I have a commute to work into Liverpool Lime Street. I use the TranspennineExpress service. The train I use is the Class 185 Desiro, Diesel Multiple Unit. To the uninitiated they are diesel powered trains. They're not bad trains to be honest.
Now my train runs along side other ones, such as the Northern Rail Electric Class 319 Electric Multiple Unit, i.e. electric trains powered by overhead wires.
There's a noticeable difference between the two trains (except from the obvious one is diesel powered and the other is electric). And that difference is SPACE!
The undercarriage area of the diesel Class 185 is occupied by the diesel engines and other complex pieces of equipment which make the train go.
The The undercarriage area of the electric Class 319 is occupied only by the bogies (wheels!). There is a heck of a lot of void space. So much so infact it looks like you can fit another row of seats there.
You can probably see where I am going with this...
The electric lines seem to be able to accomodate double decked trains = more passengers = more money for the franchise operators.
The question therefore is this: why aren't aren't franchise operators doing more to pressure the government to electrifiy the railway if it will:
1. Increase capacity on trains and profits for franchise holders
2. Reduce pollution
3. Increase reliability?
There isn't void space under every carriage of an EMU. There also isn't enough space to consider using it for some sort of cramped double deck space within the British loading gauge. There was a DfT report online somewhere a few years ago that went into a fairly high level of detail on why British gauge double deck trains were not a sensible solution to our capacity problems
I agree. Double decker trains aren't useful really for the UK, we have such high load factors that any advantage of capacity is nullified by the slower speed at which passengers can get off and on the trains, which ends up taking up the capacity benefit away.
These coaches were not like modern double-deck with a vestibule and stairs at each end but a variation on traditional compartment stock. The problem was that more people had to board through a limited number of doors increasing dwell time.
I don't think double decker trains are great. The biggest metro/commuting utilization of them is probably Sydney, and they are moving away from them in their newer lines.
Some US commuter 'railroads' used them - but crucially, focused on a peak direction, often infrequent (with a loco) and generally with one main terminus/alighting point (i.e. all passengers doing the same thing with the doors).
As mentioned, they're terrible for intermediate and metro journeys. Caltrain I see dropping them with their wires.
If these can actually be built within UK loading gauge I can see some limited uses on the existing network for this concept. For example a 240m version seating about 850 could be used for peak Soton to Waterloo workings - with only one intermediate stop at Winchester. But if it also called at Basingstoke and Woking the extra stationary time would waste a precious path, which would totally defeat the object of running DD stock in the first place.
Same could be done with Peterborough (Huntingdon stop), Brighton (Haywards Heath stop) and Northampton (Milton Keynes stop).
Might also work well on late-night trains after sporting / concert events when paths aren't such a premium and it's all about one train mopping up lots of punters.
The problem is that double deck trains involve unacceptable increases in dwell time, which then nuke any capacity increase you might get from using them on most lines that are busy enough for them. When you go double deck, your increase in usable floor space for passengers is almost completely outweighed by the space that can't be used. A single deck design like the 700 can use the entire length and width of the train for passengers. With the need for stairs and alternative equipment locations (all that stuff under the floor and above the ceiling needs to go somewhere!) you simply can't do that any more. They're just not worthwhile. These problems can only be avoided by using a truly monumental loading gauge, but that would only practically work for a closed network (like the Channel Tunnel, which has double car decks). However, for a metro system the problem then shifts to the stations, as you still need to be able to get all those massive loads of passengers on and off the train. Imagine doubling the infrastructure at each Elizabeth Line station and you've got an idea. However, the question then is whether spending huge sums of money on one single ultra-capacity line is a better idea than having two separate, slightly different lines which have the same overall total capacity.
single deck design like the 700 can use the entire length and width of the train for passengers. With the need for stairs and alternative equipment locations (all that stuff under the floor and above the ceiling needs to go somewhere!) you simply can't do that any more. They're just not worthwhile. These problems can only be avoided by using a truly monumental loading gauge, but that would only practically work for a closed network (like the Channel Tunnel, which has double car decks). .
You mean, monumental by British standards. Having used double-decker in countries with standard loading gauge such as Switzerland, France or Spain, the increased capacity and number of seats from using double-deckers is very obvious to me. In all those 3 countries double-deckers are used for both long-distance travel where the benefit is more obvious (TGV duplex or the IC2000) but also for suburban railway networks such as in Zurich, Paris or Barcelona. The loading times are greater but they can still fit in a train every 2-3' in the most congested sections of their networks, and it works.
Don't fool yourself, it's not because their benefits are in doubt that Britain doesn't use double deckers; it's a subject entirely related to the small loading gauge in the country, and correcting that loading gauge would be such an extraordinary expense that any economic benefit of increasing the size of trains would be completely compensated by the sheer size of the works. One more legacy of victorian short-sightedness.
The crucial difference in Scotland is that electrification resources have been in pretty much constant use since more than a decade ago. The teams who wired up the reopened Larkhall branch then moved onto Airdrie-Bathgate when it reopened, and then onto the Cumbernauld line, the Whifflet line, the E&G and so on. They didn't try to do anything too exciting or run before they could walk, and that has paid off. Yes, the E&G wiring scheme is a little behind, but it's not a project-ending sort of being behind as it is in England. The new trains for all of the electrified routes have already been ordered so there's no way that they could be cancelled either. The industry is confident enough that the Scottish Government will also approve the missing pieces of electrification in the Central Belt right after the Shotts line is done in 2019. One of the inherent reasons for this will be that such a significant proportion of the rail lines under Scottish control are now electrified. The DfT is going to have to handle a lot of diesel lines anyway, so it's not that much of a push to include a few more under that category. In Scotland it would mean a much bigger overall change of strategy.
New lines would be a useful way of addressing the strict loading gauge. Even if just done small step by small step, for example build a new line from Manchester to Leeds. Double deckers could provide a shuttle service between the two cities and single decker trains can provide longer journeys. Then obviously add extensions. Same could be done in London if they ever add new mainlines to the South coast, Anglia and towards the West.
It would be quite pathetic if DfT does not order captive DDs for HS2 to be honest. Or if they don't build the new sections of HS3 to GC gauge. I'm sure sooner or later we will have DD trains on some of the newly build lines.
But, people at HS2 Ltd have looked at double deckers and worked out that they're not worthwhile. Consider, for instance, the fact that they have specified the platform height on HS2 to be 1150mm above rail level. That's higher than the standard British platform height, not lower as is the case normally for continental loading gauges. They chose this because then you can have step-free access onto the train, which makes it easier for everyone to access. Why would they want to have a double deck situation then, where they would throw that benefit out of the window?
Considering the capacity argument used in favour of HS2 and the captive loading gauge that it will provide and that double decker trains do provide more capacity and these trains aren't going to be stopping frequently, double deckers would seem to be a no brainer. I've not seen anything from HS2 speaking out against double deckers either, but I'm quite certain I've not read everything there is to read about this.
Any double deck HS2 stock essentially needs to have conventional height door areas and vestibules with up-and-down staircases to the upper and lower decks. Some vestibule areas may need to be larger to accommodate accessible accommodation (wheelchair space and toilets). I think there's a desire for accessible accommodation to feel part of the wider train environment, rather than an isolated and claustrophobic vestibule. This might suggest at least one carriage needs to be single deck and therefore accessible throughout - wheelchair space, accessible toilets and onboard shop all in this carriage as well as some general accommodation so a wheelchair user can access the maximum range of services.
This suggests the benefits of double decking might not be entirely straightforward but IMO in no way discredits the concept entirely.
Is the loading gauge not more suited to platform level lower deck and a slightly reduced headroom upper deck with all the electrics and aircon under the carriages?
DfT urged to make operators reveal if trains are electric or diesel due to carbon concerns
Nearly half of rail passengers would like to know how their trains are powered according to a new poll of 1,025 regular rail users from train ticket retailer Loco2.
The survey was taken as part of the company’s campaign to encourage travellers to reduce their carbon footprint and it is calling on the Department for Transport (DfT) and industry body the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) to make it compulsory for all operators to be transparent about what fuel powers their trains.
It has also submitted this request to the Government-commissioned Rail Review, which is evaluating the whole industry. Cristina Astorri of Loco2 said: “Typically, an electric train emits 20-35 per cent less carbon emissions than a diesel train - it’s a massive difference. “This campaign for change will not only make rail operators share the data, but it will enable consumers to vote with their feet by choosing to take ‘cleaner energy’ trains over the older, polluting ones.
“If this shift in consumer behaviour is great enough, train operators will be forced to improve the way they power their trains in order to appeal to existing and new customers.”
I've asked before on the HS2 thread, and didn't really get an answer, but where is all this confidence on these SSC forums that the HS2 captive stock (DD or not) going to have 1100mm or 1150mm high platforms (and doors) come from?
The continental HS TSI-compliant stock has to negotiate lower platforms.
I can see the logic in wanting level access boarding for HS2, and how the CC stock will have to call at (high) legacy GB platforms - hence originally they were to have high doors and deploy integrated train-steps for calling at captive platforms; that's right isn't it?
I did find a story from a while back saying HS2's designers were looking to seek derogation from the TSI to allow higher (1100mm?) platforms at the captive stations, presumably so these steps could be done away with? But with the flavour of Brexit perhaps being one of continued 'regulatory alignment', the UK would still need the derogation approving by the relevant EU body - so has it been confirmed?
You're right, it's Crossrail that has 1100mm high platforms. HS2 is going to have 1200mm high platforms, or at least that is what they asked for derogation to do... There is an FOI request which includes a link to the derogation report.
The last few years have been really depressing for anyone in the UK who knows that electric trains are by far the best solution for mass people-movement. The scaling back of the GWML electrification after the initial budget was blown apart had severe ramifications on the MML and TPE schemes that were meant to follow.
Roger Ford is a very well-respected engineer and railway journalist who writes an 'informed sources article each month in Modern Railways. Here is the e-preview for his March article - and it holds out hope, while also highlighting reasons for the insane over-spending that we saw on the Great Western.
Last year the DfT commissioned Professor Andrew McNaughton to carry out its own independent review of electrification costs. As a reminder of current costs, Prof McNaughton’s report quotes ‘upwards of £3.5 million/stkm’ for GWEP and £1.25million to £2.0 million in Scotland and the North West. European electrification schemes average around €1 million/stkm (£880,000).
What should it cost?. With consistent application of best practice from current schemes, plus the adoption of the recommendations in the Report, electrification of an ‘averagely complex’ line should cost £1.0 million to £1.2 million/single track km (stkm). This includes the necessary bridge and station alterations.
According to the report, there are opportunities to reduce costs ‘at every point in the lifecycle from operational specification through engineering standards and design, construction techniques, contract form, alignment of incentives and the treatment of project risk through to schedule realism’. A rolling programme of 150-200 stkm a year should generate further efficiencies which could reduce the cost to £800,000-£1.0 million/stkm.
Both the McNaughton and RIA reports suggest that electrification costs can be brought back to affordable levels. But this will require major changes within both industry and government, not least, argues the McNaughton Report, the re-establishment of an ‘authoritative national engineering centre of excellence’ covering equipment, standards and production techniques.
Because of the GWEP experience, partial electrification of Trans-Pennine has been assumed as a way of reducing short term costs. In particularly bi-modes have been promoted as the alternative to providing electrical clearance in tunnels, notably Standedge tunnel between Stalybridge and Marsden at the Western end.
On the basis of the McNaughton report Network Rail has been set a challenge: to see if the Trans-Pennine Route can be electrified throughout within the proposed budget for partial electrification. According to Informed Sources, Network Rail is up for it and is taking the challenge very seriously: an inaugural workshop was held at York as the end of January.
There is an important caveat with this third electrification revival. Implementing the recommendations in the two reports is going to take time. This will not suit politicians who live on instant gratification. Those of us who believe a modern railway is an electric railway face a long slog – but this time the railway has to get it right.
^^ "A rolling programme of 150-200 stkm a year should generate further efficiencies which could reduce the cost to £800,000-£1.0 million/stkm. "
Am I missing something there?
Is a stkm referring to one 'road' - I. E. a pair of roads for a conventional bidirectional line would cost more? But surely not x2 more, as you still need the same number of substations, OHL gantries, bridge / tunnel gauge-clearance modifications, etc. What about 4-track (up/down fast and slow pairs) - surely not x4 costs?
Anyway my main point is this: a rolling programme on those figures would be up to £200m electrification expenditure per annum, which is probably about what DfT hoped they'd be paying for each of GWML, MML and TP(N) before costs ran out of control; sounds a reasonable ambition. However, how long would it take to wire all the existing gaps the network at that rate - centuries?? 150stkm/yr would be 75 twin-track-km (about 47 miles)!
I am pretty sure stkm means single track kilometre. So 150-200 stkm equates to 46.5 to 62 miles of double track every year (93 to 124 miles of single track). Not incredible, but rather better than the 2 miles achieved while Blair and Brown were in power. I assume this conservative target is to ensure that there are adequate skilled staff to do the work? I suspect this is the real resourcing issue, not equipment.
To put it in perspective:
Kettering to Sheffield via Derby (Also Leicester - slow lines - Trent Jcn - Nottingham) would be about 245 - 250 single miles. TPE would be about 130 miles.
So in other words these two main projects, also Didcot - Oxford and Bristol Parkway to Temple Meads could all be done within about four years, possibly one or two short branch lines as well. That's not so bad is it?
I asked about this on wnxx, to date there is no physical work north of Kettering North Junction to indicate wiring to a point just south of Market Harborough station will actually happen. It isn't mentioned in any off the project pamphlets / publicity either. So I'm not sure it will happen.
Agreed that wiring to Rochdale and reversing Northern electrics there would be a good idea, also at Stalybridge. This would allow a much more productive use of the platforms at Manchester Victoria rather than clogging them with terminating services.
^^ "Erewash Valley - really the only proper 4-track section left is about 4.5 - 5 miles from north of Chesterfield to Clay Cross Jcn. However I doubt the 'old road' tracks would ever be electrified, as they are almost 100% freight only. Chesterfield only has MML facing platforms. So no obvious need to add this bit to the MML track figures."
Clay Cross Jcn north of Chesterfield - it's south??
Do you mean Tapton Jcn (where MR Old Road and New Road bifurcate)? In which case I don't think of this as Erewash Valley (which ends at Clay Cross Jcn) - it's an MML common spine section?
Speaking of 'spines' - I never did understand if the 'electric spine' for freight was supposed to include the Old Road (I remember Erewash Valley wasn't supposed to be wired btw) or just use the New Road (ie taking advantage of the MML passenger wiring to Sheffield - now scrapped) or indeed just stop at Toton Yard. I thought the strap line was 'electric freight spine all the way from the South Coast ports to West Mids and Yorkshire' so stopping at Toton wouldn't have fulfilled that.
Clay Cross Jcn north of Chesterfield - it's south??
Do you mean Tapton Jcn (where MR Old Road and New Road bifurcate)? In which case I don't think of this as Erewash Valley (which ends at Clay Cross Jcn) - it's an MML common spine section?
It may well be called Tapton Jcn, I'm doing this all from memory rather than looking at a rail atlas to clarify the name of every junction. Essentially I meant the most northern location where a passenger train from Sheffield via Dore can cross over and join the 'Old Road' tracks. From that point heading south to Clay Cross Junction is less than 5 miles. Most people perceive this junction as the northern end of the Erewash Valley line.
Any MML electrification scheme is highly unlikely to spend any effort wiring up any part of the 'Old Road', it is essentially a freight only route in normal circumstances.
The 'Northern Spine' concept was a long way from being a realistic scheme that had been carefully assessed. It felt to me like a ***-packet idea dreamt up by a keen DFT employee. In what sane world would we consider replacing the 3rd rail between Basingstoke and Southampton with wires, while not bothering to electrify the Chiltern line at all? It didn't seem to even cover any existing freight flows in Yorkshire, certainly no wires north of Rotherham.
Meanwhile in Scotland, there are now five different electrified routes between the cities. The line via Shotts is now fully wired, ahead of time and on budget. It would be truly criminal if the expertise built up on EGIP is allowed to be lost in the next few years.
Testing of the new wiring took place last weekend, using a pair of vintage class 86 locos.
Network Rail achieved a key milestone on the Shotts Line electrification project on Sunday when the first electric train ran on the route.
The train a Class 86 electric locomotive, completed a number of test runs; including at line speed, along the newly electrified sections between Holytown and Midcalder junctions - creating the fifth electrified route between Scotland’s two main cities.
A central part of the Scottish Government’s rail strategy, electrification has the potential to transform the passenger experience on the line reducing journey times and adding capacity, on comfortable, efficient and more reliable electric trains.
Meanwhile in Scotland, there are now five different electrified routes between the cities. The line via Shotts is now fully wired, ahead of time and on budget. It would be truly criminal if the expertise built up on EGIP is allowed to be lost in the next few years.
East Kilbride seems like a good one to do, if it's more rolling and incremental schemes - rather than transformational. The HSTs will definitely buy some time there, as they look great and are a real improvement from a passenger point of view.
The issue with Aberdeen is that it has multiple routes, and Fife would probably require the circle, so there's a slight domino effect to get the most use. East Kilbride is nice and self-contained.
As far as I'm aware most of the gauge clearance work (bridges etc) has already been done between Leicester and Trent Junction (don't know about further north).
Might another option be to extend a Bedford terminator or two northwards (to Corby) ?
This would help the platform occupation issue at Bedford, and enable some electric semi-fast services to Leicester, much more useful than Corby. With four tracks to Kettering, it shouldn't be too difficult to path.
And the existing 2tph to Corby paths could maybe be used in different ways.
Answering a question from Harborough MP Mr Neil O’Brien, minister for rail Mr Andrews Jones told the British parliament that infrastructure manager Network Rail (NR) has been instructed to design an extension of electrification infrastructure from Kettering to Market Harborough station.
“The Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) extension to Market Harborough will enable a new connection to a power supply at Braybrooke,” Jones said. “At Outline Business Case stage in March 2018 this was determined to be the best value for money option for making the power supply connection. This will be tested again when the overall Midland Main Line programme Key Output 1a, of which Market Harborough electrification is a constituent part, is assessed at full business case stage.”
So this still depends on a detailed business case, and is not 100% confirmed yet. But it does imply the station itself will be wired, which is good news.
The Electrification Cost Challenge report shows how future electrification schemes can be delivered at 33-50% lower cost.
he Electrification Cost Challenge (ECC) report uses examples from the UK and internationally to show that the high costs seen on recent projects, including the Great Western Electrification Programme, can be avoided in the future. It suggests that significant increase in cost on some past projects like Great Western should be seen as a one-off, caused by an unrealistic programme of work, unpreparedness in using novel technologies resulting in poor productivity and a ‘feast and famine’ electrification policy.
The purpose of the report is to:
Set out the benefits of electrification for passengers and customers, and how it supports the Government’s Decarbonisation Challenge;
Summarise UK electrification strategy since 2007;
Discuss the Great Western Electrification Project (GWEP) and the reasons that it failed;
Highlight the lessons that have been learnt; and
Highlight evidence that electrification can be, and is being, delivered for between 33%-50% of the costs of some recent projects using examples from around the UK and internationally.
The report states that electrification is the optimal solution for intensively used rail lines and agrees with a recent report by the Rail Industry Decarbonisation Taskforce that electrification should be seen as the first choice in a hierarchy of options for decarbonising the rail network by 2040. Emerging technologies will also likely have a role to play for less intensively used passenger lines, including bimode, trimode, battery and hydrogen, but these alone can’t achieve the Government’s aim of decarbonising the rail network.
This is an excellent summary of the widely varying costs of different electrification schemes in the UK since 2009, some of which have been very good value. The GWML and Manchester - Bolton - Preston are not surprisingly the worst offenders.
It explains in easy to understand language exactly why the GWML was such a financial fiasco - a case study in how to have made something far more complex, over specified, time consuming and risky than it needed to have been. On the positive side it lists a variety of recent technical innovations developed by the industry that can often eliminate the need for expensive clearance work, in some cases allowing just 100mm clearance between the electrified 25kV wire and bridges. I recommend it highly to anyone who has an interest in technology and engineering.
I have read the whole thing through and I am quite satisfied by it and it gives me a lot of hope that it can sway things in whitehall.
The massive cost overruns on the GWEP come down to a catalogue of errors that were down to project management and the very nature of the whole project.
Network Rail was tasked with electrifying a project to a set deadline that wasn't its own (the IEP contracts and the DfT)
It made decisions that were good on paper but experience would have shown them to be too risky in combination
Knock on effects were therefore exacerbated
Relied heavily on the high output production train
Which couldn't do piles because cabling meant the piles were too far from the track, and...
couldn't do the piling because the piles were too long due to inexperienced design processes
And these are just a few. There is a stand-out item for me in that the KPIs for the contractors doing the piling and bases had no topological requirement - it was just number of piles, any piles. Meaning there was no imperative for the contractors to complete a set of 15 mast bases so that the masts and wiring runs could be done.
On the positive side, it turns out that all of these mistakes have been learned, the series 1 design (used on GWEP) is now slightly more refined, lighter, and efficient, the series 2 design (used on NW triangle) has been upped to 110mph capability (in the design catalogue at least).
There is also no particular reason why another project - say MML completion - should cost the earth and take twice as long as expected.
NR has taken some withering fire from the punditry over the cost of GWEP "Built to withstand the winds of Jupiter", good to see it in an official report so that it gets taken on board.
MML to Corby is seemingly progressing nicely without a fuss. Hopefully this project will restore confidence and wires will eventually go all the way.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
SkyscraperCity Forum
139.4M posts
1.1M members
Since 2002
A truly global community dedicated to skyscrapers, cities, urban development, and the metropolitan environment. Join us to share news, views and fun about architecture, construction, transport, skylines, and much more!