Which lines would have the least strong case for electrification?

[AndyLandy]

But you haven't exactly stated what could replace it. I would be surprised if the 172s aren't renewed to be honest

What? Replace the 172s? One would assume something like Class 350s, or perhaps something from the Electrostar family. Or whatever commuter EMU platform wins the tender, basically.

 

[northwichcat]

But you haven't exactly stated what could replace it. I would be surprised if the 172s aren't renewed to be honest

^^ As AndyLandy said.

They don't even need to have replacements ordered before they are signed over. The FNW 175s were signed over to ATW before any replacement trains had been ordered. The same could happen with the LM 172s- they could be 'transferred' to another operator at any time but subleased back until the replacements are ready.

 

[OxtedL]

But you haven't exactly stated what could replace it. I would be surprised if the 172s aren't renewed to be honest

Reading back through all your posts on this thread, it might be worth bearing in mind that although you may have typed something, the something might not necessarily be actually true...

It really is a very simple process:

• Line is electrified.
• New electric stock is brought in - either brand new or handed down from a line that no longer needs it (eg what might eventually happen with the Thameslink 319s, god willing).
• Old stock is free to do one of the following:
  • retire to a nice house in the country
  • move somewhere else and allow older stock there to retire
  • move somewhere else to the stock there to move somewhere else to allow older stock to retire.

Thus the current age of the trains operating your line do not matter, as long as either:

• Your stock is old enough to be retired. (Which as you rightly observe is not the case for the 172s)
• There exists stock somewhere in the country which your stock could replace allowing some old stock somewhere to be retired.

We know the second case is certainly true, and will continue to be true possibly forever, so electrification is not really a waste of new trains. (Unless you are an accountant, or possibly a psychologist.)

 

[Peter Mugridge]

My understanding is this will only happen where the line speed exceeds 100mph or where the line will be upgraded to have line running of over 100mph.

There's no reason for Merseyrail to get OHEs in the foreseeable future.

I was talking about the South Coast, specifically Marshlink and Coastaway, not Merseyrail though. Besides, once the main lines are converted from 3rd rail to OHL it is inevitable that the secondary lines will follow in due course as and when the infrastructure falls due for renewal.

 

[Harlesden]

Newark North Gate - Grimsby/Cleethorpes via Lincoln
Doncaster - Grimsby/Cleethorpes via Scunthorpe
Retford - Grimsby Town via Brigg

 

[172212]

Reading back through all your posts on this thread, it might be worth bearing in mind that although you may have typed something, the something might not necessarily be actually true...

It really is a very simple process:

• Line is electrified.
• New electric stock is brought in - either brand new or handed down from a line that no longer needs it (eg what might eventually happen with the Thameslink 319s, god willing).
• Old stock is free to do one of the following:
  • retire to a nice house in the country
  • move somewhere else and allow older stock there to retire
  • move somewhere else to the stock there to move somewhere else to allow older stock to retire.

Thus the current age of the trains operating your line do not matter, as long as either:

• Your stock is old enough to be retired. (Which as you rightly observe is not the case for the 172s)
• There exists stock somewhere in the country which your stock could replace allowing some old stock somewhere to be retired.

We know the second case is certainly true, and will continue to be true possibly forever, so electrification is not really a waste of new trains. (Unless you are an accountant, or possibly a psychologist.)

I'll go back to my first point, the line doesn't need to be electrificied, Rugeley to Walsall, Birmingham Snow Hill/Moor Street to London Marylebone, or even Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury have a higher need for electrification than a route that has just been invested heavily in. The 150s lasted over 25 years, I'm sure the 172s can last the same or longer than this stock.

Referring to your 'might not be true' reply, you may have noticed I included a link for a petition for electrification of the line with a low amount of signatures, so if what I'm saying isn't true then that petition must be wrong...

 

[IanXC]

I'll go back to my first point, the line doesn't need to be electrificied, Rugeley to Walsall, Birmingham Snow Hill/Moor Street to London Marylebone, or even Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury have a higher need for electrification than a route that has just been invested heavily in. The 150s lasted over 25 years, I'm sure the 172s can last the same or longer than this stock.

Referring to your 'might not be true' reply, you may have noticed I included a link for a petition for electrification of the line with a low amount of signatures, so if what I'm saying isn't true then that petition must be wrong...

So on that basis North Transpennine doesn't need to be electrified as it has relatively new 185s?

It seems unlikely that any electrification scheme would end at Moor Street or Snow Hill - as has been said the Snow Hill lines are the most intensively worked diesel service in Europe. Network Rail's Electrification RUS (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...rk\Working Group 4 - Electrification Strategy) identified projects with high BCRs - the Snow Hill lines are one of the few yet proposed for construction.

There may have been much investment in the 172s but you make it sound like infrastructure investment! The 172s are not specific to the route - there is no reason why they cannot be transferred elsewhere, and in all likelihood they will be before too long!

As for the petition - just because the general public haven't gone out of their way to sign it, doesn't mean that it is a sensible project to progress - I can't say I remember any other electrification schemes being specifically "campaigned for".

 

[172212]

So on that basis North Transpennine doesn't need to be electrified as it has relatively new 185s?

It seems unlikely that any electrification scheme would end at Moor Street or Snow Hill - as has been said the Snow Hill lines are the most intensively worked diesel service in Europe. Network Rail's Electrification RUS (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...rk\Working Group 4 - Electrification Strategy) identified projects with high BCRs - the Snow Hill lines are one of the few yet proposed for construction.

There may have been much investment in the 172s but you make it sound like infrastructure investment! The 172s are not specific to the route - there is no reason why they cannot be transferred elsew here, and in all likelihood they will be before too long!

As for the petition - just because the general public haven't gone out of their way to sign it, doesn't mean that it is a sensible project to progress - I can't say I remember any other electrification schemes being specifically "campaigned for".

If electrification were originally in the plans, which they're clear not, the old stock should have been kept on these services until electrification reaches completion, but as there are no plans to electrify this line and new stock has been brought, then there is obviously no point to consider electrification. As I have previously stated tirelessly, if electrification was vital, it would have reached completion or at least a project would have begun, which it hasn't.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

But the 172s were brought in before the mentality shifted to mass electrification. I'm tempted to know how it's a huge waste of money too - the intensive service coupled with frequent station stops would surely send the cost-benefit ratio soaring in favour of it?

 

[172212]

But the 172s were brought in before the mentality shifted to mass electrification. I'm tempted to know how it's a huge waste of money too - the intensive service coupled with frequent station stops would surely send the cost-benefit ratio soaring in favour of it?

If "mentality" of electrification has begun, then why have I still not heard any plans to electrify this line? A line that has just been heavily invested in, when there are other lines with a higher need.

 

[transmanche]

IAs I have previously stated tirelessly, if electrification was vital, it would have reached completion or at least a project would have begun, which it hasn't.

So your argument is essentially; because the line hasn't already been electrified, it doesn't need to be electrified...?

 

[172212]

So your argument is essentially; because the line hasn't already been electrified, it doesn't need to be electrified...?

My argument is essentially, expensive stock has been invested in this line, there are no plans for electrification, why spent even more heavily on this line that has just recently benefited when there are other lines that require electrification and a better service, this is the part of the argument that you have seemed to overlook...

 

[tbtc]

My argument is essentially, expensive stock has been invested in this line, there are no plans for electrification, why spent even more heavily on this line that has just recently benefited when there are other lines that require electrification and a better service, this is the part of the argument that you have seemed to overlook...

Why are they electrifying most of the TPE services (Manchester - Glasgow, Liverpool - Newcastle etc), considering they have expensive stock that was bought recently?

 

[172212]

Why are they electrifying most of the TPE services (Manchester - Glasgow, Liverpool - Newcastle etc), considering they have expensive stock that was bought recently?

They are LONG distance services, that would heavily benefit from electrification, whereas the Snow Hill Lines cover 50 miles. As I have previously stated plans for the Chiltern Mainline would be beneficial, this being because the line is... LONG distance
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury would definitely benefit from electrification, more local services between Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury, a more reliable service, I could definitely see this working.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Please tell me what makes long-distance lines more beneficial? Surely the start-stop nature makes the Snow Hill line suitable too - electric units can shift like a bat out of hell (quicker at both starting and stopping than diesels IIRC), and it would save on all the diesel that is wasted by constant acceleration and braking.

 

[172212]

Please tell me what makes long-distance lines more beneficial? Surely the start-stop nature makes the Snow Hill line suitable too - electric units can shift like a bat out of hell (quicker at both starting and stopping than diesels IIRC), and it would save on all the diesel that is wasted by constant acceleration and braking.

Hmm... I don't know, more reliable service, possibly faster journey times... Please tell me, honestly, do you know anyone that travels from Stratford-Upon-Avon and Worcester, compared to the amount of people that travel between Manchester and Glasgow?

 

[transmanche]

My argument is essentially, expensive stock has been invested in this line, there are no plans for electrification, why spent even more heavily on this line that has just recently benefited when there are other lines that require electrification and a better service, this is the part of the argument that you have seemed to overlook...

No I haven't overlooked it. It's just that your 'argument' does not make sense...

The service is intensive. The only realistic way to provide further improvements will be by electrifying it. The existing stock can be transferred to other places to replace life expired 14x and 15x stock. Seems like a win-win all round to me.

 

[172212]

No I haven't overlooked it. It's just that your 'argument' does not make sense...

The service is intensive. The only realistic way to provide further improvements will be by electrifying it. The existing stock can be transferred to other places to replace life expired 14x and 15x stock. Seems like a win-win all round to me.

But it clearly does, as this 'argument' has been going on for the past 3 days. I have explained my argument a number of times, listed inaccuracies and facts. Indeed, the service is an intense sururban route, which is why new stock has just been invested in, no plans have surfaced for electrification, there are more important electrification plans than a line that has just been heavily invested in, and has I have just said, if it was really that necessary, it would have been done by now, i.e. the cross-city line.

 

[tbtc]

Why are they electrifying most of the TPE services (Manchester - Glasgow, Liverpool - Newcastle etc), considering they have expensive stock that was bought recently?

They are LONG distance services, that would heavily benefit from electrification, whereas the Snow Hill Lines cover 50 miles. As I have previously stated plans for the Chiltern Mainline would be beneficial, this being because the line is... LONG distance

Please tell me what makes long-distance lines more beneficial? Surely the start-stop nature makes the Snow Hill line suitable too - electric units can shift like a bat out of hell (quicker at both starting and stopping than diesels IIRC), and it would save on all the diesel that is wasted by constant acceleration and braking.

As Matt says - electrification is more useful on stop/start services - EMUs can accelerate a lot better than diesels - and acceleration counts for a lot more on stoppers.

For the distance involved in wiring up the Snow Hill lines could could free up dozens of modern DMUs that could be used to directly replace a similar number of Pacers. Where else are you able to free up those kind of numbers with that kind of distance?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

A side note - complete removal of 172s from the Snow Hill lines via electrification would release 27 DMUs for cascading to Northern / FGW to hopefully replace or partially replace and supplement Pacers.

 

[transmanche]

No I haven't overlooked it. It's just that your 'argument' does not make sense...

But it clearly does, as this 'argument' has been going on for the past 3 days.

Ah, I see what you've done there. You've confused "repeating yourself for three days" with "making sense".

Did it occur to you that new stock was needed as a 'quick fix' to improve reliability? Or for a number of other medium-term reasons . Just like the 377s built for 'temporary' operation on the Thameslink route until the 700s arrive...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Old stock is free to do one of the following:

• retire to a nice house in the country
• move somewhere else and allow older stock there to retire
• move somewhere else to the stock there to move somewhere else to allow older stock to retire.

I realise this is unrelated to the the argument that appears to be going on here, but surely this would be even more beneficial to passengers?

• move somewhere else in order to enhance capacity

 

[172212]

Ah, I see what you've done there. You've confused "repeating yourself for three days" with "making sense".

Did it occur to you that new stock was needed as a 'quick fix' to improve reliability? Or for a number of other medium-term reasons . Just like the 377s built for 'temporary' operation on the Thameslink route until the 700s arrive...

Aha, no. I've stated the point that investments could be used elsewhere but you seem to be blind to that fact

 

[transmanche]

I've stated the point that investments could be used elsewhere but you seem to be blind to that fact

Go on, humour me. Please quote exactly what you said? Because I've looked back through quite a few of you posts on this thread and it's hard to spot anything through the "there are more important electrification plans than a line that has just been heavily invested in" mantra.

 

[The Ham]

Please tell me what makes long-distance lines more beneficial? Surely the start-stop nature makes the Snow Hill line suitable too - electric units can shift like a bat out of hell (quicker at both starting and stopping than diesels IIRC), and it would save on all the diesel that is wasted by constant acceleration and braking.

I would agree that although there are many advantages to electrifying long distance trains that there tend to be more for doing short distance services.

Not only can you improve the short distance service's speed by running EMU's, you can fit regenerative breaking which massively improves energy efficiency over DMU's.

Also for every 100 miles of line you electrify you tend to be able to remove more diesel trains on a short distance service than you do on a long distance service.

 

[sprinterguy]

Hmm... I don't know, more reliable service, possibly faster journey times...

As other forum members have also argued, don't these benefits apply to a greater extent to high frequency commuter services with a regular start-stop calling pattern than they do to long distance, limited stop services?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury would definitely benefit from electrification, more local services between Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury, a more reliable service, I could definitely see this working.

I can't. There's only one train per hour that would be able to use the wires between Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury. The long distance ATW services onto the Cambrian line and the North Wales coast would not be able to make use of the OHLE. I can't envisage a huge demand being generated by additional local services in predominantly rural Shropshire (The conurbation of Telford, Oakengates and Wellington excepted).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They are LONG distance services, that would heavily benefit from electrification, whereas the Snow Hill Lines cover 50 miles. As I have previously stated plans for the Chiltern Mainline would be beneficial, this being because the line is... LONG distance

Several Chiltern services originate from or continue on to Stourbridge Junction or Kidderminster. Without electrification of the Snow Hill lines, these services would have to be truncated at Snow Hill.

 

[northwichcat]

For the distance involved in wiring up the Snow Hill lines could could free up dozens of modern DMUs that could be used to directly replace a similar number of Pacers. Where else are you able to free up those kind of numbers with that kind of distance?

And of course the 172s are a lot more versatile than the 185s. Every time there is a thread discussing what routes the 185s will go post-North TPE electrification, people come up with pros and cons of just about any route mentioned.

The 172s are ideal for some Northern services and there are probably instances where a 3 car 172 can replace a pair of 142s, which sounds to me like a win situation for both the operator and passengers.

 

[tbtc]

I would agree that although there are many advantages to electrifying long distance trains that there tend to be more for doing short distance services.

Not only can you improve the short distance service's speed by running EMU's, you can fit regenerative breaking which massively improves energy efficiency over DMU's.

Also for every 100 miles of line you electrify you tend to be able to remove more diesel trains on a short distance service than you do on a long distance service.

Totally agreed - short distance electrification is much more focussed at replacing DMUs (which should be a priority). For example, whilst I welcome the MML electrification, it will only free up two of the six trains an hour from Chesterfield to Sheffield (the other ones will continue to run "off the wires" elsewhere) - it's inefficient to wire up longer distance routes compared to targetted short routes.

I can't. There's only one train per hour that would be able to use the wires between Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury. The long distance ATW services onto the Cambrian line and the North Wales coast would not be able to make use of the OHLE. I can't envisage a huge demand being generated by additional local services in predominantly rural Shropshire (The conurbation of Telford, Oakengates and Wellington excepted)

The advantage of wiring to Shrewsbury is that there are a number of services from New Street that currently terminate at Wolverhampton - and a reasonable population at Telford (150,000+) that are only fifteen miles away.

You'd need to cut some of the Welsh services to justify it (allowing ATW to double up some other DMU routes or maybe fill some gaps).

 

[OxtedL]

...for a petition for electrification of the line with a low amount of signatures, so if what I'm saying isn't true then that petition must be wrong...

It is worth bearing in mind that petitions typically bear little resemblance to actual public opinion (they are heavily dependent on how much publicity you can generate for them).

Furthermore, any survey of public opinion has absolutely no relevance to whether or not something is value for money in terms of operational costs. As in None. Zilch. Zero. No relevance whatsoever, at all, ever. Public opinion only comes into it if you think that your change will affect passenger useage, which I don't think anyone has actually tried to quantify on this thread but is only likely to positive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I realise this is unrelated to the the argument that appears to be going on here, but surely this would be even more beneficial to passengers?

• move somewhere else in order to enhance capacity

Yes.

I think I was perhaps focussing more on the operational effects of electrification, but yes, this should very much be in my list, not least given as it is a particularly likely outcome at the moment.

 

[AndyLandy]

Totally agreed - short distance electrification is much more focussed at replacing DMUs (which should be a priority). For example, whilst I welcome the MML electrification, it will only free up two of the six trains an hour from Chesterfield to Sheffield (the other ones will continue to run "off the wires" elsewhere) - it's inefficient to wire up longer distance routes compared to targetted short routes.

That was certainly my instinct:

There's an interesting question there.

Hundreds of miles of Intercity route? Or lots and lots of inner suburban routes around major cities?

I understand that London Midland have a lot of DMUs for providing local and regional services in the Birmingham region (Centro). Northern have an absolute mountain of DMUs running all kinds of weird and wonderful places. Are there decent electrification cases for these areas? How do they compare to Intercity electrification? (I assume not favourably, since we aren't doing it, but I thought it was worth raising the point)

Thinking more on the matter, I'd have thought a lot of 2- and 3-car DMUs pootling about on start-stop local/regional services would be far less fuel-efficient than long distance express DMUs, and DEMUs even moreso.

Given that we're not going to be able to fully wire many Intercity routes anyway, we're still going to need some hybrid/diesel trains in service. If instead of wiring the GWML and MML, we instead bought diesel-only IEPs and wired up huge swathes of commuter railway around Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, York etc, how many diesel DMUs could be withdrawn from service?