Which lines would have the least strong case for electrification?

[sprinterguy]

At least they're diesel electrics so that's a start. Is'nt Thor not going ahead because a 5 car set would need two transformers because of the weight? Making the trains lighter would surely help with the economics.

No, Project Thor has been reported as not going ahead because Bombardier are claiming that it would require a far more complex rewire of the existing vehicles than was initially envisaged, significantly increasing the cost of the work beyond what was expected. The 5-car trains would require two transformers to cope with the electrical load that would be placed upon them in powering the traction motors across five carriages, not because of the weight of the trains.

 

[northwichcat]

Didn't EMT recently trial the 222s on the Norwich-Liverpool service? Certainly on the NOT-MAN section (can't comment to Liverpool) a 5-car train is DESPERATELY needed.

To be fair, EMT have been strengthening their services with 2x158s, but with growth, this service really needs more capacity.

The 7-car trains? Bonus!

7-cars won't fit the Platforms at Oxford Road, they are 6x23m max.

And then theres the whole SP differential thing.

That wasn't a trial, that was the Grand National.

EMT did do a trial run on a Sunday with an empty 222 before they booked Grand National workings to be 222 operated. The trial included calls at all stations that EMT serve even ones like Hunts Cross and Hazel Grove with a very limited service.

222s have SDO and that was utilised to allow 7 car 222s to run on Grand National Days at Manchester Oxford Road and Liverpool South Parkway (possibly other calls as well.)

The 5 car 222s wouldn't really provide any extra seating over 4 car 158s but would provide more luggage space, tables and more standing room. I think if 222s are used it would likely mean the service would be truncated at Nottingham, Peterborough or Ely due to the lower line speeds for heavy units in Norfolk.

There are proposals for an additional Manchester-Sheffield service and an additional Sheffield-Nottingham service (which may or may not be the same service), which would allow Liverpool-Norwich trains to miss out the Sheffield reversal.

 

[HSTEd]

Even given the political issues with splitting the Liverpool-Norwich service.

SDO won't help with the platforms at Oxford Road, you will likely physically foul the points on at least one pair of platforms with 7 23m vehicles. (A 2+5 HST only just fits)

 

[swt_passenger]

Some people claim Network Rail have looked at the costs involved with getting Cardiff-Portsmouth fully cleared for 16x operation.

I think there's a lot more to it than 'some people claim' - it has been shown explicitly in the relevant NR Route plans on a number of occasions...

 

[Penmorfa]

No, Project Thor has been reported as not going ahead because Bombardier are claiming that it would require a far more complex rewire of the existing vehicles than was initially envisaged, significantly increasing the cost of the work beyond what was expected. The 5-car trains would require two transformers to cope with the electrical load that would be placed upon them in powering the traction motors across five carriages, not because of the weight of the trains.

Understood, it looks like there are going to be a lot of threads on Voyager/Meriidian cascades coming up then :roll:

 

[D365]

Understood, it looks like there are going to be a lot of threads on Voyager/Meriidian cascades coming up then :roll:

I dare say there have been numerous discussions. It's somewhat of a shame that we have this rather sizesable, modern high-speed diesel fleet (the 180s included) which will be rendered somewhat non-standard by IEP... Add to that the fact that Voyagers are too short and there haven't been enough, so much that 125s have had to be bought back into service. What could they be used for?

 

[AndyLandy]

The 5-car trains would require two transformers to cope with the electrical load that would be placed upon them in powering the traction motors across five carriages.

The fix to cut costs there is to move vehicles between sets, reducing the number of additional pantograph/transformer vehicles required. Rather than needing 2 for every 221, you could do one of the following:

2x 5-car units => 1x 4-car and 1x 6-car. Add three new vehicles to result in a 5-car and an 8-car unit. Average 1.5 new cars per trainset.
3x 5-car units => 2x 4-car and 1x 7-car. Add four new vehicles to result in 2x 5-car and a 9-car unit. Average 1.33 new cars per trainset.
4x 5-car units => 3x 4-car and 1x 8-car. Add five new vehicles to result in 3x 5-car and a 10-car unit. Average 1.25 new cars per trainset.

This assumes that you could run up to 10 cars with two transformer vehicles, given you can run 5 cars with one. It also assumes that moving vehicles between 221 sets is reasonably straightforward.

Of course, the tradeoff is that fewer new cars means fewer new seats, but there are certainly options there.

 

[Aictos]

With regards to Norwich to Cambridge (yes I know Ely to Cambridge is already wired up), there was a interesting article in December's issue of Rail Express which said something along the line (pardon the pun) that along with the recent signalling upgrades that been happening, they were also looking at raising the linespeed to a higher speed then it currently is.

If it did happen, rather I like to see the 170s move elsewhere and replaced with 90mph EMUs to run half hourly on this line.