Are there any ‘Easy Win’ electrification projects that are worth looking at?

[Benjwri]

And a larger scheme / AC - my top pick would be Marylebone to Oxford (ideally wired from Didcot). You'd be freeing up 8tph (2 stoppers, 2 Oxfords, each direction, more in peaks) which would seem the greatest frequency freed up by a scheme that I can see.

If Oxford to Marylebone was getting electrified, it would be almost criminal not to electrify Didcot to Oxford, possibly up to Banbury too. I have no figures but would assume it would free up the highest amount of units per mile electrified, 2-3 166 diagrams and all the London - Oxford fasts could be run by 387s, significantly freeing up DMU and Bi-Mode units for the West.

 

[yorksrob]

Very true, but It is also worth pointing out that a live rail cutting the countryside in half and big concrete substations are also not good green solutions and are more complex and expensive to make and maintain than unelectrified track.
It's a balancing act, as it always has been.

Ore to Three Oaks is 2 miles, Ashford to Ham Street is 5 miles. Three Oaks to Ham Street is 17 miles. You can achieve small extensions either end (maybe not all the way to Ham Street, but certainly enough to get the trains moving) within the existing capacity of the power supply, but extending all the way will require new substations.

Indeed, which is why the 1tph for Uckfield and Rye make batteries a more sensible option than they would be if the frequency was higher. The North Downs is the trickier one because not only does it have a higher frequency but it also has lots of different classes operating on it, so the financials of maintaining the battery operation are less clear.

Having said that, I firmly believe that all EMUs will be carrying batteries as standard in the near future, especially the third rail ones which currently carry a massive concrete block around to replicate the weight of the AC transformer gear. May as well have that weight doing something useful.

The railway already cuts the countryside in half, live rail or no live rail, and sub-stations don't have to be big concrete blocks (see the chalet style ones built for Tonbridge - Bo-Peep electrification in 1986.

 

[MattRat]

The railway already cuts the countryside in half, live rail or no live rail, and sub-stations don't have to be big concrete blocks (see the chalet style ones built for Tonbridge - Bo-Peep electrification in 1986.

See, it revolves around this idea that we need to, and can, make things safer for idiots. The problem that this idea comes into, however, is that God can just invent a better idiot, so to speak.

 

[zwk500]

The railway already cuts the countryside in half, live rail or no live rail,

A permanently live rail makes it far more dangerous to wildlife attempting to cross though. But that wasn't a main point of why third rail is no longer the only option, or an easy win.

and sub-stations don't have to be big concrete blocks (see the chalet style ones built for Tonbridge - Bo-Peep electrification in 1986.

Such as this one? https://www.google.com/maps/@51.145...=66.33023&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192

 

[yorksrob]

A permanently live rail makes it far more dangerous to wildlife attempting to cross though. But that wasn't a main point of why third rail is no longer the only option, or an easy win.

Such as this one? https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1459237,0.2750872,3a,75y,246.5h,93.13t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQHtgZ9CbAbuk7qo8HAEo7Q!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=QHtgZ9CbAbuk7qo8HAEo7Q&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&w=203&h=100&yaw=66.33023&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192

I don't know whether that's a new one, but those built for the electrification in 1986 had a far more attractive chalet style.

 

[cle]

If Oxford to Marylebone was getting electrified, it would be almost criminal not to electrify Didcot to Oxford, possibly up to Banbury too. I have no figures but would assume it would free up the highest amount of units per mile electrified, 2-3 166 diagrams and all the London - Oxford fasts could be run by 387s, significantly freeing up DMU and Bi-Mode units for the West.

Agree 100% - I wrote that I'd assume Didcot-Oxford done by the time Chiltern got there.

As to Banbury, I'd think Chiltern getting there would be more important than GW getting there from Oxford. Purely as that is another 1tph done (and another if get to Aylesbury).

Whereas Banbury-Oxford/Padd is infrequent. It would only benefit a future XC bi-mode coming up from Reading. If wires went to Oxford to Coventry, now you're talking.

On the other hand, continuing up to Moor St would enable the fated Oxford-Moor St service to interwork with Marylebone. Let's do Cowley from day one too, on that note.

Snow Hill lines are more complex, but absolutely should be done as there is a metro core / second Cross-City which could be much much better patrnonized.

 

[12LDA28C]

Marylebone to Oxford as the next big one does seem an obvious choice.

How exactly is electrifying Marylebone to Oxford an 'easy win'? If it was that easy it would have been done years ago.

Not to mention rather pointless having wires on the Chiltern main line only as far as Bicester South Junction and not continuing on to Birmingham.

 

[Benjwri]

As to Banbury, I'd think Chiltern getting there would be more important than GW getting there from Oxford. Purely as that is another 1tph done (and another if get to Aylesbury).

Whereas Banbury-Oxford/Padd is infrequent. It would only benefit a future XC bi-mode coming up from Reading.

For any kind of freeing up of the turbos you need to go to Banbury though. By the time this was completed the branch lines on the GWML will most likely be battery, and North Downs will have had something done to it, at least battery trains. You’d have to keep at least 2 turbos at Reading, and maintain the facilities to maintain them, just for Banbury. That is of course unless whatever bi or trinmode solution is found for North Downs could work Banbury too.

 

[Mikey C]

Having said that, I firmly believe that all EMUs will be carrying batteries as standard in the near future, especially the third rail ones which currently carry a massive concrete block around to replicate the weight of the AC transformer gear. May as well have that weight doing something useful.

There's a big difference though between having backup batteries in case of power failure or for use in depots, and batteries big enough to power units in regular operation, for 18 hours a day.

And flipping the argument, nobody would suggest ripping out the entire 3rd rail network and replacing it with batteries. Or indeed the London Underground 4th rail network, considering that's far more dangerous in terms of passenger numbers and proximity to the lethal live rails...

 

[zwk500]

How exactly is electrifying Marylebone to Oxford an 'easy win'? If it was that easy it would have been done years ago.

Not to mention rather pointless having wires on the Chiltern main line only as far as Bicester South Junction and not continuing on to Birmingham.

Sorry, I'd drifted slight from just 'easy wins'. In no way is Chiltern/Snow Hill an easy win. Although it is worth doing. It's not pointless to do the line in stages, but yes I agree the end goal should be to have the Chiltern routes fully wired.

There's a big difference though between having backup batteries in case of power failure or for use in depots, and batteries big enough to power units in regular operation, for 18 hours a day.

Only in the size of the battery capacity, tbf. It's less than the difference between a diesel genset for hotel power and a diesel genset for moving the train.

And flipping the argument, nobody would suggest ripping out the entire 3rd rail network and replacing it with batteries.

I actually do think there are certain branches where de-electrification might make sense, although that is with a long-term strategy (funding awaited ) for conversion of the 3rd rail network to OLE in mind (or perhaps in cheek!?). However nobody will be ripping anything out because the cost of doing so outweighs any savings, unless you did it when a substation was life-expired.

Or indeed the London Underground 4th rail network, considering that's far more dangerous in terms of passenger numbers and proximity to the lethal live rails...

Costs, again. And the particulars of the underground's tunnel constructions.

If you were electrifying the SR region today you'd do 25KV AC OLE. If you were building the London Underground from scratch today you'd do it as 750v DC bottom-contact, a la DLR. The cost of ripping each system out and refitting the infrastructure for said systems however is completely disproportionate when we have existing areas still being operated on diesel.

 

[yorksrob]

See, it revolves around this idea that we need to, and can, make things safer for idiots. The problem that this idea comes into, however, is that God can just invent a better idiot, so to speak.

Ah yes, but they've always been with us !

 

[JamesT]

Costs, again. And the particulars of the underground's tunnel constructions.

If you were electrifying the SR region today you'd do 25KV AC OLE. If you were building the London Underground from scratch today you'd do it as 750v DC bottom-contact, a la DLR. The cost of ripping each system out and refitting the infrastructure for said systems however is completely disproportionate when we have existing areas still being operated on diesel.

750V DC bottom contact, or would you go 1500V DC overhead like say Barcelona?

 

[Trainbike46]

750V DC bottom contact, or would you go 1500V DC overhead like say Barcelona?

overhead would take more space, which would very quickly push things towards a bottom-contact third rail solution in th space-limited LU tunnels.

tbh it is somewhat disappointing that it isn't possible to design shoegear that would work with both top and bottom contact third rail and be safe - if it was the safety case for third-rail extension would be easier to make, and existing routes could have bottom contact retrofitted whenever significant work was happening on the third rail anyway

 

[eldomtom2]

I actually do think there are certain branches where de-electrification might make sense, although that is with a long-term strategy (funding awaited ) for conversion of the 3rd rail network to OLE in mind (or perhaps in cheek!?).

I don't see how you need to de-electrify branches to convert 3rd rail lines to OHLE.

 

[Brubulus]

A hybrid system could work for the Snow Hill lines, with the Stourbridge-Tyseley section electrified, and the rest running on battery trains with chargers at Stratford and Worcester.

 

[cle]

How exactly is electrifying Marylebone to Oxford an 'easy win'? If it was that easy it would have been done years ago.

Not to mention rather pointless having wires on the Chiltern main line only as far as Bicester South Junction and not continuing on to Birmingham.

Well we’ve had Windermere to death so I thought I’d mix it up. It’s only 50 odd miles. Would do much more than Cardiff-Swansea, for instance.

And that’s the majority of the route, with Aylesbury. And the more stopping services which would benefit more - 5tph.

But yes ideally up to Birmingham too.

 

[12LDA28C]

Well we’ve had Windermere to death so I thought I’d mix it up. It’s only 50 odd miles. Would do much more than Cardiff-Swansea, for instance.

And that’s the majority of the route, with Aylesbury. And the more stopping services which would benefit more - 5tph.

But yes ideally up to Birmingham too.

66 miles, not including the Aylesbury branch, or are you suggesting wiring a 40mph single line as well?

 

[Calum1]

What about thr Maryhill line, what no more than say 12/13 kilometres

 

[cle]

How exactly is electrifying Marylebone to Oxford an 'easy win'? If it was that easy it would have been done years ago.

Not to mention rather pointless having wires on the Chiltern main line only as far as Bicester South Junction and not continuing on to Birmingham.

Well we’ve had Windermere to death so I thought I’d mix it up. It’s only 50 odd miles. Would do much more than Cardiff-Swansea, for instance.

66 miles, not including the Aylesbury branch, or are you suggesting wiring a 40mph single line as well?

Well only with the Oxford main piece - which would make it an “easy win” as a short branch with 1tph each way - and bang, back on topic

 

[daodao]

Not at all, nothing wrong with subsidy as long as those who provide it are given a chance to hold the decision makers to account.

It's a bit of a distraction now. I'd say extend 3rd rail from Hurst Green to Edenbridge but then you're well into battery range. Marshlink also may get a small extension of 3rd rail to Three Oaks and Ham Street, but oLancan battery between Shalford and Reigate. However it may have to settle for just 3rd rail to the next station/a convenient point at the existing limits and batteries.

Marylebone to Oxford as the next big one does seem an obvious choice.

SE England has more than its fair share of electrification. I suggest that there are a number of lines in Lancashire and Yorkshire that merit electrification somewhat more. The ex-CLC route via Warrington would be an "easy win" as both ends are already electrified. Once Leeds-Huddersfield is electrified, I would tackle the ex L&Y core routes: Preston and Manchester Victoria via Sowerby Bridge to Bradford Exchange/Leeds and Mirfield, with branches such as to Colne. Electrification of these lines should be prioritised over any further electrification in well-heeled Buckinghamshire/Oxfordshire.

 

[The Ham]

SE England has more than its fair share of electrification. I suggest that there are a number of lines in Lancashire and Yorkshire that merit electrification somewhat more. The ex-CLC route via Warrington would be an "easy win" as both ends are already electrified. Once Leeds-Huddersfield is electrified, I would tackle the ex L&Y core routes: Preston and Manchester Victoria via Sowerby Bridge to Bradford Exchange/Leeds and Mirfield, with branches such as to Colne. Electrification of these lines should be prioritised over any further electrification in well-heeled Buckinghamshire/Oxfordshire.

Electrification should be done regionally (it's going to be costly if you've got house or transport staff >100 miles from where they are based), as such projects in one region shouldn't impact on the viability of one in another region.

If the population spends it's time fighting against "others" it's got no energy left to fight for what they want.

If we could deliver a rolling program of 40 single track miles of electrification per region per year from (say) 2028 (with it being ramped up to that from the current rates), we could deliver 320 miles across the England (I've assumed that London and the Southeast are the same region due to their fairly high level of electrification.

Whilst that would be huge (1,600 single track miles per control period), it would still take about 35 years to electrify everything in England).

Whilst it would get less efficient as we get closer to the end (with resources then having to move about more, for example from the Southeast to the Southwest or Midlands) this would also be too deal with those lines with the lower justification for electrification.

I've excluded Wales and Scotland as have started their own electrification projects, however chances they would have similar targets.

 

[zwk500]

I don't see how you need to de-electrify branches to convert 3rd rail lines to OHLE.

because dual-electrification is a pain in the neck to maintain and the Southern is too busy for long-term blockades to convert everything at once.

 

[eldomtom2]

because dual-electrification is a pain in the neck to maintain and the Southern is too busy for long-term blockades to convert everything at once.

When you say "dual-electrification", are you referring to the track or the trains?

 

[zwk500]

When you say "dual-electrification", are you referring to the track or the trains?

Track. There's a reason sections equipped with both systems are kept as short as possible.

 

[The Planner]

Surely the easier easy wins are the ones where you can tap into existing feeds and not cause issues. I suspect that list is somewhat smaller.

 

[Ken H]

Surely the easier easy wins are the ones where you can tap into existing feeds and not cause issues. I suspect that list is somewhat smaller.

Windrmere then....

 

[The Ham]

Windrmere then....

And Basingstoke/Reading

 

[12LDA28C]

And Basingstoke/Reading

But with which system? Third rail or OHLE? Or are you assuming bi-mode trains.

 

[zwk500]

But with which system? Third rail or OHLE? Or are you assuming bi-mode trains.

Reading to Basingstoke will be OLE when/if it gets electrified. The Branch service is self-contained, and you'll need bi-modes anyway for XC and Freight.

 

[cle]

I agree on good regional distribution, but Colne’s 1tph two car service must be at the bottom of the list. It interworks with Blackpool South and Ormskirk too - so those would need doing.

I just can’t see it - when CLC and Calder, or Crewe-Chester, remain unwired.