Network Rail upgrade delayed by government (BBC News Article)

[Taunton]

Their reports on future rolling stock say they want to pre-emptively go to a more standard voltage and see fleet renewal as an opportune time, also says that the 1.5kv Dc equipment being obsolete is expensive to maintain or replace.

1,500v DC is standard in Australia and New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands and much of France (including some of the RER). Tyne & Wear always seems similar in scale and style to Dart in Dublin. If they can buy it we can buy it.

 

[6Gman]

Politics gets in the way of everything.

And politics facilitates things.

 

[po8crg]

1,500v DC is standard in Australia and New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands and much of France (including some of the RER). Tyne & Wear always seems similar in scale and style to Dart in Dublin. If they can buy it we can buy it.

Indeed, but I suspect they mean the specific equipment they have on T&W Metro. Switching to some other manufacturer of kit would mean replacing whole whatevers rather than just the broken part.

If they can get dual-voltage 750V / 1500V rolling stock that is suitable for road-running (ie tram-trains), then they can switch voltage a section at a time when the OHLE needs replacing.

They might even consider triple voltage rolling stock (with 25kV AC) so that the Network Rail Newcastle-Sunderland track could be converted to that, allowing electric ECML (or future HS2 CC) services to go to Sunderland via Newcastle.

Dual-voltage 25kV AC / 750V DC is likely to be the long-term standard for UK tram-trains.

 

[Bayum]

I saw someone ask the question previously but they got no answer.

I assume York - Leeds via Garforth electrification is now also on the back burner ?

 

[adrock1976]

My own thoughts regarding the pause of Midland Railway electrification below.

In relation to the main line north of Bedford Midland, I believe this makes sense in the meantime, as if I'm not mistaken, the 222s are the youngest Intercity trains on the network at the moment. Also, there would not really be anywhere suitable for them to be redeployed as mentioned in the thread in the Traction and Rolling Stock section.

However, the following is my own thoughts and will almost unlikely to happen. As the Midland Railway metals north of Leeds were electrified over 20 years ago, this was a short section towards Skipton, Ilkley, and Bradford FS so as to replace elderly diesel units that were coming to the end of their life. Perhaps Hendy and McLoughlin could look at electrification of the Midland Railway metals in the Greater Manchester area. This would involve wires south of Ashburys and Hyde Junction to Rose Hill Marple and New Mills Central, perhaps to Chinley as well.

This would allow new electric trains to be built, perhaps similar to 333s, to be used specifically for the MR routes and nothing else, removing the 142s in the process from this route. Also, by electrifying to Chinley, although it would mean the local Hope Valley Sheffield service being split back to as it was before, it would leave the wires tantilisingly pointing towards Sheffield and to Peak Forest/Bakewell/Matlock for future reinstatement of the track, and also a short stretch from Hazel Grove to Chinley and Buxton.

Also, as it is predominantly local services on Midland Railway metals between Sheffield and Leeds, perhaps electrification could start here and work south towards London? This would help to eliminate some 142s and also allow some of the oldest 150s to be retired, with new trains built specifically to be used for the MR routes and nothing else.

 

[Stats]

Indeed, but I suspect they mean the specific equipment they have on T&W Metro. Switching to some other manufacturer of kit would mean replacing whole whatevers rather than just the broken part.

If they can get dual-voltage 750V / 1500V rolling stock that is suitable for road-running (ie tram-trains), then they can switch voltage a section at a time when the OHLE needs replacing.

They might even consider triple voltage rolling stock (with 25kV AC) so that the Network Rail Newcastle-Sunderland track could be converted to that, allowing electric ECML (or future HS2 CC) services to go to Sunderland via Newcastle.

Dual-voltage 25kV AC / 750V DC is likely to be the long-term standard for UK tram-trains.

We are now getting well off topic but a recent image and a booklet I have seen making the case for a replacement fleet suggest to me they have abandoned the idea of tram-train as it talks about dual-voltage or IPEMU stock to enable expanding the T&W Metro network on to the regional rail network. The focus now seems to be creating an integrated regional rail network with Metro at it's core.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed, but I suspect they mean the specific equipment they have on T&W Metro. Switching to some other manufacturer of kit would mean replacing whole whatevers rather than just the broken part.

If they can get dual-voltage 750V / 1500V rolling stock that is suitable for road-running (ie tram-trains), then they can switch voltage a section at a time when the OHLE needs replacing.

They might even consider triple voltage rolling stock (with 25kV AC) so that the Network Rail Newcastle-Sunderland track could be converted to that, allowing electric ECML (or future HS2 CC) services to go to Sunderland via Newcastle.

Dual-voltage 25kV AC / 750V DC is likely to be the long-term standard for UK tram-trains.

I understand making a traction package to accept both 1500V and 750V is pretty straightforward, not much more than reprogramming the software. Adding 25kV is more complicated as it needs a transformer which is large and heavy.

 

[AM9]

I understand making a traction package to accept both 1500V and 750V is pretty straightforward, not much more than reprogramming the software. Adding 25kV is more complicated as it needs a transformer which is large and heavy.

Er... and a fair bit of wiring. Most traction motors are wound for 600-750V working with insulation practically limited to not much above 1KV. 1500V vehicles usually have motors wired in serial connected pairs, - if there are four motors in the circuit, they are started in full serial, switching over to parallel pairs when the control maxes out.
Switchgear would be needed, (solid state these days) to effect this s-p transformation.

 

[The Snap]

I saw someone ask the question previously but they got no answer.

I assume York - Leeds via Garforth electrification is now also on the back burner ?

Yes.

See the last say 8 pages of this thread.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=88054

 

[Peter Sarf]

My own thoughts regarding the pause of Midland Railway electrification below.

In relation to the main line north of Bedford Midland, I believe this makes sense in the meantime, as if I'm not mistaken, the 222s are the youngest Intercity trains on the network at the moment. Also, there would not really be anywhere suitable for them to be redeployed as mentioned in the thread in the Traction and Rolling Stock section.

However, the following is my own thoughts and will almost unlikely to happen. As the Midland Railway metals north of Leeds were electrified over 20 years ago, this was a short section towards Skipton, Ilkley, and Bradford FS so as to replace elderly diesel units that were coming to the end of their life. Perhaps Hendy and McLoughlin could look at electrification of the Midland Railway metals in the Greater Manchester area. This would involve wires south of Ashburys and Hyde Junction to Rose Hill Marple and New Mills Central, perhaps to Chinley as well.

This would allow new electric trains to be built, perhaps similar to 333s, to be used specifically for the MR routes and nothing else, removing the 142s in the process from this route. Also, by electrifying to Chinley, although it would mean the local Hope Valley Sheffield service being split back to as it was before, it would leave the wires tantilisingly pointing towards Sheffield and to Peak Forest/Bakewell/Matlock for future reinstatement of the track, and also a short stretch from Hazel Grove to Chinley and Buxton.

Also, as it is predominantly local services on Midland Railway metals between Sheffield and Leeds, perhaps electrification could start here and work south towards London? This would help to eliminate some 142s and also allow some of the oldest 150s to be retired, with new trains built specifically to be used for the MR routes and nothing else.

Yes. I have rambled on about this ages ago. Namely that the current (then) electrification will free up plenty of intercity style diesel trains when what we are short of is suburban style diesel trains. At least electrifying to directly replace the diesel trains with EMUs would be a help with that.

 

[Kneedown]

In relation to the main line north of Bedford Midland, I believe this makes sense in the meantime, as if I'm not mistaken, the 222s are the youngest Intercity trains on the network at the moment. Also, there would not really be anywhere suitable for them to be redeployed as mentioned in the thread in the Traction and Rolling Stock section.

Not nearly enough 222's in the world to cover their own turns, and those of the HST's which are on their last legs.
You could also use the same argument for TP wiring as the 185's are newer than the 222's.
Bottom line is, the MML has by far the best business case for wiring, and if it becomes more than just a pause, it will be a disaster for the regeneration of the region.

 

[Haydn1971]

Bottom line is, the MML has by far the best business case for wiring, and if it becomes more than just a pause, it will be a disaster for the regeneration of the region.

I get the fact that EMU's accelerate faster than EDMU's/DMU's but I'm at a loss why cancellation would be seen as a disaster rather than just annoying for progress - granted there needs to be more capacity but there are other options. An order for new EDMU's to bolster both EMT & XC or reconfiguration to use Mk4's with diesel traction on routes that will be at less of a dis-benefit, ordering some bi-modes for places like Corby and Leicester so diesel traction is kept to a minimum.

 

[Kneedown]

I get the fact that EMU's accelerate faster than EDMU's/DMU's but I'm at a loss why cancellation would be seen as a disaster rather than just annoying for progress - granted there needs to be more capacity but there are other options. An order for new EDMU's to bolster both EMT & XC or reconfiguration to use Mk4's with diesel traction on routes that will be at less of a dis-benefit, ordering some bi-modes for places like Corby and Leicester so diesel traction is kept to a minimum.

Journey times will not be minimised to full potential, rolling stock will cost more to lease, operate and maintain, reliability will suffer, new employment opportunities for the work will not arise, the region will be less attractive for investors and businesses who may well decide to invest elsewhere.
That's a disaster.

 

[Kettledrum]

Not nearly enough 222's in the world to cover their own turns, and those of the HST's which are on their last legs.
You could also use the same argument for TP wiring as the 185's are newer than the 222's.
Bottom line is, the MML has by far the best business case for wiring, and if it becomes more than just a pause, it will be a disaster for the regeneration of the region.

Are the HST's really on their last legs?

I agree they cost more to lease and maintain and in track charges, but I thought they'd been looked after and maintained pretty well?

 

[edwin_m]

Until recently life extension of HSTs was the preferred option for the West of England, and the Scots (who know a thing or to about trains) still intend to keep then in service pending their own electrification plans. So the biggest risk in doing the same on the MML is that the decent ones have been snaffled, leaving them with the lemons.

Yes they may cost a little more to run than EMUs, but given we can't have EMUs everywhere in the timescales originally promised, deferring MML is the least worst option. As long as it is truly only a deferment.

 

[Haydn1971]

Please don't take this personally - I'm interested to understand the true impact rather than the Daily Wail style view.

Journey times will not be minimised to full potential,

I'm guessing that's a typo - realistically, just what journey time savings are expected with 125mph capable EMU's, especially considering there's long sections where 125mph isn't possible both currently and under electrification.

rolling stock will cost more to lease,

Wouldn't new EMU's be more to lease than 10 year old kit ? Especially if market forces come into play and the owner realises no one else needs EDMU's ?

operate and maintain,

Ok, I get this one... But exactly how much more ? For example, 5x more soon realised the cost of stringing wires up, and extra 5% wouldn't.

reliability will suffer, .

Again, I can follow this line of thought, but on the other hand, are 10 year old EDMU's that unreliable ? The cost of buying some more in say 10-15 years wouldn't be that much more than buying EMU's now.

new employment opportunities for the work will not arise, the region will be less attractive for investors and businesses who may well decide to invest elsewhere.

This I'm having difficulties with, EMU's wouldn't bring about huge journey time savings, they are unlikely to give anything more than an extra service per hour in peak, I accept that new EMU's could bring more seats, but that could also be achieved with reconfiguring the 222 fleet into longer units and providing extra trains (new EDMU's/Bi-Modes/Loco Hauled/whatever)

That's a disaster.

I'm not so sure it's that bad really

 

[IanXC]

How many 222s (222/1s?) sit on Corby diagrams each day? If electrification goes ahead to Corby only, these would be released to wider MML duties.

 

[Kneedown]

I'm guessing that's a typo - realistically, just what journey time savings are expected with 125mph capable EMU's, especially considering there's long sections where 125mph isn't possible both currently and under electrification.

MML has a fair chunk of 125 already, and also a lot of >110.
Journey times improve with the far greater acceleration of EMU's compared to HST's. Especially so on the sections where the speed changes, and on the gradients.

Wouldn't new EMU's be more to lease than 10 year old kit ? Especially if market forces come into play and the owner realises no one else needs EDMU's ?

I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to with the term "EDMU". Do you mean DEMU like a Meridian, or a Bi-Mode?
As regards leasing costs, in the short term maybe, maybe not, as 10 year old units are still relatively young (unless you're in the SE) but over the lifetime of the fleet EMU's cost a lot less. If leasing cost is an issue we may as well cancel all orders and patch up what we've got for all time.

Ok, I get this one... But exactly how much more ? For example, 5x more soon realised the cost of stringing wires up, and extra 5% wouldn't.

Again, I can follow this line of thought, but on the other hand, are 10 year old EDMU's that unreliable ? The cost of buying some more in say 10-15 years wouldn't be that much more than buying EMU's now.

Diesels cost a lot more to maintain than electrics. Fuel isn't the only factor, there are other fluids, much more maintenance due to many more moving parts (and more that can, and does, break down)
I don't have the costings of all this so cannot say how much more, but every study done has concluded that the cost-benefit ratio of MML electrification is infinite, and more expensive NOT to electrify.
Meridian's are not the most reliable of units, and it is a constant battle for the maintenance team to keep the HST's running.

This I'm having difficulties with, EMU's wouldn't bring about huge journey time savings, they are unlikely to give anything more than an extra service per hour in peak, I accept that new EMU's could bring more seats, but that could also be achieved with reconfiguring the 222 fleet into longer units and providing extra trains (new EDMU's/Bi-Modes/Loco Hauled/whatever)

EMU's would bring great time improvements as I outlined above. How would you reconfigure a 222 into longer units without reducing the length of the donor units?
Loco hauled is out. Acceleration would be dire even if a 125mph loco was available. More DEMU Intercity units? A relatively small build would be ridiculously expensive, and with a service life of 30+ years would probably end any possibility of further investment in the area for a long, long time. The country isn't exactly screaming out for micro fleet of Intercity DMU's.
The point I am really making though is, the East Midlands is currently the fastest growing economic region outside London, recovering well from the loss of many of it's industies. The area is finally attracting the attention of businesses and investors, and it is entirely possible that this withdrawl of investment in basic infrastructure will discourage further investment in the region, the wealth creators looking elsewhere. Remember the "Sparks effect". This has certainly been the message from the affected Councils and business groups.

I'm not so sure it's that bad really

I'm sure that, economically, it will be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How many 222s (222/1s?) sit on Corby diagrams each day? If electrification goes ahead to Corby only, these would be released to wider MML duties.

Not nearly enough to replace the HST fleet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes they may cost a little more to run than EMUs, but given we can't have EMUs everywhere in the timescales originally promised, deferring MML is the least worst option.

There is school of thought that the least worst option would be holding back on projects where there aren't even shovels in the ground yet. Crossrail2, HS2, has EWR started propery yet?

As long as it is truly only a deferment.

Lets hope so.

 

[Haydn1971]

MML has a fair chunk of 125 already, and also a lot of >110. Journey times improve with the far greater acceleration of EMU's compared to HST's. Especially so on the sections where the speed changes, and on the gradients.

It's clear that any multiple unit will accelerate at a greater rate than loco hauled, but EMT has 27x 222 sets and 12x HST sets - without knowing just how much greater accelerating an EMU vs a DEMU (my typo) in a real world environment like the MML how can it be said that journey times will be massively affected - it's no worse than today and the slow accelerating HST's are actually running on some of the longest routes - Sheffield & Nottingham - the difference can't be that great in real world operations.

I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to with the term "EDMU". Do you mean DEMU like a Meridian, or a Bi-Mode?

DEMU - my typo !

As regards leasing costs, in the short term maybe, maybe not, as 10 year old units are still relatively young (unless you're in the SE) but over the lifetime of the fleet EMU's cost a lot less. If leasing cost is an issue we may as well cancel all orders and patch up what we've got for all time.

Missing my point here - DEMU's will cost more to maintain, I accept that, but I'd suggest that maintaining the current ones to 25 years (another 10-15 years), then buying another set (25 years worth) will cost less overall than electrifying the entire route, buying a fleet of 125mph intercity EMU's and maintaining these for 35-40 years.

Diesels cost a lot more to maintain than electrics. Fuel isn't the only factor, there are other fluids, much more maintenance due to many more moving parts (and more that can, and does, break down)

Agreed, but how much more ? Plus, the only real difference between a EMU and DEMU is the power pack and exhaust system - these can be designed to slot in and out for easy repair and replacement - EMU's still have all the other mechanical and electrical bits that a DEMU has.

I don't have the costings of all this so cannot say how much more, but every study done has concluded that the cost-benefit ratio of MML electrification is infinite, and more expensive NOT to electrify.

Infinite ? Do you have a source for that ?

Meridian's are not the most reliable of units, and it is a constant battle for the maintenance team to keep the HST's running.

Again, compared to what baseline - I'd imagine more regular maintenance is required on the 222 fleet, but to what degree more than a similar age EMU like the 390 ? The HST's are what they are, I'd agree they need replacing and that in general a new fleet of DEMU's would be more reliable, but again - how much so compared to EMU's

EMU's would bring great time improvements as I outlined above.

Well you haven't - neither has anyone else

How would you reconfigure a 222 into longer units without reducing the length of the donor units?

If you were sourcing extra train sets, EDMU/Loco/whatever - you'd source enough to enable the 222 fleet is made into less units that still work with St Pancras platform lengths and allow suitable sized units to work throughout the day - so reforming may end up making them all 5 car or making less 10 car units then buying newer 6-7 car units - It all hinges on EMT pulling their finger out and turning trains around faster than 5 in an hour as they do now

Loco hauled is out. Acceleration would be dire even if a 125mph loco was available.

EMT have 12 HST sets now (24 Class 43's) - there are many more coming available soon, as are 100's of Mk4 carriages - just how difficult would it be to get the Mk4's working with the Class 43 or easier still, to fit power doors, accessible toilets and refurbish the Mk3's. I'd certainly agree that multiple units are the way forward but as I asked unthread, exactly how much worse in real world operations - 1-2% over a two hour journey isn't noticeable to the average passenger - 20% will be.

More DEMU Intercity units? A relatively small build would be ridiculously expensive, and with a service life of 30+ years would probably end any possibility of further investment in the area for a long, long time. The country isn't exactly screaming out for micro fleet of Intercity DMU's.

Again, it may be more expensive, but if it does the job, provides greater frequency and more seats than currently and costs less than electrification and a new fleet of EMU's - who's actually losing ?

The point I am really making though is, the East Midlands is currently the fastest growing economic region outside London, recovering well from the loss of many of it's industies. The area is finally attracting the attention of businesses and investors, and it is entirely possible that this withdrawl of investment in basic infrastructure will discourage further investment in the region, the wealth creators looking elsewhere. Remember the "Sparks effect". This has certainly been the message from the affected Councils and business groups.

Easy there, I hear this everywhere and it depends what you read, what measure and indeed, how sustainable that growth is - Centre for Cities claims Aberdeen has seen 40% growth in 04-13, Milton Keynes has highest jobs growth at 18%.

I'm sure that, economically, it will be.

Shrugs shoulders, a solution will come, it might not be what you expected, it may be a fudge, but it may also end up being better - I'm an engineer, my glass is neither half full or half empty, it's just twice as big as it needs to be ! Haha

 

[Kneedown]

It's clear that any multiple unit will accelerate at a greater rate than loco hauled, but EMT has 27x 222 sets and 12x HST sets - without knowing just how much greater accelerating an EMU vs a DEMU (my typo) in a real world environment like the MML how can it be said that journey times will be massively affected - it's no worse than today and the slow accelerating HST's are actually running on some of the longest routes - Sheffield & Nottingham - the difference can't be that great in real world operations.

HST's are mostly kept on the limited stop services to reduce time lost by stopping/starting.

Missing my point here - DEMU's will cost more to maintain, I accept that, but I'd suggest that maintaining the current ones to 25 years (another 10-15 years), then buying another set (25 years worth) will cost less overall than electrifying the entire route, buying a fleet of 125mph intercity EMU's and maintaining these for 35-40 years.

Not sure if i've understood correctly, but are you suggesting that it would be more economical than electrification, to carry on with the 222's for another 15 years, then buy more diesels for another 25years? If that were the case it would be pointless electrifying ANY route.

www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/.../NR_NetworkRUSElectrification2009.pdf

I can't seem to make the link work, but the above document makes the case for electrification over diesel.

Agreed, but how much more ? Plus, the only real difference between a EMU and DEMU is the power pack and exhaust system - these can be designed to slot in and out for easy repair and replacement - EMU's still have all the other mechanical and electrical bits that a DEMU has.

Enough to make electrics more economical than diesels. There's a lot more to diesel maintenance than pulling out an engine and popping a new one in. If only it were that simple.

Infinite ? Do you have a source for that ?

See above electrificationRUS document. Section 7.3.2

Again, compared to what baseline - I'd imagine more regular maintenance is required on the 222 fleet, but to what degree more than a similar age EMU like the 390 ? The HST's are what they are, I'd agree they need replacing and that in general a new fleet of DEMU's would be more reliable, but again - how much so compared to EMU's

Once again, the above document should provide the answer.

Well you haven't - neither has anyone else

I did point out that electric acceleration is superior to diesel? If you want more, it's due to the greater power to weight ratio (no engine or fuel to lump around) Power is also immediately available, no delay waiting for an engine to spool up to the correct rpm for the situation. The engine also powers other things like oil pumps, hydrostatic pumps, coolant pumps etc, so not all power is available for traction. As an engineer you'd know all that though.

If you were sourcing extra train sets, EDMU/Loco/whatever - you'd source enough to enable the 222 fleet is made into less units that still work with St Pancras platform lengths and allow suitable sized units to work throughout the day - so reforming may end up making them all 5 car or making less 10 car units then buying newer 6-7 car units - It all hinges on EMT pulling their finger out and turning trains around faster than 5 in an hour as they do now

Be a lot of end cars doing nothing in the sidings, or intermediate cars. The numbers don't add up.
It is theroretically possible to turn a train straight round in the time it takes a Driver to change ends, as long as you're not bothered about the train being cleaned, re-stocked, toilet water topped up, security checks done, etc, etc.

EMT have 12 HST sets now (24 Class 43's) - there are many more coming available soon, as are 100's of Mk4 carriages - just how difficult would it be to get the Mk4's working with the Class 43 or easier still, to fit power doors, accessible toilets and refurbish the Mk3's. I'd certainly agree that multiple units are the way forward but as I asked unthread, exactly how much worse in real world operations - 1-2% over a two hour journey isn't noticeable to the average passenger - 20% will be.

Probably very difficult and expensive to make Mk4's HST power car compatible seeing as the wiring is totally different.
You could refurbish Mk3's, but then you're left with the knackered out power cars. Did you know an HST Mk3 coach can't work with a loco either? Different wiring again.

Again, it may be more expensive, but if it does the job, provides greater frequency and more seats than currently and costs less than electrification and a new fleet of EMU's - who's actually losing ?

But it won't cost less than electrification in the medium to long term. Pacers "do the job" of getting people from A to B. Is everyone a winner in Pacerland?

I'm an engineer, my glass is neither half full or half empty, it's just twice as big as it needs to be ! Haha

There's a lot to be said for having a bigger glass than needed. An approach I wish would be applied to the railways, rather than the "as cheap as possible" approach.

 

[WatcherZero]

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/sector...sed-rail-schemes/8685452.article?referrer=RSS

Network Rail commits to £38bn investment despite 'paused' rail schemes

Contractors awarded work on stalled Network Rail projects will see their resources transferred to other schemes, the organisation has said

 

[Grimsby town]

Not sure if it's been suggested already but could 180's not be used on the MML. Just get all the current operators to get Class 800's and then replace all the HST's with 180's. I was under the impression that the HST's are not that intensively used on the MML and if Corby is electrified there shouldn't be any loss in capacity.

 

[Haydn1971]

HST's are mostly kept on the limited stop services to reduce time lost by stopping/starting.

That is a misleading statement. The 7:24 from Leeds is a HST that stops at 8 stations after Sheffield, the 7:29 is a 222 which calls at 4 - Journey time is longer on the HST, clearly it's a service catering for capacity on the intermediate journeys.

Not sure if i've understood correctly, but are you suggesting that it would be more economical than electrification, to carry on with the 222's for another 15 years, then buy more diesels for another 25years? If that were the case it would be pointless electrifying ANY route.

That's building a bit of a strawman there - It is clear that electrification is the way forward for the railways - I'm talking specifically about the MML, which unlike the GWML has about 70% of its 125mph units as diesel electric multiple units built just over 10 years ago, not 92% diesel loco hauled 125mph units that are getting on for at least 33 years old and have a replacement being built currently. That's putting aside the issue that HS2 largely replaces MML for its Sheffield-London traffic in potentially 15 years from now.

www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/.../NR_NetworkRUSElectrification2009.pdf



I can't seem to make the link work, but the above document makes the case for electrification over diesel.

To be fair, that document is 6 years old and nicely sidestepped the limited resource issues of completing electrification on operational track in 4hr possessions through the night - unlike Crossrail/HS2 which will be stringing wires on a construction sites

Enough to make electrics more economical than diesels. There's a lot more to diesel maintenance than pulling out an engine and popping a new one in. If only it were that simple.

Clearly, but can we quantify that difference ?

See above electrificationRUS document. Section 7.3.2 Once again, the above document should provide the answer.

I don't see the word infinite - I see the loose words "strong case" and argued by local/regional groups - there's a strong case for me personally to have a 140mph direct railway from SE Sheffield to Manchester - doesn't mean it fits the national agenda :-/

I did point out that electric acceleration is superior to diesel? If you want more, it's due to the greater power to weight ratio (no engine or fuel to lump around) Power is also immediately available, no delay waiting for an engine to spool up to the correct rpm for the situation. The engine also powers other things like oil pumps, hydrostatic pumps, coolant pumps etc, so not all power is available for traction. As an engineer you'd know all that though.

Well I'm a civil engineer, but I'm aware that electric is superior to diesel - but again, no one appears able to quantify this in an operational environment - having trains that get up to speed quicker is next to useless if the paths aren't available to take advantage of the quicker pace - what I'm getting at is just how much difference are we talking in terms of operational feedback vs isolated units based upon timings outside of an operational environment.

Be a lot of end cars doing nothing in the sidings, or intermediate cars. The numbers don't add up.

Possibly - but again, saying the sums don't add up and demonstrating are quite different - as we have seen before, sometimes we have to throw a few things onto the proverbial sword to allow progress to provide something better - just simply saying no, won't work isn't really an answer - as a civil engineer looking at alignments and options, we rule in the mad ideas to be able to rule them out - the recent A9/A96 road dual carriageway assessments not only looked at online schemes, but new routes close and far, even tunnels to give a more direct route - the tunnels failed at the first hurdle, but at least we can say definitely that they aren't an option.

It is theroretically possible to turn a train straight round in the time it takes a Driver to change ends, as long as you're not bothered about the train being cleaned, re-stocked, toilet water topped up, security checks done, etc, etc.

Given five trains run from four platforms it's a fair assumption that at least two trains have to be turned around in an hour - so theoretically, without any corner cutting and with enough staff, 8 trains could be turned around in an hour if necessary, which could be increased further by some clever on train cleaning and servicing trains at the opposite end of route on some shorter services. I do accept that 8 plus trains per hour heading out of St Pancras will substantially upset Thameslink though

Probably very difficult and expensive to make Mk4's HST power car compatible seeing as the wiring is totally different.

Yep, I get this, but again, difficult in what quantifiable sense - it's not like upgrading the Nimrods surely, but a lot more difficult than changing couplings - a new multiple unit might be £20-30m, what would the cost of rewiring a pair of Class 43's ? £1-2m perhaps ?

You could refurbish Mk3's, but then you're left with the knackered out power cars. Did you know an HST Mk3 coach can't work with a loco either? Different wiring again.

These the same knackered Class 43's that are currently in front line services on GWML, ECML, MML, XC ? Or are you thinking of other power cars ? Scotrail seem to be happy proposing them as an interim solution.

But it won't cost less than electrification in the medium to long term. Pacers "do the job" of getting people from A to B. Is everyone a winner in Pacerland?

Well your going off on a tangent there - Pacers aren't fit for their role, HST's are currently fit for the role of express 125mph operation and many people prefer them to the 222's - I'm largely indifferent but like the extra seat space on a HST :-/

There's a lot to be said for having a bigger glass than needed. An approach I wish would be applied to the railways, rather than the "as cheap as possible" approach.

It's not a case of doing MML on the cheap - there's not enough resource to do the job at the same time as GWML - so we need alternatives rather than just doing nothing - I'd rather have a 80% solution next teeth an wait 10 years for a 100% solution.

 

[Chester1]

I don't have time to wade through and comment on all the detail so I will just make a couple of points. The London-Crewe section of London-Chester takes 10 minutes longer than London-Crewe section of London-Manchester. 4 minutes is due to a stop (Milton Keynes). So for London-Crewe a voyager is 6 minutes slower than a pendalino on a 90-96 minute journey. The on a MML service that stops several times it would start to add up to allot of time savings but I doubt it would save more than 10 minutes on the faster services, even London-Sheffield. Also, Virgin have 20 voyagers and need 7 rostered each day to run London-Chester/Holyhead. Most of the rest run under the wires on London-Birmingham-Scotland. To have spares and the ability to run daily trains from Shrewsbury and Blackpool, VTWC would probably need another 3. So they could be forced by DfT to cascade 10 out of 20 to EMT. That would replace 5 loco hauled 9 carriage rakes with faster 10 coach DMUs. VT would have to obtain new EMU tilting stock but that would be easier than an express DMU order (Alliance is after tilting EMUs as part of its open access bids).

I am in favour of electrifying MML but a long delay isn't the end of the world. There are other ways of improving journey times, some of which are still going ahead.

 

[misterredmist]

Clearly, but can we quantify that difference ?

Alas, I am NOT an engineer like yourself, however, even a mere mortal like me knows that 3 carriage DMU's get replaced by 4 carriage EMU's.

example : Manchester Airport services to Liverpool now operated by 4 car 319's and the Manchester Airport services to Scotland , 4 car 350's ....

Therefore not only do we get faster , cleaner and much more reliable trains,
you achieve more capacity too.... using no extra energy

What's not to like with sparking up ? You get far more bang for your buck !

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

EMT are on record as wanting rid of HSTs as soon as possible, as they are becoming very difficult to maintain.
Isn't the answer to use Mk4s cascaded from the ECML, with class 67s actually achieving their claimed 125mph (or at least 110mph) on shortened rakes?
Another solution as Chester1 says is to cascade 221s from the WCML when they get more Pendolinos (or from XC if they ever get new stock).
Yet another tranche of IEPs would also fit the bill (bill being the operative word).
None of this will happen before 2020, but the wires weren't due to go up before then anyway.
There are several franchise dominos to fall before this becomes critical, not least the EMT direct award.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not sure if it's been suggested already but could 180's not be used on the MML. Just get all the current operators to get Class 800's and then replace all the HST's with 180's. I was under the impression that the HST's are not that intensively used on the MML and if Corby is electrified there shouldn't be any loss in capacity.

The entire 180 fleet has already been allocated to GC to replace their short HSTs. To be used for routes that go off the wires.

 

[Haydn1971]

The London-Crewe section of London-Chester takes 10 minutes longer than London-Crewe section of London-Manchester. 4 minutes is due to a stop (Milton Keynes). So for London-Crewe a voyager is 6 minutes slower than a pendalino on a 90-96 minute journey.

BINGO ! Thanks Chester, thats exactly what I was looking for - that's what, 6% slower - not exactly life changing.

The on a MML service that stops several times it would start to add up to allot of time savings but I doubt it would save more than 10 minutes on the faster services, even London-Sheffield.

Presumably due to the constraints of interacting with other timetables in particular through Birmingham ?

Also, Virgin have 20 voyagers and need 7 rostered each day to run London-Chester/Holyhead. Most of the rest run under the wires on London-Birmingham-Scotland. To have spares and the ability to run daily trains from Shrewsbury and Blackpool, VTWC would probably need another 3. So they could be forced by DfT to cascade 10 out of 20 to EMT. That would replace 5 loco hauled 9 carriage rakes with faster 10 coach DMUs. VT would have to obtain new EMU tilting stock but that would be easier than an express DMU order (Alliance is after tilting EMUs as part of its open access bids).

Sounds another reasonable solution of numerous, perhaps the best I've read so far

I am in favour of electrifying MML but a long delay isn't the end of the world. There are other ways of improving journey times, some of which are still going ahead.

Quite - I'd like to see MML wired, but it being delayed doesn't seem to be the crisis that's being played out in the local media up here in Sheffield

Alas, I am NOT an engineer like yourself, however, even a mere mortal like me knows that 3 carriage DMU's get replaced by 4 carriage EMU's.

Haha, that wasn't by design ! There was talk at one point of dropping the 319's to 3 car units

What's not to like with sparking up ? You get far more bang for your buck !

I'm in favour, my debate over the last few posts was purely in response to the claim of it being a disaster that MML isn't getting wired as early as hoped - the issues can be resolved in the short term by several mitigations to help close the gap between current and ideal world electric multiple units. Hopefully not so much as to reduce the cost benefit of stringing wires up in a few years time though !

 

[The Planner]

I don't have time to wade through and comment on all the detail so I will just make a couple of points. The London-Crewe section of London-Chester takes 10 minutes longer than London-Crewe section of London-Manchester. 4 minutes is due to a stop (Milton Keynes). So for London-Crewe a voyager is 6 minutes slower than a pendalino on a 90-96 minute journey. The on a MML service that stops several times it would start to add up to allot of time savings but I doubt it would save more than 10 minutes on the faster services, even London-Sheffield.

Depends on which trains you choose so not as cut and dried, It is 7½ difference if you use 1H70 and 1D89. 1H70 does Euston Crewe in 90 minutes, 1D89 takes 97½ with a MK stop, the MK stop is a 4½ minute penalty so the gap is really 3 minutes between the two not 6.

 

[Chester1]

Depends on which trains you choose so not as cut and dried, It is 7½ difference if you use 1H70 and 1D89. 1H70 does Euston Crewe in 90 minutes, 1D89 takes 97½ with a MK stop, the MK stop is a 4½ minute penalty so the gap is really 3 minutes between the two not 6.

3 minutes is nothing on a 90 minute journey. If you add a minute per station then the difference for Sheffield-London fast services between a Pendalino and a Voyager would be about 7 minutes on a two hour journey. Double the station penalty for loco hauled and its 11 minutes. Worse but its not a huge difference. The upgrade to allow one express path per hour each way is more important. MML electrification is important long term for the reduced cost and for cascading rolling stock but commuter lines e.g. Manchester-Preston should be a higher priority, the time saving is much bigger on stopping services.