Would electrifying the WEML, Marshlink, North Downs and Uckfield lines with third rail be possible under the ORR's current policy?

[Falcon1200]

What would be the calling pattern between Reading and Oxford? Is there room or need for those extra trains?

Had the service come to pass it could have run non-stop between Reading and Didcot and taken over the Didcot/Oxford or Banbury stoppers, range permitting.

 

[Bald Rick]

If only the powers that be had listened to you then, we would have some nice BEMUs going up and down over the North Downs Line, to Uckfield and over the Marshlink.

I wasn’t telling the powers that be.

All I was saying is that in response to the calls on these pages to electrify Uckfield, N Downs and Ashford - Ore, my response here has always been “it will be battery trains“.

 

[30907]

I am criticing the study for not considering the best options, rather than directly suggesting that such a service should exist. Their first option had 3tph Reading to Redhill with 2tph through to Gatwick.

First, did it conclude that 3tph to Redhill was practicable (bearing in mind the long-running level crossings saga?)?
EDIT: resolved by NR according to the study.
Second, would the increased traffic plus possible economies from running a Tonbridge-Guildford(-Reading) stopper make a significantly better business case for both parts of the route?

 

[JonathanH]

There was a fast and a slow service which left Reading 30 minutes apart, and the slow service would just would just miss the connection to Tonbridge, and the fast train would not be far behind it. The fastest service between Reading and Redhill is now slower than it used to be, because one train an hour is faster west of Guildford, and the other east.

It is a better timetable in many ways because it only uses 7 units and doesn't 'waste' any of those carrying fresh air between Guildford and Redhill. It is very apparent that a Gatwick train loads better than one terminating at Redhill even if the service has been slowed down by 10 minutes.

This option would also produce a saving since the number of trains on the Redhill-Tonbirdge could probably be reduced from 2 to 1 through inter working since the service takes 32 minutes end to end, which does not work well for stock utilation as an hourly shuttle.

There would still need to be five trains in cycle between Reading and Tonbridge because I don't think the round trip can reliably be brought under two hours if it is the stopper, so unlikely to save a unit.

 

[WAO]

I'm not that impressed by business plans as they seem to reflect the prejudices of their authors, with costs and benefits chosen to make the desired case. I'm surprised that this was even attempted for the ND line as there is no agreed understanding as yet of the acceptability or otherwise of more third rail. The ND line is probably always going to be a railway basket case; non-London, serving wayside stations with a few medium sized towns, without the speed, heavy patronage, high fares or long distance that justify railways economically. Historically, post-steam, it had those most penitential of units, the Tadpoles, 1.5 narrow ex-Hastings cars with an EPB DTSO locked out of use! The present Turbos are a vast improvement but can struggle with peak flows (school children) and airport passengers and luggage. If there is a lack of capacity then a longer consist is called for rather than a more frequent (and costly) service. One would hope that future EMU builders would provide universal passive battery provision (including in software) so that common user stock could fill in for juice-less gaps. That way, the choice of electrification could be made later on the basis of experience of cost and operation. My hunch is that only the Reading - Guildford section would be sparked as it seems to be much more densely inhabited and so heavily used, with the batteries in use for the rural section after Shalford Jn.

Electrification should be an engineering not a theological decision.

WAO

 

[JonathanH]

My hunch is that only the Reading - Guildford section would be sparked as it seems to be much more densely inhabited and so heavily used, with the batteries in use for the rural section after Shalford Jn.

As pointed out before there is a long stretch of route between Wokingham and Ash which has steel sleepers, increasing the cost of electrification.

 

[JamesRowden]

There would still need to be five trains in cycle between Reading and Tonbridge because I don't think the round trip can reliably be brought under two hours if it is the stopper, so unlikely to save a unit.

Interwork with the Reading-Gatwick. There's presently a 27 minute turn around at Reading.

Select calling patterns that create an optimum compromise.

Not saying that this will be better than keeping things as they are. Just saying that the study didn't show that it wouldn't.

 

[Bald Rick]

Electrification should be an engineering not a theological decision.

Quite. And on this line, the engineering is clear - battery trains. Thats what the economics also says, when it come to the time the trains need replacing.

 

[brad465]

Quite. And on this line, the engineering is clear - battery trains. That's what the economics also says, when it come to the time the trains need replacing.

The time they "need" replacing is now, however they haven't been because of a shambolic replacement attempt so far and an order that's still 5-7 years away, if it actually gets approved.

 

[30907]

Not saying that this will be better than keeping things as they are. Just saying that the study didn't show that it wouldn't.

Given that the 3rd tph Guildford-Redhill had a poor business case anyway even though it required only 1 extra unit compared with just Reading-Guildford, extending it to Tonbridge wouldn't have been worth pursuing.

 

[WAO]

Quite. And on this line, the engineering is clear - battery trains. Thats what the economics also says, when it come to the time the trains need replacing.

...that's what it says on paper/computer model but has it been proved yet, physically and commercially, in a UK environment?

I can think of four separate (disjointed?) applications/trials at the moment (five if the 400 group at the East Kent is counted!). UK industry has a habit of doing its R&D on the customer rather than offering a proven working product.

The BEMU project really must be taken forward to its natural limit.

WAO

 

[Mgameing123]

There’s no need to electrify these with third rail. Batteries are the answer.

Terrible idea. Its better to fill the holes we have on the railway with whatever electrification makes sense so we can get a more standardized fleet.

 

[Class15]

Terrible idea. Its better to fill the holes we have on the railway with whatever electrification makes sense so we can get a more standardized fleet.

I agree - for the southern region, as so much of it has already been done, it makes sense to finish the job.

 

[Bald Rick]

that's what it says on paper/computer model but has it been proved yet, physically and commercially, in a UK environment?

yes. Merseyrail, Birmingham trams. Coming soon to the valleys and the ECML.

Terrible idea. Its better to fill the holes we have on the railway with whatever electrification makes sense so we can get a more standardized fleet.

Your opinion. Perhaps ask Merseyrail how on earth they cope with their units that have traction batteries on.
(All EMUs already have batteries on board, incidentally).

 

[WAO]

yes. Merseyrail, Birmingham trams. Coming soon to the valleys and the ECML.

A mile in Lancashire and some LRT, with a "coming soon" is not yet a basis for a large UK network wide capital spend.

Better get it right first, know its limits, then you can bury all the peripheral fixed electrification schemes for good.

WAO

 

[Bikeman78]

yes. Merseyrail, Birmingham trams. Coming soon to the valleys and the ECML.

Already up and running on the valleys.

Your opinion. Perhaps ask Merseyrail how on earth they cope with their units that have traction batteries on.
(All EMUs already have batteries on board, incidentally).

Maybe hold off on using the class 777s as an example until they cease to be the least reliable fleet on the network.

 

[Mgameing123]

yes. Merseyrail, Birmingham trams. Coming soon to the valleys and the ECML.




Your opinion. Perhaps ask Merseyrail how on earth they cope with their units that have traction batteries on.
(All EMUs already have batteries on board, incidentally).

Its also huge waste of money that they DIDN'T electrify Headbolt Lane. We all know Overhead Wires isn't coming on the third rail network for a good 100 years so there is no point in being hesitant to not use third rail if its the best option.

 

[zwk500]

Its also huge waste of money that they DIDN'T electrify Headbolt Lane. We all know Overhead Wires isn't coming on the third rail network for a good 100 years so there is no point in being hesitant to not use third rail if its the best option.

Batteries are a better option than third rail in most applications where third rail might be considered, although I am on the third rail side for Headbolt Lane.

As I have said before short extensions of c.1-2km 'around the corner' at the North Downs (Wokingham Jn, Ash Jn, Shalford Jn), Hurst Green, Ashford, etc., should be permitted to give battery stock just a little bit more margin, but ultimately battery technology in other vehicles is fairly proven stuff, it's used in trains internationally and the sooner it is scaled up in the UK so people say 'oh it works fine, huh' the better.

I am also in favour of ALL EMUs being fitted with batteries capable of providing traction power for an emergency scenario to allow trains to be platform in the event of the power being turned off, and therefore the electric train fleet would consist entirely or BEMUs, some of which were simply a 'long range' variant having more batteries.

 

[Bald Rick]

Its also huge waste of money that they DIDN'T electrify Headbolt Lane. We all know Overhead Wires isn't coming on the third rail network for a good 100 years so there is no point in being hesitant to not use third rail if its the best option.

and what about where it isn’t the brst option - such as North Downs, Uckield etc?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2024 ==

A mile in Lancashire and some LRT, with a "coming soon" is not yet a basis for a large UK network wide capital spend.

No one is auggesting large UK network wide capital spend.

But you can assume that traction batteries will be fitted to most if not all new EMUs ordered from now on. It is so chepa compared to the cost of the train, and offera many benefits, not least in disruption.

 

[Mgameing123]

and what about where it isn’t the brst option - such as North Downs, Uckield etc?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2024 ==



No one is auggesting large UK network wide capital spend.

But you can assume that traction batteries will be fitted to most if not all new EMUs ordered from now on. It is so chepa compared to the cost of the train, and offera many benefits, not least in disruption.

North Downs should be either third rail or overhead wires with dual electrification between Wokingham and Reading.

Uckfield and Marshlink line should be third rail as it would remove the need to have diesels in the Southern fleet.

 

[zwk500]

North Downs should be either third rail or overhead wires with dual electrification between Wokingham and Reading.

Dual systems over a sustained distance is a really bad idea. Conversion of Wokingham to Reading to OLE isn't very sensible as it'll trigger a need for a dual-voltage fleet on the Windsor lines, so you'd have third rail from Reading to Wokingham, then OLE from Wokingham to Ash, then third rail to Shalford Jn, then OLE to Reigate, then 3rd rail to Redhill/Gatwick. This doesn't seem very efficient to install such short elements of OLE. Whereas the frequent sections of 3rd rail would suit topping up batteries very nicely.

Uckfield and Marshlink line should be third rail as it would remove the need to have diesels in the Southern fleet.

But it's not the only way to achieve that goal.

 

[Bald Rick]

North Downs should be either third rail or overhead wires with dual electrification between Wokingham and Reading.

But why, when either of those electirifcations would cost substantially more in capital cost and ongoing operation, maintenance and renewals costs, than the incremental cost of some batteries on a handful of trains?

Uckfield and Marshlink line should be third rail as it would remove the need to have diesels in the Southern fleet.

Same question - and battery trains would remove the need for diesels in the ‘Southern’ fleet.

 

[JamesRowden]

Given that the 3rd tph Guildford-Redhill had a poor business case anyway even though it required only 1 extra unit compared with just Reading-Guildford, extending it to Tonbridge wouldn't have been worth pursuing.

But I've shown that for the same number of units as the Reading-Guildford 3tph option, clever timetabling should allow an additional service per hour between Guildford and Redhill, and a through service to Tonbridge. The only additional costs are the crew, additional unit mileage/energy, and the difference between the costs of running 2 battery trains compared to 2 EMUs.

 

[JonathanH]

But I've shown that for the same number of units as the Reading-Guildford 3tph option, clever timetabling should allow an additional service per hour between Guildford and Redhill, and a through service to Tonbridge.

I don't think you have. Remember that the line has some very long headways which somewhat prevent 'clever timetabling'.

The 3tph service proposed in 2020 had some terrible compromises, including the nonsense of the stopper being overtaken at Guildford, an uneven timetable pattern for the stations between Reading and Guildford, and tight turnarounds at Reading. It also didn't actually improve services in the Blackwater Valley.

I know people don't like the idea of the Reading to Gatwick train having been slowed down but it really is a much more efficient service.

Reading to Gatwick currently needs 7 units on a 3.5 hour cycle. Historically Reading to Gatwick did fit in a 3 hour cycle, but that broke down in the peaks with the need to provide additional stopping capacity

 

[WAO]

No one is suggesting large UK network wide capital spend.

But you can assume that traction batteries will be fitted to most if not all new EMUs ordered from now on. It is so cheaper compared to the cost of the train, and offers many benefits, not least in disruption.

I, for one, would actually like a network spend on BEMU's to get rid of some of the DMU fleet and give customers an experience equivalent (almost) to EMU travel. I'm on your side.

I just want secure, successful development, like the PEP and HST programs, so that we don't end up with battery electric Tadpoles, grabbing defeat out of the jaws of victory.

I live near the ND route so know the strangling effect poor transport has on East Berks and North Surrey.

WAO

 

[30907]

But I've shown that for the same number of units as the Reading-Guildford 3tph option, clever timetabling should allow an additional service per hour between Guildford and Redhill, and a through service to Tonbridge.

That 's heroically optimistic: even if you run the Gatwicks fast with 6 units and tight turnarounds both ends, 4 units won't do Reading-Tonbridge hourly (GW say 10 units for Redhill only, so 11 minimum for Tonbridge even with no peak extras.

 

[Meerkat]

The class 756 are planned to run from Heath to Bridgend and back on battery. That's a similar distance to the Uckfield line.

They aren’t planned to do that are they, otherwise why the diesels? Seem to remember some official saying they were hoping they might be able to.

you are aware that power supplies can be upgraded if/where necessary right?

Sure, though it’s expensive and are there practical limits on 3rd rail (after all they haven’t been upgraded such that trains aren’t power restricted)?

The ND line is probably always going to be a railway basket case; non-London, serving wayside stations with a few medium sized towns, without the speed, heavy patronage, high fares or long distance that justify railways economically.

They are very busy in the peaks - hordes of people get off them at Guildford. It serves busy prosperous towns (and Reading should be a city by now) which are linked by poor and very congested roads.

Reaching for the crayons I think it really needs a new chord so that a Farnham/Aldershot to Reading stopper can run.

 

[JonathanH]

Reaching for the crayons I think it really needs a new chord so that a Farnham/Aldershot to Reading stopper can run.

Sounds like a lot of effort to avoid some people having to change at Ash, or walk from North Camp to Ash Vale.

Did the Wokingham area resignalling leave the headway margins unchanged on the line, in particular the issue that a northbound following train can't leave Blackwater until the train in front has reached Wokingham?

 

[cle]

A third Reading-Guildford sounds like a good idea.

And I'm excited for a battery order... given the stock in question (turbos) - it might well come as part of a larger order. The Southern / SE region needs stock and hopefully things like this can piggyback the units needed.

Slightl adjacent - but I wonder if this would also be a viable for Reading-Basingstoke (might need 3rd rail at Reading 'Newbury' bays, or can it take from AC too?)

 

[Meerkat]

Sounds like a lot of effort to avoid some people having to change at Ash, or walk from North Camp to Ash Vale.

Neither of those options are attractive enough to get people out of their cars as they would add much time and weather to the journey.