Speculation -sequence and teams for TDNS electrification program

[Bald Rick]

Wow- there is me being naïve - I honestly thought it was pretty close to being truly shovel ready.

Others might confirm, but I don’t think the design for Bristol is done.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Others might confirm, but I don’t think the design for Bristol is done.

Various states of unreadiness would be the polite description, I think.

 

[Mikey C]

Chiltern might not be shovel ready, but the work has to be done "somewhere" in the country to create shovel ready projects!

 

[Bald Rick]

Chiltern might not be shovel ready, but the work has to be done "somewhere" in the country to create shovel ready projects!

There’s plenty of pencil ready projects. The unfinished bits of GWEP. The MML. Trans Pennine. That’s plenty to be going on with now. Then when the first of these is shovel ready, start on the next priorities.

In my opinion that should be the Felixstowe and Gateway branches, Acton - Acton Wells - Harlesden / Hendon, Nuneaton to Birmingham, Derby to Birmingham, Westerleigh to Bromsgrove and Oxford to Nuneaton.

Other opinions are available.

 

[YorksLad12]

https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2020/0...lectrified-589-million-funding-announced.html I will try and find other links to announcement etc, but this looks like fully funded and 4 tracking Huddersfield to Leeds

Did you find any? I thought it was four-tracking only between Huddersfield and Ravensthorpe. Huddersfield to Marsden should be done as well; if they're going to rebuild Ravensthorpe and make the island at Mirfield accessible then they could do something abut Marsden at the same time. But last I saw no plans, even though that was four-tracked previously..

 

[Energy]

How 'shovel ready' is the electric spine project which got later cancelled?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

How 'shovel ready' is the electric spine project which got later cancelled?

Not very shovel ready at all I am afraid.

 

[Bald Rick]

How 'shovel ready' is the electric spine project which got later cancelled?

Not even crayon ready.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Other opinions are available.

But will be wrong.

I was going to suggest the exact same assortment of things, particularly Felixstowe and Thames Gateway (maybe I have somewhere, I forget) and the usual 'finish the job' stuff around London, but didn't want the chorus of 'why not ... line'.

Oh, and for pure comedy value as much as sensible rationale, I'll suggest Blackpool South actually. That branch annoys me given they're now terminating services at Preston.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Not even crayon ready.

Where is that like button?

 

[Dspatula]

Oh, and for pure comedy value as much as sensible rationale, I'll suggest Blackpool South actually. That branch annoys me given they're now terminating services at Preston.

Colne, Ormskirk and Blackpool south are all still inter-worked in terms of the actual units even if they do officially terminate.

CLC is always a popular pick and would nice to have but; needs re-signalling, would need to work around the DC at Hunts Cross, needs access to Trafford Park sorting, needs the Warrington Central area sorting so the platforms can be extended, needs the local authorities to decided what they actually want the line to be and the government/network rail to agree, and probably more things I've not thought of. You can most likely repeat this for any line that seems reasonably simple a first glance.

 

[Roast Veg]

There’s plenty of pencil ready projects. The unfinished bits of GWEP. The MML. Trans Pennine. That’s plenty to be going on with now. Then when the first of these is shovel ready, start on the next priorities.

In my opinion that should be the Felixstowe and Gateway branches, Acton - Acton Wells - Harlesden / Hendon, Nuneaton to Birmingham, Derby to Birmingham, Westerleigh to Bromsgrove and Oxford to Nuneaton.

Other opinions are available.

You seem to be under the impression that XC is due to get bimodes in the medium term which makes sense given the amount of under-wires running they do already. Is there any particular reason why something like Sheffield to Doncaster or the Hope Valley isn't on your list?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

You seem to be under the impression that XC is due to get bimodes in the medium term which makes sense given the amount of under-wires running they do already. Is there any particular reason why something like Sheffield to Doncaster or the Hope Valley isn't on your list?

You should work on the assumption the MML team won't stop at Sheffield, that they'll go to Doncaster and the TransPennine team will do Manchester to Sheffield (or vice versa) depending on the progress etc.

 

[Bald Rick]

You seem to be under the impression that XC is due to get bimodes in the medium term which makes sense given the amount of under-wires running they do already. Is there any particular reason why something like Sheffield to Doncaster or the Hope Valley isn't on your list?

Appreciate I wasn’t specific, but for me the MML extends to Donny / South Kirby Jn.

Hope Valley - it’s a long way for, essentially, freight.

 

[A0]

I get that you want the Chiltern route electrified as quickly as possible, but choosing to complete schemes that are considerably more advanced first will not delay any proposed scheme to electrify the Chiltern route.

The Chiltern route will need an extremely large amount of design work with structures through London, Birmingham and an AONB to clear. The project will also have a number of interfaces with some existing/newly completed electrification, with further future electrification projects, and with the electrical supply for HS2, which will also have to be handled at the development and design stages. There's also the signalling issues that have previously been discussed to be addressed and a suitable rolling stock strategy to develop in collaboration with LUL.

It's a very long way off from being brought to the 'shovel ready' stage.

Surely with Chiltern there are actually two different lines - Marylebone (and in future Old Oak Common) to High Wycombe / Banbury is presumably more straightforward as it doesn't 'interact' with London Underground and could - in theory at least - be electrified at 25kv and use standard EMUs ? (Yes, I know there may be bridges and other structures which would need addressing, but that applies to any route which is being wired).

The problem one presumably is the Aylesbury line because of the shared running with LUL from Harrow on the Hill to Aylesbury ? And I'm guessing it would need one of the following - LUL to agree to 25kv electrification on their infrastructure (I'm going to assume highly unlikely), LUL to upgrade the power supply to allow Chiltern to run dual voltage EMUs which use LUL DC for power from Amersham to Harrow (expect a big bill from TFL) or some way of segregating the Chiltern lines between Harrow and Amersham (will cost a huge sum and be very difficult).

What *might* cause the Chiltern line some problems in the medium term would be some madcap decision by the Mayor of London about banning or limiting diesel trains on emissions grounds or the alike. Though at least then NR / Chiltern would reasonably be able to turn to the Mayor and TFL and suggest they put their hands in their pockets in order to fund such improvements.......

Oh, and for pure comedy value as much as sensible rationale, I'll suggest Blackpool South actually. That branch annoys me given they're now terminating services at Preston.

But surely the first option with Blackpool South is to offer it to the council to extend the tramway out to Kirkham & Wesham...... (runs and hides).

 

[CyrusWuff]

LUL to upgrade the power supply to allow Chiltern to run dual voltage EMUs which use LUL DC for power from Amersham to Harrow (expect a big bill from TFL) or some way of segregating the Chiltern lines between Harrow and Amersham (will cost a huge sum and be very difficult).

As a point of order, London Underground have already upgraded the power supply on most of the "Sub-Surface Railway" from 630V to 750V (nominal) DC as part of the S Stock rollout, though it's still true fourth rail rather than the bonded arrangement on the shared sections of the Bakerloo and District Lines.

 

[A0]

As a point of order, London Underground have already upgraded the power supply on most of the "Sub-Surface Railway" from 630V to 750V (nominal) DC as part of the S Stock rollout, though it's still true fourth rail rather than the bonded arrangement on the shared sections of the Bakerloo and District Lines.

I wasn't thinking the voltage so much as capacity - I don't know how much headroom LUL have on their network or whether it would be capable of handling the draw of another 2/3 tph each way without further enhancement.

 

[quantinghome]

... or some way of segregating the Chiltern lines between Harrow and Amersham (will cost a huge sum and be very difficult).

How about simplifying the Met service so all trains go to Watford. Chiltern then takes over the entire service from Rickmansworth to Amersham. Or does this create capacity problems for Chiltern at Marylebone?

 

[Meerkat]

The western bits dropped from GWEP are closest, but I wouldn’t call them shovel ready as far as I’m aware. Bristol has to wait for remodelling next year anyway.

Surely you could start Filton leaving the Bristol to the end? The current track layout north of Bristol East is surely fixed for a long time unless there is no passive provision for new stations?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Sep 2020 ==

I wasn't thinking the voltage so much as capacity - I don't know how much headroom LUL have on their network or whether it would be capable of handling the draw of another 2/3 tph each way without further enhancement.

Cost shouldn’t be an issue - must be cheaper to beef up the LU power on the line than all the electrical infrastructure you would have to budget for if it was a whole new electrification?!

 

[A0]

Cost shouldn’t be an issue - must be cheaper to beef up the LU power on the line than all the electrical infrastructure you would have to budget for if it was a whole new electrification?!

Given the standard of TFL's project and budget management I wouldn't bet on that.

How about simplifying the Met service so all trains go to Watford. Chiltern then takes over the entire service from Rickmansworth to Amersham. Or does this create capacity problems for Chiltern at Marylebone?

I suspect capacity might be a problem - you've also got Chesham to consider......

You've basically got to handle 4tph which is what LUL are doing to Moor Park (2tph Amersham, 2tph Chesham) plus any peak hours workings as well.

 

[Bald Rick]

Surely with Chiltern there are actually two different lines - Marylebone (and in future Old Oak Common) to High Wycombe / Banbury is presumably more straightforward as it doesn't 'interact' with London Underground and could - in theory at least - be electrified at 25kv and use standard EMUs ? (Yes, I know there may be bridges and other structures which would need addressing, but that applies to any route which is being wired).

The problem one presumably is the Aylesbury line because of the shared running with LUL from Harrow on the Hill to Aylesbury ? And I'm guessing it would need one of the following - LUL to agree to 25kv electrification on their infrastructure (I'm going to assume highly unlikely), LUL to upgrade the power supply to allow Chiltern to run dual voltage EMUs which use LUL DC for power from Amersham to Harrow (expect a big bill from TFL) or some way of segregating the Chiltern lines between Harrow and Amersham (will cost a huge sum and be very difficult).

What *might* cause the Chiltern line some problems in the medium term would be some madcap decision by the Mayor of London about banning or limiting diesel trains on emissions grounds or the alike. Though at least then NR / Chiltern would reasonably be able to turn to the Mayor and TFL and suggest they put their hands in their pockets in order to fund such improvements.......
).

Putting OLE on LUL 4th Rail would actually be rather simpler than putting it over 3rd rail, at least technically.

Another option is battery hybrids, ie a small ish traction battery to cover the 14 miles from Harrow to Amersham, with wires on the rest. In fact that might help for the whole Chiltern fleet, to get round any potential issues in St Johns Wood tunnel or Snow Hill Tunnel Etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Sep 2020 ==

Surely you could start Filton leaving the Bristol to the end? The current track layout north of Bristol East is surely fixed for a long time unless there is no passive provision for new stations?

It’s only 5 miles!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

But surely the first option with Blackpool South is to offer it to the council to extend the tramway out to Kirkham & Wesham...... (runs and hides).

I would not do tram all the way to K&W but for a business case it would have to at least be considered.

 

[A0]

Putting OLE on LUL 4th Rail would actually be rather simpler than putting it over 3rd rail, at least technically.

Another option is battery hybrids, ie a small ish traction battery to cover the 14 miles from Harrow to Amersham, with wires on the rest. In fact that might help for the whole Chiltern fleet, to get round any potential issues in St Johns Wood tunnel or Snow Hill Tunnel Etc.

You'll have people accusing you of voodoo for suggesting battery units...... for those same people nothing short of full 125mph capable 25kv overhead will suffice though.

On the OHLE over 4th rail - is there something specific which makes it easier than against the NR 3rd rail ?

My thought was LUL probably wouldn't be too accommodating of the physical installation on their network.

I would not do tram all the way to K&W but for a business case it would have to at least be considered.

Thing is though, if you were to turn the Blackpool South line over to the tram it would have to run to Kirkham & Wesham.

I have to say I wasn't being entirely serious when I suggested it - but it would free up a path or two between Kirkham and Preston and could allow places like Lytham to get a better service which might actually get to the centre of Blackpool, without the never ending nonsense suggestion on here about reinstating Blackpool Central which is simply never going to happen - on the grounds it would probably be possible to find a way to link it onto the existing tramway either around Starr Gate or Pleasure Beach.

 

[Bald Rick]

On the OHLE over 4th rail - is there something specific which makes it easier than against the NR 3rd rail ?

Yep return currents.

For 4th Rail it’s all bonded in the traction rails. Therefore the AC return can go via the running rails and be earthed.

For 3rd Rail both return currents are through the running rails, and the D.C. returns can’t be earthed.

It’s why shared areas of AC / D.C. where there are high D.C. flows are so problematic.

 

[stuu]

The western bits dropped from GWEP are closest, but I wouldn’t call them shovel ready as far as I’m aware. Bristol has to wait for remodelling next year anyway.

Isn't that due to be done next Easter? There seems to be zero chance of anyone using a shovel in anger much before then!

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn't that due to be done next Easter? There seems to be zero chance of anyone using a shovel in anger much before then!

Summer IIRC.

 

[Meerkat]

Isn't that due to be done next Easter? There seems to be zero chance of anyone using a shovel in anger much before then!

So you could safely green light Filton electrification as it isn’t going to get to Bristol East before the junction is done. The only variable is what passive stuff for new stations you put in.

 

[Bald Rick]

So you could safely green light Filton electrification as it isn’t going to get to Bristol East before the junction is done. The only variable is what passive stuff for new stations you put in.

How can you ‘green light’ it if you don’t know a) what you are green lighting and b) how much it is going to cost?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

How can you ‘green light’ it if you don’t know a) wha thou are green lighting and b) how much it is going Tom cost?

It's fine, we don't really need to know what wire runs are needed, where we'll anchor them and tension them, what the crosses and switchovers will be, what the isolation arrangements will be and what the signal sighting requirements will be.

Green light away.

We're obviously doing this building a railway lark all wrong, thank the Lord some random on a forum has come along and told us the error of our ways.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's fine, we don't really need to know what wire runs are needed, where we'll anchor them and tension them, what the crosses and switchovers will be, what the isolation arrangements will be and what the signal sighting requirements will be.

What, haven’t you worked all this out on your lunch break, for free?