Electrification the DFT needs to get on with

[zwk500]

Esk Valley is not a priority, it should be done as one of the last prioritys in the country. Windemere should be the highest priority and other important ones are the MML and GWML and maybe Chiltern Main Line and also Birmingham-Nuneaton-Leicester-Peterbrough-Cambridge/Felixstowe has a good business case, Lostock Parkway to Wigan NW has a relatively strong case too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Mar 2021 ==

Birmingham-Nuneaton has a business case, the rest does not until XC get bi-modes (and no, you can't just stick an pantograph on a voyager).

And if Windemere has a good argument, how about Barrow-in-Furness and Carlisle(via Cumbrian Coast), again to stop diesels under the wires.

Windermere is a short branch line, served by trains that run a relatively high length under wires and only need diesel for the last little bit. the Cumbrian coast is technically challenging, has very low usage, and the trains terminate at the first useful station after the wires start.

To make electrification viable you need:
1. Either a frequent stop, heavy acceleration and braking route or a long sustained high-speed run.
2. A train density high enough to make the overheads of electric operation cost-effective.
3. A service pattern that permits the majority of services to transition to electric (bi-modes can help with this one)

Other factors that could make individual schemes worthwhile:
A. Lack of technical challenges in structural clearances, etc.
B. Short length near existing line permitting use of the main line power for the branch.
C. Removal of diesels from existing electric lines to release capacity

Windemere hits A & B smack on the nose, and gets credit for C some of 3. The Cumbrian coast hits nothing.
Birmingham-Nuneaton would give a bit of 3, and do well with A and C.
The Snow Hill lines would do well with 1-3, although less well on A-C.

 

[OVS Flatbottom]

A key difference between butane/CNG and hydrogen is that the former are heavier than air and the latter is lighter than air.

Butane is certainly heavier than air, but surely CNG is lighter, at least when it's no longer confined in the tank? (It is heavier than hydrogen, though.)

 

[Bald Rick]

Switzerland did it, in far more challenging terrain than most of ours. So it's not a silly aim.

Although they did it mostly because they didn’t have abundant reserves of coal on the premises, but did have plenty of nearly free hydro electricity.

And only some of the terrain is challenging. Most of the main lines are on routes no different to this country.

 

[Hey 3]

Birmingham-Nuneaton has a business case, the rest does not until XC get bi-modes (and no, you can't just stick an pantograph on a voyager).

Windermere is a short branch line, served by trains that run a relatively high length under wires and only need diesel for the last little bit. the Cumbrian coast is technically challenging, has very low usage, and the trains terminate at the first useful station after the wires start.

To make electrification viable you need:
1. Either a frequent stop, heavy acceleration and braking route or a long sustained high-speed run.
2. A train density high enough to make the overheads of electric operation cost-effective.
3. A service pattern that permits the majority of services to transition to electric (bi-modes can help with this one)

Other factors that could make individual schemes worthwhile:
A. Lack of technical challenges in structural clearances, etc.
B. Short length near existing line permitting use of the main line power for the branch.
C. Removal of diesels from existing electric lines to release capacity

Windemere hits A & B smack on the nose, and gets credit for C some of 3. The Cumbrian coast hits nothing.
Birmingham-Nuneaton would give a bit of 3, and do well with A and C.
The Snow Hill lines would do well with 1-3, although less well on A-C.

Remember that diesels run under the wires between Carnforth and Manchester Airport.

 

[zwk500]

Remember that diesels run under the wires between Carnforth and Manchestet Airport.

It's a lot longer from Carnforth to Barrow than it is from Oxenholme to Windemere.
Carnforth-Barrow does not meet 1. It does not meet 2. It might meet 3. It does not meet A - several of the stations are challenging. Arnside viaduct will be interesting. It does not meet B. It does meet C for converting the Man Airport-Lancaster section. Although if that were a bigger problem I suspect we'd see a Barrow-Lancaster service and a Man Airport-Lancaster (or Carnforth to simplify turnback). The CBA scores very, very poorly against schemes closer to denser populations.

You will get the greatest return on electrification (financially, economically and operationally) on High-speed Intercity, and suburban commuter. Why on earth would put wires up to Barrow before you've wired Bristol to Bromsgrove?

 

[Bald Rick]

Why on earth would put wires up to Barrow before you've wired Bristol to Bromsgrove?

Or Neville Hill to Church Fenton?

 

[XAM2175]

Also, Switzerland has a network of 5,323km, the UK has 5,374km of electrified lines, out of a network of 15,811km. So in one sense we've already exceeded the Swiss.

Sweden is a better comparison (how apt ) - 8,100 km electrified out of a 15,006 km network. Italy - 13,217 km electrified out of 16,723 km. And for the big numbers regardless of proportion, Germany has electrified 19,857 km of a 41,315 km network.

Butane is certainly heavier than air, but surely CNG is lighter, at least when it's no longer confined in the tank?

Yes, natural gas is lighter than air, but the exact relative lightness depends on its composition. It's possible some people are thinking of LPG, which is heavier, as is propane.

 

[zwk500]

Or Neville Hill to Church Fenton?

Or any of 50+ schemes far more useful to far more people.

 

[tbtc]

These kind of threads really need some kind of "ceiling" - e.g. "if you had x hundred miles of single track electrification, what would your priorities be", that kind of thing - otherwise we can just list thousands of miles including quiet routes like Penistone/ Colne/ Cumbrian Coast and re-openings like Leamside

But, FWIW, my priorities would be along the lines of:

1. Short branch lines (e.g. the Thames Valley ones, Windermere, Felixstowe)
2. Shortish section of line that would free up a lot of DMUs per mile of wiring (Bolton to Wigan, the Maryhill line, Rose Hill Marple)
3. Finish off the "to do list" of schemes that were previously committed to - e.g. Oxford, Bristol, Huddersfield - seems a bit unfair to those places if other major projects appear to jump the queue
4. Getting a bit more ambitious now - there are some busy "cores' that could eliminate a lot of urban pollution if bi-modes were introduced to a line to permit each "branch" to run on diesel mode, with the urban sections on electric mode (e.g. Dorridge - Stourbridge, Waverley - Dalmeney without having to worry about the Forth Bridge, the first few miles out of Marylebone, Manchester Victoria - Rochdale)
5. Look at routes with at least four passenger trains per hour as a benchmark (Leeds - Knaresborough, maybe Sheffield to Doncaster which could be done along with the short section from Swinton to Moorthorpe) - bi-modes can make these routes more viable since you don't have to wire up every branch
.
.
99. Anything where "diversionary resilience" is a major justification!


There are a lot of other lines I'd like to see wired (e.g. the MML to Sheffield, the Warrington Central line) but I think that those first five types of route would be my kind of priorities.

Oh, and, personally, I think that comparisons with other countries can be very misleading, given the large rambling UK railway is nothing like the focussed networks that some smaller countries have - we have only wired up around a third of our lines but probably over two thirds of "passenger miles" - the fact that we have so many lightly used branches counts against us here - but we're not going to wire up the lines to Mallaig/ Thurso etc so it seems unhelpful to include all such route miles.

 

[HST43257]

I’d suggest Saltburn to Darlington - 4tph planned, with frequent stops and more potentially on the way. Also means electric on Mossend to Tees.

 

[cle]

I would add Leamington to Nuneaton via Coventry to get rid of a potential diesel island.

I would say a rather large landmass. As it stands, you'd need Didcot to Coventry...

The Nuneaton part is an island for sure.

 

[Hey 3]

It's a lot longer from Carnforth to Barrow than it is from Oxenholme to Windemere.
Carnforth-Barrow does not meet 1. It does not meet 2. It might meet 3. It does not meet A - several of the stations are challenging. Arnside viaduct will be interesting. It does not meet B. It does meet C for converting the Man Airport-Lancaster section. Although if that were a bigger problem I suspect we'd see a Barrow-Lancaster service and a Man Airport-Lancaster (or Carnforth to simplify turnback). The CBA scores very, very poorly against schemes closer to denser populations.

You will get the greatest return on electrification (financially, economically and operationally) on High-speed Intercity, and suburban commuter. Why on earth would put wires up to Barrow before you've wired Bristol to Bromsgrove?

Bristol-Bromsgrove is more important than Barrow.

 

[zwk500]

Bristol-Bromsgrove is more important than Barrow.

Aha! Now we're establishing priority. Given the pot for capital investment in the railway is limited, and the Treasury is looking very carefully at how it will get the money back, what are your 5 priorities for wiring?

Mine would be along the lines of
1. Neville Hill to Church Fenton
2. Leeds to Manchester via Huddersfield (I believe in progress?)
3. Wooton Basset-Bristol TM (Bristol TM is definitely in progress Bristol TM is being remodelled to be electrification-ready, not sure if via Bath will be wired?)
4. Thames Valley Branches
5. Didcot-Oxford or EWR.

 

[6Gman]

As as spin-off from the Bradford Interchange wiring, I would wire to Preston and Manchester Victoria. Other schemes(as a spin-off) should be
Salford Crescent to Wigan NW and Wigan Wallgate(if the bridge can have major overhaul) and on to Southport and Kirkby, Burnley to Colne, Carnforth to Carlisle(via Barrow-in-Furness and the Cumbrian Coast), Crewe to Cardiff and South Wales, the Cross Country Route to Penzance from Bromsgrove and from Birmingham New Street to Doncaster and Leeds(via the Hallam line), EWR and any other new lines that open/reopen, Hazel Grove to Buxton, Ashburys, Guide Bridge/Hyde North and Hazel Grove to Sheffield(inc Dore South), Settle & Carlisle, Glasgow to Carlisle via the South Western line, Mid-Cheshire line, Chester-Manchester line via Warrington, Birmingham-Peterbrough and to Cambridge, Nuneaton-Reading(via Coventry and Oxford.

It's all very well to produce a long list of schemes, but . . .

Is there the industry capacity to proceed on this scale?
Is there a business case for such work?

(When you list lines which carry a train per hour, or fewer, the latter seems unlikely.)

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Didcot to Oxford. The current situation of 387s to Didcot then 165 shuttles to Oxford is ludicrous.

 

[geordieblue]

Wires to Hexham and the Durham Coast (along with little bits like the Morpeth turn back) would allow most diagrams around Newcastle to go electric. It won't happen for some time, with the Metro electrification between Pelaw and Sunderland, but in absolute terms it'd be a fairly simple win.

 

[zwk500]

Wires to Hexham and the Durham Coast (along with little bits like the Morpeth turn back) would allow most diagrams around Newcastle to go electric. It won't happen for some time, with the Metro electrification between Pelaw and Sunderland, but in absolute terms it'd be a fairly simple win.

You could achieve all-electric diagrams by splitting the services though. Wiring through to Hexham wouldn't be particularly simple, unless you were able to convince the heritage people to look the other way for a fortnight...

 

[geordieblue]

You could achieve all-electric diagrams by splitting the services though. Wiring through to Hexham wouldn't be particularly simple, unless you were able to convince the heritage people to look the other way for a fortnight...

You can't achieve any all-electric diagrams in the Newcastle area at the minute, even by splitting. The turnback at Morpeth isn't wired so unless all trains run through to Belford (which means more diagrams) all Northern services on the ECML need to be diesel.
I also don't have a clue what you mean by Hexham and the heritage people - are you getting Hexham confused with somewhere else?

 

[HST43257]

Wires to Hexham and the Durham Coast (along with little bits like the Morpeth turn back) would allow most diagrams around Newcastle to go electric. It won't happen for some time, with the Metro electrification between Pelaw and Sunderland, but in absolute terms it'd be a fairly simple win.

Would be good to make Heaton mainly electric

 

[geordieblue]

Would be good to make Heaton mainly electric

I'm not sure it'd be 'mainly' - there's a lot of other Northern stuff that works out of there (I think Cumbrian Coast and the lines out of Boro to name a couple?) - but yes, as you say, it'd definitely remove a significant amount of diesel from an area that's fairly self-contained.

 

[JonathanH]

Didcot to Oxford. The current situation of 387s to Didcot then 165 shuttles to Oxford is ludicrous.

It isn't ludicrous. 8-car 387s are too much capacity for Didcot to Oxford and, in any case, every fourth 165 trip goes to Banbury.

I think there is a very good case for keeping 8-car Paddington to Didcot and 4-car Didcot to Oxford even after electrification.

 

[zwk500]

You can't achieve any all-electric diagrams in the Newcastle area at the minute, even by splitting. The turnback at Morpeth isn't wired so unless all trains run through to Belford (which means more diagrams) all Northern services on the ECML need to be diesel.
I also don't have a clue what you mean by Hexham and the heritage people - are you getting Hexham confused with somewhere else?

I'd wire the turnback at Morpeth, that bit I think is worth it.

Hexham station has a lot of it's heritage features, which OLE would have a significant impact on. The signal box, footbridge and canopies would all be in danger of the increased clearances required. Even if it isn't listed, it will still be a challenge to overcome. By no means insurpassable, but not to be overlooked.

 

[daodao]

Didcot to Oxford. The current situation of 387s to Didcot then 165 shuttles to Oxford is ludicrous.

The shuttle trains from Oxford to Didcot could be run as extensions of the EW line services, when that line re-opens, to provide better direct connectivity from EWR to points west. Given that EWR is not planned to be electrified initially, then electrification from Oxford to Didcot can wait. The GW service to Worcester/Hereford, which provides much of their fast service from London to Oxford, requires trains that can use diesel traction anyway. The plan to electrify the Midlands-South Coast "spine" via Banbury seems to have been abandoned.

 

[HSTEd]

If we establish a principle that all new rolling stock will be electric or electrodiesel, the realisation that current electrification costs are likely larger than the cost of replacing the entire diesel fleet leads us to the following question.

What sections of unelectrified track have the most vehicles operating over them?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don’t they interwork with Barrow though? That might prove difficult, particularly as the only bi-mode at the moment is 769 and they are not appropriate for a three is hour journey to Barrow

At the moment they do but they don't have to. There are lots of options.

 

[geordieblue]

I'd wire the turnback at Morpeth, that bit I think is worth it.

Hexham station has a lot of it's heritage features, which OLE would have a significant impact on. The signal box, footbridge and canopies would all be in danger of the increased clearances required. Even if it isn't listed, it will still be a challenge to overcome. By no means insurpassable, but not to be overlooked.

It's Grade 2 listed. It wouldn't be easy but plenty of other locations with higher listings (e.g. York) have enjoyed sympathetic electrification. Tyne Valley needs to be done at some point anyway (no, not because it's a diversionary route (!), but because it has 3tph plus freight, with the possibility of two more tph when Ashington comes online). The easier alternative would be wiring to MetroCentre and terminating the Hexham there, which would provide most of the benefits with a reduced cost (albeit with Hexham getting a worse service).

 

[cle]

It isn't ludicrous. 8-car 387s are too much capacity for Didcot to Oxford and, in any case, every fourth 165 trip goes to Banbury.

I think there is a very good case for keeping 8-car Paddington to Didcot and 4-car Didcot to Oxford even after electrification.

Didcot is not a destination. Oxford is not only a big interchange (due to grow) but a massive employment and leisure hub. There is a lot of counter and polycentric commuting in the Thames Valley - to and from Reading, Oxford, Slough.

That service, 2-3 car Turbos admittedly, ran to Oxford for time immemorial, and that should return. That is more important than the Banbury shuttle running through to Didcot - it can connect at Oxford with all kinds of services.

 

[zwk500]

It's Grade 2 listed. It wouldn't be easy but plenty of other locations with higher listings (e.g. York) have enjoyed sympathetic electrification.

Agreed, it's possible but does the cost drive the BCR over the edge?

Tyne Valley needs to be done at some point anyway (no, not because it's a diversionary route (!), but because it has 3tph plus freight, with the possibility of two more tph when Ashington comes online).
The easier alternative would be wiring to MetroCentre and terminating the Hexham there, which would provide most of the benefits with a reduced cost (albeit with Hexham getting a worse service).

Personally I would think electrification to MetroCentre and some form of hybrid unit (possibly battery) continuing to Hexham is the most likely outcome. Hexham-Carlisle isn't going to be electrified in the long-term foreseeable, so given the likely traffic loadings and probably battery/alternative fuel development, why spend money you probably don't have to?

 

[geordieblue]

Agreed, it's possible but does the cost drive the BCR over the edge?

Personally I would think electrification to MetroCentre and some form of hybrid unit (possibly battery) continuing to Hexham is the most likely outcome. Hexham-Carlisle isn't going to be electrified in the long-term foreseeable, so given the likely traffic loadings and probably battery/alternative fuel development, why spend money you probably don't have to?

I'd come back at that and suggest battery would be a waste of money - micro-fleets aren't the way forward. Continuous electrification is expensive but it works and is tried and tested; relying on bi-modes purely for Hexham terminators seems a bit pointless (though I can see the appeal for bi-mode services to Carlisle). But you could definitely reap most of the benefits and eliminate a heck of a lot of diesel diagrams with a *fairly* small amount of electrification.

 

[zwk500]

I'd come back at that and suggest battery would be a waste of money - micro-fleets aren't the way forward. Continuous electrification is expensive but it works and is tried and tested; relying on bi-modes purely for Hexham terminators seems a bit pointless (though I can see the appeal for bi-mode services to Carlisle). But you could definitely reap most of the benefits and eliminate a heck of a lot of diesel diagrams with a *fairly* small amount of electrification.

Its a fair point - all these things have to be weighed up in the decisions on how to proceed.