South Wales electrification

[LNW-GW Joint]

It does seem odd that ATW (and Wales & West etc before them) never ran 156s - there's quite a jump up from a 150 to a 158.

It's a while ago, but Central Trains (remember them?) used Birmingham-based 156s on trains via Shrewsbury to Cambrian/Chester before W&W/ATW took over.
Diagrams like Chester-Lincoln/Cambridge etc.
Towards the end they used 171s as well.

Can't remember if any FNW 156s turned up on now-ATW routes via Chester.

 

[HSTEd]

There are unfortunately not that many 3 carriage EMUs available, which is why I think a refurbished (along the lines of the Cl319s) Cl315 would be best.
4 carriages also provides additional capacity in case the Sparks effect is larger than planned, and the extra "flexibility" of 3 carriage EMUs is unneccesary on the route as four carriage units would never have to double up anyway.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

It does seem odd that ATW (and Wales & West etc before them) never ran 156s -

They did work in south Wales, for a time, to cover for the 155s which were dropping like flies from a multitude of irritating faults and at least one found its way to Maesteg, shortly after the line reopened. The 155s were quickly replaced by 158s and the 156s went, I think, to Scotland, where they should have gone in the first place. The 156 units were well thought of down here and considered far superior to the 'tinny' 155s which, of course, were sent away to be converted into 153s.

 

[anthony263]

There are unfortunately not that many 3 carriage EMUs available, which is why I think a refurbished (along the lines of the Cl319s) Cl315 would be best.
4 carriages also provides additional capacity in case the Sparks effect is larger than planned, and the extra "flexibility" of 3 carriage EMUs is unneccesary on the route as four carriage units would never have to double up anyway.

Yes but some trains from Treherbert/Rhymney in th peaks could ideally do with 5 carriages as I have seen a 4 carriage train formed of 2 pacers struggle to cope.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes but some trains from Treherbert/Rhymney in th peaks could ideally do with 5 carriages as I have seen a 4 carriage train formed of 2 pacers struggle to cope.

4 pacer carriages comes out at roughly 64 metres, 4 Cl315 carriages comes out at 80m.

So it is virtually a five carriage Pacer.

 

[anthony263]

4 pacer carriages comes out at roughly 64 metres, 4 Cl315 carriages comes out at 80m.

So it is virtually a five carriage Pacer.

And hopefully the class 315's when refurbished will have full back seats and a 2+2 layout rather than 3+2 like they have currently.

Although it will have to be checked to see if the class 315's fit the loading guage particulary with the tight curve between Cardiff Central & Cardiff queen street and north or Radyr.

I know a class 175 has been taken on the Rhymney line for a trial and managed however likethe class 158's they are banned north of Taffs Wells because they are out of guage.

 

[Gareth Marston]

And hopefully the class 315's when refurbished will have full back seats and a 2+2 layout rather than 3+2 like they have currently.

Although it will have to be checked to see if the class 315's fit the loading guage particulary with the tight curve between Cardiff Central & Cardiff queen street and north or Radyr.

I know a class 175 has been taken on the Rhymney line for a trial and managed however likethe class 158's they are banned north of Taffs Wells because they are out of guage.

Wales and Borders 2001-2003 had some quirky Manchester to Pontypridd and Barry diagrams using 158's.

 

[HSTEd]

How many sprinter operated diagrams are there outside the area likely to be electrified?
THat might be a better approach than trying to subtract units from the existing allotment.

 

[anthony263]

Wales and Borders 2001-2003 had some quirky Manchester to Pontypridd and Barry diagrams using 158's.

I must admit I knew of the London Waterloo - Maesteg then Maesteg - Coryton/Coryton -Radyr diagram but I didnt know about the Manchester - Pontypridd/Barry service.

Hopefully then Network Rail might be able to do some work to sort the problem which may prevent some stock from being used on the Cardiff Valley Lines.

As for spinters not used on valley lines service I belive ATW use 2 units on the Swanline services with 3 on the Heart of wales line and another 3 on the Swansea - Pembroke Dock/Fishguard circuit.

I believe these all interwork at some point such as the heart of wales services running through to Cardiff and some Pembroke dock services doing the same

I almost forgot ATW do use 1 unit on the Shrewsbury - Crewe local service and at least 2 on the Wrexham - Bidston route and the 1 unit which does the Blaenau Festiniog - Llandudno service

In total that means ATW should require at least 14 sprinters not taking into account the longer distance and Cambrian services and the Chester - Crewe shuttle which requires another unit or 2.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There were many quirky inter workings in W&W days (maximising resources) - my particular favourite was a one way Treherbet - Lostwithiel , along with Radyr - Waterloo , Maesteg to Paignton and a coast to coast Holyhead to Fishguard. !!!

The Treherbet was probably a good set off heavy maintenance , working down to the SW for an extended local stay.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Hopefully with electrification these quirky DMU diagrams will be things of the past.

Conwy Valley = One diagram 153 winter, 150 summer.
Wrexham Bidston- Two diagrams usually 150's.
Crewe-Chester - One diagram can be 150 can be 158
Crewe- Shrewsbury- One diagram can be 153 or 150
HoW - three diagrams but run out and back from Cardiff as extra Swanlines.
153 winter, 150's summer.

Plus Ebbw Vale- 3 units
Maesteg - Chletenham = 3 units

Unsure of West Wales ones, though as other posters say after Valley lines (Queen St) electrification there's still gong to be need for best part of 20 DMU's on ATW off the long distance services.

Holyhead/Chester/Shrewsbury- Birmingham- Shrewsbury- Cambrian is one homogenous loop of 158's. There's 17 units at moment but this summers strengthening will see 20 158's on it.

 

[Rhydgaled]

4-car units with 20m carriages might be alright for the Valleys, I don't know. Certainly corridor connections are a must for anything shorter than that to allow effective multiple working.

How many sprinter operated diagrams are there outside the area likely to be electrified?
THat might be a better approach than trying to subtract units from the existing allotment.

That's a good idea, but you should consider services that other areas would like to have, not just what they have now. For example, in, south-west Wales, I think the Pembroke Dock and Milford Haven lines should both have an hourly service (though that will be difficult for Pembroke Dock) and there should be a train every two/three hours to Fishguard. There should be an hourly express (Swansea district line) service using 158s between Carmarthen and Cardiff. This would either extend to Fishguard every two hours (requirement about 4 units) or would extend to Milford every two hours with a trip to Fishguard in 3 of the remaining hours. (6 units I think). At least one Pembrokeshire train every two hours, and one in the other hours from Carmarthen, would go to Cardiff via Swansea (as now with the Manchester train) and would probablly be 175s. The other Pembrokeshire services would go just to Swansea with a 156/double153. Openning some Swansea valley lines (Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen and Glyn-Neath for starters) would take a few 150s also.

Wales class 150/153 diagrams - Current (Potential)

• Conwy Valley Line - 1 diagram (increased frequency and/or extention to Trawsfydnydd could push that up to 2 or 3)
• Wrexham - Bidston - 2 diagrams (2)
• Shrewsbury - Crewe stopper - 1 diagram
• Evening Fishguard Service - 1 diagram
• Pembroke Dock - Swansea & 09:56 FGH - Carmarthen - 3 diagrams (no idea how many units making Pembroke & Milford Haven hourly would need)
• HOWL

I think that's over 10 diagrams before you start improving services and re-openning lines.

Wales class 158 diagrams - Current (Potential)

• Chester - Crewe shuttle - 1
• Aberystwyth/Pwllheli - Birmingham - Holyhead (assuming 2-car only between Shrewsbury and Holyhead) - 15 diagrams (17 with hourly Aberystwyth - Birmingham (portion working with the Birmingham - Holyheads))
• Cardiff - Cheltenham Spa - 3 units (4 if the gaps are removed to make it fully hourly) (158s as things stand) Cheltenham - Maesteg is 4 units right now I think (1 being a 150), plus a 150 that comes in from Fishguard in the evening, but I don't think Maesteg should be linked to Cheltenham, should go to Ebbw Vale instead and be electrified.

Apart from what I've gathered from other posters on here, the above is just my assumptions/guesses based on studying the timetable. If anyone knows the actual diagrams feel free to correct me, and fill in the areas I haven't worked out.

Holyhead/Chester/Shrewsbury- Birmingham- Shrewsbury- Cambrian is one homogenous loop of 158's. There's 17 units at moment but this summers strengthening will see 20 158's on it.

Having it all in one loop is a real pain. Ideally Holyhead - Birmingham would be 175s or LHCS to allow the 158s to run an hourly Cambrian service and some Cardiff - Pembrokeshire express trips, but it can't be done without either north Wales or the Cambrian loosing their direct Birminghams. Interesting that your figure for the current service comes out as 2 units more than mine (above), I guess there must be some Holyhead - Shrewsburys that are 4-car even now. With 20 158s on the curcuit this summer, you probablly need the other 4 spare (esspecially given one of those will still be in the refurb process) which means no 158s anywhere else on ATW. I think that also puts a dead stop to Cambrian hourly, unless 97s turn out to be able to keep to 158 times with ATW's mark 2s, as the curcuit will have swallowed up the entire nation's ERTMS fitted train fleet.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What's going to happen with the 23 class 377s that First Capital Connect have when the Thameslink stock arrives (and when will that happen)? I thought they were supposed to go back to Southern, but because the new Thameslink stock is going to be late Southern ordered more 337s instead. So, when FCC is done with those 23 377s, could some of them (say 15) donate a coach each to lengthen some Southern sets and therefore send 15 3-car 377s to the Valleys alongside older 4-car units. Maesteg - Ebbw Vale could use 4 of these 377s, with some more on Swanline (perhaps coupling with the second Maesteg each hour at Bridgend). There might just be enough left over to have one or two 6-car sets up the valleys too.

 

[Solaris]

From what I understand the BCR for full Valleys Line Electrification is in excess of 3:1

Yet HS2 - on DfT revsied figures - has a return only 1.2:1 www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2c780fc4-8402-11e1-9d54-00144feab49a.html#axzz1roMEqs2L

So DfT surely must go ahead with full Valley Lines Electrification?

 

[anthony263]

4-car units with 20m carriages might be alright for the Valleys, I don't know. Certainly corridor connections are a must for anything shorter than that to allow effective multiple working.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What's going to happen with the 23 class 377s that First Capital Connect have when the Thameslink stock arrives (and when will that happen)? I thought they were supposed to go back to Southern, but because the new Thameslink stock is going to be late Southern ordered more 337s instead. So, when FCC is done with those 23 377s, could some of them (say 15) donate a coach each to lengthen some Southern sets and therefore send 15 3-car 377s to the Valleys alongside older 4-car units. Maesteg - Ebbw Vale could use 4 of these 377s, with some more on Swanline (perhaps coupling with the second Maesteg each hour at Bridgend). There might just be enough left over to have one or two 6-car sets up the valleys too.

I think Southern intend to add extra carriages to the South Croydon - Milton Keynes servie providing platform extensions are completed on the west london line.

Southern could have ordered more class 377's especially since they may have been able to run an additional train per hour between Clapham Jct & Milton Keynes and strengthen them to 8 carriages once TFL do the platform extensions perhaps selective door opening could be operated at some stations as Olympia could accomodate an 8 carriage train (just).

Another problem is that Southern may want the class 377's to put back on the Brighton - Portsmouth Hbr/Southampton central services to replace the class 313's which I believe were used to release more class 377's to go to boost services in London.

That said some class 377's would be ideal for the Swansea - Cardiff swanline and Maesteg - Ebbw Vale - Newport services as they have a higher top speed and better acceleration than the class 315's as well as extra capacity.

 

[Rhydgaled]

From what I understand the BCR for full Valleys Line Electrification is in excess of 3:1

Does that include Maesteg and Ebbw Vale (which in my opinion would have to be included to be able to call the scheme full ValleyLines electrification)?

Another problem is that Southern may want the class 377's to put back on the Brighton - Portsmouth Hbr/Southampton central services to replace the class 313's which I believe were used to release more class 377's to go to boost services in London.

That would make sense. Shame the 313s had to go out to Portsmouth/Southampton in the first place, 377s were quite good for that route too. However, if Wales was to get Thameslink cast offs and Thameslink got delayed, we would have just had to wait, while Southern is able to buy new units instead. Given that, maybe they can buy even more 377s to allow them to cascade their older ones to Wales.

That said some class 377's would be ideal for the Swansea - Cardiff swanline and Maesteg - Ebbw Vale - Newport services as they have a higher top speed and better acceleration than the class 315's as well as extra capacity.

3-car 377s would be pretty much ideal for the whole ValleyLines network in my opinion (though the services through Queen Street might be better off with the gearing changed to allow even faster acceleration at the cost of reduced top speed), plus Swanline, Cardiff - Cheltenham and a Swansea - Bristol semi-fast (basicly a fast, but calling at Pyle so it gets a half hourly service without having the diesel Manchesters call). Unfortunatly to get over 40 377s would require a new build, which I doubt they'll do for Wales. A 3-car 377 might not have quite as much capacity as a 315 though, but unlike a 315 could be doubled up.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Forget 377/5 or similar - get electrification up and running with cascade stock of any sort - then trade up later - look at Leeds NW which started off with 308's from London , and now has 332 sets - one of the best quality commuter workings in Europe. IMHO.

 

[tbtc]

Forget 377/5 or similar - get electrification up and running with cascade stock of any sort - then trade up later - look at Leeds NW which started off with 308's from London , and now has 332 sets - one of the best quality commuter workings in Europe. IMHO.

Agreed.

The Leeds area got the slam door three coach 308s (they were four coaches on LTS, but had a coach removed when they headed north) - still an improvement from the Pacers etc - these were replaced by three coach 333s, then extended to four coaches (and now augmented by the 322s, like you say).

Much better to get the core lines wired, any EMU is going to be better than a 30 metre 75mph Pacer, then once the business case has been proven it's easier to argue for new stock/ extensions/ ambitions.

The Valley lines through Queen Street are a great self contained operation that suit electrification - they could be done regardless of the GWML wiring - get that done *then* the case for new stock/ ambitious extensions becomes a lot easier.

 

[NXEA!]

I don't think the Pretendolino will make it to the end of the year with Virgin to be honest. Now that the new Pendolinos have been delivered (one of which is to replace 390033), I think its highly likely the set will be split up and maybe find its way to Greater Anglia or Chiltern (although thinking about it if FGW had waited they could have used some of it to extend their HSTs and avoid the costly Buffet conversions).

I beg to differ. The new Pendolino's are to cater for new services (to make Liverpool go half-hourly and Glasgow hourly if I remember correctly), and there's nothing mentioned about them replacing current stock. The Pretendolino is a very useful piece of kit to have sitting about, it can be used on ThFO additionals and as it is powered by a Class 90 which can accelerate quickly it can keep out of the way of Pendolino's and Voyagers and on Birmingham runs it can keep to time by relying on the padding. Not only this, but as we've seen with the last couple of winters and indeed in the past couple of weeks, its very good to have a back-up as if there is a maintenance back-log or problem with the Pendolino's, the Pretendolino can be sent out and it doesn't result in cancellations or short-formations. It is due an E exam this month however. The only way I can see it being stood down is if a cost-cutter like Abellio or Arriva gets the franchise and stands it down to reduce costs and increase the premium.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Agreed. The Valley lines through Queen Street are a great self contained operation that suit electrification - they could be done regardless of the GWML wiring - get that done *then* the case for new stock/ ambitious extensions becomes a lot easier.

There is no reason why they can't be done, regardless of what happens on the GW Main Line. As I have already pointed out, the lines around Glasgow were done years before the wires arrived from England. However it would be wise, and cheaper in the long run, to do all the local services rather than go through all the time wasting of coming back at some indeterminate date to start again.

 

[HSTEd]

Well, I contacted someone at TramPower, and they say that by replacing the stainless steel support cable and register arms with Parafil and GRP alternatives (which seems a rather cheap modification to me) the same basic equipment can be used as sub-100mph 25kV overhead.
(They say 90-100mph is feasible)

Anyway, this would seem to be basically the same price as the existing overhead equipment they have installed as part of there test rig. (£50k for 1200m > £43k/km).
Since the equipment is low profile it can either pass under bridges or through the tunnels or simply be grounded under them.
With roughly 295 track kilometres in the network (Bridgend via Barry but not Maesteg/Ebbw Vale) that brings an OLE cost of ~£11m.

The majority of the rest of the cost is the stock and substation.

The Suburban network would need ~34 4-car Cl315 units, and I will assume that a cost of the rebuild is roughly one sixth the capital cost of new units (like the Networker Classic rebuild which was more extensive). This gives a stock cost of ~£23m.

The substation would have to pay 34 4-car Cl315 units, each with 880hp, which is a total capacity of 29920hp or 22740kW. With a 100% overcapacity for line voltage drops, power factor and extra workings that brings us to roughly 50MVA.

50MVA substation comes to roughly £15m (£300,000 per MVA substation capacity).
(The lines are all suitably short that the system can be all fed through the contact wires from the central substation in Cardiff, future expansion would require additional wires be installed but that should be relatively cheap)

Total capital cost of £49m not including signalling immunisation (although that bill is not that large for the project as most of the track is single line or being resignalled already, presumably with immunisation installed).

£49 million for replacing 30 Pacers and 8 Sprinters, which is cheaper than purchasing new DMUs for the service. Assuming TramPower aren't lying.

This seems to be a relatively unimportant service with relatively undemanding technical requirements that would be good to test this, since secondary lines could be electrified at very low costs and quite quickly too.

 

[DXMachina]

Would such a lightweight solution last for the 40+ years that conventional catenary can endure?

Also, might use of GRP in place of metal structural elements reduce the flexibility of the system,leading eventually to shattering parts? Any artificial substance subjected to constant vertical and horizontal stresses could have a reduced lifespan compared even to expectations

Lastly - can we afford to have bargain-rate sections of electrification in when everything's moving toward further electrification and more power-hungry trains? It could add extra complexities to in terms of insufficient power for freight or through express services should there ever be a need

(HSTs have run down many branch lines on special workings, be a shame if IEPs / Pendolinos were denied the same ability just because someone saved £10mil on a one-time investment.)

 

[HSTEd]

Would such a lightweight solution last for the 40+ years that conventional catenary can endure?

Well the primary saving is buried wooden utility poles instead of conventional supports, and those seem to last a while in other applications with similar exposure to wind loadings and the weather and the like.
The cost is so low that we could almost take the chance as an experiment, and similar equipment has lasted about 7 years so far at Carnforth as I understand it.

Also, might use of GRP in place of metal structural elements reduce the flexibility of the system,leading eventually to shattering parts? Any artificial substance subjected to constant vertical and horizontal stresses could have a reduced lifespan compared even to expectations

The idea is that the GRP register arm is not directly bonded to the cable, it is merely used to hold up the cable using a pair of Parafil strop wires. This should help provide a degree of protection against vibrations.
GRP arms are also apparently used quite extensively in various light rail applications already so its not a totally unknown field.

Lastly - can we afford to have bargain-rate sections of electrification in when everything's moving toward further electrification and more power-hungry trains? It could add extra complexities to in terms of insufficient power for freight or through express services should there ever be a need

(HSTs have run down many branch lines on special workings, be a shame if IEPs / Pendolinos were denied the same ability just because someone saved £10mil on a one-time investment.)

There is no significant electric-convertable freight market in the Cardiff valleys, additionally thanks to the massive voltage drop allowable by 25kV standards (maximum ~8kV) the primary thing that needs modifying to increase the effective capacity of the route would be to add additionally capacity at the existing substation in Cardiff. (Perhaps in a decade when the Cl315s are replaced by trains with rather more than 880hp).

You could also convert the system to autotransformer by connecting a second line to the back of the support poles (or even on the top of them) using conventional insulators at a rather reasonable cost in the future. (The auto-transformers could be ground mounted beside the alignment or mounted on a second post.

The system is not one that has no room to grow.

EDIT:
And it would be closer to £100m than £10m.
And the only actual risk is the OLE equipment itself, which costs £11m, the rest of the gear is proven already.

 

[swt_passenger]

I beg to differ. The new Pendolino's are to cater for new services (to make Liverpool go half-hourly and Glasgow hourly if I remember correctly), and there's nothing mentioned about them replacing current stock.

One of the four is definitely a replacement for the Grayrigg unit. The other three were for service enhancements, and I think it is quite likely the use of the LHCS set will cease:

The Department proposes to increase capacity on the West Coast Mainline by enabling the procurement of additional Class 390 vehicles, including a replacement of the set damaged in the Grayrigg accident, with the minimum viable order of 4 additional sets and maintenance services, subject to pricing and contract terms being acceptable.

http://www.rugbyrailusersgroup.org.uk/uploads/public/DfT proposal - Pendolino enhancement.pdf

Liverpool half hourly has never been likely, as discussed on a number of previous occasions.

 

[Rhydgaled]

(HSTs have run down many branch lines on special workings, be a shame if IEPs / Pendolinos were denied the same ability just because someone saved £10mil on a one-time investment.)

IEP will be denied that ability anyway, by virtue of having 26m carriages. If common sense doesn't provail and the services west of Swansea are put in the incabable hands of bi-mode IEPs, the existing summer trains to Tenby and Pembroke Dock will be lost (unless they remain IC125 operated) and any chance of restoring of IC services to Milford Haven would probablly be scuppered along with extention of IC services back to Fishguard Harbour to help deal with any repeat of the volcanic ash-cloud grounding flights to/from Ireland.

 

[sprinterguy]

(although thinking about it if FGW had waited they could have used some of it to extend their HSTs and avoid the costly Buffet conversions).

Going off topic, but using carriages from the Pretendolino to lengthen HSTs would be just as expensive as converting buffet cars: Loco hauled mark 3s are not compatible with HST mark 3s. They would have to rip out all the interior fittings and change all the wiring and electrics, as Grand Central did with their converted loco hauled mark 3s.

 

[HSTEd]

Going off topic, but using carriages from the Pretendolino to lengthen HSTs would be just as expensive as converting buffet cars: Loco hauled mark 3s are not compatible with HST mark 3s. They would have to rip out all the interior fittings and change all the wiring and electrics, as Grand Central did with their converted loco hauled mark 3s.

Not neccesarily.

You break up one of the existing HST rakes to make up the extra carriages then refit the power cars thus released with single phase auxiliary alternators (or just fit a ETS inverter) and TDM control equipment.

 

[ainsworth74]

You break up one of the existing HST rakes to make up the extra carriages then refit the power cars thus released with single phase auxiliary alternators (or just fit a ETS inverter) and TDM control equipment.

Ah yes because that complex piece of design and engineering would be so much cheaper than what or FGW are actually doing and what sprinterguy suggested above

 

[sprinterguy]

Not neccesarily.

You break up one of the existing HST rakes to make up the extra carriages then refit the power cars thus released with single phase auxiliary alternators (or just fit a ETS inverter) and TDM control equipment.

You do then have to ensure that the same two power cars stay with the same rake though, which could be difficult. Having one non-standard rake would be a bit of a headache from a maintenance and rostering perspective, and given that FGWs' HST power cars have only recently undergone an extensive rewire as well as re-engining during the MTU programme then I can't imagine that FGW would be keen to start changing things around again, even if it is only for two power cars.

Still cheaper and simpler to convert spare buffet cars if you ask me.

 

[jopsuk]

You do then have to ensure that the same two power cars stay with the same rake though, which could be difficult.

Quite. BR did try for a while on the introduction of HSTs, but then gave up- hence the short period that they carried Class 253 and 254 numbers. often a different one at each end...

 

[HSTEd]

Ah yes because that complex piece of design and engineering would be so much cheaper than what or FGW are actually doing and what sprinterguy suggested above

I was suggesting it as an alternative to ripping the interiors out of the Pretendolino coaches, not to what FGW are actually doing.