Great Western Electrification Progress

[HowardGWR]

I wouldn't have bothered wasting vast amounts of money on massively expensive trains. Rather got the electrification done and then ordered off the shelf electric trains which are incredibly cheap at the moment. The pure fact that these are bi-modes has given an ideal excuse to cancel/delay/defer the rest of the project while still keep the political PR of introducing shiny new trains. I could see this happening months and months ago, I posted a few times that I could see these bi-modes providing a great excuse for them to delay electrification. I was lambasted by the usual suspects saying that it wouldn't delay electrification at all, yet here we are with MP's and NR deferring it! They will not even commit to a date as to when it will be completed, with some saying that it may never be completed at all. Like I said before when the politicians get nervous about the costs with bi-modes they have a fantastic excuse to just push the whole issue of getting electrification done way into the future. And to think I was told repeatedly by people on this forum that electrification would not be delayed, just shows how much people on here really know!

You are Mick Cash and I hereby claim my £5.

Amazing how one can claim something about old posts that nobody is going to follow up and thus becomes a possible non-sequitur, simply because we can't be bothered (very sensibly).

 

[Who Cares]

up organise Engineers not a **** NR in a could Brewery

Rearrange the above for the reason for today's news.

So it's now how many billion over budget and how many years to completion ?

Maybe it's the age old marketing wheeze of putting up the price AND putting fewer M&Ms in the bag....And then blaming it on BREXIT or some other unrelated event.

Every NR employee ( whether manager or serf ) who was involved in the design, planning and implementing of this project ( and let's not forget that they're paid by UK Taxpayers !! ) should be publically executed on the Town Hall steps.....Well, metaphorically, anyway....

Let's hope that they are named and shamed, and like many other fat cats recently, are stripped not only of their OBEs, MBEs, Knighthoods, etc, but also their ( taxpayer funded ) pensions.

 

[steverailer]

up organise Engineers not a **** NR in a could Bewery

Rearrange the above for the reason for today's news.

So it's now how many billion over budget and how many years to completion ?

Maybe it's the age old marketing wheeze of putting up the price AND putting fewer M&Ms in the bag....And then blaming it on BREXIT or some other unrelated event.

Every NR employee ( whether manager or serf ) who was involved in the design, planning and implementing of this project ( and let's not forget that they're paid by UK Taxpayers !! ) should be publically executed on the Town Hall steps.....Well, metaphorically, anyway....

Let's hope that they are named and shamed, and like many other fat cats recently, are stripped not only of their OBEs, MBEs, Knighthoods, etc, but also their ( taxpayer funded ) pensions.

Unfortunatly the people you are hating are only following what comes down from above plain and simple. The ones higher up are never touched.

Surely a redesign for some of these branch lines would save quite a bit, no need to use the full series 1 materials when the 140mph will never be allowed on there, the smaller series 2 as planned for MML would be good enough.

Also from a actual production point of view, the planned mass work at once was never going to be achievable given the limit of expertiese and the availability of plant (mainly in the wiring department) Conventional works is still out performing the HOPS day in and day out (I believe the HOPS steel train still isn't capable of installing the main anchor booms !!!!!)

So some of this could be because they aren't geared up to reach the milestones set out before.

 

[matacaster]

A trial of the high output electrification train over several weeks in gwml-like ground was of course conducted to validate the manufacturers claims?

Equally, presumably NR will have penalties in the contract with the electrification train manufacturers?

Or didn't they check out the ground conditions on the route before buying?

 

[Who Cares]

STEVE....

I think you're rather making my point for me....

 

[Dave1987]

Back to the same old script, I see.

Where we are now is a result of a failure to "get electrification done", or have you missed that rather stark staring obvious point?

Whereas Hitachi has got the development and manufacture of IEPs in hand, on schedule, and is now going to deliver more of the trains as bi-modes because of that failure to "get electrification done".

It is not the trains that are causing the change of plans, they are baling out Network Rail and the DfT for failure to deliver the wires.

I previously understood your theory to be that bi-modes would mean no more electrification full stop, not that they would delay what was already planned.

Electric trains may allegedly be "incredibly cheap at the moment" - but probably less so with every drop in the value of the pound - and the IEP order was placed four years ago, not now.

GWR passengers will benefit from new stock - though I think what you really mean is 'incredibly cheap to finance over their lifetime thanks to ultra-low interest rates' new trains - in the shape of an all-new 387 fleet. Or did I just miss Bombardier's two for the price of one sale?

Should the DfT have delayed ordering new express stock on the off-chance that a propitious moment to place an order arrived somewhere along the way...? And that there was an off-the-shelf 125/140mph inter-city train available to be ordered in the first place - could you enlighten us as to which manufacturer is offering such a product to the UK market at the moment?

Bi-modes would have been needed anyway to serve all the places that weren't getting wires under the GWML scheme, though I seem to recall you have never actually answered how you proposed to continue to provide GW express services to those places whenever anyone has had the temerity to raise this also stark staring obvious point, so I know we are guaranteed another deafening silence this time round.

I've read your posts and replies to many other people on lots of threads on this forum. The tone in which you reply to anyone who disagrees with you on any subject makes me not even want to engage in any kind of conversation with you, which is why I tend to just ignore your replies as I know they will be the same snidy comments as usual. When I said many months ago that bi-modes gave the politicians excuses to delay electrification you amongst others told me that this was rubbish and that electrification would completed as planned. You were wrong. The Class 800 may well turn out to be a very good train, but it's a bloody expensive one. If electrification had been planned better then there probably would have been no need for bi-modes at all, and far far cheaper EMU's could have been ordered. Right now we are stuck with very very expensive trains and an electrification program in disarray. I firmly believe the bi-modes gave them an excuse enable this delay without any worry of losing face with the voting public, so the bi-modes have resulted in them being able announce this delay with little consequence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You are Mick Cash and I hereby claim my £5.

Amazing how one can claim something about old posts that nobody is going to follow up and thus becomes a possible non-sequitur, simply because we can't be bothered (very sensibly).

When I suggested that bi-modes would give a great excuse for delaying electrification schemes while still give the DFT its PR for introducing brand new trains I was told that I was wrong and electrification would plough along. Turns out they have delayed it.

 

[steverailer]

STEVE....

I think you're rather making my point for me....

Think its the ones who signed off on it all who want the shooting, that goes as far as the designers. Pretty much everyone down from there (serf's as you put it) are just doing as they are told, they have no input what so ever in what goes where.

On the ground, the lads putting the stuff up, can't believe the over engineering of some of it. But we have no actual input and have to just try and make it work and come up with the solutions to get around the problems as the higher level bat it back as that's how it has to be.

So I find your comment that we all should be

publically executed on the Town Hall steps.....Well, metaphorically, anyway....

very insulting and offending.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

If Great Western is delayed further, would that also delay other projects like Transpennine and Midland electrification?
I ask as they were 'paused' to allow Great Western to get underway first.

 

[brad465]

If Great Western is delayed further, would that also delay other projects like Transpennine and Midland electrification?
I ask as they were 'paused' to allow Great Western to get underway first.

Logically I would have thought so, I was thinking the same thing on the lines of if those projects were paused in order to get the GWML "right", but clearly they haven't.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If Great Western is delayed further, would that also delay other projects like Transpennine and Midland electrification?
I ask as they were 'paused' to allow Great Western to get underway first.

Logic says yes -but I am guessing. IMHO the Electrification RUS document that was promised, while not irrelevant, does not matter if delayed further. To me what matters now is the HLOS in March 2017 for what is planned 2019-2024. If they add new projects to that, then we have an idea of what may happen. If there is no new money and NR is told to complete what is already in the pipeline in that period then that really would be gloomy news. Meanwhile Scotland has a nice steady rolling program.

 

[steverailer]

A trial of the high output electrification train over several weeks in gwml-like ground was of course conducted to validate the manufacturers claims?

Equally, presumably NR will have penalties in the contract with the electrification train manufacturers?

Or didn't they check out the ground conditions on the route before buying?

Not sure on the piling side, but the SPS and wiring parts of the system work very well. SPS because of the amount of materials they can carry and the wiring can complete a 1200m wire run in a midweek night shift (Conventional can do this as well though)

Steel wise, it does well on the 2 track sections as it can work with single line working, but for output conventional beats it each and every shift.

 

[Domh245]

Surely a redesign for some of these branch lines would save quite a bit, no need to use the full series 1 materials when the 140mph will never be allowed on there, the smaller series 2 as planned for MML would be good enough.

I remember Philip Phlopp saying that NR were moving towards a single type of OLE, and whilst I can't remember exact details, I seem to recall suggestions that it was going to be mostly series 1 based.

Also, I thought that the MML was going to get series 1, what with it being 100mph+ as series 2 is for only up to 100mph.

If Great Western is delayed further, would that also delay other projects like Transpennine and Midland electrification?
I ask as they were 'paused' to allow Great Western to get underway first.

Just yesterday evening a debate was had in Parliament about MML electrification. And whilst the rail minister didn't explicitly say that it was delayed, he didn't say that it'd be finished on time either...

 

[leomartin125]

Did I read about a year ago that the DfT had asked Hitachi to deliver all the IEPs for GWR as bi-modes?

If so, I don't see how postponing electrification from Didcot to Oxford affects the DMU cascade, because the Oxford service would still be provided by IEPs - just bi-modes instead of pure electric ones.

The bigger problem would be whether the IEP bi-modes can keep to schedule on the unelectrified sections elsewhere. But if the unelectrified bits are a few miles between a point west of Bath and Bristol, and a few miles south of Bristol Parkway, they are more likely to be able to manage on their diesel engines.

What you don't think about is how, without the cables for 387 operation up to Oxford, what will operate the stopper services to PAD if there are no cables? IEP's will replace the 180 runs and the Hereford HST's, but a lot of the Oxford services need the current TV DMU's, as there are no 387's and can't be any 387's to replace them.

 

[221129]

What you don't think about is how, without the cables for 387 operation up to Oxford, what will operate the stopper services to PAD if there are no cables? IEP's will replace the 180 runs and the Hereford HST's, but a lot of the Oxford services need the current TV DMU's, as there are no 387's and can't be any 387's to replace them.

It's looking like 387s to Didcot and then a Turbo shuttle to Oxford is most likely.

 

[J-2739]

It's looking like 387s to Didcot and then a Turbo shuttle to Oxford is most likely.

That's just broken.

 

[Domh245]

It's looking like 387s to Didcot and then a Turbo shuttle to Oxford is most likely.

By my very rough calculations, it is approximately 22 miles to go Didcot > Oxford > Didcot. Bombardier say that they want to get their Battery kit to deliver up to 50km (31miles) of range off the wires. Just saying...

 

[Mikey C]

So Newbury will get electric trains but not Oxford.

How do they compare in terms of volume of trains and passengers?

 

[superkev]

By my very rough calculations, it is approximately 22 miles to go Didcot > Oxford > Didcot. Bombardier say that they want to get their Battery kit to deliver up to 50km (31miles) of range off the wires. Just saying...

Batteries cost around £100 a kw/hr which for a typical £1000 kw emu is £100000 for an hours running and they last less than 8 years.
Those overhead wires still look cheap to me.
K

 

[brad465]

So Newbury will get electric trains but not Oxford.

How do they compare in terms of volume of trains and passengers?

Oxford would be more passengers, though they may have factored in the longer services to Devon and Cornwall as maybe needing more electric support. Oxford should have just been done as well however I and many argue, despite the cutting acts today.

 

[RobShipway]

By my very rough calculations, it is approximately 22 miles to go Didcot > Oxford > Didcot. Bombardier say that they want to get their Battery kit to deliver up to 50km (31miles) of range off the wires. Just saying...

This is something that I have questioned before, as to whether the battery packs that have been fitted to be tested on a class 379 and was told there was no reason why it could not be fitted.

The point you make above, is part of the reasoning that I asked the question and the other part is to have the battery be used on the sections of the Reading - Redhill/Gatwick route where there is no 3rd rail or AC power, so that there is no need class 166's on that route. However, it seems that on that route class 166's will remain, so I would suspect that at least 10 of the 21 class 166's would be remaining at Reading to not only do the Redhill/Gatwick services, Windsor, Marlow and Henley services but also to do the Didcot - Oxford shuttle.

The only other possible answer I can see, is if the class 185 units once they have started to be replaced in just over a year's time by loco hauled coaches, is that they move south possibly?

 

[Mikey C]

Batteries cost around £100 a kw/hr which for a typical £1000 kw emu is £100000 for an hours running and they last less than 8 years.
Those overhead wires still look cheap to me.
K

8 years would surely be long enough to wire the route! Can the battery kit be retrofitted?

 

[tbtc]

I wouldn't have bothered wasting vast amounts of money on massively expensive trains. Rather got the electrification done and then ordered off the shelf electric trains which are incredibly cheap at the moment. The pure fact that these are bi-modes has given an ideal excuse to cancel/delay/defer the rest of the project while still keep the political PR of introducing shiny new trains

So instead of ordering "shiny new trains" (BOO TO SHINY NEW TRAINS!!!!) your solution is... shiny new trains? Or would they be dull gunmetal ones that you'd want instead?

Would your alternative trains have to wait until electrification until they reached Swansea/ Hereford/ Weston etc - keeping dozens of HSTs in operation until... 2025? 2030? Or cut all through services to London?

Which "off the shelf" 125mph trains would you have wanted? Tilt profiled (i.e. narrow) 390s? Or, erm... all those other off the shelf 125mph options?

And how would your 100% electric fleet cope with NR's delays? They'd be sat around for an unknown number of years whilst we wait for the wires to go up?

Like I said before when the politicians get nervous about the costs with bi-modes they have a fantastic excuse to just push the whole issue of getting electrification done way into the future. And to think I was told repeatedly by people on this forum that electrification would not be delayed, just shows how much people on here really know!

TPE electrification was "paused" because of NR's overspends/ problems

MML electrification was "paused" because of NR's overspends/ problems

The Electric Spine and various other schemes have been dumped/ postponed/ descoped because of NR's overspends/ problems

GWML electrification is now being "paused" because of NR's overspends/ problems

Were TPE and MML delays due to bi-modes too? Or is today's GWML announcement just another descoping as Network Rail struggle to deliver what they promised a few years ago?

If bi-modes were such a great excuse to cancel bits of GWML electrification then wouldn't it have been easier to can it *before* announcing TPE/ MML?

Today is just another bit of bad news as NR struggles to fit it's commitments into something that it's finite budget will pay for - I'm not surprised that you've found another reason to bring up bi-modes but they weren't the reason for all of the other projects getting dumped (whilst GWML electrification was kept as a priority).

 

[Mikey C]

Oxford would be more passengers, though they may have factored in the longer services to Devon and Cornwall as maybe needing more electric support. Oxford should have just been done as well however I and many argue, despite the cutting acts today.

Reading to Newbury would only make a small difference to the Devon and Cornwall services...

 

[HowardGWR]

That's just broken.

I don't know what that means but I am guessing it means 'not good enough'.

I wonder. If pax requiring a fast service to the main stations get an IEP, then, as Jimm pointed out, we are talking about intermediate station pax, thus more localised. Perhaps it is a cross for them to bear, if it enables resources to be used to press on with Oxford station development.

If.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The contract for the Class 802s is with a RoSCo at the behest of the current Greater Western franchisee with the agreement of the DfT. FirstGroup, trading as GWR, suggested the stock, but have little financial input in the procurement. They may not be operating the 802s much beyond introduction.

Not quite. FG Rail Division ran both the procurement process for the units and the competition for the finance. The resulting deal was put to the DfT as a done one and they accepted it. The DfT effectively underwrote the lease costs by awarding the DA franchise.

 

[Class 170101]

By my very rough calculations, it is approximately 22 miles to go Didcot > Oxford > Didcot. Bombardier say that they want to get their Battery kit to deliver up to 50km (31miles) of range off the wires. Just saying...

Batteries cost around £100 a kw/hr which for a typical £1000 kw emu is £100000 for an hours running and they last less than 8 years.
Those overhead wires still look cheap to me.
K

Sounds expensive but may be an ideal short term solution, however the safety margin between 22 miles and 31 miles isn't much.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Reading to Newbury would only make a small difference to the Devon and Cornwall services...

I think Reading to Newbury should have been canned in favour of Didcot to Oxford. I would have thought Oxford was more important than Newbury in electrification and passenger demand terms.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If Great Western is delayed further, would that also delay other projects like Transpennine and Midland electrification?
I ask as they were 'paused' to allow Great Western to get underway first.

Sadly ultimately I wouldn't have wired the GW at all. I would have wired MML first and then Transpennine linking the two up in Yorkshire. Also the North West Wiring would be higher up the list than Great Western.

Has anyone considered a Paisley Canal style wiring scheme for Thames Valley branches?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Windsor Branch only ever has one DMU each day doing the services on it and I believe it is the same with the Henlow branches as well, so at most you probably would only need 5 DMU units.

If not a Paisley Canal Style of electrification then how about either a D Stock DEMU or Parry People Mover for these routes.

 

[leomartin125]

Sounds expensive but may be an ideal short term solution, however the safety margin between 22 miles and 31 miles isn't much.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I think Reading to Newbury should have been canned in favour of Didcot to Oxford. I would have thought Oxford was more important than Newbury in electrification and passenger demand terms.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Sadly ultimately I wouldn't have wired the GW at all. I would have wired MML first and then Transpennine linking the two up in Yorkshire. Also the North West Wiring would be higher up the list than Great Western.

Has anyone considered a Paisley Canal style wiring scheme for Thames Valley branches?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If not a Paisley Canal Style of electrification then how about either a D Stock DEMU or Parry People Mover for these routes.

A parry people mover for Slough to Windsor???!! Are you actually insane? That line can get so busy that a two car turbo can be rammed at times, nevermind a bus on wheels! Whatever bright spark you thought you just had, you don't live there or have regularly used the line so please please... never suggest that again.

However your Paisley Canal line electrification idea is good, but what use is it if the DfT are in control of the cuts and desgin?

 

[daikilo]

TPE electrification was "paused" because of NR's overspends/ problems

As I recall, the TPE issue was stated to be that the track/signalling enhancements were not fully coordinated with electrification works. This may have been untrue, but I believe it was stated.

 

[125Forever]

Hope it's not considered as advertising, but the 'Honda Wanderer' website (owned by Martin Loader) has some recent photographs of the electrification taking place.

http://www.hondawanderer.com/43122_Circourt_2016.htm - recent photo taken at Denchworth showing the progress west of Didcot thus far.

 

[Dave1987]

So instead of ordering "shiny new trains" (BOO TO SHINY NEW TRAINS!!!!) your solution is... shiny new trains? Or would they be dull gunmetal ones that you'd want instead?

Would your alternative trains have to wait until electrification until they reached Swansea/ Hereford/ Weston etc - keeping dozens of HSTs in operation until... 2025? 2030? Or cut all through services to London?

Which "off the shelf" 125mph trains would you have wanted? Tilt profiled (i.e. narrow) 390s? Or, erm... all those other off the shelf 125mph options?

And how would your 100% electric fleet cope with NR's delays? They'd be sat around for an unknown number of years whilst we wait for the wires to go up?



TPE electrification was "paused" because of NR's overspends/ problems

MML electrification was "paused" because of NR's overspends/ problems

The Electric Spine and various other schemes have been dumped/ postponed/ descoped because of NR's overspends/ problems

GWML electrification is now being "paused" because of NR's overspends/ problems

Were TPE and MML delays due to bi-modes too? Or is today's GWML announcement just another descoping as Network Rail struggle to deliver what they promised a few years ago?

If bi-modes were such a great excuse to cancel bits of GWML electrification then wouldn't it have been easier to can it *before* announcing TPE/ MML?

Today is just another bit of bad news as NR struggles to fit it's commitments into something that it's finite budget will pay for - I'm not surprised that you've found another reason to bring up bi-modes but they weren't the reason for all of the other projects getting dumped (whilst GWML electrification was kept as a priority).

I believe that both Siemens and Bombardier are saying they could offer their newer designs for 125mph (I'm sure I read that in MR mag) both in Intercity configuration.

And again I said a while back that bi-modes gave a perfect excuse to delay electrification indefinitely which is exactly what we have right now. If they had ordered EMU's you can bet they would have got on top of it. Instead of getting on top of it they have converted more IEP's to bi-modes and now deferred a lot of it. But because of the fact they ordered bi-modes there is no PR consequence! With bi-modes they can defer/cancel/delay electrification at will. I was told by many on this forum months ago that electrification schemes would go ahead as planned, but look now seems they were wrong. They have not committed to any date by which the electrification will be completed because they know they don't need to. It's a complete and utter shambles.