Holyhead electrification

[mmh]

Furthermore it's been a requirement since at least the 1950s for new bridges over railways that may later be electrified to have suitable clearance.

Even if that's the case, "no we have no plans to electrify there, fill your boots..."

Returning to the Conwy area rather than the Britannia Bridge (on which I think there was an implication by someone earlier that a new road bridge could mean the road deck could be removed - every option being considered retains the road deck, either used as as one of the A55 carriageways or as a new "local" road)

Conwy would prove a major obstacle to electrification, not just technically but environmentally and politically. There's a reason the A55 passes in a (at the time) novel and massively expensive tunnel rather than a cheaper bridge.

The Llandudno Junction flyover Road bridge is post 1950, but it's clearance is only about 14 feet. Nearby, the 6G Road doesn't appear particularly higher, neither does the A470 bridge over the line at the junction with the A55. If that's not tall enough, raising it would be extremely difficult if not impossible. It already rises at a far from ideal incline.

 

[snowball]

Even if that's the case, "no we have no plans to electrify there, fill your boots..."

I believe the rule says "any line that may be electrified" and is not dependent on whether there is a current policy to electrify the line. I've started a separate thread about this. I think that in practice all new bridges over the railway have had electrical clearance for many decades.

Conwy would prove a major obstacle to electrification, not just technically but environmentally and politically. There's a reason the A55 passes in a (at the time) novel and massively expensive tunnel rather than a cheaper bridge.

The Welsh government and local bodies have been calling for decades for the line to be electrified. The intrusiveness of new OLE over an existing railway is vastly less than that of a new dual carriageway.

 

[paul1609]

Well Bidston to Wrexham is high on the priority list of Merseytravel for conversion to battery power with Class 777s.

Bidston to Wrexhams a 54 mile return trip, isn't that way beyond the 777 battery range?

 

[Class 170101]

Ah, sorry, I meant Acton Bank. I think that the Felixstowe to Wentloog liners could then be electric from Ipswich, if the curve was electrified.

Not sure the Wentloog terminal itself is electrified.

 

[Richard Scott]

Not sure the Wentloog terminal itself is electrified.

It isn't so would need diesel assistance for last few hundred yards.

 

[Leeds1970]

There has been mutterings of electrification of the coast since the early 1980's so I wouldn't expect any thing to happen in the next 20 years if indeed ever.
One of the problems with the Conwy tubes is that the rails run on wooden beams and wooden cross member's so I would assume some form of fire suppression equipment would be needed if electrified in case of arching. Avalanche tunnel as its name suggests, is a bit precarious and would require huge amounts of stabilization works. As for Britannia bridge it has sufficient clearances.

 

[david1212]

I can not see how electrification of Chester - Holyhead without also both Chester - existing 25kV network towards Manchester and Liverpool and Chester - Crewe being electrified.

Given at best several years away I see discontinuous electrification as the realistic option with trains have batteries to cover the gaps as non will be long. With planning in total how many trains are required to cover services to / from Liverpool & Manchester, South Wales and Shrewsbury then London ?

Avanti have the 13 diesel bi-mode class 805 on order. These in time could have the diesel pack removed and replaced with batteries.

If this approach was chosen following on could discontinuous electrification for Newport - Chester be viable given at least with current technology too long for battery throughout and hydrogen technology has a long way to go before the UK has a train fleet ?

 

[Mollman]

https://www.transportinfrastructure...speed-2-trains-to-continue-past-conwy-castle/

Calls for High Speed 2 trains to continue past Conwy Castle​

9 May 2022
North Wales business group Growth Track 360 has stepped up its campaign for “visionary” rail investment in the region by calling for an electrified coastal line to accommodate High Speed 2 trains.

Ukrainian fine arts undergraduateNataliia Marchuk produced this conceptual artwork for Growth Track 360
It says an enhanced North Wales Mainline from Crewe to Holyhead would allow HS2 trains to run directly into the country from the planned high speed network in England.
To help the public to visualise the proposal, it commissioned a fine arts undergraduate from the University of Chester to paint a scene showing one of the new high speed trains passing Conwy Castle, half way along the North Wales line.
“This call for electrification and enabling HS2 connectivity on the line is explicit and timely as we look to see another phase of development work for the North Wales coast mainline to be included in the new Rail Network Enhancement Pipeline,” said Stephen Jones of Growth Track 360.
It suggests that an announcement on an updated rail pipeline could come from the UK Government following the Queen’s Speech on Tuesday.

Chester station. Image: N Chadwick and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons licence
The group is also calling for a complete modernisation of Chester station, a new station at Deeside Industrial Park and transformation of the Wrexham to Bidston line to allow ‘metro frequency’ trains to run from Wales into Liverpool.
Growth Track 360 chair Louise Gittins, who is also leader of Cheshire West & Chester Council, said: “With the local elections settled and new railway legislation about to be launched by the UK Government, now is the time to bring forward the investment programme we need to support a long term and irreversible improvement to the economic fortunes of our cross-border region.”
She added that the group stands ready to work with the Department for Transport, Welsh Government, Transport for Wales and Network Rail to bring about such a transformation.
North Wales Mersey Dee Business Council chief executive Ashley Rogers remarked: “As we strive for a sustainable, net zero carbon future along with economic recovery from the pandemic it is critical for the UK Government to release the funds necessary to accelerate the long overdue investment programme for our region’s rail infrastructure network.”
The Department for Transport was approached for comment.

 

[Llandudno]

https://www.transportinfrastructure...speed-2-trains-to-continue-past-conwy-castle/

Yawn…!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I must have missed that bit of the Queen's Speech.
I don't think the word "Wales" was uttered once.
But we are going to get "improved rail services" with GBR.

 

[mmh]

I must have missed that bit of the Queen's Speech.
I don't think the word "Wales" was uttered once.
But we are going to get "improved rail services" with GBR.

We have all the improvements we need. I noticed today TFW have taken down the "Metro is coming" banner at Llandudno Junction. No, it isn't. I didn't bother complaining about it. It's completely pointless. Maybe soon they'll take down the "you must buy a ticket before boarding" poster at Conwy and replace it with something more useful like a timetable.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'd have thought there's no chance of electricfication to Holyhead happening by the end of the decade.

It’s in Modern Railways April

Could you provide the page number please? I don't remember seeing it in Modern Railways and it doesn't tie up with the Future Developments for North Wales shown on the TfW website which show only new stations, enhanced frequencies and bus/active-travel improvements as priorities for 2029. Electrification to Holyhead is included under "longer term projects". That is in contrast to south Wales where extension of electrification from Cardiff to Swansea is a priority for delivery by 2029.

Electrification to Holyhead would be very difficult.

[snip]

The cost:benefits ratio for this are going to be ridiculous. It's not the low hanging fruit for electrification some make it out to be.

Judging by TfW's maps (North Wales one linked above) TfW would seem to agree with you since it is considered a long-term project not a priority for delivery by 2029.

The core valley lines infrastructure has been devolved to Wales, infrastructure in North Wales has not.

Correct, but that didn't stop the Welsh Government funding (at least in part) the partial redoubling between Wrexham and Chester. While electrification would be a much bigger project that that, the Welsh Government's road trunk road capacity programme is being reviewed and will hopefully be ditched as incompatible with the need to prevent climate change. That would free up many £millions for use on other projects, perhaps including rail investment.

There are plans for a third bridge at Menai, replacing the A55 road route over the rebuilt Britannia bridge with a separate dual carriageway to the east.

The new A55 bridge is one of the schemes under review. The estimated cost for that scheme alone is "over £130m dependant on option selected".

Furthermore it's been a requirement since at least the 1950s for new bridges over railways that may later be electrified to have suitable clearance.

If that's the case, then the suituation is rather different than that faced between Wrexham and Chester where space has apparently only been left for double track at one of the two new road over/under bridges that were built between the line being singled and the redoubling project.

Local/regional traffic is non-electrified, without also wiring to Warrington/Crewe, Shrewsbury, Wolverhampton and Newport.

HS2 has resolutely refused to put Chester/North Wales on its services map, as they don't want to fund the necessary electrification for through services.
So London services will not use HS2 and will stay on the slower WCML.

The current pattern of services along the north Wales coast will not necessarily remain once HS2 reaches Crewe. In my opinion, the Chester-Wrexham-Shrewsbury services (aside from the 3 per day mark 4 workings to/from Cardiff) should be decoupled from the north Wales coast with the latter instead gaining faster services to Birmingham via Crewe and Stafford. This would both provide faster journeys to Birmingham and mean that electrification of Chester-Wrexham-Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton would not be required for north Wales services.

Tfw have lots of aspirations regarding the Welsh railways

Yes they do, and some of them conflict with some of the others.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Electrification to Holyhead would be very difficult.

The Crewe - Chester line has numerous very low bridges. Too many for an interrupted electrification scheme to work, they'd need demolishing. It also has the very tight Christleton Tunnel - which can't raised because there's a canal over it, and can't be lowered because it's prone enough to flooding as it is.

As you go down the coast, it doesn't get much better. Lots more tunnels, the Brittania Bridge, the railway wrapping around the walls of Conwy Castle, and probably the biggest hurdle of all - the Conwy railway bridge. Putting wires or a bar through a Grade 1 listed wrought iron tube is going to make for an interesting challenge.

I'm sure none of these problems are insurmountable by any means - but they'll be very expensive. And what do you get in return? Avanti have been very slow to return their North Wales services to normal post Covid, showing how low it is on their list of priorities. TfW are keen in increase their services on the route - but almost all of them continue on to other routes that are also unlikely to be electrified.

The cost:benefits ratio for this are going to be ridiculous. It's not the low hanging fruit for electrification some make it out to be.

The Conwy castle section isn't too much of a problem, you'd just have to use ECML (East Coast Main Line) MK3 headspans which are very aesthetically pleasing. Or you can use a special type of electrification gantry that has been used on, funnily enough, also the ECML (Royal Border Bridge near Berwick upon Tweed station, and south of Durham station)

Although as you rightly point out, they can be really expensive.

Can the Christleton Tunnel not use conductor rail? Severn Tunnel shows that it won't be a challenge

 

[craigybagel]

Can the Christleton Tunnel not use conductor rail? Severn Tunnel shows that it won't be a challenge

I'm no expert but I'd be surprised if they can - it's two very tight single bore tunnels, I'm not convinced there's the clearance available, even for a conductor rail.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

I'm no expert but I'd be surprised if they can - it's two very tight single bore tunnels, I'm not convinced there's the clearance available, even for a conductor rail.

Ahh right, so I guess the only two solutions is either discontinuous electrification with battery under the tunnel, or third rail under the tunnel. But the latter will require lots of operational and technical challenges that it should probably be ruled out.

But wait I just remembered - is it not possible to use electrical resistant paint like they have done in Cardiff?

I'm no expert but I'd be surprised if they can - it's two very tight single bore tunnels, I'm not convinced there's the clearance available, even for a conductor rail.

This actually reminds me, as a result, is the tunnel restricted to some types of stock because of height? For example here in South East England, class 455s cannot run through the Oxted tunnel due to tight clearances, therefore only 377s, 171s and 700s are allowed.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I'm no expert but I'd be surprised if they can - it's two very tight single bore tunnels, I'm not convinced there's the clearance available, even for a conductor rail.

So rebore a la Farnworth at great cost is option or battery etc

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Some gauge clearance was done to allow 390s to be hauled (dead) by 57s from Crewe to Holyhead (track lowering mostly).
That included Christleton tunnel and the Conwy tubes.

 

[snowball]

So rebore a la Farnworth at great cost is option or battery etc

As previously discussed there's a canal just above. A check with the map shows the canal is at high skew and the crossing occupies the full length of the tunnel. Without having access to full dimensions I imagine it would be possible to replace the tunnel with an aqueduct as at Carmuirs.

 

[craigybagel]

As I've said before, there's probably lots of ways it COULD be done - it's just going to be extremely expensive.

 

[AndrewE]

As previously discussed there's a canal just above. A check with the map shows the canal is at high skew and the crossing occupies the full length of the tunnel. Without having access to full dimensions I imagine it would be possible to replace the tunnel with an aqueduct as at Carmuirs.

would that not cost more than having battery-fitted electric rolling stock? (which is needed in lots of other places for various reasons, so ought to be widely available soon at a reasonable price.)

ISTR that it has been claimed that there are numerous listed bridges between Crewe and Chester which can't accommodate wires. There was a projected method of lifting a brick arch intact by tensioning it then putting spacers/packing in under it, but that seems to have gone quiet. It would be very odd if the upgrading and decarbonising of the railway was stopped by old bridges which aren't of any particular merit beyond their age.

I think gauge-clearance (when we are talking about electrification) is not usually to do with upward clearances for the wire itself, but actually about the ends of the pantograph horns. The Forth rail bridge is the prime example of this, with lots of diagonal bracing just above the loading gauge. (My proposed solution - which could be applied much more widely - is a special restricted-width and height pantograph for the stock on the lines where it is needed. Most stock stays on its home patch and I am sure this would allow 25kV AC to be put in lots of lines where it is currently deemed "too difficult," i.e. costly. Foreign railways have been able to cope with separate pantographs for massively different voltages for decades now, surely we could manage one for limited headroom? )

As I've said before, there's probably lots of ways it COULD be done - it's just going to be extremely expensive.

Why should it be? Discontinuous electrification or continuous but with a limited-clearance pan woud deal with it.

 

[KevinTurvey]

Whilst the ferry connections might justify an Intercity type train every 2-3 hours, and we could probably do with some more summer Saturday trains, does electrification of circa 100 miles really represent a good use of money when the combined population of Holyhead, Bangor, Llandudno, Rhyl and Prestatyn is about 100,000? We have so many missing links and stubs with bigger populations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst the ferry connections might justify an Intercity type train every 2-3 hours, and we could probably do with some more summer Saturday trains, does electrification of circa 100 miles really represent a good use of money when the combined population of Holyhead, Bangor, Llandudno, Rhyl and Prestatyn is about 100,000? We have so many missing links and stubs with bigger populations.

It's less about population and more about the fact that burning dead dinosaurs has to stop. But if you are willing to restrict to a dedicated fleet, then it could be discontinuous electrification.

One thing we will have to wait and see (and it's going to be hard to predict) is if the majority of passengers value retaining/reinstating a through London service in the long term, or if post-HS2 everyone will just switch to HS2 at Crewe, as it's so much quicker, and in that case it might be better to run something like an hourly Holyhead to Birmingham via Crewe and Stafford, which could be wholly TfW operated, alongside the Liverpool and Manchester services, and those could all use dedicated battery fitted EMUs?

It's fairly likely freight locos will end up being battery fitted in those sorts of timescales, too, so freight may not be an issue.

 

[craigybagel]

Why should it be? Discontinuous electrification or continuous but with a limited-clearance pan woud deal with it.

Does your proposed limited clearance pan actually exist? Regardless, if you're going for a bespoke solution either with the rolling stock or the infrastructure, it's not going to help what is already a pretty awful BCR.

Whilst the ferry connections might justify an Intercity type train every 2-3 hours, and we could probably do with some more summer Saturday trains, does electrification of circa 100 miles really represent a good use of money when the combined population of Holyhead, Bangor, Llandudno, Rhyl and Prestatyn is about 100,000? We have so many missing links and stubs with bigger populations.

Exactly this. Electrifying North Wales seems an odd choice in a world where there are no wires across the Pennines, along the Chiltern line, the Birmingham Snow Hill routes, half of the Midland Mainline (and many more) would seem rather odd.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly this. Electrifying North Wales seems an odd choice in a world where there are no wires across the Pennines, along the Chiltern line, the Birmingham Snow Hill routes, half of the Midland Mainline (and many more) would seem rather odd.

All of them need doing. Scotland has got it bang-on.

 

[craigybagel]

All of them need doing. Scotland has got it bang-on.

Very true. But in a world of tight budgets where we can't do them all at once, surely there are better uses of that limited budget than electrifying North Wales?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Very true. But in a world of tight budgets where we can't do them all at once, surely there are better uses of that limited budget than electrifying North Wales?

Certainly there's ones I'd do before it. It might be worth indeed waiting until HS2 2A opens to see what the effect is on through London traffic, as that might inform the approach. I reckon people will start changing at Crewe for HS2 instead and the classic line service will be deserted unless it's very, very cheap.

 

[AndrewE]

Does your proposed limited clearance pan actually exist? Regardless, if you're going for a bespoke solution either with the rolling stock or the infrastructure, it's not going to help what is already a pretty awful BCR.

No, but neither does a working BEMU, or discontinuous wiring. I think that not having to raise bridges, or give up the Forth Bridge as impossible, or accept that Crewe to Chester is impossible, or wiring narrow tunnels in 3rd-rail land would all justify a simple smart fix. Keep the OLE as it is (but a bit lower locally) with no neutral sections or gaps and just switch pantographs as needed.

A narrow pan with a limited heght could easily be developed for these situations, and most stock has spare or duplicated pantograph wells which could be used. Speeds are usually limited in such places anyway, so a narrow pan wouldn't really be a problem, wire height can be surprisingly low too!

 

[craigybagel]

Certainly there's ones I'd do before it. It might be worth indeed waiting until HS2 2A opens to see what the effect is on through London traffic, as that might inform the approach. I reckon people will start changing at Crewe for HS2 instead and the classic line service will be deserted unless it's very, very cheap.

Agree with all of that. It would be nice to see it electrified in time for the start of HS2 to allow through running but in the current climate it's hard to justify things that are merely "nice".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agree with all of that. It would be nice to see it electrified in time for the start of HS2 to allow through running but in the current climate it's hard to justify things that are merely "nice".

Through running onto HS2 is an interesting option, it's not proposed in the current service model but if Golborne isn't built there is a spare portion to do it. (If a bit slower would be OK, even in the Golborne plan there's scope to use the other half of the Macclesfield 200m unit which would leave HS2 around Stafford - and there might be the other half of one of the Liverpools which leave it at Crewe spare too).

I doubt that could be done with "specialist" (e.g. discontinuous or lower-voltage) electrification, though.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

A study to do so , was part of the original Virgin franchise deal way back in 1996. They got a tick in the box for doing the study.

Of course , I dug it out and read the report , unsurprisingly it said the further west you went , the more challenging the results in terms of costs and utility. There was a very half hearted attempt at tapping up the EU for funding , key route Europe / UK to Eire etc , but the EU listened semi politely , but spent their funds on schemes in Iberia and of course Poland etc. Long time ago. Not helped by the diesel strategy in what became TfW eventually , and of course the collapse of container traffic via Holyhead.