What A Fine Mess Thameslink And The Midland Main Line Is In
This article is prompted by an article in the May 2017 Edition of Modern Railways, which is entitled Crunch Time Nearing For MML Thameslink Timetable.
The author of the report; the respected Roger Ford, explains the problems of getting a timetable that is acceptable to a number of parties.
Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) want to do the following.
- Run 20 trains per hour (tph) through the central core of Thameslink by May 2018.
- Run 24 trains per hour (tph) through the central core of Thameslink by December 2018.
- Run eight, four and four tph respectively to Bedford, Luton and St. Albans.
East Midlands Trains (EMT) and/or their successor, want to do the following.
- Run their current diesel services.
- EMT want to run new new electric services to Kettering and Corby.
- EMT want to run 6 tph at 125 mph into St. Pancras.
And both companies will have to satisfy the politicians.
Network Rail’s original plan is described under Political Developments in the Thameslink entry in Wikipedia. This is said.
Network Rail had planned to terminate Sutton Loop Thameslink trains at Blackfriars station, rather than have them continue through central London as at present. This would increase the capacity of the central core as the Sutton Loop could only accommodate shorter trains. This upset many residents in South London and their local politicians, who saw it as a reduction in services rather than an improvement. In response to pressure, government has ordered Network Rail to reverse the decision.
It is an awful lot of trains to squeeze into the Midland Main Line.
Some improvements were planned to help with the capacity North of Bedford.
- A fourth track between Bedford and Kettering/Corby.
- !25 mph electrification.
Both these should happen, but the electrification South of Bedford will only be 100 mph capable and there is no date for its upgrade.
So it looks like we have the classic pint pot and everybody is trying to put a quart in it.
Roger points out that the knock-on delays for a late train, could be horrendous and felt all over the North, with several minute increases in journey times to Sheffield and Nottingham.
Roger does highlight a couple of solutions.
Turning Thameslink Services At Kentish Town
The first Roger Ford outlines is to turn some services from the South at Kentish Town.
- ,There is stabling capacity.
- EMT might take over some of the fast outer-suburban commuter services.
- There is a good connection to the Northern Line, which will have an increased capacity in a couple of years.
Perhaps too, a connection could be made with the Gospel Oak to Barking Line at West Hampstead Thameslink and Tufnell Park to improve connectivity.
But would the politicians accept a solution like this?
Has Thameslink Got The Wrong Length Of Trains?
If you look at some recent train orders, they seem to suggest a train and a half-train philosophy.
- GWR’s order for Class 80x trains.
- VTEC’s order for Class 80x trains.
- Greater Anglia’s order for Aventras.
- SWT’s order for Class 707 trains.
In all these orders, it would appear that two half-trains are used to create a full train, when needed. This coupling and uncoupling is done throughout the day and often on an automatic basis.
But Thameslink’s Class 700 trains only come in lengths of eight and twelve cars.
The eight-car train is needed for short platforms on the Sutton Loop Line.
But eight-car trains have disadvantages compared to say a six-car train.
- two trains can’t be joined together to make a long train.
- An eight-car train uses one of the valuable twenty-four hourly paths through the central core of Thameslink, just as a twelve-car train does.
The train length is patently inefficient.
The Sutton Loop Line could be run by using six-car trains that split and join at Streatham station.
Splitting Regional Services With A Change Of Train
This diagram from the Wikipedia entry for East Midlands Trains shows the company’s routes.
I can’t see that expecting passengers to change trains on a journey say between London and Sheffield would be welcomed by everyone.
Electrification To Leicester, Derby And Nottingham
This section is an aside, but I think that it could be the key to solving the capacity problem.
Electrification to these three cities, shouldn’t be a problem other than the usual one of Network Rail’s competence and it could be completed by 2023, which would include Sheffield.
However, there is a serious problem with electrification between Derby and Sheffield, in that the line goes through the World Heritage Site of the Derwent Valley Mills.
But there is an alternative plan, which is to electrify the Erewash Valley Line, which avoids the World Heritage Site and provides a more direct and possibly faster route between London and Sheffield.
Under Future in the Wikipedia entry for the Erewash Valley Line, this is said.
Network Rail as part of a £250 million investment in the regions railways has proposed improvements to the junctions at each end, resignalling throughout, and a new East Midlands Control Centre.[1]
As well as renewing the signalling, three junctions at Trowell, Ironville and Codnor Park will be redesigned and rebuilt. Since the existing Midland Main Line from Derby through the Derwent Valley has a number of tunnels and cuttings which are listed buildings and it is a World Heritage Area, it seems that the Erewash line is ripe for expansion. As the new signalling is rolled out, train detection is moving away from the traditional Track circuit detection of trains to Axle counting.
I hope all of the work done on the Erewash Valley Line has made sure that whenh they do electrify the line, the bridges are high enough and the signalling cables are well out of the way.
As the East Midlands Hub station for HS2 will be close to Toton TMD on the Erewash Valley Line and would open in 2032/3, it strikes me that it would be sensible to plan electrification of the Midland Main Line and HS2 together.
Bring On The Bi-Modes
Roger Ford dismisses the bi-modes in strong words.
A bi-mode doesn’t really work on the high-speed main line.
Under the wires it is a very heavy EMU, while under diesel power it is an underpowered DEMU. Just consider the roles on the MML. From London to Bedford it would need to run as a 125 mph diesel. From Bedford to Kettering the pantograph would go up for some 125 mph running. And after that it would go back to diesel. So why bother with the electric traction?
I would agree with that, but the Class 80x bi-modes may have other characteristics, that could get the timetable out of trouble.
The current hourly timetable out of St. Pancras is as follows.
- XX:00 – Corby, stopping at Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough and Kettering.
- XX:15 – Nottingham, stopping at Market Harborough, Leicester and East Midlands Parkway
- XX:26 – Sheffield, stopping at Leicester, Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Long Eaton, Derby, Chesterfield
- XX:29 – Nottingham, stopping at Luton Airport Parkway, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Beeston
- XX:58 – Sheffield, stopping at Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield
When Bedford to Corby is electrified, there will be another path.
Note that all the paths except those to Corby go through Leicester.
Currently the services are run by a mixture of 27 x Class 222 trains of 4, 5 and 7 cars and 12 x InterCity 125s of a 2×8 formation.
I said that the Class 80x trains may have other characteristics, that could get the timetable out of trouble.
One is that, two closely-related Class 395 trains can automatically couple and uncouple in under a minute, so I suspect that the Class 80x trains will have the same capability.
So supposing a pair of Class 80x trains ran from St. Pancras to either Bedford, Kettering or Leicester, where they would divide, with each train going to a separate destination.
This would mean that six paths would give twelve services to each of three destinations, Corby, Nottingham and Sheffield via Derby and Chesterfield.
EMT could balance the number of trains with their passenger statistics and could extend services from Corby, Nottingham and Sheffield, as they felt appropriate.
Modern trains would also be able to execute stops quicker than the current Class 222 trains and Inter\City125s.
So could extra stops be introduced South of Bedford to enable Thameslink services to be simplified and thinned out?
Conclusion
These may be consequences.
- Four tph might be able to call at Luton Airport Parkway and East Midlands Parkway.
- Sheffield and Nottingham might get marginally slower services, but they could get four tph.
- All EMT might stop at Bedford, to enable Thameslink services to Bedford to be reduced from 8 tph to 4 tph.
- Two tph between Sheffield and London might use the Erewash Valley Line and stop at Alfreton and Ilkeston.
There’s an optimal solution in there somewhere.
Hybrid Trains In The Former East Germany
In my travels from Göttingen, most of the local trains were diesel multiple units as local lines like the South Harz Railway are not electrified. On the other hand, the main lines through Göttingen, are all electrified.
In September 2016, I wrote German Trains With Batteries, which indicated a project in Germany to create hybrid trans, based at technical universities in Chemnitz and Dresden.
As some of the journeys I took in diesel trains, were under electrification, it would certainly appear that the German’s approach is sensible.
There would also appear to be lots of lines without electrification and diesel passenger services all over the area.
- Annaberg-Buchholz–Flöha Railway
- Bautzen–Bad Schandau Railway
- Chemnitz–Adorf Railway
- Flöha Valley Railway
- Gera Süd–Weischlitz Railway
- Glauchau–Wurzen Railway
- Heidenau–Kurort Altenberg Railway
- Herlasgrün–Oelsnitz Railway
- Karlovy Vary–Johanngeorgenstadt Railway
- Löbau–Zittau Railway
- Mid-Germany Railway
- Vejprty–Annaberg-Buchholz Railway
- Zwickau–Schwarzenberg Railway
If the universities can come up with an economic and practical solution, there are certainly a lot of places to use these hybrid trains.
I think it is interesting to compare the German approach with that of Porterbrook/Northern with their development of the Class 319 Flex train.
- The Germans are starting with a diesel Desiro Classic, whereas the British are starting with an electric Class 319 train.
- Batteries are an important part of the German solution, but may not be part of the British one.
- The German trains are nowhere near as old as the thirty-years-old British ones.
But the objectives of the two projects are to improve passenger services without doing a lot of expensive electrification.
Electrification At Rotherham
These pictures show some of the electrification gantries around Rotherham Central station.
The overhead gantries would appear to be Network Rail’s standard for 25 KVAC, rather than the lighter-weight structures used on the Sheffield Supertram for their 1500 VDC.
So are Network Rail future-proofing the gantries for later conversion to 25 KVAC or are they being wired to that voltage, so that the tram-trains can be tested on the 25 KVAC as well?
The latter would be prudent, so that the problems and strengths of dual-voltage 25 KVAC/1500 VDC tram-trains can be assessed.
However, as I returned to Sheffield later, it appeared that the line connecting Rotherham and Sheffield had both heavy-weight and light-weight gantries in place.
Could there be a last minute change of project scope to include 25 KVAC running in the Sheffield tram-train trial, which also explains the timing of the rebuilding of the College Road Bridge?
This is said under Future in the Wikipedia entry for the Sheffield Supertram.
A tram-train extension to Rotherham is currently under construction and is scheduled to open in 2018, with a fleet of seven Vossloh Citylink Class 399 tram-trains in a UK first. This will involve trams operating on Network Rail’s Dearne Valley Line from Meadowhall Interchange to Rotherham station with a short extension to Rotherham Parkgate Shopping Centre. The proposed station will be a combined tram stop and railway station.[10] It is also planned that Rotherham Parkgate will be the hub for longer distance inter regional services,[11] while Central station will be the hub for local, Yorkshire based services. To cater for the tram train services, Rotherham Central will have a third platform built. It is thought that constructing the station will cost around £14 million (£53 million including the railway service to Leeds) and deliver economic benefits worth over £100 million. A study has concluded that it is not worth expanding Rotherham Central railway station because it would cost £161 million to expand the station but only deliver benefits worth £76 million. This is why constructing a new station is considered more viable.
That explains a lot, especially as it is a big change from what was being said perhaps a year ago.
There is an article in the Yorkshire Post, which is entitled Rotherham could get new rail station, which gives a lot more detail.
- Parkgate station could cost up to £53.2 million
- Parkgate would be the inter-regional station.
- Central would be more local
- Rotherham should have one train per hour (tph) to Leeds and Manchester, three tph to Doncaster and six tph to Sheffield.
As I came through the Rotherham Parkgate area on my train between Leeds and Rotherham earlier, I didn’t see any evidence of station construction.
I think that Network Rail by putting up gsntries that can accept 25 KVAC electrification have made sure that they can fit any future plans.
So long as they can get some sort of wiring along the route and a reversing facility somewhere in the Rotherham area, I can see tram-trains running next year.
If Parkgate station is built, then provided any tracks are in the right place, this shouldn’t be a problem.
But the interesting idea could be to use Class 319 Flex trains on the route to Leeds via the Wakefield Line. The gaps in the electrification would be initially covered by the trains onboard diesel power.
As electrification is installed, they would eventually be able to do Rotherham Central to Leeds under electric power.
Whilst, Network Rail were electrifying the tram-train route, would it not be prudent to put up the wires to Meadowhall Interchange station or even Sheffield station?
The other way they could also electrify the short Swinton to Doncaster Line, which would allow electric trains from London to reach Rotherham Parkgate, Meadowhall and Sheffield stations.
I can certainly see something like the following services through Rotherham when Parkgate station is open.
- 1 tph Sheffield to Leeds calling at Parkgate and Central
- 1 tph Doncaster to Manchester and Manchester Airport calling at Parkgate and Sheffield
- 2 tph Doncaster to Sheffield calling at Parkgate and Central
Add in three tram-trains per hour between Sheffield Cathedral and Parkway via Central and the required frequencies are achieved.
It will be interesting to see what finally happens.
Extra Services To Southport On Merseyrail’s Northern Line
Local interests have ambitions to connect Ormskirk and Southport stations, as is detailed in Wikipedia under Future Developments in the Wikipedia entry for Ormskirk station.
There have been calls from local authorities and the local rail user group to reopen both curves at Burscough to allow the reinstatement of through trains from here to Southport, as well as to reinstate through services between Preston & Liverpool via Ormskirk and to rebuild & reopen the Skelmersdale branch.[7] Merseytravel’s 2014 ‘Liverpool City Region Long Term Rail Strategy’ does not back plans for an Ormskirk to Skelmersdale route (instead proposing that the link be provided from the Kirkby to Wigan Wallgate line), though it does suggest that a new bi-level interchange at Burscough Bridge could be built to provide improved interchange facilities between the Ormskirk branch and the Wigan to Southport line in addition to reopening the curves and extending electrification through to Preston & Southport.
, To connect the two stations would mean doing at least the following.
- Reinstate the South Burscough Curve as a single track
- The South Burscough Curve would have bi-directional signalling and third rail electrification.
- Remodel Ormskirk station.
This picture shows what remains of the second platform at Ormskirk station.
The second platform could probably be reinstated reasonably easily, but I wonder if a clever station designer and train scheduler could organise Liverpool, Preston and Southport services around a single long platform?
The current layout could be actually considered to be two platforms, as one end serves Liverpool trains and other Preston trains.
So in this explanation, I’ll refer to them as the Liverpool Platform and the Preston Platform.
- The Liverpool platform would be long enough to take two new Stadler trains.
- The Preston platform would be long enough for the longest train likely to work an Ormskirk to Preston service.
- An electrified passing loop starting from between the two platforms and extending towards Burcough Junction station would be installed.
Consider.
- Trains arriving and returning to Liverpool would operate as they do now using the Liverpool platform.
- Trains arriving and returning to Preston would operate as they do now using the Preston platform, but stop within the passing loop.
- Passengers changing between Liverpool and Preston services would change trains as they do now, by walking along the platform.
- Liverpool to Southport and Liverpool to Preston services would use the Liverpool platform and would either go through the Preston platform or use the passing loop as appropriate.
Two parallel platform stations are so nineteenth century!
These modifications between Ormskirk and Southport would improve train services in the following ways.
- Create more capacity between Liverpool and Southport.
- Allow travellers to go between Southport and the Ormskirk Branch of the Northern Line , without going via Sandhills station.
- Allow access to Manchester services at Burscough Bridge station
- Add direct Liverpool services to those to Manchester and Southport to all the new housing that seems to be under construction around the Southport to Manchester Line.
- Enable the construction of one or more new stations, like Kew Gardens in Southport, which is close to the hospital.
You can certainly understand why Merseyrail appears to be keen.
There are lots of ways to organise services.
I suspect one of the most efficient ways will be to run the trains in a loop going to and starting from Hunts Croos and going to Liverpool Central via Liverpool Central, Southport, Burscough Bridge, Burscough Junction and Ormskirk. Four trains per hour (tph) would go in one direction and four tph in the other.
Timing with the current trains are as follows.
- Hunts Cross to Southport – 64 minutes
- Southport to Burscough Bridge – 22 minutes
- Burscough Bridge to Ormskirk – 9 minutes – estimated
- Ormskirk to Liverpool Central – 34 minutes
- Kirkby to Liverpool Central – 18 minutes.
These timings are not the easiest to put together to make a four tph schedule.
As an example, if you want a current Class 508 train to go from Hunts Cross to Southport and back again, it will take 128 minutes plus whatever it takes to turn the train at each end. Allowing eleven minutes at each end gives a time of two and a half hours, which means ten trains are needed for a full four tph.
Ormskirk to Liverpool central will also need trains. If they could do Liverpool Central to Ormskirk and back in under an hour, that would need four tph..
The new Stadler trains have been designed to do the journey nine minutes quicker, which means that if the turnrounds are a bit quicker, it could be possible to do the round trip in two hours, which would mean only eight trains would be needed for a full four tph.
Ormskirk to Liverpool central will also need trains. If they could do Liverpool Central to Ormskirk and back in under an hour, that would need four tph..
If you look at the full loop with the current trains, this takes 258 minutes plus perhaps 30 minutes for the two reverses at Southport and the one at Liverpool Central. So we get a time of probably three hours and a requirement of 12 trains to run 4 tph to both Ormskirk and Southport and provide a four tph service between the two current termini.
As the current services need ten trains for Hunts Cross-Southport and four for Liverpool Central-Ormskirk, the loop saves two trains.
With the new Stadler trains, I suspect they could do the loop diagram in under two hours, which would mean just eight trains for a full four tph.
Thus, extra services can be provided between Ormskirk and Southport with a requirement of four less trains than running the lines individually.
Services to Southport and Ormskirk from Liverpool would be as follows.
- Southport to Hunts Cross via Formby – 4 tph
- Southport to Liverpool Central via Ormskirk – 4 tph
But the big difference is most stations on the Northern Line are served by four tph from Hunts Cross and Southport and all the other stations need a single change and a wait of a few minutes.
To operate the loop service, it would need Ormskirk to Southport to be fully electrified.
Southport To Manchester
You then have the situation if a Class 319 Flex train were to work Southport to Manchester, that it would work as follows.
- Southport to Burscough Bridge – using third-rail electrification when installed.
- Burscough Bridge to Bolton – using diesel power.
- Bolton to Manchester – using overhead electrification.
Southport would become an all electric station.
To get a full electric service to Manchester, it would only be necessary to electrify between Manchester and Burscough Bridge, where the chsngeover would take place.
I have followed this line in my helicopter and there are only three small bridges and a level crossing between Burscough Bridge and Wigan Wallgate stations.
So I suspect electrifying from Wigan to Burscough Bridge could be an easier electrification than most.
Conclusions
I have come to the following main conclusion.
Combining Southport and Ormskirk services in a loop via a reinstated South Burscough Curve, means the following.
- Southport gets eight trains per hour (tph) to and from Liverpool.
- Ormskirk gets four tph to and from Liverpool.
- All stations on the Northern Line get four direct or single-change tph from Hunts Cross, Southport and Liverpool Central.
- Ormskirk to Southport and all intermediate stations get 4 tph in both directions.
- The service can be run by less trains than needed for independent operation to Southport and Otmskirk.
Southport to Ormskirk needs third-rail electrification.
There were a some subsidiary conclusions.
- Ormskirk station can be based on a single platform with a passing loop, which could allow Liverpool-Preston services.
- Ormskirk station could still run the current Ormskirk to Preston service.
- The third-rail electrification between Southport and Burscough Bridge stations could be used by Class 319 Flex trains working services between Southport and Manchester.
- Southport could become an all electric station.
I suspect that others could do much better.
Thoughts And Facts About Class 319 Flex Trains From Manchester And Blackburn Into The Hills
On Thursday and Friday last week, I spent two days in the Premier Inn at Blackburn and explored the rail lines around the town with journeys all over the area that should by now have been fully electrified.
Class 319 Flex Trains
The main reasons to go was to see some Friends In The North and to see Ipswich play at Barnsley, but I also wanted to explore some of the hilly routes in Lancashire.
Porterbrook in their brochure for the Class 319 Flex trains says that the objective for the train is that it can run from Manchester Piccadilly to Buxton on the Buxton Line, under the power that is available, which is electrification only as far as Hazel Grove station.
The Routes With Hills
There are three routes from Manchester and Blackburn that climb into the hills.
- The Ribble Valley Line to Blackburn via Bromley Cross and then on to Clitheroe and Hellifield stations.
- The East Lancashire Line Line to Colne station
- The Buxton Line to Buxton station.
The lines are not for low-powered trains and the current Class 150 or Class 156 trains struggled on the three climbs I did.
- Hazel Grove to Buxton in the afternoon.
- Blackburn to Clitheroe early in the morning.
- Bolton to Blackburn, crush-loaded in the rush hour.
Someone told me, that leaf fall can be a problem in the Autumn.
In no particular, these are my thoughts and some facts from other sources and my observations.
Blackburn Depot
A conductor told me that Northern Rail will be creating a depot and basing train crew at Blackburn.
This article in the Lancashire Telegraph is entitled Multi-million pound train depot set for Blackburn.
This is said.
Blackburn is to get a new multi-million pound train depot as the latest stage of East Lancashire’s rail revolution.
The stabling, maintenance and cleaning centre will include an office block and new connection to the existing Bolton junction where the tracks to Preston and Darwen divide.
If as I believe the Class 319 Flex trains could serve Clitheroe/Hellifield and Colne, then it could be an ideal location. Especially, if the Clitheroe/Hellifield and Buxton services were run back-to-back across Manchester.
Double Track Most Of The Way
The three lines have the following track layouts.
- The Ribble Valley Line has a large proportion of double track, which stretches to Hellifield.
- The Buxton Line is double-track.
- The East Lancashire Line is single-track from Rose Grove station to Colne station.
So hopefully, if two trains per hour (tph) were to be run on these three branches, passing would be possible.
Hellifield
Hellifield station is where the Ribble Valley Line connects to the Settle-Carlisle Line.
A conductor told me that he’d heard that Northern would like to serve Hellifield more regularly.
Since I first wrote this, I’ve heard that the tracki at Hellifield has been recently replaced and is in good condition.
Housing And Other Property Development
As I travelled along the lines to Clitheroe and Buxton, there was a lot of housing development along the line, at places like Clitheroe, Hazel Grove, Whalley to name just three.
The crowded trains I used in the Peak to Blackburn are going to carry even more passengers and the need for capacity with power on these lines will increase.
Tourism Issues
Buxton, Clitheroe Colne and Hellifield all have reasons for tourists and especially those that enjoy visiting the hills.
I have no figures to back it up, but I suspect leisure passengers often go loaded with children in buggies, bicycles and heavy rucksacks and cases. They certainly do in the Summer on the trains of East Anglia and that is flat.
Add in the weather forecast and the effects of new trains and at times, there could be a large increase in leisure and tourism-related travel.
If the trains connected the Settle and Carlisle Line at Hellifield to Blackburn, Manchester and perhaps Buxton, this would surely open up a tourist train route, that Doctor Beeching wouldn’t have thought was the least bit feasible.
Future Train Frequencies
Train frequencies to Manchester could possibly grow to the following.
- Blackburn – 2 tph to Manchester Piccadilly
- Blackburn – 2 tph to Manchester Victoria
- Buxton – 2 tph
- Clitheroe – 2 tph
- Hazel Grove – 4 tph
In addition, the intersecting route from Blackpool South to Colne via Preston and Blackburn, could be running 2 tph.
I do suspect though, that 1 tph to and from Hellifield will be enough. But who knows? I could just be as wrong as Beeching.
The lines probably have a Peak problem, that is fairly unusual in the UK, but probably is common in countries with real mountains like Austria, Japan and Switzerland. One direction of Peak travel is downhill, but the other is up a very steep railway.
On train frequencies, this is said in the Wikipedia entry for the Ribble Valley Line.
A six-week engineering blockade saw the existing passing loop there extended by 1 mile (1.6 km) at each end and signalling improvements made to add capacity on the line and allow for service frequencies between Bolton & Blackburn to be doubled to two trains per hour each way throughout the day from December 2017.
Could this be why, Porterbrook are planning to deliver four refurbished Class 319 Flex trains by the end of 2017, according to their brochure?
Some powerful extra trains will probably be needed to achieve the objective of 2 tph to Blackburn and four Class 319 Flex will help.
Future Train Capacity
I did two journeys in the Peak to Blackburn; in the first I took the slower service via Todmorden and Burnley in a two-car train and in the second, I took the direct route via Bromley Cross, in a four-car formation.
The second was the most crowded, but it was Friday. It also struggled up the hill from Bolton to Blackburn.
Northern’s decision to go for a four-car Class 319 Flex train which could be used on some of these routes, is understandable.
Blackburn To Huddersfield
I travelled to Huddersfield station from Manchester Victoria and didn’t see any signs of electrification on this important route.
Returning to Blackburn from Huddersfield, my train was a direct service which travelled via Manchester Victoria, Bolton and Bromley Cross.
This would be an ideal service to run using a Class 319 Flex train, until Network Rail get their act together and electrify Manchester Victoria to Huddersfield. Even if they only get the wires as far as Stalybridge, the Class 319 Flex would be an enormous improvement compared to the asthmatic Class 156, that struggled with its full load of passengers to Blackburn.
The Calder Valley Line
The Calder Valley Line goes through very picturesque countryside between Preston and Leeds.
I think that full electrification of this line could never happen.
- The line has large numbers of stone and brick viaducts and bridges, which would be very expensive to modify for electrification.
- The station at Hebden Bridge is Grade II Listed.
- There is electrification between Leeds and Bradford, which could probably be extended as far as Halifax.
- Preston is fully electrified and affordable electrification to Blackburn or perhaps Rose Grove or Burnley Manchester Road stations should be possible.
- Electrification to Rose Grove would mean that the service between Blackpool South and Colne could be run using electricity between Rose Grove and Kirkham and Wesham stations.
But the biggest problem would be the opposition to overhead gantries in the hills.
The distances are revealing.
- Burnley to Halifax is just over twenty miles
- Blackburn to Halifax is just over thirty miles.
If Halifax to Bradford wasn’t electrified then that adds another ten miles.
All distances would be within range of a modern bi-mode train, including a Class 319 Flex.
Other Destinations
From Hazel Grove, it is possible for diesel trains to access the Hope Valley Line towards Sheffield.
There must be stations on this line that are possible destinations for a Class 319 Flex train.
Chester and Windermere have also been mentioned as future destinations for the train.
Electrification
Electrification has been painfully slow in the North-West, as it has in most places in the UK.
It looks like that by the end of 2017, Manchester to Preston via Bolton and the Blackpool Branch to Blackpool North station will be electrified.
The advantage of the Class 319 Flex is that it can use this electrified set of lines to run services to stations like Barrow, Blackburn, Blackpool South, Burnley, Chester, Hebden Bridge, Sellafield and Windermere, that are off the electrified network in conjunction with the Class 319 trains.
The Need For A Train To Climb The Hills
From this brief analysis and my observations, it would seem that Northern need a few four-car trains with adequate power to get up the hills at a speed, that enables an efficient timetable. As some of the routes from Manchester Piccadilly and Victoria are electrified, the ideal train would need the capability to use the wires.
If ever, there was a series of routes that need a bi-mode train, then it is these routes.
The Class 319 Flex And The CAF Civity
The Class 319 Flex has according to the brochure I’ve seen been designed to run from Manchester to Buxton with a full load of passengers in the Peak or perhaps after a City-United Derby.
But Northern have ordered new CAF Civity trains in the following versions.
- 25 two-car Class 195 diesel trains
- 30 three-car Class 195 diesel trains
- 31 three-car Class 331 electric trains
- 12 four-car Class 331 electric trains.
This is said in the Wikipedia entry for the Class 331 trains.
In early 2016 it was confirmed that Spanish rolling stock manufacturer CAF would construct the new electric powered trains which are planned to operate in West Yorkshire to replace Class 321 and Class 322 trains and work alongside the current fleet of Class 333 units. The four-car Class 331 units will be deployed on electrified services from Manchester Piccadilly to replace the Class 323 units which are due to return to Porterbrook at the end of their current lease in 2018.
So it would appear that the Class 319 trains will continue to operate for a few years yet! Hopefully with better seats, wi-fi and a few other smaller improvements.
I think that Northern have decided that until the Class 195 trains arrive that the Class 319 Flex trains are the best short-term solution. But given the overcrowding on the routes will the future three-car trains have enough capacity?
So I suspect, if Northern go the CAF Civity route, I feel that Northern will acquire some longer diesel trains or even some dual-power Civitys.
But at least running Class 319 Flex trains on the route will effectively produce the specification for these hilly routes.
Class 319 Flex Trains Could Be In Service By December 2017
I have just seen a an early copy of Porterbrook’s brochure for their new Class 319 Flex train.
On the summary page, the following is said.
4 units in service by December 2017
On the North-West Electrification page of the Network Rail web site, these electrification milestones are given.
- December 2017 – Preston to Manchester and Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge
- Early 2018 – Preston to Blackpool
It would appear that the delivery of the trains and the availability of electrified lines are not a bad fit.
I estimate that three Class 319 Flex trains will be needed to provide an hourly service to Blackpool from either Liverpool or Manchester, before Preston to Blackpool is electrified.
But once Blackpool to Preston is electrified, Blackpool, Liverpool, Manchester and Preston would be linked by standard Class 319 trains, releasing the Class 319 Flex trains to develop other routes from the core electrified network.
- Barrow-in-Furness – Electrified to Carnforth
- Buxton – Electrified to Hazel Grove
- Huddersfield – Electrified to Stalybridge
- Kirkby – Electrified to Bolton
- Southport – Electrified to Bolton
- Windermere – Electrified to Oxenholme Lake District
Places like Blackburn, Burnley, Clitheroe and even Hebden Bridge and Todmorden could be reached from the electrification at Bolton, Manchester or Preston.
The electrified network will be grown, by the selective addition of electrification and/or trains.
Where Is Moorside?
Moorside is the name given to NuGen‘s new nuclear power complex in Cumbria.
I was drawn to write this post, by this article in Construction News, which is entitled Network Rail and Moorside nuclear power plant developer Nugen are putting together a business case for rail investment in Cumbria that could be worth as much as £400m.
four hundred million pounds could buy a lot of rail infrastructure.
But where exactly is Moorside?
This map was taken from the Our Site page on the NuGen web site, showsthe Moorside site outlined in red.
Note the development with the yellow-shaded areas to the South-East of the red-lined area. This is Sellafield.
And this is a Google Map of the coast around the nuclear reprocessing complex.
Note the railway stations along the coast. Sellafield station is by the nuclear complex, with Braystones and Nethertown to the North.
All three stations are on the Cumbrian Coast Line, which in addition to the passenger service, is used to transport freight, including nuclear waste to and from Sellafield.
Overlaying the NuGen map on the Coogle Map shows that Moorside will be to the North-West of Sellafield.
The Cumbrian Coast Line and the related Furness Line curve around Cumbria from Carlisle to Carnforth via Workington, Whitehaven, Sellafield and Barrow-in-Furness.
- The line is mainly double track, but with sections of single-track.
- The line is not electrified.
- Most of the trains are elderly diesels.
- The train service is vaguely hourly, but patchy in places.
The nuclear power complex is a ten billion pound project and will require large amounts of heavy equipment and construction materials to be transported the site. Also on a daily basis, large numbers of engineers and construction workers wilol need to get to one of the largest construction sites in the North of England.
Is Network Rail’s £400 million proposed vdevelopment, a reconstruction of the Cumbrian Coast and Furness Lines to the following standard.
- Double track.
- Electrification
- 100 mph line speed where possible.
- Build a new station at Moorside and any other places, where they are needed.
- Step-free stations
- At least two trains per hour in both directions.
- Full wi-fi and 4G on all trains and in stations.
Upgraded to a high standard, it might do more than help construction at Moorside and Sellafield and those that work in the two complexes.
- It might increase quality tourism.
- It could be a diversion route for the West Coast Main Line.
- It might make a London service to Barrow-in-Firness via HS2 a possibility.
Network Rail’s project could do a lot more than service the twin nuclear sites.
I explored the Cumbrian Coast Line in April 2015.
The South Wales Mountain Railway
South Wales might not have the reputation of beautiful mountains, of say Snowdonian, the Cairngorms or Switzerland, but some of the Valley Lines that go up to places like Merthyr Tydfil and Ebbw Vale Town stations have spectacular views.
I was looking for a possible station at a village called Nelson and found a single-track railway passing to the North of the village.
I followed the track with my helicopter up the mountain and this is a Google Map of what I found.
Merthyr Tydfil And The Ffos-y-fran Land Reclamation Scheme
The station on the left is Merthyr Tydfil and on the right is the massive Ffos-y-fran Land Reclamation Scheme. This is opening paragraph in the Wikipedia entry.
The Ffos-y-fran Land Reclamation Scheme is a major opencast coaling operation to the north-east of Merthyr Tydfil in South Wales. Miller Argent is owned by Gwent Investments Limited, which is based in South Wales and is a privately owned family business. The scheme development is the last part of the East Merthyr Reclamation scheme, and will extract 10 million tonnes of coal over 15 years, the revenues from which will redevelop the current former industrial workings into residential and recreational use.
It is a controversial scheme and I am usually against using coal for combustion purposes, but some of these Welsh landscapes are dotted with dangerous mine workings and slag heaps, so they certainly need cleaning up.
There is a Transport section in the Wikipedia entry for the scheme. This is said.
Under agreed planning rules, the site is not allowed to transport coal from the site via road. All extract is therefore moved to the rear (East) of the site where the coal is separated and washed at the Cwmbargoed Washery. Built in 1959 on land to the north and east of the railway connection to Fochriw Colliery, the coal washery was refurbished by Celtic Energy in 1992. DB Schenker trains then move the washed coal from site to Aberthaw Power Station, along the former route of the Rhymney Railway. Joining the modern Rhymney Line just south of Ystrad Mynach railway station, the trains then travel onwards via Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan Line to Aberthaw, enabling Ffos-y-fran to supply 40% of the coal to Aberthaw power station.
It must be challenging driving a Class 66 locomotive with a train of full coal wagons down the mountain.
It was this railway I had followed up the mountain.
Before I leave Merthyr Tydfil, look at this Google Map of the town.
Merthyr Tydfil And Rhymney
The East Merthyr Reclamation Scheme is in the middle, flanked by Merthyr Tydfil in the West and Rhymney in the East.
So if the Authorities in South Wales are thinking of building a station on this line at Nelson, are they thinking of reopening this line after the scheme has finished extracting coal, as a second rail route to Merthyr Tydfil?
Coming back down the mountain from Merthyr, the first possible station from my list of possible stations is Bedlinog.
This Google Map shows the rail line going through the village.
Bedlinog And The Railway
Note that Bedlinog already has a Railway Inn.
After Bedlinog, the next one on the list is Trelewis. This is the Google Map
Trelewis And The Railway
The railway goes between the Primary School and the Kigdom Hall.
And then it’s back to where I started this quest at Nelson, of which this is the Google Map.
Nelson And The Railway
The railway then goes South-East to join the Rymney Line at Ystrad Mynach station.
Trains For The Route
The task of hauling empty wagons up the mountain is not to much for a Class 66 locomotive, so I suspect that a multiple unit could be designed to handle a route like this, of which there are several in the Cardiff Valley Lines.
Either electric or diesel multiple units could probably manage the climbs, if they were designed for it, but would electreifying these routes be a feasible undertaking, given the difficulties of working on these busy lines.
But train technology is moving on and with the Class 319 Flex, we are getting close to having a true tri-mode train, with diesel, electric and battery power.
The Welsh Government have said they want new trains for these routes and I suspect engineers are working on a product tailored to run these routes efficiently.
So could we see a quad-mode train for the Valleys?
- Four-car electrical multiple unit.
- Onboard energy storage.
- Perhaps even a small diesel generator for the difficult bits.
- Gravity power, which the lines have in abundance, to use with regenerative braking to charge the batteries on the descent.
- As modern trains can deploy pantographs automatically, some selective electrification could be added as the project develops.
I would also commit the ultimate heresy and use third-rail electrification on the steep parts at the heads of the valleys.
Consider.
- Bombardier, Siemens and others make reliable dual-voltage trains.
- Both electrification systems have their good and bad points.
- It must be less intrusive and disruptive to install third-rail electrification.
- Is overhead electrification more prone to weather damage?
- Network Rail seem to be terribly accident-prone when it comes to overhead electrification.
In the end costs and overall reliability will decide.
But I do think sometimes, that Network Rail always chooses overhead electrification, even if third rail will be more reliable, less intrusive and more affordable.
But I’m sure that all the technology has now been proven to create a very efficient modern electric train to work the Valley Lines, which have been electrified using a great deal of innovation and common sense.
Network Rail Announces Electrification Of The Schotts Line
This article in Rail Technology Magazine is entitled Network Rail awards Carillion £49m Shotts electrification contract.
This is the first two paragraphs.
Network Rail has agreed a contract with Carillion Powerlines Ltd to deliver the electrification of the Shotts Line between Holytown Junction and Midcalder Junction.
The £49m contract will see the delivery of 74km of electrified railway as part of the Scottish government’s wider £169m investment in the line between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Electrification of The Schotts Line will provide a fourth electrified line between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
From hundreds of miles to the South, it looks a good choice.
- The route is effectively in three sections, with only the central section between Holytown Junction and Midcalder Junction, needing to be wired.
- The bridges that need to be raised are already being worked on.
- The route goes to Glasgow Central rather than Glasgow Queen Street.
- The Class 385 trains needed are already being built in Newtown Aycliffe.
It certainly seems that the planning of electrification in the Scottish Lowlands is being better managed that that on the Great Western Railway.
The Anonymous Widower 