Altnabreac
Established Member
Lots of threads about pacer replacement and potential diesel multiple unit rolling stock orders have mentioned the issues around the uncertainty for ROSCOs in financing new DMU rolling stock orders given the likely continued expansion of electrification in Control Period 6 and beyond.
This is understandable as a ROSCO will not want to end up with a fleet of 200 carriages of commuter specified 172s only suitable for running on lines which are now to be electrified well before the end of a potential design life 30 40 years in the future.
Given the need for additional stock to allow services to be strengthened, new routes operated and non DDA compliant stock to be timeously replaced, the question that those with a long term role in planning the industry should be asking is what routes will not be electrified at the end of a 40 year design life of a new build DMU ordered in 2013-15 for delivery in 2016-2018?
When we look at the Network Rail Electrification RUS this gives us a reasonable idea of what routes are likely to be upgraded in the medium term. Appendix 7 Core + Further options on p115 of the document is a reasonable outline of what the electrified network might look like by around 2025 with currently announced plans augmented by the obvious next stage routes like: completing the core cross-country network; Berks & Hants; Basingstoke Salisbury Exeter; Felixstowe Peterborough; Chiltern and Snow Hill lines etc.
The ongoing Electrification refresh strategy is likely to update this further and reflect some of the changes which have happened since then, for example the Valley lines do not feature on the Core + further options map, yet are likely to be delivered well before many of the other schemes.
For a better vision of the 2050 network which is what concerns ROSCOs involved in DMU procurement, we are probably better looking at Figure 5.1 Gaps on page 44 of the RUS. As the appendices make clear, several of these schemes do not currently have positive BCRs but as both fuel costs and passenger traffic levels increase, it is likely that these lines are going to be next in the queue for electrification.
If I ran a ROSCO prudently planning for the future, I would certainly assume that any line with a passenger train frequency of 2tph will be electrified before my new build DMU is likely to be scrapped.
Beyond these lines it is likely that other rural and branch lines with at least 1tph frequency will potentially be viable for electrification in future. I could see Nottingham - Worksop; the Devon and Cornwall branches; Manchester Northwich Chester; and Skegness Grantham being in this next potential batch.
Some other routes may by this point have been subject to upgrading to allow increased frequency to 1tph, Aberdeen Inverness and Aberystwyth Shrewsbury spring to mind.
Other routes likely to be electrified eventually include strategic freight routes and those with additional use as a diversionary route for major intercity routes (or both). Examples of these might be Settle Carlisle and the Glasgow - South Western route south of Kilmarnock.
Additionally some lower frequency routes may be electrified as they interwork with higher frequency electrified routes, an example of this might be Bishop Auckland Darlington and Milford Haven - Swansea.
The lines we can be fairly certain WILL NOT be electrified, even in 2050, are those that will only ever have a service of 1 train per 2 hours or less, have no diversionary value and little freight traffic.
These lines can quickly be identified: (with un-electrified section in brackets)
Apart from these there will be a few parliamentary services and odd lines like Brigg Gainsborough Central that need DMUs to keep them going, but lets assume this is where the last of the current build of DMUs end up finishing out their lives.
So for the ROSCO then the safe bet in procuring DMU traction which will have a guaranteed 40 year usage life is to build a unit suited to these lines which are primarily longer distance, rural, tourism focussed lines.
A 2 car DMU with low RA similar to the Class 156 seems a reasonable bet for all these lines. It would need a 75mph top speed and a layout composed primarily of 2+2 table based seating with only occasional airline seats.
In the centre of the train we would have an accessible retention tank toilet, a large space for bikes (similar to a 156) and luggage as well as space for refreshment trolleys, (possibly including a small galley to allow additional hot water supplies to be stored / obtained and basic hot food to be microwaved for at seat service).
Additional features would include air conditioning, wifi and plug sockets (which will be a must for this market in future as tourists are increasingly bringing cameras, laptops and phones that eat up the power).
A couple of features we could borrow from the Glacier Express include the extra height panorama car windows and at seat information sockets allowing the supply of interesting journey information in a variety of languages via headphones.
Add in an ICE style drivers view observation so passengers can see both the track ahead and the views behind and we have a premium tourism product that will drive passengers and revenue onto these rural railways while also freeing up existing DMUs to allow pacer replacement and service strengthening.
These lines are never going to be electrified and a specialist tourist focussed service like this allows ROSCOs confidence that they are funding something that will continue to be useful over a 40 year design life.
Over to you guys. Does this sound sensible? How many units would you need to cover these routes? Could DfT, Transport Scotland and the Welsh Assembly co-operate enough to manage a joint procurement exercise for this new class?
This is understandable as a ROSCO will not want to end up with a fleet of 200 carriages of commuter specified 172s only suitable for running on lines which are now to be electrified well before the end of a potential design life 30 40 years in the future.
Given the need for additional stock to allow services to be strengthened, new routes operated and non DDA compliant stock to be timeously replaced, the question that those with a long term role in planning the industry should be asking is what routes will not be electrified at the end of a 40 year design life of a new build DMU ordered in 2013-15 for delivery in 2016-2018?
When we look at the Network Rail Electrification RUS this gives us a reasonable idea of what routes are likely to be upgraded in the medium term. Appendix 7 Core + Further options on p115 of the document is a reasonable outline of what the electrified network might look like by around 2025 with currently announced plans augmented by the obvious next stage routes like: completing the core cross-country network; Berks & Hants; Basingstoke Salisbury Exeter; Felixstowe Peterborough; Chiltern and Snow Hill lines etc.
The ongoing Electrification refresh strategy is likely to update this further and reflect some of the changes which have happened since then, for example the Valley lines do not feature on the Core + further options map, yet are likely to be delivered well before many of the other schemes.
For a better vision of the 2050 network which is what concerns ROSCOs involved in DMU procurement, we are probably better looking at Figure 5.1 Gaps on page 44 of the RUS. As the appendices make clear, several of these schemes do not currently have positive BCRs but as both fuel costs and passenger traffic levels increase, it is likely that these lines are going to be next in the queue for electrification.
If I ran a ROSCO prudently planning for the future, I would certainly assume that any line with a passenger train frequency of 2tph will be electrified before my new build DMU is likely to be scrapped.
Beyond these lines it is likely that other rural and branch lines with at least 1tph frequency will potentially be viable for electrification in future. I could see Nottingham - Worksop; the Devon and Cornwall branches; Manchester Northwich Chester; and Skegness Grantham being in this next potential batch.
Some other routes may by this point have been subject to upgrading to allow increased frequency to 1tph, Aberdeen Inverness and Aberystwyth Shrewsbury spring to mind.
Other routes likely to be electrified eventually include strategic freight routes and those with additional use as a diversionary route for major intercity routes (or both). Examples of these might be Settle Carlisle and the Glasgow - South Western route south of Kilmarnock.
Additionally some lower frequency routes may be electrified as they interwork with higher frequency electrified routes, an example of this might be Bishop Auckland Darlington and Milford Haven - Swansea.
The lines we can be fairly certain WILL NOT be electrified, even in 2050, are those that will only ever have a service of 1 train per 2 hours or less, have no diversionary value and little freight traffic.
These lines can quickly be identified: (with un-electrified section in brackets)
- Far North Lines and Kyle of Lochalsh
- West Highland Line (north of Craigendoran)
- Girvan Stranraer
- Leeds Morecambe (Carnforth Hellifield)
- Whitby Line (Nunthorpe Whitby)
- Yorkshire Coast Line (Filey Bridlington)
- Llandudno Junction Blaenau Ffestiniog
- Heart of Wales Line (Craven Arms Llanelli)
- Cambrian Coast (Dovey Junction Pwllheli)
- Pembroke Dock branch (Whitland Pembroke Dock)
- Fishguard Harbour branch (north of Clarbeston Road)
Apart from these there will be a few parliamentary services and odd lines like Brigg Gainsborough Central that need DMUs to keep them going, but lets assume this is where the last of the current build of DMUs end up finishing out their lives.
So for the ROSCO then the safe bet in procuring DMU traction which will have a guaranteed 40 year usage life is to build a unit suited to these lines which are primarily longer distance, rural, tourism focussed lines.
A 2 car DMU with low RA similar to the Class 156 seems a reasonable bet for all these lines. It would need a 75mph top speed and a layout composed primarily of 2+2 table based seating with only occasional airline seats.
In the centre of the train we would have an accessible retention tank toilet, a large space for bikes (similar to a 156) and luggage as well as space for refreshment trolleys, (possibly including a small galley to allow additional hot water supplies to be stored / obtained and basic hot food to be microwaved for at seat service).
Additional features would include air conditioning, wifi and plug sockets (which will be a must for this market in future as tourists are increasingly bringing cameras, laptops and phones that eat up the power).
A couple of features we could borrow from the Glacier Express include the extra height panorama car windows and at seat information sockets allowing the supply of interesting journey information in a variety of languages via headphones.
Add in an ICE style drivers view observation so passengers can see both the track ahead and the views behind and we have a premium tourism product that will drive passengers and revenue onto these rural railways while also freeing up existing DMUs to allow pacer replacement and service strengthening.
These lines are never going to be electrified and a specialist tourist focussed service like this allows ROSCOs confidence that they are funding something that will continue to be useful over a 40 year design life.
Over to you guys. Does this sound sensible? How many units would you need to cover these routes? Could DfT, Transport Scotland and the Welsh Assembly co-operate enough to manage a joint procurement exercise for this new class?
