If I remember correctly, and I will try and post a link later, London Gateway was ranked number 1 for freight electrification priority by some well known person (Julian Worth et al). Of course, I would like it all electrified, but Gateway would be there then do small bits such as Felixstowe - Ipswich after.
That is why the class 93 and class 99 should be replacing all diesel locomotives, also that is one of the reasons why just banning diesel from the NLL and Goblin could have perverse outcomes elsewhere on the network.
Northern cities have way more diesel trains running under wires within them (That is even the case for some cities when only counting freight trains.) and cities like Manchester also have local climates that slow the dispersion of pollutants. As for population density there are likely plenty of non-London freight routes where more people are affected by the pollutants. It also was just a figure of speech to get across my point of view that the other 84%/98% of England would also greatly benefit from phasing out of diesel trains
Those Class 66s have diesel engines from the 1990s with no real emissions mitigations.
In order to electrify any of them, you do need a solution to the overhead gantry loading problem. Be that wholescale replacement of 66s with 88s/93s/99s, battery tenders for 90s/92s, on-site shunters, moveable conductors or some other solution.
Sounds very sensible. The amount of energy used at slow speeds on the flat is tiny, even for shunting maximum length intermodals. So I'd expect 80kWh the batteries on the Class 93 to be quite enough to handle any movement needed beyond an electrified reception siding at a container port.
The boundary is 40m east of the foot crossing near the DNO substation just west of the internal port road overbridge.
Electrifying to there would be plenty to get clear of the mainline, and less than 2 miles to and through the terminal to the headshunt. Not sure if there is space for a recharging bay there (if that’s necessary) - presumably mixing high power electrics and a refuelling point would raise eyebrows……..
It wouldn’t be Gateway bespoke. If its literally just a shunting/last mile battery pack then it’s really just an Electric loco with a little battery, which would be useful in many places including making depots safer and escaping an OLE failure.
The sensible thing to do, at least to me, would be to electrify the arrival/departure tracks at the west end of Gateway up to the pointwork for the gantry sidings fan, and then electrify the middle track (I assume it's the release road) only to the buffers. You could do this with standard Twin-Track Cantilever structures on foundations north of the line. I couldn't see anything that looked like a fuelling point on google maps - the yellow area around the headshunt would indicate a cripple road inspection point given the lack of any obvious fuel tank, but I could be very wrong. This configuration would allow a train to pull all the way into London Gateway on OLE pull forward through the gantry sidings on batteries, then run onto the headshunt and then pan up (if needed). You'd have a very tiny amount of time and distance off the juice.
Will getting rid of the relatively small amount of diagrams with an expensive electricfaction programs enough QALY to make it worth it. Theirs much more polluting things plodding round London you can get rid of for cheaper
I expect it would, if you could actually get the FOCs to go along with this plan rather than just run their Class 66 regardless (I don't think you can).
The fuel point is where the two freightliner engines are stabled, fuel is provided by road tanker rather than on site tanks...at least that's how it used to be. Loco's are released back up the line directly opposite the cranes.
The freight railway already receives major indirect subsidies (thanks to paying essentially nothing for track access) in order to keep the freight off the road. A little more will make no difference.
This is absolutely correct - I’ve heard enough of this excuse for years and it’s time the government, as you suggest, just said “ok then”!
