HOOP - High Output Overhead line equipment Plant - coming to Great Western

[whole diary]

[Network SouthEast]

The electric LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) service is due to start until December 2016.

We won't be seeing 319s on LTV either. They don't do 110mph, nor do they have SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) or provision for fitment of ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.)!

[onthecushions]

The description of the HOOP train does lay it on rather thickly.

In the 1980's BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) had electrification trains capable of installing 4-5 masts per hour with a maximum of 8 in 25 minutes. It also had factory wiring trains (of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) designed and adapted ex-501 cars!).

Network Rail now enjoys the advantages of advanced IT, robotics and German brain power which no doubt compensates somewhat for the halving of productivity from a possession when compared to BR.

OTC

[Electric train]

The description of the HOOP train does lay it on rather thickly.

In the 1980's BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) had electrification trains capable of installing 4-5 masts per hour with a maximum of 8 in 25 minutes. It also had factory wiring trains (of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) designed and adapted ex-501 cars!).

Network Rail now enjoys the advantages of advanced IT, robotics and German brain power which no doubt compensates somewhat for the halving of productivity from a possession when compared to BR.

OTC

It is true BR did have electrification construction trains, they were not "factory trains" as the HOOP is portrayed to be.

BR's foundation train, basically a train of cement mixers that were loaded from a batching plant in the construction depot, the train in latter years had a excavator although many foundations were hand dug during the week next to the open railway (rules were different in those days).  The foundation train would run out on a weekend night or mid week and drop the re-bar in an pour the concrete around a polystyrene former, in later years holding down bolts were cast in for bolted base masts.

BR then had a train with a crane, an adapted 12 Tonne PW^▸ (Permanent Way) crane that lifted the masts in place where they used a polystyrene former this was melted out with acetone and the mast grouted in.  For large portals the 75 Tonne breakdown cranes were used, it was all Mechanical & Electrical Engineers Dept in those days

BR's wiring these were indeed converted rolling stock the roofs were flatten off, so the linesmen could walk along as the train moved along, the problem with these trains is they did not have any guard rails there was a risk of falling off, which did happen, needless to say elf n safety did not like these.  During the construction of North Pole the use of wiring trains was not allowed by the depot construction contractors caused a panic for the BR construction engineer at the time.

So yes BR did have construction trains, long gone now they would have evolved I guess if we as a nation had not just stopped electrifying railways 30 years ago

[IndustryInsider]

So yes BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) did have construction trains, long gone now they would have evolved I guess if we as a nation had not just stopped electrifying railways 30 years ago

If I remember correctly, several carriages of which ended their days languishing in Hinksey Yard towards the latter part of the 1990s?

[Electric train]

So yes BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) did have construction trains, long gone now they would have evolved I guess if we as a nation had not just stopped electrifying railways 30 years ago

If I remember correctly, several carriages of which ended their days languishing in Hinksey Yard towards the latter part of the 1990s?

They might have been from an OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") maintenance depot they had similar trains not quite as long as the construction ones.  Willesden, Soho, Romford, Rugby, Longsight, Crewe, etc etc etc

[TonyK]

So yes BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) did have construction trains, long gone now they would have evolved I guess if we as a nation had not just stopped electrifying railways 30 years ago

A mistake I hope we do not repear when the current programmes end! Surely,  the aspiration must be for a wholly electrified railway one day?

[trainer]

I whole-heartedly agree with FTN that we should set our national sights on an electrified railway for everywhere except the lines with extremely low use.  A major part of that will involve either complete wiring of ports and other bulk loading points for freight, or locos with 'last-mile' diesel engines built in, so that they are not running 95% of the time under the wires on filthy oil (or even clean oil).

The problem with this aspiration is that it involves something called 'vision', which is sadly lacking in our politicians and the people who elect them* who often cannot/will not see beyond either the next election or their nasal extremity. 

*Except me, of course, who has clarity of vision and a firm grasp of economics and taxation.

[stuving]

I whole-heartedly agree with FTN that we should set our national sights on an electrified railway for everywhere except the lines with extremely low use.  A major part of that will involve either complete wiring of ports and other bulk loading points for freight, or locos with 'last-mile' diesel engines built in, so that they are not running 95% of the time under the wires on filthy oil (or even clean oil).

The problem with this aspiration is that it involves something called 'vision', which is sadly lacking in our politicians and the people who elect them* who often cannot/will not see beyond either the next election or their nasal extremity. 

*Except me, of course, who has clarity of vision and a firm grasp of economics and taxation.

Ports and the like must be about the worst places for 25 kV OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE"). Apart from the bulk loading equipment, and most cargo being in containers, there are cranes, big fork-lifts and similar elevator-loader vehicles, tall trucks, etc. You'd never make a safety case.

If you don't want to uncouple the mainline loco I suspect a big old diesel to haul the lot would work - an auxiliary engine would need a helluva torque.

[Electric train]

I whole-heartedly agree with FTN that we should set our national sights on an electrified railway for everywhere except the lines with extremely low use.  A major part of that will involve either complete wiring of ports and other bulk loading points for freight, or locos with 'last-mile' diesel engines built in, so that they are not running 95% of the time under the wires on filthy oil (or even clean oil).

The problem with this aspiration is that it involves something called 'vision', which is sadly lacking in our politicians and the people who elect them* who often cannot/will not see beyond either the next election or their nasal extremity. 

*Except me, of course, who has clarity of vision and a firm grasp of economics and taxation.

Ports and the like must be about the worst places for 25 kV OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE"). Apart from the bulk loading equipment, and most cargo being in containers, there are cranes, big fork-lifts and similar elevator-loader vehicles, tall trucks, etc. You'd never make a safety case.

If you don't want to uncouple the mainline loco I suspect a big old diesel to haul the lot would work - an auxiliary engine would need a helluva torque.

Nothing new in OLE in to ports and container handling yards.  There used to be big on at Willesden and Stratford.  Its all how you set the head shunt up

[stuving]

OK - I stand corrected. I guess it just means using the right kind of handling machines, but then modern ports are designed pretty much like complete factories anyway.

[TonyK]

I whole-heartedly agree with FTN that we should set our national sights on an electrified railway for everywhere except the lines with extremely low use.  A major part of that will involve either complete wiring of ports and other bulk loading points for freight, or locos with 'last-mile' diesel engines built in, so that they are not running 95% of the time under the wires on filthy oil (or even clean oil).

The problem with this aspiration is that it involves something called 'vision', which is sadly lacking in our politicians and the people who elect them* who often cannot/will not see beyond either the next election or their nasal extremity. 

*Except me, of course, who has clarity of vision and a firm grasp of economics and taxation.

* Me too

I would like to see a national infrastructure agency set up to keep as many decisions as possible out of political hands. Though a national agency, its remit would include large-scale local transport schemes that do not involve buses. As well as national railways, I would tell it to make sure we are able to generate all the power we need, sort out problems with airport capacity, and maintain sea defences. I can see the obvious problem, in that the government is the body who will pay for it all on our behalf, and all of these aspects of national life have a political element to them, as the HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) and Heathrow third runway debates show.

But I would tell the infrastructure supremo to hang on to the HOOP kit at the end of this programme, and draw up a timetable for doing the whole country. This is urgent - as each class of vehicle comes to the end of its life, it should be replaced with electric, not diesel. So keeping the HOOP going will mean the progressive cascading of diesel stock and introduction of electric vehicles, planned to avoid diesel under wires as much as possible. This would also include conversion of third rail systems to 25kv AC OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line). I say this is urgent because, if we start now, we may never have to develop and buy any more diesel rail vehicles.

[Lee]

Would you not see the national infrastructure agency you propose having to take account of schemes that involve buses though? One would imagine some overlap with trolleybus, guided bus etc. Even "ordinary" bus schemes may well be relevant to some of the pies your agency could have its fingers in.

[TonyK]

I deliberately excluded buses to avoid the possibility of a repeat of the Avon Metro fiasco. Not having the choice of bus as the motive vehicle would preclude downgrading any planned scheme to save money, in the way that the proposed tram system for Bristol has been value-engineered down to a Bust Rabid Transit route - in truth, a thinly disguised road building scheme.

[Lee]

I don't deny your logic at all FTN.

What I am suggesting is that not taking into account of (as opposed to actively promoting) schemes that involve buses would deprive your proposed national infrastructure agency of the crucial integrationist element that, by its very definition, would be essential to ensure that it operated effectively.

And believe me, I speak with as much distaste as you of the BRT^▸ (Bus Rapid Transit) substitution agenda when I say that.

[JayMac]

I would tell it to make sure we are able to generate all the power we need

Indeed. Nuclear Power, Now! As far as new build goes, I'm a WIMBY.

And as for rail electrification on a wider scale than currently funded/proposed - think how much more we could do by ditching HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).



*Welcome in my back yard