"No new DMU orders in CP5"

[Altnabreac]

Once EGIP is complete and the IEP SETs running the number of diesels using Edinburgh Waverly will be substantially reduced. I can see there at that time being an increased clamour to wire Fife, Aberdeen- and possibly Perth via all routes, though possibly not Perth-Inverness. If the borders line was then done as well, it may leave just Cross Country and Edinburgh-Inverness services using diesels. That much traffic could be easily handled by platforms 8 & 9 (outside the shed on the north side).

All these lines (excpet Borders Rail) have been identified by the Scottish Government as in scope for electrification as part of the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR). None of them yet have a timescale excpet that they will not be included in CP5.

If electrification in Scotland continued at the CP4/5 pace and followed the phasing set out in the STPR for the following CP6/7/8 control periods you'd expect Fife Circle in around 2024 (CP6), Dundee/Perth via Fife in 2026 and Dunblane - Aberdeen (and probably Inverurie) by 2029 (CP7). Highland Main Line to Inverness would then be early 2030s (CP8).

This would leave the only diesel services out of Waverley as Borders Rail, the Fort William portion of the Highland Sleeper and the Summer Sunday only Edinburgh - Oban services.

This assumes cross border services by Cross Country / TPE (if extended as proposed by HS2) will also have been electrified by this point.

I'd expect Borders Rail to also be done at around this point (CP8, either before or more probably after Inverness).

 

[apk55]

Predicting the situation into the future is fraught with difficulties and may change in unexpected ways. Too often people look at current trends and assume that they will continue indefinatly way into the future. Short term this may be OK but for 20 to 30 years into the future lots of things may happen, possibly in unexpected ways. Some things which could hapen i have put below

Oil prices rise considerably in real terms and much more than Electricity costs. This would obviously favor more electrification. Yet more bust ups in the East (not forgeting Russia) could easily cause this.

Demand for transport stops rising. London and the SE might stangle itself with high prices and lack of housing.
Entrenpers realize they can get a cheaper, better, more stable workforce outside the SE, so people then are not forced to migrate south for work. While this will increase demands in provincial cities, journies would be shorter and intercity travel from the SE would be reduced as they would not be returning home to visit friends/relatives. The city may also lose it sparkle as legeslation, scandels, and compertiton chip away margins.

While I do not see much demand for self powered units in the short term as the current electrification will displace many newish units to replace old stock and it will be at least 10 years before new designs need even be considered. Assuming no radical developments in technology (such as energy storage) I favor a hybrid design using a diesel combind with an energy store. This energy store could be a battery, flywheel, supercapacitor or even now being talked about compressed air. The diesel engine could be a lot smaller than in a normal unit but would run with a much higher duty cycle as the energy store would provide acceleration energy and recycle Braking energy. And being smaller it would be much easier to add emision clean up. If a large energy store (effectivly a range extended battery design) is fitted enough for several station cycles on a slow speed line (such as Whitby or central Wales) the engine could be quite tiny (20KW per car?).

 

[Class83]

Well Virgin proposed ordering 6 car 390s to replace the Voyagers so new 6 car trains replacing 5 car Voyagers was common in both bids.

They did propose that, but since the bidding fiasco they have increasingly been using 390s/2*221s on the route. The baseline is higher than it was a few years ago. It will be interesting to see what the specification for this service is in the ITT.

 

[Olaf]

A tightening of emissions regulations would soon change that - not beyond the realms of fantasy....

That is correct, and it is mentioned as a possibility in the document, but as I said, as it stands there is no requirement. If a change in regulation was attempted by the EU there is the likelihood that the UK would request an exemption for the UK fleet in consideration of the existing electrification plans and the practicalities of obtaining suitable new vehicles for the UK.

 

[RichmondCommu]

With the best will in the world there are perhaps up to a dozen routes in the north of England which will not be electrified for at least the next 20 years. Surely it would make sense for the local authorities in the North to purchase their own trains and then have complete control over how they were used. Lincolnshire, the Durham coast line, the Buxton branch, the Matlock branch and the Crewe to Derby line are all examples that may not see wires for at least two decades. Southport to Wigan is another example not to mention the Cumbrian Coast.

There would be no need to pay for maintenance facilities as these already exist and I don't see why TOC's couldn't operate the trains so recruitment of staff would be minimal. If TfL can do it why not the North? Now ok this would require some serious co-ordination from the local authorities but at least the cost would be shared out.

 

[edwin_m]

With the best will in the world there are perhaps up to a dozen routes in the north of England which will not be electrified for at least the next 20 years. Surely it would make sense for the local authorities in the North to purchase their own trains and then have complete control over how they were used. Lincolnshire, the Durham coast line, the Buxton branch, the Matlock branch and the Crewe to Derby line are all examples that may not see wires for at least two decades. Southport to Wigan is another example not to mention the Cumbrian Coast.

I think there's a reasonable chance of electrification for all of those with the exception of Lincolnshire and Cumbrian Coast, either as infill to eliminate running under the wires or as future electric freight corridors (Durham Coast would require Metro to use dual-voltage stock or move to another route). Which only goes to highlight the uncertainty inherent in ordering new DMUs.

 

[ac6000cw]

I think there's a reasonable chance of electrification for all of those with the exception of Lincolnshire and Cumbrian Coast, either as infill to eliminate running under the wires or as future electric freight corridors (Durham Coast would require Metro to use dual-voltage stock or move to another route). Which only goes to highlight the uncertainty inherent in ordering new DMUs.

I agree - in particular I would have thought the Buxton branch almost a no-brainer (especially given the terrain).

 

[Kneedown]

I think there's a reasonable chance of electrification for all of those with the exception of Lincolnshire and Cumbrian Coast, either as infill to eliminate running under the wires or as future electric freight corridors

Matlock and Derby - Stoke are a total of only 47 miles so would give lots of bang for the buck, and it is also an aspiration of various councils and business's between Nottingham and Lincoln to electrify the line in the future as the final phase of the long term plan to re-introduce the half hourly service......

http://http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Rail-Fair-petition-launches-improve-trains/story-19763428-detail/story.html

 

[pemma]

They did propose that, but since the bidding fiasco they have increasingly been using 390s/2*221s on the route. The baseline is higher than it was a few years ago. It will be interesting to see what the specification for this service is in the ITT.

Note that TPE services may have capacity improvements under the next franchise including possible Liverpool portions, so there may be 8 car TPE services between Wigan and Scotland reducing pressure on Virgin services. LM may also introduce Preston-Birmingham regional services when the next WCML recast is done.

 

[Class377/5]

Note that TPE services may have capacity improvements under the next franchise including possible Liverpool portions, so there may be 8 car TPE services between Wigan and Scotland reducing pressure on Virgin services. LM may also introduce Preston-Birmingham regional services when the next WCML recast is done.

Question, if the 4 cars are being overloaded now, would it not make sense to run an 8 car from Manchester and 4 car from Liverpool and run north as a 12 car? Especially as you say they would reduce pressure on Virgin services?

 

[pemma]

Question, if the 4 cars are being overloaded now, would it not make sense to run an 8 car from Manchester and 4 car from Liverpool and run north as a 12 car? Especially as you say they would reduce pressure on Virgin services?

Another way of doing it could be for the quietest diagrams to have Liverpool portions (so 8 car from Wigan/Preston onwards) and the other Manchester Airport services to be 8 car throughout, which I think DfT are more likely to agree to. However, in terms of what's best for passengers it would be 8 cars on all Scottish services departing Manchester Airport with 4 car Liverpool portions added to the busiest services.

 

[Class377/5]

Another way of doing it could be for the quietest diagrams to have Liverpool portions (so 8 car from Wigan/Preston onwards) and the other Manchester Airport services to be 8 car throughout, which I think DfT are more likely to agree to. However, in terms of what's best for passengers it would be 8 cars on all Scottish services departing Manchester Airport with 4 car Liverpool portions added to the busiest services.

Doesn't sound very useful to have a non regular timings. Especially if your trying to build traffic.

Question, do we expect the Liverpool to Wigan portion to stop or fast all the way?

 

[pemma]

Doesn't sound very useful to have a non regular timings. Especially if your trying to build traffic.

Question, do we expect the Liverpool to Wigan portion to stop or fast all the way?

The way I was envisaging it is Liverpool will have a 2 hourly service to Scotland but the portions are added to the quieter half of Manchester Airport diagrams or the busier half.

The TPE consultation was suggesting 2/3 Manchester Airport departures would be to Edinburgh and 1/3 would be to Glasgow, which would mean a 2 hourly Liverpool service would alternate between the two destinations. I don't think anything was mentioned with regards to the calling pattern.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The way I was envisaging it is Liverpool will have a 2 hourly service to Scotland but the portions are added to the quieter half of Manchester Airport diagrams or the busier half.

The TPE consultation was suggesting 2/3 Manchester Airport departures would be to Edinburgh and 1/3 would be to Glasgow, which would mean a 2 hourly Liverpool service would alternate between the two destinations. I don't think anything was mentioned with regards to the calling pattern.

There's also the question of an extra hourly Liverpool-Preston service, pairing with the current Blackpool service.
A single operator with appropriate stock might interwork the services (hourly to Preston, two-hourly to Scotland), but with two operators it's not obvious how the extra service will be provided.
I'd expect all trains to call at St Helens Central at least.
The current Blackpool service also calls at Huyton (and Euxton/Leyland).
Wavertree Tech is the trendy place to stop these days (as per the Manchester Airport service).
The current Blackpool can be VERY busy all day, more so than the Man Airport service.
Hardly anyone continues to South Parkway.

 

[edwin_m]

I think a 12-car would need one of the long platforms 1 and 2 Glasgow Central, which might not be available as the London and Birmingham trains need these too.

 

[pemma]

There's also the question of an extra hourly Liverpool-Preston service, pairing with the current Blackpool service.
A single operator with appropriate stock might interwork the services (hourly to Preston, two-hourly to Scotland), but with two operators it's not obvious how the extra service will be provided.

I'd guess at timings for Scottish services being based around the services the WC franchise offers rather than based around local services. The reason given for more Edinburgh services and less Glasgow was to give a more equal number of departures from Preston, not because of there being more demand from Manchester to Edinburgh than Glasgow.

If you want to be clever you could have departures from Lime Street like:
10:00 Edinburgh
10:30 Blackpool North
11:00 Blackpool North
11:30 Blackpool North
12:00 Glasgow
12:30 Blackpool North
13:00 Blackpool North
13:30 Blackpool North
14:00 Edinburgh
...

And inter-work Scarborough-Blackpool with Liverpool-Blackpool so that alternate services to/from Scarborough start/terminate at Preston. That way you might also free up a 158.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think a 12-car would need one of the long platforms 1 and 2 Glasgow Central, which might not be available as the London and Birmingham trains need these too.

Maybe send the 12 cars to Edinburgh and 8 cars to Glasgow?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Matlock and Derby - Stoke are a total of only 47 miles so would give lots of bang for the buck, and it is also an aspiration of various councils and business's between

How much would 47 miles of electrification cost? It might be an aspiration but how many businesses would actually be prepared to pay for it when asked? Given the relatively sparse population along the Matlock branch I'm not really sure how the figures would add up. I honestly think that the DfT could come up with far more deserving cases i.e. the West Midlands. I'm not anti Derbyshire as it's my Motherland!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree - in particular I would have thought the Buxton branch almost a no-brainer (especially given the terrain).

So why is it not being planned at the moment given the amount of electrification that is currently being planned / installed in Greater Manchester?

 

[pemma]

So why is it not being planned at the moment given the amount of electrification that is currently being planned / installed in Greater Manchester?

The Buxton line was looked at as part of the electrification RUS but the general view was lines which do not have at least 2tph in both directions generally have weak business cases for electrification.

 

[ac6000cw]

The Buxton line was looked at as part of the electrification RUS but the general view was lines which do not have at least 2tph in both directions generally have weak business cases for electrification.

I'd generally agree with that as a 'rule of thumb', but some BR-era electrification extensions were justified on the basis of being able to use existing EMU stock instead of having to build new DMU trains (which might not be used very efficiently as a 'diesel island').

Cambridge - Kings Lynn was certainly in that category, 1 tph off-peak (it still is), but the existing EMU fleet was 'stretched' to cover it, and the electrification cost was kept down by singling some of the Ely-Kings Lynn line. The old DMUs and hauled stock were life-expired, so electrification was a better long-term solution in 'whole railway' cost terms. I think the 'Hastings Line' electrification was a similar situation, and of course there's Bournemouth - Weymouth and Havant - Southampton as other examples.

 

[pemma]

I'd generally agree with that as a 'rule of thumb', but some BR-era electrification extensions were justified on the basis of being able to use existing EMU stock instead of having to build new DMU trains (which might not be used very efficiently as a 'diesel island').

Cambridge - Kings Lynn was certainly in that category, 1 tph off-peak (it still is), but the existing EMU fleet was 'stretched' to cover it, and the electrification cost was kept down by singling some of the Ely-Kings Lynn line. The old DMUs and hauled stock were life-expired, so electrification was a better long-term solution in 'whole railway' cost terms. I think the 'Hastings Line' electrification was a similar situation, and of course there's Bournemouth - Weymouth and Havant - Southampton as other examples.

Which appears to still be the case with Oxenholme-Windermere and Bedford-Bletchley under consideration. However, with many diesel routes remaining out of Manchester, Buxton is a long way off being a diesel island.

 

[edwin_m]

Ambergate to Matlock is only 7 miles of single line, and although there are numerous overbridges and tunnels many of these could have clearances increased by moving the track into the middle of the former double formation.

The current service is 1TPH to Nottingham, usually of 2 cars, which would be running under the wires for the rest of its journey after completion of MML electrification. This would save three DMU diagrams for which cascaded 319s or similar would be quite acceptable as replacements.

Derby to Crewe is a weaker case as it only has 1TPH usually of 1 car, only Stoke to Crewe is electified and committed schemes will only add the immediate vicinity of Derby station. For this to be workable would probably require an increase in freight traffic using the MML to access north west England, along with a move to electric haulage of freight. Derby to Crewe plus Sheet Stores to Stenson would then create an electric alternative to the WCML, but the need for it depends on various imponderables including WCML capacity release by HS2.

 

[pemma]

Derby to Crewe is a weaker case as it only has 1TPH usually of 1 car, only Stoke to Crewe is electified and committed schemes will only add the immediate vicinity of Derby station.

The West Coast RUS recommended the Derby-Crewe service should be operated by a 2 car Sprinter and extended to Manchester Airport so that Manchester Airport-Crewe has 2tph as well as giving increased connectivity to the Airport.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How much would 47 miles of electrification cost?

£240m at the current rate of £1.5m per stkm.
Not loose change.

Derby to Crewe is a weaker case as it only has 1TPH usually of 1 car, only Stoke to Crewe is electified and committed schemes will only add the immediate vicinity of Derby station. For this to be workable would probably require an increase in freight traffic using the MML to access north west England, along with a move to electric haulage of freight. Derby to Crewe plus Sheet Stores to Stenson would then create an electric alternative to the WCML, but the need for it depends on various imponderables including WCML capacity release by HS2.

Sheet Stores-Stoke-Crewe is on the list for gauge enhancement, to allow W10 freight from (Felixstowe-) Syston-Stoke (-Crewe) avoiding the WCML.
The MML electrification will wire Derby-Ambergate.
But in the present climate I don't think this route will be very far up the priority list for CP6.
Derby-Birmingham-Bristol would surely come first, but might also be the trigger for in-fill electrification of Stenson-Stoke later.
Matlock would be quite cheap as an MML add-on.

 

[WatcherZero]

Whats the non-cross country traffic like on that route?

I was on it a few months ago and the main thing that struck me was how few and far between the stations were. Then of course Bristol-Cornwall would remain unelectrified.

 

[Class 170101]

Derby to Stoke would be expensive as you would have to wire conventially particularly if it was to become a diversion for electrfied trains away from the WCML. BUT I would suggest that the branch to Matlock could be done in a similar way to Paisley Canal potentially reducing costs.

 

[DDB]

Derby to Stoke would be expensive as you would have to wire conventially particularly if it was to become a diversion for electrfied trains away from the WCML. BUT I would suggest that the branch to Matlock could be done in a similar way to Paisley Canal potentially reducing costs.

I read somewhere that the current trial with the battery train was aiming for 1 hours running of the wires after charging up for two hours on the wires. This looks like a perfect match for the Nottingham to Matlock service. I assume ambergate junction to ambergate station would be wired so the changeover could happen while stationarity at ambergate. This would avoid the headache of running wires though more of the world heritage site. Also if this were the first real application of the technology it would go right past the Bombardier factory if there were any teething troubles.

DDB

 

[Taunton]

I read somewhere that the current trial with the battery train was aiming for 1 hours running of the wires after charging up for two hours on the wires. This looks like a perfect match for the Nottingham to Matlock service.

The 1958 battery train (over 55 years ago) was a 2-car unit using the "Yellow diamond" dmu bodies of the era. It ran the 45 mile/90 minutes journey from Aberdeen to Ballater and back several times a day. It was recharged at a point set up in the bay platforms at Aberdeen station. A conventional dmu ran the other trains of the service in the same running times.

Have we really made NO progress with this technology in 55 years?

 

[ainsworth74]

The 1958 battery train (over 55 years ago) was a 2-car unit using the "Yellow diamond" dmu bodies of the era. It ran the 45 mile/90 minutes journey from Aberdeen to Ballater and back several times a day. It was recharged at a point set up in the bay platforms at Aberdeen station. A conventional dmu ran the other trains of the service in the same running times.

Have we really made NO progress with this technology in 55 years?

Yeah that's not even attempting to compare like with like. The BEMU from 1958 had vehicle weights of around 35 tonnes. The 379 being converted has vehicles that can weigh up to ten tonnes more. The 379 is also four vehicles versus two of the BEMU and it also has things like HVAC, retention tank toilets, PIS, powered doors. The BEMU would top out speed wise at what? About 60mph maybe 70mph? A 379 can hit 100mph.

I'd argue it's pretty impressive that we can fit enough batteries under a 379, what with all the equipment under there anyway, to allow for an hours off wire running.

 

[edwin_m]

I read somewhere that the current trial with the battery train was aiming for 1 hours running of the wires after charging up for two hours on the wires. This looks like a perfect match for the Nottingham to Matlock service. I assume ambergate junction to ambergate station would be wired so the changeover could happen while stationarity at ambergate. This would avoid the headache of running wires though more of the world heritage site. Also if this were the first real application of the technology it would go right past the Bombardier factory if there were any teething troubles.

DDB

Yes that looks an interesting option, there is also the possibility of the unit rolling downhill back to Ambergate if the batteries get too low! However it might entail the operator having a micro-fleet of BatMUs as I don't think any other service nearby would fit the duty cycle you mention. Crewe-Derby might, but only if it was extended back to Nottingham and possibly to Manchester Airport too.

 

[The Ham]

Yes that looks an interesting option, there is also the possibility of the unit rolling downhill back to Ambergate if the batteries get too low! However it might entail the operator having a micro-fleet of BatMUs as I don't think any other service nearby would fit the duty cycle you mention. Crewe-Derby might, but only if it was extended back to Nottingham and possibly to Manchester Airport too.

Other than the cost of the batteries, there wouldn't be anything stopping TOC's using them as pure EMU's. Given that the plan is that they would likely be the same trains as the TOC's are using just with batteries I doubt the normall issues of mirco fleets would come into play as much.