First Great Western’s Pragmatic Large And Little Solution To The Problems Of Great Western Electrification
The electrification of the Great Western Main Line from West of Airport Junction to Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea is proving to be a difficult project to deliver.
This article on the BBC web site talks about the problems and starts with these paragraphs.
Electrifying the Great Western line is “a top priority”, the transport secretary has said, as he announces a rethink of a £38bn programme to overhaul Britain’s railways.
Patrick McLoughlin said Network Rail’s five-year plan was being “reset” as it was “costing more and taking longer”.
In an ideal world, the whole of the Great Western Main Line and its branches to places like Worcester, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Exeter,Plymouth and Penzance would be electrified.
But it was never intended to electrify the major branches and for a time InterCity 125 diesel trains will be used on these lines.
Then in February 2014, the sea wall at Dalwish was breached in a storm and much of the track and Dawlish station was washed away. Although the line was rebuilt in a few months, it is only recently that the sea wall and the walk alongside the railway has been reinstated.
The force of the storm probably put an end to thoughts for many years of fully electrifying the line from Exeter to Plymouth and Penzance
The Large Class 800 Electro-Diesel Train
The trains that will work the Great Western Main Line to Bristol and Cardiff are the Hitachi Super Express, which comes in two variants.
The two trains are very similar, but the Class 800 has on-board diesel engines to generate electricity. Wikipedia says this.
The Class 800 units will be electro-diesel multiple units, able to draw power from electrified overhead lines where available and power themselves via underfloor diesel generators outside of the electrified network. The train specification requires that this changeover can occur at line speed. The trains are able to be converted to electric only operation by removal of the diesel engines
Current plans are for 21 9-car Class 801 and 36 5-car Class 800 to replace 60 InterCity 125.
With no prospect of electrification to Devon and Cornwall and because of the nature of the line with gradients, First Great Western have taken the pragmatic decision to order twenty-nine more trains, which will effectively be a variant of the Class 800, but with uprated diesel-engines and larger fuel tanks. It’s reported in this article in the Railway Gazette International.
So the total fleet will eventually be 47 9-car trains and 39 5-car trains of all new variants to replace 60 2+7 InterCity 125 and 5 5 car Class 180 trains.
So it would appear that about 490 x 23 metre cars will be replaced by 618 x 26 metre cars. On a crude calculation that is just over a forty percent increase in capacity, with a sixteen percent increase in the number of trains.
When everything is delivered towards the end of this decade, First Great Western would seem to have available a substantial increase in capacity, with a large proportion of the fleet having a go-anywhere capability because they are electro-diesel trains.
So it looks like some of these trains will be used to extend the network, as well as increase the frequency to Devon and Cornwall.
But there will be no need to need for any extra electrification. Although of course if there were, this would only be to the advantage of the electro-diesel trains, which would run on electric power for longer.
The Little Class 387 IPEMU
If the rumours about the Class 387 trains for First Great Western in this month’s Modern Railways are true, then some or all of the eight trains on order will be IPEMUs, with an on-board battery to power the train for up to sixty miles.
Modern Railways said this about their use.
Delivery as IPEMUs would allow EMUs to make use of as much wiring as is available (and batteries beyond) while electrification pushes ahead under the delayed scheme, and in the longer term would allow units to run on sections not yet authorised for electrification, such as Newbury to Bedwyn. The use of IPEMUs might also hasten the cascade of Class 16x units to the west of the franchise.
As Newbury to Bedwyn is probably less than twenty miles, a Class 387 IPEMU could easily do the trip out and back on a battery, charged whilst running from Paddington.
There is also a small problem highlighted in a section entitled Review after May 2015 general election in an article on Wikipedia describing the Great Western electrification.
This has led to speculation that the GW electrification scheme (although it remains “top priority”) could be cut back. On 27 May 2015, the website of Theresa May, MP for Maidenhead, contained the following: “… a recent report stated that it would not be ‘technically feasible’ for electrification to go ahead on the Marlow branch, raising questions about the future of the Henley branch as well”
The Marlow and Henley branches are 7.25 and 4.5 miles long respectively and mainly run a shuttle service to the main line with occasional services to Paddington.
So would it be more cost-effective to use a Class 387 IPEMU on these branches, as there would be no need to electrify the lines?
If a Class 387 IPEMU was good enough for these branches, what about the other branches on the Great Western Main Line to Greenford and Windsor and Eton Central?
The only work that would need to be done on these branches to accept the 4-car Class 387 IPEMU would be some platform lengthening and electrifying any bay platforms they use on the main line.
There may be other places on the Great Western Main Line, where electrification can be omitted by the use of the Class 387 IPEMU.
Class 387 IPEMU Or Aventra IPEMU?
This question has to be asked.
The Class 387 train on which the Class 387 IPEMU will be based is a member of the Electrostar family of trains, that have been produced by Bombardier since 1999,
The Electrostar is being superseded by the new Aventra family and the first orders have been placed for Crossrail and the London Overground.
The improvements in the Aventra design are summed up here in Wikipedia. This is said.
The multiple units have been designed to be lighter, more efficient, and have increased reliability. They will have lightweight all-welded bodies, wide gangways and doors to shorten boarding times in stations, and ERTMS. The design incorporates FlexxEco bogies which have been used in service on Voyagers, Meridians and newerTurbostars.
The design features a gangway design that allows maximum use of the interior space and ease of movement throughout the train.
As the Aventra is a new train, that has been designed since the successful IPEMU trial with a Class 379 in 2014, I do wonder if it has been designed with the ability to be fitted with an on-board battery to make it an Aventra IPEMU! In this article on Global Rail News this is said.
AVENTRA can run on both 25kV AC and 750V DC power – the high-efficiency transformers being another area where a heavier component was chosen because, in the long term, it’s cheaper to run. Pairs of cars will run off a common power bus with a converter on one car powering both. The other car can be fitted with power storage devices such as super-capacitors or Lithium-Iron batteries if required. The intention is that every car will be powered although trailer cars will be available.
So every Aventra can be converted to an Aventra IPEMU! And as that article was written in 2011, it increasingly looks like the IPEMU trial was a test of one of the new systems for an Aventra.
It would surely be a big advantage to a train operator running a fleet of Aventras, if they could add and remove battery packs as their schedules required.
But surely, because of the fact that an Aventra is lighter and more efficient than a Class 387, I wouldn’t be surprised that the range of an Aventra IPEMU is greater than the sixty miles quoted for the prototype.
Every extra mile, that the train can complete on batteries would open up new routes.
I suspect too that the Aventra IPEMU will have more customer appeal than a Class 387 IPEMU.
No-one will believe that a train running on batteries could possibly be a viable proposition, so at least if it looks like one of the new Crossrail Class 345 trains, passengers would at least think the train was modern.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if the order for Class 387 IPEMU was delivered as Aventra IPEMUs.
Oxford
To say that Oxford station has had planning problems in the last few years would be a massive understatement. I talked about them in Network Rail’s Problems In Oxford.
According to this article on the BBC, planning permission has at last been given to extend platforms at the station, so that Chiltern Trains can run services to the city.
But there is no mention of a new platform on the South side of the station, as is mentioned in Future Expansion in the station’s Wikipedia entry.
Or any mention of electrification either!
So will Network Rail postpone the new platform and the electrification to Oxford?
If they do, then First Great Western can serve the city by Class 800 trains going along the Cotswold Line to and from Evesham and Worcester.
First Great Western could also still use the current Class 165/6 trains, but they would like to cascade them to other places on their network.
Now here’s a thing!
Didcot to Oxford is probably less than thirty miles, so once Didcot is electrified, Oxford could be easily reached by an IPEMU.
If this happened Oxford would get new 110 mph 4-car electric trains to replace 90 mph 2-car and 3-car diesel trains.
The electrification needed for the East-West Rail Link would be done later, when Oxford decided to join the twentieth century.
Rolling Stock Cascade
At present First Great Western has a fleet of diesel multiple units that work the Thames Valley Services.
- Sixteen 3-car Class 165 trains
- Twenty 2-car Class 165 trains
- Twenty-one 3-car Class 166 trains
These will be replaced by twenty-one 4-car Class 365 trains from Great Northern and twenty-nine 4-car Class 387 trains cascaded from Thameslink as the new Class 700 trains arrive.
Another order for eight 4-car Class 387 trains has been placed and it is this order that Modern Railways said could be for IPEMUs.
In terms of carriages 151 diesel carriages are being replaced by 232 electric ones.
According to this document on the ATOC web site, this will happen to the Class 165 and Class 166 trains.
Some will be displaced by electrification (and the resulting cascade) on Great Western. One option is that they remain in service, to accommodate growth and to provide a cascade of Class 15x vehicles, subject to necessary modifications and PRM-TSI.
So it looks like they will be used to replace the outdated Class 15x trains.
Cardiff to Portsmouth
Cardiff to Portsmouth is a route run by First Great Western. When I went from East London To Yeovil By The Long Way, I used a First Great Western Class 158 train from Fratton to Salisbury. I said this in the related post about the journey.
I think this journey shows up our trains in a reasonable light. The journey times are slow not because of slow trains, but because of the frequent stops and complicated route. The journey took three hours seventeen minutes from Littlehampton to Yeovil, but there was only thirty-three minutes wasted in connections.
Although some trains date from the 1980s, there wasn’t anything as bad as the dreaded Pacers that inhabit the North. The services were pretty well-used and except for the short leg from Littlehampton to Fratton, there was a catering trolley on all trains.
I do think though, that perhaps this journey might be better done in something like a 4-car Class 800. Although, there isn’t much electrification to make use of until you get to Bristol, once you’ve left Southampton.
An IPEMU wouldn’t be much help, as it’s a long way between Cardiff and Portsmouth.
So is there a need for a 4-car Class 800 train, optimised for long cross-country routes, where there is not much electrification or high-speed running?
Conclusion
The Large and Little approach by First Great Western seems to be a pragmatic way around the problems of the Great Western electrification.
The new Class 800 trains and their closely-related siblings will enable services to be expanded at the extremities of their network, without any need for full electrification.
If all or some of that future order for eight Class 387 trains, was for the IPEMU variant or were even Aventras, so long as electrification reached Newbury and Didcot, new Class 387 IPEMUs could run to Marlow, Henley, Windsor, Oxford and Bedwyn.
One side effect would be the release of Class 165/6 trains, currently used on the routes out of Paddington and the branch lines, for other services on their network.
Rumours Of Battery Powered Trains
In the September edition of Modern Railways, there is an article entitled Class 387s Could Be Battery Powered.
The Class 387 train is an electric train, where the first twenty-nine members of the class are running on Thameslink between Bedford and Brighton. Built in Derby by Bombardier, they are possibly the last variant of the numerous Electrostar family. When the new Thameslink Class 700 trains are delivered, these units will be transferred to First Great Western to run services out of Paddington on the electrified Great Western Main Line.
At present Bombardier are building twenty-seven new Class 387 trains to run the Gatwick Express out of Victoria.
When this order is complete, they will build another eight units for services out of Paddington, for delivery in late 2016.
It is these eight trains that are rumoured to be capable of battery running, using technology I saw demonstrated and talked about in Is The Battery Electric Multiple Unit (BEMU) A Big Innovation In Train Design?
If you still think these trains aren’t practical, there is a BBC video on YouTube of the Class 379 IPEMU during its tests at Manningtree.
In their article, Modern Railways says the following.
Delivery as IPEMUs would allow EMUs to make use of as much wiring as is available (and batteries beyond) while electrification pushes ahead under the delayed scheme, and in the longer term would allow units to run on sections not yet authorised for electrification, such as Newbury to Bedwyn. The use of IPEMUs might also hasten the cascade of Class 16x units to the west of the franchise.
Note that these trains are now called IPEMUs or independently powered electric multiple units.
It looks to me, like the rolling stock engineers at Bombardier in Derby are getting their fellow engineers in electrification out of trouble.
Having a small number of IPEMUs could be very useful to train companies, as they could be used tactically to perhaps extend electric services, when the wires are being installed or onto a scenic branch line, where putting up overhead wires would be strongly opposed. They could also be used for blockade busting, say when a tunnel or bridge is being rebuilt.
It would be interesting to see the cost difference between a standard Class 387 and one with batteries, as this would determine, whether to electrify say a branch or use IPEMUs.
Other Places For An IPEMU
Also in Modern Railways are three articles, where an IPEMU could be the solution.
- Hull Trains are reported looking for a bi-mode fleet to run their Hull services, as they would bridge the unelectrified seventy miles of line between Selby and Hull. A Class 387 IPEMU probably doesn’t have enough performance, but it might be capable of running the route.
- Services to Blackpool have also been approved, which if the electrification is not ready in time, is a route that could be handled by a Class 387 IPEMU.
- Roger Ford is also talking about Open Access Hotting Up. Some of the routes would be ideal for a Class 387 IPEMU, as lots of places without a decent service to London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow or other large cities, are thirty or so miles off a main electrified line. Places like Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Sudbury, Cromer, Lincoln, Skrgness, Wisbech, Windermere, Chester and Burnley come to mind.
I also think, that as the years pass, IPEMU technology will get better and much more efficient with a longer range when running on the batteries. Drivers will also learn how to coax the maximum range out of the trains.
This could enable services like.
- London to Norwich via Cambridge
- London to Salisbury
- Ipswich to Cambridge and Peterborough
- Manchester to Sheffield
- Newcastle to Carlisle
In my list, there would seem to be a large number of routes in East Anglia. But then Anglia Greater Anglia were part of the trials of the test train.
Visual Intrusion Of Electrification
I think too, we shouldn’t underestimate the lack of visual intrusion if say a picturesque branch line was to be served by an IPEMU rather than by a traditional electric train. The Windermere branch and some lines in South Wales may well be better served by a more visually acceptable IPEMU.
Affordable Electrification
I have listed that these IPEMU trains would be able to run between Carlisle to Newcastle.
I don’t know the Tyne Valley Line well, but it is about sixty miles long and has electrified lines at both ends. Traditional electrification may require a lot of bridge and station reconstruction to accommodate the overhead wires, whereas a Class 379 IPEMU could use the line without any modifications to infrastructure, as it can use any line that the current Class 156 trains on the line can. There would of course be a need to make sure that at both ends of the line, there was sufficient electrification to fully charge the train for its return journey.
So the cost of replacing diesel trains on this line with modern electric ones, would be solely the cost of the new trains, and perhaps the cost of a small amount of electrification in the stations and the stabling sidings at each end of the line.
In this case, I suspect Network Rail would breathe a big sigh of relief, if they didn’t have to electrify this line, with all its logistical and possibly environmental problems.
How many lines in the UK, could be electrified this way?
Route Proving For Electrification
The lines in East Anglia from Felixstowe and Ipswich to Cambridge and Peterborough are not electrified.
They carry a large amount of freight to and from the Port of Felixstowe, so if they were to be electrified the benefits of replacing Noisy and polluting diesel locomotives with environmentally-friendly electric ones is probably easily calculated.
But how do you calculate what will happen when two and three car diesel multiple units, albeit modern Class 170 trains, with new four-car electric ones?
In the case of these East Anglian lines, you could run a Class 379 IPEMU on the line.
The only problem after the test was completed, would the passengers allow their brand-new ekectric train to be moved elsewhere.
But you would get an accurate figure to put in your costings for electrification.
Electro-Diesel Freight Locomotives
Nobody except possibly the operators, love the Class 66 locomotive, which is extensively used for freight in the UK. It doesn’t meet the latest EU regulations and it’s noisy and unloved by the drivers to whom I’ve spoken.
Electrifying freight routes like Felixstowe to Nuneaton, would allow operators to send freight trains between Felixstowe and the Midlands, North and Scotland, using electric haulage all the way.
Next year, we’ll see the first of the new electro-diesel locomotives; the Class 88, which is an electric locomotive, that can use an on-board diesel engine, where there are no overhead wires.
How will these and other locomotives using similar technology affect the costs and need for electrification?
In the case of any electrified route to a port like Felixstowe or London Gateway, overhead wires in the port can present a problem, which an electro-diesel locomotive solves, as it uses the on-board diesel, anywhere near the sidings in the port.
Class 800 Trains
The Class 800 train being introduced in a few years is an electro-diesel train, which has been designed to run at 200 kph to the farthest corners or the UK, as a replacement for the diesel InterCity 125.
The specification of the train and what they’ve seen so far of the prototype must have impressed First Great Western as they’ve ordered extra trains as Wikipedia reports.
In March 2015 First Great Western agreed to acquire 29 bi-mode Hitachi AT300 (Class 800 variant) trains as HST replacements on services in and to the southwest of England. The order consisted of 22 five-car and 7 nine-car trainsets, with an option for 30 more sets. Differences with the original design included more powerful diesel engines more suited to steeper graded line in Devon and Cornwall, as well as larger fuel tanks. A £361 million contract between FGW and rolling stock leasing company Eversholt Rail was signed in July 2015. The expected introduction date of the new trains was summer 2018.
So where else could these trains appear to provide high speed services on routes with no or only partial electrification?
The Class 800 is closely related to the Class 395 train used on High Speed and third-rail routes South of the Thames. So could we see a third-rail version of the Class 800, or an electro-diesel Class 395 variant, which could run from St. Pancras to Hastings and Eastbourne and from Waterloo to Salisbury and Exeter? This would kill any thoughts of adding more third-rail electrification.
The Class 387 IPEMU and the Class 800 are a Little and Large combination to provide a cost-effective alternative to full electrification of some routes across the UK.
Conclusions
The Class 387 IPEMU, could be a component of a series of solutions, that bring high-quality new electric or electro-diesel trains to a large portion of the UK.
My only worry about them is the battery technology of the IPEMU, which has reportedly been troublesome in some applications on buses and aircraft.
A Perfect Storm In Ilford
This article from the Ilford Recorder is entitled Redbridge Council leader says Ilford town centre has ‘the perfect storm’ for regeneration.
It talks about a billion pound of investment in the next six years.
So it does look like one of the more dreary parts of East London is going to be improved.
In my view, it shows how Crossrail is going to regenerate large swathes of London.
Although, in the article, I do think that that the design for homes on the Sainsburys site on Roden Street, is very much out of the design manual of Soviet Russia, that I saw in Nova Huta.
Ilkeston Railway Station
Ilkeston wears the badge of the largest town in England without a railway station. This section in Wikipedia, details the history of railways in the town. This is an extract.
Following a long-running local campaign, in March 2013 Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin announced that Ilkeston was one of three sites ‘most likely’ to get a new station as part of the ‘New Stations Fund’, costing £5 million and sited close to the old Ilkeston Junction station. On the 15 May 2013 it was announced this new station would be built. It will have two platforms, which can take six trains per hour with up to six passenger cars and will include waiting shelters. A 150 space car park, cycle storage, bus stop, drop off point and taxi rank will also be on the site. The station will be unmanned with automated ticket machines and was originally scheduled to open by the end of 2014. Due to the discovery of great crested newts and flood prevention work means the opening has been delayed by four months, and will not open until 2015.
So why is there so little apparent progress? Search Google News for the station and it’s all about flooding, newts and lack of progress.
I have found an unofficial web site for Ilkeston Railway station, where there are some interesting posts.
The biggest progress seems to be that you can find the station on Google Maps.
Ilkeston Station
This is a picture that I found on this page of the Derbyshire County Council web site.
Ilkeston Station Visualisation
I feel that I should take another trip to Nottingham and make a detour to Ilkeston.
How To Build A Railway
This article from Rail Engineer, discusses the building of the Borders Railway.
It doesn’t have seem to have been plain sailing all the way. One section deals with what Network Rail called the Utilities Challenge.
In discussion with Hugh, it was clear that the diversion of public utilities was one area where some work had not gone well. Although some utilities had diverted their services in an effective manner, other companies had proved problematic and had not been able to give a time for their diversions. Some utilities had many different departments, were very procedurally orientated and could not programme their work effectively. For example, materials could not be ordered until a certain stage was complete.
Often problems were discovered at a late stage. In one case, a problem on an associated route required a road closure that then delayed work for a further three months. Hugh felt that, for some companies, the length of their supply chain would not be acceptable on railway projects. Effective liaison is not possible when the project only has contact with two men digging holes who are sub-sub-contractors.
Doesn’t any of us who’s ever connected a new property to the mains know of the arrogance of those doing the work.
It’s happened before to transport projects.
This article on the BBC web site, which talks about delays to the construction of Phase 2 of the Nottingham Express Transit says this.
The contractors blamed the latest delay on the need relocate underground utilities.
This article on the Wolverhampton Express and Star talks about delays to the construction of the Midland Metro.
Issues that have caused the delays include underground utilities not being in the locations that transport authority Centro were led to believe, and the strength of the slabs currently in place.
Perhaps Network Rail and other big users of utilities, should create a web site, where we can all enter our complaints.
Or how about a web site called How To Sue Your Surveyor!
Dreadful Doncaster
Doncaster is a town that doesn’t deserve to have a football team.
I went to the match on Tuesday, where Ipswich won by four goals to one.
On arrival at the station, as I’d got plenty of time, I thought I’d take a bus to the excellent Keepmoat Stadium. Doncaster station is next to the bus station, but I couldn’t find any information or in fact anybody to ask. So I had to take a taxi.
I asked the taxi-driver how I would get a taxi back after the game and he said that I couldn’t, as because of the traffic taxis can’t get near the ground.
Two stewards told me that I could get a bus from a particular stop to get back. So that was some progress.
As I had to catch the 22:43 train, I decided to leave after the match proper, which meant I missed the extra time, but it did give me an hour to get to the station.
Unfortunately, the buses seemed to have stopped running, so after waiting for twenty minutes, I decided to use the most reliable transport I had – my feet!
But there were no signposts and after scrambling over busy dual carriageways and walking through dark and dismal subways, I made it with about ten minutes to spare.
If a ground, is not obvious from the station, then councils and football clubs, should at least provide some signs and maps.
I shall not be going to the football in Doncaster on a Tuesday night again.
At least I’d booked a ticket in First for the trip home for £23.75.
Jeremy Corbyn Sugests Women-Only Carriages On Trains
According to this article on the BBC, Jeremy Corbyn is suggesting that women-only carriages should be introduced in the UK. This is the start of the article.
Labour leadership contender Jeremy Corbyn has said he would consider women-only rail carriages to help stem a rise in assaults on public transport.
Mr Corbyn told the Independent he would consult women on the suggestion.
But the idea was attacked as outdated and unhelpful by his Labour leadership rivals Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham.
I have no view one way or another on the actual proposal, but practically there are problems.
Most new urban trains, like those on the London Overground, Underground, Thameslink and Crossrail are effectively built as one long articulated carriage. This picture shows the inside of a Class 378 train on the Overground.
This layout increases capacity, enables passengers to spread themselves to less-crowded parts of the train and get to the appropriate carriage for disembarking.
I am not sure whether it is a safer layout, but on a couple of occasions, I’ve had a drunk or a noisy baby sit by me, whilst I’m trying to read, so I’ve quietly moved to another part of the train. It must also be an easier train to monitor for security purposes.
The layout also makes evacuation of the train easier in the case of an incident, like a complete power failure in a tunnel, as you’d just walk to one end of the train to be taken down steps by the emergency services.
If there was a segregated area for women, this would be extremely difficult to incorporate into a train designed in this way. It might even compromise the tunnel evacuation procedures.
So to create some women-only trains would mean an expensive rebuild, new trains, or a lot of work to make tunnels fit the new circumstances.
An alternate would be to make one train in six say, women only!
And surely, if you have women-only trains, you should also have women-only buses, taxis and minicabs. I think the latter are one of the worst places for attacks on women. This article in the Daily Mail has the headline of No woman is safe in a minicab, says rape judge. It may be an exaggeration as it’s the Daily Mail, but it does say there are 100,000 private hire drivers in the country and questions the checking procedures.
It would be far better, if instead of making public transport safer for a particular group, we made it safe for everybody who wants to use it.
I was travelling on the Overground recently, when on arrival at Dalston Junction station, a blind, black lady in her forties was met by a uniformed Overground stationman, who led her professionally up the stairs and through the barriers.
Every station in the UK should be mandated to follow the Overground rule of station staff being present from the first train of the day until the last. Also if you need special assistance on the Overground, you don’t need to give prior warning. This page on the Transport for London web site, details their policy.
Tram-Trains To East Midlands Airport
I have a Google Alert looking for tram-trains and it found this article on the Nottingham Post entitled Could tram-trains link Nottingham to East Midlands Airport?
It’s a thought!
The article talks about a proposal to create a link between East Midlands Airport and the Midland Main Line, that would allow tram-trains to connect the airport to cities like Nottingham, Derby and Leicester and the proposed HS2 station at Toton.
This is a Google Map of the area between the Airport and the Midland Main Line.
East Midlands Airport, the M1 And The Midland Main Line
East Midlands Parkway station is at the top right of the map.
I think that properly designed this idea could have legs.
A few points.
- Some doubt the South East will ever get a new runway, so improving connections to East Midlands Airport would surely mean more passengers flew from their local airport, rather than a congested Heathrow.
- It would improve links between the major cities and population centres of the East Midlands and they probably need an improved turn-up-and-go four trains per hour service between each.
- There are a number of intermediate stations to the various destinations, which probably need better connections.
- The tram-line would also cross the M1. So would a pick-up/drop-off tram stop ease travel in the area?
- Once the tram-train technology is proven and approved and the Midland Main Line is electrified, I doubt that creating the link would be a difficult planning or engineering project.
I will be very surprised if at some point in the future, some form of light or heavy rail line doesn’t reach East Midlands Airport.
But then I think tram-trains would be best.
Conclusions On Phase 2 Of The Nottingham Express Transit
Phase 2 Of The Nottingham Express Transit seems to have opened without a hitch and from what I saw, the reactions of the passengers seemed to be very positive, as they travelled around with smiles on their faces.
These were some of many comments I heard from fellow passengers.
- I can get to the hospital easier, by parking at the Park-and-Ride by using the tram.
- My grandchildren love the tram.
- I’ll use it instead of driving in a lot of the time.
- A student didn’t realise the tram went to the University until I told him and he was pleased.
These comments lead me to the conclusion that I doubt, they’ll be scratching around for passengers.
I do have some reservations on the system, which is otherwise well-designed.
Contactless Ticketing With Ban/Credit Cards
One of the many Customer Service Representatives at Nottingham station, told me that she had already been asked by a traveller from London, if contactless ticketing with a band or credit card was allowed.
Hopefully, as their Mango card is a touch-in and out system, they will be able to incorporate this later.
In my view contactless ticketing with a bank or credit card is something that any transport system should allow as it is so visitor-friendly.
Maps And Information
Maps at tram stops do exist, but they are only small and should be bigger, with perhaps showing walking routes to local attractions. For instance, the stop at Meadows Embankment should show visitors how to walk through the gardens and along the river to the major sports grounds.
There is also a need for a display at the Nottingham station tram stop, showing departures and arrivals in the main station below.
London Overground Syndrome
But my biggest conclusion is that now the NET is a real system, rather than a line to just the north of the city, is that it will suffer from London Overground Syndrome.
The London Overground was designed and opened in 2009, with just enough three-car Class 378 trains, with platforms to fit these trains.
These have now been augmented with additional trains in 2011 and progressively lengthened to five carriages, which has necessitated lengthening the platforms.
NET doesn’t have the platform lengthening problem, but I do feel they will have to beg, borrow or steal some extra trams. At least the track and signalling seems to be able to cope with two different tram types, so if say more trams came from a new supplier, there would probably not be a problem. After all, Edinburgh, Sheffield and the Midland Metro are the only tram systems in the UK with one type of tram. Soon Sheffield will have two.
Just before I left, I talked with one of NET’s Customer Service Representatives. Except that he was a Senior Manager checking things out and getting feedback. Good for him!
Tram-Trains
I suggested to him that after what I’d seen in Germany an especially at Nottingham’s twin city of Karlruhe, that the city is crying out for tram-trains.
His demeanour had Watch This Space written all over it!
So do I think that we’ll see tram-trains in Nottingham?
Wikipedia says this in the section on further routes for the system.
A document raised the possibility of tram-train lines from Nottingham to Gedling and/or Bingham, and to Ilkeston.
Obviously tram-trains will have to prove their worth in Sheffield first.
Gedling, Bingham and Ilkeston, all are on or close to railway lines radiating from Nottingham, although Bingham on the line to Grantham, is the only one with a station.
A couple of points about tram-trains and Nottingham.
If tram-trains had been proven and certified for the UK, when the NET was designed and the Robin Hood Line was reopened in 1998, they would have could been used to create a continuous tram-train route between Nottingham to Worksop.
Tram-trains release platform space at central stations, as they go straight through the station and on to the destinations where people really want to go. Nottingham station is very crowded with split platforms and other techniques being used to get the number of trains through the station.
Tram-Trains To The East Of Nottingham
Look at this Google Map of Central Nottingham.
Central Nottingham
The main station is indicated by the red arrow and note how the railway lines to the East pass to the North of the racecourse in a green corridor from the city centre.
To the edge of this map, the lines split into two with the northernmost one going to Carlton station in the Borough of Gedling and then on the Nottingham to Lincoln Line to Newark and Lincoln, whilst the southernmost one goes to Bingham station on the Nottingham to Grantham Line to Grantham.
Both lines have a generally hourly service, which given the population density is probably not enough, especially in the more densely populated areas closer to Nottingham.
So running tram-trains from Nottingham to a convenient intermediate station would be a means of upping the frequency closer to Nottingham, if you could find a way of getting the tram-trains onto the tram network to finish their journeys.
Tram-Trains To The West Of Nottingham
Ilkeston is to the west and a new Ilkeston station is being built at the town. It will be the first station out of Nottingham on a line that goes through the western suburbs of the city, which also passes through some sizeable communities.
Tram-Trains On The Robin Hood Line
I said earlier that if tram-trains had been certified for the UK, when the NET was designed and the Robin Hood Line was reopened in 1998, that tram-trains would have most likely been used between Nottingham and Mansfield and Worksop.
Nottinghamshire County Council is looking to extend the Robin Hood Line to Shirebrook, Warsop and Edwinstowe on an old freight route.
If this extension is done properly, I can’t see tram-trains not being involved. Especially, as an extension like this, would probably be cheaper to build if it was built to tram standards rather than heavy rail.
What difference would it make to passengers from say Mansfield or Worksop, if instead of having a direct train service into Nottingham station, they had a tram-train service going direct to Nottingham city centre and the Nottingham station tram stop.
- New Class 399 tram-trains would probably be used on the route and these would be faster and offer more capacity than the current trains used.
- There are numerous stops on the route and electric trains save a minute or so at each stop because of their better acceleration.
- The current frequency is generally two trains per hour to/from Mansfield and one to/from Worksop. Three or four trains per hour should be possible.
- Train times from Mansfield to Nottingham station would probably be about the same, even though the tram section from Nottingham station to Bulwell takes twenty four minutes, as opposed to ten.
- There would be no reason, why trains still couldn’t use the direct route into Nottingham station.
- A present, many passengers going to Nottingham city centre probably now change at Hucknall or Bulwell onto the tram. With tram-tains, they would do the journey without a change.
- With perhaps extra steps and escalators between Nottingham station and Nottingham station tram stop, interchange between Robin Hood Line and other services might be easier.
Obviously, whether this project goes ahed, would be determined by the traffic patterns and needs of travellers.
A subsidiary factor would be the amount of freight on the line. Electric tram-trains would not interfere with freight any more than the current diesel units, but if the line was electrified to main line standards, more efficient electric locomotives could be used.
Getting Tram-Trains On The NET At Nottingham Station
I think connecting tram-trains to the northern branches of the NET might be difficult, but as Nottingham is a station on a spacious site, connection to the lines going south might be easier. But what do I know?
I only know Nottingham as a visitor and don’t know the demographics and routes of travellers, but it strikes me that it would be possible to use tram-trains running between the southern branches of the NET and the lines to Newark, Lincoln, Grantham and Ilkeston, creating stops or stations at important centres on the routes.
As the rail routes already exist, outside of the Nottingham station area, there would be little disruptive construction needed, other than creating the stations and stops.
In designing the connection at Nottingham station, remember that trams and tram-trains running as trams are much more manoeuvrable than trains and can go round very tight corners, so can reach places trains cannot reach.
As Nottingham station has been through a big remodelling in recent years, I would suspect that the work was future-proofed for any tram-train connection. As tram-train proposals for Nottingham were talked about in this report on the Nottingham Post website in 2009, one has to assume that the connection is at least on an engineering fag-packet in Network Rail’s bottom drawer.
Some external factors and projects will complicate or simplify any development of tram-train routes around Nottingham,
When and if, the Midland Main Line is electrified, will have the biggest effect, as it will bring a number of electrified routes into the city. Some of these may be suitable for tram-train operation alongside main line services.
To the east of the city, there is the need to sort out the flat junction at Newark, where the Nottingham to Lincoln Line crosses the East Coast Main Line. It strikes me that if this line was an electric route from Nottingham to the East Coast Main Line, this might open up other possibilities.
Nottingham Station And The New Integrated Tram-Stop
Travel to some stations in the UK, that are also served by trams or light rail and transferring to the local transport is often an obstacle race or a long walk. This is a summary.
- Manchester Victoria is now a flat transfer, but at Piccadilly you dive into a less-than-obvious subway.
- In Birmingham, the tram doesn’t yet serve New Street and no plans exist for a proper interchange at Moor Street.
- In Blackpool it’s a long walk, although there are plans in the pipeline. Sometime!
- Edinburgh is a trek upstairs and a walk.
- Sheffield is not too bad, as it’s just a walk up from the bridge over the station.
- London isn’t good as how many main terminals have easy access to the Docklans Light Railway?
Nottingham used to be a difficult one, but now they’ve opened a new tram stop on top of the main station at right angles to the train lines. These pictures show the new stop.
Access at present is by climbing up steps from either the station lobby or the main line station platforms. But in the next few weeks it appears there will be an escalator from the main station.
To compliment the new tram stop, Nottingham station has also had a makeover.
It is certainly, a new interchange, built to the standards that a city like Nottingham deserves.
A few months ago, I saw a similar right-angles arrangement, at the main station in Krakow, except that te Poles used a tunnel.
From the experience of one day in Nottingham, the interchange appeared to be working well. And it was the first day.
The Anonymous Widower 