Difficult routes (train services) to totally electrify ... and possible solutions.

[Peter Mugridge]

I'm not convinced that the Merseyrail is what's preventing Chester being wired. I don't see why you wouldn't just dedicate Platform 7 to Merseyrail DC electrics and put OHLE on Platforms 1-6.

Is there something specific about Chester that precludes easy installation of OHLE, compared with installing OHLE at all the stations along the GWML and MML?

I wonder if it might be something to do with that massive metal structure down the middle of the central island? The girder structure? Is it in such a position that no safe clearance can be obtained from overhead wires? ( In which case.... rebuild the entire station???? )

 

[Penmorfa]

I wonder if it might be something to do with that massive metal structure down the middle of the central island? The girder structure? Is it in such a position that no safe clearance can be obtained from overhead wires? ( In which case.... rebuild the entire station???? )

Not a problem, it's height is such that the OHLE supports could be attached to it, third photo down on this page:
http://www.penmorfa.com/Archive/twenty.html

If/when Crewe - Chester is electrified it would seem logical to extend the LM Euston - Crewe service to Chester instead of Arriva needing an EMU to work the shuttle.

 

[Chris125]

For sure, wider electrification plans would increase the justification for electrifying Chester, but even it its current state, I'm surprised justifying it is difficult.

I fear people have been reading a bit too much into what was a case study of discontinuous electrification where various issues are assumed for the sake of the scenario - its not a business case for electrifying to Chester, it just looks at a possible way of improving it by reducing the cost.

It's worth reading it in context on page 68 of the Alternative Solutions RUS

Chris

 

[The Ham]

-------------

 

[The Ham]

Going back to my original suggestion, given the desire to retain a direct service to London west of Yeovil, how about:

1tph DMU stops all shacks Exeter to Salisbury, then semi fast to Waterloo (coupling up with a DMU from Bristol at Salisbury)

1tph DMU stops all shacks Exeter to Westbury via Yeovil

1tph EMU from Yeovil which meets the Westbury service and runs semi fast to Waterloo (coupling up with an EMU from Romsey via Eastleigh at Salisbury)

1tph EMU (Extension of one of the existing service which stops at all stations between Basingstoke & Woking) service which stops at all stations between Sailsbury & Basingstoke

In doing so it would remove the need for a lot of DMU's from the existing SWT network, whilst maintaining all stations with a direct (but slow) service to London. It would also provide Romsey with a direct service to London and would provide direct connection between the stations in North Hampshire without the need to change at Basingstoke.

 

[pemma]

I don't see why you wouldn't just dedicate Platform 7 to Merseyrail DC electrics and put OHLE on Platforms 1-6.

If it's a maximum of 2tph that would switch to EMU could the expenditure of electrifying all 6 platforms really be justified?

 

[LE Greys]

Going back to my original suggestion, given the desire to retain a direct service to London west of Yeovil, how about:

1tph DMU stops all shacks Exeter to Salisbury, then semi fast to Waterloo (coupling up with a DMU from Bristol at Salisbury)

1tph DMU stops all shacks Exeter to Westbury via Yeovil

1tph EMU from Yeovil which meets the Westbury service and runs semi fast to Waterloo (coupling up with an EMU from Romsey via Eastleigh at Salisbury)

1tph EMU (Extension of one of the existing service which stops at all stations between Basingstoke & Woking) service which stops at all stations between Sailsbury & Basingstoke

In doing so it would remove the need for a lot of DMU's from the existing SWT network, whilst maintaining all stations with a direct (but slow) service to London. It would also provide Romsey with a direct service to London and would provide direct connection between the stations in North Hampshire without the need to change at Basingstoke.

A sensible answer. Depending on speed limits, this might be a home for some of the 185s after Trans-Pennine electrification. Otherwise, the 159s are likely to remain for many years to come. An alternative would be a Bournemouth-Weymouth-style EMU drag west of Salisbury or Yeovil (wherever the wires [I presume they'll be wires] end at the time). However, the lack of modern types of light locomotive makes this unlikely, and 57s are probably too big to be economic when moving the equivalent of six coaches. The 33/1s were just the right size to handle this economically, especially when working push-pull.

 

[Manchester77]

I've seen it said that GOBLIN would be a very hard line to electrify, due to bridges/ tunnels etc - which is frustrating as it seems a fairly "quick win".

Would it help to look for flatter routes like Ely - Norwich as places that are simpler to electrify?

We could electrify GOBLIN with SR 3rd rail but then that leaves us with a one north of London with Southern London's 3rd rail system...

 

[LE Greys]

We could electrify GOBLIN with SR 3rd rail but then that leaves us with a one north of London with Southern London's 3rd rail system...

After redoing the NLL, that would be a pointless change in policy. Overhead would be more likely to provice a Richmond-Barking service mixing it with the Stratford-Barking route and make it easier to run goods. The wires have to be capable of handling a pair of 90s or a 92 at full power.

 

[34D]

After redoing the NLL, that would be a pointless change in policy. Overhead would be more likely to provice a Richmond-Barking service mixing it with the Stratford-Barking route and make it easier to run goods. The wires have to be capable of handling a pair of 90s or a 92 at full power.

I seem to remember reading a couple of years that FCC/NR were looking into electrifying part of this route so as to provide an easier stock transfer between the thameslink and GN lines.

 

[HSTEd]

I would assume that the electrification could be simple trolley wiring due to the very low speeds on the line, which would presumably reduce the clearances required.

 

[Manchester77]

I would assume that the electrification could be simple trolley wiring due to the very low speeds on the line, which would presumably reduce the clearances required.

Is that what they've done in the tunnel near Edinburgh Waverly?

 

[HSTEd]

Is that what they've done in the tunnel near Edinburgh Waverly?

I thought that tunnel was done using conductor rail on the tunnel roof myself.

 

[Bevan Price]

Some recent thoughts on Waterloo - Exeter. Class 159 are now about 20 to 21 years old. Maybe they have another 10 to 15 years useful life. Currently approved electrification projects elsewhere in UK will probably be completed in the early 2020s. If the teams involved in electrification are to be kept active, then maybe Basingstoke / Salisbury - Exeter electrification work might be one project that could start in about 2022 to 2025 - just about the time when they are considering options to replace the Class 159s ?

 

[mr_towers]

Is that what they've done in the tunnel near Edinburgh Waverly?

Definitely OH conductor rail there! One million percent sure

 

[Kali]

A sensible answer. Depending on speed limits, this might be a home for some of the 185s after Trans-Pennine electrification. Otherwise, the 159s are likely to remain for many years to come. An alternative would be a Bournemouth-Weymouth-style EMU drag west of Salisbury or Yeovil (wherever the wires [I presume they'll be wires] end at the time). However, the lack of modern types of light locomotive makes this unlikely, and 57s are probably too big to be economic when moving the equivalent of six coaches. The 33/1s were just the right size to handle this economically, especially when working push-pull.

As discussed in the IEP thread there's no work for a mixed traffic diesel anymore, so that is probably not going to work for 1-2tph . However, you could drag the DMU with an EMU the other way if you wanted to save emissions/more expensive fuel etc.

What's really needed is a bimode 159 direct replacement ( with corridors! ) if anything, I think - they seem ideal for the route. Either that or the Salisbury EMUs and the Exeter DMUs to be totally compatible. I'm not sure how well either a split service or wires arriving in Exeter on the WoE line before the GWML would go down politically - there'd certainly be a stink about splitting the service.

 

[The Ham]

As discussed in the IEP thread there's no work for a mixed traffic diesel anymore, so that is probably not going to work for 1-2tph . However, you could drag the DMU with an EMU the other way if you wanted to save emissions/more expensive fuel etc.

What's really needed is a bimode 159 direct replacement ( with corridors! ) if anything, I think - they seem ideal for the route. Either that or the Salisbury EMUs and the Exeter DMUs to be totally compatible. I'm not sure how well either a split service or wires arriving in Exeter on the WoE line before the GWML would go down politically - there'd certainly be a stink about splitting the service.

Or given that there will be more overhead wires over time, as more lines become totally electric cascade the bimodal IEP's to the Salisbury services.

That then solves the problems of IEP, the WoE line gets a faster and greener service without having to do lots of fiddly and expensive bridge works to electrify the line, whilst maintaining the end to end nature of the current service and most rail enthusiasts won't have to travel on trains with underfloor engines (as they can use the IC125's to get to Exeter). The complaint about the cost of the trains in the first place is overcome by the sky high cost of peak time train tickets into Waterloo, which will soon pay for the trains. West of Salisbury the trains will be fairly lightly loaded, so the 2cm narrower than the possible maximum for 2+2 seating isn't a problem and the rest of the time everyone would be so glad of a seat that they won't care. Did I miss anything?

 

[LE Greys]

As discussed in the IEP thread there's no work for a mixed traffic diesel anymore, so that is probably not going to work for 1-2tph . However, you could drag the DMU with an EMU the other way if you wanted to save emissions/more expensive fuel etc.

What's really needed is a bimode 159 direct replacement ( with corridors! ) if anything, I think - they seem ideal for the route. Either that or the Salisbury EMUs and the Exeter DMUs to be totally compatible. I'm not sure how well either a split service or wires arriving in Exeter on the WoE line before the GWML would go down politically - there'd certainly be a stink about splitting the service.

Ballast trains, nuclear flasks, sandite, leaf clearance, MU drags, Thunderbirds, test trains, etc. would seem to be excellent mixed traffic duties. Most of these have four choices, a 66, a 67, an MPV or an old BR machine, none of which exactly sound like an efficient way of doing things (seeing two leaf blasters going through Baldock with two 66s really takes the biscuit, a pair of Type 5s to work about 100 tons hock: , even if only one was under power it's over the top). Something like this could replace DRS' motly collection of relics easily, and do a heck of a lot more. Trouble is, there simply doesn't seem to be anything small enough in production anywhere else, and a bespoke 'light duties' diesel for the UK seems unlikely.

 

[DXMachina]

Maybe the next generation of DMUs (which will have a short lifespan due to increasing electrification), should be specified as a trailer car that can interwork as an EMU trailer, and a powercar that can work as a light duty locomotive once no longer needed for passengers...

 

[LE Greys]

Maybe the next generation of DMUs (which will have a short lifespan due to increasing electrification), should be specified as a trailer car that can interwork as an EMU trailer, and a powercar that can work as a light duty locomotive once no longer needed for passengers...

Sounds a bit like the 210. The remaining bits ended up variously as testbeds for Networkers and 455 trailer cars.

 

[HSTEd]

Ballast trains, nuclear flasks, sandite, leaf clearance, MU drags, Thunderbirds, test trains, etc. would seem to be excellent mixed traffic duties. Most of these have four choices, a 66, a 67, an MPV or an old BR machine, none of which exactly sound like an efficient way of doing things (seeing two leaf blasters going through Baldock with two 66s really takes the biscuit, a pair of Type 5s to work about 100 tons hock: , even if only one was under power it's over the top). Something like this could replace DRS' motly collection of relics easily, and do a heck of a lot more. Trouble is, there simply doesn't seem to be anything small enough in production anywhere else, and a bespoke 'light duties' diesel for the UK seems unlikely.

Why are MPVs inefficient?

That are probably the most efficient option, alongside conversion of old DMUs to sandite trains like that Class 101 that is knocking around.

Thunderbird demands are being further reduced by the deployment of things like IEP with its self recovering capability.
Likewise MU drags are a tiny market that will be crushed by either bi-mode trains or simply attaching a high power DMU to one end of the train and dragging the whole formation like that.

Nuclear flasks are set to dissapear very soon since the last Magnox and the AGRs will be leaving the fleet, and the number of fuel movements for BWR/PWRs is far lower, and indeed there are no spent fuel rail movements for the PWR at Sizewell because all the fuel is stored on site.

 

[Kali]

The US discovered a while back that it's really not any cheaper to build smaller locomotives rather than one class of bigger ones once you've included all the support framework - so you might as well use 66s or whatever replaces them for everything. I guess DRS could expand on their current position & provide passenger motive power to every passenger TOC, but that would seem to need a fairly big revival in loco haulage to make any economic sense - but the more wires there are, the less sense that becomes. Perhaps if there's something you could effectively lift the powerplant out of & replace with a transformer, that doesn't seem totally implausible, but then you end up with a bunch of electrics which still have no job.

Ham - yep, was thinking that would be the sensible option, but I've not been keeping track of how many bimode IEPs are actually going to appear or when they might be made redundant. Even scope for things like attaching one to a GW unit at Exeter & going on down westward so it doesn't need it's own path, but no chance in hell of that actually happening.

I'm wondering how modular you can make a modern train now - I suspect a DEMU with a swappable diesel powerpack or transformer would probably end up a bit heavy, but I guess it'd be sensible to at least attempt to design.

 

[LE Greys]

Why are MPVs inefficient?

That are probably the most efficient option, alongside conversion of old DMUs to sandite trains like that Class 101 that is knocking around.

Thunderbird demands are being further reduced by the deployment of things like IEP with its self recovering capability.
Likewise MU drags are a tiny market that will be crushed by either bi-mode trains or simply attaching a high power DMU to one end of the train and dragging the whole formation like that.

Nuclear flasks are set to dissapear very soon since the last Magnox and the AGRs will be leaving the fleet, and the number of fuel movements for BWR/PWRs is far lower, and indeed there are no spent fuel rail movements for the PWR at Sizewell because all the fuel is stored on site.

Well, no they aren't exactly inefficient. I reckon they're quite good for what they do. However, AIUI, the CargoSprinter design has two 350hp motors (total 700) and a top speed of 75. That's a Type 1, so I reckon the things might make decent Class 20 replacements. But that leaves a huge gap between there and the 66, a Type 5 with 3,200 hp. Where's the 1,500-2,000 hp loco to fill it? The only option would seem to be hooking several MPVs together, and even then they can't move anything that doesn't have a compatible coupler. 37s can, but they're a bit long in the tooth and I can't see them being very efficient. It may be that their work has died out completely, but then why hang onto a small number of 37s? Or for that matter, why use 67s on light goods work and random passenger duties? Why use pairs of 66s on RHTTs for that matter?

I like the 'tractor DMU' idea, though. Something sufficiently powerful to move a tail load (somewhere between a 4-REP and a GWR Railcar dragging a coach) might easily fill the gap. A tractor EMU seems a likely option as well. Purely hypothetically, a 444 with double the usual number of motors might be able to shift a similar DMU at 100.