Are there any ‘Easy Win’ electrification projects that are worth looking at?

[Turtle]

I'm wondering what makes for an 'easy win electrification project'?
Again as the thread title suggests they need 'looking at', looking into, assessing, evaluating.
Those activities take time and people, who would otherwise be doing something else, and therefore cost.
Then there's the approval processes;Yes and the assembly of an implementation team ... and what do they move onto next (and where, etc) ...
Back to rolling programmes, ongoing commitment, stop-go, 'politics', etc

I like the idea of 'easy wins'; if only they were that easy to realise.

Yes.
Guildford to Reigate infill.
Uckfield branch.
Ore to Ashford.
(Subject to the rescinding of the ridiculous objection to further 3rd rail electrification)

 

[A0wen]

A couple of simple projects that could be done in a weekend are Norwich platform 6 and Ipswich platform 1.

Isn't Ipswich P1 the 'short' bay which is used mainly for Felixstowe or Lowestoft services ? If it is, then why would you bother ?

 

[A0wen]

Windermere. Would literally only cost the wires.

I'll bet it costs rather more than that - a quick Google Earth shows at least half a dozen bridges, including farm access ones, which are unlikely to be of the required height for 25kv.

Add in a sprinkling of level crossings - including this one https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.3...4!1seFj_HzZiF1aIM4yPyUDXuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 which appears to have high voltage power cables crossing the line and I suspect your "it'll only cost the wires" is a huge understatement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll bet it costs rather more than that - a quick Google Earth shows at least half a dozen bridges, including farm access ones, which are unlikely to be of the required height for 25kv.

Add in a sprinkling of level crossings - including this one https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.3...4!1seFj_HzZiF1aIM4yPyUDXuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 which appears to have high voltage power cables crossing the line and I suspect your "it'll only cost the wires" is a huge understatement.

Given that it was an active proposal and only dropped due to penny pinching, I think this can fit very close to the classic "things RUK people say are impossible or difficult with spurious objections then end up happening".

If the worst you can come up with is "they might need to put a rural* electricity transmission line underground for about 10-20 metres" then it's indeed easy pickings.

* To save people clicking the link it's what would normally be called "low voltage" i.e. 400ish volt three phase 3-4m or so up on a wooden stick, not large pylons.

 

[A0wen]

Given that it was an active proposal and only dropped due to penny pinching, I think this can fit very close to the classic "things RUK people say are impossible or difficult with spurious objections then end up happening".

If the worst you can come up with is "they might need to put a rural* electricity transmission line underground for about 10-20 metres" then it's indeed easy pickings.

* To save people clicking the link it's what would normally be called "low voltage" i.e. 400ish volt three phase 3-4m or so up on a wooden stick, not large pylons.

No, it's not a case of that at all.

You were the one who claimed that it would "literally only cost the wires." - which suggests no other infrastructure changes would be needed, yet there are at least 3 level crossings on the route and numerous overbridges some of which may not have the required clearances for 25kv wiring.

Clearly you're an expert in re-routing rural electrical supply wires, so I'll bow to your superior knowledge when you state it's "easy pickings".

The fact it didn't proceed probably wasn't "penny pinching" as you state, but when the actual investigations were done issues were identified that would have put the project over the originally planned budget. At that point you have to reassess whether or not to proceed. The fact it didn't suggests these weren't "easy" things to fix, but rather more complex. But again, I'll bow to your superior knowledge, which remind me again is in what speciality ?

 

[A0wen]

Yes.
Guildford to Reigate infill.
Uckfield branch.
Ore to Ashford.
(Subject to the rescinding of the ridiculous objection to further 3rd rail electrification)

The issue with at least two of those is it's not just a case of simply extending the current terminus of the 3rd rail but may need new connections to the National Grid.

When Marshlink has come up previously, the response tended to be that Battery units would be a better solution with charging points at each end of the line.

 

[Trainbike46]

Given that it was an active proposal and only dropped due to penny pinching, I think this can fit very close to the classic "things RUK people say are impossible or difficult with spurious objections then end up happening".

Wasn't the official reason some made-up concerns about the view in the national park? Which really just suggests the government truly didn't have a good reason to drop it, because if it did they would have said that and looked (slightly) less ridiculous?

If the worst you can come up with is "they might need to put a rural* electricity transmission line underground for about 10-20 metres" then it's indeed easy pickings.

* To save people clicking the link it's what would normally be called "low voltage" i.e. 400ish volt three phase 3-4m or so up on a wooden stick, not large pylons.

yeah, those lines really shouldn't be a problem, they're really easy to fix

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wasn't the official reason some made-up concerns about the view in the national park? Which really just suggests the government truly didn't have a good reason to drop it, because if it did they would have said that and looked (slightly) less ridiculous?

Probably so. After all pig-ugly standard Network Rail portals aren't the only choice of thing to string it off. Attractive green-painted cast iron style poles could have been used in sensitive locations, for instance.

 

[Bald Rick]

Wild card idea:

Newark Northgate to Lincoln.

Very few structures, pretty much open countryside so relatively low cost to electrify and would reduce journey times to Lincoln which would help to grow the market.

How would it reduce journey times?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would it reduce journey times?

Acceleration makes a big difference to journey times on local routes. Though the likes of the new CAF DMUs almost match EMUs.

 

[geoffk]

Ipswich - Felixstowe? Apparently four level crossing were "upgraded" in 2019 but I don't know whether the scheme envisaged electrification.

 

[Ken H]

I'm wondering what makes for an 'easy win electrification project'?
Again as the thread title suggests they need 'looking at', looking into, assessing, evaluating.
Those activities take time and people, who would otherwise be doing something else, and therefore cost.
Then there's the approval processes; and the assembly of an implementation team ... and what do they move onto next (and where, etc) ...
Back to rolling programmes, ongoing commitment, stop-go, 'politics', etc

I like the idea of 'easy wins'; if only they were that easy to realise.

I think the OP may have meant shovel ready projects that are also quick.

 

[Bald Rick]

Acceleration makes a big difference to journey times on local routes. Though the likes of the new CAF DMUs almost match EMUs.

I know. But the quote was in the context of London - Lincoln, and they don’t stop between Newark and Lincoln. And the linespeed between Newark and Lincoln is mostly 50mph - the IETs are pretty good accelerating on diesel in that speed range.

 

[BrianW]

Given that it was an active proposal and only dropped due to penny pinching, I think this can fit very close to the classic "things RUK people say are impossible or difficult with spurious objections then end up happening".

If the worst you can come up with is "they might need to put a rural* electricity transmission line underground for about 10-20 metres" then it's indeed easy pickings.

* To save people clicking the link it's what would normally be called "low voltage" i.e. 400ish volt three phase 3-4m or so up on a wooden stick, not large pylons.

A couple of things:
1. As a SOG (Simple Old Git) what does RUK stand for? A Google search told be it's Thai for 'love', which seems unlikely in the context
2. Re Windermere/ Lakes Line. Can someone remind me- How far did proposals get before stopped/ paused? Is there something in the electronic plan chest that could be brought out 'shovel-ready'? I would imagine that there may have been 'developments' since, eg re Batteries/ hydrogen. Even if 'causes' for pausing may have included 'penny-pinching' there is always a need to spend (my money) wisely; and many will take opportunity to retain the 'natural beauty' of the Lakes (as did Oxford's Ruskin back in the day|) It seems to me that bi(/tri)- modes have achieved a lot of acceptability in recent years.
3. For as long as 'public monney' is involved there will and should be politics involved.
4. Recalling the Coalition Government and Tim Farron Lib-Dem local 'Lakes' MP.

 

[Trainbike46]

A couple of things:
1. As a SOG (Simple Old Git) what does RUK stand for? A Google search told be it's Thai for 'love', which seems unlikely in the context

RailUK, ie this forum

 

[Snow1964]

It would be easy to extend the electrification from near Chippenham towards Bath, and Westbury via Melksham, then add Frome, and work back towards Newbury.

Could then easily add on Westbury-Salisbury, then continue to Romsey and towards Basingstoke. I would suggest Romsey-Redbridge/Eastleigh would be simpler as a third rail add on.

Actually passed some electrification work in Italy last week, near Pascarosa (south of Martina Franca). Seem to use a standard galvanised mast which had a sort of curved lattice in centre. All same length (there were stacks of them, and even a truck load being delivered). Just a large square plate with 4 bolt holes welded on bottom. Obviously was a 3kv DC system. But was obvious that costs are kept down by keeping it simple. Just clamp the arms and feeder and return cables as right height, keep the arms facing sideways whilst add feeders/return, then presumably come back and add contact wires.

Did make me wonder why Network rail make it so complicated, seems easier to use these standard lighter masts (which were spaced only about 50-60m apart), especially on branches and secondary lines (and they were in use on mainlines with speed limits of at least 180km/h (112mph), so suitable for majority of UK

 

[A0wen]

Ipswich - Felixstowe? Apparently four level crossing were "upgraded" in 2019 but I don't know whether the scheme envisaged electrification.

Ipswich - Felixstowe would only add up if it were needed by the Freight operators and since doing that route on its own would mean the freights would have to run south and go via the North London Line, that's not going to work.

For Ipswich - Felixstowe to work, you'd probably need Haughley - Ely and Ely - Peterboro to be wired as well.

 

[BrianW]

RailUK, ie this forum

Thank you!! feeling SOG!

 

[class26]

I know. But the quote was in the context of London - Lincoln, and they don’t stop between Newark and Lincoln. And the linespeed between Newark and Lincoln is mostly 50mph - the IETs are pretty good accelerating on diesel in that speed range.

There is a reasonable amount of 70 MPH between Newark and Lincoln, probably just under 50% of the distance and there are two schemes that WERE being looked at to raies speeds throughout to either 75 OR 90 mph but I suspect these schemes will be quietly forgotten in the present financial situation.
The other factor in timings between Newark and Lincoln is waiting time at Newark for paths which extends journey time for various reasons which might be looked at ?

 

[The exile]

It would be easy to extend the electrification from near Chippenham towards Bath, and Westbury via Melksham, then add Frome, and work back towards Newbury.

Could easily add on Westbury-Salisbury, then continue to Romsey and towards Basingstoke. I would suggest Romsey-Redbridge/Eastleigh would be simpler as a third rail

What would be the point of Westbury- Salisbury without Bath - Westbury?

 

[cle]

Ipswich - Felixstowe would only add up if it were needed by the Freight operators and since doing that route on its own would mean the freights would have to run south and go via the North London Line, that's not going to work.

For Ipswich - Felixstowe to work, you'd probably need Haughley - Ely and Ely - Peterboro to be wired as well.

I would think Ely-Peterborough would make sense, even for passenger needs. I'm not sure what would use it immediately - but it might enable the Birmingham service to use bi-modes in future.

But Felixstowe to Nuneaton would be all done, ideally. And Ely-Norwich too, just so all the main Anglian routes are covered, and if Ely works are ever done, various scenarios could be possible under electric - e.g. Kings Cross to Norwich.

 

[swt_passenger]

Guildford to Reigate infill.
Uckfield branch.
Ore to Ashford.
(Subject to the rescinding of the ridiculous objection to further 3rd rail electrification)

The first one also needs Wokingham to North Camp or Ash?

 

[Trainbike46]

Ipswich - Felixstowe would only add up if it were needed by the Freight operators and since doing that route on its own would mean the freights would have to run south and go via the North London Line, that's not going to work.

For Ipswich - Felixstowe to work, you'd probably need Haughley - Ely and Ely - Peterboro to be wired as well.

To get full benefits, all of Felixstowe-Nuneaton would have to be wired all the way, but wiring Felixstowe-Ipswich does have immediate benefits, even if the rest of the route doesn't get electrified:
- Felixstowe freights in the london direction can be electric without changing locomotives at Ipswich
- Felixstowe passenger service goes electric (relatively minor, but still an immediate benefit without requiring new stock)
- Bimode freight locomotives (the incoming class 93 & 99) would be able to use it in electric mode

Now of course if electrifying Haughley-Ely-Peterborough as well, then freights heading up the ECML at peterborough could go fully electric, and if electrifying Peterborough-Leicester-Nuneaton, then freights for the WCML could go electric too (as well as the XC passenger service Birmingham-Leicester-Stansted)

 

[Elecman]

Given that it was an active proposal and only dropped due to penny pinching, I think this can fit very close to the classic "things RUK people say are impossible or difficult with spurious objections then end up happening".

If the worst you can come up with is "they might need to put a rural* electricity transmission line underground for about 10-20 metres" then it's indeed easy pickings.

* To save people clicking the link it's what would normally be called "low voltage" i.e. 400ish volt three phase 3-4m or so up on a wooden stick, not large pylons.

That’s not a 400 volt linevthat’s an 11kV high voltage power line

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s not a 400 volt linevthat’s an 11kV high voltage power line

That low down?

Either way it can be buried.

 

[randyrippley]

Morecambe branch
Should be easy

 

[HamworthyGoods]

This thread talks about ‘easy wins’ which presumably as well as ‘easy’ to deliver are perceived to come in at a cheap price?

It then goes on to mention branch lines like Felixstowe which are heavily used by freight trains at all hours of the day.

Bear in mind one of the biggest costs in the Great Western Electrification Programme (GWEP) was the cost of access, eg the Section 4 payments Network Rail paid to operators unable to run trains whilst the engineering works was going on, that’s all operators affected including freight and open access so not as if some DfT ‘deal’ could be done.

For any route where there’s going to be a high cost of access in the current financial climate is not going to get funded. For any route with a low cost of access there’s probably not enough demand to justify doing it.

It’s also worth noting with the cost of energy even with soaring oil prices that running diesel trains is still cheaper than electric trains, in fact many of the freight operators have been following this model for some time so just because the wires go up there’s no guarantee the operator on that route will choose to take the higher OPEX of using the OLE.

I know this sounds negative, but the Railway is in a tough place funding wise at the moment and despite the green credentials of a reduction in carbon when it comes to money that might not be affordable.

It’s worth noting the NR budget for CP7 is likely to get cut which is likely to see a reduction in renewals. That’s how tight things are before ‘just stringing up some wires’ adds in costs. Don’t forget any additional Overhead Line brings additional maintenance costs which it is clear NR will not be funded for in CP7

Sorry folks to throw a spanner into the thoughts, you will notice in other posts on this forum, especially with regard to Dec 22 and May 22 timetable changes that many involved with future development are finding the current and projected future outlook challenging. Stringing “quick win” wires up at the moment are not likely to feature any time soon.

 

[Trainbike46]

It’s also worth noting with the cost of energy even with soaring oil prices that running diesel trains is still cheaper than electric trains, in fact many of the freight operators have been following this model for some time so just because the wires go up there’s no guarantee the operator on that route will choose to take the higher OPEX of using the OLE.

You're wrong, the OPEX of a diesel train is higher than of an electric train

My understanding was that this was not true for a short period when freight operators where buying electricty on the spot market (expensive at the time), but had supply contracts for diesel at old, pre-price explosion prices.

There is a reason FOCs are buying bimodes, they wouldn't if it was cheaper to run a straight diesel...

For passenger stock at least, an electric train is much cheaper over the whole lifecycle than a diesel one, because electricity is cheaper than diesel, the train is more energy efficient, needs less maintenance, is more reliable and is cheaper to buy.

This is why in the traction cost analysis from 2015, diesel fuel was a lot more expensive per vehicle kilometre than electricity

 

[HamworthyGoods]

You're wrong, the OPEX of a diesel train is higher than of an electric train

My understanding was that this was not true for a short period when freight operators where buying electricty on the spot market (expensive at the time), but had supply contracts for diesel at old, pre-price explosion prices.

There is a reason FOCs are buying bimodes, they wouldn't if it was cheaper to run a straight diesel...

For passenger stock at least, an electric train is much cheaper over the whole lifecycle than a diesel one, because electricity is cheaper than diesel, the train is more energy efficient, needs less maintenance, is more reliable and is cheaper to buy.

This is why in the traction cost analysis from 2015, diesel fuel was a lot more expensive per vehicle kilometre than electricity

Bimodes are being built on the basis of Cost of Carbon featuring in the business case and the current carbon targets.

The current access charge of a diesel train is cheaper than an electric train. What may or may not swing the costs dependant on circumstance is maintenance costs of the train are cheaper with electric.

 

[A0wen]

That’s not a 400 volt linevthat’s an 11kV high voltage power line

What's 10.6kv ac amongst friends......