Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[eightf48544]

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.

[willc]

Maybe you should all, as I said previously, read the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) 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 

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^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) 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^▸ (First Great Western) 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."

[IndustryInsider]

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^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification, as well as many, many winners.

[Electric train]

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^» (Department for Transport - about) 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^▸ (Train Operating Company) will not want the odd diesel sets to maintain.

[IndustryInsider]

As for the wires on the TV branches that will I suspect become inevitable in the longer term the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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^▸ (First Great Western)'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^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) 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.

[Electric train]

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

[onthecushions]

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^» (Network Rail - home page)'s Electrification RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) 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^▸ (United Kingdom). 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

[Electric train]

An Institution contact at NR^» (Network Rail - home page) 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^▸ (London Underground Ltd) 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

[RailCornwall]

An addition to the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Electrification Agenda (albeit out of the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) News

[Btline]

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) from the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line), and to encourage the electrification of the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) routes.

[IndustryInsider]

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^▸ (United Kingdom). The handful of trains operated through to Aberdeen from London would never stand as a business case - especially given the Bi-mode IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s usefulness on such a service, i.e. 75% electric hauled and the remaining 25% on diesel. XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) 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!

[Btline]

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.

[willc]

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.

[John R]

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?

[Btline]

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!