Future-Proofing The Uckfield Branch
The Uckfield Branch of the Oxted Line was open today, so as in A Trip To Uckfield, I had to use a Rail Replacement Bus from Crowborough, I took a train to Uckfield station and back from London Bridge. These are some of the pictures I took at Uckfield station.
I can’t disagree with what I said in the previous post.
The platform work is certainly being done to a standard and length, that should be good enough, if the Uckfield Branch is used to create a second Brighton Main Line, by extending the line past Uckfield to Lewes on the route of the former Wealden Line.
All of the platforms I have seen on the Oxted Branch seem to be capable of taking a twelve-car train.
Uckfield’s Long Single Platform
Although, I suspect that Uckfield itself could be a bit longer, especially as workers still seemed to be extending it further to the North.
I would think, that this long platform would enable two eight-car trains to be parked in the station, if there was a need in the Peak or because one of the trains had failed.
It’s just more future-proofing.
Oxted’s Bay Platform
Platform 3 at Oxted station is a South-facing bay platform, which is used to provide shuttle and other services down the two branches. In the last couple of years, it has been electrified, which is just more future-proofing, in case it was required to run an electrified shuttle to East Grinstead.
IPEMUs To Uckfield?
The Oxted Line is electrified from London Bridge as far as Hurst Green station, where the two branches split.
- The East Grinstead Branch is electrified.
- Uckfield Branch is not and is about twenty miles long.
As a typical Electrostar IPEMU based on say a Class 387 train, would probably have a range of at least fifty to sixty miles, it would appear that IPEMUs could work the London Bridge or Victoria to Uckfield service.
- Between London Bridge and Hurst Green the trains would take thirty-two minutes, getting power from the third-rail electrification. Batteries would also be charged on this leg.
- Between Hurst Green and Uckfield, they would take forty-two minutes and rely on battery power.
I suspect too, that third-rail IPEMUs could charge their batteries fully before they left London Bridge.
Platform 3 at Oxted station might also be useful for charging an IPEMU running a shuttle service on the Uckfield Branch.
In my view, the work done on the Uckfield Branch in recent months has created a line, that would be an ideal route for IPEMUs to provide the service.
- Platforms have been sufficiently lengthened.
- Signalling can probably already cope with the longer trains.
- There is no more electrification required.
All that is needed is to add an IPEMU-capability to the required number of Class 387 trains and train the staff.
How Long Is An IPEMU?
There is one mathematical and marketing problem, that must be solved before trains are run.
Class 387 trains come in sets of four-cars and on Thameslink, typically run in formations of four-, eight- or twelve-cars.
What is the optimal length to run services on the Uckfield Branch, as determined by passenger demand?
And can this length of train be provided?
I’ve not seen anything for instance, which says how many IPEMUs can form a single train.
But I suspect that Bombardier wouldn’t design a train, without a multiple-working capability.
And of course, the Uckfield Branch has been future-proofed for twelve cars.
I suspect that the capacity of the Uckfield Line will be determined more, by the size of the car parks.
Onward To Lewes
This article in the Uckfield News is entitled £100k Budget pledge for Uckfield to Lewes rail line study.
So it is possible that the Uckfield Branch could be extended by about ten miles to Lewes, along the route of the disused Wealden Line.
Intriguingly, as Lewes is fully electrified an IPEMU train going from London Bridge to Lewes would do less distance on batteries than a train going from London Bridge to Uckfield and back.
One of the problems with extending past Uckfield, is that the trains would have to cross the B2102 by the station in the middle of Uckfield.
This used to be a level crossing and I’m certain, that this option will not be reinstated for safety reasons. It has to be said, that as an IPEMU could cross on battery power, there might be a better solution, than a traditional level crossing.
But IPEMUs have another advantage, in that they could use a short underpass without electrification. I just wonder whether that some clever design could squeeze the railway line under the road.
Conclusion
If the passenger demand is there, there would appear nothing in the design of the upgrade to the Uckfield Line, to stop IPEMUs being used to fulfil that demand.
The IPEMU Advantage
Others question and they do rightly, my enthusiasm for the IPEMU or the battery-powered train.
This post which takes information from a variety of sources explains why I think as I do.
This document on the Network Rail web site explains the thinking of Bombardier and Network Rail.
Running Trains
Running trains is a co-operation between several parties.
- The passengers.
- The train operating companies like Virgin Trains, LOROL, Abellio Greater Anglia etc.
- The train builders like Bombardier, CAF, Hitachi, Siemens etc.
- The infrastructure provider like Network Rail, airports, property developers etc.
- The regulators and elected bodies like Government, TfL etc.
So what advantages does an IPEMU bring to each group?
The Train Builders
Is it simply a matter of who makes the best trains, will get the greatest number of orders?
The train of the future will.
- Be powered by electricity.
- Have regenerative braking to capture braking energy as electricity.
- Have a lot of power-hungry passenger features like air-conditioning, wi-fi and charging sockets.
- Have the ability to move to a limited amount without power, in depots, when the power fails, or where there are deliberate electrification gaps.
- Have a very sophisticated drive control and train management system, which matches train speed and acceleration to location, line, traffic, weather, passenger demand and type of power available.
In some ways regenerative braking is the most important, as it can save almost twenty per cent of the electricity used by a train.
I wouldn’t be surprised that, in a few years time, manufacturers will find it very difficult to sell a train without regenerative braking.
The electric power generated in regenerative braking can either be returned to the power supply or stored on the train.
Returning power is easy on DC systems using conductor rail, like subways, the Underground or Southern Electric, but can be expensive on 25 kVAC overhead systems.
Remember too, that when a train stops, it has to start again and will want the braking energy back.
From an engineering point of view, probably the best way to create an electric train with regenerative braking is to have onboard energy storage to capture the braking energy.
This is already done extensively in an analogous manner with hybrid road vehicles. It could even be done now with a diesel-electric train such as an Inter-City 125.
This leads to the proposition that within a few years all train manufacturers will need to make trains, with some form of battery or onboard energy storage.
The latter term is better as who knows what will be used for energy storage in the future? Batteries, KERS and super-capacitors have all been used in rail applications.
Consider.
- All of Bombardier’s new Aventra trains, have provision to plug in an energy storage device, if the customer wants one.
- Several tram manufacturers have products which use onboard energy storage, that have already been ordered and/or delivered.
- Road transport and increasingly buses and passenger cars are hybrid with onboard energy storage.
- Trains with onboard energy storage can be moved without power in depots and when wires come down.
- Bombardier have stated that their IPEMU technology is also being designed to retrofit to existing modern trains like Class 375/377/378/379/387 etc. trains.
- The complicated mathematics of steel wheel on steel rail mean the extra weight of the onboard energy storage is not a disadvantage.
All of this goes together to make the cost of running a train more affordable.
Bombardier’s Prototype IPEMU
Bombardier must be pretty bullish about their technology, as a year ago, they allowed the public to ride on a Class 379 train, that had been modified to be a technology demonstrator.
An Outwardly Normal Class 379 Train
I rode the train and was very impressed.
,It felt just like a standard train and I wouldn’t have known it was running on battery power except for the engineer sitting opposite, who was monitoring the train on his laptop.
Since that ride, there has been no adverse reports in the press and Bombardier have won an award for the technology.
When I am asked what are some of the most impressive experiences in my long life, riding this train certainly ranks towards the top, of those, which were not of my design or creation.
Until I came home and looked up the physics of steel wheel on steel rail, despite being an electrical engineer, I just didn’t believe that batteries could move a train.
In The Technology That Enables The Aventra IPEMU, I wrote about the physics and also what Bombardier seemed to be planing for the new Aventra train, which will have the capability of onboard energy storage.
I think it is true to say, that the unique thing Bombardier has done is to put a credible package together and demonstrate it in public.
The Train Operating Companies
Train companies gain a rather diverse set of advantages from IPEMU technology..
- More services can be given modern electric trains.
- Depots and sidings can be built without electrification, which saves money and makes them safer for the workforce.
- Electrification can be cut back to where it is actually needed.
- Regenerative braking cuts times at stops and increases service speed.
- As trains use less electricity, costs are less.
- IPEMU trains have a limited diversion capability, which can ease disruption.
- The company has a greener profile.
Hopefully, the performance and profile of the company will attract more customers and hence increase profits.
The Passengers
They will gain mainly from the benefits of modern electric trains.
But IPEMUs will bring other benefits to passengers.
- New services to new destinations.
- Faster services on routes with lots of stops.
- Better response when problems inevitably occur with overhead wires.
Hopefully, the lower cost of electric trains with regenerative braking may even result in lower fares.
The Regulators And Politicians
I have a feeling that the regulators will like the IPEMU, as the benefits will mean that passengers should be happier with better services, at hopefully a lower fare.
Politicians, and regulators are mainly of that ilk, that loves to leave a legacy. And they especially like to leave a legacy, which means they get voted back!
Consider the simple one or possibly two station extension of the Gospel Oak to Barking Line (GOBlin) to Barking Riverside.
- It looks like it will sensibly be done after the main route is fully electrified.
- Only Class 710 trains would be used on the extension.
- These trains will be Aventras and could easily be fitted with an IPEMU capability.
- Once it leaves the main line all infrastructure is new.
I believe that using an IPEMU on the extension would be beneficial.
- No electrification would be needed.
- Stations would be simpler.
- There would be no visual intrusion of overhead gantries.
- Train noise would be less.
- Removing electricity would make the environment safer.
- No one is likely to object.
But the main benefit, is that the extension can be built at a much lower cost.
How many new or improved short extensions to the main electrified rail network would IPEMU technology enable?
The politicians will come to love the concept of an IPEMU!
The Infrastructure Providers
Network Rail helped fund the original trial at Manningtree using a modified Class 379 train and you can understand why!
Electrification of lines is enormously expensive for infrastructure companies.
- Putting up wires means raising hundreds of bridges and boring out tunnels.
- Putting up wires seems to constantly drill through important cables.
- Putting up wires in depots, stations and sidings can be very complicated.
- Putting up wires raises heritage issues.
- The Nimbys often don’t like unsightly wires.
- A major cost is often getting the power to the wires.
- Upgrading existing electrification for traditional regenerative braking is not a simple operation.
- Engineers to do the work are in short supply.
So infrastructure companies will probably welcome anything that cuts the amount of new electrification and upgrade work.
One piece of technology we will see increasingly, is the ability of electric trains to deploy and retract the pantograph at line speed, as I believe the new Hitachi Class 800 trains can do.
So where will we see IPEMU technology used to cut the amount of electrification, but not the deployment of electric trains?
- Any branch line from an electrified main line, that is currently run by a diesel multiple unit. Branch lines like Felixstowe, Henley, Marlow, Sudbury, Uckfield and Windsor are probably IPEMU-ready after some platform extension and signalling work for longer trains.
- New extensions from an electrified line to major property developments like Barking Riverside.
- New extensions into restricted spaces, such as airports like Glasgow and Luton.
- Existing lines that connect two electrified main lines like Cambridge to Ipswich and Cambridge to Norwich.
- Electrification gaps can be left in heritage areas like the Grade 2-listed Hebden Bridge station or where the Midland Main Line, runs through the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site.
- Electrification gaps can be left where the geography is just impossible to build, access or maintain the overhead wires.
- Depots and sidings can be left without electrification.
Obviously, electrification gaps can only be left where all trains are diesel, bi-mode or have an IPEMU capability.
Relying on rumours and snippets in the media, the Internet and on blogs, I think we’ll see IPEMUs used in these places first.
- The extension of the Gospel Oak to Barking Line to Barking Riverside.
- Branch lines on the Great Western Railway, between London and Didcot.
- Branch lines in East Anglia.
- Merseyrail to Preston and Wrexham.
- Removal of diesel trains from the Southern franchise in Sussex and Kent.
I would add the Northern City Line, but the order for new trains has gone to Siemens.
The electrification of this line from Finsbury Park to Moorgate is a mixture of third rail and overhead.
As the new trains will be the only ones working this line, a train could use an IPEMU capability South of Finsbury Park. When all the Class 313 trains have been moved on, the third rail electrification would not be needed.
As it’s a couple of years before the Class 700 trains are delivered, I just wonder if they’ll have an IPEMU capability.
According to this article in the Daily Telegraph, Siemens are certainly experimenting with the use of batteries in trains.
The Current Status
Of the major manufacturers, this is the current published status, as far as I can determine.
- Bombardier have demonstrated their technology in public and used it in trams.
- Bombardier are researching heavily into the best battery system at Mannheim.
- Bombardier have also built large numbers of EMUs in recent years, that are suitable for retrofit with IPEMU technology.
- CAF spend heavily on R & D, have used the technology in trams for some years.
- CAF have sold that type of tram to the Midland Metro.
- JR East, who are on the list of preferred suppliers for Merseyrail’s new trains, have working Battery Trains In Japan.
- Siemens and Alsthom have trams running on batteries.
- Hitachi are backing the bi-mode, but must have access to Japanese technology.
On the down-side Bombardier have well publicised financial problems.
The Future
Currently, the IPEMU technology has a range of about fifty miles on battery, which if there is no en-route charging means that it could be used on short branches up to twenty miles.
This range will grow, as engineers know how to stretch the onboard energy storage capacity.
Engineers will also learn how to use the technology to take electric trains into more and more places, that are now thought impossible.
I think that the launching of battery trams in Birmingham will alight everybody’s minds to the possibilities of battery power.
New Trains On Thameslink
I had breakfast at Kings Cross and then hopped across the city on Thameslink to Blackfriars to go for a walk through the Tate Modern. I came back to Farringdon, as because the East London Line is closed, a bus from Moorgate is the best way to get home.
These were pictures I took of new trains on Thameslink.
Note the following.
- The red trains with the grey doors are Class 387/2 trains destined for the Gatwick Express later this month.
- The interior shots were all taken in a Class 387/2 trains.
- The white train with the sloping front and the light blue doors, is a new Class 700 train, which will run on Thameslink.
The pictures were taken at St. Pancras International, Blackfriars and Farringdon.
The new Class 387/2 trains had a definite feel of the Class 387/1 trains about them, except they had sizeable luggage racks and possibly more tables.
There are better and more luxurious airport trains in the world, including probably the Class 332 trains of Heathrow Express. But as a train to speed you to the Airport in thirty minutes or so, with plenty of space for you and your luggage, they probably pass the first test by a good margin.
They would be very good on other Airport routes in the UK.
- Routes connecting Manchester Airport to Liverpool, Manchester, Crewe and Blackpool.
- A possible Gatwick Express route from Reading to Ashford International, which I think could happen, if an IPEMU variant were to be developed.
- To and from Airports like Cardiff, Stansted and Southend.
An IPEMU variant could be useful in developing spurs to airports like East Midlands, Luton and Glasgow, which would be built without wires from lines with full electrification. Bombardier has the technology, all they need is the orders.
Would this approach be an affordable way to create the much needed airport link at Glasgow Airport?
- A single-track spur leading from the Inverclyde Line to the Airport to a single platform station would probably have enough capacity for a two or three trains per hour service.
- No electrification would be needed, which would mean that there would be greater flexibility in the route of the line. It might even go in a single-track tunnel under taxiways.
- There would be some modification to the signalling.
- The trains would be bog standard Class 387/2 trains, except for the energy storage.
- Two trains would probably give a two trains per hour service to the airport, as Glasgow Central to Paisley \st. James takes around twenty minutes.
- The trains would just be more trains running between Glasgow and Paisley.
- It would be simpler than a tram-train and require no special rules or modified stations.
- I can’t think of any new regulatory issues, as it will be a train running on a railway.
- There would need to be some staff training.
The overall system would be no more complicated than running the demonstration Class 379 IPEMU on the Harwich branch, which seemed to work so well.
How much would it cost?
The creation of the new line to Ebbw Vale Town station and the single platform station is reported to have cost less than twelve million pounds.
According to this article in Railway Technology, Porterbrook have paid £100million for twenty Class 387 trains, so two trains would cost ten million.
I also think that provision of the track and trains in something like the Glasgow Airport Rail Link, is the sort of project that a company would provide and then lease to the train operator.
No wonder, that Bombardier have won an award for the technology and Porterbrook bought some Class 387 trains on spec.
Will Southern Create A South Coast Express Using IPEMUs?
This post is pure speculation on my part,which I’ve written to illustrate the capabilities of an IPEMU.
What is an IPEMU?
Many rail passengers in the UK, have ridden in one of Bombardier’s fairly ubiquitous Electrostar trains. Here’s a short list of some of the types and the services they run.
- Class 357 trains run services out of Fenchurch Street for c2c.
- Class 375, Class 376 and Class 377 trains running commuter services to the South of London.
- Class 378 trains running on the London Overground.
- Class 379 trains running from Liverpool Street to Stansted Airport and Cambridge.
- Class 387 trains currently running on Thameslink, but perhaps soon on a line near you.
A Class 379 was used to create the IPEMU or Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit and a year ago, I rode this train in public service between Manningtree and Harwich.
A battery pack had been added to the four-car train, which was charged up, when the train is running on an electrified line; third rail or overhead and the energy can then be used to propel the train on a line without electrification.
I was told by the engineer sitting opposite me,monitoring train performance on a laptop, that this Class 379 IPEMU had the following characteristics.
- A range of upwards of sixty miles on battery power.
- Similar performance on battery or direct power.
- Virtually identical driving experience.
I would also add that the passenger experience was virtually identical.
Network Rail and Bombardier have put a lot of time, effort and money into the IPEMU. They believe, that IPEMUs and their battery power will have the following applications.
- Providing affordable electric services on branch lines or other lines that are difficult to electrify.
- Moving trains around in depots and sidings that have not been electrified.
- Train recovery and diversion, when the power fails.
- Used in conjunction with regenerative braking, IPEMU technology saves electricity.
Obviously, Bombardier very much believe in the technology, as their new train; the Aventra has been designed to use energy storage.
IPEMU is an acronym, that will increasingly be used with trains.
The Class 387 Train
Southern, who operate a lot of services south of London are users of Class 387 trains.
- 29 x Class 387/1 trains running on Thameslink
- 27 x Class 387/2 trains ordered for Gatwick Express.
The Class 387/1 trains will be replaced by Class 700 trains, as they arrive from Germany.
Unfortunately, due to the well-documented problems of Network Rail’s electrification, it looks like a lot of these twenty-nine trains could be put into storage.
I believe that some of these trains will be given an IPEMU capability to be used to provide electric train services on certain lines.
As they are closely related to the Class 379 train used for the prototype, I feel that most of the technical problems have been solved.
Along The South Coast From Southampton to Ashford
The South Coast from Southampton to Ashford is covered by two separate rail routes.
- The East Coastway Line that runs between Brighton and Ashford International stations is only partially electrified and uses two-car diesel Class 171 trains.
- The West Coastway Line that runs between Brighton and Southampton Central stations is fully electrified and uses elderly three-car Class 313 trains, which have a top speed of 75 mph.
If you want to travel between say Hastings and Worthing, you will have to change trains at Brighton.
This usually means a wait of a few minutes and a change of platform.
Any sane person would believe that if a single train could run all the way from Southampton to Ashford, this would be better for many reasons.
- The train company would probably need less trains.
- Passengers wouldn’t have to change trains at Brighton.
- There could probably be a simpler interchange between Coastway and Brighton Main Line services at Brighton station, which might release platform space.
- Both Coastway routes are limited to speeds below 80 mph and are fairly straight, so perhaps with some improvements, faster services could be introduced.
Until recently, the only trains capable of going from Ashford to Southampton would have been diesel multiple units, but as the only part of the route that is not electrified is the Marshlink Line from Ore to Ashford, it would now be possible to run the service using an IPEMU variant of a Class 387 train. The train would charge its on-board batteries between Southampton and Ore and at Ashford and then use battery power to bridge the gap of about thirty miles on the Marshlink Line.
As IPEMUs have a range of sixty miles, then it would seem that there should be few problems in running the trains between Ashford and Ore.
This approach has benefits.
- The Class 387 train is an 110 mph electric train with regenerative braking, so services could be faster.
- GTR has quite a few of the standard Class 387 trains in service, so the company and their drivers probably know them well.
- GTR could say they have removed a number of diesel trains and they are a greener company.
- Network Rail would only have to update the track and signalling of the Marshlink Line for four-car trains and wouldn’t need to electrify any of the route.
Currently, to go from Ashford to Southampton takes three hours forty-five minutes and it is quicker to go via St. Pancras and Waterloo. But with a 110 mph train and no changes, timings must be possible in the region of three hours.
I suspect that with some selected track improvements, a limited-stop service could be a real South Coast Express.
There certainly is some scope and I’ll detail each improvements on the main East and West Coastways separately,
The Marshlink Line
The Marshlink Line is not fully double-tracked, has several level crossings and a low speed limit, which if improved, would probably be welcomed.
The Marshlink Line Action Group web site has an extensive report about improving the line, of which this is an extract, from a report which discusses extending the Class 395 train service from Ashford to Hastings.
The basics of the project are substantially as presented last year with line speeds generally expected to be 60-90 mph from Ashford to Doleham and 40-60 mph onwards to Hastings. But the ongoing big question for NR (and of concern to MLAG from an environmental point of view and compatibility with rolling stock in the surrounding lines) is whether the power source would be third rail (as MLAG would prefer) or overhead. NR acknowledges the difficulty of overhead power along the Marsh with gantries having to be built on (obviously) marsh land and with the strong winds. Whichever, some 30 miles of track would need to be laid but, apparently, only about half a mile of dualled track to the west of Rye.
Incidentally, there has been talk about running Class 395 trains from St. Pancras to Eastbourne via HS1 to Ashford and the Marshlink Line. It would undoubtedly be a fast service, but it has some inherent disadvatages.
- The Marshlink Line would need to be electrified, probably with 25KVAC overhead wires.
- Some people might object to the wires across the marshes?
- Would it need some extra Class 395 trains to be purchased?
- Would it mean that one franchise was encroaching on the territory of another?
On the other hand, using IPEMU trains would simplify the job and mean no electrification would be needed.
However, it would probably be a good idea to make sure that as much dualled track was created, to maintain an efficient service on the line in the future.
The Willingdon Chord And Eastbourne
There has been talk about reinstating the Willingdon Chord, which could shorten the line by making it possible for trains to by-pass Eastbourne, But the locals fear, that Eastbourne would lose services.
However, surely some fast long-distance services along the South Coast could by-pass the town.
A skilled compiler of timetables could probable devise one for Eastbourne, that gave the town, faster and better services to Brighton, Southampton and London.
Lewes And The Wealden Line
It is an aspiration of many to reinstate the Wealden Line, as a new route to London to take pressure off the Brighton Main Line.
In Musical Trains In Sussex, I gave my reasons for believing that the Uckfield Branch could be run using Class 387 IPEMUs.
I also believe that if the Wealden Line is reinsatated that it will use the same type of train.
Obviously, Network Rail and Southern, will make sure that the Wealden Line project doesn’t conflict with a desire to run fast trains along the South Coast.
Hove Station
Hove station is a busy one with up to eight services an hour passing through in both directions, to and from Victoria and Gatwick Airport as well as Brighton.
There were aspirations that in the future to add the London Bridge to Littlehampton via Hove service to Thameslink. The service would use the Cliftonville Curve to access the Brighton Main Line, as it does now.
This would give all stations on the West Coastway Line between Hove and Littlehampton, two trains per hour through to London Bridge and beyond
Except for the Future Developments section in the Wikipedia entry for Hove station, I can’t find any more about this proposal.
The Arundel Chord
One piece of infrastructural that gets mentioned is a chord at Arundel that would connect the West Coastway Line to the Arun Valley Line between Angmering and Ford stations.
If it were to be built, it would create another route between Brighton and Three Bridges using the eastern part of the West Coastway and the Arun Valley Line.
Westward From Littlehampton
My only experience of the western end of the West Coastway line, was missing a train and having to wait an hour on a freezing and deserted Bosham station for the next train.
The service could probably benefit from a rethink.
Brighton
Brighton is the major interchange between the two Coastway services and the Brighton Main Line with its Gatwick Express, Victoria and Thameslink services.
Brighton station certainly needs improvement to cope with the large increase in capacity to the city, that Thameslink and its new Class 700 trains will bring.
Each twelve-car Class 700 train, will have a capacity approaching 1,800 passengers and there will be four of these trains to and from Central London and beyond every hour.
Obviously, the trains won’t be full at Brightpon and not all passengers will be walking to and from the station, so there needs to be better connections to buses and the two Coastway Lines.
At present, it takes a few minutes and a platform change to pass through Brighton if you’re going between services at the station.
- Brighton Main Line, Gatwick Express and Thameslink services.
- East Coastway services
- West Coastway services.
- Great Western Railway services to the West.
The platform layout at Brighton doesn’t look as if it was designed to make train services for passengers and train companies efficient.
So surely, if Coastway services could be linked, so that they came into the station, set down and picked up passengers before going out in the other direction, this would be a more efficient way to organise trains at the station.
It would also make the interchange between Coastway and Brighton Main Line services easier and hopefully, just a walk across a platform.
A reorganised Brighton could probably contribute several minutes to the savings in journey times along the Coastway.
This Google Map shows Brighton station and the two Coastway Lines coming into the station.
Brighton Station And The Coastways
I don’t think it would be an affordable or even a sensible solution, to combine the two Coastways together north of Brighton station.
The Wivelsfield Alternative
But Network Rail have come up with an alternative solution, so that the two Coastways can be connected together.
Just sixteen kilometres north of Brighton is Wivelsfield station. It is possible to access the East Coastway Line just south of the station at Keymer Junction, which unfortunately is not grade-separated and probably needs to be to improve Eastbourne services from Victoria.
Wikipedia has a section on the future of Wivelsfield station, which says this.
In Autumn 2015 Network Rail released the Sussex Area Route Study, where two options for the proposed grade separation of Keymer Junction are detailed, both of which would transform the station dramatically. Option 1 is the minimal option and creates a new platform 0 on the west side of the station served by a 3rd track from the new flyover line from Lewes. Option 2 is much more ambitious and builds on option 1 by adding an additional 4th platform on the east side of the station as well, served by a 4th track on the line to Lewes. Whilst this would enable each line to the south to have a dedicated platform the primary benefit would be that the existing platforms could be used to turn back trains in either direction as needed without blocking the main lines.
As services can access the West Coastway Line through the Cliftonville Tunnel to Hove, which is a couple of miles north of Brighton station, it would appear that the two Coastways could be connected, with a reverse at Wivelsfield.
The route would be.
- Lewes
- Cooksbridge
- Plumpton
- Wivelsfield
- Burgess Hill
- Preston Park
- Hove
This is not a complete solution, as there would have to be a way to get to Brighton station, by probably changing at Lewes, Wivelsfield or Hove.
A Brighton Metro
In a trip to Brighton, I travelled to Seaford using the East Coastway and the Seaford Branch. Even on a Sunday morning in February, the three-car Class 313 train was pretty full, especially around the University of Sussex at Falmer station.
So could the half-hourly Brighton-Seaford service be extended to the west of the City to perhaps Hove, Littlehampton or even Bognor Regis?
It would surely generate its own traffic across the city, which could help to reduce Brighton’s bad traffic jams. Stations could be.
- Hove
- Brighton
- London Road (Brighton)
- Moulsecoomb
- Falmer
- Lewes
- Southease
- Newhaven Town
- Newhaven Harbour
- Bishopstone
- Seaford
I think if you can sort out Brighton station or create the Wivelsfield alternative, you could run a four trains per hour stopping service across the city for as far as you want.
Perhaps the slower stopping trains would go via Brighton and the semi-fast services would go via Wivelsfield.
It’s a problem, that I suspect Network Rail have thought through fully!
Train Movements At Brighton
The only problem would be that the combined Coastway Line would need to cross the throat of the station, probably in a flat junction.
Say the Joint Coastway Line had the following services at Brighton.
- 2-4 trains per hour between Seaford and Littlehampton/Bognor, that would stop at all stations including Brighton.
- 2-4 trains per hour between Ashford International and Portsmouth Harbour and/or Southampton Central, that would stop at major stations only.
These would come into a platform or platforms on the Eastern side of the station, which would mean any train going to or coming from the West Coastway, would have to cross the Brighton Main Line to London.
The services to and from London after Thameslink is fully opened could be.
- 3 trains per hour to Victoria.
- 4 trains per hour on Thameslink
I’m no signalling expert, but I do feel that much more onerous train movements are coped with in stations like Manchester Piccadilly, Paddington and Waterloo.
Note the four trains per hour frequency on Thameslink (two from Cambridge and two from Bedford) Surely, if Coastway services are four trains per hour, then all services should have a pattern, so journeys like Seaford to Cambridge, involved just a walk across a platform at Brighton.
I’m sure some clever train scheduler can come up with an optimal pattern of changing trains at Brighton, especially if some trains used the alternative route via Wivelsfield.
But my feeling is that as Brighton is such an important station, that all Coastway services must either terminate or stop in the station.
At least there does not appear to be significant freight running on the Coastways.
Capacity At Brighton Station
The Thameslink Program and its Class 700 trains, will probably increase passengers through Brighton station.
Knowing the quality of Network Rail’s passenger transport modelling, I would not bet against Thameslink being so successful between London and Brighton, that additional services have to be added.
As the Thameslink trains will be new and they serve lots of destinations in London and beyond, I think it is a given, that passengers from places like Eastbourne and Worthing, might use Thameslink instead of their local direct route, changing at either Brighton or Gatwick Airport.
Conclusions
Improvement of the Coastways, is just one part of an evolving plan for rail and air services in Kent, Surrey and Sussex.
As there are important lines in the area that are not electrified, I’m certain that IPEMUs will play a part in this development.
After all, the technology works and we will soon have lots of Class 387 trains sitting in sidings.
Musical Trains In Sussex
This article from Rail Magazine is entitled Class 387/2s enter traffic with GTR.
It says that as Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) already has Thameslink drivers qualified to drive the trains and the training for drivers on Gatwick Express hasn’t been completed yet, then two of the new Class 387/2 trains for Gatwick Express have started to be used on Thameslink services to replace the ugly Class 319 trains.
The Class 700 trains, start to be delivered this spring on Thameslink and will obviously replace the remaining 319s first. But as numbers increase, what is going to happen to the displaced new Class 387/1 trains, currently running the route with the 319s?
Surely to park them in sidings, until the much-delayed Great Western Electrification is completed will be a scandal.
It is also complicated by the fact that after Bombardier finish the Class 387/2s for Gatwick Express, they are going to build another twenty-eight four-car trains to add to the collection in the sidings.
Unless of course, someone decides that they will be better off earning revenue.
It’s all gone rather quiet on the IPEMU front, except for a presentation in Derby by Network Rail to the IMechE, but surely if the technology works, wouldn’t it be better to fit batteries to some of these trains and use them on services, where IPEMUs are an alternative to full electrification.
GTR could even use a few of the IPEMU variant of the Class 387 train on their Southern franchise to replace their diesel Class 171 trains on the Oxted Line and the Marshlink Line.
Surely, if there was ever a low-risk strategy to try out these innovative IPEMU trains in revenue earning service, it is on these two lines.
- GTR has a lot of experience with running and training drivers for Class 387 trains.
- Both the Oxted and Marshlink lines need an increase in capacity.
- I suspect, that modifications need to be done to allow four-car trains to run on the Oxted Line to Uckfield.
- Four-car trains already run on the Marshlink Line.
- GTR would end up with an all-electric passenger train fleet.
But surely the main reason, is that some modern diesel trains in good condition, would become available for cascade to places, where they are really needed.
I’ve just found this article on the Southern Railway web site, which is entitled Uckfield line platform extensions. It describes how all platforms on the line are being lengthened for twelve-car trains. This is said on timescales.
Permanent works started in September 2015 at some sites and they will start in the New Year for others. The stations will be completed on a staggered basis between February and July 2016.
The article also says that until February 19th, there will be a replacement bus service from Crowborough to Uckfield via Buxted. So it is reasonable to assume that from the end of this month, that at least the last three stations on the line will be able to take longer trains. This surely says that if selective door opening is used on a few stations, then by the May 2016 timetable change, longer trains can be used on the Uckfield branch.
Progress on the platform lengthening seems tro be going well, as I wrote in A Trip To Uckfield.
But where are they going to get serviceable four-car trains, let alone twelve-car ones to run on the Uckfield branch?
Perhaps they are going to use two Class 37 locomotives and a few clapped-out coaches.
My devious mind thinks that running the two Gatwick Express trains on Thameslink, frees up two four-car Class 387 trains, which could go to a convenient depot to be fitted with their batteries and IPEMU capability.
After all, when Bombardier created the Class 379 demonstrator for the technology, they didn’t take the train out of service for more than a few months.
There is also this paragraph in Network Rail’s Route Specification for the South East published in April 2015, in a sub-section called Electification Strategy under Route Specification Sussex. This said.
For routes for which it is unlikely that a case can be made for conventional electrification, there could be an opportunity for alternative solutions to be considered in place of diesel traction, for example battery train operation through an Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit (IPEMU).
Could Network Rail have decided that now is the time to facilitate IPEMU introduction on the two lines in Sussex, that are not electrified?
Replacing two Class 387/1 trains with two Class 387/2 trains, releases the trains for modification.
At the end of the month, when the Class 387/2 trains are needed to start services on Gatwick Express, the modified Class 387/1 trains can be returned to service and run without using their IPEMU capability.
When the Class 700 trains are approved for Thameslink, the Class 387/1 with the IPEMU capability can go where they are needed.
As Network Rail are spending money on platform lengthening on the Uckfield Branch, I think we’ll be seeing some of the first IPEMUs serving it in the near future.
Politics says they’ll turn up before the First of May!
Capturing The Benefits Of HS2 On Existing Lines
This is the title of a report written in 2011 by Greengauge 21.
This is how the report starts.
When High Speed Two (HS2) is complete, the longer distance, non-stopping trains on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) will in the main transfer to the new, quicker, route, freeing up valuable capacity. However, until now plans for services on the WCML once HS2 is open have been broad brush assumptions made for the purposes of completeness in the economic appraisal. This report looks ahead in more detail to consider what services should operate on the existing rail network once HS2 is open. The aim is to help kick start the development of this wider strategy in which the benefits of HS2 are maximised, not just for those using the new line, but for travellers on the existing railway. The effective re-use of the capacity released by HS2 is a key project benefit. It will allow new local and regional passenger and new freight trains to operate: services that are and will continue to be prevented by network capacity constraints.
It is well worth reading the full document, even though it was written in 2011,, as I think it explains how HS2 could benefit those other than those, who want to get quickly between London and Birmingham.
Places With Better Services To And From London
The report singles out three areas, that could benefit from a freed-up West Coast Main Line between London and Birmingham.
It says that the following places.
- Walsall
- Shropshire
- Mid and North East Wales.
Could all gain new direct services to and from London.
Feeders To The West Coast Main Line
The report talks about how three new or improved lines and schemes will act as feeders to the services on a West Coast Main Line, that will have more capacity for semi-fast services, connecting London with Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Scotland.
- The Croxley Rail Link will link Watford to a wide area of Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire.
- The East-West Rail Link intersecting the WCML at Milton Keynes would improve services from a lot of the South Midlands and East Anglia.
- Improvements between Leamington and Nuneaton (Nuckle) would improve connections for Warwickshire.
These three schemes are now progressing and will be fully working by the time HS2 opens in 2026.
Chiltern Electrification
The three feeder schemes mentioned above all contain two ambitious words Chiltern Railways.
Consider the following.
- The Croxley Rail Link could and probably will be extended to Amersham via Rickmansworth.
- TheEast West Rail Link will deliver a Chiltern service from Marylebone to Milton Keynes via Aylesbury.
- The Greengauge 21 report talks of a Marylebone to Coventry service via Leamington and Kenilworth.
- Oxford to Milton Keynes will be electrified.
- Chiltern use some rather elderly but excellent diesel trains.
- Coventry, Milton Keynes and Watford are already electrified.
I can’t believe that there is not more talk about electrifying the Chiltern Railways network.
I don’t think that Chiltern Railways would need full electrification, if they were to use IPEMU technology in conjunction with some limited electrification.
- The Snow Hill Lines in Birmingham, perhaps as far south as Leamington.
- The southern section of the Chiltern Main Line, perhaps between Marylebone and High Wycombe.
Electrification is a future aspiration of Chiltern Railways and it could give a second 125 mph line between London and Birmingham.
This would mean that a much increased number of towns would have a high speed connection to both major cities and many places in between and North of Birmingham.
I think that enabling electric trains to use the Chiltern Main Line and the Snow Hill Lines, should be given a high priority.
Class 387 Trains On Track
February 2016’s Modern Railways has some news on the building by Bombardier of Class 387 trains. Three orders are in the pipeline.
- 27 trains for Gatwick Express
- 8 trains for Great Western Railway
- 20 trains for Porterbrook
All are of four cars.
Modern Railways says this.
The 20×4-car units for Porterbrook (for an as-yet unnamed operator) will be built first, followed by the 8×4-car units for Great Western Railway.
I feel that we’ll be seeing Porterbrook’s twenty trains on the UK rail network before the end of 2016 or soon afterwards. You have to admire their business acumen in spotting the need.
The article also goes on to say that Bombardier has created a new facility dedicated to the Class 345 trains, that will be for Crossrail. So their production will not effect production of other trains.
Does this also mean that Bombardier could use the existing production facilities to create more Class 387 trains or build the Class 710 trains for the London Overground?
If it’s the first then there are several operators, who would like a new 110 mph electric multiple unit. If it were a 125 mph train, there would be more takers.
If it’s the second, then I’d be pleased to be riding new Aventras on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line and up and down the Lea Valley Lines.
I think that it is true to say, that judging by the mess, that is the Great Western Electrification, that Great Western Railway will have a few spare Class 387 trains, if any operator had an electrified railway.
I would also love to ask Porterbrook and/or Bombardier how many of the leasing company’s twenty trains will be delivered with an IPEMU capability.
As I’ve said many time before, a 125 mph four-car IPEMU would be some train and would transform rail services in East Anglia, Across the Pennines, on the Midland Main Line and perhaps many other places.
All is starting to be revealed!
A Trip To Barking
In A Story And A Rumour About The Gospel Oak To Barking Line, I reported on a rumour that an LO staffer had said that the electrification will be complete by June.
I think this is impossible, as according to this document on the TfL web site, the bridge at Upper Holloway station will only be completed before the end of 2017. I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that the bridge must be completed before the electrification.
Surely,if the electrification is to be completed by June, then there will be evidence of construction all along the line.
Today, I went to Barking station and had a look around.
- The GOBlin terminates in Platform 1 at Barking station and there is no evidence of any construction there.
- There was no evidence of piling between Barking station and the short length of electrification between Barking and Woodgrange Park station.
- There was also no evidence of any work tro create supports for the catenary on the elevated section of the line between Woodgrange Park and Leyton Midland Road stations.
On a quick look too, there didn’t appear to be any construction cabins, that would be normal for such an undertaking, as electrifyimg a dozen miles of railway..
I then had a think about the objectives of all the work on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line.
- Replace the two car Class 172 diesel multiple units with four-car Class 710 electric multiple units.
- Allow freight trains to be hauled by electric locomotives.
- Extend the line to Barking Riverside.
This map from carto.metro.free.fr shows the lines at Barking station.
Lines At Barking Station
Note the following.
- The GOBlin (orange) terminates in the bay platform 1, on the North side of the station.
- Freight trains to and from London Gateway, Tilbury and the East, go through the two Barking Tilbury Line junctions and then access the GOBlin using a flyover and the Barking Station junction.
- Barking Riverside station is on a spur off the Tilbury Line to the South East.
So I asked myself, what electrification needs to be done to get electric-hauled freight trains off and on the GOBlin.
As c2c runs electric services in and out of Liverpool Street at certain times, I suspect that the wiring to get electric-hauled freight onto the GOBlin is already there.
So we’re left with the only electrification at Barking being platform 1 and the extension to Barking Riverside. The total length is probably under ten kilometres.
According to Bombardier, all Aventra trains like the Class 710 will have an energy storage capability.
So could we be seeing an extension to Barking Riverside like this?
- Between Barking Station junction and Barking Riverside station, the Class 710 trains run on their batteries.
- Eastbound and westbound services both use Platform 1, so the GOBlin has its own single-platform at Barking. Recently, Network Rail has built several single-platform stations.
- Platform 1 is not electrified.
- The line through Platform 1 is extended under the station to give a direct connection to Barking Riverside. This might need another flyover or some extra points and crossings.
- The branch line to Barking Riverside and the station are not electrified.
Effectively, using the IPEMU capability of the Class 710 trains, has simplified the project and reduced the length of electrification required by a large amount.
Whilst I was at Barking station, I took this picture.
A Protected Conductor Rail At Barking Station
Note how the conductor rail is protected by a yellow wooden shield.
Why?
Is it to protect passengers or the work-force?
How To Charge A Battery Train
There is a Twitter hashtag of #ipemu and this tweet has been posted, which describes something called a Railbaar from a well-known Swiss company called Furrer + Frey, who are very much involverd in transport electrification.
Railbaar
This could be the missing link in running IPEMU trains on branch lines, like those to Barrow, Lowestoft, Scarborough or Windermere. After pulling into the terminal, the battery is topped up to make sure the train gets all the way back.
As an example, current schedules at Windermere allow somewhere between six and fifteen minutes for the turnround, which is probably typical around the UK rail network
The Anonymous Widower 