Electrification At Didcot Parkway – 29th March 2016
On the 25th of March, I wrote Electrifying Didcot Parkway, after I passed through Didcot Parkway station on the way to Oxford.
Yesterday, as I passed through on the way to Bath, I took this picture of the forest of masts at the station.
A Forest Of Masts At Didcot Parkway
It does appear to me, that more have gone up over Easter, but because WordPress doesn’t let me look at galleries, I can’t be sure.
I also took this picture looking towards Oxford.
Masts Marching Towards Oxford
It would appear that the electrification is going to go at least as far as Didcot North Junction, where the West Curve from the direction of Swindon joins the Cherwell Valley Line. This schematic was clipped from Wikipedia.
Didcot To Oxford On The Cherwell Valley Line
And this is a Google Map of the same area.
Didcot To Oxford
I estimate that from Didcot North Junction to Oxford station is about ten or twelve miles.
This would mean that if an IPEMU could reach Didcot Parkway station using overhead electrification, it could undoubtedly reach Oxford and then get back to Didcot.
Between Reading and Didcot, it would appear that the wires are going up.
Wires Between Reading And Didcot
This picture shows the wires over the two slow or relief lines.
How Long Would An IPEMU Take From St. Leonard’s To St. Pancras International?
If an IPEMU is going to be used between St. Leonard’s and St. Pancras International station, there are two possibilities.
- A 110 mph IPEMU based on existing Class 387 trains.
- A 125 mph IPEMU based on a purpose-built Aventra. Ian Walmsley stated in the April 2016 Edition of Modern Railways that a 125 mph Aventra is possible.
This compares with the 143 mph and 100 mph speeds of a Class 395 train on high speed and classic lines respectively.
For this estimate, I will make the following assumptions.
- St. Leonards takes four minutes longer than Hastings.
- The baseline time from St. Pancras to Ashford is 38 minutes in a Class 395 train.
- Times on the high speed section are in proportion to the train speed.
- The baseline time from St. Leonard’s to Ashford is 46 minutes in a Class 171 train.
- All trains on the unelectrified section are limited to 100 mph.
Times From St.Leonards to Ashford
The Class 171 train takes 46 minutes, but it is only a benchmark, as few would go to Ashford and then get on a Class 395 train on High Speed 1.
The Class 395 train and the IPEMUs would be quicker as they would save a couple of minutes at each of the typical five stops, because of their faster acceleration.
Two minutes a stop would save ten minutes.
Times From Ashford to St. Pancras
Doing a simple calculation based on train speed gives the following times.
- Class 395 train – 38 minutes
- Class 387 IPEMU – 48 minutes
- Aventra IPEMU – 43 minutes.
Times from St. Leonards to St. Pancras
Adding the two times together gives.
- Class 395 train – 74 minutes
- Class 387 IPEMU – 84 minutes
- Aventra IPEMU – 79 minutes.
With Hastings it will be four minutes less.
In Wikipedia, there is a section called Future for the entry for the Marshlink Line. This is said.
The line is strategically important, as electrification and junction improvements would mean that High Speed 1 trains could travel directly from St Pancras International to Hastings. Amber Rudd, Member of Parliament for Hastings, has campaigned for electrification works to start by 2017. The aim is to reduce times to London from Hastings to 68 minutes, and from Rye to under an hour. This would require remodelling Ashford International station so the existing Marshlink line could connect to HS1, installing power systems, and adding a passing loop at Rye, all in addition to requiring new trains.
I think that the aim of 68 minutes from London to Hastings is a modest one, but as my crude estimate was only six minutes longer, I think the 68 minutes is totally attainable, especially as my times from St. Leonards to Ashford are just based on current timings and taking off a couple of minutes for each stop.
But if the Marshlink Line could be significantly improved, then time reductions of several minutes could well be achieved.
Electrification Of Bath Spa Station
Bath Spa Station could present a unique mix of electrification problems.
- It is a Grade II* Listed Building.
- It is situated in a World Heritage Site.
- The station sits on a viaduct between the River Avon and the City.
- Traditional electrification of the Great Western Main Line Through Bath, would be a challenge to the best engineers.
- Electrification will present aesthetic problems.
This Google Map shows the cramped location.
Bath Spa Station
At least it is close to the bus station, which can’t be said for that many stations.
As with Electrifying The Great Western Through Sydney Gardens, the engineers are thanking Brunel.
Look at this picture of the lines through the station.
Lines Through Bath Spa Station
Engineers must surely be able to use some system to erect the wires on this wide viaduct, that was designed for Brunel’s broad gauge.
- A solution similar to that used in Paddington station could be used in the station.
- Central masts could be erected, with the overhead wires on either side.
No wonder that the Great Western Electrification is running so late, if every station is as difficult as this one.
These are a few pictures of Bath Spa station.
I’ll be looking forward to comparing them with pictures taken in a year or two, after the wires are in place.
Electrifying The Great Western Through Sydney Gardens In Bath Spa
The Great Western Railway runs i through Sydney Gardens in Bath. This picture shows an InterCity 125 running through the gardens.
An InterCity 125 Passes Through Sydney Gardens
Note.
- There is plenty of width, as the line was built for broad gauge trains.
- Height might a bit tight, when you add in the pantograph.
- I would think that the structure under the track is pretty sound, as it’s had masses of pounding for years from Castles, Kings, Warships and InterCity 125s.
- I suspect that the bridges over the line have been fully surveyed and like most of Brunel’s structures are well designed.
So I suspect that the track could be arranged, so that it positioned the train in the right place, to allow a Class 800 train to pass through with absolute safety.
The tracks could be moved closer or further apart to match the geometry of the bridges.
The tracks could be lowered if required.
If necessary, as is often done in tunnels, a solid concrete slab track could be laid. But this can create more noise.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see an innovative rail system used in Sydney Gardens to make sure the trains run accurately, reduce noise and improve the look of the railway.
But then after Dawlish and some of the challenging situations, Network Rail has faced with tracks in the last few years, I suspect they’ll come up with a very acceptable solution.
The problem is the electrification.
Engineers will renew switches and crossings at Bathampton Junction, and will lower the track at Sydney Gardens, as well as at Hampton Mill and Meadow Farm bridges.
They will install specially designed electrification equipment in Sydney Gardens, which is classed as a World Heritage Site. Work on Box Tunnel will continue over the entire six-week period.
So as I thought height is tight.
This was a comment from the article.
When these plans were presented in the Guildhall last year, the Network Rail representative emphasised that the brackets hadn’t been finalised. The poor guy had the patient of a saint as he dealt with audience members insisting that trains be fitted with batteries to enable them to do without overhead lines in Bath as well as suggesting that they could coast through the city un-powered.
I don’t think it was a good meeting for Network Rail.
As an engineer, I agree with the comment about battery trains, but the Class 800 trains are not to my knowledge able to accept batteries at the present time. Although, judging by the way the industry is going, I suspect that within a few years, all electric trains will have provision for batteries, if the operator wants them.
In some ways, I feel that Brunel might be providing the solution.
To erect overhead wires for railway electrification, you need to support the wires every fifty metres or so.
This Google Map shows the gardens.
Sydney Gardens, Bath
Note there is a solid road bridge over the railway at both ends of the gardens, with Beckford Road in the North and Sydney Road in the South.
I estimate that the distance between the two road bridges is two to three hundred metres.
In the middle is the footbridge from where I took the picture of the InterCity 125 and another wider bridge.
As the trains will not be going flat out at 200 kmh through here, as they’ll probably be stopping at Bath Spa station, I suspect that the four bridges could be used as support for the overhead electrification.
This Network Rail visualisation shows the footbridge with a Class 800 train going underneath.
Sydney Gardens Bridge And A Class 800 Train
It looks to me, that the wires are attached under Brunel’s bridges and that by clever design tNetwork Rail can get an solution acceptable to all.
One of the problems, is of course making sure, that pedestrians on the bridge are safe, with 25KVAC overhead electrification underneath.
By lowering the track, they are increasing the safety distance and also making it less likely that naughty dogs can get on the track.
I have a feeling that this problem, will be one that will haunt Network Rail.
This picture was taken from the Sydney Road bridge and shows the area of the visualisation.
The Footbridge In Sydney Gardens, Bath
As the train appears to be on the left track, the visualisation actually shows the back of a train.
This is a gallery of pictures that I took in Sydney Gardens.
It would be a shame to ruin the gardens, by some less than adequate design.
Electrification At Paddington Station
I took this picture looking across the lines at Paddington station.
Electrification At Paddington
The nearest platform, which is number one, is not electrified yet. note the bar across the tracks which is used to support the wires.
This picture shows wires installed over platforms four and five.
Electrification At Paddington
Note where the support is yellow, that you can just see a slim vertical support for the overhead wire.
It certainly seems to be more of a sympathetic design than the gantries I discussed in Aesthetic Problems With Overhead Wires On The Great Western
Hanwell Station – 28th March 2016
I took these pictures as I went over the Hanwell Viaduct and Through Hanwell station.
All seems to be getting ready for electric services to start in May
Southall Station – 28th March 2016
I took these pictures today at Southall station.
It looks like as at Hayes and Harlington station, some of the catenary has been replaced or updated.
West Ealing Station – 28th March 2016
I took these pictures as I passed through West Ealing station.
The only definite conclusion I made, was that I will have to visit to be able to make any conclusions about how the Greenford Branch will be run after it loses its direct connection to Paddington.
Wikipedia says this about how Crossrail will affect services on the Branch, in a Future section.
In 2017 Crossrail is due to begin using two of the four tracks of the Great Western Main Line and the Greenford service will terminate at West Ealing, rather than continue to Paddington, to obviate interference with Crossrail, and to create track capacity for increased services to Heathrow. In compensation the branch line service will increase from two to four trains per hour.
When this will happen, I can only guess that it will be at the same time, as electric services start between Paddington to Hayes and Harlington.
At present the trip between West Ealing and Greenford takes just seven minutes, so if one train was to work the branch, there would be no problem doing the four seven minute legs required for two trips per hour, but four trips with eight legs might be a bit tighter, especially if something delayed the train like say a party of thirty schoolchildren or a group of three or four in wheelchairs with their carers wanting to go shopping.
Given too,that a good service for passengers would probably need.
- Similar frequencies of the Paddington to Hayes and Halington service and the Greenford Branch line.
- The Greenford Branch train would probably arrive at West Ealing a few minutes before a train to Paddington.
- The train from Paddington would probably arrive at West Ealing a few minutes before the Greenford train left.
In my view good connections are essential, as a lot of people will not be pleased to have lost their direct service to Paddington.
This map from carto.metro.free.fr shows the layout of the lines at West Ealing.
Lines At Wes tEaling
Note how there is a connection to the West.
This second map from carto.metro.free.fr shows the layout of the lines at Greenford.
Lines At Greenford
Given that to the West of Greenford, the lines connect to Chiltern, you just wonder if someone has a plan to improve connectivity in North West London.
But the branch does have some negative factors, that mitigate against development.
- There would appear to be no suitable Southern terminal to the West of the branch.
- Three of the stations on the branch can only handle two-car trains.
- The branch is not electrified.
- The terminus at Greenford is a bay platform, squeezed in between two Underground tracks.
A lot will depend on the trains and the operators of the Greenford Branch, as to what happens.
At present, the branch is run by GWR, but there has been talk about the branch coming under control of London Overground.
GWR would probably run the line as they do now, with a two-car diesel Class 165 train.
Would London Overground run the line with a IPEMU version of their new Class 710 train, as Aventras can be fitted with on-board energy storage?
The Steventon Bridge Problem On The Great Western Railway Electrification
Roger Ford in an article in the April 2016 Edition of Modern Railways, which is entitled GWEP Target Dates And Costs, discusses some of the problems of the electrification.
In one section he talks about the problems caused by the Grade II Listed Steventon Bridge.
This is a picture I took of the bridge from an InterCity 125
Steventon Bridge
Not the best, but it shows the design of the bridge.
This Google Map shows the Great Western Main Line, as it passes just to the south of the village of Steventon in Oxfordshire.
GWML Through Steventon
The bridge is on the Easternmost crossing of the railway, with the other two crossings being level crossings.
Roger explains the problem, which is about putting the overhead electric wires under the bridge.
The overhead wires have to be at maximum height over the level crossings and this means to get the wires under the bridge, they have to dip sharply. This means that excessive wear is caused to the contact wire.
It would appear from the article, that Network Rail are still searching for an acceptable solution.
At least it would appear that one of the level crossings is going to be closed, which could ease matters a shade.
But will the locals put up a fight as Mark Whitby has at the Ordsall Curve?
This article in the Oxford Mail is entitled Demolition of Steventon rail bridge on hold after MP intervention.
Some of the comments are priceless!
My view has a touch of the Philistine about it!
We have thousands of bridges like this and we don’t need to keep them all!
So perhaps we should save the best, but some that would cost too much to keep, should be replaced with modern bridges.
In the case of the Steventon Bridge, if the level crossings didn’t exist, it would appear that the tracks could be lowered under the bridge to give the required headroom.
As level crossings are one of the major causes of death on the railways, we shouldn’t stop until all are eliminated.
It would appear from this document, that one of the level crossings is going to be closed and a height limit of five metres placed on the other.
I think that the ultimate solution for this sort of problem will be technical.
In one of their documents about the use of batteries on trains, Network Rail or Bombardier talk about batteries being used to assist trains over deliberate gaps in overhead wires or third rail.
Third rail generally is not a problem and in the UK, it regularly changes sides and allows the momentum of the train to bridge any gap.
What is needed is a pantograph system, that can be raised to and lowered from the overhead wire with the train at full speed. I don’t know whether this is possible, but I suspect that every other country in the world would just demolish the bridge. I did find some research on the subject on the RSSB web site, which states that SNCF raise pantographs at 225 mph, Deutsche Bahn at 185 mph and Eurostar at 170 mph.
So it is possible!
As a trained Control Engineer, who spent a lot of time in the 1960s simulating dynamic systems, I believe that a system could be designed to lower and raise the pantograph before and after the difficult section.
I suspect that one of the problems here, is that the Class 800 trains that will work this line, were designed in Japan. But this section in Wikipedia about level crossings in Japan, would seem to indicate that the Japanese have a serious problem with level crossings.
Are The TOCs Arguing Over The Class 387 Trains?
The April 2015 Edition of Modern Railways has an article entitled Operators Vying For Class 387s.
Before discussing the article, I’ll describe the trains involved.
Class 387 Trains
At present there are twenty-nine new four-car Class 387 trains running Thameslink services for Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR).
- These are dual-voltage 175 kph (110 mph) versions of Electrostars.
- They can run on probably most of the electrified routes in the UK.
- They are about to be replaced by brand-new Siemens Class 700 trains, as these are delivered.
- They are closely related to the Class 379 trains, which were used for the IPEMU prototype in early 2015.
As they become available, they are supposed to go to the Great Western Railway (GWR).
But GWR only have the working electrification from Paddington to Hayes and Harlington station on which to run the trains. As I showed in Hayes and Harlington Station – 28th February 2016, work is progressing at the station and an extended bay platform is being created.
The finish of platform works at the station, will mean a service can be started between Paddington and Hayes and Harlington.
- It will replace the main-line portion of the service between Paddington and Greenford, which is soon to be discontinued.
- It can be used by GWR for driver training.
- Class 387 trains working in GWR livery will be good publicity.
But I can’t see this service needing more than a couple of Class 387 trains.
This picture shows the colour scheme of a Class 387 train, currently working on Thameslink.
The colour of those doors looks suspiciously like GWR green to me! So perhaps the transfer of operator would not require anything more than downloading new software for the passenger information screens and changing the adverts and notices.
In addition to the current twenty-nine trains on Thameslink, Bombardier have three further orders for Class 387 trains.
- Twenty-seven four-car Class 387/2 trains are being delivered for Gatwick Express.
- Eight four-car trains for GWR.
- Twenty four-car trains have been ordered by Porterbrook.
Bombardier are reported to be on the verge of finishing the Gatwick Express order and starting manufacture of more Class 387/1 trains.
Class 442 Trains
The Class 442 trains, which are being replaced on Gatwick Express by Class 387/2 trains are not the most loved trains in the UK’s train fleet.
It is very likely that despite being the fastest third-rail trains in the world, that they will go to the scrapyard as they are replaced.
The only reason some might be retained on Gatwick Express, is so that some Class 387/2 trains could work Thameslink to release a few of the Class 387 trains for other operators.
Class 700 Trains
The Class 700 trains, being built in Germany by Siemens, are replacing the last Class 319 trains and the new Class 387 trains on Thameslink.
So introduction of these trains is important to release Class 387 trains for other operators.
But these trains are only due to be introduced on the 16th April 2016 and there are inevitable questions.
- What is the introduction into service schedule?
- As with all new trains or car, bus or truck for that matter, will there be any teething problems?
- Will they replace the Class 319 or 387 trains first?
- Will the passengers like them?
The last question is the most important and expect lots of moaning about the lack of free wi-fi!
Class 360 Trains
The Class 360 trains, used on Heathrow Connect, have a peripheral role in the argument, as c2c were trying to sublease two of these trains to sort out their capacity problems.
But the well-documented problems of Heathrow Express, have probably meant that these trains are no longer available.
Summarising The Article
The first paragraph of the Modern Railways article entitled Operators Vying For Class 387s, says that several operators are vying for the Class 387/1 trains currently working on Thameslink.
To summarise.
- c2c, who are big Electrostar operators, are still looking for trains after failing to procure Class 360 trains.
- GWR is anxious to get 387s to start driver training.
- GTR wants to retain them, as there is problems with the new Class 700 trains.
- GWR have apparently suggested that GTR retain the Class 442 trains and use the new Class 387/2 Gatwick Expresses on Thameslink.
- GWR wants to start services to Maindenhead earlier than thought.
It looks like there’s a serious argument going on.
The final paragraph offers a solution.
It could be that the quest to find additional short term capacity at c2c may be solved by early delivery of the next batch of 387s, construction of which is to begin shortly at Bombardier’s Derby factory.
Perhaps, building some of Porterbrook’s trains before those destined for GWR, where they have nowhere to run, could happen!
Bombardier are probably being a bit bullish, as after all one of the reasons for the problems would appear to be the new Class 700 trains from Siemens.
Adding An IPEMU Capabilty To Class 387 Trains
Could it also be, that until this argument is settled, we will not be seeing any Class 387 trains converted into IPEMUs?
I believe that a proportion of trains with on-board energy storage could help some of our electrification problems.
Bombardier have stated that all their new Aventra trains will be wired to accept on-board energy storage if the operator desires it be added. This article in Global Rail News gives full details.
In the meantime, the only train that is available that can be given an IPEMU capability is the Class 387 train.
Electric Services To Maidenhead And Reading
The article says this about electrification to Maidenhead.
Whilst the completion date for wiring to Maidenhead is shown in the re-plan of Network Rail’s Enhancements Programme by Sir Peter Hendy as being June 2017, Modern Railways understands that work is ahead of the new schedule and this section may be completed by the end of 2016.
As electrification to Reading is Crossrail’s problem, this might help too, as different structures are being used.
In Rumours Of Battery Trains, I discussed an article in the September 2015 Edition of Modern Railways entitled Class 387s Could Be Battery Powered, which said that GWR’s eight additional Class 387 trains could be battery powered. This was said in Modern Railways.
Delivery as IPEMUs would allow EMUs to make use of as much wiring as is available (and batteries beyond) while electrification pushes ahead under the delayed scheme, and in the longer term would allow units to run on sections not yet authorised for electrification, such as Newbury to Bedwyn. The use of IPEMUs might also hasten the cascade of Class 16x units to the west of the franchise.
But thinking about electrification to Maidenhead in a practical manner, would a train operator want Maidenhead as the terminus of a new electric service.
Remember that the Class 387 trains are required to increase capacity and bring a whole new level of electric traction and modern comfort to services from Paddington to Bedwyn, Newbury, Oxford, Reading and other places in the Thames Valley, so having to change from your old diesel train to a new electric one at Maidenhead is something that will bring out the worst out of passengers.
If you look at train times between Maidenhead and Paddington, some services take up to thirty-six minutes, but the fastest scheduled journey I can find is probably by an InterCity 125 in nineteen. So you can understand, why GWR would like 110 mph Class 387 trains on the route. They could probably do the journey in a few minutes over twenty.
With Chiltern starting an Oxford to Marylebone in December 2016, GWR are probably preparing to lose a lot of their Oxford business. I know which service I’d choose.
But the Class 387 IPEMU would offer a viable alternative.
- Hayes and Harlington station is fully electrified to Paddington and is just under eleven miles from Paddington.
- Reading station is not electrified and is thirty-six miles from Paddington.
- A Class 387 IPEMU has a range of upwards of fifty miles on batteries.
The Class 387 IPEMU would seem to have been designed to handle Paddington to Reading. But I suspect that electric services will not be offered until the wires reach Maidenhead.
So when will GWR be offering an electric local service between Paddington and Reading?
- Trains would use overhead power to the end of the wires and batteries beyond.
- Enough Class 387 trains will have to be converted to IPEMUs
- Enough platforms at Paddington would have be able to accept electric trains.
Could this be why GWR appear to be so keen to take deliveries of Class 387 trains?
From Reading diesel shuttles would work the lines to Bedwyn and Oxford.
So how does this fit in with Modern Railways assertion, that electrification to Maidenhead will be complete before the end of the year?
If GWR take the IPEMU route to provide services between Paddington and Reading, it just means that the train will be less reliant on the batteries, as Maidenhead to Reading is only twelve miles.
To go to anywhere past Reading is probably difficult, as suitable places like Bedwyn, Didcot and Newbury are more than twenty-five miles from Maidenhead, which probably means the range is too much for an IPEMU, as it has to go both ways on battery power.
On the other hand, every extra mile of usable electrification would extend the reach from Paddington.
But there are three places, where Class 387 IPEMUs could operate without major additional electrification; the three branch lines.
- Henley is 11.5 miles from Maidenhead.
- Marlow is 5 miles from Maidenhead.
- Windsor is 2.5 miles from Slough.
There would probably need to be some short lengths of electrification where the branches join the main line, signalling upgrades and platform lengthening. But not electrifying the branches and using IPEMUs would probably be welcomed by Network Rail, as it would sidestep any legal challenges to the electrification on aesthetic and heritage grounds.
In the peaks there are direct services between Bourne End station on the Marlow Branch and London, which seem to take fifty-four minutes. I suspect that a Class 387 IPEMU could do the journey about twenty minutes faster, with electrification between Paddington and Maindenhead.
Onward To Oxford
Electrification to Maidenhead would not give advantages in providing electric services from Reading to Bedwyn, Newbury and Oxford. It’s just too far for a train powered by batteries.
Commercial common sense, would indicate that with Chiltern scheduled to serve Oxford station in December 2016, if there was one destination, where new electric trains must go, it is Oxford.
And by the end of 2016!
It sounds like an impossible dream!
Roger Ford in an article in the April 2016 Edition of Modern Railways, which is entitled GWEP Target Dates And Costs, says this about testing the Class 800 trains.
GWEP’s 16-mile ‘test track’is between Reading and Didcot; It was originally due to have been energised in September last year.
Energisation for test running is now scheduled for September this year.
He also indicated, and I can confirm it, that substantial amounts of the overhead structures have been installed. So I think we can assume that by September, the test track will probably be working.
As an aside here, I wonder if the test track will electrify and use one of the west-facing bay platforms at Reading station.
If we assume that the test track provides a fully-functioning electrified route between Reading and Didcot, it could surely be used by Class 387 IPEMUs to get to Didcot.
- They would use overhead electrification from Paddington to Maidenhead or the end of the wires.
- They would go to Reading on battery power.
- Reading to Didcot would be using the overhead wires put up for the test track.
- Batteries would be charged on both electrified sections.
Oxford is less than twenty miles from Didcot, so reaching Oxford with an electric service is possible before December 2016.
Onward To Bedwyn
Bedwyn is forty-two miles from Maidenhead and thirty from Reading, so it would appear to be another impossible dream, even if there was electrification all the way to Maidenhead from Paddington.
I do think that unless the Great Western Main Line is electrified to Maidenhead, that getting Class 387 IPEMUs to Bedwyn is impossible.
But there are three possibilities to get to Bedwyn from Paddington, if Maidenhead is electrified.
- A bigger battery to give a longer range.
- As the train stops at Reading, it could stop in an electrified platform and charge the battery.
- Electrifying the junction and a short length of the Reading to Taunton Line, perhaps as far as Reading West station.
I’m sure Bombardier, Network Rail and GWR are working on a solution.
It should also be noted that there are two west facing bay platforms used for services to Basingstoke, Bedwyn and Newbury. These could be electrified and Bedwyn could be served by a shuttle.
Onward To Basingstoke
Another possibility would be to use the Class 387 IPEMUs to provide a service along the Reading to Basingstoke Line, which is currently run using diesel multiple units.
It could be charged at Reading by electrifying the two west-facing bay platforms or even at Basingstoke using third-rail electrification in the bay platform.
Conclusion
I believe that all the Thames Valley services out of Paddington could be run by a fleet of Class 387 trains, some or all of which would be IPEMUs, It would be necessary to do the following.
- Electrify between Airport Junction and Maidenhead.
- Allow the use of the test track between Reading and Didcot by Class 387 services travelling past Didcot.
- Electrify selected platforms at Reading station.
The new trains would provide an increase in capacity, faster services and possibly extra routes.
I also believe that it would be possible to serve Oxford using Class 387 IPEMUs by the end of the year. This might persuade passengers not to desert to Chiltern.
Does this all explain GWR’s reluctance to lose the Class 387 trains, that have been earmarked for transfer from Thameslink?
But with other train companies looking jealously at the GWR’s Class 387 trains, it’s no wonder there’s an argument.
The Anonymous Widower 