Chiltern electrification alternatives being studied...

[zwk500]

I may be paraphrasing but was it not one outcomes of the review into the Great Western electrification that NR would have been better off to have taken out a TWAO (Transport and Works Act order) for the scheme rather than myriad of individual planning apps. Is this not the approach being taken with the TransPennine route upgrade?

Quite possibly, and even then it's still possible to object to a TWAO. But that's not an area I know an awful lot about.

 

[cle]

Certainly for the Aylesbury - Amersham - Marylebone services, this would seem to be a very sensible option as it would remove the questions around wiring on the LUL network.

Not sure where else it would reach though..

Maybe if wires got to Oxford, a layover would be enough charge. Either from Didcot, or better, EWR as the Bicester section would enable charge and shorter turns at Oxford.

At the Birmingham end, doesn't sound great. Or they wire Marylebone-Wembley Stadium at least (or High Wycombe ideally) which gives enough charge for many routes. B'ham, maybe something similar out of Moor St.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it doesn't, because the objector's answer will involve a Judicial Review. Unless there's a major overhaul of the planning process and judicial review (the former is possible under the next government if it's not Tory, the latter is unlikely under any government in the near future), Any electrification project through an area with even modest property prices for the current times will see completely spurious objections that are cover for protecting property values given time in court that costs the electrification project additional budget for legal fees.

And there's absolutely no chance they'll succeed.

This is getting like one of those "standard minority" things. The railway would have no more issue electrifying the Chilterns than the GWR Thames Valley; the countryside and house price levels are very similar.

Not sure where else it would reach though..

Maybe if wires got to Oxford, a layover would be enough charge. Either from Didcot, or better, EWR as the Bicester section would enable charge and shorter turns at Oxford.

At the Birmingham end, doesn't sound great. Or they wire Marylebone-Wembley Stadium at least (or High Wycombe ideally) which gives enough charge for many routes. B'ham, maybe something similar out of Moor St.

I would suggest Marylebone to High Wycombe as the first stage, because that would allow a reasonable set of services to switch over and possibly improved service on the innersuburbans. Similarly Birmingham to Banbury at the other end. Then infill the middle bit to release all the DMUs.

 

[zwk500]

And there's absolutely no chance they'll succeed.

Even Spurious, they cost the project money because they have to be rebutted. You can't just ignore them (at least not until you reform the system).

I would suggest Marylebone to High Wycombe as the first stage, because that would allow a reasonable set of services to switch over and possibly improved service on the innersuburbans. Similarly Birmingham to Banbury at the other end. Then infill the middle bit to release all the DMUs.

Yes, in a sensible world, Phase 1 would be Marylebone to High Wycombe, Phase 2 would be HW to Oxford, Phase 2a Princes Risborough to Aylesbury VP, with a Battery (or possibly Dual-Voltage) unit for Aylesbury services. Phase 3 to Banbury, Phase 4 to Snow Hill (assumes that Didcot-Oxford-Banbury has been done already as part of finishing off the castrated parts of the GW project).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, in a sensible world, Phase 1 would be Marylebone to High Wycombe, Phase 2 would be HW to Oxford, Phase 2a Princes Risborough to Aylesbury VP, with a Battery (or possibly Dual-Voltage) unit for Aylesbury services. Phase 3 to Banbury, Phase 4 to Snow Hill (assumes that Didcot-Oxford-Banbury has been done already as part of finishing off the castrated parts of the GW project).

I'd go from both ends. Go to Banbury at the start from Birmingham and those local services can switch to EMUs, releasing more DMUs for extending other Snow Hill Lines services.

 

[JonathanH]

Go to Banbury at the start from Birmingham and those local services can switch to EMUs

Which local services are those? Very little self-contained operation between Banbury and Birmingham. It would need to be Kidderminster to Dorridge and Whitlocks End to make any substantial inroad on diesel operation, and that doesn't get you very far on the Chiltern route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which local services are those? Very little self-contained operation between Banbury and Birmingham. It would need to be Kidderminster to Dorridge and Whitlocks End to make any substantial inroad on diesel operation, and that doesn't get you very far on the Chiltern route.

It's possible to recast services, you know. One thing that might be of benefit would be to make Moor St to Banbury self contained EMU services out of the bays and increase the service on one of the other Snow Hill Lines branches back to what it was pre COVID. It might be an option to temporarily Merseyrailise it all a bit with say 4tph to Banbury and Chiltern being temporarily truncated to there, alongside the principle that HS2 will basically remove Chiltern's role as a Birmingham to London service.

 

[zwk500]

It's possible to recast services, you know. One thing that might be of benefit would be to make Moor St to Banbury self contained EMU services out of the bays and increase the service on one of the other Snow Hill Lines branches back to what it was pre COVID. It might be an option to temporarily Merseyrailise it all a bit with say 4tph to Banbury and Chiltern being temporarily truncated to there, alongside the principle that HS2 will basically remove Chiltern's role as a Birmingham to London service.

Not sure you can really justify 4tph beyond Warwick tbh. Electrifying the WMT Snow Hill lines makes perfect sense, but those only go to Dorridge. Given the issues with Worcester you're going to need batteries of Bi-Modes anyway so I'd have Stratford-Upon-Avon to Kidderminster via Whitlock's End wired up, then extend the wires from Tyseley to Dorridge and leave the Dorridge-Stratford line for batteries.
Chiltern electrification would then be able to make a straightforward end-on connection with the Dorridge scheme as the final phase. Then Leamington-Coventry could be filled in, although Cov-Nuneaton might be a reach too far for the moment.

 

[AJDesiro]

Not sure you can really justify 4tph beyond Warwick tbh. Electrifying the WMT Snow Hill lines makes perfect sense, but those only go to Dorridge. Given the issues with Worcester you're going to need batteries of Bi-Modes anyway so I'd have Stratford-Upon-Avon to Kidderminster via Whitlock's End wired up, then extend the wires from Tyseley to Dorridge and leave the Dorridge-Stratford line for batteries.
Chiltern electrification would then be able to make a straightforward end-on connection with the Dorridge scheme as the final phase. Then Leamington-Coventry could be filled in, although Cov-Nuneaton might be a reach too far for the moment.

One thing that needs to be remembered is currently there's a small number of SHL services that go to Leamington Spa at the extreme ends of the day for Leamington depot, it'd be foolish to only wire as far as Dorridge.

 

[tomuk]

Given the issues with Worcester you're going to need batteries of Bi-Modes anyway

Worcester just needs re-signalling, the current layout is a hindrance to provide a proper service, it shouldn't be used as reason for messing about with battery bi-modes.

 

[zwk500]

One thing that needs to be remembered is currently there's a small number of SHL services that go to Leamington Spa at the extreme ends of the day for Leamington depot, it'd be foolish to only wire as far as Dorridge.

Leamington wouldn't be too far, and it would also allow work on Leamington-Cov to be started as well. But going all they way to Banbury as part of Snow hill metro wouldn't make sense.

Worcester just needs re-signalling, the current layout is a hindrance to provide a proper service, it shouldn't be used as reason for messing about with battery bi-modes.

'Just'.

 

[Vanmanyo]

Leamington wouldn't be too far, and it would also allow work on Leamington-Cov to be started as well. But going all they way to Banbury as part of Snow hill metro wouldn't make sense.

Worcester to Leamington on the Snow Hill Metro would make sense and then the Chiltern electrification continues from then on. The thing is is that there's no point doing it if the two schemes don't work closely together. Andy Street (Birmingham Mayor) has been pushing for the electrification of Worcester - Leamington for a while now but hasn't mentioned Chiltern at all? No point electrifying MYB - Ban and just leaving the rest, or vise versa. In my opinion there has to be a plan to electrify the whole route as one, then perhaps services from KID-MYB can start again if the Dft sees is viable. I don't see anything happening for a while, the Snow Hill Metro is the thing I see having the highest chance of happening to be fair. More support, but shouldn't be the way forward (whole electrification should).

 

[Falcon1200]

Surely, in any sane world, Birmingham/Didcot will eventually be electrified at 25kV OLE, whether via Solihull or just from Coventry (preferably both!), giving Chiltern services electric running and charging between at least Leamington and Aynho Junction? Might be a while, however.

Have there been any judicial reviews made against NR for electrification schemes? Whether there have been any or not what steps do NR have to take so not to fall foul of one?

IIRC the residents of Goring were aghast at the 'unsightly' OLE structures on the GWML and demanded 'something be done'. That problem seems to have gone away.

 

[yorksrob]

They'll be better off waiting until the current government are out the door and see what the next one proposes.

I honestly wouldn't bother putting time and funding into half baked proposals dreamt up by the current lot.

 

[zwk500]

Surely, in any sane world, Birmingham/Didcot will eventually be electrified at 25kV OLE, whether via Solihull or just from Coventry (preferably both!), giving Chiltern services electric running and charging between at least Leamington and Aynho Junction? Might be a while, however.

In a sane world, this would have been done in the early 90s but privatisation probably scuppered that.

Today, the sensible thing is to finish off Didcot-Oxford-Banbury when the Oxford P5 is complete, have a separate Kidderminster-Leamington/Stratford project (but have battery stock for Dorridge-Stratford and other bits) with later extension to Worcester and then have Chiltern work their way up from Marylebone to Oxford and Leamington.
Leamington-Coventry would only be wired if ALL of the following are true: the LNR shuttle is split Nuneaton-Cov and Cov-Leamington, XC have bi-modes or recast their services to Manchester-Reading form a major portion, and there are sufficient Bi-mode freight locos around. There's no point wiring it if nothing can use it on electric in the WTT.

IIRC the residents of Goring were aghast at the 'unsightly' OLE structures on the GWML and demanded 'something be done'. That problem seems to have gone away.

Did they actually challenge though or did they just stamp their feet and make youtube videos?

 

[JonathanH]

In a sane world, this would have been done in the early 90s but privatisation probably scuppered that.

That is rewriting history. There was one passenger train an hour between Banbury and Leamington Spa in the early 1990s, and the last northbound train was at 8pm.

The Chiltern Line ran one off-peak train every two hours between Princes Risborough and Banbury in 1989.

 

[zwk500]

That is rewriting history. There was one passenger train an hour between Banbury and Leamington Spa in the early 1990s, and the last northbound train was at 8pm.

The Chiltern Line ran one off-peak train every two hours between Princes Risborough and Banbury in 1989.

More an alternate history, envisaging that things like the Chiltern modernisation, Evergreen projects, and Operation Princess would still have happened but a bit earlier and incorporating electrification into them rather than diesel-for-diesel.
But it didn't happen either way and we are where we are.

 

[ac6000cw]

Or a UK version of their battery electric Flirts.
Range is 100-150 km, top speed 160kph, rechargeable off AC overheads in 15mins.

Currently being deployed on secondary routes in Germany. The concept their is that some stations are wired but not whole routes.

Would seem very suitable for Chiltern with suitable small scale electrification.

I think that (or equivalents from another train supplier) is the future for a lot of routes that don't have a decent business case for full electrification (or there's no infrastructure money, or the electrification timescale stretches too far into the future versus the existing rolling stock life), maybe supplemented with some cl. 756 style tri-mode OHLE/battery/diesel units for longer runs away from the wires.

 

[The Planner]

Worcester just needs re-signalling, the current layout is a hindrance to provide a proper service, it shouldn't be used as reason for messing about with battery bi-modes.

Being looked at now and has been for a while, though likely unaffordable.

 

[Mikey C]

The Chiltern Lines WILL be electrified at some point. But when, and will the 165s last that long?

Anti-electrification protestors will be a tiny minority, the majority of people along the route will be happy to have cleaner and quieter trains running past then, instead of chugging BR diesels.

 

[zwk500]

The Chiltern Lines WILL be electrified at some point. But when, and will the 165s last that long?

I think we are likely to see another rolling stock generation before wires go up on the Chiltern route unless something very dramatic changes in the costs of bridge reconstruction.

Anti-electrification protestors will be a tiny minority, the majority of people along the route will be happy to have cleaner and quieter trains running past then, instead of chugging BR diesels.

It's not about the size of the minority, but about their voice and who listens to them. People who are quite happy tend to make less noise and so get ignored. What we need is for the residents of the M40 corridor to come out with en-masse protests for immediate electrification.

 

[Trainbike46]

It's not about the size of the minority, but about their voice and who listens to them.

Unfortunately, I think this is true

People who are quite happy tend to make less noise and so get ignored. What we need is for the residents of the M40 corridor to come out with en-masse protests for immediate electrification.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think we are likely to see another rolling stock generation before wires go up on the Chiltern route unless something very dramatic changes in the costs of bridge reconstruction.

Discontinuous electrification is now an option, so if you're ordering a brand new fleet...

(You don't need massive batteries for that, a donkey battery mostly used for moving around a depot or recovery from a dewirement for evacuation would be fine - I think increasingly new EMUs will have this feature as standard)

Unfortunately, I think this is true

Chiltern electrification is not going to be meaningfully negatively affected by NIMBYs any more than the outer Thames Valley was (the demographics are similar). The barrier is the Government's wallet being firmly closed. They didn't stop HS2, so they aren't going to stop a few barely visible wires.

 

[miklcct]

Wires are the only solution for such a busy mainline.

There is no other long term solution apart from wiring the whole of Marylebone - Bicester - Oxford - Didcot and possibly to Birmingham as well, while on the Aylesbury line, wire up to Harrow and from Amersham to Aylesbury, then the remainder when the S-stock life expires.

 

[zwk500]

Discontinuous electrification is now an option, so if you're ordering a brand new fleet...

(You don't need massive batteries for that, a donkey battery mostly used for moving around a depot or recovery from a dewirement for evacuation would be fine - I think increasingly new EMUs will have this feature as standard)

Unfortunately if it's only a donkey battery you'd need a hell of a lot more wires in place before the fleet can start. Although I agree with you that a little 'get to a safe place' battery will become standard.

Chiltern electrification is not going to be meaningfully negatively affected by NIMBYs any more than the outer Thames Valley was (the demographics are similar). The barrier is the Government's wallet being firmly closed. They didn't stop HS2, so they aren't going to stop a few barely visible wires.

The government wallet is largely kept closed or opened up by vociferous interest groups that determine electoral chances.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately if it's only a donkey battery you'd need a hell of a lot more wires in place before the fleet can start.

I'm suggesting the same plan I already suggested - High Wycombe first, and DMUs continue on other routes. The battery is just to deal with the fact that there's (apparently) expensive bridge/tunnel issues, so the wires needn't be energised under the awkward bits, or in the case of tunnels be there at all.

Although I agree with you that a little 'get to a safe place' battery will become standard.

Definitely. The benefits are huge. Merseyrail have gone there first - all the 777s have a shunt battery.

 

[Energy]

Leamington-Coventry would only be wired if ALL of the following are true: the LNR shuttle is split Nuneaton-Cov and Cov-Leamington, XC have bi-modes or recast their services to Manchester-Reading form a major portion, and there are sufficient Bi-mode freight locos around. There's no point wiring it if nothing can use it on electric in the WTT.

XC is going back to hourly at some point. Coventry to Nuneaton 2tph gets talked about every so often though now the second tph will be to Nottingham/Leicester.

(You don't need massive batteries for that, a donkey battery mostly used for moving around a depot or recovery from a dewirement for evacuation would be fine - I think increasingly new EMUs will have this feature as standard)

I'm still not convinced by discontinuous electrification, the distance needed to lower the pantograph on great western is rather long. Possibly for a difficult tunnel between stations (snow hill...) but no chance for the odd bridge.

so the wires needn't be energised under the awkward bits, or in the case of tunnels be there at all.

The mechanical clearance is more than the electrical clearance, you wouldn't solve the bridge problem by turning the wire off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm still not convinced by discontinuous electrification, the distance needed to lower the pantograph on great western is rather long. Possibly for a difficult tunnel between stations (snow hill...) but no chance for the odd bridge.

In most cases you can just have a de-energised wire under an awkward bridge which removes the need to drop the pan.

I don't believe GW has any discontinuous electrification, does it? The "bang" you get on EMUs is just the breakers at a neutral section.

The mechanical clearance is more than the electrical clearance, you wouldn't solve the bridge problem by turning the wire off.

Put a de-energised section of overhead third rail under the bridge then. There are always options.

 

[Energy]

In most cases you can just have a de-energised wire under an awkward bridge which removes the need to drop the pan.

I don't believe GW has any discontinuous electrification, does it? The "bang" you get on EMUs is just the breakers at a neutral section.

No but there is automatic power changeover. Back when it was around didcot the pan drop was east of didcot despite wires ending west due to the distance covered at 125mph and the pan drop cant be done around complex track layouts and whatnot due to driver concentration.

Put a de-energised section of overhead third rail under the bridge then. There are always options.

Using the same conductor rail as crossrail could be an interesting way to do it, its a normal copper conductor wire in there with the support being different.

 

[Trainbike46]

I'd be interested how the costs compare for connecting a tiny bit of conductor rail rather than a couple million on a bridge replacement. And how many bridges on Chiltern are a problem.

We'll only know that with detailed survey and design work, which will only happen if there is a real intention to electrify