• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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.

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,056
Location
Mold, Clwyd
In "works" news, I noticed this morning that there's a stretch near Tilehurst where the wire-danglers (technical term) have been installed on the gantries.

Well at least that's a bit of good news. I think "registration equipment" is the correct term. ;)
To give some idea of overall progress on the Tilehurst-Didcot section, the first booms went up 8 months ago on 21 November 2014 (post #703).
The first masts went up 13 months ago on 13 June 2014 (post #340).

The wires will be next, assuming they have a continuous run of masts/booms/registration gear.
In the NW, the first wires up were the earth wires between the masts on either side rather than the live wires over the tracks.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
15,262
Location
St Albans
GWR_4038_on_Cornish_Riviera_Express.jpg


This has been raised (and ignored) already, but I'm going to raise it again.

This is what the Great Western Railway looked like 100 years ago. I trust you've noticed the simply enormous signal telegraphy posts, the print is too old to show clearly the telegraph wires, but there are something in the region of 60 to 70 wires running parallel to the railway track. The posts here are getting on for some 60ft in height at this location, quite substantially taller than the electrification masts being erected currently.

http://freepages.nostalgia.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cyberheritage/cary2.jpg gives an excellent idea of what the route used to look like in recent memory, in fact, with a modern train for scale.

Electrification is doing nothing but taking the railway back to how it looked for the vast majority of its lifetime, and these images are an excellent indication of how the railway and the surrounding landscape constantly changes and evolves.

Note that there are only a few trees in the picture and none of them are nearer than 50metres to the cutting let alone the track.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,056
Location
Mold, Clwyd

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
9,382
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
I meant on the current NW electrification project. :|

I know you meant that - what I was trying to say was, the earth wires also went up first when they wired WCML extension in 1972/73. I lived with the railway passing our back garden and watched every stage as they wired it.
Bases
Burn out the polystyrene inserts
Masts
Grout
Danglies/cantilevers
earth wires
Catenerary
Contact wires

Always seems to follow that order.

Sorry for any confusion :D
 
Last edited:

Ploughman

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
2,987
Location
Near where the 3 ridings meet
You wouldn't electrify? This would leave one of the busiest lines in the country reliant on increasingly expensive (to buy and run), slow, and polluting diesel trains. With noisy engines revving up whenever they leave stations. Why impose the environmental consequences on the rest of the world?


If I lived there (and I nearly did move there last year) I think the noise of the Turbos chugging along out of the station would be more annoying.

Electric Locos and units can be noisy as well.
Maybe not out in the open or when running but have you been on any station when a 225 pulls in and then starts off. The noise is quite noticeable.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,003
Someone earlier said I should blame the Victorians for the powers that NR now wave around....Utter rubbish...The Project has been undertaken by NR using its Permitted Development Rights under the powers of Schedule 2, Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act ( General Permitted Development ) Order 1995 as amended....Seems that I'm actually more informed than some of you enthusiastic contributors and experts quick to criticise me....

These development rights can be traced back to the majority of railway construction authorisation acts and have appeared in subsequent railway/transport and/or planning acts/orders.

The Transport Act, 1962, which established the British Railways Board, gave the British Railways Board and the British Waterways Board the power to develop their land in any way they saw fit, prior to that, the Transport Act, 1947 gave the British Transport Commission almost total carte blanche to do as they pleased, specifically, the BTC was given the powers to construct, manufacture, purchase, maintain and repair anything needed to carry out the authorised business of the BTC, and to do all other things which in the opinion of the Commission are necessary to allow the proper operation of the business.

You also said that works were being carried out under Schedule 2, Part 11 of the 1995 order, but Schedule 2, Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 doesn't give Network Rail any powers of permitted development, it's the part of the order which allows powers granted through separate Acts of Parliament or Orders approved by Parliament to be used to carry out development work. That could be an Act or Order made as a result of Network Rail's application, or anything prior to Network Rail coming into existence, it could be something made prior to the British Railways Board or British Transport Commission coming into existence.

Part 17 is the part which gives Network Rail, as a railway undertaker, specific permitted development powers, and is included to cover instances where previous acts which included specific or permitted development have been repealed, the permitted development needed is unduly complicated because routes were built under two or more Acts of Parliament, or those Acts don't contain the necessary provisions for what Network Rail intends, which comes about because some of these Acts are 150 years old.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,253
Huh ??

Someone earlier said I should blame the Victorians for the powers that NR now wave around....Utter rubbish...The Project has been undertaken by NR using its Permitted Development Rights under the powers of Schedule 2, Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act ( General Permitted Development ) Order 1995 as amended....Seems that I'm actually more informed than some of you enthusiastic contributors and experts quick to criticise me....

I'm accused of being overly concerned about AONBs and the particular AONB which the Project passes through and I admit that my choice of words when posting is not always as they should be....Meanwhile, I refer you to the Environmental Statement prepared for NR by ATKINS in October 2012 ( search for it as I had to ) and you'll see numerous references to the AONB and NR's intended mitigation actions vis-à-vis the AONB....I'd bet that hardly any of you have even heard of and probably none of you have read this report before firing off about AONBs and NR's social responsibilities....

So....Please can we continue a semi-informed debate without further insults ?

Sorry to disappoint you but I can assure you that NR's powers are derived from 19th century - as Philip Phlopp has explained above - and to make sure that everyone understands this, NR appends copies of the original Acts of Parliament to applications for prior consent submitted to planning authorities, such as this one when a new footbridge was built at Honeybourne station. Frightfully old hat, I know, but it is the law of the land...

http://wam.wychavon.gov.uk/WAM/doc/...&contentType=application/pdf&location=volume2

Taken from the full set of thumbnails of the planning documents here

http://wam.wychavon.gov.uk/WAM/show...id=720078&appid=1001&docType=Application Form

And if you want a semi-informed discussion, then perhaps try cutting out silly sweeping statements such as "the virtual destruction of an AONB" and come up with a more informed argument than one along the lines of 'the railway should not be allowed to have overhead electric catenary to power its trains' - despite that being the way that most modern railways do it, PS you still haven't answered my question about whether you use TGVs powered in this frightful fashion through some not unattractive parts of France - and that trees should not be removed even if 30 years ago they wouldn't have been there in the first place and there are some pretty basic safety reasons why they need to be removed, unless your friends are keen on being in the vicinity of 25,000v electrical arcs.
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
32,921
.I'd bet that hardly any of you have even heard of and probably none of you have read this report before firing off about AONBs and NR's social responsibilities....

There were links posted to many of the environmental reports back in June 2014, last time we were having a discussion about these sorts of issues.

Please don't think you are treading new ground...
 

broadgage

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2012
Messages
1,094
Location
Somerset
I am pro electrification, oil is polluting and liable to increase in price as supplies deplete.
Coal burning steamers are a splendid sight, and I and others pay good money to travel thus, but I cant foresee a general return to steam on busy main lines.
Battery technology shows promise for branch line routes but seems unlikely on a busy main line.
So future trains need to be largely electric, and that means AC overhead electrification since the safety industry is opposed to any significant expansion of third rail schemes.
IMHO, we have already spent enough money and time on enquiries, consultations and nimbyfests and now need to get on with electrification without diverting any more effort into more studies and consultations.

As has been pointed out, railways used to have telegraph poles strung with huge numbers of wires, and this now regarded no doubt as heritage despite being more obtrusive than electrification equipment.

I have my doubts about the design of the new trains, too short and no buffets ! but that is NEW train disease and not ELECTRIC train disease.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
9,382
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
I am pro electrification, ---
So future trains need to be largely electric, and that means AC overhead electrification since the safety industry is opposed to any significant expansion of third rail schemes.
IMHO, we have already spent enough money and time on enquiries, consultations and nimbyfests and now need to get on with electrification without diverting any more effort into more studies and consultations.

May I add a hearty "Hear, hear" ? It seems roads never get the same nonsense. they just get built.
 

Who Cares

Member
Joined
5 Jun 2015
Messages
72
33HZ – Your partly right….Clutching at straws is an apt description for anything to do with trying to get NR to listen, discuss and act in good faith….

Destruction of an AONB was, in retrospect, not the most accurate description – it would be more accurate to say a significant and extremely beautiful part of it of which the GWR is an essential ingredient and contribution to the landscape is now ‘ on the point of being irreparably damaged ‘ and most likely will vanish forever unless NR can be persuaded to meet their social responsibilities…. As JIMM said, there’s still a lot of the AONB which is not affected by the Project, but if NR are seen to be able to ‘ get away with this one ‘ the future for beautiful, gorgeous Bath and other AONBs is unthinkable….

But I do object to your ‘ friends and relatives ‘ comment – you have no idea who I am so it is impossible for you to state that I am doing this for friends and relatives….But in case you doubt, my family are scattered to the winds – Mother in the North West, me here in France, children in Somerset and Oklahoma….….I still have a small handful of old friends in the area, but none of them are overly concerned about the Project and I refer to them as NIMBYSDGAF friends ( So I Don’t Give A **** ) as all but two of them live North of Wallingford.

However, one of my last really close friends in the area before I came here was Bob Horton, who sadly died a couple of years ago….Bob had homes in London, Venice, a Farm in Normandy and, I think, another in the States, but such was his love for the Goring Gap, and South Stoke in particular, he always referred to South Stoke as ‘ home ‘ and his house was no more than 100 yards from the line with uninterrupted views from many windows to the South Stoke embankment….Knowing him as I did, I’m fairly sure that he would be spinning in his grave if he knew about the incompetence with which this Project appears to have been conceived and is being delivered, its impact on the AONB and the Goring Gap in particular but above all, NR’s lack of social responsibility and Good Faith to the communities affected.

JIMM and others wanting replies from me this time - I haven't forgotten but I do have a life other than railways and this forum....Seen the time ??
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,003
I’m fairly sure that he would be spinning in his grave if he knew about the incompetence with which this Project appears to have been conceived and is being delivered, its impact on the AONB and the Goring Gap in particular but above all, NR’s lack of social responsibility and Good Faith to the communities affected.

You keep saying things like lack of social responsibility and impact on the AONB, but when corrected, completely ignore what is said.

I think you and your friends should be enormously grateful at the social responsibility Network Rail has shown and continues to show as the program continues.

The Series 1 overhead line equipment is a very clean, low profile design, making no use of the enormous headspans we see on the East Coast Main Line, where the masts for those are getting on for 50ft in height.

The small part metalwork, the actual catenary components, are simple, unfussy and uncomplicated - four tracks on the GWML will feature four insulators, whilst four tracks on the ECML typically feature nine insulators, the auto tensioning arrangements will be tidier featuring spring tensioners rather than weighted tensioners as the ECML uses. There's no tail wires and additional steelwork associated with that, which also makes for a cleaner, less visually intrusive design.

It's never going to be invisible, but it's as visually unobtrusive as is possible.

The electrification projects have been conducted with great respect for local residents, bridge re-building projects have been staggered, at additional cost to Network Rail, to avoid the need for lengthy diversions and to prevent access difficulties for local residents, and when these new bridges are installed, they're frequently wider, remove weight restrictions, have better pavements, and better access for utilities for things like fibre broadband.

Network Rail have also removed a number of level crossings, they've installed new footbridges in their place, and existing footbridges have been upgraded or replaced with ones accessible for disabled people.

Network Rail really are being incredibly socially responsible, and they're taking great care of an area of natural beauty. You need to begin to accept this. What they're doing might not be to your total satisfaction, but they could be doing something that's much uglier and far more intrusive.
 

topydre

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
200
BBC reporting on what the Welsh Secretary said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-33586484
The electrification of the rail line from London to Swansea could take longer than planned, Welsh Secretary Stephen Crabb has indicated.
The project is due to be completed by 2018, but there have been delays in the electrification of the network around the UK.
Mr Crabb said the upgrade commitment was "rock solid" but it might not be completed on time.
Network Rail said a review of its five-year investment plan was under way.
Speaking to BBC's Sunday Politics Wales programme, Mr Crabb said: "We can guarantee that it's going to be electrified through to Swansea. That commitment is there, it's rock solid.
"Network Rail has got a lot of balls in the air at the moment.
"If they've got themselves into problems in terms of delivering some of these projects to a particular timetable, you know, it's for them to come forward and explain that.
"The importance is that we secure a strong political commitment to finishing the project and getting that electrification through to Swansea.
"Whether that happens in accordance with exactly the timetable that we want it to and we envisaged, I'm not here to say that that will be the case but, clearly, we're going to finish the project and it won't be too far out of the original timetable."
It is the first indication yet about potential delays to the Swansea project.
Last month, UK Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said Network Rail's five-year plan was being reset as it was "costing more and taking longer".
He told MPs schemes in the Midlands and Yorkshire would be put on hold but said the electrification of the Great Western line was a top priority.
The electrification of the connecting south Wales valleys lines is due to be completed by 2020.
Welsh government Transport Minister Edwina Hart told the programme there was "constructive dialogue" between the two governments, but insisted delivery of the scheme was the responsibility of the UK government.
"It's their commitment to the people of Wales so they will stand and fall by their ability to deliver these projects on time and in budget," she said.
The UK government is due to set out more details of its investment into the electrification programme in the autumn.
 

w1bbl3

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2011
Messages
325
Destruction of an AONB was, in retrospect, not the most accurate description – it would be more accurate to say a significant and extremely beautiful part of it of which the GWR is an essential ingredient and contribution to the landscape is now ‘ on the point of being irreparably damaged ‘ and most likely will vanish forever unless NR can be persuaded to meet their social responsibilities…. As JIMM said, there’s still a lot of the AONB which is not affected by the Project, but if NR are seen to be able to ‘ get away with this one ‘ the future for beautiful, gorgeous Bath and other AONBs is unthinkable….

The problem is that progress has to be made, originally cutting the GWR through the North Wessex Downs and Cotswolds changed the landscape for better or worse. Catenary is not permanent infrastructure to extent that a new bridge, cutting or embankment would be. We are ultimately to put some perspective on the matter talking about a total of 11 route miles with the AONB area. It may be that in future years a better method of powering trains is developed and OLE then removed.

Bath by the way is not a AONB but a UNESCO world heritage site.

How would you propose the mitigate the impact of the scheme? The NR environmental impact assessment puts the scheme as moderate adverse and large adverse in the area in question.

From construction and until the mid 80's some 150 years the route had telegraph poles and wire running along side which as has been pointed out where as visually intrusive. There isn't really much that can be done on a practical level the masts are the masts and no matter how hard you wish these can not be made to disappear.

Should NR have consulted with local communities better to explain what was being done and why, yes, would this have any effect on the final scheme probably not.

May I add a hearty "Hear, hear" ? It seems roads never get the same nonsense. they just get built.

Road scheme's of old would go through the local planning authorities to secure planning permission. However since the massive direct action protests with the Twyford Down (M3) and Newbury Bypass schemes major road building in this country has reached a virtual standstill.

New schemes go down the national infrastructure planning route taking decisions away from local councils and back to central government recognising that major scheme's can be of national importance. Had network rail needed planning permission for the GWML works it is this route the scheme would have gone down. The Heathrow west connection for example is expected to be decided via this route.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
31,154
Location
Fenny Stratford
and still we don't have an answer as to why Berkshire should be different to anywhere else

DARLORICH – Nothing! You have a problem with Berkshire ?

I don't have any problem with Berkshire, it is quite a nice place and obviously very affluent, perhaps even more so than leafy Buckinghamshire where i live.


Sadly, you haven't really made a case as to why Berkshire should receive special treatment other than the electrification works might spoil the view. As has been set out above electrification equipment has been installed in or on the listed structures at (say) York, Newcastle, Durham viaduct or The Royal Border Bridge.

Why is it OK to install such equipment there but not in Berkshire? I wouldn't say that the installation of the equipment has destroyed these structures. Why will the installation of such equipment in lovely Berkshire cause such an ecological/environmental apocalypse?
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,981
Road scheme's of old would go through the local planning authorities to secure planning permission. However since the massive direct action protests with the Twyford Down (M3) and Newbury Bypass schemes major road building in this country has reached a virtual standstill.

The first sentence is incorrect. Only LA schemes were so decided. Trunk Road schemes went through a national planning process, including the ones you cite in the second sentence.

I find the postings with our colleague in France tedious, since the GWML electrification is not subject to any planning process, local or national, at least in respect of the lineside equipment. Thus anything that NR propose in respect of its appearance is purely for its consideration and policy. It's permitted development and that's the end of it.

Listed buildings, even if on NR property, are a different matter of course, but this was not the subject.
 

steevp

Member
Joined
25 Jul 2012
Messages
245
Meanwhile, back on subject....:)

I noticed two on-track vehicles on the slow lines in the Goring & Streatley/Pangbourne area last night on the way back - looks like some of the gear to hold the wires is going in (sorry forgotten the correct terminology)
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,056
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Added to which, NR has gone to great lengths to design the GWML OHLE (Series 1) to be as unobtrusive as possible on a 4-track railway.
It's a considerable improvement on the Mk 3 headspan design on the ECML and elsewhere, with its tall and heavy double masts.
The original WCML portal design with lattice structures is also less intrusive (at least in rural areas) and now it is fully weathered it sits very well in the Chilterns landscape at places like Leighton Buzzard.
In Cumbria's Lune Gorge you can hardly see the (2-track) electrified railway next to the gigantic double scar that is the M6.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,657
The Series 1 overhead line equipment is a very clean, low profile design, making no use of the enormous headspans we see on the East Coast Main Line, where the masts for those are getting on for 50ft in height.

The small part metalwork, the actual catenary components, are simple, unfussy and uncomplicated - four tracks on the GWML will feature four insulators, whilst four tracks on the ECML typically feature nine insulators, the auto tensioning arrangements will be tidier featuring spring tensioners rather than weighted tensioners as the ECML uses. There's no tail wires and additional steelwork associated with that, which also makes for a cleaner, less visually intrusive design.

Those small gains in insulator count and reduced mast height are probably wiped out by the absolutely titanic steel beam crossing all four lines that the ECML doesn't have. Looking at a headspan equipped line in the distance what you see are tall poles down both sides of the track.
What you see looking at a gantry line is a solid mass of steelwork.

Many people find vertical beams like those from headspans to be far less objectionable than the shear horizontal mass of gantries.
 
Last edited:

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,493
Will the structures be painted? Paint them dark green and they'll barely be visible. Stainless steel does look ugly.

I've noticed on the continent that electrification support metalwork is often painted. Slapping a bit of paint on costs almost nothing but alleviates the ugliness to a big extent.
 
Last edited:

w1bbl3

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2011
Messages
325
The first sentence is incorrect. Only LA schemes were so decided. Trunk Road schemes went through a national planning process, including the ones you cite in the second sentence.

Listed buildings, even if on NR property, are a different matter of course, but this was not the subject.

My mistake my memory of the process 30 odd years ago is somewhat hazy.

Speaking of listed structures have any detailed plans appeared for works through Bath or Maidenhead bridge as of yet, where obviously the structures being interfaced are listed?
 

po8crg

Member
Joined
6 Feb 2014
Messages
559
Speaking of listed structures have any detailed plans appeared for works through Bath or Maidenhead bridge as of yet, where obviously the structures being interfaced are listed?

Listed building consent applications were made to local authorities for works around Rainhill station on the North West electrification, so detailed diagrams were available from the LA website.

Suggest you look at the relevant local authority planning applications website.
 

Tio Terry

Member
Joined
2 May 2014
Messages
1,189
Location
Spain
Will the structures be painted? Paint them dark green and they'll barely be visible. Stainless steel does look ugly.

I've noticed on the continent that electrification support metalwork is often painted. Slapping a bit of paint on costs almost nothing but alleviates the ugliness to a big extent.

Painting over galvanised metal is a specialised practice. Just slapping any old paint on usually results in it pealing off after a couple of years, there are a number of radio masts that were painted that are now almost bare!

When first erected newly galvanised metalwork is very shiny and stands out but after a year or so of all weathers it dims and turns grey, nowhere near as conspicuous then.
 

VisualAcid

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2013
Messages
142
Oldfield Park and Keynsham now have big holes being dug on either side of the tracks.

My technical update for the week :D
 

33Hz

Member
Joined
2 Dec 2010
Messages
513
Spain painted all the steelwork used on AVE lines a nice dark blue. Personally I think it looks very smart.

AVE-train.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top