Valley Lines electrification project...or not as may now be the case

[AM9]

Question: what proportion of electrification schemes in London and SE in the past 30 years came with new trains? (Projects funded by BAA do not count )

The response to this question is deafening!

 

[NSEFAN]

4. And reliability is not that important because if a unit decides it doesn't want to work one morning you have carriage sidings that stretch as far as the eye can see, all of them full of alternative units.

What is the failure rate of existing PEP-family stock? My understanding was that it's pretty low due to their fairly simple nature.

Secondly, are we assuming that there are many more PEP EMUs than needed for the valleys diagrams? Although having spare stock allows for higher reliability due to increased time for maintenance (see SWT and their class 159s), a train failing in service is still going to cause delays regardless of how many spare trains there are.

 

[edwin_m]

Aberthaw Power Station on Vale of Glamorgan, Tower Open Cast at the end of the Aberdare line and the open cast at Cwmbargoed off the Rhymney line all have daily trains and mean every single diagram in the Valleys except the Bay Shuttle shares tracks with heavy freight.

So, if you wanted to, you could enhance the train protection on these routes to allow tram-train operation and reduce the signalling on the rest of the Valley Lines to tramway standards (essentially only protecting junctions and preventing opposing moves on single lines). Ebbw Vale and Maesteg would remain worked by trains because of their use of the main line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think that my decision to open this thread, which was based on a news item on the local BBC TV news that I heard towards the end of last week at our holiday hotel in Porthcawl, appears to be justified considering the number of postings that were made on the very first day of the thread, which I have found most interesting in their expressed content.

 

[Solaris]

Over 60 years the biggest concern is the operating costs, subsidy and perhaps less so the capital.
Trams cost less to operate. Metrolink in Gtr Manchester runs without a day to day operational subsidy. The Valley lines post electrification for HR no matter what the rolling stock will still required an eye watering subsidy.

Re freight: well 4 or 5 coal movements per day on the valley lines to serve Aberthaw (which may or may not be operating post 2023). Running such a limited freight service with trams/LR is not an issues and has been managed on Tyne abnd Wear Metro.

VL converted to trams (as was the case in Manchester) offer lower cost operations, faster and more frequent services.. albeit I suspect it will costs a little more than VLE to convert to LR as a physical separation of modes will be required in central Cardiff.

Point re Ebbw Vale and Maesteg well made - not suitable for trams conversion. Trams could work on the core valley north of Cardiff Queen St, Bay line and perhaps Penarth.

The key driver is not so much the technology but the commercial and governance arrangements for operating services on that infrastructure...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Manchester Metrolink system, by its original use of existing heavy-rail platforms on the Manchester to Bury line and the Manchester to Altrincham line, is one of those systems that do not have ground-level access facilities and if the decision to retain all the existing heavy-rail platforms on the Valley Lines stations (how many stations would be involved ?), similar rolling stock would be required there.

 

[Solaris]

The Manchester Metrolink system, by its original use of existing heavy-rail platforms on the Manchester to Bury line and the Manchester to Altrincham line, is one of those systems that do not have ground-level access facilities and if the decision to retain all the existing heavy-rail platforms on the Valley Lines stations (how many stations would be involved ?), similar rolling stock would be required there.

Yes, in fact the new M5000 would be ideal on a converted valley lines running high floor trams as in Manchester....

 

[Haydn1971]

Yes, in fact the new M5000 would be ideal on a converted valley lines running high floor trams as in Manchester....

On the proviso they don't go any faster than 45mph - the Sale line is vomit inducing at 50mph

 

[Manchester77]

On the proviso they don't go any faster than 45mph - the Sale line is vomit inducing at 50mph

Yes they do they get up to 50 quite comfortably on the converted ORL and TfGM are taking steps to change profiles so that the ride on the Altrincham line is better

 

[455driver]

The Hitachi Bi mode IEP is essentially an electric that turns itself into a DMU and hundreds of carriages of them are being built,

The itchybitchy bimode has to have a raised floor in the passenger saloon so the engine (and all its associated emissions gubbins) can fit under the floor.

97 DMU Coradia Lints have just been ordered by the German Federal Government. Funny how the UK and German Governments have got around the emissions issue and are ordering fleet size underfloor DMU's.

How does their loading gauge compare to ours?
Can these run on our network without needing to 'trimmed' to fit?
If they need to be 'trimmed' how easy/hard/cheap/expensive would it be to do the necessary work?

 

[NotATrainspott]

97 DMU Coradia Lints have just been ordered by the German Federal Government. Funny how the UK and German Govternments have got around the emissions issue and are ordering fleet size underfloor DMU's.

Continental DMUs can be an entirely standard design, meaning there are the economies of scale to develop new compliant technologies. If the Germans buy them and then find they don't need them in 10 years they can simply sell them on to any other country in the world, while any GB DMUs are basically worthless elsewhere.

 

[Wolfie]

I don't think not wanting 40 year old stock which is essentially life expired can be described as gold plating everything

It is my understanding that phasing expenditure by spending on new electricification intrastructure first while using redeployed older rolling stock and then procuring new rolling stock later (up to about 10 years) is a well proven approach which has worked elsewhere.

The old Southern Railways/Southern region would then take bits off the 50 year old rolling stock resulting and incorporate them into "new" trains (cf the class 442 problems.....).

 

[47802]

It is my understanding that phasing expenditure by spending on new electricification intrastructure first while using redeployed older rolling stock and then procuring new rolling stock later (up to about 10 years) is a well proven approach which has worked elsewhere.

The old Southern Railways/Southern region would then take bits off the 50 year old rolling stock resulting and incorporate them into "new" trains (cf the class 442 problems.....).

Yes there have been some examples of that including West Yorkshire where I come from, but even there the 308's were replaced at 40 years old.

Somebody suggested a 321 demonstrator style refurb for such as 313/315's although I doubt such a refurb would be justified on such an old train, plus the MK2 design isn't the best, at least the MK3 based designs are meant to be fairly robust with good crashworthiness.

 

[59CosG95]

Yes there have been some examples of that including West Yorkshire where I come from, but even there the 308's were replaced at 40 years old.

Somebody suggested a 321 demonstrator style refurb for such as 313/315's although I doubt such a refurb would be justified on such an old train, plus the MK2 design isn't the best, at least the MK3 based designs are meant to be fairly robust with good crashworthiness.

The newly refurbished 317s could be used on the valleys-if, say, more 379s and some new Overground units were ordered to cascade them and the 315s away. And if the 315s had a full refurb (with DDA mods, door sounders and AC motors) à la the 317s and 455s, they would be good as a new train in the Valleys (by that, I mean one better than anything else they have to offer now).

 

[Manchester77]

Somebody suggested a 321 demonstrator style refurb for such as 313/315's although I doubt such a refurb would be justified on such an old train, plus the MK2 design isn't the best, at least the MK3 based designs are meant to be fairly robust with good crashworthiness.

The 313/315s are PEP based not mark II based. Mark IIs have steel bodies whereas the PEP stock have good aluminium bodies.

 

[MarkyT]

The 313s and other PEP based designs have aluminium bodyshells. As well as being lighter than steel, aluminium is also much more resistant to corrosion, contributing to the units' longevity. Although not record breakers in this respect they are also comparatively reliable. A heavy refurb of the interiors and fitting of modern information systems together with wi-fi could produce a very modern looking functional train, that could be indistinguishable from a new train if done well. There are no toilets to worry about, which shouldn't be too much of a problem for typical journey length on the Valleys network, and it's unlikely that any alternative tram based replacements for the current diesel fleet would have toilets either.

The ideal scenario for the Valleys would be for a fully refurbished 31x fleet to be deployed in the medium term, growing the business such that a new train or tram order can be better justified in the future. I don't think the passenger cares and certainly most wouldn't have a clue of the real age of a rail vehicle (unless a big fuss about such things is made by politicians and the media), as long as it is attractively fitted out inside, clean and reliable. I think the 313 exterior also looks quite modern too - their 70s styling has aged well.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Question: what proportion of electrification schemes in London and SE in the past 30 years came with new trains? (Projects funded by BAA do not count )

The original Thameslink came with new 319s didn't it, with its few hundred yards of new 3rd rail?
The ELL got 378s.
WLL also got various new stock on Southern services, and Eurostars .
HS1 got 395s.
King's Cross outers got the recycled Thameslink 317s.

PS Stansted got new 322s.

 

[Solaris]

The Q is do you spend £Ms on a capital upgrade (VLE) only to leave a heavily subsidised network (if HR)

Or do you spend perhaps a little more £M (perhaps phased) and convert the whole core valley network to tram (again perhaps phased) which can run at low/perhaps even zero operational subsidy and offer higher frequencies and shorter journey times (driving higher demand) at the same time.....

 

[Class377/5]

The original Thameslink came with new 319s didn't it, with its few hundred yards of new 3rd rail?
The ELL got 378s.
WLL also got various new stock on Southern services, and Eurostars .
HS1 got 395s.
King's Cross outers got the recycled Thameslink 317s.

PS Stansted got new 322s.

You missed the whole point of the question.

Question: what proportion of electrification schemes in London and SE in the past 30 years came with new trains? (Projects funded by BAA do not count )

None of the things you listed counts under the question posted.

The possible argument of Thameslink which actually wasn't an electrification scheme but rebuilding the railway on disused land.

 

[HSTEd]

I doubt you will be able to run the Valleys with zero subsidy.

Metrolink only manages this because it avoids taking on basket case lines.
Light rail is not a panacea and has some serious down-sides.
Not sure how it will get shorter journey times when its top speed will be lower than the heavy rail stock and it won't be that much quicker off the mark than the PEP stock would be.....

Also there are the concerns over what happen if the network is really succesful - you will run into power supply and capacity limitations quite quickly.
How many trams does it take to match a 313 in capacity terms? Let alone a 315....


And pretty sure the WLL and ELL were electrified long before the 1980s......

 

[MarkyT]

The Q is do you spend £Ms on a capital upgrade (VLE) only to leave a heavily subsidised network (if HR)

Or do you spend perhaps a little more £M (perhaps phased) and convert the whole core valley network to tram (again perhaps phased) which can run at low/perhaps even zero operational subsidy and offer higher frequencies and shorter journey times (driving higher demand) at the same time.....

I don't see how a tram network would be significantly cheaper than heavy rail to operate. You would still have drivers, and the vehicles would need maintenance just the same. The big advantage of trams, or more likely 'tram trains' in the Valleys would be the ability to extend the network affordably to places heavy rail could not get to, on street, partially segregated reservations or lightly built interurban branches further out where level crossings would be acceptable unlike heavy rail.

 

[Bald Rick]

And pretty sure the WLL and ELL were electrified long before the 1980s......

ELL yes, but WLL was done for the tunnel freight traffic in 1993 , and the passenger service was operated on opening by... Class 313s. Which were perfectly adequate until Westfield opened.

 

[AM9]

The original Thameslink came with new 319s didn't it, with its few hundred yards of new 3rd rail?
The ELL got 378s.
WLL also got various new stock on Southern services, and Eurostars .
HS1 got 395s.
King's Cross outers got the recycled Thameslink 317s.

PS Stansted got new 322s.

When the MML from Bedford to STP was electrified in the early '80s, there were no outer suburban EMUs available anywhere. When the Thameslink core between Blackfriars and Farringdon via the Snow Hill tunnels was wired, as a DC/AC line, there weren't any suitable dual voltage trains available anywhere. The 319s were supplied new and 317s which were less than 10 years old, passed over to the GN lines as you say for the outer suburban service on the ECML.
The WLL was (with bits of the NLL) until the '80s a hotch potch of DMU & 3rd rail EMUs (from the Broad Street end). When BR decided to sell the Broad Street site to the developers, they installed a single chord from the West Anglian line westwards to the NLL near Dalston Kingsland, allowing access from Liverpool St. This necessitated AC stock which was part of the decision to provide 313s for the NLL.
When the Stanstead access was built in 1991, there were no suitable trains available for the service so the 322s were supplied as a variation of the 321s that were being deployed elsewhere on the GE lines.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You missed the whole point of the question.
None of the things you listed counts under the question posted.
The possible argument of Thameslink which actually wasn't an electrification scheme but rebuilding the railway on disused land.

What point would that be?
Every one of the lines I listed was electrified/newly built since 1984, and is in London and the SE.
Thameslink 1 got 86 new trains even though there were perfectly usable electric trains in use on the northern and southern ends, without the bit in the middle.

By WLL I meant the West London line, in case anyone was confused, electrified as part of the Channel Tunnel routes scheme.

 

[AM9]

ELL yes, but WLL was done for the tunnel freight traffic in 1993 , and the passenger service was operated on opening by... Class 313s. Which were perfectly adequate until Westfield opened.

The ELL was part of the Underground Metropolitan Line until 2007.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What point would that be?
Every one of the lines I listed was electrified/newly built since 1984, and is in London and the SE.
Thameslink 1 got 86 new trains even though there were perfectly usable electric trains in use on the northern and southern ends, without the bit in the middle.

So without suitable trains, the "bit in the middle" wouldn't work!

By WLL I meant the West London line, in case anyone was confused, electrified as part of the Channel Tunnel routes scheme.

Are you saying that the Eurostar stock was provided new in 1993 for the WLL DC electrification? The WLL services joined those of the NLL services requiring provision of enough AC/DC stock to run the whole timetable. Once again, there were no 313s or equivalent to cascade.

 

[HSTEd]

Thameslink 1 got 86 new trains even though there were perfectly usable electric trains in use on the northern and southern ends, without the bit in the middle.

Would you suggest that Thameslink should not have happened at all then?

 

[Class377/5]

What point would that be?
Every one of the lines I listed was electrified/newly built since 1984, and is in London and the SE.
Thameslink 1 got 86 new trains even though there were perfectly usable electric trains in use on the northern and southern ends, without the bit in the middle.

By WLL I meant the West London line, in case anyone was confused, electrified as part of the Channel Tunnel routes scheme.

I bolded the question in my last reply. I note your suddenly adding newly built. That wasn't part of the question that Bald Rich posted. Simply changing the question asked doesn't make the point your trying to force on the thread relevant (north vs London).

 

[47802]

The 313s and other PEP based designs have aluminium bodyshells. As well as being lighter than steel, aluminium is also much more resistant to corrosion, contributing to the units' longevity. Although not record breakers in this respect they are also comparatively reliable. A heavy refurb of the interiors and fitting of modern information systems together with wi-fi could produce a very modern looking functional train, that could be indistinguishable from a new train if done well. There are no toilets to worry about, which shouldn't be too much of a problem for typical journey length on the Valleys network, and it's unlikely that any alternative tram based replacements for the current diesel fleet would have toilets either.

The ideal scenario for the Valleys would be for a fully refurbished 31x fleet to be deployed in the medium term, growing the business such that a new train or tram order can be better justified in the future. I don't think the passenger cares and certainly most wouldn't have a clue of the real age of a rail vehicle (unless a big fuss about such things is made by politicians and the media), as long as it is attractively fitted out inside, clean and reliable. I think the 313 exterior also looks quite modern too - their 70s styling has aged well.

Ok yes I stand corrected about the aluminium design, however If the 313's are so good with loads of like left in them as you seem to think maybe TSGN should keep them and not replace them. Personally I would rate them worse than a Railbus.

I will also make this point again in many peoples eyes I don't think its acceptable to say we can spend 40 billion on HS2 but then turn round and say a major city like Cardiff can have electrification but only if it has 40 year old junk trains

 

[Manchester77]

Ok yes I stand corrected about the aluminium design, however If the 313's are so good with loads of like left in them as you seem to think maybe TSGN should keep them and not replace them. Personally I would rate them worse than a Railbus

Because the great northern routes need more capacity not provided by 313-313 services hence why new build fixed 6 car trains are being procured. The 313s are staying on coastway services.

 

[deltic08]

The 313s and other PEP based designs have aluminium bodyshells. As well as being lighter than steel, aluminium is also much more resistant to corrosion, contributing to the units' longevity. Although not record breakers in this respect they are also comparatively reliable. A heavy refurb of the interiors and fitting of modern information systems together with wi-fi could produce a very modern looking functional train, that could be indistinguishable from a new train if done well. There are no toilets to worry about, which shouldn't be too much of a problem for typical journey length on the Valleys network, and it's unlikely that any alternative tram based replacements for the current diesel fleet would have toilets either.

The ideal scenario for the Valleys would be for a fully refurbished 31x fleet to be deployed in the medium term, growing the business such that a new train or tram order can be better justified in the future. I don't think the passenger cares and certainly most wouldn't have a clue of the real age of a rail vehicle (unless a big fuss about such things is made by politicians and the media), as long as it is attractively fitted out inside, clean and reliable. I think the 313 exterior also looks quite modern too - their 70s styling has aged well.

I agree, but the public particularly daily commuting public is more savvy than you or politicians think. An old train is instantly recognisable despite refurbs.
Don't try and disguise it. Just be honest and tell them these trains are all that can be afforded with installation of overheads. They will go with it just to replace Pacers.