"Fill-in" electrification ideas.

[The Planner]

Isn't there still a 200m Liverpool train that could have a back half added to it?

Providing there is a spare 200m set to add and it doesn't sweat the assets too much. The other aspects that need to be considered are what train it joins back up to on the way back (Chester Crewe is 18 minutes, Crewe Liverpool is 35 minutes) so diagramming could be fun as you would probably be joining back up to the previous Liverpool service to the one that set was on. The journey time increase it has to the Liverpool trains (splitting and joining clearly taking longer than a normal dwell) also would need to be considered.

 

[BayPaul]

Providing there is a spare 200m set to add and it doesn't sweat the assets too much. The other aspects that need to be considered are what train it joins back up to on the way back (Chester Crewe is 18 minutes, Crewe Liverpool is 35 minutes) so diagramming could be fun as you would probably be joining back up to the previous Liverpool service to the one that set was on. The journey time increase it has to the Liverpool trains (splitting and joining clearly taking longer than a normal dwell) also would need to be considered.

I was assuming that any electrification on this line would be done at around the same time as Phase 2b, so the train order for that could be increased suitably to take account of the additional destination. Diagramming sounds fun but not impossible - worst case scenario presumably the Chester set could sit in Chester for the additional 34 minutes (I guess actually a little less, as it would need to get back to Crewe a few minutes before the Liverpool one and vice versa) over the Liverpool set, if there wasn't a more imaginative way of making it work.

 

[The Ham]

I was assuming that any electrification on this line would be done at around the same time as Phase 2b, so the train order for that could be increased suitably to take account of the additional destination. Diagramming sounds fun but not impossible - worst case scenario presumably the Chester set could sit in Chester for the additional 34 minutes (I guess actually a little less, as it would need to get back to Crewe a few minutes before the Liverpool one and vice versa) over the Liverpool set, if there wasn't a more imaginative way of making it work.

There's also not any stations (or any significant settlements which could justify building a new station) which the services could call at to reduce the long turn around.

The only likely new stations would be on the outskirts of Chester and Crewe, if they were both provided that would shorten the turn around time to ~ 20 minutes, however would likely add a lot of cost for little benefit.

 

[DustyBin]

This is a little bit 'out there' but how about the Bishop Auckland line from Darlington? The method in the madness is that it would allow Hitachi stock to go to and from the plant under it's own power, but unless you also electrified the Saltburn line it would require bi-modes to be of benefit to passenger services. Maybe we could stick some diesel engines under the 456's when they're withdrawn, they'd be perfect!

 

[Anvil1984]

This is a little bit 'out there' but how about the Bishop Auckland line from Darlington? The method in the madness is that it would allow Hitachi stock to go to and from the plant under it's own power, but unless you also electrified the Saltburn line it would require bi-modes to be of benefit to passenger services. Maybe we could stick some diesel engines under the 456's when they're withdrawn, they'd be perfect!

Maybe in the future. The local mayors etc seem intent on using Hydrogen powered 321s (or whatever) on this route. Don't think they'd be bi-mode though

 

[DustyBin]

Maybe in the future. The local mayors etc seem intent on using Hydrogen powered 321s (or whatever) on this route. Don't think they'd be bi-mode though

I was (half) joking in regard to the 456's but on a serious note the reason I chose them is that 4-car trains are too long for some of the stations on the route. Although they could reduce the 321's to 3-car I suppose, a la 320's. Bins on the Bishop line, who'd have thought it!

 

[Anvil1984]

I was (half) joking in regard to the 456's but on a serious note the reason I chose them is that 4-car trains are too long for some of the stations on the route. Although they could reduce the 321's to 3-car I suppose, a la 320's. Bins on the Bishop line, who'd have thought it!

Thats what they are doing,linky to an article here which explains a bit more

Establishing a secure connection ...

 

[DustyBin]

Thats what they are doing,linky to an article here which explains a bit more

Establishing a secure connection ...

Thanks. At least there's a future for the huge number of middle aged EMU's that are soon to be surplus to requirements....