Great Western Coffee Shop

Hi all

Just wondered if anybody can answer my question: Is there any plans to electrify the Cotswolds line? Thanks.
Kind regards
GWR 158

Didcot-Oxford fill-in is possible in mid-futire & that might include going as far as Hanborough, but not otherwise

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/rail-decarbonisation-update/ from July 2020 suggests it might be in due course ... and I need to turn up the Network Rail long term zero carbon plan too. 

My cynical suspicion is that decarbonisation plans consist largely of calls for research into batteries, hydrogen, or things not yet invented, rather than putting up the wires.

OHLE is expensive, calls for more research are cheap.
OHLE is very last year now, the future is "innovative solutions"
OHLE upsets the NIMBYs, but who could object to research into "green innovation"

The Network Rail plan is called the Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (TDNS) and can be found here (9 page summary version) (https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Traction-Decarbonisation-Network-Strategy-Executive-Summary.pdf) or, if you have a few spare hours, here (full 257 page version) (https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Traction-Decarbonisation-Network-Strategy-Interim-Programme-Business-Case.pdf). In fact, this is the TDNS 'Interim Programme Business Case', I'm not sure when we can expect the final version, which I think I read somewhere is supposed to include a suggested sequence for the programme.

The TDNS might contain calls for research into batteries, hydrogen, or things not yet invented (I don't know, I haven't read it through, not even the short version) but I doubt it largely consists of such calls based on the parts I have read which make very clear that lots and lots of new OHLE is recommended. For example, in the case of the Cotswolds line, the prefered option is electrification for the entire route (although the last bit from Worcester to Hereford is considered to be only marginally in favour of electrification).

Even if the Government accepts these recommendations, which they may not have done, there is a big problem in terms of when you implement it. The report strongly advises against ordering any new diesel-only trains, but diesel fleets already in-existance or on-order before it was published have a life expectancy stretching beyond 2050 and are potentially in sufficient numbers to run ALL the services Network Rail see as suitable for battery and hydrogen trains combined.

It might, it might not, but I don't think that one method can be chosen above all others without looking into the costs, benefits and limitations of all of them. If nothing else, the lobbyists have to be answered. You may have noticed two-paged spread adverts in the papers and colour supplements recently, extolling the virtues of hydrogen as the fuel of the future. Unlike all the other adverts, they aren't aimed at persuading me to run out and buy some hydrogen now, but to form the opinion that hydrogen will save us all, not just the oil companies and National Grid's gas pipe network, and tell our MP that it is what we want. That's if he isn't already a sponsored member of the parliamentary group of influencers.

Unfortunately, railways have traditionally ended up with the cheapest way of doing something rather than a proper longer term strategy, something that more than ever is needed. The question should not be "What will we spend money on in the next 5-year plan?" but "How can the national railway network be powered forever, and how do we reach that point?" OHLE should really be the default choice, with the decarbonisation being achieved in the generation of the electricity. We know that is as clean as the energy supply, which isn't always the case with batteries, hydrogen, and certainly not diesel. If something new and better happens along in a few years' time, we can switch to that for the lines run by diesel, and replace OHLE with whatever it is when it is time expired. That might be 50 years hence for newer schemes like the GWR, which is but a moment in time in railway planning.

Hydrogen and batteries may have a place on smaller branch lines, but main lines should all be electric. That may well swing the balance in favour of OHLE for branches where trains do a fair bit of the route under wires. It may be cheaper to electrify than have trains with different types of motive power, and multiple refuelling facilities at depots.

One of the out comes of the Shapps / Williams review was the effect that DfT and ORR had on 'Railway' Engineering and Operation where electrification was involved.   The end of the World type OLE structures used on GWEP was an onerous performance and onerous safety requirements place on NR.  NR would not go back to head span OLE construction on mainlines but neither would they choose the tsunami proof OLE structures used on GWEP.

If the Railway Industry is allowed to sensibly engineer its electrification without the heavy hand of Government along with the hoped for simpler engineering access under GBR to deliver electrification the cost should reduce dramatically

hasn't helped with the tsunamis between Paddington and Slough.

I did say structures and not the wire  ;D  also a large part of Paddington - Slough electrification is Mk III headspan construction

Isn't that what Network Rail have done with the TDNS? As I said, I've not read it cover-to-cover but the point of it seems to be an analysis of decarbonisation methods (electrification, battery and hydrogen) to determine which is optimal for each route.
 
I agree, and it would appear (with some scope for argument over what constitutes a 'main line') that Network Rail does too as the TDNS has electrification as the solution for the vast majority of the network.

I think there might be a bit of that at play in the TDNS; I cannot think why they would be proposing to electrify the Fishguard branch otherwise, unless this was a rather high-level analysis and everything west of Carmarthen was considered as a whole.

It might help to consider the "dripping tap" approach to wiring presently occurring.

There are definite schemes progressing at least between:

Man Vic and Stalybridge
Stalybridge and Guide Bridge
Huddersfield (West) and Dewsbury
Dewsbury "right through to Leeds"
Colton Jn and Church Fenton (North)
Lostock Jn and Wigan Wallgate
Leeds and Bradford Int
Glendon Jn and Market Harborough (reported that one crew erected 29 masts in a single possession)
East Kilbride.
Cardiff Valleys

Only some have been "announced". Others have just started piling without fanfare. Yet others are either promised or included in budgets such as MML and Midlands Engine. Perhaps we'll see something nearer us soon, the Oxfordshire LEP is the key.

There'll be a lot of pan upping and downing if the gaps aren't filled!

Greetings,

OTC

This has historically been the case, when a route is electrified the train operator and maintainers want to see one type of traction and indeed the passengers like to see it too.

With the introduction of bi-mode this has mudded the waters a little, the main funder of schemes, the Government, see the having one type of traction as good reason.  Decarbonisation of course should change this view.

In the pre Covid times I would have expected to have seen Royal Wootton Basset and Bristol PW to Bristol TM electrification in the next Control Period (CP7) 2024 to 29, with the tightening of budgets due to covid this may be pushed to CP8

It seems a rather fragmented approach, but any electrification is better than none.
Every little helps, firstly by reducing diesel used by bi mode trains, and secondly each bit that is done makes further electrification more worthwhile.

As other posters have said, it's probably a twinkle in someone's eye, but a long way down the list of priorities, not to mention in "the south", with a lot of rich and influential residents likely to object to overhead structures and the inconvenience of bridge reconstructions etc.

As others have suggested Didcot to Oxford, terminating at Wolvercot Jcn or possibly a little beyond, will likely be done in the next few years as part of the rebuild of Oxford Station 

I could also see electrification of services from Birmingham to Worcester/Great Malvern (and possibly Hereford) a reasonable prospect if TfWM can make a business case and get their hands on funding.

But beyond that, with bi-mode stock being used anyway, its hard to see a business case for electrifying the central section unless there are significant benefits for speed/capacity/savings from not using self-powered stock etc.

That said, I reckon there's a fairly reasonable case for the Golden Valley line being electrified if Gloucester and Cheltenham had been wired and so the expensive bits were removed from the equation, even though their services are mainly run using bi-mode 80x stock