"Infill" Electrification Schemes

Status
Not open for further replies.

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
5,876
If George Osborne does a bit of scratching his head over summer and decides to go for Plan A+, which involves another £5 billion on transport infrastructure projects, I'm guessing that electrification from Bedford to Nottingham and Long Eaton to Sheffield will almost certainly be announced in this years spending review.

I think in order to obtain the benefits the Government would be looking for in such a 'Plan A+' things would have to happen faster than that. It will all be about bringing work forward, things which are already planned, and so can be sped up. There will then be a task in increasing the planning capability so that construction does not outpace design.

The kind of schemes you mention I think will form that new planning element, but the 'shovels in the ground' work will be on schemes we already know about, just happening faster. Things Network Rail have already pretty much done the detailed planning for.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Batman

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
497
Location
North Birmingham
[Mod Note - Split from this thread.]

Well once GWML and Midland project is done, the Cross Country infill between Plymouth/Paignton and Leeds ends up with a BCR of 5.4 (since Leeds-York is covered under TPE North apparently).

If we're talking about infill electrification, would there also be a good business case for Newbury - Taunton and Oxford - Coventry?

Once that's done I think the next big electrification project would be Water Orton - Felixstowe (possible including the Sutton Park Line) and I've already mentioned the North Wales Coast Line.

There may also be good business cases for some local electrification projects such as Leeds - Harrogate and Walsall - Rugeley.
 

Batman

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
497
Location
North Birmingham
There may also be good business cases for some local electrification projects such as Leeds - Harrogate and Walsall - Rugeley.

And add the Calder Valley Line to that list of local electrification projects.

I've already decided what infrastructure schemes I'd like to see get built in the West Midlands region if Osbourne goes for 'Plan A+' and allocates an extra £500 for transport in the West Midlands.

Rail:

New stations at Aldridge (with electrification) and Kenilworth.

Redevelopment of Birmingham Snow Hill and Wolverhampton stations.

Cancellation of the Cross City Line extension to Bromsgrove, but redevelop Bromsgrove station with 6 car platforms, a ticket office, disabled access and larger car park.

South facing bay platform on the higher level at Tamworth.

13 new 172's for London Midland (seven 3 car and six 2 car), needs to be done in conjunction with station redevelopment on the Marston Vale line to allow 172's to work it. Displaces 150's, 153's and 170/6's to other operators.

25 new 350's for London Midland. Provides extra capacity and allows 323's from the Walsall - Wolverhampton service to be cascaded to the Cross City Line and 321's to go to other operators.

Electrification of the Chase Line, combined with redevelopment of local stations.

Disabled access at Northfield, Buttlers Lane and Shenstone.


Light rail:

Extension of the Midland Metro to Wolverhampton station.


Road:

Widening of the M6 from 3 to 4 lanes from junction 11a at Cannock to juntion 19 at Knutsford. Funded jointly with the North West region funding allocation.

Construction of the M6 Toll - M54 link road.

Construction of the Shrewsbury northern by-pass.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
5,778
Location
Dalton Georgia USA
Well once the MML is done (hope and praying) then Sheffield - Leeds, Sheffield -Doncaster; Sheffield - York have to be good infill projects.
 

Anvil1984

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
1,315
Well once the MML is done (hope and praying) then Sheffield - Leeds, Sheffield -Doncaster; Sheffield - York have to be good infill projects.

Sheffield - Doncaster / Leeds via all routes definately. Sheffield - York via Pontefract probably not Im not totally sure if the freight traffic warrants it. The potential infills are endless once they've actually set in stone whihc bits of TPE North / FGW and in future the MML and Chiltern lines
 

DXMachina

Member
Joined
24 Oct 2011
Messages
652
East-WEst Rail Link can become an inflil project in two different directions: Bletchley-Bedford lets WCML services reach St.Pancras under power (if willing to reverse at Bedford), and Bletchley-Oxford lets WCML services through to Paddington.

Electrifying Oxford - Birmingham New St up the Chiltern Main Line looks tempting operationally but its a much bigger and more expensive job and probably best combined into a full-route project
 

atomicdanny

Member
Joined
7 Mar 2010
Messages
534
Location
Kent, UK
I'd say that Ashford to Ore (+Doubling the track), as well as Oxted to Uckfield (again double all the track) would free up all of southern's class 171s to go somewhere else. (10 x 2 Car and 6 x 4 Car - which could of course turn into 12 x 3 Car and 4 x 2 Car but that would be a guess anyway!)
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Sheffield - Doncaster / Leeds via all routes definately. Sheffield - York via Pontefract probably not Im not totally sure if the freight traffic warrants it. The potential infills are endless once they've actually set in stone whihc bits of TPE North / FGW and in future the MML and Chiltern lines

Some recent ideas about tram-trains might cause problems with Sheffield-Fitzwilliam via Rotherham.

Others I'd support would be Nottingham-Grantham, Peterborough-Ely and Ely-Norwich (along with some route modernisation) which would allow EMT to use EMUs on most of their route to Norwich, and provide some useful diversionary routes for the ECML and GA.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'd say that Ashford to Ore (+Doubling the track), as well as Oxted to Uckfield (again double all the track) would free up all of southern's class 171s to go somewhere else. (10 x 2 Car and 6 x 4 Car - which could of course turn into 12 x 3 Car and 4 x 2 Car but that would be a guess anyway!)

Also, by making Southern 100% electric, it eliminates diesel maintenance facilities, thus creating savings.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
4,540
Location
Wittersham Kent
I'd say that Ashford to Ore (+Doubling the track), as well as Oxted to Uckfield (again double all the track) would free up all of southern's class 171s to go somewhere else. (10 x 2 Car and 6 x 4 Car - which could of course turn into 12 x 3 Car and 4 x 2 Car but that would be a guess anyway!)

Im reliably told that Southern wanted to form some 3 car 171s some time ago but that wiring and software problems mean that its not easy to take a car out of the 4 car units and the project was dropped. Apparently it would not be easy to convert the 4 car 171s to work with other Turbostar Units either.




 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
12,946
I presure the Ashford to Ore electrification would be linked to more Cl395s or similar purchases?
Supposedly even the local trains could be extended onto HS1 to produce faster trains from London to Hastings than exist at the moment?
 

Waverley125

Member
Joined
2 Sep 2008
Messages
1,003
Location
Leeds, West Yorkshire
I'd be interested in the CBR of Cheltenham-Cardiff via Gloucester & Lydney & Swindon-Gloucester via Stroud after the GWML has been done, I'd think they'd be very high, as it'd release 170s from XC & HSTs from FGW.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,575
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
I'd be interested in the CBR of Cheltenham-Cardiff via Gloucester & Lydney & Swindon-Gloucester via Stroud after the GWML has been done, I'd think they'd be very high, as it'd release 170s from XC & HSTs from FGW.

A long way to wire for one train an hour.

It wouldn't release any XC 170s unless you electrified from Cheltenham to Barnt Green/ Bromsgrove though (which would be pointless unless you were also wiring from Cheltenham to Bristol (Parkway).
 

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
I'd be interested in the CBR of Cheltenham-Cardiff via Gloucester & Lydney & Swindon-Gloucester via Stroud after the GWML has been done, I'd think they'd be very high, as it'd release 170s from XC & HSTs from FGW.

It would only release XC 170s if Cheltenham to Bromsgrove and Birmingham to Nottingham were also wired. (Both are likely in the long run, especially post-MML electrification.)
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
4,540
Location
Wittersham Kent
I presure the Ashford to Ore electrification would be linked to more Cl395s or similar purchases?
Supposedly even the local trains could be extended onto HS1 to produce faster trains from London to Hastings than exist at the moment?

I think it would be very hard to justify. The line is through one of the most sparsely populated parts of the South-East. Rye the biggest town has a population of only around 4000. The current layout of Ashford Station also precludes through running between Marshlink and HS1. The linespeed is only currently 60 mph and most of the stations can only accomodate a maximum of 3 coaches.



 

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
Location
Bath (or Southend)
With regards to the Marshlink, the only practical improvement that really exists is running a non-stop Rye - Ashford shuttle every hour (or, alternatively, all-stop and allowing the Brighton services to skip Appledore and Ham Street), which would require one extra unit for the service. There just isn't a viable case to electrify the line, unlike the Uckfield route.
 

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
East-WEst Rail Link can become an inflil project in two different directions: Bletchley-Bedford lets WCML services reach St.Pancras under power (if willing to reverse at Bedford), and Bletchley-Oxford lets WCML services through to Paddington.

Electrifying Oxford - Birmingham New St up the Chiltern Main Line looks tempting operationally but its a much bigger and more expensive job and probably best combined into a full-route project

Bletchley to Oxford is a no-brainer really - might as well do it from the outset.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
4,540
Location
Wittersham Kent
With regards to the Marshlink, the only practical improvement that really exists is running a non-stop Rye - Ashford shuttle every hour (or, alternatively, all-stop and allowing the Brighton services to skip Appledore and Ham Street), which would require one extra unit for the service. There just isn't a viable case to electrify the line, unlike the Uckfield route.

I think that Electrifying the Uckfield line with the increase in passenger numbers since the introduction of the Class 171s and the hourly service to london Bridge probably now is viable and this will probably have the effect that Marshlink will follow as it will not make sense to retain a diesel fleet for the 5 diagrams that are marshlink. With the current shortage of rolling stock i reckon the new Southern franchise will include some sort of partnership bid for electrification of both.



 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
27,810
Location
Yorks
With regards to the Marshlink, the only practical improvement that really exists is running a non-stop Rye - Ashford shuttle every hour (or, alternatively, all-stop and allowing the Brighton services to skip Appledore and Ham Street), which would require one extra unit for the service. There just isn't a viable case to electrify the line, unlike the Uckfield route.

If you had that, there'd be a half hourly service on at least some parts of the route which would presumably improve the business case for electrification.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,575
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
I think that Electrifying the Uckfield line with the increase in passenger numbers since the introduction of the Class 171s and the hourly service to london Bridge probably now is viable and this will probably have the effect that Marshlink will follow as it will not make sense to retain a diesel fleet for the 5 diagrams that are marshlink

Agreed, though I wonder whether the Marshlink line has held back the Uckfield one (Uckfield seems a no brainer, but you'd only do it if you did the quieter Marshlink line)

TBH I'd rather that gaps like these were filled in (rather than demanding it in my town)
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
27,810
Location
Yorks
Agreed, though I wonder whether the Marshlink line has held back the Uckfield one (Uckfield seems a no brainer, but you'd only do it if you did the quieter Marshlink line)

TBH I'd rather that gaps like these were filled in (rather than demanding it in my town)

I think it's the other way round. If there was any sort of political will to do Uckfield, they'd probably have done the Marshlink as an add-on.
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
Ilfracombe
With regards to the Marshlink, the only practical improvement that really exists is running a non-stop Rye - Ashford shuttle every hour (or, alternatively, all-stop and allowing the Brighton services to skip Appledore and Ham Street), which would require one extra unit for the service. There just isn't a viable case to electrify the line, unlike the Uckfield route.

An every 40 minute service could be introduced between Hastings and Ashford. This would improve the variety of connections (3 different connections that would each have a frequency of every 2 hours). My idea for the service is:

Keep:
1tp2h Ashford - Brighton

To replace the other present Ashford - Brighton Service with:
2tp2h Ashford - Hastings
1tp2h Hastings - Brighton
 

ole man

Member
Joined
6 Jul 2011
Messages
738
Location
LEC5
If the MML gets electrified then Bletchley to Bedford would be a useful link, and diversion route, and also improve the current service between the two.
 

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
If the MML gets electrified then Bletchley to Bedford would be a useful link, and diversion route, and also improve the current service between the two.

And if the Chiltern gets wires, which would almost certainly include Oxford, the case for the Marston Vale and EWR increases further.

Network Rail have stated that they want the Chiltern and the MML to be the next two major wiring projects after the GWML and the Northwest Triangle (the Treasury's announcement of TPN seemed to take them by surprise).
 

ole man

Member
Joined
6 Jul 2011
Messages
738
Location
LEC5
Another one dependent on the MML would be Stoke to Derby, the current service between Crewe and Derby is poor and to long
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
And if the Chiltern gets wires, which would almost certainly include Oxford, the case for the Marston Vale and EWR increases further.

Network Rail have stated that they want the Chiltern and the MML to be the next two major wiring projects after the GWML and the Northwest Triangle (the Treasury's announcement of TPN seemed to take them by surprise).

The Chiltern presents an interesting problem for the Metropolitan, though. However, I think that S-Stock is capable of being fitted with pantographs, so I would expect the wires to apper at Watford and Amersham, although not Uxbridge because of the Piccadilly. Harrow would be a good changeover point, owing to the separate platforms. Extending the Amersham service to Aylesbury would be an interesting possibility.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
12,946
I'm pretty sure S-stock does not even have a 750V bus (LU safety regs apparently require all bogies to have seperate pick up shoes, as on the Cl313) which makes any dual voltage conversion a nightmare.

More likely the Chiltern Main Line would be electrified at 25kV and Aylesbury trains would switch to third rail immediately after the route diverges from the Main Line tracks.
Third rail electrification would then be carried through to Aylesbury and meet, possibly, 25kV electrification from High Wycombe (on that tiny branch line).
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
I'm pretty sure S-stock does not even have a 750V bus (LU safety regs apparently require all bogies to have seperate pick up shoes, as on the Cl313) which makes any dual voltage conversion a nightmare.

More likely the Chiltern Main Line would be electrified at 25kV and Aylesbury trains would switch to third rail immediately after the route diverges from the Main Line tracks.
Third rail electrification would then be carried through to Aylesbury and meet, possibly, 25kV electrification from High Wycombe (on that tiny branch line).

I'm not quite sure, but I think the bus on 313s is placed after the transformer, but capable of being switched out. I'm not sure which arrangement would be less awkward to deal with, running Chiltern stock on what is acknowledged to be a less-capable system or shutting down large sections of the Metropolitan for conversion plus work on the trains. Although, since the route is easily straight enough for 100mph on many sections, that would almost certainly require power upgrades anyway if 377 levels of power drain are going to be applied to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top