|
SandTEngineer
|
 |
« Reply #795 on: April 23, 2019, 11:55:18 » |
|
Well, remember that after B****T day that we will no longer have to comply with EU» Regulations and we can therefore revert to using the much simpler, lightweight (and hence, cheaper) BR▸ MK3 catenary.....  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bradshaw
|
|
« Reply #796 on: April 23, 2019, 12:03:20 » |
|
The letters page of the new edition of Modern Railways has a reply from the ORR» to Ian Warmsley’s article. Effectively it says that the role of the ORR is to enforce legislation on Health and Safety. It quotes the Electricity at Work Regulations as the reason that 3rd rail can only be extended in certain circumstance.
It also relates the changes imposed when the UK▸ ‘special national condition’, reflecting historic custom and practice, ceased to be used, forcing the increases in clearances.
It ends with a note on the work being done with NR» to try and produce solutions where minimum clearances are difficult to achieve.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian
|
|
« Reply #797 on: April 23, 2019, 19:53:23 » |
|
Well, remember that after B****T day that we will no longer have to comply with EU» Regulations and we can therefore revert to using the much simpler, lightweight (and hence, cheaper) BR▸ MK3 catenary..... The massive square masts, though - surely the EU didn't mandate those did it? I don't remember seeing anything like those anywhere on the continent? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #798 on: April 23, 2019, 20:47:00 » |
|
Well, remember that after B****T day that we will no longer have to comply with EU» Regulations and we can therefore revert to using the much simpler, lightweight (and hence, cheaper) BR▸ MK3 catenary..... The massive square masts, though - surely the EU didn't mandate those did it? I don't remember seeing anything like those anywhere on the continent? Agree and the closer spacing and not using headspan was to make them more resilient, none of that is in EU regulations. Of course the larger clearances come from an EN standard, but that is not an EU organisation either and RSSB▸ did not have to adopt it straight away and could have added more guidance on risk assessments, which designers could have done anyway. So as usual it is people trying to blame the EU for all the problems of their own making. Just like politicians have been doing for the last 40 years. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SandTEngineer
|
|
« Reply #799 on: April 24, 2019, 09:55:17 » |
|
I did put a 'tongue in cheek' smiley at the end of my post......
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian
|
|
« Reply #800 on: April 24, 2019, 19:32:16 » |
|
Seriously, though - will NR» be expected to pare down the spec a bit for the not-yet-authorised bits of the GW▸ electrification to get the costs more in line with what DfT» think is reasonable?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
onthecushions
|
|
« Reply #801 on: April 25, 2019, 11:15:10 » |
|
Seriously, though - will NR» be expected to pare down the spec a bit for the not-yet-authorised bits of the GW▸ electrification to get the costs more in line with what DfT» think is reasonable?
I don't think that the "cheap and cheerful" route is being followed. The article below (may have been referenced before) explains some of the considerations. https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2019/03/15/relearning-electrification/Hope this helps, OTC |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Noggin
|
|
« Reply #802 on: April 25, 2019, 14:30:22 » |
|
Well, remember that after B****T day that we will no longer have to comply with EU» Regulations and we can therefore revert to using the much simpler, lightweight (and hence, cheaper) BR▸ MK3 catenary..... The massive square masts, though - surely the EU didn't mandate those did it? I don't remember seeing anything like those anywhere on the continent? Yes and no - AIUI▸ , the TSI (interoperability standards) mandate a higher level of tension in the wire, which means a thicker (and thus heavier) gauge wire, and so you need beefed up steelwork to carry it. That said, yes it could be done with much lighter structures. AIUI, the Series 1 catenery had a number of objectives including speed of installation and adjustment on site, minimal maintenance, maximum electrical and mechanical separation, allowing running on one track if the other was isolated, dewired, being worked in etc. At the end of the day, the steelwork is the visible bit of electrification, but its capital (and enen installation) costs are relatively low - things like feeder stations and control rooms, resignalling, trackwork, rebuilding structures and project management are where most of the money goes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DidcotPunter
|
|
« Reply #803 on: April 26, 2019, 12:36:21 » |
|
Yes and no - AIUI▸ , the TSI (interoperability standards) mandate a higher level of tension in the wire, which means a thicker (and thus heavier) gauge wire, and so you need beefed up steelwork to carry it.
That said, yes it could be done with much lighter structures. AIUI, the Series 1 catenery had a number of objectives including speed of installation and adjustment on site, minimal maintenance, maximum electrical and mechanical separation, allowing running on one track if the other was isolated, dewired, being worked in etc.
At the end of the day, the steelwork is the visible bit of electrification, but its capital (and enen installation) costs are relatively low - things like feeder stations and control rooms, resignalling, trackwork, rebuilding structures and project management are where most of the money goes.
You're right, Andrew McNaughton quoted by Modern Railways on Twitter: TransPennine Route Upgrade to be the poster child for affordable electrification. Scotland has shown the way by doing schemes affordably. Headline figure £1.2m per single track kilometre - a third civils, a third power supply, a third knitting https://twitter.com/Modern_Railways/status/1121736492517330951 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian
|
|
« Reply #804 on: April 26, 2019, 19:42:46 » |
|
Seriously, though - will NR» be expected to pare down the spec a bit for the not-yet-authorised bits of the GW▸ electrification to get the costs more in line with what DfT» think is reasonable?
I don't think that the "cheap and cheerful" route is being followed. The article below (may have been referenced before) explains some of the considerations. https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2019/03/15/relearning-electrification/Hope this helps, OTC An interesting article. I'm struggling with the statement about 15 metre deep foundations, though - the masts are no more than 10 metres high, and I reckon the longest piles I've seen are about 5 metres. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #805 on: April 26, 2019, 19:52:59 » |
|
An interesting article. I'm struggling with the statement about 15 metre deep foundations, though - the masts are no more than 10 metres high, and I reckon the longest piles I've seen are about 5 metres.
It says "up to 15 metres" and they may be the exception - I can imagine them on very soft ground or on the top of high embankments having to go right down - for example those between Chippenham and Thingley Junction. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #807 on: April 29, 2019, 21:08:13 » |
|
If Network Rail are that keen to mitigate an act of electrification vandalism, then they could always pledge £3.75 million towards the cost of Pilning Westgate...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MVR S&T
|
|
« Reply #808 on: April 29, 2019, 21:47:28 » |
|
That much might buy the nameboards, with all the asoicated planning, meetings about the typeface, who should run it etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Celestial
|
|
« Reply #809 on: April 29, 2019, 21:55:16 » |
|
The press is a little late picking this up. I reported this here a fortnight ago, though it didn't seem to trigger any interest from anyone. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
