Great Western Electrification Progress

[snowball]

Yes there was! Plan it properly, get the electrification done, then order much much cheaper EMU's!

Do you have a Tardis so that we can go back to the time when that was possible?

But I'm sure that your love of bi-modes mean you completely refuse to accept that!

Try to get it into your skull that people are not talking out of any love of bi-modes.

 

[Clarence Yard]

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 ---


Nice rant but short on facts (apart from the shambles bit). No one is discussing only electrifying any more uphill bits of the former Western region. Getting the existing scheme complete is going to be hard enough without anyone now getting their crayons out and thinking about more schemes. If NR had managed to get this one done properly then routes down towards Exeter and towards Gloucester would have been naturals to follow but that's far, far away now.

Government decides the funds available for Rail (the so called SOFA) so if NR borrows either on the public or private purse, the debt financing is in there. But NR could borrow all the money they wanted and they still wouldn't get it done in time. Their planning and execution has been woeful, even without the DfT periodically messing them around.

We all know who at the DfT decided that 5 car bi mode sets were the answer to everything and he is not now involved in the project. But in the absence of wires to places like Taunton, Weston or the North/South Cots, diesel was always going to have to feature in the new IC train solution somewhere.

The decision to bi mode the rest of the IEP fleet was taken because it became apparent that NR were going to be years late getting past Didcot and FG stated that the very expensive new electric sets would have to be parked up and the cascade of HST sets to Scotland halted. It was put to the DfT in fairly blunt terms what the political effect of all that would be.

Now NR are fairly mired in getting to Oxford and into Bristol Temple Meads. Their plans are all over the place and putting them back allows minds to concentrate on getting the other sections done properly. Will Oxford and BTM ever get done? Who knows.

As for getting away with it, Mark Carne may think he has escaped getting reacquainted with his gardening tools by the news coming out on American election week but the Public Accounts Committee are now holding an enquiry into this sorry mess - first hearing is in December.

 

[tbtc]

Yes there was! Plan it properly, get the electrification done, then order much much cheaper EMU's!

Go on then - I'm listening - how do you wire the GWML considering...

HSTs are getting tired - needing upgraded - getting uneconomical to spend big money on the runts of the litter - whilst some have some life left in them, squadron service is going to have to end in the next few years

A significant number of London - Oxford fasts need to run through to Worcester/ Hereford etc

A significant number of London - Cardiff services need to run through to Swansea

You've also got branches to Gloucester/ Weston etc

Air quality is becoming a bigger issue in London - all those diesels at Paddington aren't helping

You need years to electrify hundreds of miles of the GWML (which will include diverting services via routes that aren't planned to be electrified, e.g. Gloucester - Newport when you are wiring the Severn Tunnel)

If you could electrify the GWML overnight then you'd still have a number of problems (like what to do with the through services to Worcester etc)

And that's assuming it didn't go over budget/ they didn't discover any problems/ everything ran smoothly/ HOPS worked from day one/ all cables were well documented/ you had 20:20 hindsight etc.

I'm not convinced that "get the electrification done" is as simple as you think, nor that we could ever afford to wait for the electrification to be "done" before the first HSTs became uneconomic and needed replacement with something. When we electrified the ECML, the HSTs running on it weren't that old, so a delay of a year wasn't much of an issue. We don't have such luxuries left.

I'm out.

But I'm sure that your love of bi-modes mean you completely refuse to accept that!

You're one tactic here seems to be painting people prepared to accept bi-modes as a realistic compromise as zealots unable to see any downsides.

Well, that and the occasional references to the steep floors (that nobody who's been in one has worried about).

I can weigh up the pros and cons and can't see a better realistic flexible alternative.

 

[Mikey C]

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 can imagine a situation where a London Mayor sets a time scale for the removal of all diesels from Central London. With upcoming restrictions on diesel cars, and electric buses soon to arrive, there's no way that diesels will be allowed to run under wires into St Pancras (a flagship station and otherwise all electric) for the life of new trains.

How far in to London do trains run at over 100mph anyway?

 

[47802]

I can imagine a situation where a London Mayor sets a time scale for the removal of all diesels from Central London. With upcoming restrictions on diesel cars, and electric buses soon to arrive, there's no way that diesels will be allowed to run under wires into St Pancras (a flagship station and otherwise all electric) for the life of new trains.

How far in to London do trains run at over 100mph anyway?

Maybe the London Mayor had better come with some money for MML electrification quick then, maybe also some Marylebone as well!

 

[holts]

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.

I would be quite happy to put a substantial amount on them not having completed electrification to Swansea within ten years .

Of course eventually many things will happen , lets extend that to what will happen in a hundred years time , my point is that it will not be remotely close to the original intention and once shelved, costs balloon , momentum lost , excuse never to complete without another external event to drive it . Good transport drives economic activity in those areas , as it is still classed as a deprived area it actually would help .

 

[furnessvale]

Maybe the London Mayor had better come with some money for MML electrification quick then, maybe also some Marylebone as well!

When the London Mayor imposes low emission zones on roads in his area, he doesn't chip in cash to enable users to buy new vehicles, he just does it.

 

[jyte]

When the London Mayor imposes low emission zones on roads in his area, he doesn't chip in cash to enable users to buy new vehicles, he just does it.

This is the case. The only situation in which I could see the Mayor/TFL paying more than a joke amount for electrification of the MML/Chiltern Route is if they took over the suburban services as part of London Overground.

 

[47802]

When the London Mayor imposes low emission zones on roads in his area, he doesn't chip in cash to enable users to buy new vehicles, he just does it.

And if the government tell him there is no money to convert remaining diesel trains to electric at London Terminals it is not going to happen is it.

In any case the biggest problems with Diesel trains is probably Paddington anyway which will be fixed, the other 2 are much smaller.

 

[furnessvale]

And if the government tell him there is no money to convert remaining diesel trains to electric at London Terminals it is not going to happen is it.

In any case the biggest problems with Diesel trains is probably Paddington anyway which will be fixed, the other 2 are much smaller.

I doubt he has the power to impose such regulation on private property.

 

[reddragon]

When the London Mayor imposes low emission zones on roads in his area, he doesn't chip in cash to enable users to buy new vehicles, he just does it.

No but I am sure that the £4500 government grant, £5000 manufacturer contribution, free congestion zone access and 2p/mile running costs helps!

From 2018 Diesel cars / vans will be charged £11.50 to enter the LEZ 24/7

 

[Mikey C]

The difference between St Pancras and Marylebone is that the wires into the former are already there. Bimodes can change to electric power when they enter Central London

 

[themiller]

Does anyone know if there's an up-to-date graphic showing which sections of the GWML are electrified? Is any member of the forum keeping track of the situation like happens on the North-west project?

 

[47802]

The difference between St Pancras and Marylebone is that the wires into the former are already there. Bimodes can change to electric power when they enter Central London

Well it might improve emissions a bit I doubt that will be particularly cost effective for a few miles into London, especially as it doesn't fix the problem with the 222's unless you buy a complete bi-mode fleet to replace both the 222's and HST's.

 

[furnessvale]

No but I am sure that the £4500 government grant, £5000 manufacturer contribution, free congestion zone access and 2p/mile running costs helps!

From 2018 Diesel cars / vans will be charged £11.50 to enter the LEZ 24/7

I presume this is electric. I was thinking diesel, especially hgv.

 

[ess]

In the Thames Valley is Greenford and Marlow getting electrified but not Henley or Windsor?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In the Thames Valley is Greenford and Marlow getting electrified but not Henley or Windsor?

Greenford has never been on an electrification plan.
Marlow was on initially but is now off, for technical reasons.
Henley and Windsor are still on the list but have been "deferred".

 

[doa46231]

Although we cant blame bi-modes as a concept for the 'deferral' of parts of GW electrification, after all the project was in such a mess that something had to be done, nevertheless it certainly made the DfT's decision easier.

The effect of bi-modes will be felt more on network electrification in general.
What prospects now for MML, Transpennine, East-West rail, and Cross Country?

What we will have is instead of bi-modes being electric with diesel for the 'last mile' as it were, we shall have diesel trains with electric for the odd bits.

So for the next 30 years we will be operating heavy trains which are expensive to buy and expensive to operate.

We'll be the only Country in Europe still wedded to diesel engines for the majority of our services, an unenviable place to be.

And despite all the excuses offered by some people on here, we should have been able to carry out the GW scheme on time and within budget.

BR started to electrify the ECML in 1985, and reached Edinburgh in 1991, at a fraction of the cost of the GW project, and without all the advances in equipment and materials that have been made since then
And if folk say it was done 'on the cheap' I would advise them to steer well clear of anybody involved at the time!

It is still functioning more than 25 years after the initial phase, whereas the GW scheme will probably never be finished!

 

[tbtc]

So for the next 30 years we will be operating heavy trains which are expensive to buy and expensive to operate

I'm confused between the "electrification will be too expensive to do" arguments and the "bi-modes will be too expensive to run" arguments on here.

Could the complainers at least decide which argument they want to make (if bi-modes are so expensive to operate then surely that makes electrification better value for money?).

And despite all the excuses offered by some people on here, we should have been able to carry out the GW scheme on time and within budget

Go on then - do tell how you'd have wired it all up on time, on budget and without the need for any bi-modes (whilst maintaining at least a dozen services an hour from Paddington to Reading, not removing direct London links to Worcester etc, finding spare capacity on the SWT/ Chiltern routes for diversions)?

BR started to electrify the ECML in 1985, and reached Edinburgh in 1991, at a fraction of the cost of the GW project, and without all the advances in equipment and materials that have been made since then

BR started to electrify the ECML in 1985?

So how come EMUs were operating out of Kings Cross in the mid 1970s?

Or was it more a case that they spent a long time electrifying the line, in fits and starts, only reaching Scotland in the 1990s, almost twenty years after starting the project?

And if you praise BR for doing this "without all the advances in equipment and materials that have been made since then" then you have to accept that they were doing so in an era without all the advances in Health & Safety, testing and environmental concerns that have been made since then (which slow modern projects down considerably)?

And if folk say it was done 'on the cheap' I would advise them to steer well clear of anybody involved at the time!

It is still functioning more than 25 years after the initial phase, whereas the GW scheme will probably never be finished!

Why were the posts situated so far apart then?

Why the ongoing reliability problems even a generation later?

 

[Class 170101]

You could point to some very major projects that worked - Crossrail for instance (run mainly by TfL)

Disagree with that. The tunnel core section may well be managed by TfL but the surface sections to Shenfield and Reading are NOT. These are being undertaken by Network Rail and particularly on the eastern section where I have some knowledge it is not going well at all - in some cases 12 months behind schedule with additional last minute possessions needed to stand any chance of opening on time.

As a long-term watcher of the road programme I've seen lots of projects removed from the programme, put back, removed again, put back again, and eventually built.

MML and TP have already been paused and unpaused again.

Are you saying all electrification will stop at the end of CP5?

I doubt wiring will stop at the end of CP5 it will be politically unacceptable to do so. However I doubt we sill see any new projects added to the CP6 list. TPE, MML and the finishing of GW - nevermind the Chase Line will be all thats there I reckon. I would be surprised to see any other schemes added before CP7, post 2024.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

If you have better ideas than mine of the Parry People Mover feel free to suggest them. I am sure a PPM could be built as more than one vehicle, or even Tram Train used which is certainly longer than a PPM.

I merely suggested the idea along with the Paisley Canal style wiring as a means of getting Windsor off the ground and wired.

 

[J-2739]

If you have better ideas than mine of the Parry People Mover feel free to suggest them. I am sure a PPM could be built as more than one vehicle, or even Tram Train used which is certainly longer than a PPM.

I merely suggested the idea along with the Paisley Canal style wiring as a means of getting Windsor off the ground and wired.

Diesel D stock?

 

[jyte]

I merely suggested the idea along with the Paisley Canal style wiring as a means of getting Windsor off the ground and wired.

This has been brought up here before but I'm not entirely sure what it means.

 

[59CosG95]

This has been brought up here before but I'm not entirely sure what it means.

Paisley Canal was done using the bare minimum to get it done, as it's a very low-traffic route (like the Windsor branch).

 

[jyte]

Paisley Canal was done using the bare minimum to get it done (like the Windsor branch).

What is "the bare minimum"?

I'm presuming no ATF, less frequently placed (and smaller uprights) for lower speeds, (narrow wire?) and smaller foundations/shallower piling?

How much of a difference does that really make cost wise?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What is "the bare minimum"?
I'm presuming no ATF, less frequently placed (and smaller uprights) for lower speeds, (narrow wire?) and smaller foundations/shallower piling?
How much of a difference does that really make cost wise?

Part of it involved coasting under some bridges to avoid having to raise them.
Also special arrangements (basically switch the power off) if locos or other non-EMU stock was used.
http://www.railengineer.uk/2012/12/03/paisley-canal-electrification/

It probably wouldn't be allowed in the current regime.

 

[92002]

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.

Perhaps you would like to share with us all where the current Tram/trains in use in France and Germany fail to meet crashworrhy requirements. They are designed for and used on the main lines. With real trains slotted in between the tram/trains. They are fitted with standard country signalling equipment and travel at linespeed.

Similar tram/trains have already been produced for use in Rotherham.

 

[jyte]

Part of it involved coasting under some bridges to avoid having to raise them.
Also special arrangements (basically switch the power off) if locos or other non-EMU stock was used.
http://www.railengineer.uk/2012/12/03/paisley-canal-electrification/

It probably wouldn't be allowed in the current regime.

Oh wow that really is doing the bare minimum. Do they have to bring the pant down or does it go through a really short neutral section?

Also, thank you very much. To everyone in this thread. It's rapidly becoming one of my favourite places on the internet.

 

[gsnedders]

Oh wow that really is doing the bare minimum. Do they have to bring the pant down or does it go through a really short neutral section?

Also, thank you very much. To everyone in this thread. It's rapidly becoming one of my favourite places on the internet.

70m neutral section, so pantograph stays up. (That long because it has to gradually go down.)

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps you would like to share with us all where the current Tram/trains in use in France and Germany fail to meet crashworrhy requirements. They are designed for and used on the main lines. With real trains slotted in between the tram/trains. They are fitted with standard country signalling equipment and travel at linespeed.

Similar tram/trains have already been produced for use in Rotherham.

I've been working on tram-train projects on and off since 1996 including several visits to Karlsruhe, so please credit me with some knowledge.

The tram-train does not conform with standard European crashworthiness standards, therefore requires additional train protection on lines where it operates to reduce the risk of collision. Generally this already exists with the Indusi system in Germany, so tram-train operation is unrestricted there up to a certain line speed. However in the UK we have to ensure TPWS is fitted on every signal or some other protection means is enforced. This happened with the Tyne and Wear Metro Sunderland extension, and is happening with the Rotherham scheme. Please see the relevant Group Standard:

http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GEGN8502 Iss 1.pdf

In this situation, the consequences of a collision would be very significantly worsened by incompatibility of vehicles from each mode, even at relatively low speeds. Reliance on signal observation alone is therefore unlikely to provide sufficiently low collision probability to reduce the risk as far as is reasonably practicable, and GM/RT2452 requires additional protection systems to be provided. The protection arrangements provided for each mode should be compatible with those of the other mode and be appropriate to the performance characteristics of the vehicles concerned (particularly their braking performance).

 

[jyte]

70m neutral section, so pantograph stays up. (That long because it has to gradually go down.)

Seems like an OK solution. I mean, I guess it could cause problems if an EMU has to draw power under a bridge!