Electric Spine

[swt_passenger]

Right, here's some info.

I've got a 15 page engineering paper here that describes how Ludgate Cellars controls the contactors that control the progressive changeover over the traction return system from AC mode to DC mode through the core.

Just because you think it's only a substation doesn't mean it doesn't contain complicated equipment to do other stuff:

For instance:

The substation is one of the most advanced of its type on the Network Rail infrastructure. It contains eight transformer/rectifiers, two auxiliary transformers, one Distribution Network Operator (DNO) isolating
transformer, eight contactors, four Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs), four Remote Terminal Units (RTUs), two AC distribution suites, four DC distribution suites, and four Voltage Limiting Devices (VLDs).

http://www.ukpowernetworks.co.uk/wc..._Thameslink_Case_Study_AW_FINAL_full_view.pdf

Or how about:

The new Ludgate Cellars site occupies a narrow strip of land between Blackfriars and City Thameslink stations, surrounded on
three sides by commercial property with a working railway on the fourth side. It is here that the company has constructed a twostorey
20 megawatt substation containing eight transformer rectifiers and a suite of
AC, DC and AC/DC switchgear. The substation will also house, in railway terms, a pioneering Programmable Logic Control - unique to Network Rail electrification - which will operate and control an automatic changeover sequence ensuring the safe transit of trains through a specific, congested and very complex area.

http://www.storm-marcomms.co.uk/uploads/asset_file/Thameslink - final.pdf

Or perhaps:

LCS designed Integrated Circuit Breaker Contactor & Motorised Isolator suites provided the automated changeover from DC to AC traction systems. This system ensures that the dual supply period is kept to a minimum to avoid stray current generation by the two power supplies. The Thameslink is intended to have a greatly increased number of trains per hour through its new changeover at Ludgate Cellars (Blackfriars). To ensure that train movements are maintained there is a secondary Circuit Breaker, Contactor & Motorised Isolator suite. A PLC System designed by LCS is used to sequence control and monitor the traction power systems. The system is used to seamlessly changeover to a hot standby secondary suite if a fault is detected. The PLC can ensure that this disruption is kept to a minimum thus saving considerable amounts cost due to downtime.

http://www.lcswitchgear.com/index_Page380.htm

 

[The Planner]

2. I hope the line will be redoubled between Coventry and Leamington Spa otherwise there will be a large bottleneck in the route.

The plan is Milverton Kenilworth but a fair amount of the container trains will go E-W to Bletchley and join the WCML there and go north.

3. I also hope the already announced Nuneaton -Coventry upgrade will take account of this electrification. I seem to recall the platforms were being planned for 3 car trains, but 4 car trains would be better surely?

Considering the service will be doubled to what there is now I don't think it needs it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also, there is the possibility of XC services across the new E-W line from the South coast which much faster timings to the NW and NE.

I am not convinced they would want to miss out New St unless they are extras to what there already is.

 

[Class377/5]

We also don't want the mixing of AC and DC traction return currents over long distances. That's why there is a massively complicated building full of switchgear between Blackfriars and City T/L.

It is all far too complex and costly for long distance use.

Right, here's some info.

I've got a 15 page engineering paper here that describes how Ludgate Cellars controls the contactors that control the progressive changeover over the traction return system from AC mode to DC mode through the core.

Here's a question then (as your correct and I was wrong about Ludgate Cellars) is is that gear needed for 'long distance' of less than a mile or more to do with the amount of trains and the complex signalling including the introduction of ATO as well as more than doubling the needs of the power supply?

 

[ilkestonian]

If the intention is to run electrically hauled freight from Southampton to the North via the Midland Maine Line then, as it stands, there's going to be a need to change to diesel locos to go beyond Sheffield. Electric locos coming off trains and being exchanged for diesels in Sheffield? I seem to remember that happening before....

(Probably the best place to do it would be Toton as most freight avoids Sheffield by using the Old Road between Chesterfield and Rotherham.)

Would make sense, but the proposed scheme doesn't appear to include electrifcation of any of the Erewash. Hopefully an oversight as it is a useful and often used diversion for planned and emergency closures of the route north of Derby

 

[swt_passenger]

Here's a question then (as your correct and I was wrong about Ludgate Cellars) is is that gear needed for 'long distance' of less than a mile or more to do with the amount of trains and the complex signalling including the introduction of ATO as well as more than doubling the needs of the power supply?

At a first approximation it's to do with preventing corrosion of the infrastructure, and electrical safety considerations for personnel, and limiting interference with signalling, mainly track circuits - probably best to just accept that as a fact.

On an AC system, traction return is via the rails, and the rails are earth bonded, as are all structures such as gantries, signal posts etc etc.

In a DC system, traction return is still via the rails, but they are kept insulated from 'earth' along the length of the track.

So basically you've got two different earthing and return current systems with different characteristics and different cross bonding rules.

What they will do in your locality on Thameslink - specifically the stretch between the two possible changeover stations, is that they automatically alter the return current and earth bonding system from one method to the other depending on whether the relevant track is in AC or DC mode -

So, as you can imagine, although normally the up line will be AC and down DC, there are three other situations that can arise. E.g. if both lines are DC the return current and earthing arrangements on both will become the same.

On a long mainline, you cannot have the two different traction return current systems coexisting - it is one or the other.

On Thameslink the very short headways and short signal sections add to the complexity, but the basic electrical conflicts are not removed on a normal railway - you can still only use one traction supply method or the other at any instant.

 

[gwr4090]

The HOOP train is proposed to be used on the MML after it has done the GWML. I am not sure it is particularly suited to smaller schemes. The Scottish, Lancashire and North Trans-Peninne schemes are not using one and the South Wales scheme didn't propose its use either. Liverpool - Manchester seems to be getting on with a 3 car dmu!

However as always all will become clear in due course. Perhaps NR will wait and see if the first one is any good.

Isn't here a second HOOP train on order which will probably cover Manchester area (in part) then the MML. The first HOOP train will probably do Southampton-Nuneaton after the GWML is finished - then maybe the Birmingham-Bristol line in CP6 or maybe Newbury-Plymouth ?

David

 

[David Dunning]

Weymouth/Southampton to London Paddington in the future ??

 

[jopsuk]

Why would you want to? For most of London (especially City, West End and Whitehall) Waterloo is a better placed terminal. Paddington is one of the worst placed terminals, being very much on the western fringe of "central" London.

 

[swt_passenger]

Weymouth/Southampton to London Paddington in the future ??

They're already proposing Basingstoke to Paddington in the London and SE RUS, primarily to provide empty trains to fill up at Reading. They didn't think the service would have a significant impact on Waterloo numbers.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why would you want to? For most of London (especially City, West End and Whitehall) Waterloo is a better placed terminal. Paddington is one of the worst placed terminals, being very much on the western fringe of "central" London.

But running via Heathrow would get folk from SWT-land beyond Basingstoke directly to the airport (when the western link is ready).

 

[brianthegiant]

At a first approximation it's to do with preventing corrosion of the infrastructure, and electrical safety considerations for personnel, and limiting interference with signalling, mainly track circuits - probably best to just accept that as a fact.

Agreed anywhere you've got HV systems - 25kV (11/33KV for utility distribution) you usually want all exposed metal structures at ground level 'bonded' together electrically, so they're at the same electrical potential. Otherwise if there is a HV fault, you can have a situation where the ground and metal objects closer to the fault are at different potentials from those further away. which at that voltage means you could get a shock by touching or stepping across the affected area (as happened to a horse at Newmarket last year).

Resolving these issues for dual voltage operation, as SWT passenger says would be costly and expensive possibly involving modification to the DC system. Hence would only be considered for short sections.

 

[Mystic Force]

With SWML being partially converted to overhead AC that would suggest increase in line speed would be possible as the current limit is due to electric pickup being difficult at elevated speeds with shoe gear. So would Southampton be able to then benefit from reduced journey times to London. No the current stock is not capable of running any faster, I know that. But that doesn't mean that new stock wouldn't as sometime be ordered that can take advantage of the improved infrastructure. Maybe those trials of 110 mph running by London midland would have some relevance here.

 

[els]

But running via Heathrow would get folk from SWT-land beyond Basingstoke directly to the airport (when the western link is ready).

Also, if only the DfT etc. were a bit more creative with Crossrail, then the opportunities are expanded, you could have Southampton (inc. airport) - Reading - Heathrow - the City - Stansted, all under the wires.

Wishful thinking of course!

 

[John55]

With SWML being partially converted to overhead AC that would suggest increase in line speed would be possible as the current limit is due to electric pickup being difficult at elevated speeds with shoe gear. So would Southampton be able to then benefit from reduced journey times to London. No the current stock is not capable of running any faster, I know that. But that doesn't mean that new stock wouldn't as sometime be ordered that can take advantage of the improved infrastructure. Maybe those trials of 110 mph running by London midland would have some relevance here.

One factor would be that the existing trains running on 25kV would not be current limited as they are on 750V DC so would accelerate and maintain higher speeds between AC locos also accelerating faster and running faster on the intermodal trains up the bank to Basingstoke. Whether this would be compatible with the signalling and track I don't know..

 

[DXMachina]

I posted on this forum just last night that while electrification north of Oxford was highly desirable as a bypass electric route from the northern WCML to Paddington, I couldn't see it happening any time soon

I was never happier to be proven wrong than I am now.

I dare say that the Chiltern Main Line from Claydon Jn to Marylebone (via Seer Green, not the shared-with-met-line Harrow route) could be a future job now as it would give yet another electric route into London from the north and facilitate extended passenger service to Milton Keynes (a long term Chiltern Railways objective)

 

[jopsuk]

Maybe those trials of 110 mph running by London midland would have some relevance here.

LMs 110mph running will be using existing Desiros. In theory, I see no reason why an AC-converted 450 or (better) 444 should not be able to do the same- the 444s would be prime candidates being express units.

 

[DXMachina]

I bet the Class 180s find usage to and from Southampton during electrification blockades - ideal for the job, right size, power and speed, and coming available at exactly the right timeframe

 

[Class377/5]

One factor would be that the existing trains running on 25kV would not be current limited as they are on 750V DC so would accelerate and maintain higher speeds between AC locos also accelerating faster and running faster on the intermodal trains up the bank to Basingstoke. Whether this would be compatible with the signalling and track I don't know..

Try doing a 377 from St Albans to Croydon and you see the difference the AC makes.

At a first approximation it's to do with preventing corrosion of the infrastructure, and electrical safety considerations for personnel, and limiting interference with signalling, mainly track circuits - probably best to just accept that as a fact.

Thanks for your reply. Fairly technically but informative.

 

[Bald Rick]

Right, here's some info.

I've got a 15 page engineering paper here that describes how Ludgate Cellars controls the contactors that control the progressive changeover over the traction return system from AC mode to DC mode through the core.

Pretty much bang on. The contactor system progressively alters the earthing by track circuit section as each train moves along the line and occupies each section. In simple terms, the earthing systems are kept separate electrically so that trains on DC have DC earthing, and trains on AC have AC earthing. It's complicated stuff, and the technology isn't used in any other locations on the rail network. It also doesn't work very well - we sometimes get arcing of return current between train wheel and rail as trains cross the IBJ between the differently earthed sections. An IBJ failure last week at Farringdon may well have had this as a contributory factor. So the contactor system may well be upgraded (again) soon.

 

[lancastrian]

Well this has been a real revelation, a British Government actually doing some decent planning concerning railway investment.

It is good to see that they have included the Thames Valley Branches to Henley, Marlow & Winsor. I was daft to leave them out in the first place, sadly it seems that Greenford has been left out.

Also great to see the Great Western Electrification extended to Swansea as it should have been in the first place.

Concerning the Valleys lines this is great news, although I hope that they well consider increasing capacity on these lines as they electrify them. Lets hope that double tracking of the lines to Merthyr, Aberdare, Treherbert, Rhymney & Ebbw Vale is done before electrification as the cost of doing it afterwards will be very costly. Lets hope that we are seeing the end of political 'short termism'. (Wont hold my breath though). Hopefully all platforms will be long enough for 6 cars trains right from the start.

Great to see the Walsall to Rugeley line also included, but what as happened to the Barnt Green to Bromsgrove extension, I hope they do it at the same time.

The real supprise to me was the 'Electric spine' concept. WOW some proper planning at last, again as has been said, I hope that any single track sections are doubled as part of the work. Plus I agree 3 car platform lengths are far to short, they should all be 6 car at least. This electrification between Banbury and Leamington will form a good start basis for the Electrification of the Chiltern routes and sevices as soon as possible.

Although if the plan is to make an electric spine from North to South, why is the Birmingham to Derby line not included as well as an extension from Lichfield to Wichnor junction not included, what we will have is two totally unconected electric sections, with the gap between Birmingham to Derby seperating them.

Great to see the line from Oxford to Bedford line being included, not only reoprening the route from Oxford to Bletchley, but electrifing it as well, brilliant. Again another section that Chiltern will not have to do.

Moving on to the MML. Great to see that the line to Corby & Nottingham are included, but not the Erewash Valley and the Mansfield Junction to Trowell Juntion lines as well. This seems to me to be a strange exclusion. I know that some will complain about this next thing, but as the Matlock branch trains start at Nottingham, through Derby before reaching Matlock, I cannot understand why it is excluded. Surely it is better to run electric trains the whole way, rather than a desiel from Nottingham to Matlock, menaing that at least 80% of its journey will be under the wires!

Now we come the the strangest or daftest decission of the whole thing; WHY, WHY, WHY, stop at Sheffield. Even just the basic extension to Doncaster makes sense. Or will it bether same strange concept used when they announced the Trans-Pennine Electrification as Manchester to Leeds when they actually meant York (Colton Junction to be exact). Most people have heard of Doncaster. If the stop at Sheffield, then the spine will agian be broken for such a short stretch of track.

The final thing is why only the Micklefield to Selby line? Trains on this line actually go all the way to Hull.

I am pleased to see what has been anounced but with a little bit of extra thought even greater benefits could be given to the railways with a few planned extensions.

Sheffield to Doncaster & Selby to Hull are the most obvious.

If I was giving a school report on it I would say this:

"A good start, but can improve".

Lets hope that we will see just a few short extensions to the wires that would make a real difference to a much better electrified system here in Great Britain.

 

[John55]

Well this has been a real revelation, a British Government actually doing some decent planning concerning railway investment.

It is good to see that they have included the Thames Valley Branches to Henley, Marlow & Winsor. I was daft to leave them out in the first place, sadly it seems that Greenford has been left out.

Also great to see the Great Western Electrification extended to Swansea as it should have been in the first place.

Concerning the Valleys lines this is great news, although I hope that they well consider increasing capacity on these lines as they electrify them. Lets hope that double tracking of the lines to Merthyr, Aberdare, Treherbert, Rhymney & Ebbw Vale is done before electrification as the cost of doing it afterwards will be very costly. Lets hope that we are seeing the end of political 'short termism'. (Wont hold my breath though). Hopefully all platforms will be long enough for 6 cars trains right from the start.

Great to see the Walsall to Rugeley line also included, but what as happened to the Barnt Green to Bromsgrove extension, I hope they do it at the same time.

The real supprise to me was the 'Electric spine' concept. WOW some proper planning at last, again as has been said, I hope that any single track sections are doubled as part of the work. Plus I agree 3 car platform lengths are far to short, they should all be 6 car at least. This electrification between Banbury and Leamington will form a good start basis for the Electrification of the Chiltern routes and sevices as soon as possible.

Although if the plan is to make an electric spine from North to South, why is the Birmingham to Derby line not included as well as an extension from Lichfield to Wichnor junction not included, what we will have is two totally unconected electric sections, with the gap between Birmingham to Derby seperating them.

Great to see the line from Oxford to Bedford line being included, not only reoprening the route from Oxford to Bletchley, but electrifing it as well, brilliant. Again another section that Chiltern will not have to do.

Moving on to the MML. Great to see that the line to Corby & Nottingham are included, but not the Erewash Valley and the Mansfield Junction to Trowell Juntion lines as well. This seems to me to be a strange exclusion. I know that some will complain about this next thing, but as the Matlock branch trains start at Nottingham, through Derby before reaching Matlock, I cannot understand why it is excluded. Surely it is better to run electric trains the whole way, rather than a desiel from Nottingham to Matlock, menaing that at least 80% of its journey will be under the wires!

Now we come the the strangest or daftest decission of the whole thing; WHY, WHY, WHY, stop at Sheffield. Even just the basic extension to Doncaster makes sense. Or will it bether same strange concept used when they announced the Trans-Pennine Electrification as Manchester to Leeds when they actually meant York (Colton Junction to be exact). Most people have heard of Doncaster. If the stop at Sheffield, then the spine will agian be broken for such a short stretch of track.

The final thing is why only the Micklefield to Selby line? Trains on this line actually go all the way to Hull.

I am pleased to see what has been anounced but with a little bit of extra thought even greater benefits could be given to the railways with a few planned extensions.

Sheffield to Doncaster & Selby to Hull are the most obvious.

If I was giving a school report on it I would say this:

"A good start, but can improve".

Lets hope that we will see just a few short extensions to the wires that would make a real difference to a much better electrified system here in Great Britain.

Assuming this all goes ahead there is a lot of work to get on with here. The MML electrification for example will follow the GWML electrification which was due to finish in 2017 at Cardiff but will quite likely now take a bit longer as it will be going to Swansea.

If this is what happens it is unlikely the MML electrification will be complete or at best just complete by 2019 when this plan finishes. By 2019 there will be a CP6 plan in place to pick up where CP5 ends. Todays document already says CP6 plans should include Derby to Birmingham electrification and electrification of freight linkages in South Yorkshire.

There are only so many miles of electrification which can be done in one year.

 

[DXMachina]

One obvious social possibility is that there is for the first time a scheduled major design/build/test project far enough ahead to make decent preparation for it possible

There are a lot of unemployed people from industries that are shrinking - steelworkers, oil riggers, machinists, heavy vehicle operators, toolmakers. who can be trained to take part in this project, giving them a sense of purpose, a future income at least for a while and as the outcome, a national asset in terms of skills and ability.

And, the possibility of increasing the number of miles of electrification that can normally be done in a year through their work... even if it means refurbishing & re-deploying abandoned 1980s electrification trains that are still laying up around the network in various places.

 

[bangor-toad]

With the CP5 plans the northern end of the electric spine will be the link onto the WCML at Nuneaton. This will give northbound access from Coventry to the WCML which is going to be rather useful.

As pure speculation would the Coventry - Nuneaton route be even more useful if the very short chord to the east of Nuneaton was replaced to allow services to Coventry - Bedworth - Hinckley - MML?
As far as I can see the very old formation has more or less disappeared but the trackbed is not built on. The current bridge under the WCML on the formation would need replacing to fit to W12 gauge but otherwise it'd be a simple upgrade.

200m of track and a new bridge doesn't seem too expensive for what could facilitate a new north-south corridor. I wonder if anyone has worked up the business case for this?

Jason

 

[cogload]

It is not just the new track or a bridge which is expensive. It is the hacking into the interlocking, the wheels free testing and the subsequent sch4/8 payments to train and freight operators which are expensive.

Scotrail recently waived it's right to Sch.4/8 for one wiring scheme. Funnily, the price...well...halved...

 

[The Planner]

If it was going to happen, it would have been done as part of the WCML upgrade. I can't see much traffic that would use it, Mountsorrel Banbury stone traffic but not a lot else.

 

[bnsf734]

I think the new electrified link from Oxford - Bedford and then MML northbound obviates the need for any extra chord at Nuneaton.

Such a chord would be very complex and thus expensive to install.

I live in Nuneaton, and true, the land has not been built on, but the proximity to the River Anker and its flood plain also adds complications to any build.

I think the East-West link is a much neater solution to this problem.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

This has been an outstanding vote of confidence - agreed there are some bits that ould be added on to create more value , but there is a limit to industry resources and so on.

As in CP4 , - more can be added later , subject of course to funding !!!!

 

[Schnellzug]

Since the notion of Overhead to Southampton appears to be being done (or at least, Proposed, since with all Government projects, i suppose there has to be that caveat), for Freightliner's use (mainly), will that mean that Freightliner will need a substantially increased electric loco fleet? Would their current fleet of 86s & 90s be enough, seeing how old the 86s are, even if the 90s aren't all exactly rushed off their feet? So will FL have to invest in a whole new fleet of electric locos? That would be a fairly hefty investment, particularly since they've only recently spent so much on the 70s. Will the Govt. expect them to stump up the money for that?

 

[jopsuk]

If we're doing crystal ball stuff to CP6, what might wwe expect the next expansion of wires on the Southern (South West division) to be? further west to Weymouth? Creeping north on an assumption that the 455s.

Also, Basingstoke won't be the only changeover point in this round. Eastleigh and St Denys will have to be as well, and Southern are going to have make sure they're using DV stock into Southampton

 

[Schnellzug]

If we're doing crystal ball stuff to CP6, what might wwe expect the next expansion of wires on the Southern (South West division) to be? further west to Weymouth? Creeping north on an assumption that the 455s.

Also, Basingstoke won't be the only changeover point in this round. Eastleigh and St Denys will have to be as well, and Southern are going to have make sure they're using DV stock into Southampton

I think, like the Desiros, the Electrostars were designed with dual voltage in mind in any case.

What, incidentally, is this CP6? Is that when all this might take place, and if so, when is that?