• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Great Western Electrification Progress

Status
Not open for further replies.

GazK

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2012
Messages
73
Location
x
Active provision for future electrification???

Up here in the north west the bean counters look for any excuse to cut back the scope - how on earth did they swing that?

It's normal practise on any electrification scheme. It doesn't mean that extension is imminent. For instance, NW electrification phase 3 just tied in to the Mark 1 overrun at Preston (Wellfield Road) - which was installed in the 1960s.

The other NWEP phases will be taking the same approach and providing future provision. Not everything is a North/South thing.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

twpsaesneg

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2009
Messages
417
It's normal practise on any electrification scheme. It doesn't mean that extension is imminent. For instance, NW electrification phase 3 just tied in to the Mark 1 overrun at Preston (Wellfield Road) - which was installed in the 1960s.

The other NWEP phases will be taking the same approach and providing future provision. Not everything is a North/South thing.
No, you misunderstand.
There's a difference between standard overrun protection, which network rail tend to now cut down to the minimum, and the active provision by wiring further than the minimum.
It was indeed the standard practice but now, sadly, isn't.
Funnily enough I have more than a passing knowledge of the NWEP works as you'll see from my previous posts, and I can assure you that only the minimum necessary to comply with standards has been authorised.
If the GWEP guys have managed to get more than this authorised then I'm really pleased because it might be a turning point!
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
No, you misunderstand.
There's a difference between standard overrun protection, which network rail tend to now cut down to the minimum, and the active provision by wiring further than the minimum.
It was indeed the standard practice but now, sadly, isn't.
Funnily enough I have more than a passing knowledge of the NWEP works as you'll see from my previous posts, and I can assure you that only the minimum necessary to comply with standards has been authorised.
If the GWEP guys have managed to get more than this authorised then I'm really pleased because it might be a turning point!

Surely the cost to the present electrification scheme and benefit to any future one of wiring a few hundred metres is pretty negligible in relation to the total, at least until major work like raising bridges is involved?
 

twpsaesneg

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2009
Messages
417
Surely the cost to the present electrification scheme and benefit to any future one of wiring a few hundred metres is pretty negligible in relation to the total, at least until major work like raising bridges is involved?
Yes.

That doesn't stop common sense being thrown out of the window.

One of the schemes I'm working on has this precise issue... the overrun wiring was cut back to save money and the next project is having to pick up the work later.

Best practice is to wire overrun, with preferably a permanent earthed section (Or separately isolatable) beyond to enable future works to be done without needing to turn off the existing stuff on the mainline. But this costs money for no perceived benefit if you're not thinking long term. Of course the savings later are more than the costs of putting it in in the first place, but short term gain sadly equals long term pain...

But we are Off Topic - I'm just pleased that GWEP is doing this.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,550
Location
Mold, Clwyd
It's normal practise on any electrification scheme. It doesn't mean that extension is imminent. For instance, NW electrification phase 3 just tied in to the Mark 1 overrun at Preston (Wellfield Road) - which was installed in the 1960s.
And yet the same 1974 WCML scheme did not have overrun wiring either at Springs Branch (towards Liverpool) or Euxton (towards Manchester).
 

Thatcham Xing

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
173
Will be interesting to see how far the wires extend west beyond the Newbury immediate station area?

Hard to tell as yet as it appears piling is not yet complete within the station area itself.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
And many junctions on the ECML have none at all.....

I think thats standard now. There is nothing on the GEML for Haughley Jn or Marks Tey. Norwich and East Suffolk are worse because electric locos are required regularly to run to the end of the wires to reverse into / out of Crown Point and Ipswich Yard respectively.
 

3973EXL

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2017
Messages
2,435
Twyford - platform extensions on the mains still ongoing.

DSC00541.JPG DSC00542.JPG DSC00543.JPG DSC00544.JPG

Canopy on platform 4 still to complete.

Southbury Lane Bridge Ruscombe.
Works compound present, but parapet work not started yet.
 

themiller

Member
Joined
4 Dec 2011
Messages
1,055
Location
Cumbria, UK
The latest Rail magazine (846) is reporting on page 19 that the previously 'cancelled' parts of the GW electrification were 'paused' and that they'll be taken forward in CP6 - i.e. to Oxford, Bath to Bristol Parkway and Cardiff to Swansea. It's saying that the schemes must first be fully worked up before the go-ahead and references lack of performance of the 800s.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,257
The latest Rail magazine (846) is reporting on page 19 that the previously 'cancelled' parts of the GW electrification were 'paused' and that they'll be taken forward in CP6 - i.e. to Oxford, Bath to Bristol Parkway and Cardiff to Swansea. It's saying that the schemes must first be fully worked up before the go-ahead and references lack of performance of the 800s.
Cardiff to Swansea was shown as cancelled by client in the Dec 17 enhancement plan update. Oxford and Bristol had never been shown as cancelled but were down for completion in CP6.

I think that’s been the generally understood situation for quite a while.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,671
Location
Leeds
The latest Rail magazine (846) is reporting on page 19 that the previously 'cancelled' parts of the GW electrification were 'paused' and that they'll be taken forward in CP6 - i.e. to Oxford, Bath to Bristol Parkway and Cardiff to Swansea. It's saying that the schemes must first be fully worked up before the go-ahead and references lack of performance of the 800s.
It wouldn't be the first time Rail has got facts wrong. Cardiff to Swansea is definitively cancelled and Grayling has repeatedly confirmed that. The other bits you mention were never officially described as cancelled. The term used was "deferred", and the branches to Windsor and Henley were also deferred at the same time. People have often pointed out in this thread that some or all of the deferred schemes may well go ahead in CP6 but they will have to justify themselves afresh financially.

Part of the reason why Oxford and Bristol TM were chosen for deferral (rather than say Cardiff or Newbury) is probably that other works have to be completed in those area before the actual electrification can go ahead.
 

Sean Emmett

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2015
Messages
496
It wouldn't be the first time Rail has got facts wrong. Cardiff to Swansea is definitively cancelled and Grayling has repeatedly confirmed that. The other bits you mention were never officially described as cancelled. The term used was "deferred", and the branches to Windsor and Henley were also deferred at the same time. People have often pointed out in this thread that some or all of the deferred schemes may well go ahead in CP6 but they will have to justify themselves afresh financially.

Part of the reason why Oxford and Bristol TM were chosen for deferral (rather than say Cardiff or Newbury) is probably that other works have to be completed in those area before the actual electrification can go ahead.
The final sentence makes good sense and my understanding is that NR want to finish the electrification to Bristol T M by both routes.

Track already lowered thro Box tunnel, Sydney Gardens and Keynsham station, with some mast bases already in.

However, Grayling has muddied the waters by extolling the virtues of BiModes, ignoring the benefits if electrification and even said there was now no need to despoil Sydney Gardens with overhead wires, etc.

When pressed to confirm that he wants to see the electrification to T M he has repeatedly refused to do so.

I'd like to see the electrification completed and a local service from Didcot/Swindon to Bristol with 387s or similar calling at existing stations, and reopened stations at Wootton Basset, Corsham, Saltford and St Annes. They could also work Bristol - Cardiff locals.

Hope some of the franchise bidders show some interest in getting the max benefit out of the electrification.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,550
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Grayling's argument about Swansea is that there are no benefits of electric working over bi-mode operation from Cardiff.
But he forgets that bi-modes are more expensive to buy, operate and maintain than EMUs.
If NR can get the cost down far enough (using 100mph OHLE would be a start), there will be a business case.
There would also be benefits if an almost-all-electric service ran from Paddington (bi-mode beyond Bristol TM/Swansea).
He has a point in the short term.
But then anything in Wales is mired by funding wrangles between the two governments, not to mention the Metro and the wider W&B franchise.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Grayling's argument about Swansea is that there are no benefits of electric working over bi-mode operation from Cardiff.
But he forgets that bi-modes are more expensive to buy, operate and maintain than EMUs.
If NR can get the cost down far enough (using 100mph OHLE would be a start), there will be a business case.
There would also be benefits if an almost-all-electric service ran from Paddington (bi-mode beyond Bristol TM/Swansea).
However the bi-modes for GW have already been ordered (and the pure electric versions upgraded to bi-mode) so their cost is sunk. There would be a small future benefit if some of them could have the diesel engines removed at a later date, but much less than what has already been spent. Also the bi-modes will provide that all-electric service from Paddington once delivery is complete. So it will be that much more difficult to justify re-extending the electrification, particularly to Bristol, even if the costs come down. Oxford ought to be easier to justify because there are clear costs, ridership losses and customer inconvenience arising from splitting many of the services at Didcot.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
However the bi-modes for GW have already been ordered (and the pure electric versions upgraded to bi-mode) so their cost is sunk. There would be a small future benefit if some of them could have the diesel engines removed at a later date, but much less than what has already been spent. Also the bi-modes will provide that all-electric service from Paddington once delivery is complete. So it will be that much more difficult to justify re-extending the electrification, particularly to Bristol, even if the costs come down. Oxford ought to be easier to justify because there are clear costs, ridership losses and customer inconvenience arising from splitting many of the services at Didcot.

While continuing the wires from Didcot to Oxford is a no-brainer - and to Bristol too, given the volume of passenger traffic and number of services involved - I have to ask what ridership losses you mean in Oxfordshire?

The number of people travelling through Didcot on the semi-fast services has always been limited and always will be - whether or not a change of train is involved. Most trains empty out at Didcot and refill there in both directions. A small number of people may be inconvenienced while this situation persists, but not many.

The current interchange is cross-platform and takes little more time time than most through Turbo semi-fast services pre-January would spend sitting in the platform at Didcot anyway.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,550
Location
Mold, Clwyd
However the bi-modes for GW have already been ordered (and the pure electric versions upgraded to bi-mode) so their cost is sunk. There would be a small future benefit if some of them could have the diesel engines removed at a later date, but much less than what has already been spent. Also the bi-modes will provide that all-electric service from Paddington once delivery is complete. So it will be that much more difficult to justify re-extending the electrification, particularly to Bristol, even if the costs come down. Oxford ought to be easier to justify because there are clear costs, ridership losses and customer inconvenience arising from splitting many of the services at Didcot.

I see from the NR CP6 strategic plan today that they have dropped a project to immunise the signalling at Port Talbot East for AC electric operation.
Port Talbot West (on to Swansea and beyond, and still to be approved) has been deferred for cost reduction.
So there are two more obstacles to a Cardiff-Swansea wiring project.
 

reddragon

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2016
Messages
3,145
Location
Churn (closed)
The following article has appeared in the local rag.

Could batteries replace diesel engines on UK's rail network?

I can't see that it would work with all those steep hills. I could however see it as being a way to avoid having to electrify Bath through to Bristol but the timescale would likely be too long and would probably reduce flexibility.
The technology does not exist today at an affordable price, but it probably will within 5 years.
 

didcotdean

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2013
Messages
150
There are certainly some operational issues arising from the Oxford-Didcot shuttle working and connections at Didcot at certain times of the day, mainly in the peaks, enough to be raised at the Customer Panel meeting. 2L53 seems a particular example as it seems to rarely leave Oxford bang on time and has missed the connection at Didcot on occasion. Taking yesterday as an example it left about 2 minutes late and arrived in Didcot over 8 minutes down. However, it seems the onward connection was probably now being held for it. On Monday though 2L53 didn't run at all.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
Newport station today.

Showing the platform canopies being cut back and some metalwork starting to appear. Apologies for the poor quality; I only had my ancient phone with me.

IMG_0776.JPG IMG_0777.JPG IMG_0778.JPG IMG_0779.JPG
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,671
Location
Leeds
An item on the HOPS train appeared on the NR website a few days ago. I didn't notice it until today as it isn't under press releases.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/high-output-plant-system-works-electrify-great-western-mainline/

Our 23-vehicle HOPS factory train is electrifying the Great Western Mainline by installing the foundations and overhead wiring.

Working for seven to eight hours over six nights per week, the state-of-the-art High Output Plant System (HOPS) builds the overhead line equipment needed to carry 25,000 Volts of electricity to power new trains on the railway line.

With a top speed of 60mph, but working at 5mph or 15mph during a possession (when the railway is closed for improvement work), the HOPS works at an average of around one mile (1.6km) every night.

More information about the HOPS train, including videos and an image gallery

HOPS by numbers
  • It can carry 30 piles in total.
  • Per shift, it can install 15-20 piles, with each pile taking less than 15 minutes to install.
  • It can hold four drums of electrical wire.
  • Typically it installs 10-15 steel gantry sections (masts and booms) per shift (but can do up to 25-30 per shift).
  • It installs 1-2 contact and catenary wires per shift (these wires carry electricity to the train through its pantograph).
Find out more
Great Western Mainline modernisation

What is electrification?

Our fleet: machines and vehicles

High Output

Everything you want to know about the High Output Plant System
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top