FGW proposes North Downs electrification

[whole diary]

[willc]

Buried within FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s consultation response on the RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) they say that they have proposed to DafT that the diesel-only sections of Reading-Redhill should be electrified using third rail to free seven Turbos sets for other uses - though whether there would be enough 319s around to cover this route as well, as FGW suggest, remains to be seen.

The text within the pdf seems to be locked, so I can't chop out the relevant chunk but if you're interested it's on page 4 of the response here http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/great%20western/consultation%20responses/f/first%20great%20western.pdf

[grahame]

This scheme would see through third-rail DC^▸ (Direct Current) power, the electrification of the North Downs route between Reading and Gatwick. Up to 22 of the 53 route miles is already electrified and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) believes, having consulted with recognised experts, that this could be delivered for a relatively modest sum. This scheme would then release up to seven Class 16x units (up to 20 vehicles). to be replaced by Class 319 vehicles released from the Thameslink route, for strengthening services on the route to London Paddington. Class 319 units are formed of four carriages and therefore have the potential to meet the additional demand envisaged on this route by the RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy).  However, it should be noted that carriages in these trains are 20 metres in length as opposed to 23 metres in the case of the Class 16x fleet.

Where there's a programmer, there's a way

Sounds sensible; Reading -> Gatwick used to be Reading -> Tonbridge, and they've put 3rd rail in on the Redhill to Tonbridge section already ...

[JayMac]

Would make sense (although FGW^▸ (First Great Western) might disagree) if the NDL is 3rd railed, to hand over operations to SWT^▸ (South West Trains).

[Btline]

Should happen. And extend 3rd rail to Sailesbuey and (eventually) Exeter while you are are at it. (non of this overhead wire nonsense for SWT^▸ (South West Trains)).

Do the Marshlink & Uckfield lines and that's 3rd rail done and dusted! Freeing up 158s, 159s, 171s and 165s in the process.

[John R]

Given the fact that most modern EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) now have the capacility to run on both systems, any electrification west of Salisbury (and even Worting Jn) is highly likely to be overhead given the long established policy to restrict 3rd rail to infiill schemes.

[eightf48544]

Agree Marshlink Uckfield (Lewes) and NDL should be 3rd rail.

If third rail is extented from Worting to Salisbury then it also ought to be infilled from Redbridge/Eastleigh to Salisbury. That woukd give another electrified alternative route to Southamton for SWT^▸ (South West Trains) when the route via Winchester or te3h tunnel is blocked.

That leaves Reading Basingstoke as the odd one out but I think 25KV to save running conducot rails through Reading Station.

Fill in wires between Salisbury Westbury to Bristol and Swindon coupled with GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electricfication and you've got 158s to spare with an electric Cardiff Brighton service. Loco and coaches?

[Electric train]

I think its fantastic you all spending tax payers money and keeping me in a job for the next 10 to 15 years 

There was a study done a number of years ago that actually recommended that the Basingstoke to Exeter line should be electrified at 1500v DC^▸ (Direct Current) using 25kV OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE").  This would save the need for an expensive DC/AC interface at Basingstoke, reduce the number of substations required on the route and allow for reliable +100mph operation conrail is limited to 100mph by the amount of power that can be provided and collected.  1500v DC is still an acceptable to the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) as an electrification method.

The NDL electrification is do able with the addition of a small number of substations and possibly some addition rectifiers at some others, but its not on the CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014) list and I don't think its on the CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) either FGW^▸ (First Great Western) need to make a good business case for it the get higher priority than the current renewals and enhancements that are currently being planed on the existing third rail network

[IndustryInsider]

The NDL electrification is do able with the addition of a small number of substations and possibly some addition rectifiers at some others, but its not on the CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014) list and I don't think its on the CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) either FGW^▸ (First Great Western) need to make a good business case for it the get higher priority than the current renewals and enhancements that are currently being planed on the existing third rail network

Despite FGW claiming it could be done at a fairly cheap price, I expect NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s own figure would be significantly higher - as with Merseryrail's thwarted ambitions to electrify Biston to Wrexham.

However, I like the idea of it, and it does slot in well with the electrification of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line).  Assuming there are enough Class 319's to go round (88 sets is a heck of a lot - even with a fair few heading up to the North West) then that would be a good way of releasing capacity for the suburban routes into Paddington.  Coupled with the bay at West Ealing to get those pesky Greenford's off of the main line and that would relieve the current strain significantly.  That being said it would still be several years away and not that long in advance of Crossrail, so would it be worth it for that reason alone?

It's just a suggestion, but I do quite like the idea of North Downs services from Reading being operated by Class 319's as the extra carriage would relieve overcrowding that already exists on some trains, and post GWML electrification would open up the possibility of one of the present 2tph on the Oxford to Paddington stopping service going through to Gatwick Airport instead.  Those trains are probably to be left stranded at Reading post-Crossrail, so if one went through to Gatwick and the other went through to Paddington calling at Twyford, Maidenhead and/or Slough that would solve the problem of what to do with those trains. 

The net result would be more through trains at Reading and a through service from Oxford and Didcot to Guildford and Gatwick Airport with the benefits that would bring. The new layout at Reading with its greater number of through platforms lends itself much better to through trains than terminating ones, and the reinstated underpass east of Reading will mean they could be signalled without conflicts.

[Electric train]

The net result would be more through trains at Reading and a through service from Oxford and Didcot to Guildford and Gatwick Airport with the benefits that would bring. The new layout at Reading with its greater number of through platforms lends itself much better to through trains than terminating ones, and the reinstated underpass east of Reading will mean they could be signalled without conflicts.

The Crossrail / Reading team have been asked to do a feasibility study for an AC / DC^▸ (Direct Current) electrification isolation interface at Reading to allow DC traction to use the north platforms accessed via the east under pass, these isolation interfaces are not simple or cheap to achieve, the one at Blackfires (all be it a two track railway) required eight rectifiers hence eight HV circuit breakers eight sets of DC switchgear and a complex contactor system to switch sections of the conrail in and out as the trains progress, even the other method of using 25kV isolation transformers is still complex

[mjones]

...
Despite FGW^▸ (First Great Western) claiming it could be done at a fairly cheap price, I expect NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s own figure would be significantly higher - as with Merseryrail's thwarted ambitions to electrify Biston to Wrexham.
...

While waiting at Crowthorne I've noticed that the concrete sleepers there appear to have additional holes towards either end, as if in readiness for third rail insulators to be fitted. Is that possible? I'm assuming that third rail usually requires non-standard sleepers to be fitted, which is why installing it is expensive...?

[Electric train]

While waiting at Crowthorne I've noticed that the concrete sleepers there appear to have additional holes towards either end, as if in readiness for third rail insulators to be fitted. Is that possible? I'm assuming that third rail usually requires non-standard sleepers to be fitted, which is why installing it is expensive...?

They are standard sleepers for the "Southern", as the track renewal in the Crowthorne area would be a project for the track team based in the South they would specify their standard sleepers, also while the line is not on the immediate list for electrification sleepers and track has a life of 25 years which means the next time it is up for renewal would be in CP 8 or 9!

[willc]

Also worth bearing in mind in relation to this that Network Rail is currently studying the idea of creating a Channel Tunnel freight route avoiding London by putting in a flyover at Redhill between the Tonbridge and Guildford lines. With Reading modified and GW^▸ (Great Western) electrification complete, there would presumably be a case for making such a route Class 92-operated throughout. The study was due to be wrapped up this month.

Main fly in the ointment is that a certain supermarket chain has an application in to build on part of the land at Redhill that a flyover would need.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Further information from 'thisissurreytoday'.

[Btline]

Further information from 'thisissurreytoday'.

Bloody Tesco at it again.

Not being content with ruining Worcester's hope for a decent station (and not to mention the Gerrards Cross debacle) they now want to destroy a proposed line!

Why are they wanting to build a Tesco here anyway? I thought people in Surrey shopped at Waitrose....

[inspector_blakey]

Language, Timothy! 

Appalling. Even if you did type it after the watershed!