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

[GRALISTAIR]

I know further third rail electrification has been mentioned as being off the cards but for me, if the country is serious about decarbonising rail further, this need to be looked at pragmatically.

• Ormskirk to Preston - 22km (Merseyrail Class 777)

I am biased but imho that is not a good idea. Battery or OHLE for that section for a variety of reasons.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Minor extensions to the third rail network through in the following locations would add the following rough distances (may not be exact but don’t need to be to highlight the point):

• Ashford to Ore - 41km (Southern battery Aventra)
• Oxted to Uckfield - 40km (Southern battery Aventra)
• Reigate to Guildford - 28km (Transfer from GWR to Southern - battery Aventra)
• Wokingham to Ash - 19km (Transfer from GWR to Southern - battery Aventra)
• Bidston to Wrexham - 42km (Merseyrail Class 777)
• Ormskirk to Preston - 22km (Merseyrail Class 777)
• Hunts Cross to Birchwood - 23km (Merseyrail Class 777)
• Kirkby to Wigan - 19km (Merseyrail Class 777)
• Total = 234km

I'm a little confused here. You want to remove the buffer stops at Ormskirk and Kirkby and reunite the railway either side, but also divide the railway and impose an enforced change at Warrington Central?

 

[biggerisbetter]

In response to the following points:

“So 234km for 28ish units saved?”

234km of lines operated by fully electric services but not 234km of electrification as the use of battery units means that only parts of these routes - the cheapest / safest. It also saves more than 28ish units given the routes transferred from Northern to Merseyrail but also results in a massive improvement in services in places such as Elton, Helsby, Burscough, Orell, Pemberton and direct access to Liverpool for stations on the Borderlands line.

“Given battery units units currently operate with a service range of 80km, and I wouldn't be surprised if a service range of 100km is achieved in short order, why go to the fuss, bother and expense of putting down third rail instead of just jumping to battery trains straight away?”

Taking that to the extreme, why bother with any further electrification? Why not wait until battery technology improves sufficiently until all services can be operated by battery trains? If better performance can be achieved pretty quickly and with very high reliability that requires less physical electrical infrastructure to be added or none at all then I would agree that this would be preferable as there is no point doing this for the sake of it.

“I am biased but imho that is not a good idea. Battery or OHLE for that section for a variety of reasons.”

What are the variety of reasons? As my post states, even adopting a conservative range for services of 30km with the existing 777 technology, this would only require 6km of the Ormskirk to Preston line to be electrified. You would do this where it is cheapest / safest / lowest risk of flooding or wherever caused the least impact in respect of the other variety of reasons you suggest.

“I’m a little confused here. You want to remove the buffer stops at Ormskirk and Kirkby and reunite the railway either side, but also divide the railway and impose an enforced change at Warrington Central?”

Maybe there is not capacity for this but I would see the extension of Merseyrail to Warrington as being equivalent for the Western side of the CLC line to Greater Manchester’s tram train proposals. You would retain the through express current EMR services and Airport stopper but replace the Liverpool to Warrington Central Service and the Liverpool to Oxford Road service with extended Merseyrail services on the west (presume a minimum 2 but as many as you can fit in) and tram-train on the east of the line. There would therefore be very few people forced to change at Warrington. Not as revolutionary improvement in services as would be the case for the other examples but would provide better linkages to the rest of the Merseyrail Network, better access to Liverpool City Centre and freeing up of paths and platform space at Lime Street.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Maybe there is not capacity for this but I would see the extension of Merseyrail to Warrington as being equivalent for the Western side of the CLC line to Greater Manchester’s tram train proposals. You would retain the through express current EMR services and Airport stopper but replace the Liverpool to Warrington Central Service and the Liverpool to Oxford Road service with extended Merseyrail services on the west (presume a minimum 2 but as many as you can fit in) and tram-train on the east of the line. There would therefore be very few people forced to change at Warrington. Not as revolutionary improvement in services as would be the case for the other examples but would provide better linkages to the rest of the Merseyrail Network, better access to Liverpool City Centre and freeing up of paths and platform space at Lime Street.

My point was that people will begrudge what they see as a foolish decision from the past, namely the enforced changes and inability to run through trains at Ormskirk and Kirkby... but want to repeat the same "foolish decision" at Warrington Central.

Even if you don't install buffer stops and can still run through, Manchester to Warrington is unsuitable for trams (or tram-trains) in my opinion. The Western half being Merseyrail is all well and good, but Manchester's choice of mode for their urban railways isn't the mode you'd choose for medium-distance journeys such as Manchester to Warrington. I'd also be very cautious of tram-train vehicles (even if fitted out for longer trips) sharing the same tracks as long-distance regional expresses.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I am biased but imho that is not a good idea. Battery or OHLE for that section for a variety of reasons.

What are the variety of reasons? As my post states, even adopting a conservative range for services of 30km with the existing 777 technology, this would only require 6km of the Ormskirk to Preston line to be electrified. You would do this where it is cheapest / safest / lowest risk of flooding or wherever caused the least impact in respect of the other variety of reasons you suggest.

Here goes:
I see you have modified your original and are now proposing a short extension of 3rd rail from Ormskirk and not all the way to Preston. Going all the way to Preston would have meant quite a few miles of 3rd rail and OHLE side by side which creates numerous problems.

The area is more prone to flooding than some and so I would prefer conductors to be overhead rather than ground level.

The Northern Sparks report which I can link if required put Calder Valley all the way through from Leeds and Bradford to Blackburn and Preston and not just Rochdale route as Number 1 priority. This would be OHLE. Therefore, from Farington Curve Junction (high level) at least (probably Moss Lane Jct too), into Preston would be OHLE.

I know at the moment only Lostock Jct -Wigan station Jct is being electrified but there are aspirations to make it to Southport and via Atherton OHLE.

I get reinstating the curves proposal got rejected but could come back. So, in my opinion, the only thing that has merit is to 3rd rail to Burscough Junction and battery from there with OHLE eventually though to Farington Jct but not in my lifetime.

 

[biggerisbetter]

Here goes:
I see you have modified your original and are now proposing a short extension of 3rd rail from Ormskirk and not all the way to Preston. Going all the way to Preston would have meant quite a few miles of 3rd rail and OHLE side by side which creates numerous problems.

The area is more prone to flooding than some and so I would prefer conductors to be overhead rather than ground level.

The Northern Sparks report which I can link if required put Calder Valley all the way through from Leeds and Bradford to Blackburn and Preston and not just Rochdale route as Number 1 priority. This would be OHLE. Therefore, from Farington Curve Junction (high level) at least (probably Moss Lane Jct too), into Preston would be OHLE.

I know at the moment only Lostock Jct -Wigan station Jct is being electrified but there are aspirations to make it to Southport and via Atherton OHLE.
View attachment 129132
I get reinstating the curves proposal got rejected but could come back. So, in my opinion, the only thing that has merit is to 3rd rail to Burscough Junction and battery from there with OHLE eventually though to Farington Jct but not in my lifetime.

I haven’t modified my original proposal. I originally suggested using battery EMUs so that the extent of infrastructure could be minimised whilst running fully electric trains on the route. A review of the flood maps does show large parts of the line in Flood Zones 2 and 3 although there is still sufficient distance that falls outside these areas to install sufficient 3rd rail so that the hypothetical 30km range battery EMUs could be used. This would also avoid Farmington Curve Junction.

 

[Jack Hay]

My point was that people will begrudge what they see as a foolish decision from the past, namely the enforced changes and inability to run through trains at Ormskirk and Kirkby... but want to repeat the same "foolish decision" at Warrington Central.

Even if you don't install buffer stops and can still run through, Manchester to Warrington is unsuitable for trams (or tram-trains) in my opinion. The Western half being Merseyrail is all well and good, but Manchester's choice of mode for their urban railways isn't the mode you'd choose for medium-distance journeys such as Manchester to Warrington. I'd also be very cautious of tram-train vehicles (even if fitted out for longer trips) sharing the same tracks as long-distance regional expresses.

I agree that Manchester to Warrington is unsuitable for tram-trains. People are forgetting the Manchester's tram-trains won't be like the big spacious tram-trains in some European cities. They'll be short, cramped vehicles, and necessarily so because they'll have to negotiate the sharp curves and tight clearances in Manchester's streets. They'll be trams re-marketed, that's all.

 

[cle]

There is an irony in doing to Warrington Central what we are talking about undoing at Kirkby and Ormskirk.

The difference is the metro-ization of it. Those latter two have crappy hourly diesel services. The plan would be to have brand new electric Merseyrail trains @ 4tph on each route. That would be a massive improvement and stimulate much better usage and connections.

Warrington - is currently a sad diesel service too. Even splitting there would enable a likely 4tph Mersey and 5tph Manc (per their general respective cadence) - electric, better for the environment, and turn up and go frequency for a ton of places. Widnes-Birchwood etc journeys are non-existent. Warrington BQ would have to do the lifting for faster Manchester services (already better - and just an another fast to Chester). Yes it would be slower for some, like Birchwood-Manc (fast once an hour, woohoo!) - but how about a one seat ride to a ton of city destinations every 12 mins? Much much better on aggregate. plus the likes of Urmston etc long neglected by a crap rail service but all pretty vibrant suburbs, could see it exploding.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd rather see electrification and a few loops provided on the CLC line so that a decent stopping and fast services can be provided. Warrington West was a bit of a lost opportunity to provide a loop of some sort.

A half hourly service to the intermediate stations with space for the fasts shouldn't be unobtainable.

 

[Greybeard33]

I agree that Manchester to Warrington is unsuitable for tram-trains. People are forgetting the Manchester's tram-trains won't be like the big spacious tram-trains in some European cities. They'll be short, cramped vehicles, and necessarily so because they'll have to negotiate the sharp curves and tight clearances in Manchester's streets. They'll be trams re-marketed, that's all.

Tram-trains in continental Europe, like those in Sheffield, have a standard width of 2.65m, which is the maximum allowed for vehicles that run on street. That is exactly the same as the Manchester Metrolink M5000 trams. The Sheffield tram-trains are 37m long, which is the German standard, but Manchester ones would likely be about 55-60m long, to give similar capacity to a double M5000 formation. So less cramped.

There is an irony in doing to Warrington Central what we are talking about undoing at Kirkby and Ormskirk.

The difference is the metro-ization of it. Those latter two have crappy hourly diesel services. The plan would be to have brand new electric Merseyrail trains @ 4tph on each route. That would be a massive improvement and stimulate much better usage and connections.

Warrington - is currently a sad diesel service too. Even splitting there would enable a likely 4tph Mersey and 5tph Manc (per their general respective cadence) - electric, better for the environment, and turn up and go frequency for a ton of places. Widnes-Birchwood etc journeys are non-existent. Warrington BQ would have to do the lifting for faster Manchester services (already better - and just an another fast to Chester). Yes it would be slower for some, like Birchwood-Manc (fast once an hour, woohoo!) - but how about a one seat ride to a ton of city destinations every 12 mins? Much much better on aggregate. plus the likes of Urmston etc long neglected by a crap rail service but all pretty vibrant suburbs, could see it exploding.

The Manchester Task Force has proposed turnback sidings at Warrington West and Birchwood, to enable overlapping stopping services from Manchester and Liverpool, rather than splitting the service at Warrington Central. This would satisfy the local demand for cross Warrington connectivity.

 

[BrianW]

There is an irony in doing to Warrington Central what we are talking about undoing at Kirkby and Ormskirk.

The difference is the metro-ization of it. Those latter two have crappy hourly diesel services. The plan would be to have brand new electric Merseyrail trains @ 4tph on each route. That would be a massive improvement and stimulate much better usage and connections.

Warrington - is currently a sad diesel service too. Even splitting there would enable a likely 4tph Mersey and 5tph Manc (per their general respective cadence) - electric, better for the environment, and turn up and go frequency for a ton of places. Widnes-Birchwood etc journeys are non-existent. Warrington BQ would have to do the lifting for faster Manchester services (already better - and just an another fast to Chester). Yes it would be slower for some, like Birchwood-Manc (fast once an hour, woohoo!) - but how about a one seat ride to a ton of city destinations every 12 mins? Much much better on aggregate. plus the likes of Urmston etc long neglected by a crap rail service but all pretty vibrant suburbs, could see it exploding.

Prompted to think about something more like Merseyrail, or the London Underground, or Southern Electrics- frequent, known, turn-up-and-go end-to-end services.
What would Manchester or leeds look like with something akin to that. Maybe Tyneside 3rd rail was envisaged something like that. I would imagine the current 'Balkanisation', boundaries and 'big picture' trans-Pennine, NPR, etc competing for limited (ie Non-existant?) resources is far from conducive to integrated investment. Competition appears to be winning over collaboration, as in eg Towns Fund, Beeching reversals, ... A Harper's Bazaar fashion parade? Or Merryman's Inferior 5? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferior_Five)

 

[Class15]

Lots of easy wins that make sense:

Poplar curve
Acton Canal Wharf
London Gateway
South Acton curves
Dutton FLT

 

[Brubulus]

There is an irony in doing to Warrington Central what we are talking about undoing at Kirkby and Ormskirk.

The difference is the metro-ization of it. Those latter two have crappy hourly diesel services. The plan would be to have brand new electric Merseyrail trains @ 4tph on each route. That would be a massive improvement and stimulate much better usage and connections.

Warrington - is currently a sad diesel service too. Even splitting there would enable a likely 4tph Mersey and 5tph Manc (per their general respective cadence) - electric, better for the environment, and turn up and go frequency for a ton of places. Widnes-Birchwood etc journeys are non-existent. Warrington BQ would have to do the lifting for faster Manchester services (already better - and just an another fast to Chester). Yes it would be slower for some, like Birchwood-Manc (fast once an hour, woohoo!) - but how about a one seat ride to a ton of city destinations every 12 mins? Much much better on aggregate. plus the likes of Urmston etc long neglected by a crap rail service but all pretty vibrant suburbs, could see it exploding.

It would be bad for Warrington as it would add an extra 10 mins to Manchester and 15 mins to Liverpool. Warrington. I'd like to see electrification and 3tph slow and 2tph fast at least. I don't see the downside to through trains, so long as they have a load of padding and get lopped in the middle, still provides connectivity, but ensures reliability. The line definetly needs electrification and loops to provide the described service. It isn't an easy win, but it would be a big win.

 

[Bald Rick]

Lots of easy wins that make sense:

Poplar curve
Acton Canal Wharf
London Gateway
South Acton curves
Dutton FLT

Gateway aside (discussed above), most of these are not easy, nor do they enable much in the way of electric haulage.

 

[Class15]

Gateway aside (discussed above), most of these are not easy, nor do they enable much in the way of electric haulage.

Poplar curve not enabling electric haulage??!!

Tons of aggregate trains, Freightliners to Felixstowe (which could change loco at Ipswich).

Okay, we need wiring of Acton and Wentloog yards to make more use of this, but I don’t get how there is not much to be enabled.

 

[Bald Rick]

Tons of aggregate trains, Freightliners to Felixstowe (which could change loco at Ipswich).

which aggregate trains?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Gateway aside (discussed above), most of these are not easy, nor do they enable much in the way of electric haulage.

There was a fine article by a very senior ex Railfreight manager in Modern Railways some years ago (not that long ago) , who listed a number of sound proposals , - however , he acknowledged there are some tricky bits.

Acton Wells Junction Acton Yard via the Poplar lines is one I considered a long while ago. Not easy.

 

[Class15]

which aggregate trains?

Acton to Dagenham and Acton to Chelmsford.

 

[Bald Rick]

Acton to Dagenham and Acton to Chelmsford.

4 trains a day? If they run?

 

[td97]

I'm surprised Buxton hasn't come up yet. The route's half-complete as far as Hazel Grove, and is worthy of 2tph all day. The Buxton services also pick up Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme which warrant EMUs on the busy Stockport - Piccadilly corridor. The Hazel Grove wires are astonishingly underused, presently seeing 3tpd EMU.
I'd also like to see Low Fell to MetroCentre get 2 miles of wires to facilitate a 100mph EMU stopper between Morpeth/Chathill and MetroCentre, and get rid of 75mph diesel Sprinters on the ECML. Even the local depot is wired.

 

[Class15]

4 trains a day? If they run?

Those and also Acton to Purfleet, Wembley to Acton and West Drayton to Dagenham

I'd also like to see Low Fell to MetroCentre get 2 miles of wires to facilitate a 100mph EMU stopper between Morpeth/Chathill and MetroCentre, and get rid of 75mph diesel Sprinters on the ECML. Even the local depot is wired.

That one makes a lot of sense.

The Hazel Grove wires are astonishingly underused, presently seeing 3tpd EMU.

That’s not the case - there’s an hourly EMU service to Piccadilly.

 

[td97]

That’s not the case - there’s an hourly EMU service to Piccadilly.

Not since the Dec 2022 timetable change. 3tpd EMU is all (incidentally the Hazel Grove terminator interworks with the through service to Buxton, so is a DMU most of the day).

 

[zwk500]

I'm surprised Buxton hasn't come up yet. The route's half-complete as far as Hazel Grove, and is worthy of 2tph all day. The Buxton services also pick up Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme which warrant EMUs on the busy Stockport - Piccadilly corridor. The Hazel Grove wires are astonishingly underused, presently seeing 3tpd EMU.

Buxton isn't easy to do though, there's lots of structure, and big ones, that might pose problems as well as possibly requiring resignalling to get rid of the Semaphores

I'd also like to see Low Fell to MetroCentre get 2 miles of wires to facilitate a 100mph EMU stopper between Morpeth/Chathill and MetroCentre, and get rid of 75mph diesel Sprinters on the ECML. Even the local depot is wired.

Have those diagrams gone back to Morpeth in recent timetables? I thought Tyne Valley services worked through onto the Durham Coast line, but must admit to not being up to speed with what they all do nowadays.

 

[td97]

Buxton isn't easy to do though, there's lots of structure, and big ones, that might pose problems as well as possibly requiring resignalling to get rid of the Semaphores

Most electrification requires resignalling of some variety. Better to replace life-expired semaphores than mid-life non AC-immune signalling.

Have those diagrams gone back to Morpeth in recent timetables? I thought Tyne Valley services worked through onto the Durham Coast line, but must admit to not being up to speed with what they all do nowadays.

The timetable will need recasting for the Northumberland line reopening anyway.

 

[daodao]

I'd rather see electrification and a few loops provided on the CLC line so that a decent stopping and fast services can be provided. Warrington West was a bit of a lost opportunity to provide a loop of some sort.

A half hourly service to the intermediate stations with space for the fasts shouldn't be unobtainable.

For once, I agree with you, but it should all be done at 25 kV AC to maintain connectivity. The Liverpool-Manchester CLC line isn't entirely an "easy win", given the existing 3rd rail electrification for Merseyrail local services from Hunt's Cross westwards, but it doesn't have much in the way of complicated track or junctions. It really should have been done up to 50 years ago, once the 2 ends of the line into Liverpool Lime Street and along the MSJ&A line to Manchester Piccadilly had been wired at 25 kV AC. Merseyrail have not ordered enough emus with batteries to enable partial removal of the 3rd rail electrification where it overlaps west of Hunt's Cross.

 

[zwk500]

Most electrification requires resignalling of some variety. Better to replace life-expired semaphores than mid-life non AC-immune signalling.

Yes, but that doesn't make it an easy win. It's also possible to immunise an existing installation without total replacement.

The timetable will need recasting for the Northumberland line reopening anyway.

Not as I understand it, the paths will be dropped in to existing gaps.

 

[Meerkat]

Merseyrail have not ordered enough emus with batteries to enable partial removal of the 3rd rail electrification where it overlaps west of Hunt's Cross.

Does it need to overlap? I know it is starting to move away from 'quick win' but swap the platform use around with a new track layout that keeps the Merseyrail on the south side.
Its operationally crazy that they cross over the CLC to terminate!

 

[The Planner]

Most electrification requires resignalling of some variety. Better to replace life-expired semaphores than mid-life non AC-immune signalling.

Yes, but on a line like this, whilst you are getting rid of Furness Vale, Chapel en le Frith and Buxton, you would likely trigger having to do Hazel Grove which is nearing 40 years. I doubt anyone is going to consider those until the bullet is bit with Edgeley and Stockport. Semaphores will be easier to life extend than more modern panels with knackered wiring.

 

[td97]

you would likely trigger having to do Hazel Grove which is nearing 40 year

Edgeley to Hazel Grove is being resignalled this year as part of Hope Valley route upgrade

 

[The Planner]

Edgeley to Hazel Grove is being resignalled this year as part of Hope Valley route upgrade

The boxes aren't going and some signals are being repositioned and about 2 new ones, that is about it.