Great western electrification

[route:oxford]

Whereas, wiring the GWML means doing a lot of track without saving that many diesel services until a *lot* of gaps have been done. For example, if London to Oxford is done, you'll still need DMUs for Hereford. If London to Bristol is done, what about Weston? If London to Swansea is done, what about the Fishguard services? If London to Swindon is done, what about Cheltenham?

Well, it *should* just be Reading to Oxford, assuming that Crossrail is actually built and reaches Reading. This will save running diesel under the wires for Oxford services south of Reading.

But then, for each stage that is built, just building that little bit further to fill in the gaps offers further opportunities.

Oxford to Coventry? That would allow the XC services from Reading to Manchester to operated by electric services. But then, Virgin operate Voyagers fully under the wires without much concern

 

[The Planner]

Can't see Oxford to Cov being high up the list, unless you diverted every XC that way (which XC would given half the chance) you are getting 2 trains an hour under the wires, hardly a good return.

 

[Ivo]

The LSWR's line to Plymouth diverged at Coleford Junction on the Barnstaple line, and headed to Okehampton, and then to Tavistock, joining the Gunnislake branch at Bere Alston. It would make sense to reopen this route because due to global warming causing rising sea levels, the line to Dawlish may end up under water.

However, when the GWML is finally electrified, it would make sense to electrify the Valleys lines around Cardiff, the Severn Beach line in Bristol, the line to Western-Super-Mare (or even Bristol-Exeter in its entirety so Cardiff-Taunton services can be EMU operated), the lines around Exeter (the Tarka line, the Exmouth branch, the Riviera line, and even up the West of England line to Axminster with a passing loop to allow a half-hourly local service there), and possibly the Tamar Valley Line. Although these lines would not be electrified immediately, it would be a disappointment to get off the shiny new electric train at, say, Exeter St Davids, and be confronted with a 150 for your onward journey (although by the time the GWML is electrified the 150s should have been replaced by more modern units following successive rolling stock cascades).

Electrification of the aforementioned lines should be in conjunction with infrastructure and capacity upgrades to encourage a greater modal shift from road to rail. For instance, the Tamar Valley line could be redoubled from St Budeaux Victoria Road to Bere Alston to allow a more frequent service; the proposed extension to Tavistock to serve a new housing development would attract more passengers. Rolling stock would be cascaded 317s or 321s to save money, until new EMUs are ordered.

Trouble is, none of the above will happen because it's too expensive, and it's not likely to happen unless a government is elected which regards public transport as a social necessity rather than a commercial enterprise (and no, I don't mean Labour). I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories cancel electrification of the GWML if it doesn't meet their value-for-money test.

I'm not trying to promote the local area here; this is serious. I would add the route from Bristol to Westbury to that list. And if the afore-mentioned Southampton/Salisbury to Basingstoke lines were electrified as well, I would say the entire line to Southampton. If DafT/FGW/whoever wants more trains an hour to justify the expense, they could introduce a second Bristol-Southampton service (you're probably bored of me suggesting this by now!), and even convert the Waterloo - Bristol route into a stand-alone hourly service using new dual-voltage units. Optimistic, yes; but hey!

 

[starrymarkb]

I know those out west won't agree, but if you approach electrification in terms of "what is the most efficient way of switching diesel powered trains to electric ones" then infill schemes are the way forward...

...if you approach it in terms of "what can we do to share the wires out around the country, so everywhere gets *some* electrification" then you'd wire the GWML. However, I don't think that's efficient (unless you wire *everything*). I appreciate you'll disagree

Another way to look at it is which area has the stock in need of replacing?

The HSTs are getting on for 40 years old, most diesel stock has a life expectancy of 30 years. People are still building sprinterlike diesel units, they are not building 125mph diesels...

As said what do you propose using to replace the HSTs? They can't be life extended forever... AIUI the FGW refurbs/MTUs were done with the expectation of replacements within 10 years - and then only because FGW's plans for replacement in 2005-2006 were blocked

 

[tbtc]

Another way to look at it is which area has the stock in need of replacing?

The HSTs are getting on for 40 years old,

I think that HSTs could last another ten years, but I think that Pacers will struggle badly.

The HSTs are older, but built to last, and not ageing as badly as units that were built a lot more recently

People are still building sprinterlike diesel units, they are not building 125mph diesels...

Apart from the 180s. And the 220s. And 221s. And 222s...

 

[starrymarkb]

Which brings another point - if you were to resurrect all of these out of production designs, where would you cascade them if the GWML does get wired in say 20 years? Would you then wait till that stock is life expired before costing? Also a 8-9 coach Voyager-like unit with all powered vehicles is going to guzzle fuel. 8x19l engines = a total of 152l! With Fuel prices being rather volatile at the moment that might be a rather risky plan

If Northern were to get a batch of 172s upon an future northern wiring they could cascade to replace Sprinters on other unwired local routes elsewhere.

 

[Aictos]

With the above comment on the Voyager class, didn't Bombardier state that they could be converted to run off both the OHL as well as use the diesel engines for the non OHL parts.

Now saying that, I guess it would be possible for a number of the class to be converted to OHL operation by removing the diesel engines, they could then be used on newly electrified routes,

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

There are a number of regular services in "northern" England that run 90% under the wires, but not entirely. For example, London to Chester, Manchester Airport to Glasgow, Morpeth to the Metro Centre.

Electrifying lines in these areas means you can replace a decent number of DMUs with EMUs (considering the small sections of wiring needed).

Hence my logic that doing the Manchester/ Liverpool/ Blackpool "triangle" would save a lot of DMUs, which would then encourage electrification of Bolton - Wigan - Kirby/ Southport etc. Same logic applies to Leeds/ Doncaster to Sheffield via Swinton. Or (once Sheffield - Doncaster is done) Doncaster to Hull. It becomes a self generating process, where each stretch done makes the next stretch more cost effective.

Whereas, wiring the GWML means doing a lot of track without saving that many diesel services until a *lot* of gaps have been done. For example, if London to Oxford is done, you'll still need DMUs for Hereford. If London to Bristol is done, what about Weston? If London to Swansea is done, what about the Fishguard services? If London to Swindon is done, what about Cheltenham?

I know those out west won't agree, but if you approach electrification in terms of "what is the most efficient way of switching diesel powered trains to electric ones" then infill schemes are the way forward...

...if you approach it in terms of "what can we do to share the wires out around the country, so everywhere gets *some* electrification" then you'd wire the GWML. However, I don't think that's efficient (unless you wire *everything*). I appreciate you'll disagree

I see the point you are trying to make, and you do have a point. There have been comments about electrifying Bristol-Birmingham already, at which point it will be necessary to electrify Stonehouse-Swindon as well. Which is problematic if they dont flippin double it first!

Good points though. I do hope that someone does make a commitment to start before GWR200, but I cant see it as likely!

 

[tbtc]

I see the point you are trying to make, and you do have a point. There have been comments about electrifying Bristol-Birmingham already, at which point it will be necessary to electrify Stonehouse-Swindon as well. Which is problematic if they dont flippin double it first!

Good points though. I do hope that someone does make a commitment to start before GWR200, but I cant see it as likely!

Cheers; I'm not trying to turn it into an argument to spend money on where I live rather than the rest of the country, though I appreciate it may look like it - its just I feel we'd be better filling in the gaps elsewhere (e.g. there's a few in the West Midlands like the Walsall area or around Glasgow like Whifflet/ Cumbernauld) than embarking on brand new areas

If Birmingham to Bristol gets done, then that should encourage both the Swindon line you mention and the Gloucester - Newport line (again, assuming GWML wiring), which then encourages other little bits - it could be a self perpetuating program of improvements if done rightly (rather than a slapdash approach. Sadly, with politicians, we're more likely to get a demand that *something* is done in each part of the country

Any electrification is an improvement though, and a step forward

 

[LE Greys]

With the above comment on the Voyager class, didn't Bombardier state that they could be converted to run off both the OHL as well as use the diesel engines for the non OHL parts.

Now saying that, I guess it would be possible for a number of the class to be converted to OHL operation by removing the diesel engines, they could then be used on newly electrified routes,

That's been considered seriously several times, especially considering the core routes involve 200-odd miles of ECML running (more to Glasgow) or 100-odd miles of WCML running. Not sure what voltage the generators put out, but they could order an extra pantograph trailer (helping the capacity constraints as well) and add a bus line along the train. Six-car 221s have run in the past, so I'm sure it's possible now, and five car 220s would be no longer than the current 221s. The engine and generator spaces could house the transformers and rectifiers easily enough. Shoegear on the driving cars might be possible for Basingstoke-Bournemouth, but probably a bit impractical (I'd rather see 125 mph diesel running on Basingstoke-Eastleigh.

 

[90019]

With the above comment on the Voyager class, didn't Bombardier state that they could be converted to run off both the OHL as well as use the diesel engines for the non OHL parts.

Now saying that, I guess it would be possible for a number of the class to be converted to OHL operation by removing the diesel engines, they could then be used on newly electrified routes,

Yes, Voyagers could be run of the wires, because they're DEMUs. You wouldn't need to take out the diesel engines, you can just add a pantograph car, with all the stuff needed to power the traction motors that are already there, then you have to run the cables through the train to get the power to them.

 

[anthony263]

With the above comment on the Voyager class, didn't Bombardier state that they could be converted to run off both the OHL as well as use the diesel engines for the non OHL parts.

Now saying that, I guess it would be possible for a number of the class to be converted to OHL operation by removing the diesel engines, they could then be used on newly electrified routes,

There is something about this in the latest issue of modern railways, where they are conparing the alternatives to IEP

 

[Aictos]

Well all that being said, rather then look at IEP to replace the HST and cascade the 91s elsewhere, why not look at longer Bi Power Voyager Class trains running off the diesel engines when in 3rd rail country or where there is no electrification and use the pantograph in AC country.

Surely it must be cheaper and pass any value for money tests to make the current 220s to 222s bi power and then place a order for more of them then it is to sit at the drawing board and design a completely new train again only to possibly see it go no further then as a prototype ie APT anyone?

 

[Drsatan]

I'm not trying to promote the local area here; this is serious. I would add the route from Bristol to Westbury to that list. And if the afore-mentioned Southampton/Salisbury to Basingstoke lines were electrified as well, I would say the entire line to Southampton. If DafT/FGW/whoever wants more trains an hour to justify the expense, they could introduce a second Bristol-Southampton service (you're probably bored of me suggesting this by now!), and even convert the Waterloo - Bristol route into a stand-alone hourly service using new dual-voltage units. Optimistic, yes; but hey!

As tbtc has already suggested, electrification of these lines would be a self-perpetuating process. Again, I'm biased since I've spent all my life living on the former Southern Region, but electrification of the Wessex Main Line (which, because it's technically not an intercity route even though it serves several large conurbations) would naturally dovetail with electrification of the GWML since Cardiff-Portsmouth trains would have to use the electrified GWML from Bristol TM (and eventually Cardiff when electrification's extended there) to Bath. Not to mention the Westbury loop would have to be electrified so Paddington - West Country services can call there. Since at least part of the line would be electrified, why not electrify the whole line (including Romsey-Eastleigh so the Romsey-Eastleigh-Southampton Central-Romsey-Salisbury services could go to electric operation) and cascade the 150s/153s/158s used elsewhere?

Electrification would present an opportunity to improve services on the WML by reopening platform 4 at Westbury and running an all stations Bristol Parkway-Westbury service, meaning that Cardiff-Portsmouth services can be sped up. The existence of an electrified GWML would be a great incentive to electrify the line from Trowbridge via Melksham to Chippenham and run an hourly service from Swindon to Westbury as opposed to the two trains a day that Melksham recieves at the moment.

I believe NSE wanted to electrify Redbridge Junction - Salisbury so the Thumpers used on local services could be withdrawn but the plan was scrapped. It would be interesting to see whether 444s/450s could be converted to dual voltage operation to allow electric services to Salisbury.

 

[LE Greys]

Perhaps also fill in Salisbury-Worting Jcn and increase the number of Salisbury-London services (say one hourly semi-fast as well as the hourly through train to Exeter). Put in an order for some extra 444s (I don't like them, but it would maintain standardisation). Play around with stock allocation (allowing SWT to get rid of the 458s, but that's by the way) to put some of these electrics on the Waterloo-Bristol services. The only diesels in Waterloo would then be the ones going to Exeter and a few diversions.

 

[The Planner]

Im intrigued by all these suggestions about what should be juiced up, there are solid ideas and some that are plainly barking mad. The lines that will be done are the ones with the highest passenger loads and frequencies, the infill and connections will be a looooooooong way after that. I would be amazed to see it ever reaching out into the sticks like some of the earlier suggestions, you wont ever eradicate diesel under the wires.

 

[Moog_1984]

Wiring up Manchester - Liverpool seems pointless to me without doing Manchester - Leeds - York/Hull. Manchester - Blackpool just seems pointless full stop.

I'd go with Midland Mainline in all its branches followed by South and West Yorkshire suburban bits to form a basis for Trans-Pennine wiring.

Connecting Scouse and Manc with wires makes good sense given the distance and the size of population and jobs etc in the area.

Compare it to Ayr- Glasgow about 15 miles of extra wires to help keep a safe tory seat in the 80s. Population 50, 000 odd.

 

[Kneedown]

If you were to electrify the MML first as per your plan, where does the stock come from, and what do you do with the surplus Cl319s

The HST's NEED replacing in a few years time, they're simply clapped out despite new engines. They've been excellent, but the time is nigh for them to retire. What do all the Frenchies and Germans etc, who arrive at St Pancras off a nice modern Eurostar, think when the first thing they see are smelly, noisy, leaky diesels?

Where does the stock come from? Simple, 91's and Mk 4's displaced from the ECML by IEP or it's alternative, replacing the HST's, and 222's converted to AC power which Bombardier are planning.
Studies have shown that the cost benefits of electrifying the MML are infinite, and indeed that not to do so would be more expensive, so it would be economic madness to delay it further.

 

[43021HST]

The HST's NEED replacing in a few years time, they're simply clapped out despite new engines. They've been excellent, but the time is nigh for them to retire. What do all the Frenchies and Germans etc, who arrive at St Pancras off a nice modern Eurostar, think when the first thing they see are smelly, noisy, leaky diesels?

Where does the stock come from? Simple, 91's and Mk 4's displaced from the ECML by IEP or it's alternative, replacing the HST's, and 222's converted to AC power which Bombardier are planning.
Studies have shown that the cost benefits of electrifying the MML are infinite, and indeed that not to do so would be more expensive, so it would be economic madness to delay it further.

HSTs DO NOT NEED REPLACING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you actually traveled on one, they do not smell and the MK3s are the most comfortable and luxorious coach on the network rail system, much better then voyagers. There is many more years still in them. Why most we electrify every thing all the time, we are only demanding more juice from our rapidly decreasing energy sources.

 

[90019]

and the MK3s are the most comfortable and luxorious coach on the network rail system

I have to disagree with that.
I find them uncomfortable and draughty, and the ride quality compared to Voyagers is cr*p.

Just because you love them, doesn't make them amazing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why most we electrify every thing all the time, we are only demanding more juice from our rapidly decreasing energy sources.

I see.
So, using electricity, which can be generated from many different sources, is unsustainable, but burning oil - that well known infinite resource, obviously - isn't?

You can't be living in the real world if you genuinely think that's true.

 

[LE Greys]

HSTs DO NOT NEED REPLACING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you actually traveled on one, they do not smell and the MK3s are the most comfortable and luxorious coach on the network rail system, much better then voyagers. There is many more years still in them. Why most we electrify every thing all the time, we are only demanding more juice from our rapidly decreasing energy sources.

MkIIIs were the most comfortable and luxurious coach until seating rearrangement ruined them. I liked IC70 seats and especially liked the open table settings, where most seats lined up with the windows. GNER retained that with the Mallard sets, but FGW crammed everything into an airline-style toastrack which makes it hard to see out and gives you virtually no space. The 125 Group are going to have a nightmare converting it all back again.

Then there's the corrosion problem. MkIII bodies tend to rust badly, and this needs sorting on a regular basis. Not sure about MkIVs, but the later aluminium-bodied stock is corrosion-proof.

Energy sources? We already have nuclear power, and will have more in a decade or so. In 20-50 years, we will have fusion power (deuterium from the sea, tritium from lithium bred at the reactor). Running the country on seawater and old batteries . . .

 

[43021HST]

I have to disagree with that.
I find them uncomfortable and draughty, and the ride quality compared to Voyagers is cr*p.

Just because you love them, doesn't make them amazing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I see.
So, using electricity, which can be generated from many different sources, is unsustainable, but burning oil - that well known infinite resource, obviously - isn't?

You can't be living in the real world if you genuinely think that's true.

After sitting in a voyager in first class I found it extremely uncomfortable espicially as the engine was shaking the coach to pieces. Reguarding rrenewable energy the government hasnt actually adopted mass renewable energy sources and I wonder how long it will hold that desision off for.

 

[starrymarkb]

The Grammer Seats in the FGW sets are much more comfortable then the old IC70s -legroom is good and I can rest my head for a start!

Cross Country have a similar layout in their HSTs but with the Mallard seating

 

[Drsatan]

One of the main advantages of an HST over a 220/221 is that there's no underfloor engine noise which at times can be rather intrusive. The air conditioning on Voyagers emanates an unpleasant smell which I thought had been fixed, but I went on a 221 from Exeter to Taunton last month and the air inside still smelt a bit odd.

I find the IC70 seats much more comfortable since they provide greater support and have thicker cushions; the Grammer seats now fitted to FGW's HSTs have hard cushions and don't provide much support. I'm not a big fan of FGW's refurbished HSTs since FGW seem to have prioritized capacity over passenger comfort.

 

[Kneedown]

HSTs DO NOT NEED REPLACING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you actually traveled on one,

Errrrrrrm..... I actually drive them, will that do?

they do not smell

They do, and the fumes they put out are less than healthy.

and the MK3s are the most comfortable and luxorious coach on the network rail system, much better then voyagers

I'm not disagreeing with that, but it's not the coaches that are wearing out, it's the power cars. Don't forget also that over time structural integrity may weaken.

There is many more years still in them. Why most we electrify every thing all the time, we are only demanding more juice from our rapidly decreasing energy sources.

You must face reality, they are at the end of their time. We must electrify because it is the only way forward. I don't hold with all this global warming bo****ks, but it makes sense to reduce pollution wherever possible.
As regards the rapidly decreasing energy sources, thats exactly why we must electrify. Diesels use a heck of a lot more of those resources whereas the new nuclear power stations that will come online will take care of all the extra electricity.

 

[43021HST]

Errrrrrrm..... I actually drive them, will that do?






They do, and the fumes they put out are less than healthy.




I'm not disagreeing with that, but it's not the coaches that are wearing out, it's the power cars. Don't forget also that over time structural integrity may weaken.


You must face reality, they are at the end of their time. We must electrify because it is the only way forward. I don't hold with all this global warming bo****ks, but it makes sense to reduce pollution wherever possible.
As regards the rapidly decreasing energy sources, thats exactly why we must electrify. Diesels use a heck of a lot more of those resources whereas the new nuclear power stations that will come online will take care of all the extra electricity.

Reguarding the electrification we dont want to end up like france where the mainlines are brilliant but the smaller branchlines and local lines lack investment because the emphises is on the mainlines.

 

[starrymarkb]

With France its rather TGV gets investment - everything on the classic lines can wither

 

[j0hn0]

With France its rather TGV gets investment - everything on the classic lines can wither

why does everyone say this?

It completely depends on where you travel in the country.

Look at yorkshire in england, you can have the joy of a pacer over nailed together track to sheffield, or a nice new 333 (i think) electrified up to skipton.

So from the same station, you can either ride on a bag o ****e, or a nice shiny electric train.

The same is applicable in France and it is also worth checking the population densities in France to see if it is actually WORTH investing in the classic network from a cost-benefit ratio (you know, how we english love to gauge the validity of projects)

I personally think that Belgium has the worst trains I've ever seen, but they are mostly electric though

 

[43021HST]

Look at yorkshire in england, you can have the joy of a pacer over nailed together track to sheffield, or a nice new 333 (i think) electrified up to skipton.

Oh so close its 222

 

[Oswyntail]

Oh so close its 222

I'm sure that probably means something, but the class referred to is indeed 333. And very nice they are too, so hands off.