Shapps "promised to scrap HS2 Golborne spur"

[Sonik]

Personally I think that if the Golborne spur is to be scrapped without replacement, the DfT needs to empower the ORR and Network Rail to impose a change to the rules so that FOCs can't use underpowered single diesel locos on 2400 tonne freights. But equally, for everything to switch over to electric haulage (double headed where required) there would need to be significant power supply upgrades and infill wiring would be necessary to avoid costly and time consuming loco changes.

For now, stick two diesels on. This would be hugely cheaper to solve than many other issues.

All good suggestions, but both would have minimal impact on capacity between Crewe and Preston, where junction conflicts, two track sections & stoppers are just as much (more) of an issue. Quite a bit of the existing freight is already electrically hauled.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I thought the WCML power supplies had been upgraded as far as Shap?
Wasn't it the Scottish end of the project that got cancelled (when coal traffic collapsed)?

 

[Bald Rick]

I thought the WCML power supplies had been upgraded as far as Shap?
Wasn't it the Scottish end of the project that got cancelled (when coal traffic collapsed)?

yes there has been some power upgrade work.

whether it is enough such that every existing diesel hauled freight can convert to electric, I don’t know.

 

[The Planner]

one hopes they haven’t just assumed there’s enough power in the system…

"not our problem" I suspect the response will be. Don't disagree that we are running low on Hamsters though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jul 2022 ==

Personally I think that if the Golborne spur is to be scrapped without replacement, the DfT needs to empower the ORR and Network Rail to impose a change to the rules so that FOCs can't use underpowered single diesel locos on 2400 tonne freights. But equally, for everything to switch over to electric haulage (double headed where required) there would need to be significant power supply upgrades and infill wiring would be necessary to avoid costly and time consuming loco changes.

The timetable itself will solve that, Class 6 won't get a look in and will be going S&C. Class 6 isn't regularly as time critical as Class 4.

 

[Austriantrain]

Because freight varies hugely in terms of its length (which limits the loops it can fit into) and its speed as well as weight.

I am of course perfectly aware of that, but that isn’t different in Switzerland (the real difference is that there, everything is electric). It really is a choice: the Swiss want a regular passenger service and regularizing freight schedules has been identified as a necessary, but also very efficient way of ensuring it (nothing less efficient than having a different timetable every hour).

It won’t happen immediately, because there are contractual obligations for certain paths, but it should definitely be a medium-term aim. Besides the immediate benefit for passenger services, it makes the planning of future infrastructure enhancements much easier and much, much cheaper.

 

[Watershed]

I am of course perfectly aware of that, but that isn’t different in Switzerland (the real difference is that there, everything is electric). It really is a choice: the Swiss want a regular passenger service and regularizing freight schedules has been identified as a necessary, but also very efficient way of ensuring it (nothing less efficient than having a different timetable every hour).

It won’t happen immediately, because there are contractual obligations for certain paths, but it should definitely be a medium-term aim. Besides the immediate benefit for passenger services, it makes the planning of future infrastructure enhancements much easier and much, much cheaper.

I agree. Unforunately neither the current industry setup, nor the government's attitude to rail generally (but also particularly rail investment), are conducive to the efficient and rational utilisation of capacity.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I thought the WCML power supplies had been upgraded as far as Shap?
Wasn't it the Scottish end of the project that got cancelled (when coal traffic collapsed)?

It remains non-AT from Euxton Jct to Catterall - Outside my UK home you can see where most of the larger insulators etc are in place but it has certainly not been upgraded there.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I am of course perfectly aware of that, but that isn’t different in Switzerland (the real difference is that there, everything is electric). It really is a choice: the Swiss want a regular passenger service and regularizing freight schedules has been identified as a necessary, but also very efficient way of ensuring it (nothing less efficient than having a different timetable every hour).

Are you able to share any 'elements' of the Swiss system, to enable understanding?

For example are there any specific enablers like minimum loop length, entry and exit speed, distance/time between loops, maximum speed differential between passenger and freight, power to weight ratio for freight, regenerative braking and so on?

 

[Bald Rick]

Are you able to share any 'elements' of the Swiss system, to enable understanding?

For example are there any specific enablers

now come on, you more than anyone will know that the Swiss positioned their principal cities 30/60 minutes apart

 

[Dr Hoo]

Yes, very good, Rick. But seriously, I thought that really only applied to passenger trains (and freight obviously doesn't need all those clever cross-platform connections and whatnot).

So, for example, are freights regulated half way between cities or in cities? One might assume the latter so that they can restart into the hindway immediately after a passenger 'pulse', in which case how far are they expected to get before being caught up again?

One might also assume that getting looped, say, every 45-ish or 90-ish minutes has a rather detrimental effect on overall velocity.

It is too long since I was in Switzerland and I really don't know the answers to these questions.

 

[HSTEd]

Well being pulsed like that is not such a big deal when you have massive installed power at your disposal - which diesel trains do not.

 

[Austriantrain]

Yes, very good, Rick. But seriously, I thought that really only applied to passenger trains (and freight obviously doesn't need all those clever cross-platform connections and whatnot).

So, for example, are freights regulated half way between cities or in cities? One might assume the latter so that they can restart into the hindway immediately after a passenger 'pulse', in which case how far are they expected to get before being caught up again?

One might also assume that getting looped, say, every 45-ish or 90-ish minutes has a rather detrimental effect on overall velocity.

It is too long since I was in Switzerland and I really don't know the answers to these questions.

From what I am aware of - and I am not sure these principles have been applied to all routes yet, or just the transit ones - it is a catalogue of paths with different parameters (speed etc) and you can chose among them depending on what your train needs. As the timetable repeats every hour, those paths are available hourly as well. Obviously, freight will be regulated at some point. For instance, in the Gotthard base tunnel, you have a passenger path every half-hour, and freights in between, so paths will be arranged that way and at the end of the tunnel, freights will stop, be passed by the passenger train and continue on their way (obviously, the infrastructure has been built accordingly).

If you need a path not available in the „catalogue“, you have to queue behind everything else, eg passengers and these freight paths. In Switzerland, it is actually legally prohibited to „break“ a passenger Takt path!

 

[Shrop]

A genuine question to those who know more than I do. All of this discussion about pathings over Shap, would it be any less of an issue if we had a nationalised railway? Wouldn't the emphasis then be on getting all trains moved as efficiently as possible, rather than on maximising the penalties on those TOCs who get in the way?
And a related point, as I recall from an outsider's perspective, pre-privatisation there was a lot of concern about the power of the unions, and a big incentive to de-nationalise was to remove at least some union power. However, the chaos of a couple of weeks ago suggests that that objective has failed.
I'm not trying to promote re-nationalisation at all, these just seem like logical questions to which I don't know the answers ...

 

[matacaster]

Perhaps freight should be given greater priority at the expense of passenger trains?

 

[Speed43125]

A genuine question to those who know more than I do. All of this discussion about pathings over Shap, would it be any less of an issue if we had a nationalised railway? Wouldn't the emphasis then be on getting all trains moved as efficiently as possible, rather than on maximising the penalties on those TOCs who get in the way?
And a related point, as I recall from an outsider's perspective, pre-privatisation there was a lot of concern about the power of the unions, and a big incentive to de-nationalise was to remove at least some union power. However, the chaos of a couple of weeks ago suggests that that objective has failed.
I'm not trying to promote re-nationalisation at all, these just seem like logical questions to which I don't know the answers ...

Even BR in later years abandoned the policy of booking everything to be electric under the wires as diesel throughout is cheaper and enables greater utilization. Nevertheless, as far as I am aware, the fact only 10 new AC locomotives (88s) have entered service since privatisation and various BR electrics have been withdrawn, the system does seem to have bent to the will of FOCs and allowing them to keep diesel paths. Certainly we've seen this sentiment play out on other threads.

A unified system like the BR of old would likely make the decision to remove problematic diesel freight paths over Shap though. Perhaps someone like @hexagon789 could even tell us what the proportions of electric versus diesel hauled freight was 30 years ago compared with today on the North WCML.

 

[Elecman]

It remains non-AT from Euxton Jct to Catterall - Outside my UK home you can see where most of the larger insulators etc are in place but it has certainly not been upgraded there.

Correct

 

[Shrop]

Even BR in later years abandoned the policy of booking everything to be electric under the wires as diesel throughout is cheaper and enables greater utilization. Nevertheless, as far as I am aware, the fact only 10 new AC locomotives (88s) have entered service since privatisation and various BR electrics have been withdrawn, the system does seem to have bent to the will of FOCs and allowing them to keep diesel paths. Certainly we've seen this sentiment play out on other threads.

A unified system like the BR of old would likely make the decision to remove problematic diesel freight paths over Shap though. Perhaps someone like @hexagon789 could even tell us what the proportions of electric versus diesel hauled freight was 30 years ago compared with today on the North WCML.

Thanks, and yes, it certainly seems bizarre to run diesels on long gradients like this, under electric wires.

 

[Austriantrain]

Even BR in later years abandoned the policy of booking everything to be electric under the wires as diesel throughout is cheaper and enables greater utilization. Nevertheless, as far as I am aware, the fact only 10 new AC locomotives (88s) have entered service since privatisation and various BR electrics have been withdrawn, the system does seem to have bent to the will of FOCs and allowing them to keep diesel paths. Certainly we've seen this sentiment play out on other threads.

A unified system like the BR of old would likely make the decision to remove problematic diesel freight paths over Shap though. Perhaps someone like @hexagon789 could even tell us what the proportions of electric versus diesel hauled freight was 30 years ago compared with today on the North WCML.

The Czech have currently closed one of their major passenger and freight routes, Praha - Česká Trebová - Brno for upgrading, meaning everything from Praha to Brno has to use the alternative route via Kolín. That route has steeper gradients and the Czech state therefore pays for a second loco or a banker.

That would be the way to go: electric only on Beattock and Shapps, paid by the taxpayer (electrics waiting at Crewe/Preston and Mossend to haul any diesel train). After all, both the capacity and climate benefits are of use to them. Not likely, I know! Almost less likely than doing the obvious thing, electrifying the missing freight links…

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Looking at the thread title, is this the same Shapps who said that Metrolink was coming to Bolton?

 

[SynthD]

Perhaps freight should be given greater priority at the expense of passenger trains?

No. It would be far cheaper and better use of everyone’s time to have a government funded banker service on the hills. We can do better than pre 1969, when the old practise of this ended.

On second thoughts, tis a Speculative Discussion idea.

 

[The Planner]

No. It would be far cheaper and better use of everyone’s time to have a government funded banker service on the hills. We can do better than pre 1969, when the old practise of this ended.

Depends how long it takes for a train to stop, attach a banker, get going and get over the summit with some sort of auto detach vs it dragging itself over the top.

 

[snowball]

No. It would be far cheaper and better use of everyone’s time to have a government funded banker service on the hills.

When I first read this I had a fleeting mental picture of a Goldman Sachs executive at Tebay.

 

[Shrop]

No. It would be far cheaper and better use of everyone’s time to have a government funded banker service on the hills. We can do better than pre 1969, when the old practise of this ended.

But how would banker locos join the trains? I guess you'd have to stop the underpowered trains in loops, thereby possibly having to bring them to rest from say 60mph and then get them going again on the adverse gradient? That's a lot of extra fuel / energy compared to just running them slowly ...

 

[Austriantrain]

Depends how long it takes for a train to stop, attach a banker, get going and get over the summit with some sort of auto detach vs it dragging itself over the top.

OMG. You people are world masters at running enormous numbers of trains - including freight! - over very restricted infrastructure, such as can be seen every day on the BML, the ECML, the WCML, around Birmingham New Street, the Castlefield corridor and countless others - you do it better than anyone else, except maybe the Japanese - , and you can’t manage what every half-developed European country can, namely build a couple of sidings at appropriate locations, design a decent timetable and attach and detach locos? I know it’s not my place, but the world is going mad. It’s not that mountains and summits have only very recently made an appearance on the island of Great Britain.

 

[Bald Rick]

A genuine question to those who know more than I do. All of this discussion about pathings over Shap, would it be any less of an issue if we had a nationalised railway? Wouldn't the emphasis then be on getting all trains moved as efficiently as possible, rather than on maximising the penalties on those TOCs who get in the way?

If we had a fully integrated railway, BR style (as opposed to a nationalised one, which we effectively do have now), there would be less of an issue simply because there wouldn’t be as much freight on the WCML. I doubt there’d be the hourly Transpennine either.

there are no penalties for ‘getting in the way’, there are only penalties (to TOCs and FOCs) for being late to schedule for a Reason that is within their control.

And a related point, as I recall from an outsider's perspective, pre-privatisation there was a lot of concern about the power of the unions, and a big incentive to de-nationalise was to remove at least some union power. However, the chaos of a couple of weeks ago suggests that that objective has failed.

off topic, but compare the number of national rail strikes in the 25 years prior to 1994 with those in the 25 years after, up to when TOCs were effectively brought under state control) then consider whether that objective has failed.

You people are world masters at running enormous numbers of trains - including freight! - over very restricted infrastructure, such as can be seen every day on the BML, the ECML, the WCML, around Birmingham New Street, the Castlefield corridor and countless others - you do it better than anyone else, except maybe the Japanese

thats good to know

and you can’t manage what every half-developed European country can, namely build a couple of sidings at appropriate locations, design a decent timetable and attach and detach locos?

the sidings are there, but one of the reasons we do get such intensive use out of the infrastructure is precisely because freights are not stopping on busy main lines to attach detach etc.
as @The Planner says, by the time the freight has stopped, attached banker, waited for a slot, started again and got to the top, it would already have been over the top and away.

It’s not that mountains and summits have only very recently made an appearance on the island of Great Britain.

no, but the quantity of heavy freight over them in daytime, mingling with a relatively intensive (for the WCML) passenger service is a relatively new phenomenon.

besides the summits we are talking about here are mere ripples compared to those in Europe.

 

[Austriantrain]

the sidings are there, but one of the reasons we do get such intensive use out of the infrastructure is precisely because freights are not stopping on busy main lines to attach detach etc.
as @The Planner says, by the time the freight has stopped, attached banker, waited for a slot, started again and got to the top, it would already have been over the top and away.

Then someone should tell the Swiss that what they did before the Lötschberg and Gotthard tunnels opened (and arguably still do, because they don’t need bankers anymore, but still have to fit in lots of freight in between lots of passenger services) only existed in their imagination.

With all due respect: three passenger trains an hour north of Lancaster is not nothing, but they are flighted. Even with regional traffic along Preston/Lancaster (and north of Carstairs) surely not a reason to necessarily have irregular passenger timetables because of freight (and that was what I reacted to in the discussion in the first place.)

Enough said. I am really just surprised. As I said, you are world masters in capacity usage (and I mean it; obviously the Swiss, the Dutch etc have loads of trains as well, but they have invested far more in grade separation etc) but this discussion sounds like you aren’t aware of it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Then someone should tell the Swiss that what they did before the Lötschberg and Gotthard tunnels opened (and arguably still do, because they don’t need bankers anymore, but still have to fit in lots of freight in between lots of passenger services) only existed in their imagination.

The climb from Brig up to Goppenstein (for example) is an order of magnitude more challenging than Oxenhole to Shap.

And how many of those passenger services travelling up to Lötschberg operate at 200kph?

 

[Austriantrain]

The climb from Brig up to Goppenstein (for example) is an order of magnitude more challenging than Oxenhole to Shap.

And how many of those passenger services travelling up to Lötschberg operate at 200kph?

Oh, but through the tunnel they do (I know, no banker). IIRC 56 km through the Gotthard tunnel at 200 km/h, half-hourly, and up to 6 freights an hour (at 100 km/h) - and since the railways north and south of the tunnel are only double-track, freights will be regulated so that they can be overtaken.

Again, I am not meaning to criticize, I just was surprised. If running freights without regulating them (often) is the most efficient use of capacity, then so be it. It’s just not the way that I know and which we seem to consider to be most efficient (we might be wrong, obviously - one of the reasons I sometimes write here and thus get the opportunity to read a rebuttal).

 

[Bald Rick]

Oh, but through the tunnel they do (I know, no banker). IIRC 56 km through the Gotthard tunnel at 200 km/h, half-hourly, and up to 6 freights an hour (at 100 km/h) - and since the railways north and south of the tunnel are only double-track, freights will be regulated so that they can be overtaken.

sorry we are at cross purposes; I meant the old tunnels, not the base tunnels. We certainly didn’t do 200kph (or anything near it!) up to or through the original Lötschberg tunnel last time I used it. More like 50kph (it was raining and the loco was slipping badly).

If running freights without regulating them (often) is the most efficient use of capacity, then so be it. It’s just not the way that I know and which we seem to consider to be most efficient (we might be wrong, obviously - one of the reasons I sometimes write here and thus get the opportunity to read a rebuttal).

Many freights are planned to be looped, often 2 or 3 times on the trip between Preston and Motherwell.
It’s slightly more difficult for the longer trains, where loop options are more limited. Sometimes the looping is for crew purposes as well as to allow a passenger service past.

My point is that the time taken to stop and attach a loco, and of course detach the other end (possibly not necessary if being banked), would almost certainly take longer than the time gain from having higher speed up the relevant grade - the grades aren’t that difficult.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Enough said. I am really just surprised. As I said, you are world masters in capacity usage (and I mean it; obviously the Swiss, the Dutch etc have loads of trains as well, but they have invested far more in grade separation etc) but this discussion sounds like you aren’t aware of it.

I suspect that many on this site are indeed aware of it but unfortunately the "powers that be" have almost no interest in spending public funds on the sort of infrastructure improvements (additional trackage, grade separated junctions, etc) that would allow for more efficient rail traffic management. It doesn't help that the Transport Minister's position is seen as simply a small stepping stone on a path to bigger posts and is rarely filled by anyone with sufficient interest or talent to grasp the significance of the problems and how they constrain the economy. If only we could be more like the Dutch.