The Anonymous Widower

Grayling Gives Green Light To Double Track On Part Of Felixstowe Line

The title of this post is the same as that of this article in the East Anglian Daily Times.

This page on the Network Rail web site gives more details.

This is said.

Building the additional track will help increase the capacity of the Felixstowe branch line and take lorries off the road. It will also mean more reliable journeys for passengers traveling between Ipswich and Felixstowe.

There is also this map, which shows where a second track is being added to the Felixstowe Branch Line between Trimley station and Grimston Lane level crossing.

Note that six level crossings are also being removed, with the one at Gun Lane being replaced with a bridge, which seems to be a bit controversial.

Freight Traffic On The Line

The East Anglian Article says this.

This will allow up to 47 freight trains to run per day, 14 more trains than can currently run on the single line. Each train can carry the equivalent of 60 lorry loads, meaning fewer lorries on busy roads such as the A14.

That is quite a lot of freight and a forty-two percent increase in the number of trains.

Trimley Station

Trimley station will be the Southern end of the new track.

This Google Map shows Trimley station.

Note.

  • Cordy’s Lane crossing the line at Trimley station.
  • The line to Flelixstowe Port (North) going South.
  • The line to Felixstowe station going straight on.

Judging by the number of houses on the South side of the track, I would assume that an automatic level crossing is being installed there.

Noise, Smell And Vibration

The Felixstowe Branch Line illustrates one of the problems of the various freight locomotives and especially the ubiquitous Class 66 locomotive. The locomotives are not particularly environmentally-friendly, especially when they are hauling up to forty truck with containers.

I think that some parts of the branch need to have noise mitigation measures installed, otherwise there will be serious levels of complaint.

New Locomotives Are Needed

This article in Rail Magazine is entitled GB Railfreight In ‘Locomotive Acquisition’ Talks, so at least one company thinks so!

In Jumbo Trains Are Arriving, I mused about the type of train required.

I came to this conclusion.

Some more powerful freight locomotives are needed, but the designs should be available.

I would add to that now. The locomotives would need to be dual-mode and a lot more environmentally-friendly/

October 2, 2017 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , , | Leave a comment

Coastal Communities Among Worst Off In UK, Report Finds

The title of this post is the same as an article on the BBC web site, which they are covering on BBC Breakfast.

When I was fifteen my parents partially-retired to Felixstowe and I remember a very boring couple of summers in the town. In summer 1963, I spent most of it reading Nelkon and Parker in preparation for my A Level Physics course.

In those days, public transport to Ipswich was dire with nothing back after working hours and I can remember that I only ever went to the cinema in Felixstowe once!

Today, the last train from Ipswich is 22:28, but in those days it was about 19:00.

So one factor that applied, was you needed a car to have any social life outside of the dreary town. The few people of my age, I knew in the town couldn’t wait to leave school, so they could earn money to buy a car.

If you look around the country, the coastal areas that are vibrant and successful like say Bournemouth, Brighton, Liverpool, Southend and Swansea, tend to be larger, with excellent external and internal public transport links.

Other non-successful coastal towns like Felixstowe, Hastings, Hull, Lowestoft, Redcar, Skegness and Ysrmouth don’t have the same quality of external transport links, although some like Hull have good bus networks.

I may be being selective, but I believe it would make a big difference to a lot of coastal towns, if they had a first class rail service to the nearby inland larger towns and cities.

If there is no rail route, then a first class bus connection is needed.

Felixstowe

I’ll take Felixstowe as an example.

  • The train service is one train per hour and it finishes around ten in the evening.
  • The length of the line is such, that one train can do the return trip in an hour.
  • Most of the rolling stock used on the line are past it, although I’ve done the trip in a passenger-friendly Class 170 train.
  • If it is a sunny Saturday or Sunday, the train can get overloaded at times.

Hopefully, the train service will get better.

  1. Greater Anglia have ordered new three-car Class 755 bi-mode trains.
  2. Network Rail are improving the Felixstowe Branch Line.
  3. Ipswich station is to be upgraded with an extra bay platform for Felixstowe and Lowestoft services.

Point 1 would probably attract more passengers and points 2 and 3 would allow a half-hourly service at selected times of the day.

The increase in capacity and quality, should be enough, so that on a glorious day if people in Ipswich decide to go to the coast, the trains can make it a good experience.

It will be interesting to see how the number of rail passengers to Felixstowe change in the next few years.

Incidentally, Felixstowe station shows how you can create a quality station for a town of 24,000 people.

  • The Grade II Listed station buildings have become a Shopping Centre with a cafe and bar.
  • There is just a single platform that can take a four-car train.
  • There is a ticket machine and a basic shelter.
  • The station is on the High Street.
  • The car park is shared with the local Co-op supermarket.
  • The station is unstaffed, but the trains are double-manned.

How many coastal stations could be Felixstowed?

Felixstowe used to have a second station at Felixstowe Beach, which is near to the Port of Felixstowe and Landguard Fort.

Some might argue that reopening the station would be a good idea, especially as it could be a modern single platform station.

But surely, it would be better to improve the bus services in the town or provide quality bike hire at the station.

Greater Anglia’s Class 755 Trains

Greater Anglia have ordered 24 x four-car and 14 x three-car Class 755 trains.

  • The trains are bi-mode.
  • In terms of carriages, the new bi-mode fleet will be at more than twice the size of the current diesel fleet.
  • Greater Anglia have said, that they will use electric power from overhead wires, even if it’s only available for short distances.
  • The trains are probably large enough for an on-board full function ticket machine and lots of buggies, bicycles and wheel-chairs.
  • They will probably carry their own wheelchair ramp, as I saw in What Train Is This?

This article in RailNews is entitled Greater Anglia unveils the future with Stadler mock-up and says this.

The bi-mode Class 755s will offer three or four passenger vehicles, but will also include a short ‘power pack’ car to generate electricity when the trains are not under the wires. This vehicle will include a central aisle so that the cars on either side are not isolated. Greater Anglia said there are no plans to include batteries as a secondary back-up.

So Stadler are using their well-proven design, which I saw in Germany.

What surprises me is the ruling out of batteries by Greater Anglia.

The central powercar would surely be the ideal place to put energy storage, for the following reasons.

  • It could be easily integrated with the diesel power-pack.
  • The weight of the battery is probably in the best place.
  • It could be part of an energy saving regenerative braking system, which would work under electric or diesel power.
  • In Battery EMUs For Merseyrail, I wrote how Stadler were fitting batteries in Merseyrail’s new fleet.

When the trains arrive, it’ll all be explained. Perhaps, Greater Anglia’s words were carefully chosen.

How will these trains change the coastal towns of Cromer, Felixstowe, Lowestoft, Sheringham and Yarmouth?

If it’s positive, Greater Anglia will be setting a strong precedent.

What Needs To Be Done To Railways To And Along The Coast

In no particular order, there are various topics.

A Coastal-Friendly Train Fleet

From personal experience on East Anglian trains, I feel that the passenger profile is different with always several bicycles on a train. Greater Anglia will have researched their passengers’ journeys and this has resulted in their choice of three- and four-car bi-mode Class 755 trains.

  • One- and two-car diesel multiple units are being replaced with three-car bi-modes
  • The Class 170 trains appear to be being replaced by four-car bi-modes.

So it would appear that Greater Anglia are expecting more passengers on the coastal routes to Cromer, Felixstowe, Lowestoft and Yarmouth, as they are always running at least three-car trains.

I also suspect they will be allowing for more bicycles and buggies, with higher traffic at weekends with good weather.

Their fleet choice will also allow them to use a four-car train instead of a three-car.

Looking at the fleet choices of other train operators like Northern working over a wide area with a large proportion of leisure traffic, they seem to have a degree of flexibility.

Stations In Coastal Towns

Many  stations in coastal towns were built in the grand manner. This is St. Leonard’s Warrior Square station.

Felixstowe station was built in this way and the station buildings are Grade II Listed. This is the single platform.

But it also shows how you can create a quality station for a town of 24,000 people.

  • The station buildings have become a Shopping Centre with a cafe and bar.
  • There is just a single platform that can take a six-car train.
  • There is a ticket machine and a basic shelter, underneath an ornate 1898 canopy.
  • The station is on the High Street.
  • The car park is shared with the local Co-op supermarket.
  • The station is unstaffed, but the trains are double-manned.

How many coastal stations could be Felixstowed?

These are a few pictures of other stations in coastal towns.

Some are grand, some are simple and some need a lot of improvement.

But if you want to improve the fortunes of a coastal town, or any town for that matter, you must give it a decent station, which will be one of main entry points for visitors.

The larger stations must have the following characteristics.

  • A certain style.
  • Good understandable information and perhaps a proper Tourist Office.
  • A cafe or a bar.
  • Decent bus connections to the rest of the town.
  • Bicycle hire
  • A shop for a paper and some chocolate.
  • A cash machine with no extra charges.

Hopefully, the station needs a central location in the town.

But Felixstowe station shows what can be created, with its Victorian canopy and a single platform, tucked away behind a shopping centre, built around the original Listed station building.

These days with modern signalling and double-ended multiple units, single-platform stations like Felixstowe, could probably handle four trains per hour.

New Stations

In DfT Names Five Winners Of Fresh £16m Stations Fund, I talked about new stations funded by the Government’s New Stations Fund. Two of the five stations are near the coast; Bow Street and Horden Peterlee.

So does the Government realise the value of good rail links to coastal areas?

The Walkers’ Halt

Some of the coastal lines go along some of the most spectacular coast-lines in the UK.

This Google Map shows the Durham Coast Line just South of Seaham station.

A modern train like a bi-mode Class 755 train could have the following characteristics.

  • The ability to execute station stops with a short dwell time.
  • In-cab radio signalling.
  • CCTV to aid the driver at a station stop.
  • On-board ticketing machine.
  • On-board wheelchair ramp.
  • Two crew members.

So would it be able to stop to pick up and set down at an old-fashioned halt with perhaps a single platform?

The England Coast Path

The England Coast Path will be 4,500 kilometres long and go round the whole coast of England.

In places, it must go near to railway lines, so will we see simple walkers’ halts, as I described in the previous section?

It strikes me, that we need a large helping of careful design to make sure that the England Coast Path and our costal rail routes would well together.

I used England as an example, but I suspect, the same logic applies in the rest of the UK.

Conclusion

This post isn’t complete yet!

I do feel though based on my East Anglian experience, that improving the train service to coastal towns could be the first step in improving their prosperity.

Too often going to the coast by train is a second-rate experience. Greater Anglia with its train fleet renewal seem to be creating a new era of getting to the coast in Norfolk and Suffolk.

Other companies should be made to follow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

September 4, 2017 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Railbaar In Rail Engineer

In January 2016, I wrote How To Charge A Battery Train, in which I described a Swiss idea called Railbaar.

This article in Rail Engineer is entitled RailBaar – Rapid Charge Station and it describes the technology in detail.

The article gives the impression, that respected Swiss company; Furrer+Frey, have a product that is ready to be rolled out.

This is said.

Furrer+Frey feels that the system could be a game changer, dramatically reducing the cost of electrification, and thus the feasibility of new electrification projects.

Read the article and see if like me, you agree with Furrer+Frey, like I do.

The Felixstowe Branch Line

I will use the twelve mile long Felixstowe Branch Line as an example, because I know the branch line well and spent some miserable days trapped in the town as a teenager because of the inadequate rail service to Ipswich.

The train service is better now, but it would be better if every thirty minutes one of Greater Anglia’s new Aventras was to shuttle along the branch.

But the line is not electrified and there is very little change it will happen.

Bombardier showed with their Class 379 BEMU trials in January 2015, that a four-car and probably a five-car version of the Avenytra could be fitted with a battery that would take the train reliably between Ipswich and Felixstowe.

But the problem with say electrifying a platform at Ipswich station and charging the train there, is that the battery needs to be sized to do two trips along the branch line.

By using a charging station like Railbaar at both ends of the line, the train would always leave the station with a full charge.

Currently, trains between Felixstowe and Ipswich take 26 minutes, so if the battery could be charged in four minutes, then a train could do a return trip in an hour.

This would mean that two trains would be needed to provide a two trains per hour service.

Sudbury And Colchester Town

Greater Anglia have indicated that they might  replace the shuttle between Sudbury and Marks Tey stations, with a direct service between Sudbury and Colchester Town stations.

They could run this service with bi-mode Stadler Flirts.

On the other hand,  the Gainsborough Line between Marks Tey and Sudbury is only eleven miles long, which is well within the range of a train running on stored energy.

It currently takes nineteen minutes for a train to go between Marks Tey and Sudbury, so a battery train would have twenty-two minutes in every hour for charging.

Operation could be as follows.

  • 10:00 Leave Colchester Town running on current electrification.
  • 10:08 Call Colchester station.
  • 10:16 Arrive Marks Tey station with a full battery, after charging it on the main line.
  • 10:35 Arrive Sudbury station after running from Marks Tey on battery power.
  • 10:40 Leave Sudbury station after charging the batteries using a Railbaar.
  • 11:59 Arrive Marks Tey station after running from Sudbury on battery power.
  • 11:02 Leave Marks Tey station, raise the pantograph and travel to Colchester.
  • 11:10 Call Colchester station.
  • 11:18 Arrive back at Colchester Town station.

Note.

  • The trains pass each other on the main line.
  • I have used the times for the current trains.
  • Only one Railbaar would be needed at Sudbury.

,Perhaps Aventras and with a faster charge at Sudbury could save a few minutes.

Aventras And Railbaar

The Aventra has a slightly unusual and innovative electrical layout.

This article in Global Rail News from 2011, which is entitled Bombardier’s AVENTRA – A new era in train performance, gives some details of the Aventra’s electrical systems. 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.

This was published six years ago, so I suspect Bombardier have improved the concept.

So in a battery version of the Aventra would this mean that the pantograph is on the car with the high-efficiency transformer and the battery is in the second car?

So if the train is going to work with Railbaars, then the contact points on the roof of the train for the Railbaar would be on the car with the batteries.

All of the 25 KVAC and its handling is in one car and all the batteries and their charging is in another, with the only connection being the common power bus connecting everything on the train.

I suspect that with careful positioning of the Railbaar at each end of the route and an aid for the driver so that the train is positioned accurately and it would create a reliable charging system.

Obviously, there is nothing to stop, the trains charging their batteries, when they are using overhead wires or third rails.

Conclusions

So what do we know about using batteries on trains to work routes?

 

  • Bombardier showed in their trial, that a battery train can run the eleven miles of the Mayflower Line, starting with a full battery.
  • Batteries are getting more powerful and more affordable every year.
  • The Bombardier Aventra would be ideal for a Railbaar-type charging system.
  • Battery trains can charge their batteries running on electrified lines.
  • The bus version of Railbaar is in use charging electric Volvo buses at a rate of 360 kW. See the Opbrid web site.
  • The physics of steel wheel on steel rail is efficient, as George Stephenson knew.

Put this all together and I think that by the end of 2018, we’ll be seeing Aventra trains, running services on a twenty mile branch line without electrificaton.

 

 

April 11, 2017 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Along The Felixstowe Branch

In the December Edition of Modern Railways magazine there is an article entitled Loop Planned For Felixstowe Branch.

The Proposal

To allow an increase in the numbers of freight trains on the line from 33 to 47 every day, Network Rail propose to do the following.

  • Create a 1.4 km loop at Trimley. Note that 775 metres is the maximum train length in the UK.
  • Close six level crossings
  • Create a bridge for a bridleway.

Network Rail hope that this will be sufficient for a few years, but in the future the aspiration is for double-tracking and electrification all the way between Felixstowe and Nuneaton.

I have flown my helicopter along the route and it is single track all the way between Westerfield and Trimley stations, with the exception of a passing loop East of the Spring Road Viaduct, which is centred on Derby Road station.

This Google Map shows the Branch Line East of Trimley station.

The Eastern End Of The Felixstowe Branch Line

The Eastern End Of The Felixstowe Branch Line

Trimley station is in the North West corner of the map, whilst Felixstowe station is in the South East corner.

Just before the level crossing at Trimley, the line splits into two and the two tracks run together for a time, before the Southern track branches off to the North Terminal at the Port of Felixstowe.

The other track then continues East  and splits with one branch going straight into Felixstowe station and the other going to the South Terminal at the Port.

All tracks are single track, except between Trimley station and the first junction.

The Intermediate Stations

I think it is probably true to say, that Westerfield, Derby Road and Trimley stations are one the worst run of three stations in the country.

In James Cook Station – The Reinvention Of The Halt, I talked about the new James Cook station, that serves Middlesborough Hospital. This station had 23,000 passengers in 2014/15, as against the 30,000 average for these three Suffolk stations in the same year.

I’m sure if they were of the same standard as James Cook station, they would see an increase in passengers.

This Google Map shows Westerfield station.

Westerfield Station

Westerfield Station

Note how the single-track Felixstowe Branch leaves the double-track East Suffolk Line to the East of the station.

A large housing development called Henley Gate, which is part of the Ipswich Garden Suburb could be built to the West of the station. This might be an opportunity to improve the station and the level crossing. This web page on the Ipswich Borough Council web site, shows a map and a few details.

If the thousand houses promised for the site are built, I’m sure Westerfield station could be one that attracted a few more passengers, who cycled to the station.

According to Wikpedia, this Derby Road station used to be a lot busier. This is said.

People living on the eastern side of the town generally preferred to use Derby Road when travelling to Felixstowe and the station could be very busy on sunny weekends with day trippers to Felixstowe Beach and Felixstowe Pier stations. They could reach the station on the Ipswich Tramway which terminated outside the station entrance.

But this Google Map, of the area round the station show that it surrounded by housing.

Around Derby Road Station

Around Derby Road Station

The station is at the South West corner of the map, with The Ipswich Hospital is at the North East corner of this map. I ask these questions.

  • Is there a shuttle bus between the station and the hospital?
  • Is there secure bicycle parking at Derby Road station?
  • Could it be that if a decent train with greater capacity and perhaps better provision for bicycles and buggies ran through the station, that there could be an increase in passengers?

From what I’ve seen of the station, it’s suffering from Abellio’s Managed-from-Norwich Syndrome, which a lot of stations in East London did, until placed under the control of Transport for London.

The next station after Derby Road used to be Orwell station, which served the villages of Orwell and Nacton.

At some point in the future, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a station between Derby Road and Trimley, either inside or outside of the A14.

Trimley station is virtually derelict, but there are plans to convert it for community use.

I believe, all the intermediate stations on this line could have a future. Factors involved could be.

  • Nearby housing and/or commercial development.
  • Cycle-and-Ride passengers.
  • A decent train to Ipswich and Felixstowe, with plenty of space for bicycles and buggies.
  • A reliable clock-face hourly service.
  • Easy connection to Long distance trains at Ipswich station.
  • A cafe or coffee kiosk

Passengers, who are going to work, need a service that is totally reliable, and this service has suffered in the past few years.

Dualling The Line

If my virtual helicopter ride, showed one thing, it was that there are wide margins around the current single track from Derby Road to Trimley, which hopefully would make installation of a second track reasonably straghtforward.

However, I did count six level crossings with barriers and what looked like five crossing points without. All will have to be upgraded for the second track or removed.

It is interesting to see, that Network Rail are proposing to close six crossings in their current plan, so is this to get rid of one of the major problems of the dualling early?

Perhaps, they have decided that removing six level crossings and dualling the line at the same time, would raise too many simultaneous problems for their legal department. But doing the level crossings first with a less ambitious dualling is less likely to be challenged.

The other big problem could be widening the bridge over the A14 dual-carriageway.

This Google Map shows the bridge.

The Felixstowe Branch Line Crosses The A14

The Felixstowe Branch Line Crosses The A14

But it looks to me, that everything is there to just slip in a second span.

So that could be at least future-proofed!

Where Is The Proposed Dualling?

According to the article in Modern Railways, the loop at Trimley is 1.4 km. long.

My estimate is that the distance between the two junctions, where the two branches go off to the Port of Felixstowe, is about this distance.

So could it be, that the loop is not for freight trains, but to allow the passenger trains to access Felixstowe station?

  • The Northern track would be bi-directional and connect Trimley and Felixstowe stations and would be for exclusive use of passenger trains.
  • The Southern track would be bi-directional and connect Trimley station to both the lines to the Port of Felixstowe and would be for exclusive use of trains to and from the Port.
  • At night, the track could be configured, so that two bi-directional tracks, that joined just to the West of Trimley station, went to each freight terminal The Northern track would serve the South Terminal and the Southern Track would serve the North Terminal.

The Port of Felixstowe has argued at times, that the Felixstowe Branch Line should be freight-only. Is this Network Rail’s proposal to create two separate freight and passenger lines using the same track?

From my observations at Ipswich that I wrote about in Curious Rail Construction At Ipswich Station, I am convinced that they have simplified track layout around Ipswich Freight Yard, so that freight and passenger trains, don’t conflict with each other at Ipswich.

So does this proposal remove conflicts at Felixstowe?

I think it does.

After the proposed loop is built, the line will be effectively in three sections.

  • A core line between Westerfield and Trimley stations with the existing passing loop at Derby Road.
  • At the Felixstowe end, there will effectively be separate lines into Felixstowe station, and the North and South Freight Terninals.
  • At the Ipswich end, there will be separate lines into Platforms 0 and 1 at Ipswich station, Ipswich Freight Yard and to both directions on the Great Eastern Main Line.
  • All of the connecting end lines would work with the simple rule of only allowing one train on the line at any one time.

At Felixstowe, freight trains might even be paired with one going into the North Terminal at the same time as one came out of the South Terminal. And vice-versa!

The train coming out, would wait at a signal before the junction for its branch and then when the other train had cleared the other junction going into the Port, it would be allowed to proceed through Trimley.

At night, trains could also be assembled as flights, so that several trains came in and out of the port in a stream. The reorganised Ipswich Yard must help in this.

As the new passenger trains will be somewhat faster than the current Class 153 trains and will be able to get away from stations quicker, I wonder if the timings will be such that two trains per hour might be possible.

These are current timings between Westerfield and Trimley in the core section.

  • Passenger train – 14 minutes
  • Freight train – 16 minutes

As trains don’t conflict on the double-track outer sections and have their own separate routes, it should be possible to have one 14 minute passenger and one 16 minute freight cycle in every half-hour, provided the trains pass at Derby Road.

With faster trains, fitting in two passenger trains and two freight trains in both directions in every hour might well be possible.

But you also have to content with other services on the East Suffolk Line  and other constraints, so I suspect that by being extremely thorough and downright devious, that the published figure of 47 trains a day is very feasible. And feasible when running two tph between Ipswich and Felixstowe!

Two passenger trains would be needed for the service.

Higher Speed Between Westerfield And Trimley

Once all the improvements at the two ends of the line are complete, the major constraint on capacity on the line is the time a train takes between Westerfield and Trimley.

The line is configured for 75 mph, but I wonder what sort of speed could be reached could be attained safely on the line between Westerfield and Trimley, with the following.

  • Removal of level crossings
  • Improved signalling.
  • Some minor track improvements.

It should be born in mind that there are no junctions from where the Felixstowe Branch leaves the East Suffolk Line at Westerfield and Trimley.

The speed limit would then probably be set by the maximum speed over the Spring Road Viaduct.

The distance between Westerfield and Trimley is almost exactly 10.5 miles.

This means that the freight train averages about 40 mph and the passenger train a miserly 45 mph.

So what sort of speeds can the various trains achieve.

  • Class 153 – 75 mph
  • Class 170 – 100 mph
  • Class 66 – 65/75 mph
  • Class 67 – 125 mph
  • Class 68 – 100 mph
  • Class 70 – 75 mph
  • Class 88 – 100 mph

It could be that the slow speed of the Class 66 locomotives are one of the constraints on the line, as timings must assume that locomotives could be the 65 mph variant.

If it were possible to raise the line speed to 90 mph, it could reduce timings on the line between Westerfield and Trimley.

These figures certainly show, why Network Rail are so keen to remove the level crossings on the line.

I suspect that suitable trains and locomotives could reduce times as follows if the line had a 90 mph limit.

  • Freight – 13 from 16 minutes.
  • Passenger – 12 from 14 minutes.

It might only save a couple of minutes with my crude estimate, but it certainly shows there are savings to be made by upgrading the line and using modern trains and locomotives.

Class 66 Locomotives

I don’t like Class 66 Locomotives and have believed for some time, that they have little place on the electrified lines in built-up areas. I wrote The Noisy Class 66 Locomotive on the subject a couple of years ago.

My crude analysis in the previous section shows that their slow speed actually cuts capacity.

Freightliner are one of the big operators of |Class 66 locomotives to and from the Port of Felixstowe. Wikipedia has a section on Class 66 Locomotives operated by Freightliner.

This is said.

Freightliner followed EWS by initially ordering five new Class 66/5 locomotives, and have continued to order in small batches. As of summer 2010, the 66/5 fleet had reached 98 examples; 66521 was withdrawn after the 2001 crash at Great Heck and later scrapped.

In 2000 a new Class 66/6 sub-class was built, with a lower gear ratio, enabling heavier trains to be hauled, albeit at slower speed. There are presently 25 examples of this class, numbered 66601-625. Some of these locomotives have since been exported for use with Freightliner Poland.

As freight trains are getting longer, it would appear that the slow 66/6 locomotives should be removed from this route as their 65 mph maximum speed is a constraint on maximising traffic between Westerfield and Trimley.

Electrification

Electrification is often talked about with respect to the Felixstowe Branch.

Reasons in favour include.

  • Freight trains going to and from London could be electric hauled.
  • Engine changes at Ipswich Yard would be minimised.
  • Electric haulage is more environmentally friendly.

But there are powerful reasons not in favour.

  • Cranes in a Port and 25kV overhead wires are bad bedfellows.
  • If the Class 88 Locomotive and other electro-diesel types are a success, they are probably more affordable than electrification.
  • Passenger services in the near future will be run by trains with an on-board power source; diesel, bi-mode or battery.
  • The main route to the Midlands via Peterborough and Nuneaton is not electrified.

But above all we seem so bad at electrification, the risk in wiring the line is too great.

I don’t think it is likely that the Felixstowe Branch will be electrified until the whole route to the Midlands is wired.

 

November 27, 2016 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , | 1 Comment

The Definitive Branch Line For An Electric Train With On Board Energy Storage

In Curious Rail Construction At Ipswich Station, I described how the current five-car Platform 1 has been electrified and given an electrified route of a few hundred metres to the Felixstowe Branch Line.

I then outlined how an ow an electric train with on-board energy storage, could work the Ipswich-Felixstowe service.

  • I’ll assume that a fully-charged train starts from the new depot at Manningtree or some other suitable overnight stabling.
  • The train positions early in the morning for the first service from Felixstowe, using  overhead power to Ipswich and on-board power on the branch.
  • Passengers load at Felixstowe and the train proceeds to Ipswich under on-board power to the current Platform 1 at Ipswich.
  • The train would sneak into the platform on the North side of Ipswich Freight Yard, well out of the way of the Great Eastern Main Line and any freight movements.
  • If the platform was busy and the train had to wait at a signal, it could even up pantograph to start the recharging of the on-board energy storage.
  • Once in Platform 1, the train would either start or continue the charging process.
  • The pantograph would be lowered, when the charging was complete or at any time before the train left for Felixstowe.

The process would continue all day.

But things don’t always go to plan, so what happens at Ipswich, if Platform 1 is blocked by a failed train?

As the train will be approaching Ipswich on a dedicated line, it would stop at a signal and wait. As the overhead wire to the station will be continuous, it would immediately up pantograph to start the charging process, to make certain, it wasn’t stuck with a flat battery.

There has been a lot of thought, in how trains with on board storage should be operated.

Similar layouts seem to be being installed at other places.

Maidenhead and the Marlow Branch Line

Maidenhead station is where the Marlow Branch Line connects to the Great Western Main Line.

Platform assignments after Crossrail will probably be.

  1. Down Fast
  2. Up Fast
  3. Down Slow – Crossrail
  4. Up Show – Crossrail
  5. Marlow Branch

Note that Platform 5 has recently been extended to the full Crossrail length of 200 metres, so could this platform be shared between the Marlow Branch trains and the Class 387 trains that will start to shuttle between Maidenhead and Paddington in mid-2017.

These are pictures taken at Maidenhead station.

Note the platform 5 for the Marlow Branch and the first couple of hundred metres of the branch are being electrified.

Trains with on-board energy storage between Maidenhead and Bourne End stations could certainly use the same procedure as the one I outlined for trains between Ipswich and Felixstowe. They would probably come into Platform 5 at Maidenhead, as the Marlow Branch trains currently do.

But they also have the advantage at Maidenhead of a very long two hundred metre Platform 5.

Note that four-car Class 387 trains couldn’t go past Bourne End station, so the remainder of the branch to Marlow would probably be served by a diesel shuttle.

On November 25th, 2016, I took this picture from a passing train.

dscn8302

Note.

  • I was looking directly down the Marlow Branch.
  • The two lines join around the position of the last gantry and the nearest one goes into Platform 4, with the farthest one going into Platform 5.
  • You can’t really see it too well in the picture, but the overhead wire appears to be only above the line into Platform 5.

This Google Map shows a close-up of the Western \end of Platforms 4 and 5 and the start of the Marlow Branch.

maidenheadstation

Hopefully, it will be clearer than mud now!

Note the two-car train in Platform 5.

So why is there no connecting electrification between Platform 4 and the Marlow Branch Line?

It could be that it hasn’t been erected yet, but on the other hand, it could be that it isn’t needed.

  • All trains arriving at Maidenhead from Bourne End would use Platform 5.
  • These trains would only use the wiring to the West of Platform 5, if say the platform was blocked, by say a failed train.
  • Trains between Bourne End and Paddington, after arriving at Platform 5 would up pantograph and  after leaving the platform, they would use an existing crossover to access the Up Slow line for Paddington.
  • Trains between Paddington and Bourne End would probably use the existing crossovers  to stop in Platform 5 after arriving on the Up Slow. Once in Platform 5, they would down pantograph and continue to Bourne End under on-board power.

So a second electrified line not being needed, could be the explanation of only one being created.

Note that when Crossrail starts, Crossrail trains will use Platforms 3 and 4 and will reverse using a reversing siding to the West of the station..

So the Marlow Branch and Crossrail will effectively be two separate systems with their own tracks, trains and arrangements.

Slough And The Slough to Windsor & Eton Line

Slough station is where the Slough to Windsor & Eton Line connects to the Great Western Main Line.

As I passed through Slough station, I noticed that the gantries are such, that just as at Maidenhead, the bay Platform 1 could have a short length of overhead wiring installed, so that the shuttle to Windsor and Eton Central station could be run using an electric train with on-board energy storage.

This small add-on to the electrification, would create a branch line independent of the main line.

  • It would be worked as a single train shuttle.
  • The train would be electric with on-board energy storage.
  • The train would charge at Slough station.
  • It would have dedicated platforms in the two terminal stations; Slough and Windsor and Eton Central.
  • The train could be worked using the principle of only one train on the line at a time or One Train Working.
  • Trains would enter and leave the dedicated branch tracks for servicing and other tasks, as they do now, through a connection to the Fast lines at Slough station.

Unlike the Marlow Branch, it would not need protection for failed trains, as there is only one train.

I would suspect that capacity at the Windsor end of the branch would limit any expansion unless a scheme like the Windsor Link Railway was brought forward and that a four-car electric shuttle train would be sufficient to work the line for many years.

Twyford And The Henley Branch Line

Twyford station is where the Henley Branch Line connects to the Great Western Main Line.

I wrote about using trains with on-board energy storage on the Henley Branch in Twyford Station And The Henley Branch and came to the conclusion, that electric trains of this type could serve this short branch of just four miles in length, with very little change to the infrastructure

Installing a short length of electrification in the bay platform 5 at Twyford station and for a short distance on the branch could be used to charge the trains.

As on the Marlow Branch and the Slough to Windsor and Eton Line, this would create a branch line independent of the main line.

I doubt that this line will ever be fully-electrified.

Certainly, as I passed the line today, there was no sign of any electrification.

West Ealing And Greenford Branch Line

West Ealing station is where the Greenford Branch Line connects to the Great Western Main Line.

But seeing as the last direct train from Greenford to Paddington seems to be on the 23rd of December 2016, the Greenford Branch Line will become an independent branch line with its own bay Platform 5 at West Ealing station, where passengers will have to change to and from Paddington.

In West Ealing Station – 12th October 2016, I showed the progress a couple of months ago and as at Slough gantries are in place, that could be used to electrify the new bay platform.

Once the wires were in place at the platform, all it would need to provide a quality service to Greenford, would be suitable electric train with on-board energy storage.

  • The journey would take around ten minutes.
  • Trains would charge their storage at West Ealing.
  • Two trains per hour would be possible with one train.
  • Four trains per hour would be possible with two trains, as the branch has a lot of double-track to allow passing.

The only infrastructure needed, other than the electrification might be some platform lengthening for the new trains.

As I passed the line today, there was some evidence of wires going up, but they probably can’t be completed until the new station is finished at West Ealing station.

Surely, if the branch was going to be run in perpetuity by diesel trains, there would be no evidence of electrification in the bay platform 5 and at the start of the Greenford Branch.

The Emerging Design

If you look at all these examples, most of which are ongoing projects, they have a series of common features.

  • The branch line is fairly simple, often just a shuttle between two dedicated terminal platforms.
  • The branch line is within the range of an electric train with on-board energy storage, to go out and return.
  • Some branches are worked using the principle of only one train on the line at a time or One Train Working.
  • At least one terminal platform will be electrified, so that the on board energy storage can be charged.
  • The branch line is within the range of an electric train with on-board energy storage.

The only feature not common to all the detailed examples, is where the electrified platform could be shared as at Ipswich and Maidenhead,

In these cases, provision must be made for another train failing in the station.

If Network Rail can get this philosophy right, it has the following advantages.

  • New or refurbished environmentally-friendly electric trains can replace elderly diesel trains on suitable routes.
  • As the electric trains will typically be four-cars or more, there will be large capacity increases.
  • There will be very little infrastructure work, except for platform lengthening and possibly electrifying an extra platform in a station on an already electrified line.
  • Network Rail will gain a bit of credibility.

As an example, Ipswich Felixstowe could go from an hourly single -car Class 153 train to an hourly five-car modern Aventra with Wi-fi and lots of space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

November 27, 2016 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Congestion At Ipswich Station

Ipswich station suffers from too much traffic and not enough platforms

This set of pictures was taken as I changed trains for Felixstowe, at around 12:00

In the short time, I was there, I saw the following trains go through the station.

  • A Norwich to London Express.
  • A London to Norwich Express
  • A very long freight train.
  • A train arrive from Lowestoft and wait in Platform 1.
  • My train arrived from Felixstowe.

What made matters worse was a light engine sitting on the avoiding line between the two main lines.

I took these pictures later on my return from Felixstowe.

The two sets of pictures illustrate some of the problems at Ipswich station.

  1. There is a large number of freight and passenger trains, that go through the station.
  2. The platforms available for services to Cambridge, Felixstowe, Lowestoft, Norwich and Peterborough is limited.
  3. Trains sometimes have to terminate in the Through Up Platform 2.
  4. Two long passenger trains per hour between London and Norwich, go through  in each direction.

Unfortunately, 3 and 4 interact badly with each other and this interaction will get worse with the new Flirt trains, which are longer than the current trains.

One solution would be a second bay platform, alongside the current Platform 1.

The new Greater Anglia Franchise has also had a sort out of services through Ipswich. The two most important ones that will be implemented are.

  • Peterborough-Ipswich will be hourly and continues to Colchester. So Colchester has the problem of turning the train.
  • The hourly Liverpool Street to Ipswich service will be extended to Norwich, to increase the Liverpool Street to Norwich frequency to three trains per hour.

These two changes reduce the amount of platform space needed, as these services will stop and hopefully be quickly on their way!

 

 

November 26, 2016 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , , | 1 Comment

Curious Rail Construction At Ipswich Station

I came into Ipswich station today on a train from Lowestoft and took these pictures before I got on a train to London.

They would appear to show the following.

  • An electrified line has been created to the North of Ipswich Yard between the Felixstowe Branch Line and Ipswich station.
  • Some construction on the far side of the siding that lies next to the platform used for Lowestoft and Felixstowe trains.

Could the construction, be tye start of work for a dedicated platform for the Felixstowe Branch?

Consider the following about traffic on the Felixstowe Branch Line.

  • According to this article in Rail Magazine, there are now twenty-three daily freight trains out of Felixstowe.
  • The freight trains are getting longer and I have seen trains hauled by a pair of Class 66 locomotives.
  • Passenger trains are a single-car Class 153 train every hour.
  • The Class 153 train takes twenty-six minutes.
  • The line is around fifteen miles of unelectrified line.
  • The Freightliner motive power depot is going to be moved from Ipswich to Felkixstowe.
  • The December 2016 Edition of Modern Railways is saying that a 1.4 km loop will be built on the branch and six level crossings will be closed.

Despite the last two points, the single track branch line must be very much full.

There are also issues with the Class 153 trains at Ipswich.

  • Do they sometimes find it difficult to get through all the freight trains to the bay platform at Ipswich?
  • Sometimes, they use the end of the main platform 2, but as the Flirts will be longer, this won’t be possible when the new trains arrive.
  • Various reports have said that two bay platforms are needed; one for Felixstowe services and one for Lowestoft services.

We don’t know their actual plans, but Greater Anglia would probably love to put a modern electric train on the Ipswich-Felixstowe route.

Electrification of the Felixstowe Branch is not even likely.

  • Electrification of the Felixstowe Branch without wiring all the way to Nuneaton would probably not be good value for money.
  • Where would Freightliner get all the electric locomotives?
  • The Port of Felixstowe isn’t wired and might not want wires all over the place with cranes everywhere!
  • The Gospel Oak to Barking Line will be electrified and what effects will this have?

The only bright spot on the horizon is Greater Anglia’s new Flirts, which could release fifteen well-maintained and reliable Class 90 locomotives.

A modern two-coach train, even if it was a diesel, would have benefits.

  • It would be faster and thus scheduling the crowded route could be easier.
  • It might attract more passengers to the line, especially, if there was space for bicycles and buggies.
  • It should be more reliable.

But I suspect Greater Anglia would want an electric train with all the trimmings.

So am I right,  that a new electrified line has been created into the station in a place where a new platform can be created?

  • I might be wrong and it could have been there for years to enable the movements of electric locomotives, without blocking the main line.
  • But there are certainly modern style gantries and supports for the overhead wires.
  • The existing bay platform 1 is wired. Why? No current or possible electric services could use the platform.

But something is certainly happening.

  • Is it a new platform or just tidying up?
  • Is it a walkway to enable train drivers to get to locomotives in Ipswich Yard?
  • Is it a short platform to take up to a two-car train?

There is one other possibility, that fits with my observations at Maidenhead and the Marlow Branch, that I wrote about in Bourne End Station And Improving The Marlow Branch Line.

At Maidenhead, I came to the conclusion, that electric trains (Class 387s?) with on-board energy storage were going to be used on the Marlow Branch to Bourne End, with a diesel shuttle between Bourne End and Marlow.

Is the current Platform 1 at Ipswich, which could probably accommodate a five-car Aventra going to be used in the same way?

Consider how an electric train with on-board energy storage, would work the Ipswich-Felixstowe service.

  • I’ll assume that a fully-charged train starts from the new depot at Manningtree or some othe suitable overnight stabling.
  • The train positions early in the morning for the first service from Felixstowe, using  overhead power to Ipswich and on-board power on the branch.
  • Passengers load at Felixstowe and the train proceeds to Ipswich under on-board power to the current Platform 1 at Ipswich.
  • The train would sneak into the platform on the North side of Ipswich Yard, well out of the way of the Great Eastern Main Line and any freight movements.
  • If the platform was busy and the train had to wait at a signal, it could even up pantograph to start the recharging of the on-board storage.
  • Once in Platform 1, the train would either start or continue the charging process.
  • The pantograph would be lowered, when the charging was complete or the train was approaching the limit of the overhead wiring on its way out to Felixstowe.

The process would continue all day.

But Aventras will be a clever train. This is a snippet from an article in the Derby Telegraph.

Unlike today’s commuter trains, Aventra can shut down fully at night and can be “woken up” by remote control before the driver arrives for the first shift.

So could we see a train parked at Felixstowe overnight, ready for the driver to get into a nice warm train?

I used to live round the corner from Felixstowe station and as the train would be in full view of the Police Station opposite and electrifically dead, I doubt there would be any security problem.

A five-car Aventra parked overnight with an appropriate all-over paint scheme might even encourage new passengers to give it a try.

Obviously, the suitable Aventra doesn’t exist yet, but putting in a new short platform 0 at Ipswich station, that can accept a three-car train, would mean.

  • Platform 2 would no longer be needed for terminating trains at Ipswich.
  • Twelve-car Flirts could work the London-Norwich services, without terminating services interfering.
  • Felixstowe and Lowestoft services would have a short platform 0 and a longer platform 1, to use appropriately.
  • The infrastructure would be ready for the Aventra with on-board storage.

But surely the biggest advantage is that a second bay platform would probably be to make it possible to schedule all trains such that if passengers were changing between the various lines to Bury St. Edmunds, Cambridge, Felixstowe, London, Lowestoft and Norwich, it was a convenient process of less than ten minutes.

Whether an Aventra with on-board storage will ever appear on this route is unknown at present, but there could be other advantages to running such a train on the Felixstowe Branch.

 

  • Electrification of the branch can be kicked into some very long grass or buried at sea.
  • The branch gets a massive increase in passenger capacity, without losing any paths for freight trains.
  • The extra capacity with plenty of space for bicycles and buggies.
  • Greater Anglia get a line for training drivers to use on-board storage.
  • Bombardier get a  demonstration of a train with on-board energy storage.

It could be a win for all parties.

 

 

 

 

 

November 24, 2016 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , , | 4 Comments

East Anglia Has Train Problems

One of my Google Alerts found this article from the Ipswich Star, which is entitled Bus replaces rail services between Ipswich and Felixstowe and Marks Tey and Sudbury.

It turns out that the track is damaging the train wheels.

Sounds like it’s the age-old problem of giving crap trains and not maintaining the track in East Anglia.

I can remember Ipswich to Felixstowe trains from the 1960s, when I thought they were truly dreadful.

It seems nothing changes!

November 18, 2015 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , | Leave a comment

Affordable Electrification

In First Great Western’s Pragmatic Large And Little Solution To The Problems Of Great Western Electrification, I put forward a theory that First Great Western were thinking pragmatically and using new innovative trains to provide services on their network.

The Large And Little Approach

I called it a Large (Class 800 train or similar) and Little (IPEMU) approach. In the related article I was assuming that the IPEMU or Independently Powered Electrical Multiple Unit was based on a Class 387 train, but as Electrostars are being succeeded by Aventras, the IPEMU could equally well be based on the newer design.

So how will these trains affect electrification in other parts of the country?

Also in the September 2015 Edition Modern Railways are three articles, where a Class 800 or an IPEMU could be the solution.

  1. 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. Their specification seems to have been written for the Class 800 train.
  2. 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 800 or an IPEMU.
  3. Roger Ford is also talking about Open Access Hotting Up. Some of the routes would be ideal for either a Class 800 or an 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, Skegness, Wisbech, Windermere, Chester and Burnley come to mind.

Part-Time Electric Trains

Both the Class 800 trains and an IPEMU, are effectively part-time electric trains.

The Class 800 is an electric train with an on-board diesel engine for use, where there are no overhead wires. It will thus be able to go between London and the South West in a few year’s time, by using electric power between London and Newbury and diesel power eldsewhere. As more and more of the line is electrified, more of the journey will be done under electric power.

The IPEMU uses an on-board battery, charged when working under the overhead wires to effectively serve the same purpose as the diesel engines of the Class 800, and provide power on sections of the line without overhead wires.

Common to both types of train will be a sophisticated control system, that puts the pantograph up and down depending on whether the train is running under electrified wires.

So as more and more overhead wires are installed, the trains become much more full-time electric trains.

When a Class 800 is no longer needed to use its diesel engines, they can be removed to convert the train into an all-electric Class 801 train.

With the IPEMU, you just remove the batteries.

So one of the big advantages of these two trains, is that you never end up with a surplus of trains, that are no use anywhere else on the network.

We’re always going to have a need for 200 kph high-speed electric trains for long-distance services and four-car electric trains will find plenty of work all over the network.

Thoughts On IPEMU Trains

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 and computerised train management systems will also learn how to coax the maximum range out of the trains.

Also with Bombardier switching production to the new lighter and more efficient Aventra train, which according to this article on Global Rail News, is designed so that lithium-iron batteries can added as required. 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 prototype train based on a Class 379 train, weighs in at forty tonne a car, as against the planned weight of thirty-five tonne for an Aventra. The article also says this.

Bombardier’s EBI Drive 50 Driver Assistance System enables drivers to achieve an economical driving style and energy savings of up to 15%. Regenerative dynamic braking saves yet more, as does the use of ‘intelligent’ air conditioning and a ‘Smart Stabling’ system to shut unused vehicles down when out of service but come back online quickly when required.

So what sort of range will an Aventra set up to run as an IPEMU, have on batteries, bearing in mind that the heavier and less-efficient prototype can do sixty miles. But does it really matter what the train can do on batteries, if you can provide short lengths of overhead wire and have intelligent systems on the train to put the pantograph up and down accordingly.

I believe that there is probably an opportunity to create the ultimate Aventra IPEMU within a few years.

This could enable services like.

  1. London to Yarmouth via Cambridge, Thetford and Norwich
  2. London to Salisbury and Exeter
  3. Ipswich to Cambridge and Peterborough
  4. Manchester to Sheffield
  5. 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 Class 379 IPEMU test train.

Aventra And Aventra IPEMU Compared

If what I gleaned on my tip in the Class 379 IPEMU at Manningtree is true, the performance difference between the two trains will be minimal.

I also believe that from a passenger’s view, the trains will be identical.

The big difference comes, when you convert a line for the two trains.

Suppose you want to run either train on say a branch line like Felixstowe, which is a dozen miles off an electrified line with a station at the end.

Obviously, you would need to modify stations, track, bridges and tunnels accordingly, so they fitted the new trains and any freight traffic on the route. You would probably make enough space, for overhead wires, even if you were not fitting them at this time.

If the line was only going to be served by the IPEMU variant and there was to be no other electric traffic, the wires would not need to be installed.

Once the line was complete with signalling and fully inspected and certified, the trains would be able to run.

If the trains to be used were to be the IPEMU variant, you would be running test services on the line long before you would with conventional trains.

In how many places would the use of these trains provide a modern service without the expense and time-scale of full electrification, which seems to be riddled with all sorts of cost-elevating problems?

Case Study 1 – Edinburgh To Inverness

I’m including this as it is a journey I have done in the cab of an InterCity 125. I took a video.

The journey takes three hours thirty three minutes with stops along the way.

At present only a small amount of the route close to Edinburgh is electrified, but by 2018, the line will be electrified as far as Dunblane.

When the new Class 800 trains are delivered, these trains will run this route from London, as my train had done.

As there is now so little electrification between Edinburgh and Inverness, these trains will probably take the same time on introduction, but as more electrification is commissioned, the time through the Highlands will drop.

They will at least get up from London to Edinburgh in a faster time, than they do now, as they will take full advantage of the fully electrified route.

Other very long routes would probably benefit from the use of Class 800 trains.

  1. Aberdeen to Penzance
  2. Bournemouth to Manchester
  3. Liverpool to Norwich
  4. Cardiff to Manchester
  5. London Euston to Holyhead

Many like London to Holyhead have long stretches of electrified line.

One great advantage, is that if say the route gets electrified in the future, you can use Class 801 electric trains, to give passengers the same or better level of service.

Case Study 2 – Carlisle To Newcastle

I have listed that IPEMU trains would be able to run between Carlisle to Newcastle.

So I will look at this line as a case study.

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 an 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 given new electric passenger trains in this way?

Infrastructure Problems

Much of the infrastructure problems delaying and increasing the costs of electrification is dealing with inadequate Victorian infrastructure like the flying buttesses at Chorley and Farnworth Tunnel.

Some of these infrastructure problems have to be fixed as they are in danger of collapse and others offer inadequate clearance for modern freight trains.

I also heard from drivers in Liverpool, that they notice the quality of the land as they drive the Class 319 trains over Chat Moss. It caused Stephenson a lot of trouble and also didn’t help in the erection of the overhead wires between Liverpool and Manchester.

So perhaps we should adopt a pragmatic approach to putting up the overhead wires.

For instance, if IPEMU trains had been a standard UK train, when the electrification between Liverpool and Manchester was designed, would engineers have decided not to electrify across Chat Moss, as the batteries could be used?

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.

Case Study 3 – The Windermere Branch

So will we see the electrification on the ten mile long, Windermere branch cut back and IPEMU serving this branch? According to this government document, the project will cost sixteen million pounds. Buying trains is often quoted at a million pounds a carriage, so would the budget be better spent on buying two or three  IPEMU for First TransPennine?

There are other reasons, why this could happen.

  1. First TransPennine is owned by the same company as First Great Western and they have the same problems over electrification as their West Country cousins. So will we see the same pragmatism in both companies?
  2. There would be no infrastructure work required at all on the branch and the electric trains could serve any desired point to the south like Preston, Liverpool, Manchester and Crewe.
  3. This area is very special to a lot of people and it only wants someone with deep pockets and no sense, who objects to electrification to cause Network Rail to blow the whole budget on legal fees. Replacing one diesel train with a quieter battery train probably doesn’t cause these problems.
  4. Remember too, that working from the overhead line, the Class 387 is an 110 mph train, that could mix it with the Class 390 Pendolinos on the West Coast Main Line.
  5. Network Rail probably don’t want to do the electrification of the Windermere branch, as it will consume resources that could be better deployed elsewhere.

So if I was in charge, I wouldn’t electrify the Windermere branch, but use IPEMU trains. Windermere would get smart new electric trains and Network Rail would have one less job to do.

The Big Beast Enters The Jungle

Sir Peter Hendy has now been made the Chairman of Network Rail.

In my view, he is an excellent choice and he will make a difference to the perceived shambles that is Network Rail’s record on electrification.

He has certainly got proven qualities that will help him in his new job.

  1. Anybody who can work with Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone and not get fired, must have the knack of dealing with politicians.
  2. In the creation of Crossrail and the London Overground, he seems to have got on well with train companies and Network Rail, despite some of them having to give way on decisions, that meant they lost revenue and profits.
  3. From what I’ve heard from workers and engineers, project management in Transport for London is pretty good and projects regularly come in on time and under budget.
  4. On the Over/Underground innovative infrastructure solutions like the Circle Line becoming a spiral and the Clapham Kiss are encouraged.

The way a company or organisation behaves starts at the top.

Tram-Trains

I like tram-trains and I’ve seen them working successfully all over Germany. In their simplest form, they allow trams on a self-contained tram network like Croydon, Manchester or Sheffield to transfer onto the heavy rail network and run as trains to another town or city. The tram-train trial in Sheffield, where Class 399 tram-trains will run between Cathedral and Rotherham Parkgate, is fairly simple, but some tram-train networks in Germany like Kassel and Karlsruhe stretch for over a hundred miles.

There is no reason, why extensive tram-train networks could not be developed in some UK cities and towns. How about?

  • Birmingham
  • Blackpool
  • Cardiff
  • Edinburgh
  • Nottingham
  • Sheffield

Obviously the trial in Sheffield must be successful.

If a city has a modern tramway, I feel that to use it as a base for tram-trains, has many advantages.

  • Affordable electrification on rural and secondary routes
  • Increasing the number of trams running through city centres and on parts of the network needing an increase in capacity.
  • Tramway running to difficult to reach local attractions and locations
  • Relieving capacity problems in stations by putting some lines on a much better-routed tramway, like say through a Shopping Centre, past a sports ground or along the coast.
  • In some places in Germany, tram-trains have even released the main station for redevelopment for other uses.
  • Also in Germany, I have a feeling that tram-trains have been used to link two separate tram networks by using a connecting heavy rail route. Think Manchester and Sheffield along the Hope Valley Line.

In addition, we could even make a particular type of tram-train a standard and develop methods of standardised tramway construction.

But would say Yarmouth accept the same system as Blackpool? Or Liverpool the same one as Manchester?

Tramway construction in this country has a bad reputation, as systems like Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield and Edinburgh have been delivered late and have caused excessive grief during construction. It is worth comparing these unhappy experiences with the current progress of the Wimbledon Line Enhancement Programme on the London Tramlink. It is a tricky project to provide a new terminal platform within Wimbledon station. Work started on July 13th this year and the new platform is scheduled to open in October.

We must get our project management of tramway construction and enhancement right!

Case Study 4 – Tram-Trains In Blackpool

Blackpool Tramway used to be much larger and is one that could be grown by the use of tram-trains.

This report on the BBC, talks about Balfour Beatty withdrawal from the project to electrify the lines around the North-West, which includes Blackpool.

Modern Railways in September is also reporting that the Liverpool to Blackpool North service will be split to allow Class 319 electric trains to work the southern part of the route.

Let’s hope this hiatus results in a sensible solution for Blackpool.

Included in the report of the North of England Electrification Task Force is a proposal in Tier Two to electrify Burnley to Colne  and Kirkham to Blackpool South.

These two routes meet at Preston, so why not use a tram-train to connect Colne to Blackpool. The line is mainly single-track and around Burnley, there are some massive viaducts, which probably would be expensive to electrify to main line standards.

So electrifying this route to allow tram-trains to serve it, would probably be more affordable. The route would be as follows.

  • Colne to Rose Grove – Single-line tramway
  • Rose Grove to Kirkham via Preston – Double track electrified heavy rail
  • Kirkham to Blackpool South – Single-line tramway
  • At Blackpool South the tram-train would join the Blackpool tramway.

There would also be possibilities to use tram-trains on the former Fleetwood Branch to link the town to Preston.

In the long term, I believe that tram-trains emanating from Blackpool and Preston could make use of some of the disused or rather badly-served rail lines in the area.

Could the Ormskirk to Preston Line be served by tram-trains working from Blackpool, thus improving connection between Preston and Blackpool and the area of Lancashire north of Liverpool and around Southport?

Around the turn of the Century, Blackpool was a decaying resort living on former glories, with a rather quaint tram going up the coast, no direct rail service to London and only a fleet of decrepit trains taking visitors and residents to Preston and beyond.

Now fifteen years later, it has a modern tramway, that compares well with any in the world and it is due to get electrified services to Preston, the rest of the North West and London, if the electrification project can be rescued.

Adding tram-trains into the town to increase connectivity can only be good for Blackpool, Preston and the Greater North West. They would also have the benefit of taking two lines off the list of lines to be electrified.

Power Stations

If we look at the IPEMUs, they will have a range of at least 60 miles. So suppose an IPEMU wanted to go from perhaps fifty miles one side of an electrified station like Crewe to fifty miles the other side. Could the train sit at the platform at Crewe, whilst passengers are unloaded and loaded with its pantograph up to charge the battery for the next part of the journey? Or perhaps its journey could be arranged so that for a short distance, the train ran along an electrified line?

I thin engineers will come up with innovative ideas to get power to IPEMUs.

Suppose for example, a branch line from an electrified main line was say about thirty miles long, which as the train would have to go out and back from the main line, this might be towards the range limit of an IPEMU. Perhaps by electrifying a few miles at the main line end of the branch, the branch would now be well within the range of an IPEMU. As the electric power would be taken from the main line, there would be no problems getting power to the short length of overhead wire.

Case Study 5 – London to Yarmouth Via Cambridge And Norwich

Could this route be run by an IPEMU?

The journey is effectively in four parts.

  1. London to Ely – Electrified
  2. Ely to Norwich – Not Electrified
  3. Norwich Station – Electrified
  4. Norwich to Yarmouth – Not Electrified

The longest section that is non-electrified is the section between Ely and Norwich at just over fifty miles.

Yarmouth is just twenty miles from Norwich, so it would appear that if the wait at Norwich station is sufficient to charge the battery, then a London to Yarmouth service via Cambridge, Cambridge Science Park and Ely would be a feasible service for an IPEMU. The only infrastructure needed might be to electrify some extra platforms at Norwich and the bay platforms at Cambridge.

I think that this case study shows the flexibility and capabilities of an IPEMU, AND illustrates why Abellio Greater Anglia (AGA) were very keen to help out in the trial of the Class 379 IPEMU. They knew that it was likely that a four-car IPEMU could start from London or Cambridge, stop at the new Cambridge Science Park station, Ely and Thetford and reach Norwich, where after charging batteries it would proceed to Yarmouth and return to Norwich. Most of the journey to Norwich could possibly be done at a line speed of upwards of 70 mph, thus comfortably outperforming the current diesel multiple unit in terms of time, frequency and comfort. The service could also bring Yarmouth into the electrified network and give the town a direct connection to London. AGA would be rewarded in extra passengers bringing in more revenue.

Knowing the area well, I think that if two trains an hour ran each way between Cambridge and Norwich, the locals would be very pleased.

Whilst looking at Norwich the distances of Cromer, Sheringham and Lowestoft from the city are twenty, thirty and twenty-five miles respectively. So all four major destinations on the branches from Norwich could be served by IPEMUs.

Case Study 6 – Ipswich to Cambridge and Peterborough

To be fair to Ipswich and Suffolk, I will also look at how IPEMUs could be used between Ipswich and Cambridge and Peterborough

Ipswich to Cambridge is electrified at both ends, so the IPEMU trains would just have to bridge the gap between Haughley Junction and Cambridge, which is a distance of about thirty miles. At both ends of the line they would fully charge their batteries.

Ely to Peterborough is not electrified for about thirty miles, so even if an Ipswich to Peterborough IPEMU didn’t pick up power at Ely, it could probably travel direct from Haughley to Peterborough under battery power.

The two branch lines at Ipswich to Felixstowe and Lowestoft are twelve and fifty miles long respectfully, so although Felixstowe would be easily served by an IPEMU, unless some form of charging could be provided at Lowestoft, serving Lowestoft is probably not possible.

But then Suffolk people are very resourceful and as the county is pretty flat, so I suspect they’ll find some way of getting the standard IPEMU between Ipswich and Lowestoft.

One way might be for the Lowestoft trains to actually go between Ipswich and Norwich via Lowestoft. Trains would leave Ipswich and Norwich at times, so that they arrived in Lowestoft a few minutes apart. The trains would then leave in a few minutes to the alternate start point.

An advantage of this routing, is that towns like Beccles and Halesworth, would get a direct connection to Norwich and those on the Norwich to Lowestoft Line would get a direct connection to Ipswich.

So both trains would travel a distance of seventy-five miles over some very flat countryside, which could probably be managed by an Aventra IPEMU.

If the Felixstowe branch was to be electrified, this would cut a couple of miles off the non-electrified route.

This analysis is probably totally wrong, but I suspect that Network Rail have a cunning plan to get IPEMUs from Ipswich to Lowestoft.

The only other line in East Anglia run with diesel trains is the twelve-mile long Gainsborough Line from Marks Tey to Sudbury. It therefore could be easily served using a single IPEMU, This would give the possibility of all London and local passenger services in East Anglia being served by electric trains.

Saying they were an all-electric railway, would not be a negative marketing point for AGA or their successors. But perhaps more importantly, what would it save in running and maintenance costs?

Extending Local Networks With IPEMUs

In the earlier Case Studies 5 and 6, I showed how a network of lines running electric trains could be created around Cambridge, Ely, Ipswich and Norwich, using IPEMUs.

So are there any other hubs, which have a network of local lines converge, where IPEMUs could be used to create an electric network or expand an existing one?

The following cities have networks of local lines and are on electrified major routes.

  • Birmingham
  • Edinburgh
  • Glasgow
  • Leeds
  • Liverpool
  • Manchester
  • Peterborough

In the next few years the following places should be added.

  • Bristol
  • Cardiff
  • Middlesbrough
  • Nottingham

In some places like Cardiff and Leeds, the local networks are being developed by traditional electrification,  and in others like Nottingham, tram-trains may play a big part, but could IPEMUs be used as I showed they could be in East Anglia?

Case Study 7 – Bristol

This entry in Wikipedia entitled Rail Services in the West of England gives details of all the myriad lines that exist or did exist in the Bristol area.

This page on the Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways shows a rather jolly map of railways around the city.

There have also been plans for a Greater Bristol Metro for some time, that ties all of the lines together.

Once Bristol Temple Meads station and some of the lines are electrified, it might be possible to use IPEMUs to serve some of the branch lines, as most of them are less than twenty miles long.

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.

Future Electrification

In England and Wales, there are several big electrification projects in progress in addition to the Great Western.

  • Gospel Oak to Barking Line
  • East Anglia and Freight Routes From Felixstowe
  • Trans Pennine from Liverpool to Hull
  • Midland Main Line/Electric Spine
  • Secondary and Branch Lines In The North
  • South Wales Valleys
  • Waterloo to Salisbury and Exeter
  • Ashford to Hastings and Eastbourne
  • Hurst Green and Uckfield
  • Reading to Gatwick

I’ll now discuss each in detail with respect to the pragmatic attitude that seems to be being taken by train operating companies and Network Rail.

Gospel Oak to Barking Line

The problems on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line (GOBLin) are summed up as follows.

  • Not enough passenger capacity
  • Too many environmentally-unfriendly Class 66 locomotives pulling freight trains through the area.

The line is also being extended to Barking Riverside, where given the infrastructure in the area, the new extension will be fully electrified. So the layout of the line is effectively a twelve mile or so non-electrified line connected to fully electrified lines at both ends.

As new Aventra trains are being delivered for the line, why not add batteries to the GOBlin part of the order so that these trains can run as IPEMUs, thus just leaving the problem of the freight locomotives.

The money saved could be used to improve some of the stations, with full step-free access, longer platforms,better shelters and other facilities.

Incidentally, this line would surely make a very good test track for the Aventras with batteries. If the trains were available tomorrow, they could probably start running after a few modifications to the platforms and electrification of the platform the trains use at Barking station.

The Class 66 locomotive problem will only be solved by full electrification, but an interim solution would be to use Class 88 locomotives on the GOBlin.

I think Network Rail would file abandonment of full electrification under Relieved, as electrifying this line is going to be difficult with all the viaducts and bridges and the need to run lots of replacement buses across a congested city to get passengers to work, rest and play. There is an article on the Railfuture web site, which describes how the electrification might be performed. This is a paragraph.

It is expected that NR will electrify first one half of the line and then the other half, and that whilst electrification is in progress on each half, that part of the line will be closed and the service provided by rail replacement bus. Whilst electrification is in progress LOROL will be able to run longer trains on the remaining half of the line with the existing stock, provided platform lengthening is completed early whilst work proceeds. Therefore if electrification keeps to current plans and if TfL could source electric stock (possibly temporarily, until the new stock is available) when electrification is completed, overcrowding will only be a problem for a period of a year between now and the start of electrification.

It sounds like a lesson in how to organise chaos.

Changing the trains to Aventra IPEMU would also release eight Class 172 diesel trains, for cascade to other routes all over the country on delivery of the new trains.

Obviously, the GOBlin needs to be fully electrified for freight trains, but if the passenger train problem has been solved, this could surely be done at a slower pace, without closing the line, for more than the odd day or two at weekends.

Also if all stations were made step-free before the full electrification, there would be some easier routes for passengers to use to by-pass the works.

East Anglia and Freight Routes From Felixstowe

East Anglia in general suffers from similar problems to the GOBlin of not enough quality passenger  train capacity and large numbers of freight trains, mostly going to and from the Port of Felixstowe.

The main routes are electrified from London to Ipswich, Norwich, Cambridge and Ely, but there are several large gaps in the electrification.

  • Ely to Ipswich
  • Ely to Norwich
  • Ely to Peterborough
  • Ipswich to Cambridge
  • Ipswich to Felixstowe
  • Norwich to Yarmouth

In addition, there are branch lines that need better trains or are being talked about for reopening.

  • Ipswich to Lowestoft
  • March to Wisbech
  • Marks Tey to Sudbury
  • Norwich to Cromer
  • Norwich to Lowestoft

I haven’t included it, but given the right trains would it be possible to re-open Sudbury to Cambridge via Haverhill? Perhaps, as a single track or even a tramway.

There is also a new station at Cambridge Science Park being built and I believe this needs direct services to Norwich and Ipswich.

I believe most, if not all, of the main line gaps could be bridged and the branch lines could be served by IPEMUs. These trains would also open up the possibility of direct services between London and Bury St. Edmunds, Lowestoft, Thetford, Yarmouth and perhaps a few other places. In recent memory both Lowestoft and Yarmouth had direct services to and from London.

I feel that Norwich in Ninety will require faster trains with better acceleration on the route. These would probably be nine-car Class 801 electric trains. Would perhaps, a couple of electro-diesel Class 800 trains be added, to run London to Norwich and Yarmouth via Cambridge, Ely and Thetford?

It might appear that this would remove a lot of the need for completing the electrification in East Anglia, but I believe two lines should be electrified.

The Felixstowe branch line, which serves the Port of Felixstowe should probably be electrified, so that engine changes at Ipswich are avoided for freight trains that are being hauled all the way by an electric  or electro-diesel locomotive.

The line from Peterborough to Ely should also be electrified, as this would provide a valuable electrified diversion route for the East Coast Main Line. Such a diversion would have been invaluable last Christmas, when Kings Cross was closed, due to overrunning engineering work. A twelve coach shuttle could have been run between Liverpool Street and Peterborough via Cambridge and Ely.

As I showed in Case Studies 5 and 6, all other lines in East Anglia could be run by IPEMUs.

At some point in the next couple of decades, Network Rail will tackle the biggest bottleneck on the railways of the UK; the Digswell viaduct. This will obviously need line closures and if Ely to Peterborough is electrified, a shuttle can be run bypassing the trouble.

Trans Pennine Routes from Liverpool to Hull

The routes across the Pennines are both complex and comprehensive. This map shows the current and planned electrification.

Northern Electrification Map

Northern Electrification Map

At present Network Rail is attempting to electrify the lines shown in yellow and to be frank, is not really performing on time and on budget.

In Crossrail Of The North, I said this.

Is it farther between Liverpool and Hull or from London to Norwich?

Actually, they are about the same being around two hundred kilometres for both.

But compare the train times between the two city pairs.

Liverpool to Hull takes three and a quarter hours, with at least one change, whereas London to Norwich takes five minutes under two hours.

We;re not far off now, before Network Rail publish their Norwich in Ninety plans. In this recent article in the Eastern Daily Press, this is said.

Recommendations from a task force which has been pressing for improvements – which includes £476m of infrastructure investment and new trains to be demanded in the next operator contract – were supported by chancellor George Osborne in the autumn statement.

So what are they doing about the similar problems of speeding up the myriad rail routes across the Pennines?

The problems across the Pennines are in addition to the timing problems, one of inadequate capacity in the Class 185 trains, that run on most of the long distance routes. They may have a 100 mph top speed, but these three-car trains are definitely budget trains, specified by the Treasury.

The first solution is for the operator; First TransPennine Express to do what its sister company First Great Western has done and get some trains, that can do the job that the infrastructure will allow.

These are the various routes run by First TransPennine Express.

Much of the North Transpennine Route from Liverpool to Newcastle and Hull via Manchester and Leeds, is electrified, although the Manchester to Leeds section and the three branches to Hull, Scarborough and Middlesborough are not.

The South TransPennine Route, is only electrified round Manchester, whereas on the TransPennine NorthWest Route only the branches to Blackpool, Barrow and Windermere are without electrification.

Timings are generally slow and I do hope that Network Rail are coming up with the track improvements that will speed up the journeys. They seem to have been able to find savings between London and Norwich, so can they do the same across the Pennines?

Perhaps Liverpool to Hull in Hundred would be a catchy target?

As some parts of the route are electrified, a Large and Little solution to the trains may also be appropriate.

The Large component could be a variant of the standard electro-diesel Class 800, of an appropriate size and layout. I suspect that the standard five-car train being built at Newton Aycliffe for First Great Western and Virgin Trains East Coast might be a good starting point. In the September edition of Modern Railways, there is a headline of Bi-Modes for TPE? Translated out of jargon, that is saying will TransPennine Express get Class 800 trains or similar?

Electro-diesel trains would be specified, as I can’t see the Northern Electrification being finished in the near future. But when it is finished, the diesel engines will just be removed to convert the trains to the electric Class 801.

The Little component would be the IPEMU. It would probably be needed as some of the destinations and branches may not accept the larger train.

In the Future section for the Wikiedia entry for First TransPennine Express, this is said.

In June 2014 the DfT confirmed that there will be two separate franchises in the north of England, one providing intercity rail services and a second providing local rail services. There are proposals to transfer theManchester Airport to Blackpool North, Preston and the Lancaster to Barrow-in-Furness, Oxenholme to Windermere and the York to Scarborough and Doncaster to Cleethorpes services to the Northern franchise and transfer the Nottingham to Liverpool portion of the Norwich to Liverpool service currently operated by East Midlands Trains to the TransPennine franchise.

So before I leave TransPennine Routes, I had better look at what this might mean.

It looks like the Scarborough, Cleethorpes, Windermere and Barrow branches will become part of Northern Rail.

I showed earlier that the Windermere branch would be an easy trip for an IPEMU and this could run over the electrified network from there to Manchester Victoria, Piccadilly and Airport, Liverpool and hopefully, Blackpool.

The Barrow branch would also be possible for an IPEMU as it is well under sixty miles for a return trip from Carnforth, so this would mean that one of the most scenic rail routes in the UK, wouldn’t ruin the countryside by electrification.

The Scarborough branch is forty-two miles long, so it is too long for the current predicted performance of a IPEMU. If a simple method of charging the train at Scarborough station could be developed, then this route would probably be feasible.

The Cleethorpes Branch is probably possible with an IPEMU.

So I come to the conclusion, that although electrification of the TransPennine routes, would be nice and will eventually be done, the same high-quality passenger service across the Pennines, you would get with electric trains, can be obtained with a Large and Little mixture of new Class 800 and IPEMU trains.

Midland Main Line/Electric Spine

The Midland Main Line and the closely-related Electric Spine is one project that will be electrified conventionally, although there would be scope for perhaps using a mix of Class 800 and Class 801 trains,so that new services can be added out of St. Pancras.

Once resources are released from the Great Western Main Line, I would start to electrify North from Bedford to Corby, Derby and Nottingham.

One issue in Nottingham, is where the tram-trains that have been proposed will go. As the tram-trains when they run on heavy rail line can use the standard overhead lines at 25KVAC, there could be scope for some meaningful co-operation.

Another issue was thrown in, when I wrote Ilkeston Station In A Few Year’s Time. Network Rail have a major project on the Erewash Valley Line, which has been upgraded and may become a high-speed by-pass for high speed electric trains to Chesterfield and Sheffield, as electrifying the line through Derby and the World Heritage Site of the Derwent Valley might prove a difficult project.

So I wouldn’t be surprised to see Bedford to Sheffield electrified first and electro-diesel Class 800 trains used to serve Derby and Nottingham, until those branches on the line were fully electrified.

Secondary and Branch Lines In The North

This is virtually every line that isn’t electrified north of a line from the Humber to the Mersey.

Depending on the line and its relationship to electrified lines and major centres of population, different solutions will be proposed by engineers as they look at the alternatives.

  • Full Electrification
  • Using high-quality diesel trains, like the Class 172 trains displaced from the Gospel Oak to Barking Line.
  • Running an IPEMU on the line, as I proposed earlier for between Carlisle and Newcastle.
  • Conversion to Tram or Tram-Train Operation

The engineers are going to have fun on this one, as new or refurbished modern trains running on electric power are delivered all over the North.

In the report of the North of England Electrification Task Force, the various lines were grouped into three tiers in order of priority.

Tier One included. The comment at the end, is my view of what is possible.

  • Calder Valley – Leeds to Manchester and Preston via Bradford and Brighouse – Full Electrification
  • Liverpool to Manchester via Warrington Central – Full Electrification
  • Southport/Kirkby to Salford Cresent – Full Electrification
  • Chester to Stockport – See Note 1
  • Northallerton To Middlesbrough – Full Electrification
  • Leeds to York via Harrogate – Full Electrification
  • Selby to Hull – Full Electrification
  • Sheffield (Meadowhall) to Leeds via Barnsley/Castleford – Full Electrification – See Note 4
  • Bolton to Clitheroe – Possible IPEMU
  • Sheffield to Doncaster/Wakefield Westgate (Dearne Valley) – Full Electrification – See Note 4
  • Hazel Grove to Buxton – Possible  IPEMU
  • Warrington to Chester – See Note 1

Tier Two included.

  • Manchester to Sheffield and South East Manchester Local Services – Partial Electrification with Possible IPEMU
  • York to Scarborough – See Note 3
  • Bishop Auckland/Darlington to Saltburn and Sunderland –  See Note 3
  • Barnsley to Huddersfield – IPEMU when Huddersfield and Sheffield are electrified. – See Note 4
  • Sheffield to Lincoln via Retford – Partial Electrification with Possible IPEMU – See Note 4
  • Chester to Crewe – See Note 1
  • Burnley to Colne & Kirkham to Blackpool South – Tram-Train or IPEMU
  • Knottingley to Goole – IPEMU

Tier Three included.

  • Barrow to Carnforth – IPEMU
  • Pontefract to Church Fenton
  • Hull to Scarborough –  See Note 3
  • Omskirk to Preston – Tram-Train or IPEMU
  • Carlisle to Newcastle – IPEMU
  • Skipton to Carlisle – Full Electrification or Cascaded DMUs
  • Barton on Humber – See Note 2
  • Cumbrian Coast – Full Electrification or Cascaded DMUs
  • Doncaster to Gilberdyke – See Note 2
  • Cleethorpes to Thorne (Doncaster) – See Note 2
  • Middlesbrough to Whitby – See Note 3
  • Skipton to Heysham – Possible IPEMU

The various notes are as follows.

  1. Chester is the centre of a busy network and probably needs full electrification, especially if the North Wales Line to Holyhead is electrified. Although that line could use Class 800 trains.
  2. Humberside is a mass of small railways and I wouldn’t discount a very innovative solution being found for the area.
  3. Teesside is trying to develop a Tees Valley Metro and this could be partially electrified and see use of IPEMU
  4. Routes to Sheffield might also be served using tram-trains. I would also connect Sheffield’s trams to those in Manchester and Nottingham using tram-trains running along the electrified connecting heavy rail lines.

And after the North there’s the South, the Midlands, Wales and Scotland.

South Wales Valleys

This follow-on project after the Great Western electrification to Cardiff and Swansea, will electrify the Valley Lines in South Wales. This project will probably be done in a very conventional manner, especially, as the Welsh seem to have got much of the bridges, stations and other infrastructure ready for electrification.  I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that IPEMUs running on battery power aren’t the best trains at climbing hills.

It would now appear that tram-trains are entering the plans and who’s to say if IPEMUs creep into the project somewhere.

Waterloo to Salisbury and Exeter

Waterloo to Salisbury and Exeter on the West of England Main Line is not a wholly electrified journey, as the third-rail stops at Basingstoke.

As the Class 800 train is closely related to the Class 395 train that works the high-speed commuter services out of St. Pancras, which is configured to use third-rail electricity collection, I wonder whether the solution to getting electric trains to Salisbury and Exeter is to create a third-rail variant of the Class 800.

Ashford to Hastings and Eastbourne

Electrification has been promised on the Marshlink Line to allow High Speed services from Hastings and Eastbourne to St. Pancras using HS1.

As with electrification to Salisbury and Exeter, more third-rail electrification is probably not going to be performed.

But could an electro-diesel variant of the Class 395 train be built to serve Hastings and Eastbourne.

Probably not, as the certification costs would be high for a small number of units.

But I would hope that engineers are looking at ways to bridge the gap between Ashford and Hastings. It would certainly be possible with a dual-voltage IPEMU!

Hurst Green and Uckfield

The route between Hurst Green and Uckfield on the Oxted Line is current served by Class 171 diesel trains. As the Aventra is built to a similar size as these trains, to run this line with IPEMUs would probably be just a matter of delivering the trains and driver and staff training.

If the Ashford to Hastings and Eastbourne route was also converted to electric trains, as I showed was possible in the previous section, a total of ten 2-car and six 4-car Class 171 trains would be released for service elsewhere. I think too that Southern would become an electric-only train operating company.

Reading to Gatwick

Reading to Gatwick along the North Downs Line is effectively in three sections.

  • Reading to Guildford – 19 miles
  • Guildford to Redhill – 25 miles
  • Redhill to Gatwick – 4 miles

Of the forty-eight miles of the line, just nineteen miles are electrified using third rail.

it would appear that a dual-voltage IPEMU with third-rail pickup, would give a faster electric service along the route.

It would appear that Surrey County Council would like to improve this line and perhaps with a look at stations, level crossings and speed restrictions, the service on this line could be considerably improved by using IPEMUs.

No electrification work would be necessary, although filling easy gaps in the third-rail would give more improvement.

This route looks like it has been specially designed for an IPEMU.

A dual-voltage IPEMU could also extend the route at either end.

Conclusion

Innovate like crazy using proven trains and methods!!!

Some things have surprised me in this analysis.

  1. The Aventra IPEMU has a specification, range and capability, that is very well-matched to lots of sections of the UK rail network, that either need electrification and/or new electric trains.
  2. A mix of Class 800 electro-diesel and Class 801 electric trains will be found working on lots of lines.
  3. A large number of high quality diesel multiple units are available for cascade. Many could go to replace the dreaded Pacers all over the country.
  4. South of the Thames is as far as passenger trains are concerned is virtually a diesel-free zone.

The first two points mean that a lot of the difficult electrification can be done in nice warm factories in Newton Aycliffe and Derby. So perhaps we might see a line improved using the following project structure.

  1. Stations, bridges and tunnels are modified to fit both the passenger and freight trains that will run on the route. If there is a chance that electrification might happen eventually, then clearances would be improved accordingly.
  2. All stations would be upgraded to the modern standards of accessibility and customer facilities. Many like the new Custom House station for Crossrail would be built in factories.
  3. The chosen trains would then be introduced on the line.
  4. Finally, the overhead wires would be erected, if that has been decided is appropriate.

The first phase of the project is the difficult one, as there is some truly horrendous Victoria infrastructure out there and much of it is Listed and infested with bats, great crested newts and other protected wildlife.

Get this sort of project structure right and there might be a chance that we’d find an affordable way to do electrification!

As improved stations are delivered early, passengers may still be being carried in dreaded Pacers, but at least they’ll have a modern, customer-friendly interface to the railway.

Hopefully, by the time that full electrification is implemented, all local problems wil have been solved and the electrification is a much easier business.

 

 

 

 

 

August 30, 2015 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Electrification In The North And East Anglia

There has been two major announcements about electrification of railways in recent weeks.

In this article on the BBC, they lay out the twelve lines in the north that have been prioritised for electrification in the report of the North of England Electrification Task Force. They are in all parts of the North.

  1. Calder Valley
  2. Liverpool to Manchester via Warrington Central
  3. Southport/Kirkby to Salford Crescent
  4. Chester to Stockport
  5. Northallerton to Middlesbrough
  6. Leeds to York via Harrogate
  7. Selby to Hull
  8. Sheffield Meadowhall to Leeds via Barnsley/Castleford
  9. Bolton to Clitheroe
  10. Sheffield to Doncaster/Wakefield Westgate
  11. Hazel Grove to Buxton
  12. Warrington to Chester

If the project goes ahead soon after completion of the current electrification project in the North West, it will take another large step towards creating a modern electrified railway in the north.

Joining the electrification together on a map, shows that after it is all completed there will effectively be two major east-west routes that are fully electrified.

The Huddersfield Line will allow electric trains to run from Liverpool to Hull, York and Newcastle, via Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and Doncaster, with a choice of two routes between Liverpool and Manchester. After all the work is completed there will be six fast trains an hour between Leeds and Manchester.

I was surprised that one of my favourite rail lines, the Calder Valley Line was also prioritised for electrification along with all its branches. But according to their correct methodology the line scored highest of all lines considered in the report. It is very much a scenic line and I recently took it from Leeds to Manchester, as it wound its way over the Pennines and through towns, like Bradford, Halifax, Hebden Bridge and Rochdale. Electrification will speed the journey and add capacity to the route. It will be a good home for more of those refurbished Class 319 trains and will link Preston, Blackpool and Manchester in the east with Leeds in the east. But perhaps more importantly, it will bring faster electric trains to all those towns dotted across the Pennines. Only knowing the area from occasional football matches in places like Burnley, Blackburn and Barnsley, I would not try to quantify the economic benefits. But I have a feeling that those who made the predictions would have erred on the low side!

The other lines prioritised for electrification fall into two distinct groups.

The Western or Lancashire/Cheshire group is a set of extensions to the current North West Electrification radiating out of the Northern Hub and includes Liverpool to Manchester via Warrington CentralSouthport/Kirkby to Salford CrescentChester to Stockport, Bolton to ClitheroeHazel Grove to Buxton and Warrington to Chester. It virtually leaves only a few smaller lines to be electrified in the area.

The Eastern group is generally a set of extensions off the East Coast Main Line or the soon-to-be electrified Midland Main Line and includes Northallerton to MiddlesbroughLeeds to York via HarrogateSelby to HullSheffield Meadowhall to Leeds via Barnsley/Castleford and Sheffield to Doncaster/Wakefield Westgate. As with the Western group, it leaves very few important lines that are not electrified.

Looking at all this electrification, I think it has all been very well-thought through and the Task Force has chosen well. If you look at the Tier Two and Three lines that will follow these twelve Tier One schemes, it certainly seems to have been touched by the hand of a good project manager, who has arranged the schemes so that the teams can efficiently do one after another.

There was also a report in Modern Railways entitled Felixstowe Wires Study, which contained the following.

Network Rail is to conduct a study into the possibility of wiring the busy cross-country freight route from the port to Birmingham, with the results feeding into its Initial Industry Plan for Control Period 6 (2019 to 2024), due to be announced in September 2016.

The Modern Railways report also talks about looking into the eastern end of the East West Rail Link, a new station at Addenbrookes and the possible reopening of the March to Wisbech branch.

Both the North of England and the East Anglian reports seem to be the sort of comprehensive and intelligently-written reports, that have been severely lacking in the last few decades from UK rail companies. The work being proposed seems to be lacking in any political vanity, but geared very much to commuting, leisure, freight and bringing investment and infrastructure to places that need it.

I can’t help feeling though that if you look at all of the electrification schemes proposed for the North, there is a very strong focus on leisure.

For instance, increased frequency, capacity and comfort on the Calder Valley Line, will help those commuting into Leeds and Manchester, but the line will also carry a large amount of all sorts of leisure traffic like walkers, shoppers and families just taking a scenic train ride. As a lady said to me, when I travelled from Leeds to Manchester last week, the train is so much easier than the M62.

This leisure focus continued with adding the Barrow to Carnforth, Settle to Carlisle, the Carlisle to Newcastle, York to Scarborough, Hull to Scarborough, Cumbrian Coast Line and a few others into the program. I never thought I’d ever see some of these lines ever mentioned with the e-word.

Quite frankly all of this electrification should have been planned and implemented years ago, so it’s very much a case of better late than never. The big irony, is that some of the British Rail built, nearly thirty-years-old, Class 319 trains, will be returning to the county of their creation to move tourists and business passengers all over Yorkshire and the rest of the North.

It looks to me, that if you’re interested in a job with a future, then they’ll be plenty of work in railway electrification for quite a few years.

Or you could open a quality B & B near to a picturesque station in the North!

March 9, 2015 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , , , | 2 Comments