Chiltern electrification alternatives being studied...

[HSTEd]

Yet another example of the government dithering because it hopes magical hypertech will save it from actually having to spend money.

They will waste a decade or more, and when their magical solution doesn't work they will complain that they were misled or what not. By then HS2 will have ripped the heart out of the Chiltern's long distance traffic proposition and closure of the centre section will be on the cards due to decarbonisation requirements.

The radical solution would be temporary closure of a large part of the line to enable easier electrification and modernisation.....

The prohibition against third rail also does not apply to LU four rail systems due to London Underground's differing operational practices, so you could just transfer the line to Aylesbury via Amersham to LU.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The radical solution would be temporary closure of a large part of the line to enable easier electrification and modernisation.....

Not really feasible to close busy London commuter lines, and electrification can be done without lengthy closures, it was on GWR.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2023 ==

They will waste a decade or more, and when their magical solution doesn't work they will complain that they were misled or what not. By then HS2 will have ripped the heart out of the Chiltern's long distance traffic proposition and closure of the centre section will be on the cards due to decarbonisation requirements.

This is a ridiculous statement. Even without the traffic from Brum itself, it's hardly a tiny branch line.

 

[zwk500]

Not really feasible to close busy London commuter lines, and electrification can be done without lengthy closures, it was on GWR.

Blockades can work in some circumstances. I could see Aylesbury to Amersham being a blockade, or Bicester to Oxford and then Banbury, as there are sensible diversionary routes.

This is a ridiculous statement.

Agreed, Chiltern traffic will still be very strong after HS2, London to Birmingham is only part of their operation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Blockades can work in some circumstances. I could see Aylesbury to Amersham being a blockade, or Bicester to Oxford and then Banbury, as there are sensible diversionary routes.

Yes, true. You can also just about get away with e.g. 2 weeks in August as commuters will just line their summer holidays up with it and the rest will work from home. But general blockades of commuter lines on weekdays don't work because passenger volumes are too high, even post COVID.

For those unfamiliar with Chiltern, it's basically similar to (but a bit quieter than) the south WCML LNR services but without Avanti running alongside.

 

[12LDA28C]

A new government is going to have to pay for a lot of things. There will be a lead time on developing and setting up electrification on this route, and an analysis of what the priorities are.

And it will be a huge undertaking, not least due to the problems electrifying the tunnels out of Marylebone.

 

[Trainbike46]

And it will be a huge undertaking, not least due to the problems electrifying the tunnels out of Marylebone.

I still think they should consider using LU-style 4th rail out of Marylebone, connecting with the existing 4th rail towards Amersham, and go from 4th rail to OHLE at a sensible point within london beyond the marylebone tunnels

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still think they should consider using LU-style 4th rail out of Marylebone, connecting with the existing 4th rail towards Amersham, and go from 4th rail to OHLE at a sensible point within london beyond the marylebone tunnels

I don't think that's sensible, as the LU part of Chiltern is the minority part - one or two stopping trains per hour. The main part of Chiltern has nothing to do with LU.

 

[12LDA28C]

The Chiltern Lines WILL be electrified at some point. But when, and will the 165s last that long?

Not in my lifetime, and no they definitely won't, as hinted at in the OP.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2023 ==

I still think they should consider using LU-style 4th rail out of Marylebone, connecting with the existing 4th rail towards Amersham, and go from 4th rail to OHLE at a sensible point within london beyond the marylebone tunnels

I don't believe any major extension to third rail is even possible these days so that's a non-starter straight away.

 

[Trainbike46]

I don't think that's sensible, as the LU part of Chiltern is the minority part - one or two stopping trains per hour. The main part of Chiltern has nothing to do with LU.

The main logic here is that 4th rail will fit in the tunnels, and that it is unlikely to present a hazard there. The logic for 4th rail rather than 3rd rail is simply that it is the same as on the small part of the operation that uses LU tracks, and that it avoids the immunisation issues encountered where 3rd rail ond OHLE meet

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2023 ==

Not in my lifetime, and no they definitely won't, as hinted at in the OP.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2023 ==



I don't believe any major extension to third rail is even possible these days so that's a non-starter straight away.

Extension can happen if they meet a higher safety standard - which should be doable in a tunnel within london

 

[12LDA28C]

And there's absolutely no chance they'll succeed.

Really? Are you familiar with the good citizens of Marylebone then? They've put plenty of pressure on Chiltern to get rid of their 68s due to the noise they make so I wouldn't be too sure about their lack of 'clout' when it comes to these things.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really? Are you familiar with the good citizens of Marylebone then? They've put plenty of pressure on Chiltern to get rid of their 68s due to the noise they make so I wouldn't be too sure about their lack of 'clout' when it comes to these things.

A genuine issue of noise (68s are loud, I'd object to them being parked at the end of my road and left running too) and pollution is rather different to a few overhead wires on an already-not-exactly-pretty railway under a bridge is a totally different situation.

I agree with them on the 68s (plus the UK railway's tendency to leave locomotives idling rather than stopping them immediately on arrival and plugging in a shore supply as Deutsche Bahn would). The line should be electrified then there wouldn't be any of these noisy machines around.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2023 ==

The main logic here is that 4th rail will fit in the tunnels, and that it is unlikely to present a hazard there. The logic for 4th rail rather than 3rd rail is simply that it is the same as on the small part of the operation that uses LU tracks, and that it avoids the immunisation issues encountered where 3rd rail ond OHLE meet

Easier just to fit batteries these days I suspect, or it's possible (I don't know how tight the clearances are) that overhead third rail might work, or stock designed to a lower height (which could be achieved by going low-floor, which should happen anyway!)

Extension can happen if they meet a higher safety standard - which should be doable in a tunnel within london

You can insulate it to be fair, but it's not an optimal solution.

 

[Trainbike46]

A genuine issue of noise (68s are loud, I'd object to them being parked at the end of my road and left running too) and pollution is rather different to a few overhead wires on an already-not-exactly-pretty railway under a bridge is a totally different situation.

I agree with them on the 68s (plus the UK railway's tendency to leave locomotives idling rather than stopping them immediately on arrival and plugging in a shore supply as Deutsche Bahn would). The line should be electrified then there wouldn't be any of these noisy machines around.

and the railway could (and almost certainly would) rightly point out that the electrification works will reduce noise and pollution, both of which are a benefit to local residents as well as passengers

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2023 ==

A genuine issue of noise (68s are loud, I'd object to them being parked at the end of my road and left running too) and pollution is rather different to a few overhead wires on an already-not-exactly-pretty railway under a bridge is a totally different situation.

I agree with them on the 68s (plus the UK railway's tendency to leave locomotives idling rather than stopping them immediately on arrival and plugging in a shore supply as Deutsche Bahn would). The line should be electrified then there wouldn't be any of these noisy machines around.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2023 ==



Easier just to fit batteries these days I suspect, or it's possible (I don't know how tight the clearances are) that overhead third rail might work, or stock designed to a lower height (which could be achieved by going low-floor, which should happen anyway!)



You can insulate it to be fair, but it's not an optimal solution.

I'm not saying it's definitely the best solution, but it is one that should be considered if OHLE can't fit without costly reconstructions. Other options that should be considered would be battery, or reconstructing the tunnel to fit OHLE

 

[12LDA28C]

or reconstructing the tunnel to fit OHLE

Indeed and reconstructing a tunnel (or two, to be precise) that runs beneath residential and commercial land is a major project, to say the least.

 

[RailWonderer]

The solution is wires. It's ridiculous that a major commuter route into London in 2023 is not electrified.

Anything else is messing around the edges.

Batteries are for branch lines, diversions and to avoid strandings.

Many of us agree, but the Labour govt were very anti-electrification, as shown here in their 2007 white paper. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/delivering-a-sustainable-railway

Against this background, some argue for prioritising network-wide
electrification today. There are three main reasons for not pursuing
this course:
• Electrification is expensive. If it were pursued in 2009–14, it would be
at the cost of more urgently-needed investment in increased carrying
capacity, which will deliver a greater level of benefit;
• The future performance of electric and self-powered trains is
unpredictable today. Developments in hybrid technology, biofuels
and hydrogen fuel cells will improve the carbon performance of self-
powered trains, whereas changes in power generation will improve
that of electric trains. But there remain considerable uncertainties
about the relative pace at which these technologies will develop; and
• Electrification would be more cost-effective if it were implemented
following the migration to radio-based cab signalling. One of the
most serious practical problems with electrification is to prevent it
interfering with the existing wire-based signalling system.

I don't want to pay more tax to pay for electrification, nor have more inflation from excessive borrowing but come the end of the Turbo and Turbostar service life their hand will be forced anyway in about 10 years time (nearer 15 for the 168s).

 

[Trainbike46]

Many of us agree, but the Labour govt were very anti-electrification, as shown here in their 2007 white paper. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/delivering-a-sustainable-railway

I don't want to pay more tax to pay for electrification, nor have more inflation from excessive borrowing but come the end of the Turbo and Turbostar service life their hand will be forced anyway in about 15 years time.

That sounds like labour was also infected by the bionic duckweed virus at that time!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2023 ==

It's also important to remember that while installing electrification costs money, it also reduces operational expenditure and usually increases passenger numbers, leading to lower per-passenger subsidies

 

[Bletchleyite]

Many of us agree, but the Labour govt were very anti-electrification, as shown here in their 2007 white paper. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/delivering-a-sustainable-railway

I don't want to pay more tax to pay for electrification, nor have more inflation from excessive borrowing but come the end of the Turbo and Turbostar service life their hand will be forced anyway in about 10 years time (nearer 15 for the 168s).

There might be workarounds, but realistically it's likely that all internal combustion engines will be outright banned from central London within 20 years, i.e. it will become a full ZEZ.

 

[12LDA28C]

I don't want to pay more tax to pay for electrification, nor have more inflation from excessive borrowing but come the end of the Turbo and Turbostar service life their hand will be forced anyway in about 10 years time (nearer 15 for the 168s).

The 165s will not last another ten years, parts are already becoming hard to source leading to units spending extended periods out of service awaiting repairs

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 165s will not last another ten years, parts are already becoming hard to source leading to units spending extended periods out of service awaiting repairs

What parts are causing that issue? Aren't 165s basically posh Sprinters? And there are likely to still be 15x knocking around in 10 years, though right at the end of their lives.

 

[12LDA28C]

What parts are causing that issue? Aren't 165s basically posh Sprinters? And there are likely to still be 15x knocking around in 10 years, though right at the end of their lives.

Don't know the specifics but Chiltern have been suffering a shortage of units for some time. 165025 for example has been out of traffic for well over a year.

 

[Energy]

Many of us agree, but the Labour govt were very anti-electrification, as shown here in their 2007 white paper. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/delivering-a-sustainable-railway

I don't want to pay more tax to pay for electrification, nor have more inflation from excessive borrowing but come the end of the Turbo and Turbostar service life their hand will be forced anyway in about 10 years time (nearer 15 for the 168s).

In this more recent Labour transport white paper they are much more positive with a rolling electrification programme being heavily mentioned.

The 165s will not last another ten years, parts are already becoming hard to source leading to units spending extended periods out of service awaiting repairs

Angel and Chiltern have been working on 3D printing bits like passenger arm rests due to difficulties procuring them.

 

[zwk500]

In this more recent Labour transport white paper they are much more positive with a rolling electrification programme being heavily mentioned.

There are 23 instances of 'Electri' in that document, which shake out to 6 substantive statements supporting a programme of 'steady rail electrification' in a document that runs to more than 100 pages, without saying how much they will fund, who will decide which lines get the nod, and how the decisions will be made. It's hardly christmas for the industry.

Spoiler

To realise our vision for public transport to tackle the climate emergency, investment in affordable public transport fares, additional capacity for rail and buses, a multimodal timetable, staffing and staffing development would be treated as priorities, accompanied by a programme of steady rail electrification. (p.10)

For example, a steady rolling investment programme to electrify the railway progressively, instead of stop-start investment, could ensure the railway can play its full role in reducing climate damaging emissions and cleaning up air pollution in our towns and cities, and in the process could reduce electrification costs by up to a half. (p.19)

And to decarbonise rail, Labour will run a programme of continuous steady rail electrification, thereby also building skills, jobs and industry capacity in electrification and cutting its costs. (p.24)

A continual programme of rail electrification is required, covering both passenger services and key unelectrified freight route links. (p.31)

This approach will include the next Labour government instigating a rolling programme to steadily electrify the railway, which the Rail Industry Association has recently shown will enable very substantial cost reductions to the electrification process. (p.50)

Labour believes that electrification makes financial and operational sense and is vital to decarbonise rail to help meet Britain’s climate change objectives. (p.51)

 

[Energy]

There are 23 instances of 'Electri' in that document, which shake out to 6 substantive statements supporting a programme of 'steady rail electrification' in a document that runs to more than 100 pages, without saying how much they will fund, who will decide which lines get the nod, and how the decisions will be made. It's hardly christmas for the industry.

Its definitely sparse on details but its better than their trust in bionic duckweed previously!

Hopefully (though unlikely) the lack of details means that they are leaving it to NR to decide what gets electrified first, though this is politics so the chances of that are low.

 

[HSTEd]

Not really feasible to close busy London commuter lines, and electrification can be done without lengthy closures, it was on GWR.

And how did the GWR electrification project go?

It appears to have destroyed the 25kV electrification programme, which has more or less ground to a halt in the aftermath of that debacle. It is now going to take a decade to electrify TPE if it ever happens.
I don't think its safe to assume that the Government will throw that kind of money at the railway ad infinitum when it has repeatedly shown itself unable to spend it effectively.


A large number of the stations on the Chiltern Main line are fairly close to alternate stations (the ones in London in large part), are lightly trafficked (Denham Golf Club or Bordesley), are served by other lines (Leamington Spa etc) or various combinations of the above.

The reality is that a single closure of a few months to a year would enable total modernisation of the route, and mitigation for the intermediate stations is probably going to end up far cheaper than struggling on with the traditional model. The traditional model will likely cause a cost to spiral into the billions of pounds based on current experience, and would deliver far less than a simultaneous electrification, resignalling and station modernisation delivered without the operational constraints of working near an active railway.

10 of the 31 intermediate stations provide 77% of the entries and exits at the end of the day. Only Banbury is truly troublesome in that regard, and keeping 9km of line open from Aynho Junction to Banbury would partially solve that problem.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And how did the GWR electrification project go?

The electrification of the Thames Valley has been completed, has it not?

A large number of the stations on the Chiltern Main line are fairly close to alternate stations (the ones in London in large part), are lightly trafficked (Denham Golf Club or Bordesley), are served by other lines (Leamington Spa etc) or various combinations of the above.

The reality is that a single closure of a few months to a year would enable total modernisation of the route, and mitigation for the intermediate stations is probably going to end up far cheaper than struggling on with the traditional model. The traditional model will likely cause a cost to spiral into the billions of pounds based on current experience, and would deliver far less than a simultaneous electrification, resignalling and station modernisation delivered without the operational constraints of working near an active railway.

This is totally infeasible and simply is not going to happen.

 

[tomuk]

Being looked at now and has been for a while, though likely unaffordable.

I know you're only the messenger but it beggars believe that the industry can find re-signalling a station\junctionserving a city with over 2.5 million passengers once every 100 plus years as unaffordable.

 

[JonathanH]

The electrification of the Thames Valley has been completed, has it not?

Some people consider it to be incomplete, given that Oxford and the branches had to be cut from the programme, and there is no sign of a resumption of work.

 

[zwk500]

The electrification of the Thames Valley has been completed, has it not?

Was the B&H OLE always meant to stop at Newbury? Either way wires don't get north to Oxford (very much Thames Valley), as well as the issues with Bristol not being finished off.

 

[The Planner]

I know you're only the messenger but it beggars believe that the industry can find re-signalling a station\junctionserving a city with over 2.5 million passengers once every 100 plus years as unaffordable.

Even if it is done, its going to be like for like at best.

 

[Class 317]

That sounds like labour was also infected by the bionic duckweed virus at that time!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2023 ==

It's also important to remember that while installing electrification costs money, it also reduces operational expenditure and usually increases passenger numbers, leading to lower per-passenger subsidies

If I remember right someone posted in the Scotland decarbonisation thread a link to a report on operating costs for different traction types. Battery unit operating costs were estimated to be only a few pence per mile more than full electrification. Given that they in essence offer the same benefits of faster journeys but avoid a significant infrastructure cost they have to be very much in the running as a way to electrify secondary routes.

Following the German plan for only wiring sections to charge it should be possible to do Aylesbury to London by only wiring the terminal at each end given extended turn rounds (15 mins). London to Birmingham would require Moor Street and Snow hill to be wired as well as one stretch in the middle in addition. Oxford would be possible by just wiring the station area. You would probably wire stabling sidings / depots etc.

If a section between Banbury and Leamington was chosen it would be ready for future freight electrification.

Wiring Snow hill and moor street would also allow future electrification of services with similar battery electrics to Worcester/ Stratford etc.

To my mind battery electric units with a very discontinuous electrification like in Germany could allow much greater electrification than wiring whole routes.

Given the huge amount of resources being spent on developments in battery chemistry, batteries offering greater energy densities from what Stradler are currently deploying are likely to become available over the next couple of years with the potential to significantly increase range.

 

[Olivine]

Gut off Amersham to Marylebone services, LU services between, Amersham to Aylesbury services directly?

No need to worry about OHLE then.