Electrification the DFT needs to get on with

[cle]

Retro-justifying the current DMU shuttle with Didcot-Oxford has no legs. Oxford can glad stand up 8 cars - demand was suppressed for years, and we will see ridership grow, same with Crossrail for the GWML stations.

Corby at 12 is a joke, but has a purpose. I don't think Brentwood to Shenfield or even Southgate to Cockfosters need their current capacity either, but it's more idiotic to change it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Corby at 12 is a joke, but has a purpose. I don't think Brentwood to Shenfield or even Southgate to Cockfosters need their current capacity either, but it's more idiotic to change it.

There are plenty of outer ends of lines where the full train length isn't justified, but it's operationally a faff to shorten it. All of the London Underground and Merseyrail would be good examples to start with.

 

[adrock1976]

The Oxford - Didcot stopper can get pretty busy and a decent number of people get off a culham during the peak, so I think running 8 car 387s through to oxford wouldn't be a complete waste and most certainly easier than splitting at didcot. Although SDO would have to be used at Appleford, Culham and Radley.

I have also seen it suggested that didcot - oxford electrification should include hanborough (assuming the line was redoubled etc.) To allow the didcot - oxford stopper to continue to hanborough (when not going to banbury), as this is the closet station to Woodstock and witney. However this would probably overcomplicate matters, so I'll be more than happy with just didcot - oxford being electrified.

Regarding Hanborough, I would be in favour of wires reaching there as should the Moreton-in-Marsh/Great Malvern/Hereford IETs fail to start the engines, it would be out of the way of everything else at Oxford.

Also, the Didcot - Oxford I feel would be OK with 2x387s as they can also be a back up for passengers who are travelling to and from Reading whenever the InterCity Crosscountry goes up the Swannee. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the collapse of Virgin Trains's Operation Princess, the ICXC no longer called at Didcot Parkway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Was anything announced in the budget today regarding a rolling programme wiring?

No, but then that wasn’t expected, as there has been no submission for that.

 

[JonathanH]

Regarding Hanborough, I would be in favour of wires reaching there as should the Moreton-in-Marsh/Great Malvern/Hereford IETs fail to start the engines, it would be out of the way of everything else at Oxford.

Is IET engine failure really something that happens? What happens when they don't start in Moreton Cutting?

 

[zwk500]

Is IET engine failure really something that happens? What happens when they don't start in Moreton Cutting?

It does happen, although I think all IETs have multiple engines, so they chances of all engines failing and leaving electric only are fairly slim. Obviously you'll get reduced performance, but they would be able to limp out of the way.

 

[Energy]

It does happen, although I think all IETs have multiple engines, so they chances of all engines failing and leaving electric only are fairly slim. Obviously you'll get reduced performance, but they would be able to limp out of the way.

In theory it will be a third less power.

 

[clagmonster]

I would say a rolling programme is needed, listing the contents of such as some seem to have done is pointless as you end up with most of the network. However, for starters I would suggest:
Carry on electrifying the MML north from Market Harborough, with a view to the teams working in Yorkshire afterwards.
East West Rail in time for opening, tying in with MML.
Wootton Bassett - Bristol - Stoke Gifford, either in conjunction with remodeling or following soon after. Potential for the teams to work round the Western Region afterwards.
Windermere. To be frank, there are loads of projects that should be part of the rolling programme in the north west and there are loads of candidates for the starter.
Fill in the gaps between Manchester Victoria and Church Fenton.

I suspect that in some cases, the above is a little ambitious, but we do need to be cracking on sooner rather than later.

The obvious candidate I haven't listed is Oxford. This should surely be done alongside any remodeling of Oxford station, which seems to be quite some way from happening.

 

[Minstral25]

To me the obvious, for the South/ South East area are:

• Uckfield Branch (The 10 or so Miles of it)
• Marshlink Line (All 26miles of it)

I know certain groups and people aren't a fan of 3rd Rail DC but it exists around 90% of the Southeast, so infill it and be done.

Not including the North Downs Gaps???

25 miles. But still in battery range

That's good, get some good battery/third rail units from somewhere, put them on Uckfield, Marshlink and North Downs.

 

[Class360/1]

Not including the North Downs Gaps???




That's good, get some good battery/third rail units from somewhere, put them on Uckfield, Marshlink and North Downs.

Why don’t people like dc 3rd rail?

 

[zwk500]

Why don’t people like dc 3rd rail?

1. It's a lot more dangerous
2. It requires a more substations, which are expensive and a point of failure
3. It has higher resistive losses of energy than 25KV AC OLE.

 

[martin2345uk]

L O N D O N
G A T E W A Y

 

[adrock1976]

Re-reading the thread title again, another thought that has occurred is to do an audit of what routes the Class 150s run on, then electrify those routes with a view to retiring the 150s as they were built between 1984-86.

The routes in Wales where the 150s are common in large numbers (double digits) are the Valley Lines network, which is already planned for (dis) continuous electrification. Borderlands (which is planned for 230s), and Conwy Valley (one) can be left for the time being.

For Northern, I believe that the 150s home depot is Newton Heath, where most of the class are now based (with some being based in Bristol/Exeter for GWR if I am not mistaken - those can wait for the time being too). On the east side of the Pennines, I am unsure if there are three that are allocated for the Huddersfield - Sheffield via Penistone now that the Pacers have been retired.

By wiring routes in Northern land that are mainly 150s and introducing a new fleet of electric trains to go with it (Class 395/396 maybe as the diesel equivalents are 195/196), meaning that the 150s can be gradually withdrawn/used for spare parts (if not totally knackered by then), with a possible cascade of some of the 195/196s to Bristol/Exeter/Swansea for use on the local all stations services there as they will have some life left in them.

 

[HST43257]

Re-reading the thread title again, another thought that has occurred is to do an audit of what routes the Class 150s run on, then electrify those routes with a view to retiring the 150s as they were built between 1984-86.

Cascading can happen. Stock operating on that route doesn’t matter. You suggest that none of the Heaton based stuff should be electrified as that’s all 156s.

For Northern, I believe that the 150s home depot is Newton Heath, where most of the class are now based (with some being based in Bristol/Exeter for GWR if I am not mistaken - those can wait for the time being too). On the east side of the Pennines, I am unsure if there are three that are allocated for the Huddersfield - Sheffield via Penistone now that the Pacers have been retired.

150/1s at Newton Heath, 150/2s at Neville Hill

Class 395/396 maybe as the diesel equivalents are 195/196

Not the 331s? Doesn’t have to be 200 more to be quite similar.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Few things I completely forgot to add in my electrification programme first phase:

- Electrifying the unelectrified gaps of North Downs Line
- Electrifying the Marlow, Henley, Greenford and Windsor branches

Also for the * regarding Aylesbury electrification.

Some of the Chiltern services are already electrified using the 630 V DC system used on the Metropolitan Line. Now here are some options I'd propose:

A. Metropolitan Line curtailed to Watford with Chiltern Railways taking over Chesham and Amersham stopper services. Fourth rail electrification on fast lines north of Harrow-on-the-Hill is converted to 25 kv AC OHLE
B. Order dual voltage trains for either Chiltern Railways or the Metropolitan Line capable of both 25 kv AC OHLE and 630 V DC
C. Dual electrification (both fourth rail and OHLE), exactly like what is currently used on the Thameslink between City Thameslink and Farringdon (albeit on different voltages and third instead of fourth rail in the case of the latter).

What would the most appropriate option be for when Chiltern railways gets wired regarding the conflict with the Metropolitan Line electrification system?

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Few things I completely forgot to add in my electrification programme first phase:

- Electrifying the unelectrified gaps of North Downs Line
- Electrifying the Marlow, Henley, Greenford and Windsor branches

Also for the * regarding Aylesbury electrification.

Some of the Chiltern services are already electrified using the 630 V DC system used on the Metropolitan Line. Now here are some options I'd propose:

A. Metropolitan Line curtailed to Watford with Chiltern Railways taking over Chesham and Amersham stopper services. Fourth rail electrification on fast lines north of Harrow-on-the-Hill is converted to 25 kv AC OHLE
B. Order dual voltage trains for either Chiltern Railways or the Metropolitan Line capable of both 25 kv AC OHLE and 630 V DC
C. Dual electrification (both fourth rail and OHLE), exactly like what is currently used on the Thameslink between City Thameslink and Farringdon (albeit on different voltages and third instead of fourth rail in the case of the latter).

What would the most appropriate option be for when Chiltern railways gets wired regarding the conflict with the Metropolitan Line electrification system?

And I forgot to add another option:

D. Extend the Metropolitan line from Amersham to Aylesbury, and therefore electrify that section of the route at LU voltage (630 V DC fourth rail)

 

[Bald Rick]

Why don’t people like dc 3rd rail?

1. It's a lot more dangerous
2. It requires a more substations, which are expensive and a point of failure
3. It has higher resistive losses of energy than 25KV AC OLE.

4. It makes maintenance more expensive (than OLE)
5. The whole life cost is more than OLE (in most, but not all examples)
6. It can deliver less power, and trains are thus limited on acceleration.

L O N D O N
G A T E W A Y

Is the correct answer!

 

[alistairlees]

As well as wiring those and my proposed schemes, I would wire 100% of England inc.
Chiltern Main Line
New North Main Line(inc Greenford branch)
London-Aylesbury Line
Birmingham-Felixstowe
Cross-City Line to Burton-upon-Trent
Ivanhoe Line
Barrow Hill Line
Erewash Valley Line
Penistone Line
Blackpool South branch line
Conversion of all tramways to 25 KV AC 50 HZ OHLE
Leamside Line
Tees Valley Line
Esk Valley Line
All metro's converted to 25 KV AC 50 HZ OHLE etc.

"Esk Valley Line". What?

 

[Hey 3]

"Esk Valley Line". What?

No, that is in the very far future, in my plan to wire 100% of England.
It is not a priority, but when major and more needed schemes are done, then do branch lines.

 

[HST43257]

No, that is in the very far future, in my plan to wire 100% of England.
It is not a priority, but when major and more needed schemes are done, then do branch lines.

To Nunthorpe, yes. Never needed to Whitby (unless somehow the NYMR and all roads just vanish)

 

[MatthewRead]

And I forgot to add another option:

D. Extend the Metropolitan line from Amersham to Aylesbury, and therefore electrify that section of the route at LU voltage (630 V DC fourth rail)

Oh no people won't like sitting on those uncomfortable S tock trains unless they get refurbished to the same standards as the Chiltern trains

 

[YorksLad12]

While I'm in favour of 100% electrification-by-stealth (by connecting all the infill projects ) I'd look at self-contained routes where there can be a wholesale swap of rolling stock from diesel to electric. That's what happened with the Leeds North West services, to great effect, and why I don't think the Calder Valley should take priority over the whole Harrogate Line from Armley-ish to York. No bi-mode stock, just one or the other unless absolutely necessary (which it would be on the Calder Valley route).

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Oh no people won't like sitting on those uncomfortable S tock trains unless they get refurbished to the same standards as the Chiltern trains

Yeah, That's one issue. Ideally in my opinion I'd like to go for option A but this comes at the expense of Chesham, Amersham, Chalfont & Latimer, Chorleywood and Rickmansworth losing a direct service to many destinations in Central London/Zone 1, effectively confining them to Marylebone and its surrounding areas.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Or option C could do roo. Actually now that I think about it Option C would be the better option.

 

[tbtc]

While I'm in favour of 100% electrification-by-stealth (by connecting all the infill projects ) I'd look at self-contained routes where there can be a wholesale swap of rolling stock from diesel to electric. That's what happened with the Leeds North West services, to great effect, and why I don't think the Calder Valley should take priority over the whole Harrogate Line from Armley-ish to York. No bi-mode stock, just one or the other unless absolutely necessary (which it would be on the Calder Valley route).

I suppose there's a question of how much "change" people would be willing to accept if it meant electrification - e.g. splitting services or diverting them to fit the map of which lines are electrified. You'd get a much better business case if you "simplified" the route map to suit the lines that you are wiring.

For example, on the Calder Valley (by which I mean services from Leeds towards Manchester Victoria through Bradford Interchange and or Hebden Bridge - I'm aware that Bradford isn't actually in the Calder Valley but the phrase seems to cover all trains on the Bradford Interchange line out of Leeds), there are services extending to Hull/ York/ Blackpool/ Chester/ Huddersfield and also via Dewsbury and Brighouse)

If the plan is to wire (just) the main route from Leeds - Bradford Interchange - Hebden Bridge - Manchester Victoria then the most efficient way of maximising the proportion of electric trains under the wires would probably be something like:

• All Leeds - Bradford Interchange - Hebden Bridge services continue to Manchester Victoria instead (no more Bradford - Blackpool)
• The "via Dewsbury and Brighouse" service becomes the services that extends to Blackpool (no more Brighouse - Manchester)
• No more extensions to Chester or Hull

Would that be acceptable to passengers/ politicians though? Cutting Bradford's long established link to Burnley/ Preston/ Blackpool would be difficult to "sell" - given how the various "Stakeholders" of Bradford managed to get the Arriva franchise to promise to direct trains to Nottingham, Manchester Airport etc

Brighouse to Manchester is a fairly slow journey via Hebden Bridge but it's a direct service, so may be unpopular if you were cutting it.

The Hull and Chester links aren't that important in the grand scheme of things - both fairly new - maybe you'd decide that an electrified Calder Valley line would mean that the services should run to somewhere else electrified on the other side of Manchester (e.g. Liverpool)

But how many people want those kind of awkward conversations about simplifying the service pattern to improve the case for electrification? Do you accept losing some of the direct services that you have, even if not frequent?

 

[zwk500]

But how many people want those kind of awkward conversations about simplifying the service pattern to improve the case for electrification? Do you accept losing some of the direct services that you have, even if not frequent?

These are very good questions. Feeds in to the discussion of the various Newcastle locals above as well.

 

[Fincra5]

It's actually 25 miles of the Uckfield branch.

Those 'certain groups' happen to be the people authorising electrification equipment on the railway, so it won't be 3rd Rail.

The shovelliest ready are Didcot to Oxford, and Bristol via both routes.




25 miles. But still in battery range

Thats why I made the point about "Certain Groups", frankly anything but DC is daft given how everything else around it is DC. So you're either left with having to create BEMUs for those 25miles (each Branch) or have AC Islands requiring DV units. But hey, its the Railway...

Although GTR does have a selection of DV units, and some may come from GN and back from SE in the not too distant future.

Also no work appears to have happened on SN Ideas of a BEMU...

 

[zwk500]

Thats why I made the point about "Certain Groups", frankly anything but DC is daft given how everything else around it is DC. So you're either left with having to create BEMUs for those 25miles (each Branch) or have AC Islands requiring DV units. But hey, its the Railway...

Also no work appears to have happened on SN Ideas of a BEMU...

Bald Rick has covered the practicalities of Battery Operation on other threads. Battery Locos and Shunters are at sufficient stage of development to have class numbers, and GWR are trialling battery-assisted operation on their 80x units in Devon. Also 777s on Merseyrail are being actively prepared for battery-only operation trials.

There's also the Battery 230s being developed for the Welsh Valleys Metro.

 

[YorksLad12]

I suppose there's a question of how much "change" people would be willing to accept if it meant electrification - e.g. splitting services or diverting them to fit the map of which lines are electrified. You'd get a much better business case if you "simplified" the route map to suit the lines that you are wiring.

For example, on the Calder Valley (by which I mean services from Leeds towards Manchester Victoria through Bradford Interchange and or Hebden Bridge - I'm aware that Bradford isn't actually in the Calder Valley but the phrase seems to cover all trains on the Bradford Interchange line out of Leeds), there are services extending to Hull/ York/ Blackpool/ Chester/ Huddersfield and also via Dewsbury and Brighouse)

If the plan is to wire (just) the main route from Leeds - Bradford Interchange - Hebden Bridge - Manchester Victoria then the most efficient way of maximising the proportion of electric trains under the wires would probably be something like:

• All Leeds - Bradford Interchange - Hebden Bridge services continue to Manchester Victoria instead (no more Bradford - Blackpool)
• The "via Dewsbury and Brighouse" service becomes the services that extends to Blackpool (no more Brighouse - Manchester)
• No more extensions to Chester or Hull

Would that be acceptable to passengers/ politicians though? Cutting Bradford's long established link to Burnley/ Preston/ Blackpool would be difficult to "sell" - given how the various "Stakeholders" of Bradford managed to get the Arriva franchise to promise to direct trains to Nottingham, Manchester Airport etc

Brighouse to Manchester is a fairly slow journey via Hebden Bridge but it's a direct service, so may be unpopular if you were cutting it.

The Hull and Chester links aren't that important in the grand scheme of things - both fairly new - maybe you'd decide that an electrified Calder Valley line would mean that the services should run to somewhere else electrified on the other side of Manchester (e.g. Liverpool)

But how many people want those kind of awkward conversations about simplifying the service pattern to improve the case for electrification? Do you accept losing some of the direct services that you have, even if not frequent?

That's why I'd prefer operationally self-contained services rather than doing things for the politics of it.

The reason I picked the Calder Valley Services out of Leeds is something you've pretty much encapsulated, except that Leeds to Manchester via Brighouse will soon (in railway terms) be partly electric. A year ago you had services running York - Blackpool, Hull-Halifax, Bradford-Huddersfield, Burnley-Manchester, Leeds-Brighouse-Manchester Vic and Leeds-Halifax-Manchester Vic. So that would need a fleet of bi-modes - more likely one of the Scrapheap Challenge fleets that keep not quite arriving in service - or you do all of the bits of route off the main route as well.

Politically you'd do it so you could talk about "modern" trains for Burnley, Rochdale and Bradford. Operationally, forget it and do something simpler. And cheaper.

 

[Fincra5]

Bald Rick has covered the practicalities of Battery Operation on other threads. Battery Locos and Shunters are at sufficient stage of development to have class numbers, and GWR are trialling battery-assisted operation on their 80x units in Devon. Also 777s on Merseyrail are being actively prepared for battery-only operation trials.

There's also the Battery 230s being developed for the Welsh Valleys Metro.

As I'm well aware. I should have mentioned I was talking about the 377 BEMU that was talked about... IF the Uckfield Branch is to be BEMU, then it has to be of similar levels of passenger comfort to a 171, AirCon, Plugs and so on. a 230 wouldn't be of any use due to the slow top speed, which could be an issue when the train runs on the FASTS from Croydon to London Bridge.

You then have the practicalites of charging a BEMU on said Branch, 3rd Rail possibly wouldn't provide enough power, sure ReGen braking will put some back to it potentially.

Like I said, the sensible option is 3rd Rail... (Substations have been added recently all over, so its more than possible). The ELL extension was 3rd Rail afterall...