GW Modernisation Project - the mistakes and the future?'

[takno]

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

And then break it to Worcestershire county council before they cut turf on their white elephant park and ride.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Unfortunately they are largely both. I think it's a characteristic of the railways in this country (particularly the south) that the junctions and 'nodes' of connectivity are so close together.

In this case though, it would not be difficult to imagine a 2tph XC pattern;

1. Bournemouth-Brockenhurst-Southampton-(Southampton Airport)-(Winchester)-Basingstoke-Reading-Oxford-Coventry-Bham Intl-Bham New Street

2. (Southampton)-(Southampton Airport)-(Winchester)-(Basingstoke)-Reading-Didcot-Oxford-Banbury-Leamington-Coventry-Bham Intl-Bham New Street

(Stations in brackets served every 2 hours)

Train 1 would be IC, Train 2 the regional 'connector'. I would argue that Banbury and Leamington are very well served by Chiltern and neither need more than an hourly service to Reading. The second Leamington call could be reinstated if the Kenilworth local fails to materialise.

 

[The Planner]

Banbury to Oxford becomes all shacks only once an hour?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

GW Oxford-Banbury local could be boosted to hourly, might actually start serving a purpose. The point being a way to transfer local journeys away from long distance XC services.

 

[IrishDave]

I can see the argument that local flows should be segregated from long-distance flows, and why you thus might want to reduce XC calls at Banbury and Leamington. That said, such flows can get quite significant in the peaks - there are a number of commuters to/from Oxford from both Banbury and Leamington - and it's not entirely clear that this would leave enough capacity.

But, that aside, taking the Banbury and Leamington calls doesn't just cut out the local traffic - it also reduces long-distance connectivity. If, as at present, one of the two XC services between Reading and Birmingham extends to Manchester and the other to Newcastle, then passengers from Banbury to Manchester will have to change at Birmingham where previously they didn't have to.

You also seem to suggest both should go via Coventry, but that simply won't fit with the current 3tph Virgin service between Euston and Birmingham New St (at least not without, say, looping one of the CrossCountry services at Birmingham International). Also, while non-stopping Banbury affords the possibility of a 75mph(?) run through the station, non-stopping Leamington while still going via Coventry still requires the train to slow down for the slow turnout onto the branch - I suspect dropping Leamington calls would make no significant difference to the journey time.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

All valid points. However in my view there are two opposing forces to balance; direct connectivity and capacity of long distance services.
I would argue (perhaps wrongly?) that Banbury is a) not the largest place in the world, and b) not a particularly key junction, and what converging flows exist can be forwarded to another larger hub (ie Chiltern to Birmingham.). Weighing up the value of demand for direct Banbury-Manchester services against seats available on the IC train, I would conclude that Banbury does not justify an off-peak call in that service.

IMO neither does Leamington. Even with a slow junction turnout the timeloss for a stop would be approximately 4 mins, which in planning terms can be a lifetime when you're pathing a train into New Street.

And yes you're correct I routed both trains via Coventry, which has been the long term aspiration of XC. I believe this path would be available with Kenilworth redoubled and possibly truncation of the ATW path at New Street, which IMO doesn't justify the hourly slot to Birmingham Intl that it currently occupies.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Edit to previous :- Personally I'm not sure that the Bournemouth and Manchester routes are the best choice to join together. What do people think about swapping them over and sending the IC service to the northeast and Newcastle, and the Reading/Southampton semi-fast going to Manchester?

 

[IrishDave]

Re the ATW being extended to International: prior to December 2008 it did terminate at New Street, and it was rather unreliable, with the service regularly being turned at Wolverhampton to get it back on time. Given the nature of the single line to Aberystwyth and where the passing loops are, you can't easily shift the timetable, so there's very little than can be done to improve turnarounds at New Street other than extend it to International - at International it can have a reasonable 20-minute turnaround so that the return working has much more chance of being on time.

I agree that, viewed in isolation, it may not seem like the best use of capacity between New Street and Coventry, but it has significantly improved the reliability of the Birmingham-Aberystwyth trains. Even with the Kenilworth redoubling I don't think there's an extra path available via Coventry that doesn't significantly degrade the Aberystwyth service.

 

[The Planner]

The ATW would require a platform for a significant amount of time at New St. That move works well and needs to stay.

 

[HowardGWR]

Just for a moment there, I thought that ATW and Chiltern had been re-absorbed into GWR!

It does demonstrate that the GW is no isolated concern and never was. I believe that some of these trajectories need a genuine two tier service, but what some here have described as inter-city are 'inter-town'. Catchment needs to be, IMO, about quarter of a million to justify inter-city infrastructure, at least for those places where there is no HSL provision (that's the GWR). That's why Bristol to London is now going to be two tier.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I believe that some of these trajectories need a genuine two tier service, but what some here have described as inter-city are 'inter-town'. Catchment needs to be, IMO, about quarter of a million to justify inter-city infrastructure, at least for those places where there is no HSL provision (that's the GWR). That's why Bristol to London is now going to be two tier.

The trouble with XC is that there's no way you would describe Stansted-Birmingham or Nottingham-Cardiff as "inter-city".
They are regional semi-fast services (so Worcs Pwy is safe!).
They were only parked with XC to satisfy the "one TOC per route" ideal that the SRA was persuing at the time (but never completed), and to compensate for the loss of Birmingham-Preston-Scotland to WC.
They would be better with EM or WM, leaving XC with proper long distance services.

 

[coppercapped]

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.
SNIPPED

These timings may have to be reexamined in the next few years as the Class 387s, even making the same stops, will be a few minutes quicker than the current timings for Class 165/166s. There will then be three separate train speed groups - the XCs, the 100/110mph stoppers and the 75mph freights.

The Relief Line limits are 100mph so, as you say, the XC trains are being slightly disadvantaged - it doesn't make much difference in time for the whole journey but is does make a difference in pathing trains between Reading and Didcot East. The container trains can run at full chat all the way, especially as they can now join and leave the Reliefs for the Reading West Curve at 40mph rather than 20/25mph previously but freight trains running into the sidings at Didcot - such as long car trains - do so very slowly and this manoeuvre can seriously hold up a following local train trying to run into Didcot station. In turn this affects traffic round the avoiding line.

One hopes that NR and other interested parties are giving some serious thought to the whole Didcot - Oxford - Wolvercot Junction corridor as it is clear traffic will continue to increase. It is even possible that new West-to-North traffic will start in the next few years and the Cowley branch may re-open for passenger use which will add another complication. Or, rather, another challenge...

 

[HowardGWR]

The trouble with XC is that there's no way you would describe Stansted-Birmingham or Nottingham-Cardiff as "inter-city".
They are regional semi-fast services (so Worcs Pwy is safe!).
They were only parked with XC to satisfy the "one TOC per route" ideal that the SRA was persuing at the time (but never completed), and to compensate for the loss of Birmingham-Preston-Scotland to WC.
They would be better with EM or WM, leaving XC with proper long distance services.

I could very much agree with that, but I think this business of thinking about 'which TOC' perpetuates the wrong approach that you report the SRA having made. I only instanced the 250,000 population figure as a guide. It could be that an airport would generate more business than a city, but as the HS2 people keep telling us, it is a question of capacity. If you can fill a train with pax to London from either Cardiff / Newport, or Bristol / Stoke Gifford, then it could and should run fast to Pad (and perhaps Heathrow when that line is built) as there is no point in delaying such pax, and thereby rail competes better with road or air.

 

[QueensCurve]

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

Late and over budget is a problem due to mismanagement of the project, not the use of 25kV.

 

[QueensCurve]

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']

I thought that FOI came under the ambit of a Publication Scheme; ie that ones disclosed, they were supposed to publish the information themselves. It usually happens on the body's FOI website.

Meanwhile, could you give us an idea what kind of data are covered?

 

[QueensCurve]

The Relief Line limits are 100mph so, as you say, the XC trains are being slightly disadvantaged - it doesn't make much difference in time for the whole journey but is does make a difference in pathing trains between Reading and Didcot East.

Presumably the new diveunder for the XC services at Reading reflects a slow (Relief in GW-Speak) line path intended for them? I do recall that 30y ago they all used the long-lead Xovers East of Didcot to reach the Fast (Main in GW-Speak) lines.

Are we perhaps getting slightly OT with regard to lessons learned?

 

[coppercapped]

Presumably the new diveunder for the XC services at Reading reflects a slow (Relief in GW-Speak) line path intended for them? I do recall that 30y ago they all used the long-lead Xovers East of Didcot to reach the Fast (Main in GW-Speak) lines.

Are we perhaps getting slightly OT with regard to lessons learned?

Part of the thread title is "...and the future" so I would suggest that it's on-topic!

The line speed of the Reliefs (in lesser-company speak, the 'slow' lines!) was raised to 100mph between Didcot and Reading about the time of Operation Princess to reduce the time disadvantage of routing the XC services along them as the flat crossings at both end of the stretch were even then a cause of delays.

With the flat crossings at the Reading end now effectively eliminated XC trains can use either the Mains or the Reliefs as necessary as it is now possible for them to take the Basingstoke route from Reading without conflicting with traffic on the Mains. XC trains can, and do, reverse at any of Platforms 3, 7, 8 and 12 to 15. The high numbered platforms are on the Reliefs and 3, 7 and 8 feed to and from the Reliefs using the new 'Festival Line' which dives under the Mains.

As there are now, generally, two XC trains per hour in each direction rather than the one per hour 30 years ago, one terminating and the other reversing at Reading, the number of conflicts at Didcot East and Didcot East Junction has increased. As I wrote in my earlier post the number of trains through Didcot in the Swindon direction will be increasing leading to an increase in the conflicts at Didcot East for XC trains using the Mains. This is why the case for a flyover from the Mains and the Didcot Avoiding Line has to be carefully studied.

 

[HSTEd]

I thought that FOI came under the ambit of a Publication Scheme; ie that ones disclosed, they were supposed to publish the information themselves. It usually happens on the body's FOI website.

I believe this is the case, however this was an ORR request relating to a Network Rail document, which I believe might cause some issues in that regard.
I will check back with NR and ORR and see if the documents have been published as you say.

Meanwhile, could you give us an idea what kind of data are covered?

It was the actual risk-model results (From a couple of years ago) relating to the occurance of accidents on 25kV, third rail and unelectrified routes, and the number of Fatality Weighted Injuries that occur as a result - split across several casualties.

COmbined with publically available data on the number of track miles of third rail in existance the result comes out that the fatalities cost ~£3,500/yr/km or so in fatalities, given the current RSSB/ORR value of an avoided fatality.

£3.5k/yr/km sounds like a lot, but is negligible when any electrification scheme is going to cost at least ~£200k/km and up, even with a minimum spec 750Vdc installation.
The figure is dominated 75+% by the category 'MOP (Adult Trespasser)electric shock', with the next highest category being those relating to passengers falling from the platform, which is still far smaller.

I have ideas about how to reduce the risk of the latter, but the former is somewhat... more challenging to deal with.

Does make me wonder about some sort of crazy 1500V bottom contact third rail like used on some Chinese metro systems though - but that would require retractable underrunning third rail shoes that can be pulled in and out regularly and in seconds.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The figure is dominated 75+% by the category 'MOP (Adult Trespasser)electric shock', with the next highest category being those relating to passengers falling from the platform, which is still far smaller.

I have ideas about how to reduce the risk of the latter, but the former is somewhat... more challenging to deal with.

I am sorry -but how can you possibly legislate/plan against etc idiots. I may sound callous but let Darwin self-select. IMHO on the theme of the thread - 750V DC is not the way forward on the GWML - any area - and sorry I am not attempting to regurgitate the whole AC/DC argument again.

 

[HowardGWR]

As there are now, generally, two XC trains per hour in each direction rather than the one per hour 30 years ago, one terminating and the other reversing at Reading, the number of conflicts at Didcot East and Didcot East Junction has increased. As I wrote in my earlier post the number of trains through Didcot in the Swindon direction will be increasing leading to an increase in the conflicts at Didcot East for XC trains using the Mains. This is why the case for a flyover from the Mains and the Didcot Avoiding Line has to be carefully studied.

Must any N /S services terminate at Reading? As they all call at Oxford. one would have thought there were options to continue to Heathrow , once WRATH is built, or Gatwick /Brighton. All this pressure on the Didcot to Reading stretch arises due to the closure of the DN&S, if one looks back. Mind, that railway would have needed some serious improvement, including probably the equivalent of this proposed DSJ at Didcot.

 

[coppercapped]

Must any N /S services terminate at Reading? As they all call at Oxford. one would have thought there were options to continue to Heathrow , once WRATH is built, or Gatwick /Brighton. All this pressure on the Didcot to Reading stretch arises due to the closure of the DN&S, if one looks back. Mind, that railway would have needed some serious improvement, including probably the equivalent of this proposed DSJ at Didcot.

If XC had more stock then I could see the services being extended. Whether they would best serve Heathrow or Guildford and then either Gatwick/Brighton or Portsmouth can be debated. Because of the nature of the beast, airports need frequent services - having whistled through the air at 500mph few passengers would be happy waiting for up to an hour for a train so the occasional train to, say, Leamington is not likely to be well used.

On the other hand I could easily see half-hourly, or better, services from Oxford to both Heathrow and Gatwick.

The DN&S is irrelevant for this discussion - although it would be nice to see it re-opened! For most of its length it was single track; it abounded in tight curves and sharpish climbs and apart from Newbury doesn't serve any significant centres of population between Didcot and Winchester. Some of it was doubled during the war to enable more trains to feed supplies to the Normandy invasion. If it existed now the only likely significant traffic would be the container trains from Southampton. If this were the case then a flyover at Didcot really would be needed!

 

[mr_jrt]

The DN&S is irrelevant for this discussion - although it would be nice to see it re-opened! For most of its length it was single track; it abounded in tight curves and sharpish climbs and apart from Newbury doesn't serve any significant centres of population between Didcot and Winchester. Some of it was doubled during the war to enable more trains to feed supplies to the Normandy invasion. If it existed now the only likely significant traffic would be the container trains from Southampton. If this were the case then a flyover at Didcot really would be needed!

Indeed. For those interested, have a browse:
http://maps.nls.uk/geo/find/#zoom=15&lat=51.6089&lon=-1.2391&layers=61&b=7&point=79.1472,40.7569

 

[HowardGWR]

Indeed. For those interested, have a browse:
http://maps.nls.uk/geo/find/#zoom=15&lat=51.6089&lon=-1.2391&layers=61&b=7&point=79.1472,40.7569

No it isn't. The goods use was that way. I only mentioned it to illustrate that had the DN&S been improved, it would better serve the desire line for goods from Southampton to the north, as the A34 has achieved. That's all.

 

[Andyjs247]

No it isn't. The goods use was that way. I only mentioned it to illustrate that had the DN&S been improved, it would better serve the desire line for goods from Southampton to the north, as the A34 has achieved. That's all.

A fair chunk of the old DN&S has been obliterated by the A34! The route via Reading is not much further in the total scheme of things and obviously you serve the two large towns of Reading and Basingstoke vs the smaller town of Newbury - it is not difficult to see why the old, twisty route was closed. Now with the grade separation at Reading I doubt if there would be any hypothetical time difference even for freight.

 

[mr_jrt]

In my mind the benefit the line between Didcot, Newbury and Winchester/Southampton would offer is capacity. Given you would need new build now, I don't see why a modern alignment couldn't be much faster, too. Services from Oxford, especially the all-important freight, would be able to get from Southampton to Oxford and points north without consuming any capacity on the radial lines passing through Reading (which the chord merely mitigates - they still have to run on the relief lines from Didcot to the chord), depending on what you built for the short sections through Didcot and Newbury stations, mind. That would be a reasonably big win, surely?

 

[HowardGWR]

In my mind the benefit the line between Didcot, Newbury and Winchester/Southampton would offer is capacity. Given you would need new build now, I don't see why a modern alignment couldn't be much faster, too. Services from Oxford, especially the all-important freight, would be able to get from Southampton to Oxford and points north without consuming any capacity on the radial lines passing through Reading (which the chord merely mitigates - they still have to run on the relief lines from Didcot to the chord), depending on what you built for the short sections through Didcot and Newbury stations, mind. That would be a reasonably big win, surely?

Yes indeed, but the expense required will not be possible until the relief lines literally become clogged. So perhaps never. The other posters do not seem to have grasped what the point was of my reference to that DN&S link. Yes of course I am aware that the A34 over-rode the railway line. That was the ironical point I was making.

It might be required to make the Didcot - Reading stretch 6 track one day, which will be 'environmentally challenging'. Who knows how things will develop*? I believe it will be needed to 4 track continuously between Didcot and Wootton Bassett, long before that, as it happens. If loading gauge enhancements continue, in readiness for further electrification, then Southampton to the North freight, via Salisbury and Swindon, could be on and could be a preferable route, to avoid clogging up passenger traffic nearer Basingstoke and Reading.

*One would imagine that there is a DfT project to forecast what modal shift and economic growth will mean for all lines. If not, then there ought to be one.

 

[The Planner]

What untapped demand does Oxford to Newbury or Newbury to Winchester or quicker journeys to Southampton have? Freight on its own will never cut it.

 

[D1009]

What untapped demand does Oxford to Newbury or Newbury to Winchester or quicker journeys to Southampton have? Freight on its own will never cut it.

Probably nothing, but removal of N-S freight and whatever XC passenger services could be justified without serving Reading from the GW main line would free up much needed capacity for other services. A bit like the HS2 argument.

 

[takno]

Probably nothing, but removal of N-S freight and whatever XC passenger services could be justified without serving Reading from the GW main line would free up much needed capacity for other services. A bit like the HS2 argument.

Given that half the XC services terminate at Reading, I'd say the Reading demand was probably enough to justify sending all of them there.

 

[Class 170101]

Re the ATW being extended to International: prior to December 2008 it did terminate at New Street, and it was rather unreliable, with the service regularly being turned at Wolverhampton to get it back on time. Given the nature of the single line to Aberystwyth and where the passing loops are, you can't easily shift the timetable, so there's very little than can be done to improve turnarounds at New Street other than extend it to International - at International it can have a reasonable 20-minute turnaround so that the return working has much more chance of being on time.

I agree that, viewed in isolation, it may not seem like the best use of capacity between New Street and Coventry, but it has significantly improved the reliability of the Birmingham-Aberystwyth trains. Even with the Kenilworth redoubling I don't think there's an extra path available via Coventry that doesn't significantly degrade the Aberystwyth service.

The ATW would require a platform for a significant amount of time at New St. That move works well and needs to stay.

ATW is unlikely to withdraw from Birmingham International given theere is probably demands for links from Mid and North Wales to major airports. Remember ATW have just won a big fight to serve Manchester Airport on a regular basis.