Great Western Electrification

[76020]

There are two small articles on the GW Electrification on Railnews see links:-

http://www.therailengineer.com/2012/12/06/the-devil-is-in-the-detail/

http://www.therailengineer.com/2012/12/04/electrifying-the-great-western-railway/

It states that they should reach Swansea by Easter 2018. There have been overhead masts installed in the new Reading train depot since at least late August this year so you could say that they have already started the groundwork apart from the bridge recontructions.

So here is a question, if the new Class 345 units for Crossrail are not available in 2016 when electrification gets to Reading/Newbury/Oxford and Bristol, will you get the situation of Class 319 on the Outer Surburban and still Class 165 Diesels on the Inner due to lack of electric units?

 

[thelem]

You're assuming the 319s will be ready for 2016, which isn't that likely given the delays to the class 700 contract.

 

[route:oxford]

You're assuming the 319s will be ready for 2016, which isn't that likely given the delays to the class 700 contract.

Time to start "Chilternising" more Mk3s (if there are any left)?

 

[D365]

Or the 116+100 could be useful?

 

[Waverley125]

Christ, this really should be a simple process. Order a new batch of pendolinos to run the GWML & GEML, and a new set of 350's to run suburban services.

 

[Zoe]

Order a new batch of pendolinos to run the GWML & GEML

You can't just do that. It has to go to tender throughout the EU. Also how much of the GWML and London to Norwich Line would benefit from tilt?

 

[ainsworth74]

You can't just do that. It has to go to tender throughout the EU.

Yes but that makes such pronouncements annoyingly difficult to make

Also how much of the GWML and London to Norwich Line would benefit from tilt?

Indeed and unless someone wants to spend loads on making it possible in Cornwall the answer is very little/not at all. In which case why go for 390s? If you really want an Alstom product (and ignore the fact that you can't just pick Alstom without a tender) then you'd be far better getting a 180 bodyshell and sticking the electrics from a 390 under the floor rather than going for a straight 390.

 

[LexyBoy]

Does anyone know any more about the suggestion that new 110 or 125 mph units could be ordered for the GWML in order to maximise path usage out of Paddington? Certainly it would make sense, especially as there apparently aren't enough 319s to do everything they've been suggested for and the IEP order has shrunk, but wouldn't really help in the short term.

So here is a question, if the new Class 345 units for Crossrail are not available in 2016 when electrification gets to Reading/Newbury/Oxford and Bristol, will you get the situation of Class 319 on the Outer Surburban and still Class 165 Diesels on the Inner due to lack of electric units?

Leaving aside the likely lack of 319s any time soon, I'd think it would make more sense to put the 319s on inner suburban and 165/6s on outer suburban routes where their lower acceleration wouldn't be a problem, as well as their necessity for extensions to Banbury, Bedwyn and Worcester. Plus level of comfort provided by Turbos is more suited to longer distance services.

Christ, this really should be a simple process. Order a new batch of pendolinos to run the GWML & GEML, and a new set of 350's to run suburban services.

Whilst our stock aquisition process is longwinded and prone to being thrown into disarray, the problem with having a dictatorial "just do this" approach is that if something doesn't work out then you find it hard to justify. For example, if Pendos were ordered then the press would be asking "why have you ordered these outdated trains when company X could provide a modern train for less cost" and "why have you bought tilting trains and are not investing in the infrastructure to use them". Not to mention that lots of the GWML won't be electrified, leaving a need for some diesel trains - and I don't think there are any existing 125 mph diesel trains which we could just order more of.

 

[themiller]

You can't just do that. It has to go to tender throughout the EU. Also how much of the GWML and London to Norwich Line would benefit from tilt?

The requirement to go to tender is, I believe, only if it is a government department buying the trains. If it's a private company (TOC or ROSCO) they can buy what they want! But there again I could be wrong!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The requirement to go to tender is, I believe, only if it is a government department buying the trains. If it's a private company (TOC or ROSCO) they can buy what they want! But there again I could be wrong!

If the stock can be paid for during the lifetime of a franchise, then you are probably right.
However, there is no such setup possible at the moment. Every stock purchase needs somebody to underwrite the leasing charges beyond the end of the (short) franchise.
Once the DfT gets into guaranteeing leases (section 54) they call the shots on what to buy and where to put it.
I don't doubt they would like to pass the whole job onto the TOCs, but that was what long franchises were about and we are where we are.
On IEP, Thameslink and Crossrail the costs and operational implications are so critical that the DfT itself is doing the procurement.
It would have been interesting to see what Virgin or First would have done on the WCML in their long franchise, but we won't know that for a couple of years.

 

[tbtc]

Christ, this really should be a simple process. Order a new batch of pendolinos to run the GWML & GEML

You don't think that 140mph capable tilting trains may just be a little over-specced on the flat slow GEML?

 

[Kali]

A little overspecced between London & Bristol too...

 

[swt_passenger]

Does anyone know any more about the suggestion that new 110 or 125 mph units could be ordered for the GWML in order to maximise path usage out of Paddington?

Only that it made it into the next GW franchise ITT, if you are asking where it is 'officially' mentioned. It doesn't seem to be quite as explicit as some think, taken in the overall context of the relevant section:

A) The composition of the fleet to operate the London suburban services from December 2016 and in subsequent years. Bidders shall explain the reasons for choosing:

between new and cascaded fleets;

the performance of the rolling stock including top speed capability (e.g. 90mph, 100, 110, 125 etc) and acceleration and braking rates;

the mix of diesel and electric sets;

which displaced vehicles will be redeployed within the franchise and which vehicles will be returned to their owning ROSCOs when Crossrail takes over services in May 2018 and December 2019; and continued operation of DOO where it is in operation at the date of this ITT.

It should be noted that Network Rail believes that vehicles capable of 110mph running are necessary to maximise the benefits of the overall infrastructure investments on the route. Bidders should come to their own assessments of this view.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...hment_data/file/3596/invitation-to-tender.pdf

page 56 refers

 

[Zoe]

The requirement to go to tender is, I believe, only if it is a government department buying the trains. If it's a private company (TOC or ROSCO) they can buy what they want! But there again I could be wrong!

In the case of a franchised TOC, they are running a public service for the government so I'm not sure if they would be exempt from the EU directive. Water companies for example are private but are still subject to EU procurement rules.

 

[kylemore]

Christ, this really should be a simple process. Order a new batch of pendolinos to run the GWML & GEML, and a new set of 350's to run suburban services.

Ah but all the "Professionals" will say "Impossible - poor chap, how naive".

But then again it's in the interests of said professionals that things should be as complicated and long-winded as possible, because complication keeps them in jobs!

 

[ainsworth74]

Ah but all the "Professionals" will say "Impossible - poor chap, how naive".

If by 'professionals' you mean 'EU Procurement Rules'

 

[LexyBoy]

Only that it made it into the next GW franchise ITT, if you are asking where it is 'officially' mentioned. It doesn't seem to be quite as explicit as some think, taken in the overall context of the relevant section:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...hment_data/file/3596/invitation-to-tender.pdf

page 56 refers

Thanks. I guess then it depends whether the winning bid proposes using new stock (when presumably it make no difference to procurement whether 100 or 110 is specified), or cascaded stock (unless the 319s can be re-geared).

 

[Zoe]

Thanks. I guess then it depends whether the winning bid proposes using new stock (when presumably it make no difference to procurement whether 100 or 110 is specified), or cascaded stock (unless the 319s can be re-geared).

If this decision ends up getting left with the bidders. If as a result of the review into West Coast we end up going back to short franchises then it could end up specified by the DfT.

 

[LexyBoy]

Ah but all the "Professionals" will say "Impossible - poor chap, how naive".

But then again it's in the interests of said professionals that things should be as complicated and long-winded as possible, because complication keeps them in jobs!

I wonder if when Waverley125 needs a new car, s/he does some research first or just buys whatever the neighbour has for the sake of simplicity?

In the case of a franchised TOC, they are running a public service for the government so I'm not sure if they would be exempt from the EU directive. Water companies for example are private but are still subject to EU procurement rules.

What if I, as an eccentric billionaire, decided to start my own ROSCO and bought a fleet of trains? Would I be allowed to lease them to any interested TOC?

 

[Zoe]

What if I, as an eccentric billionaire, decided to start my own ROSCO and bought a fleet of trains? Would I be allowed to lease them to any interested TOC?

That's an interesting one. If it does have to go to tender then you'd be in a very good position to win (as you'd already own the trains and could supply the immediately) unless someone else had the same idea. I seem to remember that one of the supposed benefits of rail privatization was that the ROSCOs could compete against each other for the supply of trains to the TOCs but this didn't work out as in most cases only one ROSCO owned the type of trains needed by the TOC. The issue here though is that the ROSCOs won't take the risk of ordering trains unless they have a guarantee that they will be used throughout their lifespan. The TOCs have short franchises and are not in a position to offer this guarantee to the ROSCOs so it has to be done by the DfT.

 

[ainsworth74]

We have a previous incident like this though that suggests that no tender process is required. I seem to recall that Porterbrook ordered a few extra 170s on their own initiative back in the early 00s, made them available for lease by TOCs and they were rapidly in revenue service. No tender required (and one of the few examples of a ROSCO doing what it had been hoped they'd do!) and I assume they simply went to the highest bidder (who I think was Central Trains).

 

[Zoe]

We have a previous incident like this though that suggests that no tender process is required. I seem to recall that Porterbrook ordered a few extra 170s on their own initiative back in the early 00s, made them available for lease by TOCs and they were rapidly in revenue service. No tender required (and one of the few examples of a ROSCO doing what it had been hoped they'd do!) and I assume they simply went to the highest bidder (who I think was Central Trains).

The directive was issued on 31 March 2004, I'm not sure exactly when these extra 170s were made available.

 

[ainsworth74]

Hmm hadn't realised it was that late! In that case I suspect this happened before the directive.

 

[Unclepete]

Hi all, just a quick question, at Reading station, are they removing one of the lines between platforms 7 & 8? I assume there won't be a middle road for much longer?

thanks,

 

[JamesRowden]

Hi all, just a quick question, at Reading station, are they removing one of the lines between platforms 7 & 8? I assume there won't be a middle road for much longer?

thanks,

Looking at the artist impresions they will be making the platforms wider with only two tracks between each island.

 

[LexyBoy]

Looking at this plan there's no middle road shown. Platform 7 is due to be closed (along with 2,3,6,8,9,10 and 16) for a period over Easter so it could be widened then - the (temporary for now) widening of platform 10 was done on a weekend so it doen't take long. I hadn't thought about this, but it'll make sense with the new footbridge location for transfers between P4/5/6 and the London-bound platforms.

The middle road is actually quite well used at present, but I guess once the new depot is open it won't be so well placed for ECS moves, and freight should have a quicker transit through the area too.

 

[swt_passenger]

Looking at this plan there's no middle road shown. Platform 7 is due to be closed (along with 2,3,6,8,9,10 and 16) for a period over Easter so it could be widened then - the (temporary for now) widening of platform 10 was done on a weekend so it doen't take long.

The centre road will be disconnected and out of use immediately after the Easter blockade, may even be lifted. However the P7 widening itself is not happening until somewhat later. P3 and P11 are out of use for rebuilding immediately after the blockade, and P16 is out of use permanently.

I did see the date for P7's temporary closure somewhere, probably in the NR engineering access statement (formerly rules of the route), I'll try and confirm it later...

Edited to add:

Checked the EAS, and it shows P11 closed after Easter until the end of August.
Then from early September P10 and P7 are both closed, with P7 reopening at the beginning of November. (Cannot find an obvious reopening date for P10 though, as far as the end of 2013...)
P8 is then reduced to a restricted length of 5 cars.

P3 is closed for a significant period - from Easter until well into 2014. I think this is because it isn't any use at all because there is no route from P3 towards Twyford until much later in the build programme, probably dependent on the western flyover completion.

 

[fgwrich]

The centre road will be disconnected and out of use immediately after the Easter blockade, may even be lifted. However the P7 widening itself is not happening until somewhat later. P3 and P11 are out of use for rebuilding immediately after the blockade, and P16 is out of use permanently.

I did see the date for P7's temporary closure somewhere, probably in the NR engineering access statement (formerly rules of the route), I'll try and confirm it later...

Edited to add:

Checked the EAS, and it shows P11 closed after Easter until the end of August.
Then from early September P10 and P7 are both closed, with P7 reopening at the beginning of November. (Cannot find an obvious reopening date for P10 though, as far as the end of 2013...)
P8 is then reduced to a restricted length of 5 cars.

P3 is closed for a significant period - from Easter until well into 2014. I think this is because it isn't any use at all because there is no route from P3 towards Twyford until much later in the build programme, probably dependent on the western flyover completion.

I thought Platform 3 was currently one of the west end bays - as used by the XC Services. So if that's closed, and the floyover wont be built by then, Where are the XC Services going to be stopping?

 

[starrymarkb]

Am I the only one who saw the HOOB acronym and thought of these

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought Platform 3 was currently one of the west end bays - as used by the XC Services. So if that's closed, and the floyover wont be built by then, Where are the XC Services going to be stopping?

I'm fairly sure we've covered this in an earlier thread, but NR gave this explanation in a Q&A style response to FGW regarding the Network Change Notice for the next major blockade/remodelling:

Platform 3 out: Need to know where Cross Country goes;
The proposals are, subject to specific timetable requirements, as follows;
Manchester – Bournemouth reverse in platform 8.
Newcastle – Southampton use platform 10 and then 11 when open.
Southampton – Newcastle use platform 9.
Terminating services from Newcastle will use platform 13 or 14.

So Bournemouth trains use P8 rather than P9 as now; Southamptons transfer to various main line through platforms in lieu of P3. P7 is also of no use to XC as there is no connection to the mains west of the station, and during this phase P7 is dedicated to the down Westbury route.

Reading terminators use the relief side terminating platforms P13 or 14 which will allow permissive working, (ie the London end can hold a stopping service to Paddington at the same time).

Terminating trains staying on the relief side of the station in the final timetable is also perfectly logical, and I've pointed this out before.

I've added their explanation of P3 closure for completeness:

Platform 3 out: Why does platform 3 need to close then, can this be retained until a later stage of the works;
This is because it is inaccessible from the Tilehurst direction and therefore of no use to XC for Newcastle to Reading services. Retaining it would involve significant S&T track circuit bonding and alterations to provide a very limited benefit for train services from the Southcote direction only.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...western/reply to fgw stage f ncn 03102012.pdf