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

[HSTEd]

If a 315 is worse than a railbus..... great
We can scrap this whole scheme and things can carry on as they are.

 

[deltic08]

If a 315 is worse than a railbus..... great
We can scrap this whole scheme and things can carry on as they are.

You are teasing. Even without refurb and a toilet a 315 is a much better experience than a Pacer. Ask any victim of Pacer commuting.

 

[HSTEd]

You are teasing. Even without refurb and a toilet a 315 is a much better experience than a Pacer. Ask any victim of Pacer commuting.

See post #60

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You are teasing. Even without refurb and a toilet a 315 is a much better experience than a Pacer. Ask any victim of Pacer commuting.

To be fair to HSTEd, he does not have those elderly railbuses in his area and can only rely upon the nightmare stories related by forum members in those areas still infected by this particular mode of rail transport.

 

[NotATrainspott]

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.

What exactly makes a train 'new' in the minds of Jane/Joe Public? 'New' trains have nice features like PIS systems (so you couldn't keep the manual destination blinds, and would need to fit something inside), WiFi, power sockets, modern seating and are generally cleaner and less worn on the inside than the Pacers or other old stock. J Public doesn't care that the traction package is obsolete (so long as it doesn't spontaneously combust, a la the 442s) or where they've come from, especially when you compare them against what they've got at the moment. If you really wanted to push the boat out you could fit air conditioning modules on the roof and replace all the windows with fixed panes. At that point the only definitively old feature about them from a passenger perspective, compared to the Thameslink 700s, is that they don't have the full-width internal gangways that are now not uncommon on brand new commuter stock. If you asked the people of Merseyside whether they're happy with their heavily upgraded 508s I think you'll find they are perfectly happy with them, and they would prefer to keep them rather than replace them with a smaller fleet of replacements. Most of the moping about the Northern 319s is that because of DfT incompetence they will enter service in an unrefurbished state, rather than intrinsic faults with the idea of them getting the 319s.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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).

I have no such views.

I well remember the DfT around 1990 defending the £1billion spend on the Channel Tunnel routes (it was the saintly Portillo or his boss Parky) which had stripped the investment for the rest of BR bare for a couple of years.
This was for Eurostars, Waterloo, North Pole and the route upgrades including the WLL and Redhill-Tonbridge electrification.
Their view was "it's all spend on the UK railway".
You can't just "forget" that spend in the South East, or the later spend on HS1 and its new trains.

Mr Rick raised his question with a and my reply was in similar vein.

 

[deltic08]

See post #60

Yes I agree and so do 91% of Leeds commuters who would prefer electrification and better trains than HS2 but nevertheless 313/315/319 units are still better than Pacers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What exactly makes a train 'new' in the minds of Jane/Joe Public? 'New' trains have nice features like PIS systems (so you couldn't keep the manual destination blinds, and would need to fit something inside), WiFi, power sockets, modern seating and are generally cleaner and less worn on the inside than the Pacers or other old stock. J Public doesn't care that the traction package is obsolete (so long as it doesn't spontaneously combust, a la the 442s) or where they've come from, especially when you compare them against what they've got at the moment. If you really wanted to push the boat out you could fit air conditioning modules on the roof and replace all the windows with fixed panes. At that point the only definitively old feature about them from a passenger perspective, compared to the Thameslink 700s, is that they don't have the full-width internal gangways that are now not uncommon on brand new commuter stock. If you asked the people of Merseyside whether they're happy with their heavily upgraded 508s I think you'll find they are perfectly happy with them, and they would prefer to keep them rather than replace them with a smaller fleet of replacements. Most of the moping about the Northern 319s is that because of DfT incompetence they will enter service in an unrefurbished state, rather than intrinsic faults with the idea of them getting the 319s.

Very profound.

 

[Class377/5]

I have no such views.

I well remember the DfT around 1990 defending the £1billion spend on the Channel Tunnel routes (it was the saintly Portillo or his boss Parky) which had stripped the investment for the rest of BR bare for a couple of years.
This was for Eurostars, Waterloo, North Pole and the route upgrades including the WLL and Redhill-Tonbridge electrification.
Their view was "it's all spend on the UK railway".
You can't just "forget" that spend in the South East, or the later spend on HS1 and its new trains.

Mr Rick raised his question with a and my reply was in similar vein.

You can forget if your attempting to claim what you did. As was pointed out most of what you typed was wrong. If you can't see that then I can't be bother to argue the point with you (and keep the thread going around in circles).

 

[anthony263]

I travelled from Moorgate yesterday on a 313 to Drayton park and as a welshman who has travelled the Cardiff Valley lines network I can say these 313/315's are far better than a pacer.

The class 313 I was on is that it required a major deep clean and perhaps new seat covers and flooring etc to make it look more modern and cleaner

 

[Wolfie]

I travelled from Moorgate yesterday on a 313 to Drayton park and as a welshman who has travelled the Cardiff Valley lines network I can say these 313/315's are far better than a pacer.

The class 313 I was on is that it required a major deep clean and perhaps new seat covers and flooring etc to make it look more modern and cleaner

There are essentially two lots of 313s operating on the Moorgate line. Some which FCC refurbished (not to the extent that Southern did) with high back seats etc and some which transferred over from London Overground and still have the original seats etc. The latter provide a far less pleasant ambiance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Having said that any 313 is an order of magnitude better than a mobile hen coop aka a Pacer.....

 

[47802]

I travelled from Moorgate yesterday on a 313 to Drayton park and as a welshman who has travelled the Cardiff Valley lines network I can say these 313/315's are far better than a pacer.

The class 313 I was on is that it required a major deep clean and perhaps new seat covers and flooring etc to make it look more modern and cleaner

Well if you want them on the valleys best of luck as long as they don't come up north, oh the 313's that I was with the low backed seats would need a complete new interior as far as I'm concerned, and even then would be nothing like a modern air con unit, and there the question of reliability of a 40+ year old train.

Yes from a ride point of the 313's are going to be better, but having been on a couple of GN services a couple a months ago. I would describe them as dirty old and decrepit. OK southern did appear to spend a fair bit on a reasonable refurb for South Coast 313's, although we are talking about a refurb for trains that will be another 8 years older than when the southern units were refurbed.

 

[HSTEd]

Would you rather have one modern carriage or two or even three Cl31x carriages?

That is pretty much the choice.

Also pretty sure the PEP units still have better reliability than a bunch of diesel units.

 

[Gareth Marston]

On a scale of 1 to 10 then

The current Pacer/150 service = 2
Wires and unrefurbished 313/315's = 3.5
Wires and refurbished 313/315's = 5
Wires and tram trains= 7
Wires and brand new EMU's with air con and wifi = 9

You pay more for where you go up the scale, I rate the tram train lower due to capacity and lack of customer service presence.

 

[Bald Rick]

What about wires and refurbed / retractioned trains with aircon and wifi?

 

[47802]

What about wires and refurbed / retractioned trains with aircon and wifi?

Well you might get that on a 319 but I very much doubt you will get that level of refurbishment on a 313/315 and if you do you probably end up keeping them until they are 60 years old!

 

[Drsatan]

Well you might get that on a 319 but I very much doubt you will get that level of refurbishment on a 313/315 and if you do you probably end up keeping them until they are 60 years old!

Slightly off topic, but many of the coaches involved in the derailment near Tiefencastel in Switzerland were 30-40 years old, judging by the photographs I've seen, yet still look modern, and feel modern to travel on. Even the RABDe 12/12 EMUs (built in the late 1960s, all withdrawn by 2008) were serviceable after a heavy refurbishment in the mid 1990s.

Cascading older units for newly-electrified lines isn't without precedent - when the West Yorkshire electrification project was completed in 1994 304s were cascaded to operate services there. Whether WAG will fund the purchase of new EMUs is a moot point.

 

[NSEFAN]

Well you might get that on a 319 but I very much doubt you will get that level of refurbishment on a 313/315 and if you do you probably end up keeping them until they are 60 years old!

Age isn't necessarily a problem. The Island Line trains date from 1938 but keep going because they are well maintained. Whether or not Canton will do this is another matter.

 

[21C101]

Age isn't necessarily a problem. The Island Line trains date from 1938 but keep going because they are well maintained. Whether or not Canton will do this is another matter.

Have they still got one of the 1924 stock. I recall they kept one for the occasional outing when the 1938 stock replaced them.

Ironic that the 1938 stock is older than most of the locos and coaches used on preserved railways. And not subject to 25mph limit either!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would you rather have one modern carriage or two or even three Cl31x carriages?

That is pretty much the choice.

Also pretty sure the PEP units still have better reliability than a bunch of diesel units.

Far better to refurbish the 313s than buy new stock and have less money to electrify more lines. The PEP ride is pretty good. I can recall choosing the ex PEP coach in 455s with a PEP coach because it was better.

 

[Solaris]

Seems to me that the HR focus is wrong...
Core valleys is compact network with stations ~1.5 miles apart on average (on Rhondda branches <1 mile)
Network could be completely separated from HR in central Cardiff with minimal on-street sections
Electrification costs would be lower for 750/1500 DC LR vs 25Kv HR
On current network you could run more trams than HR (different ORR standards and Line of sight signalling as in Manchester)
Higher frequencies will drive higher demand and so revenue
Typical 3 car arctic tram can hold 250 people
OPcosts are lower (HR, maintenance, etc) for LR Vs HR
LR network more easily extended
Conversion to LR may have higher conversion capital cost but can run with much lower day to day operational subsidy or even 0 subsidy as in Manchester.
Likely to be better value over the longer term ,,,, and you get more for your money??
Anyone?

 

[edwin_m]

Seems to me that the HR focus is wrong...
Core valleys is compact network with stations ~1.5 miles apart on average (on Rhondda branches <1 mile)
Network could be completely separated from HR in central Cardiff with minimal on-street sections
Electrification costs would be lower for 750/1500 DC LR vs 25Kv HR
On current network you could run more trams than HR (different ORR standards and Line of sight signalling as in Manchester)
Higher frequencies will drive higher demand and so revenue
Typical 3 car arctic tram can hold 250 people
OPcosts are lower (HR, maintenance, etc) for LR Vs HR
LR network more easily extended
Conversion to LR may have higher conversion capital cost but can run with much lower day to day operational subsidy or even 0 subsidy as in Manchester.
Likely to be better value over the longer term ,,,, and you get more for your money??
Anyone?

I think you are largely right, but there would need to be a bigger spend on new trams instead of cascaded trains. With this being at the same time as electrification it might strain the Welsh government budget somewhat.

On a couple of detail issues:

It was pointed out above that freight still operates on some routes and I doubt it would be politically acceptable to ban this, so these routes would still require signalling and other measures to allow track sharing by tram-trains and freight. However as you say most of the signalling would be redundant on the rest of the Valley network.

Although 750V electrification may be cheaper for urban areas it becomes less so for longer distance routes where the losses to electrical resistance become more significant and in less urban areas it may be more difficult to provide grid feeds to the frequent substations. Tram-trains (including the Sheffield ones) can have the ability to run off 25kV and there is one tram-train route in France that uses 25kV from end to end (although a street extension is proposed that would use 750V). There may be some saving by using a simple style of 25kV overhead suitable for the lower speeds and current demands of tram-trains.

 

[HSTEd]

A 3 car articulated tram can hold 250 people in the same sense that you can pack several hundred people into a Pacer.

For example the 5-section 33m articulated trams on NET only have 58 seats and are licenced for ~130 standees.

Almost all the savings from light rail conversion would be attained by electrification and going to DOO - and the electrification costs are not actually that much lower.


And as to subsidies - Metrolink is far more heavily travelled than the rest of the Northern network so it is not a fair comparison.
If you allow uncontrolled fares and have no rural sections of course you are going to need less subsidy.

IMO it should remain a 'heavy rail' system - operating first with Class 31x and then with something conceptually similar to S-stock.

 

[ac6000cw]

Slightly off topic, but many of the coaches involved in the derailment near Tiefencastel in Switzerland were 30-40 years old, judging by the photographs I've seen, yet still look modern, and feel modern to travel on. Even the RABDe 12/12 EMUs (built in the late 1960s, all withdrawn by 2008) were serviceable after a heavy refurbishment in the mid 1990s.

Cascading older units for newly-electrified lines isn't without precedent - when the West Yorkshire electrification project was completed in 1994 304s were cascaded to operate services there. Whether WAG will fund the purchase of new EMUs is a moot point.

Getting the wires up (and doing re-signallling/track layout alterations) first as one project, and then running services with existing rolling stock is historically normal practice.

The WCML electrification basically resulted in the existing coaching stock being hauled by elecric locos (suburban services had to be new EMUs, since this was the first 25kV electrification in the country !). Waterloo-Bournemouth was mostly re-cycled LHCS to create 4TC+4REP sets (and the Southern railway had a long history of re-cycling old stock into 'new' EMUs as it extended electrification in the 1920s & 1930s). More recently, Colchester-Norwich electrification basically replaced 47s with ex-WCML 86s (and the coaching stock has long been cascades from elsewhere, mostly ex-WCML). The Stansted/Royston - Cambridge - Kings Lynn area electrification (done in three pieces to keep the cost of each part under a Treasury limit) was all covered by 'stretching' existing fleets as far as I remember, it even had old Mk1s hauled by 86s on the Liverpool Street fast trains for a while !

So put the wires up now, then replace the trains with new/newer ones when more money is available - if you insist on having both together you might end up with neither.....

 

[NotATrainspott]

Looking at OpenStreetMap it appears a suitable first candidate for light rail conversion would be the Coryton and Cardiff Bay lines. With minimal expenditure it would be possible to run these as tram-train lines, using the 25kV AC between Queen Street and Heath and running on 750V DC for street running sections around the Bay. Extra stations between Queen Street and Heath would be very useful as the area isn't well-served by rail.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Getting the wires up (and doing re-signallling/track layout alterations) first as one project, and then running services with existing rolling stock is historically normal practice.
...

I can think of a fair few historical counter-examples: e.g. King's Cross suburban (late 70s) had the 312s and 313s new, St Pancras-Bedford the 317s new, and further back, Kent Coast in the early 60s 4-CEP/4-BEP new, ditto London-Tilbury-Southend, and much of the inner GE electrification from Liverpool St.

All of which is a long way from S Wales.

 

[3141]

I think the only (relatively) recent electrification scheme that came with new trains was Thameslink.

If existing trains are available for a new scheme, it would be wasteful not to use them, and as stated above and in several earlier posts, anyone insisting on brand new trains may end up with no electrification either.

Let's hope therefore that no-one is actually able to "insist" on brand new trains for the Welsh valleys. But no doubt there'll be a lot of bleating from press and politicians.

As for the class 313s, the interest in them that's been reported will most probably include an engineering assessment that will find out whether they could be used or not. One previous post described them as "clapped out", but their age doesn't automatically mean that they've reached the end of the line. Some of the BR slam-door stock from the Kent Coast electrification scheme was about 48 years old when it was finally withdrawn.

 

[HSTEd]

Looking at OpenStreetMap it appears a suitable first candidate for light rail conversion would be the Coryton and Cardiff Bay lines. With minimal expenditure it would be possible to run these as tram-train lines, using the 25kV AC between Queen Street and Heath and running on 750V DC for street running sections around the Bay. Extra stations between Queen Street and Heath would be very useful as the area isn't well-served by rail.

Problem with that is that tram-trains will have to have drastically increased frequencies to supply anything like the same capacity.
Which will run you into problems that will likely prevent any additional stations on 'core sections' very rapidly.

This is the advantage of 80m trains compared to 33m ones.
You will also put your crewing costs through the roof.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I can think of a fair few historical counter-examples: e.g. King's Cross suburban (late 70s) had the 312s and 313s new, St Pancras-Bedford the 317s new, and further back, Kent Coast in the early 60s 4-CEP/4-BEP new, ditto London-Tilbury-Southend, and much of the inner GE electrification from Liverpool St.
All of which is a long way from S Wales.

Not only that, but BR used these schemes to modernise rolling stock standards.
The WCML electrification actually used new dual-braked, dual-heated Mk2 stock, and BR rapidly cascaded/retired the Mk1 vacuum brake stock.
It took them about 15 years to work the same process on other newly electrified lines, before vacuum brakes and steam heating were eliminated.
The same process is at work today as standards evolve.
It won't be long before trains are scrapped because it is not worth the expense of fitting them with ETCS.
This could well soon impact Valley lines trains which work along the SWML (by soon I mean early 2020s, when the GW main line will have ERTMS).

 

[HSTEd]

Well the way things are going you could probably arrange for the GW relief lines used by these services to have a conventional signal overlay that remains in place. (Remember the GW scheme is not pure ETCS to start with).

 

[Busaholic]

Problem with that is that tram-trains will have to have drastically increased frequencies to supply anything like the same capacity.
Which will run you into problems that will likely prevent any additional stations on 'core sections' very rapidly.

This is the advantage of 80m trains compared to 33m ones.
You will also put your crewing costs through the roof.

West Croydon to Wimbledon, Southern Region, electrified with 2-coach trains, for last decade of its life down to a 45 minute service. Close it down and re-open it in 2000 as part of a new tram network with trams every few minutes and watch the passenger numbers grow and grow, to the extent that single track sections have to be doubled to achieve maximum possible headways. When this happens your crewing costs are more than met by the increased patronage - I claim no knowledge as to whether this might be possible in the Valleys, just offer it as an example of what can be achieved.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, but that just shows what boosting service intensities can do.
That is not an example of Light rail triumphing over the heavy rail dinosaur.

For a case in point just look at the Overground network - especially GOBLIN.