Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum
GWR advice (Project Phoenix)
Forum in and beyond Coronavirus
Great Western Coffee Shop
[home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 today - Shortlist out, CRN Awards
tomorrow - Tuesday Club - ONLINE
12/08/20 - Comm. Rail & Recovery ONLINE
12/08/20 - ConnectedCities, WECA ONLINE
Random Image
Train Running Polls Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
August 10, 2020, 12:54:59 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[326] An image for every day of the month - can you identify the loc...
[53] Coronavirus: Great Western Railway reduced services
[44] The Small Bore London tube - a public health hazard?
[25] Grand Opening of the new car park area at Melksham HUB on Fri ...
[24] Trimode cl 769 to operate Reading to Oxford and Gatwick.
[19] Porkway Partway
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: West of England Line CMSP study  (Read 524 times)
RichardB
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 694


View Profile
« on: July 03, 2020, 04:44:32 pm »

This has just been published on Network Rail's website. 

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/West-of-England-Study-Continuous-Modular-Strategic-Planning.pdf

Logged
Celestial
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 606


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2020, 06:38:51 pm »

Interesting that the current fleet is described as... The provision of new rolling stock to replace the nearing end of life and unreliable fleet
currently in operation is essential.
I thought the Class 159s used to regularly be the most reliable dmu fleet in the Modern Railways surveys when under SWT? What happened there? 

And also interesting that it's apparently near the end of its life, but close by the Class 165/6's are being refurbished for several more years.
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4897


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2020, 06:55:54 pm »

Interesting that the current fleet is described as... The provision of new rolling stock to replace the nearing end of life and unreliable fleet
currently in operation is essential.
I thought the Class 159s used to regularly be the most reliable dmu fleet in the Modern Railways surveys when under SWT? What happened there? 

And also interesting that it's apparently near the end of its life, but close by the Class 165/6's are being refurbished for several more years.

Ask yourself this question: which is the longer -
a) the time from a study like this to getting a new fleet in service
b) the remaining life of a fleet that makes a refit worth doing ?
Logged
Celestial
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 606


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2020, 07:37:13 pm »

Interesting that the current fleet is described as... The provision of new rolling stock to replace the nearing end of life and unreliable fleet
currently in operation is essential.
I thought the Class 159s used to regularly be the most reliable dmu fleet in the Modern Railways surveys when under SWT? What happened there? 

And also interesting that it's apparently near the end of its life, but close by the Class 165/6's are being refurbished for several more years.

Ask yourself this question: which is the longer -
a) the time from a study like this to getting a new fleet in service
b) the remaining life of a fleet that makes a refit worth doing ?
Fair comment - having read the report it doesn't sound as though any of the infrastructure improvements proposed will be "shovel ready" for some time.

As an aside, I have a high degree of cynicism of any government offer to provide funding for an immediate start to any schemes which are shovel ready. From what I can see, schemes (certainly railway schemes) only get to that stage once the funding is pretty much wrapped up anyway.
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4897


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2020, 08:02:59 pm »

As an aside, I have a high degree of cynicism of any government offer to provide funding for an immediate start to any schemes which are shovel ready. From what I can see, schemes (certainly railway schemes) only get to that stage once the funding is pretty much wrapped up anyway.

Indeed - readying shovels is a very expensive business, taking a significant fraction of the total project cost.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 30186



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2020, 11:26:50 am »

As an aside, I have a high degree of cynicism of any government offer to provide funding for an immediate start to any schemes which are shovel ready. From what I can see, schemes (certainly railway schemes) only get to that stage once the funding is pretty much wrapped up anyway.

There has been a very serious funding gap in getting projects to the "Shovel Ready" stage and I am delighted that's somewhat reversed by the "reversing Beeching" element which is going to help with the early stage studies.    Up to now, it has been very hard to get the relatively smaller sums for these studies, on the basis that the only certain outcome is a detailed report, and that you may end up spending for a document that says "you should NOT proceed".   It may well be that the 30 or so reports from these studies come up with a number that are one step closer to shovel-ready so that at some point in the future there might be a pool ready for "immediate start".   With my cynic's hat on, such government funding tends to by cyclic and synchronised with the general election cycle.

I would argue that at times there is too much reporting.  Reading the 81 page document this thread's about, I note references on pages 19, 22, 23, 24, 31, 48, 50, 53 and 76 to stakeholder aspirations to continue the Romsey / Southampton / Salisbury service on through Salisbury station and up to Westbury thence Swindon,  and find myself thinking "goodness ... all that for an net increase of perhaps half a dozen trains each way through the station each day, some of which replace trains that terminate at the through platforms and block or require shunts at present".   Frustration suggest that this element should be in the "JFDI" bucket by now!
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
chopper1944
Full Member
***
Posts: 42


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2020, 11:40:56 am »

All the talk about extending and inserting loops west of Yeovil Junction, why not as far as possible do the job properly and double the line, even as far as Castle Cary. You could even run trains from Paddington to Exeter St. Davids. on this route! More vision is required instead of lengthy reports. Action not words. The report could be split into two, west of Yeovil and east of Yeovil, Time for west of Yeovil to be included with the West of England.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3628


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2020, 02:52:42 pm »

All the talk about extending and inserting loops west of Yeovil Junction, why not as far as possible do the job properly and double the line, even as far as Castle Cary. You could even run trains from Paddington to Exeter St. Davids. on this route! More vision is required instead of lengthy reports. Action not words. The report could be split into two, west of Yeovil and east of Yeovil, Time for west of Yeovil to be included with the West of England.

Would be really good, if the Axminster loop is being extended eastwards it might make sense to at least join it up with Chard as they are already close together, but the more you do the more the cost increases. These proposals probably miss some very expensive bits so its not probably more than a proportional increase in cost. The benefit of the full scheme does not increase though so if all you need is less than the full job. So you are looking for more money and have a lower Benefit Cost Ratio.
Logged
Umberleigh
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 450


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2020, 12:33:18 pm »

Well, it's a positive document. For me, third rail electrification as per Weymouth is the answer along with extended and new passing loops. I just hope that new trains plus increased capacity doesn't equal 3 + 2 seating, it being the bureaucrats standard answer to 'increased capacity'
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 8260


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2020, 01:26:48 pm »

Hardly any new builds get fitted with 3+2 seating these days.  Regional and long distance layouts are generally 2+2 with the suburban layouts either being the same, without such luxuries as arm rests, or increasingly, some longitudinal seats to create more standing room.
Logged

To view my GWML Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page