Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[ellendune]

The word possibly does not appear on their website. 

Indeed not.  I chose 'possibly' as a compromise between NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s 'perhaps at a later date with lots of caveats' and savegoringgap's 'NR have confirmed a commitment to do it'.   

The "Save Goring Gap" campaign suggests that the National Grid have it right ...

How the National Grid is 'Getting It Right'
National Grid is ‘getting it right’. Why can’t Network Rail?

In 1964, in the Goring Gap, the National Grid buried the cable underground under Streatley hill (North Wessex Downs AONB^▸ (Areas Of Natural Beauty)) because it considered the natural beauty of the Goring Gap was so important.

at http://www.savegoringgap.org.uk/how-the-national-grid-is-getting-it-right.html


I suspect the answer to "Why can't Network Rail?" is that it's not really practical to power the trains from a buried cable - it needs to be overhead ...  

I think they might compromise on third rail.  But I don't think IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s will work on 650V DC^▸ (Direct Current) and they don't have shoes.  Perhaps if HSE^▸ (Health and Safety Executive) demanded an ugly fence to protect people from the rail it might get them to change their mind. Also I do not think NR could or should afford the costs. 

[broadgage]

No one is going to modify the IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) to run on conductor rail.
It would be very expensive, delay entry into service, and anyway the HSE^▸ (Health and Safety Executive) are strongly opposed to any more third rail schemes, other than possibly minor infill works in existing third rail areas.

[ChrisB]

"modify the apparatus already installed" seems to be key here. That doesn't mean "replace" in any way.

[mjones]

"modify the apparatus already installed" seems to be key here. That doesn't mean "replace" in any way.

Would 'modify' cover painting?..

[ChrisB]

yes, I'm sure.

[onthecushions]

Having now seen the "Goring Gap" (GG) masts/stanchions and portals, I must confess to being very disappointed with the product.

In the '60's when a visible change to the railway environment was to be made it was referred to the Design Panel. This produced the neat front ends of the later locomotives and stimulated the Corporate Image.

The heavy GG masts protrude needlessly and wastefully above the portals, although this is partly compensated by hanging the feeder wire on them. The portals extend beyond the masts in a way that would produce a sharp metal-rulered rap across the knuckles to any junior draughtsman who drew that carelessly.

The OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") in other areas does not seem to have these faults. This casual approach to appearance and materials use is not what I expect from Chartered Engineers that have had to pass an "engineer in society" exam.

Spec 1 OLE must make some intrusion into the countryside through which lines pass. It ought at least to be finished neatly and with balance, the main aspects of good visual design.

The houses at Basildon , especially NT's wonderful Basildon Park, complement the scenary in a way that NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s OLE does not.

Shame on NR

OTC

[broadgage]

"modify the apparatus already installed" seems to be key here. That doesn't mean "replace" in any way.

Yes, as well as painting, might "modification" include the removal of surplus lengths of steelwork ?

[ChrisB]

here's hoping so....it was mentioned the other night

[ellendune]

The heavy GG masts protrude needlessly and wastefully above the portals, although this is partly compensated by hanging the feeder wire on them.

Are the protrusions needless?  I seem to recall it being said they were for the 50kV cables that fed the autotransformers.

The OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") in other areas does not seem to have these faults. This casual approach to appearance and materials use is not what I expect from Chartered Engineers that have had to pass an "engineer in society" exam.

Sadly these days designs are not done by Chartered Engineers for a location They are standard designs for standard manufactured product that will fit everywhere with little thought to location.   

[IndustryInsider]

I'm certainly not going to defend them as works of art, but, slightly bizarrely, I find the various designs of gantry fit into the landscape better when the wires have been strung on them as they don't look so irregular.  Perhaps that's just me though!  As I've said before, I'm personally more concerned the design means better much reliability than aesthetics.

[Electric train]

The heavy GG masts protrude needlessly and wastefully above the portals, although this is partly compensated by hanging the feeder wire on them.

Are the protrusions needless?  I seem to recall it being said they were for the 50kV cables that fed the autotransformers.

The OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") in other areas does not seem to have these faults. This casual approach to appearance and materials use is not what I expect from Chartered Engineers that have had to pass an "engineer in society" exam.

Sadly these days designs are not done by Chartered Engineers for a location They are standard designs for standard manufactured product that will fit everywhere with little thought to location.   

The system design, the system spec, the structural design, the OLE mechanical design etc will all have been done and signed off by Chartered Engineers or Engineers with many years of railway experience.

The constraints placed on NR^» (Network Rail - home page) by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) was to design and build a robust electrification system that had a long (100 year) life expectancy, that would not suffer the same failures as Mk3 OLE also meets the requirements of Electricity at Work Regs, BS EN 51022, and TSI's.

OLE is to some elegant to others it is a abomination. Not even Mk3 headspan is low impact

[Bmblbzzz]

I'm certainly not going to defend them as works of art, but, slightly bizarrely, I find the various designs of gantry fit into the landscape better when the wires have been strung on them as they don't look so irregular.  Perhaps that's just me though!  As I've said before, I'm personally more concerned the design means better much reliability than aesthetics.

That makes sense, actually. Once the wires are up it will (maybe) look like a whole rather than a series of protrusions. Moreover, I think once it's been in use a few years, it will be accepted as having a purpose. (And in a hundred years it will be subject to a preservation order, like an early Victorian mill that was once dark and satanic but is now a National Trust destination.)

[onthecushions]

That makes sense, actually. Once the wires are up it will (maybe) look like a whole rather than a series of protrusions. Moreover, I think once it's been in use a few years, it will be accepted as having a purpose. (And in a hundred years it will be subject to a preservation order, like an early Victorian mill that was once dark and satanic but is now a National Trust destination.)

Not quite.

The Victorian railways took care with amenity whether visual or physical as the architecture of their stations shows, having both style and air/light/shelter. Even their engineering structures were balanced and tidy and so won acceptance. After Victorian opulence, the grouping companies' and early LT/BR^▸ (British Rail(ways))'s leaner art deco designs are still widely admired (and copied abroad).

I admire the Japanese design approaches, which major on eliminating waste, whether of material or effort. If one allows 100kg/m for the projections, we have about 160t of under- or not used steelwork between Reading and Didcot alone producing the appearance of temporary but substantial scaffolding. The GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s superb technical design deserve a better visual finish.

If it looks a mess it probably is a mess.

OTC

[IndustryInsider]

I admire the Japanese design approaches, which major on eliminating waste, whether of material or effort.

So this isn't what you'd call a mess?   

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/JRE-TEC-E5_omiya.JPG/1920px-JRE-TEC-E5_omiya.JPG

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

That makes sense, actually. Once the wires are up it will (maybe) look like a whole rather than a series of protrusions. Moreover, I think once it's been in use a few years, it will be accepted as having a purpose. (And in a hundred years it will be subject to a preservation order, like an early Victorian mill that was once dark and satanic but is now a National Trust destination.)

Not quite.

The Victorian railways took care with amenity whether visual or physical as the architecture of their stations shows, having both style and air/light/shelter. Even their engineering structures were balanced and tidy and so won acceptance. After Victorian opulence, the grouping companies' and early LT/BR^▸ (British Rail(ways))'s leaner art deco designs are still widely admired (and copied abroad).

I admire the Japanese design approaches, which major on eliminating waste, whether of material or effort. If one allows 100kg/m for the projections, we have about 160t of under- or not used steelwork between Reading and Didcot alone producing the appearance of temporary but substantial scaffolding. The GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s superb technical design deserve a better visual finish.

If it looks a mess it probably is a mess.

OTC

I agree with OTC.  As I^ve said before, it isn^t about reliability or aesthetics, it^s about reliability and aesthetics.  Good design can and should achieve that.