Proposed Lincolnshire electrification

[john new]

21 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Will it (by railway standards) though?

 

Please remember that the future is in cab signalling with no lineside signals. At a stroke that removes a large chunk off the bill and thats before you get to the reduction in staff because of the use of obstacle detectors to monitor levels crossings and automatic route setting etc can bring.

 

While most work being done over the next 5 years is of the conventional type, the whole Southern section of the ECML (Kings Cross to Doncaster) is due to get in Cab ECTS within a decade.

 

Much like Highways England have vowed never to build (or widen) a motorway with hard shoulders ever again (they will all be 'Smart Motorways') its entirely conceivable that NR could similarly issue an edict that all future re-signalling schemes will be done as ECTS.

 

Given the line to Skegness is effectively a stub end branch I could easily see it (and the joint line) be a prime candidate to follow the ECML with ECTS rollout.

Until they finally realise (are forced to accept) that smart motorway all lane running is too f----g dangerous to be kept and extended.

[Mike Storey]

Both the Joint and the Skegness route electrification proposals appear to be part of a much wider "traction decarbonisation" proposal by Network Rail, produced as part of the strategy for the government's policy to get to net zero emissions by 2050.

 

The thought process is intriguing but quite logical, if you bother to read most, if not all, of it. It suggests that, whilst some lines/sections should only be hydrogen or battery powered, the vast majority, when taken as part of a network, should in fact be electrified.

 

Page 230 on the slides shows the situation for Lincolnshire, but you need to read at least some of the body of the document to understand how they came to these conclusions. This is an "interim report", published last July. There was supposed to be a final report by last October, but I cannot find that anywhere. As the interim report was not made public until around Sept/Oct, I would guess the final report is still being considered by HMG.

 

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Traction-Decarbonisation-Network-Strategy-Interim-Programme-Business-Case.pdf

[caradoc]

Where the cost of raising overbridges makes an electrification scheme unviable the solution adopted on the Paisley Canal line could be considered, ie dead sections; As long as trains are not required, or likely, to stop at or near such a location, of course !

 

[AMJ]

The joint line is quite a sensible idea as it can be used as a diversionary route when the ECML is out for work etc.

 

Freight will probably end up with bi or tri mode locos so that the unwired gaps are the only bits not on juice.

[Michael Hodgson]

Wires over container depots are presumably somewhat inconvenient for loading and unloading.

[Fat Controller]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Wires over container depots are presumably somewhat inconvenient for loading and unloading.

Very..

However, there are alternatives:-

Battery or diesel shunter

Bi-modal locos

Ground-mounted 'mules' at the terminals.

[AMJ]

Looking at Germany etc any container depot that is connected to an electric railway usually has a big gap where the containers can be placed onto wagons.  Just like a rail ferry there will be "reach wagons" so that the locos never run out of juice.

 

Bi mode locos don't need the wires.

 

Another solution is a classic system where you use a capstan and rope haulage.

 

Nothing is impossible just a challenge!

[caradoc]

Or container terminals can be laid out so that electric locos can work trains in and out of the depot without (obviously !) the OLE actually extending over the crane area; eg Coatbridge FLT, wired at both ends. 

 

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, john new said:

Until they finally realise (are forced to accept) that smart motorway all lane running is too f----g dangerous to be kept and extended.

IIRC there have been at least two cases where coroners have branded them inherently dangerous, thereby effectively putting the blame for the deaths on DfT.

Therefore I would think relatives have a good case for persuing legal action.

[Michael Hodgson]

32 minutes ago, AMJ said:

Another solution is a classic system where you use a capstan and rope haulage.

 

Nothing is impossible just a challenge!

 

Or horse shunting!

[Fat Controller]

You could try fly-shunting, though you'd need an awful lot of flies......

[phil-b259]

39 minutes ago, melmerby said:

IIRC there have been at least two cases where coroners have branded them inherently dangerous, thereby effectively putting the blame for the deaths on DfT.

Therefore I would think relatives have a good case for persuing legal action.

 

I understand that this is indeed the case.

[adanapress]

The comment about  charging points reminds me of the Irish WW2 Drumm trains, which as I recall were pretty successful.  But the bionic duckweed folk never heard of them of course.

[Mike Storey]

6 hours ago, AMJ said:

The joint line is quite a sensible idea as it can be used as a diversionary route when the ECML is out for work etc.

 

Freight will probably end up with bi or tri mode locos so that the unwired gaps are the only bits not on juice.

 

The whole point of the recent Joint upgrade, and of the current works at Werrington, is to use it as a routine route for freight, to release more passenger paths on the ECML. Currently, almost all ECML freights are diesel hauled, because of large gaps in the wires, particularly Ely to Peterborough (but also Felixstowe to Ipswich). It is already used as a diversionary route for passenger services too, during engineering works, but requires diesel haulage, which somewhat limits its use, given the vast majority of ECML services are now electric traction.

 

So the idea that it could be used as a diversionary route is a little out of date,  but it would be enhanced by electrification. However, the proposed national electrification plan (see my previous post - NR Traction Decarbonisation Strategy), which includes Felixstowe and Ely-Peterborough, could not all be done at once, so your idea of bi-mode locos is sound, except that they also already exist. What we would need is an awful lot more of them, and they are not cheap - that extra cost needs to be included if the strategy is approved, otherwise diesel traction will continue until all the gaps are filled. That could take 30 years easily.

[Ken.W]

46 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

... It is already used as a diversionary route for passenger services too, during engineering works, but requires diesel haulage, which somewhat limits its use, given the vast majority of ECML services are now electric traction.

 

So the idea that it could be used as a diversionary route is a little out of date, 

 

However, the proposed national electrification plan (see my previous post - NR Traction Decarbonisation Strategy), which includes Felixstowe and Ely-Peterborough, could not all be done at once, so your idea of bi-mode locos is sound, except that they also already exist. What we would need is an awful lot more of them,

 

Diesel haulage for ECML diversions has been out of favour for some years now. (The 91s dislike being switched off and then back on)

 

The preferred method in more recent times has been to use HSTs for all the through services operating via the diversion, with the 91s operating the services on the main line running as far as the route's still open either side of the blockage, with bus replacements between.

 

With the new Azuma fleet roughly a third of the fleet's bi-mode, so still able to operate round diversions, and the same  proportion as was HST / 91 previously.

 

So, there's no real change in the feasibility of diversions over non-electrified routes.

 

The bi-mode locos that do exist (88s) are only 940hp on diesel though. So although they'd solve the problem of getting container trains into the terminal, not much use for non-electrified routes. From what I've seen of the insides of both diesel and electric locos I very much doubt a much larger diesel could be fitted inside a bi-mode.

[cheesysmith]

Euro9000 Locomotives | European Loc Pool

 

Put that in your search bar, it is a 2500hp dual mode CoCo loco already avalible in europe.

[phil-b259]

15 minutes ago, cheesysmith said:

Euro9000 Locomotives | European Loc Pool

 

Put that in your search bar, it is a 2500hp dual mode CoCo loco already available in Europe.

 

Two words...  LOADING gauge!

 

Anything designed for running in continental Europe is a non starter for the UK market - a UK bodyshell is simply too small to fit in all the kit which makes equally powerful bi-modes a possibility in mainland Europe.

 

Even if it were possible, the bespoke nature of UK locos means they would be far more expensive than continental designs - and the PRIVATLY owned railfreight companies in the UK operate on wafer thin profitability margins so are in no position to start splashing the cash.

 

You should also note that cost is the main reason why we have heavy Bo-Bo designs being ordered for the likes of DRS and the ROG order rather than Co-Co designs that would have a lower axle loading.

 

 

[cheesysmith]

Would this be the same loading gauge argument that was used when they said no diesel engine loco could be built for the UK that was stage IIB compliant? Then we got the 68 that proved that wrong (which is the same engine being used in dual mode CoCo locos being built now for use in europe). 

 

Our loading gauge is not a impossible barrier to new locos, it just means the newer locos would have a less room inside. The only difference between a new AC motor electric loco and a diesel electric loco is where the power for the DC link comes from.

 

Unless there is a need for one, no one will build or buy one yet. And until more of the network has wires, and the benefit of more power for higher speed freights or easier pathing of freight trains is called for, no one will buy them.

 

Also, with the limit on amps allowed under NR overhead lines, we are already at the max power allowed with BoBo locos. A CoCo would give no benefit except for the heavy haul at low to medium speeds. It would not have more HP than the present 88 BoBo awayway.

[Mike Storey]

On 15/03/2021 at 23:18, Ken.W said:

 

 

The bi-mode locos that do exist (88s) are only 940hp on diesel though. So although they'd solve the problem of getting container trains into the terminal, not much use for non-electrified routes. From what I've seen of the insides of both diesel and electric locos I very much doubt a much larger diesel could be fitted inside a bi-mode.

 

You are forgetting the other bi-mode loco - the Southern's Class 73 - on which a few had their diesel engine changed, into two engines I think, raising the hp from c.650 to around 1400. Which just proved it can be done. It is just the economics, as we are all agreeing. 

[cheesysmith]

The 60s and 66s (don`t know about the 70s) are the last of the old generation locos on the network. Now, modern stuff (including the 73 rebuilds) have the traction motor control separate from the engine/generator control. The DC link is the same in locos/units now, and having a diesel engine there is only to provide power to the DC link, from which power is taken off for motor/ETH etc. To turn a 68 into a dual mode would only need a transformer and 4 quadrant converter to feed the DC link.

[Michael Hodgson]

Put a heavy duty decoder in and you could run it on DCC!

[pete_mcfarlane]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

You are forgetting the other bi-mode loco - the Southern's Class 73 - on which a few had their diesel engine changed, into two engines I think, raising the hp from c.650 to around 1400. Which just proved it can be done. It is just the economics, as we are all agreeing. 

Depending on who did the rebuild it's 1600hp in a single engine, or 1500hp from two 750hp engines. I suspect the limiting factor there is the existing traction motors (4 x 400hp) rather than the diesel engines themselves.  And remember that the 73 is built to a more restrictive loading gauge than modern locos. 

[Zomboid]

If Hitachi can get 1000hp (near as) of diesel power underneath a passenger vehicle, getting 2000+hp into a locomotive which also has electric traction capability should be possible.

[keefer]

1 hour ago, cheesysmith said:

The 60s and 66s (don`t know about the 70s) are the last of the old generation locos on the network. Now, modern stuff (including the 73 rebuilds) have the traction motor control separate from the engine/generator control. The DC link is the same in locos/units now, and having a diesel engine there is only to provide power to the DC link, from which power is taken off for motor/ETH etc. To turn a 68 into a dual mode would only need a transformer and 4 quadrant converter to feed the DC link.

IIRC this was how the cl.74s worked, the diesel engine ran at constant revs so the generator produced 750V DC which was then fed through the electronic control systems to power the traction motors.

(The generator supply was a direct replacement for the 3rd rail supply, the traction/control system being being the same whichever supply was in use)

[dave parker]

On 14/03/2021 at 01:26, jools1959 said:

Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I was talking to a friend earlier and he mentioned that Network Rail had submitted a proposal to the DfT for electrifying the Peterborough to Doncaster joint line via Spalding, Sleaford (both station and bypass) and Lincoln, plus the line from Nottingham to Skegness as part of a extension of the MML electrification.

 

It sounded quite a wild idea, though I can see the benefits of electrification of the joint line to reduce NR’s carbon footprint, but the Nottingham - Skegness route to me doesn’t sound like a very good business model considering the low numbers travelling, except for peak times.

Would it not be better to electrify sheffield yo leicester via derby and nottingham before nottingham to skeggy..thought the full electrification of the midland main line had been scrapped by this goverment