Unqualified enthusiam for electrification?

[PaxVobiscum]

Fair point. I don't understand the angst about rolling stock myself. Electrification is a benefit and improvement no matter what EMU's come with it.

Following on from the statement above - which is quoted out of its original context (which was as post #20 in this thread) - does anyone have any concerns about possible disadvantages of electrification?

Leaving aside the point about rolling stock for now, I was musing on the wider picture. The case for is self evident, but is the visual impact of the OHLE never a consideration in any circumstances? And what actually happens to reliability when a line is electrified - an easy assumption is that 'there is something else to go wrong' - but is that in fact the case, I wonder? Has there been any analysis on that?

 

[NSEFAN]

I recall reading on here that new electrification schemes were not favoured by Railtrack, as it would indeed be one more thing to go wrong and cost them in delay minutes. Good old market forces hard at work.

 

[edwin_m]

There are some concerns about visual impact, hence the competition for more attractive OLE designs that ran a few months ago. Also particular care is being paid to sensitive sections like Sydney Gardens in Bath.

Reliability ought to be no worse than a diesel service if the equipment is engineered properly, but unfortunately (with hindsight) costs were cut too far on some schemes in the 80s and 90s.

 

[gordonthemoron]

there are some pretty good OHLE on the eastern approach to Liege

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I recall reading on here that new electrification schemes were not favoured by Railtrack, as it would indeed be one more thing to go wrong and cost them in delay minutes. Good old market forces hard at work.

That was actually a quote by John (now Sir John) Armitt, who ran the early Network Rail.
I can't think of an alternative to electrification for main line railway operation in use anywhere else in the world.
Maglev would be even more intrusive on the landscape.
However there are certainly downsides for places just beyond the electrified route which lose through services.

 

[broadgage]

My main concern is the reduced reliability.
Diesel trains can and do fail, often at more frequent intervals than electric traction, but a failed diesel train can usually be hauled or propelled out of the way and services resumed relatively quickly.

When the overhead wires come down or are damaged by wind blown debris, or the equipment is flooded etc then major routes can be closed for a day or more.

Extreme weather seems to be increasing, with for example "once a century" floods being repeated several times in a decade.
Electric traction is inherently very vulnerable to high winds and flooding, and somewhat vulnerable to other extreme weather.

 

[starrymarkb]

There were some enthusiasts moaning on Flickr about the wires spoiling their shots and the loss of thrash and clag therefore the whole scheme should be scrapped.


For Extreme OHLE look at some of the Swiss Lines up at around 7-8000 feet!

 

[jopsuk]

with regards photers, they can be disregarded- the railway is not run for them and they need to get a sense of perspective

 

[edwin_m]

with regards photers, they can be disregarded- the railway is not run for them and they need to get a sense of perspective

Along with framing the question, maintaining focus and being aware of the depth of the field.

 

[ainsworth74]

I recall reading on here that new electrification schemes were not favoured by Railtrack, as it would indeed be one more thing to go wrong and cost them in delay minutes. Good old market forces hard at work.

Actually wasn't that GNER who were in favour of ripping the wires down and going fully diesel on the ECML? Also there was the DfT who were themselves basically anti-electrification for a not inconsiderable chunk of the late 90s and early/mid 00s!

 

[47802]

The main problem is the way things come to grinding halt when the wires come down, there's a problem between Oxenholme and Penrith today, or even scheduled diversions, especially when there is no electrified diversionary route although electrification in the North West should help Virgin in this respect although obviously not north of Preston, and you would hope eventually all major routes are electrified, although of course a lot of the main routes should have been done years ago, we are least 20 years behind on this.

Should we also be in a rush to get rid of our Third Rail when much of the Network has no Electrification, yes there are pro's an cons to both but it does strike me on balance as been more robust.

 

[Taunton]

For me the main issue is the difficulty in running what are established through services beyond wherever the wires currently end, which leads to poor or divided services to places like Blackpool, or London to Scotland other than Glasgow/Edinburgh. Electrification is never done in a day (or a century, it seems). It's like needing to have a different family car whenever you need to go on a motorway.

It was a real shame that the extra pantograph cars were not provided for the Voyagers and similar, giving a nice set of all-purpose trains that ran equally well across the network, though I always doubted when they got to the end of the wires section just how many of their diesel engines would instantly fire up - something which the road transport industry cracked long ago but rail diesels still haven't solved. If we couldn't even afford those, whose extra seats would have been fully occupied from day 1, what chance more wide-ranging solutions?

 

[Oswyntail]

A lot of what has been written above comes down to "should we put all our eggs in one basket". I would suggest that part of every electrification scheme - indeed any scheme - should be to include rescue systems. This is not necessarily simply having a Thunderbird loafing around, but bi-mode or last-mile systems, flexible signalling, alternatives. These should be assessed as to what is suitable for each route.
My chief concern about the original question is guarantee of supply. We seem to be assuming that electricity is an unlimited resource, which, with the current national infrastructure it isn't (though the alternatives are even more vulnerable).

 

[brianthegiant]

reliability of supply (outage minutes/year) is in most places as low as its ever been. Reliability is dictated by 2 main factors - generation and transmission.

It's true we have inadequate generating capacity at present, this was due to lack of capacity payments in the post privatised market, but is addressed by new capacity payments introduced by the recent energy bill. Which will incentivise construction of more generating and storage capacity, potentially including things like http://quarrybatterycompany.com/

At QBC we find disused quarry systems for conversion into pumped storage batteries.

A pumped storage battery can store enormous amounts of energy, and release it very quickly. Two quarries are required, one at higher altitude than the other. When the Grid has spare electricity, the battery charges by pumping water to the upper quarry. At peak times the water is released through a hydro generator turbine. Peak electricity is more useful and hence more valuable than off-peak electricity.

UK energy strategy will increase the amount of electricity generated by Wind farms and Nuclear power stations, making it more difficult to balance supply and demand across the Grid. Nuclear power stations cannot be turned down at night, and Wind farms are not as predictable as standard power stations. Therefore grid-scale batteries are an essential part of an efficient and renewable UK energy supply.

Powered by electricity, pumped storage batteries produce no smoke and do not require fuel deliveries. Once the quarries have been made water tight and connected with a pipe, a properly maintained facility will work indefinitely.

On 2nd September 2013, Gywnedd Council granted us planning permission on our first site at Glyn Rhonwy, Llanberis, and are looking for partners to build and operate the facility.

On the transmission side reliability is maintained by redundant overhead transmission lines. For example the new substation by EMD for the MML will be next to Ratcliffe power station, ie a main node in the transmission network, so even if 1 line has a fault the supply continues uninterrupted. A similar approach is used for hospitals.

 

[edwin_m]

On the transmission side reliability is maintained by redundant overhead transmission lines. For example the new substation by EMD for the MML will be next to Ratcliffe power station, ie a main node in the transmission network, so even if 1 line has a fault the supply continues uninterrupted. A similar approach is used for hospitals.

As well as this, 25kV feeder stations themselves have redundancy. If one is out of service then the feed arrangements can be switched to maintain supply from other feeder stations.

 

[jopsuk]

Along with framing the question, maintaining focus and being aware of the depth of the field.

Round of applause for that!

 

[HSTEd]

The 'reliability' problems experienced on the ECML are drastically overstated.

I have yet to see serious evidence that it is significantly less reliable than the WCML or even the all-diesel GWML.
And then you consider the cost of the ECML project compared to the balooning cost of the current gold-plated wiring systems.

 

[sprinterguy]

Actually wasn't that GNER who were in favour of ripping the wires down and going fully diesel on the ECML?

I don’t think it was quite that drastic. There was certainly a preference stated for doing away with the wires north of Newcastle, based on how much use they actually see, in the early to mid 2000s, although I can’t recall who said it.

 

[Taunton]

And then you consider the cost of the ECML project compared to the balooning cost of the current gold-plated wiring systems.

Alas, although the designs are indeed gold-plated, if not over-gold-plated, the installation teams don't seem very adept at handling such precious components.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=106771

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don’t think it was quite that drastic. There was certainly a preference stated for doing away with the wires north of Newcastle, based on how much use they actually see, in the early to mid 2000s, although I can’t recall who said it.

I think it was an option the SRA contemplated before letting the ICEC franchise in 2005.
I don't think it had any particular traction, it was just an extreme option for evaluation.
At that time there was barely 1tph electric services north of Newcastle, with half the trains already dieselised by Voyagers, and no electric freight.
The same was true of the WCML north of Preston, although it kept some electric freight, also the sleepers and mail trains.
Electric frequencies have essentially doubled on both routes since, with more to come if the Voyagers can be displaced.

 

[47802]

The 'reliability' problems experienced on the ECML are drastically overstated.

I have yet to see serious evidence that it is significantly less reliable than the WCML or even the all-diesel GWML.
And then you consider the cost of the ECML project compared to the balooning cost of the current gold-plated wiring systems.

Hmm I would like to see some stats on that, having been stuck on a 91 set for 4 hours in the usual ECML area for wires down

 

[najaB]

Hmm I would like to see some stats on that, having been stuck on a 91 set for 4 hours in the usual ECML area for wires down

One occurrence isn't proof of a statistically significant trend.

 

[yorksrob]

In terms of aesthetics, I don't think there's any real problem with electrification when done sensitively (Royal Border Bridge for example). My main concern a is lack of diversionary capacity during problems or even routine maintenance. I think there's more chance of getting diverted rather than bustituted on an all diesel service.

 

[AM9]

In terms of aesthetics, I don't think there's any real problem with electrification when done sensitively (Royal Border Bridge for example). My main concern a is lack of diversionary capacity during problems or even routine maintenance. I think there's more chance of getting diverted rather than bustituted on an all diesel service.

It's rather stating the obvious that if not all lines are electrified the a diesel service has more chance of getting diverted. Whether that is an issue depends on the long- term frequencies of infrastructure failure or planned maintenance versus the relative probabilities of diesel stock failure versus electric stock plus power supply failure.
Once the older and cheaper but inadequate implementations of OHLE (e.g. Headspans, static tension catenary and some compound catenary designs) are expunged from the network, long- term reliability will make line closure less likely. Kinder pantographs like Brecknell-Willis types are usually fitted now, together with improved driver-warning systems to reduce the incidence of inadvertent pantograph raising.
The environmental pressure (both local and global) on diesel traction will only increase in time, so their use will only be allowed where there is an overwhelming case against electrification.
As far as any aesthetic issues of wiring are concerned, I would expect all but the most sensitive cases to be rejected so the NIMBYs will just have to get used to it.

 

[yorksrob]

It's rather stating the obvious that if not all lines are electrified the a diesel service has more chance of getting diverted. Whether that is an issue depends on the long- term frequencies of infrastructure failure or planned maintenance versus the relative probabilities of diesel stock failure versus electric stock plus power supply failure.
Once the older and cheaper but inadequate implementations of OHLE (e.g. Headspans, static tension catenary and some compound catenary designs) are expunged from the network, long- term reliability will make line closure less likely. Kinder pantographs like Brecknell-Willis types are usually fitted now, together with improved driver-warning systems to reduce the incidence of inadvertent pantograph raising.
The environmental pressure (both local and global) on diesel traction will only increase in time, so their use will only be allowed where there is an overwhelming case against electrification.
As far as any aesthetic issues of wiring are concerned, I would expect all but the most sensitive cases to be rejected so the NIMBYs will just have to get used to it.

Stating the obvious it may be, but we have an industry which in many cases seems to actively prefer bustitution even when the TOC concerned has diesel rolling stock available (Thinking Virgin and various closures North of Preston).

Perhaps greater use of single track working might cut down on bus usage.

 

[HSTEd]

These comments seem to make headspan railways look entirely unworkable.
They are very much workable and a handful of incidents on the ECMl will not change that.

Meanwhile the attempt to 'expunge' them from the network has appeared to have done serious damage to the prospects of a large scale electrification programme. (The GW electriciation project, rapidly turning into a mess on the scale of the WCRM).

 

[AM9]

These comments seem to make headspan railways look entirely unworkable.
They are very much workable and a handful of incidents on the ECMl will not change that.

Meanwhile the attempt to 'expunge' them from the network has appeared to have done serious damage to the prospects of a large scale electrification programme. (The GW electriciation project, rapidly turning into a mess on the scale of the WCRM).

The ECML isn't the only culprit. There have been several instances of the Thameslink end of the MML being brought to a standstill just by trees fouling the outer tracks, let alone the wholesale destruction of the knitting by errant pantograph action.
The WCML on the other hand has much more substantial OHLE infrastructure that seems to contain damage to just one line when it occurs.
Headspans are extensively used on the continent, particularly 15kV areas, but usually they are limited to station areas where speeds are limited. I think that their attraction in the UK is not only cost, but also the relatively low visibility that they have in open countryside. Just wait until the NIMBYs along the GWML start.

 

[HSTEd]

And the WCML OHLE infrastructure cost drastically more in real terms than the ECML infrastructure.

 

[O L Leigh]

There are other factors that can influence the likelihood of a diversion, such as traincrew route knowledge. Diversions that are not regularly used, even by ECS, must be maintained which means that they must be covered at least once every six months. If they are not driven over then the traincrew must be released in order to refresh the routes, and for that there are cost issues. For example, I do not yet sign all the routes between Derby and New Street so the chances of being diverted are restricted.

As for the amount of usage an electrified railway receives, the greater number of routes that are wired and the more "joined-up" they become, the greater the possible scope of electric services. While the wires north of Newcastle may not necessarily see a great deal of use at present, MML electrification would hopefully lead to in-fill wiring between Derby and New Street, and Sheffield and York and Doncaster. In-filling from New Street south-west towards Bristol to link up with the GWML electrification could see a reduction in the number of diesel worked XC services and a greater possibility for electrically hauled freight too. The problem we have at the moment is that we simply don't have enough routes wired to get the best use out of the existing electrification schemes, and that includes local and feeder routes into hubs that are currently wired such as Leeds and Newcastle.

O L Leigh

 

[thenorthern]

One thing with electrification that can annoy me is when lines are electrified but only diesel trains use them particularly on newer electrifications.

Examples include Newcraighall which is electrified but only ever used by Diesel, Hazel Grove is entirely electrified but only used by 1 electric train per day and Norton Bridge to Stone for a while was only used by CrossCountry Voyagers. These kind of lines are a waste of money that could be spent elsewhere.