Infill schemes to keep Electrification teams from dispersing?

[ainsworth74]

Keeping things nice and modest:

• Rose Hill Marple - Guide Bridge - eight miles
• Ashburys - New Mills - twelve miles - these two Greater Manchester lines would free up a few DMUs on routes more suited to EMU operation (lots of short stops) - would remove a few diesel services from Piccadilly too (since inner city air pollution is obviously a big issue)

• East Kilbride - Muirhouse Jn - ten miles - lots of juicy low hanging 156s to free up

• Knaresborough - Armley Jn - twenty one miles - four DMUs per hour on the Harrogate line, so fairly good bang for you buck

• Metro Centre - King Edward Bridge - just a couple of miles!

...that's around fifty miles - no disruption at major city centre stations required (much as I'd like to see wires in Sheffield!).

I like that list there are a lot of easy wins there and it isn't too ambitious. I think the key thing here is that any scheme has got to be low risk and low cost whilst still delivering significant benefits. I think a number of the schemes listed so far, whilst no brainers(!), are not the sort of thing that would work as a way of Network Rail keeping their hand in the electrification game in hope of keeping skills up and supply chains open.

Another scheme I would think about would be one focused on electric freight. There was a fascinating article in, I think Modern Railways, a few months ago that outlined that for a relatively small route mileage (and spread all over the country so no one area would be subject to years of disruption) it would be possible to shift quite a chunk of freight to all electric operation. We talk a lot about passenger electrification but if we thinking about ways of keeping skills and supply chains why not look a little bit beyond just the passenger railway and carry out a small scheme to benefit the freight sector? I see if I can track it down later at home to put in some more facts.

I can think of a few on the Southern, but everyone's to scared of the third rail these days.

That doesn't keep an OHLE team and supply chain running though and the main point of this exercise is about schemes that would keep a team and supply chain up and running to avoid the situation we had before the recent glut of electrification where we started from scratch so that when our political overlords wake up and smell the diesel fumes and authorise more major projects we're at least not starting from scratch!

 

[yorksrob]

I like that list there are a lot of easy wins there and it isn't too ambitious. I think the key thing here is that any scheme has got to be low risk and low cost whilst still delivering significant benefits. I think a number of the schemes listed so far, whilst no brainers(!), are not the sort of thing that would work as a way of Network Rail keeping their hand in the electrification game in hope of keeping skills up and supply chains open.

Another scheme I would think about would be one focused on electric freight. There was a fascinating article in, I think Modern Railways, a few months ago that outlined that for a relatively small route mileage (and spread all over the country so no one area would be subject to years of disruption) it would be possible to shift quite a chunk of freight to all electric operation. We talk a lot about passenger electrification but if we thinking about ways of keeping skills and supply chains why not look a little bit beyond just the passenger railway and carry out a small scheme to benefit the freight sector? I see if I can track it down later at home to put in some more facts.




That doesn't keep an OHLE team and supply chain running though and the main point of this exercise is about schemes that would keep a team and supply chain up and running to avoid the situation we had before the recent glut of electrification where we started from scratch so that when our political overlords wake up and smell the diesel fumes and authorise more major projects we're at least not starting from scratch!

I disagree. I'm sure a qualified electrical engineer could turn their hand to DC electrification comparatively easily. In terms of supply chains, these will be kept going for both AC and DC by renewals.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm sure a qualified electrical engineer could turn their hand to DC electrification comparatively easily.

I am by no means an expert but it strikes me that piling foundations for overhead masts, stringing wires, tensioning, commissioning, heck even something as fundamental as designing the scheme in terms of what goes where on the ground are fundamentally different between a third rail scheme and an OHLE scheme. Even though both may involve electricity the civil engineering seems fundamentally different.

 

[yorksrob]

I am by no means an expert but it strikes me that piling foundations for overhead masts, stringing wires, tensioning, commissioning, heck even something as fundamental as designing the scheme in terms of what goes where on the ground are fundamentally different between a third rail scheme and an OHLE scheme. Even though both may involve electricity the civil engineering seems fundamentally different.

I'm sure that there are civil engineers who can build tunnels as well as viaducts.

 

[jonty14]

Durham coast line

 

[Trapper]

Durham Coast. Initially Northallerton to Saltburn (TPE planning to extend from Middlesbrough to Saltburn) so TPE can switch their Class 68 for Class 88 on the Manchester Airport-. That would include Riverside (Tees Yard) freight yard, Redcar Ore Terminal, Wilton and Tees Dock for electric freight. Followed by Stiockton Cut to Ferryhill to give an electrified diversionary route for ECML previously used during the original ECML electrification. Followed by Eaglescliffe Junction to Darlington, Guisborough Junction to Nunthorpe and Darlington to Bishop Auckland so that the Hitachi site at Newton Aycliffe is connected. Followed by Norton Junction to Sunderland to complete. That would just leave the Esk Valley line (Nunthorpe to Whitby) as an unelectrified line, where I would like to see them investigate Hydrogen Fuel Cell Trains.

 

[Thebaz]

If we could extend the wires south a few hundred metres to Shepherd's Bush on the WLL... I'm sure it would be operationally more useful to Pan up in the station when the train is standing rather than having to stop specifically where they do now.

 

[northwichcat]

Infill schemes to keep Electrification teams from dispersing?

Is that a joke? Given the current rate of progress it'll be 10 years before all the already announced electrification schemes are completed.

 

[yorksrob]

Is that a joke? Given the current rate of progress it'll be 10 years before all the already announced electrification schemes are completed.

I thought they'd cancelled most of them !

 

[swt_passenger]

If we could extend the wires south a few hundred metres to Shepherd's Bush on the WLL... I'm sure it would be operationally more useful to Pan up in the station when the train is standing rather than having to stop specifically where they do now.

Suggested many times, but the present boundary was chosen to avoid having to AC immunise LU existing signalling where their line and the WLL Cross. That problem should in theory go away once the LU resignalling is complete, but LO trains changeover on the move anyway so is it really a significant problem?

Also it’s probably much cheaper to make any alterations to the SN units so that they can also do a changeover on the move.

 

[swt_passenger]

Doing to Metrocentre would make sense too, especially if the loops and turnbacks up the ECML are included allowing Morpeth and even the Chathill flyer to become a 321 or similar...!

The loops are already done, as noted in earlier discussions. The real problem is only the Metro Centre and also Hexham/Carlisle line interworking. Someone worked out a few months ago that some of the loop signalling would already allow turnbacks.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The loops are already done, as noted in earlier discussions. The real problem is only the Metro Centre and also Hexham/Carlisle line interworking. Someone worked out a few months ago that some of the loop signalling would already allow turnbacks.

Oh right... all the more reason to do it then! That services currently interwork is all well and good for making the best of limited resources, but if that becomes an excuse to not make improvements it's a problem.

 

[lyndhurst25]

Kirkby-Wigan, Ormskirk-Preston, Bidston-Wrexham. Or are we just talking about overhead electrification?

 

[AndrewE]

Kirkby-Wigan, Ormskirk-Preston, Bidston-Wrexham. Or are we just talking about overhead electrification?

Given that there are no 3rd rail teams busy working at the moment - that need to be kept in tune until the next (any?) big push - I would have though the answer was obvious. If there are any dual-voltage EMUs going spare then I would say then get the wires up on these too!

 

[Ianno87]

Given that there are no 3rd rail teams busy working at the moment - that need to be kept in tune until the next (any?) big push - I would have though the answer was obvious. If there are any dual-voltage EMUs going spare then I would say then get the wires up on these too!

Doesn't the new Class 777 Merseyrail stock have dual voltage capability? Just needs more to cover such extensions... Skelmersdale first!

 

[BantamMenace]

Coventry to Nuneaton; 13 roadbridges, 4 footbridges and 2 level crossings but the junctions at both ends are done.

Coventry to Leamington; 9 roadbridges, a handful of farm tracks and leamington station to do.

 

[Midnight Sun]

Nuneaton to Birmingham New Street via Coleshill Parkway

 

[adrock1976]

Some projects I can think of below:

Leeds - York
Leeds - Sheffield via Wakefield Kirkgate
Sheffield - Hazel Grove
Chinley and Rose Hill Marple - Guide Bridge via Hyde Central and Ashburys via Bredbury
Guide Bridge - Stalybridge
Heaton Norris Junction - Guide Bridge
Ashton Moss Junction and Ashburys Junction - Miles Platting
Fitzwilliam - Sheffield
Wincobank Junction/Meadowhall Interchange - Doncaster - Scunthorpe
Hambleton Junction - Leeds and Selby
Temple Hirst Junction - Selby
Hazel Grove - Buxton
Peterborough - Ely
Stowmarket - Ely and Cambridge
Marks Tey - Sudbury (Suffolk)
Norwich - Ely via Thetford
Bromsgrove - Hereford (once the Worcester triangle is sorted out) and Westerleigh Junction
Lancaster - Morecambe/Heysham Harbour
Carnforth - Barrow-in-Furness
Newcastle Central - Carlisle
Wolverhampton - Shrewsbury (now that the local service is being doubled in frequency all day, and would provide flexibility for the London Euston trains to also be operated with Class 390s)
Oxford General - Banbury

Although not really infill or extensions as such:

Droitwich Spa - Leamington Spa and Stratford upon Avon via Birmingham Snow Hill
Exeter St Davids - Barnstaple and Okehampton (tram wire for Yeoford Junction - Okehampton due to low speed)
Exeter St Davids - Paignton
Exeter St Davids - Exmouth and Axminster (with the wires pointing very tantilislingly towards London Waterloo)
London Marylebone - Leamington Spa, Oxford General, and Aylesbury Vale Parkway/Claydon Junction via High Wycombe
London Marylebone - Harrow-on-the-Hill (possibly continuing to Aylesbury via Amersham if agreed with London Underground transferring Moor Park - Amersham to National Rail)

I would like to mention the the above is what I have thought of, and is not in any particular order of which routes are worthy of wires. South of the mighty Thames is outwith my comfort zone, hence no infill or conversions are mentioned.

 

[AndrewE]

Some projects I can think of below:

Leeds - York
Leeds - Sheffield via Wakefield Kirkgate
Sheffield - Hazel Grove
Wincobank Junction/Meadowhall Interchange - Doncaster - Scunthorpe
Hambleton Junction - Leeds and Selby
Temple Hirst Junction - Selby
Hazel Grove - Buxton
Peterborough - Ely
Stowmarket - Ely and Cambridge
Marks Tey - Sudbury (Suffolk)
Norwich - Ely via Thetford
Bromsgrove - Hereford (once the Worcester triangle is sorted out) and Westerleigh Junction
Carnforth - Barrow-in-Furness
Newcastle Central - Carlisle
Wolverhampton - Shrewsbury
Oxford General - Banbury

Although not really infill or extensions as such:
Droitwich Spa - Leamington Spa and Stratford upon Avon via Birmingham Snow Hill...

I would not have said many of the first list really fit the definition of "infill" either!

 

[herb21]

Dalmeny is only about five miles from the wires on the outskirts of Edinburgh, and wiring there would avoid the tricky bit of tackling the Forth Bridge (since the idea is to keep things simple/ low cost).

I don't see it being a short term benefit. If the next franchise goes for bi-modes to replace the 156, 158 and 170 class then at that stage it would make sense, but without that or the Dalmeny Chord being built (which presumably would see this portion wired) you would only get the few LNER bi-modes using it. That said I really want to see Scottish electrification continue.

 

[tbtc]

Surely if doing to Knaresborough, it makes sense to finish it off and continue to York

Knaresborough to Leeds will be four trains per hour, requiring about twenty miles of wiring (to Armley junction).

Knaresborough to York would be one train per hour, requiring about fifteen miles of wiring (to the outskirts of York).

For the sake of doing the Knaresboorugh - York section (and its one train per hour), you could wire to East Kilbride *and* Metro Centre and free up a lot more DMUs.

I don't see it being a short term benefit. If the next franchise goes for bi-modes to replace the 156, 158 and 170 class then at that stage it would make sense, but without that or the Dalmeny Chord being built (which presumably would see this portion wired) you would only get the few LNER bi-modes using it. That said I really want to see Scottish electrification continue.

True - I only mentioned it as something that would work if we had bi-modes - if we did then that could remove half a dozen diesel trains per hour from central Edinburgh which would be a big help to air quality - the Fife services are going to be a significant proportion of the diesel services at Waverley (with the Falkirk High/ Dunblane services going over to EMU operation) - given the lack of places for diesel fumes to go/ Waverley roof. But then, there's various potentially conflicting things here - spending millions to keep electrification teams "sharp"/ freeing up scarce DMUs/ improving air quality in city centres. Depends what the biggest priority is.

 

[peperami97]

And probably not enough capacity to add more services!

The line has some capacity I would suggest but it would run the risk of interfering with freight paths.

However as one of the ECML diversions, it would make it easier not too have to drag the electric only units to/from pboro.

 

[Steve Harris]

The line has some capacity I would suggest but it would run the risk of interfering with freight paths.

However as one of the ECML diversions, it would make it easier not too have to drag the electric only units to/from pboro.

By units, if your referring to a class 91 (or 90) with Mk4 coaching stock, I haven't personally seen any get dragged on passenger service via Ely and Cambridge on ECML diversions. (Seen a hell of a lot of HST's use it though.)

As for the capacity issue, as posted above there does seem a little, as GA intend to make their Peterborough - Ipswich service hourly instead of 2 hourly. But as you point out, there is a lot of freight using the line so pathing will be the key to improve capacity without carrying out any upgrades.

 

[Ianno87]

By units, if your referring to a class 91 (or 90) with Mk4 coaching stock, I haven't personally seen any get dragged on passenger service via Ely and Cambridge on ECML diversions. (Seen a hell of a lot of HST's use it though.)

As for the capacity issue, as posted above there does seem a little, as GA intend to make their Peterborough - Ipswich service hourly instead of 2 hourly. But as you point out, there is a lot of freight using the line so pathing will be the key to improve capacity without carrying out any upgrades.

Generally HSTs when diverted via the Fens, with a very occasional 91 drag.

Anyway, bi-mode IEPs will be ruling the roost long, long before any electrification comes to fruition on the route, rather negating the issue.

 

[Steve Harris]

Generally HSTs when diverted via the Fens, with a very occasional 91 drag.

Anyway, bi-mode IEPs will be ruling the roost long, long before any electrification comes to fruition on the route, rather negating the issue.

As i said then

 

[Ianno87]

As i said then

Not the bi-mode bit.

 

[Aictos]

Ely-Peterborough useful as a diversionary route plus allowing the Ely Terminators to run through to Peterborough therefore providing a much needed local service. Should be fairly easy to do due to the very low number of bridges.

However the OHLE will need upgrading to support the higher power usage of the 91s between Ely and Hitchin which is why any 91s booked that way are dragged never mind the fact that there is no OHL!

Don’t need your coat. Start at the Preston end and then continue to Leeds and come back via Rochdale. What I am saying is get the full Calder Valley line done eventually but start at the west end rather than the east end.

I would start at Blackpool South though, head to Preston then onto to Leeds via Bradford Interchange ensuring the Colne branch was done at the same time.

Then look at Blackburn to Leeds via Manchester Victoria and Rochdale.

Nuneaton to Birmingham New Street via Coleshill Parkway

I would extend that to Ely so you have 4 car EMUs running on the Birmingham to Stansted Airport route as the Leicester stoppers would be extended to Peterborough or to Cambridge itself.

The other line I would certainly think ought to be wired up is the Peterborough to Doncaster via Lincoln line with the connecting line to Newark Northgate from Lincoln also being wired up - I'm not sure on the routing between Sleaford to Grantham though.

 

[Kite159]

Blackpool South to Kirkham will be a good infill to keep the teams together. Then the timetables can be rejigged again so the Blackpool South - Preston are standalone services using 2 units and Colne - Ormskirk can be ran together using DMUs.

(Although I still think the route should be split at Lytham with the tramway taking over the route beyond but that is OT)

 

[Aictos]

Blackpool South to Kirkham will be a good infill to keep the teams together. Then the timetables can be rejigged again so the Blackpool South - Preston are standalone services using 2 units and Colne - Ormskirk can be ran together using DMUs.

(Although I still think the route should be split at Lytham with the tramway taking over the route beyond but that is OT)

My view exactly, as Blackpool North has been done then they ought to wire up Blackpool South to Kirkham as that's only a small amount of infill to be done then work on Preston to Colne and onto Leeds with Class 319s replacing both the 14xs and the 15xs with the 14xs going to scrap.

I've picked the 319s as they work well as working local stopping services as they do on semi fast services and also it helps to have a standardised fleet which can work all duties.

Colne to Ormskirk can then start/terminate at Preston using cascaded 15xs instead of the usual 14x.

 

[B&I]

1. Salford to Wigan via Atherton
2. Wigan to Southport
3. Wigan to Kirkby (Skelmersdale)