North London line’s future capacity

[Railwaysceptic]

An article in the current issue of Modern Railways about Sizewell C says the contractors have requested four freight paths a day each way along the North London Line (NLL) and the Great Eastern Mainline. A second article discusses how Bow Yard will be expanded and will generate more freight movements, presumably also along the very busy NLL Will the NLL have the capacity for several additional freight movements a day?

 

[randyrippley]

An article in the current issue of Modern Railways about Sizewell B says the contractors have requested four freight paths a day each way along the North London Line (NLL) and the Great Eastern Mainline. A second article discusses how Bow Yard will be expanded and will generate more freight movements, presumably also along the very busy NLL Will the NLL have the capacity for several additional freight movements a day?

Is this for building Sizewell C or decommissioning Sizewell A?
Hard to see why B would need four freight paths?

 

[hwl]

Is this for building Sizewell C or decommissioning Sizewell A?
Hard to see why B would need four freight paths?

C1 and C2 construction

 

[Class 08]

Sizewell C is unlikely to go ahead. EDF is now looking to life extend the existing plant – Sizewell B – to 2055.

 

[HSTEd]

Sizewell C is unlikely to go ahead. EDF is now looking to life extend the existing plant – Sizewell B – to 2055.

Whilst I am also skeptical that Sizewell C(SZC) will be built, Sizewell B (SZB)'s life extension is a separate matter.

Ideally both plants would be in use in parallel, just as when SZC was originally mooted before privatisation.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Is this for building Sizewell C or decommissioning Sizewell A?
Hard to see why B would need four freight paths?

Sizewell C. My mistake. My apologies. I'll amend the opening post.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Whilst I am also skeptical that Sizewell C(SZC) will be built, Sizewell B (SZB)'s life extension is a separate matter.

Ideally both plants would be in use in parallel, just as when SZC was originally mooted before privatisation.

Sizewell C is based on a model that has hardly been made to work anywhere yet, and which in all cases is many years late and very seriously over budget; hence I wouldn't bet on it ever being started. It makes HS2 look well-organised in comparison. (And at least the latter might not generate lethal waste which will probably outlast out civilisation...)

 

[HSTEd]

Sizewell C is based on a model that has hardly been made to work anywhere yet, and which in all cases is many years late and very seriously over budget; hence I wouldn't bet on it ever being started. It makes HS2 look well-organised in comparison. (And at least the latter might not generate lethal waste which will probably outlast out civilisation...)

Yes, but at this time cancelling it would be tantamount to the cancellation of the entire nuclear reactor programme.

No other projects are remotely close to start of construction. The Government has little choice unless it wants to take the decision to abandon nuclear power entirely, and there is little evidence that they would have the stomach for that. The government allowed itself to be pressured into going along with HPC (Hinkley Point C) because of its desire to avoid admitting that privatisation will never deliver nuclear reactors, and here we are now,

The European Pressurised Reactor is a lemon, but it is the only fruit available now.

 

[Nym]

Yes, but at this time cancelling it would be tantamount to the cancellation of the entire nuclear reactor programme.

No other projects are remotely close to start of construction. The Government has little choice unless it wants to take the decision to abandon nuclear power entirely, and there is little evidence that they would have the stomach for that.

The European Pressurised Reactor is a lemon, but it is the only fruit available now.

What about the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology the UK Govt is refusing to commit to properly…?

 

[HSTEd]

What about the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology the UK Govt is refusing to commit to properly…?

It will probably fail for the same reason that nuclear reactors got so large in the fist place.... economics.
Leaving aside Rolls Royce's lack of experience of the civil nuclear reactor market, the ultimate problem is that almost all of the techniques they claim to be revolutionary in enabling the SMR concept are equally applicable to large reactors.

Large reactors have repeatedly been shown to be superior in economic terms by virtue of being large, which is why the Rolls Royce SMR gets larger with every design revision (now up to ~470MW).

 

[takno]

What about the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology the UK Govt is refusing to commit to properly…?

SMRs are a confidence trick in search of a mark. There isn't a great deal of technology involved.

To return to the point of the thread though, I would expect their effect on the North London Line's capacity to be negligible.

 

[Class 170101]

Don't hold your breathe on the GEML though, currently no Class 6 paths between Stratford and Parkeston / Ipswich in the main part of the traffic day when most passenger trains are running.

 

[Class15]

Don't hold your breathe on the GEML though, currently no Class 6 paths between Stratford and Parkeston / Ipswich in the main part of the traffic day when most passenger trains are running.

There’s 6M69 Sizewell - Willesden Brent?

 

[Class 170101]

There’s 6M69 Sizewell - Willesden Brent?

Not in the Stratford to Ipswich / Parkeston direction

 

[Class15]

Not in the Stratford to Ipswich / Parkeston direction

Oh sorry, thought you meant both ways.

Isn’t there a loop near Chelmsford? Not very long but this is nuclear traffic.

 

[Class15]

The NLL should have capacity. Nuclear trains aren’t long like the container trains and there are lots of unused paths from Bow.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Sizewell C is based on a model that has hardly been made to work anywhere yet, and which in all cases is many years late and very seriously over budget; hence I wouldn't bet on it ever being started. It makes HS2 look well-organised in comparison. (And at least the latter might not generate lethal waste which will probably outlast out civilisation...)

What's the model?

 

[HSTEd]

What's the model?

The EPR or "European Pressurised Reactor".

Two units at Taishan in China, those are notionally operational but have had some significant issues.
One unit at Olkiluoto in Finland, that reactor started construction in 2005 and completed last year.
One unit at Flamanville in France, that reactor started construction in 2007 and is expected to complete this year.

Two units at Hinkley Point C, which are really not going wel with constant delays and massive cost growth.

Sizewell C would make the UK the first country to have placed a second order.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, but at this time cancelling it would be tantamount to the cancellation of the entire nuclear reactor programme.

No other projects are remotely close to start of construction. The Government has little choice unless it wants to take the decision to abandon nuclear power entirely, and there is little evidence that they would have the stomach for that. The government allowed itself to be pressured into going along with HPC (Hinkley Point C) because of its desire to avoid admitting that privatisation will never deliver nuclear reactors, and here we are now,

The European Pressurised Reactor is a lemon, but it is the only fruit available now.

And therein lies the problem with this country in it's laissez-faire state.

Actual Government doing its job, wouldn't be flailing around looking for some other country to build it a power station. It would be building the country's capability to build them.

 

[Cowley]

Could we stick to discussing the capacity issues rather than the wider subject of nuclear reactors etc please.

Thanks

 

[The Planner]

The NLL should have capacity. Nuclear trains aren’t long like the container trains and there are lots of unused paths from Bow.

That won't make a lot of difference, a nuclear train will clearly have a lighter timing load, but its not going to suddenly create capacity. Its still a path.

 

[Class15]

That won't make a lot of difference, a nuclear train will clearly have a lighter timing load, but its not going to suddenly create capacity. It’s still a path.

It can probably fit in a 7.5 minute passenger gap?

 

[renegademaster]

The NLL should have capacity. Nuclear trains aren’t long like the container trains and there are lots of unused paths from Bow.

I don't know if I'm reading the thread wrong but it seems the paths are cement trains for its construction

 

[HSTEd]

There will be no operational nuclear trains associated with Sizewell C, these will heavy trains for things like cement, aggregate and steel during construction.

 

[Class 170101]

Oh sorry, thought you meant both ways.

Isn’t there a loop near Chelmsford? Not very long but this is nuclear traffic.

Doesn't really help as you have to get there first, the section between Stratford and Shenfield will be a problem first

I don't know if I'm reading the thread wrong but it seems the paths are cement trains for its construction

Yes not nuclear flasks hence the trailing weight.

There will be no operational nuclear trains associated with Sizewell C, these will heavy trains for things like cement, aggregate and steel during construction.

Really no operational nuclear traiiic once constructed?

 

[Class15]

Doesn't really help as you have to get there first, the section between Stratford and Shenfield will be a problem first

Down the electrics?

 

[Class 170101]

Down the electrics?

Too many (MTR) trains on those. They will need to run ML all the way, I would say.

 

[Transilien]

Would ECTS work for capacity improvements?

 

[HSTEd]

Really no operational nuclear traiiic once constructed?

No, fresh fuel will be delivered by lorry, as is the practice at current stations.
Spent fuel will be stored on site for at least the duration of the plant's operational life. On site storage will also be used for intermediate wastes such as burned out control rods and spent ion exchange resins.
There will be no shipping of fuel to Sellafield for reprocessing or intermediate storage. Reprocessing has now ceased entirely and the current shipments occur mostly because no long term storage was built at AGR plants, reprocessing being expected to continue indefinitely.

There will be little in the way of other nuclear materials leaving the site, mostly very small consignments of low level waste to the repository at Drigg. That traffic will go by road as is the case with existing nuclear facilities.