Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum
15.12.2019 - what changes?
Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
article index - [here]
 12/12/2019 - UK General Election
15/12/2019 - Santa Special - Melksham
15/12/2019 - GWR Timetable recast
16/12/2019 - Network Rail Surgery, BWT
24/12/2019 - No GWR trains, Paddington
25/12/2019 - No GWR trains (at all)
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
December 10, 2019, 02:13:58 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[137] A week in Scotland - final 2019 travelogue
[71] Railway station vs train station
[46] Timetable changes making commute longer
[45] Advent Quiz - 2019
[38] Choir at Reading Station 5pm 9th December
[30] What's happening on 15th December 2019?
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 52 53 [54] 55 56 ... 60
  Print  
Author Topic: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion  (Read 116076 times)
SandTEngineer
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3072


Retired in an S&T hut in the far Southwest


View Profile
« Reply #795 on: April 23, 2019, 11:55:18 am »

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..... Tongue
Logged

Out of this nettle, Danger, we pluck this flower, Safety.
[Henry IV, Part 1, Act 2, Scene 3]
bradshaw
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 694



View Profile
« Reply #796 on: April 23, 2019, 12:03:20 pm »

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
Transport Scholar
Sr. Member
******
Posts: 143


View Profile
« Reply #797 on: April 23, 2019, 07:53:23 pm »

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..... Tongue

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
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3365


View Profile
« Reply #798 on: April 23, 2019, 08:47:00 pm »

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..... Tongue

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
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3072


Retired in an S&T hut in the far Southwest


View Profile
« Reply #799 on: April 24, 2019, 09:55:17 am »

I did put a 'tongue in cheek' smiley at the end of my post......
Logged

Out of this nettle, Danger, we pluck this flower, Safety.
[Henry IV, Part 1, Act 2, Scene 3]
Adrian
Transport Scholar
Sr. Member
******
Posts: 143


View Profile
« Reply #800 on: April 24, 2019, 07:32:16 pm »

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
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 713


View Profile
« Reply #801 on: April 25, 2019, 11:15:10 am »

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
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 368


View Profile
« Reply #802 on: April 25, 2019, 02:30:22 pm »

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..... Tongue

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
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 161


View Profile Email
« Reply #803 on: April 26, 2019, 12:36:21 pm »

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:

Quote
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
Transport Scholar
Sr. Member
******
Posts: 143


View Profile
« Reply #804 on: April 26, 2019, 07:42:46 pm »

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
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27288



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #805 on: April 26, 2019, 07:52:59 pm »

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, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
SandTEngineer
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3072


Retired in an S&T hut in the far Southwest


View Profile
« Reply #806 on: April 29, 2019, 08:18:16 pm »

Goring Gap issues not to be resolved (too long to quote here):
https://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/goring/138707/campaigners-lose-fight-to-replace-ugly-rail-gantries.html
Logged

Out of this nettle, Danger, we pluck this flower, Safety.
[Henry IV, Part 1, Act 2, Scene 3]
Lee
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6583

He who laughs last hasn't got all the facts.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #807 on: April 29, 2019, 09:08:13 pm »

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

Currently muddling along the Guingamp-Carhaix line

http://twitter.com/research_gwchat
MVR S&T
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 128


View Profile
« Reply #808 on: April 29, 2019, 09:47:28 pm »

That much might buy the nameboards, with all the asoicated planning, meetings about the typeface, who should run it etc.
Logged
Celestial
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 342


View Profile
« Reply #809 on: April 29, 2019, 09:55:16 pm »


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
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 52 53 [54] 55 56 ... 60
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page