North Downs line complete electrification and pattern change, including fast London-Dorking

[nw1]

One thing that comes up quite a bit is the slowness of either route from London to Dorking, as the services are forced to call at most or all stations due to pathing constraints over double track.

I wonder whether there could, in the future, be scope for electrifying Reigate-Guildford and running through services from Victoria or London Bridge to Guildford via Redhill and Dorking?

A look at today's times reveals that Victoria to Dorking via Redhill on a theoretical through train could be done in as little as 45 mins, versus 57 for the existing slow direct service. 17 mins VIC-East Croydon, 1 min stop (=18), 15 mins to Redhill calling at Purley (=33) and then 12 to Reigate and Dorking Deepdene (=45). If London Bridge was the origin (with a Norwood Junction stop) this could be cut further to 43. Indeed, the fastest possible journey from London to Dorking today seems to be from London Bridge with one change at Redhill.

The service could be an extension of one train per hour from London to Reigate, with the Coulsdon and Merstham stops removed and transferred e.g. to slower Thameslinks, i.e. not the Brightons.

Such a service could also provide the local station service, e.g. 1tp2h calling at Betchworth and the other at Gomshall and Chilworth, with all calling at Shalford. So the Betchworth stoppers would be a couple of mins slower but even still, the London-Dorking journey would still be faster than the existing one and perhaps with EMUs the times would be faster in any case.

It would also provide 1tph through service from Guildford to East Croydon, not sure how significant a flow that is.

Meanwhile the Guildford-Reading section could be electrified, and gain a half-hourly stopping shuttle service (half-hourly due to the high population density in this area) and worked by the "South Western" operator as it's clearly in its patch. Would also permit inter-working with Guildford-Aldershot if that was the most efficient way of doing it.

The Reading-Gatwick would meanwhile remain as an hourly service, run by third-rail EMUs (either South Western or Southern ones, depending on who operates it).

 

[HamworthyGoods]

One thing that comes up quite a bit is the slowness of either route from London to Dorking, as the services are forced to call at most or all stations due to pathing constraints over double track.

I wonder whether there could, in the future, be scope for electrifying Reigate-Guildford and running through services from Victoria or London Bridge to Guildford via Redhill and Dorking?

A look at today's times reveals that Victoria to Dorking via Redhill on a theoretical through train could be done in as little as 45 mins, versus 57 for the existing slow direct service. 17 mins VIC-East Croydon, 1 min stop (=18), 15 mins to Redhill calling at Purley (=33) and then 12 to Reigate and Dorking Deepdene (=45). If London Bridge was the origin (with a Norwood Junction stop) this could be cut further to 43. Indeed, the fastest possible journey from London to Dorking today seems to be from London Bridge with one change at Redhill.

The service could be an extension of one train per hour from London to Reigate, with the Coulsdon and Merstham stops removed and transferred e.g. to slower Thameslinks, i.e. not the Brightons.

Such a service could also provide the local station service, e.g. 1tp2h calling at Betchworth and the other at Gomshall and Chilworth, with all calling at Shalford. So the Betchworth stoppers would be a couple of mins slower but even still, the London-Dorking journey would still be faster than the existing one and perhaps with EMUs the times would be faster in any case.

It would also provide 1tph through service from Guildford to East Croydon, not sure how significant a flow that is.

Meanwhile the Guildford-Reading section could be electrified, and gain a half-hourly stopping shuttle service (half-hourly due to the high population density in this area) and worked by the "South Western" operator as it's clearly in its patch. Would also permit inter-working with Guildford-Aldershot if that was the most efficient way of doing it.

The Reading-Gatwick would meanwhile remain as an hourly service, run by third-rail EMUs (either South Western or Southern ones, depending on who operates it).

Scope for electrifying, yes however with battery technology there’s probably no need for the North Downs as it’s one of the better routes for running battery trains on with electrification at each and and a bit in the middle.

As for service increases, the railway in a state of contraction at the moment so these would be unlikely to feature for some time.

 

[30907]

An interesting concept, and my immediate thought is that it solves the problem of full-length trains turning back at Reigate - build a turnback siding on the Up side at Dorking West (there's a scrapyard by the look of it!).
However
1. there is still the Level Crossings mitigation to sort out (Reigate, Betchworth)
2. you would need to retain the Coulsdon and Merstham stops as this hypothetical service wouldn't load well, so journey time would be around 50min.
3. there are paths currently unused out of Victoria for 2tph via Sutton - rejigging the timetable to allow them to run semi-fast (Clapham Jn, Sutton, Epsom and possibly Leatherhead) would offer a journey time of 43-45 min (historically it was 38min with stop) which would serve far more people.
4. Such a service could be extended hourly to Horsham benefitting Ockley etc.

 

[JonathanH]

Meanwhile the Guildford-Reading section could be electrified, and gain a half-hourly stopping shuttle service (half-hourly due to the high population density in this area) and worked by the "South Western" operator as it's clearly in its patch. Would also permit inter-working with Guildford-Aldershot if that was the most efficient way of doing it.

In a full crayon plan, the Reading to Guildford service would run on to Cranleigh.

 

[Bald Rick]

In a full crayon plan, the Reading to Guildford service would run on to Cranleigh.

That is some very big crayons!

 

[nw1]

In a full crayon plan, the Reading to Guildford service would run on to Cranleigh.

I think a half-hourly EMU from Guildford to Reading (which really doesn't sound that ridiculous to me once we're in economically better times, just some infill electrification and some more units) is a bit more feasible than a full reopening to Cranleigh! I do want to emphasise this would be a medium/long term idea, rather than right now.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Nov 2022 ==

Scope for electrifying, yes however with battery technology there’s probably no need for the North Downs as it’s one of the better routes for running battery trains on with electrification at each and and a bit in the middle.

As for service increases, the railway in a state of contraction at the moment so these would be unlikely to feature for some time.

I am talking about some time in the future though, rather than immediately. I assumed the speculative session would be for discussing ideas for the medium or long term.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Nov 2022 ==

An interesting concept, and my immediate thought is that it solves the problem of full-length trains turning back at Reigate - build a turnback siding on the Up side at Dorking West (there's a scrapyard by the look of it!).
However
1. there is still the Level Crossings mitigation to sort out (Reigate, Betchworth)

Fair enough.

2. you would need to retain the Coulsdon and Merstham stops as this hypothetical service wouldn't load well, so journey time would be around 50min.

Would it though, as it would be one of the 2tph to Reigate; it would be a key Redhill service; and it would be one of the faster services to Purley. Presumably a 4 car 377 or similar would suffice anyhow.

3. there are paths currently unused out of Victoria for 2tph via Sutton - rejigging the timetable to allow them to run semi-fast (Clapham Jn, Sutton, Epsom and possibly Leatherhead) would offer a journey time of 43-45 min (historically it was 38min with stop) which would serve far more people.

True though this service still seemed pretty slow even when it ran fast from Clapham to Sutton. It did, at that time, call at most stations south of Sutton so I guess you could, as you say, remove some stops - but is there then a path for a replacement service to Cheam, Ewell East, etc?

4. Such a service could be extended hourly to Horsham benefitting Ockley etc.

I don't disagree there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Nov 2022 ==

Scope for electrifying, yes however with battery technology there’s probably no need for the North Downs as it’s one of the better routes for running battery trains on with electrification at each and and a bit in the middle.

But isn't it better to just infill electrify, as you can then use the same stock as the lines in the same area rather than having to have specialised stock for this one route? (Again, the intended timescale is economically better times in the future, whenever that will be).

 

[HamworthyGoods]

But isn't it better to just infill electrify, as you can then use the same stock as the lines in the same area rather than having to have specialised stock for this one route? (Again, the intended timescale is economically better times in the future, whenever that will be).

Don’t forget but the time this is likely to potentially happen the 377s and 450s will be approaching end of life anyway. Both are now approaching their final third or projected lifespan, I know we still think of them as new!

 

[PGAT]

Don’t forget but the time this is likely to potentially happen the 377s and 450s will be approaching end of life anyway. Both are now approaching their final third or projected lifespan, I know we still think of them as new!

The 377s are currently undergoing refurbishment and are the bread and butter of Southerns entire fleet. They’re going to be sticking around for at least 30 years.

 

[Turtle]

Scope for electrifying, yes however with battery technology there’s probably no need for the North Downs as it’s one of the better routes for running battery trains on with electrification at each and and a bit in the middle.

As for service increases, the railway in a state of contraction at the moment so these would be unlikely to feature for some time.

The UK must surely be the only European state where inherently inefficient methods of railway motive power appear to be considered normal. Of course the gap in the Guildford - Reigate 3rd rail should be filled in by 3rd rail. After all an electric train lugging batteries around is an inefficient electric train. Similarly a bimode is simultaneously an inefficient electric train carrying a fuel tank and diesel engine around or an inefficient diesel train lugging electric motors about. As Roger Ford has frequently pointed out stop dreaming up convoluted short term solutions to avoid the simple longer term efficient solution that is electrification.

 

[MarkyT]

The UK must surely be the only European state where inherently inefficient methods of railway motive power appear to be considered normal. Of course the gap in the Guildford - Reigate 3rd rail should be filled in by 3rd rail. After all an electric train lugging batteries around is an inefficient electric train. Similarly a bimode is simultaneously an inefficient electric train carrying a fuel tank and diesel engine around or an inefficient diesel train lugging electric motors about. As Roger Ford has frequently pointed out stop dreaming up convoluted short term solutions to avoid the simple longer term efficient solution that is electrification.

Diesel trains with electric transmission already have motors. Electric-only trains, particularly freight locomotives, are sometimes ballasted to provide sufficient adhesive weight for the duties intended as the electrical equipment is fairly lightweight today. In those cases a diesel generator and fuel tank can take the place of a big lump of concrete without any significant weight penalty, although space has proved a challenge within the diminutive UK loading gauge. Many 3rd rail units have space and weight budget allocated onboard for a large step-down transformer to cater for future 25kV OHLE compatibility. Again sometimes a big ballast weight is substituted for the transformer for the suspension to work properly whether the transformer is fitted or not. For bi-mode Hitachis, the weight of the engine-generator pack and fuel tank is a fairly small proportion of total car weight and makes little difference to performance under wires. The extra weight is less important for long-distance high-speed operation with its longer stop spacing. Modern vehicles, especially those used on local stop-start services with short stop spacing can also use modern techniques and materials to save bodyshell and bogie weight and make allowance for batteries/onboard power source. I'm not arguing against electrification, which should be the default option for all trunk main lines and high-density operations eventually, but for branches and extremities particularly, batteries and in the shorter term bi-modes remain viable options, although it's clearly best if this capability is designed into a train from new.

 

[nw1]

Diesel trains with electric transmission already have motors. Electric-only trains, particularly freight locomotives, are sometimes ballasted to provide sufficient adhesive weight for the duties intended as the electrical equipment is fairly lightweight today. In those cases a diesel generator and fuel tank can take the place of a big lump of concrete without any significant weight penalty, although space has proved a challenge within the diminutive UK loading gauge. Many 3rd rail units have space and weight budget allocated onboard for a large step-down transformer to cater for future 25kV OHLE compatibility. Again sometimes a big ballast weight is substituted for the transformer for the suspension to work properly whether the transformer is fitted or not. For bi-mode Hitachis, the weight of the engine-generator pack and fuel tank is a fairly small proportion of total car weight and makes little difference to performance under wires. The extra weight is less important for long-distance high-speed operation with its longer stop spacing. Modern vehicles, especially those used on local stop-start services with short stop spacing can also use modern techniques and materials to save bodyshell and bogie weight and make allowance for batteries/onboard power source. I'm not arguing against electrification, which should be the default option for all trunk main lines and high-density operations eventually, but for branches and extremities particularly, batteries and in the shorter term bi-modes remain viable options, although it's clearly best if this capability is designed into a train from new.

I would class the North Downs as the sort of line which should be electrified in the medium-term, as it is in a generally electrified area and is well-used particularly the section from Guildford to Reading. It's not really a remote branch and/or on the extremities of the network.

Not sure how long 377s and 450s will last but if we say 35-40 years, they'll be around until the year 2040 or so certainly, perhaps a bit longer. Assuming a climb-out of the economic crisis from 2025, it's conceivable the North Downs could get done in the late 2020s so still with 10-15 years of life left in the 377s and 450s. Not unlike the introduction of CIGs and VEPs on the Solent lines in 1990, when they had 15-odd years left.

 

[21C101]

In a full crayon plan, the Reading to Guildford service would run on to Cranleigh.

I think that would be daft.

As and when Woking aquires a flyover the Waterloo to Woking stoppers can go onto Guildford. Extending one of those to a rebuilt Cranleigh would be more logical and give Cranleigh a direct London service.

As to Fasts to Dorking via Redhill. The SECR intended to electrify as far as Dorking to give a fast service as an alternative to the ponderous goat track via Epsom.

If and when the line is electrified then extending London to Reigate services to Dorking West is an obvious move.

 

[nw1]

I think that would be daft.

As and when Woking aquires a flyover the Waterloo to Woking stoppers can go onto Guildford. Extending one of those to a rebuilt Cranleigh would be more logical and give Cranleigh a direct London service.

I realise Cranleigh won't get rebuilt in the current climate (or indeed a Woking flyover) but in a hypothetical future scenario where that did happen, I'd say it would make more sense to detach a Cranleigh portion off one of Portsmouth Direct stoppers at Guildford. Otherwise you end up with the train calling at almost all stations to Waterloo which would be unattractive to potential users of the reopened line.

 

[21C101]

I realise Cranleigh won't get rebuilt in the current climate (or indeed a Woking flyover) but in a hypothetical future scenario where that did happen, I'd say it would make more sense to detach a Cranleigh portion off one of Portsmouth Direct stoppers at Guildford. Otherwise you end up with the train calling at almost all stations to Waterloo which would be unattractive to potential users of the reopened line.

I can see that argument. Unfortunately dividing and joining trains seems to be increasingly frowned upon.

 

[nw1]

I can see that argument. Unfortunately dividing and joining trains seems to be increasingly frowned upon.

Does seem one of the dogmas of the current era (when you consider it was normal practice from, I don't know, the 50s through to the 90s), though AFAIK it's still done at both Haywards Heath and Horsham every half-hour, albeit with a very lengthy time-penalty compared to the past.

In the 80s you often had: Southern EMU service arrive at T, divide, front portion out at T+2, rear portion out T+4. No messing around, and, for the front portion, a time penalty of perhaps just one minute! (given it might have stopped for one minute anyway).

 

[Minstral25]

I have thought extended the Reigate's to Dorking West would be viable and solve the infrastructure problem at Reigate. Could be done with extending the Third Rail and creating a turn round siding at Dorking - alternatively it's not the longest distance so perhaps take out the concrete block and add a battery unit under some 377's would work - means would need a dedicated fleet. The only issue is that time would be around 58 minutes to Victoria which is the same as Dorking Main to Victoria so not much reason for people to use these trains hence I expect BCR would be minimal

Does seem one of the dogmas of the current era (when you consider it was normal practice from, I don't know, the 50s through to the 90s), though AFAIK it's still done at both Haywards Heath and Horsham every half-hour, albeit with a very lengthy time-penalty compared to the past.

In the 80s you often had: Southern EMU service arrive at T, divide, front portion out at T+2, rear portion out T+4. No messing around, and, for the front portion, a time penalty of perhaps just one minute! (given it might have stopped for one minute anyway).

I think the only regular splits by Southern now are at Horsham all day and at Redhill in the peak - Haywards Heath trains have been separated and no longer split except a few very late night/early morning trains.

 

[Bald Rick]

After all an electric train lugging batteries around is an inefficient electric train.

Source required!

As Roger Ford has frequently pointed out stop dreaming up convoluted short term solutions to avoid the simple longer term efficient solution that is electrification.

Even Uncle Roger has now seen the light with batteries for lower speed, shorter distance electrificationgaps. See his column in the latest Modern Railways.

I realise Cranleigh won't get rebuilt in the current climate

It will never get rebuilt.

 

[nw1]

It will never get rebuilt.

I think "never" is a bit of an assumption, who knows what the future will bring (e.g. much new housing south and east of Cranleigh? Not inconceivable). "Not in the next 20 years" perhaps, but who's to say what the landscape of the year 2050 and beyond might look like.

In the 1920s people may have said "they will never close large swathes of the UK network", but that would similarly be making assumptions about the future which later proved to be wrong.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think "never" is a bit of an assumption, who knows what the future will bring (e.g. much new housing south and east of Cranleigh? Not inconceivable). "Not in the next 20 years" perhaps, but who's to say what the landscape of the year 2050 and beyond might look like.

In the 1920s people may have said "they will never close large swathes of the UK network", but that would similarly be making assumptions about the future which later proved to be wrong.

I knew this would come up.

obviously “never” is a long time.

but it won’t happen, certainly not this century (and very few of us here present will be around then to prove me right or wrong).

 

[WizCastro197]

I have thought extended the Reigate's to Dorking West would be viable and solve the infrastructure problem at Reigate. Could be done with extending the Third Rail and creating a turn round siding at Dorking - alternatively it's not the longest distance so perhaps take out the concrete block and add a battery unit under some 377's would work - means would need a dedicated fleet. The only issue is that time would be around 58 minutes to Victoria which is the same as Dorking Main to Victoria so not much reason for people to use these trains hence I expect BCR would be minimal




I think the only regular splits by Southern now are at Horsham all day and at Redhill in the peak - Haywards Heath trains have been separated and no longer split except a few very late night/early morning trains.

Some splits/joining at Eastbourne as a portion continues to Ore and the rest of coaches continues back to Victoria or waits for a train from Ore. Barnham on Sundays.

Even if there was limited usage between Dorking and Reigate due to other viable options, surely the demand would come from Reigate-Victoria, but then the situation arises again, what's the point in extending the third rail if there will be limited usage. Could it become a semi-fast service one time around and the other train is slower?

1tph- Dorking Deepdene - Reigate - Redhill - East Croydon - Clapham Junction - Victoria.

Is it possible such train terminates at Deepdene and continues to Dorking West and retires to that siding where it can then form a slower service? Or if you are going there (Dkng West) anyway, you might as well stop?

the other:

1tph- Dorking West - Dorking Deepdene - Betchworth (1tp2h) - Reigate - Redhill - Merstham - Coulsdon South - Purley - East Croydon - Clapham Junction - Victoria

Or is only limited to 1tph?

 

[Basil Jet]

I think the only regular splits by Southern now are at Horsham all day and at Redhill in the peak - Haywards Heath trains have been separated and no longer split except a few very late night/early morning trains.

Purley splits for Caterham / Tottenham Corner

 

[Minstral25]

Some splits/joining at Eastbourne as a portion continues to Ore and the rest of coaches continues back to Victoria or waits for a train from Ore. Barnham on Sundays.

Even if there was limited usage between Dorking and Reigate due to other viable options, surely the demand would come from Reigate-Victoria, but then the situation arises again, what's the point in extending the third rail if there will be limited usage. Could it become a semi-fast service one time around and the other train is slower?

1tph- Dorking Deepdene - Reigate - Redhill - East Croydon - Clapham Junction - Victoria.

is it possible such train terminates at Deepdene and continues to Dorking West and retires to that siding where it can then form a slower service?

the other:

1tph- Dorking West - Dorking Deepdene - Betchworth (1tp2h) - Reigate - Redhill - Merstham - Coulsdon South - Purley - East Croydon - Clapham Junction - Victoria

Or is only limited to 1tph?

Ah - I forgot Eastbourne - knew at least one more would come up - any more? Purley?

I can't see an extension of third rail to Dorking West happening and if the service extends it will be using batteries on existing train such as 377's

The Reigate to Victoria service will not be able to skip stops from Reigate to Purley and will need to remain all stations every half hour to satisfy demand. The timetable through Redhill on Southern and Thameslink is supposed to basically repeat at standard times every 30 minutes as well.

 

[WizCastro197]

Ah - I forgot Eastbourne - knew at least one more would come up - any more? Purley?

I can't see an extension of third rail to Dorking West happening and if the service extends it will be using batteries on existing train such as 377's

The Reigate to Victoria service will not be able to skip stops from Reigate to Purley and will need to remain all stations every half hour to satisfy demand. The timetable through Redhill on Southern and Thameslink is supposed to basically repeat at standard times every 30 minutes as well.

Not sure if this one counts but Victoria do some splitting and joining as well: eg. 14:38 service to Reigate detaches off the 14:35 to Southampton Central and Bognor- arrives as a 12 coach and leaves as an 8

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Nov 2022 ==

The 377s are currently undergoing refurbishment and are the bread and butter of Southerns entire fleet. They’re going to be sticking around for at least 30 years.

It isn’t a very major refurbishment, no seats covers replaced (still sandpaper) no carpet redone, all there was, was changes to PIS system and the fronts got a light and some units have a revised font on their destination screen on the front but some seem to have not been updated despite being refurbished. It hasn’t really extended the life at all ; if it has, probably only by a few years. They’ll probably be retired around late 2030s.

I honestly wouldn’t call it a refurbishment, more a minor refresh. If you are going to the extent of changing a few things, you might aswell change everything.

Where would such batteries go on the train such as 377, would cab need internal refit to fit a Battery system select in?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Nov 2022 ==

Ah - I forgot Eastbourne - knew at least one more would come up - any more? Purley?

I can't see an extension of third rail to Dorking West happening and if the service extends it will be using batteries on existing train such as 377's

The Reigate to Victoria service will not be able to skip stops from Reigate to Purley and will need to remain all stations every half hour to satisfy demand. The timetable through Redhill on Southern and Thameslink is supposed to basically repeat at standard times every 30 minutes as well.

Yes as you said, Purley with those Tatt/Cats.

I think that’s it.

 

[RobShipway]

I know that there is not the paths possibly, but I have never understood why the Reading - Gatwick service has never been extended to Haywards Heath. There is the Down Siding North that the train could be kept in when not in service and whilst there could be recharging the batteries of the unit. Rather than using class 377 though, I suspect that a newer version of class 755 or similar unit would be used, but instead of the middle coach having a diesel power unit, it would be batteries within it.

 

[nw1]

I knew this would come up.

obviously “never” is a long time.

but it won’t happen, certainly not this century (and very few of us here present will be around then to prove me right or wrong).

I think even "not this century" is an assumption, remembering we still have 80 years left, and 80 years ago we were in the middle of WWII - it's a long, long time.

But I agree, many of us are unlikely to survive far into the second half of the century, so won't be able to prove it one way or the other

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Nov 2022 ==

Some splits/joining at Eastbourne as a portion continues to Ore and the rest of coaches continues back to Victoria or waits for a train from Ore. Barnham on Sundays.

Even if there was limited usage between Dorking and Reigate due to other viable options, surely the demand would come from Reigate-Victoria, but then the situation arises again, what's the point in extending the third rail if there will be limited usage. Could it become a semi-fast service one time around and the other train is slower?

1tph- Dorking Deepdene - Reigate - Redhill - East Croydon - Clapham Junction - Victoria.

Is it possible such train terminates at Deepdene and continues to Dorking West and retires to that siding where it can then form a slower service? Or if you are going there (Dkng West) anyway, you might as well stop?

the other:

1tph- Dorking West - Dorking Deepdene - Betchworth (1tp2h) - Reigate - Redhill - Merstham - Coulsdon South - Purley - East Croydon - Clapham Junction - Victoria

Or is only limited to 1tph?

I think there's little point electrifying only as far as Dorking West. Makes much more sense to extend it on to Guildford if you're going that far, as it saves faffing around with reversal and means you don't have to get something else (a diesel) to run the Dorking-Guildford part.

Personally (as I said above) I would run both Reigates fast between Purley and Redhill (Purley in both, but Coulsdon/Merstham in neither) to make the journey time better than the current route - as I said it looks like around 45 mins is doable. One would continue to terminate at Reigate, while electrification would then mean you could use 377s (or similar) on Gatwick-Reading, which would provide Dorking with its second train per hour.

 

[30907]

I think there's little point electrifying only as far as Dorking West. Makes much more sense to extend it on to Guildford if you're going that far, as it saves faffing around with reversal and means you don't have to get something else (a diesel) to run the Dorking-Guildford part.

However, it means you are running long empty trains (you can't sensibly run a single 377 through East Croydon in the peak!) even further.
You could alternatively cover Shalford etc with stops in the proposed half-hourly Reading-Gatwick.

 

[Minstral25]

I think even "not this century" is an assumption, remembering we still have 80 years left, and 80 years ago we were in the middle of WWII - it's a long, long time.

But I agree, many of us are unlikely to survive far into the second half of the century, so won't be able to prove it one way or the other

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Nov 2022 ==



I think there's little point electrifying only as far as Dorking West. Makes much more sense to extend it on to Guildford if you're going that far, as it saves faffing around with reversal and means you don't have to get something else (a diesel) to run the Dorking-Guildford part.

Personally (as I said above) I would run both Reigates fast between Purley and Redhill (Purley in both, but Coulsdon/Merstham in neither) to make the journey time better than the current route - as I said it looks like around 45 mins is doable. One would continue to terminate at Reigate, while electrification would then mean you could use 377s (or similar) on Gatwick-Reading, which would provide Dorking with its second train per hour.

If the turnround is at Dorking West it will be a battery extender from Reigate. (Must be doable - 14-mile round trip and train could recharge all the way to Victoria and back)

Neither Reigate's will run fast between Redhill and Purley without a replacement Victoria service along the Redhill route which there are none available - they are very well used at both Merstham and Coulsdon South - probably more so than traffic generated at either Dorking station or Betchworth added together.

 

[Turtle]

Source required!



Even Uncle Roger has now seen the light with batteries for lower speed, shorter distance electrificationgaps. See his column in the latest Modern Railways.



It will never get rebuilt.

OK. The battery's a bit of extra weight.
As for Uncle Roger my latest Modern Railways is still unread, having only just arrived!

 

[Bald Rick]

OK. The battery's a bit of extra weight.

For some units yes, for others, not.

Even where it is, a battery that would give a typical 4 car unit two hours of range off the juice on a typical outer suburban cycle would be an extra 3% weight at most. Due the vagaries of the DC distribution system in third rail areas, there is a scenario where the additional weight might actually result in them being more efficient in the whole cycle than a straight EMU.

 

[MarkyT]

For some units yes, for others, not.

Even where it is, a battery that would give a typical 4 car unit two hours of range off the juice on a typical outer suburban cycle would be an extra 3% weight at most. Due the vagaries of the DC distribution system in third rail areas, there is a scenario where the additional weight might actually result in them being more efficient in the whole cycle than a straight EMU.

Also at times of peak demand in those rather more 'vague' areas, such units might lay off their mains consumption a little without losing performance, mixing in a bit of their stored energy instead, some of which may have been harvested from earlier braking (where the line wasn't receptive for reuse by other trains). Widespread battery fitment in the DC fleet particularly has some interesting potential load-balancing benefits beyond allowing trains to reach unwired extremities. Also, the ability to keep going through short isolations, whether due to failure or for planned maintenance work is another benefit, as is the reduced risk of gapping through junctions. Also, ability to move around depots and yards without dangerous ground conductors being live all the time.