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

[WAO]

mods note - split from here

I get the impression that electrification projects are now just that, tightly defined and limited in scope and area, to prove that it can be done.

Nothing else will be tackled unless really necessary, or some other budget agrees to fund it. You might see a portal over a wider (vacant) track bed but not if a TTC will do. Hence the fourth through platform at Leicester but no easing of the curve at Great Bowden.

WAO

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I get the impression that electrification projects are now just that, tightly defined and limited in scope and area, to prove that it can be done.

Nothing else will be tackled unless really necessary, or some other budget agrees to fund it. You might see a portal over a wider (vacant) track bed but not if a TTC will do. Hence the fourth through platform at Leicester but no easing of the curve at Great Bowden.

WAO

I agree. Proving it can be done is key. When you get all the add ones (see TPU) for example, the costs get eye watering.

 

[Sonik]

I agree. Proving it can be done is key. When you get all the add ones (see TPU) for example, the costs get eye watering.

The problem I see, is that while much good work is being done by the project planning teams and supply chain, only 'difficult' schemes are progressing at the moment i.e. MML and TPU

It would perhaps be helpful to throw some easy wins into the mix to reduce the average cost per KM i.e. schemes that perhaps don't have such a great BCR but can be delivered at much lower cost

 

[59CosG95]

The problem I see, is that while much good work is being done by the project planning teams and supply chain, only 'difficult' schemes are progressing at the moment i.e. MML and TPU

It would perhaps be helpful to throw some easy wins into the mix to reduce the average cost per KM i.e. schemes that perhaps don't have such a great BCR but can be delivered at much lower cost

The South Wales Metro and Glasgow to Barrhead/East Kilbride schemes beg to differ!

 

[snowball]

The South Wales Metro and Glasgow to Barrhead/East Kilbride schemes beg to differ!

They're under different jurisdictions.

(And East Kilbride hasn't started yet!)

 

[Bald Rick]

As a project it's been approved and cancelled more times than I can count.

I’m sorry to hear about your counting ability.
How many times has MML electrification actually been approved For construction in full?

schemes that perhaps don't have such a great BCR but can be delivered at much lower cost

Market Harboro’ to Wigston is about as simple as you will get. 2 track, diversion route available for all traffic, a few bridges, that’s it.

 

[Sonik]

The South Wales Metro and Glasgow to Barrhead/East Kilbride schemes beg to differ!

They're under different jurisdictions.

Yep, I was thinking in terms of cost perceptions and the politics of getting future schemes approved, which isn't such a problem outside England.

In England, the industry has been instructed by Westminster to prove they can lower costs, while only having quite challenging schemes on the table to work with.

But on the plus side, and back OT, the MML team seems to be doing pretty well regardless.

Market Harboro’ to Wigston is about as simple as you will get. 2 track, diversion route available for all traffic, a few bridges, that’s it.

I was thinking more along the lines of something in the Fens, with no bridges or tunnels at all, just miles of STCs and wire. Hull would not be too bad aside from the swing bridges.

 

[Bald Rick]

was thinking more along the lines of something in the fens, with no bridges at all, just miles of STCs and wire.

Fens are expensive - foundations and Level crossings…

 

[Sonik]

Fens are expensive - foundations and Level crossings…

The ground conditions are at least consistent, which seems to be where a lot of the cost comes in.

How are level crossings a problem with a constant wire height? Renewing them is not an electrification problem.

 

[Bald Rick]

How are level crossings a problem with a constant wire height?

It’s not a constant wire height!

 

[AM9]

It’s not a constant wire height!

Aren't wire heights through level crossings raised to the maximum normal height or at least the minimum required for road traffic clearance? In open country, I would expect the height to be at the optimum for reliable pantograph operation, - especially on high speed lines.

 

[59CosG95]

Aren't wire heights through level crossings raised to the maximum normal height or at least the minimum required for road traffic clearance? In open country, I would expect the height to be at the optimum for reliable pantograph operation, - especially on high speed lines.

Most of the ECML ones are routinely set at 5.8m above the datum rail (this may be higher if one track is lower).
The minimum height above the crossing is 5.6m, taking various factors such as sag & ice loading into account.

The big problem with the ECML, especially south of Peterborough, is that the gradients of the OLE are too steep for modern standards for 125mph operation.
The current rule of thumb in the UK is that gradients should be no steeper than 1:5(linespeed in mph), giving a maximum gradient of 1:625 for 125mph track - but this is quite conservative. Details on this are given here: https://www.railengineer.co.uk/steventon-bridge-overcoming-the-obstacle/

With the MML having OLE tensions better than the ECML (UKMS 125 has 12kN in Catenary, 15kN in Contact; compared to Mk3B's 11kN/11kN), the gradients probably won't be as much of a problem, especially if modern pantographs are used throughout. However, steeper than normal gradients might require more rigorous maintenance - but this is probably academic for much of the MML as there are no LCs south of Trent Jn. In fact, the only LCs remaining on the main MML are in the Derby/Nottingham/Trent Jn triangle.

 

[Maltazer]

It’s not a constant wire height!

Could it be though? Does the wire height need to descend from the level required for level crossing clearance? Just wondering if there was a technical reason why not...

 

[edwin_m]

Could it be though? Does the wire height need to descend from the level required for level crossing clearance? Just wondering if there was a technical reason why not...

It has to descend to go under many bridges.

High speed lines have a constant wire height, because there are no level crossings and all overbridges are built with enough headroom to allow this. But this just isn't practicable when electrifying an existing route.

 

[zwk500]

It has to descend to go under many bridges.

High speed lines have a constant wire height, because there are no level crossings and all overbridges are built with enough headroom to allow this. But this just isn't practicable when electrifying an existing route.

I think the question was being raised in the specific question of the Fens, where there are many level crossings and few overbridges, so in theory the wire height could be set at the level crossing height throughout apart from the odd bridge.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the question was being raised in the specific question of the Fens, where there are many level crossings and few overbridges, so in theory the wire height could be set at the level crossing height throughout apart from the odd bridge.

But what's the point in making it higher than necessary? I'm not sure if the pantograph works optimally near maximum height, but it's unavoidable that this would use more steel and possibly larger foundations.

Anyway, the Fens is off-topic for a MML thread.

 

[zwk500]

But what's the point in making it higher than necessary? I'm not sure if the pantograph works optimally near maximum height, but it's unavoidable that this would use more steel and possibly larger foundations.

The point would be to minimise the need for the pantograph to go up and down like a yoyo at every farm crossing. The additional steel cost must be pretty marginal, especially as it now seems policy to order over-length anyway.

Anyway, the Fens is off-topic for a MML thread.

Indeed. Although the topic of wire height is potentially quite important at Leicester, where (if they don't rebuild) it will need to squeeze under the bridge but then rise to get clear of the platforms (and more importantly, the people on them).

 

[Ploughman]

I think the worst case scenario for OHL gradients would be an LC between 2 low bridges.

 

[snowball]

I think the worst case scenario for OHL gradients would be an LC between 2 low bridges.

There was the notorious case at Steventon on the GWR where the low bridge is close to an LC (with, incidentally, a second LC a little further on).

 

[Halish Railway]

I think the worst case scenario for OHL gradients would be an LC between 2 low bridges.

There’s a similar case on the TransPennine Route upgrade at Church Fenton where the level crossing is being replaced by a completely new bridge and access road.

 

[Elecman]

I think the worst case scenario for OHL gradients would be an LC between 2 low bridges.

Correct

 

[zwk500]

There’s a similar case on the TransPennine Route upgrade at Church Fenton where the level crossing is being replaced by a completely new bridge and access road.

That's also partly to do with the general desire to get rid of level crossings where possible. I think there was a similar case when a new flyover was built between York and Selby a farm access level crossing was replaced with an overpass, partly just to abolish a level crossing on the ECML but also because it allowed the wire height to be lowered. This may have allowed the gradient of the flyover to be eased (or just been a general benefit). https://www.tics-ltd.co.uk/portfolio/north-doncaster-chord/

For those wandering about Pantograph height difference, compare this Cl.92: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/H1OtbOLJtIM/maxresdefault.jpg (a still from

)
With a Class 90 at the new flyover (called Doncaster North flyover but actually not really near Doncaster, Joan Croft Junction shows it clearly) https://www.flickr.com/photos/martynhilbert/33986188008

 

[Bletchleyite]

Windermere. Would literally only cost the wires.

Several of the Thames Valley branches could also be done on the same basis.

 

[JonathanH]

Several of the Thames Valley branches could also be done on the same basis.

Windsor maybe, although it has a number of overbridges at the Slough end including the M4 which may have restricted clearances. Bourne End and Henley both have level crossings, and some relatively low bridge clearances. If going on to Marlow, the level crossing over Wharf Lane (which is the access to Bourne End Marina) might be an issue too.

I suspect the approach used on the Paisley Canal branch with neutral sections would be needed as a minimum.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

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.

Would also allow the services via Newark Castle to be run with bi-modes which would free up some pure diesel units for use boosting services elsewhere.

 

[Mikey C]

Third rail to Uckfield, displacing Turbostars to replace older DMUs and reusing surplus EMUs (assuming a few 379s or the soon to be surplus 350/2s can displace other stock to Southern)

 

[36270k]

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

 

[The Planner]

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

They might look tiny, but from start to finish, you are not doing those in a weekend.

 

[BrianW]

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.

 

[A0wen]

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.

Would also allow the services via Newark Castle to be run with bi-modes which would free up some pure diesel units for use boosting services elsewhere.

See Bald Rick's comments about level crossings in post 8.

I counted 5 between Hykeham and Lincoln - I'll bet there's at least the same again between Newark and Hykeham.