Great Western Electrification Progress

[Bill EWS]

How about 3-4 coaches sandwiched between a suitably powered locomotive and a driving trailer!

 

[swt_passenger]

How about 3-4 coaches sandwiched between a suitably powered locomotive and a driving trailer!

The specific problem here is about through services Maidenhead to Marlow via Bourne End. Your solution is still far too long, unfortunately.

 

[themiller]

The Swiss who are to build 3 and 4 car bi-modals for Anglia started the Flirt line with 2 and 3 car GTWs showing that Stadler can do it!

 

[RobShipway]

Bear with me on this thought, but isn't a tram like the Croydon tram, a two car AC unit?

Could you not use a similar base frame as you would be using for a tram, but with a train bodyshell on it with a more suitable pantograph for electric mainline mains?

 

[Andyjs247]

Some of the class 309 units were 2-car AC units. They also had end doors for connection to other units. Don't see why a 21st century equivalent 2-car AC unit wouldn't be possible if there's a will.

 

[J-2739]

Bear with me on this thought, but isn't a tram like the Croydon tram, a two car AC unit?

Could you not use a similar base frame as you would be using for a tram, but with a train bodyshell on it with a more suitable pantograph for electric mainline mains?

Wouldn't that be a bit too narrow though?

A Croydon tram is actually a single unit, just bisected in 2. I don't think the frames would be strong enough to support a full sized train body.?

#800

 

[HowardGWR]

The road programme is a different kettle of fish however - as roads are almost always vote winners in the long run. No one really cares about railways to the same degree.

I differ on this. I think some politicos may think they will win votes but they are deluded, if so. No politician is ever thanked, full stop.

The reason local politicians have always loved new roads is that they like what they see as 'the freedom of the road' - it's part of their outlook. If you see most district and county councillors turning up for meetings, they will be driving a sleek car (I know, I was one). The MPs themselves are so wealthy, by reason of being an MP, they can enjoy rail travel to get home at the weekend and a taxi, but we are paying for that.

Above, I wrote I was a councillor. When I would remind colleagues of people who could not drive (poor, handicapped, elderly, elderly female) I was regarded with pity, as though I had not worked out what really mattered.

There is a lobby for rail from the new generation and politicians have recognised that. Electric is fast, you can internet while on the move while sipping a latte and the juice can be generated from renewables, so it's good all round. Long may it continue.

 

[TRIAR]

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I don't think the recent electrification announcement makes that much difference to rolling stock requirements.

My prediction is:-

- the Oxford stoppers will become Didcot stoppers and still be served by 387s
- everything that was originally going to be served by IEP will remain IEP (such as a decent % of Oxford fasts)
- whatever class GWR decide is the long term solution for the Henley, Windsor (?) and Marlow branches will probably get used for the Oxford -> Didcot stopper/shuttle.

Anyone that travels peak on an Oxford stopper will tell you 99% change at Didcot anyway, so real impact to customers there.

There's a good chance the Oxford-Didcot shuttle will be served by 165s/166s for the foreseeable, and when they're due to retire that provides a business case for electrification of that route.

TRIAR

 

[Hellzapoppin]

The main point of recently re-signalled is that these conflicts are much more unlikely to arise reducing cost and time taken.

Actually some installations recently commissioned by the resignalling projects are in the way of electrification work and now have to be moved. It's not a case of which is done first, last or whenever, the main point is having all the projects integrated, not easy when 1 falls behind.

 

[Dave1987]

Well it's clear that the IEP and bi-mode fan club don't believe this deferral is the complete disaster that it is. I really really think the whole future of electrification throughout the country is under serious threat because of bi-modes. Unless its very very cheap and doesn't pose any significant engineering challenges it just won't be done because they will be able to use bi-modes as the excuse. I think Roger Ford is totally right, electrification is now just too expensive and with the bi-mode excuse the politicians will just keep kicking the can down the road. And to think people were originally talking about bi-modes as a temporary measure whilst electrification was completed. Seems they will be a permanent feature long into the future. What a country we live in :roll:

 

[jyte]

Seems they will be a permanent feature long into the future. What a country we live in :roll:

I personally wouldn't be so pessimistic. The price of diesel will go up again at some point, and if politicians ever decide to do something about COs emissions I'm presuming diesel trains will become unpopular and uneconomic. This isn't tomorrow or next week I'm talking about, but at least ten years.

After twenty if the IEPs are still running I expect much wider electrification or the diesel engines to be replaced with batteries or Hydrogen fuel cells when the technology improves.

As others have pointed out, Bi-Modes enable a much greater flexibility of service but unless we can make electrical storage much, much better, I still see a future for OHLE. Whether politicians see the same future remains unclear.

 

[D1009]

To quote the NAO report:

Delays in introducing more modern trains

4.6 To increase capacity and improve services on Great Western routes and across the rail network, the Department had identified a complex series of train reallocations known as a ‘cascade’. Its original expectation involved introducing electric trains on newly electrified routes (see Figure 1, page 12), displacing older diesel trains (Figure 17 on pages 46 and 47). This therefore depended on electrification being completed on time. The Department expected that:
• electric trains from Thameslink would replace diesel trains in the Thames Valley providing more capacity to reduce overcrowding;
• Thames Valley could then release Class 165 and Class 166 diesel trains to the west, providing more capacity for passengers on the Bristol, Exeter and Cornish networks; and
• West Devon and Cornwall routes would then release Class 153 and 150 diesel trains to support service improvements on Northern franchise routes allowing further onward cascades.


4.7 In April 2016, the Department began reviewing its original cascade expectations to protect existing services. Delays in electrification mean that trains cannot be introduced into the Thames Valley from the dates originally envisaged. To avoid cancelling services for passengers in the Thames Valley, diesel trains due to go to the west in 2017 will be retained until 2019 as electrification is completed and new electric trains are phased in. Revising the cascade expectations (Figure 18 on pages 48 and 49) was a complex exercise. It involved input from the operator, Great Western Railway, and was a significant achievement for the industry. As a result of Great Western Railway and the Department’s intervention, passengers will not see a reduction in services and the programme will still provide benefits, although these will be delayed in some areas. Passengers in the west (Bristol, Exeter and Cornwall routes) will now have to wait almost two years later than scheduled to see benefits such as more capacity.17 In the wider rail network, passengers on Northern franchise routes may have to wait an additional nine months as trains are retained in the west to protect services. At the time of the revision the Department was aware of potential delays to infrastructure works in the north which would have meant that Northern would not have required the trains as early as planned. Great Western Railway has also had to make additional orders of new bi-mode trains to prevent the cancellation of services on busy Oxford to London routes.
4.8 Because of the delays to electrification, the train operating company, Great Western Railway, will have to incur additional costs to cover:
• Converting old trains that need to be used for longer, to comply with stricter regulations about access for persons of reduced mobility.
• Renting five more bi-mode trains to operate services between Oxford and London, since it will not be able to use electric trains from May 2017 as planned. Without these trains, it would only be possible to operate one direct train service between London and Oxford per hour. These trains are in addition to the trains procured by the Department under the Intercity Express Programme, which are discussed in paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12.
• Higher running costs, as fuel and maintenance costs for diesel trains are more expensive.
• Lower passenger revenue, since higher capacity trains will be introduced later than planned.
17 Trains were originally due to be released to the west in May 2017 but under revised plans will remain in Thames Valley until the end of March 2019.

From Figure 18

Jul 2016 to Sep 2016: Delivery of 8 new trains from Bombardier to be accelerated. Additional 29 387s ordered to mitigate those retained by Thameslink. Service and capacity benefits due in May (2017)* can now be implemented in September
Class 153s and 150s were due to be cascaded from August 2017 but will be kept until 2018 to provide services in West Devon and Cornwall – there will be an impact on the north
Dec 2018: Pacers are retired one year later than planned
Class 165s and 166s to stay in Thames Valley until electrification complete in CP6, allowing phased intro of 387s as they arrive.

* my insertion

So despite the electrification to Didcot being complete to Didcot by Dec 2017, the Turbo cascade is not going to happen until March 2019. That suggests to me that the release of the 150/1 and 153 fleets to Northern is considered by the DfT to be more important than capacity increases in the South West, unless I've got something wrong.

 

[anti-pacer]

Without me trawling through pages and pages, can someone quickly summarise what's gone wrong on the GW electrification please?

 

[Phil.]

Without me trawling through pages and pages, can someone quickly summarise what's gone wrong on the GW electrification please?

1 Not enough cash in the kitty.
2 Network Rail have overstretched themselves.
3 There isn't a 3.

 

[snowball]

Bear with me on this thought, but isn't a tram like the Croydon tram, a two car AC unit?

No, trams pick up low voltage DC so they lack the heavy and bulky transformer that an AC unit would have.

 

[Mikey C]

Maybe the answer for the GWR branch lines is to electrify them with 3rd rail.

There are plenty of 2 car 456 and 466 trains which could be used there

 

[anti-pacer]

1 Not enough cash in the kitty.
2 Network Rail have overstretched themselves.
3 There isn't a 3.

So has it been delayed, cancelled or scaled back (or other)?

 

[snowball]

So has it been delayed, cancelled or scaled back (or other)?

Different parts of it have been delayed by different amounts. On Tuesday some sections (Didcot to Oxford, the two approach routes to Bristol TM, and the Windsor and Henley branches), completion of which had already slipped into CP6, were "deferred" - whatever that means. Some of the pessimists on this thread are apparently taking it to mean they have been cancelled forever.

Cardiff to Swansea was already in a vague and remote state. The only non-deferred bits are London to Cardiff, Reading to Newbury, and Wootton Bassett to Thingley Junction.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Well it's clear that the IEP and bi-mode fan club don't believe this deferral is the complete disaster that it is. I really really think the whole future of electrification throughout the country is under serious threat because of bi-modes. Unless its very very cheap and doesn't pose any significant engineering challenges it just won't be done because they will be able to use bi-modes as the excuse. I think Roger Ford is totally right, electrification is now just too expensive and with the bi-mode excuse the politicians will just keep kicking the can down the road. And to think people were originally talking about bi-modes as a temporary measure whilst electrification was completed. Seems they will be a permanent feature long into the future. What a country we live in :roll:

I don't consider myself to be a huge fan of bi-modes since such things are clearly a compromised design with inevitable sub-optimal characteristics in one area or another. However I don't believe the existence of such trains necessarily means the end of a long-term electrification strategy. The NAO has been critical of both the DfT and Network Rail. The DfT ultimately responds to the aspirations of politicians; I don't expect much modification of behaviour in that area no matter how critical a NAO report may be. Network Rail is another matter. It has been clear for some time that NR has trouble with the really big projects yet seems unable to work out why. But if it is to continue even existing in anything like its current form it will have to change its ways. That may mean personnel changes at senior level or changing its relationships with contractors, or many other things: I'm an interested outsider so cannot do more than guess. But in the meantime it has plenty of committed projects to deliver, including electrification, with a sizeable budget to to do them with. At some point the political imperative to electrify will return: the history of growing environmental awareness says to me that this is unavoidable. The question of when that moment will arrive will depend a great deal on NR's ability to get its act together.

 

[holts]

As I posted much earlier in the thread , the electrification will never get beyond Cardiff , it was inevitable they were never going to spend the money , it's rather like building a two lane motorway beyond the Severn Bridge , you drive along it thinking what fool thought this was a good idea , it's called not looking further than the end of nose .

The irony is the depot for servicing the bi mode units is up and ready next to the mainline station along with the overhead equipment .

 

[The Ham]

Well it's clear that the IEP and bi-mode fan club don't believe this deferral is the complete disaster that it is. I really really think the whole future of electrification throughout the country is under serious threat because of bi-modes. Unless its very very cheap and doesn't pose any significant engineering challenges it just won't be done because they will be able to use bi-modes as the excuse. I think Roger Ford is totally right, electrification is now just too expensive and with the bi-mode excuse the politicians will just keep kicking the can down the road. And to think people were originally talking about bi-modes as a temporary measure whilst electrification was completed. Seems they will be a permanent feature long into the future. What a country we live in :roll:

The problem is, without Bi-modals (I.e. locos swapping at the end of the wires which many suggested) there would have been all sorts of problems with pausing electrification.

Bi-modals have their users, however I very much doubt that they will mean the end to electrification projects.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I wonder if the "deferring" is a bad omen that could point to a few other electrification schemes being bumped into CP7 or maybe even CP8

 

[snowball]

As I posted much earlier in the thread , the electrification will never get beyond Cardiff

One thing I find bizarre is the ease with which people fling around big words like "never". They set themselves up for being proved wrong. You're making a prediction here which extends beyond the lives of the grandchildren of anyone reading this. But you'll probably be proved wrong within a mere ten years.

 

[Dave1987]

The problem is, without Bi-modals (I.e. locos swapping at the end of the wires which many suggested) there would have been all sorts of problems with pausing electrification.

Bi-modals have their users, however I very much doubt that they will mean the end to electrification projects.

Well seeing as many people were saying that even with bi-modes electrification wouldn't be delayed excuse me if I just don't believe you.

 

[92002]

No, trams pick up low voltage DC so they lack the heavy and bulky transformer that an AC unit would have.

You're just a few year behind with tram design.

Perhaps you should check out the tram/trains used in France, like Mulhouse. Which operate off the low voltage in the city and 25Kv on the SNCF mainline and branch. For that matter there is the often quoted Karlsruhr tram/trains that are similar but operate of 15Kv on the mainline.

This technology has been around for many years and would be more than suitable on any GWR branch line.

 

[northwichcat]

To quote the NAO report:



From Figure 18

* my insertion

So despite the electrification to Didcot being complete to Didcot by Dec 2017, the Turbo cascade is not going to happen until March 2019. That suggests to me that the release of the 150/1 and 153 fleets to Northern is considered by the DfT to be more important than capacity increases in the South West, unless I've got something wrong.

You've missed a key point. The NAO have recommended a proposal to DfT but DfT haven't approved it. A spokesperson from Northern this week said they are still working on the basis that all cascades will happen to the original schedule. I imagine Scotrail are also working on the same basis at present.

Like I've pointed out already DfT's recent view has been they don't intervene in deals which have been done between ROSCOs and TOCs, with Chiltern and Southern previously benefiting from that stance with Scotrail and TPE losing out directly and Northern indirectly. This time if they do intervene to help GWR it would be Northern and Scotrail who lose out directly and TPE indirectly. With the public slowly waking up to the fact DfT do micro-manage the railways now would probably not be a good time to change their approach again and to actively look like they control any rolling stock cascades.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I wonder if the "deferring" is a bad omen that could point to a few other electrification schemes being bumped into CP7 or maybe even CP8

Chances are that electrification will be taken out of the CP system and made a rolling project in its own right - one of the Bowe Report's recommendations.
But that won't affect the immediate future, or the way CP6 work is being assembled.
But the status quo won't continue for long.
Ministers have been embarrassed too often.

 

[Phil.]

I wonder if the "deferring" is a bad omen that could point to a few other electrification schemes being bumped into CP7 or maybe even CP8

Quite possibly abandoned altogether. Having seen and experienced what happens when it's installed "on the cheap" a la ECML with it's wires leaping off almost on a monthly basis NetworkRail will now go to the other end of the spectrum and spend massive amounts of money that they don't have on proper substantial stuff. The real tragedy is that when it (finally!) is completed the journey times between London and Brizzle/Cardiff won't be substantially different from what they were in 1980. Like so many railway electrification projects it's a half job with branches not being electrified and a main line only half-done which will result in all sorts of operating difficulties.

 

[QueensCurve]

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.

Apologies for the "I wouldn't start from here" fallacy, but it might have been better if off-the-peg 125 mph EMU had been specified in the first place which would almost certainly have been cheaper (and better?) than IEPs.

On the other hand we would not then have had "bi-mode" so the new trains could not have been rolled out before completion of electrification. On the other hand there would have been no excuse to descope the electrification - might not have been a bad thing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

1 Not enough cash in the kitty.
2 Network Rail have overstretched themselves.
3 There isn't a 3.

I would offer

3. Overspecified equipment
4. Total reliance on an unproven HOPS
5. Failure to obtain a risk assessment based derogation from the TSI.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe the answer for the GWR branch lines is to electrify them with 3rd rail.

There are plenty of 2 car 456 and 466 trains which could be used there

This idea has already been debunked conclusively in other threads. Doesn't comply with Electricity at Work Regulations and is hopelessly inefficient.

Besides, as noted in another comment 25kV capable trams are now available off-the-peg. Similar units may be obtained by the Tyne and Weir Metro.

 

[snowball]

You're just a few year behind with tram design.

Perhaps you should check out the tram/trains used in France, like Mulhouse. Which operate off the low voltage in the city and 25Kv on the SNCF mainline and branch. For that matter there is the often quoted Karlsruhr tram/trains that are similar but operate of 15Kv on the mainline.

This technology has been around for many years and would be more than suitable on any GWR branch line.

I was confining myself to present-day UK trams as I was replying to a poster who appeared to think that the Croydon trams run off AC.

There are dual-current tram-trains at Sheffield waiting to be brought into use, but there are no present plans for them to be fed with AC.

(Edited to change "current" to "present" in two places where it didn't mean electric current!)