• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
One question I do have regarding the Newbury electrification is why is it not going as far as Bedwyn and just Newbury - Is it the plan to cut back the Bedwyn terminators to Newbury or as I suspect use DMUs on these Bedwyn terminators?

If the case is the latter then it's a poor decision, would have thought it would have been more economic to just run EMUs between Paddington and Bedwyn and extend the current Newbury terminators to Bedwyn instead?

Rather then use DMUs for the Paddington to Bedwyn or even Reading to Bedwyn shuttles, would mean not having to use these bi-fuel IEPs as well :)

Meaning more money saved in the long run......
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
One question I do have regarding the Newbury electrification is why is it not going as far as Bedwyn and just Newbury - Is it the plan to cut back the Bedwyn terminators to Newbury or as I suspect use DMUs on these Bedwyn terminators?
There is a plan for a semi-fast service from Paddington to Exeter on the Berks and Hants. There are not many details on this right now but if it did call at all stations from Newbury to Westbury then it would remove the need for a separate Bedwyn service. The other service to Newbury is an hourly all stations shuttle from Reading. I doubt Bedwyn justifies two trains per hour so there would be little benefit in electrifying to Bedwyn so this could be extended.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
There is a plan for a semi-fast service from Paddington to Exeter on the Berks and Hants. There are not many details on this right now but if it did call at all stations from Newbury to Westbury then it would remove the need for a separate Bedwyn service.

Yes but would the capacity be there for a extra semi fast service especially if you consider the needs of the local services, High Speed services and the various Freight services?

The end result of electrifying as far as Bedwyn is allowing the Paddington to Newbury/Bedwyn to become fully EMU operated without needing to introduce new services.

Surely it would be just as easier to extend the existing Newbury terminators to Bedwyn and make a few of these semi fast services instead?
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Yes but would the capacity be there for a extra semi fast service especially if you consider the needs of the local services, High Speed services and the various Freight services?

The end result of electrifying as far as Bedwyn is allowing the Paddington to Newbury/Bedwyn to become fully EMU operated without needing to introduce new services.

Surely it would be just as easier to extend the existing Newbury terminators to Bedwyn and make a few of these semi fast services instead?
Well if the semi-fast Exeter service called at all stations from Newbury to Westbury then there wouldn't need to be a separate Paddington to Bedwyn DMU service so it wouldn't be an extra service. Most of the services that reverse at Newbury also only run from Reading and not Paddington so there would be little benefit in extending these to Bedwyn as stations west of Newbury would lose a direct service to London.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Well if the semi-fast Exeter service called at all stations from Newbury to Westbury then there wouldn't need to be a separate Paddington to Bedwyn DMU service so it wouldn't be an extra service. Most of the services that reverse at Newbury also only run from Reading and not Paddington so there would be little benefit in extending these to Bedwyn as stations west of Newbury would lose a direct service to London.

But there's plenty of good connections to London from Reading anyway or there was last time I looked.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
But there's plenty of good connections to London from Reading anyway or there was last time I looked.
Pewsey still needs a service though and one idea of running a semi-fast service is so that Plymouth/Penzance services would no longer have to stop there. If you use bi-mode IEP for this then it can take advantage of the wires as far as Newbury and also provide the stations between Newbury and Westbury with a semi-fast service to London.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,008
Going to Bedwyn wouldn't displace any more DMUs due to the semi-fast Exeter plan. I personally think it's a bit of a catch-all service.

People from Pewsey, Castle Cary and Westbury will have hideous journey times to London, and be sharing it with Kennet commuters.

If there were demand - I'd have a:
London - Westbury serving Reading, Newbury and stations to Westbury.
London - Taunton/Exeter semi - Reading, Newbury, Pewsey and stations...
EMU Newbury - London also, or Newbury - Reading shuttle as apt.

and then the fast trains not stopping between Reading and at least Taunton.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
Well if the semi-fast Exeter service called at all stations from Newbury to Westbury then there wouldn't need to be a separate Paddington to Bedwyn DMU service so it wouldn't be an extra service. Most of the services that reverse at Newbury also only run from Reading and not Paddington so there would be little benefit in extending these to Bedwyn as stations west of Newbury would lose a direct service to London.

As you rightly suggest the service patterns on the Newbury route can and probably will be signifcantly different following electrifcation and IEP.

One of the neglected features of the Reading rebuild is that there will be a straightforward through route from the relief lines to the Newbury direction, so there's no reason why a Paddington to Newbury EMU service won't be the normal situation.

The GWML RUS has a fair bit to say on this area of operations. I'd assume that the timetable will be a lot different to today, so there's little point in trying to map current services to the wiring limits...
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
Pewsey still needs a service though and one idea of running a semi-fast service is so that Plymouth/Penzance services would no longer have to stop there. If you use bi-mode IEP for this then it can take advantage of the wires as far as Newbury and also provide the stations between Newbury and Westbury with a semi-fast service to London.

What are the 180s supposed to be doing when they, supposedly, move to FGW? The Cotswolds line seems to be where alot of the fourm-go-ers seem to think, so when bi-modes (either IEP or as I would have it 220s) take that over could the 180s do the Paddington-Taunton/Exeter semi-fast?

How many IEP bi-modes would be needed just for the Cotswolds and the new Paddington-Taunton/Exeter semi-fast service you are talking about? Would it be a viable quantity for an order. East Coast don't need their 35 (less than 10 services a day off-wire does not require 35 diesel trains, even if you run them as 10-car rakes (and if you are doing that, why have 5-car sets in the first place unless you are going to drop 5 coaches at the extremities, in which case there is absoulutly no reason those 5 coaches cannot be an EMU)). Bi-mode only really seems to make sence on Great Western, and then only for the Cotswolds line (I suppose at a push bi-modes on this Paddington-Taunton/Exeter semi-fast and perhaps the Paddington - Cheltenham service might be approaching acceptable (though it'd be much better to use existing Voyagers than to build yet more diesels)).
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
when bi-modes (either IEP or as I would have it 220s) take that over could the 180s do the Paddington-Taunton/Exeter semi-fast?
Bi-mode IEP would be better for that service as it could take advantage of the electrification from Paddington to Newbury. If you use 180s then you are going to be running diesels under the wires for 50 miles.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
How many IEP bi-modes would be needed just for the Cotswolds and the new Paddington-Taunton/Exeter semi-fast service you are talking about? Would it be a viable quantity for an order.

It isn't an idea Zoe has just come up with though, using IEP on a semifast down the B&H is already in the RUS. For all anyone here knows bi-mode use on this service might already be included in the numbers ordered.

The 180s might be only a short term stop gap. I don't expect them to be with FGW at the end of the decade...
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
East Coast don't need their 35 (less than 10 services a day off-wire does not require 35 diesel trains, even if you run them as 10-car rakes

I presumed that the ECML figures were for the whole of the ECML, not just the East Coast TOC, meaning that the units would be used for London - Hull/ Sunderland etc (currently part of HT/ GC)
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
East Coast don't need their 35 (less than 10 services a day off-wire does not require 35 diesel trains, even if you run them as 10-car rakes.

It does if you're building an HST replacement which means you need enough units to cover 47 services per day. In fact the numbers work out quite nicely, if we have 35 Bi-mode units that means we have essentially 17.5 10-car sets. Assuming a few every day are down for maintenance and a few more are hot standbys, we could assume maybe 30 units are available everyday which would allow 15 10-car sets which is almost identical to the number of HSTs that EC presently have (14) and is actually more seeing as not all of those are probably available at the same time. This means that there is either some more slack being built into the ICEC fleet (which would be a good thing in my opinion) or it gives flexibility to split services north of Edinburgh down to 5-car units.

So to my mind the IEP order for ICEC has always worked numerically, it's just never really worked in terms of making sense (why not order some 8 or 9 car EMU versions to cover the HST diagrams that are completely underneath the wires for instance?).
 

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
Location
Bath (or Southend)
There is one thing I don't quite get with the B&H plan.

If Newbury would only receive one EMU service per hour, what is the economic benefit in electrifying there? Would the longer distance IEPs not need to stop to change to diesel power, and if yes then why couldn't they do so at Reading? Or is there something I'm missing in all of this, e.g. a plan for 2tph starting from Newbury or change of mode being possible at speed?

(An honest question, by the way.)
 
Joined
2 Jun 2009
Messages
1,135
Location
North London
There is one thing I don't quite get with the B&H plan.

If Newbury would only receive one EMU service per hour, what is the economic benefit in electrifying there? Would the longer distance IEPs not need to stop to change to diesel power, and if yes then why couldn't they do so at Reading? Or is there something I'm missing in all of this, e.g. a plan for 2tph starting from Newbury or change of mode being possible at speed?

(An honest question, by the way.)

Snap !

As a periodic user of the Berks & Hants line, I've wondered this too.
 

imagination

Member
Joined
3 Aug 2010
Messages
485
Though I don't know the reasons, one possibility is that by electrifying Reading-Newbury they are able to cut back the turbo use to just the branch lines between London and Reading (and the North Downs line if they'd still be used there).
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
There is one thing I don't quite get with the B&H plan.

If Newbury would only receive one EMU service per hour, what is the economic benefit in electrifying there? Would the longer distance IEPs not need to stop to change to diesel power, and if yes then why couldn't they do so at Reading? Or is there something I'm missing in all of this, e.g. a plan for 2tph starting from Newbury or change of mode being possible at speed?

(An honest question, by the way.)

As well as the proposals in the GWML RUS, the later London and SE RUS now mentions a 6 tph EMU service from Paddington to Oxford/Newbury. Let's assume that is balanced 4/2 tph Oxford/Newbury, but it could be 3/3.

Now what isn't obvious is if there will still be Newbury - Reading all stations stoppers as well; but they ought to be EMU anyway. I think there are enough indications of a much more frequent service to Newbury than now.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,008
I think that the extra fast services to Reading (taking over Heathrow Express) will run 2tph to Oxford and 2tph to Newbury.

Let's also assume today's 2tph fast to Oxford (and Cotswolds) stay on.

I'd imagine different stopping patterns. For Newbury - one all stations as per today's DMU, one with Theale and Thatcham only. These could then be cut from the longer-distance semi-fast.

One question - will these IEPs be able to switch power on the move? So if not stopping at Newbury, could they fire up the engine at around the Racecourse, and then switch onto it before the wires end? Doubtful but you never know.

Would also expect (and hope) Cotswold services would use the wires until Oxford. Same with Cheltenham services and Swindon.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
One question - will these IEPs be able to switch power on the move?

It was an 'essential requirement' in the ITT technical specification, so they ought to, or DfT have been ripped off again... :roll:
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
It isn't an idea Zoe has just come up with though, using IEP on a semifast down the B&H is already in the RUS. For all anyone here knows bi-mode use on this service might already be included in the numbers ordered.
I knew the idea of the semi-fast to Exeter had to have come from somewhere 'official', because I've heard it mentioned a number of times. Didn't know it was in the RUS though, thanks. Anyway, I know the service is probablly included in number of bi-modes being ordered, what I was asking specifically was "how many bi-modes would be needed if the only services operated by IEP bi-mode were the Costswolds ones and the semifast down the B&H" (ie. if Swansea and Cheltenham were electrified, how many fewer bi-modes would be needed and would that quantity be viable, otherwise you might need to use my 180 suggestion).

I presumed that the ECML figures were for the whole of the ECML, not just the East Coast TOC, meaning that the units would be used for London - Hull/ Sunderland etc (currently part of HT/ GC)
Interesting idea. I personally doubt that, I expect the open access operators would probablly have to order some of their own, I doubt the government would subsidise stock for open access.

It does if you're building an HST replacement which means you need enough units to cover 47 services per day. In fact the numbers work out quite nicely, if we have 35 Bi-mode units that means we have essentially 17.5 10-car sets. Assuming a few every day are down for maintenance and a few more are hot standbys, we could assume maybe 30 units are available everyday which would allow 15 10-car sets which is almost identical to the number of HSTs that EC presently have (14) and is actually more seeing as not all of those are probably available at the same time. This means that there is either some more slack being built into the ICEC fleet (which would be a good thing in my opinion) or it gives flexibility to split services north of Edinburgh down to 5-car units.
But, as I said above, why build them 5-car unless you are going to split services down to 5-car, and if you are doing that 5 coaches can be an EMU with the 5 that go on being bi-mode. Plus, as you say, a number of IC125 diagrams are under the wires all the time anyway, so they can be EMU too. 11 9-car trains (including spares) probablly would cover all the off-wires services, and the number of class 67s you'd need to handle East Coast's off-wire services as drags would be pretty small.

It was an 'essential requirement' in the ITT technical specification, so they ought to, or DfT have been ripped off again... :roll:
Doesn't look like they need to do that though, as I'll explain in a sec.

There is one thing I don't quite get with the B&H plan.

If Newbury would only receive one EMU service per hour, what is the economic benefit in electrifying there? Would the longer distance IEPs not need to stop to change to diesel power, and if yes then why couldn't they do so at Reading? Or is there something I'm missing in all of this, e.g. a plan for 2tph starting from Newbury or change of mode being possible at speed?

(An honest question, by the way.)
I thought everyone was saying there's an hourly Paddington/Reading - Newbury stopper already, and there's the Paddington - Exeter/Taunton semi-fast proposal. That's two trains per hour, and I take it the semi-fast, assuming it is a bi-mode as DaFT currently plan, would call at Newbury to change power supply (hence you don't need to change mode at speed).

I really hope that when DfT announced that PAD - Plymouth/Penzance services would remain IC125 operated that they meant ALL such services. That should save a tidy sum on gauge clearance for IEP's 26m long vehicles to get the wires out to Swansea. Gauge clearance is also one reason why I suggested 180s on the Exeter semi-fast, as that saves guage clearance of the Reading - Westbury - Taunton route too, perhaps raising money for Cheltenham electrification to finish off any need for bi-modes beyond conversions of 22x units.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Interesting idea. I personally doubt that, I expect the open access operators would probablly have to order some of their own, I doubt the government would subsidise stock for open access

The Open Access companies only have their "slots" for a finite time period - there's no guarantee that there will still be space for them by the time IEP is up and running.

They have no "divine right" to keep their current services, I suppose
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,518
Location
South Wales
According to reports on WNXX and from Mr Roger Ford it looks like we could be hearing some further annoucements on electrification specially it seems that the Bi-mode IEP looks like it could be getting scrapped.

Not too surprising if it happens especially since the industry have been looking at cheaper alternatives and if the wires do go to Swansea & Cheltenham etc it will kill off the bi-mode IEP especially if the suggestion in scotland of withdrawing the through trains between London Kings cross and Inverness/Aberdeen happens.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
According to reports on WNXX and from Mr Roger Ford it looks like we could be hearing some further annoucements on electrification specially it seems that the Bi-mode IEP looks like it could be getting scrapped.

Not too surprising if it happens especially since the industry have been looking at cheaper alternatives and if the wires do go to Swansea & Cheltenham etc it will kill off the bi-mode IEP especially if the suggestion in scotland of withdrawing the through trains between London Kings cross and Inverness/Aberdeen happens.

Would love this to be true but i think the government have taken it too far to scrap it now. Are we talking scrapping bi-mode or IEP altogether?
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,518
Location
South Wales
Would love this to be true but i think the government have taken it too far to scrap it now. Are we talking scrapping bi-mode or IEP altogether?

The Bi-mode It seems. Hopefully there will be wiring to Swansea & Cheltenham like there should have been in the beggining
 

LexyBoy

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
4,478
Location
North of the rivers
The Bi-mode It seems. Hopefully there will be wiring to Swansea & Cheltenham like there should have been in the beggining

You're going disappoint a lot of people on here if this doesn't happen!

(Or if it's scrapped because of the electrification project being dropped...)

*crosses fingers*
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
The Bi-mode It seems. Hopefully there will be wiring to Swansea & Cheltenham like there should have been in the beggining

I'm not so sure, Roger Ford just says:

Roger Ford said:
But the latest news is that that the business case for IEP on the Great Western is so thin that £40 million on stabling costs threatens to sink it.

He doesn't mention the Bi-mode specifically just IEP on the GWML.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,331
I'm not so sure, Roger Ford just says:



He doesn't mention the Bi-mode specifically just IEP on the GWML.

Isn't the cost of procuring the diesel engines about £40m? If the business case is that flimsy then surely thats good reason to think it could be repackaged with different elements included and then become viable.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,008
I wonder if they're seeing the full benefits - such as the ability to run the Swanline as an EMU, and wiring up to Maesteg - less on the Valleys projects.

Not to mention longer term fuel costs.

Would be amazing if the Cheltenham line went from having single track sections to being doubled and wired. That Cotlswolds section would still be pretty slow though!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Bi-mode IEP being dropped puts Hull in a difficult posistion, especially if Scotland gets its insane way with the cross border services.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top