Sparks effect

[whole diary]

[willc]

The major route electrification is being projected for CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) (CP = Control Period which are 5 years NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are just about to enter CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014)) therefore some 10 years away;

Roger Ford says Network Rail aims to have a rolling electrification programme running in CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019), ie 2014-19, which would make sense, given that most of the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) operated by FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and East Midlands Trains will be reaching their 40th birthdays during this period and really won't last much beyond 2020, however good the life-extension work done recently.

John, do you mean Birmingham-Glasgow by any chance? Maybe no infrastructure bill, but you would still need new electric trains to replace Super Voyagers and after the fiasco DafT made of extending the existing Pendolinos and buying four extra sets, don't count on them organising it any time soon...

[John R]

The major route electrification is being projected for CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) (CP = Control Period which are 5 years NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are just about to enter CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014)) therefore some 10 years away;

Roger Ford says Network Rail aims to have a rolling electrification programme running in CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019), ie 2014-19, which would make sense, given that most of the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) operated by FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and East Midlands Trains will be reaching their 40th birthdays during this period and really won't last much beyond 2020, however good the life-extension work done recently.

John, do you mean Birmingham-Glasgow by any chance? Maybe no infrastructure bill, but you would still need new electric trains to replace Super Voyagers and after the fiasco DafT made of extending the existing Pendolinos and buying four extra sets, don't count on them organising it any time soon...

Yes, spot on. If the DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) don't think there's a business case for converting this route to electric when there is absolutely no infrastructure cost, just new trains, then what hope is there when electrification involves all the infrastructure costs and new trains.

The cascade of the Voyagers would also be an effective way of providing more diesel stock without new build, which the ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) are understandable reluctant to do.

But I agree with you that the time it's taken to sort the Pendo lengthening doesn't bode well.     

[willc]

what hope is there when electrification involves all the infrastructure costs and new trains.

But the point about GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) in a few years' time is that you have to replace all the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and with the way the oil price went up to $150 earlier this year, even if it has fallen back now, the idea of buying a new high-speed diesel fleet that would be around until the 2050s is pretty scary -  and no Rosco is going to pay for it, so that's why the odds are favouring electrification.

Birmingham-Glasgow with diesels is bonkers, but you don't really need a full-sized Pendolino to operate that route and the only other thing being built right now is the Class 350, which isn't suitable for that sort of distance and doesn't tilt. Maybe if they ask Hitachi nicely, they could create a tilting version of the Class 395 they are building for the Kent commuter services on the Channel Tunnel rail link. Fit with an inter-city interior and you might have something that fits the bill.

[G.Uard]

Why all the negativity? Dave Ward doesn't strike me as a wild fantasist, so if he says the Severn Tunnel can be electrified and the Network Rail study clearly indicates this is the view throughout the organisation, why not just accept it can be done and get behind it?

You don't always need to use conventional hangers and wiring for an overhead supply. As I pointed out months ago, the Germans have tested a lengthy stretch of overhead conductor bar in a tunnel with trains running at high speed.

...snip

I believe that solid conductor bar is already in use in Scotland's Mound Tunnel North, Edinburgh.  Whether this would be suitable, (high cost of replacement),  in the corrosive environment of the Severn Tunnel is debatable. 

Given the massive advances in technology over the past 20 years, I am convinced that a (possibly non-conventional), solution could be found, but at what price? Maintenance costs, regardless of solution chosen, would be even higher and the powers that be would almost certainly not countenance a dedicated non-standard class of traction for the tunnel route. (Should this be necessary).  IMO^▸ (in my opinion), much of the so-called negativity in this thread is more of a reality check, based on the lamentably short-sighted and parsimonious nature of governments of all hues; when addressing railway investment.

[John R]

what hope is there when electrification involves all the infrastructure costs and new trains.

Birmingham-Glasgow with diesels is bonkers, but you don't really need a full-sized Pendolino to operate that route and the only other thing being built right now is the Class 350, which isn't suitable for that sort of distance and doesn't tilt.

Maybe not now, but 5 coach trains are in use now. It seems to take 3 years to procur and build new stock, so at 6% growth pa that equates to 6 coaches being required by delivery. Then allow a further 3 to 5 years growth and you get a 7 coach train, which becomes sensible for a Pendolino.

Though, and this is getting off topic now, I've read the Virgin are saying that when they introduce their new VHF service in Dec/Jan they will have lots of extra seats to fill and will be offering fares at rock bottom prices to fill them. That stirkes me as a bit odd.  In effect the strategy is : "We need lots of extra capacity as our trains are currently overcrowded, and as soon as we get that capacity we will fill them up with ultra cheap tickets, thus leaving them still overcrowded for walk on (expensive) fare paying passengers."   

[eightf48544]

DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about) also use solid bar overhead in the low level at the new Berlin Hauptbanhof.

Therefore let us assumme that the Severn Tunnel can be electrified maybe at a greater cost than plain track but that's life.

The question now becomes when rather than if.

How about a bit of good old Keynesian economics in these straightened times. Let Network rail issue "Electrification Bonds" 20 years at say 6% fully tradeable and redeemable with a 10% bonus in 20 years when inflation will have made the redemption painless. Pension funds would snap them up they would create jobs, give work to some British manufacturing, assumming Corus has enough capacity to produce the masts. The first issue of a few hundred thousand pounds would go to Pleck to Darlaston Jn (see other posts on Walsall Wolverhapton) in say in 6 months. That would give Networkrail an incentive. Follow up with Coventry Nuneaton and Walsall Rugely to get 153s off the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line).

Then I'm afriad it's got to be infill off the WCML Blackpool, Liverpool Manchester 1830 route. As this is already electrified with connections off teh WCML through Newton le Willows this will also provide alternative routes from Crewe to both Liverpool and Maanchester and an elctrified route from them to Glasgow.

In the South start with  Sudbury and Felixstowe branches. In London Gospel Oak and Barking and possibly Acton Wells Cricklewood. Plus third rail Kew Old and New Jns to Kew East, Ashford Ore, Hurst Green Uckfield, Redhill Reading, and Southampton Eastleigh to Salisbury, plus intially Basingstoke Salisbury until it's clear what the best option is for West of Salisbury.

Then GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) moving onto to Trans Pennine and Cross Country.

As the juice sreads then the case for  lines like Weymouth Castle Cary becomes viable as it would become the only unelectrified route South of London to Exeter so there would be not much point in having a diesel tail from Castle Cary to Drochester.

Then let's do what Ian Walmsey suggests scrap the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) both Diesel and Electric and produce a set of son of Mark 3 coaches and use locos changing at boundary points to give through services.

Remember BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) changed locos at Crewe quite satisfactorily for years, then NSE^▸ (Network South East) took over at Cambridge with no noticible detriment to the service.

[Btline]

Mark 5s not Mark 3s!

With plug doors, tilt capabilities and an advanced suspension.

Then locos with in cab signalling ready for 155 mph.

No need to have diesel loco, wire the whole way.

[willc]

Unless and until you wire the core TransPennine routes, which include Manchester-Preston, any infill in the North West - or Yorkshire - makes no sense at all. Once this is done, then the rest falls into place.

Almost all the infill you mention in the South is operated, or is about to be when new 172s arrive, by modern DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit), so no rush to replace them and in the London area pretty much all the possession time and engineering capability is already committed up to 2012 to get ready for the Olympics. To try to add wiring on top would just invite disaster. And these aren't the sort of lines where you will be able to wire a mile a night.

Similarly, LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) diesel routes are about to get new trains, so no rush there either.

NR^» (Network Rail - home page) is aiming at the key main lines first because they will need new train fleets soon anyway, they are the busiest routes other than WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) and give you the biggest benefits in return, which in turn can drive the finances to go on and do more on less heavily trafficked routes - like west of Bristol.

Mark 5s not Mark 3s!

With plug doors, tilt capabilities and an advanced suspension.

eightf48544 did say "son of Mk3" and you don't need tilt for GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) or MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) - or ECML come to that - it would be just a waste of money and an added complication - TGVs^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) don't tilt and the German ICE-T tilt DMUs have had a chequered career, to put it politely.

[Btline]

On the upper ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) and in Scotland.

On the western parts of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line).

Many parts of the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) lines.

The Virgin tilting trains have slashed journey times and have been successful in this respect.

Why are we abandoning this technology - we need to get people out of aeroplanes and cars.

[devon_metro]

The only place that is worthy of tilt is west of Newton Abbot, and its not really worth the money, especially considering journey times between stations is short generally.

[IndustryInsider]

I'd not rule out the case for tilt giving a worthwhile speed enhancement on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) north of Durham.

[onthecushions]

The problem with the NR^» (Network Rail - home page)/Modern Railways rolling electrification program is that it will take 6 - 11 years to begin to appear on the two main lines. Few government policies last that long and so nearer term action is needed (as well). Success in the near-term will buttress the committment to the main lines.

Railway electrification works where high speed and capacity are needed which are beyond the capabilities of other traction modes. This means InterCity (bring it back!), suburban commuting, end to end intensive freight and marginal schemes where the wires, power supply or rolling stock are mostly already there, such as Heathrow Connect and the extension to Bromsgrove, WM. InterCity is of course long term, although both main lines have what's needed at the expensive, London ends.

The pressing wiring opportunity rests IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) in the connurbations, where large capacity increases and unit cost reduction (in service provision) are possible by electric traction. Energy, maintenance and first costs (of rolling stock) are known to be favourable but operation and capacity gains are insufficiently stressed. The justification for Thameslink was the gain over two terminating services of a single Bedford - Brighton (etc) operation. Similar opportunities (to our own Crossrail of course) are going begging in several PTE^▸ (Passenger Transport Executive) areas. Manchester has perhaps 5 Eastern terminating electric services but none going West, involving wasted time, movements, stock and sidings. Moving these on to Western destinations would be internally justified apart from trans-Pennine issues of Liverpool or Leeds access. Leeds has 4 Western terminating services also cluttering up its City station, none going East to Hambleton, York or Selby. Similar wasteful practice occurs in Liverpool, Birmingham etc. If these were addressed then other additions would become attractive, such as the Northern XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) and TP. There was also quite a lot of servicable gear, both 25kV and 750V dc sitting in depots, made surplus by the Southern and West Coast power upgrades, which would do for the uses intended.

For our own line, we need an immediate extension of wiring from Airport Junction to Slough or Maidenhead for stopping services, replacing the inadequate Turbos. Even with purchasing more Siemens Desiros, this could be operating in 3 years. There is no need to wait for Crossrail, on which the returns, (or benefit:cost ratios, BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio)'s) increase rapidly the further West it goes. I agree Reading unrebuilt is too far but the Thames Valley is the most important part of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) economy without a high capacity commuter train service, is throttled by congestion and needs investment now.

I say bring forward Crossrail - West, to be open for the Olympics!

Any takers?

OTC

[Btline]

It would be good to throw out the Thames Turbos, but any electrification funds are locked up in the Xrail project itself, so I won't hold your breath!

In B'ham, the number of terminating trains has been increased at New Street (axing of W'hapton - C'ntry service in half). This increased the reliability and improved flexibility and capacity at New Street.

Oh, and don't mention Desiros, they are unpopular on these boards (I have never been on one, but apparantly they are overweight ).

[willc]

Oh, and don't mention Desiros, they are unpopular on these boards  (I have never been on one, but apparantly they are overweight  ).

I think you'll find that accusation has been levelled at the diesel variant (Class 185), not the electrics and for a diesel, they seem to me to do a pretty good job of climbing to Standedge, though an electric would obviously be better. On my occasional forays into SWT^▸ (South West Trains) land I have always found the 450s a perfectly good train - though not suitable for jobs like Portsmouth expresses.

As for tilt, I'm not sure if I was an ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) depot engineer I would want all the complications of the equipment on my trains just for the sake of Chester-le-Street curve and a few spots north of the border. For most of the route and the vast majority of services running on it, it would be utterly pointless.

Which bits of XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) routes need tilt? XC have got rid of it on their sets! They don't run up the West Coast to Scotland any more and the odd curve between Sheffield and Derby wouldn't justify it. Even in BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) days in the mid-1980s, I made several Birmingham-Sheffield runs on HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) as fast, if not faster than Voyager timings today.

No-one's suggesting abandoning tilt. It just has its place - on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) north of Lancaster and at odd remaining LNWR^▸ (London North Western Railway) horrors like the curve at Wolverton. And much of the time savings on WCML are thanks to 125mph running, instead of 100-110mph, not tilt!

And here's what the new transport secretary had to say about electrification and high-speed rail yesterday: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7697973.stm

[Lee]

On my occasional forays into SWT^▸ (South West Trains) land I have always found the 450s a perfectly good train - though not suitable for jobs like Portsmouth expresses.

There is a campaign regarding this (link below.)
http://www.no450.co.uk/

And here's what the new transport secretary had to say about electrification and high-speed rail yesterday: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7697973.stm

See also link below.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=3768.msg29088#msg29088