Why aren't all lines electrified?

[edwin_m]

Isn't there a restriction on diesel locos taking power at Queen Street LL due to fire alarms, or is that just DMUs?

 

[najaB]

Isn't there a restriction on diesel locos taking power at Queen Street LL due to fire alarms, or is that just DMUs?

I believe that was Central rather than Queen Street, but in any case it has been posted on the forum that the restriction has been eased due to an upgrade of the fire alarm system.

Edit: Having found the thread, there was indeed a prohibition at QS.

 

[infobleep]

Reading to Gatwick Airport line has 2 trains an hour off peak Monday to Saturday and that's not fully electrified along its route. They are thinking of increasing the frequency to with another platform at Redhill. So you probably need at least 4 trains an hour currently for an existing line to be electrified. Am I right or wrong on that?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...because the Government is penny wise & pound foolish!! lol!

The spending on electrification schemes should be doubled imo.
If part of a route is electrified the other part/s can become disadvantaged.
eg Blackpool lost its through trains to London when the WCML was electrified.
The same for instance could happen to Plymouth / Penzance etc.

What's wrong with losing through services. Perhaps some of the places don't need through services any more or at least not so vers electrifying part of a route vers costs of electrifying a whole route.

 

[jopsuk]

Reading to Gatwick Airport line has 2 trains an hour off peak Monday to Saturday and that's not fully electrified along its route. They are thinking of increasing the frequency to with another platform at Redhill. So you probably need at least 4 trains an hour currently for an existing line to be electrified. Am I right or wrong on that?

Much more complex than that- Kings Lynn is at the end of a lengthy, mainly single track, line and gets one train per hour (soon to be doubled), but is electrified.

 

[The Ham]

Reading to Gatwick Airport line has 2 trains an hour off peak Monday to Saturday and that's not fully electrified along its route. They are thinking of increasing the frequency to with another platform at Redhill. So you probably need at least 4 trains an hour currently for an existing line to be electrified. Am I right or wrong on that?

It probably has more to do with how difficult a line is to be electrified than frequency of service.

For instance a line which only needs one feeder station is a lot cheaper than one which needs two.

Likewise a line with lots of junctions would be more expensive than a line with none.

Also Reading to Gatwick has the difficulty of which electrification do you go for? Infill with 3rd rail and GW would likely have to have a micro fleet of trains to run the service. Infill with OHLE and there would be a lot of change points between power types along the route. Replace the existing 3rd rail with OHLE and all the trains trough Guildford and Redhill would need to be dual voltage.

 

[talltim]

The plan when BR started was that the move would be straight from steam to electric, WCML was the start of this. That is why they built so many new steam locos, they were planning on some of them lasting until the late 70s/early 80s. Government financial policy stopped this (huge capital costs) so BR started buying and testing pilot scheme diesels. Government then buggered this up and forced BR to buy untested diesels en mass by giving them a spending cut off date.
Thus there were a lot of nearly new steam locos scrapped and not much electrification.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

You could say straying off at a bit of a tangent but with regard to lines being electrified' - how much of the rail network actually is electrified in so much as the rails carry an electric current (i.e. for signalling) ? Wouldn't this be the majority of the network apart from sections still using semaphore, token sections and single blocks (like the Sudbury branch)?

 

[TheKnightWho]

It probably has more to do with how difficult a line is to be electrified than frequency of service.

For instance a line which only needs one feeder station is a lot cheaper than one which needs two.

Likewise a line with lots of junctions would be more expensive than a line with none.

Also Reading to Gatwick has the difficulty of which electrification do you go for? Infill with 3rd rail and GW would likely have to have a micro fleet of trains to run the service. Infill with OHLE and there would be a lot of change points between power types along the route. Replace the existing 3rd rail with OHLE and all the trains trough Guildford and Redhill would need to be dual voltage.

I would argue that it needs to be handed over to SWT, and electrified as OHLE with dual-voltage trains. It would prevent there being a microfleet, and would equally prevent having to electrify with 3rd rail which will eventually have to be replaced anyway.

 

[Railsigns]

You could say straying off at a bit of a tangent but with regard to lines being electrified' - how much of the rail network actually is electrified in so much as the rails carry an electric current (i.e. for signalling) ? Wouldn't this be the majority of the network apart from sections still using semaphore, token sections and single blocks (like the Sudbury branch)?

You also need to exclude lines with axle counter train detection (including the ERTMS on the Cambrian Line).

Most places where there are semaphore signals also have some track circuits. Track circuits also exist to control automatic level crossings on lines which are otherwise not track circuited.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Reading to Gatwick Airport line has 2 trains an hour off peak Monday to Saturday and that's not fully electrified along its route. They are thinking of increasing the frequency to with another platform at Redhill. So you probably need at least 4 trains an hour currently for an existing line to be electrified. Am I right or wrong on that?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What's wrong with losing through services. Perhaps some of the places don't need through services any more or at least not so vers electrifying part of a route vers costs of electrifying a whole route.

Agreed- I see no problem (for the time being) o f running loads of electric services London -Edinburgh - then loads of shuttle services Edinburgh - Dundee and Aberdeen - -if you have a through service it is loads of running diesel under the wires.

 

[najaB]

Agreed- I see no problem (for the time being) o f running loads of electric services London -Edinburgh - then loads of shuttle services Edinburgh - Dundee and Aberdeen - -if you have a through service it is loads of running diesel under the wires.

Uhm, no thanks. When I'm coming home on a Friday evening after a long week away, the last thing I need is to have a small delay on the London-Edinburgh train mean that I miss my connection and have an extra hour-plus added to my journey. Again.

If diesel under the wires offends you, make it bi-mode or drags - whatever it takes to keep the through trains.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Any new electrification might have to be overhead, someone mentioned in another thread that the EU won't allow any new 3rd rail. I don't know if that also applies to the replacement of life expired 3rd rail

 

[najaB]

...someone mentioned in another thread that the EU won't allow any new 3rd rail...

Any chance you can remember what thread that was in?

 

[Bald Rick]

Any new electrification might have to be overhead, someone mentioned in another thread that the EU won't allow any new 3rd rail. I don't know if that also applies to the replacement of life expired 3rd rail

Railway myths, both of them.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If diesel under the wires offends you, make it bi-mode or drags - whatever it takes to keep the through trains.

Both excellent suggestions.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Any chance you can remember what thread that was in?

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2085565&postcount=15

 

[najaB]

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2085565&postcount=15

Any fact in the Daily Mail is instantly suspect.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Any fact in the Daily Mail is instantly suspect.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001L0016&from=EN

Don't know if the DM article refers to that directive. btw when was the last new bit of 3rd rail laid anywhere (either brand new lines or in-fill)?

 

[dgl]

I doubt European interoperability could ever be used as an excuse for not extending the 3rd rail network as any European gauge train wouldn't fit the loading gauge anyway.

 

[najaB]

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001L0016&from=EN

Don't know if the DM article refers to that directive. btw when was the last new bit of 3rd rail laid anywhere (either brand new lines or in-fill)?

Could you be kind enough to point out where 3rd rail is prohibited in that document?

 

[fairysdad]

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2085565&postcount=15

As the poster of said quote, I should perhaps say that it was a dig at the Daily Mail not any real or unreal EU regulation, itself from a post that was current at the time relating to this article in the DM, and specifically this quote:

For efficiency reasons, and because an EU directive says new lines must be able to take European trains, Network Rail is installing overhead electric wires instead of an electrified 'third rail'.

(which subsequently became both here and in the MO comments as 'The EU won't allow third rail!!!111!!!'.

 

[Emblematic]

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001L0016&from=EN

Don't know if the DM article refers to that directive. btw when was the last new bit of 3rd rail laid anywhere (either brand new lines or in-fill)?

Probably the East London Line extensions, Shoreditch - Dalston and Surrey Quays - Queens Road Peckham, the latter opening December 2012.

 

[Kettledrum]

Reading to Gatwick Airport line has 2 trains an hour off peak Monday to Saturday and that's not fully electrified along its route. They are thinking of increasing the frequency to with another platform at Redhill. So you probably need at least 4 trains an hour currently for an existing line to be electrified. Am I right or wrong on that?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What's wrong with losing through services. Perhaps some of the places don't need through services any more or at least not so vers electrifying part of a route vers costs of electrifying a whole route.

In general terms, lots is wrong with losing through services from an economic regeneration point of view. You need good transport links to either persuade companies to relocate to an area or to persuade individuals to move house to an area so that they can commute to earn good salaries elsewhere and bring the money back home to spend in the local communities. Fast and frequent through services are essential for both of these.

There's lots of places in the country you could use as case studies.

Blackpool has been mentioned, and if you've been there, you'll see just how much it needs regenerating, and electrification and through trains will certainly make a positive difference.

Another interesting case study is Corby on the MML, which of course didn't have a station at all for years. Once this route is electrified with faster and more reliable trains to London, I predict a big economic upturn in the area.

 

[jopsuk]

As the poster of said quote, I should perhaps say that it was a dig at the Daily Mail not any real or unreal EU regulation, itself from a post that was current at the time relating to this article in the DM, and specifically this quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Bloom (Mail Online)
For efficiency reasons, and because an EU directive says new lines must be able to take European trains, Network Rail is installing overhead electric wires instead of an electrified 'third rail'.

(which subsequently became both here and in the MO comments as 'The EU won't allow third rail!!!111!!!'.

Blimey. The man at the Mail is wrong in an inventive way. It never fails to amaze me how much effort they go to to fabricate "BLAME THE EU" stories...

 

[TheKnightWho]

Blimey. The man at the Mail is wrong in an inventive way. It never fails to amaze me how much effort they go to to fabricate "BLAME THE EU" stories...

They'll come to regret it if we do leave, I can tell you that much...

Even the Sun's started backing off, as they've realised their business will plummet if the economy tanks, and it's not the safe and secure scapegoat that it was in the 80s and 90s.

 

[edwin_m]

Reading to Gatwick Airport line has 2 trains an hour off peak Monday to Saturday and that's not fully electrified along its route. They are thinking of increasing the frequency to with another platform at Redhill. So you probably need at least 4 trains an hour currently for an existing line to be electrified. Am I right or wrong on that?

Its more to do with the amount of diesel mileage that can be converted to electric mileage, relative to the amount of track that needs to be electrified. Taking someone's example of Kings Lynn, electrifying this shortish section north of Cambridge eliminated running "under the wires" between Cambridge and London. Also the Kings Lynn trains couple to other units at Cambridge to form the fast Cambridge-London service, so unless you wanted to try running diesels and electrics in multiple you would either need to run Cambridge and Kings Lynn trains separately, or keep diesels for London-Cambridge too. Possible future advent of bi-modes or trains with batteries may change the economics of this.

If Great Western gets some 319s and they still have a dual-voltage capability then electrification may become more likely.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Railway myths, both of them.

Apparently so - I can find no evidence of a formal ban on new top-contact third rail where it isn't an extension of an existing system. But it's well enough established for someone at Crossrail to have cited it in evidence to Parliament as to why third rail couldn't be used to satisfy some nimbies around Maidenhead.

 

[cjmillsnun]

It probably has more to do with how difficult a line is to be electrified than frequency of service.

For instance a line which only needs one feeder station is a lot cheaper than one which needs two.

Likewise a line with lots of junctions would be more expensive than a line with none.

Also Reading to Gatwick has the difficulty of which electrification do you go for? Infill with 3rd rail and GW would likely have to have a micro fleet of trains to run the service. Infill with OHLE and there would be a lot of change points between power types along the route. Replace the existing 3rd rail with OHLE and all the trains trough Guildford and Redhill would need to be dual voltage.

Infill with 3rd rail and turn the service over to SWT.

 

[jopsuk]

The reason Great Western isn't going 3rd rail is partly efficiency, partly that it's not very suitable for speeds above 100mph (at least, not if you also want to have low speeds).

Plus, it's already AC at the Paddington end.

 

[swt_passenger]

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001L0016&from=EN

Don't know if the DM article refers to that directive. btw when was the last new bit of 3rd rail laid anywhere (either brand new lines or in-fill)?

If any length will do, then the extended up slow between the London side of Southampton Parkway (now known as Stoneham Junction) and Eastleigh includes almost a mile of new third rail electrification.