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

[anthony263]

And lets face it although some of the class 315's look to be a bit battered they are still in better condition to some of the former Wessex class 150's especially when they were originally casaded to the Wales and Borders operations

 

[47802]

315s are only three years older than the first sprinters.

well first sprinters as in the prototypes if you want to be pedantic

 

[class26]

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.

Iran ?

if they will take Pacers surely they will take most DMU`s ?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Iran ?

if they will take Pacers surely they will take most DMU's ?

Yes, I suppose it would be correct to say that the non-Western world would accept much of our DMU fleet without worrying too much about the loading gauge or platform-train interface but I can't see the option actually ever changing the economics of buying new DMUs. If they were buying them new they would buy a standard UIC-gauge unit as the Germans are as it would be less expensive than buying a lower-volume unit designed for Great Britain. The problem of the new DMUs being a tiny fleet therefore still remains.

 

[HSTEd]

Each vehicle costs ~£1.5m - coincidentally the price of roughly one track kilometre of electrification.

So with 1 route kilometre per Pacer..... how many pacers could you eliminate?

 

[deltic08]

Each vehicle costs ~£1.5m - coincidentally the price of roughly one track kilometre of electrification.

So with 1 route kilometre per Pacer..... how many pacers could you eliminate?

I think that is a bit on the high side for track kilometres. £1.5M is more the cost of route kilometre. Government authorised GWML electrification only if costs were no more than £750k per track mile. That is why the high output train was ordered to bring cost down.

I totally agree that DMU shortage and Pacer withdrawal should be addressed by more electrification of local lines but in a quicker timescale

 

[HSTEd]

If that is the case - although GWML is now running crazily over budget - that would put it at roughly a route mile per vehicle.

~3km per Pacer replaced.....

We need another HOOP train.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think that is a bit on the high side for track kilometres. £1.5M is more the cost of route kilometre. Government authorised GWML electrification only if costs were no more than £750k per track mile. That is why the high output train was ordered to bring cost down.

The last electrification authorisation for which there is a specific figure is Lostock Jn-Wigan NW, announced by DfT as costing £37m.
This is 7 miles of simple double track, or about 22 single track km.
So that's about £1.7m per stkm, using a mobilised team with existing construction kit and standard Series 2 components.
I imagine there is no need for expensive power supplies, as they will be tapping into existing WCML/NW electrical infrastructure.
There are no resignalling or terminal complications to reach Wigan NW.

The Windermere branch is costed at £16m for 10 miles (16stkm) of single track, again with no complications.
So £1.0m per stkm for that.

Edit: Another guideline cost is the £12m for the "cheap, quick" electrification of the 5 miles (8km) of the Paisley Canal single track line.
So bang on £1.5m per stkm (and no complications/extra power supplies).

HOPS isn't any good for short branch lines like the Valleys.
Normal construction kit is being used on GW branch lines (including Didcot-Oxford and Reading-Newbury).
If they don't buy one for MML then other routes won't justify it either.
But it does beg the question as what the GW HOPS is going to do after it has finished wiring the GW in 2017.

 

[HSTEd]

Why would the HOOP train be no use on branches?
Some of the valley lines are 30km long or more?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why would the HOOP train be no use on branches?
Some of the valley lines are 30km long or more?

It's about the complications en route, like frequent stations and junctions.
Station areas will be done using traditional methods (as at Reading).
The HOPS only does piled foundations, and it's cheaper to do concrete foundations on lower-speed lines as in the NW project.
The GW route is also optimised to install high-speed Series 1 wiring good for 140mph, which is not needed on Series 2 100mph routes elsewhere (MML as a 125mph route could be different).
At least that's my take on it.

 

[HSTEd]

I suppose with valley lines you could potentially just shut the route for a few weeks and do the whole thing at once.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

---HOPS isn't any good for short branch lines like the Valleys. ----
If they don't buy one for MML then other routes won't justify it either.
But it does beg the question as what the GW HOPS is going to do after it has finished wiring the GW in 2017.

Derby -Penzance - well I can hope. or Felixtowe - Birmingham (I know -still hoping)

 

[Gareth Marston]

I suppose with valley lines you could potentially just shut the route for a few weeks and do the whole thing at once.

You would be better off doing the outer branches, one by one as a shut down I.e Abercynon to Aberdare then Abercynon to Merthyr etc that would keep disruption to passengers down to a minimum.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You would be better off doing the outer branches, one by one as a shut down I.e Abercynon to Aberdare then Abercynon to Merthyr etc that would keep disruption to passengers down to a minimum.

It apparently took 44 days to wire the Paisley Canal branch (5 miles of single track), from first foundation to powering on the OHLE, and didn't require closure of the line on weekdays apart from one 9-day possession to lower track under bridges.
But elsewhere the report says the work took 4/6 months so it's not completely clear what the Valleys timescale might be.
http://www.therailengineer.com/2012/12/03/paisley-canal-electrification/

The NW scheme is running at about 50 stkm (single track km) a year.

Wiring the outer Valleys branches first doesn't help get services started though.
You would need to wire an axis at a time I would have thought, and start from the GW wires at Cardiff Central.
Bridgend-Maesteg would also give you quick returns for a short job.

 

[Gareth Marston]

It apparently took 44 days to wire the Paisley Canal branch (5 miles of single track), from first foundation to powering on the OHLE, and didn't require closure of the line on weekdays apart from one 9-day possession to lower track under bridges.
But elsewhere the report says the work took 4/6 months so it's not completely clear what the Valleys timescale might be.
http://www.therailengineer.com/2012/12/03/paisley-canal-electrification/

The NW scheme is running at about 50 stkm (single track km) a year.

Wiring the outer Valleys branches first doesn't help get services started though.
You would need to wire an axis at a time I would have thought, and start from the GW wires at Cardiff Central.
Bridgend-Maesteg would also give you quick returns for a short job.

Yes the lines through Central and past Canton will need doing first maybe the first electrified service could be Penarth to Coryton to get training in whilst the rest is done.

 

[krus_aragon]

Slightly off topic - have there been any proposals to four track the bridge immediately north of Queen Street? As I understand it there is a fourth through platform going in which would enable the lines north of the station to be disentangled.

This was considered for the current improvements to Central/Queen St., but it was concluded that they could achieve the objective of 16tph through Queen St without replacing the bridge.

 

[The Ham]

1. Really I would interested to see a fuel cost comparison.

It is well known that diesel is more expensive than eletric running (otherwise why bother electrifying lines) However, on fingures that are in the public domain the 313's/314's are only more expensive on track access charges than the bubble cars and Pacers (and mark 1 coaches, but they then need a loco which pushes their prices up).

As such, unless tha valleys are going to keep the Pacers, the only cheap trains are the 313's/314's. However as a 313 can hold about twice as many passengers as a 142 the actual cost per seat per 100miles would be 7.18p for a 142 compared with 6.54p for the 313.

This then compares with 9p per seat per 100miles for a class 159 and an eye watering 17.18p per sear per 100miles for a clase 175 (both being three coaches), which is the likely range for a new build DMU.

 

[Solaris]

This was considered for the current improvements to Central/Queen St., but it was concluded that they could achieve the objective of 16tph through Queen St without replacing the bridge.

The Newport Rd bridge constraint is the reason, even with 16tph, you can't really get RT frequencies to heads of valleys. Trams, operating predominantly under line of sight, could deliver significantly higher frequencies on the network. Network extensions or capacity enhancements also require less capital than for HR.

 

[HSTEd]

Remove that constraint (4 track the bridge) and you could get 4-6tph to every valley line terminus.

Would likely have to double track the bay branch though to use it to turn back stock.

Operating under line of sight rules only is not a free lunch - you either have to reduce speeds on bends or you inherently compromise safety.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I really can't see people in say Treherbert being happy with a tram train all the way down to Cardiff or Barry.

And then of course you have the question of ticketing and if it would be integrated with the rest of the railway. As someone who often travels between the valleys and Bath, I would certainly not be happy about having to pay extra because someone has decided to change the valleys to trams to save money.

I suppose with valley lines you could potentially just shut the route for a few weeks and do the whole thing at once.

There is no chance in hell that would be a viable way of doing it.

Remove that constraint (4 track the bridge) and you could get 4-6tph to every valley line terminus.

I'd imagine you would have to redouble the Pontypridd - Treherbert section to be able to get that frequency up that way.

 

[Solaris]

Remove that constraint (4 track the bridge) and you could get 4-6tph to every valley line terminus.

Would likely have to double track the bay branch though to use it to turn back stock.

Operating under line of sight rules only is not a free lunch - you either have to reduce speeds on bends or you inherently compromise safety.

.[/QUOTE]

Manchester Metrolink, Croydon Tramlink, etc all operate line of site sanctioned by ORR. Bury-Victoria journey time is ~22 mins for 10 miles and 11 stops; trams run in those mode with speeds of 80kph? And yes they slow down on bends and unsighted sections (with some signal controls if required)

 

[Manchester77]

.

Manchester Metrolink, Croydon Tramlink, etc all operate line of site sanctioned by ORR. Bury-Victoria journey time is ~22 mins for 10 miles and 11 stops; trams run in those mode with speeds of 80kph? And yes they slow down on bends and unsighted sections (with some signal controls if required)[/QUOTE]

Bury - Victoria is still operated using ATS with TMS migration due to occur early next year following the completion of Victoria and theIrk Valley & Smedly Junctions. When roll out occur on this line it's expected that there are to be some indicators at the tunnel mouths to show whether the line is clear. It's expected that there will be a reduction in speeds along the Bury line when TMS is completed. If you wanted to use a better example you should have used the Oldham Rochdale Line with 50mph sections all LoS!

 

[Olaf]

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

I'm not sure why an electric vehicle should be considered life-expired at only 40 years, there is no official expiry date for the electric fleet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We have been based at Porthcawl in our hotel for the last eight days and on the local BBC TV news a few days ago, mention was made that a tramway system may be considered over these lines rather than the electrification that seemed to be the original option. Has anyone any further news as to why a different system is being considered ?

Would this be the item you saw?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-28679828

I do not know why the piece came into being, but it pre-empts the policy paper from the Welsh Government which will be the basis of future discussion of the project.

Mr Walmsley's input seems to be that of an interested amateur commentator, rather than a participant in the project judging from his LinkedIn page and photo sites:
http://www.whamart.co.uk/aboutme.htm

 

[Gareth Marston]

I'm not sure why an electric vehicle should be considered life-expired at only 40 years, there is no official expiry date for the electric fleet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Would this be the item you saw?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-28679828

I do not know why the piece came into being, but it pre-empts the policy paper from the Welsh Government which will be the basis of future discussion of the project.

Mr Walmsley's input seems to be that of an interested amateur commentator, rather than a participant in the project judging from his LinkedIn page and photo sites:
http://www.whamart.co.uk/aboutme.htm

Precisely it's a storm on the forum.

 

[Solaris]

Manchester Metrolink, Croydon Tramlink, etc all operate line of site sanctioned by ORR. Bury-Victoria journey time is ~22 mins for 10 miles and 11 stops; trams run in those mode with speeds of 80kph? And yes they slow down on bends and unsighted sections (with some signal controls if required)

Bury - Victoria is still operated using ATS with TMS migration due to occur early next year following the completion of Victoria and theIrk Valley & Smedly Junctions. When roll out occur on this line it's expected that there are to be some indicators at the tunnel mouths to show whether the line is clear. It's expected that there will be a reduction in speeds along the Bury line when TMS is completed. If you wanted to use a better example you should have used the Oldham Rochdale Line with 50mph sections all LoS!

Thanks

 

[NotATrainspott]

With the move to ETCS, and especially to Level 3, won't much of the cost differential between light and heavy rail signalling disappear? At Level 3 the signalling system consists of just the balises to tell the train where it is, the train itself knowing that it is still intact, and the GSM-R network transmitting virtual signal aspects to the train based upon that. No lineside signals, no axle counters, no track circuits, just the same sort of points machines that are needed for tram lines.

 

[eastwestdivide]

...
Mr Walmsley's input seems to be that of an interested amateur commentator, rather than a participant in the project judging from his LinkedIn page and photo sites:
http://www.whamart.co.uk/aboutme.htm

Not a participant necessarily, but also not your average amateur, as the linked site says

I work for Porterbrook Leasing as Engineering Development Manager, having been project manager for all the Porterbrook new builds of Class 139, 168/0, 170/2, 170/2, 170/3, 170/4, 170/5, 170/6, 357, 458 and 460. Before that I worked in South Wales for 11 years, mainly at Cardiff Canton but also at Landore and Cathays.

 

[MarkyT]

With the move to ETCS, and especially to Level 3, won't much of the cost differential between light and heavy rail signalling disappear? At Level 3 the signalling system consists of just the balises to tell the train where it is, the train itself knowing that it is still intact, and the GSM-R network transmitting virtual signal aspects to the train based upon that. No lineside signals, no axle counters, no track circuits, just the same sort of points machines that are needed for tram lines.

There are no level 3 ETCS systems working today anywhere or even available from any manufacturer at the moment, nor are they envisaged in the near future. The closest approximation is a custom system devised for a very sleepy rural route in Sweden.

ETCS is rather difficult to interface to older traction and braking control systems, which is why many European countries have cooperated in developing a variant known as 'limited supervision' (LS). That will allow Switzerland for instance to fully equip it's entire network before UK fits its first main line. Although retaining lineside signals, LS is not the same as Level 1. Level 1, just like level 2, requires the train to accurately monitor its position along the line using odometry, and to calculate a safe speed envelope using precise and up to date map data carried aboard or transmitted to the train. The management of this safety related data is a challenge not to be underestimated, and unlike car sat-nav maps if incorrect the data could lead very quickly to unsafe scenarios. LS by contrast provides standard ETCS loop and balise equipment at signals and critical positions on their approach. It uses this to trap trains over-speeding and passing reds in a very similar way to AWS/TPWS and other related classic protection systems like the German PZB in their respective countries. This functionality will be built into the European wide standards so a very modern unit that could run on standard level 2 could also run over an LS equipped line, but an older train with LS only could not run over lines (typically HS routes) using the more sophisticated levels. Conceivably LS could also be made to work without conventional lineside signals and with all neccessary indication transferred to the cab. Signals could then be replaced by standard ETCS block marker boards, but unlike level 2 their spacing would still be constrained more by braking capability.

The Valleys routes have been almost entirely resignalled fairly recently with modern computer based technology and trackside equipment that is compatible with electrification. The remaining complex areas around Cardiff Central and Queen Street still with 1960s signalling are due to be tackled soon, along with main line electrification and planned major layout alterations.

Despite its age, Network Rail has managed to modify a 313 unit for testing level 2 systems. I think an electrified Valleys network, equipped with 313s, could be an excellent pilot project for a UK ETCS-LS system, leading eventually to removal of the lineside signals, although the fairly modern fixed block train detection and underlying interlocking control systems would remain.

 

[HSTEd]

I have been following the ETCS "Regional" concept for quite a while.
It seems to have a lot of potential - since it basically implements the relatively simple parts of ETCS L3 without the insane moving block stuff.

It also eliminates all trackside cabling apart from the power leads.

We could really do with a trial scheme for this too.
Perhaps trial ETCS L1-LS on one branch, ETCS-R on another and put ETCS L2 on the others.

 

[Olaf]

Not a participant necessarily, but also not your average amateur, as the linked site says

His LinkedIn page says he is retired and lists the photo site as his current activity, so that I guess indicates that he has no direct involvement in the project:
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/ian-walmsley/7/6b3/762