Holyhead electrification

[snowball]

Clearance is still needed between the wire and the train roof.

 

[Chester1]

The elephant in the room: HS2. There are existing arguments over the fact that the London-Birmingham-Crewe-Manchester line is being considered as a project benefiting both England and Wales for funding purposes. Without getting into that patch of long grass again, the planned rolling stock and routes for HS2 do not include any trains to Chester or North Wales, neither do they include any bi-mode designs (not even the classic-compatible variety). This implies that any London-North Wales services will remain on the WCML, or involve a change onto HS2 at Crewe.

In light of the HS2 situation, I reckon that if Westminster agreed to fund the electrification of the NWCL, in order to allow direct classic-compatible services post-HS2, the argument over HS2 funding and Barnett consequentials would evaporate overnight. That may even be what the Welsh Government are trying to manoeuvre towards.

I agree that this is the Welsh government's political rationale. The BCR won't stack up but the Tories have five MPs along the Welsh section of Crewe-Holyhead and a further two MPs in neighbouring parts of North Wales. Politically the Tories could be pushed into agreeing to electrify the line. Its a major political weakness that HS2 does not involve new infrastructure outside England and will only run services to one other constituent country. A HS2+ electrification of North Wales main line and a once every two hour service to Holyhead would strengthen the political support for it.

 

[krus_aragon]

The 1981 'Review of Main Line Electrification' is available on the web (https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoTBRB_Electrification1981.pdf). Unfortunately CTRL+F (Find) isn't finding any specific mention of Conwy - maybe there's a more-detailed study of the north Wales line specifically out there somewhere?

I'm not aware of a separate report either. There would have been a lot of legwork on a local level feeding into the final report: a lot of details would need to be omitted. (It's possible that what I was told was originally mess room gossip from one of the inspectors/surveyors.)

Discontinuous electrification is probably dead in the long run as a result

You mean it'll end up discontinued?

 

[Bald Rick]

Discontinuous electrification is probably dead in the long run as a result

That depends what you mean by discontinuous. As there will be plenty of projects with gaps in the power, see Scotland.

 

[snowball]

The 1981 'Review of Main Line Electrification' is available on the web (https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoTBRB_Electrification1981.pdf). Unfortunately CTRL+F (Find) isn't finding any specific mention of Conwy - maybe there's a more-detailed study of the north Wales line specifically out there somewhere?

Did the work for that report include any examination of the individual costs and difficulties of electrifying particular lines or locations? Or did it just make general assumptions about typical costs per mile?

 

[Elecman]

Clearance for 25kV has effectively reached zero with the surge arrestor and insulating paint scheme being pursued on the valley lines.

Discontinuous electrification is probably dead in the long run as a result

Surge arrestors and insulating paint are not the Panacea that you seem to think, the paint has of only 5-10 years then needs complete stripping back to base material and reapplication and can only be used on very clean substrate in the first place. This was brought out during the IET Earthing and Bonding of AC Electrification Lines Seminar by the engineers who worked on the system approvals process

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2022 ==

Clearance is still needed between the wire and the train roof.

Quite, and the pantograph horns and the structure

 

[Grumbler]

Surely bimodes are the way to serve routes which are only partially electrified - already successful on the GW, LNER and GE routes.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Surely bimodes are the way to serve routes which are only partially electrified - already successful on the GW, LNER and GE routes.

Yes and no, and there are bi-modes and bi-modes.

On GWR and LNER they were too successful, with electrification which should have been prioritised being cut back instead. However, obviously it takes time to electrify a route and so the network won't be wired overnight. Electro-diesel bi-modes are useful for the 25 years or so of a rolling programme, after which the diesel engines should be removed or (for lower-speed units only, not 125mph ones) replaced by batteries or other alternative traction for the few remaining unwired routes. No more diesel engines should be manufactured for trains capable of more than 110mph (unless necessary to replaced failed ones) and the remaining window for doing so for slower trains shoud be small.

Some sources also refer to battery power and power from hydrogen fuel cells as traction modes. Therefore, a HMU (Hydrogen Multiple Unit) with a pantograph (or third rail shoes) would also be a bi-mode by this definition, as would 379013 while it was fitted with batteries as the IPEMU testbed (Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit). These sorts of bi-modes (without a diesel engine) would also be useful during a rolling programme and a limited number of them would continue into the long-term on routes like the Heart Of Wales Line with no case for electrification.