Great Western Electrification Progress

[furnessvale]

Why would it be 'disingenuously' appreciated? It got me thinking. Are you the person who is campaigning against the OHLE near Goring? Are you hoping for a nugget about mismanagement on OHLE by NR?

One word answer..................YES.

 

[Who Cares]

Why would it be 'disingenuously' appreciated? It got me thinking. Are you the person who is campaigning against the OHLE near Goring? Are you hoping for a nugget about mismanagement on OHLE by NR?

I know that old fashioned courtesy and respect is no longer in fashion these days, but I'm a bit surprised you should think I'm not appreciative.

And the answer to your question is YES and NO - YES I'm involved with the different groups ( communities, residents and AsONB ) who together have been talking with NR about the Project for the past 18 months....And NO not campaigning, as the situation has moved on considerably since I was posting regularly on here more than a year ago, but then stopped posting after (1) NR agreed to a full study of the potential of replacing the OLE and which is now happening and (2) childish posts and comments from other posters.

No, not looking for nuggets of mismanagement - the report by the National Audit Office has already identified and reported plenty of examples of mismanagement and confusion by both NR and the DfT. The example of the bridge at Steventon is yet another where it's possible either to believe that NR really have mismanaged the Project ( they were first aware that the bridge was a Listed Structure in 2012 and it would require consultation with SODC and Historic England before just demolishing it at will ) or it's possible to believe that it is another example of the way NR has shown a consistently flagrant disregard for statutory consultation.

Anyway....The reason for my question was simple - COPPER quoted that the project was detrimentally affected by NR having to comply with ( new ? ) EU regulations, which our old friend PHILLIP PHLOP also used to remind us of but without ever providing the links to the regulations, and I was looking for the appropriate legislation, as that obviously impacts on the design of the existing OLE and any redesigned OLE which may or may not replace the current OLE after consultations have finished.

That's the reason for my question - none of us would have to search too hard for nuggets or examples of NR's mismanagement

 

[Tio Terry]

I know that old fashioned courtesy and respect is no longer in fashion these days, but I'm a bit surprised you should think I'm not appreciative.

And the answer to your question is YES and NO - YES I'm involved with the different groups ( communities, residents and AsONB ) who together have been talking with NR about the Project for the past 18 months....And NO not campaigning, as the situation has moved on considerably since I was posting regularly on here more than a year ago, but then stopped posting after (1) NR agreed to a full study of the potential of replacing the OLE and which is now happening and (2) childish posts and comments from other posters.

No, not looking for nuggets of mismanagement - the report by the National Audit Office has already identified and reported plenty of examples of mismanagement and confusion by both NR and the DfT. The example of the bridge at Steventon is yet another where it's possible either to believe that NR really have mismanaged the Project ( they were first aware that the bridge was a Listed Structure in 2012 and it would require consultation with SODC and Historic England before just demolishing it at will ) or it's possible to believe that it is another example of the way NR has shown a consistently flagrant disregard for statutory consultation.

Anyway....The reason for my question was simple - COPPER quoted that the project was detrimentally affected by NR having to comply with ( new ? ) EU regulations, which our old friend PHILLIP PHLOP also used to remind us of but without ever providing the links to the regulations, and I was looking for the appropriate legislation, as that obviously impacts on the design of the existing OLE and any redesigned OLE which may or may not replace the current OLE after consultations have finished.

That's the reason for my question - none of us would have to search too hard for nuggets or examples of NR's mismanagement

You can find the Energy TSI here:-

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R1301&from=EN

 

[coppercapped]

I know that old fashioned courtesy and respect is no longer in fashion these days, but I'm a bit surprised you should think I'm not appreciative.

And the answer to your question is YES and NO - YES I'm involved with the different groups ( communities, residents and AsONB ) who together have been talking with NR about the Project for the past 18 months....And NO not campaigning, as the situation has moved on considerably since I was posting regularly on here more than a year ago, but then stopped posting after (1) NR agreed to a full study of the potential of replacing the OLE and which is now happening and (2) childish posts and comments from other posters.

No, not looking for nuggets of mismanagement - the report by the National Audit Office has already identified and reported plenty of examples of mismanagement and confusion by both NR and the DfT. The example of the bridge at Steventon is yet another where it's possible either to believe that NR really have mismanaged the Project ( they were first aware that the bridge was a Listed Structure in 2012 and it would require consultation with SODC and Historic England before just demolishing it at will ) or it's possible to believe that it is another example of the way NR has shown a consistently flagrant disregard for statutory consultation.

Anyway....The reason for my question was simple - COPPER quoted that the project was detrimentally affected by NR having to comply with ( new ? ) EU regulations, which our old friend PHILLIP PHLOP also used to remind us of but without ever providing the links to the regulations, and I was looking for the appropriate legislation, as that obviously impacts on the design of the existing OLE and any redesigned OLE which may or may not replace the current OLE after consultations have finished.

That's the reason for my question - none of us would have to search too hard for nuggets or examples of NR's mismanagement

If I may use your post to respond to you and others who have posted on this theme.

As I see it there are two main grounds for unrest - one is the cost increase and delay to the programme and the other is the design and size of the overhead equipment. The two things are intertwined, but it makes things clearer if they are described separately. I have no 'inside' information - what I write is based on articles in the popular and specialist railway press, on documents published by the various players and reports and hearings in Parliament by the Public Accounts Committee and organisations such as the National Audit office.

Some background. For many years the DfT would countenance no discussion of electrification - in retrospect it would seem that this was a result of the explosion in the cost of running the railway after the Hatfield crash and the expenditure on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. The Government had no more money to spend on the railway.

However, in 2010 there was to be a general election. In 2009, as one of the sweeteners to the public, the Transport Minister unexpectedly announced the electrification of the triangle of lines between Manchester, Liverpool and Blackpool and parts of the Great Western. The DfT published Britain’s Transport Infrastructure Rail Electrication in July 2009 following on from NR's Electrification RUS in May 2009. Some correspondence in Modern Railways a year or so ago from one of the people involved with the original costings for the GW - a retired former BR engineer - suggested that these costings were based on an updated and more robust version of the East Coast main line work done 20 years earlier using the same top speed. In view of time pressure detailed designs were not prepared but best efforts were made based on experience of the earlier work. These were the costings publicised by Adonis.

However the DfT was also committed to ordering 140mph capable Super Express Trains as part of the IEP deal. At a stroke the overhead had now to be capable of coping with a 140mph train with two pantographs because of the use case of two coupled 5 coach units.

In the field of standards, new European regulations had dropped the derogation permitting smaller clearances because the UK representatives had agreed. References to these Directives and the corresponding RSSB standards have been made in the printed press - I'm not going to search now! If I have correctly understood the situation these representatives were ORR staff so they had no direct experience of electrification and no direct responsibility for keeping costs down. Certainly any corporate memory of Stanley Warder's tests in the late 1950s had been lost. In these the actual flashover distance from 25kV conductor to a steam locomotive's chimney was made in a tunnel at Crewe using a Stanier Black 5 generating lots of smoke and steam by lowering the overhead until an arc occurred. If I recall correctly the distance was only 2 or 3 inches. Based on this separation of the overhead to fixed structures could be reduced and the use of the reduced voltage 6.25kV abandoned.

Added to all this were the updated The electricity at work regulations 1989 which, among other things, laid down the separation between people, i.e., both workers and passengers, and high voltage conductors.

To cope with the two pantograph 140mph use case the overhead had to be strengthened - all the details may be found in Philip Phlopp's earlier postings - and the use of independent suspension of the wires for each track was adopted based on experience with parts of the East Coast's equipment.

The conclusion to the whole sorry story must be to decide what it is you want to buy before you rush into the shop. And knowing what you want to buy means being an informed purchaser - and in this case NR clearly wasn't. It had skills in the maintenance of existing electrification but had few skills in the design of new equipment - partially at least because it had been told by its sponsor over many years previously that electrification was off the agenda. To a certain extent it was more sinned against than sinning - but its subsequent programme management at the highest level appears, or at least appeared to be as things have changed in the meantime, wanting.

All this was compounded by split responsibilities - the DfT had taken upon itself the procurement of new trains but had not considered in sufficient detail the effects these would have on the overhead, the ORR was, at least partly, responsible for the regulatory framework but was also closely involved with the costings but didn't seem to be able to comprehend that the two things are interlinked. All the programmes which affected the GW were being run in separate silos - Crossrail to Maidenhead, resignalling closely followed by replacement of the signalling by ERTMS/ETCS, route modernisation, IEP and so on.

Heaven be praised that the rebuild of Reading station was run by Bechtel and didn't have so many interdependencies. That at least worked well.

 

[HSTEd]

Unfortunately the same TSI (do those actually apply off of High Speed routes?) would forbid a return to 6.25kV, which would be another route out of this mess.

The equipment necessary is considerably more reliable than it was then. Indeed it might be possible to engineer a traction converter system that can function a wide enough range of voltages that no additional equipment would be required at all.

25kV is now extremely expensive on existing lines and no practical method exists to get the costs under control. All because some ORR bureaucrat had no idea what they were talking about but didn't bother to consult anyone who did.

 

[QueensCurve]

Not only that, it comes over that the scheme in the area is only being designed now. Why ever was that not done at the start - how could the cost estimates have been done without adequate design.

It does seem odd that it has taken so long to get this bridgework underway.

Scottish electrification - late changes to standards apart - did the bridgework long before the wiring was due to start.

That said, the listed footbridge at Stiruling would seem to be an exception.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Up/Down Mains please!

Some of us rebel against insular Great Western terminology.

Apart from anything else the term Main is ambiguous potentially meaning either not Relief (Slow) or not the branch line at a junction.

Hence I too would probably refer to the lines as Fast Vs Slow.:grin:

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If I may use your post to respond to you and others who have posted on this theme.

That's a very good concise description of how the fiasco unfolded.
I remember Richard Bowker saying that no-one knew the whole story of how WCRM went wrong, and it might be the same now with GWRM.
We still don't know if we will have a 140mph route at the end of it.
It would surely have been simpler to re-spec the route and the IEP order rather than break the bank with the electrification, but no doubt all the contracts for the higher spec were in place by the time the enormity of the problem was apparent.

The dog which hasn't barked yet is ETCS.
There are already mutterings about problems interfacing Crossrail and ETCS on the approaches to Paddington.
Something else for Roger Ford to investigate, maybe.

 

[hwl]

The dog which hasn't barked yet is ETCS.
There are already mutterings about problems interfacing Crossrail and ETCS on the approaches to Paddington.
Something else for Roger Ford to investigate, maybe.

I've been hearing murmuring for 2.5 years, identified early as an issue and plan B devised to mitigate in the short term.

 

[Who Cares]

I hope I'm allowed to thank everyone !

As you may or may not be aware, NR have been busy commissioning engineering, environmental and visual improvement studies for consultation with the AsONB regarding the possible replacement of the existing OLE where it passes through the AsONB.

This process is now at the stage where alternative OLE designs have been prepared as part of the ongoing consultations.

Hence my question - obviously NR and their consultants are more than au fait with the intricacies of the OLE engineering requirements to meet the EU requirements. All that I was trying to do was to find the up-to-date EU standards so that further down the line as the consultations unfold, the AsONB consultants and advisors might have a better grasp of what NR can do and what they can't do with the new designs. I'm certainly not trying to open old wounds - the consultations between NR and the AsONB and others are now progressing, even if slowly, positively.

On the other hand, you'll have guessed that as a UK Taxpayer, I do think that the whole Project has been a disaster which NR Management could and should have done far, far more to address long before their credit card was cut up.

Thanks again.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

On the other hand, you'll have guessed that as a UK Taxpayer, I do think that the whole Project has been a disaster which NR Management could and should have done far, far more to address long before their credit card was cut up.

As has been stated there is plenty of blame all around including the Labour Government, the Conservative/LibDem coalition and even the current conservative government. The ORR, the DfT share blame and NR. Politics at the macro and micro level played a part.

The larger problem is - politicians do not like being embarrassed especially with huge cost overruns even though they are partly to blame. I hope and pray this I not the end of the electrification program I really do - but I fear the worst and that Ford and Walmsley are correct.

 

[QueensCurve]

The larger problem is - politicians do not like being embarrassed especially with huge cost overruns even though they are partly to blame. I hope and pray this I not the end of the electrification program I really do - but I fear the worst and that Ford and Walmsley are correct.

.
I am putting what little faith I have in some newfound professional competence rather than divine providence.

 

[Tio Terry]

That's a very good concise description of how the fiasco unfolded.
I remember Richard Bowker saying that no-one knew the whole story of how WCRM went wrong, and it might be the same now with GWRM.
We still don't know if we will have a 140mph route at the end of it.
It would surely have been simpler to re-spec the route and the IEP order rather than break the bank with the electrification, but no doubt all the contracts for the higher spec were in place by the time the enormity of the problem was apparent.

The dog which hasn't barked yet is ETCS.
There are already mutterings about problems interfacing Crossrail and ETCS on the approaches to Paddington.
Something else for Roger Ford to investigate, maybe.

The ETCS dog has been barking quite loudly for the past two or three years, trouble is some have decided to not hear it! There are major issues interfacing the Crossrail central section CBI to the conventional signalling at Pudding Mill Lane and to the existing systems at the Paddington end that are still not resolved. There's a planned frig using a form of enhanced TPWS at the Paddington end in the short term whilst the final solution - bearing in mind the 345's/387's wont be ATP fitted - is sorted. But that wont allow the full service to run.

 

[HSTEd]

Perhaps it would have been better had they just turned the GWML Reliefs over to Crossrail entirely and resignalled them with the same system to be used in the core.

 

[fflint]

Your short and concise explanation of the whole sorry affair cuts through all the BS we've heard from government, Network Rail and others, a big thank you is well deserved.
Sadly there is some evidence from the horses mouth as it were, that many of the other projects may not go ahead. When talking about the Hull - Selby scheme the junior DAFT minister said in a letter to a local MP:

In his letter to MPs, Mr Maynard points to First Hull Trains’s decision to spend £60m on ‘bi-mode’ trains which can operate on both diesel and electric power. Mr Maynard said the Azuma trains soon to be brought into service by Virgin Trains would cut journey times to London while Arrival Rail North will introduce “new or refurbished trains” on services connecting Hull to Doncaster and Sheffield. The minister said the promised loan would have been repayable by the Government when the upgrade was complete, making the project “fully publicly funded”. Passengers in areas where electrification work had gone ahead had experienced “months of either complete line closure or mid-week nights and weekend closure”. He added: “Given the number of passenger benefits already being delivered without electrification, there is almost no further benefit to justify further publicly funded investment and the disruption electrification would bring.”

My bold.

Now that in it's self could be considered a one off but for this, a quote in parliament from the Sec. of State for Transport Greyling said

What actually happened was that before the point of being able to take a decision on electrification on the Hull line, Hull Trains and TransPennine ordered bi-mode trains that deliver the service improvements without any additional investment in unnecessary infrastructure. That means we can spend more money around the network to improve services. People in Hull should be pleased, because they are about to get smart new trains that will really improve services

To see all the questions see:

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-12-06/debates/16120653000001/RailInfrastructure(TrainOperatingCompanies

Now, being cynical about politics and government, is this the start of a new policy re. electrification, where the people get new trains , more seats and less construction delays? Never mind the extra capital, higher running costs and loss of electrification skills that will cost us dear in the future. They have been very lucky that the new Hitachi electric trains can be re-engined with diesels, through luck not judgment the Government has a way out without too much egg on it's face.

 

[HowardGWR]

I am just wondering if this thread could be split in two

GW Electrification reports on progress

GW Electrification, who's to blame and how it can be rescued

I've contributed to both subjects but I am more interested in the first.

 

[Mollman]

Perhaps it would have been better had they just turned the GWML Reliefs over to Crossrail entirely and resignalled them with the same system to be used in the core.

That would have been a good idea perhaps as far as Slough or Maidenhead, although the Mains would have had to cope with HSTs, 100mph locals and 60/45mph freight.

If money was no object then a new high speed line between OOC and Reading via Heathrow would have allowed the LDHS services out of Paddington to go that way releasing capacity on the mains for non-CrossRail services.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I am just wondering if this thread could be split in two

GW Electrification reports on progress

GW Electrification, who's to blame and how it can be rescued

I've contributed to both subjects but I am more interested in the first.

I Agree, sometimes frustrating when you just want an update to have to red through pages of arguments about hows fault it is and whether the IEP is good. Again i have contributed to both but would be beneficial to see it separate.

 

[HSTEd]

That would have been a good idea perhaps as far as Slough or Maidenhead, although the Mains would have had to cope with HSTs, 100mph locals and 60/45mph freight.

Why would there be 100mph locals after that?
If Crossrail has the reliefs then surely all remaining GWML passenger trains would run first stop Reading?

Could also state that all freights over the section were to use electric traction which would improve their performance somewhat.

Now, being cynical about politics and government, is this the start of a new policy re. electrification, where the people get new trains , more seats and less construction delays? Never mind the extra capital, higher running costs and loss of electrification skills that will cost us dear in the future. They have been very lucky that the new Hitachi electric trains can be re-engined with diesels, through luck not judgment the Government has a way out without too much egg on it's face.

In other words, bi-modes have allowed the Government to cancel the electrification programme entirely.

 

[snowball]

In other words, bi-modes have allowed the Government to cancel the electrification programme entirely.

Or to put it more accurately, nothing has yet been cancelled. Hull is not being progressed but was never committed beyond GRIP 3 in the first place.

Parliamentary written answer, 16 Jan:

Network Rail is delivering the Great Western Electrification Programme to the dates set out in Sir Peter Hendy’s report published on 25 November 2015. This includes completing electrification of the Great Western Mainline to Cardiff by December 2018.

For the sections of electrification due for completion in Control Period 6 (CP6) (2019-2024), including the four sections which were deferred in November 2016, delivery schedules will be agreed as part of Network Rail’s CP6 planning process.

 

[HSTEd]

Or to put it more accurately, nothing has yet been cancelled. Hull is not being progressed but was never committed beyond GRIP 3 in the first place.

Parliamentary written answer, 16 Jan:

In other words, we haven't cancelled it but have not yet done anything to advance them.
I do not expect anything to ever be done. This is a standard cancellation by the back door strategy. Especially given the language coming out of DfT about electrification generally.

 

[holts]

I am lead to believe it is quite possible that it will stop at Bristol now despite the tunnel being dealt with , seems hard to believe they would do that having spent on the tunnel . In addition it is possible they will use some of the old Gatwick express stock on the Welsh Marches , presumably as long as conversion is feasible .

 

[HSTEd]

442s on Welsh Marches would require very little rewiring, just a connection between the shoe-bus and an ETS connector (Southern region TCs used 750V ETS right?), you could then operate them in multiple with a Super 73.

 

[swt_passenger]

I am lead to believe it is quite possible that it will stop at Bristol now despite the tunnel being dealt with ...

Led to believe by who?

You must have missed the parliamentary statement about completing to Cardiff by 2018 that snowball quoted a few posts back?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Led to believe by who?

You must have missed the parliamentary statement about completing to Cardiff by 2018 that snowball quoted a few posts back?

And would be absolutely totally politically unacceptable - end of. No way would any minister risk that.

 

[coppercapped]

Why would there be 100mph locals after that?
If Crossrail has the reliefs then surely all remaining GWML passenger trains would run first stop Reading?

Why do you think that?

Only two Crossrail trains per hour will go through to Reading.

There is a demand for travel to Slough and intermediate stations from further afield with the result that some of the four Oxford trains in each hour call at Slough. Others call at the local stations between Oxford and Reading and post-Crossrail these will call at Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, Hayes & Harlington and Ealing Broadway (if I've remembered correctly).

If all GW trains were non-stop between Reading and Paddington this would (a) increase the number of passengers having to change trains at Reading and (b) slow their journey.

This is not the action of a railway which is trying to improve the service it offers.

Could also state that all freights over the section were to use electric traction which would improve their performance somewhat.

So the stone trains from the Mendips would have to change traction somewhere en route? That will slow the overall journey - the maximum speed when loaded will still be 45mph even with electric traction - and increase the cost of operation because of the need for a shunter and a sufficiently long siding.

Brilliant.
[/QUOTE]

 

[furnessvale]

So the stone trains from the Mendips would have to change traction somewhere en route? That will slow the overall journey - the maximum speed when loaded will still be 45mph even with electric traction - and increase the cost of operation because of the need for a shunter and a sufficiently long siding.

Brilliant.

It would certainly solve the stone train problem.

Either the stone would go by road, or not move at all.

 

[snowball]

In other words, we haven't cancelled it but have not yet done anything to advance them.

So the track lowering at Bath didn't happen?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6zzu8vD99M

 

[snowball]

I am lead to believe it is quite possible that it will stop at Bristol now despite the tunnel being dealt with , seems hard to believe they would do that having spent on the tunnel . In addition it is possible they will use some of the old Gatwick express stock on the Welsh Marches , presumably as long as conversion is feasible .

Cardiff is definitely happening. It's Bristol TM that's been suspended, and some claim it has been dropped. The Welsh Secretary on January 19 reaffirmed the commitment to electrify to Swansea but gave no date.

Edit: at least, RAIL magazine's website claims he reaffirmed the commitment to electrify to Swansea, but having looked up his words I don't think he did:

The Secretary of State for Transport and I hold regular discussions on the Government’s ambitious programme of investment in our railway infrastructure, most recently during a joint visit to Cardiff Central Station on 13 January.

The Government is committed to improving services for passengers on the Great Western line, from Paddington to Swansea. We are continuing to invest £2.8 billion on electrification on this route to deliver better services and new trains with thousands more seats.

 

[HSTEd]

Why do you think that?

Only two Crossrail trains per hour will go through to Reading.

Under the current plans yes.
But I am not going to turn two tracks over to Crossrail for 2 trains per hour.

I would propose a rather higher intensity service.

There is a demand for travel to Slough and intermediate stations from further afield with the result that some of the four Oxford trains in each hour call at Slough. Others call at the local stations between Oxford and Reading and post-Crossrail these will call at Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, Hayes & Harlington and Ealing Broadway (if I've remembered correctly).

If all GW trains were non-stop between Reading and Paddington this would (a) increase the number of passengers having to change trains at Reading and (b) slow their journey.

Slow their journey on the assumption that they will always turn up at exactly the right time to travel.
For example changing at Reading is not necessarily a bad thing if the suburbans have gone to Crossrail at tube-like frequencies (and once the tracks are entirely in Crossrail's hands there is little to prevent that).

Reading to Ealing Broadway via Crossrail (according to their website) will only be 42 minutes. Which is not going to be catastrophically slower than the current offering (NRE is not working for me at the moment) and is the worst case scenario as far as journey times getting worse are concerned.

This is not the action of a railway which is trying to improve the service it offers.

Speed is not the be all and end all - having 24tph to heathrow junction and something like 16tph to Reading will probably make up for that. (Or however many Reading can actually terminate and turn around, although if we were pursuing this course that would haev been taken care of with dedicated Crossrail platforms during the reconstruction).

So the stone trains from the Mendips would have to change traction somewhere en route? That will slow the overall journey - the maximum speed when loaded will still be 45mph even with electric traction - and increase the cost of operation because of the need for a shunter and a sufficiently long siding.

Or it could run with a 68 and 88 in formation.
Or it could buy some better stock that is capable of better than 45mph with some of the freight industry's collosal subsidies.
Indeed this is a many billion pound operation - how may freight wagon sets are required for the Mendip stone trains?
We could buy 75mph high speed sets or better and it would be a negligible cost.

 

[jyte]

Under the current plans yes.
Speed is not the be all and end all - having 24tph to heathrow junction and something like 16tph to Reading will probably make up for that.

How many trains would be needed to run this service?
How many has Crossrail ordered?
Is it possible to change the order now Bombardier is in production? What would be the increased cost of this/delay?
(All actual questions I have)

Also, as an aside considering isn't the DFT unhappy about letting TFL take over the suburban services south of London because of their concerns allegedly about TFL not being accountable for people outside London? How would the DFT and local residents in Twyford and Maidenhead (not London!) feel about only having a Crossrail service they had very little say in running?
Or am I misunderstanding the accountability issue?