LM Snow Hill Lines - Electrification needed?

[D365]

Incorrect. What about Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury....

As has been elaborated on, not long ago.

 

[jimm]

Couldn't they move the Aylesbury via Harrow on the Hill services to London Underground operation and the Aylesbury via High Wycombe services be operated by AC/battery EMUs, electrify Snow Hill to Shrub Hill/Foregate Street along with Bromsgrove to Great Malvern then transfer the Hereford services from Worcester to GW franchise? No need for any 17x traction in London Midland then and solves the Chiltern problem.

Allocate Class 91s and MK4s to Chiltern for Birmingham to London, meaning the 16x traction can leave for Up North

Do you have any idea about the level of traffic between Hereford and Birmingham? LM didn't increase the service to an hourly operation a couple of years ago on a whim - it was to meet demand, which is far stronger than it is for Hereford-Oxford/London, which you can in any case do quicker with a change at Newport than on a through train via the Cotswold Line.

By the time the Chiltern Line is wired, I would expect many 91s and Mk4s will have been turned into razor blades - or new trains - courtesy of a trip to the scrapyard.

On the other hand, I dread to think how much it would be to electrify the Ledbury Tunnel - that's why I suggested terminated LM services at GMV as the ex BHM services could interwork with BSW services via WOF.

They key thing with the tunnel will be whether they can lower the floor, to make room for an overhead conductor rail. Most, if not all of the tunnel is bored through solid rock, rather than sediments, so that kind of work may be easier than in other cases. If not, then it may require a more expensive solution, such as reboring like Farnworth, but given the operating constraints imposed by the existing tunnel, that might be no bad thing in the long run.

That shouldn't be too much of a problem seeing as it's partially electrified towards the Oxley TRSMD. All it'll probably take is for the single wire OHLE to be changed to the standard type and then extended further, taking into account the obvious associated work required. Given that, I reckon there is a good BCR that would build a good case for electrifying the section, more so now that direct services to London have been resurrected.

In the context of the route between Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury, that there is trolley wire electrification - which will all have to be replaced anyway, as you acknowledge - for a few hundred yards over Oxley viaduct and into the depot is really neither here nor there.

 

[Nym]

Indeed.

Thinking about this in the past in the context of Crossrail extensions, I concluded that you could justify OOC to High Wycombe as a phase 1, to Oxford/EWR and Aylesbury/EWR via HW as a phase 2, and Bicester to King's Sutton/Banbury + Northolt to Marylebone as a phase 3. That sidesteps the thorny issue of interworking with the Met for as long as possible.

Once you have the southern section covered by the above, the central section covered by the electric spine, then it's just the northern section Leamington to Moor Street you need to think about before the whole Chiltern mainline operation could go electric.

One could simply provide Chiltern with Dual Voltage stock and bond the neggy to running rails where required. Changeover from DC to AC at Wembley Central ish and on the move north of Ammersham.

 

[HilversumNS]

Birmingham-Worcester and Hereford electrification is definitely being looked at as part of a broader programme to eliminate as much diesel working in the West Midlands region as possible

If this does happen, it's unlikely to start before CP7 due to the large volume of work in the already announced electrification schemes.

 

[jimm]

If this does happen, it's unlikely to start before CP7 due to the large volume of work in the already announced electrification schemes.

Wasn't suggesting for a moment that it is a short-term prospect, as you would need to resignal/increase capacity in the Worcester area first, for which there is no clear date yet, and there is no pressing need to replace rolling stock, with LM operating 170s and 172s and FGW about to get 800s and draft in Turbos for the Bristol-Malvern run, plus it would have to be linked with wiring schemes for XC between the West Midlands and Bristol/Cardiff and the Chiltern/Snow Hill routes.

 

[glbotu]

One could simply provide Chiltern with Dual Voltage stock and bond the neggy to running rails where required. Changeover from DC to AC at Wembley Central ish and on the move north of Ammersham.

Alternatively, don't Bombardier Movias (S stock) have a pretty standard traction package. Could you modify those to run off OHLE instead as a cheaper option than new build dual-voltage stock.

 

[edwin_m]

Alternatively, don't Bombardier Movias (S stock) have a pretty standard traction package. Could you modify those to run off OHLE instead as a cheaper option than new build dual-voltage stock.

I don't know about the traction package, but adding a pantograph well and mounting a heavy transformer on an existing vehicle is unlikely to be practicable.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

One could simply provide Chiltern with Dual Voltage stock and bond the neggy to running rails where required. Changeover from DC to AC at Wembley Central ish and on the move north of Ammersham.

Just the thing to absorb some spare 319s from Northern, who will be getting new AC stock around then...
Third hand, but good runners.

 

[mr_jrt]

...wouldn't you have to convert north of HotH to bonded 3rd rail (a-la DC lines, Richmond branch, etc al.) to be able to run mainline dual voltage trains anyway? Seems like a lot of work for the just 2tph or so I'm fairly certain are the only TfL use of them (and during the peaks only!). Given the costs of conversion to 3rd rail and the lifetime maintenance costs on the dual-voltage Chiltern rolling stock needing the DC as well as AC equipment - if you're going to spend that much you really may as well just put in OHLE and have cheaper (and more standardised) NR rolling stock and use those paths to bolster elsewhere. :/

 

[Nym]

...wouldn't you have to convert north of HotH to bonded 3rd rail (a-la DC lines, Richmond branch, etc al.) to be able to run mainline dual voltage trains anyway? Seems like a lot of work for the just 2tph or so I'm fairly certain are the only TfL use of them (and during the peaks only!). Given the costs of conversion to 3rd rail and the lifetime maintenance costs on the dual-voltage Chiltern rolling stock needing the DC as well as AC equipment - if you're going to spend that much you really may as well just put in OHLE and have cheaper (and more standardised) NR rolling stock and use those paths to bolster elsewhere. :/

Conversion from 4th to 3rd rail, provided the section gaps are available is as simple as moving round some bleed resistors and bonding out the neggy rail, with a few other things as well. But it would merely need the areas that want centre bonding isolating and bonding through. The heavy equipment like the transformer-rectifiers, switchgear and other associated cabling will remain unchanged.

I really don't get why you'd think it's so much work.

Compared with having 25kV OHLE and 750V DC in the same area, centre bonding is a cakewalk.

 

[mr_jrt]

Conversion from 4th to 3rd rail, provided the section gaps are available is as simple as moving round some bleed resistors and bonding out the neggy rail, with a few other things as well. But it would merely need the areas that want centre bonding isolating and bonding through. The heavy equipment like the transformer-rectifiers, switchgear and other associated cabling will remain unchanged.

I really don't get why you'd think it's so much work.

Compared with having 25kV OHLE and 750V DC in the same area, centre bonding is a cakewalk.

Fair enough. I stand corrected, I trust you have a better grasp of the costs than I.

That said, I still believe it'd be fairly pointless to build in the risk of changeover failure points at HotH and Rickmansworth (or Amersham) though, especially for so few Met trains (again, that's just 2tph only during the peak). Having OHLE adjacent to the 3rd rail seems to be quite happy between Euston and Watford Junction too...

Getting a comparable service to those serving Tring (i.e. ~90mph with standard 8-car 23m AC EMUs) would remove the need for the Met to serve beyond Rickmansworth, IMHO. The benefits of being able to serve Aylesbury with more services via HotH without consuming paths on the Chiltern mainline would have to also be factored in. The line is ripe for more growth if the infrastructure was there to provide it, but TfL clearly have no interest and Chiltern have little say in the matter as it's TfL's infrastructure.

 

[THC]

The line is ripe for more growth if the infrastructure was there to provide it, but TfL clearly have no interest and Chiltern have little say in the matter as it's TfL's infrastructure.

Is it? Where's the market? You know as well as I do that outer Metroland is an area of very high car ownership and the existing rail market is prinicpally commuter-based. I just don't see where the latent demand you imply will come from.

THC

 

[mr_jrt]

Is it? Where's the market? You know as well as I do that outer Metroland is an area of very high car ownership and the existing rail market is prinicpally commuter-based. I just don't see where the latent demand you imply will come from.

THC

Given the loadings on Chiltern's services, I'd say the market is those self-same commuters to London. Diesel stock availability aside, Chiltern can't lengthen their trains as there are only ever going to be short (i.e. 5-car-ish) platforms at Amersham, Rickmansworth and HotH under TfL's watch (...and why would they extend them longer than needed for S8 operation), nor put on more services as they have to share a two-track line south of Neasden Junction with the rest of Chiltern's services via Northolt. The only way to increase capacity is to lengthen services and electrify.

It's admittedly conjecture, but I'm frequently told of commuters driving across to Tring et al. to catch the WCML services as they are so much faster and have more capacity. Improve the line to Aylesbury and you will not only be enable growth there but you will relieve the WCML services which cannot realistically be improved much further as they're already 8/12-car electrics (and as mentioned, also free up a few paths on the Chiltern mainline for more services there as the primary Aylesbury services will be able to run via HotH rather than High Wycombe).

 

[apk55]

There is no reason why the section from Harrow to Amersham could not be dual electrified as long as the Met lines retain their isolated 4th rail electrification system. It is the return voltage drop in the running rails in a 3rd rail DC system that prevents (or makes very difficult) dual electrification as the return voltage drop can drive a DC current through the transformer and cause saturation. However the isolated return path of the 4th rail system means no traction current flows in the running rails so there is no DC voltage drop in them to interfere with an AC system. Maybe more costly than a single system but solves the problem.

 

[Bevan Price]

I was under the impression that the electric service to Bromsgrove would be an extension of the Cross City line from Longbridge. If that is the case then terminating trains from Hereford at Bromsgrove instead of New Street would extend journey times considerably

I agree that it would be a silly idea to have Hereford trains terminating at Bromsgrove - but the suggestion thought that with additional Cross City services to Bromsgrove, it would cause pathing problems with all the other services between Birmingham & Bromsgrove, and one solution might be to sacrifice most of the through services between Birmingham & Hereford. I am told that it is already difficult for Cross Country services to get a fast, unchecked run into Birmingham New Street from the Cheltenham/Bristol line.

 

[Nym]

There is no reason why the section from Harrow to Amersham could not be dual electrified as long as the Met lines retain their isolated 4th rail electrification system. It is the return voltage drop in the running rails in a 3rd rail DC system that prevents (or makes very difficult) dual electrification as the return voltage drop can drive a DC current through the transformer and cause saturation. However the isolated return path of the 4th rail system means no traction current flows in the running rails so there is no DC voltage drop in them to interfere with an AC system. Maybe more costly than a single system but solves the problem.

LUL 4th rail isn't fully isolated from the running rails...

 

[apk55]

LUL 4th rail isn't fully isolated from the running rails...

The 4th rail is fully insulated from ground and takes the full return current. Normally it is at a negative potential from ground around -150V. Traction equipment on trains is checked for isolation from ground and a train withdrawn if not. There is fault detection equipment on the supply system that would flag a warning if more than a few amps flowed in the running rails.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Tfl don't agree with you though, they want it to the WCML as the alleviation to Euston and the Underground is more than you think. Crossrail is not a long distance service and Tfl didn't really want it to go as far as Reading regardless of it being an obvious place to go, so expecting it to Bicester and Oxford is not going to happen.

This seems very short-sighted given the distances Thameslink covers. Peterborough is quite a bit further than Oxford.

 

[adrock1976]

I agree that it would be a silly idea to have Hereford trains terminating at Bromsgrove - but the suggestion thought that with additional Cross City services to Bromsgrove, it would cause pathing problems with all the other services between Birmingham & Bromsgrove, and one solution might be to sacrifice most of the through services between Birmingham & Hereford. I am told that it is already difficult for Cross Country services to get a fast, unchecked run into Birmingham New Street from the Cheltenham/Bristol line.

Would a workaround be to extend the present Great Malvern via Stourbridge service to Hereford, and have a Great Malvern - Bromsgrove shuttle i.e. swapping the services around?

In peace

Adam

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Would a workaround be to extend the present Great Malvern via Stourbridge service to Hereford, and have a Great Malvern - Bromsgrove shuttle i.e. swapping the services around?

In peace

Adam

That would cause major capacity issues on the Snow Hill route, trains from Worcester into Birmingham are already full and standing on both routes. Removing the much faster journey time via Bromsgrove would not go down well either.

 

[The Planner]

I agree that it would be a silly idea to have Hereford trains terminating at Bromsgrove - but the suggestion thought that with additional Cross City services to Bromsgrove, it would cause pathing problems with all the other services between Birmingham & Bromsgrove, and one solution might be to sacrifice most of the through services between Birmingham & Hereford. I am told that it is already difficult for Cross Country services to get a fast, unchecked run into Birmingham New Street from the Cheltenham/Bristol line.

Thats wrong as i've seen the reports. It is the freight that gets stuffed. It is difficult with the Cross City as it is currently to get unchecked timetabled runs for XC, Bromsgrove doesnt break it. I would need to check the signalling diagrams too as I dont think the resignalling allows turnbacks towards Droitwich so the Herefords wouldnt necessarily be able to terminate anyway.

 

[mr_jrt]

This seems very short-sighted given the distances Thameslink covers. Peterborough is quite a bit further than Oxford.

Quite aside from that there will be very little overall relief to the tube as a whole as Crossrail and the tube lines at Euston serve different places, so you're going to break a lot of people's journeys. Anyone wanting the Victoria Line for example is going to be royally stuffed as Crossrail skips Oxford Circus, so they have a double change onto a crammed Central from Bond St. or TCR one stop (or an OSI on foot). Anyone wanting the Northern line will have to try to change at TCR for the CX branch, but will have to try to change at Moorgate for the City branch, with longer journeys if you actually want to get to north London (i.e. Camden, Highgate, etc). Not to mention, anyone wanting places beyond KX will have to change at Farringdon to the SSL/Thameslink rather than enjoy a 10 minute walk from Euston as they currently do...

Whilst there are benefits, it's not all sunshine and roses.

 

[40129]

Thats wrong as i've seen the reports. It is the freight that gets stuffed. It is difficult with the Cross City as it is currently to get unchecked timetabled runs for XC, Bromsgrove doesnt break it. I would need to check the signalling diagrams too as I dont think the resignalling allows turnbacks towards Droitwich so the Herefords wouldnt necessarily be able to terminate anyway.

What doesn't help IMO is that when the Cross City line was electrified the goods lines between Halesowen Junction and Cofton/Barnt Green were not upgraded to passenger status and electrified. I've lost count of the number of times I've arrived at Longbridge on time only to be delayed by a late running Cross Country service. If the goods lines were electrified we could have continued towards Cofton by which time the Cross Country train would have overtaken us. Ideally, as part of the Bromsgrove electrification the Down Goods should be extended from Cofton to Barnt Green and both it and the Up Goods upgraded and electrified.

Also, would it not make sense for all daytime Inter-City Cross Country trains to be routed via the Camp Hill line and reversed at New Street where necessary as this would ease congestion on the Cross City and potentially improve reliability of both Cross City and Cross Country services? Some evening workings could continue to run via Selly Oak to maintain route knowledge.

 

[The Planner]

Ideally, as part of the Bromsgrove electrification the Down Goods should be extended from Cofton to Barnt Green and both it and the Up Goods upgraded and electrified.

Not happening as part of Bromsgrove.

Also, would it not make sense for all daytime Inter-City Cross Country trains to be routed via the Camp Hill line and reversed at New Street where necessary as this would ease congestion on the Cross City and potentially improve reliability of both Cross City and Cross Country services? Some evening workings could continue to run via Selly Oak to maintain route knowledge.

A fair few of the Bristol Manchester's already do it and I'm not convinced you would get the rest to fit at Proof House. You would have to add a couple of minutes into them as they clash with Cardiff trains at Kings Norton but they have plenty of pathing that you can nick for that approaching Selly Oak.

 

[59CosG95]

Not happening as part of Bromsgrove.

It'll most likely happen as and when the Bristol-Derby via Brum route is wired in years to come, and will probably happen if they renew Kings Norton's layout, which it desperately needs.

 

[Nym]

The 4th rail is fully insulated from ground and takes the full return current. Normally it is at a negative potential from ground around -150V. Traction equipment on trains is checked for isolation from ground and a train withdrawn if not. There is fault detection equipment on the supply system that would flag a warning if more than a few amps flowed in the running rails.

It's insulated on the line but had bleed resistors at each end, otherwise how would one detect an earth fault, or indeed clamp the voltages at -210 and 420V?