Great Western Coffee Shop

I noticed that electric masts have been erected over a short section of the branch line at Maidenhead over the weekend.  Why is this needed?  I thought that the branch line wasn't going to be electrified, is that still the case?

It's a safety measure needed so that if the signallers accidentally route an electric train onto the branch, and the driver fails to notice and doesn't stop in time, then it doesn't wreck the OHLE as the pantograph runs off the side of the contact wire and rises up.  It is quite common to have short stubs of OHLE at junctions for this reason.   

I expect that before the current alterations started the OHLE continued along the main lines at Stockley flyover where the Heathrow lines had already branched off.

Installing the first contact wire length would also have the advantage that if a workable solution to operating AC EMUs on the branch is found then they wouldn't have to come back and re-wire the junction.

Paul

The same principle wasn't applied with the third rail at Wokingham.  On the rare occasion a Waterloo line train is routed towards Crowthorne rather than Bracknell it can take quite a time to get the electric train dragged back on the juice.

I believe this has happened west of Basingstoke as well when a Southampton service fancied a trip towards Salisbury instead.

They should have kept those Southern Region Motorized Luggage Vans that could run or 3rd rail or battery!

I think you'll find that they all still exist in preservation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_419

I remember back in the 1980s there was an occasion one morning when the driver of a Southern EMU accepted the wrong route at Reading Spur Jct which resulted in the train being completely stranded on the non-electrified line running up to the GWML at Reading New Jct. After about an hour or so it was pushed back onto the juice by the 08 shunter which used to be stabled at Reading Depot.

My tongue was fairly firmly in my cheek when I typed that (I should have added an emoticon), but that's interesting to know. That must represent one of the highest percentages of preservation for any type of loco or DMU/EMU?

That junction used to have a third rail that went quite some way towards Battledown flyover, I think drivers would have to be fairly determined to get off the juice back then, but it seems to have been shortened in recent years.  The current signalling has flashing yellows for the Salisbury route, which can be seen from the country end of Basingstoke's platforms, so EMU drivers ought to get ample warning of a wrong route.

Of course while running off the end of the third rail will cause embarrassment and delays, at least it shouldn't cause any damage...

Paul

Can't exceed 100%  ;) ... statistically, preserved unique locomotives such as Duke of Gloucester, or the battery multiple unit (BEMU) are also 100%.

"Funny" business these battery units we're talking about ... I came across some German units from 1955 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB_Class_ETA_150 - hundreds were built; lasted 30 years.  I grant you that the GWR network probably has few suitable lines (Marlow shuttle might be one; always change at Bourne End, nice flat run to Marlow) and a special type of stock is really not desirable ...

Whatever happened to the IPEMU - http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=16320.0 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=16320.0) - that was being tested in Essex? I'm not sure there was ever any post-trial discussion here?

Edit: answering my own question with my friend Google: http://www.railmagazine.com/trains/new-trains/batteries-included (http://www.railmagazine.com/trains/new-trains/batteries-included)

Except the aspiration of GWR and the local authority to run a half hourly service Maidenhead - Marlow (needs 2 units)

Can you fit a 387 in the platform at Bourne End?

Have read a suggestion that there isn't really enough dwell time at Maidenhead (or under the wires) to recharge effectively, but counter-intuitively there might be enough time on the juice to make the North Downs line work.

Of course there's perhaps a half-way house whereby you wire to Cookham (and Wargrave on the Henley Branch), then drop the pan. But of course that's would not be cheap - lots of trees to cut back and possibly a couple of bridges to rebuild and it becomes far more attractive to just leave the Turbos in place and make it the problem of the next franchisee. 

A four car unit cannot get onto the Bourne End to Marlow branch via platform 1, the distance from points to buffers is too short.   

The problem isn't really difficulty in electrifying the route, it is that there are no suitably short EMUs that can fit the existing track layout, and a bespoke rolling stock solution is highly unlikely.   

If there was a short AC EMU, then they'd surely electrify.  An AC/battery EMU possibly couldn't fit all the equipment needed in a short train, so doesn't help.

So it is easier to carry on with short DMUs, and kick the rolling stock problem into the long grass.

Paul

I thought there was a plan to reconfigure the track layout at Bourne End to allow a 4 car unit to just squeeze in?

They're keeping it pretty quiet if there is.  If it were practical to move the points as necessary to provide 80m plus whatever is needed behind the buffers, surely it would be small change compared to the overall GWRM project budget?

Paul

There are a few technical issues to resolve in feeding the TV branches from the OLE power system being deployed on the GWML.  Also NR needed to rain in its ambitions and the pre 2014 General Election commitments made by all the political parties to put a lid on costs.

Will the TV branches get electrified? yes might be a few years away but the TOC will want to standardise on one form of traction

They're keeping it pretty quiet if there is.  If it were practical to move the points as necessary to provide 80m plus whatever is needed behind the buffers, surely it would be small change compared to the overall GWRM project budget?


[/quote]

Edited to add reply.

There is a plan to double the junction at Bourne End  funded by GWR and the Local Enterprise Board. This will allow a half hourly service to Marlow without change as the trains will pass in Bourne End Station.

However it does not solve the problem of the existing short platform. So it's probably going to be 2*2 Turbos  all day shuttling between Maidenhead and Marlow and no through trains to and from Paddington.

Well I thought I had read it somewhere....

Western Route Study Draft (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/consultation%20documents/western%20route%20study%20consultation%20responses/campaign%20and%20user%20groups/mmpa.pdf)




Edit note: Link to document amended, for ease of use. CfN.

My understanding was / is that there's a road just behind the buffer stops - on the level - so extension by a carriage length or two towards High Wycombe is impractical at sensible price. And that the branch turns so sharply away that moving the Marlow point out by a carriage length (with implications on other land) isn't straightforward either.  I suspect that re-arranging the alignment so that Bourne End became s single platform, with a loop at Cookham, would allow for a 30 minute service but would still be 3 car limited.  Removing the reversal by moving Bourne End station to the non-existent side of the triangle would probably upset a few people with post houses, and be see as a retrograde step in the campaign to get back to High Wycombe. 

Its been a while since I wandered around trackside at Bourne End, you will be suppressed just how much space there is to move the Marlow line turn out South.  The current layout is the victim of the 1970's closure than a fully planed layout, the used to be a Bay platform for the Marlow services when the line ran through to Wycombe, although the land the bay occupied has been sold. 

Potentially to operate the TV branches some 2 car EMU could be purchased, although I don't think that would be the favoured option by the TOC

I really do not see how route to High Wycombe could be reopened now without completely bypassing Bourne end

But the other two branches can both use normal 4 car trains, so presumably the incoming EMU order already allows for Windsor and Henley?   No plans to electrify Greenford, and 2 car AC EMUs aren't on offer anywhere.

The other two branch's electrification is still in the CP5 enhancement plans Mar 2016 update with entry into service shown as later than originally planned, but in Dec 2018:


I don't think you can consider the 3 branches together anymore, the published intentions are completely different.

Paul

Like ET I think there is room for a new direct chord with a platform on it with not too far a walk from the current station (this is a view I took in 1969; Crikey was it that long ago ::) ). Bourne End looking South with the line to Maidenhead going off top left and that to Marlow top right.  Bourne End station in the foreground:

(http://rs102.pbsrc.com/albums/m92/cbrailways/Mobile%20Uploads/Bourne%20End%20Station%2011_zpstfmgriis.jpg?w=480&h=480&fit=clip)
Image (c)2016 SandTEngineer

It was my understanding that electrification only stacked up economically for intensely used lines.  If it only has 2 cars it is unlikely to meet that criteria

Just for completeness here is the view at Bourne End looking the other way.  The buffer stops that Grahame mentioned in his post above are located just the to the nearside of the level crossing (Photograph again taken in 1969).  The train in the distance is approaching from High Wycombe.

(http://rs102.pbsrc.com/albums/m92/cbrailways/Mobile%20Uploads/Bourne%20End%20Station%2002_zpsgcy8f00z.jpg?w=480&h=480&fit=clip)
Image (c)2016 SandTEngineer

The assumption visible in the RUS and Route Study was for electrification and 3-car trains, with no significant work. Officially Platform 1 is 67 m long, so it could take 3x20 m, but not quite 3x23 m. As to where a few 3-car EMUs might be found, presumably that was someone else's problem.

The 2019 service is assumed to be 1 tph with a second in the peaks, but no longer running through to Paddington. To run 2 tph through to Marlow, passing at Bourne End, you would need Platform 2 to be connected to Marlow far enough up (60 m) to be used too. Is suspect that's feasible for its radius, but of course it would have to be built and paid for.

In any case, what is discussed is the interchange working as at present. Of course that permits the Maidenhead-Bourne End train to be longer, up to 5-car with the 100 m available (and at Furze Platt and Cookham too). 

The proposed all-day service to be introduced before 2043 is 2 tph, but by that date more capacity is needed as far as Bourne End. The conclusion here reads:

That's not the clearest, but I think it says 2 tph can be committed to since if they can't stretch platform 1 they can run the peak-hour service all day. How so? The peak capacity can only be improved by more or longer trains on the peak service, which is already 2 tph. So perhaps they are relying on longer trains to Bourne End already.

What isn't mentioned is that each half could quite easily run 3 tph, and even 4 tph in the peaks at a push. And, of course, if you accept Marlow is served by a DMU shuttle, you can still electrify to Bourne End (Platform 2 anyway).

I'm sure I've seen a suggestion (possibly from Marlowites) that a new turnout and chord from Platfrom 2 to Marlow could just about allow 80 m of usable platform. It would be a question of whether the smallest radius you dare use would just fit, or whether you might have to beg a sliver of land. But I can't see that attracting any enthusiasm, at least in the short term (which could be over ten years if you are NR), as it would only add to the amount of electrification on the list.

PS: Of course to pass two 4-car trains at Bourne End you'd still need Platform 1 extended to that length anyway. And then there's Marlow, though there's plenty of space to lengthen there. So what about a nice little Swiss-style tram?

At Bourne End and the former Loudwater Station site it is industrial / commercial premises that sit on the old track bed, compulsory purchase of these would be less problematical that the residential properties on the site of  Wooburne Green  station however there are not that many houses.  On the rest of the route some land has been sold to a farmer and there is some back gardens that have crept onto the old track bed.

Perhaps the most difficult area is at the High Wycombe end near the A40 London Road the embankment has been removed and a retail park and residential properties have been built on the site however a viaduct could carry the line over this.

The reopening is feasible and is practical in engineering terms in financial terms now that is a different matter although High Wycombe District Council have recently debated the possibility of reopening the line and may well include it in their local plan  

A bit in that which caught my eye:


I was thinking that the proportion would be nearer 100%, unless there are an exceptionally large amount of one-way journeys.




Edit note: Link to document amended, for ease of use. CfN.

Those travelling between Bourne End/Cookham/Furze Platt/Maidenhead make up the other 70%. The 30% just accounts for those journeys that include Bourne End to/from Marlow


This referring to the Marlow branch as a whole rather than just the Marlow 'spur'

There is an article in this week's Maidenhead Advertiser about reopening to High Wycombe. They are trying to get finance for a feasibility study.

If you look at it re-instating it  the link would provide a line which together with the East West Link at Claydon which would provide direct trains  from the principle towns of the Thames Valley to North Bucks and via Bletchley/Milton Keynes to the West Midlands and via Bedford to the Eat Midlands. Plus an alternative route to Oxford via Bicester town and another route to Birmingham via the Chiltern line. Bucks is an extremely difficult county to get from South to North or even to Aylesbury. If you look \t both the motorways and rail lines they tend to go  West or North West with poor roads between them and the missing rail link between Bourne End and Wycombe.

IMO it would make sense to reinstate the link, as heavy rail, to complete the Bucks rail network. 

That link correct?, CfN? Its MMPA's response to the consultation, not to the Study quoted!

Is SDO not an option for Marlow, rather than an expensive platform extension? I assume that the 387s or other new emus have SDO?

I believe it's the fact that a four car train would straddle the points of the two branches. So it would be impossible to enter from one direction (say from Maidenhead) and reverse onto the other line (say to Marlow)? 

Correct ... the only way to get a 4 car unit onto the Marlow to Bourne End section would be 2 coaches at a time.   And I suspect that splitting and joining a unit isn't trivial - even to do it once a week to change units over ...

Extending the platform at Marlow is not really an issue and the cost relatively small Bourne End is where the problem lies.


I believe there is space at Bourne End for the track lay to be changed, also as the Local Authorities (High Wycombe District and Bucks CC) are in favour of improving the rail links to Marlow that some diversion of Station Road could be done to eke out a little more room and changing how the platforms are accessed, instead of a walkway behind the stop block access direct off of the public highway would again some more space.

4 cars to Marlow is do able, just needs the funding which given the new funding model proposed in Nicola Shaw report if High Wycombe District and Bucks CC want it they will need to secure the funding, this may be partly from the Rates. Government grants or planning permission conditions

I believe that changing the track layout at Bourne end has already been discussed.

My question more relates to the possibility of using SDO at restricted stations like Marlow or others in the area due to no 2 car emus?

I would guess that the use of SDO would depend on the volume of passengers at the station and the implications on dwell time at the station. 

It is only Marlow and especially Bourne End platform 2 that are short, the Marlow platform is possibly already 3 car length.  Cookham, Furze Platt and Bourne End Plat 1 already handle 5 car trains.  Maidenhead plat 5B is limited to 3 cars but can handle longer if 5A is used,  5A is going to be part of the Crossrail turnback.

Apart from the Greenford Line halts and Bourne End, Marlow is the only one less then 4-car length. The usual approach seems to be to always lengthen unless there is something in the way or hardly any passengers, neither of which applies to Marlow.

In any case, it's the terminus, which must make SDO even less acceptable, and might rule it out altogether.

SDO doesn't help at Bourne End it's the physical length between the buffer stops and the points for Marlow which trail into the line is physically too short to get an over 60m long train in clear so the points can operate. I believe at Marlow the platform could be lengthened.

It is the link to the item posted originally by SandTEngineer - I merely copied it into a shorter format, as it is so long it spilled over about three screens width otherwise.  :-X

Would it not be easier to close the current site of Bourne End Station and relocate the station, create a new curve to avoid a reversal and build the new station either on this new curve or somewhere nearby?

Probably not,  Around the junction area and along the Marlow line are some very expensive properties and it would make the station further from the town centre.

The Thames would also get in the way of any new formation.  Certainly not worth the cost of modifications just to electrify it.  If a cheap way of squeezing a 3-car 60m EMU can't be found then best to keep it as a diesel route until (if ever) the line through to High Wycombe gets reinstated.

If a business case can be built for an all-day half hourly service using two units then electrify to Bourne End and run the Donkey as a diesel service connecting at Bourne End into the electric.  That's a big 'if' though.

Thanks, thought that might be the case.

I seem to recall someone mentioning a problem with electrifying Bourne End in that it would restrict the local sailing club's access to the river, aluminium masts and 25kV electrification not being particularly safe in close confinement. I believe that one of the members was a prominent QC who reckoned they had enough historical paperwork to make NR's life very difficult indeed. 

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr how!!!! 

QC's might understand the Law of the land and sail a dinghy but it would seem they do not have any understanding of the laws of Physics or Electrical Engineering.

Good grief if their dinghy masts and sails got that close to the live OLE it would be struck by a train not to mention have sliced a gouge into the steel work of the bridge.

And these guys are supposed to be intelligent!  its more to do with being a NIMBY

I suspect that a concern might be towing sailing boats over the level crossing(s) when there isn't a train around.

Of course, level crossing are frowned upon these days, so if the objectors would care to finance the elevation of the railway along that stretch, with the crossings turned into under bridges, the risk of a mast catching the 25kV would be pretty well eliminated - and indeed the crossing would be safer, and open at all times rather than inconsiderately blocked when "The Electric Donkey" passes.

Please note tongue in cheek as I suggested this!

Unstep the mast is the simple answer any good seaman is capable of doing that most basic of tasks

Yes, sorry, I should have been clearer, level crossing and storage of boats in the narrow strip between the railway and the riverbank was the cause for concern, not the river crossing. 

Plus, of course, that's on the Marlow branch properly so-called - it wouldn't affect electrifying to Bourne End.

If the Bourne End > Marlow level crossings were replaced with under bridges, they'd require submarines during the winter...

 ;)

Hmmm ... I meant the road going under the rails.  "under" for a road user = "over" for the train.

Exactly - they'd be road-going submarines.

... as distinct from canal-going submarines (from the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176938/Homemade-U-Boat-sails-English-canal-goes-sale-30-000.html)):

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/21/article-2176938-1423CBE4000005DC-976_634x406.jpg)

 ;) :D ;D