Electrification North-West

[HSTEd]

I like the idea, but one issue with the 319s is that they are four coach units, whereas the Merseyrail EMUs (507/508s) are three coach (and therefore able to run in six coach formation, to get the most out of the Merseyside platforms).

A single 319 would be too short for rush hour services through Liverpool, but an eight coach 319 would be too long for the platforms.

Take the best of the trailers for the current Cl507/508 TSOs and use them to make up a few of the Cl319s into six carriage sets?
Sort of Tadpole-unit style.

 

[John55]

Take the best of the trailers for the current Cl507/508 TSOs and use them to make up a few of the Cl319s into six carriage sets?
Sort of Tadpole-unit style.

Apart from any other problems a 6 car train with 4 powered axles starting up 1 in 30 gradients?

 

[northwichcat]

Don't mind me asking but where the evidence backing up this claim that the 319s will lose their 3rd rail equipment?

Numerous people have said they will go as part of the refurbishment. There isn't a lot of evidence but it seems a logical move as there are no plans to run them over the Merseyrail network and the 350/1s have had their third rail equipment removed without even going through a whole scale refurbishment.

If you take the new government's revised plan word for word the 319s aren't even guaranteed for the North West any more. They say the 319s will be returned to the leasing companies and the greater number of available EMUs will allow the North West and Thames Valley to have EMUs to use under the newly electrified lines. That would allow, for instance, Greater Anglia to take on all the 319s and put the 317/7s back in to service and Northern and First Great Western to have 321s instead.

 

[swt_passenger]

...the 350/1s have had their third rail equipment removed without even going through a whole scale refurbishment.

There's no evidence for that as far as I can find. The 350/1s have retractable pick up arms, and unless done very recently, they have not been removed, just secured semi-permanently in the raised position. The shoe arms are not easily visible behind the shoe beams anyway when raised, however the shoes themselves may well have been taken off, as these are easily and quickly removed and replaced.

350113 shown here in February still has its shoe beams fitted for instance:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dwbphotos/6822245329/

In terms of third rail specific equipment, the shoe beams, shoe arms and pick up shoes are about all there is. There wouldn't be much else to remove, other than cabling and maybe switchgear.

The attached picture below was taken at Milton Keynes back in 2009 and shows a 350/1 in use on the WLL services to East Croydon- as you'll see the shoe gear is hardly visible even when it is in use.

 

[Pyreneenguy]

Can anyone provide a link or other evidence that the Bootle branch ( serving the Seaforth Container Dock) is part and parcel of the current NW electrification
work ? I've only found a few vague comments on various official notices, nothing that could be considered a 100% commitment.

 

[Whistler40145]

If it isn't part of the project, then it should be.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?0tuyr5

 

[John55]

Can anyone provide a link or other evidence that the Bootle branch ( serving the Seaforth Container Dock) is part and parcel of the current NW electrification
work ? I've only found a few vague comments on various official notices, nothing that could be considered a 100% commitment.

I have seen nothing to suggest the Bootle branch will be electrified. There is no rail traffic using the docks which is likely to be electrically hauled so I do not believe electrification is going to happen.

The rail borne traffic is power station coal to non electrified power stations, scrap from non electrified sources and a little steel also from a non electrified route.

If it was electrified now it would not be used.

 

[HSTEd]

I have seen nothing to suggest the Bootle branch will be electrified. There is no rail traffic using the docks which is likely to be electrically hauled so I do not believe electrification is going to happen.

The rail borne traffic is power station coal to non electrified power stations, scrap from non electrified sources and a little steel also from a non electrified route.

If it was electrified now it would not be used.

That sounds like a chicken and egg problem to me.

Out of interest, how long is the branch?
If its a few kilometres of cantilevers with no feeding points the costs are likely marginal.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The Bootle Docks line is approximately six miles long.

 

[John55]

That sounds like a chicken and egg problem to me.

Out of interest, how long is the branch?
If its a few kilometres of cantilevers with no feeding points the costs are likely marginal.

The Bootle branch is 5.6 (9kms) miles of double track from Bootle Branch Junction (near Edge Hill) to the MD&HCo boundary. This 5.6 miles does however include 7 tunnels (8 if the restored connection at Olive Mount is included).

There is another 1.5 miles to the currently disused container terminal of MD&HCo railway. The Bulk terminal for the coal is about half way from the boundary to the container terminal. The scrap has several terminals on the dock estate.

 

[PR1Berske]

I thought that funding had been obtained for an extention to a new terminus at Headbolt Lane ?

I've heard very little more about Headbolt Lane, has it been long-grassed?

 

[John55]

I've heard very little more about Headbolt Lane, has it been long-grassed?

The new station and park and ride facility are still in the Merseyside Local transport Plan (No 3) but requires external funding which has yet to appear. Clearly money for projects like this from central government is rather thin on the ground at the moment

In addition the situation is complicated by the proposal for extending the Merseyrail service to Skelmersdale via Rainford. If this goes ahead then the infrastructure needed beyond the existing Kirkby station would have to be rather different, probably double track for a start and quite different signaling. The schemes are mutually supportive so that helps both.

I expect that things will largely depend on the outcome of the studies into the link to Skem. When that has been sorted out there might even be some money available!

 

[Bevan Price]

How about Merseyrail take over from Northern Ormskirk-Preston? It would provide a second stopper link into Liverpool and free up some Northern stock for lines that would generate more revenue, thus allowing more money for improvement in the future

I don't see it ever being extended north of Burscough, and even Ormskirk to Burscough is not likely to occur in the near future. Between Burscough & Preston there are no communities large enough to make the cost of electrification worthwhile.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In response to PM that I have received querying lines that were steam traction...then electric traction...then reverting back to steam traction, there was a particular example of this early electrification which was mooted 100 years ago and installed 99 years ago.

The Holcombe Brook to Bury line was opened in 1882 under steam traction and in 1912, the Preston company, Dick, Kerr & Co (famous for their ladies football team) who were leaders in electric rail locomotion, had a large Brazilian project upon which they wished to conduct suitability testing in Britain. Being a Lancashire based company, they approached the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway to see if the Holcombe Brook branch could be used under the electricity rating of 3.5kV dc system, with its fair number of localised halts, which was agreed to and 1913 saw the system fully operational. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway subsequently purchased all the equipment, which was used on the branch until life-expiry in 1952 saw the demise of the electric service and steam traction recommenced until the closure of the branch in 1963.

 

[lancastrian]

I don't see it ever being extended north of Burscough, and even Ormskirk to Burscough is not likely to occur in the near future. Between Burscough & Preston there are no communities large enough to make the cost of electrification worthwhile.

Although I would really like to see the Preston to Burscough Junction line electrified (via the north curve). The most important thing is to reinstate the north Burscough curve and divert the Preston to Ormslirk trains into Southport. The line north from Ormskirk needs to be redoubled and third rail eclectified to a 6 car platform, to be built on the Wigan side of the road bridge at Burscough Junction station. This would reinstate almost all the south Burscough curve.

the best chance for the Preston to Burscough Bridge line to be electrified would be as an infil, when the Wigan to Southport line is electrified. I know that some would say that the service does not require such an electrification, but only under our various pathetic governments would such lines not be electrified. Lines with less traffic are almost all electrified in places in Western Europe.

Our Government needs to get its collective finger out and get a decent rolling programme of National Electrication started and done.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

the Preston company, Dick, Kerr & Co (famous for their ladies football team) who were leaders in electric rail locomotion

Later English Electric/GEC/Alstom and today suppliers of traction kit for 390s among others...

 

[Samtron2000]

Also, hybrid operation has been talked about, but any extension of Merseyrail would almost certainly be 3rd rail.

I've no idea where, but I once read that no new 3rd rail electrification would ever be authorised in the UK!

 

[WatcherZero]

Its a unwritten generally accepted policy not to create new 3rd rail electrification but extensions to existing could be permitted. However the Merseyrail network doesnt suffer from the same problems as the South East that are prompting suggestions for it to be phased out. Theres no need for over 100mph running (speed limits are much lower) there isnt such long trains and there isnt such a high density of trains.

Interesting trivia, according to the head of NR theres more substations and infrastructure required for one third rail line in the South East than there is on the the whole of the WCML and ECML combined.

 

[Chris125]

I've no idea where, but I once read that no new 3rd rail electrification would ever be authorised in the UK!

Something of an urban myth i believe - while its unlikely approval would be given for a completely new top-contact 3rd rail installation, its hard to see why such a thing would be proposed anyway. Extensions to the existing network are fine as we've seen with the East London Line and the new link to the SLL, though its probable that cost savings will see any substantial extensions use OHLE anyway and dual voltage rolling stock anyway.

edit: oops, didnt see the above post!

Chris

 

[yorksrob]

If they do decide to wire the Southern Region, I should imagine that there'll be a fair amount of non-life expired third rail equipment that could be re-used to extend Merseyrail more cost-effectively.

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting trivia, according to the head of NR theres more substations and infrastructure required for one third rail line in the South East than there is on the the whole of the WCML and ECML combined.

Correct. Although it does depend which third rail line you pick, i.e. Waterloo-Weymouth rather than Grove Park - Bromley North.

 

[John55]

Something of an urban myth i believe - while its unlikely approval would be given for a completely new top-contact 3rd rail installation, its hard to see why such a thing would be proposed anyway. Extensions to the existing network are fine as we've seen with the East London Line and the new link to the SLL, though its probable that cost savings will see any substantial extensions use OHLE anyway and dual voltage rolling stock anyway.

edit: oops, didnt see the above post!

Chris

No urban myth I have seen a specific reference in the HMRI/HSE/ORR documentation saying top contact 3rd rail is not acceptable for new installations in the UK. This does not prevent protected 3rd rail as used on DLR being used.

However as you say no one would think of using top contact conductor rail unless constrained by existing networks.

 

[ukrob]

Its a unwritten generally accepted policy not to create new 3rd rail electrification.

It is not unwritten, nor is it an urban myth.

 

[WatcherZero]

Go on then, wheres it written.

 

[DXMachina]

Health & Safety @ Work act I think

 

[billio]

In response to PM that I have received querying lines that were steam traction...then electric traction...then reverting back to steam traction, ...

The Holcombe Brook to Bury line was opened in 1882 under steam traction and in 1912, the Preston company, Dick, Kerr & Co (famous for their ladies football team) who were leaders in electric rail locomotion, had a large Brazilian project upon which they wished to conduct suitability testing in Britain. Being a Lancashire based company, they approached the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway to see if the Holcombe Brook branch could be used under the electricity rating of 3.5kV dc system, with its fair number of localised halts, which was agreed to and 1913 saw the system fully operational. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway subsequently purchased all the equipment, which was used on the branch until life-expiry in 1952 saw the demise of the electric service and steam traction recommenced until the closure of the branch in 1963.

It's a little more complicated than that. Shortly after the L&Y took over the Dick, Kerr experiment, they converted the Holcombe Brook line to the side contact, 1.2kV DC electric service used on the Bury to Manchester line.

In the book "Railways in and around Bury", Jeffrey Wells relates a tale that when the overhead 3.5k DC supply failed, the solution was to put 1.2kV DC into the overhead wires, hook up a third rail motor car on to the normal 2-coach set, derive the 1.5kV through the pantograph and jumper cables to the motors on the 3rd rail car !.

 

[Chris125]

No urban myth

A lot of people seem to think that no more 3rd rail is allowed at all, which is the urban myth i was referring to. Thankfully thats not the case.

Chris

 

[Railman01]

Logically, electrification should be an on-going process: when one project is completed, another is undertaken. The truth is somewhat different, but we don't live in an ideal World !

The North-West electrification is a huge improvement, but there are some heavily used commuter lines that would bebefit hugely, if they could be included. One that immediately springs to mind is Wigan Wallgate- Manchester Victoria, via Atherton, or an even shorter section via Bolton. At the risk of being called a dreamer, you could even add Southport Chapel Street- Wigan for good measure !

Seriously, has the Wigan Wallgate-Manchester Victoria line ever been considered for electrification ? Another option would be conversion to Metro.
Would passenger figures justify this ?

I can see where your coming from with this and the most logical step would be to electrify between Lostock Junction and Wigan Wallgate with 25KV OHLE, this gives you an alternative route when engineering work is taking place and do a metrolink conversion of the Atherton line this way all the Man Vic/Airport to Wigan services go via Bolton. As for Wigan to Southport this along with the Wigan to Kirkby line could be third railed and taken over by Merseyrail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ah yes, forgot about the toilets, the only part of Blackpool Central to survive!

On the subject of electrification, is it the intention to do Manchester to Preston via Bolton, or will everything go via Newton-le-Willows? I only ask because I remember a plan to wire the Bolton route in, I think, the 1980s, which got pretty far along towards becoming reality before the money question reared its head. As I recall, a particular stumbling block was the clearance in the tunnel at Farnworth. You could tell that the project was in trouble when people started suggesting, with straight faces, that trains could lower the pans and coast through the tunnel to save the cost of enlarging it for the OHLE! (Nobody ever did explain what you'd do in the case of a train that had stopped at Farnworth)

From what i've heard, the track is to be lowered through both tunnels to create the headspace needed for the OHLE and due to the large scale of the project this section of line is to be completed earlier than expected but it will take a ten week shutdown of the line between Bolton and Salford Crescent. This will also involve the relevelling of Farnworth (and possibly Kearsley) station platforms due to the stations close proximity to the tunnel as the gradient will start a quarter of a mile either side of the tunnel portals. I've also seen a DfT document mooting one of the thrice hourly Man Picc to Euston Pendolinos starting at Bolton once electrification is completed.

 

[Whistler40145]

I presume that during the Bolton to Salford Crescent blockade, services to Preston will be diverted via Eccles?


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?vkusai

 

[WatcherZero]

Frankly there will be so much to divert I wouldnt be surprised if there was not two or even three diversionary routes.