Electrification - More Than 900 Route Miles

[The Ham]

Surely it borders on the ludicrous to go as far as Poole if you're not going to go all the way to Weymouth?

Other than that Bournemouth is as far as the XC trains run, so enabling them to run totally under the wires would be of benefit.

I don't know how much freight goes beyond Poole, but I would suggest that there probably isn't a lot, and some of it I know comes from a non-electrified branch line anyway.

The SWT services will be able to draw from either 3rd rail or overhead wires so there is no urgency to extend the wires for other passenger services (until such time that the 3rd rail needs replacing).

 

[jopsuk]

Bournemouth would surely be more sensible than Poole- as you say, it is where XC terminate, and it is where SWT services split (indeed, before Weymouth electrification it was where the 33s took over powering the 4TCs from the 4REPs)

 

[sprinterguy]

I didn't realize they'd already gone that far and designed and costed both the curves at Bordesley.

Could we now be looking at a Snow Hill/Moor Street-Walsall service via the Sutton Park line? That's something I'm still in favour of and prefer over the Aldridge extension to Birmingham-Walsall local services.

It’s not on the cards according to the West Midlands and Chiltern RUS. Network Rail appear to advise extending the existing hourly Hereford services to Tamworth in order to provide additional capacity and stopping services between Birmingham and Tamworth. Network Rail also propose an additional hourly Worcester to Nuneaton service in combination with this. Centro’s aspirations are for a Moor Street to Tamworth local service. It is clear that the implementation of either of these proposals would further reduce the number of paths available between New Street and Water Orton which would be required over most of that length for trains on services around the Sutton loop.

Plus of course reinstating a service all the way around the Sutton loop would be far more expensive to implement in terms of the quantity of rolling stock, train crew and train paths required over the comparatively incremental measure of extending existing Walsall services to Aldridge, which would have only a small effect on train and pathing requirements.

 

[Kneedown]

With good reason, I would wager: I would envisage that MML and the "electric spine" electrification will easily spill over into the CP6 period

According to this months Railnews the MML work is already underway as the electrification is being taken into account with the current "W12" bridge raising work.

 

[Batman]

It’s not on the cards according to the West Midlands and Chiltern RUS. Network Rail appear to advise extending the existing hourly Hereford services to Tamworth in order to provide additional capacity and stopping services between Birmingham and Tamworth. Network Rail also propose an additional hourly Worcester to Nuneaton service in combination with this. Centro’s aspirations are for a Moor Street to Tamworth local service. It is clear that the implementation of either of these proposals would further reduce the number of paths available between New Street and Water Orton which would be required over most of that length for trains on services around the Sutton loop.

Plus of course reinstating a service all the way around the Sutton loop would be far more expensive to implement in terms of the quantity of rolling stock, train crew and train paths required over the comparatively incremental measure of extending existing Walsall services to Aldridge, which would have only a small effect on train and pathing requirements.

Ok. As a local resident I support the reopening of Aldridge station, but I think it would be better for trains to run to Birmingham via Sutton rather than Walsall because it would allow places like Streetly and Walmley to receive a rail service and journey time would still (just about) be competitive with local buses. But I understand there will be pathing issues on the route to Water Orton once that's opperating 8tph as well as freight, so it may not be possible. If that's the case, the go ahead with the Walsall-Aldrdige extension which should have a possitive business case and lets hope it gets built in CP6.

So exactly what services will be using the Bordesley cords if the Hereford/Worcester services are extended through New Street to Tamworth/Nuneaton which I hope they will do?

And will the 3 terminus platforms at Moor Street be able to cope? Will some services be extended to terminate at Snow Hill?

 

[Eagle]

I don't know how much freight goes beyond Poole, but I would suggest that there probably isn't a lot, and some of it I know comes from a non-electrified branch line anyway.

Stone trains to Poole port, oil trains from Furzebrook, something (can't remember what) from Wool sidings, all with a frequency of a few per month.

Surely it borders on the ludicrous to go as far as Poole if you're not going to go all the way to Weymouth?

Decent electrification between Poole and Weymouth? Blasphemy! :P

 

[Firesprite]

Stone trains to Poole port, oil trains from Furzebrook, something (can't remember what) from Wool sidings, all with a frequency of a few per month.

There been no oil trains from Furzebrook for year's.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bournemouth would surely be more sensible than Poole- as you say, it is where XC terminate, and it is where SWT services split (indeed, before Weymouth electrification it was where the 33s took over powering the 4TCs from the 4REPs)

It would make more sense if Cross-Country returned to terminating at Poole as it
once did.

 

[The Ham]

It would make more sense if Cross-Country returned to terminating at Poole as it once did.

Which could be viable with journey time savings from the trains being electric.

 

[Tomonthetrain]

It’s not on the cards according to the West Midlands and Chiltern RUS. Network Rail appear to advise extending the existing hourly Hereford services to Tamworth in order to provide additional capacity and stopping services between Birmingham and Tamworth. Network Rail also propose an additional hourly Worcester to Nuneaton service in combination with this. Centro’s aspirations are for a Moor Street to Tamworth local service. It is clear that the implementation of either of these proposals would further reduce the number of paths available between New Street and Water Orton which would be required over most of that length for trains on services around the Sutton loop.

Plus of course reinstating a service all the way around the Sutton loop would be far more expensive to implement in terms of the quantity of rolling stock, train crew and train paths required over the comparatively incremental measure of extending existing Walsall services to Aldridge, which would have only a small effect on train and pathing requirements.

Ok. As a local resident I support the reopening of Aldridge station, but I think it would be better for trains to run to Birmingham via Sutton rather than Walsall because it would allow places like Streetly and Walmley to receive a rail service and journey time would still (just about) be competitive with local buses. But I understand there will be pathing issues on the route to Water Orton once that's opperating 8tph as well as freight, so it may not be possible. If that's the case, the go ahead with the Walsall-Aldrdige extension which should have a possitive business case and lets hope it gets built in CP6.

So exactly what services will be using the Bordesley cords if the Hereford/Worcester services are extended through New Street to Tamworth/Nuneaton which I hope they will do?

And will the 3 terminus platforms at Moor Street be able to cope? Will some services be extended to terminate at Snow Hill?

Why not instead of terminating at Snow Hill, have it 2tph Sutton, 2 Stratford 2 Marylebone via Leamington from Stourbridge every other service All Stations between Stourbridge and Birmingham with Semi Fast (current calling patterns minus Jewelry Quarter for semi fast). It does mean that Stourbridge loses 1tph to existing stops but they could use the terminal platforms at Moor Street and platform 2 at Snow Hill.

Then integrate them into the Chiltern franchise.

 

[Trog]

Surely it borders on the ludicrous to go as far as Poole if you're not going to go all the way to Weymouth?

Who fancies going down to Weymouth on an April the first, once electrification work starts in that part of the world. With some HV clothing and a few cans of spray paint, and marking on the road where the masts for the quay tramway electrification are going to be sited.

 

[Goatboy]

Basingstoke to Bournemouth *replacing* DC? Really? Isn't that a massive pain given they are presumably not going to wire Basingstoke to Waterloo?

Also, Cardiff Valley Lines? Really?! I'm amazed that makes economic sense, surely that one is there for purely political reasons.

 

[anthony263]

Also, Cardiff Valley Lines? Really?! I'm amazed that makes economic sense, surely that one is there for purely political reasons.

Maybe so but you also have to consider the age of the current rolling stock being used (i.e class 142/143 pacers).

The valley lines are very well used during the peaks and hopefully the sparks effect will help boost passenger numbers on off peak services.

The Swansea - Cardiff swanline service should hopefully also benefit from the sparks effect especially with an increase in frequency and hopefully and extension to Bristol Temple Meads linking major employment centres.

 

[ainsworth74]

Basingstoke to Bournemouth *replacing* DC? Really? Isn't that a massive pain given they are presumably not going to wire Basingstoke to Waterloo?

It's happening like that as DC and AC don't sit together very well over short distances let alone long distances. I believe that currently the options being investigated in terms of services are to convert the 450s and 444s to dual AC/DC )) opertation which shouldn't be to complicated.

Also, Cardiff Valley Lines? Really?! I'm amazed that makes economic sense, surely that one is there for purely political reasons.

Makes operational sense and political sense (I can't remember the details on the BCR but I'm not sure it was negative). The Valley Lines is basically Cardiff's commuter network with lots of stops and adverse gradients the performance offered by EMUs should help improve journey times. Capacity is currently at peak time an issue so the extra capacity offered by EMUs compared with much of the current rolling stock will also be advantageous. Further by wiring it up it will allow for the direct replacement of a fair number of Pacers which with the 2020 deadline coming up is important. Finally the 'sparks effect' will almost certainly generate more passengers and take cars off the road. I was pleasantly surprised to see it in but it makes total sense to wire it up.

 

[D365]

Basingstoke to Bournemouth *replacing* DC? Really? Isn't that a massive pain given they are presumably not going to wire Basingstoke to Waterloo?

Not really, the 450 and 444 Desiros can be retrofitted with pantos and AC equipment, and presumably the future 458/5s. What I'm most concerned about is how the line changeover from DC to AC will work, as this has to be done in one go. This have been been done in the past though, from 1,500v DC or 6,250v AC to the current 25kV AC.

Also, Cardiff Valley Lines? Really?! I'm amazed that makes economic sense, surely that one is there for purely political reasons.

Is bound to improve rail service (extra capacity, more attractive service meaning more revenue investment), plus it will remove 30 Pacers from the rails, unless of course some are retained for capacity elsewhere.

And, I've been beaten to it!

 

[tbtc]

Cardiff Valley Lines? Really?! I'm amazed that makes economic sense, surely that one is there for purely political reasons.

One of the best electrification schemes - self contained routes (through Queen Street), replaces dozens of Pacers directly (rather than relying on convoluted cascade schemes), ties into the GWML electrification.

The Valley Lines are one of only two intense self contained commuter DMU services (the other being the Snow Hill lines in Birmingham) - depending on your definition of course! Prime electrification candidate IMO

 

[ainsworth74]

The Valley Lines are one of only two intense self contained commuter DMU services (the other being the Snow Hill lines in Birmingham) - depending on your definition of course! Prime electrification candidate IMO

I don't suppose if you know what the BCR of the Valley Lines is? I'm sure it's been written down somewhere but I can't for the life of me think where.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The Valley Lines are one of only two intense self contained commuter DMU services (the other being the Snow Hill lines in Birmingham) - depending on your definition of course! Prime electrification candidate IMO

Would the Edinburgh - Glasgow shuttle count as a commuter route? The diagrams are self contained aren't they? The units spend all day on the route.

What about the Chiltern services off Marylebone?

There are two other self contained commuter DMU services, although neither are intense: The Uckfield line and the Ashford - Hastings - Brighton service.

 

[anthony263]

I agree about the Uckfield and Ashford - Hastings lines which should be electrified during CP6.

I am sure Greater Anglia would be pleased to get the class 171's

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I agree about the Uckfield and Ashford - Hastings lines which should be electrified during CP6.

I am sure Greater Anglia would be pleased to get the class 171's

They surely will not do them third rail will they? I know all the are is 750V DC third rail - but what is likely do you think? Or will tunnel bores be the killer factor?

 

[ainsworth74]

They surely will not do them third rail will they? I know all the are is 750V DC third rail - but what is likely do you think? Or will tunnel bores be the killer factor?

I've wondered if it wouldn't be possible to re-use some or all of the third rail equipment that will be removed as part of the OHLE conversion to reduce the cost of electrifying those diesel islands.

 

[Chris125]

Didn't the RUS suggest that soon 10-car DMU formations would be needed on the Uckfield branch? The extra cost might well tip the balance in favour of electrification, especially if new vehicles to a different design are necessary due to engine regs etc.

Chris

 

[tbtc]

I don't suppose if you know what the BCR of the Valley Lines is? I'm sure it's been written down somewhere but I can't for the life of me think where.

I don't, sorry - frustrating, as I'm sure I've seen it recently!

Would the Edinburgh - Glasgow shuttle count as a commuter route? The diagrams are self contained aren't they? The units spend all day on the route.

What about the Chiltern services off Marylebone?

There are two other self contained commuter DMU services, although neither are intense: The Uckfield line and the Ashford - Hastings - Brighton service.

I didn't include the Edinburgh - Glasgow or the Chiltern ones as I expected someone would say they were "inter city" - in terms of stock used on those lines it's not "commuter" at least. Hard to draw a line in the sand though!

I've wondered if it wouldn't be possible to re-use some or all of the third rail equipment that will be removed as part of the OHLE conversion to reduce the cost of electrifying those diesel islands.

The excuse given for re-converting the Southampton line was that the third rail equipment is reaching expiry, so would need replacing one way or the other. Nice idea - I'd be all for it if it were practical!

 

[D365]

I didn't include the Edinburgh - Glasgow or the Chiltern ones as I expected someone would say they were "inter city" - in terms of stock used on those lines it's not "commuter" at least. Hard to draw a line in the sand though!

I think the general definition of a "diesel island" is a somewhat short, unelectrified line, for which a small fleet of DMUs needs to be maintained. Examples are Uckfield, Ashford to Hastings and Goblin. By electrifying, new through services can often be run, and the small fleets (usually in common with other classes - 170/171 or 172 Turbostars in these cases) can be transferred to duties alongside cousins.

The excuse given for re-converting the Southampton line was that the third rail equipment is reaching expiry, so would need replacing one way or the other. Nice idea - I'd be all for it if it were practical!

What equipment can be salvaged from recent projects?

EDIT: How did I get on to diesel islands from commuter diesels?!

 

[class303]

One of the best electrification schemes - self contained routes (through Queen Street), replaces dozens of Pacers directly (rather than relying on convoluted cascade schemes), ties into the GWML electrification.

The Valley Lines are one of only two intense self contained commuter DMU services (the other being the Snow Hill lines in Birmingham) - depending on your definition of course! Prime electrification candidate IMO

edinburgh to glasgow QS?

 

[ainsworth74]

edinburgh to glasgow QS?

I didn't include the Edinburgh - Glasgow or the Chiltern ones as I expected someone would say they were "inter city" - in terms of stock used on those lines it's not "commuter" at least. Hard to draw a line in the sand though!

Already answered.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't suppose if you know what the BCR of the Valley Lines is? I'm sure it's been written down somewhere but I can't for the life of me think where.

It's in the Wales RUS, Gap/Option 15 (dated 2008).
A BCR figure of 1.2 (page 131) relates to long-term growth on the Taff Vale and Rhymney lines. This would put 16tph through Queen St rather than the current 12tph.
There is a BCR of 0.3 shown for doubling services (1tph to 2tph) on the Vale of Glamorgan line (page 125).

All of the RUS is couched in the standard NR-speak of investigations into projects for which they had no expectation of funding or provision of rolling stock.
The main mention of electrification in the Wales RUS relates to Wrexham-Bidston, the one option which has since disappeared without trace.
Valleys electrification gets a throw-away remark about "longer-term aspirations" linked to GW electrification (then approved only to Didcot).
The Valleys are Option A15 in the Electrification RUS (Oct 2009), but does not get a BCR as it is not a "high-ranking gap A scheme" like NW/TP/GW/MML.

So here we are four years on with the RUS turned on its head.
In fact many of the RUSs have been quickly obsoleted by the electrification announcements and the recent HLOS.

 

[D365]

So here we are four years on with the RUS turned on its head. In fact many of the RUSs have been quickly obsoleted by the electrification announcements and the recent HLOS.

Well, that's what you get with £9.6b investment and no clear focus within DfT.

 

[Eagle]

There are two other self contained commuter DMU services, although neither are intense: The Uckfield line and the Ashford - Hastings - Brighton service.

Was about to say the Salisbury line, but then I remembered that there's a bit of peak-hour interworking with Romsey loop services.

 

[tbtc]

The main mention of electrification in the Wales RUS relates to Wrexham-Bidston, the one option which has since disappeared without trace.
Valleys electrification gets a throw-away remark about "longer-term aspirations"

It's funny how the massive investment has put some "unlikely" schemes on the confirmed list whilst other "likely" ones like Wrexham - Bidston and Crewe - Chester didn't make the list.

I'd have wagered on one of those being well ahead of the Marston Vale line (etc) before it was announced.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the general definition of a "diesel island" is a somewhat short, unelectrified line, for which a small fleet of DMUs needs to be maintained. Examples are Uckfield, Ashford to Hastings and Goblin. By electrifying, new through services can often be run, and the small fleets (usually in common with other classes - 170/171 or 172 Turbostars in these cases) can be transferred to duties alongside cousins

I was just trying to put the Valley Line into context - whilst there are plenty of other worthwhile candidates for electrification, there aren't many other self contained networks that see an intensive service like the Valley Lines does.

The Snow Hill lines were one of the few other examples of this. Whilst some other places have frequent diesel services, they aren't so self contained (which would make electrification less attractive - i.e. Leeds sees lots of DMUs but with various branches that wouldn't necessarily be economic to wire.

As I've said (many times!) before, the Valley Lines are the kind of thing we need to work on if we are serious about Pacer replacement - nice to have the northern TPE line and the MML done, but they don't solve the big problem of Pacer replacement.

 

[D365]

I was just trying to put the Valley Line into context - whilst there are plenty of other worthwhile candidates for electrification, there aren't many other self contained networks that see an intensive service like the Valley Lines does.

The Snow Hill lines were one of the few other examples of this. Whilst some other places have frequent diesel services, they aren't so self contained (which would make electrification less attractive - i.e. Leeds sees lots of DMUs but with various branches that wouldn't necessarily be economic to wire.

As I've said (many times!) before, the Valley Lines are the kind of thing we need to work on if we are serious about Pacer replacement - nice to have the northern TPE line and the MML done, but they don't solve the big problem of Pacer replacement.

Yes, Valley Lines will directly remove 30 Pacer units, but some may end up being taken in by the Great Western or Northern franchisees, hopefully only for a very short time. And with other electrification schemes, they will cause a cascade of units (newer/faster replacing older trains) leading to the end of the Pacer. However, I doubt that we will get this done by 2019, especially without any further new DMUs.