Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[onthecushions]

 
The problem would be the business case. If the only use made of the wires were by a limited IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) service then too little justifying benefit would be indicated. Perhaps if the Cardiff - Bristol trains were turned over to an EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit)/EDMU shuttle and the Taunton's and Portsmouth's were run together, then there might be a case. What users and Govt might think of that, I don't know.

The Hanborough proposal might grow legs first, if the LEP^» (Local Enterprise Partnership - about)'s back it.

OTC

[Rhydgaled]

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.

There's a long-term plan or ambition to electrify the vast majority of passenger and freight mileage, Network Rail's Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Traction-Decarbonisation-Network-Strategy-Executive-Summary.pdf). Unfortunately the government has not (as yet) signed up to implementing it. The only service through Bath not earmarked for full electrification is the Bristol-Weymouth route, which I think is proposed for battery operation between Castle Cary and Weymouth (or possibly a little less if the units can use the 3rd rail). I fear the government will continue to refuse to fund electrification and that, as a result, the rail industry will lose it's 'green' credentials; still having diesel trains in 2050, long after new petrol and diesel cars are banned, will not be a good image.

The problem would be the business case. If the only use made of the wires were by a limited IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) service then too little justifying benefit would be indicated. Perhaps if the Cardiff - Bristol trains were turned over to an EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit)/EDMU shuttle and the Taunton's and Portsmouth's were run together, then there might be a case.

Will there always be a viable business case for decarbonisation? Sometimes, we may have to do things that don't stack up in BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) terms. That said, if we can make the BCR for electrification look better we should, as it makes it more likely the treasury will authorise it. For example, if you have an elderly diesel fleet that is due for replacement the cost of new EMUs can be partly written off against that; 'we need to buy new trains anyway'. Conversely, if you have DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) with at least 15 years life left in them there's no business case for replacing them. I'm trying to get the Welsh Government to understand this regarding the large new diesel fleet TfW has ordered, but they don't seem to want to know and just keep blaming the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Government for the lack of electrification in Wales.

As for an EMU shuttle between Cardiff and Bristol... Personally, I think the Cardiff-Portsmouth should stay, worked by new tri-mode units taking the best design elements from 158s, 175s, 442s and 444s (or possibly 800s if London demand has fallen so much that fewer are needed). However, I would replace the Cardiff-Taunton with a 2tph Bristol-Cardiff shuttle (thus increasing the frequency between Cardiff and Bristol to 3tph, with the shuttle calling at many stations and the Portsmouth being a fast(er) service) and send the Taunton services up to Gloucester/Malvern instead of Cardiff.

[grahame]

As for an EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) shuttle between Cardiff and Bristol... Personally, I think the Cardiff-Portsmouth should stay, worked by new tri-mode units taking the best design elements from 158s, 175s, 442s and 444s (or possibly 800s if London demand has fallen so much that fewer are needed). However, I would replace the Cardiff-Taunton with a 2tph Bristol-Cardiff shuttle (thus increasing the frequency between Cardiff and Bristol to 3tph, with the shuttle calling at many stations and the Portsmouth being a fast(er) service) and send the Taunton services up to Gloucester/Malvern instead of Cardiff.

I have been involved in various discussions over the past few days thinking about  changes that might come to Cardiff - Portsmouth services when MetroWest introduces though services from Avonmouth to Westbury every half hour ... sounds from FoSBR^» (Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways - site) last night that, yes, this should still happen.  Separate thread ... but 800s were mentioned to whet your appetite.

[Bmblbzzz]

Will there always be a viable business case for decarbonisation? Sometimes, we may have to do things that don't stack up in BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) terms.

I agree, we should. Or rather, I wish we occasionally would.

[Electric train]

There has been a change in the Network Rail Electrification policy document, the recent changes sees a number of easements of the requirements for 25kV, lessons learnt from GWEP^▸ (Great Western Electrification Program); also changes the process for system extension of top contact third rail electrification.

CP7 and 8 could be interesting

[onthecushions]

A House of Lords Question on Electrification including one part on GW^▸ (Great Western) was aired between 1225 and 1235 on Tuesday 18  May. It is available on line.

The Govt did sound more positive - what do others think?

OTC

[stuving]

A House of Lords Question on Electrification including one part on GW^▸ (Great Western) was aired between 1225 and 1235 on Tuesday 18  May. It is available on line.

The Govt did sound more positive - what do others think?

OTC

Having just looked at that on YouTube (where it has already appeared), I don't see any sign of actual movement forwards. No doubt eventually the accumulated weight of promises to decarbonise will cause the immovable object that is the Treasury to creep along the floor a little, but that doesn't look imminent.

The prompt for this debate was a recent RIA report "Why Rail Electrification", repeating the call for a rolling programme. Coincidentally, there was a rumour (and a very rumourious one at that) that work had started to restart north of Didcot. Hard to see how that's actually true, unless Network rail have found a way of doing a little bit of something without DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) having to approve it (or perhaps even know).

[broadgage]

A House of Lords Question on Electrification including one part on GW^▸ (Great Western) was aired between 1225 and 1235 on Tuesday 18  May. It is available on line.

The Govt did sound more positive - what do others think?

OTC

It is the job of government to sound positive, but often without doing much, or even anything.
Eventually electrification will become unavoidable, partly for reasons of PR^▸ (Public Relations). TPTB^▸ (The Powers That Be) will look rather silly if major rail routes are still  not electrified after most road vehicles are.

[infoman]

a side line question,
is their any current over head electrification actually happening

[grahame]

a side line question,
is their any current over head electrification actually happening

Electrification not yet running public passenger trains ...
1. Crossrail, Inner London section
2. Barking Riverside
Both new lines rather than existing conversion from Diesel though

[Celestial]

There is also the extension from Kettering to Market Harborough, a short section from the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) to Colton Jn in Yorkshire which is well under way, and a few piles going in on the route from Manchester to Stalybridge. Though as we've found out the hard way on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), a few piles doesn't guarantee an electrified route will follow.

Also in Scotland the Barrhead and East Kilbride lines are being electrified, again being at the early stage of piles in the ground.

[grahame]

There are about 10,000 route miles of railway of which 3,300 (one third) are electrified. (That's 20,000 miles of track in total).  If you switch on another 100 route miles per year, you'll be up to 75% by 2063.  To a person looking in from the outside, it would seem sensible to staff and supply-chain up for a rolling program at this sort of rate, preparing the way ahead of time with design and planning, and perhaps with a buffer of "shovel-ready" jobs in between design and implementation case (shock, horror, miracle) electricfication got so routine that some installations were finished early and the staff could move on to the next job.

There is also the extension from Kettering to Market Harborough, a short section from the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) to Colton Jn in Yorkshire which is well under way, and a few piles going in on the route from Manchester to Stalybridge. Though as we've found out the hard way on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), a few piles doesn't guarantee an electrified route will follow.

Also in Scotland the Barrhead and East Kilbride lines are being electrified, again being at the early stage of piles in the ground.

Has Corby just opened?  How are we doing with all of these for 100 miles this year, next year, 2023, ....

[onthecushions]

I believe that the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) signed off the Corby wires on 14/5 and the first passengers were carried on Sunday.

The extension to Market Harborough will take time as it depends on a new ATFS compound, cutting into a 400kV power line. It's only really needed if the wires run North past Leicester etc as the existing power supply, downgraded to classic rail return is enough for the EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit)'s and bi-modes would need extensive OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") work elsewhere to make the MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) wires fit for 125mph.

The other wirings (three perhaps on TP) have sneaked in without fanfare and it's not really clear how far they are going; they're just part of bigger infrastructure schemes, it seems.

Ssshhh. Clever Network Rail.

OTC

[stuving]

There are about 10,000 route miles of railway of which 3,300 (one third) are electrified. (That's 20,000 miles of track in total).  If you switch on another 100 route miles per year, you'll be up to 75% by 2063.  To a person looking in from the outside, it would seem sensible to staff and supply-chain up for a rolling program at this sort of rate, preparing the way ahead of time with design and planning, and perhaps with a buffer of "shovel-ready" jobs in between design and implementation case (shock, horror, miracle) electricfication got so routine that some installations were finished early and the staff could move on to the next job.

We have no evidence that the government don't intend and expect to run a rolling programme.

Somewhere in the big forest that this thread has become (and it's already been truncated), I'm sure I said that the government's halt on major projects was quite rational. NR^» (Network Rail - home page) had shown themselves (and their suppliers) incapable of delivering projects anywhere close to the estimated cost. So DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) told them that had made major projects impossible to approve. First they had to finish what was in hand and near completion, then a few smaller projects would be allowed as a trial. Once the ability to deliver to estimate (and estimate realistically) had been demonstrated, then the whole subject of large-scale electrification could be picked up again.

So, have we got there yet? From that point of view, one of the main points made in that RIA report is this:

Since the GW^▸ (Great Western) electrification, more recent electrification programmes have been delivered to cost and budget. Furthermore section 5.5 shows that there is significant potential to reduce the cost of future schemes from innovations that avoid the significant costs associated with bridge reconstructions and provide a more cost-effective electrical supply.

I don't think the report makes enough of that, section 5.5 included.

[Celestial]

The other wirings (three perhaps on TP) have sneaked in without fanfare and it's not really clear how far they are going; they're just part of bigger infrastructure schemes, it seems.

Three maybe on TP? I mentioned Stalybridge and Colton Junction. Which have I missed?