Would it be impossible to electrify the Hope Valley line?

[Justin Smith]

Just a quick question on the Hope Valley route, I read someone arguing online that is was "impossible with present technology" to electrify the Totley tunnel ?
Is that really correct ?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Just a quick question on the Hope Valley route, I read someone arguing online that is was "impossible with present technology" to electrify the Totley tunnel ?
Is that really correct ?

I imagine, seeing as the Severn Tunnel has been successfully electrified, it’s probably nonsense?

 

[Justin Smith]

I imagine, seeing as the Severn Tunnel has been successfully electrified, it’s probably nonsense?

I suspect it is nonsense as well, expensive is not the same as "impossible", but might the Severn Tunnel have a larger loading gauge ?

It was mentioned that since they shut the Derby to Manchester line and Woodhead there would be precious few avoiding routes whilst they electrified Totley Tunnel !

 

[dosxuk]

Just a quick question on the Hope Valley route, I read someone arguing online that is was "impossible with present technology" to electrify the Totley tunnel ?
Is that really correct ?

As with most of the content on that forum these days, it's nonsense. Likewise with the reasons why trains can't divert via Huddersfield.

 

[Killingworth]

As with most of the content on that forum these days, it's nonsense. Likewise with the reasons why trains can't divert via Huddersfield.

Yes it's possible to electrify through Totley, Cowburn and Disley Tunnels but that's 3 long lengths of Victorian engineering and the cost is far higher per mile than, say, Hull - Selby. Which should be the cost effective priority between these two lines? Other comparisons are available.

TPE trains are diverted via Huddersfield as a matter of course. Via Penistone is not practical without more passing capacity or cancelling existing stopping services. If it were practical it would be done.

Diversion of the fast TPE services via Wakefield is relatively routine but adds almost half an hour to the normal TPE journey between Sheffield and Manchester, as it will on the next two Sundays.

EMR usually bus from Chesterfield and Sheffield to Stockport.

Northern may bus between New Mills Central and Sheffield - which takes for ever (1 hour 50 just for that section then change to train taking another 30 minutes plus connection time) and most who know will avoid.

A protracted blockade would decimate commuter traffic between the the two cities, add a further nail in the rail option from the east to Manchester Airport and severely damage the growing leisure market for the Hope Valley.

But don't be over concerned about passengers. How is limestone and cement traffic to be diverted?

My guess is that some bi-mode option is most likely. Electrify up to the Chinley end of Cowburn Tunnel and the Totley end of Totley Tunnel. Possibly electrify from Edale to Grindleford. The section from Sheffield through Dore up to Totley Tunnel would be a natural follow on from the MML scheme - as overrun it may be part of it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Just as a reminder - if there is sufficient clearance then it is actually cheaper to electrify in tunnels. No need for foundations / masts etc, you just bolt the small part steelwork to the tunnel crown. Also tunnels are (usually) free from many of the other issues that make electrification more tricky such as vegetation, signals, nearby areas open to the public, S&C; and they are not exposed to the weather.

If there isn’t clearance then it gets interesting of course.

 

[mwmbwls]

Totley Tunnel always seems wet. It is more noticeable going from Dore to Grindleford.

 

[Justin Smith]

Yes it's possible to electrify through Totley, Cowburn and Disley Tunnels but that's 3 long lengths of Victorian engineering and the cost is far higher per mile than, say, Hull - Selby. Which should be the cost effective priority between these two lines? Other comparisons are available.

TPE trains are diverted via Huddersfield as a matter of course. Via Penistone is not practical without more passing capacity or cancelling existing stopping services. If it were practical it would be done.

Diversion of the fast TPE services via Wakefield is relatively routine but adds almost half an hour to the normal TPE journey between Sheffield and Manchester, as it will on the next two Sundays.

EMR usually bus from Chesterfield and Sheffield to Stockport.

Northern may bus between New Mills Central and Sheffield - which takes for ever (1 hour 50 just for that section then change to train taking another 30 minutes plus connection time) and most who know will avoid.

A protracted blockade would decimate commuter traffic between the the two cities, add a further nail in the rail option from the east to Manchester Airport and severely damage the growing leisure market for the Hope Valley.

But don't be over concerned about passengers. How is limestone and cement traffic to be diverted?

My guess is that some bi-mode option is most likely. Electrify up to the Chinley end of Cowburn Tunnel and the Totley end if Totley Tunnel. Possibly electify from Edale to Grindleford. The section from Sheffield through Dore would be a natural follow on from the MML scheme, as overrun probably part of it.

I really am not a fan of the Bi Mode alternative to doing a full decent electrification. It may be easier and cheaper in the short term, but more complexity and expense and less efficient in the long term.
I've always been a "long term" kind of guy.
It really would be a case of short term pain for long term gain.

 

[Chester1]

I really am not a fan of the Bi Mode alternative to doing a full decent electrification. It may be easier and cheaper in the short term, but more complexity and expense and less efficient in the long term.
I've always been a "long term" kind of guy.
It really would be a case of short term pain for long term gain.

Resources for electrification will be in high demand between now and 2050. If the tunnels don't have the clearance its best to leave them until we have electrified every main line and commuter line. All the services through Hope Valley run on other non electrified lines so bi modes or battery EMUs would be required anyway.

 

[Justin Smith]

TPE trains are diverted via Huddersfield as a matter of course. Via Penistone is not practical without more passing capacity or cancelling existing stopping services. If it were practical it would be done.

I agree, but, if they knew long possessions of Totley tunnel were going to be needed would it not be opportune to increase capacity on the Penistone to Huddersfield line, getting rid of the single line sections would be a good start, which would also make the normal service timetable more resilient anyway.

 

[Peterthegreat]

I agree, but, if they knew long possessions of Totley tunnel were going to be needed would it not be opportune to increase capacity on the Penistone to Huddersfield line, getting rid of the single line sections would be a good start, which would also make the normal service timetable more resilient anyway.

The route from Sheffield to Huddersfield via Moorthorpe and Wakefield Kirkgate is about 20 minutes quicker than via Penistone.

 

[The Planner]

I agree, but, if they knew long possessions of Totley tunnel were going to be needed would it not be opportune to increase capacity on the Penistone to Huddersfield line, getting rid of the single line sections would be a good start, which would also make the normal service timetable more resilient anyway.

Pretty sizeable block of the Hope Valley next year, so it will be seen how things work.

 

[Justin Smith]

The route from Sheffield to Huddersfield via Moorthorpe and Wakefield Kirkgate is about 20 minutes quicker than via Penistone.

Do you mean via Moorthorpe and Kirkgate (via Hare Park Junc) ?

 

[Killingworth]

Pretty sizeable block of the Hope Valley next year, so it will be seen how things work.

Not all that long, but too long for regular users. Freight can still exit to the west but it will be very inconvenient.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Do you mean via Moorthorpe and Kirkgate (via Hare Park Junc) ?

To make it clear
via
Meadowhall
Rotherham Masborough
Swinton
Moorthorpe
South Kirkby Jn
Hare Park Jn
Crofton West Jn
Calder Bridge Jn
Wakefield Kirkgate
Horbury Jn
Healey Mills
Mirfield East Jn
Heaton Lodge Jn
Bradley Jn

 

[Chester1]

View attachment 145626
Not all that long, but too long for regular users. Freight can still exit to the west but it will be very inconvenient.

There is no need to electrify the line within a short space of time. None of the services could switch to EMUs and bi modes on the line would enable any electrification to be beneficial. Long blockades of Hazel Grove to New Mills are practical and that would be the obvious end to start at.

 

[Bald Rick]

I really am not a fan of the Bi Mode alternative to doing a full decent electrification. It may be easier and cheaper in the short term, but more complexity and expense and less efficient in the long term.

And yet railways all over europe are buying battery bi modes as a much more effective and efficient way of getting electric trains. Including those already in service in this country, with comfirmed plans for more.

Are all these railways wrong?

 

[Snow1964]

And yet railways all over europe are buying battery bi modes as a much more effective and efficient way of getting electric trains. Including those already in service in this country, with comfirmed plans for more.

Are all these railways wrong?

I thought Hope valley sees heavy aggregate and cement trains.

Not sure that many railways are buying bi mode freight locos, yes for crawl from unelectrified sidings to reception line, but not for use on non electrified main lines

Battery EMUs yes, but not mainline freight.

 

[Killingworth]

And yet railways all over europe are buying battery bi modes as a much more effective and efficient way of getting electric trains. Including those already in service in this country, with comfirmed plans for more.

Are all these railways wrong?

If you can run a battery powered train for long distances, at speed and up gradients it must be more than worth considering. However comparative costs of infrastructure for catenary against charging equipment set against performance make that calculation difficult. Not least because the prices of diesel and electricity can be volatile when looked at over a 30-40 year life span of railway rolling stock!

 

[Bald Rick]

However comparative costs of infrastructure for catenary against charging equipment set against performance make that calculation difficult.

Not difficult at all, hence why the French, Germans, us, Italians, Danes etc are all pursuing it.

Not sure that many railways are buying bi mode freight locos, yes for crawl from unelectrified sidings to reception line, but not for use on non electrified main lines

Err, we are! (diesel bimodes rather than battery).

 

[Killingworth]

Not difficult at all, hence why the French, Germans, us, Italians, Danes etc are all pursuing it.

So you see the future as battery? Pursuing and proving commercial viabilty may take some time. Tri-modes?

Personally I'd prefer to see the end of vulnerable wires that are prone to damage and make any track alterations more complex - like Sheffield and the Sheaf valley before getting to the three Hope Valley tunnels.

 

[Bald Rick]

So you see the future as battery? Pursuing and proving commercial viabilty may take some time.

The now is battery - they are in service in Birmingham (trams) and Merseyside, soon will be in Cardiff, and planned for Scotland. The commercial viability is proven - what happens next is scaling it to more ambitious applications. This doesn’t remove the need for electrificaton, not least to charge the batteries, but it does remove the need for electrification everywhere.

 

[Austriantrain]

And yet railways all over europe are buying battery bi modes as a much more effective and efficient way of getting electric trains. Including those already in service in this country, with comfirmed plans for more.

Are all these railways wrong?

Well, in continental Europe it almost never concerns mainlines, because those are electrified anyway.

B(E)MUs are mostly seen as a way to de-carbonize secondary lines (and where possible, many countries still prefer to electrify, the threshold to justify it is often very much lower than in Britain, especially where a decent amount of freight runs). For obvious reasons of course, while tunnels and overpasses can be a problem sometimes, it is much less frequent than in the UK, so electrification is usually much cheaper.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well, in continental Europe it almost never concerns mainlines, because those are electrified anyway.

B(E)MUs are mostly seen as a way to de-carbonize secondary lines (and where possible, many countries still prefer to electrify, the threshold to justify it is often very much lower than in Britain, especially where a decent amount of freight runs). For obvious reasons of course, while tunnels and overpasses can be a problem sometimes, it is much less frequent than in the UK, so electrification is usually much cheaper.

All true.

 

[Austriantrain]

All true.

I recently learned that Siemens (IIRC) did a study that recommends electrifying every line where more than one light passenger train per hour is planned to run (so everything from half-hourly onwards, or longer trains, or more than the occasional freight should be fully electric). I am not convinced though, a half-hourly service with short passenger trains does not IMO justify full electrification, except if you have heavy freight also running (does Siemens earn money from electrification? ). But in continental forums, I usually get shouted down when I express this.

 

[Trainbike46]

I recently learned that Siemens (IIRC) did a study that recommends electrifying every line where more than one light passenger train per hour is planned to run (so everything from half-hourly onwards, or longer trains, or more than the occasional freight should be fully electric). I am not convinced though, a half-hourly service with short passenger trains does not IMO justify full electrification, except if you have heavy freight also running (does Siemens earn money from electrification? ). But in continental forums, I usually get shouted down when I express this.

Obviously when electrification is justified from an economic perspective depends (quite a lot) on the cost of electrification. As stated above, as there are typically fewer problematic structures, electrification tends to be cheaper in mainland Europe, so the boundary for when electrification becomes economically viable is also lower than it is here in the UK.

Simply put, Siemens's study could well be accurate for the german situation, but not be so for the UK situation.

I would point out though that the UK has in past electrified lines that don't meet the suggested boundary (e.g. Ely-King's Lynn), and that is at least in part because the actual costs and benefits depend on more than just frequency and train length. For Ely-King's Lynn, the fact that services continue to KGX via Cambridge undoubtedly played a role.

 

[eldomtom2]

Err, we are! (diesel bimodes rather than battery).

Diesel bimodes are a stopgap solution, not a permanent one.

For Ely-King's Lynn, the fact that services continue to KGX via Cambridge undoubtedly played a role.

Of course this is where battery bi-modes shine...

 

[Killingworth]

Obviously when electrification is justified from an economic perspective depends (quite a lot) on the cost of electrification. As stated above, as there are typically fewer problematic structures, electrification tends to be cheaper in mainland Europe, so the boundary for when electrification becomes economically viable is also lower than it is here in the UK.

Simply put, Siemens's study could well be accurate for the german situation, but not be so for the UK situation.

I would point out though that the UK has in past electrified lines that don't meet the suggested boundary (e.g. Ely-King's Lynn), and that is at least in part because the actual costs and benefits depend on more than just frequency and train length. For Ely-King's Lynn, the fact that services continue to KGX via Cambridge undoubtedly played a role.

Ely-King's Lynn hasn't any tunnels or major gradients, which is why Hull-Selby will rank ahead of the Hope Valley line for priority.

 

[43096]

All true.

The difference here is there’s no strategy for wiring even main lines in a planned way. Then the battery idea (or whatever the “bionic duckweed” of choice is this week) gets trotted out as a solution for main lines as well. It’s just embarrassing.

 

[Bald Rick]

Diesel bimodes are a stopgap solution, not a permanent one.

really? why do you say that?

and why would Beacon Rail invest well over £100m on a stop gap solution?

The difference here is there’s no strategy for wiring even main lines in a planned way. Then the battery idea (or whatever the “bionic duckweed” of choice is this week) gets trotted out as a solution for main lines as well. It’s just embarrassing.

Agreed that a main line electrification strategy (that is adopted and funded) is sorely needed. But that can include battery options. And no doubt will, in time.