Great Western Electrification Progress

[47802]

Seems to me an over pessimistic attitude developing regards electrification particularly from Dave 1987.

I find inconceivable that Bristol and Oxford will not be done at some point, possibly the Branches and Swansea might get kicked into the long grass in favour of other electrification projects, in the case of the branches then to me that only makes sense if you do all of the branches between Paddington and Reading anyway, as for Swansea well it wasn't in the original plan anyway and rolling stock order seemed to reflect that.

As for Bi-modes they probably made sense in the case of the GWR scheme and in this instance they are helping to save the day, but that doesn't mean that every electrification scheme will need or have Bi-mode trains.

The bottom line is electrification is being shafted due to the extreme costs increases and slow delivery rather than specifically by Bi-Mode trains.

 

[swt_passenger]

- 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.

You cannot really lump plans for the three branches in together though. Windsor and Henley do not suffer from the same basic issue as Marlow. Their delays are purely down to electrification budgetary reasons, Marlow has the additional specific problem of not permitting 4 car EMUs to be used, which is why Marlow wiring had already been cancelled way before the present announcment.

 

[Dave1987]

Seems to me an over pessimistic attitude developing regards electrification particularly from Dave 1987.

I find inconceivable that Bristol and Oxford will not be done at some point, possibly the Branches and Swansea might get kicked into the long grass in favour of other electrification projects, in the case of the branches then to me that only makes sense if you do all of the branches between Paddington and Reading anyway, as for Swansea well it wasn't in the original plan anyway and rolling stock order seemed to reflect that.

As for Bi-modes they probably made sense in the case of the GWR scheme and in this instance they are helping to save the day, but that doesn't mean that every electrification scheme will need or have Bi-mode trains.

The bottom line is electrification is being shafted due to the extreme costs increases and slow delivery rather than specifically by Bi-Mode trains.

Pessimistic or realistic? Why have they just said "deferred" and not committed to completing it in a certain time frame? You only have to look at the cagey answers of the Rail minister to MP's to realise that electrification is under serious threat of being kicked into the long grass way into the future. And what gives them that option? Ow yeah bi-modes! You may say bi-modes have been the saviour, I say they have dealt a huge blow to electrification timescales.

I just don't get why people can't see that with bi-modes the politicians get their big PR for shiny new trains and "improving passenger journeys" yet can cancel/defer the real improvements as much as they want. Politicians don't think long term! They want the big PR while they are in office. Electrification doesn't give them that big PR whilst shiny new bi-modes trains do. So they can cancel or delay projects as much as they want to. They are already calling for bi-modes on East Midlands so no doubt why they order them that electrification can be delayed or prolonged as much as they want to as well.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Pessimistic or realistic? Why have they just said "deferred" and not committed to completing it in a certain time frame? You only have to look at the cagey answers of the Rail minister to MP's to realise that electrification is under serious threat of being kicked into the long grass way into the future. And what gives them that option? Ow yeah bi-modes! You may say bi-modes have been the saviour, I say they have dealt a huge blow to electrification timescales.

I just don't get why people can't see that with bi-modes the politicians get their big PR for shiny new trains and "improving passenger journeys" yet can cancel/defer the real improvements as much as they want. Politicians don't think long term! They want the big PR while they are in office. Electrification doesn't give them that big PR whilst shiny new bi-modes trains do. So they can cancel or delay projects as much as they want to. They are already calling for bi-modes on East Midlands so no doubt why they order them that electrification can be delayed or prolonged as much as they want to as well.

If what you said were true, there would be no point in doing electrification at all and we'd always have diesels. The PR would be the shiny new trains.

It makes no sense to think that partial electrification is just as good as full electrification from an operational, budgetary and PR perspective, because by that logic no electrification at all would still be just as good!

 

[158756]

Pessimistic or realistic? Why have they just said "deferred" and not committed to completing it in a certain time frame? You only have to look at the cagey answers of the Rail minister to MP's to realise that electrification is under serious threat of being kicked into the long grass way into the future. And what gives them that option? Ow yeah bi-modes! You may say bi-modes have been the saviour, I say they have dealt a huge blow to electrification timescales.

I just don't get why people can't see that with bi-modes the politicians get their big PR for shiny new trains and "improving passenger journeys" yet can cancel/defer the real improvements as much as they want. Politicians don't think long term! They want the big PR while they are in office. Electrification doesn't give them that big PR whilst shiny new bi-modes trains do. So they can cancel or delay projects as much as they want to. They are already calling for bi-modes on East Midlands so no doubt why they order them that electrification can be delayed or prolonged as much as they want to as well.

Yes, electrification is under serious threat of being kicked into the long grass. That is primarily because Network Rail can't deliver it, and if the BCR for Great Western is now down to 1.6 I don't see how the sums are going to add up for any less trafficked line.

If we didn't have the bi-modes, the HOPS train wouldn't magically start working, we'd have a fleet of electric trains stuck in the depot for a decade. Projects would be being cancelled or delayed anyway. Maybe if there was the embarrassment of new trains sitting idle North West electrification would be deferred indefinitely to try to shave a few months off Great Western.

MML electrification is I think currently proposed to happen by 2024, though I personally have no confidence that will be met. So either a) they get a derogation for the HSTs and run them till they fall to bits, plus get no capacity increase, b) they order straight electrics, which can't be used until some date in the future, continually being further delayed, c) they order diesels, though I don't think anyone's currently selling a UK gauge 125mph diesel, d) they order the off the shelf bi mode, which can be used and is slightly greener than option c.

 

[Jack Hay]

Yes, electrification is under serious threat of being kicked into the long grass. That is primarily because Network Rail can't deliver it, and if the BCR for Great Western is now down to 1.6 I don't see how the sums are going to add up for any less trafficked line.

<snip>

These projects are consistently failing because Network Rail cannot deliver on time or to budget. The answer to all this seems to be to bring in competition, to find other contractors who can deliver. If this means breaking up Network Rail, so be it. They have not exactly justified their continuing existence by sparkling performance.

 

[absolutelymilk]

MML electrification is I think currently proposed to happen by 2024, though I personally have no confidence that will be met. So either a) they get a derogation for the HSTs and run them till they fall to bits, plus get no capacity increase, b) they order straight electrics, which can't be used until some date in the future, continually being further delayed, c) they order diesels, though I don't think anyone's currently selling a UK gauge 125mph diesel, d) they order the off the shelf bi mode, which can be used and is slightly greener than option c.

Alternatively they could order electrics 801s to be used on GWML (assuming electrification is finished by then) and then use the 800s on the MML.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Pessimistic or realistic? Why have they just said "deferred" and not committed to completing it in a certain time frame? You only have to look at the cagey answers of the Rail minister to MP's to realise that electrification is under serious threat of being kicked into the long grass way into the future. And what gives them that option? Ow yeah bi-modes! You may say bi-modes have been the saviour, I say they have dealt a huge blow to electrification timescales.

I think you are reading too much into ministerial pronouncements.
No government minister (and Paul Maynard is relatively junior) is going to commit spending beyond 2020, certainly not days before the Chancellor sets the tone for the rest of this parliament.

What is true is that Network Rail, for whatever reason, has twice in recent memory stitched up government rail policy by massive overruns - first WCRM and now electrification - to the great annoyance of the Treasury.
There will be a comeback of some kind, but I doubt the broad intention of wider electrification will die. The mantra is still to invest in new infrastructure.

 

[Senex]

... and if the BCR for Great Western is now down to 1.6 I don't see how the sums are going to add up for any less trafficked line.

MML electrification is I think currently proposed to happen by 2024,...

Given that the BCR for the MML was significantly better than that for the GWML when the decision to electrify the latter was taken, I wonder what the MML figure is now.

(I was never convinced by the rolling-stock argument for putting the GW first. It always looked more like a political decision to keep the Welsh government and Welsh Labour happy. After all, which Westminster politicians care about the English Midlands and what clout do th elatter have?)

 

[Mikey C]

Yes, electrification is under serious threat of being kicked into the long grass. That is primarily because Network Rail can't deliver it, and if the BCR for Great Western is now down to 1.6 I don't see how the sums are going to add up for any less trafficked line.

If we didn't have the bi-modes, the HOPS train wouldn't magically start working, we'd have a fleet of electric trains stuck in the depot for a decade. Projects would be being cancelled or delayed anyway. Maybe if there was the embarrassment of new trains sitting idle North West electrification would be deferred indefinitely to try to shave a few months off Great Western.

MML electrification is I think currently proposed to happen by 2024, though I personally have no confidence that will be met. So either a) they get a derogation for the HSTs and run them till they fall to bits, plus get no capacity increase, b) they order straight electrics, which can't be used until some date in the future, continually being further delayed, c) they order diesels, though I don't think anyone's currently selling a UK gauge 125mph diesel, d) they order the off the shelf bi mode, which can be used and is slightly greener than option c.

With the MML being partially electrified, bimodes even now would be able to operate in electric mode for part of the route and crucially remove the last diesels from St Pancras

 

[YorkshireBear]

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.

And I don't believe you and i doubt anyone will change their mind so I think it might be time to stop filling these pages with arguments either way.

 

[snowball]

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.

Nobody is saying that. You're putting words in people's mouths.

 

[47802]

With the MML being partially electrified, bimodes even now would be able to operate in electric mode for part of the route and crucially remove the last diesels from St Pancras

Erm I don't think that's actually the case I believe the current overheads on the MML only support 100mph running and would need to be upgraded to make use of 125mph Bi-modes, and according to Tony Miles on WNXX EMT have been told to look at buying new diesels to replace HST's.

 

[edwin_m]

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.

Either a tram or a tram-train has a structure that doesn't meet railway crashworthiness standards, and would need re-design from the ground up to do so. Even a tram-train requires special signalling provisions to share track with a train. That isn't a huge deal on the low-speed Rotherham line but would be much more so on the GWML (though ERTMS might be a solution).

As someone posted further back there are 2-car 25kV designs in service overseas and given infinite money and willpower a few of them could be built to UK gauge. However this would result in an extremely expensive micro-fleet. It's just not worth doing if the only benefit is to get rid of one DMU diagram on the Marlow branch when other DMUs will still be operating nearby for the foreseeable future.

 

[Dave1987]

Nobody is saying that. You're putting words in people's mouths.

I said bi-modes will give an excuse to delay electrification, I was told that wouldn't happen and was shot down for even suggesting it. Electrification has now been delayed indefinitely.......

 

[RobShipway]

It maybe me, but I seem to recall another electrical project was deferred in the last few years and is now back being done if my memory is correct?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I said bi-modes will give an excuse to delay electrification, I was told that wouldn't happen and was shot down for even suggesting it. Electrification has now been delayed indefinitely.......

It seems it needs repeating. The reason for the decision to delay/defer the full electrification is all about Network Rail's massive cost overruns. The existence of bi-modes has simply made it possible to partly electrify the main Bristol route and make a start on the B&H as planned (to Newbury). In the absence of bi-modes I have no doubt the decision would have been to finish Reading to Cardiff and nothing else. Network Rail have been set a finite overall budget (which of course does not include purchasing any trains) and to go ahead with the complete GW project would have lead to other projects elsewhere having to be completely stopped. The decision ensures that any project cancellations or descopings elsewhere on the network can be kept to a minimum.

 

[Domh245]

As someone posted further back there are 2-car 25kV designs in service overseas and given infinite money and willpower a few of them could be built to UK gauge. However this would result in an extremely expensive micro-fleet. It's just not worth doing if the only benefit is to get rid of one DMU diagram on the Marlow branch when other DMUs will still be operating nearby for the foreseeable future.

The key issue seems to be that all current EMU designs have pantographs fitted to non driving cars, all except one. I imagine that it wouldn't be impossible for Stadler to produce a sub 50m unit - but you'd still have the issues with microfleets.

 

[Verulamius]

The fault is with the Government statisticians. By making Network Rail part of the public sector, Network Rail's debt becomes part of the National Debt. The consequence of this is that Network Rail has a fixed amount of cash to spend for this 5 year spending period. The statistical change occurred after the ORR determined Network Rail's projects and cost base. Previously Network Rail was able to borrow additional amounts for infrastructure spending which would be paid out of future years income.

As this credit card mechanism is no longer available to cover agreed overspending, as cash is fixed this means that projects need to be cut or deferred instead.

Blame the statisticians for electrification deferrals.

 

[Ploughman]

It maybe me, but I seem to recall another electrical project was deferred in the last few years and is now back being done if my memory is correct?

Would that be Transpennine?
If you can call it being back underway.

 

[Phil.]

Either a tram or a tram-train has a structure that doesn't meet railway crashworthiness standards, and would need re-design from the ground up to do so. Even a tram-train requires special signalling provisions to share track with a train. That isn't a huge deal on the low-speed Rotherham line but would be much more so on the GWML (though ERTMS might be a solution).

As someone posted further back there are 2-car 25kV designs in service overseas and given infinite money and willpower a few of them could be built to UK gauge. However this would result in an extremely expensive micro-fleet. It's just not worth doing if the only benefit is to get rid of one DMU diagram on the Marlow branch when other DMUs will still be operating nearby for the foreseeable future.

We had them here from 1963. The new "Clacton" EMUs came in fours and twos. Built for 100 mph running (the first EMUs to be so).

 

[158756]

The fault is with the Government statisticians. By making Network Rail part of the public sector, Network Rail's debt becomes part of the National Debt. The consequence of this is that Network Rail has a fixed amount of cash to spend for this 5 year spending period. The statistical change occurred after the ORR determined Network Rail's projects and cost base. Previously Network Rail was able to borrow additional amounts for infrastructure spending which would be paid out of future years income.

As this credit card mechanism is no longer available to cover agreed overspending, as cash is fixed this means that projects need to be cut or deferred instead.

Blame the statisticians for electrification deferrals.

Network Rail couldn't do it in the time even if they had an endless supply of money, but what would be the good of them borrowing huge sums of money they could never hope to repay? Surely it'd just end up using an even larger portion of its income servicing debt and spending less on the network, unless the government was prepared to put more money into the bottomless pit.

 

[387star]

Never having travelled on the swindon to bath line I am a bit confused as to where the wires will end... Thingley junction is that where the route diverges from the main line from london to cardiff or is it further towards chippenham?

Swansea and the valleys presumably way behind now

Have mini gwr hst sets got the go ahead for taunton to cardiff etc I seem to remember that mentioned from time to time but seen nothing solid

 

[snowball]

Never having travelled on the swindon to bath line I am a bit confused as to where the wires will end... Thingley junction is that where the route diverges from the main line from london to cardiff or is it further towards chippenham?

Whenever I come across a placename I'm usure about, I look it up on a mapping site such as streetmap.co.uk, which has Ordnance Survey maps among others.

Brunel's original route to Bristol via Bath diverges from the (Badminton) route to Cardiff at Wootton Bassett. Thingley Junction is further south-west, between Chippenham and Bath, and is where the southward line to Melksham and Westbury turns off.

However, as discussed several times in this thread, the significance of Thingley Junction in relation to the electrification is that there is a feeder station there from the national grid. The line between Thingley and Wootton Bassett needs to be wired to get the juice from the feeder station to the route to Cardiff.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It maybe me, but I seem to recall another electrical project was deferred in the last few years and is now back being done if my memory is correct?

Would that be Transpennine?
If you can call it being back underway.

Two electrification projects - Transpennine and Midland Main Line - were "paused" and then, a few months later, when the then chancellor George Osborne got to hear about it, unpaused. However they are now on a much slower schedule than before the pause.

 

[furnessvale]

Erm I don't think that's actually the case I believe the current overheads on the MML only support 100mph running and would need to be upgraded to make use of 125mph Bi-modes, and according to Tony Miles on WNXX EMT have been told to look at buying new diesels to replace HST's.

I am probably wrong but don't some bi-modes run at 125 on diesel (or could be made to do so?).

If so, it would be sensible to order them and at least keep Greater London free of fumes, while the electric range could be extended as the wires were modified and/or extended.

 

[snowball]

I am probably wrong but don't some bi-modes run at 125 on diesel (or could be made to do so?).

The bi-modes that GWR are getting are capable of doing 125 on diesel if some settings are changed but it is (or was originally) proposed to restrict them to 100 to increase their reliablity and reduce mintenance costs.

 

[tbtc]

It seems it needs repeating. The reason for the decision to delay/defer the full electrification is all about Network Rail's massive cost overruns. The existence of bi-modes has simply made it possible to partly electrify the main Bristol route and make a start on the B&H as planned (to Newbury). In the absence of bi-modes I have no doubt the decision would have been to finish Reading to Cardiff and nothing else. Network Rail have been set a finite overall budget (which of course does not include purchasing any trains) and to go ahead with the complete GW project would have lead to other projects elsewhere having to be completely stopped. The decision ensures that any project cancellations or descopings elsewhere on the network can be kept to a minimum.

Well put (but shame it has to be repeated!)

Still no realistic alternative to the compromise of bi-mode. But some enthusiasts struggle with anything less than "perfect" - most stock/ services/ infrastructure is a compromise between one thing and another (e.g. commuter doors vs InterCity doors)

I am probably wrong but don't some bi-modes run at 125 on diesel (or could be made to do so?).

If so, it would be sensible to order them and at least keep Greater London free of fumes, while the electric range could be extended as the wires were modified and/or extended.

The bi-modes that GWR are getting are capable of doing 125 on diesel if some settings are changed but it is (or was originally) proposed to restrict them to 100 to increase their reliablity and reduce mintenance costs.

On the subject - once the line from London to Cardiff is wired, will there be any unelectrified 125mph running out of Paddington towards Bristol/ Oxford etc (i.e. ignoring the B&H route which wasn't in electrification plans)?

I know that XC briefly tilted on the Oxford route but can't remember the actual line speed.

 

[furnessvale]

The bi-modes that GWR are getting are capable of doing 125 on diesel if some settings are changed but it is (or was originally) proposed to restrict them to 100 to increase their reliablity and reduce mintenance costs.

Thanks, so my original comment stands, that it would be sensible for any new order for MML to be bi-modes notwithstanding any delays to OHL on that line.

 

[Dave1987]

It seems it needs repeating. The reason for the decision to delay/defer the full electrification is all about Network Rail's massive cost overruns. The existence of bi-modes has simply made it possible to partly electrify the main Bristol route and make a start on the B&H as planned (to Newbury). In the absence of bi-modes I have no doubt the decision would have been to finish Reading to Cardiff and nothing else. Network Rail have been set a finite overall budget (which of course does not include purchasing any trains) and to go ahead with the complete GW project would have lead to other projects elsewhere having to be completely stopped. The decision ensures that any project cancellations or descopings elsewhere on the network can be kept to a minimum.

What? Because of bi-modes they are now talking about doing a half arsed job on other parts of the network like only electrifying the uphill bits down to the far south west. Yes NR only have a finite budget and that is the fault of the government! Money is dirt cheap at the moment with interest rates at their lowest rates in ages. This is the precise time that NR should be borrowing to get it done. But the politicians ordered the stupidly expensive bi-modes, put NR debt as government debt and have now deferred electrification indefinitely. It's a complete and utter shambles! But of course because of their bi-modes they can get away with it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Still no realistic alternative to the compromise of bi-mode.

Yes there was! Plan it properly, get the electrification done, then order much much cheaper EMU's! But I'm sure that your love of bi-modes mean you completely refuse to accept that!

 

[47802]

Thanks, so my original comment stands, that it would be sensible for any new order for MML to be bi-modes notwithstanding any delays to OHL on that line.

Well yes and no, the point is if MML electrification is canned for the foreseeable future as some seem to think, then the current overheads will be largely unusable for a 125mph Bi-mode, so you could argue there would be little point having a Bi-mode, however clearly a Bi-mode convertible would be useful if that position changed, and given the fact that the only potentially current off the shelf 125mph Diesel train happens to be also a Bi-mode.