DfT/Network Rail 'Future Electric Railway' strategy

[stevieinselby]

There very definitely was last week. Not very far towards Selby, granted. Perhaps 200 metres.

A stub to prevent pantograph damage if trains are given the wrong route is only worth talking about if you're being a sarcastic smart arse.

 

[Bald Rick]

A stub to prevent pantograph damage if trains are given the wrong route is only worth talking about if you're being a sarcastic smart arse.

You got me…

 

[Halifaxlad]

A stub to prevent pantograph damage if trains are given the wrong route is only worth talking about if you're being a sarcastic smart arse.

Or just enough to cover the junction to a safe distance so any future extension doesn't require possession of the junction.

 

[The Planner]

Or just enough to cover the junction to a safe distance so any future extension doesn't require possession of the junction.

Thats tenuous at best.

 

[BrianW]

In questions on Wales in the Commons yesterday (St Geoorge's Day) it was said that the governments' 'plan' includes 'electrification to Holyhead' (not TOWARD Holyhead). Hansard records:

Anna McMorrin

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. The UK and Welsh Labour Governments’ £14 billion plan for rail unlocks and delivers the transport network that Wales needs and deserves, bringing 12,000 jobs, boosting our economy and making journeys faster and more frequent. The plan contains 43 projects for every corner of Wales, including Burns stations in the south-east, electrification to Holyhead, the Swansea metro and the Marches line. While opposition parties want to put those plans on hold, the reality is that our two Labour Governments are working together to deliver transformational change for the people of Wales.

QED???

 

[zwk500]

In questions on Wales in the Commons yesterday (St Geoorge's Day) it was said that the governments' 'plan' includes 'electrification to Holyhead' (not TOWARD Holyhead). Hansard records:

Anna McMorrin

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. The UK and Welsh Labour Governments’ £14 billion plan for rail unlocks and delivers the transport network that Wales needs and deserves, bringing 12,000 jobs, boosting our economy and making journeys faster and more frequent. The plan contains 43 projects for every corner of Wales, including Burns stations in the south-east, electrification to Holyhead, the Swansea metro and the Marches line. While opposition parties want to put those plans on hold, the reality is that our two Labour Governments are working together to deliver transformational change for the people of Wales.

QED???

Does the plan put a date on it?

 

[cle]

Or any funding? Would be great of course, especially as the route is growing in service. And enabling HS2 services.

But getting even to Chester would be a feat! Then probably Halton and to WBQ.

 

[WAO]

There very definitely was last week. Not very far towards Selby, granted. Perhaps 200 metres.

My visual impression is that over-runs often extend to the next convenient anchor point, for a standard wire length.

Which might explain the 200m.

WAO

 

[willt]

If you read railengineer.com articles on electrification the cost of lineside materials and labour for poles and catenary etc is something like 15% of the cost. 60% is power supply to the railway and the rest is regulatory. It should be a permitted development right to electrify any existing railway right of way without requiring planning consent and lines that are near power generation and substation sites where there is capacity to add transformers to tap into the primary grid should be easy wins. Not putting up wires everywhere it’s not physically impossible is nonsense. Using modern technology rigid conductors can probably solve a lot of problems with tight bridge tolerances. It just takes a bit of engineering talent and the willingness of the system to challenge regulations that haven’t anticipated every possible scenario. If you can afford to get power to the battery charging points for BEMUs on the network you are 85% there already, might as well finish the job and save batteries as a get out of jail free card for the few situations where there are a couple hundred meters of track here and there that are very expensive to electrify.

 

[The Ham]

If you read railengineer.com articles on electrification the cost of lineside materials and labour for poles and catenary etc is something like 15% of the cost. 60% is power supply to the railway and the rest is regulatory. It should be a permitted development right to electrify any existing railway right of way without requiring planning consent and lines that are near power generation and substation sites where there is capacity to add transformers to tap into the primary grid should be easy wins. Not putting up wires everywhere it’s not physically impossible is nonsense. Using modern technology rigid conductors can probably solve a lot of problems with tight bridge tolerances. It just takes a bit of engineering talent and the willingness of the system to challenge regulations that haven’t anticipated every possible scenario. If you can afford to get power to the battery charging points for BEMUs on the network you are 85% there already, might as well finish the job and save batteries as a get out of jail free card for the few situations where there are a couple hundred meters of track here and there that are very expensive to electrify.

That's useful information, thanks.

Although part of that high cost is the reliability of the power supply.

To get a single point of connection is one thing, to get two or three gets more complex.

The former is fine for battery trains, as if that one connection is not able to supply quite enough power the trains can keep moving, however for pure EMU's, that might mean that all the trains come to a stop and so to mitigate against this each connection can cover for its neighbour meaning that grid connection costs are very high.

Even just having each train be able to move (say) 30 miles by having a battery onboard reduces the need for the redundancy to be quite as costly .

 

[The exile]

The former is fine for battery trains, as if that one connection is not able to supply quite enough power the trains can keep moving, however for pure EMU's, that might mean that all the trains come to a stop and so to mitigate against this each connection can cover for its neighbour meaning that grid connection costs are very high

It’s fine for battery trains only as long as the spacing of opportunities for charging and the capacity of the batteries are such that the non-availability of one of the former (or even two in succession) doesn’t exhaust the latter. Ie 100 mile battery range means the need for an opportunity to charge to 100% capacity every 25 -30 miles.

 

[InTheEastMids]

It should be a permitted development right to electrify any existing railway right of way without requiring planning consent

Electrification and other works within the railway boundary are usually permitted development. This includes e.g. bridge reconstructions, as long as it's a like for like replacement.
Network Rail do engage with local planners, partly to set out why they believe it to be permitted development. Obviously may be different where there could be an impact on listed buildings or protected landscapes.

lines that are near power generation and substation sites where there is capacity to add transformers to tap into the primary grid should be easy wins

They do this where it's possible, particularly since (as I understand it), Network Rail will apply for a 25kV connection, meaning transformers are owned by others. So for the MML upgrade south of Bedford, National Grid put 400/25 kV transformers inside Sundon substation with a buried cable to take 25kV to the lineside.

Using modern technology rigid conductors can probably solve a lot of problems with tight bridge tolerances.

There are several examples of different approaches to tight clearances. Off the top of my head, the example that's most talked about is the bridge that carries the valley lines over the main line between Cardiff Central and Queen Street.

Edit: Just noticed it was your first post. Welcome, hope the above is of interest, searching the forum should turn up some links/previous discussion on the above.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If you read railengineer.com articles on electrification the cost of lineside materials and labour for poles and catenary etc is something like 15% of the cost. 60% is power supply to the railway and the rest is regulatory. It should be a permitted development right to electrify any existing railway right of way without requiring planning consent and lines that are near power generation and substation sites where there is capacity to add transformers to tap into the primary grid should be easy wins. Not putting up wires everywhere it’s not physically impossible is nonsense. Using modern technology rigid conductors can probably solve a lot of problems with tight bridge tolerances. It just takes a bit of engineering talent and the willingness of the system to challenge regulations that haven’t anticipated every possible scenario. If you can afford to get power to the battery charging points for BEMUs on the network you are 85% there already, might as well finish the job and save batteries as a get out of jail free card for the few situations where there are a couple hundred meters of track here and there that are very expensive to electrify.

Thank you for your insight and reply. Welcome to the forum - your first post I see.

 

[Elecman]

They do this where it's possible, particularly since (as I understand it), Network Rail will apply for a 25kV connection, meaning transformers are owned by others. So for the MML upgrade south of Bedford, National Grid put 400/25 kV transformers inside Sundon substation with a buried cable to take 25kV to the lineside.

Network Rail pay for the Transformers but they remain the property of National Grid/ DNO