Electric Spine

[Kneedown]

Replacing a double 158 with a combined 158-159 would give increased capacity would fit inside the 5 coach limit and allow for more frequent trains.

But they wouldn't perform any better, timing wise, on the route, which is considerably "hillier" than their current operations. The only advantage there is would be if a good few seats were removed from each coach to provide additional luggage space, which is still needed.
Like i said though, by the time the 159's become available, they will be approaching retirement, as will the 158's.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think the only one of those possibilities where there would be space to build loops or extensions would be Micheldever if you rebuilt the station and took out the island platform.

The quick win they are apparently thinking of is to re-position the signals in Wallers Ash loops to allow much longer trains to stand behind the signals. Another proposal is to extend the up platform loop at Eastleigh way back towards Parkway, to allow looping of long northbound freights for driver changes.

As it happens St Denys (up side) and Swaythling (down) were originally built to allow for a third line through the station, in each case the buildings were set right back to allow the platform width to be reduced. Doing this at St Denys would allow stopping passenger services to be overtaken by fast or freight services, and doesn't look too big a job.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am glad you have told me that as I have believed for years that the standard sleepers used with DC electrification were the third rail versions of the EF28/5EF28, EG49 and EG47. While non third rail areas used the F27, F40/5F40 then G44 as standard, only using the shallow depth EF29 and EG47 in places like bridge decks where the ballast depth was a bit lacking. The last full depth sleeper with drillings for third rail which could have been used universally was the F24 family of sleepers, and I think the last of them went in track in 1996.

I know it is far more detailed that what I wrote, but the point is that the statement that the DfT have published reads as though steel sleepers have to be used in third rail areas.

The three new north side platforms and the new dive under at Reading station will be equipped with steel sleepers to facilitate third rail electrification.

But from the point of view of someone standing on a platform (even the most bone-headed civil servant) they must surely realise that the third rail area uses a similar 'style and shape' of concrete sleeper as anywhere else?

 

[gerryuk]

I seem to remember when this report came out it mentioned passenger services between Southampton and the North as well as freight.
Could we get Sheffield - Southampton direct services via Leicester?
Also when the MML (or whatever its official name is these days} is fully electrified i take it they won't be running anymore trains to Leeds or summer trains to Scarborough? Or will they continue to run by changing engines in Sheffield?
I believe, although the trains start and terminate in Sheffield all the trains and crews on the MML are actually based in Derby, will this continue or will they build a new depot in Sheffield for these electric units.

 

[IanXC]

I seem to remember when this report came out it mentioned passenger services between Southampton and the North as well as freight.
Could we get Sheffield - Southampton direct services via Leicester?
Also when the MML (or whatever its official name is these days} is fully electrified i take it they won't be running anymore trains to Leeds or summer trains to Scarborough? Or will they continue to run by changing engines in Sheffield?

I think I'm right in saying that currently there have not been any new passenger services announced, and indeed we must remember that the CP5 announcement represents how the DfT suggests the provided budget could be used to deliver the HLOS. The industry may yet decide to use the budget in different ways, and include different schemes.

The Leeds services on the MML only really exist to get HST sets to Neville Hill Depot for maintenance. Scarborough wise, East Coast's IEP fleet could almost certainly take up the slack and provide a London-Scarborough service.

I believe, although the trains start and terminate in Sheffield all the trains and crews on the MML are actually based in Derby, will this continue or will they build a new depot in Sheffield for these electric units.

Etches Park Depot in Derby is, as you say home to the Meridian fleet, given that the entire area that fleet covers will be replaced with EMU stock what reason is there to build a new depot and relocate staff when the current set up works just fine?

 

[ainsworth74]

Scarborough wise, East Coast's IEP fleet could almost certainly take up the slack and provide a London-Scarborough service.

And, of course, a London - Scarborough service via the ECML would be a fair bit quicker than the same service down the MML I'd wager.

 

[YorkshireBear]

And, of course, a London - Scarborough service via the ECML would be a fair bit quicker than the same service down the MML I'd wager.

However i think the main purpose of the service is actually the service from the east midlands, i remember at time it starts at leicster not st pancras.

 

[IanXC]

However i think the main purpose of the service is actually the service from the east midlands, i remember at time it starts at leicster not st pancras.

Indeed in many ways it is. There is currently a summer Sundays service from Leicester to Scarborough.

Its an interesting franchise map problem. In many ways if the EMT franchise is to be all electric intercity, and nothing north of Sheffield, then Scarborough-Leicester fits more appropriately with the potential multipurpose East Coast franchise who would cover the route from Sheffield-Scarborough, but would of course only have bimode IEP to operate it, which gives clearance problems unless MML electrification brings IEP to that line. Hmm.

 

[tbtc]

Indeed in many ways it is. There is currently a summer Sundays service from Leicester to Scarborough.

Its an interesting franchise map problem. In many ways if the EMT franchise is to be all electric intercity, and nothing north of Sheffield, then Scarborough-Leicester fits more appropriately with the potential multipurpose East Coast franchise who would cover the route from Sheffield-Scarborough, but would of course only have bimode IEP to operate it, which gives clearance problems unless MML electrification brings IEP to that line. Hmm.

Or if XC are still running Derby - Sheffield - Doncaster/Leeds - York (plus have a Leicester presence for their Stansted service) then they'd cover a lot of the route. But finding a spare Voyager on summer weekends isn't going to be easy!

An "all purpose" East Coast franchise (including routes like Sheffield - Doncaster - Hull) sounds really interesting - I'm a big fan of such plans.

 

[IanXC]

Or if XC are still running Derby - Sheffield - Doncaster/Leeds - York (plus have a Leicester presence for their Stansted service) then they'd cover a lot of the route. But finding a spare Voyager on summer weekends isn't going to be easy!

An "all purpose" East Coast franchise (including routes like Sheffield - Doncaster - Hull) sounds really interesting - I'm a big fan of such plans.

Actually CrossCountry would be a good fit, perhaps with the potential cascade of 222s!

An all purpose franchise seems to be on the DfT's mind; before we go too far off topic the thread on the EC consultation is here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=67519

 

[Lrd]

Would the Southampton to Basingstoke stretch of OHLE bring any speed restriction increases? It's fairly straight along there so could we get 110mph Desiro's running up and down ( as per London Midland and their 350s) It would shave a few minutes off the London runs.

Or even 125mph for the Voyagers.

 

[swt_passenger]

Would the Southampton to Basingstoke stretch of OHLE bring any speed restriction increases? It's fairly straight along there so could we get 110mph Desiro's running up and down ( as per London Midland and their 350s) It would shave a few minutes off the London runs.

Or even 125mph for the Voyagers.

There wouldn't necessarily be any timetabled speed increases. It would still be a mixed traffic line, so all those freights would just get caught up more quickly. As the freight traffic is expected to increase it will get even more difficult to raise the speed of any passenger trains.

There are a number of additional Voyager services that they'd like to run if they could, (eg the opposite 2 hourly Southampton extensions), that just can't be fitted into the existing timetable...

 

[Lrd]

There wouldn't necessarily be any timetabled speed increases. It would still be a mixed traffic line, so all those freights would just get caught up more quickly. As the freight traffic is expected to increase it will get even more difficult to raise the speed of any passenger trains.

There are a number of additional Voyager services that they'd like to run if they could, (eg the opposite 2 hourly Southampton extensions), that just can't be fitted into the existing timetable...

I knew that the extensions to Southampton were limited but always forget about the freight traffic.

If they were to extend the platform one loop at Eastleigh would this add any extra paths while the freight changes crew?

 

[swt_passenger]

...and indeed we must remember that the CP5 announcement represents how the DfT suggests the provided budget could be used to deliver the HLOS. The industry may yet decide to use the budget in different ways, and include different schemes.

Not the case as far as I can see. The DfT have defined the high level outputs they require from Network Rail. NR cannot choose to ignore those specified outputs and use the funds to do something completely different. What they can do is use the funds to solve the output problem in a different way to that shown in the HLOS, but they can't take the money and use it for something DfT have not asked for elsewhere on the network.

 

[IanXC]

Not the case as far as I can see. The DfT have defined the high level outputs they require from Network Rail. NR cannot choose to ignore those specified outputs and use the funds to do something completely different. What they can do is use the funds to solve the output problem in a different way to that shown in the HLOS, but they can't take the money and use it for something DfT have not asked for elsewhere on the network.

12. The Government’s role in producing the HLOS and SoFA is fundamentally a strategic one. Government is not specifying the detail of how these strategic outputs should be met. Although alongside this HLOS the Government is publishing an ‘Illustrative Option’ of how the outputs could be met, derived from the September 2011 Initial Industry Plan and other industry sources, the Government’s purpose in doing so is to assure itself and others that there are likely to be value for money ways of securing the outcomes specified within the funding limits set out
in the SoFA.

13. The Illustrative Option is therefore not a specification. We look to ORR and the industry to improve upon these options and find more efficient and effective ways of achieving the same outcomes at better value for money and lower cost as they take forward the Periodic Review preparations for Control Period 5. We have reinforced this expectation in Guidance issued to the ORR.

The full document is here http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hlos-2012/railways-act-2005.pdf

A number of schemes are specifically specified, but the main 'High Level Specified Outputs' are defined in terms of safety, reliability, capacity and environment.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Would the Southampton to Basingstoke stretch of OHLE bring any speed restriction increases? It's fairly straight along there so could we get 110mph Desiro's running up and down ( as per London Midland and their 350s) It would shave a few minutes off the London runs.
Or even 125mph for the Voyagers.

The signalling on this line at Basingstoke is new and I expect it was sized for 100mph and high capacity, not speed.
You might squeeze 110mph out of it but I'm sure it won't be resignalled for 125mph for at least another generation.
The wiring might be sized for a higher speed though, like the GW electrification.

I'm not sure about the Reading (Southcote Jn) -Basingstoke bit.
It's only 10 miles and has never been a fast line (currently 75mph).
There must be scope to improve this during wiring, for 125mph Voyagers and 100mph EMUs.

 

[The Ham]

I'm not sure about the Reading (Southcote Jn) -Basingstoke bit.
It's only 10 miles and has never been a fast line (currently 75mph).
There must be scope to improve this during wiring, for 125mph Voyagers and 100mph EMUs.

Given the disire for two further stations on the line, one at Green Park (Reading) which is awaiting developer funding and Hampshire County Coucnil would like to see one at Chineham (Basingstoke), it is unlikely that the "local" trains would get upto 100 mph between stops. Add to this its short length and the potential frieght paths there is proberbly little need/benrfit for a faster line speed.

 

[swt_passenger]

The full document is here http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hlos-2012/railways-act-2005.pdf

A number of schemes are specifically specified, but the main 'High Level Specified Outputs' are defined in terms of safety, reliability, capacity and environment.

That's what I meant, and I have had a download of the pdf since it was issued thanks.

The way you explained it earlier, implied that NR can use the budget for ANY schemes they happen to come up with. My interpretation is that if the budget is not spent on producing the DfT's specified outputs NR cannot use it elsewhere.

Alternatively, I may have misinterpreted what you meant by 'other schemes'...

 

[YorkshireBear]

So if they saved 100 million on electric spine electrification if they so choose could they increase the scope of a different project Eg selby hull.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So if they saved 100 million on electric spine electrification if they so choose could they increase the scope of a different project Eg selby hull.

Only if DfT/ORR say they can.
There's no blank cheque, each project has to be approved individually.
In a bad year (eg if there are overspends elsewhere), DfT will take the money back.
The onus is on NR to improve costs.
37 weeks' blockade to remodel Nottingham is not a good start.

I find some of the supposed outputs, electric spine in particular, a bit dodgy.
Why electrify on AC to Southampton when the freight companies who would use it (Freightliner particularly) are not interested?
A lot depends on how good NR get at wiring the NW triangle and GW suburban.

 

[IanXC]

That's what I meant, and I have had a download of the pdf since it was issued thanks.

The way you explained it earlier, implied that NR can use the budget for ANY schemes they happen to come up with. My interpretation is that if the budget is not spent on producing the DfT's specified outputs NR cannot use it elsewhere.

Alternatively, I may have misinterpreted what you meant by 'other schemes'...

Yes I think we have been saying the same thing in different ways, so sorry about that!

What I was trying to highlight is that the main overarching specified 'outputs' in the HLOS are network wide reliability, safety etc. Then the Secretary of State has specified some particular projects, and finally considered a package of other measures which *could* be used to deliver the HLOS outputs within the SoFA. Its this final group of projects which NR are not tied to, and can use the funding on other projects if they can demonstarte why they represent a better way of delivering the HLOS outputs.

Well thatsd my understanding anyway!

 

[swt_passenger]

The onus is on NR to improve costs.
37 weeks' blockade to remodel Nottingham is not a good start.

It's 37 days, according to the NR press release isn't it?

"...between 20 July 2013 and 26 August 2013."

A sevenfold exaggeration doesn't really help to make your case...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's 37 days, according to the NR press release isn't it?

"...between 20 July 2013 and 26 August 2013."

A sevenfold exaggeration doesn't really help to make your case...

Sorry, it's been a hot day!
What I mean is that if these big schemes are run like the WCRM upgrade we will not be finished for decades.
If electric trains are running to Oxford in 2016 maybe I will start to believe...

 

[The Ham]

Sorry, it's been a hot day!
What I mean is that if these big schemes are run like the WCRM upgrade we will not be finished for decades.
If electric trains are running to Oxford in 2016 maybe I will start to believe...

But most more recent schemes have been compleated on time and on or under budget, one example was the upgrading of the line to Southampton Docks to allow high cube containers to be transported on standard wagons which was on time (possibley even a little earlier than planned) and 16% under budget:

http://www.railexpress.co.uk/news/southampton-gauge-clearance-work-completed

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But most more recent schemes have been compleated on time and on or under budget, one example was the upgrading of the line to Southampton Docks to allow high cube containers to be transported on standard wagons which was on time (possibley even a little earlier than planned) and 16% under budget:

http://www.railexpress.co.uk/news/southampton-gauge-clearance-work-completed

I know they can get it right, and today maybe more right than wrong.
But there is a long list of underachievement against expectation, usually on signalling projects which knock on to everything else:
Manchester South...Bournemouth Sea Front...North Staffs...Cambrian ERTMS...etc.
It's not just project performance, it's the time needed to specify schemes and let contracts which seems to take an age.
Then everything seems to need several bank holiday blitzes to achieve and there are only a limited number of these in any year.
The sheer scale of the programme is bigger than anything we have seen in recent years, and all over the country too.
Crossrail, Thameslink and Reading all have a head of steam, big project teams and clear objectives, but it took a long while to get to that position.
NR will undoubtedly have planning teams in place for some of the CP6 work.
But electric spine? 3rd rail conversion?

Just as the rolling stock manufacturers have complained of lack of UK orders, the signalling majors and electrification contractors have also had to run down capacity.
There have been dire warnings on here about all the OHL skills being lost to overseas contracts in recent years.
It will be fascinating to see how all this gets delivered.
The bellweather projects for me are Bristol/Cardiff resignalling, wiring the Box/Severn/Standedge/Morley tunnels, building Ordsall Curve, and implementing GN ETCS and 3rd rail conversion (the list goes on and on).