North Downs line electrification

[greaterwest]

Reading to Wokingham is already the same pair of tracks for both routes. What sort of "merger" were you thinking of? The junction at Wokingham doesn't allow for direct Waterloo to Guildford moves at all...

In fact the junction at Wokingham doesn't allow for many moves without totally seizing up and screwing both lines for hours...

 

[hwl]

When there is word from the inside that there are electrification plans being produced as we speak, it doesn't make sense to call it realism.

The rolling programme of electrification is here to stay. Being pessimistic about it is pointless unless we have good reason to think that is going to change.

If you haven't noticed Bald Rick is about as inside as you can get, you obvious didn't get the previous hints about the location of his desk...

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2521168&postcount=75

Originally Posted by TheKnightWho
If you'd actually read the thread, you'd have seen that that isn't actually true.

Originally Posted by Bald Rick
If you actually sat at my desk, you'd know what is true!

 

[JamesRowden]

The question I was posing was if a London Bridge to Guildford train via the North Downs would that change the cost viability as most customers along the route would like such a service and it would generate more traffic.

When I proposed before, the basis was that the Reading - Redhill slow train was axed between Guildford and Redhill and replaced by the new service and in the alternate half hours the exiting Reigate to London service be extended to Guildford. Thus providing half hourly service that I believe most people along the route would want. To get the second train to London it could be added to the Tonbridge to London service at Redhill. Route into London solved.

At Guildford there would be trains terminating from the North from Reading (other half of RDG - RDH train) and Ascot, plus these new services from the south. If platform 6 was split - then these services could use it as a bay at either end (I'm sure there must be a signalling solution for that). The Reading to Gatwick trains could use 8 and 4 as they often do now. Platform 3 and 5 should cover Portsmouth - Waterloo trains. Potentially solved???

The better/simpler way to produce the benefits which you refer to would be to merge the Reading-Redhill stoppers with the Reigate-London services and operate the service using diesels or battery trains (since the entire route is not presently electrified). The fact that this service does not operate tells me something. Considering that there is a 6tph off-peak service between Redhill and London, I do not think that such a through service is needed.

 

[Bald Rick]

If you haven't noticed Bald Rick is about as inside as you can get, you obvious didn't get the previous hints about the location of his desk...

Well, now, hold on a minute. That's not right, and I don't want people to get the wrong idea.

I don't have a desk

 

[JonathanH]

The better/simpler way to produce the benefits which you refer to would be to merge the Reading-Redhill stoppers with the Reigate-London services and operate the service using diesels or battery trains (since the entire route is not presently electrified). The fact that this service does not operate tells me something. Considering that there is a 6tph off-peak service between Redhill and London, I do not think that such a through service is needed.

The fact that this service does not operate tells you that a) the traction equipment is different and b) the demand isn't uniform over the whole route. Who knows what the service would be today had electrification taken place in the early 1990s?

All-day 2tph from Reading to Redhill is only a relatively recent innovation, the use of 3-car turbos on all the services an even more recent innovation.

Although there are 6 trains an hour from Redhill to / from London, there isn't really a '6tph off-peak service' between Redhill and London because of the bunched-up way it is timed. You would imagine that one of the 2tph pairs would be extended to Guildford.

In a really joined up world where reopening from Guildford to Cranleigh was on the agenda (and I know it isn't), the services to Cranleigh could initially be provided by diverting the Reading to Redhill slow trains with the Guildford to Redhill service served by extensions of the London to Reigate services. Indeed, rather than building extra platforms at Guildford, could the money be better spent extending services south of there to a park-and-ride (and eventually Cranleigh)?

 

[JamesRowden]

The fact that this service does not operate tells you that a) the traction equipment is different and b) the demand isn't uniform over the whole route. Who knows what the service would be today had electrification taken place in the early 1990s?

All-day 2tph from Reading to Redhill is only a relatively recent innovation, the use of 3-car turbos on all the services an even more recent innovation.

Although there are 6 trains an hour from Redhill to / from London, there isn't really a '6tph off-peak service' between Redhill and London because of the bunched-up way it is timed. You would imagine that one of the 2tph pairs would be extended to Guildford.

In a really joined up world where reopening from Guildford to Cranleigh was on the agenda (and I know it isn't), the services to Cranleigh could initially be provided by diverting the Reading to Redhill slow trains with the Guildford to Redhill service served by extensions of the London to Reigate services. Indeed, rather than building extra platforms at Guildford, could the money be better spent extending services south of there to a park-and-ride (and eventually Cranleigh)?

The average waiting time for a train to London off-peak from Redhill is 6.2 minutes.

 

[The Ham]

The better/simpler way to produce the benefits which you refer to would be to merge the Reading-Redhill stoppers with the Reigate-London services and operate the service using diesels or battery trains (since the entire route is not presently electrified). The fact that this service does not operate tells me something. Considering that there is a 6tph off-peak service between Redhill and London, I do not think that such a through service is needed.

What does the Redhill to London frequency have to do with whether a Guildford (or even Woking) extension to the Reigate services would be viable?

The main driver of passengers is going to be people along the extension, some of whom will be going to London, but some will not.

Yes, there may not be a long wait at Redhill, BUT any change adds uncertainty and dies extend journey times. If your train from the NDL gets in just add a train is leaving for London and you wait for the next one that delay could mean the difference between on time or late.

Given that there is already a service partway along the NDL which is what is being suggested is used to form the link West then it doesn't impact on the number of paths into London. In fact that service frees up capacity at Redhill.

Also there may come a point where with 4tph from Reading where turning trains as Reigate could start to be a limiting factor and so it makes sense to extend it to a location where there are multiple platforms to use.

 

[Trog]

Plus there's the usual re-sleeper work needed to support third rail.

That looks a bit short sighted if I thought a line had a possibility of being DC electrified in the future I would be laying sleepers with a third rail capability just in case.

 

[steevp]

Well, now, hold on a minute. That's not right, and I don't want people to get the wrong idea.

I don't have a desk

LOL

Next you will be trying to persuade us that you work in a look-out shelter in the middle of the six-foot (the railway equivalent of a shoebox in the middle of the motorway) :-P

 

[Bald Rick]

That looks a bit short sighted if I thought a line had a possibility of being DC electrified in the future I would be laying sleepers with a third rail capability just in case.

Here's a scenario.

It's 2005, and you're sat in a PWay cabin somewhere in South East England.

You have, say, 3000 metres of track to renew at Sandhurst. Budgets are tight, and don't have enough cash to do all the track renewal you need to do that year, such that speed restrictions are inevitable somewhere.

On a low tonnage route, you can do renewal with steel sleepers, which because you don't have to replace the ballast in full, only costs around £350 per metre. The alternative is full renewal with concrete sleepers (type EG49 3R since you ask) which means replacing all the ballast, and costs £750 per metre. It gives you a slightly better job, but not much.

So, to do that 3000 metres of renewal at Sandhurst, you can spend well over £2m to get it done to slightly better than the correct standard (concrete), or roughly £1m to get the job done to the correct standard (steel), and then use the spare £1m to do a couple of other jobs elsewhere that stops speed restrictions.

Remember it is 2005. There is no realistic prospect of electrification, on any lines, in the near future. Let alone a line with 2 three car trains an hour. You know that in the event of a complete volte face of industry policy that this line will be a long way down the priority list.

What do you do?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

And to head off the impending question

Steel sleepers are absolutely fine for use with 25kV AC OLE but the routes they're used on don't tend to support a traditional business case for electrification, so rarely meet.

 

[JonathanH]

What does the Redhill to London frequency have to do with whether a Guildford (or even Woking) extension to the Reigate services would be viable?

The main driver of passengers is going to be people along the extension, some of whom will be going to London, but some will not.

Yes, there may not be a long wait at Redhill, BUT any change adds uncertainty and dies extend journey times. If your train from the NDL gets in just add a train is leaving for London and you wait for the next one that delay could mean the difference between on time or late.

Given that there is already a service partway along the NDL which is what is being suggested is used to form the link West then it doesn't impact on the number of paths into London. In fact that service frees up capacity at Redhill.

Also there may come a point where with 4tph from Reading where turning trains as Reigate could start to be a limiting factor and so it makes sense to extend it to a location where there are multiple platforms to use.

A third platform at Reigate is a possibility for a future control period (which might not be needed if trains ran through to Guildford). However, platform lengthening might still be needed to allow for splitting of long trains since you would probably not want to take more than one unit West of Reigate.

 

[coppercapped]

Many of the posters in this thread have suggested/have said/have been insistent that there is insufficient demand for the North Downs line trains to be routed to Gatwick Airport and that they should routed elsewhere. In my experience, judging by the type of luggage they are taking with them, there are considerable numbers of people coming from as far as Reading (if not further) travelling to and from Gatwick. Their business should also be considered and not simply be disregarded.

Two points. Firstly - as airline passengers tend to arrive at airports in a steady stream throughout the day (apart from the very early morning departure peak) a regular stream of trains is best suited to their travel patterns. Secondly - as there is an existing flow of airline passengers to and from Dorking, Guildford, Wokingham and Reading, how do the readers suggest that the necessary transfer between trains would be made at Redhill? What is the considered opinion about the number of passengers who would be lost to the railway if such a transfer were to be necessary?

As for electrifying the route with 3rd rail. This is not a matter of religious belief that electrification is the answer to all the world's problems but a business matter of expenditure and income. The diesel engine is an excellent prime mover and, taking into account the present cost of EC4T and the losses in the 3rd rail system on the one hand as convincingly demonstrated by Mr Phlopp (or should I say Nikola Tesla? ) and the current price of diesel fuel on the other, why does anyone think there are significant savings to be made by electrifying a line which carries only 3 or so trains an hour?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

why does anyone think there are significant savings to be made by electrifying a line which carries only 3 or so trains an hour?

there will be savings in carbon which is why it will get electrified eventually but probably not in my lifetime- I am nearly 59.

 

[JonathanH]

Many of the posters in this thread have suggested/have said/have been insistent that there is insufficient demand for the North Downs line trains to be routed to Gatwick Airport and that they should routed elsewhere. In my experience, judging by the type of luggage they are taking with them, there are considerable numbers of people coming from as far as Reading (if not further) travelling to and from Gatwick. Their business should also be considered and not simply be disregarded.

Two points. Firstly - as airline passengers tend to arrive at airports in a steady stream throughout the day (apart from the very early morning departure peak) a regular stream of trains is best suited to their travel patterns. Secondly - as there is an existing flow of airline passengers to and from Dorking, Guildford, Wokingham and Reading, how do the readers suggest that the necessary transfer between trains would be made at Redhill? What is the considered opinion about the number of passengers who would be lost to the railway if such a transfer were to be necessary?

As for electrifying the route with 3rd rail. This is not a matter of religious belief that electrification is the answer to all the world's problems but a business matter of expenditure and income. The diesel engine is an excellent prime mover and, taking into account the present cost of EC4T and the losses in the 3rd rail system on the one hand as convincingly demonstrated by Mr Phlopp (or should I say Nikola Tesla? ) and the current price of diesel fuel on the other, why does anyone think there are significant savings to be made by electrifying a line which carries only 3 or so trains an hour?

I totally agree that the semi-fast service on the North Downs Line should be Reading to Gatwick. Ideally it would be 2tph as well to enable people from the west to have confidence in connections at Reading and it should be run by the Great Western operator to best manage that connection.

The question is about making the most of the stopping service which doesn't load well east of Guildford off-peak and is not fast enough not to be caught up by the following semi-fast by the time it reaches Redhill. The Guildford to Redhill part would be better if it ran to London.

 

[JamesRowden]

What does the Redhill to London frequency have to do with whether a Guildford (or even Woking) extension to the Reigate services would be viable?

The main driver of passengers is going to be people along the extension, some of whom will be going to London, but some will not.

Yes, there may not be a long wait at Redhill, BUT any change adds uncertainty and dies extend journey times. If your train from the NDL gets in just add a train is leaving for London and you wait for the next one that delay could mean the difference between on time or late.

Given that there is already a service partway along the NDL which is what is being suggested is used to form the link West then it doesn't impact on the number of paths into London. In fact that service frees up capacity at Redhill.

Also there may come a point where with 4tph from Reading where turning trains as Reigate could start to be a limiting factor and so it makes sense to extend it to a location where there are multiple platforms to use.

The present plan is for a 2tph Reading-Gatwick semi-fast service and a 1tph Reading-Redhill stopper. Running services through to Gatwick is beneficial because of the connections to the south coast available. The stopping service is needed to connect stations not served by the semi-fast service. Running Guildford to London via Redhill services would either need to be an additional service or at the cost of other services. Merging the Reading stoppers with the Reigate to London service produces either more through service opportunities than the Guildford terminator idea for the same frequency of service between Guildford and Reigate, or the same through service opportunities for a lower frequency of service between Guildford and Reigate.

 

[swt_passenger]

Remember it is 2005. There is no realistic prospect of electrification, on any lines, in the near future. Let alone a line with 2 three car trains an hour. You know that in the event of a complete volte face of industry policy that this line will be a long way down the priority list.

What do you do?

Renew with concrete sleepers, some of which already carry the fittings to take third rail insulators. As can be seen in the vicinity of North Camp.

 

[coppercapped]

there will be savings in carbon which is why it will get electrified eventually but probably not in my lifetime- I am nearly 59.

If that's the only reason for electrification, then it had better stay diesel powered. The carbon reduction argument is tenuous at best - it's almost a smokescreen. (Sorree...!)

 

[HarleyDavidson]

One solution to the problem of platform space at Guildford would be that any electric service from Redhill could continue back to whence it came by going up the new line to Effingham and then to Epsom and Victoria or London Bridge.

 

[The Ham]

One solution to the problem of platform space at Guildford would be that any electric service from Redhill could continue back to whence it came by going up the new line to Effingham and then to Epsom and Victoria or London Bridge.

...or send the unit up to Woking (platform 6) and improve capacity between Woking and Guildford.

It also means that passengers from the NDL can change to any train at Woking rather than having to change at Guildford as well if they are going anywhere other that Woking, Clapham Junction or Waterloo.

 

[Trog]

Here's a scenario.

It's 2005, and you're sat in a PWay cabin somewhere in South East England.

You have, say, 3000 metres of track to renew at Sandhurst. Budgets are tight, and don't have enough cash to do all the track renewal you need to do that year, such that speed restrictions are inevitable somewhere.

On a low tonnage route, you can do renewal with steel sleepers, which because you don't have to replace the ballast in full, only costs around £350 per metre. The alternative is full renewal with concrete sleepers (type EG49 3R since you ask) which means replacing all the ballast, and costs £750 per metre. It gives you a slightly better job, but not much.

So, to do that 3000 metres of renewal at Sandhurst, you can spend well over £2m to get it done to slightly better than the correct standard (concrete), or roughly £1m to get the job done to the correct standard (steel), and then use the spare £1m to do a couple of other jobs elsewhere that stops speed restrictions.

Remember it is 2005. There is no realistic prospect of electrification, on any lines, in the near future. Let alone a line with 2 three car trains an hour. You know that in the event of a complete volte face of industry policy that this line will be a long way down the priority list.

What do you do?

I used F24 4RM sleepers in 1996 myself, as there was a possibility a neggie rail might be needed.

 

[HSTEd]

Ironically a four rail system would solve all these problems.......
You could use all the steel sleepers you wanted in that case.

I wonder if its posible to build dual standard 3rd/4th rail units :P

 

[The Ham]

The present plan is for a 2tph Reading-Gatwick semi-fast service and a 1tph Reading-Redhill stopper. Running services through to Gatwick is beneficial because of the connections to the south coast available. The stopping service is needed to connect stations not served by the semi-fast service. Running Guildford to London via Redhill services would either need to be an additional service or at the cost of other services. Merging the Reading stoppers with the Reigate to London service produces either more through service opportunities than the Guildford terminator idea for the same frequency of service between Guildford and Reigate, or the same through service opportunities for a lower frequency of service between Guildford and Reigate.

With a longer term alteration for the NDL to go to 4tph, as such if electrification were to happen prior to that (along with capacity improvements to signaling if not already done) then the extension could just use that path.

However given it has two tracks asking it's length 6tph should be easy to accommodate, other than at places like Redhill (which won't effect the ability to extend services which already pass through there) and Guildford.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Of course, if the signals need replacing then (Given that it'll be in use in the GWML) it would make sense to replace them with ERTMS (at least to Reigate).

 

[edwin_m]

I used F24 4RM sleepers in 1996 myself, as there was a possibility a neggie rail might be needed.

I think Bald Rick's point is that whether provided with fixings for third rail or not, concrete sleepers would need re-ballasting so would be far more expensive in total that steel ones. As I understand it third rail isn't allowed on steel sleepers - nobody has answered my earlier question on why this should be but I suspect it's more fundamental than just that they don't have attachments for pots.

 

[HSTEd]

They are too conductive, so you get ground leakage through the sleepers from the running rails.

So you start corroding everything everywhere. I have some ideas on how to ameliorate this using power electronics but I am not sure how succesful this would be.
Using a negative supply cable at ~-50V or so to hold the rail voltage at all points as close as possible to zero volts through op amp driven transistor stacks and a zero-current reference cable.

 

[JamesRowden]

With a longer term alteration for the NDL to go to 4tph, as such if electrification were to happen prior to that (along with capacity improvements to signaling if not already done) then the extension could just use that path.

However given it has two tracks asking it's length 6tph should be easy to accommodate, other than at places like Redhill (which won't effect the ability to extend services which already pass through there) and Guildford.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Of course, if the signals need replacing then (Given that it'll be in use in the GWML) it would make sense to replace them with ERTMS (at least to Reigate).

I think that there could be demand in the future for a Woking to Gatwick service to operate, which in my opinion would make more sense than a Woking to London via Redhill.

 

[coppercapped]

I think that there could be demand in the future for a Woking to Gatwick service to operate, which in my opinion would make more sense than a Woking to London via Redhill.

I can see that that would make considerable sense. It seems curious that passengers from anywhere on the GWR network can get to Gatwick with one change at Reading, while those on the SWT line between Weymouth and London are essentially forced to travel via London, or at least change at Clapham Junction, if they don't want to change twice with luggage. Linking Woking to Gatwick would mean that people from Bournemouth, Southampton, Winchester and Basingstoke, as well as those off the Basingstoke, Salisbury and Exeter line, could reach Gatwick with only one change having had a fast trip to Woking.

Obviously passengers on the Portsmouth Direct can change at Guildford, and those right on the coast could use the coast route and approach Gatwick from the south.

It would be interesting to see if systematic traffic surveys would come to the same conclusion - if there really were sufficient potential passengers to make it worthwhile. In the year to June 2015 Gatwick's passenger volume rose by 7.8% to reach nearly 40 million. Looks like a worthwhile market.

 

[JonathanH]

I can see that that would make considerable sense. It seems curious that passengers from anywhere on the GWR network can get to Gatwick with one change at Reading, while those on the SWT line between Weymouth and London are essentially forced to travel via London, or at least change at Clapham Junction, if they don't want to change twice with luggage. Linking Woking to Gatwick would mean that people from Bournemouth, Southampton, Winchester and Basingstoke, as well as those off the Basingstoke, Salisbury and Exeter line, could reach Gatwick with only one change having had a fast trip to Woking.

Obviously passengers on the Portsmouth Direct can change at Guildford, and those right on the coast could use the coast route and approach Gatwick from the south.

It would be interesting to see if systematic traffic surveys would come to the same conclusion - if there really were sufficient potential passengers to make it worthwhile. In the year to June 2015 Gatwick's passenger volume rose by 7.8% to reach nearly 40 million. Looks like a worthwhile market.

Passengers from Southampton already have the option of a direct train to Gatwick. Connecting at Clapham Junction for Gatwick from any destination on the South Western Main Line is just as easy as it would be to change at Woking and probably quicker / more reliable.

 

[The Ham]

Passengers from Southampton already have the option of a direct train to Gatwick. Connecting at Clapham Junction for Gatwick from any destination on the South Western Main Line is just as easy as it would be to change at Woking and probably quicker / more reliable.

Journey times from Woking to Gatwick are similar whichever way you go and currently involved a change at either Guildford or Clapham.

 

[HowardGWR]

Journey times from Woking to Gatwick are similar whichever way you go and currently involved a change at either Guildford or Clapham.

Yes, via Clapham Jcn is one change from Axminster (in my case), which I shall be booking shortly, as it happens. The real problem with routes via Clapham Jcn is the chance of severe overcrowding, either on the SN section to Gatwick, or on the Exeter trains in the reverse direction =not good with cases.

I suspect that if Gatwick expands to two runways, following the 2019 release from its covenant / planning restriction (can't remember which), then I think through services to Brighton from (e.g.) Wales or Plymouth will be on the cards. Also to Ashford for Eurostar comes to mind.

Tri-modes, anyone?