Edwin_m

Hadn't thought of that one! I think they must have to comply, as the type of transmission used doesn't affect the emissions and I can't see the EU bending over backwards to derogate from their standard for the benefit of the Japanese... However it's a 25m vehicle (or has that changed as well?) so 2m longer than the 172 etc, which may give them the bit of underfloor space they need.

This is certainly a factor. I don't think any of the current DMU designs can be produced any more, presumably not even the class 172 which makes me wonder why Bombardier bothered developing it to sell such a small number! It is possible that someone will think of a new way of meeting the regulations without using so much space, otherwise we might be back to some of the equipment going above floor level. The other factor is that leasing companies have to be reasonably confident that a train will be used and paid for over its full lifetime before they shell out to have it built. With so much electrification in prospect there is a fear that DMUs will be made redundant - possibly a self-fulfilling prophecy if one of the reasons for electrification is the difficulty of getting more DMUs! Perhaps part of the answer is for new DMUs to be designed for easy conversion to EMUs?

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.

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.

Must be really annoying if you lose it...

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.

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.

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.