Great Western Electrification Progress

[edwin_m]

Why is that "unreasonable"?

Part of the case for introducing Exeter semi-fasts would be to speed up the fasts. Why would Westbury need fasts calling if there was an hourly semi-fast service?

It might not - as I said in my post but you didn't in yours. But demand modelling and business case work would be necessary to determine whether the benefits (of the semi-fast and resulting changes to the fast service) exceed the disbenefits by enough to justify the extra costs involved. You can't pre-judge that the semi-fast is the right thing to do, with our without Westbury stops by the fasts, then skew the business case in an attempt to prove it.

 

[mr_moo]

Electrification will only be able to start in certain sections at present I guess, there are plenty of old signal gantries between Airport Junction and Reading and west of Swindon which have to be cut down before they can start in these areas
On the positive side there are new AWS magnets installed up to Maidenhead but no new signals as yet.

Re-signalling of the area between Airport Junction and West Drayton is being done over this Christmas - it will be complete some time around now. The new signalling will be axle counters and controlled from TVSC in Didcot.
This gets extended to re-signal all the way through to the current TVSC fringe near Twyford at Easter 2015, decomissioning Slough PSB.

It was originally all planned for this Christmas, which is why a lot of the equipment is now in place, but was delayed.

Nearly all the bridges east of Didcot now look ok for overhead wiring apart from a couple in the in the Slough area and one just east of Iver Station which is Thorney Lane which I believe will be rebuilt on a new alignment.

Thorney Lane is up for a Track Lowering under the original Crossrail act, but it's highly likely to be a bridge reconstruction instead as the lowering works are very substantial.
There are four bridges near Slough that are up for Track Lowering / realignment: Leigh road, Farnham road, Wexham road and St Mary's road.

Further west there are loads of new foundations for signalling locations between Swindon and Bristol Parkway and also on this section a few bridges are being rebuilt.

Swindon re-signalling, including the closure of Swindon PSB with migration to TVSC at Didcot, is scheduled for Easter 2014. This covers the area from Box tunnel (excl) to Uffington.

Around Reading area there are a number of overhead masts installed and half of the new train depot is wired.

The Reading project makes active provision for OLE in its area - it will put up all the masts etc but no catenery wires. These will be installed by the GW Electrification project. The depot was fully wired from day 1 as it needed to be degned in and was a lot easier to build when you uild the depot rather than coming into a fully operational depot at a later date to put wires up.

Could be, but as I understand it Amey will be using the HOPS west of Maidenhead.
Airport Jn to Maidenhead (the Crossrail-related bit) is Balfour Beatty and there was some reference to them using their own systems for this.
"On site works start in December" the press release said.
So there ought to be two lots of work starting very soon.

Airport Jn to Maidenhead West will indeed be done by Balfour Beatty under the Crossrail project. They will use their own kit.

From the fringe near Twyford to Reading the GWEP (Great Western electrification Project) HOPS will be used.
Reading station will have installed all the masts etc as part of the Reading project, so the HOPS will only put up the wires through there.
Afterwards, it's all over the the HOPS team again heading West.

 

[dysonsphere]

Came past Reading just before Xmas on a Cross country Stoke on Trent to Southampton so got a double view. Have some average pics taken thru carriage windows, will post them when get round to it. The wiring in the depot finishes at the exit points by the look off it. Also noticed the masts go half way to reading west down the Basingstoke line is there going to be an loop from there to the depot. Its hard to tell from the published maps so far.

 

[swt_passenger]

There are masts on both the Westbury Lines (east curve) and the Reading West curve, required for the Newbury route (rather than for Basingstoke itself at this stage). Operationally there are advantages to wiring the west curve fully even though very few if any service trains might use it. The re-signalling underway now allows for the use of the down platform at Reading West for reversals, so there'll be an electrified route from the depot via the relief side of the station then out via the down Feeder Line to Reading West and a further reversal to reach P1/2/3 etc. This is similar to the way they can already use the eastern underpass to get trains from the depot to P4/5/6 without conflicting the main lines, IYSWIM.

I think ultimately there'll be an electrified route from Reading West via the West Curve, onto the reliefs and either via a crossover to the up freight loop alongside the west end of the depot, or via Tilehurst, as the latter would allow an efficient flow through the depot from one end to the other; perhaps there'll be normal access from the west via a carriage washer for instance.

Full electrification of the west curve also provides the faciity for passenger EMUs to run via a reversal at Tilehurst if the direct routes are not available due to engineering work in the future, a similar diversion to those used recently during work on the Westbury lines (east curve).

 

[HowardGWR]

Really!
I dont think so!

Yes, it was reported in a railway mag, some years ago, but I am afraid I do not have the reference. It could be of course that the normal route contained stops between Taunton and Reading that the diverted service did not, of course, have to make, but that detail was not so reported IIRC.

In any event, it is a potentially very fast run and I am sure could be made faster still with electrification to Taunton and reinstatement of the SPM cutoff to St Annes (or via Filton of course).

The OPs are proposing a service level via Castle Cary that I find difficult to envisage being justified, but I imagine studies could be made of potential.

Hope they are right really.

 

[33Hz]

If we are talking about electrification getting enough journey time savings to divert via Bristol relative to the B&H, then what could be done on the B&H using electrification and tilt?

 

[455driver]

Yes, it was reported in a railway mag, some years ago.

I have been on a few trains diverted nonstop from Reading to Taunton via (either Bath or Bristol Parkway) and Bristol (through line) and we were nearly always 15-20 minutes late at Taunton regardless of route taken.

 

[33Hz]

There was some discussion about using 25kW overhead conductor rail in the Severn Tunnel. There is a good example of that in France on the Haut Bugey line where there is limited clearance in some of the tunnels. It even continues in a short stretch of open air between two of them.

http://www.ligneduhautbugey.fr/galerie/galerie.php?dir=../img/1006juin10&page=8&mode=defaut

 

[fgwrich]

There was some discussion about using 25kW overhead conductor rail in the Severn Tunnel. There is a good example of that in France on the Haut Bugey line where there is limited clearance in some of the tunnels. It even continues in a short stretch of open air between two of them.

http://www.ligneduhautbugey.fr/galerie/galerie.php?dir=../img/1006juin10&page=8&mode=defaut

A very similar set up is now in use by Network Rail up in Mound and Haymarket Tunnels up in Edinburgh as well.

 

[Eagle]

As well as at St Pancras low level.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As well as at St Pancras low level.

Planned at Farnworth (Bolton) I think, at least in the narrow bore.

 

[The Ham]

originally posted by rich mclean view post

originally posted by thewalrus view post
i agree. Add on bedwyn, hungerford and kintbury and scrap near empty services between newbury-bedwyn. On a different note i'd like to see wellington and cullompton reopened and there have been calls for these by locals.
Solution to the problem would be this:

Stopping: Newbury - all shacks - reading - london paddingon (emu) 1tph

semi-fast: Exeter st davids - tiverton parkway - taunton - castle cary- frome - westbury - pewsey - bedwyn (1tp2h) - hungerford - knitbury (1tp2h) - newbury, reading and london paddington (iep/hst) (1tph)

fast: Cornwall/plymouth - (ivybridge) - totnes* - newton abbot - exeter st davids - tiverton parkway (1tp2h) - taunton* - reading - london paddington (hst) (1tph)

*the woe hsts from devon and cornwall would all run express from taunton to reading, with a few headline services missing out totnes, taunton and in some cases newton abbot (as the 1044 off plymouth does). Taunton would still have 2tph to london most of the day. Tiverton parkway 1.5 trains per hour, with every other woe service calling there.

The semi fast from exeter, would wait at westbury or frome for the fast to pass, where the semi fast would follow it, and at newbury, the stopper would then follow the semi fast, which by the time the stopper reaches reading, the next fast hst will be right behind it.

that's a well thought out idea and i largely agree with it. However there may be a few problems:

- calling at frome takes up a lot of time, also the single line is a constraint and could clash with the weymouths. I would probably try and connect with the weymouths at westbury/castle cary or provide a shuttle. Ultimately i have previously proposed a frome parkway station on the main lines to give frome a much better mainline service, but i'm not quite sure how it would work.
- having the fast overtake at frome/westbury would reduce potential use for longer distance travellers so could reduce potential market. When the 180s operated the service they often ran nearly full. It would also increase running time of the service so costing more for staff and possibly units. I would sugeest running it 20-30 minutes behind the fast with iep it should be manageable.
- finally if bedwyn was reduced to 1tp2h the locals would go up in arms again like what happened in 2006, forcing you to call there. Also bedwyn has reasonable growth now with over 100000 passengers per year, so keeping a regular service would probably be a good idea, but limited car parking i believe may be suppressing demand.

Another option would be (although would requre a few more paths into London over the day):

Stopping: Newbury - all shacks - reading - london paddingon (emu) (1tp2h)

Stopping: Bedwyn - all shacks - reading - london paddingon (emu) (1tp2h)

semi-fast: Exeter st davids - tiverton parkway - taunton - castle cary (1tp2h) - frome (1tp2h) - westbury - pewsey - bedwyn (1tp2h) - hungerford - knitbury (1tp2h) - newbury, reading and london paddington (iep/hst) (1tph)

semi-fast: Plymouth - (ivybridge) - totnes - newton abbot - Exeter st davids - tiverton parkway - taunton - westbury - pewsey - hungerford - newbury, reading and london paddington (hst) (1tp2h)

fast: Penzance - nearly all shacks - plymouth - newton abbot - exeter st davids - taunton (1tp2h) - reading - london paddington (hst) (1tph)

It would however provide a better level of service to Plymouth and Cornwall as well as many of the stations on the WoE line.

 

[Hartington]

I can't help thinking that paths into Paddington for all these semi fasts will be an issue. Even worse when Paignton trains are added.

How about a bit of portion working with the portions joining/splitting at Newbury (to avoid clogging up Reading)? With the possible exception of the 180s GW doesn't have suitable stock but with electrifcation coming (one day) I would have thought designing portion working into new stock would not be beyond the bounds of possiblity (DaFT permitting).

Oh and not Kintbury please. If the semis are going to stop anywhere else make it Theale which serves a much larger hinterland.

As for Frome, for a town its' size the current service is very threadbare. If a way can be found to serve it I'd be in favour. There is a loop on the Westbury side and the station itself was singled so there is room for a 2nd platform (or for the original to be restored) which leaves the section west of the station as single (but was it double at one time, could it be restored?). Having the Frome loop seems to be surprisingly useful for the signallers; I've seen more than one "slow" working put through Frome to allow an overtake.

As for Frome Parkway I'm in 2 minds. Like I say, the loop seems to have its' uses and unless you close the existing station as well as building the Parkway the issue becomes which station to serve with what. I also wonder what effect a Parkway station would have on Castle Cary in particular. It may not be called a Parkway but the car park is always well used and the small turning area can get pretty chaotic at train time with "kiss and ride". Would enough of that traffic be abstracted to Frome Parkway to have an effect on Castle Cary economics. Bear in mind that there are people in both Somerton and Langport who would like to see their stations re-opened as well.

 

[TheWalrus]

I think The Ham's idea on the amount of services proposed for the B&H may be slightly overkill. I think a minimum service level provision should be the hourly semi-fast to Westbury and Exeter and the fast to Plymouth and Penzance.

Frome is definitely an interesting one. Another option would be if the line speed could be increased on the loop that would be easier than building a new station. However isn't car parking limited at Frome currently? As for Langport and Somerton I think these are reasonably small places I'm not sure if reopening could be justified. I would like to concentrate on Wellington and Cullompton to start with.

 

[The Ham]

I think The Ham's idea on the amount of services proposed for the B&H may be slightly overkill. I think a minimum service level provision should be the hourly semi-fast to Westbury and Exeter and the fast to Plymouth and Penzance.

Frome is definitely an interesting one. Another option would be if the line speed could be increased on the loop that would be easier than building a new station. However isn't car parking limited at Frome currently? As for Langport and Somerton I think these are reasonably small places I'm not sure if reopening could be justified. I would like to concentrate on Wellington and Cullompton to start with.

The only diffence in the number of paths between my suggestion and the sugustion you put forward is one train every two hours. All I've done is added in a semi fast service once every two hour service from Plymouth (meaning that there is an hourly service from Cornwall) and made one of the Newbury trains (once every 2 hours) run on from Newbury to Bedwyn so paired with the semi fast Bedwyn has an service every hour. This does mean that my list of services goes up from 5 to 3, however the number of paths only goes up from 3 an hour to 3.5 an hour.

I can't help thinking that paths into Paddington for all these semi fasts will be an issue. Even worse when Paignton trains are added.

How about a bit of portion working with the portions joining/splitting at Newbury (to avoid clogging up Reading)? With the possible exception of the 180s GW doesn't have suitable stock but with electrifcation coming (one day) I would have thought designing portion working into new stock would not be beyond the bounds of possiblity (DaFT permitting).

Oh and not Kintbury please. If the semis are going to stop anywhere else make it Theale which serves a much larger hinterland.

To serve Paighton there are two options, (using my list of services) extend one of the Exeter semi fasts or run portion workings with the semi fast Plymouth service. The latter would likely be a slightly faster service and could join at Newton Abbot or Exeter.

One other possibility to further reduce the number of paths into London would be to remove the Newbury service and have the Semi fast from Exeter call at all stations from Westbury to Reading (plus Taunton) once every 2 hours and have it call at all stations from Exeter to Westbury (plus Newbury and possibly one or two others to balance the number of stops so that the journey times are comparable) in the alternitive every 2 hour slot (with a new station at Cullompton?). That would reduce the number of paths from 3.5 back to 3 per hour. I'm not sure how that compares with the current service pattern, but I don't think it's that much more (bearing in mind the improvements due to Reading remoddeling).

I didn't really think about Theale or Kintbury I just coped that part of the service from the previous suggestion, however I would agree with you.

 

[HowardGWR]

I think these ideas for the Reading to Taunton via Castle Cary stretch could only be justified after a proper feasibility study into likely demand. Until then it's just playing around with ideas, sorry.

 

[tadhatter]

To my mind it makes logical sense to wire down to Plymouth via Bristol and Castle Cary routes.

But then I still can't understand why Crewe to Holyhead isn't part of current plans and thus remove the need for any diesel haulage out of Euston. But I think that's fir a different thread!

 

[HSTEd]

If 140mph running is implemented significantly on the GWML as part of the reconstruction, the Berks and Hant's travel time advantage shrinks compared to the via Bristol route, strengthening the case for Bristol-Plymouth electrification (especially if IEPs end up ordered for XC at some point).

At that point the Taunton-Reading route could be reduced to a local/commuter one.
But I doubt people would like that much.

 

[TheWalrus]

I am starting to wonder if it would be better to run West of England services via Bristol Parkway rather than the Westbury route as an extension of the proposed SET service from Paddington to Bristol. It would require wiring Bristol-Plymouth but would pretty much remove the case for wiring the B&H so would save wiring that part of the route. I'm guessing wiring to Bristol and potentially increasing line speeds to 140 would bring journey time close to what it is via the B&H. However there is always the question of how the B&H could be improved and electrified to cut journey times.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've just worked out with IEP via Bristol Parkway to Taunton it would take about 1 hour 50 minutes which is slower than the B&H today. Also I worked out some time ago with line speed improvements and electrification on the B&H route I reckon up to 30 minutes could be saved between London and Plymouth. So looks like B&H is the better option from what I can gather.

 

[HSTEd]

And who pays for electrification of the B&H route?

The Bristol-Plymouth route would have far more traffic on it.

As far as I can find the fastest London-Taunton journey is 1h47 with many slower than this. So I don't think 1h50 would be significantly slower really.

Bristol Parkway to Taunton on XC is 48 minutes stopping only at Bristol Temple Meads, whereas the journey time to Bristol Parkway after IEP will be something like 1 hour (and will fall further if 140mph is implemented).
That includes a stop at Swindon which would likely be skipped if a train was running to Plymouth and beyond.
So it comes out effectively equivalent to the current journey offering which is unlikely to get significantly faster in the meantime.

 

[Eagle]

Although the case for electrifying Bristol to Plymouth becomes a lot stronger if it's combined with Bromsgrove to Bristol Parkway.

 

[33Hz]

I have a vague recollection of a roughly 90 minute London-Taunton timing in my youth.

Maybe the B&H would benefit from electrification and a Pendolino cascade after HS2 comes online?

 

[HowardGWR]

And who pays for electrification of the B&H route?

The Bristol-Plymouth route would have far more traffic on it.

As far as I can find the fastest London-Taunton journey is 1h47 with many slower than this. So I don't think 1h50 would be significantly slower really.

Bristol Parkway to Taunton on XC is 48 minutes stopping only at Bristol Temple Meads, whereas the journey time to Bristol Parkway after IEP will be something like 1 hour (and will fall further if 140mph is implemented).
That includes a stop at Swindon which would likely be skipped if a train was running to Plymouth and beyond.
So it comes out effectively equivalent to the current journey offering which is unlikely to get significantly faster in the meantime.

A Voyager took 30 mins from Taunton to BRI the other day. The line from West Bristol to Parkway is to be four tracked - so no holdups there.

It's the same argument about the A303 / A30 and M4 /M5. Through traffic takes the latter. It's quicker.

Taking back the London to Plymouth onto the old Mainline or the Badminton route would release the B and H route for much better local and regional services, that would not interfere with fast non-stoppers.

I am not claiming it's a better BCR overall, but it's worth looking at.

 

[The Planner]

the journey time to Bristol Parkway after IEP will be something like 1 hour (and will fall further if 140mph is implemented).

You could probably get a 60 minute Padd to Parkway now if you ran it non-stop. Never understood why FGW don't do a flyer in the morning and evening peak.

 

[TheWalrus]

the journey time to Bristol Parkway after IEP will be something like 1 hour (and will fall further if 140mph is implemented).

You could probably get a 60 minute Padd to Parkway now if you ran it non-stop. Never understood why FGW don't do a flyer in the morning and evening peak.

I don't know why they've not done the Parkway route either.

So in theory if the B&H was left as is the Parkway route would likely be quicker?

 

[JamesRowden]

I think that the following service pattern between the 'Berks and Hants' route and Reading might provide better value for money than those suggested so far:

• Paddington-Plymouth/Penzance
  • Present Intercity Service
  • 1tph
• Reading-Plymouth
  • Semi-Fast
  • Class 166 Operated
  • 1tph
• Reading-Taunton
  • Fast from Reading to Newbury and then all stations to Taunton
  • Class 166 Operated
  • 1tph
• Paddington-Newbury
  • Travels along fast tracks between Paddington and Reading (could stop at Slough or Maidenhead)
  • All stations from Reading to Newbury
  • Thames Valley EMU operated
  • 2tph

 

[HowardGWR]

I don't know why they've not done the Parkway route either.

So in theory if the B&H was left as is the Parkway route would likely be quicker?

The historical data I provided shewed this (note GWR spelling).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think that the following service pattern between the 'Berks and Hants' route and Reading might provide better value for money than those suggested so far:

• Paddington-Plymouth/Penzance
  • Present Intercity Service
  • 1tph
• Reading-Plymouth
  • Semi-Fast
  • Class 166 Operated
  • 1tph
• Reading-Taunton
  • Fast from Reading to Newbury and then all stations to Taunton
  • Class 166 Operated
  • 1tph
• Paddington-Newbury
  • Travels along fast tracks between Paddington and Reading (could stop at Slough or Maidenhead)
  • All stations from Reading to Newbury
  • Thames Valley EMU operated
  • 2tph

But who's going to get on all of these?

 

[Xavi]

Yet again the nonsense about serving Devon and Cornwall via Bristol resurfaces from some. Inevitable delays behind Weston stoppers would make this a totally unrealistic idea. Neither will 'the long way round' ever match journey times already possible via B&H - 2 hours to Exeter was delivered with semaphore signalling in the early 80s!

The B&H is not some secondary backwater, it's a busy 100 /110 mph mainline carrying 9 westbound expresses between 1500 and 1945 alone each weekday. FGW doesn't just run them for fun.

Electrification of the route will be inevitable, but everyone knows it must join the queue. We can't wire everything at once.

 

[JamesRowden]

I think that the following service pattern between the 'Berks and Hants' route and Reading might provide better value for money than those suggested so far:

• Paddington-Plymouth/Penzance
  • Present Intercity Service
  • 1tph
• Reading-Plymouth
  • Semi-Fast
  • Class 166 Operated
  • 1tph
• Reading-Taunton
  • Fast from Reading to Newbury and then all stations to Taunton
  • Class 166 Operated
  • 1tph
• Paddington-Newbury
  • Travels along fast tracks between Paddington and Reading (could stop at Slough or Maidenhead)
  • All stations from Reading to Newbury
  • Thames Valley EMU operated
  • 2tph

But who's going to get on all of these?

Are the stations between Taunton and Newbury so quiet that they can't justify a 2tph 3-car service?

 

[TEW]

Probably yes. That's a big increase on the current service provision. Hungerford is fairly busy, but after that it really drops off. Pewsey is pretty quiet off-peak, but probably would be busier with an improved service. It wouldn't justify 2tph though. Westbury is a busy station and useful interchange, but there is more benefit in calling long distance services there than providing lots of more local trains.