Class15
Established Member
Does anyone know why London Gateway hasn’t been electrified?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
London Gateway electrification?
- Thread starter Class15
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Trainbike46
Established Member
I'm not sure, but I have heard a rumour that part of the reason was that the government felt it should be paid for by the port, while the port felt it should be paid for by the government. With the result that neither paid for it, so it didn't get electrified
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Either way, surely a really quick win.
Last edited:
Class15
Established Member
Agreed, it makes no sense when most of the trains are going to electrified terminals (Trafford Park, Garston, Coatbridge etc.)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Agreed
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The old lazy attitude
Because the port paid for the branch, but chose not to pay for electrification.
Trainbike46
Established Member
absolutely; It's a short section, and will reduce diesel use by a lot, so that's why it came up in both the "electrification for carbon reduction" and "easy wins for electrification" threads
zwk500
Veteran Member
Is there an element of a Mexican standoff between the various parties trying to get the other to pay for electrification?
It's questionable how much it would reduce diesel usage on it's own.
Looking at trains for London Gateway Departure Line on a Wednesday, trains operate to the following Electrified terminals (or terminals adjacent to electrified lines): Trafford Park, Crewe Basford Hall, Garston FLT, Dollands Moor, Wembley Yard, Coatbridge, and Wentloog. However only just under half the trains go to these terminals.
Trains also operate to the following non-electrified terminals: Lawley Street, Birch Coppice, Hams Hall, Wakefield Europort, Leeds FLT, Doncaster Iport, Masborough, Bristol FLT.
(Train list here: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...23-03-01/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt)
So trains to Wembley, Trafford Park, Crewe, Garston and Coatbridge could go over to Electric traction with no other work required. Trains to Dollands Moor could go to 92 traction if suitable paths are available. But Wentloog would need Acton Bank (or another route like Kew/Birmingham doing).
Doncaster Iport is relatively straightforward but only if you run via the ECML. But trains to Lawley Street, Birch Coppice, Hams Hall would need Nuneaton-Birmingham doing, Trains to Leeds FLT and Wakefield would need West Yorks commuter routes, and Bristol would need bristol Metro options.
The important thing to remember is that the train may do London Gateway-Mossend, but the loco might then be doing Mossend-Grangemouth or somtheing. So even if individual services/flows can go over, the diagram may not be able to and would therefore require additional work to take advantage of the electrification.
on a purely financial basis, the main beneficiaries of electrification are the FOCs*, and I don’t think they have ever paid for any main line electrification.
* there’s an argument that if electric traction is cheaper and/or more efficient, then that feeds into the haul price, and that then makes the port a little more attractive to shipping lines. However I suspect that is a very marginal Benefit.
Maybe that was not a good choice of example as Mossend-Grangemouth is now surely all electrified?
It requires the government to have a serious infrastructure strategy and also to take modal shift of freight to rail seriously as part of its net zero policy. But it would rather rely on magical solutions (which someone else pays for) for the latter, rather than solid proven existing technology.
zwk500
Veteran Member
OK, but point being that a Class 66 can work an electrified service and then run over dead track with another job. Class 90s would be confined to the electrified lines, which would be effectively the trunk Container flows only.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Can anybody clarify how operations at London Gateway might work if trains were hauled by electric locomotives?
As I understand it there is one Arrival line and one Departure line. There are six further (parallel) lines under the cranes, which obviously can't be wired. There is nothing that might be described as a 'reception yard' or any other space that might be used for locomotives changing, shunting and so on. I am not aware that there is any resident shunting locomotive capability that might drag entire trains with their electric locomotives under the crane area. This really seems like a recipe for delays, longer turnarounds, reduced capacity and additional costs.
I get that with bi-mode locomotives such as the Classes 88 and 93 these could switch to diesel or battery under the cranes but presumably they could do that at Thameshaven Junction for the 'last mile' (well two miles, I suppose).
As I understand it there is one Arrival line and one Departure line. There are six further (parallel) lines under the cranes, which obviously can't be wired. There is nothing that might be described as a 'reception yard' or any other space that might be used for locomotives changing, shunting and so on. I am not aware that there is any resident shunting locomotive capability that might drag entire trains with their electric locomotives under the crane area. This really seems like a recipe for delays, longer turnarounds, reduced capacity and additional costs.
I get that with bi-mode locomotives such as the Classes 88 and 93 these could switch to diesel or battery under the cranes but presumably they could do that at Thameshaven Junction for the 'last mile' (well two miles, I suppose).
zwk500
Veteran Member
You could wire up to the edge of the Fan, and the electric would runround at the Arrival/Departure lines before pushing the train into the Gantry sidings. This obviously requires no other train to be standing there at the time. It's a faff but possible. Probably easier to put batteries in a Class 90.
Fine.... So the next time that they need planning approval for anything....
zwk500
Veteran Member
Which would require either the approving body (would this be the major projects process (DCO?) rather than the council) to be concerned enough to specify it, or for it to be required in legislation.
They’ll deal with the Planning Authority!
Indeed, who will have pollution targets and who Government will be talking too....
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Not necessarily.... Planning gain under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
zwk500
Veteran Member
I doubt the Planning Authorities bargaining position would be strong enough to force electrification. Getting them to pay for the branch would have satisfied the pollution targets as 1x Class 66 is better than 80x HGVs.
Trainbike46
Established Member
As far as I can tell, you just listed a significant number of long-distance services that could go electric without any further work if the gateway branch was electrified, and then some that could be electrified later on if/when other short sections get electrified.
Regarding diagrams, those aren't set in stone. and with more electrification coming up (particularly in Scotland), there will be increasingly more options for all-electric diagrams
zwk500
Veteran Member
It's less than a dozen services per day that could go electric with no other work.
True, but would require more work to rewrite the diagrams, at a time when such office capacity is under severe strain.
Class15
Established Member
Sorry, what?
Garston (1 a day)
Trafford Park (at least 4 a day)
Crewe Basford Hall (2 a day)
zwk500
Veteran Member
1 + 4 + 2 is 7, which is less than a dozen (12).
Class15
Established Member
Oh sorry, I thought you meant single services (in which case it is 14)
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Given the far greater complexities of trying to shunt wagons to and from the (un-wire-able) loading/unloading roads these 7/14 diagrams would probably have to be totally re-written with new paths throughout over some of the busiest routes in the country, quite possibly busting crew hours, wagon cycle times and so forth.
Has anyone done any proper analysis of all this?
Meanwhile it is nice to note that the port is at least investing £12 million in a couple more (electric) rail mounted gantry cranes to serve the new fourth berth.
Has anyone done any proper analysis of all this?
Meanwhile it is nice to note that the port is at least investing £12 million in a couple more (electric) rail mounted gantry cranes to serve the new fourth berth.
zwk500
Veteran Member
Almost certainly not.
Class15
Established Member
It’s worth mentioning that BR wired the Primrose Hill line for a handful of daily electric intermodals.
Following your logic to extremis we will be using diesel freight locos forever. That just isn't going to happen.
zwk500
Veteran Member
It's also worth mentioning that BR worked very differently and no longer exist.
Not necessarily, because there are projects that will give material benefits that justify the additional costs involved in switching to electrification. Such as Nuneaton-Grand Junction, Birmingham-Castle Don-Toton.
Trainbike46
Established Member
Even with only 7/14 services a day, that is quite a lot of diesel vehicle miles switching over to electric, because of the significant distances along already wired routes.
And as you accurately state, the number of services that would use it would increase if other sections (such as at nuneaton) get wired too
- Status