North Downs Line - Electrify the gaps?

[CP165]

Apologies if this has come up in a previous thread.

As part of the GW electrification programme if there aren't already plans to do so, surely it would be a good idea to electrify the remaining parts of the North Downs Line with 750V DC?

Electrifying Wokingham - Aldershot South Junction and Shalford Junction - Reigate would complete the whole line and allow running of EMUs, all saving costs in the long-term, release existing DMUs and providing a better service for passengers.

Cheers

 

[anthony263]

Too be honest i think it is stupid that it hasnt been done or the governement havnt announced that they intend to electrify it. It would make better use of the dual voltage class 319's but FGW may not have enough to use as a few of them are supposed to be going to Northern. plus perhaps 2 class 319's could run together to form an 8 carriage train during the peaks which could provide a capacity boost.

The displaced class 166's would be ideal for FGW to use on services to Portsmouth, Taunton etc providing they can be cleared and some of them.

Shame merseyrail haven't put an order for new EMU's maybe the DFT could have put a order on the for new trains to go to Nortern instead of northern waiting for the class 319's to be released from Thameslink. Either that or could some additional class 350's be ordered from Seimens for Northern? in addition to those being built for the Manchester - Scotland services

 

[CP165]

I totally agree. I've always been puzzled as to why it's never been done. More 165s/166s will be displaced for services in the west country. And yes I think the Manchester-Scotland Class 350 order should be increased to cater for services that were orignally going to be operated by Class 319s in order to retain all of the 319s on the GW and North Downs. It's a win-win situation!

 

[anthony263]

I totally agree. I've always been puzzled as to why it's never been done. More 165s/166s will be displaced for services in the west country. And yes I think the Manchester-Scotland Class 350 order should be increased to cater for services that were orignally going to be operated by Class 319s in order to retain all of the 319s on the GW and North Downs. It's a win-win situation!

Yes and maybe order some class 378's for routes which cannot be cleared for teh class 350's as well as for merseyrail, this keep bombardier in work at derby.

Another idea is to order some Pulsar's from CSRE to replace the pacers in the north west

 

[tbtc]

Assuming each DMU is only one unit long (no multiple working) then I think you release the eight that are needed for the MF service on the North Downs line (plus maybe one "spare").

The best part is that if this line were fully electrified then it could integrate much better into the SWT/ Southern lines that it shares stations with.

 

[Drsatan]

Yes and maybe order some class 378's for routes which cannot be cleared for teh class 350's as well as for merseyrail, this keep bombardier in work at derby.

Another idea is to order some Pulsar's from CSRE to replace the pacers in the north west

Since the North Downs Line is largely in SWT territory the line should be transferred to SWT upon electrification. I assume that either 450s or 458s could be used on North Downs services, although I don't know how many would be required to work the line, or how they would be made available. The most likely scenario would be if 12-14 380s were ordered, allowing some of the Hounslow Loop, Weybridge and Windsor Line services to be increased to 12 cars during the rush hour. 450s would be also be used on Reading line diagrams allowing for a few 458s to be transferred to the North Downs line.


If Merseyrail decide to order new trains from Bombardier to replace the 508s I suspect Bombardier will offer a three car version of the 'Desiro City' design which it proposed for Thameslink services.

Ideally, one of the leasing companies ought to take a gamble and place a speculative order of Turbostars from Bombardier to retain a train manufacturing base in the UK. This would instigate the withdrawal of Pacers and (possible) withdrawal of 153s (since they're not DDA compliant and making them DDA compliant might not be cost effective, although to solve this there's been talk of making them two car units once again) pending further electrification.

 

[TheWalrus]

Maybe have a cooperation service with fgw operating from the reading end and southern from gatwick end? Order 350s specialised for airport services with luggage areas and business class. Then build a chord from between west drayton and airport jn with a flyover and introduce a reading-heathrow service. The specialised 350s could then interwork the two routes.

 

[CP165]

I agree with the fact that the route is in South West Trains region and FGW are a bit out of place. Once electrified the line should be handed over to SWT. I think this will help operations because all services heading towards Wokingham will be the same TOC, helping reliability due to better communication perhaps? And rolling stock can be easily interworked.

Bombardier should definatley be kept in the game somehow, whether it's new airport stock, merseyrail stock or replacement of pacers.

Alongside electrification, maybe some track enhancements to increase line speed in certain places? Because some of the North Downs journey times are awful

 

[JonathanH]

I agree with the fact that the route is in South West Trains region and FGW are a bit out of place. Once electrified the line should be handed over to SWT. I think this will help operations because all services heading towards Wokingham will be the same TOC, helping reliability due to better communication perhaps? And rolling stock can be easily interworked.

Bombardier should definatley be kept in the game somehow, whether it's new airport stock, merseyrail stock or replacement of pacers.

Alongside electrification, maybe some track enhancements to increase line speed in certain places? Because some of the North Downs journey times are awful

The only justification for increasing linespeed would surely be if you could save rolling stock by running from Reading to Gatwick in less than an hour. That cannot be achieved by simple increments in the journey time (and you'll notice that the service fits at Reading with South West Trains services and Redhill with Southern services in its current timings).

Where could the speed be improved without spending a fortune? I think its basically 70mph all the way apart from through the platform at Wokingham, the tight curve south of Ash, through Guildford and up the hill at Chilworth. The Waterloo to Reading line is no better (nor many other lines of its kind) and neither are ever going to be improved because it just isn't anyone's priority.

I can't see how transferring the line to South West Trains would improve the service and I'd be interested to know any reasons why others think it would *(apart from the eventual use of electric trains). It isn't obvious where you would stable the seven units required for the service. Interworking with 8 coach Waterloo to Reading trains isn't an option. Redhill (where 2 turbos stable) is no more in South West Trains territory than it is in First Great Western territory. It fits so much better with stabling of stock at Reading.

Improving the signalling to reduce headways would be my priority to enable a fast service (or similar) to operate over the line once more and make the connection at Reading for Gatwick more attractive (i.e. less chance of having a long wait if the connecting train is late). However, it doesn't look like the signalling at Wokingham is due for an upgrade anytime soon.


Jonathan

 

[150222]

Since the North Downs Line is largely in SWT territory the line should be transferred to SWT upon electrification. I assume that either 450s or 458s could be used on North Downs services, although I don't know how many would be required to work the line, or how they would be made available. The most likely scenario would be if 12-14 380s were ordered, allowing some of the Hounslow Loop, Weybridge and Windsor Line services to be increased to 12 cars during the rush hour. 450s would be also be used on Reading line diagrams allowing for a few 458s to be transferred to the North Downs line.






[/] How on earth do you propose to use 380's on the hounslow loop?

 

[OxtedL]

It's the stopping journeys that are the awfullest... The fast ones aren't that bad. Electric trains ought to help that a lot. It has been suggested before that Redhill>Guildford stoppers should be transferred to southern, bolted onto the LBG>Reigate services. I think there's a major issue with Reigate level crossing down times and a couple of others if services are expanded, but I like to think that this would eventually happen, as Gatwick to Reading is a nifty service that deserves two good runs an hour.

Which operator is an interesting one, I'd always background-thought Southern, but that's just me being operator-ist. As has been said, it crosses lots of boundaries, and the only thing that seems apparent is that it really isn't in FGW territory. They only seem to be the operators for stock convenience, now that other Southern routes are all electric (oh hang on... ).

North Downs is seriously high on my small-minded personal big electrification strategy. If that means anything to anyone... Just do the Uckfield while you're at it. (Oh, and probably the Marshlink. And either Southampton>Romsey or to Southampton & Basingstoke>Salisbury. I don't want much... )

 

[JonathanH]

Maybe have a cooperation service with fgw operating from the reading end and southern from gatwick end?

Southern already cooperate at the Gatwick End by an agreement where they provide drivers to work certain services.

Order 350s specialised for airport services with luggage areas and business class. Then build a chord from between west drayton and airport jn with a flyover and introduce a reading-heathrow service. The specialised 350s could then interwork the two routes.

Effectively the only reason there are sufficient 165/166s to work the Reading to Gatwick line is because of the growth build of Chiltern line 165s was able to displace them from Thames line workings. I think that a new build of dedicated trains is going to be quite hard to justify economically for the North Downs Line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's the stopping journeys that are the awfullest... The fast ones aren't that bad. Electric trains ought to help that a lot. It has been suggested before that Redhill>Guildford stoppers should be transferred to southern, bolted onto the LBG>Reigate services. I think there's a major issue with Reigate level crossing down times and a couple of others if services are expanded.

I could see that extending the Reigate trains to Guildford might help stimulate demand but apart from Dorking, there is not much population between Reigate and Guildford. A direct link between Guildford and Croydon via this route could encourage rail traffic. However, this would appear to be at the cost of one train an hour between Redhill and Reigate which would be a shame.

Let's say you could split the stoppers at Guildford - extending the Reigate terminator to Guildford would probably work in the current timings but that would sit with Southern rather than South West Trains, much as Southern work to Guildford via Bookham in the peaks.

However, spliting stoppers at Guildford reduces the through service to the semi-fast each hour which doesn't fit with the aspiration of 2tph to Gatwick from Reading unless you can also run a fast.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As has been said, it crosses lots of boundaries, and the only thing that seems apparent is that it really isn't in FGW territory. They only seem to be the operators for stock convenience, now that other Southern routes are all electric (oh hang on... ).

Stock convenience isn't only about diesel traction - it makes sense for the earliest services to run from the Reading end towards Gatwick and some kind of stabling is needed at Reading for this purpose.

Even, I might say, for connectional purposes, FGW operating the service should mean that people don't get stranded at Reading off very late trains.

 

[CP165]

Yes JonathanH you're right, on second thoughts signalling would have more benefits that line speed increases. I think the route is split between SWT and Southern territory. You seem to know your stuff!

I agree, the stoppers are the worst for journey times. I was once on a late night service that stopped at EVERY station (obviously excluding early, winnersh, earlswood etc). It really was horrible and seemed to last forever. As OxtedL says, the fast ones aren't too bad. If you're travelling the whole route, it's case of good planning or luck as to whether you get a good or bad journey.

Despite all of this, FGW may well continue to operate as the reinstatement of the link from the North Downs/Waterloo line, under the GWML to the North side of Reading station is included in the Reading remodelling project. This will allow FGW through services such as Oxford-Gatwick for example.

 

[Minstral25]

This concept crops up regularly because it fits with "complete" the electrification proposals. There is a lot of line to be electrified and I don't think there is enough traffic to justify.

Sadly, the only way this line would be electrified is if the freight diversion route for channel traffic along the route was approved.

Additionally as OxtedL says there is the major issue of the Reigate Level Crossing which already causes gridlock in Reigate when it comes down for the current services because the A217 is a very busy road off the M25 down to Gatwick Airport

There is also the question of where the Reigate and Tonbridge Services are going to go once Thameslink is introduced as their paths into London Bridge is going to be taken by the Thameslink Three Bridges services. Thameslink having taken over the Horsham services as well. 12 coach trains will not fit down either branch and the trains are going to be fixed formations.

So whilst it seems sensible for the London Bridge to Reigate trains to extend to Guildford - it looks like they may revert too a shuttle again when Thameslink arrives anyway so maybe FGW should double its local service to Guildford

 

[OxtedL]

Looking at it, Reigate level crossing often feels slightly less... unbridgeable (making up new words ) than some other busy level crossings around the place, and I have before now wondered why they haven't yet tried to bridge it. The crossing itself seems to be on a slight downhill approach from both sides, so maybe a neat engineering solution could be found. I'm sure Surrey Mirror would be thrilled to suddenly find their entrance below street level . Then again, if it were easy I'm sure someone would have suggested it seriously before now.

With Reigate out of the way and hopefully some electrification, then what I think I was indicating earlier was:

• 1 tph stopper from Redhill to Guildford, replacing the Reigate services. If Thameslink cuts this and the Tonbridge off from LBG (a shame, as a through service is more or less essential in the South East before people bother) then perhaps a through service from Tonbridge to Guildford.
• 2 tph Gatwick to Reading on a more attractive feeling stopping pattern.
• Room for expansion and freight!

There are a couple of more level crossings (AHB I think, but don't quote me) that you might be to keep and eye on if you increase services, but in principle, I hope that what I have suggested is the aspiration!

As to Oxford>Gatwick services, I somehow doubt that these would ever occur. The Reading development will allow many things, but I doubt it will realistically allow extra paths for through services off the GWML and to Gatwick, at least for passenger trains (with maybe a couple of exceptions at the extremes of the day). I like the idea though.

 

[CP165]

Is there demand for double the service between Guildford and Reigate?

Reigate level crossing is a bit of an issue. I wonder if a by-pass road is possible to relieve road congestion, thus allowing more train services.

 

[JonathanH]

Is there demand for double the service between Guildford and Reigate?

Reigate level crossing is a bit of an issue. I wonder if a by-pass road is possible to relieve road congestion, thus allowing more train services.

In my experience, there is reasonably limited demand for the current service at the intermediate stations - what is important is offering more connectivity to Gatwick or London.

Is Reigate level crossing really an issue other than when the M25 is shut and once each morning? My workplace overlooks the A25 / A217 junction - the traffic tails back to that point about once an hour (off peak, the barriers are currently down for about 12 minutes each hour as 4 trains pass within a 25 minute period).

There really isn't a by-pass option given the wealthier part of Reigate is that to the north of the town. I think you would need an underpass for the A217 if you were going to try to eliminate the level crossing but there are far more important things to spend money on.

 

[swt_passenger]

As to Oxford>Gatwick services, I somehow doubt that these would ever occur. The Reading development will allow many things, but I doubt it will realistically allow extra paths for through services off the GWML and to Gatwick, at least for passenger trains (with maybe a couple of exceptions at the extremes of the day). I like the idea though.

The new layout definitely provides for the possibility of such cross Reading services because the eastern underpass is being reopened to allow a non- conflicting route between the reliefs and the 'Southern'.

If Crossrail is extended (as expected) and takes up more relief line paths east of Reading, it makes use of the underpass for through services more likely again...

 

[CP165]

I think electrifying the gaps is all that could happen on the North Downs Line. Maybe the reason why FGW run these services is to keep things simple, rather than splitting up the route and debating whether it's in Southern or SWT territory, and to be honest, as long as long (4 - 8 car) electric trains are introduced along with an enhanced service at certain times, i'm not that bothered.

 

[Minstral25]

In my experience, there is reasonably limited demand for the current service at the intermediate stations - what is important is offering more connectivity to Gatwick or London.

Is Reigate level crossing really an issue other than when the M25 is shut and once each morning? My workplace overlooks the A25 / A217 junction - the traffic tails back to that point about once an hour (off peak, the barriers are currently down for about 12 minutes each hour as 4 trains pass within a 25 minute period).

There really isn't a by-pass option given the wealthier part of Reigate is that to the north of the town. I think you would need an underpass for the A217 if you were going to try to eliminate the level crossing but there are far more important things to spend money on.

The point being is that Reigate town centre blocks when the level crossing is down. Currently it clears pretty quickly as there is a long period between closures but if that doesn't happen it will be permanently clogged.

Trying to get into Reigate in the rush hours is very difficult anyway - I use this route due to school run and often get blocked up Reigate Hill for 15 minutes or more.

I still think the key point is that this route does not justify passenger traffic (or freight) to electrify. All four major towns on the route have reasonably good direct electric services to London already (Redhill/Reigate/Dorking/Guildford) and the freight route only works if you put in the direct crossing at Redhill for the Tonbridge line, as currently trains would have to reverse at Redhill

 

[CP165]

I still think the key point is that this route does not justify passenger traffic (or freight) to electrify. All four major towns on the route have reasonably good direct electric services to London already (Redhill/Reigate/Dorking/Guildford)

But this route provides a convenient and rather popular link between Reading and Gatwick Airport. It's those services that need improving with electrification and I think that could justified.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Too be honest i think it is stupid that it hasnt been done or the governement havnt announced that they intend to electrify it. It would make better use of the dual voltage class 319's but FGW may not have enough to use as a few of them are supposed to be going to Northern. plus perhaps 2 class 319's could run together to form an 8 carriage train during the peaks which could provide a capacity boost.

The displaced class 166's would be ideal for FGW to use on services to Portsmouth, Taunton etc providing they can be cleared and some of them.

Where did this widely spouted idea of 166s on Cardiff - Portsmouth stem from orriginally? It seems insane to me, a regional express service in need of more coaches and everyone seems to want to cascade units onto it that are the same length and less 'regional expressy' (a turbo has 1/3 2/3 doors and perhaps (I've never been on a Turbo myself) 2+3 seating).

Also, while I think the north downs and Thames Valley branches sound like good candidates for electrification, when I stop and think about it I say no. Why? The difficulties of clearing turbos elsewhere, that's why. The GWML wiring should free up enough 165s to rid the one other area where they are cleared (the lines from Newcastle to Chathill, Ashington (re-opening the line and extending the hourly Morpeth service to Chathill & two places on the Ashington section (one service every 3 hours to each)) and Middlesbrough along with Darlington to Saltburn) of Pacers (Whitby branch, Darlington - Newcastle/Bishop Auckland and Newcastle - Carlisle would be all 156s). There would be enough 165s for frequency improvments from Sunderland to Middlesbrough and Darlington - Saltburn too if desired.

That leaves any further Turbos replaced with nowhere to go (except perhaps Chiltern, to displace any stock they have that is within normal loading guage) without spending money clearing lines, money that could otherwise be spent wiring elsewhere. If anywhere were to be cleared for 165/166 operation, I'd suggest Bristol Temple Meads to Taunton (taking over that aspect of the Cardiff - Taunton service, the other end being electrified) and perhaps the Severn Beach line.

Since the North Downs Line is largely in SWT territory the line should be transferred to SWT upon electrification. I assume that either 450s or 458s could be used on North Downs services, although I don't know how many would be required to work the line, or how they would be made available. The most likely scenario would be if 12-14 380s were ordered, allowing some of the Hounslow Loop, Weybridge and Windsor Line services to be increased to 12 cars during the rush hour. 450s would be also be used on Reading line diagrams allowing for a few 458s to be transferred to the North Downs line.

Here's an idea for South West Trains electrification, not sure if it'd release enough stock for North-Downs electrification too though:

1. Terminate the Salisbury to Romsey via Southampton Central service at Southampton Central.
2. Electrify the line from Eastleigh to Romsey
3. Order more 444s (or an updated version, possibly in 4-car rather than 5-car sets) and use them to displace 450s from Portsmouth - Waterloo (and any other fast services passengers complain about 450s on)
4. Use one of the released 450s on the Lymington service
5. Extend the Portsmouth and Southsea to Southampton Central service to Romsey via the newly electrified Eastleigh route, using the released 450s

That probablly won't shift many 158s, maybe 2? Still, it would allow extension to 4-car of the two busiest Portsmouth - Cardiff diagrams wouldn't it? Maybe you could also electrify to Salisbury from the London direction and use new 444s coupled to an unpowered set on the Waterloo - Exeter services, with the unpowered set being hauled the rest of the way by a diesel loco (as was done on another NSE route in the past, there could be problems with locos not likeing the route though, wasn't 50s not likeing it the reason they now use 159s?).

Bombardier should definatley be kept in the game somehow, whether it's new airport stock, merseyrail stock or replacement of pacers.

My opinion is replacment of some Pacers in the form of an updated 377 for the ValleyLines (inc. Swansea - Bristol and Swansea - Cheltenham).

 

[swt_passenger]

Where did this widely spouted idea of 166s on Cardiff - Portsmouth stem from orriginally?

Network Rail. It has been mentioned variously in the GWML RUS, and the relevant route plans for the Portsmouth Cardiff route for about three or four years - always 'subject to gauge clearance'.

I assume you use the term 'widely spouted' to imply that posters who mention it are making it up?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...Maybe you could also electrify to Salisbury from the London direction and use new 444s coupled to an unpowered set on the Waterloo - Exeter services, with the unpowered set being hauled the rest of the way by a diesel loco...

You're thinking of the 4REP/8TC combination, but the way that worked was that the 4REP had the installed power needed to push/pull a 12 car train, the 444 only has the power needed for itself. Your proposed additional 444 would need 4 motor coaches, rather than the 2 it has normally.

 

[Minstral25]

But this route provides a convenient and rather popular link between Reading and Gatwick Airport. It's those services that need improving with electrification and I think that could justified.

Convenient Yes

Popular - really - I think not - there are always one or two passengers on the train with suitcases but generally it is mostly local users.

Bit like that other red herring service the Gatwick Express! Yes people use it but I suspect well over 50% of Gatwick Airport users don't (this is a perceived judgement due to masses of suitcases on local services to London and watching empty Gatwick trains go past)

 

[yorksrob]

I still think the key point is that this route does not justify passenger traffic (or freight) to electrify. All four major towns on the route have reasonably good direct electric services to London already (Redhill/Reigate/Dorking/Guildford) and the freight route only works if you put in the direct crossing at Redhill for the Tonbridge line, as currently trains would have to reverse at Redhill

There were plans to electrify this route in the 1990's. I doubt that the passenger or freight traffic has declined since then so as not to justify it.

 

[Whistler40145]

I personally think that Coventry-Reading via Oxford was electrified @ 25kV & the 3rd rail extended into 2 mainline platforms @ Reading along with electrifying Basingstoke-Reading, this would make more business sense & it would then be more viable to electrify Reading-Redhill.

 

[OxtedL]

There were plans to electrify this route in the 1990's. I doubt that the passenger or freight traffic has declined since then so as not to justify it.

And yet during the same period, new infrastructure operators have now got involved, and (coincidentally of course :roll costs are bound to have risen. I was alarmed at the £200m price tag suggested for Wrexham-Bidston, but I guess this was probably due to high set up costs. Doing all the prospective third rail routes left all at once has got to be the best way forward, as it has got to universally improve the financial outlook due to large efficiencies.

Or possibly I just would like to see the Uckfield line electrified as well...

 

[yorksrob]

And yet during the same period, new infrastructure operators have now got involved, and (coincidentally of course :roll costs are bound to have risen. I was alarmed at the £200m price tag suggested for Wrexham-Bidston, but I guess this was probably due to high set up costs. Doing all the prospective third rail routes left all at once has got to be the best way forward, as it has got to universally improve the financial outlook due to large efficiencies.

Or possibly I just would like to see the Uckfield line electrified as well...

I agree - a mini-rolling electrification scheme for the Southern Region has got to be better than doing it piecemeal.

 

[tbtc]

I still think the key point is that this route does not justify passenger traffic (or freight) to electrify. All four major towns on the route have reasonably good direct electric services to London already (Redhill/Reigate/Dorking/Guildford) and the freight route only works if you put in the direct crossing at Redhill for the Tonbridge line, as currently trains would have to reverse at Redhill

There really is more to the UK than travel into central London - there are some decent sized towns around the outskirts that have poor connections (so that its quicker to go into/out of central London than "around" the Capital.

For example the 12:08 from Gatwick Airport needs a change at Redhill to get to Reading for 13:54 (1h 46m) - you could get from Gatwick to Reading in under two hours (plus many more departures per hour).

 

[Minstral25]

There really is more to the UK than travel into central London - there are some decent sized towns around the outskirts that have poor connections (so that its quicker to go into/out of central London than "around" the Capital.

For example the 12:08 from Gatwick Airport needs a change at Redhill to get to Reading for 13:54 (1h 46m) - you could get from Gatwick to Reading in under two hours (plus many more departures per hour).

There is no 12:08 from Gatwick - it is the time of the connection from Gatwick to catch the all stations train from Redhill to Reading.

The fast train from Gatwick to Reading leaves at 12:03 and arrives 1h 16m later in Reading. It would take about 1h 30m to get from Gatwick to Reading via Central London.

The point I have been making is that there is little demand for more than the current two trains per hour between Guildford and Redhill (One slow/one fast) and spending many Millions on electrifying is not worth it as you would not suddenly create any new services.

I tend to agree with OxtedL that the Uckfield line should be electrified as it is part of a network of lines that are fully electrified but even their I would question the value for money argument as currently it is only an hourly train except during the rush hour