Electrification work West of Bath

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

5 car Voyagers are a no no on P1 through.

... at the moment ... 

[grahame]

5 car Voyagers are a no no on P1 through.

... at the moment ... 

Same issue as 4 cars in the bay at Swindon?

[Chris from Nailsea]

Hmm. 

The issue with Platform 1 at Bristol Temple Meads is that some eejit put a panel box and a car park where the tracks used to be.  Hopefully, that will soon be remedied. 

[johnneyw]

Had wee look at the rail bridge at Sydenham Gardens in Bath yesterday (I'm so glad I remembered to put in the word "look" there!). Masses of old rail put there between the tracks. Any idea why?

BTW^▸ (by the way), had a jaunt to Freshford that morning, replacement bus service chap said I was the first of the day with some look of disbelief. Top geezer though, dropped me off at the top of the hill saving me a but of an uphill yomp on my little day out hike!

[TonyK]

It's not unknown for 4 car Voyagers BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains)-MAN to depart from Platform 1 even without lots of changes to the timetable because of engineering works.

5 car Voyagers are a no no on P1 through.

This one was indeed a 4-car Voyager. When I looked at RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) today, it became the bleedin' obvious. 2K20 leaves P1 for AVN at 1203. 1V49, having left MAN at 0907, slots neatly into the space at 1207. The crew then go off to lunch, leaving the train where it isn't in anybody's way. The next inbound from SVB only needs 3 minutes to turn around, so uses P7. The Voyager crew, suitably refreshed, leave at 1300 as 1M45, getting back to MAN at 1559, presumably accommodating the whole journey, including prelude and postlude, into a single shift? A 5-car set on the same trip would have to go somewhere like P11, as does the Waterloo service, to keep out of the way, giving rise to a fairly awkward departure.

Interesting to see, though. Begs the question: is P1 used because it is 4-car, or is it 4-car because only P1 is available?

[Adelante_CCT]

Interesting to see, though. Begs the question: is P1 used because it is 4-car, or is it 4-car because only P1 is available?

It would appear that it normally uses P3, and I see no reason why this week is different, so I'm assuming it just happens to be a 4 car, which can be routed into 1 or 3 (or wherever else they find necessary)

[JayMac]

There are lots of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HST^▸ (High Speed Train) movements in and out of Bristol TM^‡(resolve) at the moment, due to the closure of lines east of Bath.

HSTs are even being used for a Bath to Bristol shuttle.

Just this week I've seen FGW HSTs use P3 on three occasions.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Had wee look at the rail bridge at Sydenham Gardens in Bath yesterday (I'm so glad I remembered to put in the word "look" there!).

Indeed - excellent inclusion of the word 'look' there. 

And I rather think you had a 'wee look' at the Sydney Gardens in Bath ... 

[Electric train]

Had wee look at the rail bridge at Sydenham Gardens in Bath yesterday (I'm so glad I remembered to put in the word "look" there!). Masses of old rail put there between the tracks. Any idea why?

The rail may be being stored there from the track lift further east, awkward stuff to store long lengths of 113A rail at  56 kg/m (113 lb/yd)

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thanks for posting that information, Electric train. 

At the risk of appearing to be a numpty (I am not railway staff, after all!), may I make a couple of points here?

Firstly, and I accept that it is a purely cosmetic consideration, the presence of long lengths of 'spare rail' being left in the four foot does look so incredibly untidy ... 

And secondly, is there any risk that some piece of kit underneath a passing train (for example, a low hanging brake hose, or chain link) could actually catch on an end of such pieces of rail and cause some disembowelling of the train, so to speak?

It's probably all perfectly safe, but it does seem rather unsightly and potentially dangerous to me, as a non-expert! 

[Electric train]

Thanks for posting that information, Electric train. 

At the risk of appearing to be a numpty (I am not railway staff, after all!), may I make a couple of points here?

Firstly, and I accept that it is a purely cosmetic consideration, the presence of long lengths of 'spare rail' being left in the four foot does look so incredibly untidy ... 

The Track Engineers often store their spare length of rail in the four foot, Nationally a bulk purchase is made and then delivered.  Also for a renewal the new rail can be delivered to site a year or more ahead making use of a possession, the same happens with rail removed especially if it is going to be reused elsewhere.  260 metre length of 113A rail are difficult to deliver and are a tad heavy 

And secondly, is there any risk that some piece of kit underneath a passing train (for example, a low hanging brake hose, or chain link) could actually catch on an end of such pieces of rail and cause some disembowelling of the train, so to speak?

No not if its place correctly, the centre of a sleeper is lower than the base of the rail, also the rail is do different in that respect AWS^▸ (Automatic Warning System), TPWS^▸ (Train Protection and Warning System), EuroBalise, point equipment etc already mounted in the four foot.  What stored rail can do is make accessing cables to equipment in adjacent rails difficult or may even damage them; also makes tamping difficult.

It's probably all perfectly safe, but it does seem rather unsightly and potentially dangerous to me, as a non-expert! 

Its been a practice since CWR^▸ (Continuously Welded Rail) was introduced, several decades

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thank you for providing such a comprehensive reply to my queries, Electric train!  CfN.   

[TonyK]

260 metre length of 113A rail are difficult to deliver and are a tad heavy 

At getting on for 15 tonnes, that would be an understatement anywhere except on a railway.

It's probably all perfectly safe, but it does seem rather unsightly and potentially dangerous to me, as a non-expert! 

An example of function over beauty. Electric train explains the safety side, and it is clear that the rail should not just be dumped indefinitely, but delivered as part of planned maintenance. Aesthetic considerations come below what ultimately are financial aspects. It isn't so bad, is it?

[grahame]

Good the see an agency (on behalf of Passenger Focus and FGW^▸ (First Great Western)) handing out surveys to ask how the works are going for them / effecting them yesterday.   And in general from my (skewed) viewpoint, seem to be working well.   But then I don't need to get to Bath / Bristol.   Certainly good to catch up with the excellent, helpful folks manning the rail / bus interchange at Trowbridge - though see my comment elsewhere about providing them with the tools to make journey enquiries beyond their local sheets of departures.

The agency form has me chuckling sadly in its assumed negativity.

"What kind of disruption have you experiecened today?"  ... and I had to write in "Better than normal service".   Train every hour, Westbury to Chippenham and Swindon - probably about the right level of service for the line (and a fine illustration that the capacity is available, you will note!), but we drop back on 1st September

Effect on regular travel habits.   Options offered were "no effect", "less often", "just as often" and "just as often but different stations / route".  Nowhere for me to say that I'm travelling more (on better services).

[Cruithne3753]

Just wondering looking at this, why are there works all the way to Bradford on Avon?  That's well away from the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line)... unless there are plans to electrify to Southampton at some point in the future?