GWR 'Project Churchward'

[heathrowrail]

Discussion for rumoured GWR Project Churchwood regional dmu fleet replacement. In my mind the Class 196 in 2/3/4 or 5 car formations would be perfect for GWR, if enough were ordered you could in theory replace the 150/158s for 2-3 car units and replace the Castles with 4-5 car units.

 

[JonathanH]

It is 'Churchward' after an eminent former engineer.

George Jackson Churchward - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

George Jackson Churchward CBE (31 January 1857 – 19 December 1933) was an English railway engineer, and was chief mechanical engineer of the Great Western Railway (GWR) in the United Kingdom from 1902 to 1922.

 

[edwin_m]

It's discussed in August Modern Railways, and there is a related thread here at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-intercity-emu.252261/

I would hope for a modular design that can be built with various combinations of diesel, battery and 25kV and be adaptable between these power sources as electrification hopefully spreads. This is only possible with an electric transmission.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Discussion for rumoured GWR Project Churchwood regional dmu fleet replacement. In my mind the Class 196 in 2/3/4 or 5 car formations would be perfect for GWR, if enough were ordered you could in theory replace the 150/158s for 2-3 car units and replace the Castles with 4-5 car units.

Is it not likely that this will be included in the massive Northern tender? The number of DMUs potentially ordered via that appears large enough to replace all 15x and possibly 16x (bar 168) nationally?

 

[Snow1964]

It's unclear if there will ever be pure diesel replacements, but with electrification unlikely in Devon and Cornwall in next decade, might be interim fleet brought in from somewhere else (something like displaced 168s in 5-8 years time for few years).

Looking like battery EMUs are the most likely, in 2 configurations, a regional one for longer journeys, and a local / stopping service / commuter version.

There is speculation in the northern business commitments thread that the upto 450 units could cover GWR, and SE networker too. With Northern as Government Operator of last resort taking lead pending transfer to GBR

One complication with the GWR fleet is there have been lot of platforms extended to about 120-125m, adequate for 5 x 23m cars but not really long enough for pair of 3 x 20m units. I suspect GWR would rather not have any more 2car units.

I can't see the regional version being less than 5 cars long, but as it is unlikely to work in multiple they might even go for a 6car version (and extend few platforms a few metres). The Framework agreement appears to have options to add centre cars later, so might happen later.

One interesting comment in the recent Modern Railways article was that the unused Bristol superfasts paths might become a Bristol-Oxford service (possibly extended to Banbury due to lack of south facing bays at Oxford). That would seem ideal for the regional battery EMU version.

 

[Chester1]

Discussion for rumoured GWR Project Churchwood regional dmu fleet replacement. In my mind the Class 196 in 2/3/4 or 5 car formations would be perfect for GWR, if enough were ordered you could in theory replace the 150/158s for 2-3 car units and replace the Castles with 4-5 car units.

Pure DMUs will not be an option with the net zero deadline being only 26-27 years away. I hope there will be a tender offered that spreads out production over the rest of 2020s and into early 2030s, providing a steady supply of work if one of the UK based manufacturers gets contract. My view is the spec should be mid door units, 100-110 mph on electric and be either bi mode or have a long battery range. Seating could be configured to commuter or long distance depending on operator requirements.

It's unclear if there will ever be pure diesel replacements, but with electrification unlikely in Devon and Cornwall in next decade, might be interim fleet brought in from somewhere else (something like displaced 168s in 5-8 years time for few years).

Looking like battery EMUs are the most likely, in 2 configurations, a regional one for longer journeys, and a local / stopping service / commuter version.

There is speculation in the northern business commitments thread that the upto 450 units could cover GWR, and SE networker too. With Northern as Government Operator of last resort taking lead pending transfer to GBR

One complication with the GWR fleet is there have been lot of platforms extended to about 120-125m, adequate for 5 x 23m cars but not really long enough for pair of 3 x 20m units. I suspect GWR would rather not have any more 2car units.

I can't see the regional version being less than 5 cars long, but as it is unlikely to work in multiple they might even go for a 6car version (and extend few platforms a few metres). The Framework agreement appears to have options to add centre cars later, so might happen later.

One interesting comment in the recent Modern Railways article was that the unused Bristol superfasts paths might become a Bristol-Oxford service (possibly extended to Banbury due to lack of south facing bays at Oxford). That would seem ideal for the regional battery EMU version.

450 units sounds like the right ball park. Something like 75 units delivered a year from start of 2026 to end of 2031. That would squeeze out financial benefits of retaining sprinters, while providing a clear timetable for phasing them out.

For GWR, 5 coach sets would be an obvious solution with multiple routes suitable. The tender could specify that middle coaches have to be compatible with changing configurations if ToC requirements change.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pure DMUs will not be an option with the net zero deadline being only 26-27 years away. I hope there will be a tender offered that spreads out production over the rest of 2020s and into early 2030s, providing a steady supply of work if one of the UK based manufacturers gets contract. My view is the spec should be mid door units, 100-110 mph on electric and be either bi mode or have a long battery range. Seating could be configured to commuter or long distance depending on operator requirements.

What's basically needed is a modern day bi-mode 170, though ideally with at least one low floor vehicle. Obviously FLIRTs would fit, but so would the CAF Civity and Aventra bodies, particularly if you dropped a middle car body to low floor between the bogies. Unless longer fixed formations are being used then ideally gangwayed, but as there are enough 2-car 195s and 196s about there shouldn't be a need for short formations of these units.

Presumably TOCs would be able to put whatever seats they liked in them, that's just a case of buying them and bolting onto the seat tracks in the desired layout.

 

[The exile]

It's unclear if there will ever be pure diesel replacements, but with electrification unlikely in Devon and Cornwall in next decade, might be interim fleet brought in from somewhere else (something like displaced 168s in 5-8 years time for few years).

Looking like battery EMUs are the most likely, in 2 configurations, a regional one for longer journeys, and a local / stopping service / commuter version.

There is speculation in the northern business commitments thread that the upto 450 units could cover GWR, and SE networker too. With Northern as Government Operator of last resort taking lead pending transfer to GBR

One complication with the GWR fleet is there have been lot of platforms extended to about 120-125m, adequate for 5 x 23m cars but not really long enough for pair of 3 x 20m units. I suspect GWR would rather not have any more 2car units.

I can't see the regional version being less than 5 cars long, but as it is unlikely to work in multiple they might even go for a 6car version (and extend few platforms a few metres). The Framework agreement appears to have options to add centre cars later, so might happen later.

One interesting comment in the recent Modern Railways article was that the unused Bristol superfasts paths might become a Bristol-Oxford service (possibly extended to Banbury due to lack of south facing bays at Oxford). That would seem ideal for the regional battery EMU version.

Though of course the super fast path was via parkway - which is likely to generate less traffic than Bath and Chippenham would - and that’s without raising the possibilities of Corsham and Royal Wootton Bassett

 

[heathrowrail]

Pure DMUs will not be an option with the net zero deadline being only 26-27 years away. I hope there will be a tender offered that spreads out production over the rest of 2020s and into early 2030s, providing a steady supply of work if one of the UK based manufacturers gets contract. My view is the spec should be mid door units, 100-110 mph on electric and be either bi mode or have a long battery range. Seating could be configured to commuter or long distance depending on operator requirements.

I disagree pure DMU or diesel electric is the ONLY option for the GWR network especially with the gradients in Cornwall and South Devon Banks the idea of using battery trains is quite frankly laughable.

 

[JonathanH]

I disagree pure DMU or diesel electric is the ONLY option for the GWR network especially with the gradients in Cornwall and South Devon Banks the idea of using battery trains is quite frankly laughable.

Doesn't that depend on what can be regenerated coming back down the inclines?

 

[cle]

Though of course the super fast path was via parkway - which is likely to generate less traffic than Bath and Chippenham would - and that’s without raising the possibilities of Corsham and Royal Wootton Bassett

I’d think the path is west of Didcot/Swindon - given the usurper is on the slows after Reading - and thus fairly flexible to switch to run via Bath. I’d agree re demand for Oxford.

Interesting they mention Banbury, possible placeholder when it could maybe eventually be MKC or Bedford…

 

[MarkyT]

I hope they will:
1. be flexibly powered with the possibility of substituting various prime mover, fuel, power collection and storage modules over their life (Stadler - check).
2. have level boarding at UK standard 915mm platforms, with gap fillers for varying horizontal gaps, on curves for instance (Stadler - check).

 

[Chester1]

I disagree pure DMU or diesel electric is the ONLY option for the GWR network especially with the gradients in Cornwall and South Devon Banks the idea of using battery trains is quite frankly laughable.

As @JonathanH has pointed out it, it shouldn't be too much of a problem with regenerative breaking. Charging at terminal stations would help too.

I hope they will:
1. be flexibly powered with the possibility of substituting various prime mover, fuel, power collection and storage modules over their life (Stadler - check).
2. have level boarding at UK standard 915mm platforms, with gap fillers for varying horizontal gaps, on curves for instance (Stadler - check).

Stadler would have a good chance but other operators could meet those criteria. A traditional bi mode could be designed to be easily converted into an EMU and a 915mm section in one coach would suffice. I would prefer tenders are won by companies with UK manufacturing sites I.E. Alstom, Hitachi, CAF and Siemens.

 

[Class 317]

BEMU'S would make sense for most or all of the order especially as so many routes could be converted to electric operation with little or no infrastructure upgrades. I'm looking at The Thames Valley branches, Reading to Basingstoke, Didcot to Oxford, Newbury to Bedwyn and the North Downs Line as examples requiring very little work.

A Catenary Island Centred on Bristol Temple Meads to Bristol Parkway and Bath would do most local Bristol area services and probably Cardiff to Portsmouth although another one may be needed maybe based on Salisbury for reliability . This would also build the capability to use BEMU'S on London services. Likewise extending the Bath electrification to join the existing OHLE around Chippenham would make sense if finance allows.

Becomes a bit more complicated looking at services further West but a rolling programme of electrification to create catenary islands gradually working further West building on each other would make sense. It would allow older DMU'S to be retired first. These islands could then be joined up should freight or longer distance trains require it.

Alstrom, Stradler and Siemens all have suitable BEMU'S in the range with the necessary specs.

A DMU or bimode order would be a missed opportunity to both reduce emissions, benefit from improved acceleration othering faster journeys and lalao lower operating costs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Stadler would have a good chance but other operators could meet those criteria. A traditional bi mode could be designed to be easily converted into an EMU and a 915mm section in one coach would suffice. I would prefer tenders are won by companies with UK manufacturing sites I.E. Alstom, Hitachi, CAF and Siemens.

There would be benefits of just having a 915mm section in the middle of the middle coach (assuming most are likely to be 3-car) - a fully level floor does give a more flexible layout for the interior, the floor is wider, and most people can manage to step up to/down from a train (while those who can't would know where to wait as it'd be the same on every train). Gap bridges should be provided for all coaches, though, it's amazing the difference the 8" stepboards on Merseyrail's PEPs make in being wide enough to take a full foot (but they'd be out of gauge in most other places). It would also allow us to stick with the near standard we have of "24m vehicles, doors at thirds, gubbins underneath", rather than the slightly clunky Stadler approach, and maximises passenger accommodation on short platforms.

All manufacturers would be able to do that, as it's basically standard on the mainland. Were it CAF, additional vehicles could even potentially be built to insert into Classes 195, 196 and 197 to give those a low floor vehicle, too.

 

[heathrowrail]

As @JonathanH has pointed out it, it shouldn't be too much of a problem with regenerative breaking. Charging at terminal stations would help too.

And who is going to pay for all of that? It's taken 10 years to get upgrades to the Dawlish Sea Wall and that only really happened because of the collapse in 2014. The Night Riviera sleeper is still using Mk3 slam doors despite it technically being against the law.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And who is going to pay for all of that? It's taken 10 years to get upgrades to the Dawlish Sea Wall and that only really happened because of the collapse in 2014. The Night Riviera sleeper is still using Mk3 slam doors despite it technically being against the law.

It's not against the law, either technically or otherwise. The accessibility issue is resolved by the sleeper steward operating them for anyone who can't do it themselves, and the droplights have locks so you can't lean out.

 

[anthony263]

BEMU'S would make sense for most or all of the order especially as so many routes could be converted to electric operation with little or no infrastructure upgrades. I'm looking at The Thames Valley branches, Reading to Basingstoke, Didcot to Oxford, Newbury to Bedwyn and the North Downs Line as examples requiring very little work.

A Catenary Island Centred on Bristol Temple Meads to Bristol Parkway and Bath would do most local Bristol area services and probably Cardiff to Portsmouth although another one may be needed maybe based on Salisbury for reliability . This would also build the capability to use BEMU'S on London services. Likewise extending the Bath electrification to join the existing OHLE around Chippenham would make sense if finance allows.

Becomes a bit more complicated looking at services further West but a rolling programme of electrification to create catenary islands gradually working further West building on each other would make sense. It would allow older DMU'S to be retired first. These islands could then be joined up should freight or longer distance trains require it.

Alstrom, Stradler and Siemens all have suitable BEMU'S in the range with the necessary specs.

A DMU or bimode order would be a missed opportunity to both reduce emissions, benefit from improved acceleration othering faster journeys and lalao lower operating costs.

GWRs MD said a BEMU could recharge on the 3rd rail between Redbridge and Portsmouth Hbr

 

[popeter45]

rather than assume devon and cornwall wont be electrified i say talor a BEMU to enable cheaper and quicker electrification
750v tram electification is way cheaper and faster to install than 25Kv so make a BEMU that can take both voltages as well as battery or Diesel

 

[anthony263]

Perhaps fit 3rd rail shoes and batteries to some class 350/2's and put them on Cardiff to Portsmouth hbr services if we get more wires down to Bristol TM

 

[MarkyT]

Stadler would have a good chance but other operators could meet those criteria. A traditional bi mode could be designed to be easily converted into an EMU and a 915mm section in one coach would suffice. I would prefer tenders are won by companies with UK manufacturing sites I.E. Alstom, Hitachi, CAF and Siemens.

I'm very keen on level boarding throughout if possible. It reduces risk of passengers tripping, dwell time, need to provide assistance etc. With a very large order, say if a Northern batch went to the same manufacturer, perhaps Stadler or another new entrant might be persuaded to set up another new UK manufacturing plant, as Stadler has in the USA. The Stadler approach could plausibly be mirrored by other manufacturers, taking a mature low-floor European design and raising the floor level to suit UK platforms as part of a general re-profile of the bodyshell.

 

[RobShipway]

I'm very keen on level boarding throughout if possible. It reduces risk of passengers tripping, dwell time, need to provide assistance etc. With a very large order, say if a Northern batch went to the same manufacturer, perhaps Stadler or another new entrant might be persuaded to set up another new UK manufacturing plant, as Stadler has in the USA. The Stadler approach could plausibly be mirrored by other manufacturers, taking a mature low-floor European design and raising the floor level to suit UK platforms as part of a general re-profile of the bodyshell.

The problem with that is you would have to have all UK platforms at the same level, which would add to the cost. If you look at all the platforms for Greater Anglia where the class 755 units work, I believe there is only about 80% level boarding. You take that across the country and you may find that goes down to 50%.

Not sure if Network Rail has this in mind, but prior to Project Churchwood I would be asking them as to when they anticipate Basingstoke to Exeter, Didcot to Banbury, Newbury to Exeter, Swindon to Bristol and Bristol Parkway to Taunton to be electrified. Yes, there is other routes that I have missed out such s Chippenham to Westbury and also via Weston-Super-Mare. But if the trains are going to BEMU, then those routes could be done on diesel possibly initial, but later on replaced by Battery power. The question will then be what will happen to Exeter St Davids to Penzance, will that go to OHLE. I know in many discussions within these forums, that changing Exeter St Davids to Penzance over to OHLE would be difficult. If that is the case, would it be easier to turn that over to being third rail? I know that is not likely to happen, but it is the only way I see that part of the GWR routing getting electrification.

But those 450 units are going to be off to other operators besides GWR, such as Chiltern, Northern, West Midlands, GTR etc.... So it is also down to how the routes of those operators trains will be powered in the next 40 - 50 years,

 

[The exile]

Could a Mod please edit the title to get Churchward’s name right? Respect where it’s due….

 

[PTR 444]

Not sure if Network Rail has this in mind, but prior to Project Churchwood I would be asking them as to when they anticipate Basingstoke to Exeter, Didcot to Banbury, Newbury to Exeter, Swindon to Bristol and Bristol Parkway to Taunton to be electrified. Yes, there is other routes that I have missed out such s Chippenham to Westbury and also via Weston-Super-Mare. But if the trains are going to BEMU, then those routes could be done on diesel possibly initial, but later on replaced by Battery power. The question will then be what will happen to Exeter St Davids to Penzance, will that go to OHLE. I know in many discussions within these forums, that changing Exeter St Davids to Penzance over to OHLE would be difficult. If that is the case, would it be easier to turn that over to being third rail? I know that is not likely to happen, but it is the only way I see that part of the GWR routing getting electrification.

I could see electrification in Devon starting life as an isolated network of OHLE based at Exeter, stretching to Newton Abbott, Exmouth, Axminster, Taunton and Crediton. This would allow most of the Devon Metro network to use BEMUs, as well as the Cornish branches which could recharge at terminus stations. With this splaying over into SWR West of England territory, it would make sense for whatever BEMU stock is used for GWR regional services to also be used for SWR Waterloo - Salisbury/Exeter services.

With a lower frequency of trains, I wouldn’t be surprised if Newbury - Taunton is one of the last GWR mainlines to be wired.

 

[stuu]

Could a Mod please edit the title to get Churchward’s name right? Respect where it’s due….

Agreed

 

[Snow1964]

I could see electrification in Devon starting life as an isolated network of OHLE based at Exeter, stretching to Newton Abbott, Exmouth, Axminster, Taunton and Crediton. This would allow most of the Devon Metro network to use BEMUs, as well as the Cornish branches which could recharge at terminus stations. With this splaying over into SWR West of England territory, it would make sense for whatever BEMU stock is used for GWR regional services to also be used for SWR Waterloo - Salisbury/Exeter services.

With a lower frequency of trains, I wouldn’t be surprised if Newbury - Taunton is one of the last GWR mainlines to be wired.

I think Frome via Trowbridge from Bath is fairly likely as add on following Chippenham-Bristol. Simply because would allow the dual voltage BEMUs to get to Portsmouth and Weymouth. Might add Bristol - Weston-super-Mare too.

I think more likely to do Bristol-Gloucester before anything in Devon and Cornwall, migrating the best DMUs there as interim for few years.

Realistically if battery EMUs are going to be successful in Exeter area then going to need at least 25 route miles electrified otherwise never going to be able to comfortably get to all the far end of lines like Barnstable and back. Anything over 50 miles on battery becomes iffy in bad weather, as reserve margin gets low.

Newbury-Frome is really going to depend on aggregates freight converting.
I agree Frome-Taunton is likely to be near end of list

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with that is you would have to have all UK platforms at the same level, which would add to the cost. If you look at all the platforms for Greater Anglia where the class 755 units work, I believe there is only about 80% level boarding. You take that across the country and you may find that goes down to 50%.

The units will be around for a minimum of 35 years. In that time there's plenty of time to implement a programme of platform height changes and Harrington humps.

Perfection is the enemy of the good. It's ridiculous to oppose low-floor units just because some platforms won't be of the right height. You can still have a ramp as well for those that aren't, and those remaining rural platforms where it's nearly a two foot step up are reduced to a foot as an added bonus.

 

[RobShipway]

The units will be around for a minimum of 35 years. In that time there's plenty of time to implement a programme of platform height changes and Harrington humps.

Perfection is the enemy of the good. It's ridiculous to oppose low-floor units just because some platforms won't be of the right height. You can still have a ramp as well for those that aren't, and those remaining rural platforms where it's nearly a two foot step up are reduced to a foot as an added bonus.

I am not opposed to low floor units, it is just that the cost to implement the required changes to the platforms around the UK would be several millions to billions of pounds. So in buying low floor units, you might not be gaining anything for the majority of stations within the UK, as I don't believe it will just be some platforms. Yes, you will still have to be using a ramp as you would with any stock that is brought. But the main selling point to the customers would be lost on the fact of the easy access, especially to the disabled.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am not opposed to low floor units, it is just that the cost to implement the required changes to the platforms around the UK would be several millions to billions of pounds. So in buying low floor units, you might not be gaining anything for the majority of stations within the UK, as I don't believe it will just be some platforms. Yes, you will still have to be using a ramp as you would with any stock that is brought. But the main selling point to the customers would be lost on the fact of the easy access, especially to the disabled.

And you don't think a progressive scheme of modifying platforms to allow level boarding for disabled people is important enough? How ableist. We should absolutely do it, and several million is a price worth paying to allow wheelchair users freedom from having to faff about with an unreliable assistance system (plus you save cost in far fewer people needing assistance in the first place).

Imagine if that was said about low floor buses?

Even before it's done, gap fillers are a safety benefit, and the lower floor means the step up from very low rural platforms isn't quite as ridiculously high. It's been done on rural Greater Anglia, and we should do it for Northern too - GA have proven its success.

 

[RobShipway]

And you don't think a progressive scheme of modifying platforms to allow level boarding for disabled people is important enough? How ableist. We should absolutely do it, and several million is a price worth paying to allow wheelchair users freedom from having to faff about with an unreliable assistance system (plus you save cost in far fewer people needing assistance in the first place).

Imagine if that was said about low floor buses?

Even before it's done, gap fillers are a safety benefit, and the lower floor means the step up from very low rural platforms isn't quite as ridiculously high. It's been done on rural Greater Anglia, and we should do it for Northern too - GA have proven its success.

I think that modifying platforms for the disabled is very important, in fact more important than prioritising things for 'normal' people, especially as the years go on, we will have more elderly people in the UK than youngsters. It should not be the case, that people with difficulty in walking should have to be phoning up two days prior to when needing to travel. It should be such that they can turn up and go as 'normal' people.

But being someone that has battled the DFT over the fact that disabled people should be able to turn up and go from any platform within the UK and whoever the TOC is running the trains, I cannot see that being the case much before 2060. By which time any of the 450 - 460 trains would be 10 years from retirement if you are lucky.

I have battled the DFT for over 20 years about safety for the disabled and saying that trains should be such that the disabled should be able to turn up and go. The managers at Greater Anglia with the class 745/755 have had the right idea, that let's get a train forces the issue. The problem though is that their class 720 in my view is making a step back in the wrong direction, as is shown in https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2022/0...-are-now-operated-using-brand-new-trains.html as they still need a ramp for disabled to get into the trains and also still need to be booking two days ahead to travel on them.