• 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!

Transport Select Committee calls for cancelled electrification schemes to be reinstated

Status
Not open for further replies.

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,223
Power supply on Electric can be limited. I believe its been said on this board many times that 750vDC provides insufficient power for the newer trains with their air conditioing and various hotel power requirements and and the train is limited by the technology on how much power it can draw.

Even on 25KVac there are limits in some areas. 12 carriage operation to Cambridge from Kings Cross has only come into vogue in recent years. Due to the way BR electrified London to Cambridge routes in the 1980s as agreed by the Tory government of the time there was insufficient power east of Royston to allow 12 car operation in service. There still remain limits to the number of electric trains allowed to operate beyond Cambridge North Station to Kings Lynn.

Between Leeds and Skipton too there was a ban on Class 91 operation - again until recent years due to insufficient power in the overheads (Operation to Bradford Forster Square permitted).

Indeed, and this is a live issue on the ECML now. Unless there's a power supply upgrade, then it won't be possible for yet more bi-modes to run on electric power.

Practically speaking 25kV AC does enable essentially unlimited power. The feeder stations are sufficiently few and far between that they can be run directly off of the main National Grid with its enormous transmission power. If 25kV AC can't provide enough power for your rail application, then you're probably also going to be limited by other concerns. For instance it probably isn't enough to allow you to run high speed bulk materials services, but then you've got bigger problems with track wear. Several kilometre long high speed passenger services are also rather unlikely.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,271
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
If the earth is too soft and unstable for high speed running, then Network Rail and our society should bite the bullet and accept a blockade for several weeks in which the soil is removed and replaced by something more substantial. Obviously closing sections of the railway for weeks at a time would hugely inconvenience many people, but it would a once-only project bringing a permanent major improvement.

Could it not be the case that the actual amount of soil removal referred to above be affected by the actual depth of such needed to be removed dependent on the underlying geological substrate materials or even to an underlying bedrock geological formation.

I am always mindful of the soil conditions that prevailed in the Chat Moss area when the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was being constructed and the difficulties encountered there.

The time term "weeks" mentioned above could be a very long accumulation of the said "weeks".
 

Non Multi

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2017
Messages
1,117
It's absolutely critical NR demonstrates with the remaining wiring schemes that they can electrify lines to an agreed price and timescale. If not, there's probably a bleak future for electrification IMO.
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
Could it not be the case that the actual amount of soil removal referred to above be affected by the actual depth of such needed to be removed dependent on the underlying geological substrate materials or even to an underlying bedrock geological formation.
I'm having difficulty understanding this. Do you mean will it all depend on how far down they would need to go until they hit the bedrock? The obvious answer to that is yes. With modern earth moving equipment, that should not present a problem.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
Good luck building a diesel powered train with almost all axles motored and ~28kW of traction motor power per metre. (Class 395)

A meridian manages a paltry ~425kW of traction power (although its hard to get good figures) per vehicle, or only 18.5kW. (It only has 560kW available total at the drive shaft and must incur generator losses and power auxiliaries like air con etc)

And rememebr the Class 395 is old tech now, we can probably do even better.

EDIT:

Some modern shinkansens have, like the earlier but small scale 500 Series Shinkansen, every single axle motored.

Acceleration performance of such a unit is likely to be incredible compared to diesel-electric units.

24*110kW motors is 3,470hp traction power in a 120m unit.
And that is before we get into modern permanent magnet motors that increase motor power still further.

(In essence, we can now build 125mph units that accelerate like tube trains)

Euston to Crewe Class 221 1hr 37 min gross, 1 stop and 5min of calls / allowances. Net 1hr32min with 1 call.
Euston to Crewe Class 390 1hr 35 min gross, the same station call (Milton Keynes) and 6min of calls / allowances.

If they weren't derated, the Class 221 which could easily be bettered using 960hp engines could match the Class 390 yard for yard.

Same timetable, £1bn difference.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
Euston to Crewe Class 221 1hr 37 min gross, 1 stop and 5min of calls / allowances. Net 1hr32min with 1 call.
Euston to Crewe Class 390 1hr 35 min gross, the same station call (Milton Keynes) and 6min of calls / allowances.

If they weren't derated, the Class 221 which could easily be bettered using 960hp engines could match the Class 390 yard for yard.

Same timetable, £1bn difference.

A Class 390 is not the best an electric train can do, it is fifteen years old at the moment.
It is slow to accelerate, in extremis.

We can do very much better, as the Class 395 demonstrates, and even that can be bettered now.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
A Class 390 is not the best an electric train can do, it is fifteen years old at the moment.
It is slow to accelerate, in extremis.

We can do very much better, as the Class 395 demonstrates, and even that can be bettered now.

Ditto the Class 221.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
MML electrification had a financial case when looked at in 2009. Taking the rail industry as a whole, the lower cost of buying and maintaining the electric trains paid for the capital and maintenance cost of the infrastructure.

There are of course several issues with this with hindsight.

Firstly, schemes have come in much more expensive than were expected in 2009. The answer to that is not to just accept it but to challenge the reasons behind it, which I think are a lot to do with steep learning curves and inappropriate standards.

Secondly, the costs accrue to Network Rail and the benefits accrue to the train operator. This ought to be captured by the franchise mechanism - when bidding a new franchise the bidders should pass on the savings via lower subsidy or higher premium, knowing they are in a competitive situation and if they try to bank the savings they will be underbid. But some tweaks may be needed to ensure this happens.

Thirdly is the advent of bi-modes. Where the business case was "spend on electrification Bedford to Nottingham/Sheffield and save on cheaper EMUs instead of diesels" it is now "spend on electrification Kettering or Market Harborough to Nottingham and Clay Cross, bring forward Clay Cross to Sheffield by 10 years, and save on cheaper EMUs instead of bi-modes." Nobody has worked out these figures despite making decisions which should have been informed by doing so.

Is there any evidence that a bi-mode is significantly more expensive than a pure electric version? The business case should account for this if so.

When I looked at Class 350 vs Class 172 the costs per vehicle were almost identical, which is contrary to most perceived wisdom that electric is always a good deal cheaper.

The main difference since 2009 is that 2009 assumed there was a significant speed benefit that only a full electric mode of operation could achieve. This wasn't true then and certainly isn't now, at least under 125mph.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
Ditto the Class 221.

A more powerful diesel engine starts to get unreasonably large to actually fit under a vehicle.
Even the QSK-19 has had some issues in the past caused by pushing the boundaries of what will fit.

This is why we don't see very high speed trains powered by diesel engines.

Advances in traction motors and power electronics have drastically outstripped advances in diesel engine power:weight ratios in recent years.
 
Last edited:

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,559
Euston to Crewe Class 221 1hr 37 min gross, 1 stop and 5min of calls / allowances. Net 1hr32min with 1 call.
Euston to Crewe Class 390 1hr 35 min gross, the same station call (Milton Keynes) and 6min of calls / allowances.

If they weren't derated, the Class 221 which could easily be bettered using 960hp engines could match the Class 390 yard for yard.

Same timetable, £1bn difference.
Honest question perhaps drivers of the units involved can assist in answering.

Is there any suggestion that the full potential of a 390 is being restrained to allow for the pathing of 221s between them?

I mention this as years ago I rode on the footplate from Glasgow to Preston on a fast Euston service where the driver gained 10 minutes on the timetable, net of allowances, with a class 87.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
I very much doubt WCML timetabling exploits the full capability of any of the units involved due to the attempt to force a quart into a pint bottle.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Ditto the Class 221.

I think that the 22xs will be the highest performing diesel trains we see built for the UK full stop and we won't see them bettered (or potentially even matched). The QSK-19 (fuel guzzler that it is) produces 750 hp at the flywheel, nominally the same as the MTU lumps fitted to the 80x, however they (and any other bi-mode, which is all I think we will see for high speed IC DMUs going forward) are 2 engines short compared to any equivalent 22x, and realistically no amount of lightweighting of the bodyshells will claw back that performance. You can't install more powerful engines are you start to run into issues with fitting them as (without raising the floor too much or moving to powercar style solutions) so the only option is to try and match them by having an engine underneath every vehicle, but that means abandoning the bi-mode aspect, and that would be a very bold move for any transport secretary.

When I looked at Class 350 vs Class 172 the costs per vehicle were almost identical, which is contrary to most perceived wisdom that electric is always a good deal cheaper.

Of course, Siemens vehicles tend to be more expensive than the competitors, and I don't think it is too far fetched to suggest that the 172 was offered cheaply to keep Derby ticking along. It'd be interesting to compare the cost/vehicle of the 195s and 331s, or more historically the 170s and contemporaneous electrostars, or even 465s and 165s.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
When I looked at Class 350 vs Class 172 the costs per vehicle were almost identical, which is contrary to most perceived wisdom that electric is always a good deal cheaper.

EMU's are often cited as having an annual lease cost of £100,000 whilst DMU's are £110,000 (circa 10% increase in costs).

This could be down to the fact that often EMU's are cited as having a 40 year lifespan whilst DMU's have a 35 year lifespan (circa 14% difference in lifespan).

As such two trains that cost the same per coach could still require different lease costs.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,559
I very much doubt WCML timetabling exploits the full capability of any of the units involved due to the attempt to force a quart into a pint bottle.
Accepting that, is there any way of assessing if a WCML devoid of 221s would enable faster scheduling of 390s, or if indeed 390s actually had that unused potential?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
Accepting that, is there any way of assessing if a WCML devoid of 221s would enable faster scheduling of 390s, or if indeed 390s actually had that unused potential?

Not that I am aware of - although it would be interesting to model a post HS2 WCML where all the trains south of Stafford were a uniform fleet of 395s or a newer higher power unit.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,427
EMU's are often cited as having an annual lease cost of £100,000 whilst DMU's are £110,000 (circa 10% increase in costs).

This could be down to the fact that often EMU's are cited as having a 40 year lifespan whilst DMU's have a 35 year lifespan (circa 14% difference in lifespan).

As such two trains that cost the same per coach could still require different lease costs.

We have practically new EMUs being made redundant though, whereas the sprinters are going to go on well past 35 years. The government may well have driven up leading costs for diesels by talking about banning them though, at the same time it has become apparent that a lot more lines will be diesel for a lot longer than previously thought.
 

themiller

Member
Joined
4 Dec 2011
Messages
1,056
Location
Cumbria, UK
Euston to Crewe Class 221 1hr 37 min gross, 1 stop and 5min of calls / allowances. Net 1hr32min with 1 call.
Euston to Crewe Class 390 1hr 35 min gross, the same station call (Milton Keynes) and 6min of calls / allowances.

If they weren't derated, the Class 221 which could easily be bettered using 960hp engines could match the Class 390 yard for yard.

Same timetable, £1bn difference.
I suppose you could say that the class 390s are de-rated as they were designed for 140 mph service speed but would need in-cab signalling for this. The class 22x have a maximum service speed of 125 mph.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,331
There might not be an issue with the topography Hills etc) however what is the land like to cross? If it is boggy then masts will sink without trace unless thought is put into their construction. Why do think parts of the Ely to Kings Lynn line are single now? The masts went onto the track bed to save money. Doubtless too there will be man made structures like bridges that will need changing / reconstruction.

I don't know what the soil conditions are like on that route, but I do know that the ECML skirts Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire and runs across the Vale Of York over a very similar landscape at 125mph. I'd be surprised to learn that between Doncaster and Hull the railway has worse conditions to contend with.

For a good part of this route the formation reflects the line having been 4 track - so there is plenty of track bed space available for masts.

Equally I'm also not aware of any particular topographical issues.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
EMU's are often cited as having an annual lease cost of £100,000 whilst DMU's are £110,000 (circa 10% increase in costs).

This could be down to the fact that often EMU's are cited as having a 40 year lifespan whilst DMU's have a 35 year lifespan (circa 14% difference in lifespan).

As such two trains that cost the same per coach could still require different lease costs.
This doesn't seem to factor in most modern lease deals. Around 27 years seems to be the norm.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
I suppose you could say that the class 390s are de-rated as they were designed for 140 mph service speed but would need in-cab signalling for this. The class 22x have a maximum service speed of 125 mph.
Given a 125mph limit there is no practical performance improvement on the electric vs. diesel. The weight of a Bi-Mode vs. Class 390 also makes interesting reading for anyone fed a diet of 'lean electric lugging around a great hulking diesel engine.'
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,830
Location
Yorks
You could, for example, set your basic safety objective type figure for third rail installations to a higher value which would force ORR to accept third rail installations as safe So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable.

You could also tell the EU to lump it and adopt our original 25kV specification.

Or you could adopt tram trains en-masse to replace essentially all regional services and electrify at 750Vdc overhead.

Or you could suspend existing line upgrades entirely and adopt a Shinkansen model - which honestly will likely deliver better results in the long term.



You got any suggestions beyond hope that the new kit that doesn't work miraculously starts working?

The first two suggestions seem eminently sensible and achievable ( the third I'm not keen on, and the fourth I can't see us going for it)
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
Given a 125mph limit there is no practical performance improvement on the electric vs. diesel. The weight of a Bi-Mode vs. Class 390 also makes interesting reading for anyone fed a diet of 'lean electric lugging around a great hulking diesel engine.'

Come back when you have a tilting IEP and we will talk.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Given a 125mph limit there is no practical performance improvement on the electric vs. diesel. The weight of a Bi-Mode vs. Class 390 also makes interesting reading for anyone fed a diet of 'lean electric lugging around a great hulking diesel engine.'

The 390s are one of the lardier units on the network by virtue of the tilting equipment. A quick and dirty comparison between the 390s and the 5 car 800s shows that the 800 comes in some .2 ton/m lighter than the 390 [1]. There aren't any publicly available figures for the 801s, but I'm willing to guess that they'll be around the 1.7ton/m mark if not lower.


[1] 390 (9 car): 466.0ton, 217.5m = 2.1 ton/m
800 (5 car): 247.0ton, 130.0m = 1.9 ton/m
221 (5 car): 282.8ton, 116.2m = 2.4 ton/m
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,225
I don’t want to go off and say something that will get deleted like “conspiracy theory” but if as rumored the DfT/ORR is really against electrification, then a conspiracy theory sounds not too implausible.
Once Brexit happens in March we will be able to tell the EU where to go with their standards as they will have no jurisdiction over us. Whether the ORR will is a different matter however.

Whether or not brexit happens (and it's not yet a done deal) there was a possible derogation from these OHLE standards on the ground that the UK's smaller loading gauge makes them inappropriate. The ORR and not the EU is the problem here. Scrap the ORR and bring back the old HMRI which worked with the rail industry instead of against it.
 
Last edited:

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
The 390s are one of the lardier units on the network by virtue of the tilting equipment. A quick and dirty comparison between the 390s and the 5 car 800s shows that the 800 comes in some .2 ton/m lighter than the 390 [1]. There aren't any publicly available figures for the 801s, but I'm willing to guess that they'll be around the 1.7ton/m mark if not lower.


[1] 390 (9 car): 466.0ton, 217.5m = 2.1 ton/m
800 (5 car): 247.0ton, 130.0m = 1.9 ton/m
221 (5 car): 282.8ton, 116.2m = 2.4 ton/m

Judging by modern railways article about battery power, the fuel and diesel for one of the 960hp packs is around 2.5t a time. Clearly 7.5t out of 247t doesn't amount to a hill of beans and as I don't tire of pointing out it is also less than the passengers weigh.

I haven't worked the numbers in detail but it looks like about 3% of weight which would make it closer to 1.85t /m. These sorts of numbers won't push a £1bn business case very far.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Judging by modern railways article about battery power, the fuel and diesel for one of the 960hp packs is around 2.5t a time. Clearly 7.5t out of 247t doesn't amount to a hill of beans and as I don't tire of pointing out it is also less than the passengers weigh.

I haven't worked the numbers in detail but it looks like about 3% of weight which would make it closer to 1.85t /m. These sorts of numbers won't push a £1bn business case very far.

Fuel & Diesel? Are they lugging around a whole tank of Diesel for fun? :P

Joking aside, the powerpack as fitted to the 80x (12V 1600 R80L) weighs in at 6.75t wet* but it is not clear if that includes the generator. Add in the 2.5t of fuel(s), and call it 10t (including the radiators, fans, etc) additional per diesel engine. Run the maths through and a pure EMU 801 (803?) comes in at very handy average 1.67ton/m (for reference an individual mk3 comes in at 1.43). Even with the IEP last mile engine fitted a 5 car 801 comes in at 1.75ton/m


*presuming that the high power one is the heaviest - not an unfair assumption
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,223
Euston to Crewe Class 221 1hr 37 min gross, 1 stop and 5min of calls / allowances. Net 1hr32min with 1 call.
Euston to Crewe Class 390 1hr 35 min gross, the same station call (Milton Keynes) and 6min of calls / allowances.

If they weren't derated, the Class 221 which could easily be bettered using 960hp engines could match the Class 390 yard for yard.

Same timetable, £1bn difference.

Isn't it obvious that the 390s are artificially limited to what the 221s can do? You don't want to have timetables which make it impossible for a 221 to stand in for a 390 without destroying timekeeping on the southern WCML.

For the third time, what was the point in ordering 390s if 221s could do the job just as well? What's the point ordering any electric trains if diesels are just as good? The pre-existence of OHLE infrastructure is not a sufficient reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top