edwin_m
Veteran Member
But then I don't think anyone (and I certainly wasn't) was suggesting electrifying the whole GWML in the 90s but rather the commuter services, which would have displaced Turbos which could have been used elsewhere. Effectively it would have replicated the Bedpan scheme where commuter trains were EMUs and the Inter City services HSTs.
I think the commuter market was a bit different on the GWML, as witnessed by the provision of two and three car units compared with four cars (often running in multiple) on all other London suburban routes except Chiltern. Historically the GWML had relatively few commuters, possibly because Paddington was so far from the main employment areas so people working in central London would probably choose to live near some other route. The Thames Valley has been fairly affluent for some time and resistant to change, so there was little prospect of cheap housing. Closer to London this didn't apply, but commuters had the option of various Tube lines going somewhere more useful than Paddington.Get the timing right and diesel Networkers (165/166) are built as electric in the first place.
This has changed in recent years due to the growth of the Thames Valley and the Paddington surroundings as employment areas in their own right, but I would expect the GWML to have much more reverse and intermediate commuting than other routes.
As to the fleet renewal, the Thames and Chiltern fleets were almost identical and procured together. If Thames had been electrified a diesel fleet would still have been needed for Chiltern, probably in small enough quantities that the unit cost would have gone up.