• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Preferred rolling stock for Ashford to Ore post possible Electfication

Status
Not open for further replies.

SEClass375

Member
Joined
16 Aug 2016
Messages
112
What rolling stock do you think would end up and what rolling stock would you like on the Ashford to Ore after it has been electified?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JB_B

Established Member
Joined
27 Dec 2013
Messages
1,411
Isn't electrification still just an aspiration? ( Or have I missed something? )
 

SEClass375

Member
Joined
16 Aug 2016
Messages
112
Isn't electrification still just an aspiration? ( Or have I missed something? )
Being a bit blinkered now and then your guess is as good as mine. Fictional or not the question remains becuase its been on my mind and I cannot find a clear cut answer to what rolling stock should be used and others may know better.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
A decent electrostar doing the East Coastway long distance service would be fine (one with the nice well cushioned seats and plenty of decent tables).
 

GatwickDepress

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2013
Messages
2,284
Location
Leeds
If either the HS1 extension or infill electrification ever goes ahead, I can see the line being transferred to Southeastern for simplicity. If the extension is completed, an hourly or bi-hourly Class 395 service to St. Pancras combined with a bi-hourly Electrostar stopping service between Ashford and Hastings would more than suffice.

If the line is simply electrified, replacing the Turbostar with a dual-voltage Electrostar would do much to ease overcrowding and encourage growth on the line. It could even see the reintroduction of Ashford to Brighton or Eastbourne services due to the increased capacity.

Although if I'm honest, I don't imagine the HS1 scheme ever going ahead in the current climate. I imagine we'll see the Uckfield branch or the North Downs line electrified long before the Marshlink ever does too.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
If either the HS1 extension or infill electrification ever goes ahead, I can see the line being transferred to Southeastern for simplicity. If the extension is completed, an hourly or bi-hourly Class 395 service to St. Pancras combined with a bi-hourly Electrostar stopping service between Ashford and Hastings would more than suffice.

If the line is simply electrified, replacing the Turbostar with a dual-voltage Electrostar would do much to ease overcrowding and encourage growth on the line. It could even see the reintroduction of Ashford to Brighton or Eastbourne services due to the increased capacity.

Although if I'm honest, I don't imagine the HS1 scheme ever going ahead in the current climate. I imagine we'll see the Uckfield branch or the North Downs line electrified long before the Marshlink ever does too.

I'm not sure. If we were relieved of the constraint of having to rely on a small pool of 2 carriage diesels, wouldn't it be better to build on the very popular Brighton - Ashford through service, only with adequate rolling stock ?
 

SEClass375

Member
Joined
16 Aug 2016
Messages
112
If the line does go to southeastern then I would love to see the 375/6s do a loop service from London via Ashford and Hastings, if they call at all stations from Tonbridge to Tonbridge then I cannot se why not to run the Dover P and Ramsgates fast from Tonbridge/Paddock Wood to Ashford.
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,709
Location
Ilfracombe
If the line does go to southeastern then I would love to see the 375/6s do a loop service from London via Ashford and Hastings, if they call at all stations from Tonbridge to Tonbridge then I cannot se why not to run the Dover P and Ramsgates fast from Tonbridge/Paddock Wood to Ashford.
The single track sections on the Tonbridge-Hastings-Ashford section (4 single tracked tunnels between Tonbridge and Battle plus Ore-Rye and Rye-Appledore) combined with the lack of platform capacity at Charing Cross would make such a service a huge reliability risk. And I can't see any major flows which would see a benefit compared to having a London-(Tonbridge/Maidstone/HS1)-Ashford-Eastbourne service. And keeping a Brighton-Ashford service (and possibly extending it to Margate) might be better than having a direct service between the Marshlink and London via Tonbridge/Maidstone.

If the Marshlink was completely redoubled as part of the electrification the greater benefit of London-(Tonbridge/Maidstone/HS1)-Ashford-Eastbourne services compared to London-Tonbridge-Hastings-Tonbridge-London services would still remain.
 
Last edited:

trainmania100

Established Member
Joined
8 Nov 2015
Messages
2,566
Location
Newhaven
My idea would be to carry out BML2, electrifying the uckfield branch all the way to Lewes.
And then use the freed up 171s to the marshlink.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
It isn't going to be electrified. Ever.

Expect a hybrid of some sort, possibly battery.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,396
Expect a hybrid of some sort, possibly battery.

... possibly. There’s a few other ideas floating around for battery-equipped MUs.

Battery storage is a form of electrification since the energy would have entered the train as electricity :)

Not within the scope of the railway definition. Yours would imply DEMUs and HSTs are “electrified”!
 

fergusjbend

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2011
Messages
141
All fine and dandy, but no one has yet explained how the connection would be made at Ashford International between HS1 on the north side of the station and the Marsh Line on the south without grade separation. Surely the cost and complexity of this problem would preclude other considerations?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
All fine and dandy, but no one has yet explained how the connection would be made at Ashford International between HS1 on the north side of the station and the Marsh Line on the south without grade separation. Surely the cost and complexity of this problem would preclude other considerations?

There's a set of crossovers that allow trains from Maidstone East to enter platforms 1 & 2. I'm not sure whether these are East of the junction with HS1 and the domestic lines though.
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,709
Location
Ilfracombe
All fine and dandy, but no one has yet explained how the connection would be made at Ashford International between HS1 on the north side of the station and the Marsh Line on the south without grade separation. Surely the cost and complexity of this problem would preclude other considerations?
Read the Kent Route Study Technical Appendix. It includes a design for a modified junction which allows trains to move between HS1 and Ashford platform 2 without grade separation.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
I believe one the suggested stock concepts if the junction works are funded would be bi-mode Hitachi AT300. What with the existing HS1 stock being electric AT300 (Class 395) and bi-mode AT300 now being something that's in service (Class 800)
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,396
That’s assuming a Class 800 can be cleared for the route. Reengineering the 800 design to reduce the coach length whilst retaining bi-mode capability would be prohibitively expensive, if at all possible.
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,709
Location
Ilfracombe
When considering the merits of HS1 to Hastings one needs to consider the franchise requirement of having London to Hastings via Tunbridge Wells services run non-stop from London Bridge to Tonbridge from December 2022. This should reduce Hastings to London Bridge journey times to about 77 & 89 minutes off-peak (peak is slower due to being held up behind slower services and more congestion). This is not far off the 67 minutes that a train via HS1 on a speeded up Marshlink is supposed to do to St Pancras.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
That’s assuming a Class 800 can be cleared for the route. Reengineering the 800 design to reduce the coach length whilst retaining bi-mode capability would be prohibitively expensive, if at all possible.
That's a heck of an assumption. Anyway, I'd expect the route would be more along the lines of taking the 395 design and look to see if it could go bimode.
 

LunchSociety

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2017
Messages
25
That's a heck of an assumption. Anyway, I'd expect the route would be more along the lines of taking the 395 design and look to see if it could go bimode.
Assuming bi-modes are the route taken then I would imagine you're closer to the truth and since the maximum speed required on diesel would be a lot less than the 125mph on GWML and ECML then one would imagine the engines could/would be considerably smaller
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,396
... which implies a fair deal of reengineering for what would be a very small order.
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,709
Location
Ilfracombe
That's a heck of an assumption. Anyway, I'd expect the route would be more along the lines of taking the 395 design and look to see if it could go bimode.
Just looked at the Kent Route Study Appendix and seen that it states that a bi-mode 20m AT300 'may' need to be developed for the 'Class 802' option to be implemented. Implying that it is not simple to work out whether it would be necessary.

Looking elsewhere in the section I saw that a class 379 IPEMU would be limited by charging time rather than energy capacity when on a Brighton-Ashford-Brighton diagram. The document suggests a Brighton-Ashford-Brighton-Seaford-Brighton diagram as a solution.
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,709
Location
Ilfracombe
Perhaps a 140mph 20m carriage IPEMU for a St Pancras to Brighton via Ashford service would be an option. Would probably need to find other customers for the train. :)

Or there could be an Eastbourne-Ashford-London-Faversham-London-Ashford-Eastbourne diagram :)
 
Last edited:

fergusjbend

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2011
Messages
141
There's a set of crossovers that allow trains from Maidstone East to enter platforms 1 & 2. I'm not sure whether these are East of the junction with HS1 and the domestic lines though.
The junction between the Maidstone branch and platforms 1 & 2 is west of that between platforms 5 & 6 and HS1 i.e trains from/to Hastings cannot access HS1 now, nor could they in future without substantial redesign.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,396
Just looked at the Kent Route Study Appendix and seen that it states that a bi-mode 20m AT300 'may' need to be developed for the 'Class 802' option to be implemented. Implying that it is not simple to work out whether it would be necessary.

Thanks for looking that up.

Perhaps a 140mph 20m carriage IPEMU for a St Pancras to Brighton via Ashford service would be an option. Would probably need to find other customers for the train. :)

20m battery/EMU hybrids are an option being considered when it comes to replacing the Networkers. The challenge for sending them up HS1 would be squeezing another 20-40mph out of that!
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,709
Location
Ilfracombe
The junction between the Maidstone branch and platforms 1 & 2 is west of that between platforms 5 & 6 and HS1 i.e trains from/to Hastings cannot access HS1 now, nor could they in future without substantial redesign.
'Substantial redesign' is adding 3 new crossovers between adjacent tracks and removing one redundant crossover (the solution in the Kent Route Study Appendix for connecting platform 2 to HS1). There is no necessity for platform 1 to be connected to HS1 (but it could be done at extra cost). Some land purchase would be required indicating that some tracks and crossovers would be relocated further west.

There is also the alternative option to make platform 3 domestic and have a crossover from the Marshlink.
 
Last edited:

fergusjbend

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2011
Messages
141
'Substantial redesign' is adding 3 new crossovers between adjacent tracks and removing one redundant crossover (the solution in the Kent Route Study Appendix for connecting platform 2 to HS1). There is no necessity for platform 1 to be connected to HS1 (but it could be done at extra cost). Some land purchase would be required indicating that some tracks and crossovers would be relocated further west.

There is also the alternative option to make platform 3 domestic and have a crossover from the Marshlink.

As the study says: "6.4.4. Although this seems a fairly simple proposal, the technicalities of installing the crossovers, power supplies and signalling enhancements add significantly to the challenges of the scheme, which would cost in the region of £15-35M."
 

LunchSociety

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2017
Messages
25
... which implies a fair deal of reengineering for what would be a very small order.
I completely agree and think that the order size would be the problem factor even if Hitachi could find other customers for such a train. It would be very interesting to see how the finances would compare for a compatible bi-mode vs electrification of the necessary areas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top