Small Electrification Schemes for CP6

[Mordac]

So we all know that with so much getting pushed from CP5 into CP6, there's going to be very little money for new schemes. However, I was thinking that maybe some infill, suburban, or otherwise small new (i.e., not already in CP5) schemes might still have a chance to proceed. A few suggestions of my own are :

Coventry to Nuneaton
Coventry to Leamington (together with dualling)
Chester to Crewe (recognize this might be pushing the envelope for a 'small' scheme, though)

Also not going to wander into the mine field of 3rd rail infills. While I think they'd be a good idea where they're just extending current 3rd rail installations, I appreciate there's very little chance of the ORR signing off on it.

 

[Alan2603]

York to Leeds (Colton Junction to Neville Hill I think it is) and perhaps the Hambleton Curve would seem to be a decent infill scheme (pending full completion of the trans-pennine wiring, whenever that maybe - my crystal ball cannot see that far ahead!).

It would give Virgin East Coast quite a bit of flexibility with current stock and maybe allow them to run more Leeds to Newcastle/Scotland services (Leeds to Aberdeen a few times per day would be nice).

It would also allow TPE to make better 'electrified' use of their bi-modes when they arrive. I think it may assist some Northern services as well or allow new journey possibilities on electric or 'flex' stock.

Alan

 

[bluenoxid]

I have wondered in the past if Lancaster to Morecambe is worth pursuing. In addition, the railway lines south east of Manchester have struck me as another candidate.

Most of the realistic projects are already being pursued. Any other projects probably require more work or full reinstatement of the railway line on a section to become realistic compared to other projects in the current pipeline.

 

[The Planner]

Coventry to Nuneaton
Coventry to Leamington (together with dualling)
Chester to Crewe (recognize this might be pushing the envelope for a 'small' scheme, though)
.

None of those will happen in CP6, Cov Leamington dualling is too expensive and the proposal is only south of Kenilworth initially. Crewe Chester is unlikely before we resignal it and that keeps getting deffered. Not sure what Nuneaton Coventry would achieve either.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm sure we could all come up with "little lists" in each area.
However, the big picture is that NR has not got an economic baseline for electrification, with every one of the current projects out of time/budget.
They are not going to commit to anything new for quite a while, and it then depends what the government attitude is on service enhancements (not just electrification).
Today's answer seems to be "get a bi-mode".

 

[swt_passenger]

If they can afford to do a few little jobs, perhaps they might as well do the stuff like the Thames Valley branches and Reading - Basingstoke - while all the resources are set up in that area, rather than setting up from scratch in a different part of the country...

 

[sk688]

London - Aylesbury Vale ?

Would free up 165s for the mainline suburban services

Could even possibly ( not a chance of this happening ) ,be electrified in the same way as the Met Line , so you could have Aylesbury - Aldgate , at lower prices for the passengers

 

[HowardGWR]

I don't see any extras happening in CP6, given finances, and I would rather see later investment in a game changer scheme on a route not planned to be paralleled by an HSL. My choice would be Bristol to Birmingham. In fact, not knowing what the government are planning for HSLs, in terms of a priority over conventional improvements, I would prefer HS3 to precede everything, if it is serious about connectivity between the 'Roses' counties. The North deserves it.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Perhaps we should be asking ourselves whether Kettering to Sheffield will be electrified in CP6.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Perhaps we should be asking ourselves whether Kettering to Sheffield will be electrified in CP6.

Exactamundo sir

 

[AM9]

If the class 769 is a success, would it give a suitable reason to postpone these infills (both in ac and DC territory) until the MKIII stockused is life expired, (say late CP7)?

 

[Grimsby town]

As others have stated, I doubt anything extra will be done in CP6 but if I had to choose one, I'd say Leeds - Harrogate - York. The project has already been proven to have a good BCR although this may have been reduced by increased costs and the 170's being put on the line. Still it would allow useful decreases in journey time of around 7 minutes between both Leeds and Harrogate.

One way of keeping costs down could be by allowing full blockade of one section of the line such as Leeds to Harrogate and run trains to Leeds via York as well as buses. It will be far easier to work or on a non live railway.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Future electrification schemes will need to be justified by the benefits that a pure EMU can bring over bi-mode operation. Despite what others may say, there are such benefits for specific types of services. Urban services which could make use of high-density interiors are one such example. While many interurban and regional services would do just fine with a slightly longer Stadler set with an up-and-down floor and some length devoted to the self-power module, that design simply won't do when there will be lots of standing passengers. Oxford wiring is needed for a similar reason, as using a bi-mode 10-car IEP/AT300 is significantly less efficient than a 12 car 387 rake. Add in the joys of diesel emissions issues in cities and my expectation is that Birmingham will see most of its urban services wired up and metro-ified, especially in the run up to HS2 opening in 2026.

 

[NSE]

I'd quite like to see them sort out the SWML south of Poole. Allowing multiple units and dualing the small single track section(s?) near Weymouth.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

added to the sticky

BTW mine is Sheffield -Doncaster - releases DMUs - part of the spine anyway, allows a start from "the other end" of MML electrification.

 

[Class 170101]

I would add Nuneaton to New Street and Sheffield to York via Pontefract. Maybe alo Leicester to Nuneaton if the MML is done.

 

[The Planner]

You need it to Leicester, Nuneaton only doesnt really do anything, diversions dont cut it.

 

[IanXC]

added to the sticky

BTW mine is Sheffield -Doncaster - releases DMUs - part of the spine anyway, allows a start from "the other end" of MML electrification.

Yes this is a good call. Switching Sheffield to Leeds and Sheffield to Doncaster to electric operation would be a smart move, for not that much wiring, and releases principally 4 car DMU formations.

 

[The Ham]

With the potential to use self powered former EMUs then it could well be that it could be better to electrify a section of core for many routes, due instance within Cardiff for the valleys services.

Ideally you could aim to cover the whole of a route, but it could be better to cover everywhere where more than one route runs.

 

[squizzler]

If a local authority wants to get involved and make a contribution to the wiring on certain local routes, does this elevate it from the CP5, CP6 pending tray?

I cannot imagine why the east west rail (Cambridge to Oxford) is being built as a diesel route when it is unimpeded by traffic and might as well be a greenfield route.

 

[Grumbler]

It seems to me that a major factor killing the economics of 25kv electrification is the cost of civils to ensure sufficient clearance.

Then why not revive the practice of half a century ago of a lower voltage - say 6.25 kv - in some areas?

Trains being delivered now are already AC, DC or diesel capable so another voltage should not be a problem.

 

[D365]

Yes this is a good call. Switching Sheffield to Leeds and Sheffield to Doncaster to electric operation would be a smart move, for not that much wiring, and releases principally 4 car DMU formations.

Routes like these would be ideal to soak up a number of the Class 321s going spare.

I cannot imagine why the east west rail (Cambridge to Oxford) is being built as a diesel route when it is unimpeded by traffic and might as well be a greenfield route.

As far as I can see it's not being built at all.

It seems to me that a major factor killing the economics of 25kv electrification is the cost of civils to ensure sufficient clearance.

Then why not revive the practice of half a century ago of a lower voltage - say 6.25 kv - in some areas?

Trains being delivered now are already AC, DC or diesel capable so another voltage should not be a problem.

Because that wouldn't reintroduce a whole lot of complexity... As far as I know the reasoning behind increased clearances is not as clear-cut as that.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Crewe-Chester is unlikely before we resignal it and that keeps getting deferred.

Do you have any more details about this? Do you know whether there would be line speed increases at the same time?

 

[edwin_m]

It seems to me that a major factor killing the economics of 25kv electrification is the cost of civils to ensure sufficient clearance.

Then why not revive the practice of half a century ago of a lower voltage - say 6.25 kv - in some areas?

Trains being delivered now are already AC, DC or diesel capable so another voltage should not be a problem.

The trains that were fitted for 6.25kV (the last were withdrawn many years ago) had separate tappings on the transformer and switchgear to select the correct voltage. This would be a significant hardware modification to all existing units. I doubt it would be possible to achieve it by re-programming the software to work with 187.5V on the DC link instead of 750V, unless it was OK for the train to run very slowly...

What would be more helpful is to find out who imposed the recent clearance standards for clearances without taking account of the UK's derogation from the previous Euro-standards, then see if they can't be challenged. From what I read this was nothing to do with the EU, it was somewhere in the marble halls of UK railway governance.

 

[InTheEastMids]

It seems to me that a major factor killing the economics of 25kv electrification is the cost of civils to ensure sufficient clearance.

Then why not revive the practice of half a century ago of a lower voltage - say 6.25 kv - in some areas?

Trains being delivered now are already AC, DC or diesel capable so another voltage should not be a problem.

I think it's worth considering what a game-changer batteries are going to be. This is all beermat stuff, an order-of-magnitude estimate about energy and power, not a detailed feasibility study.

e.g. What if we junked an engine from a 5-car 222 and replaced it with batteries that can provide power to the entire train?

1. A 750kW QSK19 engine is about 2 tonnes wet (according to Cummins), add some ancillaries, a few '00 kg of diesel etc, and let's just estimate the entire weight as 3 tonnes.
2. Tesla are talking about 130 Wh/kg for the complete battery packs on the new models coming through
3. So a 3 tonne pack with similar characteristics to Tesla would give our battery 222 carriage about 390 kWh of electrical energy storage
4. 390 is not that far from half of 750, so this battery pack would fully power a single carriage for 30 mins
5. Or making one of these carriages part of an otherwise conventional 5 car EMU might get you 30/5 = 6 minutes at full power

The basic point is this: Anytime you find something that looks a bit hard to wire, you "just" stick in a neutral section, with the train reverting to battery power, and the above suggests these neutral sections could be several km in length.

Yes, a gross over-simplification I know, but it's surely got to be much cheaper to put a bit more weight in the train than the alternative of so many expensive legacy infrastructure projects?

 

[A0]

York to Leeds (Colton Junction to Neville Hill I think it is) and perhaps the Hambleton Curve would seem to be a decent infill scheme (pending full completion of the trans-pennine wiring, whenever that maybe - my crystal ball cannot see that far ahead!).

It would give Virgin East Coast quite a bit of flexibility with current stock and maybe allow them to run more Leeds to Newcastle/Scotland services (Leeds to Aberdeen a few times per day would be nice).

It would also allow TPE to make better 'electrified' use of their bi-modes when they arrive. I think it may assist some Northern services as well or allow new journey possibilities on electric or 'flex' stock.

Alan

Surely the question is whether VTEC actually WANT to run services from Leeds to Newcastle / Scotland? Currently XC provide a service there, is it actually a stated aim of VTEC to introduce a competing service between those points?

 

[The Planner]

Do you have any more details about this? Do you know whether there would be line speed increases at the same time?

Just a scheme to remove Crewe Steelworks and Beeston boxes, no line speed increases as it isnt a journey time scheme.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Just a scheme to remove Crewe Steelworks and Beeston boxes, no line speed increases as it isnt a journey time scheme.

Will they actually be removed or just taken out of use?

 

[The Planner]

Removed I expect, unless there is anything special about them.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Will they actually be removed or just taken out of use?

The signalling point is that Crewe-Beeston has a long signal section which prevents more frequent trains running and affects performance.
The electrification issue is the number of handsome but low stone bridges George Stephenson built (getting on for 30 I think), and the cost of raising them.
The DfT also has to want to run HS2 trains to Chester, as otherwise we're all staring at a 1966 solution at the moment (ie all change at Crewe).
The route itself is 90mph except round the curves at Beeston.
It could probably tick up to 100mph, but if NR can't do that on the Chat Moss route they are not going to bother on Crewe-Chester.