Southern region electrification proposals

[LE Greys]

The problem I would forsee with that section would be that you have a lot of smaller stations on double track, which would presumably make it very difficult to operate services faster than the current higher speeds on the classic Southern network along side the stoppers. Of the quadruple track sections approaching London from the South, I would have thought that the only section long enough with enough capacity for high speed running would be the Woking - Basingstoke section.

Basingstoke-Eastleigh ought to be four-track anyway, with the possible exception of Winchester station. The intermediate stations, Micheldever and Shawford, might pose problems, but there is a solution. The section through Shawford already has goods lines, so it is just a question of bringing them up to passenger running standards. Between Winchester and Worting Junction, put the fast lines on the outside. That also helps with the new tunnels, since they could both be single bore, they could be taken at 125 without the need to worry about the shockwave problem. However, it would mean crossing the down fast on the flat to access Micheldever Oil Terminal. Beyond Eastleigh, four tracks from St Denys through Southampton Airport Parkway to St Mary's Junction would be pushing it. It's possible, but difficult. Increasing speeds from there on would be difficult, not just because of the stations, but there are some difficult curves. Acceleration would be the key here, and 25kV should help with that.

 

[Hydro]

Basingstoke-Eastleigh ought to be four-track anyway, with the possible exception of Winchester station. The intermediate stations, Micheldever and Shawford, might pose problems, but there is a solution. The section through Shawford already has goods lines, so it is just a question of bringing them up to passenger running standards. Between Winchester and Worting Junction, put the fast lines on the outside. That also helps with the new tunnels, since they could both be single bore, they could be taken at 125 without the need to worry about the shockwave problem. However, it would mean crossing the down fast on the flat to access Micheldever Oil Terminal. Beyond Eastleigh, four tracks from St Denys through Southampton Airport Parkway to St Mary's Junction would be pushing it. It's possible, but difficult. Increasing speeds from there on would be difficult, not just because of the stations, but there are some difficult curves. Acceleration would be the key here, and 25kV should help with that.

After Shawford, there are four tracks all the way through to Eastleigh. It's an assymetrical layout, with the down slow starting way back at the M3 road bridge, and the down fast terminating Eastleigh side of Shawford station. They are not goods lines, they're bona fide slow lines and do carry passenger services - though they are mainly used to put the freight out of the way.

If you are talking about four tracking all the way to Worting, the main obstacles are Winchester (you won't four track through the station at all. There is just no room either side*), and the high banks north of Mich towards Oakley, south of Worting Junction. Micheldever oil terminal is long defunct, the space there could easily accommodate four roads, with room for sidings still available plus another bore for Popham 1 and 2 tunnels. There's so much room at Micheldever that I reckon you could four track it and still have the oil terminal accessible and useful if ever needed again). In fact, the original alignment through Micheldever ran closer to the left cutting wall (facing London) into the Popham tunnels. I believe the track was slued right across (leading to the island platform arrangement) to ease the curves.

You won't get four tracks from Eastleigh to St. Denys, that is practically a given due to the close proximity of roads (especially Thomas Lewis Way), houses and a great big water treatment plant right against the railway.

*The only remotely feasible way would be to knock down the station building on the right hand side (facing London), demolish platform 2, scrap the Baltic sidings and relay with a new mainline track extending north and south (roughly over the top of the old signal box, and sacrificing the Off Track department) and have a new station and platform two built across the road outside. That would only really make room for three tracks. Anything else would need work on the Platform 1 side, and that means sacrificing the car park. That certainly ain't gonna happen, that car park is too small as it is for the amount of people using it.

 

[yorksrob]

Basingstoke-Eastleigh ought to be four-track anyway, with the possible exception of Winchester station. The intermediate stations, Micheldever and Shawford, might pose problems, but there is a solution. The section through Shawford already has goods lines, so it is just a question of bringing them up to passenger running standards. Between Winchester and Worting Junction, put the fast lines on the outside. That also helps with the new tunnels, since they could both be single bore, they could be taken at 125 without the need to worry about the shockwave problem. However, it would mean crossing the down fast on the flat to access Micheldever Oil Terminal. Beyond Eastleigh, four tracks from St Denys through Southampton Airport Parkway to St Mary's Junction would be pushing it. It's possible, but difficult. Increasing speeds from there on would be difficult, not just because of the stations, but there are some difficult curves. Acceleration would be the key here, and 25kV should help with that.

I must admit, I tend to regard additional tracking as more expensive, but a better use of funds than re-electrifying due to the greater capacity produced.

 

[SWTCommuter]

Would upgrading the SWML to 125mph / 25KV reduce journey times enough to be of any real benefit? IIRC, the 4-REPS (top speed 90mph) used to cover Waterloo to Southampton in 67 mins non-stop, or 1hr 22 mins for a semi-fast with a similar stopping pattern to the current 'fast' services. The superior performance of later stock has been used to pad the timetable to improve reliability rather than speed up journey times.

To relieve pressure on the line between Southampton and Basingstoke, I would like to see the reopening of the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton line so the freight and Cross-Country traffic could go that way. Sadly, it's probably not possible any more.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The REP / TC rakes could do better than that; I had a sub-hour up journey once.

 

[Hydro]

Ah, but the REP's made the lights in Basingstoke go dim when they went through!


(Aside: I have heard of a 33 pulling a REP set for some reason. Such was the beauty of the Southerns multi system, the Crompton and the REP worked in multi on diesel and juice respectively. Sh*t off a shovel springs to mind.)

 

[stanley T]

MML needs to include Bristol - Birmingham as well as Derby - Birmingham and the Cardiff line through Chepstow - then if Swindon to Stroud is done that would give an electrified diversionary route for the WCML when there is a problem or maintenance in the Severn tunnel. Then the whole core network is electric, just the South West is not (tilting diesels would give London- Penzance in 4hrs).

can't see it for at least a decade, as the re-engined 125s are fine and unfortunately those grotty Voyagers are still quite new. They are cheeseparing about Cardiff-Swansea, for goodness sake.

And no way will SR go to overhead, just need to do the Reading- Redhill line on 3rd rail (and Uckfield).

 

[Minstral25]

And no way will SR go to overhead, just need to do the Reading- Redhill line on 3rd rail (and Uckfield).

Why is their such a clamour for Redhill - Reading to be electrified? It's a lightly used branch line with one or two trains an hour, that actually are rarely full. The current Thames Turbo's are fine

As a Branch it can't even pick up channel tunnel freights as they would have to reverse at Redhill unless you build an expensive chord which would block the main line as freights cross it causing issues with the main services at Redhill.

Uckfield is more crowded and because the trains go through to London Bridge it makes sense to electrify.

 

[cle]

Aren't they considering a big flyover at Redhill for this purpose?

Third rail would be good because you could extend Reigate Southern terminators, and provide direct London services to places along the North Downs line, including Dorking Deepdene - it would be about the same journey time as the Waterloo - Dorking service. And open Dorking etc.. up to East Croydon and potentially London Bridge.

It would also make journeys much quicker, especially the stoppers.

 

[LE Greys]

It would also give an opportunity to transfer services to Southern (not SWT). This would allow a couple of extra DMUs to redeploy and get closer to 100% electric coverage in the former SR. It's pointless for FGW to retain a few DMUs to operate odd services like this when most of their London commuter services go over to EMU operation. The same is true for Southern, who could eliminate their DMU servicing facilities when this and the other diesel lines were electrified.

Plus it would kick the Great Western interlopers out of clearly Southern territory.

 

[tbtc]

Why is their such a clamour for Redhill - Reading to be electrified? It's a lightly used branch line with one or two trains an hour, that actually are rarely full. The current Thames Turbo's are fine

I agree that Uckfield is more of a priority, but the line from Reading to Redhill/ Gatwick is...

• Electrified at both ends
• Electrified in the middle
• Electrification (post Thames Valley electrification) would encourage through trains line Oxford - Reading - Gatwick - Brighton - the kind of link which XC don't run any more
• Electrification would mean the service could be run by SWT, who it would sit better with

 

[yorksrob]

I agree that Uckfield is more of a priority, but the line from Reading to Redhill/ Gatwick is...

• Electrified at both ends
• Electrified in the middle
• Electrification (post Thames Valley electrification) would encourage through trains line Oxford - Reading - Gatwick - Brighton - the kind of link which XC don't run any more
• Electrification would mean the service could be run by SWT, who it would sit better with

Indeed. I'd say that filling in the three main gaps on the Southern, including Redhill - Reading, Uckfield (ideally including re-opened connections) and the Marshlink are long overdue.

 

[OxtedL]

Indeed. I'd say that filling in the three main gaps on the Southern, including Redhill - Reading, Uckfield (ideally including re-opened connections) and the Marshlink are long overdue.

I didn't even need to make an appearance on the thread this time...

 

[tbtc]

Indeed. I'd say that filling in the three main gaps on the Southern, including Redhill - Reading, Uckfield (ideally including re-opened connections) and the Marshlink are long overdue.

I've done the maths (in terms of "miles of track you'd need to electrify for each DMU you'd 'save"") and the Reading - Redhill line has a very good case.

I'd love to be one of those posters who demands the best for his local line, but it makes more sense to "fill in the gaps" (as you say) than it does to electrify local lines in Sheffield - it'd be spending more money on the London area, but I'm all in favour

 

[Minstral25]

Miles per DMU saved might be good but the Redhill-Reading remains lightly used by passengers and no goods trains at all between Guildford and Redhill.

If they do build the flyover at Redhill for the channel tunnel then it becomes worthwhile but that would also mean sorting out many of the level crossings on the line as they would then be down too long. For example the Reigate one closes twice an hour currently but when it does at the rush hour it means jams right back to the M25 junction almost 2 miles away.

Simple electrification would also mean that the Reigate crossing would have to be replaced as extending the Reigate trains to Guildford to replace the slow services would create massive local traffic issues in peaks with the extra downtime of the crossing.

Maybe I'm a bit fast totally dismissing it but I can see lots of local improvements first before spending money on this (Like adapting Reigate station so longer trains can be used and putting two platforms on the southbound side of Redhill station and a flyover at Merstham and Earlswood so fast line trains can call at Redhill and electrifying the Uckfield branch to name a few)

 

[yorksrob]

I've done the maths (in terms of "miles of track you'd need to electrify for each DMU you'd 'save"") and the Reading - Redhill line has a very good case.

I'd love to be one of those posters who demands the best for his local line, but it makes more sense to "fill in the gaps" (as you say) than it does to electrify local lines in Sheffield - it'd be spending more money on the London area, but I'm all in favour

Yes, I'd agree with that to a large extent. I think with the Southern since you only have the three diesel islands you might as well get them all done (and Marshlink seems to me to have a particularly strong case since it is now operated as part of the Coastway).

As for electrification in the North, I'd say that it needs to be building up a network. For example, Harrogate seems to make sense to me as you already have the makings of an electric network around Leeds including Airedale and Wharfedale. With Sheffield, that would come with electrification of some of the mainlines (and as Northern have shown, there are improvements that can be made to such routes in the meantime).

 

[tbtc]

Miles per DMU saved might be good but the Redhill-Reading remains lightly used by passengers and no goods trains at all between Guildford and Redhill

Regardless of how well used those 165/166s are, they are badly needed as part of the Pacer replacement programme (a three car Clubman having more than double the seats of most Pacers)

IIRC there are eight DMUs needed to run the service (assuming all single-car workings?), which would be a help elsewhere

I can see lots of local improvements first before spending money on this (Like adapting Reigate station so longer trains can be used

Longer DMUs? We need to take DMUs *from* this neck of the woods (by electrifying these lines, which is simpler than trying to electrify enough lines in "the north" to free up eight DMUs)

 

[Bald Rick]

I've done the maths (in terms of "miles of track you'd need to electrify for each DMU you'd 'save"") and the Reading - Redhill line has a very good case.

Does the maths include the miles of steel-sleepered track between Ash and Wokingham (at least) that has to be dug up and relaid?

 

[yorksrob]

Does the maths include the miles of steel-sleepered track between Ash and Wokingham (at least) that has to be dug up and relaid?

Seems a bit of questionable planning to lay steel sleepers slap bang in the middle of third rail land !

 

[OxtedL]

I think when they replaced some track recently on the North Downs they used third rail sleepers. Probably because they were lying around. Pun coincidental.

 

[yorksrob]

I think when they replaced some track recently on the North Downs they used third rail sleepers. Probably because they were lying around. Pun coincidental.

Pun appreciated

 

[Bald Rick]

Seems a bit of questionable planning to lay steel sleepers slap bang in the middle of third rail land !

Put it this way. It's 2004. You're a track engineer*. You have track all over your patch that needs replacing, and a limited budget to do it with for the next 5 years. On lightly used routes new steel sleepered track costs half as much as new concrete sleepered track. There is no realistic prospect of new third rail electrification on the diesel routes in third rail territory anytime in the forseeable future. Do you -

a) do renewal in concrete to allow for future electrification, in the certain knowledge that this will cause a reduction in the track mileage renewed in the budget period and in all likelihood cause long term speed restrictions to be imposed somewhere on your patch, with the usual repercussions

b) do renewal in steel and avoid speed restrictions

As it turns out the decision, so far, was right - the steel sleepered track is now 25% through it's life, with no realistic prospect of electrification for at least the next 25%.

* I'm not a track engineer.

 

[yorksrob]

Put it this way. It's 2004. You're a track engineer*. You have track all over your patch that needs replacing, and a limited budget to do it with for the next 5 years. On lightly used routes new steel sleepered track costs half as much as new concrete sleepered track. There is no realistic prospect of new third rail electrification on the diesel routes in third rail territory anytime in the forseeable future. Do you -

a) do renewal in concrete to allow for future electrification, in the certain knowledge that this will cause a reduction in the track mileage renewed in the budget period and in all likelihood cause long term speed restrictions to be imposed somewhere on your patch, with the usual repercussions

b) do renewal in steel and avoid speed restrictions

As it turns out the decision, so far, was right - the steel sleepered track is now 25% through it's life, with no realistic prospect of electrification for at least the next 25%.

* I'm not a track engineer.

Hmm Maybe. It's still seems quite a gamble that no one will decide to electrify in the next twenty four years. Bearing in mind the rate at which non electrified route in the area has receeded at various times in the past.

 

[Bald Rick]

Looking at it from 7 years ago, I think it would have been a gamble to put concrete in, i.e spend considerably more money then on the off chance you might avoid spending more money at an indeterminate point in the future.

Totally agree that were you to take the decision now the outcome would probably be different, but 7 years ago there was no electrification strategy, or even a hint of one.

 

[Minstral25]

Regardless of how well used those 165/166s are, they are badly needed as part of the Pacer replacement programme (a three car Clubman having more than double the seats of most Pacers)

IIRC there are eight DMUs needed to run the service (assuming all single-car workings?), which would be a help elsewhere



Longer DMUs? We need to take DMUs *from* this neck of the woods (by electrifying these lines, which is simpler than trying to electrify enough lines in "the north" to free up eight DMUs)

Where would the electric stock come from as there is already a shortfall of units on Southern.

The extension of Reigate station would be for the EMU's from London Bridge. The maximum electric unit that can get to Reigate currently is 4-car due to Network Rail power restrictions. It would be very helpful if the London Bridge - Reigate service in the rush hour could be either 8-car or 12-car due to current significant overcrowding to Redhill/Reigate. Additionally the hourly daytime service could do with some extension as well to at least 6 car.

West of Reigate - 2/3 coach DMU's are more than fine - rarely standing in my experience but I'm not a regular user.

 

[LE Greys]

Where would the electric stock come from as there is already a shortfall of units on Southern.

The extension of Reigate station would be for the EMU's from London Bridge. The maximum electric unit that can get to Reigate currently is 4-car due to Network Rail power restrictions. It would be very helpful if the London Bridge - Reigate service in the rush hour could be either 8-car or 12-car due to current significant overcrowding to Redhill/Reigate. Additionally the hourly daytime service could do with some extension as well to at least 6 car.

West of Reigate - 2/3 coach DMU's are more than fine - rarely standing in my experience but I'm not a regular user.

New stock, as part of the order to replace the 171s, which would be modified back to being standard 170s and sent to whatever franchise puts in the best bid for them. Probably means about 20 more 377s, if there is still the facility to build them. The alternative is to take over the 458s and allow SWT to replace them with 450s. The 171s would be superfluous once Marshlink and the Uckfield Line are done, which would be at the same time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Odd how this thread has gone from someone advocating pulling up the 3rd rail to me advocating laying a lot more down.

 

[cle]

What is the issue with Reigate station please? Is it due to being the end of third rail or something?

Are the platforms longer than 4 cars? Is it planned for Thameslink 2016, with 3rd rail updgrades? Would be a good option as fairly close to London for a turnaround.

 

[Minstral25]

Reigate is the current terminus of the third rail along the North Downs line. The platform can take 8-car trains (I was told at a Southern "Meet the Manager" session) but cannot take electric trains longer than 4 coaches due to "Network Rail" refusing to upgrade the power supply

Currently there is an hourly service to London Bridge in the off-peak calling all stations to Purley, East Croydon and Norwood Jnct. It ought to call at New Cross Gate too. This service is often standing by Coulsdon/Purley even off peak.

In the rush hour there are a few four coach trains which join with Horsham or Tonbridge trains at Redhill, these are always standing from Reigate. Many Reigate commuters also drive to Redhill as the service to Reigate is not really regular enough.

There are no plans to extend Thameslink to Reigate or for the third rail to be upgraded, It would be great if they built a 12-coach terminating platform (there is space alongside Homebase) and added us to the Thameslink program.

Hope that answers your question "Cle"

My point originally was that there are more things that could be done in the Redhill area before extending the electrification along the North Downs line which beyond Reigate is lightly used but useful link.

However if Thameslink was extended to Guildford via Reigate that might actually be a good idea and worth electrifying the link.

 

[cle]

Thanks - answers it very well. It seems like such a small thing to do and surely not that expensive- surely having longer, more frequent trains would be worthwhile, a good first step to doing the North Downs line, and would help relieve Redhill and services which stop there.

 

[stanley T]

If Marshlink were electrified, would 395's from St Pancras via Ashford be quicker to Hastings than via Tunbridge Wells? It certainly takes forever to get to Hastings now.