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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

Looking at the amount of space above the train, and even allowing for the flat top of the 444 unit, you're probably not far off having 25kV clearance there!

Although the British and French networks are both three-phase systems running at a nominal 50Hz, they are controlled independently so the phases can shift slightly between the two. The DC link across the Channel is a bit like a much larger version of a three-phase traction package on an EMU, with electronics rectifying the AC to DC at one end and at the other producing AC in exact phase with the local network. Separately from this, because a particular section of AC railway only has one conductor it can only be supplied with one of the three phases of the high voltage distribution network. One way of maintaining balance between the phases is to feed nearby sections from different phases, but connecting the phases together would result in a huge short-circuit so they have to be separated by neutral sections.

Seems to me that if the decision is taken to install OLE then it would be an unforgivable waste of taxpayers money to keep the third rail underneath it! The justification for replacement is very largely to avoid the renewal costs of the third rail and particularly its power supply, where presumably the equipment installed at first electrification is coming up to life expiry. I really can't see any significant implications. I believe Network Rail has been re-visiting the original RSSB work so the costs have probably been looked at at least once more and will be re-visited several times through the GRIP process. Structures works are pretty well understood and can be costed reliably bar the occasional unforeseen event, and by the time this happens the same will be true of electrification. The signalling on much of the route is fairly new and probably already has AC immunity, and one would hope they have costed for replacement rather than immunisation of any remaining older signalling that hasn't been renewed in the meantime. Operationally the trains have to work reliably in dual voltage operation - demonstrated with the same traction package when the London Midland 350s deputised for Southern's through trains via Clapham a couple of years back. Perhaps the only gap is some remaining uncertainty about the extent of losses on the third rail which I think is still based on theoretical modelling rather than actual measurement. However as soon as a sizeable fleet of units is fitted with power metering then the relationship between the power going in and the power coming out will become much clearer.

Third rail conversion is actually part of the answer to where the power comes from. If you converted the whole of the Southern to 25kV the power saved would probably be enough to run the Midland Main Line!

I see the other thread on third rail conversion has been revived so I'll reply to those points on there.

I don't think it ever was planned to be used west of Bristol - West of England would use refurbished HSTs. With electrification through to Swansea then as far as I can see the only Western bi-modes would run to Cheltenham and the Cotswold line plus the couple to Carmarthen if those still run. Possibly it would be better to use refurbished HSTs for these too.

Agreed, the 444/450 has a dual-voltage traction package and (I think, we've discussed this before somewhere) also a pantograph well. However converting the 455/456 fleet to dual voltage would involve huge amounts of work, but these rarely venture west of Basingstoke so the most cost-effective strategy is to wait until they are life-expired before looking at any conversion in towards Waterloo. What's the betting on 25kV reaching Exeter via Salisbury before it does via Reading?

I agree with Martyn, Leamington-Tyseley only really comes into its own in conjunction with Birmingham-Derby and Sheffield-Leeds/Doncaster and this sort of package is a strong candidate for the next announcement. Whether that is in five years or six months remains to be seen. I also agree with Mike and others that all this announcement is getting well ahead of the industry's ability to deliver. I don't think signalling immunisation is so much of a problem as modern signalling moreorless gives this for free, and most of the routes announced have been recently resignalled or are in the pipeline. There will be some pressure on signalling resources for any remodelling schemes and for a range of sighting and other small works. Electrification skills are probably more readily transferable from other countries - I'm told for example that Spain has built up a lot of rail systems capability and they probably can't expect many domestic orders for some time. Although this takes UK taxpayers money overseas, at least with infrastructure schemes a lot of the work has to be done on site and this brings a fair chunk of the money back to the UK. Unlike rolling stock where nearly all the capital and quite a bit of the maintenance cost could end up propping up someone else's economy. Conspiracy theorists may wish to consider how much freight the Spine will take off WCML and whether that is enough to give the Government a reason to back out of HS2...

On digging deeper (mostly the same documents as linked by Martyn) the scope for electric freight on the "spine" is limited by the apparent omission of Corby to Syston and any continuation north of Sheffield. Omission of routes into Birmingham from Leamington, Nuneaton or Derby also means that electric freight for the West Midlands has to run via Coventry. Many CrossCountry services are also left with short gaps in otherwise electrified routes, possibly suggesting a go-ahead for the Voyager pantograph cars.

Very interesting. The idea of a electric spine for freight implies reinstatement of the four-track sections of the Midland around Leicester and between Kettering and Bedford, and possibly even electrification via Corby and Oakham. The logic also suggests conversion of Basingstoke to Southampton to 25kV - use of 92s on third rail is an outside possibility but the cost of power supply upgrades may not be much short of conversion. Sounds like the Bletchley flyover will be doing the job it was built for, after a gap of half a century. Who said the British weren't good at forward planning?! Is Birmingham to Leamington included or will all electric services have to go via Coventry? If the idea is to concentrate freight on the Midland then I wonder where this leaves other freight upgrades such as the GN/GE joint or even the WCML which has up to now been suggested for long-term conversion to UIC gauge. The Midland should be a better option for any ideas of running Euro-wagons north of London, because they can't pass standard UK platforms but on the Midland there is more scope to segregate passenger and freight and eventually remove platforms on the freight lines.

Bring on the 3rd rail to overhead conversion as discussed on here previously! At least for Basingstoke to Southampton it makes a lot of sense for both CrossCountry and freight.

No there have been no other conversions of diesel traction to electric. The difference with the Meridians/Voyagers is that they have electric transmissions so the motors and much of the other traction equipment are already there. All other current DMU types have mechancial/hydraulic transmissions which would have to be replaced for conversion to electric power (or possibly have electric motors on separate axles which would increase the weight).

Even though the Sheffield-Rotherham tram-train as it stands is proposed to have DC electrification throughout, even on the Network Rail section, they are ordering dual-voltage tram-trains and probably also designing the OLE for easy conversion to 25kV if needed.

The justification for electrification is reduced operating and maintenance cost, lower carbon emissions and less dependence on oil. Any passenger comfort benefit doesn't come into the equation. Having said that, while there is little difference in passenger comfort between an HST and an electric equivalent, most of the trains on the Midland have underfloor engines, as almost certainly would the HST replacements, and I'd say an electric definitely scores over these in reduced noise and vibration.

I think they run the Meridians to Liverpool on Grand National day. It's probably the same situation as the 185s - the ability to go at 100mph on those bits where it is allowed counteracts the inability to use the Sprinter differential restrictions. If they don't get pantograph cars (or perhaps even if they do) it's quite possible the Meridians would end up on London-Plymouth/Penzance, by a process of elimination as there are few other places that will need an InterCity quality* diesel. *allegedly.

Not only that but there is also a mention of Oxford-Cambidge. However this appears to be just a re-announcement of reopening between Bicester and Bletchley with through trains from Oxford as far east as Bedford.

This is excellent news. In Network Rail's 2009 study there was actually a better case for electrification of the Midland than the Great Western. The GW was given the go-ahead, possibly for political reasons but perhaps also because it uses up the EMUs displaced by Thameslink and displaces DMUs so fits with the DfT intention not to buy any new ones. The Midland is purely a long-distance scheme, unless it also includes some add-ons such as Derby-Matlock or Sheffield-Doncaster/Leeds. The same paper claimed that both Midland and GW schemes are justifiable on pure financial grounds without taking account of the socio-economic benefits. If you believe the figures this means that the cost of the work can be borrowed and fully repaid out of future operating cost savings without any extra funding from fares or taxes. There is also a good fit with the idea of pantograph cars for Voyagers on CrossCountry. Many of the CrossCountry services run a lot of mileage under the wires but with significant sections on routes that are a long way down any list for electrification. Having a dual-mode vehicle allows them to take advantage of schemes such as this one and gradually increase their electric mileage. In theory both Nottingham and Sheffield could be served from London via the ECML. However they each have two MML trains per hour, which if diverted to the ECML would trigger the Welwyn four-tracking and various other schemes. Services would also have to continue on the MML for stations between Wellingborough and Derby which don't have any sensible alternative route to London, so you'd probably end up running more trains in total but also providing a less frequent service to most places.

Effectively you just apply the brakes and make sure the train slows down. It also has the function in cold weather of generating a bit of heat to keep the brake gear from freezing solid. The normal brake test on coupling up proves that the air is getting all the way down the pipe but doesn't say anything about whether the brakes themselves are working.