Electrification the DFT needs to get on with

[Fincra5]

3rd Rail may still need bridges rebuilding, to give space for the 3rd rail to be laid. It might be (marginally) less disruptive to install, but it's much, much more disruptive to maintenance and operations as it all but prevents access to the track without an isolation. You effectively save pennies on install to spend additional pounds for the rest of time.

Just because the system is there doesn't mean we should electrify using it when other alternatives exist. Especially when most of the 3rd rail candidates are only served by 1tph in each direction that can use 3rd rail anyway.

Barely, the 3rd Rail is fairly close to the Running Rails, Bridge structures aren't that close to the running rails! Mainenance usually takes place during Isolations but you can isolate a section at a time, if its not an emergency, so whats the difference? Any large work requires OHLE isolation for risk of Arcing/ Electrical Jumping.

Big bee in you bonnet about bringing the remaing non-electrifed sections of the South/SouthEast passenger networks to level... Remember this is a specualtion thread, no one is asking you to cough up the money

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2021 ==

You've got to deal with water drainage though, with OHLE it isn't a problem, maybe slightly in tunnels but with third rail water is much more of a concern.

You've always got to have decent drainage for the railway and the 3rd Rail is raised from the running rails as well. One with to remember is DC doesn't Jump but AC can. Overall AC would likely be more distruptive to install than DC; infastructure adjustments, caterary and so on.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2021 ==

We do have a electrodiesel solution available for third rail.......
It might not be modern, but we do have one!

On the plus side, we get to do another thread about 442s, this time coupled to Class 73s!

It's Southern Region bingo!

Probably the answer! But would a 442 fit through Oxted Tunnel

 

[Halifaxlad]

Already so many comments so I thought I should post this before I spent the rest of the night reading them. Only the other night I was thinking about this but more precisely what order then I realised the best way to visualize this is to get my crayons out and draw a map. So here it is...

Sign in - Google Accounts

Kettering to Sheffield since its the third mainline and would be politically silly to do anything else before it! Also part of it is needed for HS2. Then I would carry it on from Sheffield to Leeds via Barnsley and Wakefield Kirkgate. It is city to city and Barnsley and Wakefield are both heavily deprived areas! At the same time I would wire Horbury to Ravensthorpe so that it could connect onto Huddersfield once the TRU section has been completed and from Normanton to Church Fenton that should be wired by this point. After that I would continue it through Leeds to Harrogate. Its a busy line that could be integrated with the Shipley triangle services.

Then I would do Sheffield to Doncaster, Doncaster to Gilberdyke via Goole. Before Selby from the East side of the Swing bridge to Hull. This way any temporary closures and services could terminate at Selby, also this gives some time to work out how best to wire the Swing Bridge that is a bit of a sticking point. Then Leeds to Selby followed by Bradley Jct to Todmorden. By this point I would have wired in Lancashire...

Manchester Victoria to Rochdale, put a few more platforms in at Rochdale to free up platform space at Victoria, Blackpool South - Wesham, its single line running through heavily built up areas for about 20km, then I would do Preston - Colne, some big populations and not a single tunnel I believe. At the same time Bolton to Blackburn, since Bolton is already wired. Before the Burnley to Rochdale via Todmorden.

Back to Yorkshire I would then carry the wires on from Milner Royd Jct near Sowerby Bridge to Leeds via Bradford Interchange!

Ive tried to do it in a way that delivers the most economic benefit, but also in a way that naturally follows one another. Also by the ones that are easier to do with the least amount of disruption hence why Halifax is near the end.

 

[zwk500]

Barely, the 3rd Rail is fairly close to the Running Rails, Bridge structures aren't that close to the running rails! Mainenance usually takes place during Isolations but you can isolate a section at a time, if its not an emergency, so whats the difference? Any large work requires OHLE isolation for risk of Arcing/ Electrical Jumping.

There's an lot of maintenance under OLE that goes on with the wires live. It being 5m in the air, anybody doing work on the track isn't going to come into contact with it. But connect a live 3rd rail to the running rail with a shovel blade and you'll have a big bang - or worse.

Big bee in you bonnet about bringing the remaing non-electrifed sections of the South/SouthEast passenger networks to level...

To what level?

Remember this is a specualtion thread, no one is asking you to cough up the money

It is, but the OP asked what the DfT should be getting on with, i.e. as a priority. Given the current financial situation of those who fund the railways, projects that can recover their outlay need to be prioritised IMO.

You've always got to have decent drainage for the railway and the 3rd Rail is raised from the running rails as well. One with to remember is DC doesn't Jump but AC can.

DC can jump just as much as AC - it's the voltage that makes the difference. As it happens, the Marshlink line and Uckfield line are difficult for draining the railway - the salt marsh at Rye being, well, a marsh and wealden clay on the Uckfield line being near impenetrable by water. The Marshlink is OK in this regard as it's almost entirely on an embankment, so water runs off relatively easily, but the rivers along the Uckfield line quite regularly burst their banks. The 3rd rail is only raised a couple of inches off the ground, a flash flood in a cutting can quickly fill that.

Overall AC would likely be more distruptive to install than DC; infastructure adjustments, caterary and so on.

The disruption during install is still temporary, and would give longer-lasting benefits. But I'm not advocating AC electrification of Uckfield, I'm advocating train-borne supply.

Probably the answer! But would a 442 fit through Oxted Tunnel

Mk3 bodyshells aren't permitted, although it's nothing that couldn't be fixed.

We do have a electrodiesel solution available for third rail.......
It might not be modern, but we do have one!

On the plus side, we get to do another thread about 442s, this time coupled to Class 73s!

It's Southern Region bingo!

Shame it's only got ~750hp off the juice unless you swap the engines out.

 

[Energy]

It is, but the OP asked what the DfT should be getting on with, i.e. as a priority. Given the current financial situation of those who fund the railways, projects that can recover their outlay need to be prioritised IMO.

Agreed, for example Windermere would make a lot of sense, and it has the bonus of the park agency supporting electrification of it. It was also meant to be electrified until Chris Grayling did a u-turn on it along with the MML electrification and Cardiff to Swansea electrification

 

[Fincra5]

Confused as to why Windermere is any different, that could be BEMU just as much as the Uckfield Branch or the Marshlink.

 

[py_megapixel]

Confused as to why Windermere is any different, that could be BEMU just as much as the Uckfield Branch or the Marshlink.

Windermere is different because

1. It has through services over a very long distance, all the way to Manchester, along an entirely electrified line apart from a few miles at the end
2. The trains serving it were very recently up for replacement

 

[zwk500]

Confused as to why Windermere is any different, that could be BEMU just as much as the Uckfield Branch or the Marshlink.

Big ones being it's OLE and only 10 miles, but yes it could indeed be BEMU. Just that it was proposed and had plans to some level drawn up, so it's a better-costed scheme. It would also allow the services from Man Airport to convert - a far bigger boon than getting rid of 171s (which are 30 seconds or so slower accelerating to speed but pretty much match the performance of the 377s on the London Bridge Fasts.)

 

[Energy]

Confused as to why Windermere is any different, that could be BEMU just as much as the Uckfield Branch or the Marshlink.

One side of it already has OHLE, there were already plans to electrify before Chris Grayling said no because the GW masts looked ugly and I dont think it will require the power supply upgrades which Uckfield or Marshlink would need.

 

[Fincra5]

One side of it already has OHLE, there were already plans to electrify before Chris Grayling said no because the GW masts looked ugly and I dont think it will require the power supply upgrades which Uckfield or Marshlink would need.

Big ones being it's OLE and only 10 miles, but yes it could indeed be BEMU. Just that it was proposed and had plans to some level drawn up, so it's a better-costed scheme. It would also allow the services from Man Airport to convert - a far bigger boon than getting rid of 171s (which are 30 seconds or so slower accelerating to speed but pretty much match the performance of the 377s on the London Bridge Fasts.)

Fair replies but he only said they only look ugly as an excuse to not fund it. There's loads of bits of electrification that should have been finished but the Gov pulled the plug for Money.
I'm not sure removing 171s is for pure performance, the DfT allowed a TOC to plan for them (EMR), so they want them, obvs SN need something else.

 

[zwk500]

Fair replies but he only said they only look ugly as an excuse to not fund it. There's loads of bits of electrification that should have been finished but the Gov pulled the plug for Money.
I'm not sure removing 171s is for pure performance, the DfT allowed a TOC to plan for them (EMR), so they want them, obvs SN need something else.

Grayling's decision making was, to say the least, questionable. But that's a separate thread. There were good reasons to do what he did, but it was short term gain for long term pain.

Of course, if it's just a unit cascade there's no reason SN couldn't have any other DMU or Bi-Mode. The argument for all-electric is for the performance over diesel, and as 171s run fast to East Croydon the gain is minimal. Whereas in Manchester, even though it's only a few trains per day, swapping the Windemere's to pure EMU would be a massive help given how tightly everything's timed.

 

[quantinghome]

There were good reasons to do what he did, but it was short term gain for long term pain.

I disagree. The basic problem was he approached it as a project gone wrong rather than a production line going through teething troubles.

 

[Greybeard33]

Whereas in Manchester, even though it's only a few trains per day, swapping the Windemere's to pure EMU would be a massive help given how tightly everything's timed.

Not really. Windermere - Manchester Airport is worked by 100mph 195s, which have EMU-like acceleration.

Yes Windermere should be electrified, but to get rid of DMUs under the wires and release the 195s to replace 15x's so as to improve performance on other unelectrified lines.

 

[HSTEd]

Not really. Windermere - Manchester Airport is worked by 100mph 195s, which have EMU-like acceleration.

Sort of, but not really.

Closer to historical norms for EMUs than historical norms for DMUs.

But EMUs are also not what they once were.

 

[Energy]

Looking into it, Oxenholme is already wired at the platform.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Confused as to why Windermere is any different, that could be BEMU just as much as the Uckfield Branch or the Marshlink.

Because it's a very short branch attached to a mainline which is literally a "last few miles" on the service operated, and also, I believe, no additional substation would be required, it could just be connected to the wires at Oxenholme and that would be sufficient for a single 4-car EMU as would be used.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Mar 2021 ==

Not really. Windermere - Manchester Airport is worked by 100mph 195s, which have EMU-like acceleration.

Yes Windermere should be electrified, but to get rid of DMUs under the wires and release the 195s to replace 15x's so as to improve performance on other unelectrified lines.

Yes, that's exactly why it should be wired, I wouldn't expect any timetable changes as a result of acceleration on a line like that. It's basically a waste of DMUs and one of the cheapest electrification projects conceivable.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Yes Windermere should be electrified, but to get rid of DMUs under the wires and release the 195s to replace 15x's so as to improve performance on other unelectrified lines.

How many DMUs could it release ?

 

[HST43257]

How many DMUs could it release ?

Well if you made it a 2 hourly service from Manchester, with 1 shuttle to/from Oxenholme as well, it would use 3 units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well if you made it a 2 hourly service from Manchester, with 1 shuttle to/from Oxenholme as well, it would use 3 units.

It's slightly complex at the moment because it interworks with Barrow with I think 3 trains per day, but alternating them at 0.5tph each without the interworking (including a Windermere shuttle in between) would I believe work. Also, by being able to use 4-car 331s it would ease adding capacity for summer holiday traffic.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Sort of, but not really.

Closer to historical norms for EMUs than historical norms for DMUs.

But EMUs are also not what they once were.

Why doesn't Windermere - Manchester Airport use 769s instead?

 

[Irascible]

* Pick sections which would help switch freight to electric
* Wait for developments in battery tech & sit on the rest of the purse for a few years?

 

[HST43257]

It's slightly complex at the moment because it interworks with Barrow with I think 3 trains per day, but alternating them at 0.5tph each without the interworking (including a Windermere shuttle in between) would I believe work. Also, by being able to use 4-car 331s it would ease adding capacity for summer holiday traffic.

Normally I believe it’s 4tpd Windermere 11tpd Barrow. They won’t like it but I believe 0.5tph is right. Barrow can have Lancaster services (from Carlisle via Coast) in Windermere hours, but they’d terminate in Barrow in Barrow to Manchester hours. I believe we’ve agreed on the service pattern before.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Normally I believe it’s 4tpd Windermere 11tpd Barrow. They won’t like it but I believe 0.5tph is right. Barrow can have Lancaster services (from Carlisle via Coast) in Windermere hours, but they’d terminate in Barrow in Barrow to Manchester hours. I believe we’ve agreed on the service pattern before.

Yep, in essence you alternate between the Cumbrian Coast service being a connection at Lancaster (Windermere hour - EMU) and it being one at Barrow (Barrow hour - DMU). It's been closer to that before.

 

[HST43257]

Yep, in essence you alternate between the Cumbrian Coast service being a connection at Lancaster (Windermere hour - EMU) and it being one at Barrow (Barrow hour - DMU). It's been closer to that before.

Yes that does seem like the most sensible and reliable way.

 

[Greybeard33]

How many DMUs could it release ?

When Windermere electrification was cancelled, Northern ordered three additional 3-car 195s.

 

[Ianno87]

Looking into it, Oxenholme is already wired at the platform.

It was wired when the south end layout alterations were done about 5 years ago (when Windermere was on the cards) - half a wire run "overlap" was even left where the wires terminate, awaiting their continuation.

Does make a useful turnback facility nonetheless.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I think Windermere could be a good line to demonstrate that electrification could be done cost effectively and efficiently, although hasn't NR labelled it for alternative traction within their interim decarbonization strategy ?

Presumably because of fears of local opposition to wires through the landscape!

 

[AGH]

I've always not understood the Windermere situation either. Seeing a 195 at MOX is odd for a few miles at the end.

Priority for me would be (NW is where I live)
1) WBQ to Chester to Crewe. Gets rid of farcical shuttle from Crewe, better connects Chester (extend WM services? ) and makes MCR Chester services a proper urban express service between cities.
2) Merseyrail to Wallgate, Preston and Southport via Ormskirk with other side of Burscough curve to allow Southport to Preston. Reinstate Hunts Cross to Gateacre. Bootle OR to Aintree as well.
3) St Helens Central to Junction (once reinstated) so St Helens has Manchester direct services
4) Allerton TMD to Trafford Park. Perhaps consider thereafter EMR as bi mode?
5) Bootle Branch (unless 88s can cover this last section)
6) Crewe / Middlewich / Northwich Hartford jnc and Stockport . Good divert and allows Crewe to Manchester via Northwich

Closes some gaps, connects major conurbations with faster and better connections plus takes away pollution from under the wires. No train should be under wires on diesel unless absolutely necessary.

Just my thoughts. Welcome any views

 

[SouthEastBuses]

UK rail electrification (not including NI) – Google My Maps

Phase 1 will mean 62% of UK's railway will now be electrified Phase 2 will mean 86% of UK's railway will now be electrified Phase 3 will mean 100% of UK's railway will now be electrified

www.google.com

Here is a map of my proposal for UK railway electrification. I've also enabled editing so that if I missed out any railway you are welcome to add

 

[SouthEastBuses]

P.S. As the title says, this only applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland will be done in a separate document, as I'm still undecided whether to use the British voltage (25 kV AC) or the Irish voltage (1.5 kv DC).

 

[SouthEastBuses]

And finally, heritage railways are excluded on the map. These lines won't be electrified, which effectively means that the 100% rail electrification I'm aiming for refers to Network Rail owned lines.