Great Western Coffee Shop

Only a short spur, but this would allow Windermere to retain some premium electric services to/from Manchester, some of which were cut back a few years ago I believe?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/electric-route-for-lake-district (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/electric-route-for-lake-district)

Proves again that once you electrify certain route, you reach the tipping point for others, and so those lobbying for electrification for places like Newbury to Bedwyn/Westbury (and even on to Plymouth), and Bristol to Weston-Super-Mare shouldn't give up!

Exactly and I think Network rail etc know this true and are pushing for more electrification behind the scenes. I expect the  crosscountry spine from Derby/Birmingham - Plymouth will be up for electrification during CP6 hopefully including Bedwyn- Taunton and Bristol local branches along with the remaining unelectrified sections of the GWML network such as Swindon - Gloucester - Severn Tunnel Jct.

The welsh government are pushing for the Crewe - Holyhead line to be wired along with Wrexham Central - Bidston so I wouldnt be surprised if these get the go ahead since  the uk government can argue that  you could have potential service from north wales to London via hs2 and  wales is not being neglected.

Of course wiring Wrexham - Bidston and transfering it to Merseyrail saves the WG some money and it free's up a class 150 to go elsewhere.

By wiring at least to Westbury you can have an hourly London Paddington - Westbury semi-fast service which serves, Newbury, Bedwyn and Pewsey with some of the London - Plymouth/Penzance services being sped up by running non stop from Reading to Taunton/Exeter. some of the semi-fasts can be extended to Taunton or Exter and Paignton as well just to provide direct links from Bedwyn and Westbury to Taunton and south west england.

The problem I feel is that there is just so much of teh network that is crying out for electrificcation but there is not enough resources available to do it all and it will take time.  I do wish Network rail would take on and train extra staff along with ordering a 2nd HOOP train which would enable more electrifcation to be done in a shorter time frame

Excellent news re Windemere.

What about Barrow next?

It was interesting a few years back I did trhe Lancaster Canal from Preston via Lancaster to Carnforth which runs close to the West coast mainline for most of it's length. By observation at that time  75% of the trains seen were diesel under the wires.

Here's a question I was going to put in the Lighter side:

What is the longest run of a diesel train solely under the wires.

 It could be the Caledonian sleeper service or if not then London KX Aberdeen service, under the wires as far as Edinburgh

The Highland Chieftain beats the Aberdeen service by a couple of miles now the Bathgate line is electrified.

I do not believe that Barrow has had through trains in recent years.  The route from Carnforth to Barrow and Carlise is much more self contained.  The case for electrification is therefore more difficult to make.

Nice at least the north west gets a electified now.

John R, this is from me so take it how u want, however i am truly sorry about what happened today. It shouldnt have happened. Hoping you will understand.

James - noted and apology accepted. Thanks for posting it.

No problem :)

Barrow actually has a better TPE service than Windermere in terms of longer distance services, with a 2-hourly service from Manchester Airport (with Northern filling the gaps to provide roughly an hourly service).  The Barrow route was shut for a prolonged period recently whilst extensive viaduct repairs were undertaken.  Windermere did have a few more direct trains a few years back but now basically has only a shuttle service to/from Oxenholme, with just the two direct trains from Manchester and the odd extra one from Preston/Lancaster.

That being said, I don't think the Barrow route will be electrified any time soon as it's a lot longer than the Windermere branch and would be a bugger to electrify given the two very long viaducts.  Barrow, judging from a visit a few years ago, is in desperate need of an economic boost though, so it's a pity in some ways, and there must be fears that the direct service to Manchester would be threatened without electrification?

Thanks II I had not appreciated that.  Nevertheless without the additional benefits of better stock utilisation that comes from electrifying an isolated short branch in an otherwise electrified area, it will be more difficult to build a case for a line with only an hourly service.  Initially it was not considered that it would be economic to electrify to Swansea with only an hourly service. 

North Wales is currently set up the wrong way for electrification. Currently, you'd have to wire Cardiff/Wolverhampton - Shrewsbury - Wrexham - Chester in order to get the hourly ATW service west of Llandudno Junction converted to electric. Personally, I think Llandudno/Holyhead should have hourly ATW services to Crewe/Manchester, with a view to extending the Crewe services to Birmingham if/when the wires go up. The Cardiff/Birmingham - Wrexham servcies would terminate at Chester instead of continuing to Holyhead.

As for HS2, they are doing it wrong. They have a terminal syndrome. I like the 'Euston Cross' proposals in Modern Railways (a new London through station in tunnel, linking HS2 to HS1). Similarly, I think the Birmingham and Manchester stations should be through stations, allowing trains to Manchester, Scotland and Liverpool to call at Birmingham etc.

Going back to north Wales, HS2 trains will apparently be 200 metres or 400 metres long. I assume the former would be used on north Wales runs, if at all. 200 metres divided by 23 metres is equivalent to roughly 8 mark 3 coaches. Few trains on the north Wales coast are longer than 5 coaches, and most of the ones that are that long are Voyagers (low seating capacity per train length). London may be a focal point of rail demand, but filling a 200 metre train from north Wales to London (at least at any sort of meaningful frequency) would be alot easier if it could call at Birmingham on the way. You might even be able to provide the hourly north Wales - Crewe - Birmingham electric service I proposed as London services over HS2, but that might be over the top. Still, making a northern rail exit from the HS2 Birmingham station, turning it into a through station, is an essential prerequisite for that.

Of course, I considered that a nonsense from day one. Firstly, the hourly service in question was a long 125mph Intercity train, not a 2-car DMU. An Intercity train surely drinks more diesel than a little DMU, so in my book an hourly Intercity service should warrant electrification. Secondly, and more importantly, the frequency on that section is already greater than hourly. There's a 2-hourly Cardiff-Swansea stopper as well, plus an hourly service which runs through onto diesel lines but this might not survive electrification.

Yes, speed of wiring is a problem, and I fear it could be a fatal one when combined with another problem (TSI PRM).

Intercity 125s are not compliant with TSI PRM (Technical Specification Interoperability, Persons Reduced Mobility, or something like that) and a lot of work would need to be done to make them so. Therefore, the Department For Transport (aka DaFT) have decided that most will need to be replaced with new diesel Intercity stock (bi-mode IEP) by the end of the day on 31st December 2019, since TSI PRM comes into force on 1st January 2019.

The wires cannot go up fast enough to convert several routes with (in my view) a strong case for electrification (Hull, Swindon - Cheltenham and Bristol - Weston-Super-Mare) by 2019, so under DaFT's plans we'll have brand new bi-mode IEPs on those routes. Personally, I think those three routes at least (plus linking the MML to the ECML to complete the 'electric spine') should be right at the top of the list for Control Period 6, but I fear the presence of brand new IEP bi-modes on these routes will kill the case for wiring them ASAP. And IEPs cannot be cascaded to XC without guage clearance works for 26m carriages, something that's probably most efficently done alongside clearance works for electrification and/or larger freight wagons.

Much better, in my opinion, to give some IC125s a derrogation from TSI PRM for a year or two to allow those routes to be electrified in 2020/21 so that electric IEPs (instead of bi-mode ones) can replace the IC125s.

(Windermere again)

Am I right in thinking that Windermere lost the bulk of its through services at the time TPE were bounced with the ex XC Manchester - Scotland services by DfT?  They might have involved splitting and joining with services going elsewhere at one time.  

They were given little or no rolling stock to compensate for the additional 'Scottish route' diagramming that the the 185 fleet suddenly had.  I'm sure prior to that decision the idea was that TPE would only have their relatively new 185 fleet, sized for the transpennine network of the day, and the 170s they now have were an afterthought, but still not enough to run all their existing services?

Paul

The killer for the Barrow line will be the grid feeds, modern Autotransformer system can feed 50 ish miles and have have a very expensive price tag, Windermere I suspect is being done without to much modification to the existing or any proposed upgrade to the railway electrification power distribution system in the area.

Back to Windermere and reading the press release I am surprised that the estimated cot is only ^16 million - but this maybe (as someone has already mentioned I believe) the power supply issues are not as complicated as other potential projects.

Probably right. It's about 13 miles, and single track. It won't be heavily used - passenger numbers are around 300,000 per year, or about a third of the Severn Beach line. It may be sufficient to simply splice it into the power supply on the WCML. Probably, electrification would see the end of its status as a mainly shuttle service. You wouldn't want to use a new EMU just for a 20-minute each way shuttle with a 20-minute layover at the end.

If the intent was to use it as a shuttle then it wouldn't be being wired. The main benefit from a passenger perspective is the retention (and enhancement) of through services, and that's the driving force behind the announcement.

Windermere ticks the wiring boxes in that:

It can share an emu fleet.

It has a 25kV feeder station at Natland, just South of Oxenhome, so power isn't a problem. (This is near the Hutton supergrid compound.)

The multiplier effect is high; 10miles 16ch of wiring eliminates c85 mile diesel workings from Manchester.

Operationally, it probably allows Windermere trains to be stopping, freeing longer distance services.

There's presumably a market for better (speed and capacity) services and also political support in the region.

etc etc.

The Joker in the wider electrification pack is 3rd rail upgrades, where it seems that 750V replacement costs the same or more than new 25kV and lacks the running cost savings. Hence we may well see the outer parts of the Southern system move to 25kV, where it is simpler to install but nett savings will be greatest (and positive). I suspect that we'll see Pirbright Junction - Weymouth go 25kV, then Woking - Portsmouth and Redhill - Brighton. Now that rigid bar catenary seems accepted, low tunnels won't be a problem and Merseyrail would be a likely candidate for 25kV as its renewal costs would be less and potential greater.

For us in (F)GW territory, wiring timescales may depend on how long the HST's can be spun out and whether diesel IEP can work well enough.


OTC

OTC you made mention on "rigid bar cantenery" there which is a phrase I've not come across before.

It ay seem a stupid question but does this mean what is implied ? That (put simply ) the cable which feeds the power cars is not sprung?

Is this a recent acceptance ? Woud this had removed the requirement to alter bridges on (for example) the Westbury line through newbury?

It isn't a new idea, it is already in use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trowse_Bridge). The description says that there is no overhead wire/cable, instead there is an overhead conductor rail. From the image it does appear to be sprung though. Perhaps for tunnels an unsprug overhead conductor rail is envisiaged???

Sorry must have phrased the question wrongly I meant a diesel service which runs under the wires all the way from start to finish and doesn'rt stray off wired tracks even in its depots.

More common names for it are conductor rail or beam, and its main use is in tunnels. In most cases it's really a continuous clamp that holds the conductor wire, which can thus be continuous with catenary support and can be replaced when worn.

There was a short exchange about it recently in the Reading Station thread from http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6405.msg134616#msg134616 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6405.msg134616#msg134616), with a link to an article that has since vanished. This one http://www.therailengineer.com/2013/06/29/conductor-beam-collaboration-and-innovation/ (http://www.therailengineer.com/2013/06/29/conductor-beam-collaboration-and-innovation/) is still there, though.

I ... wondered ... if that was really the question.   Not sure about depots, though.

Isn't there a King's Cross to Glasgow service that's run by an HST?  Or does that just go to Edinburgh or even just to Newcastle these days?   But I wouldn't know which depot such trains run from, and it's possible that the next journey on the diagram then goes off-wire.

There are a number of diagrams, I believe, where a diesel train is running on electrified lines for the entire passenger carrying part of the diagram.   That's not what you asked either, but is very frustrating to those people who wish to see more / longer trains on non-electrified lines.

It's still there if you scroll down the page to the June edition.  The only difference to the other 'single story' version is that the online magazine has better photos...

Paul

Odd - I found the June edition, but the article had literally vanished: those pages were blank. Maybe it's one of those browser-specific problems, or something.

http://www.therailengineer.com/2013/06/29/conductor-beam-collaboration-and-innovation/


For interest, the normal rail top to contact wire height is 4700mm

OTC

Trouble is that East Coast have a number of such diagrams where an HST runs completely under the wires. There is at least one Edinburgh to Kings Cross, a KX to York return trip and at least one Leeds - KX service.

However there are no electric trains to operate these, and even if East Coast wanted to make them electric hauled by removing the power cars and buying an electric loco, there aren't any of them suitable for the UK. This would only free up a few HST power cars anyway and not trains.

IEP may resolve this, but by then Great Western will also have IEPs and perhaps a few spare HSTs.

Off hand I know that the 8.30 EDB-KGX, 15.00 and 17.00 KGX-EDB Mon-Fri would fall into this category.

Remember that the Mk 4 fleet was reduced by 1 after the two accidents at Hatfield and Great Heck, so they've been short for a long time.

The most obvious example is the Birmingham to Scotland WC service which is currently run almost exclusively by Voyagers, although this will change come December. Though I think the overall "diesel under wires" mileage will be similar as the ones that remain Voyager operated will be doubled up.

You have to consider the train's whole day diagram though, doesn't the 0830 EDB-KGX return to Aberdeeen?  I think the main point with the ECML is that last time they increased the service patterns HSTs were the only thing available, although they did toy with the 5 180s that are now with FGW didn't they?

At least their replacements will all be bi-mode...  (Always assuming Rhydgaled approves it...)    ;D

This the first serious use of Conductor Beam in the UK it was chosen by TLP because of the planned increase in train paths through the core area the limited clearances and curvature in the Kings Cross tunnels produced a high risk of wire failure.  The system is being extended further North through the whole of St Pancras low level to make the integration of the planned conductor beam in Canal Tunnels easier.

Canal Tunnels will be the first certainly in the UK if not the world to use a Conductor Bream Neutral Section.   

The Beam through Kings Cross tunnels is 80mm and the planned beam for Canal Tunnels is 115mm.

Conductor beam really only works over Slab Track and not ballasted track.   

Attached a photo taken last week inside Canal Tunnels (for the pedantic its the UP tunnel) quality a bit poor but that's the limitation of the board

If only they would listen... 8 or 9 trains a day beyond the wires should not need a diesel train fleet. Give East Coast electric IEPs to replace the IC125s and attach a diesel loco for the non-electrified bits, ideally with IC225s used for Aberdeen and Inverness with a loco-swap at Edinburgh. You should need far fewer diesel powerplants in total if you only carry diesel engines beyond the wires, not all the way to Kings Cross and back as well.

And bang goes any future improvements in journey times with a delay at Edinburgh detaching and then attaching the replacement locomotive and then that single engine struggling to haul a full length train with far worse acceleration than a Bi-Mode IEP will be capable of.  Not to mention the inevitable odd engine failure causing far more disruption than an engine failure on the multi-engined Bi-Mode train, and the increased cost in hauling a full-length train running half-empty for most of the time north of the border when a Bi-Mode can split at Edinburgh and leave half behind.  And the fact that you'd probably need to replace the carriages anyway in around 20 years when the Bi-Mode would be still going strong.

Actually, I do take Rhydgaled's point about the Bi-Mode's not being ideal for such long hauls under the wires, but should Aberdeen get wired then the Bi-Mode engines can be removed and everyone's a winner as that only leaves the daily train to Inverness, and my points above are all possible counter arguments to his suggestions.

Returning to the topic, as well as the previous omission of Windermere, the failure to include a direct Manchester - Wigan route seems strange, bearing in mind the wiring from Liverpool through St Helens and the greater economic importance of Manchester.

Wigan has broadly 5 off peak services per hour from Manchester, 3 via Bolton, 2 via Atherton. Only 1 actually starts from the City, the others coming from the airport, Stalybridge and Rochdale. The Bolton route will be 70% wired (more if one throws in Stalybridge), so 1 or 2 electric workings per hour would have a high multiplier effect.

Towns like Wigan, Bolton (or Rochdale) are actually near to the size of Reading, with large hinterland populations (200 - 300k). It would surely make additional sense for the new Lancashire- Scots electrics to serve both Bolton and Wigan rather than one or the other. The section in question is about 6.5 miles westward from Lostock Junction.

OTC

An interesting idea.

Of the 5 services, 3 carry on to Southport (2) and Kirkby, and I certainly can't imagine Southport residents appreciating having to change.  Also as you point out 2 of the 5 run via a different route to the one you are suggesting is electrified, which is a further complication.

Having said that, I suspect it's exactly the sort of small infill scheme which will start to become more common. And I like the idea of the Scottish services serving both, although  they might have to be made pick up/set down only in the peak to prevent local commuters crowding out longer distance passengers.

I am pretty certain that the Wigan route to Preston was actively considered for electrification, but lost out because "you have to draw the line somewhere". I'm sure it will be done fairly early after the big programme is completed.

As I thought, there's concern that the Barrow line might suffer post-electrification:

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/electrification-plan-sparks-furness-rail-line-fears-1.1079009 (http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/electrification-plan-sparks-furness-rail-line-fears-1.1079009)

Now the "Electrification Genie" is out of the bottle I hope that infill between the new wires and wires beyond the new ends will follow in an orderly pattern.

The problem is we wasted 20 years before embarking on further significant electrifcation so there's a lot to catch up. If GWML and MML Transpennine had been electrified then we would probably  be finishing off lines like Barrow even round via Whitehaven and Workington to Carlisle  DMUs would be confined to very minor lines like Settle Carnforth although with the Settle and Carlilse electrified for freight who knows?

Hopefully, as it  seems likely that the shape of the network, possibly even with additions, will remain much the same as today so maybe in 20 years time we will have a virtualy all electric system. Unless HS2 swallows all the money, which is possibly another minus against it, less electrification elsewhere.


 

It's not just the money but also the engineering resources available in the UK in terms of professional Civil, Mechanical and Electrical Designers, Consultants and Contractors. These cannot be summoned like a genie from a magic lamp, they need sustained education, training, responsible experience and long term career progression, much like medical staff and unlike City types selling pieces of (electronic) paper.

Unless of course we can get Electric_train to work triple shifts, 24/7 on a voluntary basis....

OTC

Barrow has seen considerable regeneration over the past 20 years, and work continues on a marina, due for completion in 2020. It is visited by cruise ships, although most passengers would head for the lakes. Then there is the not inconsiderable presence of BAe systems. There are about 80,000 people living there. I suppose the big reason against electrification is the distance from Windermere, but I have sympathy with the locals' view that any reduction in service would be damaging to the area.

The Electrification Task Force for the north of England reported yesterday to define the priorities for electrification throughout the north after the current CP5 schemes have been finished.

Three 'tiers' have been suggested, with tier one schemes suggested as the best ones to do next.  Those routes that made tier one are:

• Calder Valley ^ Leeds to Manchester and Preston via Bradford and Brighouse
• Liverpool to Manchester via Warrington Central
• Southport/Kirkby to Salford Crescent
• Chester to Stockport
• Northallerton to Middlesbrough
• Leeds to York via Harrogate
• Selby to Hull
• Sheffield (Meadowhall) to Leeds via Barnsley / Castleford & connections
• Bolton to Clitheroe
• Sheffield to Doncaster/Wakefield Westgate (Dearne Valley)
• Hazel Grove to Buxton
• Warrington to Chester

The report suggests that all routes should be electrified eventually.  I have to say that (with my limited knowledge of the mass of lines and routes in the North) whilst all the tier one schemes look potentially excellent candidates, I can't see how many of the tier three routes (such as the Cumbrian Coast line, Hull to Scarborough line etc.) could ever justify electrification.

It'll be interesting to see whether future governments accept these recommendations.  The full report can be downloaded at:  http://www.railnorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EFT_Final_Report_FINAL_web.pdf (http://www.railnorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EFT_Final_Report_FINAL_web.pdf)

Electrification has still to be viewed across the whole country as well though, doesn't it? 

If there are three tiers defined, then it would be sensible to do tier one projects across the country first, and link certain projects together, such as the separate chunks of the NE/SW cross country routes, because all the isolated business cases must be better when joined up.

I skimmed the document and it didn't seem to cover national benefits in the way the earlier NR electrification RUS did - although apparently that should be re-issued soon.

Paul

It's surely because the Electrification RUS did rank shemes Nationally and that a number of Northern projects appeared in it that a specific Northern review was needed.

The four regions; Merseyside, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire are very densely populated. They would benefit from a proper rail network just as does the South East. (Remember GM's tongue-in-cheek brand of NetworkNorthWest?) As they have a number of main centres, passenger services should be more economic as they would have bi-directional peaks, unlike London.

I do agree that some of the proposals look shaky and not just lower down the order.

OTC