GW electrification to exeter

[stuu]

The upcoming (with GBRf) class 99 six-axle high-power bi-modes would be absolutely fine - slower than a 59 on diesel due to a less powerful engine, but under OHLE with 6000 kW (8000 hp) available, higher tractive effort and modern AC-traction drives they should romp away.

I did mean on diesel, obviously on electric they will be fine. I had forgotten about the class 99, I was thinking of the class 93, clearly the 99 is a more powerful thing but it's still noticeably lower than a 66 at the rail

 

[Meerkat]

Electrifying to Oxford allows for an end to the split of the locals in didcot, so improves the railway product in the area

As stated in the message you quoted, some of the locals on Cardiff-Bristol-beyond are already bimodes. The big advantage of Bristol via Bath is for the london trains, and it would be madness to not electrify Bristol TM - Bristol Parkway if electrifying the route via Bath.

Though I fully agree the routes into the southwest should also be electrified, and the heavy stone trains should be high up the priority list.

So that would give something like this for a rolling southwest/GWR electrification
1. Bristol TM (via Bath and via Bristol Parkway)
2. Oxford (when Oxford remodelling is finished, so possible after some of the later ones)
3. Newbury-Westbury-Taunton-Exeter, including branches to the quarries
4. Bristol-Taunton, including weston-super-mare and other branches around Bristol (Severn Beach, Bath/Chippenham to Westbury)
5. Working onwards along the mainline to Penzance
6. Possibly branches around Exeter?

Those gains are pretty marginal (outweighed by the Bedwyns and long extra electric for the IETs) compared to electrifying the stone trains.
That's why I think Westbury should be first.
Would the IETs be noticeably quicker to Westbury on electric?

 

[Energy]

Surely electrification to Exeter/Plymouth and Briston will not be continuous, but will be in sections to allow BEMU's to be used in the non-electrified bits.

What do you mean by in sections? Dropping and raising the pantograph even with the automatic system on the GWML requires the drivers attention, it doesn't work well to drop for just a tunnel or bridge.

Newbury to Westbury should seriously be considered.

Agreed, going further than the quarries doesn't make sense yet though.

Could the solid contact overhead rail (as used in Severn Tunnel and Chipping Sodbury Tunnels) be used along the sea wall?

OHLE is fine in wet conditions, just look in Scotland.

Assuming you meant Bristol, all the structure have already been cleared, so no reason to not do the whole way.

Indeed, Bath spa has been done as well.

Would the IETs be noticeably quicker to Westbury on electric?

Probably, they perform a lot better on electric, I don't remember that piece of track being particularly busy anyway with only the shuttle and Penzance/Plymouth/Paignton intercity trains.

I had forgotten about the class 99, I was thinking of the class 93, clearly the 99 is a more powerful thing but it's still noticeably lower than a 66 at the rail

The class 99 is the true replacement for the 66.

1. Bristol TM (via Bath and via Bristol Parkway)
2. Oxford (when Oxford remodelling is finished, so possible after some of the later ones)

Agreed

3. Newbury-Westbury-Taunton-Exeter, including branches to the quarries

Quarries to Newbury yes, beyond there to Taunton is relatively quiet so I'd infill after Bristol - Taunton - Exeter.

 

[stuu]

Would the IETs be noticeably quicker to Westbury on electric?

Not really, the speed profile is pretty consistent apart from the curve at Crofton so I would imagine pretty marginal

 

[Western Sunset]

I feel that Cardiff - Portsmouth trains have to remain a through service. It must be one of the busiest GW routes serving, as it does, seven cities and umpteen universities. With IETs taking over Cardiff - Taunton/Penzance services, the only regular diesel passenger stuff through the Severn Tunnel will be the Portsmouths. The sooner these become bi-modes (and preferably tri-modes) the better.

Apart from freight along the B&H from Merehead/Whatley, there's a lot now that goes to the Oxford area too. So by electrifying Westbury - Melksham - Chippenham, some of the Acton freights could be routed that way. Not sure whether I'd bother wiring the quarry branches at the mo, as Westbury is pretty slick at loco changing.

My order would be:
1.Didcot - Oxford
2.Chippenham - Bristol Temple Meads - Patchway/Bristol Parkway
3.Bathampton - Frome/Warminster and Bradford Jn - Chippenham
4.Narroways Jn - Severn Beach, re-opened Portishead line and Bedminster - Weston
5.B&H line Westbury - Newbury

 

[MarkyT]

Not really, the speed profile is pretty consistent apart from the curve at Crofton so I would imagine pretty marginal

Could do with a slightly shorter fast bypass around Crofton curve, Bedwyn, and possibly Hungerford stations to create a dynamic overtaking facility (approx 16km new construction). Expresses might thereby be able to achieve 200kph most of the way from Newbury to Westbury and could overtake stopping passenger and freight traffic. Would improve journey time and mixed traffic capacity regardless of electrification.

 

[Meerkat]

I feel that Cardiff - Portsmouth trains have to remain a through service. It must be one of the busiest GW routes serving, as it does, seven cities and umpteen universities. With IETs taking over Cardiff - Taunton/Penzance services, the only regular diesel passenger stuff through the Severn Tunnel will be the Portsmouths. The sooner these become bi-modes (and preferably tri-modes) the better.

Apart from freight along the B&H from Merehead/Whatley, there's a lot now that goes to the Oxford area too. So by electrifying Westbury - Melksham - Chippenham, some of the Acton freights could be routed that way. Not sure whether I'd bother wiring the quarry branches at the mo, as Westbury is pretty slick at loco changing.

My order would be:
1.Didcot - Oxford
2.Chippenham - Bristol Temple Meads - Patchway/Bristol Parkway
3.Bathampton - Frome/Warminster and Bradford Jn - Chippenham
4.Narroways Jn - Severn Beach, re-opened Portishead line and Bedminster - Weston
5.B&H line Westbury - Newbury

Why is Oxford seen as such a priority?
I would start with Newbury-Westbury/quarries - its a lot of miles but its pretty open country
Then Westbury-Chippenham-Bath-Bristol-Patchway/Parkway

 

[Trainbike46]

Those gains are pretty marginal (outweighed by the Bedwyns and long extra electric for the IETs) compared to electrifying the stone trains.
That's why I think Westbury should be first.
Would the IETs be noticeably quicker to Westbury on electric?

The only reason I put Bristol higher than Westbury is that most of the preparatory work has been done (all structures cleared), so the costs should be relatively low. you could even do the surveying and upgrading of structures to Westbury while installing OHLE to Bristol, as they'd be done by different people anyway, and then when the actual electrification to Bristol is done, have those crews move on with the wires to Westbury.

Also, offering through services across didcot isn't just a marginal benefit for passengers...

 

[Western Sunset]

Why Oxford first? Frees up IETs, better utilisation for 387s, most of the prep has been done. Granted the huffing/puffing around Oxford rebuilding doesn't help.

So...

I'd prob have = first Did - Ox and Chipp - BTM - Patchway/Parkway. Basically what should've been completed years ago...

 

[stuu]

Could do with a slightly shorter fast bypass around Crofton curve, Bedwyn, and possibly Hungerford stations to create a dynamic overtaking facility (approx 16km new construction). Expresses might thereby be able to achieve 200kph most of the way from Newbury to Westbury and could overtake stopping passenger and freight traffic. Would improve journey time and mixed traffic capacity regardless of electrification.

I can think of better uses of £1-2bn though, and more likely ones to get funded. Lots of rich people with horses etc round that way too, so probably not the easiest sell

 

[Meerkat]

The only reason I put Bristol higher than Westbury is that most of the preparatory work has been done (all structures cleared), so the costs should be relatively low. you could even do the surveying and upgrading of structures to Westbury while installing OHLE to Bristol, as they'd be done by different people anyway, and then when the actual electrification to Bristol is done, have those crews move on with the wires to Westbury.

Also, offering through services across didcot isn't just a marginal benefit for passengers...

How many passengers go across Didcot from stations the through trains dont stop at? Do a lot of Culham workers commute by train from east of Didcot?
Another issue is how set in stone is the track? Oxford station, Cowley branch, maybe extra capacity (though I assume quadrupling and Didcot East flyover are in the long grass now??) are all in the mix.

 

[Trainbike46]

How many passengers go across Didcot from stations the through trains dont stop at? Do a lot of Culham workers commute by train from east of Didcot?
Another issue is how set in stone is the track? Oxford station, Cowley branch, maybe extra capacity (though I assume quadrupling and Didcot East flyover are in the long grass now??) are all in the mix.

if you look back at my post, I explicitly wrote that Oxford should be done AFTER remodelling has finished, whenever that may be.

I think we are arguing over nothing here. I fully agree with you that the routes for the stone train should be high-up in the electrification priority. So unless you think we shouldn't finish the electrification to Bristol TM even though all the clearance work has been done, all disagreement seems to be splitting hairs?

 

[Meerkat]

if you look back at my post, I explicitly wrote that Oxford should be done AFTER remodelling has finished, whenever that may be.

I think we are arguing over nothing here. I fully agree with you that the routes for the stone train should be high-up in the electrification priority. So unless you think we shouldn't finish the electrification to Bristol TM even though all the clearance work has been done, all disagreement seems to be splitting hairs?

I was just debating priorities, and a number of people had Oxford as number 1.
I don't see that Filton adds a huge deal on its own - hence I would do it after getting to Bristol the other way.
Being cynical maybe leaving the easiest ones to the end makes it easier to get the money, rather than doing easier ones and then asking for more money for something with a higher cost per mile that raises eyebrows........

 

[Minstral25]

Why would you think that?

Assuming you meant Bristol, all the structure have already been cleared, so no reason to not do the whole way.

And for freights discontinous electrification is unlikely to be massively helpful. In my view this is very much a case of just get on with it, an attitude that does seem to exist in Scotland

I did mean Bristol - sorry And yes I agree Bristol via Bath is ready now so should be done.

What do you mean by in sections? Dropping and raising the pantograph even with the automatic system on the GWML requires the drivers attention, it doesn't work well to drop for just a tunnel or bridge.

Agreed, going further than the quarries doesn't make sense yet though.



Quarries to Newbury yes, beyond there to Taunton is relatively quiet so I'd infill after Bristol - Taunton - Exeter.

As battery technology gets better then you could extend Overhead wiring from Newbury to Westbury to cover freight and local passenger, but Westbury to Bath and Westbury to Taunton remain unwired but through trains could use battery recharged in the wired sections to get to the next wired section, say Bath to Bristol TM or Taunton to Exeter. This way you save on initial wiring costs and still don't use a diesel for the unpowered bits. Carbon output reduced.

Going on from Taunton you could put overhead wires through Exeter to Starcross, let the Batteries run to Teignmouth (the Sea Wall bit) then overhead wires through Newton Abbot and so on. That way the sea wall does not need expensive wiring.

Obviously I would prefer to see every line wired from end to end, but I suspect the limiting factor will be finance and using sections of wired track followed by track where Batteries are used becomes a way to keep costs achievable.

I do appreciate the Driver comment but again technology should be developed to help automate this as happens on Thameslink at Farringdon

 

[Trainbike46]

I did mean Bristol - sorry And yes I agree Bristol via Bath is ready now so should be done.



As battery technology gets better then you could extend Overhead wiring from Newbury to Westbury to cover freight and local passenger, but Westbury to Bath and Westbury to Taunton remain unwired but through trains could use battery recharged in the wired sections to get to the next wired section, say Bath to Bristol TM or Taunton to Exeter. This way you save on initial wiring costs and still don't use a diesel for the unpowered bits. Carbon output reduced.

Going on from Taunton you could put overhead wires through Exeter to Starcross, let the Batteries run to Teignmouth (the Sea Wall bit) then overhead wires through Newton Abbot and so on. That way the sea wall does not need expensive wiring.

Obviously I would prefer to see every line wired from end to end, but I suspect the limiting factor will be finance and using sections of wired track followed by track where Batteries are used becomes a way to keep costs achievable.

I do appreciate the Driver comment but again technology should be developed to help automate this as happens on Thameslink at Farringdon

We definitely shouldn't be leaving gaps in the London-Bristol (both ways) electrification.

For the long distance trains GWR is stuck with the 80x for the forseeable, so while it is absolutely possible to leave gaps, those gaps would be covered on diesel not by batteries

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Why Oxford first? Frees up IETs, better utilisation for 387s, most of the prep has been done. Granted the huffing/puffing around Oxford rebuilding doesn't help.

So...

I'd prob have = first Did - Ox and Chipp - BTM - Patchway/Parkway. Basically what should've been completed years ago...

I think Turbos would be displaced if the Didcot - Oxford line was electrified as IET's can run on electric.

I would do Chippenham to Bristol last as most trains leaving Chippenham are IET's and produce less emissions than most trains between Bristol Temple Meads - Patchway and Bristol Parkway.

 

[MarkyT]

We definitely shouldn't be leaving gaps in the London-Bristol (both ways) electrification.

Agree, and also as far as the main line both ways to Exeter is concerned.

For the long distance trains GWR is stuck with the 80x for the forseeable, so while it is absolutely possible to leave gaps, those gaps would be covered on diesel not by batteries

Although Firstgroup & Hitachi are involved with trials substituting one or more diesel modules with battery packs.

 

[Energy]

As battery technology gets better then you could extend Overhead wiring from Newbury to Westbury to cover freight and local passenger,

Freight yes, passenger is just moving the IET switchover point.

but Westbury to Bath and Westbury to Taunton remain unwired but through trains could use battery recharged in the wired sections to get to the next wired section, say Bath to Bristol TM or Taunton to Exeter. This way you save on initial wiring costs and still don't use a diesel for the unpowered bits. Carbon output reduced.

Westbury to Bath isn't too much use unless you have at least the Heart of Wessex line (to Weymouth), Wessex mainline (to Portsmouth) or line to Great Malvern electrified. Westbury to Taunton should be electrified if you are electrifying Taunton to Exeter so its electrified all the way from London to Exeter.

Going on from Taunton you could put overhead wires through Exeter to Starcross, let the Batteries run to Teignmouth (the Sea Wall bit) then overhead wires through Newton Abbot and so on. That way the sea wall does not need expensive wiring.

The sea wall shouldn't be difficult to electrify, its just been rebuilt and sea waves are fine at Saltcoats.

I do appreciate the Driver comment but again technology should be developed to help automate this as happens on Thameslink at Farringdon

Farringdon is a stationary changeover. It is already automated but requires the drivers attention. For the changeover there must be a long enough piece of track with distractions for the driver, long enough that for a while at Didcot the changeover was east of Didcot despite the wires ending west.

 

[Western Sunset]

I agree that work should start at the Chipp end and work westwards to BTM and then up to Patchway/Parkway. To me, both this (and Oxford) are really no-brainers.
If the Chipp - Melksham - Westbury section was also included, then Oxford/Acton aggregate traffic could be electrically hauled if theDfT wanted an early "green" hit, rather than doing the B&H which needs more prep/design work.

 

[Xavi]

Westbury to Bath isn't too much use unless you have at least the Heart of Wessex line (to Weymouth), Wessex mainline (to Portsmouth) or line to Great Malvern electrified.

Operation Churchward is expected to recommend dual-voltage units with interchangeable battery / diesel power packs. To use the BEMU version it would be useful to wire Bathampton to Westbury. Newbury to Frome for the quarries will be useful for regional services too, batteries might get you from Frome to Weymouth with topping up during turnaround.

 

[Minstral25]

We definitely shouldn't be leaving gaps in the London-Bristol (both ways) electrification.

For the long distance trains GWR is stuck with the 80x for the forseeable, so while it is absolutely possible to leave gaps, those gaps would be covered on diesel not by batteries

I agree but when the choice is refitting IETs with decent Battery's capable of a significant mileage with less actual electrification or nothing because there is not enough funds to electrify all the way to Exeter due to lack of Finances.

And anyway Exeter just means some other propulsion onwards to Paignton, Plymouth and Penzance as few trains terminate there, so you end up with diesels or???

 

[Falcon1200]

Why is Oxford seen as such a priority?

For a number of good reasons;

It would enable 4 trains an hour, in each direction, to run electric vice diesel between Didcot station, or Moreton Cutting, and Oxford
It would eliminate the inconvenient and inefficient split of Oxford/Reading local services at Didcot
It would improve utilisation of the 387 fleet
It would improve Traincrew utilisation
It would release a number of Class 165 sets
Lastly... it is only 10 miles!

 

[Snow1964]

Operation Churchward is expected to recommend dual-voltage units with interchangeable battery / diesel power packs. To use the BEMU version it would be useful to wire Bathampton to Westbury. Newbury to Frome for the quarries will be useful for regional services too, batteries might get you from Frome to Weymouth with topping up during turnaround.

Dorchester Junction to Weymouth is already electrified, but like Cardiff-Portsmouth, going to need dual voltage trains.

There is a big bank from Weymouth to Dorchester, so don't really want to be doing that on batteries, then having to get all the way to Frome.

If common sense prevails over adding a few miles to the thousands of miles of third rail, and going to leave an unelectrified gap which requires batteries then third rail extensions to Romsey and Dorchester West seem sensible.

I still cannot see any advantage of electrifying south west of Frome area and Weston-super-mare if only going to electrify to Exeter. As virtually nothing terminates there from north, just moving a changeover point. Different ballgame is going through to Paignton and Plymouth though.

 

[Energy]

Operation Churchward is expected to recommend dual-voltage units with interchangeable battery / diesel power packs. To use the BEMU version it would be useful to wire Bathampton to Westbury. Newbury to Frome for the quarries will be useful for regional services too, batteries might get you from Frome to Weymouth with topping up during turnaround.

The Weymouth service starts at Great Malvern, while battery is fine for Dorchester West to Castle Cary I doubt it will have enough charge to get all the way to Great Malvern. Southampton to Westbury is doable with a big enough battery and would have Cardiff to Portsmouth fully electric.

If common sense prevails over adding a few miles to the thousands of miles of third rail, and going to leave an unelectrified gap which requires batteries then third rail extensions to Romsey and Dorchester West seem sensible.

Westbury to Salisbury and Salisbury to Southampton are SWR land so could go either.

 

[Nottingham59]

Operation Churchward is expected to recommend dual-voltage units with interchangeable battery / diesel power packs.

What is Operation Churchward, please?

 

[Energy]

What is Operation Churchward, please?

Procurement of new regional EMUs/Battery EMUs/Bimode units for GWR, expected to replace all of GWR's fleet bar IETs and electrostars.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Could the solid contact overhead rail (as used in Severn Tunnel and Chipping Sodbury Tunnels) be used along the sea wall?

Why would you need to? It's perfectly possible to build wires and supports which are able to withstand a bit of spray and a strong wind, and there aren't any clearance issues which are the usual reason for using an overhead rail instead.
No doubt if there were plans to electrify through Dawlish there'd be lots of shrieking about views being spoiled regardless of what system was used, but a solid rail would have much more of a visual impact than regular wires.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Feb 2023 ==

The Weymouth service starts at Great Malvern

For now. In the past they've run from Cardiff/Gloucester/Cheltenham and probably a number of other places too, but all of these have been to make the most efficient diagrams for the DMU fleet. There isn't some huge demand specifically for people travelling between Yate and Weymouth.

 

[Irascible]

The other issue with Exeter is the antiquainted signalling & slightly awkward track layout, so Exeter wiring would probably mean redoing all that too...

Other than for completeness I'm not really too convinced of the utility of wiring Westbury-Taunton at the moment. It's an awkward network to decide what to do with, no doubt about that.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Dorchester Junction to Weymouth is already electrified, but like Cardiff-Portsmouth, going to need dual voltage trains.

There is a big bank from Weymouth to Dorchester, so don't really want to be doing that on batteries, then having to get all the way to Frome.

If common sense prevails over adding a few miles to the thousands of miles of third rail, and going to leave an unelectrified gap which requires batteries then third rail extensions to Romsey and Dorchester West seem sensible.

I still cannot see any advantage of electrifying south west of Frome area and Weston-super-mare if only going to electrify to Exeter. As virtually nothing terminates there from north, just moving a changeover point. Different ballgame is going through to Paignton and Plymouth though.

I agree, if you're spending that much money on electrification then it needs to, at the minimum, reach Plymouth and Paignton.

Ideally, Penzance also should be done too but I'm not so sure what the cost-benefit ratio would be considering trains are less frequent there.

 

[Xavi]

What is Operation Churchward, please?

Current GWR review of future regional fleet culminating in a recommendation. Mark Hopwood has already indicated the likely spec in presentations. DfT has to give go ahead, of course!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Feb 2023 ==

The Weymouth service starts at Great Malvern, while battery is fine for Dorchester West to Castle Cary I doubt it will have enough charge to get all the way to Great Malvern.

Terminating Great Malvern and Weymouth services at Temple Meads wouldn’t be a great loss. Alternatively, they could run to Portishead, Weston-super-Mare, Henbury or Severn Beach.

The other issue with Exeter is the antiquainted signalling & slightly awkward track layout, so Exeter wiring would probably mean redoing all that too...

Exeter re signalling and layout enhancements is pencilled in for CP7. DfT approval needed again!