Where would you electrify next?

[AlastairFraser]

That could well be the compelling case that would convince the ORR that additional 3rd rail was justified. But you would need to show that dual voltage and/or hybrid/battery stock weren't feasible alternatives.

Batteries may be sustainable, but remember it's still a developing technology,when third rail is already here and works well. I wouldn't propose extending third rail outside of Merseyrail/Southern/Southeastern/SWR because it is an outdated and relatively dangerous form of electrification,when there is a much safer but more expensive form of electrification allowing much higher speeds(OHLE). When battery technology becomes viable for multiple mid-distance trips (like on the ex-SR and some Merseyrail routes), then it's time to start discarding third rail technology but that's at least 20-30 years off.

 

[gingertom]

Stop / start electrification projects have been a disaster -- you lose expertise between projects, and that adds problems & cost to future electrifation schemes. So, spread over, say 40-50 years, I would pursue a Swiss style solution. Electrify almost everything, just omitting low-traffic rural routes. So it would be more a case of what not to electrify, and what had very low priority:

So, the following are examples of what would not be electrified:

Inverness - Thurso/Wick & Kyle.
Craigendoran - Fort William, Mallaig & Oban
Girvan - Stranraer.
Craven Arms - Central Wales - Llanelli
Hellifield - Carnforth
Battersby - Whitby
Par - Newquay

Low priority for electrification (for example):
Barrow - Whitehaven.
Grantham - Skegness
Norwich - Cromer / Sheringham.
Burscough - Preston
Looe & Falmouth branches.

The starting point for new schemes would be extending existing electrification areas and infilling gaps to eliminate most of the need for diesel working around big cities in England, Wales & Scotland.

its been suggested on here that a short extension of the OLE from Craigendoran to Helensburgh Upper would be advantageous by allowing bi-mode rolling stock to change mode at a more convenient location.

 

[daodao]

Stop / start electrification projects have been a disaster -- you lose expertise between projects, and that adds problems & cost to future electrifation schemes. So, spread over, say 40-50 years, I would pursue a Swiss style solution. Electrify almost everything, just omitting low-traffic rural routes. So it would be more a case of what not to electrify, and what had very low priority:

So, the following are examples of what would not be electrified:
....
Hellifield - Carnforth
....
The starting point for new schemes would be extending existing electrification areas and infilling gaps to eliminate most of the need for diesel working around big cities in England, Wales & Scotland.

I would electrify Skipton-Carnforth, build a chord avoiding Carnforth to join the route to the WCML going north and run a regular interval passenger electric service from Glasgow to Leeds and ideally Sheffield, and divert all remaining through freight trains from the West of Scotland to the West Riding via this route.

 

[najaB]

I would electrify Skipton-Carnforth, build a chord avoiding Carnforth to join the route to the WCML going north and run a regular interval passenger electric service from Glasgow to Leeds and ideally Sheffield, and divert all remaining through freight trains from the West of Scotland to the West Riding via this route.

I like the idea, though it will either be a very tight or very large radius curve at the Carnforth end due to the angle between the two lines and the proximity of the M6/A601M. I know reversals eat up time, but there could be something in reversing at Carnforth. It would be a lot easier to (re)instate a north to west chord off the WCML than a north to east one.

 

[Ken H]

I like the idea, though it will either be a very tight or very large radius curve at the Carnforth end due to the angle between the two lines and the proximity of the M6/A601M. I know reversals eat up time, but there could be something in reversing at Carnforth. It would be a lot easier to (re)instate a north to west chord off the WCML than a north to east one.

Seem to remember there used to be one
You can make out some sort of route in the google satellite view
The bridge is where the Leeds-Morecambe line crosses the WCML

 

[Ianno87]

I would electrify Skipton-Carnforth, build a chord avoiding Carnforth to join the route to the WCML going north and run a regular interval passenger electric service from Glasgow to Leeds and ideally Sheffield, and divert all remaining through freight trains from the West of Scotland to the West Riding via this route.

Can't quite follow the reasoning of taking freight and passenger services off a relatively uncongested route (the S&C) and putting it on a highly utilised one (the WCML over Shap)?

 

[najaB]

Can't quite follow the reasoning of taking freight and passenger services off a relatively uncongested route (the S&C) and putting it on a highly utilised one (the WCML over Shap)?

Mainly because the WCML is a lot faster than the S&C. It makes sense for passenger services, admittedly less so for freight.

 

[Bevan Price]

Mainly because the WCML is a lot faster than the S&C. It makes sense for passenger services, admittedly less so for freight.

It would be much better to upgrade the S&C to allow 90mph running for much of the route.

 

[Ken H]

It would be much better to upgrade the S&C to allow 90mph running for much of the route.

why is the s&c all 60mph? would 158's damage the track so much at 70 or 80? Its laid out for high speed running.

got a train from Settle to Keighley the other day. Dawdle to Skipton, then thrash to Keighley.

 

[najaB]

why is the s&c all 60mph? would 158's damage the track so much at 70 or 80? Its laid out for high speed running.

I could be wrong, but I believe that is part of the compromise that kept the line open in the 1980s. It was relaid "on the cheap" with a 60mph line speed limit, rather than more expensively to support higher speeds.

 

[Ken H]

I could be wrong, but I believe that is part of the compromise that kept the line open in the 1980s. It was relaid "on the cheap" with a 60mph line speed limit, rather than more expensively to support higher speeds.

CWR mostly steel sleepers. Iis the steel sleepers the problem?

 

[najaB]

CWR mostly steel sleepers. Iis the steel sleepers the problem?

I believe so, plus some of the structures would need additional strengthening work to raise the line speed.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I'd also do the Mid-Cheshire route as a diversion Manchester-Chester

Well my idea has been taken. I'd add double tracking the section between Deansgate Junction and Stockport, and the Middlewich reopening so you can have a diversionary route for Stockport - Crewe. Just make sure it's cleared for Pendolino's (Sandbach - Chester is cleared for Voyagers).

 

[Indigo Soup]

Stop / start electrification projects have been a disaster -- you lose expertise between projects, and that adds problems & cost to future electrifation schemes. So, spread over, say 40-50 years, I would pursue a Swiss style solution. Electrify almost everything, just omitting low-traffic rural routes

As a first pass, I'd be looking to electrify anything that gets more than about ten carriages per hour running over it (i.e. one five car train per hour per direction or equivalent) and necessary infill to get rid of silly things like Maryhill-Anniesland.

It would be much better to upgrade the S&C to allow 90mph running for much of the route.

As a former main line, I imagine it wouldn't be so much 'upgrade' as 'properly maintain'.

 

[tbtc]

As a first pass, I'd be looking to electrify anything that gets more than about ten carriages per hour running over it (i.e. one five car train per hour per direction or equivalent) and necessary infill to get rid of silly things like Maryhill-Anniesland

That seems as good a starting point as any - I think that we need some kind of rational approach - maybe looking at the services that spend the most time on electrified track (short of 100%) - maybe looking at the areas with the worst air pollution - maybe looking at the shortest gaps between electrified lines or the silly stubs that weren't done properly at the time (Morpeth turnback!) - but I think that the number of carriages per hour looks like a great place to start from.

Maybe something about fleets that require non-standard trains (e.g. the two unelectrified routes where Southern run 171s) but that's harder to assess against the other schemes objectively.

I think that the Snow Hill lines would be relatively high up the list (six WMT services per hour plus some Chiltern, city centre air pollution, would free up a lot of DMUs given the number of five coach etc services).

One problem is the need to parcel bits of work together - e.g. it probably wouldn't be worth getting a team together for just the Morpeth turnback, so do you wait until you can justify upgrading the Metro Centre line, or maybe even all the way to Carlisle?

 

[Indigo Soup]

Maybe something about fleets that require non-standard trains (e.g. the two unelectrified routes where Southern run 171s) but that's harder to assess against the other schemes objectively.

The metric I'd use here would probably be something like 'Number of diesel units released per £1 million', which would give high scores to both short stubs at the end of an electrified route, and busy routes with no electrification. Then work down the list each year until either funding or resources runs out.

 

[najaB]

The metric I'd use here would probably be something like 'Number of diesel units released per £1 million', which would give high scores to both short stubs at the end of an electrified route, and busy routes with no electrification.

For the short stubs and link routes a good metric would be 'miles of diesel under the wires eliminated' per £1M rather than number of units.

 

[Owen]

Breckland line and SW England.

 

[Owen]

Bangor to Lisburn via Belfast Great Victoria Street. 6tph in the peaks serve Bangor on intensive diagrams with high-powered DMUs. An order of enough appropriate new EMUs may even be able to effect a frequency upgrade to 4tph all day. The route is growing quickly, and this is a short disatance which serves some very intensively used and urban stations on two major commuter routes into Belfast. There is a significant snag however in that many trains currently run through to Portadown or even beyond. Enforcing a change at Lisburn may be unpopular or impossible depending on the timetable. Potential solutions could include a residual through service to Portadown or electrification through to Portadown, depending on how much money there is available (this would add to the number of route miles quite significantly, but it may be much more acceptable to turn Newry - Portadown NIR services into a shuttle as there aren't many). In the long term it would need to be thought about whether the Enterprise services can make use of this electrification, although on the current timetable there is no immediete call for this to change. A significant number of the current DMUs would be released to strenghten and improve services elsewhere in Northern Ireland by doing this, at relatively few route miles of electrification.

Notably a far better case for electrification can be made for a project like this or many other similar urban commuter routes throughout the UK than the current ongoing project to electrify Bristol Parkway to Cardiff Central, which offers very very limited benefits by itself.

Or just electrify the whole NI network

 

[randyrippley]

It would be much better to upgrade the S&C to allow 90mph running for much of the route.

would make more sense to shut the S&C and reopen the Ingleton branch

 

[daodao]

would make more sense to shut the S&C and reopen the Ingleton branch

I suggested in post 63 electrification of the Skipton-Carnforth line, and building a chord avoiding Carnforth to join the route to the WCML going north. This would be cheaper than re-opening the Clapham-Ingleton-Low Gill line (albeit less direct) and facilitate a regular interval express passenger electric service from Glasgow to Leeds and ideally Sheffield. The Settle-Carlisle line could be kept for stopping passenger trains serving local stations, local freight traffic to quarries and tourist excursion trains.

 

[randyrippley]

I suggested in post 63 electrification of the Skipton-Carnforth line, and building a chord avoiding Carnforth to join the route to the WCML going north. This would be cheaper than re-opening the Clapham-Ingleton-Low Gill line (albeit less direct) and facilitate a regular interval express passenger electric service from Glasgow to Leeds and ideally Sheffield. The Settle-Carlisle line could be kept for stopping passenger trains serving local stations, local freight traffic to quarries and tourist excursion trains.

And I suggested reopening the Ingleton branch because I don't think a chord there is viable. Too tight a curve, too much of a gradient. You'd also have major watercourse issues as well - that land can flood badly, the Environment Agency would probably refuse permission in order to protect Warton from even more extreme flood events

 

[Ken H]

And I suggested reopening the Ingleton branch because I don't think a chord there is viable. Too tight a curve, too much of a gradient. You'd also have major watercourse issues as well - that land can flood badly, the Environment Agency would probably refuse permission in order to protect Warton from even more extreme flood events

Or just leave the S&C open, get line speed up a little (70 for DMU would be good) and institute a decent Sunday service - like when there is actually a demand for leisure travel. Perhaps even run a decent service from Clitheroe to Hellifield to connect into Leeds Carlisle trains.

 

[Peter Kelford]

All lines served directly from from London via the GWML, ECML, WCML and GEML. For instance, Inverness, Aberdeen, Holyhead, Penzance, Pembroke etc.

 

[najaB]

All lines served directly from from London via the GWML, ECML, WCML and GEML. For instance, Inverness, Aberdeen, Holyhead, Penzance, Pembroke etc.

You're probably have to be a bit more specific than that, where does that leave places like Sunderland, Lincoln, or Holyhead?

 

[Peter Kelford]

You're probably have to be a bit more specific than that, where does that leave places like Sunderland, Lincoln, or Holyhead?

I only listed examples. A comprehensive list:

ECML

Newark to Lincoln
Doncaster to Hull
Leeds York via Harrogate
Newcastle to Sunderland
Edinburgh to Aberdeen
Edinburgh to Inverness
Peterborough to Cambridge

WCML

Crewe to Chester

GWML

Cardiff to Fishguard
Golden Valley Line
Malvern Line up to Hereford
Bristol Line up to Cogload Junction
West of England/West Country Line up to Penzance
Newton Abbot - Paignton
Welsh Mainline up to Fishguard

GEML

Norwich to Cromer

 

[mmh]

I think there's no point in electrifying Crewe - Chester unless Chester - Warrington and Chester - Holyhead were also done at the same time.

 

[317 forever]

Anything running basically hourly is a good idea to electrify. Anything more frequent than that a very good idea to electrify.

 

[randyrippley]

Or just leave the S&C open, get line speed up a little (70 for DMU would be good) and institute a decent Sunday service - like when there is actually a demand for leisure travel. Perhaps even run a decent service from Clitheroe to Hellifield to connect into Leeds Carlisle trains.

But think of all the money you'd save by closing it and switching to a shorter route. Less track, more accessible, less extreme weather. You could demolish all those viaducts and sell the stone for building

 

[Peter Kelford]

I think there's no point in electrifying Crewe - Chester unless Chester - Warrington and Chester - Holyhead were also done at the same time.

It should have read Crewe-Holyhead.