• 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!

MML Electrification: progress updates

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,604
Location
Nottingham
that bridge does need reconstruction.
Looking further ahead, is there any clarity about how they can get the wires under the main station buildings at Leicester and Nottingham? I'm assuming that they will have to use special measures at both locations. How does the height between rail and overbridge compare to Cardiff Intersection Bridge?

This NR bulletin shows what they did there: https://www.networkrailmediacentre....demolition-thanks-to-electric-resistant-paint
but I can't find anywhere just how much clearance there is at Cardiff.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,258
Looking further ahead, is there any clarity about how they can get the wires under the main station buildings at Leicester and Nottingham? I'm assuming that they will have to use special measures at both locations. How does the height between rail and overbridge compare to Cardiff Intersection Bridge?

This NR bulletin shows what they did there: https://www.networkrailmediacentre....demolition-thanks-to-electric-resistant-paint
but I can't find anywhere just how much clearance there is at Cardiff.
This keeps coming up. There was a post last Tuesday pointing to the previous discussions:
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,604
Location
Nottingham
This keeps coming up. There was a post last Tuesday pointing to the previous discussions:
Thank you. I saw that, and read the discussion after post #5195, but it seemed (to me) to be inconclusive. Which is why I asked my question.

But the MR piece referred to in post #2964 does appear to suggest that the clearance between rail and bridge at Leicester is greater than at Cardiff, without track lowering. So thank you for that.

Let's hope they just get on with it.

EDIT: But nobody has yet explained how they are going to get the required clearance between platform and pantograph at Leicester. At Cardiff there are 350 metres between the Intersection Bridge and the station; at Leicester the station overbridge and platform are adjacent.
 
Last edited:

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,806
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
EDIT: But nobody has yet explained how they are going to get the required clearance between platform and pantograph at Leicester. At Cardiff there are 350 metres between the Intersection Bridge and the station; at Leicester the station overbridge and platform are adjacent.
Perhaps that bit it is still at design stage even though they are plowing on with it.
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,604
Location
Nottingham
Perhaps that bit it is still at design stage even though they are plowing on with it.
Maybe they just fence off the first fifty metres of platform to give space for the contact wire to rise to a safe height? It won't be like Steventon, where high speed was the issue stopping the contact wire rising to clear the level crossing.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,219
Location
Bristol
Maybe they just fence off the first fifty metres of platform to give space for the contact wire to rise to a safe height? It won't be like Steventon, where high speed was the issue stopping the contact wire rising to clear the level crossing.
Losing 50m of platform.at Leicester isn't going to go unnoticed.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Losing 50m of platform.at Leicester isn't going to go unnoticed.
On a quick measurement the platforms are about 280m and a 10-car formation of 810s is only around 230m long. Unlikely that such a formation is going to need to share the platform with anything else, and all the other passenger trains there are short enough that two can share without a problem. If I remember rightly they don't use the southern end anyway.
 

Yindee8191

Member
Joined
16 Mar 2019
Messages
159
On a quick measurement the platforms are about 280m and a 10-car formation of 810s is only around 230m long. Unlikely that such a formation is going to need to share the platform with anything else, and all the other passenger trains there are short enough that two can share without a problem. If I remember rightly they don't use the southern end anyway.
Last time I caught a Meridian at Leicester I’m fairly sure the front (heading Up) was right next to the stairs.

In any case, if they have to take part of the platform out of use then so be it, but ideally it would be good to avoid it for both passenger convenience and creating better flows around the station.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Last time I caught a Meridian at Leicester I’m fairly sure the front (heading Up) was right next to the stairs.

In any case, if they have to take part of the platform out of use then so be it, but ideally it would be good to avoid it for both passenger convenience and creating better flows around the station.
There is lots of on-going work on many aspects of clearances hence I suspect no final decision on actions for at least another 2 years.
Several to throw into the mix that haven't been brought up:
a) insulated pantograph horns - very helpful as regards platforms as it gives you about another ~13cm to make the magic 2.75m
b) slab track - to enable a greater lowering depth (shallower overall compared to ballast given the sewer below)
c) insulated canopy fascia - reduces ability /probability to be in contact with live parts of pantograph (canopy rebuilds to achieve / maintain W10/12 etc), not fool proof but a good risk reducer in combination with other measures.
 

td97

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2017
Messages
1,292
I don't know how Leicester compares with other electrified stations but recent electrification schemes have installed non-compliant wire heights through platforms. For example at Bolton station due to the A579 overbridge above the platforms. Yes there's a standard but if a derogation can be justified then it will be.
Of course the new developments listed above also help
 

WiredUp

Member
Joined
17 May 2021
Messages
87
Location
Bedford
There is lots of on-going work on many aspects of clearances hence I suspect no final decision on actions for at least another 2 years.
Several to throw into the mix that haven't been brought up:
a) insulated pantograph horns - very helpful as regards platforms as it gives you about another ~13cm to make the magic 2.75m
b) slab track - to enable a greater lowering depth (shallower overall compared to ballast given the sewer below)
c) insulated canopy fascia - reduces ability /probability to be in contact with live parts of pantograph (canopy rebuilds to achieve / maintain W10/12 etc), not fool proof but a good risk reducer in combination with other measures.
Protection by clearance or by obstacles isn't it really?

I suppose you could also just apply lots of yellow hatching (RIS-7060-INS) as required to maintain the 3.5m standing clearance, but this would reduce the useable platform width....

Or you can just magically CSM-RA risk assess it down? (the 3.5m clearance in public areas that is...).....
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,258
Thanks for the update am enjoying seeing the progress of the grid connection. Surprised how many ancillary buildings it needs.
The view is actually somewhat different to the planning drawing, which seems to have more but smaller portable buildings or containers, (post #4290). Presumably some functions have been combined. One of the planning drawings lists individual buildings for permits, batteries, communications, relay room, and an amenities room. Then there’s a standby generator and it possibly has an associated container, fuel storage etc…
 
Last edited:

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
5,630
Location
Croydon
Last time I caught a Meridian at Leicester I’m fairly sure the front (heading Up) was right next to the stairs.

In any case, if they have to take part of the platform out of use then so be it, but ideally it would be good to avoid it for both passenger convenience and creating better flows around the station.
Stairs - how about replacing the stairs with 50m long enclosed ramps to soak up the unusable part of platform. That would make platform access easier for the disabled and replace some nasty hazardous (!) steps for able bodied persons.
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,604
Location
Nottingham
a) insulated pantograph horns - very helpful as regards platforms as it gives you about another ~13cm to make the magic 2.75m
Yes. A pity they didn't include those in the spec for GWEP. That single omission probably cost hundreds onf millions, in the end.
 
Last edited:

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Stairs - how about replacing the stairs with 50m long enclosed ramps to soak up the unusable part of platform. That would make platform access easier for the disabled and replace some nasty hazardous (!) steps for able bodied persons.

A 50m ramp will only get you 2.2m of rise, given requirements for rest areas and a maximum 1:20 rise, which ain't going to be much use!
 
Joined
10 Jan 2022
Messages
45
Location
UK
On a quick measurement the platforms are about 280m and a 10-car formation of 810s is only around 230m long. Unlikely that such a formation is going to need to share the platform with anything else, and all the other passenger trains there are short enough that two can share without a problem. If I remember rightly they don't use the southern end anyway.
platform 1 is 280m, platform 4 is 295m. although iirc, EMR intercity only uses 2 and 3. as it stands, 10 car meridians are more than 230m, but 810s should just about fit at 10 cars. fencing off 50m, though, would bring the south end of the platforms to pretty much the bottom of the stairs - especially for platform 1. everything here seems a tight fit.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Yes. A pity they didn't include those in the spec for GWEP. That single omission probably cost hundreds on millions, in the end.
Only developed by B&W for UK spec pantographs several years after IEP spec went out for tender though.

Circa £10k a panto head for retrofit.

There was apparently some technical reason for not immediately adopting but my memory has failed me on the detail of that!
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,258
What’s East Croydon, out of interest? Similar at Waterloo East.
At least 60m is visible in an aerial view of East Croydon, but I believe they are still considered excessive slopes. Waterloo East it varies between the 3 different ramp sections, but I think platform D seems quite a bit steeper than at Croydon.
 

gabrielhj07

Member
Joined
5 May 2022
Messages
963
Location
Haywards Heath
I would have thought that a rise of 2m over 50m run would be rather too shallow, and a waste of space at Leicester.

The ramps at Waterloo East are more compact, and they're not exactly Everest.
 
Last edited:

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,604
Location
Nottingham
c) insulated canopy fascia - reduces ability /probability to be in contact with live parts of pantograph (canopy rebuilds to achieve / maintain W10/12 etc), not fool proof but a good risk reducer in combination with other measures.
Are there any examples on the GB network where insulated canopies have been used to reduce the electrocution risk on station platforms?
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
I would have thought that a rise of 2m over 50m run would be rather too shallow, and a waste of space at Leicester.

The ramps at Waterloo East are more compact, and they're not exactly Everest.
They would have to be shallow enough for a wheelchair user to ascend unaided. That could be quite challenging for a less than fully fit person.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
They would have to be shallow enough for a wheelchair user to ascend unaided. That could be quite challenging for a less than fully fit person.
That's the main reason for requiring level landings every 20m or so. They can also help avoid a runaway incident for wheeled conveyances and trolleys going downhill. Many older ramps at stations are not compliant with these current new-build regulations, but have been allowed to continue in use until some major renewal or alteration triggers a reconfiguration. If a non-compliant ramp was supplemented by lifts, then it wouldn't form the sole accessible route. Part of the justification for the station facilities upgrade associated with the Croydon area remodelling is to eliminate the very busy ramps.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
I would have thought that a rise of 2m over 50m run would be rather too shallow, and a waste of space at Leicester.

The ramps at Waterloo East are more compact, and they're not exactly Everest.

Ramps would need to be flatter than 1:20, so only 10m shorter in length (you can go steeper, but then have to put level sections in and that then takes up more space than a constant grade).

I suspect that Waterloo East would be too steep for a new ramp design unless there's an alternative route (such as lifts).
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
Ramps would need to be flatter than 1:20, so only 10m shorter in length (you can go steeper, but then have to put level sections in and that then takes up more space than a constant grade).

I suspect that Waterloo East would be too steep for a new ramp design unless there's an alternative route (such as lifts).
Wembley Stadium (the stadium not the station) for example has replaced the iconic concrete ramps outside the stadium (facing Wembley Way) with steps as the ramps were too steep to be acceptable for wheelchair use. Not an improvement for pedestrians though...
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Wembley Stadium (the stadium not the station) for example has replaced the iconic concrete ramps outside the stadium (facing Wembley Way) with steps as the ramps were too steep to be acceptable for wheelchair use. Not an improvement for pedestrians though...

...and therein lies the issue with fixing rules, in that sometimes something which didn't meet the standards is replaced with something which is worse.
 

baz962

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2017
Messages
3,279
platform 1 is 280m, platform 4 is 295m. although iirc, EMR intercity only uses 2 and 3. as it stands, 10 car meridians are more than 230m, but 810s should just about fit at 10 cars. fencing off 50m, though, would bring the south end of the platforms to pretty much the bottom of the stairs - especially for platform 1. everything here seems a tight fit.
They don't use only 2 and 3. They use all platforms, although rarely P1.
 

gabrielhj07

Member
Joined
5 May 2022
Messages
963
Location
Haywards Heath
Wembley Stadium (the stadium not the station) for example has replaced the iconic concrete ramps outside the stadium (facing Wembley Way) with steps as the ramps were too steep to be acceptable for wheelchair use. Not an improvement for pedestrians though...
Was it the same person that signed off on both the failure of the ramps and the implementation of the stairs? :lol:
 

Top