Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

From time to time in this thread, someone has suggested that electrifying the railway through Bath would be difficult because Bath people would never wear it.

Now I know Bath people, and for the most part they're a reasonable bunch: A bit chippy, living as they do in the armpit of Bristol  , but otherwise generally up for doing the Right Thing. So who could have been responsible for suggesting they'd rather stick with diesel power?

Grayling signals Bath rail electrification axe

Electrification of a key stretch of the Great Western route could be scrapped because unsightly overhead lines could spoil the appearance of the historic city of Bath.

In an interview in the Bristol Post last week, transport secretary Chris Grayling said that the new hybrid trains planned for the route will deliver significant cuts to journey times anyway, and questioned whether spending millions of pounds on electrifying some parts of the route was necessary.

...continues

Source: New Civil Engineer, 8 Feb 2017

Could it perhaps be that your interpretation of "doing the right thing" differs from others? 

[Bmblbzzz]

They didn't like wind turbines in

attractive country areas

so they stuck them off-shore. Water wings for trains?

We'll make the suggestion and see whether it floats.

[Bmblbzzz]

In view of the strong opposition in Bath to OHLE, I don't mind if "via Bath" becomes the secondary, or less preferred, or less used route between London and the West.

But ... Bristol to Bath and to the places beyond is, even excluding London, is [another] major flow. I'm not sure that the best / greenest / most efficient way for all those South Wales / WECA^» (West of England Combined Authority - about) to Wiltshire / Dorset / Solent passengers should be compromised to the extent of marginalisation.

But those services aren't electrified anyway.

[grahame]

But those services aren't electrified anyway.

Agreed at present.  Saying "no overheads in Bath" so leaving it with diesel or other technology lower distance trains into the medium future marginalised things like the Bristol Metro plans and so many other places accessed through Bath - London services are / were / would be / could be just the first to use the overheads.

[Red Squirrel]

In the 1970s, large swathes of Bath were threatened by developers and road builders, and indeed a great deal of damage was done. Adam Ferguson's excellent 1973 book The Sack of Bath describes it all in grisly detail.


^{Calton Road, Bath. Source: The Sack of Bath and After, Ferguson and Mowl}

Bath is a uniquely beautiful city, and its amenity groups are right to guard it. But the point I was trying to make when I revived this thread is that I have yet to find any evidence that anyone from Bath has objected to OHLE in principle. Of course they'd like it to be as unobtrusive as possible, and it is right that the Bath Preservation Trust and other amenity groups should have a say in the design.

Chris Grayling said:

The arrival of hybrid technology means we don't have to put up unsightly overhead lines in places where either you wouldn't want them, like historic Bath, or through attractive country areas where you are not getting the speed gains.

He might not want them, but who agrees with him?
 

[Red Squirrel]

Here is what the Bath Preservation Trust said about GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification in their 2015 newsletter:

Caroline Kay and Joanna Robinson (Conservation Officer) have been attending ongoing stakeholder workshops regarding the impact of the electrification of the railway which is going to result in physical change of the Brunel structures across Bath and B&NES. B&NES contains by far the highest number of listed structures of any section of the line, including listed overbridges, station, viaducts and the complex landscape of Sydney Gardens. The inevitable interventions are overhead wires and gantries and safety measures to prevent access to cables.

BPT was originally consulted by Network Rail in 2012, before a long period of silence until stakeholder design meetings were initiated in early 2015, to which BPT was invited. At this stage we were presented with design solutions to the overbridges (developed by Alan Baxter Associates) which involved irreversible alteration and harm to all the listed overbridges and parapets.

The Trust has worked closely with the Council, Historic England, the Georgian Group and indeed Network Rail since then. During the stakeholder meetings the Trust insisted that solutions which involved less intervention and harm should be pursued. As a result the Sydney Gardens proposals (subject to listed building consent) are now much improved. BPT submitted strong objections to the listed building applications for Pixash Lane and the Clay Lane bridges which proposed a harmful and standardised model to Brunel's bridges. These applications have now been withdrawn. Other overbridge proposals are also being reconsidered in light of our objections.

This clearly gives the lie to the whack-a-mole idea that 'Bath won't allow electrification'. It will, and it has more or less agreed how.

[Bmblbzzz]

But those services aren't electrified anyway.

Agreed at present.  Saying "no overheads in Bath" so leaving it with diesel or other technology lower distance trains into the medium future marginalised things like the Bristol Metro plans and so many other places accessed through Bath - London services are / were / would be / could be just the first to use the overheads.

I think there's a long-term plan or ambition to electrify Southampton to Bristol? Not electrifying through Bath is clearly incompatible with this, as you say.

[Bmblbzzz]

In the 1970s, large swathes of Bath were threatened by developers and road builders, and indeed a great deal of damage was done. Adam Ferguson's excellent 1973 book The Sack of Bath describes it all in grisly detail.

It was in about 1973 that my aunt moved to Bath, motivated in part by it being unfashionable and having cheaper houses!

Chris Grayling said:

The arrival of hybrid technology means we don't have to put up unsightly overhead lines in places where either you wouldn't want them, like historic Bath, or through attractive country areas where you are not getting the speed gains.

He might not want them, but who agrees with him?

There is a feeling about this of 'picking an excuse not to spend more money on electrification'.

[TonyK]

Chris Grayling said:

The arrival of hybrid technology means we don't have to put up unsightly overhead lines in places where either you wouldn't want them, like historic Bath, or through attractive country areas where you are not getting the speed gains.

He might not want them, but who agrees with him?
 

I said at the time something on the lines of the arrival of hybrid technology giving a shovel-ready excuse for binning the idea of electrification yet again, and perpetuating the use of fossil fuels in rail transport. Ministers like a quick, cheap, get-out clause, even if it is expensive and leads to another 25 years of diesels. Bath should, of course, be treated sensitively in designing the electrification. I agree entirely that the stock grey gantry would look completely out of place. One of the more elegant ideas should be used, even if it means a speed restriction for the mile or so where it would be needed. Some nice Regency stanchions with cute finials? Or maybe a sort of Roman theme.

[Red Squirrel]

By an astonishing coincidence, I see that FoSBR^» (Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways - site) have raised this very topic today 

https://fosbr.org.uk/electrification-through-bath/

[Bmblbzzz]

What evidence is there that electrification 'does not give speed gains in attractive country areas'?

[grahame]

What evidence is there that electrification 'does not give speed gains in attractive country areas'?

If you're a senior person, say something in a confident way, wrapped up in a more major announcement and somewhat off topic, and it will fall "below the fold" and not be challenged.  Later, it will gain acceptance as it was said by someone who (was supposed to) kno/ew what he was talking about and wasn't questioned at the time.

I would suspect there is only a little correlation between the attractiveness of an area and the ability of electrification to help trains get through that area faster.  It may be pretty areas tend to be hillier and so maximum line speed is lower, but you still have the ability to get away quicker from speed restrictions and stops with an electric train.

[stuving]

What evidence is there that electrification 'does not give speed gains in attractive country areas'?

What evidence is there that those words should be in quotes?

The original Bristol Post piece was posted, and discussed, here in the anteschismatic part of this thread. It's billed as an interview, but the questions Grayling was answering are not quoted - an entirely standard journalistic trick, but a devious one nonetheless.

The relevant bit of that text is:

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) promised MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) that the decision was "not a cancellation" but Transport Secretary Chris Grayling has poured doubt over whether the track investment will ever be seen.

In an interview with the Bristol Post, Mr Grayling indicated that he felt overhead cables going through Bath could blight the city's landscape, while leading to only limited improvements in journey times.

The new trains being rolled out this year by route operator Great Western Railway will be dual-fuelled, meaning they can run on both electricity and diesel. The hybrid Hitachi trains, even without electrification between Bristol and Bath, will still shave 15 minutes off the journey to London, according to DfT.

Mr Grayling said: "The arrival of hybrid technology means we don't have to put up unsightly overhead lines in places where either you wouldn't want them, like historic Bath, or through attractive country areas where you are not getting the speed gains.

"And the truth is that [on] those routes into Bristol, new trains are arriving and will deliver the journey improvements anyway. So the question then becomes, do you have to put up electric cables through all of the route to deliver improvements?"

The Epsom and Erwell MP said the city should not get "hung-up" on whether it gets electrified trains, despite being the largest city along the Paddington to Cardiff Great Western route.

He said the "hundreds of millions" of pounds needed to electrify the line between Bristol and Bath could be reinvested into other transport projects, including MetroBus.

Great Western Railway's new Hitachi trains will be able to run on both diesel and electric track.

"The question is, if the train going through Bath is going to travel to Birmingham at exactly the same time, regardless of whether we have overhead cables or not, do we really want to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money putting unsightly overhead cables through Bath? The new trains allow us to think differently about these projects," said the Cabinet minister.

"Bristol would feel rightly short-changed if it wasn't getting new trains and the benefits of journey time improvements. But it is.

Now, the subhead was "Bristol might not get faster trains to London after all because the overhead electric cables could spoil the landscape in "historic" Bath, according to the Transport Secretary.", after a similar headline. As you'll see, that was despite the text saying the opposite more than once. But maybe that is what he was asked.

I really don't see what everyone is getting so het up about, whether here or elsewhere. Grayling was asked a silly question, and gave a not very coherent answer. But basically, he said they had loads of stuff to spend the money on now so doing Bath would be put on hold for NR^» (Network Rail - home page) to have a think. That was an option that only arose after the bullet had been bitten, and the 801s hybridised. But every part of that is hedged by coulds and mights, with no commitment to do or not do anything.

Returning to that 'quotation'; as you can see the words given as his are different: "The arrival of hybrid technology means we don't have to put up unsightly overhead lines in places where either you wouldn't want them, like historic Bath, or through attractive country areas where you are not getting the speed gains." I see nothing there implying a correlation, let alone a causal link, between attractiveness and speed-up - just two separate conditions. Moving the commas might make the meaning clearer, but of course they were provided by the Post anyway.

[onthecushions]

IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly), the stop in electrification was only due to the massive breach in DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s budget by the GWEP^▸ (Great Western Electrification Program). Grayling inherited this and had to make the best of a bad job, (he was familiar with "bad jobs"!).

Much of what he said is really attempted rationalising of the mess, probably scripted by his media dept and shouldn't be taken seriously. Electrification was justified primarily on cost reduction not speed increase just like the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) was in the 1980's.

I think that. following the example elsewhere, we can expect limited "work packages" of marginal route improvement and electrification, perhaps for 5 - 10 miles at a time, but not in any hurry.

OTC

[TonyK]

I think that. following the example elsewhere, we can expect limited "work packages" of marginal route improvement and electrification, perhaps for 5 - 10 miles at a time, but not in any hurry.

OTC

The obvious first step would be Filton Bank, short enough and largely shovel ready for the rest of the job to be done, and give the opportunity for a fully electric ride from Temple Meads to Paddington. The only part of the route via Bath not ready for the wires are the St Annes tunnels, but that's a big "only".