GW Modernisation Project - the mistakes and the future?'

[HowardGWR]

As I promised, this is it. I hope we will not only look backwards but also forwards. I envisage we would only discuss the major issues here, such as - just for one - the rebuilding of Temple Meads, its interfaces with local transport, whether there is scope for further electrification in the GWR area and beyond, - and so on.

I'll leave it there and hope others have something to contribute, I know I will.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Why don't we start by the SoS for Transport hiring a consultant - not obscene pay - say 500 pounds per hour (he may accept less) The services of an engineer who really knows what he is talking about - Roger Ford.

Start by what is really needed
1) An electrified railway capable of 125 mph where possible (BATNEEC principles- Best available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost)
2) Set a goal of - this is desired by year 2040 - allows an incoming government to cancel/defer etc if costs get crazy. Still allows forward planning - apprenticeships supply chain etc
3) Do each bit in stages so if costs get crazy any part can be cancelled/deferred etc
4) Justify each section
a) Didcot - Oxford - absolute no brainer - if on time and budget proceed to next stage
b) Filton Triangle into BTM - if on time and budget proceed to next stage
c) BTM via Bath but not gold plated and keep as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Settle for 100 mph if we have to. If on time and budget proceed to next stage
d) Thames Valley branches -one at a time - if on time and budget proceed to next stage
e) Devolve the decision on Valleys and Swansea to the Welsh government
f) Reading - Basingstoke if on time and budget proceed to next stage
g) BTM -Weston Super mare if on time and budget proceed to next stage

etc

(ps sticky updated too)

 

[HowardGWR]

4) Justify each section
a) Didcot - Oxford - absolute no brainer - if on time and budget proceed to next stage
b) Filton Triangle into BTM - if on time and budget proceed to next stage
c) BTM via Bath but not gold plated and keep as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Settle for 100 mph if we have to. If on time and budget proceed to next stage
d) Thames Valley branches -one at a time - if on time and budget proceed to next stage
e) Devolve the decision on Valleys and Swansea to the Welsh government
f) Reading - Basingstoke if on time and budget proceed to next stage
g) BTM -Weston Super mare if on time and budget proceed to next stage

I can agree with much of that but not the existing plans, because without them the whole project was a waste of time and money. It isn't and won't be.

On a) If Didcot to Oxford is a no-brainer, then I see no need for time and budget wasting further justification. It's only the design of the new Oxford station that has to be finalised.
On b) I think that there is a project that could be promoted under the new 'Avon Super Mayor' who will take office in May. This would be to take an overall view of local transport in his (it will be a he - I've seen the candidates, see Bristol Post) Avon area, as it used to be called. If the tram / train project in Sheffield is success, then I think given that the Avon area has a similar topography (hilly), this can be the answer for Avon, too. It would involve leaving the main line at places where the metrobus trackways are adjacent and re-using them as tramways. The main task for Avon local railways is to get the tracks into the city centres (fine at Bath, not fine in Bristol and north Bristol).
On c) I think that is already being done with great sensitivity, and the money on consultation / planning has been spent. Just get on with it and complete it in CP6.

d), e) and f) Agreed. Reading to Basingstoke is also a no-brainer, the BCR must be 'bigly' positive, and could be useful in taking pressure off Waterloo too, in future.

On g) I feel that the next stage should be to Taunton. There is a lot of commuting from there to Bristol. Clearly the Weston loop would need to be included.

Update, I've altered the title a bit to emphasis this thread goes beyond the GWML electrification and deals with much more than putting up masts, etc, very interesting though, that those topics are. Hope that's OK.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

On g) I feel that the next stage should be to Taunton. There is a lot of commuting from there to Bristol. Clearly the Weston loop would need to be included.

I don't disagree (sorry for the double negative) - Taunton (well actually Exeter would be my ideal and definitely include the Weston loop). What I was trying to convey is again - do it in stages.
To Weston - energize - get benefit -
then if OK on to Taunton -
if on time and budget onto Exeter.

 

[coppercapped]

I'm not sure that there is any financial argument for electrifying the three Thames Valley branches. They are not very long, speeds are low and the trains are short.

If the reason is to reduced emissions, then the difference in pollution levels between using diesel engines that meet the Euro Stage IIIB standards and electrifying the lines will be minimal. Using modern 'start-stop' technology would mean that the engines wouldn't be idling even in the termini.

What the débâcle has really shown is that (a) the requirements specification has to be fixed before one starts and (b) it should not be changed once work has started. This requires a project manager who can say NO.

But all this is well known in those companies that make things...

...I suppose civil servants don't make things.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I'm not sure that there is any financial argument for electrifying the three Thames Valley branches. They are not very long, speeds are low and the trains are short.

In other words - should be low cost - there is one argument as well as not having diesel islands in the middle of electric

 

[bastien]

c) Do Box Tunnel - Bristol with lighter overhead line. Nothing's ever going to get to 140 on that stretch anyway.

Then do Bath - Westbury the same. Placate residents of the Limpley Stoke valley with pictures of electric trains in Switzerland.

 

[HSTEd]

Either get the required clearances reduced or abandon 25kV.
With our loading gauge those clearances are almost untenable.

And stop chasing lifecycle cost savings (which will be realised 30 years from now) at the expense of increased capital requirements today which will get the scheme killed.

 

[TractiveEffort]

Turn back the clock, abandon electrification and build a new HST with AC traction motors, modern control systems and upgraded MKIII rolling stock. MTU have an engine that meets and exceeds all emissions legislation...... how much cheaper would that have been!!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Has anyone spotted the ticking time bomb of a letter on page 39 of Rail 819 from someone actually involved with pricing the scheme originally who is alleging that NR have been including, at a later date, things which would have had to be done anyway ( signalling renewal, track renewal ) as direct costs of electrification...?

 

[glbotu]

Is it just me, or are we looking at electrifying the wrong things? I would suggest that going "let's electrify all the intercity routes" is a massive undertaking, which results in some benefit (the replacement of HSTs, better acceleration), but doesn't actually release the desperately needed DMUs that we need. There are two reasons that European mainlines are electrified.

1. They mostly got destroyed during WW2. They effectively built new railway lines after WW2.

2. They've built a lot of "Neubaustrecke" - new lines which "avoid" smaller towns for intercity and intercity express services (LGV in France, HSL in Netherlands/Belgium etc etc).

Should we not be looking at electrifying more suburban and local services, because, as I understand it, the market is about to be flooded with 191 EMUs from the Greater Anglia franchise (that's 4 car trains, not carriages). Even taking out the older 317s, that still leaves you with 145 trains. The thing is, local and suburban routes are generally smaller and have much lower risk of going wrong (or certainly risk less by going wrong - yes, I'm aware of the GOBLIN problems, but still, there's not the kind of furore going on about it as the GW).

The thing is, the reason "electrifying the Great Western" was done was because you can score an awful lot of political brownie points. Maybe, just maybe, political brownie points shouldn't be used for determining major infrastructure projects.

 

[coppercapped]

In other words - should be low cost - there is one argument as well as not having diesel islands in the middle of electric

And what, exactly, is the problem with 'diesel islands'? We are not talking Modernisation Plan diesels here. There are three short, effectively self-contained, branches in the Thames Valley. At 45/50mph maximum speed the trains won't wear out quickly so check the brake pads once a month and send a fuel bowser round to each of them once a week. Oh, and somebody to sweep up and clean the windows every night.

Don't over-complicate things.

 

[HowardGWR]

Has anyone spotted the ticking time bomb of a letter on page 39 of Rail 819 from someone actually involved with pricing the scheme originally who is alleging that NR have been including, at a later date, things which would have had to be done anyway ( signalling renewal, track renewal ) as direct costs of electrification...?

No, I haven't, but a lot of what is happening in and around Bristol and Oxford is only indirectly related to electrification. I don't see this matters. All this work is needed doing and there are plenty of other projects needed on the Great Western (this thread is not about elsewhere, but clearly inter-regional connections ar of great importance).

To HSTEd and others,I think there is another thread for discussing whether we should have third rail or something else as traction. There are a lot of areas of the GW where the inhabitants would just be glad of getting rid of pacers and 150s, etc, and improvements in frequencies, whatever the traction of the replacements was.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Has anyone spotted the ticking time bomb of a letter on page 39 of Rail 819 from someone actually involved with pricing the scheme originally who is alleging that NR have been including, at a later date, things which would have had to be done anyway ( signalling renewal, track renewal ) as direct costs of electrification...?

The trouble with that is that the Western Region installed non-immunised signalling in the 1970s and it has to be replaced for electric operation.
It could probably have soldiered on for a decade or so before life expiry, but there's not much option if you are going to wire the GW.
By contrast, the MML (I think) wouldn't have needed resignalling.

Track renewal goes in cycles, but I expect NR did some gold-plating on the "do it all" theory of getting the disruption over in one go.
There never seems to be an agreed answer to the "patch and mend" or "total route modernisation" approaches.

 

[squizzler]

The mistakes: not enough work done in total blockades like the Severn tunnel. There may be fewer alternative routes to the west compared to the WCML and routes to the North, but we are electrifying a non electric railway so all the diesel stock can use any other route during blockades.

The future: GWR needs to hire the best advertising agency to sell the story of a brand new railway and fill its IEP trains straight off the bat.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And what, exactly, is the problem with 'diesel islands'?

I don't like them. I prefer direct service from Paddington or elsewhere and all electric commonality with electric MUs to match or improve on the acceleration profiles of mainline.

The mistakes: not enough work done in total blockades like the Severn tunnel. There may be fewer alternative routes to the west compared to the WCML and routes to the North, but we are electrifying a non electric railway so all the diesel stock can use any other route during blockades.

agreed

 

[HowardGWR]

The mistakes: not enough work done in total blockades like the Severn tunnel. There may be fewer alternative routes to the west compared to the WCML and routes to the North, but we are electrifying a non electric railway so all the diesel stock can use any other route during blockades.

The future: GWR needs to hire the best advertising agency to sell the story of a brand new railway and fill its IEP trains straight off the bat.

I very much agree and you set me thinking. Clearly local trains Pad to Didcot would be difficult in a total blockade, although that is depending whether all 4 lines were required. However, outside of that, we have Bristol to Pad (from Didcot) that can go via Banbury (and did so). We have Westbury to Pad that can go via Thingley an so on . I won't develop this further, but I hope it is clear what can be the case for almost any blockade. This is because, after the GWR used to mean the 'Great Way Round', the avoiding routes were thus developed. Only Cheltenham to Brum has been lost from those avoiding routes, and that one could be solved when they get around to doing Yate to Bromsgrove, by diverting via Newport.

Here's a challenge. Is there a route for which is not possible to find a reasonable diversionary route on the GWR? (Leave aside West of Exeter -we aren't likely to do that one for some time!).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This is because, after the GWR used to mean the 'Great Way Round', the avoiding routes were thus developed.

Here's a challenge. Is there a route for which is not possible to find a reasonable diversionary route on the GWR?

Taunton -Exeter would not be easy but not impossible. - Castle Cary - Yeovil Jct- Exeter - but a very crazy alternative route.

 

[SamYeager]

I don't like them.

Good to see a well thought out response backed up by compelling financial and operational justifications.

 

[coppercapped]

I don't like them. I prefer direct service from Paddington or elsewhere and all electric commonality with electric MUs to match or improve on the acceleration profiles of mainline.

Eh? There haven't been any through trains to Windsor from Paddington for decades and recently the Henley and Bourne End branches have had about one through train each way per day.

When Crossrail arrives NONE of these branches will have through trains to or from Paddington.

So, I ask again. Why do you want to spend money on short branch lines on which the trains will be captive anyway?

If you want to avoid making the same mistake again of gold plating the project you DO NOT spend serious money electrifying short, low speed branch lines on which shuttle services of small trains run to a main line junction.

 

[The Ham]

I don't like them. I prefer direct service from Paddington or elsewhere and all electric commonality with electric MUs to match or improve on the acceleration profiles of mainline.

There's also the issue of increased costs with having a small fleet of DMU's in that staff need to be trained on how to use and maintain them as well as staff to use and maintain the EMU fleet.

DMU's also have higher leasing and maintenance costs.

You also run the risk of needing extra stick to cover spares, for instance 27 DMU's with 3 spares and 106 EMU's with 11 spares could be replaced by 133 EMU's with 13 spares.

One spare may not sound much, but just on saved lease costs it could be enough to cover the extra cost of 4 coach EMU's over 3 coach DMU's. However on the above the would be an extra cost of £1.5 million on a total bill of £59 million to lease all 4 coach EMU over a mixed fleet, which is hardly significant, given the extra capacity that the would be.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Good to see a well thought out response backed up by compelling financial and operational justifications.

In the real world that is what politicians do anyway - it is a pet project. Also reread if you will the 2009 RUS - and look at Option D

Eh? There haven't been any through trains to Windsor from Paddington for decades and recently the Henley and Bourne End branches have had about one through train each way per day.

When Crossrail arrives NONE of these branches will have through trains to or from Paddington.

So, I ask again. Why do you want to spend money on short branch lines on which the trains will be captive anyway?

If you want to avoid making the same mistake again of gold plating the project you DO NOT spend serious money electrifying short, low speed branch lines

I agree - I want to electrify the branch lines at very low cost with cheapest available. Please also see comment above re 2009 Electrification RUS Option D. I stand by my opinion - which at the end of the day is only an opinion. You are entitled to yours and I respect it. I am entitled to mine.

 

[D1009]

Only Cheltenham to Brum has been lost from those avoiding routes, and that one could be solved when they get around to doing Yate to Bromsgrove, by diverting via Newport.

Here's a challenge. Is there a route for which is not possible to find a reasonable diversionary route on the GWR? (Leave aside West of Exeter -we aren't likely to do that one for some time!).

Surely there is no alternative route between Barnwood Jn and Abbotswood Jn other than via Foxhall Jn, which is not normally used.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

What I would also like to see is a truly refreshed RUS Electrification for the whole country. However, it would be expanded to include elements of the Northern Sparks report which did a weighting study of sorts and came up with a score out of 100 and enabled a priority list to be developed. There was an A , B and C priority. There would still be a BCR score but also a difficulty score. So say for example there was a 3 mile tunnel and a gazzilion bridges on a route that would have an extremely low score for difficulty. The scale would be the higher the number the easy the project.

Now of course, in the real world, politicians will always be tainted in their views but the score a la Northern Sparks would help in deciding which gets done first. With a long term plan, screw ups like the GWML modernization would be much less likely to occur.

 

[PHILIPE]

Taunton -Exeter would not be easy but not impossible. - Castle Cary - Yeovil Jct- Exeter - but a very crazy alternative route.

This route is regularly used for diversions.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This route is regularly used for diversions.

Wow - thanks for that. I have lived in the USA way too long. I need to come back to the UK and do an all line rover - if they still have those. Glad there are people on this forum who can kindly remind me and correct me - thanks again.

 

[Taunton]

The mistakes: not enough work done in total blockades

This seems to be an increasing trend everywhere, greater user of total closure blockades but there just seems insufficient work done. When you go and look at the task in hand, it seems to be getting carried on with too few resources in a lackadaisical manner. You expect an "all hands to the pump" approach only to find just working normal day shift. Does anything ever get done on blockades on Friday afternoons?

The current Goblin blockade, very long term, is notably another, and as not infrequently seems to be the case now, you get to the end of the period and the works are by no means finished.

 

[HowardGWR]

Surely there is no alternative route between Barnwood Jn and Abbotswood Jn other than via Foxhall Jn, which is not normally used.

If you mean between Gloucester and Yate, what's wrong with via Severn Tunnel Junction (reverse)?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This seems to be an increasing trend everywhere, greater user of total closure blockades but there just seems insufficient work done. When you go and look at the task in hand, it seems to be getting carried on with too few resources in a lackadaisical manner. You expect an "all hands to the pump" approach only to find just working normal day shift. Does anything ever get done on blockades on Friday afternoons?

The current Goblin blockade, very long term, is notably another, and as not infrequently seems to be the case now, you get to the end of the period and the works are by no means finished.

So in spirit with the title of this thread - I agree. So - lessons learned.
1) a] On a major project - and I mean really major (GWML is huge), don't use unproven technology - aka HOPS train.
b] That HOPS train has to recover costs - so where can it be used in future -need a full lessons learned team and publish the report and be brutally honest.
c] My route knowledge is poor - but I would hope it can be used at night electrifying say - Bristol area- Taunton and onto Exeter.
2) If you can not use total blockades then make sure the people needed are ready to rock and roll as soon as the last train has passed. Then really crack on and get the productivity up while maintaining safety.
3) If you need an "all hands to the pump" approach- and I sort of understand why it is not always possible, then while you are say - raising a bridge - surely further up the line you can be doing some bases or similar. It just seems or appears that there is a linear approach sometime. Plan in advance and achieve the maximum

 

[IrishDave]

If you mean between Gloucester and Yate, what's wrong with via Severn Tunnel Junction (reverse)?

Barnwood Junction is the Cheltenham side of the Gloucester triangle, while Abbotswood Junction is where the line to Worcester leaves the "Cross Country Main Line" (for want of a better description) between Ashchurch and Bromsgrove. Foxhall Junction is the south end of the Didcot west curve.

In other words, D1009 is making the point that any engineering works shutting the line between Cheltenham and Worcester/Bromsgrove requires a very lengthy diversion via Oxford and Swindon. For longer-distance traffic (especially CrossCountry trains between Manchester and Bristol), I suppose that a diversion via Hereford (using the Maindee East curve to avoid reversal in Newport) would be theoretically possible, though CrossCountry don't sign that route. (In contrast, some Bristol XC drivers do sign the GWML between Bristol and Didcot.)