Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
 today - ACoRP board nominations close
29/10/2018 - Avocet line AGM
30/10/2018 - Minehaed Rail Link Group
31/10/2018 - CCIF Applications close
06/11/2018 - Talk Oxford / 800 intro
10/11/2018 - RailFuture National Conference
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail News GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
October 22, 2018, 12:05:11 am *
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
[156] IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent pe...
[71] Weymouth Harbour railway line - merged topic, ongoing discussi...
[58] Where was Lee?
[56] Weekend Engineering Works
[48] Tram Surfer Awarded 485000 Damages
[46] Cambrian ERTMS - Loss of TSR Data (20/10/2017)
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 176
  Print  
Author Topic: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion  (Read 706553 times)
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #75 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... Roll Eyes

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.
Logged
grandsire
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: July 27, 2009, 06:17:14 pm »

Manchester-Liverpool line interconnects with WCML at Newton-le-Willows/Earlestown
Logged
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #77 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.
Logged
willc
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2330


View Profile
« Reply #78 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.
Logged
onthecushions
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 602


View Profile
« Reply #79 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
Logged
willc
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2330


View Profile
« Reply #80 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.
Logged
northwesterntrains
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 324


View Profile
« Reply #81 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.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 10:57:10 am by northwesterntrains » Logged
northwesterntrains
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 324


View Profile
« Reply #82 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.
Logged
brompton rail
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 253



View Profile
« Reply #83 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!
Logged
eightf48544
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4133


View Profile Email
« Reply #84 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.
Logged
northwesterntrains
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 324


View Profile
« Reply #85 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.
Logged
IndustryInsider
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6712


View Profile
« Reply #86 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.
Logged

To view my cab run over the new Reading Viaduct as well as a relief line cab ride at Reading just after Platforms 12-15 opened and my 'before and after' video comparison of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/1
eightf48544
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4133


View Profile Email
« Reply #87 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?
Logged
willc
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2330


View Profile
« Reply #88 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

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.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 10:42:50 am by willc » Logged
northwesterntrains
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 324


View Profile
« Reply #89 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.
Logged
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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 176
  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