My suggestion to remove third rail as a priority

[61653 HTAFC]

I think I remember reading somewhere that the 3rd rail electrification south of Bournemouth was done on the cheap so that section of 3rd rail might have a shorter working life. Hopefully the overhead when installed on the spine will at least go as far south as Poole, would be nice if it went all the way to Weymouth.

Once the routes between Kent and London get converted to overhead it would also give Eurostar a few diversionary routes for emergencies

The 374s and any subsequent CTRL stock just wouldn't fit the gauge unless the NR routes were enlarged to GB+. In theory, the 373s could use them but I would imagine a plethora of commercial and legal obstacles would prevail.

If there was a regular need to divert Eurostar away from HS1, they'd have kept the shoegear on the 373s. Dedicated high-speed lines don't require long possessions to maintain them in the same way that the 'classic' network does.

 

[AM9]

If there was a regular need to divert Eurostar away from HS1, they'd have kept the shoegear on the 373s. Dedicated high-speed lines don't require long possessions to maintain them in the same way that the 'classic' network does.

Are there any crossovers between the LT&S at Dagenham and the CTRL to even allow a 373 to get to Stratford via Barking and the Goblin to Woodgrange Park junction?

 

[alex17595]

Are there any crossovers between the LT&S at Dagenham and the CTRL to even allow a 373 to get to Stratford via Barking and the Goblin to Woodgrange Park junction?

There is a junction near to Dagenham Dock station facing TOWARDS the tunnel, and the nearest crossovers in that direction are the Wennington? ones.

Edit: The freights use it to access ripple lane sidings.

 

[Bushy]

Returning to the subject of the OP. The RSSB Safety performance report for 2012/13 gives 15% of trespass fatalities resulting from electric shock cf. 77% struck by trains. The data for workforce injuries do not separate electrical injuries, presumably because they do not represent a significant proportion. One specific fatality is referred to, being a train driver electrocuted while inspecting his train.
The number of electric shock injuries is a small proportion of the total injuries on the railway. Not that we should not attempt to reduce them but there are more cost effective ways to reduce the number of injuries.

Regards

Bushy

 

[cjmillsnun]

If there was a regular need to divert Eurostar away from HS1, they'd have kept the shoegear on the 373s. Dedicated high-speed lines don't require long possessions to maintain them in the same way that the 'classic' network does.

They also would've kept the dual range speedometers, they are km/h only now.

 

[Bald Rick]

They also would've kept the dual range speedometers, they are km/h only now.

Ah, but that's easily solved. Not only are Eurostar drivers bi-lingual, they also have their 1.609 times table off by heart from 0-100

 

[455driver]

The data for workforce injuries do not separate electrical injuries, presumably because they do not represent a significant proportion. One specific fatality is referred to, being a train driver electrocuted while inspecting his train.The number of electric shock injuries is a small proportion of the total injuries on the railway. Not that we should not attempt to reduce them but there are more cost effective ways to reduce the number of injuries.

Regards

Bushy

I remember reading the report on that one (if its the one I am thinking of), slack working practices and inappropriate clothing were the major causes of that one.

 

[Muzer]

Is the Basingstoke-Soton AC conversion still definitely happening? I'm sure I read somewhere a while back that it had been "reprioritised" or something to that effect to a lower priority...

 

[DY444]

Is the Basingstoke-Soton AC conversion still definitely happening? I'm sure I read somewhere a while back that it had been "reprioritised" or something to that effect to a lower priority...

It is dropping in priority. The original announcement very much gave the impression that it was a definite scheme in the programme as part of the so-called Electric Spine. My understanding now is that it is being treated as a "feasibility study" as the preliminary costings are starting to look scary and the potential benefits less than obvious when compared with what the money could be spent on. The dropping of the e-Voyager plan hasn't helped the case for conversion.

I have also heard it suggested that wiring via Laverstock instead of Winchester could be "substantially" cheaper even allowing for any age mitigation work on the dc route substations.

In my opinion (for what it is worth) if it happens at all it will be a long, long way down the list.

 

[snowball]

I have also heard it suggested that wiring via Laverstock instead of Winchester could be "substantially" cheaper even allowing for any age mitigation work on the dc route substations.

I don't know anything about service patterns in the south or the types of units that are used, but that sounds like a good idea, as with dual-current units it would allow electric trains from London to Salisbury, whilst also bringing the beginnings of 25kV to the area SW of London.

 

[Muzer]

The problem is the 159s/158s that are currently used there really suit the line very well. They frequently divide and join at Salisbury (three cars continuing to Exeter and the other three/six turning round and forming a service back to London), and provide a lot of operational flexibility. Introducing electric units between Waterloo and Salisbury would mean either:

* Long 159s (every other service) need to go all the way from Waterloo to Exeter (being a waste of diesel units and preventing many of them from being cascaded elsewhere, - there is not enough demand between Salisbury and Exeter for (in some cases) 9 cars, not to mention platform lengths), or
* The electric units would need to be able to couple to the 158s/159s (I don't think this is feasible, but someone correct me if I'm wrong), or
* Exeter services would have to be three cars all the way (which would represent a significant reduction in capacity between Waterloo and Salisbury), or
* An entirely new fleet of compatible diesel and electric units (is this possible?), or
* Exeter (and stations along the line) loses its through service to London (perhaps except for the peaks), platform 5 at Salisbury being reopened (or perhaps another platform being used) for a shuttle service.

None of these are amazingly good choices.

 

[ac6000cw]

The problem is the 159s/158s that are currently used there really suit the line very well. They frequently divide and join at Salisbury (three cars continuing to Exeter and the other three/six turning round and forming a service back to London), and provide a lot of operational flexibility. Introducing electric units between Waterloo and Salisbury would mean either:

* Long 159s (every other service) need to go all the way from Waterloo to Exeter (being a waste of diesel units and preventing many of them from being cascaded elsewhere, - there is not enough demand between Salisbury and Exeter for (in some cases) 9 cars, not to mention platform lengths), or
* The electric units would need to be able to couple to the 158s/159s (I don't think this is feasible, but someone correct me if I'm wrong), or
* Exeter services would have to be three cars all the way (which would represent a significant reduction in capacity between Waterloo and Salisbury), or
* An entirely new fleet of compatible diesel and electric units (is this possible?), or
* Exeter (and stations along the line) loses its through service to London (perhaps except for the peaks), platform 5 at Salisbury being reopened (or perhaps another platform being used) for a shuttle service.

None of these are amazingly good choices.

Sound like a good candidate for a bi-mode IEP (or, perish the thought, a modern diesel loco with automatic couplers to take the EMU on to Exeter - wait a minute, wasn't that what the class 33's used to do between Bournemouth and Weymouth....sorry, that's 'old railway' thinking isn't it )

 

[Muzer]

Ah, yes, that is another possibility, but I don't know whether or not there are any diesel locos suited to that route. Remember, the diesel locos previously used on it failed frequently due to the frequent stops west of Salisbury, hence the introduction of the 159s.

 

[ac6000cw]

To be honest, I suspect the solution would either use bi-mode units or west of Salisbury become an Exeter - Salisbury DMU shuttle.

I'm sure it would be technically feasible to couple (purpose designed) EMU's and DMU's together east of Salisbury (e.g. higher-powered EMU's hauling the DMU's as trailer cars, 4-REP style) but that might require a new build of unique EMU's just for that purpose.

 

[contrex]

I remember reading the report on that one (if its the one I am thinking of), slack working practices and inappropriate clothing were the major causes of that one.

If it's the one I am thinking of, there was another factor mentioned too, the same as at Eltham Well Hall in 1972.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Could an electrostar haul a turbostar as trailing coaches and vice versa? What about Desiros and 185s?

 

[455driver]

If it's the one I am thinking of, there was another factor mentioned too, the same as at Eltham Well Hall in 1972.

I read that one as well, a good example of how not to do it.

 

[HSTEd]

If you are going to electrify to Salisbury is there really any reason not just to bite the bullet and push to Exeter?
Its only 140km or so and its significantly signalled - electrification and faster accelerating units would be able to increase capacity measurably without the expensive restoration of more double track.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If you are going to electrify to Salisbury is there really any reason not just to bite the bullet and push to Exeter?
Its only 140km or so and its significantly signalled - electrification and faster accelerating units would be able to increase capacity measurably without the expensive restoration of more double track.

If Waterloo-Weymouth was converted to overhead and the Salisbury-Waterloo route was electrified with overhead it would possibly introduce possibilities such as Weymouth-Exeter (assuming enough paths exist). If they were to re-double the section between Dorch South and Morden, would it make much difference to the available paths between Weymouth and Poole? I don't know why it was singled but if I remember correctly at one time there wasn't so much juice available between Poole and Weymouth so it might have been done as a way of enforcing it so that there wasn't more trains south of Poole then the juice the 3rd rail could supply

 

[HSTEd]

Such a train would likely be a 3-car unit as anything esle is overkill.

Which means the conversion would probably not have to go forward completely to Weymouth as it would not make that much difference to the third rail (the train would draw something comparable to a Mk 1 EMU formation rather than the modern monsters).

 

[ac6000cw]

If you are going to electrify to Salisbury is there really any reason not just to bite the bullet and push to Exeter?
Its only 140km or so and its significantly signalled - electrification and faster accelerating units would be able to increase capacity measurably without the expensive restoration of more double track.

That would be the best solution, of course, but I suspect that unless/until an extension of the GWML electrification 'pays' for wiring Exeter St. Davids it might prove too expensive in relation to the business on offer along the route.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Don't know if practical as a future possibility a class 444 from Exeter to Southampton and a class 444 from Weymouth to Southampton, they couple at Southampton and head into Waterloo as a 10 car

 

[Muzer]

Sorry, how are you proposing getting a train from Exeter to Southampton unless more electrification and/or new curves than stated are done?

Having asked that, I'm not sure that even with electrification there will be enough space on the single-line sections between Exeter and Yeovil or Salisbury (depending on where you want to do it).

 

[cjmillsnun]

Don't know if practical as a future possibility a class 444 from Exeter to Southampton and a class 444 from Weymouth to Southampton, they couple at Southampton and head into Waterloo as a 10 car

Not going to happen. The WEML joins the SWML at Worting Junction (just S of Basingstoke). I think you'd need 10 cars from So'ton in the peak, and 10 from the WEML in the peak as well.

Off peak it wouldn't work either.

 

[TheGrew]

If you were going to do that the service from Exeter would have to go the long way round via Romsey rather than Andover which is bound to add at least 30 minutes. Capacity could be an issue too.

I like the idea of electrifying to Exeter though, I wonder if with electric traction and limited stops it could make the route competitive with the GWML realistically more double track would need to be reinstated though.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Muzer]

It doesn't really need to be competitive with the GWML - let's be real, here, there isn't really that much benefit of having two routes to Exeter from London for the sole purpose of competing with each other. It merely needs to be adequate for people for whom it's a more convenient route to Exeter than the GWML (in terms of fewer changes or just already quicker), and also work well enough as a diversionary route. For these reasons, I agree that it should have more double track and be electrified, but I don't think being competitive with the GWML should really come into it nowadays.

Having said that, if Chiltern were operating SWT, I might change my mind

 

[HSTEd]

That would be the best solution, of course, but I suspect that unless/until an extension of the GWML electrification 'pays' for wiring Exeter St. Davids it might prove too expensive in relation to the business on offer along the route.

As I understand it there are very few services from Exeter Central through to stations west of Exeter.

Therefore there would be no need to electrify Exeter St Davids, you could simply cut the electric service back to Exeter Central which as I understand it has a far far simpler layout.

 

[joeykins82]

Does anyone know when the refreshed Electrification RUS is due? In the 2009 version the high BCR case for Basingstoke-Exeter electrification is listed as "following cross-country electrification to Plymouth" suggesting that the costs for Exeter St David's would be allocated there (XC electrification after GWML, MML and North Cross-Pennine still has a BCR of 5.1).

 

[455driver]

As I understand it there are very few services from Exeter Central through to stations west of Exeter.

Therefore there would be no need to electrify Exeter St Davids, you could simply cut the electric service back to Exeter Central which as I understand it has a far far simpler layout.

Really good idea! :roll:
Where do the electric trains go to lay over?
At the moment they go to new yard (North of Exeter opposite Riverside yard) and terminating them at Central means they would no longer connect with the Plymouth train and people would have to change at central and st Davids just to save a few hundred yards of knitting!

 

[HSTEd]

Really good idea! :roll:
Where do the electric trains go to lay over?

There are platforms at Exeter central they could layover in?

At the moment they go to new yard (North of Exeter opposite Riverside yard) and terminating them at Central means they would no longer connect with the Plymouth train and people would have to change at central and st Davids just to save a few hundred yards of knitting!

How many people actually transfer from trains on the Waterloo-Exeter route onto trains that leave from St Davids?
And if a few hundred yards of knitting is so cheap why was the layout at Exeter St Davids listed as a major roadblock to the project?
EIther its so cheap you wouldn't even notice the cost or its rather expensive at which point I doubt the 'connections' angle can be justified.