Trimodes in the southweat will be life expired before wires reach there at the current rate of overhead installation. Even Bristol isn't wired yet and no plans to extend beyond Newbury this decade.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
GWR 'Project Churchward'
- Thread starter heathrowrail
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
It's pure speculation but at the current rate of electrification the UK would fail it's net zero targets by 2050 if it were to introduce diesel only circa 2030. Also the main reason for slow electrification progress has been lack of funding due to a faltering economy and if the the country carries on in this state (low wage growth, stuttering economy etc) for the next 30 years then we're in for a much worse time. You'd think as funding picks up over the next decade (Hopefully) the appetite to electrify large trunk sections of the South West would increase battery operation on branch lines and difficult sections. But it's almost impossible to tell what will happen as things are changing so quickly.
Robin Procter
Member
Battery power in both rail and road vehicles is talked about as if it is the magic solution to meeting net zero targets. But net zero is fundamentally about trying to manage climate change etc etc etc and everyone seems to be blind to the adverse effects of both battery production and battery disposal. The future history of batteries will be alarmingly like the history of plastics since their enthusiastic introduction. Oh well, it all started with the Victorian industrial revolution and human history keeps repeating itself.
Everything is driven by money and business, but it always has been. (I'm not a socialist)
Sorry if this sounds so negative and doesn't offer any realistic solutions.
Everything is driven by money and business, but it always has been. (I'm not a socialist)
Sorry if this sounds so negative and doesn't offer any realistic solutions.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
For rail, there is a realistic solution - shove the wires up! Switzerland is basically fully electrified (I think there's one line that isn't, preserved lines aside) and so should we be.
Unfortunately, the last time we had a comparatively robust economy (the late 90's/early noughties) there was barely any electrification either, which suggests that structural issues in the way the railway/country is run is more of a reason.
Robin Procter
Member
.... Agreed. Just look at how the French railways SNCF have been supported by their governments.
.... Overhead electrification certainly makes sense as a good realistic alternative to flooding the planet with batteries and all the harm that does in the long term. However, it appears to be easier said than done in the UK and Switzerland has been so extensively electrified because it has hydro-electricity power sources due to its geography and also most likely helped by pro-active government attitudes to transport. In general, the UK is reactive rather than proactive.
Last edited:
Sly Old Fox
Member
The chances of wires reaching Bristol Temple Meads this side of 2050 are unlikely, I’d be astonished if you ever see wires in Newquay.
Robin Procter
Member
.... 2050 is over 25 years away! I am curious why it could take so long - Is it the construction and its infrastructure? Or the time it would take to get it agreed and funded?
All you need for Newquay is a VW Camper with surfboards on the roof
. But joking apart, has Newquay airport had an impact on train travel? I don't think there are enough towns with sufficient employment levels in Cornwall to justify spending money on expanding existing rail services.Really? I can't see how this isn't done within the next 10 years tbh. It's one of the highest priorities for network rail and could eliminate a lot of diesel running when you consider the networkers have only a few years left. Most of the preparatory work has been done as well.
supervc-10
Member
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 703
Batteries are recyclable, which does lessen their impact significantly, and used batteries that might not have the capacity left for use in cars/trains are still useful as stationary power buffers to help smooth the grid (especially with the more variable energy production from renewables). They're not as bad as some people like to paint (100% not getting at you Robin- more at the people who say 'Well electric cars last 5 years then the battery is dead and you need to make a new one and throw the old one away, I'm just keeping my V8")
I 100% agree that what's needed is a rolling program of electrification. I am quite certain though this won't happen for a while. The Tories, as they've seen the writing on the wall with regards to their next election prospects, seem to be determined to make as big a mess for Labour as possible, so I don't think transport will be a major priority for them.
Regarding Churchward - I feel that GWR have too separate a requirement to be covered by a single design. Would the smaller branches cope physically with a 195 style unit? IE 23m long cars? I know 153s have operated on them but I'm not sure if that was in multiple or not, I'm sure I remember something about the swing on curves being too much for a 158. That might not be an issue with a FLIRT type articulated unit though.
How many platforms on the Cardiff-Portsmouth line would need to be lengthened to allow 6-car working? Looking on Google Maps I can't see any stations that would be blocked from platform extensions, but some of the smaller ones wouldn't need it (Freshford or Dilton Marsh for example can get by with single door!)
A 6-car tri-mode (electric/battery/diesel, but preferably with the ability to work off 25kV and 3rd rail) for Cardiff-Portsmouth/Penzance and the North Downs line, with doors at 3rds but a longer distance interior like Northern's CAF units, and 3-car versions without the 3rd rail kit, but with more commuter interiors for the Devon and Bristol Metros would work well IMO. I'd love a dropped floor for level boarding in a car of each unit, but I think that would struggle space wise!
The reason I say the Northern CAF units as an interior guide is how good those units are at dealing with standing passengers - the wide standbacks by the doors allow a LOT of people on at peak times, yet sensibly spaced 4-abrest seating with tables means they are good on longer journeys.
I 100% agree that what's needed is a rolling program of electrification. I am quite certain though this won't happen for a while. The Tories, as they've seen the writing on the wall with regards to their next election prospects, seem to be determined to make as big a mess for Labour as possible, so I don't think transport will be a major priority for them.
Regarding Churchward - I feel that GWR have too separate a requirement to be covered by a single design. Would the smaller branches cope physically with a 195 style unit? IE 23m long cars? I know 153s have operated on them but I'm not sure if that was in multiple or not, I'm sure I remember something about the swing on curves being too much for a 158. That might not be an issue with a FLIRT type articulated unit though.
How many platforms on the Cardiff-Portsmouth line would need to be lengthened to allow 6-car working? Looking on Google Maps I can't see any stations that would be blocked from platform extensions, but some of the smaller ones wouldn't need it (Freshford or Dilton Marsh for example can get by with single door!)
A 6-car tri-mode (electric/battery/diesel, but preferably with the ability to work off 25kV and 3rd rail) for Cardiff-Portsmouth/Penzance and the North Downs line, with doors at 3rds but a longer distance interior like Northern's CAF units, and 3-car versions without the 3rd rail kit, but with more commuter interiors for the Devon and Bristol Metros would work well IMO. I'd love a dropped floor for level boarding in a car of each unit, but I think that would struggle space wise!
The reason I say the Northern CAF units as an interior guide is how good those units are at dealing with standing passengers - the wide standbacks by the doors allow a LOT of people on at peak times, yet sensibly spaced 4-abrest seating with tables means they are good on longer journeys.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Other than that I'd have more airline seats, the 195 seems to be about as perfect a layout for a general purpose regional unit (i.e. a 150 replacement) I've seen. There's nothing Northern do that they don't seem to be good at, even if only a 2-car gets sent out. The one big thing they need is gangways. Window alignment would be nice too and not that hard to achieve, but if that bothers you the end sections are aligned.
The 196 *looks* nicer, sure, but the interior layout is far less practical.
supervc-10
Member
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 703
Definitely agree on the gangways - although perhaps not necessary on a hypothetical 6-car unit. My proposed 3-car should definitely have them.
Sly Old Fox
Member
Where are they going to get the funding to do it?
Maybe, but with a bit of lateral thinking, could a plan be devised where the branches are wired first? In the west, the branch lines are all low speed routes where a simple trolley wire electrification would be sufficient, which should reduce costs significantly. Modern power technology allows power feeds to be taken from the more local distribution systems, again reducing costs. We could have bi-mode Flirts, running on diesel on the main line and electric on the branches.
Sly Old Fox
Member
Who’s going to pay for that?
If I may take the conversation back towards project Churchward...
I'm surprised Alstom hasn't put together and made public an Aventra design with interchangeable power rafts. Would surely expand the appeal of the Aventra design beyond its currently-saturated market.
I'd hope anything that is ordered is an EMU with "power rafts" a la the IETs; diesel generator units installed in the first instance that can later be swapped out for batteries.
I'm surprised Alstom hasn't put together and made public an Aventra design with interchangeable power rafts. Would surely expand the appeal of the Aventra design beyond its currently-saturated market.
I think this modular approach is the most sensible, the only question is whether or not the infrastructure to support the EMU solution in areas deep into the west country is going to be there before the trains aren't life expired say circa 2060? I can't see GWR wanting to order DEMU's for the Bristol area and then pure DMU's for further western operations. This will require joined up thinking from DFT NR and GWR but that's wishful thinking. I doubt we'll see much this side of the general election tbh.
A few things I think will be certain for the replacement stock though as many people have alluded to on here before.
1) A modular powerplant design Battery/Diesel Hybrid with the ability to run off wires a possibility.
2) two variations in stock, one for local services with a 3 coach design end gangways. and another for regional services 5/6 coaches. end gangways not really necessary but possible.
It's number 1 which is probably causing some head scratching atm as the DFT need to layout a clear electrification strategy before thinking about what type of train to order.
supervc-10
Member
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 703
I also wonder about tying in with replacing stock elsewhere. A *proper* sprinter replacement, replacing the whole job lot across the country, on all the branchlines? Risky perhaps but could be workable!
That's what BR did, and I suspect Project Churchward will be subsumed under the rumoured 450-unit replacement tender led by Northern.
Having them all replaced at once is another example of boom and bust in the rolling stock manufacturing market.
Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 3,066
<hobbyhorse>
That's why it's so important to define and enforce interoperability so that any unit can operate with any other unit. That way, once replacement was underway it would be possible to replace a fraction of a fleet at a time, knowing that it would work alongside old stock - thus making it possible to smooth the demands on manufacturers.
</hobbyhorse>
It is all a case of priority. Unfortunately, the Government is more interested in covering the land in asphalt than putting the same amount into railways The rail unions actions have deterred investment in rail infrastructure.
I thought cancelling HS2 was to reinvest £36billion in other Northern rail transport. Sadly not. The first redirected HS2 money of £80M has gone to a road junction improvement near Beverley. That is rapid as HS2 was only cancelled 7 weeks prior. £1.3billion has now been allocated to 18 miles of dual carriageway between Brough and Appleby in Westmoreland as A66 road upgrade. Even more has been wasted as £9billion has been allocated to filling in road potholes nationally that will need doing again next winter. Can you see a pattern here? All HS2 money allocated to roads so far on jobs that should be funded by the Road Fund Licence.
Enough funding has been allocated to road transport that could have funded electrification to complete Bristol PW to Chippenham via Temple Meads, Didcot-Oxford and Leicester-Sheffield and more such as Leeds-Bradford-Halifax-Manchester, Leeds-Harrogate-York, Severn Tunnel Junction-Gloucester-Swindon, Marylebone to Birmingham SH and Bicester-Oxford. But no, road infrastructure has to come first.
ABB125
Established Member
None of the money for those road projects has come from the cancelling of HS2 - that's simply the (rather poor) attempt by the government to spin the cancellation as a positive: "look at what we'll spend the money on instead of HS2". Yet the money for HS2 doesn't exist - it is borrowing, based on the expected future returns generated by HS2. Cancelling the project doesn't suddenly mean that a (very big!) bag of cash has been left on the Treasury's front door...
As pointed out when you previously made this claim, the road projects have been in the works for many years before the cancellation of HS2. If you thought all the money was going into Northern rail projects you weren’t listening very closely to the PM. £20bn may be going to Northern transport projects and the rest to transport projects in other areas of the country.
Failing to do maintenance such as fixing potholes tends to cost more in the long term.
The Road Fund hasn’t existed since 1937. Spending on roads comes out of general taxation just like the railways. The railways already get a considerably higher amount of public spending on them than the roads do - https://www.statista.com/statistics...2022/23 financial,on other forms of transport.
Robin Procter
Member
.... Successive British governments have historically focussed the general public's attention primarily onto what they are doing for the road network rather than for the railways. This is independently of whether rail or road in fact is allocated the higher amount of spending. Why? - I think it is because more of the general populace are affected by their journeys by road than by rail and they are the ones who vote political parties into power.
This is particularly so at the moment being heavily influenced by emphasis on climate change and heavy marketing of electric cars etc. Rail travel is not marketed as being 'green' or good for the planet. Furthermore, whether justified or not (that's a different subject!), the rail union actions have been extremely disruptive and unfortunately are very politically driven by the hardcore membership. Their actions have turned away popularity in travelling by rail and driven more people onto the roads. BTW, potholes need mending but need doing so properly so they are longer lasting due to not being done on the cheap!
I can't help thinking that the cancellation of HS2, however funded, is very shortsighted and will result in even heavier road usage and all the costs which that entails.
What many people seem to forget, or ignore, is that the rail network is extremely important for freight transport and all the trade that it generates both nationally and internationally.
Last edited:
Snow1964
Established Member
Thats the big problem was been no attempt to smooth out replacement of the stock generally built in the boom 1985-92
Some have been replaced, many class 91s+mk4s, 317s, 319s, 321s, 14x pacers, but there are others with no obvious replacement plan which could see another boom in late 2020s after current famine.
GWR was made to cut its leasing bill in pandemic, losing the proposed 769s, some HST sets and three 387s, but now can't cope on some lines as ridership has bounced back, or more strictly grown fast in certain areas that didn't historically have the highest capacity trains.
They could easily use at least 25 5car Regional Express sets (and could argue another 20 would be better fit if they could swap out about 20 of the 5car IETs).
I think a separate configuration is needEd for the Bristol suburban and local trains, although like the 444s and 450s, I would have many parts interchangeable for maintenance simplicity. At the moment looks like nothing until at least 2028, but I don't know how they will muddle through for another 5 years as nothing definite about temporar getting surplus stock from elsewhere either.
Last edited:
None of this is true, as you have already been told in other threads. Politicians might spin it that way, but it isn't true. Both of those road schemes have been in development for years and years
The A164 - Jock’s Lodge Junction improvement scheme is part of the Network North plan; "https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/network-north" -
Yorkshire and the Humber
- A164/Jock’s Lodge Junction improvement scheme
- A1237 York Outer Ring Road dualling phase 1
- Dawson’s Corner Junction and Stanningley Bypass
- A650 Tong Street, Bradford
The project has been planned for years but due to cost increases £40 million of Network North money has now been allocated to cover the increase instead of the council funding it;
"https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/new...ral&utm_campaign=embedded_search_item_desktop"
"The Government's pledge to cover almost half of the cost of the project comes after councilors heard costs had spiraled from £50m to £87m due to high inflation. Then council Leader Cllr Jonathan Owen said at the time the extra costs would be met with reserves and borrowing. But the deal struck by the Government and the council means the council will now spend £46.7m on the project with the rest coming from the new Network North.
Network North was unveiled by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak after he announced that the Birmingham to Manchester leg of HS2 would be scrapped. Funding for the high speed rail project has now been pledged to areas across the North including for road and public transport improvements."
As mentioned above the money previously assigned to HS2 is now available for transport schemes but not ring fenced for the railway nor the North either.
Clarence Yard
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 2,528
Just to be clear here, GWR didn’t “agree” to cut its leasing bill - it was told to.
The business plan process was that each TOC had to propose a large suite of cuts and the DfT then chose which ones it wanted to meet its budget line for that TOC. It also, in some cases, imposed specific cuts that were not part of the list submitted by the TOC.
Snow1964
Established Member
You are right, I should have chosen better words, amended the wording.
But I think everyone is agreed, the cuts were done as a one way process to save money quickly, with no obvious thought (by DfT) on how to unwind them months/years later if ridership returned, or grew on other lines.