great western electrification

[YorkshireBear]

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

I have always thought sheffield should try make more of its rail links for coummuters in a kind of X shape.

Agree with what could be done to bristol and cardiff, but it all depends on money doesnt it, and is there enough stock. Ideally i think we'd all electrify pretty much all main lines and commuter belts...

 

[Ivo]

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

Thornbury might be a bit optimistic but otherwise I agree completely. Might I link back to my Dream thread last month about this?

 

[Rhydgaled]

IEP or not IEP that is the question.

I think to stop IEP now would be a very bad move, it has gone on too long already and if Hitachi lost the contract after being declared prefered bidder they would probablly try something. The MP for the area that will have the new assembly plant wouldn't be too pleased either. No, to ditch bi-mode or not to ditch bi-mode, that is the question (I think).

My home town has a very vociferous "we need a bypass brigade" led by the local (Tory) AM 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.

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.

There are a couple of bypass schemes proposed in Carmarthenshire/Pembrokeshire too. One is Llanddewi Velfrey on the A40, the other is really a re-routing of several miles of the A477 between St. Clears and Red Roses). Give the villages in question a much cheaper 30mph speed limit and pelican/puffin crossing and put the remainder of bypass funds into electrification. Politically speaking, in the case of the A477 scheme you might be able to get out of the problem tbtc speaks of. That is of course the main road to Tenby/Pembroke from the east, and the Pembroke & Tenby railway's direct London services can probablly not be operated by IEP, bi-mode or otherwise because of the tight Narberth tunnel. As I said above, I think IEP itself (prefrablly without bi-mode) has to happen now, so we are not going to get a new order of C3 loading guage 125mph rolling stock (apart from maybe Pendolinos, but they would be firmly for ICWC). Therefore, if Pembroke & Tenby are to retain London services, existing 125mph stock will be needed. Like it or not, the only such stock which is electric is the Intercity 225s on East Coast, and the difficulties of swapping the loco for a diesel mean you need somewhere with a long dwell time to do the swap. Swansea is just the ticket, with Landore then being perfectly suituated to be the depot for class 91s. Of course for that to work the wires need to reach Swansea, no wires no Swansea = no Pembroke Coast Express after electrification to Cardiff.

Therefore, St. Clears - Red Roses bypass being scrapped to electrify to Swansea would save that region's direct London services.

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.

Why bother with new electric locos and DVTs on mark 3 sets anyway, unless you are trying to minimise the amount of new stock to buy. Otherwise, you could just replace the Intercity 225s on East Coast with electric IEPs and hay-presto you have push-pull sets for Great Western.

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.

WAG may want the powers, but right now they don't have them, and they don't get a budget to spend on Welsh rail infrastructure from Westminster at the moment either. Which is why London should pay for ValleyLines & Swansea electrification. That also means the bypasses don't need to be scrapped (I still think they should be though, with the money put into linespeed improvments or waiting rooms for interchange stations).

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.

I thought there was a big transformer or substation or something which would be put in for GWML to Cardiff, which could then also be used for the valleys wiring. If you don't have GWML wires, the Valleys project then has to have the cost of this box of electricity included.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I think to stop IEP now would be a very bad move, it has gone on too long already and if Hitachi lost the contract after being declared prefered bidder they would probablly try something. The MP for the area that will have the new assembly plant wouldn't be too pleased either. No, to ditch bi-mode or not to ditch bi-mode, that is the question (I think).

I said exactly the same thing on another thread so i agree with you fully

It would appear the case for BI mode is dodgy but for all electric IEP is still good. And so it should be.

 

[TheWalrus]

now we have a 66 bus every halfhour which is also full and standing at times. in january 2012 the single deckers are to be replaced by double deckers ,so there is demand on this corridor.

Which will be a stagecoach gold route i might add.

 

[anthony263]

I said exactly the same thing on another thread so i agree with you fully

It would appear the case for BI mode is dodgy but for all electric IEP is still good. And so it should be.

I must agree with you.

With all the talk of further electrification (Some are expecting the annoucement that the midland mainline is next for wiring with the classs 222's being used with a panto car instead of ordering Bi-mode IEP's)

I am expecting to see the bi-mode IEP scrapped with more electric sets ordered with hopefully the line to Swansea & Cheltenham wired.

 

[Martin222002]

With all the talk of further electrification (Some are expecting the annoucement that the midland mainline is next for wiring with the classs 222's being used with a panto car instead of ordering Bi-mode IEP's)

I have been thinking the same thing.

If these proposed investments in the railway infrastructure includes the wiring of the MML and extending the wires all the way to Swansea, it would mean that only the electric IEP trains would need to be ordered, with the 222s having pantograph cars added so they could operate as bi-modes (and add additional capacity on them) and would opperate the services north of Edinburgh on the ECML and services to Worcester, Great Malvern, Hereford and Cheltenham (if the wires aren't extended that far) off the GWML.

The 222/0s would be put back into there original formations, making 7 9 cars, 11 cars with 2 pantograph coaches, and 16 4 cars, 5 cars with 1 pantograph coach, and the 222/1s staying in there 4 car formations, 5 cars with 1 pantograph coach.

The 7 11 car 222/0s (222001-222007) could then be sent to the ECML to operate the services north of Edinburgh, and any other additional services off the wires of the ECML, with a smaller amount of electric IEP set covering the replacement of the rest of the ECML HST replacement and creating additional capacity on the ECML.

The 16 5 car 222/0s (222008-222023) and 4 222/1s (222101-222104), making a total of 20 sets, could then be sent to the GWML to work the services off the wires to Worcester, Great Malvern, Hereford and Cheltenham (if the wires aren't extended that far) working in double sets in the peak, with a fleet of life extended HSTs for the services down to Plymouth and Cornwall, and IEP electric sets covering the electrified GWML.

This would mean that money could be saved by not having to order the bi-mode IEP sets, and the requirement to buy or modify diesel loco's for dragging EMUs/electric IEPs off the wires, and would also allow time for the wires to be extended north of Edinburgh, down to Cornwall, and towards Worcester and Hereford (eventually), by which time the 222s and life extended HSTs will need replacing.

 

[Nym]

Martin, don't forget all of the 221 units with ICWC that will be released by a sensible order of CCHS stock for HS2, thats all of their Diesel Units really...

Brum - Scotland gets turned over to 9 car 390 units, with one carrage re-fitted as standard giving 6S3F.

Euston - Chester - N Wales runs via HS2 and Rugley on to Crewe where a Locomotive designed to work with the CCHS and CAHS Stock will attach, front of rear, and pull/push the EMU to Holyhead, it will be compatable as a DVT with the unit, so will not need to run around at HHD or CRE.

MIA - Scotland will proberbly end up turned over to Class 390 units as well, freeing up the 350/380 units from that route in 2025.

So come 2025 we'll have another 21 spare DEMUs that can be converted (or may already have been converted) to EDMU operation that can be used to retire HSTs from all routes.

The 22x series will be life expired around 2045/2050 if the're looked after properly, 2035 if the're not...

By 2035, HS2b will have been completed, this will have freed up some of the Classic Compatable stock from the Euston - Manchester and Euston - Leeds runs...

12 from Manchester and 8 from Leeds if my back of the fag packet diagraming is correct, now, assuming that Chester / Holyhead and ECML CCHS requirements are still fufilled, ie. Edinbrugh (Day1) etc. And other off wires/HS destinations are sufficently served, such as Hull, Harrogate, etc. From the Day1 Classic Compatable Stock.

So, 2035, we have this ERTMS, 200mph stock looking for a new life, this could either be running XC services through Birmgingham NS and using parts of HS2 to get up to Newcastle (This would be nice), or it could find a use on the GWML.

Since these units can be hauled at 100mph by locomotives that don't have to run around, they can run at 140mph linespeed from Paddington to wherever the wires have reached by then, depending on priorities, could be Exeter, or Branches could have been focused on, leaving only the West Country.
So, run at 140 to Bristol TM, attach Loco, run on to Penzance (As a replacement of the 22x fleet) Thats if it only lasts till 2035, if it can last until 2045, then we might want to start looking at some Fuel Cell powered HEMU units for LDPE services off wires. 25 years of development can bring a lot...

PS: I'd have the B&H Line as an InterReigonal route from Paddington to Taunton with 5/6 car units (Proberbly 180s and 222s) fast services via Bristol to connect better with the XC network.

 

[Martin222002]

Martin, don't forget all of the 221 units with ICWC that will be released by a sensible order of CCHS stock for HS2, thats all of their Diesel Units really...

Personally I think when the ICWC 221s are freed up on the WCML that they should go to the XC franchise as it makes sense to keep them all the Voyager fleets all together in one franchise, and once the XC network has fully electrified they can be replaced by a single fleet of intercity EMUs. As by then the 220s and 221s will probably need replacing anyway.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Martin, don't forget all of the 221 units with ICWC that will be released by a sensible order of CCHS stock for HS2, thats all of their Diesel Units really...

I really hope they don't give the go-ahead for HS2 construction unless they have the extension to Manchester sorted so we don't end up with HS2 just from London to Birmingham. With the government's rather slow adoption of renewables and the high power consuption of 225mph trains that would be enviromentally insane compared to a new 125/140mph London - Birmingham line.

Will the HS2 classic compatible stock also be tilt capable? Euston - Glasgow for example would need to be tilt stock wouldn't it, or are they planning to keep those trains on the existing WCML? (or are there no sections north of Crewe/Preston that require tilt to reach linespeed?) If they keep them on the WCML, HS2 really will contribute hugely to this government's apparent goal of enviromental suicide.

12 from Manchester and 8 from Leeds if my back of the fag packet diagraming is correct, now, assuming that Chester / Holyhead and ECML CCHS requirements are still fufilled, ie. Edinbrugh (Day1) etc. And other off wires/HS destinations are sufficently served, such as Hull, Harrogate, etc. From the Day1 Classic Compatable Stock.

I don't understand, surely the only ECML services to be slightly affected by HS2 (and then only when the full HS2 Y-network is complete) are the Kings Cross - Leeds/Harrogate trains (the Edinbrough/Hull services would remain unaffected, surely). Even then, wouldn't most of the Kings Cross - Leeds trains still have to run to serve Wakefield etc?

PS: I'd have the B&H Line as an InterReigonal route from Paddington to Taunton with 5/6 car units (Proberbly 180s and 222s) fast services via Bristol to connect better with the XC network.

In my bi-mode IEP avoidance plan, bi-mode 221s would displace the 180s returning to FGW from the Cotswolds line. Those 180s could then run the proposed Paddington - Exeter/Taunton semi-fast instead of IEPs until the wires reach far enough.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't understand, surely the only ECML services to be slightly affected by HS2 (and then only when the full HS2 Y-network is complete) are the Kings Cross - Leeds/Harrogate trains (the Edinbrough/Hull services would remain unaffected, surely). Even then, wouldn't most of the Kings Cross - Leeds trains still have to run to serve Wakefield etc?

Nope, there will be no further InterCity service out of King's Cross once HS2 reaches Leeds, all trains to destinations north of Doncaster will be diverted via HS2 and TPE North and the trains on the Southern ECML will be replaced by all-stop trains that will likely be in the Cl350 mold, if they arent simply extensions of existing suburban trains.

 

[tbtc]

Nope, there will be no further InterCity service out of King's Cross once HS2 reaches Leeds, all trains to destinations north of Doncaster will be diverted via HS2 and TPE North and the trains on the Southern ECML will be replaced by all-stop trains that will likely be in the Cl350 mold, if they arent simply extensions of existing suburban trains.

Do you know that services from stations like Retford are going to go through the Thameslink Core (as the Peterborough semi-fasts will in a few years time), or are you just speculating (because you don't like HS2)?

 

[HSTEd]

Do you know that services from stations like Retford are going to go through the Thameslink Core (as the Peterborough semi-fasts will in a few years time), or are you just speculating (because you don't like HS2)?

I like HS2 (although I don't see why its got to be pursued to the exclusion of any upgrade programmes) and I am just speculating.

The Suburban Platforms at King's Cross aren't going to go away once Thameslink is completed either.

 

[Martin222002]

Nothing has been said as far as I'm aware about what the services are going to be like on the ECML post HS2 Y shape route. The only place that has had suggestions of what could happen to its services post HS2 is the WCML, to cater for increased demand on the southern half of the WCML.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are a couple of bypass schemes proposed in Carmarthenshire/Pembrokeshire too. One is Llanddewi Velfrey on the A40, the other is really a re-routing of several miles of the A477 between St. Clears and Red Roses). Give the villages in question a much cheaper 30mph speed limit and pelican/puffin crossing and put the remainder of bypass funds into electrification. Politically speaking, in the case of the A477 scheme you might be able to get out of the problem tbtc speaks of. That is of course the main road to Tenby/Pembroke from the east, and the Pembroke & Tenby railway's direct London services can probablly not be operated by IEP, bi-mode or otherwise because of the tight Narberth tunnel. As I said above, I think IEP itself (prefrablly without bi-mode) has to happen now, so we are not going to get a new order of C3 loading guage 125mph rolling stock (apart from maybe Pendolinos, but they would be firmly for ICWC). Therefore, if Pembroke & Tenby are to retain London services, existing 125mph stock will be needed. Like it or not, the only such stock which is electric is the Intercity 225s on East Coast, and the difficulties of swapping the loco for a diesel mean you need somewhere with a long dwell time to do the swap. Swansea is just the ticket, with Landore then being perfectly suituated to be the depot for class 91s. Of course for that to work the wires need to reach Swansea, no wires no Swansea = no Pembroke Coast Express after electrification to Cardiff.

Therefore, St. Clears - Red Roses bypass being scrapped to electrify to Swansea would save that region's direct London services.

If you gave the good folk of Pembrokeshire the choice between direct trains to London twice a day for a handful of Saturdays each summer, or the Red Roses bypass, the decision would be rather straightforward.

If you've ever been stuck behind an Arctic going to the ferry at Pembroke Dock on that stretch, or worse, a caravan (and there's rather a lot of both, year round), you'll know that there already is effectively a 30mph limit for about 6 miles.

 

[Solaris]

If George Osbourne now has a £30Bn+ infrastructure fund, then a Barnett apportionment of ~5% or £1.5B will surely come to Wales. So GWML wires to Swansea & Valleys, South Wales Metro?

 

[Rhydgaled]

If George Osbourne now has a £30Bn+ infrastructure fund, then a Barnett apportionment of ~5% or £1.5B will surely come to Wales. So GWML wires to Swansea & Valleys, South Wales Metro?

Interesting, £1.5bn should indeed be enough for GWML wires to Swansea and the ValleyLines, maybe even open and electrify a ValleyLine or two for Swansea? Let's hope it happens and the bi-mode IEP idea goes in the dustbin.

Nope, there will be no further InterCity service out of King's Cross once HS2 reaches Leeds, all trains to destinations north of Doncaster will be diverted via HS2.

Oh. Sounds a bit odd to me, going via Birmingham airport and Leeds to get to Edinbrough from London. Even with HS speeds as far as Leeds, that isn't going to be much faster than the current ECML, if at all, is it?

If you gave the good folk of Pembrokeshire the choice between direct trains to London twice a day for a handful of Saturdays each summer, or the Red Roses bypass, the decision would be rather straightforward.

Maybe, but would the two Intercity 125 loads of passengers withdraw their contribution to Pembrokeshire's ecconomy by holidaying elsewhere, or would they fill up Pembrokeshire's already overflowing (in the tourist season) car parks? I was putting forward the idea as political face-saving, which I think it would do. Whether the citizens of Tory south Pembrokeshire would agree with my views that road improvments like that should be avoided because they encourage car transport over rail I don't know.

 

[HSTEd]

Oh. Sounds a bit odd to me, going via Birmingham airport and Leeds to get to Edinbrough from London. Even with HS speeds as far as Leeds, that isn't going to be much faster than the current ECML, if at all, is it?

Well if you believe the High Speed 2 Ltd people they claim they can get to Leeds via Birmingham in under 90 minutes, which will probably require the insanely fast trains that the Japanese recently decided were impractical in commercial service (360kph). Unless they simply run London to leeds with no stops which is probably of limited utility.

 

[LE Greys]

Well if you believe the High Speed 2 Ltd people they claim they can get to Leeds via Birmingham in under 90 minutes, which will probably require the insanely fast trains that the Japanese recently decided were impractical in commercial service (360kph). Unless they simply run London to leeds with no stops which is probably of limited utility.

First stop on the way to Edinburgh via the ECML (at first) then via HSNE (or whatever it ends up being called).

 

[Solaris]

If George Osbourne now has a £30Bn+ infrastructure fund, then a Barnett apportionment of ~5% or £1.5B will surely come to Wales. So GWML wires to Swansea & Valleys, South Wales Metro?

Oh well.....

 

[IanXC]

Interesting, £1.5bn should indeed be enough for GWML wires to Swansea and the ValleyLines, maybe even open and electrify a ValleyLine or two for Swansea? Let's hope it happens and the bi-mode IEP idea goes in the dustbin.

The quote of "the Government will proceed with the Intercity Express Programme" is suitably non committal to still be able to proceed with the pure electric version, and scrap the bimode version.

When you think of North TPE, possible works in south Wales, youre left with north of Edinburgh (and we know what the Scottish Government are considering), Harrogate and the Cotswolds where IEP bimode would be used, surely a bit more HST life extension a la Devon and Cornwall would resolve these.

 

[Bald Rick]

Maybe, but would the two Intercity 125 loads of passengers withdraw their contribution to Pembrokeshire's ecconomy by holidaying elsewhere, or would they fill up Pembrokeshire's already overflowing (in the tourist season) car parks? I was putting forward the idea as political face-saving, which I think it would do. Whether the citizens of Tory south Pembrokeshire would agree with my views that road improvments like that should be avoided because they encourage car transport over rail I don't know.

That depends on the definition of load. Only one of the trains comes from Paddington, and the last time I saw it in Tenby on an August Saturday about 30 people got off. I agree that Swansea needs wires, but doing that at the expense of other infrastructure schemes on a main transport corridor would be political suicide.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If George Osbourne now has a £30Bn+ infrastructure fund, then a Barnett apportionment of ~5% or £1.5B will surely come to Wales. So GWML wires to Swansea & Valleys, South Wales Metro?

Last night a Plaid AM said (on R5 Live) that only the initial £5b raised by the UK government would be "Barnetted" to Wales/Scotland, not the £30b.
So £250m rather then £1.5b to spend.

I think the theory is that Wales has or would have its own borrowing powers for capital projects.
I can't get my head round the idea of a Welsh National Debt!

 

[Solaris]

Last night a Plaid AM said (on R5 Live) that only the initial £5b raised by the UK government would be "Barnetted" to Wales/Scotland, not the £30b.
So £250m rather then £1.5b to spend.

I think the theory is that Wales has or would have its own borrowing powers for capital projects.
I can't get my head round the idea of a Welsh National Debt!

I thought GO was planning to use the £5Bn to leverage further funds from UK pension funds... in that case the entire pot should be Barnettised?

 

[Proud Salopian]

I thought GO was planning to use the £5Bn to leverage further funds from UK pension funds... in that case the entire pot should be Barnettised?

No, Barnett only takes into account the money the government expends. The other £25bn isn't government money.

 

[Solaris]

No, Barnett only takes into account the money the government expends. The other £25bn isn't government money.

Not directly, but surely the government would have to underwrite and create an appropriate instrument - probably some sort of bond to the pension funds? On that basis it would have to be a UK investment fund? Those more expert in governement bonds, pension funds and exotic financial instruments pls let us know how you see this working.