East-West Rail (EWR): Oxford-Bletchley construction progress

[Hughby]

It will be interesting to see the position of that track at 1600 on Tuesday.

Well, being local, I had to go and take a look didn't I (it was a good excuse to run the A/C in the car).

It all looked perfectly OK, to the point that I didn't bother taking a photo. The only remarkable thing was 3 guys in full orange working in near 40 degree heat!

I presume you were expecting some track buckling - I'm assuming the track wouldn't have been stressed yet?

I'm a non-railway bits and bytes guy - feel free to correct my assumptions!

 

[Bald Rick]

It may well have been stressed, but with little or no ballast in the beds (between the sleepers) or on the shoulders (at the sides), and with no consolidation (compression of the ballast due to passing traffic) then even with 30 sleepers / length the risk of buckling becomes significant at a rail temperature of 47C, which is an air temperature of 28C in this weather / month. If the rail hasn’t been stressed the critical rail temperature is lower.

Of course if the rails haven’t been welded, and are left free, there’s no issue.

 

[Tobbes]

My apologies.

 

[Mark24]

Sleepers have been put in at Bicester under the new Charbridge bridge and out towards Launton

 

[Trainee9]

A post on another forum, with pictures, shows slabs of track being delivered and a crossover junction being laid, somewhere on the Bletchley- Bicester line. So how far has the track-laying now progressed? Anyone?
Post #629 has a track & signalling diagram.

 

[swt_passenger]

A post on another forum, with pictures, shows slabs of track being delivered and a crossover junction being laid, somewhere on the Bletchley- Bicester line. So how far has the track-laying now progressed? Anyone?
Post #629 has a track & signalling diagram.

Is that the latest pictures on RMweb? They’re factory built (prefabricated) S&C units delivered on those yellow tilting wagons so as to be within gauge for travelling, but they’re still mounted on normal concrete sleepers, you can see some of the longest bearers are bolted together in the across track direction. AIUI the whole two track crossover area is built up together at the manufacturers yard, and then split at the joints for delivery on the tilting wagons. (The image is also very foreshortened so you can’t easily see the gaps between successive sleepers.)

That’s not usually referred to as “slab track” construction - that’s a term used for a track type that’s either supported on long concrete panels, or when mass concrete is cast in situ around mini sleepers, the significant difference is that slab track doesn’t have ballast.

 

[snowball]

Maybe Trainee9 when saying "slabs of track" was not intending to imply "slab track".

 

[Trainee9]

Maybe Trainee9 when saying "slabs of track" was not intending to imply "slab track".

See the RMweb pictures. They appear to be showing pre-assembled sections of rail & sleepers.
But where is this?

 

[jfowkes]

See the RMweb pictures. They appear to be showing pre-assembled sections of rail & sleepers.
But where is this?

The RMWeb thread says "Went for a little walk this afternoon, around selbourn cemetery", so is this Bletchley, the very beginning of the line after it comes off the viaduct from the west.

 

[The Planner]

See the RMweb pictures. They appear to be showing pre-assembled sections of rail & sleepers.
But where is this?

If they are saying its Selbourne Avenue then its Bletchley West Jn, the crossovers to allow you to get in and out either P7 or P8.

 

[swt_passenger]

If they are saying its Selbourne Avenue then its Bletchley West Jn, the crossovers to allow you to get in and out either P7 or P8.

If we had the location of the trailing crossover correct, as discussed back around post #482, then going by the signalling diagram this facing crossover must be very slightly nearer than the trailing crossover linked in subsequent Twitter posts, ie towards Bletchley.

When you posted the junction chainage a few months ago, ie 475m from Selborne Avenue bridge, would that normally be measured to the mid point of the two crossovers? So if we find the 475m point on Google, can we assume the two crossovers are equally spaced either side of that point?

 

[The Planner]

If we had the location of the trailing crossover correct, as discussed back around post #482, then going by the signalling diagram this facing crossover must be very slightly nearer than the trailing crossover linked in subsequent Twitter posts, ie towards Bletchley.

When you posted the junction chainage a few months ago, ie 475m from Selborne Avenue bridge, would that normally be measured to the mid point of the two crossovers? So if we find the 475m point on Google, can we assume the two crossovers are equally spaced either side of that point?

Signaling plan has Selbourne Ave bridge at 81067m, Bletchley West (ie in between the crossovers) is 80465m

 

[gordonthemoron]

The new Bletchley station platforms didn't show much progress on Monday

 

[Trainee9]

I was mystified by the location of the crossover in the photos, as a crossover was installed in West Bletchley months ago, and then double track out of Bletchley past the next overbridge has been in place for weeks now. The person who took the photos has now posted in RM that he took the track-laying pictures in Bletchley.

 

[swt_passenger]

Signaling plan has Selbourne Ave bridge at 81067m, Bletchley West (ie in between the crossovers) is 80465m

Oh I see so that’s a slightly different figure than you posted before, so now it’s just to the east of that open space you previously mentioned, and behind Coleridge Close.

 

[Pinza-C55]

I'm sorry if this has been asked before but it is a very long thread. I have watched a couple of videos and they have retained many of the old brick arch road overbridges - do these have sufficient clearance for electrification or is that unlikely to happen ?

 

[zwk500]

I'm sorry if this has been asked before but it is a very long thread. I have watched a couple of videos and they have retained many of the old brick arch road overbridges - do these have sufficient clearance for electrification or is that unlikely to happen ?

AIUI the whole line will be cleared to W12, and anything that has been rebuilt will have clearance for electrification (to today's standards, which is a can of worms...). However there remains a slim possibility that there are some bridges that were clear for W12 but not OLE that have not been rebuilt. I know that at least one brick arch bridge was jacked up to increase clearances without adversely affecting the visuals.

At the moment, I believe electrification remains a long-term goal but there are no firm plans to do so.

 

[jfowkes]

I'm sorry if this has been asked before but it is a very long thread. I have watched a couple of videos and they have retained many of the old brick arch road overbridges - do these have sufficient clearance for electrification or is that unlikely to happen ?

There's minimal passive provision for electrification, so any new/rebuilt structures or earthworks will be built with electrification in mind, but I don't believe they're going to rebuild anything just for future electrification.

 

[Pinza-C55]

AIUI the whole line will be cleared to W12, and anything that has been rebuilt will have clearance for electrification (to today's standards, which is a can of worms...). However there remains a slim possibility that there are some bridges that were clear for W12 but not OLE that have not been rebuilt. I know that at least one brick arch bridge was jacked up to increase clearances without adversely affecting the visuals.

At the moment, I believe electrification remains a long-term goal but there are no firm plans to do so.

Thanks , the other reason I asked was because on the existing bridges they have raised the parapets but I suppose that may be partly to lessen vandalism.

 

[zwk500]

Thanks , the other reason I asked was because on the existing bridges they have raised the parapets but I suppose that may be partly to lessen vandalism.

I think it's just a general standard for all lines now to have higher parapets, mostly to stop trespass or throwing things onto the tracks/trains.

 

[richieb1971]

I read somwhere 7ft parapets were required by EU law. All new ones with be 7ft

 

[spyinthesky]

I read somwhere 7ft parapets were required by EU law. All new ones with be 7ft

2.13 metres seems an odd number for EU law

 

[Nottingham59]

I know that at least one brick arch bridge was jacked up to increase clearances without adversely affecting the visuals.

I can imagine raising a metal or concrete beam bridge, but how on earth do they jack up a brick arch bridge without compromising the whole structure?

EDIT: https://freyssinet.co.uk/masonry-arch-lifting-elevarch/

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can imagine raising a metal or concrete beam bridge, but how on earth do they jack up a brick arch bridge without compromising the whole structure?

From the bottom?

All manner of stuff was jacked up for the WCML electrification - you can see the concrete blocks below lots of bridges etc including a great many older footbridges.

There have been cases of moving entire brick buildings in the past. One in New York where it was rotated 90 degrees without even taking it out of use. (The Manchester one I've since found involved taking it to bits and rebuilding).

Video of the NY one:

In 1930 the Indiana Bell building was rotated 90°. Over a month, the 22-million-pound structure was moved 15 inch/hr, all while 600 employees still worked there. There was no interruption to gas, heat, electricity, water, sewage, or the telephone service they provided. No one inside felt it move.

 

[43096]

From the bottom?

All manner of stuff was jacked up for the WCML electrification - you can see the concrete blocks below lots of bridges etc including a great many older footbridges.

There have been cases of moving entire brick buildings in the past. One in New York where it was rotated 90 degrees without even taking it out of use. (The Manchester one I've since found involved taking it to bits and rebuilding).

Video of the NY one:

The former MFO (Maschinenfabrik Oerlikon) factory in Zürich was similarly moved a few years ago.

Massive Zurich building completes 19-hour trip - SWI swissinfo.ch

The brick building is 123 years old and is the last relic of Oerlikon’s 19th-century industrial zone. In 1876, the Oerlikon machine factory “Maschinenfabrik Oerlikon (MFO)” began manufacturing tool machinery, weapons and electric locomotives. When its recent owner ABB announced plans to tear it...

www.swissinfo.ch

 

[InTheEastMids]

I read somwhere 7ft parapets were required by EU law. All new ones with be 7ft

2.13 metres seems an odd number for EU law

<Pedant mode enabled>
EU doesn't make "law" (that people or organisations have to comply with), it issues Directives which Member States are required to transpose into national laws. This is why, for instance, there are huge differences in health & safety law across UK and EU, despite being all being crushed by the same iron fist of Brussels*

So both statements could be right, in that the Directive might have said "minimum 2 metres" (or refer to a regulation that specifies this). Or it may be something more qualitative e.g. "high enough to deter trespass" and based on that, the UK government came up with its own number.

*JOKE - please let's not start re-litigating Brexit!

Back on topic, I think electrification of EWR, rather than a standalone scheme, needs to be thought about in the light of other developments that make it cheaper or more sensible
i.e. I don't think you'd do it until after Oxford area. National Grid may also be able to provide additional capacity at 25 kV at Quainton, beyond what HS2 have applied for.

 

[zwk500]

Back on topic, I think electrification of EWR, rather than a standalone scheme, needs to be thought about in the light of other developments that make it cheaper or more sensible
i.e. I don't think you'd do it until after Oxford area. National Grid may also be able to provide additional capacity at 25 kV at Quainton, beyond what HS2 have applied for.

Agreed. Oxford will need to be done, and any enhancements to the Bedford-Bletchley section should also be at least a confirmed design so that the Electrification only needs to be done once. Oxford-Bedford plus 2 spurs at Bletchley (HL plats to Denbigh Hall Sth Jn and Fenny Stratford to LL Plats) would be quite a nicely-sized scheme.

 

[swt_passenger]

I read somwhere 7ft parapets were required by EU law. All new ones with be 7ft

If you check out the drawing of the Bicester bypass bridge in post #75, (when I replied to a previous point you made about a “7ft” standard), it has a 1.8m parapet height measured from the road, as can be seen that’s the highways requirement for something called H4A vehicle containment, which I think comes from the decisions made following a famous road/rail incursion…

 

[tspaul26]

<Pedant mode enabled>
EU doesn't make "law" (that people or organisations have to comply with), it issues Directives which Member States are required to transpose into national laws. This is why, for instance, there are huge differences in health & safety law across UK and EU, despite being all being crushed by the same iron fist of Brussels*

Pedant mode:

This is not quite the complete picture. Certain EU legislation is directly binding on individuals and does not require transposition. Similarly, certain directives can have direct effect.

As far as walls/parapets are concerned, most UK regulations are now expressed in metric units anyway.

 

[swt_passenger]

AIUI the whole line will be cleared to W12, and anything that has been rebuilt will have clearance for electrification (to today's standards, which is a can of worms...). However there remains a slim possibility that there are some bridges that were clear for W12 but not OLE that have not been rebuilt. I know that at least one brick arch bridge was jacked up to increase clearances without adversely affecting the visuals.

I don’t think that’s right as far as EWR is concerned. Yes, there was a trial of jacking a brick arch at bridge OXD/14, Moco Farm, but it has since been fully demolished and replaced by a new conventional concrete beam bridge OXD/14A a few metres to the west - it’s on a different alignment to get the approach embankments in. I just had another scan through the TWA drawings, and I don’t think anything else was planned to be jacked in the same way.