Great Western Coffee Shop

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/green-light-given-for-wigan-to-bolton-electrification

Couldn't see this under any other heading.

Perhaps the log jam is breaking.

Now for Oxford and Bristol.

OTC

Do you remember this thread here in 2013? (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=13324.msg144431#msg144431)

Then a couple of posts later ...

But it's only 13 miles, after all.

The distance of 13 miles of "up"and "down" double track at 78 million

Could we there assume Bristol Parkway to Bristol TM at 6 miles with four tracks would cost about the same(78 million?)

I think that Wigan NW to Lostock Jn is actually 13 track miles miles so the cost is £6M/stm!

It's important that NR delivers the service on time and within the agreed budget so at least the Treasury knows where it stands with railway investment.

OTC

I’m sure we all hope that the three deferred sections of the GWML follow suit soon.

For me, Didcot to Oxford (and maybe on to Hanborough) would be a clear priority of the three, followed by Chippenham to Bristol TM and then Bristol Parkway to Bristol TM.

That cost does include several platform extensions, and those don't come cheap these days. When last announced as a firm commitment in 2013 that was against an estimated cost of £37M, for electrification alone. But that was in another era, "before GW", and also before that firm commitment turned out to be quite crumbly.

But I think you are right, that NR are on probation, doing a few small and middling electrification projects chosen largely for political reasons. If they can do the work to match the cost and schedule estimated for it then "decarbonisation here we come". At least in theory, since the Treasury will keep saying it all costs too much, though ultimately they have no way of making it cost less than it costs. So I guess the rate of spend will be fixed and it will come down to NR working as fast as they can for that.

There is a plan for Didcot - Oxford which is dependent on the completion of the Oxford station remodelling and Botley Rd bridge replacement much of the original planed for 25kV infrastructure would have been trashed by these 2 schemes.  I cannot see wires reaching Hanborough, more likely is Eastwest Rail.

For Chippenham to Bristol there are a few issues to resolve regarding Sydney Gardens.  Like Oxford the biggest show stopper is the remodelling of Bristol Temple Meads, CP7 is the likely time scale for Bristol TM to get wired and this would mop up Bristol TM to Parkway.

The formation of GBR which hopefully will take some of the elements of railway planning currently done by the ORR and DfT this could remove layers of bureaucracy allowing the railway industry to specify and select equipment more suited to its needs.

There have already been some changes to NR Electrification and Plant policy in regards to OLE minimum wire heights how the wire can be supported.  The policy even allows the posiblity of new third rail electrification!!!!

Onthecushions is clearly a George Orwell fan from this thread title, combining as it does that writer's Road to Wigan Pier with the less obviously relevant Homage to Catalonia. Olé!

I'm less clear why the Oxford wiring should be delayed by the bridge and station works and not proceed immediately.

We were told that the Oxford track re-modelling for electrification was complete and allowed for the new platform. The wiring scheme had proceeded a long way with much piling done and the Radley ATS completed, so a full plan (and contract) was clearly in place.

While the bridge replacement is a major task, the masts /stanchions would have been well apart  and a blockade would be needed anyway with all wires and cables temporarily lifted, not that complicated - hardly trashing 10 miles of wiring.

Hanborough depends on the LEP but it seems unreasonable to wait for many years to fill this important gap.

It depends on the value placed on the passenger experience.

OTC

Are there issues at Sydney Gardens? This is something I have a bee in my bonnet about, hence my post (https://fosbr.org.uk/electrification-through-bath/) on the FoSBR website last year. Is there an outstanding issue that I've missed?

I absolutely agree that Bristol will have to wait until the refurbishment work at Bristol Temple Meads is complete. 25kv wires and a forest of scaffolding just doesn't sound like a healthy mix. CP7 is not too far off, and it'll be nice to have a bit of a break from long engineering possessions!

Special pleading here - juice rails from Wokingham to Ash junction and Shalford junction to Reigate NOW!

There are some high hurdles to get over for new exposed top contact third rail (eg the standard Southern system) the significant change is NR Electrification policy now allows third rail to be considered to extend / expand current third rail routes, this change has the support of the ORR and DfT.

The hurdles are all the risk assessments removal of public footpath crossing and where practical road level crossings, lineside fencing has to be enhanced each station has to be risk assessed for the public access to live conductors.   The current rules and working practices for staff to access an energised railway are unlikely to be accepted by the ORR for future new third rail electrification.

Its just not simple

I get the impression that the key distinction may rest in the difference between an extension of existing 3rd rail and new third rail. I don't think there is any wish for the latter and the former is really de minimis.

It's a pity ORR's assessors don't have to use the services whose electrification they choose to block. A risk assessment can go either way depending on the scoring and the breadth of factors considered.

I also hope that this new wiring to Wigan may prompt Merseyrail to go dual voltage for its extensions and even consider some conversion.

OTC

Although new conductor rail electrification is now allowed in theory, I doubt that we will see any beyond VERY minor extensions.
Someone, somewhere, has still got to "sign of" a new conductor rail installation as being "as safe as is reasonably practical" whilst knowingly rejecting available and safer alternatives such as OHLE or battery power. That person could be at risk of prosecution years later when a trespasser is killed.

I can't see the distinction between killing a trespasser by kinetic rather than electrical energy. A kJ from any source applied to the human body will have a similar effect. Having been on several services that have hit people, the train does generally win.

What is legally necessary is that inadvertent harm is not caused. Injury caused by trespassing on an active railway whether electrified or not cannot be inadvertent.

A small exception has been made for unmaintained fencing where children have gained easy access.

OTC

I agree, but the courts and legal system do not. They seem likely to take the view that conductor rails introduce an EXTRA hazard in addition to that of being run over. I take the view that trespassers get what they deserve, but the law sees it otherwise. Older children should be warned of the risks and those too young to understand should be supervised.

The risk assessments do involve future, the mitigation for this at the time of design is to have the maintenance plan developed, this applies equally well to any existing railway where a major improvement is carried out.  Its just the type of anti trespass measures and the maintenance of it depends on electrification type or non electrified, line speed etc the infrastructure operator at some future date in the event of a trespass getting killed or injured woill have to demonstrate in a Court that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent the trespass.

For extension / infill of exposed top contact third rail electrification there are hurdles to overcome but they are not insurmountable.  Alternative fuels / batteries may not provide the answer for high speed (100 to 150kmh) high density rail system we have in the UK.   The change in policy does place extension / infill of exposed top contact third rail electrification back on the electrification agenda