Midland Main Line Electrification

[DerekEm8]

Edwin,

 

Thanks for the link - I hoped you watching the thread.

 

I shall now read on.

[melmerby]

Looking at all the bits and bobs and fill in schemes for electrification, it seems that there are some gaps, unless I have misread.

 

No mention of electrification of the Windermere branch in the NW enhancements, leaving an island of diesel in a sea of electric.

No mention of electrification for Leamington - Birmingham Snow Hill, although much of the rest of the lines southward will be electrified as part of the "Electric Spine".

Electrifying this bit would allow (Paddington -) Oxford - Birmingham (Snow Hill) by electric train, which was actually mentioned as one of the results of the announced projects in a news report I saw! This would also allow an electric Birmingham SH - Southampton service. (If it's wanted!)

 

Keith

Edited July 22, 2012 by melmerby

[scorpion]

No mention of Cleethorpes or Middlesborough in the trans pennine element, branch lines in the new East Coast franchise maybe?

[Edwin_m]

Cleethorpes is definitely excluded - it wouldn't be much use unless Hope Valley was done as well. I think Middlesbrough is being looked at along with Hull and Scarborough - if these branches aren't electrified then they could lose through services.

[DerekEm8]

Its interesting reading the proposals for Manchester that most of the services that were transfered to Piccadilly when Victoria was 'vandalised' sre now coming back to Victoria - progress !!

[Glorious NSE]

No mention of electrification for Leamington - Birmingham Snow Hill, although much of the rest of the lines southward will be electrified as part of the "Electric Spine".

Electrifying this bit would allow (Paddington -) Oxford - Birmingham (Snow Hill) by electric train, which was actually mentioned as one of the results of the announced projects in a news report I saw! This would also allow an electric Birmingham SH - Southampton service. (If it's wanted!)

 

Firstly, this isn't a finished plan, so detail of the limits of electrification may (likely will) change/evolve

Secondly, you can't do everything at once, this is a starting place (and the request in the HLOS is to look at what bits need doing next after these)

 

At present there is no Paddington-Reading-Snow Hill service (and with Crossrail coming in on top of an already rather busy Paddington-Reading corridor I suspect there would be few fans of such a suggestion!) - I'd question whether it would add much given that we already have all the connectivity that service would give with the present services.

 

Electrifying Leamington - Birmingham at this stage would only allow a little more pantograph mileage on an E-voyager, it couldn't be able to be used by any other services at present.

 

The E-Voyager can use diesel down to Leamington and then put the pan up anyhow, so can easily handle partial wiring on the route - and there's already a New St to Southampton service so I'm not sure why you'd want to duplicate that with one from Snow Hill!

[jamie92208]

Firstly, this isn't a finished plan, so detail of the limits of electrification may (likely will) change/evolve

Secondly, you can't do everything at once, this is a starting place (and the request in the HLOS is to look at what bits need doing next after these)

 

At present there is no Paddington-Reading-Snow Hill service (and with Crossrail coming in on top of an already rather busy Paddington-Reading corridor I suspect there would be few fans of such a suggestion!) - I'd question whether it would add much given that we already have all the connectivity that service would give with the present services.

 

Electrifying Leamington - Birmingham at this stage would only allow a little more pantograph mileage on an E-voyager, it couldn't be able to be used by any other services at present.

 

The E-Voyager can use diesel down to Leamington and then put the pan up anyhow, so can easily handle partial wiring on the route - and there's already a New St to Southampton service so I'm not sure why you'd want to duplicate that with one from Snow Hill!

 

I suspect that short links like this being done will be quite common when the main lines are done. One of the biggest hurdles is the power supply from the grid and if no new connection is required then links can be done very quickly once the will is there. Crewe- Kidsgroive was done in a matter of months once the need for an electric diversionary route was identified during the WCML upgrade.

 

The E Voyager concept solves a lot of problems and allows islands of non wired lines to be done later when signalling is sorted out.

 

Jamie

[RJS1977]

If Chiltern were to get their franchise renewed for a similar period to the current one, I wouldn't be surprised to see electrification of Marylebone-SH in there somewhere!

[Edwin_m]

That's an interesting thought. Chiltern have shown no interest in electrification thus far and Marylebone is of course the last non-electrified London terminus. They have got more things right than most other TOCs and it will be interesting to see if they jump on the electric bandwagon.

 

If they stick with diesel then they have the option of accommodating growth by taking on some of the 165/166 fleet displaced from the Paddington services. They already run similar units and their operating routes have suitable clearances.

[Glorious NSE]

Chiltern have shown no interest in electrification thus far

 

True, but then it's been regarded as being the work of the devil for most of their term, it's certainly busy enough these days!

[Ohmisterporter]

Here is something I have tried to get my head around with the diesel versus electric debate. If a route goes electric we are assuming the TOCs will want to operate electric trains. If they do so they will have to buy the fuel from one source, namely Network Rail. At present they can choose between different suppliers for diesel. So NR simply sits back, watches the TOCs hire a fleet of all electric stock and then bumps up the price. TOC is stuck with no option but to pay up. Please tell me I am wrong, cynic that I am.

[frobisher]

Here is something I have tried to get my head around with the diesel versus electric debate. If a route goes electric we are assuming the TOCs will want to operate electric trains. If they do so they will have to buy the fuel from one source, namely Network Rail. At present they can choose between different suppliers for diesel. So NR simply sits back, watches the TOCs hire a fleet of all electric stock and then bumps up the price. TOC is stuck with no option but to pay up. Please tell me I am wrong, cynic that I am.

 

I'd suspect that the operators will have the same right to be billed by whichever electricty supplier they elect to, just like you do in the home, just as most business already do.

[Fat Controller]

I'd suspect that the operators will have the same right to be billed by whichever electricty supplier they elect to, just like you do in the home, just as most business already do.

I suspect that the rate at which electric is priced will be regulated by the ORR, so that NR would have to get agreement from them before either raising or lowering their prices.

[Edwin_m]

As far as I know it is indeed a regulated monopoly as suggested by Brian. Rates for each train type and operator are published and are no doubt analysed and benchmarked to determine whether Network Rail is being efficient.

 

The price charged to TOCs will be a lot higher than typical industry unit rates, because as well as buying power from the supplier it also has to pay the costs Network Rail incurs in operating and maintaining its own supply infrastructure and the OLE itself. As suggested by Mike a page or two back it will almost certainly also have to repay the capital cost of the electrification. The belief is that even with all these costs loaded onto the electricity charge, the cost of diesel fuel and the extra leasing and maintenance costs for diesels will still make it cheaper for the TOCs concerned to go electric.

[jonathan452]

Thameslink shouldn't displace many (any?) 313s as they run on the Moorgate line not through Thameslink, AFAIK the new stock order is to run the core Thameslink service and isn't built to the limited clearances of the Moorgate route -

 

Are the (16 foot diameter) tunnels between Drayton Park and Moorgate not the same size as the Kensal Green tunnel on the Watford new line?

 

If so a Class 378 (or similar) would presumably be able to fit through the former when the Class 313's are finally replaced?

[Edwin_m]

I think Jonathan is right, the Drayton Park to Moorgate tunnels aren't particularly small. Confusion may arise from (1) the fact that they were electrified third rail in the 70s, which indicates they didn't have clearance for 25kV but doesn't say anything about the train size, and (2) the "Widened Lines" route to Moorgate having restricted clearances, which presumably no longer apply as standard 377 as well as 319 stock can use the surviving part.

[cheesysmith]

 

Manchester has been able to claim that since the 60s.

 

So, when was manchester without wires. I dont mean some lines, i mean non at all? :-)

Edited July 25, 2012 by cheesysmith

[Glorious NSE]

I think you could be right with that, but AFAIK my original point stands - that route isn't part of the Thameslink project and isn't set to have new trains as part of that project, so the 313s will remain in use until somebody comes up with a better plan.

 

Replacements for the trains may well be possible (and with TfL angling to extend their sphere of influence getting Boris to take over that route and order another batch of 378s may indeed be a good idea) - but coming up with other uses for 313s cascaded from FCC isn't a good plan if they are going to still be in London.

 

You *might* end up with some spare 313s from a longer cascade if when Thameslink goes live Southern gets cascaded some displaced units for Coastway which would free up their 313s?

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think Jonathan is right, the Drayton Park to Moorgate tunnels aren't particularly small. Confusion may arise from (1) the fact that they were electrified third rail in the 70s, which indicates they didn't have clearance for 25kV but doesn't say anything about the train size, and (2) the "Widened Lines" route to Moorgate having restricted clearances, which presumably no longer apply as standard 377 as well as 319 stock can use the surviving part.

 

I don't think clearances were particularly tight on the Midland. It was the Hotel Curve into Platform 16 (?) at Kings Cross which was limited to short rolling stock.

 

The Met stock that originally ran on the Northern City line was quite large, so clearance should not be a problem on that route. 313s will have to be replaced soon (nearly 40 years old) so the question is indeed whether to have an integrated fleet with Thameslink or pass those services to "Overground" with the outer termini probably brought back to Gordon Hill and Welwyn GC.

[chrisf]

I don't think clearances were particularly tight on the Midland. It was the Hotel Curve into Platform 16 (?) at Kings Cross which was limited to short rolling stock.

 

That may be so but a batch of BR suburban stock allocated to the LMR was described as Metrogauge, having the roof vents further apart than normal stock. AFAIK it was used on the peak services between Moorgate and St Albans/Luton. In addition the Class 127 dmus were, at least at first, not permitted between Kentish Town and Moorgate. Later the services were worked by Class 116s surplus from the WR. I have wondered, though far from constantly it must be admitted, on what grounds they were allowed.

 

Chris

Edited July 25, 2012 by chrisf

[phil-b259]

....... and (2) the "Widened Lines" route to Moorgate having restricted clearances, which presumably no longer apply as standard 377 as well as 319 stock can use the surviving part.

 

Nope, the "Widened lines" still have restricted clearences and cannot acept trains with a length grater than 20m per car. Thus while most MK3 20m derived units are OK the only locos permitted are the class 73s and 31s. Anything else is too long. Back in the 70s however the bigest restriction was the "Hotel curve" at Kings Cross which was even tighter, such that todays EMUS would have fitted through it and peak hour services from the GN lines had to be short length Mk1 suburbans to fit.

[Edwin_m]

The 20m per car restriction also applies to much of the Southern (enough that only the 442s and 444s are built longer) as well as places like Cardiff Valleys so I wouldn't say that is particularly restrictive. I agree the locomotive restriction is unusual as locos are usually go-anywhere in gauging terms.

[RJS1977]

That's an interesting thought. Chiltern have shown no interest in electrification thus far and Marylebone is of course the last non-electrified London terminus. They have got more things right than most other TOCs and it will be interesting to see if they jump on the electric bandwagon.

 

If they stick with diesel then they have the option of accommodating growth by taking on some of the 165/166 fleet displaced from the Paddington services. They already run similar units and their operating routes have suitable clearances.

 

When I made the comment I'd been thinking that Chiltern were nearing the end of a 20 or 25 year franchise, when of course in fact they're 10 years into a 20-year deal. But in many ways that makes my suggestion more likely.

 

By the end of a second 20-year deal in 2042, the Turbos would be nearly 50 years old, so a 2022-2042 franchise would have to include replacing them. Since oil is likely to be even more scarce by then, the likelihood is that it would not be with a fresh batch of DMUs.

 

The Marylebone-Oxford route would probably be electrified fairly early on, as Oxford-Bicester is already slated for electrification and electrifying Bicester - Marylebone with infill to OOC would not only complete the service but provide an electrified diversion for FGW services between Paddington and Didcot.

 

That would then only leave another 30 miles to complete the route to Birmingham.

[Glorious NSE]

That would then only leave another 30 miles to complete the route to Birmingham.

 

Assuming UK.Gov means the same thing as we do by 'rolling program of electrification' *and* there is freight takeup I would expect the Birmingham end (Leamington-Tyseley and connecting to BNS and an electrified Birmingham-Derby route) to have been at least lined up if not done already by 2022 - the North end of that will need doing anyhow for the opening of phase 1 of HS2...- if those assumptions come to fruition the couple of miles to Moor St then doesn't look like a biggie (although how far you go beyond that might be an interesting question - do you wire all the ex GW routes, is there demand elsewhere for the 172s to cascade at only a decade or so old?)

[96701]

I think I've posted somewhere else about DMUs, and at the risk of repeating myself, it is getting impossible to fit the power train and the mandated fume cleaning units under the floor of a carriage, therefore DMUs are a near impossibility, hence electrification.