Great Western Electrification Progress

[AE]

When the railway line next to my house was electrified when I was a boy there was some disruption. We lost a few hours sleep but the workers passed through and then it was over. No one I knew complained to the railway. They knew that at the end of the process there would be a better railway and so it was worth putting up with the hassle and the view changing.

Back then there seemed to be more stoicism and less eagerness to complain and whinge about any little thing.

The hyperbole involved in describing the addition of some overhead wires and masts as "devastating environmental damage" as it does on the "Save the Goring Gap" website is completely laughable. Parts of the view will change but it's hardly devastating damage to the environment. At least when the line is electrified the railway will, in general, be quieter and the air pollution from the diesel fumes will be much lower. So in that sense the environment will be improved.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

That's nice. You would be amazed at how many people claim not to have received notification of works letters, when we know letters have been hand delivered to houses, and when we send someone round to speak to a homeowner who has concerns or a complaint, you get a 'oh yes, I saw that, thought it was junk mail from the local takeaway' type response.

We can only push letters through letter boxes, we can't physically stand over someone, holding their eyelids open whilst forcing them to read what we give them.

You know what else never ceases to amaze us - the number of people who complain about cracks appearing in plaster, of broken windows, of things falling of window ledges and mantelpieces. We're somehow able to pile OLE masts next to 150 year old railway stations and offices without doing any damage, but when we move near a small number of houses, we manage to do a better job than Safedem.

We do know, as our colleagues at HS2 have found out, there's a fairly small but not insignificant number of people who are sharing tips and tricks for extracting compensation and compensatory works from NR and HS2, when we know or suspect they're pulling a fast one.

I do accept there are a small number of houses that will genuinely be impacted by our works, but such buildings are going to be at risk of damage from other essential works, such as water or gas main replacement, carriageway resurfacing and such like. We will continue to look after those people who have suffered as a direct result of the GWEp.

The rest, of course, is your usual intolerable drivel. Headspans instead of portals indeed. Not bloody happening. Ever.

Brilliant reply sir.

 

[CardiffKid]

When the railway line next to my house was electrified when I was a boy there was some disruption. We lost a few hours sleep but the workers passed through and then it was over. No one I knew complained to the railway. They knew that at the end of the process there would be a better railway and so it was worth putting up with the hassle and the view changing.

Back then there seemed to be more stoicism and less eagerness to complain and whinge about any little thing.

Sadly it's not just the railway this effects, people these days will complain and seek compensation for the slightest thing, they also loose the politeness and manners especially when doing it online, let alone though Twitter.

The hyperbole involved in describing the addition of some overhead wires and masts as "devastating environmental damage" as it does on the "Save the Goring Gap" website is completely laughable. Parts of the view will change but it's hardly devastating damage to the environment. At least when the line is electrified the railway will, in general, be quieter and the air pollution from the diesel fumes will be much lower. So in that sense the environment will be improved.

Agree I do think the marketing of electrification to Joe Public needs to focus on:

1. Newer trains
2. Cleaner trains (environmental wise)
3. Quieter trains

then...

Slightly shorter journeys.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I do think the marketing of electrification to Joe Public needs to focus on:

1. Newer trains
2. Cleaner trains (environmental wise)
3. Quieter trains

then...Slightly shorter journeys.

I would also add that electrics tend to be lighter and there would thus be less damage/vibration etc.

 

[Radedamer]

The hyperbole involved in describing the addition of some overhead wires and masts as "devastating environmental damage" as it does on the "Save the Goring Gap" website is completely laughable. Parts of the view will change but it's hardly devastating damage to the environment. At least when the line is electrified the railway will, in general, be quieter and the air pollution from the diesel fumes will be much lower. So in that sense the environment will be improved.

This. Very much this. There is no damage to the environment from electrification, if anything there is a slight improvement as electric trains are less polluting and quieter. The overhead line equipment installed at Goring is ugly, IMO – it doesn't even have the grace of many pylons – but that is a (slight) degradation of visual amenity not environment. "Not pretty" does not equal "bad for the environment".

 

[Ironside]

This. Very much this. There is no damage to the environment from electrification, if anything there is a slight improvement as electric trains are less polluting and quieter. The overhead line equipment installed at Goring is ugly, IMO – it doesn't even have the grace of many pylons – but that is a (slight) degradation of visual amenity not environment. "Not pretty" does not equal "bad for the environment".

Well said!

 

[Dannypenguin]

Just paint 'em green, they'll blend in nicely

 

[Who Cares]

PHILIP….

Sorry but not surprised to hear that NR get dragged into the Compensation Culture which plagues the UK these days….Driven by the low-life spivs masquerading as lawyers who pander to the ‘instant-get-rich-quick’ mentality of the Jeremy Kyle generation which nowadays seems to be the norm….On the other hand, without them and the Quick Loan companies, Daytime TV probably wouldn’t exist, although maybe that wouldn’t be such a bad thing….

However, the facts are as I stated, although we won’t let that get in the way of a good snigger about the complicity of BBC producers….

I’m also sorry you find my posts on here to be ‘intolerable drivel‘….A bit harsh, I think, just because I discuss and have different opinions about certain aspects of this Project compared to most other contributors to this particular thread….I’ll continue posting, so rather than spoil your future enjoyment perhaps just add me to your Ignore List ?

But before you do….Another couple of questions, please….

As your frequent use of the ‘we’ and your deep technical knowledge of the intricacies and varieties of OEL equipment when discussing this Project suggests that you work for NR or one of its myriad sub-contractors and consultancies working on this project, I’m most concerned by you final sentence….’Headspans instead of portals indeed. Not bloody happening. Ever’

Given the dog’s breakfast that this Project has become, I can understand if you want to disassociate yourself from the various Teams mismanaging the Project, but are you stating the internal / unofficial NR position using your inside knowledge?

If so, does this mean that NR’s promises to review possible mitigation or replacement of the existing OLE in the Goring Gap is not to be believed or trusted ?

And would you mind if your statement is repeated to NR’s Management Team at the Drop In Meeting ( ?? ) which will be held in South Stoke tomorrow, Friday….

Feel free to answer by Personal Mail if you prefer....And Thanks in advance....

 

[Philip Phlopp]

If so, does this mean that NR’s promises to review possible mitigation or replacement of the existing OLE in the Goring Gap is not to be believed or trusted ?

And would you mind if your statement is repeated to NR’s Management Team at the Drop In Meeting ( ?? ) which will be held in South Stoke tomorrow, Friday….

We've been over the headspans v portals issue several times, but to repeat clearly for you.

The electrification system that has been chosen for the GWML electrification project doesn't have a headspan option, it's single track cantilevers, twin track cantilevers or mono boom structures, such as the mono anchor booms.

The system has already been certified under the EU's Technical Standards for Interoperability, changing the system by adding in a headspan option at this stage would be enormously disruptive with additional certification needed, and would fail the key design brief of providing mechanically independent registration, and would make meeting other parts of the design brief (and maintaining TSI compliance) very difficult, such as multiple pantograph operation at 140mph, and the required tensioning at 16.5kN.

Network Rail have never said they're going to replace the existing OLE in the Goring Gap, their statement is "we are fully aware of the concerns raised by residents in Goring and are working actively to address these through a public consultation." which is what they will be doing. Mitigation might actually include painting of the portals, and could also include screening sections of the line with carefully controlled tree and hedge planting, if NR high command agree to doing anything at all.

What you're probably going to hear from Network Rail is stories about other residents who were affected by other electrification projects, who complained and petitioned various people, and who have accepted the OLE and who now don't notice it at all. People don't seem to remember how vociferous the voices were about wiring the Royal Border Bridge and electrification at the bast of Edinburgh Castle and the old town.

If any commitment has been informally given, it may be that some of the project team visiting locations and doing the consultations aren't fully aware of the design and limitations of the new system. If the team are especially on-the-ball, they'll know all of this, and will have the foresight to present visualisations of Mark 3b headspans versus Series 1 portals, to show that the headspan approach really isn't any better, and from many views, it will be more visible as a result of the much higher masts. I can also envisage an upgraded Mark 3b (maybe call it Mark 4) headspan with heavier insulators and lateral components being significantly more visible than the relatively lightweight Mark 3b system.

At the end of the day, however, Network Rail can do whatever they want to their railway, using the original Acts of Parliament that were passed to enable the railway to be built, or the more modern updates to planning legislation, and whatever they offer (which won't be much) is being done out of the kindness of the senior management's hearts.

You can pass on anything I've said - none of it is actually an official representation of anybody I work for, just as accurate a representation of the situation as it is on the ground that I can manage. Errors and Omissions Excluded etc.

 

[Radedamer]

So a 'headspan' is a cable bridging two masts on the trackside and from this cable the wires are suspended? And a 'portal' is a metal framework between two masts serving the same purpose? Or the other way round? Or something else? The answer may be somewhere in here already, but there's 105 pages...

 

[Philip Phlopp]

So a 'headspan' is a cable bridging two masts on the trackside and from this cable the wires are suspended? And a 'portal' is a metal framework between two masts serving the same purpose? Or the other way round? Or something else? The answer may be somewhere in here already, but there's 105 pages...

Yes.

Headspans are a collection of wires joined together with insulators, from which the wire the train collects electricity from (the contact wire) is joined to with yet more insulators and bits of steelwork, all of which are needed to keep the contact wire in the correct position above the track.

The failure of one insulator will generally cause the entire headspan to fall down, so when a dewirement occurs, lots of damage can be caused to the wires across all four tracks, closing the line to electric trains until all the damage can be repaired.

Portals are steel girders or frames from which completely separate sets of overhead wires can be mounted, if one is damaged, the remaining parts stay up and should remain available for other electric trains to use. This is called mechanically independent registration, which is now Network Rail policy to use whenever possible.

 

[hassaanhc]

So a 'headspan' is a cable bridging two masts on the trackside and from this cable the wires are suspended? And a 'portal' is a metal framework between two masts serving the same purpose? Or the other way round? Or something else? The answer may be somewhere in here already, but there's 105 pages...

You were correct the first time .

Headspan at Southall: https://flic.kr/p/osR5ym

Portal at Milton Keynes Central: https://flic.kr/p/wqvxr4

Don't envy those sorting out a headspan dewirement .

 

[Who Cares]

PHILIP....


Genuine Thanks for your quick reply....

You'll perhaps recall my very first post - I asked if and how viable it would be to paint the OLE retrospectively which would be, at least, some mitigation if the OLE can't or won't be replaced....The rest is history....

I try to understand your technical reasons for the difficulties of changing one type of OLE to another type, but I'm not an engineer and although many on here will understand, I really struggle....

So can I ask a couple more, please ?

Is / was this Mark 3b design specifically commissioned for this Project, or is / was it an 'off the shelf' product already available from F+F when chosen for this Project ?

Were the Hitachi trains specifically designed for this Mark 3b OLE, incorporating the EU and TSI requirements, or were the Mark 3b OLE created to meet the Hitachi design proposals ?

I suppose what I'm trying to say is....Which piece of equipment determined the design of the other....

As always, Thanks in advance....

And I've just had a mail to say that tomorrow's meeting with NR will be featured / broadcast on Meridian TV tomorrow evening for those who might be interested....

 

[Philip Phlopp]

PHILIP....


Genuine Thanks for your quick reply....

You'll perhaps recall my very first post - I asked if and how viable it would be to paint the OLE retrospectively which would be, at least, some mitigation if the OLE can't or won't be replaced....The rest is history....

I try to understand your technical reasons for the difficulties of changing one type of OLE to another type, but I'm not an engineer and although many on here will understand, I really struggle....

So can I ask a couple more, please ?

Is / was this Mark 3b design specifically commissioned for this Project, or is / was it an 'off the shelf' product already available from F+F when chosen for this Project ?

Were the Hitachi trains specifically designed for this Mark 3b OLE, incorporating the EU and TSI requirements, or were the Mark 3b OLE created to meet the Hitachi design proposals ?

I suppose what I'm trying to say is....Which piece of equipment determined the design of the other....

As always, Thanks in advance....

And I've just had a mail to say that tomorrow's meeting with NR will be featured / broadcast on Meridian TV tomorrow evening for those who might be interested....

Pantographs, trains and OLE are all developed separately. There's no chicken and egg scenario.

British Rail developed the Mark 3b 'headspan' system for various suburban electrification schemes, it was tweaked for use on the ECML but at heart, it's really for slow speed suburban use.

The pantograph - the bit that connects train to overhead wire - is a British Rail Brecknell Willis design, they will work with any overhead catenary system, it's got Formula 1 style aerofoils and adjustable lift, drag and its behaviour can be highly controlled. It's a great design and it will work reasonably well on some pretty terrible overhead designs (it has been exported globally and works on lots of different manufacturers systems). The Hitachi unit will be fitted with a BR/BW High Speed Pantograph and it'll be set just right for the Series 1 OLE on the GWML.

Network Rail together with Furrer+Frey developed the Series 1 system for the Great Western electrification - the headspan system developed for the ECML proved too unreliable in service, and the existing design can't cope with higher speeds and different train formations in any case.

The pantograph on top of the train has what is called uplift, it pushes up on the contact wire (the electric wire which runs above the railway) and as the train moves, this creates a wave in the wire, with a peak and a trough. If a train is made up of two locomotives or two individual units to make a longer train, a second pantograph will come along behind this wave and with the contact wire now oscillating, the second pantograph will have more trouble remaining in contact with the contact wire, a third pantograph has even more trouble.

If the pantograph spends a lot of time bumping up and down and not making good contact with the contact wire, it causes arcing and can ultimately reduce the life expectancy of the overhead wire and the pantograph's carbon contact strip.

The design brief that was set for the GWML was for an overhead contact system which can support 2 pantograph operation at 140mph, and 3 pantograph operation at 110mph and 125mph. This will allow 12 car electric trains to run at high speeds in service, for coupled IEP units to do 140mph when the signalling works are complete, and for high speed empty stock movements of upto 125mph with three IEP units, ideal for removing failed units in some scenarios also. The speeds and modes of operation are crucial to the way the GWML will operate in future.

To support so many pantographs, the wire needs to be strung tighter, to support a higher tension the wire needs to have a larger diameter (or cross section, since it's not round) and a larger wire is heavier, sufficiently heavier than the wires used on the ECML that the Mark 3b headspan design cannot accommodate the weight and tension of heavier wires. We know this because the ECML was looked at in the last couple of years for upgrading and it was found the existing headspans cannot support the weight and tension of a heavier, higher tension contact wire. The ECML will, as a result, lose its headspans and gain portals just like the GWML.

If a headspan could be developed, because there's a lot more tension and weight in the system, it would need larger insulators, larger diameter lateral wire elements and additional tensioning elements. I find headspans uglier than the portals today, they'll be catastrophically ugly if they get bigger, fatter, chunkier components.

 

[Who Cares]

Got it.....

Many Thanks.....

 

[pro4600]

You'll perhaps recall my very first post - I asked if and how viable it would be to paint the OLE retrospectively which would be, at least, some mitigation if the OLE can't or won't be replaced......

With regards to the painting of of the OLE, the roadworks on the M1 between junctions 28 & 29 have brown painted gantries instead of grey in the area within view of Hardwick Hall. They do seems to make a difference blending more into the landscape (unlike the M1).

 

[DarloRich]

With regards to the painting of of the OLE, the roadworks on the M1 between junctions 28 & 29 have brown painted gantries instead of grey in the area within view of Hardwick Hall. They do seems to make a difference blending more into the landscape (unlike the M1).

I was just about to refer to those gantries (which I referred to yonks ago on this thread) I am unsure if the gantries are painted or made of a weathered material but surely for intrested parties Highways England could provide detials

 

[HowardGWR]

Pantographs, trains and OLE are all developed separately. There's no chicken and egg scenario.

..................and the rest.

Brilliant Philip. May I assume the choice of robust implementation of knitting was budgeted in the original budget and has thus nothing to do with the now three times higher estimate for completion? In other words, the increases are only to do with
a) estimating inadequacies on a giant scale
b) 'unforeseens' being much higher than originally budgeted (at early GRIP stage, one uses 60% contingency, I believe)
c) poor project management

I cannot think of anything else.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Brilliant Philip. May I assume the choice of robust implementation of knitting was budgeted in the original budget and has thus nothing to do with the now three times higher estimate for completion? In other words, the increases are only to do with
a) estimating inadequacies on a giant scale
b) 'unforeseens' being much higher than originally budgeted (at early GRIP stage, one uses 60% contingency, I believe)
c) poor project management
I cannot think of anything else.

Mark Carne used an odd phrase before MPs this week when he was lauding the progress of the EGIP scheme (compared to GW).
He mentioned proper geotechnical surveys, and remarked "we didn't just count the bridges".
By implication, other schemes did just that to arrive at the clearance estimates.
His only direct reference to GW work was the need to dig a preliminary hole for each mast base, to ensure they did not sever signal cables with the real thing.
At no time did he blame the slow progress on equipment problems or issues with the construction team.
He said the culprits were a lack of proper design, planning and asset knowledge, and lack of recent electrification experience.
He was scathing about how BR had installed the signalling cables in the 1970s.

 

[Class 170101]

He was scathing about how BR had installed the signalling cables in the 1970s.

But thats suggest his organisation doesn't know the condition and location of its assets. NR have already been hauled over the coals for this.

 

[Radedamer]

Many thanks to Philip Phlopp and hasaanhc for the clear and patient explanations of headspan vs portal. I did try googling before asking here, by the way, but couldn't quite make the descriptions and images I found tally.It's especially hard to find rail-specific answers for 'portal' as it has so many other uses!

 

[Grumpy]

Brilliant Philip. May I assume the choice of robust implementation of knitting was budgeted in the original budget and has thus nothing to do with the now three times higher estimate for completion? In other words, the increases are only to do with
a) estimating inadequacies on a giant scale
b) 'unforeseens' being much higher than originally budgeted (at early GRIP stage, one uses 60% contingency, I believe)
c) poor project management

I cannot think of anything else.

I think NR are taking some of this flak unfairly and much of the responsibility lies with whoever in the DTp.is the overall Project Manager.

Thus who decided to commit a contract for the trains before there was a firm contract price for the electrification?

Much of the cost increase by NR is being explained as being to meet the needs of trains with multiple paragraphs/running at 140mph. I recall reading a quote some years ago by an operator on the GWML to the effect that running at 140mph would have minimal effects on journey times-there would be more passenger time benefits by sorting out the taxi queues. So why didn't this DTp project manager say we must control our costs to meet the budget-we only need a capability for 125mph trains with one pantograph?

I am sure the new ETE will be a technically wonderful asset for NR. We have just refurbished our kitchen and my wife would have liked new Miele appliances but she had to make do with IKEA's own brand-perhaps a lower quality but does the job at a third of the cost and met the project budget. Again perhaps the DTp should have been picking up on NR upping the spec. and nipping it in the bud.

 

[Tio Terry]

But thats suggest his organisation doesn't know the condition and location of its assets. NR have already been hauled over the coals for this.

You can know the condition of buried cables by electrical testing, which does happen. However, you cannot know accurately where the cables are and at what depth. When trenches were dug it was down to the individual Gangers to make those kind of decisions. Most other locations used concrete troughing so the location of the cables is usually pretty easy to find but the former Western Region of BR decided to directly bury theirs. Things change over the years, track alignment can change, buried services can move, there were a number of cable strikes which persuaded those who look at Risk that the danger was so great that every pile would need to find the cables before they started work, hence all the trial holes. I don't know the exact number but figures of 600K have been mentioned, that's a lot of hand digging!

The original plan had been to re-lock and re-control all the signalling, with new lineside cables in troughing before piling started but the signalling works fell further and further behind programme largely due to a severe shortage of capable, competent Signalling Engineers - in particular Data Prep. Engineers for the Electronic Interlockings. If that programme had been adhered to all the trackside cables would have been easily located and piling would have completed much faster.

 

[QueensCurve]

Many thanks to Philip Phlopp and hasaanhc for the clear and patient explanations of headspan vs portal. I did try googling before asking here, by the way, but couldn't quite make the descriptions and images I found tally.It's especially hard to find rail-specific answers for 'portal' as it has so many other uses!

A "portal" is a doorway. In this case it is a structure that has 3 sides.

Headspan wires replace the top span of the portal with arched wires.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Most other locations used concrete troughing so the location of the cables is usually pretty easy to find but the former Western Region of BR decided to directly bury theirs.

Strange that I had never before realised the GWML doesn't have the concrete troughs". I can picture it now.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The original plan had been to re-lock and re-control all the signalling, with new lineside cables in troughing before piling started but the signalling works fell further and further behind programme largely due to a severe shortage of capable, competent Signalling Engineers - in particular Data Prep. Engineers for the Electronic Interlockings. If that programme had been adhered to all the trackside cables would have been easily located and piling would have completed much faster.

Maybe that's why we have some of the curious gaps in piling.
The Swindon area is still on the old signalling isn't it, so best not piled until replaced later this year?
Meanwhile, west of Patchway has recently been resignalled into Cardiff so piling is a lot easier.
The absence of any piling in the Bristol PSB area is also explained.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

So why didn't this DTp project manager say we must control our costs to meet the budget-we only need a capability for 125mph trains with one pantograph?

I am sure the new ETE will be a technically wonderful asset for NR. We have just refurbished our kitchen and my wife would have liked new Miele appliances but she had to make do with IKEA's own brand-perhaps a lower quality but does the job at a third of the cost and met the project budget. Again perhaps the DTp should have been picking up on NR upping the spec. and nipping it in the bud.

The OLE specification accounts for single digit percentage of the total program cost. The figure that has done the rounds in recent weeks is a cost saving of 0.25% to be achieved in 'downgrading' the OLE and pretty much permanently limiting the GWML to 125mph - the only major saving in the cost is budgeting for a lighter gauge of contact wire and slightly smaller tensioners. Saving is around £7 million, but that's very definitely gossip.

The OLE system has been designed around the projected use on the GWML - that's trains coupled together running at 110mph, 125mph and with ERTMS resignalling, 140mph.

This is a direct result of planning for current and anticipated future demand in the most flexible way possible, and giving the GWML the flexibility that the ECML sorely lacks. The OLE on the GWML will be able to cope with essentially every configuration of rolling stock that will physically be able to operate on the route. It will be able to cope with the maximum train lengths platforms can support and the maximum train lengths the stock's coupling systems can cope with.

It's not cheap when you have to continually upgrade work that was done on the cheap, with corners being cut. The possessions needed to upgrade the GWML to 140mph running with heavier contact wire and tensioners would come to 10x the cost quite easily, probably significantly more.

 

[Ploughman]

How much percentage goes in satisfying NIMBYS?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

How much percentage goes in satisfying NIMBYS?

It'll be an equally small percentage, perhaps smaller. That might be worth a FoI request (any volunteers) as it's not something I have to hand or could easily find out.

 

[Bald Rick]

Much of the cost increase by NR is being explained as being to meet the needs of trains with multiple paragraphs/running at 140mph. I recall reading a quote some years ago by an operator on the GWML to the effect that running at 140mph would have minimal effects on journey times-there would be more passenger time benefits by sorting out the taxi queues. So why didn't this DTp project manager say we must control our costs to meet the budget-we only need a capability for 125mph trains with one pantograph?

I am sure the new ETE will be a technically wonderful asset for NR. We have just refurbished our kitchen and my wife would have liked new Miele appliances but she had to make do with IKEA's own brand-perhaps a lower quality but does the job at a third of the cost and met the project budget. Again perhaps the DTp should have been picking up on NR upping the spec. and nipping it in the bud.

Also worth remembering that the ECML OLE has had a lot of cash spent on it over the years being incrementally upgraded (I've done some of it myself), precisely because it was built to a price on a specification that didn't allow the flexibility that the kit on the GWML will have.

It's also had a lot of cash spent on it putting it back up when it's fallen down, but that's another story.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Mark Carne used an odd phrase before MPs this week when he was lauding the progress of the EGIP scheme (compared to GW).
He mentioned proper geotechnical surveys, and remarked "we didn't just count the bridges".
By implication, other schemes did just that to arrive at the clearance estimates.

Or perhaps the implication is that the people sat at the other end of the table from Mr Carne thought that NR *had* just counted the bridges, and he wanted to correct that error. You wouldn't believe the questions MPs ask at meetings like these, usually prefaced with 'someone I know told me that...'

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A "portal" is a doorway. In this case it is a structure that has 3 sides.

+1

La porte being the French for a door - so a great way to remember