Great Western Coffee Shop

Out today

http://www.therailwaycentre.com/News%20September2008/100908-Reading.html

Further related links.
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2035167_new_cow_lane

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2008/09/10-reading-station-boost.html

Worth noting that both BBC and ITV local news programmes on Friday evening flagged up prominently the provision of space at the new depot to accommodate Crossrail trains in the future - IEP wasn't mentioned. So looks like they were both given a very clear steer on this point. Did the rail industry campaign to get Crossrail extended to Reading just start here?

I've only heard one official answer as to why it is only going to Maidenhead. That is that there's little point in it starting at Reading as any long distance passengers wanting to connect isn't going to change onto a slow train at Reading when they can travel through fast to Paddington and join CrossRail there. Which is indeed the case in many ways, but that's not really the point of extending it to Reading. It makes sense because Reading is a much more natural starting point for these suburban trains. Having them start at Maidenhead means all sorts of implications for the current service from Reading via Twyford to Maidenhead. I have said before that I will be very surprised if Reading isn't under the wires in a few years time!

I think the real reason Crossrail is planned to end at Maidenhead is that its backers did not want to be asked for a contribution towards the cost of Reading station's redevelopment, resignalling and electrification. Two of those three issues are now funded and if recent reports of banks' reluctance to pay for any new big fleets of diesel trains are true, then the third may soon be taken care of as well, so as to keep the GW main line operating from the middle of the next decade when the HSTs finally give up the ghost.

The  reason I was given by Crossrail for it currently terminating at Maidenhead is that's where the money ran out for the overhead (i.e. we can plan to spend X where do the wires run out?) because as wiilc says going to Reading would have made X too large.  

Unfortunately this stupid decision has now become an obstacle to the main argument that what's needed is the complete electrification of GWML to at least Plymouth (all routes including Melksahm) Swansea (Tunnel and Gloucester) and Birmingham (via Worcester and Banbury) then Crossrail can terminate anywhere. Basingstoke Reading also has to be electrified to go with the Banbury route. 11 coach Pendolinos on Cross Country?

Fortunately many people in the rail industry now support wholesale electrification and are pressing DfT for a plan. The danger is that is that in asking  for  Crossrail to be extended to Reading it gives the DfT an easy way of saying "look we're not against electrifcation" and give the go ahead then forget about electrifying the rest of the line.

We mustn't let extending Crossrail to Reading become a distraction from the major push for wholesale electrification of much of Britain's Railways. Remember Crossrail is really only the tunnel from Paddington to Whitchapel. Where it terminates either side only depends on where the wires go so in teh East it could just as easily terminate in Norwich, Harwich, or Kings Lynn. The problem  at Paddington is that are only wires as far as Hayes.

So what we ought to be pleased about in the Reading plan is that provision is being made for the maintenace of suburban EMUs as replacements for the Turbos, for use on Thames Valley local services. This makes sense.

hang on a bit....where is all this electric going to come from????? you are gonna need a lot of windmills

The actual cost to wire out to Reading from Maidenhead is quite small in comparison to the amount of station rebuilding Crossrail would had to have done if it had gone there, also Reading Panel would have had to have part of it patch resignalled this alone would have been a complex task, however now that Reading station enhancement has the green light the extension west will follow on.  The Secretary of State has included a protection order the Crossrail Bill, the design and construction of Reading has included future Crossrail provision, platform space and sidings.

There is also another stumbling block going west from Maidenhead and that is a suitable National Grid site for a feed at Reading, the Early 132kV Bulk Supply Sub station does not have the capacity and would need a substantial amount of money to increase the capacity to meet the 6MW loading per train for Crossrail. 

The planned supply points for Crossrail (in the west) are Westbourne Park, an upgraded Hayes (currently used by HEX) and Iver.  Both Westbourne Park and Iver are close to 275 and 400 Kv, respectively, grid lines Westbourne Park is an underground cable.  The Old Oak Common feed I believe will be decommissioned to allow great capacity at Acton Lane for the West Coast Main Line. 

The Railway take of electric traction supplies is a very complex matter that is done at a very strategic level between Nat Grid, NR and the Government; the loadings required are staggering and can have major impact on the quality and stability of supplies to domestic and industrial consumers.

Thanks for those insights into electrification and the various hurdles from a technical viewpoint, Electric train - it's an area where my own knowledge is sadly lacking!

A few questions, if anyone can help.....

1. Why would this side of Crossrail need more than one modern (AT) 25kV electricity supply point/feeder station ?

(I believe the core West Coast route only needs 6 to Carlisle!)
 
2. The various published maps for the new Reading General seem contradictory as regards track plans. Am I still correct in thinking that the main lines will be slewed through present platforms 8,9 with higher speeds possible ?

3. Why do Mark 3 (HST) BT10 bogies have two swing-link lengths, one of which is said to foul 3rd (live) rails ? How complicated would swops/modifications be, or banning them from this  track?

(This seems to be preventing third rail SWT electrics using the present platform 4  to reach Basingstoke and friendly territory)

Thanks for any information.

Thanks for your post, onthecushions - and welcome to the Coffee Shop forum.  :D

While I don't have the answers to your questions, I have no doubt that our members will come up trumps yet again with the information you're looking for!

New French-owned nuclear power stations!?

While I don't doubt there are technical issues about power supply, if you want to do it, then someone will be able to sort it out and given that wiring to Reading may well be part of a more comprehensive GW Main Line programme and with reported reluctance among leasing firms to pay for a new generation of diesel-powered intercity stock, they will have to sort it out.

RE BT10 bogies, there are long swing links and short swing links - I don't think BR ever standardised on one type. The short type does not foul third rails, so all the former CrossCountry sets were built to this standard, though did some GWML sets also have them, given diversions to Waterloo in the past?. These days, with all the ex-CrossCountry sets FGW has, there must be a lot of short-link trailers in the fleet.

If there's a problem moving electric stock through platform 4 at Reading, it would probably be the third-rail collector shoes fouling the platform or trackside equipment - and the platform being in near-continuous use by FGW services all day, every day!

The key to this is the power requirements stated by Crossrail, they have stated that their units will have a higher power requirement than a pendilio.  However the real crux to why Crossrail was not planned to go to Reading in the Act was the cost of rebuilding Reading Station and the re-signaling of Reading PSB area.
 
Quite simply the cost to put conrail along the Basingstoke line it would need at least 2 substations (ie 3MW transformer rectifier units HV switchgear and dc switchgear) and 4 TP Huts (dc switchgear) and close on 20 miles of HV (33KV) cable laid, electrification supplies can not be taken from a local pole routes.  A dc traction substation supplied and installed on a greenfield site comes out close to ^1m each

As Reading to Basingstoke is such a vital link in the network then if third rail is too expensive then it will have to be 25KV overhead. That would mean dual voltage stock for XC and SWT.

As I understand it the electrostars  377? are basically supplied as dual voltage machines or can be made dual voltage with little extra cost which is why some are going to Thameslink (alright FCC) I can't be bothered to work out the franchisees it will only change in a couple of years.

That solves one of the interfaces Basingstoke becomes a DC/AC changeover point.

The question then becomes what system is used for Wokingham to Ash and Shalford Junction to Redhill. If Reading Gatwick is the main service then probably DC. However this makes Reading a DC/AC changeover especially as trains to Gatwick are likely to be the ones that make use of the proposed Eastern flyunder. So is Redhill Shalford DC and make Ash AC to Reading. It would mean Wokingham to Reading being dual voltage but it seems to work quite well on the North London line the pantograph is up and down like a yo-yo.

This working on the assumption that 25KV overhead will be standard basically North of the SW mainline and that the rest of the country will be electrified before any large scale conversion of the South East network  takes palce.

Oh don't go there AC / DC interfaces are a nightmare, involving several 25kV:25kV isolation transformers complex traction bonding and signal isolation

That could be classed as an infill in the network, but as FGW currently has the franchise and they don't operate electric traction there is little or not motive at the moment.
It would be difficult for NR to justify to the HRMI 3rd rail electrification on say the Basingstoke to Exeter line on safety grounds.  AS for a wholesale conversion of the SE to overhead that I think is very unlikely what will happen I suspect is a route needs a speed increase to over 100mph that could justify the expense otherwise adding in more substations currently meets the need

Thank you one and all for your kind replies to my questions.

I believe Roger Ford (he of Modern Railways magazine) has extracted a costing of 800k per track mile for ac electrification which compares to Network Rail's quote in the Uckfield-Lewes Report of 500k per track km (0.62 mile), for dc,  so much the same...(NR finally quoted 141M for 7.5 miles of single track!)

I've never fathomed why we use 25kV when UK standards are 3.3/11/33/66/132/275/400kV. I once asked a Channel Tunnel bod about this and after a lot of pencil chewing, she suggested that all 25kV gear was in fact 33kV but with fewer turns on the transformers, also that the French (whose system it was) had some characteristically odd voltages.

The key to railway power supplies now seems to be the proximity of the Super-grid or 400kV system. As we have this at Iver, Didcot, Minety (NW of Wootton Bassett) and Bramley (Hants), we should be in a good position.

For those wondering why it matters whether the driver is trained on oil cans or electric screwdrivers (or even shovels), the answer is capacity. An electric loco can typically do up to 4 x the work of a diesel - imagine a 125 with 32 carriages! (Eurostars have 18). I might even get a seat....

Have a nice Weekend,

OTC

onthecushions you are correct that our system was based on the French system, 36kV switch gear is used however the phase to earth voltage is around 18kV therefore switchgear has to be chosen carefully also we only use single phase hence it is bespoke, at the time that the BRB in the 1950 made the choice we had some weird voltages 6.6, 11, 22, 33, 66, 132.  I was shown once the calcs for Scott wound transformers that give 25kV as a logical ratio for a 2 phase to single transformer.

Electric traction is more efficient, less maintenance than diesel, better power to weigh ratio electric traction does not have to carry heavy fuel around also stabling becomes easier electric traction does not require fueling points which also means less environmental issues.

NR have had an independent study carried out on the reliability of overhead electric traction v diesel.  The perception is overhead is unreliable due to wires down because this scenario when it happens grabs the headlines however what the study showed that overhead electric traction is more reliable diesel have a high rate of engine and transmition failures

I can't lay my hands on the issue of Modern Railways where the recent studies of potential electrification programmes were discussed by Roger Ford but it made clear the view within Network Rail was that 25kv overhead would be the preferred option for all new projects. The exceptions would be extensions of existing third-rail, so any Merseyrail expansion plans and the long overdue infill schemes on the former Southern network. I'm pretty sure that alongside the Uckfield line and Hastings to Ashford, Reading to Redhill was mentioned as a candidate in this respect, given that is starts, passes through and ends at 750v DC locations.

While you might be able to justify 750v from Worting junction to Salisbury for the London commuter services, on to Exeter it surely has to be overhead wiring, especially if Bristol-Southampton was to be wired at 25kv. And it may cost a few bob for immunisation etc, but Basingstoke is surely the logical changeover point between 25kv and 750v, rather than Reading, which would be a technical nightmare in this respect. And with Reading-Oxford-Birmingham wired, all the mothballed Class 92 locos could be given something useful to do, replacing Class 66s on Southampton docks container trains.

Electric train is spot on about the performance and reliability issues. Many of the London commuter emus, which are hammered up and down day after day, with far more frequent stops than regional DMUs like FGW's fleet, have reliability figures off the scale compared with diesel traction. And most dewiring seems to happen on the East Coast line, where BR did the overhead on the cheap, or out of Liverpool Street, where the system is very old and needs modernisation

At the TravelWatch SouthWest meeting in Taunton today, Dave Ward of Network Rail spoke very positively about future electrification using overhead wires.

Any other tit bits of information about the meeting that you can share with us Chris?

Well, yes: some chump stood up in the 'just a minute' session and wittered on about the re-opening of the Portishead line, for example.  ::)

I'll post more when I've gathered my notes, so to speak!  :D

Yeah who was it that spoke about that?

This document "Modernisation British Railways The system of Electrification For British Railways" http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BTC_Electrification1955.pdf outlined over 50 years ago the electrification system for Britain's Rail network -


 It has a section at the start that outlines the history of a standard set of systems some 76 years ago! As a result of this Committee's report the Minister of Transport, using his powers to require standardisation under the Railways Act 1921, made the Standardisation of Electrification Order of 1932. This order, which still stands, permits only the 1,500V dc system with overhead current collection and a lower-voltage system of 750V d.c. with conductor rail as general standards for main-line operation in this country (3,oooV dc is , however, permitted for exceptional conditions). Thus the stage seemed set for electrification of the main lines of Britain on the 1,5ooV dc system, but war once more intervened.


Here we are 3/4 of a century latter and the Government are still wondering what to do

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/7681173.stm

I'm torn here. These improvements seem to take for ever, but I certainly agree that rushing them is fraught with danger, particularly something as complex as Reading. And it's hardly going to make a great dent in the unemployment figures is it.

However, how about taking a project that is technically simple and would have a lasting benefit to the railway. One that isn't even a twinkle in anyones eye. Say building a grade separated junction at Westerleigh with relatively high speed turn outs. Would shave a couple of minutes off all XC services, reduce conflicting movements, (particularly slow conflicting movements which block the junction for a long time), and even reduce emissions and brake wear. I can't understand why it's not been considered - the land is there.   

Westinghouse Rail Systems (head office in Chippenham) has secured a ^20m contract to carry out signalling enabling works on the Reading station redevelopment project (links below.)
http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=5266

http://www.westinghouserail.co.uk/News.aspx?item=65

"A Reading MP has argued against the idea of bringing forward an upgrade to the town's railway station.  The ^500m project was expected to begin in 2010 but the government is hoping to boost employment by starting earlier. "

My understanding of the station plan is that it uses the existing platforms much as they are, adds two islands to the North, covering the old reception sidings and modern car parking and has a fly-over to the West of the station to allow Didcot bound HST's a run and a jump over Reading West Junction. This seems a simple, practical plan and should not take years to map out carefully. Indeed some might moan that the station will look rather retro, with its Listed 1865 frontage and 1890's canopies.

I can't see how any of this would employ Reading's dole-struck bankers and IT professionals or even the unskilled and marginally employable of the deprived Wards. I expect that Reading's useful workforce will remain as busy and expensive as ever. What would help is to give UK firms, such as manufacturers and suppliers some continuity of orders, as in Europe, rather than boom and bust, flood and parch.

The reason for getting on with Reading station is that it is needed. The present station is the worst rail bottleneck in the UK, halving the capacity of the GWML, inconveniencing us all. Once it is clear what must be done, please can we "wake up and smell the coffee". I suggest getting the North islands in first to get the local trains out of the 125's hair, then moving the main (fast) lines across to 8 and 9, ending up with the flyover. Modern signals are computer based so only need a new program when the layout changes, not masses of wires and relays. Then there's those overhead wires...

The politician's comments show a lack of appreciation of the need for supportive public infrastructure.

OTC

We need to stop consulting and consulting, and face it - it needs to be done!

So let's do it now, and save the time & money wasting of consultation and planning.

Yes,  planning a project is a bit of a bore. As is negotiating with landowners over land purchases, the council over roads impacted, designing the scheme, putting the contract out to tender, etc. And all that preparatory signalling work which is currently going on is a bit of a chore too.

Let's just get the JCBs in tomorrow.....     

Hmmmm, John R is exaggerating I think, but it is the French that said what I wrote above.

It was featured on that "Down the Line" programme.

Why do we consult so much? Some things just have to be done - so why not do them after 3 years and not 7 years?

This is why we are so behind.

They may be the French, but they have hit the nail "sur la t^te" in this case.

The French have a much larger country than us, with far fewer people in it, so building brand new railway lines around places like Reading is pretty straightforward.

The Reading project is a combination of extending a major station and improving one of the most important junctions on the entire rail network, as well as moving a train depot - all this on a constricted site in the middle of a town, so it needs a lot of time for proper preparation. No-one is doing any consulting. What needs to be done is agreed. What they are doing now is making sure they sort out the most efficient way to get there.

For example, until the new Didcot signalling centre is complete and the Reading signalling panel there is working at the end of next year, you can't close the existing Reading signal box, which is sitting on the northern edge of the site where the northernmost new island platform and associated track will go.

Short of shutting down the entire area to rail traffic for months on end, it can't be done any faster.

This morning flyers were being handed out at Reading station printed and published by the Reading and District Labour party.

The flyer has some facts about the upgrade and also describes how the Conservative MP for Reading East has requested in the House of Commons that the upgrade not be brought forward.

There is then a survey asking the following 3 questions:

• I want the upgrade of Reading Station to go ahead as soon as possible:  (YES/NO)
• I agree with the local Conservative MP that Reading station upgrade should not be brought forward:  (YES/NO)
• I would like more information about the station upgrade:  (YES/NO)

You can then fill in your details and post it off to the Local Labour MP.

You can spend years working out the quickest way of doing something. But by this time, it would have been more efficient to have done it a slower way. That's why travelling salesmen only work out lower bounds for a journey, not the actual quickest route - because it is quicker.

Flyer is probably a Martin Salter initiative.

November Modern Railways has the proposed new track plan, by and large it's very impressive but there still appear to be some potential bottlenecks caused by single lead junctions and crossovers which are possibly either in the wrong place or the wrong way round.

The worst seems to be WT WS at Reading New Junction, which is West of the junction (WK) but is shown as an Up crossover from Down Main To Up Main. This means that trains from teh station to Reading New Jn have to travel to wrong line Up the Down Main from points XA and XC at Vastern Road.  Whilst I realise that Reading New Jn will not be as important as now, given the new flyunder it should still be usable with the minimum disruption in times of failure/engineering work, especialy given the flyunder is single line and could possibly flood. To that end I would suggest reversing WT WS plus a new crossover linking the Down Relief to the Up Main to allow trains from platforms 14 to 12 to access Reading New Junction.  

With WT WS where it is also means that any Down train crossing from the Down Relief to Down Main via points WG WH will have travel wrong line Down the Up Main for some distance. So if WT WS is reversed then a new crossover near WH will be required to link Up and Down mains.

Also platfrom 15 only seems usuable as a bi-derectional platfrom by trains off the Southern by the new flyunder, it does not seem accessible  from the Down Relief from the Paddington direction.

Also not sure what the purpose of the third line is from points NC at Oxford Road junction to points NH at Cow lane. It's marked as Westburys but it appears to be accessible only from the Up line. Making parallel moves of Up and Down Westburys over Oxford Road Junction impossible.

I would have thought that wherever possible parallel moves at junctions should be the norm in any new layout even at the expense of  additonal crossovers. Why build in a bottle neck when it could be avoided?

Otherwise it looks pretty good and should dramatically increase station capacity.



 
As the people of Amiens found to their cost when the LGV Nord was built. At least Reading will still have a very busy station close to the edge of the Central Busines District.

As an aside has anyone worked out how many stations are directly served from Reading? 

"A ^400m project to transform Reading station has been given the green light by the Office of Rail Regulation."

For full details, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/7699703.stm

The one thing that worries me about the scheme is that it could suffer from the Leeds Hauptbahnhof syndrome of the late 50s for those of us that remember such things.

For those of you that aren't familiar with the scheme, it was to close Leeds Central which was a terminal station and concentrate all traffic in the Joint Staion on the through line to York. The main work was putting in links around Whitehall Jn area to allow GN services from Wakefield and Bradford access to Leeds Joint.

In some ways it was the reverse of Reading instead of a flyover, the bridge into Central  over the lines into the Joint staion was removed and lines to Central  dropped down to link with lines into the Joint.

It suffered from rising costs and the start stop syndrome. So cost a lot more and took far too long. However, would there have been the growth of rail traffic through Leeds if there were still stations in the city? It probably prevented the closure of the Leeds suburban services to Harrogate, Ikely, and Bradford (both ways) under Beeching.

However, it also probably prevented other schemes where such rationalisations could have been carried out from being considered because of the uncertainty of whether they would take too long and cost too much.

Networkail has to get Reading right, keep up to the timescales or even decrease them and keep a lid on costs or even lower them.

They are going to need some very tough contracts which expect great things from the contractors and very astute contract managers to enforce them. It mustn't become a gravy train for the contractors like the WCML.

"A ^400m project to transform Reading railway station has been given the backing from the public.  More than 2,000 people responded to a consultation on the plans with 95% declaring their support."

For the full report, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/7758632.stm

When I went through Reading this morning there seemed to be some sort of work going on on the route of the old dive-under at the eastern end of the station. This is to be re-opened as part of the re-development, but I didn't think there would be any work on the ground for a while yet. Is this likely to be preparatory clearance or something entirely unconnected with it?

Posible its either being cleared for surveying or it has been used by track renewals in the past as a depot.

There was something on the internal NR web today about NR seeking a partnership to work for NR in the Reading development and Crossrail west of London, these two schemes at high level in NR are treated as one, they are looking for a 10 year partnership

More on this in the link below.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=4163.msg33486#msg33486

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/7969695.stm