|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 30, 2017 22:36:21 GMT
Apologies for my use of unexplained abbreviations. It's quite usual for the civil engineers to be somewhat less appreciated than those carrying out the more visible work! I could have a rant about where the project is but I have already risked getting myself in hot water. No apologies needed. I've worked for LU - we used codes and abbreviations all day long without realising we were incomprehensible to outsiders.  I'm grateful for all the insight you've shared but know from personal experience what "hot water" can feel like [1] in the context of social media comment so please don't put yourself at risk. [1] not very nice at all when people start threatening your employment status.  |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jan 31, 2017 0:55:19 GMT
Apologies for my use of unexplained abbreviations. It's quite usual for the civil engineers to be somewhat less appreciated than those carrying out the more visible work! I could have a rant about where the project is but I have already risked getting myself in hot water. No apologies needed. I've worked for LU - we used codes and abbreviations all day long without realising we were incomprehensible to outsiders. I'm grateful for all the insight you've shared but know from personal experience what "hot water" can feel like [1] in the context of social media comment so please don't put yourself at risk. [1] not very nice at all when people start threatening your employment status. A lot of the rules of this forum exist in order to protect the employment status of forum members! HWMBO is a Civil Engineer specialising in drainage, the kind that is ignored by most of the population until flooding occurs and they become the person to blame! Thanks for providing the insights that you have. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Feb 1, 2017 16:02:40 GMT
All training trains have been temporarily canceled for this weekend due to signaling problem. Seems like driver training will only happen at weekends for the time being anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Feb 1, 2017 23:12:21 GMT
Did the change in safety clearances created by the EU which the ORR then said it would be enthusiastically enforcing here in the UK cause any problems when electrifying the Goblin? For instance, did bridges need replacing which would not have needed replacing had the BR inspired safety clearances of the early 1960's still been in force?
My understanding is that after trials BR found that electricity will not jump through an air gap greater than 2 inches (50mm) but for absolute safety they decided upon a minimum safety clearance of 8 inches (200mm) between wires energised at 25kV and nearby structures (walls, etc). Years later BR added a new reduced minimum clearance of 150mm (6 inches) for locations where space was tight.
From what I've read these safety distances have never been known to have been compromised in a way that created a potential danger.
For a reason I do not know, in circa 2001 Railtrack created a new normal minimum clearance of 270mm (10 5/8th inches). Perhaps this was because newer types of overhead were more flexible so on a windy day a passing pantograph would deflect centenary to a greater distance... Whatever the reason, Railtrack still allowed the two old BR air gap limits where space was especially tight.
In 2015 the EU decided upon a new standard of 370mm (14 3/4 inches) and despite this being significantly larger than the old BR rules the British Office of Road and Rail (ORR) enthusiastically embraced the new EU standard and even introduced it retrospectively - which means that even if a new electrification scheme here in the UK had been planned and was actively being installed it suddenly had to meet the new rules "no matter what".
The cost of complying with the new gold-plated safety gap regulations are (to my understanding) culpable for the significant cost over-runs on the GWML electrification (ie: bridges that would have been OK under the old rules now need replacing, at greater expense) and my question in this message is whether the same issues affected Goblin electrification, causing its costs to soar too?
As an aside, the larger EU safety distance is not so severe for European railways because their trains and the spatial envelope through which they travel is larger than here in the UK. And its said that Network Rail were unable to get a derogation from the EU standards because the relevant papers that proved the safety of the BR dimensions were lost during railway privatisation.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Feb 1, 2017 23:32:27 GMT
It is worth pointing out that the issue here seems to lie entirely with the ORR who embraced the new clearances rather unnecessarily but have then since refused to issue derogations to NR despite it being entirely logical for them to do so. It is also my understanding that a lot of the cost overruns related to this on the Great Western and the North Western schemes has come from when a bridge has been raised (perhaps a couple of years ago) to the expected clearance only to then have to redo the works as a result of the new clearances and lack of derogations. Whilst they may be only raising the bridge a couple of inches, they are effective paying for the same work that had been done again (machine hire, track possessions, closing the road, etc) This shouldn't have affected GOBLIN as whilst they may have had to redo some design work, they won't have had to incur the costs of having to do the same work twice. That said, I also remember reading about issues caused by some other new things introduced around the same time as the new clearances related to platform clearances (ie how close could somebody with an Umbrella come to the horn of a pantograph) which had given the OLE designers some headaches when it came to stations adjacent to a low bridge where they would have to have a higher wire height than they would have otherwise had. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 2, 2017 8:31:19 GMT
It is worth pointing out that the issue here seems to lie entirely with the ORR who embraced the new clearances rather unnecessarily but have then since refused to issue derogations to NR despite it being entirely logical for them to do so. It is also my understanding that a lot of the cost overruns related to this on the Great Western and the North Western schemes has come from when a bridge has been raised (perhaps a couple of years ago) to the expected clearance only to then have to redo the works as a result of the new clearances and lack of derogations. Whilst they may be only raising the bridge a couple of inches, they are effective paying for the same work that had been done again (machine hire, track possessions, closing the road, etc) This shouldn't have affected GOBLIN as whilst they may have had to redo some design work, they won't have had to incur the costs of having to do the same work twice. That said, I also remember reading about issues caused by some other new things introduced around the same time as the new clearances related to platform clearances (ie how close could somebody with an Umbrella come to the horn of a pantograph) which had given the OLE designers some headaches when it came to stations adjacent to a low bridge where they would have to have a higher wire height than they would have otherwise had. I don't think there is any evidence at all that the GOBLIN electrification has had the "height" issues. Given clearances are and will be tight through the Walthamstow section and we have not had a programme of every bridge being replaced nor has every inch of track been lowered I suspect a more pragmatic approach has been employed. The one thing the GOBLIN has had and continues to have is an asset health issue with many of its bridges. Several have been replaced (thank goodness!) but more remain to be done at the eastern end as they are simply at the end of their lives. It's less of an issue on many side roads in E17 where they cross the railway - weight restrictions are in place and traffic volumes are low. However where the bridge carries the railway these present a problem as they impose speed restrictions and thus limit capacity. And just to counter the "EU" allegations it is worth saying that the appropriate representative wrote to Modern Railways pointing out there was no need for full compliance given the UK's historic record of installing perfectly safe and operable electrification. As you rightly say it was ORR who went ridiculously overboard in their approach. This is doubly galling given a different bit of ORR sits in judgement about NR's project delivery, costs and efficiency. And finally I have seen nothing, as hinted at by Simon, that costs of the GOBLIN scheme have escalated or are over budget since the project commenced. It has retained its funding envelope of £125m and I've seen no change to that. I don't see any great point in arguing about the £125m as the scheme's funded and being done. As ever happy to be corrected if someone can point to some relevant facts. |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Feb 2, 2017 8:43:06 GMT
I was always told that the use of 6.25Kv on the Chingford/Enfield lines in 1959 was because of clearance issues, particularly in the Clapton tunnels. Did the electrical engineers recalibrate what was the safe jump distance at 25, or did practical experience elsewhere prove otherwise? Do similar issues apply on the Goblin?
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Feb 2, 2017 10:08:51 GMT
It is also my understanding that a lot of the cost overruns related to this on the Great Western and the North Western schemes has come from when a bridge has been raised (perhaps a couple of years ago) to the expected clearance only to then have to redo the works as a result of the new clearances and lack of derogations. HWMBO is a civil engineer working on the north west scheme. It was most recently delayed by ground conditions not being as expected, despite the digging of numerous trial pits. Work that should have happened last weekend can now only be done in Autumn. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 12:07:26 GMT
The GOBe complies with current regulations by dint of track lowering and improving track fixity (i.e. slab track) to achieve the required clearances. The track lowering at WQR station necessitated lowering the platforms, which then introduced the need to make the platforms compliant with GI/RT7016 with respect to the refuge needed under the platform nosings. Considerable engineering effort went into minimising the extent of track lowering and of slab track to keep within budget and to minimise future track maintenance issues. There is one bridge, OB 14 at Crouch Hill that currently has "special reduced" electrical clearance, which will be jacked up in the future.
At Wightman Road we changed the originally proposed composite (steel beams with reinforced concrete on top) deck to "filler beam" (steel beams within the concrete) to maximise the electrical clearance. I got shouted at by the Route Asset Management team for not telling them!
The issue with clearances from platform to the pantograph horn is another country wide nightmare. Easy on the continent as they have low platforms.
|
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Feb 2, 2017 13:13:39 GMT
I hope ----- that those responsible for raising/renewing bridges have the foresight to do it to continental loading gauge as the cost would be little different and be a favour for the future possibly (but somehow I doubt it).
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 2, 2017 16:35:41 GMT
I hope ----- that those responsible for raising/renewing bridges have the foresight to do it to continental loading gauge as the cost would be little different and be a favour for the future possibly (but somehow I doubt it). Given how difficult such works are in an urban environment I doubt adding continental loading gauge I worth the cost. I fear you are greatly mistaken if you think that adding an extra few inches makes 'very little difference to the cost', particularly in urban areas where things like utilities berried in bridge structures, complex adjacent road junctions, lack of working space, the pressure not to disrupt traffic flows, pressure to keep noise down and limit night-time working are all far grater than a bridge out in open country. Also you have to question what continental gauge actually would achieve. You don't need continental gauge to carry 9ft containers on standard UK wagons - what you need is to remove the arched bridges so the corners of the containers don't take chunks out of them. Continental gauge is also something of a red herring when it comes to double deck trains as the biggest issue is the use of high level platforms in the UK which prevent the wider carriage body from extending below the solebar and into the space between the bodies (as is employed in the rest of Europe) |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Feb 3, 2017 9:41:28 GMT
I was always told that the use of 6.25Kv on the Chingford/Enfield lines in 1959 was because of clearance issues, particularly in the Clapton tunnels. Did the electrical engineers recalibrate what was the safe jump distance at 25, or did practical experience elsewhere prove otherwise? Do similar issues apply on the Goblin? My understanding is that part of the reason for the air gap distance trials conducted by BR in the early 1960's was to work out the safe distance for 25Kv. It is because they did not have definitive knowledge of this that they decided to 'play safe' with the lower voltage of 6.25Kv. These trials were after the Chingford / Enfield lines had been electrified. Two segments of the Goblin have been 'wired' (electrified) for many years - one is between the Great Eastern Main Line at Forest Gate and the London Tilbury & Southend route at Barking, the other one was somewhere in the Tottenham area (not being a frequent user of the Goblin line I remember seeing it but not the exact location). It would not surprise me if both of these were originally electrified at 6.25Kv and were converted to 25Kv in the late 1970's / early 1980's when BR converted many east London routes to the higher voltage. I remember the conversion process being underway (I went out with my camera and photographed DMU's on normally electric services!) but not the full scope of the works. Simon |
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Feb 3, 2017 9:52:47 GMT
I was talking about the future and who knows what might be required then . Why not at least do this while the work is in progress? If you are replacing a bridge in an urban envcironment I fail to see how the addition of a small amount of headroom affects "Lack of working space - noise -night time working and the rest of your objections" As to buryuied utilities-surely these would have to be renewed anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Feb 3, 2017 9:59:38 GMT
The GOBe complies with current regulations by dint of track lowering and improving track fixity (i.e. slab track) to achieve the required clearances. The track lowering at WQR station necessitated lowering the platforms, which then introduced the need to make the platforms compliant with GI/RT7016 with respect to the refuge needed under the platform nosings. Considerable engineering effort went into minimising the extent of track lowering and of slab track to keep within budget and to minimise future track maintenance issues. There is one bridge, OB 14 at Crouch Hill that currently has "special reduced" electrical clearance, which will be jacked up in the future. At Wightman Road we changed the originally proposed composite (steel beams with reinforced concrete on top) deck to "filler beam" (steel beams within the concrete) to maximise the electrical clearance. I got shouted at by the Route Asset Management team for not telling them! The issue with clearances from platform to the pantograph horn is another country wide nightmare. Easy on the continent as they have low platforms. Thanks, that partly answers my question although it brings up another one, this being whether the tracks would have needed lowering had the old BR standard still been in force? I suspect that the answer is 'yes', although perhaps not by as much. I vaguely recall a long blocade on the North London Line for similar works when it was converted from third rail to overhead wires. This was in the days of BR. The platform clearance issue is different in so far as people are becoming taller and the craze for 'selfies' creating a potential hazard if a tall person uses a long selfie stick in close proximity to the pantograph. So, in effect this change can be seen as a result of changing conditions. That said, I read somewhere that on British trains the pantograph horns are not usually 'live' this being the opposite to the situation in Europe. Simon |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Feb 3, 2017 10:22:45 GMT
I was talking about the future and who knows what might be required then . Why not at least do this while the work is in progress? If you are replacing a bridge in an urban envcironment I fail to see how the addition of a small amount of headroom affects "Lack of working space - noise -night time working and the rest of your objections" As to buryuied utilities-surely these would have to be renewed anyway? Under normal conditions I would wholeheartedly agree with you. However life gets tough when people do exactly what you are advocating - only to find that for no good reason the rug is pulled from below their feet / the standards are changed and therefore the bridge suddenly becomes non-compliant... and even worse, the regulatory authority takes a very high-minded view and says that the only way to avoid the new standards is through a long-winded bureaucratic risk-assessment process which is also expensive in both time and money. It makes one weep when such events happen without good cause. Its not as if the old standards were in any way dangerous - many decades of experience have proven that the old standards are indeed perfectly safe. Otherwise they would have been changed 'many years ago'! In October 2016 the ORR published a document which reiterates their position. To my eyes (I am not a trained lawyer) it looks as if the document could be described as being similar to a memo from management at head office telling the staff to cease complaining, the rules are the rules and they will not be changed. This can be seen at this link... orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/23004/electrical-clearances-policy-statement.pdfOne of the reasons why TfL was soon keen to see the Goblin line converted to electric traction is because the waste gases of diesel powered transports are known to be extremely harmful to human health. By way of a contrast, electricity protects human health by removing those fumes from the urban environment. London also has a few other diesel railway services and unfortunately because meeting the new ORR rules is so much more expensive it is likely to result in their continuing to use diesel traction. Which can only be bad for human health - which of course includes railway passengers and staff. As I do not work in the railway industry I am not in fear of my job for saying any of this! Simon |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Feb 3, 2017 10:47:05 GMT
Two segments of the Goblin have been 'wired' (electrified) for many years -.............the other one was somewhere in the Tottenham area (not being a frequent user of the Goblin line I remember seeing it but not the exact location). It's the short stretch through South Tottenham, between the connections from the Goblin to the Lea Valley and Seven Sisters lines (which are less than half a mile apart at this point). I thought there had also been a plan some time ago to electrify from the Midland Main Line at Carlton Road Junction (between West Hampstead and Kentish Town) via Junction Road Junction to the connection to the ECML at Harringay Park junction, to allow Thameslink stock to reach Hornsey depot (note that the MML has always been an isolated AC "island"). I don't know what became of this idea. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 3, 2017 11:52:16 GMT
Two segments of the Goblin have been 'wired' (electrified) for many years -.............the other one was somewhere in the Tottenham area (not being a frequent user of the Goblin line I remember seeing it but not the exact location). It's the short stretch through South Tottenham, between the connections from the Goblin to the Lea Valley and Seven Sisters lines (which are less than half a mile apart at this point). I thought there had also been a plan some time ago to electrify from the Midland Main Line at Carlton Road Junction (between West Hampstead and Kentish Town) via Junction Road Junction to the connection to the ECML at Harringay Park junction, to allow Thameslink stock to reach Hornsey depot (note that the MML has always been an isolated AC "island"). I don't know what became of this idea. The ECML link is being wired. The MML link is not. It was descoped when MML electrification disappeared back over the horizon. Thameslink trains will use the new tunnel at KX. I think we've discussed this one on London Reconnections multiple times with varying levels of outrage from one particular contributor.  |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by towerman on Feb 3, 2017 16:38:39 GMT
Is the GOBLIN still used as a freight link?Remember in the steam days & early diesel days it was very busy esp at night.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Feb 3, 2017 17:10:38 GMT
Is the GOBLIN still used as a freight link?Remember in the steam days & early diesel days it was very busy esp at night. I think weight limits (and the lack of electrification) have limited its use for freight in recent years, but as one of the sticking points for electrification was whether the freight or passenger sectors should pay for it*, it may see more freight again in future. * an argument that the passenger sector would find hard to win, as the main reason for moving more freight onto the Goblin was to make space on the NLL for more passenger trains - block freight is much more flexible about routing than passenger trains are, as people have a habit of wanting to use intermediate stations. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 3, 2017 21:43:49 GMT
Is the GOBLIN still used as a freight link?Remember in the steam days & early diesel days it was very busy esp at night. It most certainly is - variety of different stuff runs on it. Likely to see much more freight in future once the wires are energised to try to take some pressure of the NLL and the crossing the GAML. The next likely upgrade post electrification is yet more resignalling to allow more freight workings and up to 5 passenger trains per hour. There may also be a need for a freight loop to be added / lenghtened (can't remember which) near Junction Road. I guess any more work will depend on what happens to demand once 4 car electric trains are running, if the Barking Riverside extension proceeds and how what happens to freight volumes through Thameside in coming years. Oh and if anyone has any money to fund the resignalling. Obviously there are a *lot* of uncertainties with all of these issues. I suspect we may fall over the "who pays" issue (as explained by Norbitonflyer) again because the benefits of resignalling would be shared by both passenger and freight users but freight is notoriously reluctant to fund any enhancements. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Feb 3, 2017 22:14:33 GMT
Is the GOBLIN still used as a freight link?Remember in the steam days & early diesel days it was very busy esp at night. It most certainly is - variety of different stuff runs on it. Likely to see much more freight in future once the wires are energised to try to take some pressure of the NLL and the crossing the GAML. The next likely upgrade post electrification is yet more resignalling to allow more freight workings and up to 5 passenger trains per hour. There may also be a need for a freight loop to be added / lenghtened (can't remember which) near Junction Road. I guess any more work will depend on what happens to demand once 4 car electric trains are running, if the Barking Riverside extension proceeds and how what happens to freight volumes through Thameside in coming years. Oh and if anyone has any money to fund the resignalling. Obviously there are a *lot* of uncertainties with all of these issues. I suspect we may fall over the "who pays" issue (as explained by Norbitonflyer) again because the benefits of resignalling would be shared by both passenger and freight users but freight is notoriously reluctant to fund any enhancements. I thought that planned track layout changes on the Great Eastern Main Line will eventually make it impossible for freight trains from Thameside to reach the North London Line at Stratford. In effect this will force the traffic to travel via the Goblin route! Simon |
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Feb 3, 2017 23:00:09 GMT
Is the GOBLIN still used as a freight link?Remember in the steam days & early diesel days it was very busy esp at night. The Woodgrange Park section of the line (which remained open for c2c Liverpool Street trains) has always seen heavy use; it's the only viable connection from the GEML to the LTS line. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 4, 2017 10:21:00 GMT
I thought that planned track layout changes on the Great Eastern Main Line will eventually make it impossible for freight trains from Thameside to reach the North London Line at Stratford. In effect this will force the traffic to travel via the Goblin route! IIRC there are freight paths retained during off peaks through Stratford - one reason why the Crossrail off peak service is no more frequent than today although TfL are trying to get more paths. I don't know if their track access application has been granted. I'd be surprised if the freight operators just "gave up" historic rights to paths given there is no increase in freight paths on the GOBLIN in the short term. Also TfL have not yet secured increased peak train paths on the NLL - possibly because it's unclear if there is spare capacity west of Willesden Junction towards Richmond or Clapham Junction. As ever happy to be corrected if I am out of date and things have moved on. |
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Feb 4, 2017 10:40:43 GMT
I was talking about the future and who knows what might be required then . Why not at least do this while the work is in progress? If you are replacing a bridge in an urban envcironment I fail to see how the addition of a small amount of headroom affects "Lack of working space - noise -night time working and the rest of your objections" As to buryuied utilities-surely these would have to be renewed anyway? Under normal conditions I would wholeheartedly agree with you. However life gets tough when people do exactly what you are advocating - only to find that for no good reason the rug is pulled from below their feet / the standards are changed and therefore the bridge suddenly becomes non-compliant... and even worse, the regulatory authority takes a very high-minded view and says that the only way to avoid the new standards is through a long-winded bureaucratic risk-assessment process which is also expensive in both time and money. It makes one weep when such events happen without good cause. Its not as if the old standards were in any way dangerous - many decades of experience have proven that the old standards are indeed perfectly safe. Otherwise they would have been changed 'many years ago'! In October 2016 the ORR published a document which reiterates their position. To my eyes (I am not a trained lawyer) it looks as if the document could be described as being similar to a memo from management at head office telling the staff to cease complaining, the rules are the rules and they will not be changed. This can be seen at this link... orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/23004/electrical-clearances-policy-statement.pdfOne of the reasons why TfL was soon keen to see the Goblin line converted to electric traction is because the waste gases of diesel powered transports are known to be extremely harmful to human health. By way of a contrast, electricity protects human health by removing those fumes from the urban environment. London also has a few other diesel railway services and unfortunately because meeting the new ORR rules is so much more expensive it is likely to result in their continuing to use diesel traction. Which can only be bad for human health - which of course includes railway passengers and staff. As I do not work in the railway industry I am not in fear of my job for saying any of this! Simon |
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Feb 4, 2017 10:44:42 GMT
Very well put - thanks although maybe a bigger aperture is less likely to be non-compliant than a smaller one.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Feb 4, 2017 15:04:29 GMT
A couple of garden sheds idling away in platform 10A at Stratford while you are on no10 soon demonstrates the truth of Simon's argument <<
One of the reasons why TfL was soon keen to see the Goblin line converted to electric traction is because the waste gases of diesel powered transports are known to be extremely harmful to human health>>.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 6, 2017 17:27:47 GMT
Had a spin to East Ham on the GOBLIN RRS today so also got a look at bits of the eastern end of the line. Also had a little wander near Queens Rd / Blackhorse Road. I'll add some photo links later when I've processed my photos. Photo links now added below in text. In short there is still quite a lot of work to do. On the viaduct sections east of Queens Road there are masts in a number of locations and these are typically a full two track span. One surprise is that the distance between masts is either longer than I envisaged *or* there are a lot of masts missing. Often there are masts not in place yet near road bridges - metal fixings are evident but the masts themselves are not. Furthermore I couldn't see masts installed on the platforms at Leyton Midland Road or Wanstead Park. Where masts are in place there is nothing else - no link wires or "dangly bits" (technical term there  ) to suspend the wires at the correct height. Wanstead Park station appears to be having a partition installed at entrance level. It's an odd location as the steps down from the platforms effectively land on the pavement under a road bridge. TfL appear to be creating a delineation. I suspect they would like to put in gates but I can't see how they can do it in the tiny amount of space. At Woodgrange Park there was a lot of activity at platform level. Two new enclosures are being built at platform level which will certainly have ticket gates inside them. The local fare dodgers won't be happy. Coming back to E17 there was a lot of work ongoing at WW Queens Road. The new lowered platforms are in place with new nosing stones. It's not clear, from a distance, whether the platforms area is big enough for 4 cars - I hope it is. A lot of track has been relaid in this area with a mix of ballasted and slab track. Looking east from Queens Road itself there were a lot of masts in place. At Blackhorse Road the lift towers are now complete as are the plant rooms. The footbridge is evidently remaining as it has received height extenders to provide more clearance from the wires. However there is still no physical connection to the ticket hall. No sign either of any platform extension works. One mast has been installed in the platform area on the wb platform but there isn't one attached to the foundations created near the eb platform! I'm beginning to wonder if you're going to have to use a "tarzan swing" from the bridge to the ticket hall.  A few more masts have been added to the eastLooking down Ferry Lane there are more masts in place but still not all of them! I know there are tunnels underneath but even so - 8 months of no trains and still not all the masts. I know everyone keeps saying "the blockade was not to string the wires" but you could have lopped months off this blockade and still achieved the same volume of work. And yes that's me agreeing with those who were very critical of the timescale months ago. I'm not really very impressed at the lack of "pace" being displayed. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Feb 6, 2017 22:13:28 GMT
Latest news from the driving/training front, but not set in stone.
Currently carrying out a 2 day refresher course. Day 1 in the classroom & day 2 driving on the line.
A few day 1's have been done & will continue. Day 2's will, fingers crossed, start up again on Saturday with a couple of safety runs then a few instructors to be retrained for them to continue on track training.
Penciled in dates for ongoing training to start from 18th Feb onwards. But as always nothing is set in stone.
As mentioned before I'll try & get some video footage when I'm out there Sat & Sun.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 7, 2017 16:01:17 GMT
Network Rail are saying the line reopens on 27 February but further closures needed. Apparently the electrification was "incorrectly designed"!!!! Interesting that NR have broken the news and not TfL. I guess TfL want NR to "wash their dirty laundry in public" first. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Feb 7, 2017 16:06:57 GMT
Have times for train/driver testing on Sat & Sun if anyone is interested.. But anything could change
|
|
) to suspend the wires at the correct height.
A few more masts have been added to the 
