Great Western Electrification Progress

[McRhu]

I have a lot of sympathy for history and heritage and while I have little knowledge of the goodly populace in those parts, with their well-meaning bucolic faces and kindly hearts, I am not displeased to see the bulldozer of 'progress' thwarted occasionally. As far as train operation goes though I would imagine the imperceptible accumulations of wear and tear, due to deceleration and acceleration, and energy required to reaccelerate the mass, would mount up.

 

[Domh245]

As far as train operation goes though I would imagine the imperceptible accumulations of wear and tear, due to deceleration and acceleration, and energy required to reaccelerate the mass, would mount up.

The wear and tear due to deceleration and acceleration should be low - at those high speeds it'll primarily be dynamic (regenerative) braking so no additional break wear, and the energy for re-accelerating will partially come from decelerating. The wear and tear on the pantographs from getting shoved up and down 'on the limit' may be increased, but I'm sure that if it was a big enough issue they wouldn't have settled for this solution

 

[Meerkat]

Quite the opposite. As you point out, this is the only bridge that's been problematic and the problem has been fixed to everyone's satisfaction - everyone that actually matters here.

You think Network Rail and GWR are honestly satisfied?
It’s a dangerous precedent

 

[hwl]

You think Network Rail and GWR are honestly satisfied?
It’s a dangerous precedent

quite simple:
a) cooperative council - planning permission (see many along the GWML and MML (including bits descoped)
b) uncooperative council - TWAO or DCO the whole lot through their area...

 

[Mintona]

From what I understand there is a plan to have the speed limit re-raised to 125mph at Steventon, but I’m not sure on timescales. It doesn’t involve bridge removal.

 

[Jurassicjewel]

That is my understanding, that following current monitoring and further modelling may see speeds raised again to 125mph under the bridge.

 

[themiller]

Bridges don’t last forever. At some point in time, the residents will have to face the bridge being replaced despite any disruption to their lives.

 

[hwl]

Bridges don’t last forever. At some point in time, the residents will have to face the bridge being replaced despite any disruption to their lives.

The councillor on the planning committee who would have the diverted traffic going past their house during a rebuild also didn't get re-elected last year...

 

[HSTEd]

You think Network Rail and GWR are honestly satisfied?
It’s a dangerous precedent

A dangerous precedent that the railway should not be permitted to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants?
This is the sort of attitude that risks the future of the railway overall.

Despite attempts to dress up maintenance as "enhancements" it is clear that the railway would die without political engagement and huge piles of public money being given to it each and every year.
It would do well to remember that it exists, almost entirely, due to the support of the taxpayer.

Screaming that a bridge inconveniences it because the trains have to go marginally slower does not help it's reputation outside this community.

 

[nlogax]

Screaming that a bridge inconveniences it because the trains have to go marginally slower does not help it's reputation outside this community.

Quite. I've never seen quite so much antipathy to a bridge.

 

[coppercapped]

A dangerous precedent that the railway should not be permitted to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants?
This is the sort of attitude that risks the future of the railway overall.

Despite attempts to dress up maintenance as "enhancements" it is clear that the railway would die without political engagement and huge piles of public money being given to it each and every year.
It would do well to remember that it exists, almost entirely, due to the support of the taxpayer.

Screaming that a bridge inconveniences it because the trains have to go marginally slower does not help it's reputation outside this community.

Absolutely.

It would also help if those posters who reckon that the bridge is of no significance and the residents are all NIMBYs informed themselves a bit more before rushing to the electrons.

The bridge and two adjacent station buildings were listed in 1983. The description of Brook House, one of the two buildings reads as follows:

House. Circa 1839. By I.K. Brunel. Ashlar limestone; complex slate roof; stone octagonal stacks. Domestic Tudor style. Complex plan. 2-storey, with turret to right; 3-bay range. Plank door to centre with overlight and 4-centre arched stone doorway, having hood mould. Irregular fenestration, having 2-light stone mullion and transom windows to ground and first floor left. Single-light transom window between ground and first floor to right, and to first floor centre. First floor to left jettied. Pierced bargeboards to cross-gable at left. Stone gables to roof. Interior not inspected. History: part of a planning scheme for Steventon Station which served Oxford until 1844, and was used for board meetings of the G.W.R.

The buildings and the bridge form a group which is of significant interest in the history of the railways. If any finger can be pointed it is at Network Rail's cack-handed approach during the electrification planning phase to solving the issue of the juxtaposition of the bridge and the Stocks Lane level crossing.

 

[Brissle Girl]

A dangerous precedent that the railway should not be permitted to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants?
This is the sort of attitude that risks the future of the railway overall.

Despite attempts to dress up maintenance as "enhancements" it is clear that the railway would die without political engagement and huge piles of public money being given to it each and every year.
It would do well to remember that it exists, almost entirely, due to the support of the taxpayer.

Screaming that a bridge inconveniences it because the trains have to go marginally slower does not help it's reputation outside this community.

Don't forget that the council's planning officers recommended demolition, and heritage organisations were comfortable with it too. So it wouldn't appear as though Network Rail was completely off the wall with its proposal.

It was predominately the disruption while the work took place that was behind the opposition and the planning committee's decision to reject the proposal. Most construction work comes with a level of disruption to local residents and if that attitude were prevalent elsewhere, we would never build anything in this country.

 

[Elecman]

NR could always apply to close the level crossing instead that will alleviate the rapid rise and fall of the OLE contact wire from minimum under Bridge to maximum over Level Crossing

 

[Roger B]

And it perhaps is a factor in why we build so relatively little compared to our near neighbours, and why it takes so long and costs so much. The winners, as always are the litigation lawyers - who probably have mega-million pound signs flashing before their eyes as they survey what's happening at the moment.

 

[pmb]

Indeed, I would go further and suggest that road based projects are likely to be cut as demand drops due to more people working from home

On the other hand, there may not be any significant net decrease in road usage. I think people tend to see public transport as a hotbed for picking germs up, especially trains and buses and I wonder if this will scare people into using their cars until the virus is almost non - existent or there's a vaccine. I for one would choose to go by car rather than train at present if I had a long distance journey to make. And that's uncharacteristic for me!
I'm a bit late to the thread...

 

[pmb]

Looks like those nice people in Steventon won in the end, so we have trains that can do at least 125 MPH but have to slow down to 110 MPH to go under a bridge.
https://www.networkrailmediacentre....n-in-place-following-state-of-the-art-testing,

Do trains switch to diesel for the short section under the bridge? They seem to run on electricity past my sister's house at East Hanney, just down the line.
EDIT: By the way, I'm glad this historic piece of railway heritage was saved. The outcome could have been similar to the handsome three arch Windmill Bridge near Swavesey which was demolished to allow the St. Ives - Cambridge guided busway to be constructed. All there is now is a featureless concrete structure.

 

[PartyOperator]

NR could always apply to close the level crossing instead that will alleviate the rapid rise and fall of the OLE contact wire from minimum under Bridge to maximum over Level Crossing

Exactly - the bridge on its own is fine and not unlike plenty of other bridges on the line. Having two level crossings in close proximity on a busy, fast, electrified railway is the oddity, not the presence of one special bridge. Clearly not a problem with any easy solutions though, or it would have been sorted out decades ago.

Do trains switch to diesel for the short section under the bridge? They seem to run on electricity past my sister's house at East Hanney, just down the line.

No, they can run on electric at 110mph. For a while there was a higher speed limit for diesel trains but it's now 110 for everything.

 

[ArchieWoodbine]

And, more importantly, not making the same mistake again, apparently (are the gantries different on the Swindon-Bristol bit in the Cotswolds AONB?)

The ATF wire was run as a lineside cable through the most visually exposed parts of the Cotswolds, rather than suspsended from the top of the masts as normal. This allowed the mast height and general clutter to be reduced.

The SWB only runs through the Cotswolds between Alderton and Chipping Sodbury tunnels (about five miles) and a fair portion of that is in deep cuttings, so it didn't need to be a very extensive mitigation.

 

[Thatcham Xing]

The ATF wire was run as a lineside cable through the most visually exposed parts of the Cotswolds

This can be clearly seen on the in-cab video that GWR have released of the first "superfast" run between BTM and PAD on 16/12/19:

 

[nlogax]

This can be clearly seen on the in-cab video that GWR have released of the first "superfast" run between BTM and PAD on 16/12/19:

44 minute mark onwards for the important bit.

 

[superkev]

This can be clearly seen on the in-cab video that GWR have released of the first "superfast" run between BTM and PAD on 16/12/19:

Very interesting video. I was struck by the huge diversity in overhead structures some massive and some guite neat.
Wasnt the original DFT spec for 140mph running with 2 pans up. Hence the Dreadnought class supports.
If it is so what's the problem with running the 140mph capable class 800s at this speed.
K

 

[themiller]

Signalling. If I remember correctly, above 125 mph requires in-cab signalling.

 

[superkev]

Signalling. If I remember correctly, above 125 mph requires in-cab signalling.

A thought the GW main line had such a system (ATP was it) after the Ladbroke grove crash.
Is it stil use?
K

 

[K.o.R]

A thought the GW main line had such a system (ATP was it) after the Ladbroke grove crash.
Is it stil use?
K

No, ATP is a protection system in case of passing a signal at danger. Cab signalling has the speed limit and signal information on the driver's console, as the reliability of reading trackside signs and signals isn't good enough at speeds above 125mph.

 

[edwin_m]

No, ATP is a protection system in case of passing a signal at danger. Cab signalling has the speed limit and signal information on the driver's console, as the reliability of reading trackside signs and signals isn't good enough at speeds above 125mph.

GW-ATP does display the safe speed to the driver and enforce it on the approach to adverse signals and speed restrictions. But it's effectively been superseded by ERTMS and nobody is going to want to start updating it for higher speeds. Capacity issues probably rule out faster running in any case.

 

[Richard Scott]

Seems to be a number of 800s running on diesel when seen passing Magor - is this a problem with the trains or Overhead lines? Also have any trains run through the Severn Tunnel on electric in passenger service yet?

 

[oglord]

Seems to be a number of 800s running on diesel when seen passing Magor - is this a problem with the trains or Overhead lines?

Same through Newport.

 

[JN114]

Its not in connection with the possession of the Relief lines at Cardiff East perchance? I know they’re doing track renewals, perhaps they need the OHLE fully off to do the work? As the GW IETs are the only electric trains in the area probably makes more sense just to leave them on Diesel and have the whole lot off rather than complex switching and abnormal changeover locations.

 

[Richard Scott]

Looks like I'll have to be more observant - definitely saw one up train today and that was running on electric and the down train I saw was running on diesel. Maybe up trains are on electric and down trains on diesel?

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Sorry if I missed anything (First message for me on this topic!), but are the class 800s and 802s finally allowed to run under the Severn Tunnel in electric mode?