Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Adelante_CCT]

Think I prefer the more sophisticated sounding term of 'dangly bits'

[ChrisB]

Comfirmed by Mark Hopwood as "just west of Reading"...so dies exclude Reading station

[ChrisB]

The additional Hayes-Pad electric services have been postponed & will now start in September....

[Noggin]

Noel Dolphin at Furrer+Frey tweeted yesterday that energisation would be in 43 days

[ChrisB]

Mark Hopwood showed a slide last night that had "Energisation Complete Date September 30" for the test track

[DidcotPunter]

Mark Hopwood showed a slide last night that had "Energisation Complete Date September 30" for the test track

Which is the date quoted in the Hendy report when the test track section would be available for IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project. This will offer more capacity on routes, save money, give a consistent and safe service and meet customer requirements. Intended to replace HSTs.) testing.

I'd expect the contractors would want to have the section energised well before that though I'm sceptical whether it'll be live by the end of next month. However they seem to be making good progress though there's still plenty of work to do at the Didcot end.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Hmm.  

Firstly, I haven't understood more than a few words of it, and secondly, this discussion has gone off at something of a tangent from the original heading of Great Western Main Line electrification.

I'm therefore inclined to go back over the past few pages of posts, and split some of them off into a specific topic of their own. If that's alright with everyone, I'll do it later this evening, when I'll hopefully have a few spare minutes.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Now done: the new topic, covering a wide-ranging discussion on the subject of electricity generally, is at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=16962.0 

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

I^ve noticed, particularly on the UM between Pangbourne and Tilehurst, that some of the ^small part steelwork^ (ie dangly bits) appears to be below the level of the contact wire.  I can see that the support arm for the wire is cranked, but at some locations the cranked arm is almost horizontal nearest the wire, so that the other end of the support arm, and the upright support to which it is fixed, appear to be lower than the contact wire. 

So, taking into account the width of the pantograph, the dynamic movement of the train, and the lateral stagger of the contact wire, is this situation OK?  Or is there some more adjustment to do to the small part steelwork to ensure it is all above the level of the contact wire?

[paul7575]

Might it possibly be where the track is canted over significantly on the faster curves?    (Just a thought though, being finished later is probably the more likely answer...)

[stuving]

There are drawings that show the bottom of that fixed arm going below the pantograph, but it's just outside the swept envelope of the pantograph, no doubt including worst-case sway. And very odd it looks sitting here, too.

[eightf48544]

Interesting note in Modern Railways on the Sevrn Tunnel. Apparently there is to be a 5 week stoppage from September to install "conductor rails". Didn't know APT^▸ (Advanced Passenger Train) is Dual volatgae as well as bi-mode.

Probably copied straight from a press release.

[paul7575]

Interesting note in Modern Railways on the Sevrn Tunnel. Apparently there is to be a 5 week stoppage from September to install "conductor rails". Didn't know APT^▸ (Advanced Passenger Train) is Dual volatgae as well as bi-mode.

Probably copied straight from a press release.

It is however how Furrer and Frey usually refer to their rigidly mounted overhead system:

Rigid Overhead Conductor Rail System (ROCS^▸ (Rigid Overhead Conductor System)) for narrow tunnels, high reliability and for special applications...

http://www.furrerfrey.ch/en/systems/conductor_rail.html

I think many people refer to it as bar or beam conductor, but the fixed rail actually carries normal conductor wire in a longitudinal clamping mechanism - which I expect eases the transitions between fixed and 'normal' stuff...

Their brochure mentions the Severn Tunnel towards the end: 
http://www.furrerfrey.ch/dam/jcr:5beace53-28a1-40a4-92ab-fe91780f607d/ROCS%20brochure%20Sept%202015.pdf

Paul

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

Thanks for the link Paul, very interesting.  I shall read the F & F brochure over the weekend. 

[Electric train]

Interesting note in Modern Railways on the Sevrn Tunnel. Apparently there is to be a 5 week stoppage from September to install "conductor rails". Didn't know APT^▸ (Advanced Passenger Train) is Dual volatgae as well as bi-mode.

Probably copied straight from a press release.

Conductor beam is a good solution for tunnels, I belive Box is also going to be beam.  Whilst it requires more supports than conventional wire every 7 to 12 metres
where as wire is 50 to 70 metres; the fact it dose not need tensioning just restraining and there is no catenary wire makes for a very compact and low maintanance solution.

I was the Designated Project Engineer (aka senior client engineer) for TLP Canal Tunnels and St Pancras low level station we install OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") conductor beam in both of those, the section through St Pancras has been in service for over a year and the section just south of the station for 3 years

The photo shows the beam being installed at Canal Tunnel Jcn.