Great Western Electrification Progress

[Shaw S Hunter]

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.

You are forgetting that a bi-mode operating on diesel power will have higher direct energy costs than when on electric power. At some point this cost difference will make the argument for electrification overwhelming. What we have now is combination of a number of factors: a relatively low world oil price, uncertainty about short to medium term electricity generating capacity, an apparent inability of Network Rail to control its costs and the usual bugbear of stronger political control over the railways, short-termism. There will come a time when once again the capital outlay required for electrification will be justified by the savings to be made in running costs. But Network Rail will have to get its house in order first.

 

[The Ham]

You are forgetting that a bi-mode operating on diesel power will have higher direct energy costs than when on electric power. At some point this cost difference will make the argument for electrification overwhelming. What we have now is combination of a number of factors: a relatively low world oil price, uncertainty about short to medium term electricity generating capacity, an apparent inability of Network Rail to control its costs and the usual bugbear of stronger political control over the railways, short-termism. There will come a time when once again the capital outlay required for electrification will be justified by the savings to be made in running costs. But Network Rail will have to get its house in order first.

A slightly longer term issue is the need to replace the bi-modals when they are life expired and/or the need to replace the 22x fleets (and other high speed DMU's).

It is unlikely that if ALL electrification was stopped that it wouldn't be a good move politically, especially as there are a lot of lower speeds DMU's that also need replacing.

As such, it is likely that we will see a rolling programme of electrification, formed of lots of smaller scale projects. Each programmed take a year or two and all to run either just after our in conjunction with resignaling projects.

In doing so if one project over runs or costs more the following projects are delayed until the annual finding for electrification allows the next project to start.

 

[jyte]

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.

Serious question. Have they been tested with likely passenger loads or does that make a smaller difference than I would imagine?

 

[PHILIPE]

The ironic thing regarding this announcement re deferring some electrification and the rising cost of the project means that, with inflation, the schemes will just cost still more when eventually done.

 

[reddragon]

I think that Bi-modes change everything.

This is because end to end electrification becomes uneconomic and instead you electrify the low cost sections, avoid high cost sections and uprate engines to do 125mph.

GWR have already asked that the Devon banks are electrified in isolation.

Bi-modes do not need end to end wires, but they do need wires on high usage sections (London - Swindon), most 125mph sections and on hilly bits.

Suburban electrification is another matter and that rather than IEPs will drive electrification in the Bristol & Oxford areas.

 

[edwin_m]

Serious question. Have they been tested with likely passenger loads or does that make a smaller difference than I would imagine?

I don't know the details of these specific tests, but part of standard rolling stock testing is to run with sandbags or other heavy objects on board to represent the maximum passenger load. The performance difference is surprisingly little - 80 passengers and luggage weigh a bit less than 8 tonnes compared to the tare weight of the coach which is probably around 40 tonnes (no doubt somebody has the correct figure). The acceleration reduces a bit, but not as much as you might expect because at low speeds it is limited by available adhesion, and the extra weight increases the adhesion proportionately.

 

[AM9]

I think that Bi-modes change everything.

This is because end to end electrification becomes uneconomic and instead you electrify the low cost sections, avoid high cost sections and uprate engines to do 125mph.

GWR have already asked that the Devon banks are electrified in isolation.

Bi-modes do not need end to end wires, but they do need wires on high usage sections (London - Swindon), most 125mph sections and on hilly bits.

Suburban electrification is another matter and that rather than IEPs will drive electrification in the Bristol & Oxford areas.

Surely 'end-to-end' electrification may become uneconomic or even may be finacially 'too difficult' politically when all done as a single project within the same budget timescales. If bi-mode had been available in the '60s and it was exploited on the WCML electrification, what a mess the route's operations would have been. In addition, piecemeal fill-in over the ensuing decades would have been so disruptive.
The elephant in the room is that we don't really know the real cost of bi-mode operation on a large scale in terms of reliability, fuel costs, the environment and ultimately, the true effect of the life of the rolling stock. It may be that the TOC get's lazy and runs trains on diesel under the wires as frequent changeovers become inconvenient in practice.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You are forgetting that a bi-mode operating on diesel power will have higher direct energy costs than when on electric power. At some point this cost difference will make the argument for electrification overwhelming. What we have now is combination of a number of factors: a relatively low world oil price, uncertainty about short to medium term electricity generating capacity, an apparent inability of Network Rail to control its costs and the usual bugbear of stronger political control over the railways, short-termism. There will come a time when once again the capital outlay required for electrification will be justified by the savings to be made in running costs. But Network Rail will have to get its house in order first.

The NAO report mentions that the budget savings arising from delay to electrification schemes does not take account of the emissions disbenefits - not just the extra costs of running on diesel.
Air quality is now a big environmental issue, particularly in cities such as Bristol.
That's one reason why there will still be pressure to complete the electrification scheme.

 

[HowardGWR]

Perhaps someone could confirm if the following determines the critical path for the Bristol area modernisation.

"1. We can't electrify the Bristol area until the re-signalling is done.
2. We can't re-signal until the infrastructure is completed.
3. We can't complete infrastructure until designs are completed and agreed.
4. We have designs for Filton Bank project (including rebuilding of Filton Abbey Wood and allowance for new stations on Filton Bank) but we don't have them for Bristol T.M.
5. We need re-design for Bristol T.M, but that involves Bristol C.C. so that determines the critical path."

In other words, while other sub-projects are capable of being started, the real key to completing the modernising of Bristol is whether the rail part of T.M. (including re-opening of terminus) , namely new track and then re-signalling and then electrification, is independent of the other parts that are to do with the station itself.

 

[47802]

I think that Bi-modes change everything.

This is because end to end electrification becomes uneconomic and instead you electrify the low cost sections, avoid high cost sections and uprate engines to do 125mph.

GWR have already asked that the Devon banks are electrified in isolation.

Bi-modes do not need end to end wires, but they do need wires on high usage sections (London - Swindon), most 125mph sections and on hilly bits.

Suburban electrification is another matter and that rather than IEPs will drive electrification in the Bristol & Oxford areas.

Yes and No I would say, Bi-mode are likely to be expensive to build compared to a straight electric train, and much expensive to operate on Diesel, yes it does give you the option for Piecemeal electrification which may have some benefits but it seem the current missing bits have been deferred because of other factors, but not going to Oxford is less than ideal, not going to Bristol isn't a big issue at present given the decision had already been made to change to a full Bi-mode fleet given the delays and other electric trains are not planned there at present but clearly these a significant extra cost in having a full Bi-mode fleet, and had electrification been progressing at the rate originally envisaged then there would have been the opportunity to look at introducing EMU's to local services between Bristol-Cardiff-Swansea.

So I'm not so sure that planning a Bi-mode railway around Piecemeal electrification is that great an idea, but given GWR will become largely a Bi-Mode railway I suppose it does give opportunities to look at doing that now.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The idea that if straight electrics were ordered Network Rail would simply just deliver GWML electrification is absurd at best.

 

[jyte]

The NAO report mentions that the budget savings arising from delay to electrification schemes does not take account of the emissions disbenefits - not just the extra costs of running on diesel.
Air quality is now a big environmental issue, particularly in cities such as Bristol.
That's one reason why there will still be pressure to complete the electrification scheme.

The emissions element is overlooked far too much. I'm just glad they'll be running on electric at the London end - on some days the air quality in Paddington is not good.

 

[Mikey C]

The emissions element is overlooked far too much. I'm just glad they'll be running on electric at the London end - on some days the air quality in Paddington is not good.

The option of just keeping lots of diesels in service because they are cheaper won't work long term, as NOx emissions are a massive political issue now in cities. If anything the lines into Bristol (and Bath and Oxford) are more important to electrify than the open lines in the countryside where NOx is less of an issue

 

[jyte]

The option of just keeping lots of diesels in service because they are cheaper won't work long term, as NOx emissions are a massive political issue now in cities. If anything the lines into Bristol (and Bath and Oxford) are more important to electrify than the open lines in the countryside where NOx is less of an issue

Completely agree.

 

[WatcherZero]

Welsh Government has told the bidders that while all diesel services through Cardiff Queen Street must end they are open to alternatives to the £350m 'traditional' electrification.

 

[Dave1987]

You are forgetting that a bi-mode operating on diesel power will have higher direct energy costs than when on electric power. At some point this cost difference will make the argument for electrification overwhelming. What we have now is combination of a number of factors: a relatively low world oil price, uncertainty about short to medium term electricity generating capacity, an apparent inability of Network Rail to control its costs and the usual bugbear of stronger political control over the railways, short-termism. There will come a time when once again the capital outlay required for electrification will be justified by the savings to be made in running costs. But Network Rail will have to get its house in order first.

Indeed the more bi-modes operate on diesel the higher the costs because of the costs of fuel, engine mileage etc but why do the DFT care? They aren't paying the very expensive leasing costs, the TOC is. It's the PR the politicians are after which the already have in abundance with new trains. My point is as soon as the costs started rising the DFT could turn around and say 'we are not liking these costs, well passengers will be appeased with new trains and we don't need the wires up as they will just run on the Diesel engines longer, no brainier defer the rest....'
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The idea that if straight electrics were ordered Network Rail would simply just deliver GWML electrification is absurd at best.

Well I read that they ordered the trains to be bi-modes before they started on the electrification plans, basically the government were desperate for new trains to be introduced, then rushed the electrification planning. Now the costs have escalated they have the means to delay electrification as much as they want. If they had done it properly they wouldn't have needed bi-modes.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Indeed the more bi-modes operate on diesel the higher the costs because of the costs of fuel, engine mileage etc but why do the DFT care? They aren't paying the very expensive leasing costs, the TOC is. It's the PR the politicians are after which the already have in abundance with new trains. My point is as soon as the costs started rising the DFT could turn around and say 'we are not liking these costs, well passengers will be appeased with new trains and we don't need the wires up as they will just run on the Diesel engines longer, no brainier defer the rest....'

GWR will have negotiated a lower premium to cover their extra costs.

The NAO report says that while the DfT has contracted the extra diesel packs with Agility, it hasn't decided how to fund them yet (ie stick it on the lease costs or pay up front).

 

[Dave1987]

GWR will have negotiated a lower premium to cover their extra costs.

The NAO report says that while the DfT has contracted the extra diesel packs with Agility, it hasn't decided how to fund them yet (ie stick it on the lease costs or pay up front).

I've not read that anywhere, the only thing I've read is that the companies financing them original order are not interested in the engines being at full commercial rating because of the delays in electrification.

 

[1179_Clee2]

Well I read that they ordered the trains to be bi-modes before they started on the electrification plans, basically the government were desperate for new trains to be introduced, then rushed the electrification planning. Now the costs have escalated they have the means to delay electrification as much as they want. If they had done it properly they wouldn't have needed bi-modes.

The only involvement with the government was to order trains and state electrification was going ahead.
It is Network Rail that have designed, planned and are building the electrification, the government has had to step in as Network Rails costs have gone through the roof, as Network Rail cannot run a drinking party in a brewery.

 

[DerekC]

Well I read that they ordered the trains to be bi-modes before they started on the electrification plans, basically the government were desperate for new trains to be introduced, then rushed the electrification planning. Now the costs have escalated they have the means to delay electrification as much as they want. If they had done it properly they wouldn't have needed bi-modes.

This isn't quite right. The renewed drive towards electrification started in 2007 as soon as the White Paper putting it on the back burner was issued. In fact Mott Macdonald had already carried out a study for DfT showing that GW and MML could have a good electrification business case (making what seemed to be reasonable assumptions about cost) before the White Paper was finalised, but those in charge had already made up their minds. The "IEP" specification was developed over the following two years or so and was for an electric train with bi-mode to cover parts of the long distance network which would not be electrified in the foreseeable future (Edinburgh - Aberdeen, Exeter - Penzance). I agree that the problem now is that the bi-mode feature has given the politicians an opt-out - the public will be happy with new trains so electrification can be shelved. The only solution I can see is to take the job away completely from NR, but how?

 

[HowardGWR]

I understood the original reason for some trains being bi-mode was that some Bristol services go to Taunton, and the Gloucesters and Worcesters needed to be bi-mode too (all still valid reasons). That was always so, AIUI. Not only that, but Swansea was a late addition to the electrification project. There was a long discussion about how long it takes to change to or from a diesel dragger at Cardiff.

Short memories on this thread, I think, possibly?

 

[snowball]

The only involvement with the government was to order trains and state electrification was going ahead.
It is Network Rail that have designed, planned and are building the electrification, the government has had to step in as Network Rails costs have gone through the roof, as Network Rail cannot run a drinking party in a brewery.

I'm not yet halfway through the NAO report but so far it seems at least as scathing about DfT as about NR.

The link has been posted before but here it is again:

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Modernising-the-Great-Western-railway.pdf

 

[Dave1987]

This isn't quite right. The renewed drive towards electrification started in 2007 as soon as the White Paper putting it on the back burner was issued. In fact Mott Macdonald had already carried out a study for DfT showing that GW and MML could have a good electrification business case (making what seemed to be reasonable assumptions about cost) before the White Paper was finalised, but those in charge had already made up their minds. The "IEP" specification was developed over the following two years or so and was for an electric train with bi-mode to cover parts of the long distance network which would not be electrified in the foreseeable future (Edinburgh - Aberdeen, Exeter - Penzance). I agree that the problem now is that the bi-mode feature has given the politicians an opt-out - the public will be happy with new trains so electrification can be shelved. The only solution I can see is to take the job away completely from NR, but how?

Well now the bi-modes provide the opt out I don't foresee any massive push to get it done, they can delay and delay and delay. And because the public will be appeased with new trains I don't foresee there being any real consequences of them delaying it for as long as they want to. Why would they take it away from NR? They know all the expertise lies with NR, and can blame NR for the delays and cost escalations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I understood the original reason for some trains being bi-mode was that some Bristol services go to Taunton, and the Gloucesters and Worcesters needed to be bi-mode too (all still valid reasons). That was always so, AIUI. Not only that, but Swansea was a late addition to the electrification project. There was a long discussion about how long it takes to change to or from a diesel dragger at Cardiff.

Short memories on this thread, I think, possibly?

Actually I've read it could have been seconds with delner couplers and traction that was designed to be coupled. Whether or not bi-mode was needed or not it now provided an opt out for the politicians on getting the project done. That may well mean electrification has to be much much cheaper in the future before it's allowed to start.

 

[glbotu]

I'm surprised that they've gone ahead with ploughing on to Cardiff, rather than getting Oxford done, if only because that would make it easier to cascade stock and benefit from the faster accelerating and faster top-speed 387s. With all the IEPs being Bi-Mode now, surely it's just a lot easier to leave the intercity routes and focus on the commuter services. The way it's done now, there'll still have to be 90mph 166s taking up valuable Main Line paths between Paddington and Reading, rather than a mix of 125 mph IEPs and 110 mph 387s.

 

[HSTEd]

I would not expect any major new electrification projects to be committed, and the existing ones to be scaled back significantly with all the "add-ons" being jettisoned.

MML to Sheffield might survive but it might be overtaken by HS2 which will crush its business case anyway.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm surprised that they've gone ahead with ploughing on to Cardiff, rather than getting Oxford done...

Oxford corridor (and station) capacity improvements, a separate project to remodel the layout and provide an extra platform, is still to be completed, so they can't electrify Oxford yet. I've posted this a couple of times already, as have other posters.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I would not expect any major new electrification projects to be committed, and the existing ones to be scaled back significantly with all the "add-ons" being jettisoned.

MML to Sheffield might survive but it might be overtaken by HS2 which will crush its business case anyway.

Chesterfield to Sheffield needs doing for HS2 now anyway (after the council thew its toys out of pram and now have adopted the worst deal for the city region) so might not kill it too bad.

 

[DerekC]

I'm surprised that they've gone ahead with ploughing on to Cardiff, rather than getting Oxford done, if only because that would make it easier to cascade stock and benefit from the faster accelerating and faster top-speed 387s. With all the IEPs being Bi-Mode now, surely it's just a lot easier to leave the intercity routes and focus on the commuter services. The way it's done now, there'll still have to be 90mph 166s taking up valuable Main Line paths between Paddington and Reading, rather than a mix of 125 mph IEPs and 110 mph 387s.

Politics - there are more voters in Wales, all of whom might be upset if Cardiff was deferred. I agree that deferring Oxford makes no sense at all. The first thing you want is an electrified network for the high density bits. Unfortunately our new breed of politicians know all the answers.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'm surprised that they've gone ahead with ploughing on to Cardiff, rather than getting Oxford done, if only because that would make it easier to cascade stock and benefit from the faster accelerating and faster top-speed 387s. With all the IEPs being Bi-Mode now, surely it's just a lot easier to leave the intercity routes and focus on the commuter services. The way it's done now, there'll still have to be 90mph 166s taking up valuable Main Line paths between Paddington and Reading, rather than a mix of 125 mph IEPs and 110 mph 387s.

As has been said i do not think it is that simple....

Severn Tunnel has already and expensively been successfully completed, cardiff has all be re-signalled and remoddelled. Engineering wise it makes perfect sense even if operationally it doesn't.

 

[DerekC]

Oxford corridor (and station) capacity improvements, a separate project to remodel the layout and provide an extra platform, is still to be completed, so they can't electrify Oxford yet. I've posted this a couple of times already, as have other posters.

Why have we lost the ability to do these things as a joined-up programme including electrification as well? Interesting that the NAO report refers to a "route modernisation". Early on, the whole GW programme started to be talked about as a "route modernisation" - but this was instantly banned by DfT who were most emphatic that trains, electrification, Reading upgrade, Crossrail, ERTMS and all were to be treated as entirely separate projects. Still suffering from post-WCRM blues, I guess - but that did actually deliver 90% of what it was supposed to. This way will cost more money, take longer and deliver less.