Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[gwr2006]

Apparently they are looking at a temporary solution with a speed limit to achieve the deadline.

NR^» (Network Rail - home page) tweets also suggest they are lowering the track this weekend. So it looks like a combination of lowered track, minimum clearances and reduced speed to allow the gradient of the contact wire to be very steep. 

Just found a letter from Network Rail to local council confirming bridge rebuilding wont happen until CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) (i.e. after April 2019) and only then if planning consent etc. is given.  Until then a 'temporary solution' is a combination of track lowering, track slew and a speed limit of 60mph! A speed restriction like that could decimate the new IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) timetable as line speed is normally 125mph and it will seriously affect the level crossings if trains take longer to travel from the strike-in point.

[Rhydgaled]

It doesn't look like Steventon will be ready any time soon and doubtful the high street bridge will even be rebuilt now before December 2018. Loco-haulage anyone?

Apparently they are looking at a temporary solution with a speed limit to achieve the deadline.

Network Rail (NR^» (Network Rail - home page)) tweets also suggest they are lowering the track this weekend. So it looks like a combination of lowered track, minimum clearances and reduced speed to allow the gradient of the contact wire to be very steep. 

Any idea what the speed limit might be? I'm sure the villagers will be asking why that can't be a permanent solution as they are so opposed to the bridge being rebuilt. The contact wire will be steep too to obtain the clearance needed at the level crossings.

Given the opposition to rebuilding the bridge, and the fact that the Over-Head Line Equipment (OHLE) will fit under it, why don't they build a link-road to the bridge and close the level crossing (at least to vehicles)? Given Network Rail / ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) seem to be quite keen on  reducing the number of level crossings, it would be pretty silly to rebuild the bridge then a few years later the level crossing gets closed anyway.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronyms

[martyjon]

Took a diversion today on my way back from the supermarket to have a nose at progress since my last nose. Nothing. My viewpoint was King Grove Farm Overbridge on the stretch from the former sites of Chipping Sodbury station and Wapley Sidings. This is usually referred to as Chipping Sodbury cutting as it runs through an area of tough limestone. It looks as if many piles have been drilled and cast which was the situation when I visited the same viewpoint after the August/September blockage of the line east of Westerleigh Junction.

A forest of uprights are visible around Westerleigh Junction itself and cantilevers and gantries have been affixed from the junction itself towards Parkway station as also has a number of cantilevers and gantries on the 'operational overlap' from the junction towards Yate. It looks as if the steelwork for the remaining uprights, cantilevers and gantries has been delivered to sites towards Rodford Bridge and dumped trackside due to the embankment slip between Rodford Bridge and the pedestrian underbridge leading from Westerleigh Common. Work is currently underway to shore up the embankment working from a compound set up by a batalion of the Orange Army from the Carrillion Regiment which I am told is likely to continue until next March. From the junction towards Parkway station I would suspect that the erection of lineside steelwork is almost complete. I noticed last time I travelled along the A432 at Coalpit Heath the uprights for the OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") has been affixed to the outside of the viaduct retaining wall lining up with the viaduct pillars, I suspect the same method of fixing has been used for the longer Winterbourne Viaduct.

Back at Westerleigh Junction I notice that west of the junction there are two sets of sturdy uprights with 4 sets of lighter uprights evenly spaced between them so I assume these are additional supports for wiring of the trailing Up Main to Down Main trailing crossover at this point. On the down side only there is a 5th lighter upright which seems to have a platform on it about contact wire level which I presume will be the home to a transformer feed to the OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line).

Cant any 'dangley bits' affixed to any of the steelwork yet.

I'll keep the forum advised of progress

[ellendune]

It doesn't look like Steventon will be ready any time soon and doubtful the high street bridge will even be rebuilt now before December 2018. Loco-haulage anyone?

Apparently they are looking at a temporary solution with a speed limit to achieve the deadline.

NR^» (Network Rail - home page) tweets also suggest they are lowering the track this weekend. So it looks like a combination of lowered track, minimum clearances and reduced speed to allow the gradient of the contact wire to be very steep. 

Any idea what the speed limit might be? I'm sure the villagers will be asking why that can't be a permanent solution as they are so opposed to the bridge being rebuilt. The contact wire will be steep too to obtain the clearance needed at the level crossings.

Given the opposition to rebuilding the bridge, and the fact that the OHLE will fit under it, why don't they build a link-road to the bridge and close the level crossing (at least to vehicles)? Given Network Rail / ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) seem to be quite keen on  reducing the number of level crossings, it would be pretty silly to rebuild the bridge then a few years later the level crossing gets closed anyway.

There was a proposal to improve the unmade track to do the opposite of this as a temporary measure during the bridge works.  However if you look at the map you will see that as the solution you propose it would cut the village in two. Also remember that there are two level crossings in Steventon.

[stuving]

A speed restriction like that could decimate the new IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) timetable as line speed is normally 125mph and it will seriously affect the level crossings if trains take longer to travel from the strike-in point.

So how much time would that short slow section cost, for an 800 in electric mode?

Taking the speeds as 26 and 56 m/s, the extra time during the braking (0.6 m/s²) is 13 s, and then running slower takes 20 s per km. That's not really dependent on the train's performance. The acceleration is, so using the latest modelling guessesestimates I reckon it takes 56 s for that. So, for 2.5 km at low speed that's a total of 2 minutes lost.

Out of interest, for a station stop the figures are 47 s lost to a stand, plus the dwell time, plus 125 s to accelerate. That's nearly 3 minutes before adding the dwell time. For an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) I get 47 s and 195 s - four minutes plus dwell.

In both cases, some extra allowance is needed for not braking at the theoretical braking point (at least until ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) arrives).

[stuving]

Back at Westerleigh Junction I notice that west of the junction there are two sets of sturdy uprights with 4 sets of lighter uprights evenly spaced between them so I assume these are additional supports for wiring of the trailing Up Main to Down Main trailing crossover at this point. On the down side only there is a 5th lighter upright which seems to have a platform on it about contact wire level which I presume will be the home to a transformer feed to the OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line).

There is supposed to be an MPATS^▸ (Mid Point Auto Transformer Site - electrification) built at Westerleigh Junction, though I'm not sure quite where. That would need several post pairs, rather taller than the usual stanchions, for its connections. Judging from others, probably four pairs and then two more a few OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") spans away.,

[ChrisB]

CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) no longer exists. The end of current CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) does.

Didn't the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) confirm that beyond this, they would confirm project by project, up to a total spend value within each Goverment, rather than having agreed projects and spend all agreed with a defined 5-year period?

[IndustryInsider]

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it), CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) exists as before for maintenance and renewals, but enhancements are dealt with on a case by case basis.

[stuving]

CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) no longer exists. The end of current CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) does.

Didn't the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) confirm that beyond this, they would confirm project by project, up to a total spend value within each Goverment, rather than having agreed projects and spend all agreed with a defined 5-year period?

CP6 does still exist, as a budgeting framework for maintenance and renewals. If you look under the SoFA it says:

In line with the HLOS^▸ (High Level Output Specification), the level of expenditure is focused on and provides for the operations, maintenance and renewal of the existing railway over CP6.2 The level of expenditure makes some provision for the funding of enhancements. However, the Secretary of State expects decisions regarding specific enhancements to be dealt with separately, building on the principles set out in the ‘Memorandum of Understanding between Department for Transport and Network Rail on rail enhancements,’3 and this statement makes no commitments to specific enhancements.

That doesn't even attempt to clarify what enhancements might be paid for out of NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s general funds. Small, obviously, and given the usual relationship of spending outturn to budget in Network Rail (NR) quite likely they'll fade away into nothingness. We've seen that electrification not yet scheduled for CP5 has been seen as needing DfT approval, but was put on the "not on my watch" list.

What that means for work that was approved and scheduled, but deferred to create budgetary flexibility, remains to be seen. From ET's comments, it seems Network Rail (NR) think they can get on with those soon - perhaps because budgets always look bigger when new.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronyms

[stuving]

Having re-read the statement released by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) with the SoFA, it does fill in some gaps. In particular, it says:

Government has already made clear that it expects new enhancements to the rail network to be developed outside of the regulatory system. However, the SoFA published today includes funding to continue to take forward the enhancements that were deferred from control period 5. In line with the new process for enhancements these schemes will continue to be subject to ongoing consideration to ensure they deliver the best results for both rail users and taxpayers. In addition to this, I am making funding available for the early-stage development of new enhancement schemes.

Christian Wolmar, in his reaction to the SoFA last month, quoted an estimate of the funding for deferred CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) enhancement of £ 5Bn, but he didn't say whose estimate that was. You could do quite a bit of electrifying with that, even on post-Hendy costings.

With regard to getting started on CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) work, however it gets funded, I find the wording ""I am making funding available" unhelpful. As it is "in addition", is isn't included in his SoFA. So where is it? If it is still being discussed, isn't it a case of "I will be making..."?

[ChrisB]

Its the sentence *after* your bolding that I feel is the major one, in that it states quite clearly that if they (cintinue to) think that bi-modes are the way forward & find them working well, wiring may not be 'the best result' for both users & taxpayers. Therefore continuimg to kick it into even longer grass. I don't think SoFA gives us any guarantees of work in CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024).

[martyjon]

There is supposed to be an MPATS^▸ (Mid Point Auto Transformer Site - electrification) built at Westerleigh Junction, though I'm not sure quite where. That would need several post pairs, rather taller than the usual stanchions, for its connections. Judging from others, probably four pairs and then two more a few OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") spans away.,

Probably in the ' V ' between the Up Main and Down Charfield lines, the other side of the two overbridges to the junction itself and the signalling relay room. There is at present a communications mast there, visit Google Earth and check it out.

[onthecushions]

With regard to the Steventon Bridge saga, have there been any developments along the lines of:

http://freyssinet.co.uk/elevarch-masonry-bridge-arch-lift-trial-moco-farm-buckinghamshire/

?

OTC

[Rhydgaled]

It doesn't look like Steventon will be ready any time soon and doubtful the high street bridge will even be rebuilt now before December 2018. Loco-haulage anyone?

Apparently they are looking at a temporary solution with a speed limit to achieve the deadline.

Network Rail (NR^» (Network Rail - home page)) tweets also suggest they are lowering the track this weekend. So it looks like a combination of lowered track, minimum clearances and reduced speed to allow the gradient of the contact wire to be very steep. 

Any idea what the speed limit might be? I'm sure the villagers will be asking why that can't be a permanent solution as they are so opposed to the bridge being rebuilt. The contact wire will be steep too to obtain the clearance needed at the level crossings.

Given the opposition to rebuilding the bridge, and the fact that the Over-Head Line Equipment (OHLE) will fit under it, why don't they build a link-road to the bridge and close the level crossing (at least to vehicles)? Given Network Rail / ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) seem to be quite keen on  reducing the number of level crossings, it would be pretty silly to rebuild the bridge then a few years later the level crossing gets closed anyway.

There was a proposal to improve the unmade track to do the opposite of this as a temporary measure during the bridge works.  However if you look at the map you will see that as the solution you propose it would cut the village in two. Also remember that there are two level crossings in Steventon.

If the 'unmade track' you refer to is the one I'm looking at on Google Earth, I don't see the problem. Why couldn't turning that into a full road be a means of allowing the crossing nearest the bridge to close? I suppose there is still a problem with the linespeed unless the second level crossing is far enough away from the bridge to allow an acceptable Over-Head Line Equipment (OHLE) gradient between them (that was my hope when I made the suggestion, I wasn't suggesting closing both level crossings, at least not immediately, if the bridge and linespeed can both be kept in full by closing just the crossing closest to the bridge).

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronyms

[ellendune]

It doesn't look like Steventon will be ready any time soon and doubtful the high street bridge will even be rebuilt now before December 2018. Loco-haulage anyone?

Apparently they are looking at a temporary solution with a speed limit to achieve the deadline.

NR^» (Network Rail - home page) tweets also suggest they are lowering the track this weekend. So it looks like a combination of lowered track, minimum clearances and reduced speed to allow the gradient of the contact wire to be very steep. 

Any idea what the speed limit might be? I'm sure the villagers will be asking why that can't be a permanent solution as they are so opposed to the bridge being rebuilt. The contact wire will be steep too to obtain the clearance needed at the level crossings.

Given the opposition to rebuilding the bridge, and the fact that the OHLE will fit under it, why don't they build a link-road to the bridge and close the level crossing (at least to vehicles)? Given Network Rail / ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) seem to be quite keen on  reducing the number of level crossings, it would be pretty silly to rebuild the bridge then a few years later the level crossing gets closed anyway.

There was a proposal to improve the unmade track to do the opposite of this as a temporary measure during the bridge works.  However if you look at the map you will see that as the solution you propose it would cut the village in two. Also remember that there are two level crossings in Steventon.

If the 'unmade track' you refer to is the one I'm looking at on Google Earth, I don't see the problem. Why couldn't turning that into a full road be a means of allowing the crossing nearest the bridge to close? I suppose there is still a problem with the linespeed unless the second level crossing is far enough away from the bridge to allow an acceptable OHLE gradient between them (that was my hope when I made the suggestion, I wasn't suggesting closing both level crossings, at least not immediately, if the bridge and linespeed can both be kept in full by closing just the crossing closest to the bridge).

It's a mile round by road.  A footbridge would be very high and would also be a barrier to many (long ramps or lots of steps).  I think you would have to see the site on the ground to understand that.