Great Western Coffee Shop

Perhaps it would be useful to see which improvements are wanted most. Which are the most beneficial to spend the limited money on.

I have deliberately left off specific line / station re-openings and service enhancements- we all want those! ;)

GWMLs = any FGW main routes where HSTs run.

Line speed upgrade = new tracks, signalling etc.

The West of England Line (Waterloo route) is included because it is in the region, and its services affect FGW's ones.

Apologises if I have missed off one in your area - I don't know them all. :(

Thanks,

Btline :)

It'sa bit difficult, as a passenger, to vote for something that I don't know what the impact would be - am specifically thinking of the electrification options. If the lines were electified what would that mean to me as a commuter - fewer trains able to operate the route, increase in delays due to weather problems, increased congestion into Paddington, etc.  or would there be benefits ?

For infrastructure improvements I'd prefer options such as increased reliability of equipment (e.g. trains, track and signals), improvements to station information displays (and better loudspeakers too), shorter journey times, sufficient seats on trains, reliable ticket barrier systems and extension of undercover areas to protect passengers from the elements.

Personally my top choice would be extending the 4-line running all the way to Bristol, but clearly this is never going to happen not least because of Box Tunnel. I just think that so many of FGWs timekeeping and reliability problems are caused by HSTs getting caught up behind slow, stopping and / or broken down local trains between Bathampton Junction and Bristol.

Hmmmmmmm -  electrification would:

*speed up journey times (acceleration would be better)

*new stock would be ordered (hopefully with more seats)

*enhance capacity (maybe more frequent)

*after Crossrail - there will be fewer trains terminating in Paddington - so congestion is not a problem

There is a "line speed improvement" option for the GWML. This means new track, signals etc.

As I said above- I deliberately left out individual stations etc. I am looking at larger projects.

PS You have two votes!  ;)

Hmmmmmm -  did not think of quadrupling lines!

But I won't add them - as you say, they won't happen (the other might  ??? ).

While I agree about Box Tunnel etc, one quadrupling scheme in the Greater Bristol area that stands a chance in the medium/long term is 4-tracking between Bristol-Filton Abbey Wood. It is a Network Rail strategic aspiration, is supported by FGW (on performance grounds) and by rail campaigners/stakeholders because of the extra service opportunities that it would open up.

As ever though, the funding is the sticking point.

[X] None of the above

Personally, I would most like to see third rail electrification extended along the West of England line as far as Salisbury at least - if not Exeter. This would release 159s for more Paignton and Plymouth services allowing Salisbury stoppers to be operated by 450s (and before you say anything, the journey time is similar to Portsmouth (and would be decreased by electrification)) or 444s - this in turn negates the impact of the Exeter 1tph along the line.

I think Reading is the first and only scheme that should be considered. The slightest delay and the whole area is a mess!

I forgot that one. I won't add it now though!

Well, ahead are (not surprisingly) the improvements to the GWMLs, shortly followed by the Reading to Paddington new track.

Lagging behind, though, are redoubling projects!

Perhaps FGW/NR should see this?

Needs an "other" option

Electrification has got to be number one, but for local services rather than high speed, the Devon metro would be vastly improved by electric traction with far quicker accelaration and stopping, St Ives could have a half hourly service stopping at all stations etc etc, Bristol would be far better off.

But an electric 140+ mph GWML would be good as well!

But the St. Ives Line does not warrant electrifying! Other upgrades yes!

Not until in cab signalling comes in - and that's something like 2016 when ERTMS comes in for the GWML I think...

I'm on about the whole lot! every line!

For me electrification is key, how can we have a modern efficient railway, without electrifying the network. The wheels are already in motion for the extension of the electrification to Maidenhead. As I have mentioned in several other post it seems crazy that this is not being continued to Reading, if not further. The main cost in the crossrail project is in the tunnelling, so why network rail is not taking the opportunity to extend the electrification then, is beyond me. We lag behind our European counterparts by miles with a decent railway infrastructure.

How can the government be considering ordering a new generation of diesel trains to replace the HST's, with all the debate on environmental concerns, and the volatile nature of the fuel source for these trains, it seems crazy.

Although the costs of this type of project are significant, this just seems of short-term solutions to a much bigger problem. The government just needs to bite the bullet on the cost and think about the long-term future. This kind of thinking was what lead to the Beaching cuts, and now look where we are now.

As for the impact for passengers, we are looking at significant disruption when crossrail is built, it has been reported that Paddington will be closed for as much as 2 weeks in one go, to allow the work required to be done, so as passengers we are going to have to grin and bear it.

Why will Paddington close? Surely new station platforms underground will be built!

I have to say with regards to Paddington closing for 2 weeks, but I'm not sure of the truth of it, no-one seems to have a real source.

It seems logical, partly, because having to build a new station underneath the current one..

quote from the Crossrail document:

8.4.75 For major trackworks outside Paddington station a total blockade will be required that
will affect all services (ie GWML and local services) for a period of two weeks. Services
will also be affected by partial blockades for a week either side of the total blockade.
During this time local and GWML services will terminate at Ealing Broadway station.
The disruption to passengers at Paddington station will cause an impact of particular
importance since the blockade will affect all local and GWML services to Paddington
and passengers using the London Underground. This is also addressed in route-wide
impacts (see Chapter 7).
76

I have also included the link:

http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk/files/Home/Home3/01.Environmental%20Statement/Volume_02/Chapter_08_pt01.pdf

Not every train will terminate at Ealing either, I've been told both Reading and Waterloo are also on the cards.

To be honest, as a passenger, I don't really care whether a train is powered by electric, coal, diesel, nuclear or chip fat.  What I do care about is that trains operate safely, reliably, on time, with a good frequency and seating capacity.   So, I'll vote for whatever infrastructure change can best deliver that package!

I think we should be very careful about not upgrading before ERTMS. There could still be line speed improvements and increases in frequency due to better acceleration and braking with electrificat.

I have a feeling that it ERTMS is a bit like the holy grail. Reports from lines where it is allegely installed in Europe don't seem to have seen any marked improvements in line speeds or train frequency. The high speed line betwen Brusels and Amsterdamm can't be used because of software incompatibilities across the border.

Cab signalling by all means but why not TVM 430 as used on HS1 (I know it's French but it does seem to work) or failing that LZB the German system. Or a developement of both.

I think ERTMS is going down the wrong route with radio balises. Track circuits are the obvious choice for a railway you have two steel rails all the way why not let trains short across and show where they are. The technologies been around for 100 years and I'm sure it could be improved even now. After all it works most of the time over most of the GWML.

I also think if the GWML is to be electrified then the Thames valley branches should be included in the main scheme to eliminate diesel local trains East of Reading. This would include the Greenford branch both from West Ealing and round from Old Oak to give a diversionary route round Ealing Broadway.  It would also enable Heathrow Express stock to turn, this is to even wheel wear due to the tight curves at the flyover at Airport Junction.

You could also build an interchange staion with the Central at North Acton.

This is why nationally one of the first lines to be electrified  should be the Sudbury branch ( I know it's not FGW) but it would eliminate Diesel West of Colchester and give FGW a couple of extra units so it does benifit us.