Cost of electrification

[TheWalrus]

Hi

How much does it cost to electrify a mile of track at whatever voltage necessary to power a 91 or 390? (depending on which traction requires more voltage)?

 

[WatcherZero]

Just less than 100k per single track km according to Network Rails Electrification Strategy.

 

[mallard]

(depending on which traction requires more voltage)?

BTW, the standard voltage for overhead electrification is 25kV (25000 volts) all trains on these lines run on this voltage. They do however use different amounts of power (measured in Watts), which means the amount of current drawn (Amps) will be different, but the voltage is more-or-less constant.

 

[Old Timer]

The costs of electrification are driven by a number of factors, such as :-

• linespeed,
• frequency of trains,
• type of rolling stock (for peak power demands),
• whether or not freight trains will operate electrically (again for peak load as well as for one-off loading)
• number of lines
• gradients
• Overall power requirements and locationing of feeder stations
• lineside infrastructure issues such as tunnels, bridges, structure clearance, etc, etc
• underlying ground conditions
• airborne pollution
• proximity to the sea

All of the above will have an impact on the OHL Equipment design and the spacing of the Structures. The power demands will specify the number and ratings of the feeder stations.

A system designed for light EMU services will be slightly different to an intensive EMU service as will those intended to support Express services, freight, etc

There will also be possible requirements for planning permission and land acquisition, maybe even local and public Inquiries which themselves absorb huge amounts of money sometimes only to placate a few vocal individuals who either seek attention or are generally opposed to all change.

More and more problems with environmentalist are being experienced with regards to the so called environmental impact of the OHL Equipment, and one sees more and more of the "compensation culture", translated into "...Its unacceptable unless you pay me a wad of cash, in which case its OK". Sad but regretttably true.

Whilst Network Rail figures may be considered to be a very broad approximation, they will include for their own inefficiencies such as the Investment and Infrastructure (or whatever they are called this week) organisation which heaps a whole layer of bureaucracy and cost for very little in return.

Tendered and awarded on a proper Client/Contractor basis with no micro-management and interference, and on the basis of properly prepared, comprehensive and above all correct base information, the cost would be much reduced. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen at this stage.

 

[swt_passenger]

Just less than 100k per single track km according to Network Rails Electrification Strategy.

Er... on page 29 of that document they say '500k to 650k' per single track km. (Although that could be brought down slightly, they think)

That's quite a difference to £100k - have I missed something?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The costs of electrification are driven by a number of factors, such as :-
. . .

A very comprehensive list of factors!
Another would be the overall size of the scheme - economies of scale.
The cost per km on a 300km stretch (with stations, loops, depots etc.) is likely to be budgetted with some of its ultimate costs coming in lower per km than on a 5km in-fill scheme.

. . . a few vocal individuals who either seek attention or are generally opposed to all change.

Ah yes. I know them well! The ****** Residents Association, with Mr and Mrs Angry attending every Local Council meeting and having their comments on "outrageous" new plans in the local press whenever there's no real news.

But the other side of this, from the point of view of a rail supporter, is that Mr & Mrs Angry have occasionally succeeded in helping towards some of the
station re-openings, re-timetabling services to suit commuters's actual needs and additional stops to serve their actual travel patterns.

I've learned to view the ****** Residents Association as a tool which can be used equally for as against a proposal. (e.g. Against: don't like the OHLE structures. For: quieter electric-powered train movements)

 

[moggie]

And I'm sure OT will expect me to pop up with the one they all forget which is the signalling immunisation (and possibly the telecomms also). Depending on the age of the installation this can often turn into wholesale re-signalling. If as OT remarks the clearance on the signal structures as well as the impediment to signal sighting caused by the new OLE masts and catenary is also considered substantial renewal / repositioning of the signal structure will oftrn be necessary. I guess as part of the electrification there's improvements to linespeeds - so it can be seen why the signalling arrangement both in terms of signal positions and the controlling equipment it is often altered quite radically - hence wholesale re-equiping becomes likley.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I do wish that whenever major work is carried out on non-electrified that they would assume future electrification and design structures with this in mind; adds very little ( if anything ) to what they are doing anyway but saves a lot of time and money if it is later decided to electrify the route in question.

OK, it wouldn't mean everything would be ready for such an eventuality, but every little helps...

 

[WatcherZero]

Er... on page 29 of that document they say '500k to 650k' per single track km. (Although that could be brought down slightly, they think)

That's quite a difference to £100k - have I missed something?

Thats Atkins figure but your right I misread it, the report said electrification (Kirkby to Wigan) wouldnt be viable unless deliverable at just under 100k, I misread it assuming that they meant it was doable at that cost.

 

[A60K]

I do wish that whenever major work is carried out on non-electrified that they would assume future electrification and design structures with this in mind; adds very little ( if anything ) to what they are doing anyway but saves a lot of time and money if it is later decided to electrify the route in question.

OK, it wouldn't mean everything would be ready for such an eventuality, but every little helps...

There is already a requirement to design new or replacement bridges over a line to allow clearance for OHLE. I'm sure this has been the case for 20 years or more.


What structures were you thinking of specifically that have been designed and built recently not to give clearance? In some cases it might be prohibitively expensive to design something for electricfication clearance if there's no realistic chance of it happening - say on the Far North or Cambrian lines.

 

[WatcherZero]

I believe its standing policy that whenever a structure (such as bridge or tunnel) is replaced or renewed its done to W12 gauge to save money possibly replacing it again later.

 

[j0hn0]

I believe its standing policy that whenever a structure (such as bridge or tunnel) is replaced or renewed its done to W12 gauge to save money possibly replacing it again later.

been saying that for a while, but why dont they go the whole hog and make it to bern gauge?

The majority of bridges on the LGVs are 2 concrete supports and a concrete road deck, is it really that difficult to replace our old bridges?

sorry, off topic

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Ah... I wasn't aware they were already doing that, thank you.

 

[A60K]

been saying that for a while, but why dont they go the whole hog and make it to bern gauge?

The majority of bridges on the LGVs are 2 concrete supports and a concrete road deck, is it really that difficult to replace our old bridges?

In urban areas there are often gas, water, sewage, electricity and communications services embedded within old bridges - these can take quite a while to move.

In open countryside it's often easier to replace the bridges - sometimes keeping the original piers and adding new precast concrete arches to give sufficient clearance for the OHLE underneath.

LGVs by their nature are completely new lines running through open countryside for most of their route. It's not the design of bridge that takes time, it's moving anything embedded in a bridge that needs to be reconstructed while keeping the road above *and* the lines below open with the minimum of disruption.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ah... I wasn't aware they were already doing that, thank you.

No problem - I think it was brought to my attention by the requirement for a bridge over a preserved steam railway (Embsay possibly?) to have OHLE clearance when it was reconstructed some years ago. I think in the end they might have got a derogation from the standards, given that it was highly unlikely wires would ever be installed!

 

[swt_passenger]

been saying that for a while, but why dont they go the whole hog and make it to bern gauge?

'Berne gauge' would never be specified - it has been UIC for many years.

UIC GB+ is the development of the UIC gauge that would be needed, as provided on HS1.

 

[jopsuk]

In urban areas there are often gas, water, sewage, electricity and communications services embedded within old bridges - these can take quite a while to move.

In open countryside it's often easier to replace the bridges - sometimes keeping the original piers and adding new precast concrete arches to give sufficient clearance for the OHLE underneath.

In urban areas too it isn't a simple job to raise the clearence even if the bridge carries no services. Steeper approaches will not go down well, and space for longer approaches is less likely to be available. Potentially a modern bridge can have a thinner deck I'd have thought.

 

[silvermachine]

are there any figures for the cost of electriication on the third rail ?

 

[j0hn0]

In urban areas too it isn't a simple job to raise the clearence even if the bridge carries no services. Steeper approaches will not go down well, and space for longer approaches is less likely to be available. Potentially a modern bridge can have a thinner deck I'd have thought.

but I dont understand why if they are clearing bridges for w12, why not go so far as to eventually allow double decker trains? UIC GB+ or whatever it is called now.

Southampton tunnel was recently cleared for that reason, but to completely discount going any further is baffling to me.

OK maybe southampton isnt the hotbed of commuting that requires it but we don't do long trains, we don't do double deck trains, realistically, how is removing a few bottlenecks going to improve capacity in a tangible way for commuters?

tangible being the operative word

Sure electrification will increase capacity, but compared to a 3 or 4 car DMU, thats not gonna be difficult.

 

[swt_passenger]

but I dont understand why if they are clearing bridges for w12, why not go so far as to eventually allow double decker trains? UIC GB+ or whatever it is called now.

Southampton tunnel was recently cleared for that reason, but to completely discount going any further is baffling to me.

Southampton tunnel is only cleared to W10, and was a fairly straightforward job, as they simply replaced ballasted track with slab track. Anything more such as W12 would now require far more work, and very long closures.

However any UIC gauge clearance will normally require the tracks to be further separated for the exra width requirements, which would normally mean most tunnels, bridges and all station platfoms on the route having to be completely rebuilt.

There has been research done into double deck trains in the areas where capacity is most needed, eg the former SR, and DfT's consultants reckoned it was a non-starter. The nearer you get to London the vast number of bridges over the railway becomes the limiting factor.

 

[Ploughman]

I seem to remember on Leeds North West electrification.
The go ahead was given in 1992 and completed in 1994
4 major track remodelling schemes at Guiseley, Esholt, Shipley and Skipton.
Tree clearance was a major consideration were some areas were train shaped.
The remit used in the end was 6 metre from track and 6 metre vertical everything to go.
There were about 20 bridge lifts / replacements and about 40 track lowerings.
Some stretches of track were not suitable for masts on one side due to ground conditions so a Cantilever mast serving both tracks from 1 side had to used. (Ben Rhydding and Bingley are 2 spots)
450 new IBJs to install and 525 redundant IBJs to remove.
With the extent of the signalling scheme extending to Hellifield for signalling purposes and 1/4 mile up the KWVR for OHLE immunisation work as well.
Unplanned consequences - Masts planted through the track drainage system and through major electrical supply cables. Track lowerings going through the penning layer ( you did this as a last resort if you needed the clearance ) clay now pumping up and creating wet beds even with terram etc.

Oh and besides this work you also have all your other renewal schemes for your patch at the same time and they have all the heavy plant. Cleaners and Cranes etc.

 

[WatcherZero]

The Chat moss electrification (because the grounds essentially marsh and the tracks 'floating') each support for the gantries will have to sit on a long concrete pile which will push up costs considerably.

 

[j0hn0]

There has been research done into double deck trains in the areas where capacity is most needed, eg the former SR, and DfT's consultants reckoned it was a non-starter. The nearer you get to London the vast number of bridges over the railway becomes the limiting factor.

just like HSR was a non-starter not so long ago and hydrogen trains were going to be used? :roll:

I do see what you mean though, south London is where congestion is rife and seeing as most lines are squeezed into the tiniest of spaces, I would agree that this particular project is a non starter

So if electric trains are cheaper and easier to maintain, why can't there be longer ones in the mornings and evenings?

Surely the saving they make on diesels can enable them to run longer trains? (setting aside the actual cost of the new trains)

 

[jopsuk]

There are longer ones in the mornings and evenings- there's a lot of 12 carriage trains arriving at the london terminals in the AM peak, and dpearting in the PM peak, and far fewer at lunchtime and weekends. To go longer would require more long platforms- at most of the terminii the platforms already get rather narrow at the "country" end as they've extended into the throat/added more platforms. Even more 12 carriage trains requires more terminal platforms that can cope, plus more suburban stations long enough.

 

[j0hn0]

There are longer ones in the mornings and evenings- there's a lot of 12 carriage trains arriving at the london terminals in the AM peak, and dpearting in the PM peak, and far fewer at lunchtime and weekends. To go longer would require more long platforms- at most of the terminii the platforms already get rather narrow at the "country" end as they've extended into the throat/added more platforms. Even more 12 carriage trains requires more terminal platforms that can cope, plus more suburban stations long enough.

well there has to be some way to improve the standing room only London trains in the morning.

I base my experiences on commuting into Leeds and Manchester and Sheffield though, having never commuted into London. 2 car pacers at standing room only is not the way to commute

 

[Edvid]

When it comes to feeder stations on AC OHLE networks (which I presume are always accompanied by neutral sections), can two of the same be installed next to each other or must they always be positioned alternately with mid-point track sectioning cabins and their associated neutral sections (i.e. FS - TSC - FS - TSC etc)?

I'm particularly curious since it appears that a new Thameslink neutral section will be installed just south of Radlett Jn, in-between Grahame Park FS and Sandridge TSC.

 

[swt_passenger]

well there has to be some way to improve the standing room only London trains in the morning.

There is an amazing amount of work taking place all around London in the next few years, to lengthen platfoms at suburban stations from 8 to 10 to 12 car as appropriate. The job is a significant part of the CP4 enhancements package, so that all the Southern TOCs can run all the hundreds of extra carriages they've been promised.

 

[Old Timer]

When it comes to feeder stations on AC OHLE networks (which I presume are always accompanied by neutral sections), can two of the same be installed next to each other or must they always be positioned alternately with mid-point track sectioning cabins and their associated neutral sections (i.e. FS - TSC - FS - TSC etc)?

I'm particularly curious since it appears that a new Thameslink neutral section will be installed just south of Radlett Jn, in-between Grahame Park FS and Sandridge TSC.

Neutral Sections form the boundary between two separate Feeder Stations. The neutral section itself consists of a central section which is earthed to the traction return rail. In this way it is impossible for a pantograph to "bridge out" the two sections of live equipment.

Power is taken off when approaching and reapplied after passing through the neutral section, so that no arc is drawn across the Neutral.

A Feeder Station will generally be located midway between the Neutral Sections on each side, and will feed separately towards each.

A Track Section Cabin, or as they are now more likely to be - a track Sectioning Location (TSL) with structure mounted outdoor switchgear, merely sub-divides the OHL between the Feeder Station and the Neutral Section so as to allow for more efficient switching and isolation, otherwise the whole section would need to be de-ernergised.

A TSC does not necessarilly of a Neutral Section but simply of Section Insulators. Whilst these do have electrical separation, this is mechanically bridged by the passage of the pantograph. Because the OHL equipment is alive on each side no short circuit or arc is created when this happens.

The movement of electrically operated trains must be stopped by signals at a TSC/TSL, whereas this is not necessary at a Neutral Section. The train will simply lose power when it enters the isolated area.

The decision as to whether to install a Neutral Section or a simple Section Insulator at an intermediate location comes down to the operational need for traction current isolation. It is quite feasible for a Neutral Section to be installed at a TSC/TSL, where this facility is desirable. The Neutral does not only have to be associated with the boundary end of a Feeder Station, albeit there will ALWAYS be a Neutral Section at the boundary point .

 

[Geezertronic]

... standing room only is not the way to commute

You've never had the pleasure of using London Underground then

 

[Pumbaa]

You've never had the pleasure of using London Underground then

Or London Overground for that matter!

 

[HITMAN]

I swear it never cost this to electrify up the east coast and around london in the 80's