Great Western Electrification Progress

[RichW1]

Would it be possible or even desirable to get 150mph ouf IEP's with ERTMS? Or even on the East Coast Main Line, could even faster speeds to 150/155mph be achieved on conventional lines as in the US section on the East Coast (as they do it with similar infrastructure there but yes I know the rest is rubbish). China seems to have 150mph conventional lines now in large sections too. Italy has one I believe?

 

[D1009]

Going to be a long while yet at least until resignalling is completed around Bristol.

That said I think it will be brilliant to see the train shed returned to its original purpose

The last I heard on this is that it is possible to accommodate the proposed IEP service without the additional platforms in the Digby Wyatt train shed. However if electrification brings enhancement to the local services including Bristol Metro, the additional platforms may well be required. It just means it will be part of a different project, meaning someone else has to pay for it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would it be possible or even desirable to get 150mph ouf IEP's with ERTMS? Or even on the East Coast Main Line, could even faster speeds to 150/155mph be achieved on conventional lines as in the US section on the East Coast (as they do it with similar infrastructure there but yes I know the rest is rubbish). China seems to have 150mph conventional lines now in large sections too. Italy has one I believe?

As far as I know 140 mph is the design top speed for IEP.

 

[Tremzinho]

Successive transport secretaries were anti-rail, but virtually everything positive that's currently happening was started by Andrew Adonis

Of course the counter argument is that Labour only started promising massive rail investment when they were months away from a General Election which they expected to lose.

 

[transmanche]

Of course the counter argument is that Labour only started promising massive rail investment when they were months away from a General Election which they expected to lose.

And the 'counter-counter' argument would be... Thameslink and Crossrail. I think they cost more than a bob or two.

 

[HowardGWR]

The last I heard on this is that it is possible to accommodate the proposed IEP service without the additional platforms in the Digby Wyatt train shed. However if electrification brings enhancement to the local services including Bristol Metro, the additional platforms may well be required. It just means it will be part of a different project, meaning someone else has to pay for it./QUOTE]

Interesting, I have always thought the reopening of the old terminus as good thing from many aspects, not least the provision of a proper bus and tram (that won't happen!) interchange, adjacent on the area known as 'Plot 6'.

The problem possibly with trains to PAD via Bath, starting there, is that they have to cross over to the North Somerset Jcn line, while trains from the north to the Taunton direction have to do the opposite (and so one can go on with many other conflicting movements, e.g. to Portsmouth and Weymouth).

The present setup whereby the London trains start from the far eastern end of the station, remote from facilities, may be operationally convenient, but not helpful to the station's main bread and butter clientele, I feel.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And the 'counter-counter' argument would be... Thameslink and Crossrail. I think they cost more than a bob or two.

Also, Adonis was appointed rail minister in 2008, rose to Cabinet as SoS, and laid down the plans that we now see being implemented. Whether someone else, without his vision, would have got the bandwagon rolling, onto which the present government has climbed (very thankfully and praiseworthily) is another matter.

 

[HSTEd]

Thameslink 2000 and Crossrail are both BR era projects.
It is unsurprising that they have finally managed to get construction underway.

 

[edwin_m]

The problem possibly with trains to PAD via Bath, starting there, is that they have to cross over to the North Somerset Jcn line, while trains from the north to the Taunton direction have to do the opposite (and so one can go on with many other conflicting movements, e.g. to Portsmouth and Weymouth).

I suspect the idea is/was for only the new half-hourly service to London via Parkway to terminate in the Digby Wyatt. This will be quicker than the existing route and therefore the prime London service. Trains via Bath would then continue to use the high-numbered platforms.

 

[cle]

Makes sesne, and I suppose the via Bath ones would be lined up to continue to Weston, as some do - even though arguably the fasts would make sense. Be it as a portent for future West Country services, or just the Weston extensions.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Digby Wyatt shed re-opening is clearly part of the 'Bristol Station capacity' HLOS project, not the GW electrification, or GW IEP projects. This has not changed as far as I can see, the coverage of the various separate projects in the area has been quite clearly differentiated in various NR publications about CP4 and CP5 over the last couple of years.

The latest CP5 draft delivery plan makes it all particularly clear which work is in which project, and they are all suitably cross referenced. But D1009's point above about it 'will be a different project' is unnecessary - it already was a separate project.

 

[HowardGWR]

Makes sesne, and I suppose the via Bath ones would be lined up to continue to Weston, as some do - even though arguably the fasts would make sense. Be it as a portent for future West Country services, or just the Weston extensions.

Indeed. Good point from @Edwin_m too about the new PAD service via Badminton, that I had overseen. I suppose the proposed new services from Portishead (still presumably diesel) will have to be threaded through to the Lawrence Hill direction, as I believe the idea is they will go to the Avonmouth line. That's every hour and I believe the other half of the proposed half-hourly service will terminate at TM. That latter, presumably would be logically stabled at the moribund Platform 2, as then there are no conflicts.

As @SWT-passenger has pointed out there are separate projects but I assume forward planning must take account of the need to dovetail these projects, including the redevelopment of the surrounding area at TM, such as the Arena and also the Plot 6 interchange I mentioned.

To say it is all very encouraging is the understatement of the year. Back in 1961, a wet November Tuesday at TM was one of the most depressing experiences I have had on the railway. I really thought we were possibly seeing the end of it all.

 

[D1009]

I suspect the idea is/was for only the new half-hourly service to London via Parkway to terminate in the Digby Wyatt. This will be quicker than the existing route and therefore the prime London service. Trains via Bath would then continue to use the high-numbered platforms.

With the four tracking of Filton bank, putting the Parkway route IEP services into the Digby Wyatt shed would have created unnecessary conflictions with trains to and from the Cardiff and Avonmouth directions which would continue to use the existing tracks. I believe the outcome will be that the Parkway route IEP services will use the middle of the station, with some continuing to Weston super Mare and Taunton.

 

[cle]

Is there scope to develop a more direct walking/cycling route to the city centre from the northern end of the station?

 

[edwin_m]

With the four tracking of Filton bank, putting the Parkway route IEP services into the Digby Wyatt shed would have created unnecessary conflictions with trains to and from the Cardiff and Avonmouth directions which would continue to use the existing tracks. I believe the outcome will be that the Parkway route IEP services will use the middle of the station, with some continuing to Weston super Mare and Taunton.

Good point. But will there be much that will terminate from the Cardiff direction that could be directed into the Digby Wyatt without creating such conflicts? With most local services being through-routed as Metro the only significant one I can think of is the proposed Bristol-Swansea EMU, which is no more than a proposal at present and if it happens might continue to Bath instead of terminating at Bristol. Perhaps this explains why the Digby Wyatt idea seems to have gone a bit quiet?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is there scope to develop a more direct walking/cycling route to the city centre from the northern end of the station?

Except for the discouraging road junctions just outside Temple Meads, it's always struck me as a reasonably quick and easy walk to get to the centre* past the Cathedral and Queen Square.

*by which I mean the Centre not Broadmead!

 

[HowardGWR]

For strangers' benefit Broadmead is the shopping centre and a good mile away, ergo the planned so-called rapid transit to take you there, whereas most entertainment venues are to be found at The Centre (renamed after the River Frome was covered over to create a rather nasty roundabout, now ameliorated by traffic calming). The business district is actually now around the station and along Victoria St / Temple St / Way area that is within walking distance.

If you exit TM down the 'Incline', you can at least cross safely across the appalling dual carriageway under light-controlled pedestrian crossing. Thereafter, as Edwin says, it is easy to the Centre and waymarked by signposts across the pedestrianised (also for cycles) Queens Square. I have in fact walked from further away from the Central Library which is up on College Green to the station in 10 minutes.

I think the Old Station will be used, in a Kings Cross type addition at the side, and I believe the possibilities of trains crossing over in front of each other are so impossible to deal with, without flyovers, that it will be a cross born, with the advantage that a better entrance to the city will be the result. But it needs sorting out, as the electrification scheme will be affected by how the track layout is planned.

 

[transmanche]

Thameslink 2000 and Crossrail are both BR era projects.
It is unsurprising that they have finally managed to get construction underway.

Yes, but nothing came of them in BR days and the plans changed as time went on.

In fact, you could even argue that Crossrail actually predates BR - having its origins in the 1943 County of London Plan.

 

[D1009]

Good point. But will there be much that will terminate from the Cardiff direction that could be directed into the Digby Wyatt without creating such conflicts? With most local services being through-routed as Metro the only significant one I can think of is the proposed Bristol-Swansea EMU, which is no more than a proposal at present and if it happens might continue to Bath instead of terminating at Bristol. Perhaps this explains why the Digby Wyatt idea seems to have gone a bit quiet?

I believe there will always be more conflict at the eastern end of the station than the west end, so it makes sense to plan the services in that way.

 

[Goatboy]

As far as I can find the fastest London-Taunton journey is 1h47

It's 1h40.

http://opentraintimes.com/schedule/P70310/2014-02-18

 

[Zoe]

It's 1h40.

http://opentraintimes.com/schedule/P70310/2014-02-18

That's not much use for a London to Taunton journey though since the train doesn't stop at Taunton.

 

[HSTEd]

You might have some difficulty disembarking from the train at line speed.
And slowing down to stop will increase the journey time by at least a couple of minutes.

 

[swt_passenger]

Perhaps this explains why the Digby Wyatt idea seems to have gone a bit quiet?

Has it gone quiet though?

The details about it in are still there in the recent CP5 enhancements draft - and they definitely refer to the intended work being to provide for 260m 10 car IEP platforms; which seems to me to define their future role to some extent.

The point about crossing moves between Filton bank and the station is well made, but everything I've seen over the years suggests terminating IEPs being parked in these new platforms...

 

[Hartington]

Didn't I read somewhere that there will be three trains an hour from London to Temple Meads? Two to run via Bath and use the existing platforms and one via Parkway and use the new platforms in the old shed I thought.

 

[anthony263]

Didn't I read somewhere that there will be three trains an hour from London to Temple Meads? Two to run via Bath and use the existing platforms and one via Parkway and use the new platforms in the old shed I thought.

Youre right and wong.

It will be 2tph on both routes from Bristol TM with mock up timetable produced by the DFT uploaded to one of the IEP threads on this forum.

 

[HowardGWR]

You're right and wrong.

It will be 2tph on both routes from Bristol TM with mock up timetable produced by the DFT uploaded to one of the IEP threads on this forum.

I've corrected the chinese in the quote! The following supports your point so you are quite correct.

Here is what I dug out from the NR site.

Project reference code: WW024
Output: Station capacity
CP5 output driver
The business objective for the Bristol Temple Meads station capacity review is to understand
current and future capacity constraints. Demand is expected to increase following the
introduction of the Intercity Express Programme (IEP) electric Super Express Train (SET)
services in 2016, and specifically in 2017 when two new fast trains per hour are introduced
from Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington via Bristol Parkway. Increases in local
service provision, as part of the Bristol Metro proposals, will also contribute to this growth.
Scope of works
 Provision on additional access and circulation at Bristol Temple Meads
 Reinstatement of platforms within the Digby Wyatt Shed capable of accommodating
a 260m long 10-car SET.
Significant interfaces
 Electrification
 Intercity Express Programme
 Dr Day’s Junction – Filton Abbey Wood capacity improvements
 Signalling renewals
 Track renewals
 The West of England Local Enterprise Partnership’s Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone
places an increased strategic importance on the station area
 Local transport network
Key assumptions
 Bristol Temple Meads is a combination of Grade 1 & 2 listed buildings; it is assumed
the infrastructure changes required to meet the growth demand will be accepted by
English Heritage, Local Conservation Officers and other key stakeholders following
consultation
 Wider development for the station is being undertaken with external stakeholders and
developed through an area Master Plan
 Removal of Bristol Panel Signalbox in the anticipated timeframe
Activities and milestones
 GRIP 3-4 during CP4 / CP5
 GRIP 5-8 during CP5

It all looks pretty firm to me. The old terminus will be needed and no mistake.

 

[D1009]

Reinstating trains to the Digby Wyatt train shed has not yet started the GRIP process so there are still opportunities to either reduce it or even ditch it. I hope this doesn't happen.

 

[krus_aragon]

Reinstating trains to the Digby Wyatt train shed has not yet started the GRIP process so there are still opportunities to either reduce it or even ditch it. I hope this doesn't happen.

You hope that trains are not reinstated, or that the plans are not reduced/ditched?

 

[D1009]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I would love to see trains restored to the Digby Wyatt shed, even though it would increase the walking time from the rest of the station to the Wetherspoons, but at the moment I don't believe the business case has yet been made for it. The capacity restraint is currently conflicting moves across Bristol East Jn rather than platform capacity in the station itself, and the confliction situation will get worse unless there are fewer through services reversing in the station.

 

[D1009]

You hope that trains are not reinstated, or that the plans are not reduced/ditched?

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I would love to see trains restored to the Digby Wyatt shed, even though it would increase the walking time from the rest of the station to the Wetherspoons in which I am currently sitting, but at the moment I don't believe the business case has yet been made for it. The capacity restraint is currently conflicting moves across Bristol East Jn rather than platform capacity in the station itself, and future plans worsen this unless there are fewer through services reversing in the station.

 

[jimm]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I would love to see trains restored to the Digby Wyatt shed, even though it would increase the walking time from the rest of the station to the Wetherspoons in which I am currently sitting, but at the moment I don't believe the business case has yet been made for it. The capacity restraint is currently conflicting moves across Bristol East Jn rather than platform capacity in the station itself, and future plans worsen this unless there are fewer through services reversing in the station.

Well presumably the people at Network Rail who looked into it are of the belief that there is a business case, presumably based on forecasts of future traffic at Bristol, which would require the maximum number of through platforms available, not blocked by London trains sitting there much of the day, and that there are ways to address the issue of conflicting moves, when the area is resignalled and the track layout updated to take account of reinstatement of quadruple track to Filton.

 

[swt_passenger]

...I don't believe the business case has yet been made for it.

I think you are wrong, and that's why DfT put increasing station capacity in the CP5 HLOS requirements, ORR allow for it in their CP5 review, and NR have it in the enhancement plan.

The Secretary of State wishes the industry to undertake work to expand the capacity of the railway serving passengers to and from Bristol including increasing route capacity into Bristol from Filton Abbey Wood and increasing station capacity at Bristol Temple Meads by bringing back into railway use the historic station building.

You seem (at least to me) to be suggesting that the whole set of Bristol station area improvements have not gone through some sort of business case already, but they are are all interlinked as a package and cross referenced.

 

[HowardGWR]

I must say it would be intriguing to know what the track planners have in mind.

The only trains that reverse in TM are the Portsmouth to Cardiff and Weymouth to Glos ones and the locals from Bath that are extended to Abbey Wood for the MOD people. If they stick to the middle platforms, the conflicts are minimised.

Apart from that there are then just the proposed half hourly (as now) that go to PAD via Bath. They will presumably start and arrive on the east side if coming through from Taunton direction, as some at least will be planned to do.

Those that don't, will of course give a conflict if started from the old station. Two an hour would not prose enormous difficulties,one imagines.

The eastern platforms are not the most pleasant places at the moment. That could change (should change), when the old Post office area is redeveloped.