electrify scottish and great western routes?

[TheWalrus]

Instead of using bi-modes, wouldn't it be beneficial for them to electrify any remaining routes? For example, if Aberdeen-Edinburgh was electrified, couldn't Scotrail and XC possibly benefit from this as well as through East Coast services? A similar idea could be applied to West of England lines too.

Any ideas as to how this would work?

Thanks

Ryan

 

[rail-britain]

Electrify railway lines, great idea
Using diesel powered trains under wires, pointless

Personally, ALL passenger trains between London and Edinburgh should be electric, trains continuing beyond Edinburgh (to Aberdeen and Inverness) should have a change of loco, simples
Vastly cheaper than installing wires between Stirling - Inverness and Newbridge - Aberdeen

Even with wires between Aberdeen and York , Cross Country would still operate diesel powered trains...

 

[ainsworth74]

Any ideas as to how this would work?

One thought, wiring the Forth bridge could be fun. My understanding is that it is already pretty cramped on the bridge so fitting in gantry, wires and providing sufficent clearences (to prevent arcing) could be interesting.

 

[TheWalrus]

Electrify railway lines, great idea
Using diesel powered trains under wires, pointless

Personally, ALL passenger trains between London and Edinburgh should be electric, trains continuing beyond Edinburgh (to Aberdeen and Inverness) should have a change of loco, simples

Even with wires between Aberdeen and York , Cross Country would still operate diesel powered trains...

I wouldn't suggest using deisels under the wires! That would be stupid!

Loco hauling would be good on these lines providing they can run around at stations they terminate at (Inverness, Aberdeen, Penzance, Hereford, Malvern, Worcester, Banbury, Hull, Harrogate, Skipton, Bradford, Lincoln, Newquay - obv. wouldn't work! - Carmarthen, Pembroke Dock). Which of those stations I have listed could a loco run around at? If not could you attach a loco to the rear as well en route to enable it to reverse after it has terminated?

 

[rail-britain]

Loco hauling would be good on these lines providing they can run around at stations they terminate at

No need to runround, it's just simply a loco swap
Example
Class 91 between London Kings Cross and Edinburgh
Class 91 is detached and a diesel-electric loco replaces it
This loco then hauls to Inverness and then pushes back to Edinburgh
On arrival that loco is detached and a Class 91 replaces it

It's not that difficult and would be cheaper than carrying both power sources around (why carry the diesel engine between London and Edinburgh, and all the electrics north of Edinburgh, when they are not being used)

Personally that is what they should do when the HSTs are life expired and purchase new electric rolling stock for the East Coast franchise
Yes, it would be a mixed fleet, but it would allow greater flexibility
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One thought, wiring the Forth bridge could be fun. My understanding is that it is already pretty cramped on the bridge so fitting in gantry, wires and providing sufficent clearences (to prevent arcing) could be interesting

Tests have already been carried out and suitable insulators are available
However they are NOT cheap, plus more are required to ensure the wires do not move as much as they are allowed to either free standing or in other restricted spaces
From memory it works out at one such insulator connected to the contact wire every 12 metres, which is one quarter that of the traditional spacing

 

[krus_aragon]

Loco hauling would be good on these lines providing they can run around at stations they terminate at ... Carmarthen, Pembroke Dock

For sake of argument, you'd have to turn around en-route at Swansea as well.

 

[TheWalrus]

For sake of argument, you'd have to turn around en-route at Swansea as well.

Yep

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Why would you need to turn/run around when you can have multiple working via TDM/RCH cables & a DVT?

For example VT could have quite easily modified a class 57 to operate in push/pull mode with a Class 390 (Pendolino) to eliminate any runround manoeuvres IF they'd given more thought to it.

 

[Aictos]

No need to runround, it's just simply a loco swap
Example
Class 91 between London Kings Cross and Edinburgh
Class 91 is detached and a diesel-electric loco replaces it
This loco then hauls to Inverness and then pushes back to Edinburgh
On arrival that loco is detached and a Class 91 replaces it

It's not that difficult and would be cheaper than carrying both power sources around (why carry the diesel engine between London and Edinburgh, and all the electrics north of Edinburgh, when they are not being used)

Yes but the 91 on the East Coast are always on the Scotland end of the train so even if the 91 did come off the train, the 67 would still need to run round the train to couple up!

Far better just using the old shunt release move at Edinburgh and Inverness and leave the 91 DIT.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes but the 91 on the East Coast are always on the Scotland end of the train so even if the 91 did come off the train, the 67 would still need to run round the train to couple up!

Forgive me if this is a foolish suggestion, but surely it wouldn't be impossible to swap the DVT and the 91 so that the DVT runs at the Scotland end and the 91 at the other end thereby making the loco swap easy?

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Simple solution put Delner or Scharfenburg couplers on the DVT & 91's, then use TDM module to transfer to commands to the DVT, just attach/detach the locomotive at Edinburgh. Runround = 0, coupling/uncoupling time <> 5 mins.

 

[Geezertronic]

Sounds like another wishlist thread ...

 

[LE Greys]

Well, you won't get any arguments from me over electrifying the Aberdeen Road. However, it would make far more sense to extend the scope to include Glasgow via Perth (oh yes, and Dyce). This provides a good excuse to replace all the old semaphore signalling (sorry photographers, it's an anachronism) with MAS and an IECC at Perth or Dundee. It also means that the Chieftain would not need to change engines in busy Waverley, but in comparatively quiet Perth. Fill in with the Fife Circle, the Alloa line, East Kilbride, Paisley Canal and any other fill-ins in the area, and the Central Belt would be 100% electrified. Glasgow would be all-electric before London.

Forgive me if this is a foolish suggestion, but surely it wouldn't be impossible to swap the DVT and the 91 so that the DVT runs at the Scotland end and the 91 at the other end thereby making the loco swap easy?

You're quite right, the old eastern bays could act as engine docks, although northbound runs might require the 67 on the front. However, there's no reason why a 67 can't sit in Platform 19 while an express arrives into P2 (swing the overlap if necessary). The 67 backs down, onto the DVT, then departs with the train, leaving the 91 in P2, which then runs off to the engine dock or Craigentinny shed. However, it would be a lot better if the 91 could work right through, or change at Perth, where there is less pressure on platforms.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Simple solution put Delner or Scharfenburg couplers on the DVT & 91's, then use TDM module to transfer to commands to the DVT, just attach/detach the locomotive at Edinburgh. Runround = 0, coupling/uncoupling time <> 5 mins.

The Liverpool Street 'Jazz' crews could do that with the screw couplings and vacuum brakes on their N7s.

 

[anthony263]

For sake of argument, you'd have to turn around en-route at Swansea as well.

You could change locomtoives at Swansea but the other locomotive would have to come out of the yard as swansea doesnt have any runround facilities and as for carmarthen you could do what the daytime fishguard service does and avoid carmarthen

 

[Aictos]

Forgive me if this is a foolish suggestion, but surely it wouldn't be impossible to swap the DVT and the 91 so that the DVT runs at the Scotland end and the 91 at the other end thereby making the loco swap easy?

Uh no, you would still have the issue of having to modify the loco used so it works with the DVT ie the WSMR Class 67s have had remote fire fighting equipment fitted so they can be operated by the DVTs although when replaced with other members of the Class 67 fleet, a driver does have to ride in the locomotive when propelling in case of emergency.

You would also have to modify the DVTs to work with the Class 67 by doing what WSMR has done which is adding a notched power controller as is used in the locomotive and a 27 wire jumper cable as used on the GM EMD locomotives which is known as the AAR Multiple Working system.

So because of the work to the WSMR DVTs, they have had to be renumbered although they can still work with TDM fitted electric locomotives.

With the East Coast sets, the Class 67 is always at the leading end and never propelling so even if they as in East Coast decided they would follow National Express East Anglia's example and have the Class 91 at the London end and the DVT at the Country end, they would still need to pay for the modifications to the DVTs and Class 67s which would be expensive if shunt release moves weren't used

No, far far easier just tackling a Class 67 onto the leading end of the train and have a second Class 67 couple up to it at it's destination, freeing up the 1st Class 67 to then shunt release the next working.

And seeing as there is not that many services from Aberdeen/Inverness to Kings Cross

07:52 Aberdeen to Kings Cross
09:52 Aberdeen to Kings Cross
14:50 Aberdeen to Kings Cross

17:37 Aberdeen Arrival from Kings Cross
21:12 Aberdeen Arrival from Kings Cross

07:55 Inverness to Kings Cross
20:08 Inverness Arrival from Kings Cross

Although the Aberdeen's might required some work planning the Class 67 moves, there really is no reason why the Inverness's cannot use the 91s DIT and have them dragged from Edinburgh to Inverness and back again seeing as there's about 5 hours between the two services at Edinburgh which is plenty of time to clean/refuel and have the loco standing by at Edinburgh during that period.

 

[LE Greys]

And seeing as there is not that many services from Aberdeen/Inverness to Kings Cross

07:52 Aberdeen to Kings Cross
09:52 Aberdeen to Kings Cross
14:50 Aberdeen to Kings Cross

17:37 Aberdeen Arrival from Kings Cross
21:12 Aberdeen Arrival from Kings Cross

07:55 Inverness to Kings Cross
20:08 Inverness Arrival from Kings Cross

There's also the 07:10 Leeds-Aberdeen, which presents a few problems in that the Leeds-Colton Jcn section is non-electric as well. That could be 67-hauled the whole way (useful for loco rotation) but that might cause problems with 91s being in the wrong place. The 18:16 Aberdeen-Edinburgh could serve the same function the other way, and I would extend it to take over the path of the 21:00 to York (19:50 ex-Glasgow Central) perhaps also on to Leeds, arriving around 00:40.

There's also the question of a shortage of 91s at the southern end. Obvious answer, fill in with 90s (there are more than enough in store). If there is a shortage of MkIIIs, then some HST trailers might have to be converted, and the DVTs off the MkII sets might be used. I suspect that the 90s would be capable of 125 with some modifications, but their acceleration should allow them to keep up with a 91 on a Leeds semi-fast. However, it's a bit complicated, and most likely we would end up with HSTs filling in on Leeds turns. Perhaps eventually with the 'Electro-Voyager' that comes up from time to time.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

What should be borne in mind is that soon EC will not be serving Glasgow Central, so that means you should have 3-4 sets of Cl.91+Mk4 stock "more" available.

 

[TheWalrus]

What should be borne in mind is that soon EC will not be serving Glasgow Central, so that means you should have 3-4 sets of Cl.91+Mk4 stock "more" available.

They are retaining one through service.

Also the released services are due to do Kings X - York/Newark (pointless place to terminate if you ask me)

 

[LE Greys]

They are retaining one through service.

Also the released services are due to do Kings X - York/Newark (pointless place to terminate if you ask me)

It was supposed to be KX-Lincoln, but that didn't happen for some daft reason.

 

[tbtc]

There's also the 07:10 Leeds-Aberdeen, which presents a few problems in that the Leeds-Colton Jcn section is non-electric as well. That could be 67-hauled the whole way (useful for loco rotation) but that might cause problems with 91s being in the wrong place. The 18:16 Aberdeen-Edinburgh could serve the same function the other way, and I would extend it to take over the path of the 21:00 to York (19:50 ex-Glasgow Central) perhaps also on to Leeds, arriving around 00:40

Or run via Doncaster both ways? Some 91s do this/ have done this, meaning you may get a connection to a Kings Cross service (no use for through passengers to Leeds, but there are always TPE services for that stretch)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What should be borne in mind is that soon EC will not be serving Glasgow Central, so that means you should have 3-4 sets of Cl.91+Mk4 stock "more" available.

The Glasgow Central - Edinburgh service is only every two hours (roughly), which releases one 91 rake - where does the four come from?

 

[Failed Unit]

I can see how you get 2 at a push but definately not 4.

Present timetable
1000 Kings Cross - Edinburgh arrives 1424 to form the 1600 it could form the 1500
1100 Kings Cross - Glasgow arrives Edinburgh at 1519 it could form the 1600

The 1100 would have return into Edinburgh at 1900, so two units are saved. 1 for not running to Glasgow and the other for reducing the layover at Edinburgh

The turn arounds are tight so may never work operationally.

 

[TheWalrus]

It was supposed to be KX-Lincoln, but that didn't happen for some daft reason.

Yeah I know. I think it was more cost effective and possibly faster to have a fast service calling at Newark with an efficient connection time with an EMT local service to Lincoln. Why they are having a Newark-London, I'm not clear on that.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Easy answer there.. DaFT is run by idiots who haven't got a clue.

 

[sprinterguy]

Yeah I know. I think it was more cost effective and possibly faster to have a fast service calling at Newark with an efficient connection time with an EMT local service to Lincoln. Why they are having a Newark-London, I'm not clear on that.

So that Newark and Grantham still have some sort of half decent train service, seeing as half the stopping pattern is made up of the London to York/Newarks for these stations

Getting rid of the London-Lincoln services, and hence doing away with the need for 5 class 180s will apparently save £9 million a year according to Modern Railways. I suppose it wouldn't be possible to run the Newarks to terminate somewhere more logical further north as that would be stretching the existing fleet too far.

Completely daft.

 

[dave59]

All sounds very logical yet 20 years after electrification to Edinburgh there is still no will from ICEC operators to operate a loco swap or drag from Edinburgh. HST's should have been cascaed away from the ECML years ago and the benefits of electrification maximised. Lots of excuses about the short trips away from the main line to Hull, Lincoln, Harrogate etc but really it's a nonsense running a fleet of HST's many thousands of miles a day under the wires for these routes alone. These are best served by EMU's when some fingers are pulled out and wires go up and for now, the 180's.

The 91 sets should be concentrated on the main line to York/Newcastle/ Edinburgh and dragged to Inverness/Aberdeen. A new electric fleet should serve the Leeds/Bradford and Airedale route.

 

[WESSEX158]

Instead of using bi-modes, wouldn't it be beneficial for them to electrify any remaining routes? For example, if Aberdeen-Edinburgh was electrified, couldn't Scotrail and XC possibly benefit from this as well as through East Coast services? A similar idea could be applied to West of England lines too.

Any ideas as to how this would work?

Thanks

Ryan

I agree. Bi-modes are a waste of time. The DfT should have realised that when Alstom pulled out of the IEP for that reason.

It would be far better to electrify the major lines with OHL and use third rail for less major routes/where the line speed is 100mph- (eg. OHL to Plymouth, 3rd rail on to Penzance) or where OHL would be hard or expensive (severn tunnel, forth bridge, costal etc.) Then use multi-voltage trains like the Eurostar 373s were.

 

[Zoe]

It would be far better to electrify the major lines with OHL and use third rail for less major routes/where the line speed is 100mph- (eg. OHL to Plymouth, 3rd rail on to Penzance) or where OHL would be hard or expensive (severn tunnel, forth bridge, costal etc.) Then use multi-voltage trains like the Eurostar 373s were.

Can't be done, new third rail schemes are not allowed. The only third rail schemes permitted are extensions to the existing network.

 

[WESSEX158]

Shame

 

[LE Greys]

I agree. Bi-modes are a waste of time. The DfT should have realised that when Alstom pulled out of the IEP for that reason.

It would be far better to electrify the major lines with OHL and use third rail for less major routes/where the line speed is 100mph- (eg. OHL to Plymouth, 3rd rail on to Penzance) or where OHL would be hard or expensive (severn tunnel, forth bridge, costal etc.) Then use multi-voltage trains like the Eurostar 373s were.

That was actually proposed for the Royal Border Bridge (presumably to stop the masts from making it look ugly) but never implemented - fortunately. The one place where I can see it being used is the Forth Bridge, to reduce problems with arcing, and that's not likely either.

However, multi-voltage or electro-diesel (bi-mode if you prefer) freight ought to be considered. Would it be possible to modify a TRAXX or a Taurus to fit a 2000 hp diesel engine and generator inside as well as the electrical equipment?

 

[WESSEX158]

I like the idea of electro-diesel trains but what worries me is that with the current plans from Hitachi, the trains would have 1/2-1/3 of the power of an HST, when running on diesel, yet weigh more! and the DfT say it would cause minor delays! This is starting to sound like what happened with the Machester-Liverpool line. The journey took less time in the Victorian days.:roll: