Network Rail's Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy published

[Legolash2o]

So let us round up to 60 Billion quid (I know it is easy to spend other peoples money) over 30 years that is 2 billion a year - so not nearly as bad as I thought.

During that time they will learn and have improved technology/methods, so it may become cheaper.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Indeed. Though pathway 4 looks yikes - up to 922 STKs in a year max - can’t see the treasury signing up for that.

 

[Domh245]

Alternative traction is diesel, i.e. neither electrification, battery or hydrogen are viable.

They are all long, mountainous routes.

Unless I'm missing something on the map, the only 'alternative traction' sections are those in Scotland (ie those highlighted in green on the Transport Scotland diagram) - for which Transport Scotland talks about battery or hydrogen. I presume that these are flagged 'only' as alternative in this report mainly because it's being left for Transport Scotland to decide

Having just checked the actual report...

The work which has been led by Transport Scotland and Network Rail’s Scotland’s Railway region has been instrumental in establishing a long-term rolling programme of electrification for Scotland as outlined in the Transport Scotland Decarbonisation Action Plan.
The TDNS team has been working closely with colleagues from Scotland’s Railway and Transport Scotland to ensure the work presented in TDNS mirrors this plan which provides the rationale for the decarbonisation of Scotland’s domestic passenger services by 2035.
The remaining diesel services in Scotland will be those not within the direct control of Transport Scotland for cross border services from Scotland to the Midlands and South West as well as the major freight flows from Teesside and Felixstowe.
The DAP identifies “alternative traction” for the routes north west of Glasgow and north and west of Inverness and South of Girvan and a more detailed assessment will be needed to confirm the definitive approach to be adopted on these routes.

 

[hwl]

Unless I'm missing something on the map, the only 'alternative traction' sections are those in Scotland (ie those highlighted in green on the Transport Scotland diagram) - for which Transport Scotland talks about battery or hydrogen. I presume that these are flagged 'only' as alternative in this report mainly because it's being left for Transport Scotland to decide

Having just checked the actual report...

Exactly they have 15+ years to wait before they need to decide. As previously discussed some services may not be too far of battery range at that point.

Alternative traction is diesel, i.e. neither electrification, battery or hydrogen are viable.

They are all long, mountainous routes.

Alternative traction is Scottish for Hydrogen /battery precise choice to be made later based on technology at the time.
No bio-diesel have a look at the Scottish report from 6 weeks ago.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Biodiesel does get a mention in the TDNS though for England and Wales and there is a whole paragraph on page 61 but strongly suggests it will be used for more difficult transport with no easy alternative like shipping.

 

[E100]

Very good. Now hope they can crack on with a nice and sensible rolling programme to keep a few highly skilled teams employed.

 

[class26]

Very good. Now hope they can crack on with a nice and sensible rolling programme to keep a few highly skilled teams employed.

Now that would be far too sensible for the Dft

 

[InOban]

Or the Treasury, more importantly.

 

[Bald Rick]

Or the Treasury, more importantly.

You beat me to it.

 

[ABB125]

Once again the Windermere branch seems to have missed out on electrification. It appears to be yellow with pink dots, which means "we haven't really decided, but probably battery" (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong).
I'll have a read of the whole report at some point today once I reach a computer. I'm looking forward to it!

 

[hwl]

Once again the Windermere branch seems to have missed out on electrification. It appears to be yellow with pink dots, which means "we haven't really decided, but probably battery" (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong).
I'll have a read of the whole report at some point today once I reach a computer. I'm looking forward to it!

The problem with Windermere given the branch length and journey lengths is the recharging time available at Oxenholme (unless you have 2 units and swap them over), the more logical solution is to electrify the first few miles of the branch so you only need one unit as you have reduced the battery usage and increased the charging time.
There are plenty of other similar branches.

The more extreme cases of a local group of branches lines with minimal charging opportunity (minimum turnarounds at both ends) results in the suggestion of Hydrogen e.g. Norfolk and Suffolk "coastal" branch lines.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Once again the Windermere branch seems to have missed out on electrification. It appears to be yellow with pink dots, which means "we haven't really decided, but probably battery" (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong).
I'll have a read of the whole report at some point today once I reach a computer. I'm looking forward to it!

I could swear I have read in at least 2 places that NR preferred solution for Windermere was now indeed full electrification.

 

[Domh245]

Regional passenger service operating between the WCML and Windermere. Service could operate as battery or as a short extension of electrification from the WCML.

I suspect the reason they've presented battery as the 'preferred' option is because of the plan that was afoot to use battery 331s. They're pretty non-committal about what solution should actually be used. My only other thought is that if they're piggybacking off the WCML supply to feed other routes, putting battery units on Windermere might help - that or making the fleet size of the battery units needed for some routes work - a sort of 'we could electrify it, but we'd rather have 20 BEMUs than 10 and we need to put them somewhere'

 

[GRALISTAIR]

---- My only other thought is that if they're piggybacking off the WCML supply to feed other routes, putting battery units on Windermere might help ----

Yes, elsewhere in the report it does mention that if everything that currently has diesel under wires was switched to electric 40% of the power supplies in the country would be well under capacity required in other words considerable power supply upgrade will already be needed. I wonder where Windermere would feed from - Catterall (but I thought that feed south) or Great Strickland? I am sure there is/was another one in the area before the WCML power supply upgrade and switching to Auto Transformer (Nateland off memory).

 

[59CosG95]

Yes, elsewhere in the report it does mention that if everything that currently has diesel under wires was switched to electric 40% of the power supplies in the country would be well under capacity required in other words considerable power supply upgrade will already be needed. I wonder where Windermere would feed from - Catterall (but I thought that feed south) or Great Strickland? I am sure there is/was another one in the area before the WCML power supply upgrade and switching to Auto Transformer (Nateland off memory).

I seem to recall that Natland was indeed disconnected, and that the main feeder in Cumbria is now Oxenholme ATFS; Great Strickland is a MPATS, and the limit of AT feeding. Penrith is the next feeder AIUI, from the local network - Oxenholme's fed directly from the National Grid via a connection at Hutton substation.
Catterall's work is/was, AIUI, to extend its feeding range to feed northwards as well as south.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I seem to recall that Natland was indeed disconnected, and that the main feeder in Cumbria is now Oxenholme ATFS;---

Oh good so more than enough to feed Windermere.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Further East the network within Sussex and Kent is slightly different. Providing a 25kV
overhead line system on small sections between third rail infrastructure does not
make operational sense. A piece of strategic work is currently underway between
Network Rail, RSSB and the ORR to establish the feasibility of providing a modern-day
conductor rail system for these areas. This will report in late 2021. If this work
identifies the inability to deploy further third rail electrification it is likely that battery
operation would be required to achieve a zero-carbon solution.

So 3rd rail extensions not ruled out totally

Two of the three passenger routes where 3rd rail electrification is often discussed have a 25kv at or near one end anyway, so it needn't be 'small sections (of OHLE) between third rail infrastructure'. Marshlink could be OHLE from Ashford and to do the western part of the North Downs Line you just need to convert the 3rd rail section between Reading to Wokingham (6mi 66ch according to RailMiles) to have a 25kv spur coming off from the GWML as far as Ash. Keeping the 3rd rail in Wokingham station would allow Reading to Waterloo services to switch from OHLE to 3rd rail there. Whether you also convert Ash to Guildford from 3rd rail to OHLE is a trickier one, as I can't see it being very practical to have both 3rd rail and OHLE at Guildford but if you could dual-electrify there then you could potentially have Reading to Redhill/Gatwick services do most of the journey on OHLE and only switch from OHLE to 3rd rail at Reigate for the rest of the run from there to Redhill/Gatwick. I wonder if converting 6 miles of 3rd rail to OHLE would persuade the ORR to allow 6 miles of new 3rd rail elsewhere, as you aren't increasing total 3rd rail...

If I remember correctly, part of the Electric Spine project was an aspiration for converting Basingstoke - Southampton to OHLE, so services could run on the electric down from Reading to Basingstoke on OHLE and then onto Southampton via the SWML.

Would require new or modified stock at SWR though.

I think you do remember correctly. Personally I thought they should just use class 92s, they have 3rd rail and OHLE capacity do they not? The 444s and 450s already have pantograph wells though so the modification should be straightforward although if I was converting 3rd rail to OHLE for the sake of it I would start from Weymouth and work towards Southampton (unless I am remembering incorrectly that there are pretty serious power supply limitations on 3rd rail on the Weymouth line - is it true that anything more than a 5-car 444 down there would overload the system?).

 

[Legolash2o]

There seems to be a few errors here or there where they've assume two lines are connected (see bottom right of attached image) or the Skegness line. Page 208.

On the same image, some of the lines are black but aren't actually electrified as well.

 

[59CosG95]

Personally I thought they should just use class 92s, they have 3rd rail and OHLE capacity do they not? The 444s and 450s already have pantograph wells though so the modification should be straightforward although if I was converting 3rd rail to OHLE for the sake of it I would start from Weymouth and work towards Southampton (unless I am remembering incorrectly that there are pretty serious power supply limitations on 3rd rail on the Weymouth line - is it true that anything more than a 5-car 444 down there would overload the system?).

Class 92s are, IIRC, the greediest electrics in the UK that can operate outside the Channel Tunnel (I believe the Eurotunnel Class 9s are greedier still, but can't fit elsewhere as they're built to Continental loading gauge). Reading-Basingstoke is due to be fed from a National Grid connection at Bramley (ATFS; AKA the Reading Independent Feeder), and the SWML is fed from a lineside substation just off the A339, but the latter would need lots of modifications to cater for the voltage change.

You are correct about the limitations on the SWML west of Poole; only one 444 in an electrical section in each direction at any one time.

 

[Domh245]

There seems to be a few errors here or there where they've assume two lines are connected (see bottom right of attached image) or the Skegness line. Page 208.

On the same image, some of the lines are black but aren't actually electrified as well.

The bottom right of that image is London, for which accurately recreating the state of play is going to be difficult with the density!

I don't know which lines you are querying with the second point, but remember that black doesn't mean "currently electrified" but that electrification has already been committed too. It's why Kettering - Market Harborough is shown in black, despite not being actually announced yet.

 

[Bald Rick]

Class 92s are, IIRC, the greediest electrics in the UK that can operate outside the Channel Tunnel

On D.C. yes, not AC. A Pendolino draws more on AC.

 

[Elecman]

Yes, elsewhere in the report it does mention that if everything that currently has diesel under wires was switched to electric 40% of the power supplies in the country would be well under capacity required in other words considerable power supply upgrade will already be needed. I wonder where Windermere would feed from - Catterall (but I thought that feed south) or Great Strickland? I am sure there is/was another one in the area before the WCML power supply upgrade and switching to Auto Transformer (Nateland off memory).

Natland 132Kv Feeder is disconnected , the traction Feeder is Oxenholme 400Kv ATFS about 400 yards south of Oxenholme station, the next feeder North is Penrith 132 Kv then Harker 400Kv, going south is Catterall 132Kv Feeder. Catterall is intended to feed Southwards not Northwards.

 

[ABB125]

Am I right in saying that (according to the map) the only lines recommended for hydrogen are the Anglian coastal branches, and possibly the Heart of Wales and mid-Wales lines?

 

[popeter45]

what does "ancillary electrification" entail?

 

[Domh245]

what does "ancillary electrification" entail?

5.8.5 In deploying the methodology outlined in section 5.7 there were a number of areas of the network which were only marginally within the parameters of “single option”.
5.8.6 For electrification, these areas are identified on the maps as “ancillary” electrification. For the purpose of the analysis these routes have not been split out as the methodology identifies them as requiring electrification. However, it was felt prudent to identify areas which when assessed emerged marginal. For battery and hydrogen, where distance is on the fringe of the capability of the relevant technology this has been identified in the supporting commentary contained within Appendix 8

Essentially, it's lines that are only marginally in favour of electrification under the current methodology.

 

[hwl]

Am I right in saying that (according to the map) the only lines recommended for hydrogen are the Anglian coastal branches, and possibly the Heart of Wales and mid-Wales lines?

Pretty much.
In terms of clear Hydrogen or probably Hydrogen with further analysis needed?
Scotland is sitting on the fence for another ~15 years hence "alternative" is only north of the border is effectively hydrogen but an outside chance of battery in places. This is the bulk of the Hydrogen mileage in the plan

 

[43096]

One of the interesting bits was this summary of the relative capabilities of electrification and the "bionic duckweed" alternatives. It's really simple: get the wires up.

 

[ABB125]

One of the interesting bits was this summary of the relative capabilities of electrification and the "bionic duckweed" alternatives. It's really simple: get the wires up.
View attachment 83425

What interests me is how freight gets an amber light for battery, but only red for hydrogen. Presumably this is for "last-mile" capability, where fitting a small battery is relatively easy, but hydrogen is too much of a faff?

 

[HSTEd]

Indeed. Though pathway 4 looks yikes - up to 922 STKs in a year max - can’t see the treasury signing up for that.

Its also the only one with a chance in hell of being finished in time to matter.

 

[Domh245]

What interests me is how freight gets an amber light for battery, but only red for hydrogen. Presumably this is for "last-mile" capability, where fitting a small battery is relatively easy, but hydrogen is too much of a faff?

It does seem so. Skimming through their analysis of the different traction methods:

• to date no hydrogen-powered trains for freight or capable of 125 mph have been announced; 145 km/h (90 mph) is the current maximum being made available;

Which reading between the lines seems to be "sticking batteries in a loco for last mile capability is possible/proven*, hydrogen isn't"

*they reference Clayton Battery Shunters earlier in the document