Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Electrification from Bristol Parkway to TEmple Meads would probably provide a big enough Catenary island to allow BEMU'S to operate all the Bristol area suburban services.
It would possibly also allow the Cardiff to Portsmouth trains to switch as well although an additional Catenary island might be needed here or electrification Temple Meads to Chippenham to reduce the length of the wires.
Unless bI-modes (with third rail capability) obtained then going to make no difference short term as they are diesel only. They currently operate as diesels under the wires from Patchway to Cardiff
If electrification through Bath proves difficult then electrification around Westbury may also work as a Catenary island which could then form the first stage of a future Mendips to Newbury scheme for the stone trains.
The section from Bristol-Bathampton sees 4-5 trains per hour each way (or even 6 or 7 if include freight), would be bonkers to leave gaps and exclude EMUs without batteries from using this line, or even electric IETs (to allow existing bI modes to cascade other stock)
possibly not, some are single lines, and with 2 trains each way, might be cheaper to electrify them with basic spec standard parts (think more Romford-Upminster spec), than invest in extra capital costs and complexity of providing rapid charging batteries
Any charging wires would really need to be on the Bristol side of Avonmouth since half the trains turn round there. There is of course a major obstacle to wiring up Temple Meads itself at the moment - all that scaffolding ain't going to be there for ever, but it's two and a half years so far and counting!
Any charging wires would really need to be on the Bristol side of Avonmouth since half the trains turn round there. There is of course a major obstacle to wiring up Temple Meads itself at the moment - all that scaffolding ain't going to be there for ever, but it's two and a half years so far and counting!
I had forgotten that half of the trains turn round before reaching the end.
Bringing the wires in from Bristol Parkway would at least allow more EMU to Paddington. Whilst it would not be popular, the distance is not that far and it feels like having an EMU would take some of the load of the IET via Bath that keep having to be 5 car.
Doubtless if electrification is finally (belatedly) undertaken between Chippenham - Temple Meads - Parkway/Patchway, the routes will have to be fully reassessed again due to changes in specification/legislation/funding/health & safety etc etc
Probably need to go further south, than Temple Meads, as need minimum 15 minutes charging, and cheaper battery setups need rather longer
Unless bI-modes (with third rail capability) obtained then going to make no difference short term as they are diesel only. They currently operate as diesels under the wires from Patchway to Cardiff
The section from Bristol-Bathampton sees 4-5 trains per hour each way (or even 6 or 7 if include freight), would be bonkers to leave gaps and exclude EMUs without batteries from using this line, or even electric IETs (to allow existing bI modes to cascade other stock)
possibly not, some are single lines, and with 2 trains each way, might be cheaper to electrify them with basic spec standard parts (think more Romford-Upminster spec), than invest in extra capital costs and complexity of providing rapid charging batteries
The cost of battery trains as part of the fleet renewal on GWR will cost very little extra for BEMU'S versus the high cost of installing overheads, maintaining them etc.
No expensive charges will be needed as charging would be via the overheads. For BEMU'S to work on these services it would need overheads to be installed to create a Catenary island probably covering Temple Meads to Bristol Parkway and ideally to Bath.
The range of existing BEMU'S would mean no charging would be required at the end of routes like Severn Beach.
Use of electrification resources on routes that have low traffic density like to Severn Beach is a waste of resources and makes no sense when the same resources could be used to cover routes with higher traffic density.
The choice is not BEMU'S or overheads but both complementing each other by playing to their strengths and recognising their weaknesses. A weakness for overheads is not only cost but also the engineering works required for installation.
Incorporating BEMU'S into future electrification schemes will increase their BCR by allowing more services to be covered for only a very limited increase in costs.
Any charging wires would really need to be on the Bristol side of Avonmouth since half the trains turn round there. There is of course a major obstacle to wiring up Temple Meads itself at the moment - all that scaffolding ain't going to be there for ever, but it's two and a half years so far and counting!
This is why in post #11 I suggested wiring between Narroways Junction (Filton lines) and Clifton Down station in addition to at Severn Beach station.
The works on the roof at Bristol Temple Meads are supposed to take no more than four years. I have no idea if the work is running to schedule, but they are most definitely still working on the roof.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The range of existing BEMU'S would mean no charging would be required at the end of routes like Severn Beach.
Use of electrification resources on routes that have low traffic density like to Severn Beach is a waste of resources and makes no sense when the same resources could be used to cover routes with higher traffic density.
Severn Beach platform is only 86m (94yards) long. So given that there is a 400kV major sub-station nearby, the cost of providing a short OLE section for a train to recharge it’s battery bank may well be reasonable.
Branch lines like this may not be as busy as main lines, but we are talking about on a weekday, 22 trains terminating/starting from here (forming 44 services). That’s more than just an occasional train.
Typically the dwell time varies at Severn Beach, the shortest is timetabled to be five minutes, but a fair number are ten minutes or more. some are over half an hour.
Not all the services are “shuttles” to Bristol Temple Meads. Some go on to other destinations such as Weston-super-Mare and Salisbury.
Hence I think it is most definitely worthwhile investigating this option properly, rather than dismissing it.
Especially if doing these short OLE sections means that a train needs less battery capacity (less size, weight and cost).
Also, what existing BEMU'S? GWR Western route does not have any…
Electrification from Bristol Parkway to TEmple Meads would probably provide a big enough Catenary island to allow BEMU'S to operate all the Bristol area suburban services.
It would possibly also allow the Cardiff to Portsmouth trains to switch as well although an additional Catenary island might be needed here or electrification Temple Meads to Chippenham to reduce the length of the wires. If electrification through Bath proves difficult then electrification around Westbury may also work as a Catenary island which could then form the first stage of a future Mendips to Newbury scheme for the stone trains.
Electrification via traditional overheads would be very poor value on lines like these and waste limited resources.
Gwrs MD already stated if Chippenham to Bristol TM was wired and Filton bank a emu fitted with batteries would have enough range to run.on battery power from Bathampton to Redbridge and use the 25v AC or Dc 3rd rail between Redbridge and Portsmouth hbr to recharge. Plus they got 20 minutes or so turnaround in Portsmouth hbr too
Gwrs MD already stated if Chippenham to Bristol TM was wired and Filton bank a emu fitted with batteries would have enough range to run.on battery power from Bathampton to Redbridge and use the 25v AC or Dc 3rd rail between Redbridge and Portsmouth hbr to recharge. Plus they got 20 minutes or so turnaround in Portsmouth hbr too
Recharging time is fine, got about 50-55 minutes journey on wires or third rail each end, which for most trains is 2+ hours to get to end of line and back whilst charging.
The gap is about 62 miles (100km) which should just be fine, although probably bit more in practice assuming drop pantograph before running out of wire. Timewise about 1 hour 20 minutes for the gap, assuming no train delays, but as trains don't always run to time and some start from Southampton or Bristol, suggests it would be a stretch especially in winter or hot summer days when going to need lot of energy for climate control.
I suspect bit of a trade off between MD saying it can be done to get a project happening, and the amount of batteries will need in practice to cover a comfortable reserve that will satisfy requirements to not run out when following a failed train. Especially if spec is determined, but stops the units also operating via Yeovil to Weymouth (a 2 hourly service using common fleet)
Gwrs MD already stated if Chippenham to Bristol TM was wired and Filton bank a emu fitted with batteries would have enough range to run.on battery power from Bathampton to Redbridge and use the 25v AC or Dc 3rd rail between Redbridge and Portsmouth hbr to recharge. Plus they got 20 minutes or so turnaround in Portsmouth hbr too
Going a long way off topic, but presumably an option in the Salisbury area might have advantages for trains between Salisbury and Waterloo as well. Combined with some other sections presumably then the Exeter to Waterloo could also go across to BEMU operation.
It feels like a step-by-step approach quickly opens new options for reducing use of diesel.
This is why in post #11 I suggested wiring between Narroways Junction (Filton lines) and Clifton Down station in addition to at Severn Beach station.
The works on the roof at Bristol Temple Meads are supposed to take no more than four years. I have no idea if the work is running to schedule, but they are most definitely still working on the roof.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Severn Beach platform is only 86m (94yards) long. So given that there is a 400kV major sub-station nearby, the cost of providing a short OLE section for a train to recharge it’s battery bank may well be reasonable.
Branch lines like this may not be as busy as main lines, but we are talking about on a weekday, 22 trains terminating/starting from here (forming 44 services). That’s more than just an occasional train.
Typically the dwell time varies at Severn Beach, the shortest is timetabled to be five minutes, but a fair number are ten minutes or more. some are over half an hour.
Not all the services are “shuttles” to Bristol Temple Meads. Some go on to other destinations such as Weston-super-Mare and Salisbury.
Hence I think it is most definitely worthwhile investigating this option properly, rather than dismissing it.
Especially if doing these short OLE sections means that a train needs less battery capacity (less size, weight and cost).
Also, what existing BEMU'S? GWR Western route does not have any…
In terms of existing BEMU designs I was referring to ones available and in service overseas or currently on order overseas.
The range of existing BEMU'S designs is between 100km and 150km depending on route characteristics and the amount of contingency range left for emergency use which will vary depending on route characteristics and operating requirements.
The 15 min charge time is from 20% back up to full operating range (100km to 150km). This is normally around 80% of total battery capacity leaving some extra back up range and is the sweat spot for speed of charging. Every charge would not always be from 20% to 80%. Actual charges would depend on diagrams and how long a BEMU was off the wires. For example a 30 mile round trip would require a charge time of around 8 mins to bring an extra 40% charge back into the batteries bringing them back to operating range.
44 short trains per day is still quite low usage to pay back the cost of installing overheads. Overheads are unlikely to add to an electric business case over batteries on low traffic branch lines. I see them actually having a lower BCR as BEMU'S offer journey times and operating costs virtually identical to EMU'S but BEMU'S offer the opportunity to not add the additional costs needed to maintain and renew OHLE on the branches.
I'm not writing off use of a short overhead section at Severn beech completely but just I'm not sure it would be needed. I've been involved with modelling battery usage for DB and similar schemes have not required end of branch charging on similar service groups.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Going a long way off topic, but presumably an option in the Salisbury area might have advantages for trains between Salisbury and Waterloo as well. Combined with some other sections presumably then the Exeter to Waterloo could also go across to BEMU operation.
It feels like a step-by-step approach quickly opens new options for reducing use of diesel.
A step by step approach of combining fleet replacement and cascades with BEMU'S alongside expansion of Catenary islands offers scope for rapid replacement of deisel traction. The trick will be making use of existing OHLE and adding catenary islands to expand areas that can be covered by BEMU'S.
BEMU'S offer the opportunity to increase the BCR of proposed scheme's by expanding the services converted to electric operation.
I’d be amazed if any new electrification was authorised in the Western this side of 2040. I’d also be amazed if any trains which aren’t ex-TfW sprinters are brought into the Bristol area anytime before then.
I'm not writing off use of a short overhead section at Severn beech completely but just I'm not sure it would be needed. I've been involved with modelling battery usage for DB and similar schemes have not required end of branch charging on similar service groups.
So I personally would support wiring Bristol Parkway-St Andrews Road for freight haulage as well, and tuck in the Severn Beach end because at that point you may as well. If the wires can push to Portway P&R that would be a bonus but they don't need to, as wiring of Filton Bank into Temple Meads covers that recharge.
I’d be amazed if any new electrification was authorised in the Western this side of 2040. I’d also be amazed if any trains which aren’t ex-TfW sprinters are brought into the Bristol area anytime before then.
If it was authorised in 2040, would take at least 2-3 years, and probably 3-5 years, by which time current 150, 158, 165, 166 fleet would be close to 55 years old, as would any transferred from Wales.
As already struggling to get replacements for obsolete parts, do you really think they can be patched up for another 20 years
If it was authorised in 2040, would take at least 2-3 years, and probably 3-5 years, by which time current 150, 158, 165, 166 fleet would be close to 55 years old, as would any transferred from Wales.
As already struggling to get replacements for obsolete parts, do you really think they can be patched up for another 20 years
This was me, I’ve actually talked to some people from the council since about this, and my original comments were taken a bit more hardline than they were meant to be.
The council itself is not saying no to electrification, and on their own would probably be fine with the scheme as it was agreed on when it initially was going to happen. However there are a lot of groups in Bath with a lot of money who are all going to have their views on it, and a lot of demands. Together they probably have enough power to block it from happening, and I have personally heard the chair of the largest group talk about how they would not support electrification.
UNESCO is also a very large potential issue. There have recently been a number of issues with UNESCO and new planning applications for developments along the riverside very close to the railway, and they have taken a habit to sending delegations to intimidate decisions with the threat of loss of status. That being said UNESCO takes a lot of factors into account, and the reduction in emissions, noisy trains and public transport benefits would be taken into account. Other World Heritage cities have OHLE through the site, but it needs to be minimalist.
However UNESCO saying no would be a block. It’s needless to say Bath losing its status, especially because of a government project, would be an absolute disaster for the local economy, and a political disaster for both local and national governments.
Electrification is certainly not a simple thing in Bath, but it is by not means impossible. A deal was reached with the council, heritage groups and UNESCO back before the original project, needless to say at great expense. A deal could be reached again now, although redesign will likely be needed with compromises from both sides.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Bath City Council don't have greatest form in recent years of worrying about UNESCO, or looks, here is a recent street view looking towards Abbey and Roman Baths. Blocks of concrete (not even blocks of Bath stone) making up street furniture.
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.co.uk
With relatively low speed limits near Bath station, ought to be able to make some poles and paint them to blend in, without having to use ugly heavyweight masts. They are not going to be any more unsightly than the tall streetlights and signal pole
To be clear the specific ‘blocks of concrete’ you mention were an emergency measure in reaction to terror attacks in other European cities. They were never meant to last this long, however due to Covid and the resulting lack of funds they have remained. Regardless they are actually being replaced at the moment (Or may have already been, I haven’t been up there in a while but know the work had started a few months ago).
Regarding street lamps, in the area you mention they are not the best examples, however by the station and baths they are far more careful (Although some areas around the bath have another UNESCO protection). It should also be remembered UNESCO status isn’t a ‘you can’t build anything new anywhere’ it’s about conservation, and it’s recognised that things do need to change. New things are allowed, and in a modern style, but they need to be sympathetic to the surroundings. Obviously how close they are to specific areas determines how sympathetic. Unfortunately the railway itself, and the bridges it’s runs over, along with the station, are one of those areas of heritage importance. It’s not a total no to electrification. Whatever was come up with for the original project was deemed fine then by UNESCO. They may be slightly more strict now, but there will be something that works. However they won’t be getting away with the style of Electrification seen on the rest of the line.
I'm with the group that says this is an exaggerated problem, both in Bath and at other sites like the forth bridge. UNESCO will expect any electrification (or other works) to be done in a way that takes care of the heritage, and AIUI, NR made a design for Bath specifically with that in mind, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Yes, electrification in principle isn’t a problem, however the initial design that was put forward was pretty much just the style used on the rest of the project with no consideration. It took an awful lot of very expensive design work and back and forth to come up with an acceptable design, which unfortunately was going to be very expensive.
Needless to say the current financial state means the government may be less willing to spend money, and so a solution that was sympathetic to the architecture may not be able to be reached.
In my opinion all parties involved would be perfectly right to block electrification in the style of the rest of the project.
Really? If it was a situation of any electrification being unacceptable I would agree, however an acceptable form of electrification was designed and agreed upon, at cost to all parties, then the government withdrew.
There are many non intrusive forms of OHLE, not the extremely ugly GWML version, and personally I think it is justified to block it if the government isn’t willing to spend a bit more to preserve the city.
Baths tourism industry contributes £470 million to the economy, and many of the facilities, buildings and public services required for this are funded by grants and budgets due to the UNESCO status. Loss of Baths UNESCO status would significantly risk its entire tourism industry, which would cause damage to the local economy and greatly worsen pretty much anyone who lives in the city’s quality of life.
Can you explain how a small saving on a relatively small stretch of OHLE is worth that, and how if that spending isn’t possible, OHLE is justified when the government hasn’t even suggested that 66% of the trains running through the city, and that being the most polluting 66% already, are planned to have any electric capability at all? (2tph being IETs/EMUs to London, but 2tph Cardiff to Portsmouth and 2tph local/Gloucester services remaining DMUs)
Given that the more recent OLE in places like the North West is far less intrusive than the GWML and is now standard, and the tourism industry is so valuable, would Bath City council make a contribution to the difference between the OLE NR would consider acceptable and the final design? Except maybe for places of clear direct impact, such as through Sydney Gardens - that I could understand being paid for by the rail authorities.
And I have no idea how intrusive it is, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the rest of any electrification reverted to the old standard as most of the piling and masts went in before the project was called off.
and the tourism industry is so valuable, would Bath City council make a contribution to the difference between the OLE NR would consider acceptable and the final design?
Bath City Councils overall budget is in the range of £130 million. Unfortunately I do not think they would be able to make a very significant contribution. Considering projects such as this are not funded from a budget which directly affects other rail projects, the government has a duty of care to its citizens and precedent has been set by many bridges along the Thames having less intrusive OHLE installed, you would think the government might pay for it.
It’s also worth noting the government puts significant political pressure on Bath over issues that could lose it is UNESCO status, and have very much ‘encouraged’ a conservative view on planning because of it for many years.
Not to mention Bath losing its world heritage status, because of a government project, against direct advice from the council and UNESCO, would be international news and an absolute political embarrassment for the government.
Can you explain how a small saving on a relatively small stretch of OHLE is worth that, and how if that spending isn’t possible, OHLE is justified when the government hasn’t even suggested that 66% of the trains running through the city, and that being the most polluting 66% already, are planned to have any electric capability at all? (2tph being IETs/EMUs to London, but 2tph Cardiff to Portsmouth and 2tph local/Gloucester services remaining DMUs)
Generally services through Bath Spa are 2 9car IETs, a 4car DMU to Portsmouth, 3car to Weymouth or Frome and 2car local DMU
So train wise would be 2/5 (40%) as electric, but vehicle wise is 18/27 (67%) electric.
On a trackbed originally designed for Broad gauge, and with centre roads removed through the station, plenty of room for cable troughs, so don't need to hang feeders and earth lines from poles in sensitive areas, and with max speeds of 40-60mph don't need big stability arms to even out ripples between multiple pantographs of coupled units passing at 100+mph.
Yes costs more to make it blend in, but doesn't have to hefty ugly galvanised spans
Bath City Councils overall budget is in the range of £130 million. Unfortunately I do not think they would be able to make a very significant contribution. Considering projects such as this are not funded from a budget which directly affects other rail projects, the government has a duty of care to its citizens and precedent has been set by many bridges along the Thames having less intrusive OHLE installed, you would think the government might pay for it.
It’s also worth noting the government puts significant political pressure on Bath over issues that could lose it is UNESCO status, and have very much ‘encouraged’ a conservative view on planning because of it for many years.
Not to mention Bath losing its world heritage status, because of a government project, against direct advice from the council and UNESCO, would be international news and an absolute political embarrassment for the government.
Apparently Bath & North East Somerset make a profit of some £8.2m p.a on its heritage services. It might consider contributing towards discreet electrification out of that if it feels it would help maintain the income in future.
Income from Bath & North East Somerset Council’s heritage attractions is expected to return to pre-pandemic levels over the next financial year showing a strong recovery.
newsroom.bathnes.gov.uk
Income from Bath & North East Somerset Council’s heritage attractions is expected to return to pre-pandemic levels over the next financial year showing a strong recovery.
A report to Bath & North East Somerset Council’s cabinet on Thursday 9 March anticipates the council’s Heritage Services returning a £8.2m profit during 2023/24. This money will be used to directly support people across Bath and North East Somerset by contributing to the council’s wider activities.
The report reveals that the number of people visiting the Roman Baths last autumn was higher than anticipated and visitor spending in the Pump Rooms and Heritage Services’ retail shops over the past year has increased. While it does not anticipate visitor numbers to return to pre-pandemic levels until 2025, it suggests the stronger than anticipated performance maybe due to the fall in the value of the pound accelerating the recovery in international tourism and cost-of-living pressures encouraging more people to staycation.
Apparently Bath & North East Somerset make a profit of some £8.2m p.a on its heritage services. It might consider contributing towards discreet electrification out of that if it feels it would help maintain the income in future.
Income from Bath & North East Somerset Council’s heritage attractions is expected to return to pre-pandemic levels over the next financial year showing a strong recovery.
It might, but to be clear even contributing the entire amount, which it can't because it has a very tight budget, and public services are already struggling and fighting for money, it would only be a small fraction of what is needed.
It might, but to be clear even contributing the entire amount, which it can't because it has a very tight budget, and public services are already struggling and fighting for money, it would only be a small fraction of what is needed.
Scotland is electrifying for 2 million pounds per single track km, including the costs of altering structures.
No structures in Bath will need to be altered because that part of the work has already been done as part of GWEP. So really only the easy, bit of putting up masts and stringing wires still needs to be done.
The distance of the railway in Bath appears to be about 10 km (from Google maps), assuming all of the railway within Bath has heritage concerns (which will be an overestimate), and is double track throughout. So we're talking about at most 20 stkm of special OHLE.
Now the question is of course how much extra it costs per stkm, and in extra design work. I don't think the extra costs would be much other than the separate design costs, but that is my non-expert guess
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
