Electrification beyond Newbury - study results

[whole diary]

[grahame]

An update from the Bedwyn Trains Passenger Group, circulated to their mailing list:

Dear All,
 
On Wednesday the passenger group, and other interested parties, met with the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) 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^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio)) 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^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) 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^▸ (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). 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
 

[Network SouthEast]

The group say they don't see an increase in parking at Bedwyn, but with a BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) of 2.58 I can't help but think that extra capacity on the trains and faster journey times will surely lead to some kind of increased patronage, ergo more parking issues at Bedwyn station.

[Southern Stag]

The case for electrifying onwards to Bathampton Junction should be considered as part of the overall electrification scheme, it has a great strategic value as a diversionary route from the main GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line). The service pattern would more than likely change with electrification to Westbury as well, it's unlikely a shuttle to Bedwyn would continue with new stock.

[Network SouthEast]

When the main GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification works are completed, I'd like to think we'll see a rolling period of electrification.

For example, if you electrify to Westbury and on to Bath, you might as well electrify the line from Westbury to Redbridge to enable an electric service on the Portsmouth to Cardiff route. You have electrified one route through Salisbury, so might as well electrify Exeter to Basingstoke. Then electrify the rest of the B&H^▸ (Berks and Hants - railway line from Reading to Taunton via Westbury) route to Exeter. Then in two/three decades time we see all lines in the West and South West electrified!

Wishful thinking perhaps.

[anthony215]

I wouldnt mind seing the GW^» (Great Western - used as an abbreviation for the area / lines under the Great Western franchise, as opposed to FGW which includes "First", the company operating them too. For tickets - about) network electrified as it should have been years ago.

If the wires are extended beyond Newbury to Bedwyn/Westbury and onwards to Bath/Swindon, perhaps a Westbury - Swindon shuttle using an emu might be possible.

[onthecushions]

This just proves again that if overhead wires are to be justified then a lot of electric trains have to run underneath them.

It should be a relief that a Bedwyn extension could show a BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) of 2.58. The rest of the B&H^▸ (Berks and Hants - railway line from Reading to Taunton via Westbury) line would probably need all the InterCity, freight and any semi-fast service electrically hauled to merit the investment.

The BTPG proposal to continue hourly diesels all the way to Paddington seems just another way of saying "no wires, please", or as St Augustine said, "Lord, make me chaste but not yet..."

OTC

[grahame]

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^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) 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.

[Electric train]

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^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) 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^▸ (Great Western Main Line) 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^» (Department for Transport - about) would say to NR^» (Network Rail - home page) you should have eliminate the potential failures as it new signalling and electrification, engineering works develop systems to avoid regular need for protracted blocks 

[Southern Stag]

There's always the potential for a fatality though or some other event which blocks the line. At the moment FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

[bobm]

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^▸ (Great Western Main Line) 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^» (Department for Transport - about) would say to NR^» (Network Rail - home page) 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.

[Electric train]

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^▸ (Great Western Main Line) 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^» (Department for Transport - about) would say to NR^» (Network Rail - home page) 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.

Melksham is being used to feed the Main Line, although there should be enough capacity on the 275/400kV system this would need to be agreed with National Grid.

There's always the potential for a fatality though or some other event which blocks the line. At the moment FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

The question the man from DfT will ask is the cost of delays off set by the cost of electrification will the cost to UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Tax payer be justified; compensation paid to passengers and freight customers comes out of the profit of private companies (TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) n FOCs^▸ (Freight Operating Company, or possibly 'free of charge', depending on context) and NR) and not out of the public purse.

[ellendune]

..... compensation paid to passengers and freight customers comes out of the profit of private companies (TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) n FOCs^▸ (Freight Operating Company, or possibly 'free of charge', depending on context) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page)) and not out of the public purse.

Of course this is correct at one level but at another level it is not:

- TOCs will assess this risk and make provision for it in their franchise bids
- 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
- FOCs will reflect it in their charges so perhaps only in this case it is true!

[Electric train]

..... compensation paid to passengers and freight customers comes out of the profit of private companies (TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) n FOCs^▸ (Freight Operating Company, or possibly 'free of charge', depending on context) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page)) 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.

[ellendune]

..... compensation paid to passengers and freight customers comes out of the profit of private companies (TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) n FOCs^▸ (Freight Operating Company, or possibly 'free of charge', depending on context) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page)) 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.

Correct sorry for the confusion

[ChrisB]

The Wiltshire Times seems to think the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) has agreed the extension to Bedwyn....

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.

Suspect the paper has overstepped the mark....