Control Period 6 - ideas?

[HSTEd]

Surely any money that would be spent on increasing the HST/DMU speed limits would be better spent on getting SP100 speed limits along the entire route where the line speed is lower than that.

Thus would enable new Turbostars to be put into service.

 

[IanXC]

The bit which really caught my eye though was the volume of freight movements on the line from Doncaster to Immingham & Grimsby

This could be in CP5 yet, Network Rail have issued documents requesting bids which include Doncaster-Cleethorpes. The Governments announcement is just their proposal to meet the cost plan, NR now have the opportunity to make counter proposals.

 

[Donny Dave]

This could be in CP5 yet, Network Rail have issued documents requesting bids which include Doncaster-Cleethorpes. The Governments announcement is just their proposal to meet the cost plan, NR now have the opportunity to make counter proposals.

Doncaster - Cleethorpes by itself would be no good, as only a handful of freight trains a day would be able to go over to electric haulage. To make it worth while, you need Doncaster - Sheffield - Stockport doing as well, plus the spur at Adwick where the DMU reverses, so most (all if Doncaster - Goole - Hull is wired as well) passenger services can go over to EMU operation.

If that lot is done, Barnetby - Lincoln and Lincoln - Sheffield can be looked at for electrification, although I think the Barton branch will stay wire free for a while longer yet ....

 

[tbtc]

The bit which really caught my eye though was the volume of freight movements on the line from Doncaster to Immingham & Grimsby. To me that looks like it might be the next Oxford to Bedford "I wasn't expecting that" bit of wiring!

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...tilisation strategies/freight/freight rus.pdf (page 25)

Freight is more significant on that line - there were many complaints about the decision to close the line to Cleethorpes during the summer (2011?), but this was to accommodate freight (which could deal with a summer shutdown easier than a winter one).

The passenger volumes are presumably low enough for any upgrades on the line to be primarily because of freight trains.

 

[HSTEd]

I hope these secondary, lower speed, branches don't get mainline standard FL200 equipment.... that would be taking the "doing it properly" thing far too far.

 

[LE Greys]

I hope these secondary, lower speed, branches don't get mainline standard FL200 equipment.... that would be taking the "doing it properly" thing far too far.

That depends on how you look at it. The inability to use the Cambridge branch for ECML electric diversions, or for that matter the problems that limited the Hertford Loop to only two 91s each way per hour before it got upgraded, have caused major problems in the past.

 

[142094]

Other than lack of capacity at Newcastle Central (which I appreciate is an obstacle) is there any physical reason why the line from South Hylton to Newcastle can't be electrified to the same standard as the ECML?

(i.e. going back to the pre 2002 situation with the Metro no longer running to Wearside)

Didn't see this previously. As far as I am aware, there is no physical reason why the line can not be electrified to the same as the ECML, but the important issues are the cost and feasibility of doing it. A lot of things would have to be changed, including the current overheads on the original system, everything in the depot, the various substations and the power desk at the control centre. There would also be the problem of who is in control over the OHLE - at present it is South Gosforth for everything excluding the Sunderland extension (with Nexus owning the infrastructure), and the Sunderland extension wires are controlled from York, owned and maintained by Network Rail.

 

[jopsuk]

That depends on how you look at it. The inability to use the Cambridge branch for ECML electric diversions, or for that matter the problems that limited the Hertford Loop to only two 91s each way per hour before it got upgraded, have caused major problems in the past.

If the Ely-Peterborough line is electrified, it will be for freight purposes, so hopfully that section will be happy with 91s/IEPs. As an add on then, an upgrade of the Hitchin-Ely power supplies to cope with intercity trains would be sensible for enabling diversions (I don't think any electric locos are allowed along at the moment?)

 

[YorkshireBear]

If not CP5 then wakefield kirkgate corridor improvements will most likely get the go ahead as NR have been wanting to do this for a while.

 

[D365]

That depends on how you look at it. The inability to use the Cambridge branch for ECML electric diversions, or for that matter the problems that limited the Hertford Loop to only two 91s each way per hour before it got upgraded, have caused major problems in the past.

The Cambridge branch can't be used for electric diversions unless trains are dragged from Ely to Peterborough. Hertford Loop is often used for diversions, that's for sure.

If the Ely-Peterborough line is electrified, it will be for freight purposes, so hopfully that section will be happy with 91s/IEPs. As an add on then, an upgrade of the Hitchin-Ely power supplies to cope with intercity trains would be sensible for enabling diversions (I don't think any electric locos are allowed along at the moment?)

Yes! Yes! Yes! Even better, electrify Felixstowe to Midlands fully; there are apparently a number of electric locos out of use. This route, IMO, needs even more investment in order to make real inroads (excuse the pun) into A14 traffic.

Ipswich-Peterborough and Stansted Airport-Birmingham New Street would then be taken over by EMUs (379s?). This would release modern 170s for use elsewhere.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

It is hoped that the South Fylde Line receives investment in Control Period 6.
Double track might be too much to hope for, but passing loops at St Annes on Sea and Lytham would allow at least 2 trains per hour. This would also allow flexibity in late running. A short length of double track at Kirkham Junction so the train to South does not have to wait on the main line.
2tph should at minimum double passenger numbers.

 

[The Ham]

With the GW ITT looking to reinstatine the Line to Tavistock, we may see the line between Oakhampton & Tavistock being done in CP6, or at least line improvements to the existing lines to allow a reasonable journey time once it is reopened.

 

[Aictos]

Question, if XC wanted to use EMUs tomorrow between Birmingham and Stansted then where should the infill schemes need to be?

I know Ely to Peterborough is one section but between Peterborough and Birmingham I have no idea.

Bearing in mind also the various other electrification plans, what infill schemes are left for Liverpool to Norwich to be operated by EMUs bearing in mind I'm aware of Norwich to Peterborough.

My last question is simple, is it feasible to expect EMUs on these routes by the end of CP6 or not?

Nearly forgot: if the MML is being wired up to Nottingham, could they just carry onto Grantham?

 

[OxtedL]

Question, if XC wanted to use EMUs tomorrow between Birmingham and Stansted then where should the infill schemes need to be?

I know Ely to Peterborough is one section but between Peterborough and Birmingham I have no idea.

More or less the entire length from Peterborough to Birmingham is unelectrified.

Bearing in mind also the various other electrification plans, what infill schemes are left for Liverpool to Norwich to be operated by EMUs bearing in mind I'm aware of Norwich to Peterborough.

Grantham right through to near Stockport is unelectrified. I think that it's unclear how Nottingham-Sheffield fits in with MML electrification plans at the moment - that's the only bit that could be getting wires looking at the map.

Nearly forgot: if the MML is being wired up to Nottingham, could they just carry onto Grantham?

They could. There wouldn't be a whole lot of point as things stand, but they certainly could if they felt a strong desire to do so and a shed load of cash.

 

[Aictos]

My whole point about Grantham getting the wires from Nottingham is that it betters the whole BCR thing of electrification between Liverpool/Birmingham and Norwich/Stansted.

It just seems silly not to take the chance to remove a diesel island.

 

[OxtedL]

My whole point about Grantham getting the wires from Nottingham is that it betters the whole BCR thing of electrification between Liverpool/Birmingham and Norwich/Stansted.

It just seems silly not to take the chance to remove a diesel island.

Don't lecture me on diesel islands.

Your point about BCRs is interesting. It certainly would improve the later BCRs but if nothing is going use it then the BCR for Grantham to Nottingham does not stand up, so it won't happen. Unless they fiddle the figures, but why bother if it's not going to be used? The case would very much depend on Network Rail's current method for putting a value on diversionary routes - methinks they don't value them anywhere as near as much as people would like.

Lines that have priority will be those that on paper get the most "benefit" and not those that make sense 15 years down the line when everything else that needs to be wired gets wired.