Network Rail Go Diving Again
After the Acton Dive-Under and the Bermondsey Dive-Under, in the April 2017 Edition of Modern Railways, there is an article entitled Dive-Under To Radlett SRFI (trategic Rail Freight Interchange).
This Google Map shows the location of the controversial Radlett SRFI.
It is sited on the old Handley-Page aerodrome at Radlett to the East of Park Street station on the Abbey Line and the West of the Midland Main Line.
The dive-under will go under the Midland Main Line to provide access to the slow lines on the East side of the Midland Main Line.
Seamless Interchangeability
At several places on the UK rail network, two trains running as a pair will split, with one train going to one destination and another going to another.
I wrote about trains splitting and joining in Trains Uncoupling and Coupling at Cambridge.
In the past, UK railways used to use the concept of slip coaches, so that coaches could be dropped from an express without stopping. But the last time it was used in the UK was in September 1960 at Bicester North station.
I have just read this article on the Rail Engineer web site, which is entitled Seamless Interchangeability.
The article talks about a concept of dynamic coupling, where trains are automatically coupled and uncoupled at line speed.
It also talks about the issues this would raise.
As a Control Engineer, I’m fairly certain, that it would be very easy to create a system, where say an eight-car Kings Lynn train could split just before Cambridge station, with the front four-car train going to Kings Lynn and the other four-car train stopping in Cambridge station.
It could either be done using two drivers or by driver-less trains. Although the unions would have a lot to say about the latter.
I also believe that if the trains could uncouple, then coupling at line speed would also be possible.
So what is the point?
An Example From The Brighton Main Line
To make full use of the capacity available, Southern serve Littlehampton and Ore, with a train that divides at Haywards Heath. It is a well-proven technique that has been used for decades.
Automatically splitting the two trains at line-speed, can give journey time advantages.
Take the 19:47 from Victoria, which arrives at Haywards Heath at 20:30 as an example.
The following is taken from the timetable.
- The front portion to Ore leaves at 20:34.
- The rear portion to Littlehampton leaves at 20:36.
- Stops at East Croydon and Gatwick Airport take about a minute.
This leads to the following, if the two trains split immediately after stopping at Haywards Heath and before the trains take different directions after Keymer Junction where the East Coastway Line divides from the Brighton Main Line, a few miles South.
- The Ore train performs a one-minute stop instead of one of four minutes, thus saving three minutes.
- The Littlehampton train performs a one-minute stop instead of one of six minutes, thus saving five minutes.
- The platform at Haywards Heath is only occupied for a minute, as opposed to six.
- The Littlehampton and Ore portions must be capable of providing enough capacity for their route.
For those worried about driver-less trains, the driver of the second train for Littlehampton, would probably step up at the previous stop at Gatwick Airport or at Haywards Heath.
But the outcome would be a small increase in capacity on the line, due to the platform at Haywards Heath being occupied for five minutes less.
Coming North, take the 09:47 from Littlehampton as an example.
The following is taken from the timetable.
- The first train arrives at Haywards Heath at 10:35 and leaves at 10:45.
- The second train arrives at Haywards Heath at 10:41.
The pattern of the trains would be different.
- Whatever was the front portion of the train would go through Keymer Junction first
- The train forming the rear portion would be the next train through the junction.
- The rear portion could catch the front portion and the two trains would be automatically coupled together before Haywards Heath.
- The joined train would stop at Haywards Heath for a minute.
- The driver of the second train could step-down at Gatwick Airport or Haywards Heath.
In some ways the mathematics involved in the coupling, are not unlike those for a fighter jet connecting with a tanker aircraft. Except that speeds are a lot lower and there is no need to control direction only closing speed.
Haywards Heath station would be occupied for up to nine minutes less, thus creating capacity.
This simplistic analysis, shows how automatically coupling and uncoupling trains at line speed can create capacity and decrease journey times.
- Journey time from Victoria to Ore would be reduced by three minutes.
- Journey time from Victoria to Littlehampton would be reduced by five minutes.
- In the Down direction the platform at Haywards Heath station would be occupied for just one minute instead of six.
- Journey time from Littlehampton to Victoria would be reduced by nine minutes.
- Journey time from Ore to Victoria would be reduced by three minutes.
- In the Up direction the platform at Haywards Heath station would be occupied for just one minute instead of ten.
Obviously strategies would have to be developed for various eventualities including.
- Unsuccessful coupling or uncoupling.
- Late trains.
- Signalling and train failures.
- Leaves on the line.
- Extreme weather.
But as during all coupling and uncoupling operations, both trains would have a driver in the cab, keeping an expert eye over the procedure and each train could be driven independently, I think all safety issues could be overcome, to the satisfaction of all parties.
If you read the full article, you’ll see that there are some much more exciting possibilities, than the simple ones I have outlined here.
But I do believe that line speed uncoupling and coupling of trains with a driver in the cab of both trains involved, can be a very powerful tool in creating capacity on the UK’s railways.
The Great Eastern Main Line
I know the Great Eastern Main Line well and several trains are coupled and uncoupled regularly on this line.
As Greater Anglia has ordered new five-car Aventra trains and nearly all platforms can take 12 -car trains, running these trains in pairs and coupling and uncoupling appropriately, is probably in their plans for the line.
As on the Brighton Main Line, could coupling and uncoupling at line speed, unlock capacity on the line?
A few weeks ago, I caught a train from Chelmsford to Manningtree, that divided at Colchester, with the front four-car train going to Clacton and the rear four-car train going to Harwich.
The 16:44 from Liverpool street is a train that divides at Colchester, when it arrives at 17:40. These timinings are from the timetable.
- The Clacton portion of the train leaves at 16:44.
- The Harwich portion of the train leaves at 16:47.
As the Sunshine Coast Line for Clacton leaves the Great Eastern Main Line immediately after Colchester station, it would appear that the two trains must uncouple during the stop at Colchester.
Surely, an improved and well-designed automatic uncoupling system could separate the trains faster, saving minutes on both services.
Towards London, two trains leave Harwich and Clacton at 07:16. The timetable shows.
- The Harwich train arrives at Colchester at 07:47 and leaves at 07:54.
- The Clacton train arrives at Colchester at 07:50 and leaves at 07:54.
Surely, an improved coupling system, could join the trains faster, saving minutes on both services.
The time savings will not be as great as those at Haywards Heath, but automatic coupling and uncoupling must be a worthwhile feature of the new trains.
|As Bombardier are adding automation to the Aventra, could they be adding the ability to automatically couple and uncouple trains, both in the station and at line speed?
The West Coast Main Line
I have seen Class 221 Trains, join at Crewe, but I don’t think this is done any more.
However, with the need for direct services from London to places like Blackpool, Burnley and Huddersfield, the ability to be to couple and uncouple trains quickly must be something that would be useful to make optimal use of the valuable train paths on the line.
The East Coast Main Line, Midland Main Line, Great Western Main Line And South West Main Line
If the West Coast Main Line could benefit, then surely these lines could as well.
Class 800/801 Trains
The Class 395 train is very much related to the Class 800 and Class 801 trains, that are being built by Hitachi for the East Coast Main Line, Great Western Railway and other routes.
In The Impressive Coupling And Uncoupling Of Class 395 Trains, I talked about the design of the coupling system for the Class 395 trains.
I would be very surprised if this feature was not incorporated in the Class 800 and Class 801 trains.
So will we be seeing two five-car Class 800/801 trains dividing and joining at a convenient station and then running as a ten-car train to and from London?
Class 385 Trains
What about the Class 385 trains for Scotland?
- These are another version of Hitachi’s A-Train, like 395s, 800s and 801s.
- These will come in two lengths; three-car and four-car.
- Edinburgh-Glasgow services will need at least two units to be coupled together.
- The trains are being introduced from Autumn next year.
It seems to me, that Scotrail are acquiring a very flexible fleet that can run in various lengths.
Will they have the ability of the 395s to couple and uncouple in under a minute?
And if they do, will Scotrail use this ability to adjust train formation to the traffic?
Aventras
There are three definite orders for Bombardier’s new Aventra train at the present time.
- Class 345 trains for Crossrail.
- Class 710 trains for London Overground.
- Five and ten car units for Greater Anglia.
All trains are fixed formations in a mixture of lengths.
Will Aventras have similar coupling and uncoupling performance to Hitachi’s Class 395 trains?
I suspect normally, the Crossrail trains will never be coupled together, as where are platforms for a four-hundred metre long train?
But suppose a train fails in the central tunnel, will the quickest way to remove it, be to attach it to another train and drag it out?
The routes where the London Overground trains will run, are currently served by a mixture of four-car and eight-car trains. So will London Overground, adjust train length to the known traffic patterns?
Greater Anglia do couple and uncouple trains at present to serve Harwich. So I suspect, we’ll see use of an automatic and fast coupling and uncoupling feature to create a more efficient timetable.
Cross City Lines
There are several cross-city lines in the UK.
- Cross-City Line – Birmingham
- Crossrail
- North Berwick Line – Edinburgh
- Northern Line – Merseyrail
- Snow Hill Lines – Birmingham
- Thameslink
One of the characteristics of cross-city lines, is they are busiest in the centre of the city, where passengers tend to use the trains for short hops , as well as longer distances. Then in the suburbs, outside of Peak hours the trains could run almost empty.
Crossrail’s trains are designed so that hopefully they could cope with the variable traffic, but would it be possible to have half trains, which join and split at outer stations.
Thameslink
I think that Thameslink could be the line that might benefit most, as it would probably want to serve more places.
In All Change On Thameslink, I detailed the current proposed schedule of trains.
- 4 trains per hour (tph) – Sutton to St. Albans (2 tph via Wimbledon, 2tph via Mitcham)
- 2tph – Brighton to Bedford
- 2 tph – Three Bridges/Gatwick Airport to Bedford
- 2 tph – Brighton to Cambridge North
- 2 tph – Horsham to Peterborough
- 2 tph – Maidstone East to Cambridge
- 2 tph – Sevenoaks to Blackfriars
- 2 tph -Orpington to Kentish Town/West Hampstead
- 2 tph – Rainham to Luton (via Dartford and Greenwich)
- 2 tph – East Grinstead to Bedford
- 2 tph – Littlehampton to Bedford
This makes a total of twenty-four tph, which is the design limit for the central tunnel.
In this schedule 4 tph go to Cambridge and 2 tph go to Peterborough. Suppose, it was decided that Peterborough needed 4 tph.
The path limit of 24 tph through the central tunnel makes this impossible, but if Peterborough and Cambridge services joined and split at perhaps Stevenage, then both Cambridge and Peterborough would get 6 tph through the core tunnel.
It would need new six-car trains, that could couple and uncouple quickly.
Conclusion
I believe that improving the coupling and uncoupling of all modern trains to the standard of that of the Class 395 trains could be very beneficial, to train operators, staff and customers.
If coupling and uncoupling could be done at line speed, this might bring extra benefits.
A Fur Coat And No Knickers Station
St. Pancras station is not my favourite.
My hate affair with the station started when I wrote Could St. Pancras Thameslink Station Have Had An Island Platform?, where I first called the dreadful concoction a fur coat and no knickers station. I said this.
St. Pancras is very much a fur coat and no knickers station!
Show on top and draughty and lacking at the bottom!
I don’t take back one word of what I said.
The station is the interchange between the following lines.
- Metropolitan and Circle Lines of the Underground
- Midland Main Line to Corby, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield.
- Piccadilly Line of the Underground
- South-Eastern Highspeed services to Kent.
- Thameslink between Bedford and Brighton
- Victoria Line of the Underground.
So to say the least it’s complicated.
Problems For Train Operators
The three main operators of the services in the above ground station, must despair at how few platforms, they have been allocated.
If you catch a Midland Main Line train to Nottingham say, you often have to walk to the second train in the platform. If they had a couple more platforms, then this walk would be avoided and extra services like a Luton Airport Express, that I wrote about in Luton Trains Its Eye On Sub 30-Minute Express, would become possible.
It’s the same with South-Eastern Highspeed services on the other side of the station.
Eurostar is perhaps better. But, if other operators wanted to run services, is there the space to accommodate their trains and the services they require?
Endless Walking For Passengers
Problems for passengers are very much concerned with the difficulty of changing between the various lines at the station.
I’ll give exchanging between the Victoria Line and Thameslink as an example.
It’s a very long walk down a tunnel to get from the Victoria Line to St. Pancras station and then you have to descend into Thameslink.
I wonder how many trains out of St. Pancras are missed because first-time passengers, assume that the time they’d habitually allow at Waterloo, London Bridge or Euston, is totally inadequate?
Thameslink Is Not An Island Platform
Thameslink needs this so that passengers on the Bedford branch can easily walk across the platform to get the Cambridge/Peterborough branch.
But it’s all too late now to do anything.
Elizabeth Line
It is a mistake that the Elizabeth Line doesn’t call at King’s Cross St. Pancras station for Eurostar and East Coast services.
Crossrail 2
How do you fit Crossrail 2 into this mess?
What Would I Do?
I would ask a friendly earthquake to completely destroy the complex, so it is rebuilt as a properly functioning station.
My serious ideas follow.
Short Term Improvements To St. Pancras
These would mainly be concerned with handling passengers.
- Thameslink needs a link at the Southern end of the platforms to the Metropolitan Line Ticket Hall.
- The Metropolitan Line Ticket Hall is decluttered and just serves as an interchange between lines.
- Eurostar needs to educate its passengers, so they use contactless bank card ticketing or Oyster.
- Perhaps Eurostar in-train staff, should sell a suitably-valued Oyster on board.
- Less shopping and more ticket machines and staff to handle passengers from and to Eurostar.
- More escalators are needed to the Midland Main Line platforms.
I suspect all operators have their own pet projects.
A Luton/Gatwick Express
Four Thameslink trains an hour between Gatwick and Luton Airports could be dedicated as Luton/Gatwick Expresses.
- Paint them red, so passengers don’t end up in Peterborough instead of Luton.
- Use trains with tables, wi-fi and space for luggage.
- Run them between Bedford and Brighton.
- Stop at Luton, Luton Airport Parkway, St. Albans City, West Hampstead Interchange, St. Pancras, Farringdon, City Thameslink, Blackfriars, London Bridge, East Croydon, Gatwick Airport, Three Bridges and Haywards Heath or whatever travel patterns say.
This would give Luton Airport the service they desire, without needing any extra platforms in the Midland Main Line station.
Since the opening of the Luton DART, services to Luton Airport have improved.
It would be interesting to see the passenger patterns to and from the airports. Do they have a different pattern than that of commuters, so some degree of smoothing numbers, will be naturally applied?
A Heathrow Express
Four trains per hour to Heathrow via West Hampstead Interchange and Old Oak Common for HS2, would be what Heathrow and HS2 needs.
But where do you find the single platform to turn the trains at St. Pancras?
More Platforms At St. Pancras
On resource grounds alone this is essential.
Conclusion
The architects who created this mess, shouldn’t be let near a station again.
Luton Trains Its Eye On Sub 30-Minute Express
This was the headline on a small piece in The Times on Monday.
Luton Airport want the following from the new East Midlands Franchise.
- A dedicated fast train.
- Four trains an hour (tph) to and from St. Pancras.
- A journey time of less than thirty minutes.
The airport says it won’t need any new infrastructure, but they are planning a fast link from Luton Airport Parkway station, which I wrote about in Luton Airport Goes For Light Rail.
This is an extract from the article..
The move would add up to £110million of extra fare revenue to the government over ten years and take almost 1 million cars off the road, a study by North Star, the consultancy found.
At present there are two separate services to Luton Airport.
- Thameslink, which leaves from the low-level Thameslink platform takes 45 minutes to the airport, with a frequency of six tph.
- East Midlands Trains, which leave from the high-level platforms take around 30 minutes to the airport, with a frequency of 1-2 tph.
Note these points about the current service.
- The lack of a dedicated platform for the fast trains to the airport, must confuse occassional passengers.
- The time of sub-thirty minutes is certainly possible on East Midlands Trains.
- There is not enough platforms in the high-level station for a dedicated platform for an express Luton Airport service.
The problems are made worse by A Fur Coat And No Knickers Station at St. Pancras.
The new franchise will probably be buying new electric trains for the Midland Main Line services. These could be key to providing an express airport service to Luton Airport.
Abellio has stated that their new Flirts and Aventras for Greater Anglia, will have a very fast stop and restart time, thus enabling services like Norwich in Ninety and Ipswich in Sixty.
So we then have the possibility of similar trains on the Midland Main Line to Corby, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield stopping at Luton Airport Parkway, without adding a large delay to the service. This would give Luton Airport, the following express services.
- At least four tph to and from St. Pancras in under thirty ,minutes.
- At least two tph to and from Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield.
- At least three tph to and from Leicester.
The only complaints would come from East Midlands Airport.
As there will be at least eight tph on Thameslink, this should be enough trains for everyone.
Would High-Speed Trains With Onboard Energy Storage Enable Environmentally-Friendly High-Speed Lines?
If you stand on the platform at Stratford International station, when a Eurostar Class 373 train comes through, it is a very noisy experience.
For this and other reasons high-speed trains usually have their own fenced-off tracks, well away from centres of population.
High-speed trains like Eurostar tend to have a journey profile, where they accelerate to line speed and then run at this speed, until they stop at the next station.
High speed lines are also designed, so that trains don’t lose energy on gradients and curves for energy efficiency.
I’d love to see an energy use profile for a modern high-speed train like a Class 374 train, as it goes from London to Paris.
Onboard energy storage is rather primitive today, but who’s to know how far the next generation of battery technology will take a train in say ten years time.
Say a high speed train has to go through an area that is highly-sensitive with respect to visual and/or audio intrusion!
If the section was not electrified, which would cut the visual intrusion to just the trains passing through and reduce the pantograph noise to zero, how far would a mix of battery power and the kinetic energy of the train power it until it could get electric power on the other side of the electrification gap?
We could be closer than anybody thinks to the use of batteries on high-speed trains.
The Midland Main Line is being electrified and Ian Walmsley in Modern Railways has speculated that 125 mph Aventras could be used between London and Sheffield. I wrote about this in A High-Speed Train With An IPEMU-Capability.
Could we see sections of the fast lines deliberately built without wires, so that noise is reduced?
Leicester station is a serious bottleneck, so could track be arranged there with two quiet fast lines without wires, through the centre of the city and the station?
It’s an interesting possibility to both reduce the effects on the environment and cut the cost of electrification.
I also think there are other reasons why trains will increasingly have on-board energy storage or in the case of electric locomotives, a small diesel engine.
- A get-to-the-next-station capability for when electric power to the line fails.
- Depots could be without electrification.
- Complicated stations could be electrically-dead.
It is a technology, that will have a large number of positive effects in the coming years.
Does Sheffield Need A Super High Speed Line To London?
I ask this question because HS2 was put forward in the days, when brute force and high speed was the only way to get fast journey times.
In this article on the BBC, which is entitled HS2 South Yorkshire route change threatens new estate, the following is stated.
- 120 mins – Fastest existing Sheffield to London service
- 79 mins – Fastest Sheffield to London service via HS2
I have not seen any details as to how fast conventional trains could do Sheffield to London, but we do have some useful figures from the Great Eastern Main Line, which I wrote about in Could Class 387 Trains Do Norwich In Ninety And Ipswich In Sixty? I came to the conclusion that a 200 kph Aventra with modest track improvements could reduce the current 120 minutes to ninety.
Compare the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML) with the Midland Main Line (MML)
The GEML is about 180 km long and fully electrified, with only two tracks except South of Shenfield and a 160 kph line speed.
The MML is about 250 km long and not electrified past Bedford, with generally more than two tracks and quite a bit of 200 kph running.
The MML has a lot of potential for improvement.
- In several places there is space to add extra tracks and improve junctions.
- A fully-developed Erewash Valley Line, could possibly be used as a higher-speed diversion, avoiding the line through the Derwent Valley, which is a World Heritage Site.
- The MML is currently being electrified.
- Modern electric trains with regenerative braking would speed stops on the MML.
- Some of the stations on the MML, could be rebuilt to speed trains through.
- This is just the sort of line for which the Digital Railway could have a large positive affect.
I feel that after the line is fully electrified and upgraded between London and Sheffield, that there could be a big improvement in journey times.
I do wonder if the revised plan for HS2 to serve Sheffield, , has come about because engineers have been able to devise a plan to improve the MML, that has created enough capacity from Clay Cross to Sheffield, to allow HS2 to share.
In HS2 Does The Right Thing In Sheffield, I postulated that if the MML from Clay Cross, where it bis joined by HS2 to Sheffield, were to be built to HS2 standards, when it was electrified, then this would have benefits for both lines.
- HS2 trains could approach Sheffield, using the sort of speed profile, they’d use into other stations.
- 200+ kph trains on the MML would knock a few minutes off schedules.
- Any extra tracks would probably fit on railway land.
- Chesterfield station could be rebuilt to accept HS2 trains.
There would be a large saving in costs, as only two tracks would be built. They would also be built when the MML is electrified.
We might not see trains on the classic route between London and Sheffield do the trip in the 79 minutes of HS2, but they would certainly be some minutes quicker than the two hours of today.
A Trip To Corby
I’d never been to Corby station before, but had planned it for some time.
I went this morning to both have a look at one of Network Rail’s new stations and see the work going on in the area.
These are pictures I took.
Note.
- I don’t think I saw one tricky bridge to electrify North of Bedford.
- A lot of the second track to Corby is in place.
- It would appear that the works at Corby will create a double track railway through the station to Oakham.
- I was told at Corby station, that there is to be a closure of the station later in the year, to finish the works.
- I saw no sign of any electrification North of Kettering.
- Piles with batty yellow covers, for electrification had started from Bedford.
But one thing that surprised me, was how the line constantly moved changed from four tracks to three and back again and that it was surrounded by lots of space.
Electrifying from Bedford to Kettering wouldn’t be the most difficult of jobs.
Only the stations would be tricky.
But I do have this feeling from what I saw at Horwich Parkway station and wrote about in Are The Electrification Gantries Going In The Middle At Horwich Parkway Station?, that Network rail have some better and non-traditional ways of dealing with the electrification of stations in their tool-box these days.
I also think, that they could phase the work in places, as the lines are often in separate pairs.
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.
A Waste Of Space?
I took this picture, as I rode through Kentish Town station on a Thameslink train.
A Waste Of Space?
I’d never realised there was quite so much space.
This Google Map shows the Midland Main Line as it passes through the station.
Midland Main Line Through Kentish Town
I do wonder, if this site would be one that could be used to create housing or other buildings above the railway.
- In a few years time, there will be upwards of eight Thameslink trains an hour through the station.
- After the rebuilding of Camden Town station, there is the possibility of upwards of thirty trains per hour on the Northern Line.
- Kentish Town West station on the North London Line is not far away.
- Just off this map to the West, is the large site, where J. Murphy and Sons have their offices and Central London base.
It would appear to be a well-connected place for homes, offices, schools, colleges or hotels, and I’m sure Camden Council are doing their best, to improve the area.
Electrification Of The Midland Main Line Along The Derwent Valley
As I went to Sheffield yesterday, I took these pictures as the train ran along the Derwent Valley on the Midland Main Line between Derby and Chesterfield.
The river from Matlock in the North to Derby in the South, is the centre of the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site.
And Network Rail want to electrify this line, so that fast electric trains can run between Sheffield and London via Derby!
This map shows the Midland Main Line from Trent Junction, South of Derby and Nottingham to Chesterfield.
Note the following about the route of the Midland Main Line.
- My train ran via Derby, Belper and Ambergate stations, up the route on the West of the map.
- Trains via Nottingham would go up the East, before joining the Erewash Valley Line directly up the middle to Chesterfield.
- A new Ilkeston station is being built, between Nottingham and Attenborough stations.
- There is pressure to expand the Robin Hood Line by reopening the Ambergate To Pye Bridge Line between the two stations.
- HS2 is supposed to join up with the Nottingham Express Transit in the Toton area.
- How many of the closed stations in the area will be reopened?
It’s certainly all happening around the Midland Main Line between Derby and Nottingham.
This is said in Wikipedia about the future of the Erewash Valley Line.
Network Rail as part of a £250 million investment in the regions railways has proposed improvements to the junctions at each end, resignalling throughout, and a new East Midlands Control Centre.
As well as renewing the signalling, three junctions at Trowell, Ironville and Codnor Park will be redesigned and rebuilt. Since the existing Midland Main Line from Derby through the Derwent Valley has a number of tunnels and cuttings which are listed buildings and it is a World Heritage Area, it seems that the Erewash line is ripe for expansion.
It would seem fairly logical to perhaps make the Erewash Valley Line an electrified one, with a maximum speed, as high as practically possible and just run self powered trains through the Derwent Valley.
There would be two real possibilities for running the services for the London Sheffield services, including those via Nottingham, up the electrified Erewash Valley Line.
- Class 801 electric trains
- Bombardier’s 125 mph Aventra which was reported as possible by Ian Walmsley in the April 2015 Edition of Modern Railways.
Obviously, other manufacturers would offer suitable trains.
For the London to Sheffield route via Derby, the following trains could handle the twenty miles between Derby and Clay Cross, that could be without electrification.
- Class 800 electro-diesel trains
- Bombardier’s 125 mph Aventra which can probably be modified with an IPEMU-capability.
- Voyagers modified as electro-diesel trains, as was proposed in Project Thor, could probably handle the gap.
- A Class 88 locomotive and a rake of coaches with a driving van trailer.
If all else couldn’t handle it, InterCity 125s certainly could.
Surely though, it would help the train operator to have one fleet, so I think we’ll either see mixes of Class 800/801s or Aventras with and without an IPEMU-capability.
The Class 800/801s could certainly do it, but 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.
The maze of lines shown in the map, would be an absolute dream for such a train!
I also think it would be pushing it to run the Hitachi trains through Derby and the Voyagers and the Class 88 solutions aren’t that elegant and would be very much stop-gap solutions. Loved as the InterCity 125s are, after a lifetime of very hard service, they are probably ready for retirement.
As the gap is only about twenty miles, I suspect that Network Rail’s and Bombardier’s engineers have got the engineering envelopes on the table in a local hostelry in Belper to solve the problem of getting 125 mph Aventra IPEMUs to jump the gap, so that services between London and Sheffield, can stop at Derby.
Why are they in Belper? Look at this Google Map of the railway through the town!
Midland Main Line Through Belper
Note the following.
- There must be half a dozen stone bridges north of Belper station, similar to ones shown in the gallery of this post.
- The River Derwent seems to be crossed by the railway, periodically for fun.
- Get that line right, probably without electrification and their uncluttered design will live for centuries.
- Get it wrong and they’ll be lynched by the local Heritage Taliban!
- If Aventra IPEMUs can’t be made to jump the gap, there’s always the reliable Derby-built InterCity 125.
Just as Great Western Railway use iconic photos of Intercity 125s running through Dawlish in their advertising, I think that East Midlands Trains will use video of 125 mph Aventra IPEMUs speeding with little noise and disturbance, through the towns, villages and countryside of the Derwent Valley.
If this could be made to happen, at an affordable cost, everybody concerned will see positive commercial effects.
The Anonymous Widower 