Electrification and its implications for Bath's heritage (merged topics)

[whole diary]

[Timmer]

The bid to get the London-Bristol line listed as a World Heritage Site has failed:

http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/news/Blow-rail-heritage-campaign/article-643025-detail/article.html

[John R]

I'm not sure I am disappointed about this, if it would have made electrification and/or Reading remodelling more difficult.

[Phil]

Well I for one am glad.

If it had succeeded, you can be sure Network Rail would have found a way of charging an extortionate entrance fee, which would have in turn been passed on to passengers.

[Btline]

"World heritage sites in Britain include:

Bath, Stonehenge...... and a railway line."
 

Why were they even considering it?

[Electric train]

I think Brunel would spin in his grave at the thought of the line being in effect placed in aspic, whilst he delivered some stunning architecture he was a cutting edge engineer producing a commercial product (a transport system) he was an innovator and if alive today he would most likely be the first person to be pressing for electrification.

Network Rail is proud of the heritage entrusted in its care and has probably done more than any of it predecessors to preserve as much of it as it can.

[bemmy]

The trains have been getting slower in the 30 years I've been travelling on the line, so before long we may see a return to 19th century journey times. This will give us a better opportunity to admire Brunel's architecture as we crawl past. 

[Timmer]

Network Rail reveal plans to put fencing along the wall that runs alongside the railway line through Sydney Gardens in Bath:
http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/travelandtransport/Bid-beat-rail-vandals-Sydney-Gardens/article-701915-detail/article.html

I have many happy memories from childhood of going to the park to watch the trains and it would be a great shame if a fence/barrier has to be errected all because of some mindless behaviour of the few. But safety has to come first on this one as the temptation for some is too great with such easy access to the railway line.

For anyone who isn't familiar with Sydney Gardens in Bath, here's a couple of pictures that show a)how close the trains are b)the height of the wall thats easy to get over onto the railway line:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/20/71736369_e73eaa6ff3.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/194/448664098_8eb6cae288.jpg?v=0

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thanks, Timmer - this has indeed been a cause for concern for some time: see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=3320.msg25791#msg25791 

[IndustryInsider]

I can't say I'm surprised. That's the way the world is heading. They'll be putting up a great big iron fence along the Dawlish seafront soon, just you watch! 

[Tim]

My son loves watching the trains here (safely strapped into his pushchair) as do lots of other children (and their parents if they admit it).

I can see why better protection is needed but it is a great shame and I hope it is done in a way that is sympathetic to the park and still allows the trains to be viewed.

Just another thought, but have NR^» (Network Rail - home page) considered how this will fit with the proposed electrification of the line?  Electrification would appear to neccessitate other changes such as replacing historic over-footbridges and has great potential to mess up the park as well if it is not done very carefully.

[Btline]

Rail plan: it could ruin Brunel's Bath

In the fanfare and spin surrounding the proposed electrification of the original Great Western Railway, I believe one important issue has been completely ignored ^ the impact both visually and structurally on the Brunel assets, particularly through Bath.

Brunel paid particular attention in landscaping the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) to make it as attractive as possible to the public who treated the development with much suspicion. He intended the railway to be seen and enjoyed. And today it is pretty much as constructed.

In Bath we are lucky to have one of the best collections of Brunel architecture on the route. It brings many visitors to Bath from all over the country to photograph the steam engines that still traverse the line in the surroundings as created by Brunel.Would they continue to travel to see such sights in amphitheatres such as Sydney Gardens if overhead wires and gantries were installed?

I believe the installation of such infrastructure in Bath would be devastating, with such famous vistas as Sydney Gardens, the St James' Viaduct and Twerton Viaduct being irrevocably damaged ^ especially as the GWR cuts a swathe through the heart of the World Heritage Site.

No indication has been given that any other method of electrification has been considered, and when push comes to shove, the cheapest and quickest option will likely be taken.


In its 2006 report about the Great Western World Heritage Site, English Heritage states: "The GWR through the city of Bath is one of the most impressive and varied sections of urban railway landscape in the world" and it is. . . "the most complete surviving example of a major railway of this period".

Yet despite the announcement that Network Rail has identified 113 structures on the route, mainly bridges and tunnels, several of which were built by Brunel that will have to be demolished or altered because of the lack of headroom for overhead wires, English Heritage has not commented. How can this agency responsible for protecting our heritage remain silent on such proposals? Does this indicate it is likely to sanction the demolition of listed/unlisted Brunel assets?

To date I have been unable to uncover mention of any public consultation at all, whether with national or local amenity societies or residents. Nor has there been an announcement as to whether there will be any.

It is imperative that full and meaningful consultation is undertaken.

Is it coincidence that the Government has announced these proposals only a few months after deciding to review the Tentative List of World Heritage Sites with no guarantees that the GWR will remain on it? Is the Government listening to lobbying from departments such as Network Rail, rather than treating nominations on its own heritage merit?

The proposals are said to cut 12 minutes from the journey between Bath and Paddington which, at present takes one hour, 30 minutes. When the first HST^▸ (High Speed Train) 125s were introduced in 1976 the journey took one hour, 16 minutes. With allegedly faster trains and faster acceleration, the journey will be three minutes longer than 33 years ago. Hardly progress!

Electrification will simply displace the pollution source from the trains to the power stations. The substantial power supplies required will not be available from renewable sources.

Is this a price worth paying? I certainly don't think so and anyone who feels the same should write to Network Rail, English Heritage, The Victorian Society, SAVE and, perhaps, Gordon Brown before this damaging scheme is foisted on us.

The only bits I agree with are the journey time comparisons. The rest is drivel. What other electrification system can they use?

http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/letters/Rail-plan-ruin-Brunel-s-Bath/article-1270973-detail/article.html

[moonrakerz]

Electrification will simply displace the pollution source from the trains to the power stations. The substantial power supplies required will not be available from renewable sources.

This is an equally valid point - unless, of course we build lots of nuclear plants in the mean time ! 

In fact, according to more and more sources:- "The substantial power supplies required will not be available" - from any source.  Smart new electric trains but no electricity to run them on - now where have I heard that one before ?

[eightf48544]

My stock answer to these people is "How dare they insult Brunel's memory". Had he had 25Kv technology we'd have had at least 200 mph broad gauge trains sweeping through Bath.

Lets be grateful that because of Brunel the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) is one of the easier mainlines to electrify.

Have used it on the Madonians and the Thames river bridge, usually shuts them up.

As for power supplies raised by moonrakerz and btline, Roger Ford did a quick calcualtion and it's only half a base load power staion to electrify most of the remaining routes.

Unfortunately the government has wasted the last 20 years by not investing in research into renewables, clean coal burning and carbon capture.

Had maggie not proivatised Gas and Electricty we'd have have paid more for energy over the years but by now we would have been leading the world in renewables, gasification of coal and clean burning the remains with carbon capture. Had we paid more over the last 20 years to fund such research we would propbaly also have started to think about energy efficiency in the home and work place so we wouldn't need so much energy in the first place.

I was taught at school in the fifties that we had 200 years worth of coal under the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) at the then rate of use. We must still have about that especially as we are conserving our stocks by importing most of the coal used by the base load stations.

However you dice it modern electric traction with regen brakes etc. is far more efficient than diesel even taking into account having to generate the electricity in the first place.

[Tim]

Sometimes it is embarassing to live in the same city as so many moaners

[JayMac]

This letter writer appears to reside at the same address as a TV and Audio services company. I wonder if she is concerned with all those aerials and satellite dishes ruining historic Bath's vistas?