Great Western Coffee Shop

Some very interesting stuff about the potential for a rolling rail electrification programme in the light of ever-rising oil prices in the June issue of Modern Railways.

Boiling it down, according to studies done both by an independent consultant and by Network Rail, the numbers now appear to stack up very well for wiring up a number of services, especially with the HST fleet replacement on the horizon, including:
London-Reading-Oxford
London-Swindon-Bath-Bristol and Swindon-Bristol Parkway-Cardiff-Swansea
London-Reading-Westbury-Taunton-Exeter-Paignton and Plymouth.
Birmingham-Bristol, Bristol-Taunton, Oxford-Birmingham and Reading-Basingstoke  as part of an electrification scheme for CrossCountry - which would get dual-voltage 25kv overhead/750v DC third rail trains.
Salisbury-Basingstoke and Salisbury-Southampton and Eastleigh are also regarded as viable for more third rail electrification, as is Reading-Redhill.
Suggested possible long-term spin-offs, as a result of some of the above work making them more cost-effective, are Bristol-Westbury-Salisbury and Swindon-Gloucester-Chepstow-Newport, also the Chiltern Line.

The consultant suggested electro-diesel hybrids (a la InterCity Express Project) for the Cotswold Line, making the switchover at Oxford, though if the CrossCountry work got the go-ahead it would surely be worth looking at wiring the Cotswold Line as an electric diversionary route in case of closures via Banbury, linking into the Bristol-Birmingham scheme at Worcester - also the short gaps between stations on the route make it ideal for the rapid acceleration characteristics of electric trains.

Modern Railways' editorial suggests hooking up a big powerful diesel for unwired stretches like Plymouth-Penzance, rather than a bi-mode train dragging around an unused diesel engine for the rest of the journey.

Having also read June Modern Railways I totally agree with their summation of the situation now is time to start a wholesale rolling electrification.

Consider the circumstances, high oil prices which are only likely to go higher, economy slowing down so that an electrification programme would create jobs and at the same time provide the transport needed when we have to stop using our cars so much. Sorry I'm a Keysian economist.

As for electricy supplies Roger Ford calculated that at the moment the railways use about half a base load station so the extra would probably make it the other half and depending on how extensive, maybe a bit more.

As I said in previous post I was taught at school that we are siting on 200 years worth of coal  so we are going to have to bite the bullet and do the research into clean coal and carbon capture. More work for our scientists and engineers.

There was a piece in the Gurdian on Saturday which suggests there might be a way of capturing CO2 on membranes and concentrating it for storage.

For those of you in the West who don't know what a modern EMU is about next time you're in town do Padd Hayes (on an Oyster!) on the Heathrow Connect and contrast the 360 with your clapped out DMUs. You'd be clamouring for wires.

This must happen. But with the following additions:

-to Penzance and maybe Newquay
-Walsall to Rugely
-Snow Hill Lines
-to Aberdeen from ECML/XCL
-to Glasgow from ECML
-upgrade from Leeds to Shipton (currently the line is electrified but HSTs are required as the power is too weak for 225s beyond Leeds!)
-Oxted to Ukfield
-to Shrewsbury from B'ham
-to Greenford from Paddington
-rest of MML
-North Wales branch of WCML
-all other parts of XCML
-TransWilts (for diversion - also benefiting locals)

Electrification to Torbay would be good, it deserves a good service to London considering it has a similar population to Plymouth.

Newquay should definitely get electrified, also The Barnstaple and Exmouth branch lines should be electrified. The Modern EMU units are superb. If the replacement HST is anything like a modern electric train it would be a welcome addition to our rail network.

Several other routes around the country are suggested by the studies as viable for electrification, but I omitted them for the sake of simplicity and because this is mainly an FGW forum.

But you can forget Cornish and Devon branch lines - except perhaps Exmouth - even the Norwegians, who have dirt-cheap hydro-electric power coming out of their ears, have never been able to make a financial case for wiring their lightly-used lines in the north and east of the country.

Agree other lines outside of FGW territory will need electrifying.

An interesting question. If one assummes that South of the SW mainline will be third rail where are the change over stations?
 eg. Reading or Basingstoke, Salisbury or Westbury, If Salisbury in Westbury direction Salisbury or Exeter (Central or St Davids?).

My view would be Reading with third rail through station to enable services from Basingstoke and Wokingham to terminate in main station or run through also as  diversion third rail route  from Waterloo to Basingstoke.

Salisbury lines from east third rail and to North and West 25KV. Although you could argue for a third rail route from Waterloo to Exeter, modern dual voltage units are not that much more expensive than single voltage units, particulaly 3rd rail versions which have to have an inverter for AC traction motors which is not needed for 25KV units.


Don't foget the Norwegians also have a surplus of oil and gas so until that runs out they probably won't electrify their branches but when it does?

Hydrogen powered trains are the future as well (only water is produced when burnt).

Just need "clean" electricity to electrolyse water to produce the hydrogen! :(

Agreed electrification is a must.

However the GWML has a problem in terms of the severn tunnel, it is too small to get OHLE equipment into.

I have always maintained that the crossrail electridfication should help encourage the further electrifcation of the GWML.

your gonna need a lot of wind turbines to power this little lot......because nuclear power is a nasty word in this country

To comment on this as this is my particular area of zero expertise, the plan as it stands from what I understand is to electrify everything on the South West Trains network except west of Salisbury (I would guess in practice the electrification would probably extend to Wilton Jn).

Electrifying Reading brings the problem that is long and short swing link bogies being required in order to traverse third rail lines - the majority of FGW HSTs being LSL. The journey time from Waterloo to Basingstoke via Reading would be too limiting to use as a diversion - a journey time of some 1h50+ compared to London to Basingstoke via Addlestone which is 1h20+. Other diversionary routes are already available via Effingham Junction, Worplesdon, Haslemere, Barnes, Richmond, Havant, Fareham, etc. A key diversionary route would be to electrify the Laverstock loop as part of a WoE electrification scheme.

I don't think Salisbury - Exeter will ever be electrified to 25kV, third rail perhaps, but only as far as Yeovil.

A tidal barrage on the Severn (and also on other Rivers) would:

*produce clean power for water electrolysis;

*provide a high speed rail link into Wales;

*prevent the Severn floodplain from Climate Change flood surges.

Excellent- who wants to start work now?

I don't really support a barrage, the Severn holds a lot of wildlife etc.

Besides, I want to surf the barrage  ;)

It has been suggested that a new wildlife habitat would be created behind the barrage.

And to be honest (and don't get me wrong - I am a supporter of wildlife/green) I think it is a worth while sacrifice.

And as for surfing - surely Newquay is more convenient for you (esp with the HSTs)! ;D

The Bristol Port Company has said the project would be a major impediment on its future plans for a new deep water container terminal at Bristol (link below.)
http://thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145365&command=displayContent&sourceNode=145191&contentPK=20774331&folderPk=83726&pNodeId=144922

With the Valleys due to having new stock "eventually", i say wire them in there entirety so they can take electric stock.

With the core routes having up to 6 tph it starts to look possible, but too much of the mileage will still be only 2tph max, so then you face having a mix of electric and diesel stock. However, anythings possible on the valleys.

The following are mid 2005 estimates for population change for local authorities in the United Kingdom;taken from http://www.swenvo.org.uk/environment/population.asp#southwest.
  As you will see the population of Torbay UA is estimated at 132,800 while Plymouth UA is 246,000,you would have to add the entire population of Teignbridge(124,500) to that to get to Plymouth population and of course with Plymouths dormitory population from towns like Saltash/Torpoint etc taking that 246,000 to over 300,000.Hardly "similar".
 

Not what I read anyway  :D

As I noted when I started the thread, wiring to Paignton IS included in the Network Rail study.

The map published by Modern Railways clearly shows the Severn Tunnel route electrified. Clearances may be an issue, but an alternative to conventional catenary is an overhead conductor rail. There was a test in Austria a few years ago using a 2km section in a tunnel, where trains were run up to 260kmh. The swing bridge at Trowse in Norwich uses a solid rail for its 25kv supply.

As for Cardiff Valleys, Birmingham Snow Hill routes, and diesel-operated suburban routes around Leeds and Manchester, Network Rail's head of enhancement engineering told a conference discussion which the Modern Railways piece is based on that "once you've done some, then you can do the rest", eg once you've wired to Bristol, then going to Cardiff and Swansea and Plymouth becomes a more clear-cut proposition - and if you've done the really complex stuff anyway, eg Cardiff Central station, then the case for the other routes using that point is obviously strengthened.

In that respect, the fact that the approaches to Paddington are already wired for Heathrow Express, plus Crossrail extending that to Maidenhead (or even Reading) is a help in pressing the case for going further west.

As early as 1836 Isambard Kingdom Brunnel surveyed a rail route between Exeter and Plymouth,crossing the Teign and Dart rivers and through the South Hams to Plymouth but Devon people at the time were not interested unfortunately.Had this happened Devons 3 main urban areas would have all been connected directly by one main line and probably a much faster one as well  benefitting all rail users west of Exeter as well as putting Torbay directly on the Paddington/Penzance route.Its a pity a new section of main line could not be created today by linking Newton Abbot/Torbay/Totnes.

Certainly would be good - and very beneficial at that. Could then run a shuttle service from Newton Abbot - Plymouth via the normal route which doesn't have overly inspiring figures!!!

Only problem I can see if Paignton LC which would be down fairly often, causing chaos!

Just wait till the old salt water spray gets at the catenary around Dawlish - then you'll get a sparks effect. I'm GWR born and bred but the old Southern route via Okehampton might have come into its own now  - as indeed might the old route round the back from Exeter to Newton Abbot via Trusham

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing and had we known at the time of the "Beeching" report what we now know the Southern railway route via Tavistock/Okhampton might well have survived and is still probably the only realistic option for an alternative to the current Great Western route.I understand a study just conducted by ATOC has said that the re-opening the former Southern route in its entirety is "viable".Of course whether the government who hold the purse strings agree with that which I doubt, only time will tell.
 

Link regarding the ATOC study.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=2421.msg18087#msg18087

Good news for XC line. The electrification in B'ham is being extended 1 stop south from Barnt Green to Bromsgrove! ;D

Remember, every little helps. Next it will be to Worcester, then Gloucester, then Bristol ......

"Good news for XC line. The electrification in B'ham is being extended 1 stop south from Barnt Green to Bromsgrove!

Remember, every little helps. Next it will be to Worcester, then Gloucester, then Bristol ......"

And perhaps to Hereford, please, please - otherwise we'll be forgotten

Except CrossCountry don't operate electric trains ... ;)

THe answer is IEP/HST2!

I take it the Voyagers will be scrapped/put off lease and new HST2/IEP trains will replace them. The idea is that they will be electric.

I mean the Voyagers have been a disaster. Halving capacity on certain routes (and halving capacity on commuter trains) should not have been allowed, and should be rectified asap!

They could be switched to secondary lines such as North to South Wales. Or preferably burnt!

Far be it for me to argue, but I had always believed the population of Plymouth to be approaching 240,000, whilst that of Torbay is around the 130,000 mark.  http://www.torbay.gov.uk/appendix-b-key_statistics_for_torbay_apr.pdf


That said, the importance of Torbay as a holiday destination could well  be justification for continuing the wires from Newton Abbot.

Is also a good place to run a 'metro' service from Exeter Central - Paignton at high frequency. Perhaps I was reading figures during Summer when the place is invaded by our lovely tourist friends  :D

It is also makes sound operating sense to electrify to Paigton when the wires go to Plymouth.

Otherwise you'd have the absurb situation of running HSTs to Padd under the wires for 90% of their journey. It would also mean keeping a few units 142s? for local services to Exeter.

It's the like the Sudbury branch One (the TOC not HM) has to keep a couple of DMUs  just to work this line.

"Crying grockles and emmets, alive alive oh" ;D

More thoughts on a rolling electrification programme in the November Modern Railways.

After the two studies mentioned back at the start of this thread, Network Rail and ATOC have been working together on a further study as part of the national Route Utilisation Strategy, while DfT has now done its own study.

Network Rail say wiring London-Bristol via Bath and London to Swansea both more than pay for themselves, along with wires out to Oxford - costs would be ^637m, with benefits of ^1.097bn. They also say Midland Main Line wiring to Sheffield and Nottingham, including the branch to Corby, would cost ^353m with benefits of ^763m.

Even by making highly optimistic claims for the performance of a diesel IEP compared with electric traction, DfT says GWML wiring would be value for money.

Roger Ford says the diesel IEP power car is a fantasy - no engine available packs the power suggested within the proposed weight (60 tonnes all in versus an HST power car at 69) and brands it the Zombie Train - it's walking dead because wiring would make any type of IEP a waste of time and money. Ford is a big loco fan, both electric and diesel - I'll return to locos below.

NR is also already working on financial modelling of a rolling electrification programme to follow GWML and MML, with North TransPennine and CrossCountry next on the list, with GMWL and MML wires improving the financial case for XC. Once you do XC, then how about the Cotswold Line, as infill and a handy wired diversion for XC during engineering work? And for all you fans of buying lots of 172s straight away, think how many Voyagers/Meridians and 185s could be knocking about looking for something to do in a few years' time.

NR is looking at three purpose-built electrification trains, able to plant foundations, then the masts and wire them up, able to complete one mile in an eight-hour possession, combined with modular plug-in sub-stations to help speed things along. A programme of 650km of wiring a year is suggested.

At this stage, wires to Plymouth or beyond don't look on the cards as a priority, but an option Ford has previously floated is a fleet of big, powerful diesel locos to take over from electric locos where the wires run out. Another fan of this type of solution appears to be Ian Walmsley, engineering development manager of train leasing firm Porterbrook, who writes about a visit to Innotrans, a big annual European rail industry event, held in Berlin.

He discusses the locos on show and notes that Bombardier's Traxx family of locos now offers multiple working of its electric and diesel variants and can also work with Siemens-built Taurus locos. A man from Bombardier told him they were looking at how the kit could fit into the UK loading gauge, which Walmsley says is "very good news for those of us who think the IEP must die". He suggests that instead of a distributed power IEP, costing ^3m per car, you buy a ^4m Traxx loco and 10 new coaches at ^1m a time, so for a 10-car train, you pay ^14m, against ^30m for IEP - "Let's call it half price and for a better product". For a 1,400-vehicle intercity fleet, that would save ^2bn.

And you get a diesel for places like Cornwall, where out and out speed isn't necessarily what you need. How about a Voith Maxima, with 3,600kW (4,894hp) packed inside and (what else for the GWML?) hydraulic transmission. It was even displayed at the show with yellow cab ends! Pictures of this big beast out on test here: http://www.voithturbo.com/vt_en_act_highlights.htm (http://www.voithturbo.com/vt_en_act_highlights.htm)

The major stumbling block to GWML electrification to Wales must be the Severn Tunnel. Whilst new techniques can speed electrification, how long will it take to plan, approve and construct a new Severn Crossing?

In the FGW franchise terms thread, Chris from Nailsea posted the following in his report on the TravelWatch SouthWest meeting earlier this month

"Dave (Ward of Network Rail) was quite specific that the Severn Tunnel could be electrified"

Not for me to dispute with an engineering pro, but the tunnel is certainly wet and possibly not suitable for OHLE due to height constraints.  As there is a sump tunnel underneath, it could be difficult to lower trackbed.

I think it would be an engineering triumph if the tunnel could be wired though. More power, (no pun intended), to network rail if they and the contractors can do it.

Unfortunately, the tunnel cannot be wired.* This is a major flaw in the economics of the GWML - if 2 tph are still HSTs!

Better get cracking on the barrage!

Thanks, willc!

Indeed, Dave Ward was quite emphatic at that meeting that it is not impossible to electrify the Severn Tunnel.  His words were, "Yes, it gets wet - but what tunnel doesn't?" and he also made the point that, with all the work that's been carried out recently, "the Severn Tunnel's in a better condition now than it's ever been."

I was so impressed with his enthusiasm that I noted down what he said.   ;) :D ;D

But take a look at this, which although a few years old, seems to accept that electrification of the tunnel is not an option.



http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmwelaf/458/3111708.htm

It is a shame, but I still think electrification of the core GWML would be made viable with full electrification of all lines which branch to it.

The GWML is the only mainline of high volume (MML can be exluded in this) that is not electrified. I can imagine journey times from Bristol, Cardiff etc could be slashed if electrification occurred. Perhaps a diesel/electric set up would work better. Bristol Parkway - Newport could for example be run off diesel power.

Why all the negativity? Dave Ward doesn't strike me as a wild fantasist, so if he says the Severn Tunnel can be electrified and the Network Rail study clearly indicates this is the view throughout the organisation, why not just accept it can be done and get behind it?

You don't always need to use conventional hangers and wiring for an overhead supply. As I pointed out months ago, the Germans have tested a lengthy stretch of overhead conductor bar in a tunnel with trains running at high speed.

And on the contrary, what might make electrification of the further-flung parts of the area possible is first wiring the core routes - where most of the trains are and you make the serious money - not flinging up wires willy-nilly.

Until now, the problem in this country has been that while we may have done the WCML and ECML routes, so long as the GWML amd MML were diesel-powered, there was no point wiring connecting routes and the core Cross-Country routes. If you can crack this, then the numbers start to stack up in favour of going on to the likes of the Cotswold Line, Swindon-Gloucester-Chepstow-Newport and Exeter, Torbay and Plymouth, especially as diesel trains come due for replacement, an approach often adopted by the French on services away from the TGV network.

I am not totally convince about this, a full detailed electrification engineering survey has never been conducted in the Seven Tunnel.

The major route electrification is being projected for CP6 (CP = Control Period which are 5 years NR are just about to enter CP4) therefore some 10 years away; although the NR Board and Engineering are working on reducing costs and to speed up the process of installation. The rate of installation will be at three times that BR achieved when the ECML was electrified, and all within the 7 day railway optimistic but firmly believed to be achievable

If the government are really committed to electrification, then I can suggest a self contained  "inter-city" service that can be electrified at minimal infrastructure cost, and result in 8500 train miles per day being converted from diesel to electric. (That compares with around 8000 miles per day if every service from London to Bristol Temple Meads became electric.)

The minimal cost is a nice round number, 0.

Any guesses?

Why bother stringing up wires when you can do this? And if they won't do this, are they really serious about electrification? 

Roger Ford says Network Rail aims to have a rolling electrification programme running in CP5, ie 2014-19, which would make sense, given that most of the HSTs operated by FGW and East Midlands Trains will be reaching their 40th birthdays during this period and really won't last much beyond 2020, however good the life-extension work done recently.

John, do you mean Birmingham-Glasgow by any chance? Maybe no infrastructure bill, but you would still need new electric trains to replace Super Voyagers and after the fiasco DafT made of extending the existing Pendolinos and buying four extra sets, don't count on them organising it any time soon...

Yes, spot on. If the DaFT don't think there's a business case for converting this route to electric when there is absolutely no infrastructure cost, just new trains, then what hope is there when electrification involves all the infrastructure costs and new trains.

The cascade of the Voyagers would also be an effective way of providing more diesel stock without new build, which the ROSCOs are understandable reluctant to do.

But I agree with you that the time it's taken to sort the Pendo lengthening doesn't bode well.     

But the point about GWML and MML in a few years' time is that you have to replace all the HSTs and with the way the oil price went up to $150 earlier this year, even if it has fallen back now, the idea of buying a new high-speed diesel fleet that would be around until the 2050s is pretty scary -  and no Rosco is going to pay for it, so that's why the odds are favouring electrification.

Birmingham-Glasgow with diesels is bonkers, but you don't really need a full-sized Pendolino to operate that route and the only other thing being built right now is the Class 350, which isn't suitable for that sort of distance and doesn't tilt. Maybe if they ask Hitachi nicely, they could create a tilting version of the Class 395 they are building for the Kent commuter services on the Channel Tunnel rail link. Fit with an inter-city interior and you might have something that fits the bill.

I believe that solid conductor bar is already in use in Scotland's Mound Tunnel North, Edinburgh.  Whether this would be suitable, (high cost of replacement),  in the corrosive environment of the Severn Tunnel is debatable. 

Given the massive advances in technology over the past 20 years, I am convinced that a (possibly non-conventional), solution could be found, but at what price? Maintenance costs, regardless of solution chosen, would be even higher and the powers that be would almost certainly not countenance a dedicated non-standard class of traction for the tunnel route. (Should this be necessary).  IMO, much of the so-called negativity in this thread is more of a reality check, based on the lamentably short-sighted and parsimonious nature of governments of all hues; when addressing railway investment.

Maybe not now, but 5 coach trains are in use now. It seems to take 3 years to procur and build new stock, so at 6% growth pa that equates to 6 coaches being required by delivery. Then allow a further 3 to 5 years growth and you get a 7 coach train, which becomes sensible for a Pendolino.

Though, and this is getting off topic now, I've read the Virgin are saying that when they introduce their new VHF service in Dec/Jan they will have lots of extra seats to fill and will be offering fares at rock bottom prices to fill them. That stirkes me as a bit odd.  In effect the strategy is : "We need lots of extra capacity as our trains are currently overcrowded, and as soon as we get that capacity we will fill them up with ultra cheap tickets, thus leaving them still overcrowded for walk on (expensive) fare paying passengers."   

DB also use solid bar overhead in the low level at the new Berlin Hauptbanhof.

Therefore let us assumme that the Severn Tunnel can be electrified maybe at a greater cost than plain track but that's life.

The question now becomes when rather than if.

How about a bit of good old Keynesian economics in these straightened times. Let Network rail issue "Electrification Bonds" 20 years at say 6% fully tradeable and redeemable with a 10% bonus in 20 years when inflation will have made the redemption painless. Pension funds would snap them up they would create jobs, give work to some British manufacturing, assumming Corus has enough capacity to produce the masts. The first issue of a few hundred thousand pounds would go to Pleck to Darlaston Jn (see other posts on Walsall Wolverhapton) in say in 6 months. That would give Networkrail an incentive. Follow up with Coventry Nuneaton and Walsall Rugely to get 153s off the WCML.

Then I'm afriad it's got to be infill off the WCML Blackpool, Liverpool Manchester 1830 route. As this is already electrified with connections off teh WCML through Newton le Willows this will also provide alternative routes from Crewe to both Liverpool and Maanchester and an elctrified route from them to Glasgow.

In the South start with  Sudbury and Felixstowe branches. In London Gospel Oak and Barking and possibly Acton Wells Cricklewood. Plus third rail Kew Old and New Jns to Kew East, Ashford Ore, Hurst Green Uckfield, Redhill Reading, and Southampton Eastleigh to Salisbury, plus intially Basingstoke Salisbury until it's clear what the best option is for West of Salisbury.

Then GWML and MML moving onto to Trans Pennine and Cross Country.

As the juice sreads then the case for  lines like Weymouth Castle Cary becomes viable as it would become the only unelectrified route South of London to Exeter so there would be not much point in having a diesel tail from Castle Cary to Drochester.

Then let's do what Ian Walmsey suggests scrap the IEP both Diesel and Electric and produce a set of son of Mark 3 coaches and use locos changing at boundary points to give through services.

Remember BR changed locos at Crewe quite satisfactorily for years, then NSE took over at Cambridge with no noticible detriment to the service.

Mark 5s not Mark 3s! :o

With plug doors, tilt capabilities and an advanced suspension.

Then locos with in cab signalling ready for 155 mph.

No need to have diesel loco, wire the whole way.

Unless and until you wire the core TransPennine routes, which include Manchester-Preston, any infill in the North West - or Yorkshire - makes no sense at all. Once this is done, then the rest falls into place.

Almost all the infill you mention in the South is operated, or is about to be when new 172s arrive, by modern DMUs, so no rush to replace them and in the London area pretty much all the possession time and engineering capability is already committed up to 2012 to get ready for the Olympics. To try to add wiring on top would just invite disaster. And these aren't the sort of lines where you will be able to wire a mile a night.

Similarly, LM diesel routes are about to get new trains, so no rush there either.

NR is aiming at the key main lines first because they will need new train fleets soon anyway, they are the busiest routes other than WCML and ECML and give you the biggest benefits in return, which in turn can drive the finances to go on and do more on less heavily trafficked routes - like west of Bristol.


eightf48544 did say "son of Mk3" and you don't need tilt for GWML or MML - or ECML come to that - it would be just a waste of money and an added complication - TGVs don't tilt and the German ICE-T tilt DMUs have had a chequered career, to put it politely.

On the upper ECML and in Scotland.

On the western parts of the GWML.

Many parts of the XC lines.

The Virgin tilting trains have slashed journey times and have been successful in this respect.

Why are we abandoning this technology - we need to get people out of aeroplanes and cars.

The only place that is worthy of tilt is west of Newton Abbot, and its not really worth the money, especially considering journey times between stations is short generally.

I'd not rule out the case for tilt giving a worthwhile speed enhancement on the ECML north of Durham.

The problem with the NR/Modern Railways rolling electrification program is that it will take 6 - 11 years to begin to appear on the two main lines. Few government policies last that long and so nearer term action is needed (as well). Success in the near-term will buttress the committment to the main lines.

Railway electrification works where high speed and capacity are needed which are beyond the capabilities of other traction modes. This means InterCity (bring it back!), suburban commuting, end to end intensive freight and marginal schemes where the wires, power supply or rolling stock are mostly already there, such as Heathrow Connect and the extension to Bromsgrove, WM. InterCity is of course long term, although both main lines have what's needed at the expensive, London ends.

The pressing wiring opportunity rests IMHO in the connurbations, where large capacity increases and unit cost reduction (in service provision) are possible by electric traction. Energy, maintenance and first costs (of rolling stock) are known to be favourable but operation and capacity gains are insufficiently stressed. The justification for Thameslink was the gain over two terminating services of a single Bedford - Brighton (etc) operation. Similar opportunities (to our own Crossrail of course) are going begging in several PTE areas. Manchester has perhaps 5 Eastern terminating electric services but none going West, involving wasted time, movements, stock and sidings. Moving these on to Western destinations would be internally justified apart from trans-Pennine issues of Liverpool or Leeds access. Leeds has 4 Western terminating services also cluttering up its City station, none going East to Hambleton, York or Selby. Similar wasteful practice occurs in Liverpool, Birmingham etc. If these were addressed then other additions would become attractive, such as the Northern XC and TP. There was also quite a lot of servicable gear, both 25kV and 750V dc sitting in depots, made surplus by the Southern and West Coast power upgrades, which would do for the uses intended.

For our own line, we need an immediate extension of wiring from Airport Junction to Slough or Maidenhead for stopping services, replacing the inadequate Turbos. Even with purchasing more Siemens Desiros, this could be operating in 3 years. There is no need to wait for Crossrail, on which the returns, (or benefit:cost ratios, BCR's) increase rapidly the further West it goes. I agree Reading unrebuilt is too far but the Thames Valley is the most important part of the UK economy without a high capacity commuter train service, is throttled by congestion and needs investment now.

I say bring forward Crossrail - West, to be open for the Olympics!

Any takers?

OTC

It would be good to throw out the Thames Turbos, but any electrification funds are locked up in the Xrail project itself, so I won't hold your breath! ::)

In B'ham, the number of terminating trains has been increased at New Street (axing of W'hapton - C'ntry service in half). This increased the reliability and improved flexibility and capacity at New Street. :D

Oh, and don't mention Desiros, they are unpopular on these boards ;) (I have never been on one, but apparantly they are overweight :( ).

I think you'll find that accusation has been levelled at the diesel variant (Class 185), not the electrics and for a diesel, they seem to me to do a pretty good job of climbing to Standedge, though an electric would obviously be better. On my occasional forays into SWT land I have always found the 450s a perfectly good train - though not suitable for jobs like Portsmouth expresses.

As for tilt, I'm not sure if I was an ECML depot engineer I would want all the complications of the equipment on my trains just for the sake of Chester-le-Street curve and a few spots north of the border. For most of the route and the vast majority of services running on it, it would be utterly pointless.

Which bits of XC routes need tilt? XC have got rid of it on their sets! They don't run up the West Coast to Scotland any more and the odd curve between Sheffield and Derby wouldn't justify it. Even in BR days in the mid-1980s, I made several Birmingham-Sheffield runs on HSTs as fast, if not faster than Voyager timings today.

No-one's suggesting abandoning tilt. It just has its place - on the WCML north of Lancaster and at odd remaining LNWR horrors like the curve at Wolverton. And much of the time savings on WCML are thanks to 125mph running, instead of 100-110mph, not tilt!

And here's what the new transport secretary had to say about electrification and high-speed rail yesterday: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7697973.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7697973.stm)

There is a campaign regarding this (link below.)
http://www.no450.co.uk/


See also link below.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=3768.msg29088#msg29088

I've once travelled on a 450 from Weymouth to Bournemouth where it was attatched to a 444 to continue its journey to London Waterloo. I promptly changed onto the 444 for the final 15 minutes of my journey. The 450s are good trains, but not for long distance workings!!

Is it true that SWT "Metro" trains (not sure of the number, but they look like 150s outside) have 2+2 seating, but the 450s (outer suburban and long distance) have 2+3 seating?

So Turbostars are better than 185s; are EMU Desiros better than Electrostars?

One line that needs to be done is third rail to Sailsbury. This would free up 159s to operate Waterloo to Plymouth and Torbay (and yes - Ivybridge too). Why not throw in a direct service to Barnstaple or Oakhapton while you're at it! Let's get tourists off the A30.

The class 455s have 2+2 seating to allow more people to stand up.

::)

Going way back to the suggestion that electrification to Paignton is a good idea, how get round the problems along the sea wall at Dawlish? And if the old Southern route was reopened Newton Abbot and Torbay are out on a limb.

Lots of noise in the press about the Tory plan for HS2. Lead times though, are daunting.  2015 before construction would start and 2027 before the service is rolled out.  Add to that, the fact that this will be a service for the North and Midlands and our discussions re electrification and higher speeds, at least on the GW 'extremeties' begin to look like a wish list.

Wires from Maidenhead/Reading to Bristol on the other hand, coupled with infrastructure works/cab signalling to increase line speeds seem more realistic.  That said, from a purely personal viewpoint, I am still not convinced that expensive electrification of the Severn Tunnel, (which would flood within the hour should pumps be turned off), will be considered justifiable, if it is indeed possible.

More on this in the link below.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=3544.msg27554#msg27554