GWML Electification

[black and decker boy]

 

Direct quote from the article is:

My interpretation on the interview/ article after removing political bias, is that 2 and 3 car turbos offer more capacity than 2 car 143s and 150s. No new trains per se but more room in each is still an increase in capacity

[Fenman]

...  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.   ...

 

I think you are both right - and, as I wrote in my second reply, "the presumption in England, at least, is that development or redevelopment is almost always more important than historical or architectural preservation".

 

Even for Grade 1 buildings - take, for example, St Pancras. My view is that the redevelopment of the station has pretty much ruined the original architectural vision, leaving the very fine, if now rather Disney-esque, renovated Barlow roof over remodelled structures that are neither in keeping with the original nor particularly efficient, and with a particularly unpleasant lean-to extension stuck on the back. If something as architecturally significant at St Pancras can suffer, there's very little that we wouldn't alter if we consider it necessary for the sake of renovation or redevelopment.

 

But that is consistent with the attitude of the original railway builders, who bulldozered everything that wasn't owned by a wealthy and influential man. Times haven't changed that much.

 

Paul

[cheesysmith]

In the example of st pancras, the new bits are visibly different to the old, but the old listed bits are still intact and if the new bits were to be removed the old would still be there in there original fashion. After all, compair the g mex in Manchester, that is still to be admired, even though it is no longer a staton, so you cannot say that is original anymore. Listing does not mean preserving something as is perminantly. Another example is kings cross, where the original station front is on show now the BR 70s front has been removed.

[The Stationmaster]

In the example of st pancras, the new bits are visibly different to the old, but the old listed bits are still intact and if the new bits were to be removed the old would still be there in there original fashion. After all, compair the g mex in Manchester, that is still to be admired, even though it is no longer a staton, so you cannot say that is original anymore. Listing does not mean preserving something as is perminantly. Another example is kings cross, where the original station front is on show now the BR 70s front has been removed.

 

And the west side has been obscured by a 'modernistic carbuncle', and of course the 'BR 70s front' replaced the right mess which preceded it.  The simple fact is that if you look at any functional building such as a railway station there will have been changes made to it over a century or more (in the case of the older ones) in the cause of 'progress' as it was seen at the time the change was made.

 

Taking Kings Cross as an example if might now look very impressive from the opposite side of Euston Road but speaking as an occasional passenger who uses it in order to join, or leave, trains, the latest changes are absolutely appalling with greatly increased transfer times to/from the Underground or taxis, with entrance to the platforms reduced to a grossly inconvenient shambles, and everywhere much further to walk and more difficult to find your way than it was before the 'improvement'.  Travelling to the ECML via Kings Cross used to be a simple process once upon a time and the recent changes have massively over-complicated what was once an easy journey; as I am a very rare visitor to the south side of Euston Road in that vicinity I find the changes were made from the wrong perspective.

[dibber25]

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

I find that rather insulting. The document concerned deals with the current electrification project. Paddington is not included, presumably because it is already electrified (Heathrow Express). The document appears to start at Reading unless I've mis-read it. In any event your quote regarding grade 1 listing is the EH definition of Grade 1 listing. I was referring to the assessments in the Gazeteer by its author (it was produced for Network Rail) and they do not relate directly to the Grade of any listing. I believe Culham station, which I mentioned, is also a high-grade listing. (2* IIRC). It is usually worth checking for yourself before you accuse a life-time railway writer of cheap journalism.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Fenman]

I find that rather insulting. The document concerned deals with the current electrification project. Paddington is not included, presumably because it is already electrified (Heathrow Express). The document appears to start at Reading unless I've mis-read it. In any event your quote regarding grade 1 listing is the EH definition of Grade 1 listing. I was referring to the assessments in the Gazeteer by its author (it was produced for Network Rail) and they do not relate directly to the Grade of any listing. I believe Culham station, which I mentioned, is also a high-grade listing. (2* IIRC). It is usually worth checking for yourself before you accuse a life-time railway writer of cheap journalism.

CHRIS LEIGH

 

Blimey. I see smileys have no place in your world, that you can be so easily insulted! Let me try to explain in ways you won't find insulting, since I do try hard not to be offensive.

 

Parts of Paddington may indeed already be electrified, but there will be a lot more work to be done there as part of the GWML scheme; of course that will have to take account of its Grade 1 listing.

 

You now mention the 2* listing of Culham (something I also wrote about, though you don't seem to have picked up on that. Unless you're now just quoting selectively, of course...  ).

 

And you are right, I have quoted the EH definitions of the gradings; that's because EH is the statutory agency responsible for listing. Their overall definitions have legal meaning. Paraphrasing of definitions in a report commissioned by a prospective developer is of less significance than the legal meaning applied by the relevant statutory body.

 

Here's what you actually wrote:

 

If you go on the English Heritage website and check out the GWML electrification gazeteer ... 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 ...

[my emphasis]

 

Which, within the confines of the report, may be true. But if you fail to mention the statutory protection already afforded to significant parts of this railway, all you're doing is stirring up passions by presenting a partial picture. In our short discussion we've already uncovered the fact that the biggest station on the GWML is Grade 1 listed, and the example you quoted is 2* - both, therefore, in the top 10% of all listed buildings (and, therefore, in the top <1% of all buildings in the entire country, in terms of architectural or historic merit, and given statutory protection accordingly).

 

I'm struggling to see why you would find that insulting, any more than I would be insulted by you accusing me of not checking the listings (when, of course, I had already written about them before you even replied!).

 

I do think there's a debate to be had about whether the statutory protection is strong enough; see my posting about St Pancras, for example.

 

Paul

[Xerces Fobe2]

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

InEPtitude possibly? LOL

 

XF

[phil-b259]

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:

 

You know what I mean, (Turbos going west, releasing 15x to go north - i.e. no net increase in units though due to Turbos being longer there is an increase in seats) 

[Glorious NSE]

Lack of interest/use

 

Very possible (Dawlish signalbox is a good example) - but that's hardly relevant to the subject of the OP.

 

 

My interpretation on the interview/ article after removing political bias, is that 2 and 3 car turbos offer more capacity than 2 car 143s and 150s. No new trains per se but more room in each is still an increase in capacity

 

It does refer, specifically, to FGW "keeping an extra 151 vehicles".

 

(Okay, that's on the high side given there will still be Turbo's needed for Greenford, Redhill, Bedwyn, etc, unless some of those 'holes' get filled in other ways, but the intention of the writing is pretty clear)

 

And yep, a 143 or 150 swapped to a 165 would give more capacity per set, but for that to work you'd have to sort the loading gauge on any route you wanted to use them on (and I can't see that happening) - plus there would be no likelihood of increasing capacity on some other routes that operated by other stock - for example the Portsmouth-Cardiff's, but if there are no additional cars available then increasing train length cannot happen, and swapping a 3x158 for a 3x166 will not make a lot of difference, except possibly giving the standees more room to stand in... 

 

 

There would also be no units to cover the new services which local authorities are working on, but which can't currently happen as there are no units. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

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

 

I rather feel that Brunel would put progress before conservation. And I am rather inclined to that view myself. We "list" far too many buildings that do not have that much intrinsic merit.

[Joseph_Pestell]

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.

 

 

Lack of interest/use

 

I have no doubt that a viable use could be found for Culham that would conserve most of its features. The problem is that the conservationist taliban refuse any changes at all which often condemns a building to even more damaging neglect.

[phil-b259]

And yep, a 143 or 150 swapped to a 165 would give more capacity per set, but for that to work you'd have to sort the loading gauge on any route you wanted to use them on (and I can't see that happening) - plus there would be no likelihood of increasing capacity on some other routes that operated by other stock - for example the Portsmouth-Cardiff's, but if there are no additional cars available then increasing train length cannot happen, and swapping a 3x158 for a 3x166 will not make a lot of difference, except possibly giving the standees more room to stand in... 

 

 

The implication is that being ex GWR teritory, guage clearence at say Plymouth or Turo wouldn't be an issue for a 165 (or more easily sorted compared to elsewhere), which could potentially release a 150 for Manchester where a 165 deffinately would have problems

 

There would also be no units to cover the new services which local authorities are working on, but which can't currently happen as there are no units. 

 

Even if a local authority wants to sponsor a new service - they cannot do so without DfT aproval. As previous experence shows (albut hidden in various boring franchise documents) anything that has the potential to increase the costs of a franchise must be aproved by them. Part of the reason for having consultations every time a franchise comes up for renewall is to canvas opnion as to what the various groups (including local councils would like to do). In some cases they will be rejected, in others they might be aproved providing funding is secured by others however it should be noted that in many cases there is a requiremnt to show that any proposed change will not add signifficantly to the costs of the franchise going forward. For example if you can prove that the costs of an extra unit to, say, boast the frequency on a particular branch will be repaid by more people traveling and thus more fare revenue - fine, if not then tough - no extra units. Alterntively the DfT might list various options and invite the franchise bidders to 'price' or give an idea of how much extra a particular option might cost - the results of which might determine if it gets the go ahead. On the other hand the franchise bidder might offer its own 'priced' options for ministers to evluate.

 

The only exceptions to this are masive upgrades like the GWML electrification where service patterns and stock requiremnts will obviously alter the costs considrably but even here there is a diffinate focus on minimising costs so even some of the more 'obvious' suggestions may not make the final cut.

 

As to where this leaves the future Great Western franchise - who knows. Some parts will expernce radical change but others - principally in the south west will be unaffected by the electrification programme. Also despite what we already know some aspects of the next franchise are still up in the air - Crossrail to Reading, two car AC units for the Marlow branch, Western access to Heathrow are all things which we lack firm detail on, yet need to be sorted before the next opperator takes over. While First group, will have a pretty good idea of what they would like to do if they are sucessfull, it doesn't follow that the DfT is thinking along the same lines. Being the incumbant, you could say First should have a better idea than most as to what the DfT might want, but that carn't be garunteed.

 

At the end of the day what we really need to see is the invitation to tender document which will hopefully make things clear.

Edited December 29, 2013 by phil-b259

[Xerces Fobe2]

Let' s hope that the, Class 165 and 166's are given a proper refurb rather than just replacing the seat covers and fitting new coloured interior panels. The windows in all units are very poor and apart from replacement when broken they screwed shut (166) nothing has been done with seals of the double glazing panels well past end if of life.

 

A number of regular travelers on the 166 units carry an Allen key with them in the summer to undo the locked windows in the 166's whose air con had never worked effectively as in these units in the temperature unbearable. The problem then is the the windows cannot be closed because the catches either do not work or have been removed (as part of a refurb!).

 

I personally will pay the return fare on the new First bus service from Maidenhead to High Wycombe for Graham Hopwood so that he can experience the delights of traveling on a Chiltern Railways air conditioned. Class 165!

 

I would urge passenger groups in areas that are set to receive the cascaded 165/166's to lobby to ensue the above issues are addressed before these units enter service in their areas.

 

XF

Edited December 29, 2013 by Xerces Fobe2

[ForestPines]

I have quoted the EH definitions of the gradings; that's because EH is the statutory agency responsible for listing. Their overall definitions have legal meaning.

That's not quite true: local planning authorities are the bodies responsible for listing and consent to alterations. However if EH made a recommendation to a planning committee on a listing issue, the planning committee would normally be expected to abide by it.

 

Regarding overbridges, I understand from talking to FGW staff that the Bristol-Bath section of the GWML is to be closed for several months for trackbed lowering particularly through tunnels.

[Fenman]

That's not quite true: local planning authorities are the bodies responsible for listing and consent to alterations. However if EH made a recommendation to a planning committee on a listing issue, the planning committee would normally be expected to abide by it.

 

You've misunderstood my meaning (or. more likely, I have written ambiguously!) - EH is responsible for making recommendations to the Secretary of State on what buildings should be listed and for defining the categories of merit. By "listing" I mean the active process of listing a building, including assigning it to a grade of architectural or historical merit. The local planning authority is not responsible for whether or not a building is "listed".

 

If in the everyday planning process someone is proposing alterations to, or demolition of, a listed building then, of course, it is usually the local planning authority that makes a decision, after consulting the statutory authorities (in this case EH).

 

Paul

[ForestPines]

My apologies; a planning officer told me something misleading in the past!

 

I wonder who, though, would be responsible for deciding whether to list the Severn Tunnel; or would it be possible to end up in a situation where such a structure is half listed and half not?

[Fenman]

I wonder who, though, would be responsible for deciding whether to list the Severn Tunnel; or would it be possible to end up in a situation where such a structure is half listed and half not?

 

Absolutely not! It is EH which decides what structures should be proposed for listing, and they would ignore any local government boundaries. It is the entire structure which concerns them.

 

They propose it to the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport (though I think it's actually one of the junior Ministers who decides, in the SoS's name, whether or not something should be listed).

 

Paul

[Glorious NSE]

The implication is that being ex GWR teritory, guage clearence at say Plymouth or Turo wouldn't be an issue for a 165 (or more easily sorted compared to elsewhere), which could potentially release a 150 for Manchester where a 165 deffinately would have problems

 

Where the history is a GWR broad gauge line, possibly (although quite a lot of things post-date 1892!) - but where it's (for instance) a former LSWR line, or even a former canal, it might be a bit less simple. My assertion is that I can't see the 165/166s getting "Global" clearance over every place on the "West" franchise in the same way that (for example) a 150 has - and that would mean the only routes that could get a capacity increase by a simple swap of units aren't dictated by capacity needs, but by where it's cost effective to base and run the units, so just swapping in Turbo's does not solve any capacity issues without there also being an increase in total.

 

And yep - lots and lots of info in the consultancy docs for the previous bid process that will give you a hint of what the need is. Some of them relate to projects that are already underway...

[Joseph_Pestell]

Where the history is a GWR broad gauge line, possibly (although quite a lot of things post-date 1892!) - but where it's (for instance) a former LSWR line, or even a former canal, it might be a bit less simple. My assertion is that I can't see the 165/166s getting "Global" clearance over every place on the "West" franchise in the same way that (for example) a 150 has - and that would mean the only routes that could get a capacity increase by a simple swap of units aren't dictated by capacity needs, but by where it's cost effective to base and run the units, so just swapping in Turbo's does not solve any capacity issues without there also being an increase in total.

 

And yep - lots and lots of info in the consultancy docs for the previous bid process that will give you a hint of what the need is. Some of them relate to projects that are already underway...

 

That's a fair comment. Apart from the broad-gauge question, most of the GW did have a more generous loading gauge. But over the years, that can be compromised especially by relaying and reballasting of track. I was on a steam run in the late 70s where King George V hit a bridge on a Great Western route that hosted Kings regularly in pre-diesel days. All routes would need to be carefully checked before Networkers got the necessary safety-case clearance. 

[talisman56]

Do the plans for GWML Electrification include the line between Bristol TM and Weston-super-Mare?

 

If not I can see a great wailing and gnashing of teeth from the London commuters from stations on that section who currently enjoy several (heavily used, in my experience) through services in the mornings and evenings forced to change from diesel feeder services to/from the new trains; or a HST service retained to provide the aforementioned through services, which will not exactly be the 'great advance' that electrification promises...

[Kris]

From memory I don't believe that Weston is in line for electrification. 

[HillsideDepot]

Not sure what the timetable will look like, but part of the new High Speed fleet will be bi-modal, so it would be perfectly possible to run electrically to Bristol and then in diesel mode on to Weston.

[phil-b259]

Not sure what the timetable will look like, but part of the new High Speed fleet will be bi-modal, so it would be perfectly possible to run electrically to Bristol and then in diesel mode on to Weston.

IIRC that was when the wires were due to finish at Cardiff and would have maintained through services to Swansea. Now the decision has been taken to extend electrification westwards there is no need for Bi mode units on the South Wales run.

 

The more likely scenario therefore is the IEP fleet is the of straight electric type with refurbished HSTs used where workings extend beyond the wires - don't forget even after electrification services to the south west will stay as HSTs even though they will run under the wires as far as Newbury.

[RJS1977]

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.

 

 

Lack of interest/use

 

Well, I know of a preserved railway that might possibly be interested in it if NR were to pay for its removal.

Edited December 30, 2013 by RJS1977

[Glorious NSE]

IIRC that was when the wires were due to finish at Cardiff and would have maintained through services to Swansea. Now the decision has been taken to extend electrification westwards there is no need for Bi mode units on the South Wales run.

 

The more likely scenario therefore is the IEP fleet is the of straight electric type with refurbished HSTs used where workings extend beyond the wires - don't forget even after electrification services to the south west will stay as HSTs even though they will run under the wires as far as Newbury.

 

Phil - no, the IEP fleet is still a mixture of Bi-mode and electric (there are due to be a handful more electric and a handful less bi-mode compared to the original numbers, but still a split) - as there are still many routes that will not be fully wired.

 

Refurb HST's are supposed to be the solution for the majority of trains West of Exeter, but like Adrian i'd also expect the Weston workings to be handled by a Bristol based bi-mode.