Reading redevelopment unveiled

[whole diary]

[onthecushions]

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^» (Network Rail - home page) finally quoted 141M for 7.5 miles of single track!)

I've never fathomed why we use 25kV when UK^▸ (United Kingdom) 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

[Electric train]

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^‡(resolve) 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^» (Network Rail - home page) 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

[willc]

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^▸ (Direct Current) 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^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) like FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'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^▸ (British Rail(ways)) did the overhead on the cheap, or out of Liverpool Street, where the system is very old and needs modernisation

[Chris from Nailsea]

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

[John R]

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

[Chris from Nailsea]

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! 

[Ollie]

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! 

Yeah who was it that spoke about that?

[Electric train]

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

[Chris from Nailsea]

A Reading MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) 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.

Rob Wilson, MP for Reading East, said "rushing" the station could lead to poor planning and mistakes.  He told Secretary of State for Work and Pensions James Purnell in the Commons that it was not the answer to short-term unemployment.

Mr Wilson said: "Whilst we all want to keep unemployment down, Reading Station is far too important to the regional economy to rush it forward.  Network Rail informed me that any attempt to rush it could be counter-productive and might lead to poor planning and mistakes.  It is also extremely unlikely that it would make a difference to unemployment rates in the next 18 months to two years, so what's the point in rushing it?"

He said "reckless" spending would only make matters worse in the longer-term.

Mr Purnell responded: "Well he's very welcome to campaign against investment in his constituency if he wants to. It is a very odd approach is all I can say."

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

[John R]

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^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) 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.   

[Lee]

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

[onthecushions]

"A Reading MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) 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^▸ (High Speed Train)'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^▸ (United Kingdom) 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^▸ (Great Western Main Line), 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

[Btline]

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.

[John R]

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.....     

[Btline]

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.