Electrification of the GWML

[alexnick]

Vis-a-vis tunnels: I've heard of some European tunnels being lowered to fit in overhead wires. You should also be aware that you don't need much space to include catenary unless you're planning on running through the tunnels at 200kph+ - I've seen many examples of the wiring being squashed right down almost to roof height to fit in tunnels.

Still, I'm glad they're finally getting around to electrification of the remaining mainlines. To be blunt, mainline diesel must die.

To explain my reasoning for the diesel enthusiasts here. Getting diesel units to perform as well as electric ones, requires unnecessarily large engines which make ride quality very poor - think of vibrations in a Voyager. Diesel loco haulage doesn't really offer the performance on mainlines which electric can. And I don't think that the public like diesel traction much: whilst enthusiasts will make an effort to watch a diesel which causes the ground around it to shake when it powers up - it cuts a bad public image when people want sleek comfortable trains.

Hopefully this new electrification policy will spread to other lines, including cross-country routes and freight corridors.

AN

[chriscooper]

AFAIK they had few if any problems with tunnels when it came to electrifying the ECML, WCML, GEML, MML and all those other overhead electrified lines, all of which have many tunnels, and at worst you can just lower the track bed. Bridges tend to be a bigger problem, on all those lines many arched bridges needed rebuilding. The clearance in most tunnels is pretty high. Whilst many bridges (even rebuilt ones) have reduced wire height and the catenary wire right ontop of the contact wire, many tunnels have more normal contact wire height and a standard catenary wire, the major difference to the OHLE being that the masts are roof mounted rarther than free standing. At worst you have a few speed restrictions, 100mph is common, but with electrics you're not going to feel that much difference anyway, due to the high performance. Remember too, this the GWR we're talking about, built to Broad Gauge, I really can't see any major issues when it comes to electrification.

[qzdcg8]

One major exception of course - electrification of the Woodhead Line required in a whole new tunnel!

[energize]

Obviously, a whole new Severn Tunnel could be bored which would accomodate overhead wires but that would be dismissed on cost grounds. Strange when you consider that Switzerland is building the 30 mile long Gotthard Base Tunnel for just 8 billion CHF, or $6 billion US dollars; a comparable project in the UK would cost 10-20 times more.

[AlistairW]

True but the tunnel being built in Switzerland is aimed at increasing capacity and vastly reducing journey times, making a new Seven Tunnel (off topic as it won't happen) won't increase capacity of reduce journey times.

A lot of the papers have been talking of 6 years of bustitution and delays but in reality the GWML needs major resignalling in the next few years anyway, along with the likes of CrossRail and Reading redevelopment its being done at the right time. Hopefully NR will have the game plan together with plenty of diversions rather than cancellations.

[nwallace]

Been listening to the news?
Automated cantenary planting and wiring trains running at night only.

[chriscooper]

I know things have changed for the worse since then, but the ECML electrification was done with very little disruption to normal services. Major work that required long closures was carried out overnight, or at weekends. Other work was done with trains running, and in some cases work that required one or more lines blocked was even carried out between trains. As has been said, we should have the technology these days to carry out these projects faster and with less disruption. I often wonder if there is a certain balence of marketing behind the trouble major projects cause (both the direct disruption, but also the high costs, long times, and the almost enevitable regular, often bad, publicity), that the more people feel the work taking place, the bigger the benefit will seem when it's finally finished.

[bgstrowger]

There's plenty of diversionary routes to cope anyway. The Reading-Waterloo line, the B&H line. I reckon they'll electrify via Bristol Parkway first as the Bath route has more tunnels and viaducts, thus presenting a greater technical/engineering challenge.

[gwladok5]

I still think it would be better if they upgraded the line to 140 mph, built a new generation of 125 with 12-15 coaches and add 2 x 6,000hp power cars

We are totally hung up over this emissions business

What about the 1,000's of car miles taken off the roads?

That would soon pay for itself

[Tonysmedley]

The big disadavantage of electrification which nobody wants to mention is that a small incident with a defective pantograph can bring down the wires and close a whole line for hours.

[arabiandisco]

Any idea how you'd fit a 6000hp diesel engine and all it's ancillaries (radiators, fuel tank, main generator, control gear...) into the UK loading gauge? I daresay you'd need about 8 axles to carry that load too, which even then would absolutely hammer the tracks, necessitating lots more possessions to keep them in the kind of condition where you wouldn't have a 15mph TSR at every bridge.

Meanwhile, the class 91 (hardly cutting edge technology) has 6000hp, and a full eurostar set (i.e. 2 power cars) has over 16000hp.

Make no mistake, if it's performance you want, the only real answer is electric.

[gwladok5]

arabiandisco - You've got me bang to rights

[energize]

I also think that the GWML, and other main lines, should be electrified on national security grounds as well. Now that most of our oil is imported from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia especially - which explains why the Serious Fraud office stopped an investigation into the sale of Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia in case it upset the Saudi royal family), Middle Eastern countries would (or are) able to use oil as a political lever. If the West does something the oil-rich states of the Middle East don't like, then they could stop oil exports. Therefore, fuel supplies would be disrupted and the price of diesel would go up, which means that if no diesel was available, any diesel trains couldn't operate. If the GWML and others were electrified, we would be using electricity produced on our shores (hopefully with nuclear power since we have to import much of our gas now) instead of oil which has to be imported.

Sorry if this post rambles a bit but I thought the issue of national security would be a good one to add to the discussion.

[salopiangrowler]

IEP is a dual concept 50% diesel 50% electric.

They could rebuild the Old Severn Railway Bridge?????

[chriscooper]

I also think that the GWML, and other main lines, should be electrified on national security grounds as well. Now that most of our oil is imported from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia especially - which explains why the Serious Fraud office stopped an investigation into the sale of Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia in case it upset the Saudi royal family), Middle Eastern countries would (or are) able to use oil as a political lever. If the West does something the oil-rich states of the Middle East don't like, then they could stop oil exports. Therefore, fuel supplies would be disrupted and the price of diesel would go up, which means that if no diesel was available, any diesel trains couldn't operate. If the GWML and others were electrified, we would be using electricity produced on our shores (hopefully with nuclear power since we have to import much of our gas now) instead of oil which has to be imported.

Sorry if this post rambles a bit but I thought the issue of national security would be a good one to add to the discussion.

Electricity still has to come from somewhere. The vast majority of our electricity comes from two sources, Coal and Gas. Coal is mostly imported these days, as it's cheaper than using domestic supplies, especially for power generation when quality is not an issue (power stations will burn anything). North Sea gas is running out, and is unable to cope with peak demand as it is, let alone with increasing demand in the future. A lot of gas comes from Russia. Are they and more trustworthy and reliable than the Oil suppliers in the Middle East? When talking about England, Scottish independance also rears it's ugly head, as they would have much of the gas.
There is no chance of the UK becoming anything like independant in terms of energy in the forceable future. At the moment, the only reliable and secure energy source is Nuclear (Uranium needs importing, but supplies are available from friendly countries, and reprocessing provides a reliable domestic supply of fuel grade uranium). Even if this could be made politically acceptable, it would take too long to implement. For the forcceable future, UK Nuclear output will fall as old stations are decomissioned.