Great Western Electrification Progress

[RobShipway]

Eugh........

Do tri modes even exist?

Tri - mode trains do not exist as yet, but as per the link to Rail Magazine: http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2015/05/08/mtu-launches-powerpack-with-tri-mode-potential MTU have created a tri - mode package that can Diesel power, OHLE power while charging up a battery at the same time.

 

[jyte]

Tri - mode trains do not exist as yet, but as per the link to Rail Magazine: http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2015/05/08/mtu-launches-powerpack-with-tri-mode-potential MTU have created a tri - mode package that can Diesel power, OHLE power while charging up a battery at the same time.

I was thinking Diesel/3rd Rail/OHLE tri mode but yes Diesel/Battery/OHLE is tri mode as well.

With MTU's product I wonder what the power trade offs are/how long it can run on batteries.

 

[swt_passenger]

Tri - mode trains do not exist as yet, but as per the link to Rail Magazine: http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2015/05/08/mtu-launches-powerpack-with-tri-mode-potential MTU have created a tri - mode package that can Diesel power, OHLE power while charging up a battery at the same time.

I expect tri-mode in the earlier suggested context, (i.e. Bournemouth XC) means DC pickup from the third rail. There are no engineering difficulties I can think of in adding DC power collection to a typical modern 3 phase AC traction package, it will still have a DC link stage between the 25kV transformer/rectifier and the traction package, just like any current 'AC' EMU.

 

[jyte]

I expect tri-mode in the earlier suggested context, (i.e. Bournemouth XC) means DC pickup from the third rail. There are no engineering difficulties I can think of in adding DC power collection to a typical modern 3 phase AC traction package, it will still have a DC link stage between the 25kV transformer/rectifier and the traction package, just like any current 'AC' EMU.

What's the motor running voltage of a modern EMU? 25kv?

 

[swt_passenger]

What's the motor running voltage of a modern EMU? 25kv?

Nothing like the OHLE voltage. Once stepped down to around 1000 V DC I doubt it would be that much higher when converted to 3 phase AC for the motors.

But the power applied to the motors is both variable frequency and variable voltage, probably best if someone who has access to firm information chips in with a real world figure.

Meanwhile, I did a bit of Googling this afternoon and found a specification for ABB traction motors, that showed 'up to 3 kV' rated voltage.

 

[Domh245]

I expect tri-mode in the earlier suggested context, (i.e. Bournemouth XC) means DC pickup from the third rail. There are no engineering difficulties I can think of in adding DC power collection to a typical modern 3 phase AC traction package, it will still have a DC link stage between the 25kV transformer/rectifier and the traction package, just like any current 'AC' EMU.

Do the 800s not use a 25kV AC bus (the one strung across the roof) instead of the more conventional 750V DC? Whilst it could power the inverter/motors, I'm not sure if it could power the rest of the hotel services, not without fairly major changes to the electrical systems.

 

[swt_passenger]

Do the 800s not use a 25kV AC bus (the one strung across the roof) instead of the more conventional 750V DC? Whilst it could power the inverter/motors, I'm not sure if it could power the rest of the hotel services, not without fairly major changes to the electrical systems.

If one pan is providing power to more than one transformer, then there'll be a 25 kV bus between the transformers on their input side. But that doesn't remove the need for a DC link stage somewhere between the individual transformer/rectifiers and separate traction packages.

 

[Hophead]

As to why the Great Western was selected for electrification ahead of the Midland Main Line, several reasons. This one for now:

it was realised that the Thameslink scheme would release a large number of relatively modern EMUs which had no obvious future use. In order to utilise the surplus 319s and 365s, a couple of schemes were devised to make use of them: North-West electrification and Great Western. As a sign of just how well planned today's railway is, the Great Western will now make no use of any of these units at all and their future, is once again, uncertain. The North-West will also be seeing a number of new units in the near future (someone else will be able to say whether this has reduced the number of 319s allocated).

 

[HSTEd]

Everybody complains when BCRs don't give them the answers that they want

Except using ridiculous overspecced equipment is not really the answer I want as such is it?

You may not think that changes to H&S have been an improvement, but they are the law that all modern construction projects will have to follow. Not optional.

Considering this is effectively a state project and the state says what the law is it is optional. Parliament is supreme after all.

You are admitting that it is "less reliable", however...

It may be, but the only evidence I have is that it is not enormously less reliable. It might even be more reliable - I have no appropriate data.
And if reliability is all that matters, why don't we just have overhead contact rail everywhere as that is considered much more reliable than this tension cable stuff.
There is a tradeoff - I just make a different one.

Good points, which need to be borne in mind when someone suggests cutting corners.

Much of the ECML (i.e. north of Peterborough) will have only seen a couple of electric services per hour (when you consider the number of HSTs running services to Aberdeen/ Inverness/ Harrogate/ Skipton/ Harrogate/ Hull etc in the past).

BR was doing this in an era of just hourly London - Leeds services for example.

And yet it functions with the current traffic load.
Just because it was designed for a different load does not mean it is not sufficient for a much greater one.

If someone can explain to me how they'd have electrified the GWML without any bi-modes then fair enough.

Simple, start 20 years ago as they should have done.

 

[reddragon]

A letter has gone out to say that Stockley to Maidenhead is to be "considered live" from 4th Feb 2017. This usually happens a few months in advance of the route being permanently energised, as it did with Tilehurst to Didcot. As seen on that route, a lot can happen in a couple of months.

Whilst getting back to GW electrification again . . . !

This is quoted on the class 387 page

 

[leomartin125]

And back to Great Western Electrification:

I see that the Up Relief through platform 4 at Maidenhead has been wired now, meaning that's been done overnight. Quick progress being made.

 

[doa46231]

The original cost of the GW electrification was set at £625 million in 2009.
That is seven years ago.
The latest estimate as of November 2015 was £2.9 BILLION.

And for that sum we don't even get it finished!

Someone took me to task for saying the ECML project was done in 6 years, when Kings Cross was electrified long before that, the 'heavy lifting' as it was described.

Well, Paddington had also been 'heavy lifted' so the shambles is even worse.

Yet nobody has taken responsibility and some posters have sought to excuse this fiasco with all sorts of febrile excuses.

Even now they cant give us a definitive completion date, or at least a half completion date!

We've all got our political biases, but you've got to spread it a lot to defend this disgrace.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The original cost of the GW electrification was set at £625 million in 2009.
That is seven years ago.
The latest estimate as of November 2015 was £2.9 BILLION.

And for that sum we don't even get it finished!

Someone took me to task for saying the ECML project was done in 6 years, when Kings Cross was electrified long before that, the 'heavy lifting' as it was described.

Well, Paddington had also been 'heavy lifted' so the shambles is even worse.

Yet nobody has taken responsibility and some posters have sought to excuse this fiasco with all sorts of febrile excuses.

Even now they cant give us a definitive completion date, or at least a half completion date!

We've all got our political biases, but you've got to spread it a lot to defend this disgrace.

You confuse excuses with analysis of the reasons...

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

You confuse excuses with analysis of the reasons...

SOP for a ranter. Don't bother asking for their aspirations and how they would realistically be achieved. I wonder if they are a former user of Greater Anglia trains?

 

[HowardGWR]

You confuse excuses with analysis of the reasons...

I haven't read the NAO report yet. To be honest, I had hoped someone would give, or point to, a summary, that would nail down the reasons for the cost increase. As an outsider-taxpayer, I don't have even a sense of how it occurred. All this about unknown buried cables, erection train shortcomings and so on don't hack it for me. We are talking of a gigantic increase in the original estimate and I suppose I will have to read the report. I have a feeling I won't get further, as if the real reason for this huge spending, in so short a period, had been identified by the NAO, then it would have been shouted from the rooftops.

 

[dviner]

Originally Posted by tbtc
You may not think that changes to H&S have been an improvement, but they are the law that all modern construction projects will have to follow. Not optional

Considering this is effectively a state project and the state says what the law is it is optional. Parliament is supreme after all.

I think you're wrong there. If it's law, then it's supposed to be adhered to - even by (and probably, especially by) the state.

I'm not an expert in the involved fields, but I believe that if it was decided that railway construction work was to become exempt from complying with various strictures of the H&SAW Act (or whatever it's called now), then an amendment to the act would need to go through the whole enabling process, with all it's bells, whistles, and debates.

Unions might have something to say about it.

 

[gsnedders]

I haven't read the NAO report yet. To be honest, I had hoped someone would give, or point to, a summary, that would nail down the reasons for the cost increase. As an outsider-taxpayer, I don't have even a sense of how it occurred. All this about unknown buried cables, erection train shortcomings and so on don't hack it for me. We are talking of a gigantic increase in the original estimate and I suppose I will have to read the report. I have a feeling I won't get further, as if the real reason for this huge spending, in so short a period, had been identified by the NAO, then it would have been shouted from the rooftops.

From the NAO summary, the key findings when it came to the reduced BCR were (attempting to summarise further!):

• 7: The change to procure all IEPs as bi-modes "calls into question whether the full extent of electrification under the programme is still value for money"
• 8: The DfT did not plan and manage all the projects that make up the route modernisation in a jointed up way prior to 2015, when in reality they had dependencies between them
• 9: The electrification timetable agreed by NR and the DfT was unrealistic.
• 10: the 2015 NR replanning of the infrastructure programme in part reflects that the 2013 estimate was based on plans in an early stage of development and the expected cost uncertain
• 11: NR's 2014 cost estimates were unrealistic (too optimistic about new technology; underestimated number of bridges needing rectified; underestimated time and therefore cost of getting planning permission for works)
• 12: NR's failure to approach planning and delivering the infrastructure project in a well managed way (critical path wasn't worked out before starting, technical challenges of new electrification equipment design and the HOPS, didn't conduct sufficiently detailed surveys of locations for structures)
• 13: Cost to the DfT from varying order for IEP (to bi-modes) as a result of delays

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think you're wrong there. If it's law, then it's supposed to be adhered to - even by (and probably, especially by) the state.

I'm not an expert in the involved fields, but I believe that if it was decided that railway construction work was to become exempt from complying with various strictures of the H&SAW Act (or whatever it's called now), then an amendment to the act would need to go through the whole enabling process, with all it's bells, whistles, and debates.

Unions might have something to say about it.

And what would the media make of "HM Government moving to make railways less safe"?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I haven't read the NAO report yet. To be honest, I had hoped someone would give, or point to, a summary, that would nail down the reasons for the cost increase. As an outsider-taxpayer, I don't have even a sense of how it occurred. All this about unknown buried cables, erection train shortcomings and so on don't hack it for me. We are talking of a gigantic increase in the original estimate and I suppose I will have to read the report. I have a feeling I won't get further, as if the real reason for this huge spending, in so short a period, had been identified by the NAO, then it would have been shouted from the rooftops.

Its not a single reason, so you would have to shout for so long that people would stop listening. I shall list the main reasons that have been identified here, i may forget some.

1. Unknown location of a significant amounts of buried services
2. Over engineering leading to the pile depths being beyond the realistic capability of the factory train
3. Pricing the scheme based on historical electrification without a real consideration for changes in the world for the last 20 years
4. Lack of realisation within government that the supply chain for electrification needed steadily building up rather than just turning on the tap
5. Scope creep and scope changes mid project
6. Massive lack of electrification resource and experience in managing large infrastructure enhancements
7. More disruptive possessions leading to higher compensation for operators

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Its not a single reason, so you would have to shout for so long that people would stop listening. I shall list the main reasons that have been identified here, i may forget some.

A good list.
I think while we are concentrating on the electrification side, the resignalling programme has dictated progress (none of the 1960/70s signalling was suitable for AC operation) and was/is very late.
If the wires reached Oxford/Bristol today as originally planned they would not be useable.

 

[hwl]

Its not a single reason, so you would have to shout for so long that people would stop listening. I shall list the main reasons that have been identified here, i may forget some.

1. Unknown location of a significant amounts of buried services
2. Over engineering leading to the pile depths being beyond the realistic capability of the factory train
3. Pricing the scheme based on historical electrification without a real consideration for changes in the world for the last 20 years
4. Lack of realisation within government that the supply chain for electrification needed steadily building up rather than just turning on the tap
5. Scope creep and scope changes mid project
6. Massive lack of electrification resource and experience in managing large infrastructure enhancements
7. More disruptive possessions leading to higher compensation for operators

To add:

2. or rather specifying the piling train 2 years before the pile /OHLE designs had been specified. (bigger piling attachment and longer arm would have been good but this might not have been possible if the desire to have adjacent lines open was to be met). A fair number of masts are further away from the tracks for signal sighting reasons and the 4track section piles are still big/deeper. Some HOPS train not having enough power when full loaded with masts to get to worksites in good time.

8. Logistic bases too widely spaced

9. Not including other works programmes in the area with interdependencies. (station rebuilds, resignalling)

10. Underestimating the time taken for planning process where needed (e.g. Oxford E-W Public Inquiry with 2+ year delays for Oxford works) and the number of applications to be handled, 1800+ planning applications required.

11. Throwing resource around like headless chicken to try to make up time but doing so in an ineffective manner that cost a lot more but undermined efficient working later (e.g. HOPS train for occasional infill of piles is not efficient)

12. Route Clearance works (civils) e.g. bridge lifts/rebuilds +61% cost increase - this is bread and butter stuff for NR not sure how much the wire clearance distance chagne issues have an effect here.

13. Underestimation of project management staff requirement +67% cost increase.

 

[HowardGWR]

Thanks for the replies and also the link to the summary.

I had not realised that the increase in estimate includes station rebuilding and other projects, not purely to do with electrification. It doesn't seem too bad an overshoot if one took all those costs into account. Electrification is different to modernisation. Restoring four tracks on Filton bank is not essential to the juice project, for example. The latter is more pertinent to the Bristol Metro project. I didn't realise the costs included new IEP stock; that seems most inappropriate, although perhaps with those, the costs have not exceeded estimates.
I still have a big problem with the piling costs. Projects (I am a retired project leader) normally get exceeded when mission creep takes place, rather than operational details of implementation being altered.
I'll have to do some reading I think.

Edit : hwl's points 9 to 13 look the worst to me.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Edit : hwl's points 9 to 13 look the worst to me.

They do indeed and provide a useful addition to my ' lack of electrification resource and experience in managing large infrastructure enhancements'. I was less confident of the details hence not splitting in the same way.

But hopefully what those two points demonstrate is that this is an industry issue and is beyond complex.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I didn't realise the costs included new IEP stock; that seems most inappropriate, although perhaps with those, the costs have not exceeded estimates.

IEP costs were not included - that's a separate DfT project.
Even the IEP clearance works were costed in a separate NR project (needed even without wires).
The IEP spec (140mph, 2 pantographs) did dictate some of the high OHLE cost.
The extra costs for more diesel packs is also not part of the NR project.

If you have a project background, you'll know how damaging it is to have cost/scope creep.
The overrun of £2 billion has to come from other budgets, so it's a double whammy.
The money, by the way, will have gone into the pockets of the suppliers and contractors, so they are doing well out of the crisis.
At the other end are all the other NR projects which are delayed/cancelled as a result, together with a large slice of NR's credibility.

 

[steverailer]

8. Logistic bases too widely spaced

Also to add to this lack of access points for RRV's for the conventional infill. An hours travel for the RRV's is not uncommon from the access point to the worksite.

 

[gsnedders]

IEP costs were not included - that's a separate DfT project.
Even the IEP clearance works were costed in a separate NR project (needed even without wires).
The IEP spec (140mph, 2 pantographs) did dictate some of the high OHLE cost.
The extra costs for more diesel packs is also not part of the NR project.

The NAO report into the Great Western Route Modernisation did include the IEP order variation, at least. Obviously it's not an NR cost, but it's still a governmental expense.

 

[D1009]

I had not realised that the increase in estimate includes station rebuilding and other projects, not purely to do with electrification. It doesn't seem too bad an overshoot if one took all those costs into account. Electrification is different to modernisation. Restoring four tracks on Filton bank is not essential to the juice project, for example. The latter is more pertinent to the Bristol Metro project. I didn't realise the costs included new IEP stock; that seems most inappropriate, although perhaps with those, the costs have not exceeded estimates.

I'm a retired train planner and 4 years ago was involved in the early work in developing the IEP timetable, which as you are no doubt aware involves 2 additional tph fast from Padd to Bristol via Parkway. Four tracking on Filton bank is essential to this timetable, mainly to avoid conflictions at Filton Jn. What we found was not essential was the additional platforms in the Digby Wyatt trainshed, which is probably just as well given the delay to the abolition of Bristol panel box. These probably will be essential to the Metro project however.

 

[Dai Corner]

Conspiracy theory alert: The money for electrification of Thingley Junction- Temple Meads - Parkway will be 'given' to the Bristol region and presented as 'devolved spending' towards the Metro (assuming they elect the right Mayor and do whatever else the Government wants them to).

 

[59CosG95]

Conspiracy theory alert: The money for electrification of Thingley Junction- Temple Meads - Parkway will be 'given' to the Bristol region and presented as 'devolved spending' towards the Metro (assuming they elect the right Mayor and do whatever else the Government wants them to).

*buys a lot of tinfoil and fashions it into many, many hats*

 

[Dai Corner]

*buys a lot of tinfoil and fashions it into many, many hats*

:d :d

 

[HowardGWR]

I'm a retired train planner and 4 years ago was involved in the early work in developing the IEP timetable, which as you are no doubt aware involves 2 additional tph fast from Padd to Bristol via Parkway. Four tracking on Filton bank is essential to this timetable, mainly to avoid conflictions at Filton Jn. What we found was not essential was the additional platforms in the Digby Wyatt trainshed, which is probably just as well given the delay to the abolition of Bristol panel box. These probably will be essential to the Metro project however.

That's interesting. I opine that, whilst the need for four tracks was justified by the intention to double the Bristol to London service (half via Filton as you point out), that would not have justified electrification in itself. It is more likely to do with the fact that numerous Voyagers from north to south are now taking up the present capacity.

This latter increased intrusion on the Stapleton Road stretch is solely due to the closure of the ex-Midland Road line from Bristol East Junction to Yate, which could still be re-opened with some clever, but expensive, moves around Mangotsfield and the Barrow Road area. That re-opening would provide an effective bypass of the Stoke Gifford junctions, flying over Lawrence Hill.

It would have also meant the loss of connections at the new Parkway station, but then again, 'Parkway' could have been constructed at the crossover near Yate.

This is all 'what could have been' but the point is that four tracking was not justified by electrification in itself. For the avoidance of doubt, I am over the moon that the four tracking restoration is taking place, but it could have been better without post Beeching fervour for 'rationalisation'.

A Stoke Gifford grade separated junction anyone?