Discussion on electrification and the Marlow branch

[HSTEd]

A 2x20m EMU would be usable elsewhere on the system though.

 

[RobShipway]

I think you're seriously confused here. FGW are helping finance the purchase of AT300s- essentially, class 800s with uprated/next evolution engines- for services to the West of England. These will have the same 25m carriages as the 801/800 and will be high speed units, in 5 & 9 car formations (as I understand it)

The only operator (at the moment) getting AT200s, using a 23m body length, is Scotrail. These will be pure EMUs for the Edinburgh - Glasgow (and associated lines) electrification, in 3 & 4 car configurations.

The idea, at all, of ordering a fleet of two (maybe three) two car emus- or even 3 car- for the Marlow Branch, used for what must be ~500,000 passenger journeys per year (can't simply add station usage figures as that would double-count many passengers) is simply fantasy- though clearly, something expensive will have to be done at some point, be it extensive reconfiguration or a micro-fleet. I'd imagine that Reading-Gatwick, being currently worked by ~70m three car turbos, could probably be worked by 80m 4-car EMUs as part of the Reading based fleet- by the time it comes to it, the 365s that are being cascaded may be on the point of replacement, so a larger fleet would be easy to order

If you look under the details under http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/at-200-regional_46.html the AT200 can be ordered in 20M - 26M car lengths.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Nope, not allowed (unless you can get a derogation), especially if it is replacing a straight platform (which means you wont get the derogation)!
Next idea!

I suspect you could extend the line about half a carriage's worth towards Marlow by moving the shelter elsewhere. The platform is almost long enough for three car trains as it is.

As long as the driver and guard could change ends, not opening the end door of the end carriage is also an option.

Bourne End is the bigger problem with the need to switch a point at the end of the platform.

 

[jopsuk]

If you look under the details under http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/at-200-regional_46.html the AT200 can be ordered in 20M - 26M car lengths.

Yes, it can. But FGW are buying AT300s, which are a different train.

Ordering 4-9 carriages of 20m AT200 would be very expensive per carriage. (much more expensive than, eg, a small order of 23m AT200- unless someone else orders a decent sized fleet of 20m ones)

 

[Aictos]

Why can't a 2 car DMU be "locked" to run Marlow to Bourne End only with a 4 car EMU running Bourne End to Maidenhead/London kinda of like the St Albans Abbey has the 321 arrive quite early in the morning then it shuttles back and to between Watford Jcn and St Albans Abbey.

That or just keep DMUs on the line but one to work Maidenhead to Bourne End and the other to work Bourne End to Marlow then just get people to change for London etc at Maidenhead.

 

[jopsuk]

As said, it is preferable from a passenger point of view to stay on the one train- but two trains, one on each half, is how the current peak time service works. This arrangement would be better if the station was a single faux-island for a cross platform change rather than a "round the ends" set up

 

[jimm]

If the scissors scheme happens at Bourne End, it is possible a slightly shorter new junction might be designed which could reclaim that 2m or so difference in unit length. It might also be possible to move the friction buffer-stop a couple of metres at the other end of platform 1. I don't know why there isn't a friction stop for platform 2, but with greater use of both platforms associated with a half hourly service passing at Bourne End a new buffer-stop will likely be required for platform 2 as well, placed with similar considerations. So in my opinion it seems likely 3x20m car trains could be accommodated on both platforms, with the additional starting signal as illustrated in my sketch http://www.townend.me/files/bourne-end2.pdf to cater for longer trains (with SDO) starting back towards Maidenhead for the limited through services to London.

It's not an 'if' - the money to make the alterations at Bourne End to increase the frequency by allowing trains to pass while changing direction in the station is already committed, even if the detailed design of the layout has yet to be decided.

More generally, I can't see any great rush to sort out the wiring issue on this line, as the Turbos have plenty of life left in them, but once further electrification cuts into the requirement for dmus to be based at Reading - especially if someone finally grasps the nettle of electrifying the North Downs line, which will account for most of the Turbo allocation after 2017 - then sorting it out will make sense as part of a drive to eliminate diesel traction from the area. Or an order for emus with 20m coaches could come along that a couple of three-car Marlow sets could be added to, driving wiring that way.

 

[phil281]

I was thinking, could a class 466 be altered to AC easily? As in fit a transformer and a pantograph and off it goes? If so surely that's the answer. GW could swap say 4 365's for 5 or 6 466's? Gives South Eastern a few more extra carriages for 12 vice 10 car trains and 8 vice 6.

6 466's could work:

1 on the Marlow - Maidenhead
1 on the Windsor Branch
1 on the Henley Branch
1 on to attach on to a 365 on a peak train off Henley and return
1 on to attach on to a 365 on a peak train at Bourne End and return
1 maintainace spare

165's can be released elsewhere.

 

[AM9]

I was thinking, could a class 466 be altered to AC easily? As in fit a transformer and a pantograph and off it goes? If so surely that's the answer. GW could swap say 4 365's for 5 or 6 466's? Gives South Eastern a few more extra carriages for 12 vice 10 car trains and 8 vice 6.

6 466's could work:

1 on the Marlow - Maidenhead
1 on the Windsor Branch
1 on the Henley Branch
1 on to attach on to a 365 on a peak train off Henley and return
1 on to attach on to a 365 on a peak train at Bourne End and return
1 maintainace spare

165's can be released elsewhere.

It would involve major reconstruction to make the structure crashworthy. Probably not worth it.

 

[phil281]

It would involve major reconstruction to make the structure crashworthy. Probably not worth it.

My question really is, is a 365 just a re-geared 465 with a pantograph or is it a completely different electrical design? My hunch is it is and then surely a 466 would be a simple conversion too. Has anyone got some evidence?

 

[HSTEd]

For those going on about two-car emus, the same article says it is very difficult to fit in all the kit necessary for a modern 25kv emu for the UK on and under two cars, never mind batteries. .

We don't need a "modern" 25kV EMU, we need a 25kV EMU suitable for short journeys.
Hell if you gave it corridor connections so it could be used in multiple with other units on other duties, it doesn't even need a toilet.
2 car 25kV EMUs have been done before by British Rail, with far bulkier equipment that we use today for traction equipment.

 

[JamesRowden]

I think that we have to conclude that although electrification of the Marlow branch during CP5 is possible, Network Rail have rightly come to the conclusion that it is better value to electrify other lines which have a better business case first.

 

[HSTEd]

Which means it will never be done.

 

[JamesRowden]

Which means it will never be done.

The microfleet factor will increase the business case for Marlow eletrification once the North Downs and the Berks and Hants lines have been electrified.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

My question really is, is a 365 just a re-geared 465 with a pantograph or is it a completely different electrical design?

It is in electrical terms, but they have a completely different roof structure - and integral construction, hence the problems with putting a pantograph well in one.

So while the 365 is a dual voltage 465, it's not economically possible to turn a 466 into, presumably, a 366.

 

[jimm]

We don't need a "modern" 25kV EMU, we need a 25kV EMU suitable for short journeys.
Hell if you gave it corridor connections so it could be used in multiple with other units on other duties, it doesn't even need a toilet.
2 car 25kV EMUs have been done before by British Rail, with far bulkier equipment that we use today for traction equipment.

And you know this because...? The person who wrote the article in Modern Railways used to be a senior manager in a rolling stock leasing firm, so I'd hazard a guess he does know what he is talking about when it comes to accommodating all the kit needed these days, as opposed to what BR did 50 years ago...

 

[Doctor Fegg]

So while the 365 is a dual voltage 465, it's not economically possible to turn a 466 into, presumably, a 366.

What about turning a 442 into a...

*runs away very fast*

 

[AM9]

We don't need a "modern" 25kV EMU, we need a 25kV EMU suitable for short journeys.
Hell if you gave it corridor connections so it could be used in multiple with other units on other duties, it doesn't even need a toilet.
2 car 25kV EMUs have been done before by British Rail, with far bulkier equipment that we use today for traction equipment.

It doesn't need a toilet anyway for such an insignificant journey time.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The 3 car EMU design solution for the Thames branches lies with whatever will be ordered new for the Welsh valleys. A follow on order is then expected to be the most cost effective way of sorting the issue out.

That is all presuming the Welsh go for a new build! But a 3 x 20m set is the current long term planning assumption here. That will allow a few four car sets to either migrate west or get used for even more growth.

 

[Waddon]

Seeing as we are talking about the Marlow branch, does anyone know if the original Crossrail plan of building a new platform at Maidenhead for the branch is going ahead? I know in the original plans it was necessary due to the number of proposed terminating services at Maidenhead, but that was before it was announced that some services were extended to Reading.

 

[MarkyT]

Seeing as we are talking about the Marlow branch, does anyone know if the original Crossrail plan of building a new platform at Maidenhead for the branch is going ahead? I know in the original plans it was necessary due to the number of proposed terminating services at Maidenhead, but that was before it was announced that some services were extended to Reading.

Even with only 2 Crossrail trains an hour terminating, having a separate platform to do that is useful and will help reliability and flexibility. As far as I understand the whole package of works including the new separate branch bay is to take place and is unaffected by the Reading extension for some Crossrail services.

 

[LT3001]

Not sure if this has been suggested already, but couldn't Southern lease 2 or 3 377/2s or /5s after they've been replaced at Thameslink to Great Western, and take a non-panto carriage out and extend some other units to 5 car? The 3 car electro can run on the branch, and Southern can boast about extended trains. Everybodys happy!

 

[Class377/5]

Not sure if this has been suggested already, but couldn't Southern lease 2 or 3 377/2s or /5s after they've been replaced at Thameslink to Great Western, and take a non-panto carriage out and extend some other units to 5 car? The 3 car electro can run on the branch, and Southern can boast about extended trains. Everybodys happy!

Apart from the DV 377s already having a future plan, the experiment to turn a four car 377 into a five car resulted in failure when Southern tried it before. Basically it needs a new software writing which isn't cheap especially for a couple of non standard units.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Apart from the DV 377s already having a future plan, the experiment to turn a four car 377 into a five car resulted in failure when Southern tried it before. Basically it needs a new software writing which isn't cheap especially for a couple of non standard units.

Why don't the manufacturers design them so that their units can have any number of coaches?

 

[Class377/5]

Why don't the manufacturers design them so that their units can have any number of coaches?

Because then they can sell you the software to change things. The Desiro City can change lengths but from anything between 3 to 12 cars.

 

[AM9]

The 3 car EMU design solution for the Thames branches lies with whatever will be ordered new for the Welsh valleys. A follow on order is then expected to be the most cost effective way of sorting the issue out.

That is all presuming the Welsh go for a new build! But a 3 x 20m set is the current long term planning assumption here. That will allow a few four car sets to either migrate west or get used for even more growth.

So if the electrification is finished before the Welsh stock is available (or even funded) there's 313/315s available that can easily do the job.

 

[swt_passenger]

The 3 car EMU design solution for the Thames branches...

Only the one branch, surely?

Working this up into some sort of solution based around short trains for all branches (as per post #128) is not necessary.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Not just the one branch is the current long term thinking. A four car 100mph unit is a bit generous on some of them but there is nothing else to be had, at the moment.

The idea that cl.313 units could be used was mooted by someone at the DfT until they were told that replacing a 1990's turbo with a tired 1970's EMU was not going to go down well at all with punters who pay quite a bit for their seasons.

The PEP stock are great people movers and serve the railway well but they have had their day. Time to move onto new build.

 

[AM9]

Not just the one branch is the current long term thinking. A four car 100mph unit is a bit generous on some of them but there is nothing else to be had, at the moment.

The idea that cl.313 units could be used was mooted by someone at the DfT until they were told that replacing a 1990's turbo with a tired 1970's EMU was not going to go down well at all with punters who pay quite a bit for their seasons.

The PEP stock are great people movers and serve the railway well but they have had their day. Time to move onto new build.

I did say that it would be until stock was available. As far as ticket prices go, those who have to use older stock in the southeast all have to pay the same so what's so special about the Marlowe lot?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Nothing special at all about Marlow punters but there is a general presumption in NSE land that you don't replace good stock with stuff that is 15 years older and not of the same quality.