Great Western Electrification Progress

[HowardGWR]

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

Yes I saw that although the sentence construction was perhaps a contributor.

Hopefully a big typo.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

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?

It's difficult to say when (or where, in terms of CP) things will land, just because they're likely to start in one CP and finish in the next CP. The GRIP process can have something that's been in service for months or years only being formally completed at a much later date, so completion dates in terms of CP can be misleading too.

 

[puffing billy]

It's good to know that the "pathetic excuses" department of GWR are well ahead of the game. Delays at Slough, Maidenhead and Reading today were blamed on "problems with the overhead lines" and the electrification project isn't anywhere near complete yet.

 

[VP185]

It's good to know that the "pathetic excuses" department of GWR are well ahead of the game. Delays at Slough, Maidenhead and Reading today were blamed on "problems with the overhead lines" and the electrification project isn't anywhere near complete yet.

So what are the Heathrow Express and Connect trains powered by?

 

[cjmillsnun]

So what are the Heathrow Express and Connect trains powered by?

Magic fairy dust obviously

 

[duffield]

So what are the Heathrow Express and Connect trains powered by?

I can't see what the relevance of the Heathrow trains is to Reading, Slough or Maidenhead, given that these trains don't pass through any of these stations (the Heathrow trains leave the Great Western Mainline at Heathrow Airport Junction after passing through Hayes & Harlington). Puffing Billy's post was a clear reference to the overhead lines through these three stations causing issues even before they are in use and as such is correct.

 

[The Ham]

I can't see what the relevance of the Heathrow trains is to Reading, Slough or Maidenhead, given that these trains don't pass through any of these stations (the Heathrow trains leave the Great Western Mainline at Heathrow Airport Junction after passing through Hayes & Harlington). Puffing Billy's post was a clear reference to the overhead lines through these three stations causing issues even before they are in use and as such is correct.

The electric lines east of Airport Junction can impact on diesel trains, in the same way that Virgin's Voyagers have problems when there is a problem with the wires at Watford (a station which they tend not to call at).

Firstly if the slow lines are blocked then services using these may switch to the fast lines to get past impacting the capacity of the fast lines.

Secondly, if the wires come down there is little to stop them from being a hazard to trains passing that location which may again impact on the fast lines.

Thirdly, even if one of the above are relevant if the EMU's stop running in one direction and start taking up platform space at Paddington then that is going to limit the ability of other trains to get a platform.

I'm sure there are other ways which it can cause problems, but I can't think of any more off the top of my head.

 

[CP165]

I can't see what the relevance of the Heathrow trains is to Reading, Slough or Maidenhead, given that these trains don't pass through any of these stations (the Heathrow trains leave the Great Western Mainline at Heathrow Airport Junction after passing through Hayes & Harlington). Puffing Billy's post was a clear reference to the overhead lines through these three stations causing issues even before they are in use and as such is correct.

If the overhead lines fail or come down, it leaves Heathrow Express/Connect trains either stranded in the middle of nowhere which blocks the track for other trains and thus causes congestion down the whole line, or unable to leave platforms which blocks them for other trains and thus causes congestion down the whole line

 

[duffield]

If the overhead lines fail or come down, it leaves Heathrow Express/Connect trains either stranded in the middle of nowhere which blocks the track for other trains and thus causes congestion down the whole line, or unable to leave platforms which blocks them for other trains and thus causes congestion down the whole line

I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was that overhead line problems at Reading/Slough/Maidenhead would not involve the Heathrow trains. This was based on the possibility that some (presumably un-energised) wiring might exist at these locations and could still interfere with the non-electric services (purely as an obstruction) if it came down.

I don't actually know if any wiring exists to the east of Heathrow Airport Junction or if there are only masts at present.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't actually know if any wiring exists to the east (west!) of Heathrow Airport Junction or if there are only masts at present.

Only masts/booms/registration gear except between Tilehurst and Pangbourne, I think, which has a short stretch of full wiring.
Mind you, we did once have cancellations because of "overhead line problems" between Manchester and Liverpool before the wires went live - they fell down while in an unfinished state.

 

[swt_passenger]

I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was that overhead line problems at Reading/Slough/Maidenhead would not involve the Heathrow trains.

The bit I've bolded is an incorrect interpretation of puffingbilly's post though, he didn't clearly say that the wiring problems were actually AT those stations, did he?

What FGW were trying to get across (badly) was that overhead line problems elsewhere were causing knock on delays at the listed stations. This isn't really unusual...

 

[83G/84D]

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?

Further details on timescales etc of electrification to Bristol Temple Meads should be forthcoming in around 3 months.Last I heard was that the midland shed would not be electrified but would be part of Bristol metro in the future.
That may have changed & I have not read all the Hendy report.

 

[jimm]

Further details on timescales etc of electrification to Bristol Temple Meads should be forthcoming in around 3 months.Last I heard was that the midland shed would not be electrified but would be part of Bristol metro in the future.
That may have changed & I have not read all the Hendy report.

Further details on the timescales may be forthcoming a lot sooner than that - such as in the next week or two, when Network Rail release the update on enhancements following on from the Hendy report and the other reviews.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Further details on the timescales may be forthcoming a lot sooner than that - such as in the next week or two, when Network Rail release the update on enhancements following on from the Hendy report and the other reviews.

Might just be a timeline for the timeline being completed, and not something more detailed.

 

[HowardGWR]

Might just be a timeline for the timeline being completed, and not something more detailed.

You lost me there Philip. IIRC, December 5th for detailed timescales. Mind you, Saturday is an odd time for this sort of event, so perhaps I misread.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

You lost me there Philip. IIRC, December 5th for detailed timescales. Mind you, Saturday is an odd time for this sort of event, so perhaps I misread.

The detailed timescales for electrification of Bristol TM will be highly provisional and quite imprecise, because until the design is finalised, nothing can go before the local authority and Historic England for approval, there are risks of legal challengers from people named after fishing ports, and we still don't know what we will be doing in CP6, so additional work now may save a lot of pain and a lot of outlay 5 to 7 years from now.

 

[snowball]

there are risks of legal challengers from people named after fishing ports

Curiously enough, the 1958 film of Dracula was on TV last night, and Melvyn Bragg and guests have just finished talking about Captain Cook on Radio 4.

 

[HowardGWR]

The detailed timescales for electrification of Bristol TM will be highly provisional and quite imprecise, because until the design is finalised, nothing can go before the local authority and Historic England for approval, there are risks of legal challengers from people named after fishing ports, and we still don't know what we will be doing in CP6, so additional work now may save a lot of pain and a lot of outlay 5 to 7 years from now.

Indeed. I would be highly suspicious of anything firm on Bristol TM. HE (as I understand we must now call erstwhile EH) can have some peculiar ideas and these can be very localised, each local manager making it up as they go along.

Whether TM redevelopment issues would affect electrification implementation significantly, I am unsure of. All through lines would need to be wired surely?

 

[jimm]

Indeed. I would be highly suspicious of anything firm on Bristol TM. HE (as I understand we must now call erstwhile EH) can have some peculiar ideas and these can be very localised, each local manager making it up as they go along.

Whether TM redevelopment issues would affect electrification implementation significantly, I am unsure of. All through lines would need to be wired surely?

I can't see that the broader station redevelopment would affect electrification work.

The East Coast electrification showed how to string up 25kv wires inside a listed train shed with minimal impact, notably in the cases of York and Newcastle, so it doesn't looks though there would be an insuperable problem with going ahead with this aspect of work in the main train shed at Temple Meads, irrespective of the proposals to improve other parts of the station and the eventual reactivation of the Digby-Wyatt train shed once the power signal box is closed and demolished.

If it is a problem, then presumably you would focus at first on wiring the eastern platforms outside the train shed, that are the usual haunt of the GWR expresses anyway.

The key issue for electrification at Temple Meads is surely going to be getting the resignalling and associated track layout alterations around the station, plus re-quadrupling up to Filton, designed and implemented in good time so that the wiring teams can get to work.

 

[tpm]

Does the demolition of the signal box at TM depend on the resignalling work being completed? If yes, does that basically mean it won't be demolished until much later, and the Digby-Wyatt shed won't see new platforms/tracks until much later?

 

[jimm]

Does the demolition of the signal box at TM depend on the resignalling work being completed? If yes, does that basically mean it won't be demolished until much later, and the Digby-Wyatt shed won't see new platforms/tracks until much later?

The current signal box can't be removed until the area is resignalled and control transferred to Didcot, so the Digby-Wyatt shed will be returned to use at a later date, presumably linked to the wider station improvements

 

[edwin_m]

I can't see that the broader station redevelopment would affect electrification work.

The East Coast electrification showed how to string up 25kv wires inside a listed train shed with minimal impact, notably in the cases of York and Newcastle, so it doesn't looks though there would be an insuperable problem with going ahead with this aspect of work in the main train shed at Temple Meads, irrespective of the proposals to improve other parts of the station and the eventual reactivation of the Digby-Wyatt train shed once the power signal box is closed and demolished.

If it is a problem, then presumably you would focus at first on wiring the eastern platforms outside the train shed, that are the usual haunt of the GWR expresses anyway.

The key issue for electrification at Temple Meads is surely going to be getting the resignalling and associated track layout alterations around the station, plus re-quadrupling up to Filton, designed and implemented in good time so that the wiring teams can get to work.

I agree. There are methods to do the wiring inside the train shed and the tracks there are unlikely to move much anyway. Is anyone progressing the heritage approvals within the shed in parallel with designing the track layout outside it, where things are much less predictable?

 

[HowardGWR]

The current signal box can't be removed until the area is resignalled and control transferred to Didcot, so the Digby-Wyatt shed will be returned to use at a later date, presumably linked to the wider station improvements

Just by the way, 'Digby Wyatt' (no hyphen) does not uniquely identify the terminus shed. Sir Matthew Digby Wyatt designed all of TM that was added on to the original Brunel shed to create the joint station for the GWR and MR.

Yes, it would be the signal box removal that would be on the critical path, but not the first item AIUI, because that would be the revision to the approach tracks, with any necessary resignalling coupled to that. Ideally one would want to have the 'Old Station' revamped to coincide with the introduction of the 800s via Badminton (if I was the GWR PR man).

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I agree. There are methods to do the wiring inside the train shed and the tracks there are unlikely to move much anyway. Is anyone progressing the heritage approvals within the shed in parallel with designing the track layout outside it, where things are much less predictable?

The heritage approvals have been included for much of the last three years, in that the various environmental impact studies by Atkins.

The type of electrification isn't discussed but is assumed to be headspan type in the trainshed and a mixture of portals and cantilever (single/twin) for the platforms, very much like Paddington and every other Grade I listed station in the country.

What we would hope to do, is try and achieve some level of symmetry and balance with the portal and mast placements. Edinburgh Waverley has become an eyesore, frankly, with a mix of different electrification elements (and it needs to be rewired and rationalised at some point). There's a definite interest in not doing that now or in the future with Bristol, and whilst the visual impact will be, unfortunately, severe, if the entire station can be wired at the same time and using the exact same equipment, it will have at least balance and uniformity.

I will say, I find the heritage stuff comical - Bristol TM is important because Brunel was responsible for a lot of it - but knowing something of the man he was, he would be berating the DfT today for having taken about 50 years too long to electrify the route. There's no doubt he would be doing it with something not unlike the Series 1 OLE, though I'd guess he would be using 15kV, 16.7Hz and causing us all a huge headache to change it later.

 

[jimm]

Just by the way, 'Digby Wyatt' (no hyphen) does not uniquely identify the terminus shed. Sir Matthew Digby Wyatt designed all of TM that was added on to the original Brunel shed to create the joint station for the GWR and MR.

Yes, it would be the signal box removal that would be on the critical path, but not the first item AIUI, because that would be the revision to the approach tracks, with any necessary resignalling coupled to that. Ideally one would want to have the 'Old Station' revamped to coincide with the introduction of the 800s via Badminton (if I was the GWR PR man).

Well Digby Wyatt shed is how Network Rail refers to it - presumably to distinguish it from the Brunel shed - so I just followed their lead.

Putting the necessary pointwork in place, even if it is all secured out of use for the time being until track can be relaid into the train shed, is, if they follow the Hendy doctrine of packaging up as much work at one go as possible, bound to be carried out as part of the resignalling and associated track alterations, to avoid the need for another blockade at a later date.

Whether work on the station facilities and entrances can be aligned with the start of IEP services is another matter and, in the big scheme of things, rather less important than getting the track, signals and overhead wiring sorted out.

 

[Chris125]

Well Digby Wyatt shed is how Network Rail refers to it - presumably to distinguish it from the Brunel shed - so I just followed their lead.

I think they may have changed to calling it the 'Midland Shed', that's how it is referred to in the June Enhancements Delivery Plan (pdf)



Incidentally there's a Rail Engineer article about Bristol today:

The focus moves to Bristol

As regular readers will be aware, the Great Western railway is slowly but surely shedding its rather tired mid-twentieth-century image. It is beginning to show that it has the potential to match any main line railway route in Europe, although there is still plenty of work to be done.

The Edwardian barrel roof over the northern platforms at Paddington station has been restored by Network Rail, with Morgan Sindall as its main contractor. A joint venture with Colas Rail and Morgan Sindall, valued at £20 million, is currently underway to refurbish the three earlier, Victorian roof spans which should be complete by the end of 2016.

 

[edwin_m]

There's no doubt he would be doing it with something not unlike the Series 1 OLE, though I'd guess he would be using 15kV, 16.7Hz and causing us all a huge headache to change it later.

I think he'd be using vacuum pipes, increased in diameter to 4 feet and slung overhead so the rats can't get to the seals. Very steampunk but it would really spoil the view!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I think he'd be using vacuum pipes, increased in diameter to 4 feet and slung overhead so the rats can't get to the seals. Very steampunk but it would really spoil the view!

And I believe Goring Gap has special engineering issues which require an 8 foot diameter pipe with increased clearances above the trains.

 

[HowardGWR]

Oh, if we are giving the matter free Brunellian thought, if you look at Google Earth/Maps, or if you have visited Bristol TM you will note that you turn a right angle to enter the station and then another one the other way, to exit it towards Bedminster and much squealing of wheels has been heard over the century and a half and will continue to be heard.

The line that joined the southern bit at Pylle Hill to the northern bit at East depot would have become the main line, and the whole B and E works site made the main station.

Actually of course, none of that would have happened because a new line would have been driven through Old Market to the Centre and then out to Parson St,as was proposed in 1900 by exasperated Bristol businessmen. In the end, the City is in the course of being moved to Bristol TM instead; a pragmatic solution.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

When Bristol TM gets wired, will they remove the overhead bridge that was used for loading the TPO trains?