"Infill" Electrification Schemes

[GRALISTAIR]

I'd quite like to see silly gaps closed on new projects, Lostock - Wigan for example.

Yes sir +1 absolutely

 

[HSTEd]

The only real way to justify Chiltern electrification any time soon is as an add on to the Cross Country scheme, since you would have to electrify a significant section as part of any attempt to convert the Manchester-Bournemouth route.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The only real way to justify Chiltern electrification any time soon is as an add on to the Cross Country scheme, since you would have to electrify a significant section as part of any attempt to convert the Manchester-Bournemouth route.

Which makes it CP6 then !

 

[tbtc]

Another one dependent on the MML would be Stoke to Derby, the current service between Crewe and Derby is poor and to long

I'd vote for that - if the MML is wired then there's scope for a Nottingham - Derby - Stoke - Macclesfield - Stockport - Manchester service, or maybe Nottingham - Derby - Stoke -Crewe - Runcorn - Liverpool, that kind of thing.

At the moment the lack of wires holds the Derby - Crewe line back.

 

[Batman]

The thing with infill electrification is that you will inevitable create more diesel island.

With XC infill electrification, Gloucester - Newport and Stoke to Derby are good examples.

Gloucester to Newport might have a CBR for electrification because XC will be able to run EMU' from Cardiff to Nottingham (using XC and MML electrification), and if Bridgend to Maesteg is wired in the South Wales scheme, it'll mean both tph on that line can be EMU operated. Or perhaps the hourly Gloucester - Cardiff ATW service could be linked with an hourly Swanline local to Swansea, with Maesteg DMU's terminating at Cardiff?

Gloucester - Swindon would be good to wire in the initial XC scheme.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd vote for that - if the MML is wired then there's scope for a Nottingham - Derby - Stoke - Macclesfield - Stockport - Manchester service, or maybe Nottingham - Derby - Stoke -Crewe - Runcorn - Liverpool, that kind of thing.

At the moment the lack of wires holds the Derby - Crewe line back.

It's the lack of rolling stock that holds that line back more than anything.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

I still can't get it into what I loosely refer to as my mind that someone out there thinks that it's a better plan to wire half-way along the main lines out of Paddington when the Midland is such an obvious project with so many little fill-ins along the way.
What's so difficult about:
Bedford - Sheffield
Trent - Grantham
Trent Clay Cross via Derby
then, while you're at it Sheffield - Doncaster.
Now you've got all of the important bits of the MML done plus a couple of cracking wired diversionary routes to and from the ECML for when the wires come down.

 

[anthony263]

I think the age of the rolling stock on the GWML is one reason why it got chosen for electrification rather than the midland mainline especially considering the wires are being put up to Maidenhead for crossrail you may as well continue to Reading and further beyond that.

I would have liked to see work done on installing the wires both the Midland and Great Western around the same time perhaps ordering a 2nd HOOP train and hiring additional staff to erect the wires so you are providing more jobs.

Of course a 2nd hoop train would be great as you could do the Cardiff Valley Lines electrification quickly then after that start work on the midland mainline.

 

[Holly]

In the end, what makes sense is electrification everywhere. Excepting perhaps the most rural and far flung parts of the network such as the Far North line.

I truly don't think battery technology will develop fast enough to make overhead wires a wrong way to go. Except in sidings, maintenance depots, docks and similar low speed "last mile" situations (where a diesel shunter can efficiently handle exceptional needs anyway).

 

[LE Greys]

I think the age of the rolling stock on the GWML is one reason why it got chosen for electrification rather than the midland mainline especially considering the wires are being put up to Maidenhead for crossrail you may as well continue to Reading and further beyond that.

I would have liked to see work done on installing the wires both the Midland and Great Western around the same time perhaps ordering a 2nd HOOP train and hiring additional staff to erect the wires so you are providing more jobs.

Of course a 2nd hoop train would be great as you could do the Cardiff Valley Lines electrification quickly then after that start work on the midland mainline.

Although the 222s on the Midland have been considered for conversion to a.c. overhead if electrification does happen. The hiatus between the BedPan scheme and today is a very long one. Still, I agree with you about Maidenhead, extending at least as far as Oxford and Newbury plus the branches (to avoid creating diesel islands) would be very helpful.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the end, what makes sense is electrification everywhere. Excepting perhaps the most rural and far flung parts of the network such as the Far North line.

I truly don't think battery technology will develop fast enough to make overhead wires a wrong way to go. Except in sidings, maintenance depots, docks and similar low speed "last mile" situations (where a diesel shunter can efficiently handle exceptional needs anyway).

That was one of the biggest surprises in Switzerland, which is 99-100% elecrified. No line is too small. I think they wanted to end their dependence on imported fuel and use what they had available, lots of hydro-electric power, to run as much as they could. It was a good policy, and they still have a very efficient system, although it threw up oddities such as the electro-steam shunters that they built.

 

[RobShipway]

Although the 222s on the Midland have been considered for conversion to a.c. overhead if electrification does happen. The hiatus between the BedPan scheme and today is a very long one. Still, I agree with you about Maidenhead, extending at least as far as Oxford and Newbury plus the branches (to avoid creating diesel islands) would be very helpful.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That was one of the biggest surprises in Switzerland, which is 99-100% elecrified. No line is too small. I think they wanted to end their dependence on imported fuel and use what they had available, lots of hydro-electric power, to run as much as they could. It was a good policy, and they still have a very efficient system, although it threw up oddities such as the electro-steam shunters that they built.

But that is the thing, Branches such as the line to Marlow are not going to be electrified so that line will still need a class 165 to operate the route. Some goes for the route to Henley-on-Thames from Twyford.

 

[DXMachina]

But that is the thing, Branches such as the line to Marlow are not going to be electrified so that line will still need a class 165 to operate the route. Some goes for the route to Henley-on-Thames from Twyford.

You say that, but even Watford-St.Albans Abbey got wired in the end. Not wanting to hang onto a few DMUs can be a good motivation.....

 

[RobShipway]

You say that, but even Watford-St.Albans Abbey got wired in the end. Not wanting to hang onto a few DMUs can be a good motivation.....

Trouble is Network Eail would be going back on something they have been quoted as saying which is that there is not the space to Electrify the Single line of the Maidenhead - Marlow or Twyford - Henley-on-Thames routes.

 

[LE Greys]

But that is the thing, Branches such as the line to Marlow are not going to be electrified so that line will still need a class 165 to operate the route. Some goes for the route to Henley-on-Thames from Twyford.

Which, as I see it, is a mistake. It's possible that it will not be too bad, provided the Reading-Gatwick service remains diesel. Thing is, Wokingham-North Camp and Shalford Junction-Reigate would be high on my list for gaps to be filled, and there have been proposals to do so for years. I would also transfer it to Southern, although FGW might well end up with dual-system stock if they take the 319s. Then you would have several isolated diesel islands along the route, plus all the expense of maintaining a small, non-standard fleet to work them (depending on where the 165s end up, unless you start bringing in 150s from the West Country). It's the same argument as Uckfield and Marshlink, really.

 

[RobShipway]

Which, as I see it, is a mistake. It's possible that it will not be too bad, provided the Reading-Gatwick service remains diesel. Thing is, Wokingham-North Camp and Shalford Junction-Reigate would be high on my list for gaps to be filled, and there have been proposals to do so for years. I would also transfer it to Southern, although FGW might well end up with dual-system stock if they take the 319s. Then you would have several isolated diesel islands along the route, plus all the expense of maintaining a small, non-standard fleet to work them (depending on where the 165s end up, unless you start bringing in 150s from the West Country). It's the same argument as Uckfield and Marshlink, really.

It certainly is and is typical of DaFT......

However, Uckfield and Marshlink plus putting any link back from Uckfield to the Brighton - Lewes - Eastbourne line is actually being obstructed by East Sussex County Council not giving their support to electrify these routes.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Which, as I see it, is a mistake. It's possible that it will not be too bad, provided the Reading-Gatwick service remains diesel. Thing is, Wokingham-North Camp and Shalford Junction-Reigate would be high on my list for gaps to be filled, and there have been proposals to do so for years. I would also transfer it to Southern, although FGW might well end up with dual-system stock if they take the 319s. Then you would have several isolated diesel islands along the route, plus all the expense of maintaining a small, non-standard fleet to work them (depending on where the 165s end up, unless you start bringing in 150s from the West Country). It's the same argument as Uckfield and Marshlink, really.

The gaps in the North Downs lines are just so stupid. As well as putting the juice down in those gaps "they" the magnificent "they" could also re-signal from Reigate to Shalford to get rid of those painfully long signal sections. It's always been treated as a branch line that neither the Southern nor the Western were really interested in and yet it runs to and from London's second airport starting from and crossing along the way some of the richest rail lines in the country.

 

[paul1609]

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

My nearest station is Appledore on the marshlink line. There is just not the demand for an increase in frequency.
Whilst there are peak times like summer when the line gets a lot of tourist traffic most of the time passengers levels are very modest.
Most evening departures from Ashford carry less than 20 passengers. As Ive said before this is unlikely to change there are more sheep than people on Romney marsh. Rye is the biggest town on the line with a pop. of around 4000. Traditionally there has not been a huge demand from Hastings to Ashford.

 

[TheJRB]

It certainly is and is typical of DaFT......

However, Uckfield and Marshlink plus putting any link back from Uckfield to the Brighton - Lewes - Eastbourne line is actually being obstructed by East Sussex County Council not giving their support to electrify these routes.

East Sussex CC (as of last year) thinks the best idea is for cascaded diesel stock to go to the Uckfield and Marshlink lines. Shows how much they know/care...

The Marshlink's biggest problem isn't actually the usage of the line itself. In fact rather the service pattern is a bigger problem west of Hastings: 1tph AFK-BTN semi-fast formed of two coaches, 1tph ORE-BTN all stations formed of four coaches and more people choose the former over the latter.

That said, Marshlink usage isn't declining (in fact the only station to see a decrease last year was Winchelsea which happens to see 1tp2h).

 

[paul1609]

East Sussex CC (as of last year) thinks the best idea is for cascaded diesel stock to go to the Uckfield and Marshlink lines. Shows how much they know/care...

The Marshlink's biggest problem isn't actually the usage of the line itself. In fact rather the service pattern is a bigger problem west of Hastings: 1tph AFK-BTN semi-fast formed of two coaches, 1tph ORE-BTN all stations formed of four coaches and more people choose the former over the latter.

That said, Marshlink usage isn't declining (in fact the only station to see a decrease last year was Winchelsea which happens to see 1tp2h).

People say that capacity is a problem but in my experience even West Of Hastings this just means that there are a couple of people standing mostly because they can't be bothered to get people to take bags and coats of seats, even then that is restricted mostly to between Lewes and Polegate and Bexhill and warrior Square (people changing for London).
Obviously there are events in Brighton and the various bonfire events but the coast way is always going to struggle with those.

I wouldn't say Marshlink proper usage is struggling but its difficult to see where any extra passengers are going to come from!

 

[lancastrian]

I still can't get it into what I loosely refer to as my mind that someone out there thinks that it's a better plan to wire half-way along the main lines out of Paddington when the Midland is such an obvious project with so many little fill-ins along the way.
What's so difficult about:
Bedford - Sheffield
Trent - Grantham
Trent Clay Cross via Derby
then, while you're at it Sheffield - Doncaster.
Now you've got all of the important bits of the MML done plus a couple of cracking wired diversionary routes to and from the ECML for when the wires come down.

I agree, although I feel that there are lines attached that should also be covered by infill electrication of the Midland Maine Line, these are:-

• Swinton to Church Fenton, where it will link with the Trans Pennine Electrifications, plus the links from Moorthorpe to South Kirkby junction, which conects with the Doncaster to Leeds Line
• The Matlock Branch, to take out a potential desiel island
• Lenton to Trowell Junction
• Radford Junction to Worksop
• Sheffield to Retford
• Birmingham, Nuneaton to Leicester
• Kettering to Corby

These alons would be very helpful in completing the MML Electrification. The only other line I think that would be a useful MML Link would be the Leicester to Peterborough Line.

The aim should be the almost total electrification of the Swiss railway system.

 

[LE Greys]

I agree, although I feel that there are lines attached that should also be covered by infill electrication of the Midland Maine Line, these are:-

• Swinton to Church Fenton, where it will link with the Trans Pennine Electrifications, plus the links from Moorthorpe to South Kirkby junction, which conects with the Doncaster to Leeds Line
• The Matlock Branch, to take out a potential desiel island
• Lenton to Trowell Junction
• Radford Junction to Worksop
• Sheffield to Retford
• Birmingham, Nuneaton to Leicester
• Kettering to Corby

These alons would be very helpful in completing the MML Electrification. The only other line I think that would be a useful MML Link would be the Leicester to Peterborough Line.

The aim should be the almost total electrification of the Swiss railway system.

I take it you mean, 'akin to the Swiss railway system'. If so, I agree. Sufficient work in this area would make wiring Bristol-Birmingham cost-effective, expecially if Voyagers get their electro-diesel modifications. Obviously, this leads on to Bristol-Plymouth, Plymouth-Penzance and Newbury-Cogload Junction. Enough to keep the HOOP trains in work until about 2040.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I agree, although I feel that there are lines attached that should also be covered by infill electrication of the Midland Maine Line, these are:-

• Swinton to Church Fenton, where it will link with the Trans Pennine Electrifications, plus the links from Moorthorpe to South Kirkby junction, which conects with the Doncaster to Leeds Line
• The Matlock Branch, to take out a potential desiel island
• Lenton to Trowell Junction
• Radford Junction to Worksop
• Sheffield to Retford
• Birmingham, Nuneaton to Leicester
• Kettering to Corby

These alone would be very helpful in completing the MML Electrification. The only other line I think that would be a useful MML Link would be the Leicester to Peterborough Line.

The aim should be the almost total electrification of the Swiss railway system.

A big +1 from me. But space everything so in 40 years time you dont have everything due for renewal at once. A nice steady pace of electrification and new stock/locos/units so the building shops are kept busy and down the line (no pun intended) the renewals required dont all come at once.

 

[tbtc]

A big +1 from me. But space everything so in 40 years time you dont have everything due for renewal at once. A nice steady pace of electrification and new stock/locos/units so the building shops are kept busy and down the line (no pun intended) the renewals required dont all come at once.

I think that this is how things are going to be (in terms of electrification).

The problem is that we had a glut of DMU building in the 1980s which means a large number of units coming up for replacement at the same time.