North Downs line electrification

[Bald Rick]

How about just swapping out the unit?

One would hope the same type of unit would run semi fast services between London and Reading (not Crossrail services) and between Reading and Gatwick. Therefore the unit would have a charge with a return trip under the OLE between Paddington and Reading.

It would need to be a DC only unit. The battery pack taking the place of the transformer. (Which in DC only versions, is replaced with a socking great lump of concrete).

 

[Class 170101]

In that case hand the route over to SWT and they can swap it with a Waterloo to Reading service.

 

[Bald Rick]

In that case hand the route over to SWT and they can swap it with a Waterloo to Reading service.

Not sure they would be too happy with a 4 car...

 

[Taunton]

The ORR are not very keen on extending 3rd rail electrification and the Energy Technical Standard for Interoperability says that, for 3rd rail systems, Network Rail can apply it's National Network Technical Rules for the maintenance, renewal and enhancement of EXISTING systems. It does not allow the installation of new systems other than minor infills.

Good job the Jubilee Line Extension and then the DLR to Stratford managed to get away with being viewed as a "minor infill" then ...

I doubt the ORR would consider North Downs a minor infill!

It must be less than 1% of the third rail system track mileage.

Why are there so many back-room theoreticians nowadays who make a living out of making commonsense decisions so hard?

 

[edwin_m]

It would need to be a DC only unit. The battery pack taking the place of the transformer. (Which in DC only versions, is replaced with a socking great lump of concrete).

The prototype battery MU was an AC unit of a design that was capable of being converted for DC operation too. Is there some reason production versions (if any) would be different?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Good job the Jubilee Line Extension and then the DLR to Stratford managed to get away with being viewed as a "minor infill" then ...

One of the main concerns with third rail is the risk to track workers. This is much less on LUL and DLR than on the main line, because nobody goes trackside except when there is no train service running and (perhaps not always, but usually) the power is off. DLR also has a bottom contact third rail which is less hazardous and pretty much the natural choice for new metros where there is no need to maintain compatibility with older top-contact equipment.

 

[DerekC]

I think you need to look further than Network Rail. The ORR are not very keen on extending 3rd rail electrification and the Energy Technical Standard for Interoperability says that, for 3rd rail systems, Network rail can apply it's National Network Technical Rules for the maintenance, renewal and enhancement of EXISTING systems. It does not allow the installation of new systems other than minor infills. I doubt the ORR would consider North Downs a minor infill!

I think the case could easily be made that extending the third rail for 29 miles of double track is a "minor infill" in accordance with the TSI and I can't see anyone taking us to the European Court about it. We would need to explain the need to operate the line as an integral part of the electrified network in the south of England and the fact that it is a very small percentage of the total. The problem will (as usual) be our own UK lawyers - in this case working for ORR - who will want to examine every word of the TSI in minute detail and will no doubt advise us against doing anything at all, much. Until and unless oil gets up to $200 a barrel or so, it's the only thing that makes economic sense, much as I love the concept of IPEMU. 25kV re-electrification? Well, maybe in 50 years, but who knows what the energy situation will be by then.

 

[furnessvale]

I think the case could easily be made that extending the third rail for 29 miles of double track is a "minor infill" in accordance with the TSI and I can't see anyone taking us to the European Court about it. We would need to explain the need to operate the line as an integral part of the electrified network in the south of England and the fact that it is a very small percentage of the total. The problem will (as usual) be our own UK lawyers - in this case working for ORR - who will want to examine every word of the TSI in minute detail and will no doubt advise us against doing anything at all, much. Until and unless oil gets up to $200 a barrel or so, it's the only thing that makes economic sense, much as I love the concept of IPEMU. 25kV re-electrification? Well, maybe in 50 years, but who knows what the energy situation will be by then.

I agree with this but the lawyers in question will be working for the family of the first trespasser killed on the newly electrified line.

 

[hwl]

I agree with this but the lawyers in question will be working for the family of the first trespasser killed on the newly electrified line.

It will keep fencing contractors in business to prevent that happening though

 

[Mikey C]

I'm guessing that the East London Line extension to Highbury & Islington was the last "major" new 3rd rail installation?

 

[Deepgreen]

Given the oft-repeated assertion that there are no paths available to run any more trains from Redhill to anywhere (and probably the same at the Reading end), there would appear to be no point in any sort of electrification because the only reason to do so would be to allow through running, which cannot be fitted in apparently.

 

[swt_passenger]

Given the oft-repeated assertion that there are no paths available to run any more trains from Redhill to anywhere (and probably the same at the Reading end), there would appear to be no point in any sort of electrification because the only reason to do so would be to allow through running, which cannot be fitted in apparently.

Running through trains at the Reading end would be quite straightforward, (although slightly constrained by the single track 'Southern' underpass towards P13/14/15). Without quoting long sections of details, through running across Reading by linking existing services is definitely mentioned as a possibility in the Western and Wessex route studies.

 

[Deepgreen]

Running through trains at the Reading end would be quite straightforward, (although slightly constrained by the single track 'Southern' underpass towards P13/14/15). Without quoting long sections of details, through running across Reading by linking existing services is definitely mentioned as a possibility in the Western and Wessex route studies.

I agree it should be achievable, but whenever such concepts are mooted there always seem to be objections on the basis of a lack of available extra paths (notwithstanding what the long term route studies might suggest). Anyhoo, nothing will happen in the short to medium term and battery units will be unsupportable, not to mention pointless if no through working options exist yet anyway.

 

[The Ham]

I think the case could easily be made that extending the third rail for 29 miles of double track is a "minor infill" in accordance with the TSI and I can't see anyone taking us to the European Court about it. We would need to explain the need to operate the line as an integral part of the electrified network in the south of England and the fact that it is a very small percentage of the total. The problem will (as usual) be our own UK lawyers - in this case working for ORR - who will want to examine every word of the TSI in minute detail and will no doubt advise us against doing anything at all, much. Until and unless oil gets up to $200 a barrel or so, it's the only thing that makes economic sense, much as I love the concept of IPEMU. 25kV re-electrification? Well, maybe in 50 years, but who knows what the energy situation will be by then.

The suggestion wasn't even to infill the whole lot, rather to use battery trains and extend the 3rd rail sections by up to a mile to shorten the gap over which the batteries were required to power the train. The end points would still remain for standard EMU's, due to needing to having to cope with one supply point being out of action, but if the last power supply point being out of action then the battery trains would just the batteries a little more.

In doing so it is could be classed as an enhancement to the existing system as there would be no extra supply points just a bit more rail. The extra sections of rail could even be turned off (i.e. independently of the rest of the 3rd rail sections) when there were track crews operating so that the risk to staff was minimised. This could even go further if the Ascot to Guildford services were part of the same franchise as the Reading to Gatwick services in that they could be run by the same stock and then sections of 3rd rail power could be turned off along that route aiding to staff safety on that line too.

 

[infobleep]

Wasn't it a DfT decision to save money?

I don't know about usage east of Guildford, but the NDL Sunday services are frequently (very) full and standing heading to and from Reading during Sunday shopping hours. The old service pattern - 1tph semi-fast to/from Gatwick and 1tp2h stopper to/from Redhill - worked and should be reinstated, but no one seems to want to address this.

That I don't know. Surely saving money by cutting services isn't going to encourage passenager growth? Perhaps back then passenager numbers were falling.

No point in the extra platform at Redhill if they don't use the paths available now. Unless they are only interested in growing passengers Monday to Saturday or Monday to Friday.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Really? The following is taken from stakeholder presentations given by GWR last April





People may have been looking at it - GWR said as much in connection with the North Downs line last year - but they may also have been looking at the analysis Modern Railways did of the likely cost of such trains over their lifetime - and the numbers weren't pretty. The Class 379 trial showed it was technically feasible but that's a different matter from being affordable.

So does this mean passengers from stations such as Farnborough North and Crowthornes get a reduced service in the morning, given they run additional stopping trains to those stations.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Tio Terry]

Good job the Jubilee Line Extension and then the DLR to Stratford managed to get away with being viewed as a "minor infill" then ...

Jubilee Line and Docklands pre-date the current TSI's by many years. The LU Underground is not subject to TSI's in any case, it's exempt.

 

[infobleep]

Not sure they would be too happy with a 4 car...

Well run it off peak only. Aome off peak services use to be 4 car on South West Trains. I realise there isn't the capacity the future to rub more trains to Waterloo this way.

As long as descent connection times exist at Guildford, no issues really.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Tio Terry]

I think the case could easily be made that extending the third rail for 29 miles of double track is a "minor infill" in accordance with the TSI and I can't see anyone taking us to the European Court about it. We would need to explain the need to operate the line as an integral part of the electrified network in the south of England and the fact that it is a very small percentage of the total. The problem will (as usual) be our own UK lawyers - in this case working for ORR - who will want to examine every word of the TSI in minute detail and will no doubt advise us against doing anything at all, much. Until and unless oil gets up to $200 a barrel or so, it's the only thing that makes economic sense, much as I love the concept of IPEMU. 25kV re-electrification? Well, maybe in 50 years, but who knows what the energy situation will be by then.

From my experience of dealing with the ORR 29 miles of double track "new" 3rd rail is most certainly classed as "Significant" under the Common Safety Management - Risk Assessment Regulations and would never get off the starting blocks.

 

[coppercapped]

I really don't understand this thread. The Reading - Gatwick route could do with some enhanced signalling to reduce headways and some judicious line speed improvements. It could probably carry 2 fast(ish) trains an hour over the full length and two stopping trains per hour between Wokingham and Redhill (fast between Reading and Wokingham). With the increased frequency 3 coach Class 166s (possibly doubled in the peaks) would be adequate for the next decade.

Spending capital to electrify a route with such low usage seems like throwing money down a drain - especially with oil at around $40 a barrel a diesel train possibly has lower fuel costs than an electric one fed at 750v.

 

[greaterwest]

Spending capital to electrify a route with such low usage seems like throwing money down a drain - especially with oil at around $40 a barrel a diesel train possibly has lower fuel costs than an electric one fed at 750v.

You can't have used the line that frequently then.

 

[coppercapped]

You can't have used the line that frequently then.

I live in Reading - so yes I do.

It was clear from my post that I was referring to the number of trains - and spending millions to run 4 short trains an hour in each direction is not a good use of funds.

 

[Mojo]

One of the main concerns with third rail is the risk to track workers. This is much less on LUL and DLR than on the main line, because nobody goes trackside except when there is no train service running and (perhaps not always, but usually) the power is off.

I don't know where you've heard that, but it isn't the case on LU. Work, whether that be a simple track walk/inspection or actual work, frequently takes place during traffic hours with traction current still switched on, often very close to the current rails!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How many units are needed to run a normal day's service on the North Down's Line?

 

[Kentish Paul]

I don't know where you've heard that, but it isn't the case on LU. Work, whether that be a simple track walk/inspection or actual work, frequently takes place during traffic hours with traction current still switched on, often very close to the current rails!

Quite agree. I've worked both LU and national rail. The live rails were very rarely switched off. Stuck survey targets on running rails around Ashford during HS1 building with the 3rd rail still on. Had a possesion but the juice was still on.

 

[Deepgreen]

I live in Reading - so yes I do.

It was clear from my post that I was referring to the number of trains - and spending millions to run 4 short trains an hour in each direction is not a good use of funds.

There is clearly going to be no will or drive to do anything to the NDL for a very long time. Electrification simply won't happen until 25kV has reached the point where an infill here would be desirable/necessary (2050 or later?) and no TOC will want to take on the line if GWR relinquish it for some reason. The TOC that ends up having to run it will probably do so with bad grace and will certainly not want to spend any money on rolling stock, etc., on what they will regard as an annoyance rather than a core business opportunity. Notwithstanding the alleged strategic focus of Gatwick, the lack of through path opportunities means it will continue to be a pretty much self-contained entity with lightly-used intermediate stations and a few nodes/pinch points.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Quite agree. I've worked both LU and national rail. The live rails were very rarely switched off. Stuck survey targets on running rails around Ashford during HS1 building with the 3rd rail still on. Had a possesion but the juice was still on.

LU routinely has workers on the track in traffic hours with juice on, with the added hazard of the fourth rail to trip them up. I find the concept of extending third rail as unacceptable from a track workers' risk viewpoint very bizarre - there are perfectly good, tried and tested procedures for working with the third rail, which if followed, present manageable risk.

 

[jimm]

I really don't understand this thread. The Reading - Gatwick route could do with some enhanced signalling to reduce headways and some judicious line speed improvements. It could probably carry 2 fast(ish) trains an hour over the full length and two stopping trains per hour between Wokingham and Redhill (fast between Reading and Wokingham). With the increased frequency 3 coach Class 166s (possibly doubled in the peaks) would be adequate for the next decade.

Spending capital to electrify a route with such low usage seems like throwing money down a drain - especially with oil at around $40 a barrel a diesel train possibly has lower fuel costs than an electric one fed at 750v.

Oil is currently almost $50 per barrel and the price has been rising steadily since late January when it dipped below $30. Signs are that the upward trend is going to continue. What GWR is paying for its fuel will depend on a long-term hedged contract - as they don't want to get caught out by a sudden price spike if they can help it.

That said, I would agree there are places rather more like to get electrification money in the short term than the North Downs.

But if the claims Modern Railways made last year about the viability of the battery IPEMU were over the top and the sums actually can be made to stack up, offering the possibility of covering Bedwyn services and the North Downs, then who knows?

If they can squeeze out just a bit more than 50km range, then an IPEMU could cover Oxford-Banbury stoppers until that route gets wires. Hand Greenford shuttles to Chiltern or LO, develop a light rail solution for Marlow and bite the bullet on using an 80x on the Cotswold Line halts services - one of which is currently worked by a 180 anyway - and you would eliminate any need for Reading-based Turbos - send them west and GWR could probably release all the 150s that are due to remain past 2019, leaving just 158s and 165/166s on the books.

However, after the pledges from GWR to look closely at the IPEMU idea last year, it all seems to have gone very quiet on that front.

 

[The Ham]

I really don't understand this thread. The Reading - Gatwick route could do with some enhanced signalling to reduce headways and some judicious line speed improvements. It could probably carry 2 fast(ish) trains an hour over the full length and two stopping trains per hour between Wokingham and Redhill (fast between Reading and Wokingham). With the increased frequency 3 coach Class 166s (possibly doubled in the peaks) would be adequate for the next decade.

Spending capital to electrify a route with such low usage seems like throwing money down a drain - especially with oil at around $40 a barrel a diesel train possibly has lower fuel costs than an electric one fed at 750v.

There are problems with some of your suggestions:
- very few here are expecting that any changes to traction will be happening this side of 2025 (if it does it's unlikely to be by very much)
- The 166's aren't going to be around forever and even if a replacement was available the costs of running a micro fleet of DMU's in an area where there will be very few DMU's will start to become significant.
- Increased capacity could be a problem, as it depends on when the extra services are. For instance is the evening trains from Guildford are 17:05, 17:20 and 17:45 then the 17:45 is still going to be rammed as the 17:20 isn't going to sweep up many who currently use it (train times rounded for convenience)
- Increase train lengths (running pairs of trains) will require platform lengthening which would be quite a significant cost on this line, I would suggest that it would be better to look are the possibility of a 4th peak hour path between Reading and Guildford rather than lengthening trains.

 

[coppercapped]

How many units are needed to run a normal day's service on the North Down's Line?

A couple of years ago there were 6 diagrams, split between 165 and 166 units. I've not checked the current arrangements, but I suspect they are similar, possibly there might be one more diagram.

 

[JonathanH]

That I don't know. Surely saving money by cutting services isn't going to encourage passenager growth? Perhaps back then passenager numbers were falling.

No point in the extra platform at Redhill if they don't use the paths available now. Unless they are only interested in growing passengers Monday to Saturday or Monday to Friday.

The previous Sunday service was probably seen as a waste of resources as it required six units and the stopping services on the route carry far fewer passengers (at least at the eastern end) than the services which go through to Gatwick. I don't think GWR can have two trains an hour to Gatwick on a Sunday because the timetable on the Redhill to Gatwick stretch is written to allow for two-track railway. If we accept that the key flows on the line on a Sunday are shoppers for Reading and Guildford and people travelling to Gatwick, 2tph from Reading to Redhill is a waste if 1tph of that can't go to Gatwick.

They probably felt that they were catering for the demand by operating the service that now runs. Are all 200+ seats taken on the North Downs Line trains on Sunday? And if so, it that only on the services around the peak shopping flow into / out of Reading? It certainly isn't the case outside those times.

In Thames Trains days, in the run up to Christmas, they used to put on Reading to Guildford services in the hours when the Reading to Redhill stopper didn't run. But I don't think you would run 1tp2h stopping service from Reading to Guildford.

What could be done with five units instead of four? - 3 running 1tph RDG-GLD-skipstop-RDH-GTW, 2 running 1tph RDG-WKM-all stops-GLD? I don't think that would go down too well at Wokingham, Blackwater and Guildford but would it spread the load?

What service do you suggest on Sunday and how are you going to make sure the load is distributed between the existing service and any additional one?

 

[JamesRowden]

What service do you suggest on Sunday and how are you going to make sure the load is distributed between the existing service and any additional one?

GWR could perhaps do a joint-service deal with Southern to operate a Reading-Tonbridge service on Sundays replacing the present Redhill-Tonbridge stopper. Would Turbos be allowed to run Redhill-Tonbridge? If not, could 171s be used? Of course, it would be simple if GWR had battery Electrostars on the North Downs line.

I suspect that Reading-Gatwick could already run 2tph on Sundays (when there is no engineering works on the Brighton Mainline) since Redhill is so much quieter on a Sunday.

 

[JonathanH]

GWR could perhaps do a joint-service deal with Southern to operate a Reading-Tonbridge service on Sundays replacing the present Redhill-Tonbridge stopper. Would Turbos be allowed to run Redhill-Tonbridge? If not, could 171s be used? Of course, it would be simple if GWR had battery Electrostars on the North Downs line.

I suspect that Reading-Gatwick could already run 2tph on Sundays (when there is no engineering works on the Brighton Mainline) since Redhill is so much quieter on a Sunday.

When there isn't engineering works the Redhill Tonbridge service already runs to London Bridge on a Sunday so no point in a through service to Guildford and Reading. Besides traffic across Redhill between the Tonbridge and Reading lines is almost non-existent (albeit not helped by poor connections).