Major new electrification projects to be anounced shortly

[philjo]

You forget there is actually 5 infill schemes left - the fourth one being Ely to Leicester via Stamford and the fifth one being Peterborough to Leicester via Grantham which is a diversionary route when the route via Melton Mowbray is not available.

I would expect MML to be finished first to cover the Leicester area.
After that wiring Birmingham-Ely covers the Stansted route and allows ECML diversions Hitchin-Peterborough via Ely and also WCML diversions from Birmingham via Nuneaton.

 

[swt_passenger]

You'd imagine that by the time the Chiltern work is done there would be a well established process for the conversion work making it fairly easy to roll out.

In fact the current thread running about Chiltern's Mk3 conversions suggests the process was relatively quick for the second set, and as is usually the case with this sort of thing future conversions would happen even faster as expertise builds up - and that's probably without spending much capital on jigs and tooling. The time and costs would probably go down further if a major order was ever to happen...

 

[Bald Rick]

MML electification is a racing certainty, although suspect completion will go beyond 2019 to tie in with installation of ETCS 2018-2022. As for the Valley lines, personally I would be amazed if it didn't get the go ahead. Rumours of a couple of electrification surprises elsewhere as well.

 

[philjo]

TPE north was still evaluating options after the budget announcement for the core section so possibly a mention of Hull or Middlesborough?

 

[cle]

Ely - Peterborough would be an interesting one. If possible (Chat Moss was ok, equally boggy?) - Ely to Norwich would be good too.

That could become the main London - Norwich route, with Anglia going more semi-fast to concentrate on maxing out paths. Diss/Stowmarket would have slightly longer journeys, as has already been happening over the years.

 

[The Planner]

But enough anti-Scottish sarcasm for now. On a more serious note I was just wondering if a couple of electrification schemes I'd like to see happen in my local area (Walsall to Rugeley and Walsall to Aldridge) are likely to be announced this week, or will it just be mainline electrification?

Id put a tenner on it, including all of the Sutton Park, Walsall might cause a few problems though as the bridge at the north end is low. Others I would bet on are Oxford - Nuneaton, Derby - Brum and probably E-W.

 

[cle]

Would be interesting if E/W was electrified alongside construction/refurbishment. Maybe easier if it's inevitable. Could possibly use 319s if any are spare, before new units come along. 350s probably a good fit. I guess Marston Vale would need to be done too - another diesel island sorted.

Electric trains could then run to Bristol - boosting chances of XC services being viable along that corridor, giving Swindon and Bath better connections outside of FGW too.

O/T a tad but under the E/W plans, is Marston Vale going to be enhanced above today's 60mph?

 

[David]

In terms of more electrification than previously announced, I'm predicting:

• South Wales - All the Valley lines and Cardiff - Swansea, plus the VoG and Maesteg. That will eliminate most DMU diagrams in the area.
• MML - From Bedford to Nottingham and Sheffield (both via Derby and the Erewash). Stock to be cascaded to XC (and the Meridians to be made compatable with Voyagers). Hopefully from Sheffield, it would include the Rotherham loop, Meadowhall - Leeds (via Barnsley) and to Moorthorpe and Doncaster as well, so some local services could go over to EMU operation.
• A couple of infill schemes, such as Coventry - Nuneaton and Birmingham - Rugeley TV

Ideally, I would like to see Leeds - Bradford - Manchester Victoria/Burnley/Preston done as well, as this would tie in with the North West electrification and release a lot more DMUs to be cascaded.

With all that wired and the DMUs cascaded and pacers finally withdrawn, other areas could benefit, such as Lincoln, with most of the services from there being combined and increased in frequency to hourly, such as Doncaster - Lincoln - Grimsby every other hour, alternating with Doncaster - Lincoln - Sleaford - Spalding - Peterborough, with the spare hourly service from Peterborough/Grimsby terminating at Lincoln. Even Cleethorpes - Barton could become hourly as well.

Another benefit of the above schemes being completed, the BCR of other potential electrifiaction schemes gets better and better, so there could possibly be a rolling OHLE program for the next 50 years.

 

[LE Greys]

Well, while speculating is fun, I'm going to wait for the announcement. All I can say for certain is 'good news'!

 

[A0wen]

Well hopefully they don't have to compete - the MML is very deserving too. And those Meridians and HSTs could help XC enormously. But GWML HSTs will be spare by then too, if not retired.

Speed enhancements are coming to the MML anyway - if trains can reach line speed quicker then journey times could be even more improved. Some more tripling/quadding/station looping north of Bedford would be good too.

Not a chance on the first - I suspect the Meridians will (like the Voyagers) be rebuilt into electric units.

The HSTs will be retired - as with FGWs.

XC aren't going to want to keep adding 40+ year old units to their fleet - particularly with the track access charges which an HST has over the alternatives. And don't forget that MMLs are now 'non-standard' (in HST terms) as they are using VP185s rather than MTUs - so adding VP185 engined examples would add a huge overhead in terms of spares support etc. Not going to happen.

 

[Failed Unit]

The "replace Pacers with electrics" argument is flawed because we will just have to purchase new DMUs in a few years time to replace the Sprinters, including the huge fleet of 23m Sprinters spread all over the place.
We could order the DMUs now and replace the Sprinters with electrics when we get around to it.

My understanding is most of the sprinter class can be made to comply.

The 150s certainly can
The 153s and 155s can't - no great loss there really.
The 156s can - porterbrook are about to start a programme to do this
The 158s I am not sure about, the current toilet is not big enough but I am sure that something can be done here.
The 165s will be amazed if they can't extend as if they can' that will also mean the end of the networkers.

I don't see any need to replace the 15x in any real hurry. I just can't see why we should order any further DMUs once the 15x are done then we can use the 170s on those lines. (which hopefully will all be made available by the rolling programme of electrification). But then when we use 158s on electric lines but have passengers struggling to get space on lines that they should be on probably not!

 

[A0wen]

I think that the focus should be given to commuter lines ahead of anything InterCity - since that's where the biggest speed improvements can be seen.

On that basis the GWML makes most sense as it will remove all the DMUs running stop / start services to Oxford, Reading and Newbury.

The MML's case is far weaker in that sense, because it's already electrified to Bedford. And users of the intermediate stations between Bedford and Leicester should be careful what they wish for - I could see them ending up with a simple extension of services to Bedford and losing their 'Inter City' service they currently enjoy - look at what happened to places like St Neots and Huntingdon when the GN electrification was extended to Peterboro.

 

[rail-britain]

Great if all the proposed electrification goes ahead

Sadly XC will almost certainly still operate a wholly diesel fleet, whilst others will have made complete conversion
However, it electrification is completed such that XC could operate electric services between Glasgow / Edinburgh and Bristol / Plymouth, many would see that as beneficial; diesel services (bi-mode) could continue between Aberdeen and Penzance

Equally, with longer franchises these electification proposals may become an issue, as the franchisee had not taken that into account during the bidding process or if they did there would be uncertainty about it

 

[Failed Unit]

I think that the focus should be given to commuter lines ahead of anything InterCity - since that's where the biggest speed improvements can be seen.

On that basis the GWML makes most sense as it will remove all the DMUs running stop / start services to Oxford, Reading and Newbury.

The MML's case is far weaker in that sense, because it's already electrified to Bedford. And users of the intermediate stations between Bedford and Leicester should be careful what they wish for - I could see them ending up with a simple extension of services to Bedford and losing their 'Inter City' service they currently enjoy - look at what happened to places like St Neots and Huntingdon when the GN electrification was extended to Peterboro.

I would suspect you are correct here, I can easilty see Kettering becoming an extension of Thameslink!

 

[cle]

But St Neots etc... have peak expresses when it counts, which are enough.

Off peak, if trains to Kettering stopped a few more times, it wouldn't matter.

I could see a third tier of stopping patterns on Thameslink: St Albans, Luton AP/Town, Bedford and then all stations. Flitwick seems to do well on faster calls too.

 

[A0wen]

But St Neots etc... have peak expresses when it counts, which are enough.

Off peak, if trains to Kettering stopped a few more times, it wouldn't matter.

I could see a third tier of stopping patterns on Thameslink: St Albans, Luton AP/Town, Bedford and then all stations. Flitwick seems to do well on faster calls too.

Given how congested most trains are to / from Luton or Bedford at the moment, all that will do is mean people who use the intermediate stations between Bedford and Leicester are less likely to get a seat and will end up with slower journeys - hardly a way to sell the benefits of rail travel :roll:

 

[HSTEd]

My understanding is most of the sprinter class can be made to comply.

The 150s certainly can
The 153s and 155s can't - no great loss there really.
The 156s can - porterbrook are about to start a programme to do this
The 158s I am not sure about, the current toilet is not big enough but I am sure that something can be done here.
The 165s will be amazed if they can't extend as if they can' that will also mean the end of the networkers.

I don't see any need to replace the 15x in any real hurry. I just can't see why we should order any further DMUs once the 15x are done then we can use the 170s on those lines. (which hopefully will all be made available by the rolling programme of electrification). But then when we use 158s on electric lines but have passengers struggling to get space on lines that they should be on probably not!

The problem with all the early second-generation DMUs (pre Cl158) is that they lack several amenities that passengers have come to expect (most obviously air conditioning) so they may end up like Pacers in the public eye in a few years.
Additionally they have the problem of being far too old, in 2020 the Class 150s will be up to 36 year old, which is rapidly approaching the end of the line for DMUs.

And retrofitting air conditioning is almost certainly impractical as you could easily add a tonne of weight and loose 10-15hp, which the Class 150 really does not have to spare.

 

[Holly]

... As to the "no rolling stock in urgent need of replacement" on the MML.... the HSTs are bound by the same limit as the Pacers... 2019 and they have to be gone. ...

So there's a need for government to enact a waiver, or whatever, to allow HSTs to be grandfathered in and allowed to continue in service.

Reflecting HST passenger seats and luggage layout are preferred by passengers.

 

[Failed Unit]

The problem with all the early second-generation DMUs (pre Cl158) is that they lack several amenities that passengers have come to expect (most obviously air conditioning) so they may end up like Pacers in the public eye in a few years.
Additionally they have the problem of being far too old, in 2020 the Class 150s will be up to 36 year old, which is rapidly approaching the end of the line for DMUs.

And retrofitting air conditioning is almost certainly impractical as you could easily add a tonne of weight and loose 10-15hp, which the Class 150 really does not have to spare.

I agree with you point the 15x won't last for ever and that we are expecting air-conditioning on trains now (the class 158s in Scotland never works so it is windows open). I just can't see a ROSCO investing to be honest.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Given how congested most trains are to / from Luton or Bedford at the moment, all that will do is mean people who use the intermediate stations between Bedford and Leicester are less likely to get a seat and will end up with slower journeys - hardly a way to sell the benefits of rail travel :roll:

It isn't but you could see a service like this post wires.

Thameslink, St Albans, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering

I agree there is no way the extending a current thameslink stopping patter to Kettering would be accepted.

 

[HSTEd]

So there's a need for government to enact a waiver, or whatever, to allow HSTs to be grandfathered in and allowed to continue in service.

Reflecting HST passenger seats and luggage layout are preferred by passengers.

What is the point of having the DDA requirement if we are just going to waiver away the need to apply it on 800+ HST carriages?
As to whether or not passengers prefer HST seats and luggage layout.... are any of the existing HSTs equipped with the original seats?

DMUs will be more modern and offer improved reliability, reduced maintenance costs, reduced track wear and better travel times.

The HSTs are just getting too old.

 

[Failed Unit]

What is the point of having the DDA requirement if we are just going to waiver away the need to apply it on 800+ HST carriages?

Because we are in the EU and that is how things work in the EU

 

[ainsworth74]

are any of the existing HSTs equipped with the original seats?

EMT and GC retain the original seating further most if not all LHCS Mk3s also retain the original seating.

 

[cle]

I agree with you point the 15x won't last for ever and that we are expecting air-conditioning on trains now (the class 158s in Scotland never works so it is windows open). I just can't see a ROSCO investing to be honest.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It isn't but you could see a service like this post wires.

Thameslink, St Albans, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering

I agree there is no way the extending a current thameslink stopping patter to Kettering would be accepted.

I think that's about ok. The semi fasts are pretty much the same pattern anyway. And these would be frequent and 12 car, so there would be capacity I reckon.

 

[Trog]

DMUs will be more modern and offer improved reliability, reduced maintenance costs, reduced track wear and better travel times.

A lot of modern stock is harder on the track than the older exBR stuff it replaces.

 

[fgwrich]

What is the point of having the DDA requirement if we are just going to waiver away the need to apply it on 800+ HST carriages?
As to whether or not passengers prefer HST seats and luggage layout.... are any of the existing HSTs equipped with the original seats?

DMUs will be more modern and offer improved reliability, reduced maintenance costs, reduced track wear and better travel times.

The HSTs are just getting too old.

A lot of modern stock is harder on the track than the older exBR stuff it replaces.

Im not sure the people of the Chilterns will agree with you on that one - I'd rather travel on LHCS / HST anyday than something akin to a voyager / 170 with an annoying and noisy underfloor engine with rattling vibrating panels all the way thought my journey. Plus, are DMUs really anymore energy efficient than HSTS? Or really reducing maintenance costs? Or really that 'track efficient' either?!

Anyway, we've got no chance of replacing all HSTs by 2020 - Some will still be needed for certain routes - IEP cannot for example fit on the Pembroke Dock branch, as well as *i think* Camarthen or Newquay branches, and as we've found out with the Mk2s - Theres no point in scrapping usefull coaches as soon as possible when they may be needed in the future and can easily be made to meet the requirements.

And finnaly - Yes, the HST may be getting too old, However i and i think quite a few of us will still agree that they are the best item of railway rolling stock in the country for long distance services, and very little has yet to match the qualities of a Mk3 / HST.

 

[Batman]

I think that's about ok. The semi fasts are pretty much the same pattern anyway. And these would be frequent and 12 car, so there would be capacity I reckon.

Do you think there would be any issue with replacing EMT's hourly London-Corby service with a Thameslink one, considering how little that service is used?

 

[OxtedL]

Do you think there would be any issue with replacing EMT's hourly London-Corby service with a Thameslink one, considering how little that service is used?

By doing that you send 4-8 more empty coaches an hour to Corby than would otherwise be making that trip.

 

[tbtc]

are DMUs really anymore energy efficient than HSTS? Or really reducing maintenance costs? Or really that 'track efficient' either?!

Yes, up to about six coaches in length. For anything much longer then power cars (or loco hauled) makes more sense.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure the people of the Chilterns will agree with you on that one - I'd rather travel on LHCS / HST anyday than something akin to a voyager / 170 with an annoying and noisy underfloor engine with rattling vibrating panels all the way thought my journey. Plus, are DMUs really anymore energy efficient than HSTS? Or really reducing maintenance costs? Or really that 'track efficient' either?!

A lot of Mark 3s now have inferior ride quality and greater noise than Pendolinos do at this point, and are not significantly superior to Voyagers or Meridians if they are not massively overloaded. (I know because I travel in first and I have been the only person in a coach on a Voyager several times).

As for track maintenance benefits.... a 2+8 HST has a variable track access charge (using 2010 figures as they are the most recent I have access to) of £1.06/mile, whereas a 9 coach Class 222 has a variable track access charge from the same period of £0.94/mile. A 12p/mile reduction which would be sufficient to go to a 10 coach Class 222 to achieve the same access fee.

Now, referencing this report on traction energy metrics from the RSSB, the HST does win on fuel efficient per 100 seat km with a value of 0.89L/100 seat.km compared to 0.98L in the case of the 9 car Cl222.

However, this figure is largely a result of the Cl222 having vastly superior acceleration to the HST set, being as they are of generally comparable mass but with the unit having 6750hp to the HST's 4500hp.
If we were to replace two of the motor vehicles with pantograph trailers of similar mass we would generate an electrodiesel formation that had 5350hp, was still marginally lighter than the HST (~416t versus ~470t) and was capable of using 25kV supplies when available.
Such a system would absolutely obliterate the HSTs marginal fuel advantage (which is already badly eroded, if not erased completely, by the increased fuel efficiency of a train with only seven engines rather than nine more lightly loaded ones).

Anyway, we've got no chance of replacing all HSTs by 2020 - Some will still be needed for certain routes - IEP cannot for example fit on the Pembroke Dock branch, as well as *i think* Camarthen or Newquay branches, and as we've found out with the Mk2s - Theres no point in scrapping usefull coaches as soon as possible when they may be needed in the future and can easily be made to meet the requirements.

Firstly the Mark 2 air cons were only at most 3-4 years older than the oldest of the Mark 3s, while the HST coaches will be at-least 30 years older than the stock that will be replacing them.
The situation is not really comparable.

Once IEP has reduced the HST fleet on Great Western to 10 sets at the most (as Paignton and Plymouth will be cleared that could be reduced to 5 sets if Swansea is wired to protect the bi-mode order size), and has obliterated the East Coast HST fleet entirely, there will only be 17 sets remaining elsewhere, for 27 sets remaining in total.

If the HOOP train goes to work on the Midland Main Line immediately on finishing the GWML electrification work to Cardiff in 2017 it will be able to complete the core MML within a few months of the deadline, for which period a waiver would be acceptable in my opinion.
Core MML electrification woudl directly eliminate 12 sets, taking us to 15 total and would free at-least 14 HST sets worth of vehicles in terms of Class 222s.
If the new ICWC franchise was to order some shortened Pendolinos for Birmingham-Scotland as Alstom keep pushing, that would allow the last of the HSTs (presumably the XC ones) to be replaced by 221s, especially if eVoyagers are created.

So a positive business case electrification and some new electric stock for already wired routes is all that is needed to obliterate the HST fleet completely thanks to IEP.

And finnaly - Yes, the HST may be getting too old, However i and i think quite a few of us will still agree that they are the best item of railway rolling stock in the country for long distance services, and very little has yet to match the qualities of a Mk3 / HST.

Well in my opinion....
Mk4/Cl91
Cl222
Cl373 (when in GNER service, which I remember... good ol' days)
Cl390
and maybe a couple of others....

EDIT:
Based on information that those two engines would burn roughly 40L/hr at idle and that the train between Sheffield and London takes roughly 2hrs..... I reckon that a seven engine, nine car Cl222 would match the 2+8 in terms of fuel burn per hundred seat.km

 

[philjo]

GOBLIN might be a possibility especially if DfT think they need a favour in return from Boris (e.g. Heathrow etc)