Major new electrification projects to be anounced shortly

[IanXC]

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

Indeed, perhaps we will find out what Network Rail were up to issuing procurement documents to include electrification of the branches to Hull, Middlesbrough, Scarborough and Cleethorpes!

 

[bangor-toad]

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

Probably quite true.
Frankly what's wrong with that? Compare some mileages:
London to Bedford: 49.75 miles
London to Kettering: 72 miles
London to Leicester: 99.25 miles

London to Southampton: 79.25 miles
London to Bournemouth: 108 miles


At the moment, London to Kettering is typically just under an hour with HSTs or Meridians. London to Southampton is 74 minutes with class 444 or class 450 (I think) EMUs. Those were quite pleasant to make the London - Southampton trip in and I can't see why a similar distance trip on a newly electrified MML wouldn't use some sort of modern EMU.
I wounldn't mind that trip on either of an updated 350 or 377.

I think the question is:
Where will the new outer limits of suburban EMUs be?
Will it remain Bedford? (I doubt it).
Will it extend to Kettering (and Corby)?
Would Leicester make more sense?

The second question is would Derby, Nottingham and routes northwards maintain an Intercity type service?
Would this then run fast (or at least limited stops) from Leicester to London leaving the intermediate stations to the suburban service?

Lots of unanswerable questions there but I'm fairly sure that if the MML is electrified it'll be running many. many suburban EMU's over most of its length and there will be fewer Intercity style services.

Cheers,
Jason

 

[WatcherZero]

Network Rail is to announce another deep alliance this week with Scotrail, included in the deal is expected to be 8 mile electrification of the Paisley Canal.

 

[HSTEd]

In reference to my earlier post, there is a serious problem with the seating numbers listed in the RSSB report for the 2+8 HST formation.... it claims 641 seats which would seem to be the highest density possible formation (it comes out around 77 seats per carriage average).

I think its been weighted in the report to make the HST look better compared to the Cl222 in terms of fuel consumption per seat.km (as the 9 car Class 222 has the correct seating pattern).
An EMT 2+8 HST has 467 carriages apparently, giving it a fuel consumption per 100 seat.km more like 0.90L than 0.89L in actual terms, further eroding its claimed fuel efficiency advantage.

 

[Skymonster]

In reference to my earlier post, there is a serious problem...

I think its been weighted in the report to make the HST look better compared to the Cl222 in terms of fuel consumption per seat.km (as the 9 car Class 222 has the correct seating pattern)...

Actually, another problem is that there's no such thing as a 9-car 222 - hasn't been for a long time.

Andy

 

[HSTEd]

Actually, another problem is that there's no such thing as a 9-car 222 - hasn't been for a long time.

Andy

That is not a problem as such as we have the data for said train when it was in service.
And more could be built if people really wanted, but I reckon a better option would be disproportionating the current fleet into 9 car electrodiesels (7 motors) and 4 car electrodiesels (3 motors) for XC/TPE.

A 4 car ED Cl222 with 3 motor vehicles has similar p:w to the 5 car ED Cl221 with 4 motor vehicles.

 

[Skymonster]

When the round of electrifications were assessed, MML electrification had a higher BCR than almost any other scheme - certainly higher than the GWML... Despite that MML didn't go ahead of other schemes with a lower BCR, in part I suspect due to political considerations. Whereas the top end of the MML serves a lot of Labour constituencies that the Tories have no chance of taking and the lower end is commuter belt largely served by FCC anyway, Labour needed to play favours to the voters in the GWML catchment area where the Liberals were stronger but Labour had a chances for gains.

I hope in these economically challenging times we're past playing politicis with railways - the schemes with the highest benefit-cost ratio should be done first, irrespective of political considerations and ignoring the input of other influential people with alternative agendas.

Andy

 

[philjo]

The MML would help Sheffield though where Nick Clegg is the MP.

 

[HSTEd]

The MML would help Sheffield though where Nick Clegg is the MP.

Nick Clegg is in a largely student area, like most liberal democrats.

At this point this seat is probably irreparably damaged, especially with the added Forgemasters farce.

 

[John55]

When the round of electrifications were assessed, MML electrification had a higher BCR than almost any other scheme - certainly higher than the GWML... Despite that MML didn't go ahead of other schemes with a lower BCR, in part I suspect due to political considerations. Whereas the top end of the MML serves a lot of Labour constituencies that the Tories have no chance of taking and the lower end is commuter belt largely served by FCC anyway, Labour needed to play favours to the voters in the GWML catchment area where the Liberals were stronger but Labour had a chances for gains.

I hope in these economically challenging times we're past playing politicis with railways - the schemes with the highest benefit-cost ratio should be done first, irrespective of political considerations and ignoring the input of other influential people with alternative agendas.

Andy

BCR is only one factor to any decision on spending money. If BCR was the only factor Crossrail would not be under construction as it had a poor BCR when authorised (about 1.8 if I remember correctly).

Politicians always have to balance the various calls on public spending, as do Company managers on private spending, as best they can. If the GWML had been re-signaled and re-equipped with diesel trains by 2018 would that have been a good decision? I don't think it would.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

When the round of electrifications were assessed, MML electrification had a higher BCR than almost any other scheme - certainly higher than the GWML... Despite that MML didn't go ahead of other schemes with a lower BCR, in part I suspect due to political considerations.
I hope in these economically challenging times we're past playing politicis with railways - the schemes with the highest benefit-cost ratio should be done first, irrespective of political considerations and ignoring the input of other influential people with alternative agendas.
Andy

Well public spending of the odd billion is bound to be political.
The BCR you refer to is only Network Rail's view/guess.
They are also marking their own homework on the costs.
They don't know the wider context the DfT might be considering (devolution, PTEs, rolling stock cascades, other projects etc).
And don't discount the "where's our share" debates in parliament.

 

[Wolfie]

Its nice of Chiltern to act as the guinea pigs for this (especially doing so unbidded, at their own expense)

True, but who owns the IPR associated witrh their conversion package? There might be a nice little payback for them in due course.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

That is never going to happen. Imagine the howls from the disabled lobby if they continue to be effectively given an inferior service by one or more TOCS, particularly given that Chiltern have proved that the stock can be modified to comply.

If you mean by the "passenger seats" the originally installed IC70 seats they have to, as has been explained on here many times, be removed on H&S grounds by 2020 anyway!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

An EMT 2+8 HST has 467 carriages apparently

Wow that's long!!!

 

[Batman]

Indeed, perhaps we will find out what Network Rail were up to issuing procurement documents to include electrification of the branches to Hull, Middlesbrough, Scarborough and Cleethorpes!

I thought NR had already started assessing the viability of extending electrification to Hull as part of the TP scheme. with regard to Cleethorpes, I can't see electrification arriving in South Humberside any time soon as it would require the Hope Valley line to be electrified too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Network Rail is to announce another deep alliance this week with Scotrail, included in the deal is expected to be 8 mile electrification of the Paisley Canal.

That's hardly the most pressing transport priority in Scotland right now.

Haven't Transport Scotland got bigger fish to fry such as getting the borders line built, Glasgow-Edinburgh electrification, finishing the M8 upgrade, the new Forth road bridge, the Aberdeen western by-pass, upgrading the A9 in the Highlands and improving capacity on the Highland mainline and the Inverness-Aberdeen line.

And let's not forget the Edinburgh trams and getting them built and extended through to Leith. But I think that's the responsibility of Edinburgh City Council.

And there of course there's the rail links to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, if they ever see the light of day again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nick Clegg is in a largely student area, like most liberal democrats.

At this point this seat is probably irreparably damaged, especially with the added Forgemasters farce.

I wouldn't write the Lib Dems off just yet. They still got 16% of the vote in this years local elections.

In a general election it would see them reduced to about 20 MP's, the same level they were at in the mid1990's, but I wouldn't be the total annihilation some are predicting.

 

[Ivo]

That (Paisley Canal) [is] hardly the most pressing transport priority in Scotland right now.

It's a very easy infill though. Why not go ahead and do it? It would hopefully also serve as an incentive to undertake other such schemes elsewhere.

And let's not forget the Edinburgh trams and getting them built and extended through to Leith.

I wouldn't write the Lib Dems off just yet. They still got 16% of the vote in this years local elections.

Bath will still probably vote Lib Dem :roll:

 

[Batman]

It's a very easy infill though. Why not go ahead and do it? It would hopefully also serve as an incentive to undertake other such schemes elsewhere.

It's certainly worth doing, but I was just pointing out that there are far more important transport schemes in Scotland right now.

And let me just add the South Edinburgh line on the Edinburgh trams, the Dundee, Inverness and Thurso by-passes, track and level crossing upgrades on the Far North Line and electrification of the Shotts line to that list of Scottish transport schemes.

 

[swt_passenger]

True, but who owns the IPR associated witrh their conversion package? There might be a nice little payback for them in due course.....

Almost certainly not Chiltern.

Far more likely that Wabtec have got the IPR all sewn up, and as they seem to be the preferred works for nearly all Mk3 deep level maintainance or conversions I reckon they'll be able to apply it to anyone's stock.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the question is:
Where will the new outer limits of suburban EMUs be?
Will it remain Bedford? (I doubt it).
Will it extend to Kettering (and Corby)?
Would Leicester make more sense?

The second question is would Derby, Nottingham and routes northwards maintain an Intercity type service?
Would this then run fast (or at least limited stops) from Leicester to London leaving the intermediate stations to the suburban service?

Lots of unanswerable questions there but I'm fairly sure that if the MML is electrified it'll be running many. many suburban EMU's over most of its length and there will be fewer Intercity style services.

Fortunately I am in a position to answer the first part.

The limit of the suburban EMU service, operating via the Thameslink route, will be Bedford.
So no, it won't extend to Kettering and Corby.
And I don't think there is any subject with an affirmative answer to the question "Would Leicester make more sense?"

 

[tbtc]

That is never going to happen. Imagine the howls from the disabled lobby if they continue to be effectively given an inferior service by one or more TOCS

You don't have to make the entire train DDA compliant, just enough of it (in the way that a low floor bus can still have an upstairs that wheelchair users cannot use).

A long HST would allow scope for disabled toilets/ seating etc in some coaches (without the need to convert the entire train).

 

[IanXC]

I thought NR had already started assessing the viability of extending electrification to Hull as part of the TP scheme. with regard to Cleethorpes, I can't see electrification arriving in South Humberside any time soon as it would require the Hope Valley line to be electrified too.

Network Rail recently posted an OJEU notice for TP North electrification, including Hull, Middlesbrough, Scarborough and Cleethorpes. In addition the East Coast consultation includes suggestions of splitting the Cleethorpes service at Doncaster and adding almost all South Humberside services to the EC franchise, so I think there is potentially something on the cards!

 

[LE Greys]

Fortunately I am in a position to answer the first part.

The limit of the suburban EMU service, operating via the Thameslink route, will be Bedford.
So no, it won't extend to Kettering and Corby.
And I don't think there is any subject with an affirmative answer to the question "Would Leicester make more sense?"

Well, one option there would be a St Pancras-Leicester-Corby-St Pancras loop, operated by EMUs as an extension of the current Corby service. They could probably be the same type as the Thameslink outer-suburban stock that I hope they will produce, so capable of 100 and with medium-distance seating, but no buffet, although a trolley space might be an option. This might need extra paths, but I'd expect that electrification would provide that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Network Rail recently posted an OJEU notice for TP North electrification, including Hull, Middlesbrough, Scarborough and Cleethorpes. In addition the East Coast consultation includes suggestions of splitting the Cleethorpes service at Doncaster and adding almost all South Humberside services to the EC franchise, so I think there is potentially something on the cards!

Sounds like a good idea, since they link in far better with the ECML than the MML. It would provide the option to finally get a Lincoln/Cleethorpes to King's Cross service going.

 

[Bald Rick]

This might need extra paths, but I'd expect that electrification would provide that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Electriifcation won't provide any new paths on the MML, but extra tracks might *waits for HLOS*

 

[LE Greys]

Electriifcation won't provide any new paths on the MML, but extra tracks might *waits for HLOS*

I was thinking that better acceleration might make for shorter headways.

 

[The Planner]

Acceleration doesn't factor in headways we use, just line speed, sighting distance, overlap, train length and the distance between signals. Getting from A-B quicker might provide small amounts of capacity but nothing ground breaking if the signalling stays the same.

 

[Bald Rick]

Acceleration doesn't factor in headways we use, just line speed, sighting distance, overlap, train length and the distance between signals. Getting from A-B quicker might provide small amounts of capacity but nothing ground breaking if the signalling stays the same.

... or, (speculation alert), if the trains remain the same; it's the traction motor power that counts, not how the electricity reaches them.

 

[tbtc]

Electriifcation won't provide any new paths on the MML, but extra tracks might *waits for HLOS*

With all the freight and flat junctions on the MML, I've never been convinced by the desire some people have for 125mph

 

[rail-britain]

You don't have to make the entire train DDA compliant, just enough of it
A long HST would allow scope for disabled toilets/ seating etc in some coaches (without the need to convert the entire train)

There is a get out clause for the East Coast franchise if ever I saw one!
Just upgrade one First Class and one Standard coach (like at present) and marshal them next to the buffet
Dump all this ridiculous power door nonsense

 

[tbtc]

There is a get out clause for the East Coast franchise if ever I saw one!
Just upgrade one First Class and one Standard coach (like at present) and marshal them next to the buffet
Dump all this ridiculous power door nonsense

I reckon that'd work - you don't have to make *everything* fully accessible (for example new trains like 185s have one DDA toilet and one non-DDA toilet).

With a nine coach HST there's space to convert *some* to DDA - with a two coach DMU there isn't.

 

[David]

Network Rail recently posted an OJEU notice for TP North electrification, including Hull, Middlesbrough, Scarborough and Cleethorpes. In addition the East Coast consultation includes suggestions of splitting the Cleethorpes service at Doncaster and adding almost all South Humberside services to the EC franchise, so I think there is potentially something on the cards!

As a resident of Scunthorpe, excuse me if I don't sound enthusiastic about these suggestions .....

It will be fine if we get some service to London to compensate for the loss of fast services to Doncaster, Sheffield and Manchester, but if that plan does go ahead, I fear all we'll get in return is a twice hourly Doncaster - Cleethorpes all shacks service .....

 

[IanXC]

As a resident of Scunthorpe, excuse me if I don't sound enthusiastic about these suggestions .....

It will be fine if we get some service to London to compensate for the loss of fast services to Doncaster, Sheffield and Manchester, but if that plan does go ahead, I fear all we'll get in return is a twice hourly Doncaster - Cleethorpes all shacks service .....

Yup those are the dangers. I think that the remainder of South TPE could be destined to go to the 'Super North PTE' franchise which may be driving this change. Middlesbrough and Scarborough could face similar fates.

Sheffield-Doncaster-(Hull and beyond) seems to also be suggested for EC so I don't think its beyond the realms of possibility that Scunthorpe could have 1tph to Doncaster and 1tph through to Sheffield, plus whatever London service seems to be lined up. All these Electric IEPs for East Coast have to find a use somewhere!

 

[David]

Electrification to Hull (from Leeds and Doncaster) I can understand, as Hull does have a lot of service in and out everyday. However, I don't understand the desire to terminate South TPE services at Doncaster, as there is a big market for Scunthorpe - Sheffield and beyond (going on personal experience), with a smaller market for Grimsby - Doncaster/Sheffield.

What is needed is an hourly all shacks from Doncaster - Grimsby or Cleethorpes, with the TPE either terminating at Scunthorpe or carrying through to Cleethorpes (as now), plus hourly services from Cleethorpes/Grimsby to Lincoln, and not decimate services within the region further ....