ELECTRIFICATION
point that electrification is just part of the wider route modernisation, so cannot be dealt with in isolation of things like the Reading Station Area Redevelopment, Oxford re- signalling or the works at Bristol Temple Meads, it all has to be tied in together.
He said: “When the Great Western was first built, there was no contemplation of electrification.”
The factory train concept has been covered in RTM before, including in our June/July 2013 edition by then OLE technical manager and now design interface
manager at Amey, Anne Watters.
Rhoden explained: “So, what is a factory train? It is a piece of equipment that has been specifically designed for this project which brings all the materials and the engineers to the site, but comes back at the end of the shift empty.
“In order to allow it to operate properly we need to use our Material Distribution Centre (MDC). All of the equipment for each of the locations is ordered and transported to the site and using our delivery partner, DHL, we hold up to 28 days’ worth of stock at the MDC, which is located about a mile and a half away from the HOOB (High Output Operating Base).”
He added: “There seems to be a misconception that the train will start at one end and will trundle along and then you will get electrified railway at the end of it. It doesn’t work like that: the train carriages are split every night, making their way to the various possession sites. There are five activities generally taking place when laying overhead lines, and doing it this way speeds up the process.
“There are two functions of the HOOB: one is to feed the train and make sure the equipment is on the train to enable its work, and the second is to maintain the trains.”
The consists are, essentially, as follows: 1a is piling, 1b is excavation and concrete, 2a is main steelwork and mast setting, 2b is SPS, auxiliary wiring and main line wiring, and 3 is the final works, including catenary inspection, jumpers, panning and running cross-overs.
Standards Both Burns and Mohammad made the point
that getting electrification-related standards locked down, and the necessary ‘sign offs’ on TSI (Technical Specification for Interoperability) from Europe, has also taken longer than expected – and said the process should, ideally, have started earlier.
Burns told us: “The design team is working furiously to produce detailed designs, particularly on bridges and stations, and some of those designs are dependent on rationalising the differences between our current standards and European interoperability [standards]. Therefore we have not been able to develop our designs as quickly as we would have hoped. Without the designs you can’t stick piles in the ground.
“That has been a constraint – but things are getting much better.”
While Mohammad said: “We’ve now got a team working on those standards, looking to lock a lot of those down in the next few months.
“But we’re very much on that journey, which has been started in earnest. I represent Infrastructure Projects, but this isn’t just about IP or even Network Rail: it’s about the industry.
“There are some design decisions still not locked down. That’s what’s impacting the programme. Will we deliver the Great Western? Absolutely: it’s such a major scheme, it will be delivered to scope.”
Mohammad said the programme was “under pressure” because of this in his speech, and spoke of the wider need to smooth out peaks in the IP workbank in 2016 and 2017, when demand for resources, plant and workforce seem set to outstrip supply.
He told the audience: “Everything that’s going on with Great Western electrification, because the programme is not where it needs to be, is just adding to that.”
Playing catch-up
Mohammad also raised the issues about standards and about the HOPS in an answer to an audience question at Rail Live asking about his greatest frustration. Mohammad said: “If I look at the whole programme, there are things we should have done many years ago before we embarked on this programme. Standards; we should have locked these electrification standards down a year or two years ago, right at the front end, before we embarked on GRIP 1, 2 and 3.
“If we look at collaboration within Network Rail, it hasn’t been perfect, for us to get all the answers, to get the lessons learned on what
good looks like.
“We’re playing catch-up. If we had a time machine and could go back, we would have had a far more joined-up programme and would define what good looks like, [in terms of] standards, whole life cycle costing, and everything else – and then embark on a major national electrification programme.”
Reliability
Robbie Burns spoke of the advantages of the new OLE design for high-speed routes, Series 1, over the old Mark III system and UK1.
He told the audience: “We went to the best people in the world, Furrer+Frey in Switzerland, and asked them to help us design the best overhead line system we could.” (More from Furrey+Frey on page 43)
Burns made the point that Series 1 has a higher tension than the old system – 16 kilonewtons on the contact wire, 13.5 on the return, as opposed to 11 or 12. He added: “You can run two pantographs at 125mph and 140mph under it, and get very good reliability, which is what we want. It’s eight times more reliable than [the OLE on] West Coast. That depends on how well we build it, not just the design.”
Another major challenge is the civils and structures, which has been causing disruption and annoyance in Oxfordshire, Wiltshire and beyond as roads are closed while bridges are demolished and rebuilt with higher clearances. “We’ve had to face some difficult meetings,” Burns acknowledged.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
www.networkrail.co.uk/great-western-route- modernisation
rail technology magazine Jun/Jul 14 | 45
Robbie Burns with the piling rig on the HOPS in July 2013
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148