Thames Valley Electrification (the facts and figures)

[tbtc]

As far as I understand it, the Government plans mean electrification from Paddington to Heathrow/ Maidenhead (both Crossrail), electrification on to Reading/ Oxford/ Newbury, plus wiring of all the Thames Valley branches (Henley/ Eton/ Marlow) but not the Greenford branch (which will be a self contained diesel operation to West Ealing).

At the moment FGW run fifty seven 165/166s.

Based on the daytime (offpeak) requirements I reckon the following units will be saved:

Paddington – Greenford – One DMU saved (one DMU left for the shuttle)
Twyford – Henley – One DMU saved
Maidenhead – Marlow – One DMU saved
Slough – Windsor & Eton – One DMU saved
Paddington – Reading (slow) - Five DMUs saved
Paddington – Oxford (slow) - Eight DMUs saved
Paddington – Oxford (fast) - Two DMUs/ HSTs saved (the Hereford/ Worcester service would still need diesel traction)
Reading – Newbury – One DMU saved

Reading – Gatwick, Reading – Basingstoke, Paddington – Bedwyn, Paddington - Hereford, Oxford - Bicester, Oxford - Banbury etc would still be diesel run.

…which works out at twenty DMUs saved. Not that many (unless my maths is wrong)

 

[The Planner]

Oxford - Bicester doesnt count as Chiltern take that on so thats one more.

 

[tbtc]

Oxford - Bicester doesnt count as Chiltern take that on so thats one more.

True, but it's still a DMU for a DMU, so no "saving" (in terms of getting diesels replaced/ cascaded)

Operationally I'd give the Greenford DMU to Chiltern too, but maybe that's just me

 

[imagination]

Where did you hear that the Henley/Marlow/Windsor branches were being electrified. I would be surprised if they were...

 

[anthony263]

I havent heard anything about the thames valley branches being electrified. As for the greenford branch couldnt this possibly be transfered to london overground to operate perhaps?

 

[Daimler]

I'm probably being obtuse here, but I don't understand where you get the figure of 'two trains' from for the Oxford fasts - surely a half-hourly service taking an hour each way uses more than two trains?

Or are only two trains required to carry out London - Oxford diagrams with other trains filling in the diagrams that run to Worcester and beyond? I'm rather confused...

 

[route:oxford]

Finish the wiring between Oxford & Coventry and on the basis of the stock being replaced by equivalent electric models...

This would release the Banbury-Paddington stock, it might also release some 15X/17X stock that run to Leamington Spa from Birmingham

Transfer the Southamptons to the XC Newcastle route, which would release all of the Manchester-Reading-South Voyagers. (Some would be needed for Newcastle-Southampton diagrams).

How many DMU/DEMUs would that release?

(I'd also suggest that it would be a good idea to rebuild Oxford-Bicester with future electrification in mind - get the foundations for the knitting and substations in place - Perhaps the MOD would consider contributing?)

 

[The Planner]

Id rather they spent the cash re-signalling Oxford Banbury first. No point doing Bicester unless you did all of the Chilterns.

 

[route:oxford]

Id rather they spent the cash re-signalling Oxford Banbury first. No point doing Bicester unless you did all of the Chilterns.

Thing is...

If you look at the plans for HS2, there is an electrified spur heading to Bletchley from Calvert along the trackbed of the EW link (I think it's marked "to depot").

Might as well get ready to join everything up from the very start.

 

[TEW]

I'm probably being obtuse here, but I don't understand where you get the figure of 'two trains' from for the Oxford fasts - surely a half-hourly service taking an hour each way uses more than two trains?

Or are only two trains required to carry out London - Oxford diagrams with other trains filling in the diagrams that run to Worcester and beyond? I'm rather confused...

Requires more than two units. Once the Cotswold redoubling is complete it will receive an hourly service all day so that means there will be one Oxford terminator each hour. Journey time of around one hour each way plus turnaround time at London and a trip to the carriage sidings at Oxford will push up the number of units. The diagrams are probably interworked at London with other services as well to get best platform utilisation and lower turnaround times.

 

[tbtc]

I'm probably being obtuse here, but I don't understand where you get the figure of 'two trains' from for the Oxford fasts - surely a half-hourly service taking an hour each way uses more than two trains?

Or are only two trains required to carry out London - Oxford diagrams with other trains filling in the diagrams that run to Worcester and beyond? I'm rather confused...

For arguments sake I was saying the hourly terminating service would be converted to EMU whilst the Worcester/ Hereford service would still need diesels and is generally hourly too (beyond Oxford, though certainly not all to Hereford http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Documents/Custom/May 2010 amendments/GW10M_TT19_WEB_(2).pdf )

Obviously there's turnaround time/ interworking/ peak extras/ spares/ doubled-up units to consider with my shaky maths, but I thought it gave an idea of how many/few DMUs might be spared

 

[Minstral25]

The Maths is wrong, simply because the units released will be the peak requirement not the off peak. Many units will sit around in depots during the day and then be used to strengthen peak services - these units on the electrified routes will be released as EMU's cover the duties.

It would probably be easier to work out what is required to cover the non-electrified, add a couple of spares and the rest will be released.

Personally still think it would be better if this was all mapped into Crossrail and all the Crossrail Paddington terminators ran through to GWML.

 

[The Planner]

Thing is...

If you look at the plans for HS2, there is an electrified spur heading to Bletchley from Calvert along the trackbed of the EW link (I think it's marked "to depot").

Might as well get ready to join everything up from the very start.

You still go back to the "diesel under the wires" debate though. Even if you did Oxford to Bletchley, Chiltern would still run diesel from Aylesbury to MK and you will have all the intermodal freight going that way.

 

[tbtc]

The Maths is wrong, simply because the units released will be the peak requirement not the off peak. Many units will sit around in depots during the day and then be used to strengthen peak services - these units on the electrified routes will be released as EMU's cover the duties.

It would probably be easier to work out what is required to cover the non-electrified, add a couple of spares and the rest will be released.

Personally still think it would be better if this was all mapped into Crossrail and all the Crossrail Paddington terminators ran through to GWML.

I'm happy if anyone wants to do the figures, I accept that mine are a rough stab

Hopefully with the longer EMUs replacing two car 165s there won't be as many units sitting around unused (or needing doubled up)

 

[route:oxford]

You still go back to the "diesel under the wires" debate though. Even if you did Oxford to Bletchley, Chiltern would still run diesel from Aylesbury to MK and you will have all the intermodal freight going that way.

That is true.

But if there are plans to wire Calvert to Bletchley under HS2, plans to wire to Oxford now, and trackbed work is ready to take place Oxford to Bicester - it seems daft not to be prepared.

All it would take would be a few extra miles of wiring (and perhaps 3rd rail) in order for a Class 92 to haul all the way from Southampton to Scotland.

 

[imagination]

Assuming the HST sets freed from London-Oxford would be enough to remove the need for 166s to operate London-Worcester/Malvern services (as they do at present), I think you would need to keep:

1 for greenford (165)
1 for windsor (165)
2 for bourne end/marlow (165 + ?)
2 for henley (165 + 166)
3 for bedwyn (the additional peak services here are provided by HSTs) (166s)
2 for basingstoke (165s)
1 for banbury (assuming the services to London were cut back to just Oxford - noone uses those trains for the whole journey anyway so...) (?)
7 for gatwick (166s)

Correct me if I messed up somewhere

 

[tbtc]

Assuming the HST sets freed from London-Oxford would be enough to remove the need for 166s to operate London-Worcester/Malvern services (as they do at present), I think you would need to keep:

1 for greenford (165)
1 for windsor (165)
2 for bourne end/marlow (165 + ?)
2 for henley (165 + 166)
3 for bedwyn (the additional peak services here are provided by HSTs) (166s)
2 for basingstoke (165s)
1 for banbury (assuming the services to London were cut back to just Oxford - noone uses those trains for the whole journey anyway so...) (?)
7 for gatwick (166s)

Correct me if I messed up somewhere

Cheers

So nineteen DMUs required (plus a Bicester one passing to Chiltern), plus a couple for "spare"

...which means about twenty five units freed up by the electrification.

It seems daft not to wire the Windsor/ Marlow/ Henley lines (since these will either lose their peak direct London links or have to send DMUs to London to run specifically), but we live in a penny pinching age

 

[imagination]

Cheers

So nineteen DMUs required (plus a Bicester one passing to Chiltern), plus a couple for "spare"

...which means about twenty five units freed up by the electrification.

It seems daft not to wire the Windsor/ Marlow/ Henley lines (since these will either lose their peak direct London links or have to send DMUs to London to run specifically), but we live in a penny pinching age

In my figures I included one peak London train for Henley and Bourne End (compared to the current 2 each). Bourne End needs this London service in order to run their peak services. Henley doesn't necessarily but as it is a longer train than the usual one it would be very useful to have, if only for easing congestion, and so I've kept it.

Windsor has no direct services to London anyway.

 

[The Planner]

I still think the Bicester DMU should be discounted, Chiltern will be running their existing 168 fleet down there so the 166 will be displaced.

 

[swt_passenger]

Bit of an off the wall idea, but I thought it might be interesting to see what the GW RUS has to say about services via Newbury in an electrified world, with IEPs and various service expansions having taken place.

If I'm reading it right, they are suggesting 2 tph IEP beyond Newbury, one of which would be a semifast terminating at Exeter, and the other a fast service to points beyond Exeter.

Now maybe Newbury - Bedwyn calls will all be in the semifast service? After all, to be semi-fast it will need a few more places than Westbury to call at. So having a DMU shuttle or whatever may not be needed at all?

[For completeness they also suggest Newbury would have additional peak services from Paddington as well as the 2 tph offpeak.]

 

[adc82140]

TBH I think they should consider filling in the gaps in the 3rd rail on the North Downs line- it's only Wokingham to just north of Ash and then just south of Guildford to Reigate. Then full use could be made of the 319's dual voltage capabilities, thus releasing 7 DMUs.

Would it be that expensive in the grand scheme of things to wire up between Reading West and Basingstoke as well?

I heard murmurings a while ago about turning the Bourne End and Marlow branch into some sort of light rail tram/train, with a view to reopening up to High Wycombe, but it may have been a bit of a pipe-dream of someone in the local press.

Edit: Found the reference

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/article-12337-comment-new-rail-link-for-maidenhead-to-high-wycombe/

Love the monorail comment underneath. Reminds me of a certain episode of The Simpsons

 

[Helvellyn]

If 19 units are estimated as being needed fow FGW after electrification, I wonder if the 165s would all go and the 166s (21) might remain?

 

[tbtc]

If 19 units are estimated as being needed fow FGW after electrification, I wonder if the 165s would all go and the 166s (21) might remain?

One advantage of that would be 165s could be given to Chiltern to replace their 172s which could go to London Midland which would free up any remaining Sprinters which could... (e.g. lots of scope for improving services elsewhere in the UK)

 

[MCR247]

I don't think 165s can meet Chilterns 172 timings though for EG3

 

[The Planner]

165s wouldnt have a hope in hell of matching the 172 timings.

 

[MCR247]

So it would not be possible to have them made to 165 timings without affecting other services?

 

[IanXC]

Isnt the idea that the Turbos cascaded go to the Bristol area due to the loading gauge issues, and then FGW further cascade other stock to other operators? The 21 166 units make sense to stay together, then the 36 165 could cascade 7 142s and FGWs 30 150s surely? (Remembering that 17 of those 165s are 3 car units and so 15 extra carriages)

 

[swt_passenger]

Isnt the idea that the Turbos cascaded go to the Bristol area due to the loading gauge issues, and then FGW further cascade other stock to other operators?

The proposal that is actually published in NR's various plans is to use the Turbos on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route 'following gauge clearance'.

Gauge restrictions are not considered a major issue, as I understand. It is fairly pointless to limit discussion to where the units could go as of today, because any cascade would include any infrastructure work if needed.

 

[The Planner]

So it would not be possible to have them made to 165 timings without affecting other services?

No, too many crossing moves at Gerrards X and West Ruislip when they terminate. They are all crossing infront of 168s doing a ton and I think they have committed to journey times.

 

[tbtc]

Eight 165s could run the Cardiff - Portsmouth service, plus five for Cardiff - Taunton. Add on a few for the Weymouth/ service.

As 90mph units, I see them more as 158 replacements than Pacer replacements. I take it they are all 3/2 seating?