Electrification - Back to Square One

[Zomboid]

Which is why it was interesting that Hitachi (I think) were involved in a transformer:rectifier:inverter substation at Doncaster. It is essentially the same technology as is used for the high voltage DC transmission lines that, amongst other things, allow us to import power from Europe, and has the significant advantage of presenting a balanced load to the electricity supply network, which in turn makes getting access to power for the railway easier.

 

Jim

That is true (I thought it was Siemens though), but it isn't in service yet, and presumably wasn't considered a viable option when the early design was done. It could be that it's chosen as the way forward if it works at Doncaster, but that's in the future, whilst the decision to go with Didcot was made in the past. Obviously.

[lmsforever]

A sad time for progress  back in the fifties I lived at the end of a branch from Liverpool St and it was announced that we were to gain electric trains and modernisation of our stations.The civils were carried out in a sensible way with a robust overhead put in place.It seemed to be all done in an ordely manner with workers who new exactly what had to be done and the timing required.Now the workers don't seem to have experienced leadership and costs have been inflate of affairsed by constant changes in spec.I don't think that anything is going to change in the next few years due to so much political intervention and the lack of trained staff being available , Only in Britain.

[caradoc]

GWML started at Didcot because that's where the electricity is.

For various reasons, the 25-0-25kV railway connections are best made at 400kV, or 275kV at a pinch, which means that there's not so much choice about where to connect, particularly when the needs of distributing the power along the railway are considered.

Historically connections have come from 132kV, but those supplies are generally not up to the demands of Autotransformer systems - because they connect to only two of the three phases, a large load unbalances the wider distribution network and would detrimentally affect everyone who uses electricity on that section of the electrical network. Railway loads are less significant at higher voltages, so more can be taken before impacting other grid customers.

 

Interesting details Zomboid, but is the supply to the existing OLE between Paddington and Heathrow not up to the additional mileage, to Reading at least ? Presumably, given that Maidenhead/Reading is not yet electrified, Airport Jc/Maidenhead is being fed from the London end ?

[jjb1970]

I did raise this point, there might be other hidden costs that have put the Government off but we were being told the only way to meet emission standards was wiring everything and now we've come back to internal combustion engines as the future.  

 

If that is the case can we not have coal too and go with the scrubbers etc to make them less polluting.

 

Maybe it is better politically to blame NR for getting its sums wrong and look a little stupid than it is to admit we have a bigger challenge in power generation that has been spoken of for years and is accelerating fast as the coal powered stations switch off.

In a word - no. If people think diesel now has a toxic image then coal is vastly more toxic in political terms than diesel.

 

Forget the normal atmospheric pollutants which can be knocked out easily, coal is a terrible fuel for carbon emissions. And knocking out carbon dioxide from the flue gas is orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive than NOx, SOx, PM etc. And the sequestered carbon has to go somewhere. Not to mention the carbon footprint of mining and transport. Or the carbon footprint of CCS plants which can impose a parasitic load of up to a third of plant output. And that's assuming the CCS plant is effective, which is currently a big if. And if you look past all that, you can get about 45% thermal efficiency from a modern supercritical coal plant, assuming you're willing to pay for constructing all of the steam plant using nickel super alloys (expensive and difficult) which is ***s poor. And that efficiency is based on losing flexibility, if you want a flexible plant you'll lose efficiency. You can improve efficiency by making the plant CHP, but coal only makes sense for big plants and where do you send the heat if it is in the hundreds of MW you're trying to get rid of?

I don't see electrical supply as having anything at all to do with this decision I'm afraid.

[jjb1970]

I made a glib and rather unworthy comment somewhere on this board that as a result of this decision we may end up with the eco-lobby telling us to stop using dirty and polluting trains and get onto the nice clean roads instead. And as scary as that sounds it is not an entirely stupid thought for large parts of the UK given the increasing market share of electric vehicles and trends in the automotive sector.

As some here know, I've spent most of my working life working with large diesels, steam plant and gas turbines and in emissions abatement. I'm a diesel engine anorak (especially on what constitutes a diesel engine) and have had a reasonably comfortable and well paid career on the back of engines, a subject I consider a hobby as much as a job. Yet for all that I think that it is past time we moved on from traditional heat engines. Renewable energy is coming of age, batteries are now a viable solution for heavy transport applications and there really is no need for us to be reliant on engines pumping out hoofloads of carbon and other pollutants. Personally I find this a shameful decision, but sadly I do see the logic behind it.

[Zomboid]

Interesting details Zomboid, but is the supply to the existing OLE between Paddington and Heathrow not up to the additional mileage, to Reading at least ? Presumably, given that Maidenhead/Reading is not yet electrified, Airport Jc/Maidenhead is being fed from the London end ?

The old HEX supplies aren't up to any more than the HEX and connect service, hence a new national Grid substation has been built at the flyover near North pole/ OOC.

[Edwin_m]

Technically, there is nothing to prevent a 750V DC thrird rail system from being adopted as new electrification, provided that the conductor rail is not exposed as it is on the classic SR and other UK systems. The rail would have to be shrouded and either side access top contact, as in the ex-New York Central and other US systems, or bottom contact, as on many light rail/metro systems. Both have their disadvantages in terms of the maintainability of the railway.

To add to that, none of these runs above 100mph to my knowledge and faster operation on the Southern was tested out and found to be impractical.  The relatively low voltage means about 20% more power consumption due to resistance losses, and the trains have poorer performance than on 25kV.  So Bournemouth/Weymouth is really the limit of what can be done with that type of system - it's not suitable for an intercity main line. 

[Arun Sharma]

 

 

Technically, there is nothing to prevent a 750V DC thrird rail system from being adopted as new electrification, provided that the conductor rail is not exposed as it is on the classic SR and other UK systems. The rail would have to be shrouded and either side access top contact, as in the ex-New York Central and other US systems, or bottom contact, as on many light rail/metro systems. Both have their disadvantages in terms of the maintainability of the railway.

 

Jim

If the present extant conductor rail on SR and other UK systems doesn't have to be shrouded, why should any new rail have to be shrouded? It clearly can't be due to any form of Health and Safety consideration as otherwise retrospective shrouding would also have to occur.

[The Johnster]

Retrospective Shrouding, eh?  Sounds like a belated cover-up to me.

[ian]

Sadly that isn't the case.

 

Any new build has to abide by current new-build regulations. Existing installations can, provided they are not specifically out-lawed, carry on as is.

 

In the same way that you don't have to have your house re-wired or re-plumbed every time the building regulations change but do have to abide by them for new builds and most new work.

[DCB]

The GW main line electrification beyond Didcot always was a stupid idea.  We had Bi mode Hybrids out of Kings Cross 30 plus years ago with a class 43 and 91 combo and it was obvious Hybrid technology had already overtaken the advantages of pure electrification before it was authorised.   The comment about nice clean roads vs dirty rail is not quite valid but nice clean individual transport units, cars vs dirty public transport is real. Cars don't have ECS movements.  A private motor car does twice as many MPG as an identical Public Motor car or "Taxi" if the Taxi has to return empty.

For the future Newton Abbott to Laira, Box Tunnel, and Dauntsey bank look like good places to electrify, raise the pantograph for a bit of a boost and let the diesel have a rest while feeding a bit of regenerative braking back to the grid.  Otherwise we should send the masts west of Didcot to China or Barry for scrapping.  Definitely flog the copper wires to China.

[frobisher]

So how much  extra does it cost to put these diesel engines in the bi-mode trains as surely they were originally designed for electric traction only. We seem to have moved from the concept of an electric IEP with a small number of bi-mode trains to work partly electrified lines to the idea of totally bi-mode trains. This has been the reality for some time now so the powers that be have had this up their sleeve for that same amount of time.

The IEP was about providing a train that would handle the transition to increased electrification on the network so was always specified to be bi-mode capable. The 801, despite being a an electric unit carries a single diesel generator "nodding donkey" set to allow for in depot movement without the need to put in a 25kV shore supply. The 800 and 802 just have more of them. The idea was that eventually the 800's could become 801's by the removal of the generators and fuel tanks as electrification allowed. So yes, there's an extra cost, but the flexibility was designed in.

 

The reason I ask the question is that the extra cost of equipping all the trains with the diesel alternative would surely go some way towards the increased cost of electrification.

Different funding pots, so even if you could liberate significant amount of cash by building all as electric only (infrastructure is waaaay more expensive than trains - I'd hazard, at best you could fund 1/4 a mile of dual track OHLE for each eliminated generator set) the money just wouldn't be available to cross fund.

[jim.snowdon]

That is why I referenced side access top contact. The shoegear used by the US systems with that type of electrification uses a flat paddle type shoe that sticks out sideways from the shoegear. That way, the rail can be shrouded over the top, with just a slot left on the four-foot side for the shoe to poke through. The shoegear used on all of the UK systems, past and present, with the exception of the Manchester - Bury line, is top access top contact, with the shoegear mounted directly above the conductor rail and the shoe suspended vertically below it. With that arrangement it is impossible to protect against access to the top of the rail.

 

The impracticability of doing anything about the situation is why the HMRI condoned its existence, but forbade any new installation of top contact conductor rail unless it was as part of an infill scheme within the existing network. There are also stricter rules in respect of preventing access to lines with third rail electrification, principally higher fencing (although that is effectively disappearing with the spread of high palisade fencing across the Network Rail system.

 

Jim

[woodenhead]

So will this make adding an extra car to Voyagers feasible again I wonder, maybe they can build those extra pantograph coaches now.

[woodenhead]

The Leeds to Manchester full electrification is now also under threat with Mr Grayling saying that the complicated (expensive) bits can be left unwired using bi-mode trains.

 

The extra platforms at Manchester Piccadilly are to be reviewed with digital solutions being investigated - I presume he doesn't mean putting up some LED screens and showing train videos and he is thinking some form of train control like Crossrail/Thameslink.

 

Other schemes are being reviewed - Have they started on Blackpool yet?

Edited July 21, 2017 by woodenhead

[4630]

The Leeds to Manchester full electrification is now also under threat with Mr Grayling saying that the complicated (expensive) bits can be left unwired using bi-mode trains.

 

 

 

 

This will get messy and expensive as the current TransPennine Express franchise, which started on 1st April 2016, was let on the basis of electrification of the full route during the life of the franchise.  I imagine that First Group's lawyers and accountants will be having a discussion with DaFT about the financial implications.

Edited July 21, 2017 by 4630

[Siberian Snooper]

There is some sporadic work in progress from Preston,towards Blackpool North, but not huge amounts. There is also some sporadic work between Salford and Preston with variations between nothing and just needing to be wired.

[woodenhead]

Preston to Bolton has to be safe but I am guessing Blackpool might yet be another to be culled.

[black and decker boy]

I expect Transpennine wiring will be devolved to TfN to either fund or cancel as appropriate.

 

The press release on HS2 suggested that the northern powerhouse improvements could be achieved by high speed bi-modes running on electric at 225mph (I think) on HS2 and connecting branches and then on diesel on the bits in betweeen.

 

Doesn't sound like much of an improvement really but doubt the bulk of the public will notice / care so long as the trains are on time, regular and offer plenty of seats, wifi and power sockets.

[Mad McCann]

Based on my own personal observations, passenger comfort wise; distributed diesel power is the lousiest long-distance train travel experience there is in these islands. Only the 185 units come close to acceptable in this respect, but they at least have a reasonable interior arrangement.

 

D.

[Southernman46]

.Now the workers don't seem to have experienced leadership and costs have been inflate of affairsed by constant changes in spec.I don't think that anything is going to change in the next few years due to so much political intervention and the lack of trained staff being available , Only in Britain.

It's what happens when you don't do any significant OH electrification for 20 years and privatise the railway in between and give all the experienced staff nice early retirement payoffs to slim the workforce prior to the 94 lunacy .......................

[TheSignalEngineer]

Based on my own personal observations, passenger comfort wise; distributed diesel power is the lousiest long-distance train travel experience there is in these islands. Only the 185 units come close to acceptable in this respect, but they at least have a reasonable interior arrangement.

 

D.

The engine management system on the Pennine 185s also helps. When cruising speed is reached one engine can be shut down, restarting for accelleration. On stopping at stations only one engine will remain running until the others are restarted when due for departure.

[Edwin_m]

There is some sporadic work in progress from Preston,towards Blackpool North, but not huge amounts. There is also some sporadic work between Salford and Preston with variations between nothing and just needing to be wired.

 

Chatter on other forums suggests Preston to Blackpool has advanced significantly recently and is probably ahead of Manchester to Preston.  There are blockades scheduled for next year and the EMUs have been ordered, so it will be most unfortunate if this one falls by the wayside.  It was of course BR's number 1 electrification priority sometime around 1980. 

[rue_d_etropal]

What happened with the battery experiment a few years ago. I understand it is being rolled out in Germany. Maybe the German owners of out railways will consideer it here.

Diesel is NOT the way forward, we have to take the same approach as in the 60s with respect to steam  and plan to get rid of it completely, otherwise we willl have dirty railways competing with clean roads!

 

Although the 319 units are not the most comfortable, they are still better than most of what we have to put up with in the north west. I still can't undrstand why it was seen sensible to remove the 3rd rail pickups, when part of the local rail system is 3rd rail, and it would make more sense to combine the two. Overhead may make more sense, long term if it is done properly and you have the money, but we would rather have something now, and it would be a lot easier to electrify using 3rd rail(I gather bridge clearence would not make it easy for overhead, without lots more money being spent).

 

From a political point of view(and a project planning one), if you want one option rather than another, you make sure the one you don't want has a high enough price tag to put people off. If you are honest, and good at your job, then you know what is best, and people accept that, but as we know most politicians can't be trusted to do what is our interests.  Just remember their pensions are still invested in the fossil fuel industries.

 

Hacing worked in IT, I know how the IT and High Tec industry works. Although at the end of the day they have to make money, they are less concerned , and aim to complete any challenge, and that is why there has been so much advance in those areas.

[Suzie]

I am sure that the sums for finishing the electrification will add up a bit better when it comes time to replace the bi-modes with new trains.

 

It is not that will electrification pay for itself, the question the government asks is will electrification pay for itself by the next election.

 

Had nationalisation not happened in 1948 we probably would have seen the Southern and LNER electrifying more than got done under BR, and had Railtrack not been renationalised would we have this Network Rail farce on the Great Western? If shareholders money was at stake I suspect it would have come in nearer to budget.

 

So, if cars have to carry massive batteries around, why do trains still have Diesel engines?