Electrification for CP6-what could we expect to see?

[Tio Terry]

Freight is never going to justify a long distance electrification project.

Freight operations are nearly worthless in justifying electrification as well because the vast majority of services are never going to be converted for reasons that have been discussed to death elsewhere.


Electric Spine. Southampton to West Midlands is a Freight inspired project that will be totally electrified. An extra 40 train paths in each direction every day is the plan. Felixstowe to West Midlands is in the planning stages with an additional 20 train paths in each direction per day, all Electric.

 

[edwin_m]

Electric Spine is basically the Midland Mainline electrification (passenger led) plus Reading to Oxford (passenger led) plus 25kV conversion of Basingstoke to Southampton (largely motivated by potential benefits of 3rd rail conversion, which are also passenger led). Oxford to Bletchley is arguably passenger led.

As a freight scheme it won't be worthwhile without add-ons such as Erewash Valley, probably Corby to Syston and definitely a continuation north of Sheffield to join the ECML and/or the Leeds line.

 

[The Ham]

The re-electricrification of Southampton to Basingstoke was enabled by freight as all the required bridge works were undertaken as part of the loading guage improvements to enable more containers to be transported per train.

I would expect that other sections where this is undertaken to also then find that they are good cases to be electrified as the cost of electrification falls as there are no bridge works to be undertaken.

Basicly if NR are cleaver then they split the cost of electirification over as many budgets as possible so that the electrification budget can do the most good. Bridges works done by loading guage improvements and/or station accessibbility schemes, issolation of signals done as part of signals renewals, etc.

It is therefore likely that Basingstoke to Southampton via Sailsbury is a likely candidate to be elctrified soon as it has recently (or is in the process of being) cleared for freight and getting new signals.

 

[Tio Terry]

Electric Spine is basically the Midland Mainline electrification (passenger led) plus Reading to Oxford (passenger led) plus 25kV conversion of Basingstoke to Southampton (largely motivated by potential benefits of 3rd rail conversion, which are also passenger led). Oxford to Bletchley is arguably passenger led.

As a freight scheme it won't be worthwhile without add-ons such as Erewash Valley, probably Corby to Syston and definitely a continuation north of Sheffield to join the ECML and/or the Leeds line.

Every heard of the Strategic Freight Network Fund? £206M specifically for Freight Services improvements. Thats whats funding the Electric Spine - which, by the way, goes to the WEST Midlands, not Sheffield and the ECML - not passenger service improvements.

 

[ac6000cw]

Thats whats funding the Electric Spine - which, by the way, goes to the WEST Midlands, not Sheffield and the ECML - not passenger service improvements.

According to this - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t_data/file/3647/map-hlos-electrification.pdf - it actually goes to both...

 

[HSTEd]

Every heard of the Strategic Freight Network Fund? £206M specifically for Freight Services improvements. Thats whats funding the Electric Spine - which, by the way, goes to the WEST Midlands, not Sheffield and the ECML - not passenger service improvements.

If you can get the ELectric Spine done for £206m Network Rail should hire you.....

Electric Spine has met a lukewarm reception from the industry and is being quietly pushed down the priority list.

The re-electrification of the SWML, assuming it even occurs, is not a 'freight-led' scheme - it is an attempt to force a quart into a pint pot with regards existing passenger services.
(The passenger system has already driven the supply to near collapse and re-electrification works out supposedly chepaer than renewal over a long time period).

Not even East-West Rail is 'freight-led' despite what many around here like to claim.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Electric Spine. Southampton to West Midlands is a Freight inspired project that will be totally electrified. An extra 40 train paths in each direction every day is the plan.

Most of the Electric Spine business case is derived from passenger operations on the SWML which have driven the third rail to the point of collapse and the fact that the Midland Main Line has a positive business case, largely due to the massive high power diesel passenger operations that are undertaken on it.

 

[Tio Terry]

According to this - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t_data/file/3647/map-hlos-electrification.pdf - it actually goes to both...

Thats just the overall Electrification map, you need the specific Electric Spine map.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Suggest you go to networkrail.co.uk then search for Strategic Freight Network.

There you will find a document titled:-

Strategic Freight Network Paper - Network Rail

Have a look at Map 8, it shows the Electric Spine and it's diversionary routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you can get the ELectric Spine done for £206m Network Rail should hire you.....

Electric Spine has met a lukewarm reception from the industry and is being quietly pushed down the priority list.

The re-electrification of the SWML, assuming it even occurs, is not a 'freight-led' scheme - it is an attempt to force a quart into a pint pot with regards existing passenger services.
(The passenger system has already driven the supply to near collapse and re-electrification works out supposedly chepaer than renewal over a long time period).

Not even East-West Rail is 'freight-led' despite what many around here like to claim.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Most of the Electric Spine business case is derived from passenger operations on the SWML which have driven the third rail to the point of collapse and the fact that the Midland Main Line has a positive business case, largely due to the massive high power diesel passenger operations that are undertaken on it.

If the AC electrification of Basinstoke to Southampton is passenger train driven how come there are no proposals within CP6 for anything between Basingstoke and Waterloo - which has a far denser train pattern?

 

[ac6000cw]

Thats just the overall Electrification map, you need the specific Electric Spine map.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Suggest you go to networkrail.co.uk then search for Strategic Freight Network.

There you will find a document titled:-

Strategic Freight Network Paper - Network Rail

Have a look at Map 8, it shows the Electric Spine and it's diversionary routes.

Err, no it doesn't (at least not this one - http://www.networkrail.co.uk/StrategicBusinessPlan2008/Strategic_Freight_Network_paper.pdf?cd=4 ) - Map 8 is entitled "Southampton - Yorkshire/NE proposed routes" whereas the DfT document I linked to has 'New Electric Spine in HLOS' marked on the map (in green).

Exactly which NR document are you referring to ?

 

[joeykins82]

Because converting Waterloo-Basingstoke to AC would be significantly more complicated; Waterloo would need resignalling, you'd have to have an AC-DC changeover at Clapham Junction for the Windsor/Reading lines (or dual AC/DC platform capability at Waterloo) and the class 455s would need to be replaced because they can't economically be converted to dual voltage. Oh, and that's without considering the impact on Victoria services.

Starting outside London and working in is the most practical way of doing the conversion.

 

[swt_passenger]

Every heard of the Strategic Freight Network Fund? £206M specifically for Freight Services improvements. Thats whats funding the Electric Spine - which, by the way, goes to the WEST Midlands, not Sheffield and the ECML - not passenger service improvements.

Completely separate projects in the CP5 enhancement plans, March version, though. SFN continues stuff like freight loop lengthening, Felixstowe to Nuneaton, and various gauging improvements etc. Electric Spine comes much later in the document.

 

[cle]

Because converting Waterloo-Basingstoke to AC would be significantly more complicated; Waterloo would need resignalling, you'd have to have an AC-DC changeover at Clapham Junction for the Windsor/Reading lines (or dual AC/DC platform capability at Waterloo) and the class 455s would need to be replaced because they can't economically be converted to dual voltage. Oh, and that's without considering the impact on Victoria services.

Starting outside London and working in is the most practical way of doing the conversion.

Isn't Reading to Basingstoke happening now as part of the GWML works? In which case, I'm not sure which services could use AC if south of Basingstoke is done first. Possibly some XC services I suppose, but no SWT services.

 

[Bald Rick]

The re-electricrification of Southampton to Basingstoke was enabled by freight as all the required bridge works were undertaken as part of the loading guage improvements to enable more containers to be transported per train.

Are you sure about that? Whilst I don't know about this line, I know that the W10 clearance work on the Gospel Oak - Barking route only cleared bridges that required work for the higher gauge, and these were also done to electrification clearances. However it didn't do any work on bridges that were already ok for W10 but not clear for the wires.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Isn't Reading to Basingstoke happening now as part of the GWML works? In which case, I'm not sure which services could use AC if south of Basingstoke is done first. Possibly some XC services I suppose, but no SWT services.

You'd think so but it comes separately in the NR plans and is still at the beginning of the planning process.
It's certainly not part of the Amey GW wiring contract.
But I'd put money on this bit being wired along with the other Thames Valley branches (Windsor, Marlow, Henley etc), independently of GW and Electric Spine.
Apart from GW local services it opens up the possibility of dual-voltage working from Southampton to destinations beyond Reading.

 

[Tio Terry]

Err, no it doesn't (at least not this one - http://www.networkrail.co.uk/StrategicBusinessPlan2008/Strategic_Freight_Network_paper.pdf?cd=4 ) - Map 8 is entitled "Southampton - Yorkshire/NE proposed routes" whereas the DfT document I linked to has 'New Electric Spine in HLOS' marked on the map (in green).

Exactly which NR document are you referring to ?

Sorry, Map 9, not 8 heading of map is Southampton to Midlands/NW/Scotland.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Completely separate projects in the CP5 enhancement plans, March version, though. SFN continues stuff like freight loop lengthening, Felixstowe to Nuneaton, and various gauging improvements etc. Electric Spine comes much later in the document.

Sorry but I don't understand the significance of where it sits in the document, what difference does that make?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because converting Waterloo-Basingstoke to AC would be significantly more complicated; Waterloo would need resignalling, you'd have to have an AC-DC changeover at Clapham Junction for the Windsor/Reading lines (or dual AC/DC platform capability at Waterloo) and the class 455s would need to be replaced because they can't economically be converted to dual voltage. Oh, and that's without considering the impact on Victoria services.

Starting outside London and working in is the most practical way of doing the conversion.

I can find absolutely nothing within the Wessex Route Plans for 2014 to 2019 for any kind of AC electrification at all - including Southampton to Basingstoke.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Because converting Waterloo-Basingstoke to AC would be significantly more complicated; Waterloo would need resignalling, you'd have to have an AC-DC changeover at Clapham Junction for the Windsor/Reading lines (or dual AC/DC platform capability at Waterloo) and the class 455s would need to be replaced because they can't economically be converted to dual voltage. Oh, and that's without considering the impact on Victoria services.

Starting outside London and working in is the most practical way of doing the conversion.

When is Waterloo due for any resignalling anyway (with no concern for AC), if it's getting towards being due for resignalling anyway then they could bring it forward perhaps with it being done to whatever standard it would need to be to operate with initially DC only, then dual AC/DC then AC only.

Had a quick look on google to find a list of classes that use Waterloo, couldn't find any list - are the 455s the only EMUs that use Waterloo that can't be easily converted to dual-voltage? Looking at when they were built on wikipedia, they're about 30 years old anyway so maybe it's time for SWT to look towards replacing them anyway, with the 455s going to another toc. SWTs could also replace the 456s.

Who says that the whole of Clapham Junction needs to be converted to AC? Any tracks there that are only used by trains from Victoria could be left as DC.

Say a line that is currently DC only has a capacity of 10tph, and has whichever signalling (3 or 4 aspect) which maximises capacity in that respect. If that line was converted to AC, typically what increase in capacity would that give?

 

[The Ham]

Are you sure about that? Whilst I don't know about this line, I know that the W10 clearance work on the Gospel Oak - Barking route only cleared bridges that required work for the higher gauge, and these were also done to electrification clearances. However it didn't do any work on bridges that were already ok for W10 but not clear for the wires.

...but doing works on (say) three bridges is cheaper than doing works to five, so even if not all the bridges are done it will be cheaper to electrify later. However I know for centrain that between Basingstoke and Southampton has a number of tunnels (more costly than bridges) which I am fairly certain were all upgraded as part of the works.

 

[swt_passenger]

Basingstoke to Southampton is not fully cleared for OHLE. I had that info from one of the guys working on the new road bridge at the London end of Winchester. Each individual bridge or tunnel was treated on its own merits, and some will need re-visiting for wiring.

In broad terms anything that was fully rebuilt is clear for wires, but if track lowering was able to provide W10 clearance that was all that was done. I'm not convinced Southampton tunnel is wirable - although it may be that its OK for bar conductor.

 

[NotATrainspott]

When is Waterloo due for any resignalling anyway (with no concern for AC), if it's getting towards being due for resignalling anyway then they could bring it forward perhaps with it being done to whatever standard it would need to be to operate with initially DC only, then dual AC/DC then AC only.

Had a quick look on google to find a list of classes that use Waterloo, couldn't find any list - are the 455s the only EMUs that use Waterloo that can't be easily converted to dual-voltage? Looking at when they were built on wikipedia, they're about 30 years old anyway so maybe it's time for SWT to look towards replacing them anyway, with the 455s going to another toc. SWTs could also replace the 456s.

Who says that the whole of Clapham Junction needs to be converted to AC? Any tracks there that are only used by trains from Victoria could be left as DC.

Say a line that is currently DC only has a capacity of 10tph, and has whichever signalling (3 or 4 aspect) which maximises capacity in that respect. If that line was converted to AC, typically what increase in capacity would that give?

Crossrail 2 will require all of its Southern branches to be electrified with AC and likely well before the trains actually continue into the tunnel, meaning that the surface network into Waterloo/Victoria may well need to be OHLE'ed before that time as well. Neither the 455s nor the purpose-built stock will be capable of dual voltage operation, which would complicate the surface section conversion programme somewhat and require careful cascading. It isn't difficult to retrofit third rail shoes to modern EMU designs but if they wouldn't be needed for more than a few years at most I could almost see other dual-voltage stock displaced by the completion of the AC switchover being sent to run these routes for the duration of its conversion programme.

 

[Bald Rick]

Say a line that is currently DC only has a capacity of 10tph, and has whichever signalling (3 or 4 aspect) which maximises capacity in that respect. If that line was converted to AC, typically what increase in capacity would that give?

Precisely 0%

It is signalling (and track!) that provides capacity, not how the juice gets to the train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Crossrail 2 will require all of its Southern branches to be electrified with AC and likely well before the trains actually continue into the tunnel, meaning that the surface network into Waterloo/Victoria may well need to be OHLE'ed before that time as well.

Sure about that?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Sure about that?

It would make quite a bit of sense. The tunnels themselves will be fitted solely with AC OHLE, as will the northern branches. It is obviously technically feasible to fit the stock with third rail shoes but this would therefore mean that high-frequency, high-capacity Crossrail 2 services would be reliant upon the third rail network on the surface south of the river.

The 750V DC network is already stretched but adding large numbers of _additional_ trains, each 12 carriages long, would probably be too much to bear. Network Rail are very clear in saying that it is cheaper to convert to AC OHLE than it is to renew and enhance the DC third rail system so there's not much debate about which option they would choose to power these extra services.

A piecemeal approach, where only some of the branches were electrified with AC in order to reduce the loadings on the remaining network would be silly as well since only a few route kilometres would be dictating requirements for everything else on the line. Such an approach could have been taken with the Connaught Tunnel for CR1 with third rail preserved through it rather than the reconstruction and track lowering that will allow AC OHLE to be fitted, but this has obviously not happened. In the grand scheme of things the cost of converting the surface sections, something that would happen anyway with or without CR2, is not too significant compared to the rest of the scheme.

 

[Bald Rick]

Ah thought so. The high capacity, high frequency Thameslink service will use AC and DC, so there is no reason to assume that Crossrail 2 will be any different. Particularly as power electronics and train design have moved on a long way since the early 1980s when the 455s started appearing.

 

[edwin_m]

When is Waterloo due for any resignalling anyway (with no concern for AC), if it's getting towards being due for resignalling anyway then they could bring it forward perhaps with it being done to whatever standard it would need to be to operate with initially DC only, then dual AC/DC then AC only.

Had a quick look on google to find a list of classes that use Waterloo, couldn't find any list - are the 455s the only EMUs that use Waterloo that can't be easily converted to dual-voltage? Looking at when they were built on wikipedia, they're about 30 years old anyway so maybe it's time for SWT to look towards replacing them anyway, with the 455s going to another toc. SWTs could also replace the 456s.

Who says that the whole of Clapham Junction needs to be converted to AC? Any tracks there that are only used by trains from Victoria could be left as DC.

Say a line that is currently DC only has a capacity of 10tph, and has whichever signalling (3 or 4 aspect) which maximises capacity in that respect. If that line was converted to AC, typically what increase in capacity would that give?

As well as 455s there are now 456s and I'm not sure the 458s are too easily convertible either.

Even if the South Western side of Clapham Junction is converted to AC, there might still be signalling interference issues with the Brighton side.

Using AC power gives a slight increase in acceleration so would be a small improvement in capacity, but is probably dwarfed by other factors.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Ah thought so. The high capacity, high frequency Thameslink service will use AC and DC, so there is no reason to assume that Crossrail 2 will be any different. Particularly as power electronics and train design have moved on a long way since the early 1980s when the 455s started appearing.

I see the two being rather different though. Thameslink '2000' had to start working well before any route anywhere in the country was converted from DC to AC. Converting all of the TSGN network to AC, on top of all the works needing done already, is not exactly going to be easy. In the long term though it is still an absolute inevitability.

CR2 on the other hand will come on stream around the same time as widescale DC-AC conversion will be happening anyway, so it makes more sense to bite the bullet and run it as AC only from the start. Again, there's nothing technical that would stop the rolling stock being fitted with third rail shoes but if these would only need last a few years (and fitted across a fleet of hundreds of carriages as well) it makes sense to design the DC-AC conversion programme to make this entirely unnecessary.

 

[HSTEd]

I am pretty sure the AC-DC programme is going to take longer than most of our lifetimes.
It is an incredibly complex and likely expensive process.

Electrifying random short stretches on the outskirts first makes sense as if something bad happens its not a network crippling disaster.

 

[The Ham]

Basingstoke to Southampton is not fully cleared for OHLE. I had that info from one of the guys working on the new road bridge at the London end of Winchester. Each individual bridge or tunnel was treated on its own merits, and some will need re-visiting for wiring.

In broad terms anything that was fully rebuilt is clear for wires, but if track lowering was able to provide W10 clearance that was all that was done. I'm not convinced Southampton tunnel is wirable - although it may be that its OK for bar conductor.

I was off slightly when I stated that all the works had been done, however the fact that a number of bridges have already been rebuilt for OHLE and there is now at least the possibility of bar conductors in the tunnels (failing that it is at least known how "easy" it is to lower track in tunnels with the currrent equipment). All of which adds up to lower electrification costs and the potential of "easy wins" for routes which are cleared for larger freight loads, making such routes a little more likely to be electrified sooner rather than other routes which may still have a lot of bridge works to undertake.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Had a quick look on google to find a list of classes that use Waterloo, couldn't find any list...

All EMU classes listed on the SWT's Wiki page, other than the ex London Underground stock which is solely used on the island line, would all enter Waterloo. To miss quote:

"all tracks lead to Waterloo" (well at least for every class of train which SWT's uses on the mainland)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Trains#Rolling_stock_details
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Even if the South Western side of Clapham Junction is converted to AC, there might still be signalling interference issues with the Brighton side.

Given Crossrail 2 will be within tunnels by Clapham Junction there isn't even the need to wire that far up in SWT's land to allow all of Crossrail's routes to be run by OHLE.

Also it doesn't seam to be much of a problem for Reading which has 3rd rail trains and is due for OHLE to happen soon.

Looking at Crossrail 2 maps it would appear that it would be AC conversion for:
- Woking to Wimbledon (which probably means Basingstoke to Woking to remove the need to swtch from AC to DC more than twice)
- Twickenham to New Malden (which may include from Shepperton to remove the need to switch from AC to DC and is fairly self contained)
- Epsom to Raynes Park
- Cheesington to Motspur Park

Which is quite a significant serction of SWT's network, but it has to be remembered the Crossrail 2 is likely to be late 2020's (i.e. towards the end of CP7) before testting starts.

Even then all of the services from the line to Reading and its branches would still remain as 3rd rail, so there is plenty of space for trains which still had life in them but were unable to be converted for OHLE running (455's would be about 45 years old*, 456's would be about 35** and the 458's would be about 30 years old***)

* given their age it could be that the 455's are replaced with new dual voltage trains with the same trains (not dual voltage) being delivered for use by Crossrail 2 (at least 364 coaches would be required just for the replacement of the SWT's stock before the added requirements of Crossrail 2 are taken on board it is likely to be quite a significant train order), it may mean that delivey of the trains are over (say) two years.

** give that there are only 24 sets it wouldn't be a total disaster if they were retired a few years early, although chances are they could be moved elsewhere in 3rd rail land as they are one of the few 2 coach sets of EMU's, however there could still be use for a number of them on routes likes like those between Guildford and Ascot.

*** as Reading to Waterloo will be able to be retained as third rail for some time after 2030 if need be (i.e. conversion to AC for routes to Guildford, Alton and south coast routes can all be undertaken within the SWT's network before even thinking about other TOC's networks), so they could live out their lives within the SWT's network.

 

[Bald Rick]

So here's a million dollar question.

Let's say Crossrail (the first) is extended to Dartford, or Gravesend, or Ebbsfleet etc at some point in the early 2020s. To keep the project in the minister's in tray it will need a cost that doesn't include a dedicated pair of tracks through Slade Green and Dartford. So we must assume running on the current infrastructure for most of the way.

Do you:

a) convert the lot to AC, and buy a load of dual voltage trains for the relevant southeastern metro service groups?

b) keep it all DC, and buy a load of dual voltage trains for Crossrail.

c) dual electrify it, which for the quantity of return currents flying around becomes an enormous engineering challenge to get the signalling to behave

Answers on a postcard please to the usual address....

 

[NotATrainspott]

So here's a million dollar question.

Let's say Crossrail (the first) is extended to Dartford, or Gravesend, or Ebbsfleet etc at some point in the early 2020s. To keep the project in the minister's in tray it will need a cost that doesn't include a dedicated pair of tracks through Slade Green and Dartford. So we must assume running on the current infrastructure for most of the way.

Do you:

a) convert the lot to AC, and buy a load of dual voltage trains for the relevant southeastern metro service groups?

b) keep it all DC, and buy a load of dual voltage trains for Crossrail.

c) dual electrify it, which for the quantity of return currents flying around becomes an enormous engineering challenge to get the signalling to behave

Answers on a postcard please to the usual address....

CROSSRAIL INFORMATION PAPER A5 – ABBEY WOOD TO EBBSFLEET

When discussing the possibility of extension to Dartford/Ebbsfleet/Hoo Junction this is quite an interesting document. In effect, it says the reason that Crossrail terminates at Abbey Wood is that any Crossrail operations beyond there would be a minority user of the already-busy tracks, and there are six locations on the route to Ebbsfleet where there would be conflicting moves that could jeopardise the Crossrail service. This:

A service to Ebbsfleet could be operated at the required standard of reliability if substantial investment on the infrastructure on the line through Dartford was made, to improve the segregation of services and minimise conflicting train movements in this area.

This would mean expensive grade-separation works at minimum and very possibly a need for additional tracks. The power system isn't even mentioned here so I don't think it's that much of a concern to Crossrail. If you're going to build new tracks for it, you might as well electrify them with AC to begin with.

 

[edwin_m]

Weren't the Crossrail trains specified to have provision for DC operation?

 

[Tio Terry]

When discussing the possibility of extension to Dartford/Ebbsfleet/Hoo Junction this is quite an interesting document. In effect, it says the reason that Crossrail terminates at Abbey Wood is that any Crossrail operations beyond there would be a minority user of the already-busy tracks, and there are six locations on the route to Ebbsfleet where there would be conflicting moves that could jeopardise the Crossrail service.


Since that paper was published, in 2007, the Government has announced a large building programme in the Ebbsfleet area - Ebbsfleet Garden City, some 15,000 more homes - so the possibilities of extending Crossrail to Ebbsfleet is being looked at again.