North Downs line electrification

[Philip Phlopp]

And, at risk of being proved wrong, I can imagine there might still be extremely short extensions to 3rd rail where that didn't require additional power supplies and was interfacing to non-life-expired equipment.

This is the source of much of the trouble on this thread.

The Energy TSI implementation says no extensions at all, route mileage cannot increase (but track mileage can). It would be up to ORR to decide whether to allow exemptions from that (and to take legal advice on whether or not they can) and what their policy would be going forward.

That then leads into the cyclical argument about extensions being limited for no real reason - if you can add a mile to a route, why not add twenty, but you can't add any extensions because new third rail route mileage isn't allowed but because new third rail route mileage isn't allowed you need an alternative system and for that alternative system to work you need to extend the third rail for a mile and if you can add a mile to a route, why not add twenty.

 

[Mordac]

The point I was making was where else could you electrify with just 30 miles of electrification that would bring bigger benefits that the NDL.

Yes there are lots of places that could benefit more from electrification, but a lot of them require a lot more electrification.

The NDL has some services (admiralty on the Guildford to Reading section) which can be very busy. With a number of services which are full and standing when the trains have 3+2 seating in 3 x 23m long coaches.

Crewe to Chester (actually only around 20 miles).

 

[QueensCurve]

TThat then leads into the cyclical argument about extensions being limited for no real reason - if you can add a mile to a route, why not add twenty

I was thinking that a mile might not require additional power supplies, and therefore avoid most of the costs, whereas 20 would. Not that I am advocating it.

Original post above edited to clarify how limited were the extensions I was thinking about.

 

[coppercapped]

The point I was making was where else could you electrify with just 30 miles of electrification that would bring bigger benefits that the NDL.

Yes there are lots of places that could benefit more from electrification, but a lot of them require a lot more electrification.

The NDL has some services (admiralty on the Guildford to Reading section) which can be very busy. With a number of services which are full and standing when the trains have 3+2 seating in 3 x 23m long coaches.

And the point I was making is that the length of the electrification is irrelevant - the defining parameter is the amount of money available and when that money will be available. Money is money - it doesn't come with 'For Electrification Only' printed on it. Some judicious flyover building, junction improvement or the addition of another platform somewhere may improve life for many more people than travel on the Reading - Redhill line. But it could also be used towards reopening a disused line or extending an electrification as I suggested previously.

I know that there are some busy services on the line - I live in Reading! But as some more Class 165 and 166 trains will shortly become available it will be a lot more cost effective to use one or two of these to lengthen the affected services than to electrify the route to solve the problem.

 

[JonathanH]

And the point I was making is that the length of the electrification is irrelevant - the defining parameter is the amount of money available and when that money will be available. Money is money - it doesn't come with 'For Electrification Only' printed on it. Some judicious flyover building, junction improvement or the addition of another platform somewhere may improve life for many more people than travel on the Reading - Redhill line. But it could also be used towards reopening a disused line or extending an electrification as I suggested previously.

I know that there are some busy services on the line - I live in Reading! But as some more Class 165 and 166 trains will shortly become available it will be a lot more cost effective to use one or two of these to lengthen the affected services than to electrify the route to solve the problem.

Quite, an enhanced service using a few more 165s and 166s would go a long way further to proving demand for better services than to electrify with the existing service level. I'm sure that more passengers are put off with the possibility of missing a connection at Reading into a Gatwick service than they are concerned about how power is provided to the train.

 

[JamesRowden]

Quite, an enhanced service using a few more 165s and 166s would go a long way further to proving demand for better services than to electrify with the existing service level. I'm sure that more passengers are put off with the possibility of missing a connection at Reading into a Gatwick service than they are concerned about how power is provided to the train.

Electrification cuts operating costs. A greater service frequency increases operating costs.

 

[The Ham]

And the point I was making is that the length of the electrification is irrelevant - the defining parameter is the amount of money available and when that money will be available. Money is money - it doesn't come with 'For Electrification Only' printed on it. Some judicious flyover building, junction improvement or the addition of another platform somewhere may improve life for many more people than travel on the Reading - Redhill line. But it could also be used towards reopening a disused line or extending an electrification as I suggested previously.

I know that there are some busy services on the line - I live in Reading! But as some more Class 165 and 166 trains will shortly become available it will be a lot more cost effective to use one or two of these to lengthen the affected services than to electrify the route to solve the problem.

My question was in response to your suggestion that electrification should happen where there were long (8 plus coaches), see below:

On its own electrification will not solve anything and ploughing a lot of capital into fixed electrical supply equipment to service, at best, three 4 coach long trains in each direction per hour would be a criminal waste of money. Far better to spend the money somewhere where frequent 8 or 10 coach trains operate.

How many places are there that run trains that are longer than 8 coaches which aren't already on the cards to have electrification or the stock replaced with bimodal?

Of those how many would benefit from an extra 30 miles of electrification more than the NDL?

I am not suggesting that electrification must happen to resolve the issues that are currently on the line. However, once those extra units come along, although in the short term it will improve things, longer term it could mean that we are back to where we are now in the not too distant future. The reason being is that by increasing the frequency of services you increase the attractiveness of traveling by train.

 

[coppercapped]

My question was in response to your suggestion that electrification should happen where there were long (8 plus coaches), see below:



I am not suggesting that electrification must happen to resolve the issues that are currently on the line. However, once those extra units come along, although in the short term it will improve things, longer term it could mean that we are back to where we are now in the not too distant future. The reason being is that by increasing the frequency of services you increase the attractiveness of traveling by train.

Yes - it was hostage to the pedants on this forum who apparently find it difficult to see the forest for the trees. I answered your question in post No. 538.

In my original post I was simply suggesting that it would be more effective and useful for many more people if a busy stretch of line ("8 or 10 coach trains") was electrified rather than a less busy stretch which currently only operates a couple of short trains an hour in each direction.

Do you not understand the concept of 'A figure of speech'?

I had no particular length of line in mind except that as many contributors to this forum who live outside the South East complain that their trains are dangerously overcrowded and all the investment goes to London some lines outside the South East could well be electrified.

Improving frequency will certainly increase passenger numbers. It may be necessary to increase the length of the trains. If both these occur and the operation covers its operating and overhead costs then the argument for electrification becomes easier to make. But first build the market.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Electrification cuts operating costs.

Is it that simple? It has been reported that one of the long distance freight operators has reverted to diesel traction because at the moment diesel is cheaper than electricity delivered to the locomotive.

A greater service frequency increases operating costs.

Does it matter? As long as the increase in receipts covers the additional costs, what's the problem?

 

[FenMan]

I know that there are some busy services on the line - I live in Reading!

Some? You should sample the line more often, perhaps travelling into Reading instead of travelling away from the town.

GWR and the DfT (what would these experts know?) have been planning to double the frequency of Reading-Gatwicks in the very near future. Now, why would they bother risking taxpayers' and shareholders' money on this significant service enhancement if the line is a sleepy backwater that is undeserving of investment?

 

[JamesRowden]

Is it that simple? It has been reported that one of the long distance freight operators has reverted to diesel traction because at the moment diesel is cheaper than electricity delivered to the locomotive.

Diesel traction is not cheaper. It is the lack of electrification across the network which means that the electric locomotives are significantly less versatile (and so aren't as good value) to the freight operators.

Does it matter? As long as the increase in receipts covers the additional costs, what's the problem?

Electrification increases the justification for a greater frequency because lower additional receipts are required to justify the additional costs of the additional services.

 

[bramling]

We're going round in circles because people are not reading the previous pages and posts.

The implementation of the Energy TSI (4.3 in the UK implementation document) rules out third rail being extended at all in any scenario, which in turn rules out the ability to use the extension sub-clause in 7.4.2.9.1 of the Energy TSI document itself.

The only thing which ORR might allow is exceptionally modest extensions to enable effective and efficient changeover from DC to AC, whether they would allow a similar extension to enable more efficient IPEMU operation is untested and currently unclear and unknown.

I know I'm Mr Unpopular for the reality check, but those unhappy need to take it up with ORR and ultimately DfT. I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, we would need to re-issue the Energy TSI implementation document and I don't even know if that's possible.

A crumb of comfort (though it's like a crumb you find in your bed after a late night cookie binge) is that Brexit may change the way the UK interacts with the Energy TSI.

Where does the LU (4-rail) system fit in to this?

We are seeing some new mileage there with the Northern Line to Battersea, and also the Croxley Link which is a mix of new and reused mileage.

 

[Tio Terry]

Where does the LU (4-rail) system fit in to this?

We are seeing some new mileage there with the Northern Line to Battersea, and also the Croxley Link which is a mix of new and reused mileage.

LU is not classified as a Mainline Railway - it's a Metro service - so does not have to comply with TSI's, it's not Interoperable.

 

[The Ham]

Yes - it was hostage to the pedants on this forum who apparently find it difficult to see the forest for the trees. I answered your question in post No. 538.

In my original post I was simply suggesting that it would be more effective and useful for many more people if a busy stretch of line ("8 or 10 coach trains") was electrified rather than a less busy stretch which currently only operates a couple of short trains an hour in each direction.

Do you not understand the concept of 'A figure of speech'?

I had no particular length of line in mind except that as many contributors to this forum who live outside the South East complain that their trains are dangerously overcrowded and all the investment goes to London some lines outside the South East could well be electrified.

Improving frequency will certainly increase passenger numbers. It may be necessary to increase the length of the trains. If both these occur and the operation covers its operating and overhead costs then the argument for electrification becomes easier to make. But first build the market.

I understand a figure of speech. However, it didn't come across as such.

With regards to building the market before electrification I would suggest that is what is going to happen, as there'll be 3tph within the next few years, yet electrification looks like it is about 5 years away from starting. Which will give a few years of operating with 3tph before electrification will even start. However in reality it is likely that the NDL would be a CP7 project or a late CP6 project.

With regards to overcrowding elsewhere in the country, my perception is from what is said that most of it is on short (I.e. 20m or less coach stock with 3 coaches or less) which has less seating capacity than the 166's. As such by releasing 166's to be used out west which then releases other units those services could see an increase in capacity (even if they are not due to see new DMU's, like a number of Northern services will do well before the NDL will be able to be wired up).

Yes, 2 years ago I could see that there would be routes that could have benefited from electrification more, but with:
- the 802's running to Cornwall and on TPE.
- the new DMU's for Northern.
- the new bimodals for GA
- short HST's replacing some DMU's on GWR
there would appear to be less demand for quite so much to be urgently wired up to provide the capacity on the services which are over crowded elsewhere.

That is, unless someone give real world examples of where (allowing for what has been announced so far) there are routes which would be of more benefit than the NDL, why I think that the NDL should be of fairly high priority to be invoked before end of CP7.

 

[Deepgreen]

So you are sufficiently arrogant to know better than I what I meant to convey?

Money does not grow on trees. For the essentially limited amount of money available to the railways for capital investment each year I am suggesting it would be better to spend it first in areas where the passenger-km/track-km/hour ratio is higher. If the money is spent on the Guildford-Redhill line it will not be available - at the same time - for something like HS3. In my estimation something like HS3 or the extension of electrification in the great swath of country between Liverpool and Hull, which has a large population, has greater priority.

When the lines with heavier traffic have been electrified then, and only then, should the available capital be used on tertiary links like Guildford - Redhill.

Well, it does, but has to be processed into bank notes first!

 

[coppercapped]

Some? You should sample the line more often, perhaps travelling into Reading instead of travelling away from the town.

GWR and the DfT (what would these experts know?) have been planning to double the frequency of Reading-Gatwicks in the very near future. Now, why would they bother risking taxpayers' and shareholders' money on this significant service enhancement if the line is a sleepy backwater that is undeserving of investment?

You clearly have not understood the context of this thread.

Please find and quote the post where I wrote that the line is undeserving of investment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, it does, but has to be processed into bank notes first!

Yes! Brilliant

(Pedants corner as befits RailUK: I don't think much wood-based paper is used in bank notes these days...!)

 

[The Ham]

You clearly have not understood the context of this thread.

Please find and quote the post where I wrote that the line is undeserving of investment.

Maybe this one:

The whole discussion about electrifying the North Downs Line is pointless. The line is not 'key' in any sense of the word - it might be useful, but it is not 'key'. It carries a couple of short trains per hour in each direction between Guildford and Redhill and no freight. Admittedly it connects places which lie off its ends - but the train frequency remains low.

...

On its own electrification will not solve anything and ploughing a lot of capital into fixed electrical supply equipment to service, at best, three 4 coach long trains in each direction per hour would be a criminal waste of money. Far better to spend the money somewhere where frequent 8 or 10 coach trains operate.

I would read "not key" and "criminal waste of money" as at the very least implying that the line isn't very deserving of investment.

 

[Deepgreen]

Maybe this one:



I would read "not key" and "criminal waste of money" as at the very least implying that the line isn't very deserving of investment.

Relatively speaking, it's not, and I live on and use it daily!

 

[duffield]

(Pedants corner as befits RailUK: I don't think much wood-based paper is used in bank notes these days...!)

Absolutely none in the UK. UK banknotes are currently made from cotton fibre and linen rag (according to the BOE website) and are about to be progressively replaced from next month with polymer notes. To drag every last morsel out of this offtopic excursion, this means that currently UK bank notes do not grow on and are not made of trees, but in the future they will presumably be made partly out the of long-dead trees which contributed to the formation of the fossil fuels from which the new polymer notes will be made!

 

[Deepgreen]

Absolutely none in the UK. UK banknotes are currently made from cotton fibre and linen rag (according to the BOE website) and are about to be progressively replaced from next month with polymer notes. To drag every last morsel out of this offtopic excursion, this means that currently UK bank notes do not grow on and are not made of trees, but in the future they will presumably be made partly out the of long-dead trees which contributed to the formation of the fossil fuels from which the new polymer notes will be made!

Absolutely so, but I try not to let facts get in the way of a poor joke!

 

[JamesRowden]

Absolutely none in the UK. UK banknotes are currently made from cotton fibre and linen rag (according to the BOE website) and are about to be progressively replaced from next month with polymer notes. To drag every last morsel out of this offtopic excursion, this means that currently UK bank notes do not grow on and are not made of trees, but in the future they will presumably be made partly out the of long-dead trees which contributed to the formation of the fossil fuels from which the new polymer notes will be made!

A fruit farmer based in the UK grows some fruit on trees.

The farmer exports his goods abroad which means that more pounds are produced at the expense of the foreign currency.

 

[Bald Rick]

Absolutely none in the UK. UK banknotes are currently made from cotton fibre and linen rag (according to the BOE website) and are about to be progressively replaced from next month with polymer notes. To drag every last morsel out of this offtopic excursion, this means that currently UK bank notes do not grow on and are not made of trees, but in the future they will presumably be made partly out the of long-dead trees which contributed to the formation of the fossil fuels from which the new polymer notes will be made!

Unless, of course, the fossil fuels came from fossilised fauna rather than flora.

 

[najaB]

To drag every last morsel out of this offtopic excursion, this means that currently UK bank notes do not grow on and are not made of trees, but in the future they will presumably be made partly out the of long-dead trees which contributed to the formation of the fossil fuels from which the new polymer notes will be made!

Well, if you want to take it all the way to basics. Applies equally to the banknotes, trees...

 

[coppercapped]

Well, if you want to take it all the way to basics. Applies equally to the banknotes, trees...

This is definitely an enjoyable diversion along a very scenic route!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe this one:



I would read "not key" and "criminal waste of money" as at the very least implying that the line isn't very deserving of investment.

Why do you come to that conclusion? The 'criminal waste of money' referred ONLY to electrification as is very clear from the context.

In post 495 I discussed the number of IPEMUs which might be needed to cover (a) the existing service, (b) the planned increase in frequency and (c) the posited extension of the service to start at Oxford. As I spent some time collecting some facts about the numbers of diagrams, implicit in this post is the suggestion that I think these trains would be a good match for the line - as they would be a sub-fleet of the same type of train GWR will be using on its outer suburban service in the next year or two.

A remaining question mark - not addressed in my post - is the issue of whether battery capacity will be sufficient for the longer stretches between conductor rails which are a bit hilly. If it isn’t, then the whole suggestion is moot.

In post 505 I wrote:

Timekeeping can be adversely affected by the junction configurations and competition for platform space at Guildford and Redhill as well as by the length of the intermediate signal sections. Immediate improvements in performance would be seen if these issues were solved first.

To solve these issues will require investment, just not as much as would be necessary to electrify the line. What’s your problem with that?

 

[MarkyT]

A thought. An IPEMU, in addition to banks of traction batteries, could also have small modular underfloor 'range extender' diesel generator sets installed. Not sufficiently powerful for full speed running but enough to sustain lighting and heating during unexpected stops away from 3rd rail/OHLE without depleting the batteries, and a little bit more to help top up the battery while coasting in battery mode. Something like the Vivarail powerpack perhaps?

 

[coppercapped]

A thought. An IPEMU, in addition to banks of traction batteries, could also have small modular underfloor 'range extender' diesel generator sets installed. Not sufficiently powerful for full speed running but enough to sustain lighting and heating during unexpected stops away from 3rd rail/OHLE without depleting the batteries, and a little bit more to help top up the battery while coasting in battery mode. Something like the Vivarail powerpack perhaps?

That's a neat idea!

Then one starts thinking about it some more - and the doubts creep in! The batteries are expensive enough (and have to be replaced every 5 years or so) and adding a power pack will increase the cost even more. But as the line speed on the route doesn't get much over 70mph (if at all) one could think that by replacing the batteries by a couple of power packs the train could keep moving at a reasonable speed. Except of course on the hilly bits where the power-to-weight ratio might be similar to the old 'Tadpoles' where I remember one used to be able to study the individual daisies by the trackside during the climbs...!

Still, Back to the Future!

(But a 'range extender' is a good idea! If cars can have one, why not trains?)

 

[paul1609]

Im working out in the Middle East at the moment and was looking at Dubai Trams APS system today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply, basically a very clever 3rd rail electrification system thats used on street running. On 3rd rail infill electrification in the Uk could not this system be adapted to a classic uk dc third rail using standard rolling stock fitted with the necessary radio equipment. Basically a modified 377 would run under classic 3rd Rail to Reigate but the radio equipment would energise the 3rd rail under the train between Reigate and Guildford and over the other gaps. Okay so its complex but conversion of the dc system to ac is unlikely to happen in my lifetime. It would appear to fulfil all hmris safety requirements. I can see that it wouldn't be practical on the Uckfield lines 10 car trains but it would seem to be technically possible on the low frequency 3 or 4 car units used on both the Marshlink and North Down lines limited to 60 mph running on the infill sections.

 

[edwin_m]

Im working out in the Middle East at the moment and was looking at Dubai Trams APS system today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply, basically a very clever 3rd rail electrification system thats used on street running. On 3rd rail infill electrification in the Uk could not this system be adapted to a classic uk dc third rail using standard rolling stock fitted with the necessary radio equipment. Basically a modified 377 would run under classic 3rd Rail to Reigate but the radio equipment would energise the 3rd rail under the train between Reigate and Guildford and over the other gaps. Okay so its complex but conversion of the dc system to ac is unlikely to happen in my lifetime. It would appear to fulfil all hmris safety requirements. I can see that it wouldn't be practical on the Uckfield lines 10 car trains but it would seem to be technically possible on the low frequency 3 or 4 car units used on both the Marshlink and North Down lines limited to 60 mph running on the infill sections.

This system is only useable at low speed even for trams (50km/h I think) and doesn't allow for regenerative braking. It is also very complex with power switching every few metres, though the sections could be a bit longer for heavy rail. It probably isn't capable of taking the current demands of heavy rail either.

 

[Kettledrum]

I can see that it wouldn't be practical on the Uckfield lines 10 car trains but it would seem to be technically possible on the low frequency 3 or 4 car units used on both the Marshlink and North Down lines limited to 60 mph running on the infill sections.

I'd be very keen that anything was future-proofed.

The trains may be low frequency 3 or 4 car trains today, but if that's all that this technology can cope with, then there is no room for expansion in case the trains need to be lengthened in future

 

[paul1609]

This system is only useable at low speed even for trams (50km/h I think) and doesn't allow for regenerative braking. It is also very complex with power switching every few metres, though the sections could be a bit longer for heavy rail. It probably isn't capable of taking the current demands of heavy rail either.

If we were using a classic 3rd rail instead I can't see that speed would be a problem. Modern electronics would switch the current on and off at 60 mph easily. The Bordeaux trams are 720 kw compared to 1500KW for a 4 car 377 can't see switching 750 volts at that power would be a problem. 4 car compatibility would give both the North downs line and Marshlink lines gaps sufficient capacity for the foreseeable future.

 

[edwin_m]

If we were using a classic 3rd rail instead I can't see that speed would be a problem. Modern electronics would switch the current on and off at 60 mph easily. The Bordeaux trams are 720 kw compared to 1500KW for a 4 car 377 can't see switching 750 volts at that power would be a problem. 4 car compatibility would give both the North downs line and Marshlink lines gaps sufficient capacity for the foreseeable future.

On the trams, presuming the power pickup is somewhere in the middle, the sections can be about 15m long. I'm presuming the objective is the same, to ensure the rail is only live when a train is standing on it. But third rail EMUs have the pickup shoes on the outermost bogies, so the sections would have to be no longer than the distance between the shoe and the end of the train, probably about 3m.

The low-slung body of the tram and the position of the live rail on the track centreline makes it virtually impossible to touch the live rail. But if used on the Southern system it wouldn't provide any protection to people who might step on the live rail while climbing into or out of a train.

So that's a set of power electronics every 3m, each with a fat copper cable to its section of rail and linked along the lineside by a similar cable to carry the power past the sections that are switched off. The third rail would also need insulated* joints or possibly short sections alternating left and right, as with the normal gaps and ramps the shoegear would touch little or none of it . Is all this really cheaper, easier, safer or more reliable than installing OLE?

*Either I or the spellchecker originally put "insulted". Somehow appropriate.