• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

Should the ORR be friendlier to third rail?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
3,384
Bit in bold - don't think you can. For starters it's the 350/2s which are being released from WMT / LNW, which aren't and never have been dual voltage. Secondly the 350/1s have had all their shoegear removed as it wasn't needed, there is every chance that other changes have since been made to the units which would prevent it being reinstated.
Ah ****e, are there any off lease EMUs to swap them for?
And the multiple conversions and modifications done to other EMUs across the Southern Region shows the shoegear issue isn't insurmountable.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

RobShipway

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
3,337
Your premise is completely wrong because third rail isn't in widespread use. Its largely Confined to metro routes, much of which are either elevated or tunnelled and have very few ways to gain unauthorised access.
I would not define the Brighton to London mainline entirely as a metro route. There is metro services on and off the Brighton mainline though.

N and SE are both short of EMUs and the 350/1s provide an answer helping them to release those 171s, rather then putting further pressure on their already very much streamlined fleet utilisation plan.
The class 350/1's are not being release by LNWR (West Midland Trains) and as said above, with modifications made to allow them to run at 110mph, I doubt that you would be able to add third rail shoes to them.

Bit in bold is utterly untrue - it means that any *NEW* installation of 3rd rail needs to meet the *CURRENT STANDARDS* not be installed in the way it was back in the 1960s or 1980s - and that may mean addressing a safety case it didn't previously have to, closing foot or level crossings which are a risk and a multitude of other things.
Last time I checked, most recently at Newhaven, there was not any third rail sections across the level crossing, but I will stand corrected on that point as the third rail ends before the crossing at Newhaven Town station, then starts again after the crossing of the road?

Ah ****e, are there any off lease EMUs to swap them for?
And the multiple conversions and modifications done to other EMUs across the Southern Region shows the shoegear issue isn't insurmountable.
The only possible spare units, which you may be able to convert is the class 379 units. But there would be a cost to doing that has has been discussed on many threads before including the Future of Class 379 thread.
 

A0

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,751
Last time I checked, most recently at Newhaven, there was not any third rail sections across the level crossing, but I will stand corrected on that point as the third rail ends before the crossing at Newhaven Town station, then starts again after the crossing of the road?

The point is a level crossing, as with foot crossings are where people can (although they shouldn't) gain access to the tracks, which is why 3rd rail is a risk at those locations.

Ah ****e, are there any off lease EMUs to swap them for?
And the multiple conversions and modifications done to other EMUs across the Southern Region shows the shoegear issue isn't insurmountable.

All of which come at a cost - and are not guaranteed to be successful. Either way, solving Uckfield or Marshlink can be done in several different ways, recycling or re-working existing EMUs may not be the best option. For Marshlink a battery unit would easily cover the distance - and that's technology already in use in other parts of the world and wouldn't require the laying of 3rd rail with the attendant safety risks.

You are obviously not familiar with the layout at Ashford. Platforms 3, 4, 5 & 6 are all dual electrified for through running on ac/dc. The close proximity of the hs through line means the whole area has enhanced earthing.

I hadn't looked closely - I though the HS lines were more separated.

Either way, I wouldn't wire Marshlink - not when the option of battery is in place and would easily cover the distance and not incur the cost of OHLE or risks of 3rd rail.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
8,174
Location
West Wiltshire
Last time I checked, most recently at Newhaven, there was not any third rail sections across the level crossing, but I will stand corrected on that point as the third rail ends before the crossing at Newhaven Town station, then starts again after the crossing of the road?

Unlike overhead, no third rail crosses level crossings or foot crossings.

This is photo of typical example, anti animal and pedestrian grids, with the end of the third rail shielded where a track worker might need to reach the cabinet. The former crossing keepers cottage is fully fenced off (photo is A337 road at Brockenhurst)

 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
3,384
All of which come at a cost - and are not guaranteed to be successful. Either way, solving Uckfield or Marshlink can be done in several different ways, recycling or re-working existing EMUs may not be the best option. For Marshlink a battery unit would easily cover the distance - and that's technology already in use in other parts of the world and wouldn't require the laying of 3rd rail with the attendant safety risks.
OK, and who is going to fund a battery unit in this economy?
Unless you get a Meccano EMU off CRRC, it's not going to be cheap.
The 466s may be an easy battery conversion tbh, and they'll be very cheap to lease when SE starts replacing their metro fleet.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,635
Location
Yorks
Once again you are either being deliberately obtuse or wilfully ignorant - I'm not sure which.

Bit in bold is utterly untrue - it means that any *NEW* installation of 3rd rail needs to meet the *CURRENT STANDARDS* not be installed in the way it was back in the 1960s or 1980s - and that may mean addressing a safety case it didn't previously have to, closing foot or level crossings which are a risk and a multitude of other things.

Just because it's the main traction system in "the south of England" - by which you actually mean Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire - because it isn't for a number of the other counties in Southern England, doesn't mean that the installations on those lines meet current safety standards - and indeed if they were assessed by those standards *NOW* they may well fall short of them.

And you're doing nothing more than toeing the party line.

There needs to be more scrutiny of these decisions. Who reviews and challenges these decisions that third rail extensions are "unsafe". How was this decision arrived at.

The "number of other counties" in the South that you mention have to rely on a lot of dirty diesel traction, so third rail electrification is the better system by comparison.

The point is a level crossing, as with foot crossings are where people can (although they shouldn't) gain access to the tracks, which is why 3rd rail is a risk at those locations.

The large, fast moving metal objects are also a risk to those illegally gaining access at such locations. Are you going to ban those ?
 

A0

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,751
And you're doing nothing more than toeing the party line.

There needs to be more scrutiny of these decisions. Who reviews and challenges these decisions that third rail extensions are "unsafe". How was this decision arrived at.

The "number of other counties" in the South that you mention have to rely on a lot of dirty diesel traction, so third rail electrification is the better system by comparison.



The large, fast moving metal objects are also a risk to those illegally gaining access at such locations. Are you going to ban those ?

Bit in bold - wrong. Essex only has 1 branch line which is diesel - the rest is OHLE, Herts has the small bit of Chiltern which is diesel, the rest electric, Berkshire has the GWML, all except a few branches are now wired.

All of those counties are in "the south" - sone I'd have thought with your username you'd understand better than most....m
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,635
Location
Yorks
Bit in bold - wrong. Essex only has 1 branch line which is diesel - the rest is OHLE, Herts has the small bit of Chiltern which is diesel, the rest electric, Berkshire has the GWML, all except a few branches are now wired.

All of those counties are in "the south" - sone I'd have thought with your username you'd understand better than most....m

Growing up in Kent, Essex was due North.

Somerset, Devon and Cornwall are very much South though.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,992
Location
K
I hadn't looked closely - I though the HS lines were more separated.

Either way, I wouldn't wire Marshlink - not when the option of battery is in place and would easily cover the distance and not incur the cost of OHLE or risks of 3rd rail.
The issue really is that a battery emu is still a small specialised fleet, only that you need a much larger specialised fleet as a battery emu can't recharge off DC lines in the cycle of the existing services so it needs to swap on to wholly electrified services in between the unelectrified trips. If you really can't do the electrification you are better off kicking the bucket down the road until the end of the 171s life by which time the technology has improved.
 

renegademaster

Established Member
Joined
22 Jun 2023
Messages
1,747
Location
Croydon
Ah gotcha! :)
They'd be a good fit for SWR though
Once again you are either being deliberately obtuse or wilfully ignorant - I'm not sure which.

Bit in bold is utterly untrue - it means that any *NEW* installation of 3rd rail needs to meet the *CURRENT STANDARDS* not be installed in the way it was back in the 1960s or 1980s - and that may mean addressing a safety case it didn't previously have to, closing foot or level crossings which are a risk and a multitude of other things.

Just because it's the main traction system in "the south of England" - by which you actually mean Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire - because it isn't for a number of the other counties in Southern England, doesn't mean that the installations on those lines meet current safety standards - and indeed if they were assessed by those standards *NOW* they may well fall short of them.



The problem you've got is the 3rd rail and OHLE at Ashford are well segregated at the moment. If you were to wire Marshlink you'd then have to make a bunch of changes to support the necessary earthing which happens wherever you have 25kv AC OHLE and 750v DC 3rd rail in close proximity. Posters such as Bald Rick have written at length about that on other threads.
The new standards means Southern have got spend boatloads on new stock , especially considering that you can't do dual top contact bottom contact rails like can do dual AC DC trains. That ORR haven't just given "YOU MUST PHASE THIS OUT BY YEAR XXXX" order like they did with non locking slam door trains , they understand that their is a risk reward balance that tips in favour of allowing the old standards to exist where they are already, considering that other risks exist as a consequence on the top contact third rail ban, to consider the risk reward balance exists elsewhere and its not immoral to consider allowing the old standards to be built where the new standards are not economically feasible.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,249
Location
Bristol
The issue really is that a battery emu is still a small specialised fleet, only that you need a much larger specialised fleet as a battery emu can't recharge off DC lines in the cycle of the existing services so it needs to swap on to wholly electrified services in between the unelectrified trips. If you really can't do the electrification you are better off kicking the bucket down the road until the end of the 171s life by which time the technology has improved.
Marshlink and North downs shouldn't be a problem for charging, even better if the Marshlink services went through to Brighton again (although that particular ship may have regrettably gone). The only other DMU island wholly within 3rd rail is Uckfield, for which the problem is not charging between Hurst Green and London but getting from HG to Uckfield and back in one go. However the Vivarail-produced solution that AIUI is still being taken forward for Greenford would potentially provide the top-up needed.
The only other DMU 'over the rail' so to speak are the services in the Southampton area, but given that is now a fringe to the OLE area now you wouldn't choose to put any more 3rd rail down than a little bit of booster juice at Eastleigh and Redbridge. Electrify Filton-Redbridge on OLE and use a dual voltage EMU on it.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,992
Location
K
Marshlink and North downs shouldn't be a problem for charging, even better if the Marshlink services went through to Brighton again (although that particular ship may have regrettably gone). The only other DMU island wholly within 3rd rail is Uckfield, for which the problem is not charging between Hurst Green and London but getting from HG to Uckfield and back in one go. However the Vivarail-produced solution that AIUI is still being taken forward for Greenford would potentially provide the top-up needed.
The only other DMU 'over the rail' so to speak are the services in the Southampton area, but given that is now a fringe to the OLE area now you wouldn't choose to put any more 3rd rail down than a little bit of booster juice at Eastleigh and Redbridge. Electrify Filton-Redbridge on OLE and use a dual voltage EMU on it.
As I understand it roughly based on the existing service which only has a 10 to 15 minute turnround at Ashford and no platform availability to extend it along with limitations on the power supply on the East Coastway a Marshlink service would have to do a Brighton to Ashford return trip followed by a return trip to Seaford to achieve reliable service operation. Alternatively you could put the unit in to the sidings at Eastbourne for an hour. Either way youd need extra units to cover the service.
Based on the prepandemic timetable the East Grinstead line didn't have enough electrical capacity for the 171s to be replaced with straight 377s let alone battery units south of South Croydon. That is why the Southern Electrostar Battery conversion that was what was supposed to send the 171s to EMR was quietly dropped.
 

A0

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,751
Marshlink and North downs shouldn't be a problem for charging, even better if the Marshlink services went through to Brighton again (although that particular ship may have regrettably gone). The only other DMU island wholly within 3rd rail is Uckfield, for which the problem is not charging between Hurst Green and London but getting from HG to Uckfield and back in one go. However the Vivarail-produced solution that AIUI is still being taken forward for Greenford would potentially provide the top-up needed.
The only other DMU 'over the rail' so to speak are the services in the Southampton area, but given that is now a fringe to the OLE area now you wouldn't choose to put any more 3rd rail down than a little bit of booster juice at Eastleigh and Redbridge. Electrify Filton-Redbridge on OLE and use a dual voltage EMU on it.

Is Uckfield really unachievable by battery ? Looks like 25 mile trip each way from Hurst Green - I'd have thought the current technology would cover that with maybe some charging solution at Uckfield during turnaround ?
 

renegademaster

Established Member
Joined
22 Jun 2023
Messages
1,747
Location
Croydon
I'd rather just electrify or just run the turbostars to the bitter end, but if you wanted a low power EMU so you could use the surplus to charge a battery, you could take the 455s out of storage and fit batteries to them, but they aren't really suited for rural lines like Marshlink with no toilets
 

Thebaz

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2016
Messages
429
Location
Purley
I'd rather just electrify or just run the turbostars to the bitter end, but if you wanted a low power EMU so you could use the surplus to charge a battery, you could take the 455s out of storage and fit batteries to them, but they aren't really suited for rural lines like Marshlink with no toilets
You won't get a 455 through Oxted tunnel though!
 

DjU

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Messages
254
Location
Essex
I'd suggest if anyone hasn't watched this do so. Specifically from 25mins onwards.

It covers the Southern region infill options and 'new standards' and ways of complying. It also talks about merits of battery and 3rd rail extesnions. With work being done with ORR.

Reading between the lines 3rd line extension is definitely the preferred option for Uckfield.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,249
Location
Bristol
Is Uckfield really unachievable by battery ? Looks like 25 mile trip each way from Hurst Green - I'd have thought the current technology would cover that with maybe some charging solution at Uckfield during turnaround ?
25 mile each way = 80km round trip, which is right on the limit of what is in service now so no allowance for variance in demand on the battery supply. A Greenford/Vivarail-type solution would probably be needed at Uckfield (but perfectly doable, of course).
Reading between the lines 3rd line extension is definitely the preferred option for Uckfield.
When I did a tiny bit of work on it 3rd Rail was certainly the preferred option from an operational point of view but having also read the RSSB paper about how to mitigate the risks of 3rd rail I struggle to see how the costs of the mitigations likely required would be justified in the context of battery trains being a practical alternative.
 

DjU

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Messages
254
Location
Essex
25 mile each way = 80km round trip, which is right on the limit of what is in service now so no allowance for variance in demand on the battery supply. A Greenford/Vivarail-type solution would probably be needed at Uckfield (but perfectly doable, of course).

When I did a tiny bit of work on it 3rd Rail was certainly the preferred option from an operational point of view but having also read the RSSB paper about how to mitigate the risks of 3rd rail I struggle to see how the costs of the mitigations likely required would be justified in the context of battery trains being a practical alternative.
The speaker in the video more or address this and answers this. And its where comparisons with Greenford don't entirely stack up when viewed against a line like Uckfield.

Uckfield as it stands can justifiably demand the need for 9-12 car services - peak at least, plus capacity up the mainline past Croydon. And that's where you will be surely getting into very sketchy or unviable areas on current battery or charging technology/speed. Every scheme or test thus far have mainly focussed on 3-4 car units on little branches. Vivarail, Merseyrail, demo units etc

Your point kind of stands though on slightly less main lines like the Marshlink. Though that on the otherhand has also had the asperations of potential extensions of HS services if it were ever electrified, so battery or partial electrification would be a scupper to that. Frustratingly that line was the only major one not mentioned in that video.

I can see the North Downs, Marshlink and and extension to Hoo from Gravesend being Battery or piecemeal electrification justified. Maybe not Uckfield.
 
Last edited:

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
3,384
When I did a tiny bit of work on it 3rd Rail was certainly the preferred option from an operational point of view but having also read the RSSB paper about how to mitigate the risks of 3rd rail I struggle to see how the costs of the mitigations likely required would be justified in the context of battery trains being a practical alalternative.
Just skimmed the report. The temporary physical barriers seemed to have a decent BCR. Is this a prohibitively expensive move in reality?
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,249
Location
Bristol
The speaker in the video more or address this and answers this. And its where comparisons with Greenford don't entirely stack up when viewed against a line like Uckfield.

Uckfield as it stands can justifiably demand the need for 9-12 car services - peak at least, plus capacity up the mainline past Croydon. And that's where you will be surely getting into very sketchy or unviable areas on current battery or charging technology/speed. Every scheme or test thus far have mainly focussed on 3-4 car units on little branches. Vivarail, Merseyrail, demo units etc
I don't see why longer trains will particularly be an issue for batteries as each unit would have batteries for itself. Schemes have so far focused on areas where you can recover a failed unit quickly, because it's still very much in the operational proving stage.
Your point kind of stands though on slightly less main lines like the Marshlink. Though that on the otherhand has also had the asperations of potential extensions of HS services if it were ever electrified, so battery or partial electrification would be a scupper to that. Frustratingly that line was the only major one not mentioned in that video.
Aspirations of HS to Hastings were dead long before the MP who's pet project it was stepped down. You'd need to remodel Ashford to achieve it in any event, likely in a manner detrimental to every other service at Ashford.
I can see the North Downs, Marshlink and and extension to Hoo from Gravesend being Battery or piecemeal electrification justified. Maybe not Uckfield.
The Hoo branch is now effectively dead, AIUI. The Housing Infrastructure Fund money that was planned to pay for it was pulled as part of the latest budget cuts.
 

infobleep

On Moderation
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
13,438
No. The comparison would be excess deaths from air quality attributable to diesel trains that could have been removed vs deaths from third rail above alternative electrification options.
Remember air quality is impacted by things like heavy industry, road and shipping traffic, etc., so a raw comparison of air quality deaths is going to be completely misleading as third rail wouldn't have prevented a significant amount of the deaths/illness.

indeed, and there are also problems with filling in the gaps so you'd need to take the whole thing on balance.

Just a reminder, there's no prohibition on third rail and it's up to the project to make the safety case, something the RSSB has recently published a paper helping proposals decide on the best mitigation methods.
So is the lack of infill due to the fact it's cheaper to continue with diesels va the costs to switch the infrastructure to 3rd rail, rather than because it isn't as safe?
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,249
Location
Bristol
So is the lack of infill due to the fact it's cheaper to continue with diesels va the costs to switch the infrastructure to 3rd rail, rather than because it isn't as safe?
The cost of making it safe is the problem.
 

ATrainSpotter

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2022
Messages
102
Location
London
My gut feeling is that pollution related deaths must exceed the the people who'd get zapped if the gaps in the south was 3rd railed, plus it could open up electrification to busy lines where the cost of redeveloping bridges stops anything happens (thinking about the Chiltern mainline mainly)
No, we just need a actual government to invest in the railways and have bridges redeveloped rather than having to rely on a outdated system that isn't used anywhere else for long distance rail services.
 

A0

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,751
No, we just need a actual government to invest in the railways and have bridges redeveloped rather than having to rely on a outdated system that isn't used anywhere else for long distance rail services.

You saw how the DFT spends its budget I take it ?

How much more would you like them to spend ? And what would you reduce to increase rail spending ?
 

Attachments

  • DFT Budget.jpg
    DFT Budget.jpg
    71.7 KB · Views: 43

RobShipway

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
3,337
Whilst the obvious option with both the Uckfield line and North Downs, Marshlink routes is to extend the 3rd rail, as has been discussed many times within these forums, there are other possibilities.

I don't see why longer trains will particularly be an issue for batteries as each unit would have batteries for itself. Schemes have so far focused on areas where you can recover a failed unit quickly, because it's still very much in the operational proving stage.
Whether the trains are 3, 6, 9 or 12 car trains they should have batteries every third car either under the passenger area or as in class 755/756 units within a smaller power carriage.

On a personal level I would also add into the trains ways that power could be regenerated back into the batteries while travelling with regenerative braking and having solar panels on the rooms on either all carriages or every second or third carriage that could recharge the battery on route even if the train is operating on 3rd tracks or OLE. But as a backup I would have Uckfield setup with OLE setup at the station so if needed, trains could recharge the batteries. The setup of OLE power point should also be setup at Rehill, the problem there though is that you would also have to do the same at Gatwick possibly for the trains that start there. For Marshlink the OLE power points would be Ashford International and if the service is extended back to Brighton, then the one of the same platforms used for the Seaford/Eastbourne - Brighton platforms should be if possible converted to have OLE Power point as well.

Now, I know there may some people that will say that you would only be able to get energy from a solar panel when it is sunny, but that is incorrect with most modern solar panels you can actually get energy whether the day is cloudy with rain or being a 30 centigrade sunny day.

When it comes to the OLE power points those can be setup with little or no interference with the 3rd rail pickup supply as is done in a good few places within Network Rail whether within the Southern or Merseyside areas.

The problem with extending the Uckfield and Marshlink routes to have 3rd rail, is what the lifespan of 3rd rail. Will 3rd rail still be around in 100 - 150 years time? Or do we just think of what is needed today, to help the environment and take away the need to be using diesel trains on the Uckfield and Marshlink routes?

Whilst the above are just ideas, the answer really comes down to what budget will be available for any for changes to be made to systems and as asked above, what is the lifespan of those ideas?
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,249
Location
Bristol
On a personal level I would also add into the trains ways that power could be regenerated back into the batteries while travelling with regenerative braking and having solar panels on the rooms on either all carriages or every second or third carriage that could recharge the battery on route even if the train is operating on 3rd tracks or OLE. But as a backup I would have Uckfield setup with OLE setup at the station so if needed, trains could recharge the batteries. The setup of OLE power point should also be setup at Rehill, the problem there though is that you would also have to do the same at Gatwick possibly for the trains that start there. For Marshlink the OLE power points would be Ashford International and if the service is extended back to Brighton, then the one of the same platforms used for the Seaford/Eastbourne - Brighton platforms should be if possible converted to have OLE Power point as well.
Why would you have small sections of OLE for charging when there's a solution that fits in the 4'? OLE makes sense as a replacement for stretches of 3rd rail at the edge of the interface (i.e. Reading to Ascot, give SWR dual-voltage units as well), but you wouldn't be equipping random platforms at Brighton with it.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,635
Location
Yorks
Why would you have small sections of OLE for charging when there's a solution that fits in the 4'? OLE makes sense as a replacement for stretches of 3rd rail at the edge of the interface (i.e. Reading to Ascot, give SWR dual-voltage units as well), but you wouldn't be equipping random platforms at Brighton with it.

Why replce Reading - Ascot with OLE ? Seems a pontless waste of money to me.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,249
Location
Bristol
Why replce Reading - Ascot with OLE ? Seems a pontless waste of money to me.
You wouldn't, it was a hypothetical example of where charging concerns (for the Blackwater/North Downs Line) might come into play for OLE consideration. But given there's too much of the network unelectrified as it is, you wouldn't bother wasting money replacing what's already there unless forced to.

The Vivarail developed 4' solution with a trickle charger and switchable apparatus in the 4' is a perfectly reasonable solution for fast charging. I sincerely hope the tests at Greenford are enough to convince the powers that be, so that we can start using batteries as a proper strategically-planned part of the solution (which would naturally focus on proper wiring for the majority of routes).
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,635
Location
Yorks
You wouldn't, it was a hypothetical example of where charging concerns (for the Blackwater/North Downs Line) might come into play for OLE consideration. But given there's too much of the network unelectrified as it is, you wouldn't bother wasting money replacing what's already there unless forced to.

To be fair, I would support such an onward OLE electrification towards Exeter, however that would be new electrification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top