GW Modernisation Project - the mistakes and the future?'

[HowardGWR]

Barnwood Junction is the Cheltenham side of the Gloucester triangle, while Abbotswood Junction is where the line to Worcester leaves the "Cross Country Main Line" (for want of a better description) between Ashchurch and Bromsgrove. Foxhall Junction is the south end of the Didcot west curve.

In other words, D1009 is making the point that any engineering works shutting the line between Cheltenham and Worcester/Bromsgrove requires a very lengthy diversion via Oxford and Swindon. For longer-distance traffic (especially CrossCountry trains between Manchester and Bristol), I suppose that a diversion via Hereford (using the Maindee East curve to avoid reversal in Newport) would be theoretically possible, though CrossCountry don't sign that route. (In contrast, some Bristol XC drivers do sign the GWML between Bristol and Didcot.)

You probably can gather that I found an Abbotswood just south of Yate. Thanks for that clarification. Yes I had, in my original comment, assumed XC services going via Maindee and missing out Cheltenham. It would be doubtful if blockages would need to be so long as an entire stretch between large centres at any one time. Good point about signing routes. A feature of the TOC situation I suppose. In the old days, my family relations who drove the steam engines, signed for I don't know how many routes. I suppose one could arrange for knowledge-building in advance of a really big project.

 

[Class 170101]

I think the biggest mistake was starting on the GWML first. MML should have been ahead in the queue, particularly having a better business case than the GWML. Future extensions to it would have filled in most of the lines between the ECML and WCML.

NW Triangle and North Transpennine Electrification in that context make more sense than GWML. Hull to Selby shouldn't have been ditched either.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think the biggest mistake was starting on the GWML first. MML should have been ahead in the queue, particularly having a better business case than the GWML. Future extensions to it would have filled in most of the lines between the ECML and WCML.

NW Triangle and North Transpennine Electrification in that context make more sense than GWML. Hull to Selby shouldn't have been ditched either.

Good points - get the experience on those first. Once complete then --

You would obviously do to Maidenhead for CrossRail. Then with experience gained done Maidenhead - Oxford and Newbury.
Then Reading to Swindon then Swindon - Cardiff. Then come back and done Filton triangle and into BTM. Then backwards from BTM - via Bath

 

[JamesT]

I think the biggest mistake was starting on the GWML first. MML should have been ahead in the queue, particularly having a better business case than the GWML. Future extensions to it would have filled in most of the lines between the ECML and WCML.

NW Triangle and North Transpennine Electrification in that context make more sense than GWML. Hull to Selby shouldn't have been ditched either.

Wasn't a big part of the reasoning behind GWML to free up rolling stock that could be cascaded elsewhere, as well as the direct business case?
Would electrifying MML first have done as much?

 

[Class 170101]

I don't think it would have released as much local stock compared to GW. But GW is a bigger scheme than MML.

 

[HowardGWR]

Well, they have the experience now don't they?!

I do hope that calmer councils will prevail; after all, we are looking at two decades or more of continuous electrification, including HSL projects and doubtless, infill schemes, such as GOBLIN, will come along too, not to mention non-HSL new lines such as Skelmersdale.

A forward looking government will have to bite the bullet on the GWML scheme. This will be realised, I'm sure. I'll be honest, one could almost hope that the bi-modes, when running on their diesels, prove hopelessly inadequate, compared with HSTs.

 

[The Planner]

Big blockades are more often preferred by the TOCs as it isn't constant weekends which you normally require more of, however they will only accept these in school holiday times and the normal bank holiday blocks we tend to put everything into now. Other issues are a finite resource which is fought over by all the routes, especially with things like tilting wagons and Kirow cranes and of course the ever present schedule 4 payments.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Wasn't a big part of the reasoning behind GWML to free up rolling stock that could be cascaded elsewhere, as well as the direct business case?
Would electrifying MML first have done as much?

One key factor in the original business case was the redeployment of Thameslink's 319s to both GW and NW schemes (ie no new stock needed beyond the GW IEPs).
The GW HSTs also needed replacing, while MML's 222s didn't.
The GW's 16x DMU fleet could also be cascaded, while the MML released few DMUs.

Another factor was Crossrail, which forced electrification extension to Maidenhead, on the back of which the Newbury/Oxford extension was justified (with large numbers of cascaded DMUs).
The Didcot-Bristol/Cardiff extension was essentially a separate business case for IEPs with no stock cascades involved (though some HSTs will now be recycled).
By then, devolution and IEP politics dictated it went ahead.

 

[coppercapped]

LNW-GWJoint's point about the way the different electrification stages came about explains why there wasn't seen to be the need for any overarching project management for the GW modernisation. If the scope had remained like that, and could have used the originally considered electrification standards, it might well have worked.

Then the gold-plating started...

On an issue associated with the electrification, does anyone know if the suggestions of a grade separated junction at Didcot are being progressed? It would seem to me to be almost essential to avoid delays becoming more prevalent in the future.

Since the new control centre at Didcot has taken over the signalling I have noticed an apparent increase in delays at Didcot - whether these are due to the signalling centre or other reasons I don't know. But as an example I recently went to Oxford and my train, running on the Down Main, was held at Didcot East for 8 minutes for an up train from Swindon, which called at Didcot, to clear. Looking at Real Time Trains afterwards it was clear that my train was held before the Up train had even arrived at Didcot and the two trains following mine to Oxford also suffered knock-on delays.

It seems to me that there are two main issues:

• The number of trains coming from the Swindon direction will increase in the near future: there will be one new non-stop service to and from Bristol and services on the Paddington - Swindon - Stroud - Gloucester route will become hourly. It is also entirely likely that some 'peak-buster' trains will be needed from Swindon in the foreseeable future. The chances of conflicts at Didcot East between these Up trains and Down trains on the Mains routed to Oxford will only increase.
• It seems to be the case that the new control systems route trains in the planned sequence and cannot react quickly to changes in circumstances. Physically removing such conflicts would benefit time keeping considerably.

I would therefore suggest that a grade separated junction between the Up and Down Main lines and the Didcot Avoiding Line is a high priority and should be considered as part of the Oxford station area modernisation. If it is feasible then the Relief Lines would also benefit from grade separation in view of the increasing number of long container trains running to and from Southampton - there is roughly one an hour in each direction at the moment. These compete with the stopping passenger and other freight trains in this increasingly busy corridor.

Having spent a considerable amount of money removing many conflicts at Reading, it seems silly to throw away some of the gains by not adding matching capacity to a junction only a few miles away.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think it would have released as much local stock compared to GW. But GW is a bigger scheme than MML.

MML as currently planned and with EMT's current service pattern won't release a single "regional spec" DMU. It will release lots of 222s for which there is no obvious future use, as discussed many times on here.

It could be re-jigged to release a handful of DMUs by, for example, extending it to Matlock and splitting the Matlock-Newark and Leicester-Lincoln services at Nottingham. Or by use of bi-modes. But nowhere near the amount of cascade created by the GWR scheme as originally proposed.

 

[Class 170101]

No future use for Class 222?

Cross Country?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No future use for Class 222?
Cross Country?

The DfT has set its face against any changes at XC until at least 2019.
So there is "no demand" for 222s.
Until there are dates for wiring the MML to Sheffield.

 

[edwin_m]

No future use for Class 222?

Cross Country?

That is in my view one of the few half-way sensible ones (along with Chiltern), based on several long discussions on this forum. But given the proportion of the XC network that is electrified, bi-modes would be better.

 

[HowardGWR]

On an issue associated with the electrification, does anyone know if the suggestions of a grade separated junction at Didcot are being progressed? It would seem to me to be almost essential to avoid delays becoming more prevalent in the future.


I would therefore suggest that a grade separated junction between the Up and Down Main lines and the Didcot Avoiding Line is a high priority and should be considered as part of the Oxford station area modernisation. If it is feasible then the Relief Lines would also benefit from grade separation in view of the increasing number of long container trains running to and from Southampton - there is roughly one an hour in each direction at the moment. These compete with the stopping passenger and other freight trains in this increasingly busy corridor.

Having spent a considerable amount of money removing many conflicts at Reading, it seems silly to throw away some of the gains by not adding matching capacity to a junction only a few miles away.

One factor on that proposed GSJ is that the local authority wants to move the station east of the present location. If so, might it not be a better solution to move the junction to Oxford (from the main lines) to west of the present station to join the present relief lines to Oxford? That way, to take your example, the up train from Swindon could have been pulled into the new station, while your train would have 'gone around the back' of it, instead of wanting to cross over in front of it. A slower junction, yes, but probably more flexible, possibly? I assume goods container trains take the relief lines from Reading, so could take the lines that diverge just west of the present station.

The present avoiding line could be turned over to the GWS so that it has a longer demonstration line.

 

[coppercapped]

One factor on that proposed GSJ is that the local authority wants to move the station east of the present location. If so, might it not be a better solution to move the junction to Oxford (from the main lines) to west of the present station to join the present relief lines to Oxford? That way, to take your example, the up train from Swindon could have been pulled into the new station, while your train would have 'gone around the back' of it, instead of wanting to cross over in front of it. A slower junction, yes, but probably more flexible, possibly? I assume goods container trains take the relief lines from Reading, so could take the lines that diverge just west of the present station.

The present avoiding line could be turned over to the GWS so that it has a longer demonstration line.

Hmmm! Interesting thought! I wonder how serious the local authority's proposal to move the station is? Would the local authority pay for the move?I've seen no mention of it in any of NR's documents.

 

[edwin_m]

If they are talking about moving the station, it would have been far cheaper to do it before the wiring!

 

[Taunton]

The same is true of a flyover.

I, too, have noticed an increase in delays to Down Oxford Fasts crossing the layout compared to previous years.

In passing, it does seem ironic that most long-distance services to Bristol and South Wales nowadays call at Didcot, while the more regional fasts to Oxford, including those terminating there, mostly do not.

 

[HowardGWR]

Here's the link. Well,start there.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15...e_relocated_in_billion_pound_town_masterplan/

A BILLION pound transformation of Didcot could include a new technology institute, railway station and leisure centre, new plans have revealed.

Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire District Councils has announced details of the draft masterplan to develop Didcot after it became a garden town in 2015.

In a bid to deliver 20,000 new jobs and 15,000 new homes over the next 20 years, the Rich's Sidings site will be transformed into a business and home hub.

In the longer term it is also hoped the train station will be relocated to the Orchard Centre, to provide more trains to Oxford and new direct services to Birmingham, Manchester and Southampton.

 

[MarkyT]

Here's the link. Well,start there.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15...e_relocated_in_billion_pound_town_masterplan/

And to repeat my comment from that article:

Why not extend the station subway a bit further north under the rail museum site and build new platforms next to the existing avoiding lines heading towards Oxford? The width of the railway corridor opposite the Orchard Centre is much narrower and right in the middle of all the junctions so I struggle to see how MORE platforms than exist on the current site could be squeezed in there. In any case has anyone asked Cross Country trains if they actually want to stop at Didcot?

Any grade separation might have to be towards London in the Didcot East - Moreton area, where the existing fast Relief Main Crossovers are.

 

[QueensCurve]

Either get the required clearances reduced or abandon 25kV

You really have got it in for 25kV.

 

[QueensCurve]

Turn back the clock, abandon electrification and build a new HST with AC traction motors, modern control systems and upgraded MKIII rolling stock. MTU have an engine that meets and exceeds all emissions legislation...... how much cheaper would that have been!!

Well Northern have turned the clock back to the steam age. Rule nothing out. :cry:

 

[Phil.]

You really have got it in for 25kV.

Well look at the bother that it's caused on the GWR main line.
Late.
Over budget.
The end still not in sight.

 

[coppercapped]

Here's the link. Well,start there.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15...e_relocated_in_billion_pound_town_masterplan/

Thank you for the link.

I can't see this suggestion becoming reality in the form shown. Rebuilding Reading and its approaches cost nearly £900 million - although that did include a new maintenance depot and stabling sidings. If Didcot station is moved it's going to cost £400 to £500 million - civil works, track rearrangement, changes to the signalling and overhead wires and so on.

In the current climate the local councils are hard put to it to patch up potholes and collect the rubbish - let along forking out £50 million a year for ten years. Unless there are very good operational reasons for moving the station NR - or rather the DfT/Treasury/taxpayers - will not pay for it. However money might be found for a grade separated junction in the countryside somewhere near Didcot East as MarkyT suggests - guesstimating from the published cost of the civils work for the long flyover west or Reading (about £40 million if I recall correctly) that might amount to £75 million.

But moving the station won't happen.

 

[HowardGWR]

Thank you for the link.

I can't see this suggestion becoming reality in the form shown. Rebuilding Reading and its approaches cost nearly £900 million - although that did include a new maintenance depot and stabling sidings. If Didcot station is moved it's going to cost £400 to £500 million - civil works, track rearrangement, changes to the signalling and overhead wires and so on.

In the current climate the local councils are hard put to it to patch up potholes and collect the rubbish - let along forking out £50 million a year for ten years. Unless there are very good operational reasons for moving the station NR - or rather the DfT/Treasury/taxpayers - will not pay for it. However money might be found for a grade separated junction in the countryside somewhere near Didcot East as MarkyT suggests - guesstimating from the published cost of the civils work for the long flyover west or Reading (about £40 million if I recall correctly) that might amount to £75 million.

But moving the station won't happen.

Yes I would have thought that too. One wonders what consultation the councils have carried out with NR or DfT. I agree with MarkyT that slipping the Oxfords between main and relief further east out from Didcot would seem a more sensible move. Of course 'further out' is possible at the new GSJ at Reading! I don't have a very good knowledge of what relief line capacity limitations are imposed by the stopping services on
a) through goods trains
b) XC services
c) other Oxford o/d trains not stopping at Didcot (and why they do not stop).

I would have thought the obvious place for a station at Didcot would be, possibly, west of the present one, namely in the existing triangle! Either that or a subway be constructed from the west-to-north side of the triangle, to the existing station, as was the case at Gloucester when they had two stations. That western part would be used for a Bristol to Cambridge / East Anglia XC type service using E-W when built.

 

[MarkyT]

Of course 'further out' is possible at the new GSJ at Reading! I don't have a very good knowledge of what relief line capacity limitations are imposed by the stopping services on
a) through goods trains
b) XC services
c) other Oxford o/d trains not stopping at Didcot (and why they do not stop).

Stations are fairly widely spaced on the Reliefs and section times for stopping passenger trains compare very closely with that for freights at around 20 to 22 minutes between Reading West Junction and and Didcot East Junction. Capacity is thus very high for just these trains alone, but XC trains are timed for 12 minutes between the same places when routed on the Reliefs so would be 'catching up', or 10 minutes between the (nearest equivalent) High Level Junction at Reading on the Mains and Didcot East. GS Junctions Reading are well optimised for fast Oxfords to easily use either Mains or Reliefs with minimum conflict, but clearly highest capacity for both freight and stopping passenger would be maintained if as many XCs and fast London - Oxford services as possible are run in both directions on the Mains. Grade separation at Didcot could definitely assist this, allowing timetabled and realtime reactive overtaking manoeuvres.

I would have thought the obvious place for a station at Didcot would be, possibly, west of the present one, namely in the existing triangle! Either that or a subway be constructed from the west-to-north side of the triangle, to the existing station, as was the case at Gloucester when they had two stations. That western part would be used for a Bristol to Cambridge / East Anglia XC type service using E-W when built.

Didcot station location is a good compromise today within a few minutes walk of the Orchard Centre and Broadway area whilst being reasonably central for surrounding housing estates. It's also comprehensively locked in position by the surrounding rail route alignments and junctions. Swindon - Oxford axis trains could, if reintroduced, reverse at Didcot just as they did in the past with only a small time penalty over a call at any notional through platforms on the west curve, which would be very difficult to justify building for maybe only 1 TPH in each direction, and would also be a very long walk to existing platforms for interchange purposes. I'm not suggesting a 1/4 mile+ pedestrian connection is non-viable in all circumstances, just that with the reversal facility available in the current layout at Didcot, and capacity at the station seemingly not a major problem, there is no justification in this case.

 

[HowardGWR]

Clocked your replies Mark, thank you. Of course moving a GSJ too far, out to the east from the present junction, might fall foul of the AONB, so that also has to be watched. I have a feeling that once the present CP6 plans are implemented, the GW has had its lot for a decade or more!

 

[HSTEd]

I recently got my third rail safety request back from the ORR and they gave me the document.
And it supported my conclusions that the safety benefit is of negligible value given the costs of all railway electrification generally and of modern 25kV electrification specifically.

Unfortunately it is still under copyright and Network Rail haven't got back to me yet about permission to reproduce the relevant table (although they acknowledged my requesT).

I wonder if this counts as criticism or public research [which would cover reproduction under 'Fair Dealing']

 

[aylesbury]

This is wishful thinking by the council they as has been said, don't have any money and Didcot is really just a commuter town.

If you have ever been there the High St and associated shopping centre are not that wonderful so any new building is not going to happen.

Have NR not just refurbished the station and surrounding areas, so they wont be interested will they?

This announcement is purely council speak to show how good they are at looking forward without actually doing anything.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

To answer an earlier question, the reason Paddington-Oxford fast services do not call at Didcot is because they do not need to.

Consider Didcot Parkway (off peak) being mainly 'Oxford Junction' of sorts;

1. Excellent fast HST services to/from Reading and London, at least 2-3tph or better
2. Excellent fast HST services to/from Swindon, Gloucester, Avon and S Wales
3. 2tph to/from Oxford connecting with HSTs in both directions.
4. 2tph all stations to Reading, Maidenhead and beyond

Given the above, if you wanted to improve matters further, calling one of the XC services each hour would be a more logical move as this would strengthen connections with the Midlands etc.

 

[The Planner]

Someone needs to decide if XC are an inter city TOC or a local one considering the various ideas of where they should call.