Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Tim]

Does confirmation of electrification to Oxford mean that there will be some re-thinking on Crossrail? It would surely be a good opportunity to make better use of the Crossrail tunnel, reducing the number of trains that will terminate at Paddington from the East, and free up some platform space at Paddington.

Makes sense to me.  But I suspect that the Government will want to complete crossrail as it is currently planned first and draw a line under that and then work-up any changes as a separate project.  Crossrail funding is complicated and altering the project befor eit is comepleted might risk some of the contributions. 

[paul7575]

Slightly surprising that DafT seem to have ruled out the Voyager with an electric transformer coach idea which Bombardier has been pushing hard, in particular as a way to speed up MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) wiring.

That hasn't really been proposed as an IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) option though has it. Adding a pantograph to various Voyagers and Meridians is a way of allowing the existing fleet to run under wires where their routes currently allow them to, such as on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) or south of Bedford, and at the same time lengthen to 5 or 6 coaches long.

That would be a huge benefit to those fleets, but they'd still be used in their current areas AFAICT^▸ (as far as I can tell)...

Paul 

[Tim]

Slightly surprising that DafT seem to have ruled out the Voyager with an electric transformer coach idea which Bombardier has been pushing hard, in particular as a way to speed up MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) wiring.

That hasn't really been proposed as an IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) option though has it. Adding a pantograph to various Voyagers and Meridians is a way of allowing the existing fleet to run under wires where their routes currently allow them to, such as on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) or south of Bedford, and at the same time lengthen to 5 or 6 coaches long.

That would be a huge benefit to those fleets, but they'd still be used in their current areas AFAICT^▸ (as far as I can tell)...

Paul 

I think that you are right Paul.  Although it is not completely clear to me that the governemnt will choose one of the EIP options on the table at the moment.  They might choose something else.  One option for them would be to choose an electric fleet for the routes that are wired and a diesel  fleet for the non-wired routes.  The temptation must be to choose DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) rather than proper deisel locos and the voyager/pantagraph argument could be used to justify that decision. 

I can't get too excited about running diesels under the wires.  If the wires only get to Cardiff and Bristol then I cant see that running diesels from paddington to Penzance and from Paddington to carmarthern or Swansea is all that terrible.   And when the wires do reach Swansea the deisel stock will find work elseware I am sure. 

[eightf48544]

I can't get too excited about running diesels under the wires.  If the wires only get to Cardiff and Bristol then I cant see that running diesels from paddington to Penzance and from Paddington to carmarthern or Swansea is all that terrible.   And when the wires do reach Swansea the deisel stock will find work elseware I am sure. 

I am afraid I disgree with you completely on this one.

One of the stupidist things the current regime has given us is HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) running Newcastle and Leeds services entirely under the wires because of lack of suitable electric stock.

Go to KX around 10:00 and there are (were) 4 HSTs in under an hour. Inverness, Sunderalnd Leeds and Newcastle, two of which are under the wires all the way.

I also don't think freight should be diesel hauled under the wires. An electrified railway should use electric traction for all trains.

OK so you have a loco change at the end of the wires but Cambridge (and other places) used to do it in under three minutes on the Kings Lynn through trains. As the wires are likely to end at a reasonably large town the 3 minute dwell time would not really affect the overall journey time it would disappear if excessive padding was removed.

[standclearplease]

Would the argument be that having a bi-mode train would add too much weight?

Lugging around a transformer when not under the wires, and lugging around a diesel engine when under the wires doesn't sound efficient. Saying that, neither does running an electric train being pulled by a diesel train whilst not under wires.

But there we go. 

[Henry]

http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=140772

[onthecushions]

OK so you have a loco change at the end of the wires but Cambridge (and other places) used to do it in under three minutes on the Kings Lynn through trains. As the wires are likely to end at a reasonably large town the 3 minute dwell time would not really affect the overall journey time it would disappear if excessive padding was removed.

Yep.

They could replace a XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) Cl47 at Coventry or Birmingham NS with a Cl86 in 4 minutes.

Very good when you think of two sets of screw couplings, brake hoses and ETH jumpers and two shunting movements (and oil lamps).

It took 22 minutes at Preston, for a Blackpool train.

OTC

[stebbo]

This assumes that the electric stock will be driven by a locomotive at one end. If an emu type stock, then the diesel has to haul the whole lot.

[Electric train]

This assumes that the electric stock will be driven by a locomotive at one end. If an emu type stock, then the diesel has to haul the whole lot.

Technically there is no reason why an eclectic loco could not couple to a DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) or a diesel loco to an EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) it just needs for them both to have the same type auto couplers, this would make for a very flexible system and would not mean the dead hauling of equipment for long distances however it would mean stabling points etc

[Tim]

I do take your point, Running "under the wires" without electric traction is not good and more of the trains leaving kings cross shoudl be electric, but I don't think you can too much of a purist about it.  If you look at the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) after the currently promised electrification is complete, a train from London to Plymouth or Penzance will only be running under the wires for a small proportion of its journey.  To make that train bi-mode with the extra cost and reliability issues, and the performance and energy efficiency penalty caused by dragging the weight of two sets of equipment arround or the time penalty caused by coupling a loco on and off does not seem worth it.  I think it is a no brainer to make those journeys with deisel traction the whole way.   Especially as we want to keep things simple and affordable.

If the wires go up to Cardiff but not Swansea then the facts change.  Running lots of diesels every day all the way from Paddington to Swansea/Carmarthen doesn't look so sensible as a higher proportion of the route is electrified.  The business case for buying deisel trains for that route are also less clear cut as their is a reasonable chance that the wires will eventually get to Swansea.   I am still not convinced that bi-mode is the answer, because you would be talking an expensive and complex train as a solution to what might be a tempory problem.  Loco haulage might be an answer (especially if the class 67s can be used as they are short of work) as well as changing the calling patterns off peak and terminating more trains at cardiff with more of the manchester or Pompy trains extended to Swansea.  

I can't get too excited about running diesels under the wires.  If the wires only get to Cardiff and Bristol then I cant see that running diesels from paddington to Penzance and from Paddington to carmarthern or Swansea is all that terrible.   And when the wires do reach Swansea the deisel stock will find work elseware I am sure. 

I am afraid I disgree with you completely on this one.

One of the stupidist things the current regime has given us is HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) running Newcastle and Leeds services entirely under the wires because of lack of suitable electric stock.

Go to KX around 10:00 and there are (were) 4 HSTs in under an hour. Inverness, Sunderalnd Leeds and Newcastle, two of which are under the wires all the way.

I also don't think freight should be diesel hauled under the wires. An electrified railway should use electric traction for all trains.

OK so you have a loco change at the end of the wires but Cambridge (and other places) used to do it in under three minutes on the Kings Lynn through trains. As the wires are likely to end at a reasonably large town the 3 minute dwell time would not really affect the overall journey time it would disappear if excessive padding was removed.

I do take your point, Running "under the wires" without electric traction is not good and more of the trains leaving kings cross shoudl be electric, but I don't think you can too much of a purist about it.  If you look at the GWML after the currently promised electrification is complete, a train from London to Plymouth or Penzance will only be running under the wires for a small proportion of its journey.  To make that train bi-mode with the extra cost and reliability issues, and the performance and energy efficiency penalty caused by dragging the weight of two sets of equipment arround or the time penalty caused by coupling a loco on and off does not seem worth it.  I think it is a no brainer to make those journeys with deisel traction the whole way.   Especially as we want to keep things simple and affordable.

If the wires go up to Cardiff but not Swansea then the facts change.  Running lots of diesels every day all the way from Paddington to Swansea/Carmarthen doesn't look so sensible as a higher proportion of the route is electrified.  The business case for buying deisel trains for that route are also less clear cut as their is a reasonable chance that the wires will eventually get to Swansea.   I am still not convinced that bi-mode is the answer, because you would be talking an expensive and complex train as a solution to what might be a tempory problem.  Loco haulage might be an answer (especially if the class 67s can be used as they are short of work) as well as changing the calling patterns off peak and terminating more trains at cardiff with more of the manchester or Pompy trains extended to Swansea.

[Tim]

This assumes that the electric stock will be driven by a locomotive at one end. If an emu type stock, then the diesel has to haul the whole lot.

If we have diesel locos hauling electric trains or EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) will those diesels need to run arround at the end of their journeys?  Is the trackwork in place in Swansea and other places for them to do this?  Is this still feasible on a busy railway? Of are we going to need more complicated stock capable of driving a diesel loco from an EMU cab? Doesn't complexity add to cost and risk?

[Electric train]

This assumes that the electric stock will be driven by a locomotive at one end. If an emu type stock, then the diesel has to haul the whole lot.

If we have diesel locos hauling electric trains or EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) will those diesels need to run arround at the end of their journeys?  Is the trackwork in place in Swansea and other places for them to do this?  Is this still feasible on a busy railway? Of are we going to need more complicated stock capable of driving a diesel loco from an EMU cab? Doesn't complexity add to cost and risk?

Or run it in effect as a DVT^‡(resolve) no need to decouple the loco at the remote end

[eightf48544]

That was exactly what the Southern Region did from1967 until the conductor rails reached Weymouth.

A 4 REP pushed 1 or 2 4 TCs^‡(resolve) to Bournemouth where a 33 came on the front and took 1 or 2 of the TCs down to Weymouth. Pushing them back to Bournemouth where the coupled onto a waiting REP.

Couplings were buckeye with a brake pipes and  and a standard control cable to couple.

Each individual 4 car set REP or TC had a driving cab at each end as did the 33. Worked beautifully.
 

[brompton rail]

Yes, but it didn't travel at 125 mph though.

[Worcester_Passenger]

But surely a modern version could travel at 125 mph?