Chiltern electrification alternatives being studied...

[SynthD]

Are the references to overhead third rail about DC or AC? I only know of overhead rail as AC, eg Elizabeth line.

 

[zwk500]

Are the references to overhead third rail about DC or AC? I only know of overhead rail as AC, eg Elizabeth line.

I think 25kv AC, as in solid conductor bar in the tunnels.

 

[Stephen42]

Is this the same initiative for battery electrics that Chiltern had a call for competition last year or something new looking at a wider range of options? Timelines seem like it could be preparing to present to DfT for sign off if it was from last year. It's fully possible that came to nothing and instead they are back to the drawing board looking at other solutions.

 

[Energy]

I think 25kv AC, as in solid conductor bar in the tunnels.

The way I understand it for crossrail it isn't conductor rail but the standard copper contact rail with a special cantilever arrangement and bracket to hold it.

Is this the same initiative for battery electrics that Chiltern had a call for competition last year or something new looking at a wider range of options? Timelines seem like it could be preparing to present to DfT for sign off if it was from last year. It's fully possible that came to nothing and instead they are back to the drawing board looking at other solutions.

Indeed they were looking last year at alternative solutions...

 

[eldomtom2]

If you got rid of the Met fasts bi-mode units would only need to have enough battery for the eight or so miles between Aylesbury and Moor Park...

 

[nw1]

For electrification I'd start from both ends. Wire to Wycombe and Banbury and the two ends can convert to EMUs, the DMUs freed up (172 and 168) can then do the end to end services with the 165s scrapped while new EMUs (or something like 350/2s) do the local services. Then do the middle bit and the 168s and 172s get redeployed somewhere else (probably 168 to Northern converted to 170s and 172s to strengthen Snow Hill Lines services pending wiring those) and EMUs take over the lot.

I'd tend to agree with other posters that while High Wycombe is a good idea (allows a high frequency metro-style service to run), I'm not so convinced about Banbury. Banbury is a long way out of Birmingham, much further out than High Wycombe is from London, and in the centre of a sparsely-populated rural area. The services at Banbury are basically long-distance services (XC and Chiltern end-to-end), not commuter trains.

I'd again agree with others that wiring from Leamington to Snow Hill and then on to Kidderminster would make more sense as a West Midlands metro route.

Then, as you can say, you could keep diesels on the longer-distance services (e.g. 2tph Birmingham and 2tph Oxford?) until the whole lot is electrified.

 

[12LDA28C]

because you need Kidderminster, two routes to Stratford etc - if full interworking was done (in future, perhaps!)

Why do you need Kidderminster? Chiltern no longer run trains there.

 

[Trainbike46]

Why do you need Kidderminster? Chiltern no longer run trains there.

If you are electrifying from both the Birmingham and the London end, the first services to go electric at the Birmingham end would presumably be WMR services, so you would need to start with a section that makes sense to run WMR services on?

 

[12LDA28C]

If you got rid of the Met fasts bi-mode units would only need to have enough battery for the eight or so miles between Aylesbury and Moor Park...

Eight miles from Aylesbury to Moor Park?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 May 2023 ==

If you are electrifying from both the Birmingham and the London end, the first services to go electric at the Birmingham end would presumably be WMR services, so you would need to start with a section that makes sense to run WMR services on?

This thread specifically relates to Chiltern routes, maybe a new thread should be created for lines outside that scope?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 May 2023 ==

EDIT:
Getting the Met to Watford Junction is going to cost an awful lot of money.

I assume the poster meant Watford South Junction between Moor Park and Rickmansworth, not Watford Junction on the WCML.

 

[Trainbike46]

Eight miles from Aylesbury to Moor Park?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 May 2023 ==



This thread specifically relates to Chiltern routes, maybe a new thread should be created for lines outside that scope?

The Birmingham end of the Chiltern route and the WMR Snow hill lines overlap, so it doesn't really make sense to separate them out?

But in any case, I think the other poster's logic in starting from Kidderminster is that that is a place where (some) services reverse, so a sensible place to go to when starting from the Birmingham end of the Chiltern routes.

 

[zwk500]

The Birmingham end of the Chiltern route and the WMR Snow hill lines overlap, so it doesn't really make sense to separate them out?

They're separate sets of routes though - you'd logically do the Snow Hill Lines as their own electrification and have Chiltern as a separate scheme that extended out from the London end to meet it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An advantage of doing the Snow Hill Lines early on would potentially be releasing 172s to Chiltern, in case the 168s aren't enough for the end to end service alone, alllowing the 165s to be scrapped?

 

[12LDA28C]

An advantage of doing the Snow Hill Lines early on would potentially be releasing 172s to Chiltern, in case the 168s aren't enough for the end to end service alone, alllowing the 165s to be scrapped?

As previously mentioned several times. the 165s won't last long enough to survive until this mythical electrification project becomes reality.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As previously mentioned several times. the 165s won't last long enough to survive until this mythical electrification project becomes reality.

I still think this is bizarre. They're just posh Sprinters.

Getting certain parts may be hard, but that just means you'll need to replace bigger parts (e.g. if the PIS is an issue, replace the whole thing).

 

[zwk500]

An advantage of doing the Snow Hill Lines early on would potentially be releasing 172s to Chiltern, in case the 168s aren't enough for the end to end service alone, alllowing the 165s to be scrapped?

The Snow Hill lines wouldn't be quick - there's numerous problem bridges and a big problem Tunnel at Old Hill/Blackheath.

 

[12LDA28C]

The Snow Hill lines wouldn't be quick - there's numerous problem bridges and a big problem Tunnel at Old Hill/Blackheath.

The tunnel between Moor Street and Snow Hill wouldn't be easy either...

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Snow Hill lines wouldn't be quick - there's numerous problem bridges and a big problem Tunnel at Old Hill/Blackheath.

Another case for discontinuous electrification and battery fitted EMUs?

 

[12LDA28C]

I still think this is bizarre. They're just posh Sprinters.

Getting certain parts may be hard, but that just means you'll need to replace bigger parts (e.g. if the PIS is an issue, replace the whole thing).

Bizarre or not, that's the reality of the situation. Maybe if there were an unlimited supply of cash we might be in a better position.

 

[Trainbike46]

Bizarre or not, that's the reality of the situation. Maybe if there were an unlimited supply of cash we might be in a better position.

an unlimited supply of cash would certainly be a way of speeding up electrification!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bizarre or not, that's the reality of the situation. Maybe if there were an unlimited supply of cash we might be in a better position.

This in reality sums it up.

"Chiltern cannot presently afford to keep the 165s going without additional funding as the cost of doing so is increasing due to difficulty obtaining parts"

...is probably a fairer description of the situation than...

"The 165s cannot be kept going".

Any part can be fabricated, it's just a case of how much it costs and how custom it is.

 

[Trainbike46]

But really, if Chiltern can't afford to keep all the 16x running longer, they should be looking for any DMUs available for a cascade.

 

[zwk500]

The tunnel between Moor Street and Snow Hill wouldn't be easy either...

It doesn't look overly constrained at either end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Hill_tunnel_(Birmingham)#/media/File:168003_at_Moor_st._station,_Birmingham.jpg and https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Birming...ilway_Station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1471393.jpg shows a tram outside the Snow hill end, and Steam usually doesn't get any restrictions on it, unlike Old Hill which is very definitely not electrification-ready. I appreciate the tunnel may get worse further in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But really, if Chiltern can't afford to keep all the 16x running longer, they should be looking for any DMUs available for a cascade.

Which they are - their franchise agreement specifically mentions the possibility of 175s. Which might not be able to replace all the 165s, but might make it possible to take some apart for parts.

 

[Energy]

Another case for discontinuous electrification and battery fitted EMUs?

I still don't get discontinuous electrification. Dropping the pantograph while on the move isn't that easy and isn't worth it compared to a bridge replacement. It could work for the Snow Hill tunnel but I can't see much use elsewhere compared to the crossrail style mounting of OHLE.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still don't get discontinuous electrification. Dropping the pantograph while on the move isn't that easy and isn't worth it compared to a bridge replacement. It could work for the Snow Hill tunnel but I can't see much use elsewhere compared to the crossrail style mounting of OHLE.

Dropping the pantograph automatically while on the move by way of some sort of balise is extremely easy. I don't think we're suggesting drivers doing it.

 

[Trainbike46]

Which they are - their franchise agreement specifically mentions the possibility of 175s. Which might not be able to replace all the 165s, but might make it possible to take some apart for parts.

I was under the impression that was to replace the loco-hauled sets, though if the 16x are so problematic keeping those is probably needed

 

[zwk500]

I still don't get discontinuous electrification. Dropping the pantograph while on the move isn't that easy and isn't worth it compared to a bridge replacement. It could work for the Snow Hill tunnel but I can't see much use elsewhere compared to the crossrail style mounting of OHLE.

Snow Hill Tunnel is where it's worth spending the money to electrification. Discontinuous OLE might be worth it for Old Hill Tunnel as trains will have a bit of a run up on the juice anyway. I think permanently earthed sections are sensible where clearances don't allow and the bridge rebuild would be silly money, but if you're getting longer stretches of no wires then you have to ask whether the battery solution might be better overall anyway.
Permanently earthed sections would also help with the pan up/down issue as you can just use APS magnets. But otherwise APCO exists and is fine for the Bi-Modes so why not Pan-Battery operation?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was under the impression that was to replace the loco-hauled sets, though if the 16x are so problematic keeping those is probably needed

There are far more 175s than you need to replace the very low current usage of the LHCS.

 

[zwk500]

There are far more 175s than you need to replace the very low current usage of the LHCS.

There's nothing saying Chiltern have to take every Class 175 or none of them.

 

[Energy]

Dropping the pantograph automatically while on the move by way of some sort of balise is extremely easy. I don't think we're suggesting drivers doing it.

And yet it takes about 4km at 125mph on Great Western for the automatic system. Here is a nice diagram of the distance involved for dropping it.

(credit Garry Keenor)