Future of the GWR electrification

[stuu]

If you're

Outside of Metros, none AFAIK

Metro North and the Long Island Railroad in New York, and a couple of suburban lines in Buenos Aires are the only significant non-metros with 3rd rail electrification outside the UK

 

[Falcon1200]

...and only Brazil, Romania and Kazakhstan have a lower percentage of their mileage electrified.

That cannot be correct, surely? What about the huge networks in the USA and Canada, with hardly any electrification? And closer to home, the Republic of Ireland has just one electrified line, a suburban route in Dublin.

 

[Trainbike46]

On a more general point, comparison to other countries isn't really that helpful, you'd need to get into comparing traffic patterns, energy production, resource availability, and historic legacies etc to have a meaningful comparison as to why the UK isn't keeping pace, or the problems other countries are having (e.g. Germany/Switzerland/Norway/Sweden being on 1/3rd of their grid frequency).
The key questions is what would our ideal "end-state" electrified network look like, and why aren't we anywhere near even the core of it. There's some gaping holes in our network that on an individual analysis should have been closed long ago - London-Sheffield-Doncaster and London-Bristol come to mind; and we should also be in a position where short infill gives network effects rather than being left massively underutilised.

This is the key point, and of course the TDNS was an attempt at answering the first question - but that doesn't seem to have gone anywhere

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jul 2024 ==

That cannot be correct, surely? What about the huge networks in the USA and Canada, with hardly any electrification? And closer to home, the Republic of Ireland has just one electrified line, a suburban route in Dublin.

It's not correct, as pointed out by zwk500, and also by your own examples

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jul 2024 ==

Bringing this back towards GWR a bit, after TDNS came out, work was started on regional strategies that looked at routes in more detail, and I remember there being a western one that was discussed on this forum - anyone have any clue what happened to that?

 

[lachlan]

I've always thought that a better percentage to use is the percentage of passenger miles carried on electrified services, as it avoids the distortion of long but unimportant lines like the Highlands or the Heart of Wales not being electrified, the sort that other countries may even have closed down.

On the other hand, people are more likely to use a train service if it is fast, frequent, and comfortable which of course electric trains are better at.

Appreciate it's just an example but railways north of the central belt or in Devon and Cornwall are important and would be more effective if they were electrified.

 

[HSTEd]

Outside of Metros, none AFAIK.

The US has a significant portion on third rail IIRC.
LIRR and MetroNorth are not really metros and make up a significant fraction of US rail electrification

 

[zwk500]

Metro North and the Long Island Railroad in New York, and a couple of suburban lines in Buenos Aires are the only significant non-metros with 3rd rail electrification outside the UK

The US has a significant portion on third rail IIRC.
LIRR and MetroNorth are not really metros and make up a significant fraction of US rail electrification

Both these are more commuter rail than 'main line' though. However I am happy to stand corrected. I had always thought 3rd rail in the US was confined to metro or metro-like systems.

 

[HSTEd]

Both these are more commuter rail than 'main line' though. However I am happy to stand corrected. I had always thought 3rd rail in the US was confined to metro or metro-like systems.

It's mostly the product of the relatively short time between practical rectifiers appearing (thus displacing the earliest low frequency AC systems as the only practical solution) and the rectifiers getting good enough for 1500V or 3kV DC.

The Southern Railway decided to standardise on the system but the window was short enough that few others did so.

 

[Bikeman78]

From https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/10703/download#:~:text=Previously this had, for the,be justified by risk assessment.


So in 2011 the minimum electrical clearance from a position which the public may gain access was 2.75m, and now it's 3.5m, However there's another important caveat:

To be clear, this only applies to new installations? I take it the 3.5 metres is from the platform surface to the OHL or pantograph? What about where a bridge goes over a railway? You are going to need a very high bridge or very high parapets to achieve 3.5 metres from the top of the parapet to the highest point of the OHL.

Another question is why 2.75m was deemed acceptable for so long? What prompted the change in position? Has anyone attempted to quantify how much better 3.5m will be?

Edit: I chuckled at the footnote at the bottom of page four. This item below suggests that the revised standards part way through the Edinburgh to Glasgow electrification caused considerable delay and additonal cost to the project. Certainly not simple and cheap.

EGIP - electrification clearance woes - Rail Engineer

Listen to this article On 25 August, Network Rail announced that, for six months on Mondays to Thursdays, there would be no service after 20:30 on the main Edinburgh to Glasgow line due to ‘intensification of delivery’ of the Edinburgh to Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP). Rail Engineer was...

www.railengineer.co.uk

On 25 August, Network Rail announced that, for six months on Mondays to Thursdays, there would be no service after 20:30 on the main Edinburgh to Glasgow line due to ‘intensification of delivery’ of the Edinburgh to Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP).

Rail Engineer was interested to find out why. Having done so, it is only fair to warn readers that the result is a standards-heavy article.

The Scottish press responded with headlines such as “Blunder sees cables installed too low on Glasgow to Edinburgh rail line”, which led to livid and ill-informed on- line comments blaming Network Rail for this shambles. Some observations, however, were intended to be helpful, such as the suggestion that this problem could be solved if trains had smaller wheels.

August also saw publication by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) of its “Annual efficiency and finance assessment of Network Rail”. This showed the cost of EGIP has risen by £32 million and is running six months late, with completion now scheduled for July 2017.

Understandably, the Scottish Parliament was not impressed and asked ScotRail Alliance chief executive Phil Verster to explain the EGIP cost and time overruns. He explained that Network Rail attempted to keep costs down by asking if it could risk assess things to get a derogation to avoid having to comply with a new stricter standard and stated: “Last year, when all the shenanigans started and the cost issues became really clear, it became obvious to the ScotRail Alliance that, if we had continued to debate the matter, we would have got late into the programme and built the railway only for the ORR to say that we could not run anything on it.”

 

[swt_passenger]

To be clear, this only applies to new installations? I take it the 3.5 metres is from the platform surface to the OHL or pantograph? What about where a bridge goes over a railway? You are going to need a very high bridge or very high parapets to achieve 3.5 metres from the top of the parapet to the highest point of the OHL.

Another question is why 2.75m was deemed acceptable for so long? What prompted the change in position? Has anyone attempted to quantify how much better 3.5m will be?

You’re right - the 3.5m height is measured from the platform surface, but importantly that distance is only in areas open to the public. In restricted areas (ie staff only) the height clearance remains at 2.75m. On a bridge, the distance is still measured from the standing surface, so the distance is no longer a straight line. I’d recommend having a look at section 10.8 and 10.9 of Garry Keenor’s helpful guide to overhead electrification.

Overhead Line Electrification for Railways – An approachable and comprehensive study of OLE for beginners and trainees

ocs4rail.com

 

[MarkyT]

The Southern Railway decided to standardise on the system but the window was short enough that few others did so.

At grouping, there was already significant 3rd rail mileage inherited from LSWR who'd previously adopted it for early suburban electrification. 3rd rail was easier to install than the rival LB&SC overhead design, or a similar proposed SECR 3kV AC system (also low frequency).

 

[Bikeman78]

You’re right - the 3.5m height is measured from the platform surface, but importantly that distance is only in areas open to the public. In restricted areas (ie staff only) the height clearance remains at 2.75m. On a bridge, the distance is still measured from the standing surface, so the distance is no longer a straight line. I’d recommend having a look at section 10.8 and 10.9 of Garry Keenor’s helpful guide to overhead electrification.

Overhead Line Electrification for Railways – An approachable and comprehensive study of OLE for beginners and trainees

ocs4rail.com

Thanks. I will read that tomorrow.

 

[The exile]

On a bridge, the distance is still measured from the standing surface, so the distance is no longer a straight line.

Overhead Line Electrification for Railways – An approachable and comprehensive study of OLE for beginners and trainees

ocs4rail.com

Presumably also there is some point at which a bridge parapet becomes high enough (particularly if it's not wide enough at the top to stand on) to mean that the public would no longer be deemed to "have access" to the wires.

 

[Class 170101]

But this 3.5m height restrictgion seems somewhat strange, I say this having seen ladders used by spotters to peer over the parapets to take photos of 'their train' And these ladders can now be made smaller to be suitable for carrying too.

 

[QueensCurve]

I can believe the Oxford North objectors raising the issue of gantries alongside Port Meadow, but that would have to be up towards Wolvercote, and the wires might still not get that far. But they tried every nimby trick in the book to stop Chiltern Evergreen improvements, and would almost certainly object to wiring of EWR, just because they can…

This would seem to be an example of where the the Rachel Reeves approach to nimbyism would be worthwhile.

 

[59CosG95]

WJ Project Services on LinkedIn: WJ Project Services, working in collaboration with Enable, SPL POWERLINES…

WJ Project Services, working in collaboration with Enable, SPL POWERLINES UK, Network Rail and National Grid, successfully completed stage 1 of entry into…

www.linkedin.com

This seemed like the best thread to post this in...
Holly Cross ATFS (nr Bramley, Hants, and fed from the National Grid 400kV substation at Bramley) has now completed Stage 1 of Entry into Service. It will eventually supply the 'on-line' Reading ATFS.

 

[WAO]

This is to me a firm indication that both NR and DfT want GW electrification to continue to expand. "Resilience" if that is all that is being provided, is rather expensive at £20M -£30M plus extension lead. The new, excess feeding capability opens the way to more extensions (but without marginal costs for feeder stations).

The naming of sites is a challenge as the most obscure local names are often chosen! This one is more likely to be on Oliver's Lane.

WAO

 

[Meerkat]

This is to me a firm indication that both NR and DfT want GW electrification to continue to expand. "Resilience" if that is all that is being provided, is rather expensive at £20M -£30M plus extension lead. The new, excess feeding capability opens the way to more extensions (but without marginal costs for feeder stations).

The naming of sites is a challenge as the most obscure local names are often chosen! This one is more likely to be on Oliver's Lane.

WAO

Depends how long ago this site was ordered - there may have been big plans way back then.......

I assume its the compound between Oliver's Ln and the west side of the line, by the first overbridge north of Bramley, that can be seen on Google street view (at a very early stage) but not on the satellite view.

 

[Snow1964]

This is to me a firm indication that both NR and DfT want GW electrification to continue to expand. "Resilience" if that is all that is being provided, is rather expensive at £20M -£30M plus extension lead. The new, excess feeding capability opens the way to more extensions (but without marginal costs for feeder stations).

The naming of sites is a challenge as the most obscure local names are often chosen! This one is more likely to be on Oliver's Lane.

WAO

My guess is it is sized to allow stone trains with 6MW electric locos, and provision for extension to Basingstoke (or even Andover and onwards towards Salisbury), allowing dual voltage electric freight to Southampton).
Plus the Didcot-Oxford line (where mast foundations are already installed for about third of the section).

Must be lot cheaper in long run to build it big enough, rather than keep having to add piecemeal enlargements at later dates.

 

[anthony263]

Hopefully we will see the wires to Swansea

 

[swt_passenger]

Depends how long ago this site was ordered - there may have been big plans way back then.......

I assume its the compound between Oliver's Ln and the west side of the line, by the first overbridge north of Bramley, that can be seen on Google street view (at a very early stage) but not on the satellite view.

The “Reading Independent Feeder“ (at Bramley) was present in the earliest enhancement delivery plans for GW electrification. i.e. it wasn’t a recent extra requirement, but a deferred original requirement. We discussed it in 2020, in the main electrification thread, and I’d found it mentioned as being at Grip stage 3 in 2017:

Great Western Electrification Progress

Sorry if it’s been covered earlier - has a train, in passenger service or otherwise, run the full distance from Paddington to Cardiff or the other direction entirely on electric yet? No, still Diesel through Severn Tunnel until March(ish)

www.railforums.co.uk

But the way it was described back then there were always two separate functions, firstly an independent “resilience” supply for Reading station area and depot, and also a traction supply for the Basingstoke route.

 

[hwl]

But the way it was described back then there were always two separate functions, firstly an independent “resilience” supply for Reading station area and depot, and also a traction supply for the Basingstoke route.

Slight semantics - Once the feeder for "resilience" is it completed the cost of Southcote Jn to Basingstoke electrification would be lower as there couldn't be any allocation of cost of work in progress on the main works, just a small amount for extra need for Southcote - Basingstoke.

The power supply in the wider Reading area is fairly stretched at the moment so "resilience" is needed.

 

[stuving]

Despite the quite leisurely way these feeds are constructed, I can't find any satellite pictures recent enough to show what's on the ground. However, I'm sure that the Bramley (NG) feeder substation has only one transformer, and there is one 25/0/25 kV circuit to Holly Cross and then along the railway to Reading ATFS. That is highly unusual, and does support the idea that it was built for resilience.

It seems that originally, when powering the Basingstoke line was required, there would have been two transformers and circuits. Once the electric spine was dropped, the feed at Holly Cross was reduced to one circuit but could not be removed completely. Conduits were laid with the cables of the feed from Bramley NG to Holly Cross "for future use".

Enable, who built Holly Cross (and the 17 km lineside feeder), put out this PR last year, with timelapse video. In it you can see one autotransformer being craned into place, though there are two bases. Note that they refer to Holly Cross as an ATFS, and also say:

The objective of the project is to provide a backup supply to the Reading substation to enhance the reliability, availability, and maintainability of the existing network. The Holly Cross ATFS substation will also be able to facilitate potential future 25kV electrification of the adjacent railway, which is currently non-electrified.

NG also put out something about their - rather bigger - transformer being brought in in 2022. Rather more fun, someone with a drone made a YouTube video of Allelys trying very hard not to demolish too much of the village of Bramley on their way through.

 

[59CosG95]

Slight semantics - Once the feeder for "resilience" is it completed the cost of Southcote Jn to Basingstoke electrification would be lower as there couldn't be any allocation of cost of work in progress on the main works, just a small amount for extra need for Southcote - Basingstoke.

The power supply in the wider Reading area is fairly stretched at the moment so "resilience" is needed.

I'd imagine Southcote - Basingstoke's cost would definitely be lower as a result of the works being done now - especially as there's no long lead time for the feeder.

Additionally, given that Reading - Newbury was built with AT feeding capability (taller masts etc.) I wouldn't be too surprised if both routes SW of Reading were AT-enabled as part of such a scheme.

 

[Western Sunset]

I'd have thought Southcote - B'stoke is low down on electrification priorities over, say Didcot - Oxford. How many DMU units does it save; two? Not saying in the longer term it shouldn't be done, though.

 

[WesternBiker]

I'd have thought Southcote - B'stoke is low down on electrification priorities over, say Didcot - Oxford. How many DMU units does it save; two? Not saying in the longer term it shouldn't be done, though.

Is there scope for it to enable any freight traffic to be hauled by electric traction (i.e. that coming via the West Coast Main Line)? My assumption is that most of the freight using this line comes via Banbury, but others may be more familiar with traffic flows.

 

[zwk500]

I'd have thought Southcote - B'stoke is low down on electrification priorities over, say Didcot - Oxford. How many DMU units does it save; two? Not saying in the longer term it shouldn't be done, though.

Looking at today, you've got a 1007 RDG-BSK 1035, Next working 1053 BSK-1119 RDG, next working would be 1133 RDG-BSK (if they're not interworked with a Newbury or similar). So I think it's 3 units in the cycle for the approximately half-hourly service. [1007, 1033, 1107 departures from Reading before the 1133 is formed off the ex-1007.]

There are also other reasons to electrify this area:
1. The 2 most difficult things are basically done - power and signalling.
2. It puts EMUs on stopping services, where their acceleration can be best used.
3. It replaces DMUs on the busy Southcote jn - Reading section, where EMUs will be able to get through slightly quicker.
4. Allows a 4-car EMU to replace a 2/3-car turbo.
5. Allows greater flexibility in fleet allocation with Reading-Newbury and Reading-Basingstoke both fully wired.
6. It increases the utility of potential XC and freight bi-modes, aiding the case for procurement.

Didcot-Oxford would certainly be top of my list, but it needs the Oxford rebuild to be finished first. I'd also put Chippenham-Bristol TM-Filton Diamond above Reading-Basing, but that needs the TM re-wire work to finish so the scaffolding can come down. Southcote Junction-Basingstoke is a useful project that doesn't really have any major blockers left to fulfillment, and so I'd be minded to get it going now as a warm up for the team to then do Didcot-Oxford, if a strategic mind was being applied. After Oxford's done, Bristol should be ready... (Oh how we can dream).

 

[59CosG95]

Is there scope for it to enable any freight traffic to be hauled by electric traction (i.e. that coming via the West Coast Main Line)? My assumption is that most of the freight using this line comes via Banbury, but others may be more familiar with traffic flows.

Most freight on the GWML from So'ton does go via Banbury, although a couple do east at Reading to join the WCML at Acton Wells.
While the Poplar Incline is getting wired, the connection from the NLL to the WCML south of Willesden Junction (both NB & SB connections) are not being electrified as part and parcel of that little project.

 

[Trainman40083]

Is there scope for it to enable any freight traffic to be hauled by electric traction (i.e. that coming via the West Coast Main Line)? My assumption is that most of the freight using this line comes via Banbury, but others may be more familiar with traffic flows.

Maybe , one day, said freight might come down the WCML then East West line to Oxford, and that missing link might have been electrified (by the time I am 150).

 

[59CosG95]

Talking of the Poplars - came across this design fly-through video of the proposed OLE on LinkedIn. (note you will need a LinkedIn account to view this!)

Sign Up | LinkedIn

500 million+ members | Manage your professional identity. Build and engage with your professional network. Access knowledge, insights and opportunities.

www.linkedin.com

This has been some time in the making. A fly-through of Inovar Ltd's latest project, electrifying Poplars, connecting the Great Western Main Line to the North London Lines.

A small footprint but a challenging job! So proud of the work our team has delivered in collaboration with our client!

✅ Mk3B interface with UKMS
✅ Mk3B 12kA upgrade
✅ Neutral section position and optioneering
✅ Insulated overlaps
✅ Manual and Motorised Driescher switches
✅ Permanently Earthed Sections
✅ Fitted overbridges
✅ Free running overbridges
✅ Interface with S&C and various interfacing projects

 

[zwk500]

Is there scope for it to enable any freight traffic to be hauled by electric traction (i.e. that coming via the West Coast Main Line)? My assumption is that most of the freight using this line comes via Banbury, but others may be more familiar with traffic flows.

Even if coming via Banbury, a 93 or 99 may be able to bridge that gap, if it had enough time on the wires south of Oxford.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Oct 2024 ==

Maybe , one day, said freight might come down the WCML then East West line to Oxford, and that missing link might have been electrified (by the time I am 150).

It will be interesting to see how much traffic does actually use EWR in the end. It's still a dog-leg for traffic heading from Birmingham or north thereof to Southampton, and there are capacity pinch points between Northampton and MK.

There's also the fact that most of the West Midlands container terminals aren't on wired routes, so in order for electric freight to make any serious inroads you'd also want Birmingham-Nuneaton wiring as well as Bletchley-Oxford-Didcot.