Electrifying Bristol's suburban rail

[Benjwri]

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.

Yes, I would estimate 3km of railway would need more sympathetic designs, including Sydney Gardens, and that's probably a small overestimate.

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

Probably entirely depends on the design itself.

 

[Trainbike46]

Yes, I would estimate 3km of railway would need more sympathetic designs, including Sydney Gardens, and that's probably a small overestimate.

Probably entirely depends on the design itself.

so 6 stkm, even if the separate design is double the price of what Scotland achieves for electrification including altering structures (and that seems like a high estimate), would cost £12 million extra. In the grand scheme of things that really isn't much. The problem is with the politicians in Westminster, not with Bath's world heritage status

 

[eldomtom2]

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.

But how much is "intrusive" OHLE really going to affect tourism?

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.

On the other hand, UNESCO opposing decarbonisation efforts because of relatively minor aesthetic impacts will also be international news and an absolute political embarrassment for them.

 

[Benjwri]

But how much is "intrusive" OHLE really going to affect tourism?

The OHLE isn’t, the loss of UNESCO heritage status would significantly impact the city as I explained above.

On the other hand, UNESCO opposing decarbonisation efforts because of relatively minor aesthetic impacts will also be international news and an absolute political embarrassment for them.

Have you seen the OHLE used on the GWML, and actually ever visited Bath? The railway runs on a Brunel era bridge above the the level of the city, being visible from a significant amount of the city, and itself of heritage importance. OHLE of the style used on the GWML, which is extremely ugly and in my opinion shouldn’t have been used in the first place, would have a significant impact on the city.

UNESCO doesn’t oppose decarbonisation, that’s a ridiculous suggestion, the ask that a little bit more is spent to make it slightly less ugly. I don’t think that’s too much to ask, we do it for everything, otherwise every building would be a concrete box.

I don’t see why people are insisting Bath council should pay for this, when no council has had to before. As we speak the government is pouring countless billions into HS2, including a significant cost put into protecting the beauty of the area it runs through. Considering multiple billions have been poured into this in the forms of the Chiltern tunnels and green corridors, you would think they could spend what would be an absolutely tiny fraction of this cost to safeguards Bath’s heritage.

 

[Dai Corner]

I don’t see why people are insisting Bath council should pay for this, when no council has had to before. As we speak the government is pouring countless billions into HS2, including a significant cost put into protecting the beauty of the area it runs through. Considering multiple billions have been poured into this in the forms of the Chiltern tunnels and green corridors, you would think they could spend what would be an absolutely tiny fraction of this cost to safeguards Bath’s heritage.

A key difference is that HS2 doesn't benefit the areas it runs through, whereas electrification of the railway would benefit Bath by reducing air and noise pollution which surely would encourage tourists to stay longer and spend more as well improving the quality of life of residents. If I was leader of B&NES Council I'd consider chipping in if it made the difference between 'just about acceptable' and ''really nice'. It might even generate a little more income for the hospitality trade from railway owners, electrification engineers and civic leaders visiting to see what had been done!

Getting back to the overall strategy, half of the stopping trains to Weston-super-Mare continue to Taunton and beyond. What should we do about these? Batteries aren't going to get them to Penzance and back.

 

[Trainbike46]

A key difference is that HS2 doesn't benefit the areas it runs through, whereas electrification of the railway would benefit Bath by reducing air and noise pollution which surely would encourage tourists to stay longer and spend more as well improving the quality of life of residents. If I was leader of B&NES Council I'd consider chipping in if it made the difference between 'just about acceptable' and ''really nice'. It might even generate a little more income for the hospitality trade from railway owners, electrification engineers and civic leaders visiting to see what had been done!

Getting back to the overall strategy, half of the stopping trains to Weston-super-Mare continue to Taunton and beyond. What should we do about these? Batteries aren't going to get them to Penzance and back.

BEMUs on the Cornish branches will, at the very least, require electrification islands at various points along the Cornish mainline, so when those are finished as well, the BEMU from the Bristol region could use that too. Until then, those services will have to stay diesel, though the ones currently run with IETs will obviously benefit from electrification immediately

 

[zwk500]

OHLE of the style used on the GWML, which is extremely ugly and in my opinion shouldn’t have been used in the first place, would have a significant impact on the city.

I agree that using that spec again wouldnt be reasonable, but have a look at the MML or Scottish OLE being installed now and it's a far softer visual impact.

I don’t see why people are insisting Bath council should pay for this, when no council has had to before.

I don't see people insisting but rather suggesting, and remember my suggestion was that NR paid in full for the bit through Sydeny Gardens. The part I'd ask Bath to help contribute is nearer the station where the line is away from the actual look and feel of the city but yet the UNESCO listing still applies. However given the cost difference between different types of OLE (which is all I'd ask Bath/UNESCO to pay for) is pretty minor in the scheme of things, I wouldn't be upset if central government did decide to pay for it.
However if NR were forced to pay for it and it held up other projects just so a line that's halfway up a valley didn't have quite as obtrusive OLE, I'd be a bit miffed from a rail point of view.

 

[Benjwri]

However if NR were forced to pay for it and it held up other projects just so a line that's halfway up a valley didn't have quite as obtrusive OLE, I'd be a bit miffed from a rail point of view.

To be clear electrification doesn’t come from a Network Rail budget. There are people who can explain it better than me, but it is directly funded by the department for transport/treasury.

It’s also worth noting that almost all the area that would need sympathetic OHLE is where the tracks cross listed bridges and arches anyways. A precedent has also been set with various listed bridges on the original GWML project.

Bath also isn’t some super rich council, it barely is balancing the books and is still struggling from the loss of tourism and subsequent income during Covid. They’re simple isn’t the money to give to pay for the entire difference without cutting essential services.

 

[zwk500]

To be clear electrification doesn’t come from a Network Rail budget. There are people who can explain it better than me, but it is directly funded by the department for transport/treasury.

There's a mix of funding, and lots of the money spent on electrification is accounted for as part of NR's budget even if it does come originally from Whitehall.
And, of course, even if it is accounted for separately its still part of the DfTs budget for enhancements and would potentially block another project.

It’s also worth noting that almost all the area that would need sympathetic OHLE is where the tracks cross listed bridges and arches anyways. A precedent has also been set with various listed bridges on the original GWML project.

At a certain point, whichever bodies are responsible will need to decide where the compromise falls between respecting the UNESCO listing and actually electrifying the line.
It's worth pointing out that the railway in and of itself is an anachronism to the protected vision of Bath.

Bath also isn’t some super rich council, it barely is balancing the books and is still struggling from the loss of tourism and subsequent income during Covid. They’re simple isn’t the money to give to pay for the entire difference without cutting essential services.

Then it can accept the compromise that the super sensitive bits get the hand picked treatment and then it gets the slightly less nice stuff when the line is further away from the city centre. The actual bit where trains are in the heart of the city is very short.

 

[adamedwards]

I can remember when the East Coast Main Line was electrified similar coincerns that heritage bodies would not approve electrification in York station, over the Durham viaduct (view spoiler), Newcastle bridges and of course the Royal Border Bridge. Solutions were found for all locations. So Bath is not a deal breaker. Just dust off the Royal Border Bridge design and give it some C17th frills or Roman columns.

 

[zwk500]

I can remember when the East Coast Main Line was electrified similar coincerns that heritage bodies would not approve electrification in York station, over the Durham viaduct (view spoiler), Newcastle bridges and of course the Royal Border Bridge. Solutions were found for all locations. So Bath is not a deal breaker. Just dust off the Royal Border Bridge design and give it some C17th frills or Roman columns.

IIRC Durham station was refused permission to mount the caternary to the buildings and therefore a fast track was taken out of the station to give room for the mast, York station uses fairly unobtrusive Headspan equipment and the presence of the decidedly un-heritage extension (what is now P9-11 and the footbridge extension) would have made any heritage concerns much harder to sustain, and the very thing that makes Newcastle's vista is it's industrial heritage, with the OLE hardly being a worse eyesore than the bright blue Metro bridge. The Royal Border Bridge was simple enough to satisfy by just lining up the stanchions, while battery trains and bi-modes weren't a serious option in the late 80s so the objections would have been easier to satisfy than today.
All that being said, I'm with you and the others that it's not an unsolvable problem, as evidenced by the fact that NR produced designs that were apparently acceptable. The quibble (and it's not really much more than that) is how far the specialist designs need to go within the city and the economics & financials of the additional cost over standard OLE as used on the MML (which is NOT the same stuff used on the other parts of the GWML.

 

[Benjwri]

All that being said, I'm with you and the others that it's not an unsolvable problem, as evidenced by the fact that NR produced designs that were apparently acceptable. The quibble (and it's not really much more than that) is how far the specialist designs need to go within the city and the economics & financials of the additional cost over standard OLE as used on the MML (which is NOT the same stuff used on the other parts of the GWML.

I’m not sure what the MML OHLE looks like, it might be acceptable, no one can really tell us that. I would question though whether we might do a return to the GWML OHLE, since there are a number of half erected masts, so they might decide the original design is cheaper.

Regardless the amount that would need it isn’t that far, and the majority of the distance is over listed bridges or through the listed stations, which does force the governments hand.

 

[zwk500]

I’m not sure what the MML OHLE looks like, it might be acceptable, no one can really tell us that. I would question though whether we might do a return to the GWML OHLE, since there are a number of half erected masts, so they might decide the original design is cheaper.

There's a couple of pictures in this report: https://assets.publishing.service.g...ead-line-equipment-ole-support-structures.pdf, look for the Series 2 UKMS stuff. It uses lattice masts with no (or severley reduced) overheight uprights.

Regardless the amount that would need it isn’t that far, and the majority of the distance is over listed bridges or through the listed stations, which does force the governments hand.

The problem is that when the government feels it's hand is being forced it tends to withdraw it rather quickly.

 

[Snow1964]

Just for reference, this is the 10 year rail plan for Bristol area

10-year rail delivery plan - West of England Combined Authority

We have plans to transform travel by rail over the next 10 years, including new rail routes, step-free access at stations and more frequent ‘turn up and go’ services.

www.westofengland-ca.gov.uk

 

[Benjwri]

There's a couple of pictures in this report: https://assets.publishing.service.g...ead-line-equipment-ole-support-structures.pdf, look for the Series 2 UKMS stuff. It uses lattice masts with no (or severley reduced) overheight uprights.

Ahhh I think the aim would be something more like what can be seen on Maidenhead bridge.

The problem is that when the government feels its hand is being forced it tends to withdraw it rather quickly.

In this case though it’s their own laws around listed buildings forcing their hand. It worked for the above mentioned Maidenhead

 

[zwk500]

Ahhh I think the aim would be something more like what can be seen on Maidenhead bridge.

AFAICT there's nothing special about what was used on the Maidenhead bridge - the same parts can be seen all along the GWML.

In this case though it’s their own laws around listed buildings forcing their hand. It worked for the above mentioned Maidenhead

Quite so, but again, it didn't stop them from running away the first time around.

 

[stuu]

AFAICT there's nothing special about what was used on the Maidenhead bridge - the same parts can be seen all along the GWML.

It has circular section steelwork, it's a lot neater than the style used elsewhere

 

[snowball]

AFAICT there's nothing special about what was used on the Maidenhead bridge - the same parts can be seen all along the GWML.

I'd say that, seen from the side, the electrification on Maidenhead bridge looks totally unlike that on most major underbridges and viaducts, in that the vertical supports are not attached to the outside of the piers. They seem to be attached to the deck of the bridge and their lower parts are hidden by the parapets.

http://www-x-tcipower-x-com.img.abc188.com/TCI/Technical/images/nr_a_guide_to_overhead_electrification_img_70.jpg

Here for comparison is the Royal Border Bridge where the supports are slimline and of circular section but still on the outside.

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/DAMW1B/the-royal-border-bridge-in-berwick-upon-tweed-england-with-northbound-DAMW1B.jpg

I’m not sure what the MML OHLE looks like,

There are dozens of pictures on the MML electrification thread. Start from the end where the latest posts are and look backwards for pictures of the Kettering-Leicester area. But a lot of them are twin-track cantilevers which I'm sure Bath wouldn't want!

MML Electrification: progress updates

There's an article about NR's plans in Rail this week (#765 p54). It seems that work on site will start in April 2015, the contractor being Carillion Powerlines. They will be using road-rail vehicles for the work, not a high-output system. The 125mph design isn't explicitly named but seems...

www.railforums.co.uk

Incidentally I've just heard on the radio news that UNESCO wants to put Venice on the danger list.

UNESCO recommends putting Venice on heritage danger list

The UN's cultural agency UNESCO on Monday recommended that Venice be added to its list of world heritage in danger, saying the Italian authorities needed to step up efforts to secure the historic city and its surrounding lagoon.UNESCO said in its recommendation that Venice risked "irreversible"...

news.yahoo.com

 

[Dai Corner]

I'd say that, seen from the side, the electrification on Maidenhead bridge looks totally unlike that on most major underbridges and viaducts, in that the vertical supports are not attached to the outside of the piers. They seem to be attached to the deck of the bridge and their lower parts are hidden by the parapets.

http://www-x-tcipower-x-com.img.abc188.com/TCI/Technical/images/nr_a_guide_to_overhead_electrification_img_70.jpg

Here for comparison is the Royal Border Bridge where the supports are slimline and of circular section but still on the outside.

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/DAMW1B/the-royal-border-bridge-in-berwick-upon-tweed-england-with-northbound-DAMW1B.jpg

The original broad guage construction allowing the space to put the supports inside the parapets? Perhaps the same might apply in Bath?

 

[Annetts key]

Speaking of Sydney Gardens, the anti-suicide fence is not exactly the most beautiful type.

Some of the track though the Sydney Gardens area is in tunnels and an overbridge. Some is alongside the vertical wall of the canal.

Anyhow, here’s my breakdown (all km and mileages are approximate)

Bath (the most sensitive area)

170.749km 106m08ch
Sydney Gardens area adjacent (with various over the railway bridges)
Sydney Gardens East Tunnel (70m)
cutting
Sydney Gardens West Tunnel (91m)
cutting
171.471km 106m44ch
Pulteney Road Bridge
171.667km 106m53ch
Dolemeads Viaduct (295m)
171.868km 106m63ch
short section of embankment
171.954km 106m68ch
Bath Spa Station (282m)
172.234km 107m02ch
St James Viaduct (522m)
172.668km 107m23ch
Bath Goods Junction

Also, Bath used to have electric trams, so “ugly overhead masts” were actually present during part of the history of the city.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jul 2023 ==

The original broad guage construction allowing the space to put the supports inside the parapets? Perhaps the same might apply in Bath?

There is unfortunately not as much space as you would think. The rails were spaced differently, yes. But how do the “structure” and “loading” gauges compare?

 

[The exile]

Also, Bath used to have electric trams, so “ugly overhead masts” were actually present during part of the history of the city.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jul 2023 ==

Not really relevant, as IIRC the UNESCO listing, like listed building status in the UK is a snapshot in time. Not far away from Sydney Gardens, property owners have had to apply for listed building consent to restore the original Georgian lamp fittings over their entrances, which went as part of the World War II scrap drive and were therefore not there when the building was listed. Can't remember whether or not it was granted....

I would, however, be interested to know just what the estimates of the financial cost of loss of UNESCO status would be to the city's income - as opposed to the loss of prestige. Presumably the citizens of Dresden have now had the chance to find out (though of course the pandemic will make comparisons different) after they decided that alleviating traffic congestion was a higher priority than UNESCO status.

 

[eldomtom2]

Presumably the citizens of Dresden have now had the chance to find out (though of course the pandemic will make comparisons different) after they decided that alleviating traffic congestion was a higher priority than UNESCO status.

And, closer to home, Liverpool.

 

[Benjwri]

I would, however, be interested to know just what the estimates of the financial cost of loss of UNESCO status would be to the city's income - as opposed to the loss of prestige. Presumably the citizens of Dresden have now had the chance to find out (though of course the pandemic will make comparisons different) after they decided that alleviating traffic congestion was a higher priority than UNESCO status.

It is hard to quantify the costs, loss of status would initially be a direct saving of an estimated £450,000 p/a, however the main benefit of status is branding. Bath has received a number of significant grants, in the hundreds of millions and even billions, to go towards the maintaining of sites and building of new tourist facilities. These come from funds and trusts not the government. These grants are marketed as because of the cities world heritage status, and aren’t seen to be given to other cities certainly nowhere near in the volume as they are to Bath. It can only be assumed therefore they would be lost with a loss of status.

The council cannot afford to invest the sums of money that are seen from these grants, and therefore their loss would severely detriment tourism over time, and start at first a gradual decline. It is also important to note that unlike Liverpool, Bath has a far begged reliance on tourism, and the majority of its sites of significance, including the famous Baths, are still owned by the council itself, and therefore grants play a far greater role. (As does tourism, during Covid the council had to bear the entire brunt of maintenance when no profit was being made).

 

[Meerkat]

How can a council stop electrification - isn’t permitted rights so the railway can just do it?
How many people go somewhere due to it being on the UNESCO list, particularly somewhere as famous as Bath?

 

[Benjwri]

How can a council stop electrification - isn’t permitted rights so the railway can just do it?

Permitted rights don’t cover listed buildings, as is the section being mentioned here in Bath. It’s also worth noting that by law the council have a duty to the listed bridges that we’ve been talking about.

How many people go somewhere due to it being on the UNESCO list, particularly somewhere as famous as Bath?

I went into a fair bit of detail in literally the post above yours about how the loss isn’t immediate, and is of funding that allows tourist attractions to be maintained. Over time the money runs out, attractions close or fall into disrepair and tourist levels drop.

It’s actually worse than a loss of tourists for locals, as it would be felt nearly immediately as funds are taken from local services to try and maintain.

You’re right that the cost is hard to quantify or predict, each case is different, but the work that has gone into predicting it when there were significant worries a few years ago points to a significant impact.

 

[stuu]

Slightly astonishing that the world heritage site includes the horrible multi storey car park on the riverside, but apparently electrification of the railway is an issue. I know which is more of an eyesore

 

[Benjwri]

Slightly astonishing that the world heritage site includes the horrible multi storey car park on the riverside, but apparently electrification of the railway is an issue. I know which is more of an eyesore

The multi story car park does not exist anymore, it was torn down a year and a bit ago.

 

[The0]

Portway park and ride station is open

As the station is built for 5 car trains are the planning to get new trains or a 2 and 3 car 165

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2023 ==

Maybe D trains could do the 7 beach line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2023 ==

Probably unlikly

 

[lachlan]

Portway park and ride station is open

As the station is built for 5 car trains are the planning to get new trains or a 2 and 3 car 165

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2023 ==

Maybe D trains could do the 7 beach line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2023 ==

Probably unlikly

Perhaps just forward thinking

Took the train out to Severn Beach and back and only saw one person get on/off each time and the new car park was empty. Wonder if the station is more popular at commuting times?

 

[The exile]

Slightly astonishing that the world heritage site includes the horrible multi storey car park on the riverside, but apparently electrification of the railway is an issue. I know which is more of an eyesore

That horrible multi storey car park is no more - though what’s left is still an eyesore.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2023 ==

Perhaps just forward thinking

Took the train out to Severn Beach and back and only saw one person get on/off each time and the new car park was empty. Wonder if the station is more popular at commuting times?

Four days in the school holidays is hardly time for travel patterns to get established…