My idiotic idea to send the central line to Birmingham

[321362]

Mods, feel free to change the thread name to something better

With all the talk about potential discontinuous electrification of the Chiltern main line, I was wondering what the cost would be like if fourth rail electrification (tube-style) was used over 25kV AC overhead wires.

It would probably be cheaper, since you wouldn't have to rebuild any bridges or tunnels to fit the electrification. Obviously electrifying with a non-standard system is problematic -that's what got Woodhead closed - but in this instance there wouldn't be any through running as nothing else ever has a reason to go down that line.

Leading to my second point: you could send the Central Line to Birmingham. New Tube trains and fourth rail would be significantly cheaper than full OHLE electrification with a new electric fleet. Imagine a 6tph frequent link from Central London to High Wycombe and beyond.

You obviously wouldn't be able to compete on speed with the WCML (and HS2 when it opens), but the purpose wouldn't be the link between the two, it would be the connectivity for the places in between.

The Chiltern Main Line is a neglected part of the South's infrastructure, but with a Tube extension to Birmingham Snow Hill, it would revitalise the route and improve local connections for thousands of people.

 

[swt_passenger]

The de facto ban on new third rail will almost certainly prevent new fourth rail on Chiltern, except where it already runs in the same corridor as existing LU third and fourth rail.

The question isn’t original however, it’s been discussed quite a few times already.

 

[Russel]

Central Line... To Birmingham?

I agree with the thread title.

 

[satisnek]

Back in the early 2000s I thought that it would be cool if the Chiltern Lines - and then on to Worcester - were electrified at 750V DC third rail and operated by the soon to be displaced CIG and VEP stock from south of the Thames. Would have been interesting to see how a Southern slammer coped with Old Hill Bank...

But it wasn't to be.

 

[sad1e]

Leading to my second point: you could send the Central Line to Birmingham. New Tube trains and fourth rail would be significantly cheaper than full OHLE electrification with a new electric fleet. Imagine a 6tph frequent link from Central London to High Wycombe and beyond.

By the central line i hope you mean out of Paddington Via the New North Mainline.

Running central line trains to Birmingham is one of the most insane ideas I've ever heard on this fourm.

 

[Uncle Buck]

The idea of Central Line to Birmingham is indeed insane.

As for the idea of electrifying much of the rail network with third rail, if this had been done back in the time of the Rail Modernisation Plan of 1955 or in Dr. Beeching’s day, we might have far more electrification than we do now. We all know that third rail is inferior to overhead wires, but it would have been better to have done electrification “on the cheap” decades ago than what has actually happened, which is that it has not been done at all/ was not done til late on. Of course the main intercity routes would still have to have been electrified overhead. (I will also say that third rail is simply nicer looking than overhead wires).

 

[Topological]

Piccadilly Line to Manchester
Victoria Line to take over parts of the old Great Central and serve Nottingham and Sheffield

Surely it would need to be the Circle Line to the Bull Ring?

 

[judethegreat]

In all seriousness, is third or fourth rail electrification for Amersham-Aylesbury, along with either Chiltern's tracks from there into Marylebone or handing Aylesbury via Amersham services back to the Met, realistic?

(Apologies.....this has probably been done to death already.....)

 

[Mgameing123]

In all seriousness, is third or fourth rail electrification for Amersham-Aylesbury, along with either Chiltern's tracks from there into Marylebone or handing Aylesbury via Amersham services back to the Met, realistic?

(Apologies.....this has probably been done to death already.....)

If you force TFL to run to Aylesbury then yes, otherwise no because they won’t do it out of their own free will.

 

[A S Leib]

or handing Aylesbury via Amersham services back to the Met

Aylesbury to Marylebone's already seventy minutes compared to forty for Tring to Euston, so having Aylesbury services stopping everywhere north of Wembley Park wouldn't be popular. If having more / off-peak fast Met services instead of leaving the fast lines unused for most of the day, I think that's overcomplicating the Metropolitan line for little benefit. I think the Chiltern depot at Aylesbury (plus Princes Risborough services) would mean they'd need to keep a presence there anyway.

 

[Mgameing123]

Aylesbury to Marylebone's already seventy minutes compared to forty for Tring to Euston, so having Aylesbury services stopping everywhere north of Wembley Park wouldn't be popular. If having more / off-peak fast Met services instead of leaving the fast lines unused for most of the day, I think that's overcomplicating the Metropolitan line for little benefit. I think the Chiltern depot at Aylesbury (plus Princes Risborough services) would mean they'd need to keep a presence there anyway.

You know that the Met Line has fast services right?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Central Line... To Birmingham?

I agree with the thread title.

To be fair Birmingham is quite "central" to the country...

 

[35B]

Mods, feel free to change the thread name to something better

With all the talk about potential discontinuous electrification of the Chiltern main line, I was wondering what the cost would be like if fourth rail electrification (tube-style) was used over 25kV AC overhead wires.

It would probably be cheaper, since you wouldn't have to rebuild any bridges or tunnels to fit the electrification. Obviously electrifying with a non-standard system is problematic -that's what got Woodhead closed - but in this instance there wouldn't be any through running as nothing else ever has a reason to go down that line.

Leading to my second point: you could send the Central Line to Birmingham. New Tube trains and fourth rail would be significantly cheaper than full OHLE electrification with a new electric fleet. Imagine a 6tph frequent link from Central London to High Wycombe and beyond.

You obviously wouldn't be able to compete on speed with the WCML (and HS2 when it opens), but the purpose wouldn't be the link between the two, it would be the connectivity for the places in between.

The Chiltern Main Line is a neglected part of the South's infrastructure, but with a Tube extension to Birmingham Snow Hill, it would revitalise the route and improve local connections for thousands of people.

Fourth rail isn't necessarily cheaper, because you replace the costs of overhead equipment and bridge works with more electrical infrastructure due to the much poorer ability of DC systems to transmit over long distances. But, if we were to ignore the general ORR shadow-ban on ground level electrification and the more generally bonkers aspects of this idea, you would then have to upgrade the signalling to support that 6 tph service.

I also suggest a look at a map, considering the nature of the area it passes through, and how the line has been revitalised in the last 30 years - I still vividly remember a 1989 trip in a BY allocated class 115 up the long single line section north of Princes Risborough on the 2 hourly (as in one every 2 hours) service to Banbury. The area between the Chiltern scarp and Leamington is pretty empty, with small villages and wide open spaces. Those communities are well served by what Chiltern has become. And I very much doubt that they'd regard a change from even a class 165 to a deep tube unit as positive.

The OP title is absolutely spot on.

 

[Mgameing123]

Fourth rail isn't necessarily cheaper, because you replace the costs of overhead equipment and bridge works with more electrical infrastructure due to the much poorer ability of DC systems to transmit over long distances. But, if we were to ignore the general ORR shadow-ban on ground level electrification and the more generally bonkers aspects of this idea, you would then have to upgrade the signalling to support that 6 tph service.

I also suggest a look at a map, considering the nature of the area it passes through, and how the line has been revitalised in the last 30 years - I still vividly remember a 1989 trip in a BY allocated class 115 up the long single line section north of Princes Risborough on the 2 hourly (as in one every 2 hours) service to Banbury. The area between the Chiltern scarp and Leamington is pretty empty, with small villages and wide open spaces. Those communities are well served by what Chiltern has become. And I very much doubt that they'd regard a change from even a class 165 to a deep tube unit as positive.

The OP title is absolutely spot on.

As a former local who lived in Amersham I disagree. The S8 stock are much better than a Class 165. They’re more spacious and your not crammed into a 3 + 2 seating layout.

 

[Peter0124]

Extend the Glasgow Subway to Edinburgh?

 

[35B]

As a former local who lived in Amersham I disagree. The S8 stock are much better than a Class 165. They’re more spacious and your not crammed into a 3 + 2 seating layout.

And if you had Central Line stock - which is the premise of the OP?

 

[Turtle]

The idea of Central Line to Birmingham is indeed insane.

As for the idea of electrifying much of the rail network with third rail, if this had been done back in the time of the Rail Modernisation Plan of 1955 or in Dr. Beeching’s day, we might have far more electrification than we do now. We all know that third rail is inferior to overhead wires, but it would have been better to have done electrification “on the cheap” decades ago than what has actually happened, which is that it has not been done at all/ was not done til late on. Of course the main intercity routes would still have to have been electrified overhead. (I will also say that third rail is simply nicer looking than overhead wires).

Hear,Hear!

 

[tbtc]

I think this opens up an option for competition for Mancunians heading to That London

They just need to decide whether they that to depart from Manchester Piccadilly Line or Manchester Victoria Line

(sorry, just seen Topological 's original comment!)

And I like the idea of extending the Docklands Light Railway to Dalreoch (just outside Dumbarton), since it has the station code DLR

Maybe even direct services from the Elephant & Castle to Liskeard via the Baker-Looe?

Of course, Merseyside will want to link their own Northern Line to prove through services from Southport to Morden

 

[HSTEd]

There is no engineering reason you could not do it, and on most lines it will likely be lower capital cost than overhead wiring.

The issues are purely political/regulatory.

I believe one of the southern railway's antecedents was experimenting with a +/-750V four rail system that would eliminate all the power distribution issues of existing third rail specs, but I don't know if any actually entered real service.

 

[35B]

There is no engineering reason you could not do it, and on most lines it will likely be lower capital cost than overhead wiring.

The issues are purely political/regulatory.

I believe one of the southern railway's antecedents was experimenting with a +/-750V four rail system that would eliminate all the power distribution issues of existing third rail specs, but I don't know if any actually entered real service.

BR chose overhead wiring because it has lower whole life costs than 3rd/4th rail - the lower costs of installing conductor rails being offset by the higher costs of all the additional trackside equipment to provide a workable level of traction current. The service on the Ongar branch was restricted to 2 4 car sets on the line by the voltage drop over just 6 miles of track - that's a LOT of trackside kit to fit over a 100 mile route.

They went for 25kV AC because the technology had advanced enough to be viable in the mid-1950s, and offered significant gains over the 1500V DC of Woodhead.

I've not heard of an SR antecedent experimenting with a 4th rail system, but the District and Metropolitan certainly did - which is why the Underground uses 4th rail and not 3 phase overhead wiring.

 

[frankmoh]

BR chose overhead wiring because it has lower whole life costs than 3rd/4th rail - the lower costs of installing conductor rails being offset by the higher costs of all the additional trackside equipment to provide a workable level of traction current. The service on the Ongar branch was restricted to 2 4 car sets on the line by the voltage drop over just 6 miles of track - that's a LOT of trackside kit to fit over a 100 mile route.

They went for 25kV AC because the technology had advanced enough to be viable in the mid-1950s, and offered significant gains over the 1500V DC of Woodhead.

I've not heard of an SR antecedent experimenting with a 4th rail system, but the District and Metropolitan certainly did - which is why the Underground uses 4th rail and not 3 phase overhead wiring.

The LMS experimented with 4th rail on the North London and Watford DC Lines prior to most* of it becoming 3rd rail in the 70s.
*Bakerloo bits not included

 

[HSTEd]

BR chose overhead wiring because it has lower whole life costs than 3rd/4th rail - the lower costs of installing conductor rails being offset by the higher costs of all the additional trackside equipment to provide a workable level of traction current. The service on the Ongar branch was restricted to 2 4 car sets on the line by the voltage drop over just 6 miles of track - that's a LOT of trackside kit to fit over a 100 mile route.

They went for 25kV AC because the technology had advanced enough to be viable in the mid-1950s, and offered significant gains over the 1500V DC of Woodhead.

Yes, but the pricing structure of the 1950s and today are very different. So today, the third rail/fourth rail system is highly likely to have a lower capital cost than the 25kv system. Mostly because clearance and other issues have put the 25kV price through the roof, and power electronics cost way less than they once did.

If we were starting from scratch today, without a huge 25kV installed base globally, we'd probably end up with something like the 9kV system being developed in France.

I've not heard of an SR antecedent experimenting with a 4th rail system, but the District and Metropolitan certainly did - which is why the Underground uses 4th rail and not 3 phase overhead wiring.

I believe it was the SE&CR, which were doing experiments with some very high voltages, before grouping intervened.

 

[35B]

Yes, but the pricing structure of the 1950s and today are very different. So today, the third rail/fourth rail system is highly likely to have a lower capital cost than the 25kv system. Mostly because clearance and other issues have put the 25kV price through the roof, and power electronics cost way less than they once did.

If we were starting from scratch today, without a huge 25kV installed base globally, we'd probably end up with something like the 9kV system being developed in France.

For capital costs, possibly - though much depends on the structures involved. But I was careful to refer to whole life costs - which is where ground level DC performs less well because of its inherent limitations.

 

[Topological]

I think this opens up an option for competition for Mancunians heading to That London

They just need to decide whether they that to depart from Manchester Piccadilly Line or Manchester Victoria Line

(sorry, just seen Topological 's original comment!)

And I like the idea of extending the Docklands Light Railway to Dalreoch (just outside Dumbarton), since it has the station code DLR

Maybe even direct services from the Elephant & Castle to Liskeard via the Baker-Looe?

Of course, Merseyside will want to link their own Northern Line to prove through services from Southport to Morden

Another one.

Waterloo and City to Carlisle Citadel... To be fair they need the drain at Bransty Tunnel so...

One that does not need extending, the Northern Line Bank Branch since nowhere has bank branches anymore.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

A factor for consideration in this mental idea , would be dealing with frost and a bit of snow for 3/4th rail north of Amersham. ! Bad enough south of Amersham.

Crossrail1 was a solution to Aylesbury - (25kv obviously) - but even then you could argue it was "too much service" - as per previous debates on this intriguing bit of railway.

 

[Wolfie]

The idea of Central Line to Birmingham is indeed insane.

As for the idea of electrifying much of the rail network with third rail, if this had been done back in the time of the Rail Modernisation Plan of 1955 or in Dr. Beeching’s day, we might have far more electrification than we do now. We all know that third rail is inferior to overhead wires, but it would have been better to have done electrification “on the cheap” decades ago than what has actually happened, which is that it has not been done at all/ was not done til late on. Of course the main intercity routes would still have to have been electrified overhead. (I will also say that third rail is simply nicer looking than overhead wires).

The current longest Metro line in the world is the Shanghai Metro line 11 which is just over 51 miles. Brum Snow Hill to Marylebone is over 112 miles..... Central line? Insane indeed!

Incidentally, what would happen to the Cross Country and West Midlands Trains services which share part of the line under this "inspired" proposal?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

One of the problems is - "why was it not electrified post WW2" is that Britain was in the depths of "austerity Britain" - the young British Railways only managed Woodhead (critical for vital coal traffic then - anyone remember the quaint idea of burning coal ?" - and the desperate need to modernise the Shenfield - Liverpool St servce , which was probably the most substandard and overcrowded steam suburban service of the times.

That was probably all that could be managed , with desperate shortages of both labour and such basics as steel (strictly rationed - like food !) - and as we know from the Gerry Fiennes writings , the Shenfield service was a resounding success from day one once the electrics started operation. Profitable too ......

Fortunate to meet some old stalwarts back in the day who knew the halcyon days of the Shenfield electrics - very proud of the service which featured some innovative timetabling with semi fast services , making full use of the track layout. None of this - "everything has to be all stations" - !!!!

 

[Technologist]

Yes, but the pricing structure of the 1950s and today are very different. So today, the third rail/fourth rail system is highly likely to have a lower capital cost than the 25kv system. Mostly because clearance and other issues have put the 25kV price through the roof, and power electronics cost way less than they once did.

If we were starting from scratch today, without a huge 25kV installed base globally, we'd probably end up with something like the 9kV system being developed in France.

I was thinking about this, if you were going to start from scratch with modern technology you would probably go for a higher voltage locally switched 3rd rail. So you only energise the section that is actually under a moving train, thus you'd be able to run it at a much higher voltage than 750DC and you'd be able to sense if you had a short circuit before you actually switch on the current. The rail vehicles would be battery powered so wouldn't care about small sections not being activated.

The UK being an island means that compatibility with other countries isn't massively important and we are a large enough market that it might justify creating special equipment if there were sufficient advantages of incumbent systems. This is the sort of thing that GBR Labs should be looking at, that and wireless charging.

 

[Nottingham59]

New Tube trains and fourth rail would be significantly cheaper than full OHLE electrification with a new electric fleet.

I hate to disappoint you, but the answer is batteries.

Marylebone to Moor St is 111 miles. 1R22, departing at 1302h today and operated by 168217, takes 2h03m.

According to Wikipedia, a four-car 168 has 4 x 315kW engines, so peak power consumption cannot be more than 1.26MW. Average power consumption over the whole route will be about 40% of this, i.e. 0.5MW on average. Over 2 hours, that's 1MWh of traction energy.

This sounds about right when compared to the 8MWh needed to get a 9-car Pendolino from Euston to Glasgow on the 125mph WCML.

Allowing a 100% safety margin, the route could be served by 4-car BEMUs with 2MWh batteries. That's 500kWh per car; easily achievable with even current technology: the batteries used in the TPE battery trial had one 575kWh battery in place of one diesel engine, and it weighed less than the generating unit it replaced.

I'd install high-current 25kV overhead conductor bars at Marylebone and at Moor St, expecting to recharge the BEMUs in the 15 minutes achieved by the Stadler FLIRT Akku (so recharging at a rate of 8MW). And run a short section of OHLE somewhere in the middle of the route as an emergency top up point. Say Kings Sutton to Banbury, which would give 8 timetable minutes under wires, even though this wouldn't be needed in normal operations.

 

[HSTEd]

I was thinking about this, if you were going to start from scratch with modern technology you would probably go for a higher voltage locally switched 3rd rail. So you only energise the section that is actually under a moving train, thus you'd be able to run it at a much higher voltage than 750DC and you'd be able to sense if you had a short circuit before you actually switch on the current. The rail vehicles would be battery powered so wouldn't care about small sections not being activated.

The UK being an island means that compatibility with other countries isn't massively important and we are a large enough market that it might justify creating special equipment if there were sufficient advantages of incumbent systems. This is the sort of thing that GBR Labs should be looking at, that and wireless charging.

I guess it would depend on the loading gauge implications of a 1500V bottom contact system like that used on Chinese metro systems.

You'd end up with the cost of the switching gear vs the cost of reworking the loading gauge below the solebar vs the cost of the loading gauge and other costs of a high voltage overhead system.

1500V with a chunky aluminium conductor rail is going to avoid most of the power limitations associated with the 750-900V system, and bottom contact more or less prevents accidental shocks from trespassers etc.