Dangerous Levels of Air Pollution at Birmingham New Street.

[GRALISTAIR]

----- the intention is to still add around 10% additional electrification by end CP6, plus adding in smaller additional schemes and picking up some of the postponed projects.

That gives, in 2024, a baseline of around 55% to 57% electrification on which to progress over the next 25 to 30 years ---

A target of electrification for 90% of the network, by 2050 to 2055 is definitely attainable, it's realistic and it's financially viable (indeed, 100% electrification is likely to be increasingly viable towards 2050 in any case).

That means achieving around 6% to 7% additional electrification of the network in each control period, from CP7 onwards, which is roughly where we're going to average out at over CP5 and CP6.

Thank you - outstanding - probably won't see it all in my lifetime but really great news. In Mileage terms I assume Derby- Newquay/Penzance and Birmingham-Norwich/Felixstowe are the biggies?

 

[The Ham]

Yes, poor wording on my part.

Start of CP7 baseline electrification should be somewhere in the region of 55 to 57% (prior to the reprofiling of GWep, MML and North TransPennine electrification delivery, the assorted smaller programmes, and postponement of Electric Spine between Reading and Basingstoke) the expectation was 51% electrification by 2021.

That's clearly not going to happen now, but the intention is to still add around 10% additional electrification by end CP6, plus adding in smaller additional schemes and picking up some of the postponed projects.

The inclusion of whatever works are possible before 2024 should see another 3 to 5% electrification progressed prior to the start of CP7, some of that will be rolling electrification in Scotland, additional schemes in England and possibly more works in Wales, perhaps Crewe to Chester, as examples.

That gives, in 2024, a baseline of around 55% to 57% electrification on which to progress over the next 25 to 30 years, a span for what would essentially be the life expectancy of new build DMU stock arriving in the next couple of years, and our IEP/AT300 stock.

The electrification of the remaining 43% to 45% of the network is doable, albeit at a cost, and is probably going to be a step too far, bearing in mind the additional demands on plant and equipment which will include platform extensions, additional track (double tracking, quad tracking in places) and signalling capacity enhancements.

A target of electrification for 90% of the network, by 2050 to 2055 is definitely attainable, it's realistic and it's financially viable (indeed, 100% electrification is likely to be increasingly viable towards 2050 in any case).

That means achieving around 6% to 7% additional electrification of the network in each control period, from CP7 onwards, which is roughly where we're going to average out at over CP5 and CP6.

Although there maybe a few things that could alter progress.

If we achieve an effective rolling program of electrification then there will be a more ready supply of people to install the equipment, this should speed things up a bit.

We may have to covert 3rd rail to OHLE which could slow overall progress down a bit.

As more of the network is electrified there will be more maintenance required which could slow down new installations.

Finally as more of the network is wired up less junctions and multi track lines are likely to need to be done which will likely speed up the process.

Depending on by how much faster/slower each of those makes the process will determine how easy it will be to achieve the suggested timeline.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If we achieve an effective rolling program of electrification then there will be a more ready supply of people to install the equipment, this should speed things up a bit.

To me this is absolutely key- not stop-start. This is where a simple statement from the Government would help a great deal. Also - IMHO it is not too OT - as Birmingham New Street is a key hub and the two huge schemes I mentioned in a previous post both impact New Street.

 

[edwin_m]

To me this is absolutely key- not stop-start. This is where a simple statement from the Government would help a great deal. Also - IMHO it is not too OT - as Birmingham New Street is a key hub and the two huge schemes I mentioned in a previous post both impact New Street.

I suppose we now have a rolling programme of sorts, because most of the schemes that were announced over a short period have been delayed but not cancelled. Hendy is now forming them into an orderly-ish queue stretching off into the future.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I suppose we now have a rolling programme of sorts, because most of the schemes that were announced over a short period have been delayed but not cancelled. Hendy is now forming them into an orderly-ish queue stretching off into the future.

Sounds like that refresh of Electrification RUS 2009 document we were promised will be forthcoming in the not too distant future then.

 

[The Ham]

Sounds like that refresh of Electrification RUS 2009 document we were promised will be forthcoming in the not too distant future then.

It shouldn't be too difficult to give each line an approximate difficult rating based on clearances, number of bridges, nunber & length of tunnels, number of junctions, age if signals, level of records of equipment (not looking at anyone GWML) and so on.

In doing so it should be possible to say that in any 5 year period we can build (say) 1,500 miles of single track electrification and then look at the best combinations that could be done based on their complexity, which franchises could benefit (I.e. fairly little point providing for a franchise which has just brought new DMU's and who's franchise has another 8 years to run, rather go for one that has DMU's which need replacing and is due for renewal near the end of that control period), how it reduces or need for diesel running (either by removing DMU's or by improving miles under wires for the bimodals), where it will improve journey times most and how it allows for diversion routes to carry on using electric traction.

There should also be, due to allowing for a small buffer, details of what the next project would be if schemes are all completed on time and on budget or better so that resources are not sat idle at the end of a control period if there is capacity for them to move on. Likewise there should also be a few schemes which are shown as being able to be deferred until the start of the next control period if things go wrong and there isn't the resources to compleat them.

If it is known that x may happen at about the change over them if it slips from one to the next them it is not so critical.

 

[Mikey C]

It shouldn't be too difficult to give each line an approximate difficult rating based on clearances, number of bridges, nunber & length of tunnels, number of junctions, age if signals, level of records of equipment (not looking at anyone GWML) and so on.

In doing so it should be possible to say that in any 5 year period we can build (say) 1,500 miles of single track electrification and then look at the best combinations that could be done based on their complexity, which franchises could benefit (I.e. fairly little point providing for a franchise which has just brought new DMU's and who's franchise has another 8 years to run, rather go for one that has DMU's which need replacing and is due for renewal near the end of that control period), how it reduces or need for diesel running (either by removing DMU's or by improving miles under wires for the bimodals), where it will improve journey times most and how it allows for diversion routes to carry on using electric traction.

There should also be, due to allowing for a small buffer, details of what the next project would be if schemes are all completed on time and on budget or better so that resources are not sat idle at the end of a control period if there is capacity for them to move on. Likewise there should also be a few schemes which are shown as being able to be deferred until the start of the next control period if things go wrong and there isn't the resources to compleat them.

If it is known that x may happen at about the change over them if it slips from one to the next them it is not so critical.

The other criteria will be removing diesels from urban areas where pollution is more of an issue. A once hourly DMU travelling in the countryside is far less of an issue than a commuter DMU running through the suburbs of Birmingham or Cardiff to the centre.

 

[The Ham]

The other criteria will be removing diesels from urban areas where pollution is more of an issue. A once hourly DMU travelling in the countryside is far less of an issue than a commuter DMU running through the suburbs of Birmingham or Cardiff to the centre.

A good point, I was fairly sure that my list wasn't extensive.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The other criteria will be removing diesels from urban areas where pollution is more of an issue. A once hourly DMU travelling in the countryside is far less of an issue than a commuter DMU running through the suburbs of Birmingham or Cardiff to the centre.

A good point, I was fairly sure that my list wasn't extensive.

Glad you said that because it keeps this thread on topic. If sparks criteria helps New Street it should probably be higher up the pecking order.

 

[talltim]

This! imagine a few 50's/47's/HST throbbing away down there. You should have tried Sunderland when a 56 chuntered through hauling a long rake of coal wagons.

I have never seen a problem at New Street but tend to wait upstairs until almost the last minute as the platforms are so uninviting and dull.

But as mentioned above, when the loco hauled trains and HST stopped, their exhausts were at the ends of the station, not the middle.

 

[6Gman]

To me this is absolutely key- not stop-start. This is where a simple statement from the Government would help a great deal. Also - IMHO it is not too OT - as Birmingham New Street is a key hub and the two huge schemes I mentioned in a previous post both impact New Street.

Except that no government can bind its successor, so if the 2015-20 Govt said Yes, it doesn't stop the 2020-25 Govt saying No!

 

[Mikey C]

Except that no government can bind its successor, so if the 2015-20 Govt said Yes, it doesn't stop the 2020-25 Govt saying No!

At the moment the electrification programme is pretty non political. The speed of it may vary depending on the finances of the country at the time, but the general principle seems to be agreed by just about everybody.

 

[D1009]

Except that no government can bind its successor, so if the 2015-20 Govt said Yes, it doesn't stop the 2020-25 Govt saying No!

Maybe not, but railways aren't a political issue at present, it's more to do with what parts of the country are more deserving of transport investment.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Except that no government can bind its successor, so if the 2015-20 Govt said Yes, it doesn't stop the 2020-25 Govt saying No!

At the moment the electrification programme is pretty non political. The speed of it may vary depending on the finances of the country at the time, but the general principle seems to be agreed by just about everybody.

Maybe not, but railways aren't a political issue at present, it's more to do with what parts of the country are more deserving of transport investment.

So IF the current government said "Continuous rolling programme" supported by the select committee chaired by a Labour MP and endorsed by the opposition, that would surely work?

 

[Ironside]

So IF the current government said "Continuous rolling programme" supported by the select committee chaired by a Labour MP and endorsed by the opposition, that would surely work?

A new government or coalition could change its mind but as the reasons for electrification are unlikely to change its very unlikely.

 

[Heartland]

I agree the pollution at New Street has reached levels of concern especially as with the so called station improvements more has been covered up. It is now accepted that diesel emissions are harmful to health and with Arriva, London Midland, Cross Country and Virgin all operating diesel sets into the station the NO level must be high

 

[HSTEd]

This problem could have been reduced significantly if the new diesel vehicles had been ordered as electrodiesels - that would have set a precedent. (SNCF has taken the step of deciding to order no more pure diesels).

But that chance has been lost.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Given that the 22xs are diesel-electric, would it be possible to fit them with a (relatively) small battery per carriage? If that battery meant that the diesel engines were able to shut down before entering major stations like New Street and only fire up again after leaving it may help the 22x fleet survive much more stringent regulations on NOx emissions. The batteries would only need to be enough to get them in and out of the stations at low speed, and in the worst case scenario where they wouldn't have enough capacity for most demanding 1% of the cases the diesel engine could just fire up slightly earlier than it would normally, so there would be no need to massively over-provision battery capacity as there would be for trains without some other independent power source.

There's a public health case for allowing old and non-compliant diesel trains to continue running in general, but there will be a problem allowing them into enclosed stations in city centres due to the localised effect that has on other passengers and particularly staff within the stations. If (or more likely when) new, much tougher regulations are imposed about NOx emissions in cities and enclosed spaces, it may become particularly difficult to continue running the 22x fleet on the only routes where they could be used.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

This problem could have been reduced significantly if the new diesel vehicles had been ordered as electrodiesels - that would have set a precedent. (SNCF has taken the step of deciding to order no more pure diesels).

But that chance has been lost.

The complete mess Bombardier made of 'Project Thor/eVoyager' still angers me enormously. There's no need for a significant number of trains operating in and out of Birmingham New Street to idle on diesel power.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Given that the 22xs are diesel-electric, would it be possible to fit them with a (relatively) small battery per carriage? If that battery meant that the diesel engines were able to shut down before entering major stations like New Street and only fire up again after leaving it may help the 22x fleet survive much more stringent regulations on NOx emissions. The batteries would only need to be enough to get them in and out of the stations at low speed, and in the worst case scenario where they wouldn't have enough capacity for most demanding 1% of the cases the diesel engine could just fire up slightly earlier than it would normally, so there would be no need to massively over-provision battery capacity as there would be for trains without some other independent power source.

The Voyagers are incredibly short of space as it is, a battery raft is a pretty much impossible dream unfortunately. The raft needed would be pretty colossal too, because the units are enormously heavy, and have a simply absurd electrical load for hotel services, to get a sensible range on battery power, it would need a battery raft at least the same size as that fitted on the Class 379 IPEMU demonstrator.

The units used something in the region of 250kW for lighting alone when they were delivered, the toilets all need power, air conditioning or heating, cab equipment and so on.

It's also necessary to keep the engines warm and ideally get them up to temperature before starting them up (it reduces engine wear, and cuts emissions) which in addition to moving the train and powering everything else, would use up a lot of power.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The Voyagers are incredibly short of space as it is, a battery raft is a pretty much impossible dream unfortunately. The raft needed would be pretty colossal too, because the units are enormously heavy, and have a simply absurd electrical load for hotel services, to get a sensible range on battery power, it would need a battery raft at least the same size as that fitted on the Class 379 IPEMU demonstrator.

The units used something in the region of 250kW for lighting alone when they were delivered, the toilets all need power, air conditioning or heating, cab equipment and so on.

It's also necessary to keep the engines warm and ideally get them up to temperature before starting them up (it reduces engine wear, and cuts emissions) which in addition to moving the train and powering everything else, would use up a lot of power.

Do you think the 22xs will actually have a future? Assuming that the industry solution to the NOx problem is to add an additional charge per gram of it emitted within enclosed spaces, the 22x fleet could become totally uneconomic to run on any plausible route. The only routes where the NOx charging wouldn't be an issue would be ones where their track wear and fuel consumption would still be enough to make them unsuitable.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Do you think the 22xs will actually have a future?

Yes. DfT will have to give them a future. They don't deserve a future, and whatever the end up doing, it'll be something that wastes train paths and strangles capacity.

Assuming that the industry solution to the NOx problem is to add an additional charge per gram of it emitted within enclosed spaces, the 22x fleet could become totally uneconomic to run on any plausible route. The only routes where the NOx charging wouldn't be an issue would be ones where their track wear and fuel consumption would still be enough to make them unsuitable.

The 220 and 222 units are really good on track wear - the Flexx Eco bogie (aka the BR Advanced Suburban Bogie) has a 900 kg less of unsprung mass v a BREL P3/T3 or P4/T4 bogie, and I'd guess they'll just run with 3 out of 5 engines when they're inevitably cascaded onto non 125mph track.

That should even out performance, emissions and fuel consumption. They're still going to be expensive to maintain and have woeful passenger capacity for train length, but on less frequent services, it will be less of a problem.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I'd guess they'll just run with 3 out of 5 engines when they're inevitably cascaded onto non 125mph track.

If they're only going to run with about 1/2 their engines running on non 125mph, instead of doing that how many unpowered coaches (new builds) could they get away with adding whilst being able to keep to booked times?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

If they're only going to run with about 1/2 their engines running on non 125mph, instead of doing that how many unpowered coaches (new builds) could they get away with adding whilst being able to keep to booked times?

I don't honestly know, not my field. If I had to guess, I'd say 3 unpowered vehicles. That's based on an Alstom Coradia Class 175 unit managing 100mph with 450hp but the Class 180 unit needing 750hp to achieve 125mph.

If only Bombardier hadn't gone in a sulk and destroyed the jigs.

 

[The Ham]

Yes. DfT will have to give them a future. They don't deserve a future, and whatever the end up doing, it'll be something that wastes train paths and strangles capacity.

I agree, it's why I started a thread to discuss possible future users for the 22x fleets.

However my personal thought is that there will be a lot of end coaches stored/scrapped.

Thread can be found here:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=127295

 

[daodao]

There are several ways to reduce the problem, some of which are planned.

All services to Walsall could be electric once the line from Walsall to Rugeley is electrified.
Acceleration of electrification of the spine route Coventry-Oxford-Basingstoke would enable XC trains from Manchester to Bournemouth.
The remaining XC train from Birmingham to Manchester should be run an LM electric unit, with some through services from Manchester to the West Country reinstated via the N&W main line through Church Stretton.
Stopping trains east from Shrewsbury should terminate in the bay platform at Wolverhampton.
Accelerate electrification of the Midland Derby-Bristol main line.

 

[edwin_m]

Acceleration of electrification of the spine route Coventry-Oxford-Basingstoke would enable XC trains from Manchester to Bournemouth.

This would also need DC-AC conversion of Basingstoke-Bournemouth, which has been kicked very far into the long grass.

The remaining XC train from Birmingham to Manchester should be run an LM electric unit, with some through services from Manchester to the West Country reinstated via the N&W main line through Church Stretton.

Difficult. The ATW service by this route struggles to find a path across Crewe at present, and will be subject to disruption for several years from whatever they do with Crewe Hub. Even bypassing Newport this is going to greatly extend journey times between Manchester and Bristol or beyond.

Accelerate electrification of the Midland Derby-Bristol main line.

Another very large electrification scheme which would have to go to the back of the queue. Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury might be a better bet.

As another thought, how much longer would the "fast" Worcester/Hereford trains take if they went via Kidderminster into Snow Hill? There could perhaps be some Worcester-Bromsgrove shuttles in the peak to connect with Cross-City.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

This would also need DC-AC conversion of Basingstoke-Bournemouth, which has been kicked very far into the long grass.

Difficult. The ATW service by this route struggles to find a path across Crewe at present, and will be subject to disruption for several years from whatever they do with Crewe Hub. Even bypassing Newport this is going to greatly extend journey times between Manchester and Bristol or beyond.

Another very large electrification scheme which would have to go to the back of the queue. Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury might be a better bet.

As another thought, how much longer would the "fast" Worcester/Hereford trains take if they went via Kidderminster into Snow Hill? There could perhaps be some Worcester-Bromsgrove shuttles in the peak to connect with Cross-City.

Basingstoke to Southampton DC to AC conversion is on the back burner, development won't begin until CP6 (and it could be dropped from the CP6 settlement completely) but it's less of an issue given the delay in Reading to Basingstoke electrification.

The delay isn't completely a bad thing - there's lots of learning points from the GWep, I don't think we want to rush into a DC-AC conversion without being absolutely certain that we're not going to cause issues with the third rail, after all, it's possible to keep some services running during a signalling failure, but if piling takes out a DC feed, it could close the line, similarly, damage to third rail can leave units stranded with damaged shoe gear.

New electrification projects aren't going to happen until mid CP6, when GWep to Swansea, MML and North TransPennine wrap up, after that, there's around 1100 single track miles to proceed with. The full details of those will appear in the updated Electrification RUS due out later this year (hopefully).

 

[HSTEd]

Then the political question of whether limited 25kV electrification resources will be expended on already electrified lines or on diesel lines.
I know which I would choose, but I am not the one making the decision.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Then the political question of whether limited 25kV electrification resources will be expended on already electrified lines or on diesel lines.
I know which I would choose, but I am not the one making the decision.

It's worth doing (because of the distribution losses, ageing equipment, performance gains and compatibility gains) but it doesn't need to be done in one fell swoop, particularly with dual voltage capable stock being the norm. It could (and should) be a relatively measured project that fits in and around existing possessions and maintenance work where possible.

I'd have a project, team and plant dedicated entirely to 25kV conversion of 750V DC based around London, doing a relatively small number of route miles per year, maybe 50 or so. It makes it a longer term project, over 4 or 5 control periods, but as you say, the routes are already electrified, it's just making things a bit better.