Flood Damage Near Polmont - 12/08/2020

[Carntyne]

I think Philip Phlopp is the man to go with on this one, rather than the more fanciful suggestions above.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Probably slightly OT but it does seem that although weather is a root cause of many of the UK rail problems and including this one, that a lot of problems arise from Victorian infrastructure.

The Union Canal is Georgian (1822)!
Strictly speaking, the earliest passenger railways (L&B, GWR etc) were designed and built in the Georgian era too, as Victoria didn't show up until 1837.
There doesn't seem to be a separate adjective for William IV's reign 1830-37 (Williamite?), and it is usually included in the scope of Georgian.

 

[InOban]

My bad for using the initials!
Although the whole formation has been rebuilt, I was thinking that the depth down to 'natural', as archaeologists call it, wouldn't be so great on the south side.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It occurred to me that since the major damage to the formation was caused by the torrent leaving it on its way downhill, it might be easier to install TTCs reaching over from the less-affected South side?

The decision to install single masts, twin track cantilevers, portals or to mount electrification small part steelwork from existing structures is subject of fairly detailed design work now, with signal sighting being one important consideration on the choice of what goes where (thanks to nobody bothering at Ladbroke Grove and leaving signal SN109 hidden behind the OLE when viewed from certain distances).

I'm also still curious as to what you think will support the track. The repairs to the track are to the same standard as a new build route. It's not going to be left a bit soft and muddy, with some sleepers missing and some bullhead track thrown down for good measure. It will be properly engineered and either at re-opening or within a short number of days, trains will be passing the site at full line speed.

 

[Class 170101]

No. There's nothing to pile into. I've got a team working on supporting masts with hot air balloons. I don't know how the permanent way team are intending to float the track in mid air.

It occurred to me that since the major damage to the formation was caused by the torrent leaving it on its way downhill, it might be easier to install TTCs reaching over from the less-affected South side?

What @InOban has suggested was exactly in my thoughts @PhillipPhlopp with the formation badly damaged (and washed away?) and not knowing how easy it would to re-establish the masts in the exact same sites as they previously were.

 

[haggishunter]

I'm also still curious as to what you think will support the track. The repairs to the track are to the same standard as a new build route. It's not going to be left a bit soft and muddy, with some sleepers missing and some bullhead track thrown down for good measure. It will be properly engineered and either at re-opening or within a short number of days, trains will be passing the site at full line speed.

I've neither any idea nor do I care what you're knowledge of or role in the railway industry is or isn't, but your patronising and obnoxious attitude in this thread stinks. Given the original photos InOban refers to show masts lying on their side with fully exposed and undermined piles still attached, none of their or other's comments or questions in this thread deserve your responses.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I've neither any idea nor do I care what you're knowledge of or role in the railway industry is or isn't, but your patronising and obnoxious attitude in this thread stinks. Given the original photos InOban refers to show masts lying on their side with fully exposed and undermined piles still attached, none of their or other's comments or questions in this thread deserve your responses.

InOban asked how long the OLE damage might take to repair, I suggested a time scale based on assessments of the damage, and was almost immediately belittled by InOban who queried whether I had even seen the photographs of the damage.

They've indulged in further uneducated speculation about how the damage might be repaired, clearly with no understanding on how such issues are handled on the railway, and when queried about what they think the engineers working on the repair are actually doing, have chosen not to answer.

I've simply pointed out that the alignment will be repaired to a high standard, comparable with the construction of a similar new section of line, and that piling foundations for new OLE masts will not be either problematic nor particularly time consuming. I am genuinely curious as to what people think when they suggest the repairs somehow won't support OLE masts/foundations, but will be acceptable for services to resume.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

@Philip Phlopp - I love your posts. Please carry on.

 

[pdeaves]

InOban asked how long the OLE damage might take to repair, I suggested a time scale based on assessments of the damage, and was almost immediately belittled by InOban who queried whether I had even seen the photographs of the damage.

They've indulged in further uneducated speculation about how the damage might be repaired, clearly with no understanding on how such issues are handled on the railway, and when queried about what they think the engineers working on the repair are actually doing, have chosen not to answer.

I've simply pointed out that the alignment will be repaired to a high standard, comparable with the construction of a similar new section of line, and that piling foundations for new OLE masts will not be either problematic nor particularly time consuming. I am genuinely curious as to what people think when they suggest the repairs somehow won't support OLE masts/foundations, but will be acceptable for services to resume.

In fairness, your post (107) could be taken a different way. A smilie might have helped clatify your intentions.

 

[matchmaker]

I think Philip Phlopp is the man to go with on this one, rather than the more fanciful suggestions above.

Quite!

 

[InOban]

I think that we all appreciate when someone with inside knowledge posts on any forum, so thanks. However there's nothing wrong in us laypersons being curious, keeps the brain working (my PhD is in biology!)

I'm quite certain that the new formation is even better at absorbing and distributing the point loads of steel wheel on steel rail than its 180-year old predecessor.

But I have been thinking about the forces on the masts, and their foundations.
I assume that the structures at the end of each wire run, holding the equipment which tension it, will need particularly secure foundations; that those on a curve in the line will have to resist being pulled over, but that those on straight track should have much less to resist?

It has been obvious that recent OHLE seems to be use much deeper piles. Is it all to do with the geology? As I say, just curious.

 

[mcmad]

It has been obvious that recent OHLE seems to be use much deeper piles. Is it all to do with the geology? As I say, just curious.

I suspect more to do with lawyers and fear of being sued rather than geology.

In the bad old BR days, there were standard designs for OLE masts, signals and suchlike. If the standard design failed for whatever reason, a new one was designed and installed and everyone carried on. (look at the leaning masts and signals in assorted places for examples)

Nowadays an Engineer has to put their and their employers name against any such design and if it doesn't stay bolt upright fingers are pointed and insurance policies claimed against. Therefore people are more cautious and we end up with sillyness like huge concrete foundations for 'lightweight' signals which are comparable to the foundations holding up the big cantilevered signs on motorways.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I think that we all appreciate when someone with inside knowledge posts on any forum, so thanks. However there's nothing wrong in us laypersons being curious, keeps the brain working (my PhD is in biology!)

I'm quite certain that the new formation is even better at absorbing and distributing the point loads of steel wheel on steel rail than its 180-year old predecessor.

But I have been thinking about the forces on the masts, and their foundations.
I assume that the structures at the end of each wire run, holding the equipment which tension it, will need particularly secure foundations; that those on a curve in the line will have to resist being pulled over, but that those on straight track should have much less to resist?

It has been obvious that recent OHLE seems to be use much deeper piles. Is it all to do with the geology? As I say, just curious.

Recent OLE installations have switched to (mainly) piles from various iterations of concrete foundations - foundation/mast rotation has been a particular issue on some routes (Cambridge Fens being the usual example, complete with RAIB report) and the decision was made with piled foundations to increase their resistance to rotational forces. That decision was made much easier because the MOVAX piling plant has got better in recent years and nobody wants to be playing around with cement mixers during increasingly tight possession windows, oh, and removing the formers for concrete foundations was a bit of a H&S problem too, so everything came together and steel piles were the all-round best option.

Anchor and tensioning structures are braced, conventional masts/foundations only have a (relatively) small constant rotational load of the cantilever structure and their share of the contact and catenary wire mass, though obviously wind loading has to be taken into account. You can see that, to a certain extent, when you witness catenary supported from bridges, the forces imparted aren't huge.

 

[59CosG95]

I suspect more to do with lawyers and fear of being sued rather than geology.

In the bad old BR days, there were standard designs for OLE masts, signals and suchlike. If the standard design failed for whatever reason, a new one was designed and installed and everyone carried on. (look at the leaning masts and signals in assorted places for examples)

Nowadays an Engineer has to put their and their employers name against any such design and if it doesn't stay bolt upright fingers are pointed and insurance policies claimed against. Therefore people are more cautious and we end up with sillyness like huge concrete foundations for 'lightweight' signals which are comparable to the foundations holding up the big cantilevered signs on motorways.

There are still standard designs for OLE masts and suchlike. As speeds have increased, so too has the industry's knowledge of what works well and what doesn't. Planted mast foundations, as used for pretty much every scheme until Mk3b came in, has fallen out of favour, for example. Tensions in the conductors have increased, to minimise pans creating waves at higher speeds - which in turn increase the moments being applied to a structure. These can be across track (radial loads from the main conductors, weights of the boom etc.) or along track (anchoring locations); and these need to be resisted by more substantial foundations - either concrete or piled.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Nowadays an Engineer has to put their and their employers name against any such design and if it doesn't stay bolt upright fingers are pointed and insurance policies claimed against. Therefore people are more cautious and we end up with sillyness like huge concrete foundations for 'lightweight' signals which are comparable to the foundations holding up the big cantilevered signs on motorways.

I know, but at the same time masts not staying bolt upright is where dewirements begin - Littleport being the prima facie exampler of that.

 

[59CosG95]

I know, but at the same time masts not staying bolt upright is where dewirements begin - Littleport being the prima facie exampler of that.

Based on observations from the train, it looks like the ECML in the Barnet area might be heading the same way, with headspans bowing away from the track on both sides, at rakes that appear to be considerably more than the Mk3a spec...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Recent OLE installations have switched to (mainly) piles from various iterations of concrete foundations - —- nobody wants to be playing around with cement mixers during increasingly tight possession windows, oh, and removing the formers for concrete foundations was a bit of a H&S problem too, so everything came together and steel piles were the all-round best option.

I remember well in 1972/3 at Broughton north of Preston outside our house. The polystyrene inners of the concrete foundations where the mast was plonked before grouting in were burned out And so was the wood. The thick black smoke was horrendous.

 

[CalF]

Does anyone with more rail knowledge than me have an idea as to when services are likely to resume on this line? Are we talking a few more weeks or is it likely to be months?

 

[13h202]

Does anyone with more rail knowledge than me have an idea as to when services are likely to resume on this line? Are we talking a few more weeks or is it likely to be months?

28th September is the aim AFAIK. The work to restore the line is not as difficult as some have dramatised it to be.

Carmont, however, is looking like late November/December.

 

[Elecman]

I remember well in 1972/3 at Broughton north of Preston outside our house. The polystyrene inners of the concrete foundations where the mast was plonked before grouting in were burned out And so was the wood. The thick black smoke was horrendous.

I thought they just dissolved the polystyrene with petrol?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I thought they just dissolved the polystyrene with petrol?

They did that as well but many were burned out - with the aid of petrol! I will try and dig them out. I don't have video obviously, but I do have a few color slides back in the UK which I will try and remember to dig out when I am next back there.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

They did that as well but many were burned out - with the aid of petrol!

I seem to recall toluene being used, dissolved the polystyrene a bit easier, but can't swear to it.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I seem to recall toluene being used, dissolved the polystyrene a bit easier, but can't swear to it.

Toluene, petrol (even diesel at a push) or xylene or acetone (women's nail varnish remover) are fantastic for dissolving polystyrene yes. In the 1970s they burned a load out though on the WCML north of Weaver Jct project.

Go on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosion_engineering and see the photo of the Headspan Gantry - I uploaded the photo and some of the others. That was one of them

It is not just Health and Safety - for the strength of concrete, burning stuff and heat treating the concrete is VERY BAD practice. It weakens it considerably. Melting the Polystyrene with solvent - after the solvent evaporates was much better. The resin in effects makes a polymer modified concrete.

 

[haggishunter]

InOban asked how long the OLE damage might take to repair, I suggested a time scale based on assessments of the damage, and was almost immediately belittled by InOban who queried whether I had even seen the photographs of the damage.

They've indulged in further uneducated speculation about how the damage might be repaired, clearly with no understanding on how such issues are handled on the railway, and when queried about what they think the engineers working on the repair are actually doing, have chosen not to answer.

I've simply pointed out that the alignment will be repaired to a high standard, comparable with the construction of a similar new section of line, and that piling foundations for new OLE masts will not be either problematic nor particularly time consuming. I am genuinely curious as to what people think when they suggest the repairs somehow won't support OLE masts/foundations, but will be acceptable for services to resume.

Apologies, I was overly harsh, as suggested in another post above - text on internet forums can be tone deaf and can be completely mis-read! I actually enjoy reading your posts and contributions.

 

[fgwrich]

They seem to be making good progress, as 66302 + 66424 + 15 Autoballaster's working the 5.14am Carlisle Yard to Polmont this morning.

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/B15270/2020-09-11/detailed

 

[matchmaker]

I seem to recall toluene being used, dissolved the polystyrene a bit easier, but can't swear to it.

In O S Nock's "Electric Euston to Glasgow" it says petrol, but a "special solvent" was used in wet conditions.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

In O S Nock's "Electric Euston to Glasgow" it says petrol, but a "special solvent" was used in wet conditions.

Acetone

 

[diamond chap]

I see that a typically twice-hourly Linlithgow <> Edinburgh Waverley rail service is to be reintroduced from Monday 14th calling also at Edinburgh Park and Haymarket.

 

[InOban]

https://twitter.com/malcolm_jolly/status/1305581348443357188?s=19

We'll, what do you know. After being rubbished when I suggested (#118) that they might use Twin track cantilevers, NR have just retweeted the pic above, which shows.... TTCs.

 

[takno]

https://twitter.com/malcolm_jolly/status/1305581348443357188?s=19

We'll, what do you know. After being rubbished when I suggested (#118) that they might use Twin track cantilevers, NR have just retweeted the pic above, which shows.... TTCs.

The original electrification on part of the section was TTCs anyway though wasn't it? All anybody suggested was that no support structures would actually be changed to TTCs.