Decarbonising the Western (Great Western Electrification - Part 2)

[59CosG95]

Haven't seen a dedicated thread for this yet, so this seems to be the right place to start.

Decarbonising the Western

A Network Rail strategy sets out a six-stage approach to eliminating diesel trains

www.modernrailways.com

4th August 2022
TOM MCATEE
Decarbonisation remains a topic of considerable importance to the railway. Network Rail’s Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (TDNS), published in 2020, set out high level ambitions for a major electrification programme, but since then NR has continued its work and is now beginning to break this down at a regional level.

Glad to see that Tranche 0 looks very achievable in a shorter space of time, as the designs are mature. Tranches 3 to 5 look to be mainly battery/hydrogen focused, with the onus on fleet replacement - it does stipulate that some electrification in Cornwall may be required.

Any thoughts?

Mod Note: A copy of the report is now attached, following a successful FOI request, to this post.

 

[fgwrich]

Interesting that Reading - Basingstoke has no mention at all, when we are close to a very large National Grid power supply at Bramley Frith (isn’t the GWML supplied from there in some form or other?). I’m also a little surprised at the Thames Valley Branches slipping to Tranche 3 - Windsor and Henley strike me as particularly simple and easy ones to do, something where a Paisley Canal type set up would be easily achievable - pretty much quick wins in the Thames Valley area. Marlow however would need more work.

 

[brad465]

Most of the preparatory works for electrifying everywhere between Chippenham/Bristol Parkway and Bristol Temple Meads has already been done, so I'd have thought doing the rest would be relatively easy now. In particular they ought to do via Bath just to show for all the preparatory works they did which have so far been for almost nothing. These included a six-week closure of Box tunnel in 2015, a 10 day closure of Bath-Bristol TM in spring 2016 IIRC, and in 2017 there was a period of time I can't recall the duration of where half of Bath Spa station was closed while they widened the platforms and realigned track for the sake of accommodating OHLE through the station.

 

[swt_passenger]

Interesting that Reading - Basingstoke has no mention at all, when we are close to a very large National Grid power supply at Bramley Frith (isn’t the GWML supplied from there in some form or other?). I’m also a little surprised at the Thames Valley Branches slipping to Tranche 3 - Windsor and Henley strike me as particularly simple and easy ones to do, something where a Paisley Canal type set up would be easily achievable - pretty much quick wins in the Thames Valley area. Marlow however would need more work.

There was a project called the “Reading Independent Feeder (Bramley)” described in the final CP5 enhancement plan in early 2019, which would add an along track feeder from Bramley to the Reading area, for increased resilience. But it was described as an investigation, for ”indicative” implementation during CP6 - but I don’t think any work on the ground has ever started.

 

[JohnRegular]

Quite comprehensive! No timescales mentioned of course, but encouraging to see NR are at least giving it some serious thought.

Curious to see the appearance of minor lines e.g. Melksham and Okehampton, with no mention of Warminster-Salisbury or Reading-Basingstoke. Maybe they don't want to go near the third rail issue!

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Quite comprehensive! No timescales mentioned of course, but encouraging to see NR are at least giving it some serious thought.

Curious to see the appearance of minor lines e.g. Melksham and Okehampton, with no mention of Warminster-Salisbury or Reading-Basingstoke. Maybe they don't want to go near the third rail issue!

I think those lines are Network Rail Wessex Route's responsibility, not Western's. Could be wrong though.

 

[59CosG95]

Quite comprehensive! No timescales mentioned of course, but encouraging to see NR are at least giving it some serious thought.

Curious to see the appearance of minor lines e.g. Melksham and Okehampton, with no mention of Warminster-Salisbury or Reading-Basingstoke. Maybe they don't want to go near the third rail issue!

The current boundaries between Wessex & Western are at Warminster and a little south of Southcote Jn; IIRC the Southcote boundary had to be moved south so that the overrun OLE ended within Western and not Wessex!

 

[The exile]

in 2017 there was a period of time I can't recall the duration of where half of Bath Spa station was closed while they widened the platforms and realigned track for the sake of accommodating OHLE through the station.

wasn’t that principally for accommodating the IEPs?

 

[swt_passenger]

I think those lines are Network Rail Wessex Route's responsibility, not Western's. Could be wrong though.

Are the existing boundaries that critical to scheme limits though, in another section they refer to wiring as far as Aynho Junction, but that’s beyond the route boundary which I understand is just south of Heyford.

 

[JohnRegular]

I think those lines are Network Rail Wessex Route's responsibility, not Western's. Could be wrong though.

The current boundaries between Wessex & Western are at Warminster and a little south of Southcote Jn; IIRC the Southcote boundary had to be moved south so that the overrun OLE ended within Western and not Wessex!

Thanks both!
Warminster is a sensible enough place to take the wires to anyway as a fair number of trains turn back there. Hopefully we see something similar from NR Wessex that joins the dots.

 

[cle]

Bristol TM to Cardiff currently sits around 48 mins, whereas Parkway to Cardiff is 32. Even though the stock and lines that differentiate are also different, I would think wires and EMU operation could get it down to 40 mins, if not less - which is a decent saving.

Electrifying down to Devon and Cornwall is also appealing in terms of line speed. The Reading-Taunton non-stop stretch probably won't see too much improvement, but I would think once the stops kick in, there would be some decent gains. Especially to Exeter which would be sooner.

What would an electric service calling Paddington - Bristol Parkway - Bristol TM - Taunton take, vs a fast via B&H?

 

[Annetts key]

wasn’t that principally for accommodating the IEPs?

No, as I understand it, the purpose was to move the platform faces away from the canopy (which is part of the station buildings and is apparently covered by the listed status). Thus providing sufficient clearance for the pantograph of an electric train.

Happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood.

 

[Snow1964]

Interesting that Reading - Basingstoke has no mention at all, when we are close to a very large National Grid power supply at Bramley Frith (isn’t the GWML supplied from there in some form or other?). I’m also a little surprised at the Thames Valley Branches slipping to Tranche 3 - Windsor and Henley strike me as particularly simple and easy ones to do, something where a Paisley Canal type set up would be easily achievable - pretty much quick wins in the Thames Valley area. Marlow however would need more work.

I suppose the logic is that no big gain in only doing some of the branches if others remain diesel worked, as get mixed local fleet and have to keep the diesel depot operational.

Thanks both!
Warminster is a sensible enough place to take the wires to anyway as a fair number of trains turn back there. Hopefully we see something similar from NR Wessex that joins the dots.

There is quite a steep climb from Westbury to Warminster so would allow electric trains to do the hard bit.

However I could easily see this extended into Salisbury by Wessex division (or even taken through to Romsey or Redbridge) with line to Basingstoke an add on option longer term.

There are some freightliner and stone trains via Warminster, (to Southampton or Eastleigh areas), but remains to be seen if long term aim is more electric freight.

 

[swt_passenger]

No, as I understand it, the purpose was to move the platform faces away from the canopy (which is part of the station buildings and is apparently covered by the listed status). Thus providing sufficient clearance for the pantograph of an electric train.

Happy to be connected if I have misunderstood.

Yes, thats correct AFAICS, the permitted development rights application was titled:
“Prior approval for platform widening and associated works in connection with the electrification of the Great Western Main Line”

 

[Snow1964]

It does appear a secondary route bi-mode is needed for these proposals ( which has been suggested in multiple threads, as 5 or 6 car 100-110mph with tables and high volume doors, similar to class444)

They would presumably take over from the 158, 165, 166 fleet. With diesel operation south of Warminster, Castle Cary-Weymouth, the line to Malvern etc. With interim use of diesel between tranches on Bristol-Worcester part etc.

Logically if these are going to work to Portsmouth then adding 750v dc third rail makes sense. There would be strong case for using them on Waterloo-Salisbury-Exeter too.

 

[59CosG95]

Are the existing boundaries that critical to scheme limits though, in another section they refer to wiring as far as Aynho Junction, but that’s beyond the route boundary which I understand is just south of Heyford.

Not really; where desired, route boundaries have changed to suit wiring requirements.
Blackwell Loop (IIRC) used to be the Central/Western route boundary, but it was moved to Stoke Works Jn when wires came to Bromsgrove.
There's no reason why the Central/Western boundary can't move north to Aynho Jn too.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not really; where desired, route boundaries have changed to suit wiring requirements.
Blackwell Loop (IIRC) used to be the Central/Western route boundary, but it was moved to Stoke Works Jn when wires came to Bromsgrove.
There's no reason why the Central/Western boundary can't move north to Aynho Jn too.

I guess it will sometimes depend on either the permanent end state they expect, or how long any temporary status is expected to continue.

 

[td97]

I think those lines are Network Rail Wessex Route's responsibility, not Western's. Could be wrong though.

Are the existing boundaries that critical to scheme limits though

Irrelevant. See how TRU and Hope Valley are NR Eastern projects but upgrade routes in NW&C region.

I also commented last month

Atkins are doing studies to determine clearance work required (if any) on "problem" overbridges. Definitely includes Didcot to Oxford and Chippenham to Temple Meads (and presumably includes Parkway to Temple Meads).

 

[Snow1964]

There was a project called the “Reading Independent Feeder (Bramley)” described in the final CP5 enhancement plan in early 2019, which would add an along track feeder from Bramley to the Reading area, for increased resilience. But it was described as an investigation, for ”indicative” implementation during CP6 - but I don’t think any work on the ground has ever started.

The location of the Bramley substation and proximity to the railway can be seen on this map

Open Infrastructure Map

Open map of the world's electricity, telecoms, oil, and gas infrastructure, using data from OpenStreetMap.

openinframap.org

The substation at Melksham would be the obvious supply point for The Westbury area

Open Infrastructure Map

Open map of the world's electricity, telecoms, oil, and gas infrastructure, using data from OpenStreetMap.

openinframap.org

Going to Exeter in phase 1 would obviously use the Taunton area (actually very close to railway at Norton Fitzwarren) substation

Open Infrastructure Map

Open map of the world's electricity, telecoms, oil, and gas infrastructure, using data from OpenStreetMap.

openinframap.org

So it actually seems that the scheme has been thought through, both from a railway operating perspective and availability of electricity supply

 

[59CosG95]

The location of the Bramley substation and proximity to the railway can be seen on this map

Open Infrastructure Map

Open map of the world's electricity, telecoms, oil, and gas infrastructure, using data from OpenStreetMap.

openinframap.org

The substation at Melksham would be the obvious supply point for The Westbury area

Open Infrastructure Map

Open map of the world's electricity, telecoms, oil, and gas infrastructure, using data from OpenStreetMap.

openinframap.org

Going to Exeter in phase 1 would obviously use the Taunton area (actually very close to railway at Norton Fitzwarren) substation

Open Infrastructure Map

Open map of the world's electricity, telecoms, oil, and gas infrastructure, using data from OpenStreetMap.

openinframap.org

So it actually seems that the scheme has been thought through, both from a railway operating perspective and availability of electricity supply

IIRC Melksham NG Substation already feeds Thingley Jn ATFS, so that's one less NG connection to make!

 

[Irascible]

It does appear a secondary route bi-mode is needed for these proposals ( which has been suggested in multiple threads, as 5 or 6 car 100-110mph with tables and high volume doors, similar to class444)

They would presumably take over from the 158, 165, 166 fleet. With diesel operation south of Warminster, Castle Cary-Weymouth, the line to Malvern etc. With interim use of diesel between tranches on Bristol-Worcester part etc.

Logically if these are going to work to Portsmouth then adding 750v dc third rail makes sense. There would be strong case for using them on Waterloo-Salisbury-Exeter too.

As was brought up in the other threads, generally there's more need for seats than doors on the WoE - can't fit longer trains at Waterloo, can't fit more trains in at the west end and can't run any faster anyway. Would probably suit Penzance-Cardiff/Exeter-Barnstaple/Newquay-somewhere too ( and honestly if they're decently put together, SW-Birmingham ). However not the metro services... and I'm not really sure there's any point bi-moding those unless you wire up Paignton station just to recharge - you're not going to want to sit at St Davids recharging, nor I suspect wire up the sea wall if you don't have to ( perhaps St Davids to the river mouth might be enough ). I can't read the article so I don't know exactly how far down this way they've looked at wiring - is it even past Weston-Super-Mare?

 

[Snow1964]

As was brought up in the other threads, generally there's more need for seats than doors on the WoE - can't fit longer trains at Waterloo, can't fit more trains in at the west end and can't run any faster anyway. Would probably suit Penzance-Cardiff/Exeter-Barnstaple/Newquay-somewhere too ( and honestly if they're decently put together, SW-Birmingham ). However not the metro services... and I'm not really sure there's any point bi-moding those unless you wire up Paignton station just to recharge - you're not going to want to sit at St Davids recharging, nor I suspect wire up the sea wall if you don't have to ( perhaps St Davids to the river mouth might be enough ). I can't read the article so I don't know exactly how far down this way they've looked at wiring - is it even past Weston-Super-Mare?

Phase 0 is effectively the cancelled bits to Bristol etc
Phase 1 is to Exeter (from Bristol & Newbury) plus Warminster-Bath/Chippenham
Later phases added Bristol area branches and Bristol-Bromsgrove

This was the reason for suggesting a secondary line bi-mode (diesel & electric, not a battery train), so that as lines got electrified, more of Wessex, Portsmouth-Cardiff and Gloucestershire / Worcestershire services could convert to electric working. Eventually these could be replaced by pure electric trains (but probably looking at 15-20 years time) by which time other trains like class 170s would need replacing elsewhere, so fits in.

From memory I think Waterloo can take slightly longer trains, 10car of 24.3m (243m) as a 12car class 450 is about 244m, but not sure if SWML is cleared for anything longer than 23m currently. Whilst not relevant to this thread class 810 uses 24m vehicles so wouldn’t be a unique length

 

[Irascible]

Phase 0 is effectively the cancelled bits to Bristol etc
Phase 1 is to Exeter (from Bristol & Newbury) plus Warminster-Bath/Chippenham
Later phases added Bristol area branches and Bristol-Bromsgrove

This was the reason for suggesting a secondary line bi-mode (diesel & electric, not a battery train), so that as lines got electrified, more of Wessex, Portsmouth-Cardiff and Gloucestershire / Worcestershire services could convert to electric working. Eventually these could be replaced by pure electric trains (but probably looking at 15-20 years time) by which time other trains like class 170s would need replacing elsewhere, so fits in.

From memory I think Waterloo can take slightly longer trains, 10car of 24.3m (243m) as a 12car class 450 is about 244m, but not sure if SWML is cleared for anything longer than 23m currently. Whilst not relevant to this thread class 810 uses 24m vehicles so wouldn’t be a unique length

Can *all* of Waterloo handle a 12 car 450?

If you're not going to wire past Exeter at all then there's no point getting bi-mode metro stock ( unless it's battery & you rotate them through Exeter depot to recharge, so that'd need a few extras ) so I guess the Turbos are going to have quite the lifespan. Wiring the Devon banks seems a strange thing not to put in.

 

[nmsq]

Wiring the Devon banks seems a strange thing not to put in.
[/QUOTE]


Makes a lot of sense as substantial amount of power is used (battery or diesel) climbing these, hence the extra generators on the 800s that head South West.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Can *all* of Waterloo handle a 12 car 450?

Platform 7 can’t and 8 can only take 12 provided it’s in one train (it can’t be an 12 splitting to and 8 and a 4 for example).

 

[contrex]

Wiring the Devon banks seems a strange thing not to put in.

Makes a lot of sense as substantial amount of power is used (battery or diesel) climbing these, hence the extra generators on the 800s that head South West.

Isn't that the reason the GWR considered electrifying at 3,000 volts DC in 1938?

 

[Irascible]

Isn't that the reason the GWR considered electrifying at 3,000 volts DC in 1938?

Plus, I think, the reason they looked at redoing the whole section of route a few decades before. Is anyone particularily familiar with the national grid? is there a suitable feeder in the area? Exeter is not really the place to stop wiring, most services run through - especially ones down the GWR route - and carriy on west. It's a cheap place to stop considering the sea wall is next... but you could probably coast to Teignmouth given a shot down the river estuary if you wanted, let alone use multimode power.

 

[SynthD]

Open Infrastructure Map

Open map of the world's electricity, telecoms, oil, and gas infrastructure, using data from OpenStreetMap.

openinframap.org

It doesn't tell you about suitability, but a lot of time will pass before that matters.

 

[ainsworth74]

A full copy of the Wales & Western Region report which is referred to in the Modern Railways article is now attached to this post. With thanks Network Rail's FOI team for a very speedy response (request made on 6 August, response received just now!).

 

[higthomas]

They refer to other regions priorities? Does this mean similar reports have been written for other regions?