More North-West Electrification

[whole diary]

[Electric train]

It isn't a new idea, it is already in use. 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???

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, with a link to an article that has since vanished. This one http://www.therailengineer.com/2013/06/29/conductor-beam-collaboration-and-innovation/ is still there, though.

This the first serious use of Conductor Beam in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) 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

[Rhydgaled]

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^▸ (East Coast Main Line) is that last time they increased the service patterns HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) were the only thing available, although they did toy with the 5 180s that are now with FGW^▸ (First Great Western) didn't they?

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

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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.

[IndustryInsider]

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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.

[onthecushions]

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

[John R]

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.

[TonyK]

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.

[IndustryInsider]

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?

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

[eightf48544]

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^▸ (Great Western Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) Transpennine had been electrified then we would probably  be finishing off lines like Barrow even round via Whitehaven and Workington to Carlisle  DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) 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^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) swallows all the money, which is possibly another minus against it, less electrification elsewhere.


 

[onthecushions]

Unless HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) 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^▸ (United Kingdom) 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

[TonyK]

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?

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.

[IndustryInsider]

The Electrification Task Force for the north of England reported yesterday to define the priorities for electrification throughout the north after the current CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) 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

[paul7575]

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^» (Network Rail - home page) electrification RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) did - although apparently that should be re-issued soon.

Paul

[onthecushions]

It's surely because the Electrification RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) 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