GWML Electification

[Steadfast]

DR98001 was visible from the road by Tesco again yesterday, sat alone in the yard

 

jo

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The 3+2 seating in the Southern 377s are a classic case of a layout approved by someone who never has to travel on them. The seating is cramped and access through the carriage is nigh on impossible when the seats are full as most people overhang into the gangway. The fact the new 377/6s are 2+2 throughout (as these are allocated to suburban services) suggests at least someone recognises the 3+2 pattern is poor for passenger comfort, and contributes to station dwell-time. 

 

 

Laid out properly, one can get nearly as many seats in 2+2 as in 2+3. That is because it is easier for those sitting at the window seats to get out.

 

Seats on 377/6 still look a bit narrow though. Seems optimised to get more people standing.

Got to face it, this is now a utility, not aspirational travel. Current train speeds make the whole London-Bristol run effectively a short commute. City workers are standing on London-Leeds daily return journeys...

 

What I can see to enable a 2+2/3+2 maximum seat capacity is a move in the direction the airlines are going. If you overflow the standard seat, then buy a first. If you overflow that, then buy two standard seats and so  on. Should be flexibly chargeable at the weighing in ticket gate with an Oystercard style system.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Current train speeds make the whole London-Bristol run effectively a short commute.

 

 

 

Quite. I'm not saying that the trains for such a journey should not be comfortable but something based on the Class 395 Javelin could suit these shorter GW runs, with multiple stops, perfectly and could be part of a common fleet with fast Newbury and Oxford trains. Electric IEP seems totally unnecessary on GW until more mileage is electrified.

[D1059]

Many signs of progress heading westwards from Reading this week -

Part of the old footbridge at Tilehurst now removed

Quite a few of the tubular mast bases now 'sunk' west of Pangbourne although some seem awful close to Loading gauge limits on the Down side.

The materials stockplie at Moreton Cutting has grown noticeably with not just more of the base tubes but a lot more steelwork now on site

West of Didcot signs in many places of lineside foliage being/been cutback quite severely - only hope it is kept like that.

Signalling cable/location cupboard works noticeable all the way from west side of Didcot to Chippenham area with a second materials base at Wootton Bassett.

 

But no sign of the high output train at Swindon although teh base is complete and has been for weeks.

 

Is that the station footbridge or the one a little further west at Tilehurst ?

 

As to the foliage cutback - if its been cut to stop it fouling the OLE then they'll have to keep it cutback or risk it causing a power outage (or fire ?)

 

Has the section north of Didcot been touched yet ? I drove over the main road at Culham recently and thought it looked a little clearer, but only had a few seconds to see.

 

Thanks

[frobisher]

Quite. I'm not saying that the trains for such a journey should not be comfortable but something based on the Class 395 Javelin could suit these shorter GW runs, with multiple stops, perfectly and could be part of a common fleet with fast Newbury and Oxford trains. Electric IEP seems totally unnecessary on GW until more mileage is electrified.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the IEP design is an evolution or related to that of the Class 395 in any case.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the IEP design is an evolution or related to that of the Class 395 in any case.

 

I'm sure that there will be many points in common given that they are both Hitachi designs. But having the doors at the end of a 26m carriage (IEP) is not great for a train making several stops to pick up passengers at busy stations.

[The Stationmaster]

Is that the station footbridge or the one a little further west at Tilehurst ?

 

As to the foliage cutback - if its been cut to stop it fouling the OLE then they'll have to keep it cutback or risk it causing a power outage (or fire ?)

 

Has the section north of Didcot been touched yet ? I drove over the main road at Culham recently and thought it looked a little clearer, but only had a few seconds to see.

 

Thanks

It's the station footbridge, the one by what used to be the pub a bit further west was replaced sometime ago.

 

I presume the cutback is to clear worksites, there's an awful lot of stuff which is still about and would be close to ohle structures.  I haven't been north of Didcot in 'looking out of the window' mode in daylight for some time.

[D1059]

It's the station footbridge, the one by what used to be the pub a bit further west was replaced sometime ago.

 

I presume the cutback is to clear worksites, there's an awful lot of stuff which is still about and would be close to ohle structures.  I haven't been north of Didcot in 'looking out of the window' mode in daylight for some time.

Thanks - there are quite a few places between Didcot and Oxford that will need attention. I imagine some major work will be needed by the bridge at Appleford to clear overhanging trees

[Joseph_Pestell]

Current Modern Railways (January 2014) has a good article on electrification and its impact on the Thames Valley.

 

One point raised is that the current scheme leaves a couple of "islands" of diesel traction (Networkers).

 

I'm not sure what the best solution is for West Ealing - Greenford, but surely it must make sense now to eliminate diesel traction from the Reading - Gatwick service by installing the fairly short missing links of third rail. Dual-voltage units such as 377, could make good use of the re-opened subway line at Reading to provide through services to Gatwick from further afield.

 

The article also mentions the difficulties of cascading Networkers elsewhere with their generous loading gauge. But if they can get down the Reading to Redhill line, they can not be that restricted. Anyway, plenty of places on ex-GW routes where a Networker would be a very acceptable replacement for a 150.

[Glorious NSE]

Or even a 143...

[phil-b259]

Anyway, plenty of places on ex-GW routes where a Networker would be a very acceptable replacement for a 150.

 

That has been the DfT's plan right from the off - mainly because it makes getting rid of the Pacers in other bits of the country possible. The same is true of the North West and Transpennine schemes especially as manufacturers don't want to build diesel units anymore.

 

 

[NXEA!]

Indeed, most of the 165/166 fleet bar around 10-12 units for Greenford and Gatwick-Reading will transfer West. Expect to see just a fleet of 158's, 165/166's and a small batch of 153's with DDA modifications for the Cornish branches in my opinion. Pacers and all 150's will almost certainly have left. 

[Fat Controller]

That has been the DfT's plan right from the off - mainly because it makes getting rid of the Pacers in other bits of the country possible. The same is true of the North West and Transpennine schemes especially as manufacturers don't want to build diesel units anymore.

 

Given the 141s went to Iran, perhaps we could gift the rest to the nascent Afghani Railways and to North Korea?

[ess1uk]

Don't you think they dislike us enough already?

[Fat Controller]

Don't you think they dislike us enough already?

Didn't I also mention that pile ointment would be on the list of goods covered by sanctions..?

[Glorious NSE]

Indeed, most of the 165/166 fleet bar around 10-12 units for Greenford and Gatwick-Reading will transfer West. Expect to see just a fleet of 158's, 165/166's and a small batch of 153's with DDA modifications for the Cornish branches in my opinion. Pacers and all 150's will almost certainly have left. 

 

Fascinating little comment in the Jan Modern Railways article (an interview with Mark Hopwood) suggesting that FGW have the 165/166s lined up for a west fleet *increase*, not replacement. If so that's a further large jump in fleet size since the dark days of 2006/7.

 

Back to electrification - the 'read between the lines' would suggest that FGW's favoured plan is:

 

*New build 115mph EMUs for outer TV services (these should be able to be pathed on the fast lines between the new Hitachi units)

*Short term (circa 2 year) use of 319s (my money would be on unrefurbished, unmodified, just because I can't see anyone funding rebuilds for such a short time) for local services between the Turbo's moving West and Crossrail's takeover.

[phil-b259]

Fascinating little comment in the Jan Modern Railways article (an interview with Mark Hopwood) suggesting that FGW have the 165/166s lined up for a west fleet *increase*, not replacement. If so that's a further large jump in fleet size since the dark days of 2006/7.

 

Back to electrification - the 'read between the lines' would suggest that FGW's favoured plan is:

 

*New build 115mph EMUs for outer TV services (these should be able to be pathed on the fast lines between the new Hitachi units)

*Short term (circa 2 year) use of 319s (my money would be on unrefurbished, unmodified, just because I can't see anyone funding rebuilds for such a short time) for local services between the Turbo's moving West and Crossrail's takeover.

 

First can 'sugest' what they like - the composition and size of the fleet remains in the hands of the DfT because as has been pointed out before more trains on (especially on non InterCity routes) = grater franchise subsidy (i.e. it costs the treasuary money) so any fleet increase needs a good business case to get past the bean counters - particularly if another bidder comes in with something alegeadly requiring less units.

 

Also as I said the DfT are keen to redploy units 'up north' (to counter sugestions all they care about is the South East) and to get rid of the Pacers as soon as they can.

[Glorious NSE]

Hiya Phil, don't know how good your geography is, but the 'West' fleet also includes Pacers and doesn't (with the possible exception of the pair of 150 outbased in Reading) operate in the South East.

 

Direct quote from the article is:

 

 

 

"But note the DfT says these will go 'to other area's of the franchise where they are needed', boosting capacity"

Edited December 28, 2013 by Glorious NSE

[dibber25]

If you go on the English Heritage website and check out the GWML electrification gazeteer, there's a 780-page downloadable document which lists, illustrates and describes every structure, building, retaining wall, bridge and tunnel that's affected by this electrification. Basically, it says that anything of interest was designed by Brunel and is already DoE Listed although it rates even priceless relics like Culham station as of only 'medium' value. Even the Severn Tunnel is scarcely worth preserving it seems. In 150+ years of railway development the assessment seems to find nothing 'worthy' - not even the small stations like Goring, Cholsey etc. It gives carte blanche for the destruction of the railway as we know it, in the pursuit of a scheme for which we may well be unable to generate sufficient power a few years after its completion. Reminds me of Betjeman and Slough......

CHRIS LEIGH

[Xerces Fobe2]

I noted a road crane at the front of Maidenhead Station yesterday togetherness with a concrete mixer and some other items on platform 5.

I assume this might be the initial stages of the construction of the platform 6 bay for the Bourne End/ Marlow branch however not sure how it will fit in such a small area.

 

I am still very sceptical of the newly introduced First currently off peak only express bus service to High Wycombe, as for a company which has scaled down it's bus operations this move seems a little strange as First only had the airport buses left running in the Maidenhed area. I think that this service may weill be amended and put forward as an alternative to the Marlow - Bourne End rail service- I will have to ask Mr Hopward about this when our paths cross on the near future!

 

XF

[Fenman]

... In 150+ years of railway development the assessment seems to find nothing 'worthy' ...

 

I don't know what parts of the electrification are covered by the document, but a quick check on the station at the very start of the GWML shows Paddington is listed as Grade 1:

 

"Grade 1 buildings are of exceptional interest, sometimes considered to be internationally important; only 2.5% of listed buildings are Grade 1"

 

You wouldn't be indulging in a bit of tabloid-esque hyperbole, would you...? 

 

Paul

Edited December 28, 2013 by Fenman

[Fenman]

...

You wouldn't be indulging in a bit of tabloid-esque hyperbole, would you...? 

 

Paul

 

And I agree with you that Culham station is rather lovely. But it already has a Grade 2* listing:

 

"Grade II* buildings are particularly important buildings of more than special interest; 5.5% of listed buildings are Grade II*"

 

You'd be amazed how many "significant" buildings are "just" Grade 2; the presumption in England, at least, is that development or redevelopment is almost always more important than historical or architectural preservation.

 

Paul

Edited December 28, 2013 by Fenman

[Glorious NSE]

Is Culham actually likely to be "destroyed"? By what?

[cheesysmith]

When you quoted the pence per mile, remember the ex BREL units are priced with the heavy nose mounted dc motors. If remotored with ac drive, the cost would probably be less due to the mass of ac motors being less than that of dc ones.

[The Stationmaster]

I don't know what parts of the electrification are covered by the document, but a quick check on the station at the very start of the GWML shows Paddington is listed as Grade 1:

 

"Grade 1 buildings are of exceptional interest, sometimes considered to be internationally important; only 2.5% of listed buildings are Grade 1"

 

You wouldn't be indulging in a bit of tabloid-esque hyperbole, would you...? 

 

Paul

 

But then look at how much of Paddington has been 'updated' and 'improved' over, say, the past 40 years and interior/passenger wise you are looking at a very different station from the one I worked at in 1965 and even in the late 1970s.  It might well be Grade 1 but there have been significant alterations to the visible fabric of the station both outside and in during recent years.  I think Chris' point is that notwithstanding listing historically important features are vanishing - and in many cases will have to vanish - in order to accommodate overhead electrification or other changes to facilities and that little or nothing appears to be happening to minimise the impact.   For instance there are now very few surviving original Brunellian/early post Brunellian/broad gauge era overbridges left and presumably the last will go with electrification although an alternative might be to lower track andssave the bridge arch.

 

I already know that if I visited places behind the scenes at stations etc where I worked in the London Division at various times over the past 48 years I simply wouldn't recognise them at all.  Mind you to balance that statement in many of those places modernisation to include such basic facilities as decent heating or somewhere to make a cuppa or eat a snack while working would have been very welcome back in the 1960s or even the '70s and in many cases changes in technology have made change to buildings essential.

 

Is Culham actually likely to be "destroyed"? By what?

 

Lack of interest/use