171s leaving Southern

[paul1609]

Persuading UKPN and NG may well be the biggest issue.

It may be easier to run an extra 33kV cable from the supply point (with plenty of juice) near Dormans north 6.7km up to the Redhill - Tonbridge line then east for 2.7km till it reaches the Uckfield line.

The supply south from Croydon will also need reinforcing to deal with more units running on existing 3rd rail.

The 33kV power supplies may well cost more than the 3rd rail and substations.

Where's the supplies for Redhill - Tonbridge wasn't that speced as a diversionary route for Eurostar whereas it powers a max of 3 x 377 now?

 

[JonathanH]

Where's the supplies for Redhill - Tonbridge wasn't that speced as a diversionary route for Eurostar whereas it powers a max of 3 x 377 now?

No, it was for Channel Tunnel freight, never for Eurostar. Putting Eurostar via Crystal Palace or Streatham and Tulse Hill would have been somewhat difficult and there is no obvious other route to Waterloo. It is however reported to be quite plentiful in terms of power supply.

Full detail was posted here

Redhill to Tonbridge power supply questions

A few questions about the traction current supply arrangements on the Redhill to Tonbridge line, electrified in 1994. 1 - I'm aware of the location of the seven substations, but where is the grid feed for the route? 2 - What is the grid feed voltage? Is it the same 'budget' 11kv of the earlier...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[MatthewRead]

376's are now confirmed to be heading to Southern could they be converted to battery power as has been suggested in the past?

 

[Stephen Lee]

Just ask when will Uckfield Branch and Marshlink be electrified?

 

[zwk500]

Just ask when will Uckfield Branch and Marshlink be electrified?

Both are very definitely in the 'if' rather than 'when' category for the moment. Problem number one being the ORR/RSSB report into the safety of new 3rd Rail installations.

 

[paul1609]

No, it was for Channel Tunnel freight, never for Eurostar. Putting Eurostar via Crystal Palace or Streatham and Tulse Hill would have been somewhat difficult and there is no obvious other route to Waterloo. It is however reported to be quite plentiful in terms of power supply.

Full detail was posted here

Redhill to Tonbridge power supply questions

A few questions about the traction current supply arrangements on the Redhill to Tonbridge line, electrified in 1994. 1 - I'm aware of the location of the seven substations, but where is the grid feed for the route? 2 - What is the grid feed voltage? Is it the same 'budget' 11kv of the earlier...

www.railforums.co.uk

From what I can see de-electrify Redhill to Tonbridge, use the equipment and power supplies for the Uckfield Lines.
No increased safety hazard as dc electrified route mileages remains the same. Vastly decreased CO2 and NOx emissions including within the M25 area. Eliminates diesel at London Bridge in ULEZ.
Electrify marshlink utilising tramway type overhead line at a max of 60 mph and existing dual voltage stock. Utilise vastly over specd ac power supplies in the Ashford/Hs1 area. Electrification of Marshlink avoids the need for Redhill Tonbridge diversions for Hastings line. Alternative electrified route via Ashford Maidstone to Chislehurst. Transfer Marshlink to SE.
Run Redhill to Tonbridge as an extension of GWR Reading Services utilising Diesel or battery stock.
WIN, WIN, Win

 

[XAM2175]

No increased safety hazard as dc electrified route mileages remains the same.

Seriously?
You're creating new hazards in places where there weren't any previously; that's what attracts the scrutiny.

 

[David Goddard]

Run Redhill to Tonbridge as an extension of GWR Reading Services utilising Diesel or battery stock.
WIN, WIN, Win

Widely stated that there is no capacity for anything crossing the formation at Redhill. Plus why remove electrification from any line?

 

[zwk500]

From what I can see de-electrify Redhill to Tonbridge, use the equipment and power supplies for the Uckfield Lines.
No increased safety hazard as dc electrified route mileages remains the same. Vastly decreased CO2 and NOx emissions including within the M25 area. Eliminates diesel at London Bridge in ULEZ.
Electrify marshlink utilising tramway type overhead line at a max of 60 mph and existing dual voltage stock. Utilise vastly over specd ac power supplies in the Ashford/Hs1 area. Electrification of Marshlink avoids the need for Redhill Tonbridge diversions for Hastings line. Alternative electrified route via Ashford Maidstone to Chislehurst. Transfer Marshlink to SE.
Run Redhill to Tonbridge as an extension of GWR Reading Services utilising Diesel or battery stock.
WIN, WIN, Win

Was this actually a serious suggestion? Because you can't just pick up a substation and drop it somewhere else. Nor does the risk assessment consider a lethal danger 'fine' because you've removed one somewhere else.
Also, sending Reading services to Tonbridge is just causing a pain in the neck for the gain of about 5 people who don't want to do the cross-London transfer, at the expense of everybody who wants to get to Gatwick either for their holidays or to change onto services to East Croydon or the Coast.

 

[skyhigh]

Electrify marshlink utilising tramway type overhead line at a max of 60 mph and existing dual voltage stock.

Do tramways use 25kV AC OHLE....?

 

[Aictos]

(do the 171s still run into Central London?), lack of air conditioning, noise levels, etc etc.

Yes, daily into London Bridge in various formations.

 

[paul1609]

Widely stated that there is no capacity for anything crossing the formation at Redhill. Plus why remove electrification from any line?

Except the Redhill to Tonbridge shuttle already does.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2021 ==

Do tramways use 25kV AC OHLE....?

No but France (30 miles away from Marshlink) does use lightweight 25kV OHLE on slow speed lines.

 

[zwk500]

Except the Redhill to Tonbridge shuttle already does.

And causes a pain in the neck for platform occupancy in doing so. It's also far less risk to performance, as the service is terminating at Redhill so the chances of it presenting late on departure are manageable. It it's come from Reading, it has to get through Guildford and then hit the slot at Redhill bang on time because it blocks the junction completely for at least 5 minutes (can depart 1 after a conflicting move, next move 4 after the crossing move to Tonbridge). And you can't have the train from Tonbridge cross at the same time as the train to Tonbridge. The reversals to Gatwick are less of an issue as the train doesn't block the entire junction every time, and the benefit of running to Gatwick outweighs the risks at Redhill.

No but France (30 miles away from Marshlink) does use lightweight 25kV OHLE on slow speed lines.

What does being within 30 miles have to do with anything? Or are you suggesting the OLE limited to 60mph shouldn't be installed in the Midlands because it isn't close enough to a previous installation?
Also, why tramway (single wire) specifically and not mainline OLE suitably spec'd for 60 or 75mph?

 

[RobShipway]

Can I suggest those saying about electrifying the Marshlink line read the High Speed rail Report from East Sussex county council dated 2015 (https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/media/5343/high-speed-rail-report.pdf).

Within this report it states the following:

"Mott MacDonald was appointed by East Sussex County Council in conjunction with Rother District Council and Hastings Borough Council to develop a strategic economic case for running high speed rail services from London St Pancras via Ashford along the Marshlink line to Hastings and Bexhill. The study has been undertaken by Mott MacDonald’s Economic & Social Development Team with specialist input from Mott MacDonald’s transport modellers using the Wider Impact of Transport Appraisal (WITA) model. The team has also been supported by Dr James Laird, a specialist in the wider economic benefits assessment of transport schemes."

It then goes on to state:

"Currently, there are three rail services between Hastings and London; the East Coastway line, Hastings – Tonbridge line and the Marshlink line. Network Rail undertook a rail connectivity study4 for Hastings to investigate how rail services could be improved, focusing on journey times to London, Ashford and Brighton (feeding into the Kent Route Strategy currently being developed). The work identified that improvement options on the Tonbridge line had too high a cost for minimal benefit therefore the focus has been on the Marshlink line. The study found that a combined enhancement package, of sending HS1 services (the Javelin trains) from Ashford along a faster Marshlink to Hastings and Bexhill with electrification has a strong business case given substantial journey time savings (see Table 1.1 below) and the improved appeal to passengers and commuters. The total journey time from Hastings to London would
fall from over 90 minutes currently to 68 minutes if the Javelin trains were to travel to Hastings and Bexhill."

Table 1.1: Journey time savings from using HS1 services from London St Pancras via Ashford to Hastings /Bexhill
Journey Journey time savings
London St Pancras-Rye 72-85 minutes to 55 minutes
London St Pancras-Hastings 91-100 minutes to 68 minutes
London St Pancras-Bexhill 101-112 minutes to 78 minutes

 

[paul1609]

And causes a pain in the neck for platform occupancy in doing so. It's also far less risk to performance, as the service is terminating at Redhill so the chances of it presenting late on departure are manageable. It it's come from Reading, it has to get through Guildford and then hit the slot at Redhill bang on time because it blocks the junction completely for at least 5 minutes (can depart 1 after a conflicting move, next move 4 after the crossing move to Tonbridge). And you can't have the train from Tonbridge cross at the same time as the train to Tonbridge. The reversals to Gatwick are less of an issue as the train doesn't block the entire junction every time, and the benefit of running to Gatwick outweighs the risks at Redhill.

So what are you suggesting? That the Tonbridge service lays over for 16 minutes in the down platform, the only platform on the Eastern side of the station? Thats clearly impracticable so your objection to the Tonbridge service transferring to GW is invalid. The Redhill to Tonbridge de electrified service doesn't have to be a through service from Reading but it makes sense for it to use the same stock.

What does being within 30 miles have to do with anything? Or are you suggesting the OLE limited to 60mph shouldn't be installed in the Midlands because it isn't close enough to a previous installation?
Also, why tramway (single wire) specifically and not mainline OLE suitably spec'd for 60 or 75mph?

Its "tramway" OHLE Im suggesting, Im implying that if SNCF were running Marshlink it would be a simple spec OHLE, with Network Rail it will be impractical only because it will be overspecd, over budget, late delivered.

 

[zwk500]

So what are you suggesting? That the Tonbridge service lays over for 16 minutes in the down platform, the only platform on the Eastern side of the station? Thats clearly impracticable so your objection to the Tonbridge service transferring to GW is invalid. The Redhill to Tonbridge de electrified service doesn't have to be a through service from Reading but it makes sense for it to use the same stock.

It's not only impractical but physically impossible - there's no crossover to permit the move. I'd suggest building a new bay on the eastern side, but short of that terminating at Redhill provides much more resilience, even with the crossing move. My objection to the Tonbridge service transferring to GW is that many, many more people want to travel to or via Gatwick than Reading from Kent, and many more passengers at Reading are heading to Gatwick than Tonbridge.

Its "tramway" OHLE Im suggesting, Im implying that if SNCF were running Marshlink it would be a simple spec OHLE, with Network Rail it will be impractical only because it will be overspecd, over budget, late delivered.

Tramway OLE is overwhelmingly single-wire, meaning it needs a lot more support to maintain a constant height for the pantograph. Mainline OLE utilises a second wire to suspend the contact wire from, so that the supports can be much further apart. I don't know the French network well enough to find pictures of the OLE, do you have any links to demonstrate what you are suggesting?

There's a good picture of recent 70mph OLE at Larbert on the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larbert_railway_station
See also this article for an image of the OLE to Oxley Depot near Wolverhampton. 60mph linespeed.
It compares rather well with the Croydon OLE supports, with the maximum speed for the trams c.50mph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramlink

 

[RobShipway]

So what are you suggesting? That the Tonbridge service lays over for 16 minutes in the down platform, the only platform on the Eastern side of the station? Thats clearly impracticable so your objection to the Tonbridge service transferring to GW is invalid. The Redhill to Tonbridge de electrified service doesn't have to be a through service from Reading but it makes sense for it to use the same stock.

Its "tramway" OHLE Im suggesting, Im implying that if SNCF were running Marshlink it would be a simple spec OHLE, with Network Rail it will be impractical only because it will be overspecd, over budget, late delivered.

It's not only impractical but physically impossible - there's no crossover to permit the move. I'd suggest building a new bay on the eastern side, but short of that terminating at Redhill provides much more resilience, even with the crossing move. My objection to the Tonbridge service transferring to GW is that many, many more people want to travel to or via Gatwick than Reading from Kent, and many more passengers at Reading are heading to Gatwick than Tonbridge.

Tramway OLE is overwhelmingly single-wire, meaning it needs a lot more support to maintain a constant height for the pantograph. Mainline OLE utilises a second wire to suspend the contact wire from, so that the supports can be much further apart. I don't know the French network well enough to find pictures of the OLE, do you have any links to demonstrate what you are suggesting?

There's a good picture of recent 70mph OLE at Larbert on the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larbert_railway_station
See also this article for an image of the OLE to Oxley Depot near Wolverhampton. 60mph linespeed.
It compares rather well with the Croydon OLE supports, with the maximum speed for the trams c.50mph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramlink

I have to agree with Zwk500 on this, as why would you want to cause issues for those people travelling from Redhill to Tonbridge? You also have to remember that taking out the electrification will not only effect the passengers using the Redhill - Tonbridge route, but also any freight trains using that route which can be using that route having travelled from Calais, through the channel Tunnel on it's way to Daventry.

If you have read the PDF document in https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/media/5343/high-speed-rail-report.pdf it shows that there is a preference for the Marshlink line to be electrified. With regards to the Uckfield line, you have campaigns like BML2 (https://www.bml2.co.uk/contact-bml2-project/2-home) who want to reinstate the line between Lewes & Uckfield, plus make the line double track again with electrification. If you look at https://assets.publishing.service.g...e/595947/london-south-coast-rail-corridor.pdf from 2016 shows the proposals for reinstating the connection between Lewes - Uckfield but as on page 34, the following was found:

"Network Rail’s 2008 ‘Lewes Uckfield Railway Line Reinstatement Study’ 7 (hereafter ‘the 2008 study’) looked at an east-facing connection at Lewes and assumed the existing single-track sections north of Uckfield would be retained. It looked at extending the 2tph Uckfield services to Lewes, or Eastbourne, or Newhaven. It also looked at options with or without intermediate stations between Lewes and Uckfield. It found that the reopening was technically feasible, but there was insufficient case for it under any of those options. The revenue and social benefits were insufficient to make the BCR viable. The resilience and regeneration benefits were considered to be negligible."

But if you look at https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/roadsandtransport/localtransportplan/transportplans/rail/, it shows for East Sussex County Council the Uckfield Line is priority 2, behind Marshlink in needing to be electrified. So, it really is just when Network Rail can get around to doing the electrification of these lines and how is that to be done. Whether it is to be 3rd rail infill or OHLE, who knows. But with most Network Rail engineers having more experience in recent years of OHLE than 3rd rail, I would not be shocked if it is done with OHLE with dual-voltage units used. Those dual voltage units, may also have battery power within them in same way to enable them to get through any tunnels where OHLE cannot be placed.

 

[paul1609]

I have to agree with Zwk500 on this, as why would you want to cause issues for those people travelling from Redhill to Tonbridge? You also have to remember that taking out the electrification will not only effect the passengers using the Redhill - Tonbridge route, but also any freight trains using that route which can be using that route having travelled from Calais, through the channel Tunnel on it's way to Daventry.

Are there actually any electrically hauled freight trains routed that way? I didn't think class 92s were cleared past Redhill.

 

[zwk500]

Are there actually any electrically hauled freight trains routed that way? I didn't think class 92s were cleared past Redhill.

They're not cleared between Tonbridge and Redhill.

 

[RobShipway]

Are there actually any electrically hauled freight trains routed that way? I didn't think class 92s were cleared past Redhill.

Realtime trains does not show what type of locomotive would used. So it could be a class 66, but it could also be a class 73 or a pair of class 73's which GB Railfreight do have quiet a few and they would be using the third rail power to be pulling any freight train along. But it would also depend on what type of class 73 was being used. If it was a class 73/9, then that has a larger diesel generator within it that maybe able to pull the train without using the 3rd rail, otherwise the 3rd rail power would be required to enable it to pull the freight train along.

 

[paul1609]

Realtime trains does not show what type of locomotive would used. So it could be a class 66, but it could also be a class 73 or a pair of class 73's which GB Railfreight do have quiet a few and they would be using the third rail power to be pulling any freight train along. But it would also depend on what type of class 73 was being used. If it was a class 73/9, then that has a larger diesel generator within it that maybe able to pull the train without using the 3rd rail, otherwise the 3rd rail power would be required to enable it to pull the freight train along.

Don't think any channel tunnel freight will be 73 hauled it would have to do an engine change in Kensington Olympia station.

 

[RobShipway]

Don't think any channel tunnel freight will be 73 hauled it would have to do an engine change in Kensington Olympia station.

Class 73 are bi-mode and do have diesel generators within them and if they are 73/9's, they would have enough pulling power to pull the freight train on to Daventry.

 

[43096]

Class 73 are bi-mode and do have diesel generators within them and if they are 73/9's, they would have enough pulling power to pull the freight train on to Daventry.

If, if, if..... The simple fact is that that's not what the GBRf 73s are used for.

 

[D365]

Class 73 are bi-mode and do have diesel generators within them and if they are 73/9's, they would have enough pulling power to pull the freight train on to Daventry.

Didn't realise you are a traction modelling specialist

 

[zwk500]

Class 73 are bi-mode and do have diesel generators within them and if they are 73/9's, they would have enough pulling power to pull the freight train on to Daventry.

73/9s are pretty much exclusively for the sleeper.

Didn't realise you are a traction modelling specialist

Tbf, a 73/9s has 1500bhp, so a pair would be able to get the train to Daventry. But I suspect the comparison to Class 66 timings wouldn't be a flattering one. Bo-Bo vs Co-Co, tractive effort and all that.

AFAIK 73s are not used on any Channel Tunnel freight.

 

[Chiltern006]

376's are now confirmed to be heading to Southern could they be converted to battery power as has been suggested in the past?

official source?

 

[D365]

Tbf, a 73/9s has 1500bhp, so a pair would be able to get the train to Daventry. But I suspect the comparison to Class 66 timings wouldn't be a flattering one. Bo-Bo vs Co-Co, tractive effort and all that.

Exactly my point. Think Robbies is getting a bit ahead of himself.

 

[MatthewRead]

official source?

Mentioned on previous threads such as this one https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/southern-south-eastern-rolling-stock.218788/

 

[D365]

Mentioned on previous threads such as this one https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/southern-south-eastern-rolling-stock.218788/

Official source. The OP of your linked thread acknowledges that it isn't officially confirmed.

 

[David Goddard]

Not much point converting 376s to battery as they are suburban trains and everywhere they would work is electrified.