Kemble-Swindon doublng mentioned in budget

[philjo]

The Chancellor has just mentioned Kemble-Swindon doubling in the budget as part of investment in the UK's regional railways.
No doubt full details will be available from Dft website later.

 

[anthony263]

hopefully they will start soon, before they start to put the wires through the severn tunnel

 

[philjo]

Now mentioned on BBC news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-12832259

The Chancellor George Osborne has given the go-ahead to the long-awaited redoubling of the Great Western railway line between Kemble and Swindon.

Supporters of the multi-million pound project were concerned it would fall victim to government spending cuts.

Doubling the line from single-track to a two-way service will cut a bottleneck on the Cheltenham to London route.

Mr Osbourne said savings in the Department for Transport had made it possible to commit to the scheme.

He added that it would compliment the electrification of the Great Western Line between London and Wales.
Reduced cost

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Conservative MP for the Cotswolds, said Network Rail had recently submitted a new feasibility study which demonstrated that the project could be completed for a much reduced cost of £41.7m instead of the original £52m.

"I'm obviously absolutely delighted, having campaigned long and hard for seven or eight years on this issue, to finally get the news that it's going ahead," he said.

"It's wonderful news for the people of Gloucestershire. I think it will make a huge difference to Gloucestershire businesses and rail travellers."

Cheltenham's Liberal Democrat MP Martin Horwood said it was "very welcome news".

"I think the electrification played a crucial part in it, because if you electrify the line through to Bristol and South Wales and make that a faster route, you need some back-up," he said.

"Of course, the current line can't provide that because it's a single track. Redoubled, it will be able to, so I think that electrification plan was a crucial last piece in the jigsaw."

The section between Swindon and Kemble was "singled" in the late-1960s as a cost-saving measure by British Rail, under agreement with the government.

The limitations have led to regular delays and cancellations to passenger services, Network Rail said.

Spokeswoman Mavis Choong said: "The value for money plan for the line between Swindon and Kemble will unlock the potential to bring more trains and better performance for passengers in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and south Wales.

"We will now move to finalise the design plan with an aim to put the first spade in the ground soon."

 

[Ivo]

Excellent news. Is this likely to be a precursor to an improved frequency and even, if yes, potentially electrification soon after the rest of the line?

 

[LexyBoy]

Great news if it goes ahead! I wonder what the impact on service will be - presumably no more trains, but should be more reliable (that single line is always causing delays). Should make scheduling more flexible too.

"I think the electrification played a crucial part in it, because if you electrify the line through to Bristol and South Wales and make that a faster route, you need some back-up," he said.

"Of course, the current line can't provide that because it's a single track. Redoubled, it will be able to, so I think that electrification plan was a crucial last piece in the jigsaw."

Hmm?

 

[Christopher125]

Excellent news. Is this likely to be a precursor to an improved frequency and even, if yes, potentially electrification soon after the rest of the line?

I wouldnt hold you breath, ultimately the main reason this is going ahead is to allow diversions via Gloucester and to reduce delays.

Chris

 

[Johnny Lewis]

I'd hope to see hourly Paddington - Cheltenham eventually.

Indeed, according to SouthWestBusiness.co.uk, Paddington to Cheltenham is planned to be hourly from 2017.

 

[LexyBoy]

I'd hope to see hourly Paddington - Cheltenham eventually.

Indeed, according to SouthWestBusiness.co.uk, Paddington to Cheltenham is planned to be hourly from 2017.

It is hourly now, albeit with a change. I think the future hourly direct service would require sharing a path with something else due to congestion between Reading and Paddington, hence the joinable nature of the IEP.

 

[cle]

If they can do it for £47m and Ordsall is £85m, what is the remaining £68m (£200m was named for 'regional railways' in the budget) earmarked for?

In terms of the alternate Cheltenham path, I had a quick peek and I can't see that anything leaves Paddington at x48 in the even hour (M-F) and x15 in the odd hour on Saturdays. So presumably, units permitting (!), an hourly Cheltenham could be timetabled in easily.

It might also make decent business sense to run to Cheltenham first, and reverse to Gloucester, if such a thing is possible. The increased journey times might lead to much better revenues and it's a more lucrative market.

 

[bangor-toad]

Hi,
It's always good to see some expansion and development of the network.

Is one of the "hidden" reasons for going ahead with this project to upgrade an alternative route to Wales for electrification?
Let me clarify that: Electrification of the GWML should be relatively simple (thank you Brunel for a nice wide trackbed to work with) but there are going to be a few problems aren't there? The two I can think of are Box tunnel and the Severn Tunnel.

Surely it would be easier to close the tunnel entirely to electrify it? With Box tunnel, there is the diversionary route through Bristol Parkway and for any closures of the Parkway route the opposite diversion is good.

However for the Severn Tunnel surely that is going to need quite a long closure? The only diversion I can think of is the Kemble-Swindon route.
So is this being upgraded with the expectation that the Severn Tunnel will be closed for quite a period for electrification?

Of course this is all my personal speculation. I may be utterly wrong!
Cheers,
Jason

 

[swt_passenger]

It is hourly now, albeit with a change. I think the future hourly direct service would require sharing a path with something else due to congestion between Reading and Paddington, hence the joinable nature of the IEP.

The GWML RUS shows a dedicated (ie not splitting/joining) hourly service to Cheltenham - there is an overall uplift from 8 to 13 LDHS services per hour off peak.

Current service frequencies are no real guide to the post electrication and Reading remodelling situation, as discussed in previous threads.

 

[LexyBoy]

In terms of the alternate Cheltenham path, I had a quick peek and I can't see that anything leaves Paddington at x48 in the even hour (M-F) and x15 in the odd hour on Saturdays. So presumably, units permitting (!), an hourly Cheltenham could be timetabled in easily.

Funny, I thought there was something every other hour, but seems not!

It might also make decent business sense to run to Cheltenham first, and reverse to Gloucester, if such a thing is possible. The increased journey times might lead to much better revenues and it's a more lucrative market.

I don't think that would be possible as the line between the two is pretty congested already. Also I'm not sure the people of Gloster would be very happy with that, since they've already been dumped by XC!

Though perhaps if the frequency is increased to 1tph, one could bypass Gloster and go on to Worcester as an alternative to the Cotswold line (not checked, but I imagine the timing would be similar), providing a better connection between Gloucestershire and Worcester, and giving Ashchurch a direct London service. (Again, I've no idea whether this would be practicable)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The GWML RUS shows a dedicated (ie not splitting/joining) hourly service to Cheltenham - there is an overall uplift from 8 to 13 LDHS services per hour off peak.

Current service frequencies are no real guide to the post electrication and Reading remodelling situation, as discussed in previous threads.

Interesting - still not got round to giving the RUS a proper read. Wonder why a dedicated service - I guess it would be a 5-car service (CNM services are currently noticeably quieter than other HST services at a given time of day), so it would seem better to share part of the route. Then again, maybe there's not likely to be anything near it in the schedule.

I realise that everything will change after the GWML works, but I would have thought that paths between Reading and Paddington would still be a limiting factor (especially if HEX can't be forced off the fasts).

 

[The Planner]

Hi,
Is one of the "hidden" reasons for going ahead with this project to upgrade an alternative route to Wales for electrification?
Let me clarify that: Electrification of the GWML should be relatively simple (thank you Brunel for a nice wide trackbed to work with) but there are going to be a few problems aren't there? The two I can think of are Box tunnel and the Severn Tunnel.

Surely it would be easier to close the tunnel entirely to electrify it? With Box tunnel, there is the diversionary route through Bristol Parkway and for any closures of the Parkway route the opposite diversion is good.

However for the Severn Tunnel surely that is going to need quite a long closure? The only diversion I can think of is the Kemble-Swindon route.
So is this being upgraded with the expectation that the Severn Tunnel will be closed for quite a period for electrification?

Of course this is all my personal speculation. I may be utterly wrong!
Cheers,
Jason

You are spot on with this, that will be the plan. Id expect to see some speed increases on the Gloucester - Severn Tunnel Jn section aswell, 75s up to 90 and the 90 up to 100 possibly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It might also make decent business sense to run to Cheltenham first, and reverse to Gloucester, if such a thing is possible. The increased journey times might lead to much better revenues and it's a more lucrative market.

Can't be done as unless it trundles up to Alstone with the pax onboard, it can't go back the other way from the station itself.

 

[tbtc]

Though perhaps if the frequency is increased to 1tph, one could bypass Gloster and go on to Worcester as an alternative to the Cotswold line (not checked, but I imagine the timing would be similar), providing a better connection between Gloucestershire and Worcester, and giving Ashchurch a direct London service. (Again, I've no idea whether this would be practicable)

I've plotted this out before, to give a half hourly London - Worcester service (would be handy too for when the Thames Valley route to Oxford is closed due to electrification)

 

[cle]

I thought that maybe it could be 1tph to Cheltenham via Gloucester, and 1tph Worcester via Cheltenham direct. I think it might be faster than via Oxford?

I would imagine Cheltenham journey times if accessed direct and with the double track section (less recovery) owuld be much better. And that Cotswolds redoubling project is a dog's dinner!

 

[WatcherZero]

If they can do it for £47m and Ordsall is £85m, what is the remaining £68m (£200m was named for 'regional railways' in the budget) earmarked for?

In terms of the alternate Cheltenham path, I had a quick peek and I can't see that anything leaves Paddington at x48 in the even hour (M-F) and x15 in the odd hour on Saturdays. So presumably, units permitting (!), an hourly Cheltenham could be timetabled in easily.

It might also make decent business sense to run to Cheltenham first, and reverse to Gloucester, if such a thing is possible. The increased journey times might lead to much better revenues and it's a more lucrative market.

The rest is for road schemes, it was £200m of Dft savings reinvested in 'regional transport schemes' not neccesarily rail schemes.

Edit:

The other schemes are a £150,000 grant to continue planning on the tram-train trial in Sheffield and Nottingham Net Phase 2 and highways maintenance improvements in Sheffield, Hounslow and the Isle of Wight will go head to head for the rest.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Id expect to see some speed increases on the Gloucester - Severn Tunnel Jn section aswell, 75s up to 90 and the 90 up to 100 possibly.

I'd place electrification above linespeed increase on this route, as Swindon - Cheltenham would knock diesels of the INTERCITY services and Cheltenham - Severn Tunnel Jn. is a link in the ValleyLines network. It would, of course, also allow electric trains to be diverted around the tunnel without needing a diesel loco.

 

[Mojo]

If they can do it for £47m and Ordsall is £85m, what is the remaining £68m (£200m was named for 'regional railways' in the budget) earmarked for?

I hope it's for something sensible like Portishead, but that's probably wishful thinking.

 

[w1bbl3]

Whilst having an electrified diversionary route has its benefits, there is a bimode train which serves the same purpose. I just don't see electrification of the golden valley line to Cheltenham representing value for money.

1. SWML mainline Cardiff to Swansea = 50 route miles, 2TPH + (1TPH that does not benefit from electrification).
2. Golden valley line Swindon to Cheltenham via Gloucester = 44 route miles, 1 TPH
3. Westerleigh junction to Standish junction = 21 route miles, 0 TPH + (2 TPH that do not benefit from electrification).

Option 1 above did not pass a value for money test yet represents more trains per hour for a shorter route distance to enable electric Cheltenham trains under option 2 then option 3 needs also to be done as the shortest depot/ECS route.

 

[142]

Great news if it goes ahead! I wonder what the impact on service will be - presumably no more trains, but should be more reliable (that single line is always causing delays). Should make scheduling more flexible too.



Hmm?

"That single line" is 99% of the time not the cause of delays, its the fact that First timetable the trains poorly, there is only a 15 minute gap between services, and if you have a train from London that is late, which lets face it is a regular occurance it is going to cause a farce. The line should never have been altered in the first place to single track! If they were to redouble it there would be the same ammount of delays, however if something failed it would be easier to recover. I can think of several occasions over the past 3 months the GV has been used as a diversion for Cross Country and FGW services so its a useful line!

 

[Ivo]

First timetable the trains poorly, there is only a 15 minute gap between services

What 15 gap? :?

 

[142]

What 15 gap? :?

Trains from Swindon/London arrive Kemble at 7 minutes past the hour, and to Swindon/London at at 18/26 past each alternate hour with a few exceptions during the day. So if a train coming from the Swindon direction is 20 minutes late then the train heading in the Swindon will become late due to the single line working, which is why trains on the branch become late on a regular basis.

 

[The Planner]

A minimum of a 11 minute gap off a single line ?? that is bloody luxury and not bad planning on the part of First. You can't timetable to fail and put in ludicrous margins "just in case", there are many many places on the network where you are planning trains at junctions 2 and 3 minutes apart.

 

[shinkansen1966]

£47 million pounds for the bit of track between Swindon and Kemble ! How many miles is that ? The contractors who get this work will be laughing all the way to their (offshore) bank.

20 years ago, the Tisbury loop cost £400,000.

 

[LexyBoy]

"That single line" is 99% of the time not the cause of delays, its the fact that First timetable the trains poorly, there is only a 15 minute gap between services, and if you have a train from London that is late, which lets face it is a regular occurance it is going to cause a farce. The line should never have been altered in the first place to single track! If they were to redouble it there would be the same ammount of delays, however if something failed it would be easier to recover. I can think of several occasions over the past 3 months the GV has been used as a diversion for Cross Country and FGW services so its a useful line!

It's scheduled as 14 minutes between Swindon and Kemble, so with 2 tph over the single line (one each way), the maximum allowance is only 16 minutes at each end (if the trains are equally spaced), so FGW have done as well as they could!

Of course if trains from London (or Cheltenham) are delayed, they won't magically pick up time if the line is redoubled, but at least they won't be causing knock-on delays. Therefore fewer delays in total.

As you say, it's also clearly a useful diversionary route. I'd like to see a Swindon-Birmingham service, but it's probably pie-in-the-sky (though there was such a service back in the day, a Virgin XC 158 IIRC).

 

[The Planner]

£47 million pounds for the bit of track between Swindon and Kemble ! How many miles is that ? The contractors who get this work will be laughing all the way to their (offshore) bank.

20 years ago, the Tisbury loop cost £400,000.

12½ miles from Loco Yard Jn to Kemble, so about £4 million a mile. Tisbury loop is just over a quarter of a mile long ?? so multiply that by 4 and you get £1.6 million a mile at 1991 prices.

Putting £400,000 into the Bank of England Inflation calculator at 1990 prices comes up with £709,000 at todays prices.

Todays £47 million at 1990 prices comes out at £26.5 million.

 

[tbtc]

£47 million pounds for the bit of track between Swindon and Kemble ! How many miles is that ? The contractors who get this work will be laughing all the way to their (offshore) bank

£47 million for twelve and a half miles is a bargain (when compared to twice that for a short chord in Manchester)

 

[WatcherZero]

Yeah but that chords a whole new viaduct rather than just track laying.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Todays £47 million at 1990 prices comes out at £26.5 million.

Ah, sounds like the Kemble line doubling isn't quite such the costly scheme as I first thought.

Just skim read that McNaulty interim report. It's just you get the impression that our railways are a fragmented money pit.