More new investment - but is the Treasury looking for excuses to miss off OHL?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Any new lines should in my view be electrified at 25 KV.

Absolutely Broadgauge!

[/quote]

Very interesting as what is considered a "new" line.  And I will beg a couple of exceptional situations

Oxted to Uckfield, and Guidford to Reigate - happy with 750v third rail.   Also more arguably lines on the western periphery of third rail such as the Waterside line. Also Ashford to Hastings. And Newport and Ventnor should they happen.  Should Lostwithiel to Fowey re-open, isolated 25kV would seem perverse while the nearest other electric trains are Newbury or Bristol Parkway. Run National  Network or Go-op trains to Minehead, sharing the same line and infrastructure costs with WSR (well, we can dream) and I would be happy with batteries or even (!) fossil fuel for the first handful of years.

But - for the majority of cases ... utterly OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) from day 1.   Oxford to Bedford (AND Didcot to Oxford).  Portishead. etc.

[broadgage]

New conductor rail installations are effectively prohibited except perhaps in the case of VERY minor additions such as adding another platform at a station already equipped with conductor rail, or doubling an existing single track conductor rail route.

Whilst there is no law that states in so many words "no more conductor rail installations" There IS a de facto ban via general health and safety law.
For a new installation, someone, somewhere has to "sign off" a new conductor rail installation as being "as safe as reasonably practical" That person would be liable to prosecution, perhaps years later when a trespasser is electrocuted.

And yes in the case of Minehead I would be satisfied with fossil fueled trains initially, with battery power or even electrification in the longer term. "Heritage Over-Head Line Equipment" ("Heritage OHLE") perhaps !


Edit:VickiS - Clarifying acronym

[Electric train]

New conductor rail installations are effectively prohibited except perhaps in the case of VERY minor additions such as adding another platform at a station already equipped with conductor rail, or doubling an existing single track conductor rail route.

Whilst there is no law that states in so many words "no more conductor rail installations" There IS a de facto ban via general health and safety law.
For a new installation, someone, somewhere has to "sign off" a new conductor rail installation as being "as safe as reasonably practical" That person would be liable to prosecution, perhaps years later when a trespasser is electrocuted.

And yes in the case of Minehead I would be satisfied with fossil fueled trains initially, with battery power or even electrification in the longer term. "Heritage OHLE" perhaps !

New exposed conductor rail electrification (ie NR^» (Network Rail - home page) Southern Region) are not prohibited.   

The ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) however require any such new electrification to be fully compliant with the Electricity at Work (1989) Regulations.  no "grandfathered" practices would be permitted.

NR recent policy for Electrification has had its words amended to reflect the ORR position, the ORR position has not really changed it was more NR policy.

To make a new exposed conductor rail electrification compliant with the EaW Regs are not easy to achieve but not impossible just expensive

[TonyK]

Whatever the legal situation, I do recall a Network Rail (NR^» (Network Rail - home page)) director speaking of third rail problems one icy winter day. In essence, he said that if Network Rail (NR) was to introduce electrification for the first time, third rail DC^▸ (Direct Current) would not be the method of choice, but we are stuck with it for the foreseeable. When the rest of the country is 25 KV AC, replacing the third rail can be the next job.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronyms

[broadgage]

Agree, third rail is a non optimum choice for long distance main lines.
The former Southern Railway network is said to be the largest in the world, in terms of both total route miles, and distance in miles to the most distant parts.

It was never properly planned, but "just sort of grew"
In the early days of the Southern, electric power was clearly preferable to steam for inner suburban routes due to the rapid acceleration from the many stops, and the absence of light engine movements at London termini.
Electric trains then gradually spread to outer suburban routes and even to the south coast.
The cost of electric outer suburban services was reduced by the capital already sunk in the inner suburban routes.
Each extension therefore made perfect sense on its own, but considered as a whole did not make sense if compared to overhead electrification.

They had better get a move on in changing to 25 KV overhead, before English Heritage list the conductor rail!

[Oxonhutch]

Remember the the Brighton line correctly chose overhead before the more prolific South Western swamped them on Grouping and one system had to prevail.

[stuving]

LSWR^▸ (London South Western Railway) weren't the only ones. In Paris, the banlieu ouest suburban network of Gare Saint Lazare was electrified with 750 V DC^▸ (Direct Current) third rail in the 1920s. I thought that was short-lived, due to the adverse effect of ice, but it was used until thew 1960s. (I was probably thinking of ground pick-up for trams!)

The whole network was changed over to 25 kV OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") in 1967-77, with all the attendant clearance works, bridge rebuilding, etc. The height of French trains isn't an issue - it's the extra height for the OLE that matters. So it can be done. 

[TonyK]

Remember the the Brighton line correctly chose overhead before the more prolific South Western swamped them on Grouping and one system had to prevail.

Those were the days! How much quicker it would be to get electrification done on stepladders by the Peaky Blinders.

[TonyN]

How much quicker it would be to get electrification done on stepladders by the Peaky Blinders.

I guess you are thinking of the picture on first page of this https://www.thepwi.org/technical_hub/technical_hub_files/section_meeting_presentations/9_september_2020_-_managing_overhead_line_ole_on_network_rails_western_route_-_darrel_tiddy_elena_ionescu

I have also seen a photo taken in the 1980s of work on OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) with ladders.

[TonyN]

Here is the 1980 photo somewhere on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line)

[IndustryInsider]

Here is the 1980 photo somewhere on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line)

I expect they knocked the speed limit down to 100mph past the site. 

[Surrey 455]

Here is the 1980 photo somewhere on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line)

For a moment I thought someone was standing on the roof of that 125 sorry High Speed Train (HST^▸ (High Speed Train)).


Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

[Rhydgaled]

Here is the 1980 photo somewhere on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line)

For a moment I thought someone was standing on the roof of that 125 sorry HST^▸ (High Speed Train).

IC^▸ (Inter City)125. It even says so on the power car, that train is an InterCity 125. It is also a HST, but HST is just High Speed Train which depending on the definition you choose to use can mean any train capable of at least 125mph in service. That means, for example, Voyagers, class 390s, 800s and InterCity 225s are also HSTs.

This is a cause of growing concern. If on the one hand no private passenger cars powered by petrol and diesel will be sold by/after 2030, it is exasperating that the tried, tested and almost universally used OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) electric system is not being used here. If it's good enough for most of the rest of Europe, including many countries that are much poorer than us, why not here?

Agreed 100%. I am starting to worry that lines will be closed because we get to 2049 and still haven't electrified them and closure is the only way to decarbonise the railway by 2050. Then again, like with the PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) deadline, the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) may just grant a dispensation.

In the case of the Ashington/Blyth/North of Tyneside scheme, it screams out that this should be an extension of the Tyne Metro. If it could run with similar rolling stock, the savings of combining the maintenance and support overheads in the medium to long term alone will surely be substantial.

I disagree; the Metro (I assume) does not have toilets on its trains, and Newcastle-Ashington is further than Cardiff-Caerphilly/Taffs Well which I think should be the limit for TfW's toiletless tram-trains. Also, I forget whether the new Metro stock will have 25kv capability.

Will this money be spent on actually building railway infrastructure and purchasing rolling stock ? Or is it in fact funding for another round of studies, reviews, and consultations ?
Any mention of hydrogen concerns me a bit, since it can mean feasability studies about hydrogen, rather than building anything.

Any new lines should in my view be electrified at 25 KV. Battery power is in my view more applicable to EXISTING lines that are problematic to electrify due to limited clearances to existing structures or for other reasons.

This is at least the third time this has been launched, plus it has been cancelled  a time or two. We can assume that it will happen, and as TonyN points out, big work is under way.

I agree entirely about electrification, although having wires over just the new bit would be ridiculous. At the very least, the gantry bases should be put in ready, with sites for substations made ready. I thought it crazy that Filton Bank wasn't prepared in that way, as it was being practically rebuilt. Hydrogen is a red herring - the minister only mentioned it to wrong-foot anyone who was going to complain about emissions. He can now say "We're looking at it. Now, do you want a railway or a new road?".

Regarding East-West Rail, I think the sensible thing at this stage if you're not going to wire the lot is to wire Oxford - Bletchley. Didcot - Oxford is still due to be wired (it was defered rather than cancelled if I recall correctly) so there will be wires at that end anyway, Oxford-Bicester I think has already had the bridge work done as part of Chiltern's evergreen programme and Bicester - Bletchley doesn't have any passenger services currently that the electrification work would disrupt. GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) would then be able to use 387s (or 769s in electric mode) on Oxford - Milton Keynes services and a regional express (ie. something like a 158, 175 or 444) bi-mode unit (which I think we need lots of in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), so there are economies of scale to be had) could be used for the 1tph that is planned to project through to Bedford.

as a result of the inefficiencies of rolling stock procurement in the recent past we seem to have surplus electric stock sitting idle

I wouldn't say 'inefficiencies', I would say 'poorly planned and specified'. Even so, the big problem is the loss of faith regarding electrification - had the rolling programme once mooted following on from the Manchester-Liverpool/Blackpool triangle and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) schemes materialised there would be homes for the cascaded EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit).

[grahame]

In the case of the Ashington/Blyth/North of Tyneside scheme, it screams out that this should be an extension of the Tyne Metro. If it could run with similar rolling stock, the savings of combining the maintenance and support overheads in the medium to long term alone will surely be substantial.

From SENRUG on 30th March

Another frustrating (online) meeting today with Council staff and their consultants. SENRUG remains highly disappointed that they are not taking on board any of SENRUG’s legitimate responses to the latest  Northumberland Line (Ashington Blyth & Tyne Line Re-opening) consultation. This leaves us in a difficult position. We very much support the re-opening itself, having campaigned for it for 15 years, and don’t want to take any action that will delay the re-opening date. But we nevertheless believe that 3 key and avoidable mistakes are being made at the design stage which will be costly if not impossible to rectify later. These are:

a) Stations designed for car users, not pedestrians or bus users. ...

b) Failure to design the northbound running line at Bedlington to have reversible signalling so that eventually trains from Newcastle via Morpeth could reverse in the platform ...

c) Failure to “design in” the need for future double tracking ...

We’re also disappointed that the Council seem to want to set up a new group of “Northumberland Line Champions” rather than work through SENRUG ...

Oh dear ...

[Lee]

In the case of the Ashington/Blyth/North of Tyneside scheme, it screams out that this should be an extension of the Tyne Metro. If it could run with similar rolling stock, the savings of combining the maintenance and support overheads in the medium to long term alone will surely be substantial.

From SENRUG on 30th March

Another frustrating (online) meeting today with Council staff and their consultants. SENRUG remains highly disappointed that they are not taking on board any of SENRUG’s legitimate responses to the latest  Northumberland Line (Ashington Blyth & Tyne Line Re-opening) consultation. This leaves us in a difficult position. We very much support the re-opening itself, having campaigned for it for 15 years, and don’t want to take any action that will delay the re-opening date. But we nevertheless believe that 3 key and avoidable mistakes are being made at the design stage which will be costly if not impossible to rectify later. These are:

a) Stations designed for car users, not pedestrians or bus users. ...

b) Failure to design the northbound running line at Bedlington to have reversible signalling so that eventually trains from Newcastle via Morpeth could reverse in the platform ...

c) Failure to “design in” the need for future double tracking ...

We’re also disappointed that the Council seem to want to set up a new group of “Northumberland Line Champions” rather than work through SENRUG ...

Oh dear ...

The full a) reads as follows:

a) Stations designed for car users, not pedestrians or bus users. Ashington, Bebside and Seaton Delaval in particular have the station entrances set back a long way from the main roads and too far from the bus stops. There also seems to be an over-provision of car parking facilities at several stations.

This will actually be illegal under the new DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) Bus Strategy, which requires that bus services call at the railway station, that bus stops are situated as close to the station entrance as possible, and that schemes and proposals that move bus services away from railway stations will no longer be allowed.

I dont know whether there is a "history" there, but on the Council apparently wishing to "set up a new group of “Northumberland Line Champions” rather than work through SENRUG", from my experience with helping to set up the improved TransWilts Rail service in 2013 - effectively a "reopening" in terms of the dire service it replaced - Wiltshire Council could have taken the view that they didnt want to work with people like grahame, Phil or myself because of previous "Save The Train" era criticisms.

Instead they fully integrated their publicity with ours, even going so far as to appoint me as their Travel Advisor Team Leader. It would be a shame if a similar level of co-ordination couldnt be acheived in this case.