Edwin_m

I doubt BR would have put up the money to provide electrification clearances when there was no electrification project agreed. However, if they needed to do something fairly drastic to the tunnel for other reasons then it might not be much extra work to create electrification clearances at the same time. For similar reasons pretty much any bridge replacement anywhere in the network is likely to create clearance for 25kV and probably W10/W12 as well,

Hmm, we seem to have a post saying they should be shorter, closely followed by one saying they should be longer! I guess as most other couplings, even the Rapido, are available in a range of lengths then the new one needs this too.

High Level looks a seriously strange box. Downstairs doesn't look like a locking room - was it perhaps a messroom for the shunters? Was there much in the way of signalling controlled from here? Perhaps it was power signalled as part of the GWR's scheme so didn't need a locking room.

From that I think you could get two platforms along the entire length of the shed (assuming you were allowed to use Brunel's part) right up to the building fronting Temple Gate. They could then take a 10-car HST or IEP equivalent, and you could possibly add some shorter platforms as well further east. I agree there's extra space on the bridge for at least one track, but not for two tracks with platforms which is what you'd need if the trains stood this far out. I believe the intention is to run four London trains per hour after electrification, with two of them fasts via Parkway. These would run into the new platforms to avoid most of the throat conflicts. For similar reasons I assume the slower trains via Bath would continue to use the high-numbered platforms.

Bit hard to tell from the aerial photography but the total length of the Brunel and Digby Wyatt sheds looks to be around 200m and I think the westernmost 50m may never have had plaforms as it seems to be narrower. So I think they'll have to use as much as they can of both parts to get long enough platforms without widening the river bridge. There's a choice between accepting some change to return it to railway use or keeping it the same but using it for something else.

HS2 will indeed be to European gauge, but only GB+ I think, with Euro-height platforms like HS1 (there are actually two standard Euro-heights but let's not go there). The reports talk about two types of trains - standard Euro-trains that can only (in the UK) run on HS2 (and probably HS1 and any connecting line), and a hybrid type* that can also run on the UK infrastructure where electrified at 25kV. These will be to UK gauge with moveable steps. The Eurostars could do the hybrid role with some modifications, but they will be 30 years old by the time HS2 opens so a new fleet is envisaged. Initially we will have Euro-trains between London and Birmingham and the hybrid fleet will run to Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow using HS2 as far as Lichfield. When HS2 extends to Manchester and Leeds, more Euro-trains will be introduced and the hybrids will still serve Glasgow but will be cascaded onto Newcastle and Edinburgh services. This suggests a fleet size of around 50 units, and because they are a non-standard design they will cost a lot more than the other fleet. *I don't think they call it that but sorry I can't face wading through the reports to check! Nothing to do with dual power sources in this context.

The simplest solution to a UIC gauge route would indeed be to run UIC gauge passenger trains. However when converting an existing route there is a huge transitional issue, because not only can the new trains not run past the existing platforms but the existing trains can't serve the new platforms either - stepping distances would be too great. So the only option is to suspend service while all the platforms are rebuilt, re-opening with a new fleet of trains. This of course ony works if the trains don't need to run onto other un-converted routes, when the alternative would be to have a fleet that can serve both types of platform with moveable steps, like Eurostar and some of the trains proposed for HS2. I'm not sure how well this would work for a commuter train though, since the doors get much heavier use. Adjustable platforms might work for occasional services but when freight and passenger continually mix at intervals of a few minutes it's not a workable option. You'd need to modify the full 12 cars worth of platform and if any one section failed in the extended position it would block the line until someone could get out to fix it. Interlaced (gauntleted) tracks are another option used in a few places in the States, but the extra width probably isn't easily available at many WCML stations. If you could split the four-track WCML into separate freight and passenger tracks that would work as well - you;'d probably need a flyover in either the Willesden or Road areas to minimise conflicts. However even with HS2 I doubt that all remaining WCML passenger trains could use the same pair of tracks, since there will still be a need for fastish trains to places like Milton Keynes as well as commuter services. You'd also lose the benefit of being able to close one pair of tracks at quieter times for engineering access. For all these reasons I personally think something like the Central Railway route might be needed in the very long term, primarily for UIC gauge freight but perhaps also for passengers using UIC gauge trains on those sections where there is no parallel service on the national network. However HS2 makes this less likely by removing one of the two reasons (capacity) why this is needed.

I'm certainly interested in these including the NEM pockets as a lot of my stuff isn't NEM fitted. Personally I don't mind cutting coupler boxes off, just done it with a rake of 28 wagons to fit Tomix couplings within the rake, but some may not wish to make such an irreversible mod because they may want to sell the stock on later. I may buy a couple for trials but before spending serious money I need to be confident that whichever one I choose is adaptable to most or all of my stock. I'd also be interested in an electromagnet solution, preferably one that involves little or no modification to the already-laid track or preferably goes under the baseboard. However I have visions of this needing enough power to dim the lights in the neighborhood and/or attracting distant metal objects in the way a magnet always does in cartoons.

Various local authorities along the route were looking at electrifying Wrexham-Bidston on 750V (not Merseyrail who are the operator, possibly thinkin of Merseytravel the PTE sponsor). However Network Rail's cost came out absolutely astronomical. 25kV might be cheaper if they could find enough 313s or some other dual-voltage unit that would go through the tunnels.

And to add to what Mike has said, there isn't one "European Gauge" there are actually at least three. If I recall correctly trailer on flat car requires the largest one (ironically called GC, though the GC main line wasn't). HS1 and HS2 are probably only GB+, which supports all passenger services but means you couldn't run TOFC even on the high speed routes at night. Edit: Just seen this story about the Scots promising to pay for a high speed line is Scotland if the British (=English) build it as far as the border. Sounds like "blamemanship" on a grander scale than the one about the sleepers.

There may be some pantographs and transformers, but these are only any good if the 507/508 coaches are suitable for them to be attached. In terms of control gear the 313 is a DC camshaft train like the 507/508, with a front end transformer and rectifier which essentially supplies it with 750Vdc whichever supply it is running on. This arrangement is incompatible with regenerative braking, and although it has run safely for many years it might be difficult to prove its safety sufficiently to operate on a route where it does not have "grandfather rights". The AC-only units of class 314 and 315 are totally different. About the only use I can think of for 507/508 after they are replaced on Merseyrail might be to use the trailers to lengthen 314s to 4-car, if these were no longer needed in Scotland and the fleet was merged with the similar 4-car units of class 315. Cardiff Valleys could be ideal for a displaced 314/315 fleet.

This was moreorless what Central Railway proposed 10+ years ago. They would have built large amounts of new track from the Channel Tunnel round to the west of London, then picked up the Great Central to the south edge of Leicester (after which the formation is lost), Midland slow lines to Chesterfield then the old route round to Beighton and Woodhead across to Manchester. Not US gauge but certainly European gauge. There was a very detailed website at one stage but it's been taken down - I think the person who was really pushing the idea passed away a few years back. Traffic would have included piggyback trailers, with passenger service proposed on some sections. I suspect the fact Tunnel freight fell well short of expectations helped to kill the proposal. These days the prospect of HS2 means such a freight line would be even more difficult to fund, since HS2 is supposed to create capacity for a lot more freight on the WCML in particular. However although there are long term plans to enhance the WCML and other routes to European gauge, this is virtually impossible on a mixed-traffic route because a European-sized train cannot pass a UK-standard platform.

I think the railway bridge was the one pictured in post #3 in 1978. The one that went in (around) 98 was a road flyover crossing over the roundabout just down from TM, probably about where the photographer was standing in to take that picture.

As far as I know 507 and 508 have camshaft controllers as per all DC classes until the 319 came along. The only way to drive this off AC is to fit a front end transformer and rectifier as per class 313, which would rule out regenerative braking and probably be very difficult to get a safety case. 315s are either tap-changer or phase angle thyristor control, not sure which. So while these units had virtually identical bodyshells the traction equipment is totally different with the exception of the actual motors, and I assume a 507 motor coach running in a 314 must have had the relevant equipment replaced. I don't know how mechanically similar the 507/508 centre car is to that of the 313/314/315 but it would need mechanical provision both for a pantograph well and for transformer mountings. I think either would be difficult to add if the structure didn't allow for them.

Slightly less difficult than the Friezland loop but still not easy. There's a housing estate on the line between Grasscroft Halt and Lydgate Tunnel (and I don't think trams would get over the top). The last mile or so into Glodwick Road has the cutting infilled with waste, complete with vents to bleed off the methane. The 180 and 184 buses, which Coachmann will know as the 10 and the 14, still link Oldham with Greenfield and run every 10min on weekdays, though of course the only train stopping there is the hourly local.

Converting the 508s to AC would almost certainly involve building a new pantograph/transformer car, and probably replacing the traction package too. Not worth doing IMHO when there are so many 319/317/365 units displaced by Thameslink and 315s by Crossrail.

And what DfT needs is apparently no more rolling stock of any type for the time being, just cascaded 319s with everything!

I thought that too. Electrification between Sheffield and Leeds is a separate proposal and treating it as part of MML is the tail wagging the dog. The MML Leeds journeys are essentially stock transfer moves, and if the electric HST replacements were based further south then they wouldn't run north of Sheffiled. In my view this report is a series of scraps brought together for lobbying purposes rather than a worked thought through proposal (and could have done with a bit more proofreading). Network Rail's 2009 electrification strategy is the document that demonstrated a positive business case for MML electrification, though that excluded Erewash Valley I think.

I think Alan is correct, but I'd like to think they also have an eye on the longer-term economic and employment benefits of improving the rail network, which are diminished if somewhere like Middlesbrough ends up with worse rail connections. There is a further advantage to the government that money spent on infrastructure will mostly remain in Britain, but money spent on rolling stock has a habit of going overseas!

Well actually a good way from International, the other side of the motorway, requiring some sort of monorail across the NEC site to reach it.

Build-outs are quite common in a lot of places. They allow the bus to load people who can't manage a step/gap between the kerb and the bus, while still allowing parking before and after the stop. The alternative would be to remove maybe ten parking spaces to give the bus room to pull in and line up with the kerb - and then a lot of motorists ignore the law and don't let the bus pull out of the bay anyway. The bus is probably taking several dozen cars off the road, so it deserves a bit of consideration sometimes.

In which case the only government involvement is to make an announcement and to take the credit? Surely not I can't see how getting pension funds to invest is any different from PFI or the Network Rail asset base, and last I heard we were trying to get away from these. Perhaps a pinch of salt is in order regarding whether any of this will actually happen?

The DMUs were five-car (six originally) and didn't run in multiple I think - there are people who know far more about these than I do who can give better info! But yes a quick scan of the Jenkins and Quayle book shows nine-car loco-hauled formations in 1979 and 1982 and a couple of ten-cars from earlier than that. However I'd contend that there were fewer trains using the conflicting routes at Huddersfield at that time, and with slower schedules in those days I guess these formations would have stopped twice at Huddersfield or people would have walked through the train. I don't think SDO of a 12-car unit at an 8-car platform would wash, especially if the units in question were 319s without through gangways. And before anyone mentions it Crossrail plan to do something similar, but they will have wide gangways right through their units, and even so a lot of people think they are daft to try it. Another reason not to go to 12-car is that this would be too big for the demand north of York, where some of the platforms served by TPE are even shorter (like Chester-le-Street at 5 cars). In other news, a couple of on-line trade mags have confirmed Alan's statement that the scheme goes through to York, but no mention of Hull, Scarborough or Middlesbrough. Then again one of these reports claimed the electrification would start from Guide Bridge not Victoria, thus nulllifying the reason for the newly-authorised Ordsall Curve.

I think those other problems might arise at Huddersfield. With a tunnel one end and a viaduct the other, trains longer than 8 cars will be standing on the pointwork.

Electric trains have better acceleration than diesels so the speed restrictions are less of a problem. I think most of the ones mentioned by Coachmann will remain but they will have less effect on the journey time. However capacity could become a serious issue. I took a look at the remains of the Friezland loop not so long ago and the results can be summarised in two words "forget it". All five (?) viaducts, all the underbridges and most of the earthworks have gone, the short tunnel south of Greenfield is buried and the formation is built over in several places. So reopening that isn't really an option. The maximum practicable train length via Standedge is probably 8 cars (of 20m stock) dictated by the platforms at Huddersfield which would be difficult to lengthen and where all trains would probably still have to call. Given the amount of overcrowding now, and the extra demand generated by faster journeys, you're probably looking at all trains being made up to that length at the busiest times from the start of electric services. Further growth will require more trains above the four fasts per hour today (the RUS proposes a fifth). Five trains per hour, with similar speed profiles, isn't a lot but the difficulty then becomes fitting the slower locals and freight in the gaps. You could remove the local and stop each fast at a couple of minor stations but then you're back into train length issues as most of them have much shorter platforms. The remodelled Stalybridge will have three through platforms, allowing fast trains to overtake slower ones, but that does no more than restore the situation of today when the local only mixes with the Transpennines east of Stalybridge. Electric locals and (less likely) electric freight would also help reduce the difference in speed, but the shortish loops at Diggle and Marsden are unlikely to be enough especially if freight increases. DRS has just started running a Transpennine intermodal freight, which I assume goes via Standege, and this is a sign that rail is getting more competitive for the relatively short distances involved. Putting track back at least one of the Standedge single bores has been suggested as the easiest way of providing a long loop, has the advantage of being level so looped freights can get moving more quickly, and would also help keep the trains running if one of the tunnels is under maintenance. Alternatively it should be possible to find somewhere on the former four-track section either at Diggle or between Marsden and Huddersfield. Freight could also be diverted via Calder Valley and Brighouse, which has gentler gradients but is now has four passenger trains per hour in parts. It has no loops at present but several former four-track sections that might be reinstated, and it would require gauge enhancement as it is more restrictive than Standedge now (Standedge is W8 now but would probably be W10/W12 after electrification, don't recall the gauge on Calder Valley).