Electrification of GWML: some uncomfortable truths

[royaloak]

Coat, you need more than that , I thought mine was bad but dear oh dear

 

[jopsuk]

I don't think he's coming back...

 

[atomicdanny]

I don't think he's coming back...

and all the railway upgrades (this one, HS2, crossrail, etc...)now going to get cancelled, none of these will happen now that the conservatives have practically won...!

 

[TGV]

and all the railway upgrades (this one, HS2, crossrail, etc...)now going to get cancelled, none of these will happen now that the conservatives have practically won...!

I think you'll find the Tories backed high speed rail - DC even said so at one of the live debates. Not sure about Xrail though.

 

[atomicdanny]

I think you'll find the Tories backed high speed rail - DC even said so at one of the live debates. Not sure about Xrail though.

He probably did, although I have my doubts mainly because of all the cuts that are going to happen and normally all of these cuts are taken out of the transport funds. I believe that the tories have already said that the would cancel crossrail, so why wouldn't they Cancel that as well?

 

[Geezertronic]

He probably did, although I have my doubts mainly because of all the cuts that are going to happen and normally all of these cuts are taken out of the transport funds. I believe that the tories have already said that the would cancel crossrail, so why wouldn't they Cancel that as well?

Judging from what is written in the report in the link below, the Conservatives consider HS to be vital

http://www.bowgroup.org/harriercollectionitems/The_Right_Track_PDF.pdf

 

[yorksrob]

Judging from what is written in the report in the link below, the Conservatives consider HS to be vital

http://www.bowgroup.org/harriercollectionitems/The_Right_Track_PDF.pdf

I just hope they consider the whole network to be vital as well !

 

[Drsatan]

I just hope they consider the whole network to be vital as well !

True, don't forget the Serpell Report!

 

[moonrakerz]

Hmn, there are. Many scientists have dedicated their whole lives to it and you can do environmental science A Levels and Degrees. Of course, green issues are not just about anthropogenic global climate change, loss of biodiversity, unsustainable use of resources, habitat loss, water depletion are also part of it.

I totally agree with your comments about " loss of biodiversity, unsustainable use of resources, habitat loss, water depletion are also part of it." however, that IS NOT the same as MMGW, those have been "highjacked" to bolster a pretty weak case.
Does a GCSE A Level in "environmental studies" REALLY make you "qualified" to pontificate on MMGW ??!

 

[TGV]

Uh oh... the thread lives on. Must be a government conspiracy.

 

[90019]

Uh oh... the thread lives on. Must be a government conspiracy.

Well, they do bear a similarity to one aspect of this thread at least

 

[yorkie]

Well, some people choose to be judgmental and I can't say I blame them. My opinions are controversial and they are based in concrete fact. I can quote these facts if needs must, but it seems we've reached the point where futility is around every corner.
.

I'd love to read them, please do.

Until some references are cited I'll take the whole thing (all in one paragraph - that was tough reading!) to be a figment of someone's imagination. I think you've been had!

BTW electrification is not about averting climate change, it's about:
- Quicker timings (improved acceleration)
- Lower running costs
- Affordable oil is running out
- Demand for oil is sky-rocketing
- Lower maintenance costs
- Lower cleaning costs
- Improvement in station environments
- Sustainability

Perhaps you can address some of these points?

Also, what was your view of the WCML electrification project of the 1960s? Did revenue increase? Did costs decrease? Did journey times decrease? Did growth occur? Why would none of this apply to the GWML, or have you overlooked the real reasons for electrification?

Beyond Didcot at least, the route passes through significant cuttings and prohibitive gradients.

Gradients eh? All the more reason FOR electrification

I'd love to know more about these gradients. How are they prohibitive? The significant gradients such as Dainton are a lot further west than Didcot, and HSTs take them with ease. Electric locos are absolutely ideal for going up such gradients.

Gradients are a problem for steam, not electric traction

 

[37401]

Can't we just get along agree to disagree and have a big hug and a nice slice of cake?

 

[bluebottle]

It won't be the right cake...

 

[jon0844]

Biscuits are the future. Sorry if that fact is uncomfortable for some...

 

[90019]

Biscuits are the future. Sorry if that fact is uncomfortable for some...

I have concrete facts that show that the future is actually muffins. I can quote these facts if needs must.

 

[455driver]

I have concrete facts that show that the future is actually muffins. I can quote these facts if needs must.

In that case I want the truth, the whole truth and muffin but the truth!

 

[thegrich37423]

I'd love to read them, please do.

BTW electrification is not about averting climate change, it's about:
- Quicker timings (improved acceleration)
- Lower running costs
- Affordable oil is running out
- Demand for oil is sky-rocketing
- Lower maintenance costs
- Lower cleaning costs
- Improvement in station environments
- Sustainability

Perhaps you can address some of these points?

Averting climate change seems to be the only reason for electrifying a line such as the GWML. Absolutely none of the local towns have been briefed, neither in a short statement or a long one at that, at the benefits of running electric stock over HSTs. All of this could've, and should've, been addressed when the DfT announced these plans to begin with. I will be happy to address some of these points for you, Yorkie:

a) How do you think that the quicker timetables will mean instant improvements to the current level of reliability and punctuality on the GWML? We have a proven case by the WCRM that extended upgrades do not result in immediate changes to the 'speediness' of train times, save for a few necessary updates to key structures along the route. We have concrete proof by the years in building of the WCRM that in the months after the completion of the core update south of Rugby, that train times were not improved. What makes everyone think that electrification of a 100 year old route will mean instant speediness and more flexibility to the new GWML? How will the new GWML differ from the old GWML in its so-called promise of faster times on local branches such as those in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, if any changes are going to happen?

b) Improvements in station environments should never be a top priority for any body in the initial stage of planning. That's up to local residents whenever the proper consultations between local councils happen. The local residents should be the ones to put forward their ideas as to what they would like to see improved at their local station. How have FGW delivered a package which still demands improvements? Are there stations on the core GWML route, we'll assume between Paddington and Swansea, which are in urgent need of an upgrade? How long will cosmetic changes take to major stations such as Bristol Temple Meads take if they are to accommodate for electrification around those parts

There is still no proof that the electrification package put forward of the GWML will be sufficient enough to stop MMGW. Man-made global warming is indeed, an inconvenient truth. Man is contributing to the environment in several different ways, hence why demand for oil is so high as our current so-called 'green' systems are not doing their jobs in an efficient way. This strain on our reliance for foreign oil supplies is diverting attention away from methods which exist in this country to address these inefficient schemes which rely so heavily on a constant supply of oil. There is so much proven evidence that if man continues to use these large supplies of oil, demand for foreign oil will start to exceed supply, resulting in the inevitable energy crisis that we all know is a foregone conclusion. Putting up a few extra gantries on a 100 year old route will not solve this problem.

 

[Donny Dave]

P*** off with your bull****, and that's putting it politely.

Man made global warming is not a problem. The climate has been constantly changing since the dawn of time, Mankind has nothing to do with it ....

Before the WCML was electrified north of Crewe, a pair of 50s was used between Crewe - Preston/Carlisle/Glasgow. Once the wires were extended all the way to Glasgow, the pair of 50s was replaced by a single 86 throughout. The WCRM was mainly to replace infarstructure that was at the end of it's working life, not to provide massive time savings all over the place, that happened when the wires went up back in the 1960s and 70s.

A similar comparison can be made to the GWML ....

You have a train with 2 diesel engines powering it that can be replaced by a train with 1 electric engine providing the power. Couple this with a resignalling program and route modernisation (where needed) to increase the line speed in places, and you have your faster times, and that's ignoring the fact that modern electric trains accelerate a lot quick than diesel units/HSTs.

 

[Greenback]

I'm afraid that your argument still does not stack up Richard. It is based on the belief that GWML electrification was authorised solely due to MMGW and fails to acknowledge the other benefits of electrical power that have been cited by many others.

I also believe that you have misunderstood Yorkie, although I obviously cannot speak for him. As I read his post, his mention of improved station environments means that the absence of the noise and fumes that characterise the HST will be replaced by the fumeless quiet hum of an electric loco or unit.

I also don't understand why local towns need to be briefed when councils and other organisations have been pushing for electrification of various lines and routes for many years!

 

[starrymarkb]

Hang on, did he just say electric trains would need a constant supply of oil? And what do diesels need?

He still hasn't explained what would be better then wiring. So the question... if you had to replace the HSTs in the next 10-15 years and electrification isn't an option what stock do you buy to replace them?

 

[Geezertronic]

Still no concrete proof from thegrich37423... just more points of view...

 

[37401]

Why use concrete proof, everyone knows plastic is the future

as for the cake side of things how bout a neapolitian type cake with everyones favorite crammed into one

 

[yorkie]

I also believe that you have misunderstood Yorkie, although I obviously cannot speak for him. As I read his post, his mention of improved station environments means that the absence of the noise and fumes that characterise the HST will be replaced by the fumeless quiet hum of an electric loco or unit.

That's correct. Although I personally enjoy the sound of a Valenta engine departing, the MTU does not interest me in the slightest (it sounds like a truck. it's crap. end of!) and I therefore know how "normal" passengers will feel about any diesel: they don't want the noise, the smell, the grime. And yes, they make station environments less pleasant.

The arguments against the MTU engines given by Rich are not valid. And that's coming from someone who has no interest in MTU engines whatsoever. However electric locos are far more efficient than any diesel. The fuel efficiency of a MTU vs a Valenta is hardly worth concerning ourselves with (Yes the MTU wins, obviously, it's a newer design!) in comparison to the efficiency gains of electric trains.

Why use concrete proof, everyone knows plastic is the future

If we don't stop the current unsustainable increase in demand for oil, then in the future we will not be able to make plastic. But, long before that happens, plastic will become rather unaffordable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Averting climate change seems to be the only reason for electrifying a line such as the GWML.

Not at all. The fact that demand is outstripping supply for oil is the primary reason surely.

a) How do you think that the quicker timetables will mean instant improvements to the current level of reliability and punctuality on the GWML?

The faster acceleration given by electric trains will, obviously, result in a reduction in running times. It is up to the timetable planners, and ultimately policy makers, as to how much of this decrease in journey time is given toward padding to allow for a more robust timetable.

However my main point about reliability was that electric trains are inherently more reliable than diesel trains.

We have a proven case by the WCRM that extended upgrades do not result in immediate changes to the 'speediness' of train times, save for a few necessary updates to key structures along the route. We have concrete proof by the years in building of the WCRM that in the months after the completion of the core update south of Rugby, that train times were not improved. What makes everyone think that electrification of a 100 year old route will mean instant speediness and more flexibility to the new GWML? How will the new GWML differ from the old GWML in its so-called promise of faster times on local branches such as those in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, if any changes are going to happen?

This is waffle, and you are comparing the proposed GWML electrification project with the recent West Coast upgrade, which is not a valid comparison at all. Perhaps you can look at electrification projects to compare with this, err, electrification project?

b) Improvements in station environments should never be a top priority for any body in the initial stage of planning.

It's one of the many benefits of electrification. Nothing more, and nothing less.

That's up to local residents whenever the proper consultations between local councils happen.

?

The local residents should be the ones to put forward their ideas as to what they would like to see improved at their local station.

Erm, okay.

How have FGW delivered a package which still demands improvements?

I don't know what you're asking, let alone know the answer to that.

Are there stations on the core GWML route, we'll assume between Paddington and Swansea, which are in urgent need of an upgrade?

Yeah, Reading for a start, which is in the pipeline (if it doesn't get cancelled...!)

How long will cosmetic changes take to major stations such as Bristol Temple Meads take if they are to accommodate for electrification around those parts

I'm not sure, but I could ask someone who remembers what happened at York when the ECML was electrified around 1990, as the stations are comparable I think.

There is still no proof that the electrification package put forward of the GWML will be sufficient enough to stop MMGW.

I'd be shocked if there was, to be fair...

Man-made global warming is indeed, an inconvenient truth. Man is contributing to the environment in several different ways, hence why demand for oil is so high as our current so-called 'green' systems are not doing their jobs in an efficient way. This strain on our reliance for foreign oil supplies is diverting attention away from methods which exist in this country to address these inefficient schemes which rely so heavily on a constant supply of oil. There is so much proven evidence that if man continues to use these large supplies of oil, demand for foreign oil will start to exceed supply, resulting in the inevitable energy crisis that we all know is a foregone conclusion.

Yes, I am in agreement with much of that.

Putting up a few extra gantries on a 100 year old route will not solve this problem.

The 'problem' for the GWML (let's keep this in perspective!) is that the trains are going to be life-expired in 15 years' time, but before that oil is likely to be prohibitively expensive, so if cities like Oxford, Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea and Exeter want fast, frequent services to London, then they are going to have to get an electrified line with trains using electricity, and not using diesel engines.

The GWML electrification addresses the needs of the route. It does not solve the world's problems obviously, however if we all decrease our use of oil then we will avoid the crisis that you, probably correctly, predict.

 

[ungreat]

Global warming by mankind is a load of bollocks...just an excuse to put you in a corner and dictate what/where/when/how and why to people...they can **** right off with it

 

[O L Leigh]

Man's role in global warming is a moot point.

What can't be denied is that the remaining fossil fuel reserves are getting harder to reach. Even a lot of the so-called "green" alternatives still rely on fossil fuels (ask yourself why petroleum companies like BP and Shell are so interested in developing hydrogen fuel cells). This energy resource is not inexhaustible and efficiencies need to be made.

O L Leigh

 

[The Planner]

We have concrete proof by the years in building of the WCRM that in the months after the completion of the core update south of Rugby, that train times were not improved.

That's because you dont radically change a timetable halfway through, you wait until the next major change in May or December. Its always been that way. Rugby was finished in the autumn, trains sped up in December 2008. If you suddenly made the ECML 140mph in September, trains wouldnt be timetabled to speed up until the December.

 

[jopsuk]

(waffle)

Your concrete facts seems to be made out of marshmallow.

 

[bluebottle]

Averting climate change seems to be the only reason for electrifying a line such as the GWML.

Balls. It's quicker, cheaper and cleaner. And again you have quoted no sources for your "concrete" proof.

 

[Greenback]

I don;t think anyone can really dispute that human actions, particularly since the Industrial Revolution, have contributed to environmental chanegs, and probably global climate change as well. I don;t think anyone can really dispute the fact that fossil fuels will become more expensive as supplies fall and demands continues to increase. Unfortunately, it's then a massive and unconvincing leap to conclude that GWML electrifiation is a waste of time because it won't solve either issue on its own.

As Yorkie said, it;s not relevant relly to compare a total route modernisation and upgrade with the GW electrification proposals. Why not compare the East Anglian or East Coast electrification schemes with GW instead?