North Downs line electrification

[Deepgreen]

Perhaps you could have about a 12 car length of run off third rail in case an ordinary DC train is mis-signalled. That could be considered a safety precaution...

That wouldn't be a safety precaution, merely a service delay avoidance precaution. A 'dead' unit is not unsafe but it is a pain!

 

[Deepgreen]

That's what they said in answer a few pages back when I mentioned the kilometre of extra three tracking, (which is effectively a loop leading towards a four track section), between Southampton Parkway and Eastleigh.

Sorry - missed that one.

 

[Phil.]

Can I thank contributors to this thread (particularly the aforementioned 3rd rail huggers) for providing what is unquestionably the comic relief to what is otherwise a depressingly serious and reality-based forum. I look forward to further threads advocating the reinstatement of steam traction (but only for modest extensions and infill).

I'm not a third rail hugger (mummy told me that it was a dangerous thing to do) I'm all for overheads on new build or entirely new projects. But to not fill in the bits of the North Downs line with what is modest third rail infill in what is already third rail land is just plain nuts. Whilst the dithering goes on the already 22-24 year old DMUs that wend their way back and forth will be getting older - and less reliable.

 

[najaB]

But to not fill in the bits of the North Downs line with what is modest third rail infill in what is already third rail land is just plain nuts.

Or, alternatively, use the North Downs Line as the start of the 25kV conversion and work outwards as equipment comes due for renewal.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Or, alternatively, use the North Downs Line as the start of the 25kV conversion and work outwards as equipment comes due for renewal.

Now that sounds like a great plan. Do Reading -Basingstoke and this as part of the same scheme and add in Basingstoke- Southampton as part of the Spine. I love it.

 

[coppercapped]

Are you having a laugh?

Your point being...?

 

[J-2739]

Your point being...?

Why only develop places that seems ''prosperous' to you and leave over places to deprive? Are you trying to widen the gap of the richest to the poorest?

 

[Domh245]

Why only develop places that seems ''prosperous' to you and leave over places to deprive? Are you trying to widen the gap of the richest to the poorest?

Not only that, but one mustn't forget the indirect benefits of electrification. For example, electrifying the NDL would allow something else to operate it. This in turn allows the turbos to head Westward, allowing either longer trains or the retirement of the oldest and worst condition stock. Upgrading existing stuff gets you a journey time saving of a couple of minutes at most.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Or, alternatively, use the North Downs Line as the start of the 25kV conversion and work outwards as equipment comes due for renewal.

The 'overarching' plan is for Electric Spine in CP6/CP7 which converts Basingstoke to Southampton 750V DC to 25kV AC, between CP6 and CP8, works should also include Basingstoke to Salisbury (that's new 25kV AC) and Woking to Basingstoke conversion from 750V DC to 25kV AC.

The Woking to Basingstoke work assumes 25kV AC OLE allows 110mph operation between Woking and Basingstoke and onto Southampton, which releases at least one additional train path per hour, it's much as Project 110 was on the WCML for London Midland, though where that path would ultimately serve isn't settled yet - the Wessex Route Study discusses services to Heathrow using the Western Route Access to Heathrow (WRAtH) and there's SRAtH to come too (the Southern Route Access) plus there's the impact of Crossrail 2 on capacity across the Wessex area.

Southampton to Weymouth is also pencilled in for DC to AC conversion at much the same time, it was always marginal on power, it's getting on in years and with electrification extending towards Exeter in future Control Periods, it's a logical continuation.

It goes without saying, much of this work is predicated on the Government and ORR allowing DC to AC conversion, and lots of it is based around Heathrow winning the fight for a third runway and public transport upgrades being part of the conditions necessary for approval, so additional works could be required, similarly, work could be postponed or re-planned if DC to AC conversion is kept on the back burner, if Gatwick gets a second runway instead or new electrification is kept as a top priority.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Woking to Basingstoke work assumes 25kV AC OLE allows 110mph operation between Woking and Basingstoke and onto Southampton, which releases at least one additional train path per hour...

I'm not sure about that old chap. 110 vs 100 on that stretch saves one minute at most for a train that doesn't stop at either Woking or Basingstoke (or anywhere in between). It does nothing to help headways. The additional paths come from ETCS and (hopefully) ATO, but that is at least 10 years away.

 

[Domh245]

I'm not sure about that old chap. 110 vs 100 on that stretch saves one minute at most for a train that doesn't stop at either Woking or Basingstoke (or anywhere in between). It does nothing to help headways. The additional paths come from ETCS and (hopefully) ATO, but that is at least 10 years away.

Wouldn't there also be some time savings from the desiros operating at maximum power and accelerating faster from the OHLE instead of the third rail?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Southampton to Weymouth is also pencilled in for DC to AC conversion at much the same time, it was always marginal on power, it's getting on in years and with electrification extending towards Exeter in future Control Periods, it's a logical continuation.

Would the provision for the single track section being doubled be allowed for even if it isn't actually doubled?

 

[AM9]

Wouldn't there also be some time savings from the desiros operating at maximum power and accelerating faster from the OHLE instead of the third rail?

If the DC to ac improvement of acceleration is anything like that between the BML and MML for both Electrostars and 700s, it will make fitting the stoppers inbetween the fasts on the fast tracks much easier on the four-track sections particularly as the SWML tracks between Woking and Worting Junction are in DS DF UF US formation.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Wouldn't there also be some time savings from the desiros operating at maximum power and accelerating faster from the OHLE instead of the third rail?

I'd doubt it - it'll cut another 60 to 90 seconds, maybe a full two minutes off Woking to Southampton (given you don't benefit from the faster acceleration until reaching AC at Woking).

If the 110mph increase doesn't create an additional path, the acceleration increases probably won't, unless it all adds up sufficiently to sneak an extra path in, which from Bald Rick's comment, suggests it wouldn't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would the provision for the single track section being doubled be allowed for even if it isn't actually doubled?

It should be, but until it's on the drawing board and a design agreed, there's never a guarantee. It would be enormously short sighted to do anything which precludes re-doubling, but such decisions have been taken recently.

 

[edwin_m]

Basingstoke to Southampton only has seven stations, some of which would be served by all trains, so better acceleration won't vastly decrease the time difference between the stoppers and the fasts. Also, even if electric, the freight would only be doing 75mph so I suspect accelerating the fastest trains might even be a negative for capacity. If a dynamic overtaking loop is built (as suggested in the route strategy) then having 110mph passenger trains might allow it to be a bit shorter.

 

[coppercapped]

Why only develop places that seems ''prosperous' to you and leave over places to deprive? Are you trying to widen the gap of the richest to the poorest?

What are you writing about? I certainly never made any such suggestion.

 

[J-2739]

What are you writing about? I certainly never made any such suggestion.

This:

On its own electrification will not solve anything and ploughing a lot of capital into fixed electrical supply equipment to service, at best, three 4 coach long trains in each direction per hour would be a criminal waste of money. Far better to spend the money somewhere where frequent 8 or 10 coach trains operate.

You didn't say it in word but by the looks of it, you probably hid it between the lines. However, maybe a point similar to Domh245 you was trying to get across?

Not only that, but one mustn't forget the indirect benefits of electrification. For example, electrifying the NDL will allow something else to operate it. This in turn allows the turbos to head Westward, allowing either longer trains or the retirement of the oldest and worst condition stock. Upgrading existing stuff gets you a journey time saving of a couple of minutes at most.

 

[Phil.]

Or, alternatively, use the North Downs Line as the start of the 25kV conversion and work outwards as equipment comes due for renewal.

Because it'll be at least ten years from now before that happens.

 

[The Ham]

On its own electrification will not solve anything and ploughing a lot of capital into fixed electrical supply equipment to service, at best, three 4 coach long trains in each direction per hour would be a criminal waste of money. Far better to spend the money somewhere where frequent 8 or 10 coach trains operate.

How many places are there that run trains that are longer than 8 coaches which aren't already on the cards to have electrification or the stock replaced with bimodal?

Of those how many would benefit from an extra 30 miles of electrification more than the NDL?

 

[coppercapped]

This:

You didn't say it in word but by the looks of it, you probably hid it between the lines. However, maybe a point similar to Domh245 you was trying to get across?

So you are sufficiently arrogant to know better than I what I meant to convey?

Money does not grow on trees. For the essentially limited amount of money available to the railways for capital investment each year I am suggesting it would be better to spend it first in areas where the passenger-km/track-km/hour ratio is higher. If the money is spent on the Guildford-Redhill line it will not be available - at the same time - for something like HS3. In my estimation something like HS3 or the extension of electrification in the great swath of country between Liverpool and Hull, which has a large population, has greater priority.

When the lines with heavier traffic have been electrified then, and only then, should the available capital be used on tertiary links like Guildford - Redhill.

 

[J-2739]

So you are sufficiently arrogant to know better than I do what I meant to convey?

Is that the best you can do?

Money does not grow on trees. For the essentially limited amount of money available to the railways for capital investment each year I am suggesting it would be better to spend it first in areas where the passenger-km/track-km/hour ratio is higher.

You NEVER said 'spend it first' in that OP.

If the money is spent on the Guildford-Redhill line it will not be available - at the same time - for something like HS3. In my estimation something like HS3 or the extension of electrification in the great swath of country between Liverpool and Hull, which has a large population, has greater priority.

Don't know how HS3 entered this discussion. Since this talk about the Northern Powerhouse has died down, who knows if it will do through. And places with growing demand will also benefit as much as 'Liverpool' and 'Hull', perhaps indirect.

When the lines with heavier traffic have been electrified then, and only then, should the available capital be used on tertiary links like Guildford - Redhill.

Again, you never mention about 'elsewhere' in your OP. You should focus on routes with a growing demand also, not just those which look busy on paper.

I might just have to take your word for it though, since you 'know everything better than me'.

 

[Domh245]

Money does not grow on trees. For the essentially limited amount of money available to the railways for capital investment each year I am suggesting it would be better to spend it first in areas where the passenger-km/track-km/hour ratio is higher. If the money is spent on the Guildford-Redhill line it will not be available - at the same time - for something like HS3. In my estimation something like HS3 or the extension of electrification in the great swath of country between Liverpool and Hull, which has a large population, has greater priority.

I think that HS3 (if it goes ahead) would be funded in a similar way to HS2, ie out of it's own budget that exists solely for it. Money available for upgrades on the existing network isn't affected by HS rail construction.

 

[The Ham]

So you are sufficiently arrogant to know better than I what I meant to convey?

Money does not grow on trees. For the essentially limited amount of money available to the railways for capital investment each year I am suggesting it would be better to spend it first in areas where the passenger-km/track-km/hour ratio is higher. If the money is spent on the Guildford-Redhill line it will not be available - at the same time - for something like HS3. In my estimation something like HS3 or the extension of electrification in the great swath of country between Liverpool and Hull, which has a large population, has greater priority.

When the lines with heavier traffic have been electrified then, and only then, should the available capital be used on tertiary links like Guildford - Redhill.

There may be some slight selective quoting in your post above, if you look at the population of Guildford (67,000) to Redhill (18,000) you probably end up with a total population of circa 100,000. However services don't only run on that section and include the length from Reading to Guildford and Redhill to Gatwick which significantly increases the population and the desire to travel.

You are also comparing a short distance (circa 13 miles) with a much longer distance (circa 130 miles), in fact even Hull to Selby is well over double the distance of Guildford to Redhill at circa 35 miles (although to be fair Hull has over double the population, but less than that along the whole route from Reading to Gatwick).

Also, you haven't answered my earlier question:

How many places are there that run trains that are longer than 8 coaches which aren't already on the cards to have electrification or the stock replaced with bimodal?

Of those how many would benefit from an extra 30 miles of electrification more than the NDL?

 

[QueensCurve]

I'm not a 3rd rail hugger. I actually support 25kv 50hz so most of the above was a petty attempt to target me. I don't know if you're joking or not but why is this forum 'depressingly serious'?

Or are you being sarcastic?

It wasn't particularly you that I was trying to "target". I coined the phrase given the reluctance of some to accept any evidence to the effect that 25kV is the present and future.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Project 110 was on the WCML for London Midland, though where that path would ultimately serve isn't settled yet - the Wessex Route Study discusses services to Heathrow using the W

I thought Project 110 was specifically intended to allow the LM Euston to Crewe service to be able to use an existing path on the direct route from Hanslope to Rugby rather than have to be routed via Northampton?

 

[coppercapped]

I think that HS3 (if it goes ahead) would be funded in a similar way to HS2, ie out of it's own budget that exists solely for it. Money available for upgrades on the existing network isn't affected by HS rail construction.

In the current Control Period that is certainly correct. But in the next Control Period you could be wrong!

The Government, any Government, has only one source of money - taxes. The amount that can be raised, whether through Corporation Taxes, Excise Duties, Stamp Duty, Income Tax, VAT or any other tax is limited by the general economic situation and the politically acceptable level of taxation rates.

This income is not hypothecated and goes into one pot from which the Government, of any political flavour or leaning, makes value judgements and allocates funds to pensions, health care, income support of the lower paid, education, defence, its own running costs, flood defences, transport and a host of other things as it sees fit. At a lower level the individual ministries will allocate funds according to their priorities - in the case of transport a sum will be spent on roads and another on railways and some more on aviation and buses. Some of the money spent on railways will be used for on-going operational spending on the existing railway and enhancements to it and some will be spent on new construction such as HS2. In this sense you are correct - at this level the budgets are separate, but at a higher level they come out of the same pot.

If money becomes tight, as it might well do over the next few years, experience shows that it is the prestigious, high profile, politically useful projects that get funded and on-going, boring maintenance gets squeezed. Hence pot-holes in the roads - the roads still work, just not as well as they could do.

The initial dance of the bureaucrats is now starting for the allocation of funds for Network Rail's next Control Period starting in 2019. It would be unwise to expect that NR will receive an increase in funds over the current settlement and remember that since NR was categorised as being in the public sector it can no longer raise funds from the capital markets to fill any gaps. It now has to live within the money it is allocated. To keep HS2, and possibly HS3, alive may well mean that the existing railway has to make do with less than it gets at the moment.

 

[J-2739]

It wasn't particularly you that I was trying to "target". I coined the phrase given the reluctance of some to accept any evidence to the effect that 25kV is the present and future.

Ok, that's fine then , I actually thought you were being sarcastic more like, than target me. I'm in great favour of 25kv 50hz.

 

[QueensCurve]

Ok, that's fine then , I actually thought you were being sarcastic more like, than target me. I'm in great favour of 25kv 50hz.

And, at risk of being proved wrong, I can imagine there might still be extremely short extensions* to 3rd rail where that didn't require additional power supplies and was interfacing to non-life-expired equipment.

* Thinking about things like headshunts, reversing spurs, modifications to track layouts etc.

 

[coppercapped]

There may be some slight selective quoting in your post above, if you look at the population of Guildford (67,000) to Redhill (18,000) you probably end up with a total population of circa 100,000. However services don't only run on that section and include the length from Reading to Guildford and Redhill to Gatwick which significantly increases the population and the desire to travel.

In my post No. 505 I wrote:

Admittedly it connects places which lie off its ends - but the train frequency remains low.

This already answers your point. I would add that the trains are short as well.

You are also comparing a short distance (circa 13 miles) with a much longer distance (circa 130 miles), in fact even Hull to Selby is well over double the distance of Guildford to Redhill at circa 35 miles (although to be fair Hull has over double the population, but less than that along the whole route from Reading to Gatwick).

I am not comparing anything - I simply named a part of the country which has a large population and, judging by many posters on this forum, has been badly neglected in infrastructure spending over the years. There are continual complaints that the trains in the area are overcrowded, too short and too slow. Why should money which posters on this thread are suggesting be spent on the North Downs line not be spent somewhere in that area to accelerate improvements?

Also, you haven't answered my earlier question:

It may have escaped you - but I was simply trying to make the point that it is better for all concerned to spend the limited funds which are available in areas where demand is highest. The North Downs line is not one of these.

 

[J-2739]

And, at risk of being proved wrong, I can imagine there might still be extremely short extensions to 3rd rail where that didn't require additional power supplies and was interfacing to non-life-expired equipment.

I wish I could answer that, but I may come out wrong, so I'd leave it to the technicians.

 

[The Ham]

In my post No. 505 I wrote:



This already answers your point. I would add that the trains are short as well.



I am not comparing anything - I simply named a part of the country which has a large population and, judging by many posters on this forum, has been badly neglected in infrastructure spending over the years. There are continual complaints that the trains in the area are overcrowded, too short and too slow. Why should money which posters on this thread are suggesting be spent on the North Downs line not be spent somewhere in that area to accelerate improvements?



It may have escaped you - but I was simply trying to make the point that it is better for all concerned to spend the limited funds which are available in areas where demand is highest. The North Downs line is not one of these.

The point I was making was where else could you electrify with just 30 miles of electrification that would bring bigger benefits that the NDL.

Yes there are lots of places that could benefit more from electrification, but a lot of them require a lot more electrification.

The NDL has some services (admiralty on the Guildford to Reading section) which can be very busy. With a number of services which are full and standing when the trains have 3+2 seating in 3 x 23m long coaches.