you're right of course. But nothing to do with TPU, surely.Maintenance is checking / repairing what’s there.
Renewal is replacing it (and accounted for differently, as per accounting standards).
you're right of course. But nothing to do with TPU, surely.Maintenance is checking / repairing what’s there.
Renewal is replacing it (and accounted for differently, as per accounting standards).
Unfortunately, this government has a tendency to announce capital spending on renewals as if it were actually being spent on upgrading.But nothing to do with TPU
The existing equipment may not be wholly life expired but would not suffice for TPU service specification so therefore needs replacing and comes under TPU funding.you're right of course. But nothing to do with TPU, surely.
I can foresee a lot of headspans being replaced with TTCs and portals then. Visually, not everyone's cup of tea, but certainly far more reliable & resilient.The existing equipment may not be wholly life expired but would not suffice for TPU service specification so therefore needs replacing and comes under TPU funding.
In the same way that the 1990's era OLE out of Paddington was renewed for GWML electrification.
Thanks for that clarification I was wondering. I suppose that section sees some heavy high speed running too so would wear more quickly.The existing equipment may not be wholly life expired but would not suffice for TPU service specification so therefore needs replacing and comes under TPU funding.
In the same way that the 1990's era OLE out of Paddington was renewed for GWML electrification.
White Rose was originally a Leeds City Council pet project wasn't it? Using funds from the cancelled trolleybus scheme?That's WYCA for you
The big stuff is mainly for the tensioning / sectioning etc.I saw the electrification progress for the first time yesterday en route to and from York for the Forum curry and I must say that I was very disappointed to see the hideously ugly and intrusive Great Western-style structures being used. What's wrong with the Italian catenary used in the recent North-Western and Scottish electrification schemes, especially now that it's been certified for higher speeds? Maybe, as someone suggested upthread, they're using up spare equipment ordered for the GW sections which are not now being electrified.
Worth mentioning, perhaps, that the biggest booms (the mono-anchors) have also been used at overlaps/crossovers on the Midland Main Line, the Great Eastern Main Line (& Southend Branch) and the Gospel Oak-Barking Line (at Gospel Oak itself). On multi-track overlaps, they remove the requirement for 'flying tail' wires, as all the tensioning equipment (on inner & outer tracks) can be mounted on the boom; they also do away with the need to have the out-of-running catenary/contact cross the in-running catenary/contact, thereby massively reducing the risk of catenary wire wear & pantograph hookover at those locations.The big stuff is mainly for the tensioning / sectioning etc.
I'm slightly surprised that the commissioning date is not until October 22, with the wires only scheduled to go up in January. Do you think that the project is likely to get ahead of those timescales?The fact that, on a circa 5-mile section of 4-track railway, most of the structures have been installed in 4 months, certainly champions speed IMO!
I'm slightly surprised that the commissioning date is not until October 22, with the wires only scheduled to go up in January. Do you think that the project is likely to get ahead of those timescales?
The longer it takes, the more times HMG can "announce" the investment as if it were new money each time... It'll see them through by-elections for years!I'm slightly surprised that the commissioning date is not until October 22, with the wires only scheduled to go up in January. Do you think that the project is likely to get ahead of those timescales?
That is the cynical view but salami slicing and breaking the work up into sections also reduces risk to DfT and Treasury. I think it is good strategy until the pain and memory of GWML is gone.The longer it takes, the more times HMG can "announce" the investment as if it were new money each time... It'll see them through by-elections for years!![]()
![]()
Contraversially perhaps, I hope 'the pain and memory of GWML' will be long-remembered. It's a salutary lesson if ever lessons are to be learned, esp the right lessons. As has been observed, 'if we learn anything from history it's that we learn nothing from history'. Another one: 'Fail to plan; plan to fail'. And another, 'there's no Plan B'. If I've said (announced?) it once ... taking ALL my personal belongings ... does THAT one work? Contracts for serial whole 'salamis' with possible extension and break clauses may give more confidence than a small salami slice? Just a thought; any evidence?That is the cynical view but salami slicing and breaking the work up into sections also reduces risk to DfT and Treasury. I think it is good strategy until the pain and memory of GWML is gone.
Provided EVERYONE takes their share of the blame and learns from it which includes government, DafT, treasury and NR.Contraversially perhaps, I hope 'the pain and memory of GWML' will be long-remembered. It's a salutary lesson if ever lessons are to be learned, esp the right lessons. As has been observed, 'if we learn anything from history it's that we learn nothing from history'. Another one: 'Fail to plan; plan to fail'. And another, 'there's no Plan B'. If I've said (announced?) it once ... taking ALL my personal belongings ... does THAT one work? Contracts for serial whole 'salamis' with possible extension and break clauses may give more confidence than a small salami slice? Just a thought; any evidence?
TRU will effectively be a semi-rolling programme on it own and it has to start some where so why not hte easy bit that needs the least other stuff doing?Yes I know a rolling programme is more efficient but I think we have to be a tad realistic. But getting Leeds - Church Fenton wired seems to be a no-brainer for early implementation IMHO.
Well the funders, and the public, want to know what they are getting for their money.TRU will effectively be a semi-rolling programme on it own and it has to start some where so why not hte easy bit that needs the least other stuff doing?
Well the funders, and the public, want to know what they are getting for their money.
Switching TPE bi-modes to electric for 10 more miles than now doesn't seem much return for £xxx million.
I think the point being made was that the cost (and the carbon cost) of the diesel saved by one service per hour in each direction for approximately ten miles is really very small, and that's it for the foreseeable future.We do know what we’re getting for our money. Less diesel. Money well spent.
We don't know what the completed TRU will look like, and therefore we don't know what outcomes for passengers and communities along the route will be delivered at the end of TRU.We do know what we’re getting for our money. Less diesel. Money well spent.
There is also the advantage of bi-modes not having to use diesel within the confines of York station.Well the funders, and the public, want to know what they are getting for their money.
Switching TPE bi-modes to electric for 10 more miles than now doesn't seem much return for £xxx million.
Presumably, because the changeover point is removed from the complexity of the station, it’ll be easier to monitor the contact wire for damage from raising and dropping pantographs.There is also the advantage of bi-modes not having to use diesel within the confines of York station.
That doesn’t necessarily follow, because changes in a station will normally only occur when stopped, and the perceived problems are caused by changeovers at speed.Presumably, because the changeover point is removed from the complexity of the station, it’ll be easier to monitor the contact wire for damage from raising and dropping pantographs.
I’m assuming that the conditions are similar whether at speed or stationary. The driver cuts power before raising or lowering pantograph so the only power being taken from the overhead is hotel power. Or does the driver just ‘bat on’ with whatever power setting he wants?That doesn’t necessarily follow, because changes in a station will normally only occur when stopped, and the perceived problems are caused by changeovers at speed.
Restrictions on changeover location are usually expressed in terms of only limited speeds being allowed, except in certain defined areas, but the pan can be raised or lowered anywhere if stopped.
The restrictions are about the physical impact with, and movement of the catenary when the pan rises, not the electrical load as such. On a bi-mode the generators will have the load if the pan is down, and the circuit breaker won’t close until the pan is up.I’m assuming that the conditions are similar whether at speed or stationary. The driver cuts power before raising or lowering pantograph so the only power being taken from the overhead is hotel power. Or does the driver just ‘bat on’ with whatever power setting he wants?