I see many advantages to electrifying, but beauty, in my opinion, isn’t one. If you showed the film without comments and asked me which I like better, the choice is obvious, but that is from a tourist’s view. A commuter’s view would be different. Excellent job on producing this. Must have been an arduous task. Thank you for doing it.
that forest of gantries to hold the wires do not make for a pretty sight. It's why we in rest of Europe use individual masts for each track - it's far less noticeable. Only around crossings and the yards near bigger stations are gantries used, because there are so many tracks close together and wires going all over the place
The heavyweight OHLE used on the GWML electrification has changed what was, in places, a beautiful journey through some of southern England's finest country into an industrial eyesore. The OHLE on the East Coast is much more sympathetic to it's surroundings, and uses one quarter of the steel that this grotesque, over-engineered version does. Whoever designed and approved the GWML electrification should feel ashamed of themselves. Awful looking and so costly.
Yes, I certainly agree it is over-engineered for what is needed, though it has to be said that with that over-engineering comes extremely high reliability. The ECML system, whilst visually much less intrusive, has proven time and time again to be prone to significant damage...and I don't think that mistake of using a headspan system on a 4-track main line will ever be made again. The short stretches of headspan still in use on the GWML (done for the Heathrow Express project in the mid-90s) is slowly but surely being replaced with portals and cantilever structures.
I agree. As much as I'm happy that the GWML is electrified (finally!), with new faster and more reliable electric trains, I would have preferred a Mk3 headspan system (the one used on the ECML), to make the landscape less intrusive.
I also agree, good that the line is electrified, but what a shame we now have an 'urban' railway rather than a 'rural' railway. Network Rail over engineered the project, which also led to it being vastly over budget and resulted in the planned Didcot - Oxford and Chippenham - Bristol electrification proposals being put on indefinite hold.
@@clnre and I'm quite worried that both the Bristol and Oxford electrification may be cancelled just like what happened to the Swansea electrification. If done with ECML MK3 headspans (which would have been far preferable especially with the beautiful scenery between Reading and Didcot Parkway), which I actually really like compared to those ugly over engineered Furrey Frey Series 1, the cost would have been much cheaper and we would have been able to have the Oxford and Bristol lines electrified. But hey, as much as I would have preferred headspan electrification, it's still an electrified railway! A great step forward to having faster, quieter and more reliable trains!
Watching this video made me realise why I like watching South Eastern and Western videos so much more than any overhead electrification video. It's the visual pollution of yhe overhead wire gantreies that turn me off. I found my self watch the 2010 version 90 % of the time. I was woundering what the advantage was of overhead electrification as opposed to 3rd rail electrification. Then again I might be watching the 2010 for the excellent HST 125 as I detest the awful class 800 and 802.
3rd rail greatly limits how much power you can draw through the tracks, because the power rail is so close to the running tracks you can very easily get arcing, which is also why most 3rd rail system is on no more than 750 V, while overhead wires (not sure about the UK, but in rest of Europe) are on 10 KV to 25 KV. Higher voltage makes it more efficient (less power loss over distance) and additionally makes it safer as you have a much lower current (lower amps). There are a few other benefits, but generally it is the much higher efficiency that's most important
Trains struggle to hit 100mph on 3rd rail, the current has to be high and the voltage low, leading to high transmission losses and it's less safe. That's why
Talk about engineered. I don't trust Network Rail to put up overhead wires and spoil the views and stations. They seem to be good at making the railways a mess and OHLE looks really horrible and unpleasant. It's terrible that Network Rail also ruined the countryside with lots of metal as it makes videos and photos difficult to get a good shot. The style for the wires they used is bad and not very good either. People dread the OHLE as it's extremely disgusting and a nightmare for people to get videos and photos
Strange to see the ‘A’ power station gone except for the OCGT station, which I believe has been transferred to be part of Didcot ‘B’, and still sees occasional use. I haven’t used Paddington since the days of HSTs, first generational DMUs and the occasional class 47 to Oxford, but in those days it was a terrible place’ I would come up from the Bakerloo line and almost choke with the fumes at busy times.
Here in NE. USA. Electrification was done from pre WW1 through the 1930s on a few suburban and inter city routs. Many more lines need improvements including electrification. Really good video. Thanks for posting.
Awesome video 10/10 and the synchronicity was beyond words, as for the negative comments on elctrification, yes I miss the days at Hayes and Harlington Station in B.R. Western Region days watching Westerns, Warships, Brush type 4s and my favourite 'Hymeks' race through, but electrification is the only way forward. As for Reading Station, well it looks better now than it ever did, clean and easy to use.
Many thanks. The synchronicity took some doing. The footage was reasonably similar in running time, but there was quite a bit of playing around with playback speeds of the original 60fps footage to make it as accurate as it is.
@@MyRailwayVideos The praise is worthy of your work, not something I could ever achieve, well beyond my capabilities or understanding and I'm a Theoretical Physicist (who just likes trains!).
@@maimadhait's ridiculous to be running a modern, major intercity railway on diesel, it's the 21st century, electric running is in the long run cheaper and acceleration is faster. It's just silly they didn't do it sooner. Individual masts on each side are much less obtrusive than big gantries, so that's something they could have done differently, but really, I don't have much patience for this lack of prioritization
very good video to the comparisons why the need to put electrics down in the first place i dont know. Reading station has been ruined with a so called new look, yuk! just leave things alone.
What's the point in electrifying a line ? Seems as though there are massive infrastructure up front costs, impact on the scenery and a susceptibility to damage from bad weather or other causes.
Lower maintenance costs for trains and infrastructure, faster acceleration, better performance, lower environmental impact, cheaper upfront costs for trains. No line running a half decent service frequency shouldn’t be electrified.
@@iman2341 "Lower maintenance costs for trains" - Granted "and infrastructure" - How does that work ? An electrified line with have higher maintenance costs as the overhead lines will need to be kept in good condition. "faster acceleration" - Is that an issue when the acceleration is a small % of the overall journey ? "better performance" - By what measure ? "lower environmental impact" - is it though ? It depends how the electricity is generated. If it's coal-fired, then you're just shifting the pollution. "cheaper upfront costs for trains" - But you've had to spend £2.8bn just in electrifying the GWR. "No line running a half decent service frequency shouldn’t be electrified." - I'm not that convinced.
@@lewis72 EMUs have lower axle weights so wear track and structures less. OLE is extremely low maintenance so is easily offset. Not to mention damage to tunnels from diesel fumes. Acceleration is an extremely important part of maintain on time performance. An IC125 can take 5-8 mins to reach line speeds while an 801 can do it in half that. Do that every 15mins on a 2.5hr trip and you save 30-40mins. Better performance applies to their ability to keep time, namely braking and acceleration, both of which are helped by lighter weight. It really doesn’t depend on how the electricity is generated. Burning diesel in a engine will always be dirtier and less efficient than anything burned in a power plant. The trains are cheaper to buy, which when you think the GWR fleet cost close to £1bn just for the IC units the difference gets used up fast. You may not be convinced but point me to a railway with a frequency of more than say 8tph that runs on diesel....
@@iman2341 No, I am convinced. I can certainly see the advantage of electric trains in the London & other big city commuter lines, where there are a lot of stop-start and noise, pollution, reduced maintenance are all improved but I think the advantage is diluted for longer services as you have fewer stop-start events (e.g. HST service from Paddington to Bristol was only around 4 stops, so not every 15 mins at all), cost of electrification is higher. Efficiency of diesel engines increases when at steady-state speeds.
@@lewis72Longer services running at higher speeds means a faily substantial increase in fuel consumption and the associated C02 output. You also need very large engines running at high power outputs to attain 100mph+ speeds, which means they are significantly less reliable. Even with just 4 stops, thats a 15 minute time saving LDN - BRI. Diesel engines in trains generally have very small changes in RPM whilst running, mainly because all the do is drive an alternator or generator to make power for traction motors anyway (another loss of efficiency). Getting a diesel train to cruise at over 125mph is also very difficuly, hence why it hasnt been done whilst widespread high speed EMUs are ubiquitious world wide.
Yes it did. I live in Bath and it used to take an hour and a half to get into Paddington but now it takes an hour 20. If only they finished the job off. Besides, speed isn't the only benefit of electrification
Absolutely brilliant: perfectly synchronised and a fascinating comparison. reading is unrecognisable!
Thanks Neil - glad you liked it.
I see many advantages to electrifying, but beauty, in my opinion, isn’t one. If you showed the film without comments and asked me which I like better, the choice is obvious, but that is from a tourist’s view. A commuter’s view would be different. Excellent job on producing this. Must have been an arduous task. Thank you for doing it.
that forest of gantries to hold the wires do not make for a pretty sight. It's why we in rest of Europe use individual masts for each track - it's far less noticeable. Only around crossings and the yards near bigger stations are gantries used, because there are so many tracks close together and wires going all over the place
I dont get why HS1 style electrification wasnt used, seems less overkill for a 125mph line
The heavyweight OHLE used on the GWML electrification has changed what was, in places, a beautiful journey through some of southern England's finest country into an industrial eyesore. The OHLE on the East Coast is much more sympathetic to it's surroundings, and uses one quarter of the steel that this grotesque, over-engineered version does. Whoever designed and approved the GWML electrification should feel ashamed of themselves. Awful looking and so costly.
Yes, I certainly agree it is over-engineered for what is needed, though it has to be said that with that over-engineering comes extremely high reliability. The ECML system, whilst visually much less intrusive, has proven time and time again to be prone to significant damage...and I don't think that mistake of using a headspan system on a 4-track main line will ever be made again. The short stretches of headspan still in use on the GWML (done for the Heathrow Express project in the mid-90s) is slowly but surely being replaced with portals and cantilever structures.
I agree. As much as I'm happy that the GWML is electrified (finally!), with new faster and more reliable electric trains, I would have preferred a Mk3 headspan system (the one used on the ECML), to make the landscape less intrusive.
I also agree, good that the line is electrified, but what a shame we now have an 'urban' railway rather than a 'rural' railway. Network Rail over engineered the project, which also led to it being vastly over budget and resulted in the planned Didcot - Oxford and Chippenham - Bristol electrification proposals being put on indefinite hold.
@@clnre and I'm quite worried that both the Bristol and Oxford electrification may be cancelled just like what happened to the Swansea electrification.
If done with ECML MK3 headspans (which would have been far preferable especially with the beautiful scenery between Reading and Didcot Parkway), which I actually really like compared to those ugly over engineered Furrey Frey Series 1, the cost would have been much cheaper and we would have been able to have the Oxford and Bristol lines electrified.
But hey, as much as I would have preferred headspan electrification, it's still an electrified railway! A great step forward to having faster, quieter and more reliable trains!
@@clnre good news: Didcot Oxford electrification appears to be back on track!
Iy's obvious that the newer layout is much cleaner with no diesel fumes polluting the atmosphere. Well done England !
You managed to synchronise these videos extremely well.
Thank you Mikey M (sorry for the late response, as I only just saw the comment!)
Watching this video made me realise why I like watching South Eastern and Western videos so much more than any overhead electrification video. It's the visual pollution of yhe overhead wire gantreies that turn me off. I found my self watch the 2010 version 90 % of the time. I was woundering what the advantage was of overhead electrification as opposed to 3rd rail electrification.
Then again I might be watching the 2010 for the excellent HST 125 as I detest the awful class 800 and 802.
3rd rail greatly limits how much power you can draw through the tracks, because the power rail is so close to the running tracks you can very easily get arcing, which is also why most 3rd rail system is on no more than 750 V, while overhead wires (not sure about the UK, but in rest of Europe) are on 10 KV to 25 KV. Higher voltage makes it more efficient (less power loss over distance) and additionally makes it safer as you have a much lower current (lower amps). There are a few other benefits, but generally it is the much higher efficiency that's most important
Trains struggle to hit 100mph on 3rd rail, the current has to be high and the voltage low, leading to high transmission losses and it's less safe. That's why
Talk about engineered. I don't trust Network Rail to put up overhead wires and spoil the views and stations. They seem to be good at making the railways a mess and OHLE looks really horrible and unpleasant. It's terrible that Network Rail also ruined the countryside with lots of metal as it makes videos and photos difficult to get a good shot. The style for the wires they used is bad and not very good either. People dread the OHLE as it's extremely disgusting and a nightmare for people to get videos and photos
Strange to see the ‘A’ power station gone except for the OCGT station, which I believe has been transferred to be part of Didcot ‘B’, and still sees occasional use.
I haven’t used Paddington since the days of HSTs, first generational DMUs and the occasional class 47 to Oxford, but in those days it was a terrible place’ I would come up from the Bakerloo line and almost choke with the fumes at busy times.
Gut wrenching seeing my favourite childhood line be destroyed so aimlessly like this, good job Network Rail.
Destroyed?!? What the hell are you on about?
@@leeosborne3793 Cloudrak is saying that Network Rail ruined the Great Western Mainline with masts and wires
I know what he's saying. It's nonsense.
3:05 what do you mean by Headspan style system. How is it different to the Cantilever system used here.
Here in NE. USA. Electrification was done from pre WW1 through the 1930s on a few suburban and inter city routs. Many more lines need improvements including electrification. Really good video. Thanks for posting.
My pleasure, glad you liked it.
Awesome video 10/10 and the synchronicity was beyond words, as for the negative comments on elctrification, yes I miss the days at Hayes and Harlington Station in B.R. Western Region days watching Westerns, Warships, Brush type 4s and my favourite 'Hymeks' race through, but electrification is the only way forward. As for Reading Station, well it looks better now than it ever did, clean and easy to use.
Many thanks. The synchronicity took some doing. The footage was reasonably similar in running time, but there was quite a bit of playing around with playback speeds of the original 60fps footage to make it as accurate as it is.
@@MyRailwayVideos The praise is worthy of your work, not something I could ever achieve, well beyond my capabilities or understanding and I'm a Theoretical Physicist (who just likes trains!).
What stock was each train?
The trains were a 165 and 387
Seeing this progress is really wonderful! i wish they had done that 20 years earlier!
Electrification of the Great Western Mainline wasn't wonderful at all. It's grossly engineered a mess and OHLE looks really horrible and unpleasant.
@@maimadhait's ridiculous to be running a modern, major intercity railway on diesel, it's the 21st century, electric running is in the long run cheaper and acceleration is faster. It's just silly they didn't do it sooner. Individual masts on each side are much less obtrusive than big gantries, so that's something they could have done differently, but really, I don't have much patience for this lack of prioritization
Why does progress have to be so damned ugly and intrusive?
Yeah, they pulled down anything with character and style. "I've gone off the idea of progress, it's overrated" - Arthur Dent
very good video to the comparisons why the need to put electrics down in the first place i dont know. Reading station has been ruined with a so called new look, yuk! just leave things alone.
You've clearly forgotten what the old Reading station was like, it was awful. It was a corrugated metal shack which was dingy and extremely cramped
What's the point in electrifying a line ?
Seems as though there are massive infrastructure up front costs, impact on the scenery and a susceptibility to damage from bad weather or other causes.
Lower maintenance costs for trains and infrastructure, faster acceleration, better performance, lower environmental impact, cheaper upfront costs for trains. No line running a half decent service frequency shouldn’t be electrified.
@@iman2341
"Lower maintenance costs for trains" - Granted
"and infrastructure" - How does that work ? An electrified line with have higher maintenance costs as the overhead lines will need to be kept in good condition.
"faster acceleration" - Is that an issue when the acceleration is a small % of the overall journey ?
"better performance" - By what measure ?
"lower environmental impact" - is it though ? It depends how the electricity is generated. If it's coal-fired, then you're just shifting the pollution.
"cheaper upfront costs for trains" - But you've had to spend £2.8bn just in electrifying the GWR.
"No line running a half decent service frequency shouldn’t be electrified."
- I'm not that convinced.
@@lewis72 EMUs have lower axle weights so wear track and structures less. OLE is extremely low maintenance so is easily offset. Not to mention damage to tunnels from diesel fumes.
Acceleration is an extremely important part of maintain on time performance. An IC125 can take 5-8 mins to reach line speeds while an 801 can do it in half that. Do that every 15mins on a 2.5hr trip and you save 30-40mins.
Better performance applies to their ability to keep time, namely braking and acceleration, both of which are helped by lighter weight.
It really doesn’t depend on how the electricity is generated. Burning diesel in a engine will always be dirtier and less efficient than anything burned in a power plant.
The trains are cheaper to buy, which when you think the GWR fleet cost close to £1bn just for the IC units the difference gets used up fast.
You may not be convinced but point me to a railway with a frequency of more than say 8tph that runs on diesel....
@@iman2341
No, I am convinced.
I can certainly see the advantage of electric trains in the London & other big city commuter lines, where there are a lot of stop-start and noise, pollution, reduced maintenance are all improved but I think the advantage is diluted for longer services as you have fewer stop-start events (e.g. HST service from Paddington to Bristol was only around 4 stops, so not every 15 mins at all), cost of electrification is higher. Efficiency of diesel engines increases when at steady-state speeds.
@@lewis72Longer services running at higher speeds means a faily substantial increase in fuel consumption and the associated C02 output. You also need very large engines running at high power outputs to attain 100mph+ speeds, which means they are significantly less reliable.
Even with just 4 stops, thats a 15 minute time saving LDN - BRI. Diesel engines in trains generally have very small changes in RPM whilst running, mainly because all the do is drive an alternator or generator to make power for traction motors anyway (another loss of efficiency).
Getting a diesel train to cruise at over 125mph is also very difficuly, hence why it hasnt been done whilst widespread high speed EMUs are ubiquitious world wide.
guess it didnt improve the journey times then...
Yes it did. I live in Bath and it used to take an hour and a half to get into Paddington but now it takes an hour 20. If only they finished the job off. Besides, speed isn't the only benefit of electrification