great western electrification

[Gareth Marston]

This is why I think that electrification to Cardiff and Chester is clever, if the WAG want new powers then they can have the new responsibility of paying for things too.

My home town has a very vociferous "we need a bypass brigade" led by the local (Tory) AM who think jobs and prosperity will magically follow a bypass being built. The towns traffic is at its worse at 0905 and 1545 with mums on the school run and will still be there if a bypass is built. The 3 mile single carriageway scheme has been costed at £69 million. The wires to Swansea is being talked about as being £70 million. I'll happily see the bypass ditched for the Swansea to be wired.

 

[jones_bangor]

My home town has a very vociferous "we need a bypass brigade" led by the local (Tory) AM who think jobs and prosperity will magically follow a bypass being built. The towns traffic is at its worse at 0905 and 1545 with mums on the school run and will still be there if a bypass is built. The 3 mile single carriageway scheme has been costed at £69 million. The wires to Swansea is being talked about as being £70 million. I'll happily see the bypass ditched for the Swansea to be wired.

Get rid of the Newtown traffic lights, that seems to be the cause of most congestion. I'm convinced there's a bunch of traffic planners in some of these rural councils with nothing better to do than to devise complicated traffic "controls" that cause more problems than they solve.

 

[starrymarkb]

Especially considering the fact that the HSTs would run under the wires from Paddington to Newbury. Would make a lot more environmental and economical sense if EDMUs are used instead of the diesel-only HSTs.

I doubt it. Newbury to London is 50 miles - 16% for a Penzance Train. If it doesn't stop at Newbury it would have to change during the Reading stop (unless someone is going to beef up the OHLE to allow 110mph changeovers) that lowers the under wires to 10%. Is it worth Bi-Mode for that?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I doubt it. Newbury to London is 50 miles - 16% for a Penzance Train. If it doesn't stop at Newbury it would have to change during the Reading stop (unless someone is going to beef up the OHLE to allow 110mph changeovers) that lowers the under wires to 10%. Is it worth Bi-Mode for that?

Well i know the short answer..... NO. But ims ure theres a long complicated answer too.

 

[curly42]

Well being as freight is apparently now rerouted via Gloucester to free the paths.......

What freight would that be then? Could you give some examples ?

 

[Mojo]

I'd be surprised if the Severn Tunnel was overcapacity. Most of the day there are only 4 passenger tph each way. Freight services are shown in the RUS as "25 - 48 per day" and the RUS shows the line as operating at under 75% capacity 08.00 - 09.00.

 

[The Planner]

I found it a bit odd, but without looking at the graph I couldn't be 100% on it. I would expect a rather curt email or phone call if offering a train via Gloucester when it could go down the hole.

 

[Woody]

Railnews reports that several key rail including IEP and Thameslink procurement decisions have been postponed until undetermined dates in the New Year, with speculation is growing that the government's rail plans are in tatters.
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/11/24-slipping-deadlines-trigger-speculation-about.html
IEP or not IEP that is the question.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Railnews reports that several key rail including IEP and Thameslink procurement decisions have been postponed until undetermined dates in the New Year, with speculation is growing that the government's rail plans are in tatters.
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/11/24-slipping-deadlines-trigger-speculation-about.html
IEP or not IEP that is the question.

I read that too.... seems to be a right mess. Lets just hope this isnt the start of cancellations or this could end quite badly....

And i think its bi mode or no bi mode that is the question rather than IEP itself

 

[sprinterguy]

Oh for Petes' sake. Can the DfT please grow a pair and just get on with the Thameslink order. I'm starting to wonder if Northern are going to see any additional EMUs in the North West this decade, other than the possibility of the nine 317/7s as a stop gap measure. Although perhaps I shouldn't complain too much, as this is beginning to look a lot like the situation that got West Yorkshire its' 333s: Take on a small number of surplus, past their best EMUs from the NSE area as a stopgap measure because no new stock is forthcoming, and then get a fleet of shiny new trains a few years down the line.

As for IEP, it was commented on in a recent edition of Modern Railways that BR designed, developed and had a prototype train for the HST project built and ready for testing within 22 months of the project being formally aproved. The IEP Project was formally announced sometime in 2005 (Or was it 2007?) I believe, and yet six years down the line we still have nothing tangible to show for it and there still hasn't been a definite decision on what form the new trains will take.

Howay DfT, pull your finger out. :roll:

 

[Nym]

Not please, just spec a new kind of coaching stock and some leccy and diesel locos to haul them, or an EMU and loco that can haul it. Much cheaper!

And such stock already exists, in Germany, zipping up and down their IC network, just order some of them!

 

[Woody]

I read that too.... seems to be a right mess. Lets just hope this isnt the start of cancellations or this could end quite badly....

And i think its bi mode or no bi mode that is the question rather than IEP itself

As you say the Bi-mode case is now looking even more iffy than it was before.If FGW can keep running HSTs to Devon and Cornwall into the 2020s then they can be kept them going elsewhere on FGW as well.Any money available on FGW should initially be spent slinging up as many as many wires as possible on all the main routes with say new electric push /pull locos on the Mk3 sets until money is available for new trains in the future.

 

[Solaris]

This is why I think that electrification to Cardiff and Chester is clever, if the WAG want new powers then they can have the new responsibility of paying for things too.

So its ok for Welsh tax payers to contribute to: WCML Upgrade, Crossrail, HS2, Tram extensions in Manchester, New Street Station, etc..... (about 5% of say £60Bn - so ~£3Bn) but not for English tax payers to chip in for wires to Swansea, Valleys electrification, etc?? (at about say £0.5Bn). Not really a level playing field?

 

[tbtc]

So its ok for Welsh tax payers to contribute to: WCML Upgrade, Crossrail, HS2, Tram extensions in Manchester, New Street Station, etc..... (about 5% of say £60Bn - so ~£3Bn) but not for English tax payers to chip in for wires to Swansea, Valleys electrification, etc?? (at about say £0.5Bn). Not really a level playing field?

The WAG want spending powers. They will get a budget to spend on Welsh infrastructure (paid for out of general taxation from Westminster). Fair enough.

But with power comes responsibility, meaning that Welsh electrification would come from that budget.

If you want the WAG to have powers to decide what gets spent on Welsh infrastructure (which the WAG do) then you have to make the tough decisions on what actually gets money spent on it (instead of blaming "London")

 

[DXMachina]

The economics of a bi mode freight loco would make a bi mode IEP look like a best buy.Its not likely to be viable within the life of any current or proposed loco.

I dont see why that should automatically be the case - Bi-mode locomotives already exist and wouldnt have been in service for nearly 50 years if they weren't useful (OK I read the wiki page and I see they're reckoned to be underpowered. but they've worked..)

Electric propulsion is approx 35% cheaper than untaxed diesel fuel in terms of energy cost,not to mention more efficient in conversion to motion.
If its merely a problem of how to get so much equipment (transformer, pantograph, switchgear) onto a chassis that has to be light as possible, why now just build short-wheelbase pantograph/transformer vehicles with a cab on one end and a power busbar to the converted diesel locomotive it works with? it wouldnt even need extra traction motors.

Then rewrite the track access charge rules to ensure that such a combination pays no more than a diesel unit of equivalent power output.

 

[starrymarkb]

Well being as freight is apparently now rerouted via Gloucester to free the paths.......

What freight would that be then? Could you give some examples ?

He problably means the tanks, ignoring any flamability issues they'd require a reversal at Yate which would stuff up the passenger services if they went through the tunnel. By going around the train runs straight onto the spur.

Northbound freight goes via Gloucester because it's a shorter route...

 

[tom1649]

If dual mode gets the go-ahead I reckon its only a matter of time before the electrification gets cut back to Bristol.
Whatever NR says it will be very expensive to electrify the severn tunnel reliably and electrification wont give significant time savings west of Parkway.

If this happens how on earth is the valley lines network ever supposed to be electrified? This would be very short sighted indeed.

 

[tbtc]

If this happens how on earth is the valley lines network ever supposed to be electrified? This would be very short sighted indeed.

The Valley Lines (by which I mean the services through Queen Street in a normal hour, ignoring Maesteg/ Ebbw Vale which aren't part of this "core") stand alone from the GWML electrification - they are a self contained "metro" that has nothing to do with the "main line".

I don't think that one depends upon the other.

 

[anthony263]

If this happens how on earth is the valley lines network ever supposed to be electrified? This would be very short sighted indeed.

Cardiff - Swansea journey times could be cut by 6-7 minutes if the swanline services were operated by emu's with the high speed trains able to do Swansea - Cardiff in around 49-50 minutes.

Mind you I think a lot of trouble with the hst's doing the route today are the slam doors which regulary hold the train up at Neath or Bridgend

 

[Gareth Marston]

Get rid of the Newtown traffic lights, that seems to be the cause of most congestion. I'm convinced there's a bunch of traffic planners in some of these rural councils with nothing better to do than to devise complicated traffic "controls" that cause more problems than they solve.

Its all an evil plot for wind farm traffic according to the hysterical local anti traffic light lobby. Theres CCTV on the junction and WG say traffic flows is a lot better now than it was 2 years ago - something as someone who lives and works in the town I would agree with.

So why not spend the bypass money on wires to Swansea instead?

 

[tbtc]

why not spend the bypass money on wires to Swansea instead?

Dunno.

But I expect that if they did there'd be complaints about more money being spent on South Wales and rural areas being ignored?

 

[anthony263]

Just read on the FGW coffee shop forum that there is a possibility of the lines to Portbury & Avonmouth also being wired:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5066.735

Now if it is true how about hurrying up and re-opening the bit of line to Portishead.

 

[HSTEd]

Bi-modes on a 16% electrified route may not be the best value at the present time, but once they are bimode you develop a business case to extend electrification based on the fact that you have no capital spend on trains to make use of it.

 

[paul1609]

I dont see why that should automatically be the case - Bi-mode locomotives already exist and wouldnt have been in service for nearly 50 years if they weren't useful (OK I read the wiki page and I see they're reckoned to be underpowered. but they've worked..)

Electric propulsion is approx 35% cheaper than untaxed diesel fuel in terms of energy cost,not to mention more efficient in conversion to motion.
If its merely a problem of how to get so much equipment (transformer, pantograph, switchgear) onto a chassis that has to be light as possible, why now just build short-wheelbase pantograph/transformer vehicles with a cab on one end and a power busbar to the converted diesel locomotive it works with? it wouldnt even need extra traction motors.

Then rewrite the track access charge rules to ensure that such a combination pays no more than a diesel unit of equivalent power output.

I think its one thing to have an electric loco with an auxiliary engine for slow speed ala class 73s and another thing having a loco that has equal capacities on electric as on diesel. If you want a freight loco that is going to work significant distances off the electrified network thats what you need. On passengers diagrams you can give up some power on diesel if you sacrifice top speed thats not really possible on freight workings. Add in the extra fuel consumption of hauling the diesel engine and fuel around on electric and the transformer around on diesel and I dont think its an economic prospect with current technologies.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Bi mode freight - class 66 hauling a 92. i think thats the best solution you will get

 

[Rhydgaled]

Bi-modes on a 16% electrified route may not be the best value at the present time, but once they are bimode you develop a business case to extend electrification based on the fact that you have no capital spend on trains to make use of it.

But if you are using existing diesel trains on the route, you therefore haven't spent capital on bi-modes. So when you put the wires up, you can buy cheaper all-electric trains then instead of bi-modes now. Also, if you had new trains (bi-modes) on a certain route you would probablly want to:

• wire other areas first or
• only partially electrify the route in question or
• electrify the whole of the route in question and buy new electric stock, cascading the bi-modes elsewhere.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Dunno.

But I expect that if they did there'd be complaints about more money being spent on South Wales and rural areas being ignored?

Undoubtedly but wiring the GWML west from Cardiff to Swansea (43 miles double track) linking Wales's 2 largest Citys with some sizeable (for Wales) towns in between is the same cost as 3 miles of single carriageway road around a rural town. On a value for money basis and what each scheme would do for Wales PLC its a no brainer.

 

[Waverley125]

I think NR really needs to aproach this holistically and look at where can be electrified in with the GWM package, as the CBR goes up as soon as it's part of a bigger project where your per-mile overheads come down.

If we look at the South Wales/Bristol area, the opportunity for a 'Severn Estuary Metro' are absolutely huge. Aside from Parkway-Cardiff, I'd be looking to to out to Swansea (removing the need for Bi-mode), and all of the Valley lines. On the Bristol side, the Severn beach & Avonmouth branches, the re-opened Portishead branch, the St Andrews-Filton Abbey Wood line, the re-opened Thornbury branch, and the line out to Weston super Mare.

This would allow some proper all-stop 'metro' services like

Chippenham-Weston super Mare

Portishead-Severn Beach

Avonmouth-Avonmouth via Bristol

Bristol-Cardiff


I also think the same model can be be applied to most 'City Regions' that wil have electrification in the next decade or so, e.g.

Sheffield with the MML

Leeds with the TPML/XCML

 

[tbtc]

Undoubtedly but wiring the GWML west from Cardiff to Swansea (43 miles double track) linking Wales's 2 largest Citys with some sizeable (for Wales) towns in between is the same cost as 3 miles of single carriageway road around a rural town. On a value for money basis and what each scheme would do for Wales PLC its a no brainer.

I agree its a no brainer, but politicians are paranoid about accusations of "bias", hence the projects in quieter areas to pacify those who think that Cardiff gets all the money.

 

[Solaris]

The WAG want spending powers. They will get a budget to spend on Welsh infrastructure (paid for out of general taxation from Westminster). Fair enough.

But with power comes responsibility, meaning that Welsh electrification would come from that budget.

If you want the WAG to have powers to decide what gets spent on Welsh infrastructure (which the WAG do) then you have to make the tough decisions on what actually gets money spent on it (instead of blaming "London")

No problem with making tough decisions or accepting responsibility (happens for all other areas devolved to WG ) - and no predisposition to a "blame London" perspective? Just keen to ensure any funding settlement reflects many years of under investment in Welsh rail infrastrcuture Vs the rest of the UK by DfT and one which aligns with Barnett . Clearly up to WG what it then does with the money.