Great Western Electrification Progress

[Mikey C]

where "branch lines" includes both routes to Bristol! Curious use of the term.

Yes, I would have thought the line to Bath and Temple Meads was of equal or more importance than the line to Cardiff!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Here's a nugget from the NAO audit report (p24): https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Modernising-the-Great-Western-railway.pdf

Network Rail did not initially understand whether the Department wanted trains to run at a maximum speed of
125 or 140 miles per hour. This has implications for the strength of the steelwork supporting the electric wires.
In January 2014 the Department instructed Network Rail that the maximum speed should be 125 miles per
hour. By this point, design work was well underway and Network Rail expected to complete it in March 2014.
In September 2014, the main design contractor was still working to a specification of 140 miles per hour.

I take this to mean that 140mph running is now dead.
That makes a very big difference to the OHLE specification, but probably too late to change now.

Overall, the report provides more detail than we have seen before about how NR is managing the project.
It largely supports the analysis given by Roger Ford in the summer.
Surprisingly, it knows about the changes announced yesterday, so they must have been decided some weeks ago.

In the detail, it says that NR's piling/mast erection rates have to increase by a factor of about 3 to 195 bases a week over the next year.
It also says that installing bases by manual means might speed up the piling rate, but actually makes it harder for the factory train to achieve its planned rate (because of the erratic gaps created in the route).

NAO Report p41:
Electrifying the line from Maidenhead to Cardiff by December 2018 relies on the assumption that Network Rail can significantly increase mast installation and piling rates, compared with the rates it has achieved so far. Network Rail’s current target is to increase the number of piles installed each week from 62 in August 2016 to 195 piles by November 2016. The rate of mast installation is expected to increase from 55 per week to 191 per week over the same period. However, Network Rail is currently developing a new plan which it expects will mean it will install around 150 piles per week between November 2016 and March 2017, without delaying the completion of electrification any further.
In early September 2016 Network Rail had completed 6,804 foundations, 44% of the total required. It had installed 3,438 masts (23% of the total) and 1,352 booms (15%).

Bristol resignalling is still a major risk to the project.
Credit is given to GWR for coming up with an innovative rolling stock plan to meet the NR slippages.

What baffles me is what Network Rail did between 2009 and 2012 to plan the project before work started on the ground.
Almost all the subsequent problems seem to derive from inadequate asset knowledge and project design and specification.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Having sets fore and aft the platform has been looked at but there are locations where it isn't possible.

I'll believe you! To the layman £13m seems like a very expensive alternative to resiting a couple of signals at Moreton and other places. But such challenges are doubtless why the project is in the hole it's in...

 

[snowball]

Surprisingly, it knows about the changes announced yesterday, so they must have been decided some weeks ago.

At 1.7 it says the decision was made in October.

 

[doa46231]

The GW electrification is one of the most humiliating and emabarrassing events since Britains's railways were privatised, and thats saying something.
The head of any other organisation which had made such a monumental failure of a major project would have resigned or been sacked by now.

Yet nobody is taking responsibility.

At the very least the boss of NR should be considering his position, and the head of the DfT responsible for railways should already have gone a long time ago.
He has cost the British taxpayer tens of millions of pounds overseeing one disaster over another and yet he is still in post.

And to suggest as some have done on here, that it shows what a disaster renationalisation would be, I would say firstly when in the public sector, BR largely decided how to spend the much less money given to it, and secondly the "deeply innefficient" BR managed to electrify three main lines , plus major third rail extensions, plus suburban electrifications round London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow.

Yet after 20 years of a privatised railway, the one big project attempted is descending into farce.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yet after 20 years of a privatised railway, the one big project attempted is descending into farce.

Network Rail, throughout all this, has been essentially in the public sector, though with the ability to borrow on the stock market until last year.
They are funded by the DfT. In no way are they "privatised" like Railtrack was.

DfT keeps reorganising itself, and the head of rail keeps changing (though no-one has resigned).
While they are directly responsible for railway franchises and the passenger railway, they did not directly control NR outside the 5-year HLOS activity until last year.
DfT would probably say that ORR controls the way NR works and spends its money. They are practically invisible, but are certainly in the public sector.

So privatisation per se has nothing to do with the GW project failure.
The structure of the rail industry, however, has a lot to do with it.

You could point to some very major projects that worked - Crossrail for instance (run mainly by TfL), Reading and Birmingham New St, and plenty of medium-sized projects too.
But GW electrification certainly matches WCRM for mismanagement.

 

[coppercapped]

The GW electrification is one of the most humiliating and emabarrassing events since Britains's railways were privatised, and thats saying something.
The head of any other organisation which had made such a monumental failure of a major project would have resigned or been sacked by now.

Yet nobody is taking responsibility.

At the very least the boss of NR should be considering his position, and the head of the DfT responsible for railways should already have gone a long time ago.
He has cost the British taxpayer tens of millions of pounds overseeing one disaster over another and yet he is still in post.

And to suggest as some have done on here, that it shows what a disaster renationalisation would be, I would say firstly when in the public sector, BR largely decided how to spend the much less money given to it, and secondly the "deeply innefficient" BR managed to electrify three main lines , plus major third rail extensions, plus suburban electrifications round London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow.

Yet after 20 years of a privatised railway, the one big project attempted is descending into farce.

Short memory. Look up the PUG1 and PUG2 upgrades of the West Coast Main Line.

Because the West Coast project was treated as a single entity - which went badly wrong and was considerably reduced in scope - the DfT decided it didn't want to face that again and each component of the GW upgrade was treated separately. That is there was no overall control of the combination of the Crossrail project (because that was set up by Act of Parliament), the IEP procurement, the Reading rebuild, the electrification west of Maidenhead and the resignalling with ERTMS.

Some bits, like the Reading rebuild, were successfully completed on time and on budget. The IEPs will be available at the right time - but are much more expensive than would be the case for a more conventional procurement and Crossrail will be finished on time. But the rest got lost for all the reasons in the NAO's report. And in LNW-GW Joint's post above.

 

[aylesbury]

Why not put third rail in place on Reading Basingstoke with a link line through Reading station to enable diversions to the Waterloo lines .But this is a model that will provide an alternative diversionary route so it wont get done.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Yes, I would have thought the line to Bath and Temple Meads was of equal or more importance than the line to Cardiff!

Commercially, almost certainly. Politically, definitely not.

This isn't helping belief in a "nationalised" railway being able to solve things very easily (beyond the mentality of some enthusiasts who think that it'd mean The Government handing over bucketloads of cash every five years to some Proper Railwaymen and not interfering - which certainly wouldn't be the way that any politicians would treat a 21st century railway)

This should be a sticky!

 

[jyte]

Thinking of the future, does anyone think NR will go back to its mid 00s policy of "electrification is just another interface to go wrong"?

Seems like that might be where this whole thing is leading to, which is a shame.

 

[Hellzapoppin]

It should be noted that not all elements of the electrification on the MLN into Bristol has been deferred, there are still major works carrying on; Bath Spa station, structures work, track lowering etc. My opinion is that the section into Bristol is one of the most costly and technically difficult parts of the electrification project which made it the best or worst areas to put on hold.

 

[D1009]

I take it the four tracking of Filton bank is still going ahead in CP5?

 

[HowardGWR]

Yes, I would have thought the line to Bath and Temple Meads was of equal or more importance than the line to Cardiff!

I don't know who dreamt up this 'branch line' concept but the local press in Bristol swallowed it whole.

The facts are of course that all the new IEP Bristol services will start from Bristol (or further south such as Weston) and either go via the Badminton route every half hour, or via Bath. A huge increase both in frequency and speed.

Where they will fire up the diesels or raise the pantograph is neither here nor there, as far as the pax are concerned.

I believe that some Bristol local politicos are fearful of any perceived slight where the competition between Bristol Council and South Glos Council (where Parkway is situated) is concerned.

 

[Hellzapoppin]

I take it the four tracking of Filton bank is still going ahead in CP5?

Yes it is and work starts next week on the Horfield Cutting earthworks.

 

[HowardGWR]

I take it the four tracking of Filton bank is still going ahead in CP5?

You take it wrongly I believe (see announcement earlier in the thread).

Edit see previous post - I got it wrong it seems.

 

[HSTEd]

And so we see the start of the collapse of the electrification programme.

With bi-modes there is simply no economic reason to electrify these routes any more. Exactly as I suggested and was pilloried on this forum for suggesting.

 

[HowardGWR]

Yes it is and work starts next week on the Horfield Cutting earthworks.

Thanks for putting me right. This will include the viaduct over the M32 as well?

Great stuff if so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And so we see the start of the collapse of the electrification programme.

With bi-modes there is simply no economic reason to electrify these routes any more. Exactly as I suggested and was pilloried on this forum for suggesting.

I don't see that this follows at all, and I understand that the GW is to be completed in period 6. Let's see what emerges from the 2019 -2024 process.

 

[Hophead]

And so we see the start of the collapse of the electrification programme.

With bi-modes there is simply no economic reason to electrify these routes any more. Exactly as I suggested and was pilloried on this forum for suggesting.

Hopefully, we'll see big changes to the way the railway is funded for major projects. The 5-year Control Period structure may have usefully delivered many upgrades along the way but it is clear that where major projects are involved and when they go over budget or run late, investment plans run into a dead-end of decision making.

The reason why components of this scheme are delayed "indefinitely" is that no one knows how much will be available to spend beyond 2019, nor what it should be spent on. Those decisions don't start getting considered till next year. We may expect this electrification scheme to be completed (in some form) in CP6 but there's simply no guarantee.

One of the recent reports this year (the Shaw report, from memory) recommended that major investment schemes get their own budget and the case must surely now be made, or the MML & Trans-Pennine upgrades are likely to face the same disarray in 6 years time.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

And so we see the start of the collapse of the electrification programme.
With bi-modes there is simply no economic reason to electrify these routes any more. Exactly as I suggested and was pilloried on this forum for suggesting.

A very pertinent line of thought in the NAO report is that the BCR of the GW scheme is deteriorating at each slippage.
Early last year the DfT made it 2.4 (ie still high value), and the NAO thinks it is now 1.6 (medium) and still falling (because new costs/slips have not been taken into account).
While I am sure the GW project will eventually be completed, it does mean that the assessments for other routes, whose business case was more marginal in any case, will be worse than when the 2012 HLOS was published, unless NR can pull the costs down.

 

[jyte]

The 5-year Control Period structure may have usefully delivered many upgrades along the way but it is clear that where major projects are involved and when they go over budget or run late, investment plans run into a dead-end of decision making.

I've always felt big scale investment projects shouldn't be funded separately from CPs, but I admit that would make things far too complicated.

 

[RobShipway]

Thanks for putting me right. This will include the viaduct over the M32 as well?

Great stuff if so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I don't see that this follows at all, and I understand that the GW is to be completed in period 6. Let's see what emerges from the 2019 -2024 process.

I have to agree with you HowardGWR, as part of the issue is even though the class 800 are bi - modes they can only do 100mph in the non OHLE areas and if those areas such as the route path from Didcot to Oxford have sections where 125mph is capable then the class 800's will only be doing 100mph. This means , if the route to Oxford doing the fast trains even need to be re - timed to be slower in reaching Oxford or Class 180's/HST's will need to be kept on for a longer period until the electrification is completed to Oxford.

Note, that it will be the class 802 trains that will have 125mph capable diesel engines and they will not be introduced until December 2018 at the earliest.

As I suspect that class 800 trains will be used on the Oxford/Cotswold routes from July next year I am going to presume that they will take over any services run by the class 166's on this route, so that they can go westwards and replace the class 180's. This may leave some 5 car HST sets running on these routes until the class 802 fleet arrives.

The above is just my thoughts and theories though, so could be wrong.

 

[Dave1987]

And so we see the start of the collapse of the electrification programme.

With bi-modes there is simply no economic reason to electrify these routes any more. Exactly as I suggested and was pilloried on this forum for suggesting.

Indeed! I said that bi-modes give the perfect excuse to postpone electrification. The government still gets its PR coup from introducing shiny new trains but can push electrification back and back and back as much as they want. I remember when there were loads on this forum that said that the introduction of bi-modes would not result in electrification being delayed yet here were are with precisely that happening. I genuinely think we can kiss goodbye to any real push to electrify more routes unless it's really really cheap to do so. Else they will just introduce more and more bi-modes and be done with it and not bother electrifying.

 

[deltic08]

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.

Alright then a three car Parry peoplemover

 

[RobShipway]

Indeed! I said that bi-modes give the perfect excuse to postpone electrification. The government still gets its PR coup from introducing shiny new trains but can push electrification back and back and back as much as they want. I remember when there were loads on this forum that said that the introduction of bi-modes would not result in electrification being delayed yet here were are with precisely that happening. I genuinely think we can kiss goodbye to any real push to electrify more routes unless it's really really cheap to do so. Else they will just introduce more and more bi-modes and be done with it and not bother electrifying.

The bi-mode trains do not give the perfect excuse as per my post above and the issue is actually with Network rail saying that the works to be done to electrify the GWML would be quicker, than it is actually taking and not with the Government for once.

Alright then a three car Parry peoplemover

Better off with a 3 car class 230, rather than a Parry People Mover surely?

 

[D1009]

I have to agree with you HowardGWR, as part of the issue is even though the class 800 are bi - modes they can only do 100mph in the non OHLE areas and if those areas such as the route path from Didcot to Oxford have sections where 125mph is capable then the class 800's will only be doing 100mph. This means , if the route to Oxford doing the fast trains even need to be re - timed to be slower in reaching Oxford or Class 180's/HST's will need to be kept on for a longer period until the electrification is completed to Oxford.

Note, that it will be the class 802 trains that will have 125mph capable diesel engines and they will not be introduced until December 2018 at the earliest.

As I suspect that class 800 trains will be used on the Oxford/Cotswold routes from July next year I am going to presume that they will take over any services run by the class 166's on this route, so that they can go westwards and replace the class 180's. This may leave some 5 car HST sets running on these routes until the class 802 fleet arrives.

The above is just my thoughts and theories though, so could be wrong.

Aren't the diesel engines in the class 800 and 802 actually the same, it's just the software that is configured differently to reduce maintenance costs?

 

[RobShipway]

Aren't the diesel engines in the class 800 and 802 actually the same, it's just the software that is configured differently to reduce maintenance costs?

They are the same type of engine, but with different power ratios for the class 802's to allow for 125mph and with a larger fuel tank for the class 802's.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Alright then a three car Parry peoplemover

Remains a turbo. No other traction needed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I suspect that class 800 trains will be used on the Oxford/Cotswold routes from July next year I am going to presume that they will take over any services run by the class 166's on this route, so that they can go westwards and replace the class 180's. This may leave some 5 car HST sets running on these routes until the class 802 fleet arrives.

The above is just my thoughts and theories though, so could be wrong.

The 800 units in 5 car form will replace the 180 units. In 10 car form they will go onto the Bristol/South Wales routes with the inevitable slow down in journey times.

The short HST units are for the West, not the Oxfords.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They are the same type of engine, but with different power ratios for the class 802's to allow for 125mph and with a larger fuel tank for the class 802's.

Same vehicles basically with the 802 software unmuzzling the engines at all times rather than on the 800 units which are muzzled but an engine dropping out results in the rest being unmuzzled automatically.

The fuel tanks on all the units are now expected to be of the higher size.

 

[Dave1987]

The bi-mode trains do not give the perfect excuse as per my post above and the issue is actually with Network rail saying that the works to be done to electrify the GWML would be quicker, than it is actually taking and not with the Government for once.

It's the government who has deferred the electrification and not given any date for completion. Politicians only make announcements like this if there is little PR consequences. If electrification had been crucial to be completed to get the PR for new trains being introduced there is no way they would have delayed/cancelled/deferred any of it. With bi-modes they can delay and cancel projects as much as they want.

 

[deltic08]

The bi-mode trains do not give the perfect excuse as per my post above and the issue is actually with Network rail saying that the works to be done to electrify the GWML would be quicker, than it is actually taking and not with the Government for once.



Better off with a 3 car class 230, rather than a Parry People Mover surely?

or a 144 with compliant toilet.

 

[jimm]

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 ---


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.

What conversation? You never engage in 'conversation' with me or anyone else who dares to raise similar issues with you - whether some time ago or in the past couple of days.

You just repeat the same lines over and over again - perhaps in the hope that if they are repeated often enough, people may start to think they are true, like the five or six claims in the past couple of days that bi-modes are the reason for this latest delay - as opposed to the actual issue, which is Network Rail's continued inability to get a handle on this project and get the wires up in a timely and cost-effective manner.


Re discussion back up the thread about Cotswold Line platform extensions, the project is, so far as I understand it, purely aimed at speeding up loading and unloading of trains by allowing use of as many doors as possible. The £13m may look a lot, but the idea is to extend platforms at all the busiest stations along the line, not just the obvious places like Hanborough.

There has been no suggestion so far of any money being allocated towards moving the starting signals at or near platform ends at Moreton-in-Marsh and Evesham, which would be needed to allow 2x5-car operation on the route - and the recent order for extra nine-car 802s suggests that these sets will shoulder the burden in the peaks for a long time to come.

I do not think that this is as bad as it first looks.
Oxford

The station has not been sorted out yet, the fasts & peak services will be bi-mode IEPs and they will have the Chiltern option.

A Didcot to Oxford shuttle is not an issue. The locals trundle down from Oxford down to Didcot, some stop at Radley, which only appears to be used at Peak times, then there is a rare stop at the hamlets of Culham or Appleford before arriving at Didcot where nearly everyone gets off whilst it sits there for 10 minutes or so. At peak times HSTs operate stopping services to Reading then fast and these will become IEPs anyway.

So let’s wait and see what the best Oxford option is, that maybe include provisions for plans for Cowley, Abingdon & Witney as in the Oxford County plans.

As I said yesterday, the revised track layout that is planned for the Oxford area resignalling project and is then supposed to be electrified is designed to allow a future station to be built with the minimum of extra work on track and signals. The future station concept is a red herring and in no way an obstacle to wiring to Oxford.

Next time you are at Culham, take a look at the east side of the line - where you will see the Culham Science Centre - a place where a lot of people work and which means the station attracts inbound commuter traffic, as well as people travelling out of the village.

The odds of IEPs being used on semi-fasts in the peaks are slim to non-existent - the current HST duties are to deal with traffic from Didcot and at the likes of Maidenhead and Twyford. Welcome to the world of 12-car 387 formations...

Cowley may eventually happen if enough funds can be squeezed out of developers. Abingdon and Witney are fantasies unless something changes radically - and the county council is planning to spend lots of money on bus-based schemes on the Witney corridor.

I have to agree with you HowardGWR, as part of the issue is even though the class 800 are bi - modes they can only do 100mph in the non OHLE areas and if those areas such as the route path from Didcot to Oxford have sections where 125mph is capable then the class 800's will only be doing 100mph. This means , if the route to Oxford doing the fast trains even need to be re - timed to be slower in reaching Oxford or Class 180's/HST's will need to be kept on for a longer period until the electrification is completed to Oxford.

Note, that it will be the class 802 trains that will have 125mph capable diesel engines and they will not be introduced until December 2018 at the earliest.

As I suspect that class 800 trains will be used on the Oxford/Cotswold routes from July next year I am going to presume that they will take over any services run by the class 166's on this route, so that they can go westwards and replace the class 180's. This may leave some 5 car HST sets running on these routes until the class 802 fleet arrives.

The above is just my thoughts and theories though, so could be wrong.

The urban myth about what speed Class 800s can do on diesel rears its head again. The pre-series Class 800 sets been tested at 125mph on diesel power.

There is no 125mph running north of Didcot.

The first Class 802s are due to enter service in the summer of 2018, with almost all of the fleet available from December that year. Some of the additional order placed this summer will be arriving in early 2019.

Class 800s will indeed be used on the Cotswold Line in five-car formation - they always were going to be. Nine-Car 802s will be seen on Cotswold peak services.