Might the Brighton Line be converted to 25KV one day?

[Bald Rick]

'Tis true that some of the CP5 schemes came as a bit of a surprise, particularly Oxford - Bletchley.

The reasons this is low down the list are:

It has one train an hour

Outside the peak, these trains are 4 car, and in my experience empty. The cash value of fuel saving by converting is not great. The additional cost of maintenance compared to electric is not that great either for a relatively small fleet.

Southern has no spare trains - and won't have even when the new 377s arrive and the 377/5s come back. These are generally earmarked for train lengthening on the metro and WLL services. Don't forget the 456s head west.

So electrification means buying a whole fleet of electric trains to replace the diesels.

Also electrification down to Uckfield isn't necessarily cheap, either 3R or OLE.

So this is an awful lot of cash to spend on a line for relatively small benefit. There are far, far better candidates. Valley Lines (announcement soon I gather), Chiltern (as part of next franchise), Oxford - Worcester via Bham Snow Hill, Bristol-Derby, Sheffield - Doncaster/ Leeds, even Felixstowe - Nuneaton will have a better case.

There have been no approaches to NR from TSGN bidders (to date) about electrifying the line (or Marshlink for that matter), in partnership or otherwise. Although I should caveat that by saying if NR had been approached, I couldn't possibly say that on this forum!

As has been said before, the cheapest way to resolve the supply / demand imbalance on that line is to equalise season ticket prices with the lines immediately east and west of it. Accepting that may not be popular.

 

[tbtc]

'Tis true that some of the CP5 schemes came as a bit of a surprise, particularly Oxford - Bletchley.

The reasons this is low down the list are:

It has one train an hour

Outside the peak, these trains are 4 car, and in my experience empty. The cash value of fuel saving by converting is not great. The additional cost of maintenance compared to electric is not that great either for a relatively small fleet.

Southern has no spare trains - and won't have even when the new 377s arrive and the 377/5s come back. These are generally earmarked for train lengthening on the metro and WLL services. Don't forget the 456s head west.

So electrification means buying a whole fleet of electric trains to replace the diesels.

Also electrification down to Uckfield isn't necessarily cheap, either 3R or OLE.

So this is an awful lot of cash to spend on a line for relatively small benefit. There are far, far better candidates. Valley Lines (announcement soon I gather), Chiltern (as part of next franchise), Oxford - Worcester via Bham Snow Hill, Bristol-Derby, Sheffield - Doncaster/ Leeds, even Felixstowe - Nuneaton will have a better case.

There have been no approaches to NR from TSGN bidders (to date) about electrifying the line (or Marshlink for that matter), in partnership or otherwise. Although I should caveat that by saying if NR had been approached, I couldn't possibly say that on this forum!

As has been said before, the cheapest way to resolve the supply / demand imbalance on that line is to equalise season ticket prices with the lines immediately east and west of it. Accepting that may not be popular.

Cheers - really appreciate your insight into these matters

 

[OxtedL]

Outside the peak, these trains are 4 car, and in my experience empty.

How busy they are always seems to vary wildly - I rarely board an off peak Uckfield train with a good preconception of how full it will be. Rarely are they full though, outside the peak.

Thanks very much for your post, paints a good picture.

I fear the number of tunnels and other structures on the Oxted Lines in general makes overhead electrification tricky.

 

[76020]

Sorry to drag this up after a few weeks, but I have been away, anyway changeover twice for Thameslink trains, AC-DC at Farringdon and then DC-AC at East Croydon in say 10 years time?, well there was one line with four changeovers a few years back, the North London Line, Stratford Low level to Hackney Wick DC, Hackney Wick to Dalston Kingsland AC, Dalston Kingsland to Camden Road DC, Camden Road to South Acton AC and finally South Acton to Richmond DC. The pantograph must have been well oiled!

 

[Chrisgr31]

Somewhat late to this thread! However as someone has pointed out there is funding being put aside to extend platforms on the Uckfield Line to allow 10 and 12 car operation. However extending platforms would seem to be a total waste of money as there is no rolling stock available to lengthen the trains that actually operate the service, and new rolling stock is unlikely to be ordered.

It has been suggested that in fact the money for platform lengthening is not actually for that purpose at all, but is really there for electrification. Admittedly it is not much in the scheme of things but it would at least be a start.

As regards how busy the trains on the Uckfield Line are all the peak trains are full, or overfull, and of course a new very early service leaving Uckfield at 5.18 or something was introduced recently which has apparently helped with the loading on the next service.

Although not a frequent off-peak traveler the off-peak trains certainly seem to be carrying quite a few passengers when I use them, and of course if the residents round the stations the route served realised that generally they are reliable they would be busier. However the problem is one really doesn't want the off-peak passengers to London travelling home in the peak.

So maybe electrification of the Uckfield line will happen sooner than expected. Of course those promoting BML2 want it now!

 

[Bald Rick]

It has been suggested that in fact the money for platform lengthening is not actually for that purpose at all, but is really there for electrification. Admittedly it is not much in the scheme of things but it would at least be a start.

Well whoever is suggesting that is wrong. It's for platform extensions.

 

[Class377/5]

Sorry to drag this up after a few weeks, but I have been away, anyway changeover twice for Thameslink trains, AC-DC at Farringdon and then DC-AC at East Croydon in say 10 years time?, well there was one line with four changeovers a few years back, the North London Line, Stratford Low level to Hackney Wick DC, Hackney Wick to Dalston Kingsland AC, Dalston Kingsland to Camden Road DC, Camden Road to South Acton AC and finally South Acton to Richmond DC. The pantograph must have been well oiled!

View is any AC of the BML will be done as part of Thameslink.

However plans to go as far as Tulse Hill on AC have been mooted before so who's to know what form it will take. However I suspect from London Bridge southward's first.

 

[Crossforth]

Someone explained to me the other day that you can run 3rd rail and OLE together if the OLE has one rail as it's return leg and the 3rd rail has the other. You then use axle counters instead of track circuits and bob's your uncle... This came from one of my colleagues who is an electrification engineer.

With regards to the BML being converted, surely Waterloo to Basingstoke would be a better choice if Basingstoke to Southampton is being done

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I would also expect Woking to Basingstoke to be a fairly easy to convert section, as there are a limited number of over bridges and some of these either cross naturally higher than the height needed or have been replaced (or are due to be replaced) such as the foot bridges at Farnborough and Fleet.

How would that affect the Alton branch? The section of line from Woking to the point where that branch diverges is quite long - could you have dual voltage for that distance or would the Alton branch have to be converted at the same time? Or would Alton trains have to change power source twice?

 

[ainsworth74]

With regards to the BML being converted, surely Waterloo to Basingstoke would be a better choice if Basingstoke to Southampton is being done

The stretch between Clapham Junction and Waterloo will be the absolute last bit to be wired. It's going to be an utter nightmare (and I'm sure your electrification bod will agree). It makes the most sense to start from the outside and work our way inwards. It also makes sense from a rolling stock point of view as the stock that's out in the sticks is, predominately, easily convertible to dual-voltage. Something that's not true with the stock closer to the core.

 

[swt_passenger]

Someone explained to me the other day that you can run 3rd rail and OLE together if the OLE has one rail as it's return leg and the 3rd rail has the other...

Er... is he absolutely sure about that?

If it was that easy surely Network Rail wouldn't have spent the £millions they did on the highly complicated dual electrified section between Farringdon and Blackfriars. Most of the complexity is due to a contactor controlled earth return system, that is switched between AC and DC modes as trains pass from one system to the other.

 

[Crossforth]

The stretch between Clapham Junction and Waterloo will be the absolute last bit to be wired. It's going to be an utter nightmare (and I'm sure your electrification bod will agree). It makes the most sense to start from the outside and work our way inwards. It also makes sense from a rolling stock point of view as the stock that's out in the sticks is, predominately, easily convertible to dual-voltage. Something that's not true with the stock closer to the core.

I'd sorta forgotten about Clapham Junction so I can see that would be a nightmare. I'll stick to the S&T department and not electrification... I'm glad Leeds doesn't have any 3rd rail either
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Er... is he absolutely sure about that?

If it was that easy surely Network Rail wouldn't have spent the £millions they did on the highly complicated dual electrified section between Farringdon and Blackfriars. Most of the complexity is due to a contactor controlled earth return system, that is switched between AC and DC modes as trains pass from one system to the other.

As I say, I'm S&T not electrification so I'm just passing on what I was told and he put it into very simple English for me

 

[Bald Rick]

Someone explained to me the other day that you can run 3rd rail and OLE together if the OLE has one rail as it's return leg and the 3rd rail has the other. You then use axle counters instead of track circuits and bob's your uncle... This came from one of my colleagues who is an electrification engineer.

Not sure about that. Presumably this would need the train to know which which rail was the DC return and which which was the AC, and then route the return current to the appropriate wheels to get to the correct rail. And then there would have to be some pretty complicated insulation and bonding arrangements at every set of points.

But then I'm no electrical engineer.

 

[tbtc]

The stretch between Clapham Junction and Waterloo will be the absolute last bit to be wired. It's going to be an utter nightmare (and I'm sure your electrification bod will agree). It makes the most sense to start from the outside and work our way inwards. It also makes sense from a rolling stock point of view as the stock that's out in the sticks is, predominately, easily convertible to dual-voltage. Something that's not true with the stock closer to the core.

Good points.

Might as well wait for "conversion" of the suburban SWT lines until Crossrail2?

I'm glad Leeds doesn't have any 3rd rail either

Don't let Harrogate Chamber of Commerce hear that...

 

[ainsworth74]

Don't let Harrogate Chamber of Commerce hear that...

Thankfully last I heard they'd dropped that idea and basically admitted that it was mostly a publicity stunt to get Harrogate Loop electrification on the agenda for discussion. And they certainly succeeded there!

 

[The Ham]

How would that affect the Alton branch? The section of line from Woking to the point where that branch diverges is quite long - could you have dual voltage for that distance or would the Alton branch have to be converted at the same time? Or would Alton trains have to change power source twice?

As I understand it the section from Woking to the junction for Alton would not be able to be dual voltage, I also understand that switch from one power type to the other isn't a problem so doing that shouldn't cause a problem in the short term, especially if the change over was well away from the main line.

Converting the Alton Line to overhead shouldn't be too expensive, as other than two tunnels between the main line and Aldershot there are relatively few over bridges and once the line is past Farnham it is single track until Alton. Although I would suggest that the works (or at least some of the works) would be tied in with the construction of the new branch to Borden.

 

[D365]

Not sure about that. Presumably this would need the train to know which which rail was the DC return and which which was the AC, and then route the return current to the appropriate wheels to get to the correct rail. And then there would have to be some pretty complicated insulation and bonding arrangements at every set of points.

Yes, that concept would hardly be feasible with the complex systems required.

Might as well wait for "conversion" of the suburban SWT lines until Crossrail 2?
Don't let Harrogate Chamber of Commerce hear that... [no third rail in Leeds]

Good call. In any case NXEMU [Thameslink/Crossrail stock] is dual-voltage. And Harrogate OHLE allows InterCity service to convert to electric.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Well whoever is suggesting that is wrong. It's for platform extensions.

So the intention is to spend a lot of money extending platforms to take trains that don't exist? I guess it will save about a minute of the dwell times at Crowborough, Eridge and Edenbridge, although wont save those alighting any time unless they improve the stairs from the platform.

Must admit not terribly fussed as I quite like the diesel service, its easy to find the train in London Bridge, they are a lot more reliable then the electrics in the snow (although that doesnt help if an electric gets stuck in front of them!), have spacious seats etc.

 

[swt_passenger]

The CP5 'Uckfield project' is described by NR as follows:

Project reference code: SE011 Output: Capacity
CP5 output driver
The key output is the provision of extra capacity between East Croydon and London Bridge, and on the Oxted Line by enabling longer trains to operate.
Scope of works
Develop a scheme allowing 10-car Class 170/171 (23m) stock to serve the eight station locations between Edenbridge and Uckfield including work to extend 12 platform faces and relocate 2 signals.
Significant interfaces
The scheme should make passive provision (e.g. when moving signal infrastructure) for future electrification of the route served by 12-car x 20m vehicles.
etc, etc.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...e plans/overarching cp5 enhancements plan.pdf

So it seems it is designed for either 10 x 23m DMUs (ie combinations of 171s), OR 12 x 20m EMUs following electrification.

There's not much point in lengthening to 230m for the former and then coming back to lengthen for 240m at later stage.

 

[tbtc]

The CP5 'Uckfield project' is described by NR as follows:



http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...e plans/overarching cp5 enhancements plan.pdf

So it seems it is designed for either 10 x 23m DMUs (ie combinations of 171s), OR 12 x 20m EMUs following electrification.

There's not much point in lengthening to 230m for the former and then coming back to lengthen for 240m at later stage.

s'cure my "northern" ignorance, but are the bulk of Uckfield services run by single four-car 171s? I've not seen pictures of doubled up ones (but then, I've not been down there for a wee while...)

(yeah, I'm probably going along the "where are they going to get enough DMUs from..." argument, if the current service only sees four coach 171s on the line)

 

[JonathanH]

ISTR that the plan was for the maximum length of Uckfield line trains to be six coaches as they had been using the DEMUs. It was soon found that the 1812 from London Bridge was overcrowded as a 6-coach so this became 8-coach by switching a shoulder peak service from 4-coach to 2-coach. The timetable is broadly the same now as when 171s were introduced.

 

[mr_jrt]

s'cure my "northern" ignorance, but are the bulk of Uckfield services run by single four-car 171s? I've not seen pictures of doubled up ones (but then, I've not been down there for a wee while...)

(yeah, I'm probably going along the "where are they going to get enough DMUs from..." argument, if the current service only sees four coach 171s on the line)

Do the long-overdue wiring-up of the Goblin and there you have 8 172s going spare (unless Chiltern put up a fight for them!)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If you look at this NR CP5 document at the Electric Spine section (page 58/9 for the DC/AC conversion project):
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...e plans/overarching cp5 enhancements plan.pdf
you will find a disappointing level of detail and commitment to the project.

Activities and Milestones
The scheme was proposed in the HLOS and is currently at GRIP 0. It will be
developed during CP5 and, subject to the findings of that development, the delivery
would be expected to commence in CP5. The determinants of the delivery date will
include:
 The geographical scope of the preferred solution; a wider scope would
require extended timescales for implementation
 Conversion of passenger rolling stock; it would need to be converted in time
to make use of the AC system, and that this work will be funded and delivered
by other stakeholders collaborating in this scheme
 A rolling stock strategy would need to be in place to support design, depot,
change over locations and timetable scoping decisions
 The technology to enable trains reliably to switch between systems on the
move at high speed can be developed, tested and proven. A cost and risk
efficient solution can be found to infrastructure changeover (i.e. switching off
the DC system and switching on the replacement AC system), and to any
requirement for long sections of dual electrification systems
 Sufficient contractor and electrification resource would need to be available to
adequately support development and implementation
 New grid feeding and supply points would need to be operational in the
required time frame to support electrification changeover

It seems to say that the DfT has asked us to do this, but we have no idea where to start.
There is a long list of assumptions and dependencies, but no goals or timescales, except a grudging "we might start in CP5 if the numbers add up".
It is at GRIP Stage 0 (ie nowhere).
But then so is Basingstoke-Reading and Nuneaton-Oxford.

Importantly there is no enthusiasm indicated for this project.
You might expect a "great idea, let's get cracking", but it seems to me more like a holding position hoping it will just go away...
Why is the railway so reticent about the Electric Spine?
Who is championing it?
Surely something for the much-lauded NR/SWT Deep Alliance?

 

[Chrisgr31]

According to Wikipedia Southern have 16 Class 171's. Of those 10 are 2 car, 4 are 4 car, some of the 2 two car units are on the Marshlink line down between Hastings and Ashford. The 4 cars and i2 car run on the Uckfield Line.

They run in 2, 4, 6 and 8 car lengths. The 8 car being made up of two 4 car units. If it was made up of a 4 and two 2 car units there would be a big problem at all stations between and including Edenbridge and Buxted as all stations other than Crowborough can only take 5 cars, Crowborough can take 6. This does mean that the 8 car has long dwell times at Eridge and Edenbridge in the mornings due to the numbers wanting to get in the rear carriages in the hope of finding a seat. It has a long dwell time at Crowborough in the evening due to the numbers alighting from the rear.

The 8 car runs a service that gets in to London Bridge at 8.20 or thereabouts, and leaves there at 18.08 in the evening.

From Crowborough in the peak the following trains run (times may be out by a few minutes but done from head): -

5.30 6 car

5.50 2 car

6.45 6 car

7.20 8 car

7.45 6 car

8.15 6 car (same unit as the 5.30 train)

8.45 2 Car (same units as the 5.50 train)

Well I think thats how it works! Not caught the 5.30 yet (will be doing so on Wednesday) but all the other trains in the peak are very busy. The evening peak is more complex as a shuttle runs from Oxted to Uckfield for some of them.

So still like to know where the other units are coming from to use the new long platforms!

 

[JGR]

Not sure about that. Presumably this would need the train to know which which rail was the DC return and which which was the AC, and then route the return current to the appropriate wheels to get to the correct rail. And then there would have to be some pretty complicated insulation and bonding arrangements at every set of points.

But then I'm no electrical engineer.

Trains use metal (ie. conductive) wheels and axles, you can't "route" current to one side of the train or the other.

Your AC ground would float/bounce all over the place and/or your DC return path would tend to leak through nearby structures, neither of which are good news.

 

[HSTEd]

One thing I would not be looking forward to would be fitting overhead wiring into the Waterloo or Victoria approach lines or to the trackwork around Clapham Junction.

8 track gantries are probably going to be absurdly expensive (since I don't think clearences would allow for intermediate supports).

 

[76020]

One thing I would not be looking forward to would be fitting overhead wiring into the Waterloo or Victoria approach lines or to the trackwork around Clapham Junction.

8 track gantries are probably going to be absurdly expensive (since I don't think clearences would allow for intermediate supports).

A good place to look at what Clapham Junction/Waterloo/Victoria may look like if they ever get converted to overhead is outside Brussels Midi Station, the supports cover at least 15-20 tracks outside the station.

 

[macka]

I am not sure if NR would be willing to use headspans (like around Brussels Midi and other European stations) especially as they are more fragile: if a wire is snagged it is likely the whole headspan will come down. With the fact that the majority of approach lines to Waterloo and Victoria are on viaducts, it's difficult to justify the risks when the lines to be electrified are approaches to the two busiest stations in the UK.

 

[swt_passenger]

So still like to know where the other units are coming from to use the new long platforms!

They won't necessarily run more than one or two 10 car trains though. Network Rail extended a number of platforms (and altered signalling) to allow for 10 car trains on the Waterloo - Salisbury route only a few years ago, but they still only run one 10 car service AFAICT.

The problem is that rolling stock changes to make use of new infrastructure aren't necessarily worked out in the same timescales as the infrastructure. However if NR are doing the extensions it can only be because DfT have told them to in the HLOS, so DfT must have a cunning plan for the stock...

 

[Class377/5]

They won't necessarily run more than one or two 10 car trains though. Network Rail extended a number of platforms (and altered signalling) to allow for 10 car trains on the Waterloo - Salisbury route only a few years ago, but they still only run one 10 car service AFAICT.

The problem is that rolling stock changes to make use of new infrastructure aren't necessarily worked out in the same timescales as the infrastructure. However if NR are doing the extensions it can only be because DfT have told them to in the HLOS, so DfT must have a cunning plan for the stock...

Thought it was being affected by the Thameslink works. Reduced train numbers with lengthened services to provide silmar amounts of capacity to all services to London Bridge.