Glorious NSE Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I can somewhat understand the cynicism, but this one does strike me as having deeper strategy - creating an electrified freight network i'd have thought is a pretty poor choice for a vote winner, rail commuters will be asking why can't their morning train have another coach with that money, motorists will be saying it would be better spent on adding another lane to the A34... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 19, 2012 I can somewhat understand the cynicism, but this one does strike me as having deeper strategy - creating an electrified freight network i'd have thought is a pretty poor choice for a vote winner, rail commuters will be asking why can't their morning train have another coach with that money, motorists will be saying it would be better spent on adding another lane to the A34... All of these sort of things work around a whole series of 'attractiveness' to various parties (not political parties) and what are nowadays called 'stakeholders' (many of whom aren't) and pressure groups and plain old fashioned publicity/image making. So to arrive at an 'electrified freight network' you take one bunch whose pet idea is to convert 3rd rail to ohle (great idea in p.r. terms as ordinary people remember all too well recent winter debacles with the 3d rail), various ideas for infill electrification on existing schemes or logically between various new schemes, ideas or aspirations where operators want to see removed infrastructure restored or line speeds improved, electrification which suits political (of the parliamentary kind) hopes and aspirations plus will be well received by opinion formers and local groups such as Chambers of Commerce - and so on. If you are astute you then try to wrap these things together to make them look like some sort of big scheme (which is what they might well become anyway) because politicians like that sort of thing and like to be associated with it or announcing it so it is much easier to gain at least their public support. Newspaper and the media like to be able to attach 'meaningful' names to things so they take more interest in, say, a 'freight spine' rather than 'infill electrification and route improvements' and for the general public thing something grand will be happening instead of a few 'linked schemes'. And everyone forgets that actually it's only part of HLOS - so they stand waiting to watch the wires go up within months. I'm not saying it won't happen but we know 'detail' (possibly quite large 'detail') might change, we know that a lot of it or the consequentials aren't funded or that some very complex things need to be sorted (like who pays to convert a hefty chunk of at least SWT's fleet to dual voltage capability?) but everybody has got some themes to work forward too with some good sounding titles, and that is what counts in the public/media arena. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted July 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 19, 2012 I have yet to see in this forum or in the goverment's plans any justification for the electrification of the MML. The enormous capital costs will take take decades to repay at today's rates, if at all, as there are no hard figures on running costs of the vehicles involved. As far as journey times are concerned there is not going to be much of a saving on London-Leicester as this town has virtually the same average speeds on journeys as London-Birmingham, which is already electrified. I will concede that London-Sheffield could gain on speed but this would appear not to be a power issue that electric traction could improve but a track constraint. Electrification is not the answer to this, track alignment probably is. PS current average speeds from London to Leicester are 87mph, Derby 85mph and Sheffield 77mph. Hardly slow, consider the following London to Three Bridges (where I live) 52mph, London to Brighton 56mph. How about this, if 25kV electrification is so beneficial then why not electrify the whole of the network South of London and make mega savings as the traffic density is magnitudes greater than any of the proposed electrified routes. It's all there in Govt docs over the years. The Cost Benefit Analysis for Midland ML electrification came ahead of any other scheme on the railway (despite which GW, Manchester and Transpennine got put in front). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium DavidLong Posted July 19, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 19, 2012 It's all there in Govt docs over the years. The Cost Benefit Analysis for Midland ML electrification came ahead of any other scheme on the railway (despite which GW, Manchester and Transpennine got put in front). Absolutely correct, Joseph. This has been commented on in the pages of Modern Railways and Rail for some time now and it may be the case that 'politics' has pushed other projects ahead of it. Isn't it also true that an electrfied railway gets you benefits more than pure speed but enhances capacity through improved acceleration? I'm not in the least bit cynical about these announcements. At a time such as we are experiencing now we need infrastructure projects to be initiated. We are talking here about projects to take place before the end of the decade which should have effects on employment levels and, one hopes, tax take and benefit reduction while improving the nation's ability to better function as an economy. I'm far more enthusiastic about these sort of proposals which are of far more benefit to more people than any number of high speed lines. Oh and did anyone else notice that the £9bn quoted cost of these improvements matches the swollen budget for the Olympic Games. Now I know which I consider better value for my beloved country . . . David 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 This has been commented on in the pages of Modern Railways and Rail for some time now Mmmm! IIRC you can trace the phrase 'rolling programme of electrification' (along with costings to point to the potential savings of running an electric railway and the potential savings to be had from having a rolling programme of it and not just standalone schemes) back to the 1980s in MR! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godders Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 It's all there in Govt docs over the years. The Cost Benefit Analysis for Midland ML electrification came ahead of any other scheme on the railway (despite which GW, Manchester and Transpennine got put in front). Hi Joseph I would appreciate it if you could direct me to any cost benefit report/study that includes the full financial picture. The reports I can find seem to omit capital costs and never ever allow for overruns. Cheers Godders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 See Network Rail's 2009 Electrification Route Utilisation Strategy. MML electrification is option A19.1 and, as I posted a few days ago, the operating cost savings generate a positive financial case (paying for the capital costs) without even thinking about the non-financial which normally come into play when deciding whether a rail enhancement is worthwhile. In economic terms that means it's a no-brainer. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 19, 2012 Isn't it also true that an electrfied railway gets you benefits more than pure speed but enhances capacity through improved acceleration? David Yes, no, maybe. Capacity depends more than anything else on speed mix but over a short distance acceleration can be as important - the best example is Paddington to Airport Junction where the start-to-pass running times are fairly similar for HSTs and the Heathrow Express units. The former are running much faster than the latter by Hayes/Airport Jcn but the latter accelerated to maximum speed that bit earlier thus giving similar times overall. The interesting question might be what happens when many GWML services go electric and, hopefully, gain a higher rate of acceleration. You then have a mixture of three types of train on the Main Lines out to Airport Junctions with varied speed/acceleration rates and all jostling at certain times of day on a railway where at certain times of day paths are timed to tighter margins than the theoretical designed headway of the signalling; we will live in interesting times! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Although the 3rd rail can have its problems at times (ice, lost collector shoes, etc), it is a pretty resilient system overall. I really hope that the OHLE in all these new electrification projects is not "done on the cheap", like parts of the ECML, and is sufficiently robust enough to stand up to the elements, slight pantograph misalignments and the like., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekl Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The powers that be must have recognised by now that the cost cutting on the ECML OHLE was disastrous - the consistent failures anytime the wind blows a bit (as it does on occassion in eastern England) must have cost multiples of the savings. Maybe one shouldn't be too optimistic, though. On accelerated timings, I have been a little bemused as far as Trans-Pennine electrification is concerned. The claim is for a 20 minute acceleration of journey times. I use the TPE York - Manchester services quite often. The 185's are quite capable of nifty acceleration when required (I don't know whether it is up to that of an EMU, but it can't be far off). When running, even on some of the heavier gradients it is quite clear that the diesels are in fairly relaxed mode, so power is not really the problem, line speed limits are. Overall timings are not exactly helped by sometimes generous dwell times at Leeds (and I notice, York, although that obviously doesn't affect me, as I get off there). Maybe there is some intention to do a little work on the track and signalling, as well, although that has not been clear to me. Maybe it has to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The powers that be must have recognised by now that the cost cutting on the ECML OHLE was disastrous - the consistent failures anytime the wind blows a bit (as it does on occassion in eastern England) must have cost multiples of the savings. Maybe one shouldn't be too optimistic, though. One of the other bits mentioned in the announcement IIRC is re-quadding the section south of Peterborough, IIRC that's one of the bits often affected - if they are adding tracks which will need wiring will they take the opportunity for a little re-engineering of the worst affected bits whilst the wiring train is in the area? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted July 20, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) I have yet to see in this forum or in the goverment's plans any justification for the electrification of the MML. It is well proven that electric trains are cheaper to maintain, lighter (that means they are kinder to the track as well as using less energy to move along) and have a better acceleration rate than diesels an import factor on routes with fairly frequent station calls. Also electric traction is far better at coping with gradients due to the ability of the electrical supply system to provide far more power than any diesel can. OK you can add more engines but that also increases fuel costs, maintainence costs and causes more wear and tear on the p-way. The class 185s for example weigh considerably more than their electric cousins operating on SWT. Also as inefficient as it is compared with overheads, the 3rd rail system still trumps diesel traction - there is simply no way lines like the Brighton main line could handle the number of trains it does without the advantages electric traction provides. Edited July 20, 2012 by phil-b259 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 On accelerated timings, I have been a little bemused as far as Trans-Pennine electrification is concerned. The claim is for a 20 minute acceleration of journey times. I believe a lot of this is down to the re-routeing via Manchester Victoria. Parts of this route are a bit faster than via Piccadilly, and there will be improvements including the Chat Moss section and the Stalybridge remodelling. Another factor is fewer conflicts with other services (the worst being the Liverpool-Scarborough crossing the entire throat of Piccadilly) and therefore less need to put lots of margin into the timetable to make it more likely they hit the key junctions in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) One of the other bits mentioned in the announcement IIRC is re-quadding the section south of Peterborough, IIRC that's one of the bits often affected - if they are adding tracks which will need wiring will they take the opportunity for a little re-engineering of the worst affected bits whilst the wiring train is in the area? The two-track sections are mostly on single cantilevers which will almost certainly be foul of the formations needed for extra tracks either side. The most trouble-prone OLE is the headspans, which exist on the three-track sections and appear to be similarly foul on one side (presumably another economy cut!). Hence most of the existing supports will go, and as NR seems to take a long-term view of the infrastructure I'd hope the replacements are portal structures set at a prudent spacing. Edited July 20, 2012 by Edwin_m 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 20, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 20, 2012 It is well proven that electric trains are cheaper to maintain, lighter (that means they are kinder to the track as well as using less energy to move along) and have a better acceleration rate than diesels an import factor on routes with fairly frequent station calls. Also electric traction is far better at coping with gradients due to the ability of the electrical supply system to provide far more power than any diesel can. OK you can add more engines but that also increases fuel costs, maintainence costs and causes more wear and tear on the p-way. The class 185s for example weigh considerably more than their electric cousins operating on SWT. I have been pondering how some of this works out on the privytised railway. For the infrastructure owner there are some areas of increase in cost - he has to manage and maintain a power delivery system of some sort and that may require more possessions which might drive compensatory costs to operators. The only potential decrease I can see is possibly in perway damage but otherwise it's all added cost. For the train operator - once he has the trains - there is a clear reduction in maintenance costs, almost certainly an improvement in availability and reliability, and if journey times are reduced there might possibly be savings in the number of trains he needs (doubtful on the MML I would think at the level of time savings mentioned so far. I don't know what the trade-off would be in energy costs but presume even NR's charges for electricity might offer a saving over diesel fuel? So the theory would seem to be that the infrastructure owner could, quite rightly, increase access charges plus charge for supply (and administration of supply) of electricity and that over the period of the project's costed life this increase would repay the capital cost plus interest. From the operator's viewpoint the increase in access charges should theoretically be met from the savings I have listed plus there would be a further saving realised as either a surplus saving (= profit) or paid in special levy to finance the project beyond the increase in access charges. In addition the 'sparks effect' would lead to increased ridership = further profit for the train operator (or again recovered in special levy). Thus the railway costs and benefits part of the equation seems relatively simple and the capital cost plus additional running costs can be recovered through higher access charges. Is this all too simplistic or is this really how it would work and justify electrification? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ess1uk Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 That would make sense to me Mike, even with my limited maths ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted July 20, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 20, 2012 The two-track sections are mostly on single cantilevers which will almost certainly be foul of the formations needed for extra tracks either side. The most trouble-prone OLE is the headspans, which exist on the three-track sections and appear to be similarly foul on one side (presumably another economy cut!). Hence most of the existing supports will go, and as NR seems to take a long-term view of the infrastructure I'd hope the replacements are portal structures set at a prudent spacing. I remember seeing something in a magazine some time ago about this section. One of the rpoblems is that the masts have been put in the space where the 4th track was. I believe that the preferred solution was to put another track outside the existing masts with a maintenance access road in between. I also agree about the headspans. Portal structures solve a lot of problems as individual tracks can be isolated in case of trouble. With headspans the lines seem to be all commoned together. Jamie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 It is possible (and I think usually done) to incorporate insulators into a headspan so individual tracks can be electrically isolated. The problem is more one of mechanical isolation - a dewirement in a headspan area will usually bring down the headspans themselves along with the OLE above all tracks. With portals the damage is usually limited to the track where the incident happened. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 It is possible (and I think usually done) to incorporate insulators into a headspan so individual tracks can be electrically isolated. The problem is more one of mechanical isolation - a dewirement in a headspan area will usually bring down the headspans themselves along with the OLE above all tracks. With portals the damage is usually limited to the track where the incident happened. I'm not aware of any arrangement where there are not insulators for each track. The problem is that the headspans are designed to accomodate a given arrangement of catenary; should anything disrupt this (be it accidental dewiring, or a planned layout change), the structural integrity is compromised, and the whole span is rendered more-or-less unusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fay Singpoint Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) The Mk 3 catenary system (with its headspan wires) was a cheap and cheerful solution on projects such as Bed-Pan and East Coast. That system was abandoned some time ago for new work and they have now gone back to the Mk1 system principle where the portals provide Mechanically Independent Registration (MIR). The lack of "MIR" is a maintenance nightmare and is a contributory cause of many faults on the East Coast along with the extended distances between supports. Edited July 21, 2012 by Fay Singpoint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesysmith Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 At least sheffield can claim to be the only city to be wired up for overhead electric trains twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Manchester has been able to claim that since the 60s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Excluding the Metrolink - one might argue Manchester has been wired 4 times - the Holcombe Brook branch was wired in the 1920s, then there was the original Manchester to Altrincham scheme, Woodhead and finally WCML. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekEm8 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Somewhere in all the verbiage of the proposal I saw (I'm sure I did) a mention of Rochdale - and it highlighted on the map. Obviosly not part of the MML scheme - but obviosly a part of the Northern Hub but I'm bu*****d if I can find it now. Is it to be a an alternative (to Stalybridge) turn back for the Liverpool / Preston/Blackpool services.?? Any body got any links to it ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 This document lists what is probably going to happen, but as its title suggests it is only illustrative so things may change. In particular TfGM are gearing up for a much greater involvement in local rail including options for tram-train. This document proposes a new turnback at Rochdale, facing towards Manchester. I presume there was at one time a bay in that end of the surviving island platform, but if so it has been infilled and there doesn't seem to be enough length to reverse 4-car units there which they would almost certainly want. So they may be looking at reactivating part of the former up island, which I think is still there in the undergrowth, to create a longer dead-end platform or even a loop which would provide some operational flexibility for Calder Valley trains to overtake. The turnback siding on the stub of the Oldham branch, plus the north-facing former Oldham bay, would then seem to be redundant. However no electrification is currently proposed, so the trains terminating here would run to/from other diesel routes such as Wigan or Blackburn. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now