Great Western Coffee Shop

All across the Great Western territory => Across the West => Topic started by: willc on July 22, 2009, 10:45:15 pm



Title: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on July 22, 2009, 10:45:15 pm
It's official - and since the minister has broken the embargo the likes of me were told to observe I can let the rest of you know before the morning.

Lord Adonis's article in The Times is here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6723747.ece

From what I have been told, the GWML project will be in three phases, don't know how these break down yet, but perhaps Reading, Oxford, Newbury area first, then on to Bristol and finally Cardiff and Swansea. I say this because Adonis hints that the extra Thames Valley DMUs will now be EMUs instead - which may account for the delay to the order and the disappearance of 40-odd FGW vehicles from the tally Roger Ford keeps, which was mentioned in the Portsmouth-Cardiff thread. These DMUs were slated for a late 2012 or early 2013 delivery anyway, so you could probably have made some headway on wiring the Thames Valley by then ready for EMUs in their place.

At present, they are budgeting ^ ^ ^ ^1.1bn for GMWL work and Liverpool to Manchester on the classic George Stephenson route via Rainhill, so a nice nod to Brunel and Britain's other key railway pioneer.

PS One thing I did forget earlier is the age of Oxford's signals - have to wonder it would be worth immunising kit that is due to be torn out by 2015 or so.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on July 22, 2009, 11:14:56 pm

A key item that should protect GWML (and MML) electrification against the coming 20% spending cuts is that the BCR's (Computed benefits/nett costs) are "infinite", in accountancy terms, as the nett costs are less than zero, it being cheaper to electrify over a given service life than to keep buying MTU power units.

Pity it's taken 12 years for Labour to be true to itself.

Thank you Gordon (although weren't your Blair's Chancellor?).

OTC


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IanC on July 22, 2009, 11:15:17 pm
It was the main story of Today's (Wednesday) BBC Points West about electrification, where it was stated it would take up to 8 years to complete with the South Wales Main Line also expected to be 'converted'.

More would be revealed on Thursday's show they said.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on July 22, 2009, 11:16:53 pm
Great news, though one can only hope that the project survives the likely change of government next year. Adonis talks of it starting immediately, though as we know, that won't mean the first support foundations being piled next week. I can't see any work starting on the ground before the election, so it would be an easy project to can (unlike Crossrail where there seems a concerted effort to start boring the tunnels early next year, making cancellation very difficult).

So what will be the most difficult bits? Tunnels presumably - I guess the work required in the Severn Tunnel would make Swindon - Kemble redoubling a done deal given the need for ST blockages. Any others need lowering? A closure at Box could mean the reinstatement of Bradford North curve.  

 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on July 23, 2009, 08:09:50 am
Great news, though one can only hope that the project survives the likely change of government next year. Adonis talks of it starting immediately, though as we know, that won't mean the first support foundations being piled next week. I can't see any work starting on the ground before the election, so it would be an easy project to can (unlike Crossrail where there seems a concerted effort to start boring the tunnels early next year, making cancellation very difficult).

So what will be the most difficult bits? Tunnels presumably - I guess the work required in the Severn Tunnel would make Swindon - Kemble redoubling a done deal given the need for ST blockages. Any others need lowering? A closure at Box could mean the reinstatement of Bradford North curve.  

The route has been survived with a HD video, which parts of this I have seen, this is giving the designers enough information so they can target areas that need more detailed surveying before outline designs are made, this HD video gave the NR team sufficient detail to give DfT the cost of the electrification.   There are a few tough areas for equipment but far fewer than when the WCML was done 40 years ago.

The work may not be done in a linear way, that is you may see foundations being put in say between Didcot and Swindon and then left and then foundation being put in somewhere else then the masts might go up.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: jakemonkfish on July 23, 2009, 09:15:20 am
Local news was reporting london to bristol parkway and on to Waleswith a connection to Temple Meads - if this is correct then Swindon-Bristol via Bath and the B&H will miss out. Bath as the new Melksham...


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: RailCornwall on July 23, 2009, 10:01:05 am
The report is now on the DFT Website (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/railelectrification.pdf).



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on July 23, 2009, 10:27:28 am
Local news was reporting london to bristol parkway and on to Waleswith a connection to Temple Meads - if this is correct then Swindon-Bristol via Bath and the B&H will miss out. Bath as the new Melksham...

the DfT report (which has a photo of HST at Bath Spa on the front of it) shows the route through Bath and Box tunnel as part of the electrification plans


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: RailCornwall on July 23, 2009, 10:49:40 am
(http://premium1.uploadit.org/ChrisCornwall3/News/GWML.jpg)
Planned Routes


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bemmy on July 23, 2009, 10:58:59 am
Excellent news.... I didn't really believe they would do it, so for the first time in years my cynicism about something has turned out to be wrong!  ;D

The DfT have said that they are now considering extending Crossrail to Reading as it will be electrified anyway, presumably this will get the go-ahead unless they are completely crazy.

Overall though I think they are still being too cautious -- assuming London-Sheffield goes ahead, surely it would be daft not to add sensible infill projects such as Oxford - Birmingham, Bristol - Birmingham - Derby, Sheffield - Leeds and York, Transpennine routes, etc. Especially now that, by authorising Liverpool - Manchester, they've broken the rule that all electrified mainlines lead to London.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on July 23, 2009, 11:00:38 am
Lord Adonis on the BBC new website

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8164070.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8164070.stm)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andy on July 23, 2009, 11:05:04 am
Very good news! Would anyone like to speculate about what side effects are likely to result from this, in terms of stock being cascaded and surplus diesel stock being made available for other/new diagrams?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: jakemonkfish on July 23, 2009, 11:14:14 am
Thanks for the map - but I am now wondering if John Penrose was correct to worry about trains from Weston as long term lack of wires means all trains will either finish in Bristol or need some clever solution to get to the 'sunny south west'. This assumes that the Weston-Worle redoubling occurs, increasing access for electric trains with no power supply. If you live further out ( Highbridge, Bridgewater or Taunton, or even Devon) then what?

Yes I'm a happy soul this morning - but there is more to the westcountry than Bristol and South Wales and it is good news really I just want more . What is the opposite of a NIMBY?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on July 23, 2009, 11:22:20 am
In the DfT statement it states the 202 DMU vehicle order is superseded and a replacement for the rolling stock plan is to be produced.

Quote
This electrification programme radically affects the requirements for rolling
stock over the next decade. There will be far less need for diesel trains and
a greater requirement for electric trains. In particular, the previously-planned
procurement by the Government of new diesel trains has now been
superseded. We will accordingly publish a new rolling stock plan in the
autumn, taking account of the changed circumstances.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/railelectrification.pdf (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/railelectrification.pdf)


Sounds like most of the mooted new DMU vehicles won't now happen at all, so there will be plenty of internal cascades necessary just to sort out routes such as Cardiff - Portsmouth. If you recall I mentioned on Monday that Roger Ford had drawn ateention to the 44 vehicles having disappeared, and as I've posted in the past, the various RUSs include gauge clearance for use of Turbos on the Pompey route...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Wolvercote Wanderer on July 23, 2009, 11:33:53 am
This is great news!

But how do you think will it affect direct London services which currently terminate just beyond the new electric lines i.e. Carmarthen, Bedwyn or Weston-super-Mare?

I can't see a diesel service running 'under-the-wires' just for these relatively short extensions to mainline services.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bemmy on July 23, 2009, 11:38:46 am
This is great news!

But how do you think will it affect direct London services which currently terminate just beyond the new electric lines i.e. Carmarthen, Bedwyn or Weston-super-Mare?

I can't see a diesel service running 'under-the-wires' just for these relatively short extensions to mainline services.
Why not? seeing as Virgin run diesel trains under the wires all the way from Birmingham to Glasgow.....  ::)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Wolvercote Wanderer on July 23, 2009, 12:01:41 pm
Why not? seeing as Virgin run diesel trains under the wires all the way from Birmingham to Glasgow.....  ::)

 :) Good point, well made!

Let's hope Virgin don't get their grubby mits on Greater Western or we could see the same.  *Shudder*


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: polonia on July 23, 2009, 12:08:15 pm
The  paper on the DFT website seems to suggest that re-furbished (with air-con added) Thameslink stock will cascade to suburban lines out of Paddington (eventually inner-surbuban will be covered by cross-rail stock) when the Thameslink upgrade is finished and their new stock delivered. It then suggests turbos (expect presumably those still needed for the branch lines) would then be sent on to the Bristol area freeing up further units for transfer North.

I presume this means the FCC Class 319s - which will be geetting on a bit by then and in serious need of an upgrade.

 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on July 23, 2009, 12:18:08 pm
Does "approved" actually mean that physical work will start ? Or does it mean that approval has been given for more meetings/assesments/commitess etc ?

I seem to remember crossrail being "approved" dozens of times, the first "approval" being perhaps 15 years ago.
And although the thameslink 2000 project has now started, I believe that it was so named because it was to be completed for the millenium !

Still it IS progress even if this only turns out to be only the first of many approvals.

My main concern though is with overcrowding in both the near and longer terms.
A natural cynic like me forsees even worse overcrowding in the near term since building new diesels cant be justified.
The electric trains cant run until the work is done, which is bound to take longer than expected.

Therefore FGW have a splendid excuse to do nothing about crowding for say 10 years.

In the longer term, I would have my doubts as to how suitable the electric trains will be for inter city use.
What we need is full length loco hauled trains with seats facing accross tables, luggage space, ample leg room, and a proper buffet and restaurant.
What we will probably get is high density EMU outer-suburban train with bus seats, minimal luggage space and perhaps a trolley.

I have travelled on many routes that have suffered "total route modernisation" which normally means shorter less comfortable trains with reduced luggage space and no catering.

My local service ( catford loop line) was downgraded from 8 car trains to 6 car because "the new trains have plenty of standing room"

Waterloo to Exeter services were downgraded from full length locohauled trains to short DMUs with no buffet, cramped mainly bus seats, and space for only 1 cycle. Complaints about overcrowding being answered by advising passengers to allways book a seat.

Waterloo to Bournmouth services have been downgraded from proper intercity electric trains (the Wessex electrics) to suburban trains quite unsuited to long trips.

Whilst we will no doubt be promised that it will be different this time, previous "improvements do not fill me with confidence.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on July 23, 2009, 12:19:53 pm
It then suggests turbos (expect presumably those still needed for the branch lines) would then be sent on to the Bristol area freeing up further units for transfer North.

I presume this means the FCC Class 319s - which will be geetting on a bit by then and in serious need of an upgrade.

And of course as we know from previous discussions, in railway speak (and timetables) the 'Bristol Area' extends to Portsmouth and Cardiff.  ???

The 319s are about 20 years old now (half life?),  so a major rebuild including totally new seating and aircon on completion of their time with Thameslink would give them another 10-15 years easily.  Also AIUI the first Thameslink new trains arrive in 2012, so there might be time to have an initial batch in the works before they're needed in the Thames Valley?

What I find interesting is the turn round all of a sudden, everyone is now talking about EMU cascades all over the place, for instance outside the FGW area they are now suggesting LM 350s being used by TPX on Manchester - Scotland vice 185s for instance. Remarkable stuff...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: RailCornwall on July 23, 2009, 12:24:51 pm
I presume that the IEP order for the GWML will now be almost exclusively the hybrid variant, so once in the electrification area that it'll run on AC whilst outside Diesel traction will be used.



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on July 23, 2009, 12:25:54 pm
Waterloo to Exeter services were downgraded from full length locohauled trains to short DMUs with no buffet, cramped mainly bus seats, and space for only 1 cycle. Complaints about overcrowding being answered by advising passengers to allways book a seat.

Waterloo to Bournmouth services have been downgraded from proper intercity electric trains (the Wessex electrics) to suburban trains quite unsuited to long trips.


A bit of exaggeration there surely? The Salisbury line now sees trains of up to 9 or 10 coaches in the peaks, and the 158/159 'bus seating' is the same as in the Wessies, with plenty of tables throughout. I'm not sure about bikes, but I definitely see more than one in each unit on occasions, since the original bike store was removed...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on July 23, 2009, 12:31:06 pm
I presume that the IEP order for the GWML will now be almost exclusively the hybrid variant, so once in the electrification area that it'll run on AC whilst outside Diesel traction will be used.


No, they say it will be mostly all electric for the main lines, with some 'bi-mode' for routes beyond. 

Bi-mode is how they refer to the dual powered diesel and electric. The 'full diesel' IEP still has hybrid power packs, the term refers to regeneration into a battery bank, like the Hayabusa trial PC for the measurement train.

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: devon_metro on July 23, 2009, 01:04:35 pm
It does seem a bit shorted to not go as far as Bedwyn. Also, i'd be interested to know how Weston and the very busy line to the West Country is to be served?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on July 23, 2009, 02:29:37 pm
I can possibly see unit like the Hitachi ones on HS1 being used eventually on the GWML to Bristol and Cardiff, the GWML has a number of places where +125 running is feasible.  The problem with the 319's they are 20 years old now by the time electrifcation is inplace on the GWML outer suburban the units will be closer to 30 years old, I wounder if DfT mean the 321's



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on July 23, 2009, 02:31:26 pm
Here's something that's annoying me...

GWML electrification reported on the Guardian (top billing when I looked a few minutes ago) and BBC sites this morning, along no doubt with many others.  Great news! And these are two news organizations that I have a great deal of time and respect for. But how does the BBC report it? "Minimum rail disruption pledged". The media seem to be focusing on the temporary disruption that will be caused by stringing up the knitting rather than the huge benefits this will ring long into the future. The Guardian also manages to put a negative slant on things with the sub-headline "Network Rail to transform Britain's busiest rail route, causing four years of disruption for passengers" underneath the electrification headline on the UK front page.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8164942.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8164942.stm)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jul/23/electric-rail-line-great-western (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jul/23/electric-rail-line-great-western)

Honestly.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on July 23, 2009, 02:35:24 pm
It does seem a bit shorted to not go as far as Bedwyn. Also, i'd be interested to know how Weston and the very busy line to the West Country is to be served?

Fairly obviously, I would have thought, by diesels. Presumably any services to Exeter/Plymouth/Penzance running via the Berks and Hants will have to be diesel throughout, although it does rather raise the prospect of diesel trains running all the way under the wires to Bristol on West Country services that take the "Great Way Round". Sadly I don't suppose there's much chance of a sudden outbreak of common sense involving loco-hauled stock changing from diesel to electric traction at suitable locations.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on July 23, 2009, 02:39:52 pm
Well after all the problems caused by WCML modernisation, it's perhaps not unreasonable to expect a smidgen of disruption.

As for the stock, the DafT report makes it pretty clear that the 319s - and I'm sure that's what they mean, will be given a good going over - presumably on the scale of the HST refresh - and get air-conditioning which sounds a hell of a lot better than the old 1950s Great Eastern suburban units that were the first electric trains seen in West Yorkshire when the Aire Valley was electrified.

And the IEP is an intercity train - if it ever gets built.

I was rather tickled by DafT's description of the Turbo fleet as 'modern' dmus. And no mention of them getting any refit, over and above FGW's current proposals for the fleet


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ReWind on July 23, 2009, 03:00:27 pm
It does seem a bit shorted to not go as far as Bedwyn. Also, i'd be interested to know how Weston and the very busy line to the West Country is to be served?

Fairly obviously, I would have thought, by diesels. Presumably any services to Exeter/Plymouth/Penzance running via the Berks and Hants will have to be diesel throughout, although it does rather raise the prospect of diesel trains running all the way under the wires to Bristol on West Country services that take the "Great Way Round". Sadly I don't suppose there's much chance of a sudden outbreak of common sense involving loco-hauled stock changing from diesel to electric traction at suitable locations.

Sadly, yes!  I suspect Penzance/Plymouth to Bristol FGW services are going to stay HST, then there will be a change of train at BRI, onto electric, for onward stations to London  I doubt many people travel from Cornwall/Devon to London via Bristol anyway, when there are faster services to the B&H.

Also, I belive London - Cheltenham services will become London - Swindon sevices electric, then Swindon - Cheltenham on a west unit.  Same applies for WSM, where it will be London - Bri electric, then a west unit to WSM/TAu.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: tramway on July 23, 2009, 03:38:58 pm
I presume that the IEP order for the GWML will now be almost exclusively the hybrid variant, so once in the electrification area that it'll run on AC whilst outside Diesel traction will be used.


Are you sure it would work out like that. There a currently many London Bristol/Swansea terminators that would be ok as pure electric, probably requiring only a limited stock of hybrids for the extended diagrams.

And voyagers are going to be with us for quite a while yet whatever the Evening Post has to say.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage/Bristol-London-line-electrified/article-1189000-detail/article.html

In fact I would bet that there will still be a requirement for the full diesel version as the benifits to be gained for having part electric on both the B&H and beyond Bristol probably don't add up.



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on July 23, 2009, 05:02:32 pm
Well after all the problems caused by WCML modernisation, it's perhaps not unreasonable to expect a smidgen of disruption.

The WCML was a re-electrification scheme much much more difficult to do that than electrify for the first time.  Also lessoned learned from the WCML means the selection and erection of the new OHLE will allow for renewals in the future.  With a new route it is easier to section prove the OHLE sections test and commission system control and electrical protection systems spaced over several week nights and or weekends where as when a re-electrification is done all the section proving etc has to be done in time for the first train, having been involved with both I'll opt for new electrification any day although there is something about the challenges during a re-electrification.

The days of headspan like the ECML and MML are over headspan is very unlikely to be used again, portals will be used where there are complex areas or a large span is required; the problems with a headspan system is when there is a dewirement on a line it tends to affect the other lines as the headspan comes down as well also isolations are troublesome when needed on a single track only


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bemmy on July 23, 2009, 05:48:03 pm
Sadly, yes!  I suspect Penzance/Plymouth to Bristol FGW services are going to stay HST, then there will be a change of train at BRI, onto electric, for onward stations to London  I doubt many people travel from Cornwall/Devon to London via Bristol anyway, when there are faster services to the B&H.
In my experience, they do on at least 3 services. The first down and last up between Paddington and Cornwall travel via Bristol so although they are slow, they are essential for many travellers to and from Devon and Cornwall. Likewise the down Torbay Express always seems to have large numbers travelling through Bristol and Weston, presumably most of them have boarded at Paddington, as it's the only through train from there to Torbay before the evening service. Of course in the long term, if passenger numbers grow, these three might be replaced with direct trains.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: devon_metro on July 23, 2009, 06:08:20 pm
I find the 1737 Penzance - Paddington via Bristol a very useful service! Used it at least twice recently.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on July 23, 2009, 07:05:51 pm
One major downside is cancellation of the 200 vehicle dmu order, on the basis that they won't be needed. Given these units were meant to be in place in 2 years, and electrification is another 7 years away, that seems to be an excuse to prevent a loss of face.

And by the time the Turbos are cascaded, as willc mentions, they will be 30 years old. 30 year old underfloor engined dmus are effectively life expired and will be fit only for scrap, not reallocation.

It does make sense though that the units released by Thameslink are reused. They will still have 10 to 15 years life left in them (assuming a 40 year lifetime), and so it helps the cost justification of the scheme.   



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on July 23, 2009, 07:24:45 pm
Here's something that's annoying me...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8164942.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8164942.stm)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jul/23/electric-rail-line-great-western (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jul/23/electric-rail-line-great-western)


At least that is the secondary BBC story though, this one appeared first, although subsequently updated:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8164070.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8164070.stm)

The Times went with the disruption angle as well though:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6723888.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6723888.ece)

I agree it's annoying though, they get grief all the time from journalists, if they do nothing they are letting the system 'creak' or 'rust' or something, if they plan something useful its always 'Misery for Commuters'...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: The Grecian on July 23, 2009, 07:29:19 pm
Hmmm. Finally a new electrification project. Got to be a good thing. I can't find it now but earlier the BBC story mentioned that a lot of the bridges and tunnels will have to be demolished. I can't really see that demolishing any tunnels is likely to help.

I suspect the line to Exeter and on to Cornwall will probably keep diesel intercity services for a long time though - it could be electrified as far as Plymouth but I doubt it'd be any further and Cornwall wouldn't want to lose its through services. Weston is probably in danger of losing at least some of its IC services but that'll probably depend on the number of IEP trains FGW gets.

Waterloo to Exeter services were downgraded from full length locohauled trains to short DMUs with no buffet, cramped mainly bus seats, and space for only 1 cycle. Complaints about overcrowding being answered by advising passengers to allways book a seat.

Waterloo to Bournmouth services have been downgraded from proper intercity electric trains (the Wessex electrics) to suburban trains quite unsuited to long trips.


A bit of exaggeration there surely? The Salisbury line now sees trains of up to 9 or 10 coaches in the peaks, and the 158/159 'bus seating' is the same as in the Wessies, with plenty of tables throughout. I'm not sure about bikes, but I definitely see more than one in each unit on occasions, since the original bike store was removed...

Paul

If you can find anyone other than enthusiasts who's disappointed that totally unreliable 50s and 47s and elderly Mk 2s were replaced with ultra-reliable new 159s which were far better suited to the stop-start nature of the route due to their quicker acceleration and braking, bringing journey times down - then I'll be impressed!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on July 23, 2009, 07:37:37 pm
I can possibly see unit like the Hitachi ones on HS1 being used eventually on the GWML to Bristol and Cardiff, the GWML has a number of places where +125 running is feasible.  The problem with the 319's they are 20 years old now by the time electrifcation is inplace on the GWML outer suburban the units will be closer to 30 years old, I wounder if DfT mean the 321's


I think from all the existing bumph, what you'll see on Bristol and Cardiff is some variants of IEP, no need for Javelin type trains really. Commuter layout for the Bristols perhaps - which is basically as per the 2+7 HST AFAICT?

It is very definitely ex-Thameslink 319s though. The DfT electrification proposals are quite explicit on this point, also stating that they will be given a full modernisation including air con.  If the new Thameslink rolling stock all arrives as planned, (better if they go to Siemens rather than Bombardier obviously) units will probably be available for overhaul in the couple of years before they are actually needed...

Paul  


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on July 23, 2009, 09:00:56 pm
Might I recommend that everyone reads the DfT report that is linked on the first page of the thread - you will find the answers to many of the points you raise contained within it, not least about rolling stock.

And you won't even have to get past the foreword to read the following from Lord Adonis:
Quote
Further work is ongoing to assess the detailed costs and benefits of electrification on other routes. The rail industry recently published for consultation its Network Route Utilisation Strategy: Electrification. The Government will carefully consider the costs and benefits of wider electrification, with particular reference to the Midland Main Line between London and Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield, as well as the routes between Manchester and Preston, and Liverpool and Preston.

The Network Rail strategy discusses going on even further, to the likes of XC, the Berks and Hants and TransPennine. Give them a chance - they're trying to roll back hostile attitudes towards railways built up over decades within DafT. 

Some of the 200 DMUs vehicles will probably still be bought, as Northern and Transpennine are going to be relying on oil for many services for quite a while yet - and they were never going to be available in two years' time. DafT always said delivery would be "by 2012" which could mean pretty much anything in their terms.

I don't imagine that transferred Turbos are necessarily going to be expected to keep going forever. If you wire XC to Plymouth and the Berks and Hants and Salisbury-Exeter, then you make wiring the likes of Bristol suburban and connecting routes like Bristol-Southampton and to Weymouth far more cost effective too - the kind of rolling electrification that NR and ATOC want and which most of the rest of Europe has been carrying through for decades, so the Turbos would tide you over in these sorts of places until the wires went up.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on July 23, 2009, 09:52:33 pm
If you wire XC to Plymouth and the Berks and Hants and Salisbury-Exeter, then you make wiring the likes of Bristol suburban and connecting routes like Bristol-Southampton and to Weymouth far more cost effective too - the kind of rolling electrification that NR and ATOC want and which most of the rest of Europe has been carrying through for decades, so the Turbos would tide you over in these sorts of places until the wires went up.

I agree and todays announcement has put a push to start the ball rolling still needs a bit more kinetic energy though


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: matt473 on July 23, 2009, 10:13:06 pm
Some of the 200 DMUs vehicles will probably still be bought, as Northern and Transpennine are going to be relying on oil for many services for quite a while yet - and they were never going to be available in two years' time. DafT always said delivery would be "by 2012" which could mean pretty much anything in their terms.


Apparently the whole order has been cancelled with the government to announce a new plan regarding stock allocations such as the cascade of turbos to other FGW services allowing the transfer of sprinters for example to Northern. I don't know how accurate it is but some people who have made accurate guesses to electrification before it was announced seem to suggest this


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on July 23, 2009, 10:54:34 pm
But in a context where passenger traffic on Northern and TransPennine has skyrocketed in the past few years, creating massive overcrowding in the peaks around Leeds and Manchester, saying you'll have to hang on until 2016 for some very tired 150s and 158s from FGW, to follow the tired 150s you will get from LM in 2011 or so is not really a sensible answer - wiring the Liverpool-Manchester line via Rainhill will free up precious few DMUs, nor would the other routes in the North West Adonis mentions as electrification prospects, because you will still need diesel power to get past Preston to Blackpool and Carnforth to Barrow, to name but two of the lines with many through trains to Manchester.

I would not be surprised if the latest version of the ever-changing rolling stock plan recognises this fact and includes a modest batch of DMUs - they were planning to give the north about half of those new DMUs, on top of whatever LM 150s they are getting, and nothing DafT has come up with so far suggests how they will plug that capacity gap in the north.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: dog box on July 23, 2009, 10:59:00 pm
only big problem with this scheme is as 40% of our electricity is generated by ageing nuclear power stations which will be closed within a few years, where is the electricity coming from? ,,because i dont see any new generation capacity being introduced apart from a few windmills


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on July 24, 2009, 01:22:51 pm
Might I recommend that everyone reads the DfT report that is linked on the first page of the thread - you will find the answers to many of the points you raise contained within it, not least about rolling stock.

And a very interesting document it is too! Let's hope this isn't going to be stamped upon by the likely next Government as there are so many facets to it that make sense. Aside from the usual comments from negative observers such as the Unions and those "anti-everything-British-connected-to-the-railways-for-the-sake-of-it" comment lovers on the national press websites, there really is so much common sense in these proposals. Adonis should be congratulated for the immense positive push he has given the railway industry since his arrival. If only he'd been in place 5 years ago!

I do have some comments and observations of the proposals though (apologies if they have already been touched on in this thread):

1) Crossrail extending to Reading- And about time too. I've always said this was a no-brainer. Assuming TfL play ball, then this makes perfect sense and always has done. Here's a thought though - why not extend Crossrail to Newbury and Oxford? Perhaps not all day, but if a few of the peak hour fast trains that currently run through from Newbury and Oxford were to extend through the Crossrail tunnel then journey times for commuters working in Canary Wharf and other areas of London could be cut and they would not have the hassle of changing trains. Calling points would logically be Didcot/Thatcham/Theale and Reading - with perhaps scope for some trains to stop at Cholsey, Goring, Pangbourne and Tilehurst as well as the other Kennet Line stations. The paths through the tunnel are available by the bucket load on services from the west.

2) Use of 4-Car ex-Thameslink stock on outer Suburban services - It makes sense for half-life stock to get a good refurb and then be used on these services, there's no doubt about that (as long as they do get air-con!). There is no mention of platform extensions though. Stations east of Reading will be lengthened as part of the Crossrail project, but replacing 3-car trains with 4-car ones does present some issues at places like Culham & Appleford (3-car, except Culham in down direction), and Cholsey, Goring, Pangbourne and Tilehurst are 6-car maximums, which means that trains will not be able to run coupled up in the peak hours unless they are extended. Also, Goring on the down main line is only of 3-car length. Hopefully these extensions will be undertaken as part of the project?

3) Bi-mode IEP's for non-electrified long distance through trains - Again it makes sense that trains to/from Weston, Carmarthan, the Cotwolds and Gloucester will use the Bi-mode IEP when the wires run out, but assuming that the majority of the Penzance trains will continue to use the B&H line after Reading, the amount of time they can draw from the juice is a fraction of the overall journey time. Perhaps a full diesel version of the IEP should still be procured for these services as Bi-mode trains with their one power unit will struggle performance wise on the gradients in Devon and Cornwall, with the only benefit being gained between London and Reading (or Newbury).

4) Curtailment of the electrification at Newbury - An Oxford extension makes perfect sense. Over half of the express trains start/terminate there and the few local services that come through from Banbury can easily form a diesel shuttle service. Also, extension of the electrification beyond Oxford to the Cotswold Line would probably be a step too far financially given the number of trains on the route, but what about Newbury? The current service off-peak is an hourly Newbury-Reading shuttle service that would become electric. No problem with that, it makes sense. However, what will become of the hourly diesel service from Paddington to Bedwyn? Bedwyn, Hungerford and Kintbury stations enjoy probably their best ever service into London. Unless the plan is for these to continue to be diesel hauled, or possible IEP Bi-mode trains running as diesel trains between Bedwyn and Newbury, then perhaps the extra money to extend the electrification as far as Bedwyn (or maybe even Westbury) would be more sensible. If not, users of these stations may see their services worsen significantly!

Thoughts?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on July 24, 2009, 04:49:04 pm
Your proposals make a lot of sense. If a sizeable proportion of commuters from Reading and Didcot exchanged the fast dash to Paddington and then onto the tube or Crossrail to a slightly slower but more comfortable journey without a change, then it could take a lot of the commuter pressure off the HSS. This would mean that the new units could be configured internally as intercity services, rather than the crammed sets we've currently got.(Sorry to re-open that old debate!) 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 24, 2009, 05:04:29 pm
This is excellent news, although we should remember that there is a real threat of a conservative government next year!

Despite the assurances that the Tories are pro rail (e.g. the Heathrow debate), I saw on the news the Shadow Transport secretary adding her damper to the plans. Criticising them. I do hope some irreversible work is done soon - as the project could easily be "postponed" by the Tories, who of course won't benefit themselves.

Re: Oxford and Newbury. Seems very strange. Oxford seems ok, but Banbury trains will probably have to become shuttles, and there will be diesel under the wires for Cotswold trains but Newbury?

As has been mentioned, only ONE train per hour will go EMU! The money would be better spent electrifying to Weston. An alternative extension to Westbury would be good, allowing an hourly Westbury to Paddington semi-fast service.

A step in the correct direction. Good news. I'll keep my fingers crossed! :)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: devon_metro on July 24, 2009, 05:11:28 pm
This is excellent news, although we should remember that there is a real threat of a conservative government next year!

Could the same not be said regarding Labour's continual  back peddling regarding every other railway announcement in recent times? There was me looking forward to some nice brand new units for Portsmouth - Cardiff!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: RailCornwall on July 24, 2009, 06:14:57 pm
Just a thought for the distant future (maybe just a pipe dream) ... Are there the necessary clearances on the Royal Albert Bridge for the Pylons and cabling? All the pictures online seem to me to show insufficient room for such an installation.



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: RailCornwall on July 24, 2009, 07:11:50 pm
... and here's a link to how Railway Gazette International (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/10/inter-city-electrification-planning-to-start-immediately.html) has covered the news. Nice to see an article stripped of the politics and 'inconvenience' elements some media sources have taken.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on July 24, 2009, 10:39:44 pm
Well sorry to jump back on my sticking up for us media types hobbyhorse again, but Railway Gazette is a specialist industry publication, so a pared-down factual account of the nuts and bolts of the scheme is exactly what its readership expects.

The rest of us are serving a different audience and, whether you like it or not, the first question your average passenger (not people posting here, in the main, I would suggest) is typically going to ask, after such well-publicised fiascos as Rugby at Christmas 2007, is whether the work is going to muck up their journey over an extended period.

And one of the people saying there would be some disruption was... Lord Adonis, so is it surprising this line got picked up, one among many other strands, in the reports of the announcement? And Passenger Focus also used the d-word. It's very easy to shoot the messenger, as many of you seem keen to do, but we didn't make up the disruption line, it came from key players.

Quote
Banbury trains will probably have to become shuttles, there will be diesel under the wires for Cotswold trains

Most of the Cherwell Valley stopping service already operates Oxford-Banbury only and the DafT document says the IEP bi-mode will serve the destinations beyond the wires, so no diesel under wires, always assuming the thing can ever be made to perform on diesel power to the level they claim.

As for going to Bedwyn, it may maintain the status quo operationally but it will never get past the Treasury, as the numbers just won't stack up without it being part of a full Berks and Hants wiring scheme - unless the quarry operators around Westbury suddenly decide to fall out of love with big GM diesels and cough up for 25kv power instead. In this connection, I have to say I'm still slightly amazed Adonis got Cardiff-Swansea included, when it will have next to no benefit for ATW services.

If you have 319s and Turbos aplenty available, then it's surely cost-effective to run a 30-minute electric frequency to Newbury with a Turbo ready and waiting for a cross-platform connection for everywhere to Westbury (or even going on alternately to Frome/Warminster - I leave it to someone else better qualified to determine if you can create a workable timetable for something like this) - if you dug up a strip of the car park at Newbury and created a west-facing bay. Not ideal, as you would lose the through trains, but exchanging them for a 30-minute interval all day might be a fair swop - and electric acceleration would keep overall journey times to places west of Newbury much the same. You could even build a Parkway station for Devizes on the Andover road.

If no-one will stump up for platform extensions - and why not, given that they are doing so across the SWT suburban network - then with the amount of work they indicate will be done on the 319s, then surely they could fit SDO while they're at it.

II's suggestion of Crossrail to Oxford echoes the broad concept of the Superlink plan from 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4096667.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4096667.stm) but the government set its face against that idea straight away. Maybe in the brave new world of Andrew Adonis there might be a further outbreak of common sense at DafT, putting paid to the nonsense of turning back dozens of trains at Paddington and doing something useful with them west of London.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 24, 2009, 10:50:28 pm
Has anyone considered that having empty Crossrail trains turning around at Paddington might be quite useful for the streams of commuters thundering down from the FGW HSSs? ;)

And in order to keep the service in the central tunnel reliable (it will need to be with such a high frequency) they won't want the trains straying onto fast lines, or going too far out of London where they can pick up delay. The minute there's a delay - bang goes the Tube style frequecies.

How will hybrids manage on the Cotswold line? All that extra weight plus one less power car actually running... ???


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on July 24, 2009, 11:41:46 pm
So what do you suggest? A sealed system shuttling back and forwards from Paddington to Liverpool Street? No delay issues there...

One of the key points of Crossrail (and Superlink) was to ease the pressure on the London termini and the Underground by taking people direct from stations further out right into the centre of London. GWML punctuality is up with industry standards now, with Reading rebuilding and resignalling (and Cotswold Line redoubling) in hand to address some of the key causes of delay on the route, so why shouldn't it be capable of delivering trains from as far out as Oxford into the tunnel on time? If you're going to Reading with Crossrail anyway, as now seems a certainty, then why not go all the way to Didcot and Oxford too if the wires are there, then people wouldn't need to change trains at all?

The Paris RER system seems to work pretty well, as does Thameslink, which has a sight more complicated network of feeder routes south of the Thames, as far out as Brighton, than Crossrail will, so why shouldn't Crossrail be able to cope, especially in the context of an electrified GWML?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Oxman on July 25, 2009, 12:06:49 am
I believe SDO would require guards - existing services are DOO. Can't see that happening!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on July 25, 2009, 10:19:39 am
I believe SDO would require guards - existing services are DOO. Can't see that happening!

Do not need guards, a transponder is fitted to the station and trains, the station transponder tells the train the permitted door opening.

Newbury as the end of electrification I suspect is to do with power supply and boundary with signal box areas and all the immunisation that would be required, hopefully the wires will continue from Newbury quite quickly to Exeter or Plymouth.

Bunbury would be part of the "infill" to Brum and the Chiltern Line electrification both of which I suspect is wait for the results of the Oxford Cambridge East West Rail project


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on July 25, 2009, 10:53:32 am
I think it's pretty clear from what Network Rail and others have said in the past and from the DfT saying this week that MML is under further scrutiny that once you have MML and GWML wired, doing XC is the next big step, as it stitches together so much of the network, and the Berks & Hants comes after that, once an XC scheme gets you wires to Paignton and Plymouth. XC also frees up many recently-built DMUs for a cascade, hopefully ending with 142s, 143s and 144s disappearing.

The age of its DMU fleet is one of the factors in Chiltern being quite far down the queue for electrification, plus its relatively limited benefits south of Banbury as a diversionary route, since it doesn't go anywhere except London.

Indeed it could even be behind the likes of Southampton-Salisbury-Westbury-Bath, which is being looked at as a diversionary route (via Bristol) to the West Midlands for container trains from Southampton. Even a wired and fully redoubled Cotswold Line offers diversion possibilities for container trains and XC if Oxford-Banbury-Leamington is shut, although oddly the Network Rail electrification RUS ignored this possibility - even though BR used to run XC services this way in the 1990s.

Quote
I believe SDO would require guards - existing services are DOO. Can't see that happening!

Not if you have a system controlled by the on-board computers, like that fitted by Bombardier on Southern's 377 emus, which run DOO on London suburban duties. See below for the relevant sections from Southern's most recent safety certificate application.

The crew (there are conductors on board 377s beyond the suburban area) have nothing to do with the opening process - the system says 'open the doors on however many coaches will fit on the platform at this station', so can't see any reason why you could not fit something similar if you're going to strip the 319 coaches pretty much back to the bare metal during overhaul.

B15.1.4 Rolling stock used on services where some platforms may be shorter than
the train length are equipped with Selective Door Opening (SDO). Classes
377 / 1, 377 / 2 and 377 / 4 units have automatic selection, controlled by the
on-board computer system using a database of platform lengths.  Class 171
units have a manually selected system controlled by the Train Crew.  A list of
stations in Appendix B3 shows those with short platforms. These are the
locations where SDO will be operated if required.

B15.1.5 Routes in the Southern Metro area of operation are approved for Driver Only
Operation (DOO). Class 377 units used on these services have external
CCTV to give the Driver a view of each doorway. On other classes of unit,
the Driver is able to look out of the cab window.  However, the majority of
platforms (including all those on a curve)  are equipped with monitors or
mirrors to assist the Driver.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 25, 2009, 04:07:34 pm
The Paris RER system seems to work pretty well...

I was in Paris a few weeks ago, and the RER system was abysmal. Even at peak times, there were 5+ minutes between trains. And that's with a relatively simple network. And if there are longer distance Crossrail trains on the fast lines, where's the space going to come from? At this rate, 6 tracks will be needed to Reading!

The main purpose of Crossrail is to reduce the pressure on the Tube. Namely the Central, H&C/Circle and Jubilee.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on July 25, 2009, 07:12:52 pm
Well you're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine. I've often waited a lot longer than five minutes for any kind of a train on the Circle Line platforms at Paddington on a supposed 'metro' frequency route and you clearly never went anywhere near RER Ligne A in Paris, where the peak frequency is every two-three minutes - pretty much the same as Crossrail's 24tph target.

You wouldn't necessarily need to be on the fast lines from Oxford, not with 90mph and high-acceleration electric units available on the relief lines. I remember riding in a 90mph Class 312 EMU from Birmingham to Stockport put on as a substitute when a CrossCountry train had expired somewhere outside Birmingham in the mid-1980s and it easily kept to time on a duty booked for a 100mph Class 86 - the acceleration from stations was like something flying off a shovel. You could even revive a bit of Victorian thinking and rebuild some stations to put in platform loops to allow faster services to overtake stoppers - rather cheaper than six tracks. And with Reading remodelled and resignalled, along with electric trains, you will have more capacity and paths available anyway.

I don't think anyone is suggesting huge numbers of Crossrail services all the way out to Oxford, but if Oxford and Didcot commuters were able to get a direct train closer to where they worked in central London - and I'll bet most of them travel on beyond the Paddington area - you might very well find yourself able to switch one fast path an hour from Oxford to a train going into the tunnel, with the other fast path being used by a Cotswold Line working ending at Paddington. Or you could just ask Hitachi to build you some more Class 395s if you're that worried about out-and-out top speed.

If all you can think of is replicating current operating patterns but with electric trains, then why bother? Electrification and Crossrail present opportunities to do new things as well. If BR had never developed Thameslink, then Eurostar would probably not have been able to go to St Pancras, as the station would still be needed as the terminus for suburban trains from Bedford, which instead drop down into the Widened Lines and take people straight into the City.

Thameslink 2000 (now 2015) adds trains from the Great Northern lines, Ashford and the Sussex coast to the mix across central London and it will have... 24 trains per hour. This is the map showing where all those the trains will be coming from http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk/cms/pages/view/31 (http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk/cms/pages/view/31) but you seem to be suggesting that a far simpler Crossrail system, fed from the GWML at one end and the GEML and a branch to Kent at the other, can't work reliably.

The Norwegians completely transformed long and short-distance operations around Oslo when they bored a main line tunnel under the city centre. It operates at a maximum capacity of 24tph, with everything from local cross-city stoppers, through medium-distance regional expresses and cross-city airport express services to long-distance expresses to Bergen (which used to take a different route out of the city but are now able to serve the main towns to the west before swinging north into the mountains) and Stavanger. Different scale to London maybe, but it shows what can be done if you start with an open mind and a blank sheet of paper to plan your timetables and service patterns.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 25, 2009, 08:47:16 pm
Willc, you've persuaded me! IMNO (in my new opinion) Crossrail should extend out like the Thameslink proposals.

Let's get some Euston trains into Crossrail at Old Oak Common, freeing up more space for VT HSS or HS2 services.

Lets take the pressure off Clapham Junction/Waterloo with some SWT services being diverted (via Airtrack?).

Let's go to Airports like Stansted. A Heathrow to Stansted Express service...

Let's get the Cotswold Line trains into Crossrail. :P

PS: I used said RER line and it was just as bad! The station dwells were often the best part of 5 minutes. The Metro was quicker....


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 25, 2009, 08:48:39 pm
A la http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superlink_(railway_network)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: devon_metro on July 25, 2009, 08:49:53 pm
Regarding Crossrail, will there be an interchange where Thameslink and Crossrail meet?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andy on July 25, 2009, 09:20:38 pm
There is nothing in London to compare with the RER system in Paris. London doesn't have a suburban/urban network through/under the city centre yet. That said, Ligne A is about 30 years old and the service is beginning to deteriorate - probably a combination of aging infrastructure and it being stretched to capacity. Moreover, the Paris metro is also streets ahead of the London underground. London is way behind Paris when it comes to public transport.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: RailCornwall on July 25, 2009, 09:35:39 pm
Regarding Crossrail, will there be an interchange where Thameslink and Crossrail meet?

Yes at Farringdon ... details from londonconnections.blogspot.com (http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-farringdon-crossrail-will-work.html)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 25, 2009, 11:08:31 pm
They should meet at St Pancras International - poor choice of route!

I would say that the LU is far better than the Paris Metro. The PM had no announcements or screen on the trains. It was also far dirtier and full of "beggars". (the annoying type) Signage was far worse at all stations, esp at Chatelet les Halles - the biggest interchange in the world.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: RailCornwall on July 25, 2009, 11:21:38 pm
St P would be virtually impossible how would you get a mainline railway at a reasonable level below ground to connect there? It's a rabbit warren underground as it is. It'd defeat the object of a Central line as well.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 25, 2009, 11:23:42 pm
St P would be virtually impossible how would you get a mainline railway at a reasonable level below ground to connect there? It's a rabbit warren underground as it is. It'd defeat the object of a Central line as well.

I suppose it is quite "busy" there. But it seems mad to bypass the biggest interchange in London just to keep a straight route.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: devon_metro on July 25, 2009, 11:25:25 pm
St P would be virtually impossible how would you get a mainline railway at a reasonable level below ground to connect there? It's a rabbit warren underground as it is. It'd defeat the object of a Central line as well.

I suppose it is quite "busy" there. But it seems mad to bypass the biggest interchange in London just to keep a straight route.

But its too far from the City - why anybody would want to go there, I don't know ;) ;)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: RailCornwall on July 25, 2009, 11:32:22 pm
One of the main aims of Crossrail is a commuter railway not a means of connecting between termini as well. It's convenient that two termini are on the route as it is. Remember also that KC/STP IS on the route of the proposed Crossrail 2 too.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 25, 2009, 11:40:53 pm
You raise a valid point D/M the Farringdon station is of course the stop for the City commuters.

Crossrail 2? With a Tory major and PM? :D


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andy on July 26, 2009, 12:19:04 am
They should meet at St Pancras International - poor choice of route!

I would say that the LU is far better than the Paris Metro. The PM had no announcements or screen on the trains. It was also far dirtier and full of "beggars". (the annoying type) Signage was far worse at all stations, esp at Chatelet les Halles - the biggest interchange in the world.

You're right that there are plenty of beggars in the metro but in my opinion beggars are a reflection on a society rather than a metro system. There is a screen on every platform at Chatelet. The signage is as good as in London but inevitably when you are a foreigner, you need a little time to understand the system. The trains are faster, more reliable and the service more intensive than in London. They are also much cheaper. What is more, in Paris, there aren't those annoying pointless whiteboards everywhere which tell you that on such and such a line the service is "good"; "Good" is just about the most unscientific and uninformative word in the English language.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on July 26, 2009, 12:58:41 am
... the Paris Metro ... was also far dirtier and full of "beggars". (the annoying type)

In my (admittedly limited) experience of train travel in Paris, the trains were clean, ran on time (and frequently) - and they were patrolled by some rather scary CRS types with crew-cuts, wearing riot overalls and guns, who caused annoying beggars, accordian players and (probably) any fare-dodgers to disappear instantly, as soon as they entered a carriage ...  ::)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on July 26, 2009, 08:57:37 am
They should meet at St Pancras International - poor choice of route!

The route of the Crossrail tunnels was planned and safeguarded 20 plus years ago when St Pancras was not the station it is today.  Farringdon was seen as the interchange for cross London travel along with TCR.  To change the Crossrail tunnel routing through London would a nightmare due the amount of tunnels - tubes, swere, water, electricity, telecoms, building foundations and basements.

The more practical solution to trains to serve St Pancras would be a Heathrow via the Poplar's at Acton Main Line and then onto the NNL


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 26, 2009, 04:02:47 pm
PS: I thought the PM was far better than the RER! (in terms of speed, frequency)

As for me not understanding the signage because I'm British - it was the LACK of signs, their positioning (e.g. facing the wrong way fro the last sign so I missed it) and the way a signposted route just stopped.

I think the white boards in the LU are good. (no pun intended) They allow experienced users to quickly calculate their best route avoiding snarled up lines. No such thing in Paris, so instead I had to wait for ages on an RER at Chatelet les Halles wondering whether I should risk another route...


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andy on July 26, 2009, 06:52:58 pm
The Paris Metro is better than the RER in terms of frequency, you're quite right. As far as I understand it,  the RER is not seen as an alternative high-speed metro but a suburban network, so the frequency tends to vary in tune with the commuter flows in and out of the city centre. Frequency has been increased in recent years, though - and that has caused a few problems in terms of reliability.
 
Fair enough if you feel there is a lack of signage; it's your perception. I don't share it, that's all. Maybe you need more signage than me or maybe I'm more familiar with the station than you are and therefore insensitive to this problem.

I don't recall saying you didn't understand the signage because you're British. The station is very large, with few architectural points of reference and, as a result, it is easy to get lost or disorientated. People who are new to it, be they French from the provinces or foreigners, take time to find their bearings and are not familiar with the signage (which is overhead, but also on the walls around the edges of the station). In such circumstances, it is natural to want to check more often.


As it's possible to enter the station from several points, the "wrong" way for you was undoubtedly the "right" way for someone walking in another direction. 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on July 27, 2009, 12:40:14 am
It looks as though the suburban component has been justified by a good old fashioned "cascade" of the Thameslink 319's, of which there are 85 sets (340 cars - a saving of c0.4Bn Stlg). As these are dual voltage, they can commit trespass on the Southern lines, perhaps allowing a proper Reading - Gatwick service. Waterloo's Junipers were also built to have pantographs and transformers (look at the roof line) so might venture West eventually, so perhaps we can look forward to a single railway at Reading. Who remembers the sign on the mess room on platform 4, "Southern Region Motormen only" or the PA announcements, "This is a Southern Region train and not for public use!"?

The inclusion of Newbury and Oxford is marvellous for Reading; it will gain 3 high capacity commuter routes allowing a major shift from out of town car commuting.

The Liverpool to Manchester wiring is an odd one (and has annoyed the Yorkshiremen). It could be a political Lancastrian sop or a cute tipping of the balance towards future Trans-Pennine and Cross Country schemes. The dual voltage 319's (if there are enough) could even work on Merseyrail as single sets.

Good news,

OTC


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on July 27, 2009, 11:49:53 am
As for going to Bedwyn, it may maintain the status quo operationally but it will never get past the Treasury, as the numbers just won't stack up without it being part of a full Berks and Hants wiring scheme - unless the quarry operators around Westbury suddenly decide to fall out of love with big GM diesels and cough up for 25kv power instead. In this connection, I have to say I'm still slightly amazed Adonis got Cardiff-Swansea included, when it will have next to no benefit for ATW services.

If you have 319s and Turbos aplenty available, then it's surely cost-effective to run a 30-minute electric frequency to Newbury with a Turbo ready and waiting for a cross-platform connection for everywhere to Westbury (or even going on alternately to Frome/Warminster - I leave it to someone else better qualified to determine if you can create a workable timetable for something like this) - if you dug up a strip of the car park at Newbury and created a west-facing bay. Not ideal, as you would lose the through trains, but exchanging them for a 30-minute interval all day might be a fair swop - and electric acceleration would keep overall journey times to places west of Newbury much the same. You could even build a Parkway station for Devizes on the Andover road.

Well, we're talking about less than 14 miles to extend to Bedwyn. The route has only 11 overbridges (which, to put in context, is one less than on the short stretch from Maidenhead to Twyford), is virtually all plain double track with the exception of a loop at Hungerford, and has no significant structures to bridge save for a couple of river bridges. To retain the quite sensible operational status-quo, I am still a little surprised that if electrifying to Newbury could get past the Treasury, then the remaining section to Bedwyn couldn't.

Assuming that the grand plan also includes full B&H electrification as a logical next step (even if it is in 15-20 years time), then I would argue that Bedwyn is the logical terminus of this first stage rather than Newbury. West facing bays at Newbury with shuttles to Bedwyn and Westbury/Frome/Warminster are all very well, but even if they are in the pipeline, it's hard to see how that will be sold to those living in the area as anything other than a backwards step and missed opportunity.

ElectricTrain's comments on the decision being made due to the boundary with signalling and power supplies might well be the actual reason behind the decision.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: grandsire on July 27, 2009, 03:08:28 pm
I'm surprised that "on the cushions" thinks the Liverpool-Manchester scheme is odd - it seems to me to be a brilliant solution to the lack of diversionary routes for the WCML - offering alternatives for WCML Pendolinos to get to Manchester, Liverpool and Preston. Also of course allows the TPE Manchester-Glasgows to go electric. I do agree with "on the cushions" however that the scheme does give a possible jumping off point for an eventual electrification through to Leeds.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 27, 2009, 05:28:41 pm
How does the Manchester - Liverpool electrfication allow FTPE Scotland services to go electric? What about the Manchester to Preston via Bolton line... ::)

Indeed, in Bedwyn locals will not be happy at the moment, as their direct trains to London will probably end for a period of 20ish years.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: grandsire on July 27, 2009, 06:17:14 pm
Manchester-Liverpool line interconnects with WCML at Newton-le-Willows/Earlestown


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 27, 2009, 06:21:10 pm
Manchester-Liverpool line interconnects with WCML at Newton-le-Willows/Earlestown

So they're diverting the route? I wonder what the time penalty will be, not to mention the loss of journey opportunities for Bolton and other places.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on July 27, 2009, 08:10:59 pm
Any time penalty would be pretty limited, if not non-existent, as trains would be likely only to call at Wigan between Manchester and Preston, so lots of 100mph running on the WCML leg, and the Chat Moss route is pretty straight and fast too. The DfT document makes clear that the Manchester-Bolton-Preston line is among those under consideration for an early go-ahead along with MML, and Liverpool-Preston, which I take to be the line via Prescot and St Helens.

I'm afraid logic has never had a lot to do with the Treasury's decision-making. If it did, then many more miles of the network would have been wired years ago. After all, what we're talking about here is exactly the kind of thing BR proposed in the 1980s.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on July 28, 2009, 12:16:34 am
I'm surprised that "on the cushions" thinks the Liverpool-Manchester scheme is odd - it seems to me to be a brilliant solution to the lack of diversionary routes for the WCML - offering alternatives for WCML Pendolinos to get to Manchester, Liverpool and Preston. Also of course allows the TPE Manchester-Glasgows to go electric. I do agree with "on the cushions" however that the scheme does give a possible jumping off point for an eventual electrification through to Leeds.

It's only odd from the point of understanding the mindset that tagged it alongside GWML. I'm with you in calling it brilliant. Perhaps it was thrown in to soak up the remaining 319's and to free up Diesel Desiros. In this case, the pair of schemes boil down to a rolling stock cascade.

The mirror image is of course Leeds - York (actually Neville Hill - Colton Jn/ Hambleton Jn). Neither route needs new feeder stations, with the three year+ wait for NG to connect up, both are short and could be done using marginal time with the piling/wiring trains, like Crewe - Kidsgrove.

The problem with just going for high return big schemes is that you get (in England and Wales) four very long, fast electrified sidings, connected only at the London hub.

Adonis is probably impatient to make his mark with Brown's Nemesis drawing near. He tried recently (and unsuccessfully) to rush Gospel Oak - Barking wiring approval. Good luck to him; he can have his statue next to Brunel's.

OTC


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on July 28, 2009, 08:40:32 am
Certainly has a lot to do with freeing up 185s from running to Scotland, which always seemed bonkers in the first place.

But it has limited value in terms of Manchester-Liverpool services, as Chat Moss is effectively only served by a local stopping service at present, ever since Transpennine services were diverted on to the former Cheshire Lines Committee route through Warrington, so any local electric service will initially be little more than a shuttle, or, if it can squeeze through Oxford Road-Piccadilly along with everything else, a Liverpool-somewhere just across Manchester.

And doing Leeds to places out in the countryside on the ECML on its own makes sense only if you want to run ever more Leeds-London trains, as GNER proposed - but with a fall in traffic taking its toll on NXEC, you've to wonder if the numbers would still stack up for that.

Even Crewe-Kidsgrove, a very handy diversionary route, has allowed a new regular service, with the LM Desiros running up the Trent Valley to Stoke, then across to Crewe. Can't really see any thing similar you could develop the other side of the Pennines.

Leeds-York wires make far more sense if they are part of an XC or Transpennine scheme, because almost every service running on that route goes on beyond those two points.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: northwesterntrains on July 28, 2009, 10:46:43 am
I think the media's publication of this has been very misleading.  They've been saying they'll be new trains for FGW Paddington Mainline services, Manchester to Liverpool services and Manchester to Scotland services, which in fact the new electric trains are going to Thameslink services and London Midland's Euston services, with the old electric trains going to the newly electrified routes.

The 319s that are going to run Manchester Airport to Liverpool are the same age as the 156s that currently run the service and I think the 319s are smaller than doubled up 156s.  Although, 319s should be an improvement on the mainly 142s running Manchester Victoria to Liverpool and Warrington Bank Quay to Liverpool.

The 350/1s and 185s are about the same age and bascially electric and diesel versions of the same train.  (I hope they aren't planning to send 350/2s with 3+2 seating to run Manchester Airport to Edinburgh and neither do I think London Midland should be using 350/2s on Liverpool to Birmingham services.)

In the near future TransPennine Express are expected to run an extra Manchester to Selby train very hour (extending to Hull at peak times), so will need the 185s released for that.  So I don't know if they'll have enough stock to reinstate the regular Manchester Airport to Windermere via Bolton service they cut back to have enough 185s to run Scotland services.

The main issue with the current document is a lack of electric diversionary routes.  Manchester Airport to Liverpool services run by electric trains can't be diverted via Warrington Central during engineering works under the current plans.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: northwesterntrains on July 28, 2009, 10:53:29 am
But it has limited value in terms of Manchester-Liverpool services, as Chat Moss is effectively only served by a local stopping service at present, ever since Transpennine services were diverted on to the former Cheshire Lines Committee route through Warrington, so any local electric service will initially be little more than a shuttle, or, if it can squeeze through Oxford Road-Piccadilly along with everything else, a Liverpool-somewhere just across Manchester.

Manchester Airport to Liverpool has run via that line on a semi-fast basis for a few years now.  The time that service takes to get between Manchester and Liverpool is almost identical timing to the amount of time the Liverpool to Norwich and Liverpool to Scarborough via Warrington Central services.

If just Manchester to Liverpool via Warrington Central was electrified there would be less electric trains able to use the overhead wires (just Manchester Oxford Rd to Liverpool stopping services) unless there's further electrification on cross Pennine routes.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: brompton rail on July 28, 2009, 04:18:03 pm
Leeds - York fill in electrification would be useful for diverting NXEC electric  when the direct route Doncaster to York is blocked during engineering work, as NXEC have never hired in diesel drags and often prefer buses to fill the gap with the occasional HST to run through via Leeds. Their drivers are not signed by any other route (except Leeds / Hambleton).  However given more rolling stock Aire Valley electrics could be extended to Micklefield and York.

More useful would be Midland MainLine first from Bedford to Sheffield, Doncaster and South Kirkby Junction (on Doncaster / Leeds line), then Leeds - York followed by either XC Bristol - Derby or (and!) Trans Pennine from Guide Bridge to Leeds would enable use of electric rolling stock and freeing up of diesels for those places unlikely to be electrified this side of the apocalypse!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on July 28, 2009, 04:29:42 pm
Whilst Liverpool Manchester seems an odd line to elctrify it is actually a very sensible start to further electrification.

With the triangular junctions either side of Newton le Willows are already elctrified to allow North South traffic elctrifying the whole line gives a diversionary route to both Manchester and Liverpool from the South should either of the current usual routes be blocked.

It also gives, as others have said, a chance to run an electric service from both Liverpool and Manchester to Glasgow.

What I am not clear of is this line being electrified in parallel  with or before or after the GWML? If it's before it gives the electrification team a relatively easy line to electrify before tackling the GWML, if it's in parallel then that's very good news as it means Network rial will have a team in the North to do Manchester Preston, Preston Blackpool, Liverpool Wigan etc and then Trans pennine.

If it's after it means the team won't be disbanded as soon the GWML is finished.

It does seem a pity in the GWML line that the Greenford Windsor Marlow and Henley  branches weren't included to eliminate DMUS on all local services East of Reading, but although it would be a relatively small cost especially rolled into one big programme, it would scare the Treasury half to death.

With the Greenford branch, doing from OOC via Park Royal as well, would give an opportunity for BAA to turn their Heathrow Express units to even wheel wear under their own power.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: northwesterntrains on July 28, 2009, 05:09:31 pm
Transport minister Sadiq Khan said when he visited Liverpool last week that work would start immediately on Manchester to Newton-le-Willows and then follow on Newton-le-Willows to Liverpool.  But what transport ministers usually mean by 'immediately' isn't the same as what passengers mean.  Probably there's no rush in getting the whole Manchester to Liverpool line done if Northern have to wait around for the 319s to be replaced on their existing routes and then to be refurbished before getting brought in to service.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on July 28, 2009, 05:22:29 pm
What I am not clear of is this line being electrified in parallel  with or before or after the GWML? If it's before it gives the electrification team a relatively easy line to electrify before tackling the GWML, if it's in parallel then that's very good news as it means Network rial will have a team in the North to do Manchester Preston, Preston Blackpool, Liverpool Wigan etc and then Trans pennine.

The following quotes are from the DfT document:

On the GWML: It is currently expected that early works will take place between 2012 and 2014, with the bulk of the construction between 2014 and 2016. Electric services will be introduced progressively: London to Oxford, Newbury and Bristol by the end of 2016, and London to Swansea by the end of 2017.

On the Liverpool-Manchester route: Electric train services will be able to operate within four years.

So from that you can deduce that the northern route will be finished first, and before the major parts of the GWML work starts.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on July 29, 2009, 09:59:15 am

So from that you can deduce that the northern route will be finished first, and before the major parts of the GWML work starts.

So, will it be the same team doing both?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on July 29, 2009, 10:10:47 am
Probably more a good opportunity to get wiring teams trained up to use their 'factory' trains on a quieter line than the GWML, for details of these and assorted video clips see http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=4549&NewsAreaID=2&SearchCategoryID=2 (http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=4549&NewsAreaID=2&SearchCategoryID=2)

Plus the line offers some challenging ground conditions on Chat Moss, which is a huge peat bog, with the embankment sitting on lots of stone and timber tipped in by the Stephensons.

I don't dispute Leeds-York, etc might come in handy for diversions, but if you're going to spend all this money, then it shoud be on something that has value 365 days a year, not just a few weekends along the way. With Transpennine, Northern and XC, who use the routes east of Leeds all the time, still running on diesel, it would be a waste of money.

And that's why I have my doubts about the point of Manchester-Bolton-Preston without doing other lines in the North West that connect with it, otherwise, apart from the EMUs to Scotland, it would still be a diesel railway most of the time.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: northwesterntrains on July 29, 2009, 11:04:49 am
A lot of people in the north of England think Manchester-Bolton-Preston and the four North TransPennine routes (Liverpool to Scarborough, Manchester Airport to Newcastle/Middlesbrough and Manchester to Hull) should be high on the list of electrification priorities.  The four North TransPennine routes all run between Manchester and Leeds via Huddersfield, with all but the Hull trains continuing to York, so that would mean 4 express trains an hour in each direction and many local services could be switched to electric with bigger, newer diesel trains available to replace 2 car 158s on express routes that don't get electrified.

Manchester-Bolton-Preston electrification would see 3 trains in a 2 hour period in each direction be able to switch to electric without re-routing (Hazel Grove to Preston and Manchester Airport to Glasgow/Edinburgh.)  Then electrifying Preston to Blackpool would increase that to 5 trains in a 2 hour period. 

When TP Express took over the Manchester to Scotland service there was criticism as they had to make Manchester Airport to Windermere a limited service to have enough units, the 185s are smaller than the 220s that Virgin had been using and the 185s are slower.  TP Express also had to reduce times that trains were stopped at stations, like Preston to keep the timings competitive as the 185s can only go at 100mph, which can increase the chance of a late running train being unable to make up time.  So the re-routing of the Scotland service can overcome some of these problems, but does disadvantage the people of Bolton.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on July 29, 2009, 02:07:34 pm
I was particularly thinking of going on to Blackpool - three trains out of eight or so in two hours off-peak isn't too compelling a case - and TPEx is an obvious route to do - think of the performance bonus from electrification on the climbs to Standedge tunnel


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on July 29, 2009, 02:52:14 pm
RE Manchester Bolton Preston keep forgetting XC are DEMUs still thinking of when I took the Sussex Scot from Reading to Penrith. Wondered why 47 not changed at Coventry or New Street, forgiot it went via Stockport and  Bolton. Loco changed at Preston.

Now if XC were loco hauled a lot more lines become immediately viable.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on July 29, 2009, 07:07:34 pm

Returning to the question of what to do when the wires end - North of Oxford and West of Newbury, the options would seem to be:

1. Diesels under the wires - unattractive on a list of criteria.

2. More intensive diesel shuttles beyond the wires - gives more services but needs a change and you only get a 165...never a Mk3.

3. Hauling the 319's to Bedwyn/Westbury or Worcester - possible with a 210 type power car, or perhaps a Voyager version, (being DEMU). Are the auto-couplers reliable enough for frequent splitting? The Southern managed with buck-eyes and manual jumpers at places like Staines and Ascot, for years.

Thoughts?

OTC


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on July 29, 2009, 08:39:37 pm

Returning to the question of what to do when the wires end - North of Oxford and West of Newbury, the options would seem to be:

1. Diesels under the wires - unattractive on a list of criteria.

2. More intensive diesel shuttles beyond the wires - gives more services but needs a change and you only get a 165...never a Mk3.

3. Hauling the 319's to Bedwyn/Westbury or Worcester - possible with a 210 type power car, or perhaps a Voyager version, (being DEMU). Are the auto-couplers reliable enough for frequent splitting? The Southern managed with buck-eyes and manual jumpers at places like Staines and Ascot, for years.

Thoughts?

OTC


It will be option 1, option 2 is far too train and train crew intensive and option 3 will require something built and interfaced with cascaded stock.

Option 1 is simple and practical, the only risk is the through Padd to the areas past the end of the wires might end up with a reduced frequency but that may happen anyway


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 29, 2009, 10:47:25 pm
I suppose they'll be a kind of Didcot - Morteon shuttle for the southern Cotswolds using cascaded 166s, and HSTs/IEPs on the Malvern/ Herefords.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Mookiemoo on July 29, 2009, 10:51:08 pm
I suppose they'll be a kind of Didcot - Morteon shuttle for the southern Cotswolds using cascaded 166s, and HSTs/IEPs on the Malvern/ Herefords.

ha ha

you and I wish

What ir probably means is HST/IEP electrics end at oxford and we get some sort of shuttle beyond - cos we aint important like


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Mookiemoo on July 29, 2009, 10:51:51 pm
I suppose they'll be a kind of Didcot - Morteon shuttle for the southern Cotswolds using cascaded 166s, and HSTs/IEPs on the Malvern/ Herefords.

ha ha

you and I wish

What ir probably means is HST/IEP electrics end at oxford and we get some sort of shuttle beyond - cos we aint important like

Yes I'm a scouser - hence the like

Oh sorry - I see loads of scouser jibes in the light of recent issues


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on July 29, 2009, 10:57:25 pm
What ir probably means is HST/IEP electrics end at oxford and we get some sort of shuttle beyond - cos we aint important like

I thought that was what you were advocating as a sensible way forward a few weeks back? Apart from those trains that you use of course...  ;)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Mookiemoo on July 29, 2009, 10:58:43 pm
What ir probably means is HST/IEP electrics end at oxford and we get some sort of shuttle beyond - cos we aint important like

I thought that was what you were advocating as a sensible way forward a few weeks back? Apart from those trains that you use of course...  ;)

No - I still think there should be peak express through trains with off peak stoppers and peak shuttles for the shacks

HOWEVER - I forsee NO through trains under electrification


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on July 29, 2009, 11:02:13 pm
HOWEVER - I forsee NO through trains under electrification

Hmmm - I foresee you'll be returning that crystal ball back for a refund in 2017.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Mookiemoo on July 29, 2009, 11:03:19 pm
HOWEVER - I forsee NO through trains under electrification

Hmmm - I foresee you'll be returning that crystal ball back for a refund in 2017.

Hope you are right - and you may be as long as the SAS are still based at hereford


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 29, 2009, 11:08:20 pm
They'd be mad. There is a large market waiting to be tapped into. The poor London - Worcestershire/ Herefordshire road links increase this, making a 2 hour through rail journey vital for the region.

Meanwhile Chiltern just sucks up the custom. You would think the 1025 and 1100 arrivals at Marylebone to be peak services! The 1700, 1800 etc. evening departures are equally rammed - and that's even with a relief service which drops off the pre Banbury commuters! Many of these people are coming from Warwick Parkway. I wonder where a percentage of these come from?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on July 30, 2009, 12:27:20 am
Maybe you should all, as I said previously, read the DfT report, but I'll save you the trouble, so here's the relevant bit:

"The proposed fleet for an electrified Great Western Main Line to Swansea will include a proportion of ^bi-mode^ trains, so that destinations including Worcester, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Carmarthen and the South West
beyond Bristol continue to enjoy through trains while also gaining the benefits of electrification. These bi-mode trains have a diesel generator vehicle at one end and an electric transformer vehicle at the other end. This
allows bi-mode trains to operate ^off the wires^ to maintain through services and provide diversionary services."
Someone I spoke to on Tuesday suggested that proportion could be as high as 50 per cent.

I remain sceptical about the ability of a 10-car version to climb Campden bank, or get over the Malverns on diesel power in the same time as an HST, while having just one engine, but 2X5 cars, with two diesels, like a certain train we all know, shouldn't have any trouble.

Why on earth do you think they would return to turfing everyone out at Oxford? Though of course that's okay for those of us living at the 'shacks' that actually produce the revenue to pay for Worcester's services, however slow they are. You don't put in ^62m - and probably more once they've finished - redoubling a route and then chuck that investment away.

Please spare us the paranoia and stick to complaining about journey times and telling us how great Chiltern is - that way, we all know where we stand. And if a fast service is so vital for Worcester, why were you having a go at people from Plymouth wanting the same for their considerably larger city?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: 6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01 on July 30, 2009, 12:50:52 am
i find this interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFg0EOUJNrc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk%2FContent%2FDetail.asp%3FReleaseID%3D4549%26NewsAreaID%3D2%26SearchCategoryID%3D2&feature=player_embedded


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on July 30, 2009, 02:00:00 am
Maybe you should all, as I said previously, read the DfT report ...

To be fair, willc, the link posted originally by RailCornwall on this topic no longer works (due to some belated tinkering by someone at the DfT, no doubt?)  ::)

However, as I write, this link does work - http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdf  ;) :D ;D


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on July 30, 2009, 09:48:34 am
Interesting piece in Maidenhead Advertiser today.

Maidenhead councillor moaning that extending the wires West of Maidenhead will mean Crossrail will no longer terminate at Maidenhead and, therefore, Maidenhead will lose fast trains to Padd, thus Maidenhead will get a worse service as Crossrail is all stations.

Think he's a bit muddled Crossrail from Maidenhed was always going to be stoppers, with wires from Reading/Oxford/Newbury it opens up the possibility of of semis from Reading et al, as now,  to Padd (or down the tunnel).

Presumably semis down onto Crossrail can't be done because of the two separate funding streams.  I paid for this bit you can't run your trains on my bit. Hopefully full electrification will mean freight can still run on the Relief, and, therefore, Crossrail could save money and not build the flyover/diveunder at Acton or am I being stupid?

Cookham councillor also quoted saying he fears if Marlow not electrified it will be a diesel shuttle all day with no through trains to Padd. He's got a point.

Windsor branch is an obvious case for slinging a bit of surplus wire. It could be possible to run a two train ten minute shuttle.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on July 30, 2009, 10:48:14 am
Maybe you should all, as I said previously, read the DfT report ...

To be fair, willc, the link posted originally by RailCornwall on this topic no longer works (due to some belated tinkering by someone at the DfT, no doubt?)  ::)

However, as I write, this link does work - http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdf  ;) :D ;D

But DafT is so proud of the announcement that there's been a link straight to it from their homepage for the past week - not too hard to find.

I should think someone, somewhere in Network Rail is now hard at work with a calculator trying to make the numbers - never mind the logic - of wiring the Thames Valley branches stack up. But would the sky really fall in if they lost all of two peak through trains - and if you live in Marlow, you have to change to and from these trains at Bourne End anyway, as the branch Turbo is locked in during the peaks, while if you're going home to Henley at about 6pm, an 18.05 PAD departure with a change at Twyford gets you back at 18.43, while the 18.12 through train arrives at 19.13 - which would you take?

And it's probably unfair to characterise Crossrail as all stoppers, I think they have always intended to mix in some semis as well. But why would FGW stop making Maidenhead calls with peak fasts to or from Didcot or Oxford, which is what happens at present? I'm not aware there's anything saying Maidenhead would have become the exclusive domain of Crossrail.

I think in the cold light of day that logic will prevail on the sort of trains going into the tunnel - if it can work north-south on Thameslink, then why not east-west too? And Adonis did explicitly say he was going to talk to Boris about the possibilities.

The DfT report adds the following: "Electrification west of Maidenhead also makes it possible to extend Crossrail services through to Reading. This could bring significant benefits, giving Reading and the wider Thames Valley (my italics) direct rail access to London and the City, while also creating extra capacity in the existing Paddington terminus for longer distance services. The costs and benefits of this option will be considered by the Government and its project partners in Crossrail."


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on July 30, 2009, 10:59:25 am
Cookham councillor also quoted saying he fears if Marlow not electrified it will be a diesel shuttle all day with no through trains to Padd. He's got a point.

He has got a point, and presumably he's been saying it since Crossrail was given the go-ahead, as the through Marlow trains have been threatened ever since. In my opinion it's a small price to pay as long as the branch connects in with something nippy both ways at Maidenhead. Though I'm sure my opinion would change if I was a commuter on the route! I can't blame him from being worried - and it's worth recognising that there are inevitably going to be a few losers as a result of Crossrail and the wider GWML electrification, as well as many, many winners.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on July 30, 2009, 11:20:29 am
The through trains from Bourne End if the did cease as the result of Crossrail well there will still be one change of train to get to central London instead of Padd it will be Maidenhead ...... Problem ???

DfT may well be looking at the Crossrail

As for the wires on the TV branches that will I suspect become inevitable in the longer term the TOC will not want the odd diesel sets to maintain.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on July 30, 2009, 12:47:43 pm
As for the wires on the TV branches that will I suspect become inevitable in the longer term the TOC will not want the odd diesel sets to maintain.

You may well be right. Though in the shorter term there's 18 2-car Class 165's in FGW's fleet. If you cascade most of the 3-car 165/6's further west, then a fleet of 18 2-car's would be just about right to operate the remaining non-electrified LTV routes:

West Ealing to Greenford - 2 units
Slough to Windsor - 1 unit
Maidenhead to Marlow - 2 units (3 in peak)
Twyford to Henley - 1 unit (2 in peak)
Reading to Basingstoke - 2 units
Oxford to Banbury - 2 units
Moreton to Didcot - 2 units
TOTAL = 14 maximum diagrams for 18 trains. Just about right.

It assumes that the suggested Moreton-Didcot shuttle plan still goes ahead despite partial electrification of the route, and that the Bicester route is using shiny new units as EWR and Chiltern plan. 2-Car trains (strengthened to 4-car on some peak services) would be adequate capacity wise.

Then you'd want to probably keep some 3-cars for the Gatwicks (assuming that's not been electrified), and possibly some units for the service beyond Newbury to Bedwyn - say a total of 10 - that would mean around 20 3-car Turbos could be off to 'modernise' the West fleet.



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on July 30, 2009, 01:30:52 pm
Then you'd want to probably keep some 3-cars for the Gatwicks (assuming that's not been electrified),
Reading Gatwick electrification is seen as an infil, some long bits of infil but in reality not to many substations required as the nonelectrifed sections cross plenty of electrified routes also there is a 33kV feeder route through Dorking put in in the 1980's

But you are right the fossil fuel powered units will be around in the TV patch for a while after electrification


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on July 30, 2009, 11:29:01 pm
Then you'd want to probably keep some 3-cars for the Gatwicks (assuming that's not been electrified),
Reading Gatwick electrification is seen as an infil, some long bits of infil but in reality not to many substations required as the nonelectrifed sections cross plenty of electrified routes also there is a 33kV feeder route through Dorking put in in the 1980's



It's a pity that NR's Electrification RUS prioritised this route as Tier 4 (i.e. bottom) when it is in fact an "International Gateway" and is supposed to have priority, to stop Johnny Foreigner getting early poor impressions of the UK. The dozy Local Authorities and SEEDA couldn't be bothered to support it. In my experience it is well used all day and is very unsuitable for the heavy luggage of the air travellers alongside crowds of school children, even if the Tadpoles were worse.

An Institution contact at NR told me that they had a number of serviceable dc substations in store as a result of the Southern PUG, looking for a home....also as previously observed, the 319's are dual voltage.

OTC



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on July 31, 2009, 02:21:23 pm
An Institution contact at NR told me that they had a number of serviceable dc substations in store as a result of the Southern PUG, looking for a home....also as previously observed, the 319's are dual voltage.

OTC
The kit in store at Luggershal from PSU is not as complete as some may think, otherwise we in II SPC E & P would not be placing orders with manufactures for the existing renewals we are currently doing, we have used a lot of the items either for emergency replacement of kit that has failed in service or for renewals.  Also a lot of the kit PSU bought was for a specific task eg adding an addition rectifier to a substation therefore not all the feeder breakers are fitted with the right protection and retro fitting can be very costly compared with buying new from scratch.
The biggest project in the SE apart from Thameslink is power supply upgrade on the Brighton Main Line, the separation of LUL traction from NR thereby allowing NR to raise its London area traction voltage from 660 to 750 and then there is the Wessex power supply upgrade to run 12 car trains and to improve performance on the Pompy main line, all of this is not event taking into account the upgrading that is planned for Kent


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: RailCornwall on August 17, 2009, 12:11:35 pm
An addition to the UK Electrification Agenda (albeit out of the FGW area) was announced today by Network Rail and Transport Scotland. The plans cover electrification of Glasgow - Edinburgh and other lines in the Central belt of Scotland ...

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8204902.stm)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on August 17, 2009, 04:02:47 pm
Good news, but I have comments about the proposed 13 tph!

Where did they get 13 tph from? Are they including the local services via Bathgate? if not, then where is the platform space at Queen Street?

Hopefully this will start a rolling programme for Scotland, nest on the list must be the route to Aberdeen (and Fife Circle), allowing the elimination of hybrid IEPs from the ECML, and to encourage the electrification of the XC routes.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 17, 2009, 06:33:59 pm
Good news, though I can't see Aberdeen being electrified anytime soon - haven't FirstScotrail taken delivery of a brand new diesel fleet for many of its services over the last few years? There's certainly nothing on its last legs like in other areas of the UK. The handful of trains operated through to Aberdeen from London would never stand as a business case - especially given the Bi-mode IEP's usefulness on such a service, i.e. 75% electric hauled and the remaining 25% on diesel. XC hardly touch Aberdeen either. In my mind there are literally dozens of better prospects for electrification.

I also love the article stating that for every minute taken off the Glasgow to Edinburgh journey time, there is a net worth of ^60m to the wider economy. How the hell can you calculate that to such a specific number?! What a load of pie-in-the-sky nonsense!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on August 17, 2009, 07:12:07 pm
I also love the article stating that for every minute taken off the Glasgow to Edinburgh journey time, there is a net worth of ^60m to the wider economy. How the hell can you calculate that to such a specific number?! What a load of pie-in-the-sky nonsense!

They probably calculated that the scheme will bring ^600 million of overall benefits - which works out at ^60 per minute saved.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on August 17, 2009, 11:30:46 pm
This would eliminate a lot of the remaining diesel working in the Central Belt, bar longer-distance trains, so it offers the prospect of a good few 170s moving to the Highland lines and the Glasgow & South Western area, which in turn would release a number of 158s and 156s for work south of the border.

Before there is any prospect of going to Aberdeen, the logical next step would be to wire the remaining suburban routes out of Glasgow Central (Paisley Canal, East Kilbride and Barrhead - or all the way to Kilmarnock), probably leaving only the GSW main line to Carlisle and the Stranraer line to diesels.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on August 19, 2009, 09:25:29 pm
Something is puzzling me about the Scottish announcement. 3 days later and there is not a jot about it on scotland.gov.uk, transport scotland or network rail sites. What does 1Bn pay for as well? It must include expected rolling stock (no cast off Class 319s there then) and probably maintenance value of a contract for rolling stock as well. I expect the short spur to link the Falkirk route with the proposed Gogar station is thrown in as well for good measure.

Agree with Willc re future priorities. I've been trying to estimate how much stock might be released and cascaded. Ed - Glasgow needs 8 diagrams of 3 car 170s, but many are doubled up in peak. If all are then that would be 48 vehicles. Alloa/Dunblane and local workings to Cumbernauld and Falkirk need about 12 units, say 24 vehicles. Add in cover for availability and it could be around 80 vehicles, some of which would be used for growth on diesel services and the proposed Waverley route. So maybe 60 to 70 available for other operators?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on August 19, 2009, 10:04:02 pm
Something is puzzling me about the Scottish announcement. 3 days later and there is not a jot about it on scotland.gov.uk, transport scotland or network rail sites. What does 1Bn pay for as well? It must include expected rolling stock (no cast off Class 319s there then) and probably maintenance value of a contract for rolling stock as well. I expect the short spur to link the Falkirk route with the proposed Gogar station is thrown in as well for good measure.

Agree with Willc re future priorities. I've been trying to estimate how much stock might be released and cascaded. Ed - Glasgow needs 8 diagrams of 3 car 170s, but many are doubled up in peak. If all are then that would be 48 vehicles. Alloa/Dunblane and local workings to Cumbernauld and Falkirk need about 12 units, say 24 vehicles. Add in cover for availability and it could be around 80 vehicles, some of which would be used for growth on diesel services and the proposed Waverley route. So maybe 60 to 70 available for other operators?

I expect they'll use them on Inverness - Aberdeen and perhaps Far North duties, allowing 158s to go to Highlands and 156s to be off loaded. Scotrail will want to keep air conditioned units!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on August 21, 2009, 05:01:52 pm
The best thing about Adonis's plan is that he has linked electrification to rolling stock replacement and cascading which noone in power has done for a long time.  If you electrify a route run by clapped out desiels which would otherwise need to be replaced by very costly desiels rather than cheaper electric trains then your business case for electrification looks much better.  He has also been very clever or lucky with fitting the timing to the release of Thameslink EMUs

GWML, then MML then cross country makes a lot of sense (with some fill-in and shorter routes alongside,  Ie Manchester-Preston and one of more of the Transpennine routes)   Scottish local electrification may stack up as might the valley lines in Wales but I am not convinced by taking the wires to Aberdeen or Inverness - both comparatively small places.     


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on August 22, 2009, 09:28:56 am
The NR business case for electrification put the MML ahead of the GWML.  The GWML came out ahead by DfT due to the rolling stock on the GWML needing replacement, the cascade of the old Thameslink stock and that much of the re-signaling is planed to be replace as part of Crossrail, Reading remodeling and programed renewals.   

Also despite the views of some about the difficulties of Severn Tunnel and Bath area there are very few major civil obstacles or complex junction on the GWML, even these are not that complex compared to some locations where tunnels have had to be re-bored etc


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on August 22, 2009, 10:07:32 am
The GWML rolling stock (presumably you mean the venerable 43s and Mk3s) may well need replacing, but what odds some of it turns up elsewhere on the network before being consigned to history? CrossCountry - or Cinderella if you prefer! - would be favourite, as well as existing and new 'Open Access' operators. Maybe ATW and Scotrail, or their sucessors, could find a use for some of 'em.
Or, strategic reserve anyone?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on August 24, 2009, 12:47:46 am
The GWML rolling stock (presumably you mean the venerable 43s and Mk3s) may well need replacing, but what odds some of it turns up elsewhere on the network before being consigned to history? CrossCountry - or Cinderella if you prefer! - would be favourite, as well as existing and new 'Open Access' operators. Maybe ATW and Scotrail, or their sucessors, could find a use for some of 'em.
Or, strategic reserve anyone?

I'd hope that the MML is electrified too before too long and that XC gets their old Meridians.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on August 24, 2009, 10:07:14 am
I believe that some hsts will be going to crosscountry once they are withdrawn by FGW. It is expected that the Midland Mainline between Bedford & Sheffield will be electrified after the great western together with the crosscountry route between Bristol & Birmingham menaing that some crosscountry services from bristol will be able to be worked by electric trains.

It is expected that the following routes will be electrified in time:

Great western Mainline ( London - Swansea & London - Exeter St Davids Via Bristol & Westbury) - FGW are pushing for the wires to be put all of the way to exeter.

Midland Mainline ( Bedord - Sheffield)

Bristol - Birmingham New St ( Meaning that is the gw is electrified to exter then all the Exeter - Manchester services can be worked by emu's)

Cardiff Valley Lines

North Wales coast

Wrexham - Bidston



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on August 24, 2009, 10:46:31 am
Great western Mainline ( London - Swansea & London - Exeter St Davids Via Bristol & Westbury) - FGW are pushing for the wires to be put all of the way to exeter.

Well done first (their franchise will end before electrification so they don't have to do this)

Does anyone know the rational for only wiring to Newbury.  More Turbos terminate at Bedwin (only about 10 miles further).  Wiring to there would mean getting rid of teh turbos completely.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: vacman on August 24, 2009, 01:00:54 pm
Great western Mainline ( London - Swansea & London - Exeter St Davids Via Bristol & Westbury) - FGW are pushing for the wires to be put all of the way to exeter.

Well done first (their franchise will end before electrification so they don't have to do this)

Does anyone know the rational for only wiring to Newbury.  More Turbos terminate at Bedwin (only about 10 miles further).  Wiring to there would mean getting rid of teh turbos completely.
To be honest, they may aswell wire to Westbury then Westbury-Bath, the Bedwyn services could then continue to westbury (to cover Pewsey), then westbury-cardiff Stoppers could be EMU's and also gives a diversionary route for padd-bristol.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on August 24, 2009, 01:58:26 pm
Great western Mainline ( London - Swansea & London - Exeter St Davids Via Bristol & Westbury) - FGW are pushing for the wires to be put all of the way to exeter.

Well done first (their franchise will end before electrification so they don't have to do this)

Does anyone know the rational for only wiring to Newbury.  More Turbos terminate at Bedwin (only about 10 miles further).  Wiring to there would mean getting rid of teh turbos completely.
To be honest, they may aswell wire to Westbury then Westbury-Bath, the Bedwyn services could then continue to westbury (to cover Pewsey), then westbury-cardiff Stoppers could be EMU's and also gives a diversionary route for padd-bristol.

You are absolutely right.  I guess these  things need to be done one step at a time through and getting rid of teh TV turbos by taking the wires to Bedwin or Pewsey would seem a sensible first step.  Then take the wires to cardiff and Pompy when the cascaded turbos on those routes are due to be scrapped.

My fear is that they will decide that stopping the wires at Newbury will be an excuse to buy loads of expensive bi-mode IEP trains.  I'd much rather that we had a few years of a few deisels under the wires than bi-mode trains cos once they are delivered they will be arround for 40 years and act as a disincentive to expand electrification duringtheir life.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on August 24, 2009, 06:17:18 pm
Does anyone know the rational for only wiring to Newbury.  More Turbos terminate at Bedwin (only about 10 miles further).  Wiring to there would mean getting rid of teh turbos completely.

A couple of reasons, between Newbury and Bedwin is the boundary between Reading PSB and Westbury PSB to extend past this boundary will require immunisation of signaling and telecoms at Westbury Box, to go past Newbury would need another grid site, the GWML will have one at Old Oak Common the next will be at Didcot going past Newbury will go beyond the feed limit.  Once the Reading remodeling is complete I suspect there will be a change to the service pattern on the Berks n Hants irrespective of electrification.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: devon_metro on August 24, 2009, 06:23:59 pm
Does anyone know the rational for only wiring to Newbury.  More Turbos terminate at Bedwin (only about 10 miles further).  Wiring to there would mean getting rid of teh turbos completely.

A couple of reasons, between Newbury and Bedwin is the boundary between Reading PSB and Westbury PSB to extend past this boundary will require immunisation of signaling and telecoms at Westbury Box, to go past Newbury would need another grid site, the GWML will have one at Old Oak Common the next will be at Didcot going past Newbury will go beyond the feed limit.  Once the Reading remodeling is complete I suspect there will be a change to the service pattern on the Berks n Hants irrespective of electrification.

I was under the impression that Reading had control until just east of Lavington.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on August 24, 2009, 06:36:25 pm
Does anyone know the rational for only wiring to Newbury.  More Turbos terminate at Bedwin (only about 10 miles further).  Wiring to there would mean getting rid of teh turbos completely.

A couple of reasons, between Newbury and Bedwin is the boundary between Reading PSB and Westbury PSB to extend past this boundary will require immunisation of signaling and telecoms at Westbury Box, to go past Newbury would need another grid site, the GWML will have one at Old Oak Common the next will be at Didcot going past Newbury will go beyond the feed limit.  Once the Reading remodeling is complete I suspect there will be a change to the service pattern on the Berks n Hants irrespective of electrification.

Thanks for the explanation.  I am glad that it has all be thought about and reassured that there is a sensible engineering rather than political or penny-pinching explanation.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on August 28, 2009, 10:38:26 pm
My fear is that they will decide that stopping the wires at Newbury will be an excuse to buy loads of expensive bi-mode IEP trains.  I'd much rather that we had a few years of a few deisels under the wires than bi-mode trains cos once they are delivered they will be arround for 40 years and act as a disincentive to expand electrification duringtheir life.

I fear the same. Also note the ECML, and the fact that bi mods will be used on services beyond Leeds and Edinburgh.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on August 28, 2009, 10:59:41 pm
One important factor missing from this debate is the role of freight. A lack of infill electrification is a major hindrence to FOCs moving away from diesel haulage. It's no surprise that no new electric freight locos have been built since the introduction of the Class 92s in the early 1990s. Electrification that solely benefits passenger operations will cause major pathing issues for FOCs with their reliance on diesel traction.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on August 29, 2009, 07:46:05 am
One important factor missing from this debate is the role of freight. A lack of infill electrification is a major hindrence to FOCs moving away from diesel haulage. It's no surprise that no new electric freight locos have been built since the introduction of the Class 92s in the early 1990s. Electrification that solely benefits passenger operations will cause major pathing issues for FOCs with their reliance on diesel traction.
The former chairman and owners of EWS (possibly the largest of the FOC's) had a policy of diesel traction, DB Schenker may have a different view after all the FOC's need to make their case and a commitment to use electrification, which I am sure they will.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on August 29, 2009, 03:16:30 pm
My fear is that they will decide that stopping the wires at Newbury will be an excuse to buy loads of expensive bi-mode IEP trains.  I'd much rather that we had a few years of a few deisels under the wires than bi-mode trains cos once they are delivered they will be arround for 40 years and act as a disincentive to expand electrification duringtheir life.

I fear the same. Also note the ECML, and the fact that bi mods will be used on services beyond Leeds and Edinburgh.

Although the whole train is correctly referred to as 'bi-mode', in fact 9 of the 10 cars (or 4 of the 5) are exactly the same build as the full electric version. So they don't have to be around for 40 years in the as delivered condition, as long as further electric end cars can be built.  I think it is important to remember that the diesel end isn't really a 'power car' like in an HST, it is just a generator car for the distributed traction on the rest of the train, ie it cannot move on its own.  Even the full diesel IEP is really an 8 car EMU, sandwiched between its two diesel generator cars.

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: drandles on August 29, 2009, 05:42:46 pm
My fear is that they will decide that stopping the wires at Newbury will be an excuse to buy loads of expensive bi-mode IEP trains.  I'd much rather that we had a few years of a few deisels under the wires than bi-mode trains cos once they are delivered they will be arround for 40 years and act as a disincentive to expand electrification duringtheir life.

I fear the same. Also note the ECML, and the fact that bi mods will be used on services beyond Leeds and Edinburgh.

Although the whole train is correctly referred to as 'bi-mode', in fact 9 of the 10 cars (or 4 of the 5) are exactly the same build as the full electric version. So they don't have to be around for 40 years in the as delivered condition, as long as further electric end cars can be built.  I think it is important to remember that the diesel end isn't really a 'power car' like in an HST, it is just a generator car for the distributed traction on the rest of the train, ie it cannot move on its own.  Even the full diesel IEP is really an 8 car EMU, sandwiched between its two diesel generator cars.

Paul

Unfortunately, as I understand, the performance of the bi-mode IEP when in diesel mode will be significantly inferior to present day HSTs, so that services worked by these trains are likely to be slower than present day services. While this may not matter for short extensions from eg Bristol to Weston or Swansea to Carmarthen, it becomes a more serious issue for Newbury-Penzance or Oxford-Hereford, or Swindon-Cheltenham.  So I anticipate that Devon and Cornwall will continue to be served by HSTs for many years. The all diesel version of the IEP has apparently been dropped.

Incidentally, I am told that the plan is to use bimode IEPs on a semi-fast service from Paddington to serve Hungerford, Bedwyn and probably Pewsey and Westbury. On the other hand, it seems that electrification from Newbury to Bedwyn in the inital phase  is not entirely ruled out.

A further downside of the electrification plan is that the new dmus for the Bristol area which were due to enter services from 2011-12 have also been cancelled and it will now be 2017-18 or so before any significant improvements are made to the Cardiff-Bristol-Portsmouth services, using second hand turbos from the Thames Valley.

David


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on August 29, 2009, 06:38:46 pm
One important factor missing from this debate is the role of freight. A lack of infill electrification is a major hindrence to FOCs moving away from diesel haulage. It's no surprise that no new electric freight locos have been built since the introduction of the Class 92s in the early 1990s. Electrification that solely benefits passenger operations will cause major pathing issues for FOCs with their reliance on diesel traction.
The former chairman and owners of EWS (possibly the largest of the FOC's) had a policy of diesel traction, DB Schenker may have a different view after all the FOC's need to make their case and a commitment to use electrification, which I am sure they will.

I think you can take it for granted the Germans in particular will back wider use of electric traction where possible. The latest issue of rail says that DB Schenker is taking over haulage of Stobart Rail trains from DRS and will use Class 92s on the Daventry-Scotland services.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on August 30, 2009, 11:10:10 am
Ian Walmsley writing in September's Modern Railway suggests what he calls a "schizo-Voyager" basically a Voyager with additonal panto graph/transformer car for running  electric under the wires and diesel off the wires. Given their over provision of power the addition of another 40 tonnes of train weight hardly dents the HP/tonne ratio on diesel. Plus there would be more seats or perhaps reinstate the buffet.

He reckons it would be 5 better overall from Bristol to Penazance with 13*90 second stops and 5 at Plymouth, than the current 225 minutes for an 8 car HST. Whereas an IEP bi mode would be 8 worse.

On a further question, if suitable balises were fitted could Super Voyagers tilt in Cornwall?



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on August 31, 2009, 04:53:26 pm
Another snippet from Roger Ford's column in Sept Modern Rail is that electrification of the Severn Tunnel will use rigid bar conductor. The firm he mentioned is Furrer & Frey, if you look down this page of their 2007 news:
http://www.furrerfrey.ch/web/furrerfrey/en/news/news-2007.html (http://www.furrerfrey.ch/web/furrerfrey/en/news/news-2007.html)
...there is an item about Sunderland North tunnel, this is where NR replaced the previous system with rigid bar because there were corrosion issues with the previous OHLE, which only dated from the Sunderland extension, somewhat less than ten years.  I think the same kit is used in the recently electrified tunnels between Waverley and Haymarket.

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on August 31, 2009, 07:27:12 pm
Another snippet from Roger Ford's column in Sept Modern Rail is that electrification of the Severn Tunnel will use rigid bar conductor. The firm he mentioned is Furrer & Frey, if you look down this page of their 2007 news:
http://www.furrerfrey.ch/web/furrerfrey/en/news/news-2007.html (http://www.furrerfrey.ch/web/furrerfrey/en/news/news-2007.html)
...there is an item about Sunderland North tunnel, this is where NR replaced the previous system with rigid bar because there were corrosion issues with the previous OHLE, which only dated from the Sunderland extension, somewhat less than ten years.  I think the same kit is used in the recently electrified tunnels between Waverley and Haymarket.
Paul
The rigid bar system is used on the Trowse Bridge (Norwich) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Trowse_Bridge.jpg)(image from Wikipidia) when it was electrified in the 80's  A swinging cantilever system using the rigid conductor was installed in North Pole Depot to allow the road that was used for lifting could also be used for normal maintenance.
From what the OLE design engineers has told be the plan is to install portal type structures inside Seven Tunnel to support the contact system, also classic Booster Transformer or return conductor system will be used where as the rest of the GWML will be Auto Transformer system.  There are train speed limitations with rigid contact equipment


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on September 01, 2009, 12:03:37 am
These limitations would be what exactly? The Furrer & Frey system has been tested up to 260kmh (that's 161mph for all those who seem to think using metric measurements is some kind of sinister European plot) in a tunnel in Austria, as I pointed out more than a year ago, when several people were busy insisting that the Severn Tunnel could never be electrified.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on September 01, 2009, 11:44:22 am
Getting back to rolling stock...

Based on a quick skim of the GWML RUS draft I linked to earlier, the bi-mode trains will be pairs of 5 cars, with splitting and joining. If this is the correct interpretation it seems to remove the problem of underpowered trains off the wires, but with the knock on effect of the 10 car train only having 8 x 26m passenger coaches...

This supports something I posted a while back, where I pointed out that the initial plans for IEP had most of the 10 car bi-mode trains on the ECML...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on September 01, 2009, 07:19:04 pm
Section 8.7 of the RUS, starting on page 165 lays out a potential programme of future wiring for the region.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on September 01, 2009, 08:59:31 pm
These limitations would be what exactly? The Furrer & Frey system has been tested up to 260kmh (that's 161mph for all those who seem to think using metric measurements is some kind of sinister European plot) in a tunnel in Austria, as I pointed out more than a year ago, when several people were busy insisting that the Severn Tunnel could never be electrified.
Not sure that a rigid OHLE contact system has been used in the UK at any thing approaching high speed.  I've never seen the Seven Tunnel as an impossible to electrify it is quite a large diameter tunnel a little damp in places but not the wettest of tunnels that have had 25kV run through them and lets face it 25kv runs through carriage washing plants  ;D

Furrer & Frey is the system being used to rewire the GE between Liverpool St and Shenfield / Southend, having seen some of it in the sky it looks a bit light weight compared to it predecessor but apparently it is performing very well.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: drandles on September 02, 2009, 07:42:12 am

Unfortunately, as I understand, the performance of the bi-mode IEP when in diesel mode will be significantly inferior to present day HSTs, so that services worked by these trains are likely to be slower than present day services. While this may not matter for short extensions from eg Bristol to Weston or Swansea to Carmarthen, it becomes a more serious issue for Newbury-Penzance or Oxford-Hereford, or Swindon-Cheltenham.  So I anticipate that Devon and Cornwall will continue to be served by HSTs for many years. The all diesel version of the IEP has apparently been dropped.

David

After some further reading, I have to correct myself here. It seems that a 2x5car IEP bi-mode train working on diesel will have much higher power at the rail (2x2MW) than a 2+8 HST (1x1.3MW) so that there should be no performance loss compared with present day services. Moreover there is very little performance difference on electric between the bi-mode and all electric versions which have the same power at the rail, although the bi-mode unit is slightly heavier and has fewer seats.
David




Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on September 02, 2009, 11:28:03 am
Having digested both the facts and learned arguments put forward about GW Electrification, my conclusions are:

1. It's the rolling stock, stupid.

2. New diesels aren't viable, replacement stock is (if it's electric).

3. Modernish emu's are cascadable for lives of at least 50 years (like HST's!).

4. Diesels under the wires are doubly wasteful, when they are needed elsewhere.

5. No one knows what to do when the wires end. This is what bothers people most.

I suspect that we'll end up with the new all-electric IEP's being hauled by the class 67's, beyond the wires. There are 30 of them, looking for a home, can put down about 1.9MW at rail and have high top speed if they can reach it. They are however only BoBo and weigh in at only 88t - could they climb the Devon banks?

For the 319's, either we terminate at Turbo shuttles beyond Oxford, Newbury and Swindon or use Turbos under the wires when they are needed elsewhere. The class 210 power car comes idly to mind....

( http://www.anteater.freeuk.com/MUgallery/demu/210oxf.htm)

All this is a long time ahead of course.

OTC



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on September 02, 2009, 12:14:16 pm
Having digested both the facts and learned arguments put forward about GW Electrification, my conclusions are:

4. Diesels under the wires are doubly wasteful, when they are needed elsewhere.

All this is a long time ahead of course.


Can I take it that you also consider weekday diesel services that are on 3rd rail lines throughout are also wasteful ... and that would apply equally from next May as from 'a long time ahead'?   I'm trying to get my head round the logic of transferring the 158 that's been running the morning TransWilts to Swindon servivce  onto the Lymington branch.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: FlyingDutchman on September 02, 2009, 01:22:20 pm
I would like to see the electrification extended to Exeter from Bristol.



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on September 02, 2009, 01:28:36 pm
After some further reading, I have to correct myself here. It seems that a 2x5car IEP bi-mode train working on diesel will have much higher power at the rail (2x2MW) than a 2+8 HST (1x1.3MW) so that there should be no performance loss compared with present day services.

Have you seen this David?

http://www.agilitytrains.com/assets/pdf/AT-090205-Key_Facts-Released-1_5.pdf (http://www.agilitytrains.com/assets/pdf/AT-090205-Key_Facts-Released-1_5.pdf) Hitach Data Sheet

I think I may have posted it before, but it gives all the figures needed. You seem to have worked out (as I did) that the 'power problems' are really only applicable to a 10 car bi-mode.

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on September 02, 2009, 01:54:59 pm
I would like to see the electrification extended to Exeter from Bristol.



It will be eventually, as far as Plymouth, according to the earlier NR electrification strategy. IIRC it is one of the phases of the XC NE/SW route, to follow on from Bromsgrove - Bristol.  Once it is done they intend to do Newbury - Taunton, which will allow Paddington - Plymouth. 

In other words the business case comes more from XC pax than locals.

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on September 02, 2009, 01:58:43 pm
Having digested both the facts and learned arguments put forward about GW Electrification, my conclusions are:

4. Diesels under the wires are doubly wasteful, when they are needed elsewhere.

All this is a long time ahead of course.


Can I take it that you also consider weekday diesel services that are on 3rd rail lines throughout are also wasteful ... and that would apply equally from next May as from 'a long time ahead'?   I'm trying to get my head round the logic of transferring the 158 that's been running the morning TransWilts to Swindon servivce  onto the Lymington branch.

Absolutely. Reading - Gatwick is my (local) hobbyhorse, only 3 substations needed....then lots of Turbos for TransWilts....

In the context of a rolling stock crunch, appropriating a dmu of 158 quality is appalling.

Surely there's a 507/8 or two sitting in a siding, somewhere.

MP (try Adonis' PPS), ORR, Audit Commission or Select Committee?

Good Luck

OTC


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on October 07, 2009, 11:51:35 pm
Plans to run electric trains between Bristol and London have been thrown in to doubt after the Tories refused to commit to the ^1billion scheme.Last week Transport Secretary Lord Adonis gave a "cast-iron" guarantee the major overhaul, which would shave 12 minutes off journey times between Bristol and London, would go ahead under a Labour government.

But in an interview during the Conservatives' annual party conference, Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers told the Evening Post that was a pledge she would not make.
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Electric-trains-Bristol-doubt/article-1397493-detail/article.html
What do you think?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: signalandtelegraph on October 08, 2009, 07:30:37 am
No change there then, the tories sold it and will want to wash their hands of it as much as they can if they become 'responsible' for it again. :(


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: moonrakerz on October 08, 2009, 08:19:31 am
or..........

perhaps she was telling the truth - we can't afford it !


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on October 08, 2009, 03:23:24 pm
Why are you surprised? ::)

Of course the Tories won't do it! Say goodbye to Crossrail as well, that has not been confirmed by the Tories (Boris doesn't count, as he shares very little in common with his Westminster colleagues!) of course, Boris himself cut several transport projects proposed by Labour's Ken. That's what they do!

Their claim of "we can't afford it" is rubbish. We can't afford NOT to do it. The HSTs need replacing, and if the GWML is not electrified, we'll be confimed to DMUs for the next 40 years. The other benefit is the way Labour have planned a good rolling stock cascade, which co-incides with the Thameslink programme being completed.

But the Tories won't bother making the investment, despite the fact that the benefits will pay for it in the long term. And the fact that it is greener and reduces our reliance on foreign fossil fuels.

And they have the cheek of posting a video on their transport policy website saying that "passengers have had a bad deal under Labour".


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on October 08, 2009, 03:32:39 pm
There might be changes and savings availble (I am yetto be convinced that the IEP is good value), but bottom line is that electrification would save money (ie more than pay for itself when you factor the cost of an HST replacement into account.  Even the dubious cost-benefit analysis calculations which are often baised against investment have a result which is described by DfT as "technically infinate".  Mathematically this is because the benefit/cost involves a divsion by zero because over a 40 year time-scale the cost is nil because electrification will actuallly save money.

If the Tories don't think that the government should pay for it it should let private capital build it. 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on October 08, 2009, 03:37:38 pm
This is slightly puzzling.

If you read the previous edition of RAIL, Theresa Villiers is quoted as saying that a Tory government would not squish plans for high-speed rail construction because it was a necessity, not an option. I would have assumed that the same would apply to electrification given it's hugely lower relative cost, but perhaps that's naive of me.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on October 08, 2009, 05:29:15 pm
But the Tories won't bother making the investment, despite the fact that the benefits will pay for it in the long term. And the fact that it is greener and reduces our reliance on foreign fossil fuels.

And they have the cheek of posting a video on their transport policy website saying that "passengers have had a bad deal under Labour".

Hmmm ... your comment about the Tories "not bothering" is, I think, conjecture.  And in our neck of the woods, passengers HAVE had a bad deal under Labour.  We see places like Workington (population 19,000, labour marginal) with an hourly service, yet Melksham (20,000+, no hope of a labour gain) being cut back to just two trains a day, and they're running at [understatement ahead ...] less than ideal times of day.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: moonrakerz on October 08, 2009, 07:58:57 pm
That's what they do!
Of course - nasty Tory cuts, good Labour "investment" !

But the Tories won't bother making the investment, despite the fact that the benefits will pay for it in the long term. And the fact that it is greener and reduces our reliance on foreign fossil fuels.


Most of our power station run on imported fossil fuels - don't quite get that one !!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on October 08, 2009, 08:23:42 pm
But the Tories won't bother making the investment, despite the fact that the benefits will pay for it in the long term. And the fact that it is greener and reduces our reliance on foreign fossil fuels.

And they have the cheek of posting a video on their transport policy website saying that "passengers have had a bad deal under Labour".

Hmmm ... your comment about the Tories "not bothering" is, I think, conjecture.  And in our neck of the woods, passengers HAVE had a bad deal under Labour.  We see places like Workington (population 19,000, labour marginal) with an hourly service, yet Melksham (20,000+, no hope of a labour gain) being cut back to just two trains a day, and they're running at [understatement ahead ...] less than ideal times of day.

But if you look at the UK as a whole, I would say there has been an improvement. (esp in things like rolling stock quality)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on October 08, 2009, 08:53:54 pm
Look, I am no fan of the Tories, but Labour hardly has a sparkling record on railways - going even further in cuts than Beeching proposed in the 1960s, eg closing Oxford-Cambridge.

All of the pre-Class 168 and 170 DMU fleet was authorised under the Tories, so that in the late 1980 and early 90s, after the painful lesson of the Pacers had been learned, the 150s, 155s and 156s, followed by 158/9s and Turbos, produced a vast improvement on ageing DMUs and Mk1 coaches on routes all over the country.

They also authorised ECML electrification - because BR produced a sound business case for doing it, rather like what Network Rail has set out to do with its electrification plan.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on October 09, 2009, 10:45:49 am
When I talk about improved rolling stock, I mean post 168s!

I would rather have mark ones than 150s, and rather Turbostars than both!

And in the 60s, people thought the day of the railway was over, and the day of the car had come.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on October 09, 2009, 11:39:28 am
When I talk about improved rolling stock, I mean post 168s!

Voyagers for example?  ;)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: moonrakerz on October 09, 2009, 03:22:50 pm
Look, I am no fan of the Tories, but Labour hardly has a sparkling record on railways - going even further in cuts than Beeching proposed in the 1960s, eg closing Oxford-Cambridge.

I have just finished reading a book on the railways. The author says in it, quite reasonably I think, "John Major had a plan, it may have been a **** plan, but he had one. The following Labour Governments never had a plan".


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on October 09, 2009, 03:54:15 pm
When I talk about improved rolling stock, I mean post 168s!

Voyagers for example?  ;)

I mean getting rid of all the slam door stock in the South East, getting rid of most Mark 2s on Intercity runs, Electrostars, Turbostars.... even Desiros are better than what was on offer before.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on October 09, 2009, 04:37:24 pm
Look, I am no fan of the Tories, but Labour hardly has a sparkling record on railways - going even further in cuts than Beeching proposed in the 1960s, eg closing Oxford-Cambridge.

I have just finished reading a book on the railways. The author says in it, quite reasonably I think, "John Major had a plan, it may have been a **** plan, but he had one. The following Labour Governments never had a plan".
There was and still is a plan, the plan sold to the Labour Government by the Board of Network Rail on the crash of Railtrack was - phase 1 stop the rot, Phase 2 build a better railway, we are now entering into phase 2, phase 3 is run an affordable and sustainable railway.

Anyone who works or has worked in the rail industry will know of the neglect due to lack of coherent investment over the last 40 years.  There is a real risk no matter who wins the next General Election that funding in large public projects will be cut or reduced, I know which Party will invest the most in the railways and it not the Party who just appointed a General!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on October 09, 2009, 05:24:19 pm
... I know which Party will invest the most in the railways and it not the Party who just appointed a General!

Yeah, what an own goal.  ::)  After all, the current lot elevated an Admiral to the Lords to deal with security didn't they...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on October 09, 2009, 05:34:41 pm
To get a sense of the railways under the Tories, just look at the film "Old, Dirty and Late" on YouTube.

Poor rolling stock, falling apart signal boxes etc. Well, I'm not sure about Dartford signal box (perhaps a signalman on here may know), but the rolling stock in Kent/Sussex is A LOT better now!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on October 09, 2009, 05:44:33 pm
Let's just wait and see, shall we? Who knows how the Tories will run the railways if they win the next general election. If they do they may be a totally different party to previous Tory administrations. The current Labour Party bears little resemblence to previous Labour administrations.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: devon_metro on October 09, 2009, 05:57:44 pm
To get a sense of the railways under the Tories, just look at the film "Old, Dirty and Late" on YouTube.

Poor rolling stock, falling apart signal boxes etc. Well, I'm not sure about Dartford signal box (perhaps a signalman on here may know), but the rolling stock in Kent/Sussex is A LOT better now!

You mean under a nationalised system? The Tories support privatised systems and the current system is far better.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on October 09, 2009, 07:15:40 pm
That video doesn't criticise a nationalised railway, it's the lack of funding that is the problem!

If anything, the video shows how well BR managed under the circumstances.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: moonrakerz on October 09, 2009, 10:24:46 pm
I didn't know that a Labour state run monopoly built our railway system    ::)  Always thought it was nasty, grasping, greedy capitalists - sort of like, ......well, ....... Tories !





Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on October 12, 2009, 04:20:16 pm

My impression of the Tories' railway policy so far is they they are for high speed lines but possibly at the expense of the 'classic' railway. Selling the GW electrification as HSGW might help.

Looking at big ticket items the GW electrification is significant at 1Bn but much less so than Crossrail at 16Bn. GW electrification also depends on Thameslink 2000 for cast-offs. It is also important electorally.

GW electrification is a long time ahead but its book value implies spending on new IC trains. New technology (such as the French AGV) will be along by then  so it makes no sense to develop a small obsolescent class of IC stock (the IEP) of greater cost and lower performance than other European (by then) proven products. The sensible option is to just plan refurbishment (again) of the Mk3's and provision of about 35 class 89/91 locos and DVT's. This carves at lot off the Treasury book cost for the next c7 years, as required.

Then, nearer the time,  a business case will find that AGV + HSGW makes more sense (like Mk4 did over Mk3 on the EC) and so we can have non-stoppers to Bristol and S Wales. Everyone is happy.

Just a thought,

OTC


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on October 12, 2009, 06:50:09 pm
From the Corporate Infrastructure briefing that have been running over the last week or so in NR the Board are extremely confidant that the future Government past the next general election will continue with the funding of the GWML electrification.  The Board have had many meetings with all the major political parties.

But as will things to do with the illustrious UK government I am not counting my chickens until they hatch


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on October 19, 2009, 11:49:11 pm
Atoc is doing its bit to keep up the pressure, producing a top 10 list of extra wiring schemes it wants to see, including Bristol-Birmingham, Swindon-Gloucester and Basingstoke-Reading-Oxford-Banbury-Birmingham.
See http://www.atoc-comms.org/dynamic/atoc-press-story/997937/Electrify-more-train-lines-between-cities-to-cut-carbon-and-congestion (http://www.atoc-comms.org/dynamic/atoc-press-story/997937/Electrify-more-train-lines-between-cities-to-cut-carbon-and-congestion)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: stebbo on October 20, 2009, 08:39:36 pm
There has to be a case for some public spending (on really worthwhile projects) after the next election to sustain the economy and railway electrification seems a no brainer. The HSTs, great though they have been, need replacing and I'm not sure the IEP does it.

Perhaps that way too, we can let the spending on banks subside gently without causing an almighty crash. Divert money into other areas of the economy.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on October 21, 2009, 01:30:54 pm
The Oxford electrification has been scrapped, and is now "planned" rather than "definite" scheme.

This link is to an ATOC map. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZIki7YXUWV4/StyHa8grNDI/AAAAAAAAA48/0RTNZ4im0bo/s1600-h/ATOC+sparks+map+16-10-09+.jpg


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on October 21, 2009, 02:44:31 pm

It has been reported in one of the mags (you can look it up) that the HST's are being considered for life-extension until 2030, as suggested a few posts above......

The wires, however, are certain as they reduce spending but maintain service in an electorally sensitive region.

OTC



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: caliwag on October 21, 2009, 04:19:25 pm
Excellent, they'll see me out. ;D


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on October 21, 2009, 05:28:34 pm
The Oxford electrification has been scrapped, and is now "planned" rather than "definite" scheme.

This link is to an ATOC map. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZIki7YXUWV4/StyHa8grNDI/AAAAAAAAA48/0RTNZ4im0bo/s1600-h/ATOC+sparks+map+16-10-09+.jpg

No it hasn't! ATOC cocked up a map, that's all. See elsewhere.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on October 21, 2009, 06:17:56 pm
It has been reported in one of the mags (you can look it up) that the HST's are being considered for life-extension until 2030, as suggested a few posts above......
Sounds good to me as nothing yet that has been built for IC services comes anywhere near the quality of an HST. Ohhh okay maybe class 91 and MK4, they're not bad either.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: stebbo on October 23, 2009, 09:57:38 pm
Mk III coaches are good. Don't knock them - especially when you've got a few more tables in like the good ole days.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on October 25, 2009, 11:46:55 am
I donmt see the concervatives scrapping the lectrification swcheme for teh great western simply because it will allow them to reduce the amount of subsidy they have to pay out as the electric trains are cheaper to operate.

also i have noticed that maybe the wires should be extended from Bristol to exeter st davids as this will mean that the Cardiff - Taunton & Weston Super Mare - Bristol Parkway services will be able to be operated using a few EMU'S thus meaning that FGW will be able to save at least 8 dmus which could help to boost capacity elsewhere


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on October 25, 2009, 12:20:47 pm
also i have noticed that maybe the wires should be extended from Bristol to exeter st davids as this will mean that the Cardiff - Taunton & Weston Super Mare - Bristol Parkway services will be able to be operated using a few EMU'S thus meaning that FGW will be able to save at least 8 dmus which could help to boost capacity elsewhere
If you are going to electrify as far as Exeter St Davids you may as well continue though to Plymouth assuming the Dawlish Sea Wall does not prevent this.  Most intercity trains do not terminate at Exeter but continue through to Plymouth so if the electrification did end at Exeter diesel would be required for the section from Exeter to Plymouth.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: stebbo on October 25, 2009, 09:06:22 pm
Which neatly brings us back to a topic I raised earlier/in another thread ie whether the old Southern route over Datmoor should be looked at or the old GWR route around the back of the coast?

The coastal route is great - and I spent many happy journeys on it in the late 50s and early 60s with steam - but I'm not sure it's good for long term electrification.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: XPT on April 23, 2010, 07:22:55 pm
When it was announced back in July last year that the GWML was to be electrified, on the news reports I watched it said that the work to begin electrifying the Great Western mainline would begin immediately. That was on BBC, ITN, and Sky News. Now I didn't expect that to mean the work would begin that day or even that month.   But we are now some 9 months later in April, and there is still no sign of the physical work of the GWML actually being electrified.  So what's happening?   Is electrification of the GWML another of those things which never ends up actually going ahead?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on April 23, 2010, 07:30:41 pm
Suggest asking that question after the general election but me thinks it could be kicked into the long grass for a few more years now IEP looks dead in the water. So another refurb/refit for the GW HST fleet in a few years time?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on April 23, 2010, 09:05:51 pm
Work in the drawing office is still progress. It was always going to be ages ( a couple of years) before any masts started appearing beside the track IMHO.

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on April 24, 2010, 08:11:37 am
Paul is correct there is a team working on the development, the process still has to follow GRIP at each GRIP stage there are number of deliverables that have to be meet to secure funding for the next stage.  The GWML is being developed at the same time as the other routes announced.  There is also collaboration between the GWML project and Crossrail.

My guess is, provided GWML electrification gets the funding it will do the Crossrail electrification area first.

Post election may have an effect of the whole scheme, part of the scheme or have no effect at all as has been the case since the First World War the UK railway is in the hands of the vagaries of the politicians


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on April 29, 2010, 02:08:30 pm
I have heard the welsh assembly have said they would be willing to put some money forward to have the wires through to Swansea.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on April 29, 2010, 03:57:49 pm
The approved scheme includes wiring as far as Swansea.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on June 16, 2010, 03:07:36 pm
Well, the investment roller-coaster continues. 

GWML electrification now looking in some doubt: http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/06/16-electrification-looking-increasingly-unlikely-soon.html (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/06/16-electrification-looking-increasingly-unlikely-soon.html)

Whilst Crossrail which was looking in some doubt (in terms of its full scope) now appears to be safe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10323035.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10323035.stm)

Whatever happens, for goodness sake let's get Crossrail extended to Reading!

We'll see what the situation is next week...  ::)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on June 16, 2010, 03:54:09 pm
Interesting... I'm sure I read in the last issue of RAIL (well, possibly the last but one because it takes them a few weeks to find their way into my mailbox Stateside) a quote from Phillip Hammond in which he indicated that they were committed to GWML electrification.

What seems to be the prevailing attitude of "HS2 at all costs and b*gg*r the rest of the network" seems to be utterly ludicrous to me. If there are limited resources available (which there most certainly are!) why on earth are huge sums being p*ssed up the wall on a "nice-to-have" vanity project like HS2 which will benefit a relatively limited number of people when that same amount of money could be making vast improvements for millions of passengers on the existing rail network?

Easy solution: ditch HS2 for now: it's not as if it was ever going to be in action quickly anyway, and what appears to be the current plan just to build London to Birmingham would result in a pretty vestigial high-speed line that just duplicates one of the country's fastest and most frequent rail services anyway. Instead, spend the money on GWML electrification/new rolling stock/RDG and BHM upgrades. Is this really that complicated? HS2 is a project that we can always come back to in due course when the money's actually available.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: brompton rail on June 16, 2010, 04:07:46 pm
A similar comment from the Press Association casting severe doubt on GW electrification, and I guess too on North West fill in electrification.

HSTs and DMUs for ever it seems with Crossrail getting no further west than Maidenhead.

Happy times ahead!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: brompton rail on June 16, 2010, 04:08:52 pm
Whoops - link here
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gfGpowdYRyv4vzIDAZAxhpMZD5SA (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gfGpowdYRyv4vzIDAZAxhpMZD5SA)

Sorry


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on June 16, 2010, 04:10:15 pm
NR's self financing of the GWML electrification is reliant on two things cascaded Thameslink 319's  and the IEP, Coucher has said in Railnews that GWML only has a low per kM rate if the whole route to Swansea is done.  The cascade of 319's is under threat because the procurement of the second tranche of new Thameslink stock is frozen and the IEP is also frozen and is subject to review.



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on June 16, 2010, 04:20:39 pm
As various industry bigwigs and journalists have pointed out, the IEP becomes more or less pointless in the wake of GWML electrification because there then won't be a need to replace a bulk fleet of intercity diesel trains. The majority of HSTs could ultimately be replaced using variations on "out of the box" designs like the Pendo or Javelin, rather than the bizarre fleet of over-specified IEP trains that was proposed.

Must say the IEPs have always reminded me of a Mitchell and Webb sketch, where a customer walks into a shop and gives his requirements for a suit jacket. The aloof shop assistant replies "A business suit that is also a dinner suit, which is also a tailcoat and a pair of pyjamas... [and then on hearing the customer's budget] ...which is fashioned from sackcloth and string"!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on June 16, 2010, 04:33:24 pm
As various industry bigwigs and journalists have pointed out, the IEP becomes more or less pointless in the wake of GWML electrification because there then won't be a need to replace a bulk fleet of intercity diesel trains. The majority of HSTs could ultimately be replaced using variations on "out of the box" designs like the Pendo or Javelin, rather than the bizarre fleet of over-specified IEP trains that was proposed.

Must say the IEPs have always reminded me of a Mitchell and Webb sketch, where a customer walks into a shop and gives his requirements for a suit jacket. The aloof shop assistant replies "A business suit that is also a dinner suit, which is also a tailcoat and a pair of pyjamas... [and then on hearing the customer's budget] ...which is fashioned from sackcloth and string"!
Absolutely  ;D

The GWML given is extremely good build by Brunel would suit the Javelin trains with a better internal fit out than the SE Trains have, not much need for Pendo's.  The West Country would be best served as now with HST's or a modern diesel only replacement


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on June 16, 2010, 05:50:08 pm
Whatever happens, for goodness sake let's get Crossrail extended to Reading!

And run all the HS services non-stop through Reading to make people use Crossrail? 

(I appreciate that comment may be a repeat...)  ;D

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Mookiemoo on June 16, 2010, 05:56:15 pm
Whatever happens, for goodness sake let's get Crossrail extended to Reading!

And run all the HS services non-stop through Reading to make people use Crossrail? 

(I appreciate that comment may be a repeat...)  ;D

Paul

What happens if you are AT Reading and need one of those HST's


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on June 16, 2010, 06:53:11 pm
I know - wasn't the plan for some IEPs to run Northampton - London express commuter trains?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on June 16, 2010, 08:43:19 pm
You could have HS speed trains that pick up only at Reading on their outward run and set down only on the inward.

But you need some pretty agile TMs to get through the train and surcharge all the people with Reading Padd tickets.

In a way i wish Crossrail wasn't around because it detracts from the obvious solution of wires to Plymouth (at least and Swansea all routes (i.e Berks Hants, Westbury to Taunton and Bristol, Bristol Taunton, Swindon Trowbridge and North curve Bradford and Swindon Gloucester Newport. Through trains to be  West of Plymouth and Swanswea to be loco hauled with change of loco at end of the wires.

Linking as Crossrail does in the East with already electrified mainlines there seems to me to be no reason why you couldn't run a Bristol Norwich IC stoping Reading Padd inner London Crossrail and then Chelmsford or Colchester first stop on GE. Or with a dual voltage set what about Oxford Canterbury/Dover.

With fill in electrification through to Salisbury and Southampton? Eastleigh. Virtually all FGW services could be electric.

The trouble is we've got no Brunels in this country being ruled by bean counters and pratitioners of the dismal art who have absolutely no imagination. Most of Brunels projects overspent by very large sums but look at legacy he left behind.



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on June 16, 2010, 10:13:13 pm
THE chances of electrification of the Great Western Main Line and several key routes in the north west in the foreseeable future appear to have dwindled to almost zero. The House of Lords has been told that the national financial situation poses difficulties.
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/06/16-electrification-looking-increasingly-unlikely-soon.html
 Also I think Angel and Porterbrook has been asked to price two options to life extend the HSTs to 2025 and 2035 and that is where I think we are going on this one personally.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on June 17, 2010, 07:33:43 pm
The only crumb of comfort is that electrification wasn't included as part of today's announcement about the hit list of projects cancelled or under review. Though there's a steady drip feed of announcements at the moment, so probably best not to read too much into it.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on June 17, 2010, 11:04:22 pm
The only crumb of comfort is that electrification wasn't included as part of today's announcement about the hit list of projects cancelled or under review. Though there's a steady drip feed of announcements at the moment, so probably best not to read too much into it.

Today's list is all post Jan 2010 'electioneering announcements' according to most reports. Comparable with the ^50m for marginal constituencies, nearly all in the NW, oops, should have said station improvements...    ::)

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on June 18, 2010, 04:09:56 am
I'm getting increasingly annoyed about this. Why the hell does the ^657 bazillion* that will be necessary to build the thoroughly pointless HS2 seem to be ring-fenced and sacrosanct, when projects that will benefit far more people like GWML electrification (and at a much more modest cost) are being cut? Do we really need a new high-speed London-Birmingham line at the moment? No!

For heaven's sake just ditch HS2 (or at least put it on the back burner until the country can actually afford it). Another one of my stretched analogies, but it's rather like this situation: your current, modest car is falling to bits, but you're not going to spend money upgrading it. Instead you're going to let it continue disintegrating whilst spend several times the cost of repairing is purchasing a top of the range Porsche which will be delivered in ten years' time. The only problem is that it won't actually have much of a range, or take you to any of the places you actually want to go. Aaaaaarrrrrrgh!  >:(

*possibly not strictly accurate but I lose track every now and again


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on June 18, 2010, 10:21:10 am
I agree with Inspector Blakey its really bazarre when all you here from the new coalition government is every project rail and non rail is under review including Great Western Electrification and new trains,everything that is except HS2.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: devon_metro on June 18, 2010, 10:22:33 am
Agreed, HS2 is a waste of time.

I think it's more a case of political point scoring and not going back on election promises, I believe all 3 major parties had committed to HS2.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on June 18, 2010, 05:06:06 pm
Totally agree with all that has been said about HS2. Waste of money when the rest of the network needs investment.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on June 18, 2010, 05:10:04 pm
GWML electrification is about now therefore about committing money now, HS2 is still a pencil line on a map is years away from any major money so a Government can back it.

Also in 4 years time on the work up to the next general election the ConDem or is it LibTory can wave a big banner and say ain't good we are building a new railway.

If only you all knew how close GWM electrification is / was to be being a reality you would spit feathers


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Henry on June 18, 2010, 10:41:47 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10355547.stm

 In my opinion any promises made by the previous administration can now be ignored.
 It seems that there is now no cash available to even maintain our fragile network west of Exeter.

 Makes you wonder, if at the end of FGW's franchise, would any TOC take on this 'crumbling' network ?
 Fortunately I am only reliant upon 'public transport' for another couple of years.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on June 18, 2010, 10:57:08 pm
Where on earth does the BBC article say there is no cash for maintaining the network west of Exeter? The only substantive point in that article referring to rail is that XC's voyagers aren't going to run on the sea wall in bad weather because of design flaws that have been known for nearly ten years.

There's actually a fair bit of money being spent on the network in the south west at the moment, with the major work on the Royal Albert Bridge just one example. Let's not grumble or get unduly pessimistic without some actual facts to back things up.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on June 19, 2010, 10:19:23 am
GWML electrification is about now therefore about committing money now, HS2 is still a pencil line on a map is years away from any major money so a Government can back it.

Also in 4 years time on the work up to the next general election the ConDem or is it LibTory can wave a big banner and say ain't good we are building a new railway.

If only you all knew how close GWM electrification is / was to be being a reality you would spit feathers

The problem is that all the work has been out of sight. It's a shame that NR could not have found a nice long stretch of simple plain line and aimed to get overhead masts up before the election. Probably very inefficient, but it's more difficult to can a project once there are visisble signs of progress (eg Crossrail....), so if it saved the project then worth the additional cost. 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on June 19, 2010, 10:51:47 am
Where on earth does the BBC article say there is no cash for maintaining the network west of Exeter? The only substantive point in that article referring to rail is that XC's voyagers aren't going to run on the sea wall in bad weather because of design flaws that have been known for nearly ten years.

There's actually a fair bit of money being spent on the network in the south west at the moment, with the major work on the Royal Albert Bridge just one example. Let's not grumble or get unduly pessimistic without some actual facts to back things up.

Unfortunately the perception of rail travel particularly among the business community west of Exeter/Newton Abbot is dominated by the relatively poor rail infrastructure as this reader comment (May 26th) about the current sale of Plymouth in my local paper highlights "If Plymouth loses its airport this city is dead in the water and confined to being in a backwater existence. We cannot rely in our roads, no motorway to mention and a railway stuck in Stevenson's Rocket times where it takes 50mins to get to Exeter for heavens sake. Who would want to do business with anybody in Plymouth if you cant get here".Yes a bit OTT but there is a message there for the Devon and Cornwalls railways and Government.
 With the ongoing financial clampdown on rail projects that situation can only get worse as the 21st century unfolds.
 The BBC says the current economic difficulties in the UK threaten planned projects to improve the transport infrastructure in Devon and Cornwall.
The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) has categorised the region's infrastructure as "at risk".
Severe weather and congestion on major routes can "effectively cut off Devon and Cornwall", it said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10355547.stm


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Henry on June 19, 2010, 06:14:35 pm

  I admit to being pessimistic,  standing in the stairwell of a 142/143 does not help.
 
  Or watching the passenger bridge at Teignmouth gradually rotting away, perhaps one day they might repair the German
 Luftwaffe shell holes in the roof at Newton Abbot.
 

 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on June 19, 2010, 07:36:48 pm
.... my local paper highlights "If Plymouth loses its airport this city is dead in the water and confined to being in a backwater existence. We cannot rely in our roads, no motorway to mention and a railway stuck in Stevenson's Rocket times where it takes 50mins to get to Exeter for heavens sake. Who would want to do business with anybody in Plymouth if you cant get here".

There is a very serious case for any town / city with relatively poor communications.  In our (IT, but with customers visiting us) business, there's a line somewhere around Taunton that we really shouldn't be to the west of ... west of Cardiff would probably hurt too.

There's a difference between a "will it make money / pay for itself with the income it generates" case, and a "will it do the area economic good beyond what it costs" case.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on June 19, 2010, 07:44:21 pm
The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) has categorised the region's infrastructure as "at risk".
Severe weather and congestion on major routes can "effectively cut off Devon and Cornwall", it said.
Indeed, in 2002 we were told the A303 was to be upgraded to dual carriageway standard between the M3 and Ilminster with the A358 also upgraded to dual carriageway from Ilminster to link to the M5 at Taunton to give a second high quality route to the South West.  This would have also relieved congestion in the Bristol area as many people use this route due to delays on the A303.  This was cancelled as was the dualling of the last two sections of the A30 (Temple to Higher Carblake and Carland Cross to Chiverton Cross) that needed upgrading.  The A380 Kingskerswell bypass may also be axed later this year.

In terms of railways the situation is not much better, large areas of North Devon have no network at all thanks to Beeching and journey times on the existing lines west of Newton Abbot are slow.  A journey from Exeter to Bodmin by train takes 1 hour 40 minute by train, on the A30 you would get there in 1 hour.  Exeter does benefit from an hourly service to Waterloo but any further double tracking of the route seems to have been ruled out for now.

Road and rail links to the South Coast remain poor, the A35 from Honiton is slow and the direct Penzance to Portsmouth train no longer runs.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on June 20, 2010, 03:41:21 am
Dragging this thread back round onto the topic of GWML electrification, rather than nebulous, non-specific and (in my view) ill-founded paranoia about the future of the railway in Devon and Cornwall, how sure are we really that electrification has been canned? I will freely admit that I may be slightly out of date, since living out of the country doesn't always make it easy to keep abreast of developments as they happen.

However, I have in front of me issue 645 of Rail Magazine, in which the SoS for Transport Philip Hammond is quoted as saying, on 20 May 2010:
Quote
We are committed to a high-speed rail network and will take that to Birmingham. Having abandoned the third runway it is right and proper that high-speed rail should link to Heathrow. There is a renewed commitment to Great Western Main Line electrification and Crossrail.
My emphasis in bold.

That seems like pretty unequivocal language, especially coming from a politician who could more easily have made an evasive, non-committal statement. So has this commitment been superseded by subsequent events, or does it still stand, in which case we may be getting out knickers in a twist prematurely here.

The same issue also mentions on p.11 that the order for new Thameslink rolling stock is "not thought to be at risk" from DfT budget cuts. So it would seem from reading this magazine that, at least a couple of weeks ago, GWML electrification and the rather ingenious Thameslink rolling stock cascade were still on the agenda.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on June 20, 2010, 08:10:32 am
The GWML electrification design is still being worked on, the funding is there to do this, when this is complete this will be a very detailed "Form A" design sufficient to go out to tender.

The likely blockers to the scheme as Iain Coucher said in his Railnews article is the Government's freeze on ne rolling stock specifically the second (and largest) tranche of new Thameslink stock and the total reevaluation of the IEP, the whole concept of the GWML scheme is to do a "factory train build" in effect a production line from Airport Junction to Swansea; to do it peace meal will not get the per kM cost down to what the ORR were expecting.  In effect what Iain Coucher is saying if Mr DfT you only want to do as far as Oxford & Newbury it will cost a lot more, even Crossrail's costs will increase if they now take the Airport Jcn to Maidenhead wiring.

The team working on the GWML electrification design a little disappointed on the news that it may be delayed or stopped.

We all know and accept that the Country is in serious debt, schemes like the GWML and Thameslink stock can sit on hold but only for a short while these schemes need a Government decision one way or the other and in the next few months.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on June 20, 2010, 09:32:56 am
I wonder how Brunel would of handled the situation if he were still around today,probably turning in his grave now I expect.Lets hope wiser council prevails on this one and government takes the longer rather than the shorter terms view of this once in a generation opportunity to move Great Western foreward rather than sideways.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on June 20, 2010, 10:42:04 am
Quote
a railway stuck in Stevenson's Rocket times where it takes 50mins to get to Exeter for heavens sake

Maybe that person should try driving between the two cities then. I doubt you would get much under 45 minutes on a good day on the A38 (it's not short of twists, turns and climbs itself) and even the AA gives a centre to centre time by road of 58 minutes (and probably more on a summer Saturday), so what was that person on about? Or is there an air service between the two I don't know about?

Might it not be better to hang fire until the Budget this week, when the Government's plans may become clearer? And lest anyone forgets, many of the dmus that everyone is fighting to get their hands on were ordered and built under the Tories, who also authorised the ECML electrification.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on June 20, 2010, 11:21:04 am
Continuing the speculation, if the govt announce the cancellation of IEP and replaces it with a vanilla build of coaches, DVT, and some off the shelf electric locos (just enough to form the Bristol and Swansea services) then that will result in a fairly substantial headline saving. Maybe take off the Newbury branch of the project as well, and there would be enough savings to enable it to continue.

There still remains the problem of what to use on the local services if Thameslink doesn't involve the cascade of units expected. If I were the govt I would scrap the Thameslink procurement and build just enough bog standard electrostars or desiros to give the required increase in capacity.   


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on June 20, 2010, 11:33:45 am
I think that remark about Stevenson's Rocket was more a reference to the disproportionately longer journey time of the Plymouth /Exeter part of longer distance journeys to Paddington.ie Paddington to Exeter (172) miles can be done in as little as 2 hours while most Paddington trains take about an hour to cover the mere 52 miles between Exeter and Plymouth because of the slow and sinuous rail route west of Exeter/Newton Abbot with its 55/60mph line speeds.If you were driving up the A38/M5 you would be at Taunton in the same time from Plymouth given that most traffic seems to regard 80mph as the norm even on the A38,its a question of perception really west of Newton Abbot railwise.The reality is that if rail links are important to your business then you probably would think twice about re-locating a business west of Exeter/Newton Abbot now,a point that FGWs plan to introduce an an earlier direct Paddington train targetting Exeter/Newton Abbot/Paignton rather than the much bigger Plymouth in December 2010 bares out.
 Dont get me wrong I am not knocking FGW after all they have a business to run and do the best they can with the limitations of the trains and the infrastructure they have,but limitations they do have hence the concern of some people in the far southwest over the possible loss of Air links.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on June 20, 2010, 11:47:00 am
Continuing the speculation, if the govt announce the cancellation of IEP and replaces it with a vanilla build of coaches, DVT, and some off the shelf electric locos (just enough to form the Bristol and Swansea services) then that will result in a fairly substantial headline saving. Maybe take off the Newbury branch of the project as well, and there would be enough savings to enable it to continue.

There still remains the problem of what to use on the local services if Thameslink doesn't involve the cascade of units expected. If I were the govt I would scrap the Thameslink procurement and build just enough bog standard electrostars or desiros to give the required increase in capacity.   
Would not mess about with "vanilla" coaches and loco's - Javelins are the answer for the Bristol / S Wales.  The TV routes could work by knocking out the Newbury section, but there is not much cost in doing that route compared to the whole GWML but would make a "political" saving


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: vacman on June 20, 2010, 12:07:13 pm
you never know, they may include Westbury in the electrification to make it better value for money all over, all the Bedwyns AND the current Westbury's could be 319's meaning less DMU's and a more standard fleet.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: matt473 on June 20, 2010, 08:12:57 pm
I think the situation is going to get real confusing as there are rumours flying about that we may be returning to some form of set up similair to BR so there may be delays as the structure of the rail system for the ear future is decided upon  :o

This was in the Sunday Times so may have an element of truth as they would not be the usual source for demanding nationisation of industries. Interesting times may be ahead whether good or bad for rail


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on June 20, 2010, 08:44:07 pm
Would be interested to read that article Matt, would you be able to post a link?

Wouldn't there be a delicious irony thought in an essentially tory government restoring the structure of BR...? Are we talking pre- or post-sectorization?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on June 20, 2010, 10:48:52 pm
Quote
Would be interested to read that article Matt, would you be able to post a link?

Not unless you want to sign up to Mr Murdoch's new paywall.




Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: matt473 on June 20, 2010, 11:19:25 pm
Would be interested to read that article Matt, would you be able to post a link?

Wouldn't there be a delicious irony thought in an essentially tory government restoring the structure of BR...? Are we talking pre- or post-sectorization?

Sadly I can't as it was in the business suppliment within the actual newspaper. No doubt there will be snippets floating about but the jist of it was many feel Coucher leaving network rail is a result of upcomming restructuring bringing it back under full public ownership as opposed to the government being the only shareholder as is currently the case. It may however be a case of creating a more verticalally intergrated system as has been hinted at for a long time with the break up of network rail possibly for a privatised BR as such. Either way the feeling is that there will be major structural change to the way teh railway is run in the near future (Supported by the delaying of re-letting the NXEA and C2C franchises whilst a review of franchising takes place)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on June 21, 2010, 01:27:41 am
Not unless you want to sign up to Mr Murdoch's new paywall.

Aah, how irritating. I knew that Murdoch was about to squirrel away the Times and Sunday Times websites behind a paywall at some point, but hadn't realized that is had gone live yet.

Not exactly a great loss, I suppose, except for the odd occasions like this when there's a specific article of interest. Must say it strikes me as a curious business decision given the huge amount of free, high-quality news coverage out there, but this is wandering well off topic and is very much a discussion for elsewhere so I'll nip it in the bud!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on June 28, 2010, 11:43:36 pm
From today's FT:

'The government may also reconsider the ^1bn electrification of the
Great Western line. Network Rail had been expected to borrow to
finance electrification of the key route. "Frankly, that is not an
option any more," said Mr Hammond.

Instead, he said, he was examining the case for compelling rail
companies to contribute to the costs of electrifying certain lines as
a condition for winning longer franchises.

"We're committed to electrification as part of the carbon agenda but
it has to sit within the fiscal constraints we face," he said. That,
however, would suggest further upward pressure on train fares to help
operators pay for the added costs.'


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: brompton rail on June 29, 2010, 03:48:13 pm
The cost of GW electrification has also to include the cost of new rolling stock. Even a 25 year franchise to include electrification and stock (both intercity and local and covering those sections not electrified) isn't going to pay much of a premium to DfT. Plus, of course, franchisee running GW would be free to build / lease their own design of trains. In that situation each franchise could have its own design of new trains and little or no inter availability with other TOCs. Smallish fleets of Pendolinos for West Coast, Seimens DMUs for FTP Ex, old BR designed and built stock for East Coast, Class 180s for .. ??  any TOC desperate enough. And so on.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on June 29, 2010, 03:54:06 pm
The cost of GW electrification has also to include the cost of new rolling stock. Even a 25 year franchise to include electrification and stock (both intercity and local and covering those sections not electrified) isn't going to pay much of a premium to DfT. Plus, of course, franchisee running GW would be free to build / lease their own design of trains. In that situation each franchise could have its own design of new trains and little or no inter availability with other TOCs. Smallish fleets of Pendolinos for West Coast, Seimens DMUs for FTP Ex, old BR designed and built stock for East Coast, Class 180s for .. ??  any TOC desperate enough. And so on.
Just as unity in the rail industry was starting to happen a Government with dogma has to mess it up 1995 here we come again!!!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: 6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01 on June 29, 2010, 09:24:01 pm
why not create jobs within england by developing hydrogen electric trains, not only for use within the uk but for export.... could be done in partnership with the motor industry to get the fuel delivery infrastucture in place

no need for wires, trains can go on any route well with no wires anyway, would help the environment cut down maintanace costs (less working parts), being alot lighter should cause less wear on rails... or am i just dreaming


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on June 30, 2010, 03:40:18 pm
why not create jobs within england by developing hydrogen electric trains, not only for use within the uk but for export.... could be done in partnership with the motor industry to get the fuel delivery infrastucture in place

no need for wires, trains can go on any route well with no wires anyway, would help the environment cut down maintanace costs (less working parts), being alot lighter should cause less wear on rails... or am i just dreaming

You need a fuel tank 4x the volume of a diesel but capable of withstanding 700 atmospheres, so very very thick and heavy.

The fuel cell costs .....c$20M per loco.

For gas safety think Ais Gill or Hawes Jn Crashes on the Midland. A lot less to clear up after.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

Electrification is still the best.

OTC


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: 6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01 on June 30, 2010, 06:30:29 pm
humm after reading that im scared ticking timebombs comes to mind


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: XPT on June 30, 2010, 07:25:39 pm
What gets me is that it still looks uncertain as to whether the GWML electrification will ever actually get built.  Yet 11 months ago when it was announced in the press and media that the GWML was to electrified, it mentioned that it would begin immediately!!   Looking forward to say 5 years in the future, will the physical work of the electrification of the GWML be visible yet?  Wouldn't surprise me atall if not!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on June 30, 2010, 07:37:50 pm
What gets me is that it still looks uncertain as to whether the GWML electrification will ever actually get built.  Yet 11 months ago when it was announced in the press and media that the GWML was to electrified, it mentioned that it would begin immediately!! 
Work in fact commenced ahead of the public announcement.  Power supply design options are in place as is most of the OHLE outline design for the complex and environmental locations all of which is on target for the next GRIP stage and there lies the problem with the change in Government.

Looking forward to say 5 years in the future, will the physical work of the electrification of the GWML be visible yet?  Wouldn't surprise me atall if not!
The Government transport spending review and how they deal with TOC franchises will determine this


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Henry on July 07, 2010, 04:25:53 pm
http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/hammond20100706

 A bit long winded, but I suppose we will have to wait until October.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: caliwag on July 23, 2010, 08:41:15 am
From Rail News...

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/07/23-new-doubts-over-great-western.html


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on July 23, 2010, 04:29:12 pm
Mr Hammond explained: ^I don^t think a full cost-benefit analysis was carried out before Lord Adonis made the announcement in the run-up to the election. (http://Mr Hammond explained: ^I don^t think a full cost-benefit analysis was carried out before Lord Adonis made the announcement in the run-up to the election.)

Presumably by "in the run up to the election" he means "almost a full year before the election". Clown. And I was under the distinct impression that the electrification plans had been based on a reasonably thorough analysis anyway.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on July 23, 2010, 04:58:45 pm
Mr Hammond explained: ^I don^t think a full cost-benefit analysis was carried out before Lord Adonis made the announcement in the run-up to the election. (http://Mr Hammond explained: ^I don^t think a full cost-benefit analysis was carried out before Lord Adonis made the announcement in the run-up to the election.)

Presumably by "in the run up to the election" he means "almost a full year before the election". Clown. And I was under the distinct impression that the electrification plans had been based on a reasonably thorough analysis anyway.

Quote
We^ve made it very clear that we^re not going to allow our approach to Network Rail to be driven by artificial accounting practices.
Surely he doesn't he mean the same type of accounting the John Major Government used when all of a sudden depreciation was allowed to be accounted for by BR on its HST fleet, something BR had not previously been allowed to do despite asking the Government.

To the Torys the railways a like a rash they just can not resist scratching it until it bleeds


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on September 04, 2010, 09:57:29 pm
This from another forum http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.railway/browse_thread/thread/bc2e6dd1b90f2e83#
"According to the latest issue of the Railway Magazine, the government
looks set to promote East Midlands electrification to the top of the
queue over GW electrification.

Apparently, confusion over HST replacement, the remodelling at Reading
and the simple fact that EM electrification would be a lot cheaper,
during a period of austerity, are the factors that appeal.

Surely, the Achilles heal of the GW, unlike other routes, is the way
everything fans out after Reading, then again after Swindon.

It^s all just too messy for politicians to get their heads round
because it^s not a line, more a whole series of lines."


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on September 04, 2010, 10:15:00 pm
Yeah - all the routes need o be done to make it worthwhile (except perhaps North of Oxford and Swindon).

If this is true, I hope it means the Meridians and HSTs are displaced and sent to XC asap and/or moved to the Liverpool - Norwich route.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on September 05, 2010, 09:05:41 am
Surely, the Achilles heal of the GW, unlike other routes, is the way
everything fans out after Reading, then again after Swindon.

It^s all just too messy for politicians to get their heads round
because it^s not a line, more a whole series of lines."
Or there are more Tory votes to secure in the Midlands than they are ever likely to get from South Wales, with Berks, Wilts, Oxon being blue through and through.

There was always a close run race within the NR team which route to tackle first, the priority was left to the Secretary of State obviously the new one has a different view


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: smokey on September 05, 2010, 10:14:33 am
why not create jobs within england by developing hydrogen electric trains, not only for use within the uk but for export.... could be done in partnership with the motor industry to get the fuel delivery infrastucture in place

no need for wires, trains can go on any route well with no wires anyway, would help the environment cut down maintanace costs (less working parts), being alot lighter should cause less wear on rails... or am i just dreaming

hydrogen Electric cells use more power to convert to Hydrogen than you get back.

Hydrogen fuel cell cars running off a totaly renewable energy source is a very green option.

However Electric trains running of O/H wires far more green option.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on September 05, 2010, 11:00:21 am
This from another forum http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.railway/browse_thread/thread/bc2e6dd1b90f2e83#




Surely, the Achilles heal of the GW, unlike other routes, is the way
everything fans out after Reading, then again after Swindon.


I have always thought this myself.Maybe it time to start thinking the unthinkable if the Great Western is to eventually move foreward instead of sideways or even backwards as has been happening.Beeching proposed sending all West of England services via Bristol,this would have concentrated scarce resources(electrification for one)on one single route from Paddington to the west with the added benefit to X Country west of Bristol.Carrying on as we are is a road to nowhere.Austerity does have an up side as it forces us to face up to reality.Since the 1955 modernisation plan and through privatisation its been a case financially of "easy come easy go".Vast sums of public money have disappeared up the swannny instead of producing comprehensive modern electric railway.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on September 05, 2010, 01:05:08 pm
(a) Is there capacity via Bristol?

(b) Can Exeter to London be achieved 2 hours or less via Bristol?

If the answer to (a) is no, then would it be worth it?. If the answer to (b) is no, then under no circumstances should services be diverted! Journey time is the single number one priority. The trains are slow enough as it is.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on September 05, 2010, 02:22:46 pm
The route to Exeter / Plymouth does not enter into the GWML electrification, not in the current planning.  The crucial justification for GWML electrification is the outer TV services with the justification for going onto Bristol and South Wales being manly economies of scale and for South Wales a politically / socio-economic one as well.

The MML electrification is part done as far as Bedford, a new 400kV Grid site at Boreham Wood is being built as part of Thameslink it is an Auto Transformer system supply with the capability of feeding North.  There is no need to provide suburban rolling stock as this provided already by Thameslink so the only trains that are needed are those for intercity which compared to what FGW would need is quite small, indeed some of MML services could make use of refurbished former Thameslink EMU's there could be the potential of say a through Derby / Sheffield to Brighton service.

The MML also give the possibility of connections to the ECML and WCML for diversions of these routes, the GWML is fairly isolated in that respect. 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on September 05, 2010, 05:31:21 pm
Journey time is the single number one priority. The trains are slow enough as it is.

Btline, we're well aware that journey time is your single, number-one priority. Bear in mind though that there are a few people out there who may have different opinions every now and again though!

And whilst the trains are, debatably, already somewhat slow, that's largely caused by the limp through Devon and Cornwall stopping at many of the lamp-posts along the way. Electrification to Exeter won't do a great deal to speed that up, I would guess.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: matt473 on September 05, 2010, 05:46:39 pm
Journey time is more often than not the most important factor for commuters or people travelling for business. Comfort, scenery and a few other things are what are more important to leisure travellers. Given the nature of the GWML there needs to be a balance between the two so speed is not the be all and end all


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on September 05, 2010, 06:41:47 pm
This is not about my priorities, as I live near nor use often, that line.

The prospects of speeding up the line in Devon and Cornwall look low, therefore the competitiveness of the route with planes and cars depends on 2 hr schedules to Exeter and then 1 hr to Plymouth. Therefore, I would argue that speed is a priority. Slap on an extra hour, and people can drive there quicker and cheaper. People are paying more for the speed.

And I would also argue that many leisure travellers would want fast journey times as well - e.g. holiday makers.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 05, 2010, 07:13:04 pm
Not everyone has a car as an alternative, so comparing the speed of one versus the other is irrelevant for them. Competing with air travel maybe relevant for some but not every part of the FGW served area has easy access to an airport, and when you may need to take the train to get to the airport then it may make sense just to stay on the train.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: matt473 on September 05, 2010, 07:25:08 pm
And I would also argue that many leisure travellers would want fast journey times as well - e.g. holiday makers.

You need to look at how lines are advertised, and I'm pretty sure a major selling point of the South Western part of the GWML is the scenic nature of it. That and for holiday makers, you'd be surprised how many view travelling as the biggest part of the fun of a holiday which is another reason why more tables are needed on long distance services but that's another topic. There is too much obsession with the railway today to shave off the od 10-15mins when it would be more beneficial to improve the overall experience (which would probably be cheaper to achieve as well in many areas)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on September 05, 2010, 07:55:08 pm
Heritage railways sell their routes on the scenic value the national network has to sell it self on ticket price, journey time, punctuality and reliability.

The judgment to electrify the MML over the GWML is I suspect to do with the capping of replacement rolling stock for Thameslink, it was this stock that was going to be refrub'd and cascaded to the GW TV routes, defer GWML electrification the 165/6 have at least 10 or 15 years life HST's can be sweated for another 10, the 165/6's are getting augmented by Crossrail in 2017 thereby releasing capacity for outer TV services, even I dear say replace HST's on most of the Oxford and Cotswold services thereby releasing HST's for other services or to retire them.

Remember this Government is about austerity.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on September 05, 2010, 10:24:12 pm
(a) Is there capacity via Bristol?

(b) Can Exeter to London be achieved 2 hours or less via Bristol?

If the answer to (a) is no, then would it be worth it?. If the answer to (b) is no, then under no circumstances should services be diverted! Journey time is the single number one priority. The trains are slow enough as it is.
Sorry to disagree but in the age of austerity we now live value for taxpayers money is now the number one priority on the railways not journey times.Change may not be welcome by some people but it is sometimes necessary for survival as all government spending will have to be drastically reduced whether we like it or not and if that means changes to the way FGW operate their services to get the maximum benefit for the minimum money available then so be it.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on September 05, 2010, 11:29:07 pm
Quote
Journey time is the single number one priority.

Not according to a lot of passengers surveyed by Passenger Focus it isn't

http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/news-and-publications/press-release.asp?dsid=4537


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on September 06, 2010, 09:03:20 am
IMHO, the sensible approach to electrification in this age of autstery, would be to do Manchester-Liverpool and Paddington to Oxford and Bedwyn/Newbury.  Allow the ex-Thameslink EMUs to be used and ease the DMU shortage, but replace the HST with more diesel and then in 10/20 years time when there is more money, transfer the HST replacements to cross country (releasing the voyagers for interegional) and electrify the GWML in small steps (it will of cource already be done to Didcot).

Advantages - money spent relatively slowly, all existing stock used and nothing scrapped prematurely, no need to order new DMUs which run into emission regulation problems (as will the HST replacement, but the technical issues must be easier to solve when there is more space for the new engines), and, polically, the tory commuter belt gets improvements first.   
 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 06, 2010, 01:12:58 pm
I can certainly see the merits of electric trains with regards to reducing oil imports and reducing pollution, but why does everyone assume that passengers would prefer an electric train?
I would much prefer a 30 year old HST with legroom and a restaurant, to a new EMU with no catering and high density bus seats.
Faster journies would be appreciated by some but not if it means high density seats without tables, no view, and no catering.
Partial electrification would probably extend times owing to the need for changing.

Electrification also means 10 years of delays and buses at weekends, and no Christmas services.
Got to be faced eventualy, but I for one do not look forawrd to it.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on October 20, 2010, 05:12:43 pm
I hate to be pessimistic, but from reading the details of Osborne's speech this morning it's not looking good for GWML electrification. It would seem that the Fact Compiler's reading of Osborne's words is the same as mine:

http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/10/csr-and-new-trains-or-lack-there-of.html (http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/10/csr-and-new-trains-or-lack-there-of.html)
http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/10/csr-reading-between-lines.html (http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/10/csr-reading-between-lines.html)

I suppose we'll have to wait until next week for the confirmation of all the details, but I'm not holding out too much hope anymore. Does just make you wonder just how much longer the government seems to think the HST fleet will stagger on for before something radical has to be done (i.e. squadron replacement)! I don't give it too many more years.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: autotank on October 20, 2010, 06:01:52 pm
What really winds me up about the current situation is the number of highly paid consultants and engineers that have wasted their time and our money on detailed plans for something that will now probably not happen. This money (probably several millions for planning the GWML electrification) could have been much better used aquiring a few more DMU's which are desperatley needed.

A lot has been wasted on something which a lot of us on here have known for a while is very unlikely to happen until at least 2020.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: standclearplease on October 20, 2010, 06:56:36 pm
Will the HSTs last until 2020, or will we see them disintegrate through overuse in the meantime?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on October 20, 2010, 07:20:57 pm
What really winds me up about the current situation is the number of highly paid consultants and engineers that have wasted their time and our money on detailed plans for something that will now probably not happen. This money (probably several millions for planning the GWML electrification) could have been much better used aquiring a few more DMU's which are desperatley needed.

A lot has been wasted on something which a lot of us on here have known for a while is very unlikely to happen until at least 2020.

Not really the team was quite small, also all the data collected is there waiting and the design would make a good bases in the future.  The GWML had not been survived for electrification before, BR only had very broad concept with approx locations for substations, also the cost of the development was bourne by NR


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 21, 2010, 11:17:09 am
I hate to be pessimistic, but from reading the details of Osborne's speech this morning it's not looking good for GWML electrification. It would seem that the Fact Compiler's reading of Osborne's words is the same as mine:

http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/10/csr-and-new-trains-or-lack-there-of.html (http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/10/csr-and-new-trains-or-lack-there-of.html)
http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/10/csr-reading-between-lines.html (http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/10/csr-reading-between-lines.html)

Yup, I concur. He mentioned electrifying some lines in the NW, but nothing in this neck of the woods.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on October 21, 2010, 11:45:15 am
A sensible, low cost, low risk, cut down electrification scheme would electrify just enough to allow all the displaced Thameslink EMUs to be used.  Am I correct in thinking that the NW scheme(s) don't do that on their own? 

It would be a huge shame if not progress at all was made on the ground for the  route.  Electrifcation to Reading and then Oxford/Bedwinish would seem to be a sensible comprimise.   Useful stock would be used rather than scrapped, DMUs would be released for low cost capacity increases elsewhere and HSTs would soldier on for a decade or so longer and when they finally die, the wires will already be up as far as Didcot so taking them further would be lower cost.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 21, 2010, 11:51:39 am
A sensible, low cost, low risk, cut down electrification scheme would electrify just enough to allow all the displaced Thameslink EMUs to be used.  Am I correct in thinking that the NW scheme(s) don't do that on their own? 

This will fill in a number of gaps up there that will allow DMUs currently in use on those lines to be swapped out for some EMUs. Which will free up a few, not many, DMUs.

Quote
It would be a huge shame if no progress at all was made on the ground for the  route.  Electrifcation to Reading and then Oxford/Bedwinish would seem to be a sensible comprimise. 

That *is* the proposal as it stands currently, not a compromise of something larger.  Any talk of anything larger was just that, talk, not Govt proposal, as I understand it.



Edit note: Quote marks amended, for clarity. CfN.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on October 21, 2010, 12:54:07 pm
The initial DfT announcement about electrification, the one that took everyone by surprise, included a map of the GWML encompassing Maidenhead to Oxford, Bristol, Bath, Swansea and Newbury at para 39 and at para 77, this:

Quote
It is currently expected that early works will take place between 2012 and 2014,
with the bulk of the construction between 2014 and 2016. Electric services will be introduced progressively: London to Oxford, Newbury and Bristol by the end of 2016, and London to Swansea by the end of 2017.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdf (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdf)

In that announcement there was only to be one line in the NW, which allowed for Liverpool to Manchester only.  A further announcement in Dec 2009 suddenly added other NW routes to Preston and Blackpool.  This followed various surprising Adonis speeches that seemed to imply more than the earlier announcementrs had mentioned, IIRC.

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 21, 2010, 01:25:51 pm
I blame my memory - thanks for the reminder!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on October 21, 2010, 01:50:18 pm
From the BBC:

Quote
An ^850m revamp of Reading railway station has been confirmed in the Spending Review but other schemes are still in doubt.

Transport minister Theresa Villiers visited the town to confirm the project but no decision has been made on a ^15m roads revamp around the station.

...

In Reading, the major revamp of the town's station was confirmed but decisions on the electrification of the Great Western Main Line, which will run through Berkshire, and a new fleet of intercity trains were absent from the review.

...

The Department for Transport said it was still assessing a number of projects following the Spending Review, including the electrification of the western line and the roads improvement plan for Reading.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on October 21, 2010, 02:27:06 pm
Odd that in all the spending review bumph it reads "the Government is supporting investment to improve journey reliability on Great Western Main Line services to Wales."  I just presumed (or hoped?) this actually meant the overall Reading redevelopment. 

They could have been so much more specific and avoided loads of debate if they'd been precise like earlier in the same section, where, for example, they wrote "station upgrades at Birmingham New Street".

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 21, 2010, 02:49:08 pm
I think the detail comes in the DfT-specific announcement - due next week?

Anyone know which day next week yet?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chafford1 on October 23, 2010, 08:40:31 pm
An interesting and optimistic take from the Financial Times:

Will Hammond find the money for more big transport schemes?

October 22, 2010 6:10pm by Jim Pickard

There is something curious in the way that several key transport decisions were left out of the CSR on Wednesday. The four missing announcements were: the big order for Intercity Express trains from the Hitachi-led Agility consortium, the electrification of the Great Western line, another order for about a thousand train carriages and the Thameslink upgrade.

Sources in the Department for Transport insist that these interconnected upgrades are genuinely going to the wire. They depend, for example, on Agility^s ability to reduce its original ^7.5bn cost by a significant margin.

Yet the DfT^s budget is now settled, albeit at 9.30pm on Tuesday, last of all the departments. Its capital spending is hardly taking a dent (down from ^7.7bn to ^7.5bn) although programme spending will fall from ^5.1bn to ^4.4bn (a rise in train fares will help to compensate).

Crossrail will go ahead, as George Osborne announced on Wednesday. What of the other four programmes? If they were being universally ditched, wouldn^t it make sense to have bundled that bad news up in Wednesday^s tsunami of cuts?

Philip Hammond is meant to be clarifying the decision in a few weeks. At which point the coalition is supposed to be into its period of ^growth stories^, a narrative which will involve a sequence of uplifting tales about renewed investment and spending to help UK plc. One might expect good news on rail projects to be part of this jolly grid. If not it would be a surprisingly bad piece of news management.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on October 23, 2010, 09:00:51 pm
What of the other four programmes? If they were being universally ditched, wouldn^t it make sense to have bundled that bad news up in Wednesday^s tsunami of cuts?
My feeling is that upgrades and electrification will be wrapped up in franchises, longer franchise in exchange for committed investment from the TOC's with some coming from the public purse, I suspect that Network Rail will be reformatted in how it operates I am not convince that it will be carved up and handed to the TOC's because the sound of Ladbrook Grove, Hatfield, Potters Bar and Southall still rings loud in the public ear.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 23, 2010, 09:17:03 pm
Thameslink & GW electrification to go, the other two to go ahead with cost cutting.

That's my bet.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: mjones on October 24, 2010, 07:35:28 pm
Thameslink & GW electrification to go, the other two to go ahead with cost cutting.

That's my bet.

But as major Thameslink schemes are already under construction, Blackfriars' Bridge in particular, what is left that could sensibly be cancelled?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 24, 2010, 08:22:22 pm
The rolling stock?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on October 24, 2010, 09:31:54 pm
Thameslink & GW electrification to go, the other two to go ahead with cost cutting.
That's my bet.
But as major Thameslink schemes are already under construction, Blackfriars' Bridge in particular, what is left that could sensibly be cancelled?
The rolling stock?
The next part of the scheme Key Output 2 is London Bridge; Key Output 1 Blackfriars and the central core will not work correctly without this stage.  The next batch of rolling stock has been frozen pending the CSR it is likely the full order of rolling stock will be cut with the train lengths being reduced from the proposed 12 cars this would save an lot of platform extensions and traction power supply upgrading and hence money, Thameslink is I believe over spent in Key Output Stage 1 and Key Output Stage 2 is under the hammer to get it back on budget.

With GWML electrification one would hope HMG would look holistically at the TV, KV and Crossrail services but that is a big ask


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: XPT on October 24, 2010, 09:44:55 pm
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the GWML electrification gets axed.  But it would annoy me though, especially after all that fuss about it in the press and TV news back in JULY 2009 that the GWML was to be electrified and that work on it would so say start "immediately"!!  When in fact no work was started on it, and it gets axed.

Maybe the title of this thread in the meantime should lose the "gets go-ahead" untill we know what's happening for sure.



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: mjones on October 24, 2010, 09:49:49 pm
It would look pretty poor for one of the country's main inter city routes to still be running diesel trains if huge resources are being spent on building HS2...


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on October 24, 2010, 09:52:22 pm
Maybe the title of this thread in the meantime should lose the "gets go-ahead" untill we know what's happening for sure.

That's a fair comment, XPT.

However, just out of courtesy, I'll invite the OP to comment, before making such a change?

CfN.  :-\


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on October 24, 2010, 10:03:29 pm
I suspect the GWML electrification will not be canceled, it will be placed on hold pending re-franchise of the route with electrification being part of the bid.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on October 24, 2010, 11:11:19 pm
I suspect the GWML electrification will not be canceled, it will be placed on hold pending re-franchise of the route with electrification being part of the bid.

Yup, that wouldn't surprise me at all - hinted at by the DfT over the summer.  Might be the best solution?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 25, 2010, 10:12:28 am
Hmm - wouldn't that make for an expensive bid? Surely in these hardened times, HMG would be looking for Premia payments rather than requiring subsidy?
You might get Maidenhead to oxford being offered, but I doubt a bidder would offer much more. How much oes it cost a mile?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on October 25, 2010, 11:49:47 am
Yes, it certainly has its drawbacks.

Perhaps the next bidder for the Greater Western franchise would agree to fund say 50% of the costs in return for a long franchise of 15-20 years?  After all the current deal originally was to result in premium payments from FGW to the Government of ^1.131 billion over the 10-year length, which I think is more than the GWML electrification was slated to cost? 

I know the financial outlook was a little brighter back then, but with repayments spread over 20-years perhaps it would be a realistic way of getting the job done?  First Group (or another winning bidder) would benefit from the effects (cheaper running costs, faster journeys, more capacity) for many years allowing them to justify the expense perhaps?  I do worry about ever more complex funding arrangements though!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 25, 2010, 11:52:47 am
ONe of the things that came out of the DfT Franchise consultation meeting that I attended, was that there are major difficulties, caused by EU legislation, in offering franchises longer than 15 years. The detail wasn't spelt out, but I understood that they'd get a better return overall if they were kept to 15 years or less.

The DfT are therefore realistically looking at terms of 12-15 years going forward.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on October 25, 2010, 11:57:38 am
Bloody EU legislation!  Though with a construction period of around 5 years (assuming the design work already would still be valid, and construction could start pretty much as soon as the franchise is let), would still mean 10 years to reap the harvest.  I am just speculating of course, but the Government (and I think Mark Hopwood) are on record as saying that it's an approach they've looked at.

As ever, time will tell.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 25, 2010, 11:59:25 am
I'm sure it'll be part of their renewal bid - if they wish to do so, of course!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on October 25, 2010, 08:28:04 pm
Maybe the title of this thread in the meantime should lose the "gets go-ahead" untill we know what's happening for sure.

I would be inclined to leave it alone for now. The current situation is that electrification received the go-ahead last summer. Although there's a strong argument to be made that it might be cancelled or diluted, all suggestions to that effect are, for the moment, pure conjecture, no matter how well informed the source.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on October 25, 2010, 08:48:23 pm
Maybe the title of this thread in the meantime should lose the "gets go-ahead" untill we know what's happening for sure.

I would be inclined to leave it alone for now. The current situation is that electrification received the go-ahead last summer. Although there's a strong argument to be made that it might be cancelled or diluted, all suggestions to that effect are, for the moment, pure conjecture, no matter how well informed the source.
Indeed the NR team are still working the GWML electrification up to GRIP stage 3 (Option selection)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chafford1 on November 04, 2010, 08:17:39 pm
According to the Financial Times - the go ahead for GWML electrification together with the next stage of Thameslink is expected next Thursday - albeit a curtailed electrification scheme:

'Thameslink case pressed by business

By Jim Pickard, Political Correspondent Financial Times

Published: November 4 2010 00:02 | Last updated: November 4 2010 00:02

Business leaders in London have written to the government urging ministers to give the all-clear to order 1,000 carriages for the Thameslink north-south rail scheme.

Lady Valentine, head of London First, has urged Philip Hammond to make a commitment to the whole project when the transport secretary authorises a wider package of transport initiatives next Thursday.

It is widely expected that the second phase of the ^5.5bn Thameslink scheme ^ including the trains order ^ will be approved in the announcement, which forms part of the coalition^s attempt to shift the narrative on to economic growth.

Yet Labour figures say they will be watching the announcement closely for signs of cost-cutting and delays in the small print.

Lady Valentine is concerned that the ^1.1bn order could be scaled back from its original 1,000 carriages to make savings. There are also industry expectations that the estimated ^500m upgrade of London Bridge station ^ part of Thameslink ^ will be reduced to cut costs.

^Thameslink, the ^north-south Crossrail^, will bring precious new capacity to London^s congested core before 2020, and relief to millions of rail commuters who start their journeys outside the capital,^ wrote Lady Valentine. ^A decision to proceed with the modernisation of Thameslink would be met with relief by hard-pressed commuters and would be welcomed by businesses across and beyond the capital.^

The group is concerned that if fewer carriages were ordered it could have an impact on Network Rail^s attempts to alleviate congestion on London^s public transport network.

The Department for Transport won a better-than-expected settlement in the comprehensive spending review, with capital spending falling only slightly from ^7.7bn this year to ^7.5bn in four years^ time. Crucial to that decision was George Osborne^s belief that transport schemes were a key component of economic growth.

The chancellor said in the review that four crucial rail projects were still under review, including the entire Thameslink upgrade and a separate order for hundreds of carriages. The schemes include the electrification of several lines and a ^7.5bn order for Intercity Express trains from Agility Trains, an Hitachi-led consortium.

Officials are likely to approve the electrification of the Great Western line, a ^1bn scheme announced by the Labour government last year. However, the project is no longer expected to go as far west as Swansea, as previously envisaged.

Meanwhile, the Agility consortium is under pressure to cut the costs of its bid to build a new generation of intercity carriages, with ministers using the threat of alternative options to extract a better deal.

The alternatives, set out in Sir Andrew Foster^s review of the scheme, in-clude ^re-engineering^ the existing Intercity 125 trains or buying cheaper electric trains.'


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on November 04, 2010, 10:22:18 pm
Which is presumably a roundabout way of saying they expect the Welsh Assembly Government to cough up a hefty contribution if it wants wires under and west of the Severn...


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on November 05, 2010, 10:17:33 am
Officials are likely to approve the electrification of the Great Western line, a ^1bn scheme announced by the Labour government last year. However, the project is no longer expected to go as far west as Swansea, as previously envisaged.

Eh? I thought it was only going to Newbury / Oxford in the original announcement?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on November 05, 2010, 10:47:09 am
I don't think anybody's officially announced anything have they?  That's why all this speculation is rife, contradictory, and not very helpful.  There is almost certainly frantic deals being struck behind closed doors, and If we end up with GWML electrification only to Bristol/Newbury and Oxford rather than Swansea as well then I think that would still be a massive result.  To say Mr. Hammond's speech is eagerly anticipated is something of an understatement!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on November 05, 2010, 10:58:09 am
I was referring to the plans of the previous Government. Did they not announce GW electrification plans as I mentioned?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on November 05, 2010, 11:07:17 am
Bristol and Swansea with spurs to Newbury/Oxford.  Various NR quotes have been made saying that just doing Newbury/Oxford would not be as cost effective.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on November 05, 2010, 05:15:05 pm
Bristol and Swansea with spurs to Newbury/Oxford.  Various NR quotes have been made saying that just doing Newbury/Oxford would not be as cost effective.
That is true, however I suspect that NR would still cease the opportunity if the GWML electrification only did the services to Oxford and Newbury.  If the wires only went to say Oxford there would not need to be a grid intake at Didcot (or at least only lower capacity one) 

The National electrification team have been working on the Reading station area lately, more than just check that the remodeling is electrification friendly.  There is a thought that the MML may steal the march on the GW for intercity electrification


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on November 05, 2010, 05:23:14 pm
That is true, however I suspect that NR would still cease the opportunity

I guess you mean sieze.....


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 05, 2010, 05:33:03 pm
Officials are likely to approve the electrification of the Great Western line, a ^1bn scheme announced by the Labour government last year. However, the project is no longer expected to go as far west as Swansea, as previously envisaged.

Eh? I thought it was only going to Newbury / Oxford in the original announcement?

No, it was Bristol, Swansea, Oxford and Newbury.   You were wrong on this on the 21st as well - which I think you then acknowledged in post #267...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on November 05, 2010, 05:33:13 pm
More likely seize, I suspect ;)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on November 05, 2010, 06:34:58 pm
That is true, however I suspect that NR would still cease the opportunity

I guess you mean sieze.....
More likely seize, I suspect ;)
...... and take hold of

The speed at which the GWML will be electrified will be a lot slower than Lord Adonis proclaimed, I would expect it to be a roll on program from Crossrail if it happens


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on November 05, 2010, 06:38:30 pm
How much would it be likely to cost to extend the wires from Cardiff to Swansea.?

 The WAG do want to electrify the valley lines network which has been quoted as costing ^250 million so maybe it could be done with the extension of the wires through to swansea providing the WAG can raise the money


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on November 05, 2010, 10:40:21 pm
You might just about put the knitting up for 250m, but I'm guessing that doesn't include the cost of a brand-new fleet of electric trains to take advantage of it...


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on November 06, 2010, 11:06:30 am
What? Just from Cardiff to Swansea? And why would the Welsh need their own stock? :-)

(Don't answer that!)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on November 06, 2010, 06:22:04 pm
Read the post above mine ;)

I was referring to the hypothetical Valley Lines electrification which anthony215 was asking about - I think should it ever happen that it's likely to require not only knitting but also new trains, since I don't think it's possible to bolt a pantograph onto the roof of a Pacer or 150 with much success  ;D


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on November 06, 2010, 08:37:26 pm
Even if you could fit a pantograph to a pacer, i thought they were not allowed to operate beyond 2020?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: TerminalJunkie on November 06, 2010, 08:55:31 pm
I don't think it's possible to bolt a pantograph onto the roof of a Pacer or 150 with much success  ;D

A 150 with a pantograph is a 317, isn't it? :P

Oh, and Google threw this up: http://boingboing.net/2008/11/03/electric-pacer.html (http://boingboing.net/2008/11/03/electric-pacer.html)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on November 11, 2010, 12:18:17 pm
I thought that the big statement from Mr. Hammond concerning rail was supposed to be today?  There's no sign of any such statement in the House of Commons schedule today, and a government minister has just stated that the statement will be made soon!  Clearly the detail is still being thrashed out and it's going to the wire (no pun intended!).

When questioned as to whether the electrification will only go as far as Bristol and not Swansea, the minister said he was sure there was no substance to those rumours - whatever that means!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on November 11, 2010, 12:24:54 pm
Probably only going to Swindon!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 11, 2010, 02:56:32 pm
When questioned as to whether the electrification will only go as far as Bristol and not Swansea, the minister said he was sure there was no substance to those rumours - whatever that means!

The original plan - which is still the current plan unless an announcement is made otherwise, was staged wiring to Bristol and ultimately Swansea, with Oxford and Newbury earlier limits of the staging.

All else is just media fuelled rumour, as was the 'fact' that a DfT announcement would be made today?

It may be recalled that a few months ago, it was widely presumed nearly everywhere you read that Crossrail would be seriously scaled back - remember all the press reports about cutting 2 or 3 of the branches, and IIRC I made the point that there were only three branches to be built anyway as Heathrow alrready exists.

ISTM that the media policy at the moment is just to think of a worst case then publish it as fact...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on November 11, 2010, 09:48:27 pm
GRIP 3 (option selection) work on the GWML electrification is still on going


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on November 11, 2010, 10:46:30 pm
I suspect the non-announcement today may have something to do with the announcement that did happen about benefits changes, which has rather tended to grab the headlines all day.

Wales Online (aka Western Mail) carried a report today which says the electrification verdict will be within 10 days, so next week looks a fair bet now.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/welsh-politics/welsh-politics-news/2010/11/11/decision-near-1bn-great-western-upgrade-but-will-electrification-go-west-of-bristol-91466-27638214/

Quote
ISTM that the media policy at the moment is just to think of a worst case then publish it as fact...

Or it could of course be the old one of someone in government having a word in someone's ear about what they are supposedly thinking of doing (they don't employ the likes of Andy Coulson and Alastair Campbell for no reason), so that when the announcement is made, it doesn't look half as bad. And people here and on other forums are just as capable of speculation as "the media".


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on November 11, 2010, 10:56:59 pm
Thanks for the link, Will.  A long article with some nonsense statements including "One drawback of the Great Western electrification as a whole is that large parts of the route use old signalling, which would have to be replaced for compatibility with electric trains. However, that complication does not apply in Wales, where Network Rail is midway through a ^400m resignalling programme."


What the heckers is that supposed to mean!?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on November 11, 2010, 11:50:12 pm
Perhaps an attempt to indicate that the new signals in South Wales are immunised against 25kv interference? At least I hope they are, or are capable of being easily immunised should the need arise. Which may well not be the case for much existing GWML signal kit this side of the Severn. Perhaps electric train knows?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on November 12, 2010, 03:42:44 pm
Perhaps an attempt to indicate that the new signals in South Wales are immunised against 25kv interference? At least I hope they are, or are capable of being easily immunised should the need arise. Which may well not be the case for much existing GWML signal kit this side of the Severn. Perhaps electric train knows?
I am not fully up to speed with all of the signaling on the GWML, whole sale resignaling is not so essential as it was years ago because there are modern sub systems eg axle counter system that can be installed and connected to existing interlockings if it is a track circuit immunity problem.  The GWML is due for resignaling as part of CP4 / 5 Didcot, Exeter, Newport being some of the key parts of the process

The article in Western Mail is I suspect making a political point that the South Wales line is not as expensive to do as some parts of England because of the investment already made and that Wales should not loose out because of the cost electrifying east of the Seven.

An OHLE design engineer has told me that they see no significant problems wiring through Seven Tunnel, some clever engineering yes but no major show stoppers


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on November 16, 2010, 01:50:26 am
Wales Online (aka Western Mail) carried a report today which says the electrification verdict will be within 10 days, so next week looks a fair bet now.

Then again, maybe not: http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/11/thursday-is-cancelled.html (http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/11/thursday-is-cancelled.html)  :-\


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on November 16, 2010, 06:23:04 pm
The BBC are now suggesting an announcement will be made 'before the end of November' - see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11758780

Quote
The Transport Secretary Philip Hammond told the BBC that he would soon set out government plans to address the overcrowding issue. He insisted that reform will ensure Britain's railways do more, for less.

"We need to look at the whole structure of the industry, how the franchises are let, we need to look at train operators' work, we need to look at how Network Rail does its work and delivers efficiency in its programme," he said.

"We need to look at the role of my department. At the moment I have got civil servants here specifying which trains and which carriages have to be used at which times on which franchise. That does not seem to be the most obviously sensible way to run a railway.

He acknowledged that making the railway "fit for the future and affordable for passengers and taxpayers" was the "number one challenge" facing his department.

He is expected to announce detailed proposals before the end of November.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on November 16, 2010, 08:18:12 pm
The BBC are now suggesting an announcement will be made 'before the end of November' - see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11758780
Quote
The Transport Secretary Philip Hammond told the BBC that he would soon set out government plans to address the overcrowding issue. He insisted that reform will ensure Britain's railways do more, for less.
"We need to look at the whole structure of the industry, how the franchises are let, we need to look at train operators' work, we need to look at how Network Rail does its work and delivers efficiency in its programme," he said.
"We need to look at the role of my department. At the moment I have got civil servants here specifying which trains and which carriages have to be used at which times on which franchise. That does not seem to be the most obviously sensible way to run a railway.
He acknowledged that making the railway "fit for the future and affordable for passengers and taxpayers" was the "number one challenge" facing his department.
He is expected to announce detailed proposals before the end of November.
Does not say which November though  :P


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on November 19, 2010, 04:14:01 pm
http://rail-news.com/2010/11/19/great-western-to-be-electrified/

It has been reported that an announcement will be made next week that Paddington to Cardiff is to be electrified but MML electrification is to be shelved.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on November 20, 2010, 10:37:33 pm
Christian Wolmer on Twitter says "I barely dare say this but rail announcement promised for Tuesday."

Also no decision yet on IEP.
Mr Hammond has told a meeting of the North-East Economic Forum: ^We are talking about a matter of weeks rather than months before we announce a way forward.^
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8676597.Frustration_at_lack_of_decision_on_rail_work/


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chafford1 on November 21, 2010, 12:13:06 pm
Today's Sunday Times says Thursday for the announcement.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: caliwag on November 21, 2010, 12:27:41 pm
The appalling Sunday Express seems to have stumbled across a leak, or has Phil Space been at work?

Sice when have 125s been mass commuter movers? and plainly they would merely be decanted rather than the emotive "scrapped".

Bah

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/212752/Green-light-for-new-trains


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on November 21, 2010, 06:15:56 pm
Sice when have 125s been mass commuter movers?
HSTs are used on Paddington to Oxford commuter trains.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on November 21, 2010, 06:29:19 pm
Sice when have 125s been mass commuter movers?

Erm, that would be more or less ever since their inception, when the high-speed, frequent service made longer distance commuting to London from places like Swindon, Chippenham, Bristol, Peterborough, Newark etc etc a viable proposition!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on November 21, 2010, 06:51:12 pm
So , the Express is actually right!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: caliwag on November 21, 2010, 09:55:56 pm
Peterborough/Newark a mere handful compared with real commuting. I use to commute from  York to KX and I do not recall them piling on...that's not real commuting.

Oxford and Bristol OK, but does all that justify 8 billion investment?



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on November 21, 2010, 10:39:52 pm
I have no idea what you mean, but I suspect you're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm guessing the Express's article is about the Intercity express programme, to replace the HST fleet en masse.

Whether or not you would consider that HSTs are used by commuters is utterly immaterial. They're excellent trains but increasingly long in the tooth, heavily utilized, won't be able to last for ever and are due for replacement. Believe it or not, HSTs are not just used by commuters from Bristol and Oxford.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: caliwag on November 21, 2010, 11:05:22 pm
I'm not barking up any tree...I am merely pointing out that the dreadful Sunday Express is wasting space and getting people excited about the bleeding obvious...plainly the 125s, considered long in the tooth or not, will be replaced at some point.
Generally they are long distance trains...not commuter services as implied by the pathetic article.
They will certainly not, as implied as well we know, be scrapped.
It is just typical sensationilist rubbish reporting and since nothing will be announced until Tuesday at the earliest, complete speculation


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on November 21, 2010, 11:21:18 pm
The current HSTs (that is, 125s) will be with us for at least another ten years.

(Source: Very Senior Management, FGW.)

CfN.  ;)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: SDS on November 22, 2010, 12:14:00 am
10 years at least, and then they will try and squeeze some more years after that.

After all haven't the engines all been replaced recently anyway?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on November 22, 2010, 09:49:28 am
House of Commons Business for Thursday (Westminster Hall, not the main chamber)

2.30pm - 5pm   
Impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review on the Department for Transport


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: standclearplease on November 22, 2010, 10:11:53 am
HSTs may have not been designed as commuter trains, but that's how they've turned out in certain areas.. obviously across the FGW network too when used at peak times.

To be fair, they do a pretty good job of providing extra seats and capacity during rush hour.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on November 22, 2010, 10:46:01 am
Would imagine some sort of re-engineering/refurbishment would still be needed in the mean time to keep them going reliably for another 10years plus.Life extension of HSTs was one option being considererd along with IEP. When Brush fitted new MTU engines and Cooler groups to FGW HST power cars they merely addressed the HSTs main weakness from new,the Valenta engine and its tendency to overheat because of an under-specified cooler group.East Coast HST power cars had a more extensive overhaul at Brush with a much bigger radiator and new control electronics fitted at the same time as new MTU engines as they were expected to stay in service longer than FGWs power cars.Perhaps someone with more technical knowledge could enlighten me on this one.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on November 22, 2010, 11:30:00 pm
Have it on fairly good authority that the announcement will now be tomorrow - Tuesday. Sorry, can't disclose source.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on November 22, 2010, 11:48:22 pm
From the Parliament website:

Quote
Tuesday 23 November
The House will sit in Westminster Hall between 9.30am-2.00pm

Westminster Hall Private Members^ Debates:

09.30-11.00 ^ High Speed 2 rail programme ^ Steve Baker



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on November 23, 2010, 10:15:52 am
Quote
Tuesday 23 November
The House will sit in Westminster Hall between 9.30am-2.00pm

Westminster Hall Private Members^ Debates:

09.30-11.00 ^ High Speed 2 rail programme ^ Steve Baker


That's a Chilterns Tory mp whingeing about high-speed rail.

Source now tells me Mr Hammond will be opening his mouth on Thursday... so some time this week at least looks a safe bet. An 11.30am announcement on Thursday (that day's slot for ministerial statements in the Commons) would fit in nicely with the afternoon Westminster Hall debate on transport and the spending review.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on November 23, 2010, 10:32:35 am
Rail was featured on 'File on 4' BBC Radio 4 programme over the weekend - you might find it again on iplayer. Thursday would fit in with Stephen Hammonds comments on that programme.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on November 23, 2010, 11:21:18 am
Rail was featured on 'File on 4' BBC Radio 4 programme over the weekend - you might find it again on iplayer. Thursday would fit in with Stephen Hammonds comments on that programme.

See:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=8001.msg80309#msg80309


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: TheLastMinute on November 23, 2010, 02:08:29 pm
An article in today's Bristol Evening Post supports Thursday as the expected announcement date and suggests a "larger scale project" is being looked at...

Quote from: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/PM-fuels-electrification-link-speculation-grand-plan/article-2924152-detail/article.html
PRIME Minister David Cameron has fuelled speculation over the future of electrification of the rail link between Bristol and London by revealing he is looking at a "larger scale project".

The Government will make an announcement on Thursday about the ^1 billion scheme to upgrade the Great Western Line and the new InterCity trains planned to run on it. The two are interlinked and both have been in doubt.

But Mr Cameron hinted that the plans may be wrapped up in an even bigger project.

He told the Evening Post: "On the issue of electrification, we are looking at this extremely closely. There's got to be a good business, economic and environment case.
Click here for more

"You can't sign off projects unless you have that case but we are actually looking at 'can we solve this problem by making it bigger?' ^ can we look at a larger scale project or a different project that can help to deliver a good business case ^ so we are working very hard to try to make that happen."

Full story on This Is Bristol (http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/PM-fuels-electrification-link-speculation-grand-plan/article-2924152-detail/article.html)

TLM


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: TheLastMinute on November 24, 2010, 11:35:29 am
Hmmm. may be worth keeping an eye on this. The Transport Select Committee are having Philip Hammond appear before them today to discuss the Comprehensive Spending Review.

Quote from: http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/#/calendar/Commons/SelectCommittee/2010/11/24/events.html
3pm   Transport
Subject: Transport and the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review
Witness(es): Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP, Secretary of State, Department for Transport
Location: Committee Room 8, Palace of Westminster

TLM


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on November 24, 2010, 11:59:30 am
The idea of making it part of  a bigger package?

Could we actually be talking about a steady rolling programme of electrification (funded by the franchisees in return for longer franchises)?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: TheLastMinute on November 24, 2010, 05:10:35 pm
I listened in to a bit of the committee meeting today. Nothing to write home about, but the minister did confirm there would be an announcement on rolling stock etc. When pressed, the minster said he couldn't breech parliamentary protocol and say when but it would be "very, very, soon"...

TLM


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on November 24, 2010, 06:09:37 pm
A humorous aside from the Fact Compiler over at the Railway Eye (http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/11/petrol-head-rail-expenditure-handicap.html) blog, offering odds on the likely runners for forthcoming rail expenditure, to be announced tommorow (25/11/2010).

Quote
Runners and riders
Cockney Link - 4/7 (Fav)
Western Voltage - 3-1 (may be pulled up short)
Juniper's Revenge 5-1
Northern Capacity 100-1 (outsider)
HLOS Commitment 75-1
Kipling's Folly 3-1
Tutu X 3-1
Permatan Fleet 34-1
Sheffield Juice - Scratched

3-1 are good odds for 'Western Voltage'. Worth a punt?  ;) :P ;D


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on November 24, 2010, 08:05:20 pm
In the Times this morning, it stated that Hammond was to make an announcement to the Stock Exchange about Rolling stock - if that's tomorrow, release will be at 0730.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chafford1 on November 24, 2010, 08:13:45 pm
In the Times this morning, it stated that Hammond was to make an announcement to the Stock Exchange about Rolling stock - if that's tomorrow, release will be at 0730.


Confirmed by Captain Deltic on Twitter - he says announcement at 7.00am with comments from CD on the radio (radio 4?)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 24, 2010, 10:15:08 pm
Northern Capacity 100/1?

That was a winner in the October CSR stakes... 

Someone isn't keeping up with the announcements...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on November 24, 2010, 10:37:45 pm
All systems go for tomorrow morning, with transport ministers out and about in FGW-land.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on November 24, 2010, 10:42:52 pm
A humorous aside from the Fact Compiler over at the Railway Eye (http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/11/petrol-head-rail-expenditure-handicap.html) blog, offering odds on the likely runners for forthcoming rail expenditure, to be announced tommorow (25/11/2010).

Quote
Runners and riders
Cockney Link - 4/7 (Fav)
Western Voltage - 3-1 (may be pulled up short)
Juniper's Revenge 5-1
Northern Capacity 100-1 (outsider)
HLOS Commitment 75-1
Kipling's Folly 3-1
Tutu X 3-1
Permatan Fleet 34-1
Sheffield Juice - Scratched

3-1 are good odds for 'Western Voltage'. Worth a punt?  ;) :P ;D
Staying with the fine traditions of the GWR with its 7' gauge diesel hydraulics my guess is it will be 3000 volts 16 2/3 Hz


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on November 24, 2010, 11:12:30 pm
All systems go for tomorrow morning, with transport ministers out and about in FGW-land.

Thanks, willc  ;)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: devon_metro on November 25, 2010, 12:20:31 am
All systems go for tomorrow morning, with transport ministers out and about in FGW-land.

Leccyfication it is then...


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: TheLastMinute on November 25, 2010, 07:33:33 am
BBC reporting that electrification of Grest Western is still on hold. Are we expecting another announcement later?

Quote from: BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11834531
It is buying about 2,000 new carriages to tackle overcrowding, electrifying some lines and pressing ahead with the Thameslink programme.

But plans to modernise the London-Swansea line are still on hold and it will be the end of the decade before the investment is complete.

Quote
Some 400 of them are for Crossrail (the new line being built east-west across London), 800 for Thameslink (the north-south link across London) and 650 will be given to different franchises around the country.

 :(

TLM


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 25, 2010, 07:58:42 am
From Rail News:

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/11/25-major-railway-investment-gets-green.html (http://"http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/11/25-major-railway-investment-gets-green.html")

Quote
THE government has confirmed this morning that it's going ahead with new rolling stock orders and electrification worth ^8 billion, including 2,100 new vehicles for Thameslink, Crossrail and other operators.

The transport secretary Philip Hammond is authorising 1,200 vehicles for Thameslink and the infrastructure upgrade of their route across central London, at a cost of ^6 billion.

He has also confirmed the already-announced electrification of the 'north west triangle', and electrification of the Great Western Main Line between London and Oxford and Newbury. This route had already been set to be electrified as far as Maidenhead as part of the Crossrail programme.


That bit in bold (not yet mentioned by the BBC) fits in well with the proposed use of Thameslink cascaded 319s on the GW.  Having OK'd Thameslinks full rolling stock order, Oxford and Newbury logically follow on to use the existing stock, even if Bristol and Swansea still require an IEP decision.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 25, 2010, 08:11:42 am
And the DfT statement to the stock exchange:

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=10722933
Quote

...The Thameslink programme will require a fleet of around 1,200 new
electric vehicles. The Department is currently considering bids from two
consortia led by Siemens PLC and Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd.  The
Department intends to make an announcement regarding the preferred
bidder in spring 2011. Existing electric trains from Thameslink will be
able to be deployed elsewhere on the rail network and therefore the
lines between London and Didcot, Newbury and Oxford as well as between
Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Blackpool will be electrified.


On 6 July 2010, the Department published Sir Andrew Foster's review of
the Intercity Express Programme (IEP). The Department has evaluated
possible alternatives to the original IEP proposal and has narrowed the
consideration to two leading options; a revised bid from Agility Trains,
and an alternative for a fleet of all electric trains  which could be
coupled to new diesel locomotives where the overhead electric wires end.

The Government will continue to assess the two remaining alternatives,
alongside a consideration of the extent of electrification on the Great
Western route, and will make a further statement in the New Year...


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on November 25, 2010, 08:12:48 am
BBC reporting that electrification of Grest Western is still on hold. Are we expecting another announcement later?
Speaking on BBC Breakfast News this morning Philip Hammond said there should be an announcement in the next few weeks (meaning New Year) regards IEP and Electrification of the GWML. They are still finallising financial, legal and technical issues of the project.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on November 25, 2010, 08:23:31 am
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/11/25-major-railway-investment-gets-green.html

Electrification from Paddington to Oxford and Newbury confirmed.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 25, 2010, 09:49:20 am
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/11/25-major-railway-investment-gets-green.html

Electrification from Paddington to Oxford and Newbury confirmed.

I posted this earlier...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on November 25, 2010, 11:19:53 am
More reports here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11834531 (ftp://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11834531)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on November 25, 2010, 11:26:01 am
 Dft press release
http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/hammond20101125
 
HSTs to be replaced by bi-mode IEP or diesel haulage of electric stock beyond the wires.

Final decision on IEP, and on further Great Western electrification, in the New Year


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on November 25, 2010, 11:32:36 am
In the circumstances a good decision I think especially if some of the cascaded Thames Turbos DMUs stay within the FGW area*

Electrification is and always was about rolling stock and to let the old Thameslink stock go unused would be a crime.

* is it true that they have a slightly wider loading gauge which would make them more suitable for ex-GWR lines than elsewhere? 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 25, 2010, 11:42:26 am
* is it true that they [Turbos] have a slightly wider loading gauge which would make them more suitable for ex-GWR lines than elsewhere? 

Yes, but all the appropriate NR route plans and RUSs include an item to undertake the necessary gauge clearance to allow them to run if they were to become available, eg Portsmouth - Cardiff.

A bit chicken and egg, until a decision is made, similar to platform lengthening in the SWT area for 10 car trains...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 25, 2010, 11:51:12 am
More reports here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11834531 (ftp://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11834531)

The BBC have a link to the expected rants from South Wales, but both the main site and 'BBC Wales' stories conveniently fail to mention the GW wiring to Oxford, Didcot and Newbury, but do emphasise that Crossrail and Thameslink will happen.

I guess they don't see the bigger picture, which is that wires to Didcot being confirmed also makes it more likely that an extension will occur than before?

What percentage of the necessary route mileage does Didcot provide?

All told I find the BBC's written reports persistently negative on this announcement, but IMHO I expect that when the details are teased out out over the next few weeks we might just find there is a lot more confirmed than anyone ever expected back in May...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: mjones on November 25, 2010, 11:55:05 am
It was a pity the BBC report missed out the Oxford and Newbury electrification, that made all the difference to how it came across, so I don't blame people for being very concerned. Indeed, I found the interview with Hammond on Today quite disappointing: the interviewer didn't really ask him about GW electrification, and didn't press him at all on the IEP situation, which is so controversial an example of bungled government procurement that they should have picked up on it.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 25, 2010, 12:15:11 pm
The interviewer on the BBC Breakfast show seemed to have his one key question lined up, and it went a bit like this.

Hammond:  Blah blah, rolling stock introduction, 650 carriages across the country by 2014

Interviewer: So nothing til 2019 then?  ???

Hammond: Did you not listen to what I just said...   ;D

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: mjones on November 25, 2010, 01:24:42 pm
And that, sadly, still seems to be what is being reported now on the BBC. The mid-day updates still seem to be unware of the Oxford/Newbury electrification.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on November 25, 2010, 03:02:02 pm
Luckily, a certain Mr William Crossley is keeping his local readers fully updated with the news:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/8687765.BREAKING_NEWS__Oxford_rail_electrification_gets_green_light/ (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/8687765.BREAKING_NEWS__Oxford_rail_electrification_gets_green_light/)

Overall, what a great day for the railways given the recent spending cuts.  I'm reminded by a post from Btline (what's happened to him lately?!) regarding the Great Western Electrification scheme after it was first announced and the fact that an incoming Tory government could scupper it all:

Why are you surprised? ::)

Of course the Tories won't do it! Say goodbye to Crossrail as well, that has not been confirmed by the Tories (Boris doesn't count, as he shares very little in common with his Westminster colleagues!) of course, Boris himself cut several transport projects proposed by Labour's Ken. That's what they do!

Their claim of "we can't afford it" is rubbish. We can't afford NOT to do it. The HSTs need replacing, and if the GWML is not electrified, we'll be confimed to DMUs for the next 40 years. The other benefit is the way Labour have planned a good rolling stock cascade, which co-incides with the Thameslink programme being completed.

But the Tories won't bother making the investment, despite the fact that the benefits will pay for it in the long term.

Well, the Tories haven't committed to Bristol/South Wales electrification yet, but just about everything else has survived the cull, and I think everything points to the fact we'll see wires at least as far as London to Bristol Temple Meads/Parkway, hopefully on to Cardiff and perhaps even as originally envisaged, Swansea.  We'll have to wait for a little longer to find out though...

For the time being though, I'm very relieved and pleased as punch!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: TheLastMinute on November 25, 2010, 03:12:31 pm
Hmmm, I've been giving some thought over lunch to the recent announcements. I suspect I've added 2 & 2 and got 5,324 but....

- The PM talking to the press about a "much bigger" scheme being considered... and
- The DfT seriously considering to replace the HSTs with an all electric fleet from Bombardier plus new diesel locos for when the wires run out (rather than the expected mix of bi and electric versions from Hitachi)

The original electrification proposal was for the wires to only go as far as Newbury on the B&H and Bristol on the GW Main Line. With all an electric fleet, that would require the locos to be attached at Reading or Newbury for all SW services. Reading would surely be a non starter for shunting locos around, even with the increased capacity currently going in & I can't see every train stopping at Newbury. The alternivite of running every train via Bristol is I suspect also not going to be an option for obvious reasons.

So... could they seriously be contemplating now running the wires into Devon? Exeter SD would be an option but I think Plymouth would be the more lightly choice if it were to happen (note the very big if):

  • With travel times in Cornwall less than ideal anyway due to geography, would a few extra minutes at Plymouth hooking up a loco matter so much? At the very least, I suspect the delay would be effect fewer people.
  • With fewer though trains, platform occupations times much less of a issued at Plymouth rather than Exeter SD.
  • Laira is already in Plymouth - with the extensive facilities it has it would be an ideal base for a diesel fleet. I suspect they would need a new depot at Exeter if they were going to be based there as the DMU is fairly cramped.
  • If the wires weren't going to Plymouth, Laira would need to be replaced elsewhere as it's not sensable to have a major depot in a location that can't be accessed by the fleet running under their own power.
  • Simple economics. If you've got an 100% electric fleet, it makes sense to run it with electricity as much as possible.

Pie in the sky?

TLM

Edit: Of course, I meant to include the South Wales line as far as Swansea was in the original proposal as well.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 25, 2010, 03:55:25 pm
A few weeks ago someone (not necessarily here) wondered why IEP and Thameslink decisions were being linked by the Government.  It seemed to me that it was pretty obvious, because the business case for the wires to Newbury, Didcot and Oxford must depend to a significant extent on whether you buy new, or cascade existing rolling stock. Without the Thameslink go ahead, what's been announced today would not stack up. But once you have wires at Didcot, presumably the GWML-IEP business case gets much better, everything sort of pulls something else along...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 25, 2010, 03:56:09 pm
And that, sadly, still seems to be what is being reported now on the BBC. The mid-day updates still seem to be unware of the Oxford/Newbury electrification.

It's there now near the top of the piece. At last...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on November 25, 2010, 04:17:10 pm
The original electrification proposal was for the wires to only go as far as Newbury on the B&H and Bristol on the GW Main Line. With all an electric fleet, that would require the locos to be attached at Reading or Newbury for all SW services.

If electrification stops at Newbury, it just means that local commuter services will be EMU and that long distance services to the SW will be desiels running under the wires.

My prediction is that GWML electrifcation will be extended to Bristol and possibly Swansea and that those services will be electric (with possible loco haulage from Cardiff if the wires stop there).  FGW will retain a desiel fleet for Paddington- SW services.  Wires beyond Newburby only make sense once you start thinking about XC electrification which is not going to happen for a while at least not until the current electrification is sucessfully completed and the XC stock needs replacing.

GWML electrification beyond Didcot and Newbury will only happen when the project to string wires closer to London is wel advanced and only when the HSTs need replacing.  They will need replacing eventually, but I predict that they will be kept going until 2020 ish.

The secret to makimng electrifcation affordable is to allow it to be driven by rolling stock replacement needs.  A;l this silly talk of bi-mode EIPs is an attempt to make the rolling stock fit the infrastructure rather than ungrading the infrastructure as and when it is needed to enabkle it to take cheaper electric stock.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: stebbo on November 25, 2010, 05:19:11 pm
Totally agree that it's nuts to make the rolling stock fit the infrastructure but on the Great Western lines there's the problem of the services beyond Cardiff (although I think it would be a no-brainer to go to Swansea) and the "express" services from Paddington to stations beyond Exeter/Plymouth, to Cheltenham and to Worcester/Hereford. Building on the earlier comment, diesel motive power could be kept at Plymouth, Swindon and Oxford.

Of course, to go back to a point raised months ago in another post, the question of electrification to the south west begs the question of whether, taking the longer view, an alternative to the run along the sea wall at Dawlish/Teignmouth needs to be considered.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: TheLastMinute on November 25, 2010, 05:54:27 pm
But the IEP plan has to replace all the HSTs. I agree that they'll almost certainly be around in 2020 but they'll be on the last legs - by 2020 the oldest will be almost 45 years old and the youngest 38.

We know the DfT are considering an all electric fleet. I just can't see DfT contemplating this with a significant number being dragged around the South West by a fleet of new locos. Besides, is there capacity at Paddington have these locos attach and detach? Of course, you could use some sort of DVT arrangement, but if your going to do that then surely it would be better to go for a bi-mode or a full on diesel design in the first place?

I also agree with Tim about needing to make the infrastructure fit the stock and it's for that reason I think behind the scenes, the DfT is seriously considering the option of taking the knitting into Devon.

Thinking about it, there might be an argument for doing the Swindon/Cheltenham section as it's the diversion route for the tunnel. Then you'd only need the locos for the Newport(or Severn Tunnel Junction) to Gloucester section.

I'm getting a bit carried away here - I think I need a lie down in a darkened room!  :o

TLM


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: mjones on November 25, 2010, 07:14:54 pm
Does confirmation of electrification to Oxford mean that there will be some re-thinking on Crossrail? It would surely be a good opportunity to make better use of the Crossrail tunnel, reducing the number of trains that will terminate at Paddington from the East, and free up some platform space at Paddington.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on November 25, 2010, 08:11:13 pm

What good news, Paddington Suburban Electrification (PSE) approved at last. Under the BR modernisation plan it was due for completion in 1980.

Didcot Pway is 53m11ch from Paddington and the supergrid (440kV) supply point is there (at the power station). This makes wiring to Bristol TM,  only 65m20ch further on, much more attractive as its costs are therefore now marginal rather than full.

The announcement (as observed by a previous poster) is based on rolling stock decisions - untangling IEP
is bound to take longer, so we'll have to wait, probably more than a few weeks.

We might now expect more integration of Crossrail and PSE, freeing up more 319's for use elsewhere.

Bid for it FGW!

OTC


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on November 25, 2010, 09:05:05 pm
What I think the current Government have done is applied a much more realistic time frame to the GWML electrification.  I suspect that what will happen is the team that electrify from Hayes to Maidenhead for Crossrail will continue west, perhaps with Crossrail extending to Reading as the first stage who knows it is very early stages in the whole process.

The extension to South Wales I am sure will follow there is a lot of political pressure for it to happen Bristol will be done as part of this.

The Grid feeds are planned to be Ladbrook Grove, Didcot both from the 400kV grid electrification using the 25kV-0-25kV auto transformer system if the extension west of Didcot does not happen then the classic 25kV booster transformer system as it is cheaper but may not provide for the future without a power supply upgrade,  if  the system goes west of Didcot there is another 400kV grid intake planned near Bristol Parkway with the Seven tunnel and South Wales being wired to the classic 25kV booster transformer system with I believe 2 grid sites between Swansea and the Tunnel

The options of going west of Didcot or not have been put together in a paper for the Government


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on November 25, 2010, 10:26:52 pm
Hopefully, whatever happens, the otherwise usually amusing Railway Eye, drops their references to 'Petrol Head' when talking about the SoS for Transport.  It's becoming a little tiresome...  ::)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on November 25, 2010, 10:35:12 pm
In terms of new express rolling stock, the Stock Exchange statement first thing today contained the following:

Quote
The Department has evaluated possible alternatives to the original IEP proposal and has narrowed the consideration to two leading options; a revised bid from Agility Trains, and an alternative for a fleet of all electric trains  which could be coupled to new diesel locomotives where the overhead electric wires end.

"Leading options" is quite telling, as Hitachi/Agility was previously the clear preferred bidder for IEP, with Bombardier+Siemens very much the reserve. Slightly surprising that DafT seem to have ruled out the Voyager with an electric transformer coach idea which Bombardier has been pushing hard, in particular as a way to speed up MML wiring.

The new issue of Modern Railways contains a report about a speech given by a Bombardier director to the Rail Freight Group's Welsh members in which he said that they are looking at ways to introduce the Traxx family of locos (available as diesel or electric) in a UK-gauge version, as well as ways to meet the latest EU emissions rules for diesels from 2012.

Might have nothing to do with the all-electric plus diesels option, then again... and Bombardier also has a new high-speed train to sell, see http://innotrans.bombardier.com/en/3_0.jsp for details of this and the latest Traxx diesel - and some dual-power diesel and electric monster being built for US commuter trains, 131 tonnes on four axles! Think that would give Network Rail's track engineers a fit.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on November 26, 2010, 09:39:03 am
Does confirmation of electrification to Oxford mean that there will be some re-thinking on Crossrail? It would surely be a good opportunity to make better use of the Crossrail tunnel, reducing the number of trains that will terminate at Paddington from the East, and free up some platform space at Paddington.

Makes sense to me.  But I suspect that the Government will want to complete crossrail as it is currently planned first and draw a line under that and then work-up any changes as a separate project.  Crossrail funding is complicated and altering the project befor eit is comepleted might risk some of the contributions. 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 26, 2010, 10:08:45 am
Slightly surprising that DafT seem to have ruled out the Voyager with an electric transformer coach idea which Bombardier has been pushing hard, in particular as a way to speed up MML wiring.

That hasn't really been proposed as an IEP option though has it. Adding a pantograph to various Voyagers and Meridians is a way of allowing the existing fleet to run under wires where their routes currently allow them to, such as on the ECML or south of Bedford, and at the same time lengthen to 5 or 6 coaches long.

That would be a huge benefit to those fleets, but they'd still be used in their current areas AFAICT...

Paul 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on November 26, 2010, 10:23:27 am
Slightly surprising that DafT seem to have ruled out the Voyager with an electric transformer coach idea which Bombardier has been pushing hard, in particular as a way to speed up MML wiring.

That hasn't really been proposed as an IEP option though has it. Adding a pantograph to various Voyagers and Meridians is a way of allowing the existing fleet to run under wires where their routes currently allow them to, such as on the ECML or south of Bedford, and at the same time lengthen to 5 or 6 coaches long.

That would be a huge benefit to those fleets, but they'd still be used in their current areas AFAICT...

Paul 

I think that you are right Paul.  Although it is not completely clear to me that the governemnt will choose one of the EIP options on the table at the moment.  They might choose something else.  One option for them would be to choose an electric fleet for the routes that are wired and a diesel  fleet for the non-wired routes.  The temptation must be to choose DMUs rather than proper deisel locos and the voyager/pantagraph argument could be used to justify that decision. 

I can't get too excited about running diesels under the wires.  If the wires only get to Cardiff and Bristol then I cant see that running diesels from paddington to Penzance and from Paddington to carmarthern or Swansea is all that terrible.   And when the wires do reach Swansea the deisel stock will find work elseware I am sure. 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on November 26, 2010, 11:00:40 am
I can't get too excited about running diesels under the wires.  If the wires only get to Cardiff and Bristol then I cant see that running diesels from paddington to Penzance and from Paddington to carmarthern or Swansea is all that terrible.   And when the wires do reach Swansea the deisel stock will find work elseware I am sure. 

I am afraid I disgree with you completely on this one.

One of the stupidist things the current regime has given us is HSTs on the ECML running Newcastle and Leeds services entirely under the wires because of lack of suitable electric stock.

Go to KX around 10:00 and there are (were) 4 HSTs in under an hour. Inverness, Sunderalnd Leeds and Newcastle, two of which are under the wires all the way.

I also don't think freight should be diesel hauled under the wires. An electrified railway should use electric traction for all trains.

OK so you have a loco change at the end of the wires but Cambridge (and other places) used to do it in under three minutes on the Kings Lynn through trains. As the wires are likely to end at a reasonably large town the 3 minute dwell time would not really affect the overall journey time it would disappear if excessive padding was removed.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: standclearplease on November 26, 2010, 11:23:05 am
Would the argument be that having a bi-mode train would add too much weight?

Lugging around a transformer when not under the wires, and lugging around a diesel engine when under the wires doesn't sound efficient. Saying that, neither does running an electric train being pulled by a diesel train whilst not under wires.

But there we go.  :D


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Henry on November 26, 2010, 11:50:55 am
http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=140772


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on November 26, 2010, 12:06:31 pm





OK so you have a loco change at the end of the wires but Cambridge (and other places) used to do it in under three minutes on the Kings Lynn through trains. As the wires are likely to end at a reasonably large town the 3 minute dwell time would not really affect the overall journey time it would disappear if excessive padding was removed.

Yep.

They could replace a XC Cl47 at Coventry or Birmingham NS with a Cl86 in 4 minutes.

Very good when you think of two sets of screw couplings, brake hoses and ETH jumpers and two shunting movements (and oil lamps).

It took 22 minutes at Preston, for a Blackpool train.

OTC




Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: stebbo on November 26, 2010, 01:29:45 pm
This assumes that the electric stock will be driven by a locomotive at one end. If an emu type stock, then the diesel has to haul the whole lot.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on November 26, 2010, 01:39:15 pm
This assumes that the electric stock will be driven by a locomotive at one end. If an emu type stock, then the diesel has to haul the whole lot.
Technically there is no reason why an eclectic loco could not couple to a DMU or a diesel loco to an EMU it just needs for them both to have the same type auto couplers, this would make for a very flexible system and would not mean the dead hauling of equipment for long distances however it would mean stabling points etc


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on November 26, 2010, 01:48:50 pm
I do take your point, Running "under the wires" without electric traction is not good and more of the trains leaving kings cross shoudl be electric, but I don't think you can too much of a purist about it.  If you look at the GWML after the currently promised electrification is complete, a train from London to Plymouth or Penzance will only be running under the wires for a small proportion of its journey.  To make that train bi-mode with the extra cost and reliability issues, and the performance and energy efficiency penalty caused by dragging the weight of two sets of equipment arround or the time penalty caused by coupling a loco on and off does not seem worth it.  I think it is a no brainer to make those journeys with deisel traction the whole way.   Especially as we want to keep things simple and affordable.

If the wires go up to Cardiff but not Swansea then the facts change.  Running lots of diesels every day all the way from Paddington to Swansea/Carmarthen doesn't look so sensible as a higher proportion of the route is electrified.  The business case for buying deisel trains for that route are also less clear cut as their is a reasonable chance that the wires will eventually get to Swansea.   I am still not convinced that bi-mode is the answer, because you would be talking an expensive and complex train as a solution to what might be a tempory problem.  Loco haulage might be an answer (especially if the class 67s can be used as they are short of work) as well as changing the calling patterns off peak and terminating more trains at cardiff with more of the manchester or Pompy trains extended to Swansea.  
I can't get too excited about running diesels under the wires.  If the wires only get to Cardiff and Bristol then I cant see that running diesels from paddington to Penzance and from Paddington to carmarthern or Swansea is all that terrible.   And when the wires do reach Swansea the deisel stock will find work elseware I am sure. 

I am afraid I disgree with you completely on this one.

One of the stupidist things the current regime has given us is HSTs on the ECML running Newcastle and Leeds services entirely under the wires because of lack of suitable electric stock.

Go to KX around 10:00 and there are (were) 4 HSTs in under an hour. Inverness, Sunderalnd Leeds and Newcastle, two of which are under the wires all the way.

I also don't think freight should be diesel hauled under the wires. An electrified railway should use electric traction for all trains.

OK so you have a loco change at the end of the wires but Cambridge (and other places) used to do it in under three minutes on the Kings Lynn through trains. As the wires are likely to end at a reasonably large town the 3 minute dwell time would not really affect the overall journey time it would disappear if excessive padding was removed.

I do take your point, Running "under the wires" without electric traction is not good and more of the trains leaving kings cross shoudl be electric, but I don't think you can too much of a purist about it.  If you look at the GWML after the currently promised electrification is complete, a train from London to Plymouth or Penzance will only be running under the wires for a small proportion of its journey.  To make that train bi-mode with the extra cost and reliability issues, and the performance and energy efficiency penalty caused by dragging the weight of two sets of equipment arround or the time penalty caused by coupling a loco on and off does not seem worth it.  I think it is a no brainer to make those journeys with deisel traction the whole way.   Especially as we want to keep things simple and affordable.

If the wires go up to Cardiff but not Swansea then the facts change.  Running lots of diesels every day all the way from Paddington to Swansea/Carmarthen doesn't look so sensible as a higher proportion of the route is electrified.  The business case for buying deisel trains for that route are also less clear cut as their is a reasonable chance that the wires will eventually get to Swansea.   I am still not convinced that bi-mode is the answer, because you would be talking an expensive and complex train as a solution to what might be a tempory problem.  Loco haulage might be an answer (especially if the class 67s can be used as they are short of work) as well as changing the calling patterns off peak and terminating more trains at cardiff with more of the manchester or Pompy trains extended to Swansea.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on November 26, 2010, 01:52:45 pm
This assumes that the electric stock will be driven by a locomotive at one end. If an emu type stock, then the diesel has to haul the whole lot.

If we have diesel locos hauling electric trains or EMUs will those diesels need to run arround at the end of their journeys?  Is the trackwork in place in Swansea and other places for them to do this?  Is this still feasible on a busy railway? Of are we going to need more complicated stock capable of driving a diesel loco from an EMU cab? Doesn't complexity add to cost and risk?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on November 26, 2010, 03:21:50 pm
This assumes that the electric stock will be driven by a locomotive at one end. If an emu type stock, then the diesel has to haul the whole lot.

If we have diesel locos hauling electric trains or EMUs will those diesels need to run arround at the end of their journeys?  Is the trackwork in place in Swansea and other places for them to do this?  Is this still feasible on a busy railway? Of are we going to need more complicated stock capable of driving a diesel loco from an EMU cab? Doesn't complexity add to cost and risk?
Or run it in effect as a DVT no need to decouple the loco at the remote end


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on November 26, 2010, 03:23:50 pm
That was exactly what the Southern Region did from1967 until the conductor rails reached Weymouth.

A 4 REP pushed 1 or 2 4 TCs to Bournemouth where a 33 came on the front and took 1 or 2 of the TCs down to Weymouth. Pushing them back to Bournemouth where the coupled onto a waiting REP.

Couplings were buckeye with a brake pipes and  and a standard control cable to couple.

Each individual 4 car set REP or TC had a driving cab at each end as did the 33. Worked beautifully.
 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: brompton rail on November 26, 2010, 03:38:22 pm
Yes, but it didn't travel at 125 mph though.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Worcester_Passenger on November 26, 2010, 04:25:45 pm
But surely a modern version could travel at 125 mph?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on November 26, 2010, 04:50:27 pm
Yes, but it didn't travel at 125 mph though.
But surely a modern version could travel at 125 mph?
Exactly the ECML have operated 125 plus with loco's and DVT's for nearly 20 years


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on November 26, 2010, 05:00:57 pm
Yes, but it didn't travel at 125 mph though.

Not legally anyway.............

OTC


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 26, 2010, 05:49:49 pm
One of the stupidist things the current regime has given us is HSTs on the ECML running Newcastle and Leeds services entirely under the wires because of lack of suitable electric stock.

One of the problems with the ECML is that most trains cannot do an out and back run in the same day.  Once you accept the concept of through trains from Inverness or Aberdeen to/from Kings Cross a few times a day, to get full utilisation of the stock they have to do additional 'short' runs to employ them fully.  So for example (theoretically cos I haven't got real diagrams) an EC HST might do Leeds > Aberdeen > Kings Cross > Newcastle over a day.   

If they hadn't already had the HSTs in service with a 25 yr remaining life at the time the electrification happened, maybe diesel haulage of Mk 4 coaching sets north of Edinburgh would have been introduced instead.

Paul

 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Worcester_Passenger on November 26, 2010, 07:18:55 pm
One of the stupidist things the current regime has given us is HSTs on the ECML running Newcastle and Leeds services entirely under the wires because of lack of suitable electric stock.

One of the problems with the ECML is that most trains cannot do an out and back run in the same day.  Once you accept the concept of through trains from Inverness or Aberdeen to/from Kings Cross a few times a day, to get full utilisation of the stock they have to do additional 'short' runs to employ them fully.  So for example (theoretically cos I haven't got real diagrams) an EC HST might do Leeds > Aberdeen > Kings Cross > Newcastle over a day.  

You're both partly-right. There are some diagrams posted at http://www.thejunction.org.uk/ (http://www.thejunction.org.uk/). If you look at the East Coast HST ones, there are 11 - of which 3 are wholly under the wires.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 26, 2010, 08:14:52 pm
I remember there was a time when there were no ECML HST diagrams fully under the wires, but increased services in recent years, such as the additional Leeds services have also led to more HST use, probably as they were all that was available. I expect the 91/HST balance was just about right in the nineties...

Paul 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on November 27, 2010, 12:04:40 am
Slightly surprising that DafT seem to have ruled out the Voyager with an electric transformer coach idea which Bombardier has been pushing hard, in particular as a way to speed up MML wiring.

That hasn't really been proposed as an IEP option though has it. Adding a pantograph to various Voyagers and Meridians is a way of allowing the existing fleet to run under wires where their routes currently allow them to, such as on the ECML or south of Bedford, and at the same time lengthen to 5 or 6 coaches long.

That would be a huge benefit to those fleets, but they'd still be used in their current areas AFAICT...

Paul 

I think that you are right Paul.  Although it is not completely clear to me that the governemnt will choose one of the EIP options on the table at the moment.  They might choose something else.  One option for them would be to choose an electric fleet for the routes that are wired and a diesel  fleet for the non-wired routes.  The temptation must be to choose DMUs rather than proper deisel locos and the voyager/pantagraph argument could be used to justify that decision. 

The options the Government is now considering were made quite clear by DafT yesterday, which I posted on the previous page:

Quote
The Department has evaluated possible alternatives to the original IEP proposal and has narrowed the consideration to two leading options; a revised bid from Agility Trains, and an alternative for a fleet of all electric trains  which could be coupled to new diesel locomotives where the overhead electric wires end.

The bi-mode element of the revised bid from Hitachi/Agility, according to Modern Railways, now has underfloor diesel engines - sound familiar? - hence my surprise that a Voyager-type train with a transformer car was out of the running when the Japanese are now offering the exact same concept for IEP.

And note new diesels, not 67s or anything else, so I would imagine it would be easy enough to design them to be driven from the cab of the electric train they are coupled to, if this is the way they choose to go.

 
Quote
I think it is a no brainer to make those journeys with deisel traction the whole way.


And have a load of diesels with different performance characteristics sharing the fast lines from Paddington to Reading with electrics off to Bristol and Cardiff? That would be fun for the timetablers...

Quote
Does confirmation of electrification to Oxford mean that there will be some re-thinking on Crossrail? It would surely be a good opportunity to make better use of the Crossrail tunnel, reducing the number of trains that will terminate at Paddington from the East, and free up some platform space at Paddington.

There won't be any rethinking, at least not until the 319s need replacing. Using secondhand emus is critical to making the numbers stack up for Oxford and Newbury electrification. Crossrail and the extended Thameslink network are both intended to shove 20 or so trains per hour through the tunnels in the peaks, which implies lots of doors, like a Tube train, to get people on and off sharpish, which is why the 319s need to be replaced on Thameslink duties. Logically Crossrail should go out to Reading and given that they need to shave ^1bn off the bill to meet the government's new price target, not building stabling sidings at Maidenhead would certainly help. Since they aren't starting electrification just yet, there is time to thrash all this out.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: standclearplease on November 27, 2010, 09:52:46 am
Just out of interest, do the government have any plans to use North Pole depot for CrossRail or the new electric IEP?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 27, 2010, 02:54:55 pm
Just out of interest, do the government have any plans to use North Pole depot for CrossRail or the new electric IEP?

Crossrail definitely not, that's Old Oak Common, but GW IEP maybe, according to the GW RUS. 

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 27, 2010, 03:08:40 pm

The options the Government is now considering were made quite clear by DafT yesterday, which I posted on the previous page:

The bi-mode element of the revised bid from Hitachi/Agility, according to Modern Railways, now has underfloor diesel engines - sound familiar? - hence my surprise that a Voyager-type train with a transformer car was out of the running when the Japanese are now offering the exact same concept for IEP.

As I see it, a 'Voyager type train' as an IEP alternative is currently a totally separate debate to Bombardier's existing proposal for alterations to Meridians and Voyagers. All that has been proposed in the rail press is additional intermediate carriages with pantographs etc to stick in the existing fleet.  That's really all I was pointing out.

I'm not sure Bombardier are yet in a position to officially tout it as an alternative to Hitachi's offering of an underfloor engined bimode 5 car unit - until (and if) such time as the competition is reopened.  So as of now, the DfT cannot bring an extended Voyager into the running - however this may change in future.

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on November 27, 2010, 03:54:47 pm
Quote
All that has been proposed in the rail press

It is a bit more than a proposal in the rail press. It is a deadly serious idea, which Bombardier has been doing development work on with the support of other UK rail manufacturers, the leasing companies which own the Voyagers and Meridians, and XC, Virgin and EMT. It is detailed enough that there is a figure for new-build pantograph coaches, 123, plus 21 converted from existing coaches.

And DafT can bring anything into the running it likes, whenever it likes - and has, in the shape of an all-electric train plus diesel locos as a rival to the latest variant of the IEP concept, having ruled out diesel drags previously.

If all Hitachi ends up being offered is a contract to replace FGW and East Coast's HSTs, rather than all the other things IEP was supposed to do, will they still be interested, or be willing to build an assembly plant in the UK?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on November 27, 2010, 06:40:04 pm
Please no more underfloor engined long distance Intercity services. If changing from electrified to diesel traction using locos works in mainland Europe on routes where they wires end, why not here?

Still with the speed that this is all not happening at least I know there are a good few years yet of travelling on HSTs :)  I find it staggering that for a build of train that was meant to be temporary before the release of APT, that no one has come up with a better train than the good old HST.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: XPT on November 27, 2010, 07:51:27 pm
I haven't read through this massive thread, but the rumours that the replacement to the HST's *could* be 5-car Voyager like trains doesn't sound good.  I thought lessons would have been learnt after the fiasco of using those 4 or 5 car Voyagers on the long distance cross country routes where the trains are usually packed out.  Longer trains are needed.   With expected further growth in train passengers this decade, running 4/5 car trains on Intercity route is not a good idea.  And please let's hope these new trains have decent comfortable seating including seats that line up with the windows!  Here is a good example of what comfortable seating SHOULD be like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRIMre6BKos


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Worcester_Passenger on November 27, 2010, 10:45:56 pm
There was another interesting DMU story tucked away in Modern Railways. A piece about Chiltern (p9) looking at loco haulage, which said that they're finding it difficult to finance new DMUs, partly because of the scarcity of finance, but also because "financiers are wary of putting money into new diesel trains with a 30-year life due to uncertainties surrounding the oil supply".

Perhaps someone should tell DfT.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on November 28, 2010, 09:48:51 am
I haven't read through this massive thread, but the rumours that the replacement to the HST's *could* be 5-car Voyager like trains doesn't sound good.  I thought lessons would have been learnt after the fiasco of using those 4 or 5 car Voyagers on the long distance cross country routes where the trains are usually packed out.  Longer trains are needed.   With expected further growth in train passengers this decade, running 4/5 car trains on Intercity route is not a good idea.  And please let's hope these new trains have decent comfortable seating including seats that line up with the windows!  Here is a good example of what comfortable seating SHOULD be like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRIMre6BKos

It is very early days as yet, but if other new trains are anything to go by, we will end up with some variety of 4/5 car multiple unit, with high density bus seats, minimal luggage space,and no buffet.
In theory multiple units are a good idea on account of the flexible train lengths. In practice though any seasoned and cynical traveller will know that flexible=shorter. Remember the adelantes ? flexible train length indeed, but normally 5 car replacing an HST.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on November 28, 2010, 09:51:16 am
Logically Crossrail should go out to Reading and given that they need to shave ^1bn off the bill to meet the government's new price target, not building stabling sidings at Maidenhead would certainly help. Since they aren't starting electrification just yet, there is time to thrash all this out.

Yes, can someone please announce that!  I thought it might have been included in Thursday's announcement given that electrification of Reading station was approved.  It is just such a logical thing to do given the passenger flows in the area!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on November 28, 2010, 09:54:16 am
It is very early days as yet, but if other new trains are anything to go by, we will end up with some variety of 4/5 car multiple unit, with high density bus seats, minimal luggage space,and no buffet.
In theory multiple units are a good idea on account of the flexible train lengths. In practice though any seasoned and cynical traveller will know that flexible=shorter. Remember the adelantes ? flexible train length indeed, but normally 5 car replacing an HST.

Ah, yes.  I remember the Adelante's.  Comfortable seats that line up with windows, a reasonable amount of luggage space, and a buffet.  Oh, and a train designed to supplement the HST fleet on quieter services off peak between Paddington and Cardiff (where a 5-car train would still be adequate, and certainly was 10 years ago), and the option to run them in 10-car formations to provide more seats than the current high density HST sets.  Yes, I remember the Adelante!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on November 28, 2010, 12:34:16 pm
Some of the replacement trains may well be five-car - that was part of the IEP plan in its previous incarnation - but there were lots of longer trains too, to replace the HSTs, as there will be in whatever fleet is ordered - remember MML ordered some Meridians as nine-car sets and others as four-car. Now they run four, five and seven-car sets.

And a little flexibility in the fleet would not hurt, eg an all-electric unit running coupled to a electric-diesel set between Oxford and London to meet the demand on that leg, with the dual-powered one then going on along the Cotswold Line to Worcester, Malvern or Hereford - and probably a rather more elegant solution than messing around with diesel locos in Oxford station!

A similar arrangement for Cheltenham and Gloucester services past Swindon would also make sense most of the day and Berks & Hants off-peak semi-fasts don't need a full HST either.

Some of you may not like under-floor engines but short trains dragging around a diesel power-car under the wires makes no sense at all, as people kept pointing out to DafT during the IEP development process. And my pet hate about Voyagers/Meridians is not the engines, it's the cramped interiors, due to the tilt body shape, which will not be an issue on anything being built for the Great Western and East Coast routes with a 26m straight-sided body.

Quote
Remember the adelantes ? flexible train length indeed, but normally 5 car replacing an HST.

When exactly did they replace HSTs? As Insider notes, they were built to provide extra services to Bristol and Cardiff - and were themselves replaced by HSTs when the 180s got moved to Oxford & Cotswold work at the end of 2004. Where they were then replaced by HSTs which are too big for off-peak work on the Cotswold Line, where we would quite like to see some InterCity-quality five-car trains again - especially off-peak instead of the Turbos we ended up with again due to the gross over-capacity on an HST. In the meantime, there will be five unemployed 180s looking for a new home in fortnight's time....

Quote
There was another interesting DMU story tucked away in Modern Railways. A piece about Chiltern (p9) looking at loco haulage, which said that they're finding it difficult to finance new DMUs, partly because of the scarcity of finance, but also because "financiers are wary of putting money into new diesel trains with a 30-year life due to uncertainties surrounding the oil supply".

Perhaps someone should tell DfT.

They know all about it, as was discussed here some time back, when they ditched the plan to buy 200 new dmu coaches, including a good number for FGW, because no-one wanted to fund diesel trains with a 30-year life if electrification was on the way.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Richard Fairhurst on November 28, 2010, 03:00:09 pm
Ah, yes.  I remember the Adelante's.

There's a poem in there somewhere.

Yes, I remember the Adelantes -
The name because one afternoon
Of heat / faulty doors / lack of fuel / malfunctioning PIS / staff shortages the express-train drew up
Unwontedly. It was late June.

- E.J. Thomas, aged 4 and 8 1/2 months


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: RailCornwall on November 28, 2010, 03:38:51 pm
Logically Crossrail should go out to Reading and given that they need to shave ^1bn off the bill to meet the government's new price target, not building stabling sidings at Maidenhead would certainly help. Since they aren't starting electrification just yet, there is time to thrash all this out.

Yes, can someone please announce that!  I thought it might have been included in Thursday's announcement given that electrification of Reading station was approved.  It is just such a logical thing to do given the passenger flows in the area!

A new TWA would be required to do that as Crossrail is not an operating service at present. An extension beyond the scope of the enabling Act would add many months, if not years to the project, remember the Thameslink madness.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chafford1 on November 28, 2010, 03:43:09 pm
Logically Crossrail should go out to Reading and given that they need to shave ^1bn off the bill to meet the government's new price target, not building stabling sidings at Maidenhead would certainly help. Since they aren't starting electrification just yet, there is time to thrash all this out.

Yes, can someone please announce that!  I thought it might have been included in Thursday's announcement given that electrification of Reading station was approved.  It is just such a logical thing to do given the passenger flows in the area!

A new TWA would be required to do that as Crossrail is not an operating service at present. An extension beyond the scope of the enabling Act would add many months, if not years to the project, remember the Thameslink madness.

Nothing to stop them extending the service 6 months after Crossrail starts, though.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chafford1 on November 28, 2010, 03:45:47 pm
Some of the replacement trains may well be five-car - that was part of the IEP plan in its previous incarnation - but there were lots of longer trains too, to replace the HSTs, as there will be in whatever fleet is ordered - remember MML ordered some Meridians as nine-car sets and others as four-car. Now they run four, five and seven-car sets.


I thought the current cut-price IEP plan was for 5 coach electric and 5 coach bi-mode (similar to a Meridian with a pantograph car) trains.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on November 28, 2010, 04:23:11 pm
Logically Crossrail should go out to Reading and given that they need to shave ^1bn off the bill to meet the government's new price target, not building stabling sidings at Maidenhead would certainly help. Since they aren't starting electrification just yet, there is time to thrash all this out.

Yes, can someone please announce that!  I thought it might have been included in Thursday's announcement given that electrification of Reading station was approved.  It is just such a logical thing to do given the passenger flows in the area!
The route between Maidenhead and Reading has been "safeguarded" for Crossrail that was done by the previous Government has after the Crossrail Bill received Royal assent.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Worcester_Passenger on November 28, 2010, 05:57:41 pm
There's a poem in there somewhere.

Yes, I remember the Adelantes -
The name because one afternoon
Of heat / faulty doors / lack of fuel / malfunctioning PIS / staff shortages the express-train drew up
Unwontedly. It was late June.

- E.J. Thomas, aged 4 and 8 1/2 months

Excellent.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on November 28, 2010, 07:19:34 pm
The route between Maidenhead and Reading has been "safeguarded" for Crossrail that was done by the previous Government has after the Crossrail Bill received Royal assent.

Does that mean the TWA hurdle that RailCornwall says would get in the way, would actually not get in the way?  Or is there a realistic chance that all the facilities at Maidenhead will have to be built for no reason at all in the long term?  I was kind of hoping that the extension would be announced along with last Thursday's statements, but perhaps it will be announced with the statement on further GWML electrification in the new year?

This passage is a quote from the Rail Electrification publication from the DfT released in July 2009, which hints at no such obstacle:

"With electrification now to be extended to Reading, it would be possible for Crossrail to operate to Reading, rather than Maidenhead, from the outset, and this option will now be considered by the Government and Transport for London."

The full document is available here:  http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdf (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdf)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on November 28, 2010, 08:28:45 pm
The route between Maidenhead and Reading has been "safeguarded" for Crossrail that was done by the previous Government has after the Crossrail Bill received Royal assent.
Does that mean the TWA hurdle that RailCornwall says would get in the way, would actually not get in the way?  Or is there a realistic chance that all the facilities at Maidenhead will have to be built for no reason at all in the long term?  I was kind of hoping that the extension would be announced along with last Thursday's statements, but perhaps it will be announced with the statement on further GWML electrification in the new year?
This passage is a quote from the Rail Electrification publication from the DfT released in July 2009, which hints at no such obstacle:
"With electrification now to be extended to Reading, it would be possible for Crossrail to operate to Reading, rather than Maidenhead, from the outset, and this option will now be considered by the Government and Transport for London."
The full document is available here:  http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdf (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdf)
There are quite a few years yet to go before the turn around is built at Maidenhead so it is possible the final solution would be Reading provided there are no further delays in the GWML TVL electrification.  The sidings at Maidenhead may get built anyway as construction depot for electrification trains


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on November 29, 2010, 12:42:12 am
Quote
An extension beyond the scope of the enabling Act would add many months, if not years

Why? If a government wants to, and has the votes in Parliament to do it, it can ram through legislation in a day. An extension of Crossrail to Reading would not require such tactics, as it would be a very simple piece of legislation, that is hardly likely to generate much, if any, opposition, since it makes such obvious good sense. And would probably have happened in the first place were it not for Crossrail's promoters being determined to steer clear of any responsibility for or investment in sorting out the problem of Reading, which Network Rail has now taken care of.

If you want to build an electrification depot, surely somewhere like Moreton cutting, near Didcot, with a large expanse of level, wide-open railway-owned land available, would make rather more sense than a cramped site in the middle of a town.

Some of the replacement trains may well be five-car - that was part of the IEP plan in its previous incarnation - but there were lots of longer trains too, to replace the HSTs, as there will be in whatever fleet is ordered - remember MML ordered some Meridians as nine-car sets and others as four-car. Now they run four, five and seven-car sets.


I thought the current cut-price IEP plan was for 5 coach electric and 5 coach bi-mode (similar to a Meridian with a pantograph car) trains.


The basic 'building-block' train is five coaches, but shoving in extra powered or unpowered trailers or transfomer cars to make up a longer, more powerful formation is easy enough to do - just like the various lengths of Voyagers and Meridians out there now.

I don't think anyone operating either the GWML or ECML is going to accept having fleets of nothing but five-coach trains foisted on them, given the current capacity issues (EC operating 2+9 HSTs, FGW talking about ways they might provide some), never mind coping with projected growth.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on November 29, 2010, 08:50:41 am
Quote
An extension beyond the scope of the enabling Act would add many months, if not years

Why? If a government wants to, and has the votes in Parliament to do it, it can ram through legislation in a day. An extension of Crossrail to Reading would not require such tactics, as it would be a very simple piece of legislation, that is hardly likely to generate much, if any, opposition, since it makes such obvious good sense. And would probably have happened in the first place were it not for Crossrail's promoters being determined to steer clear of any responsibility for or investment in sorting out the problem of Reading, which Network Rail has now taken care of.

If you want to build an electrification depot, surely somewhere like Moreton cutting, near Didcot, with a large expanse of level, wide-open railway-owned land available, would make rather more sense than a cramped site in the middle of a town.
To change the Crossrail Act would take up Parliamentary time the Government would argue they have more important uses for that time.
Morton Cutting is a possibility for a construction depot for GWML electrification it is to far out of the reach of Crossrail, Maidenhead would be a stabling depot for the main one at OOC.
Crossrail will reach Reading I believe it will be part of the TVL electrification with a remodeling of all TVL services


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on November 29, 2010, 09:43:44 am

And have a load of diesels with different performance characteristics sharing the fast lines from Paddington to Reading with electrics off to Bristol and Cardiff? That would be fun for the timetablers...


hadn't thought about that.  But Paddington-Reading is only a short distance and if we talking about new diesels maybe the preformance characteristsics could be made to match (at least as much as bi-mode versus electric)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on November 29, 2010, 12:44:21 pm
Legislation wise, I think service extension to Reading (if it was already electrified) would simply be a service pattern alteration - I'd be surprised if that needed primary legislation at all.

However would the removal of thereby redundant facilities such as the Maidenhead sidings have to be legislated for, because the Crossrail Act requires them to be built?  In other words legislation is required to reduce Crossrail infrastructure plans rather than increase service?

That seems to have been a constant problem with the early railway Acts IIRC - you'd think they would have included some get out clause if works became unnecessary in a 'modern equivalent' Act though...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on November 29, 2010, 02:03:28 pm
However would the removal of thereby redundant facilities such as the Maidenhead sidings have to be legislated for, because the Crossrail Act requires them to be built? 

Look at it this way.  If redundant faciliies don't get build even if this is technically illegal under the act what is the result of this illegality.  It isn;t a crime so its not like anyone will go to jail.  Someone migth get sued but what would be the damages?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on November 29, 2010, 09:54:24 pm
There is a piece in Modern Railways December saying Crossrail is limited to ^14 billion down a billion.

They seem to be looking for things to cut (or build cheaper) so not building the Maidenhead turnback sidings would seem an obvious saving.

Especially as hopefully Reading remodelling will be finished, unless it turns into another Leeds for those of you old enough to remember, before the wires arrive. Hopefully without new signal structures with insufficient headroom as per Newport.

I always thought Crossrail should electrify the Greenford branch with an interchange at North Acton (not Greenford) with the Central Line. That would enable 4tph currently terminating at Paddington to run round the loop. It would also enable Heathrow Express and Connect to turn threir units round and prevent excesive wheel wear on the tight one way curves at Airport Junction


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on November 29, 2010, 11:48:34 pm
Quote
To change the Crossrail Act would take up Parliamentary time the Government would argue they have more important uses for that time.

If any further legislation is required, and as Paul says, it may not be needed anyway, it could be done quickly as a private bill, for which time is set aside in Parliament. There are about 10 or so such bills currently going through, including some from TfL, which is in charge of Crossrail.

Quote
Morton Cutting is a possibility for a construction depot for GWML electrification it is to far out of the reach of Crossrail, Maidenhead would be a stabling depot for the main one at OOC.

Moreton is nearer to London than Wellingborough, where engineering trains for London Underground modernisation are marshalled, or, er, Taunton, where the GWML track renewal train and high-output ballast cleaner are stabled, so face a bit of a trip to do any work in the Thames Valley area. And if they decide that Crossrail is going to go to Reading, they won't be spending a penny piece on sidings at Maidenhead.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on November 30, 2010, 08:17:35 am
"And if they decide that Crossrail is going to go to Reading, they won't be spending a penny piece on sidings at Maidenhead."

Let's hope you are right willc!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on December 01, 2010, 12:22:39 am
I think that the Home Secretary might have something to say about them shelling out money for sidings that wouldn't be needed right in the heart of her constituency. And Theresa May is a staunch advocate of Crossrail going right through to Reading, as Twyford is also in her constituency.

I should add, after our discussion above, that her website's Crossrail page, though oddly not updated for about two years, contains the following ministerial assurance, given to her in 2008:

Quote
Importantly, he confirmed that the line could be extended under existing legislation and it would not have to go through the same lengthy parliamentary procedures as this Bill.More

See http://www.tmay.co.uk/news/?c=crossrail


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on December 01, 2010, 12:50:08 pm
This part of the government's statement last Thursday caught my eye:

"In total the Government will deliver more than 2,100 new rail carriages onto the network by May 2019. Of these, 1,800 will be for new Crossrail and Thameslink services. This will in turn free up hundreds of existing electric carriages to be deployed onto the newly electrified lines by franchised train operators. In total, there will be at least 1,850 net additional carriages on the network by 2019. The Government will now enter into commercial negotiations with the franchised operators about the allocation of the unallocated element of 650 further carriages for delivery before 2014. Subject to those negotiations, the Government expects additional carriages to be added on services into Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool, Newcastle, Birmingham, Bristol, London Paddington and London Waterloo."

Does anybody know exactly why they've mentioned London Paddington?  Obviously, extra capacity will be provided by transferred Class 319's and whatever form the HST replacement takes, but that paragraph specifically mentions the extra 650 carriages allocation and Paddington in one sentence.  Are there going to be other capacity improvements or am I missing something?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on December 01, 2010, 05:25:09 pm
Your guess is probably as good as anyone's.

Await Roger Ford's disection of the figures with interest.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on December 01, 2010, 07:39:52 pm
Taking the 5 spare 180s into use with FGW would count as extra capacity into Paddington.

How is that relevant to new stock, I hear you all ask?

How about new 172 to LM, 150 to FGW, 142 back to Northern, releasing 180 to FGW...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on December 02, 2010, 12:50:54 am
How about new 172 to LM, 150 to FGW, 142 back to Northern, releasing 180 to FGW...

I'm sure if the DfT really worked it out they could factor the Class 483's on the Isle Of Wight into that cascade somewhere!  ;)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on December 14, 2010, 11:30:35 am
Article in todays western mail suggesting thet the DFT have decided to only electrify as far as Bristol with Dual fuel trains being used on London -  Swansea services.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/12/14/network-director-says-high-speed-link-is-off-the-rails-91466-27820336/


Big mistake in my opinion if it does turn out to be true


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on December 14, 2010, 01:40:15 pm
... But on the plus side there is the suggestion that electric wires may eventually reach Plymouth. 

They were always going to do the bit closest to London first anyway so I won't be too disappointed.   


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on December 14, 2010, 03:17:05 pm
Article in todays western mail suggesting thet the DFT have decided to only electrify as far as Bristol with Dual fuel trains being used on London -  Swansea services.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/12/14/network-director-says-high-speed-link-is-off-the-rails-91466-27820336/


Big mistake in my opinion if it does turn out to be true

Unless they're playing a game which involves trying to get the Welsh Assembly to stump up for wiring south Wales...imagine the fuss across the Severn if the wires ran out just before the border.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on December 14, 2010, 04:24:55 pm
... But on the plus side there is the suggestion that electric wires may eventually reach Plymouth. 

Plymouth has always been a future proposal in the Electrification RUS, like the majority of other extensions people suggest will never happen.  NW and GW are not supposed to be the last or only lines to be electrified, they are intended to be the first of the rest...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on December 14, 2010, 05:02:51 pm
We need to get on with putting the wiring up rather than worrying about where they will end.  NR need a chance to demonstrate that they can do it properly and efficiently (they better not blow it) and with each mile strung up the business case for the next mile improves.   


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on December 14, 2010, 06:59:53 pm
We need to get on with putting the wiring up rather than worrying about where they will end.  NR need a chance to demonstrate that they can do it properly and efficiently (they better not blow it) and with each mile strung up the business case for the next mile improves.   
Exactly.  NR want to get to grips with a "new" electrification scheme on an operational railway, up until now it has only done renewals.



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on December 14, 2010, 08:15:15 pm
IMHO it should be easier to put up new electrifcation than do renewals and alterations.  A new installation doesn't have to be returned to working order at the end of every weekend possession, which was apparently one of the main issues with the rebuild at Rugby, where they were continually trying to do track alterations and reposition previously working wires at the same time...

In any case, the usual contractors (such as Balfour Beatty) will be practicing by doing new installations in Scotland long before they get going down here...   ::)

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Maxwell P on December 15, 2010, 12:45:51 pm
Taking the 5 spare 180s into use with FGW would count as extra capacity into Paddington.

How is that relevant to new stock, I hear you all ask?

How about new 172 to LM, 150 to FGW, 142 back to Northern, releasing 180 to FGW...

Paul

I believe that the 180s are heading north, I think to Grand Central and that 3 HSTs will come the other way.   My info dates back to early October and I have heard nothing else since, but it was an FGW director who mentioned this during a visit west.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on December 15, 2010, 11:50:06 pm
Article in todays western mail suggesting thet the DFT have decided to only electrify as far as Bristol with Dual fuel trains being used on London -  Swansea services.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/12/14/network-director-says-high-speed-link-is-off-the-rails-91466-27820336/


Big mistake in my opinion if it does turn out to be true

I think that this probably refers to the subdivision of the project for appraisal purposes.

Generally this involves costing  options of do nothing, do everything and several points in between.
The suburban  part would have optional terminations of Reading, then Oxford finally Newbury. With re-used stock the solution is quick and in this case favourable.

For the IC section, options costed would be Bristol (3 possible routes), Cardiff and Swansea.
Evidently there's no problem with Bristol but the South Wales loadings may be more marginal. There's the added complication of what trains to purchase which may also affect the outcome of the marginal sections.

The simplest rolling stock solution IMHO would be 5 x 23m  car EMU's (Class 342?) of 125 mph.
The best would be TGV's/ICE's but the infrastructure would need more work but not too much thanks to IKB.

OTC


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on December 17, 2010, 05:13:43 pm

The 2007 Station Entries and Exits gives the following approx (Mpax/yr):

Swindon                   2.5
Chippenham             1.4
Bath Spa                  4.2
Bristol TM                 6.5
Bristol PW                1.8
Newport                   2.0
Cardiff                     9.1
Bridgend                  1.2
Port Talbot               0.35
Neath                      0.57
Swansea                  1.6

Not all of the footfalls are FGW of course.

Cardiff wiring looks safe but Swansea????

OTC


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Worcester_Passenger on December 17, 2010, 06:48:50 pm
Those Cardiff figures will have a hefty component from the Valley lines. Swansea hasn't got an equivalent suburban network.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on December 17, 2010, 10:38:08 pm
Article in todays western mail suggesting thet the DFT have decided to only electrify as far as Bristol with Dual fuel trains being used on London -  Swansea services.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/12/14/network-director-says-high-speed-link-is-off-the-rails-91466-27820336/

Big mistake in my opinion if it does turn out to be true

Indeed it might be, but I thought we'd all learn not to trust a damn word of these so called exclusives - no matter who's been misquoted this time -  following all the nonsense leading up to the Comprehensive Spending Review statement, and follow-up statement from Philip Hammond.

I can't be bothered to drag up all the links, but we all remember being told that Crossrail was either going to terminate at Heathrow and/or the the Abbey Wood extension was to get axed.  Then there was the removal of ATO or other cuts to the Thameslink project.  Then there was the cancellation of the IEP project with HST being life-extended.  Then there was the GWML electrification to be completely shelved in preference to electrifying the MML.  Need I go on?  I don't remember a single article getting anywhere near being correct in what's been announced so far!

Let's just wait and see...  8)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on December 17, 2010, 11:46:02 pm
Thanks very much for your 'words of wisdom', IndustryInsider!

I've heard some rather more encouraging opinions recently, from very senior staff at FGW.  While I obviously can't reveal my sources, I'm now rather inclined to follow IndustryInsider's suggestion: let's just 'wait and see', shall we? ...  ;) :D ;D

CfN.  :-X


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on December 18, 2010, 08:56:11 am
Article in todays western mail suggesting thet the DFT have decided to only electrify as far as Bristol with Dual fuel trains being used on London -  Swansea services.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/12/14/network-director-says-high-speed-link-is-off-the-rails-91466-27820336/

Big mistake in my opinion if it does turn out to be true

Indeed it might be, but I thought we'd all learn not to trust a damn word of these so called exclusives - no matter who's been misquoted this time -  following all the nonsense leading up to the Comprehensive Spending Review statement, and follow-up statement from Philip Hammond.

I can't be bothered to drag up all the links, but we all remember being told that Crossrail was either going to terminate at Heathrow and/or the the Abbey Wood extension was to get axed.  Then there was the removal of ATO or other cuts to the Thameslink project.  Then there was the cancellation of the IEP project with HST being life-extended.  Then there was the GWML electrification to be completely shelved in preference to electrifying the MML.  Need I go on?  I don't remember a single article getting anywhere near being correct in what's been announced so far!

Let's just wait and see...  8)
The mode of operation of the current Government is to "fly a kite" in other words the group doing the reviewing will send out questions to seek opinions to alsorts of stake holders, these questions or opinion seeking do get leaked to the press may be deliberately at times


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Lee on January 17, 2011, 04:51:09 pm
From Railnews: (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/01/17-new-bid-for-gw-electrification.html)

Quote from: Railnews
New bid for GW electrification to Wales

A group of political and business leaders in South Wales is urging the Department for Transport to extend the electrification of the Great Western Main Line to Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea.

One councillor said the issue was a ^critical^ one for the Welsh capital.

The transport secretary Philip Hammond announced partial electrification of the Great Western route on 25 November.

This will take the wires on from their present termination on the main line at Airport Junction, near Hayes and Harlington, as far as Newbury and Oxford.

After the announcement in November, Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones branded the news ^disappointing^. Transport minister Ieuan Wyn Jones was also critical, accusing the DfT of ^sidelining^ the Principality.

Mr Hammond^s plan to include Oxford would also mean the electrification of the main GW line as far as Didcot Parkway but the group, of about 80 community leaders, says continuing electrification across the Severn to South Wales would provide an essential economic lifeline.

The group, the Great Western Partnership, includes local authorities as well as the South East Wales Economic Forum.

The leader of Cardiff council Rodney Berman said: ^Electrification of the main line is a critical issue for the Cardiff city-region which is why we, along with Bristol and Swindon councils, formed the Partnership.^

The electrification announced so far by the DfT would cater for commuter and regional services between London and the Thames Valley, but leaves the question of intercity trains undecided. The DfT said: ^The extent of further electrification for intercity services is dependent on the intercity train option we choose.^

This will hinge on the eventual fate of the delayed Intercity Express Project. Hitachi was named as preferred IEP bidder almost two years ago, but the programme has stalled since then, partly because of economic problems but also because the extent of future electrification is still under review.

A wider assessment of railway spending is in progress, which will be informed by Sir Roy McNulty^s ^Value for Money^ report, due to be published this year.

Another factor is the recent go-ahead for High Speed 2 between London, Birmingham, Manchester, the East Midlands and Leeds, which would influence the case for and against electrifying the Midland Main Line between Bedford and Sheffield.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on February 03, 2011, 03:17:45 pm
This has been released in the last day or so:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iJOfrNsWyFJD2dAspCiUZdt44hhw?docId=N0512321296653692392A

. There another article which i will have a look for now which stated that HST's would continue to work London - Plymouth/Penzance services for anothee decade before some  Bi-mode class 222 's are displaced from the Midland mainline which is also looking like it will be electrified in the near future


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on February 03, 2011, 05:32:45 pm
There another article which i will have a look for now which stated that HST's would continue to work London - Plymouth/Penzance services for anothee decade before some  Bi-mode class 222 's are displaced from the Midland mainline which is also looking like it will be electrified in the near future
A 222 all the way from Paddington to Penzance?  :o I don't think the good people of the Southwest are going to like that very much and with good reason. Just think of the summer holiday traffic and luggage cramming onto a 222. No bad idea if that is what Daft are thinking IMHO.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on February 03, 2011, 06:10:39 pm
You'd be surprised, they're much better than Voyagers, although not necessarily the best possible solution for PAD-PNZ in the summer.

But what's a "bi-mode" 222...? Was it a slip of the keyboard or are Bombardier still muttering about the feasibility of making the 22x series electric or bi-mode by bolting a pantograph onto the roof? Think that will require some fairly major surgery on the bodyshells since to the best of my knowledge they're all monocoque pre-stressed car bodies that don't have pantograph wells.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: rogerw on February 03, 2011, 06:26:15 pm
The idea is to build an additional coach with pantograph and transformer, at the same time increasing seating capacity.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on February 03, 2011, 09:07:11 pm
You'd be surprised, they're much better than Voyagers, although not necessarily the best possible solution for PAD-PNZ in the summer.
Yes they are better than Voyagers but they are still noisy underfloor engined trains not ideal for travelling the long distances involved from London to the West of England.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: vacman on February 03, 2011, 09:10:48 pm
Long distance London to the Southwest? your having a laugh, currently there is a Voyager that runs Aberdeen to Penzance! you'd have to pay ME to travel on that lol!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on February 03, 2011, 10:09:41 pm
IEP deal 'close to completion' http://www.railpro.co.uk/news/?idArticles=694
Quote from said article "This deal was largely finalised in the last few days, and is now ready for political approval."
Electrification to Bristol only using Bi-mode IEP to Bristol/Southwales and refurbished HSTs for another 10 years to the South West followed by Midland Mainline Electrification,Meridians fitted with additional pantograph cars could then be cascaded as bi-mode trains to the Plymouth and Penzance services run on electric power as far as Newbury.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on February 03, 2011, 10:17:41 pm
From that article:

Quote
It^s hoped the new trains will enable four trains an hour between Paddington and Bristol, with two running via Bath.

I would bleedin' well think so, seeing as that's the current service level.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on February 04, 2011, 06:24:01 am
Meridians fitted with additional pantograph cars could then be cascaded as bi-mode trains to the Plymouth and Penzance services run on electric power as far as Newbury.
Pretty pointless really as Padd-Newbury is what less than a quarter of the length of the journey from Padd-Penzance? It would also mean every Southwest service having to call at Newbury for the transfer of traction from electric to diesel to take place.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on February 04, 2011, 06:51:36 am
Would the bi-mode trains really have to stop at the end of the wires? Surely there is sufficient technology to allow a seamless switchover.

If not then it would be sensible to switch at Reading rather than add a stop to every service at Newbury.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on February 04, 2011, 09:30:58 am
Coming so soon after the decision to axe air links from Plymouth to Gatwick this proposal to eventually replace HSTs to the South West with Meridians wont be favourably recieved by the regions Political and Business leaders but given the "Value for money" remit now dominating the Rail agenda I am not surprised.
 Personally I avoid Voyagers like the plague and will only tolerate them for short journeys.Meridians may be better but they are still not equal to a HST from the passengers point of view.In short the best that FGW or whoever will be able to offer their customers to the South West tomorrow is what XC offer their customers today and we know that many people already choose to travel via London to avoid the "Voyager" experience.There seems to be a premier league of Rail routes developing in investment terms and the South West is clearly not in that league.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Worcester_Passenger on February 04, 2011, 09:43:49 am
Personally I avoid Voyagers like the plague and will only tolerate them for short journeys.Meridians may be better but they are still not equal to a HST from the passengers point of view.

I agree with you about Voyagers. But disagree totally about Meridians vs HSTs : the East Midlands Meridians are vastly superior to FGW's HSTs. But I'm travelling in steerage.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on February 04, 2011, 11:01:36 am
Not everyone wants to sit on top of an engine for 5 hours but then even if we'd got the IEP down here we'd still have to put up with that as they are basically going to be E/DMUs with pantographs and underfloor engines.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on February 04, 2011, 11:29:16 am
The initial proposal from Agility was a diesel engine in a power car not underfloor, generating electricity and feeding that to traction motors under the carriages. This should be much quieter than underfloor diesel engines.

Having said that, Phillip Hammond, in his statement to parliament on 25th November 2010 mentioned, "...a mixed fleet: some all-electric trains, and some electric trains which are also equipped with underfloor diesel engines." He was referencing the Andrew Foster's review of the IEP, published on 6th July 2010. The annex to that report does conclude that travel times may increase where the majority of the journey is away from the wires. That may explain why Phillip Hammond now prefers a distributed power diesel option.

Guess it depends how far the knitting stretches......


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on February 04, 2011, 11:34:51 am
http://www.railpro.co.uk/news/?idArticles=694

It seems loco haulage of EMUs off the wires has been ruled out and it will indeed be underfloor engines.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: qwerty on February 04, 2011, 11:41:00 am
Coming so soon after the decision to axe air links from Plymouth to Gatwick this proposal to eventually replace HSTs to the South West with Meridians wont be favourably recieved by the regions Political and Business leaders but given the "Value for money" remit now dominating the Rail agenda I am not surprised.
 Personally I avoid Voyagers like the plague and will only tolerate them for short journeys.Meridians may be better but they are still not equal to a HST from the passengers point of view.In short the best that FGW or whoever will be able to offer their customers to the South West tomorrow is what XC offer their customers today and we know that many people already choose to travel via London to avoid the "Voyager" experience.There seems to be a premier league of Rail routes developing in investment terms and the South West is clearly not in that league.

Personally, as someone who may have to work said trains. Meridians would provide a step change for the better. HST's just aren't a sensible choice for the long term.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on February 04, 2011, 12:14:26 pm
Meridians would provide a step change for the better. HST's just aren't a sensible choice for the long term.

They would be lengthened as well presumably because a pantograph vehicle would be added as well which is good for capacity,  but I can't help thinking that underfloor engines would be a step backwards in terms of comfort.  Mind you acceleration over the Devon banks would be much better than an HST.

They would presumably only be relased idf the MML was electrified


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on February 04, 2011, 12:21:10 pm
They would be lengthened as well presumably because a pantograph vehicle would be added as well which is good for capacity,  but I can't help thinking that underfloor engines would be a step backwards in terms of comfort.  Mind you acceleration over the Devon banks would be much better than an HST.
What else is there though?  The only trains available off the shelf to run off the wires are underfloor engine DMUs.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Richard Fairhurst on February 04, 2011, 01:31:11 pm
I agree with you about Voyagers. But disagree totally about Meridians vs HSTs : the East Midlands Meridians are vastly superior to FGW's HSTs. But I'm travelling in steerage.
+1. Meridians are superb trains (and that's from someone who can't abide Voyagers), in first as well as standard. (EMT is quite good at offering cut-price advance FC tickets. :) )


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on February 04, 2011, 02:38:17 pm

If not then it would be sensible to switch at Reading rather than add a stop to every service at Newbury.

Regardless of technology for switching power source on the move.  Surely it is better to do it at a station for when something goes wrong like the engine not starting or the pantograph not raising and the train has to be CAPED,


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on February 04, 2011, 03:16:18 pm

If not then it would be sensible to switch at Reading rather than add a stop to every service at Newbury.

Regardless of technology for switching power source on the move.  Surely it is better to do it at a station for when something goes wrong like the engine not starting or the pantograph not raising and the train has to be CAPED,
Eurostar's managed to raise their third rail shoe and raise their pan and vice versa quite successfully. 

Who is to say the vision for Cornish / Devon trains in the future is via the B & H this Governments view may be electric between London and Bristol and diesel Bristol west with the B & H a DMU semi fast rural service.  With this current Government you can not rule anything out or in, they are politically dogmatic verging on maverick



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Deltic on February 04, 2011, 03:41:52 pm
While I abhor the practice of running diesel trains under the wires for 400 miles from London to Edinburgh, before continuing on non-electrified lines to Aberdeen or Inverness, I don't think it makes sense to have a mode change on the London - Plymouth / Penzance route until electrification reaches at least Exeter.  The additional complexity and operational risks from the change-over would not be worth it.  Nor would the time penalty and potential overcrowding issues of going via Bristol.

If we could get the wires extended from Bristol to Taunton, then the whole Cardiff to Taunton and Bristol Parkway to Weston-s-M service could be turned over to EMUs.  Peak hour / Saturday extensions to W-s-M or Taunton could also continue without a change of mode or running diesels under the wires.  Once an electrification programme gets started, these "fill-in" schemes become more viable and skilled teams can be kept working efficiently.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on February 04, 2011, 04:09:06 pm
While I abhor the practice of running diesel trains under the wires for 400 miles from London to Edinburgh, before continuing on non-electrified lines to Aberdeen or Inverness, I don't think it makes sense to have a mode change on the London - Plymouth / Penzance route until electrification reaches at least Exeter.  The additional complexity and operational risks from the change-over would not be worth it.  Nor would the time penalty and potential overcrowding issues of going via Bristol.
With line speed improvements Paddington to Bristol and Bristol to Exeter, going via Bristol wouldn't really be a time penalty.  The Berks and Hants route is not suited for higher speeds.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on February 04, 2011, 04:37:57 pm
Once an electrification programme gets started, these "fill-in" schemes become more viable and skilled teams can be kept working efficiently.
Only one problem with this theory, as UK railway history has proved, the problem is called HM Government; they just keep interfering and every few years with a change of rosette colour as they say at a terminus all change


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on February 04, 2011, 04:53:04 pm

Eurostar's managed to raise their third rail shoe and raise their pan and vice versa quite successfully. 

good point.  Mind you they were the most complex and most expensive (and least intensively used) trains in the country.

Personally,  I can't see the issue with desiel all the way from Paddington to Penzance, the proportion under the wires is a small fraction of the journey and the energy wasted in carting arround two sets of traction equipment for the whole journey will cancel out any environmental benefit of the small electric portion of the journey.  We would be much better using bi-mode Meridians on the ECML or perhaps TPE or XC routes for example. Bi-mode on the B and H only makes sense when the wires start to get to Exeter or Plymouth.   



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on February 04, 2011, 09:54:01 pm
Can the Meridians be fitted with tilt actuators like their Virgin class 221 cousins and the Paddington/Penzance route fitted with TASS (Tilt Authorisation and Speed Supervision) to speed things up.If ever there was a route that would benefit from tilt then this is it given the track geometry particularly west of Exeter.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on February 05, 2011, 01:10:19 am
Quote
Can the Meridians be fitted with tilt actuators

Not that straightforward, as the bogies on the 221s are a different design to the 220s and Meridians, with heavy-duty outside frames.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Worcester_Passenger on February 05, 2011, 10:43:29 am
Can the Meridians be fitted with tilt actuators like their Virgin class 221 cousins and the Paddington/Penzance route fitted with TASS (Tilt Authorisation and Speed Supervision) to speed things up.If ever there was a route that would benefit from tilt then this is it given the track geometry particularly west of Exeter.
The tilt mechanism adds a lot of weight to the 221 Voyagers. They weigh 56.6 tons per coach, whereas the non-tilting 220s weigh 46.4 tons per coach. That's an awful lot to carry around, with all that that implies about fuel consumption. West of Plymouth it would make no difference - the number of stops means that acceleration is more important than going round curves at a higher speed.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on February 05, 2011, 10:49:05 am
It's much more the bogie frames than the actual tilt kit when it comes to the weight penalty. A lot of extra metal to cart around.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on February 08, 2011, 10:22:34 am
 Reference the latest Daft proposals for FGW what a dogs dinner of half baked and half hearted half measures.If only the government had the same appetite for the here and now as it does for HS2.Great Westerns misfortune is that renewel has come during the worst economic and financial crisis facing the country since the 1929 wall street crash the inevitable result being the Dafts latest compromise solution of half measures aka botch up.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: devon_metro on February 08, 2011, 11:19:26 am
For a second there I thought I had stumbled across the Daily Mail website...!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on February 13, 2011, 06:43:26 pm
We can expect and annoucement from the Governement on the electrification and IEP in the next 2-3 weeks if reports on the other forums are to be beieved.

Sad to say it looks like the idiots in the DFT have gone for the Bi-mode option   and the wires are only going to Bristol  (unless the WAG can come up with at least ^100 million) that said if the WAG could come up with the money they would be better off spending in on the valley lines electrfication which needs to be done asap.

Reports are suggesting that a deal has been done with the japaneese government  where the governemnt have got a large discount on the cost of the trains by selling some of the new eurofighter aircraft to the japaneese airforce


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on February 14, 2011, 10:37:55 am

DfT electrification approvals over the years seem to have majored on getting as much of the benefits as possible consonant with minimum track miles wired, minimum new stock and maximum cascaded.

Now MML needs c125 route miles wired compared to Wootton Basset - Cardiff's c108 miles. Hence dropping the latter would mostly pay for the former. If, in addition, MML's Meridians could come to FGW after the 125's are allowed to finally expire, then the Hitachi IEP order could also be sharply reduced.

Mix the lot up with a nice defence aerospace order to Japan..........

Remember Pearl Harbour?

OTC


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on February 14, 2011, 11:28:48 am
I don't think Pearl Harbor is at all relevant to this discussion.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on February 14, 2011, 10:52:24 pm
Apologies for my uncharitable quip.

I had in mind Roger Ford's MR comment about, shall we say, "unequal trading".

Railway workshops turned into outlet centres depress me.

Will stick to OP.

OTC


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on February 17, 2011, 09:07:12 am
 
   

Political and commercial will needed for rail electrification  and HS3,an interview with Mark Hopwood

Read More http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business-in-wales/business-news/2011/02/16/political-and-commercial-will-needed-for-rail-electrification-91466-28177887/#ixzz1ECmhIyk0


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on February 17, 2011, 09:46:28 am
Here is another aticle from todays south wales evening post:

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Rethink-calls-fears-grow-rail-line-upgrade/article-3234144-detail/article.html

To  be honest i would be happy if it even comes to Cardiff


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on February 17, 2011, 03:16:47 pm
I await the official announcement with interest, although with all the different rumours and contadictory press stories posted above I'm losing track of what's likely to be announced.

My impression was that HMG was likely to pitch for a half-arsed scheme in which the wires ran out at Bristol Parkway and bi-mode trains fired up their diesel engines to continue from there. But now there are WAG members saying they'll be disappointed if the scheme "only" makes it to Cardiff rather than all the way through to Swansea. What a mess.

One thing I would not be surprised to see though is WAG forking out the necessary to make sure the knitting does make it to Swansea - they seem to be very good at finding money from somewhere to fund various schemes in Wales e.g. free prescriptions, and not least the WAG Express!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on February 17, 2011, 04:10:07 pm
One thing I would not be surprised to see though is WAG forking out the necessary to make sure the knitting does make it to Swansea

I am not so sure.  I suspect that if WAG had the kind of serious money for electrfication they would rather use it to electrify the valley lines and get rid of the "tin-trucks".  Especially if they have just got the English to splash out on some part new bi-mode trains to Swansea. 

Personally. I don;t have a problem with teh electifcatio stopping at Cardiff for now.  I expect the business case for electrifying the MMl is stronger than taking the wires to Swansea. 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on February 17, 2011, 04:42:49 pm
IMO opinion bi-mode is a waste of money.

 140 mph 4 MW electric loco push pull change to 2MW diesel at end of wires.

As the wires expand less diesel running.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Deltic on February 17, 2011, 05:29:26 pm
I quite agree.  The changeover could take place at Bristol Parkway, Cardiff or Swansea as the electrified network expands.  Surely we have the railway skills and infrastructure to undertake a loco-change on a remove the pusher and add the puller basis without excessive delays, thus obviating the need to drag the diesel engine around under the wires.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on February 17, 2011, 05:37:11 pm
I quite agree.  The changeover could take place at Bristol Parkway, Cardiff or Swansea as the electrified network expands.  Surely we have the railway skills and infrastructure to undertake a loco-change on a remove the pusher and add the puller basis without excessive delays, thus obviating the need to drag the diesel engine around under the wires.

That is what a lot of people in the industry are saying. I do agree that it is stupid to have a Bi-mode EDMU

personally maybe the governemnt should have just overhauled the MK3 carriages and bought some of the chineese Polaris Bi-mode locomotives (Would have saved the governemnt a bit of money)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on February 17, 2011, 06:01:47 pm
Maybe not as much as you think - there comes a point when the overhaul that would be required to turn out a vehicle that's fit for another 30 years' service (like a new train would be) is so extensive that it would end up costing much the same as a new vehicle. Overhauling mark 3s yet again doesn't solve any problems, it just buys time. Now, a new build of vehicles based on the mark 3 and incorporating modern requirements like power doors and suitable wheelchair access is a different story...


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on February 18, 2011, 11:05:15 am
IMO opinion bi-mode is a waste of money.

 140 mph 4 MW electric loco push pull change to 2MW diesel at end of wires.

As the wires expand less diesel running.

I tend to agree with you.  Everything else being equal, I would favour diesel loco drags beyond, Cardiff, Bristol or wherever the electrification ends on the S Wales and BRI routes.  Your suggested power requirements seems about right too.  A slightly slower speed and acceleration to Swansea and Weston-SM would be OK because of line speed issues and stopping patterns anyway and overall journey times might still be lower if the electrified line speeds are decent.

For the route to Plymouth/Penzance, the fraction likely to be electrified is relatively small, so I think it could be diesel all the way.

BUT there is a wrinkle regarding making the MML Meridians bi-mode.  Although I am not generally in favour of bi-mode I think that this project might make some sense.  Is this proposal not at least as much about finding a use for Meridians after the MML is electrified and also about increasing capacity as it is about getting a bi-mode vehicle for its own sake?  The average Meridian is too short.  There are too many Meridian cab-vehicles and not enough intermediate vehicles.  MML has tried to remarshall its fleet, but the trains are still to short for the predicted future capacity to places like Cardiff.  You would be right in calling, bi-mode vehicles a waste of money if we were building them from scratch, but we are not, the Meridians are already available (in fact if the MML is electrified they will be redundant) and if adding pantograph vehicles provides bi-mode AND extra capacity at a sensible cost it might be the best option. 

Isn^t the current government^s cut-back scheme a sensible incremental approach?  AIUI, the far-west is to be served by refurbished HSTs.  That can only be a temporary solution because those trains cannot last for ever.  One day they will need to be replaced and the candidate train to replace them is surely the bi-mode meridian displaced from the SW line which by that stage (2025-ish) will be electrified to Swansea one hopes.   

By sticking new electric on the lines to Bristol and the MML,  making far west refurbed HSTs and S Wales bi-mode Meridians which can transfer to far west in due course when S Wales goes all electric, the plan does have advantages of requiring only one new train design (the all electric train)  which is much simpler than the EIP proposals. 

As for making the Meridians Bi-mode it is my understanding that this is relatively simple because the train is already a DEMU.  A new pantograph trailer is, one hopes not that much more heavy or complicated or expensive than a new trailer vehicle and I suspect that it might actually be cheaper than a new Meridian vehicle with an engine in it. 

If the lengthening of the Meridians is a sensible thing to do in its own right.  And I would argue that it is on capacity grounds alone, then we need to ask what do we lengthen them with.  The options would be: 1) a new Diesel-engined vehicle, 2) a new trailer or 3) a pantograph trailer.

Option 1 would be expensive and would result in a fleet with different engine ages in the same unit.

Option 2 would be cheap but would give a performance penalty especially in terms of acceleration.

Option 3 might be the best overall.  Hopefully no more expensive than option 1, and although there would be a performance penalty as with option 2 it would only apply away from the wires (which are likely to be lower line speeds anyway) so would be less of an issue. 


DaFT seems to have
Finally realised that electrification isn^t really about electrification.  It is about provision of rolling stock.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on February 18, 2011, 03:03:56 pm
There is a view in the UK that MU's are so urban only fit for low speed commuter routes when in reality the rest of Europe already has a high speed MU railway, I can not see much in the way of new build loco haul anything being adopted for passenger operation, TOC's like fixed formation MU's if you went for a loco haul for only part and went with the idea of coupling / uncoupling at an intermediate point there is added expense of stabling sidings and train crew facilities.   There is little technical difficulty in using diesel engined MU's the gear boxes isolate the engine when it not providing power moder traction motors could be fitted to axles that are not engine driven, modern 25kV transformers and traction control equipment is not that heavy.



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on February 18, 2011, 07:11:35 pm
A great many passengers are opposed to the use of multiple units on intercity routes for two reasons, firstly most MUs are DMUs and underfloor engines produce noise and vibration.
Secondly MUs are linked in peoples minds with new shorter trains containing high backed, high density bus seats, without luggage space or catering facilities.

Cross country loco hauled trains used to have seats at tables, and often a buffet, they were replaced by new shorter multiple units.

Waterloo to Exeter services used to be operated by full length loco hauled trains with tables, luggage van, spacious seating etc. Then replaced by 3 car multiple units with higher density seating.
It was widely reported that the introduction of new trains meant standing on journies when a seat would have been available on a "real train"
One could of course build a new 12 car multiple unit with facing seats at tables, luggage space, a restaurant, and Victorian seat spacing.
Not likely to happen though is it ! Multiple units invariable mean shorter and less comfortable trains.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on February 18, 2011, 07:25:31 pm
That's a "problem" (depending on one's point of view of course) with the way modern stock tends to be specified, not an inherent issue with MUs themselves. And whoever thought that public perception of MU stock would play any part in the government's decision?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on February 18, 2011, 11:18:23 pm
Quote
One could of course build a new 12 car mulitple unit with facing seats at tables, luggage space, a restaurant, and Victorian seat spacing.
Not likely to happen though is it !

Why not? The Germans have them, they're called the ICE3 (eight coaches, and can run paired in 16 car formations) and they knock the socks off anything running here, including the Mk3 coach, which, fine vehicle though it may be, is now nearing its 40th birthday, won't go on forever and, in FGW-land at least, was ruined by those stupid too-tall tombstone seats.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on February 19, 2011, 03:44:14 pm
was ruined by those stupid too-tall tombstone seats.

Toast racks we call them.   ;)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on February 20, 2011, 10:32:59 am
A great many passengers are opposed to the use of multiple units on intercity routes for two reasons, firstly most MUs are DMUs and underfloor engines produce noise and vibration.


A taxi driver I know who worked the Plymouth station taxi rank called Voyagers "rattlers"


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on February 20, 2011, 11:49:08 am
Don't know whether it's been referred to before but Ian Walmsley in February's Modern Railways has a fantastic article on train comfort and using his own scoring system ranks most current British trains. With the ICE3 added for fun.

Guess the scores for standard ICE3  as a opposed to standard Voyagers?

ICE3 90.7 (1st 93.9)

Voyagers 220 37.8 (1st 51.9)

Highest British is Mark 4 First 89.3

You can obviously disagree, with his measurement criteria, the  scores he gives for each criterion and subsequent weighting in the overall score, but by and large he seems to have got most trians in roughly the right bracket.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: vacman on February 20, 2011, 01:02:07 pm
12 car trains=platform extensions, higher track access charges, the fact that everyone will still try to cram into the two coaches nearest the station entrance (i.e. Padd-Reading commuters on HST's now who all cram into D and E and then moan that they have to stand rather than rubbing their two brain cells together to create a spark that will say "oh, lets move down to the front where it's empty...").
In a perfect world we would all love to be truly British and not have to sit next to anybody or within 7 feet of them and to have three spare seats next to you, one for your case, one for your coat and one for your lunch box but this is the real world! ............... it's strange how you become more cynical as you get older lol


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: The Grecian on February 20, 2011, 03:15:56 pm
A great many passengers are opposed to the use of multiple units on intercity routes for two reasons, firstly most MUs are DMUs and underfloor engines produce noise and vibration.
Secondly MUs are linked in peoples minds with new shorter trains containing high backed, high density bus seats, without luggage space or catering facilities.

Cross country loco hauled trains used to have seats at tables, and often a buffet, they were replaced by new shorter multiple units.

Waterloo to Exeter services used to be operated by full length loco hauled trains with tables, luggage van, spacious seating etc. Then replaced by 3 car multiple units with higher density seating.
It was widely reported that the introduction of new trains meant standing on journies when a seat would have been available on a "real train"
One could of course build a new 12 car multiple unit with facing seats at tables, luggage space, a restaurant, and Victorian seat spacing.
Not likely to happen though is it ! Multiple units invariable mean shorter and less comfortable trains.


[/quote]
There is a view in the UK that MU's are so urban only fit for low speed commuter routes when in reality the rest of Europe already has a high speed MU railway, I can not see much in the way of new build loco haul anything being adopted for passenger operation, TOC's like fixed formation MU's if you went for a loco haul for only part and went with the idea of coupling / uncoupling at an intermediate point there is added expense of stabling sidings and train crew facilities.   There is little technical difficulty in using diesel engined MU's the gear boxes isolate the engine when it not providing power moder traction motors could be fitted to axles that are not engine driven, modern 25kV transformers and traction control equipment is not that heavy.



I don't think MUs should necessarily only be used as commuter vehicles. It's more about the internal layout - Meridians are more pleasant than Voyagers even though they're still DMUs.

There is a follow-up point to the fact that loco hauled trains have been replaced by DMUs on Crosscountry routes and Waterloo-Exeter, which is that the loco hauled trains were notoriously unreliable. My experience certainly on Waterloo-Exeter has  been that the 159s are more popular than the 50s and 47s simply because they normally turn up on time and aren't prone to breaking down. Granted the older trains arguably had a more pleasant interior, but that's no consolation if they can't get you from A to B on time. They normally run as 6 or 9 car services and overcrowding isn't normally a problem.

Crosscountry is obviously slightly different, but the Voyagers are more reliable (mostly) than the 47s - I think a greater objection passengers have is how frequently they're overcrowded. There seem to be more luggage racks these days but it's difficult to keep an eye on your things most of the time.

A problem for any route which requires high-ish speeds of at least 90-100mph but also frequent stops is that most high speed locos have been designed to run at high speeds for long periods of time, not for frequent braking and acceleration. This is something DMUs seem to be better suited for. However I don't work in the rail industry so I may not know what I'm talking about!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: stebbo on February 20, 2011, 04:15:34 pm
Reference the latest Daft proposals for FGW what a dogs dinner of half baked and half hearted half measures.If only the government had the same appetite for the here and now as it does for HS2.Great Westerns misfortune is that renewel has come during the worst economic and financial crisis facing the country since the 1929 wall street crash the inevitable result being the Dafts latest compromise solution of half measures aka botch up.

But there's a lot to be said for some capital spending in a recession. It's the revenue spending that needs cutting back.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on February 20, 2011, 05:06:55 pm
I await the official announcement with interest, although with all the different rumours and contadictory press stories posted above I'm losing track of what's likely to be announced.

I hear that there's not much longer to wait.....


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on February 21, 2011, 11:06:40 am
Don't know whether it's been referred to before but Ian Walmsley in February's Modern Railways has a fantastic article on train comfort and using his own scoring system ranks most current British trains. With the ICE3 added for fun.

Guess the scores for standard ICE3  as a opposed to standard Voyagers?

ICE3 90.7 (1st 93.9)

Voyagers 220 37.8 (1st 51.9)

Highest British is Mark 4 First 89.3

You can obviously disagree, with his measurement criteria, the  scores he gives for each criterion and subsequent weighting in the overall score, but by and large he seems to have got most trians in roughly the right bracket.

Yes, agree, a most interesting article.
Says largely what I have been saying for years ! "you cant keeping cramming another 4 seats into the same vehicle and calling this an improvement"
And that in general, the newer the train the worse it is WRT legroom, tables, luggage space and catering.
Indeed the views expressed are so similar to my own, that someone suspected that "broadgage" IS an assumed name of the author of the article ! Most flattering, but quite untrue.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on February 23, 2011, 05:22:49 pm
Reports on WNXX suggesting that the government has gone for the 5 carriage IEP  option.

I am crossing my fingers hopping that this isnt true, if it is i seriously wonder what in the world those people in the DFT are .

I can understand  the 5 carriage IEP option  for the London - Oxford - Worcester - Hereford service with sets being doubled to 10 carriages during peak hours.

if they wanted 5 carriages sets then they should have just ordered some ac versions of the seimens class 444 at least then you would be able to move  between the sets


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on February 23, 2011, 05:32:55 pm
As someone who regularly travels on class 444s, I would be very happy to see an ac version operate London-Bristol/Swansea services.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on February 23, 2011, 06:01:09 pm
As someone who regularly travels on class 444s, I would be very happy to see an ac version operate London-Bristol/Swansea services.

I  travelled on a class 444's from Southampton Central to Brockenhurst last may  when i went on a day trip from Cardiff to the Isle of wight  via Lymington pier so i could get a trip on the slammers before traveling back on the hovercraft from Ryde to Southsea where i caught the bus back to Portsmouth Hbr station before getting a FGW service to Cardiff.

 I cannot fault the ride comfort on the class 444's and the air con certainly kept the carriage nice & cool on what was a very hot day.

But would an AC version of the class 444's be allowed to travel at 125 mph or would it be limited to 110mph?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on February 23, 2011, 07:28:21 pm
General rule of thumb is that 125 mph requires a degree of streamlining. As far as I'm aware anything with a gangway end on the front of it is limited to 100 mph.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chafford1 on February 26, 2011, 06:43:29 pm
From the man 'in the know' (JP) on the UK Railways site regarding the new trains for GWML:


Quote
The IEP is being tightly specified by the DFT. The latest re-specification see's the design frozen round 5 car Voyager type trains intended to replace 8 and 9 coach HSTs. The DFT see's these trains as their own project and they will specify how they are used, crewed and maintained.

Very few EMU versions will be built under the DFT plans for the old WR. A large number of expensive to buy, expensive to maintain EDMUs will used. HSTs to be rebuilt (again) for services to the South West. The extra cost of these two aspects of the project would electrify many more miles of railway making vastly cheaper pure EMU working possible across more of the region.

The next bit will result in possibly the most stupid aspect of the project. The MML will be electrified, good. Pantograph cars will be inserted into the 222 fleet, okay, but pricey since Bombardier have cut up the jigs in Bruge. The 222s will then be transferred to OC and Laira to take over services to the South West allowing HST to be withdrawn.

Those expensive pantograph cars being used as far as Newbury, where the diesels take over. In fact the engines will be switched on at Reading as they need time to warm at idle according to Cummins. This now introduces a very mixed fleet operating on the old WR, requiring two new depots. (Hitachi building two to maintain IEP)  ABSOLUTELY BLOODY MAD!!

All this after Bombardier/Siemens and Alstom were forbidden to put variations to the spec. on the bids they submitted, the Japanese, no problem. The offer to build a "flat pack" factory in the North East ignores the threat to British HIGHLY SKILLED jobs in Derby, Stafford,Crewe and other places where we do already take part in multi-national train projects. The IEP orders will see people employed for perhaps 10-12 years building the wrong train for the UK, and very unlikely to win orders elsewhere in the EU, who quite rightly look to their own already competitive train industry to supply their needs. NOTE-The Japanese do not buy European built trains.

The IEP hit all sorts of problems quite early on, the sheer cost and complexity of what was being proposed should have killed it off in favour of a properly planned progressive electrification and replacement train programme. At every turn this one small department within the DfT headed by this "Hitachi" loving Civil Servant has changed the rules. The Japanese we are now hearing are offering to take on some Eurofighter Typhoons that were destined for the RAF to allow the MOD to make zero cost defence cuts, and then part pay for the trains.

Any journalist asking awkward questions is then banned from Hitachi/ Civil Service briefings, heads of TOCs are summarily summoned to the DFT to be told what they will have to do to with regards to the IEP, it is as if Stalin is having a role in replacing the HST!

Rolling electrification is cheaper, creates skilled jobs and allows high quality trains to operate at much lower cost. Whole life costs are much lower. Energy security is also improved, what will the cost of diesel be in 6 weeks, let alone 10 years?

The pure EMU with loco haulage at the "edges" was considered but rejected, the reasons for rejection were not disclosed, but we understand one of them was that there is 'No domestic loco building capability." Really?   HST rebuilding was originally rejected as too expensive, then suddenly became cheaper when the latest option was unveiled. The corrosion issues on the Mk3 coaches has somehow become a non-problem according to the DFT. If that is the case then the low cost rebuilding of those HST power cars to act as EMU haulers (2 power cars with new cabs coupler gear overhauled and coupled back to back) should also be a "non-problem".

The question must be asked,  why is the DFT, or should I say, this person within the DFT going to so much trouble to see that the Japanese get to build the wrong type of train for the UK? A train that we will have to live with for the next 40 odd years.



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on February 26, 2011, 07:01:37 pm
Yes, I'm following that thread.

How many 222s are in the current fleet?

It might not be too long before the DafT make an announcement over all this.....


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on February 26, 2011, 10:23:52 pm
How many 222s are in the current fleet?
27 in four, five and seven carriage formats. I just cannot believe DafT are planning to use them for services all the way from Paddington to Penzance...Actually I can believe it. When they finally leave the Western region, the HSTs will take with them the last true Intercity standard that they were originally built for to be replaced by a DMU. How sad.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on February 26, 2011, 11:41:37 pm

It seems to me that DfT's object with the ED IEP is to avoid creating an electrified network, (as Hitachi would be quite happy to sell Javelins). The stretches of the GW that DfT want to avoid wiring (Swansea and perhaps Cheltenham) are those shared with XC.

Equally, the MML wiring would stop at Sheffield and so not connect (at Doncaster and Moorthorpe) to the North.

Long, electrified sidings....

OTC


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on February 27, 2011, 04:41:33 pm

It seems to me that DfT's object with the ED IEP is to avoid creating an electrified network, (as Hitachi would be quite happy to sell Javelins). The stretches of the GW that DfT want to avoid wiring (Swansea and perhaps Cheltenham) are those shared with XC.

I think there are no XC services Swansea and Cardiff. Javelins might be a good idea for the Oxford services, but a proper Intercity train with end, rather than 1/3 and 2/3, doors is needed for the Bristol and Swansea routes.
I have started a protest campaign against the bi-mode and 26m coaches ideas, please see this topic. (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=8516.0)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on February 27, 2011, 04:55:58 pm
I think the idea is to persuade the Welsh Government to pay for the Cardiff-Swansea section.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chafford1 on February 28, 2011, 07:10:54 pm
Announcement tomorrow?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business-in-wales/business-news/2011/02/28/rail-electrification-decision-to-south-wales-expected-tomorrow-91466-28251462/


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on February 28, 2011, 07:16:56 pm
Quote
A strong business case, supported by the Western Mail, has been made to the Minster
I am sure their support will make all the difference  ;D

I do hope the Government commit to at least to electrify to Cardiff but hopefully to Swansea


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: onthecushions on February 28, 2011, 07:27:50 pm

Hard to imagine any politician using St David's Day to announce a decision unfavourable to Wales.

A sting in the tail (or perhaps daffodil) is another thing.

I guess that at best, we'll have full approval to Cardiff and conditional approval to Swansea if WAG will pay for the notional extra for wiring over ED IEP operation.

Cymru am byth

OTC


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on February 28, 2011, 09:11:11 pm
Hmmm - could be....

I suspect they're right here.....
Quote
It is possible that Mr Hammond will announce electrification only as far Cardiff. Work on electrification would not start until 2014 at the earliest, during which time agreement could be reached between the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government over electrifying around 40 miles of track from Cardiff to Swansea.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on February 28, 2011, 09:57:29 pm
Travel Watch SW say get on with it. I actually agree with Chris Irwin on this one:
http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/news/electrification-says-travel-watchdog/article-3274074-detail/article.html
Quote
A transport watchdog has said the ^dithering^ must end over plans to electrify the main rail line between London and the West Country.

TravelWatch SouthWest has urged ministers to press ahead with the scheme, saying their failure to make a decision is hampering economic growth in the region. It is calling for a decision to be made in the first week of March, saying the Conservative Party Spring Forum at the Welsh Conference in Cardiff would be an ideal opportunity.

Chris Irwin, chairman of TravelWatch SouthWest said: ^We have been waiting more than a year and a half since the previous Government said the line from London Paddington to Swansea via Bristol would be electrified.

^The coalition confirmed the plan to electrify the Thames Valley part of the route but decided to review the case for electrification all the way to Swansea.

^This delayed approval for electrifying the route from London to Bristol is despite it having an overwhelmingly strong business case.^



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on March 01, 2011, 06:23:34 am
Theres a TravelWatch meeting this weekend so may get more details hopefully, although I expect the announcement before then.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on March 01, 2011, 07:53:41 am
I will be keeping an eye out on the news today


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on March 01, 2011, 08:21:03 am
I suspect that they will not want to break bad news to Wales on St David's day (1 march)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 02:50:33 pm
Announcement expected bewteen 3:30 and 4:30 PM.  Watch live on BBC Parliament.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on March 01, 2011, 03:07:04 pm
Due at 1630, I'm hearing.....


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 03:08:02 pm
Due at 1630, I'm hearing.....
I'll put BBC Parliament on just in case they get to it early though.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 04:32:50 pm
Live now on BBC Parliament.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on March 01, 2011, 04:34:25 pm
See http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=7728


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on March 01, 2011, 04:36:21 pm
For those of us unable to connect to this - what'd he say??!!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on March 01, 2011, 04:38:56 pm
I'm following the Fact Compiler's twitter feed which is giving real-time updates!

http://twitter.com/thefactcompiler (http://twitter.com/thefactcompiler)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on March 01, 2011, 04:42:59 pm
Wires to Cardiff plus Valley Lines!

IEP looks like it's gone to Hitachi, with the factory at Newton Aycliffe.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 04:44:13 pm
Frequency from London to Swansea of only 1 tph resulted in not having sufficient business case for electrification.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on March 01, 2011, 04:46:25 pm
Apparently a journey time of 100 minutes from Cardiff to London quoted post-electrification...


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 04:47:51 pm
Apparently a journey time of 100 minutes from Cardiff to London quoted post-electrification...
Intersting to know if any of that time saving will be from removing station calls.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 05:01:56 pm
Temple Meads to London to be increased to 4 tph due to electrification from Temple Meads to Bristol Parkway.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on March 01, 2011, 05:02:21 pm
Knitting to Temple Meads via Chippenham and Bath, as well as the 'branch line' (as referred to by one MP) to Cardiff. Also BPW to BRI to be wired.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 05:03:53 pm
'branch line'
Technically anything divering from the main Paddington to Penzance via Bristol line is leaving the Main Line.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on March 01, 2011, 05:05:21 pm
Temple Meads to London to be increased to 4 tph due to electrification from Temple Meads to Bristol Parkway.

Pathing is going to be interesting up Filton Bank. Four tracking as well?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on March 01, 2011, 05:06:02 pm
Hammond 3-0 Eagle...

in the public speaking competition, I reckon...

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Brucey on March 01, 2011, 05:07:23 pm
Also Barry Island line to be electrified.  I would assume that trains from Barry to Llantwit Major and then Bridgend will still be diesel.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 05:07:27 pm
He hasn't confirmed the HST life extension yet and seeing as the plan seemed to be for Devon and Cornwall not to get IEP units this was quite important.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on March 01, 2011, 05:11:53 pm
Agility Trains press release following the SoS's statement:

http://www.agilitytrains.com/assets/pdf/AgilityTrains_press_statement-20110301.pdf


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on March 01, 2011, 05:13:32 pm
He hasn't confirmed the HST life extension yet and seeing as the plan seemed to be for Devon and Cornwall not to get IEP units this was quite important.

Yes. It's about time a Somerset, Devon or Cornwall MP piped up.



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on March 01, 2011, 05:13:44 pm
IEP looks like it's gone to Hitachi, with the factory at Newton Aycliffe.

It went to Hitachi ages ago surely?  The debate recently has been about whether the bidding should be re-opened if the train required was substantially altered.

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 05:19:01 pm
Westcountry services to retain HSTs, no plans for replacement at this time but bi-mode IEP is a possibility.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Brucey on March 01, 2011, 05:22:35 pm
Westcountry services to retain HSTs, no plans for replacement.
He also said "my successor", so no plans for considering replacement in the next few years.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 05:24:27 pm
He also said "my successor", so no plans for considering replacement in the next few years.
Also note that he didn't confirm life extension.  This would be required of the HSTs were to remain in service from 2020.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on March 01, 2011, 05:24:44 pm
even a mp asking abouut electrifying the severn beach line


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Brucey on March 01, 2011, 05:24:55 pm
Stephen Williams asked what we were all thinking: SVB line electrification!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on March 01, 2011, 05:25:26 pm
Knitting to the 'Beach? Gets my vote!!!


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 05:26:30 pm
That's it, they are talking about BBC World Service now.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on March 01, 2011, 05:29:57 pm
wiring to Severn Beach, weston super mare & taunton if they do these streches of track then it will be a good idea, plus maybe new EMU's could be ordered on the back of the crossrail order if the electrification of those  bits of line  were  given the go ahead.

Nice to hear about the cardiff valley lines as well


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on March 01, 2011, 05:36:38 pm
From the DfT press release (http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=418338&SubjectId=36):

Quote
Green light for new trains and rail electrification

Scotland, Wales, northern and south west England are to get a fleet of new trains and more reliable rail links to London, creating thousands of jobs, boosting the economy and improving services for passengers, Transport Secretary Philip Hammond announced today. He gave the go-ahead for the ^4.5bn Intercity Express Programme (IEP) and the ^704m plans to electrify the Great Western Main Line (GWML) between Cardiff, Bristol and Didcot.

The Government announced today it has decided to resume the IEP procurement and proceed with the Agility Trains (Hitachi and John Laing) consortium's plans for replacement for the nation's fleet of ageing intercity high speed trains. This will mean 500 new carriages which will provide 11,000 more peak-time seats for passengers, every day on the GWML and ECML

Hitachi had previously announced its intention to build a new train factory in County Durham to build the new order, creating more than 500 new jobs and securing thousands of additional jobs in sub-supplier industries in north east England, giving a further boost to Britain's manufacturing industry. This factory is expected to be operational by 2013.

The announcement to electrify the sections between Cardiff, Bristol and Didcot builds on November's announcement of electrification between London Paddington, Didcot, Newbury and Oxford, and will give Wales its very first main line electrified railway, cutting 17 minutes from Cardiff to London journeys and 22 minutes from Bristol to London journeys. Electric trains are not only quicker, but quieter, smoother and more reliable than diesels. They are also cleaner - producing no emissions at their point of use.

Philip Hammond said:

"This is good news for jobs, passengers and the economy. Our decision to buy a new fleet of trains and electrify new lines will allow rail passengers along the Great Western and East Coast corridors to benefit from massive improvements to journey times, more seats and more reliable services.

"Alongside our plans for High Speed Rail, it completes a picture of massive upgrades to our intercity rail corridors over the coming years.

"Whilst this is, of course, subject to the Government continuing to be satisfied that the proposal offers value for money as the commercial negotiations are concluded and that the final arrangements are compliant with the United Kingdom's EU obligations, I expect that the first of the new trains will be in service by 2016."

"Extending electrification westwards to Bristol and Cardiff will also bring all the benefits of electric trains - faster acceleration, greater comfort and cleaner, greener travel - to rail passengers in Wales and the south west.

"We have also established that a strong high-level case may exist for electrifying some of the Valley lines north of Cardiff. My Department will now work with the Welsh Assembly Government to develop a business case for the electrification of the Cardiff Valley lines."

The ^4.5bn programme will see the building of a combination of around 100 electric trains and bi-mode - diesel and electric - intercity trains which will run to Great Western Main Line stations including Oxford, Swindon, Reading, Cardiff, Swansea, Bath and Bristol and to East Coast Main Line stations such as Peterborough, York, Doncaster, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Inverness.

The train operating companies will contribute to the design and specification of the new fleet of IEP trains in greater detail than they had before. As soon as the trains become operational passengers will see improvements to reliability and comfort.

Notes to Editors

1. Benefits of electric trains over diesel
Electrified railways are essential to getting maximum efficiency and capacity from a modern railway.

Compared to non-electrified railways, electrified railways are:
* Faster;
* Quieter;
* Greener as they produce less CO2 and emit no air pollution at the trackside;
* More reliable;
* Lighter and cause less wear and tear on the tracks;
* More cost-effective for carrying freight loads; and
* Cheaper to buy, operate and maintain.

2. Greener journeys
Rail electrification is an important part of the Department's carbon strategy. Typically an electric train emits between 20% and 35% less carbon per passenger mile than a diesel train. This benefit will only improve as the electricity generation industry reduces its carbon levels. Electric trains also have zero emissions at the point of use, of particular benefit for air quality in pollution hot spots like city centres and mainline stations such as London Paddington.

3. Rail investment
Today's announcement is part of a wider Government rail strategy to meet future increases in passenger demand, promote a move from other transport modes to rail and ensure Britain has the world-class infrastructure it needs. Major projects on the agenda include the ^16bn Crossrail scheme, the ^5.5bn Thameslink modernisation and the new high speed rail link between London and the West Midlands and beyond.

The electrification of Great Western Main Line now creates the option of extending Crossrail further to Reading, with Reading station also getting a ^425m major upgrade which will cut bottlenecks and delays.

The Department for Transport and Network Rail will work closely with the Welsh Assembly to develop a business case for the electrification of the Cardiff Valley Lines and to ensure that plans for electrifying the Great Western Main Line are coordinated with the Assembly's own plans for rail rolling stock in the future Wales and Borders franchise.

4. Minimising disruption
Electric trains are more reliable than diesels. An electric intercity train will travel 40% further than an equivalent diesel train before a technical failure and an electric commuter train will travel well over twice as far.

Network Rail will use newly developed construction techniques which minimise the inconvenience to passengers for work on the Great Western line through utilising high-tech factory trains and extensively using overnight closures of less than eight hours. Passenger Focus will be given a key role in representing travellers' views throughout the work.

5. Intercity Express Programme
The Intercity Express Programme (IEP) has been led by the Department for Transport, with assistance from across the rail industry, since November 2005.

The Programme seeks to replace the distinctive "Intercity 125" High Speed Train (HST) diesel fleet procured by British Rail during the 1970s and 1980s with a new, higher capacity, more environmentally friendly train.

The Intercity Express Programme is independent of "High Speed 2", which was set up to explore options for a new high speed line along the Intercity West Coast corridor.

The original Invitation To Tender, Train Technical Specification and associated procurement documents can be found on the Department for Transport's website, http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/.

In 2009 Agility Trains (a consortium comprising of John Laing and Hitachi) was announced as the preferred bidder. No contracts have yet been signed.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on March 01, 2011, 05:36:56 pm
wiring to Severn Beach, weston super mare & taunton if they do these streches of track then it will be a good idea, plus maybe new EMU's could be ordered on the back of the crossrail order if the electrification of those  bits of line  were  given the go ahead.

Actually, WSM and TAU makes a fair bit of sense. CDF-TAU could be EMU'd. Weston's Paddington services can be under the knitting the whole way and services that head south-west via BRI could be bi-mode.

But I suspect that will all be for another day, when there is more money in the pot.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on March 01, 2011, 05:47:06 pm
I see the press release version mentions the C word...

Crossrail extension to Reading.

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 05:57:49 pm
Crossrail extension to Reading.
Only an option though, the current plan is still to terminate at Maidenhead.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on March 01, 2011, 06:01:11 pm
I see the press release version mentions the C word...

Crossrail extension to Reading.

Paul
It was an inevitable consequence, makes the TV service pattern more sensible, will reduce the number of 319's needed so they can be cascaded elsewhere the only downside if the Crossrail "Metro" style service is still adopted Twyford and Maidenhead will have an all stops service to London.  A further possibility with the 319's is they are tunnel rated so in theory could run and Oxford / Newbury to Shenfield and even Abbey Wood (if the shoes are left on) service


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 06:02:56 pm
A further possibility with the 319's is they are tunnel rated so in theory could run and Oxford / Newbury to Shenfield and even Abbey Wood (if the shoes are left on) service
Can the 319s have ATO installed?  I'm not sure mixing ATO and non-ATO trains in the tunnel section is a good idea.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on March 01, 2011, 06:06:27 pm
A further possibility with the 319's is they are tunnel rated so in theory could run and Oxford / Newbury to Shenfield and even Abbey Wood (if the shoes are left on) service
Can the 319s have ATO installed?  I'm not sure mixing ATO and non-ATO trains in the tunnel section is a good idea.
Sure it could be done but realistically I doubt there would the will to do it


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on March 01, 2011, 06:12:14 pm
Hammond's statement in full is transcribed on the Railway Eye blog. I'm not going to copy and paste because it's quite long, but you can find it here (http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2011/03/statement-from-philip-hammond-on-iep.html).


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: inspector_blakey on March 01, 2011, 06:14:08 pm
IEP looks like it's gone to Hitachi, with the factory at Newton Aycliffe.

It went to Hitachi ages ago surely?  

I think it's fair to say that the Foster review created reasonable doubt, at the very least.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on March 01, 2011, 06:27:45 pm
Why would  they [319s] need shoes? There'll be wires to Abbey Wood.  Not likely to be relevant anyway though.  What is a valid point is that the Crossrail fleet will have to be increased if it is used to Reading, as it will have been sized exactly for the original planned timetable.

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on March 01, 2011, 06:33:01 pm
IEP looks like it's gone to Hitachi, with the factory at Newton Aycliffe.

It went to Hitachi ages ago surely?  

I think it's fair to say that the Foster review created reasonable doubt, at the very least.

Agreed, but contracturally Hitachi were always preferred bidder.

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on March 01, 2011, 06:34:25 pm
It was decided a while ago that the Crossrail Abbey Wood branch would be third rail to keep the costs down


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on March 01, 2011, 06:35:08 pm
Hammond's statement in full is transcribed on the Railway Eye blog. I'm not going to copy and paste because it's quite long, but you can find it here (http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2011/03/statement-from-philip-hammond-on-iep.html).

For completeness, it's also available on the DfT website, at http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/hammond20110301  ;)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on March 01, 2011, 06:40:53 pm
We'll see how today's announcement shakes out over the coming months, but overall a hugely positive day of announcements for the railway industry.

No mention of the MML and building of a new pantograph fitted carriage for the Class 222's?  Was that all ill-founded rumour, or is there a further announcement to be made?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 06:49:00 pm
No mention of the MML and building of a new pantograph fitted carriage for the Class 222's?  Was that all ill-founded rumour, or is there a further announcement to be made?
HSTs will remain in service on the MML for now.  A decision on the MML is dependent on the outcome of the HS2 consultation.  It should also be noted that bi-mode IEP units are future possibility for Westcountry services so there would then be no need for a 222 cascade.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on March 01, 2011, 07:48:27 pm
Looking back to the first post on this thread in July 2009, I have to say that there is little difference in the electrification plans as announced then excepting that Cardiff is in from the start.

So, should the coalition Government be getting all the plaudits here? We also owe a great deal of thanks to Andrew Adonis.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 07:57:06 pm
We still don't know the exact form the IEP will take though.  Either the original EMU with generator car concept or the more recent underfloor engine DMU with pantograph to power the traction motors when under the wires plan.  The future of the Westcountry services is also still undecided long term.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on March 01, 2011, 08:00:24 pm
I was pointing out that the electrification plans are little changed. No mention of the IEP rolling stock in the OP.

One major change in the IEP side of things is the number of jobs being created at Newton Aycliffe. Agility originally announced 2500 jobs in February 2009 (http://www.hitachi.com/New/cnews/090212c.html). That number has dropped to 500 following today's announcement (http://www.hitachi.co.uk/about/press/2011/11mar01_01.html).


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on March 01, 2011, 08:39:26 pm
From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12606470):

Quote
London-Cardiff rail electrification, but not to Swansea

A ^1bn electrification of the main rail line between London and Cardiff is to go ahead, it has been confirmed. However, the Welsh Assembly Government had been lobbying the Westminster coalition to electrify the Great Western line as far as Swansea. But the UK government said it had found "no evidence of a pattern of demand" and trains will switch to diesel power between Cardiff and Swansea from 2017.

Electrifying the valleys commuter lines remains a future possibility.

A plan to electrify the line was announced by the previous Labour government in 2009. Ministers in the assembly government were pressing the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in Westminster to stick to the plan. A decision on whether to electrify the line was postponed last November.

Supporters say electrification could cut journey times from Cardiff to London by about 20 minutes, and argue electric trains are cleaner and cheaper.

In a statement to MPs, Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said he had looked carefully at the arguments in favour of electrifying the line as far as Swansea. He said the business case was heavily dependent on the frequency of service.

'No evidence'

"Services between London and Swansea currently operate at a frequency of only one train an hour off-peak," he said. "There is no evidence of a pattern of demand that would be likely to lead imminently to an increase in this frequency. Consequently, I regret to say that there is not, at present, a viable business case for electrification of the main line between Cardiff and Swansea."

Trains will switch automatically to diesel power as they leave Cardiff.

Mr Hammond said that because of speed limits dictated by the geometry of the line "there would be no time saving benefits from electrifying the line from Cardiff to Swansea".

A plan to electrify the Great Western line from London to Berkshire and Oxfordshire has already got the go-ahead.

Mr Hammond said London-Cardiff journey times would come down to 1hr 42 min, while 22 minutes would be saved off London-Bristol journeys.

Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan said the announcement was vital to the recovery of the Welsh economy and that the case for electrification to Swansea remained under review. She said her department will work with the assembly government on a business case to electrify commuter lines north of Cardiff to Treherbert, Aberdare, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, and to Penarth and Barry in the Vale of Glamorgan.

'Economic lifeline'

"On St David's Day, this is excellent news for all parts of south and west Wales," she said. Mrs Gillan said the previous government had 13 years to electrify the line "but failed to do anything beyond headline-grabbing stunts".

But Labour claimed businesses and passengers living west of the Welsh capital had suffered a "St David's Day disappointment" as the electrification would not extend as far as Swansea.

Deputy First Minister Ieuan Wyn Jones said he was pleased the UK government had recognised the strength of the case to electrify lines in the valleys, but was disappointed Swansea had been left out of today's announcement.

"This is a blow to our aspirations to see economic benefits flow to the whole of Wales and will be a particularly damaging to the south west of Wales," Mr Jones said. He told BBC Radio Wales it would be more cost effective to include Swansea at the same time as Cardiff, rather than trying to upgrade the line in two stages.

First Great Western managing director Mark Hopwood said: "This is great news for our customers and the railway industry as a whole as it will bring reductions in journey time and a more reliable, environmentally friendly service."

CBI Wales director David Rosser welcomed "an excellent announcement", adding: "The Great Western main line is an essential economic lifeline for the south Wales economy. Today's announcement from the UK government will reinforce Cardiff as a 21st Century city, enabling it to play a key role in creating a more balanced UK economy with wealth creation more evenly spread across the nations and regions of the UK."

Although it was disappointing that the scheme would not go as far as Swansea, he added: "It would have been completely unacceptable for Wales to have been left out of the UK's rail modernisation plans".

Cardiff council leader Rodney Berman - who lobbied for electrification of the Great Western line with Swindon and Bristol councils - said: "Today's decision has followed a lot of effort stressing the benefits electrification will bring."

Plaid Cymru parliamentary leader Elfyn Llwyd said: "Labour left Wales as the only country in Europe alongside Albania and Moldova without a single mile of electrified track."

Peter Black, Lib Dem AM for south Wales west, said the announcement was a big step forward, but added: "This decision sends the wrong message to business investors about the south west Wales economy."
Also included with the story is a video news report as seen earlier on BBC Wales Today.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on March 01, 2011, 08:58:41 pm
Quote
Plaid Cymru parliamentary leader Elfyn Llwyd said: "Labour left Wales as the only country in Europe alongside Albania and Moldova without a single mile of electrified track."

Andorra?  Vatican? 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on March 01, 2011, 09:04:17 pm
Looking back to the first post on this thread in July 2009, I have to say that there is little difference in the electrification plans as announced then excepting that Cardiff is in from the start.
From what I can see the only difference is Swansea is removed from receiving the wires. Gosh that's going to save soooooo much money in the grand scheme of things isn't it...not!

Whats the bet that in the end the Network Rail electrification team will continue beyond Cardiff to Swansea because all of a sudden the money has been found to finish the job. You heard it here first if it does happen  ;)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on March 01, 2011, 09:17:14 pm
Quote
Plaid Cymru parliamentary leader Elfyn Llwyd said: "Labour left Wales as the only country in Europe alongside Albania and Moldova without a single mile of electrified track."

Andorra?  Vatican? 

Northern Ireland?


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 09:33:44 pm
Northern Ireland?
That would count as part of the UK.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on March 01, 2011, 09:36:16 pm
The Plaid AM referred to Wales as a country, so Northern Ireland is a fair comparison.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 01, 2011, 09:39:05 pm
The Plaid AM referred to Wales as a country, so Northern Ireland is a fair comparison.
Plaid want independence so they consider themslves their own country.  Northern Ireland would remain part of the UK in that event.  Confusingly though all the home nations with the UK can be referred to as countries even though the UK itself is a country.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on March 01, 2011, 10:21:26 pm
Statement in the Commons (video):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9410000/9410594.stm




Edited to correct weblink. CfN.  :)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris2 on March 02, 2011, 09:16:59 am
In general I believe that the announcement is good news for the great western main line, even though they are only initially going to electrify as far as Cardiff. As more wiring is put up the business case for ordering new diesel rolling stock is weakened, because of environmental benefits associated with electric rolling stock.At the same time the business case for extending the wiring is strengthened as commuter services between Cardiff and Bristol could be swapped to electric rolling stock. Which then strengthens the case for wiring to Taunton and then to Exeter. As long as a rolling programme of electrification is established eventually the wires may even reach Penzance but that could be a very long time away.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on March 02, 2011, 09:49:42 am
They'll never go beyond PLY. PLY-PNZ will unfortunately end up the same as Cardiff-Swansea.

However, they have left it open to announce further knitting towards PLY before the HST replacement, so bi-mode may replace the HST eventually.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Brucey on March 02, 2011, 12:25:37 pm
Oh dear, the PM seems to think the West Coast Main Line runs to Cardiff :o


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on March 02, 2011, 02:29:44 pm
Oh dear, the PM seems to think the West Coast Main Line runs to Cardiff :o

I think we all had a bit of a laugh about that (Ok when can i see a pendolino at cardiff then? lol)


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 02, 2011, 03:29:21 pm
Which then strengthens the case for wiring to Taunton and then to Exeter. As long as a rolling programme of electrification is established eventually the wires may even reach Penzance but that could be a very long time away.
If you are going to wire Bristol to Exeter then continue to Plymouth.  Ending the wires at Exeter would be a bit pointless.  Very few trains from the north terminate at Exeter, almost all continue to Plymouth.  Services to Plymouth could then go over to EMU operation.  As noted by ChrisB though, Plymouth is as far as the wries will ever go so you'd still need bi-mode from Plymouth to Penzance.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris2 on March 02, 2011, 05:58:23 pm
Which then strengthens the case for wiring to Taunton and then to Exeter. As long as a rolling programme of electrification is established eventually the wires may even reach Penzance but that could be a very long time away.
If you are going to wire Bristol to Exeter then continue to Plymouth.  Ending the wires at Exeter would be a bit pointless.  Very few trains from the north terminate at Exeter, almost all continue to Plymouth.  Services to Plymouth could then go over to EMU operation.  As noted by ChrisB though, Plymouth is as far as the wries will ever go so you'd still need bi-mode from Plymouth to Penzance.
Being realistic I have to agree with both of you that Plymouth is as far as the wires will go. But eventually when a certain percentage of the network or franchise is wired. It becomes sensible to extend the wiring to cover the entire franchise area. This therefore avoids the problem of diesels under the wires. But is extremely unlikely to occur.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on March 02, 2011, 06:08:20 pm
 I now think serious consideration should be given to eventually sending all West of England express services via Bristol in the future perhaps retaining a limited diesel operated Paddington/Taunton/Exeter service on the Berks and Hants with further electrification from Bristol on to Exeter/Plymouth thus concentrating these services and future investment where possible on the core Great Western route via Bristol equipped with European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS).This would be the best use of scarce resources longer term.With say mostly 125mph running Paddington to Bristol and  Bristol to Bridgewater and limited stop say Reading/Bristol/Taunton/Exeter and electric  acceleration journey times should be at least as good as todays Berks and Hants timings using a standard fleet of trains.Electrification would also benefit X country services from Bristol to Plymouth.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 02, 2011, 06:24:59 pm
I now think serious consideration should be given to eventually sending all West of England express services via Bristol in the future perhaps retaining a limited diesel operated Paddington/Taunton/Exeter service on the Berks and Hants with further electrification from Bristol on to Exeter/Plymouth.
Where is the logic in ending the wires at Exeter?  I don't even see why it should be a possibility unless you really want trains to switch to diesel for the short run to Plymouth.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on March 02, 2011, 09:40:47 pm
I now think serious consideration should be given to eventually sending all West of England express services via Bristol in the future perhaps retaining a limited diesel operated Paddington/Taunton/Exeter service on the Berks and Hants with further electrification from Bristol on to Exeter/Plymouth.
Where is the logic in ending the wires at Exeter?  I don't even see why it should be a possibility unless you really want trains to switch to diesel for the short run to Plymouth.
A simple misunderstanding here I think Zoe.I did mean electrify to Plymouth to Bristol not just Exeter to Bristol.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on March 02, 2011, 10:35:59 pm
Optimistic thoughts of wires to Plymouth either of the route has not had any consideration, there has been not feasibility study or outline power supply study.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 02, 2011, 10:54:35 pm
Optimistic thoughts of wires to Plymouth either of the route has not had any consideration, there has been not feasibility study or outline power supply study.
Well the decision to retain HSTs for now has at least given a few years for this to be considered so a decision can be made on electrification, bi-mode or DMUs.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on March 02, 2011, 10:55:32 pm
Optimistic thoughts of wires to Plymouth either of the route has not had any consideration, there has been not feasibility study or outline power supply study.

Doubt network rail would put wires along the dawlish seawall


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 02, 2011, 10:57:27 pm
Doubt network rail would put wires along the dawlish seawall
It's not as much of a problem as people think and has already been done at Saltcoats.  Even if it was a problem you could always put the line between Dawlish Warren and Teignmouth inside a shelter.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on March 03, 2011, 06:53:39 am
Optimistic thoughts of wires to Plymouth either of the route has not had any consideration, there has been not feasibility study or outline power supply study.

Doubt network rail would put wires along the dawlish seawall
Nothing like a challenge  ::)  With the right selection of equipment and perhaps a higher level of maintenance it is possible.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on March 03, 2011, 12:21:34 pm
It was decided a while ago that the Crossrail Abbey Wood branch would be third rail to keep the costs down

I did recall a suggestion last year that they'd use DC to avoid rebuilding the Connaught Tunnel, but then discussions in other forums suggested this was during the 'silly season' where all sorts of scope reductions were being widely discussed - remember all the talk of cancelling Abbey Wood, or Maidenhead, or both?   

Eventually they announced that Crossrail would go ahead completely.

So I just asked Crossrail, and here's their reply:

Quote
Crossrail Ref: CLR-00-031177
 
Thank you for your enquiry dated 1st March  2011 which has been passed to me for attention.
 
25kV electrification wil be used for all Crossrail trains including the section to Abbey Wood. The Connaught Tunnel will be re-built to accommodate the larger clearance for the overhead line equipment.
 
It is probable that if the route was extended beyond Abbey Wood then the trains would still use 25kV overhead electirication as it would be uneconomic to have dual voltage trains for that section, however there are currently no plans to extend the route

Unless you know different.

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 03, 2011, 02:51:40 pm
New installations of third rail are not allowed, only extensions of existing systems.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on March 03, 2011, 04:07:41 pm
New installations of third rail are not allowed, only extensions of existing systems.

Yes, but as 'extensions' are allowed to include such mileages as Basingstoke to Exeter, Southampton to Salisbury, or Reigate to Guildford, they have a lot of leeway in the matter. 

In any case, Crossrail's route through the Connaught Tunnel to Woolwich is as much a replacement of an existing third rail route as the ELL's extension between Shoreditch and Highbury was.  Another way of looking at it is as an extension of existing third rail from Abbey Wood towards Canary Wharf - which would also be allowed.

All in all I think the 'no new installations' excuse is irrelevant.

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ZoŽ on March 03, 2011, 04:13:14 pm
Basingstoke to Exeter
I believe the NR plan for this route should it ever be electrified is to use 25 kV OHL.  By your arguments above it would be possible to electrify all of Great Britain with third rail as you could just keep extending it.  It seems the rules would only prevent you installing third rail on the Northern Ireland network.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on March 03, 2011, 07:38:21 pm
It was decided a while ago that the Crossrail Abbey Wood branch would be third rail to keep the costs down
I did recall a suggestion last year that they'd use DC to avoid rebuilding the Connaught Tunnel, but then discussions in other forums suggested this was during the 'silly season' where all sorts of scope reductions were being widely discussed - remember all the talk of cancelling Abbey Wood, or Maidenhead, or both?   
Eventually they announced that Crossrail would go ahead completely.
So I just asked Crossrail, and here's their reply:
Quote
Crossrail Ref: CLR-00-031177
Thank you for your enquiry dated 1st March  2011 which has been passed to me for attention.
25kV electrification wil be used for all Crossrail trains including the section to Abbey Wood. The Connaught Tunnel will be re-built to accommodate the larger clearance for the overhead line equipment.
It is probable that if the route was extended beyond Abbey Wood then the trains would still use 25kV overhead electirication as it would be uneconomic to have dual voltage trains for that section, however there are currently no plans to extend the route
Unless you know different.
Paul
Thanks for this Paul, I have not had much contact with the Crossrail Project team lately.

The "extension" of third rail is as said a bit open, but I believe the current philosophy is not to do major route where it does not meet another third rail line. A Basingstoke / Exeter electrification would be 25kV as it would likely to be cheaper, but North Downs line would be third rail but as these 2 routes are not even on the list to even think about who knows, as a point of interest the last great third rail extension Bournemouth / Weymouth is in need of enhancement also the power equipment is a poorer state than equipment elsewhere on the network twice its age.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on March 03, 2011, 08:28:13 pm
The "extension" of third rail is as said a bit open, but I believe the current philosophy is not to do major route where it does not meet another third rail line. A Basingstoke / Exeter electrification would be 25kV as it would likely to be cheaper, but North Downs line would be third rail but as these 2 routes are not even on the list to even think about who knows...

Yes I'd agree Exeter would be AC and use dual voltage stock, but the main point is that it would be for cost reasons, not because third rail is banned.  The wording used in the electrification RUS was:

"In view of the route length and service density, AC electrification is considered likely to be the more cost effective option for this route. This would be further examined in the detailed development of a scheme."

Paul


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on March 18, 2011, 01:10:54 am
I'm wondering whether the recent sad events in Japan are likely to have any effect on the building of the new trains?

I'd imagine that Hitachi were in the process of re-tooling their factory to begin the new build. I'm sure the Japanese government want to get their industrial capacity back to full strength as quickly as possible, but would they not be concentrating on domestic production ahead of export orders?

Material, workers and resources are likely to be prioritised toward domestic rebuilding so this could have a knock on effect for the delivery date of the Super Expresses.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on March 18, 2011, 05:22:39 am
I suspect power generation for factories is the first concern


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on March 18, 2011, 09:04:27 am
Hitachi's factopry is in Kasado which is to the south of Japan and not effected by the quake.   I work in the law and we have  a number of law firms we work which are based in Tokyo.  We have had a stream of rather moving emails and faxes this week saying that it is business as usual in Tokyo whcih is much closer to the distruction.  I suspect that all sectors of the economy are keen to carry on working as much as possible to keep the economy afloat.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on March 18, 2011, 02:26:50 pm
The earthquake, tsunami and the nuclear power plant disaster will effect Japan as a whole for a few weeks but this is a very well structured and wealthy country they will get the vast majority of their industry and commerce working very quickly


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on March 19, 2011, 01:05:07 am
New installations of third rail are not allowed, only extensions of existing systems.
Why is this? I think that, on routes where IC stock would never venture, 3rd rail should be considered as it might be cheaper (though the stock would need to be dual-voltage to allow through running onto sections that would be shared by IC trains). It's not like 3rd rail shoes and pantographs weigh very much, or do they? 3rd rail might also be a better solution in rural areas as OHLE adds visual impact of a railway on anything scenic (though with photos I've seen of HS1 it's often more the light grey that breaks the countryside than the OHLE, using weathered balast might have helped).


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on March 19, 2011, 07:53:19 am
New installations of third rail are not allowed, only extensions of existing systems.
Why is this? I think that, on routes where IC stock would never venture, 3rd rail should be considered as it might be cheaper (though the stock would need to be dual-voltage to allow through running onto sections that would be shared by IC trains). It's not like 3rd rail shoes and pantographs weigh very much, or do they? 3rd rail might also be a better solution in rural areas as OHLE adds visual impact of a railway on anything scenic (though with photos I've seen of HS1 it's often more the light grey that breaks the countryside than the OHLE, using weathered balast might have helped).
This restriction on "new" exposed top contact third (and forth) rails systems put in place about 25 or 30 years ago by the Dept of Transport (as was) also for infrastructure owners like Network Rail they also have to consider the "The Electricity at Work 1989 Regulations" made under the 1974 HSW Act.  On the national network the option to use a shrouded bottom as used on the DLR is not a practical option.

All recent rolling stock is dual voltage its just that both collection systems are only fitted in areas where both are used.

Third rail infrastructure is not cheap as a member of the traveling public you only ever see the conrail or the OLE masts and wire which compared to con rail looks expensive, however 750v third rail needs a 2 to 4 MW substation very 4 miles and a track paralleling hut (TPH) in between in high density area the TPH's are often replaced with substations.  The substations have transformer rectifier units 2 to 4 MW some have two, high voltage switchgear 33kV and 750v dc switchgear, then there is the high voltage (33kV) cables between substations (we do not take the power direct from a nearby street 4 MW is a larger demand than most housing estates) where as 25kV OLE has a substation every 25 miles on the old systems but on the new systems like HS1 and the plan for GWML every 50 miles with track sectioning cabins every 7 miles. 


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: willc on March 29, 2011, 08:45:57 pm
Network Rail is seeking tenders for overhead line installation work for the GWML and North West projects.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Press-Releases/PLANS-TO-ROLL-OUT-ELECTRIFICATION-GATHER-PACE-16f8/SearchCategoryID-2.aspx


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on April 01, 2011, 05:56:10 pm
David cameron has said that electrification to Swansea could happen:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/04/01/rail-electrification-to-swansea-still-being-considered-says-prime-minister-91466-28442719/

Hope it is true although i have my doubts


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on April 01, 2011, 08:20:34 pm
Interesting that he should mention it specifically in a speech.  I don't think it's dead in the water quite yet, though of course the phrase 'active review' was used when the Cardiff electrification was announced, so he isn't actually saying anything new.


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on April 02, 2011, 02:39:08 pm
Interesting that he should mention it specifically in a speech.  I don't think it's dead in the water quite yet, though of course the phrase 'active review' was used when the Cardiff electrification was announced, so he isn't actually saying anything new.
And with the new Network Rail Wales Route this should ensure the funds are found.



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on April 02, 2011, 03:43:09 pm
I know there has been talk about using tram-trains, a mention of this was in current issue of modern railways.

 I hope the wires do come through to Swansea, so that means the governemnt can order more EMU'S  and less of the Bi-mode. That said the only places i think would really need the Bi-mode options are the London Paddington - Hereford/Cheltenham/Weston Super Mare/Exeter St Davids services.

If the wires also went to Westbury/Taunton, that could mean a increase in capacity on the Cardiff - Bristol - Taunton corridor as the trains could be worked by some class 319's or maybe some new units ordered on the back of the crossrail order.

Hopefully we will have further electrification projects after the great western is finished, ideal routes i would do are:

  • Coventry - Oxford - Reading - Bassingstoke

  • Thames Branches including Greenford & fill in on the North Downs Line
  • Cardiff Valley Lines & Newport - Crewe & Severn Tunnel Jct/Bristol - Birmingham

  • Exmouth - Exeter St Davids - Okehampton/Barnstaple ( be done as part of electrification of the Bassingstoke to Exeter line
  • Lines around Romsey ( This will free up class 158/159 units to go to ATW & East Midlands Trains)
  • London Marylebone-Aylesbury/High Wycombe/Banbury
[/list]


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on April 02, 2011, 03:50:53 pm
  • London Marylebone-Aylesbury/High Wycombe/Banbury

Not sure I agree with your list - Thames branches?? There are many more sensible options to do first! - but watch the bids for the next franchise on this one....


Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on April 02, 2011, 03:52:34 pm
  • London Marylebone-Aylesbury/High Wycombe/Banbury

Not sure I agree with your list - Thames branches?? There are many more sensible options to do first! - but watch the bids for the next franchise on this one....

I meant the lines from Twyford - Henley on thames etc and make these part of crossrail .



Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on April 02, 2011, 03:57:18 pm
    I know there has been talk about using tram-trains, a mention of this was in current issue of modern railways.

     I hope the wires do come through to Swansea, so that means the governemnt can order more EMU'S  and less of the Bi-mode. That said the only places i think would really need the Bi-mode options are the London Paddington - Hereford/Cheltenham/Weston Super Mare/Exeter St Davids services.

    If the wires also went to Westbury/Taunton, that could mean a increase in capacity on the Cardiff - Bristol - Taunton corridor as the trains could be worked by some class 319's or maybe some new units ordered on the back of the crossrail order.

    Hopefully we will have further electrification projects after the great western is finished, ideal routes i would do are:

    • Coventry - Oxford - Reading - Bassingstoke

    • Thames Branches including Greenford & fill in on the North Downs Line
    • Cardiff Valley Lines & Newport - Crewe & Severn Tunnel Jct/Bristol - Birmingham

    • Exmouth - Exeter St Davids - Okehampton/Barnstaple ( be done as part of electrification of the Bassingstoke to Exeter line
    • Lines around Romsey ( This will free up class 158/159 units to go to ATW & East Midlands Trains)
    • London Marylebone-Aylesbury/High Wycombe/Banbury
    [/list]

    London to Reading is only a very small portion of the routes to Taunton/Exeter/Plymouth/Penzance so I really don't think it's worth having bi-mode just for running on electric power for that bit, especially as the extra weight makes a bi-mode running on electric power 15%-20% more expensive than running an Intercity 125 under the wires. On diesel power, bi-mode IEP will probablly have worse fuel ecconomy than Voyagers (which are awful in this respect too). Keeping the 125s on the route would also add presure to electrify it. Severn Tunnel Junction, and Swindon, to Cheltenham would each convert 1tph to electric power, and allow divertions of PAD - CDF/SWA trains. This leaves the only route bi-mode IEP makes any sence at all on as Paddington - Worcester/Great Malvern/Hereford, and I'd still suggest keeping the 125s on those trips for the reasons outlined above. One idea I had is to take the mark 3s from the 125s replaced by electrics and put them between new EMU driving cars on the Portsmouth - Waterloo route to replace 450s which would go to send SWT 158s on Lymington and some currently un-electrified lines to Wales.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: willc on April 02, 2011, 07:05:48 pm
    Quote
    This leaves the only route bi-mode IEP makes any sence at all on as Paddington - Worcester/Great Malvern/Hereford, and I'd still suggest keeping the 125s on those trips for the reasons outlined above.

    There you go again. Do you ever actually take in anything anyone else says?

    The Cotswold Line needs through trains to and from London - they are why the line has been so successful for the past couple of decades. It wouldn't surprise me if more people travel on the Cotswold Line on a typical weekday than use those Saturday trains to Tenby and Pembroke Dock you think are so important over an entire summer season.

    For large parts of the day, the HSTs have far too many seats for the traffic on offer west of Oxford, which is why, for lack of anything better after the 180s left, the 166s have returned on so many off-peak services.

    Once the lines south of Oxford are wired, no-one in their right mind is going to allow DMUs like turbos out there, because their performance characteristics will be no match for 319s and whatever trains Crossrail finally orders, never mind the IEP.

    Making people change at Oxford for much of the day is simply a commercial non-starter, so the only game in town for this route for a long time to come is the bi-mode IEP. The Cotswold Line will never be wired until Birmingham-Bristol and the Birmingham-Worcester lines get electrified and wires to Worcester are many years away now that LM is getting a brand new fleet of 172s for services via Kidderminster and the Birmingham-Herefords via Bromsgrove are in the hands of Class 170s that are only 10 or 12 years into their lives.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on April 02, 2011, 08:04:36 pm
    London to Newbury is only a very small portion of the routes to Taunton/Exeter/Plymouth/Penzance...

    Fixed your comment.

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Rhydgaled on April 02, 2011, 08:07:02 pm
    Quote
    This leaves the only route bi-mode IEP makes any sence at all on as Paddington - Worcester/Great Malvern/Hereford, and I'd still suggest keeping the 125s on those trips for the reasons outlined above.

    There you go again. Do you ever actually take in anything anyone else says?

    The Cotswold Line needs through trains to and from London - they are why the line has been so successful for the past couple of decades. It wouldn't surprise me if more people travel on the Cotswold Line on a typical weekday than use those Saturday trains to Tenby and Pembroke Dock you think are so important over an entire summer season.

    For large parts of the day, the HSTs have far too many seats for the traffic on offer west of Oxford, which is why, for lack of anything better after the 180s left, the 166s have returned on so many off-peak services.

    Once the lines south of Oxford are wired, no-one in their right mind is going to allow DMUs like turbos out there, because their performance characteristics will be no match for 319s and whatever trains Crossrail finally orders, never mind the IEP.

    Making people change at Oxford for much of the day is simply a commercial non-starter, so the only game in town for this route for a long time to come is the bi-mode IEP. The Cotswold Line will never be wired until Birmingham-Bristol and the Birmingham-Worcester lines get electrified and wires to Worcester are many years away now that LM is getting a brand new fleet of 172s for services via Kidderminster and the Birmingham-Herefords via Bromsgrove are in the hands of Class 170s that are only 10 or 12 years into their lives.

    I did take it in, I've stopped suggesting a change might be acceptable on the 166 workings and am now saying that bi-mode IEP does make a bit of sence for that particular route but would perfer to maintain the through services using IC125s rather than new trains. I'll say it again, I am no longer suggesting that the through services be stopped.

    Those 170s and 172s, could they be re-geared to 75mph (as I think the London Overground ones are) fairly easily? If so they could be used on 150 routes to casscade the 150s onto pacer routes to allow the pacers to be withdrawn. That could leave the lines in question open for electric trains. It isn't likely to happen for several years, but the new stock doesn't necessarilly mean electrification is many decades away.

    EDIT: If a 2+8 IC125 is too many seats, maybe you could shorten them, which would probably make their fuel economy even better.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: willc on April 03, 2011, 09:54:21 am
    On great, we can keep through services operated by trains that are already 35 years old and counting. I first travelled on an HST when they had been in service for two or three weeks in October 1976. If someone had told me then that they would still be in front-rank service in 2011 and people would be suggesting keeping them on for some further indeterminate period, I would have thought they were mad.

    And if I lived in Devon and Cornwall, I would be seriously concerned that no-one in government, or the railways, seems to have a clue about how to provide new express trains for the region. No matter how good the life extension work, no matter how much tlc the trains get, there is no getting away from the fact the HSTs are geriatric in railway terms, let alone for front-rank express trains.

    Quote
    If a 2+8 IC125 is too many seats, maybe you could shorten them, which would probably make their fuel economy even better.

    A 2+7 HST is too many seats off-peak, as for the idea that HST operation on the Cotswold Line is fuel efficient, you must be joking. There is an average running time between stops of about seven minutes on a typical service. The HST was designed 40 years ago for long-haul, high-speed running, not stop-and-start. That's why Turbos have returned in place of HSTs on lightly-loaded services here. As for shortening them, 4,500 horsepower for a five-coach train is a grotesque over-excess of power and a five-coach train which cannot be coupled to anything else would not be a lot of use on fast trains between Oxford, Reading and London in the peaks.

    Quote
    It isn't likely to happen for several years, but the new stock doesn't necessarilly mean electrification is many decades away

    Bit more than several years. First there's the Great Western main line, North West England and central Scotland to wire. Then, if the sums add up, the prospect of much of the South Wales network, Midland main line and HS2, which, if they all happen, are likely to tie up electrification capabilities for a decade and more. After that, the TransPennine routes would seem a sensible next step, to remove overweight dmus from steep climbs through the Pennines, and only then might you look at CrossCountry, to tie all the bits together.

    As well as all LM's shiny new 172s, Chiltern also has a relatively young dmu fleet, which has plenty of years left in it (and in the case of the 165s is also of limited use elsewhere, like their FGW cousins), so the Snow Hill/Moor Street lines around Birmingham won't be touched until rolling stock replacement falls due and Worcester will have to wait a very long time to see electrics - electric signals would be a novelty there, never mind electric trains. Remember that rolling stock replacement is a key factor in GWML and North West wiring going ahead and the same will apply in the case of the Valley Lines, should that happen.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Rhydgaled on April 03, 2011, 10:37:39 am
    If you don't like old trains that brings me back to where I was before, suggesting a diesel loco to drag the IEP, I think I'd actually perfer that to keeping 125s on the route as it allows more spare parts for the 125s on the services to the south west. However last time I suggested that I was told you couldn't attach a loco at Oxford due to an unsuitable station layout. I've also been told that bi-mode for just the route in question wouldn't be a big enough order, but bi-mode only makes sence for this route, it makes no sence at all anywhere else. Therefore I think it's a choice of an IEP drag or an IC125 (if a 3-car DMU can handle the loadings, a 2+5 IC125 shouldn't be a problem in that respect). Having plenty of excess power should mean they don't need to use all of it very often, which should help fuel ecconomy a bit, a DMU like a 180 or Voyager would be better in theroy, but in practice their fuel ecconomy figures are grim reading. I want to avoid anymore trains like that, which bi-mode IEP would be, being built. You see how long the IC125s are dragging on for, introducing bi-mode IEP in 2017 and giving them a 35 year life would mean we're still running diesel trains on INTERCITY services in 2052, rather than having IC services diesel free in 2040 going by 35 years on the class 222s. Given that 2050 is the year set for some of the co2 emmision targets I think bi-mode IEP is very important to avoid, and what will happen to oil supplies in that time?

    What's to stop there being multiple electrification teams? More job creation, opertunity for some politics perhaps? I guess that probablly would be a no starter due to an increase costs greater than what I expect.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: willc on April 03, 2011, 12:10:28 pm
    I'm sorry, i must be missing something here. On the one hand, putting diesel engines under the floor of  trains for part-time use is wrong, yet buying large numbers of new high-power, high-acceleration, therefore high fuel-consumption, diesel locos (and providing the servicing facilities they would need) for use on just part of a train's journey makes more sense?

    On the Cotswold Line, with constant stops and starts, which big diesel locos don't like (just the same issues as with using the HSTs here - and I seriously doubt an HST's fuel economy doing such work is anything to write home about, however many coaches it has, compared with a supposedly thirsty 180 or Voyager) you would need perhaps six locos to maintain a basic hourly service between Oxford and Worcester, and allow cover for delays and failures, and maybe more to allow for the extra running time taken by services to Malvern and Hereford.

    That's an awful lot of expensive locos to move around five-coach trains for much of the day. In those circumstances, I think your average First Group board member would find obliging people to change at Oxford a far more attractive proposition than footing the running costs for all those locos for years to come. The passengers - and their MPs - would not find such a situation an attractive proposition.

    Quote
    but bi-mode only makes sence for this route, it makes no sence at all anywhere else

    So what about Harrogate, Hull, Lincoln, Sunderland, Inverness and Aberdeen? All unlikely prospects for electrification for many years too.

    Quote
    if a 3-car DMU can handle the loadings, a 2+5 IC125 shouldn't be a problem in that respect

    Did you read the bit about the leg of journeys made by Cotswold Line trains between Oxford and London, where they form about half the express services each day? A 2+5 would be a serious capacity problem there for chunks of the day outside the traditional peaks - you can't just couple another HST on. That's why they use full-length HSTs or couple/detach Turbos at Oxford.

    Quote
    giving them a 35 year life would mean we're still running diesel trains on INTERCITY services in 2052

    No it doesn't. If wiring proceeds with some sort of gradual, logical pattern over coming decades, then you can simply stop using the diesel engines and remove them when they are no longer needed.

    I would love to see a proper long-term national elecrification programme but despite Lord Adonis's best efforts, something of this sort has yet to emerge, so we have to do the best we can in the circumstances, and if that's the bi-mode, so be it.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Rhydgaled on April 03, 2011, 12:35:16 pm
    I'm sorry, i must be missing something here. On the one hand, putting diesel engines under the floor of  trains for part-time use is wrong, yet buying large numbers of new high-power, high-acceleration, therefore high fuel-consumption, diesel locos (and providing the servicing facilities they would need) for use on just part of a train's journey makes more sense?

    On the Cotswold Line, with constant stops and starts, which big diesel locos don't like (just the same issues as with using the HSTs here - and I seriously doubt an HST's fuel economy doing such work is anything to write home about, however many coaches it has, compared with a supposedly thirsty 180 or Voyager) you would need perhaps six locos to maintain a basic hourly service between Oxford and Worcester, and allow cover for delays and failures, and maybe more to allow for the extra running time taken by services to Malvern and Hereford.

    That's an awful lot of expensive locos to move around five-coach trains for much of the day. In those circumstances, I think your average First Group board member would find obliging people to change at Oxford a far more attractive proposition than footing the running costs for all those locos for years to come. The passengers - and their MPs - would not find such a situation an attractive proposition.
    You see, that's why I jumped to that conclusion before. Perhaps you could double service frequency with the turbos (and/or make passengers change at Reading rather than Oxford), it would probablly still be better to have a direct services as you say though. I never said new diesel locos should be bought, use the stacks of 47s, 37s and 60s we have lying around. They won't last forever of course, but hopefully the Chiltern line will get wires so 90s (or new electric locos) can be used to make Chiltern's 67s available. Any diesel locomotive geared for 90 or 100mph should be a bit more efficent than a DMU geared for 125mph/

    Quote
    Quote
    but bi-mode only makes sence for this route, it makes no sence at all anywhere else
    So what about Harrogate, Hull, Lincoln, Sunderland, Inverness and Aberdeen? All unlikely prospects for electrification for many years too.
    Drag them with diesel locos of course, that way you're not wasting loads of electricity carting diesel fuel and engines around under the wires. Sunderland (and most of the Hull services) are open access anyway, so they'll need to make their own arangements for stock, not the government. The further you go under the wires the worse having diesel engines, whether they are powering the train or not, becomes. I am finding it really hard to come up with a good solution for the services beyond Oxford, they occupy the middle ground with a fair amount of both wired and unwired track, so everything is a rather poor compromise. A few bi-modes for this route only does in some respects sound like a good idea, perhaps because it would only be a small number you could swap some XC class 220 Voyagers for class 180s and put the debated pantograph cars into the Voyagers. Only problem is getting the open access operators to buy new stock to release the 180s.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on April 03, 2011, 01:24:32 pm
    Are you really serious about using almost life expired class 47 locos to do drags? As for 37s, well no FOC is currently using them so they're at best in warm store, at worst slowly rotting away. Both these classes will be over 50 years old come GWML electrification and would require major expensive work to make them compatible with the new stock.  :o

    Then you mention Class 60. A heavy, route limited, freight only loco geared to 60mph.  ::)

    I get that you don't agree with bi-mode, but your alternatives keep moving from crackpot idea to another. The only alternative is electrification of all relevant routes. And that's not happening.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: onthecushions on April 03, 2011, 09:51:49 pm

    I think that the IEP problem can be traced back to a ^one size fits all^ solution for the HST replacement and  ^falling between two stools^ phrase may be appropriate.

    It must surely be replacement for the 125^s ^ they were designed for a 15 year first line service life and entered service in late 1976. The same is even more true for the 47^s and 37^s - modernisation plan locos that can^t perform to modern standards, even with re-engineering.

    IEP in my view is under-specified for Bristol/South Wales as these services should qualify for TGC/ICE  specification rolling stock, even over the slower lines at the periphery.  If Swansea (or Weston etc) really is a serious IC destination then there should be no problem with wires. If not and services are near empty West of Cardiff etc, then all they can have is connections or a couple of daily hauled through services as happened in West  Yorks  just  after the ECML was wired in 1991.

    For the other destinations, a multiple unit solution seems necessary to cope with lighter outer loadings and the commercial need for through service to London. Here a hybrid formation solution might work; i.e a dmu at the country end, an emu at the other.  Now modern units have much greater tractive ability; emu^s have roundly double the power of 1980^s units (hence the sub-station crises!) and dmu^s can have a 750hp/570kW diesel under each car. They could therefore haul each other; the electric sections would have no power problem as there is no climbing and 125mph should be possible. The diesel sections are slower anyway and there, motored axles are the limiting factor for adhesion in acceleration and climbing.

    Just let^s not have 5-a side and no a/c to the Cotswolds (or any where else West of Crossrail)

    Happy Mothers^ Day,

    OTC


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: willc on April 04, 2011, 12:57:05 am
    Quote
    I am finding it really hard to come up with a good solution for the services beyond Oxford

    Well then spare us any more of this. There is no point you worrying about it, because the Government has already come up with a solution - which doesn't involve rusting 50-year-old diesels or more recently-built freight engines designed to shift heavy bulk trains, not featherweight passenger trains making frequent stops.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: willc on April 06, 2011, 11:11:29 pm
    Interesting feature in the new issue of Rail about IEP, based on an interview with the boss of Agility Trains. Talks quite a bit about the diesel engines. They are looking at a number of designs, including ones that would offer 940hp each, a total of 2,820hp (2.1MW) per five-car train. A 180 has 5x750hp. They are well aware of the noise and vibration issue and are buying two engines which will be put under a testbed train in Japan later this year to help Hitachi look at ways to minimise these.

    The five-car and eight-car trains can both have an extra car added, at the time they are built, or later. They are also looking at a 10-car all-electric version, with a view to bidding when the Class 91s and Mk4s need replacing and drawings were seen by Rail for a 10-car bi-mode with five electric motor coaches and five diesel engines mounted on the same coaches - Penzance here we come?? The maximum possible train length would be a 12-car.

    Gives a daily diagram list suggesting Great Western would be operating 11 eight-car all-electric, 35 five-car bi-mode and nine five-car all electric (I stand corrected on that point), with East Coast having 35 five-car bi-modes and 10 five-car all-electrics. So, 100 operating, with about 10 more sets in the total fleet allowed for maintenance, etc.

    Agility is to take over North Pole depot, build a new depot at Stoke Gifford in the triangle alongside the Bristol Parkway-Filton Abbey Wood curve, provide overnight servicing facilities at Cardiff Tidal and Swansea Maliphant (between the station and Landore depot) and share existing facilities at Worcester, Exeter and Laira.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: woody on April 07, 2011, 11:05:58 am
    Agility is to take over North Pole depot, build a new depot at Stoke Gifford in the triangle alongside the Bristol Parkway-Filton Abbey Wood curve, provide overnight servicing facilities at Cardiff Tidal and Swansea Maliphant (between the station and Landore depot) and share existing facilities at Worcester, Exeter and Laira.
    Laira!.Though IEP was not going west of Exeter only HSTs or is there more going on behind the scenes than we know about.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Tim on April 07, 2011, 01:16:53 pm
    Thanks Willc.  I'll have to buy Rail.  Glad to see Hitachi is trying hard to get this right.  There do seem to be a lot of 5 car trains proposed thought.  I assume that they will be used alot in pairs (with the predictable extra cost of providing catering twice and the revenue protection issues of non-connecting carriages)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: mjones on April 07, 2011, 02:59:13 pm
    Not to mention the wasted space of two buffet areas etc, maybe they are only planning to use trolleys?

    It really would be a shame if the lessons of the Voyager aren't learned this time...


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on April 07, 2011, 03:36:05 pm
    Gives a daily diagram list suggesting Great Western would be operating 11 eight-car all-electric, 35 five-car bi-mode and nine five-car all electric (I stand corrected on that point), with East Coast having 35 five-car bi-modes and 10 five-car all-electrics. So, 100 operating, with about 10 more sets in the total fleet allowed for maintenance, etc.


    The ratio of electric units for GW seems more explicit in 'Rail' this week; in the last MR (probably written about 3 weeks ago or more?) Roger Ford suggested it would probably be 11 and 9, but didn't commit to that as DfT had only given the total of 133 electric cars, which could also have been met by 6 x 8 car and 17 x 5 car.

    Agree that the sudden mention of Laira depot seems rather unexpected...

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Tim on April 07, 2011, 04:03:45 pm
    Not to mention the wasted space of two buffet areas etc, maybe they are only planning to use trolleys?

    It really would be a shame if the lessons of the Voyager aren't learned this time...

    Of course lots of 5-car bi-modes would be fine as a temporary measure.  If we eventually get the wires to Swansea and Exeter and beyond and order some more electric trains then the bi-modes could replace the voyagers on XC services, the voyagers could replace the XC turbostars, the turbostars could be cascaded and we could scrap the "tin trucks" / "nodding donkeys".

    IF NR and Hitachii deliver on time and on budget, we needn't think of this as the last order of electric trains.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Tim on April 07, 2011, 04:04:47 pm
    Not to mention the wasted space of two buffet areas etc, maybe they are only planning to use trolleys?

    It really would be a shame if the lessons of the Voyager aren't learned this time...
    ...  The the space wasted by providing two more cabs and extra disabled toilets.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on April 07, 2011, 04:17:05 pm
    They are also looking at a 10-car all-electric version, with a view to bidding when the Class 91s and Mk4s need replacing

    I'm a little surprised that 10-car electric versions (or 9-car possibly) haven't been chosen anyway?  8-Car trains (albeit 26m carriages) won't add much capacity and if you're planning on running 10-car Bi-mode trains around coupled together, then the platforms would all have to be done for that length anyway (where they aren't already long enough).  Still, as long as they can be easily lengthened, Pendolino style, then that's alright.  Flexibility is the key.

    I too am a little concerned about the logistics of running these 10-car Bi-mode trains around with two TM's, two catering staff, two large wastes of space in the form of unused cabs - if they're not careful, most of the benefits of having 26m carriages will be lost.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: grahame on April 07, 2011, 06:15:33 pm
    I too am a little concerned about the logistics of running these 10-car Bi-mode trains around with two TM's, two catering staff, two large wastes of space in the form of unused cabs - if they're not careful, most of the benefits of having 26m carriages will be lost.

    But I look and say "why not make a virtue of it?".   So many trains are busier at their London end that the "country" end ... so why not run 10 carriages out from London, and split the train for 2 destinations.  Split at Oxford for Hereford and somewhere north of Banbury. Split at Swindon for Cheltenham and Weymouth. Split at Parkway for Swansea and Taunton. Split at Exeter for Paignton and Exmouth.   Some of these are more serious suggestions than others.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Deltic on April 07, 2011, 06:55:54 pm
    Or more likely send the rear 5 coaches back to London with another 5 from farther afield. But isn't the problem with this that the government doesn't like coupling / uncoupling of trains / locos en route. That's why they have gone for bi-modes.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: willc on April 07, 2011, 10:48:49 pm
    I omitted mention of catering arrangements partly for the sake of brevity but also because it might be nice if Rail was able to sell a few copies...

    And why would staffing have to be doubled up everywhere? For example, on a London-Worcester service, splitting at Oxford, logic suggests you would staff a buffet and first class with customer hosts in the Cotswold section and not the Oxford one. Most Oxford originating and terminating fasts have no catering, or just a trolley. One TM would suffice (if revenue protection's an issue then use more travelling staff for that specific task) - FGW runs rather a lot of paired up Turbo formations with just a driver on board and no TM as tall - these formations also have four driving cabs, as did paired-up 180 formations. If you are to have a flexible fleet then this is what is needed. The 2+7 or 2+8 HST fleet is not very flexible and carries around air in a number of other places than the Cotswold Line off-peak.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on April 08, 2011, 12:21:44 am
    One TM would suffice (if revenue protection's an issue then use more travelling staff for that specific task) - FGW runs rather a lot of paired up Turbo formations with just a driver on board and no TM as tall

    Unless I'm mistaken, unless these trains are going to run as DOO - and I don't think they will, even on the Oxford route, and certainly not between London and Cardiff (Swansea) - then you will need a TM for both portions if there's no through corridor connection between the sets.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: willc on April 08, 2011, 12:56:53 am
    I can see managers arguing that if all on-board staff have safety training, then having at least one steward/customer host in each unit and a tm somewhere in the formation would suffice. And let's face it, there's bound to be some sort of bust-up with the unions over the introduction of these trains somewhere down the line... double-manned HSTs ring any bells?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: broadgage on April 08, 2011, 08:02:29 am
    Thanks Willc.  I'll have to buy Rail.  Glad to see Hitachi is trying hard to get this right.  There do seem to be a lot of 5 car trains proposed thought.  I assume that they will be used alot in pairs (with the predictable extra cost of providing catering twice and the revenue protection issues of non-connecting carriages)

    Having experienced new trains on other routes, I dont assume that they will be "used a lot in pairs" I cynicly assume that they will run mainly as single units as with voyagers.
    And why on earth would they "provide catering twice", not at all more likely, maybe a trolley if you are lucky.

    By cramming in lots of high density bus seats, minimising luggage space, removing catering, and reducing the number of toilets, it should be possible to provide "similar" seat numbers to an unimproved HST. "Similar" in this context is railway jargon for "not that much worse"


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on April 08, 2011, 08:13:50 am
    With them opening a depot in Cardiff does this mean that there will be a lot of service starting from Cardiff in the morning, this will annoy a lot of commuters traveling to London.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on April 08, 2011, 08:46:01 am
    As well as the extra cabs and buffets a 2 * 5 car  bimode unit is also carting around 12 extra tons of dead metal when under the wires. Which must add to the running costs.  3 diesel engines per unit are also going to cost an awful lot more to maintain than a straight electric unit.

    Plus they are bound to reduce the number of miles between failures.  The newer electric units are now getting on towards 50K miles between failures. In contrast a 142 struggles to reach 5000.

    As they going to have auto coulings a  3 MW 160Kph (upgradeable to 200 if the lines are improved) diesel loco with the same couplings and compatible software would almost certainly be cheaper to buy, run and maintain.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on April 08, 2011, 11:02:39 am
    And let's face it, there's bound to be some sort of bust-up with the unions over the introduction of these trains somewhere down the line

    Too right.  I can see Crow/Norman looking at where they can throw a spanner in the works already.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: willc on April 08, 2011, 09:31:55 pm
    As well as the extra cabs and buffets a 2 * 5 car  bimode unit is also carting around 12 extra tons of dead metal when under the wires. Which must add to the running costs.  3 diesel engines per unit are also going to cost an awful lot more to maintain than a straight electric unit.

    Plus they are bound to reduce the number of miles between failures.  The newer electric units are now getting on towards 50K miles between failures. In contrast a 142 struggles to reach 5000.

    As they going to have auto coulings a  3 MW 160Kph (upgradeable to 200 if the lines are improved) diesel loco with the same couplings and compatible software would almost certainly be cheaper to buy, run and maintain.

    You aren't seriously suggesting a jerry-built railbus is in any way a fair indicator of the reliability of modern diesel units are you?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on April 08, 2011, 10:01:53 pm
    Can not see what the fetish is for buffet cars, complete waste of space most routes with new rolling stock have trolley service which seems to work fine.

    For electric traction at 25kV the 4 tonne weight per engine will not add much to the overall power consumption it could argued that the extra mass will improve rail adhesion hence making better use of the tractive effort thereby improving acceleration also it could aid braking force


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: woody on April 09, 2011, 09:53:22 am
    Thanks Willc.  I'll have to buy Rail.  Glad to see Hitachi is trying hard to get this right.  There do seem to be a lot of 5 car trains proposed thought.  I assume that they will be used alot in pairs (with the predictable extra cost of providing catering twice and the revenue protection issues of non-connecting carriages)

    Having experienced new trains on other routes, I dont assume that they will be "used a lot in pairs" I cynicly assume that they will run mainly as single units as with voyagers.
    And why on earth would they "provide catering twice", not at all more likely, maybe a trolley if you are lucky.

    By cramming in lots of high density bus seats, minimising luggage space, removing catering, and reducing the number of toilets, it should be possible to provide "similar" seat numbers to an unimproved HST. "Similar" in this context is railway jargon for "not that much worse"

    43009 "First Transforming travel",but not necessary for the better though for all I am afraid.Travelled back to Plymouth on Friday on the 1406 "cattle wagon" Paddington to Penzance HST and being sat with my son in coach B I soon gave up the idea of macheteing my way to the buffet through the vestibule areas which were jammed with passengers and large luggage all the way to the buffet for the entire journey to Plymouth(are cases getting bigger?).Add to that there was no aircon in coach B on what was a warm day all left a bad taste in the mouth despite an on time arrival in Plymouth.
    It seems to me that Longer distance journeys to and from say Paddington to Devon and Cornwall were compromised to accommodate the overwhelming need to provide extra seats for FGWs commuter.I hope IEP addresses this compromise.
     


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: broadgage on April 10, 2011, 09:59:21 am
    AFAIK the internal layout has yet to be decided, I would however be very suprised indeed if it is an improvement over a proper HST, and it might well be even worse than an "improved" high density bus style one.
    The trend is generaly towards shorter trains with high density bus seats, minimal lugage space and no catering, this is known as progress.
    I cant imagine that a new 5 car multiple unit will be an improvement over an 8 car HST.

    Certainly no chance of a proper restaurant, and I doubt that there even be a hot buffet.
    Restaurant services on trains to/from Wales were withdrawn several improvements ago. At the time I said that this was in preperation for downgrading Welsh services to DMUs. DMUs dont normally have restaurants.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on April 10, 2011, 11:02:30 am
    Restaurants on trains don't show a profit, nice though that they are. So whilst disappointing, I wouldn't expect the new fleet, either the 8 car electric or 5 car bi-mode to have restaurant provision.

    I would hope for hot food provision of some sort though available in both classes. But I won't be surprised if their isn't.

    Who knows, we might even see a renaissance in restaurant provision on services to the far west where the HSTs will continue to run for many years. Lots of TFKs that'll no longer be in use offering Travelling Chef between South Wales and Paddington. I suspect though that we are seeing the swansong of restaurants on the franchised UK rail network.

    HSTs available for open access could be another possibility..... SWAP Railway* anyone?


    *South Wales and Paddington  ;)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: willc on April 10, 2011, 11:55:35 am
    Broadgage, Hitachi say they can provide pretty much any internal layout (the class 395 presumably is the likely starting point for a high-density layout) and any catering set-up required by the operators but they envisage a maximum of 88 seats in a fully-seated trailer or motor standard coach - a handful more than a current high-density FGW HST coach, in a longer vehicle.

    And I think you need to forget your fetish for 'proper' restaurant cars being some kind of defining factor in what constitutes an express train. As of next month, the Plymouth Pullmans will be the last of their kind left in the UK. The world has moved on.

    Open access - i don't think so. You would fall foul of the "primarily abstractive" issue trying to operate to pretty much anywhere on the GWML - there is no equivalent to the Yorkshire and North East towns ignored by East Coast that are served by HT and GC.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bobm on April 10, 2011, 04:49:36 pm
    I suspect though that we are seeing the swansong of restaurants on the franchised UK rail network.

    While not disagreeing with you in the longterm, I was speaking to a member of the catering crew on one of the Pullman Services this week and he confirmed that the existing four services will remain in the May timetable, will have new menus and perhaps most importantly will be promoted.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on April 15, 2011, 01:57:40 pm
    An interesting 'Railnews' article on electrification, touching on the history of railway electrification in the UK, running though the years to the current proposals.

    http://www.railnews.co.uk/content/documents/rn170_2011_year_of_sparks_effect.pdf (http://www.railnews.co.uk/content/documents/rn170_2011_year_of_sparks_effect.pdf)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Tim on April 15, 2011, 02:21:07 pm
    As well as the extra cabs and buffets a 2 * 5 car  bimode unit is also carting around 12 extra tons of dead metal when under the wires. Which must add to the running costs.  3 diesel engines per unit are also going to cost an awful lot more to maintain than a straight electric unit.

    Plus they are bound to reduce the number of miles between failures.  The newer electric units are now getting on towards 50K miles between failures. In contrast a 142 struggles to reach 5000.

    As they going to have auto coulings a  3 MW 160Kph (upgradeable to 200 if the lines are improved) diesel loco with the same couplings and compatible software would almost certainly be cheaper to buy, run and maintain.

    I only partly agree with this.  You need to remember that 12t x 3 (or x5 on teh 8 car train) is a lot less than the 60t that a powercar on teh original bui-mode proposal would have been.  You also should bear in mind that even the all electric version will have one 12t engine for emergency use. 

    As for reliability.  The underfloor engines are likely to be derivatives of extablished truck engines, so likley to be fairly reliable and cheap and compiant with the emissions standards


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on April 15, 2011, 05:53:48 pm
    An interesting 'Railnews' article on electrification, touching on the history of railway electrification in the UK, running though the years to the current proposals.
    http://www.railnews.co.uk/content/documents/rn170_2011_year_of_sparks_effect.pdf (http://www.railnews.co.uk/content/documents/rn170_2011_year_of_sparks_effect.pdf)

    The map of the UK shown in the article, I can remember when the BRB DM&EE Electrification HQ was at Paddington in Tournament Hse in the 1990's had a very similar map colour coded to show existing (as was at the time) ac (red I think) and dc (blue I think) electrification also it showed the lines dotted for high priority and a paler shade for lesser priority.  The Western main lines was regarded as high priority to Swansea, even Plymouth vis both B & H and Bristol.   There was even a major feeding diagram which showed the location of all the Grid connections and all the track sectioning cabin locations.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Rhydgaled on April 16, 2011, 12:39:08 am
    Would 9 5-car Voyagers (I think that's what runs entirely under the wires from Birmingham to Scotland) made into bi-modes cover the Cotswold line services? Also, would splitting the PAD - BRI - South-West services at Bristol (electric to Bristol, change onto a 125 at Bristol) and introducing extra PAD - South-West direct via Westbury services to compensate be acceptable, or is it a bad idea like making Cotswold line passengers change at Oxford?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on April 16, 2011, 06:39:57 am
    Bad idea anywhere.

    Second - where do you maintain these Voyagers?

    Thirdly - IF the voyagers were to be used as you suggest, what would XC use in replacement? And where do you suggedt those are maintained?

    Rather than pull suggestions out of thin air, cam you please make suggestions that make sense please? Because you've only make nonsensicsl ines so far.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Rhydgaled on April 16, 2011, 09:59:49 am
    Bad idea anywhere.

    Second - where do you maintain these Voyagers?

    Thirdly - IF the voyagers were to be used as you suggest, what would XC use in replacement? And where do you suggedt those are maintained?

    Rather than pull suggestions out of thin air, cam you please make suggestions that make sense please? Because you've only make nonsensicsl ines so far.

    Regarding Voyagers for Cotswolds line, my main query was whether 9 5-car units were enough. Someone mentioned earlier that the 180s did the trick before, but as far as I know there aren't any 180s running entirely under the wires. Nonsensical? Does it make sense to build a small fleet of 9 (assuming that's correct) new gas guzzling IEP bi-modes, especially as we have a similar number of gas guzzling diesels, that have been under discussion of conversion to bi-mode, running entirely under the wires? I think not. This would be a lot simpler if attaching a loco to electric IEPs at Oxford wasn't the impossibility you've informed me of.

    Second, a good point about maintaining them (contrary to your belief, I've actually thought through most of this suggestion, but you've caught me out there). The question is, where do you maintain a similar small number of new diesel IEPs? Ok, they would share many more characteristics with the electric IEP stock than a Voyager would, but the diesel components would still require special treatment for a small fleet. I've just had an idea while writing this, perhaps the Cotswold Voyagers could have some diagrams end the day at Reading to allow the unit to be coupled with an XC Voyager passing through, which would go to wherever they are serviced (since the hub of XC is Birmingham and Virgin also operate Voyagers there I'm guessing the Voyager depot is there). Not ideal I admit, anyone got any better suggestions?

    Third, the Voyagers under the wires the whole way, running Birmingham to Glasgow and Edinburgh via the WCML are Virgin sets aren't they? In that case, the obvious thing to do is to replace them with something electric, to avoid a micro-fleet I would suggest Pendolinos of an appropriate length. Anyway, 5-car is apparently enough for the Cotswolds line, so the 221s from Virgin would go to XC, and pantograph cars would be ordered for all of them, making most 6-car. The 9 220s replaced by the 9 221s from Virgin would be sent to the Cotswolds with the addition of a pantograph car (making them 5-car). The other 220s would gain an electric pickup car (a pantograph car with 3rd rail shoes as well) for XCs services on the 3rd rail network (if 5-car won't be enough you could take this opportunity to add a trailer car as well to make them 6-car like the 221s).

    What about my query on the south-west services, does that idea make sense?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on April 16, 2011, 11:01:31 am
    Second, a good point about maintaining them (contrary to your belief, I've actually thought through most of this suggestion, but you've caught me out there). The question is, where do you maintain a similar small number of new diesel IEPs?

    If you needed economies of scale, together with the same sets on the East Coast, somerwhere close to (North or West) London - Old Oak Common?

    Quote
    I've just had an idea while writing this, perhaps the Cotswold Voyagers could have some diagrams end the day at Reading to allow the unit to be coupled with an XC Voyager passing through, which would go to wherever they are serviced (since the hub of XC is Birmingham and Virgin also operate Voyagers there I'm guessing the Voyager depot is there). Not ideal I admit, anyone got any better suggestions?

    Yes - the DFT is so far beating you hands down! Nothing you've yet come up with has beaten the current DfT thinking. I think you need to admit that you don't know enough about the rail network to be making DfT-beating thinking.

    RE your new suggestion.....You presyumably are intelligent enough to realise these couldn't all be attached to the one last northbound XC Voyager, and that they'd have to go probably one at a time - so xounting back up the timetable....what time woulod they have to start heading back to Birmingham each day? Probably in the height of the evening rush-hour, just when they'd be most wanted in service.

    And how do you get them all back down south in time to start the morning peak? mWhich by definition doesn't start close to Reading / London but way out in the sticks @ Hereford? I'm not sure any XC trains go down that line?.....

    Engage brain successfully please - this is another no-brainer....

    Can I ask how old you are?: Because if you're a teenager, I think we ought to give you credit...but otherwise I think you need to gain a lot more knowledge before making suggestions like this.

    Quote
    Third, the Voyagers under the wires the whole way, running Birmingham to Glasgow and Edinburgh via the WCML are Virgin sets aren't they? In that case, the obvious thing to do is to replace them with something electric, to avoid a micro-fleet I would suggest Pendolinos of an appropriate length.

    Are the rigs for Pendos still available? If they've been scrapped, that's too costly ann idea....also, for anything else stockwise - how many Voyagers do you think make that entire trip in a day? Wouldn't this be just as small a micro-fleet as you are trying to avoid?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Rhydgaled on April 16, 2011, 04:14:05 pm
    Second, a good point about maintaining them (contrary to your belief, I've actually thought through most of this suggestion, but you've caught me out there). The question is, where do you maintain a similar small number of new diesel IEPs?

    If you needed economies of scale, together with the same sets on the East Coast, somerwhere close to (North or West) London - Old Oak Common?
    The whole reason we are having this argument is that I think we need to avoid new diesel Intercity trains, mainly because of climate change but there's the financial risk of rising oil prices too. As I've said before, bi-mode only makes sense when the layout at the last wired station prohibits attaching a diesel loco (I guess it also makes sense for XC's Voyagers because they are cutting across between main routes with diesel sections both sides of the wired section). As Oxford is the only station where I've been told this could be a problem, there wouldn't be any IEP bi-modes on East Coast either.

    Quote
    Quote
    I've just had an idea while writing this, perhaps the Cotswold Voyagers could have some diagrams end the day at Reading to allow the unit to be coupled with an XC Voyager passing through, which would go to wherever they are serviced (since the hub of XC is Birmingham and Virgin also operate Voyagers there I'm guessing the Voyager depot is there). Not ideal I admit, anyone got any better suggestions?

    Yes - the DFT is so far beating you hands down! Nothing you've yet come up with has beaten the current DfT thinking. I think you need to admit that you don't know enough about the rail network to be making DfT-beating thinking.

    RE your new suggestion.....You presyumably are intelligent enough to realise these couldn't all be attached to the one last northbound XC Voyager, and that they'd have to go probably one at a time - so xounting back up the timetable....what time woulod they have to start heading back to Birmingham each day? Probably in the height of the evening rush-hour, just when they'd be most wanted in service.

    And how do you get them all back down south in time to start the morning peak? mWhich by definition doesn't start close to Reading / London but way out in the sticks @ Hereford? I'm not sure any XC trains go down that line?.....
    Assuming my rough estimate of 9 units is correct, and that the depot for Voyagers is in Birmingham, how many units would actually need to be stabled at the depot overnight? ATW park units overnight where there is no servicing facilities don't they (maybe at Carmarthen and/or Pwllheli?)? XC currently have 21:11 and 21:46 departures from Reading that could be used, and perhaps you could extend a later Oxford train to Birmingham as well, that's 3 units back to depot. In the morning, perhaps services from Birmingham to Bristol/Taunton/Plymouth could make an extra stop at Worcester to drop of a unit for Hereford. Most of what I'm suggesting is a compromise, but IEP is a huge and dangerous compromise, so I don't think the DfT is beating me hands down. If we didn't have any diesel IC trains running entirely under the wires then bi-mode IEP for that route only is not really avoidable. However we do have the diesel stock, provided there's enough of it. An IEP bi-mode micro fleet for the Cotswold line might just be beating what I've suggested for that route so far, but elsewhere it is a really stupid idea. I am not alone:
    Quote from: Christian Wolmar" link="www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2011/03/rail-666-new-trains-are-based-on-old-thinking
    rail industry sources suggest that Hammond has had the wool pulled over his eyes in numerous ways and  most specifically, on the question of why the design incorporates underfloor diesel engines when it would be far easier to simply have a locomotive haul the trains once the wires run out

    There has been some simplification of the order, but the muddled thinking behind it does not seem to have been addressed.  The diesel trains have been scrapped but more than 300 of the 533 carriages ^ just over a third of the original order and a strange number given that the trains will be in 5 coach units ^ are to be in hybrid trains. Everyone I talk to in the rail industry seems to think this is madness of the greatest order, based on a false notion ^ that it would be too slow to hitch up a diesel locomotive to the front of the train when the wires run out. Indeed, it has even been suggested to Hammond that it would be dangerous to have a diesel locomotive waiting at the appropriate place on the platform and therefore it would take nine minutes to connect the loco when, in fact, it could be done in less than half that time and would be a routine exercise provided there was the right signalling.

    Some of my ideas may be flawed and unworkable, that's why I'm putting them to forums to work out the kinks, but please don't try to claim bi-mode IEP is flawless. New Intercity diesel trains are undoubtedly a bad idea for the environment. It is better to make do and mend with what we've got, and electrify as much as we can. Where I might be going astray, is in finding the best way to make use of what we have.

    Quote
    Can I ask how old you are?: Because if you're a teenager, I think we ought to give you credit...but otherwise I think you need to gain a lot more knowledge before making suggestions like this.
    Born in 1990, completed a HND last year and in June I'll have finished my first year at university.

    Quote
    Quote
    Third, the Voyagers under the wires the whole way, running Birmingham to Glasgow and Edinburgh via the WCML are Virgin sets aren't they? In that case, the obvious thing to do is to replace them with something electric, to avoid a micro-fleet I would suggest Pendolinos of an appropriate length.

    Are the rigs for Pendos still available? If they've been scrapped, that's too costly ann idea....also, for anything else stockwise - how many Voyagers do you think make that entire trip in a day? Wouldn't this be just as small a micro-fleet as you are trying to avoid?
    As I said, I estimated 9 units. Needing confirmation of this is one of the reasons I posted the idea. As you say, I need to gain knowledge before making suggestions to the DfT. One of the comments under Wolmar's article suggested that's the only service Virgin use Voyagers for, which would be 20 sets I think. However, I Googled and they also use Voyagers for Chester and Holyhead services, which do go beyond the wires.

    As for Pendolinios, I think the original fleet was built at the now-closed Washwood Heath factory. If they can close the factory down yet still produce extra carriages and some all-new 11-car sets, building more for Birmingham - Scotland shouldn't be too much of a problem.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on April 16, 2011, 04:21:54 pm
    Spend enough money & electrify the lot.

    There's the solution you're looking for.

    Now - persuade the taxpayer that we need to pay for it.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Rhydgaled on April 16, 2011, 06:21:06 pm
    Spend enough money & electrify the lot.

    There's the solution you're looking for.

    Now - persuade the taxpayer that we need to pay for it.

    That's the solution I would go for, but the problem isn't just persuading the government to pay for it, you've also got to find the money and there probably simply isn't enough money available to do it all in one go. So I'm saying electrify certain chunks by 2020 (PAD to SWA, Bristol, Cheltenham, ValleyLines (funded, possibly along with CDF to SWA, by cancellation of the extra lane for part of the Heads Of The Valleys road) and possibly Weston-Super-Mare), buy electric IEPs (not the less powerful bi-modes DfT call electric, but true EMUs without a diesel engine in sight), add a few more sets to the Pendo order to get the Voyagers off their entirely electrified route and make do with our existing diesel stock until a slow but continuous program of electrification allows more routes to convert to electric stock.

    Does anyone know why the WCML is being gauge-cleared for IEP? I e-mailed the DfT to find out which routes would be cleared and WCML was on the list given in the reply, but the Pembroke Dock branch wasn't. That means Pembroke Dock will need it's own micro-fleet, Intercity 125s or Intercity 225s (225s being what I propose).

    Using 225s for all Cheltenham and Carmarthen services, along with Swansea ones (possibly all of them) would allow the cost of expanding the gauge on the Severn Tunnel diversionary route and Swansea to Carmarthen (possibly SWA - CDF too) to take 26m coaches to be diverted to electrification. The work being done on the WCML to clear it for IEP would certainly be a candidate for cutting to pay for more extensive electrification, as a non-tilting IEP would probably not be able to keep time on most services. If anyone knows how much these gauge clearances would cost, that would be useful too.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: willc on April 16, 2011, 06:54:49 pm
    Quote
    gas guzzling IEP bi-modes

    Now let me see, in order to generate electricity, you need power stations, which guzzle lots of coal, gas, oil and uranium. Renewables make up a very small part of this country's generating capacity, so unless you're about to advocate spending billions more that we don't have on covering the countryside and ringing the coast with wind turbines, we will continue to have to have a spread of generating capacity, relying on fossil fuels, just like diesel traction, for years to come.

    Quote
    This would be a lot simpler if attaching a loco to electric IEPs at Oxford wasn't the impossibility you've informed me of.

    No-one ever said impossible, just difficult and time-consuming, as it would be at other stations where wires end, eg Leeds and Edinburgh, and where loco-release facilities and stabling sidings were torn out years ago because they were no longer needed. And your environmentally-friendly policy revolves, unless it has changed yet again in the past week, on using ancient diesels, with ancient engines, which guzzle lots of fuel.

    Quote
    since the hub of XC is Birmingham and Virgin also operate Voyagers there I'm guessing the Voyager depot is there

    Again, do some research. The depot is at Barton-under-Needwood - as far north-east of Birmingham as Worcester is south-west of it - ie lots of empty-running, again not environmentally-friendly.

    Quote
    The 9 220s replaced by the 9 221s from Virgin would be sent to the Cotswolds

    No thanks, we don't want trains with lots of large (smelly) toilets and cramped interiors with pitifully few seats. And you are forgetting the need to provide extra capacity on the London-Oxford leg, so you need trains that can operate together - and more than nine of them.

    Quote
    we need to avoid new diesel Intercity trains

    Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. Large parts of the network are not electrified, we still have no coherent plan to do more wiring, so you need to be realistic about the situation and that means that we will need to build some new trains with diesel engines.

    Quote
    IEP is a huge and dangerous compromise

    Dangerous in what way? If you mean carbon emissions, we may be no saints in this country but compared with the US and China, we most certainly are - those are the two countries most at fault and unsurprisingly, the two least inclined to clean up their acts. And as I pointed out last week, or was it the week before, the further wiring extends over the years, the fewer and fewer miles bi-modes would actually end up running on diesel anyway.

    Quote
    please don't try to claim bi-mode IEP is flawless. New Intercity diesel trains are undoubtedly a bad idea for the environment

    And who said it was flawless? No-one. We all recognise bi-mode is a compromise - your obsession with lumbering diesels dragging stuff around is just as much of a compromise, in case you hadn't noticed.

    Quote
    there probably simply isn't enough money available to do it all in one go

    Too right there isn't.

    Please forget wiring to Cheltenham - it's not going to happen until XC wiring, if that ever happens. The WAG is not going to pay for your fantasy wiring from Cardiff to Gloucester and the Goverment isn't going to pay to wire Swindon-Gloucester for an occasional weekend of diversions - in terms of passenger traffic, the Cotswold Line is more important than the London-Cheltenham route.

    Quote
    Does anyone know why the WCML is being gauge-cleared for IEP

    In earlier IEP plans, there was going to be a batch for Northampton-Euston fast trains, so it may be that DfT, being DafT, have forgotten this has been dropped, not that I can see there being any insuperable obstacles to operating a 26m coach on most of the WCML as it stands now anyway. Apart from the driving cars, all Class 390 Pendolino trailers are 23.9m long.

    As for Pembroke Dock and IC225, give it a rest.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on April 16, 2011, 07:28:48 pm
    Using us to write your 1st year thesis is getting extremely annoying / boring - can you at least engage brain & do some proper research rather than continually pick our brains & immediately ignore the advice?

    You are currently having a wet dream with the public purse and your rather fantastic ideas. Now go & read what those with experience write on other fora & ingest, rather than read ours & ignore! Try uk.rail on google groups.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: 6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01 on April 17, 2011, 12:01:45 am
    caugh caugh......moving on children


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Ollie on April 17, 2011, 01:43:37 am
    Using us to write your 1st year thesis is getting extremely annoying / boring - can you at least engage brain & do some proper research rather than continually pick our brains & immediately ignore the advice?

    You are currently having a wet dream with the public purse and your rather fantastic ideas. Now go & read what those with experience write on other fora & ingest, rather than read ours & ignore! Try uk.rail on google groups.

    The coffee shop is for discussion, and that is exactly what is being created. Just because you don't like what is being said doesn't give you the right to be outright rude to other members on this forum who are purely just putting forward an idea.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on April 17, 2011, 08:12:46 am
    Indeed, you are right. Mods, please remove my post & those that follow. Time to ignore, rather than bite.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: 6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01 on April 17, 2011, 10:54:10 am
    Can I just also add to the wcml comment on gauge clearance, could it not be freight?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on April 17, 2011, 05:11:51 pm
    This would be a lot simpler if attaching a loco to electric IEPs at Oxford wasn't the impossibility you've informed me of.

    No-one ever said impossible, just difficult and time-consuming, as it would be at other stations where wires end, eg Leeds and Edinburgh, and where loco-release facilities and stabling sidings were torn out years ago because they were no longer needed. And your environmentally-friendly policy revolves, unless it has changed yet again in the past week, on using ancient diesels, with ancient engines, which guzzle lots of fuel.

    The loss of engine release facilities is the real tradegy if it wasn't for this the DaFT wouldn't be coming up with the bi-mode.

    NSE at Cambridge used to do a swap 86 for 47 in 3 minutes. Coupling a loco on the front of an electric unit ought to be less than a mnute. Provided they have compatible auto couplers and software. As for the numbers involved a small build of new locos meeting the Euro emmission standards isn't going to be that expensive. Allegedly (third hand) Haywards Heath has joined two units in 14 seconds.

    Certainly at Hamm and Hanover where they join and split ICE 2 the rear unit comes up to stationary unit and couples staight up. They don't even shut the doors on the front unit.


    Another thought why aren't the 5 car IEPs going to be gangwayed throughout. 1 TM 1 caterer maybe even ubits with and without catering C(I)EPS and B(I)EPS..   I see no reason why an auto opening gangway could not be devised with suitable interlocks to lock the doors when the units separate and open them when the sets join..


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: willc on April 17, 2011, 06:07:27 pm
    Can I just also add to the wcml comment on gauge clearance, could it not be freight?

    Freight wagons have a completely different profile to passenger stock.

    Quote
    The loss of engine release facilities is the real tradegy if it wasn't for this the DaFT wouldn't be coming up with the bi-mode.

    Sorry? They've come up with it because many inter-city services run off the core lines that are to be electrified under current plans. Why on earth would the railway have retained costly engine release facilities when there were no engines to release? And while you can swop a loco/join units in a short time, you still have to do basic stuff like brake tests before moving off, so it isn't quite so quick. Gangwayed sets are a no-no because of the strength needed at the front of the train to protect the passenger compartment in case of a crash at high speed. 

     
    Quote
    a small build of new locos

    Find me a manufacturer that wants to build a small batch of diesel locos to a peculiar loading gauge which are able to handle a demanding duty cycle of constant stops and starts like the Cotswold Line - and again I question how small this batch would be, given the numbers that would actually be needed just to operate an hourly service out to Worcester/Malvern/Hereford, never mind any of the other places off the wires, along with the economics of a loco hauling around five-coach trains all the time. There is a reason why railways everywhere are going over to multiple unit operation.



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on April 17, 2011, 06:08:50 pm
    The problem with set to set connecting corridors is in part the aerodynamic shaped front end required for a 125+ train also currently there are no connecting corridor trains that are passed to run over 100mph.

    There is more to just a set of engine release sidings such locations would require crew rest rooms and could even require booking on points, its not only DfT that want bimode the ToCs would not want the coupling uncoupling of locos for such a short run as London Oxford


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on April 17, 2011, 06:15:51 pm
    I've seen the flip side where auto-coupling and uncoupling has failed.

    Last year at Haywards Heath I saw two units fail to separate and one service was caped with the rear unit dragged empty to Brighton.

    Also at Bristol Temple Meads some months back I watched 2 x XC Voyagers try for over 40 mins to couple. The process appeared to be to gradually bump noses harder and harder! Staff eventually de-trained everyone in the front unit and they then had further attempts with increasingly hard bumps, but the couplers weren't having it. No matter which unit was driven into the other they just wouldn't marry. Crew gave up in the end and I heard that the second unit ran in a relief path behind the first as far as Derby.

    I'd be seriously concerned about reliability following any attempt to retrofit ageing diesel locos with auto-coupling gear. Or the waste of money that a new build small fleet of diesel locos whose only purpose is to drag units away from the wires. Much rather see a seemless switch from overhead to onboard diesel power.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: 6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01 on April 17, 2011, 06:19:56 pm
    Quote from me
    Quote
    Can I just also add to the wcml comment on gauge clearance, could it not be freight?

    Quote from willc
    Quote
    Freight wagons have a completely different profile to passenger stock.

    will, you didn't really read what i wrote or read the posts above it then did you?

    or maybe you did, are you confirming that the wcml has had gauge clearance for freight due to the difference in profile compared to passenger stock

    or do you not actually know?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: willc on April 17, 2011, 11:55:58 pm
    I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. According to Rhydgaled, DfT specifically said the WCML would be cleared for use by IEP - and I was suggesting that this could be accounted for by the previous plan to use IEP on Northampton fasts, which is no longer happening - it is perfectly possible they may not have updated the route clearance paperwork to reflect that change of plan yet. And that wouldn't be surprising given how many times the project has changed over the years.

    If the person responding for DfT just looked for references to WCML gauge clearance generally, then they would have found lots of stuff about W10 gauge clearance, which has been carried out all the way to Glasgow - but that is to allow 9ft 6in containers on standard flat wagons, and clearance for these would be neither here nor there in terms of passenger stock, which has a different profile, being lower, longer, with stepboards, etc. The key point about W10 is providing clearance at the top of the train to accommodate the containers. A standard container flat is 60ft, so much shorter than a 23.9m or 26m coach, and a container flat and its load is narrower than a passenger coach's body.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: 6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01 on April 18, 2011, 12:39:23 am
    thank you for clearing that up will, i was simply asking a question about someone else's post,and at the time of reading your first reply i may have taken it the wrong way for which i am sorry


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on April 28, 2011, 10:08:06 am
    Further article in the south wales evening post today about the DFT deciding not to extend the wires to Swansea:

    http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/MP-alleges-weaknesses-rail-electrification-findings/article-3497799-detail/article.html



    I do hope either the DFT change their minds or the welsh assembly  can find the money for it as it would enable a reduction in the number of Bi-mode IEP's with more 8 carriage emu's being ordered


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on April 28, 2011, 10:26:14 am
    Can't be long before the order is placed, can it?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: willc on April 28, 2011, 10:59:31 am
    No desperate urgency, since the first trains aren't needed for four years or so, to start testing ahead of 2016 entry into service, so still wriggle room to see if they can stitch up a deal to wire to Swansea in conjunction with Valley Lines electrification. Last month all the DfT did was reconfirm Hitachi/Agility as preferred bidder and the reopening of negotiations with them on a contract. Indication was this and Agility putting finance in place would take most of the rest of this year.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on April 28, 2011, 11:03:47 am
    Agility have just confirmed that their will be three (diesel) engines under a 5car dual-mode IEP.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on April 28, 2011, 11:51:02 am
    Part of the problem with running the wires to Swansea is Signaling and Telecoms systems imunisation, however there are plans to resignal the Swansea / Cardiff line but this is a little way off, it will be started until after the GWML effected by electrification is done. 

    A few other things may speed up the full electrification to Swansea; the political will of the Welsh Assembly post the elections next week, the GW franchise tendering process, the future of Network Rail (if NR becomes history the future cohesion of electrification and resignalling could become history too)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: willc on April 28, 2011, 11:56:09 am
    I'm not aware they had ever said (since the announcement at the start of March) that it wouldn't have three engines.

    And here's an interesting one for the proponents of a big locomotive with a big diesel engine. DB has just ordered 20 new diesel locos, with an option for up to 180 more - with four small engines in them. http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/db-regio-orders-multi-engine-traxx-diesel-locomotives.html


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on April 28, 2011, 12:06:40 pm
    Odd then that their website merntions a change in spec. Looks as though you missed that.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on April 28, 2011, 12:16:47 pm
    Agility have just confirmed that their will be three (diesel) engines under a 5car dual-mode IEP.

    Odd then that their website merntions a change in spec. Looks as though you missed that.

    ChrisB. Rather than post information without sources and then follow it up with a snidey, 'I know something you don't' post, how about providing a url?

    I've looked at Agility Trains' (http://www.agilitytrains.com/index.htm) website and am struggling to find the information you are referring to.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on May 02, 2011, 07:03:36 pm
    You're right, I thought they'd have added it by now. I was talking to an Agility rep at a conference.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on May 02, 2011, 07:12:52 pm
    You're right, I thought they'd have added it by now. I was talking to an Agility rep at a conference.
    There's the down fall a "rep" and not a design engineer or project manager


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on May 02, 2011, 07:16:57 pm
    He was involved in the project.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: woody on May 02, 2011, 10:26:38 pm
    According to the latest May 2011 ^Modern Railway^ magazine in a speech during a visit to Swansea on April 1st,Prime Minister David Cameron said that he was looking at extending the wires to Swansea.The mags ^Informed Sources^column says that Cardiff-Swansea could be wired for well under ^100million,the cost saving of fewer bi-modes covering the return on investment and adding that with 45 bi-modes in the March 1st announcement the minimum viable quantity there is all to play for.
      Also it says Network Rail is debating the location for commissioning its electrification factory train due in 2013 known with the acronym HOOP(High Output Overhead-line Plant) with one suggestion that it be used on the Cardiff-Swansea line with the commissioning budget helping to partially offsett the cost of electrification there.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on May 03, 2011, 05:18:32 am
    That was originally a suggestion on ukrail newsgroup.

    MR journos monitor there for their editorial....


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on May 03, 2011, 05:32:42 pm
    And similar suggestions have been made across many rail forums.

    Do you not think Roger Ford might actually be talking to people in the industry who wish to remain off the record rather than just picking up speculation from the internet.

    ChrisB, you do a great disservice to Modern Railway's journalists by suggesting their editorial is gleaned from internet speculation.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on May 03, 2011, 05:35:53 pm
    It's true, though. I have caught them out several times specific to FGW. Where he's printed something incorrectly, and FGW tell you that he hasn't checked in with them.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on May 03, 2011, 05:37:22 pm
    Perhaps because someone in FGW is speaking off the record?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bobm on May 03, 2011, 05:56:18 pm
    I think Roger Ford built his reputation long before the Internet. Now insiders know they can trust him "off the record".


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on May 03, 2011, 06:37:17 pm
    If that's the case (and i'm sure he is is briefed off-record at times) on these occasions I'm referring to, then he was fed incorrect info. More likely, picked it up from ukr, as that's where I'd also read it prior to it appearing in MR.


    Not sure what the deadline-to-newstand timeframe is, but he's been caught out 2 or 3 times recently (last 9 months or so) - and the info couldn't have changed in that time. He rarely prints corrections in following pieces either, where he's made errors.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on May 05, 2011, 11:36:45 am
    Are you suggesting he should rename his articles to 'Misinformed Sources'?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on May 05, 2011, 11:57:01 am
     :P :P


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on May 05, 2011, 12:00:04 pm
    I thought this was about GWML electrification!.
    Lets cut out this nonsense blagging of one against the other and only put in news about the electrification plans.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: FarWestJohn on May 06, 2011, 11:26:24 am
    Some very interesting technical information here on GW electrification:

    "In an exclusive and wide-ranging interview, our editor Grahame Taylor has been talking with Peter Dearman, Network Rail^s Head of Network Electrification."

    http://www.rail.co/2011/04/28/electrification-delivering-the-transformation/


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on May 06, 2011, 01:08:58 pm
    Some very interesting technical information here on GW electrification:

    "In an exclusive and wide-ranging interview, our editor Grahame Taylor has been talking with Peter Dearman, Network Rail^s Head of Network Electrification."

    http://www.rail.co/2011/04/28/electrification-delivering-the-transformation/

    Peter Dearman cut his teeth on the East Coast electrification in the 1980's he was the Area Electrification Engineer for the whole of the ECML in the 90's when all other routes such as the WCML 5

    If Network Rail (so long as it survives) can get the GWML done on time and to or below cost then that will ensure more routes are electrified, this article outlines the difficulties there are with electrifying a railway it is not just a simple matter of banging masts in the ground


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on May 06, 2011, 01:22:25 pm
    Yet more confirmation from someone who knows what he's on about that the Severn Tunnel is not a problem

    Bet it doesn't stop posts in various forums claiming that it isn't possible though...   ;D

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Chris from Nailsea on May 06, 2011, 06:28:41 pm
    See also http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=3633.msg28413#msg28413 from 2008 ... ::)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: onthecushions on May 11, 2011, 12:23:08 am

    I was interested to read that one of the Feeder Stations/GSP's is to be at Melksham !

    Will the feed to Thingley go overhead ?

    Hope Grahame is pleased.

    OTC


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on May 11, 2011, 07:02:25 am

    I was interested to read that one of the Feeder Stations/GSP's is to be at Melksham !

    Will the feed to Thingley go overhead ?

    Hope Grahame is pleased.

    OTC
    The Grid site may well be at Melksham as there is a convenient Grid site, the 50kV (+25 / 0 / -25) feeder cables will I suspect be laid in the public highway, across private land (wayleave) and or along the railway in trough route to a railway feeder station, this is actually a very typical way the existing 25kV railways are fed the Grid site being several miles away from the railway.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Cruithne3753 on May 11, 2011, 06:02:49 pm
    I'm curious about the details of where the wires will go... will EMUs be able to run between Bristol and Cardiff?  How far SW from Temple Meads will they go for commuter trains etc or have these not been finalised yet?  Are there any "blow up" maps?  All I've seen just show the overview.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ZoŽ on May 11, 2011, 06:05:08 pm
    How far SW from Temple Meads will they go for commuter trains etc or have these not been finalised yet?  Are there any "blow up" maps?  All I've seen just show the overview.
    Under the current plan the wires will end at Bristol, commuter trains to Weston and Taunton will remain DMU operated.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on May 11, 2011, 06:17:16 pm
    And EMU's would be able to run Bristol to Cardiff as the Temple Meads to Patchway diversionary route is being electrified.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on May 11, 2011, 08:09:34 pm
    I believe the only EMU services planned are the Thames / Kennett Valley with cascaded 319's from Thameslink, I have not heard of any proposals to use EMUs in the Bristol / Cardiff area.  The thing about electrification is once it hits an area the TOC's want to make more use of it so my guess is the business case will be made to extend the wires and operate EMUs


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Tim on May 17, 2011, 10:43:28 am
    There might be a case to split Cardiff-Pompy at BRI and use EMUs for the electrified bit


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on May 17, 2011, 10:46:39 am
    People won't want to change trains....


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on May 17, 2011, 10:56:59 am
    Wasn't FGW  & network rail etc looking at the possibility if they could be cleared for the route to use the class 166's on the Cardiff - Portsmouth Services?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on May 17, 2011, 12:43:51 pm
    News to me.....rumours abound though.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on May 17, 2011, 02:18:53 pm
    Wasn't FGW  & network rail etc looking at the possibility if they could be cleared for the route to use the class 166's on the Cardiff - Portsmouth Services?

    Yes - it has been mentioned in the various Network Rail annual 'route business plans' for three or four years now, and has definitely been discussed in this forum before.  So it's more than a rumour. 

    It would require appropriate gauge clearance though.  The subject is usually raised in the context of how the 165/6 cannot possibly be used anywhere away from their current routes; however I'd point out that they were recently cleared between Redhill and Selhurst, and between Basingstoke and Guildford via Woking, in the run up to last Christmas's diversions.  Ths didn't appear to require any significant structure work, so it shouldn't be assumed there would be any major problems anywhere else.

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Tim on May 17, 2011, 02:47:37 pm
    People won't want to change trains....

    I agree, but I suspect that we might long term see service pattern changes.  The ability to run EMUs from Cardiff to Taunton would strengthen the case for electrification beyond Bristol


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: devon_metro on May 17, 2011, 02:48:29 pm
    People won't want to change trains....

    The main flows end at Bristol though. Whenever I travel on Portsmouth/Cardiff services I always join and leave at Bristol, and it seems the majority of passengers do the same.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on May 17, 2011, 03:00:50 pm
    So you make the case for not wiring BRI to Taunton then....


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bobm on May 17, 2011, 06:06:36 pm
    I've often wondered what the problem with the 165/166s is when it comes to gauge clearance. They seem to operate on a fairly wide cross section of routes at the moment. What's the main issue regarding them working further afield?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on May 17, 2011, 06:24:37 pm
    So you make the case for not wiring BRI to Taunton then....

    I don't see the point of stopping the wires at Tauton it gives no real operation advantage except for local EMU's serving stations to Bristol and Cardiff.

    You'd still be looking at diesel or bi mode for services fro Exeter and beyond fro both FGW and  XC services.

    The logical places to stop the wires from Bristol are Exmouth, Paignton and Plymouth. With Berks and Hants infill.

    Just think of diesel you'd save on the Devon banks. 4000hp at top revs must suck in an awful lot of precious fuel.

    Having got to Plymouth then Penzance plus the Cornish branches must be the next goal. To basically eliminate diesel West of Plymouth.

    As the line speeds are basically low it must be possible to use a lighter catenery than for London to Bristol and therefore reduce the overall cost.

    I just hope Network rail can electrify the GWML to budget and ontime so that there is enough confidence to allow the electrification teams to just keep going West.

    That's why loco haulage with swaps between Diesel and Electric locos makes sense the changover moves as the wires progress.



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on May 17, 2011, 06:33:15 pm
    I've often wondered what the problem with the 165/166s is when it comes to gauge clearance. They seem to operate on a fairly wide cross section of routes at the moment. What's the main issue regarding them working further afield?

    Personally, I think I'd file it under railway myths. 

    As has been discussed fairly regularly elsewhere, there is a world of difference between 'can't be cleared' and 'hasn't been cleared yet'. 

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on May 17, 2011, 06:40:08 pm
    When steam still reigned supreme GW outside cylinder locos such as Halls and Granges were banned form Salisbury to Easleigh and Southampton whilst they were cleared for Reading to Bournemouth and Portsmouth (via Botley).

    Something to do with tight clearance by platfoms. Hence GW engines were taken off at Salisbury and an ancient T9 took their place. If you lucky you might have got a West Country.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on May 18, 2011, 09:12:12 am
    It's a matter of clearance - and paying for platforms / bridges / possibly tunnels to be altered.

    There was mention of the possibility of turbos to Westbury during the next Reading blockade, so that may be where they start.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Rhydgaled on May 19, 2011, 01:21:24 am
    I've often wondered what the problem with the 165/166s is when it comes to gauge clearance. They seem to operate on a fairly wide cross section of routes at the moment. What's the main issue regarding them working further afield?

    Personally, I think I'd file it under railway myths. 

    As has been discussed fairly regularly elsewhere, there is a world of difference between 'can't be cleared' and 'hasn't been cleared yet'. 

    Paul
    165/166s are supposedly slightly wider than other stock. I've found the following material that may be helpful to this discussion:
    • RSSB - T787 (http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/research/T787_rb2_final.pdf)
    • Might be the same as the above, but has a different filename (http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/research/T787_rb_final.pdf)
    • RSSB - T787 Appendix B-G - This is the big one. (http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/research/T787_appsB_G_final.pdf)

    Note particularly:
    Quote
    The Class 166 has the most limited alternative deployment because of its wider body profile. The Class 166 was built for use on Great Western routes, historically built to a wider gauge
    From the maps, (if I'm interpereting them correctly) it looks like a small area east and north of Newcastle could be a suitable location for deployment (picked that one out because it isn't in the GW region and may help Northern replace Pacers). I'd suggest putting them on Bristol - Taunton myself (after electrifcation, which might split CDF - Taunton at Bristol) but the maps seem to suggest they will not fit on that route.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on May 19, 2011, 02:09:38 am
    Interesting links, Rhydgaled, thanks.

    Though one thing struck me, and that's how many more routes are suddenly opened up to Turbos (and other traction) should these 10% or less structures be modified.  All sorts of opportunities are then opened up such are sending them to ATW to work the Aberystwyth services leading to 158's being transferred to strengthen Pompey to Cardiff services. Just an example by the way! 

    Though, forgive me for being a little pessimistic on the accuracy of the report, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to why the route profile of 165's is different to 166's though?  And how come Turbos have visited Weymouth and Llandudno over the years on excursion trains, when all routes to those destinations are, according to the diagrams, red for no-go?  Anyone?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on May 19, 2011, 08:16:28 am
    Though, forgive me for being a little pessimistic on the accuracy of the report, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to why the route profile of 165's is different to 166's though?  And how come Turbos have visited Weymouth and Llandudno over the years on excursion trains, when all routes to those destinations are, according to the diagrams, red for no-go?  Anyone?
    It might be they are cleared at reduced speed that may be ok for an excursion but not acceptable for normal service.

    Not all the 165/6's will be released post the TV area GWML electrification the branches (Greenford, Windsor, Marlow, Henley) will remain diesel like wise North Downs, Reading Basingstoke, beyond Newbury to Great Bedwin, I would guess perhaps 50% of the fleet will remain in the TV area.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on May 19, 2011, 09:35:54 am
    Indeed, along with 15 or so HSTs to run the PLY/PNZ services.

    It's the cost of platform & bridge clearance that is the concern. With zero money in the coffers to do this, it again goes back to the DfT to 'allow' these costs to be offset within a project.

    For example, the Reading re-modelling might be used to get clearances for turbos to run beyond Bedwyn.....if the HST was proving to be expensive to run & not carrying many passengers.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ZoŽ on May 19, 2011, 09:54:33 am
    For example, the Reading re-modelling might be used to get clearances for turbos to run beyond Bedwyn
    165s/166s are already cleared as far as Castle Cary.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on May 19, 2011, 09:59:34 am
    Indeed, they could go further....


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ZoŽ on May 19, 2011, 10:04:16 am
    Indeed, they could go further....
    Not sure you'd get them through the Dawlish tunnels though so would rule out use in the Westcountry even though they would be suitable for regional services there.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on May 19, 2011, 10:10:38 am
    Tunnels & bridges would need work, indeed.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Tim on May 19, 2011, 11:49:02 am
    Interesting links, Rhydgaled, thanks.
    I'm at a bit of a loss as to why the route profile of 165's is different to 166's though? 

    Only thing I can think of is that the 166s have "sticking out" bits of air conditioning units?  Or does the extra weight of the air con units (at the top of the train making them a bit top heavy?) cause them to sit lower on their suspension or bounce about the track a bit more?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on May 19, 2011, 04:54:24 pm
    I recall that many years ago the Class 165/6 Thames Turbos were sometimes sent to Eastleigh for some maintenance work that could not be carried out at Reading. It was necessary to remove all the steps at the carriage doors as they would otherwise have fouled some platforms on the way to Eastleigh. Of course it was possible to do this because they were running empty stock out of service.
    CLPG also ran a charter train from Thames Trains using a Class 166 Turbo on 14 June 1997 to Weymouth and I don't recall any clearance problems for that trip. There is a picture of the Turbo at weymouth station at http://www.clpg.co.uk/sptrns3.htm


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on May 19, 2011, 05:17:06 pm
    The point I was trying to make (when mentioning Redhill - Selhurst and Guildford - Woking - Basingstoke) is that infrastructure problems may not be anything like as much of a stopper as some people believe.  The above routes are presumably not built to GW greater clearances - but was any physical work done to clear the stock?  None that I heard of.

    Removing stop boards used to be required for 442s en route to Ilford on the NLL - but it could be anything between one platform edge or all of them, as an example.

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on May 19, 2011, 05:18:36 pm
    PLatform edges, bridges & tunnels are the likely problems


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bobm on May 19, 2011, 05:39:44 pm
    Don't HSTs have a problem when diverted onto the Reading-Waterloo line. I remember reading somewhere that they had issues with some platform edges. Not sure what they did about it.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on May 19, 2011, 05:40:37 pm
    Indeed, and of the three Chris has listed, only tunnels present problems that are likely to be too costly to solve, especially as Paul points out, if it's only the odd structure on the route.  Taking some stone cutters to the odd bit of platform edge really isn't prohibitively expensive.  That's where the difference in the 'current' and 'with less than 10% of structures modified' graphs are interesting as, at a guess, more than double the route mileage suddenly opens up.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: coachflyer on May 19, 2011, 05:47:40 pm
    Mark Hopwood stated in a staff meet the MD session at Reading this week that if they won the franchise that they might be prepared to pay for the electrification of the Greenford, Henley and Windsor branches. Marlow would be a problem due to the length of trains that can get from Bourne End to Marlow. Also the feasibility of doing the infill of third rail to Gatwick.

    He also stated that the type of stock to be used has not yet been confirmed with discussions ongoing about possibly ordering new trains with the 380's now arriving at Scot Rail being mentioned.



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on May 19, 2011, 06:13:04 pm
    Don't HSTs have a problem when diverted onto the Reading-Waterloo line. I remember reading somewhere that they had issues with some platform edges. Not sure what they did about it.

    They didn't do anything about it IIRC - certainly the recent diversions avoided the significant problem areas on the route, such as at Ascot. 

    Distilled from various discussions elsewhere, the main problem is almost certainly just the access ladders on the power car leading bogies.  There are a number of platforms on the Reading to Virginia Water section where HSTs are limited to little more than walking pace.

    Not part of your question bobm, but to save another post I've just remembered something about step boards regarding the SN 377/2s, the dual voltage units used temporarily on Thameslink a couple of years ago.  In this case the units were out of gauge somewhere, so they had the stepboards replaced with a set a couple of centimetres narrower.  Just as an example of what can be done to gauge clear otherwise unusable stock.  For an ECS trip to a depot you would just remove fouling stepboards, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is foul of gauge, it could be a matter of millimetres - so it would be cost effective to alter if stock was being moved for passenger use somewhere.

    Paul 


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on September 26, 2011, 06:13:43 pm
    A new story about electrification west of cardiff:

    http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/09/26/case-for-electrifying-railways-slammed-as-flawed-over-omissions-91466-29485757/



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on September 26, 2011, 06:24:24 pm
    A further IEP depot to be built @ Swansea, according to a FGW brief


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on September 26, 2011, 06:43:07 pm
    That would make sense.  There's about 8 HST's serviced there every night so you wouldn't want that many IEP's having to come ECS from Cardiff or Bristol every morning!


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Rhydgaled on September 26, 2011, 08:35:37 pm
    A further IEP depot to be built @ Swansea, according to a FGW brief

    All I've read in the past is new stabling sidings for IEP at Swansea, no mention of an actual depot. I think the source wasn't a FGW brief though, so maybe you're quoting new information.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on September 26, 2011, 09:36:06 pm
    Agility submitted a planning application to the local council last week, is the news that FGW passed on. Mayve a search of the council's planning srction on their website?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: homsar on October 07, 2011, 10:35:39 pm
    Agility submitted a planning application to the local council last week, is the news that FGW passed on. Mayve a search of the council's planning srction on their website?

    You mean something like this (http://www2.swansea.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=600604&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/swansea_noborder/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/swansea_noborder/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNING)?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on October 08, 2011, 09:14:41 pm
    Thank you for that link, homsar. And a very warm welcome to the Coffee Shop.  :)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: homsar on October 09, 2011, 01:44:34 pm
    You're welcome! I've been stalking this thread for over a year, and I live in Swansea (and have recently browsed planning applications for other reasons), so thought I could finally contribute something back :)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Chris from Nailsea on October 09, 2011, 07:49:41 pm
    Much appreciated.  ;)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ellendune on November 15, 2011, 11:06:28 pm
    Electrifcation depot to be at Swindon

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-15743070 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-15743070)

    Quote
    A ^3m factory train depot is to be built in Swindon as part of Network Rail's ^800m plan to electrify the line from London Paddington to Cardiff.

    The new depot will house a ^55m "factory train" which it is said will install overhead power lines along the track with the "minimum of disruption".

    A new independent business unit to "take control of the renewed Western route" will also be based in Swindon.

    Patrick Hallgate, from Network Rail, said it was ideally located.

    Mr Hallgate, Network Rail Western's new route managing director, said: "Swindon is our regional head quarters.

    "We've got about 500 staff here and control all aspects of the route from Paddington down to Penzance.

    "The factory train allows us to put the wires up in the air at a speed which allows us to run trains and minimise disruption throughout the years which the project is being undertaken.

    "And Swindon is ideally located - it's in the middle of the route and it allows us to get from one end to the other causing minimum disruption."


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on November 15, 2011, 11:13:09 pm
    Quote
    "And Swindon is ideally located - it's in the middle of the route....."

    Precisely the reason Brunel and Gooch sited their Locomotive & Carriage Works there. Shows that there aren't really any new ideas.......

    Good news for Swindon, but will it lead to some sort of permanent facility?



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on November 16, 2011, 06:21:21 am
    NR already have a major office there - are you referring to a works depot?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on November 16, 2011, 09:31:46 am
    Another good reasion to restore the Wilts and Berks and North Wilts canals to bring supplies for the factory train!


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on November 16, 2011, 11:13:36 am
    Why not simply bring them by rail?....(sorry)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on November 17, 2011, 11:08:43 am
    Canal or rail doesn't matter both are good, but I do wonder just how much stuff will come via the M4


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bobm on November 17, 2011, 11:23:14 am
    They also had a refreshment stop for all trains at Swindon - although that wasn't so popular!


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on November 23, 2011, 08:03:57 am
    I'm surprised they've not chosen Moreton Cutting as an electrification depot still seems an ideal place already flat.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ellendune on November 23, 2011, 08:17:48 pm
    I thought that was where they were relocating the High Output Depot from Reading.  would there have been room for both?



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on November 23, 2011, 09:10:33 pm
    I'm surprised they've not chosen Moreton Cutting as an electrification depot still seems an ideal place already flat.
    Swindon is better placed as it is in the middle, Brunel was a cleaver chap putting his works there, its called revolution .............. of the wheel its just coming full circle the more complex areas to do tunnels etc are in the West.  Also when the Cardiff Valley lines are done and should Bristol Exeter be considered it will be well placed


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: John R on November 27, 2011, 01:00:14 pm
    I attended a very interesting presentation last Thursday by Tony Hegarty of NR, who is in charge of the signalling part of the GW upgrade. Much of what he said would be familiar but the following might be of interest (in no particular order). His talk didn't cover west of the Severn Tunnel.

    Resignalling to be complete by Dec 15, with the Temple Meads area last. There has been a step change in technology over the last couple of years, so even the original installations in the TV Signalling Centre are now several times larger than the latest kit. 

    Swindon to Kemble Redoubling (S2K) will be completed in April 14, aligning with the transfer of Swindon East to TVSC.
     
    Wiring to start Jan 14 in the Didcot area, and to be complete in just over two years, with Bristol area being the latest, finishing mid 16.

    New trains in timetable service Dec 16.

    Filton Bank will be four tracked after the wiring is put in place (ie wires with no tracks underneath!), and will need a new viaduct over the M32.

    All relief lines will be electrified (although the diagram on the floor of the room showed that most freight loops will remain unelectrified, though those at Bathampton and between Swindon and Didcot would be).

    The lines into Portbury and Avonmouth will be electrified, as it's a requirement of making the route fit for european freight operators. Though he then contradicted himself by saying that NR was reluctant to do them until they had a firm commitment from users that they would use electric traction.

    98 bridges etc will need replacing, although most Brunel structures are OK, it's the ones added subsequently which will go.

    There has been a directive from on high regarding the use of much lighter signalling structures. So no more foundations the size of a small family car. One gantry can cost over ^1m, and this will be reduced by at least 60%.

    Most signals will remain in place, given that cost of moving them and the limited time before ETRM is implemented. On that subject, apparently the problem with drivers on the Cambrian was solved by changing their shirts from white to blue!!

    Hope this is of interest.   


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on November 27, 2011, 04:00:29 pm
    If the wires do go to Portbury, they should hurry up and get the Portishead branch re-opened and wired as well.

    I wouldnt mind a service between Portishead & Bristol Parkway.

    If they do wire to Avonmouth I wonder if the line to Severn beach will also be done, stupid if it isn't.



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: BerkshireBugsy on November 27, 2011, 05:43:09 pm

    98 bridges etc will need replacing, although most Brunel structures are OK, it's the ones added subsequently which will go.


    That was of great interest - particulary the paragraph above, which confirms my theory that IKB did have a crystal ball after all.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Chris from Nailsea on November 27, 2011, 08:51:47 pm
    Yes, indeed: thanks very much for that extremely interesting report, John R.  ;)

    I agree with BerkshireBugsy - IKB did indeed build his GWR with future-proofing included!  ;D


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on November 29, 2011, 01:18:19 am
    Thanks for that update, John.

    98 bridges etc will need replacing, although most Brunel structures are OK, it's the ones added subsequently which will go.

    Looks like some of those structures will get the treatment imminently.  I've counted 5 structures where there are civil engineering gangs present preparing for some serious works on bridges soon, two of which are Brunel structures I think.

    Not sure that it's directly connected to the electrification programme, but there's the footbridge at Kennington, a minor road bridge at Lower Basildon, the western and easternmost of the four bridges at Purley, and also one of the minor road bridges at White Waltham.

    The Westbury Lane bridge at Purley (the westernmost of the bridges there) has been mentioned before when there was controversy over dismantling it following local complaints.  http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5783.0  (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5783.0)  It clearly wasn't necessary for the W10 enhancements that were stated at the time - work to lower the track took place instead, but it looks like it's about to get the treatment now!

    Meanwhile, there's still no sign of any work on the bridge at South Stoke, between Cholsey and Goring that has had a temporary bridge installed next to it for well over a year now and in the process mystified Paul and myself!



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on November 30, 2011, 06:30:05 pm
    Looks like some of those structures will get the treatment imminently.  I've counted 5 structures where there are civil engineering gangs present preparing for some serious works on bridges soon, two of which are Brunel structures I think.

    Not sure that it's directly connected to the electrification programme, but there's the footbridge at Kennington, a minor road bridge at Lower Basildon, the western and easternmost of the four bridges at Purley, and also one of the minor road bridges at White Waltham.

    All those bridges you have listed are being dealt with as part of the pre works for electrification.

    I have been to an internal briefing recently where the program for GWML was covered and a number of other schemes nationally, I can not go into to much detail as some of it is commercially sensitive.

    The GWML electrification is ramping up at a fast pace


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on December 01, 2011, 12:36:02 am
    All those bridges you have listed are being dealt with as part of the pre works for electrification.

    Thanks for confirming that.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on December 09, 2011, 04:57:54 pm
    Just seen this posted on another forum:

    http://www.rail.co/2011/12/09/alstom-in-talks-to-construct-pendolinos-for-intercity-express-programme/

    If they do decide to order some pendolino's then they should at least have bigger windows and a less cramped interior.

    If this does prove to be the case of Alstom' pendolino's being ordered for the GWML and East Coast then I hope some sense has been seen at the DFT and the wires go to Cheltenham, Swansea etc like it should have been from the start.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on December 09, 2011, 06:34:52 pm
    If they do decide to order some pendolino's they at least have much bigger windows and a less cramped interior.

    That doesn't make sense.  ??? Surely what you meant was IF they ordered Pendolinos they would need to have bigger windows and a less cramped interior then existing.  But to do that they couldn't have a tilt profile, and then they wouldn't be Pendolinos - they'd just be an Alstom 125 mph EMU...

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on December 09, 2011, 06:46:21 pm
    Yes that is what I mean't, I didn't spot that error.


    I have noticed that part of the article has been taken down and is now only talking  about pendolino's on the east coast mainline.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on December 09, 2011, 07:56:40 pm
    Quite a major change isn't it - no mention of IEP at all now.  For them to change it that quickly is a fair sign that the author must have 'got it a bit wrong'.  Some might say made it up.  :o

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on December 09, 2011, 08:06:26 pm
    Meanwhile, there's still no sign of any work on the bridge at South Stoke, between Cholsey and Goring that has had a temporary bridge installed next to it for well over a year now and in the process mystified Paul and myself!

    To correct myself there as there's clearly a lot of activity there now - including a line marking on the bridge in spray paint where presumably the original brickwork will remain below, with a new concrete flat span stuck onto the top in the same style as the two bridges east of Didcot and the one at Hinksey, south of Oxford.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on December 09, 2011, 09:23:35 pm
    It seems to me that they must have discovered that track lowering could deal with W10 gauge fairly late in the day, subsequent to setting up the worksite,  but immediately worked out that electrification clearance couldn't be achieved as well.

    So, the $64000 question.  Can they really re-use a planning application for gauge clearance to rebuild a bridge for electrification...

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on December 09, 2011, 10:17:21 pm
    Found the story on another website:

    http://thecomfytrain.co.uk/2011/12/09/alstom-%e2%80%98in-talks%e2%80%99-to-construct-pendolinos-for-intercity-express-programme/

    As someone has said with all the problems with the euro whats to stop Hitachi changing their minds and walking away.

    Also with the Governemnt wanting to drive down cost's and the non tilt Pendolino's costing far less than the bi-mode IEP  then I think I can guess which option the  DFT would take.



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on December 09, 2011, 10:45:04 pm
    There is little to be gained in speed on the GWML by using Pendolino's even on the ECML there is not as much gain as there was on the WCML.  If they are used on the ECML a device called a damper (electrical suppressor) was fitted on the WCML about every 10 miles before the Pendolino's started operation unless the new build Pendolino's are fitted with these the ECML will need them and possibly the GWML.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Rhydgaled on December 09, 2011, 11:21:18 pm
    Given that alot of GWML and ECML are straight enough for 125/140mph running anyway I can't see tilting Pendolinos being much use with East Coast or Great Western apart from perhaps Newcastle - Edinbrough. For tilt to be useful on Great Western, you'd probablly have to electrify to Plymouth (via Westbury) which as a wild guess might actually cut journey times significantly.

    Basicly though, once you've paid the extra for a train that tilts, wouldn't a plain-electric, 23m carriage length, version of IEP be cheaper and give you basicly the same result?

    And why does that article say a replacment for East Coast's Intercity 225s is needed in the next few years? Surely, since they have decided they can make Intercity 125s disability compliant (including power doors) and refurbish them so they go on until they are 60 years old, they can make class 91s and mark 4s go on until at least 2040, if not 2050. That should also be cheaper than new trains and, since mark 4s are probablly pretty close to disabililty compliance anyway, cheaper than the necessary Intercity 125 life-extension (of course they could just exempt 125s from having to have power doors to reduce life-extension costs).


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: woody on December 09, 2011, 11:47:40 pm
    Pendelinos come in a non tilt version as well.The Polish operator PKP Intercity, in charge of long distance passenger transport, has awarded Alstom a contract worth ^665 million to supply 20 New Pendolino non titing high speed trains.
    http://www.rail.co/2011/05/31/alstom-to-supply-20-new-pendolino-trains-for-pkp-intercity/
    The new Pendolino trains come in two versions. Trains with a bodyshell width of 2,830mm are suitable for UIC track (1,400mm).Trains with a bodyshell width of 3,200mm are manufactured for wide tracks (1,500mm).Also the new Pendolino trains are claimed to be 95% recyclable. The electric brake systems save up to 8% of energy consumed. Alstom says about 97% of the power is recycled and fed back into the catenary system.Compared to IEP you get more train for your bucks and therefore can justify wiring up enough miles to kill that shortsighted IEP Bi-mode train stone dead before we live to regret it.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on December 09, 2011, 11:58:50 pm
    The new Pendolinos' proposed for the Great western and East coast routes are likely to have  the same traction equipment as the class 390's however they will have similar bodywork to the class 180's.

    as for the class 91's I am sure 1 problems is getting the parts for them, as it would cost a lot of money to overhaul/re-build them.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Rhydgaled on December 10, 2011, 10:04:35 am
    The new Pendolinos' proposed for the Great western and East coast routes are likely to have  the same traction equipment as the class 390's however they will have similar bodywork to the class 180's.
    If the trains offered have class 180 bodywork, wouldn't they be considered part of the Cordia family rather than Pendolino? Anyway, an EMU version of the class 180, if cheaper than an EMU version of Hitachi's IEP, does sound like a good idea. If so, I hope they design a nicer looking nose for the train than the 180 one though, any chance of a 180 with a Voyager-like front end design?

    Quote
    as for the class 91's I am sure 1 problems is getting the parts for them, as it would cost a lot of money to overhaul/re-build them.
    Well, even an overhall shouldn't be needed for a while should it? Wasn't the last major refurb (delta 91) done by GNER alongside the Mallard refurb for the coaches, so not that long ago? When it comes to a refurb, wouldn't you be upgrading components (or perhaps totally changing the interal workings, like class 43s from Valenta engines to MTUs) so spare parts should then be easier to source than now.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Btline on December 10, 2011, 11:28:51 am
    They should use tilt. It would be useful North of Northallerton and on the B&H/Devon/Cornwall. Obviously, more electrification would be needed. But once we have the electrification trains/teams we should aspire to roll out a programme of mainline electrification.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on December 10, 2011, 11:35:25 am
    Found the story on another website:

    http://thecomfytrain.co.uk/2011/12/09/alstom-%e2%80%98in-talks%e2%80%99-to-construct-pendolinos-for-intercity-express-programme/

    But that's just a direct copy of the original story that was pulled from rail.co, so it too no longer has any credibility.  So let's not jump to any conclusions...

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: woody on December 11, 2011, 12:19:17 am
    These interesting comments on the matter from Tony Miles on the Google uk rail forum (Dec 10 10.41pm) https://groups.google.com/group/uk.railway/browse_thread/thread/3bd8416456b134c9/1e3652b0f7cc28d1?hl=en&


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on December 11, 2011, 12:30:05 am
    Seems to require a log in now - I'm sure you used to be able to browse without an account though...

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on December 11, 2011, 01:36:32 am
    Seems to require a log in now - I'm sure you used to be able to browse without an account though...

    Paul

    You can log into google using your youtube username & Password or hotmail log in details if you are already registered on them like i am


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on December 11, 2011, 12:33:52 pm
    uk.railway is not a private google forum - it's a 'usenet newsgroup' that Google happen to provide their own front end for. 

    I don't have a password for hotmail or youtube.

    Please don't provide links to password protected versions of information - as it is on usenet Woody could have just copied and pasted it here...

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ellendune on December 11, 2011, 01:12:11 pm
    I got in fine without logging in.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: woody on December 11, 2011, 10:46:31 pm
    uk.railway is not a private google forum - it's a 'usenet newsgroup' that Google happen to provide their own front end for. 

    I don't have a password for hotmail or youtube.

    Please don't provide links to password protected versions of information - as it is on usenet Woody could have just copied and pasted it here...

    Paul
    It was not password protected I just browsed onto Uk railway google groups clicked on "intercity Express program" and there it was.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Chris from Nailsea on December 11, 2011, 10:53:09 pm
    Hmm. It works for me, too, without problem - but then, I am logged in to both hotmail and youtube by default.

    Purely to maintain the peace here, I'll take a bit of a flyer and quote what that particular post says:

    Quote
    Both FGW and East Coast have told the DfT that the Pendolino would be
    ideal for those two main lines.
    And - just to calm the anti-390 brigade - it isn't "the exact design"
    that is the train type in question. It is the concept of the train in
    terms of the distributed power, technical specs etc. and the way
    Virgin work with Alstom that is being highlighted. In Italy last week
    Alstom hosted Virgin and new Italian private operator NTV to talk
    about their operations. Virgin explained how good the Alstom operation
    is in terms of maintaining the trains and getting so many sets in
    service every day. NTV said that their new AGV.italo fleet will be
    maintained by Alstom in exactly the same way and Alstom said that
    every enquiry they get about new train orders comes with "take us to
    Longsight to show us how you do the job there."
    As Jon has pointed out - a Pendolino-type train on a similar contract
    to the Alstom one with Virgin would come it at about ^20,000 per
    vehicle per month cheaper... work that out for 20 years and you soon
    find the money to electrify to Swansea etc.
    Alstom has also produced a design for a "simplified" Pendolino without
    the front hatches and permanently accessible couplers. These could
    couple to an Alstom diesel loco in a minute or two - and be ready to
    move off "because the trains and locos would be designed to do this
    from the start..."
    Everyone - even people in the DfT are actually saying the ^20k a month
    is "a low estimate" and confirm that IEP is still only backed by one
    (we know who) civil servant - who, somehow, still seems to have
    convinced ministers its a good idea.
    Finally - as has been mentioned - nobody wants to actually finance the
    IEP anyway. We know the DfT has now approached at least two of the
    ROSCOs begging them to take on the financing - both have told the DfT
    where to stick the idea. (and if the experienced ROSCOs don't think
    there is any money to be made will an inexperienced bank find the
    money? - especially now they know that the existing ROSCOs aren't
    interested?)
    Tony

    Chris from Nailsea  :-X


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on December 11, 2011, 10:55:29 pm
    It was not password protected I just browsed onto Uk railway google groups clicked on "intercity Express program" and there it was.

    Weird - I wonder why they won't let me in then?   Have to do some digging - or buy a new PC or something...

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: homsar on February 01, 2012, 01:53:57 pm
    Agility submitted a planning application to the local council last week, is the news that FGW passed on. Mayve a search of the council's planning srction on their website?

    You mean something like this (http://www2.swansea.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=600604&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/swansea_noborder/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/swansea_noborder/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNING)?

    As a minor update, the website now claims that planning consent has been granted today, with apparently very little controversy.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on February 01, 2012, 03:32:42 pm
    Too be honest where they are putting the new depot in Swansea is an industrial site already so I am not too surprised that planning permission has been given already


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on February 16, 2012, 09:03:30 pm
    Just seen this posted on WNXX:

    http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/carbon-free-freight-trains-to-be-introduced-by-db-schenker-rail-uk/


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on February 16, 2012, 09:32:34 pm
    Just seen this posted on WNXX:

    http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/carbon-free-freight-trains-to-be-introduced-by-db-schenker-rail-uk/
    NR are looking at its land and property assets with a view to its use for renewable energy generation


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: onthecushions on February 18, 2012, 11:07:33 pm

    The idea of NR generating its own electricity and exporting the surplus, especially if it's green, is well worth pushing, now that there is no monolithic GEGB.

    Wind/PV sources need nearly 100% backup to meet continuous demand and need Govt subsidy.

    The combined heat and power system is also suitable for the railway; the waste heat being used for district (piped) heating in an urban area and for heat driven absorption cooling for industry. Typically the railway needs about 80MVA(e) at 40/50 mile intervals. Placed in urban areas where there is the heat/industry demand, small railway power stations might well improve electrification's chances, as the West of Cardiff scheme may indicate.

    It may also be more efficient to generate 25kV 1ph directly rather than transmit, transform and split off a phase from the grid.

    Lots Road lives again,

    OTC


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on February 29, 2012, 03:35:46 pm
    An interesting article with an interview with Mark Langman, Network Rail's Wales Route Manager, with strong hints that electrification to Swansea, as well as the Valley Lines, is still very much on the agenda and strongly supported by Network Rail.

    http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/need-to-read/2012/02/29/electrification-can-boost-welsh-economy-says-network-rail-s-managing-director-in-wales-mark-langman-91466-30426051/ (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/need-to-read/2012/02/29/electrification-can-boost-welsh-economy-says-network-rail-s-managing-director-in-wales-mark-langman-91466-30426051/)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Lee on March 12, 2012, 10:35:32 pm
    From Railnews: (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2012/03/12-welsh-delegation-calls-for-more.html)

    Quote from: Railnews
    Welsh delegation calls for more electrification

    A delegation of business people and politicians from south Wales has arrived in Westminster to urge a rethink on electrification.
     
    The Great Western Main Line is set to be electrified from London as far as Cardiff Central, but many people in south Wales say the scheme should continue to Swansea.
     
    Conservative AM Byron Davies is also calling for a South Wales Metro to be created, which would require electrification of the Valley lines.
     
    Such a scheme already exists in outline, although its supporters say they are worried that some routes, such as the lines to Ebbw Vale Parkway and Maesteg, may not be included.
     
    Welsh Government minister Carl Sargeant is arguing that further investment would boost the economy in depressed areas.
     
    In an article published in the Western Mail, he said the case for electrification was 'far stronger than many rail schemes that have already been funded by the UK Government in England'.
     
    A Department for Transport spokesman said that the Welsh Government had provided an outline business case for electrification beyond Cardiff to Swansea.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on March 27, 2012, 01:50:13 pm
    Contract for main works to Bristol, Cardiff, Oxford, and Newbury has just been awarded to Amey:

    http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/amey-awarded-great-western-electrification-contract.html

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on October 11, 2012, 09:03:44 pm
    Roughly a year until actual physical work will start and bright green marking have been sprayed trackside for most of the route between Didcot and Reading.  They look about the right distance apart to be locations for the catenary masts.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on October 11, 2012, 09:17:58 pm
    Roughly a year until actual physical work will start and bright green marking have been sprayed trackside for most of the route between Didcot and Reading.  They look about the right distance apart to be locations for the catenary masts.

    They will be using driven steel piles so will go in quite quick, the structures could on top straight away.  There is a push to get started, DfT find it embarrassing when NR are efficient  ;D


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Bristolboy on October 14, 2012, 08:36:19 pm
    I read somewhere about rumours that the government was going to accelerate many infrastructure projects, including linked to the railways (and this electrification - both start date and pace) to give a boost to the economy from more construction jobs (whilst still avoiding calling it a plan b).


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on October 14, 2012, 08:40:30 pm
    I read somewhere about rumours that the government was going to accelerate many infrastructure projects, including linked to the railways (and this electrification - both start date and pace) to give a boost to the economy from more construction jobs (whilst still avoiding calling it a plan b).

    Well they need to speed up the contstruction of the 2 high output trains which Network rail are going to use to speed up the electrification projects.

    The government should also in my opinion hurry up and order some new emu's are its is looking very likely that there are not going to be enough emu's to cover all these newly electrified routes especially since they still have signed the thameslink contract.

    I suppose Northern could use thoe class 317's that are in storage but I think new emu's will be needed for the Great Western especially since you have not chance of fitting a class 319 down the  branches to Marlow and Henley On Thames.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on October 14, 2012, 08:46:44 pm
    According to the latest CP4 enhancements plans (updated this month) the electrification train will be constructed by next April, but not in use until October:

    High output base Construction complete/available for use April 2013
    Consist 1 Piling system available for use October 2013
    Consist 2 Structures system available for use November 2013
    Consist 3 Wiring system available for use March 2014


    Regarding new EMUs, the new franchisee will be responsible for their procurement in whatever form that takes surely?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Southern Stag on October 14, 2012, 09:06:27 pm
    Regarding new EMUs, the new franchisee will be responsible for their procurement in whatever form that takes surely?
    Unless there is too much of a delay to the franchising process hopefully the new TOC will be able to procure the new EMUs. An possibility which is looking increasingly likely is the North West scheme being finished but no EMUs being available. 319s being released are dependant on the delivery of new Thameslink EMUs, which is suffering delays.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on October 14, 2012, 10:04:52 pm
    The EMU's for the Thames Valley area it would make sense to ensure they had some compatibility with Crossrail units.

    In general the GW electrification is on time, there are a few project issues which is not surprising given it's complexity, the Government could push for acceleration it will come at a larger price tag the existing program was designed to a price agreed with DfT


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ray951 on November 15, 2012, 08:47:24 pm
    I saw this on Twitter earlier from Modern Railways:

    "With 319s overcommitted, Southern is ordering more EMUs and now we hear DfT to order 125mph EMUs for Oxford - double-price Desiros, anyone?"

    Anyone know any more and given how long it is taking to sign the Thameslink train contract with Siemens there is a good chance that the infrastructure will be ready but we will have no electric trains available:-)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on November 15, 2012, 09:46:47 pm
    I saw this on Twitter earlier from Modern Railways:

    "With 319s overcommitted, Southern is ordering more EMUs and now we hear DfT to order 125mph EMUs for Oxford - double-price Desiros, anyone?"

    The GWML electrification and Crossrail is being gauged to W12 and the GWML will be intermodal all of which mean double deck trains are a potential!!!

    Anyone know any more and given how long it is taking to sign the Thameslink train contract with Siemens there is a good chance that the infrastructure will be ready but we will have no electric trains available:-)

      Thameslink on the other had just about clears W6 gauge.

    I have heard from a very reliable source that the use of 313's is being investigated for the services off of the ECML through to the South when the link between the ECML and Thameslink is commissioned


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: John R on November 15, 2012, 11:32:08 pm
    The 40 vehicles ordered today (8x5) will be delivered in Dec 14. I'm guessing that they will enable 8 Class 319's to be cascaded to the North West to avoid the embarrassing position whereby the second stage of electrification there is completed with no rolling stock to utilise it.

    But clearly the even more embarrassing prospect is looming whereby GW electrification is completed to Oxford with no stock available, hence the first steps to procurement of a larger tranche of EMUs. Given that there is now much more electrification envisaged up to 2019 now, this makes sense, as the 319s will then find alternative uses once they become available.

    Another possibility is that the govt is hedging its bets against the Siemens deal collapsing in which case some more conventional emus would be helpful as a stop gap measure.

    I'd be surprised if 313's are being considered for Thameslink work. They'll be over 40 years old, have a maximum speed of 75, are only 3 coaches in length, and would not be at all suitable for the GN outer suburban services that are envisaged to run onto Thameslink.  (Not sure how many, if any, of the inner suburban Moorgate services are expected to switch to the Thameslink route.)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on November 16, 2012, 09:26:56 am
    The GWML electrification and Crossrail is being gauged to W12 and the GWML will be intermodal all of which mean double deck trains are a potential!!!

    Sorry, there's a bit of confusion there.  'Intermodal' simply describes the concept of freight containers (in fact any goods) that can be transported flexibly by sea, on rail, and on lorries during differnt parts of their journey.   Therefore the GW is already an intermodal route, but not yet at UK gauge W12 throughout.   

    (But then are you thinking of the system where containers complete with road trailers are carried on rail wagons?  That cannot be done in any UK gauge either.)

    Anyway, UK W10 and W12 gauges still do not allow for continental style double decker (DD) passenger trains either, their overall heights are only a few cm more than C1/C3 carriage gauge, the difference is all to do with opening out curved structures to allow for the corners of the containers, and the ensuing sway of the container outside its normal envelope. Network Rail include a diagram of the relative sizes of the different gauge profiles in most of the RUS documents, it's in Appendix A of the Freight RUS for instance:

    http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/freight/freight%20rus.pdf

    ...you'll see there that W12 provides no greater height than W10, it is a slight width gain only and certainly not the solution you seem to think it is.  In fact W12 as can be seen provides no height improvement over the original W6...

    To allow for DD trains a route needs to be completely rebuilt to UIC/TSI GB, GB+ or GC, and in the UK this would also require a massive amount of work to the infrastructure below the solebar, in particular thousands of platforms would have to be cut back and lowered, and many girder bridge structures would require modification.

    PS Crossrail is explicitly not being built to allow for DD trains - it will always remain a barrier, and as it will be providing the majority of the suburban services in the future on either side ot the tunnel - I think you can foresee no change to any remaining non-Crossrail services.

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on November 16, 2012, 10:35:56 am
    I saw this on Twitter earlier from Modern Railways:

    "With 319s overcommitted, Southern is ordering more EMUs and now we hear DfT to order 125mph EMUs for Oxford - double-price Desiros, anyone?"

    It would make sense in terms of uniform timings to have a fleet of 125mph EMUs operate the fast Oxford to London services that aren't to be operated by IEPs.  They could also potentially operate the Newbury to London services after electrification.  Looking forward to reading an official announcement about this if it's true!


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on November 16, 2012, 10:47:01 am
    Hitachi 395s (aka Javelins) perhaps? 

    They are basically operated as 125 mph units (although capable of 140 mph).  Much commonality with electric IEPs, but with a commuter door layout for a stopping service.

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on November 16, 2012, 06:27:24 pm
    The GWML electrification and Crossrail is being gauged to W12 and the GWML will be intermodal all of which mean double deck trains are a potential!!!

    Sorry, there's a bit of confusion there.  'Intermodal' simply describes the concept of freight containers (in fact any goods) that can be transported flexibly by sea, on rail, and on lorries during differnt parts of their journey.   Therefore the GW is already an intermodal route, but not yet at UK gauge W12 throughout.   
    Opps sorry meant interoperable, to the extent that the existing 12 miles of GW electrification is going to be re-registered to accommodate the additional clearances and continental types of pantographs.  Crossrail is being gauged for double deck trains

    None of the GN suburban's are planned to go Thameslink, the 313 option is being looked at as a "Plan B" and likely for driver route knowledge from mid to late 2015 when the ECML - Thameslink connection will be available


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on November 16, 2012, 07:16:51 pm
    I wonder with the recent order of additional electrostars for Southern could we see some class 377's being subleased to FGW (or whoever is operating the GW franchise) come 2016 if the new Thameslink units are only just entering service.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on November 16, 2012, 08:50:46 pm
    The Thameslink timetable change is set for December 2018 with the 24 trains per hour through the core.

    In many ways it would make sense (although this is in short supply in the railways nowadays) for the GW TV trains to be a version of the Crossrail trains so there is some compatibility should there ever be the need to rescue each other


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on November 17, 2012, 10:44:49 am
    Crossrail is being gauged for double deck trains

    The Crossrail tunnels are not being initially fitted out for double deck trains, which i why I wrote what I did.  They are built to allow UIC/TSI GB gauge but only with major modifications.  But that is pretty much academic unless they also completely rebuild the existing Heathrow tunnels, and the Connaught tunnel to North Woolwich, which are not big enough.  Are there any plans for that - I don't think so.

    I believed from online sources that they were just re-registering the existing GW OHLE to allow for 125 mph running with two pans up, but that this is a requirement of IEP(GW), not Crossrail.  So that doesn't necessarily imply it's part of a covert conversion of the GWML to allow for double decker trains.   Are any of the GWML bridge works providing for anything beyond W10/W12 plus electrification clearance?  Are there any  corresponding gauge changes planned between Stratford and Shenfield, which is already undergoing an electrification update?

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Network SouthEast on November 17, 2012, 11:35:20 am


    I believed from online sources that they were just re-registering the existing GW OHLE to allow for 125 mph running with two pans up, but that this is a requirement of IEP(GW), not Crossrail. 
    The DfT documentation says that OHLE will be capable of 125mph running on the relief lines, but 140mph on the fast lines. There's no actual plan at the moment to see 140mph running, but it is nice to see that provision is being made for it.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on November 20, 2012, 11:46:06 am
    Possible extensions of the GWML electrification to either Bedwyn, Westbury or Bath via Bradford-Upon-Avon are being considered by the DfT.  Interesting to hear that the options are being officially considered.  Bedwyn would be logical in my opinion, but I'm not so sure about further afield - though electric hauled stone trains are an interesting idea!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20399057 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20399057)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on November 20, 2012, 11:59:32 am
    Well if they can wire via Bradford on Avon then maybe they could wire between Westbury & Southampton that would allow the Cardiff - Portsmouth service to be worked by emu's.

    Besides  maybe they should wire via Melksham  as well (That should please a few members ofn this forum)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on November 20, 2012, 12:09:12 pm
    Well if they can wire via Bradford on Avon then maybe they could wire between Westbury & Southampton that would allow the Cardiff - Portsmouth service to be worked by emu's.

    Besides  maybe they should wire via Melksham  as well (That should please a few members ofn this forum)

    I think that's one of the problems, isn't it?  Whenever possible extensions are mentioned, there's always a 'well, if they're going to do that, they might as well do that as well' argument for adjoining sections of track!  Certainly having the route from Newbury via Westbury to Bath electrified does provide for a useful diversionary route which is arguably more important now with the electrification extending to Swansea meaning fewer bi-mode IEP's will be available to cover such routes at times of engineering or other service disruption.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on November 20, 2012, 02:46:43 pm
    I agree with what you are saying Industryinsider and if they include wiring the line through Melksham I am sure our members living in the area would be quite pleased (especially if they get a more regular rail service)

    Also weren't they putting something to go with the GW power suppply in Melksham so could that perhaps also be another reason?

    One final point I woul like to make is my concern about Network Rail taking on too much work especially since  the current proposals already given the go ahead are quiete extensive unlless Network Rail and the Government know something we dont (3rd electrification Factory train perhaps?)

    The whole extra electrostars for Southern have also got me thinking something is up


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on November 20, 2012, 06:56:29 pm

    Also weren't they putting something to go with the GW power suppply in Melksham so could that perhaps also be another reason?

    One of the principle intakes from the TNO (Transition Network Operator aka National Grid).  One of the weakness in system currently planed is in the Reading area keeping the depot alive when the Auto Transformer system feed from Kensal Green or Didcot is not available, also the Newbury leg is vulnerable as it is a stub end feed extending the wires via Westbury to the Melksham area would allow for a feed from there.

    One final point I woul like to make is my concern about Network Rail taking on too much work especially since  the current proposals already given the go ahead are quiete extensive unlless Network Rail and the Government know something we dont (3rd electrification Factory train perhaps?)

    One of the most critical resources is the amount of trained staff to construct, test and commission an AC electrified railway something which Network Rail and its contractors are acutely aware of


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Western Explorer on November 20, 2012, 08:51:43 pm
    Picking up the double deck debate...
    Low platforms on the continent mean you can  have a lower saloon with entrance doors between the bogies and gangways on the upper deck only. That's not really feasible with the UK platform height. Apart from that station dwell times would be significantly increased, which is not a good idea if you want to put 24tph through the central section.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on November 20, 2012, 09:07:50 pm
    I think, with the possible exception of HS2, there will be no double-deck trains operating on the National Rail network any time soon. 

    So no chance of anything like this once again running on UK tracks! http://www.yellins.co.uk/transporthistory/rail/ddtrain.html (http://www.yellins.co.uk/transporthistory/rail/ddtrain.html)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Western Explorer on November 20, 2012, 09:31:00 pm
    I remember the 4DDs. There was one coach standing outside Chart Leacon for a long time. The forced ventillation didn't work very well and they were very stuffy when full. And it took an age for people to clamber down the steps from the upper compartments.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on November 22, 2012, 11:55:29 am
    One final point I woul like to make is my concern about Network Rail taking on too much work especially since  the current proposals already given the go ahead are quiete extensive unlless Network Rail and the Government know something we dont (3rd electrification Factory train perhaps?)

    They'd have to build a second HOOP train first, and NR haven't ever reported ordering a second train yet.  Given the fanfare surrounding the single train that is on order, you'd expect a second one would be publicised?

    This article is one of many that refers to a single HOOP train: 

    http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/windhoff-to-build-network-rails-electrification-factory-train.html

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: onthecushions on November 26, 2012, 11:19:25 am
    One of the principle intakes from the TNO (Transition Network Operator aka National Grid).  One of the weakness in system currently planed is in the Reading area keeping the depot alive when the Auto Transformer system feed from Kensal Green or Didcot is not available, also the Newbury leg is vulnerable as it is a stub end feed extending the wires via Westbury to the Melksham area would allow for a feed from there.


    Isn't the Super-Grid electricity sub-station at Bramley Hants now to have a traction Grid Supply Point, with the Nuneaton - Soton wiring?

    OTC



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on November 26, 2012, 01:08:54 pm
    One of the principle intakes from the TNO (Transition Network Operator aka National Grid).  One of the weakness in system currently planed is in the Reading area keeping the depot alive when the Auto Transformer system feed from Kensal Green or Didcot is not available, also the Newbury leg is vulnerable as it is a stub end feed extending the wires via Westbury to the Melksham area would allow for a feed from there.


    Isn't the Super-Grid electricity sub-station at Bramley Hants now to have a traction Grid Supply Point, with the Nuneaton - Soton wiring?

    OTC



    I believe so, this will still leave Newbury as a stub end feed west from Southcote Jcn


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: grandsire on November 26, 2012, 04:58:46 pm
    Possible extensions of the GWML electrification to either Bedwyn, Westbury or Bath via Bradford-Upon-Avon are being considered by the DfT.  Interesting to hear that the options are being officially considered.  Bedwyn would be logical in my opinion, but I'm not so sure about further afield - though electric hauled stone trains are an interesting idea!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20399057 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20399057)
    I expect its already been covered in the previous 50+ pages of this thread, but isn't the stopping of electrification at Newbury something to do with boundaries between signalling centres?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on November 26, 2012, 05:31:38 pm
    I expect its already been covered in the previous 50+ pages of this thread, but isn't the stopping of electrification at Newbury something to do with boundaries between signalling centres?

    Not likely.  By the time electrification is underway nearly everything will be signalled from Didcot anyway (Thames Valley Signalling Centre).  The main point about electrification boundaries is that they will be designed to fit the intended post electrification timetable, whatever that happens to be, not the current timetable. 

    As an example, there are regular proposals that the boundary must be at Bedwyn - but only because that is currently the place where many DMU services terminate.  Once IEP is introduced Bedwyn might no longer have terminating trains at all, just calls in regular additional IEP semi-fasts.

    Whatever solution people have in mind is probably already suggested somewhere in the GW RUS, the GW ITT, or the London and SE RUS; and however it ends up it's more likely to be different than stay the same...

    Paul
       


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Tim on November 27, 2012, 03:44:45 pm
    I thought that there was a signaling issue too. 


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on November 27, 2012, 05:28:53 pm
    Signalling policy has changed significantly since electrification was announced.  However there seems to be no obvious signalling boundary at or near Newbury anyway.

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on December 29, 2012, 11:53:18 am
    The first electrification masts are up on the GWML!  Quite a surreal sight to be honest, but about half a mile of track just to the east of Reading station has now got masts up (no wires yet of course) in the same area as the new switches and crossings that have been installed at Kennet Bridge Junction.  I'm guessing that this is a short test/proving area prior to the HOOP train starting in earnest next year?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on December 29, 2012, 12:31:07 pm
    The first electrification masts are up on the GWML!  Quite a surreal sight to be honest, but about half a mile of track just to the east of Reading station has now got masts up (no wires yet of course) in the same area as the new switches and crossings that have been installed at Kennet Bridge Junction.  I'm guessing that this is a short test/proving area prior to the HOOP train starting in earnest next year?

    ........... Or is it ooooooooopppps we are behind on the plan, lets nail something in the ground very 50 meters 


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Western Explorer on December 29, 2012, 02:34:02 pm
    I think it was always the plan to make passive provision for electrification during the Reading remodelling. It makes sense, in order to minimise disruption later, to do as much as possible in places that are currently away from the live railway. I suspect that now electrification beyond the extent of Crossrail is going ahead, it's worth putting up the masts before the new platforms open.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on December 29, 2012, 03:44:47 pm
    The first electrification masts are up on the GWML!  Quite a surreal sight to be honest, but about half a mile of track just to the east of Reading station has now got masts up (no wires yet of course) in the same area as the new switches and crossings that have been installed at Kennet Bridge Junction.  I'm guessing that this is a short test/proving area prior to the HOOP train starting in earnest next year?

    I think it was always the plan to make passive provision for electrification during the Reading remodelling. It makes sense, in order to minimise disruption later, to do as much as possible in places that are currently away from the live railway. I suspect that now electrification beyond the extent of Crossrail is going ahead, it's worth putting up the masts before the new platforms open.

    Of the two options, I think Western Explorer's is the more likely explanation, despite my huge respect for Industry Insider's encyclopaedic knowledge. The High Output Operating Plant system isn't due for delivery for a few months yet.

    Wondering whether it had jumped through all the HOOPs a few months early, I did a bit of searching. I found that HOOP will not deliver all of the electrification work:
    Quote
    A plan is being developed around working in 7 to 8 hour possessions between Sunday and Thursday, with longer 8-10 hour possessions on Fridays and Saturdays. Each evening, the team will normally take three two-mile possessions on one line ^ the adjacent line will still operate at 20-60 miles per hour. Approximately 80% of the work will be carried out using high-output processes, while the remaining 20% will be delivered by more traditional methods. An immense amount of work will need to be done with 13,784 piles, 1,427 concrete foundations and 13,078 structures all on the ^to do^ list.

    That quote, which I hadn't seen before is from an article in The Rail Engineer (http://www.therailengineer.com/2012/10/09/an-electrifying-conference/), reporting on a conference with all the industry arms involved in electrification. The whole article gives an interesting insight into the logistical challenges faced by the project teams. Well worth a read.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on December 29, 2012, 04:05:00 pm
    I think it was always the plan to make passive provision for electrification during the Reading remodelling. It makes sense, in order to minimise disruption later, to do as much as possible in places that are currently away from the live railway. I suspect that now electrification beyond the extent of Crossrail is going ahead, it's worth putting up the masts before the new platforms open.

    Yes that's the plan however the actual design and development doesn't quite match the plan a decision has been taken to do some piling and mast erecting "at risk"


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: John R on December 29, 2012, 04:24:50 pm
    An interesting comment in the article about electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking line starting in 2014, yet this has yet to be approvied, and is the subject of much contention between the Mayor of London/TfL and DaFT. This point is followed up in the comments, though with no conclusive outcome.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on December 29, 2012, 11:25:50 pm
    The first electrification masts are up on the GWML!  Quite a surreal sight to be honest, but about half a mile of track just to the east of Reading station has now got masts up (no wires yet of course) in the same area as the new switches and crossings that have been installed at Kennet Bridge Junction.  I'm guessing that this is a short test/proving area prior to the HOOP train starting in earnest next year?

    I think it was always the plan to make passive provision for electrification during the Reading remodelling. It makes sense, in order to minimise disruption later, to do as much as possible in places that are currently away from the live railway. I suspect that now electrification beyond the extent of Crossrail is going ahead, it's worth putting up the masts before the new platforms open.

    Of the two options, I think Western Explorer's is the more likely explanation, despite my huge respect for Industry Insider's encyclopaedic knowledge. The High Output Operating Plant system isn't due for delivery for a few months yet.

    Thank you, and yes, having thought about it a little 'Western Explorer's' hunch is probably closer to the mark, though the section that's been done is very much still part of the live railway - I remember hearing that electrification of the new platforms would start to take place by the end of the year, so this may be the first sign of that phase of the work.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Western Explorer on December 30, 2012, 12:09:29 am
    Thank you, and yes, having thought about it a little 'Western Explorer's' hunch is probably closer to the mark, though the section that's been done is very much still part of the live railway - I remember hearing that electrification of the new platforms would start to take place by the end of the year, so this may be the first sign of that phase of the work.

    I last went into Reading (from Maidenhead) about three weeks ago by which time track had been laid into P13-15 from the Southern underpass. P11 and 12 are blocked by the footbridge support. I didn't notice any masts at that time.

    Incidentally, I was told that the underpass was going to be laid with long sleepers so that conductor rail could be added later if needed (and there would also be room for OLE). I didn't see whether this had actually been done.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on December 30, 2012, 12:16:49 am
    No, there's no masts within the station area at the moment.  Only the area I described at Kennet Bridge Junction, about half a mile east of the station extending about another half a mile towards London.

    Regarding 3rd Rail electrification, platforms 13/14/15 have passive provision, as well as the underpass, so I assume compatible sleepers will be used in all of those areas.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on December 30, 2012, 12:40:51 am
    I'm sure they will provide for third rail, but I don't think they are any different in length to any other sleepers are they? They just have a set of precast threaded inserts at either end where the pots can be fitted - I remember someone noticed that they'd been used somewhere on the North Downs route even though non-electrified.

    (What I'm certain of is that the DfT were talking out of their hats when they said they'd have to be steel sleepers to allow for third rail...)   ???

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on December 30, 2012, 08:55:30 am
    I thought the (old) underpass east of Reading had been slab tracked, if this is the case then the re-bar has to have extra depth of concrete and a few other measure to protect it from stray DC.  If its conventional sleepers then it doesn't matter too much as they are all the same length conrail or non conrail the big difference for third rail is the holes cast in for the pots but a bit of spot sleeper replacement would cure that, a little more time consuming if glued ballast has been used.

    The only time I can envisage conrail trough the underpass would be as part of an AC / DC interface where a electrical section OHL overlaps a conrail electrical section.  The ORR and not keen to extend DC third rail and it is not current NR policy to extend it either.   

    Operationally I cannot see much benefit over the cost of install and maintenance.   The ORR would require Track Isolating Switches (TIS) and Neg Short Circuiting devices fitted (traditional Hook Switches are out of favour especially for new schemes) and Neg Shorting Devices would be required for emergency isolations as the extension would be new.  These devices require a power supply and SCADA with associated mods to Eastliegh ECR.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on December 30, 2012, 10:33:17 am
    (traditional Hook Switches are out of favour especially for new schemes)

    Remember being shown how to operate a hook switch when at Sutton. Never had to do it anger. One of the checks we had to do was ensure that every station had it's operating lever.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: BerkshireBugsy on December 30, 2012, 12:47:04 pm
    I thought the (old) underpass east of Reading had been slab tracked,

    I'm not clear what this means (will google in a minute) but from memory the track passing through the eastern underpass is built normal sleepered track construction

    The trouble is that this was done when the evenings were drawing in so I may be mistaken

    Slab track duly researched


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: EBrown on December 30, 2012, 04:12:47 pm
    I believe slab track is similar to the track inside St. Pancras International? :)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: BerkshireBugsy on December 30, 2012, 04:18:43 pm
    It's been a while since I have been to st. Pancras but I believe you are right


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on December 31, 2012, 01:45:33 pm

    The only time I can envisage conrail trough the underpass would be as part of an AC / DC interface where a electrical section OHL overlaps a conrail electrical section.  The ORR and not keen to extend DC third rail and it is not current NR policy to extend it either.   


    I also thought that the underpass would have been the most obvious/logical place to have a short changeover section, and there have been a number of subsequent statements, (including by NR in response to FGW as recently as last October) that they intend to allow for AC and DC in the underpass:

    Quote

    {FGW}
    25. Paragraph 5.10 Remodelling of East Throat: Network Rail to advise extent of third rail and / or overhead electrification intended or if passive provision provided in the southern underpass;
    {NR}
    The Up and Down Reading Low Level Line is provided with passive provision for AC & DC electrification with headroom clearances and 3rd Rail sleepers being installed.

    http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/network%20code/network%20change/current%20proposals/reading%20redevelopment/nc%20g1%20rsar%20002/train%20operator%20replies/first%20great%20western/reply%20to%20fgw%20stage%20f%20ncn%2003102012.pdf 

    However DfT have also said in the GW franchise ITT:

    "The three new north side platforms and the new dive under at Reading station will be equipped [...] to facilitate third rail electrification."

    Which suggests to me tripling the complexity of the power supplies for little operational gain, although I suppose changeover during a planned station call is always going to be better than a stop outside the station; especially where a changeover failure would block a single track.   Swings and roundabouts...

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Western Explorer on December 31, 2012, 03:14:57 pm
    @Paul7755: "I also thought that the underpass would have been the most obvious/logical place to have a short changeover section, and there have been a number of subsequent statements, (including by NR in response to FGW as recently as last October) that they intend to allow for AC and DC in the underpass"

    It would be preferable to make the changeover in a platform because then there are more options if it fails for any reason. You don't want to have a train stuck in the underpass or needing to reverse out, even though it is bidirectional.



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Network SouthEast on December 31, 2012, 03:29:28 pm
    Aside from disruption risk when changing from AC to DC due to rolling stock issues there are two other factors that have not been mentioned by posters yet in respect of changing over at a platform.

    1. driver of AC trains forgetting to pan-down when changing over to DC mode, and then either activated the ADD or worse... hitting a bridge or other object and ripping the pan off.

    2. door release other than in a platform - several incidents of this each year, but thankfully no injuries to passengers. Why create an extra risk?

    It is possible to change over from AC to DC on the move, as is done by London Overground (but not Southern) on the WLL at North Pole, however it requires a fairly substantial overlap.

    As the underpass is only a short distance I really don't see why posters here are making a fuss about DC overlapping with AC. There are plenty of examples on the rail network already where ECOs (and their substations/infrastructure) provide AC and DC supply in the same location.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on December 31, 2012, 03:36:36 pm
    @Paul7755: "I also thought that the underpass would have been the most obvious/logical place to have a short changeover section, and there have been a number of subsequent statements, (including by NR in response to FGW as recently as last October) that they intend to allow for AC and DC in the underpass"

    It would be preferable to make the changeover in a platform because then there are more options if it fails for any reason. You don't want to have a train stuck in the underpass or needing to reverse out, even though it is bidirectional


    I'm not disagreeing with that point though.  What I went on to suggest is that the costs of having three dual voltage platform areas, is significantly higher than doing it along the length of the underpass - and this might colour their decision.

    Having said this it's already been discussed to death once in the main Reading Station thread anyway, so I'll leave it there I think.

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on December 31, 2012, 03:57:44 pm
    AC / DC change over sections are not short.  They are usually 3 electrical sections which have to longer than the longest train to use the section, note this include non electric traction hauled trains; it can be done with 2 electrical sections which may be the case at Reading as there are 2 rectifiers at Reading to manage the DC return current, at least 1 of these would have to be in service for AC / DC change over, AC will almost certainly need the installation of isolation transformers.

    I know the GW electrification team have looked at the system we installed at Ludgate Cellars system used for the Thameslink change over at Blackfriars this is an extremely expensive and complex contractor system.

    The actual change over of power from one to the other is the easy part its the managing the traction return currents that are the problems.  Stray DC cause electrolytic erosion ferrous  items like rebar, bridge steels, cable armours etc (and not just on railway owned land) also track circuits have to be DC immune over a considerable distance; for stray AC this is more an EMC issue with telecoms and track circuits but can cause some rise in earth potential under fault conditions on the AC system.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Chris from Nailsea on December 31, 2012, 03:59:13 pm
    On a lighter note - from First Great Western JourneyCheck:

    Quote
    15:16 Avonmouth to Bristol Temple Meads due 15:50
    This train will be cancelled.
    This is due to electrical supply problems.
    Message Received: 31/12/2012 14:35

     ???


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: chuffed on December 31, 2012, 04:03:49 pm
    Did they find that the pantograph wouldn't fit a 142 ??


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on December 31, 2012, 04:56:56 pm

    I last went into Reading (from Maidenhead) about three weeks ago by which time track had been laid into P13-15 from the Southern underpass.

    Webcams show the rail was delivered through the platforms a little later than that; it only appeared from Sun 16th, and sleepers were being fitted on the 18th and 19th. 

    However, the main reason for my looking back to those dates was that you can just see that the sleepers actually used, in P13/14 at least, definitely are fitted with the threaded inserts for third rail insulators. (You need the extreme bottom right view of camera 1/1 at 100% magnification, try about mid-day on the 19th.)

    As they are buried in ballast now ??? you can't see that sort of detail any longer.  Seriously though I realise it's still a work in progress and the sleepers will probably reappear during final tamping and lining etc...

    Paul



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Western Explorer on December 31, 2012, 08:52:22 pm
    On a lighter note - from First Great Western JourneyCheck:

    Quote
    15:16 Avonmouth to Bristol Temple Meads due 15:50
    This train will be cancelled.
    This is due to electrical supply problems.
    Message Received: 31/12/2012 14:35

     ???

    This was at Reading P16 on 12th December. I was last there on the 14th but sans camera.


    Edit note: Quote marks fixed. CfN.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: onthecushions on December 31, 2012, 08:57:59 pm
    Happy New Year everyone.

    Might not the ac/dc change-over be simpler on the Wokingham line rather than at Reading, as dual voltage stock is now to be the future for the South Western....

    S'pect it's been suggested before,

    OTC


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on February 26, 2013, 04:04:35 pm
    Worth mentioning that preliminary work continues at a pace, with foundation holes dug most of the way from Reading to Oxford for the overhead masts that will be installed by this wonderful electrification train that will soon be with us.

    Most of the holes have simply been dug, lined with a strong canvas sack with handles, and then filled in with gravel, soil and ballast.  But at a few locations the foundation post to which the gantry will be attached has also been installed.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on February 26, 2013, 06:34:22 pm
    Worth mentioning that preliminary work continues at a pace, with foundation holes dug most of the way from Reading to Oxford for the overhead masts that will be installed by this wonderful electrification train that will soon be with us.

    Most of the holes have simply been dug, lined with a strong canvas sack with handles, and then filled in with gravel, soil and ballast.  But at a few locations the foundation post to which the gantry will be attached has also been installed.

    In OLE teams gantries are refereed to as Structures, the dig out structure foundations ahead of being filled with concrete is quite normal often they are hand dug.

    The first part of the GW Mainline electrification to be commissioned is Reading Oxford, this will allow driver training. East of Reading relies on Kensal Green feeder station and Crossrail electrifying Stockley to Maidenhead 


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ellendune on February 26, 2013, 10:16:47 pm
    Work is now well under way at the Swindon Electrification Depot.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on February 27, 2013, 10:17:00 am
    East of Reading relies on Kensal Green feeder station and Crossrail electrifying Stockley to Maidenhead 

    And that's the problem we don't want Crossrail on teh GWML what we want is an electric railway.

    Surely it would be better for Network rail to electrify throughout from Stockley to Swansea and not build the turnback sidings at Maidenehad but run trains that gothrough the Crossrail tunnels at Paddington to Reading.

    Also we don't want 378 style coaches for our local trains which Crossrail will probably go for.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on February 27, 2013, 11:29:59 am
    Network Rail are to all intents electrifying from Stockley. All the on-network work is being done by Network Rail.  When documentation refers to it being 'done by Crossrail' it really just means 'paid for from the TfL/DfT Crossrail budget' rather than the DfT HLOS budget.

    Paul



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on February 27, 2013, 02:27:24 pm
    It's the allocation of the money that's the problem if the elctrifcation as far as Maidenhead comes out of Crossrail's budget they will think they own it and have priority. Which would be similar to HEX and the problem that causes.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on February 27, 2013, 06:20:44 pm
    Network Rail are to all intents electrifying from Stockley. All the on-network work is being done by Network Rail.  When documentation refers to it being 'done by Crossrail' it really just means 'paid for from the TfL/DfT Crossrail budget' rather than the DfT HLOS budget.

    Paul
    That is correct, there are some works being funded by GWML electrification between Stockley and Maidenhead.

    It's the allocation of the money that's the problem if the elctrifcation as far as Maidenhead comes out of Crossrail's budget they will think they own it and have priority. Which would be similar to HEX and the problem that causes.
    The relationship of Crossrail and occupancy is defined by DfT who are funding it.  It has been mentioned before Crossrail is delivered under an Act of Parliament which has defined the Western terminals one of which is Maidenhead, to overturn the Act would result in reopening a public enquiry and any consequential Judicial Reviews  not to mention the cost in doing all that pale into insignificance cost of building a few turn back sidings at Maidenhead.   My personal guess is that by 2022 the time table on the GW will be re-jigged for Crossrail to run to Reading also to take account of EWrail running into Reading replacing the Reading / Oxfords


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on February 27, 2013, 07:16:15 pm
    I agree, ET, the traffic will go where it is needed. If a train load of Canary Wharf bankers want to travel to and from Oxford daily, then a train will do the trip. Maidenhead is as good a place to start and stop as any, but once the infrastructure is in, the TOCs will want to use it to the full.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on February 27, 2013, 09:11:13 pm
    I can't see Canary Wharf bankers wanting to travel from Oxford in a 378!


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Network SouthEast on February 28, 2013, 01:56:18 am
    I think the odds of them travelling in a 378 are pretty slim, as the Crossrail rolling stock will be a similar spec to the Thameslink stock, which will have proper 2+2 seating for starters.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on February 28, 2013, 11:48:41 am
    I think the odds of them travelling in a 378 are pretty slim, as the Crossrail rolling stock will be a similar spec to the Thameslink stock, which will have proper 2+2 seating for starters.

    Will they have 2+2 seating though?  The specification states that each Crossrail train will have 450 seats (with room for a total of 1500 passengers).  That equates to just 45 seats per carriage in a 10-car train.  Compare that with the Class 378s 38 seats per carriage with its longitudinal seating and the 60-70 seats per carriage you'd expect to find in a typical 2+2 seated 20m carriage, and that suggests to me there will be quite a lot of longitudinal seating?

    http://www.crossrail.co.uk/assets/download/4962 (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/assets/download/4962)

    I personally think that they will go with a mixed layout of 2+2 and longitudinal, in a similar fashion to the S8 underground stock on the Metropolitan Line, to achieve that 45 seats per carriage ratio.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Jonty on February 28, 2013, 01:01:45 pm
    I may be being stooped, but how does 450 seats per train equate to 1,500 passengers.

    Lots of folks standing...? :o


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on February 28, 2013, 01:04:01 pm
    The passenger carrying design must surely reflect the intended type of service, high capacity regional metro.

    Considering Crossrail 1 to have 'four legs', people expecting to use this presumed extension to Reading are just  going to have to deal with accommodation that's designed around the needs of Shenfield (GE slows), Abbey Wood (new route but only zone 4) and Heathrow (Connect style).

    I've always assumed that they aren't at all likely to design the train internals to be suitable for a Reading extension - and there isn't likely to be a subset of different stock either.

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on February 28, 2013, 01:13:24 pm
    I may be being stooped, but how does 450 seats per train equate to 1,500 passengers.

    Lots of folks standing...? :o

    Well of course they allow for standing.  ::)  Those 378s mentioned earlier had a published capacity of 500 back when they were only 3 car trains.  That was the way they were 'sold' as an improvement over the elderly Class 313 EMUs. So in that respect they are little different to underground trains. 

    The idea that capacity is equal to seat numbers is something peculiar to long distance trains.

    (Incidentally, there was quite a kerfuffle when SWT reduced the seating in their inner suburban 455s to allow for more standing in the aisles and around the doors, but they still ended up with 244 seats (and 28 'perch' seats) per 4 car unit.  Standing capacity though is defined on them as 4 per sq m.) 

    Edited for more exact seat numbers

    Paul 


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on February 28, 2013, 01:24:34 pm
    Considering Crossrail 1 to have 'four legs', people expecting to use this presumed extension to Reading are just  going to have to deal with accommodation that's designed around the needs of Shenfield (GE slows), Abbey Wood (new route but only zone 4) and Heathrow (Connect style).

    I've always assumed that they aren't at all likely to design the train internals to be suitable for a Reading extension - and there isn't likely to be a subset of different stock either.

    Paul

    Another reason why Crossrail doesn't work West of Paddington even if only to Maidenhead because it's 24m 19ch miles out.

    Although Shenfield is 20m 16ch there have always been a fasts and semi running on the mainline which will presumably still run and interchange with Crossrail at Stratford.

    Plus you've got to admit the Current Heathrow Connect 360/2s have got style so the Crossrail stock won't be an improvement.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on February 28, 2013, 05:15:12 pm
    Out here in the sticks, the first bit of preparation for electrification is under way. The footbridge over the railway at Stapleton Road station - between Bristol Temple Meads and Bristol Parkway - is having extra bits added to it. This should render it more difficult for an accidental connection between 25KV AC OHLE and Mk 1 pedestrian.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on March 01, 2013, 11:01:18 am
    Getting old and not necessarily wiser I'd back the stupidity of Mk 1 pedestrian against the ingenuity of the OHLE engineer.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on July 18, 2013, 09:30:49 pm
    Will these be the electric units that end up working the LTV routes from Paddington to Oxford and Newbury after a short stint on the Thameslink route.  And will that 'extended order' end up providing the trains that end up working the East-West Rail route after that has been electrified?

    http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/southern-selects-bombardier-to-supply-trains-for-thameslink-cascade.html (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/southern-selects-bombardier-to-supply-trains-for-thameslink-cascade.html)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Network SouthEast on July 18, 2013, 09:40:06 pm
    Will these be the electric units that end up working the LTV routes from Paddington to Oxford and Newbury after a short stint on the Thameslink route.  And will that 'extended order' end up providing the trains that end up working the East-West Rail route after that has been electrified?
    I reckon the extended order could just be for life on LTV. NR expect 12 car trains to be needed in the future to keep up with demand on LTV.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on July 18, 2013, 09:58:09 pm
    Will these be the electric units that end up working the LTV routes from Paddington to Oxford and Newbury after a short stint on the Thameslink route.  And will that 'extended order' end up providing the trains that end up working the East-West Rail route after that has been electrified?

    http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/southern-selects-bombardier-to-supply-trains-for-thameslink-cascade.html (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/southern-selects-bombardier-to-supply-trains-for-thameslink-cascade.html)


    Don't think these will find their way on to the GW or EWrail, Southern need more trains as it is in part to lengthen services (daft things like 12 cars on the Epsom's  :o   ) 


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on July 18, 2013, 10:08:46 pm
    We'll see!  Southern won't exist from July 2015 by the time these trains arrive, and I'm a bit lost on what the effect of the expanded Thameslink network (and the new Siemens trains) will have on  existing services, and thus how much released stock will be available for other services, on Southern's current network.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Red Squirrel on July 19, 2013, 04:46:39 pm
    More preparation:

    Quote

    B4040 closes at Luckington for rail electrification and waterpipe work

    THE B4040 Luckington Road is due to be closed until August 5 while Network Rail works on the electrification of the main London to South Wales line.

    Source: Wilts and Glos Standard (http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/10560191._/)


    Given the short duration, I presume they will just be raising the parapet.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on July 19, 2013, 06:38:17 pm
    We'll see!  Southern won't exist from July 2015 by the time these trains arrive, and I'm a bit lost on what the effect of the expanded Thameslink network (and the new Siemens trains) will have on  existing services, and thus how much released stock will be available for other services, on Southern's current network.
    The whole Thameslink service is supposed to operate with the (mystical) class 700's   I say mystical because we are building stuff to some pretty generic information.

    There is also an expansion of Southeastern's services and lengthening which will require units, even with Southern ceasing after July 15 doesn't remove to increase in the number of trains and the lengthening.   The Investment Projects part of NR is deep in Power Supply Enhancement works across all 3 dc routes in readiness for the Dec 2018 timetable change


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on July 26, 2013, 04:19:37 pm
    Here's a NR blurb on the engineering train

    http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/Groundbreaking-factory-train-to-cut-years-off-Great-Western-electrification-1e0d.aspx


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on July 31, 2013, 11:34:55 am
    And a DfT press release that refers to what stock is being transferred to run under the wires...

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/commuters-to-benefit-from-state-of-the-art-electric-trains

    Quote
    The 116 new carriages will initially be used on the Thameslink route allowing the release of existing rolling stock to newly electrified routes across the country.

    and

    Quote
    Once the new Thameslink rolling stock has been delivered these 116 carriages will also transfer to operate on newly electrified rou^s elsewhere in England.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Red Squirrel on July 31, 2013, 11:54:33 am
    For a moment I thought they were referring to Class 116 units...


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on July 31, 2013, 11:57:26 am
    The way the dates pan out, I think we're probably now looking at the displaced 319s mostly going to the northwest, because they need suburban EMUs before the GW needs them, and then the 'temporary extra' Thameslink Electrostar/377s coming to the GW - the latter are supposed to have been ordered with 110 mph capability.

    I think any nominally spare 319s will still find a use somewhere in the wider Southern area of operations - anywhere four car units without gangways would be suitable, such as on the coastway between Brighton and Portsmouth/Southampton.

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: John R on August 01, 2013, 06:03:45 pm
    They only need a handful though before 2016, which is when the majority of the GW requirement also becomes due. There are around 9 Class 317's lying idle IIRC, and it wouldn't surprise me to see those brought into use for the new Liverpool electric services which will happen in Dec 14.

    Though I agree that 110mph stock would be better utilised on the GW than in the North West where the capability to run above 100mph will be worthless.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Lee on September 12, 2013, 11:45:22 am
    From the Bath Chronicle: (http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/Minister-derails-hopes-electrified-rail-line/story-19780828-detail/story.html#axzz2efowUSSZ)

    Quote from: Bath Chronicle
    Minister derails hopes of electrified rail line

    A Government minister has given short shrift to a town^s plea to be included in the plans to electrify the railway line from London to the West, saying there is no ^business case^.

    Civic leaders in Westbury had written to Transport Minister Simon Burns to call for the Reading to Westbury main line, which runs on through Somerset to Exeter, to be part of the project.

    The line is being electrified to Bristol and South Wales, but is going only as far as Bedwyn station in east Wiltshire, not across to Westbury and Frome.

    Mr Burns told them a feasibility report looked into extending to west Wiltshire and Somerset and decided it would not be cost-effective.

    On a slightly brighter note, Duncan Hames (Chippenham MP) is currently meeting the Transport Secretary to ask him about the new rail services that electrification makes possible, and the associated potential for trains to stop at Corsham.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on September 12, 2013, 01:10:04 pm
    I agreee a local service between Bristol and Chippenham/Swindon would be ideal especially it served new stations at Corsham and Royal Wotton Bassett.

    Of course this assumes there is capacity on the GW between Wotton Basset Jct and Swindon although an emu would be easier to path


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: DidcotPunter on October 31, 2013, 03:51:26 pm
    It looks like work has started in earnest on electrification work between Reading and Didcot. After a few tubular steel piles were installed earlier this year near Pangbourne, piling for the OHLE masts is under way.  Currently these have been installed intermittently east of Cholsey and near Goring alongside the the down main and between Pangbourne station and the A329 overbridge next to the up relief.  There may be more but it was a bit difficult to spot from a HST  ;D

    There was activity at the electrification stockpile at Moreton Cutting, east of Didcot today with lorries being loaded with steel piling when I passed by twice today.

    It looks like Amey are not waiting for the arrival of the High Output train before starting work on this section of the line.



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on October 31, 2013, 03:59:26 pm
    The High Output train arrived recently, didn't it?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on October 31, 2013, 04:12:43 pm
    The High Output train arrived recently, didn't it?

    The NR PR in July only really mentioned the work going on towards completion by Windhoffs in Germany. 
    AIUI from discussion elsewhere it is planned to visit the NR test track at High Marnham, for testing and crew training. Will probably need all sorts of certification and passing trials given it is supposed to work alongside an open line...

    In September Railway Gazette were reporting its completion:
    http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/high-output-electrification-train-ready-to-roll.html 

    I suspect it won't be seen 'in the wild' for a few months yet, in fact has Amey's contract to operate it actually started yet?

    Paul 


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on October 31, 2013, 06:14:33 pm
    It looks like Amey are not waiting for the arrival of the High Output train before starting work on this section of the line.

    That's because the time to get the "test section" built is tight, the IEP's will be run at line speed between Didcot and Tilhurst as part of the shake down of the trains


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: DidcotPunter on November 01, 2013, 08:32:30 am

    That's because the time to get the "test section" built is tight, the IEP's will be run at line speed between Didcot and Tilhurst as part of the shake down of the trains

    That's interesting - anyone know when the first IEP is due in the UK for testing?  I would presume that any shake-down running on this section would need to be at night as both main and relief lines are pretty busy during the day.

    I can't see electrification work west of Didcot starting before the end of 2014 as they won't have completed the bridge rebuilds before then and completion north of Didcot is dependent on the upgrade work at Oxford station.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on November 01, 2013, 10:52:49 am
    I thought the IEPs are going straight to the ECML for testing?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: anthony215 on November 01, 2013, 12:50:53 pm
    I will have a read through later but I am sure there is something about this in the August issue of Modern Railways.

    Hitachi were supposed to build at least one pre-production unit in japan before shipping it to the UK sometime in 2015.

    "Correction"

    There is a feature on page 17 of the November 2013 issue of Todays Railways UK about GBRF winning the IEP testing contract which states that the pre-series IEP's will be shipped to the UK for testing which will commence in March 2015. From this I think these 1st units should be in the UK by December 2014/January 2015.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: DidcotPunter on November 08, 2013, 11:05:42 am
    First part of High Output Plant train arrived yesterday in the UK from Windhoff in Germany.

    Pictures of it passing through Market Harborough en route from the Channel Tunnel to the High Marnham test track.

    http://mark5812.smugmug.com/Trains2013-1/November-2013/i-cGXVQgJ/A
    http://mark5812.smugmug.com/Trains2013-1/November-2013/i-VN8tkjb/A

    I think this consist includes the piling rig.  Clearly there is more to come.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on November 08, 2013, 08:13:47 pm
    Well spotted, DidcotPunter! I've been waiting for a glimpse. If that is five units in the pictures, there are still 18 to deliver. The two vehicles to the rear of the train appear to be almost identical. The third looks like the one that holds the pile vertical. I believe the white shields are used to allow working next to a live line. Any insider info here?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on November 09, 2013, 11:16:22 am
    Well spotted, DidcotPunter! I've been waiting for a glimpse. If that is five units in the pictures, there are still 18 to deliver. The two vehicles to the rear of the train appear to be almost identical. The third looks like the one that holds the pile vertical. I believe the white shields are used to allow working next to a live line. Any insider info here?

    That's how NR describe the shields: http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Gallery/The-steel-safety-39-wall-39-on-the-HOPS-to-allow-adjacent-line-working-at-speed-1bf2.aspx

    There are a number of descriptions knocking about of the functions of different modules, but one thing I've gleaned is that certain modules can split again on site, so the lead section, referred to as 'the' piling module, is two (or three) sets of equipment that can run independently.  So I wonder if the best idea is to think of it as having five functional tasks, but there'll be more than five separate sections when in operation.

    The NR Electrification RUS of 2009 has a fairly detailed explanation (in its Appendix 2) of what they intended it to look like when ordered, obviously it may be slightly different by now but it gives a good idea including artists impressions.   The press release containing the picture I linked to above also describes the five functional areas of the train:

    Quote
    - A piling rig, with two MPVs with Movax vibro piling heads, which literally vibrate the steel piles into the soil, 2 pile carrying wagons, and finally a Fambo hydraulic percussion hammer MPV for tougher ground.

    - An excavation and concrete batching consist. This will feature an Hitachi excavator plus a Kniele concrete unit which will mix concrete from onboard aggregate, cement and water tanks.

    - A structures consist, which will erect the Series One masts, portal booms and twin track cantilevers. It is intended to carry 30 masts for erection, per night.

    - Ancillary conductor consist, which will install the earthing wires, return wires and small parts such as registration arms and other equipment.

    - The contact and catenary consist, which will string up the remaining wires, under tension. Another unit install other articles such as contenary wires under low bridges, neutral sections and record information such as height and stagger.

    Each consist will include two MPVs with full driving cabs, powered by MTU power packs, which can be driven at 60mph off-site. On site driving cabs will allow the train to be driven very slowly in possessions, such as when installing contact
    wire.
    http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/Groundbreaking-factory-train-to-cut-years-off-Great-Western-electrification-1e0d.aspx

    Note for instance how the explanation of the first 'consist' of the five includes 3 MPVs.

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bobm on March 07, 2014, 06:54:02 pm
    Saw this at Swindon today - looks to be part of the High Output Plant system (HOPS) train - all shiny and new.

    (http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/swi070301.jpg)
    (http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/swi070302.jpg)
    (http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/swi070303.jpg)

    Couldn't see too much of the rest of the train as the "safety guards" were on my side of it.
    (http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/swi070304.jpg)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on March 07, 2014, 07:15:42 pm
    That looks like the 'Excavation and Concrete Batching' section of the HOPS train:

    http://www.railexpress.co.uk/news/new-factory-train-will-slash-gwml-electrification-schedule


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Red Squirrel on March 07, 2014, 07:29:06 pm
    Swindon is the High Output Operating Base, or HOOB. From my research (I'm not a professional railwayman but I'm usually pretty good with Google) I believe it will look something like this:

    (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/Hoobs.jpg/250px-Hoobs.jpg)



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Lee on March 07, 2014, 07:31:55 pm
    They're smart, they're fun, they know!


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bobm on March 07, 2014, 08:16:36 pm
    That looks like the 'Excavation and Concrete Batching' section of the HOPS train:

    http://www.railexpress.co.uk/news/new-factory-train-will-slash-gwml-electrification-schedule

    Thanks - yes that looks to be the one.  I was told it was going for a run from the depot, into Swindon to change ends, then off to go around the Didcot triangle to turn it.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on March 07, 2014, 11:05:46 pm
    Swindon is the High Output Operating Base, or HOOB. From my research (I'm not a professional railwayman but I'm usually pretty good with Google) I believe it will look something like this:

    (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/Hoobs.jpg/250px-Hoobs.jpg)

    Post of the week! If I could award a prize, you'd get it Tufty.  ;D ;D ;D

    ♪HOOB HOOB hooray! The HOOBmobile is coming your way♫.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bdm0KUbEo4o

    And worth adding. I laughed when seeing Red Squirrel's post. I laughed hard. Damn near coughed up a lung.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Red Squirrel on March 08, 2014, 10:16:20 am
    Well now you've gone and encouraged me: I just can't wait for the day when one of these rolls over the new Stapleton Rd viaduct:

    (http://www.oilzine.com/images/features/hoobmobile.jpg)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Lee on March 10, 2014, 08:05:54 am
    First electric services from London to Bristol Parkway should be running by 2018, with electric services to Temple Meads the following year according to Chris Aldridge of Network Rail - http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Electric-trains-London-Bristol-running-Great/story-20785715-detail/story.html


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: John R on March 10, 2014, 08:26:06 am
    Isn't that somewhat later than originally billed. This is the headline on Network Rail's GW Electrification page.

    We^re electrifying the railway between London and Bristol, including Newbury and Oxford, by 2016 and to Cardiff by 2017


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: stuving on March 10, 2014, 09:35:11 am
    Isn't that somewhat later than originally billed. This is the headline on Network Rail's GW Electrification page.

    We^re electrifying the railway between London and Bristol, including Newbury and Oxford, by 2016 and to Cardiff by 2017

    Well, yes, they do still say the line is to be ready by 2016, but the first trains (IEP) are not due until 2017. So it may be a matter of months for Parkway - but it does look as if the order has been changed, with most Bristol services being delayed.

    Now would that be because there is going to be other work in or around Temple Meads at the time?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: stuving on March 10, 2014, 09:51:39 am
    ... but the first trains (IEP) are not due until 2017.
    Having quoted that from a press release, some NR publicity still says "into use from 2016".


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Lee on March 10, 2014, 01:35:29 pm
    Wide-ranging article on the National Electrification Programme - http://www.therailengineer.com/2014/03/07/national-electrification-programme/


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bobm on March 15, 2014, 02:28:02 pm
    Swindon is the High Output Operating Base, or HOOB. From my research (I'm not a professional railwayman but I'm usually pretty good with Google) I believe it will look something like this:

    (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/Hoobs.jpg/250px-Hoobs.jpg)

    Seems you weren't alone with this thought...  the signallers at Swindon beat you to it.  Saw this at Swindon Panel where they control access to the depot which holds the train.

    (http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/hoob.jpg)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on March 15, 2014, 02:45:31 pm
    Brilliant! Made me chuckle.  ;D


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Lee on March 17, 2014, 05:46:30 pm
    ^87 million GWML electrification substations contract awarded - http://www.globalrailnews.com/2014/03/17/great-western-electrification-contract-awarded/


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Chris from Nailsea on March 17, 2014, 08:41:33 pm
    A variation on the story (with a possibly more relevant picture to illustrate it), from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26609000):

    Quote
    London Paddington to Bristol rail electrification creates Swindon jobs

    (http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73624000/jpg/_73624036_73624031.jpg)
    Electric trains should be running between London and Bristol by 2016

    About 100 jobs will be created in Swindon as part of the electrification of the railway line between London Paddington and Bristol.

    Network Rail bosses are due to sign the deal with ABB and UK Power Networks Services to provide 30 electricity substations to power the trains.

    The first of the stations is due to be delivered in June 2015 with the remainder at six-week intervals

    Work to upgrade bridges along the route is already under way.

    The route between London and Bristol - including the Newbury to Oxford link - is due to be completed by 2016 with the extension to Cardiff by 2017.

    A Network Rail spokesman said electric trains would have 20% more seats than a diesel equivalent, with journey times improved.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Lee on March 18, 2014, 08:26:50 am
    Disagreement between UK government and WAG over who should pay for Valley Lines Electrification - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26620650


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on March 18, 2014, 05:18:24 pm
    Disagreement between UK government and WAG over who should pay for Valley Lines Electrification - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26620650

    Well, there's a shock.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on March 21, 2014, 02:29:30 pm
    Disagreement between UK government and WAG over who should pay for Valley Lines Electrification - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26620650

    And more -
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26676140


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: DidcotPunter on March 21, 2014, 05:01:54 pm
    I think it's been mentioned before but the extension of electrification from Newbury to Bedwyn now appears to be receiving positive consideration by DfT

    http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/electrification-of-great-western-beyond-newbury-being-considered

    Not a done deal yet though - and given the costs involved of the other options to extend the wires to Westbury and beyond, anything further than Bedwyn seems unlikely at this stage.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on March 21, 2014, 05:18:33 pm

    Well, yes, they do still say the line is to be ready by 2016, but the first trains (IEP) are not due until 2017. So it may be a matter of months for Parkway - but it does look as if the order has been changed, with most Bristol services being delayed.

    Now would that be because there is going to be other work in or around Temple Meads at the time?

    Here in Four Track, Now! Towers, we have been pondering the same point. The IEP programme will add traffic to the line between BRI and Filton, with two extra TPH each way from BRI to PAD via BPW being only the start. Trains will need to get to and from the depot as well. The MetroWest plans could move ahead at some pace, but even the status quo will be tricky to maintain with only two tracks. The slightest problem brings everything  grinding to a halt.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Lee on March 24, 2014, 08:29:36 am
    ^87 million GWML electrification substations contract awarded - http://www.globalrailnews.com/2014/03/17/great-western-electrification-contract-awarded/

    Further detail on the substations contract - http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/abb-and-consortium-partner-win-145-million-order-to-upgrade-uk-rail-network/


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on March 24, 2014, 08:15:24 pm
    ^87 million GWML electrification substations contract awarded - http://www.globalrailnews.com/2014/03/17/great-western-electrification-contract-awarded/

    Further detail on the substations contract - http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/abb-and-consortium-partner-win-145-million-order-to-upgrade-uk-rail-network/

    SMOS light  ::) bit of an oxymoron, it much heavier than the SMOS used at Hayes and Old Oak Common Feeder Stations when HEX was commissioned in the 1990's ............. its called progress.  :P

    To be fair though this concept requires less site work to install and commission basically out door switchgear on a pallet on a mast ............. as an electrical engineer I think it will look fantastic  ;D


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on March 24, 2014, 08:47:27 pm

    SMOS light  ::) bit of an oxymoron, it much heavier than the SMOS used at Hayes and Old Oak Common Feeder Stations when HEX was commissioned in the 1990's ............. its called progress.  :P

    To be fair though this concept requires less site work to install and commission basically out door switchgear on a pallet on a mast ............. as an electrical engineer I think it will look fantastic  ;D

    Light is the new heavy, it seems. Looks good, though - value engineering of a good sort.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on March 24, 2014, 09:10:09 pm

    SMOS light  ::) bit of an oxymoron, it much heavier than the SMOS used at Hayes and Old Oak Common Feeder Stations when HEX was commissioned in the 1990's ............. its called progress.  :P

    To be fair though this concept requires less site work to install and commission basically out door switchgear on a pallet on a mast ............. as an electrical engineer I think it will look fantastic  ;D

    Light is the new heavy, it seems. Looks good, though - value engineering of a good sort.

    Vorsprung durch Technik or possibly All'avanguardia della tecnica but defiantly not 'advantage through technology' of the UK type


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: onthecushions on March 25, 2014, 05:06:32 pm

    Pity the journos who wrote those electrification articles didn't include the salient facts in their articles.

    Froth about "company track records" and "30 substations" actually clouds rather than informs.

    What is ^87M actually buying?

     OTC


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on March 25, 2014, 06:12:39 pm

    Vorsprung durch Technik or possibly All'avanguardia della tecnica but defiantly not 'advantage through technology' of the UK type

    Or the "Four sprung duck technique". The rest of that schoolboy joke is not for this forum.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Red Squirrel on April 03, 2014, 12:18:54 pm
    Never let it be suggested that the DMGT operates any kind of bias, but I have to say that the headline on this article really takes the biscuit:

    Quote

    Bristol passengers face five years of delays in ^7.5bn rail works

    By Michael Ribbeck

    IT was considered the greatest engineering feat of its time and a wonder of the industrial age. Isambard Kingdom Brunel's Great Western rail line was completed in 1838 and was immediately hailed as one of the wonders of the modern world.

    And now 176 years later First Great Western, the firm which operates services on the route, has announced the biggest upgrade the route has witnessed in its history.

    From Bristol Post (http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/TrainPassengers-face-years-delays-pound-7-5bn/story-20875920-detail/story.html#ixzz2xowA2hNl)


    The general run of the article is positive about the benefits of such a massive investment, so we must assume that it was a member of the editorial team who thought up the Eeyorish headline. As far as I can see, all Mark Hopwood said was:

    Quote

    All of this will take time. We will do all we can to keep inconvenience to a minimum ^ but passengers' patience will be invaluable.


    I don't know how others see this statement, but to me it doesn't sound like he was announcing the start of Delaymageddon...

     


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on April 09, 2014, 10:03:50 am
    Attended a presentation by two Network Rail guys last night put on by the local branch of IMechE....we got Richard McCulloch -Principal Sponsor for the IEP & Electrification project plus Ben Stevens, sponsor for the Oxford Resignalling project....

    Some notes....

    IEP trains testing on ECML Feb15, GWML (RDG-DID) Aug/Sep15
    Class 800 will be bi-mode units, Class 801 all-electric units - according to Richard, the DfT *still* haven't firmed up the mix!
    Pantographs can be raised / lowered while at speed

    Electrification - RDG-DID in time for the testing above
    Remaining track to OXF/BSK (EMUs to run)/Newbury & BPW Dec16
    BPW/Bath & BTM May17
    Cardiff Dec17
    Swansea May18
    164 structures in total (bridges/tunnels/station awnings) need clearance work


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on April 10, 2014, 08:18:34 pm
    Awesome amount of engineering work involved, whilst most people will notice only a copper cable, and will wonder why it costs so much.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on April 10, 2014, 09:36:17 pm
    Awesome amount of engineering work involved, whilst most people will notice only a copper cable, and will wonder why it costs so much.
    And logistically the construction work is compressed into very short access times, with some very scarcity of skilled labour to do it with


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bobm on April 11, 2014, 10:10:50 pm
    From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-26989003)

    Quote
    Great Western electrification disruption tackled

    (http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73428000/jpg/_73428885_73428884.jpg)
    The railway bridge at Dauntsey Lock on the B4069 will be closed for five months

    Network Rail has pledged to work harder to avoid disruption caused by the Great Western line electrification project.

    Over the past few weeks, several roads and bridges have been closed off in Wiltshire causing delays for motorists.

    After a public meeting held on Thursday the firm offered Wiltshire Council a liaison officer to ensure people were better informed.

    The Swindon to Kemble line is being upgraded to two lines ahead of the main electrification work.

    Conservative North Wiltshire MP, Robert Gray welcomed the move: "Through a liaison officer, that person is going to be solely responsible for making sure the local people know what's going on.

    "Frankly if you know what's going on, you know where the diversions are, where the blockages are that really helps you to sort out your day - if you don't know you get frustrated and cross."

    Some of the recent closures include a bridge along the B4069 at Dauntsey Lock which is being closed for 22 weeks to allow works to take place.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: didcotdean on April 15, 2014, 06:20:33 pm
    From The Herald (http://www.heraldseries.co.uk/news/11134881.MP_brands_Network_Rail__incompetent__over_extended_bridge_closure/):
    Quote
    MP brands Network Rail 'incompetent' over extended bridge closure
    NETWORK Rail has been labelled ^insensitive and incompetent^ by an MP after it admitted its rebuilding project of the first of 29 Oxfordshire bridges is already months off track.

    The rail infrastructure company is planning to rebuild or remodel the bridges as part of the work needed for the ^1bn electrification of the rail network.

    Fulscot Road bridge in South Moreton was supposed to be shut for six months, but ^ongoing design issues^ and the weather meant that closure has been pushed to 12 months.


    South Moreton residents said they are ^disgusted^ and they understood the closure of the main road out of the village into Didcot was because the rail firm had not foreseen engineering problems.

    Now Wantage MP Ed Vaizey has joined the criticism. He said: ^I believe Network Rail has proved to be both insensitive and incompetent so far, as sadly has been demonstrated in the very, very poor process and communication about Fulscot Bridge which is to remain closed for months to come even though it should, by now, have reopened.

    ^They are proceeding as though motorists don^t exist.^

    Mr Vaizey said that until he met Network Rail bosses three weeks ago, the firm was not regularly meeting with highways authority Oxfordshire County Council on the project.

    Claire Hollis, 39, who runs The Crown Inn in High Street, said the pub had been ^very quiet^ during the past six months, but said: ^This is even more frustrating.

    ^If we had known it would be a year in the first place we would have promoted things differently.

    ^Network Rail don^t even let us know what is going on.^

    The village^s woes were compounded when Oxfordshire County Council also closed the two main diversion routes into the village recently to carry out temporary repairs to make the roads usable for Network Rail contractors.

    South Moreton Parish Council clerk Roger Templeman said he was ^absolutely disgusted^ by the village^s treatment.

    He said: ^Nearly a year of traffic diversions are causing great inconvenience to villagers, loss of business to the village^s pubs, lots of damage to cars and cycles due to the potholes, safety issues for pedestrians competing with diverted traffic on the village roads, and no pedestrian diversion for villagers to the shops.^

    Network Rail is modifying railway bridges to make way for new, overhead electric wires, which it says will allow it to run faster, more reliable and more eco-friendly trains.

    It will need to rebuild portions of the A4074 near Sandford-on-Thames, the A34 near Didcot, a bridge on Steventon High Street and a bridge on the A338 at Grove which takes 13,000 journeys each day from and to Oxford.

    Mr Vaizey said he would meet Transport Minister Stephen Hammond on May 20 to try to get Government funding to build temporary replacement bridges for Steventon and Grove.

    Network Rail spokeswoman Anne-Marie Batson said: ^Our policy is to minimise the impact on the community for the programme overall and we remain steadfast in meeting this, alongside the task to deliver a major scheme.^

    She refused to give details about what the ^design issues^ were.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on April 15, 2014, 09:19:04 pm
    I think for a Railway company
    Quote
    "They are proceeding as though motorists don^t exist.^
    is quite a fair view  :)

    Seriously though generally NR want to get these things done as quick as possible just delaying a project costs money, the weather this winter with all the floods quite possibly means the project have lost all their long duration line possessions, these are hard won from the TOC's n FOC's at the best of times. 


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: didcotdean on April 23, 2014, 03:16:26 pm
    From The Herald Series (http://www.heraldseries.co.uk/news/hsdidcotnews/11164394.Network_Rail_admits__considerable_problems__with___1bn_rail_electrification_project/)
    Quote
    Network Rail admits 'considerable problems' with ^1bn rail electrification project

    NETWORK Rail has admitted to Wantage MP Ed Vaizey it has had ^considerable problems^ with its ^1bn electrification project so far.

    Mr Vaizey, who previously branded the company ^incompetent and insensitive^, said directors told him they would work ^much harder^ to minimise the inevitable disruption the project would cause.

    It comes after the rail infrastructure company announced last month that it would have to close Fulscot Bridge in South Moreton, near Didcot, for double the six months already suffered by residents. It has now submitted an application to South Oxfordshire District Council to raise the bridge, after discovering ^more work was needed^.

    The company is working on electrifying the Great Western Mainline for improved and faster services.

    After meeting with directors, Mr Vaizey said: ^They have acknowledged that there have been considerable problems in the work done on bridges so far, and that they needed to make considerable improvements to their planning and the way they work with local councils and local communities. I have already seen some evidence of measures being put in place to do so...


    ^I was also heartened to hear that Network Rail will work much harder with their contractors and the county council to minimise, as far as possible, the inevitable disruption that this work will cause.^

    Network Rail spokeswoman Anne-Marie Batson said: ^We certainly acknowledged to Mr Vaizey that there have been considerable challenges on the bridge projects and this included Fulscot Bridge.

    ^We are currently installing new embankments but, unfortunately, more work is needed to bring the road back into line with the bridge and reinforce the arch supports at the sides.

    ^We will continue working closely with Mr Vaizey^s office, the local authorities, parish and town councils and the community throughout the project to keep everyone informed.^


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: DidcotPunter on May 13, 2014, 02:23:59 pm
    "Network Rail chief warns upgrade project will breach ^1bn budget"

    From today's FT interview with Mark Carne, new Chief Executive of Network Rail:-

    "The scheme to convert the line linking London to south Wales from diesel to electric trains was originally priced at about ^1bn but that is now under review because of rising costs.

    There have been several problems from stormy winter weather to disputes with councils over road closures, to the presence of bats, newts and dormice along the route."

    Full details of the interview here (registration may be required):

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1873242e-d9c2-11e3-b3e3-00144feabdc0.html

    Apart from bats, newts and dormice, I guess it's not surprising they're over budget given the weather and road closure related issues.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: TaplowGreen on May 13, 2014, 03:30:37 pm
    Still a relative bargain compared to the ^40 billion + being wasted on HS2 though?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: DidcotPunter on May 13, 2014, 04:05:29 pm
    Still a relative bargain compared to the ^40 billion + being wasted on HS2 though?

    I guess we'll have to agree to differ on our opinion on the need for HS2, but it's an interesting comparison, though the HS2 costs will include land purchase and compensation as well as the rather large "optimism bias" imposed by the Treasury for works of this nature.

    I note that on the FGW website they quote a spend of ^7.5bn by Network Rail on GW upgrades.

    http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/About-Us/greater-west

    Presumably in addition to electrification, this includes schemes such as Reading rebuild and flyovers, Swindon-Kemble redoubling and Filton Bank four-track replacement, as well as Temple Meads and Oxford station upgrades. Not sure if the Crossrail part of the GWML is included in this.

    One can argue whether HS2 or GW upgrade represents better value but it looks like both are happening.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on May 13, 2014, 05:26:32 pm
    Still a relative bargain compared to the ^40 billion + being wasted on HS2 though?

    I guess we'll have to agree to differ on our opinion on the need for HS2, but it's an interesting comparison, though the HS2 costs will include land purchase and compensation as well as the rather large "optimism bias" imposed by the Treasury for works of this nature.

    I note that on the FGW website they quote a spend of ^7.5bn by Network Rail on GW upgrades.

    http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/About-Us/greater-west

    Presumably in addition to electrification, this includes schemes such as Reading rebuild and flyovers, Swindon-Kemble redoubling and Filton Bank four-track replacement, as well as Temple Meads and Oxford station upgrades. Not sure if the Crossrail part of the GWML is included in this.

    One can argue whether HS2 or GW upgrade represents better value but it looks like both are happening.

    Also re signalling virtually the entire route Hayes to Bristol, all the work around Oxford

    There's a lot going on


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on May 13, 2014, 06:20:15 pm
    Still a relative bargain compared to the ^40 billion + being wasted on HS2 though?

    We should agree to disagree on HS2. Like Filton Bank four-tracking, Crossrail, Portishead, Kemble reodoubling, the Bicester chord, and a whole bundle of other enhancements, HS2 will increase capacity, in this case from South to North, where voices are loud in support. If it must be built, then it makes sense to build it to a high-speed spec.

    It is a shame that the budget is going to be busted for electrification, but not a huge surprise. This is one of those cases when you don't really know what needs doing until you start doing it, and the issues with the weather haven't helped. There is no question of not doing it this time, and it will be worth the pain and the cost to have a modern, efficient, and expandable electric railway. As Electric train is keen to point out (quite rightly) the future is 25KV OHLE. My former home Blackpool will be a beneficiary of electrification, and has recently had its tramway essentially rebuilt, with the foresight to make it compatible with European Tram-train spec. The local council has, very recently, approved a contribution of ^1.6 million to have the tramway run away from the promenade to Blackpool North Station. The total cost of ^16 million will be covered by that and Transport for Lancashire, the ITA that Bristol, for one, lacks. In this way, transport becomes integrated forever.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on May 14, 2014, 01:29:59 pm
    On a lighter note two Class 20s (189 and 142), very smart in the new Balfour Beatty blue and white livery, have appeared in platform 6 at Slough. Apparently for electrifcation work.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: didcotdean on May 14, 2014, 02:23:05 pm
    It is a shame that the budget is going to be busted for electrification, but not a huge surprise. This is one of those cases when you don't really know what needs doing until you start doing it, and the issues with the weather haven't helped.
    Certainly seems that they underestimated the works required and hence cost of raising a number of the bridges. I daresay they weren't in such a state of repair that there was concern if they remained as they were, but attempting to build them up has revealed foundations not sufficient, structural issues etc.

    As to 'disputes with councils' that also reflects insufficient planning and local engagement. You can't expect to put in to divert traffic several, even tens of miles for six months especially on major routes without providing suitable alternatives.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on May 14, 2014, 02:51:28 pm
    On a lighter note two Class 20s (189 and 142), very smart in the new Balfour Beatty blue and white livery, have appeared in platform 6 at Slough. Apparently for electrifcation work.

    In connection with the reinstatement of the former Langley Oil Terminal sidings as they will be used during the Crossrail electrification works.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on May 14, 2014, 08:37:55 pm
    Can anyone clarify please. Is it one elctrification team working form Hayes to Maidenhead for Crossrail and another from Maidenhead to Swansea for the DfT and Welsh assembly? Or is it the same team being paid from two different pots one for Crossrail and the other for the GWML.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on May 14, 2014, 09:01:11 pm
    Can anyone clarify please. Is it one elctrification team working form Hayes to Maidenhead for Crossrail and another from Maidenhead to Swansea for the DfT and Welsh assembly? Or is it the same team being paid from two different pots one for Crossrail and the other for the GWML.

    Certainly there are 2 separate contacts for the Crossrail and the GW electrification, they will be the same (or very similar) members of the contractors staff working on both.

    To the outsider it may seem barmy way to work, however these are funded from different sources, yes I know its all tax payers money but HM Treasury don't do sensible, therefore they have to be kept separate contractually. Crossrail has its delivery targets to achieve set by TfL and DfT and GW has its set by the ORR and DfT.

    There is a lot of joined up thinking going on in the background to ensure the two schemes join seamlessly at Maidenhead ............... or at least that's what someone in the GW project told me  ;D

    The GW electrification construction delivery teams are just starting to ramp up, I can always tell because the number of offers of jobs increases, were as the Crossrail teams are about 6 months ahead.

    The biggest problem the industry has is the number of experienced OLE construction staff, there just aren't enough; engineers from Spain, Germany and Hungary are brought over this very expensive though


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: DidcotPunter on May 15, 2014, 10:10:46 am
    My understanding was that Balfour Beatty have the contract for electrification from Airport Junction to Maidenhead under the Crossrail contract and Amey are doing from Maidenhead to Newbury, Oxford, Bristol and Cardiff under the GWML electrification contract. Not sure about Cardiff to Swansea and the Valley lines electrification.

    In the meantime Network Rail have started to update the GW electrification pages on their site.

    On the Didcot to Swindon section dates have been announced for the road closures for bridge rebuilding on this section.  Oddly these appear on the Oxfordshire County Council website but not the NR one yet. See here:-

    http://voyager.oxfordshire.gov.uk/map.aspx

    (to view individual dates, uncheck everything under Travel options then check Roadworks and set Calendar to "All dates")

    The one exception is the A338 bridge at Wantage Road over which there has been much controversy. From the announcement here:-

    http://www.networkrail.co.uk/great-western-electrification/oxfordshire/

    ..it appears that Network Rail have now agreed to install a temporary bridge at the site during the rebuild so that the road remains open. Maybe that will placate the riled burghers of Wantage and Grove  ;D  No doubt this will have contributed the budget overspend by NR mentioned earlier as well.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Western Enterprise on May 15, 2014, 10:51:45 am
    On a lighter note two Class 20s (189 and 142), very smart in the new Balfour Beatty blue and white livery, have appeared in platform 6 at Slough. Apparently for electrifcation work.

    Well done 8F!
    I also saw them this morning, quite splendid in their grey / blue livery.

    I also noticed that they had what looked like wood wagons sandwiched between them and original headcodes boxes!
    One was 'T0' and the other was '1K73', a very interesting choice.
    Are those scottish codes?
    WE.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on May 15, 2014, 11:16:55 am
    One was 'T0' and the other was '1K73', a very interesting choice.
    Are those scottish codes?

    1K73 is the 11:40 Norwich to Cambridge, so they'd better get their skates on if they're going to get there on time for that working.  :o


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Ollie on May 15, 2014, 04:50:19 pm

    1K73 is the 11:40 Norwich to Cambridge, so they'd better get their skates on if they're going to get there on time for that working.  :o

    Maybe they have decided to work on the 23:30 from Glasgow Central to Ayr instead. (Also 1K73)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on June 12, 2014, 01:21:49 am
    They've been there for a week or so, but the first OLE structure masts in connecting with the GWML electrification (i.e. outside of the Reading rebuild area) have appeared just to the east of Pangbourne.  Supports are being installed overnight in the area, though using traditional methods rather than the HOOP machine.  Hopefully any niggles/delays with the various modules of the HOOP will be sorted shortly and the pace can be upped so that the project doesn't fall too far behind schedule!


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on June 12, 2014, 08:46:12 pm

    1K73 is the 11:40 Norwich to Cambridge, so they'd better get their skates on if they're going to get there on time for that working.  :o

    Maybe they have decided to work on the 23:30 from Glasgow Central to Ayr instead. (Also 1K73)

    I read the 1 K 73 as being I K B


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: DidcotPunter on July 02, 2014, 01:02:26 pm
    Morning peak in chaos today as a result of a piling crew cutting a signalling cable near Pangbourne. Cardiff terminators and through Cheltenham trains cancelled, some diversions from Bristol via Westbury and other cancellations from Oxford.

    In the meantime Network Rail have published an artists impression of the OLE support design to be used in Sydney Gardens, Bath here:

    http://www.networkrail.co.uk/great-western-route-modernisation/banes/

    Three week blockade planned next summer to install OLE in Box Tunnel followed by a further three week shutdown east of Bath for more wiring.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on July 02, 2014, 03:12:19 pm
    Those details from Network Rail (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/great-western-route-modernisation/banes/) of the work ahead in Bath, quoted in full:

    Quote
    Bath update, Tuesday 1 July

    (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/assets/0/72/4294967297/30064771426/30064772515/30064773580/30064773581/faaebec7-df93-42d2-9b3b-999638a3d347.jpg)

    Electrification will open the way for a new generation of electric intercity trains serving Bath from 2017, resulting in more seats, more leg room, more tables and a reduction in journey times.

    It will also bring a greener and quieter railway, with fewer emissions and a reduction in the noise as electric trains replace the existing diesel ones.

    To achieve this, we're doing a package of works in preparation for the electrification of the Bath railway corridor. The majority of the work will be completed at night so trains can operate as normal for passengers.

    Work which can't be completed at night and which will affect the City of Bath will be carried out during six weeks from mid-July to the end of August 2015 in two main phases.

    The first three week phase will affect only the immediate Box Tunnel area (near Corsham) but the second three week phase also requires the closure the entire railway immediately east of Bath station and the direct route to Trowbridge.

    By maximising the work over a six week period it will be completed with the minimum possible disruption to passengers. We will also use the closure to complete other work that was scheduled over the coming years.

    The work is planned for the summer of 2015 as we need to sequence the work between work at Reading and Bristol and to avoid bat and newt breeding seasons. There will be further work west of Bath in 2016 that will require further changes to train services over some weekends, but on a smaller scale.

    The work to be completed in summer 2015 includes:

    • Lowering the track in Box Tunnel and installing electrification equipment.
    • Aligning the track at Bath Spa station to reduce the stepping gap between the train and the platform, while also making the platforms longer and larger.
    • Installing specially designed electrification equipment in Sydney Gardens in recognition of its unique status as a World Heritage Site. Huge care will be taken to ensure that the work protects the special status of the City of Bath and its listed buildings.
    • We're working with First Great Western, Bath & North East Somerset Council and Bath Tourism Plus to make sure that the electrification of the railway through Bath causes the minimum disruption to rail users and visitors to the city.

    The overriding objective of all these organisations is to keep passengers on trains, wherever possible, rather than having to use coach services.

    Final plans will be announced in autumn 2014 following dialogue with businesses, tourism representatives and rail users.

    All parties are working to ensure that Bath remains open during the works next summer, albeit with reduced train services. Measures under consideration to manage the impact on residents and visitors include:

    • Ensuring commuters and off-peak passengers can travel by train by keeping the rail route west of Bath open throughout the work, so that a reduced service from Bath Spa to London Paddington and Bath Spa to Bristol Temple Meads and Cardiff Central can operate.
    • Keeping passengers on trains that normally travel through Bath Spa by diverting services where possible.
    • Implementing a high quality coach service between Bath Spa and Chippenham, Trowbridge and Westbury at the same frequency as rail services, connecting passengers with onward train services at those stations.
    • Easing ticket restrictions to enable passengers to use alternative rail routes.
    • Allowing car park season ticket holders to use car parks at alternative train stations.

    These proposals will be refined following a review of passenger journeys made at Bath Spa this summer and consultation with user groups.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on July 02, 2014, 07:20:04 pm
    Morning peak in chaos today as a result of a piling crew cutting a signalling cable near Pangbourne. Cardiff terminators and through Cheltenham trains cancelled, some diversions from Bristol via Westbury and other cancellations from Oxford.

    I am sure there will be more that to come, there is a challenge to get the Reading - Didcot section wired and powered asap so the full line speed running in and tests can be done.

    Three week blockade planned next summer to install OLE in Box Tunnel followed by a further three week shutdown east of Bath for more wiring.

    It is the only practical way to do this type of work, I am involved in a project working on the bottom ends of both the ECML and MML the short possessions extend the work out to months, increases cost and there is high risk of overrun due equipment / install failure


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on July 02, 2014, 07:26:43 pm
    There isn't any stock to test an electrified section if done 'asap'


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on July 02, 2014, 08:06:08 pm
    There isn't any stock to test an electrified section if done 'asap'

    It's due in the UK later this year


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on July 03, 2014, 10:55:52 am
    There isn't any stock to test an electrified section if done 'asap'

    There are various electrification test coaches which can be used as well as borrowing emus and electric locomotives from other places to draw large currents. Lack of stock is, I suggest, the last of their worries.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Rhydgaled on July 03, 2014, 01:09:55 pm
    Those details from Network Rail (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/great-western-route-modernisation/banes/) of the work ahead in Bath, quoted in full:

    Quote
    Bath update, Tuesday 1 July

    (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/assets/0/72/4294967297/30064771426/30064772515/30064773580/30064773581/faaebec7-df93-42d2-9b3b-999638a3d347.jpg)

    Electrification will open the way for a new generation of electric intercity trains serving Bath from 2017, resulting in more seats, more leg room, more tables and a reduction in journey times.

    It will also bring a greener and quieter railway, with fewer emissions and a reduction in the noise as electric trains replace the existing diesel ones.
    Err, what's the seating capacity of the IC125s going to be after the 1st->std conversions again? 560? If so, some of the new trains will have 245 fewer seats while others will have an increase of 67. As for the Sydney Gardens OHLE design sketch, I note the fencing has vanished and the OHLE mast does not extend to ground level. I hope they can resolve the latter as it is the same problem which blights some electrified viaducts (which have masts bolted to the outside face), a vertical pillar ending in thin air looks very odd. With only a black-and-white sketch to go on, it is hard to judge the visual impact any more than that.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on July 04, 2014, 12:08:26 am
    The press release merely says, "more seats".

    Across the routes that the IEPs will serve there will be a net increase of seats available in any 24 hour period. a train for train comparison isn't really fair, as the timetable and frequency of services are being totally re-cast.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: broadgage on July 04, 2014, 08:59:39 am
    The press release merely says, "more seats".

    Across the routes that the IEPs will serve there will be a net increase of seats available in any 24 hour period. a train for train comparison isn't really fair, as the timetable and frequency of services are being totally re-cast.

    This is looking increasingly like "voyager mark two"
    When the (then) Virgin voyagers were being discussed, I and many others, expressed concern that the new trains were half length and therefore likely to be overcrowded.
    We were assured by the rail industry that the new  much shorter trains would in fact be fine because "there will be a net increase in seats over 24 hours" and that "the timetable and frequency of services is being totally re-cast"

    The new half length trains duly arrived, and many popular services were full and standing from day one, and years later are still thus. It is little consolation to those standing on a new shorter train to be told that more seats are available in total, if they have to stand on a service that previously had seats for all.

    It is now admitted that voyagers are not ideal for long journeys from either the passenger comfort or total train length point of view. We are however stuck with them for many years yet.
    And in at least one respect, the IEPs are even worse than voyagers with not even a buffet for steerage.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on July 04, 2014, 02:17:59 pm
    The new half length trains duly arrived, and many popular services were full and standing from day one, and years later are still thus. It is little consolation to those standing on a new shorter train to be told that more seats are available in total, if they have to stand on a service that previously had seats for all.

    I quite agree.  However, the current IEP formations suggest all trains through Bath will be formed of 9-Car IEPs with a mix of 5-Car IEPs and 9-Car IEPs forming the additional two trains as hour between Bristol and London, which, although they won't call at Bath, will no doubt attract many Bristol customers away from those routed via Bath.  The net result for Bath should be (with my realistic head on, not my cynical or optimistic one) a suitable increase in seats.  However, I am a little concerned about the South Wales services that will see little if any frequency increases.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: John R on July 04, 2014, 05:42:58 pm
    I would expect the additional services through Bristol Parkway to provide some relief to the South Wales services as well, particularly if they are faster by virtue of not stopping at Swindon or Didcot.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on July 05, 2014, 10:02:26 am
    Yes, I'd agree, John - they should indeed provide some relief, as will the enhanced service to from Cheltenham/Gloucester.  I'm concerned that it won't be enough though, over time, given the continuing growth on the route, especially if any of the Cardiff services are formed of 5-Car Bi-Mode IEPs.  I have similar concerns over the Cotswold Line.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on July 05, 2014, 10:27:34 am
    I would expect the additional services through Bristol Parkway to provide some relief to the South Wales services as well, particularly if they are faster by virtue of not stopping at Swindon or Didcot.

    It's a faster route in any case. Then add in the faster acceleration and later braking times, and the service will be faster, even with stops at Swindon and Didcot.

    Given that this was all planned a few years ago, since when rail use has grown substantially, do we know if there are options for more (or longer) trains?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Rhydgaled on July 05, 2014, 09:50:39 pm
    The new half length trains duly arrived, and many popular services were full and standing from day one, and years later are still thus. It is little consolation to those standing on a new shorter train to be told that more seats are available in total, if they have to stand on a service that previously had seats for all.

    I quite agree.  However, the current IEP formations suggest all trains through Bath will be formed of 9-Car IEPs with a mix of 5-Car IEPs and 9-Car IEPs forming the additional two trains as hour between Bristol and London, which, although they won't call at Bath, will no doubt attract many Bristol customers away from those routed via Bath.  The net result for Bath should be (with my realistic head on, not my cynical or optimistic one) a suitable increase in seats.  However, I am a little concerned about the South Wales services that will see little if any frequency increases.
    Yes, Bath seems to have got off lightly on the IEP front, every other GW-IC route it seems will see 5-car units on at least some services.

    Yes, I'd agree, John - they should indeed provide some relief, as will the enhanced service to from Cheltenham/Gloucester.  I'm concerned that it won't be enough though, over time, given the continuing growth on the route, especially if any of the Cardiff services are formed of 5-Car Bi-Mode IEPs.  I have similar concerns over the Cotswold Line.
    As I've just posted over on the 15:51 to Worcester topic, the DfT diagram modelling assumes single 5-car units on all but two Costwolds-PAD services in each direction. There are some single 5-car units on Cardiff workings too, and on Swansea services. For example, the 08:40 PAD-SWA, 08:58 PAD-CDF and 09:40 PAD-SWA are all single 5-car units.

    I would expect the additional services through Bristol Parkway to provide some relief to the South Wales services as well, particularly if they are faster by virtue of not stopping at Swindon or Didcot.

    It's a faster route in any case. Then add in the faster acceleration and later braking times, and the service will be faster, even with stops at Swindon and Didcot.

    Given that this was all planned a few years ago, since when rail use has grown substantially, do we know if there are options for more (or longer) trains?
    There are/were options for trains to run on other routes (southern WCML, IC225 replacment, Kings Lynn and PAD-Plymouth/Penzance), one of which has been taken up, but nothing about train lengthening as far as I'm aware. Anyway, the problem isn't a shortage of units*, so an option for more trains isn't required, longer trains is what we need.

    * in fact I think we could probably have slightly fewer of them, since there is an allowance for a small amount of multiple working in the 5-car fleet currently planned.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on July 06, 2014, 11:01:12 am
    I do wish the DfT would get over their obsession with trying to get 100% utilisation and 100 reliability from rolling stock.

    It is mathamatically impossible as all mechnical things will fail at some point. They also need constant maintenace to maintain their reliabilty.

    It can be proved that the higher the utilisation achieved the lower the reliability. This was comprehensively proved with Hull trains. When they lost their spare Meridian their fleet went from being one of the most reliable fleets (as measured by miles 5 minute failures) to being one of the worst with a  large decrease in miles per failure.

    So instead of trying to spread the 5 cars all over the country why not order another couple or more and add to the Cotswold line fleet for strengthening and improving the reliability of the whole fleet. It would pay off in the life of the units.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on July 06, 2014, 11:25:08 am
    I do wish the DfT would get over their obsession with trying to get 100% utilisation and 100 reliability from rolling stock.
    I can find no evidence that they are doing that at all.   Tenders do seem to be based on daily diagrams required, but winning bidders are providing more trains than required.

    The recent ECML track access application for the post-IEP timetable shows quite a low utilisation of their IEP fleet, as you'd expect with four sub-fleets:

    Quote
    The fleet consists of the following formation (with 2x 5 car operation in the peaks):
    10 x 9 car bi-mode plus 3 x 9 car bi-mode spare sets (Class 800 series)
    26 x 9 car electrics plus 4 x 9 car electric spare sets (Class 801 series)
    8 x 5 car bi-modes plus 2 x 5 car bi-mode spare sets (Class 800 series)
    10 x 5 car electrics plus 2 x 5 car bi-mode spare sets (Class 801 series)
    (54 diagrams per day) plus 11 spare sets per day

    http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/12184/s17-ec-applic-form-p.pdf

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on July 22, 2014, 01:39:34 pm
    A query about GW branches and electrification.  Everyone is well aware of the main 'electrification gap' affecting services based around Reading, i.e. the North Downs route to Gatwick via Redhill.   It is also common knowledge that the 3 main Thames Valley branches are being wired.

    But what about the FGW services between Oxford and Banbury?  These rarely gets mentioned one way or another, AFAICR, but I just noticed in the electrification diagram shown on page 41 of the GW route plan here:

    http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/strategicbusinessplan/cp5/supporting%20documents/our%20activity%20and%20expenditure%20plans/route%20plans/western%20route%20plan.pdf

    ...an unlabelled extension north of Oxford.  Is that supposed to be Banbury, or is it just an error in the drawing?

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Network SouthEast on July 22, 2014, 02:02:24 pm
    Oxford to Banbury and Reading to Basingstoke are being wired up as part of the bigger "Electric Spine" project which will see electrification of Bedford to Nottingham, Banbury to Nuneaton and the East West line from Oxford to Bedford, as well as the eventual conversion of Basingstoke to Southampton from DC to AC.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on July 22, 2014, 02:22:02 pm
    Oxford-Banbury electrification is part of the freight spine work, not the GW electrification, and thus subject to a different timescale.

    A turbo will service the FGW OXF-BAN trains until such time as the electrification to BAN is complete - then there's talk of starting OXF IEPs back from there, certainly in the peaks. IT should mean no OXF starters/terminators in the peaks, and thus improve punctuality through Oxford going forward....

    ....and ease the services through the station when the redevelopment takes place, and not all platforms are available


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on July 22, 2014, 02:49:25 pm
    Thanks but I know all about the 'electric spine' aspects of electrification - but going by the latest update to the CP enhancements (Jun 14) the dates for the sections to Oxford Banbury and Basingstoke are still to be decided - and with much of the rest of the electric spine work due to finish beyond 2019, is there any firm evidence that these two are going to be done by 2019 (end of CP5)?

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on July 22, 2014, 03:15:26 pm
    Those sections, I thought, are part of the GW scheme? Oxford *must* be as IEPs are due to start running to Newbury & Oxford by 2017(? - but certainly the first to use IEPs, and within CP5).

    The Spine I thought was following the completion of the current plans for GW electrification, so could well be outside CP5.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on July 22, 2014, 03:53:37 pm
    Those sections, I thought, are part of the GW scheme?

    My typo sorry, I meant Oxford to Banbury, rather than Oxford itself...

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Rhydgaled on July 22, 2014, 08:59:32 pm
    A turbo will service the FGW OXF-BAN trains until such time as the electrification to BAN is complete - then there's talk of starting OXF IEPs back from there, certainly in the peaks.
    How would Oxford's hourly IEP service start back from Banbury? It is currently advertised as starting back from Worcester/Hereford. If there's going to be more than one IEP per hour to Oxford, where are the additional IEP units coming from?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: eightf48544 on July 22, 2014, 10:38:47 pm
    If there's going to be more than one IEP per hour to Oxford, where are the additional IEP units coming from?

    The DfT's fantasy diagram section.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on July 23, 2014, 09:27:15 am
    My bad - I was chucking the 319s (or whatever) in the same overall 'IEP' programme for ease of writing. It's likely to be these rather than actual IEP that start back from BAN.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: BBM on August 13, 2014, 09:33:34 am
    BBC South Today's report on the work of the HOPS train on the GWML has just been posted on the BBC News website:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28766197 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28766197)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on August 13, 2014, 10:36:36 am
    And Paul Clifton tweeted a photo (https://twitter.com/PaulCliftonBBC/status/499163119714066432/photo/1) of the cameraman getting extremely wet....



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on August 13, 2014, 10:47:25 am
    Would it would be too much to expect the dates to be right though?   
    Parkway to Cardiff by Dec 2017, and Cardiff to Swansea by Dec 2018 is the latest published timeline.

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on August 13, 2014, 07:40:15 pm
    Would it would be too much to expect the dates to be right though?   
    Parkway to Cardiff by Dec 2017, and Cardiff to Swansea by Dec 2018 is the latest published timeline.

    Paul

    I would say they will not be too far out with electrification on new route gets going it is quite quick, the line possessions already booked, surveying and trial holes ongoing so providing the factory train does what says on the can then yes, this train is only for plain line complex areas will be done with conventional RRVs.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on August 14, 2014, 10:29:33 am
    BBC South Today's report on the work of the HOPS train on the GWML has just been posted on the BBC News website:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28766197 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28766197)

    I notice NR are saying that this marks the *start* of the electrification....when *we* know otherwise that piling has been taking place for a while now. Of course, all the pro mags & websites take this as gospel, without checking. Even one who marked the first pile going in....


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: patch38 on August 19, 2014, 04:12:51 pm
    Passing North Pole just now (the depot not the compass point) and I notice that a whole raft of Hitachi branding has appeared over the front doors and along the side of the shed...


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: SandTEngineer on August 25, 2014, 02:38:29 pm
    ......and apparently there is a new logo to cover the GWML electrification work that looks very familiar (wonder how much they payed a consultant to come up with that idea ::) ::)): http://www.furrerfrey.ch/en/furrerfrey/news-overview/2014/q3/GWE.html


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ChrisB on August 25, 2014, 04:15:29 pm
    Who owns the original copyright?....


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on August 25, 2014, 05:19:45 pm
    The Great Western Railway's legacy GWR roundel is trademarked for certain uses, with the mark being owned by the Science Museum Group (SCMG Enterprises Limited).

    http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00002636701

    I have a feeling it may be public domain for other uses, such as when used by heritage railways, other museums (not for souvenirs) and publications. It's unlikely, I think, that SCMG Enterprises Limited are going to be concerned that their trademark is being debased by the subtly altered use in a totally different class of business to which they use the trademark for.

    If Furrer+Frey, or other partners in the Great Western Electrification progamme, started selling cufflinks, badges, crockery or mirrors with that GWE roundel on them then they could be breaching SCMG Enterprises Limited's trademark. I don't think that's likely though.

    Looking into this did lead me to another recent trademark using the letters 'GWR'. See:

    http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=4600.msg159965#msg159965


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: broadgage on August 26, 2014, 09:23:50 am
    Wires down AGAIN on the southern end of the ECML, with serious disruption since last evening.
    Hopefully lessons have been learnt from the failed East Coast scheme and the GWR electrification will be more successful.
    However many parts of the GWR route are exposed to high winds, and other parts have steep sided cuttings and embankments that appear vulnerable to landslides displacing masts etc.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: a-driver on August 26, 2014, 11:18:18 am
    Wires down AGAIN on the southern end of the ECML, with serious disruption since last evening.
    Hopefully lessons have been learnt from the failed East Coast scheme and the GWR electrification will be more successful.
    However many parts of the GWR route are exposed to high winds, and other parts have steep sided cuttings and embankments that appear vulnerable to landslides displacing masts etc.


    It was alleged that it was a Network Rail test train that bought the wires down as well.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on August 26, 2014, 07:29:48 pm
    Broadgauge the type of OLE being used on the GWML west of Airport Jcn has a different means of registering the wires.  The ECML with its BR Mk3 head span construction is prone to all line blockage if one road is damaged on the GW independently mechanically registered equipment is being used, basically it will use portal (ie steel beams across all lines) in 4 track areas and single mast for each line in 2 track areas; also the GWML are going for typical 50 metres between structures whereas the ECML is typically 70 metres.

    Will the GWML get affected by a rip down at some stage yes it will do HST's have catastrophic failures stranding passengers for hours on end in the middle of no where  yes they have, mechanical and electrical systems fail we have to accept that its when the human intervention during the failures fails that is inexcusable


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on August 26, 2014, 07:53:43 pm
    ...and single mast for each line in 2 track areas; also the GWML are going for typical 50 metres between structures whereas the ECML is typically 70 metres.

    Also, I believe the plan is to have bi-di signalling installed as part of the Oxford corridor enhancements between Didcot and Banbury, so along with the bi-di signalling already installed westwards from Didcot to Bristol, and the fact that many trains will have back-up emergency diesel power or full bi-mode capability and every indication is that the GWML system (and the ability to continue in some capacity when there has been a failure) will be much more robust than the ECML which does fail spectacularly far too often.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on August 26, 2014, 09:43:41 pm
    and every indication is that the GWML system (and the ability to continue in some capacity when there has been a failure) will be much more robust than the ECML which does fail spectacularly far too often.

    The ECML OLE is now 25 years old for the newest parts, between Hitchin and Peterborough its over 30.  BR did the ECML electrification to a very tight budget, its maintenance suffered in the Railtrack years at the very time it need a half life refit it did not get that much money most being diverted the WCML although in 2000 ish it did get a new feeder station at Corries Mill, new SCADA and new protection relays but these were seen a performance enhancements.

    Line access on the ECML is very restrictive due to a lot of freight and currently the Scottish Sleepers are diverted down the ECML at weekend while the WCML is have yet more work done to it.

    The ECML has an OLE power upgrade project planned for the next 5 years along with ETRMS the power upgrade keeps getting "optimised"


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on August 26, 2014, 09:46:53 pm

    Also, I believe the plan is to have bi-di signalling installed as part of the Oxford corridor enhancements between Didcot and Banbury, so along with the bi-di signalling already installed westwards from Didcot to Bristol, and the fact that many trains will have back-up emergency diesel power or full bi-mode capability and every indication is that the GWML system (and the ability to continue in some capacity when there has been a failure) will be much more robust than the ECML which does fail spectacularly far too often.

    All the trains will have diesel back-up. The 9-car sets will have 2 (or three possibly) diesel engines, which should be able to provide enough power to limp along with pants down to the next station, subject to no entanglement of cables. The engines will be used daily, taking the sets into and out of the depot.

    If push comes to shove, they will probably be used to keep the lights and aircon on until a loco arrives to rescueone and all.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ellendune on August 26, 2014, 09:47:40 pm
    The ECML has an OLE power upgrade project planned for the next 5 years along with ETRMS the power upgrade keeps getting "optimised"

    That sounds like the new type of value engineering in which the bean counters engineer all the value out of the project before they approve it.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on August 26, 2014, 10:41:15 pm

    Also, I believe the plan is to have bi-di signalling installed as part of the Oxford corridor enhancements between Didcot and Banbury, so along with the bi-di signalling already installed westwards from Didcot to Bristol, and the fact that many trains will have back-up emergency diesel power or full bi-mode capability and every indication is that the GWML system (and the ability to continue in some capacity when there has been a failure) will be much more robust than the ECML which does fail spectacularly far too often.

    All the trains will have diesel back-up. The 9-car sets will have 2 (or three possibly) diesel engines, which should be able to provide enough power to limp along with pants down to the next station, subject to no entanglement of cables. The engines will be used daily, taking the sets into and out of the depot.

    If push comes to shove, they will probably be used to keep the lights and aircon on until a loco arrives to rescueone and all.

    Yes, agreed that all the SET/IEP's will, but the reason I said most trains is because I was taking into account the likely use of EMUs without any back-up diesel power on the London to Oxford/Newbury route and maybe further afield than that.  Compatible couplers with the SET trains would be potentially very useful on those occasions an EMU is stranded.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on August 26, 2014, 10:44:20 pm
    All the trains will have diesel back-up. The 9-car sets will have 2 (or three possibly) diesel engines, which should be able to provide enough power to limp along with pants down to the next station, subject to no entanglement of cables. The engines will be used daily, taking the sets into and out of the depot.

    If push comes to shove, they will probably be used to keep the lights and aircon on until a loco arrives to rescueone and all.

    Twerking all the way  ;D ;D sorry could not resist I am sure you meant Pan

    According to the IET lecture given by Hitachi last summer the gen sets on the electric traction only trains principle use is to maintain hotel services, it can power the traction pack with a limited speed of 30mph max


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Chris from Nailsea on August 26, 2014, 10:59:48 pm
    The 9-car sets will have 2 (or three possibly) diesel engines, which should be able to provide enough power to limp along with pants down to the next station...

    Twerking all the way  ;D ;D sorry could not resist I am sure you meant Pan


    Erm ... simply so I know how to record this correctly in our 'acronyms and abbreviations' pages, should I refer to 'pantographs', 'pants' or 'pans'?  ::) :o ;D


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: trainbuff on August 27, 2014, 11:01:16 am
    I believe you should refer to them as pans. That seems to be what the railway people I know refer to them as. Never heard them called 'pants' till your post!


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Rhydgaled on August 27, 2014, 12:18:59 pm

    Also, I believe the plan is to have bi-di signalling installed as part of the Oxford corridor enhancements between Didcot and Banbury, so along with the bi-di signalling already installed westwards from Didcot to Bristol, and the fact that many trains will have back-up emergency diesel power or full bi-mode capability and every indication is that the GWML system (and the ability to continue in some capacity when there has been a failure) will be much more robust than the ECML which does fail spectacularly far too often.

    All the trains will have diesel back-up. The 9-car sets will have 2 (or three possibly) diesel engines, which should be able to provide enough power to limp along with pants down to the next station, subject to no entanglement of cables. The engines will be used daily, taking the sets into and out of the depot.

    If push comes to shove, they will probably be used to keep the lights and aircon on until a loco arrives to rescueone and all.
    I think it is only one diesel engine on a 9-car 'electric', with 3 or 4 on a 9-car 'bi-mode' (although currently the GW will not be getting any of those) and 2 diesel engines on a hypothetical 10-car 'electric'. Personally, I think the bolded bit at the end is more likely, since if the wires are down there is likely entanglement or an electric-only unit blocking the line ahead. Thus, the diesel engine in the 'electric' sets becomes just about keeping the lights on and the saloon temperature correct. The flaw with that is that aircon/heating/lighting systems can fail for other reasons beside loss of power. I've read enough complaints about 158s with failed aircon despite the fact everything else still working to know that. Thus, I would suggest that a solution which could also keep passengers comfortable in the event of the aircon failing while the OHLE is still undamaged and working would be better than a diesel engine which only helps if the lack of aircon is caused by loss of power.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on August 27, 2014, 02:41:04 pm
    Thus, the diesel engine in the 'electric' sets becomes just about keeping the lights on and the saloon temperature correct.

    With the ability to move to a station to de-train passengers if necessary. With the ability to reach and use a crossover to a relief or bi-directional line to pass an obstruction. It's not just about providing hotel power. The diesel engine provides much more in the way of operational flexibility than just keeping the lights on and the saloons comfortable. Much reduced chance of the horror stories we hear of passengers trapped on trains for hours at a time unable to move forward or backward.

    And, as already mentioned, freedom of movement in depots.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on August 27, 2014, 06:23:33 pm
    The 9-car sets will have 2 (or three possibly) diesel engines, which should be able to provide enough power to limp along with pants down to the next station...

    Twerking all the way  ;D ;D sorry could not resist I am sure you meant Pan


    Erm ... simply so I know how to record this correctly in our 'acronyms and abbreviations' pages, should I refer to 'pantographs', 'pants' or 'pans'?  ::) :o ;D

    Pan in the singular and Pans in the plural ................

    Some say they are called a Pan because its short for Pantograph and some say its because the look like a frying pan and you certainly do if you touch one and others believe its to do with Peter Pan because 'lectricary is magic.  As an engineer I'll go with the last one  ;D


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on September 11, 2014, 10:09:42 am
    Has there been a change of plans for the GW electrification?

    I understood from the published information that the overhead wires would be individually supported and registered so that if one set came down it wouldn't affect the overhead over the other tracks. In other words - Headspans, R.I.P.

    However, while walking along Tudor Road in Reading at the end of last week, this is the road that runs parallel to the railway and connects Station Approach to the Caversham Road, I noticed headspans on the start of the curve from Reading Station towards Reading West.

    Then I noticed in the photograph published on page 28 of the September Modern Railways that the tall masts shown at South Moreton seem to be undeniably for headspans.

    Is Network Rail trying to save money and will reliability suffer? Why have we not been told?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: stuving on September 11, 2014, 10:25:09 am
    Has there been a change of plans for the GW electrification?

    I understood from the published information that the overhead wires would be individually supported and registered so that if one set came down it wouldn't affect the overhead over the other tracks. In other words - Headspans, R.I.P.

    However, while walking along Tudor Road in Reading at the end of last week, this is the road that runs parallel to the railway and connects Station Approach to the Caversham Road, I noticed headspans on the start of the curve from Reading Station towards Reading West.

    Then I noticed in the photograph published on page 28 of the September Modern Railways that the tall masts shown at South Moreton seem to be undeniably for headspans.

    Is Network Rail trying to save money and will reliability suffer? Why have we not been told?

    When you say you "noticed headspans", do you mean with the support cable (not just any old bit of wire) strung between the uprights? Or do you just mean "tall masts"? I though the same of the pairs of tall uprights elsewhere aroung Reading, until they started fitting double crossbars to them.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Red Squirrel on September 11, 2014, 10:33:06 am
    Headspans are fine - what could possibly go wrong?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgCPPeYmyKw


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on September 11, 2014, 12:10:01 pm

    When you say you "noticed headspans", do you mean with the support cable (not just any old bit of wire) strung between the uprights? Or do you just mean "tall masts"? I though the same of the pairs of tall uprights elsewhere aroung Reading, until they started fitting double crossbars to them.

    Looking along Tudor Road to the west one can see masts placed along the edge of the embankment roughly where Reading Main Line West Signal Box stood. From the tops of these masts, and three or four are visible, are what look to be the top wires of headspans forming a catenary across the tracks. It is not possible to see the corresponding mast on the other side of the tracks from Tudor Road. The next time I'm there or at the station I shall have to have another look to see if my suspicions are confirmed.

    The photograph in Modern Railways is taken with a telephoto lens and shows 9 very tall masts on the outside of the curve with an HST passing on the Down Main. There appears to be gaps in the spacing as if two or three masts are missing. There are correspondingly tall masts on the inside of the curve but it is not possible to count them as they are obscured by the curve and the trees. I know it is difficult to make accurate judgements on dimensions from such an image, but the masts appear to be about 2 1/2 to 3 times as high as the rear of the HST which is about in line with the last of the masts on the inside of the curve. In any event they look to be higher than the masts shown in your photograph. This might possibly be an isolation or feeder point but there do seem to be a lot of masts for such a feature.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on September 11, 2014, 12:46:03 pm
    I found a few photos on the site dedicated to the Old Dalby test track that conveniently show old and new side by side.  The shot below suggests that the UK1 masts are generally stronger and higher, and although it's only a single track cantilever shown, all the hardware seems to be mounted level with or higher than the contact wire, the old type on the left the cantilever is mounted lower, IYSWIM:

    http://www.old-dalby.com/images/14-02-03_new%20registration%20arm.jpg

    What might also be significant is that the GWML is a '25 kV - 0 - 25 kV' autotransformer installation.  The additional catenary(s) that form the second, anti phase 25 kV supply (the autotransformer feeder - ATF) are normally mounted outside and higher than the portals or cantilevers, if starting with a brand new installation they may have decided to place the ATF higher, because they can.   There are also earth conductors strung along the masts, IIRC - perhaps the more space between everything the better.

    However I thought the only OHLE visible in the Caversham Rd area was that present over the depot stabling tracks (there since before they opened) - and that is the lightweight style known as 'trolley wire' under headspans that is typically used in depots at low speed, but that isn't indicative of main line policy.

    PS - checked today, the only headspans visible from the station are those over the stabling sidings.  As far as I could see from a train leaving platform 2 for Reading West there is still nothing in place over the Westbury lines.

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on September 11, 2014, 03:33:04 pm
    All the trains will have diesel back-up. The 9-car sets will have 2 (or three possibly) diesel engines, which should be able to provide enough power to limp along with pants down to the next station, subject to no entanglement of cables. The engines will be used daily, taking the sets into and out of the depot.

    If push comes to shove, they will probably be used to keep the lights and aircon on until a loco arrives to rescueone and all.

    Twerking all the way  ;D ;D sorry could not resist I am sure you meant Pan

    You do it your way, I'll do it mine...


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: stuving on September 12, 2014, 06:51:11 pm
    However I thought the only OHLE visible in the Caversham Rd area was that present over the depot stabling tracks (there since before they opened) - and that is the lightweight style known as 'trolley wire' under headspans that is typically used in depots at low speed, but that isn't indicative of main line policy.

    PS - checked today, the only headspans visible from the station are those over the stabling sidings.  As far as I could see from a train leaving platform 2 for Reading West there is still nothing in place over the Westbury lines.

    Paul
    Here's what you see from the end of Tudor Road. It is trolley wire, evidently, so it must be in the depot. But it is impossible to believe that when looking at it - it just looks far too close! Going further along, into the car park before the Queens Arms, separates the supports in the view, but still leaves the distance impossible to judge as you can't see the ground under them.

    Looking from the station (which dramatically foreshortens the distances so they look very odd indeed) you can see supports along the viaduct, which is too far west to be seen from those places, but not on the ramp which should be visible. However, the south side of the ramp is not even finished yet. I think you can see in the second picture that supports in the depot (behind the OHLE supports on the relief lines) are the right thing and do come a lot further east - and I think the gantry in the foreground is the one in the other picture.

    PS: looking at the full picture, before I cropped it a bit too much, that definitely is the same gantry.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: tom m on September 12, 2014, 07:33:37 pm
    Looks like the electrification in the new depot is all of the headapan type.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: stuving on September 12, 2014, 07:39:49 pm
    Looks like the electrification in the new depot is all of the headapan type.

    As paul7755 noted above, it is usual in depots to use this 'trolley wire' system. That means no catenary - just a contact wire with close-spaced headspan supports.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: DidcotPunter on September 13, 2014, 09:27:10 am
    Yes, in depots where speeds are low, trolley wires supported by headspans are used. This is the case at Reading. Between Reading and Didcot the stanchions which are being erected will support portal cross-members. You can see these awaiting assembly in the NR/Amey/Lundy Projects electrification compound at Moreton Cutting, east of Didcot. There is also an example of a "half portal" erected in the Balfour Beatty site in the former Langley Fuel Sidings just east of Langley station further up the line. Possibly put up for training purposes for the BB team doing the Airport Junction to Maidenhead section.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on September 13, 2014, 09:39:16 am
    Stuving's first photos shows Jacques Galland 25kV Section insulators well I think they are  Jacques Galland they seem to be the preferred manufacture.

    It is highly unlikely that headspan construction will be used on any main running lines on new electrification, if the GW route had their way the 12 miles of headspan between Padd and Airport Jcn would be replaced but that would be to expensive and disruptive


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ray951 on September 23, 2014, 10:07:10 pm
    Saw my first mast in the Didcot area today, just by the signalling centre.
    Although it is more like a vertical pipe than a mast, does it get narrower as it gets taller?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: John R on September 23, 2014, 10:34:01 pm
    I wonder if what you saw is the pile that is driven into the ground to form the support? Sometimes you can see one that has been left mostly above ground.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on September 24, 2014, 07:36:59 am
    I suspect that it was a steel pile they are about 600 to 750mm in diameter come in 5m lengths often one is driven in and a second or even a third is attached to the top and then that driven in.  They have a number of bosses for bolting each other together of for attaching the OLE structure base plate to.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: BerkshireBugsy on September 24, 2014, 07:50:22 am
    I suspect that it was a steel pile they are about 600 to 750mm in diameter come in 5m lengths often one is driven in and a second or even a third is attached to the top and then that driven in.  They have a number of bosses for bolting each other together of for attaching the OLE structure base plate to.

    I've seen quite a few of those "tubes" in the ground from London to Reading but most of them are buried quite deep. What I find curious if that they don't appear to be spaced evenly and there seem to be some gaps where it seems there should be a support but isn't. Could this be because in some locations they are more difficult to install than others ?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: ray951 on September 24, 2014, 09:11:39 am
    I suspect that it was a steel pile they are about 600 to 750mm in diameter come in 5m lengths often one is driven in and a second or even a third is attached to the top and then that driven in.  They have a number of bosses for bolting each other together of for attaching the OLE structure base plate to.
    Yes that would be them and there were some other piles laying nearby so that would make complete sense.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Red Squirrel on September 24, 2014, 09:13:59 am
    I think I saw a fair number of these 5m piles, er, piled up in Swindon the other week.

    I too am surprised by the apparently patchy nature of operations. Most extremely there seems to be something going between Bath and Box Tunnel, with scaffolding barriers put up at roughly the right intervals.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: IndustryInsider on September 24, 2014, 10:37:53 am
    I too am surprised by the apparently patchy nature of operations. Most extremely there seems to be something going between Bath and Box Tunnel, with scaffolding barriers put up at roughly the right intervals.

    That'll be so the foundation trenches can be dug.  Safety barriers are out up if they're close to the track.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: BerkshireBugsy on September 24, 2014, 10:58:45 am
    Apologies if this has been asked before but are there any elements of the Electrification Program that require planning permission? I'm guessing that since Brunel first installed the railway planning rules may have changed a bit!


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bignosemac on September 24, 2014, 11:17:48 am
    Network Rail is, generally, exempt from planning permission regs on it's own land. However they do consult with local authorities and bodies such as English Heritage, Cadw in Wales, and Historic Scotland.

    I've no doubt that specific sites of historic importance on the GWML, such as Maidenhead Bridge, Wharncliffe Viaduct, Box Tunnel and Sydney Gardens in Bath have been given careful consideration.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on September 24, 2014, 11:23:03 am
    Apologies if this has been asked before but are there any elements of the Electrification Program that require planning permission? I'm guessing that since Brunel first installed the railway planning rules may have changed a bit!

    In general, they use something called 'permitted development rights' within the railway's existing boundaries.  in principle, the original Acts setting up the railway allow for maintenance and modifications connected to operation of the railway, in perpetuity.

    Listed building consent is also then required for modifications to some structures.  As a broad generalisation they do not have to get permission for the overall concept of wiring, they just inform local authorities they are doing it, and explain how they are meeting requirements for important buildings...

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on September 24, 2014, 11:44:26 am
    I've seen quite a few of those "tubes" in the ground from London to Reading but most of them are buried quite deep. What I find curious if that they don't appear to be spaced evenly and there seem to be some gaps where it seems there should be a support but isn't. Could this be because in some locations they are more difficult to install than others ?

    From what I've read of the HOPS train, it includes a number of piling rigs, of different types that can operate separately, one of which is for very hard or difficult ground.   It would make sense to bomb along with the lighter equipment putting in the standard tubular piles and if a first attempt showed up difficult ground, then mark the location and leave it to the specialist rig coming later.

    Another benefit of the type of piles chosen, with the flange mounted threaded holes, is that there's a transition plate from pile to mast that allows for verticality adjustment, meaning that within reason the piles don't have to be exactly plumb.  The same piles are used for many recent signal post installations, and even the massive signal gantries at Reading...

    Paul


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: BerkshireBugsy on September 24, 2014, 11:45:42 am
    I've seen quite a few of those "tubes" in the ground from London to Reading but most of them are buried quite deep. What I find curious if that they don't appear to be spaced evenly and there seem to be some gaps where it seems there should be a support but isn't. Could this be because in some locations they are more difficult to install than others ?

    From what I've read of the HOPS train, it includes a number of piling rigs, of different types that can operate separately, one of which is for very hard or difficult ground.   It would make sense to bomb along with the lighter equipment putting in the standard tubular piles and if a first attempt showed up difficult ground, then mark the location and leave it to the specialist rig coming later.

    Another benefit of the type of piles chosen, with the flange mounted threaded holes, is that there's a transition plate from pile to mast that allows for verticality adjustment, meaning that within reason the piles don't have to be exactly plumb.  The same piles are used for many recent signal post installations, and even the massive signal gantries at Reading...

    Paul

    That makes perfect sense Paul - thanks


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Red Squirrel on September 24, 2014, 01:29:24 pm

    Another benefit of the type of piles chosen, with the flange mounted threaded holes, is that there's a transition plate from pile to mast that allows for verticality adjustment, meaning that within reason the piles don't have to be exactly plumb.  The same piles are used for many recent signal post installations...


    Fnaar fnaar! K-yuk k-yuk! Eat your heart out Finbarr Saunders!


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Tim on September 24, 2014, 04:47:21 pm
    Apologies if this has been asked before but are there any elements of the Electrification Program that require planning permission? I'm guessing that since Brunel first installed the railway planning rules may have changed a bit!

    In general, they use something called 'permitted development rights' within the railway's existing boundaries.  in principle, the original Acts setting up the railway allow for maintenance and modifications connected to operation of the railway, in perpetuity.

    Listed building consent is also then required for modifications to some structures.  As a broad generalisation they do not have to get permission for the overall concept of wiring, they just inform local authorities they are doing it, and explain how they are meeting requirements for important buildings...

    Paul

    That is my understanding too.  They did need planning consent for a few things like new depots but for putting the wires up they generally do not need consent.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: paul7755 on September 24, 2014, 04:50:17 pm
    NR announce that Wantage Rd bridge will now not be closed during the works, the new bridge is to be built alongside it:
    Quote
    Network Rail has confirmed that the A338 Wantage Road bridge will remain open for the majority of the improvements.

    Network Rail is building a new, higher bridge across the railway line as part of its Great Western Electrification Programme. New, faster, quieter and cleaner trains will draw power from overhead lines and the extra height is needed to ensure clearance.

    The road will not need to be closed, as the new bridge will be constructed alongside the existing one. Minor, short-term restrictions may be in place at times during the process but for the majority of the time traffic will flow normally.

    Once the new bridge is complete the old bridge will be demolished. Work will start in within the next couple of months and the bridge will open next summer
    http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/A338-Wantage-Road-will-stay-open-during-major-bridge-reconstruction-216d.aspx


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on September 24, 2014, 07:16:36 pm
    Typical spacing of OLE structures on the GWML is 50 metres, (the ECML and MML it is 70 metres) there are several different diameter piles being used depending on the structure required, it is likely the train will go out with all the same size piles and thump them in where required and then come back a thump in another size on another visit.

    I have never managed to work out the logic behind OLE civil's engineers  ;D


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: stuving on September 24, 2014, 07:45:35 pm
    Apologies if this has been asked before but are there any elements of the Electrification Program that require planning permission? I'm guessing that since Brunel first installed the railway planning rules may have changed a bit!

    In general, they use something called 'permitted development rights' within the railway's existing boundaries.  in principle, the original Acts setting up the railway allow for maintenance and modifications connected to operation of the railway, in perpetuity.

    Listed building consent is also then required for modifications to some structures.  As a broad generalisation they do not have to get permission for the overall concept of wiring, they just inform local authorities they are doing it, and explain how they are meeting requirements for important buildings...

    Paul

    The relevant planning law was posted here et seq. (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=13143.msg142485#msg142485). Planning approval is required for lots of buildings, including all bridges, as they are not now possible as permitted development. However:
    Quote
    A.2. The prior approval referred to in paragraph A.1 is not to be refused by the appropriate authority nor are conditions to be imposed unless they are satisfied that^
    (a) the development (other than the provision of or works carried out to a dam) ought to be and could reasonably be carried out elsewhere on the land; or
    (b) the design or external appearance of any building, bridge, aqueduct, pier or dam would injure the amenity of the neighbourhood and is reasonably capable of modification to avoid such injury.

    So the first question is - is a portal or gantry a bridge? I guess that could only apply to signal gantries with a walkway and a ladder each end; arguably that's a footbridge (albeit not public). 

    For OLE, it can't reasonably be built anywhere else, can it? But it's probably as well for NR that it does doesn't seem to be in that list, since the current design is - let's face it - pretty ugly. Certainly enough to "injure the amenity" of most places. Whether it is "reasonably capable of modification to avoid such injury" is debatable, but I do think that better-looking structures are possible.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on September 24, 2014, 10:03:12 pm
    Whether it is "reasonably capable of modification to avoid such injury" is debatable, but I do think that better-looking structures are possible.

    Define "reasonably", with an accountant present. Ornate faux-Victorian wrought ironwork would be nice, but massed-produced and simple will win the day. It may not win awards for aesthetic content, but who expects that on a railway? Even the bits normally regarded as pretty - semaphore signals spring to mind - doubtless had their detractors in their early days. Necessity will trump art every time, but some will see fairness of form in the new OLE.

    As Spike Milligan put it: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You can get it out with Optrex".


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on September 24, 2014, 10:53:43 pm
    NR will always consult with the local Authority planners on any structure, unless it is covered a TWA and even then NR will notify the local Authority when it intends to carry out the works.

    Things like road closures and section 66 have to be applied for many projects so it always helps to keep the planners on side.   NR will invoke it permitted development rights if it has too.

    Like all large undertakings and utilities NR has a consents team that deal with local Authorities, other external railways, utilities, etc 


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: johoare on October 01, 2014, 07:13:57 pm
    They are replacing a road bridge over the railway in Maidenhead as part of this.. I still can't understand how they are doing this whilst trains are running underneath.. Though I'm terribly impressed that they are...

    I've been reliably informed by my son (who has to walk over the replacement temporary footbridge each day) that the old bridge has finally gone..

    I am guessing adding the new improved, and higher bridge will also have to be done very carefully :-)


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on October 01, 2014, 09:09:32 pm
    They are replacing a road bridge over the railway in Maidenhead as part of this.. I still can't understand how they are doing this whilst trains are running underneath.. Though I'm terribly impressed that they are...

    I've been reliably informed by my son (who has to walk over the replacement temporary footbridge each day) that the old bridge has finally gone..

    I am guessing adding the new improved, and higher bridge will also have to be done very carefully :-)

    Not all of it is actually done while the trains are running, some lighter work might be done behind scaffold screening or back from the open line; however the heavy lift stuff is done during an "All Line Block" type possession.

    "All Line Block" type possession are like hens teeth and will have been in the planning for at least 2 years.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: NickB on October 03, 2014, 08:29:31 am
    There goes the road bridge at Cox Green.... (went last Sunday apparently)

    http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Cox-Green/Highfield-Bridge-lifted-out-as-part-of-electrification-works-01102014.htm



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on October 03, 2014, 06:00:06 pm
    There goes the road bridge at Cox Green.... (went last Sunday apparently)

    http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Cox-Green/Highfield-Bridge-lifted-out-as-part-of-electrification-works-01102014.htm



    I'm sure they will put something back to fill the hole  ;D



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on October 03, 2014, 06:24:06 pm
    That report makes it sound like the same bridge is going back - is it?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: DidcotPunter on October 12, 2014, 08:03:42 pm
    The bridge on the A417 at Challow Station between Didcot and Swindon was demolished this morning. Apologies for the poor quality as it was rather foggy but here are some pictures of the last girder being lifted out by Anscough's most impressive 500 tonne lift capacity crane:

    (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1119929/Challow%20Bridge/Low%20res/Last%20Girder%20-%20Initial%20Lift.jpg)
    Initial lift

    (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1119929/Challow%20Bridge/Low%20res/Last%20Girder%20-%20Mid%20Lift.jpg)
    Mid lift

    (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1119929/Challow%20Bridge/Low%20res/Girder%20Lowering.jpg)
    Lowering the girder

    (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1119929/Challow%20Bridge/Low%20res/Ainscough%20500t%20Crane.jpg)
    Anscough 500 t crane

    The plan is for the line to be handed back by 5:00am tomorrow morning and the pre-cast beams for the new bridge deck will be lifted into position next weekend.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: bobm on October 12, 2014, 09:06:59 pm
    One of my favourite locations for photos between Didcot and Swindon.  Hopefully the new bridge will not be too high sided to allow future expeditions there.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: DidcotPunter on October 12, 2014, 09:52:30 pm
    Obviously the parapets will be higher - though you should still get a good view from the approaches.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Red Squirrel on October 12, 2014, 10:16:43 pm
    Can't find the plans for this one, but I see that the replacement bridge at Pearson's Brickyard (the one you see in the up direction from the platform at Bristol Porkway) has a minimum 1525mm from pavement to top of parapet - which I make about 5s 4d in old money. If this one's the same, you may have to stand on tippytoes Bobm.



    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on October 13, 2014, 07:38:28 pm
    One of my favourite locations for photos between Didcot and Swindon.  Hopefully the new bridge will not be too high sided to allow future expeditions there.

    Can't find the plans for this one, but I see that the replacement bridge at Pearson's Brickyard (the one you see in the up direction from the platform at Bristol Porkway) has a minimum 1525mm from pavement to top of parapet - which I make about 5s 4d in old money. If this one's the same, you may have to stand on tippytoes Bobm.

    BS EN 50122-2 (I think its part 2 my copy is at work) "Railway applications. Fixed installations. Electrical safety, earthing and the return circuit. Provisions against the effects of stray currents caused by d.c. traction systems"  :o ::) requires min height of 1820mm, I have had a couple of upset Civil Engineers at work who have had to add and extra 295mm onto their parapets


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Red Squirrel on October 13, 2014, 08:00:36 pm
    This seems to apply to DC traction systems... are AC systems the same?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Electric train on October 13, 2014, 08:29:47 pm
    This seems to apply to DC traction systems... are AC systems the same?

    Its probably part 1 then, I normally just work off of in house standards


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Red Squirrel on October 13, 2014, 09:34:42 pm
    Sorry, I wasn't testing you - I just wondered if there were different parapet height requirements for the differing characteristics of ac and dc traction supplies. More to the point, I'm 1970mm tall (pretty big for a squirrel, huh?), so whereas I can easily see over a 1525mm parapet, an 1820mm one is a bit of a stretch!


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Four Track, Now! on October 13, 2014, 10:09:53 pm
    Sorry, I wasn't testing you - I just wondered if there were different parapet height requirements for the differing characteristics of ac and dc traction supplies. More to the point, I'm 1970mm tall (pretty big for a squirrel, huh?), so whereas I can easily see over a 1525mm parapet, an 1820mm one is a bit of a stretch!

    There's not many DC systems with overhead power kit these days, not in heavy rail anyway. I am sure that whoever ruled that the gap shalleth be 1820mm had in mind every one of the seven recognised grades of bloody idiot on railways. A grade one would try to prove to his pals that you can touch the cable with a dry wooden pole, and suffer no harm, whereas a true grade seven would want to demonstrate that a stream of alcohol-enhanced urine would not conduct 25Kv as far as the todger. All these and more must  be protected from themselves and their folly.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: stuving on October 13, 2014, 11:22:04 pm
    This seems to apply to DC traction systems... are AC systems the same?

    Its probably part 1 then, I normally just work off of in house standards

    BS EN50122-2 is "BS EN 50122-2:2010. Railway applications. Fixed installations. Electrical safety, earthing and the return circuit. Provisions against the effects of stray currents caused by d.c. traction systems". That's about currents flowing through the ground that destroy pipes, structural steel, and rebar etc. Not likely to mention parapet heights.

    BS EN50122-1 is "BS EN 50122-1:2011 Railway applications. Fixed installations. Electrical safety, earthing and the return circuit. Protective provisions against electric shock". That'll be the one, and presumably it covers AC and DC.

    There is also BS EN 50122-3: "BS EN 50122-3:2010. Railway applications. Fixed installations. Electrical safety, earthing and the return circuit. Mutual Interaction of a.c. and d.c. traction systems". That sounds like it's all about the electrical system design. Note the other two had earlier versions with different titles.

    I've often wondered why, if DC causes such enormous problems of stray currents, is wasn't replaced by AC ages ago. It's not particularly difficult to make a DC motor and its supporting systems to work on both. If you took the decision and waited 20 years, there would not be too much to convert for a changeover. You could even pick a frequency below 50 Hz to make the motor design easier - after all, it's what the Germans did, I think in the 1920s.


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: Red Squirrel on October 14, 2014, 09:31:35 am
    Hey ho. When I googled BS EN50122-2 I found this http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/5070/TTGN3.pdf , which is about overhead dc (essentially tramway systems) and which therefore is concerned with parapet heights. Not a standard, but gives some idea of what's what.

    As an aside, am I the only one who finds it shocking (pun intended) that British Standards are all made so expensive that they are realistically only available to businesses? Shouldn't they be freely available to anyone with an interest?


    Title: Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
    Post by: DidcotPunter on October 14, 2014, 10:00:02 am
    I have just accessed the Network Rail/Murphy plans for the reconstruction of Challow Bridge from the Vale of White Horse District Council's planning website. These show that the top of the parapet on the west side of the rebuilt bridge will be 1800mm above pavement level. There is no pavement on the east side, just a kerb, so this will be slightly higher. So, if you're not taller than 6 foot, you'll have to tiptoe  :)

    You can find the plans here: http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P14/V1672/P11