Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[paul7575]

The June 2016 milestones, which in some areas slightly revise the 'post Hendy' timescales, have a regulated output of "Didcot to Oxford complete" June 2019, so only 2 months into CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024).   

But then there is also an entry for "entry into service for part of route section for train testing" due in Sept 2018.   That is only 18 months away, so I would have thought that at least some section of the route will carry on at a slightly slower pace, but I'd be surprised if there was an obvious withdrawal of the entire workforce for a significant period.

Paul

But didn't the Grayling deferral come after that? And Grayling gave no dates or even any guarantees that electrification would ever be completed.

I would say that Sept 2018 was very unlikely given the lack of work undertaken between Kennington Junction and Oxford. No piling or even preparation for piling has ever taken place between those two places.

There's a December 2016 milestones published now, with the GW^▸ (Great Western) electrification section amended at that time, so post-Grayling.  As you forecast, most affected route sections now show CP6.   Paddington to Didcot in Dec 2017 is still there though, as we'd expect.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Enhancements-Delivery-Plan-September-2016.pdf

Paul

[Tim]

Whatever the reality of the situation I hope they don't use the Oxford station rebuild as an excuse not to complete electrification to Oxford. As as far as I can tell there is no approved/finalised plan for the rebuild and their certainly doesn't appear to be any money so we could be waiting a long time/forever.

That is my main concern.  It could be at least ten years before any new station is built.

10 years is likely timescale IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion).  I am optimistic that "pause" means "pause" and that electrification will continue into the foreseeable future although at a more measured and steady pace to allow time for proper planning and integration.  If that is the case it might take 10 years anyway to get thorough the work already announced (on GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about)) and so waiting until the new station in Oxford is up might be entirely sensible. 

[Bmblbzzz]

Whatever the reality of the situation I hope they don't use the Oxford station rebuild as an excuse not to complete electrification to Oxford. As as far as I can tell there is no approved/finalised plan for the rebuild and their certainly doesn't appear to be any money so we could be waiting a long time/forever.

That is my main concern.  It could be at least ten years before any new station is built.

And any guesses on the revamp of Temple Meads?

A lot of the "preppy-uppy" work for electrification of Filton Bank has been done, if not all. I was beginning to think that was all for naught until I saw Paul's earlier post - you have been right on timings before, Paul, and I trust your judgement. It would make sense to get Four Track, Now! out of the way with electrification in mind rather than do it with it in place, then throw up the knitting after it's finished.

Between Thingley and Temple Meads is another matter. Much has already been done, notably Box Tunnel and Keynsham, but some big jobs remain, mainly the two tunnels closest to Temple Meads. This could be a reason for the truncation, but can't be the whole reason - why stop at Thingley when the coast is clear to Bath and slightly beyond? Another factor may be that the HOPS train, whilst doing what it was designed for, hasn't been the wonder we expected, because of the stuff buried trackside.

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) the very first stage of "preppy-uppy" work was clearing the embankments of undergrowth and rubbish thrown over the fences; I suspect also mending some of those fences. That looks like being an ongoing job for as long as the railway is in use. 

[autotank]

From the document linked to above it says the first timetabled public use of the infrastructure between Maidenhead and Didcot will be in CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024)? Surely this isn't the case - I would have thought the IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) will use the juice for as far as possible once they start running. Also I thought the plan was to start using 387's to Didcot sooner than CP6?

[IndustryInsider]

A mistake I think.  To be honest the whole document is a bit of a shambles with CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) cut-and-pasted all over the place.  At this rate they'll be no 'new' CP6 enhancements at all, just a load of stuff carried over from CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) - some of which will probably be shelved completely.

[stuving]

A mistake I think.  To be honest the whole document is a bit of a shambles with CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) cut-and-pasted all over the place.  At this rate they'll be no 'new' CP6 enhancements at all, just a load of stuff carried over from CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) - some of which will probably be shelved completely.

Actually, that first timetabled use has been given as CP6 ever since the Hendy review a year ago. It is slightly out of line with the dates for availability of IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) (last one July 2018, unless becoming a bi-mode takes longer) and wires (some much earlier). Introduction of the full timetable might well be a bit later, if it relies on the whole system for its timings to work. However, the Hendy report did set that at December 2018, and was written before the "all bi-modes" decision .

Of course if it's only a "must do by this date" kind of milestone, it doesn't preclude using juice earlier.

Also, I did say a little while ago that no completion dates had been Graylinged from CP5 to CP6. However I'd forgotten about the branch lines, which did have December 2018 as their EIS^▸ (Enters Into Service) milestone. They are just too easy to defer, I guess. My apologies to the poor old branch lines for writing them off once again.

[Kenny]

The reasons I suspect the electrification is going slightly North of Didcot are -

• Didcot area is one of the more complex areas in the GWEP^▸ (Great Western Electrification Program), it makes sense to complete it all at one time.
  There may also be some train operational reasons for completing the lines North of the Didcot
  With the ATFS site to the West of Didcot Station there may be some alternative feeding arrangements via the route North.
  

One of the principle reasons for not going to Oxford is the rebuild of Oxford Station once that has been sorted out wiring to Oxford is quite simple

Oxford Station masterplan - Work is underway to attract public sector funding to deliver the Masterplan

https://www.oxford.gov.uk/info/20182/regeneration_and_development/949/oxford_station_masterplan

Timeline of progress

    April 2013 to September 2013 - Stakeholder consultation
    24 July 2014 - Launch of Station Masterplan
    1 & 2 August 2014 - Station Masterplan exhibition in the Westgate Centre
    Autumn 2015 - Launch of an architectural competition inviting international firms to develop concept designs of a new station, bridge and transport interchange
    December 2015 - Station competition public exhibition
    Ongoing - Work is underway to attract public sector funding to deliver the Masterplan

[Red Squirrel]

Indeed, the wind is unreliable, and sometimes so absent that wind turbines become net consumers of electricity.

True, but then all generating plant consumes some energy, and wind turbines don't consume much compared to what you get out. How much energy does a coal pulveriser consume?

Developing batteries to store excess power for its own sake... ...is at present a nonsensical idea.

Quite so. But I don't think anyone was suggesting storing it for fun.

Now, if trains can be run on solar power, and you need somewhere to put the panels, why not on the train roof?

I has crossed my mind that putting solar panels above the track might (along with the OHLE) not be completely insane - perhaps they could start at Goring?

FTR^▸ (Fitness To Run), FT, N! awaits the outcome of the proposal to build a tidal lagoon somewhere near Swansea with interest. So long as this doesn't solve one problem but cause two more, it could be a goer on a national scale. We know with remarkable accuracy what the tide will be doing there at any given time within the next 100 years, and the energy density of water is higher than that of wind.

Yes, this looks interesting, with your provisos.

[froome]

Now, if trains can be run on solar power, and you need somewhere to put the panels, why not on the train roof?

I has crossed my mind that putting solar panels above the track might (along with the OHLE) not be completely insane - perhaps they could start at Goring?

Those are two ideas that have been in the back of my head for some time. To me above railway lines and on carriages offer potential solutions to where do you put up enough panels to really make a difference to renewable energy production. It is a topic worth having a separate thread about.

[Electric train]

Now, if trains can be run on solar power, and you need somewhere to put the panels, why not on the train roof?

I has crossed my mind that putting solar panels above the track might (along with the OHLE) not be completely insane - perhaps they could start at Goring?

Lets put a bit of context to solar electricity generation -

Blackfriars station roof has 4,400 solar panels which are South facing with next to no shadows cast over them and generate 1.1 MW peak a 12 car class 700 is 5 MW

Therefore to power one 12 car class 700 you need an area 5 times the roof of Blackfriars station  and that's on a bright sunny day.

Renewable have there place, and are important in the energy mix; but they are not the total solution we will always need some hydrocarbon and some nuclear generation.

The problem with solar and wind generation is they do not provide any inertia on the National Grid, the National Grid relies of the spinning mass of large generators to maintain sync, to manage power factor and to stabilise the voltage on the system especially after a fault. Because solar is DC^▸ (Direct Current), like wise the inter connectors across to Europe are DC these produces ac via an inverter which as no spinning mass and wind turbines just don't have the mass and many of these are dc machines feeding via an inverter

[John R]

I has crossed my mind that putting solar panels above the track might (along with the OHLE) not be completely insane - perhaps they could start at Goring?

Maybe they could put wind turbines on each stanchion as well, again with the trial at Goring. 

[JayMac]

Nice brownfield site just up the road from Goring at Didcot for a nuclear power station. Water supply could be provided by diverting, or digging a tributary from, the Thames.

Residents of Goring will surely approve.

[Oxonhutch]

Nice brownfield site just up the road from Goring at Didcot for a nuclear power station. Water supply could be provided by diverting, or digging a tributary from, the Thames.

It would get my tick - and its current chimney is visible from my house (well just and then from on top the roof!). Safe from tsunamis I reckon and pretty much carbon free. Great existing infrastructure made for a power station. 

[didcotdean]

The current Didcot Power Station isn't in Didcot anyway, it is in Sutton Courteney.

Make more sense to build close to the Thames - Goring or Pangbourne perhaps ...

[lordgoata]

Nice brownfield site just up the road from Goring at Didcot for a nuclear power station. Water supply could be provided by diverting, or digging a tributary from, the Thames.

Residents of Goring will surely approve.

The residents (well, a couple) of Goring are far too busy fighting against the Goring Hydro Electric plans, Tesco and Network Rail. Not sure they would have time for that one too ;-)