Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

Linked from emails I regulary get from the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) GW^▸ (Great Western) electrification project giving weekly pdf letters infirming about works in the areas you request when signing up. Quite detailed with dates & times

[stuving]

The GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) electrification process, on the other hand, is using a HOPS train in part, which hasn't come up to expectation. If that can only work at half the rate it was supposed to do, then its part of the project will take twice as long. We know that for next time (if there is one  - my guess is there will be) and can build that knowledge into forecasts if it can't be sorted any other way.

That's probably unfair on the poor old HOPS train itself, in several ways. For one thing it works as five (or maybe six) separate parts, doing three basic activities. The first is putting in piles or other structure bases, and that's the one that has problems. The second, erecting structures, only has to keep up with that and it looks as if it can. The third part does wiring, and as that has yet to get underway I guess we don't know how fast that will work - who knows, it might exceed expectations.

There are reports that, with adaptations on both sides (the kit and its users), the piling rig is just about up to its design speed on a good day with a straight run of adjacent pile locations. Unfortunately, due to site-specific delays in specifying some pile bases, there are few such runs. If it has to do one here, then pack up and trundle off to do the next, its work rate drops right down - it probably isn't the right machine for that kind of work.

I can think of several things you might do for the rest of the project, rather than just plugging away with HOPS as fast as you can. You could do the job the old way (or hire someone to) for some single sites, or work out hybrid ways of using added resources to make HOPS work faster, or insert a delay (probably less then a year) on lines not yet started so the design work can catch up, or a mixture of those and others.

All of that must be part of the Hendy review. What you can't do is take the time and cost overruns so far and apply the same factors to the whole programme as a prediction.

[John R]

I seem to remember when the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) was electrified in the 1980s it happened very quickly and came out under initial cost projections.

It was authorised in July 84 and was completed for the May 91 timetable change, so I'm not sure I would say that was "very quickly".  And in fairness, the GW^▸ (Great Western) electrification was to some extent jumped on NR^» (Network Rail - home page), whereas BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) put forward a proposal when it was ready and thus had it well planned. That may be why the original staged completion dates given in July 84 were kept to, whereas GW has slipped somewhat.

[grahame]

As I recall from yesterday's Railfuture meeting, the original Great Western Railway was formed by a group of Bristol businessmen with an idea in 1833, got its act of parliament in 1835, and first trains rain in 1838.

[ellendune]

As I recall from yesterday's Railfuture meeting, the original Great Western Railway was formed by a group of Bristol businessmen with an idea in 1833, got its act of parliament in 1835, and first trains rain in 1838.

I think it was a case of looking at history through rose tinted glasses!

It may have run its first trains in 1838 - but to where? Temple Meads was not opened until 1840 nor was Reading. and the section between Challow (then called Farringdon Road) & Bath was not opened until the middle of 1841!

I recall reading that the geology between Challow and Chippenham was a major issue - (slope stability of clay embankments and cuttings). Yes this was a construction project that was subject to significant delays - about 18 months I think. 

It was also significantly over budget.  Swindon Station was delayed until 1842 and then had to be funded by a third party in return for a long term catering franchise - which the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) only bought out in the 1895 to prevent them from having to stop all trains there for 10 minutes!

[Electric train]

I seem to remember when the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) was electrified in the 1980s it happened very quickly and came out under initial cost projections.

It was authorised in July 84 and was completed for the May 91 timetable change, so I'm not sure I would say that was "very quickly".  And in fairness, the GW^▸ (Great Western) electrification was to some extent jumped on NR^» (Network Rail - home page), whereas BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) put forward a proposal when it was ready and thus had it well planned. That may be why the original staged completion dates given in July 84 were kept to, whereas GW has slipped somewhat.

BR had an electrification grand plan, which included extending the BedPan electrification North to Derby and Sheffield and then the WR Mainline staring with the Padd Oxford and Newbury services and then Bristol and South Wales. I think the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification to Bristol on BR's plan is not that far behind.

The biggest problem with electrification of the National network today is all the experience BR had has now retired or got %$&*ed off being told by the modern "project managers" that they don't know what they were talking about and that the world had moved on.   

There has been a large amount of political  greed as well, with politicians of all colours proclaiming they were electrifying / modernising the railways without stopping and looking where all the skilled designers and installers were.  We (the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)) are still not training enough engineers   

As I recall from yesterday's Railfuture meeting, the original Great Western Railway was formed by a group of Bristol businessmen with an idea in 1833, got its act of parliament in 1835, and first trains rain in 1838.

If I recall correctly the first GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) revenue earning trains ran Paddington (Bishops Bridge Road) to Maidenhead Riverside (Taplow)

[TonyK]

That's probably unfair on the poor old HOPS train itself, in several ways.

I for one certainly hope so! My point was that, unlike Crossrail, we are dealing with relatively new kit, of a kind not used before in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom). We know that the train was built to the exacting standards of German engineering. It is not likely to fall short of expectations because of technical deficiencies, but the problem will be one of not using it in the most efficient manner. Familiarity with the machinery, plus analysis of the other factors that have slowed things down, will surely resolve the issues. For instance, when the line between Bath and Bristol is closed next Easter for works to the tunnel at St Annes, then why not plan a way to use the HOPS train on the bit of track that is shut to traffic but not being worked upon?

I notice that the pile of piles piled up in the siding behind Avonmeads is growing steadily, so they are definitely going through with this project. [/tongue in cheek] Once HOPS is up to speed, and in no danger of being rebranded MOPS (or heaven forbid LOPS), then the work will cease to slip further behind schedule. Short of providing extra crew and working double shifts, though, it isn't likely to make up time lost.

There have, of course, been other factors that have slowed things up - what Donald Rumsfeld called the "unknown unknowns. They, the neighbours, and the weather, will always get in the way at times. Much of Crossrail isn't affected by these, and the tunnelling work doesn't have a busy live railway running right next to it - apart from the Underground, which it avoids at all costs.

[lordgoata]

This is a significant issue and I'm surprised it hasn't had more publicity.

I did try, but RAG^▸ (Radstock Action Group) wanted to keep it local at the time so I gave up. They have since been on Jack FM and BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) news (advertising the drop-in session NR^» (Network Rail - home page) ran a couple of weeks ago). There have been local letter drops and monthly updates in Goring Gap News, but there hasn't been a great deal outside of the locality (unlike the Tesco thing which seemed to be reported everywhere!).

It has the potential to delay train testing

I doubt it will, they will go ahead regardless and deal with the consequences after.

and could prompt similar protest action down the line where there are AONB^▸ (Areas Of Natural Beauty)'s and listed structures etc.

This wouldn't surprise me - I know similar happened with the Tesco groups - for example one that lost its battle gave their remaining funds to STIG, so I suspect knowledge and experience would be shared, should other groups take up issue along the line.

I think the OHLE is more intrusive than it need be it looks like standard length uprights are being used which project well above (to varying degrees) the horizontal spans, which looks ugly.  It would look much neater if the uprights were cut level with the horizontals as in previous electrification schemes.

There is a section towards South Stoke that has the grey masts and a black signal gantry across it, and that (the signals) really do not stand out as much as the masts - so even painting it all black would help. But I don't think the proposals RAG have are even remotely viable, they are looking at it 100% from the aesthetics, and completely overlooking the practicalities. That's what I found particularly interesting in all the correspondence.

[Tim]

We know that the train was built to the exacting standards of German engineering. It is not likely to fall short of expectations because of technical deficiencies,

I have no idea about the trains capability, but I have to pull you up on your na^ve assumption that German engineering is the best.  Seems like the train performed fabulously when under test in Germany, but in the real world its performance is not so good.  We certainly haven't heard of something like that happening to German technology have we??

[Bmblbzzz]

Back to piling for a moment.......

If you follow this link http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/12281.aspx it will take you to the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) GW^▸ (Great Western) Electrification web page where down the page there are links to local area information on piling progress etc. This includes upcoming dates of work and maps of the affected area(s).  Not seen this before.  Perhaps somebody has given NR a (big) kick up the backside

(OT)I see they abreviate Bath and North East Somerset not with the popularly used BANES but as Bathnes. This not only avoids the negative connotations, 'bane of my life', but has a satisfying abstract-noun sound to it. 'Bathness: the quality or characteristic of the city of Bath; pertaining to honeyed stone and well-fed tourists, etc.' 

[stuving]

'Bathness: the quality or characteristic of the city of Bath; pertaining to honeyed stone and well-fed tourists, etc.' 

That sound like pretty good translation of the French "Aixence", then.

[ChrisB]

From the Henley Standard

Network Rail to reconsider 'ugly' gantries

NETWORK Rail might replace the ^ugly^ steel gantries it has installed along the tracks in the Goring area.

The company, which put up the plain grey structures in preparation for the electrification of the Great Western main line, is to launch a retrospective public consultation in the new year.

It is considering ways of making them less intrusive and will be exhibiting alternative designs.

However, it says any changes would be subject to government funding and would have to be effective from an engineering point of view.

Network Rail began installing the gantries in the spring. They stand about 100 metres apart and will support overhead power cables.

A residents^ action group has campaigned against the work, saying it spoils views of the open countryside around Goring and is inappropriate development in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Goring Parish Council, the Chilterns Conservation Board and the directors of the neighbouring North Wessex Downs have called for a more discreet design of gantry.

The work didn^t need planning permission as it is permitted development but objectors claim it is unlawful because Network Rail broke the rules on building in an AONB^▸ (Areas Of Natural Beauty). Under section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, such developments must ^have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area^.

Claire Forrest, information officer for the Chilterns Conservation Board, said: ^We are pleased by Network Rail^s promise as this is something it should have done before the work began. We are pushing very hard for the design to be revised so it is more appropriate for this protected landscape.

^We want to see something with a lower impact and believe it is Network Rail^s statutory duty to provide this. There are illustrations of more elegant designs in circulation so it would not be starting completely from scratch.

^Network Rail should have considered using these to start with and seems to have paid no attention to the location they were building in. They^ve used the heaviest and ugliest design instead, which is a real shame.^

Ian Haslam, who leads the action group, said: ^Network Rail wrote to us saying they would like to do this but that it would depend on money and the feedback from the consultation. We^ve basically told them ^thank you, but your offer isn^t strong enough^. They^ve broken the law and shouldn^t only be willing to do it if the numbers are right. They should want to make the work lawful.^

Two weeks ago Network Rail held a drop-in meeting about the gantries at South Stoke village hall, which was attended by about 700 people.

Details of future meetings are yet to be announced but the company says it will aim to hold at least one in Goring. It said it could not give a timescale but promised to keep people updated.

Since the electrification programme began in 2013, its estimated cost has rocketed from ^874million to at least ^2.5billion.

Last month, the Commons^ public accounts committee criticised both Network Rail and the rail regulator, saying ^such poor planning^ was ^unbelievable and unacceptable^.

[ray951]

Wouldn't it be cheaper (and hopefully easier) just to move the Chilterns AONB^▸ (Areas Of Natural Beauty) boundary so that the railway is no longer within the boundary of the AONB, looking at the map it looks like it only needs to be moved a few 100 metres 

[paul7575]

I've said it before, but there's a lot of hot air being published by these various local papers in response to what seems to be a clever pressure group.   I reckon there's no way that NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are going to replace significant numbers of gantries.

Paul

[Bmblbzzz]

Something for NR^» (Network Rail - home page) to learn from the unfortunate situation could be explanation to residents in more detail about what will happen, how it will look and why it will be like that, in addition to the normal stuff about bridge closure dates and so on.