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

[Ken H]

Nope.

Is that to charging on 25kv whilst stationery?

 

[zwk500]

That needs doing more, but is it really quicker and cheaper? Quite a few bridges, four stations, and some awkward level crossings aren't there?

The bridges on the Morecambe line aren't easy either. 1 low girder bridge, 1 skew arch bridge and the bridge next to the station is propped up

The one that really grates is London Gateway - why wasn't it a condition of the original port!!?!!
I assume there are issues around needing a shunter under the gantries.

The Class 93 or 88 is the solution to this one, although it would be nice to wire at least a reception road.

Are there now complications around who would pay and who benefits - who owns the branch?

The branch will be owned to the port boundary by NR and then within the boundary by the port owner, I imagine.

Electric freight is a really awkward one. Logically you would ban diesels through north London.....but we don't want to price freight off rail.

Yes, banning diesels through London would be a retrograde step.

There’s already charging equipment at Lancaster - it’s in the air at 25kV!

Can that supply the required current to top up the battery? I imagine it can given the train would be able to charge from the Junction and back as well.

 

[Meerkat]

The Class 93 or 88 is the solution to this one, although it would be nice to wire at least a reception road.

Last mile Class 88 maybe but would rather the more serious bi-modes were kept for routes with longer diesel bits.
Wouldn't it still be better for enough of the branch to be electrified that the whole train is off the mainline before switching, and that a bi-mode leaving switches before blocking the mainline (which is I guess pretty much the same as your reception road suggestion). However AIUI no run off was put in, so that would involve paying for a junction to be wired.

Yes, banning diesels through London would be a retrograde step.

It is a possibility though isnt it? At the very least there will be the very bad look of diesel road vehicles being banned whilst noisy smokey class 66s chug through the same area.

 

[zwk500]

Last mile Class 88 maybe but would rather the more serious bi-modes were kept for routes with longer diesel bits.

Class 88 would be fine for things like Ipswich to Felixstowe and London Gateway. That leaves you free to focus on wiring the more serious bits where you'll have better returns.

Wouldn't it still be better for enough of the branch to be electrified that the whole train is off the mainline before switching, and that a bi-mode leaving switches before blocking the mainline (which is I guess pretty much the same as your reception road suggestion). However AIUI no run off was put in, so that would involve paying for a junction to be wired.

Yes, this is what wiring a reception road would achieve. Wiring this junction would not be a major problem.

It is a possibility though isnt it?

Only if you want to have a massive increase in Lorries on the roads (or to massively impact the current issues in the haulage industry)

At the very least there will be the very bad look of diesel road vehicles being banned whilst noisy smokey class 66s chug through the same area.

One smokey Class 66 with 80 lorries worth of goods behind it though....
Bi-Modes are going to be part of the freight solution come what may though.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is that to charging on 25kv whilst stationery?

Yes

Can that supply the required current to top up the battery? I imagine it can given the train would be able to charge from the Junction and back as well.

Yes, easily. It can supply enough current to take take 800tonnes of loco and sleeper up Shap at 80mph, it can sure provide enough for 150t of EMU to trundle for a couple of miles at 50mph.

To put it in context, a 4 car EMU could easily make the return trip on the branch with a battery from the latest Renault Zoe, and it has at least 15 minutes on the OLE to Lancaster and back, plus regen braking.…

 

[ohgoditsjames]

Sheffield to Wakefield Westgate, Sheffield to Doncaster.

 

[zwk500]

Sheffield to Wakefield Westgate, Sheffield to Doncaster.

Both are very worthy contenders, but neither are easy!

 

[ohgoditsjames]

Both are very worthy contenders, but neither are easy!

I can understand why to Doncaster wouldn't be easy, but why would to Westgate be particularly difficult? Low bridges?

 

[zwk500]

I can understand why to Doncaster wouldn't be easy, but why would to Westgate be particularly difficult? Low bridges?

The bit through Sheffield Itself isn't easy, and yes Swinton-Moorthorpe has lots of tight bridges that will need rebuilding/parapet raising.

 

[Meerkat]

Class 88 would be fine for things like Ipswich to Felixstowe and London Gateway.

Can a Cl88 start a full length intermodal out of Felixstowe - its a pretty steep climb out isn't it?

Only if you want to have a massive increase in Lorries on the roads

One smokey Class 66 with 80 lorries worth of goods behind it though....

The big difference is that the North London line goes through dense inner suburbia, the lorries would be out on the M25.
I think the risk would be London doing it, rather than national government, and insisting solving it is national government's problem (which it is to be fair)

 

[zwk500]

Can a Cl88 start a full length intermodal out of Felixstowe - its a pretty steep climb out isn't it?

Not sure, although you could wire the Branch to Felixstowe town for the passenger service to solve that problem - an 88 can crawl out of the docks itself, it only needs some oomph from Trimley onwards. Surely it can't be steep enough to stall an 88 on 1800 tonnes given the line runs along the river all the way to Ipswich.

The big difference is that the North London line goes through dense inner suburbia, the lorries would be out on the M25.
I think the risk would be London doing it, rather than national government, and insisting solving it is national government's problem (which it is to be fair)

London does not have the power to ban rail vehicles. TfL is a highway authority and can regulate traffic on it's own roads, but it does not have that power over Network Rail's infrastructure (TfL do own the Crossrail Core and East london Line but that's a moot point on freight). And Lorries on the M25 would cause congestion on the M25, which still doesn't help congestion in London itself.

 

[Meerkat]

Not sure, although you could wire the Branch to Felixstowe town for the passenger service to solve that problem - an 88 can crawl out of the docks itself, it only needs some oomph from Trimley onwards. Surely it can't be steep enough to stall an 88 on 1800 tonnes given the line runs along the river all the way to Ipswich.

London does not have the power to ban rail vehicles. TfL is a highway authority and can regulate traffic on it's own roads, but it does not have that power over Network Rail's infrastructure (TfL do own the Crossrail Core and East london Line but that's a moot point on freight). And Lorries on the M25 would cause congestion on the M25, which still doesn't help congestion in London itself.

There is a twisty hill from the North terminal up to Trimley - AIUI that is the hard work bit. But don't know how hard relative to a Cl88's capabilities.
Just wire the whole branch...yesterday!
I don't know if London has any powers to declare clean air zones (ie wider scope than their transport powers). Even if they can't actually ban them they could declare the zone and then demand action on the freight trains (not that I would suggest a London mayor would do such grandstanding.....oh) - which would be a bad look for an industry shouting about its green credentials.

 

[eldomtom2]

Even if they can't actually ban them they could declare the zone and then demand action on the freight trains (not that I would suggest a London mayor would do such grandstanding.....oh) - which would be a bad look for an industry shouting about its green credentials.

The question there is whether or not the freight operators could fob them off with some guff about hydrogen.

 

[Bald Rick]

Can a Cl88 start a full length intermodal out of Felixstowe

Yes, but not very quickly.

A Class 93 will be better. A Class 99 will have no problem.

 

[ABB125]

A Class 99 will have no problem

Especially if it's on electric mode...

I'm sure this has been answered before, but how easy would it to be to electrify the Felixstowe branch? A quick survey, courtesy of Google, suggests that:

• There are numerous level crossings, mostly of what look like minor access roads, on the more rural parts
• Quite a few overbridges in the urban areas of Ipswich, one in Felixstowe, and one (which looks fairly new on StreetView so presumably was built to electrification clearances) near Levington

So perhaps not the easiest scheme, but obviously I don't know how much clearance the bridges offer. A lot of them may well have been rebuilt in recent years to provide greater gauge clearance for containers. (Yes, I'm aware that gauge clearance =/= electrification clearance!)

 

[zwk500]

I don't know if London has any powers to declare clean air zones (ie wider scope than their transport powers). Even if they can't actually ban them they could declare the zone and then demand action on the freight trains (not that I would suggest a London mayor would do such grandstanding.....oh) - which would be a bad look for an industry shouting about its green credentials.

They can declare anything they want at a Press conference, but would have no legal powers to force FOCs to comply, unless parliament gave them greater autonomy over air quality in general.
However politically it would be a bad look for the mayor to go after the trains when there's plenty of bigger fish to fry.

Yes, but not very quickly.

Would it be at linespeed, because IIRC that's not quick either.

A Class 99 will have no problem.

It still grates that this class got the 99 number when 97 is still departmental and 98 is charter. It feels like if 99 wasn't going to be ships it should be something operational/rescue rather than just another class.

I'm sure this has been answered before, but how easy would it to be to electrify the Felixstowe branch? A quick survey, courtesy of Google, suggests that:

I believe it'd be in a middle category. W12 clearance will help, especially if new structures were future-proofed for electrification (not sure about this though). Although the investment required for electrification would probably prompt a debate on doubling the line, which may well be much more difficult.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

At a very high level meeting today , attended by senior retired railway "officers" - a great , if depressing lecture on "Why does UK railway engineering cost so much" -

Anyway , with UK costs of wiring double that of benchmarked European costs , (many reasons) ,one can not expect the Treasury to be particularly enthusiastic on these matters.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm sure this has been answered before, but how easy would it to be to electrify the Felixstowe branch?

Easy enough. My memory is a bit grey on this but I’m fairly sure it was part of the original plan for ‘Anglia East’ (Colchester - Harwich / Norwich) albiet in a later phase. But as it was a line that was sponsored by Freight, rather than IC or LSE, it fell through the gaps. Perhaps @ChiefPlanner or @306024 might know?

They can declare anything they want at a Press conference, but would have no legal powers to force FOCs to comply,

Brings to mind Lambeth Borough declaring itself a ‘nuclear free zone’ in the 80s. But what’s that funny short freight train coming through every Wednesday

Would it be at linespeed, because IIRC that's not quick either.

In the words of Barcelona’s greatest expat, Manuel… “Eventually”

Anyway , with UK costs of wiring double that of benchmarked European costs , (many reasons)

If only a certain Pm / Chancellor combo hadn’t trashed the economy, the exchange rate might be a bit better and it would only be 80% more expensive

At a very high level meeting today , attended by senior retired railway "officers"

Need to get myself on the waiting list for membership. Hope it’s shorter than Lord’s.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Easy enough. My memory is a bit grey on this but I’m fairly sure it was part of the original plan for ‘Anglia East’ (Colchester - Harwich / Norwich) albiet in a later phase. But as it was a line that was sponsored by Freight, rather than IC or LSE, it fell through the gaps. Perhaps @ChiefPlanner or @306024 might know?



Brings to mind Lambeth Borough declaring itself a ‘nuclear free zone’ in the 80s. But what’s that funny short freight train coming through every Wednesday




In the words of Barcelona’s greatest expat, Manuel… “Eventually”




If only a certain Pm / Chancellor combo hadn’t trashed the economy, the exchange rate might be a bit better and it would only be 80% more expensive




Need to get myself on the waiting list for membership. Hope it’s shorter than Lord’s.

I suspect the Felixstowe branch did fall through the cracks when East Anglian electrification was being done, FX was not as busy then of course - the huge development of the "new" Walton container berth was the real step change in port and rail activity. Not high in the priority list for IC and NSE in those days. Of course , power supply might be an issue , but the benign East Anglia terrain is a doddle. Few over bridges and a slight issue with Spring Road Viaduct perhaps.


With regard to joining the magnificent Retired Railway Officers Society , you have be , of course - "retired" but sponsership of you Mr B is a matter that can be dealt with very quickly. Very quickly.

 

[Wokingham]

North downs 8 cars to Redhill/Gatwick sure somebody proposed GWR going to Kent but obviously not happening

 

[306024]

Easy enough. My memory is a bit grey on this but I’m fairly sure it was part of the original plan for ‘Anglia East’ (Colchester - Harwich / Norwich) albiet in a later phase. But as it was a line that was sponsored by Freight, rather than IC or LSE, it fell through the gaps. Perhaps @ChiefPlanner or @306024 might know?

I can’t recall any electrification plans for the Felixstowe branch, that’s not to say there weren’t any, but I was just a humble diagrammer back then. Double tracking the branch was always a discussion point though, the replacement bridge over the A14 at Nacton was designed and installed (1980 ish) with provision for a second track, but I was told the bridge at Levington would need replacing too. Plus doubtless numerous other works.

Need to get myself on the waiting list for membership. Hope it’s shorter than Lord’s.

You would be most welcome in due course, meanwhile you could come to give us a talk

 

[Bald Rick]

You would be most welcome in due course, meanwhile you could come to give us a talk

I think I might need a talk from you guys!

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Especially if it's on electric mode...

I'm sure this has been answered before, but how easy would it to be to electrify the Felixstowe branch? A quick survey, courtesy of Google, suggests that:

• There are numerous level crossings, mostly of what look like minor access roads, on the more rural parts
• Quite a few overbridges in the urban areas of Ipswich, one in Felixstowe, and one (which looks fairly new on StreetView so presumably was built to electrification clearances) near Levington

So perhaps not the easiest scheme, but obviously I don't know how much clearance the bridges offer. A lot of them may well have been rebuilt in recent years to provide greater gauge clearance for containers. (Yes, I'm aware that gauge clearance =/= electrification clearance!)

This YouTube video . . .

. . . suggests it might not be as difficult as you think.

 

[biggerisbetter]

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.

Around 2,000 km of the network is third rail with further fourth rail electrification on the Underground. Indeed, I would imagine more people are carried on third and fourth rail than the rest of the overhead and unnelectrified parts of the network combined so it can’t be that unsafe (1.25bn tube journeys and 1.75bn national rail journeys per year pre pandemic with over 330m of the national rail journeys accounted for by Waterloo, Victoria, London Bridge, Clapham Junction, Charing Cross, Canada Water and East Croydon alone with the vast majority of these being powered by third rail).

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

Around a 10% increase in third rail coverage but could be much safer and cheaper through use of battery bi-modes allowing sensitive areas such as areas of flood risk, stations, foot crossings and level crossings not to be electrified and only requiring short sections to be electrified. For example even if a conservative range of 30km is assumed, you would only have to electrify a maximum of 96km (if a full charge could be achieved on the currently electrified sections between Reigate and Wokingham) but in reality less as greater than 30km can currently be achieved and if the selected electrified sections are in the middle of a line. I have proposed transferring the Reading to Redhill / Gatwick services to Southern so there is only one operator in the southeast with a micro fleet but if crewing / depot issues would outweigh this benefit then they could be operated by GWR or South West Rail.

This would release 17 turbostars from Southern, save a minimum of 6 units for GWR (cascaded to other routes or operators) and save 5 units for TfW Rail (removal of 230 microfleet) along with a further handful from Northern but also massively improve connectivity for the places served by the extension of the Merseyrail network. I think this can be achieved without a material increase in safety risk as the length of third rail will only be increased by c. 5% but can be directed to safer locations and will increase usage, lower operating costs or allow increased services, reduce carbon emissions and free up diesel units for elsewhere. For me, an easy win for the costs and benefits involved.

 

[The Planner]

So 234km for 28ish units saved?

 

[zwk500]

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.

It has been looked at pragmatically, but somebody with an RSSB account will need to tell us what they say.

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

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?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It has been looked at pragmatically, but somebody with an RSSB account will need to tell us what they say.

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?

Which is what appears to be the Scottish approach.

 

[eldomtom2]

It has been looked at pragmatically, but somebody with an RSSB account will need to tell us what they say.

Of course, this sort of thing depends on how you weight additional risk vs. amount of emissions reduced, and you can't objectively measure those two things against each other.

 

[zwk500]

Of course, this sort of thing depends on how you weight additional risk vs. amount of emissions reduced, and you can't objectively measure those two things against each other.

You can get close though. The cost of the risk can be quantified, and the cost of equivalent carbon emissions reduction can also be quantified.

 

[eldomtom2]

You can get close though. The cost of the risk can be quantified, and the cost of equivalent carbon emissions reduction can also be quantified.

How you quantify those costs will be open for debate though.