially specified - to the exact height the overheight sensors are set to on the 387s. The tolerances we’re talking is single-figure cm here.

It’s easier to modify the 387s to work with the OHLE as installed than adjust the OHLE back to what was specified.
Ah, so the OHLE was installed incorrectly.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
Ah, so the OHLE was installed incorrectly.
If anything the standards should probably be revised. It seems from what’s being said the maximum pantograph height above the rails and standard height of OHLE above the road at level crossings must be set to a very similar figure. I’d have expected an overlap?
 
Last edited:

FGW_DID

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2011
Messages
2,724
Location
81E
In which case they don't meet the spec...

8 units have operated on the Newbury diagrams, one has had an issue with it’s Pantograph overheight setting which after a very small adjustment has worked perfectly fine! Hardly a major issue.

It seems your username is quite appropriate, are you just trying to find some problem to ‘grumble’ about?
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
8 units have operated on the Newbury diagrams, one has had an issue with it’s Pantograph overweight setting which after a very small adjustment has worked perfectly fine! Hardly a major issue.

It seems your username is quite appropriate, are you just trying to find some problem to ‘grumble’ about?

It's entirely reasonable to be concerned if the pantograph and the OLE are both to standard and they don't work properly, as someone needs to look at the standards. Adjusting the overheight to be beyond the maximum required by standards is a temporary fix but could cause problems elsewhere (it will make the overheight slower to operate so more likely to cause more damage in a dewirement). If it doesn't work now when both the pantographs and the OLE are relatively new, then it won't work reliably in the future as things inevitably drift that little bit.
 

Emblematic

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Messages
659
Sounds like this is being overthought by the forum members here. This just sounds like a bit of fettling needed, OLE set right to the maximum allowable height to minimise issues at the crossings, and a few units adjusted right on or just below the limit on the pantograph overheight. Adjust the pans, problem solved, move on...
 

Linda.smith

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2018
Messages
23
Welcome - I see this is your first post
A lot of piles have now been done, although there is still quite a bit to be done in the newport area. I recently had a letter from network rail that they expect all piling to be complete by the end of July.
 

Linda.smith

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2018
Messages
23
I have recently had a scout around in the south east wales area. A lot of steelwork has now gone up at Severn tunnel station, But not enough for contact wires etc to be put in place. Further instalation of masts etc has happened west of the station, and is moving closer to Newport. Newport station is now close to 85% complete i think, with only 4 or 5 masts still to be installed. There are now more posts installed by lliswerry pond, with many having booms & registration arms etc ready for future wireing. I know that a lot of piling has been reported in the lliswerry / maindee area of the city (newport) as they are pushing on to newport station. And walking over somerton bridge earlier today, i did see evidence of this, with several piles being stacked awaiting usage. I could also see a fair amount of registration arms and a few booms - all awaiting instalation.

I have also seen (via youtube) video of network rail beginging piling work on platforms 3 & 4 at cardiff central.
 

Grumbler

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2015
Messages
508
8 units have operated on the Newbury diagrams, one has had an issue with it’s Pantograph overheight setting which after a very small adjustment has worked perfectly fine! Hardly a major issue.

It seems your username is quite appropriate, are you just trying to find some problem to ‘grumble’ about?

This may be just a minor issue, but it is sympomatic of lack of basic quality assurance, and that is down to management.

To make things work efficiently, standards have to be adhered to. Gone are the days when you had to fit plugs to home appliances or check that the voltage was compatible. Home computers are now plug and play. If things don't work, you get your money back. When you fill your car with unleaded or diesel, as appropriate, you can be pretty confident that it will be OK.

Yet still we have management that treats standards as an aspiration rather than to to be adhered to. I recall in the early 90s when the trains for the Channel Tunnel cause problems with the signalling on the Southern Region. The trains did in fact work according to spec - it was just that the spec from BR was incompatible with the signalling. This problem has now re-occurred with the introduction of the Azumas on the ECML over two decades later.

No wonder costs escalate.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,499
Location
Ripon
This may be just a minor issue, but it is sympomatic of lack of basic quality assurance, and that is down to management.

To make things work efficiently, standards have to be adhered to. Gone are the days when you had to fit plugs to home appliances or check that the voltage was compatible. Home computers are now plug and play. If things don't work, you get your money back. When you fill your car with unleaded or diesel, as appropriate, you can be pretty confident that it will be OK.

Yet still we have management that treats standards as an aspiration rather than to to be adhered to. I recall in the early 90s when the trains for the Channel Tunnel cause problems with the signalling on the Southern Region. The trains did in fact work according to spec - it was just that the spec from BR was incompatible with the signalling. This problem has now re-occurred with the introduction of the Azumas on the ECML over two decades later.

No wonder costs escalate.
Who said the wire height was wrong? It may have been correct for the situation over the crossing and it was the 387 that hadn't been adjusted. There are some 387s that are correct and didn't need adjusting. It's all part of de-snagging a new route. It is only a couple of inches. No big deal. Nothing to do with quality assurance.

How many crossings are there between Paddington and Didcot to previously test 387s? None as far as I can remember.
 

Grumbler

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2015
Messages
508
Who said the wire height was wrong? It may have been correct for the situation over the crossing and it was the 387 that hadn't been adjusted. There are some 387s that are correct and didn't need adjusting. It's all part of de-snagging a new route. It is only a couple of inches. No big deal. Nothing to do with quality assurance.
Will the pan reach the required height?
Is the contact wire low enough for the pans to reach?
Just a couple of inches! So that's OK then. Like the road in Australia built to connect two states across the outback - both states built their section of road to the border, but not at the same point on the border, which rendered the road rather useless.
Have management learnt from this mistake, or is it going to re-occur in the future?
 

-Colly405-

Member
Joined
25 May 2018
Messages
634
Location
Stoke Gifford
I might be over-simplifying things here, but surely correctly specified tolerances and components built in tolerance should mean that things will work.

If they don't work then either one of the two components (wire & pan) is out of spec, or the spec was wrong. In either case something hasn't been done properly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top