GWML Electification

[Christopher125]

NR have put out a video about the first 387s reaching Maidenhead:

 

[The Stationmaster]

The extension of the Down Relief/Up Main platform at Hayes seems to be the only thing going on there at the moment. Granted, there does seem to have been some activity at the country end of the Down Relief platform, but I think that is no more than making good the footings for the platform that was adjusted ages ago when the tracks were realigned.

 

Progress on the Up Relief platform extension has been nil for longer than I can remember. The crossbeams are all in place, but nothing else apart from the minimum required to commission the bay platform for the 8-car electrics. The station buildings, or what little is left of them, are a building site on which nothing seems to have happened since the site was cleared.

 

West Drayton is in an even worse state, with only the Down Main platform extended, and that was done a long time ago. The Relief platforms have yet to be started, although some Vortok fencing has appeared, and the Up Loop platform is only part rebuilt. The new footbridge is only half built and nothing has been done towards the new station building.

 

In the meantime, it is now not much more than a month before the new electric timetable is due to start. If it does, I can see our 5-car peak time diesel trains being replaced by 4-car electrics. ☹️

 

Jim

 

The 07.33 Maidenhead - Paddn could be 8 car (and I expect it will be) as it runs non-stop; the 07.42 ex Maidenhead will probably also be 8 car as it calls only at Taplow and Slough; the 08.42 ex Maidenhead  calls at Taplow, Slough and Southall.  The 16.09 Paddn - Maidenhead calls only at Slough and returns ECS to Paddington so could be 8 car if ML at Slough ;  the 18.05 Paddington has more stops but could be 8 although it might only be 4 cars as it calls at Ealing Broadway, Hayes, West Drayton, Langley, Slough, and Burnham and returning as the 18.18 Maidenhead - Paddington it calls at Slough, Langley, Iver, West Daryton, Hayes, and Ealing Broadway.  The 19.14 ex Paddington only calls at Slough and returns empty to West Ealing so could be 8 cars if ML at Slough. The 19.12 Paddington calls at Ealing Broadway, Hayes, West Drayton, Slough, Burnham, and Taplow and returns empty to West Ealing.

 

Southall platforms are 20 Dn and 14 Up metres too short for an 8 car 387 formation, 

Hayes platforms are 17 Dn and 24 Up metres too short for an 8 car formation.

West Drayton Up platform is 5 metres too short for an 8 car ( Dn platform is ok),

Iver Up platform is 7 metres too short for an 8 car (Dn platform is ok)

Langley is ok

Slough Dn Rlf  and Up Rlf are both 2 metres too short, ML platforms are ok

Burnham is 17 Dn and 7 Up metres too short for an 8 car.

Taplow is ok

Maidenhead is ok

 

So SDO would be necessary at most stations for 8 car formations to operate, if SDO is not available and platform extensions are not complete then some of the services would only be able to operate with 4 cars.  GWR is planning - or was a couple of months back - to have some 12 car formations in service during the peaks in December when Class 387 public services are extended to Didcot

[Coryton]

My experience when I was involved in some of the platform lengthening projects on Southern was that the SDO function was a proprietary Bombardier system that required the provision of trackside beacons and on-board programming of the trains (by Bombardier). Getting both sorted out is not a quick job, on top of which my understanding is that ORR does not condone SDO being implemented just because another part ofthe project hasn't managed to get the platform extensions built in time. SDO is there for when extending the platform is not a practicable option without disproportionate expense, for example, where a platform is hemmed in by bridges or junctions. The default position is that the whole of the train should fit the platform.

 

When the up platform at Billingshurst was extended a few years ago there was some issue with the SDO initially in that the doors on the rear coach(es?) wouldn't open even though they were fully on the platform. (Which was a shame as they were the ones by the footbridge and the main entrance).

 

I suspect my theory that they couldn't find an 8 coach beacon anywhere but had a spare 6 coach one* lying around was probably wrong.

 

* Or whatever the correct values were - it was a while ago and I forget.

 

Platforms shorter than trains aren't ideal but it's surely better than the situation I experienced on what was Thames Trains at the time where three coaches on a 2+3 car train had to be locked out because the platform at one station along the way was too short (I think it was long enough for 3 coaches but the 2 coach unit was in front).

 

Going much further back, I remember getting off a loco hauled train onto a platform ramp because it didn't quite fit onto the platform. A bit tricky with suitcases but we survived.

 

I really don't see why SDO shouldn't be used as a temporary solution when new trains are ready before the platform extensions are, or indeed why it shouldn't be used long term when platform extensions are possible but would be disproportionately expensive for the expected use. If it's considered safe when the platforms can't be extended, then why not also when it's too expensive?

[The Stationmaster]

I see the work at Bath has overrun somewhat - looking to get back to normal at 09.00 tomorrow - no explanation given for the overrun.

[Edwin_m]

I see the work at Bath has overrun somewhat - looking to get back to normal at 09.00 tomorrow - no explanation given for the overrun.

According to another forum, an engineering train ran through points which now have to be repaired. 

[HillsideDepot]

It all seems to have been bit of a muddle yesterday, and the NR Western Twitter feed revealed nothing, after having been busy all weekend when the job was going well. 

 

A colleague was attempting to travel from Chippenham to Manchester and post this on Facebook at 0602:

Oh well...get up early to get the first train at 0554...to find it cancelled....due to over running engineering works. Given it might be delayed until 1100 I suspect it might

be more than the over run they are admitting to. So another adventure begins...

 

 

 Followed at 0627 by:

Well this over run of engineering works was known about some time in advance as they have found an HST to do a departure at 0625 from Chippenham to London...but it has arrived empty from Swindon direction. Talking to the crew it should be a train from Frome to Paddington via Newbury...but as that could not get to Frome from Bristol to start due to the problems some one decided...in quite an innovative way...to instead use the train and crew to run empty to Swindon and then back down to Chippenham. So I suspect no one is coming clean about what is happening at Bath...but at 0625 we are on the move....in the right direction.

 

A good bit of Control thinking which met with the approval of my colleague (also a bus scheduler).

 

Later in the day the local newspaper website reported:

Rail passengers are warned to expect disruption to continue throughout the rest of today, and for late evening services to finish early, to allow for emergency engineering works outside of Bath Spa station.

Due to an overnight points failure near Oldfield Park, fewer trains are able to run through Bath Spa today, hitting an already reduced service.

Trains between London Paddington and Bristol Temple Meads/Taunton; and between Portsmouth Harbour and Cardiff will continue to call at Bath Spa (calling additionally at Oldfield Park and Keynsham).

But journeys may be extended by up to 25 minutes as they pass through the affected area.

Other London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads services are continuing to be diverted through Bristol Parkway.

Services between Great Malvern/Gloucester and Weymouth will operate between Bristol Temple Meads and Gloucester/Great Malvern and between Westbury and Weymouth.

Buses will replace trains for all other intermediate stations, including Freshford, Avoncliff and Bradford Upon Avon.

From 9pm all lines through Bath Spa will be closed and buses will replace timetable trains.

Last train times:

• Last trains from Swindon to Bath: 8.30pm 

• Last train from Chippenham to Bath: 8.44pm 

• Last train from Bristol Temple Meads to Bath: 8.30pm

Network Rail engineers will work throughout the night to repair the points, enabling more trains to be able to operate, although some limited disruption is expected to continue.

Ticket acceptance for GWR ticket holders has also been agreed with a number of local bus providers.

 

The GWR website had a list of the various local bus services which were accepting tickets, beginning the list with the all important Bath Spa to Oldfield Park service! OK, that happens to be via Bath city bus route 1 and that's why it headed the numerical list, but certainly promotion well beyond its status. But I'm not being critical, at least all options were covered by the information, merely amused. Weymouth passengers were invited to travel by SWT via Southampton and changing onto/out of Portsmouth - Cardiff services there. 

In other news, the 2 or 3 masts just west of Chippenham Viaduct won't progress too much further as the pile for the mast between them and the viaduct still has about 4m sticking up into the air! East of Chippenham several more double track horizontals have appeared on the "big" masts.

 

[SouthernMafia]

The 07.33 Maidenhead - Paddn could be 8 car (and I expect it will be) as it runs non-stop; the 07.42 ex Maidenhead will probably also be 8 car as it calls only at Taplow and Slough; the 08.42 ex Maidenhead calls at Taplow, Slough and Southall. The 16.09 Paddn - Maidenhead calls only at Slough and returns ECS to Paddington so could be 8 car if ML at Slough ; the 18.05 Paddington has more stops but could be 8 although it might only be 4 cars as it calls at Ealing Broadway, Hayes, West Drayton, Langley, Slough, and Burnham and returning as the 18.18 Maidenhead - Paddington it calls at Slough, Langley, Iver, West Daryton, Hayes, and Ealing Broadway. The 19.14 ex Paddington only calls at Slough and returns empty to West Ealing so could be 8 cars if ML at Slough. The 19.12 Paddington calls at Ealing Broadway, Hayes, West Drayton, Slough, Burnham, and Taplow and returns empty to West Ealing.

 

Southall platforms are 20 Dn and 14 Up metres too short for an 8 car 387 formation,

Hayes platforms are 17 Dn and 24 Up metres too short for an 8 car formation.

West Drayton Up platform is 5 metres too short for an 8 car ( Dn platform is ok),

Iver Up platform is 7 metres too short for an 8 car (Dn platform is ok)

Langley is ok

Slough Dn Rlf and Up Rlf are both 2 metres too short, ML platforms are ok

Burnham is 17 Dn and 7 Up metres too short for an 8 car.

Taplow is ok

Maidenhead is ok

 

So SDO would be necessary at most stations for 8 car formations to operate, if SDO is not available and platform extensions are not complete then some of the services would only be able to operate with 4 cars. GWR is planning - or was a couple of months back - to have some 12 car formations in service during the peaks in December when Class 387 public services are extended to Didcot

Class 387 operated services Paddington to Slough/Maidenhead from 21st May 2017. All 8 car 387.

 

 

Maidenhead to Paddington

 

• Dep 0625 Arr 0654

• Dep 0656 Arr 0746

• Dep 0733 Arr 0804

• Dep 0742 Arr 0819

• Dep 0842 Arr 0922

• Dep 0907 Arr 0947

• Dep 1818 Arr 1857

 

Slough to Paddington

 

• Dep 0708 Arr 0746

• Dep 0751 Arr 0819

• Dep 0829 Arr 0901

• Dep 0851 Arr 0922

• Dep 0916 Arr 0947

• Dep 0943 Arr 1012

• Dep 1826 Arr 1857

 

Paddington to Maidenhead

 

• Dep 1609 Arr 1642

• Dep 1642 Arr 1713

• Dep 1714 Arr 1802

• Dep 1742 Arr 1813

• Dep 1842 Arr 1914

• Dep 1912 Arr 1953

• Dep 1936 Arr 2000

 

Paddington to Slough

 

• Dep 0909 Arr 0934

• Dep 1609 Arr 1633

• Dep 1714 Arr 1744

• Dep 1742 Arr 1803

• Dep 1842 Arr 1903

• Dep 1912 Arr 1939

[D1059]

I see the work at Bath has overrun somewhat - looking to get back to normal at 09.00 tomorrow - no explanation given for the overrun.

 

Maybe the glue for the brick chads on the platform facing wasn't strong enough

[HillsideDepot]

Imagine a platform on a curve, a platform that only just takes the trailers on a 2+8 HST.

 

Now imagine easing the curve of that platform, meaning that the track effectively takes a short cut between the two ends.

 

Then imagine adding anti-trespass devices at each end of said platform.

 

Finally, guess what happens to the first and last doors of a 2+8 HST at the new platform....

Edited April 20, 2017 by HillsideDepot

[Northroader]

No, they haven't, have they?

[Edwin_m]

Imagine a platform on a curve, a platform that only just takes the trailers on a 2+8 HST.

 

Now imagine easing the curve of that platform, meaning that the track effectively takes a short cut between the two ends.

 

Then imagine adding anti-trespass devices at each end of said platform.

 

Finally, guess what happens to the first and last doors of a 2+8 HST at the new platform....

Have they also got rid of the platform ramps?  That should add back 10 metres or so each end. 

[Geoff Endacott]

In other news, the 2 or 3 masts just west of Chippenham Viaduct won't progress too much further as the pile for the mast between them and the viaduct still has about 4m sticking up into the air! East of Chippenham several more double track horizontals have appeared on the "big" masts.

 

Like this:

 

 

Photo thanks to Robin Hodson.

 

Geoff Endacott

[Christopher125]

On the SDO issue, it seems Electrostars rely primarily rely on GPS to decide how many doors can be opened at a certain location, with beacons (balises) only where necessary.

 

"Balises are provided where a GPS signal is unavailable (eg under the raft at Victoria) or where GPS provides insufficient granularity (eg at a station where there is a difference in how many doors can be accommodated at different platforms). GPS is used everywhere else".

[modfather]

The 80x fleet also uses a gps and preprogrammed input.

[jim.snowdon]

The 07.33 Maidenhead - Paddn could be 8 car (and I expect it will be) as it runs non-stop; the 07.42 ex Maidenhead will probably also be 8 car as it calls only at Taplow and Slough; the 08.42 ex Maidenhead  calls at Taplow, Slough and Southall.  The 16.09 Paddn - Maidenhead calls only at Slough and returns ECS to Paddington so could be 8 car if ML at Slough ;  the 18.05 Paddington has more stops but could be 8 although it might only be 4 cars as it calls at Ealing Broadway, Hayes, West Drayton, Langley, Slough, and Burnham and returning as the 18.18 Maidenhead - Paddington it calls at Slough, Langley, Iver, West Daryton, Hayes, and Ealing Broadway.  The 19.14 ex Paddington only calls at Slough and returns empty to West Ealing so could be 8 cars if ML at Slough. The 19.12 Paddington calls at Ealing Broadway, Hayes, West Drayton, Slough, Burnham, and Taplow and returns empty to West Ealing.

 

Southall platforms are 20 Dn and 14 Up metres too short for an 8 car 387 formation, 

Hayes platforms are 17 Dn and 24 Up metres too short for an 8 car formation.

West Drayton Up platform is 5 metres too short for an 8 car ( Dn platform is ok),

Iver Up platform is 7 metres too short for an 8 car (Dn platform is ok)

Langley is ok

Slough Dn Rlf  and Up Rlf are both 2 metres too short, ML platforms are ok

Burnham is 17 Dn and 7 Up metres too short for an 8 car.

Taplow is ok

Maidenhead is ok

 

So SDO would be necessary at most stations for 8 car formations to operate, if SDO is not available and platform extensions are not complete then some of the services would only be able to operate with 4 cars.  GWR is planning - or was a couple of months back - to have some 12 car formations in service during the peaks in December when Class 387 public services are extended to Didcot

 

As a regular user of West Drayton, those figures didn't look right. The Sectional Appendix currently lists all five platforms as 210-212m, even though platform 5 (the Up Loop) is totally inaccessible to passengers and yet to be rebuilt over at least half of its length following the track slew that took place quite some time ago. This evening, coming out from Paddington I deliberately travelled in the back car of a 5-car service so that I could check the length of spare platform on the Down Relief - it could accommodate an extra 2 cars at most, ie there is sufficient length for a 7-car train, certainly not eight. Using the standard convention of 20m per carriage, applicable to the 165/166 stock, that equates ot a platform length of 140m, far short of the 200-odd metres given by the Appendix. One is left wondering if the figures quoted in the Appendix are down to wishful thinking post-Crossrail works; they do not appear to correspond with what is currently on the ground.

 

Jim

[HillsideDepot]

Network Rail's photo of works on Bath Spa platform 2

 

[The Stationmaster]

Like this:

 

17965841_10154859447854342_1154126339_n.jpg

 

Photo thanks to Robin Hodson.

 

Geoff Endacott

 

There's another one like that somewhere to the east of Chippenham (among those at other places, including one at Swindon which has been in that state for a couple of months).

[The Stationmaster]

As a regular user of West Drayton, those figures didn't look right. The Sectional Appendix currently lists all five platforms as 210-212m, even though platform 5 (the Up Loop) is totally inaccessible to passengers and yet to be rebuilt over at least half of its length following the track slew that took place quite some time ago. This evening, coming out from Paddington I deliberately travelled in the back car of a 5-car service so that I could check the length of spare platform on the Down Relief - it could accommodate an extra 2 cars at most, ie there is sufficient length for a 7-car train, certainly not eight. Using the standard convention of 20m per carriage, applicable to the 165/166 stock, that equates ot a platform length of 140m, far short of the 200-odd metres given by the Appendix. One is left wondering if the figures quoted in the Appendix are down to wishful thinking post-Crossrail works; they do not appear to correspond with what is currently on the ground.

 

Jim

 

I used the figures in the December 2016 amendment to the SA which shows  Platform 4 as being shorter than the others (maybe the extension has since opened?).  The figure for the two Main Line platforms surprised me as I've had the impression they're much shorter.

 

Class 165 vehicles are effectively 23 metres of course so a 7 car set would be c.161 metres overall which is about the same length as an 8 car Class 387 with nominally 20 metre long vehicles.  But whichever it is if the platform is only around 160 metres long it is very definitely shorter than the length shown in the Sectional Appendix in December 2016.

 

Interestingly the current edition of the TT Planning Rules quotes the same figures as the SA (excet for Platform No.4, URL) with a margin note that they are 'Applicable From Christmas 2015' however the figure which 'Ceases to apply at Christmas 2015' for the Down Relief platform is shown as 155 metres - which is near enough what you observed today.  The new edition of the Planning Rules is due this July so it will be interesting to see what it says.  Overall it would seem that what should have happened to at least one platform length at West Drayton in December 2015 didn't happen.

[jim.snowdon]

Mike,

 

Thanks for the correction re. the length of the class 165/166 stock. I've travelled in the things heaven knows how many times yet not appreciated that they are as long as a Mark 3. They don't look it, whereas the Mark 3 does.

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

Mike,

 

Thanks for the correction re. the length of the class 165/166 stock. I've travelled in the things heaven knows how many times yet not appreciated that they are as long as a Mark 3. They don't look it, whereas the Mark 3 does.

 

Jim

 

Strange optical illusion isn't it - they definitely look/feel shorter both inside and out but they aren't.  The fact that the 387s have shorter vehicles is one reason why GWR are looking to run longer (i.e. more vehicles in a formation) trains as they seem to have properly cottoned on to the problem of replacing a 23 metre vehicle with a shorter one with fewer seats.  Hence their talk about 12 car 387 formations for the peak once local services electrification has reached Didcot - mind you that takes the length up to c.240 metres so must require SDO at just about everywhere.

 

BTW noted yesterday - one further section of catenary wire (only) westwards from the Reading end of the Up Main Flyover,  Similarly an additional section of catenary wire westwards from the Reading end on the Down Relief plus full catenary now in place on one of the flyunder Westbury Lines to the south of the flyover.

[WCML100]

Class 387 operated services Paddington to Slough/Maidenhead from 21st May 2017. All 8 car 387.

 

 

Maidenhead to Paddington

 

• Dep 0625 Arr 0654

• Dep 0656 Arr 0746

• Dep 0733 Arr 0804

• Dep 0742 Arr 0819

• Dep 0842 Arr 0922

• Dep 0907 Arr 0947

• Dep 1818 Arr 1857

 

Slough to Paddington

 

• Dep 0708 Arr 0746

• Dep 0751 Arr 0819

• Dep 0829 Arr 0901

• Dep 0851 Arr 0922

• Dep 0916 Arr 0947

• Dep 0943 Arr 1012

• Dep 1826 Arr 1857

 

Paddington to Maidenhead

 

• Dep 1609 Arr 1642

• Dep 1642 Arr 1713

• Dep 1714 Arr 1802

• Dep 1742 Arr 1813

• Dep 1842 Arr 1914

• Dep 1912 Arr 1953

• Dep 1936 Arr 2000

 

Paddington to Slough

 

• Dep 0909 Arr 0934

• Dep 1609 Arr 1633

• Dep 1714 Arr 1744

• Dep 1742 Arr 1803

• Dep 1842 Arr 1903

• Dep 1912 Arr 1939

 

 

I am assuming by these times that they will not be stopping at stations in between? 

[The Stationmaster]

I am assuming by these times that they will not be stopping at stations in between? 

 

Look at Post 3165 which lists all the stops (although I forgot to show the 06.33 Maidenhead, sorry)

[jim.snowdon]

Only up to a point, The full list, from Real Time Trains, is:-

 

Maidenhead to Paddington

Dep 0625 Arr 0654 non stop
Dep 0656 Arr 0746 all station exc Hanwell, West Ealing & Acton.
• Dep 0733 Arr 0804 non stop
• Dep 0742 Arr 0819 calls Taplow, Slough (07:51) then non stop
• Dep 0842 Arr 0922 calls Taplow, Slough (08:51), Southall only
• Dep 0907 Arr 0947 calls Slough (09:16), West Drayton, Hayes, Southall & Ealing
• Dep 1818 Arr 1857 calls Slough (18:26), West Drayton, Hayes, Southall & Ealing

Slough to Paddington

• Dep 0829 Arr 0901 all stns exc Iver to Southall, then Ealing.
• Dep 0943 Arr 1012 non stop

 

Paddington to Maidenhead

 

• Dep 0909 Arr 0934 non stop Dep SLO as 09:43.
• Dep 1609 Arr 1642 calls Slough only
• Dep 1642 Arr 1713 non stop
• Dep 1714 Arr 1802 calls Ealing, Hayes, West Drayton, Langley Slough (17:44), Burnham
• Dep 1742 Arr 1813 calls Slough (18:03), Burnham
• Dep 1842 Arr 1914 calls Slough (19:03)
• Dep 1912 Arr 1953 calls Ealing, Hayes, West Drayton, Langley Slough (1939), Burnham, Taplow
• Dep 1936 Arr 2000 non stop

Jim

[HillsideDepot]

I saw a few more photos of the Down platform at Bath Spa today.

 

With the power car drawn up to the appropriate Car Stop sign the leading door on the train (usually the TGS) is not only well beyond the anti trespass fence and cones, but the gap between the platform edge (which is at a low level there) and the train is far too wide to physically step across, let alone use in normal service. So with the front power car positioned so that the leading door on the TGS (where the cycle accommodation is) is usable, the rear TF is off the platform, and with the way the SDO controls work being positioned diagonally opposite and not at every door that potentially means the rear two trailers remain locked.

 

In other news, the IEP train is conducting overnight tests from Stoke Gifford Tip, sorry Depot, to Paddington and back. It is booked to stop for about 10 minutes at most stations and has been including places such as Twyford amongst it's calls.

[jim.snowdon]

Strange optical illusion isn't it - they definitely look/feel shorter both inside and out but they aren't.  The fact that the 387s have shorter vehicles is one reason why GWR are looking to run longer (i.e. more vehicles in a formation) trains as they seem to have properly cottoned on to the problem of replacing a 23 metre vehicle with a shorter one with fewer seats.  Hence their talk about 12 car 387 formations for the peak once local services electrification has reached Didcot - mind you that takes the length up to c.240 metres so must require SDO at just about everywhere.

 

BTW noted yesterday - one further section of catenary wire (only) westwards from the Reading end of the Up Main Flyover,  Similarly an additional section of catenary wire westwards from the Reading end on the Down Relief plus full catenary now in place on one of the flyunder Westbury Lines to the south of the flyover.

All of which helps the PR people convince us (the travelling public) that the new trains must be bigger, and therefore better. Doubtless, when we get the actual Crossrail services, they will be making much of their being a whole car longer whilst at the same time keeping schtum about the reduction in seating capacity. They are billed as 205m overall, so our prospective 210m platforms will suffice. Their arrival will render a fair number of 387s surplus to requirements (assuming that the 165/166s have by then already left the London area), in which case are these likely to become the basis for the Oxford services (once the electricity has got that far)?

 

Jim