Acton area electrification extras that should be considered?

[a good off]

mods note - split from here

It should’ve been done years ago, and why the Conn Line and South West Sidings aren’t being done at the same time is beyond me.

 

[59CosG95]

It should’ve been done years ago, and why the Conn Line and South West Sidings aren’t being done at the same time is beyond me.

MVP (Minimum Viable Product) principles in full and merry swing.

TfL (the Lizzie Line) only requires the Poplar lines' electrification, not any forwarding connections to the WCML, MML or Chiltern ML, to achieve their aim of providing an alternative electrified connection to Ilford while the GWML is closed to all lines in the OOC area.

 

[a good off]

Well hopefully now the Poplars are being finally done it will act as a catalyst to do the Conn and South West. The operational flexibility it would create would be excellent, e.g. through AC running from Scotland to Cardiff.

 

[zwk500]

Well hopefully now the Poplars are being finally done it will act as a catalyst to do the Conn and South West. The operational flexibility it would create would be excellent, e.g. through AC running from Scotland to Cardiff.

Those connections will only get wired if somebody has a very good reason to want it done, not on the off chance it might be helpful. Short connections between different sets of lines are awkward.

 

[a good off]

The operational benefits would be immense, especially for freight traffic and interregional transfers. That alone should be enough for the greater good, in my opinion.

 

[The Planner]

The operational benefits would be immense, especially for freight traffic and interregional transfers. That alone should be enough for the greater good, in my opinion.

Are there really that many? I can't see what freight would use it and once OOC is done, GWR won't use it.

 

[a good off]

Not much at the moment but just having it available would unlock lots of opportunities.

 

[zwk500]

Not much at the moment but just having it available would unlock lots of opportunities.

Not really. To make use of it you'd need either a shunter at the terminal once the wires run out, loco change en-route (to allow the diesel for the yard) or bi-mode/last mile. Shunting and Loco change increases cost, and a Bi-Mode/last mile. wouldn't need the connecting chords wired anyway.

The only people who would really benefit from having odd jobs wired are Railtour operators.

 

[a good off]

Why would you need a shunter or loco change to accommodate through AC running from the WCML if the Conn and SW were wired up? Would also provide AC running to Acton Wells via Primrose Hill. For the sake of wiring up two less than a mile sections, I stand by my statement that the benefits and operational flexibility that would be unlocked would be a no brainier, in my opinion.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

----- the benefits and operational flexibility that would be unlocked would be a no brainier, in my opinion.

In my opinion too for what it is worth!

 

[Ashley Hill]

Are there really that many? I can't see what freight would use it and once OOC is done, GWR won't use it.

GWR won’t exist as such next year. What’s to say its successor (GBR?) might take up the option of running some services into Euston instead of turning everything at Reading during disruption?

 

[greatkingrat]

GWR won’t exist as such next year. What’s to say its successor (GBR?) might take up the option of running some services into Euston instead of turning everything at Reading during disruption?

Even if they did, all their trains are bi-mode, so they don't need the connecting lines to be electrified.

 

[D7666]

The difficulty with such short connections between electrified lines (same at Kentish Town/Junction Road) is the two separate existing electrification schemes will be on quite separate electrical supplies, and thus need a neutral section between them. As the connections are notably graded between lines at different levels, and as trains between them, especially heavy freight, will be travelling slowly, with signals protecting the various junctions in close proximity being regular stopping points, it can thus be extremely difficult to design the arrangements without substantial reworking on either side.

Can not be that big a deal.

As the thread is about this project that is going ahead, finding reasons suggesting extreme difficulty it is not really any valid argument.

 

[zwk500]

Why would you need a shunter or loco change to accommodate through AC running from the WCML if the Conn and SW were wired up? Would also provide AC running to Acton Wells via Primrose Hill. For the sake of wiring up two less than a mile sections, I stand by my statement that the benefits and operational flexibility that would be unlocked would be a no brainier, in my opinion.

The terminals aren't wired (and can't really be for overhead gantry cranes - reach stackers and the like maybe it's easier to have a solution). You'd run an AC loco from the throat of one yard to the other via a wired SWS but you'd need something to move it off the wires at either end, or to run a 66 from the terminal to a nodal yard and then stick the lecky on the front (and the reverse at the other end).

Or you avoid all of that by having an on-board battery (i.e 88/93/99), which then avoids the need to wire the SWS in the first place.

Can not be that big a deal.

As the thread is about this project that is going ahead, finding reasons suggesting extreme difficulty it is not really any valid argument.

Difficulty drives costs up. That's the issue. You have lots of short gaps that are expensive to fill, with nobody really able to make any use of the capability if it is fixed. A battery onboard every Electric train is a far better investment for "the railway" (although of course the fragmented structure stops a lot of that type of vision), as it can be used in far more situations than wires which are fixed to foundations.

 

[D7666]

Difficulty drives costs up. That's the issue. You have lots of short gaps that are expensive to fill, with nobody really able to make any use of the capability if it is fixed. A battery onboard every Electric train is a far better investment for "the railway" (although of course the fragmented structure stops a lot of that type of vision), as it can be used in far more situations than wires which are fixed to foundations.

Yes, but to repeat, this project IS going ahead, the postings I am responding too seem to imply "too difficult to do" - clearly not that difficult if the project is going ahead.

Armchair commentators posting project XYZ can't go ahead because of A or B or C when the industry has already XYZ under way are not helpful to anyone else understanding things.

 

[DelW]

Even if they did, all their trains are bi-mode, so they don't need the connecting lines to be electrified.

Apart from the 387s?

 

[WiredUp]

MVP (Minimum Viable Product) principles in full and merry swing.

TfL (the Lizzie Line) only requires the Poplar lines' electrification, not any forwarding connections to the WCML, MML or Chiltern ML, to achieve their aim of providing an alternative electrified connection to Ilford while the GWML is closed to all lines in the OOC area.

Very much a blend of MVP and PACE.

It would be great to infill further to connect onto the WCML but that is not in scope and would require additional funding (and another Neutral Section…)

 

[Somewhere]

GWR won’t exist as such next year. What’s to say its successor (GBR?) might take up the option of running some services into Euston instead of turning everything at Reading during disruption?

They'd have to be in/out crews, sign the route, and have the capacity at Euston

 

[WiredUp]

It’s very unlikely. Diversions to Euston are Planned only to deal with the OOC ALB’s.

 

[a good off]

The terminals aren't wired (and can't really be for overhead gantry cranes - reach stackers and the like maybe it's easier to have a solution). You'd run an AC loco from the throat of one yard to the other via a wired SWS but you'd need something to move it off the wires at either end, or to run a 66 from the terminal to a nodal yard and then stick the lecky on the front (and the reverse at the other end).

I get that bit but with the modern bi/tri mode locos coming in which are fitted with a last mile diesel engine, it wouldn’t be an issue to access sidings or terminals. There’s no way something like an 88 in diesel mode would lift a heavy freight quickly around there. I’m only a controller for that section, what would I know.

 

[The Planner]

GWR won’t exist as such next year. What’s to say its successor (GBR?) might take up the option of running some services into Euston instead of turning everything at Reading during disruption?

You won't do it on the fly. There isnt a small amount of work to get GWR in Euston on a planned basis, let alone disruption.

 

[Ashley Hill]

They'd have to be in/out crews, sign the route, and have the capacity at Euston

Route learning for GWR staff is happening now!

You won't do it on the fly. There isnt a small amount of work to get GWR in Euston on a planned basis, let alone disruption.

It’s just a possibility. One hopes there might be some joined up thinking under a new regime.

 

[Bald Rick]

The operational benefits would be immense, especially for freight traffic and interregional transfers. That alone should be enough for the greater good, in my opinion.

Which interregional transfers, and how big is ‘immense’ in £££?

 

[Horizon22]

GWR won’t exist as such next year. What’s to say its successor (GBR?) might take up the option of running some services into Euston instead of turning everything at Reading during disruption?

Well you’re presume the issue causing the disruption is located between Acton - Paddington and not the much larger Acton - Reading which is unlikely and also you wouldn’t be saving time / recovering the service going to Euston, you would be extending the time.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Well you’re presume the issue causing the disruption is located between Acton - Paddington and not the much larger Acton - Reading which is unlikely and also you wouldn’t be saving time / recovering the service going to Euston, you would be extending the time.

Fire alarms at Paddington etc. There was a time when trains were turned around at Ealing Broadway at such times to give passengers access to LU. Running into Euston at short notice would give better connectivity to passengers than being booted out at Reading to wait events. Having said that I suppose the Liz Line now fulfils that issue.

 

[Horizon22]

Fire alarms at Paddington etc. There was a time when trains were turned around at Ealing Broadway at such times to give passengers access to LU. Running into Euston at short notice would give better connectivity to passengers than being booted out at Reading to wait events. Having said that I suppose the Liz Line now fulfils that issue.

But the chance of that happening is much much lower than a Thames Valley infrastruture problem. I'd say 99/100 the issue is not because of no (not reduced) access to Paddington. You'd probably delay the booked return journey with all the excess time unless the controllers amended the outbound departures from Euston. Not to mention the likelihood of the crew for inward train A not doing the return train B

Over time I imagine route knowledge would dwindle too.

 

[takno]

Fire alarms at Paddington etc. There was a time when trains were turned around at Ealing Broadway at such times to give passengers access to LU. Running into Euston at short notice would give better connectivity to passengers than being booted out at Reading to wait events. Having said that I suppose the Liz Line now fulfils that issue.

I don't remember that ever happening regularly, and I suspect on a normal day now that LU would be dangerously overwhelmed by passenger numbers there. Assuming it's a problem with Paddington mainline you will of course be able to terminate at old oak common in the future and dump people onto crossrail there

 

[The Planner]

Fire alarms at Paddington etc. There was a time when trains were turned around at Ealing Broadway at such times to give passengers access to LU. Running into Euston at short notice would give better connectivity to passengers than being booted out at Reading to wait events. Having said that I suppose the Liz Line now fulfils that issue.

GWR are doing 2tph into Euston, you cannot fit more without taking more trains off the WCML. You cannot suddenly send vast amounts on a whim.

 

[Taunton]

Fire alarms at Paddington etc. There was a time when trains were turned around at Ealing Broadway at such times to give passengers access to LU. Running into Euston at short notice would give better connectivity to passengers than being booted out at Reading to wait events.

Wasn't a lot of money paid for the bi-mode capability of diesel/electric on the GW 800s precisely to handle such a situation of running a short stretch away from the wires?