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

[61653 HTAFC]

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.

Isn't there an "option" for additional units? Whether they're battery or DV (something that unfortunately is an "either/or" situation). Of course it would need funding, but it's not as if the type is no longer available.

 

[Annetts key]

Semaphores will be easier to life extend than more modern panels with knackered wiring.

The most annoying thing is that the problems with insulation degradation of internal rubber wiring have been known for decades. BR knew of problems with some batch’s of wire in the late 1980s. Plus some electrical wiring for semaphore/mechanical areas was not in a great state.

But despite this, in a lot of places, until the insulation got to the ‘brown trousers’ state, no one wanted to do much about replacing the affected wiring.

In places where good quality PVC insulation was used, that’s still intact despite being over fifty years old. Similarly, a lot of the rubber insulated wires that came from good batches, is also still serviceable, again despite being very old.

And if the railways got their existing staff to renew the affected internal wiring before it got into such a sorry state (when special control measures have to be introduced), it could be replaced at a fraction of the cost of resignalling.

The bigger problem was the external lineside and tail cables. The rubber types in wet conditions typically only last twenty to thirty years.

Anyway, sorry for going off topic.

 

[73128]

I agree.

let alone Colne to Skipton (with rebuild)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

let alone Colne to Skipton (with rebuild)

There is no way that is going to happen. Just no way.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There is no way that is going to happen. Just no way.

I am sure there others here , agreeing with your views on this. Mentioned many times before - "an aspiration that just never goes away"

 

[Meerkat]

I am sure there others here , agreeing with your views on this. Mentioned many times before - "an aspiration that just never goes away"

Because politicians get votes from supporting campaigns, and lose votes by telling people to put their crayons away!

 

[Halifaxlad]

There is no way that is going to happen. Just no way.

I certainly can't imagine it being rebuilt as a double track line and electrified.

A single track electrified line, maybe.

It would certainly be relatively easy to electrify.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I certainly can't imagine it being rebuilt as a double track line and electrified.

A single track electrified line, maybe.

It would certainly be relatively easy to electrify.

It's got more chance of coming back as a cycling and walking route. The main campaign group refusing to acknowledge the existence of the Copy Pit route certainly doesn't help their case.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

WBQ to Chester and up the Halton Curve?

 

[WAO]

It's got more chance of coming back as a cycling and walking route. The main campaign group refusing to acknowledge the existence of the Copy Pit route certainly doesn't help their case.

This is surely the best way to start a rail re-opening as it secures the right of way permanently against encroaching development, which can be changed to a railway by a TWAO at some future date when a better case can be made. This is stronger than a protected line on a planners map which has to be activated within five years IIRC and can be overridden on appeal.

The way to electrification must be where sufficient traffic can be converted to electric traction, even if that means sectioning existing longer distance services where there are no bi-modes available. The steady advance of MML wiring shows that it must pay to extend the wires above the bi-modes. Rather than look at wiring the B&H to Exeter, the immediate aim should be Bedwyn as this could be used by all passenger services. The B&E would however need XC to be able to use the wires to have a chance.

WAO

 

[Brubulus]

Rather than look at wiring the B&H to Exeter, the immediate aim should be Bedwyn as this could be used by all passenger services. The B&E would however need XC to be able to use the wires to have a chance.

Bedwyn is only really viable if it wouldn't require another feeder station. If it didn't require another feeder station, it's one of the easiest wins possible.
The CLC might not require a feeder station(or only one), given the number of electrified lines around it and would allow quite a few services to go electric. Newton Heath - Rochdale might also be a relatively easy win, again if it doesn't require a feeder station. Reading West - Basingstoke would not require a feeder station so it's another easy win.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

This is surely the best way to start a rail re-opening as it secures the right of way permanently against encroaching development, which can be changed to a railway by a TWAO at some future date when a better case can be made. This is stronger than a protected line on a planners map which has to be activated within five years IIRC and can be overridden on appeal.

In the case of Skipton to Colne it's literally the only chance of the route getting any sort of use at all- if it ever reopens as a railway, even as a narrow-gauge Clayton West-style heritage line or one of those weird French rail-cycle things I'll eat my hat, and the hats of everyone in Yorkshire. It certainly has no place on a thread about "easy win" electrifications!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Newton Heath - Rochdale might also be a relatively easy win, again if it doesn't require a feeder station.

Surely that can be fed from Heyrod?

 

[Nottingham59]

The steady advance of MML wiring shows that it must pay to extend the wires above the bi-modes.

You would hope so, but I rather fear it's a political decision that over-rode the poor economics as a sop for cancelling HS2 to Leeds.

 

[WAO]

Bedwyn is only really viable if it wouldn't require another feeder station. If it didn't require another feeder station, it's one of the easiest wins possible.
The CLC might not require a feeder station(or only one), given the number of electrified lines around it and would allow quite a few services to go electric. Newton Heath - Rochdale might also be a relatively easy win, again if it doesn't require a feeder station. Reading West - Basingstoke would not require a feeder station so it's another easy win.

Well said.

Bedwyn will be reachable when the AT extension lead from Bramley is commissioned to the present Reading AT(F)S. It's about 28 miles, a reasonable AT mid-point.

WAO

 

[td97]

Newton Heath - Rochdale might also be a relatively easy win, again if it doesn't require a feeder station

Requires a rather large depot though...
(and is more like "Rochdale Rd/A664 to Rochdale" as only the slow lines are wired from Rochdale Road to Miles Platting)

 

[Brubulus]

Requires a rather large depot though...
(and is more like "Rochdale Rd/A664 to Rochdale" as only the slow lines are wired from Rochdale Road to Miles Platting)

That's what I meant but Rochdale would make a large fleet of battery units in the north a lot more viable

 

[Jack Hay]

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.

All the Merseyrail 777s are now going to be fitted with batteries to make a uniform fleet. However, this also means that there will be none with pantographs.

 

[daodao]

All the Merseyrail 777s are now going to be fitted with batteries to make a uniform fleet. However, this also means that there will be none with pantographs.

That will be good - please could you provide a reference/source. I am aware that all the class 777 trains will be fitted with small batteries, but these are only to permit shunting in non-electrified sidings, as distinct from sizeable batteries to enable running for some distance on non-electrified lines. They don't need pantographs.

If they all had sizeable batteries, Merseyrail could take over the Wigan-Kirkby, Ormskirk-Preston, Ellesmere Port-Helsby and Borderlands lines, and could be used on any proposed services to Skelmersdale or possible re-opening to Gateacre, to facilitate integration. I would still electrify the CLC line via Warrington east of Liverpool South Parkway using 25 kV, and run the class 777 units using their batteries east of this point to Hunt's Cross (and ideally Gateacre).

 

[Jack Hay]

That will be good - please could you provide a reference/source. I am aware that all the class 777 trains will be fitted with small batteries, but these are only to permit shunting in non-electrified sidings, as distinct from sizeable batteries to enable running for some distance on non-electrified lines. They don't need pantographs.

If they all had sizeable batteries, Merseyrail could take over the Wigan-Kirkby, Ormskirk-Preston, Ellesmere Port-Helsby and Borderlands lines, and could be used on any proposed services to Skelmersdale or possible re-opening to Gateacre, to facilitate integration. I would still electrify the CLC line via Warrington east of Liverpool South Parkway using 25 kV, and run the class 777 units using their batteries east of this point to Hunt's Cross (and ideally Gateacre).

The battery announcement came from the DfT last August - I will try to find the link. LCR have referred to it several times and they do mean full size, not depot batteries. My point about pantographs is that once it's been decided to fit every 777 with batteries, pantographs can't be added as well (the Stadler design is for two power sources maximum), so this rules out any services which run on both third rail and 25kV lines unless batteries are used under the wires (which would be unusual). How to electrify the CLC is a tricky decision. I would do the same as you but I hear from LCR that the DfT ideally wants to see CLC local services routed to Liverpool Central again to free up paths on the main line for NPR. This weakens the business case for 25kV on the CLC because the local services wouldn't be using it.

 

[Meerkat]

This weakens the business case for 25kV on the CLC because the local services wouldn't be using it.

Surely these kind of extensions would require a fleet increase for Merseyrail - so they would just buy the new ones with 25kv and without the batteries?

 

[Jack Hay]

The discussions they're having at the moment focus on having a homogeneous fleet and they are developing business cases for the various extensions mentioned up-thread using batteries, and yes, these would need a bigger fleet. You can guess that the DfT likes the idea of battery extensions if it saves the bother of electrification. If it was me I'd electrify the lot at 25kV!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

All the Merseyrail 777s are now going to be fitted with batteries to make a uniform fleet. However, this also means that there will be none with pantographs.

That will be good - please could you provide a reference/source. I am aware that all the class 777 trains will be fitted with small batteries, but these are only to permit shunting in non-electrified sidings, as distinct from sizeable batteries to enable running for some distance on non-electrified lines. They don't need pantographs.

If they all had sizeable batteries, Merseyrail could take over the Wigan-Kirkby, Ormskirk-Preston, Ellesmere Port-Helsby and Borderlands lines, and could be used on any proposed services to Skelmersdale or possible re-opening to Gateacre, to facilitate integration. I would still electrify the CLC line via Warrington east of Liverpool South Parkway using 25 kV, and run the class 777 units using their batteries east of this point to Hunt's Cross (and ideally Gateacre).

I thought someone "in the know" from within Merseytravel had corrected this, and reiterated that the "all 777s will have batteries" thing was referring to the shunt batteries and not the full-fat ones required for use on the main line?

 

[Jack Hay]

I thought someone "in the know" from within Merseytravel had corrected this, and reiterated that the "all 777s will have batteries" thing was referring to the shunt batteries and not the full-fat ones required for use on the main line?

I'm aware of that but the information I have comes recently from LCR (Liverpool City Region) and they are certainly evaluating the business cases for the battery-powered extensions mentioned. I will ask the question directly if I have an opportunity.

 

[Annetts key]

You can guess that the DfT likes the idea of battery extensions if it saves the bother of electrification. If it was me I'd electrify the lot at 25kV!

If it were me, I’d electrify the lot of the DfT, the treasury, number 10, number 11 all at 25kV!
I think you get the idea…

(Only joking, I have nothing against hard working PCS members).

 

[WAO]

I wonder whether the CLC route would have a better, simpler case if Merseyrail were to be cut back from Hunts Cross to Garston/Parkway after wiring. The CLC serves a part of the region that is more prosperous and would likely make good use of the improvements electrification would bring.

WAO

 

[Elecman]

I thought someone "in the know" from within Merseytravel had corrected this, and reiterated that the "all 777s will have batteries" thing was referring to the shunt batteries and not the full-fat ones required for use on the main line?

That was my interpretation of the situation too

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I wonder whether the CLC route would have a better, simpler case if Merseyrail were to be cut back from Hunts Cross to Garston/Parkway after wiring. The CLC serves a part of the region that is more prosperous and would likely make good use of the improvements electrification would bring.

WAO

This probably should have happened when South Parkway opened. AIUI the main reason for the layout at Hunts Cross is because of the then-proposed reopening to Gateacre... which is probably only marginally more likely to happen than Prince Andrew becoming King.

 

[Nottingham59]

Given the talk of extending both Merseyrail and Metrolink to Warrington on the CLC line, I do wonder if there is scope to add a short W-S chord at the WCML crossing? This would allow Merseyrail (on battery) to serve Warrington Bank Quay with its HS2 service to London and NPR service to Manchester and Leeds. You would have to lower the CLC track bed and maybe demolish a gym, but I think it could be done with the same 300m radius as the loop in Central.

Similarly, a E-S curve at the same crossing would allow Metrolink to serve Warrington BQ too. This would be easy given that tram curves can come down to 20m radius, like they do at Piccadilly Gardens.

You might have to replace and raise the A57 bridge to allow more tracks below it, but would the increased connectivity to London and Manchester be worth it?

 

[daodao]

would allow Metrolink to serve Warrington BQ

That is not an ‘easy-win’-electrification-project. Metrolink cannot serve the CLC Liverpool-Manchester line unless:

• the heavy rail freight yards in Trafford Park are relocated;
• extra Metrolink capacity is provided from Cornbrook eastwards into/under Manchester city centre; and
• an alternative route with sufficient capacity is provided for fast trains from Manchester to Liverpool.

The "easy win" is simply to electrify the CLC line at 25 kV AC with all passenger services run as heavy rail by Northern emus.