Future of the GWR electrification

[Wyrleybart]

Surely Kings Norton to Barnt Green and Bromsgrove to Westerleigh Junction would be a higher priority than Oxford to Banbury

Kings Norton to Barnt Green is already electrified, when they electrified to Bromsgrove platforms.
From upthread where there is talk of Westerleigh Jn -Berkeley Road Jn receiving OLE, the need would be reduced to Bromsgrove - Berkeley Road jn, including the triangle into Gloucester station. The question then would be whether a Battery bimode XC unit would manage on batteries between Severn Tunnel Jn and Gloucester, and between Proof House Jn and Derby. This would piggyback on the GWEP Cardiff to Severn Tunnel Jn and the MMLEP between Derby and Nottingham.

 

[cle]

Is Filton Bank really being considered ahead of Didcot-Oxford? I'd like to see both but of the two the one with the best BCR is definitely not the former.

I would agree, now that the 'super fasts' went away and nothing electric runs down from Bristol Parkway in normal service - the Bath route is more of a priority. A Cardiff-Bristol self-contained service doesn't exist, to convert to EMU.

Whereas Oxford brings back the 2tph stoppers, and electrifies/extends the 2tph fasts. That's 8tph total per hour. And sets up EWR nicely.

Ironically it might even support an electric Oxford-Bristol, if the above was done

 

[Class172]

Kings Norton to Barnt Green is already electrified, when they electrified to Bromsgrove platforms.
From upthread where there is talk of Westerleigh Jn -Berkeley Road Jn receiving OLE, the need would be reduced to Bromsgrove - Berkeley Road jn, including the triangle into Gloucester station. The question then would be whether a Battery bimode XC unit would manage on batteries between Severn Tunnel Jn and Gloucester, and between Proof House Jn and Derby. This would piggyback on the GWEP Cardiff to Severn Tunnel Jn and the MMLEP between Derby and Nottingham.

Kings Norton to Barnt Green is only electrified in the context of the Cross-City services since only the slow lines are electrified. The CrossCountry services use the fast lines which have no electrification and hence it would need to be installed.

 

[Topological]

I would agree, now that the 'super fasts' went away and nothing electric runs down from Bristol Parkway in normal service - the Bath route is more of a priority. A Cardiff-Bristol self-contained service doesn't exist, to convert to EMU.

Whereas Oxford brings back the 2tph stoppers, and electrifies/extends the 2tph fasts. That's 8tph total per hour. And sets up EWR nicely.

Ironically it might even support an electric Oxford-Bristol, if the above was done

Cardiff to Bristol is regularly talked about as being a TfW plan.

Also, the splitting of the Portsmouth to Cardiff at Bristol would allow better provision between Bristol and Portsmouth due to the units saved.

That is not saying that Oxford is not a priority, just that Bristol Parkway to Temple Meads has merit. Given the ease of the short section into Bristol versus the longer section from Chippenham to Bristol, it is a balance between which of the ways to reach Bristol Temple Meads comes first.

 

[Zomboid]

If GWR are planning on using BEMUs then getting wires into Bristol would probably be higher priority then Oxford, as the Paddington to Oxford stopping service could be reset to run through again and go over to BEMUs with no additional infrastructure. To use BEMUs around Bristol then Parkway to Temple Meads is probably essential.

Of course if they're using BEMUs to run the Oxford service then where will the 387s end up? It'd probably make sense to use the BEMUs for Newbury/ Bedwyn as well, which doesn't leave a lot for the straight EMUs to do.

 

[Sonik]

Cardiff to Bristol is regularly talked about as being a TfW plan.

Apparently there's a high volume of commuting across the Severn, so this service could genuinely support modal shift

Given the ease of the short section into Bristol versus the longer section from Chippenham to Bristol, it is a balance between which of the ways to reach Bristol Temple Meads comes first.

It would make sense to do both in one go. They already did the track lower at Box.

Also IIRC the issue that led to Grayling's cancellation at Bath, as at Windemere, was not entirely financial (i.e. it was Nimbys & Tory MPs) so it would be good to get Bath wired under the current pro-development government.

 

[brad465]

If GWR are planning on using BEMUs then getting wires into Bristol would probably be higher priority then Oxford, as the Paddington to Oxford stopping service could be reset to run through again and go over to BEMUs with no additional infrastructure. To use BEMUs around Bristol then Parkway to Temple Meads is probably essential.

Of course if they're using BEMUs to run the Oxford service then where will the 387s end up? It'd probably make sense to use the BEMUs for Newbury/ Bedwyn as well, which doesn't leave a lot for the straight EMUs to do.

I think Project Churchward covers the entire non-IET fleet; 387s could easily go and bolster Southern and/or Great Northern if this were to happen.

 

[Topological]

Apparently there's a high volume of commuting across the Severn, so this service could genuinely support modal shift



It would make sense to do both in one go.

Note however that the previous problem at Bath, as at Windemere, was not entirely financial (i.e. Nimby objections)

There are situations where students from Bristol are living in Newport (for example) because of the housing prices in Bristol. (The example story references University of the West of England, which is near Parkway and therefore already connected to Newport by direct train, but is included as a concrete reference to the issue)

BBC Article on Students in Newport 2022

Students at university in Bristol are being housed in accommodation across the River Severn in Wales.

More than 120 first-year students are living in Newport as the Bristol-based University of the West of England (UWE) has run out of accommodation.

Some of the students living in Wales say they are missing out on the full university experience.

UWE says it is organising social events for them and looking at how it can subsidise their travel.

A group of 127 students are paying between £121 and £152 a week for a room in the Newport Student Village - 27 miles from the main UWE campus.

Newport Student Village is normally used by students at the University of South Wales which has a campus in the city.

However, my understanding is that this impacts students who want to live in house shares as well. There is definitely a market to unlock by having the capacity between Newport and Temple Meads could provide.

I fully agree about the need to do Bath and Oxford, but this post is just in defence of the value of connecting Temple Meads in from the GWR South Wales main line.

 

[geoffk]

I've read in the latest Railway Observer (the magazine of the RCTS) that the cost of electrification has reduced by 26% over five years, due in part to a continuous rolling installation programme meaning teams don’t have to stop and restart. I don't have any other source for this statement - Network Rail or Holyrood? I've posted this here as it seems relevant to GWR electrification.

 

[brad465]

I've read in the latest Railway Observer (the magazine of the RCTS) that the cost of electrification has reduced by 26% over five years, due in part to a continuous rolling installation programme meaning teams don’t have to stop and restart. I don't have any other source for this statement - Network Rail or Holyrood? I've posted this here as it seems relevant to GWR electrification.

How much electrification is there to come to keep a rolling programme sustained? At the moment I can think of the Transpennine upgrade, but now the MML is being paused this won't contribute, so maybe somewhere on the GWR network will need to be approved swiftly to take advantage of a rolling programme.

 

[geoffk]

How much electrification is there to come to keep a rolling programme sustained? At the moment I can think of the Transpennine upgrade, but now the MML is being paused this won't contribute, so maybe somewhere on the GWR network will need to be approved swiftly to take advantage of a rolling programme.

I meant to write "the cost of electrification in Scotland has reduced by 26% over five years". GWR - Didcot to Oxford, Thingley Jn to Temple Meads via Bath and Temple Meads - Filton triangle. What preliminary work was carried out on these before they were "paused"/postponed/cancelled?

 

[Killingworth]

The cost of the actual wiring is only part of the total cost. The far greater cost of electrifying into conurbations like Bristol, Swansea, Leicester, Nottingham or Sheffield is the future proofing of track and platform layouts. Wiring up what's there now seals in old infrastructure that has evolved over more than 150 years. It may be more important to modernise that than adding wires. It certainly needs doing at the same time if not first and that costs!

 

[brad465]

I meant to write "the cost of electrification in Scotland has reduced by 26% over five years". GWR - Didcot to Oxford, Thingley Jn to Temple Meads via Bath and Temple Meads - Filton triangle. What preliminary work was carried out on these before they were "paused"/postponed/cancelled?

Loads of preliminary work took place on the latter two for sure: Box Tunnel was shut for 6 weeks in 2015 for trackbed lowering and renewal; 4 of these weeks included Sydney Gardens too, while Bath Spa station had work done in Spring 2017 to make OHLE gantries compatible in the station area. Temple Meads was made compatible with the remodelling a few years' back, which included electrification provision, as was Filton Bank when the quadrupling took place.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

How much electrification is there to come to keep a rolling programme sustained? At the moment I can think of the Transpennine upgrade, but now the MML is being paused this won't contribute, so maybe somewhere on the GWR network will need to be approved swiftly to take advantage of a rolling programme.

the only project which is 100% shovel ready surely is MML. The design was presumably finished for all the GWEP extensions, but it's been several years - surely you'd have to do surveys again at least to some extent and modify the design accordingly. Rushing that or trying to get away without doing that could have expensive and embarrassing consequences which would make GWEP+ look a whole lot like the last GWEP

 

[Annetts key]

Loads of preliminary work took place on the latter two for sure: Box Tunnel was shut for 6 weeks in 2015 for trackbed lowering and renewal; 4 of these weeks included Sydney Gardens too, while Bath Spa station had work done in Spring 2017 to make OHLE gantries compatible in the station area. Temple Meads was made compatible with the remodelling a few years' back, which included electrification provision, as was Filton Bank when the quadrupling took place.

As far as I am aware, the vast majority of infrastructure work required for electrification between Chippingham station and Bristol East Junction was completed.

Including the work mentioned, but also including a compatible signalling system and numerous bridge works (either complete rebuilds or parapet walls being raised).

Since the programme was paused, Bristol East Junction has been completely relaid (with many layout changes), so is now ready.

I'm not sure about the bridges in the area near Lawrence Hill station.

And Temple Meads station itself, as far as I am aware, had no significant work done to make it ready (although the signalling is ready). But some work may have been done as part of the canopy works.

For the main line between Chippingham and St. Anne's Number 3 tunnel, at the time that the funding was cut, the project was in the process of drilling or digging the holes for the columns and then erecting them. Hence there are various locations where the column foundations are already in. Although far from all. And near Chippingham, some columns are present, but without any wires.

Box Tunnel and Middle Hill Tunnel are ready. But no wiring work or similar work was done.

 

[lachlan]

Chippenham station footbridge is a blocker I believe as it is listed and was the reason why electrification stopped before the station. So there's some work to be done there before electrification can restart.

 

[Annetts key]

the only project which is 100% shovel ready surely is MML. The design was presumably finished for all the GWEP extensions, but it's been several years - surely you'd have to do surveys again at least to some extent and modify the design accordingly. Rushing that or trying to get away without doing that could have expensive and embarrassing consequences which would make surveys look a whole lot like the last GWEP

For the Chippingham to Bristol East Junction section, why would you have to do surveys again? What's changed? The ground is unlikely to have changed. There will be no hidden signalling or telecommunications cables, as all the old cables have either been recovered or have been abandoned. And the new cables are all in SCT (surface concrete troughing) routes or known existing or new UTXs (under track crossings, normally made from pipes).

There may be some parts (maybe the Filton lines, Bath station area and Temple Meads station area) where some survey work may be needed because this was not fully completed earlier. But not the whole lot.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2025 ==

Chippenham station footbridge is a blocker I believe as it is listed and was the reason why electrification stopped before the station. So there's some work to be done there before electrification can restart.

It's not a blocker. And electrification work continued beyond Chippingham station towards Bristol.

 

[The exile]

I'm not sure about the bridges in the area near Lawrence Hill station.

Think it’s just the two not already done. Raising the ex MR railway bridge (if necessary) shouldn’t be anything like as pricey as doing a road with all its buried services and houses at either end.

 

[lachlan]

It's not a blocker. And electrification work continued beyond Chippingham station towards Bristol.

It is, or at least was (and I don't think any work has been done to it since), according to this:

An FOI request suggests the footbridge is the problem: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/electrification_of_gwml_west_of/response/1829129/attach/html/4/FOI202100897 Response.pdf.html

 

[zwk500]

I'm not sure about the bridges in the area near Lawrence Hill station.

I'm fairly sure the road overbridge at Lawrence Hill would need additional work to make it ready for electrification. Not sure if just parapet raising or if it would need clearances underneath redoing (it may be suitable for a Cardiff-type special clearances situation)

For the Chippingham to Bristol East Junction section, why would you have to do surveys again? What's changed? The ground is unlikely to have changed.

Disagree, there's all sorts that could have happened in the 10 years or so since it was last looked at.

It's not a blocker. And electrification work continued beyond Chippingham station towards Bristol.

It was cited as the reason for ending the wires where they do, but various information available online suggest it has now been reconstructed anyway.

WECA are intending to progress Filton Bank electrification as it's own project, and have a timescale of 2030 for Entry into Service: https://www.westofengland-ca.gov.uk.../Rail-Electrification-FDAF-20231221-final.pdf, so Chippenham-Bristol would be a separate scheme.

 

[Harpo]

WECA are intending to progress Filton Bank electrification as it's own project, and have a timescale of 2030 for Entry into Service: https://www.westofengland-ca.gov.uk.../Rail-Electrification-FDAF-20231221-final.pdf,

Bristol Council is involved. That’s the end of any chance of completion.

 

[Snow1964]

the only project which is 100% shovel ready surely is MML. The design was presumably finished for all the GWEP extensions, but it's been several years - surely you'd have to do surveys again at least to some extent and modify the design accordingly. Rushing that or trying to get away without doing that could have expensive and embarrassing consequences which would make GWEP+ look a whole lot like the last GWEP

About a third of the mast bases are already in between Didcot and Oxford.

There are already processions planned at Oxford (related to Botley bridge, so would be relatively easy to erect headspans south of Oxford during the closure (even if final design of droppers isn't yet done)

There are already unused masts erected near Chippenham, not all of them, but a fair number for about 4 miles to west of Chippenham. Yes the old (listed) footbridge needs to be jacked up and couple of extra steps at bottom added. But conservation officers aren't stupid, they would rather something is sorted and there for decades to come that becomes an unwanted liability at risk of decay.

I am not sure why you would need to survey it again, maybe a few bits were not finalised, but the idea that couldn't continue starting with bits part built and agreed is false.

Of course in a BEMU world you ideally want changeovers where trains are coasting, or at least not pulling away from slower speed junctions, or stations so it makes sense to add wires to Yate, towards the aquaduct on Westbury line etc. Rather changes boundary point in some cases where junctions are not close to stations.

 

[zwk500]

About a third of the mast bases are already in between Didcot and Oxford.

There are already processions planned at Oxford (related to Botley bridge, so would be relatively easy to erect headspans south of Oxford during the closure (even if final design of droppers isn't yet done)

That assumes the headspans (or rather Portals) are already designed, ordered and ready to install to align with the booked possessions. Or maybe you're suggesting they nick some steelwork from further up the line ?

There are already unused masts erected near Chippenham, not all of them, but a fair number for about 4 miles to west of Chippenham. Yes the old (listed) footbridge needs to be jacked up and couple of extra steps at bottom added. But conservation officers aren't stupid, they would rather something is sorted and there for decades to come that becomes an unwanted liability at risk of decay.

I am not sure why you would need to survey it again, maybe a few bits were not finalised, but the idea that couldn't continue starting with bits part built and agreed is false.

It's been 10 years since the last work looked at it. It would be foolish to not at least re-verify the previous surveys. You would not simply contract for construction on the basis of 10-year-old plans. It's highly likely that a significant part of them *can* be re-used, but I'd be surprised if it was 100%.

Of course in a BEMU world you ideally want changeovers where trains are coasting, or at least not pulling away from slower speed junctions, or stations so it makes sense to add wires to Yate, towards the aquaduct on Westbury line etc. Rather changes boundary point in some cases where junctions are not close to stations.

A normal wire run length out from the junction would be appropriate in most cases. Notably at Westerleigh Jn the OLE continues quite far round towards Yate so that the mode change is on the straighter section.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

----------------I am not sure why you would need to survey it again, maybe a few bits were not finalised,--------------

I think we have learned enough in the last few years to know this would not be wise. A fresh survey - (perhaps does not need to be in depth) would be the wise course of action imho

 

[GraphitProjekt]

It's been 10 years since the last work looked at it. It would be foolish to not at least re-verify the previous surveys. You would not simply contract for construction on the basis of 10-year-old plans. It's highly likely that a significant part of them *can* be re-used, but I'd be surprised if it was 100%.

yeah this is what i was trying to say. Putting out a contract for construction asap would be irresponsible, at least a bit of work - probably less than a year's worth would need to happen to make sure the plans are good to go and for the construction firms to get in gear themselves. Once again, the only work which is shovel ready is MML RS2, and the longer that time elapses with it not happening the greater the need to re-confirm the designs should it ever be authorised again

 

[Annetts key]

A normal wire run length out from the junction would be appropriate in most cases. Notably at Westerleigh Jn the OLE continues quite far round towards Yate so that the mode change is on the straighter section.

My impression was that part of the reason for the length of OLE on the line between Westerleigh Junction and Yate South is so that an electric train can be diverted on to this line if needed, come to a stand. Driver the changes ends. And then reverse and return to Bristol Parkway (or wherever). This being the standard move if for whatever reason, the Up Badminton line is closed towards Swindon after Westerleigh Junction after a train has left Bristol Parkway.

I've not seen an IET do this, but have been on the operating floor of Bristol Panel when TVSC was temporary closed (fire alarm, but the place was evacuated). At the time, TVSC had recently taken control of the former Swindon Panel area. Hence a London bound HST from Cardiff was diverted towards Yate South and stopped clear of the junction. Then returned to Bristol Parkway.

yeah this is what i was trying to say. Putting out a contract for construction asap would be irresponsible, at least a bit of work - probably less than a year's worth would need to happen to make sure the plans are good to go and for the construction firms to get in gear themselves. Once again, the only work which is shovel ready is MML RS2, and the longer that time elapses with it not happening the greater the need to re-confirm the designs should it ever be authorised again

So, do you think all the existing columns that are present, and all the existing foundations (that are ready for columns) need "at least a bit of work" before anything can happen? If the items in the list I give below are completed, there is no reason I believe, why the existing columns can't start to be fitted with the parts needed to support the wiring.

In terms of Box Tunnel and Middle Hill tunnel, the railway does now have plenty of experience of Chipping Sodbury Tunnel and Severn Tunnel.

And there is an OHL maintenance department in the area now that will have details of any problems with the OLE that is currently fully operational.

As I said, yes, some places may need further preparation work.

Assuming that Network Rail have and can access the old plans, I would not expect preparation work to take 12 months for the section that was originally planned to be done.

However, the biggest delays would be:

• Arranging the manufacture of the OLE parts needed.
• Finding a suitable contractor.
• Getting the special train ready to work again, or getting a different one.
• Sorting out the T3 occupations and sorting out the timetable around this.
• Getting approval from the DfT and the funding from the Treasury.

So if some new surveys are needed, there is plenty of time for them. But, I do not believe a "start from scratch" full survey is needed.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

But, I do not believe a "start from scratch" full survey is needed.

I agree, because I'm not saying and have never said "start from scratch", but the minutia of the design will need to assessed most likely for those bits where masts are not installed. Do bear in mind that the original context of this conversation is from the below message. Or in short "where could construction crews be sent asap to maintain rolling programmes", it's been the best part of a decade for most of GWEP extensions, it's not ready for construction lest you create too many unforseens, wasn't the viaduct/bridge between Radley and Culham completely rebuilt during emergency engineering works? Stuff like that I'm imagining.

How much electrification is there to come to keep a rolling programme sustained? At the moment I can think of the Transpennine upgrade, but now the MML is being paused this won't contribute, so maybe somewhere on the GWR network will need to be approved swiftly to take advantage of a rolling programme.

 

[Annetts key]

wasn't the viaduct/bridge between Radley and Culham completely rebuilt during emergency engineering works? Stuff like that I'm imagining.

I'm not up-to date with that line. So can't comment on that.

But for Chippingham to Bristol East Junction, the only things (apart from routine maintenance and minor like for like renewals) that have happened, that I am aware of, infrastructure wise, are Bristol East Junction being completely renewed with an new layout and the Temple Meads station roof works. All of which was known about for many years.

All the other realignments (for example, Bathampton Junction) or other projects on this route that may have affected electrification, were done ahead of, or part of the GWEP.

The Filton line does need some work. It however, would have had a lot of survey work done during the re-quading. Maybe not enough to enable an OLE programme to start quickly. Nevertheless, as reported in these very forums, the Filton line does look like it will have electrification in the next five years.

It would be daft if any electrification programme resources available are not used. And as the Filton programme is not yet "shovel ready", it would be logical to do some more work elsewhere. Maybe, to do some more work on the Chippingham to Bristol East Junction section.