North Downs line electrification

[Deepgreen]

Whether North Downs is electrified or not, there is a need to sort out service provision.

Relatively few users on the line between Guildford and Reigate want to go to Gatwick, they would much prefer a London service. So any extension of electrification on this stretch should include benefits from providing regular direct London trains. It might make the numbers work better.

It matters not what the (potential) passengers want, it is what the railway wants/has been told to provide that counts.

On balance, it's probably best for the area if there are no through trains (and I'm writing as someone who would benefit from them) - it would only encourage commuter belt expansion to ride roughshod over the green belt.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Which third rail would allow for; Southern could extend their Reigate services to Guildford in the peaks, or even provide a regular service if the signalling headways were improved.

Southern and Great Western both have dual voltage capable stock, the electrification system used in this case makes no real difference, third rail takes you to Victoria, OLE takes you to Paddington, either system with a change of voltage using dual voltage stock does whatever you want.

25kV capable stock (regardless of what you do with the NDL itself) will allow you to join Heathrow Airport and Gatwick Airport via the NDL and the new Western access to Heathrow. It can be dedicated 25kV stock or dual voltage, of the type both operators run currently.

 

[greaterwest]

Southern and Great Western both have dual voltage capable stock, the electrification system used in this case makes no real difference, third rail takes you to Victoria, OLE takes you to Paddington, either system with a change of voltage using dual voltage stock does whatever you want.

25kV capable stock (regardless of what you do with the NDL itself) will allow you to join Heathrow Airport and Gatwick Airport via the NDL and the new Western access to Heathrow. It can be dedicated 25kV stock or dual voltage, of the type both operators run currently.

For the reasons I have already been through in this thread, third rail is the more sensible idea.

That comment was simply building on what Minstral25 said about the line having a direct London service.

 

[Minstral25]

Dorking and Reigate passengers already have direct London services. The other stations on that stretch serve such small populations that I very much doubt a business case could be made. In any case, there are decent connections at Guildford, Dorking and Redhill.

For what it's worth, I frequently use NDL services to go to London via Guildford or Reading and don't find it a problem changing trains (maybe I'm just used to it).

Reigate gets two trains each peak and a daytime hourly service to London - that's not really a usable service. If Reigate was a TfL station the usage would probably warrant 6 trains per hour but because it is in rural Surrey it doesn't.

2 trains per hour Guildford to London Bridge would attract a lot of custom from Reigate alone, but also Dorking where there is not a direct service to London Bridge and possibly between Guildford and East Croydon.

I think its easy to forget that travellers don't want to go to "London" as its such a huge place, but want to get to specific destinations such as Victoria, Waterloo or London Bridge as individual places.

A survey was done a couple of years back for daytime passengers at Coulsdon South and over 70% wanted to get to Victoria but Coulsdon South only had a direct service to London Bridge forcing passengers to change at East Croydon for Victoria trains which added 20 minutes (or 66%) to the journey times compared to timings of direct trains to Victoria in the peak.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

So where precisely are you going to magically produce all of these pathways from? Mm?

The NDL is a cross country route that was designed to link Kent/Dover to Reading and the Midlands, the route to Gatwick is just a route that was bought about by NSE & private sector, it doesn't exactly fulfill much.

It would be far more beneficial to use it for what it was put there for and that's linking Kent to the Reading & Midlands.

Getting platform extensions for those stations with short platforms is relatively easy, straightforward & cheap using the GRP one's like that have been installed on suburban routes to Waterloo, you could easily use a loco & "those units" as trailer sets (no running around as you can drive from either loco or unit) to provide a decent level of service releasing the 165/166 DMUs to the WoE.

So just need a little more forward thinking and with Mk3 stock having clearance all the way to Midlands your laughing in that respect, just need the route from Guildford - Redhill cleared for the Mk3s.

That method would be a lot cheaper and an excellent short to medium term solution to the complete lack of electrification.

 

[TheKnightWho]

For the reasons I have already been through in this thread, third rail is the more sensible idea.

That comment was simply building on what Minstral25 said about the line having a direct London service.

You don't actually provide any reasons though - you just keep saying that infill is good and changeover is bad. You've repeatedly failed to address Philip's points - of which he has made many - often replying with one or two sentence posts that simply assert your position.

It's clear that you've decided you're correct; facts, expertise and reality be damned.

 

[The Ham]

Dorking and Reigate passengers already have direct London services. The other stations on that stretch serve such small populations that I very much doubt a business case could be made. In any case, there are decent connections at Guildford, Dorking and Redhill.

For what it's worth, I frequently use NDL services to go to London via Guildford or Reading and don't find it a problem changing trains (maybe I'm just used to it).

To run to Guildford would require one extra train, as it is 30 minutes each way, as such the business case would need to cover the costs of that extra train.

Some of the things that could be done to make it justifiable could include:
- faster Guildford to Gatwick services by switching some of the more minor stations to the London service
- better interconnection between some of the more minor stations
- better connectivity between the NDL (including Guildford) and places towards London on the Redhill line

On a slightly more out there suggestion (out there but not really that crazy) it could allow an extension from Redhill to Woking (probably going to Platform 6), in doing so it could enable passengers to travel between the SWML and the line through Redhill to avoid having to travel via Clapham Junction. (it would also mean that there was a more frequent service between Woking and Guildford which would be very advantageous given the number of people who get on at Guildford and off again at Woking, either to change trains or as that is how far they are going).

 

[LexyBoy]

For the reasons I have already been through in this thread, third rail is the more sensible idea.

"More sensible" only if you rate intuition over the experience and inside knowledge of the costs, practicalities and strategic implications brought by someone actually working on such projects.

There's a strong intuitive sense that a line surrounded by electrification, with significant stretches already third rail, should be fully electrified - but it may well be (as appears the case) that the same resources would deliver more benefits on currently non-electrified lines.

 

[Deepgreen]

So where precisely are you going to magically produce all of these pathways from? Mm?

The NDL is a cross country route that was designed to link Kent/Dover to Reading and the Midlands, the route to Gatwick is just a route that was bought about by NSE & private sector, it doesn't exactly fulfill much.

It would be far more beneficial to use it for what it was put there for and that's linking Kent to the Reading & Midlands.

Getting platform extensions for those stations with short platforms is relatively easy, straightforward & cheap using the GRP one's like that have been installed on suburban routes to Waterloo, you could easily use a loco & "those units" as trailer sets (no running around as you can drive from either loco or unit) to provide a decent level of service releasing the 165/166 DMUs to the WoE.

So just need a little more forward thinking and with Mk3 stock having clearance all the way to Midlands your laughing in that respect, just need the route from Guildford - Redhill cleared for the Mk3s.

That method would be a lot cheaper and an excellent short to medium term solution to the complete lack of electrification.

Hey - you're stealing my ideas (see posts 45 and 71)!

 

[greaterwest]

You don't actually provide any reasons though - you just keep saying that infill is good and changeover is bad. You've repeatedly failed to address Philip's points - of which he has made many - often replying with one or two sentence posts that simply assert your position.

It's clear that you've decided you're correct; facts, expertise and reality be damned.

Changeover is a waste of time.
Electrifying AC over a 40% already-electrified line is a waste of time and resources.
There would be too much required clearance work for OLE to be installed (bridges, Guildford station canopy)
There's an argument against OLE especially East of Guildford where the North Downs is renowned for its scenery.

I understand the safety point of view but is one line set electrified as OLE in an area surrounded by third rail really worth it, especially when said electrification project would be an infill?

There's also hearsay that there are pre-existing substations that can be built upon to supply the juice to a theoretical third rail West of Guildford.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Changeover is a waste of time.
Electrifying AC over a 40% already-electrified line is a waste of time and resources.
There would be too much required clearance work for OLE to be installed (bridges, Guildford station canopy)
There's an argument against OLE especially East of Guildford where the North Downs is renowned for its scenery.

I understand the safety point of view but is one line set electrified as OLE in an area surrounded by third rail really worth it, especially when said electrification project would be an infill?

There's also hearsay that there are pre-existing substations that can be built upon to supply the juice to a theoretical third rail West of Guildford.

Waste of what time? We even have trains that can do it whilst moving. When Thameslink is planning 24tph, I am not concerned about the changeover on a semi-rural line like the North Downs.

Clearance is perfectly easy to do elsewhere. The issues come from when things go overbudget, which has had nothing to do with clearance, because it has come about almost entirely from problems with piling and buried signal cables on the old western region. Your comment about lessons not learned with the MML conveniently didn't actually mention any problems they'd had... It was put back due to the issues with the GWML, and not because of unrelated issues.

If you want to make the scenery argument, we shouldn't electrify anywhere with OHLE. This argument is useless.

And when there are plans to re-electrify the rest with OHLE in the next 40 years or so it does not count as an infill because it will be ripped straight up again before it's life-expired. It is not a waste of resources when it saves us money in the long-run. That's to say nothing of the fact that it won't be electrified with any system until other lines that it would electrically interface with (for example, at Farnborough) are also being converted, making it natural to switch things over.

Network Rail are not intentionally out to lose money, and are not fanatics that hate 3rd rail simply because it is 3rd rail: there are very real and very important practical and business reasons to not use 3rd rail anymore.

 

[HSTEd]

And when there are plans to re-electrify the rest with OHLE in the next 40 years or so it does not count as an infill because it will be ripped straight up again before it's life-expired. It is not a waste of resources when it saves us money in the long-run. That's to say nothing of the fact that it won't be electrified with any system until other lines that it would electrically interface with (for example, at Farnborough) are also being converted, making it natural to switch things over.

There are plans to have colonies on Mars inside 40 years, it doesn't mean they are going to happen.
People complain that there are too many jobs to do with far too few resources, then go and invent dozens of additional jobs that they want to expend resources on because of marginal cost savings.

In other words we end up with a diesel railway for 40 years when it could have been electric, followed by the realisation that the fabled conversion probably won't happen anyway.
And we have more than 40 years worth of electrification work to do even without any conversion projects, so North Downs or similar lines could simply go to the back of the queue. After all, as you said, changeover on the move is not really a big issue.

The primary difficulties of third rail arise in high demand, high traffic areas.
The North Downs is not one of these.

Network Rail are not intentionally out to lose money, and are not fanatics that hate 3rd rail simply because it is 3rd rail: there are very real and very important practical and business reasons to not use 3rd rail anymore.

None of which apply in a particularily strong sense to the North Downs or similar infill projects in the South East.
We are not talking about the SWML or the Approach to Waterloo (and I would love to see a practical OHLE layout for that, 8 track gantries will be rather amusing, especially getting the total line blocks to put the damn things up).

 

[YorkshireBear]

Changeover is a waste of time.
Electrifying AC over a 40% already-electrified line is a waste of time and resources.
There would be too much required clearance work for OLE to be installed (bridges, Guildford station canopy)
There's an argument against OLE especially East of Guildford where the North Downs is renowned for its scenery.

I understand the safety point of view but is one line set electrified as OLE in an area surrounded by third rail really worth it, especially when said electrification project would be an infill?

There's also hearsay that there are pre-existing substations that can be built upon to supply the juice to a theoretical third rail West of Guildford.

Only one of those are reasons that are specific to this line and apply to pretty much every OLE project so.. The one that is relevant is 40% electrified DC....

This line is unlikely to be electrified before the area around starts to get converted and so would not be surrounded by 3rd Rail.

This thread seems to be going round in circles.

 

[HSTEd]

This line is unlikely to be electrified before the area around starts to get converted and so would not be surrounded by 3rd Rail.

But the primary reason given for not electrifying it is because NR commands no further third rail projects, rather than any actual business case reason for not doing it.

This thread seems to be going round in circles.

Then stop using circular reasoning!
It can't be electrified soon because it can't be electrified at third rail
It won't be electrified at third rail because it won't be electrified soon!

The prospect of a potential replacement of third rail with 25kV at some point in the future should not be an excuse to cease installation of natural 25kV system extensions. At worst we get some capital equipment that might have to be removed before it is life expired, but if we don't continue installations we get a sort of paralysis where we end up worse off than if we had just carried on.
There aren't many lines that this applies to, chiefly the North Downs, Marshlink and a couple of other minor jobs. Potentially Amersham-Aylesbury.

 

[TheKnightWho]

But the primary reason given for not electrifying it is because NR commands no further third rail projects

Because there is no case for it. As has been explained.

We aren't in any kind of paralysis - Philip has already stated CP8 as a target, and given the rolling plan of electrification and the experience this brings, and the lack of "unique" problems on the old western region, this is achievable.

Issues with buried cables and the like will be particularly less relevant when ERTMS really gets underway: that roll-out will be much faster than electrification (although will still take until likely past 2050 to finish).

 

[YorkshireBear]

But the primary reason given for not electrifying it is because NR commands no further third rail projects, rather than any actual business case reason for not doing it.


Then stop using circular reasoning!
It can't be electrified soon because it can't be electrified at third rail
It won't be electrified at third rail because it won't be electrified soon!

The prospect of a potential replacement of third rail with 25kV at some point in the future should not be an excuse to cease installation of natural 25kV system extensions. At worst we get some capital equipment that might have to be removed before it is life expired, but if we don't continue installations we get a sort of paralysis where we end up worse off than if we had just carried on.
There aren't many lines that this applies to, chiefly the North Downs, Marshlink and a couple of other minor jobs. Potentially Amersham-Aylesbury.

I didn't use any circular reasoning. The reason it can't be electrified soon is because it is not a priority. End of circle.

It won't be electrified (when it is) in 3rd rail because OLE has been demonstrated to be more efficient when considering the long term life of the railway. End of circle.

Both circles are separate....

So you suggest that Network Rail inefficiently waste money on assets. It is the politicians jobs to consider the short term, not the infrastructure owner.

 

[Bald Rick]

Slightly off topic, but those who say that third rail is better "because it can't fall down like the OHLE does", might like to take a look at Southeasterns's performance figures for today.

Slightly back on topic. Running through trains from Victoria / Lonodn Bridge via Redhill to Guildford sounds nice and would obviously be good for those London commuters living in Betchworth and Gomshall for whom it would be much easier and quicker. However there's insufficient platform space at Guildford to turn the trains. Sorry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It won't be electrified. End of circle.

Corrected for you

 

[YorkshireBear]

Corrected for you

I was trying to be diplomatic, must have been that dodgy Black Pudding I had with Breakfast, won't happen again.

 

[The Ham]

Slightly back on topic. Running through trains from Victoria / Lonodn Bridge via Redhill to Guildford sounds nice and would obviously be good for those London commuters living in Betchworth and Gomshall for whom it would be much easier and quicker. However there's insufficient platform space at Guildford to turn the trains. Sorry.

Point 1, there is no platform space to turn trains AT PRESENT. There are plans to add more platforms at Guildford.

Point 2, even if that doesn't resolve the problem and/or it is needed sooner than that, there is always (especially if it is only one per hour) the possibility of extending to Woking. As it would be possible to turn using platform 6 without impacting too many services (until Woking gets rebuilt so platform 6 becomes a through platform, however that could just mean a new platform 7 is needed.

 

[Bald Rick]

Point 1, there is no platform space to turn trains AT PRESENT. There are plans to add more platforms at Guildford.

Plans that are a long way off, and about as likely as North Downs electrification. And even if built, it would be used for more trains to/from London.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I really don't understand the constant pessimism on this board. Saying that things will never be built so there's no point talking about them doesn't really achieve much.

 

[Bald Rick]

I really don't understand the constant pessimism on this board. Saying that things will never be built so there's no point talking about them doesn't really achieve much.

You might call it pessimism. I prefer realism.

(The point being that there is little point wasting time and personal energy on things that are not going to happen. Use what time and energy available to get the best overall result).

 

[The Ham]

Plans that are a long way off, and about as likely as North Downs electrification. And even if built, it would be used for more trains to/from London.

...but we are talking about trains to/from London!

Being slightly less flippant, on the current timetable it would be two trains per hour, Crossrail 2 is likely to allow up to 6 trains per hour (assuming the Woking stoppers go to 4 tph and are extended to Guildford and Guildford/Portsmouth gains 2tph fast trains) so you would have 16 train movements per hour over 3 new platforms, as such there could be a train approaching/stopped/departing each platform for 11 minutes at a time and still not conflict with any of the existing services (bearing in mind that some of the existing platforms aren't exactly heavily used).

 

[TheKnightWho]

You might call it pessimism. I prefer realism.

(The point being that there is little point wasting time and personal energy on things that are not going to happen. Use what time and energy available to get the best overall result).

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.

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

But there aren't plans. There's a Route Study that says if a funder wants to buy it, then it could be done in 10-15 years time, and it would cost £xmillion based on some very rough and ready unit rates. And that's it. There's no project, no drawings, no feasibility study, no engineering input, no timetable work, nobody working on it, no plans.

Incidentally, the total sums for all the work proposed in the route studies is something like 5 times the amount of cash likely to be available. There's an awful lot of projects higher up the priority list than electrifying the North Downs.

I do think, however, that we will see electric trains on the North Downs in the next 10 years. They will just bring their own electricity with them. But we've had that debate before, and done the numbers to demonstrate it.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I really don't understand the constant pessimism on this board. Saying that things will never be built so there's no point talking about them doesn't really achieve much.

You might call it pessimism. I prefer realism.

(The point being that there is little point wasting time and personal energy on things that are not going to happen. Use what time and energy available to get the best overall result).

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 we had had this discussion in 2012/2013 it would have been different IMHO. What has happened was a bad experience on the GWML and some slight over runs on the NW project (Balfour Beatty etc) which has impacted everything and made a few pessimistic. Scotland have shown it can be done - a nice steady rolling program. So there is no reason to believe North Downs will not get done.

I will requote Baldrick here --QUOTE The point being that there is little point wasting time and personal energy on things that are not going to happen. END QUOTE One of the main problems on GWML was exactly this - there was a prevailing attitude it will never get done. I also would like to see a more optimistic tone - but hey - it is an internet discussion board and free thought is allowed.

 

[Minstral25]

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???

 

[Bald Rick]

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???

If it were to happen, the platform in Guildford for the London Bridge trains would need to take a 12 car Class 700. Actually, they wouldn't be London Bridge trains, more likely Luton or Welwyn

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If it was electrified all the way (either a 3rd rail extension of overhead), if SWT were to take it over, how viable would it be if it were "merged" with the Reading-Waterloo line (assuming that a physical connection exists)?

 

[swt_passenger]

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...