Cardiff - Swansea Electrification Cancelled!

[Pacerpilot]

Not this tired old line about trains breaking down all the time. Give it a rest. Hitachi's trains are just so unreliable, I mean just look at the Class 395s...

It's not a case of trains breaking down. There are daily infrastructure failures on the GWML. If your attaching portion is displaced and isn't in the correct place to attach how do you squeeze the extra passengers into 5 cars?

 

[snowball]

They are 26m vehicles, but the bogie centres have been placed such that they shouldn't cause any significant gauging issues.

Is that possible? If they remain the same distance from the ends (as the bogies of shorter coaches), then there's increased throw in the middle, whilw if they remain the same distance from the middle, then there's increased throw at the ends.

 

[furnessvale]

Is that possible? If they remain the same distance from the ends (as the bogies of shorter coaches), then there's increased throw in the middle, whilw if they remain the same distance from the middle, then there's increased throw at the ends.

As rail vehicles get longer, the bogie position from the end of the vehicle tends to remain about the same. This inevitably results in greater centre throw.

If the bogie was moved further from the end this would decrease centre throw but then the increased end throw would make coupling to, or even running with, shorter vehicles on a curve difficult or impossible.

 

[Darandio]

Not this tired old line about trains breaking down all the time. Give it a rest. Hitachi's trains are just so unreliable, I mean just look at the Class 395s...

I really don't see how the reliability of a Class 395 is at all relevant to the reliability of a Class 800/802.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's still the Treasury/WG deal for Westminster to fund £250m of South Wales Metro work.
That might still go into Valleys electrification, even if the main line wires stop at Cardiff.
One of the key things in the general NR plan was a grid feeder point near Newport.
As long as that still goes ahead there is some hope for the Valleys.

 

[A0wen]

Well, if the electric metro goes ahead and it uses 25Kv, we could have the extraordinary position of having the Vale of Glamorgan Coast Line electrified via Rhoose (Cardiff Airport) to Bridgend and possibly the main line not wired.

Not at all - you've long had the situation where the 'metro' services were electrified and the 'mainline' wasn't - the original Shenfield electrification for example, the GN suburban to Royston, even the Watford DC lines.

Here's the point - electric works really well for suburban services where the acceleration and braking is needed for stop / start services. For longer distances the benefit is less clear cut - particularly if you have to maintain mile upon mile of OHLE or 3rd rail and one failure can bring the whole thing to a halt.

Wiring the final miles into each city makes some sense - it's what the US has done in New York for many years

 

[coppercapped]

Is that possible? If they remain the same distance from the ends (as the bogies of shorter coaches), then there's increased throw in the middle, whilw if they remain the same distance from the middle, then there's increased throw at the ends.

It has been reported that the distance between the bogie centres is the same as the Mk3 coach. The throwover of the centre of the coach is therefore the same.

This leaves the ends. The Hitachi coaches are nominally 3 metres longer than the Mk3s, i.e., it is 1.5 metres more from the bogie centre to the end of the coach so the throwover will be greater. However the coaches are tapered and the design requirement was that, essentially, the Class 80X trains should go where Mk3s can go. It is clear that some minor works are necessary for this to be possible and these have been scheduled in NR's CP6 Enhancement Programme. This lists one of the Core Routes to be London to Cardiff/Swansea/Carmarthen.

So, for this tunnel there are three possibilities:

1. The trains fit without modification
2. Some tweaking of the track or tunnel will be necessary
3. The tunnel will need to be enlarged à la Farnsworth.

If 2 or 3 are too expensive for the extra income that could be earned if through trains were possible then the Class 80X trains will terminate at Carmarthen and people can make continue to make rude noises at Chris Grayling.

 

[adrock1976]

If the Hitachi trains are a problem for the tunnel at Narberth, could an alternative be to have the train run to Fishguard Harbour instead?

This would restore the link with the Rosslare ferry, and would provide friendlier connections with Cardiff and points east. The present service appears to be fragmented, with long waits at either Carmarthen and Swansea.

 

[3141]

It's beyond belief that in 2017 all major trunk routes and commuter services around our Metropolitan areas are not electrified , this should have been done before the end of the last century.

Theirs certainly an element of Daft wanting to be "proved right" in all this about its obsession with bi mode. "bi mode saves the day" is the railway that nobody wants except Daft and Hitachi who are the lucky beneficiaries of the over expensive contraptions.

It's not beyond belief, it's a fact.

I think I've read that class 802 as ordered by GWR for west of England and Oxford services are much less expensive than the 800s and 801s ordered by the DfT, Hitachi having put the development costs on the trains the DfT asked them to produce.

Well there we have it, the tories just don't do trains, or Wales for that matter.

Can someone explain to me why the rest of Europe, Japan, Korea, and even India have extensively electrified railways and our government keeps running from it?

I don't like the way Grayling and others keep repeating that they're making the greatest investment in railways since Victorian times, but thereis a large amount of investment happening.

Unfortunately Network Rail has squandered the money. Was it just two years ago that Sir Peter Hendy was appointed chairman and came up with a plan to scale back electrification to keep within the budget? But NR still couldn't control its expenditure so now we have the situation in today's announcements. It's not just the current projects that they've messed up, they've effectively killed off electrification for the future (except possibly for some infill schemes - Barking to Gospel Oak casts doubt on whether they can manage even those).

 

[Starmill]

Who was still seriously expecting Cardiff - Swansea electrification?

Certainly not me!

 

[coppercapped]

Who was still seriously expecting Cardiff - Swansea electrification?

Certainly not me!

Me neither. All that money and disruption for one train per hour....?

 

[MarkyT]

It is a big disappointment this work is being removed from the current plan, but realistic in the short/medium term. However, I'd be very surprised if some of this electrification doesn't reappear again at some point. Bi-modes are great, and Oxenholme - Windemere is a great application for them. I don't think it will be a great tragedy if Windemere doesn't ever get electrified, however on the Great Western, Every IET unit will now have to come with diesels fitted which will be used at high power for a fair part of every single journey made. Completion of electrification to Bristol Temple Meads (both routes) and Swansea could have allowed a large proportion of the fleet to have had their engine packs removed in the future, but I assume DfT have now signed on a price based on those diesels remaining in place for the full lease (27 years?). Removing the diesels could be a major saving in down time and man hours for the fleet maintainer over the long term. Put simply, Agility might be able to make more profit over the asset life by themselves arranging funding of the additional wiring in the future. Perhaps by shutting down the existing NR programme and starting up something new in a few years time, a more cost-effective approach can be made on this. There is also the possibility the Welsh Government, in perhaps already having to fund wires as far as Bridgend might be able to offer funds As for MML, there's no major fleet renewal needed in the near future with the current Meridians, though they might be supplemented by a few Hitachis or something similar in a few years to replace HSTs. They will simply have to be bi-mode there but they will be relatively few in number, and could have diesel packs removed in future if electrification rematerialises.

When resignalling and remodelling around Sheffield commences, providing suitable platforms and electrification for HS2 conventional network compatible trains, that is probably the time to reconsider MML electrification, and a programme could be devised to follow on proceeding south from Clay Cross. The Meridians will be well past their half life by then so replacement by a reliable and cheaper to maintain all electric fleet (perhaps also including some bi-modes for non electrified branches) could be acquired.

For very heavily trafficked lines with long trains and high speeds, electrification and electric-only trains has still got to be the most efficient traction option for the majority of the fleet: Weight, Complexity and Reliability are the key factors. No other rail administration in the world has ever challenged that orthodoxy. Grayling is very brave to suggest this level of finality, assuming that's his real intention. Running everything on diesel at least part of the way carries risks in both cost and reliability. A largely electric only fleet can be joined by a proportion of bi-modes of course, for the relatively infrequent trains that project beyond a core electric network, and bi-modes should at least please traction nazis who cannot bear to contemplate any diesel working under the wires!

 

[Grimsby town]

Using the condition of India's railways as your justification is misplaced.

What you actually need to look at is geography.

The UK HAS electrified the majority of its mainlines from London to its major cities.

Leaving London there are only 3 mainlines which are non-electrified for the majority of their length - the MML, the Chiltern line and the GWML, the third of which is being done to Cardiff and Bristol and therefore isn't in the numbers I showed.

Add in you have most of the key 'urban' networks in the major cities either electrified or in flight, so that the majority of local services in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and the West Mids, are run using electrics.

The majority of the mileage which isn't wired is rural - look at the branch lines in Lincolnshire and East Anglia, the miles in the north of Scotland, arguably anything west of Exeter, certainly west of Plymouth, the Heart of Wales, the Cambrian to Pwllheli - it would never be viable to electrify those, yet in route miles they soon stack up.

60% of UK passenger journeys are made using electric trains.

The problem is while some of the major cities have got electrified commuter networks, others in the UK have got nothing. Electrification in Manchester is patchy. In Leeds it's even more hit and miss. Sheffield, Bristol, Nottingham and Cardiff currently have no electrification. This doesn't happen in France and Germany never mind smaller European countries with less long rural lines. An Italian I know was criticising how little electrification there is in the UK only the other day.

The fact there is no accouncement about the cancellation of the Valleys lines is hopefully promising. It may signal shift of strategy to electrifying commuter lines around cities (which benefit more from electrification due to short distance between stations) with longer distance trains using the wires to enter the city to reduce emissions. Maybe I'm being too optimistic.

 

[jimm]

It's not a case of trains breaking down. There are daily infrastructure failures on the GWML. If your attaching portion is displaced and isn't in the correct place to attach how do you squeeze the extra passengers into 5 cars?

Trains can break down or get displaced anywhere on the network - fact of life, not something unique to the GWML. I haven't noticed demands that all electric sets south of the Thames should have 8, 10 or 12-car permanent formations just in case there are problems that affect services that split and join at various points during the day.

I really don't see how the reliability of a Class 395 is at all relevant to the reliability of a Class 800/802.

Oh I don't know, same train builder, common family of trains, Hitachi's track record of reliability for trains in use all over the world, the extended test programme for IEP, the train builder having a clear and obvious financial interest in making sure they are ultra-reliable through a 27-year maintenance contract ... all clearly pointing to the 800/801/802 being a complete dog of a train:roll::roll::roll:

 

[cle]

Me neither. All that money and disruption for one train per hour....?

I tend to agree. It'd be neat and tidy - but there should be greater use.

Guarantee more people will use GOBLIN than Swansea to Cardiff...!

 

[edwin_m]

In respect of MML the Grayling announcement does at least commit to bi-modes as some compensation for losing electrification. For Cardiff-Swansea it doesn't even do that, as the IEP were announced years ago. So not only a cutback being spun as a benefit, the benefit doesnt exist!

 

[HSSDriver]

Trains can break down or get displaced anywhere on the network - fact of life, not something unique to the GWML. I haven't noticed demands that all electric sets south of the Thames should have 8, 10 or 12-car permanent formations just in case there are problems that affect services that split and join at various points during the day.

You really are missing his point aren't you? The current trains are already fixed formations with a superior carrying capacity. At a time where passenger numbers continue to grow..why would replace the incumbent trains with something that is smaller?
I know how easy is it is for a relatively small fault to throw the entire train plan. I know which trains are utterly packed beyond capacity in the evening peak and already require BTP intervention to get the doors closed and dispatched.
When the 1915 is allocated a single 5 car and some 500 Angry passengers are left at Padd as it's partner set has been stuck at a black signal somewhere along the GWML, the point will be proven. It makes no difference to me as I'll always have the best seat on the set

 

[158756]

In respect of MML the Grayling announcement does at least commit to bi-modes as some compensation for losing electrification. For Cardiff-Swansea it doesn't even do that, as the IEP were announced years ago. So not only a cutback being spun as a benefit, the benefit doesnt exist!

There are clear benefits in cancelling the project - passengers will not have to put up with years of replacement buses while the work is done, the local roads won't be close for bridge replacements, the pretty scenery, if there is any, won't be ruined by ugly electrification masts. And the country might actually have some money to spend on something else, maybe in South Wales, rather than it all being cast into the black hole of electrification.

 

[Darandio]

Oh I don't know, same train builder, common family of trains, Hitachi's track record of reliability for trains in use all over the world, the extended test programme for IEP, the train builder having a clear and obvious financial interest in making sure they are ultra-reliable through a 27-year maintenance contract ... all clearly pointing to the 800/801/802 being a complete dog of a train:roll::roll::roll:

Didn't realise I said it was going to be a complete dog of a train. The truth is, nobody knows if it will be or not although many seem to have already formed an opinion either way, not quite sure how they have managed that.

Being the same train builder is irrelevant, being the same family of trains is also irrelevant, remind me again how many of the family are bi-mode? The extended test programme is not day in -day out passenger service, that is when the real test arrives.

You make it sound as if they'll roll out on day one and never have issues because of the reasons you have listed. Maybe they will, but maybe they won't as well.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Got to pay for the Gospel Oak to Barking wires somehow, only so much money in the pot...

Not to mention £75m effectively wasted on a pointless tram / train scheme "somewhere in England" - a scheme that had no business case ind was treated as a "special case"

Very special - 4 times over budget and not really sure what the outputs are.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Not to mention £75m effectively wasted on a pointless tram / train scheme "somewhere in England" - a scheme that had no business case ind was treated as a "special case"
Very special - 4 times over budget and not really sure what the outputs are.

The outputs were apparently the "lessons learned" by Network Rail in designing dual 750V DC/25kV AC OHLE.
That makes the actual solution (you know, carrying passengers) pretty irrelevant.

I wonder how many future projects they will deploy those lessons on?
They've just cancelled the putative 25kV electrification through Rotherham...

 

[HowardGWR]

You really are missing his point aren't you? The current trains are already fixed formations with a superior carrying capacity. At a time where passenger numbers continue to grow..why would replace the incumbent trains with something that is smaller?
I know how easy is it is for a relatively small fault to throw the entire train plan. I know which trains are utterly packed beyond capacity in the evening peak and already require BTP intervention to get the doors closed and dispatched.
When the 1915 is allocated a single 5 car and some 500 Angry passengers are left at Padd as it's partner set has been stuck at a black signal somewhere along the GWML, the point will be proven. It makes no difference to me as I'll always have the best seat on the set

Welcome to the forum. See my highlighted part of your contribution. Do you think this comes over as your employer would wish it?

 

[coppercapped]

It's not beyond belief, it's a fact.

I think I've read that class 802 as ordered by GWR for west of England and Oxford services are much less expensive than the 800s and 801s ordered by the DfT, Hitachi having put the development costs on the trains the DfT asked them to produce.

SNIP stuff which also really needs an answer!

To go through this whole sorry IEP story again. The IEPs are expensive because Agility Trains/Hitachi receive no payments all all until the first train has completed its first scheduled diagram. All the design, development, manufacturing and testing work is being funded by Hitachi using their equity and borrowed money.

The IEP contract also includes all maintenance for the next 27.5 years.

The trains could have been a lot cheaper had the DfT made progress payments during the design and development phase and gone for a separate quote for the maintenance.

If you don't want to carry any risk you will pay handsomely for the privilege.

The 802s on the other hand were bought under a normal purchase contract. In a sense of course, you can say that the development costs were carried by the IEP trains - but it isn't only the development cost, its the total of both the development costs and the five or six years interest on those costs.

Still, I don't think the DfT will make the same mistake again.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Still, I don't think the DfT will make the same mistake again.

I could easily see them repeating the process with HS2 stock procurement.
Like IEP, they don't want the normal railway anywhere near it.

 

[coppercapped]

I could easily see them repeating the process with HS2 stock procurement.
Like IEP, they don't want the normal railway anywhere near it.

Hmm! You might be right!

 

[HSSDriver]

Welcome to the forum. See my highlighted part of your contribution. Do you think this comes over as your employer would wish it?

Perhaps I didn't intend it to be that blunt but I am bitterly disappointed with the decision to run five car sets in place of 8 coach trains. It's not worked out too well for XC. I make regular use of my travel facilities and regularly have to stand on XC services which are packed even outside of the Peak times. We've also already seen numerous new trains having to have extra vehicles inserted due to short sighted orders for shorter trains.
This is a 30 year deal and with the way passenger numbers have risen in recent years we are surely going to see them overcrowded in no time.

 

[The Ham]

I wonder if that quote will come back to haunt him given that two thirds of the trains actually have significantly less seats than those they are replacing.
And Im not buying the guff about them being run as 2x5 sets. It's only going to take a non-multi fault or a displaced set as you'll have 5 cars running in the peak out of Paddington.

You really are missing his point aren't you? The current trains are already fixed formations with a superior carrying capacity. At a time where passenger numbers continue to grow..why would replace the incumbent trains with something that is smaller?
I know how easy is it is for a relatively small fault to throw the entire train plan. I know which trains are utterly packed beyond capacity in the evening peak and already require BTP intervention to get the doors closed and dispatched.
When the 1915 is allocated a single 5 car and some 500 Angry passengers are left at Padd as it's partner set has been stuck at a black signal somewhere along the GWML, the point will be proven. It makes no difference to me as I'll always have the best seat on the set

There are currently 54 HST's whist there will be 35 sets (80x) that will be 9 coaches. That means before a single 5 coach unit is needed 65% of services are covered.

That leaves 20 HST to be covered by 58 sets (80x) be 5 coaches, run then in pairs and the that's 29 trains to cover 20 trains.

I don't think that will likely result in many times when short trains are used.

Anyway, what happens when there's a problem with the HST used to run the 1915? Based on the above numbers I would suggest that it would be more likely that no train is available if it would be short formed in the future.

Also with all the 5 units it could be that there are 3 kept as spares at Paddington, if a 9 coach at fails then two of the spares are sent out instead, whilst if 5 coach unit failed then a single unit can substitute for it. That still leaves half a unit extra in service compared with now.

Then there's the possibility that some services towards the edges of the network which do only need to be 5 coach trains.

Therefore there are more units which can be used more efficiently then the existing fleet, and yet people still worry that there will be hundreds of services every week that will be run in short form.

 

[jimm]

You really are missing his point aren't you? The current trains are already fixed formations with a superior carrying capacity. At a time where passenger numbers continue to grow..why would replace the incumbent trains with something that is smaller?
I know how easy is it is for a relatively small fault to throw the entire train plan. I know which trains are utterly packed beyond capacity in the evening peak and already require BTP intervention to get the doors closed and dispatched.
When the 1915 is allocated a single 5 car and some 500 Angry passengers are left at Padd as it's partner set has been stuck at a black signal somewhere along the GWML, the point will be proven. It makes no difference to me as I'll always have the best seat on the set

No, I'm not missing the point.

It's all very well banging on about the orders of 'full-length trains', whatever those are - and is a five-car 180 a full-length train?- but as I have said for too many years now every time this one comes up, there are lots of places on the GWR system where outside the weekday peaks and certain parts of the weekend, there is no need whatever for an HST with 500+ seats now, never mind a nine-car IEP with 600+ in future.

That isn't going to change, but if 180s and three-car Turbos currently on Oxford and Cotswold services were replaced by a fleet of nine-car trains all day, every day, one thing that certainly would change would be the cost of running that service - and not in a good way.

Five-car 180s do a decent job of handling contra-peak services out of Paddington in the mornings right now and the five-car 800s will offer a handy increase on their seating capacity, whereas putting on a nine-car set would be complete overkill.

Or are you going to tell us - and your employer presumably - that running near-empty HSTs all the way to Hereford off-peak right now is a great idea and that every Worcester and Malvern train all day should be operated by HSTs too?

PS: If there is serious disruption, then there may not even be a five-car set for your 19.15...

Didn't realise I said it was going to be a complete dog of a train. The truth is, nobody knows if it will be or not although many seem to have already formed an opinion either way, not quite sure how they have managed that.

Being the same train builder is irrelevant, being the same family of trains is also irrelevant, remind me again how many of the family are bi-mode? The extended test programme is not day in -day out passenger service, that is when the real test arrives.

You make it sound as if they'll roll out on day one and never have issues because of the reasons you have listed. Maybe they will, but maybe they won't as well.

So it was in no way, shape or form your intention to suggest that they would be unreliable then? Do us a favour.

 

[topydre]

England and Scotland's second cities had electrified routes to their capital in the 1960s; yet Wales' second city (Swansea) has been left high and dry.

Leanne Wood said that Wales joins Albania and Moldova in not having any electrified railways. That should probably be amended to electrified passenger railways; but it's still a very valid point.

 

[cle]

It'll have Cardiff and Newport to London/England...