Transpennine Upgrade : Manchester/Leeds

[87023Velocity]

Derek - they are not just third rail options.

 

The 460s are dual voltage units, (albeit with no pantograph fitted at present,) and they are currently sat out of use in storage - whilst there's been a plan to break them up to lengthen other Junipers on SWT for a while now there are other options which would allow them to be used elsewhere. I suspect they may be the only spare AC capable units 'right now' until the Stanstead 317s are released.

 

My understanding with the 460's were that they are only 3rd rail, there is no pantograph well in the roof unless it has been covered over? I know the class 458's were built with the option of using 25Kv (as per majority of new build 3rd rail emus), and hence these do have a pantograph well in the roof.

 

Cheers

 

Simon

[Glorious NSE]

I wouldn't expect them to be fundamentally different to a 458, pan well or no pan well.

[DerekEm8]

Derek - they are not just third rail options.

 

The 460s are dual voltage units, (albeit with no pantograph fitted at present,) and they are currently sat out of use in storage - whilst there's been a plan to break them up to lengthen other Junipers on SWT for a while now there are other options which would allow them to be used elsewhere. I suspect they may be the only spare AC capable units 'right now' until the Stanstead 317s are released.

 

Martin

Oooops

I forgot that option. This South of the Watford stuff is so alien to us Norvenners

[87023Velocity]

I wouldn't expect them to be fundamentally different to a 458, pan well or no pan well.

 

If they have not designed the train to use 25Kv from the outset, I'd expect the underframe has not been designed to hang the weight of a transformer and associated equipment from it which would be required, if the space is available on the trailer cars that is.

 

Cheers

 

Simon

 

Edit, just found this: http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/images/pic_library/pdf/Class%20460.pdf

Edited December 1, 2011 by 87023Velocity

[Glorious NSE]

Given that they were built after the SWT fleet (and the 334s!) - why would they have re-engineered the design and changed the structure to remove the capability?

Edited December 1, 2011 by Glorious NSE

[frobisher]

If they have not designed the train to use 25Kv from the outset, I'd expect the underframe has not been designed to hang the weight of a transformer and associated equipment from it which would be required, if the space is available on the trailer cars that is.

 

"All" you have to do is swap the TSOs with the PTSOs from 8 458's and then fit those out as designed - sorted!

[87023Velocity]

Given that they were built after the SWT fleet (and the 334s!) - why would they have re-engineered the design and changed the structure to remove the capability?

 

Ok, maybe the structure is the same, after all they were going to use cars from 460's to increase the length of the 458's as you have stated above. I have not worked on a 460 so do not know the power distribution and geography of the train. Maybe a 460 could well be converted to work on 25Kv with the right amount of time and investment, but until that point it is a 3rd rail unit only just like a 450/444/458 etc and not a ready to go dual voltage unit (319/350 etc) or indeed ac unit. Given how it looks at the front it should stay on the southern!

 

I suggest we bring back the 87's from abroad top and tailed with Mk1's and Mk2's in good old banger blue! Shame the 304 and 305's have all gone.

 

 

Cheers

 

Simon

[Glorious NSE]

My understanding is that essentially all modern (post privatisation built) units including the 444/450 you mention are in fact designed and built as AC units but carrying additional gear to allow them to run on DC, and are minus the bits that would be 'dead weight' in their current role such as pantographs.

 

In effect they are designed the opposite way round to how BR used to design dual voltage units and that there is no such thing as a 'DC only unit' in terms of what gets built nowadays.

 

Or to put it another way, my understanding is that a 450 is (electrically speaking) a 350/1 without a pantograph fitted, rather than the 350/1 being a 450 with additional gear to allow it to run on AC.

 

Don't know for sure what the setup on a 460 is, but I still think it's unlikely they built the 458s (AC capable) and 334s (AC only) and then went back and redesigned the whole structure and traction package to remove that capability just for one small order.

 

I'm sure there is more to it than just plugging a pantograph in (just had visions of the software onboard going 'new hardware found', do you have an installation CD for this pantograph or should I connect to the internet to search for one? ) but that's the gist as I understand it.

 

Anyhoo, i'm conscious we're getting well off the subject of Trans Pennine and we've already been (gently and politely) reminded of that.

[Ron Ron Ron]

From what I understand, one of the advantages of the Desiro design (possibly excepting the 185 diesel version), is its use of modular equipment.

I think Martyn is fairly close to the mark regarding their design as AC and DC units.

I have read that the conversion from DC to AC and v. v. is a relatively easy procedure as Seimens designed it with this in mind. Almost a "bolt-on" or "bolt-off" job, so to speak, although I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that?

 

Remember that LM's (actually Central/Silverlink at the time) first fleet of 350/1's were originally intended to be delivered to SWT as 4-car DC 450's, until the then SRA intervened and decreed they were to go elsewhere as AC units.

 

I wasn't aware, whether or not the 458 Juniper's had a pan well. We normally don't get them this far south and I haven't noticed it when travelling up to "the smoke".

Is it open as per the 450's and 444's, or covered by a fairing?

 

Back to the Trans-Pennine...

What sort of new EMU stock would ideally be required if the budget was available (wishful thinking)?

Inter-Regional stock with end doors, local / commuter stock with ¹/₃ ²/₃ doors, or a mixture of both types?

I admit I haven't a clue about their service patterns and really don't understand why there's both a TPX and Northern franchise?

.

[Glorious NSE]

458s are fitted with pan wells, 460s aren't, or at least they don't appear to be externally visible.

458: http://ukrailwaypics.smugmug.com/UKRailwayPics/Electric-Multiple-Units/Class-458/16179913_tqfFpQ#1273912812_ZDr9Vvk-A-LB

 

Back to the Trans-Pennine...

What sort of new EMU stock would ideally be required if the budget was available (wishful thinking)?

Inter-Regional stock with end doors, local / commuter stock with ¹/₃ ²/₃ doors, or a mixture of both types?

 

Personal opinion?

 

The 185s with their 2/3rds doors have not gone down badly. And whilst TPX is nominally an 'inter-urban' operation it does still move lots of folk in and out of city centres in the rushhour, clearing platforms in a reasonable time is a good thing! With modern EMUs capable of having 2/3rds double doors that seal well to keep noise and draughts, and the capability to be set up to handle some reasonably long journeys with a passable level of comfort (2+2 seats, aircon, luggage space) then there are examples out there proving that either an off-the-peg Desiro or Electrostar ought to be capable of fitting the bill.

 

The 185s are 23m cars though, so whether you could find the extra cash to have them built as 23m 380s rather than 20m 350s, or convince Bombardier to have a play at an electrostar based on the longer 170/172 shell is a question, but maybe not the biggest one...and with capacity a big (and it seems continuously growing) issue and the 185s already used in pairs a lot I think you also want them specced with corridor connections to avoid the issues SWT had with the 170s.

 

The more I read and think on it though, maybe the salient point is how close to a 350/380/377/379 comfort level you can make a 319...

 

I admit I haven't a clue about their service patterns and really don't understand why there's both a TPX and Northern franchise?

 

I think way back in the mists of time (and remembering that previously it was split as 'east of pennines/west of pennines!' with TPX being some kind of shared operation between the two?) there was a thought that the long distance 'inter-urban' network was a different thing to the short distance commuter stuff....which I guess it is in one sense.

 

But which routes fit neatly into one or the other definition is always arguable, (TPX runs down some branch lines and moves lots of commuters to the big cities just like Northern, whilst Northern has airconditioned interurban trains that don't stop at all stations on every route...) and with the more recent moves to cut down on the number of franchises even if it means rolling rural/commuter/intercity into the same operation I think it becomes rather a moot point. I think they will get rolled back into one, and the capability of sharing the 319 fleet between them just makes that more likely.

[Alan76]

The stock will almost certainly be displaced Class 319s. When Philip Hammond was transport secretary he was very clear that it is next to impossible to make a business case for new trains for the Northern conurbations partly because of the low fares. This is theme that Northern has also taken up making the point that their average fare is £2.19 - less than than the average cappucino that people buy to drink while they ride to work. So if new trains are out, there's nothing much else left except Thameslink left-overs. This won't be an entirely bad thing: old electric trains are better than old diesel trains. As already remarked, they have a good configuration for handling heavy commuter flows. They've already been earmarked for the Lancashire triangle, so, if you had a joint fleet, you'd also need fewer trains because you'd have a common pool of maintenance spares and the advantages of common diagramming and so on. And, as DfT's gone to the trouble of aligning the end dates of TPEx and Northern, you can bet the farm that some sort of reorganisation is planned which may well see the whole lot be run by one franchise. The realling interesting decision will be what happens to the redundant 185s...

 

Alan

[coachmann]

Remembering how many bridges were blown up or raised to clear overhead wiring on the West coast route, I am still at a loss as to how one gets the wires through Standedge double tunnel and even more about one of the single bores. Mind you, I'm also not well informed on modern railways anyway, so things might have moved on a bit.

[Glorious NSE]

Somethings tells me that the input of the local PTEs as regards to fares may have been part of the reason for the creation of a stand alone TPX franchise - The now TPX services are commercially viable whereas most Northern services are heavily subsidised.

Back in the days of Northern Spirit and staff shortages, Guards who were not ticket trained but were passed out occasionally worked TPX trains - the PTEs would not stand for this on "their" services....

 

It wouldn't surprise me at all if part of the idea of these modern 'multi-facet' franchises is that the bits that run at a profit can offset the supported bits to some extent...

 

Remembering how many bridges were blown up or raised to clear overhead wiring on the West coast route, I am still at a loss as to how one gets the wires through Standedge double tunnel and even more about one of the single bores. Mind you, I'm also not well informed on modern railways anyway, so things might have moved on a bit.

 

Trying to stay a little bit on topic (honest!) here's some shots from the 319s current stomping ground which demonstrate the clearances needed have come down a lot since the WCML project. Lots of the Thameslink catenary is virtually a tram wire, with the catenary wire and contact wire running almost together!

 

(First shot is Kentish Town, the rest are at the now closed Kings Cross Thameslink station which was a pretty good definition of 'limited space' in most ways!)

 

[Christopher125]

Electrification technology has moved on - for example, solid conductor rails instead of suspended wires through tunnels and bridges have become a common way to address clearance issues.

 

Chris

[TheSignalEngineer]

 

Trying to stay a little bit on topic (honest!) here's some shots from the 319s current stomping ground which demonstrate the clearances needed have come down a lot since the WCML project. Lots of the Thameslink catenary is virtually a tram wire, with the catenary wire and contact wire running almost together!

 

(First shot is Kentish Town, the rest are at the now closed Kings Cross Thameslink station which was a pretty good definition of 'limited space' in most ways!)

 

 

The shots show locations where the speed is very low, so 'rigid' catenary designs can be used. The catenary around Kings Cross Thameslink probably would not have lasted very long with high speed running. The 319s were so close to the sides that when one went past the 'Spiral Staircase' a bit quickly and got a rock on it took the door off a wall mounted signalling location case.

Edited December 1, 2011 by TheSignalEngineer

[coachmann]

Hi Glorious, thanks for taking the trouble to upload those exceelent pictures of low overhead. I can now see how it would work in the double tunnel at Standedge.

[Edwin_m]

Solid bar conductor isn't always low speed. It was first used in the Alpine tunnels I believe, and was being considered (they may have decided by now) for both the Severn Tunnel and Crossrail. I guess the trick is to make sure it is absolutely rigid and level with no "hard spots" or dips at the supports, as any uneveness would indeed clobber the pantograph.

[Suzie]

So the Altrincham line was converted to tram because of capacity issues in Piccadily, and the Piccadily - Victoria tram was required because there was no chord between Victoria and Piccadily. All issues that are likely to now be addressed by infrastructure improvements after the heavy rail routes have been lost. Joined up thinking!

 

I am sure that Victoria should be able to cope with extra capacity. The apparent congestion currently is down to similar trains coming from both directions and reversing (or parking). There is no reason why many services could not run through currently if operations could be consolidated. Perhaps life would be simpler if Merseyrail could be encouraged to not stop at Kirkby but go all the way to Wigan (and Preston?) which would give transpennine trains from the east simple destinations of Manchester Airport, Liverpool, Southport and Blackpool.

 

Four platform faces with 25 trains an hour at each one makes for 100 trains an hour, over 100 000 passengers an hour on well loaded peak trains (12-car EMU rather than single 153s!). It is capacity elsewhere in the infrastructure that will be limiting.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Regards the tunnel clearances; in order to provide the necessary clearance for 9' 6" containers, the Southampton tunnel had its floor dug out and dropped by a couple of feet.

In fact over 50 bridges, arches and structures had to be demolished, replaced or modified between Leamington Spa and Southampton, to bring the line up to the required standard.

I'm sure I've heard of similar tunnel projects elsewhere, possibly on the continent, where they've even underpinned and extended the tunnel wall foundations in order to increase the total internal height of the tunnel.

 

Would the Pennine tunnels in question benefit from a similar solution of lowering their floors to provide room for the wires?

I would have thought any other structures that present a problem, such as bridges, will either be replaced or the trackbed will be lowered accordingly.

 

.

[Coach bogie]

 

I suggest we bring back the 87's from abroad top and tailed with Mk1's and Mk2's in good old banger blue! Shame the 304 and 305's have all gone.

 

 

Or compulsory purchase the redundant 90's from EWS, rebuild and make up into similar sets to the East Anglia trains. They clearly work for them and would be ideal for Liverpool-Newcastle rather than more units that are nothing more that commuter trains being used as long distance expresses. As one who has suffered Edinburgh to Manchester regularly on a TP, someting better than the units is needed.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Glorious NSE]

Would the Pennine tunnels in question benefit from a similar solution of lowering their floors to provide room for the wires?

I would have thought any other structures that present a problem, such as bridges, will either be replaced or the trackbed will be lowered accordingly.

 

Wires and containers are different things though and need space in different places!

 

High cube containers are no taller than the loco pulling the train, but they are square at the top instead of rounded, so you need to make 'square holes' for them to go through......and most British structures were built assuming trains have round roofs. For high cubes any square (girder) bridges are no trouble assuming they clear the train already...

 

Tunnels (at least double track ones) are sometimes not such an issue for wires, as the wire and pantograph go above the train where the arch on a double track is a lot taller than the train roof. For electrification square (girder) bridges if they are sized to the height of the train might be trouble...

 

A good point though is there's probably some benefit to be had with any rebuilds (and i'm sure *some* will be needed) and I would expect any bridges being rebuilt for catenary clearance will also get cleared for high cubes at the same time in the way that the bridge rebuilds in the Thames Valley allow room for electrification - especially with NW-NE intermodal seemingly a growth area at the moment.

[coachmann]

Why electrification of the Standedge route anyway? The only positive benefit of elecric trains is they sail up gradients as if they aren't there and therefore speed up services. Yes the Standedge route has long plodding gradients east and westbound to Diggle tunnel under the Pennines, but the bugbear is the line itself.....It has always been chock full of speed restrictions! Unless these in-built restrictions can be lifted then electrifying the route will be an expensive folly.

 

There are tunnels out of Stalybridge, Scout, the aformentioned Standedge, and one before Huddersfield, but the bends are another matter. One cannot simply straighten out viaducts. I foresee expensive cutting into mountains sides, which the line hugs for much of the route near Greenfield, yet more rebuilding of stations that are on such curves (Greenfield, Slaithwaite for instance), widening of embankments and impact on adjacent properties at Mossley and other places. The line is already working to capacity and that problem will remain after electrification unless the speed restrictions are removed or the line is quadrupled once again where it is still possible. (Bring back the Freizland Loop....?)

[Ron Ron Ron]

.....The only positive benefit of elecric trains is they sail up gradients as if they aren't there and therefore speed up services.......

Yeh Larry, what did the Romans do for us?

How about adding.....

More fuel efficient

Diesel fuel is increasingly costly

Lower CO² emissions (putting aside the argument about moving CO² production to the power stations etc.)

Reduced track wear & therefore maintenance

Lower maintenance costs incurred with the loco or MU

Quieter for the surrounding environment

and in the case of underfloor diesel engines, electric traction is much quieter for the passengers

 

...and in the case of Desiro EMU's you get that rather cute "Woo Woo Wibbly Woo Woo Wibbly......." space age noise as they pull away.

 

The rest of your point may be a reasonable argument, but I'm not qualified to say.

 

.

[coachmann]

I dont doubt your points for one minute Ron Ron Ron and I wasn't seeking to rubbish electrification in itself, as it doesnt matter to me one way or the other, but merely pointing out that Standedge has built-in problems that need sorting before anything is demolished and wiring erected.

 

Todays political ideal can so easily be tommorows u-turn. In my lifetime I have seen the ups & downs of electric propulsion.....The rush to scrap street trams then their reintroduction in the 1980s, the "new" Woodhead line then the closure, the investment in trolleybuses then their faling out of favour and so-on.

[woodenhead]

Diesels were only ever meant to be a stop gap to full electrification of BR, unfortunately for a long time the political leaders forgot about this and ran the railway into the ground.

 

It might have been a long time getting to this point, but finally the investment in the railways is focusing on a step change rather than more of the same but cheaper.

 

OK there will be a cascade of some old BR stock suitably refurbished around the NW but Trans Pennine riders will have an expectation of better than a 185 which is a good unit in my opinion and that can only mean new build.