GWML Electification

[4630]

We choose to electrify to Bristol Temple Meads in this decade and d the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure

Peter, I’m sure it was easier to put a man on the moon and bring him back safely, than to electrify the GWML on time and in budget.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Here are a pair of those new-fangled IETs, running on the electric, beneath the headspan wiring at Heathrow Airport Jn.

 

[jjb1970]

Well, first bin HS2 as currently designed (which is likely to bankrupt the country as well, to borrow your phrase)

 

 

…oops… can of worms opened...

 

Retiring to darkened room.

 

The irony is it should be a lot easier to build a new line free of Victorian baggage and all sorts of stuff that has accumulated around the line over the last 150 years and having to do the work whilst maintaining a high intensity service. I think in the (in my view justified) criticism of DafT and NR for their woeful mismanagement of things it is easy to go too far and ignore some of the real issues which had to be managed. For HS2 even the government should be able to nail down good contracts to do the work (famous last words).

[jamie92208]

The irony is it should be a lot easier to build a new line free of Victorian baggage and all sorts of stuff that has accumulated around the line over the last 150 years and having to do the work whilst maintaining a high intensity service. I think in the (in my view justified) criticism of DafT and NR for their woeful mismanagement of things it is easy to go too far and ignore some of the real issues which had to be managed. For HS2 even the government should be able to nail down good contracts to do the work (famous last words).

We actually have a pretty good track record (pardon the pun) for major projects with HS1 and Crossrail being good examples. I only hope that as and when sanity returns and electrification starts up again the knowledge base has been rebuilt using the current experience will be used wisely and that mistakes will not be repeated.

 

Jamie

Edited February 22, 2018 by jamie92208

[olivegreen]

The irony is it should be a lot easier to build a new line free of Victorian baggage and all sorts of stuff that has accumulated around the line over the last 150 years and having to do the work whilst maintaining a high intensity service. I think in the (in my view justified) criticism of DafT and NR for their woeful mismanagement of things it is easy to go too far and ignore some of the real issues which had to be managed. For HS2 even the government should be able to nail down good contracts to do the work (famous last words).

 

I agree with you in all of that.

 

Just to clarify my rather throw-away line on potential savings from HS2 (I am on record here as disagreeing with it in its currently-planned form), from what I have learned from those far more versed in the subject than me I believe that what the country needs is more pathways in certain areas (for example, WCML - hence a new or newly upgraded parallel route is needed) and, I'd suggest in the 21st century, widespread electrification, at least of major routes (for example, the entire length of the GWML, and perhaps that to Plymouth (and beyond?) too). What the country does not need is super high-speed links, with their associated long-term and very high maintenance costs. Even with the far greater distances involved the French have come to realise this, and the current government is planning to put a stop to further new investment. [Edited to add that the equivalent of the national audit office puts SNCF (and its associated bits disguised under other names) well over 47 billion euros in the red, a debt that is increasing at a rate of 3 billion euros per year largely, it is said, due to LGV and TGV expenditure, whilst the rest of the network (it is also said) crumbles]

 

On contracts in general - governments (and not only the UK one) are as a rule pretty bad at doing them. Let us hope it improves, as you and jamie (above) suggest.

Edited February 22, 2018 by olivegreen

[cheesysmith]

The biggest problem with this entire project has been the DaFT/political targets involved, resulting in a deadline to work to, and the mismanaged working by the supposed rail professionals. The enhanced clearances should have been challenged, as the ECML has proved over nearly 20 years at the reduced clearances the number of electrocutions due to these clearances is nil. As to these bigger clearances, and the infamous spec of the tall man with a selfi stick, are these really a massive danger or is it because someone at DaFT would have to sign off on it, without BR to hide behind, so if someone did get themselves electrified, it would be someone's name at DaFT being dragged out into court. Also the spec of the overhead system is such that it could survive a hurricane on Jupiter. Because we have separate operators to infrastructure each tries to make their bit as reliable as possible, because any failier on their part results in fines having to be paid. Electrification passes the risk onto the infrastructure bit the benefits are for the operator. We now have a OHL system that is specified to minimise chances of the infrastructure paying out that costs so much it outweighs the benifts to the railway as a whole. And if you are going to order the new trains, they should have been introduced on the already electrified ECML allowing more time to do the GW and allowing the works teams the time to learn what they are doing without a tight deadline of the stock cascade to work to. But then the upgrades on the ECML are delayed as well, so the easier bit of upgrading the power supplies on the already electrified ECML is delayed, resulting in the newly wired GW becoming the focus of the new trains, and the resulting rush to get wires up, a rush which has destroyed any sensible planning for putting them up in the first lace, as well as reducing any slack to allowing more time to fix problems as they happen. A better plan, that would have taken longer but cost less in the long run would have to had smaller electrification teams following resignalling teams. That way because the railway would have been resignaled first you avoid most of the problems of what's already in the ground you don't know about and these start small teams have a chance to learn their jobs and then can be expanded on when needed passing on the skills they've already learnt. This also means that you avoid the costs of having to immunise old sygnaling systems that are going to be replaced, and as soon as the electrification teams have finished the wires you can run the trains as soon as they clear away.

 

Remember the phrase-proper planning prevents pi$$ poor performance.

 

As a side effect of this is the cancelling of other schemes such as MML electrification. This should have been done first, and without the time pressures of the GW project would have allowed better planning and the chance to learn how to do it.

[Zomboid]

The big rush is driven by the need to have rolling stock compliant with the PRMTSI (?) by a certain date. HSTs aren't, so need either replacing or modifying.

 

And that led to what became the IEP, and in turn the GW electrification. Which never stood a chance given the length of time since the last major electrification project, and the number of other concurrent schemes (themselves driven by from the same place, with things like pacer replacement feeding into the North West project). And the idea to do the MML was a step too far when the route doesn't need extensive stock renewal.

 

It's like asking someone who's never build a house before to put 3 up in one go. By tomorrow. And then being surprised that it doesn't go exactly like that.

[cheesysmith]

The HSTs are being made compliant for further use elsewhere. As i said, the new electric would have been introduced on the ECML first, with compliant HST used on GW. Get the MML done first  Then get the bigger GW done after you have learnt what you are doing and resignalling done. This would have avoided the problems we have had and also avoided the present problem on the MML of not enough compliant trains because they were boing to be replaced with electrics.

[talisman56]

The irony is it should be a lot easier to build a new line free of Victorian baggage and all sorts of stuff that has accumulated around the line over the last 150 years and having to do the work whilst maintaining a high intensity service. I think in the (in my view justified) criticism of DafT and NR for their woeful mismanagement of things it is easy to go too far and ignore some of the real issues which had to be managed. For HS2 even the government should be able to nail down good contracts to do the work (famous last words).

 

Not if they (as all governments are liable to) go for the 'lowball' quote (to use an Americanism)...

[62613]

Quite, answers on a postcard to DafT and NR on how that can be done without bankrupting the country. It's a pretty sorry saga really.

 A state with a sovereign fiat currency can't be bankrupted!

[phil-b259]

Maybe the surplus equipment was ordered for one of the sections that has been cancelled, or one that has been deferred and it's the type of equipment that's not worth storing for an unknown period. 

 

Or given NRs money troubles, selling if off now will make the been counters in the Treasury happy - even if they have to go back in a couple of years and buy more kit at a higher price.

 

While it might not make sense to you or I, given HM Treasury managed to sell off all their property estate to an offshore company that pays zero tax on its earnings while receiving large quantities of rent from said HM Treasury, short term accounting nonsense is endemic in Whitehall

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/nov/19/treasury-17m-pfi-building-deal

[Zomboid]

The HSTs are being made compliant for further use elsewhere. As i said, the new electric would have been introduced on the ECML first, with compliant HST used on GW. Get the MML done first Then get the bigger GW done after you have learnt what you are doing and resignalling done. This would have avoided the problems we have had and also avoided the present problem on the MML of not enough compliant trains because they were boing to be replaced with electrics.

But not all HSTs are being made compliant, only those with a longer term future. It would have taken a long time to make the whole GW fleet compliant whilst still using them all to run the trains, and would have effectively been a commitment to running them for another 10 years on those lines, which was probably not politically acceptable (and the decisions would have been mixed in with DafT having the idea that rolling stock leases were a rip off, which they then managed to disprove).

 

The way things transpired it's easy to say what should have happened. And it was easy to see what would happen when the job of doing everything at the same time from a standing start was announced.

[The Stationmaster]

The irony is it should be a lot easier to build a new line free of Victorian baggage and all sorts of stuff that has accumulated around the line over the last 150 years and having to do the work whilst maintaining a high intensity service. I think in the (in my view justified) criticism of DafT and NR for their woeful mismanagement of things it is easy to go too far and ignore some of the real issues which had to be managed. For HS2 even the government should be able to nail down good contracts to do the work (famous last words).

 

But let's not ignore the situation on the GW routes that most of what is being electrified (or was going to be electrified) other than west of Severn Tunnel Jcn and between Didcot North Jcn and Oxford not only has an alternative route available but on many weekends and at night trains are already being diverted via those alternative routes.  True that doesn't apply between Severn Tunnel Jcn and Cardiff but there is quadruple track paired by use over virtually the whole of that distance anyway.  East of Reading there has been a two track timetable available or actually in operation every weekend for almost as far back as I can remember and with one or two problems (which didn't exist when electrification was in hand) the same applied between reading and Moreton Cutting/Didcot East.   And on the double track sections west of Steventon there has been full reversible signalling in operation for the past 30 years and there's almost a 5 hours 'no booked service' window available between Didcot and Swindon every night.

 

In other words an incredible array of possession opportunities available ready to be exploited, in some cases with minimal costs in compensation to train operators.  And the change of plan to the use of local workbases adjacent to the railway provides even greater opportunity to get into and out of possessions far more quickly while the much lauded High Output Train has not, despite whatever failing it might or might not have, lost its ability to work within a possession on a line adjacent to a live running line.

 

Possessions and work on an operational rail are undoubtedly more complex than digging up bits of virgin countryside (although even some features of HS2 work methods such as spoil disposal raise  occasional questions according to my information) but such complexities are challenges which are the meat & drink of those who know what they're at  (or rather those who once upon a time knew what they were at).

[Coryton]

But let's not ignore the situation on the GW routes that most of what is being electrified (or was going to be electrified) other than west of Severn Tunnel Jcn and between Didcot North Jcn and Oxford not only has an alternative route available but on many weekends and at night trains are already being diverted via those alternative routes.

 

And there - of course - is another advantage of the bimodes - they can continue to take diversions on non-electrified lines even once the main line has gone over to electric operation.

[cheesysmith]

I still think a better plan even without the benift of hindsight would have been to introduce the bimode IEP on the ECML, with the power upgrades started as soon as this was announced. Maybe even with a 9 car bimode with 7 diesel engines. That version even at the lower power setting would have no problem with the lines to the far north. At the same time you have the crews start on the MML, with the teams doing the power upgrade transfered in after doing the ECML. The HSTs released from ECML cover whilst the GW HST are made compliant, and then you do the GW remodelling and resignalling so giving you a good starting point for the biggest electrification scheme. You could even include the ground works and some of the preparatory bit in with the signalling and remodelling, saving t,e and costs later. You don't start trying to install untried designs and inexperienced crews on the biggest bit first and then wounded why things go wrong. Start small, and learn your lessons on the smaller bits where the disruption is not going to upset nationwide cascade plans and you also have more chance to control costs whilst giving a better base line on these costs instead of figures pulled out of thin air.

 

With the benefit of hindsight it would also allow you to avoid the present mess of it doesn't matter the cost, it has to be done by a set date. Having a deadline like that is not going to be good for keeping costs under control.

[Edwin_m]

I agree with you in all of that.

 

Just to clarify my rather throw-away line on potential savings from HS2 (I am on record here as disagreeing with it in its currently-planned form), from what I have learned from those far more versed in the subject than me I believe that what the country needs is more pathways in certain areas (for example, WCML - hence a new or newly upgraded parallel route is needed) and, I'd suggest in the 21st century, widespread electrification, at least of major routes (for example, the entire length of the GWML, and perhaps that to Plymouth (and beyond?) too). What the country does not need is super high-speed links, with their associated long-term and very high maintenance costs. Even with the far greater distances involved the French have come to realise this, and the current government is planning to put a stop to further new investment. [Edited to add that the equivalent of the national audit office puts SNCF (and its associated bits disguised under other names) well over 47 billion euros in the red, a debt that is increasing at a rate of 3 billion euros per year largely, it is said, due to LGV and TGV expenditure, whilst the rest of the network (it is also said) crumbles]

Providing a parallel route to the WCML is what HS2 is all about.  The fact it is high speed not conventional is incidental, it increases costs only slightly and if there are reasons why higher speeds would be more expensive in a particular area HS2 reduces its speed accordingly.  In this context building for high speed seems a good bit of future-proofing, and it actually saves operating cost because fewer trains are needed to run the same frequency.  Maintenance costs are unlikely to be as high as on the legacy routes, because maintainability is designed in from the start. 

 

SNCF has a large mileage of high speed route, and has got to the point where various regions are pushing for it for reasons of prestige in places where the service frequency and time saving don't justify it.  We're a long way from that situation in the UK. 

[Ron Ron Ron]

....SNCF has a large mileage of high speed route, and has got to the point where various regions are pushing for it for reasons of prestige in places where the service frequency and time saving don't justify it.....

 

 

Ah, but isn't M. Macron putting the brakes on SNCF's massive overspending and debt?

I thought more LGV's were now off the menu?

 

 

.

[olivegreen]

 

SNCF has a large mileage of high speed route, and has got to the point where various regions are pushing for it for reasons of prestige in places where the service frequency and time saving don't justify it.  We're a long way from that situation in the UK. 

 

Err, not entirely. The other side of the coin is that SNCF wants to charge regions such high prices for TGVs to go and stop there that those regions won't pay any more. And that is even before thought moves towards building further LGVs.

 

Also, with reference to your comment on maintenance costs, as far as SNCF is concerned, if one delves into where the money goes (insofar as that is possible - which is pretty difficult!) the combined high cost of TGV rolling stock and LGV permanent way maintenance is precisely one of the major factors that has put SNCF into its parlous financial position.

 

I merely repeat what is in the public domain here - I do not profess to have any other specialised knowledge.

 

 

Ah, but isn't M. Macron putting the brakes on SNCF's massive overspending and debt?

I thought more LGV's were now off the menu?

 

 

.

 

Yes to all of that, according to the latest reports here.

Edited February 22, 2018 by olivegreen

[Great Western]

But let's not ignore the situation on the GW routes that most of what is being electrified (or was going to be electrified) other than west of Severn Tunnel Jcn and between Didcot North Jcn and Oxford not only has an alternative route available but on many weekends and at night trains are already being diverted via those alternative routes.  True that doesn't apply between Severn Tunnel Jcn and Cardiff but there is quadruple track paired by use over virtually the whole of that distance anyway.  East of Reading there has been a two track timetable available or actually in operation every weekend for almost as far back as I can remember and with one or two problems (which didn't exist when electrification was in hand) the same applied between reading and Moreton Cutting/Didcot East.   And on the double track sections west of Steventon there has been full reversible signalling in operation for the past 30 years and there's almost a 5 hours 'no booked service' window available between Didcot and Swindon every night.

 

In other words an incredible array of possession opportunities available ready to be exploited, in some cases with minimal costs in compensation to train operators.  And the change of plan to the use of local workbases adjacent to the railway provides even greater opportunity to get into and out of possessions far more quickly while the much lauded High Output Train has not, despite whatever failing it might or might not have, lost its ability to work within a possession on a line adjacent to a live running line.

 

Possessions and work on an operational rail are undoubtedly more complex than digging up bits of virgin countryside (although even some features of HS2 work methods such as spoil disposal raise  occasional questions according to my information) but such complexities are challenges which are the meat & drink of those who know what they're at  (or rather those who once upon a time knew what they were at).

 

 

For the last I don't know how long there has been a Mon-Thurs Wootton Bassett Junction to Westerliegh Junction T3 Possession to carry out various works, mainly OHL work with the HOP train. What amazes me is how little work the train actually does each night, the block is usually granted about 2315 and handed back before 0400 the units returning to the home base at Swindon before the morning London bound services start to arrive into Swindon from the West.

 

Like Mr Stationmaster has said the amount of time available to really crack on with work is there, its just not being used efficiently. We have reversible signalling upto Chipping Sodbury why could ALO working be introduced with the HOPS trains doing what it was intended to do? 

 

The overnight service between Bristol Parkway and Swindon via Hullavington is very light, and eastbound only in the main so running all services reversible wouldn't present an issue at all.

[billbedford]

Found this, which may or may not be relevant to this discussion.

 

But if this is the quality of engineering students coming-out of our 'best' universities then I fear for the future.

[olivegreen]

Found this, which may or may not be relevant to this discussion.

 

But if this is the quality of engineering students coming-out of our 'best' universities then I fear for the future.

 

Agree.  

 

As a former Chartered Engineer of many years, albeit my specialisation is not railways, I am appalled at so shallow an article in a magazine/webzine (call it what you will) called 'The Engineer'.  I sincerely hope we don't see the article quoted by uninformed journalists under some heading like 'Engineers power trains by the sun'!

 

 To understand more where the 'research' is going, one needs to read the report referred to (Riding Sunbeams): I confess to only having read the executive summary plus a few other bits, but am left with the feeling that we are seeing here nothing more than a university project (which is commendable in itself for furthering science - don't get me wrong): there are too many 'ifs', 'mights' and 'possiblys' for any pragmatic application of the supposed advantages, which in any case are a maximum of 10% of the energy needed…though where the figures come from seems to me a bit of smoke and mirrors especially for the UK situation.

 

To keep the research aspect in perspective, I note that one of the authors is from 10/10 climate action, whose aim is quoted as: 10:10 is a registered charity that exists to help people take action on climate change. Whether we’re installing solar panels on schools and community buildings, cooking up a vegan feast, celebrating the power of onshore wind, or lighting up our favourite places with LEDs, we’re positive, inclusive and dedicated to cutting carbon. Charity no: 1157 363 . 

Not a lot to do with railways or major engineering planning, methinks: more about banging the green drum which, again, is commendable but it is a question of context. The other author is a post-doctoral researcher and is not quoted as being an Engineer (by which I mean the true, usually Chartered, sense).

 

Whatever your or my view on the idea, it is a little too early in the development process to affect GWML electrification!

 

 

(Edited for typos)

Edited February 25, 2018 by olivegreen

[HillsideDepot]

Thank you for your insight Great Western. I often look at the relevant diagram on the Open Train Times website to see the location of any overnight works.

 

Something I noticed, albeit not recently, so it may not still be happening, is that to work on the Up line a section or two west of Wootton Bassett Junction will involve running to Thingley and back, when there is a facing crossover at Wootton Bassett. From observation it can be an hour between passing the work site on the Down and arriving there on the Up.They also bring the train to site in as many pieces as it will be working, why not couple it up and spilt it in the possession? 

 

I may be missing something in either the signalling or possession rules, but on the face of it, it doesn't make sense. 

[jjb1970]

Found this, which may or may not be relevant to this discussion.

 

But if this is the quality of engineering students coming-out of our 'best' universities then I fear for the future.

There is a lot of research of that type led by eco-sustainability specialists. There is often a large gap between the ambition of sustainability specialists and practical engineers but that doesn't negate the value of blue skies type thinking and research has always led to more dead ends than transformational practical ideas. However often some of the daft ideas stimulate more practical people to consider what might be possible if some of these ideas were developed. As a student research project which is what this appears to be I can see quite a lot of interesting learning, that doesn't mean I see it as a serious proposition as written but neither do I see it as indicating some sort of precipitous decline in the quality of engineering students. On the technical journals, I have been reading the journals of three engineering institutes for the best part of 30 years and they have always been part serious research, part advertorial posing as research and part pipe dream.

[jamie92208]

I believe that the author did some alternative proposals for how to electrify the Oxted branch and suggested EMU's with batteries for the last bit and a solar array near the stabling sidings with a battery bank that then recharged the trains overnight. I can't remember which magazine the article was in however.

 

Jamie

[D854_Tiger]

Agree.  

 

As a former Chartered Engineer of many years, albeit my specialisation is not railways, I am appalled at so shallow an article in a magazine/webzine (call it what you will) called 'The Engineer'.  I sincerely hope we don't see the article quoted by uninformed journalists under some heading like 'Engineers power trains by the sun'!

 

 To understand more where the 'research' is going, one needs to read the report referred to (Riding Sunbeams): I confess to only having read the executive summary plus a few other bits, but am left with the feeling that we are seeing here nothing more than a university project (which is commendable in itself for furthering science - don't get me wrong): there are too many 'ifs', 'mights' and 'possiblys' for any pragmatic application of the supposed advantages, which in any case are a maximum of 10% of the energy needed…though where the figures come from seems to me a bit of smoke and mirrors especially for the UK situation.

 

To keep the research aspect in perspective, I note that one of the authors is from 10/10 climate action, whose aim is quoted as: 10:10 is a registered charity that exists to help people take action on climate change. Whether we’re installing solar panels on schools and community buildings, cooking up a vegan feast, celebrating the power of onshore wind, or lighting up our favourite places with LEDs, we’re positive, inclusive and dedicated to cutting carbon. Charity no: 1157 363 . 

Not a lot to do with railways or major engineering planning, methinks: more about banging the green drum which, again, is commendable but it is a question of context. The other author is a post-doctoral researcher and is not quoted as being an Engineer (by which I mean the true, usually Chartered, sense).

 

Whatever your or my view on the idea, it is a little too early in the development process to affect GWML electrification!

 

 

(Edited for typos)

 

 

Many railway lines run through areas with great potential for solar power.

 

I think we should be told where they are in the UK so we can book our package holidays.