Major Projects that Need Doing

[DaveNewcastle]

Isn't it sad that "minor" upgrades such as this (its under 12 miles from Hambleton to Neville Hill isn't it?) are considered Major Projects?
It would make so much sense (and when the trains were turned, it would give spotters fun, and enrage station staff : "Which end do I put my pram/ bike/ wheelchair?" Answer: "Either this end or that end" )

 

[djw1981]

Well yes, that was one problem with the GNER horseshoe idea. However, it would allow for shorter dwell at Leeds and each Leeds 'loop could be run as one trip......interestingly as long as one train remained on a Leeds diagram all day the sets could be the right way around each evening.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Then that does make sense. Thanks.
So the Electric Horseshoe is on MY list of Projects That Need Doing.

 

[djw1981]

Well if you win Euromillions.......

 

[Royston Vasey]

Electrify Leeds-York, that way if there's a problem york-donny then it doesnt cause too much chaos... Could you also electrify Ely-March-Peterborough? (As long as its good enough to cope with 91s...)

Definitely good idea, have a feeling Ely-Hitchin as it is can't cope with 91s though? Could be wrong.

 

[Waverley125]

ely-Hitchin can, but GNER had not previously got the route learning. Since the wires catastrophe at peterborough, every driver has been trained on the Hitchin-Ely-Peterborough line so that HST services can be diverted that way if necessary.

With regards to the Forth bridge, it can't be electrified-no room for catenary and the design of the frame would cause arcing from the OHL. If the east coast is going to be electrified, we'd need a new Forth Rail bridge.

 

[me123]

Hmm... Aberdeen won't be seeing wires for some time in that case then; The Forth Bridge has a good bit of life still in it and it is still a landmark. We're not going to rush to demolish that just to put wires up; more likely we'll do both simultaneosly (at least that's the sensible option).

 

[djw1981]

It's listed, it's gotta stay even when redundant!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

There were quite a lot of options considered when it became clear that the problems with the Forth Road Bridge might not be repairable. These included a tunnel and a combined road and rail bridge.
The preferred options can be seen at www.forthreplacementcrossing.info and claim the replacement will be principally a road bridge, with "the ability to run dedicated public transport and high occupancy vehicle lanes from the outset, the bridge has also been planned with the strength and breadth for additional ‘multi-modal’ public transport options such as light rail or a guided bus system in the future."

I guess that if the light rail option is taken up then electrification would be an option there, for the Airport and the Fife loop.
I'd be surprised if the existing rail bridge could be electrified (previous posts) but it might not be impossible although I'm at a loss to se how it can be done safely, without arcing and without great losses to the structure.

 

[bluenoxid]

Would third rail be a plausible approach. I was thinking of a metal strip between the tracks at 25kV

 

[laseandre]

Arcing much? And the fact that you'd need dedicated locos, and that NR won't allow new 3rd rail installs on safety grounds (unless it's an addition to an existing system).

 

[bluenoxid]

Well safety grounds can change due to functionality (that is an NR rule, not HSE or Law). The IEP will be standard stock and it would not take much to fit a retractible shoe for third rail pick up. The rail could be encased in concrete.

Also, why not consider battery. The Forth Bridge is less than two miles. Virtually every fleet has the capability to cross gaps in electrification. By enlarging these batteries, the train would be able to cross the forth bridge without any electrification anyway.

 

[jv3531]

One of the major factors with 3rd/4th rail is cost. OHL is apparently much cheaper to install, maintain and operate. Line upgrades for GWML have been battered around for years now including the like of dedicated HS electric routes and of course HST2 which has again been a concept for a number of years. The main problem that the Pad - bristol line and several others have is that of its infrastructure. Many bridges and tunnel sections are listed or too low and this prevents many projuects from taking place without major re-construction work taking place, all of which has to then confirm to the various graded types.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next decade or so as it will be a time of change - not necessarily for the better!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Battery power?
3rd Rail at 25kV?
Both would require considerable amounts of new design, engineering solutions and testing - just for 2 miles of track over the Forth Bridge.

They would also require the weight of their equipent to be carried up and down the country all day long - contributing to the power consumption.
So, not very likely unless these developments would also be applied in lots of other places (Paddington westwards for example. But not by the same locos of course).

There may be more achievable means of electrifying the Forth Bridge though.
There's 3 major problems.
Lets consider ways of dealing with each of them:
First, the lack of space for OHLE above. Most of the bridge DOES have enough clearance. But, although not usually seen, there are 3 horizontal "X" - shaped steel frames just above the top of a train, along with another 4 horizontal steel frames perpendicular to the track. (The 3 are in the middle of the huge diamond shapes, the four are at the joins onto the 2 bridges that link the "diamonds". These are the obstacles to overhead wiring.
Perhaps each of there could be fitted with a neutral section, close up against the frames? Between these, the more usual catenery could be replaced with expandable rigid support for the live conductor?
The height of the cable (conductor or neutral section) does not have to comply with the gradient profile of High Speed lines where tunnels and level crossings require the conductor to rise and fall - this bridge has a 50mph speed limit - maximum - already. That could be lowered even slower if necc for the short 2 mile stretch.
[Neutral sections are used elsewhere only occassionally - to isolate sections of wiring supplied with different phases or unsychronised poer supplies]

Second, arcing to the structure. This would be worst in wet weather - and Scotland has never been deprived of that!
A rigid panel of non-conducting material could be positioned above the conductor to protect it from rain (and from dropped items - see below).
More radically, power could be isolated from the conductor by the installation of relays and HV contactors which only close when the track circuit and/or signalling indicate the need to apply the power. As a result, the risk of flashover would be limited to the periods when trains were on the bridge drawing power.

Third, safety of personnel working on the Bridge. (And safety of traffic during works). [This isn't the place for me to start but I believe the current protocol for the safety of personnel on the Bridge is not effective.]
A regime of safe and hazardous periods of operation would permit staff to work on the Bridge above the OHLE in the sure knowledge that it is isolated during safe periods. Work above the track could be completely suspended when power is applied during hazardous periods.
Additionally, a non-conducting protective panel above the conductor would protect the live conductor from contact whith anything falling from above.

As for the piers leading onto the bridge, I believe they could be equipped with OHLE similar that which has been retrospectively installed to many other bridges elsewhere.

Have I missed any of the major issues here?

 

[djw1981]

Battery power?
Between these, the more usual catenery could be replaced with expandable rigid support for the live conductor?

This has already been done for the Mound Tunnel North last year - a solid caternary bar was fitted due to low clearances.

this bridge has a 50mph speed limit - maximum - already. That could be lowered even slower if necc for the short 2 mile stretch.

If FSR were to switch to EMU's then a resignalling to split the bridge into 2 signal sections would be needed to maintain the number of paths if you cut the speed.

 

[bluenoxid]

Interesting, I enjoyed that.

 

[paul1609]

Isn't it sad that "minor" upgrades such as this (its under 12 miles from Hambleton to Neville Hill isn't it?) are considered Major Projects?
It would make so much sense (and when the trains were turned, it would give spotters fun, and enrage station staff : "Which end do I put my pram/ bike/ wheelchair?" Answer: "Either this end or that end" )

I think the reason that any extensions to the system are major projects is more to do with the supply than the actual overhead itself. if you wanted a system for single EMUs it would be reasonably cheap to do, but once you put a couple of 91s or 390s accelerating on a section any extensions need their own power supply. The ECML electrification was more or less optimised for the service at electrification there is no "stretch". This the reason why 91s cant run to skipton and why locos are banned north of Cambridge.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Good point!
Yes, a new power supply would add significant cost. But we are very close to the River Aire power stations and two branches of the National HV electricity supply passes right over the line between Sherburn and Garforth - in the mid point of the 12 mile line and in open country. So not a massive problem.

 

[paul1609]

I think the problem is the cost of the substations to bring the power in for just 12 miles makes the project very expensive.

 

[bluenoxid]

Plus the route is an incredibly busy route with 5TPX and 2 Northerns per hour plus 1 XC and freight

 

[Bill EWS]

As the Forth Bridge is only 50mph maximum then there is no need for a full 25K power supply. Lowering it to a level that would avoid any serious arcing would do the job. There are other parts of the electrified railway where power is reduced due to various restrictions.

 

[class 313]

As the Forth Bridge is only 50mph maximum then there is no need for a full 25K power supply. Lowering it to a level that would avoid any serious arcing would do the job. There are other parts of the electrified railway where power is reduced due to various restrictions.

The OHL at Kings Cross Thameslink is so low, the pantograph is only just raised from down position.

 

[djw1981]

I think BillEWS was referring to lowering the Voltage, not the Pantograph though.....

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Ha ha!
Lowering all three will prob be excellent elements of the solution!
(Voltage, height and speed)

 

[Nick W]

There are other parts of the electrified railway where power is reduced due to various restrictions.

Where are these parts then? I'd be very surprised. Althought eurostar trains running on the good old 3rd rail DC were running on reduced voltage.

 

[Waverley125]

in some places the problem could be rectified by lowering the level of the trackbed. However, in some areas this would be very problematic e.g. Nottingham, where it would require complete demolition of the existing platforms & total rebuild, quite literally, from the ground up.

 

[furryfeet]

three more:-

a) re-open one or both of the two currently disused bores at standedge, maybe even at the same time that guide bridge is re-modelled( as suggested by another post )
b) burscough curves
c) put back one, or both of the relief lines wellingborough to kettering, thus eliminating the double track bottleneck.

 

[class 313]

Reinstate the St Albans Abbey - Hatfield line.

 

[The Planner]

c) put back one, or both of the relief lines wellingborough to kettering, thus eliminating the double track bottleneck.

Being done, it will be 3 tracked by next summer.

 

[43106]

Going back to the original topic.....

What I'd like to see is very Pie in the Sky, for financial and (mostly) structual reasons. Nevertheless my dreams are....

1) Fast and slow up & down lines between Kings Cross and Doncaster. It means building an extra viaduct in parallel with the Welwyn Viaduct, parallel tunnels north & south of Grantham and rebuilding stations, particularly Grantham, Newark and Doncaster.

2) Fast and slow up & down lines between Euston and Weaver Junction. This doesn't need so much work - mostly between Rugby and Stafford.

3) Installing flyovers or dive-unders at MAJOR junctions, such as Hitchin, Newark Crossing, Doncaster Marshgate, Colwich Junction, Westerleigh, Stoke Gifford. The list is almost endless.

I shall refrain from suggesting electrification, as this has been dealt with elsewhere. However, I have been assured that it is NOT possible to electrify the Severn Tunnel - there is no room for OHLE as the trackbed can't go any lower.

As someone rightly said, Birmingham New Street needs a rebuild, but I haven't got a scooby how to implement it. I'd like to see the New Street - Moseley - Kings Norton upgraded and have regular XC (and local) services run along it. It'll save time reversing Wolverhampton - Cheltenham services. Also, I think it's feasible to open (re-open?) a line from Derby through Lichfield and Walsall to the North-West entrance of New Street. Again, it's to obviate reversing Derby - Birmingham - Coventry XC services.
I fail to understand why some junctions (such as Euxton or Carstairs South - there are others) insist on reducing the joining double line to a single line. It makes an existing bottleneck even worse.

As a sort-of side issue, I'd like the ENTIRE Passenger TimeTable converted to Clock face. I reckon it could be done, but I'm denied the mechanism to (dis)prove it.