Great Western Electrification Progress

[59CosG95]

Is there currently any physical connection between where the XC pass through Reading to the Waterloo line is? If there is once the Basignstoke to Reading section of track gets electrified (eventually), with 444s and 450s converted to dual-voltage, would the Reading-Waterloo route be a viable diversion route for when there's engineering works on the SWML?

Yes, in the sene that XC services from the north can head down that way, while FGW services can go from east of the station on the GWML to Basingstoke. So, I think, if 450s and 444s, converted to dual voltage, went Basingstoke-Reading-Wokingham, it would be a viable diversionary route.

 

[JamesRowden]

Is there currently any physical connection between where the XC pass through Reading to the Waterloo line is? If there is once the Basignstoke to Reading section of track gets electrified (eventually), with 444s and 450s converted to dual-voltage, would the Reading-Waterloo route be a viable diversion route for when there's engineering works on the SWML?

Yes, in the sene that XC services from the north can head down that way, while FGW services can go from east of the station on the GWML to Basingstoke. So, I think, if 450s and 444s, converted to dual voltage, went Basingstoke-Reading-Wokingham, it would be a viable diversionary route.

I think that it would make more sense to divert some fast SWML services to Paddington when there is engineering works or disruption east of Basingstoke.

 

[IrishDave]

Is there currently any physical connection between where the XC pass through Reading to the Waterloo line is? If there is once the Basignstoke to Reading section of track gets electrified (eventually), with 444s and 450s converted to dual-voltage, would the Reading-Waterloo route be a viable diversion route for when there's engineering works on the SWML?

I can't think of any reason why you'd want to plan to divert Waterloo-Southampton trains via Reading. Any block on the SWML can be accommodated by diverting trains along already-electrified (3rd rail) routes - a block west of Weybridge entails a diversion via Guildford and Fareham, a block east of Weybridge entails a diversion via Staines and Chertsey. Both are standard diversionary routes and crews already sign them.

In the case of a block east of Weybridge, it's conceivable that a train to Southampton could be diverted via Reading, but such a diversion would clearly take much longer than the 20-30 minute penalty you get going (non-stop) via Chertsey. Even if the block were at, say, Pirbright Junction and running via Reading would allow you to call at Basingstoke, passengers for Basingstoke would just go to Paddington anyway, it would be quicker.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think that it would make more sense to divert some fast SWML services to Paddington when there is engineering works or disruption east of Basingstoke.

Or, indeed, for (F)GW to run through trains between Paddington and Basingstoke.

Talking of which, am I imagining things, or did I once see a suggestion for through IEP services from Paddington to Southampton once HS2 is built, to provide connectivity between Old Oak Common and the south coast? Perhaps in a GWML RUS?

 

[JamesRowden]

Or, indeed, for (F)GW to run through trains between Paddington and Basingstoke.

Talking of which, am I imagining things, or did I once see a suggestion for through IEP services from Paddington to Southampton once HS2 is built, to provide connectivity between Old Oak Common and the south coast? Perhaps in a GWML RUS?

The Western Route Study Draft suggests a 2tph Basingstoke-Reading-Heathrow-Paddington service with 1tph extended to/from Bournemouth/Southampton. I think that it would use Thames Valley EMUs rather than IEP.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The Western Route Study Draft suggests a 2tph Basingstoke-Reading-Heathrow-Paddington service with 1tph extended to/from Bournemouth/Southampton. I think that it would use Thames Valley EMUs rather than IEP.

How viable would it be for the 1tph extended to Bournemouth to be extended to Poole?

 

[The Ham]

I can't think of any reason why you'd want to plan to divert Waterloo-Southampton trains via Reading. Any block on the SWML can be accommodated by diverting trains along already-electrified (3rd rail) routes - a block west of Weybridge entails a diversion via Guildford and Fareham, a block east of Weybridge entails a diversion via Staines and Chertsey. Both are standard diversionary routes and crews already sign them.

In the case of a block east of Weybridge, it's conceivable that a train to Southampton could be diverted via Reading, but such a diversion would clearly take much longer than the 20-30 minute penalty you get going (non-stop) via Chertsey. Even if the block were at, say, Pirbright Junction and running via Reading would allow you to call at Basingstoke, passengers for Basingstoke would just go to Paddington anyway, it would be quicker.

Although there would be no advantage for passengers from Southampton, there are quite a few passengers from stations (such as Parkway, Winchester, etc.) for whom diverting via Guildford could be longer than going via Reading. Especially as services would still still need to serve those stations.

 

[83G/84D]

As of last week there were various uprights all along the length, some of which have four track cross bars and some have twin track cantilevers, but there are no small parts fitted to them whatsoever. Any wire run is probably some months away.

The information I heard very recently is that the OHLE wiring and testing will take place in the summer/autumn.

 

[swtandgw]

Has anyone thought of doing a photo documentation of the electrification like what's been done with the North Western lines?

 

[HowardGWR]

Has anyone thought of doing a photo documentation of the electrification like what's been done with the North Western lines?

The difference seems to be that no new or reinstituted lines are proposed whereas in the nw
case they are making an expanded railway.

 

[snowball]

The only new or reinstituted lines in the NW so far are at Huyton/Roby.

 

[swt_passenger]

The information I heard very recently is that the OHLE wiring and testing will take place in the summer/autumn.

Seems quite likely. The detailed coverage of the NW projects so far (in this forum) suggests that the progress is rapid once the piling and foundations are complete and gantries are all up; I don't see why this cannot happen over four of five months, especially between Reading and Didcot.

 

[superkev]

Is the once much promoted electrification factory train actually working?
K

 

[mr_moo]

Is the once much promoted electrification factory train actually working?
K

Yep!
It's now in Swindon,. being re-filled and maintauined during the day and sent out each night to do work in various parts of the Network. It's not going as fast as planned, for a variety of reasons, but it is indeed going.

 

[Tio Terry]

Yep!
It's now in Swindon,. being re-filled and maintauined during the day and sent out each night to do work in various parts of the Network. It's not going as fast as planned, for a variety of reasons, but it is indeed going.

They had a run through in the yard at Swindon, train got trapped pending repairs. Another night lost.

 

[AdamHewitt]

Patrick McLoughlin and Philip Rutnam have been answering questions on the GWML electrification delays this afternoon in front of the Transport Select Committee.

Our story on RTM is here if of interest:
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...-and-transpennine-electrification-are-delayed

McLoughlin explains GWML and TransPennine electrification delays

{snipped stuff on TP electrification}...McLoughlin was less specific on Great Western electrification, saying merely that he “hoped” it would be completed on time, and that he would be keeping up the “pressure” on Network Rail and the Office of Rail Regulation to ensure it is.

He said: “There are areas where progress has not been as fast as I would have liked.”

In terms of the Great Western, he mentioned the fact that the route goes through “several World Heritage sites” and some “very difficult tunnels”, and acknowledged the widely-reported “cost increase” in the project. He noted that the scheme involved 15,000 foundations, 14,000 masts, 1,500 signal upgrades and 50 station improvements.

Despite repeated questions from transport committee chair Louise Ellman MP, permanent secretary at the Department for Transport, Philip Rutnam, refused to be drawn on other schemes that may be delayed. However, he did say that he would “much rather we didn’t face” this level of uncertainty over electrification timings.

He refused to comment on the reports on the BBC and elsewhere about it being "a year behind schedule".

Watch it here if of interest!
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/de6a9af7-3ca2-4cf9-b279-1ad654bb3069

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Patrick McLoughlin and Philip Rutnam have been answering questions on the GWML electrification delays this afternoon in front of the Transport Select Committee.
Watch it here if of interest!
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/de6a9af7-3ca2-4cf9-b279-1ad654bb3069

Thanks for posting. How embarrassing for the SoS and his PS.
They are just stonewalling to avoid having to convey bad news.
Looks like a redesign for TP, and just grin and bear it for GW.
It's unimportant really, but they let Patrick McLoughlin (twice) quote CP6 as "1919-1924" without bothering to correct him.
If this was a set of commercial projects, they would be on Red Alert with senior management "helping" after firing project managers and chief designers who came up with the original estimates.

One oddity, not sure if it is relevant, was that Rutnam said they were buying new DMUs to provide extra capacity on the TP North route.
I suppose he meant Northern would acquire them for ex-TPE routes so that the 185s could be concentrated on TP North.

 

[deltic08]

The only new or reinstituted lines in the NW so far are at Huyton/Roby.

I know you copied it from another poster but the word in reinstated and is easier for me to say than reinstituted.

 

[Oxfordblues]

One of my favourite railway words is "requadrification" (though it's not in my local dictioary!). This also applies to the Filton Bank.

 

[deltic08]

One of my favourite railway words is "requadrification" (though it's not in my local dictioary!). This also applies to the Filton Bank.

I use it also.

 

[HowardGWR]

One of my favourite railway words is "requadrification" (though it's not in my local dictionary!). This also applies to the Filton Bank.

Talking of which, is it not possibly shortsighted if the four are not wired, i.e. from Pylle Hill to Filton? Perhaps they are going to be but I confess I had understood otherwise, as local services are to remain diesel AIUI.

What about the SPM avoiding line. Would it not be useful to have that wired too?

 

[Stompehh]

Talking of which, is it not possibly shortsighted if the four are not wired, i.e. from Pylle Hill to Filton? Perhaps they are going to be but I confess I had understood otherwise, as local services are to remain diesel AIUI.

What about the SPM avoiding line. Would it not be useful to have that wired too?

AFAIK all four are to be wired

 

[Olaf]

Patrick McLoughlin and Philip Rutnam have been answering questions on the GWML electrification delays this afternoon in front of the Transport Select Committee.

Our story on RTM is here if of interest:
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...-and-transpennine-electrification-are-delayed



He refused to comment on the reports on the BBC and elsewhere about it being "a year behind schedule".

Watch it here if of interest!
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/de6a9af7-3ca2-4cf9-b279-1ad654bb3069

I am guessing that the DfT is not able to give an answer on the new anticipated completion dates on this, and other projects, because NR is not yet in a position were it can re-base it's projections. It is looking like a complete shambles in the NR planning and projects teams; people need to be fired to clear out the under-performers.

 

[HowardGWR]

AFAIK all four are to be wired

Thanks, come to think of it, wiring as far as the freightliner depot would allow electric traction for the container trains and be ready for eventual Portishead/ Portbury docks services too.

 

[NX]

My understanding is the wires will only reach the ends of the platforms at Temple Meads, and then maybe only certain platforms.mceryainly not as far as Parson Street, unless wiring further west is OK'd.

NX

 

[Chris125]

It is looking like a complete shambles in the NR planning and projects teams; people need to be fired to clear out the under-performers.

I'd imagine it has more to do with lack of experience than under-performance as well as issues that simply weren't foreseeable, so sacking them is the last thing they should do - it would also risk estimates becoming ultra-conservative, which benefits no-one.

 

[Bald Rick]

It is looking like a complete shambles in the NR planning and projects teams; people need to be fired to clear out the under-performers.

Who would replace them?

 

[Grumpy]

I am guessing that the DfT is not able to give an answer on the new anticipated completion dates on this, and other projects, because NR is not yet in a position were it can re-base it's projections. It is looking like a complete shambles in the NR planning and projects teams; people need to be fired to clear out the under-performers.

Surely someone should be offering Rutnam the glass of whisky and a revolver?

The DfT have committed to paying billions for new electric trains before they had a firm cost for electrifying the tracks.

How much are the DfT prepared to pay for a project before the penny drops that it's not worth it? Projects are authorised when the value of the benefits exceeds the costs. If it looks like the costs are shooting up, or benefits evaporating, you review the project to see if it's still worth doing. You don't just carry on spending to save Politicians' and Civil Servant's faces. See Concorde.They shouldn't have committed to spending billions till they had firm contract prices for the trains and electrification. Hitachi now have them by the balls and the electrification contractors similarly.

 

[deltic08]

My understanding is the wires will only reach the ends of the platforms at Temple Meads, and then maybe only certain platforms.mceryainly not as far as Parson Street, unless wiring further west is OK'd.

NX

I hope the western platform ends are chosen and not the eastern end!!!

 

[edwin_m]

I hope the western platform ends are chosen and not the eastern end!!!

That's what the last mile diesel is for ... either that or a very big rubber band.

 

[Brian Aylott]

Surely someone should be offering Rutnam the glass of whisky and a revolver?

The DfT have committed to paying billions for new electric trains before they had a firm cost for electrifying the tracks.

How much are the DfT prepared to pay for a project before the penny drops that it's not worth it? Projects are authorised when the value of the benefits exceeds the costs. If it looks like the costs are shooting up, or benefits evaporating, you review the project to see if it's still worth doing. You don't just carry on spending to save Politicians' and Civil Servant's faces. See Concorde.They shouldn't have committed to spending billions till they had firm contract prices for the trains and electrification. Hitachi now have them by the balls and the electrification contractors similarly.

They have 'committed' others (eg the leasing companies) to buy many new trains!!
Brian