North Downs line electrification

[Busaholic]

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?

There were through trains from Plymouth to Brighton in the 1990s - problem was, they took most of the day and went nowhere near Gatwick!

 

[The Ham]

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?

I would expect that if Gatwick expands then NR would be looking to them to (at least in part) fund improvements to the NDL. Probably too include:
- platform lengthening (up to 160m) to allow longer trains
- signaling (possible ERTMS) to allow improved frequencies
- electrification

 

[edwin_m]

Has Gatwick offered to fund any rail enhancements as part of its case for a second runway?

 

[tsr]

I would expect that if Gatwick expands then NR would be looking to them to (at least in part) fund improvements to the NDL. Probably too include:
- platform lengthening (up to 160m) to allow longer trains
- signaling (possible ERTMS) to allow improved frequencies
- electrification

Whilst signalling improvements are probably needed for through trains across the whole line to run at a higher frequency of service than 3tph, perhaps around 4tph in peaks, to be reliably achieved (bearing in mind the "bitty" nature of the control of NDL trains at present, and the significant variation in signal section lengths and capacity of the signalling system) I think adding that into the current debate does increase its complexity massively. I have a feeling that complexities like the interfaces with other routes and the much longer term potential for cross-country freight would mean that colour-light signalling upgrades, level crossing upgrades or removal, and more uniform signal section lengths would be of greater benefit than ERTMS in and of itself - at least over the next decade or two.

Platform lengths would, I think, be a very achievable goal once disused or near-disused infrastructure such as foot crossings are dealt with. There will naturally be some areas where these are harder, but the overall picture is that several of the major stations could already accommodate at least one more coach than is typically used (maximum formation is usually 3 coaches, though on very, very rare occasions I have noted 4 coaches in use, with local instructions for door locking at any relevant short platforms; the last time, this was to accommodate a major sports event somewhere) - and in the case of stations like Gatwick Airport, Redhill, Guildford and Reading, significantly more coaches than that. Additionally, any electrification bringing newer stock may also give sensible options for SDO, which could help if there are any stations where lengthening is hopeless. We know that NR et al are prepared to majorly lengthen platforms on even very rural routes in the area in order to allow better end-to-end capacity overall; the Uckfield line is a case in point, although of course the trains travel to London Mondays-Saturdays. A big concern of mine, though, is that bus replacements and service alterations for platform lengthening on the NDL would be much more disruptive for occasional travellers, airport users and the economy in general.

 

[Deepgreen]

Whilst signalling improvements are probably needed for through trains across the whole line to run at a higher frequency of service than 3tph, perhaps around 4tph in peaks, to be reliably achieved (bearing in mind the "bitty" nature of the control of NDL trains at present, and the significant variation in signal section lengths and capacity of the signalling system) I think adding that into the current debate does increase its complexity massively. I have a feeling that complexities like the interfaces with other routes and the much longer term potential for cross-country freight would mean that colour-light signalling upgrades, level crossing upgrades or removal, and more uniform signal section lengths would be of greater benefit than ERTMS in and of itself - at least over the next decade or two.

Platform lengths would, I think, be a very achievable goal once disused or near-disused infrastructure such as foot crossings are dealt with. There will naturally be some areas where these are harder, but the overall picture is that several of the major stations could already accommodate at least one more coach than is typically used (maximum formation is usually 3 coaches, though on very, very rare occasions I have noted 4 coaches in use, with local instructions for door locking at any relevant short platforms; the last time, this was to accommodate a major sports event somewhere) - and in the case of stations like Gatwick Airport, Redhill, Guildford and Reading, significantly more coaches than that. Additionally, any electrification bringing newer stock may also give sensible options for SDO, which could help if there are any stations where lengthening is hopeless. We know that NR et al are prepared to majorly lengthen platforms on even very rural routes in the area in order to allow better end-to-end capacity overall; the Uckfield line is a case in point, although of course the trains travel to London Mondays-Saturdays. A big concern of mine, though, is that bus replacements and service alterations for platform lengthening on the NDL would be much more disruptive for occasional travellers, airport users and the economy in general.

Would many/any locations require closures for platform lengthening? Such works elsewhere have been done without significant disruption (e.g. Waterloo suburban routes).

 

[The Ham]

Whilst signalling improvements are probably needed for through trains across the whole line to run at a higher frequency of service than 3tph, perhaps around 4tph in peaks, to be reliably achieved (bearing in mind the "bitty" nature of the control of NDL trains at present, and the significant variation in signal section lengths and capacity of the signalling system) I think adding that into the current debate does increase its complexity massively. I have a feeling that complexities like the interfaces with other routes and the much longer term potential for cross-country freight would mean that colour-light signalling upgrades, level crossing upgrades or removal, and more uniform signal section lengths would be of greater benefit than ERTMS in and of itself - at least over the next decade or two.

The reason for suggesting ERTMS was more to with that any trains from Reading would likely need to be equipped to be able to use it when moving between the non electrified branch lines on the GWML and if NR are going to the expense of replacing the signals the extra upfront cost of ERTMS would be offset by the reduced ongoing costs.

Platform lengths would, I think, be a very achievable goal once disused or near-disused infrastructure such as foot crossings are dealt with. There will naturally be some areas where these are harder, but the overall picture is that several of the major stations could already accommodate at least one more coach than is typically used (maximum formation is usually 3 coaches, though on very, very rare occasions I have noted 4 coaches in use, with local instructions for door locking at any relevant short platforms; the last time, this was to accommodate a major sports event somewhere) - and in the case of stations like Gatwick Airport, Redhill, Guildford and Reading, significantly more coaches than that. Additionally, any electrification bringing newer stock may also give sensible options for SDO, which could help if there are any stations where lengthening is hopeless. We know that NR et al are prepared to majorly lengthen platforms on even very rural routes in the area in order to allow better end-to-end capacity overall; the Uckfield line is a case in point, although of course the trains travel to London Mondays-Saturdays. A big concern of mine, though, is that bus replacements and service alterations for platform lengthening on the NDL would be much more disruptive for occasional travellers, airport users and the economy in general.

It depends on how much platform lengthening is needed, for instance at the stations which are only served by the stoppers then these may only need to accommodate a 4 coach EMU whilst the faster services (which tend to be busier) being able to accommodate 8 coach trains.

However, it could be possible to minimise disruption by having different teams doing different tasks working at different stations, so as one team finishes the foundations at one station they are replaced by the next team doing the next task and they move up the line to the next station to work on that.

 

[FenMan]

The key driver is GWR increasing their share of airport traffic coming from or via Reading and from the significant population centres en route. This can only happen when there are two direct services per hour, as the consequences of missing a connection at Reading will be dramatically reduced and therefore attract new passengers who don't fancy factoring the risk of a one hour delay into their itineraries.

I agree with those who have pointed out that the current hourly service is very well used as it is and, given this is GWR's baby and Reading is one of their primary hubs, I doubt if they have much interest in ideas such as direct airport services from Woking or routeing a Class 166 though East Croydon to London (if that were possible given the congestion on the BML).

The hourly Redhill stopper washes its face west of Guildford. Passenger numbers from stops like Crowthorne and Farnborough North show this very clearly. Given the the lack of similar population centres east of Guildford the stopper does a valuable job in an area of the south where bus services between the smaller settlements are sporadic at best. The off peak skip-stop timetable is not ideal, but, as running all stations services all day aren't feasible on cost and operational grounds, I don't see any big driver that would change the situation.

I continue to think NR collectively will breathe a huge sigh of relief if battery technology becomes viable on operational and cost grounds before the big decision regarding this line has to be made.

 

[Deepgreen]

It depends on how much platform lengthening is needed, for instance at the stations which are only served by the stoppers then these may only need to accommodate a 4 coach EMU whilst the faster services (which tend to be busier) being able to accommodate 8 coach trains.

However, it could be possible to minimise disruption by having different teams doing different tasks working at different stations, so as one team finishes the foundations at one station they are replaced by the next team doing the next task and they move up the line to the next station to work on that.

I don't think any station or route/partial route closures would be needed for platform lengthening (unless there is a site I have overlooked where track layout change would be required), so substitute buses should be avoidable.

Notwithstanding platform lengthening, I don't think eight coach trains will be feasible without major service changes - for example, the Redhill platforms won't accommodate an eight coach train plus a second train for reversing purposes, even when/if platform 0 is in use (platform 1 will become an eight car-only platform and therefore would not accommodate two trains). I'm not even sure any traffic growth projections would support eight coaches. I suspect that six coaches would be the maximum justifiable, but am happy to be corrected with more substantial details.

 

[Minstral25]

I don't think any station or route/partial route closures would be needed for platform lengthening (unless there is a site I have overlooked where track layout change would be required), so substitute buses should be avoidable.

Notwithstanding platform lengthening, I don't think eight coach trains will be feasible without major service changes - for example, the Redhill platforms won't accommodate an eight coach train plus a second train for reversing purposes, even when/if platform 0 is in use (platform 1 will become an eight car-only platform and therefore would not accommodate two trains). I'm not even sure any traffic growth projections would support eight coaches. I suspect that six coaches would be the maximum justifiable, but am happy to be corrected with more substantial details.

I can't imagine trains over 4 coaches being sent from Redhill to Guildford. The sensible thing is to split at Redhill from Horsham/Tonbridge trains although the new platform 0 reduced station layout won't encourage that.

A half hourly service will generate more traffic especially if London Bridge is the destination, although that is unlikely as Thameslink will be the main link to London Bridge with longer fixed formation trains.

Dorking to London Bridge doesn't exist and Guildford to London Bridge would be faster this route, hence it would have passengers.

 

[The Ham]

I don't think any station or route/partial route closures would be needed for platform lengthening (unless there is a site I have overlooked where track layout change would be required), so substitute buses should be avoidable.

Notwithstanding platform lengthening, I don't think eight coach trains will be feasible without major service changes - for example, the Redhill platforms won't accommodate an eight coach train plus a second train for reversing purposes, even when/if platform 0 is in use (platform 1 will become an eight car-only platform and therefore would not accommodate two trains). I'm not even sure any traffic growth projections would support eight coaches. I suspect that six coaches would be the maximum justifiable, but am happy to be corrected with more substantial details.

If the line remains run by DMU's then 6 coach trains would be fine, however when it is electrified (for few argue that it shouldn't just when it is) it would probably be a choice between 4 and 8 coach long trains (maybe 5 coaches if a unit like the 444 were to be used) and as such whilst doing the works to make it 6 coaches (23m long = 138m) it wouldn't be much more costly to make it 8 coaches (20m or 21m long = 160m to 168m) were this can be achieved easily. This is because that there will be several costs which would be fixed or semi fixed regardless of how long the platforms are.

Yes there would be other factors which would limit the running of 8 coach trains which could be resolved over time, it was just a case of if you are doing works to lengthen platforms it is worth allowing for some future proofing.

With regards to passenger growth, just 15 years of 5% growth per year would double passenger numbers (which given the increase in frequency form 2tph to 3tph, as well as future scenarios such as Gatwick expansion and electrification and even 4tph, could all help to keep growth nice and high for some time to come).

However not all trains will have the same growth rate nor will they have the same starting point. As such there could well (assuming 4 coach units) be only the need for much of the day for the trains to only be 4 coaches long, however there could be a number of services where 8 coaches would be fairly busy. As is the case for a lot of services on the rest of the network.

 

[Deepgreen]

I can't imagine trains over 4 coaches being sent from Redhill to Guildford. The sensible thing is to split at Redhill from Horsham/Tonbridge trains although the new platform 0 reduced station layout won't encourage that.

A half hourly service will generate more traffic especially if London Bridge is the destination, although that is unlikely as Thameslink will be the main link to London Bridge with longer fixed formation trains.

Dorking to London Bridge doesn't exist and Guildford to London Bridge would be faster this route, hence it would have passengers.

To maximise path use on the BML, perhaps extend the unique three way splitting train (the 1759 from London Bridge) to be a more regular feature from either LB or Victoria, with the Reigate portion going to Guildford/Woking? I love a spot of armchair planning!

 

[NSEFAN]

To maximise path use on the BML, perhaps extend the unique three way splitting train (the 1759 from London Bridge) to be a more regular feature from either LB or Victoria, with the Reigate portion going to Guildford/Woking? I love a spot of armchair planning!

And watch the service reliability plummet with all those joining/splitting trains. It's bad enough as it is!

 

[Deepgreen]

And watch the service reliability plummet with all those joining/splitting trains. It's bad enough as it is!

Yes, that is the risk.

 

[Class 170101]

3 and (pairs of) AC EMUs are possible. 320s and 323s fit the bill.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

3 and (pairs of) AC EMUs are possible. 320s and 323s fit the bill.

Aren't 323s unlikely for the North Downs line (if electrified with overhead) - I think it was mentioned in another thread that the leasing company that owns the 323s is looking at having them all leased by a single TOC

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Aren't 323s unlikely for the North Downs line (if electrified with overhead) - I think it was mentioned in another thread that the leasing company that owns the 323s is looking at having them all leased by a single TOC

Just indicative of the type of stock that could be used, nothing else. They'll be near retirement if they're not scrapped by the time electrification on the NDL happens.

 

[Class 170101]

Aren't 323s unlikely for the North Downs line (if electrified with overhead) - I think it was mentioned in another thread that the leasing company that owns the 323s is looking at having them all leased by a single TOC

It was actually in answer to The Ham who suggested 4 or 8 car EMUs, I interpreted that to mean that 3 car EMUs weren't possible. Clearly they are.

 

[jimm]

Surrey County Council calls for full electrification of the North Downs line.

Fully electrifying the North Downs Line will generate thousands of jobs and almost £2 billion for the region’s economy, Surrey County Council’s Mike Goodman told an event attended by the Transport Secretary.

Patrick McLoughlin heard Surrey’s Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning call for the last two sections of the Reading to Gatwick line to be electrified by 2019 – a total of 29 miles of track.

Mr Goodman said that research by four local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) – Enterprise M3, Thames Valley Berkshire, Solent and Coast to Capital – suggested that the electrification would create around 8,000 jobs and stimulate £1.9 billion of economic growth.

He also used his speech at the Great Western Railway (GWR) conference in London to highlight the need for more frequent trains on the line, longer platforms and greater capacity at Guildford station.

https://news.surreycc.gov.uk/2016/0...-line-will-boost-economy-by-almost-2-billion/

 

[Minstral25]

Surrey County Council calls for full electrification of the North Downs line.
Fully electrifying the North Downs Line will generate thousands of jobs and almost £2 billion for the region’s economy, Surrey County Council’s Mike Goodman told an event attended by the Transport Secretary.

Patrick McLoughlin heard Surrey’s Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning call for the last two sections of the Reading to Gatwick line to be electrified by 2019 – a total of 29 miles of track.

Mr Goodman said that research by four local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) – Enterprise M3, Thames Valley Berkshire, Solent and Coast to Capital – suggested that the electrification would create around 8,000 jobs and stimulate £1.9 billion of economic growth.

He also used his speech at the Great Western Railway (GWR) conference in London to highlight the need for more frequent trains on the line, longer platforms and greater capacity at Guildford station.


https://news.surreycc.gov.uk/2016/0...-line-will-boost-economy-by-almost-2-billion/

Err - RUBBISH!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Err - RUBBISH!

OK I will bite. Which bit is rubbish?

 

[XDM]

Did electrification of the admittedly less populated adjacent Redhill to Tonbridge line produce £1.9 billion of benefits? I doubt if it benefitted the local economy at all.

 

[greaterwest]

Did electrification of the admittedly less populated adjacent Redhill to Tonbridge line produce £1.9 billion of benefits? I doubt if it benefitted the local economy at all.

You've nulled your own argument!

In Surrey & Berks this line is a busy commuter route, especially West of Guildford.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Err - RUBBISH!

What a very interesting, informative and useful contribution this post made to the thread.

 

[JonathanH]

Err - RUBBISH!

I think it should be noted that Mike Goodman was talking at the Great Western Railway conference rather than something more generally so he was pushing the case of the GWR franchise which is relevant to Surrey.

The issues he identifies are:

Slow journey times
Inadequate frequency of service
Creaking infrastructure
And – several stations along the route that are in desperate need of improvement.

None of these are resolved just by electrification and if you had to choose between electrification and signalling enhancements, I would go for the latter with the existing rolling stock (although I concede that the diesel trains available are limited in number).

There are other railway lines in Surrey with electric trains that only see services running up to 70mph.

 

[jimm]

Did electrification of the admittedly less populated adjacent Redhill to Tonbridge line produce £1.9 billion of benefits? I doubt if it benefitted the local economy at all.

And why was that line electrified? As a diversionary route for Eurostar and the vast flows of freight through the Channel Tunnel that never materialised, not because of what it might do for the local economy, though it did give the intermediate stations a far better service to and from London.

 

[JonathanH]

And why was that line electrified? As a diversionary route for Eurostar and the vast flows of freight through the Channel Tunnel that never materialised, not because of what it might do for the local economy, though it did give the intermediate stations a far better service to and from London.

No, not a diversionary route for Eurostar but yes, freight which didn't happen. Indeed, there were some plans for a flyover at Redhill although that seems to have died a death since.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2009/clash-of-the-titans-–-opening-up-redhill-to-freight-part-1/

http://www.hmrs.org.uk/journal/articles/HMRS-Journal-19-04-115-122.pdf

 

[infobleep]

I think it should be noted that Mike Goodman was talking at the Great Western Railway conference rather than something more generally so he was pushing the case of the GWR franchise which is relevant to Surrey.

The issues he identifies are:



None of these are resolved just by electrification and if you had to choose between electrification and signalling enhancements, I would go for the latter with the existing rolling stock (although I concede that the diesel trains available are limited in number).

There are other railway lines in Surrey with electric trains that only see services running up to 70mph.

Claims the service is infrequent. Well on Sundays there use to be one fast service an hour and one additional slow service every two hours. This was reduced to the fast service being slow from radon to Guildford one hour and then gast and then fast reading to Guildford and slow Guildford to Gatwick the next hour.

Why did they do this if they service was to infrequent or is it the case that it's only on Mondays to Saturdays that it's infrequent?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Hophead]

OK I will bite. Which bit is rubbish?

The bit where the SCC member wants it done by 2019 will do for starters, I'd have thought.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The bit where the SCC member wants it done by 2019 will do for starters, I'd have thought.

I would agree that a snowball has more chance of surviving in hell than that date being met. 2029 would be a better hope.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I would agree that a snowball has more chance of surviving in hell than that date being met. 2029 would be a better hope.

We couldn't electrify a clockwork 'OO' gauge railway by 2019, let alone a 4ft 8.5in gauge railway.

 

[DerekC]

We couldn't electrify a clockwork 'OO' gauge railway by 2019, let alone a 4ft 8.5in gauge railway.

Clockwork! Now there's a thought for discontinuous electrification.