GW electrification to exeter

[Mitchell Hurd]

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

Where can I find this information, sorry?

 

[cle]

It’s amazing to me how quickly people become accustomed to fudges, like electric Didcot-London services. It’s a stop gap - Didcot is not a materially important place for local services (all locals use the fasts) - whereas Oxford is arguably the most important GWR destination after Reading.

The many operational, network and logical reasons have been laid out.

I would also add that it lays groundwork for EWR, Chiltern and XC to Coventry schemes - ie facilitates and underpins a lot more electric infill options. Chiltern more than infill admittedly!

Bristol via Bath is important. As trains actually use it. Parkway-TM, sure, one day for contingency or XC, but the superfasts are dead so it would barely be used with current stock. And beyond Bristol is nothing of network value, especially as the main route to Taunton/Exeter is elsewhere. Possibly local services there though. I prefer it for prioritised for hilly, many stop commuter services than long hourly inter cities.

 

[The exile]

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.

Though severing the links between Oldfield Park (in particular) and Filton Abbey Wood would not be a good idea. Indeed - I notice that the May t/t reinstates a morning train from Bath to Filton round the Rhubarb Curve.

 

[Western Sunset]

Though severing the links between Oldfield Park (in particular) and Filton Abbey Wood would not be a good idea. Indeed - I notice that the May t/t reinstates a morning train from Bath to Filton round the Rhubarb Curve.

Indeed, the 1559 Filton AW - Bath currently avoids BTM by traversing the Rhubard.

 

[JonathanH]

It would eliminate the inconvenient and inefficient split of Oxford/Reading local services at Didcot

How is it inefficient? Didcot has the capacity to terminate the trains in the platforms, and it means that eight car trains terminate nearer London, so it is actually more efficient.

The diesel services north from Didcot neatly dovetail with the Banbury services and the layout at Oxford is highly inefficient with the need to run on to the carriage sidings to reverse.

It would improve utilisation of the 387 fleet

Really? Wouldn't more be needed because the cycles from London would be longer. Turnaround at Didcot is currently 14 minutes - running time from Didcot to Oxford is between 14 and 18 minutes depending on stops and then because of the layout at Oxford, the turnaround is longer than in the platform at Didcot - looks to me like four 387s would be needed to extend the service through to Oxford, compared to two Turbos.

It’s amazing to me how quickly people become accustomed to fudges, like electric Didcot-London services.

It isn't as bad as you make out.

I'm not arguing against Oxford electrification, but I don't think it has to be driven by the idea that the services need to run through across Didcot. Even when the stoppers ran through Didcot, pathing considerations often necessitated a long dwell there.

 

[Xavi]

I still cannot see any advantage of electrifying south west of Frome area and Weston-super-mare if only going to electrify to Exeter.

You’ve got to get to Exeter first. I agree that Colebrooke, Topsham, Newton Abbot should be the next phase. And, eventually, Plymouth and beyond.

 

[Falcon1200]

How is it inefficient? Didcot has the capacity to terminate the trains in the platforms, and it means that eight car trains terminate nearer London, so it is actually more efficient.

How can it possibly not be inefficient? The time spent at Didcot by the terminating trains, both diesel and electric, every half-hour, is wasteful of both Traincrew and unit time.

The diesel services north from Didcot neatly dovetail with the Banbury services and the layout at Oxford is highly inefficient with the need to run on to the carriage sidings to reverse.

By far the majority of Didcot/Oxford trains terminate at Oxford anyway, with only a handful running to or from Banbury (sometimes there are 3-hour gaps in the service), so these trains usually have to reverse via the carriage sidings anyway.

Further, there are limited stabling facilities for EMUs at Didcot, therefore sidings had to be provided at Swindon Cocklebury with empty stock running between there and Didcot, which is yet more waste and inefficiency, whereas there is plenty of space to stable trains at Oxford; Some of the sidings there have been used to hold GWR's useless (in every respect) Class 769 sets. There are multiple, good reasons why the pre-electrification stopping train service was Oxford/Reading (and beyond), the split at Didcot is an unfortunate necessity enforced by the failure to complete the original electrification scheme.

 

[JonathanH]

How can it possibly not be inefficient? The time spent at Didcot by the terminating trains, both diesel and electric, every half-hour, is wasteful of both Traincrew and unit time.

They would have to spend that time at Oxford in carriage sidings instead. Fourteen minutes is a sensible turnaround time. The trains would have to spend longer than that in Oxford carriage sidings because of the running time between Didcot and Oxford.

Therefore it isn't specifically more efficient to run to Oxford instead of Didcot.

 

[Falcon1200]

They would have to spend that time at Oxford in carriage sidings instead.

As do the DMUs now! Running EMUs to Oxford would eliminate the two wasteful reversal times at Didcot, leaving an unavoidable one at Oxford, which is the case now anyway. I note you have not mentioned the wastefulness of running empty EMUs between Swindon and Didcot every day, not to mention the money spent providing carriage sidings at Swindon, sidings which were not needed during the decades of diesel operation.

BTW IMHO the rebuilding of Oxford station should have included bay platforms on the site of the Beckett Street car park, south of the Botley Road bridge, therefore eliminating the need for trains of any type to reverse via the carriage sidings. But that is not happening, sadly.

Therefore it isn't specifically more efficient to run to Oxford instead of Didcot.

We will clearly have to agree to disagree; As I said above, there were very good reasons why the stopping services ran through between Oxford and Reading, reasons which do not alter because of a change of traction type.

 

[Western Sunset]

Using a similar argument to Jonathan's, one could say that terminating all GW trains from the west at Reading, with passengers changing onto the Lizzie Line to reach London, would free up more IETs...

 

[zwk500]

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

The case for electrification beyond Exeter is pretty dodgy as the technical challenges increase just as the frequency drops off.

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.

Cornwall would need a hell of a lot of rebuilding for clearance, the CBR would be rubbish.

I agree with other posters re Didcot-Oxford, it should be done ASARP after the Oxford P5 rebuild is complete. In a separate stream and simultaneously, i'd then go: Bristol via Filton, then via Box. Newbury-Castle Cary with Frome and the quarries included (anticipating last-mile engines for shunting the yards themselves), then extend to Exeter. Then Bristol-Cogload, Weston SM is 50/50 between batteries or Wiring. The Bradford-on-Avon route might be worthwhile for routing options but only if some IETs were transitioned to full EMU.
I'd also wire Swindon-Gloucester while the team are in the area.

 

[Mikey C]

Wasn't there a suggestion to double track and electrify to Hanborough so that Oxford terminators would terminate there instead, thus freeing up capacity at Oxford?

 

[zwk500]

Wasn't there a suggestion to double track and electrify to Hanborough so that Oxford terminators would terminate there instead, thus freeing up capacity at Oxford?

Certainly electrification was floated, doubling may well have been part of it but not sure if P5 means the capacity at Oxford is less pressing.

 

[Meerkat]

Cornwall would need a hell of a lot of rebuilding for clearance, the CBR would be rubbish.

Could you rebuild it nearer to Surrey please?
Rebuild the line properly - faster, electric, and intermodal ready, at least to Truro.
But its a long, long, way down the priority list.

 

[JKF]

The obvious thing would be to do Brum-Plymouth, but Taunton-Padd via Bristol is about 20 mins longer at the moment I think & I don't think electrification is going to change that,

would running via parkway make up that difference?

 

[Western Sunset]

A week ago West Country trains were being diverted via Badminton due to engineering works on the B&H. If I recall, they were scheduled around 60 mins non-stop Reading - Bristol TM.

 

[coppercapped]

They would have to spend that time at Oxford in carriage sidings instead. Fourteen minutes is a sensible turnaround time. The trains would have to spend longer than that in Oxford carriage sidings because of the running time between Didcot and Oxford.

Therefore it isn't specifically more efficient to run to Oxford instead of Didcot.

Part of the reason for the new Platform 5 loop is that Platform 4 can then be used to reverse local services from the south without having to run to the carriage sidings and return south from Platform 3. Already turnouts are installed which allow trains starting from Platform 4 to join the Up Oxford at 30mph crossing only the Down Oxford and, in future, without interfering in any way with Down trains routed into Platform 5.

This one change adds considerable flexibility to operations - it will no longer be necessary for trains from the south to reverse in the carriage sidings, with the extra time involved, to clear the only northbound platform.

Edit: corrected line names.

 

[Benjwri]

I'm not arguing against Oxford electrification, but I don't think it has to be driven by the idea that the services need to run through across Didcot. Even when the stoppers ran through Didcot, pathing considerations often necessitated a long dwell there.

All you need to do is take a stopping service to Didcot from Reading and observe the proportion of passengers who then head across to the Oxford stopper. I would say at least 60%.

It adds a huge amount of time to the journey, yes there was dwell time before, but especially heading away from Oxford there are some spectacular waits.

 

[jimm]

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.

The track layout at Oxford station is not an issue - during the resignalling (and reconstruction of the bay platforms areas for Chiltern's services), track was realigned and signals relocated as necessary in order to allow for future needs, such as adding more though platforms, and the carriage sidings were all expensively rebuilt as well - in order to accommodate Class 387s overnight. It is simply a case of adding overhead wires to the area.

The Cowley branch project would mainly revolve around reinstatement of a fourth track on the eastern side of the formation to Kennington junction - which is unlikely to need major alterations to accommodate the passenger services. Connections to and from Hinksey yard are not going to change, and from Kennington junction to Didcot North junction is simply two bi-directionally signalled running lines, bar the pointwork for Appleford sidings.

What's the problem with quadrupling south of Oxford? This would most likely largely involve adding plain line along the existing four track width formation to Radley.

And any Didcot flyover project would be highly unlikely to affect the immediate area of the station or the Oxford line, unless someone wants to pick up the tab for demolishing a Tesco store and lots of housing.

 

[Meerkat]

The track layout at Oxford station is not an issue - during the resignalling (and reconstruction of the bay platforms areas for Chiltern's services), track was realigned and signals relocated as necessary in order to allow for future needs, such as adding more though platforms, and the carriage sidings were all expensively rebuilt as well - in order to accommodate Class 387s overnight. It is simply a case of adding overhead wires to the area.

The Cowley branch project would mainly revolve around reinstatement of a fourth track on the eastern side of the formation to Kennington junction - which is unlikely to need major alterations to accommodate the passenger services. Connections to and from Hinksey yard are not going to change, and from Kennington junction to Didcot North junction is simply two bi-directionally signalled running lines, bar the pointwork for Appleford sidings.

What's the problem with quadrupling south of Oxford? This would most likely largely involve adding plain line along the existing four track width formation to Radley.

And any Didcot flyover project would be highly unlikely to affect the immediate area of the station or the Oxford line, unless someone wants to pick up the tab for demolishing a Tesco store and lots of housing.

Was the track to the south set up for adding a loop for another southbound platform?
Is the Cowley layout decided then?
Was the suggested quadrupling only from Oxford to Radley then?
Fair point on the Didcot flyover.

 

[cle]

I read about quadding only to Radley, and to concur on another poster's note above, it was mentioned about wires to Hanborough too, having a parallel/competitor to Oxford Parkway, if you will. But to minimize the turning of services at Oxford as much as possible.

Cowley, if eventuated, was slated to be an extension of the Marylebones, but they are not currently clock-face and it might be overkill, in terms of some of the consist lengths. A Banbury local (or the fated Moor St), or a EWR service (from MKC) might be more suitable - if 1tph overlaid with an Oxford shuttle.

The main concern will be over on the bays side. Even with a rebuild to provide another through 'Up' platform towards Didcot - that loses a bay and there will still be the 2tph Marylebone (minimum, 3tph been mentioned in peaks) - and then 2tph MKC, and 2tph Bedford not long after that. Would another bay be built, to still retain two? Perhaps these make Cowley viable as ostensibly, a long terminating siding with a bit of a purpose.

 

[Silenos]

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.

I imagine there might be political reasons to extend electrification into Cornwall, if it were seen as boosting the local economy - there are regular complaints that the county is ignored by central government when it comes to resource allocation.

 

[zwk500]

I imagine there might be political reasons to extend electrification into Cornwall, if it were seen as boosting the local economy - there are regular complaints that the county is ignored by central government when it comes to resource allocation.

It depends whether the Albert Bridge is a problem or not.

 

[supervc-10]

Albert Bridge though is short enough that replacing the gensets in the 802s with batteries would work fine if they're on 25kV the rest of the journey. Same idea with the Welsh 756s running through awkward tunnels in the Valleys.

 

[Duncan-231192]

Bimode locos pulling 5,000 tons of stone sounds challenging! Probably need 4 of them or something... You would think changing locos at Newbury would be a possibility though

A Class 99 would make mince meat out of those stone trains.

 

[jimm]

Was the track to the south set up for adding a loop for another southbound platform?
Is the Cowley layout decided then?
Was the suggested quadrupling only from Oxford to Radley then?
Fair point on the Didcot flyover.

As I said, the entire layout at Oxford is set up with the future in mind, including the possibility of platform 2 becoming a through platform on an island with platform 3 in any new station that involves the demolition of the existing main building. The new Botley Road bridge is also designed to allow for an extra through platform to be added.

As I'm sure you are aware, Cowley is at the business case development stage, but as I said, it is not complicated to achieve additional track capacity in the Oxford area that would assist with operating such a service and other things besides.

As an emergency project at the start of the Second World War, a four-track formation was provided between Wolvercote Junction, at the northern end of Oxford where the Cotswold Line diverges, and Radley. The formation can also take three tracks from Radley to the former Abingdon branch junction. I think the only three-track section between Oxford and Radley from the 1940s until the area was rationalised was the bridge over the Thames between the station and Hinksey Yard.

Reinstating quad track between Oxford and Radley where the formation exists would halve the length of the current Oxford-Didcot twin-track section from 10 miles to 5, and hugely improve segregation between passenger services and freight through the Oxford area, without breaking the bank.

South of Radley, any quadrupling to Didcot would require a new independent formation to take two extra tracks and bridging the River Thames twice. If lots of money is to be invested in a rail project in that neck of the woods, it should be on a flyover east of Didcot.

 

[cle]

Is there a set end-plan, assuming 2-3tph Marylebone and 2-4tph EWR? If p2 becomes a through road, there would only be one bay.

I would think at least 2 bays would be required for the above patterns, if not 3. Although p2 might still be used, and posssibly there is through running from Chiltern (Cowley) or EWR (West/Reading) one day?