An Alternative Approach To Provide A Local Metro Network
The UK rail industry is looking at the creation or upgrading of three local metro networks Bristol, Cardiff and Teesside. You could also argue, that they are seriously thinking about local networks out of Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield.
The Objectives Of A Metro Network
So what do passengers and train companies want to see in a metro?
I would say that the most successful metro lines we have created in the last few years have been the London Overground lines.
They operate under the following rules and principles.
- Quality electric trains – Quality diesels would be fine in some places
- Frequencies of four trains an hour. – Two or three trains per hour might suffice.
- Clean stations, many of which are step-free.
- A station improvement program.
- Reliable service.
- Visible staff on stations from first to last trains.
- Extensive and visible information and maps.
- Touch in and out ticketing with bank cards.
- Good links to local buses.
The major problem of the Overground is that the trains keep needing to be lengthened, as they get crowded. The Class 378 trains started at three-cars and are now five.
Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds and Liverpool seem to be using similar principles.
So how do three proposed metro networks stack up?
Cardiff
Let’s look at the electrification of the Cardiff Valleys Lines. According to the Wikipedia, the cost of the electrification is £350million.
I just wonder, if the scheme could be made more affordable, if the project was redesigned to use Aventra IPEMUs. The trains would obviously need sufficient electrification at Cardiff and Newport, so that they would leave the coast for their trips up the valleys with a full charge. Coming down wouldn’t be a problem and as the trains have regenerative braking, they would even charge the batteries.
Extensive testing would be easy once the current is switched on at Cardiff in a couple of years time and the clincher would be if an Aventra IPEMU could take a full load of Welshmen up to Merthyr Tydfil or Ebbw Vale after an international rugby match at the Millennium Stadium.
The scope of work would be greatly reduced.
- Upgrading all stations to take a four car train.
- Upgrading of the track layout and signalling, so that four car-trains could use each branch in an efficient manner.
- There may be a need for some selective electrification, to ensure trains left fully charged, or for other operational reasons concerning diversions from the South Wales Main Line or for freight.
There are advantages to this approach.
- Passengers get shiny new four-car trains, instead of refurbished hand-me-downs.
- As money would be spent on trains, track and signalling rather than electrification, this could mean more trains and increased frequencies on the lines.
- The Aventra trains could also take over some longer distance services to Bristol, Cheltenham, Fishguard and Gloucester.
- Much of the network, probably only needs minimal upgrades to track and signalling.
- There would be little or no heavy construction work in difficult places.
- Much of the construction work on the stations has probably been completed.
- There would be few line closures during the construction phase.
- Bridges and tunnels that are not large enough to accept the overhead wires can be left as they are, unless the line is being opened up for freight traffic running to a larger gauge.
- A higher proportion of the work to do will be general construction, rather than specialist overhead line installation, where there is a chronic shortage of engineers.
- There is little scope for something to go seriously wrong.
- The major source of delay would be late delivery of the Aventra IPEMU trains, but this would only mean that the diesel trains that currently work the line, would continue to serve the line for longer.
It strikes me that this approach has only one loser – the construction companies, who have helped create the electrification fiasco we have in this country. Passengers, train companies and the Welsh economy would all benefit!
According to this article on Global Rail News, London Overground’s contract for 45 Aventra trains is worth £260million. This works out at around £5.8million for each train. If the Aventra trains could work the Cardiff Valley Lines, with a little bit extra for the batteries or other energy storage device, twenty trains would probably cost around £140million or £7million a train.
I don’t know how many four-car trains they’d need to work the Valley Lines, but surely there is a trade-off between electrification and Aventra IPEMUs.
I can’t believe that Network Rail are not looking at this alternative approach, where instead of spending money on expensive and difficult electrification, the money is spent on shiny new trains built in a nice warm factory.
Teesside
The Tees Valley Metro is rather stillborn. The only thing that happened was the creation of James Cook station.
But there are two small electrification projects that could happen in the area in the near future.
- Hitachi are building electric trains at Newton Aycliffe and this will probably mean that the Tees Valley Line will at least be electrified between the Hitachi factory and the East Coast Main Line at Darlington.
- Plans exist to electrify between Middlesbrough and the East Coast Main Line, so that the town could benefit from a much improved train service.
If say this electrification were to be sufficient so that Aventra IPEMUs could be fully charged as they travelled from say Saltburn to Bishop Auckland, Phase 1 of the proposed Tees Valley Metro would get the new trains it will need.
Improve the stations and add a few new ones and you’d have a local railway to rival any in the UK.
In some ways if Aventra IPEMUs were used to develop the Metro everything would be in the opposite order to the traditional way of rebuilding a local line.
Normally, you close a line at great inconvenience to everyone, do a lot of construction and then spend months testing the new trains or trams, before a grand opening.
Compare this to upgrading a new line to run Aventra IPEMUs,
- Any work on the line to perhaps lengthen platforms and passing loops, and update signalling would be done first.
- Provided there is enough electrification to charge the trains, Aventra IPEMUs can be introduced alongside the existing trains, as they arrive from the factory and drivers and other staff have been trained.
- Adding new stations, is just a series of small well-defined construction projects, programmed to be done at convenient times and according to the budget.
- Other existing lines can be added to the system, if they are within the capability of the train and the platforms, track and signalling can accept the new trains.
A local network can be built by stealth in a series of small steps.
In Teesside’s case, you would certainly add the Phase 2 of the proposed Teesside Metro between Nunthorpe and Hartlepool.
An interesting possibility would be the Esk Valley Line to Whitby, if the Aventra IPEMU could manage the distance. If it couldn’t a Vivarail D-train certainly could.
Looking at the map, I feel that an Aventra IPEMU could be used on the Northern Rail service from Hexham via Newcastle, Sunderland, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough to Nunthorpe. It would charge the batteries running through Middlesbrough and Newcastle, and I don’t think any of the unelectrified stretches of line are more than thirty miles.
Bristol
Bristol has plans for creating a Metro, based on the two stations at Bristol Temple Meads and Bristol Parkway, which will be electrified (hopefully!) in the near future.
There are lines going all over the place providing services from outlying suburbs and towns to the centre.
Bristol has an opportunity to create a metro in the area, by upgrading all of the lines so they can take four-car trains, with longer platforms and updated track, signalling and stations. But in common with the rest of the country, there isn’t really any sensible trains available, although services could be developed using a collection of Pacers, D-trains and dodgy diesel unit.
However, once the two main stations are electrified, when the budget allows, Aventra IPEMUs could be introduced to the network.
So instead of one massive and expensive project, the metro is created in a series of small steps that don’t inconvenience passengers or train companies.
Other Services
When I discussed Teesside, I said this.
Looking at the map, I feel that an Aventra IPEMU could be used on the Northern Rail service from Hexham via Newcastle, Sunderland, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough to Nunthorpe. It would charge the batteries running through Middlesbrough and Newcastle, and I don’t think any of the unelectrified stretches of line are more than thirty miles.
How many other lines and services fall into this category of lengths of electrified line joined by no more than a total of sixty miles of unelectrified line that can easily be bridged by an Aventra IPEMU running on batteries?
I think these lines could fit the profile.
- Blackpool South to Colne – When Blackpool electrification is finished
- Carlisle to Newcastle
- Hexham to Middlesbrough
- Liverpool and Manchester Victoria to Leeds, York and Newcastle – The gap is just 43 miles
- Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Oxford Road via Warrington Central
Many are currently served by Pacers and others are served by diesel multiple units like Class 150 or Class 156 trains, that could in turn replace Pacers.
The most significant line is the TransPennine route from Liverpool to Newcastle, which could really transform travel by being run by four-car Aventra IPEMUs rather than inadequate three-car Class 185 diesel trains.
Someone at Bombardier has done a very good job in designing a train to circumvent the problems of electrification in the UK.
Project Costs And Cash Flows
I would be interested to see properly audited figures for the traditional electrification approach and one using Aventra IPEMUs.
There are surely various benefits that the Aventra IPEMU approach will bring to the costs.
- The costs of the trains will be just a matter of negotiation, whereas the cost of electrification is not so predictable.
- Enlarging bridges and tunnels to take the overhead wires, is an expensive process and often results in unexpected problems, that cost a fortune to solve. With the Aventra IPEMU, most infrastructure can be left untouched, unless it needs to be replaced anyway.
- Most construction to accept the new trains, will be small projects, that can be handled by any competent construction company, whereas overhead line installation is a specialist construction job.
- Electrification often seems to attract those who object to the overhead line equipment spoiling the view of an important rural landscape or cityscape. Aventra IPEMUs only need sufficient to charge the batteries.
- With the Aventra IPEMU approach some new trains could be working on the network much earlier than they would be under a traditional approach. In some projects, will this have a beneficial cash flow?
I also come to the conclusion, that the Aventra IPEMU approach is more likely to deliver an affordable project on budget to an agreed time-scale, as the risk profile of electrification is so much worse than building a train on a production line in a factory.
One of the benchmarks of good project management is being able to deliver what is agreed. I believe that an Aventra IPEMU approach is much more likely to hit targets, as there is much less to go wrong.
Railways in the UK need a succession of successful projects, that impress engineers, train companies and passengers alike.
What better way to restore their credibility than for Network Rail, to deliver a series of projects that give millions of passengers efficient new electric train services all over the country.
The Anonymous Widower 