MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I was driving up the A9 yesterday, looking at the roadworks required for the dialling at Moy. There's a new bridge needed over the railway and they are obviously making it higher than the current bridge, presumably in order to facilitate electrification at some future time.
It occurred to me that this wasn't really necessary and that rail electrification costs could be substantially reduced by the simple expedient of not having the overhead power lines under any bridges. Surely it would be possible to lower the overhead gubbins as a bridge was being approached, let momentum carry the train through, and raise the pantograph after the bridge?
The same solution could be used for longer tunnels if the overhead line was supplemented by onboard batteries.
I assume it has been thought of but isn't possible, the lines near me have all been relatively recently electrified and it has taken a significant amount of time and effort, I'm sure the cost was eye watering.
The electrification process on GWR got as far as Swindon, then on to Bristol Parkway via Badminton, but while work was carried out through Chippenham installing the hardware trackside for carrying the wires, a number of old bridges were spoiled by rebuilding them higher using concrete rather than Cotswold stone, and a huge amount of time and money was wasted lowering the rail bed through Box Tunnel, it seems that this stretch has been abandoned and the trains will run on internal battery power into Bristol. The footbridge over the tracks was raised, but no provision allowed for prams, wheelchairs, cycles or other users with disabilities, so a colossal balls-up all round! HS2 on a smaller scale. 😖🤬
Surely it would be possible to lower the overhead gubbins as a bridge was being approached, let momentum carry the train through, and raise the pantograph after the bridge?
it seems that this stretch has been abandoned and the trains will run on internal battery power into Bristol
Haha. You mean the integrated diesel engines. There are a few battery powered, or battery supplemented trains in the UK in use now, but none have the capacity to run long distances. There was a test train recently that covered 140 miles on a single charge, but it was a test train (a converted underground unit) running at slow speeds.
The future is heading toward supplementary battery power, mainly because the UK Government wont spend on electrifying the rail lines. It’s an expensive job, certainly worth it if you ask anyone in the rail industry, but they dont want to commit to large capital expenditure unless it involves the greater London area.
As mentioned above the Great Western electrification was a farce from start to finish. Costs ballooned, and timescales increased even more. It was poorly planned, poorly designed, poorly installed, so much so that around half of it was eventually cancelled. Compare that to the current electrification round Manchester, and the Midland Mainline from Bedford to near Leicester, both of which were done before time and under budget, yet the Governmant have had their fingers burnt by the Great Western farce, so wont commit funds any more, but are now saying the trains must have an alternate power source, which they say they’d like to be battery, but the technology isnt there yet, so we now have fleets of electric trains that carry around 20+ tonnes of diesel engine equipment for the parts that are not electrified. Thus making the trains far more expensive than pure electric trains, far less efficient, less green, harder to service, noisier etc. Planning the future of railways is not a Dept. of Transport plus point, it is they who run the railways, and they have done for around 10 years now, they bumble along making poor decisions regularly, and seem to get away with it, as I’ve never heard of resignations or sackings of those DfT Staff who have made the railways so badly run over the past 10 years.
Rail electrification is a horror show (though being fair about it the tight UK loading gauge which is a legacy of being the first country to have rail makes it harder than it could be, and there are some places eg. the Forth Bridge where putting wires in at all might not be practical)
We should have a rolling programme as this maintains skills and jobs, but no, HMG are doing it stop-start in the same way they do every infrastructure project.
MML is a particular low point - dual mode trains bought which (IIRC) will be running on diesel more of the time than planned as wires north of Leicester have been abandoned.
Surely it would be possible to lower the overhead gubbins as a bridge was being approached, let momentum carry the train through, and raise the pantograph after the bridge?
Actually, yes, that is possible. The bridge is raised as the wires need to be a ceetain distance from the bottom of the bridge deck. It’s a problem all over the Country, and has almost been fixed, in that the ‘flashover’ distance has been reduced, so it is possible to run under some lowish bridges. But, there are some where it just isnt possible to get the clearance required, so that bridge has to be raised, or track lowered.
There is a further complication in that many bridges are not tall enough for the type of containers in use nowadays. Lowered wagons are available, but dont always work, so the bridge may need raising to allow modern containers to pass through. Perth to Inverness has container trains every day, so I’d expect it to be pre-planning to raise the bridges now, even though electrification will be 10 years away at least, but the containers are every day now, so thats an immediate bonus.
(Also have just realised the OP was talking about dualling the A9 and not the HML 🤦♂️)
I've heard that Edinburgh to Aberdeen may have hybrid electric and battery trains to counteract running overhead over the Forth and Tay and through the Fife tunnels.
They have started piling for OHLE on ECN2 for electrification.
Planning the future of railways is not a Dept. of Transport plus point, it is they who run the railways, and they have done for around 10 years now, they bumble along making poor decisions regularly, and seem to get away with it, as I’ve never heard of resignations or sackings of those DfT Staff who have made the railways so badly run over the past 10 years.
100%.
Stop/start funding streams, the fact that rail projects routinely take 10+ years to deliver and are therefore at the whim of at least 2 successive Governments and the constant revolving door of officials within the corridors of power means that rail is hugely vulnerable to political interference and stupidity.
And everything ends up costing 5x what it was supposed to so politicians get antsy about any further projects, the funding dries up for another 2 years and that impacts on suppliers who won't commit to long term projects so when ones comes along, they need to recruit and train engineering staff (all of which costs extra money and time) and the cycle of cost increases and subsequent cancellations continues.
One of my previous managers knew somebody who was bribed back out of retirement to try and fix the mess when they electrified the Stirling line.
I think incompetence from top to bottom would describe how it was being run. Lots of project managers with various qualifications, who couldn't manage the weekly shop, let alone plan for a multi-million pound infrastructure project.
Workers having to wait at the stores for hours every shift to collect basic supplies, parts that should have been ordered weeks/months in advance for critical jobs not ordered, basic equipment being rented for months on end when you could buy the equipment for a couple weeks rental, and that was just the key points I remember.
When the guy accepted the job, the senior managers were more concerned that he wanted an unmarked van to run about in, rather than a fancy car.
My summary from the various stories I got told, was it was run by managers who think they're doing a good job, but don't actually know what is happening on the ground, and no-one actually questioning or taking accountability for what was actually happening, which seems to be a recurring theme for a lot of major projects.
Actually, yes, that is possible. The bridge is raised as the wires need to be a ceetain distance from the bottom of the bridge deck.
But why bother running overhead lines under the bridge when the train is already going fast enough to get through? End the overhead line before the bridge, run it at a lower ground?) level and start it again after the bridge. It just needs the pantograph to be lowered whilst under the bridge. No room above the engine for the pantograph? Recess it.
One of my previous managers knew somebody who was bribed back out of retirement to try and fix the mess when they electrified the Stirling line.
I think incompetence from top to bottom would describe how it was being run. Lots of project managers with various qualifications, who couldn't manage the weekly shop, let alone plan for a multi-million pound infrastructure project.
Workers having to wait at the stores for hours every shift to collect basic supplies, parts that should have been ordered weeks/months in advance for critical jobs not ordered, basic equipment being rented for months on end when you could buy the equipment for a couple weeks rental, and that was just the key points I remember.When the guy accepted the job, the senior managers were more concerned that he wanted an unmarked van to run about in, rather than a fancy car.
My summary from the various stories I got told, was it was run by managers who think they're doing a good job, but don't actually know what is happening on the ground, and no-one actually questioning or taking accountability for what was actually happening, which seems to be a recurring theme for a lot of major projects.
Welcome to public sector major projects, where process is confused for progress, accountability and authority are totally unclear, and everyone is micromanaging 'risk', while losing sight of the primary purpose which is to get the bloody job done! Oh, and the supply chain, that paragon of private sector discipline and efficiency, is very good at milking the whole programme. Drives me nuts!
But why bother running overhead lines under the bridge when the train is already going fast enough to get through? End the overhead line before the bridge, run it at a lower ground?) level and start it again after the bridge. It just needs the pantograph to be lowered whilst under the bridge. No room above the engine for the pantograph? Recess it.
Because the consequences of that process going wrong at 120mph are catastrophic.
Also you run into issues with power surging and cuts. None of that is insurmountable with capacitors and batteries but it's generally far simpler and more reliable to just properly electrify the line rather than introduce extra processes like "the train must lower its panto by this point to fit under the bridge, then raise it, then lower it half a mile later... etc"
it's generally far simpler and more reliable
But how much more costly is it when you have to rebuild thousands of bridges, especially adding in the impact of road closures? And that cost then prevents further electrification, with an ongoing environmental cost/impact too..
it is costly to rebuild and replace bridges, but i bet there are a few that may be best to be replaced. if they're planning on duelling all of the A9, it may be prudent to redesign and replace the bridges to accommodate the future OHLE.
I'm trying to think of how many overbridges there are, a few round Dunkeld and up to Pitlochry then not too many until Kingussie area.
As for raising and lowering a pantograph, i'm led to believe driving a train is fairly intensive, having to raise and lower a panto all the time throws in another potential source of errors.
As for raising and lowering a pantograph, i'm led to believe driving a train is fairly intensive, having to raise and lower a panto all the time throws in another potential source of errors.
I do occasionally use a train which does switch between overhead lines and rails (Great Northern to Old Street). There is an rather long pause at a station when it switches over.
Changing it for every bridge would be rather time consuming and complex for planning and thats leaving aside that then you need the customised trains. I suspect in the medium term changing a few bridges would be cheaper.
London Overground switches from overhead to third rail at Acton Central. It’s not a fast procedure.
The future is heading toward supplementary battery power, mainly because the UK Government wont spend on electrifying the rail lines
Surely all the costs should be passed onto the train operating companies as part of the access fees charged to them.
The future is heading toward supplementary battery power, mainly because the UK Government wont spend on electrifying the rail lines
Surely all the costs should be passed onto the train operating companies as part of the access fees charged to them.
The TOCs are increasingly owned by the DfT as part of the 'renationalisation' of the railways.
Surely all the costs should be passed onto the train operating companies as part of the access fees charged to them.
Well, they could be, but then the fares would double overnight. As ‘ratherbe..’ Says, the Government now ‘own’ most of the franchises, and have had overall control of all of them for over 5 years now. The Government has owned Railtrack/Network Rail for a longer. They still havent done anything about it. Ignore Labours pronouncements that they have nationalised the railways, they havent, they were already nationalised in all but name. Ask your MP what they have done about the Railways. They’ll bluff you and give some rubbish about one organisation owned by us etc. It’s rubbish. They’ve done nothing. There are no plans in place, so the ridiculous costs of running the railway are still ongoing.
In the rail Industry, it is widely reported that the Dept. of Transport havent got a clue, and have actually cost the railways more money rather than cutting costs since they took over. The Great Western electrification is a case in point, in that it was so badly run, by the Government/Network Rail, that trains now cost double the amount they used to cost, and many of the savings that electrification brings are not being reaped. Most , if not all, of the GWR trains have to be dual mode, electric and diesel. As I pointed out earlier, this means continuing costs for the Operator of the trains (the Government) as they need to service diesel engines, rather than the far easier maintenance of the electric only trains. Of course, the train depots need to keep all their diesel servicing infrastructure, oil tanks, filling points etc, which should not be needed on an electric railway. It’s a total joke, but no-one seems to be bothered about it.
A recent ‘highlight’ for the DfT was the cancelling of an early morning service from Manchester to London. OK, these things happen. But then the Rail journalists looked into it a bit more. The service for passengers was being cancelled.But, the train would still run in the same slot, with the same Staff, but no passengers. This was because the train was needed mid morning to run a service from London back to Manchester. The DfT manages the trains, and tells the Operator what to run and when. So the Operator (Avanti iirc) could not say ‘tough luck, we havent got a train in London for that service’, they have to operate it, so the empty train would run the 180 miles to make sure it could work the service from London. They are that stupid that they hadnt thought about the consequences of cancelling that single service, and from that, it was quite rightly deduced that few in the DfT actually know how a railway runs,as trains cant be just plucked out of mid air to run a service.
Back in BR days, pre 1995, there used to be quite a lot of spare trains stabled around the system. This helped, in that BR added more ‘extra’ trains on at busy times, and during Summer months, when trains to the coast were popular, and if a train broke down, there was latency in the sytem, so a Driver/Guard and trains could be found to run another service in place of a broken down service.
This changed with privatisation, as no-one wanted to pay for the trains that were used for only 60-90 days of the year, so they were all sold for scrap. From that now comes the problem where, if a train breaks down, there is no replacement for that train, as each Operator has very few ‘spare’ trains available. Typically on the West Coast Mainline, there would only be 1, maybe 2 trains availabe for any that breakdown. If there are 34 trains required for that day, (for example) the Operator would have only 38 units total. 2 would be booked for maintenance, there would undoubtedly be another train that has had a problem and needs to have a day off in the depot to sort a problem, leaving only one spare train for the whole 400 mile route and 80 or so services. Once another train has a fault, it’s down to no spares, so services will be cancelled. TPX are the worst for this, regularly cancelling services, not because they are useless (well, they arent good!), but because they just havent got enough trains for contingencies. And it’s all the fault of the DfT/Government.
Surely all the costs should be passed onto the train operating companies as part of the access fees charged to them.
The railway is a complex mix of parts whereby the TOCs lease the rolling stock from ROSCOs (Rolling Stock Leasing Companies), the rolling stock is in turn built by the likes of Alstom, Bombardier etc as and when they win tenders for Government contracts.
The TOCs themselves are almost invariably just owned / sub-owned / sub-sub-owned by much bigger conglomerates although as noted above that's now changing as Great British Railways begins to draw it all back together.
So Government will say that they are planning on electrifying this line here or building a new line there and they'll put out various tenders including one to build any new rolling stock. The spec for said rolling stock will be determined by what is being built. However when that plan gets "paused" or re-scoped or re-designed for the 12th time (such as only electrifying half the line, not all of it), the spec for the rolling stock then needs to change as well from (eg) overhead electric to overhead electric plus diesel or overhead electric plus battery.
So the costs increase because now the tender has to be re-procured, the previous winning bidder now needs some compensation and the associated supply chains needs to be reworked.
It's all a total mess and all because Government are incapable of delivering on any infrastructure project without dithering around, changing their minds and bleating about "the taxpayer".
It's public transport. It needs public money and public subsidy. There's a strong argument for removing "transport" from Government and having it as a cross-party brief staffed by experts, not politicians of one colour.
Actually, yes, that is possible. The bridge is raised as the wires need to be a ceetain distance from the bottom of the bridge deck.
But why bother running overhead lines under the bridge when the train is already going fast enough to get through? End the overhead line before the bridge, run it at a lower ground?) level and start it again after the bridge. It just needs the pantograph to be lowered whilst under the bridge. No room above the engine for the pantograph? Recess it.
How can you guarantee a train is always going fast enough not to get stuck? You can't.
Onboard batteries would solve that.
Onboard batteries would solve that.
A recent ‘highlight’ for the DfT was the cancelling of an early morning service from Manchester to London. OK, these things happen. But then the Rail journalists looked into it a bit more. The service for passengers was being cancelled.But, the train would still run in the same slot, with the same Staff, but no passengers. This was because the train was needed mid morning to run a service from London back to Manchester. The DfT manages the trains, and tells the Operator what to run and when. So the Operator (Avanti iirc) could not say ‘tough luck, we havent got a train in London for that service’, they have to operate it, so the empty train would run the 180 miles to make sure it could work the service from London. They are that stupid that they hadnt thought about the consequences of cancelling that single service, and from that, it was quite rightly deduced that few in the DfT actually know how a railway runs,as trains cant be just plucked out of mid air to run a service.
They did reinstate that service after an outcry about the stupidity of it. It was a consistently high-revenue service - the only direct train from Manchester to get to London before 9am - so it was routinely full of business types (mostly travelling on expenses so less care about a ticket costing £175!) and they thought it would be a good idea to cancel it?! But still run the service anyway cos it had finished in Manchester late the previous evening but needed to be in London to run a service the next morning. It was absolute insanity.
(the reasons behind cancelling it as a passenger service was actually to give it more leeway in where it could go around the network, allowing it to divert or slow down or not necessarily arrive on time but it's still a stupid set of reasons).
Onboard batteries would solve that.
But then every train has to be bi-modal just so they can go through low bridges/tunnels?
On the original question:
You do not want a pantograph to be lowering/rising against the contact wire at speed. We have enough 'wires down' incidents on the network as it is, without introducing this risk. Doing this regularly at 100/125mph would be a disaster.
A work-around is in place in certain areas where, if a defect is spotted on the OHLE assembly, trains can be stopped, the driver cautioned/briefed, and the train then proceeds at walking pace with the driver lowering the pan at the relevant point (potentially indicated by either a sign placed in position or a handsignaler waving a flag) , before stopping to raise it again once the defect has been passed. You can imagine that this is really not a plausible way of operating under multiple bridges.
Onboard batteries would solve that.
They certainly would, and there are various studies looking at the feasibility of this. But as I say above, the batteries would have to have the range to be able to run the train for large sections of the network - not just a few hundred meters. Switching between traction modes takes time and, for safety purposes, done at a standstill.
But then every train has to be bi-modal just so they can go through low bridges/tunnels?
Yep, and this is the flipside of the cost.
Yes, it would cost a lot of money to raise bridges / lower track but then many of the bridges around the network aren't exactly brand new, they'll all need replacing or significant repairing sometime. Do it on a rolling basis with a clear pipeline of work and you'll get a well-trained workforce and a prepared supply chain being able to do it in a measured and cost-effective manner.
Don't do it and all that money needs to go into buying and maintaining bi (or tri) mode trains. Every train is carrying around tons of batteries or a hulking great diesel engine, every train needs two sets of maintenance, every depot needs the staff and equipment to work on two (or three) propulsion systems instead of just one.
I was at a bus depot a few months ago where they'd recently replaced their entire fleet with brand new electric models. The depot had been stripped and rebuilt; upgraded power grid, removed all the old diesel maintenance bays and all the air filtration systems to cope with the fumes. It had been completely modernised, they'd retrained all the technicians, brought in all the new kit.
The last thing they'd want is someone going "oh actually, you need to cater for diesel-electric hybrid buses". It'd require another refit. But that is what is happening in the rail industry.