Solent to Midlands Freight Study and electrification

[507021]

Indeed GWR should take a few more 769's

There won't be any more 768/769 conversions beyond what's on order already. A change in emissions regulations mean the powerplant of choice can no longer be imported, and from what I understand, there's no other engine option which fits in the space available under the donor 319 driving cars.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

There won't be any more 768/769 conversions beyond what's on order already. A change in emissions regulations mean the powerplant of choice can no longer be imported, and from what I understand, there's no other engine option which fits in the space available under the donor 319 driving cars.

We've left the EU we can do what we want! Seriously its farcical that this is EUROIIIB compliant engine, which i presume is far less polluting than the Cummins NT855 installed 30 years ago unless they have subsequently been improved when refurbished engines are installed, can't be used anymore.

 

[RT4038]

We've left the EU we can do what we want! Seriously its farcical that this is EUROIIIB compliant engine, which i presume is far less polluting than the Cummins NT855 installed 30 years ago unless they have subsequently been improved when refurbished engines are installed, can't be used anymore.

Probably as farcical as we can't buy and fit new Cummins NT855 engines on the argument that they are far less polluting than the BUT engines fitted in DMUs 65 years ago? Standards change and we have to go with the new.

 

[zwk500]

We've left the EU we can do what we want! Seriously its farcical that this is EUROIIIB compliant engine, which i presume is far less polluting than the Cummins NT855 installed 30 years ago unless they have subsequently been improved when refurbished engines are installed, can't be used anymore.

Although we've left the EU, if we want to continue trading with them our standards will need to stay relatively closely aligned. Also, if we want our planet to survive we should be making it as hard as possible to use ICE vehicles, which will promote innovation and development of alternative fuels (or make electrification business cases easier).

 

[a_c_skinner]

Accepting this may be a little off topic why cannot third rail and OHLE co-exist?

 

[507021]

We've left the EU we can do what we want!

Except we can't if we want to keep trading with EU countries...

 

[Mikey C]

I can't imagine the EU particularly caring if we continue to buy in a few "non compliant" MTU engines

 

[Taunton]

Ultimately this stinks of a pie-in-the-sky "unlimited money" shopping list where the good times never end and there is gold plating for everything.

It's not only that but a squandering of funds on countless studies, proposals, consultants' reports (which always have to be started from scratch again and ignore anything which has gone before), etc. Of course, as far as the consultancies themselves are concerned they would be quite happy if all the available money was spent just on their studies rather than any concrete and steel.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Accepting this may be a little off topic why cannot third rail and OHLE co-exist?

They can co-exist but it needs special electrical arrangements to manage the coexistence which adds considerably to the cost and usually is only used in buffer areas between the two systems.

 

[HSTEd]

(or make electrification business cases easier).

Given that the only body involved here is the state, making "business cases easier" is a nonsensical option.

The state will decide whether electrification will occur, and there is no point artificially inflating the cost of diesel operation to change the figures on a business case.

The state should just ignore the business case in that case!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Except we can't if we want to keep trading with EU countries...

It was a rhetorical remark and I get that although without veering off topic not sure government do. It would be better to mandate the removal of polluting engines in whatever installation like they've done for coal fire powered stations rather than disallowing a solution that would alleviate emissions. This would also promote a quicker decision on funding a decarbonisation solution be it electrification or alternative power sources.

 

[507021]

I can't imagine the EU particularly caring if we continue to buy in a few "non compliant" MTU engines

EU legislation which applied to the UK on December 31st 2020 is now part of UK domestic legislation, including European emissions standards. Just because we've left the EU doesn't mean we're now exempt from adhering to those standards.

 

[HSTEd]

EU legislation which applied to the UK on December 31st 2020 is now part of UK domestic legislation, including European emissions standards. Just because we've left the EU doesn't mean we're now exempt from adhering to those standards.

In the style of the villain at the end of Lethal Weapon 2..... "PARLIAMENTARY SUPREMACY!"

 

[david1212]

None of those ideas are new so its a regurgitated route study shopping list, most won't happen within the next 20 years. Not sure why Banbury is an issue post the resignalling either. Leamington will get brushed under the carpet once its realised how much it will need to take the 20mph off Milverton viaduct.

Once the A445 Rugby Road bridge is replaced, and that needs to be soon regardless, I would have thought that the several miles of single track to the outskirts of Coventry would be a bigger constraint than a short stretch of 20mph away from where the Coventry and Warwick / Birmingham lines separate. When initially planned Kenilworth was supposed be a double track station but that got cut out.
I can understand the need for space to hold a full length container train nearer to Leamington than Fenny Compton but can not see how this could be done without reinstating three bridges. Even then is there still space after redevelopment since the track was removed? If feasible unless the costs could be dramatically reduced from what would be estimated now as stated I'm sure it would fail after cost / benefit analysis.

 

[snowball]

Accepting this may be a little off topic why cannot third rail and OHLE co-exist?

25kV AC requires (at least one of) the running rails of each track to be bonded to earth, otherwise lineside metal objects could give an electric shock, whereas DC requires the running rails to be insulated from earth, otherwise lineside metal objects could be damaged by electrolytic action.

 

[Mikey C]

EU legislation which applied to the UK on December 31st 2020 is now part of UK domestic legislation, including European emissions standards. Just because we've left the EU doesn't mean we're now exempt from adhering to those standards.

The EU are going to pick their battles, if they consider we are breaking rules. Us buying a few diesel engines from a German factory to fit on bi-mode trains will be way down the pecking order when compared with other trade issues concerning N Ireland, fishing, financial services etc

I'd be staggered is other countries don't break EU rules all the time around the edges

 

[matacaster]

Although we've left the EU, if we want to continue trading with them our standards will need to stay relatively closely aligned. Also, if we want our planet to survive we should be making it as hard as possible to use ICE vehicles, which will promote innovation and development of alternative fuels (or make electrification business cases easier).

Close alignment surely only relates to exports to EU and imports from EU countries. Once stuff is here and assuming it isn't going back to EU later then we can do what we like. The EU are not GOD, they make rules, many of which we will be happy to agree with as they are based on science etc and we probably had some input in the past, but some EU countries (particularly Germany and France) have an agenda which sometimes surfaces. Germany makes sure rules relating to EU vehicles comply with their motor industry's wishes to the detriment of climate change. EU rules don't seem to stop extremely polluting Brown coal being burned at a prodigious rate in Germany either.

EU legislation which applied to the UK on December 31st 2020 is now part of UK domestic legislation, including European emissions standards. Just because we've left the EU doesn't mean we're now exempt from adhering to those standards.

So we change the legislation if we want. Most EU legislation is likely ok, but some doesnt make sense from a UK point of view. In fairness, some UK legislation is rubbish too - eg insisting that a poor householder with single-glazed windows who cannot afford new double glazing cannot install used double-glazing as it doesn't meet latest standards (yet is far better than the single glazing they have at present).

 

[zwk500]

The EU are going to pick their battles, if they consider we are breaking rules. Us buying a few diesel engines from a German factory to fit on bi-mode trains will be way down the pecking order when compared with other trade issues concerning N Ireland, fishing, financial services etc

The issue with buying from the EU will be that they'll stop making the engines that don't adhere to their own standards. I suspect the EU would be fine with us giving exemptions for engines coming into the UK. The difficulty would be if say Rolls-Royce or Caterpillar wanted to export engines that met UK standards but didn't meet EU standards.

I'd be staggered is other countries don't break EU rules all the time around the edges

They do, but usually would get exemptions to do so rather than start rubbing people up the wrong way. It's also remarkable just how much products you think of as the same change around the world to meet different standards. Also the member countries front and centre of the EU break their rules all the time!

Close alignment surely only relates to exports to EU and imports from EU countries. Once stuff is here and assuming it isn't going back to EU later then we can do what we like. The EU are not GOD, they make rules, many of which we will be happy to agree with as they are based on science etc

This is all true and good points. However, if we only import and cannot export it isn't going to help the economy in the long term.

We probably had some input in the past, but some EU countries (particularly Germany and France) have an agenda which sometimes surfaces. Germany makes sure rules relating to EU vehicles comply with their motor industry's wishes to the detriment of climate change. EU rules don't seem to stop extremely polluting Brown coal being burned at a prodigious rate in Germany either.

We had a lot of input in the past, as the 2nd largest economy in the Bloc. All member countries have an agenda, all the time. It just depends who's agenda wins out at each meeting (or which trade-offs are made to get other points of the agenda through). Germany, France and the UK, as markedly bigger economies than the rest, tended to get their own way quite a lot of the time. As examples, Germany got the motor industry, France got the CAP and the UK got the Finance industry.

 

[XAM2175]

The EU are going to pick their battles, if they consider we are breaking rules. Us buying a few diesel engines from a German factory to fit on bi-mode trains will be way down the pecking order when compared with other trade issues concerning N Ireland, fishing, financial services etc

I'd be staggered is other countries don't break EU rules all the time around the edges

Close alignment surely only relates to exports to EU and imports from EU countries. Once stuff is here and assuming it isn't going back to EU later then we can do what we like.

All of this carry-on about the EU is irrelevant. The rules were incorporated into UK law and, as such, nobody involved in the process is going to knowingly approve doing something that breaks them. If it becomes necessary to produce more 769s and there is truly no other choice of engine then they will need to approach the government for an exemption or perhaps even an amendment to the regulations.

I would also suggest that this is a rather major deviation from the thread's topic.

 

[507021]

So we change the legislation if we want. Most EU legislation is likely ok, but some doesnt make sense from a UK point of view. In fairness, some UK legislation is rubbish too - eg insisting that a poor householder with single-glazed windows who cannot afford new double glazing cannot install used double-glazing as it doesn't meet latest standards (yet is far better than the single glazing they have at present).

After the GWR and ROG orders have been completed, there will be a grand total of one donor unit available for dual-mode conversion if what I've heard about the /2s and /3 subclasses being unsuitable for conversion is correct. They're not going to bother with all that red tape for the sake of one unit.

Anyway, as XAM2175 has said, this has gone way off-topic.

 

[hwl]

I can't imagine the EU particularly caring if we continue to buy in a few "non compliant" MTU engines

The 769s have MAN engines.

MTU are offering stage V versions of all the existing rail engines, but some are not available for another year.
Have MAN said the 2869 engine won't ever be be available as Stage V or it will definitely be at some point later or we'll worry about that when we get some potential orders?

The different between IIIB and V just involves reducing particulate emissions which is comparatively easy overall (bigger DOC, DPF and better CCV filter)

 

[Taunton]

25kV AC requires (at least one of) the running rails of each track to be bonded to earth, otherwise lineside metal objects could give an electric shock, whereas DC requires the running rails to be insulated from earth, otherwise lineside metal objects could be damaged by electrolytic action.

That sounds like Game, Set and Match, but does not account for the various dual installations that have been around for a while, such as into Euston. It also seems to invalidate all the changeover points that the 25kV changeover advocates want to introduce. Whatever is done on Basingstoke to Southampton, the station area around Basingstoke is going to need both systems in place.

 

[swt_passenger]

That sounds like Game, Set and Match, but does not account for the various dual installations that have been around for a while, such as into Euston. It also seems to invalidate all the changeover points that the 25kV changeover advocates want to introduce. Whatever is done on Basingstoke to Southampton, the station area around Basingstoke is going to need both systems in place.

Changeover points are OK, as you must probably know already from all the prior discussions in numerous threads, but a long distance run over many miles is not. Euston approaches would not be done that way if required new today.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

That sounds like Game, Set and Match, but does not account for the various dual installations that have been around for a while, such as into Euston. It also seems to invalidate all the changeover points that the 25kV changeover advocates want to introduce. Whatever is done on Basingstoke to Southampton, the station area around Basingstoke is going to need both systems in place.

As per my #39 the two can coexist but you will need special earthing arrangements to ensure the DC doesn't find its way into a third parties metallic structure. This has been achieved in a variety of ways from nothing at Euston, to a small island of DC at Farringdon kept separated from the rest of the Southern region using contactors, using isolating transformers at Dollands Moor where the overhead is kept separate from the rest of the AC system. All these solutions add to cost, complexity and reliability issues and are only suitable for a few miles of dual electrification.

 

[Taunton]

Changeover points are OK, as you must probably know already from all the prior discussions in numerous threads, but a long distance run over many miles is not. Euston approaches would not be done that way if required new today.

Yes, I'm sure that if done nowadays it would be changeover to 25kV one station out from Euston. Makes life easy for the electrical engineers, at the expense of rolling stock complexity. The engineers who designed Euston had moved on when all the difficulties arose on the North London Line a generation later - which one informed electrical engineering commentator ascribed to not listening during the first term of a university engineering course.

Furthermore I don't recall from any prior discussion here an engineering explanation of why dual voltage installations are perfectly fine around a complex station, but not at all on the open line. Makes you wonder how the 1990s Eurostar dual systems changeover section at Cheriton managed to work fine - ah, I forgot, it was designed by French engineers.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes, I'm sure that if done nowadays it would be changeover to 25kV one station out from Euston. Makes life easy for the electrical engineers, at the expense of rolling stock complexity. The engineers who designed Euston had moved on when all the difficulties arose on the North London Line a generation later - which one informed electrical engineering commentator ascribed to not listening during the first term of a university engineering course.

Furthermore I don't recall from any prior discussion here an engineering explanation of why dual voltage installations are perfectly fine around a complex station, but not at all on the open line. Makes you wonder how the 1990s Eurostar dual systems changeover section at Cheriton managed to work fine - ah, I forgot, it was designed by French engineers.

British Rail designed the changeover and dual voltage system installed at Continental Jcn. Eurotunnel system was SNCF design.

Its no more complex dealing with dual track but the special arrangements will have to coexist over every mile of dual electrified track so just drives up cost when we have a dual voltage rolling stock readily available.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, I'm sure that if done nowadays it would be changeover to 25kV one station out from Euston. Makes life easy for the electrical engineers, at the expense of rolling stock complexity. The engineers who designed Euston had moved on when all the difficulties arose on the North London Line a generation later - which one informed electrical engineering commentator ascribed to not listening during the first term of a university engineering course.

Furthermore I don't recall from any prior discussion here an engineering explanation of why dual voltage installations are perfectly fine around a complex station, but not at all on the open line. Makes you wonder how the 1990s Eurostar dual systems changeover section at Cheriton managed to work fine - ah, I forgot, it was designed by French engineers.

The rolling stock that runs on the DC lines into Euston is to a design which is routinely working journeys with voltage changeovers elsewhere on the Overground, and nearly all third rail EMUs ordered since privatisation have had this capability, so the expense of rolling stock complexity clearly isn't large.

I would imagine the best thing to do at Basingstoke would be to convert the entire station to 25kV only, and have changeovers on plain line further east. All the stock heading towards Waterloo would be dual voltage by then.

 

[zwk500]

The rolling stock that runs on the DC lines into Euston is to a design which is routinely working journeys with voltage changeovers elsewhere on the Overground, and nearly all third rail EMUs ordered since privatisation have had this capability, so the expense of rolling stock complexity clearly isn't large.

Isn't the DC line stock dual-voltage equipped for when Euston has lines B & C blocked anyway?

I would imagine the best thing to do at Basingstoke would be to convert the entire station to 25kV only, and have changeovers on plain line further east. All the stock heading towards Waterloo would be dual voltage by then.

Best thing would probably be to have 25KV from Bramley through to Andover, but keep 3rd rail in the platforms at Basingstoke. 3rd rail would be removed from west of Basingstoke to beyond Worting Junction, with a changeover on the move on the plain line south of Battledown flyover. This avoids the need for Basingstoke terminators to change twice close by the station, and means the changeover is in a platform which makes handling failures easier. Failures at the changeover on the Southampton side would be managed with a crossover and the existing bi-di signalling.

Either way, 25KV conversion has been discussed on other threads, including one specifically about Southampton IIRC.

 

[Meerkat]

I would imagine the best thing to do at Basingstoke would be to convert the entire station to 25kV only, and have changeovers on plain line further east. All the stock heading towards Waterloo would be dual voltage by then.

That would mean all stock that might do Basingstoke terminators would have to actively be dual voltage, which would be expensive, wasteful, and add reliability issues.
Don’t really want to do that until you think about extending the AC to Woking some long time in the future (then it could have fast fast trains!)

 

[Taunton]

I see the usual amount of gold plating of a project is now going on above, especially as we are now sticking it on the rolling stock side again for SWR's successors - ian Walmsley in Modern Railways has had a thing or two to say about this approach.

What was the most common point of failure during the long life of the 313s on the GN? Voltage changeover at Drayton Park. What is the most common point of failure on Thameslink? Voltage changeover at Farringdon? Voltage changeover. Look how many others above are envisaging amelioration of changeover failures. To paraphrase what Gerry Fiennes might have said, "Don't put in voltage changeovers at tricky places. Don't, Don't, Don't".

The rolling stock that runs on the DC lines into Euston is to a design which is routinely working journeys with voltage changeovers elsewhere

But it wasn't when the electrification was designed, nor when they cut back from 4th rail to 3rd rail in the early 1970s, all of which was done properly.