GWML Electification

[phil-b259]

 

The announced intention was to extend the siding but then, rather belatedly, somebody realised there is a footpath crossing almost immediately beyond the stop blocks so over a year on from the announcement of GWR's intention to use 5 car Class 800s there were no signs whatsoever of anything being done about the footpath (in mid April this year there wasn't the slightest hint on site of anything happening to relocate the footpath or extend the siding).  So what will now happen amounts to anybody's guess - choose any one of half a dozen different options from no change, and 165s continuing, through to extended siding suitable for either 5 car Class 800, or 4 car ex 319, or shortened ex 319 or w.h.y.  All in all yet another brilliant joined-up planning decision from the GWML electrification project.

 

 

Given the 319s use a shorter vehicle length (20m as opposed) to 23m for the Turbos, is there any scope for shifting the crossing a few meters back west (within the railway boundary so as to minimise legal issues - i.e. folks walk three sides of a square to get across the line) to give the necessary room.

 

Ir is it the case that doing anything to the current siding requires the adoption of modern overrun protection standards making  such a minor alteration a non starter?

Edited May 26, 2018 by phil-b259

[talisman56]

There is a blockade of Swindon next weekend so presume they are finishing off the bits in and around the station then.

 

Best thing for it, TBH...

[The Stationmaster]

I guess they could just lease a couple of extra units if needed (I assume 319s will be fairly cheap) and run to Westbury to turn round.

 

You can't blame this one on the electrification project, the initial (and reduced) scope was set by the DfT. Bedwyn should really have been in the scope from day 1.

 

At least two extra sets plus extra ECS mileage for the first couple of trains in the morning and after the last couple at night plus additional crewing costs and road learning costs - all assuming that DafT would stand the cost.   And definitely a consequence of the overall scheme planning (lack of) as even electrification to Bedwyn wouldn't have avoided this problem as the siding would still have to be lengthened for a 4 car Class 387.    GWR simply left high & dry trying to sort out the mess it was lumbered with.

[The Stationmaster]

Given the 319s use a shorter vehicle length (20m as opposed) to 23m for the Turbos, is there any scope for shifting the crossing a few meters back west (within the railway boundary so as to minimise legal issues - i.e. folks walk three sides of a square to get across the line) to give the necessary room.

 

Ir is it the case that doing anything to the current siding requires the adoption of modern overrun protection standards making  such a minor alteration a non starter?

The footpath is literally only a few feet from the foot of the stop blocks.  I think the reversing siding was pushed as far west as it would go to allow a bit of wriggle room with a 3 car 16X set in it but any such wriggle room would no longer be there with the longer (albeit by only about 15-17 feet) required fo a 4 car set of 20 metre vehicles.  I think what seems to have defeated the original idea of extending the siding was the fact that there would have to be public consultation about moving the footpath (which would take the railway foot crossing further from the canal crossing to which it leads).  

 

In view of the line speed (100mph) and the relatively high number of users plus the number and types of trains (80+)  I wouldn't surprised if any proposed alteration of the crossing might also lead to a demand for Red/Green lights if not a local move seeking a footbridge  - which would of course cost well in excess of £1 million.  Hence in many respects I'm not surprised that it seems to have been placed in the 'too difficult' tray.

[Zomboid]

Performance of a 4 car set with two engines is expected to be sluggish, a 3 car set with one engine would be hopeless.

Without diesel engines to drag around, 319s aren't known for their speed on electric, so with the extra weight these are not going to be fast trains.

Appropriate really, with the 800s they'll be mixing with...

[phil-b259]

Without diesel engines to drag around, 319s aren't known for their speed on electric, so with the extra weight these are not going to be fast trains.

Appropriate really, with the 800s they'll be mixing with...

I wonder what the costs would be to replace the traction equipment at the same time as the bi-mode conversion?

 

SWT seemed confident enough that putting new traction gear under the already 30 year old 455s made economic sense, given the abandonment of further electrification by the DfT, these 319 tri-modes could have a long life ahead of them in their new guise...,

[Edwin_m]

The fundamental problem with the 319 performance-wise is that only one of the four cars is motored.  Adding the weight of diesel engines and associated kit to the non-motored cars further reduces the proportion of weight on motored axles, which translates directly to acceleration at low speeds.  Unless other coaches are motored (probably requiring new bogies), a new traction package wouldn't make much difference to performance - it might help acceleration at higher speeds but in that speed range the power available on diesel is probably the limiting factor. 

 

The same applies to the 455s, but the motivation to change their traction motors and replace the camshaft control by electronics was to reduce maintenance visits so the fleet could be expanded without having to build a new depot. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Edwin_m

[Zomboid]

Undoubtedly it would be possible, but that would be going away from the "cheap and grim" ethos of the 319 multimode project. Updating the traction equipment would make it "expensive and grim".

 

In reality, these are stop gaps. Either Oxford etc will actually get wired in a few years, or there will be an order in 10-15 years time for some new bi-modes units.

[Mike Storey]

I ask this whilst acknowledging total ignorance of the signalling and pathing needs at that location, but what is to stop the reversal taking place on the main line? (We used to do this at Royston, with Class 317's, but obviously there was sufficient gap between trains to do it).

[Mike Storey]

Undoubtedly it would be possible, but that would be going away from the "cheap and grim" ethos of the 319 multimode project. Updating the traction equipment would make it "expensive and grim".

 

In reality, these are stop gaps. Either Oxford etc will actually get wired in a few years, or there will be an order in 10-15 years time for some new bi-modes units.

 

Or hydrogen powered units - see other thread.

[Banger Blue]

Re: the reversing siding at Bedwyn.

 

Networks Rail proposal to re-route the footpath was voted on by the Great Bedwyn Parish Council (voted all in favour) at a Parish Council meeting in March:

 

http://www.greatbedwyn-pc.gov.uk/_UserFiles/Files/_Minutes/36420-Draft_Minutes_March_2018.pdf

(Item 194.17-9)

[The Stationmaster]

I ask this whilst acknowledging total ignorance of the signalling and pathing needs at that location, but what is to stop the reversal taking place on the main line? (We used to do this at Royston, with Class 317's, but obviously there was sufficient gap between trains to do it).

 

The whole reason for providing the reversing siding (done under the Reading Panel B&H Extension Scheme) was to avoid units standing on either of the Main lines before or after reversal because the previous situation was causing problems.  There at present a number of instances where Up Trains come past Bedwyn only a few minutes before the Bedwyn shuttle emerges from the siding for its journey back eastwards.  Then through in the constraints around the timing of stone trains - especially empties returning westwards in the early afternoon for tight turn round reloading and any instance of units standing around on the Main lines can lead to problems for other trains.

 

An alternative would be to reinstate the siding behind the Up platform as a bay but that would require a platform extension to handle even the 3car 16X units and would mean removing the main car parking space at the station and possibly taking back some of the land east of the station which was given up to build an adjacent road together with possibly taking a slice of land off the back gardens of house east of the station which were built after the Up siding was recovered.  I suspect these other factors were what mitigated against a bay being built at the time of resignalling as the track and signalling costs would have been no different from what was actually done to provide a facing crossover leading to the reversing siding.

The fundamental problem with the 319 performance-wise is that only one of the four cars is motored.  Adding the weight of diesel engines and associated kit to the non-motored cars further reduces the proportion of weight on motored axles, which translates directly to acceleration at low speeds.  Unless other coaches are motored (probably requiring new bogies), a new traction package wouldn't make much difference to performance - it might help acceleration at higher speeds but in that speed range the power available on diesel is probably the limiting factor. 

 

The same applies to the 455s, but the motivation to change their traction motors and replace the camshaft control by electronics was to reduce maintenance visits so the fleet could be expanded without having to build a new depot. 

 

If the bi-mode conversion of 319s  (assuming it works) results in trains with less acceleration capability than Class 16X units it will potentially destroy a number of GWR timetables apart from creatingsome pathing issues.  In order to achieve the current 30 minute interval on the Henley branch requires a unit with acceleration and gradient climbing abilities at least as good as a Class 16X 3 car formation.  Similarly the pathing of the Bedwyn starters is very dependent on their acceleration capability and speed and the same will apply to the stopping services between Reading and Redhill.

 

Overall it starts to look as if another bright idea from DafT might turn out to be as daft as some of their previous, and current, bright ideas.

[Mike Storey]

Re: the reversing siding at Bedwyn.

 

Networks Rail proposal to re-route the footpath was voted on by the Great Bedwyn Parish Council (voted all in favour) at a Parish Council meeting in March:

 

http://www.greatbedwyn-pc.gov.uk/_UserFiles/Files/_Minutes/36420-Draft_Minutes_March_2018.pdf

(Item 194.17-9)

 

Outstanding, thanks. I simply cannot find out as to when NR applied for planning consent, on the Wiltshire list, let alone the NR or DfT lists. Have you managed to find it?

[Banger Blue]

Outstanding, thanks. I simply cannot find out as to when NR applied for planning consent, on the Wiltshire list, let alone the NR or DfT lists. Have you managed to find it?

No, those Parish Council minutes were about the best I could find when I had a quick Google.

 

This link however was on another forum:

 

http://php.wiltshire.gov.uk/row/ppo/getppo.php?id=6209

 

and a link from there to this:

 

http://php.wiltshire.gov.uk/row/ppo/2018-02.pdf

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Wonder why the OS large scale map doesn't show the actual railway lines?

[Arun Sharma]

Rather interestingly the Oxford Times today has one of its "doom and disaster!" stories regarding the closure of Oxford Station to "most" FGW/Chiltern trains between 7 Jul-22 Jul and 28-29 Jul for engineering/resignalling purposes. However it studiously ignored i.e., didn't mention at all, the two trains per hour in each direction that XC run from Reading and the South Coast to Manchester and the North East through Oxford. 

 

It does suggest that Chris Ord [cord@nqo.com] the "journalist" in question has just regurgitated a press release and has possibly never actually been anywhere near Oxford Station.

 

BTW Does anybody know whether NR plans to use this opportunity to put OLE up between Moreton Cutting and Oxford?

Edited May 31, 2018 by ted675

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Rather interestingly the Oxford Times today has one of its "doom and disaster!" stories regarding the closure of Oxford Station to "most" FGW/Chiltern trains between 7 Jul-22 Jul and 28-29 Jul for engineering/resignalling purposes. However it studiously ignored i.e., didn't mention at all, the two trains per hour in each direction that XC run from Reading and the South Coast to Manchester and the North East through Oxford. 

 

It does suggest that Chris Ord [cord@nqo.com] the "journalist" in question has just regurgitated a press release and has possibly never actually been anywhere near Oxford Station.

 

BTW Does anybody know whether NR plans to use this opportunity to put OLE up between Moreton Cutting and Oxford?

 

I'd put £10 on the last question being a resounding "No".

Think they've sold off (or are trying to sell) the overhead metalwork for that section.

[caradoc]

I would hope that at the very least they will erect the OLE structures (although not install the wires) over the carriage sidings currently being rebuilt on the Up side north of Oxford station, although I won't hold my breath. Maybe they will also find time to repair the broken glass on one of the main entrance doors to the station, which has been cordoned off since April.

[St. Simon]

Rather interestingly the Oxford Times today has one of its "doom and disaster!" stories regarding the closure of Oxford Station to "most" FGW/Chiltern trains between 7 Jul-22 Jul and 28-29 Jul for engineering/resignalling purposes. However it studiously ignored i.e., didn't mention at all, the two trains per hour in each direction that XC run from Reading and the South Coast to Manchester and the North East through Oxford. 

 

It does suggest that Chris Ord [cord@nqo.com] the "journalist" in question has just regurgitated a press release and has possibly never actually been anywhere near Oxford Station.

 

BTW Does anybody know whether NR plans to use this opportunity to put OLE up between Moreton Cutting and Oxford?

 

 

I would hope that at the very least they will erect the OLE structures (although not install the wires) over the carriage sidings currently being rebuilt on the Up side north of Oxford station, although I won't hold my breath. Maybe they will also find time to repair the broken glass on one of the main entrance doors to the station, which has been cordoned off since April.

 

Hi,

 

The Oxford work is simply to re-signal and re-control the area from Oxford Panel to TVSC (GWROC), no OLE work is being carried out, however, the resignalling work has been designed with the OLE design in mind, so it should be a fairly simple job when they get to it!

 

Simon

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Hi,

 

The Oxford work is simply to re-signal and re-control the area from Oxford Panel to TVSC (GWROC), no OLE work is being carried out, however, the resignalling work has been designed with the OLE design in mind, so it should be a fairly simple job when they get to it!

 

Simon

 

Unless signalling / OLE regulations change in the meantime.....

[caradoc]

Hi,

 

The Oxford work is simply to re-signal and re-control the area from Oxford Panel to TVSC (GWROC), no OLE work is being carried out, however, the resignalling work has been designed with the OLE design in mind, so it should be a fairly simple job when they get to it!

 

Simon

 

Thanks Simon. I wonder whether you can answer this - Recently Up trains departing Oxford Platform 3, instead of crossing to the Up Main line immediately after the Botley Road underbridge, as was the case for decades, often continue along the Up Loop and only join the Up Main where the Loop ends - Any reason for this ?

[Geoff Endacott]

The wires are heading west from Wootton Bassett. Both tracks at Little Somerford on the South Wales line and one track at Christian Malford on the Bristol line now seem to be wired. However, there are still no masts through Chippenham Station - or any sign of them.

 

Geoff Endacott

[caradoc]

Lots of masts, although no wires yet, between Reading West and Newbury observed today. A new footbridge at Newbury station, presumably the old one is to be removed ? And a new platform on the Up side at Theale, on a loop behind the existing Up platform, on the cess side so that the existing Up platform has not become an island - It looks most odd !

[lmsforever]

Tonight on the BBC Oxford news they discussed the blockade ,as usual passengers interviewed one said ,why cant they do it at another time ,but they said that Chiltern will be running extra lengthened trains from Parkway so Oxford will not be cut off completely.Also the beeb is enjoying making lots of comments about the timetable farce with no real comments as to the exact problem just demanding Grayling to go acka the RMT.

[phil-b259]

And a new platform on the Up side at Theale, on a loop behind the existing Up platform, on the cess side so that the existing Up platform has not become an island - It looks most odd !

This may be deliberate - look at the way it has been necessary to install fences down the middle of platforms shared between fast and slow lines to try and prevent suicides.

 

Making all stopping services normally use the new lop platform and closing off access to the current one fronting the main line achieves the same effect