Discussion on electrification and the Marlow branch

[AM9]

The problem is Marlow passengers have got used to the through service to Maidenhead, so enforcing an additional change for short local journeys would be very unpopular, and might have unintended consequences on branch ridership especially leisure and off-peak during the day. The Henley and Bourne End direct London trains have always been difficult to justify from a capacity point of view, but politically they're impossible to curtail, at least today before Crossrail is established. Once that is up and running, I'm sure a single change a Maidenhead for a range of Central London destinations will be just as attractive as the though train to Paddington, where most passengers change for onward travel.

I was implying that removing through trains was something for when Crossrail was operating. It might be unpopular with the voiciferous commuter groups but as you say the improvements from Maidenhead more than make up for it. There should be guaranteed seats on Crossrail at Maidenhead.

 

[HowardGWR]

I was implying that removing through trains was something for when Crossrail was operating. It might be unpopular with the voiciferous commuter groups but as you say the improvements from Maidenhead more than make up for it. There should be guaranteed seats on Crossrail at Maidenhead.

As the fashionable phrase has it - 'good luck with that one'.

 

[jimm]

As the fashionable phrase has it - 'good luck with that one'.

I think AM9 is probably right on that score, the Reading commuters won't be using Crossrail for their commute in a million years, unless forced to do so at gunpoint...

For them it will be a GW fast service and then change to Crossrail at Paddington.

 

[Buttsy]

I think AM9 is probably right on that score, the Reading commuters won't be using Crossrail for their commute in a million years, unless forced to do so at gunpoint...

For them it will be a GW fast service and then change to Crossrail at Paddington.

Not helped by the plan for crossrail being to allow for lots of standing so initially was supposed to have longitudinal seating only in the same way as the 378s

 

[AM9]

Not helped by the plan for crossrail being to allow for lots of standing so initially was supposed to have longitudinal seating only in the same way as the 378s

In the world of ever-increasing rail patronage for commuting, I think trains that are frequent and can actually be boarded will be more important than cosy seating that a privileged few get to use whilst the unfortunates who get on at the wrong station have to stand in wholly inadequate space or are even left on the platform.
All these complaints about the perceived quality/quantity seating I believe are coming from those who usually part of the privileged few.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think AM9 is probably right on that score, the Reading commuters won't be using Crossrail for their commute in a million years, unless forced to do so at gunpoint...

For them it will be a GW fast service and then change to Crossrail at Paddington.

Assuming HS2 goes to plan, I wonder whether the pattern will change with many of the fast trains stopping at OOC where Crossrail or even LO can be accessed.

 

[Buttsy]

In the world of ever-increasing rail patronage for commuting, I think trains that are frequent and can actually be boarded will be more important than cosy seating that a privileged few get to use whilst the unfortunates who get on at the wrong station have to stand in wholly inadequate space or are even left on the platform.
All these complaints about the perceived quality/quantity seating I believe are coming from those who usually part of the privileged few.

My comment about the seating was indirectly in response to this, particularly the bit I've bolded:

I was implying that removing through trains was something for when Crossrail was operating. It might be unpopular with the voiciferous commuter groups but as you say the improvements from Maidenhead more than make up for it. There should be guaranteed seats on Crossrail at Maidenhead.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not helped by the plan for crossrail being to allow for lots of standing so initially was supposed to have longitudinal seating only in the same way as the 378s

I think that was definitely a widespread assumption, but the number of seats per train given in the original ITT could not have been possible with a 378 style layout. The current numbers require 50 seats per carriage in the 9 x 23m train, but now with three sets of double doors. You cannot fit 25 seats per side in along the available length of the carriages.

 

[AM9]

I think that was definitely a widespread assumption, but the number of seats per train given in the original ITT could not have been possible with a 378 style layout. The current numbers require 50 seats per carriage in the 9 x 23m train, but now with three sets of double doors. You cannot fit 25 seats per side in along the available length of the carriages.

So it looks like class 700 type layouts will be the norm.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My comment about the seating was indirectly in response to this, particularly the bit I've bolded:

Then if so my comment about any train vs cosy seats stands. The choice is with the passengers, i.e. they can wait for an outer suburban stopper, or sit in whatever the 345s have, or stand for a few minutes.

 

[ian959]

Electrify the route, buy some second hand 25kv AC 2 car EMUs from TransPerth and whack them onto standard gauge bogies - problem solved. TransPerth can buy some more (badly needed) 3 car EMUS.

If the entire problem is simply about 2 car EMUs then I don't see any great problem with whacking a few extra 2 car EMUs onto an existing 4 car EMU order. Is it really any more difficult than that?

All they are going to do is amble up and down the branch all day long between the direct Bourne End to London trains. Marlow passengers will have to change at Bourne End or Maidenhead like they do now most of the time if they want to go to London. Use the same 2 car EMUs on the Greenford branch.

It just seems to me that the powers that be are overcomplicating things as usual.

 

[AM9]

Electrify the route, buy some second hand 25kv AC 2 car EMUs from TransPerth and whack them onto standard gauge bogies - problem solved. TransPerth can buy some more (badly needed) 3 car EMUS.

If the entire problem is simply about 2 car EMUs then I don't see any great problem with whacking a few extra 2 car EMUs onto an existing 4 car EMU order. Is it really any more difficult than that?

All they are going to do is amble up and down the branch all day long between the direct Bourne End to London trains. Marlow passengers will have to change at Bourne End or Maidenhead like they do now most of the time if they want to go to London. Use the same 2 car EMUs on the Greenford branch.

It just seems to me that the powers that be are overcomplicating things as usual.

Why create yet another class of train. With the demise of in-house design and manufacturing, UK rail operators have to go to commercial manufacturers for stock. There are 2-car 3rd rail DC trains, (456) built under BR management, but there have been no similar provisions since privatisation. Apart from being inefficient with passenger space, such designs would have very limited sales potential elsewhere so why would a manufacturer be interestyed unless an inordinately large amount of cash was offered. Far better to try and fix the root cause, make platforms fit standard trains. Once done, the problem is solved forever, or until passenger demand rises yet further, which would make 2-car stock totally irrelevant.

 

[Mikey C]

3 car 377/3 units are probably the nearest we have to modern AC 2 car units...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Would a 3-car e144 be short enough to reverse at Bourne End? They'll be available soon-ish...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Would a 3-car Movia unit fit? If it did the maintenance could be done by LU

 

[ian959]

Why create yet another class of train. With the demise of in-house design and manufacturing, UK rail operators have to go to commercial manufacturers for stock. There are 2-car 3rd rail DC trains, (456) built under BR management, but there have been no similar provisions since privatisation. Apart from being inefficient with passenger space, such designs would have very limited sales potential elsewhere so why would a manufacturer be interestyed unless an inordinately large amount of cash was offered. Far better to try and fix the root cause, make platforms fit standard trains. Once done, the problem is solved forever, or until passenger demand rises yet further, which would make 2-car stock totally irrelevant.

But that is overcomplicating things surely? If you are buying 50 Class XXX 4 car EMUS, how can it be so hard to buy 54 Class XXX 4 car EMUs, but just drop the non-cab cars from 4 of the EMUs? No extra design or manufacturing work is necessary surely as all you are doing is not including trailers in the shipped product? Of course, assuming that the Class XXX is designed appropriately in the first place (all necessary equipment being in the two cab cars). This is the very fundamental of modular design so that the manufacturer CAN offer multiple solutions from the one design. At worst you would just be creating a sub class for diagramming purposes but for maintenance purposes they would be identical trains to the rest of the class.

 

[HSTEd]

In the old days that would be true.
These days you have to pay however much the train manufacturer thinks it can bleed you for.
This is just another example of the free market at work.

 

[RobShipway]

Personally, I think that is less expensive to extend the platforms to be able to have 4 cars and add the battery operated feature to the class 387's as is one some of the class 379's.

 

[swt_passenger]

Personally, I think that is less expensive to extend the platforms to be able to have 4 cars and add the battery operated feature to the class 387's as is one some of the class 379's.

Have you not read the thread or looked at the linked satellite views?

If it was at all possible to extend the platforms to take four cars they'd be electrifying it as normal, and they wouldn't need batteries...

The whole problem, and the subject of most of the thread, is that they cannot have four car platforms with reversal towards Marlow without a significant rebuild and resiting of the trailing junction

 

[Andyjs247]

As an alternative, could it be feasible to reopen Bourne End - High Wycombe not as heavy rail but for tram train? A tram train could run through to Wycombe from Marlow?
I doubt heavy rail reinstatement of the route would be possible or feasible now but a tram train could run on street where the previous route has been built on. You could either retain Maidenhead to Bourne End for heavy rail or you could also run tram trains Maidenhead to Wycombe.

 

[monsento]

Electrify the route, buy some second hand 25kv AC 2 car EMUs from TransPerth and whack them onto standard gauge bogies - problem solved. TransPerth can buy some more (badly needed) 3 car EMUS.

If the entire problem is simply about 2 car EMUs then I don't see any great problem with whacking a few extra 2 car EMUs onto an existing 4 car EMU order. Is it really any more difficult than that?

All they are going to do is amble up and down the branch all day long between the direct Bourne End to London trains. Marlow passengers will have to change at Bourne End or Maidenhead like they do now most of the time if they want to go to London. Use the same 2 car EMUs on the Greenford branch.

It just seems to me that the powers that be are overcomplicating things as usual.

no thanks! hopefully they would sink on the way!

 

[RobShipway]

Have you not read the thread or looked at the linked satellite views?

If it was at all possible to extend the platforms to take four cars they'd be electrifying it as normal, and they wouldn't need batteries...

The whole problem, and the subject of most of the thread, is that they cannot have four car platforms with reversal towards Marlow without a significant rebuild and re - sighting of the trailing junction

Yes, I have read through the thread.

I have also where the stations are in question on the route as I live within Berkshire which I believe you don't and let me say that i think that there is a way that the stations can be extended so that they are not hanging over any junctions. It is just a case of thought needs to be put into in how it is done.

Whether the two car class 165's are replaced as part of the electrification scheme or later when they are retired for good, they will need to be replaced by something.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Yes, I have read through the thread.

I have also where the stations are in question on the route as I live within Berkshire which I believe you don't and let me say that i think that there is a way that the stations can be extended so that they are not hanging over any junctions. It is just a case of thought needs to be put into in how it is done.

Whether the two car class 165's are replaced as part of the electrification scheme or later when they are retired for good, they will need to be replaced by something.

However how much would all of that cost? Would the costs out weigh the benefits?

 

[jimm]

Yes, I have read through the thread.

I have also where the stations are in question on the route as I live within Berkshire which I believe you don't and let me say that i think that there is a way that the stations can be extended so that they are not hanging over any junctions. It is just a case of thought needs to be put into in how it is done.

Whether the two car class 165's are replaced as part of the electrification scheme or later when they are retired for good, they will need to be replaced by something.

Might you care to share your idea with the rest of us?

Before you suggest battery emus are a good idea, it's probably best to read the article in the April issue of Modern Railways about what they are likely to cost, both initially and over their whole life.

For those going on about two-car emus, the same article says it is very difficult to fit in all the kit necessary for a modern 25kv emu for the UK on and under two cars, never mind batteries.

A three-car 20m formation can just fit into the current branch platform at Bourne End, as illustrated by the picture of 210001 from February 1983 here http://www.mdrs.org.uk/wycmaidmarlow.htm#1980s - though that may not apply to a three-car 377-type train, as its coaches are 20.4m, whereas the 210/317 coaches are about 19.8m.

 

[RobShipway]

Might you care to share your idea with the rest of us?

Before you suggest battery emus are a good idea, it's probably best to read the article in the April issue of Modern Railways about what they are likely to cost, both initially and over their whole life.

For those going on about two-car emus, the same article says it is very difficult to fit in all the kit necessary for a modern 25kv emu for the UK on and under two cars, never mind batteries.

A three-car 20m formation can just fit into the current branch platform at Bourne End, as illustrated by the picture of 210001 from February 1983 here http://www.mdrs.org.uk/wycmaidmarlow.htm#1980s - though that may not apply to a three-car 377-type train, as its coaches are 20.4m, whereas the 210/317 coaches are about 19.8m.

Well, for Marlow station you rebuild the station to the right of the current position (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x6967eed5af2cc9e6!6m1!1e1) where you have a better ability to cope with longer trains and have the platform on a curve. This to my mind will make it such that three car trains would fit into Marlow station.

Since FGW are going to be buying Hitachi AT200 trains, which are similar in design to the IEP trains but can be brought with 20M coaches, I would suggest that you either have the AT200 with the capability to have AC power plus either battery power or under floor diesel engines within them to power on to areas where AC power is not available. The AT200 will have SDO, so you can select what doors open on what carriages if needed.

 

[MarkyT]

A three-car 20m formation can just fit into the current branch platform at Bourne End, as illustrated by the picture of 210001 from February 1983 here http://www.mdrs.org.uk/wycmaidmarlow.htm#1980s - though that may not apply to a three-car 377-type train, as its coaches are 20.4m, whereas the 210/317 coaches are about 19.8m.

If the scissors scheme happens at Bourne End, it is possible a slightly shorter new junction might be designed which could reclaim that 2m or so difference in unit length. It might also be possible to move the friction buffer-stop a couple of metres at the other end of platform 1. I don't know why there isn't a friction stop for platform 2, but with greater use of both platforms associated with a half hourly service passing at Bourne End a new buffer-stop will likely be required for platform 2 as well, placed with similar considerations. So in my opinion it seems likely 3x20m car trains could be accommodated on both platforms, with the additional starting signal as illustrated in my sketch http://www.townend.me/files/bourne-end2.pdf to cater for longer trains (with SDO) starting back towards Maidenhead for the limited through services to London.

It is not currently planned for GW to receive any 3-car EMUs following electrification. However, Reading depot must retain facilities and skills for maintaining a smaller fleet of turbos alongside the electrics to cover North Downs and Bedwyn diagrams. So it makes sense in the short term to resource the Marlow-Maidenhead branch service, whether hourly or half hourly, using existing 2 car turbos. Meanwhile, a source of 3x20m EMUs could be investigated for the future, something that will become imperative if and when further electrification of the aforementioned routes results in Reading becoming an electric only depot. In addition to a 25kV conversion of a 3-car 377 type unit, refurbished class 313 units from TSGN or shortened 315s from Crossrail might be considered when these become available.

 

[RobShipway]

If the scissors scheme happens at Bourne End, it is possible a slightly shorter new junction might be designed which could reclaim that 2m or so difference in unit length. It might also be possible to move the friction buffer-stop a couple of metres at the other end of platform 1. I don't know why there isn't a friction stop for platform 2, but with greater use of both platforms associated with a half hourly service passing at Bourne End a new buffer-stop will likely be required for platform 2 as well, placed with similar considerations. So in my opinion it seems likely 3x20m car trains could be accommodated on both platforms, with the additional starting signal as illustrated in my sketch http://www.townend.me/files/bourne-end2.pdf to cater for longer trains (with SDO) starting back towards Maidenhead for the limited through services to London.

It is not currently planned for GW to receive any 3-car EMUs following electrification. However, Reading depot must retain facilities and skills for maintaining a smaller fleet of turbos alongside the electrics to cover North Downs and Bedwyn diagrams. So it makes sense in the short term to resource the Marlow-Maidenhead branch service, whether hourly or half hourly, using existing 2 car turbos. Meanwhile, a source of 3x20m EMUs could be investigated for the future, something that will become imperative if and when further electrification of the aforementioned routes results in Reading becoming an electric only depot. In addition to a 25kV conversion of a 3-car 377 type unit, refurbished class 313 units from TSGN or shortened 315s from Crossrail might be considered when these become available.

I think that FGW are more likely to be using 3 car AT200's as that is what they will be using to replace some of the class 165/166 units and in time replace the class 365 units that they will inherit when electrification of the Thames Valley is complete.

 

[455driver]

Well, for Marlow station you rebuild the station to the right of the current position (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x6967eed5af2cc9e6!6m1!1e1) where you have a better ability to cope with longer trains and have the platform on a curve. This to my mind will make it such that three car trains would fit into Marlow station.

Since FGW are going to be buying Hitachi AT200 trains, which are similar in design to the IEP trains but can be brought with 20M coaches, I would suggest that you either have the AT200 with the capability to have AC power plus either battery power or under floor diesel engines within them to power on to areas where AC power is not available. The AT200 will have SDO, so you can select what doors open on what carriages if needed.

Nope, not allowed (unless you can get a derogation), especially if it is replacing a straight platform (which means you wont get the derogation)!
Next idea! :roll:

 

[RobShipway]

Nope, not allowed (unless you can get a derogation), especially if it is replacing a straight platform (which means you wont get the derogation)!
Next idea! :roll:

What would you suggest then?

 

[HSTEd]

Build some two car electric multiple units and electrify the branch as it is.

Job done

 

[edwin_m]

I think that FGW are more likely to be using 3 car AT200's as that is what they will be using to replace some of the class 165/166 units and in time replace the class 365 units that they will inherit when electrification of the Thames Valley is complete.

Not heard any hint of FGW ordering AT200s. Is this some new news or just a new rumour?

What MarkyT suggests seems sensible, though I'd describe it as a double junction not a scissors.

 

[jopsuk]

Since FGW are going to be buying Hitachi AT200 trains, which are similar in design to the IEP trains but can be brought with 20M coaches,

I think you're seriously confused here. FGW are helping finance the purchase of AT300s- essentially, class 800s with uprated/next evolution engines- for services to the West of England. These will have the same 25m carriages as the 801/800 and will be high speed units, in 5 & 9 car formations (as I understand it)

The only operator (at the moment) getting AT200s, using a 23m body length, is Scotrail. These will be pure EMUs for the Edinburgh - Glasgow (and associated lines) electrification, in 3 & 4 car configurations.

The idea, at all, of ordering a fleet of two (maybe three) two car emus- or even 3 car- for the Marlow Branch, used for what must be ~500,000 passenger journeys per year (can't simply add station usage figures as that would double-count many passengers) is simply fantasy- though clearly, something expensive will have to be done at some point, be it extensive reconfiguration or a micro-fleet. I'd imagine that Reading-Gatwick, being currently worked by ~70m three car turbos, could probably be worked by 80m 4-car EMUs as part of the Reading based fleet- by the time it comes to it, the 365s that are being cascaded may be on the point of replacement, so a larger fleet would be easy to order