Latest on IEP/GWML

[cslusarc]

If a new locomotive could be built to replace the class 43 power cars, would the Mark 3 coaches would it be reasonable to keep the mark 3 coaches in service even longer? I know we will likely never see a new build of loco and stock so just interested to know how long the coaches could remain in service for.

I'd like to see a new order of electro-diesel locomotives that could temporarily paired with some Mark 3 coaches (until the end other their useful life) before being cascaded to work hauling freight or repaired with Mark 4 coaches.

 

[Minstral25]

Is not the problem with extending the wires to South Wales the Severn Tunnel. From my memory isn't this a narrow tunnel with little space for wires?

The same problem exists with the coastal section of the West of England Mainline around Dawlish etc.

Neither are impossible, just expensive to build and difficult to maintain.

Against these two issues finally getting a decent service to Newbury from Paddington is probably a much more cost effective argument - especially as it would mean all commuter trains into Paddington will be electric. There is much pent-up demand from London Commuters along the Berks and Hants line or at least there was 25 years ago when I lived near Reading.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Maybe the London government thinks that devolution means that Wales should become more self sufficient? There is an argument that syas, well the Welsh wanted a national assembly, let them pay for electrification out of their own budget.

If powers and funding for rail infrastructre are devolved from the DfT to WAG in Cardiff then yes they could pay. But they are not currently devolved, so I am not sure WAG should pay itself for non-devolved matters. That would mean welsh tax payers paying twice as the block grant it currently receives is for devolved matters like health, education, roads, etc.

When powers/funding for rail infrastructure were devolved to Scotland in 2006 that resulted in a £380M increase in Scotland's block grant from Westminster. Pro rata Wales would be looking at £230M pa.

I think what your saying there is the UK Government doesn't give WAG money for the purpose of rail infrastructure improvments. However I like to think there's nothing to stop WAG using the money Westminster gave them for road spending to fund rail improvements instead.

Like you say though, it's not really fair to expect WAG to pay to electrify the Welsh part of the GWML as they don't give WAG an allocation for rail spending. Therefore I think the dft should pay for the extension of the planned wires from Bristol Parkway to Swansea and the WAG should divert road spending to pay for Severn Tunnel Junction - Cheltenham and the Ebbw Vale and Masteg branches to allow a greater percentage of services on the line to switch to electric traction and hence increase the benifits and therefore the cost:benifit raitio of the dft's Swansea electrification.

As for improvements in the South, would that be politically acceptable to Plaid Cymru?

Since the WAG isn't getting any money for rail spending then you divert road spending from the south east into rail, so the same amount is still being spent in the south east versus in the north, mid or south west. Also, the 15 new 377s I suggested would release at least 8 150s (those 15 units included Ebbw Vale - Newport and an increase in Swanline services to hourly and extends them to Chelenham(replacing the current Maesteg/Cardiff - Cheltenham services) so I doubt 15 150s could be freed up). That said, I expect enough 150s would be freed to get Pacers off all services that don't go through Cardiff Queen Street, which would benifit the south west which apparently currently sees occasional Pacers (seen photos online of them on Pembroke Dock services, but not seen them west of Carmarthen myself). Does anyone know how exactly how many units are currently used on the Swanline, Cheltenham, Ebbw Vale and Maesteg services? If enough are released you could use some to improve service levels elsewhere in Wales, so unlike a road scheme in the south east which only benifts (and then only temorarily) pepole in the south east the same amount of expendature on electrification in the south east has the pontential to benift other parts of Wales too.

With an hourly Cambrian Mainline service, Wrexham-Chester redoubled, a continued Gerallt Gymro service and the possibility of Llangefni-Llandudno services, I should hope they'd find it.politically acceptable.

So, the south-east of Wales, the Cambrian in mid-Wales and the railways of north-Wales all would be benifiting from the WAG. The only area in Wales that still has railways but is not on that list is me and Greenback's in the south-west (ok, so the Gowerton re-doubling is planned for 2013 (but I read once it was planned for 2010) but there's no mention of a commitment to provide extra services. I think Fishguard has the poorest level of services in Wales, and dispite an assembly commite recomending (following a petition) that the WAG fund a decent service there has still been no commitment to do so. A 2-hourly express service to Fishguard via the Swansea District Line could be implemented now (cutting at least 15mins off Carmarthen - Cardiff) if only we had the funding to pay for it and 3 class 158s to run it.

 

[starrymarkb]

First off, I have to agree with the criticisms of wiring up to Newbury. The line is like a poor relation to the main route, and with no major locations served before the wires would cease (Newbury and Thatcham don't exactly compare with, say, Super Mud do they?). I think it would be better to concentrate on the GWML and sod Newbury. I would propose routes to Oxford, Bristol and Swansea, as initially suggested however long ago it was now, but also wire through Filton AW (if it isn't already planned) and also continue through to WSM to allow for a permanent hourly service from Paddington.

As for Cardiff, wasn't there an idea in one of the RUS documents to electrify the Valley Lines? If the WAG would pay at least some of that, surely there would be no case to no continue through the Tunnel?

I think the reasoning for Newbury is to allow for the most of the thames valley locals to go over to EMU operation (along with the wires to Oxford) - Bedwyn and Hungerford are being added to a new Semi-Fast to Exeter. Then all you'd need is a couple of Sprinters for Henley/Windsor/Marlow
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is not the problem with extending the wires to South Wales the Severn Tunnel. From my memory isn't this a narrow tunnel with little space for wires?

The same problem exists with the coastal section of the West of England Mainline around Dawlish etc.

Neither are impossible, just expensive to build and difficult to maintain.

Against these two issues finally getting a decent service to Newbury from Paddington is probably a much more cost effective argument - especially as it would mean all commuter trains into Paddington will be electric. There is much pent-up demand from London Commuters along the Berks and Hants line or at least there was 25 years ago when I lived near Reading.

Alstom say the tunnel isn't a problem - the Mount tunnels show that it's possible to wire (or indeed bar) in some very tight spots. Also the line at Saltcoats is more exposed then Dawlish and just uses 50kV insulation

 

[tbtc]

all you'd need is a couple of Sprinters for Henley/Windsor/Marlow

IMHO you should electrify areas comprehensively, and not leave little "diesel islands" - see Walsall - Rugeley or Selby - Hull - the self contained Thames Valley "branches" should be wired up at the same time as the main line.

 

[Zoe]

I think the reasoning for Newbury is to allow for the most of the thames valley locals to go over to EMU operation (along with the wires to Oxford) - Bedwyn and Hungerford are being added to a new Semi-Fast to Exeter. Then all you'd need is a couple of Sprinters for Henley/Windsor/Marlow

I assume these would also stop at Kintbury. I can't see the rich people living in Pewsey will be very happy about this as they could lose their fast service to Paddington.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd like to see a new order of electro-diesel locomotives that could temporarily paired with some Mark 3 coaches (until the end other their useful life) before being cascaded to work hauling freight or repaired with Mark 4 coaches.

Electro diesel locolototives are about as useful as underfloor engine DMUs with pantographs.

 

[starrymarkb]

I assume these would also stop at Kintbury. I can't see the rich people living in Pewsey will be very happy about this as they could lose their fast service to Paddington.

Maybe though I understand that the Semi would be hourly(or bihourly?) which might offset the increased journey time

 

[TheWalrus]

Maybe though I understand that the Semi would be hourly(or bihourly?) which might offset the increased journey time

Yes it would! also decreasing journey times to the west would have greater value. however an IEPs journey time on a semi-fast wouldnt be too much more and be better than the hsts! also pewsey would get a wider range of destinations eg newbury shoppers.

 

[Zoe]

It would also be helpful if they wouldn't insist on stoppping just about everytihing at Tiverton Parkway, I've never seen that many people get on or off when I've been on a train that stops there.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

IMHO you should electrify areas comprehensively, and not leave little "diesel islands" - see Walsall - Rugeley or Selby - Hull - the self contained Thames Valley "branches" should be wired up at the same time as the main line.

I agree. It makes no sense to leave the four little branches as diesel islands - even if the wires were only going as far as Reading this would still be the case.

 

[Zoe]

I agree. It makes no sense to leave the four little branches as diesel islands - even if the wires were only going as far as Reading this would still be the case.

You could say the same about Barking to Gospel Oak though. Almost every other line in London is electrified.

 

[tbtc]

I agree. It makes no sense to leave the four little branches as diesel islands - even if the wires were only going as far as Reading this would still be the case.

Thanks.

One danger is that once an area gets electrification, it may take a long time before there is any further electrification. For example, logically I'd wire up the Coventry - Nuneaton and Walsall - Rugeley lines, both would allow all passenger trains on those stretches to move to EMU and both would be WCML diversion routes. However, the view seems to be taken that its someone else's "turn" now.

Same with Ely - Norwich and some of the self-contained GEML branches. Same with Leeds - Harrogate - York or the Hambleton curve/ Selby line. Or the two lines Southern need 171s for.

But, no, it's the Thames Valley and Lancashire who are next lucky recipients...

Keeping a few lines unelectrified means a small pool of DMUs is needed, which makes training/ maintenance/ parts harder, hampers interworking and makes things more complicated and expensive than they need to be. If lines like Windsor/ Henley don't get wired this time round then they could be waiting another generation (like some of the examples listed above are).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You could say the same about Barking to Gospel Oak though. Almost every other line in London is electrified.

Again, a self contained line which should be prime candidate for electrification (eight 172s freed up), as well as a diversion route/ freight route/ potential for EMUs to run via part of the GOBLIN on new routes... a priority IMHO

 

[Zoe]

Keeping a few lines unelectrified means a small pool of DMUs is needed, which makes training/ maintenance/ parts harder, hampers interworking and makes things more complicated and expensive than they need to be. If lines like Windsor/ Henley don't get wired this time round then they could be waiting another generation (like some of the examples listed above are).

It doesn't help that FGW is still effectively run as three separate companies. You couldn't just use a 150 on the branches as they are not part of the LTV fleet.

 

[tbtc]

It doesn't help that FGW is still effectively run as three separate companies. You couldn't just use a 150 on the branches as they are not part of the LTV fleet.

Ideally I'd like to see all the former Thames Trains lines electrified, especially as the 165/166s could see service elsewhere

 

[bnm]

First off, I have to agree with the criticisms of wiring up to Newbury. The line is like a poor relation to the main route, and with no major locations served before the wires would cease (Newbury and Thatcham don't exactly compare with, say, Super Mud do they?). I think it would be better to concentrate on the GWML and sod Newbury. I would propose routes to Oxford, Bristol and Swansea, as initially suggested however long ago it was now, but also wire through Filton AW (if it isn't already planned) and also continue through to WSM to allow for a permanent hourly service from Paddington.

A permanent hourly service to Weston-super-Mare? How will you fit that in with local services? There's only two through platforms. Snagging one up with terminating services for a fair proportion of each hour isn't good use of the limited capacity. That's one reason why so few HSTs terminate there. Having a permanent hourly service is also going to need some traincare and staff facilities. Finally, is there really suppressed demand for hourly to/from London in Weston-super-Mare? The current handful of services are hardly bursting at the seams between WSM and BRI.

 

[Mystic Force]

If the ultimate way to electrify to the westcountry is to go via Bristol, is their enough capacity for all the extra trains. In many ways the B&H looks like a good candidate for fast electric service, well seperated larger settlements allowing an exploitation of trains higher speeds becuase they dont have to keep stopping assuming that the line is up to it and the local services dont intefer. So as none of thats going to happen just ignore everything I said except the bit about Bristol.

 

[Zoe]

If the ultimate way to electrify to the westcountry is to go via Bristol, is their enough capacity for all the extra trains.

It would most likely only be one extra train per hour.

 

[Invincibles]

It is an interesting question as to which way any HS line would go, the assumption would be Bristol Parkway - Cardiff.

Based on that having the Exeter/Plymouth trains go through Bristol is a curious one. Would they be HS compatable and run that way or is actually a fast line through the B&H better to give capacity on HS and also get the faster trains running down there sooner.

I know HS is a long way off and may never happen but I think we should give some thought to how the HS network would look and then upgrade our classic lines such that they can serve that network best. Running everything through Bristol but then replacing that upgraded line with a HS line would seem perverse.

 

[cslusarc]

Due to this, I wonder why you would want to electrify between Reading and Newbury. I'd do one of the following with rolling stock:

1. • Order additional Hitachi 395s (since they were identified as the prefered bidder, it's probablly only fair we buy somthing from them). These would probablly have the coaches lengthened to the 23 metres of our current mrk3s. They would also be ERTMS fitted. These would, prefrably, be built in the UK (or at a factory in Europe, allowing the stock to arrive in the UK by rail, if they have one but not in the UK). These would be for use on Paddington - Oxford (and similar services out of Paddington)
   • Order a sub-class of the above for the East Coast Main Line and Paddington - Bristol Temple Meads services. These would differ from the above in having an express-train door layout (sliding plugs at the ends of coaches, leading into vestibles) and probablly more cars per set.
   • Fit ERTMS to INTERCITY 225s and put them to work on Swansea - Paddington.
   • Build new TDM and ERTMS fitted diesel locos or fit existing diesel locos. Use these to drag the new 395s to off-wire destonations. These would also be used replace the class 91s on the INTERCITY 225s to allow them to reach off-wire destonations (primarily Carmarthen and Pembroke Dock, just because the wires won't go beyond Swansea it doesn't mean that the trains have to be bi-mode to do so).
2. My prefered option, as (1.) but:
   • Oxford 395s built to same spec as those on HS1 (lengthening coaches probablly not worthwhile because of the next point)
   • Express door variant of the Hitachi EMUs replaced with new-build LHCS similar to INTERCITY 225s but with passenger seating in the DVTs. As with the actual INTERCITY 225s the diesels would replace the loco rather than drag the whole train.

This fleet of new and cascaded electric stock would all be capable of 140mph if the ERTMS roll-out gets back on track.

I like the British Rail Class 395s and believe that additional units would be benefitial for other lines other than High Speed 1. I think that they could be deployed on the East Coast Main Line and West Coast Main Line in addition to the soon to be electrified Great Western Main Line. I like to see them in two versions: a 120 m 6-car half set with the aerodynamic driving front end and a driving coupling back end, resulting in a train of two half sets that can split and join when needed; and 200 m 10-car set.

I still like my idea for a new electro-diesel bi-model locomotive capable of operating at speeds of upto 125 mph that can be paired with reburbished existing Mark 3 (have 5-10 years of useful life left) and Mark 4 coaches (have 10-20 years of useful life left) for the next 20 or so years before being cascaded to work with a Mark 5 coach or with freight.

 

[Zoe]

Lindespeeds on the Berks and Hants are about as fast now as they are ever going to be. The GWML via Bristol though is suitable for upgrading to higher speeds. If this results in the removal of the time penalty that would result in running West of England services that way then there'd be no reason to use the Berks and Hants for these services and the line could be downgraded to a secondary semi-fast route to Taunton.

It's the same on the roads, the A303 hasn't been upgraded to full dual carriageway even though it's the shorter route to the Westcountry and one reason is that a high quality route exists via Bristol that is just as quick.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Lindespeeds on the Berks and Hants are about as fast now as they are ever going to be. The GWML via Bristol though is suitable for upgrading to higher speeds. If this results in the removal of the time penalty that would result in running West of England services that way then there'd be no reason to use the Berks and Hants for these services and the line could be downgraded to a secondary semi-fast route to Taunton.

It's the same on the roads, the A303 hasn't been upgraded to full dual carriageway even though it's the shorter route to the Westcountry and one reason is that a high quality route exists via Bristol that is just as quick.

That depends where you start from though. From Epsom it is about ½ hour faster to use the A303 and A30 to get to Devon and Cornwall than it is to go via Bristol on the M4.

Similarly, the Berks and Hants would be quicker for people from, particularly, Newbury to reach the West Country - and the number of passengers who do board westbound HSTs at Newbury looks pretty healthy to me everey time I have observed it, most recently last week.

Could the Berks and Hants be sped up? Well, if it was electrified throughout then yes just from the greater performance characteristics of electric over diesel. Maybe only a 10 minute gain between reading and Exeter though?

In terms of linespeed - it would probably be similar in engineering terms to the work done over the past couple of decades to straighten out the bit of the WCML that runs via Weedon but the difference is, of course, that in the latter case they had a two track railway on a former four track formation, so the earthworks and land ownership were already in place. The B&H, on the other hand, was built as a two track formation and therefore does not have this advantage.

So the question of improving speeds on the B&H is probably more hampered by land aquisition and earthworks costs rather than any actual engineering issues.

( Wasn't the Trent Valley section of the WCML straightened out somewhat as well? )

 

[anthony263]

Another problem i think with the berk & hants is that there are a lot of heavy freight trains along the route

 

[Zoe]

That depends where you start from though. From Epsom it is about ½ hour faster to use the A303 and A30 to get to Devon and Cornwall than it is to go via Bristol on the M4.

That may be the case if you get a clear run but not sure it would be if you got stuck behind a truck.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

There are, yes - but not so many that looping them with the existing infrastructure shouldn't be possible. Although I do realise it is better to keep them on the move if possible.

I wonder.... there are a few planning experts on here; would they be able to test out various pathing scenarios for a faster B&H with the present level of services, to see if it might work?

 

[Zoe]

So the question of improving speeds on the B&H is probably more hampered by land aquisition and earthworks costs rather than any actual engineering issues.

It doesn't help that you have a canal right next to the railway from Southcote Junction to Pewsey.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

That may be the case if you get a clear run but not sure it would be if you got stuck behind a truck.

Having done the route quite a few times, on both weekdays and weekends, I would say that as long as you avoid the section which passes Salisbury in the peak you won't have a problem; much of it's dual carriageway and there are plenty of the road equivalent of dynamic loops on the bits that aren't.

I've done Epsom to Hartland in under 4 hours twice without breaking any limits, and that includes a degree of lost time behind HGVs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It doesn't help that you have a canal right next to the railway from Southcote Junction to Pewsey.

True - but there is also a canal along a large chunk of the WCML...

 

[Zoe]

Having done the route quite a few times, on both weekdays and weekends, I would say that as long as you avoid the section which passes Salisbury in the peak you won't have a problem; much of it's dual carriageway and there are plenty of the road equivalent of dynamic loops on the bits that aren't.

The worst section is the Blackdown Hills though between Ilminster and Honiton.

True - but there is also a canal along a large chunk of the WCML...

The canal is one reason why Brinklow to Nuneaton has not been four tracked.

 

[swt_passenger]

The canal is one reason why Brinklow to Nuneaton has not been four tracked.

I'm not so sure how significant the canal is when compared to a couple of other factors. There's generally plenty of room for an additional track within the NR boundary as viewed from the canal - or even from Google. There's a section on brick viaduct near the boatyard at Stretton that is only three tracks wide, but there'd be room on one side or the other for a fourth track. If they were to widen the formation it wouldn't necessarily all have to be on the south of the existing three track section, there is usually room within the boundary to slew the tracks to the up side.

The bigger issues seem to me to be rebuilding the M6 overbridge, because the columns supporting the joins in the road deck are right where the fourth track would have to be; and secondly that if an extra track was provided the fast and slow lines are on opposite sides at the Rugby and Nuneaton ends of the current single line - so that would take another flyover to sort out to gain advantage of the fourth line, or failing that some more remodelling at Rugby station...

 

[paulb1973]

I'm not so sure how significant the canal is when compared to a couple of other factors. There's generally plenty of room for an additional track within the NR boundary as viewed from the canal - or even from Google. There's a section on brick viaduct near the boatyard at Stretton that is only three tracks wide, but there'd be room on one side or the other for a fourth track. If they were to widen the formation it wouldn't necessarily all have to be on the south of the existing three track section, there is usually room within the boundary to slew the tracks to the up side.

The bigger issues seem to me to be rebuilding the M6 overbridge, because the columns supporting the joins in the road deck are right where the fourth track would have to be; and secondly that if an extra track was provided the fast and slow lines are on opposite sides at the Rugby and Nuneaton ends of the current single line - so that would take another flyover to sort out to gain advantage of the fourth line, or failing that some more remodelling at Rugby station...

I always under the impression that the M69 motorway overbridge over the WCML near Ansty would need widening (or some major civil engineering work would be required) to cater for 4 tracks at this point. There appears to be enough space to fit a 4th at track level otherwise.

 

[swt_passenger]

I always under the impression that the M69 motorway overbridge over the WCML near Ansty would need widening (or some major civil engineering work would be required) to cater for 4 tracks at this point. There appears to be enough space to fit a 4th at track level otherwise.

Probably - I was really just thinking about the bits you can see from the canal - but a Google 'Streetview' of that bridge (from the Ansty direction) does suggest it would need widening too.