Great Western Electrification Progress

[D1009]

I suppose one problem with Basingstoke could be the prospect of dual electrification, which would bring technical issues. Doesn't the third rail extend a little way towards Reading? Yes I know it happens elsewhere but the additional costs could be enough to sway the business case.

 

[swt_passenger]

I suppose one problem with Basingstoke could be the prospect of dual electrification, which would bring technical issues. Doesn't the third rail extend a little way towards Reading? Yes I know it happens elsewhere but the additional costs could be enough to sway the business case.

No third rail on the branch, and initially the OHLE would likely run into the bay only. I don't think technical complexity becomes an issue until they decide to run through services beyond Basingstoke.

 

[D1009]

No third rail on the branch, and initially the OHLE would likely run into the bay only. I don't think technical complexity becomes an issue until they decide to run through services beyond Basingstoke.

Thanks for putting me right on that, It's a long time since I've been down there, but I had a vague recollection the bit of bi-di running leading to the bay had a third rail.

 

[edwin_m]

There are potential (ha ha) issues with earthing when DC and AC are in close proximity, even if not actually on the same track. Also concerns with immunisation of signalling equipment, although this is probably less of an issue with modern signalling.

 

[Surreyman]

I find it incredible that one of the richest countries in the world cuts back on planned electrification. I note that electrification of the railways is widespread in many countries that are poorer than the the UK and have less frequent train services. Perhaps we should ask them to put the wires up and carry out the changes to bridges etc. rather than Network Rail? Perhaps the Government expected too much of Network Rail is too short a time span - or is NR just inefficient?

I have to challenge the often rolled out "Richest countries in the world' argument" As of yesterdays budget we have 'Growth revised down to 1.5%'. The UK has been running a budget deficit for most of the last 15 years, yes of course governments can raise taxes/cut spending but both actions tend to be somewhat unpopular with the electorate and therefore with politicians.
Brutal reality - the country is not in good financial shape, Rising levels of Government and personal debt don't bode well for the future.
Personally in a perfect world I would love to see a huge rolling programme of electrification, I think we are lucky that we have managed to get (most) of GWR, Scotland, Goblin etc despite massive budget overuns, NR mismanagement etc.
Most of our european neighbours did it the sensible way, little by little, a steady rolling programme of electrification over many years.
Rant over!

 

[Dai Corner]

I have to challenge the often rolled out "Richest countries in the world' argument"

There is often confusion between size of economy and wealth. The UK is the world's fifth or sixth largest economy in terms of total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) but there are a lot of us to share it out amongst so in terms of GDP per capita we are only 23rd.

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-richest-countries-in-the-world.html

1 Qatar 127,523
2 Luxembourg 105,882
3 Singapore 87,856
4 Brunei 77,441
5 Kuwait (2015) 73,817
6 United Arab Emirates 72,419
7 Ireland 68,883
8 Switzerland 62,882
9 Norway 59,302
10 United States 57,467
11 Saudi Arabia 54,431
12 Iceland 51,399
13 Netherlands 50,898
14 Austria 50,078
15 Denmark 49,496
16 Sweden 49,175
17 Germany 48,730
18 Bahrain (2015) 47,333
19 Australia 46,790
20 Belgium 46,383
21 Canada 44,025
22 Finland 43,053
23 United Kingdom 42,609
24 Japan 41,470
25 France 41,466

I was surprised to see Ireland right up there with the oil producers.

Apologies for going off topic. If anyone wants to discuss this suggest starting s new thread.

 

[D365]

I suppose one problem with Basingstoke could be the prospect of dual electrification, which would bring technical issues. Doesn't the third rail extend a little way towards Reading? Yes I know it happens elsewhere but the additional costs could be enough to sway the business case.

Dual electrification is definitely going to be required at Basingstoke, but we’ll have a few more years to figure it out...

The existing third rail at Reading won’t be extended. For one thing, connecting the Waterloo lines would move the dual electrification problem to Reading instead.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Dual electrification is definitely going to be required at Basingstoke, but we’ll have a few more years to figure it out...

The existing third rail at Reading won’t be extended. For one thing, connecting the Waterloo lines would move the dual electrification problem to Reading instead.

There already is dual electrification there.

That’s given me an idea - might be silly, but could the following perhaps work:

London Waterloo, Clapham Junction, Richmond, Twickenham, Feltham, Staines, Egham, Virginia Water, Sunningdale. Ascot, Martins Heron, Bracknell, Wokingham, Winnersh, Winnersh Triangle, Earley, Reading, Reading West, Reading Green Park, Mortimer or Bramley (skip stopping allows calls at Green Park) and Basingstoke??

Purely because; 3tph North Downs lines and an extra 2tph Waterloo services is going to put strain on the three terminal platforms at Reading.

If Reading - Basingstoke was electrified with third rail this would solve the issue of dual electrification at Basingstoke.

Reading West receives a direct London service, albeit a small one, and Basingstoke receives direct links to Bracknell, Ascot, Virginia Water and Staines.

Just like Waterloo to Weybridge via Chertsey when there are fast services via the SWML. Just like the “Ealing Broadway” advertised Paddington services from Oxford, the “Farnborough” advertised services from Dorset. It isn’t for extra services to Basingstoke from London because that would take ages (although probably not that much longer than the Winchfield and Hook semi fast stopper) it is for new direct links and connections, and to avoid overhead wire use at Basingstoke.

 

[jyte]

There is often confusion between size of economy and wealth. The UK is the world's fifth or sixth largest economy in terms of total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) but there are a lot of us to share it out amongst so in terms of GDP per capita we are only 23rd.

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-richest-countries-in-the-world.html



I was surprised to see Ireland right up there with the oil producers.

Apologies for going off topic. If anyone wants to discuss this suggest starting s new thread.

Of course the 'did AS level economics' guy in me wants to point out a few things about this.....

 

[mwmbwls]

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/88375292-7c10-412b-a0b1-4ac8109e8e4d

Roger Ford and Stuart Cole talking to the Welsh Affairs Committee yesterday. Enlightening/frightening? Spiffing questions about who dropped the ball - DfT and/or Network Rail?

" Have lessons been learned?" "Not Many" Roger Ford

 

[D365]

There already is dual electrification there.

Dual electrification is one thing, changeover points (Thameslink, WLL, Ashford) are another.

I was under the impression that the Waterloo line platforms at Reading are all bays.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Dual electrification is one thing, changeover points (Thameslink, WLL, Ashford) are another.

I was under the impression that the Waterloo line platforms at Reading are all bays.

Exactly. 3 bay platforms. There is soon to be 7tph on those bays, that puts a lot of pressure on them.

Trains from Wokingham area can use other platforms though. The XC service sure does.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/88375292-7c10-412b-a0b1-4ac8109e8e4d
Roger Ford and Stuart Cole talking to the Welsh Affairs Committee yesterday. Enlightening/frightening? Spiffing questions about who dropped the ball - DfT and/or Network Rail?
" Have lessons been learned?" "Not Many" Roger Ford

That made for very depressing viewing, not least because they let Stuart Cole confuse and confound royally by monopolising the discussion.
He gave the committee the idea that they could just take over rail infrastructure in Wales, and get Carillion or Siemens to do the electrification without any of the NR bungling of the GW scheme.
As lack of route knowledge is at the heart of the GW problems, I don't see how they can magic that knowledge out of fresh air without NR.
Scotland, which is doing rather well with its electrification programme, is delivering it through Network Rail, not independently.
There was absolutely no clarity on electrification costs, except to say we had lost the expertise.
There was a lot of pointless discussion on potential upgrading of Cardiff-Swansea line speeds (by realignment, or even avoiding Neath).
He even said the North Wales main line needed to be electrified to get any benefit from HS2.
Roger Ford said very little, I suspect he was bored and generally appalled at the level of discussion.

 

[Dai Corner]

Thank s for the summary @LNW-GW Joint . It's saved me wasting time watching it.

 

[swt_passenger]

There are potential (ha ha) issues with earthing when DC and AC are in close proximity, even if not actually on the same track. Also concerns with immunisation of signalling equipment, although this is probably less of an issue with modern signalling.

Yes, but dealing with adjacent DC and AC lines is not unusual and doesn't require anything novel or complex. In the case of Basingstoke resignalling, not that old and hopefully already immunised. Is it an axle counter area?

 

[swt_passenger]

There already is dual electrification there.

{Reading}
There most definitely isn't. There is a DC electrified route into Reading P4, 5 and 6 only, running alongside and roughly parallel to the GWML mains, but there are no electrified running connections between the Wessex and Western Network Rail areas. The spur lines and eastern dive under are not currently planned to be electrified, either AC or DC, although the underpass has allegedly been rebuilt in such a way to allow for it in future.

Proximity of AC and DC supplies is not referred to as dual electrification.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

{Reading}
There most definitely isn't. There is a DC electrified route into Reading P4, 5 and 6 only, running alongside and roughly parallel to the GWML mains, but there are no electrified running connections between the Wessex and Western Network Rail areas. The spur lines and eastern dive under are not currently planned to be electrified, either AC or DC, although the underpass has allegedly been rebuilt in such a way to allow for it in future.

Proximity of AC and DC supplies is not referred to as dual electrification.

Oh ok.

 

[coppercapped]

There already is dual electrification there.

That’s given me an idea - might be silly, but could the following perhaps work:

London Waterloo, Clapham Junction, Richmond, Twickenham, Feltham, Staines, Egham, Virginia Water, Sunningdale. Ascot, Martins Heron, Bracknell, Wokingham, Winnersh, Winnersh Triangle, Earley, Reading, Reading West, Reading Green Park, Mortimer or Bramley (skip stopping allows calls at Green Park) and Basingstoke??

Purely because; 3tph North Downs lines and an extra 2tph Waterloo services is going to put strain on the three terminal platforms at Reading.

If Reading - Basingstoke was electrified with third rail this would solve the issue of dual electrification at Basingstoke.

Reading West receives a direct London service, albeit a small one, and Basingstoke receives direct links to Bracknell, Ascot, Virginia Water and Staines.

Just like Waterloo to Weybridge via Chertsey when there are fast services via the SWML. Just like the “Ealing Broadway” advertised Paddington services from Oxford, the “Farnborough” advertised services from Dorset. It isn’t for extra services to Basingstoke from London because that would take ages (although probably not that much longer than the Winchfield and Hook semi fast stopper) it is for new direct links and connections, and to avoid overhead wire use at Basingstoke.

Although there are two systems of electrification at Reading, there is no 'dual electrification' in the sense of sections of track using both overhead and third rail systems. Because of the very different earthing and fault detection requirements of the two systems these common stretches of track are avoided as much as possible whether at Reading or Basingstoke or anywhere else.

As for 'pressure' on the three Wokingham facing terminal platforms 4 to 6 at Reading I would point out that, off-peak, Charing Cross dispatches 14 trains per hour through the double track section at Borough Market. So running 7 trains off three platforms seems quite feasible. It's certainly preferable to trying squeeze more trains through the Relief Line platforms at Reading which will themselves be more heavily utilised in the near future because the 9 coach long Crossrail trains will use the full length of the platforms for their turnround. This is apart from issues arising from

1. the single line dive under section from the Southern to the Reliefs[1],
2. that the dive-under gives access to only three of the four Relief lines,
3. more flat crossing moves will be needed at Oxford Road Junction and
4. Platform 2 - for Basingstoke - and one or more of 4 to 6 will now be underused.

Enthusiasm is infectious and to be welcomed - but it should be tempered with an ability to identify and analyse all the issues.

[1] One of the drivers of the rebuild of the Waterloo-facing platforms at Reading was the need to remove the single line section at the end of the platforms. Having spent many millions removing this bottleneck the suggestion is to re-introduce it!

 

[swt_passenger]

As for 'pressure' on the three Wokingham facing terminal platforms 4 to 6 at Reading I would point out that, off-peak, Charing Cross dispatches 14 trains per hour through the double track section at Borough Market. So running 7 trains off three platforms seems quite feasible.

To add to your points, the present SWR operation in the off-peak is extremely relaxed, with almost a half hour layover at Reading between arrival and departure. It is useful to compare with the SWR peak service which is already 4 tph for a couple of hours, and SWR trains still get approximately 10 minute turnarounds.

Even with GWR eventually running a normal 3 tph service, there should be ample space. GWR would still have the option of two trains in the same platform if absolutely necessary.

 

[snowball]

The Enhancements Delivery Plan still has completion to Cardiff by Dec 2018, but both Modern Railways and Rail, in their current issues, suggest further slippage to March 2019. MR November, page 9, refers to a statement by Neil Thompson, NR's Infrastructure Projects Regional Director, in a recent NR publication (no name or link given), and Rail 839 p. 21 refers to a Commons written reply on Oct 24.

In the new Modern Railways, page 20, NR says that despite the above, they still expect to do Cardiff by Dec 2018. Chippenham (and presumably Thingley) is said to be March 2019. Newbury not mentioned.

 

[gwr4090]

Dual electrification at Basingstoke is not really that big an issue, any more than it was at Reading But IMHO we are very unlikely to see any through DC running via Reading. A more likely option would be a new (fast) OHL service between Paddington-Heathrow-Reading-Basingstoke using the HEX paths east of Heathrow. This might alternate with Newbury and Oxford terminating services.

 

[coppercapped]

option would be Dual electrification at Basingstoke is not really that big an issue, any more than it was at Reading But IMHO we are very unlikely to see any through DC running via Reading. A more likely be a new (fast) OHL service between Paddington-Heathrow-Reading-Basingstoke using the HEX paths east of Heathrow. This might alternate with Newbury and Oxford terminating services.

One more time...
...there is NO 'dual electrification' at Reading.

There is 'adjacent' electrification, which although it also raises issues with earthing and leakage currents, is not such a problem as when BOTH schemes use the same rails.

A point of order!! The only Oxford services which terminate at Reading are the Cross Country services from Birmingham and points north - all the outer Thames Valley stopping trains run through to Paddington. The Newbury services terminating at Reading are the stoppers along the Kennet Valley - your suggested (fast) trains probably won't make these calls.

 

[mwmbwls]

That made for very depressing viewing, not least because they let Stuart Cole confuse and confound royally by monopolising the discussion.
There was a lot of pointless discussion on potential upgrading of Cardiff-Swansea line speeds (by realignment, or even avoiding Neath).
He even said the North Wales main line needed to be electrified to get any benefit from HS2.
Roger Ford said very little, I suspect he was bored and generally appalled at the level of discussion.

This may be an "eye of the beholder" issue but I felt Roger Ford offered domain knowledge of the broader implications of electrification, his comparisons with the ECML programme and the DfT's mismanagement of the IEP programme were cogent ;whilst Stuart Cole provided the Welsh econonomic/poitical dimension. From my perspective, it appeared to be the MP's who were seized by the idea of realignment etc.rather than the witnesses who tended to avoid the whole Welsh Metro "pie in the sky stuff". Paul Flyn was garrulous, whilst the otherMPs seemed fixated by the journey time from Swansea to Cardiff and missed the point about reduced engineering complexity..
I am interested as to why you disparage the point that without electrification the North Wales Line will not benefit from HS2 - It is integral to David Higgins argument that HS2 should run off the high speed network on to classic routes to say Preston and Glasgow - the only difference is that North Wales or even just Chester have never qualified for electrification resulting in lsuch anomalies as lengthy Voyager runs under the WCML wire or dragged Pendolinos. Why should the Goggs be stuck in perpetuity with a second class rail system?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I am interested as to why you disparage the point that without electrification the North Wales Line will not benefit from HS2 - It is integral to David Higgins argument that HS2 should run off the high speed network on to classic routes to say Preston and Glasgow - the only difference is that North Wales or even just Chester have never qualified for electrification resulting in lsuch anomalies as lengthy Voyager runs under the WCML wire or dragged Pendolinos. Why should the Goggs be stuck in perpetuity with a second class rail system?

It gets tangled up with the tilting nature of the classic WCML, and HS2 rolling stock policy.
HS2 Ltd seem to be adamant they will not procure tilting or bi-mode stock for HS2, or pay for extension of electrification on classic lines.
None of the HS2 service planning material mentions Chester/North Wales at all, as it's off the wired network.
Thus we are faced with "change at Crewe for HS2" again (as in 1966), or a continuation of Voyagers on the existing route on slower timings.
For North Wales. the NR travails on GW seems to have killed electrification on a route that didn't seem to have a business case even before the costs shot up.
I think there is half a chance of wires reaching Chester in HS2 timescales, but not beyond.
Stuart Cole's other proposal of electrifying Chester-Wrexham and Wrexham-Bidston is more promising, although I can't see the Bidston line passing muster.
Wrexham-Chester-Liverpool with dual voltage stock seems the best tactical option to me.
We are well off topic here, by the way, sorry Mods.

 

[IanXC]

Can I remind everyone that the title of this thread is "Great Western Electrification Progress".

Its for discussing progress on the approved GW electrification scheme. Discussion of future options and alternatives for extensions of the scheme are off topic!

 

[jimm]

Some pictures taken yesterday by Martin Loadrer at Denchworth, north of Wantage, showing overhead wiring completed in this area.
http://hondawanderer.com/Recent_Additions.htm

 

[HowardGWR]

^^^ Great photos. I am reminded of Brunel. The budget for GWML electrification may have been hopelessly underestimated, but the quality standard would have been greatly approved by him. I think his maxim was something like 'build it to be more than adequately strong - and then add 50%'.

 

[Pete_uk]

And a bit more just in case!

 

[coppercapped]

^^^ Great photos. I am reminded of Brunel. The budget for GWML electrification may have been hopelessly underestimated, but the quality standard would have been greatly approved by him. I think his maxim was something like 'build it to be more than adequately strong - and then add 50%'.

They might have been strong but Brunel built most of his structures elegantly and styled them to fit the location.

Neither is the case with the electrification structure put up on the Great Western.

 

[3973EXL]

Aldermaston to Ufton Lane Bridge update.

First set of photos show views W & E from Aldermaston station.
E from Basingstoke Road Bridge.
2 x W & 2 x E from Padworth Lane Bridge.
3 views between Padworth Lane and Towney crossing.