Great Western Electrification Progress

[NickBucks]

Paul Clifton, respected travel correspondent of BBC South has reported tonight on South Today (Oxford) that the total cost of the project has increased to £2.8 billion. Priorities have been moved apparently. Wires to Oxford & Newbury have been moved to the back of the queue and may be delayed by 4-5years.

 

[swt_passenger]

The contact wire is now installed over the up relief line on that same short section.

...and now a day later on the down relief as well.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Paul Clifton, respected travel correspondent of BBC South...

ROFL... :roll:

 

[nickswift99]

Paul Clifton, respected travel correspondent of BBC South has reported tonight on South Today (Oxford) that the total cost of the project has increased to £2.8 billion. Priorities have been moved apparently. Wires to Oxford & Newbury have been moved to the back of the queue and may be delayed by 4-5years.

If that's true then there can't be any capacity increases on the GWML east of Didcot without reducing the current service from Oxford/Didcot (perhaps dropping the fast Oxford services?). This could jeopardise the Crossrail timetable as well.

The 165/166 cascade would also not be able to happen in any meaningful numbers with the consequential impact to those out West hoping to get rid of 150s and 153s.

 

[Henbury Loop]

There was somebody speaking on Radio 2 today (sorry I'm not sure who) they said the electrification to Bristol Parkway is now likely to be shelved. I do hope this is not true?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There was somebody speaking on Radio 2 today (sorry I'm not sure who) they said the electrification to Bristol Parkway is now likely to be shelved. I do hope this is not true?

The Bristol loop (Chippenham-Bath-Bristol TM-Bristol Parkway) is looking flaky, as there is much remodelling and resignalling to do before wiring can start.
Swindon-Bristol Parkway-Cardiff is looking stronger, with resignalling already done or well in hand, and piling in progress.
The IEP depot at Filton is another early target (the depot itself is already being wired).
Oxford is another problem area with plans and design not finished.
No doubt things will soon become clear.

 

[HowardGWR]

Those scenarios of piecemeal GW implementation look, logically, less attractive than delaying the start of whole electrification schemes such as MML and finishing the whole GW job. By ploughing on with GW, you get the desired cascades of diesel rolling stock. By starting several electrification schemes piecemeal, everyone has to wait while much expense is incurred without many benefits accruing, plus the already ordered electric stock can't be fully used.

I cannot imagine Hendy going for parallel piecemeal projects.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I cannot imagine Hendy going for parallel piecemeal projects.

Sadly neither can I. When is the report out - next 10 days?

 

[Taunton]

Oxford is another problem area with plans and design not finished.

I can't believe that, years after the contract for a given price was let to the contractors, there are still parts of the design not finished. How on earth can the contractors have quoted for the work?

If that's true then there can't be any capacity increases on the GWML east of Didcot without reducing the current service from Oxford/Didcot (perhaps dropping the fast Oxford services?). This could jeopardise the Crossrail timetable as well.

This is something I can't understand was well. Main Lines for the high-intensity nonstops from Reading to Paddington. Reliefs for all-stations Crossrail. However are intermediate services going to be handled; if they think those from Maidenhead or Twyford are going to get on the all-stations Crossrail to London in the morning peak, think again. While if they start on the Reliefs and then get held up trying to cross to the Main further in, delaying the Crossrail behind, this will surely impact on Crossrail presentation at Paddington, which will need to be accurate to the fraction of a minute. It's no good saying that half Crossrail will start from Paddington and can fill in, for if the Reading is headed for Canary Wharf and Abbey Wood, while the following Paddington starter is for Shenfield, sending it off in advance will do nothing for handling the Canary Wharf morning peak.

 

[tpm]

I find it hard to believe that Bristol TM to Parkway along Filton Bank won't be electrified in the first wave, but then I also don't quite see how they're going to finish the Bristol Temple Meads redevelopment in time, seeing that the masterplan is still outstanding. Perhaps the two are not actually related though.

If they're going to shelve anything, that must've been known for quite some time already, would they still have carried throgh the Box Tunnel / Sydney Gardens project in summer then? Or is it thought to be a recent change?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I find it hard to believe that Bristol TM to Parkway along Filton Bank won't be electrified in the first wave, but then I also don't quite see how they're going to finish the Bristol Temple Meads redevelopment in time, seeing that the masterplan is still outstanding. Perhaps the two are not actually related though.

If they're going to shelve anything, that must've been known for quite some time already, would they still have carried throgh the Box Tunnel / Sydney Gardens project in summer then? Or is it thought to be a recent change?

It's a recent thing, there's the ongoing decision about delaying the completion date and reworking delivery for IEP to allow bi-mode IEP services prior to electrification completion.

Any changes shouldn't unduly complicate MML and TP North electrification projects, they need clearance work done first - bridges and stuff, it's going relatively well on the GWep and some of it can be done by more general construction teams - a bit less skills dependent, platform canopies, that type of thing.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I find it hard to believe that Bristol TM to Parkway along Filton Bank won't be electrified in the first wave, but then I also don't quite see how they're going to finish the Bristol Temple Meads redevelopment in time, seeing that the masterplan is still outstanding. Perhaps the two are not actually related though.

If they're going to shelve anything, that must've been known for quite some time already, would they still have carried throgh the Box Tunnel / Sydney Gardens project in summer then? Or is it thought to be a recent change?

Chippenham-Bristol-Filton was already in a 2nd phase in the NR milestones (behind Didcot-Swindon-Filton).
It's not really a choice of either/or, the complexities of the Bristol area meant it had to slip, mainly I think down to resignalling.

 

[jimm]

I can't believe that, years after the contract for a given price was let to the contractors, there are still parts of the design not finished. How on earth can the contractors have quoted for the work?

In the case of Oxford I'm afraid it really isn't that simple, as the scope of the work needed in the area has been in a constant state of flux for several years. What looked like a fairly simple project to replace life-expired signals in the area and cater for Chiltern's London service plus the electrification got overtaken by the go-ahead for East West Rail, the resulting rethink on what sort of station you would then need to handle the extra trains, providing capacity for them around Oxford and down to Didcot, possible provision for a grade-separated junction at Oxford North, possible passenger services up the Cowley branch, etc, etc... wrestling with jelly would be easier.

Some sort of resignalling and track alterations will be needed early next year (last I heard was that a blockade was pencilled in for the February half-term to do this work) to allow Chiltern services to reach Oxford station anyway, with the new immunised signalling also allowing some sort of basic electrification to take place but there seem to be doubts about spending money on that wiring work now if the station is to undergo major rebuilding, resulting in a much-altered track layout, in the next few years.

This is something I can't understand was well. Main Lines for the high-intensity nonstops from Reading to Paddington. Reliefs for all-stations Crossrail. However are intermediate services going to be handled; if they think those from Maidenhead or Twyford are going to get on the all-stations Crossrail to London in the morning peak, think again. While if they start on the Reliefs and then get held up trying to cross to the Main further in, delaying the Crossrail behind, this will surely impact on Crossrail presentation at Paddington, which will need to be accurate to the fraction of a minute. It's no good saying that half Crossrail will start from Paddington and can fill in, for if the Reading is headed for Canary Wharf and Abbey Wood, while the following Paddington starter is for Shenfield, sending it off in advance will do nothing for handling the Canary Wharf morning peak.

Do you really think someone, somewhere within GWR/Crossrail/Network Rail has not thought of this by now? And worked out how they propose to deal with it? Even if they have not chosen to share the details with the world yet, several years in advance of Crossrail starting running... and not all Crossrail's trains will be all-stations anyway.

As far back as 2007, they said the following

Between Maidenhead and central London, it is assumed a mixture of Crossrail stopping patterns will operate in order to minimize journey times from outer stations and permit non-Crossrail services to operate on the GWML.

http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab65625...rary/document/a/original/a2servicepattern.pdf

And the Maidenhead station page on Crossrail's website, as well as citing a 37-minute off-peak timing to Paddington, cutting eight minutes off the Turbo timing, adds

There are some faster trains to Paddington at peak times.

Plus whatever GWR has in mind.

 

[Taunton]

Do you really think someone, somewhere within GWR/Crossrail/Network Rail has not thought of this by now?

Well if the same team worked on this as on the initial budgeting and timescales (and who let fixed price construction contracts before they had done the drawings) ...

Plus whatever GWR has in mind.

I still believe that GW are waiting for Crossrail to do all the work and publicity on Paddington to Reading intermediate points, and then will devise just an Orcats Raid-type service to pick off some of the revenue.

 

[thelongestroad]

I know we have to be seen to moving away from trains that run on oil, but it does make you wonder what they could have done with a "from scratch" diesel only IEP project with a big chunk of the electrification budget ploughed into it's design.

 

[HowardGWR]

I find it hard to believe that Bristol TM to Parkway along Filton Bank won't be electrified in the first wave, but then I also don't quite see how they're going to finish the Bristol Temple Meads redevelopment in time, seeing that the masterplan is still outstanding. Perhaps the two are not actually related though.

In the case of Oxford I'm afraid it really isn't that simple, as the scope of the work needed in the area has been in a constant state of flux for several years. What looked like a fairly simple project to replace life-expired signals in the area and cater for Chiltern's London service plus the electrification got overtaken by the go-ahead for East West Rail, the resulting rethink on what sort of station you would then need to handle the extra trains, providing capacity for them around Oxford and down to Didcot, possible provision for a grade-separated junction at Oxford North, possible passenger services up the Cowley branch, etc, etc... wrestling with jelly would be easier.

Has there been another cause of GWep budget overshoot, namely mission creep?

Both stations could surely never have handled new electrified services without substantial rebuilding and new track layouts (and thus signalling).

Actually I think it's more a case of 'mission overlap'. It all needed doing.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Has there been another cause of GWep budget overshoot, namely mission creep?
Both stations could surely never have handled new electrified services without substantial rebuilding and new track layouts (and thus signalling).
Actually I think it's more a case of 'mission overlap'. It all needed doing.

In the June CP5 milestone update (the last published), there is this inscrutable paragraph about the Bristol TM-Parkway-Cardiff electrification:

GRIP 3 missed for Bristol Temple Meads and Bristol Parkway to Cardiff Central. The new date is subject to change until the programme has been re-examined, revised and communicated to the stakeholders. It is acknowledged that this section of the main line includes relatively complex locations that require further and greater study to deliver the best whole-life cost solution. This is supported by the client. The locations agreed in this category – and required to complete GRIP 3 Single Option Selection and fully signed-off Integrated AiP – is limited to Bristol Temple Meads Station and Bristol Parkway Station.

All the milestones were withdrawn.
I think this is best described as "the writing on the wall" for this part of the project.
The September milestones update has not appeared yet, and they have in any case been overtaken by the Hendy review.

 

[jimm]

Well if the same team worked on this as on the initial budgeting and timescales (and who let fixed price construction contracts before they had done the drawings) ...


I still believe that GW are waiting for Crossrail to do all the work and publicity on Paddington to Reading intermediate points, and then will devise just an Orcats Raid-type service to pick off some of the revenue.

I've not got a clue what sort of contracts are involved at Oxford - do you? - I'm just trying to point out that what on earth anyone was supposed to be issuing tenders for and contracting to do around Oxford has been far from clear for several years now - and still isn't, so trying to fix detailed work programmes, timescales or budgets has been pretty difficult for all involved.

Believe what you like - we don't know the detailed service patterns for future services of any sort between London and Reading for 2018-19, but if I was GWR, I would still like some of the revenue, since I will still be providing services at intermediate stations, with semi-fasts continuing to share the reliefs with Crossrail.

 

[mr_jrt]

Wasn't the plan for a 5th track between Slough(Langley?) and...(Southall?), enabling the skip-stopping Crossrail services to overtake the all-stations services (presumably the Heathrow services)?

 

[swt_passenger]

Wasn't the plan for a 5th track between Slough(Langley?) and...(Southall?), enabling the skip-stopping Crossrail services to overtake the all-stations services (presumably the Heathrow services)?

From west of Iver and to just east of West Drayton is supposed to be '5 tracked', with an up/down loop between the reliefs. The work is well in hand at West Drayton as part of the Crossrail contracts. There is also capacity for overtaking at Maidenhead.

There are also changes to provide an additional freight loop at Hanwell Bridge.

As the last few posts discuss, mixing GW and Crossrail (and freight) on the reliefs has always been part of the plan. The idea that GW are now sitting back and waiting to pick up the scraps is not supported by the evidence, whether on the ground or in the Western route study and GW franchise briefings.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So is the new signalling through Swindon working OK?
Nothing about disruption on NRE which is good news.
An important milestone for the electrification project if it has gone to plan.

 

[jimm]

So is the new signalling through Swindon working OK?
Nothing about disruption on NRE which is good news.
An important milestone for the electrification project if it has gone to plan.

No sign of any issues with the new kit.

Details of the last moments in operation of the old panel at link below, plus info on the same site about the project to preserve it

http://www.swindonpanel.org.uk/2015/11/22/uffington-to-rushey-platt-decommissioning-goes-ahead/

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No sign of any issues with the new kit.
Details of the last moments in operation of the old panel at link below, plus info on the same site about the project to preserve it
http://www.swindonpanel.org.uk/2015/11/22/uffington-to-rushey-platt-decommissioning-goes-ahead/

Yes, very interesting.
Wootton Bassett and westwards still to come then.

 

[QueensCurve]

Yes, very interesting.
Wootton Bassett and westwards still to come then.

Are there any proposals for renewal or remodelling at [Royal] Wooten Bassett?

 

[341o2]

making news today that the project is overrunning both regarding cost and completion.
new trains due for delivery next year, but doubts as to whether infrastructure will be complete

 

[swt_passenger]

making news today that the project is overrunning both regarding cost and completion.
new trains due for delivery next year, but doubts as to whether infrastructure will be complete

Different media outlets have reacted either quickly or slowly to the same old story over quite a few months now. It isn't really 'news' anymore...

 

[76020]

Cardiff by March 2019 and Cardiff-Swansea between 2019-2024
No surprise here then, please see link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-34918919

 

[Henbury Loop]

Still no confirmation on Bristol Temple Meads/Bath Spa with priority going to Bristol Parkway I heard on the radio today?

 

[swt_passenger]

Still no confirmation on Bristol Temple Meads/Bath Spa with priority going to Bristol Parkway I heard on the radio today?

Something you heard on the radio today may well have been supposition. The actual Hendy Report, being discussed in another thread, doesn't go into that much detail.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Something you heard on the radio today may well have been supposition. The actual Hendy Report, being discussed in another thread, doesn't go into that much detail.

Design work for Bristol TM not yet nailed firmly down. The fact electrification hasn't been hacked out of the CP5 and CP6 programs, but keeps being added to, makes doing Bristol TM vitally important, so extensions in future years aren't disastrously complicated and costly.

 

[tpm]

Design work for Bristol TM not yet nailed firmly down. The fact electrification hasn't been hacked out of the CP5 and CP6 programs, but keeps being added to, makes doing Bristol TM vitally important, so extensions in future years aren't disastrously complicated and costly.

Is my reading of the report right that the actual redevelopment of Bristol TM will only happen in CP6 now? It says that in CP5 only "passenger circulation works" (whatever those may be) will be delivered, while the "reinstatement of platforms within the Midland Shed capable of accommodating a 260 m long 10-car train is now proposed to be included with the Bristol Temple Meads Master Plan.". (edit: on second thought, perhaps that just means that the reinstatement of those platforms is shifted into a different project/budget)

Curiously, it mentions only that 'Bath to Bristol' electrification will be delivered in CP5, plus Filton Bank, but no mention of Swindon/Chippenham/Bath?