• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Infill electrification - definition

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
10,024
Location
here to eternity
I was thinking the Larkfield curve is that curve from Larkfield junction to Muirhouse South Jn which only has access towards Crossmyloof?

That is what I was thinking therefore it is not wired. I am assuming that the poster that mentioned it would propose wiring it if the line from Muirhouse Central junction to Barrhead was ever wired.

It links the lines from Glasgow central heading towards Polmadie and Carlisle with those heading to Paisley and Ayr. So it fits across the throat of glc. Google is your friend.

Thats not the Larkfield Curve - the Larkfield curve is the link from Larkfield junction to Muirhouse South Jn as above.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,288
Location
N Yorks
I have always taken it to mean something very different. its a simple scheme with little needing doing. So the line through alsager was infill because the difficult bits were done at either end, and it didnt need expensive feeder stations etc.
Liverpool -wigan was infill - the power came from either end. no new feeder stations.

Once you start wiring complex stations, or the line is long enough to require more than just wiring, then its not infill.

someone did a piece on Modern Railways some years ago (Sorry, no link or quote - i am quoting from memory) ) about assessing schemes on number of under the wires diesel mileage converted to electric as a factor of miles to electrify. But that was before bi-modes changed the rules.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,877
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
someone did a piece on Modern Railways some years ago (Sorry, no link or quote - i am quoting from memory) ) about assessing schemes on number of under the wires diesel mileage converted to electric as a factor of miles to electrify. But that was before bi-modes changed the rules.
If you do remember the issue please let me know and I will order or download- pay for it. Please
 

MadMac

Member
Joined
13 Jun 2008
Messages
965
Location
Moorpark, CA
Thanks. I knew someone would keep me right. I seem to remember it was an early use of slab track because of limited clearance.

Correct. Also, the tunnel caved in during electrification, which led to the loops at Pollokshaws West being temporarily retained for rounding of ore trains from General Terminus.
 

Southsider

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2015
Messages
758
Correct. Also, the tunnel caved in during electrification, which led to the loops at Pollokshaws West being temporarily retained for rounding of ore trains from General Terminus.
Was that Eglinton Street at Wylies the Ford dealer? I recall an incident and seeing pictures of a hole in the road there.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
884
Market Harborough - Nuneaton (once the wires reach Market Harborough)?

Not sure it would really serve a useful purpose. Would it qualify as infill in the technical sense?
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,877
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
Nuneaton to B'ham (Grand Jct) could well be an 'infiill' scheme.

Agreed - takes fumes out of New Street too -or reduces them anyway

Market Harborough - Nuneaton (once the wires reach Market Harborough)?

Not sure it would really serve a useful purpose. Would it qualify as infill in the technical sense?

Useful purpose is that it would be part of the F2N to electrify freight all the way from Felixtowe and it would be a composite part of that scheme
 

a_c_skinner

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
1,585
An infill scheme is one that is so modest it won't garner significant votes and so isn't worth a big announcement by a politician.

Apologies, but there is a grain of truth in it.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
884
Useful purpose is that it would be part of the F2N to electrify freight all the way from Felixtowe and it would be a composite part of that scheme

Wouldn't that be via Melton Mowbray/Leicester rather than up the MML?
 

2392

Member
Joined
7 Apr 2015
Messages
248
Location
Felling on Tyne
Newcastle to Carlisle I would class as infill. As both the East and West Coast Mainlines are electric. Where as, as Ploughman says Northalleton to Middlesbrough isn't. Though it could be classed as partial restoration as part of the line was electric as part of the Shildon - Newport [Thornaby] was electric until the early thirties. Likewise going the other way from Darlington to Bishop Auckland as the electrics ran as far as Shildon.......
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,609
I think the defenition someone mentioned above has some merits.

Effectively an electrification scheme that requires no extra infrastructure beyond the wires and gantries to hold them. For me it doesn't matter if one or both ends are currently wired (obviously one has to be). But if it can be fed off the existing feeding arrangements, doesn't need new substations or Grid Feeders, I would say that is a pretty good place for the line to be drawn between infill and a full new electirfication project.
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
2,899
Location
Lancashire
Most infills would need some form of Neutral section and a Track Switching Station (TSS) Or ITSL, If it was joining 2 existing electrified lines as they will almost certainly be on 2 different grid feeders and thus likely to be different phases.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,278
Location
Fenny Stratford
I sent a tweet or rather replied to a tweet from Roger Ford asking what did he think the definition of infill was

Does it really matter? it is one of those phrases that means different things to different people. The important thing is to electrify not define the right phrase to use!

BTW why are enthusiasts so obsessed with what Roger Ford thinks about something? Can you not form your own views on a topic?
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Perhaps its time to jettison the term "infill" and call it "incremental electrification" instead.

The advantage of bi-modes is that it is indeed possible to electrify in increments. Adopting new terminology would have the linguistic benefit of making old proposals sound fresh!
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,877
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
Does it really matter? it is one of those phrases that means different things to different people.

I suppose it does not matter in the grand scheme of things but I keep seeing the phrase "Infill is back on the agenda" or similar so as a passionate enthusiast of electrification it is of great interest to me.

The important thing is to electrify not define the right phrase to use!
Couldn't agree more

BTW why are enthusiasts so obsessed with what Roger Ford thinks about something?

I cant speak for others but I have read his column since the early 1980s and he is passionate about electrification and I respect and admire his views. He has been sought out as a consultant and appeared before committees etc , is a qualified engineer and is an extremely respected transport journalist whose views are often sought and even has a loco named after him.

Can you not form your own views on a topic?
Oh trust me I do have my own views and contribute on this forum prolifically on this topic.

PEACE - take care and have a wonderful day.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,278
Location
Fenny Stratford
I cant speak for others but I have read his column since the early 1980s and he is passionate about electrification and I respect and admire his views. He has been sought out as a consultant and appeared before committees etc , is a qualified engineer and is an extremely respected transport journalist whose views are often sought and even has a loco named after him.

Personally I find some of his views highfalutin and somewhat perfect worldist. I am a pragmatist and prefer to focus on what can be delivered rather than what should be delivered. That isnt to say I don't respect such a position just that it doesn't appeal to me and nor do I understand the veneration that seems to come with each missive.

Oh trust me I do have my own views and contribute on this forum prolifically on this topic.

Sorry, that was poorly worded. I did not mean to imply you personally lacked a view rather that people seem to be influenced more by the media than forming their own views. I was always taught to develop your own viewpoint considering all sides.
 

DY444

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2012
Messages
138
What about Didcot to Birmingham (New Street) or Didcot to Coventry? Reading to Basingstoke?

If there was such a thing as a dual voltage 387, would it run all the way from Bournemouth to Manchester?

All 387s are dual voltage already so if Didcot - New St and Reading - Basingstoke were done then a 387 could conceivably run all the way from Manchester to Bournemouth
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,288
Location
N Yorks
Perhaps its time to jettison the term "infill" and call it "incremental electrification" instead.

The advantage of bi-modes is that it is indeed possible to electrify in increments. Adopting new terminology would have the linguistic benefit of making old proposals sound fresh!
Quite
For instance:-
Running a bi-mode on manc Vic to Clitheroe makes sense, use 25k on the busy bit, diesel on the quiet bit.
Consider Bolton - Blackburn as an infill later to save on the maintenance of the diesel set, and on fuel costs. Its about 15 miles.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
The argument for incremental / infill electrification ought to be further strengthened by research that shows a rolling electrification programme should drive costs down to a third of the current amount.

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ver-rail-electrification-at-third-of-the-cost

Rail industry urges government rethink to deliver rail electrification at third of the cost
The cost of rail electrification projects could be slashed by as much as two-thirds, the Railway Industry Association (RIA) has revealed as it urges the government to review and renew its electrification programme.

The RIA has called on ministers to work with the rail industry and to renew its commitment to electrification after a number of schemes were cancelled in 2017.

Its Electrification Cost Challenge report shows that rail electrification can be delivered at between 33% to 50% of the cost of past projects, if the government commits to a rolling programme of work.

It said that the high costs of recent electrification projects can be slashed by establishing a 10-year rolling programme which would build up capabilities amongst rail businesses – therefore lowering costs.

David Clarke, the RIA’s technical director, said: “Electrification is clearly the optimal solution for intensively used railway lines, and should be seen as the priority choice in a hierarchy of options if the government is serious about decarbonising the rail network by 2040.

“A rolling programme of electrification would allow rail businesses to build up and retain expertise, further reducing the cost of future schemes.”

The report draws on lessons from previous projects including the Great Western Electrification Programme, and urges the government to revise its policy on electrification.

Around 40% of the UK’s rail network is electrified compared to around 60% or more in comparable European countries.

The RIA also stresses that electrification results in 60% lower carbon emissions than on diesel trains with no air pollutants at the point of use and less noise pollution.

Network Rail’s chief executive Andrew Haines welcomed the report, commenting: “The most recently completed schemes demonstrate that we’ve made good progress in reducing the cost of electrification.

“This report takes the debate forward, brings insight to the challenges and solutions for successful delivery and illustrates that we can sustain a hard-earned level of industry capability through efficient investment in electrification.”

Lilian Greenwood MP, chair of the Transport Select Committee, welcomed the report and encouraged support for a 10-year programme of rolling electrification, whilst Mark Gaynor of the Rail Delivery Group said the report was valuable in highlighting that electrification does not need to break the bank.
BTW why are enthusiasts so obsessed with what Roger Ford thinks about something? Can you not form your own views on a topic?

I cant speak for others but I have read his column since the early 1980s and he is passionate about electrification and I respect and admire his views. He has been sought out as a consultant and appeared before committees etc , is a qualified engineer and is an extremely respected transport journalist whose views are often sought and even has a loco named after him.

Quite. Like it or not he is one of the industries major "influencers", to use the popular social media term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top