Are The Electrification Gantries Going In The Middle At Horwich Parkway Station?
Traditionally, when a line is electrified in the UK, either a gantry or a wire is put over all the lines and supported on both sides of the track.
So I was surprised to see these circular structures between the tracks at Horwich Parkway station.
I thought at first, that they were drainage access points, but Network Rail’s are usually rectangular and often covered with a blue grating during construction.
I suspect that the substantial road bridge and possibly the footbridge will be used as supports for the overhead lines, so it would mean that if a substantial gantry was placed at the Northern end of the station, a few central masts would probably give enough support to the catenary, as it passed through the station.
It is possibly significant that there is no circular structure under the footbridge, despite being about the right place in a sequence of structures. If they were to do with drainage, you would still need drainage under the bridge, but if they are for electrification, then the footbridge could be used for support of the overhead wires.
This is a Google Map of the station, with the ends of the platforms in the South East corner.
Horwich Parkway Station
Note the five pairs of white spots along the line, one pair of which is in the shadow of the footbridge.
If you can’t see them click the image and show it in your browser.
Could the white dots be concrete piles for the electrification? As I left Horwich Parkway station, I noticed some piles to the South of the station and they were uncovered, showing white concrete.
Just in front of the train in the station, it is possible to see another white dot between the tracks. A circular structure is also visible in the pictures of the station.
It would also appear that one set of foundations are missing between the single dot and the pairs along the line. Could this be, because a substantial gantry is being erected here, to support the catenary at the Northern end of the station?
So it would appear that masts could be used in the centre at Horwich Parkway station, but after An Hour In Farnworth, I am rather dubious that a similar technique could be used at Farnworth station.
Improving The Hastings Line
In The Lewes Horeseshoe, I discussed how an idea from Railfuture might be used to improve services between London and the South Coast.
I came to the conclusion, that if various improvements were carried out, including the running of trains with Class 395 performance from Ashford to Brighton along the East Coastway Line, that this would present an opportunity to close and rebuild the Hastings Line.
The Hastings Line is only thirty-two miles long from the South Eastern Main Line to Hastings, but there are deficiencies in the tunnels, which led to four of the eight tunnels being made single-track, when the line was electrified in 1986.
Surely, the fact that the line is constantly switching from double to single track, is one of the reasons, that the line only has a pathetic one semi-fast and one stopping train per hour between London and Hastings.
But things have moved on since 1986!
Network Rail must have learned a lot of tricks with tunnels. In particular, all the lessons learned in the re-boring of Farnworth Tunnel will be invaluable.
The length of the line is also such, that services could be run using IPEMU trains, charging the on-board storage on the South Eastern Main Line and between Battle and Hastings stations.
Would running some parts of the Hastings Line without power, mean that it could be simplified by the partial removal of electrification?
I estimate that around twenty-five miles would be without electrification, which would be an easy gap to bridge for an IPEMU.
Would this simplification in the various single-track tunnels, coupled with modern tunnelling techniques, allow Network Rail to create a fully double-tracked route from the South Eastern Main Line along the full length of the Hastings Line to Hastings?
If four trains per hour could be run between London and Hastings, that would be a tremendous improvement. At the London end of the route, the Thameslink Programme should create extra capacity for trains into Charing Cross station.
In addition, it would appear that the line is already capable of handling ten-car trains. Could this be stretched to twelve?
I am certain, that in the light of developments in the last few years, that Network Rail are looking at ways of increasing the capacity on the Hastings Line.
They’re also probably looking to do other engineering work, as there was a major landslip on the line a couple of years ago.
But in truth nothing can be done, until alternative routes are provided via Ashford and/or Brighton, as the tunnel work would probably mean that the Hastings Line would need to be closed, whilst some of the work is performed.
Unless a sensible alternative is provided, I’m sure Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells will be penning another letter to the Telegraph.
Future-Proofing The Uckfield Branch
The Uckfield Branch of the Oxted Line was open today, so as in A Trip To Uckfield, I had to use a Rail Replacement Bus from Crowborough, I took a train to Uckfield station and back from London Bridge. These are some of the pictures I took at Uckfield station.
I can’t disagree with what I said in the previous post.
The platform work is certainly being done to a standard and length, that should be good enough, if the Uckfield Branch is used to create a second Brighton Main Line, by extending the line past Uckfield to Lewes on the route of the former Wealden Line.
All of the platforms I have seen on the Oxted Branch seem to be capable of taking a twelve-car train.
Uckfield’s Long Single Platform
Although, I suspect that Uckfield itself could be a bit longer, especially as workers still seemed to be extending it further to the North.
I would think, that this long platform would enable two eight-car trains to be parked in the station, if there was a need in the Peak or because one of the trains had failed.
It’s just more future-proofing.
Oxted’s Bay Platform
Platform 3 at Oxted station is a South-facing bay platform, which is used to provide shuttle and other services down the two branches. In the last couple of years, it has been electrified, which is just more future-proofing, in case it was required to run an electrified shuttle to East Grinstead.
IPEMUs To Uckfield?
The Oxted Line is electrified from London Bridge as far as Hurst Green station, where the two branches split.
- The East Grinstead Branch is electrified.
- Uckfield Branch is not and is about twenty miles long.
As a typical Electrostar IPEMU based on say a Class 387 train, would probably have a range of at least fifty to sixty miles, it would appear that IPEMUs could work the London Bridge or Victoria to Uckfield service.
- Between London Bridge and Hurst Green the trains would take thirty-two minutes, getting power from the third-rail electrification. Batteries would also be charged on this leg.
- Between Hurst Green and Uckfield, they would take forty-two minutes and rely on battery power.
I suspect too, that third-rail IPEMUs could charge their batteries fully before they left London Bridge.
Platform 3 at Oxted station might also be useful for charging an IPEMU running a shuttle service on the Uckfield Branch.
In my view, the work done on the Uckfield Branch in recent months has created a line, that would be an ideal route for IPEMUs to provide the service.
- Platforms have been sufficiently lengthened.
- Signalling can probably already cope with the longer trains.
- There is no more electrification required.
All that is needed is to add an IPEMU-capability to the required number of Class 387 trains and train the staff.
How Long Is An IPEMU?
There is one mathematical and marketing problem, that must be solved before trains are run.
Class 387 trains come in sets of four-cars and on Thameslink, typically run in formations of four-, eight- or twelve-cars.
What is the optimal length to run services on the Uckfield Branch, as determined by passenger demand?
And can this length of train be provided?
I’ve not seen anything for instance, which says how many IPEMUs can form a single train.
But I suspect that Bombardier wouldn’t design a train, without a multiple-working capability.
And of course, the Uckfield Branch has been future-proofed for twelve cars.
I suspect that the capacity of the Uckfield Line will be determined more, by the size of the car parks.
Onward To Lewes
This article in the Uckfield News is entitled £100k Budget pledge for Uckfield to Lewes rail line study.
So it is possible that the Uckfield Branch could be extended by about ten miles to Lewes, along the route of the disused Wealden Line.
Intriguingly, as Lewes is fully electrified an IPEMU train going from London Bridge to Lewes would do less distance on batteries than a train going from London Bridge to Uckfield and back.
One of the problems with extending past Uckfield, is that the trains would have to cross the B2102 by the station in the middle of Uckfield.
This used to be a level crossing and I’m certain, that this option will not be reinstated for safety reasons. It has to be said, that as an IPEMU could cross on battery power, there might be a better solution, than a traditional level crossing.
But IPEMUs have another advantage, in that they could use a short underpass without electrification. I just wonder whether that some clever design could squeeze the railway line under the road.
Conclusion
If the passenger demand is there, there would appear nothing in the design of the upgrade to the Uckfield Line, to stop IPEMUs being used to fulfil that demand.
The IPEMU Advantage
Others question and they do rightly, my enthusiasm for the IPEMU or the battery-powered train.
This post which takes information from a variety of sources explains why I think as I do.
This document on the Network Rail web site explains the thinking of Bombardier and Network Rail.
Running Trains
Running trains is a co-operation between several parties.
- The passengers.
- The train operating companies like Virgin Trains, LOROL, Abellio Greater Anglia etc.
- The train builders like Bombardier, CAF, Hitachi, Siemens etc.
- The infrastructure provider like Network Rail, airports, property developers etc.
- The regulators and elected bodies like Government, TfL etc.
So what advantages does an IPEMU bring to each group?
The Train Builders
Is it simply a matter of who makes the best trains, will get the greatest number of orders?
The train of the future will.
- Be powered by electricity.
- Have regenerative braking to capture braking energy as electricity.
- Have a lot of power-hungry passenger features like air-conditioning, wi-fi and charging sockets.
- Have the ability to move to a limited amount without power, in depots, when the power fails, or where there are deliberate electrification gaps.
- Have a very sophisticated drive control and train management system, which matches train speed and acceleration to location, line, traffic, weather, passenger demand and type of power available.
In some ways regenerative braking is the most important, as it can save almost twenty per cent of the electricity used by a train.
I wouldn’t be surprised that, in a few years time, manufacturers will find it very difficult to sell a train without regenerative braking.
The electric power generated in regenerative braking can either be returned to the power supply or stored on the train.
Returning power is easy on DC systems using conductor rail, like subways, the Underground or Southern Electric, but can be expensive on 25 kVAC overhead systems.
Remember too, that when a train stops, it has to start again and will want the braking energy back.
From an engineering point of view, probably the best way to create an electric train with regenerative braking is to have onboard energy storage to capture the braking energy.
This is already done extensively in an analogous manner with hybrid road vehicles. It could even be done now with a diesel-electric train such as an Inter-City 125.
This leads to the proposition that within a few years all train manufacturers will need to make trains, with some form of battery or onboard energy storage.
The latter term is better as who knows what will be used for energy storage in the future? Batteries, KERS and super-capacitors have all been used in rail applications.
Consider.
- All of Bombardier’s new Aventra trains, have provision to plug in an energy storage device, if the customer wants one.
- Several tram manufacturers have products which use onboard energy storage, that have already been ordered and/or delivered.
- Road transport and increasingly buses and passenger cars are hybrid with onboard energy storage.
- Trains with onboard energy storage can be moved without power in depots and when wires come down.
- Bombardier have stated that their IPEMU technology is also being designed to retrofit to existing modern trains like Class 375/377/378/379/387 etc. trains.
- The complicated mathematics of steel wheel on steel rail mean the extra weight of the onboard energy storage is not a disadvantage.
All of this goes together to make the cost of running a train more affordable.
Bombardier’s Prototype IPEMU
Bombardier must be pretty bullish about their technology, as a year ago, they allowed the public to ride on a Class 379 train, that had been modified to be a technology demonstrator.
An Outwardly Normal Class 379 Train
I rode the train and was very impressed.
,It felt just like a standard train and I wouldn’t have known it was running on battery power except for the engineer sitting opposite, who was monitoring the train on his laptop.
Since that ride, there has been no adverse reports in the press and Bombardier have won an award for the technology.
When I am asked what are some of the most impressive experiences in my long life, riding this train certainly ranks towards the top, of those, which were not of my design or creation.
Until I came home and looked up the physics of steel wheel on steel rail, despite being an electrical engineer, I just didn’t believe that batteries could move a train.
In The Technology That Enables The Aventra IPEMU, I wrote about the physics and also what Bombardier seemed to be planing for the new Aventra train, which will have the capability of onboard energy storage.
I think it is true to say, that the unique thing Bombardier has done is to put a credible package together and demonstrate it in public.
The Train Operating Companies
Train companies gain a rather diverse set of advantages from IPEMU technology..
- More services can be given modern electric trains.
- Depots and sidings can be built without electrification, which saves money and makes them safer for the workforce.
- Electrification can be cut back to where it is actually needed.
- Regenerative braking cuts times at stops and increases service speed.
- As trains use less electricity, costs are less.
- IPEMU trains have a limited diversion capability, which can ease disruption.
- The company has a greener profile.
Hopefully, the performance and profile of the company will attract more customers and hence increase profits.
The Passengers
They will gain mainly from the benefits of modern electric trains.
But IPEMUs will bring other benefits to passengers.
- New services to new destinations.
- Faster services on routes with lots of stops.
- Better response when problems inevitably occur with overhead wires.
Hopefully, the lower cost of electric trains with regenerative braking may even result in lower fares.
The Regulators And Politicians
I have a feeling that the regulators will like the IPEMU, as the benefits will mean that passengers should be happier with better services, at hopefully a lower fare.
Politicians, and regulators are mainly of that ilk, that loves to leave a legacy. And they especially like to leave a legacy, which means they get voted back!
Consider the simple one or possibly two station extension of the Gospel Oak to Barking Line (GOBlin) to Barking Riverside.
- It looks like it will sensibly be done after the main route is fully electrified.
- Only Class 710 trains would be used on the extension.
- These trains will be Aventras and could easily be fitted with an IPEMU capability.
- Once it leaves the main line all infrastructure is new.
I believe that using an IPEMU on the extension would be beneficial.
- No electrification would be needed.
- Stations would be simpler.
- There would be no visual intrusion of overhead gantries.
- Train noise would be less.
- Removing electricity would make the environment safer.
- No one is likely to object.
But the main benefit, is that the extension can be built at a much lower cost.
How many new or improved short extensions to the main electrified rail network would IPEMU technology enable?
The politicians will come to love the concept of an IPEMU!
The Infrastructure Providers
Network Rail helped fund the original trial at Manningtree using a modified Class 379 train and you can understand why!
Electrification of lines is enormously expensive for infrastructure companies.
- Putting up wires means raising hundreds of bridges and boring out tunnels.
- Putting up wires seems to constantly drill through important cables.
- Putting up wires in depots, stations and sidings can be very complicated.
- Putting up wires raises heritage issues.
- The Nimbys often don’t like unsightly wires.
- A major cost is often getting the power to the wires.
- Upgrading existing electrification for traditional regenerative braking is not a simple operation.
- Engineers to do the work are in short supply.
So infrastructure companies will probably welcome anything that cuts the amount of new electrification and upgrade work.
One piece of technology we will see increasingly, is the ability of electric trains to deploy and retract the pantograph at line speed, as I believe the new Hitachi Class 800 trains can do.
So where will we see IPEMU technology used to cut the amount of electrification, but not the deployment of electric trains?
- Any branch line from an electrified main line, that is currently run by a diesel multiple unit. Branch lines like Felixstowe, Henley, Marlow, Sudbury, Uckfield and Windsor are probably IPEMU-ready after some platform extension and signalling work for longer trains.
- New extensions from an electrified line to major property developments like Barking Riverside.
- New extensions into restricted spaces, such as airports like Glasgow and Luton.
- Existing lines that connect two electrified main lines like Cambridge to Ipswich and Cambridge to Norwich.
- Electrification gaps can be left in heritage areas like the Grade 2-listed Hebden Bridge station or where the Midland Main Line, runs through the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site.
- Electrification gaps can be left where the geography is just impossible to build, access or maintain the overhead wires.
- Depots and sidings can be left without electrification.
Obviously, electrification gaps can only be left where all trains are diesel, bi-mode or have an IPEMU capability.
Relying on rumours and snippets in the media, the Internet and on blogs, I think we’ll see IPEMUs used in these places first.
- The extension of the Gospel Oak to Barking Line to Barking Riverside.
- Branch lines on the Great Western Railway, between London and Didcot.
- Branch lines in East Anglia.
- Merseyrail to Preston and Wrexham.
- Removal of diesel trains from the Southern franchise in Sussex and Kent.
I would add the Northern City Line, but the order for new trains has gone to Siemens.
The electrification of this line from Finsbury Park to Moorgate is a mixture of third rail and overhead.
As the new trains will be the only ones working this line, a train could use an IPEMU capability South of Finsbury Park. When all the Class 313 trains have been moved on, the third rail electrification would not be needed.
As it’s a couple of years before the Class 700 trains are delivered, I just wonder if they’ll have an IPEMU capability.
According to this article in the Daily Telegraph, Siemens are certainly experimenting with the use of batteries in trains.
The Current Status
Of the major manufacturers, this is the current published status, as far as I can determine.
- Bombardier have demonstrated their technology in public and used it in trams.
- Bombardier are researching heavily into the best battery system at Mannheim.
- Bombardier have also built large numbers of EMUs in recent years, that are suitable for retrofit with IPEMU technology.
- CAF spend heavily on R & D, have used the technology in trams for some years.
- CAF have sold that type of tram to the Midland Metro.
- JR East, who are on the list of preferred suppliers for Merseyrail’s new trains, have working Battery Trains In Japan.
- Siemens and Alsthom have trams running on batteries.
- Hitachi are backing the bi-mode, but must have access to Japanese technology.
On the down-side Bombardier have well publicised financial problems.
The Future
Currently, the IPEMU technology has a range of about fifty miles on battery, which if there is no en-route charging means that it could be used on short branches up to twenty miles.
This range will grow, as engineers know how to stretch the onboard energy storage capacity.
Engineers will also learn how to use the technology to take electric trains into more and more places, that are now thought impossible.
I think that the launching of battery trams in Birmingham will alight everybody’s minds to the possibilities of battery power.
Bridges Around Crouch Hill Station
I took these pictures to show a few of the problems and easy bits of electrifying the Gospel Oak to Barking Line, around Crouch Hill station.
For comparison, this is Google Map of the station and the bridge and tunnel to the East.
Crouch Hill Station
Note the Victoria Road Bridge and the meting of several roads over the Crouch Hill Tunnel.
I think you can make the following observations.
- There is quite a large green margin to each side of the rail line. This surely should make design of the overhead wires and the various support services like power supplies and control gear easier.
- The Victoria Road Bridge appears to be in good condition and I suspect the arches are large enough to accommodate the overhead wires.
- Is the Crouch Hill Tunnel large enough?
- The bridge at Crouch Hill station appears to be a tight fit and I suspect, the track will need to be lowered to allow space for the overhead wires.
- The current platforms at the station are probably not long enough for four-car trains, but note that there are unused sections of the platforms that could be brought back into use.
- In the picture showing the Victoria Rosad Bridge, you can just see one of the piles at the end of the unused platform extension.
In common with much of the line, the infrastructure seems generally to be in good condition.
I think the updating and electrification of Crouch Hill station will be very typical of other stations on the line.
Moving Towards A Pan-European Locomotive
This article on Global Rail News is entitled Traxx approved for entire DACH region.
The article talks about how the Bombardier Traxx Last Mile locomotive has been approved for Germany, Austria and Switzerland (DACH). The Global Rail News article, says this about the locomotive.
The Last Mile variant, although an electric locomotive, has a low-emission diesel engine and battery on board, allowing it to run on both electrified and non-electrified routes.
One of my first thoughts, was it’s a pity that the standard Traxx is probably two large for the UK’s small loading gauge.
But then I found this article in Railway Gazette, about a proposed UK version of the locomotive. This is said.
Bombardier believes that the Traxx P200 AC UK Bo-Bo electric locomotive fitted with a ‘last mile’ diesel engine would offer ‘a lot of value for money’ for UK operators such as Greater Anglia. Whereas the MkIII coaches used on London – Norwich inter-city services are ‘excellent’ vehicles that may last for another 20 years, the Class 90 locomotives will need to be replaced before that.
Lacchini emphasises that a 25 kV 50 Hz version of the Traxx family suitable for the UK with its small loading gauge will not require a special design to be developed. About 60% of components are common to all versions of the Traxx, one feature being the location of the main traction package in the centre of the locomotive rather than on either side of a central aisle. This makes it relatively easy to build a smaller and narrower version that would fit the UK loading gauge, Lacchini indicated.
It looks to me that Bombadier have designed a powerful family of electric locomotives, that can be used in much of Europe.
With the Class 88 locomotive also due to be delivered soon, it does appear that the UK may have a choice of modern locomtives for freight trains and fast passenger services in the near future.
Central Masts At West Ham Station
West Ham station has been upgraded over the last couple of decades. Wikipedia says this.
In 1999 platforms were re-established on the line from Fenchurch Street, now operated by c2c.
So it would appear, that the following pictures showing the overhead electrification, which dates from around 1999.
Almost uniquely for the UK rail network, the masts are in the mid-point of the two lines, with the wires cantilevered on either side.
Flimsy they are not! They have certainly been designed to survive a direct impact from a runaway Class 66 locomotive pulling several hundred tonnes of imported Chinese steel.
But as I said, the central masts probably date from 1999, so I suspect if similar structures were to be used in the electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking Line, they would be designed to look better and probably be stronger and lighter too! I used to know a lot about using structural steel, and remember an expert telling me, that lighter structures are sometimes actually stronger.
Look at this picture from Upper Holloway station.
Looking West At Upper Holloway Station
It would appear that Murphys have piled around the crossing by the signal box to put a traditional portal frame across the railway to support the overhead wires. Some fifty metres behind me is a bridge that is being rebuilt over the railway.
So could the wires be installed through the station, by supporting them on the frame by the signal box, the bridge and several central masts, designed to fit between the tracks in the station area.
After seeing what was done in 1999 at West Ham station, I believe that an expert structural engineer could design a central mast to support electrification in the challenging conditions of Upper Holloway station and all the other difficult locations on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line.
There are advantages to this method.
- All of the platforms are untouched by electrification works.
- The number of piles to be driven at the side of the railway is reduced. This type of piling has caused problems in the past.
- Piles are positioned in the firm track-bed between the rails.
- Some piles will be positioned on viaducts. I suspect, that as the viaducts of the line seem sound, this would not be a very difficult problem.
- All work can probably be done by using a crane on the railway.
It does seem to me, that central masts could make the electrification easier.
Are We Seeing A New Approach To Electrification On The Gospel Oak To Barking Line?
Over the years, I’ve followed several electrification schemes starting with the Lea Valley Lines through Southbury in the 1960s.
The electrification of the Gospel Oak To Barking Line (GOBlin), is not a particularly large or important one, in the overall scheme of things, but after the well-publicised problems of the electrification of the Great Western Main Line and the Trans-Pennine routes, Network Rail don’t want another train-load of bad publicity.
Take a ride down the line and you see the following.
- A collection of quite run-down stations, only a few of which are step-free. And some of those have extensive and somewhat tortuous ramps.
- The western end of the line from South Tottenham station sits in the middle of a wide track bed, with a few convenient metres of grass and scrub on each side of the line.
- The eastern end of the line from Leyton Midland Road station is on a viaduct, with the platforms either side of the track.
- Several of the station p[platforms are not long enough, but there are often disused sections that can be brought back into use.
- I don’t think there is any points or crossings between West of Blackhorse Road and East of Wanstead Park stations, which is all the viaduct section of the line.
- The line terminates in two bay platforms at Gospel Oak and Barking stations.
I suspect a few objectives have been laid down for the design and installation of the electrification and updating of the stations.
- Simple and affordable.
- Well-proven techniques.
- Installation in a minimum time, with as little disruption as possible.
- Ability to handle six-car trains after simple upgrades. This was not built-in to the North London and East London Lines
- As step-free as possible.
The following sections show what has been achieved so far and some of the problems and helpful factors of the electrification.
IPEMU
I like the IPEMU or Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit and feel that it has a place in many electrification schemes.
We have to remember that the Class 710 trains destined for the GOBlin can be fitted with an IPEMU-capability.
So how could an IPEMU help in making the GOBlin an electric railway?
- The extension to Barking Riverside is only a few kilometres and could be run totally by IPEMUs charging on the rest of the line. Imagine the kudos, that would give the development at Riverside and the electrification costs it will save.
- During the construction phase, IPEMUs could provide a service from an electrified line over a section, where the wires were still being erected.
Whether we believe it or not, the IPEMU is coming and it’s just whether it will make its debut on the GOBlin.
Where Are The Trains?
One rumour from a reputable source (NC!), says that the line will be closed from June or July 2016 for eight months, whilst electrification is completed on the line and testing takes place. It will then open (Feb/Mar 2017?) with a full electric service.
If you look at Bombardier’s production schedule, the Class 710 trains destined for the GOBlin will not enter service until 2018.
So bang goes the reason for the eight-month suspension of service, as passengers won’t accept all that pain for no gain.
Perhaps, there could be some Class 315, Class 317, Class 321 or even some of the very ugly Class 319 trains available. After all only eight four-car units are required!
But I don’t think anybody would be pleased if a new flagship service was to be started after an eight-month closure, with the contents of British Rail’s dustbin.
It is often said, that someone else’s troubles is somebody else’s gain and the problems on the Great Western electrification, means that there could be some almost-new Class 387 trains available.
It should not be forgotten, that a Class 379 train, was used as the demonstrator in the IPEMU trial in Essex, and 379s are very much cousins of 387s.
I believe that the Class 387 trains, are the only acceptable and available trains, that will be available to open the service after an eight-month blockade.
Power Supplies
Often supplying power to the overhead wires is an expensive business, with the need for massive transformers and connection to the electricity supply.
The GOBlin has good connections to electrified lines and short sections that are already electrified.
- A connection to the North London Line at Gospel Oak
- A short electrified section at South Tottenham.
- A connection to the Great Eastern Main Line at Woodgrange Park.
- A short electrified section between Woodgrage Park and Barking.
So getting the power is one problem, that won’t challenge the engineers.
The Pattern Of The Piles
Look at any overhead electrified line in the UK and every fifty metres or generally less, you’ll see a masts and/or a portal frame to support the overhead wires, which is supported from both sides of the track. This Google Map shows Woodgrange Park station on the GOBlin.
Electrification At Woodgrange Park Station
Note the frames supporting the wires everywhere, in the station, on the disused sections of the platforms and on the way to Barking,which is to the East (right).
If you look at the piles that have been put in to support the masts for the overhead wires on the western end of the GOBlin, they show a totally different pattern to that which I would expect. Here’s a few pictures.
My observations lead me to define the pattern of piles as follows.
- Piles are paired, with one on each side, as expected.
- There are none in stations.
- There isn’t even any tell-tale paint, to indicate where the masts will go in the stations.
- Piles seem to stop thirty metres or so before stations and overbridges.
Murphys were so keen to get the piling started, they were thumping away on Christmas night, so given the days and nights available since them, there doesn’t seem to be too many piles in the ground.
So short of using skyhooks or drones, or perhaps calling on the services of someone like Jasper Maskelyne, what is going to happen?
In my view, there is only one possible solution and that is to put central masts between the two tracks.
I also suspect that some of the substantial road bridges over the GOBlin, will be used to support the overhead wires, as I’m sure that the engineers have a solution for that method of fixing. This picture shows an ancient fixing, under the arch at Stoke Newington station.
Overhead Wires At Stole Newington Station
I’m sure the modern product, is more elegant! And less corroded.
Central Masts
Normally in the UK, the overhead wires are supported from the sides of the track. But look at this picture from the Sheffield Supertram.
The Meadowhall South/Tinsley Tram Stop
Note how the overhead wires are supported from a central mast between the tracks.
Furrer + Frey, who are a well-respected Swiss manufacturer of equipment for railway electrification and a big supplier to Network Rail, have a wide range of methods shown in this page. One method is to use a central mast to support wires on both sides over the two tracks.
Furrer + Frey Central Mast
I feel that given the challenging constraints and demanding time-scale of electrifying the GOBlin, that central masts could help considerably.
They would need to be sturdy, but if you analyse the stresses in a typical central mast, the wires on both sides balance each other. It’s like a milkmaid carrying two buckets.
There may be other advantages in the installation of central masts, as the work will probably be done on a flat surface, using a rail mounted crane, whereas installing a portal frame over the railway may need scaffolding to be erected.
The latter method might also mean closing the businesses in the many arches under the line for the duration of the work.
The Upper Holloway Bridge
One of the problems of the work, is that in the middle of all this electrification, the bridge at Upper Holloway station is being replaced with the electrification work going on at the same time.
According to this document from TfL, the bridge deck is due to be replaced over Christmas 2016 and the project will be completed by the end of 2017.
Surely, this blows the time-scale of the whole project, as until the bridge is finished, surely electrification can’t proceed!
Or does it?
If the overhead wires through the station are supported centrally between the tracks, with the assistance of two strong portal frames outside the station/bridge area, it might be possible to change the bridge deck, using some of innovative techniques that were used at York, which I wrote about in Dancing With Cranes And A Bridge With Help From Lego.
This Google Map shows the station/bridge area.
Upper Holloway Station, Bridge And The A1
Note that there is more space along the railway, than on the main road.
I think we need a new word to describe the nature of replacing this bridge, in just a few days over Christmas.
I suspect the bridge deck has been designed as a series of components, that are small enough to transport into the area, either by road or train, and then bolt them together like Meccano. It could be the most exciting live television of Christmas 2016.
To sum up, I believe that engineers have found a solution to electrify the line before the bridge deck is replaced.
I went to the station today and had a chat with an engineer.
He told me, that the bridge will be replaced bit-by-bit and indicated that there will be no big closure.
So could Transport for London have had a change of heart and decided to fit a new bridge over the gap, that will allow the wires to be put up at the same time, with the bridge assembled from a kit of smaller more manageable pieces?
The next few months will give an answer.
Whilst I was at Upper Holloway station, I took this picture, which shows the layout of lines to the West of the station.
Note.
- There is only one pile in the picture and it is between the stacked-Portakabin signal box and the grey cabinet about ten metres further on, on the left.
- There are no piles or paint markings in the station area.
- There is plenty of space to extend the platforms, if that should be required.
- The crossing, which will need to be fully electrified, allows freight trains to access the Midland Main Line.
This all leads me to believe, that if overhead wires are going through this station, then they might well be supported on central masts.
Obviously, portal frames could still be attached to the platforms, but there is a lot of work going on to add two nice waiting rooms to the station. Surely, good project management would put up the masts and frames first!
Obviously, the wires can also be supported on the bridge, which was about thirty metres behind me, when I took the picture.
So you would have a solid road bridge at one end of the station and a very sturdy portal frame over the crossing by the signal box at the other to support the catenary, with some help from a couple of central masts in the station area.
Harringay Green Lanes Station
Harringay Green Lanes station is the nearest station on the line to my house, and to get there I just get a 141 bus direct too the station.
These pictures show the station.
It should be said, that the station sits in the middle of an area, that Harringey Council want to redevelop and that this will involve a new station. I wrote about stations in the area in The Piccadilly And Victoria Lines, Manor House Station And Harringay Green Lanes Station.
You can understand why it needs a rebuild.
Typical portal frames to support the overhead wires would either have to reach from outside the platforms or be mounted on the platforms themselves. In the case of the former, there are extensive ramps and staircases in the way and in the case of the second, the platforms may be able to support a lot of passengers, but would they need substantial rebuilding to bear the weight of the portal frames?
Incidentally, there has been some piling to both the east and west of the station, so perhaps they’ll be two strong frames about twenty to thirty metres from the platforms? Obviously, to future-proof the station, they would be far-enough away to allow any possible platform extensions.
Between the platforms the wires could be supported on central masts. The pictures show, that the space between the tracks is probably wide enough for the installation of central masts.
Traditional electrification might be difficult or even impossible, but I’m sure there are clever engineers, who can get round the problems of stations like Harringay Green Lanes.
Leytonstone High Road Station
Leytonstone High Road station is typical of the viaduct-mounted stations towards the eastern end of the line. Leyton High Road and Wanstead Park are similar.
These pictures show the station, the viaduct to the east of the station and a nearby bridge.
Note the following.
- The unrestored platforms, that could be brought back into use for longer trains.
- The industrial units under the station.
- The generous width between the platforms.
- No sign of any electrification works or even markings on the platforms.
I believe that these stations and the viaduct between them, could be electrified using central masts to support the overhead wires.
Arches, such as used to hold up the viaduct and house the industrial units are some of the strongest forms around. Look at any medieval cathedral or castle!
These arches may have been built by the Victorians, but you don’t hear many stories of sixty-eight tonne Class 66 locomotives and dozens of freight wagons and containers falling through.
Obviously, the masts would be properly anchored into the arches.
Could the viaduct section of the line be electrified using central masts from a company like Furrer + Frey?
Conclusion
Someone has got a very firm grip on this project and the finish date is very much up for grabs.
But it does seem, that they could be using the space between the tracks to support the overhead wires.
I also think that there could be a well-respected Swiss company somewhere in there rolling around.
Have they looked at Network Rail’s problems and applied their expertise of running electric trains in some of the most difficult terrain in Europe?
The Anonymous Widower 