Electrification the DFT needs to get on with

[Hey 3]

To name a few I will start with
Lostock Parkway to Wigan North Western
Market Harbrough and Corby to Leeds and Doncaster
TPE routes(North and South inc Calder Valley)
And GWML wiring.
Please put your thoughts below.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Windermere. In railway terms it would cost about 50p.

East West Rail from day one - building a new diesel railway in 2021 is absolutely ridiculous. Delay opening it for a year or two to get it done if needs be, better than people getting used to having it then losing it for a bit to do it later.

 

[Energy]

Hull and Bradford Interchange to ECML. The AWC diesel bits would be good as well. Most of WMR should probably be electrified.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's very simple - there is no money (unless the DfT explicitly approves it).
Work is proceeding on MML (Kettering to Market Harborough), North TP (Colton Jn-Church Fenton) and in Scotland (East Kilbride/Barrhead).
The TP scheme has some legs and is very likely to extend westwards (but will not include the Calder Valley or Hope Valley routes).
TfW is electrifying some of the Valley lines round Cardiff (some of it with discontinuous electrification).
HS2 will be electrified from Day 1 (contract in the pipeline).

NR has published its decarbonisation strategy, including a detailed list of which routes it is considering wiring, but the DfT has not approved any of it yet.
Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy - Interim Programme Business Case (networkrail.co.uk)

Alternative modes of traction are the rage - bi-mode, battery and hydrogen projects are in progress, mostly at the experimental stage.
Crucially, NR has yet to prove it can deliver electrification at a price and timescale acceptable to the DfT/Treasury.
Most routes also need a major upgrade before wiring is worth doing, which weakens the business case.
The Chancellor might give some clues about rail upgrade policy in the Budget tomorrow - but again, he hasn't any money to splash around on a railway running at 30% usage (if that).

 

[Aictos]

Before we see Electrics running London to Sheffield via Derby or Nottingham and to Nottingham itself, we should ensure that the diversionary routes will be electrified.

As that should be a important consideration to limit as much diesel operation as possible with the bonus that the more we electrify then the bigger the benefits are.

Other then that we should expect each Network Rail region to manage electrification schemes in their area with their own teams so we could have the Sussex and Kent region getting electrification to Uckfield, Ashford Int via Ore and North Downs Line, Wessex region getting electrification to Salisbury and Romsey, Eastern region getting electrification to Peterborough via Ely, Leicester via Stamford and Doncaster via Lincoln (including the line between Newark Northgate and Lincoln, Scottish region getting electrification to Fife Circle and to Perth/Dundee via Cupar, Western region to get electrification to Exeter St David's via Castle Cary and Bristol Temple Meads, Wales region to get Cardiff Valleys electrified and finally Midland region to get electrification for Birmingham to Leicester as well as both the Chiltern Mainline and the Cross City line via Birmingham Moor Street.

Yes it won't be a overnight thing but over the course of a decade as a conservative estimate and providing the funding and the rest of the paperwork is ready but it would provide a rolling programme of electrification and also would help the UK meet its reduction in CO2 emmisions target.

By the way, I've just used the above schemes as examples of where we should be electrifying, needless to say also on the point of the NPR project once Leeds to Manchester via Huddersfield is electrified then we should put the team to work on the Leeds to Preston via Bradford Interchange route with Colne and Blackpool South being infill schemes.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The DfT really only needs to see lines electrified to the extent that it demonstrates to the Treasury that the rail network is being run as efficiently and economically as possible. Having to invest large amounts up front to get a payback in several years time is actually quite a hard sell. This is especially the case if you really need to spend another load of money on re-modelling Bristol Temple Meads, Leicester, Sheffield, Huddersfield, etc. first to avoid having to rip the wires down again in a few years time. Then there's power supply points with enough capacity to feed lots of heavy freight trains in future. Not straightforward.

 

[Hey 3]

Hull and Bradford Interchange to ECML. The AWC diesel bits would be good as well. Most of WMR should probably be electrified.

As as spin-off from the Bradford Interchange wiring, I would wire to Preston and Manchester Victoria. Other schemes(as a spin-off) should be
Salford Crescent to Wigan NW and Wigan Wallgate(if the bridge can have major overhaul) and on to Southport and Kirkby, Burnley to Colne, Carnforth to Carlisle(via Barrow-in-Furness and the Cumbrian Coast), Crewe to Cardiff and South Wales, the Cross Country Route to Penzance from Bromsgrove and from Birmingham New Street to Doncaster and Leeds(via the Hallam line), EWR and any other new lines that open/reopen, Hazel Grove to Buxton, Ashburys, Guide Bridge/Hyde North and Hazel Grove to Sheffield(inc Dore South), Settle & Carlisle, Glasgow to Carlisle via the South Western line, Mid-Cheshire line, Chester-Manchester line via Warrington, Birmingham-Peterbrough and to Cambridge, Nuneaton-Reading(via Coventry and Oxford.

 

[zwk500]

As as spin-off from the Bradford Interchange wiring, I would wire to Preston and Manchester Victoria. Other schemes(as a spin-off) should be
Salford Crescent to Wigan NW and Wigan Wallgate(if the bridge can have major overhaul) and on to Southport and Kirkby, Burnley to Colne, Carnforth to Carlisle(via Barrow-in-Furness and the Cumbrian Coast), Crewe to Cardiff and South Wales, the Cross Country Route to Penzance from Bromsgrove and from Birmingham New Street to Doncaster and Leeds(via the Hallam line), EWR and any other new lines that open/reopen, Hazel Grove to Buxton, Ashburys, Guide Bridge/Hyde North and Hazel Grove to Sheffield(inc Dore South), Settle & Carlisle, Glasgow to Carlisle via the South Western line, Mid-Cheshire line, Chester-Manchester line via Warrington, Birmingham-Peterbrough and to Cambridge, Nuneaton-Reading(via Coventry and Oxford.

So, essentially, 100% of England should be wired?

 

[Hey 3]

So, essentially, 100% of England should be wired?

Yes*, including conversion of the third rail areas to overhead.
*Yes, I know the DFT do not have the money but still...................

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, essentially, 100% of England should be wired?

Switzerland did it, in far more challenging terrain than most of ours. So it's not a silly aim.

 

[Hey 3]

Switzerland did it, in far more challenging terrain than most of ours. So it's not a silly aim.

Agreed.

Agreed.

It's not even silly when it helps the climate, gets rid of diesel and makes sure there are no "diesel islands and diesels "under the wires".

 

[zwk500]

Switzerland did it, in far more challenging terrain than most of ours. So it's not a silly aim.

The Swiss can manage money though. It's not a silly aim (engineering wise), but in the current financial situation, in the context of 'getting on with it', it's not at all helpful.

Also, Switzerland has a network of 5,323km, the UK has 5,374km of electrified lines, out of a network of 15,811km. So in one sense we've already exceeded the Swiss.

 

[Hey 3]

The Swiss can manage money though. It's not a silly aim (engineering wise), but in the current financial situation, in the context of 'getting on with it', it's not at all helpful.

Also, Switzerland has a network of 5,323km, the UK has 5,374km of electrified lines, out of a network of 15,811km. So in one sense we've already exceeded the Swiss.

But how much of that is third rail? A fair big chunk tbf. And when we say electrification, we mean overhead electric wires(25 KV AC 50 HZ OHLE)

 

[zwk500]

But how much of that is third rail? A fair big chunk tbf. And when we say electrification, we mean overhead electric wires(25 KV AC 50 HZ OHLE)

Your OP mentioned nothing of OLE only, tbf. It's a reasonable bet that if 3rd rail had never been permitted, much of the network would have been electrified with OLE anyway, as these lines are obvious candidates (high-frequency, frequent stop commuter lines). And that's not to mention some routes have been converted from OLE to 3rd rail by the SR, and others from 3rd Rail to OLE by BR.

FWIW according to wikipedia, the March figures were a network of 6,048km, of which 64% is OLE and 36% is 3rd Rail. So by my reckoning that's 3,871km OLE and 2,177km 3rd Rail.

 

[Bevan Price]

On past history, I think we can expect DfT to be as obstructive as possible to future electrification schemes. Its short term thinking considers mainly the initial capital costs, and ignores the long term benefits of lower operating costs & lower pollution. It will probably encourage dead-end ideas such as hydrogen-fuelled trains, until it is forced to retreat following what will be an almost inevitable accident leading to a severe fire or explosion. (Hopefully I am wrong, but sadly, accidents do occur occasionally, and the combination of sparks and leaking hydrogen cylinders is not a desirable situation. The Quintinshill accident of 1915 demonstrated how dangerous it could be to use highly flammable gases on trains. )

 

[backontrack]

Its short term thinking considers mainly the initial capital costs, and ignores the long term benefits of lower operating costs & lower pollution.

This has been their attitude towards the climate crisis in general. As humans we need that to change, so let's hope it includes rail electrification when it does.

Windermere is a bizarre diesel island at the moment, and should be a priority I think.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On past history, I think we can expect DfT to be as obstructive as possible to future electrification schemes. Its short term thinking considers mainly the initial capital costs, and ignores the long term benefits of lower operating costs & lower pollution. It will probably encourage dead-end ideas such as hydrogen-fuelled trains, until it is forced to retreat following what will be an almost inevitable accident leading to a severe fire or explosion. (Hopefully I am wrong, but sadly, accidents do occur occasionally, and the combination of sparks and leaking hydrogen cylinders is not a desirable situation. The Quintinshill accident of 1915 demonstrated how dangerous it could be to use highly flammable gases on trains. )

A key difference between butane/CNG and hydrogen is that the former are heavier than air and the latter is lighter than air. So if a hydrogen tank is ruptured, it all rapidly flies away and doesn't hang around to go bang. Even better if the tank is on the roof.

Would be less than ideal in a tunnel, though.

AIUI most of what was burning on the Hindenburg wasn't hydrogen, but rather the flammable fabric skin.

 

[adrock1976]

In my original neck of the woods in the West Midlands, I would electrify:

1) Birmingham - Nuneaton (as an infill/extension of the wider Felixstowe - Nuneaton scheme)
2) Birmingham - Nottingham (both routes via Derby and also via Castle Donington as part of the Midland Main Line)
3) Kings Norton - Proof House Junction/Grand Junction/Landor Street
4) Wolverhampton - Shrewsbury - Wrexham - Chester (as an infill/extension of Cardiff - Crewe)

All of the above means that no more diesel trains would be terminating at Birmingham New Street.

Also, electrify Leamington Spa/Honeybourne/Stratford upon Avon - Hereford/Worcestershire Parkway/Evesham via Birmingham Snow Hill, Hatton Triangle - Bearley Junction, and Bromsgrove - Droitwich.

All three Birmingham stations (four when Curzon Street reopens for HS2) would no longer have any diesel trains running or terminating at them.

 

[Energy]

In my original neck of the woods in the West Midlands, I would electrify:

1) Birmingham - Nuneaton (as an infill/extension of the wider Felixstowe - Nuneaton scheme)
2) Birmingham - Nottingham (both routes via Derby and also via Castle Donington as part of the Midland Main Line)
3) Kings Norton - Proof House Junction/Grand Junction/Landor Street
4) Wolverhampton - Shrewsbury - Wrexham - Chester (as an infill/extension of Cardiff - Crewe)

All of the above means that no more diesel trains would be terminating at Birmingham New Street.

Also, electrify Leamington Spa/Honeybourne/Stratford upon Avon - Hereford/Worcestershire Parkway/Evesham via Birmingham Snow Hill, Hatton Triangle - Bearley Junction, and Bromsgrove - Droitwich.

All three Birmingham stations (four when Curzon Street reopens for HS2) would no longer have any diesel trains running or terminating at them.

I would add Leamington to Nuneaton via Coventry to get rid of a potential diesel island.

 

[Hey 3]

In my original neck of the woods in the West Midlands, I would electrify:

1) Birmingham - Nuneaton (as an infill/extension of the wider Felixstowe - Nuneaton scheme)
2) Birmingham - Nottingham (both routes via Derby and also via Castle Donington as part of the Midland Main Line)
3) Kings Norton - Proof House Junction/Grand Junction/Landor Street
4) Wolverhampton - Shrewsbury - Wrexham - Chester (as an infill/extension of Cardiff - Crewe)

All of the above means that no more diesel trains would be terminating at Birmingham New Street.

Also, electrify Leamington Spa/Honeybourne/Stratford upon Avon - Hereford/Worcestershire Parkway/Evesham via Birmingham Snow Hill, Hatton Triangle - Bearley Junction, and Bromsgrove - Droitwich.

All three Birmingham stations (four when Curzon Street reopens for HS2) would no longer have any diesel trains running or terminating at them.

As well as wiring those and my proposed schemes, I would wire 100% of England inc.
Chiltern Main Line
New North Main Line(inc Greenford branch)
London-Aylesbury Line
Birmingham-Felixstowe
Cross-City Line to Burton-upon-Trent
Ivanhoe Line
Barrow Hill Line
Erewash Valley Line
Penistone Line
Blackpool South branch line
Conversion of all tramways to 25 KV AC 50 HZ OHLE
Leamside Line
Tees Valley Line
Esk Valley Line
All metro's converted to 25 KV AC 50 HZ OHLE etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The safety aspect of converting trams to 25kV would not be acceptable.

 

[Hey 3]

I would add Leamington to Nuneaton via Coventry to get rid of a potential diesel island.

I did that as well(upthread), and I added upthread Birmingham-Peterbrough-Felixstowe/Cambridge to get rid of another diesel island.

 

[Domh245]

Conversion of all tramways to 25 KV AC 50 HZ OHLE
..
All metro's converted to 25 KV AC 50 HZ OHLE etc.

But why? Tramways especially makes life very complicated, and for zero benefit over the 750v DC

 

[Hey 3]

The safety aspect of converting trams to 25kV would not be acceptable.

And that is why, sorry?

But why? Tramways especially makes life very complicated, and for zero benefit over the 750v DC

To allow tram-trains to be simplified.

 

[Domh245]

And that is why, sorry?


To allow tram-trains to be simplified.

Electrical clearances for 25kV AC are much higher than for 750v DC - you certainly can't string it up between buildings in town centres above busy streets

Given the rather limited scope for tram-trains, and the relative non-issue that multiple voltages pose, that's a poor justification for expensive (and functionally impossible with modern safety standards) works!

 

[zwk500]

I think it's fairly widely accepted that full electrification for the majority of the network is desireable, but the OP did ask what the DfT should be getting on with, i.e. What is a priority.

For the life of me I cannot see how lines like the Esk Valley or Shrewsbury-Chester should be a priority for electrification.

Windermere branch has a good argument. Getting the MML to Leicester and Birmingham-Nuneaton should also be high priorities candidates. Coventry-Nuneaton would also make my list as it's a diesel island, but it's not the first priority.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Windermere. In railway terms it would cost about 50p.

East West Rail from day one - building a new diesel railway in 2021 is absolutely ridiculous. Delay opening it for a year or two to get it done if needs be, better than people getting used to having it then losing it for a bit to do it later.

Don’t they interwork with Barrow though? That might prove difficult, particularly as the only bi-mode at the moment is 769 and they are not appropriate for a three is hour journey to Barrow

 

[HSTEd]

And that is why, sorry?


To allow tram-trains to be simplified.

Electrical clearances for 750Vdc are basically mechanical clearances - don't let the wire touch anything.

25kV requires clearances to avoid horrifying arc discharges that can jump significant distances.

 

[Hey 3]

I think it's fairly widely accepted that full electrification for the majority of the network is desireable, but the OP did ask what the DfT should be getting on with, i.e. What is a priority.

For the life of me I cannot see how lines like the Esk Valley or Shrewsbury-Chester should be a priority for electrification.

Windermere branch has a good argument. Getting the MML to Leicester and Birmingham-Nuneaton should also be high priorities candidates. Coventry-Nuneaton would also make my list as it's a diesel island, but it's not the first priority.

Esk Valley is not a priority, it should be done as one of the last prioritys in the country. Windemere should be the highest priority and other important ones are the MML and GWML and maybe Chiltern Main Line and also Birmingham-Nuneaton-Leicester-Peterbrough-Cambridge/Felixstowe has a good business case, Lostock Parkway to Wigan NW has a relatively strong case too.

Esk Valley is not a priority, it should be done as one of the last prioritys in the country. Windemere should be the highest priority and other important ones are the MML and GWML and maybe Chiltern Main Line and also Birmingham-Nuneaton-Leicester-Peterbrough-Cambridge/Felixstowe has a good business case, Lostock Parkway to Wigan NW has a relatively strong case too.

And if Windemere has a good argument, how about Barrow-in-Furness and Carlisle(via Cumbrian Coast), again to stop diesels under the wires.

 

[43096]

A key difference between butane/CNG and hydrogen is that the former are heavier than air and the latter is lighter than air. So if a hydrogen tank is ruptured, it all rapidly flies away and doesn't hang around to go bang. Even better if the tank is on the roof.

Would be less than ideal in a tunnel, though.

AIUI most of what was burning on the Hindenburg wasn't hydrogen, but rather the flammable fabric skin.

Given that hydrogen takes up more space than diesel and we're forever complaining that non-passenger carrying locomotives use up train length, hydrogen is almost certainly going to need part of a vehicle given up to make space for the tanks and fuel cells. Not exactly an efficient use of train length.