Electrification east of Selby

[Eagle]

I believe all stock on ECML between doncaster and Peterbrough now has to be 125mph (excluding specials and freight etc). But i could be making that up.

You're forgetting EMT's 158s between Grantham and Peterborough, top speed 90 mph.

 

[YorkshireBear]

You're forgetting EMT's 158s between Grantham and Peterborough, top speed 90 mph.

Knew there was something, i meant as a general rule. But yes that is a very obvious exception and redners my point moot.

 

[ainsworth74]

But yes that is a very obvious exception and redners my point moot.

It doesn't, your point was just a bit vague. Network Rail will only give long distance paths (read services from London to north of Peterborough) paths if they can run at 125mph. One of the reasons bringing a 90+Mk3 rake in for some East Coast services fell apart was because NR were not keen on pathing a 110mph limited train. EMT 158s between Peterborough and Grantham they don't have an issue with (though I'm sure they wouldn't complain if they could go faster).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You're forgetting EMT's 158s between Grantham and Peterborough, top speed 90 mph.

Last time I did that run we were routed slow line south of Stoke, so there is not much fast line capacity used.

 

[HSTEd]

I can vouch for the EMT 158s running on the slow lines south of the Stoke Tunnel.... I know this because when I travel to a mates in Norwich I would wait and get on the London train behind the Norwich train and overtake, giving me half an hour in first class with a cup of tea and some biscuits....

As to this "private finance".... this sounds like it will just be another subsidy farm if we are not careful.

 

[Waverley125]

Given there's been a strong expression of preference to do away with OAO's and incoporate their routes into franchisees, would it not be eminently possible that EC would run the Hull services instead?

 

[D365]

They did almost with the 5 180s?

(Which are now back at FGW)

 

[Eagle]

They did almost with the 5 180s?

(Which are now back at FGW)

No, those were for Lincoln services. EC and its predecessors have never tried to absorb either of the OAO's services.

 

[D365]

I'm getting my 'branch lines' crossed

 

[junglejames]

Breaking out my napkin for some maths suggests that the savings could be enormous. From the CP4 track access charge document here a 180 vehicle costs 14.03 pence per mile (ppm), the most expensive DMU out there by the by, which means a five car unit costs 70.15ppm. Finding an EMU to compare is a bit difficult as the 390 is distorted by the extra cost of tilt (the only way I can explain why 390 vehicles are ludicrously more expensive than other EMUs) so I've done figures for 444s instead (a long distance EMU and probably a reasonable guide for any replacement). In which case a 444 motor vehicle costs 11.07ppm and a trailer 8.18ppm meaning a total cost of 46.68ppm for a five car unit. Which means there's 23.47p to play with before any track access charge is costing them more.

Again this is back of the napkin stuff but it suggests that HT could pay above the odds for what's normal for an EMU and still either be paying the same overall or even making a small saving.

Have you taken electricity costs into that? The usage charges are down the bottom of that document. An extra 1.13 pence per electrified vehicle mile.
Still cheaper though, and thats without diesel being taken into consideration for the 180.

 

[HSTEd]

Have you taken electricity costs into that? The usage charges are down the bottom of that document. An extra 1.13 pence per electrified vehicle mile.
Still cheaper though, and thats without diesel being taken into consideration for the 180.

That is the electric factility charge, not the cost of electricity which is shown in a seperate document that I can't remember the location of.

Its somewhere in the Network Rail website though.

But the price of electricity charged by NR comes out to similar to ~25p/litre of deisel.

Red diesel is currently north of 70p/l.


Using those costs for the Cl444... a six car unit with three motor vehicles (to give a pessimistic cost comparison with the Cl185) would come out to approximately 57.75ppm compared to 75.18ppm for a six car Cl185 (37.59ppm for a 3 car unit).

So assuming that more than half of the current train miles are conducted as double up sets would lead to break even, which is a little high.

This does assume however no savings due to electrification and that no extra seats would be sold due to being swimming in additional capacity, and no savings due to improved fare recovery with existing staff resources.

Once you include the fact that Cl185 fuel costs come to something like 30p/vehicle kilometre at current diesel prices..... these figures come into perspective.

 

[IanXC]

Quick update on this project, from the minutes of the Humber Local Enterprise Partnership meeting held on 26 April 2013:

Lord Haskins reported on his meeting with Hull Trains that had taken place on 25th April. It looked like the electrification project would go ahead and would be almost entirely privately funded. The regulator was on side but the Department for Transport was concerned about the franchises. The rail regulator says that this is a great scheme.

He confirmed that he a meeting with Phil Verster from Network Rail would take place on Tuesday 7th May and Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP the Secretary of State for Transport would be visiting the region on 13th May.

http://www.humberlep.org/about-us/lep-board/humber-lep-meeting-minutes

 

[ainsworth74]

I wonder what 'concerns' the DfT have? Perhaps worried that allowing HT to survive for a long period of time might abstract revenue from the ICEC franchise which, of course, they need to make look as juicy as possible? Or am I just being a bit cynical?

 

[joeykins82]

If it's bankrolled by NR and recouped over time by higher track access fees (a la Chiltern "facility charges") presumably DfT know that the incumbent franchise holders will be able to negotiate revenue support or similar (tr: gouge DfT) because it represents a change in their terms, and bidders for the new franchies will "take this in to account with their bids" (tr: gouge DfT) even though the current ICEC franchise runs just 1tpd, and it'd allow the conversion of many Northern, FTPE and the daily EC services to electric operation thus ultimately saving them money via cheaper operating & maintenance costs and rolling stock rationalisation.

 

[northwichcat]

I wonder what 'concerns' the DfT have? Perhaps worried that allowing HT to survive for a long period of time might abstract revenue from the ICEC franchise which, of course, they need to make look as juicy as possible? Or am I just being a bit cynical?

Isn't it something to do with a rail bridge over a river creating technical difficulties?

HT would need to acquire electric stock or make the 222s bi-mode to utilise any overheads.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Isn't it something to do with a rail bridge over a river creating technical difficulties?

HT would need to acquire electric stock or make the 222s bi-mode to utilise any overheads.

They have 180s not 222s and Selby swing bridge is not a problem i am informed by NR.

 

[joeykins82]

Although reliability seems to have improved of late I'm sure HT would not be unhappy to ditch the 180s in favour of 125mph capable EMUs. If they were planning to convert the 180s to bi-mode they'd have already done it since of the ~220 miles between King's Cross and Hull ~160 of them are already wired, which would make a fairly sizeable dent in the diesel bill.

 

[ainsworth74]

Isn't it something to do with a rail bridge over a river creating technical difficulties?

Selby is not an issue and there are other examples of wires being errected over swing bridges (somewhere on the GEML I seem to recall).

HT would need to acquire electric stock or make the 222s bi-mode to utilise any overheads.

They haven't had 222s in quite a while now and instead operate 180s. Also as far as I'm aware they're quite keen to ditch them in favour of EMUs and they certainly have a history of procuring brand new stock for their services (170s and 222s).

If they were planning to convert the 180s to bi-mode they'd have already done it since of the ~220 miles between King's Cross and Hull ~160 of them are already wired, which would make a fairly sizeable dent in the diesel bill.

It would but the dent in converting a diesel hydraulic unit into a bi-mode unit would be even bigger. The reason that the 22xs have been considered relatively simple to convert is that they are diesel electric. Diesel engines powering generators powering electric motors. Sticking a pantograph in the middle of that is simple. Doing the same in a hydaulic system would require, for all intents and purposes, a brand new power train.

 

[joeykins82]

Ah, cheers for that. I'd (wrongly) assumed that the c180 was a DEMU but now the question of "why are some diesels 1xx (DMU) and some 2xx (DEMU)" has been cleared up in my brain

 

[Ivo]

Isn't it something to do with a rail bridge over a river creating technical difficulties?

Selby is not an issue and there are other examples of wires being errected over swing bridges (somewhere on the GEML I seem to recall).

There is one at Trowse, just outside Norwich - Britain's only example. Instead of wires, the line is fed by an overhead conductor rail, similar to third rail systems but from above. The linked Wiki article suggests other examples exist all over the Northeast Corridor in the USA, and also in Istanbul.

Supposedly the bridge is unreliable and sometimes fails to open...

 

[tbtc]

they certainly have a history of procuring brand new stock for their services (170s and 222s)

London - Hull has got to have had the most upgrades in a shortish space of time - especially if it gets new EMUs.

 

[northwichcat]

They have 180s not 222s and Selby swing bridge is not a problem i am informed by NR.

My time travel machine failed again!

However, the 222s may need a new home following MML electrification unless it's more economically viable to make them bi-mode than the 220s.

They haven't had 222s in quite a while now and instead operate 180s. Also as far as I'm aware they're quite keen to ditch them in favour of EMUs and they certainly have a history of procuring brand new stock for their services (170s and 222s).

Both were add-on orders due to Hull Trains only needing a small fleet so they would need to identify an order for electric trains that they can tag on some new trains for themselves to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

London - Hull has got to have had the most upgrades in a shortish space of time - especially if it gets new EMUs.

Not sure a 180 is an upgrade over a 222 given the latter is more reliable.

What about Manchester to Scotland (ignoring the fact a 185 wasn't an upgrade over a 220)?

158s and occasional HSTs* >> 220s >> 185s >> 350s?

I remember there being some Scotland-Manchester-Birmingham services that were HSTs pre-Voyager introduction even though people normally refer to it being class 158s pre-Voyager introduction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although reliability seems to have improved of late I'm sure HT would not be unhappy to ditch the 180s in favour of 125mph capable EMUs. If they were planning to convert the 180s to bi-mode they'd have already done it since of the ~220 miles between King's Cross and Hull ~160 of them are already wired, which would make a fairly sizeable dent in the diesel bill.

Is there any real plans to covert the 180s to bi-mode? I remember the government review in to IEP saw the 180s as being a potential alternative to diesel IEP.

 

[joeykins82]

Is there any real plans to covert the 180s to bi-mode? I remember the government review in to IEP saw the 180s as being a potential alternative to diesel IEP.

It would but the dent in converting a diesel hydraulic unit into a bi-mode unit would be even bigger. The reason that the 22xs have been considered relatively simple to convert is that they are diesel electric. Diesel engines powering generators powering electric motors. Sticking a pantograph in the middle of that is simple. Doing the same in a hydaulic system would require, for all intents and purposes, a brand new power train.

I defer to ainsworth74 on this one; conversion of a hydraulic DMU to EMU is almost certainly unviable

 

[Kettledrum]

My time travel machine failed again!

However, the 222s may need a new home following MML electrification unless it's more economically viable to make them bi-mode than the 220s.

Both were add-on orders due to Hull Trains only needing a small fleet so they would need to identify an order for electric trains that they can tag on some new trains for themselves to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

.

Why do they have to tag onto another order? As it's a private company running as an open access operator, I assumed the European Procurement regs that apply to state organisations and companied heavily reliant on state subsidies did not apply. Therefore they can buy from who they want and when they want, without the usual lengthy bureaucratic procurement process than the Government have to follow.

 

[joeykins82]

I think it's more that it's much more expensive (and commercially unviable) to buy a handful of trains all on your lonesome than it is to join forces as part of a bulk order.

 

[northwichcat]

Why do they have to tag onto another order? As it's a private company running as an open access operator, I assumed the European Procurement regs that apply to state organisations and companied heavily reliant on state subsidies did not apply. Therefore they can buy from who they want and when they want, without the usual lengthy bureaucratic procurement process than the Government have to follow.

Even if the procurement rules don't apply a train builder isn't going to open up a production line for 5 trains. Siemens made it sound like they weren't really that interested in re-opening the class 350 production line for 40 carriages and saw it as a bit of extra work on the side of their proper orders, which got given higher priority. You certainly need an existing design to order for a small order, so something already in existence that's rolling off the production line or something that an order has been/is to be placed for.

 

[HSTEd]

Probably IEPs as thats the only non tilt 125mph EMU available at the moment in Britain.

 

[Eagle]

Probably IEPs as thats the only non tilt 125mph EMU available at the moment in Britain.

What about 395s with a different interior layout (more suited to long-distance travel)?

 

[HSTEd]

What about 395s with a different interior layout (more suited to long-distance travel)?

Unfortunately that production line is closed, while the IEP one will certainly be open.
Probably cheaper just to buy IEPs, since you only need what? 25 vehicles? (5x5)

 

[IanXC]

Unfortunately that production line is closed, while the IEP one will certainly be open.
Probably cheaper just to buy IEPs, since you only need what? 25 vehicles? (5x5)

I wouldn't be surprised if they went for 5x 6 car units looking at the current loadings.