Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[onthecushions]

Having digested both the facts and learned arguments put forward about GW^» (Great Western - used as an abbreviation for the area / lines under the Great Western franchise, as opposed to FGW which includes "First", the company operating them too. For tickets - about) Electrification, my conclusions are:

4. Diesels under the wires are doubly wasteful, when they are needed elsewhere.

All this is a long time ahead of course.

Can I take it that you also consider weekday diesel services that are on 3rd rail lines throughout are also wasteful ... and that would apply equally from next May as from 'a long time ahead'?   I'm trying to get my head round the logic of transferring the 158 that's been running the morning TransWilts to Swindon servivce  onto the Lymington branch.

Absolutely. Reading - Gatwick is my (local) hobbyhorse, only 3 substations needed....then lots of Turbos for TransWilts....

In the context of a rolling stock crunch, appropriating a dmu of 158 quality is appalling.

Surely there's a 507/8 or two sitting in a siding, somewhere.

MP^▸ (Member of Parliament, or Mile Post - a method of measuring the railway in miles and chains from a starting point - usually London, depending on context) (try Adonis' PPS), ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road, formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about), Audit Commission or Select Committee?

Good Luck

OTC

[woody]

Plans to run electric trains between Bristol and London have been thrown in to doubt after the Tories refused to commit to the ^1billion scheme.Last week Transport Secretary Lord Adonis gave a "cast-iron" guarantee the major overhaul, which would shave 12 minutes off journey times between Bristol and London, would go ahead under a Labour government.

But in an interview during the Conservatives' annual party conference, Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers told the Evening Post that was a pledge she would not make.
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Electric-trains-Bristol-doubt/article-1397493-detail/article.html
What do you think?

[signalandtelegraph]

No change there then, the tories sold it and will want to wash their hands of it as much as they can if they become 'responsible' for it again.

[moonrakerz]

or..........

perhaps she was telling the truth - we can't afford it !

[Btline]

Why are you surprised?

Of course the Tories won't do it! Say goodbye to Crossrail as well, that has not been confirmed by the Tories (Boris doesn't count, as he shares very little in common with his Westminster colleagues!) of course, Boris himself cut several transport projects proposed by Labour's Ken. That's what they do!

Their claim of "we can't afford it" is rubbish. We can't afford NOT to do it. The HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) need replacing, and if the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) is not electrified, we'll be confimed to DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) for the next 40 years. The other benefit is the way Labour have planned a good rolling stock cascade, which co-incides with the Thameslink programme being completed.

But the Tories won't bother making the investment, despite the fact that the benefits will pay for it in the long term. And the fact that it is greener and reduces our reliance on foreign fossil fuels.

And they have the cheek of posting a video on their transport policy website saying that "passengers have had a bad deal under Labour".

[Tim]

There might be changes and savings availble (I am yetto be convinced that the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project. This will offer more capacity on routes, save money, give a consistent and safe service and meet customer requirements. Intended to replace HSTs.) is good value), but bottom line is that electrification would save money (ie more than pay for itself when you factor the cost of an HST^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) replacement into account.  Even the dubious cost-benefit analysis calculations which are often baised against investment have a result which is described by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) as "technically infinate".  Mathematically this is because the benefit/cost involves a divsion by zero because over a 40 year time-scale the cost is nil because electrification will actuallly save money.

If the Tories don't think that the government should pay for it it should let private capital build it. 

[inspector_blakey]

This is slightly puzzling.

If you read the previous edition of RAIL, Theresa Villiers is quoted as saying that a Tory government would not squish plans for high-speed rail construction because it was a necessity, not an option. I would have assumed that the same would apply to electrification given it's hugely lower relative cost, but perhaps that's naive of me.

[grahame]

But the Tories won't bother making the investment, despite the fact that the benefits will pay for it in the long term. And the fact that it is greener and reduces our reliance on foreign fossil fuels.

And they have the cheek of posting a video on their transport policy website saying that "passengers have had a bad deal under Labour".

Hmmm ... your comment about the Tories "not bothering" is, I think, conjecture.  And in our neck of the woods, passengers HAVE had a bad deal under Labour.  We see places like Workington (population 19,000, labour marginal) with an hourly service, yet Melksham (20,000+, no hope of a labour gain) being cut back to just two trains a day, and they're running at [understatement ahead ...] less than ideal times of day.

[moonrakerz]

That's what they do!

Of course - nasty Tory cuts, good Labour "investment" !

But the Tories won't bother making the investment, despite the fact that the benefits will pay for it in the long term. And the fact that it is greener and reduces our reliance on foreign fossil fuels.

Most of our power station run on imported fossil fuels - don't quite get that one !!

[Btline]

But the Tories won't bother making the investment, despite the fact that the benefits will pay for it in the long term. And the fact that it is greener and reduces our reliance on foreign fossil fuels.

And they have the cheek of posting a video on their transport policy website saying that "passengers have had a bad deal under Labour".

Hmmm ... your comment about the Tories "not bothering" is, I think, conjecture.  And in our neck of the woods, passengers HAVE had a bad deal under Labour.  We see places like Workington (population 19,000, labour marginal) with an hourly service, yet Melksham (20,000+, no hope of a labour gain) being cut back to just two trains a day, and they're running at [understatement ahead ...] less than ideal times of day.

But if you look at the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) as a whole, I would say there has been an improvement. (esp in things like rolling stock quality)

[willc]

Look, I am no fan of the Tories, but Labour hardly has a sparkling record on railways - going even further in cuts than Beeching proposed in the 1960s, eg closing Oxford-Cambridge.

All of the pre-Class 168 and 170 DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) fleet was authorised under the Tories, so that in the late 1980 and early 90s, after the painful lesson of the Pacers had been learned, the 150s, 155s and 156s, followed by 158/9s and Turbos, produced a vast improvement on ageing DMUs and Mk1 coaches on routes all over the country.

They also authorised ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) electrification - because BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) produced a sound business case for doing it, rather like what Network Rail has set out to do with its electrification plan.

[Btline]

When I talk about improved rolling stock, I mean post 168s!

I would rather have mark ones than 150s, and rather Turbostars than both!

And in the 60s, people thought the day of the railway was over, and the day of the car had come.

[IndustryInsider]

When I talk about improved rolling stock, I mean post 168s!

Voyagers for example? 

[moonrakerz]

Look, I am no fan of the Tories, but Labour hardly has a sparkling record on railways - going even further in cuts than Beeching proposed in the 1960s, eg closing Oxford-Cambridge.

I have just finished reading a book on the railways. The author says in it, quite reasonably I think, "John Major had a plan, it may have been a **** plan, but he had one. The following Labour Governments never had a plan".

[Btline]

When I talk about improved rolling stock, I mean post 168s!

Voyagers for example? 

I mean getting rid of all the slam door stock in the South East, getting rid of most Mark 2s on Intercity runs, Electrostars, Turbostars.... even Desiros are better than what was on offer before.