• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Which lines would have the least strong case for electrification?

Status
Not open for further replies.

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
8,263
That was certainly my instinct:



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.

... wire up huge swathes of commuter railway around Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, York etc, how many diesel DMUs could be withdrawn from service?

That is my take on what the CP6 plan would probably focus on in a much bigger way than the CP5 plan (obviously some big infills (Yorkshire and birmingham to Bristol) and more electrification in the south west as the national focus.) Electrification proceeding at a rate that avoids any decent sized DMU orders for another 15 years??
The side effect would probably be the 2020 DDA requirements would be relaxed to allow pacers etc to live on for another few years beyond 2020.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,059
Location
Reston City Centre
That was certainly my instinct:



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up huge swathes of commuter railway around Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, York etc, how many diesel DMUs could be withdrawn from service?

As usual, I totally agree with you here - it'd have been much more efficient to leave the MML unwired but concentrate resources on replacing DMUs on lines like the Warrington Central one, the Snow Hill ones... but not as glamerous I guess, not as exciting for politicians to boast about... sad!
 

Kneedown

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Messages
1,837
Location
Nottinghamshire
As usual, I totally agree with you here - it'd have been much more efficient to leave the MML unwired but concentrate resources on replacing DMUs on lines like the Warrington Central one, the Snow Hill ones... but not as glamerous I guess, not as exciting for politicians to boast about... sad!

But without MML electrification, there would be very little business case to bring electrification to new areas that need it. With it though, the business case and likelihood improves vastly, and brings with it endless possibilities.
MML electrification is the missing link that will soon be filled to make a true network of electrified lines across the country a real possibility.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,059
Location
Reston City Centre
But without MML electrification, there would be very little business case to bring electrification to new areas that need it. With it though, the business case and likelihood improves vastly, and brings with it endless possibilities.
MML electrification is the missing link that will soon be filled to make a true network of electrified lines across the country a real possibility.

MML electrification means roughly 150 miles (inc Corby and Nottingham). It free us about diesel forty trains. You could electrify 150 miles elsewhere and free up many more DMUs.

Since they aren't doing Birmingham - Derby or Sheffield - Moorthorpe/ Doncaster (yet) the "missing link" of the MML won't link with anything (other than Thameslink)
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,874
Since they aren't doing Birmingham - Derby or Sheffield - Moorthorpe/ Doncaster (yet) the "missing link" of the MML won't link with anything (other than Thameslink)

CP6, probably using the same teams as follow on.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Electrification proceeding at a rate that avoids any decent sized DMU orders for another 15 years??

You do realise that most of the DMUs released under the North West and Thames Valley electrification programs are currently proposed to be used to provide service and capacity enhancements on non-electrified services.

TPE electrification will release around 40 DMUs and Valley Lines around 30 DMUs (depending on how much passenger demand continues to grow.) By the time those programs are complete we'll have the following DMUs that will be life-expired:
* 96 x 2 car 142s.
* 23 x 2 car 143s.
* 13 x 2 car 144s.
* 10 x 3 car 144s.
* 4 x 3 car 150s.
* 134 x 2 car 150s
* Possibly 70 x 1 car 153s and 7 x 2 car 155s - according to another thread DDA compliance for single carriage trains is not the only issue these units face.

So that's a DMU shortage of around 250 trains if the life-expired trains were all withdrawn and no new DMUs ordered. There are also large numbers of 156s, 158s and 159s that will follow in needing to be withdrawn in the following years.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,059
Location
Reston City Centre
CP6, probably using the same teams as follow on.

Hopefully, but I don't want to count my chickens
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
TPE electrification will release around 40 DMUs and Valley Lines around 30 DMUs (depending on how much passenger demand continues to grow.)

Has anyone done the maths on the number of DMUs that would be "freed up" in CP5 based on current DMU service patterns?

Genuine question - I reckon we'll be over 100 if you exclude HSTs (but include 222s). But I don't know whether anyone has done the maths (before I waste a lot of time trying it!)
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Genuine question - I reckon we'll be over 100 if you exclude HSTs (but include 222s).

If you add the 222s on to what I suggested then it's not far off 100.

I do wonder where the 222s can usefully be re-deployed though.

But I don't know whether anyone has done the maths (before I waste a lot of time trying it!)

I don't think you can do more than an estimate for CP5 at this stage. Like I suggested in my previous post it's going to partly depend on future passenger growth.

Then you have to take in consideration that a 4 car EMU doesn't directly replace a pair of 2 car DMUs, even if one of them is only used for peak time strengthening, to allow for maintenance schedules. Likewise on routes that are set to get additional services e.g. Chester-Warrington-Manchester you can't assume the peak time extra units remain in service all day.

Then the operator will usually prefer mainly diesels as their standby units as they are usually 'go anywhere' and usually with Northern a Pacer does go almost anywhere. <(

It also depends how much reorganising of services there is to maximise use of the electrics and whether it's practical for that to happen at peak times e.g. you can't split the evening peak Piccadilly-Chinley via Hazel Grove service at Hazel Grove without doing a diesel ECS run from Manchester to Hazel Grove, which would be pointless.
 

Kneedown

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Messages
1,837
Location
Nottinghamshire
MML electrification means roughly 150 miles (inc Corby and Nottingham). It free us about diesel forty trains. You could electrify 150 miles elsewhere and free up many more DMUs.

Since they aren't doing Birmingham - Derby or Sheffield - Moorthorpe/ Doncaster (yet) the "missing link" of the MML won't link with anything (other than Thameslink)

My point was that it sets solid foundations for the future, on a larger scale, rather than immediate local quick fixes.
 

AndyLandy

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2011
Messages
1,323
Location
Southampton, UK
My point was that it sets solid foundations for the future, on a larger scale, rather than immediate local quick fixes.

I can only assume that's the actual, underlying reason. Tackle the core sections of Intercity routes first, get some decent IC coverage, then regional expansion of key 'hub' areas in CP6 to massively reduce our dependency on diesel traction.

That all said, we're going to have to admit that sooner or later, we'll need to buy some new DMUs, our diesel dependence isn't going to go away for quite a while yet.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,348
I am sure, thanks to the very light traffic on some lines that would normally be considered to be impractical to electrify you could skimp on the equipment and get the electrification done anyway.

Take the Far North line for example, you could probably use trolley wire throughout, use steel or AWAC conductor and single-end-feed the entire thing from Inverness.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
I am sure, thanks to the very light traffic on some lines that would normally be considered to be impractical to electrify you could skimp on the equipment and get the electrification done anyway.

Take the Far North line for example, you could probably use trolley wire throughout, use steel or AWAC conductor and single-end-feed the entire thing from Inverness.

You'd need a very effective booster at Helmsdale for the climb up to Forsinard!
 

AndyLandy

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2011
Messages
1,323
Location
Southampton, UK
Even with replacing Sprinters with 165s and newer?

There are a lot of DMUs in operation around Birmingham and the major Northern cities. By 2020, the DDA legislation will be in force, and the Pacers and Sprinters will be in the region of 35 years old. Even if CP5 electrification delivers everything it's slated to, I still don't think that'll free up enough DMUs to retire all the 1980s BR DMUs. If we're lucky, it'll free up at least enough to retire the Pacers.

Of course, it doesn't help if passenger numbers on the Northern franchise are growing. You bring in another Sprinter, notionally to displace a Pacer, but in the end you keep both in service to meet the increasing passenger demand.

All being well, I'd like to think we'd be able to get a further 5-10 years life out of the various Sprinters. Hopefully, by that point, CP6 electrification will have delivered enough wires to cascade sufficient modern DMUs to finally displace the Sprinter fleets.

I do suspect there'll always be a requirement for self-powered MUs though, so diesel for the present, and whatever replaces it in the future. We aren't going to wire every route mile of the network and eventually the 16x and 17x fleets will life expire, so replacements will need to be sought. Hopefully in much smaller numbers though.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,615
I understand the 165s are already set to be redeployed on Sprinter routes in the FGW area to provide additional capacity as part of the cascades resulting from the Thames Valley electrification.

Nothing more than mooted at the moment isn't it? There's plenty of routes operating 170s which have a good electrification case too.
 

AndyLandy

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2011
Messages
1,323
Location
Southampton, UK
I understand the 165s are already set to be redeployed on Sprinter routes in the FGW area to provide additional capacity as part of the cascades resulting from the Thames Valley electrification.

Of course, that could at least still free up some Sprinters for redeployment with LM or Northern.

It's good that the railway is growing and passenger numbers are on the increase, but it does mean we need to invest for growth, rather than just replacing like-for-like.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Of course, that could at least still free up some Sprinters for redeployment with LM or Northern.

I'd be surprised if FGW give up many Sprinters as a result of the internal 16x cascade. Remember not all 16x routes will be electrified and FGW still want extra capacity on a number of services, not just Thames Valley and Cardiff-Portsmouth.

I think a realistic cascade might be FGW to give ATW 8 x 143s and a similar number of 150s. ATW then give their 142s to Northern.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Nothing more than mooted at the moment isn't it?

Some people claim Network Rail have looked at the costs involved with getting Cardiff-Portsmouth fully cleared for 16x operation.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,348
You'd need a very effective booster at Helmsdale for the climb up to Forsinard!

Well it appears there are at most 4 passenger trains moving on the Far North Line at any one time, and it appears another 4 run on the Kyle of Lochalsh line which would also presumably be included in this scheme.
Assuming all services were run by 3 coach Class 377/3s that is roughly 8800hp of power dmenad on the line if they were all to go to Notch 8 at once.

Additionally we will make allowance for one 5000hp range locomotive to cover possible freight operations somewhere on the line. (Although 5000hp is massive overkill for most freight duties).

This means 13800hp or roughly 10.5MW.

If we assume all these loads are in the vicinity of Wick (thus the worst case as it is the farthest point from Inverness and this would put all loads on one "leg" of the line) this would mean our electrical supply system must support 10.5MW roughly 161 miles away.

The minimum voltage allowed on a 25kV system is apparently 19kV, which would mean that 10.5MW would draw roughly 552 Amps.

The maximum voltage allowed on a 25kV system is apparently 27.5kV, so we have roughly 8kV of voltage drop to push 552 Amps through the system.
That translates to a resistant of roughly 14.5 ohms.

For phase balancing purposes there will be three conductors used in this project, supplying power to different parts of the route in an attempt to phase balance the system (although this would be horrendously difficult due to low traffic density), which means that the average resistance of the individual conductor would be approximately 43.5 ohms.

If we assume double track is negligible, and that we will use copper conductors in this example, then we will require a cable with a resistance of roughly 0.16 ohms/km, this translates to roughly 110 square millimetres area, which is less than the size of the cable used on TramPower style catenary (150mm^2), which can supposedly be built to handle 25kV systems. (This would also support the 75mph running on the line so no speed limits would have to be altered)

So it is practical, even with this extremely conservative estimate of the capacity.
The two wires which are not the contact wire at any point on th eline would presumably be carried on the opposite side of the support pole on appropriate insulators.
It may be more practical to fit autotransformers and take advantage of the advances in power transistors and fit two cables that would operate on a single phase, with phase balancing being carried out at the substation in Inverness.

EDIT: 3 x 20m vehicles is probably not enough for KYle of Lochalsh in summer, but I only used 377 as it was the only 3 coach multiple unit I could find power figures for, but due to the fact that rather more conductor is available than I stated there should not be a power supply problem.
Additionally there are normally less than four sets moving on the Kyle of Lochalsh route, since its only 2hr30 each way and the spacings of services are roughly every 2-3hr.
 
Last edited:

Hyphen

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Messages
504
Location
Swansea (previously Nottingham/Sheffield)
I do wonder where the 222s can usefully be re-deployed though.

Didn't EMT recently trial the 222s on the Norwich-Liverpool service? Certainly on the NOT-MAN section (can't comment to Liverpool) a 5-car train is DESPERATELY needed.

To be fair, EMT have been strengthening their services with 2x158s, but with growth, this service really needs more capacity.

The 7-car trains? Bonus!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,348
7-cars won't fit the Platforms at Oxford Road, they are 6x23m max.

And then theres the whole SP differential thing.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,668
Nothing more than mooted at the moment isn't it? There's plenty of routes operating 170s which have a good electrification case too.

I believe the HLOS includes money for gauge widening in bristol area for larger DMUS. Which everyone took as 165s, a fairly resonable assumption.
 

joeykins82

Member
Joined
24 Jul 2012
Messages
601
Location
London
The reason the MML is being wired is because according to the DfT/NR appraisal it has a positive financial case over the appraisal period; the reduced operating costs will mean it pays for itself and therefore not doing it is the inefficient option! There's also speculation that the 222s will be converted to EMU which would mean that only the HSTs would need replacing; presumably there'd be one order placed for enough whole new sets and enough pantograph cars to run all EMT ex-StP services as e-Meridians, and some of them might have their diesel generators retained to operate as bi-mode so that they can run through to Leeds or Lincoln. Of course, it's all speculation until the detailed CP5 plans start to surface in January.
 

Penmorfa

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2011
Messages
437
Location
North Wales coast
I would have thought Sudbury has one of the strongest cases out there, especially among routes that are 1tph or less? Yes, OK, it's not exactly the busiest line, but it's an awkward island that is a good 30 miles by rail from any other diesel service. Plus the service could be extended to Walton-on-the-Naze or Harwich if it was ever electrified.

If I was bidding for the long-term Anglia franchise when it comes along again, I would include funding it as part of my bid.

One major argument is the lack of an EMU on Anglia less than 4 carriages. Romford - Upminster is a 4 car train with a handful of people on in the off peak.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think that probably fell by the wayside along with eVoyager.

Would'nt a lot be converted to straight EMU's though, which is a different proposition.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,192
One major argument is the lack of an EMU on Anglia less than 4 carriages. Romford - Upminster is a 4 car train with a handful of people on in the off peak.

There's a number of branch lines facing problem in regards to potential electrification, or not being able to use mainline fleet EMUs due to them becoming too long (Crossrail 'cutting off' Upminster and Henley branches) - and thus may require a smaller fleet to be maintained expensively.

Wouldn't a lot be converted to straight EMU's though, which is a different proposition.

Pretty much the same modifications but with the engines being removed, which I don't think the Voyager family was designed for? Such a shame that Thor is not going ahead, it would have made the trains a lot more flexible.
 

Penmorfa

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2011
Messages
437
Location
North Wales coast
Pretty much the same modifications but with the engines being removed, which I don't think the Voyager family was designed for? Such a shame that Thor is not going ahead, it would have made the trains a lot more flexible.

At least they're diesel electrics so that's a start. Is'nt Thor not going ahead because a 5 car set would need two transformers because of the weight? Making the trains lighter would surely help with the economics.
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,270
Location
Isle of Wight
Would'nt a lot be converted to straight EMU's though, which is a different proposition.

Even if that had been considered i doubt it would make any difference - if, as reported, eVoyager died due to the higher than expected cost and the opportunity to use conventional EMU's then the same would apply to converting Meridians.

Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top