Could Shap and Beattock summits have been bypassed?

[The Planner]

That's the obvious first step. With the advent of the 6MW Class 99, the supply certainly needs beefing up to allow two or three of these flighted one after another, up these gradients. From openinframap, there are grid supply points at Shap and Beattock summits, fed by 132kV and 400kV substations so plenty of power available locally.

So beef up the supply, and give the FoC's 10-year notice that they need to increase the power-to-weight ratio of any daytime trains over these hills.

You need those 10 years to get the supplies sorted, you tend to work at the DNOs pace, not your own.

 

[MisterSheeps]

Thanks — I'm going to have to get that!

Is interesting, especially about the Ambleside extension. The Longsleddale route would have been good, but unrealistic then, now much harder due to the flooding of Mardale. I think lessening Shap doesn't solve other issues, such as the sinuous nature of much of the line north of Oxenholme, as far as Low Gill. The first Locke plan would have been best, though to the detriment of Lancaster & Kendal.

 

[HSTEd]

You need those 10 years to get the supplies sorted, you tend to work at the DNOs pace, not your own.

Pedant alarm - but you don't need the DNO if you are pulling from a 400kV circuit!

I doubt National Grid would be in any rush though, given how lethargic they are on everything else.

 

[Nottingham59]

You need those 10 years to get the supplies sorted, you tend to work at the DNOs pace, not your own.

Well, NR/DfT had better get on with it. ROG ordered 30 4MW class 93s in Jan 2021, and GBRf ordered 30 6MW class 99s in April 2022. The economics of these locomotives means that they will be used primarily on routes that have long runs under the wires, currently hauled by diesel class 66s. Which means a lot of them will use WCML. So there will be a step change in electric usage from 2023 onwards, growing rapidly thereafter given the cost advantage of 93s and 99s over 66s. Have these developments been built into electrification reinforcement planning?

 

[The Planner]

Well, NR/DfT had better get on with it. ROG ordered 30 4MW class 93s in Jan 2021, and GBRf ordered 30 6MW class 99s in April 2022. The economics of these locomotives means that they will be used primarily on routes that have long runs under the wires, currently hauled by diesel class 66s. Which means a lot of them will use WCML. So there will be a step change in electric usage from 2023 onwards, growing rapidly thereafter given the cost advantage of 93s and 99s over 66s. Have these developments been built into electrification reinforcement planning?

Penwortham has been signed off, also depends how much interaction there was between NR and the FOCs prior to ordering the locos or if assumptions were just made on their part.

 

[ac6000cw]

Well, NR/DfT had better get on with it. ROG ordered 30 4MW class 93s in Jan 2021, and GBRf ordered 30 6MW class 99s in April 2022. The economics of these locomotives means that they will be used primarily on routes that have long runs under the wires, currently hauled by diesel class 66s. Which means a lot of them will use WCML. So there will be a step change in electric usage from 2023 onwards, growing rapidly thereafter given the cost advantage of 93s and 99s over 66s. Have these developments been built into electrification reinforcement planning?

Don't forget an 11-car 390 is rated at just under 6MW, and a pair of power-limited 90's (or 86s) is around 5.6 MW, so we've been in the 6 MW per train era on the WCML for while.

Getting back to the title of the thread, the answer is surely 'anything is possible if want to throw enough money at it.

Examples are the Lötschberg, Gotthard and other base tunnels.

Another good example is the line over Rogers Pass in Canada which has been rebuilt & realigned twice with long tunnels - in 1916 with the 8km Connaught Tunnel, lowering the summit and reducing operating costs considerably, then again in 1988 with the 14.7km Mount Macdonald Tunnel which double-tracked the pass and reduced the westbound ruling gradient from 2.2% to 1%, eliminating the need for pusher (banking) locos.

 

[Bald Rick]

Penwortham has been signed off, also depends how much interaction there was between NR and the FOCs prior to ordering the locos or if assumptions were just made on their part.

very diplomatic of you.

 

[Nottingham59]

depends how much interaction there was between NR and the FOCs prior to ordering the locos or if assumptions were just made on their part

So what sort of locomotives did NR expect FoCs to be buying? When their own Traction Network Decarbonisation Strategy (2020,p7) recommends that "Procurement of diesel-only vehicles is only undertaken where there is clear strategic and economic rationale for doing so". Were they expecting FoCs to order Diesel/Pixie-dust hybrids?

 

[The Planner]

very diplomatic of you.

I know, I feel quite dirty now

So what sort of locomotives did NR expect FoCs to be buying? When their own Traction Network Decarbonisation Strategy (2020,p7) recommends that "Procurement of diesel-only vehicles is only undertaken where there is clear strategic and economic rationale for doing so". Were they expecting FoCs to order Diesel/Pixie-dust hybrids?

Maybe some discussion on what the requirements of the infrastructure are before purchasing? It doesnt just apply to FOCs either...

 

[brad465]

Getting back to the title of the thread, the answer is surely 'anything is possible if want to throw enough money at it.

Examples are the Lötschberg, Gotthard and other base tunnels.

Presumably those tunnels are through much higher terrain so the benefits are even greater. I don't think the case is strong for the two subject summits unless part of a HS2 to Scotland/longer high speed line.

 

[ac6000cw]

Presumably those tunnels are through much higher terrain so the benefits are even greater.

Yes and yes - I was just using them to illustrate that if you've got a big enough budget for fairly heroic civil engineering, you can flatten and straighten routes through quite difficult terrain.

I don't think the case is strong for the two subject summits

I agree with that.

 

[xotGD]

If freight needs to bypass Shap and Beattock then it should be routed via the ECML.

 

[zwk500]

If freight needs to bypass Shap and Beattock then it should be routed via the ECML.

Who's going to pay for the W12 upgrade, power supply enhancements, loop lengthening, and Edinburgh area capacity that would be needed to enable this?

 

[HSTEd]

Are there any significant freight load centres between Lockerbie and Carstairs?

Is the lime plant on Shap still using rail?

If not, base tunnels would allow tens of km of exposed track in awful terrain to be dispensed with.

 

[furnessvale]

Are there any significant freight load centres between Lockerbie and Carstairs?

Is the lime plant on Shap still using rail?

If not, base tunnels would allow tens of km of exposed track in awful terrain to be dispensed with.

Yes, freight is still loaded to rail in the Shap area.

A new base tunnel, if justified would provide significant additional capacity. Freight loaded to rail on the old route could still use it in a downgraded form.

 

[Bald Rick]

Are there any significant freight load centres between Lockerbie and Carstairs?

Is the lime plant on Shap still using rail?

If not, base tunnels would allow tens of km of exposed track in awful terrain to be dispensed with.

an imaginary base tunnel would simply provide a high speed route for passenger services, freeing up the old route for freight at whatever speed it needs to go, and also freeing up power supply capacity so that it is not such a constraint.

 

[MisterSheeps]

freeing up the old route

seems a bit counterintuitive to me, it's the freights that struggle on the (asymetric profile) northbound Tebay - Shap, & Beattock - Elvanfoot slopes, not the passenger services

 

[zwk500]

seems a bit counterintuitive to me, it's the freights that struggle on the (asymetric profile) northbound Tebay - Shap, & Beattock - Elvanfoot slopes, not the passenger services

the issue is the interaction between the different speed profiles. If you have a faster route, you would naturally want the most time-sensitive traffic (Express Passenger) to use that. If every train up Shap is travelling at the same speed, it's much less of an issue exactly how fast it gets up the hill.

 

[MisterSheeps]

the most time-sensitive traffic

sure, makes sense, though some traffic is perishable food ... genuine question though is : could more slow stuff go via Hellifield / Dumfries in the day (as 'the logs' do), and the approx 8 night hours when there's no passenger traffic?

 

[The Planner]

sure, makes sense, though some traffic is perishable food ... genuine question though is : could more slow stuff go via Hellifield / Dumfries in the day (as 'the logs' do), and the approx 8 night hours when there's no passenger traffic?

Not unless we spend significant amounts of money on gauge clearance. You aren't getting big boxes through the S&C tunnels.

 

[Bald Rick]

seems a bit counterintuitive to me, it's the freights that struggle on the (asymetric profile) northbound Tebay - Shap, & Beattock - Elvanfoot slopes, not the passenger services

the freights don’t struggle - they go at the speed they can. But they get in the way of passenger services and are therefore looped, which slows them down. With no passenger services in the way, no problems.

 

[zwk500]

sure, makes sense, though some traffic is perishable food ... genuine question though is : could more slow stuff go via Hellifield / Dumfries in the day (as 'the logs' do), and the approx 8 night hours when there's no passenger traffic?

We do run stuff overnight, a hell of a lot of it. However that comes with it's own problems: Engineering access, Crewing night shifts, noise/light levels at yards.

 

[Spaceship323]

Which means a lot of them will use WCML.

I don't think class 99's will use it as GBRf don't run up the northern WCML over Shap, apart from the odd M.O.D train from Oxfordshire to Carlisle

 

[furnessvale]

the issue is the interaction between the different speed profiles. If you have a faster route, you would naturally want the most time-sensitive traffic (Express Passenger) to use that. If every train up Shap is travelling at the same speed, it's much less of an issue exactly how fast it gets up the hill.

Yes, although freights could run more slowly over the top rather than through a new base tunnel, the fact that they would keep going, rather than being looped all the time, would probably result in better overall timings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Sep 2022 ==

Just on the topic of base tunnels, what sort of passenger usage would it take to justify them? Even a very optimistic train every half hour to Glasgow AND Edingurgh would only put 4 trains an hour each way. Add in a couple of very high speed freights and I still doubt the economics add up.

 

[The Planner]

Yes, although freights could run more slowly over the top rather than through a new base tunnel, the fact that they would keep going, rather than being looped all the time, would probably result in better overall timings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Sep 2022 ==

Just on the topic of base tunnels, what sort of passenger usage would it take to justify them? Even a very optimistic train every half hour to Glasgow AND Edingurgh would only put 4 trains an hour each way. Add in a couple of very high speed freights and I still doubt the economics add up.

You would sell it on journey time just as much as capacity in this case.

 

[Bald Rick]

You would sell it on journey time just as much as capacity in this case.

Agreed. The capacity argument would be as much about freight as anything else.

 

[xotGD]

Who's going to pay for the W12 upgrade, power supply enhancements, loop lengthening, and Edinburgh area capacity that would be needed to enable this?

A lot cheaper than these fanciful Base Tunnels.

 

[Bald Rick]

A lot cheaper than these fanciful Base Tunnels.

Im not sure it would be!

 

[HSTEd]

A lot cheaper than these fanciful Base Tunnels.

Upgrades have an awful track record for actually completing on time or on budget!

 

[Nottingham59]

I don't think class 99's will use it as GBRf don't run up the northern WCML over Shap, apart from the odd M.O.D train from Oxfordshire to Carlisle

Sure, but ROG mention Felixstowe to Mossend as an example of routes for the class 93, and I'd expect GBRf to compete strongly for WCML traffic, given the expected cost and performamce advantages of 99s over 66s under the wires.