I am sure that the opening of HS2 southern section will reduce the capacity pinch points. I would have thought that even if the route via Bletchley was longer, it may take less time as it would (well should) get held up less. Would think a Class 99 should cope with some gaps. But as for south of Reading..... I wonder if Oxford to Didcot will get done when they finish the remodeling?
HS2 will certainly help. Of course, there may be a bit of contention for which traffic gets the paths freed up!
I really hope so. being able to put the Didcot-Oxford services on 387s rather than turbos (especially as part of a reconnected service) would really help, as well as having IETs that can take advantage of the wires immediately.
Not sure if I should start a new thread for this? History has turned full circle on this line. It was three units when worked by class 205 and 207. When the class 165s arrived, NSE thought they could do it with two units. Fine in summer, not in autumn when the trains would get later and later. Good to see that it's back up to three units.
IIRC the signalling is 3-aspect on that stretch, which I think is odd considering it's a mixed-traffic route with high demand, which is usually sufficient to need 4-aspect. 4-aspect signalling may also allow a higher line speed depending on what other factors are in play.
Problem is, plans being formulated doesn't mean anything anymore. As at any stage it can just be put on hold. Highly frustrating when working within one of those projects.
Electrification of Filton Bank had some funding allocated by WECA to feasibility work a while ago, that's public record. I'd be extremely surprised if Bath received any reduction in service given how busy those services are. Bath had an (apparently) agreed design for OLE through the sensitive areas so not sure why there'd be particular resistance on that front. There were plans for Bristol extras to run via Parkway (indeed in the peaks there are currently Paddington-Parkway extras worked by 387s) so maybe there's been some conflation of intentions?
It would be unlikely. As mentioned above there was an agreement for Bath at the time of the original programme. The topic as I understand it hasn’t come up since in any depth at all. The loadings into Bath are too high to cut the service, a shuttle would have to be too short to fit into the Swindon bay platform.
It’s been pointed out a few times that special electrification hardware for the stretch through the centre of Bath has been designed and accepted - at least by those actually in a position to make a decision.
That has the sound of truth to it. Just look at how many years the wretched ‘temporary’ stick fencing remained in place in Sydney Gardens. Safety dictated that improvement was essential but local sentiments prevented a mutually acceptable design being reached for an extraordinarily long time.
That fencing mess was entirely Network Rail’s fault. Their initial design was realised to be too heavy for the wall at a very late stage, and the entire design and approval process had to be started again for a new solution that included strengthening. No different to the many many other listed assets that Network Rail works with across the country.
Network Rail has some plans for the Portishead line in the event that money is found for OHL on this route, just because there are some plans or work is taking place in planning doesn't mean very much. And it was always intended to have OHL from Filton to BTM. So it's hard to take anything useful from this. Especially as BTM will not be wired until after the work on the station roof has finished.
Isn’t that now a matter of weeks/months rather than years so hardly a block to any electrification that’s still at “planning”.
That does not look too intrusive at all. Excellent.
This graphic has floated around a few times on this here website. I don't know from what stage of the design it originates but I suppose it's the general idea of it
Does it? Interesting, I'd have thought there'd be far higher priorities for any OHL money before wiring Portishead came into it.
Chippenham has 2 footbridges, from the look of it - an Access for All one that's designed with electrification standards in mind, the original station one that from a quick google image search looks to have greater clearance under it htan many electrified bridges, although obviously there's more than just distance involved in these things.
Suspect months rather than weeks but yes it would be well clear of any works (although may impact surveys). The rewire of the station is separate to the roof works and may be a bigger hurdle.
Speaking of which, as a minor aside, I notice that the platform lighting is being replaced, and indeed most of the platforms are now using the new lighting. I think it looks rather good, and better than the old fashioned fittings that would until a few years ago have held fluorescent tubes.
Ah okay, it looks better then I was expecting, not too much worse then any street lights plopped about Bath
This graphic has floated around a few times on this here website. I don't know from what stage of the design it originates but I suppose it's the general idea of it
Does anyone know if the plan is to wire all the platforms at BTM or just a few? With the possibility of wiring it all at a later date?
I'm not sure a plan is that well developed, or that what was planned previously (when both Bath and Filton Bank routes were expected to be electrified) could still be regarded as a plan.
Or if the additional two tph that TfW is looking to run into Bristol are approved, they would also benefit.
It also allows additional trains to be used, possibly as you said, BEMUs for Bristol metro services but the possibility of EMUs being used on Bristol - Cardiff services, either as additional capacity or a mix up on the routes freeing up the 80x onto different routes. I don’t really know what’s happening with 387s, both GWR’s and other TOC’s but that could be a fit, especially on Match days at Cardiff.
