Great Western Coffee Shop

Dear All,
 
On Wednesday the passenger group, and other interested parties, met with the DfT and ARUP (the consultants appointed by the DfT to investigate bringing electrification beyond Newbury). The purpose of the meeting was for ARUP to present their draft report.
 
ARUP (rail consultants) were appointed to look into the Benefits Cost Ratio (BCR) of four options. For an option to be feasible the BCR has to be greater than 2.0. This relates to getting double the cost of investment back over a period of 60 years.
 
Option 1:           Continue electrification beyond Newbury to Bedwyn
                        BCR 2.58
 
Option 2:           Continue electrification beyond Newbury to Westbury
                        BCR 0.31
 
Option 3:           Continue electrification beyond Newbury to Westbury and the Mendip Quarries
                        BCR 0.23
 
Option 4:           Continue electrification beyond Newbury to Westbury and onto Batheaston Junction
                        BCR 0.21
 
 
Option 2 is surprisingly low and it turns out that the DfT instructed ARUP to do the Westbury study on a comparison with the existing timetable (i.e. Westbury and Pewsey retaining stops on the long-haul diesel trains ^ currently the HST rolling stock). This is in contrast to option 1 which was made on the comparison of the results of electrifying only to Newbury (i.e. Bedwyn, Hungerford and Kintbury being on a diesel shuttle service to Newbury).
 
In conclusion the likely scenario is that Pewsey and Westbury will stay as they are (i.e. direct diesel Reading/Paddington services) and Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn will be electrified. The timing is a worry as currently there is no spare money for electrifying to Bedwyn. Thus electrification to Bedwyn might not happen until the next period (2019 to 2024). This gives cause for concern in how Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn will be served between 2016 (when electrification comes to Newbury) and 2019 (or later). I understand that Claire Perry and Richard Benyon will be raising this.
 
From the Bedwyn Trains Passenger Group^s point of view our campaign has always been to maintain our direct services to Reading and London Paddington. Our campaign was always based on using diesel stock to form an hourly Paddington to Westbury service calling at Reading, Theale, Thatcham, Newbury, Kintbury, Hungerford, Bedwyn, Pewsey and Westbury. We never wanted to be the ones that were seen to bring overhead gantries and replacement rail bridges through an AONB. However, electrification now appears to be the only deal on the table to save our through services.
 
In terms of the parking issue at Bedwyn what is being proposed will not alter the frequency of trains (and calling patterns) of the current situation. Therefore we don^t envisage an increase in the Bedwyn parking issue as a result of electrification.
 
Best wishes
 
Steve Smith
Bedwyn Trains Passenger Group
 

The studies chosen are ... the studies for which results are given, rather than other schemes which may involve sections of the same line.   For example, the BCR for (say) Batheaston to Southampton would be different to the BCR for option 4 here ... and it would depend very much on what was to be considered to run electric thereafter. If freight and Cardiff / Portsmouth services remained diesel because of sections of route without overhead wires, you would probably get a much lower BCR than if you electrified all services, with 3rd Rail + overhead units on Cardiff Portsmouth and on Salisbury - Romsey via Eastleigh.

I'm not surprised at a low BCR on electrification Newbury to Westbury if diesel trains under the wires would continue to provide all the services except those which start at / terminate at Westbury - a couple of trains a day? That BCR doesn't - from what I'm reading - take into account the enabling work that would be offset when electrification continues to Exeter, and the benefit of that.  Strikes me as not being a forward-looking set of study criteria to choose.

One of the considerable costs for electrifying beyond Newbury is that of an additional Grid site, a stub end feed that length even with the Auto Transformer system being used on the GWML is a longer stretch than the system design engineers would be comfortable with,the nearest would be a potential site near Basingstoke for the Reading / Southampton scheme other than that its Didcot.

The justification for the diversionary route is stronger, this has to be balanced against the risk of needing a diversion, system failures the DfT would say to NR you should have eliminate the potential failures as it new signalling and electrification, engineering works develop systems to avoid regular need for protracted blocks 

Given there is a large National Grid presence in Melksham perhaps thought might be given to using that to feed possible electification to Bathampton Junction and up to Thingley?  I assume the site near Basingstoke is allied to the similar National Grid site at Bramley.

There's always the potential for a fatality though or some other event which blocks the line. At the moment FGW are one of the more flexible operators with diversions, the trains can run via several diversionary routes and the crews sign the diversionary routes as well. Electrifying Newbury-Bathampton Jn, and I'd argue Bradford Jn-Thingley Jn too, would mean that a diversionary route would be retained.

..... compensation paid to passengers and freight customers comes out of the profit of private companies (TOCs n FOCs and NR) and not out of the public purse.

- NR is a not for profit company that ploughs any surplus back into investment in the infrastructure - so these payments increase the funding needed at the price review

Network Rail is a "not for dividend company" it does work to make a profit, profits do go back into the infrastructure and not pay for bubbly and canopies at a share holders meeting.

The extension [to Westbury] was dismissed as the consultants couldn^t justify costs to electrify an additional 85 miles of rail track but the electrification, which aims to bring improved services, was extended to Bedwyn Train Station.

An interesting comment on that particular press article has been posted on their website, too ...  :-X

If we had a proper rolling electrification programme this wouldn't even be up for debate, first Newbury Bath (including Melksham line). Bristol Plymouth. Westbury Exeter.

Ideally the Melksham Bath should be done in the first phase with the reinstatement of  Bradford North Curve to allow work on the mainline.

Basingstoke Exeter and Southampton Salisbury Westbury follow on as night follows day. Especialy as Basingstoke and Southampton are planned to have 25Kv so makes the boundaries easy.

The trouble is we don't have the vision. We are all like Oscar Wilde's cynic, we know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Remember growth follows the wires!

As the wires spread around the country the use of bimode trains will become increasing absurb as large lumps of metal are carted for miles under the wires. Plus the ever aging DMU fleet which no-one will want to replace because of the of the wires the 170s will be getting on in 2030.

So we will either revert to loco haulage with a change of traction at Plymouth or the wires will spread, however I don't think I'll see the wires to Penzance maybe Plymouth.

The electric IEP's that Hitachi are building have diesel generator sets, they are there to provide power to the hotel services in the event the 25kV is lost, also the generator is capable of moving the train at 30mph.  The mass of a generator is less than that of the batteries required to keep the hotel services running for 3 hours, batteries are hideous  environmentally and to maintain more so than a diesel gen set

30 mph? hell are we to get fast trains as well then !

It does look odd that wiring beyond Hungerford to Bedwyn is viable but to Pewsey is not.

I know that we were very close to extending the Turbo service from Bedwyn to Westbury a few years ago, but the fact that you'd need to resource another unit, and other costs such as driver route learning at Reading depot, meant it didn't quite happen.  A proper study would have looked at that option as well.

Pent-up demand & making Westbury a viable commuter corridor (in the future) aren't the same thing. One already exists, the other is the egg before the chicken, in order to attract commuters even further out of London. That is not pent-up demand.

You seem to think you can't have both.

The off-peak fare take wouldn't pay for the additional services though?

Agreed - but it would need to get over 2 before DfT would even begin to look at it - and with the cost of an additional set not being covered by the additional fares (and extra turns which themselves would cost money to run), I doubt you'd get that high.

First Great Western welcome calls to extend electrification to Bedwyn
Wednesday 5th February 2014
First Great Western has welcomed calls to extend the electrification of the mainline beyond Newbury to Bedwyn, when the line is electrified in 2016.

The comments, from FGW Manager Director Mark Hopwood, come after a meeting between local MPs and the Rail Minister Stephen Hammond.

Mark said: ^The Government^s commitment to invest in the rail network and in new trains is an essential piece of the jigsaw in improving passenger journeys, and reliability, across our network.

^The extension of electrification as far as Bedwyn during the initial first phase, and prior to the 2019-2024 period, makes good economic sense ^ supporting the communities we serve by delivering another revolution in passenger travel.^

Claire Perry MP for Devizes and Richard Benyon MP for Newbury met with the Rail Minister, Stephen Hammond MP to put the case for bringing forward rail electrification to Bedwyn so that the project simply continues to Bedwyn when it reaches Newbury in 2016.

The 2013 Arup Review showed that there is a very strong business case for extending electrification to Bedwyn, but the MPs had been informed that the investment required was unlikely to be available in the 2014-2019 period, and therefore the Newbury to Bedwyn Project would be considered for the 2019-2024 period.

Claire Perry MP said: ^The Minister agreed that there are very strong economic and operational reasons for the Newbury-Bedwyn project to be brought forward and the opportunity will now be discussed in more detail with Network Rail. Richard Benyon and I are determined to ensure that the numbers of through trains and the frequency of services at Bedwyn, Hungerford and Kintbury Stations are secured.^