'Rolling program of Electrification'

[CosherB]

Re-constituting the Woodhead line, perhaps? I'd like to see both routes electrified (at 25KVAC this time!).

 

[furryfeet]

so what is stopping them using engines and coaches that are stored in MOD depots around the country ?

Surely the TOC's could negotiate, or even buy, from the leasing companies such stock at discount rates, given that they have been written off in depreciation terms ?

Now is the time to pursue this, since the banks are cash strapped due to the global economic crisis.

Sitting around waiting for the "new" rolling stock to arrive will not solve any problems at all.

Would the height problem in Standedge tunnel still exist if the old 1846 bore was re-opened ?

Railtrack talked about reusing this bore in 2000 and then there has been silence ever since. Have they found a problem with it ?

 

[AlexS]

Snow Hill lines in Birmingham and up to Crewe via Shrewsbury? Would all but get rid of local DMUs in WM and provide a WCML diversionary route to boot.

 

[Proud Salopian]

I'm trying to imagine overhead electrification in Shropshire...

*shudder*

Right - we're sticking with good old fashioned steam and diesel traction thank you! Salopian railway electrification experimentation ended in 1944 when the Castle Hill Railway was electrified.

But seriously now, what are the chances of say Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton being electrified? Or maybe Shrewsbury-Crewe? I doubt either will happen for a very, VERY long time, but I'd like to hear thoughts..
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Snow Hill lines in Birmingham and up to Crewe via Shrewsbury? Would all but get rid of local DMUs in WM and provide a WCML diversionary route to boot.

Pendolinos running through Shrewsbury!! *faints*

 

[Metroland]

That picture reminds me when I left my wallet behind when I got to the top of that railway. Thankfully the staff handed it back!

Anyway, in true Keynes style, the government wants to spend a lot of money on capital projects, I would say the next few years are a good time to start a rolling programme of electrification, just in time for the retirement of a large batch of second gen DMUs.

 

[Waverley125]

the problem with 'filling the the gaps' are that most trains would continue to be diesel. Leeds-york for example. 1 XC tph, 3 TPE tph & 2 local tph. The only trains that would change would be the Leeds-York shuttle (which would probably involve running 333s from, the A&Wdale through to York). The others would continue to be diesel services. Manchester-preston provides a good diversionary route, but unless the locl services are electrified, it's pointless.

 

[Metroland]

from the informed sources E-preview available from here

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/square/ca14/ALYCIDON RAIL/alycidon RAIL home.htm


What kept me from matters regulatory? Well, yet more encouraging news from the fight for a rolling programme of electrification, for a start

Compare the Government’s negative response to my electrification petition last year with the reference in Ruth Kelly’s valedictory Party Conference speech to ‘potentially the largest programme of electrification in our history’.

Not only has the anti-electrification policy in last year’s White Paper been reversed, the mood is surprisingly buoyant. We now have four independent financial Benefit:Cost Ratio studies for the Midland and Great Western main lines, and they are all positive.

I compare the results in the Column and while the DfT Rail analyses are the most cautious, the officials responsible suggest that even on their numbers both schemes would be self financing through Network Rail’s Regulatory Asset Base.

By far the most detailed work is being done by Network Rail and I publish the results for the Great Western Main line Study which shows a Benefit:Cost Ratio of 1.7:1. MML is even better at 2.2:1. Also included are the sensitivity tests showing that the cases are robust.

DfT Rail’s internal studies are coming out at around 1.2:1. But, in part, this is because the diesel Intercity Express Programme (IEP) is being used for the ‘do-nothing’ base case, rather than real trains.

Meanwhile the Network Rail modelling team is moving onto the next route, probably North TransPennine. Since the IEP is not involved it is hoped that a realistic do-nothing base case can be agreed with DfT Rail.

Factory trains

Also boosting electrification prospects are the installation techniques being developed by Network Rail’s new Electrification Group. These include up to three High Output Electrification Trains capable of wiring 1.5 km of plain line in a single 8 hour possession.

 

[voyagerdude220]

It wouldn't really, if the Class 221 units were replaced by Class 390s units (which is the long term plan)
Simply extend every second hourly London Euston - Birmingham to Glasgow

This is what many London - Birmingham - Carlisle services used to do, forming part of the regular London - Birmingham service
Destinations beyond Carlisle included Stranraer, Edinburgh, Stirling, and Inverness

I'm afraid that would simply make the journey far too long, especially for London to Scotland passengers, who have NXEC as a possibility, and also air passengers.

 

[me123]

To be honest, loadings North of Birmingham-ish are so low anyway that running to Glasgow fron there might be a good option, provided that the infrastructure is in place to make the journey at least as fast as the via Crewe equivalent.

 

[Pumbaa]

To be honest, loadings North of Birmingham-ish are so low anyway that running to Glasgow fron there might be a good option, provided that the infrastructure is in place to make the journey at least as fast as the via Crewe equivalent.

No they're not! It gets so clogged up as a commuter route between Warrington, Preston, Wigan, Carlisle and all the other stops like that. Stadning room at a premium most evenings.

 

[Metroland]

NEW Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon has said he is "enthusiastic" about the prospect of electrifying the Midland Mainline railway.

Ashfield MP Mr Hoon, who has just taken control at the Department for Transport, made the comments in a response to Leicester South MP Peter Soulsby in Parliament today .

Mr Soulsby claimed that the most significant improvements to the railway line could only be achieved as a result of electrification – supplying electricity to locomotives so they can operate without using a petrol or diesel engine.

Mr Hoon said: "I take a close and deep personal interest in the Midland Mainline as a regular user of that line and I certainly share my predecessor's enthusiasm for electrification.

"It is something that the department will be looking at, I assure him, very closely."
Click here!

Mr Hoon also faced questions from shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers who said congestion on the Midland Mainline and the rest of the network meant it was "wholly inadequate and painfully slow".

Mr Hoon replied that the Government was investing £15bn in to the railways, £10bn of which would go towards reducing congestion.

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/n...rail-route/article-416723-detail/article.html

 

[Waverley125]

I think we can all agree that Paddington-Bristol Temple meads (GWML) and London St Pancras-Wakefield Westgate (MML) are the two significant projects. I'd imagine that a full electrification of the TP route (and to Hull via Selby) would have a good CBR. Also the Grantham-Nottingham line to allow FCC into Nottingham and Peterborough-Lincoln would both ease capacity problems at Peterborough as FCC units would continue out of the station rather than sitting in it, or having to cross the ECML to the marshalling yards. This could also be negotiated with the DfT to remove NXECs requirement to serve Lincoln. If this is done, it would make sense to fill the gap between Lincoln & Doncaster, and allow the Leeds-Donny shuttles to run through to Lincoln & vice versa. IMO Leeds-Lincoln is one of the big missing services (along with Leeds-Nottingham and Leeds-Glasgow).

 

[Pumbaa]

I watched the question time this afternoon during some time off. Quite entertaining - Hoon looks set to be a crap SecState of Transport. Despite the positive light the report gives, he was calling a bluff I think. I doubt we will see any long-investment in the railways over the next 2-4 years other than the ICEP which is already well underway.

Hoon made it quite clear that the DfT policy will be aimed at grabbing money from motorists and updating the motorway network. Of the total DfT budget (which by the way, the Govt public spending budget for 2009 and 2010 is available to use now because the Govt know it will be worthless by then) less than a third of it is due to spent on railways.

 

[me123]

mmm... It certainly was not that way when I've been on the trains, but I presume you've got more experience than me.

EDIT: This in response to whoever it was that said that the trains North of Preston are busy in peak times; forgot to go onto the next page

 

[A0]

Surprised nobody's mentioned filling in the gaps in the south - specifically:

Ashford - Ore

Croydon - Uckfield

Tonbridge - Guildford - Reading

Reading - Basingstoke

Particularly as this would allow various DMUs to be cascaded and remove the need for the infrastructure to support them in some areas.

Also consider Basingstoke - Sailsbury and Southampton - Sailsbury.


I think the GWML presents a couple of issues - the main one being where do you electrify to and where don't you:

Paddington - Reading would make sense.
Reading - Oxford would probably make sense
Reading - Bristol - is it worth doing both routes ?
Reading - Exeter - questionable, though if you don't then people who use the commuter services from Bedwyn will probably lose out.
Bristol - Cardiff - maybe.
Cardiff - Swansea - probably not.
Beyond Exeter - probably not, due to proximity to sea.

 

[Aureol]

Happy to be corrected if wrong, but the problem with the southern region like around Tonbridge is that they can't lay any more third rail or something...

 

[Mintona]

I'm not too keen on the idea of electrifying Manchester Airport

Electifying Manchester Airport? Do the 323s coast there then?

 

[Aureol]

Electifying Manchester Airport? Do the 323s coast there then?

Oooops, sorry, my mistake

 

[williamn]

Why is it impossible to electridy over the Forth Bridge?

 

[gordonthemoron]

or for that matter under the Carrington Street bridge in Nottingham?

 

[Waverley125]

assuming Carrington street bridge is the one the station building sits on, due to it's low level. The 222s have 6-10 inches clearance on the central roads-nowhere near enough for OHL & pantograph.

For the Forth Bridge, as discussed in the 'major projects' thread, due to arcing from the OHL to the strucure due to wire-strut proximity. This could possibly be solved by reducing to a single track, but as we know this would make the bridge a huge bottleneck with the NXEC, Fife loop & FSR Aberdeen trains on it.

 

[paul1609]

Surprised nobody's mentioned filling in the gaps in the south - specifically:

Ashford - Ore

Croydon - Uckfield

Tonbridge - Guildford - Reading

Reading - Basingstoke

Particularly as this would allow various DMUs to be cascaded and remove the need for the infrastructure to support them in some areas.

Also consider Basingstoke - Sailsbury and Southampton - Sailsbury.


I think the GWML presents a couple of issues - the main one being where do you electrify to and where don't you:

Paddington - Reading would make sense.
Reading - Oxford would probably make sense
Reading - Bristol - is it worth doing both routes ?
Reading - Exeter - questionable, though if you don't then people who use the commuter services from Bedwyn will probably lose out.
Bristol - Cardiff - maybe.
Cardiff - Swansea - probably not.
Beyond Exeter - probably not, due to proximity to sea.

As regards the lines in the South;
Ashford Int to Ore is probably a pretty hopeless case due to the very low patronage on the line. Romney Marsh is probably the least inhabited place in the South East of England. The main town Rye only has a population of around 4000.
Many of the other villages stations (appledore, winchelsea) are some miles away from the village they are named after along roads with no footpaths or street lighting.
The line was recomended for closure under the Beeching Report and only retained as a strategic route.
Southern have tried hard with the through service from Brighton to Ashford but have obtained mixed results. The hoped for Eurostar connection has been lost because of the pulling out from Ashford following the opening of HS1. Some day trip traffic has been gained from Ashford to Brighton and Eastbourne but it seems that not many people find Ashford an attractive destination from Sussex. I think its questionable whether the through service will survive the refranchising next year.
Hurst Green to Uckfield is a lot more positive since the 171s introduction and the through service to london Bridge there has been a huge increase in passenger numbers. However with the new rolling stock only a couple of years old it would probably be difficult to justify electrification especially if you have to retain some of the same fleet for the Marshlink line.
Reigate to Wokingham probably has the best case. A lot of the Gatwick to Reading Route is already electrified. It would make sense for the stopping service to be split to me with Guildford to Reading going to SWT and Guildford to redhill becoming a through Southern Service to Croydon and London Perhaps as a portion of one of the semi fast Horshams.
Extensions to the DC network are still allowed by the way.
On the salisbury Front i dont think that electrification just to Salisbury from Basingstoke or Southampton would wash its face and i think that if it went further the electrification would probably be ac overhead.

 

[Metroland]

Unfortunately, like it or not, we are going to have to find other ways to power transport, and with rail being one the the easiest to convert away from petroleum we should be doing it anyway. We are going to have to use at least 6.4% less per year, starting shortly. Not my opinion, the opinion of the International Energy Agency which all governments take their cue off setting policy.

Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Global crude-oil output is falling faster than expected, leaving producers struggling to meet demand without extra investment, the Financial Times said, citing a draft of an International Energy Agency report.

Annual production is set to drop by 9.1 percent in the absence of additional investment, according to the draft of the agency's World Energy Outlook obtained by the newspaper, the FT reported. Even with investment, output will slide by 6.4 percent a year, it said.

The shortfall will become more acute as prices fall and investment decisions are delayed, the newspaper said. The IEA forecasts that the rising consumption of China, India and other developing nations requires investments of $360 billion a year until 2030, it said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=arn1g3qUqKAI&refer=energy

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e5e78778-a53f-11dd-b4f5-000077b07658.html

 

[Mojo]

Happy to be corrected if wrong, but the problem with the southern region like around Tonbridge is that they can't lay any more third rail or something...

They can extend existing schemes but not create any new third-rail routes.

Obviously, what is classed as a reasonable extension depends on the case, such as rolling stock, etc. Extending third rail from Reading to Bristol in order to have Bristol area local services electrified would probably not be allowed.

 

[paul1609]

They can extend existing schemes but not create any new third-rail routes.

Obviously, what is classed as a reasonable extension depends on the case, such as rolling stock, etc. Extending third rail from Reading to Bristol in order to have Bristol area local services electrified would probably not be allowed.

That was certainly the situation pre_ROGS however if a prospective rail operator was to provide a robust risk assesment of 3rd rail operation of say the severn beach line, i dont think there is anything to stop 3rd rail electrification now!

 

[Metroland]

Oil prices will rebound to more than $100 a barrel as soon as the world economy recovers, and will exceed $200 by 2030, the International Energy Agency will say in its flagship report to be published next week.

“While market imbalances could temporarily cause prices to fall back, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the era of cheap oil is over,” the report states.

The developed world’s energy watchdog has doubled its long-term price expectation from last year’s $108 a barrel for 2030 and assumes oil prices will rebound from today’s $60-$70 a barrel to trade, in real terms adjusted by inflation, at an average of more than $100 a barrel from 2008 to 2015.

The IEA’s World Energy Outlook has come to this conclusion largely because it believes companies will struggle to pump enough new oil to offset the steep production declines of the world’s older fields.

The stark assessment comes as companies cancel projects from Kazakhstan to Canada because the collapse in oil prices makes them uneconomical.

The industry will have to invest $350bn each year until 2030 to counter the steep rates of decline of existing fields and find enough extra oil to satisfy the growing demand of countries such as China, the report states.

Output from the world’s oil fields is declining at a natural rate of 9 per cent, the IEA found, following the most comprehensive review of its kind. This decline rate is curtailed to 6.7 per cent when current investments to boost production are made. However, even with such investments, the decline rate worsens significantly to 8.6 per cent by 2030.

The declining rates are steeper than the industry had previously assumed. They are also slightly steeper than an earlier draft of the report because the IEA has expanded the study to 800 oil fields, adding 250 smaller fields.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ca2b5254-ab6a-11dd-b9e1-000077b07658.html

 

[Kneedown]

I'd also electrify the GWML and Birmingham-Bristol; it's about time you got wires down there. MML can probably wait a bit, but certainly after GWML in my opinion.

Have to disagree entirely here.
The GWML is a relatively straight, level, 125mph route. The MML isn't. It's twisty, hilly, and with a linespeed of 110mph, and so would benefit far more from electrification than the GWML.

I would like to see the wires go up over the entire network, but lines that are already of a high speed nature such as the GWML should be a little further down the queue.

 

[Waverley125]

The GWML, as in London-Bristol, should be fairly high up as it's an important line of long distance reliant entirely on diesel trains. And, for being straight & flat, will be easier to electrify. However, until wires through Severn Tunnel & Down to cornwall can be sorted, many trains using it will continue to be diesel. MML has no such problems, and as said, will benefit more from OHL, as well as providing a second electrified route between Leeds & London.

 

[332 > 444]

I would put the electrification and speed increase of the MML above any other line then linespeed increase of the GEML.

 

[yorkie]

I would put the electrification and speed increase of the MML above any other line then linespeed increase of the GEML.

Any chance of some punctuation? I think you're trying to say that electrification and speed increase of the MML should come first, and then increase the speed of the Great Eastern? Although what increasing the speed of the GEML has to do with a proposed programme of electrification I am unsure.

I'd agree with Kneedown, but also for the reason that electrifying Bedford-Nottingham/Sheffield would sort the MML completely. Yet on the GWML, it is not feasible (yet?) to electrify to all destinations so you'd still end up with many diesels under the wires. Electrifying to Bristol only would not make much sense. If you remove through trains, people will drive instead.