Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[stuving]

That all depends on how much £££ the Government put into CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024).....I'm not sure that figure has been decided.

However, an awful lot of identified works have been deferred to CP6, and is already scoped for CP6 by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) - can anyone find any sort of list of these projects, ideally with a cost estimate? I'd be interested in knowing how much that is, so at least able to compare with other CP periods as to whether it is likely to all happen.

That's a bit like Arthur Scargill accusing the NCB of having a hit-list of collieries. They probably had several hundred lists of collieries, many of which could be seen as relating to closures - making lists of colliery figures was one the the NCB's main activities.

Similarly, NR will have enough lists of projects and costs that only computerisation saves them from being knee-deep in them. Not that they would show them to you, of course.

In officialese, long-term planning for CP6 started before 2010, and the main inputs are the Route Studies - appearing after 2010, when HMG sent their CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) shopping list (aka HLOS^▸ (High Level Output Specification)). Given the long lead times, and the arbitrary nature of the planning periods, there have to be interim lists of things to do being updated in between times. So the content and cost of CP6 is "known", but not in a single version - it's subject to a lot of unknowns such as the performance of ongoing projects and the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s budget.

[ChrisB]

Ok then, has anyone compiled a "transferred to CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024)" list from the many announcements we've had? I guess there could be one somewhere compiled by an enthusiast somewhere. I'm trying to get a handle on how much more CP6 projects have gone up from the initial list staving talks about

[stuving]

For CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019), the suggestions presented to DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) (PR13 Initial Industry Plan Supporting Document; Definition of proposed CP5 enhancements) was dated September 2011, so if the timing hasn't changed that should have been done. That has forecast expenditure numbers, though not detailed item by item ones. For example, GW^▸ (Great Western) electrification was to cost £548M in CP5.

I don't known when it was published, or by whom (probably ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)?). But HLOS^▸ (High Level Output Specification) for CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) should be next year...

[IndustryInsider]

Anybody like to draw any comparisons with this?  Especially Sir John Bourn's statement:

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-modernisation-of-the-west-coast-main-line/

Of course, that was an even bigger balls-up.  £2 billion initial cost, could have risen to a staggering £14.5bn but a greatly de-scoped programme finally came in at £8.6bn and over three years late.

[Tim]

All this talk of making much greater use of the bi-mode capability leaves me with thinking that their ability to switch between modes is going to need to be extremely robust.

I may be being unduly cynical, but my prediction is that in 10 years time, following a run of terrible reliability, the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) will decide that at least some of the diesel engines will run throughout the journey in order to prevent unreliability starting them.  No doubt this will cost them (meaning the tax payer) in extra payments to Hitachi.

A more positive view of the future, has the TOC removing the engines from many of the trains as the electrification is now very extensive.

[Bmblbzzz]

Yes I think that the performance of the bi-modes in practical service is going to be the key factor as to whether the  interim (if it is an interim) setup actually works.

Interim in railway terms seems to mean up to 25 years.

[Noggin]

Looks like everything left to do has been scoped into CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024).

In a way this is unbelievable, a nightmare scenario, I remember when the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) was electrified in the 1980s everything seemed to happen quickly and the total cost was under budget. I suspect, although I do not know, that the GW^▸ (Great Western) scheme has been massively over-engineered. My suspicion is that our old friend Health & Safety is probably at the root of it all.

I think the nightmare scenario would be that the new trains were straight electric and going to be sitting in a compound somewhere for a couple of years until all the wiring was complete. 

What we are talking about is not just straight electrification, but the rebuilding, resignalling and electrification of one of the oldest and most heavily used railway lines in the world, much of which is listed and runs through environmentally sensitive area. Few original plans exist, maintenance records are patchy to say the least, Brunel used some rather unorthodox techniques to build the line quickly, the railway hadn't done any major electrification work for a generation before this, it's being done at a time when there is huge investment in the railways, and human resources are stretched to say the least etc etc.

Yes, it's all a mess, but most of us have know that for years, and this is just pigeons coming home to roost now that deadlines are approaching. IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) was known at the time of procurement to be an expensive dog's breakfast, NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s new electrification design and plant were expected to take far more time and money than NR would publicly admit to, NR's time and cost estimates for electrification were finger in air exercises so the project got past the Treasury and politicians, Oxford Council mucked around over the design of the new station etc. 

OK, so NR have had some major issues with the project planning on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) upgrade, but, the new F+F OHLE seems very good and has worked pretty much "out of the box" (many people thought that Severn Tunnel would be impossible to electrify), NR's electrification plant seems to now be reasonably productive, the Hitachi trains seem really quite good and worked on the new OHLE pretty much from day 1, engineering blockades start and end on time and do the work that was planned, the Reading upgrade was on time and under budget etc.

I'm sure that H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) plays an element in costs (part of the rationale for the F+F catenery is that as few parts should be live as possible), but there's also a rationale that jobs should be done properly, so trackwork isn't just bodged, so it lasts for 20 years instead of 10. With the ECML, I don't recall it being done that quickly, but it was certainly done on the cheap, which has resulted in heavy maintenance costs and continual dewirement.

[Noggin]

I've said it before, but what you have to remember is that the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) is a showcase project for Hitachi in Europe, and they are not just building them, but maintaining them too, with a contract that sets high standards for availability.

Any public failure will be a loss of face that the Japanese just don't do. So it will have lots of people, resources and management attention thrown at it. Don't think the changeover will work? There's probably been some poor sod driving a test train in Japan for the past 2 years trying to break it. Likewise, there's probably a warehouse in Kasado with someone else spraying high-pressure salt water, crabs and seaweed at a unit to simulate the Dawlish sea wall, trying to break it.

Do the bi-modes change the business case for electrification? Yes and no. They are still more expensive to build and run and heavier than a straight electric, and don't have the same performance or top speed when on diesel, 110mph is about the best you are going to get out of them, plus you get noise and pollution. So, for high-speed, heavily graded routes, or in high-traffic areas where you really need the performance of electrification, then it's an EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit), or at least a EDMU with the pantograph up.

So no-one's going to truncate the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification at Didcot or switch it off, and Bristol will surely be electrified once the trackwork, resignalling and rebuilding is done. But the business case for long lengths of new OHLE (e.g. MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about), WoEML^▸ (West of England Main Line.)) where you simply replace diesels for electrics like-for-like doesn't look great. The thinking seems to be that it would be better to focus on urban infill electrification where you can greatly increase capacity and thus benefit the most people.

So, that said, can we please have the Severn Beach line rebuilt with provision for electrification with some of that £165m that is being saved ;-)   

[paul7575]

For CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019), the suggestions presented to DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) (PR13 Initial Industry Plan Supporting Document; Definition of proposed CP5 enhancements) was dated September 2011, so if the timing hasn't changed that should have been done. That has forecast expenditure numbers, though not detailed item by item ones. For example, GW^▸ (Great Western) electrification was to cost £548M in CP5.

I don't known when it was published, or by whom (probably ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)?). But HLOS^▸ (High Level Output Specification) for CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) should be next year...

The September 2011 Initial Industry Plan appeared first on NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s website as an NR publication, it was linked from the ORR website at the time; and is still live, albeit only of historic interest:  http://www.networkrail.co.uk/iip.aspx   

Paul

[1st fan]

All this talk of making much greater use of the bi-mode capability leaves me with thinking that their ability to switch between modes is going to need to be extremely robust. Examples from my local area would be:

1. Class 8xx on it's way down the B&H^▸ (Berks and Hants - railway line from Reading to Taunton via Westbury) from Reading to points west without a Newbury stop. Presumably somewhere between Thatcham and Newbury (whilst running at 100mph linespeed), the diesels will be fired-up and engaged to power the train, the pantographs will come down and the train will proceed seemlessly away from the wires west of Newbury.

2. Class 8xx operating down semi-fast, with stop at Newbury. Train pulls into down platform under electric traction. During the stop (or maybe before it stops) diesels are fired-up, pantographs are lowered while in the station, then off it goes under diesel traction.

All sounds great in theory, if it doesn't work well GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) will get all the flack for technology they have been "forced" to make more use of due to wires that may not be where they were supposed to be for a while (or ever!)

This is hearsay but......A mate of mine who works in the South East for a railway company told me that the Javelins are requiring more intensive maintenance than planned. This is because they were designed as high speed trains and for fast runs between stations. Sadly whilst they are being used on HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) they're also being used to provide a stopping services round the Kent coast as well. This has meant that they're not being used as designed and it has meant brakes, motor etc. are requiring more intensive maintenance. This may be just him telling 'stories' or it maybe the gospel truth I don't know.

[chrisr_75]

Any public failure will be a loss of face that the Japanese just don't do.

Hmmmm, Toyota/Lexus and their well documented safety recalls of millions of vehicles.

Building nuclear power stations on top of seismically active areas.

Mitsubishi cars now enveloped in the emissions cheat problems similar to VW.

I could probably find more if I tried...

[trainer]

...the Javelins are requiring more intensive maintenance than planned. This is because they were designed as high speed trains and for fast runs between stations.

This sounds like a similar story to the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) that didn't perform so well at one time because their engines (basically a marine engine) were designed to run at speed for long distances, not stop every 10-20 minutes and have to restart the train. The lead times for ordering new stock and its design and delivery often mean that the realities of the final requirements have changed. Add to that the complication that the commercial operators are not always the ones who have the final say in what is procured, it's a wonder that we ever have any railway equipment that, to use the cliche, is fit for purpose.

[broadgage]

All this talk of making much greater use of the bi-mode capability leaves me with thinking that their ability to switch between modes is going to need to be extremely robust.

I may be being unduly cynical, but my prediction is that in 10 years time, following a run of terrible reliability, the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) will decide that at least some of the diesel engines will run throughout the journey in order to prevent unreliability starting them.  No doubt this will cost them (meaning the tax payer) in extra payments to Hitachi.

A more positive view of the future, has the TOC removing the engines from many of the trains as the electrification is now very extensive.

I share your cynicism, with one alteration. I expect the actual starting of the engines to be reasonably reliable, pre-heating the engines and keeping the starter batteries fully charged should be a simple matter under electric power.
I suspect that the problems will be software and IT related, changing from one power source to another could be fruitful source of software faults.
The new trains are hugely complicated with a lot of computers, all of which have to work in conjunction, first time, every time. And unlike diesel engines, software is NEVER a mature technology ! "if it works then it is obsolete and requires an upgrade"

[grahame]

I'm probably about to ask a very dumb question (or several) - but I don't really understand this "power limited" business.

It reads to me as if there's software control on the diesel engines on the 800 and 801 class units which will limit the power that can be applied - and thus their acceleration - once they get above a certain speed. But the class 802 will be essentially the same units but with a bigger diesel fuel tank and without that limiter.

1. Do I have this right

2a. If so, why is the limiter there in the first place?
2b. If so, couldn't the limiter be removed now that the units will be running longer distances on diesel?

and

3. If I don't have it right, can someone please put me right?

[grahame]

08.11.2016   PRESS STATEMENT from TravelWatch SouthWest CIC^▸ (Community Interest Company )
In response to today’s announcement that Network Rail will not complete the Great Western Electrification Project as planned:

TravelWatch SouthWest, the region's passenger watchdog warns that the electrification delays will have far reaching effects for passengers.
 
 "The government's announced deferment of four rail electrification schemes is bad news for all those who rely on Great Western services. The Government is renaging on the promise for newer trains thereby frustrating the delivery of better  capacity, reliability and sustainability to passengers, qualities which are long over due and can only be delivered by electrification.   The Government's plans mean that there is now no certainty that the country's fastest growing city outside London will be connected to the electric network so benefits of greener services, faster dispatch times and scope for higher frequency will be lost.

 Deferring completion of Thames Valley electrification to Oxford undermines the promised cascade of the Turbo trains that are needed for the planned Bristol Metro and the modernisation of services through Wiltshire to the south coast. This means that passengers could lose many of the improvements promised by the Government for local services in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall which were going to come as the inadequate four-wheeled 'Pacer' trains were replaced by more comfortable, higher capacity trains released from the Bristol area. Passengers have been crying out for better trains with more seats. Network Rail's failure to deliver to time or budget is a savage blow that is forcing the Government and Great Western to renege on their franchise commitments to passengers and communities through the South West. The Government must hold Network Rail to account; attain certainty for passengers by agreeing a timetable for electrification; and compensate passengers for the railway's broken promises by providing additional trains to meet the over-crowding passengers suffer.  In resetting the clock, Government must take responsibility for minimising the disruption to passengers and work in closely with all parties affected for the benefit of passengers."

Downloadable, with links to press contacts at TravelWatch SouthWest, via http://travelwatchsouthwest.org/media/

"TravelWatch SouthWest (TWSW^» (TravelWatch SouthWest - website)) is a social enterprise company which acts as an advocate for passengers to lobby for the improvement of public transport in the region and works closely with local authorities, business organisations, partnerships and other stakeholder groups. With the dissolution of the former Rail Passengers Committee for Western England in July 2005, TWSW is the representative body for public transport users throughout the South West of England."

Next TWSW General Meeting
Date:  Sat 4th March 2017
Venue: Taunton