Miniscule Electrification Jobs not currently proposed question

[NotATrainspott]

Hmm... are there any Glasgow area branches not already committed to? Is Queen Street to Anniesland definitely going to happen?

Anniesland is the only line that hasn't been mentioned so far for CP5, I think. Even the City Union and Edinburgh South Suburban lines might come ahead of it as they have been identified, as has East Kilbride and Barrhead. Since Anniesland is interworked with diesels from further afield, there isn't much point electrifying it if none of the trains that are used on it are electric.

Google Maps suggests that the line has twelve overbridges/tunnels; two of which are under the Forth and Clyde canal and many of them are adjacent to stations making track-lowering for OHLE clearance more expensive. The platforms along the route are seemingly long enough for three-car operation but no longer which would be fine for the EMUs from Yoker but would be a problem with the 4-car EMUs for EGIP. There would be limited benefit during service perturbations when there are so few paths into Queen Street HL - if Hyndland-Partick is closed the Anniesland line is never busier but going to 3x20m from 2x23m at the same maximum 2tph isn't much of an improvement there. Overall it isn't a particularly good candidate for electrification until it will be the only diesel local line left in the Central Belt and if it weren't able to interwork with the longer-distance lines.

In the long term I feel the best option for better services would be to convert the line to high-floor tram-train operation. Its capacity is restricted mostly by the high level station and Cowlairs junction and it sees very infrequent diesel services to the WHL. It could still be electrified at 25kV for these other train services once bi-mode becomes a thing on the WHL but there would be quite a considerable benefit to running it much more frequently. 2tph is not high enough frequency to make it particularly competitive and with any higher a frequency a proper EMU would be overkill. If the tram-trains could come off the line just before Cowlairs they would be able to serve the area between there and the city centre which is pretty poorly served by rail at the moment. Going down to the city centre, the tram-trains could serve both Queen Street and Central stations, crossing the river and then taking over the Cathcart Circle line. Doing this would free up paths in both terminuses for longer-distance services, provide more frequent services on both the heavy rail lines taken over and provide the starting point for a proper tram network for Glasgow.

 

[142094]

Although electrifying Newcastle - MetroCentre looks like common sense, you'd have to find the extra EMUs to replace the DMUs currently used, plus then there is the fact that Heaton depot only look after DMUs. So you'd have to either train the depot staff up on EMUs or send them back to Leeds/Manchester.

 

[edwin_m]

Could the Springburn service be extended to Anniesland?

 

[Anvil1984]

Although electrifying Newcastle - MetroCentre looks like common sense, you'd have to find the extra EMUs to replace the DMUs currently used, plus then there is the fact that Heaton depot only look after DMUs. So you'd have to either train the depot staff up on EMUs or send them back to Leeds/Manchester.

Class 321s have visited Heaton in recent years and its no different to other depots receiving new stock either. For example when the TPE depots get EMUs soon. Also theres quite a few EMUs becoming available over next few years Im sure they can afford the North East 4/5

 

[CalderRail]

Leeds - Bradford Interchange - Huddersfield. Relieves capacity on the busier section of this route.

Probably another 25 miles - since the Calder Valley route is going to be high up many people's CP6 wish list, I can see the logic in doing the Leeds - Bradford - Huddersfield bit first to free up at least that hourly service

There's a lot of tunnels between BDI & HFX though. That does make implementation difficult. Hopefully they are thinking ahead with the design of Low Moor station planning.

Calder Valley route definitely is high up on the priorities for CP6, not least because of the provision of an electrified route alternative to Standedge in the event of a problem on that line.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There's a lot of tunnels between BDI & HFX though. That does make implementation difficult. Hopefully they are thinking ahead with the design of Low Moor station planning.

Calder Valley route definitely is high up on the priorities for CP6, not least because of the provision of an electrified route alternative to Standedge in the event of a problem on that line.

As a diversionary route for North Transpennine, the section from Milner Royd Junction to Halifax/Bradford would be of limited use. I would expect the whole of the Calder Valley route to be a CP6 priority though- perhaps the first sections to be wired would be those that would allow electric TPE diversions- namely MCV-Brighouse-Heaton Lodge/Bradley Junctions.

 

[Welshman]

As a diversionary route for North Transpennine, the section from Milner Royd Junction to Halifax/Bradford would be of limited use. I would expect the whole of the Calder Valley route to be a CP6 priority though- perhaps the first sections to be wired would be those that would allow electric TPE diversions- namely MCV-Brighouse-Heaton Lodge/Bradley Junctions.

I agree that the Sowerby Bridge-Bradford-Leeds route would be of limited use as a diversionary route for North Transpennine [unless some form of a Bradford avoiding-line was reinstated, and then the cost rockets!].

However, not to electrify the Bradford section would mean either dms running under the wires from Manchester Victoria to Milner Royd, or going back to the olden days of reinstating a bay at Sowerby Bridge and running Bradford connections from the Manchester trains, which, clearly, would be unacceptable!

When, and if, they do get round to electrifying the Milner Royd/Halifax/Greetland triangle, it would be interesting to see how they cope with the single-track bores of Salterhebble tunnels, between Dryclough and Greetland Junctions!

 

[edwin_m]

One possible future for Calder Valley would be a commuter-type service running from Leeds/York to Halifax/Huddersfield/Hebden Bridge, plus an interurban service between Manchester and Bradford. This could result in electrification east of the Pennines before west.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The Calder Valley is hardly minuscule i don't understand why it has been mentioned in this thread?

 

[Kneedown]

Nottingham - Lincoln (34m)
Derby - Crewe (51m)
Ambergate - Matlock (7m)

92 miles total and (If i've got this right) 11 DMU diagrams.

 

[DJH1971]

Nottingham - Lincoln (34m)
Derby - Crewe (51m)
Ambergate - Matlock (7m)

92 miles total and (If i've got this right) 11 DMU diagrams.

Also Birmingham to Nuneaton and Nuneaton to Leicester.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I agree that the Sowerby Bridge-Bradford-Leeds route would be of limited use as a diversionary route for North Transpennine [unless some form of a Bradford avoiding-line was reinstated, and then the cost rockets!].

However, not to electrify the Bradford section would mean either dms running under the wires from Manchester Victoria to Milner Royd, or going back to the olden days of reinstating a bay at Sowerby Bridge and running Bradford connections from the Manchester trains, which, clearly, would be unacceptable!

When, and if, they do get round to electrifying the Milner Royd/Halifax/Greetland triangle, it would be interesting to see how they cope with the single-track bores of Salterhebble tunnels, between Dryclough and Greetland Junctions!

I wasn't suggesting that the section via BDI would remain un-wired, just that once the Standedge route is done it would make sense to prioritise the sections of the L&Y that offer a diversionary route, as you'd struggle to wire it all at once! I imagine if there's not much clearance in the Salterhebble tunnels they might use an overhead rail rather than wire.

The Calder Valley is hardly minuscule i don't understand why it has been mentioned in this thread?

Fair point! Just the usual topic-drift I guess I think it started with a mention of wiring Leeds-Huddersfield via Bradford (which itself isn't tiny, but a fair bit smaller than most currently planned electrification schemes).

 

[OxtedL]

Nottingham - Lincoln (34m)
Derby - Crewe (51m)

Also Birmingham to Nuneaton and Nuneaton to Leicester.

Those are most definitely not "miniscule gaps of under 10 miles".

 

[CalderRail]

As a diversionary route for North Transpennine, the section from Milner Royd Junction to Halifax/Bradford would be of limited use. I would expect the whole of the Calder Valley route to be a CP6 priority though- perhaps the first sections to be wired would be those that would allow electric TPE diversions- namely MCV-Brighouse-Heaton Lodge/Bradley Junctions.

Yes that was the point I was trying to make.

The Calder Valley is hardly minuscule i don't understand why it has been mentioned in this thread?

Because we started talking about the 25 miles of LDS-BDI-HFX-HUD, and spread out from there.

When Calder Valley is electrified, I expect that all of the minor bits between already/CP5 electrified lines to be done as well, for both diagram reasons and operational redundancy.

 

[DJH1971]

Those are most definitely not "miniscule gaps of under 10 miles".

Maybe not, but doable all the same.

 

[Altnabreac]

Anniesland is the only line that hasn't been mentioned so far for CP5, I think. Even the City Union and Edinburgh South Suburban lines might come ahead of it as they have been identified, as has East Kilbride and Barrhead. Since Anniesland is interworked with diesels from further afield, there isn't much point electrifying it if none of the trains that are used on it are electric.

Google Maps suggests that the line has twelve overbridges/tunnels; two of which are under the Forth and Clyde canal and many of them are adjacent to stations making track-lowering for OHLE clearance more expensive. The platforms along the route are seemingly long enough for three-car operation but no longer which would be fine for the EMUs from Yoker but would be a problem with the 4-car EMUs for EGIP. There would be limited benefit during service perturbations when there are so few paths into Queen Street HL - if Hyndland-Partick is closed the Anniesland line is never busier but going to 3x20m from 2x23m at the same maximum 2tph isn't much of an improvement there. Overall it isn't a particularly good candidate for electrification until it will be the only diesel local line left in the Central Belt and if it weren't able to interwork with the longer-distance lines.

In the long term I feel the best option for better services would be to convert the line to high-floor tram-train operation. Its capacity is restricted mostly by the high level station and Cowlairs junction and it sees very infrequent diesel services to the WHL. It could still be electrified at 25kV for these other train services once bi-mode becomes a thing on the WHL but there would be quite a considerable benefit to running it much more frequently. 2tph is not high enough frequency to make it particularly competitive and with any higher a frequency a proper EMU would be overkill. If the tram-trains could come off the line just before Cowlairs they would be able to serve the area between there and the city centre which is pretty poorly served by rail at the moment. Going down to the city centre, the tram-trains could serve both Queen Street and Central stations, crossing the river and then taking over the Cathcart Circle line. Doing this would free up paths in both terminuses for longer-distance services, provide more frequent services on both the heavy rail lines taken over and provide the starting point for a proper tram network for Glasgow.

My understanding is that when EGIP was based on 6tph the Maryhill line electrification and an Anniesland chord to allow trains to be diverted to Queen St Low Level were proposed as part of the EGIP project.

Other Glasgow Suburban electrification was listed as a separate CP5 Intervention and worked up separately.

SPT and Glasgow City Council weren't keen on the diversion of Maryhill trains to QS Low Level anyway and then the Rail 2014 consultation with the notorious station closure appendix made the Maryhill Line a political hot potato.

So when EGIP was changed to 4tph of longer trains the Anniesland electrification and chord proposals were dropped from EGIP but not added to the Suburban electrification project.

However as mentioned earlier the high level political visibility of the Maryhill line has lead to Labour vs SNP arguments at the Scottish Parliament and Keith Brown MSP (the Transport Minister) made a personal commitment that the Maryhill line would form part of the rolling electrification programme post EGIP:
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/...sgow-stations-will-not-close-141098n.22568458

I guess the main question is where in the programme it comes in the scheduling with the Network Rail post EGIP CP5 Rolling electrification programme currently listed as:

• Cumbernauld – Greenhill, Lower Jn
• Greenhill Upper Jn - Greenhill Lower - Carmuirs West Jn - Falkirk Grahamston and Polmont (possibly including Grangemouth Branch funded from the Scottish Strategic Rail Freight Investment Fund)
• Carmuirs West – Stirling – Dunblane – Alloa (including Larbert Jn to Carmuirs East)
• Holytown Jn – Shotts – Midcalder Jn (the Shotts line)

See p135 of http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...e plans/overarching cp5 enhancements plan.pdf

The East Kilbride line is also listed in some documents as having potential to be done in CP5 as a Paisley Canal style budget electrification.

I've also seen Barrhead / Kilmarnock mentioned as late CP5 / early CP6 possibilities.

However the exact ordering of these schemes is not fixed and could vary from that currently set out in the Initial Industry Plan. Fairly sure the Falkirk/Alloa/Dunblane lines are the immediate post EGIP priority though.

My guess is given the political sensitivities of the Maryhill line it could sneak above something like the Shotts line and get done in late CP5 or if not would be top of the list for early CP6 ahead of lines like Barrhead/Kilmarnock.

 

[Kneedown]

Maybe not, but doable all the same.

And the Lincoln scheme is a relatively simple one as well, there being no low bridges to worry about.

 

[Buttsy]

Erm, some of us use the Leeds-Heysham boat train in full.... please don't go making us change twice!

I would think that if wires go back to Morecambe, it still wouldn't make a great deal of sense to wire Heysham for 1tpd, so could still be worked as a (Leeds) - Skipton - Heysham DMU rather than as an EMU. The alternative would be a tram wire style wiring and lower speed operation to keep down costs.

While outside the OP's length, Ormskirk - Preston would save a DMU and get the frequency up to hourly.

Sudbury - Marks Tey would free up a unit and possibly allow the service to be interworked with Walton locals

 

[34D]

While outside the OP's length, Ormskirk - Preston would save a DMU and get the frequency up to hourly.

And potentially allow a connection to Merseyrail.