Plans For New Rolling Stock To Replace BR DMUs
This is the title of an article on the Rail Magazine. This is said.
Diesel multiple units built in the 1980s by British Rail could be replaced in the next decade, as the Department for Transport believes there are “likely to be significant opportunities” to replace them with modern diesels.
Outlined in the Rolling Stock Perspective: Moving Britain Ahead report published on May 18, this would mean that as well as the Pacers, potentially all Class 150s, ‘153s’, ‘155s’, ‘156s’, ‘158s’ and ‘159s’ could be withdrawn. That would be 1,033 vehicles if all were replaced like-for-like.
The article is based on a Department for Transport document entitled Rolling Stock Perspective. The document says this.
Are self-powered, where required, with such trains meeting the latest emission standards and being built by a range of suppliers. New diesels are being procured as part of the Northern franchise improvements and there are likely to be significant opportunities over the next decade to replace the last remaining diesel multiple units ordered in the BR era with modern diesels that offer much more for passengers, and are designed with manufacturers and TOCs working ever more closely with Network Rail, to reduce the amounts of money needed to be spent to introduce them into service and to allow them to operate reliably and safely.
The report also says.
Good, high quality refurbishment can deliver a passenger experience comparable with new rolling stock.
So is this a feasible plan to remove the 15x trains in their present form from the network?
I will start by summing them up from a passenger perspective.
Class 150
The Class 150 train probably suffers from being too small and inadequate for a lot of the routes it serves. This alone means that they should be replaced, probably with something of at least three cars, as many are on routes, where ambitious train operating companies are endeavouring to grow traffic.
There are only so many elephants you can get in a Mini!
In 2014, I went to St. Ives and wrote St. Erth Station And The St. Ives Branch, where an immaculate Class 150 trundles the few miles along the branch.
This use sums up the class well.
- The two-car train was totally inadequate for the route.
- They can be cleaned up to be adequate for some purposes in their present form.
- Step free and wheelchair access is not very good.
- There is not enough space for bicycles.
- Seats are not the most comfortable.
On short branch lines like the St. Ives Branch, two refurbished units coupled together, might provide the service needed, but would it be better to spend more money on either a refurbished Class 165 train or even a new train?
In A Trip Around Wiltshire, I encountered a Class 150 train. As it was Glastonbury, it was loaded over capacity with heavy baggage. At least a five-car formation of say Class 165s was needed, not a two-car Class 150.
These days the Class 150 trains are mainly used in the North, Wales and the West Country, with some in the Midlands.
I would love to know the train operating companies attitude to these trains.
They may be cheap to lease. But!
- Running costs can’t be much less than say a three-car Class 165 train.
- The difficult train access must mean despair for the disabled and staff.
- Station stops are probably slower than needed, leading to late trains.
- Passengers will be turned away by the bad experience.
- They are not large enough for a lot of their routes.
Some like those in the North and Wales are planned for replacement and hopefully once GWR electrification is sorted and the Class 165 trains are replaced by electric ones, most of the Class 150 trains can go to appropriate retirement in the scrapyard.
Class 153
If anything sums up the cheapskate approach to the railways under successive governments it is the Class 153 train.
In my travels around Europe, I’ve never seen another single car train, excerpt on something like a mountain railway.
They may have a use, but it is certainly not running on the Nuneaton to Coventry Line.
On a lightly-used line they probably wouldn’t be as bad an experience as a Class 150 train, but they certainly wouldn’t be any good to generate traffic.
Class 156
There are 114 two-car Class 156 trains, which are certainly much better than the Class 150 and Class 153 trains.
I’ve certainly ridden some pretty comfortable Class 156 trains.
According to Wikipedia, some are being refurbished. This is said.
38 of the 114 Class 156 sets belong to leasing company Porterbrook, which announced in mid-2011 that they will be substantially refurbished at the time of their C6 overhauls. Seating layouts will be revised to provide priority seating and wheelchair spaces, and new universal toilets are to be installed, as also a passenger information system. Interior doors between vestibule and passenger saloon will be removed, and external door sounders fitted. The trains in question are as follows; 11 leased to East Midlands Trains, 9 toAbellio Greater Anglia and 18 to Northern.
I have a feeling that a lot of this class will be replaced by new or newer trains, simply because they run on the more important lines.
In the North and Scotland, electrification will directly replace some trains and others will be replaced by newer diesel multiple units cascaded from the newly electrified lines.
I believe that refurbishing these trains to a high standard could be possible, and these trains could be ideal for lightly used lines, either working singly or in a four-car formation.
But their top speed of only 75 mph probably means on some of the routes they serve, they cause problems for train operators.
Also, because they have a good range, they might well be a good train to have as cover to help solve the problems of breakdowns and extra capacity for events like Glastonbury.
Class 158 And Class 159
I am considering the Class 158 and Class 159 trains together, as it is rather a moveable feast as to which class the trains belong.
They are slightly younger than the other trains and on some routes like Waterloo to Salisbury and Exeter, they are certainly not a bad experience.
When the Government report said.
Good, high quality refurbishment can deliver a passenger experience comparable with new rolling stock.
They might have had these trains in mind.
I think though, they have qualities that make them suitable for longer routes that have to use diesel traction.
- They are a 90 mph train.
- They have a long range.
- They could have plenty of tables.
- They can accommodate a catering trolley.
- They could be a good route-development train.
- As they are Mark 3.5 coach based, they would certainly scrub up brilliantly.
I think the only problem could be that there are two hundred trains. But seeing the way traffic is developing in the UK, I’m sure that train operating companies could find a use for them.
I have travelled on Class 158 trains on the Settle to Carlisle Line and this is the sort of journey for which the trains are ideal. So what would happen, if routes like this were given a more frequent service with refurbished Class 158/159 trains, that perhaps had the following.
- Good catering.
- Lots of tables.
- Wi-fi
- Lots of luggage and cycle space.
- London Bus-style wheelchair access.
I don’t think the affect on traffic would be negative.
Summing Up The Current Situation
If I look at the numbers of each type of older diesel multiple units we get.
- Class 150 – 137 trains – 133 x two-car and 4 x three-car. – 278 coaches.
- Class 153 – 70 trains – 70 x one-car – 70 coaches.
- Class 156 – 114 trains – 114 x two-car – 228 coaches.
- Class 158/159 – 200 trains – 143 x two car and 57 x three-car – 343 coaches.
Which gives a total of 919 coaches.
On the other hand, I think we can assume the following.
- Great Western Electrification should release a mixture of thirty seven three car and twenty two-car Class 165/166 trains.
- The Class 150 and Class 153 trains could go to a more suitable place.
- The Class 156 trains could possibly be refurbished to a standard to make them a good Class 150 and Class 153 replacement for some routes.
- The Class 158/159 trains could probably be refurbished to the required high standard.
So we’re left with a deficit of about two hundred carriages, without counting good quality trains released from Scottish and Lancashire electrification.
How Could We Bridge The Gap?
At least though we have various trains and solutions available and some have been noted in the last couple of months.
The following sections detail the various solutions.
New Civity Diesel Multiple Units from CAF
Arriva Rail North surprised a lot of people with their order for a mixture of new Civity diesel and electric multiple units from CAF.
I wrote about the order in Arriva Rail North’s New Trains.
The Civity design is modular and this data sheet from CAF describes the Civity range.
Points to note.
- Diesel, electric and bi-mode versions are available.
- It has been designed for standard gauge.
- There is a UK version called Civity UK.
- Top speed is 160 kph, but 200 kph is available.
- The list of interior options is wide.
Reading the data sheet, I get the impression that operators get standard trains with the features they want.
I don’t know the answer, but I suspect that like the Class 378 trains of the London Overground, the Civity trains can be lengthened or shortened, by adding or removing trailer cars between the two driving cars. This concept has worked so well on the Overground, I doubt that a train manufacturer wouldn’t copy it.
Thus you could have four car DMUs on a route like the Calder Valley Line. If and when the line gets electrified, you do a bit of swapping and add two electric driving cars and get four-car EMUs and two-car DMUs.
I believe the flexibility of the design, means that we’ll see more Civity trains in the UK.
New Diesel Multiple Units from Other Manufacturers
I said earlier, that there could be a total need of about two hundred carriages, but this is probably not many, unless you have a proven product ready to be built.
Given that CAF have already sold ninety-eight assorted trains to Arriva Rail North and another twelve 200 kmh-capable trains to TransPennine Express, it would be hard to sell a new design of modern diesel multiple unit into the UK. More Class 172 and Class 185 trains are probably not an option.
Rakes Of Coaches From CAF
Rakes of coaches seem to be making a comeback, as I wrote in Are Train Coaches Making A Comeback In The UK?
Fitted with a suitable and available locomotive at one end and a driving cab at the other, these could be used in some of the difficult and perhaps scenic routes.
Again CAF seem to have got the proven product, which has been sold to Caledonian Sleeper and TransPennine Express.
Have the clever Spanish designed a driving cab with bags of style and panache, for the TPE rakes? It certainly won’t be a driving van trailer knocked up from the parts bin.
One of the advantages of coaches, is that there are a lot of suitable and acceptable locomotives available. Fleet details for the Class 68 locomotive, already show a new order for seven extra units for TransPennine Express.
Anybody, who doesn’t believe that Class 68s and coaches, are a viable option, should be forced to go to Birmingham from London on Chilton and see how good upgraded 1970s-built Mark 3 coaches hauled by a modern diesel locomotive can be.
Rakes Of Refurbished Mark 3 Coaches
If buying new coaches from CAF is a viable order, why didn’t TransPennine Express, do what Chiltern have done and refurbish some of the many Mark 3 coaches.
I think it comes down to these factors.
- Mark 3 coaches need a driving van trailer, so a five-car train is effectively seven units long if you count the locomotive and the DVT.
- Are Mark 3 coaches coming to the end of their lives?
- Is there a shortage of DVTs?
- If CAF build a stylish driving cab in the end coach, the train will have an enormous wow factor!
- The operator can get the interior layout they want.
- Could the cost be not much different between the new and refurbished trains?
In the end the CAF route gives the operator exactly what they want.
The only thing that might happen, is that somebody copies the CAF idea and creates a short rake of Mark 3 coaches, with a driving cab in the last coach. But that is probably a more expensive option.
Chiltern Railways
Chiltern Railways could have a valuable part of play in the replacement of older diesel multiple units.
They currently run some of their Chiltern Main Line services to Birmingham and Oxford using rakes of Mark 3 coaches and Class 68 locomotives.
They currently have the following stock for this.
- 8 Class 68 locomotives
- 31 Mark 3 coaches
- 6 Driving Van Trailers.
Is that enough, given that Oxford will be served later this year?
Probably not! So is Chiltern scratching around searching for coaches and DVTs to create some extra rakes of coaches?
I don’t know, but with the three stations of Bicester Village, Oxford Parkway and Oxford on the new branch, two and three-car multiple units will surely not be big enough.
I would certainly suspect that as Chiltern is an ambitious company, one of their aims is to have all services between London and Oxford and Birmingham, run by modern rakes of coaches hauled by Class 68 locomotives.
These could either be new rakes from CAF or refurbished ones of Mark 3 coaches.
The big side effect would be that Chiltern may be able;e to release some of their modern diesel multiple units.
This probably illustrates why Class 68 and other locomotives pulling rakes of coaches could be very important in improving the quality of diesel multiple units in the UK.
Playing The Joker
There is even a joker in the pack of available locomotives to pull and push the coaches.
The Class 73 locomotive dates from the 1960s, but it has some unique advantages.
- They were built to run all over the Southern Region, including the narrow tunnels of the Hastings Line.
- They can run on third-rail electric lines or on diesel power.
- They seem to be reliable.
- They are capable of 90 mph, which is the same speed as a Class 159 train.
- There are over thirty still available.
- Re-engineering with modern diesel engines is being undertaken, to create a Class 73/9 variant.
- To say they scrub up well is an understatement.
Their latest application is far from their original habitat in the South, as they are now hauling the Caledonian Sleeper trains all over the Highlands, where in some places, the loading gauge is restrictive.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Class 73/9 locomotives hauling new coaches from Waterloo to Exeter.
- This would mean that new trains could serve Salisbury and Exeter from Waterloo, without extending the electrification from Basingstoke.
- The Class 73 locomotives would use the third-rail electrification at the London end of the route.
- The trains would have the same top speed as the current Class 159 trains.
- The Class 159 trains would be released for refurbishment and cascade to other routes and operators.
But the biggest advantage of this would be that South West Trains or its successor could offer a high-quality alternative service to Exeter and the wider West Country in competition with Great Western Railway’s new Class 802 bi-mode trains.
If anybody had suggested a few years ago, that you might replace a 1990s-built multiple unit with Spanish coaches hauled by a re-engineered 1960s-built locomotive, they’d have been taken away by men in white coats.
But then engineering is the science of the possible!
Battery Trains And IPEMUs
Clare Perry, who is the Rail Minister, says this in Rolling Stock Perspective about battery-powered trains and other similar developments.
Rail is already one of the most environmentally friendly forms of powered travel, but we need to go further. I want to see the industry develop and introduce uk-led innovative solutions such as battery-powered or hybrid trains which will make rail even better for the environment and reduce the industry’s operating costs.
I think we can say, that means that Government will look favourably on good innovative solutions for the replacement of diesel multiple units.
Bombardier are developing the Aventra train and trains will be wired to accept on-board energy storage, just like the demonstrator based on a Class 379 train, that I rode in January 2015.
These are now called IPEMUs or Independently Powered Electric Multiple Units. They would charge their batteries on an electrified main line, then use this power on a branch line or to perhaps bridge a section of line that was not electrified.
As a large number of diesel multiple units are used on branch lines from electrified main lines, IPEMUs could be a direct replacement without any new electrification. Some examples would be.
- Marks Tey to Sudbury
- Ipswich to Felixstowe
- Ipswich to Cambridge/Ely
- Cambridge to Norwich
- Norwich to Yarmouth
- Ely to Peterborough
- Liverpool to Preston via Ormskirk
- Oxted to Uckfield
- Ore to Ashford
Nothing has been said about the ordering and service entry of IPEMUs, but I don’t believe that the technology will be abandoned.
Conclusion
The elimination of the older diesel multiple units or their conversion into modern trains of the highest standard, is not an impossible dream.
But expect some surprises!
Optimism For The Brders Railway To Hawick
This article in the Southern Reporter is entitled New Hope For Railway Extension.
It describes how politicians are getting together to extend the Borders Railway to Hawick. This was said.
In a speech in Edinburgh on Monday, Scottish Secretary David Mundell pledged to work with the Scottish Government on connecting the Borders with the national rail network to the south, saying it was a “realistic prospect”.
He said: “Scotland needs good transport links to thrive.”
It is my view, that the railway was not fully thought out in the first place.
The big thing that was missed was the Overground effect!
This was demonstrated so well here in London, when the transforming of the North and East London Lines from a set of travelling scrapyard-ready urinals into a modern railway, brought so many new passengers out of the woodwork, that trains soon became overcrowded and more and longer trains had to be ordered. Last week, it was announced that there will be more late trains, which I wrote about in The London Overground Grows Without Fuss.
The Overground just keeps on growing, so why won’t the Borders Railway?
My friends in the Borders tell me the trains don’t have enough capacity and there is not enough parking at Tweedbank. Anybody working on or living by the London Overground could have told the good people of the Borders this would happen.
The solution is probably to extend to a Galashiels-style transport interchange at Hawick, stop at Melrose and the Borders Hospital and procure some new four-car trains to work the line.
I also believe strongly, that Bombardier and Network Rail by the use of some intelligent design could enable the line to be served by Aventra IPEMUs, that would avoid the need to have electrification gantries marching all over the hills.
Discontinuous Electrification Using IPEMUs
In Basingstoke To Exeter By Electric Train, I started to work through, how short lengths of third-rail electrification could be used to power an electric train with an IPEMU-capability.
Third-Rail Electrification
This picture shows typical third-rail electrification at Kidbrooke station in South East London.
Note the following about the station and the electrification.
- The two tracks are between two platforms connected by a footbridge, which is a typical layout for hundreds of stations. Some stations might use a subway for connection.
- The two 750 VDC conductor rails are placed together in the middle of the track, well away from the passengers.
- There is a gap in the third rail, which I assume is for staff or emergency services personnel to cross the track in an emergency.
It is a simple and very safe layout.
With many years of installing third-rail systems in stations, Network Rail has the expertise to create safe systems in stations with island or just a single platform.
A Typical Electrical Multiple Unit
The Class 377 train is a typical modern electrical multiple unit common on third-rail routes.
- There are a total of 239 trainsets in service with lengths of three, four and five cars.
- The trains can work in combinations of two and three trainsets.
- The trains are a member of Bombardier’s Electrostar family.
- The slightly older Class 375 trains can be converted into Class 377 trains.
- The first trains entered service in 2003, so they still have many years of life.
- Some of the trains are dual-voltage and all could be equipped to use 25 kVAC overhead line equipment.
- They have a top speed of 90 mph.
- Bombardier have stated that these trains can be given an IPEMU-capability.
In addition everything said about the Class 377, can also be said about the later Class 379 and Class 387 trains, although these trains are faster.
The traction current supply to the trains has a very comprehensive design, that ensures trains get the electricity they need. Wikipedia says this.
All units can receive power via third-rail pick-up which provides 750 V DC. There are eight pick-up shoes per unit (twice the number of previous generation 4-car Electric multiple units), and this enables them to ride smoothly over most third-rail gaps. The units in the 377/2, 377/5 and 377/7 sub-classes are dual-voltage, and are fitted with a pantograph to pick up 25 kV AC from overhead lines. On these units the shoe mechanism is air-operated so that when powered down, or working on AC overhead lines, they are raised out of the way.
You don’t hear many reports of trains being gapped these days, when they are unable to pick-up electricity at somewhere like a level crossing.
So there could be a large number of electrical multiple units available with an IPEMU capability, which could be ostensibly 25 kVAC units, but could also pick up electricity from a 750 VDC third-rail.
A Charging Station At Oxted
I feel that Network Rail has the expertise to fit short lengths of third-rail electrification into stations, so that IPEMUs could pick up power, when they are stopped in the station.
These pictures show the recent installation of third-rail in the bay Platform 3 at Oxted station.
Note how the conductor rail is enclosed in a yellow shield.
Could this installation at Oxted, have been done, so that IPEMUs can run a shuttle to Uckfield?
Staff at the station didn’t know, but said the platform is used to terminate or park the occasional train from East Grinstea
d
IPEMUs To Lowestoft
Imagine such an installation at a station like Lowestoft, which has been suggested as a destination for trains with an IPEMU-capability.
The picture shows two Class 156 trains at Lowestoft station.
Surely, two lengths of 750 VDC third-rail can be fitted between the tracks.
- The electrified lines would be no closer to passengers, than the third-rail installation at Oxted.
- The power supply would only be needed to supply electricity to charge the batteries.
- When no train was in the platform, the electricity supply to that platform would be switched off.
- The waiting time in the station would need to be sufficient to make sure the battery had enough charge to get to the overhead wires at Ipswich or Norwich.
- There would be little or no modification to the structure of the station.
- There would be no electrification needed between Lowestoft and both Ipswich and Norwich.
The biggest problem would be installing the power supply, but it would only be a transformer and rectiofier to provide 750 VDC. It would not have to cope with all the problems of regenerative braking, as the IPEMU capability of the train would take care of that.
It would appear that by using trains with an IPEMU-capability and well-proven simple technology at Lowestoft, the town can be provided with direct electric train services to Ipswich, Norwich and London.
At present the only trains with sufficient speed to not be a restriction on the Great Eastern Main Line, that can be given an IPEMU-capability are Class 379 and Class 387 trains. But Bombardier told Modern Railways, that a 125 mph Aventra is possible.
It would appear that the infrastructure modifications could be very affordable too!
The major cost would be the extra trains, but hopefully an increase in passenger numbers because of the better service would create the cash flow to lease them!
Perhaps the biggest advantage of using IPEMU trains to Lowestoft, is that electrification of the tracks through a beautiful part of East Anglia will not need to be performed.
It should also be said, that what works for Lowestoft, would also work for services to Sheringham and Great Yarmouth.
The technique would also work for branch lines from an electrified main line, where the out and back distance was more than the range of an IPEMU running on batteries. Examples would include.
- York to Scarborough
- Doncaster to Hull
- Edinburgh to Tweedbank
- Peterborough to Lincoln
- Manchester to Sheffield
But there are many more lines, where a charging station would bring much-needed electric trains to all over the UK.
Longer Lines
Some longer lines, where both ends are electrified and the distance is less than sixty miles, like Norwich to Cambridge and Carlisle to Newcastle, could be served by an IPEMU with sufficient range, that was charged at both ends of the line.
So that leaves longer lines over sixty miles, with no electrification at either end or just one electrified end.
Many, but not all, are through beautiful countryside and would the heritage lobby accept miles of overhead line gantries, marching through the hills and valleys.
I believe that on some longer lines, by using short lengths of third-rail electrification in selected stations, services could be run by electric trains with an IPEMU-capability.
Imagine an electric train an IPEMU-capability, approaching a station on a typical fast line with perhaps a 90 mph speed limit, like say the West of England Main Line, which is not electrified past Basingstoke.
- As the IPEMU applies its brakes, all of the energy generated by the regenerative braking would be stored in the train’s on-board energy storage, ready to be used to accelerate the train back up to line speed after the station.
- When the train makes contact with the third rail in the station, if the battery is not full, it can start to charge the battery from the rail.
- Once the battery is full, the charging would stop.
- On starting away from the station, the train could use power from the third rail, until it lost contact, after which it would use the energy stored on the train.
I think it should be possible that the train would leave the station with a full battery.
I would suspect that Bombardier and Network Rail are doing all sorts of calculations to find the best strategy, so that IPEMUs can be used to avoid the problems and costs of electrification.
Lines that could be electrified in this way would be ones, where trains stop at several stations along the route. Electricity supply at the stations, is no problem these days, as it could be connected to the mains or to some form of local generation.
It could be a very green concept!
Lines that could be electrified in this way would include.
- Cumbrian Coast Line
- Far North Line
- North Wales Coast Line
- Settle To Carlisle
- West of England Main Line
Selected stations would be fitted with charging and the trains would stop accordingly.
I’ve included the Far North Line because I believe it is possible to electrify the line in this way provided you could get a good enough electricity supply to the required number of stations. Obviously, you may decide not to do it, as you may have enough quality diesel trains.
Conclusion
If you could run electric trains on the Far North Line using charging at stations, you could run electric trains on any line in the UK.
Basingstoke To Exeter By Electric Train
In Where Are The Battery Trains? – Part 2, I suggested that short lengths of electrification could be used, so that trains with an IPEMU capability could work a longer route.
I suggested that the West of England Main Line might be handled this way between Basingstoke and Exeter.
The distances from London of the main stations in this part of the line are.
- Basingstoke – 47.76
- Salisbury – 83.48
- Yeovil Junction – 122.60
- Exeter St. Davids – 172.15
Each section would be capable of being run by an IPEMU with a more-or-less fully charged battery.
So if the train could be charged sufficiently at Salisbury, Yeovil Junction and Exeter St. Davids, the line could be worked by electric trains. Intriguingly, eight minutes is shown for the stop at Salisbury on the 07:10 train from Waterloo to Exeter.
It has been regularly said in the last few years, that there will be no new third-rail electrification, but as it looks like Network Rail have electrified some short sections and platforms like the bay platform at Oxted station. So I don’t think a few short lengths of third-rail electrification would be a problem.
To me, as an Electrical Engineer, creating a charging station is one of those problems, that should have an affordable and practical solution.
You have to remember that many of the stations on this line are simple ones with the two tracks, having a platform on either side. So to electrify a station to charge an IPEMUs batteries, there would just need to be two third-rail lines between the tracks at the station. Stations could probably be electrified very easily with little disruption.
The picture shows some very typical third-rail electrification at Kidbrooke station. Note the gap in the third rail, which I assume is for staff or emergency services personnel to cross the track in emergencies. Third rail like this, could be put into all stopping stations.
The West of England Line has a 90 mph speed limit, so a train stopping at a station would charge the batteries with all the train’s kinetic energy as it stopped and the electrification would just be needed to top up the batteries and get the train moving again.
What would also help, is that later four-car Electrostars have eight contact shoes to give better electricity pick up when there are gaps in the third-rail, as you can see in the picture above. So the train would be able to draw electricity from the time the first shoe made contact to the time the last shoe lost contact.
The electrification would also be simple from the electrical point of view, as because the train would be handling the regenerative braking, all the rail would need to be able to do was supply sufficient 750 VDC, whilst the train required it.
If the West of England Line can be electrified, it has three further benefits.
- Salisbury is also on the Wessex Main Line, that I wrote about in Cardiff to Southampton By Electric Train. So if IPEMUs were to work the Cardiff to Southampton route, they could top-up at Salisbury.
- Yeovil Junction is on the Heart of Wessex Line and as the Weymouth end is electrified and the Bristol end will be in a few years, this line must be another that could be served by IPEMUs.
- If Exeter had the ability to fast-charge IPEMUs, then the various branch lines in the area could be given electric trains.
Just when new third-rail electrification has been declared a blind alley, has it found an important niche market?
If the only electrification in the area was third-rail, then there wouldn’t even be a need to build new trains, as a few of the extremely numerous 100 mph-capable Class 377 trains, built in the last few years, could be refurbished and given an IPEMU capability. These could also be converted to dual-voltage, so they could serve Bristol, when that area is electrified.
In my view the second and third routes are the more interesting, as these lines are sold to passengers as a picturesque journey through beautiful countryside. So imagine it with quiet new electric trains instead of noisy and smelly 1980s diesels.
I can’t believe that someone isn’t looking seriously at a plan like this to bring electric trains to Wessex.
Cardiff To Southampton By Electric Train
When I was waiting on Bath Spa station to return to London, a Class 158 train from Cardiff stopped at the station, on its way to Brighton via Southampton.
The train travels the full length of the Wessex Main Line from Bristol Temple Meads to Southampton, using the soon-to-be-electrified South Wales Main Line and the electrified West Coastway Line to complete the full route.
I wondered how much of the route will be electrified, once Cardiff to Bristol is hopefully electrified in the next few years. The current date for wires to Cardiff is December 2018.
I would estimate the length of the non-electrified section between Southampton and Bath is about sixty to sixty-five miles.
So it would appear that, the line could be within range for a Class 387 train or a new Aventra, with an IPEMU capability.
Obviously, Great Western Railway could also run a five-car Class 800 train on the route, using the on-board diesels to bridge the gap.
One way or other by 2020, Cardiff to Southampton will be run by electric trains, with a much increased capacity.
Hayes Shuttles To Start
This is the headline on an article in the May 2016 Edition of Modern Railways about the May 15th timetable changes. This is said.
Great Western Railway had planned a launch of electric services using Class 387/1 EMUs transferred from Govia Thameslink Railway with the start of the new timetable on 15 May. The operator was to use the ‘387s’ on a series of peak hour shuttles between Paddington and Hayes and Harlington, but delays to the introduction of Class 700s on Thameslink services mean the cascade of ‘387s ‘ has also been delayed.
I have searched the Oracle (National Rail’s Journey Planner) and can find just one extra train from Paddington, which is a new service at 07:15 going to Hayes and Harlington.
The Oracle also shows that the first two services of the day on the Greenford Branch only go as far as West Ealing after May the 15th.
How many people from the Greenford branch will be complaining about the loss of their early morning trains to Paddington?
The Modern Railways article also suggests, that as Bombardier have been making good progress on the building of the eight extra Class 387 trains, that these might be delivered in the summer, to enable GWR to run more services. As some of the Porterbrook trains have been promised to c2c before the end of the year, that means that GWR’s extra trains will be delivered before December 2016, as they are first in the queue.
The article says that a full service can’t be run until infrastructure works at the East of Hayes and Harlington station is completed.
I think we’ll see a gradual improvement of electric services between Paddington and Hates and Harlington over the rest of this year.
These questions will certainly be answered.
- When will the bay platform at West Ealing station for Greenford Branch Line trains be opened?
- Will the bay platform at West Ealing station be electrified?
- Will the eight extra Class 387 trains have an IPEMU-capability, as had been rumoured in Modern Railways?
- How much acrimony is being heaped on Siemens about the non-delivery of the Class 700 trains?
- Are the bosses of Great Western Railway and Govia Thameslink Railway still talking?
- Will Porterbrook add to their order of twenty extra Class 387 trains?
It does seem to me, that the big winners out of this mess, could well be Bombardier and Porterbrook.
I also feel that there will be some surprises between now and the end of the year.
I will keep most of my predictions to myself!
However, it would appear that if there was a plan to create an IPEMU variant of the Class 387 trains, the non-delivery of the Class 700 trains, has effectively made this plan difficult and late.
Where Are The Battery Trains? – Part 2
My Trip To Corby today got me thinking more about the reasons for the non-appearance of IPEMUs, that I wrote about in Where Are The Battery Trains?
I have released several software products in my time and I’ve made certain that when I do this, that the product is fully tested and up to the job.
I suspect that Bombardier are no different, except they are probably a lot more thorough!
Testing The IPEMU And The Batteries
This article in Rail Technology Magazine is entitled Bombardier enters key analysis phase of IPEMU and it goes on to describe the sort of work being done. This is said.
Engineers in Mannheim are comparing four battery types, including the Valence batteries used on the demonstrator.
“What we’ve seen from the trial is that there is some work that we’ve still to finish on understanding the number of batteries that we apply for a particular performance,” he said. “We are looking at the packaging design in terms of how we pack the batteries together and how we monitor the overall temperature of the batteries for service. This is all to do with closing the triangle.”
I suspect most of this battery testing is being done on an off-train test rig, as if you have at least one rig for each battery type, testing can be done in parallel.
These rigs would be fairly simple affairs, where a computer with the route profile cycles the batteries through what they’d go through on an actual train, again and again.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this testing has widened, as obviously they are looking for a battery system with these characteristics.
- Very high reliability.
- The ability to hold as much energy as possible.
- A size and weight, that would enable a complete battery to be under the floor of a train.
- An acceptable cost.
Bombardier have not said, whose batteries they are testing, except that the ones they used in the prototype from Valence are on the list.
But supposing a reputable company, came to Bombardier and said, they could modify the batteries they’ve used successfully in such-and-such an application, do you think Bombardier would dismiss them out of hand?
Of course they wouldn’t!
I think that if the IPEMU gets introduced into service, that there could be a surprise in the type and manufacturer of the batteries.
Battery Choice Before Manufacture
Some battery types would inevitably be better than others and the testing would obtain a packaging design, range and cost for each design.
The big problem for the trains, is that until you decide on the type of battery to use, you can’t finalise the design of the battery pack and start manufacture.
This testing could throw also up strengths as well as problems.
The Problem Of Range
Range on batteries, is very important, as the longer it is, the more routes become possible for an IPEMU.
I was told on the Class 379 demonstrator, that a range of sixty miles was possible with that train. In this document on the Bombardier web site, this is stated about the objectives for the IPEMU.
The target is to operate a 185 tons four-car BOMBARDIER* ELECTROSTAR* train on battery up to 120 km/h for a distance of up to 50 km, which requires battery capacity in the range of up to 500 kWh. The design solution charges the batteries with the existing line converter equipment and connects the motor converters to the batteries when the 25 kVAC overhead line is not available. The lithium-ion batteries weigh less and can charge more quickly than industrial-form batteries, such as those used in automobiles.
Hard evidence of the actual range is difficult to find, although the figure of sixty miles is quoted in this section in Wikipedia.
I will now look at four longer routes, where the IPEMU may be the solution.
1. St. Pancras to Corby and Oakham
In my trip today to Corby, I saw how Network Rail are creating a fast route to the town, which it looks like will be double-track all the way to Oakham, This would include the route over the Welland Viaduct, which would be the sort of electrification, that would be difficult for engineering, aesthetic and heritage reasons.
Given that North Northamptonshire and the surrounding area, is going to see the development of several thousand houses, it would seem to me that an ideal IPEMU should be able to reach at least Oakham from St. Pancras. As Corby is about thirty-two miles and Oakham is forty-six miles from Bedford, this would mean that to provide a service would need a IPEMU with a range of sixty-four miles to reach Corby and ninety-two to reach Oakham, respectively.
So on the face of it, Corby and Oakham would be out of the range of a train fitted with the original Valence battery pack with its range of sixty miles, unless there was some electrification onwards from Bedford.
Yesterday, I saw that the piles for the electrification were going in North of Bedford. A rough calculation shows that for a sixty mile range IPEMU to reach Corby would need tjust a few miles of electrification North from Bedford. Oakham would need nearly twenty.
2. Liverpool Street to Lowestoft
Another route talking about as an IPEMU prospect is the East Suffolk Line between Ipswich and Lowestoft. This would need a train with a range of ninety-eight miles.
But as from Bedford, there could be a section of electrification at the Southern end of the line near Ipswich and perhaps some method of charging the train at Lowestoft.
3. Paddington to Bedwyn, Newbury and Oxford
Ever since I wrote Rumours Of Battery Powered Trains, which was based on an article in the September 2015 edition of Modern Railways, which was entitled Class 387s Could Be Battery Powered, I have believed that the Thames Valley could see several service run by IPEMUs.
I wrote this in a letter to a railway magazine in a letter entitled Class 387 IPEMUs to Oxford.
This sounds like an impossible dream, but if you were running Great Western Railway, you need some crumb of comfort, to cope with the arrival of Chiltern Railways at Oxford station in December 2016.
In September 2015, there was an article in Modern Railways with the headline of Class 387s Could Be Battery Powered, that described how GWR were thinking of creating some Class 387 IPEMUs.
In April 2016 the same magazine stated that electrification to Maidenhead could be ready before the end of 2016.
So that would enable Class 387 IPEMUs to reach Reading, Henley and Marlow, by doing the last few miles on batteries.
Also min the same issue of the magazine, Roger Ford also reported that the Reading to Didcot test track could be electrified by the end of the year.
As Didcot to Oxford and back, should be within the range of a Class 387 IPEMU running on batteries, I wouldn’t be surprised to see an electric service to Oxford before 2017.
I think it is true to say that this scenario is helped by every small extra morcel of range.
4. Basingstoke to Exeter
This section of the West of England Main Line is always being touted as needing electrification, but this section at nearly a hundred and thirty-five miles is certainly too long for a first-generation IPEMU.
On the other hand, selective short section of third-rail electrification, might make this route possible.
Note.
- These four routes would give significant advantages to operators, with faster electric services to London and in the case of Oakham and Exeter, they would release high-quality diesel multiple units to provide other services.
- As all of these routes are over sixty miles, it shows how, advances in battery design, which might bring increased capacity could increase the places where IPEMUs could provide an electric train service.
So are Bombardier’s engineers working on battery designs, that will handle as many routes as possible, that would be worthwhile to run with IPEMUs?
Other Technology
I am of the opinion that other technologies will stretch the range and applications of IPEMUs.
- Automatic control of the pantograph up and down at line speed would surely be important.
- Short sections of electrification in stations, where the trains stop.
- Various aids would probably help the driver make the most of the battery capacity.
- Improved signalling and track.
I am strongly of the opinion, that we’ll see a constant improvement in the range of an IPEMU.
Conclusion
I have only talked about medium length routes in the range of upwards of sixty miles.
If you add in all of short distance uses on branch lines, I think we’ll be seeing a lot of IPEMU-equipped trains in the future.
Their current non-appearance, may just be that Bombardier want to get the train absolutely right.
If they do that and the financial case stacks up, then Bombardier could see orders for a lot of new trains.
Where Are The Battery Trains?
I was asked this question last week and it is just as much a puzzle to me, as it is to the person, who asked the question.
There doesn’t appear to be much hard news and in the May 2016 Edition of Modern Railways, IPEMUs to give them Network Rail’s preferred name or battery trains, as some will call them, there was only one reference to trains powered by the technology.
There was an article entitled Bi-Modes To Bexhill?, which contained the sentence.
Also under consideration is replacement of Class 170 DMUs by bi-mode or battery trains on the Marshlink route.
In several posts here, I believe I have shown how IPEMU technology can improve the UK rail network and from numerous on-line sources, I have come to the conclusion that the mathematical and operational reasons behind the trains are sound.
But I come to the following possible reasons, for the non-appearance of the battery trains.
The Technology Doesn’t Work
Although, this could be the reason, I find it unlikely, given that the IPEMU is just a slightly bigger application, than say a hybrid bus or a plug-in electric car.
There have been some problems with buses and cars, but nothing so serious to prompt wholesale withdrawal from service.
It should also be pointed out, that because of the physics of steel-wheel-on-steel-rail, IPEMUs have an advantage over their rubber-tyred cousins.
The Batteries Don’t Work
Some might question the batteries, but battery technology is moving on apace and Bombardier are reportedly testing four different battery systems in Mannheim.
Installing IPEMU Technology On A Class 387 Train Has Issues
The most likely train to be given an IPEMU capability is a Class 387 train.
It is closely related to the Class 379 train, that was used successfully as a public test train.
As two of the possible applications of an IPEMU; Uckfield Branch and the Marshlink Line, are in the territory of Southern, who are an operator of Class 387 trains, I don’t think obtaining a train for a prototype should be a problem.
But one problem that might have arisen is that all of the Class 387 trains in service can’t be given an IPEMU capability, as there is a major modification needed to install the on-board energy storage.
In which case, are we waiting for the first of Porterbrook’s new build of twenty to be manufactured?
There could of course be other technical issues that must be solved.
- I have seen nothing about how two or three IPEMUs would be coupled together to make longer trains. This will be very important to some operators.
- Control of the pantograph, so if possible it deploys automatically.
- The choice of battery.
I think it could be the last, as the one thing Bombardier, don’t want is a train with not quite enough range and unreliable energy storage.
Are Bombardier Going For KERS?
I think we could see something truly mind-blowing in train on-board energy storage in the future.
My money would be on a flywheel-based system similar to KERS, as is used in Formula One and that has been successfully tested in hybrid buses.
The company behind all this technology is called Torotrak. who are based in Leyland in Lancashire. I wrote about the company recently in Low Emission Buses On Hold. In the post I quote, the company as saying this.
Beyond this, Torotrak said its KERS off-highway technology has gained significant traction and said it has seen strong interest in its V-Charge technology from carmakers.
What do they mean by off-highway technology?
So will we be seeing the Formula One train?
I have no idea, but I have made a small investment in Torotrak shares. So at least, I’ve put my money where my mouth is!
Certainly, waiting for train-based KERS, would explain the delay!
The Trains Are Too Expensive
This must always be a possibility and there might be a problem, in that using IPEMUs may be more expensive for the operator, but produce a large saving for the owner of the infrastructure.
So places, where there is a strong connection between the tracks and trains, like London, Merseyside and perhaps Chiltern, may be more enthusiastic about IPEMUs. Merseyrail have been quoted, that they are thinking about IPEMUs!
There Are Issues With Class 700 Trains
Class 700 trains certainly haven’t started running on Thameslink and the May 2016 Edition of Modern Railways reported that although, there are issues, they are nearing resolution.
Once these trains are starting to be delivered, the current electric trains on the route Class 319, 377 and 387 trains can start to be released.
Only the two Electrostars; 377 and 387 trains could be converted to IPEMUs.
So is the knock-on from the non-introduction of the Class 700 trains, meaning that operators are fighting over the Class 387 trains, as I pointed out in Are The TOCs Auguing Over The Class 387 Trains?
Once a supply of Class 387 trains are available, will we see some given an IPEMU capability?
Southern’s Labour Relations Problems Are Getting In The Way
Southern seem to be going to have a summer of discontent, with all sorts of labour relations problems.
So could this be another factor holding up the release of the Class 387 trains?
Is Everybody Waiting For Sir Richard?
If you have a Class 387 IPEMU, that could run at 110 mph on main lines and then could perhaps do sixty miles on batteries, the routes that might be possible include.
- Euston to Blackpool
- Euston to Chester
- Euston to Huddersfield
- Kings Cross to Harrogate
- Kings Cross to Hull
- Kings Cross to Lincoln
- Kings Cross to Middlesbrough
In A High Speed Train With An IPEMU-Capability, I showed that extensions to fast routes might have applications for a fast IPEMU.
All the routes named come into the category of high speed routes with extensions and all are in Virgin Territory, so are we waiting for the Great Publicist to unveil the Green Formula One Train?
At least he would solve the problem of what to call the trains. Batteries are something in a mobile device not a train!
Conclusion
I think that probably the non-appearance is down to a mixture of issues, with technical ones and a shortage of Class 387 trains most prominent.
I do think though, that we shall be seeing IPEMUs working on the UK rail network within a year.
Consider.
- Network Rail are doing extensive work to create a fast double-track railway line between St. Pancras and Corby.
- The Uckfield Branch has been upgraded for twelve-car trains. Would they do that, just to run strings of Class 170 DMUs?
- The Marshlink Line is being upgraded.
- The new East Anglian franchise specified extra points would be given to those who used new technology.
- IPEMUs could run Euston to Blackpool, Euston to Chester, Birmingham New Street to Rugeley and many other routes tomorrow.
I think we’re waiting for a technical issue to be solved.
It’s either batteries or multiple running of trains, which would certainly be needed for some services.
A High Speed Train With An IPEMU-Capability
Bombardier were reported by Ian Walmsley in the April 2016 Edition of Modern Railways, to be developing Aventra, with a 125 mph capability.
Bombardier have also told me, that all Aventras will be wired so they could be fitted with on-board energy storage.
I don’t know all the masses and speeds, but imagine if an Aventra with an IPEMU capability ran at high speed down an electrified main line and then with its on-board energy storage full to brimming, turned on to line with a reasonably high speed, where it might make a number of calls before returning.
A typical line could be London to Norwich via Cambridge, along the Breckland Line, which is not electrified from Ely to Trowse Junction south of Norwich. Parts have a 90 mph speed limit and I’m sure the speeds could be improved.
The train would need to use the energy storage, but this storage would be partially recharged every time the train stopped, by the regenerative braking of the train.
An interesting fact, is that the kinetic energy of a train is given by half the mass times the square of the speed. So if the train leaves the electrified section, as fast as is reasonably possible, it is carrying extra energy.
Because of the regenerative braking of Aventras and for that matter, Electrostars and some other trains. some of this energy can be recovered and stored in the on-board energy stoppage of an IPEMU, every time the train stops at a station
Intuition and many years of doing this sort of dynamic simulation, tells me, that the faster the train goes at the start, lengthens the range if on-board energy storage is available.
It is worth noting the energy levels involved. If you take the energy of a train travelling at 40 mph as one, the energy of a train travelling at 60 mph is 2.25 times as much and one travelling at 125 mph, a massive 9.76 times.
I think that other factors will also help.
- A track built for speed.
- Modern signalling.
- An efficient train.
- Low dwell-times in stops.
- Advanced driving aids.
- Good driving.
I suspect that Network Rail and Bombardier are doing extensive simulations of possible routes for trains with an IPEMU capability.
These calculations will probably show some routes are more suitable than others.
A route that could might be ideal, would be a branch where the line speed was high to a single station, so that by the use of the regenerative braking, the train could start the return journey with a high level of energy in the storage.
London to Norwich via Cambridge, is not a line to a single station, but both ends are electrified, so the trains will start the journey with full storage, probably losing a proportion of the energy at each stop.
I’d love to be doing those simulations. But it’s all physics that Isaac Newton would have understood.
The Kettering To Oakham Line
I took this picture, where the Kettering to Oakham Line branches away from the Midland Main Line, a few kilometres north of Kettering station at Glendon Junction.
The Kettering To Oakham Line Leaves The Midland Main Line
I was surprised to see that the junction is only single-track.
Glendon Junction To Corby
This Google Map shows the layout of the lines to the South-East of Rushden.
Rushton And Glendon Junction
Note that there is no chord allowing trains from the North to go towards Corby.
The Station Road, which crosses the Midland Main Line was probably the site of Glendon and Rushden station, which closed in 1960.
The junction is towards the South-East corner of the map, with the Midland Main Line going towards the North-West and the Kettering to Oakham Line to the North-East.
This second Google map, shows the actual junction.
The Junction
It clearly shows the single-track nature of the junction. The line is single-track all the way to Corby station.
This Google Map shows Corby station.
Corby Station
The Kettering to Oakham Line goes virtually North-South through the station.
Note that there appears to be an old railway going away to the South-East.
Future Services Between London and Corby
Wikipedia says this will happen in the future.
It is planned that a half-hourly London St Pancras to Corby service will operate from December 2017 using new Class 387 trains, once the Midland Main Line has been electrified beyond Bedford as part of the Electric Spine project. Network Rail has also announced that it plans re-double the currently singled Glendon Junction to Corby section as part of this scheme.
I don’t think it will happen like that, as I can’t see Bedford to Corby being electrified in time. There’s also the problem of the arguments about who gets the Class 387 trains, that I wrote about in Are The TOCs Arguing Over The Class 387 Trains?
However, this article on the Network Rail web site, which is entitled Work to upgrade railway between Corby and Kettering enters next phase, It talks about the installation of a second track between Glendon Junction and Corby to pave the way for additional passenger and freight services from the end of 2017.
I would assume that improving from Kettering to Corby, will not only allow more trains, but also improve speeds and reduce energy consumption.
Could this mean that Class 387 trains with an IPEMU capability could be used on the St. Pancras to Corby route, as they’d only have to go from Bedford to Corby and back to Bedford on a full load of electricity in their on-board storage device?
I estimate the distance is probably about 25-30 miles both ways, so it might just be possible.
As I wrote in The High Speed Train With An IPEMU Capability, it could be easier for an IPEMU running efficiently at high speed on entry to bridge a gap in the electrification.
Remember that 159 miles of the Midland Main Line is cleared for 125 mph running, so a Class 387 IPEMU could be running at its full speed of 110 mph at or through Kettering station. If it was to stop at Kettering station, as much as possible of the train’s kinetic energy could be used to top-up the on-board energy storage, so that the train had as much on-board energy for a short run to Corby and back on a fast efficient line with no stops.
Is this Network Rail’s Plan B to get electric trains to run a half-hourly service to Corby?
But as electrification proceeded North from Bedford, this would make running Class 387 IPEMUs easier, as every mile of electrified line, would take two off the total needed to be run using on-board energy storage.
So could we be seeing creeping electrification along the Midland Main Line, as every mile erected would gradually bring more destinations within range of St. Pancras?
I certainly think, that as spare Class 387 trains will be available from later this year and an IPEMU capability could be added fairly easily as it was to the Class 379 train demonstrator for IPEMU technology, that we could be seeing electric trains running to Corby before the date of 2019, which is quoted as the date, when Corby will be electrified.
Aventras For East Midlands Trains
I have assumed that the only electric train, that will be available for East Midlands Trains would be Class 387 train. These could be given an IPEMU capability and they would probably be able to reach Corby, when track improvements and additional electrification allowed.
But Bombadier’s Aventra is coming.
A 125 mph Aventra was reported as possible by Ian Walmsley in the April 2015 Edition of Modern Railways.
In his article about the Aventra, Ian Walmsley said this about an order for Aventras.
But the interesting one to me is East Midlands Trains electrics. As a 125 mph unit it could cope well with Corby commuters and the ‘Master Cutler’ crowd – It’s all about the interior.
So the same train could do all express routes and also act as the local stopping train.
But as Bombardier have stated that all Aventras will be wired so they can be fitted with on-board energy storage, we have a train, that can thunder up and down the Midland Main Line with its sections of 125 mph running and then take to the branch lines like Corby and Nottingham using the energy storage.
I don’t know where 125 mph running is possible, but as IPEMUs have regenerative braking as standard and charge the batteries when they stop, ready for a quick getaway, there must be an advantage in having a battery high speed train, as energy in a moving body is proportional to the square of the speed. I investigated this more in A High Speed Train With An IPEMU-Capability, where I came to the conclusion that faster IPEMUs may give more advantages than slower ones.
Class 800 Trains For East Midlands Trains
Until Ian Walmsley’s statement about the 125 mph Aventra, I’d always thought that Class 800 trains, in either bi-mode or electric variants were a shoe-in for the Midland Main Line.
They are the right size, with the right performance, but they do have three problems.
- Corby needs an increased service now.
- Unless some of GWR’s order is diverted to the East Midlands, the trains could not be delivered for some years.
- Political lobbying would press for trains to be used in the East Midlands to be built there.
But they are a possibility.
As an electrical engineer though, I like the concept of Bombardier’s IPEMU, as I think that designed into a new train, it could offer savings in electrification and electricity costs.
Take Leicester station, shown in this Google Map.
Leicester Station
It needs to be upgraded for electrification and because of its prominent position on the Midland Main Line, closing the station to install the overhead wires would be difficult to say the least.
Supposing the overhead wires were not installed in Leicester station, how would a bi-mode Class 800 handle the station? It would put the pantograph down as it was slowing for the station and use its diesel power in the station. On leaving, it would wait until the wires started again and then raise the pantograph.
An IPEMU would use a similar procedure, but would use its on-board energy storage to bridge the electrification gap. But it has one great advantage in that all of the energy dissipated in the braking for the station would be used to top-up the on-board energy storage, which is used to restart the train.
So if the IPEMU route is chosen I see the following advantages.
- Stations like Leicester, Derby and Nottingham don’t need to be electrified with all the problems that entails.
- The route through the World Heritage Site of the Derwent Valley can be left without electrification.
- The electrification doesn’t need to be capable of handling regenerative braking, as the trains look after that method of valuable energy saving.
- East Midlands Trains get an electric train only fleet.
The only problem is running electric freight trains.
Onward From Corby
East Midlands Trains do run services past Corby, with some services going to Oakham and on to Derby.
This is a diagram of the line between Corby and Oakham.
Corby To Oakham
The line is double-tracked, looks to be picturesque and includes five tunnels and the Welland Viaduct shown in this Google Map.
Welland Viaduct
Note the shadows of the eighty-two arches. It was built in 1878 and you can understand why it is Grade II Listed building.
I suspect Network Rail have filed electrification of this line under something like Avoid if Possible.
Under Services in the Wikipedia entry for Oakham station, this is said.
A single daily return service to London St Pancras commenced on 27 April 2009 running via Corby and is notable for being the first regular passenger service to cross the spectacular and historic Welland Viaduct since 1966. The company introduced a further return service from Derby via East Midlands Parkway (for East Midlands Airport) from May 2010. Further services may be introduced in the future. The initial London service had been due to start on 14 December 2008 but because of a delay in reaching agreement with the Department for Transport and the rolling stock operating company (ROSCO) for the four additional trains needed for the service EMT started the service around four months later.
Running electric trains with an IPEMU capability to Corby would probably mean that EMT would look at the possibility of extending the trains to Oakham.
I have a feeling that the Welland Viaduct could cause problems, because of its Listed status, so using IPEMUs to provide the passenger service to Oakham, would neatly sidestep any heritage problems associated with overhead wiring.
Once Derby and Corby are both electrified, the route would be fully open to electric multiple units with an IPEMU capability as there is only a gap of about thirty miles in the wiring.
Oakham Station
There is also the problem of Oakham station, which is best summed up by this Google Map.
Oakham Station And Level Crossing
It is in the centre of the town and hemmed in by a major road. South of the station is a notorious level crossing, that needs to be replaced or avoided.
Network Rail engineers must have sleepless nights about this problem, especially as large numbers of long freight trains hauled by noisy Class 66 locomotives use the line through the station and the crossing to get between Felixstowe and Nuneaton.
Even the opening of the East West Rail Link, which will see some freight trains use the line between Cambridge and Bedford, will only offer a solution, where the freight trains are diverted through Cambridge and its increasingly busy station. What would the City and the University have to say about that?
So it would seem that another simple route for freight trains must be found.
Conclusion
The route between Kettering and Oakham is important and will be developed.
If East Midlands Trains or its successor go for either the rumoured 125 mph Aventra IPEMU or Class 800 bi-mode trains, they could improve the passenger service between London, Luton Airport, Kettering, Corby, Oakham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway and Derby, by opening up a second route.
In the meantime, it looks like Network Rail’s Plan B of a faster dopuble-track line to Corby could deliver better services using an IPEMU-variant of the Class 387 train.
The Anonymous Widower 