Greater Bristol Electrification

[Ivo]

By the end of this decade, services between London and Bristol will become AC-powered and Filton Bank will be four-tracked.

Meanwhile, in roughly the same period, local services in and around the city are expected to become more prominent. Half-hourly stopping services are planned for the whole of the Avon area, including two routes that are closed to passenger traffic and several closed stations.

With all this in the pipe-line for the next few years, what is the scope for electrification of the rest of this network? With every truly local service planned for a 30-minute frequency, there were be two EMUs on all areas of the network (with major routes having longer-distance AC services as well) and with potentially as many as six trains per hour on certain stretches of route EMUs would be ideal due to their superior acceleration.

It also improves the case for several other schemes that are planned (if not officially). There is a hope that the Berks & Hants electrification will reach Westbury, but this on its own is unlikely to happen. Electrifying local routes around Bristol could see EMUs running through to Westbury from Bristol and Bath - granted, this would require a rejig of the map as these trains currently run to/from Gloucester - which would in turn improve the case for continuing beyond Newbury to Westbury. New stations are also hoped for at Corsham and Royal Wootton Bassett but with only longer-distance services present there is no real chance of this happening; whereas a local EMU service to Swindon would be easier to manage than a DMU service and could form a natural extension to the Bath shuttles. And it could also allow the current HST service to Weston-super-Mare to be preserved without the need for dragging a heavy diesel engine or two for nearly 120 miles - for the sake of an extra 19 at the end. (I realise this last bit may be difficult if the suggestion to use the original Temple Meads is taken forward.)

Bristol is often mentioned as being a bit of a black sheep among major cities in England in that is public transport system is weaker than those found elsewhere (although it should be said that this view is somewhat exaggerated at times), and something like this would allow improvements to be made - and would strengthen the case for an ITA.

What views do you guys have? Is this viable? Is there a case for extension? Or am I talking baloney?

N.B.: This thread is intended for matters relating to local routes around Bristol only.

 

[PhilipW]

Electrifying Temple Meads to WEston Super Mare certainly seems like an eminently sensible ide to me.

Such a scheme would offer a number of advantages:
1) Allow EMU-worked greater Brristol suburban services, WSM to Bath or WSM to Parkway (or even to Yate if wires went that little extra distance) or WSM to Cardiff

2) It would also mean electric IEPs could run through to WSM which would reduce the need for Bi-Modes (and thus save money) many of which would be shuttling between Paddington and Temple Meads all day ready for their occasional extension to WSM at peak times.

I guess too the route would be as easy as any to electrify. The geography looks easy.

 

[fgwrich]

And... If it's to be believed that the WAG are looking into ordering a fleet of new EMUs for the Valley Lines Network, both the electrification and ordering could be combined into a larger order as they are both effectively serving similar areas with similar services.

 

[joeykins82]

Bristol metro/suburban services won't be electrified as a standalone project; there are far more cost-effective standalone projects higher up the pecking order. The electrification you're looking for will come as a byproduct of completing the electrification of XC's long distance network. Have a read of the NR Electrification RUS; it's a route they want wired as its BCR improves with every other electrification project and will then kick start many others

 

[tbtc]

This thread is intended for matters relating to local routes around Bristol only

This is the problem - a lot of the services through Bristol are tagged together for operational reasons (how many people travel from Cardiff to Taunton or from Weymouth to Worcester?), which is hard to justify electrifying.

If you take the benchmark that a half hourly service justifies electrification then Bristol - Weston makes sense, but then a lot of the services on that line currently extend to Taunton/ Exeter etc.

Comes down to the old argument about cutting some links to justify electrification really. I can't see the B&H getting wired any time soon though (given that so many of the services on it continue into Devon/ Cornwall).

 

[Ivo]

This is the problem - a lot of the services through Bristol are tagged together for operational reasons (how many people travel from Cardiff to Taunton or from Weymouth to Worcester?), which is hard to justify electrifying.

If you take the benchmark that a half hourly service justifies electrification then Bristol - Weston makes sense, but then a lot of the services on that line currently extend to Taunton/ Exeter etc.

My thought was to build a new station at Uphill (where the Weston branch rejoins the main route) and provide an electrified bay. Local trains from WSM could start there instead and could be improved to half-hourly; this also allows the Tauntons and IEPs to run fast between WSM and BRI. It would probably require dualling of the route through Weston Milton though.

Comes down to the old argument about cutting some links to justify electrification really. I can't see the B&H getting wired any time soon though (given that so many of the services on it continue into Devon/ Cornwall).

Tell that to people in Wiltshire. They refuse to accept that there is not an adequate case for electrification to continue beyond Newbury to Westbury. On the flip side, if the Bath shuttles continue to Westbury then the line through Trowbridge would become justifiable.

If Westbury is to get wires in this decade, this is the way forward, not extending from Newbury.

 

[anthony263]

My thought was to build a new station at Uphill (where the Weston branch rejoins the main route) and provide an electrified bay. Local trains from WSM could start there instead and could be improved to half-hourly; this also allows the Tauntons and IEPs to run fast between WSM and BRI. It would probably require dualling of the route through Weston Milton though.

I agree about the weston super mare loop needing re-doubling.

I also have some timetable showing the porposed Bristol metro services including some services serving Bridgewater, etc but not running via the weston loop.


PM me if you would like a copy.

 

[tbtc]

My thought was to build a new station at Uphill (where the Weston branch rejoins the main route) and provide an electrified bay. Local trains from WSM could start there instead and could be improved to half-hourly; this also allows the Tauntons and IEPs to run fast between WSM and BRI. It would probably require dualling of the route through Weston Milton though.

Tell that to people in Wiltshire. They refuse to accept that there is not an adequate case for electrification to continue beyond Newbury to Westbury. On the flip side, if the Bath shuttles continue to Westbury then the line through Trowbridge would become justifiable.

If Westbury is to get wires in this decade, this is the way forward, not extending from Newbury.

What's the trade like between Weston and Taunton/ Exeter etc? (i.e. if you ran EMUs from Bristol - Yatton - Weston - Uphill and then had most Taunton services running non-stop Bristol - Uphill?)

The problem with the Wiltshire route is that (unless you have bi-mode) there's little point in wiring beyond the Bedwyn area until you've gone all the way to Penzance! But, don't want to drag this thread off topic.

 

[Ivo]

What's the trade like between Weston and Taunton/ Exeter etc? (i.e. if you ran EMUs from Bristol - Yatton - Weston - Uphill and then had most Taunton services running non-stop Bristol - Uphill?)

There's enough to justify one train per hour, but it's more for local journeys meaning there's no point in going beyond Taunton - in practice, this means that even my idea of running non-stop to Weston is a bit dim because Weston itself is ultimately the primary market between Bristol and Taunton. I think your idea has some merit, but would need to include a call at Worle as well; this would provide commuters travelling to/from Bristol in a large part of Weston with a third service every hour. Worle almost functions as a Parkway anyway, so what difference would it make? If only there were passing loops which the EMUs could use around Yatton whilst the fasts speed past them in time for Worle (Third platform at Worle anyone?)

In truth though it would be better running these services via Weston, and that is where the problems begin. Is it worth electrifying a route for two EMUs per hour when there will still be one DMU per hour? There isn't a case for extending any further than Weston (or Uphill) at this stage, so some kind of other plan would need to be considered.

 

[Rhydgaled]

One the one hand the increase in frequencies from the 'Greater Bristol Metro' proposals seem to be crying out for electrification. On the other hand however, Network Rail are supposedly going to provide clearance for class 166/165 trains in the area, which works against the electrification objective for the short/medium term.

The most obvious route for electrification is Bristol - Weston-Super-Mare because of the London service on top of the proposed Bristol metro. However, we know for a fact that it won't be wired up in CP5 which leaves a stinking great problem. Do you put bi-mode IEPs on it initially or temporarily continue with IC125s? The latter option could be expensive if you HAVE to make the IC125s compliant with disability regs, the former would involve throwing the bi-mode's (very expensive) engines away after only 5 or 6 years service if electrification is to be done in CP6 (which I would think would be a huge disencentive to electrifying). The logical solution of course is to use class 57 + electric IEP for a few years until the wires go up, but DaFT think that coupling locos is really slow.

This is the problem - a lot of the services through Bristol are tagged together for operational reasons (how many people travel from Cardiff to Taunton or from Weymouth to Worcester?), which is hard to justify electrifying.

My suggestion is replacing the Cardiff - Taunton and Weymouth - Worcester services with the following:

• Taunton - Worcester
• Weymouth - Bristol
• Swansea - Bristol (this one can be electric)

As for Westbury to Reading, an hourly IEP bi-mode service is apparently proposed. In my opinion, while you normally need several trains an hour to warrant wires, in the case of very long or very fast trains (like Intercity services) then an hourly service is quite enough reason to get the wires up.

 

[HSTEd]

One the one hand the increase in frequencies from the 'Greater Bristol Metro' proposals seem to be crying out for electrification. On the other hand however, Network Rail are supposedly going to provide clearance for class 166/165 trains in the area, which works against the electrification objective for the short/medium term.

The most obvious route for electrification is Bristol - Weston-Super-Mare because of the London service on top of the proposed Bristol metro. However, we know for a fact that it won't be wired up in CP5 which leaves a stinking great problem. Do you put bi-mode IEPs on it initially or temporarily continue with IC125s? The latter option could be expensive if you HAVE to make the IC125s compliant with disability regs, the former would involve throwing the bi-mode's (very expensive) engines away after only 5 or 6 years service if electrification is to be done in CP6 (which I would think would be a huge disencentive to electrifying). The logical solution of course is to use class 57 + electric IEP for a few years until the wires go up, but DaFT think that coupling locos is really slow.

Surely the bi-mode IEPs could be displaced by electric IEPs that are part of a later order.
The bi-mode IEPs could go to XC or be used to eliminate the remaining West of England HST sets.

 

[HowardGWR]

This thread would be better informed if pax flows were known. It's no good rhetorically asking 'how many pax want to go from x to y' and then suggesting investment that would serve that unknown flow.

For example, the key to terminating trains at Bristol is how much empty space will be conveyed to Weston otherwise.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Surely the bi-mode IEPs could be displaced by electric IEPs that are part of a later order. The bi-mode IEPs could go to XC or be used to eliminate the remaining West of England HST sets.

Because the IEP vehicle length is 26m it would probably be an expensive business cascading them to XC, and unless/until the wires from Newbury are extended to Taunton I would not want to see IEPs (with, I expect, the same disastourous fuel ecconomy, while on diesel power, as a Voyager) on PAD - Plymouth/Exter/Paignton/Penzance trains.

If the IEP vehicle length was normal, so they were freely cascadable to XC, I might not think them quite so stupid.

 

[HSTEd]

Because the IEP vehicle length is 26m it would probably be an expensive business cascading them to XC, and unless/until the wires from Newbury are extended to Taunton I would not want to see IEPs (with, I expect, the same disastourous fuel ecconomy, while on diesel power, as a Voyager) on PAD - Plymouth/Exter/Paignton/Penzance trains.

If the IEP vehicle length was normal, so they were freely cascadable to XC, I might not think them quite so stupid.

Between Bristol and Doncaster, which is where the SW-NE route would require additional gauge clearing to enable cascade to XC, I make it 160 miles.
That is rather less than the currently proposed East Coast works which do not appear to be costing lots of money.

Those trains could then run as far west as Paignton since that will already have been cleared for the IEP as part of the Great Western project.


And even if the fuel consumption is as bad as some people on this forum like to claim I doubt it would be so bad that an IEP running diesel between Westbury (or potentially even Newbury) and Penzance would use more fuel than a HST running on diesel all the way from Paddington.

 

[HowardGWR]

Because the IEP vehicle length is 26m it would probably be an expensive business cascading them to XC, and unless/until the wires from Newbury are extended to Taunton I would not want to see IEPs (with, I expect, the same disastourous fuel ecconomy, while on diesel power, as a Voyager) on PAD - Plymouth/Exter/Paignton/Penzance trains.

If the IEP vehicle length was normal, so they were freely cascadable to XC, I might not think them quite so stupid.

I don't understand this 26 m point. Could anyone explain what that has to do with XC being unable to use IEP stock? Thanks.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't understand this 26 m point. Could anyone explain what that has to do with XC being unable to use IEP stock? Thanks.

Most existing long distance stock (including HST passenger vehicles and Voyagers) are twenty-three metres long meaning that the infrastructure has been cleared to accept vehicles of this length. IEP vehicles on the other hand are going to be twenty-six metres long meaning that you'll have to go along the routes they are to be used on ensuring that there is sufficient clearance for the vehicles to successfully maneuver around curves. So until work is carried out ensuring that there is sufficient clearance and fixing any structures that would cause issues XC cannot use IEP.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I don't understand this 26 m point. Could anyone explain what that has to do with XC being unable to use IEP stock? Thanks.

The longest stock currently in operation is about 23m, therefore with 26m some structures and most importantly platforms would be wacked by the extended throw of the coaches. Therefore with significant clearance possibly required for them to transfer to XC it may not be possible.

However considering the GWML and ECML will be cleared for them all that would need clearing is Sout Kirkby Junc (between Wakefield and Sheffield)/South Yorkshire Junc (Doncaster) and Abbotswood Junc (Worcster). This is for the NE SW to become IEP operated where i think they would benefit most by being able to extend to Aberdeen/Plymouth/Penzance easily. The South Coast routes i imagine will soon be capable of EMU operation.


I do not imagine that much of this will require major clearances as large stretches of it are to W10 and W12. So i don't think it will be impossible but it will cost money.

Dam it Ainsworth beat me to it

 

[HowardGWR]

The longest stock currently in operation is about 23m, therefore with 26m some structures and most importantly platforms would be wacked by the extended throw of the coaches. Therefore with significant clearance possibly required for them to transfer to XC it may not be possible.

However considering the GWML and ECML will be cleared for them all that would need clearing is Sout Kirkby Junc (between Wakefield and Sheffield)/South Yorkshire Junc (Doncaster) and Abbotswood Junc (Worcster). This is for the NE SW to become IEP operated where i think they would benefit most by being able to extend to Aberdeen/Plymouth/Penzance easily. The South Coast routes i imagine will soon be capable of EMU operation.


I do not imagine that much of this will require major clearances as large stretches of it are to W10 and W12. So i don't think it will be impossible but it will cost money.

Dam it Ainsworth beat me to it

Thanks to you both. Bristol TM and Weston through platforms are pretty curvy. So I was wondering about the discussion above about running mainly empty stock through to Weston, rather than terminating at TM old station, which is straight. In that case, Weston pax have to change onto a connecting XC, say. I believe the Weston crowd are promised a few through services from the Paddington direction, as things stand, anyway. So this length thing must have been considered already.

On locals around Bristol, I suppose once the four tracking is completed, there is less need for locals to have smart acceleration as they will be on the relief lines ('slow' in modern parlance), so will not hold up other traffic?

 

[tbtc]

There are other benefits to the gauge work required to clear IEP - it should also benefit freight clearances, and if smoothing out certain curves then you are making an easier journey for *all* stock.

 

[YorkshireBear]

There are other benefits to the gauge work required to clear IEP - it should also benefit freight clearances, and if smoothing out certain curves then you are making an easier journey for *all* stock.

Another good point. Generally improving the gauge on our main trunk routes is probably the best way to improve freight connectivity.

 

[tbtc]

Another good point. Generally improving the gauge on our main trunk routes is probably the best way to improve freight connectivity.

I'll be honest enough to admit that I don't know whether W6A is better than W10 or if its the other way round, freight is a lot less interesting than the passenger side of things to me (don't tell my dad, who's the other way round...), but I presume that the Electric Spine will require increased clearances to allow bigger freight to run, which works towards the same goal as IEP clearance - a happy coincidence.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'll be honest enough to admit that I don't know whether W6A is better than W10 or if its the other way round, freight is a lot less interesting than the passenger side of things to me (don't tell my dad, who's the other way round...), but I presume that the Electric Spine will require increased clearances to allow bigger freight to run, which works towards the same goal as IEP clearance - a happy coincidence.

W6a is pretty poor and wouldnt fit much through at all. W12 is what can fit the biggest containers in this country through. So when i said a lot of the XC route is already W10/W12 that means its already fairly well cleared.

 

[swt_passenger]

Mentioning gauge clearance for W10 or W12 is a bit of a side issue as far as I can work out.

The reasons for W10/12 gauges are far more to do with the upper 'corners' of containerised freight. In the broader sense they provide no additional clearance for longer passenger stock such as IEP, because the containers are narrower than all passenger stock, and the wagons are also shorter than most passenger coaches.

If anything it is the reverse that is true, such that making the infrastructure clear for 26m IEP vehicles (85 ft) might even allow longer container wagons carrying two 40 ft containers...

 

[YorkshireBear]

Mentioning gauge clearance for W10 or W12 is a bit of a side issue as far as I can work out.

The reasons for W10/12 gauges are far more to do with the upper 'corners' of containerised freight. In the broader sense they provide no additional clearance for longer passenger stock such as IEP, because the containers are narrower than all passenger stock, and the wagons are also shorter than most passenger coaches.

If anything it is the reverse that is true, such that making the infrastructure clear for 26m IEP vehicles (85 ft) might even allow longer container wagons carrying two 40 ft containers...

Yes all i meant was generally the route is to a higher gauge, surely a W12 route will require less work for IEP than a W6a route?

 

[swt_passenger]

I think not though. If your starting point is that the XC network can cope happily (as it must do) with 23m coaches, ie C3, then it can already by default cope with the vehicle length and width required for W10/12. All the extra work for W10/12 is therefore 'above' the C3 envelope. So clearance to W10/12 on its own won't provide any extra clearances that will help IEP - which is all about length of their longer vehicles.

There's a similar misconception about W10/12 when it comes to overhead electrification. The basic gauge is only a few cm higher than C3, and doesn't on its own provide for electrification as well. However if they have to rebuild a bridge completely for gauge clearance they often put the extra height in for wiring as it makes sense to do the job once, but if there reasons why they cannot, such as highway levels - you can get the freight improvement and have to return later for another more major rebuild for the wires.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I think not though. If your starting point is that the XC network can cope happily (as it must do) with 23m coaches, ie C3, then it can already by default cope with the vehicle length and width required for W10/12. All the extra work for W10/12 is therefore 'above' the C3 envelope. So clearance to W10/12 on its own won't provide any extra clearances that will help IEP - which is all about length of their longer vehicles.

How? My local line can take HSTs and voyagers and does on regular occasions yet it is only W8, W6a in parts...

 

[swt_passenger]

How? My local line can take HSTs and voyagers and does on regular occasions yet it is only W8, W6a in parts...

Neither gauge requires additional width beyond C1/C3, and W8 is only higher at the corners than C1/C3, but lower in the centre. Freight and passenger clearances are looked at separately, and can overlap, so your local line having different freight gauges in different areas is not at all inconsistent with it ALL allowing for HSTs etc.

It is a normal situation for a route to be cleared for C1/C3 and W8 at the same time, (as was Southampton to the Midlands until a year or two back) but the only improvement to achieve W10 from W8 was to allow for increased height at the corners.

 

[YorkshireBear]

You said that presuming 23m carriages they will already be cleared for W10 W12, i have no idea what you are on about now... Ive lost you.

 

[swt_passenger]

You said that presuming 23m carriages they will already be cleared for W10 W12, i have no idea what you are on about now... Ive lost you.

I said they'd be OK for the length and width of W10/12, ie not the height!

 

[YorkshireBear]

I said they'd be OK for the length and width of W10/12, ie not the height!

Oh i see sorry. I still maintain that if a route has a higher gauge it will require less clearance for 26m vehicles than a smaller gauge. I am not saying they will not need work just less.