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

[starrymarkb]

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?

Change in Brookwood or an on the move changeover?

 

[swt_passenger]

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.

Doesn't seem to be 'Thameslink works' related - the NR CP5 summary (linked in earlier post) doesn't cross refer to Thameslink at all for this project, and where it lists the Grip stages has Grip 6 in 2018, so after the works are finished.

 

[341o2]

once upon a time the former LB&SCR had overhead electrics....

 

[bangor-toad]

once upon a time the former LB&SCR had overhead electrics....

...and if you look carefully you can see the remains of the old OHLE supports on the retaining walls between East and South Croydon and just south of Clapham Junction.

Cheers,
Jason

 

[Peter Mugridge]

...and if you look carefully you can see the remains of the old OHLE supports on the retaining walls between East and South Croydon and just south of Clapham Junction.

Cheers,
Jason

The best ( i.e. most complete and most easily visible ) two remnants are between Balham station and the junction for Streatham Hill, on the east side of the track.

 

[sarahj]

One morning I was working a train that was being delayed due to ice on the third rail. Some commuters were having a moan, saying southerns fault, blah blah blah. I turned round to them and said the meeting that held up your train was held in 1923. That was the year that it was decided that the overhead electric, that was planned to come down to Brighton, was going to be removed and the cheaper third rail used. I added, can you imagine the meeting, tweed suits and pipes. Now we have to work with what was decided back then and we do the best we can, but sometimes even the best laid plans cannot defeat nature and temps of minus 5.
They shut up.

 

[D365]

One morning I was working a train that was being delayed due to ice on the third rail. Some commuters were having a moan, saying southerns fault, blah blah blah. I turned round to them and said the meeting that held up your train was held in 1923. That was the year that it was decided that the overhead electric, that was planned to come down to Brighton, was going to be removed and the cheaper third rail used. I added, can you imagine the meeting, tweed suits and pipes. Now we have to work with what was decided back then and we do the best we can, but sometimes even the best laid plans cannot defeat nature and temps of minus 5.
They shut up.

Haha, nice job!

 

[Bald Rick]

In support of the move to OLE - today's 'Signalling problem' at Petts Wood which have ruined the southeastern peak this morning is entirely due to a catstrophic failure of the third rail system damaging signalling and tracks. Getting on for third of all signalling problems on third rail areas are ultimately down to the presence of conductor rail.

 

[76020]

Please see page 24 on this link:-
http://www.imeche.org/Libraries/Eve...DC_to_AC_Conversion_by_Steve_Yianni.sflb.ashx

 

[ainsworth74]

This is an interesting document! Many thanks for the link.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Please see page 24 on this link:-
http://www.imeche.org/Libraries/Eve...DC_to_AC_Conversion_by_Steve_Yianni.sflb.ashx

That is perfect for part of my dissertation, fantastic document and very interesting reading.

 

[joeykins82]

Very interesting presentation that, also interesting that the map on p24 shows the GOBLIN as Planned Electrification (CP5+) although it omits Reading-Basingstoke and the Thames Valley lines

 

[swt_passenger]

Very interesting presentation that, also interesting that the map on p24 shows the GOBLIN as Planned Electrification (CP5+) although it omits Reading-Basingstoke and the Thames Valley lines

In context the map on page 24 is referring only to extra routes that are 'under consideration', such as the freight diversionary route via Salisbury, and to Poole, which are extra to the electric spine, which only mentioned the primary route to Southampton via Winchester. So it wouldn't really need to show Reading - Basingstoke and Thames Valley as well, which are already confirmed as happening.

 

[Bald Rick]

Some pretty strong rumours that T&H wiring is going to be announced in the Budget.

 

[306024]

Some pretty strong rumours that T&H wiring is going to be announced in the Budget.

Good news if it turns out to be true.

Then transfer the DMU's to Crown Point to solve the unit availability and overcrowding issues on the rural branches in Norfork and Suffolk and implement an hourly service between Ipswich and Peterborough.

OK I made the last bit up

 

[YorkshireBear]

Is T&H GOBLIN? sorry im a bit slow on the nicknames for routes.

 

[tbtc]

Good news if it turns out to be true.

Then transfer the DMU's to Crown Point to solve the unit availability and overcrowding issues on the rural branches in Norfork and Suffolk and implement an hourly service between Ipswich and Peterborough

Would you take eight 172s for the current nine 156s at GA?

(my logic being that the 156s would be more standard at EMT/ Northern and could even allow a small cascade of 150/153s to FGW/ ATW - a small fleet of eight 172s would just be a drop in the ocean at a TOC with a large DMU fleet)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is T&H GOBLIN?

I think so ("Tottenham & Hampstead"?)

 

[306024]

Would you take eight 172s for the current nine 156s at GA?

No. I'd take 8 x 172 to replace 5 x 153.

1) That gives you the two additional units needed for hourly Ipswich - Peterborough
2) Gets rid of the 153's that are inadequate on some services
3) Improves fleet availability, 25 diagrams from 29 units rather than the current 23 from 26

I did say I made the last bit up, but you never know, someone may like the idea

 

[tbtc]

No. I'd take 8 x 172 to replace 5 x 153.

1) That gives you the two additional units needed for hourly Ipswich - Peterborough
2) Gets rid of the 153's that are inadequate on some services
3) Improves fleet availability, 25 diagrams from 29 units rather than the current 23 from 26

I did say I made the last bit up, but you never know, someone may like the idea

Well, yes, sixteen modern coaches to replace five older ones is a no-brainer

 

[ainsworth74]

Well, yes, sixteen modern coaches to replace five older ones is a no-brainer

Steady on, if our colleague from East Anglia will throw in a couple of the 156s then we've got a deal

 

[Chris125]

GOBLIN Electrification, among other subjects was mentioned in today's London Assembly transport committee meeting - as summarised by London Reconnections

GETTING FORENSIC ON THE GOBLIN

On the subject of the GOBLIN electrification it was clear that there is a consensus on getting it done. It was confirmed that TfL’s contribution is £25m based on the operational savings that will accrue from electric operation compared to diesel. It is now the case that Network Rail have commenced GRIP 3 of their planning process to get the scope and costs clarified. This should report in October this year. This might then allow the funding opportunity in the Autumn Statement 2013 to be exploited.

Two other related issues also received a mention. First was the diminishing market for diesel trains due to emissions regulations. If electrification is not forthcoming soon TfL will be forced to buy (not lease) longer DMUs and carry their cost on its books. This is because leasing companies will not take the residual life risk of stock that may have no life beyond the GOBLIN. This poses a dilemma for TfL – because if electrification is/was to be authorized a few years hence, it will have stock with no purpose or else face the prospect of still running them under the wires on the GOBLIN!

The other issue, one that has received little press as of yet, is one of timing. When pressed TfL said the earliest completion date for electrification is 2017 (assuming a smooth approval process from here on).
Network Rail, however, said their latest completion date is 2018 – because after that date Crossrail will cause the diversion of far more freight over the GOBLIN meaning less access to actually do the electrification works.
TfL then inadvertently suggested that the last date for approval was actually “infinity” (suggesting approval may never come forth). This earned him a very sharp rebuke from one London Assembly member who said “do nothing” was simply not an option, given the scale of overcrowding on the service.

TfL also confirmed that they had expected a go ahead at the last Autumn Statement and there was an extremely strong suggestion that it was the Treasury that pulled the scheme at the last minute. The Assembly members said they would want to conduct a forensic investigation as to why the decision making for such a well supported scheme had been so perverse. It was also confirmed that 4 or 5 car EMUs were the preferred option for further improving the route (as part of the electrification scheme).

So the current strategy seems to be getting GOBLIN wiring to GRIP3 later this year, which might then help unlock funding in the Autumn Statement.

Chris

 

[306024]

There's not a smiley for 'tongue in cheek' is there ?

 

[Bald Rick]

Good news if it turns out to be true.

Then transfer the DMU's to Crown Point to solve the unit availability and overcrowding issues on the rural branches in Norfork and Suffolk and implement an hourly service between Ipswich and Peterborough.

OK I made the last bit up

Delete Crown Point and substitute Selhurst, and you have a plan.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is T&H GOBLIN? sorry im a bit slow on the nicknames for routes.

No, the T&H is the T&H. There is no such thing as the G*BLIN (can't even steel myself to type it!)

 

[tbtc]

Delete Crown Point and substitute Selhurst, and you have a plan

A shame that the TPE 170s can't be sent to Selhurst (after TPE electrification) and converted to 171s instead

 

[D365]

Delete Crown Point and substitute Selhurst, and you have a plan.

I would have sent the 8x2 ex-Goblin 172/0s to LM, regeared to 100mph and fitted with intercab gangways if needed, to replace the remaining 150s and 153s. Not sure that would be worthwhile though?

No, the T&H is the T&H. There is no such thing as the G*BLIN (can't even steel myself to type it!)

But what is the T&H?!

 

[tbtc]

Is T&H GOBLIN? sorry im a bit slow on the nicknames for routes.

I think so ("Tottenham & Hampstead"?)

But what is the T&H?!

See above

 

[mister-sparky]

See above

The Tottenham & Hampstead Junction Railway. Currently the GOBLIN from Gospel Oak to South Tottenham/Tottenham Hale.

 

[hwl]

Delete Crown Point and substitute Selhurst, and you have a plan.

Exactly, not much point in lengthening the platforms on the Uckfield line for only a single 10 car train a day otherwise (if they aren't going to electrify any time soon).

 

[joeykins82]

Some pretty strong rumours that T&H wiring is going to be announced in the Budget.

What's T&H? Sorry, too early for abbreviations!

*edit*
Sorry I loaded the thread and submitted my reply before the other replies had come in!

 

[Bald Rick]

There's some echo on this thread ....