Great Western Coffee Shop

An interesting presentation at last week's GWR Stakeholder conference concerning the North Downs line, and in particular future growth. Point came up (in questions as I recall) that it's already 3rd rail at both ends and in the middle, and whether it might be sensible to infill the diesel-only bits with third rails.   I think it was suggested that the technologies are sufficiently different to overhead electrification for there to be technical resources available to do it in parallel with other electrification rather  that having to wait in an OHL queue.

Comment was also made at the conference about the streamlining of the fleet / keeping to a sensible number of types, with note that 143, 153 and 180 are on GWR exit paths. But wouldn't this electrification mean a new cascaded - does not serve a London terminus - fleet of 3rd rail stock?

Reminded by a sign posted on Twitter reminding people of the danger of electrocution from the rail at Cranbrook -
https://twitter.com/clinnick1/status/676014597564981248

365s were originally dual-voltage - it may be possible to reinstate that. Though I suspect it would be just as easy to hand the line over to SWT.

I'd be amazed if this sort of rational independent thinking was converted into anything other than a string of reasons why this would be impossible. Unless the contenders for the GW franchise put it into their bids, but some hope there..

If you look back 100 years (regrouping), the Redhill to Reading line was an outpost of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway, and in my youth it ran (with "tadpoles") Reading to Tonbridge (my goodness - what a s-l-o-w journey that was, as I recall!).   So perhaps in the interest of competition it should go in the SouthEastern Franchise, with an Ashford to Reading connection off the Eurostar from Paris, Brussels, Frankfurt and Amsterdam using class 395 trains, picking up a Gatwick portion at Redhill.

The Wessex route Study looked at both AC and DC options versus the current DMU performance. AC gave roughly twice the time gain of DC. The semi-fast trains don't gain that much (2.5/5 mins), and no-one may be too fussed about the timings for stoppers (7/11.5 mins).  But that suggests this is one of the few places where DC might be seen as a true fill-in and so worth considering. 

Then they say:

I wonder what's been holding that up ...

This is something I have thought about for years and surprised they still have done nothing about it, and as you say, the more complex parts such as the Reading station area (down to Wokingham), Guildford station area (including up to Ash) and Reigate down to Gatwick are already in place. It would simply require the up and down lines of the 'infill areas', no major crossovers or junctions to contend with.


Whilst the time savings may not prove to be much, I would have thought the main draw would be more electrified stock being used and the savings of fuel. The downside of DC is that AC is of course safer.


Class 387s could be used? Though I agree that having SWT run North Downs services makes more sense than GWR.

Gosh I remember the through Reading to Tonbridge services.  I used them a few times to see relations in Kent.  Seemed like the other side of the world.  Was it tadpoles?  I wasn't that clued up on rolling stock back then but I seem to recall it was the same DMUs that ran the stopping services to London Paddington.

I remember the Tadpoles.  They were different to the Paddington DMU's.

Is the reason why no infill is being considered due to the possibility of converting the 3rd rail to OHL once the now much delayed pilot is over?

3 car trains - 2 cars from a Hastings line DeMU which were narrow bodies due to the tunnels on the line having limited clearance, and 1 car from an EPB unit (electric).   So they look very odd.  Seemed a bit underpowered too, even though the generator occupied the best part of half the carriage behind the driver. Gawd they were slow ... Leigh Halt, Penshurst, Edenbridge, Godstone ....

Plenty of pictures of the (preserved) Hastings unit at http://www.hastingsdiesels.co.uk/ontour/ - and this has one wide carriage it in these days, so you can almost look along the train and see the bump.  For the EPB carriage, see http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class415_3.html and look at the BR variant (top pictures) not the Bullied on units up to 5300 (5261 was a mix like 150925 and 150926 are these days).    Tadpole - picture on Wikipedia via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_206 .

What about the elegant SECR D clas 4-4-0 that I used to see on Reading South Shed in the late 40's early 50's.

Is it not? That was my point: the Route Study itself suggested that both AC and DC should be considered (perhaps that wasn't clear).

It then passed the buck to the electrification RUS. The last one of those (in 2009) only considered DC and ranked it is tier 4 (out of 6) meaning it didn't make it into their list of infill schemes "in the core strategy", nor even of "further options". 

But since conversion of 3rd rail to OLE was to be informed by the trial between Basingstoke and Southampton, I assume any 3rd rail infill is on hold pending the results of the delayed pilot.

Doing DC infill might be on hold - but not considering it, together with the relevant timescales for either route. If DC now would give 15-25 years of operation before AC conversion was remotely likely, that might still make sense.

And since the conversion south of Basingstoke is now only to be considered for CP6, perhaps putting DC infill on hold has to be put on hold.

I always thought that the RUS failed to classify the route properly as it is an international gateway (their words) and should have therefore had tier 1 priority for electrification. Perhaps Gatwick Express wanted GW originating customers for itself.

It also struck me that given dual voltage operation, 25kV to Wokingham or even Aldershot South Jn (where it joins the Alton line) would have given simpler interfacing with the dc system  than at Reading. The remaining Shalford - Reigate section could have had dc electrification using surplus equipment from the power supply upgrades - only two substations were needed I believe.

It may be early days to expect a strategy for moving AC ahead in the South, especially with the horrific overspend on the GWML. The South Western main line interface should probably be at Pirbright Junction, rather than Basingstoke, as it was before the Bournemouth scheme in 1967.

The "tadpoles" would make Pacers seem attractive today particularly with the driving trailer locked out of use. This left only one and a bit, narrow coaches for customers even during school term time.

OTC

There was a rather odd item on BBC South Today about electrification (flavour unspecified) of the North Downs line. I've no idea what triggered it - and it wasn't done by Paul Clifton, which probably didn't help.

It was based on the idea that the cascade after GWML electrification would leave the North Downs Line with nothing extra, and more and faster trains could only be electric. No mention of the third tph due (still, I think) from May next year or the longer trains that might be possible (still being talked about).

I've seen suggestions elsewhere that NR are now far more pragmatic about 3rd Rail, but IIRC the GWML franchise invitation to tender encourages battery/diesel IPEMUs on this route. I can see their point, it's a long stretch of 3rd rail and difficult to comply with modern H&S legislation in a rural area where access can't be tightly controlled.

At the end of the day though, I'd suggest that in many ways it's about the rolling stock. Whilst you have Reading depot providing DMUs for the Thames Valley branches etc, then it seems cost-effective for them to share the same stock with the Gatwicks. There's going to be plenty of DMUs to go round post-electrification to beef up services, especially now that Northern and TransPennine are having new-build. If the next franchisee decides that they want to replace those DMUs with a fleet of IPEMUs and the DfT agrees that it is practical, then it would seem sensible to use them on the Gatwicks too. If they need a bit more time on the juice rail, then it would seem sensible to provide third rail between Guildford and Redhill, and leave the northern stretch.
 

Rumour doing the rounds that GWR could be looking at a possible order for new dmu's tagged onto the back of Northern's. Not sure how true that is will wait and see especially as we should have had new dmu's years ago before  it was cancelled when electrification  was announced.

 ATW could do with new dmu's as well unless we take on those 153's from GWR

I've seen that rumour but I'm not sure how credible it is, the suggestion was that if the lease & operating costs were no more than current stock, the DfT were open to persuasion. My guess is that it would be part of a package for Devon and Cornwall, where of course there are a lot of newly won Conservative seats that the Government would like retained. Plenty of Turbos to run Bristol area services etc.

As for ATW, isn't it complicated by discussions on what gets devolved to the Assembly? Mind you, if Plaid do get control, then perhaps London might be inclined to buy some favours?

Since Noggin has continued anthony's off-topic line...

Shame Northern's new DMUs are outer-suburban units (doors not at vehicle ends = suburban), because ATW could really use some more regional express stock to suplement the 158s and 175s. I'm a little concerned that it will be 2045 before any new DMUs ordered now are life-expired though, and we'll need to be almost zero-carbon by then to meet climate change targets.

As for 153s, I think Northern is getting rid of them as well so if ATW could get hold of those and the FirstGW sets they could possibly re-create a good number of 155s to take over HOWL and Pembrokeshire-Swansea services, perhaps the Conwy Valley Line too but that's rather remote from Landore depot.

HOWL = Heart Of Wales Line

How about all those TPE Class 185s that are being replaced by their new fleet?  Don't think anyone has snapped those up yet.

They'd be very good trains for the routes you describe, even if the doors aren't in the right place!

The North Downs Line is not on the plot for CP6 or even CP7 for electrification.  The ORR (the elf n safety part of it) would not allow such a large 3rd rail "in fill"  There are other practical reasons why 3rd rail would not be popular the number of substations, track paralleling huts would be expensive.

I remember standing on the passenger bridge at Leeds City station, watching a 185  TP arrive  packed with over a hundred trying to board. What suits the route and the convenience of the depot may not cope with customer requirements and demand.

Before the GWML electrification disaster, ac was touted as cheaper than dc. As dc is a known known, it must now be significantly more attractive. A pity that the industry (whether TOC, NR or ORR) won't stand up for its passengers.

OTC

Is 3rd Rail a known known?  IF ORR in their capacity as safety regulator were to permit further 3rd rail what conditions might they put on this? 

A full security fence down both sides of the track?
Removal of all pedestrian level crossings?
Special measures at vehicle level crossings to prevent trespass?
Or even removal of all level crossings?

How much of the GWML overspend is to do with alterations to structures to give clearances?  Would a more reasonable estimation timescale give a better estimate of this?  Clearly the number of structures that need alterations varies between lines. 

A full security fence down both sides of the track? - For exposed top contact not even 3 metre high razor wire topped fence would convince the ORR, fully shrouded bottom contact like the DLR may get approval but then it will be incompatible with the rest of the network
Removal of all pedestrian level crossings? - That is current policy even if the line remains diesel
Special measures at vehicle level crossings to prevent trespass? - The removal of all level crossings is the current policy, there are already additional measures take, cutting the conrail back but then gapping of trains is a big risk (gapping where a trains shoes are not in contact with any conrail) especially for 3, 4 and even 5 car trains
Or even removal of all level crossings? - That is current policy even if the line remains diesel

The GWML GWEP is designed for high density high speed 225kph railway a slower speed 145 kph railway the OLE could have greater spacing's between structures

If the ORR was really that set against 3rd rail dc  then it would have required a timetable for its replacement, as with slam doors and non-DDA compliance. It has not.

Any form of power electification is hazardous (as is any track access) and causes material risk, ac overhead included. I wonder what the comparative casualty figures are?

Perhaps we should look at how the Class 71 locomotive collected current.

OTC

Would an IPEMU be able to get from Wokingham to Ash on a charge?  And from the junction near Shalford to Reigate?   Unlike the use of the technology to Bedwyn from Newbury, where the retained power would need t be there and back, it could be just one way on the North Downs.

The was / is a plan best will in the world its a 100 year one and very expensive even more so if you try to reduce the timescale.  The DfT have basically had a block on new third rail ever since they were hood winked by the infill Bournemouth to Weymouth and the Tonbridge - Redhill infill

The casualty rate is far far higher in third rail areas, there are several reports a month of staff and public being injured from contact with the third rail, 25kV tends to make the National press as they are rarer and a usually fatal or a life changing injury 


There was a proposal about a decade ago to overhead electrify at 1500V dc in some areas but is was decided if you going to the expense of putting wires up it might as well be at 25kV ac

I think that Bombardier's figures for the Class 379 experiment were that it required storage of 500 kWh or 1800 MJ for a range of 50 km or 31 miles and that 2 hours of charging were needed for each hour of motoring. The Wokingham gap is 12 miles and the Reigate one is 26.5 miles.  An outer range of 60 miles was also suggested. The unknown is battery life; below 3 years kills the project, 5 years is hoped for. Battery life and range depends also on use; high drain is inefficient and reduces life.

Fingers crossed,

OTC

I'm no fan of 3rd rail. A friend was a PW supervisor at Reading and I remember the fear that his wife confided that she had each day he was out on the SR and her relief when he was transferred West. However risk cannot be disinvented and I have not seen any such objection to LUL's Croxley, Bakerloo or Battersea extensions. They may be (partly) in tunnels and have platform doors but 4th rail is arguably worse in that you have both +420V and -210V to trip over.

OTC

The ELL was also reopened as third rail not so long ago.

Good point but most of the new route was converted from LUL 4th rail.  Though the northern section was new it is very short compared to the 4th rail and existing 3rd rail

From Rail (http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2016/05/20/electrifying-north-downs-line-will-create-8-000-jobs?)



Edit to correct font

It sounds like a good idea, and really probably needs it, but FGW are a diesel railway (and shortly overhead electric) so I cannot see them leasing yet another type of traction to cater for the North Downs.

When their predecessors took over Thames Trains they actually wanted to dump the North Downs line (amongst others) and one of the southern TOC's at that time invested in some 170 DMU's to take it on if that happenned.

There is potential on the North Downs, it was always a very good earner years ago and does want some investment. Thames were working on the idea of nine dedicated 166 Turbos for working the Gatwicks from Reading with increased luggage space but that never came about for some reason.

I don't see that which TOC runs it is very important - it could be any of those it runs through, depending on operational logic. I doubt they are going to fight over it.

A third train per hour is, of course, in the franchise to start in May next year. Even the last full franchise called for two tph to Gatwick, and now Gatwick station has got its new platform that just depends on the stock turning up. Oddly, the SLC describes the service is half-hourly, but with only one going through to Gatwick, plus an extra one per hour to Gatwick. If that's based on an actual worked timetable, I wonder what the stopping pattern will be.

The "industry view" as recorded by NR is their planning studies (RUS etc.) has for some time been the service needs some longer trains, when stock is less scarce, and they would like to run it through to Oxford or somewhere. That one is still on the wish list, even after GW electrification.

If the service is improved as planned, with the same line speeds, would the power source really make any difference?

So when are Surrey CC going to put their hands in their pockets and start with some seed funding, its no good the local councillors complaining the TOC should so something, the local authorities need to be proactive such as Oxford, Bucks, Bedford and Cambridge councils have done with Eastwest rail.  The benefactors of the investment in the route will not be First Groups share holders as most of the £2B will go into the local coffers ie council tax

Edit by FT, N! to correct font

I think there are some Class166^s that have more luggage space and which, at least in Thames Trains days, were the preferred choice for the Reading ^ Gatwicks.  But it^s not uncommon to see them elsewhere if availability elsewhere is tight - I think there was one on the 0837 Oxford - Padd stopper this morning.

The commercial people always want more different types of trains for specific flows etc, but the operators just want one big fleet of similar trains that can be used anywhere.  How many varieties of HST^s do GWR currently operate compared to what the Western Region had in 1976?  And how often is a service resourced by the "wrong" type of HST?

What of course could have delayed any ideas of extending the third rail was the idea that the North Downs would become a freight M25 around London with Channel Tunnel freight for the Midland and North coming across to Redhill  from Folkstone (don't remember the route) and then crossing the Brighton line on a flyover and onto the Guildford line near Reigate, and thence to Reading to join the electrified route to the North via Oxford. It was all going to be overhead wires to allow through loco working.

This was ten years ago at least now, I don't know whether it is still in the mix somewhere, but I think that got quietly forgotten.

The route certainly wants an upgrade in the signalling department at least. There was eight miles between signals on both the up and down between Wokingham and Blackwater when I was a Signaller at Wokingham. When Virgin ran their trains over there not only did they cause chaos with the more domestic services but the timings were so tight there was one train due to pass Blackwater two minutes before the preceding train got to Wokingham. I got tired of the delay people keep phoning up asking what the delay was and only after a bit of a study of the WTT did it become obvious.

In my day of being the Fleet Controller for Thames there were twenty one diagrams for the twenty one 166's, of which nine were on the North Downs Gatwick services. They all cycled round through the diagrams (on paper anyway) and at the end of three weeks had all accumulated the same mileage.

The nine earmarked for the North Downs were to be rebranded as dedicated units, but as we all knew needs must occasionally and it was dropped because of the maintainence schedule, and the probability of them not always being on what they should have been on.

Certainly from an operators point of view having a fleet of all the same units made for ease of fleet management, and the DOO on the main line made manipulation of the service a whole lot easier when things went wonky because you only had the Driver to worry about rather than the Conductor as well, who funnily enough didn't have the same diagrams as Drivers and stay with them all day, but dodged about all over the place during their turn.

Certainly the trains need lengthening. Many years ago when Go-Ahead took over Thames their Chief Engineer came into the Control and one of his questions to me was to ask how we could improve capacity. As we had 55 trains in the fleet my answer was to get some additional centre cars and up the two car to three, and threes to four. He thought it was a good idea but it came to nought.

There was no chance of any new Turbos as the train were a real mix, French glass, Spanish air con, American engines, German transmission, and so it went on. I think there were some British nuts and bolts holding it all together, but impossible to recreate. The air con firm went out of business almost as soon as they had completed the contract for example.

Local Authorities spend most of their money on personal social services, education and road maintenance. They only have capital for transport if Govt allocates it to them. What they can do for rail is include it in their statutory structure plans. Surrey CC has done this in its Rail Strategy Plan - Report (see page 58). It has tested options for train lengthening and electrification for the NDL and has found them in the top (Good Pass) category and has included electrification for 2019+. It also suggests integration with Eastwest rail.

What more can a CC do?

OTC

The change of status last year of NR to a "Government" owned company and the recommendations of the Shaw Report which the Government are almost certain to adopt is for more local funding of rail services upgrades / enhancements the National Government will be unlikely to finance North Downs electrification, they may support to a degree the Local Authority.

The expectation is that developers and Local Authorities invest in rail enhancements and even new routes, NR no longer has a Government "Credit Card" which the TOCs have also gained from.

So as we go forward County Councils will not be able to make such demands, but will have to partner with developers, NR, TOC etc to fund things like North Downs.

It is a massive culture change from what has been the case for the last 12 years

Sounds potentially a better system, if government maintains the capital allocation.

I quote the following from a CC website:


"LA's have at present funding from:
 
  block funding for highways maintenance (capital);
  block funding for small transport improvement schemes (capital);
  major schemes (capital); and
  Local Sustainable Transport Fund (capital and revenue).

From April 2015 onwards, 43.7% of this integrated transport block funding will be allocated instead to Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) as part of the Local Growth Fund (LGF) - which across England has a total value of £2 billion for 2015/16, to be shared across all 39 LEPs. This funding that will form part of the LGF, will not automatically be reinvested in these types of scheme and a clear case for investment will need to be made to each LEP."

Evidently Surrey CC is building a serious case for ND electrification, employing expensive consultants.

Watch this space.

OTC

Edit by FT, N! to correct fonts

Interesting, thank you.

So quietly revolutionary then?

Yes, NR no longer has signed cheque book that others can simply write in the amount and then expect NR to justify it

From BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36681121

With both the local authority and the TOC asking for the same thing, Government is likely to listen and maybe, just maybe, even act! Network Rail will wait for someone to make a decision and let the moths out of the wallet before doing anything.
As to who does, and who pays, I think the truth may be somewhere in between OTC and EE. Local authorities have complete freedom to spend their money on whatever they see fit, so long as they only spend it on what the government wants them to spend it on. The whole financial structure is designed to give them enough money to do the absolute minimum they are required to do legally, less an amount to find in efficiency savings. "Give" money can also mean "leave" money from what they have collected in council tax, business rates, etc.

OTC quoted:

This is a mixed blessing. Having four different jam jars full of cash for LAs to ask to dip into was never a good idea, particularly when the terms of reference for dipping your grubby hands into them seem to overlap. Away from the North Downs line, North Somerset District Council spent scarce time and money in making a bid for cash from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund to pay for the reopening of the Portishead line, only to be told that it was the wrong fund to ask for money from. It spent £100,000 separately on clearing the old track bed of vegetation in a bid to speed up the GRIP procedure, leading to no great progress (but some excellent photo opportunities for FT, N!). It also spent a further £50,000 on an appeal for a level crossing at Quays Avenue to allow its first choice of station, something I thought a good idea at the time. When the report came in, it was blindingly obvious that the idea never stood a chance for very sound safety reasons, so much so that I thought a short telephone conversation could have saved £50,000. There is (was if it really changes) too much cross-purpose involved, and no single avenue of decision making. That makes decisions very hard to get made!

As to LEPs, I am not a fan. This may be unfair of me, having direct experience only of the unaccountable, unelected, inefficient, inexpert self-selected and self-serving oligarchy that is the West of England LEP. It (strictly its predecessor, although membership didn't change much with the name) started with a modern light rail system sometime around the year 2000. It was unable to keep all 4 local authorities in the same church, let alone singing from the same hymn sheet, and a mere 15 years or so later is overseeing the building of a heavily value-engineered MetroBust. There is absolutely no connection between it and the local people, other than antagonism, not helped by a consultation process that would make that Kim Wrong 'Un blush. It is, however, reasonably good at knocking on open doors, signing other peoples' cheques, and claiming the credit for things that would have happened anyway.

It may be different in Surrey. In any case, someone has to start the ball rolling, and Surrey CC has done that by distracting Government's attention from London for a moment. I wonder if this scheme will fail for not being radical enough? Look at what is in place, what the problem is that needs solving, what else is in place around the area, and other potential changes in circumstances and you will see what I mean.

You currently have a line with electrification at both ends and in the middle. What is there is mainly third rail. The first question to answer is therefore whether it is a good idea to electrify the rest.  Surrey CC and GWR are of the opinion that it certainly is, and Surrey CC are absolutely right to start blowing the trumpet. There is no possible way that they could raise the funding to actually pay for any of the work, though. Feasibility and cost-benefit studies are certainly within their grasp, but the cost of mobilising the Orange Army for as long as it would take is way beyond them. The work they have done suggests that there is a very strong economic case for electrifying the line completely.

Nationally, the long-term aspiration must be for a fully electrified railway. The question here then is what type. For all the reasons put forward by Electric Train, third rail is pretty much a non-starter. If it weren’t, it would provide the desired infill, but would preclude other options. In particular, it would put back the plans for the 25kV electrified goods line from south to north via Oxford, which seem to have been consigned to the backburner until the GWR electrification is finally sorted. Apropos which, very soon the Reading end of the line will be electrified at 25kV AC.

The incoming Prime Minister will have a very big decision to make on runway capacity in the south, within weeks of taking office. One possible outcome of that could be a second runway at Gatwick. That option, for reasons debated elsewhere in the coffee shop, has assumed a higher degree of probability over the past year. It would cost substantially less than a third runway at Heathrow, but would only make sense if done alongside vast improvements in connectivity. An upgraded 25kV AC line from Reading to Gatwick would connect the west, and indeed the north, to Gatwick in a similar way to the proposed right turn from the GWR ex Bristol, Oxford, and South Wales  to Heathrow. Billhere has pointed out the limitations of signalling which would need a parallel upgrade. Meantime, the Gatwick Express line would need an upgrade, and 25kV AC seems the obvious starting point (maybe even all the way to Brighton, but let’s leave that). So with an enlarged Gatwick Airport and GWEP, we would have 25kV AC at both ends, making 3rd rail infill even less attractive.

Where does the money come from? Connecting a major airport and creating an electrified freight route elevates this to an infrastructure project of national strategic significance. The funding should be collected and spent centrally, with the local authorities stumping up for station and road upgrades to reflect the growth in fortunes locally. Gatwick have been at pains to point out that their scheme is significantly cheaper than Heathrow’s, as well as being less invasive and environmentally damaging. They could not be expected to pay for the upgrades to both lines themselves, but a sizeable contribution could be demanded. Government could advance the rest via DfT and Network rail as it does for any major infrastructure project. Overall, this would be a spend-to-save investment, and the new franchise that would cover the services would recognise this when setting the expected return to the exchequer. The costs would hopefully be more controlled than the GWEP costs have been, drawing on the lessons learned from that project.

As EE points out, none of this is not in CP6 or even CP7. If Gatwick is given the extra runway, the line should be upgraded to 25kV with spanking new signalling to track the timescale of that development. As the track will probably need upgrading to accommodate higher speeds, we are looking at a virtual rebuild of the whole line. That will not be cheap, a whole lot more than the top-end £140 million suggested by Councillor Goodman, and will need the services of every trade on the railway. The obvious best way is pretty much a total shutdown for a few weeks – short-term pain for long-term gain. It is happening with the Severn Tunnel soon, so why not?

I shan’t hold my breath.

They wouldn't need to - 387s can work from either overhead or third rail, and according to a posting at Another Place, the GWR 387s are no exception:

"North Downs railway line to be fully electrified" says Eagle Radio (http://www.964eagle.co.uk/news/local-news/2164653/north-downs-railway-line-to-be-fully-electrified/)


Timescale and method not mentioned in article.

How many diesel multiple units will be released for cascade as a result?

"about to get better"?

Usung the wortd "about" implies now or in the short term. Icannot see any hope of this happening just yet and many people will be disappointed by the use of this word.

I think this is the source; I therefore think the above story is a misinterpretation.
https://news.surreycc.gov.uk/2016/11/25/upgrading-north-downs-line-will-boost-government-coffers-by-almost-190m/
It isn't a report of a decision as far as I can see, it's still only Surrey CC pushing an agenda, as they did a few months ago.

Paul

If it went ahead then 9-10 units

(think a pig just flew past)

Does that allow for the forthcoming upgrade to 3 tph Reading to Redhill, (supposedly still due with SLC2 in May 2017), or is that the current requirement?

Paul

That's with the enhanced service, currently 7 units are diagrammed at the mo.

Although I'm guessing more 387s or equivalent would be required.

Cheers.   Will be interesting to see if the May change is going to be possible, has anyone heard anything?

Paul

If anyone's at Paddington tomorrow, and happens to see a manager they could ask ...

I thought we had the May change, back in mid-July?


Oh, sorry: I see what you meant.  :P

Sidesplitting noises heard...

Yes, sorry, Paul.  :P

could this be done quickly and result in release of much needed DMUs sooner than if we have to wait for NR to sort out the OHL on the mainline?

The title of this thread notwithstanding, I think the general view is that no more third rail will be installed (other than very short lengths in existing areas).   This route, albeit in two separate parts, is not considered a short length.   

Paul

Radio station has undoubtedly misunderstood. Surrey CC want the North Downs electrified, the ORR say that H&S legislation basically makes new installations compliance with H&S legislation near impossible/unaffordable apart from in some very specific urban applications e.g. London Underground extensions.

Remember that we are in the run up to Network Rail's next 5 year plan being decided, so there is doubtless all sorts of political horse-trading, strong-arming and other shennanigans going on, particularly as most local authorities seem to now have woken up to the fact that commuter railways are a vote-winner and economy booster, rather than an irritation that mess up their grand visions for highways and buses.

I just posted in another thread, but it would appear from gossip on WNXX that there is currently a 319 in works having a diesel engine fitted underneath as an experiment (apparently the underframe has enough space and strength to fit one on a raft). No-one will admit to who it is for, though Northern was ruled out. TPE might want one for Windemere, but the fact that they'll only have one or two engines in a 4 car unit probably rules out anywhere too hilly.

So it occurred to me that they might be destined for the North Downs and perhaps Didcot to Oxford. 3rd rail and 25kV capable, right sort of doors, Reading depot can handle both DMU and EMU stock, could presumably be turned around with minimal type-approval required, and if they can do them quickly, would enable Turbos to be cascaded west.

Anyway, just a thought...   

With the best will in the world i cannot see the North Downs line being electrified that quickly, even if a shovel ready contract was awarded today it would take something like 5 years to do the physical works.

There is a lot of planning and design to do, traction power grid supply points both new and enhanced if its third rail if its 25kV then grid supply points and a couple of complex AD/DC interfaces to design

I hope that neither Surrey CC, the sponsoring LEP's or the DfT are put off by the "unfit for purpose" ORR and Network Rail, both of whose days must surely be numbered, after the GWEP disaster.

There are existing grid supply points nearby on the Southern at Reading, Aldershot and Leatherhead, all supplying the 33kV ac trackside cable that drives the dc system. I am told (by Merseyrail) that there is serviceable substation gear in stock from previous SR upgrades. Unfortunately MR's supply is, like LUL, only 11kV. SR sleepers are generally drilled and plugged ready for insulator pots. The only ac/dc interface is at Reading which will already exist for the 3 SWT platforms when CrossRail arrives.

The 12 + 18 odd miles of 3rd rail needed for this important link is almost within a maintenance team's capability, given the resources. I imagine that the London Mayor and LUL would move things along much better than NR's senior management.

Mind the gap,

OTC

I would like to know where the "in stock" equipment is ................. and I work in one of the SR routes in asset management

Reading 33kV grid feed has limited capacity, it only feeds as far as Ascot if it has to feed beyond that then service restrictions are put in place, this is pretty much the case for most of the Grid sites limited capacity from the DNO unless new 132/33kV transformers and switchgear is installed.

Traction substations work out at about £2m a time and one is needed every 4 to 6 miles and then there are TP huts in between

The interface at Reading is by separation and buffer zones that allow diesel traction to move been the AC electrified railway and the DC electrified railway there will not be a AC / DC traction dual electrified interface installed by Crossrail or GEWP to allow eclectic traction to operate between the GWML and SW Lines , passive prevision has been made. 

The electrification of the North Downs line is do able, but its not going to be quick it will take Surry CC many years to secure the funding.  Neither the ORR or NR are going to disappear the Government have bigger problems to deal with over the next 5 years

I have dug out my correspondence for 2005 (that long ago!)

I quote from a letter I sent to a Northern MP,

"I recently met a senior Network Rail executive at an Institution meeting in London who told me that as a result of the Southern Region power supply upgrade, he had 19 surplus, serviceable substations plus ancillaries..."

The MP consequently wrote to Merseyrail and I have the top copy of the reply. I quote,

" Thank you for passing the information on the recycling of the Southern Region power supply equipment from your correspondent..

You will be pleased to hear that Merseytravel is actively looking to see how we can utilise this equipment and have just contracted with part of the project team responsible for delivery of the Southern region to help us in this regard."

This was of course in the "bad" time for electrification, pre-Adonis and MT was trying for trams.

So it wasn't a daft idea.

OTC
 

As others have posted, any significant expansion of conductor rail routes is not going to happen.
The health and safety industry are very strongly opposed to a system that uses a lethal voltage exposed at ankle height.
VERY MINOR infills and additions might be tolerated, such as adding an extra electrified platform or extending a siding, but significant mileages no way.
LUL extensions in tunnels are tolerated since the tunnel is in effect a "no go area" when the rail is live.

In this case, I suspect that battery powered multiple units will be used eventually. The present diesel mileage is well within battery capabilities.

That was equipment purchased as part of the Southern Power Supply Upgrade to allow the Networks to operated fully so all the slam door stock could be scrapped, the surplus equipment was all used by 2010/11 and indeed since then a whole lot more new traction power supply equipment has bee purchased.  Currently there is the Kent Power Supply Enhancement (PSE) to allow for 12 car Networker, Class 700 and 12 car 395 operation, there has also been the BML PSE in 2011 which is also getting more PSE in CP6.

There may be one or two spare HV, DC, Rectifiers and transformers being stored, they have an allocated use.

Thanks for the information. I'm glad to see that all this high value gear is being well used.

MT/MR only needed one SS to reach Burscough, its last main population centre to the North.

Regards,

OTC

It's being reported on another forum that Porterbrook are looking in to the practicalities of converting some Class 319s to bi-modes (or tri-modes even)- a possible solution for the North Downs? 4 car units, Diesel on the non 3rd rail bits. Possibly an interim solution for the Thames Valley branches (not Bourne End though) as well?

That would be a development of this story on this forum (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=14958.msg205396#msg205396) then  :D

That'll be the one.  ;D  All these forums get confusing- nearly posted it in the radio section of DigitalSpy...  :o

A 379 conversion would be more this century, either with a battery or diesel.

Some may be available when new GE stock arrives.

OTC

I would imagine that part of the attraction is that 319s are relatively low tech by modern standards, pop an engine underneath (either direct-drive or effectively a generator) and the job's a good-un.

With a more modern unit, there will be software to re-write, which may well end up costing more money and taking longer than figuring out how to do the engine and where the fuel tank goes.

I think that the 319's are computer controlled via a thyristor not camshaft/PCM controller.

As it might have a 286 PC running IBM DOS 3.3 it is probably quite reliable!

Imagine a crowded 12 car set running under Windows 8, stuck somewhere critical, with the guard and driver walking down the train asking "anyone know how to....?"

OTC

My old BBC Model B never failed, apart from the odd user-inspired syntax error.

I still have mine (in a box in the loft) last time I used it was a couple of years ago to show my Godson aged fourteen at the time what we had to put up with back in the day.

I imagine you are right, I suppose what I meant was that they are still relatively simple compared with modern units where you have extensive computer management of the traction system e.g. power flows, braking, traction control etc.

From Porterbrook's news (here) (https://www.porterbrook.co.uk/news/post.php?s=2016-12-22-porterbrook-and-northern-to-introduce-bi-mode-class-319-flex-trains)


There are around 86 4 car units in class 319

Interesting idea.  Let's hope it doesn't become fraught with reliability and teething troubles which can often happen when something new is added to something old.

I wonder ...

Current reckoning is that engines that meet NRMM IIIB with enough power for a DMU are too big to go under the floor. The D-train gets round that (and a low floor) by using smaller engines in pairs. They are talking about two pairs (800 HP, or 600 kW, total) per train.

The 319 is heavier and will need over 1 MW prime power to match the existing performance. That's nearly twice a D-train's power, and looks hard to do on only two cars. So have the engine makers managed to reduce the profile of the bigger IIIB versions? Or will it be pretty slow?

Eh?

Does that imply that there are readers of this forum who are not intimately familiar with European Directive 97/68/EC, implemented into UK law by the "Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Emission of Gaseous and Particulate Pollutants) Regulations 1999" (Statutory Instrument No. 1999/1053)? [The Regulations apply to new engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery, intended and suited to move, or to be moved on the ground, either on or off the road.]

Surely not.

But that's a question asked only for the diesel sections of the route, right?  I'm aware that I'm posting in the North Downs line section here, and I don't know the gradient profile ... but let's say on "the Bedwyns" ... would a slow movement away at Hungerford, Kintbury and (return journey only) Bedwyn be a small price to pay especially when balanced against the greater acceleration under electric power all the rest of the way to Paddington?