Christopher125 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 http://www.therailengineer.com/2012/10/09/an-electrifying-conference/ According to the above article in The Rail Engineer, written after a conference between Network Rail and its suppliers, it would appear that NR have already added Southampton-Poole, Sheffield-Mansfield (described as Hope Valley, perhaps meaning Manchester?) AND Gospel Oak-Barking to the electrification programme... Let's hope this turns out to be correct! Chr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Gospel Oak to Barking has been a no-brainer for some time, just waiting for two Old Etonians to work out which one pays. Southampton-Poole makes sense if you are doing Basingstoke to Southampton, because that is partly driven by avoiding replacing life-expired DC equipment and the equipment as far as Poole was installed at the same time. Sheffield to either Mansfield or Manchester makes no sense whatever on its own. There are no trains between Sheffield and Mansfield and two thirds of the passenger services on the Hope Valley go through to Norwich or Cleethorpes, neither of which is likely to be electrified any time soon. So unless the Northern Hub adds an extra service that finishes at Sheffield or goes down towards Derby, or there are more announcements in the pipeline this one will see little use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Some of the new electrification may not make much sense at the moment. But does running Voyagers from Birmingham to Edinburgh (all the way under the wires) make sense? Or Freight liner using Diesels on long haul movements that are under the wires? So when are we going to see duel powered locos and units coming on line? I have herd that the Voyagers are supposed to be getting electric power cars but when. Sorry to have gone O/T. OzzyO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Southampton-Poole makes sense if you are doing Basingstoke to Southampton, because that is partly driven by avoiding replacing life-expired DC equipment and the equipment as far as Poole was installed at the same time. No - beyond Branksome it was installed in 1990 (my first real job). The conductor rails (even the 1967 vintage 106lb/yd) is unlikely to wear out for 70-100 years, the substation equipment is not yet life-expired and is relativey cheap to replace. This decision is likely to be operational rather than infrastructure driven - expect an further announcement to Weymouth at some point Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 9, 2012 Some of the new electrification may not make much sense at the moment. But does running Voyagers from Birmingham to Edinburgh (all the way under the wires) make sense? Or Freight liner using Diesels on long haul movements that are under the wires? So when are we going to see duel powered locos and units coming on line? I have herd that the Voyagers are supposed to be getting electric power cars but when. Sorry to have gone O/T. OzzyO. I think it's actually a very important point Oz and not in the least OT. It always seems to me a no-brainer that operators will use the cheapest available form of traction they can lay their hands on - hence quite a few aged diesel locos running round the network still). A while back I travelled Euston to Lancaster and back on a Voyager - presumably because the operator has one with time in it and doesn't want to 'waste' a large electric train on the job, or hasn't got enough electric trains. Equally - although some of them are getting on a bit - there are/were plenty of ac electric locos knocking round and no doubt at 'competitive' hire rates - but is that going to save money compared with the costs of changing locos or changing locos twice and having two different diesels for their bit at each end of the electric trunk haul? There's a lot more to it in financial terms than having some wires up on part of a route (and there still will be after ohle is extended but the economics might change). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Sheffield to either Mansfield or Manchester makes no sense whatever on its own. There are no trains between Sheffield and Mansfield and two thirds of the passenger services on the Hope Valley go through to Norwich or Cleethorpes, neither of which is likely to be electrified any time soon. So unless the Northern Hub adds an extra service that finishes at Sheffield or goes down towards Derby, or there are more announcements in the pipeline this one will see little use. I agree it's a little vague/inconsistent as to what it's suggesting. Ignoring passenger trains for a moment doing the Hope Valley does go some way to correcting one big flaw of the 'freight spine' though, basically that the announcement stopped at Sheffield and so didn't connect to any of the big freight locations! That would allow an alternative electrified freight route between Manchester/Liverpool and the South Coast/South East (especially with the MML connecting to a wired Goblin (at last!) at the south end)... Plus as you say the Northern service could electrify even if TPX and EMT could not (without splitting journeys anyhow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Gospel Oak - Barking - I bet Boris is all over that so it will happen along with an extra coach for the Class 378's and maybe a few new 378' as well. XF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supaned Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I was told by a high placed source (yes, that old chestnut , but in this case it would be imprudent to attribute the information to that person) , that the additional electric car for XC voyagers is now not happening - no real reason given , but I suspect the cost involved versus the length of time of the franchise agreement remaining make it not financially viable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I was told by a high placed source (yes, that old chestnut , but in this case it would be imprudent to attribute the information to that person) , that the additional electric car for XC voyagers is now not happening - no real reason given , but I suspect the cost involved versus the length of time of the franchise agreement remaining make it not financially viable. I'd heard subdued whispers to that effect too. Very very sad if it is true because it goes to show that Britain's railway system is such a carved up mess that joined-up thinking for the greater good, obviously takes a back seat. I'm just wondering whether the "electric spine" might have been of more use if Derby - Landor St had been included as a priority over Rugeley-Walsall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supaned Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I suspect Rugeley - Walsall is seen as a priority for freight traffic , as it would enable movements to by-pass the Trent Valley lines - I'd have thought Coventry - Nuneaton - Proof House would have also been a useful bit , as well as over Sutton Park to Walsall. That said , whilst the access costs associated with operating electric trains are so high , this is a moot point anyway , there is no incentive for the FOCs (or TOCs) to switch to electric - as Phil says , a sad indictment of our fragmented system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I suspect Rugeley - Walsall is seen as a priority for freight traffic , as it would enable movements to by-pass the Trent Valley lines - I'd have thought Coventry - Nuneaton - Proof House would have also been a useful bit , as well as over Sutton Park to Walsall. That said, why do it as most of the freight movers use Diesels? So who pays the cost? OzzyO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisf Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 If there is anything in this, why was it not announced yesterday? The Secretary of State for Transport had a slot at the conference and used it to proclaim a spend of millions on road improvements, including widening a roundabout near me. (How DO you widen a roundabout?) Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Ignoring passenger trains for a moment doing the Hope Valley does go some way to correcting one big flaw of the 'freight spine' though, basically that the announcement stopped at Sheffield and so didn't connect to any of the big freight locations! That would allow an alternative electrified freight route between Manchester/Liverpool and the South Coast/South East (especially with the MML connecting to a wired Goblin (at last!) at the south end)... I thought the Hope Valley was full, although maybe the Northern Hub enhancements create a little headroom on capacity. On completion of what is already announced Liverpool and Manchester will each have at least two electrified routes to London so I'd have thought any freight electrification would have been better aimed at Sheffield to Wakefield or Doncaster or both, and on to Leeds via Woodlesford. That would pick up two big freight terminals and give Leeds a duplicate electrified freight route too (other than Transpennine which probably doesn't have much capacity for freight). I suspect Rugeley - Walsall is seen as a priority for freight traffic , as it would enable movements to by-pass the Trent Valley lines - I'd have thought Coventry - Nuneaton - Proof House would have also been a useful bit , as well as over Sutton Park to Walsall. They've only just finished four-tracking the Trent Valley (well most of it) - is it full already? I do agree though that there are several possible infills in this area, I would add Leamington to Birmingham too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 If the Voyagers were refitted and relegated to shorter distance/local services that might be a better use for them. XF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 9, 2012 If the Voyagers were refitted and relegated to shorter distance/local services that might be a better use for them. XF Trouble is they've got insufficient doors for busy 'local' working - as can regularly be seen between Birmingham & Coventry, alas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Trouble is they've got insufficient doors for busy 'local' working - as can regularly be seen between Birmingham & Coventry, alas. Good point - maybe we could sell then to Iran like Class 141's a few years ago. XF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmsforever Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Doubt wether the Iranians would want our Voyagers ,perhaps a reguaging exersise and off they go to Irealand and we could have some of rather nice units built by CAF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 http://www.therailengineer.com/2012/10/09/an-electrifying-conference/ Sheffield-Mansfield (described as Hope Valley, perhaps meaning Manchester?) Let's hope this turns out to be correct! Chr What they really meant to write was Sheffield - Manchester via Woodhead.......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Having just fought with their truly atrocious e-reader I have to say I don't put much weight on that particular article (though Rail Engineer often has some good stuff in it). Quite a few things didn't add up, suggesting poor note-taking or transcription (where are the shopping complexes on bridges either end of Leicester station, and where's Faddington?). There's only one mention of Hope Valley and it doesn't appear in any of the diagrams or the information on what happens when, so I suspect it has sneaked in by some sort of error, possibly for the Cardiff Valleys which is the one announced scheme I didn't see to be mentioned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted October 9, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 9, 2012 Southampton to Reading makes sense in the freight context so long as the wires reach to Millbrook and Maritime FLTs. In passenger terms overheads would need to reach at least Bournemouth and ideally Weymouth to become viable but then create a dual-system route over the distance from Basingstoke. SWT isn't going to want replacement stock any time soon despite the fact that their existing DC units have pantograph wells already. It would actually decrease operational flexibility to wire the route and remove the third rail. The short-sighted lunacy of the Woodhead closure is highlighted once again in poassing. While at the time no-one could have predicted today's traffic levels not the fact that 2-car units are buzzing about every few minutes when they could be coupled into 4-car or 6-car trains and thereby occupy fewer paths there must be an ever-increasing pressure to revisit options for trans-Pennine route capacity and there is a tunnel built as recently as 1952 ..... For a cross-country electrified link Stoke - Derby - Sheffield - Leeds would win my support for passenger operation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher125 Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 Having just fought with their truly atrocious e-reader I have to say I don't put much weight on that particular article (though Rail Engineer often has some good stuff in it). Quite a few things didn't add up, suggesting poor note-taking or transcription (where are the shopping complexes on bridges either end of Leicester station, and where's Faddington?). There's only one mention of Hope Valley and it doesn't appear in any of the diagrams or the information on what happens when, so I suspect it has sneaked in by some sort of error, possibly for the Cardiff Valleys which is the one announced scheme I didn't see to be mentioned. The article is now on their website here which should be easier to read - incidentally the 'Welsh Valley Lines' are mentioned in the overview and in the same context as the mysterious 'Hope Valley' so no obvious confusion there. Hopefully all will become clear when we find out Network Rail's plan to implement the HLOS. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minerva Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Sheffield to Manchester would involve some pretty serious civil engineering, not least in lowering the track through the major tunnels to gain the required clearance. The existing freight traffic on the route all starts or terminates away from the electrified network so would engine changes be employed or would we still see diesels under the wires? Weren't the frequent engine changes a major factor in diverting freight away from Woodhead? Even trains to/from Earles Sidings terminate away from the wires at the other end of their journeys. There's been much talk of hybrid passenger units with pantographs and diesel motors, are there plans afoot for electro-diesel freight locos? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted October 10, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 10, 2012 Southampton Tunnel would require some pretty significant engineering works as well for OHLE clearance. As it is barely sub-surface and cannot be opened out as the city centre is parked on top of it the tracks would need lowering - again - and perhaps to below groundwater level account the nearby docks and Solent. However if they can figure out a safe way to wire the Severn Tunnel then I'm sure Southampton could be done. Otherwise you run around Eastleigh depot loop to reverse direction, toddle off via Chandlers ford and require a west-to-south curve installed at Romsey to access the waterside FLTs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The existing freight traffic on the route all starts or terminates away from the electrified network...... <snip> Even trains to/from Earles Sidings terminate away from the wires at the other end of their journeys. Actually that's not true in the context of electrification work to be done in this article - at the moment there's 2 or 3 round trips a day to West Thurrock, which if the Hope Valley and the Goblin were also electrified would have their whole route covered (albeit they would have to run via Derby and not Toton as they do at present) - plus there is a train to Theale, which is part of the GWML electrification...only Westbury is off-wire (and as the loco then runs on to Moorswater IIRC would likely stay diesel anyhow) - the Thurrock one in particular is an amazing flow, it was instituted when the Olympics construction was underway and I think everyone expected it to go back to the previous twice-a-week after that, but hasn't showed any signs of stopping yet! Okay none of those that head North through Sheffield can convert......yet, and you're correct that you may need an electro-diesel train loco (or have a shunter to work the terminals) though.... At least two of the Euro electric loco builders have now said they can deliver a UK loading gauge AC electro-diesel.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted October 10, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 10, 2012 Southampton Tunnel would require some pretty significant engineering works as well for OHLE clearance. As it is barely sub-surface and cannot be opened out as the city centre is parked on top of it the tracks would need lowering - again - and perhaps to below groundwater level account the nearby docks and Solent. However if they can figure out a safe way to wire the Severn Tunnel then I'm sure Southampton could be done. IIRC the recent guage clearnece works to allow 9ft high containers on conventional wagons (W12 I think) was done in such a way as to provide pasive provision for OHLE, especially as the favoured option is to use a fixed rail rather than traditional coper wire (as done in the single bore tunnels at Edinburgh and proposed for the Severn Tunnel). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.