|
Title: Transpennine Electrification Post by: woody on December 01, 2011, 23:30:50 It would appear that from the following link http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48277-transpennine-electrification-manchesterleeds/page__st__75__p__545172#entry545172 that as well as Transpennine Electrification,Network Rail has also been asked to produce a report looking at the feasibility of extending the OLE to Hull, Scarborough and Middlesbrough.Quote "In ordinary times none of them would be remotely viable - they're all based around one train an hour. But we're not in ordinary times."
So my question is surely then extending the wires from Cardiff to Swansea is also therefore justified in the circumstances(ie one HST an hour). Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: Rhydgaled on December 02, 2011, 09:26:11 I think electrifying to Hull frees up rather more than one train per hour, and I think wires to Scarborough and Middlesbrough would enable a lot of diesel units to be released (the services would be under the wires for a very long time if the Manchester - York TPE route were wired) for reletivly little extra wiring (also makes the case for electrifying the central section stronger).
Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: eightf48544 on December 02, 2011, 09:43:47 You are right Woody, it always made sense to extend the wires to Swansea. Via both Brigdend and Barry for diversions and local services particularly if the Valleys are wired so it will be more then one train an hour.
As for these other electrifications it's all good news. One of the things with electrification is that it can be continuous process once the teams are up and running then they can be continuously employed on a rolling programme. Planning, procuring materials, doing the job and moving onto the next stretch of line. Hopefully they'll get the job done better and cheaper (per mile) over time as the teams gel and the supply chain gets geared up. Thus once the main lines are done then infills such a Hull Scarborough and Middlesborough, make a lot of sense and should be relatively cheap. Although hopefully in their quest to reduce costs the engineers will have learnt the lesson of the east Coast and put in a few more masts. If DaFT did away with the bi-mode IEP and went for an elctric loco with last mile diesel for Freight and hotel power for coaches when the wires are down (although see above). plusthen a 4 engine diesel for the off wires bits which hopefully will get shorter and shorter as the wires spread. Then we would have a very good railway to be proud of. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: Tim on December 02, 2011, 12:14:00 I think the distinction between wiring the Pennines and to Swansea may be driven by the problem of getting new DMUs. DMUs are difficult to build (whilst staying within the UK loading gauge and meeting recent emissions standards) and expensive to fund (because investors worry that they may not have 30 years of revenue-earning use in them). If you wire the TP route you release some almost new DMU units for use elsewhere. I can understand the attraction of that.
Hull and Scarborough are much more similar propositions to Swansea. A decision on all those places will turn I think on whether the government actually signs the contract for the Bi-mode IEP. If bi-mode provision is much more expensive than putting up extra wires (and running HSTs under the wires for 2 or 3 extra years whilst we wait for that to happen) then the wires should go up. If they decide to electrify Hull and Scarborough then Swansea ought to be back on the agenda. I hope all routes will be done eventually. The big question about all these wires going up is how many new EMUs do we need. The ex-Thameslink 319's can't cover everthing and will themselves be due to retire before too long. It would be nice to see a large EMU order in the next few years to take advantage of economies of scale. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: anthony215 on December 02, 2011, 13:43:26 There are those who believe the reason why it was decided not to wire to Swansea is that they wanted to improve the business case for the Bi-mode IEP's which looks now that it is about to be shot out of the water because of the high cost's.
I am looking forward to seing what the ROSCO's have come up with as an alternative to IEP. I will put my money down that the Bi-mode IEP will be dropped with more electric versions being ordered instead especially if the scotish government decides to wire Edinburgh - Aberdeen Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: eightf48544 on December 02, 2011, 14:15:46 I think what Ian Walmsley who writes in Modern railways would want is an electric loco. with last mile diesel engine for movement and hotel power during wiring interuptions, and say rakes of 10+ coaches. Changing for a four engined (about 700 hp each) diesel loco for off the wire haulage. Both working push pull with the coaching coaching sets splitable so intermediate driving trailers.
Unpowered coaches much cheaper, better ride and noise levels, we ought to able build a better Mark 3 these days. But no 737 interiors. OK so you have a loco change but that ought to be no more than 3 minutes with modern auto couplings. It's likely that the train will be stopping for longer than that in any case. Swansea and Norwich you have a reversal Edingburgh a long stop. Splits should be equally fast. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: northwesterntrains on December 02, 2011, 15:17:54 I think the distinction between wiring the Pennines and to Swansea may be driven by the problem of getting new DMUs. DMUs are difficult to build (whilst staying within the UK loading gauge and meeting recent emissions standards) and expensive to fund (because investors worry that they may not have 30 years of revenue-earning use in them). If you wire the TP route you release some almost new DMU units for use elsewhere. I can understand the attraction of that. Network Rail have identified that around 130 Pacers need replacing in the 2014 to 2019 Control Period. They put a case in to the government to fund North TPE electrification (except York-Scarborough) and Valley Lines as a way of both replacing Pacers and replacing other DMUs that can replace Pacers with EMUs. The government have approved part of the North TPE electrification and apparently will talk with Network Rail next year about the viability of electrifying other parts not included so far like Hull and Middlesbrough. Quote The big question about all these wires going up is how many new EMUs do we need. The ex-Thameslink 319's can't cover everthing and will themselves be due to retire before too long. It would be nice to see a large EMU order in the next few years to take advantage of economies of scale. The Guardian reported the government are looking at cascading EMUs to North TPE opposed to ordering new ones. It is understood that refurbished 365s, due for replacement under the IEP program, will be the 'new' TPE EMUs. However, replacing 3 carriage trains with 23m carriages with 4 carriage trains with 20m carriages won't really provide the extra capacity required unless the intention is to run them all in 8 car formation but then you have problems with providing an on board trolley service. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: matt473 on December 02, 2011, 15:32:12 This proves the commitment to Electrification by the government, though the political football over who is paying and having control of railways in Wales is delaying this I would say. Since IEP as days go on seems more and more unlikely the wires to Swansea will no doubt happen, although will no doubt only be confirmed the same time as Valley Lines electrification so that VoG will be funded as the valley lines project with the fact it would be a diversionary route an added bonus for "free" to the accountants working on wiring the main line. The WAG needs a kick up the backside to decide now what powers it wants and whether they will pay for infrastructure improvements too. Otherwise this politcal football will see pacers for a very long time yet and IEP not fit for actual purpouse
Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: Electric train on December 02, 2011, 18:42:03 Since IEP as days go on seems more and more unlikely the wires to Swansea will no doubt happen, although will no doubt only be confirmed the same time as Valley Lines electrification When the valley lines get authorised by the Welsh Assembly the funding will only allow the wires to Bridgend, although the NR Electrification team expect that Bridgend to Swansea will get filled.NR have got agreement in principle to buy another electrification train as the TP route is being constructed at the same time as the GWML it is expected that the GWML unit will then move onto the MML Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: anthony215 on December 02, 2011, 19:17:50 Anyone know when Network rail are due to publish the report on the Cardiff Valley Lines electrification?
I knowsome have suggested using money from the EU to pay for teh Cardiff Valley lines and wiring to Swansea. I do think that they should wire the Severn Tunnel Jct - Gloucester - Swindon since it will effectively kill off the need for the Bi mode IEP on the Swansea/Cardiff/- London route. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: Rhydgaled on December 02, 2011, 23:36:37 If DaFT did away with the bi-mode IEP and went for an elctric loco with last mile diesel for Freight and hotel power for coaches when the wires are down (although see above). plusthen a 4 engine diesel for the off wires bits which hopefully will get shorter and shorter as the wires spread. Then we would have a very good railway to be proud of. An electric loco with a last-mile diesel engine, for passenger purposes, would be almost as daft as bi-mode IEP I think. Stick to swapping an electric loco for a diesel one when the wires run out, or sticking a diesel loco on one end of an EMU.Anyone know when Network rail are due to publish the report on the Cardiff Valley Lines electrification? I think it is supposed to be complete this month. Personally I think they are missing a trick by making up seperate business cases for ValleyLines and Swansea - Cardiff, they improve the case for each other.I think what Ian Walmsley who writes in Modern railways would want is an electric loco. with last mile diesel engine for movement and hotel power during wiring interuptions, and say rakes of 10+ coaches. Changing for a four engined (about 700 hp each) diesel loco for off the wire haulage. Both working push pull with the coaching coaching sets splitable so intermediate driving trailers. My idea for the Pembroke Dock and Carmarthen services to/from Paddington is an Intercity 225 set (displaced by more electric IEPs for East Coast and less IEPs for Great Western) with wires to Swansea and the 91 being swapped for a life-extended, TDM-fitted, class 47. The time I heard for a loco swap is 9 minutes, making it unviable as a solution for most services but the long dwell at Swansea deals with that problem in that case.Unpowered coaches much cheaper, better ride and noise levels, we ought to able build a better Mark 3 these days. But no 737 interiors. OK so you have a loco change but that ought to be no more than 3 minutes with modern auto couplings. It's likely that the train will be stopping for longer than that in any case. Swansea and Norwich you have a reversal Edingburgh a long stop. Splits should be equally fast. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: northwesterntrains on December 03, 2011, 10:27:50 Anyone know when Network rail are due to publish the report on the Cardiff Valley Lines electrification? Network Rail released on report to the government recommending electrification for North TPE, Valley Lines and the London Overground 172 routes, providing the necessary facts and figures and asking for funding to be provided. North TPE is the only one the government has announced. I imagine that's because it's the only one that doesn't require another party's consultation. Valley Lines will need to involve the Welsh Assembly, while London Overground will need to involve TfL. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: JayMac on December 03, 2011, 12:14:04 However, replacing 3 carriage trains with 23m carriages with 4 carriage trains with 20m carriages won't really provide the extra capacity 3 Car 185. 169 seats 4 Car 365. 242 seats That's a fairly substantial boost in capacity per train. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: northwesterntrains on December 03, 2011, 13:28:50 However, replacing 3 carriage trains with 23m carriages with 4 carriage trains with 20m carriages won't really provide the extra capacity 3 Car 185. 169 seats 4 Car 365. 242 seats That's a fairly substantial boost in capacity per train. Add in: * DDA compliance * Sufficient luggage space for North TPE services - they serve Manchester Airport and numerous university towns and cities. The 185s actually have insufficient luggage space and suitcases commonly get left in the doorways and aisles. * Regional style seating with more tables replacing commuter style seating And you'll be down to around 200 seats per 4 car set. DDA compliance and the door layout are the main reasons why 3 car 185s have less seating than 3 car 158s. TPE services have been 6 car sets full and standing at peak times now, so with passenger growth an 8 car set will be exactly the same by the time the electrification is complete. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: JayMac on December 03, 2011, 13:50:27 Add in: * DDA compliance <snip> And you'll be down to around 200 seats per 4 car set. DDA compliance and the door layout are the main reasons why 3 car 185s have less seating than 3 car 158s. The Disability Discrimination Act has be repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010. The new Act contains provisions for the Secretary of State to exempt rail vehicles 'by exemption order' if he or she so choses: Quote 183 Exemptions from rail vehicle accessibility regulations (1)The Secretary of State may by order (an ^exemption order^ (a)authorise the use for carriage of a regulated rail vehicle even though the vehicle does not conform with the provisions of rail vehicle accessibility regulations with which it is required to conform; (b)authorise a regulated rail vehicle to be used for carriage otherwise than in conformity with the provisions of rail vehicle accessibility regulations with which use of the vehicle is required to conform. (2)Authority under subsection (1)(a) or (b) may be for^ (a)a regulated rail vehicle that is specified or of a specified description, (b)use in specified circumstances of a regulated rail vehicle, or (c)use in specified circumstances of a regulated rail vehicle that is specified or of a specified description. (3)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to exemption orders including, in particular, provision as to^ (a)the persons by whom applications for exemption orders may be made; (b)the form in which applications are to be made; (c)information to be supplied in connection with applications; (d)the period for which exemption orders are to continue in force; (e)the revocation of exemption orders. (4)After consulting the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, the Secretary of State may^ (a)make an exemption order in the terms of the application for the order; (b)make an exemption order in such other terms as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate; (c)refuse to make an exemption order. (5)The Secretary of State may make an exemption order subject to such conditions and restrictions as are specified. (6)^Specified^ means specified in an exemption order. The above quote is an extract from the Equalities Act 2010 Chapter 3 'RAIL VEHICLES' http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/12/chapter/3 The above may be disappointing news for disabled people but it does give Train Operating Companies much more wriggle room to use rolling stock that would've failed compliance with the old DDA legislation. It may not be wise, politically, for an SoS to grant exemptions, but that SoS will also be mindful of the costs involved in seeing rail vehicles comply with the new Act and may well use their powers to grant exemptions. As for luggage space or tables, unfortunately there is no legislation, old or new, that compels TOCs to provide this! Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: Rhydgaled on December 03, 2011, 18:38:11 The Disability Discrimination Act has be repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010. The new Act contains provisions for the Secretary of State to exempt rail vehicles 'by exemption order' if he or she so choses Nice bit of myth-busting there, so Pacers do not in fact HAVE to be gone by 2020, 153s can remain single-car units beyond then also and retained Intercity 125s after 2020 don't need power doors. That changes alot.Bad news first, passengers may have to suffer Pacers for longer and disabled access will be delayed until this stock is eventually replaced (I hope there's no way anyone can exempt new-build stock from the Equality Act rules). However, there is good news too. The good news: 1. Keeping Intercity 125s for a short while after the Jan 1st 2020 deadline just got a hell of a lot more viable, since you don't need an expensive refurb to fit power doors. That means they can all be replaced with pure electric units even if the electrification required cannot be done by the 2020 deadline. 2. Similarly, there is a little more time to get wires up to replace Pacers without having to order DMUs. 3. Some diesel stock released by electrification cascades (particularly Pacers) can still be used to put on extra services (eg. opening some freight-only lines to passenger traffic) that would have not otherwise been possible due to shortage of units. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: JayMac on December 03, 2011, 19:49:55 I've been saying for some time now on one or two threads on this forum that DDA compliance could be dead in the water.
It's disappointing that this may be the case, but the new legislation appears to allow the rail industry to continue using rolling stock that would've failed compliance with the old legislation. With the important caveat, that the Secretary of State has to sign off on allowing non compliant rolling stock to remain in revenue earning service. That's a political decision which comes with all the pitfalls should a SoS decide to use his or her powers. In the current and ongoing financial climate I can quite easily see dispensation given to rolling stock that isn't (in a engineering sense) life expired. Whilst not relevant to disabled access, we have been here before. The Health and Safety Executive suggested all Mk1 stock be retired from use on National Rail services by 2002. It wasn't until 2005 that this suggestion came to pass. And even then dispensation was given to SWT to continue using Mk1 stock on the Lymington Branch. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: John R on December 03, 2011, 21:11:33 And even then dispensation was given to SWT to continue using Mk1 stock on the Lymington Branch. And heritage stock is still earning its keep on the Cardiff Bay branch, with "Bubbles" looking very smart today at Queen St. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: Tim on December 03, 2011, 21:50:26 I've been saying for some time now on one or two threads on this forum that DDA compliance could be dead in the water. It's disappointing that this may be the case, but the new legislation appears to allow the rail industry to continue using rolling stock that would've failed compliance with the old legislation. With the important caveat, that the Secretary of State has to sign off on allowing non compliant rolling stock to remain in revenue earning service. That's a political decision which comes with all the pitfalls should a SoS decide to use his or her powers. In the current and ongoing financial climate I can quite easily see dispensation given to rolling stock that isn't (in a engineering sense) life expired. I'd like to see stock with life left in it given exemptions. We'd only be talking about a few years afterall before the stock would be retired anyway. If there is political opposition to granting exemptions, I'd like to think that they could be answered by spending some more money on making stations DDA compliant. Money spend on upgrading stock is down the drain a decade later when the stock retires, but money spend on something like a ramped overbridge gives benefits for a centuary or more and stikes me as much better value. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: Chris from Nailsea on December 03, 2011, 21:57:23 ^
| What he said. Chris from Nailsea (where proper ramp access is required). :-X Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: JayMac on December 03, 2011, 22:59:22 And heritage stock is still earning its keep on the Cardiff Bay branch, with "Bubbles" looking very smart today at Queen St. Good call. Forgot about the Class 121 'Bubble Car' plying its trade in Cardiff. Shouldn't really have forgot seeing as I was travelling between Cardiff Queen Street and Cardiff Bay only a few days ago: (http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt68/bignosemac/Bubble2.jpg) And for those that may be interested in such things, here's a video of the ride from Cardiff Queen Street to the Bay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJYptUFJ6MQ There's also a video of the return journey that I may upload once I find a way of editing out the grumpy conductor telling me off for hanging out the window. For the record, I wasn't. I merely had my camera resting on a droplight. That's all of 2^ inches sticking out of the window. Miserable git. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: northwesterntrains on December 04, 2011, 10:40:58 The Disability Discrimination Act has be repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010. The new Act contains provisions for the Secretary of State to exempt rail vehicles 'by exemption order' if he or she so choses: As for luggage space or tables, unfortunately there is no legislation, old or new, that compels TOCs to provide this! What you have to note is the 170s and 185s on North TPE currently do have DDA compliance and quite a bit of luggage space, although it is insufficient for the amount of luggage carried. If you start making DDA compliant services non-complaint then it will anger disability groups more than not making all trains DDA compliant in the first place. There was a response to DDA compliance by Philip Hammond not too long ago where he said that trains that only have minor DDA infringements will be allowed to continue in service post-2019. He didn't define 'minor' but I doubt a Pacer could be classed as only having minor infringements. Network Rail and PTEs are looking at Pacer replacement options but they won't be implemented before the next general election. Likewise, Porterbrook at looking at class 153 options and it's likely they'll be reformed as 155s or permanently attached to other Sprinters. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: Surrey 455 on December 04, 2011, 19:00:27 The Disability Discrimination Act has be repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010. The new Act contains provisions for the Secretary of State to exempt rail vehicles 'by exemption order' if he or she so choses: For Pacers to be DDA compliant the following needs to happen: ...... 2. New DDA toilet at either front or rear of train (due to door layout) or Pacers to have no toilets and to be kept for short routes only. ....... Does this mean that existing coaches without toilets could now have a small one fitted taking up just 4 seats if the train operator chose to do so rather than the many more that would be lost with a DDA compliant one? Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: northwesterntrains on December 05, 2011, 09:32:45 The Disability Discrimination Act has be repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010. The new Act contains provisions for the Secretary of State to exempt rail vehicles 'by exemption order' if he or she so choses: For Pacers to be DDA compliant the following needs to happen: ...... 2. New DDA toilet at either front or rear of train (due to door layout) or Pacers to have no toilets and to be kept for short routes only. ....... Does this mean that existing coaches without toilets could now have a small one fitted taking up just 4 seats if the train operator chose to do so rather than the many more that would be lost with a DDA compliant one? There isn't a requirement to have a toilet on a train. There is an expectation that unless it's a local service with a frequent service, such as London Overground, that a toilet is provided. However, if a new train has a toilet fitted it has to have a DDA compliant one. Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: Phil on December 05, 2011, 09:52:01 That's all of 2^ inches sticking out of the window. Crikey! Lucky for you that you weren't booked for indecency ;D Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: onthecushions on December 14, 2011, 14:26:58 A Rail publication has apparently cleared up the fog about wires East of Leeds (to York). NR is reported to have stated that "Manchester - Leeds" actually meant "Manchester - York" but that it sounded better! From the confusion between Treasury and DfT statements, the expensive private education of our betters has left them geographically challenged when venturing North of the London Overground. Happy Christmas and New Year, OTC Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: JayMac on December 14, 2011, 16:44:12 The extract from this fortnight's RAIL magazine goes thus:
Quote While Chancellor George Osbourne told MPs the Manchester - Leeds route would be electrified, Network Rail told RAIL that the project was actually Manchester - York, and that the government had decided to name Leeds because it was felt that it was better known than York. So is government policy to be dictated on arbitrary decisions about how well known a particular place is? Bonkers. ::) Actually, thinking about it, politicians saying one thing and meaning another is hardly new...... Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: IndustryInsider on December 14, 2011, 17:12:09 I'd have thought that York was well known enough for the statement to have been "Manchester to Leeds and on to York" for maximum effect.
Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: onthecushions on December 14, 2011, 20:02:43 Perhaps the significance for us here in the sunny South is that now, not only will Glasgow - Manchester be electrically hauled but so also will Edinburgh - Leeds, increasing the attraction of wiring Southwards to Oxford and Bristol. The importance of Leeds - York is very great. P66 of the Electrification RUS published in 2009 showed that the viability of XC wiring rose from 3.4 to 5.1 if Neville Hill - Colton Junction was excluded and the TP wiring BCR went from 1.6 to positive return given the same stipulation (even including Hull). Osborne may just have removed the critical element blocking network electrification. That Osborne didn't know what he was announcing was evident when an MP asked him (after the statement)whether TP wiring included York; he looked confused and mumbled words about some upgrading of lines. Mince pies all round, OTC Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: JayMac on December 14, 2011, 20:13:03 Title: Re: Transpennine Electrification Post by: woody on December 16, 2011, 20:18:43 Electrification: Leeds-York is in, and more could follow
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/12/16-electrification-york-is-in-and.html But it's now been revealed that the wires could be set to run much further, subject to satisfactory business cases, and cover more routes, including those to Hull and Middlesbrough. This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |