North Wales Coast Main Line Electrification

[snowball]

It's not that it's cheap, as such, just that the benefits are so large, it generates a big BCR.

Crewe to Chester will probably be (quick in head calculations) about £250m of the £780m of Crewe to Holyhead.

And therefore the benefits of electrifying beyond Chester must be limited, contrary to TDK's suggestion that if you were doing Crewe to Chester you would need to do Chester to Holyhead too.

 

[edwin_m]

However if a minor market (South to north Wales) sucks up capacity across the north wales coast it leaves less capacity for the trains to the major markets which are potential electrification candidates.

I don't think it's a question of capacity, otherwise more capacity could be provided quite easily by adding extra block sections. In my view it's more that the existing service provides matches demand and either electrification or re-routeing services east of Chester won't change the overall demand very much.

Therefore if one train per hour has to run as a diesel because it continues southwards from Chester, there are only a few other trains that could be converted to electric operation so the benefits of eletrification are small.

I'm trying to think what the effect of bi-mode trains would be. If they were run on North-South services they would allow electric operation west of Chester but that and west of Newport would need to pay for a more costly and non-standard fleet of regional bi-mode units. However bi-modes on the London trains might turn out to be better value than electrifying west of Chester.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

And therefore the benefits of electrifying beyond Chester must be limited, contrary to TDK's suggestion that if you were doing Crewe to Chester you would need to do Chester to Holyhead too.

Electrification Crewe-Chester gives you Euston-Chester Pendolinos and an hourly Crewe-Chester shuttle.
But it would cut through trains from London to North Wales unless some tilting bi-modes were ordered, which would not be popular in Cardiff (or up the coast).
You might enable through dual voltage trains Liverpool Central-Chester-Crewe and beyond, but nobody has that on their wish list just now, mainly because Merseyrail is so parochial.
I suppose a "68+mini-Pendo" solution is another option for Euston-Holyhead beyond Chester, possibly running alternately Chester-Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton and on to Euston.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

And therefore the benefits of electrifying beyond Chester must be limited, contrary to TDK's suggestion that if you were doing Crewe to Chester you would need to do Chester to Holyhead too.

The immediate benefits are limited, which is why the BCR is terrible, but the importance of electrification of the entire route shouldn't be underestimated.

The figures don't stack up on their own - the only services benefiting from electrification of the entire route are a relative handful of services between Holyhead and Chester, and those services which run onto Manchester.

The West Coast franchise services don't benefit, because there's no significant performance or capacity benefits gained from switching from 2 x Class 221 to 1 x Class 390.

The important bits are the Welsh franchise services - the North-South services won't benefit until the Welsh Marches line is electrified, but there's no point in electrifying that route if the North Wales coast isn't electrified.

 

[Trog]

S&T = signals & telecoms

Are you sure?
I thought it stood for Sick and Tired.

 

[deltic08]

Crewe to Chester is an expensive project due to the structures preventing an easy upgrade, they surely would need to do the whole lot unless hybrid trains are used on the line initially for the North Wales Coast and where will the money come from for such trains?

Could the order for 100 new trains for the North be hybrid as there will be lots of partly under-the-wires services and moreso as electrification progresses?

 

[snowball]

Are you sure?
I thought it stood for Sick and Tired.

As distinct from S&C, which stands for Switch & Carlisle, or Settle & Crossing.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Could the order for 100 new trains for the North be hybrid as there will be lots of partly under-the-wires services and moreso as electrification progresses?

Yes - it's quite likely that the order will be for bi-mode units, ROSCOs are reluctant to commit to diesel units, which isn't surprising as even some of the more remote lines - the WHL and the HoW for example - could make some use of a bi-mode unit in future.

If a diesel only unit is purchased, the ROSCOs in question will be looking for guarantees on usage and derogations from any future environmental legislation.

Bi-modes wouldn't necessarily help the business case for the North Wales coast line though - general consensus is they would be limited to somewhere between 60mph and 75mph on diesel power to limit weight and size of engines needed, with 100mph to 110mph possible on electric.

 

[Envoy]

I can't see the north Wales coast line being electrified instead of a south Newport M4 being built. The situation on the Newport section of the M4 is now quite 'desperate' with frequent queues building up for many miles - thus making the whole of south Wales less desirable for investment.

Whilst I would like to see the north Wales Main Line go electric, it must surely be a lower priority than the M4 in south east Wales.

When HS 2 is built, are we going to have larger trains that would not be able to 'fit' on the north Wales Main Line in any case - thus requiring a change of trains at Crewe? Alternatively, would they build a fleet to smaller dimensions for travelling off the new HS 2 route?

 

[edwin_m]

When HS 2 is built, are we going to have larger trains that would not be able to 'fit' on the north Wales Main Line in any case - thus requiring a change of trains at Crewe? Alternatively, would they build a fleet to smaller dimensions for travelling off the new HS 2 route?

Some of the HS2 fleet will be "captive" trains that can only run on new HS2 infrastructure. Increasing clearances for these trains on existing routes will be very expensive and disruptive and basically won't happen.

However the rest of the fleet will be "classic compatible", built to run on HS2 and also on existing electrified UK routes. There is no plan at present for these to run to Chester or North Wales but no particular reason why they shouldn't if it was electrified.

 

[D365]

Alternatively, would they build a fleet to smaller dimensions for travelling off the new HS 2 route?

Classic-compatible 200m trains are an integral part of the HS2 service plan.

 

[tbtc]

Could make Blaenau Ffestiniog more of an isolated operation?

Rebecca Maxwell, of NWEAB, said the electrification sum could be even less and was a ‘small amount’ to pay for the potential economic benefits for the region and the whole of Wales

I can't see the north Wales coast line being electrified instead of a south Newport M4 being built. The situation on the Newport section of the M4 is now quite 'desperate' with frequent queues building up for many miles - thus making the whole of south Wales less desirable for investment.

Whilst I would like to see the north Wales Main Line go electric, it must surely be a lower priority than the M4 in south east Wales

Agreed.

I think that Rebecca Maxwell is overegging "the potential economic benefits for ... the whole of Wales" - I suspect that the M4 relief would be of more benefit to people in the north than electrification to Holyhead will be to people in the south.

I get annoyed when people come up with these kind of "x would be cheaper than y" comparisons though - as if the two are in direct competition and with the aim of solving the same problem. Much like the "a line to Upper Ambridge would be cheaper than HS2" kind of arguments.

I suspect a lot will depend on how much of what was supposed to be done in CP5 ends up being done in CP6. Right now I'd have to say CP6 is going to be filled up with over-running or pushed back CP5 work.

Agreed - I think we're going to have a dose of de ja vu when the CP6 announcements are made, with promises of doing various schemes that should already have been up and running. Ambitions beyond that are limited!

It's complicated - there's a very strong, unavoidable business case for Crewe to Chester electrification, but it destroys an already terrible business case for the entire route to Holyhead being wired.

The business case can be made 'less bad' but it needs additional trains to run, problem is there's probably not the demand for more trains.

The last figures I've looked at have Crewe to Holyhead BCR at 0.55:1, but Chester is anything from 4:1 to 6:1 depending on a few additional miles, overlap/run off protections and other bits and pieces needing done at the same time

Interesting to get this kind of information from an "insider".

Every time the Crewe - Chester line gets mentioned, someone brings up the cost of dealing with all the low bridges (and how it'd be cheaper to just build a brand new line, than try to upgrade the existing one), so good to see someone in the know state that the business case looks rather decent.

Given that, rather that Carwyn Jones' "it could be done in the next 5 years" fantasy, do it once the already planned NWCL resignalling is completed. This electrification isn't suddenly going to leap higher up the list than the SWML and Valleys projects, neither of which have particularly firm end dates at the moment.

True.

Easier to excite people with promises of more schemes than deal with the nuts and bolts of funding/ delivering schemes already promised?

Officially the WG still want an hourly service from north wales to Cardiff which will have to be DMU operated. It doesn't help to make the business case to wire west of Chester does it?

True.

If we assume that the current frequency along the coast of two to three trains an hour continues (currently hourly from Manchester, bi-hourly from Birmingham, bi-hourly from Cardiff, not quite every couple of hours from London but with a distinct "flow") then roughly only half the services would be converted to EMU.

Would Cardiff Bay accept a reduced service on their flagship line (to justify the electrification), or prefer an hourly Cardiff service along the coast (even if it scuppers the case for wiring)?

Wish Bob were here to debate this!

Could the order for 100 new trains for the North be hybrid as there will be lots of partly under-the-wires services and moreso as electrification progresses?

120 carriages, so roughly thirty or forty trains, as far as I understand it?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The WG isn't saying very much about the next W&B franchise, partly because it doesn't know what the "English" scope is going to be (maybe less than now).
The priority to 2026 is for more rolling stock, not the impossible dream of more electrification.
Academics have popped up and suggested cut-down HSTs as the answer, like in Scotland (eg for long-distance Marches services).
These would have a lifetime after refurb up to about 2030, which would give time for a sensible spread of electrification by then, connecting into HS2.

Other dominos to fall in the near future are the specs for new West Midlands and West Coast franchises - prospectuses due out very soon.
By 2017 (before the W&B bids) we should have a new programme for services on the WCML and around Birmingham.
That is supposed to take these lines up to HS2 in 2026.
W&B will need to reflect any changes in its plans.
All change at Shrewsbury and Chester?

 

[HSTEd]

If S&T had trained up some guys and gone out a year before the physical GWep works started, tidying up the mass of cables buried in the ballast on the GWML, electrification would be certainly running much closer to time and being on time is almost certainly around if not exactly on budget.

And why should S&T pay for something that only needs to be done for the benefit of electrification?

 

[Teithiwr]

True.

If we assume that the current frequency along the coast of two to three trains an hour continues (currently hourly from Manchester, bi-hourly from Birmingham, bi-hourly from Cardiff, not quite every couple of hours from London but with a distinct "flow") then roughly only half the services would be converted to EMU.

Would Cardiff Bay accept a reduced service on their flagship line (to justify the electrification), or prefer an hourly Cardiff service along the coast (even if it scuppers the case for wiring)?

Wish Bob were here to debate this!

But surely the whole purpose of the debate that took place last week was not just to stick to the current service pattern. My view is that the current level of service to Cardiff and to London (especially from Chester) is not too unreasonable. The challenge is the current poor services to key destinations in the North West, especially Liverpool and Manchester. The M56 corridor is essential to the growth of the economy in North Wales - not the M4 !!! - and it is grinding to a halt. Rail does not offer anything like a realistic alternative to the car at the moment, but it should.

We have a disconnect between the emerging thinking in North West England and in Wales. This is not helped by the different re-franchise time scales or the lack of understanding of the impact of devolution.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

And why should S&T pay for something that only needs to be done for the benefit of electrification?

(a) S&T probably would have avoided paying for it as it's a historical problem, or it would be rolled into correcting past blundering incompetence. The GWML problems are yet another Western region special way of doing things, everywhere else, signal and power cables are generally properly routed in troughs or buried ducts but the Western region buried them in the ballast, which leads onto my second point

(b) it's monumentally unsafe - we can't have signals going black whenever anybody does any sort of work, it doesn't need to be electrification - renewals, ballast cleaning and tamping all have the ability to snag cables or cause sufficient changes in ballast to cause internal cable breaks.

Just like signal posts that fall over because they've been installed cack handedly, dumping signal cable in the ballast and expecting it not to have a reduced life expectancy is fantasy thinking.

I'm slightly surprised we've not had permanent way, S&T and electrification program engineers being shocked by damaged/degraded power signal cabling (or I've just not heard about it).

 

[Nym]

And why should S&T pay for something that only needs to be done for the benefit of electrification?

Because they should be keeping proper track of their assets out on the railway.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Because they should be keeping proper track of their assets out on the railway.

And therein lies the problem - they don't actually know what their assets are, there's a fair number of routes where nobody truthfully knows, beyond the theory, as to how a signal changes aspect when commanded by the signalbox.

They know there must be a wire, what the specification of the wire could be, they might, if they're lucky, know roughly where it is and when it was laid, or if not, they'll have some idea of where to start digging to look for it. They won't, in a worrying number of cases, be able to tell you where it's definitely safe to put a pile, dig a foundation, build a new platform or alter the trackbed.

A less charitable person might suggest S&T manage to get everybody else to locate their cables for them, and they just have to deal with the aftermath...

To be fair, if Failtrack and NR had recruited enough S&T engineers of course, none of this would be an issue.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

And therein lies the problem - they don't actually know what their assets are, there's a fair number of routes where nobody truthfully knows, beyond the theory, as to how a signal changes aspect when commanded by the signalbox.

They know there must be a wire, what the specification of the wire could be, they might, if they're lucky, know roughly where it is and when it was laid, or if not, they'll have some idea of where to start digging to look for it. They won't, in a worrying number of cases, be able to tell you where it's definitely safe to put a pile, dig a foundation, build a new platform or alter the trackbed.

This will undoubtedly impact the GW project around Bristol, the main area still to be resignalled.
There's another corner of the WR coming up for examination during electrification - Barnt Green-Bromsgrove, mostly in the Gloucester PSB area.
Do we know if the Gloucester installation had better practices?

I remember the concern when the WR installed GWR pattern AWS (the big ramps in the track) on the Midland route into Bristol after it gained control of it.
Everybody else was installing BR standard AWS, and the GWR stuff eventually had to be replaced.
That's what "Route Autonomy" gives you if you are not careful, to mention a topical reorganisation brainwave.

 

[edwin_m]

It doesn't really matter whether it's a S&T or an electrification cost, Network Rail and ultimately the taxpayer pays for it either way.

The issue is more that it wasn't foreseen, or perhaps that people did foresee it but weren't listened to. If it had been then a more realistic plan could have been put in place with a cost and timescale to match. This might for example have included bringing forward the re-signalling and putting back the piling so that most of the buried cables were taken out of use first.

However this would probably have extended the overall duration of the project, and might not have been acceptable to the previous government who decided quite unexpectedly to go ahead with this scheme.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The WG isn't saying very much about the next W&B franchise, partly because it doesn't know what the "English" scope is going to be (maybe less than now).
The priority to 2026 is for more rolling stock, not the impossible dream of more electrification.
Academics have popped up and suggested cut-down HSTs as the answer, like in Scotland (eg for long-distance Marches services).
These would have a lifetime after refurb up to about 2030, which would give time for a sensible spread of electrification by then, connecting into HS2.

Other dominos to fall in the near future are the specs for new West Midlands and West Coast franchises - prospectuses due out very soon.
By 2017 (before the W&B bids) we should have a new programme for services on the WCML and around Birmingham.
That is supposed to take these lines up to HS2 in 2026.
W&B will need to reflect any changes in its plans.
All change at Shrewsbury and Chester?

Whatever's been worked on in Cardiff is being kept very quite.

 

[Envoy]

Whatever's been worked on in Cardiff is being kept very quite.

The Welsh Government elections take place in May 2016. They are probably keeping 'quiet' because nobody knows the outcome of this election.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The Welsh Government elections take place in May 2016. They are probably keeping 'quiet' because nobody knows the outcome of this election.

Wales's PR system does make a hung parliament and then collation more likely than Westminster first past the post. If 2010 is replicated then Labour will be short and there will be UKIP AM's.
Folk I've spoken to hope so as with either Lib Dems or Plaid in coalition M4 Relief Road will not happen and more than crumbs from table for rest of Wales will be possible or so it's said.

Having gone onto the North Wales coast today on a train that originated from Cardiff with count on one hand numbers from south of Chester going beyond it tail chasing a 158 and a Voyager westwards (1024 off Chester stopping at signal posts) I hope the tt on the line is sorted out and it's decided where the market actual is so as to make the case to wire it.

 

[CardiffKid]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-37037170

Third Menai crossing construction 'could start by 2021'

Construction of a third crossing over the Menai Strait could begin by 2021 if it gets the go ahead, the Welsh Government has said.

Consultants are to be hired later this year to look at routes for a proposed new crossing to Anglesey.

Funding options to pay for the scheme are also to be examined.

Plaid Cymru welcomed progress on the proposal, saying current traffic congestion in the area causes "unnecessary misery" for commuters.

Currently, there are two Menai Strait crossings: the Menai Bridge, which was built by Thomas Telford in the 1820s, and the Britannia Bridge, which was opened to carry rail traffic in 1850 but then rebuilt in the 20th century to also carry road traffic.




The A55 runs as a dual carriageway from Holyhead to the Britannia Bridge, where it is carried as a single carriageway road, before returning to a dual carriageway on the other side.

There have been proposals for a third Menai crossing for some time to alleviate traffic on the two bridges over the strait.

According to a Welsh Government document, Economy Secretary Ken Skates has now "agreed to appoint technical advisors to take forward the third crossing project".

He also decided to appoint "external support to advise on possible financial packages to fund the project".

Dyfed Edwards, Plaid Cymru council leader for Gwynedd council, said "it is absolutely key that there's a new crossing" if the new Wylfa Newydd nuclear plant development "comes into place".

"It's not just commuter traffic, it will be construction traffic as well," he said.

A Plaid Cymru spokeswoman said: "This is a project which we have long championed yet which is sadly still to materialise due to the Labour Welsh Government's lethargy on the matter."

She said: "Current traffic congestion causes unnecessary misery for commuters on a daily basis and there are already concerns over the existing two bridges' long-term resilience."

A Welsh Government spokesman said: "We are currently in the process of procuring consultants to carry out a route selection study for the third Menai crossing.

"This will appraise various options and designs for the third crossing and will include a public consultation.

"Construction could start in 2021 subject to gaining all the necessary statutory consents."

Consultants are expected to be hired in the autumn, with the study to take 18 months.

I wonder if this could be a road and rail bridge, built in anticipation of rail electrification/improvements.

 

[snowball]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-37037170

I wonder if this could be a road and rail bridge, built in anticipation of rail electrification/improvements.

It's almost certainly a new bridge alongside the existing Britannia Bridge to carry mainland-bound road traffic, so that the road deck of the existing bridge (currently the only single carriageway section of the A55) can be for Anglesey-bound traffic only, as recommended by a previous consultation in 2007. See the bridge's Wikipedia page.

I believe the rail deck of the existing bridge (currently one track plus a narrow service/access road) is capable of being converted back to double track, and I seem to remember seeing a suggestion somewhere recently that this might happen.

No new bridge is required for electrification.

See also this page and the bottom of this page.

 

[krus_aragon]

I believe the rail deck of the existing bridge (currently one track plus a narrow service/access road) is capable of being converted back to double track, and I seem to remember seeing a suggestion somewhere recently that this might happen.

No new bridge is required for electrification.

See here: One side of the Britannia Bridge's rail deck is currently used for various utilities. If space for this pipework is allocated on the new bridge, then there's room for the up track to be reinstated at a later date.

 

[edwin_m]

See here: One side of the Britannia Bridge's rail deck is currently used for various utilities. If space for this pipework is allocated on the new bridge, then there's room for the up track to be reinstated at a later date.

What happens at the south end? It's a long time since I went that way but I seem to remember the curve towards the east starts before the end of the bridge so the track seen there swings across where the other track would need to be.

But I may have mis-remembered.

 

[najaB]

But I may have mis-remembered.

You may not have mis-remembered, it's entirely possible (even likely) that the track was slewed when the line was singled.

 

[snowball]

I was wondering where I saw the reference to redoubling the track. It turns out that it may have been in the Welsh route study, March 2016.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/Welsh-Route-Study.pdf

Section 6.1.9 sets out a choice for funders in CP6 to improve
linespeeds along the North Wales Coast Main Line, enabled by
re-signalling of the route during CP5 and CP6 (see Section 2.3). The
route between Llandudno Junction and Holyhead crosses the
Menai Straits on the Britannia Bridge to the west of Bangor. The line
over the Britannia Bridge is currently a single line with utility services
currently occupying the second track bed. In the longer term this
single line section could become a timetable constraint to future
increased service specifiation, and therefore the resignalling of this
part of the route during CP6 offrs an opportunity to consider
reinstatement of a two track railway over this structure. This should
be considered as part of the development of the resignalling works.

It doesn't say anything about it being conditional on constuction of a new road bridge. Maybe the pipes could be rerouted into the space between the beams that can be seen overhead in krus's pictures, or slung below the rail deck.

 

[krus_aragon]

What happens at the south end? It's a long time since I went that way but I seem to remember the curve towards the east starts before the end of the bridge so the track seen there swings across where the other track would need to be.

But I may have mis-remembered.

The track curves out from under the road deck, but the deck supports seem to be placed so as not to encroach on the rail alignment. See the modern images at the bottom of this article on Britannia Bridge station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was wondering where I saw the reference to redoubling the track. It turns out that it may have been in the Welsh route study, March 2016.

I think it may also have been in previous route studies, as I'm sure it's more than six months since I came across the proposal.