Atomic Systems

Seen this in Railnews

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/ ... -soon.html

Iain Coucher does have a point. Whats the point in electrifying railway if we don't have the trains to run on it yet? More joined up thinking and planning is needed. The sad thing is once its off the cards it will take ages to get it back.

Ali

In the time it takes to electrify the line, they can get the trains to run on it.
Its not a case of its the first electric line to be built is it.

There are plenty electric trains to run on new electrified lines.

Sidings full of 86, 87 and 90s and Mk3s for them to haul.

Take Great Western. We know Airport Junction to Maidenhead is to be electrified for Crossrail, and there are plans to take the wires on to Reading. But then what? Let’s say we are asked to go as far as Didcot and Oxford. We’ll be asked to keep the cost per kilometre down to where it would have been had we gone through to Bristol and Swansea, but railway engineering doesn’t work like that.

It can work like that if Network Rail didn't let itself get ripped off by as many suppliers as it does. While virtually all of the suppliers are very good and do their jobs well, I believe that NR does have a tendancy to pay high prices when it doesn't need to, and could try and exert some buying power.

Also it could make sense to do it like this, as there are services from Paddington that terminate at both Reading and Oxford.

I'm not surprised that HS2 has taken precedence over the much more useful electrification programme. It's the prestige project. Unfortunately I'm not sure we really need HS2 that badly. Politicians seem to want it just to compete with the French and the Germans etc.

Diesel haulage for:
intercity expresses
commuter trains
(heavy) freight
looks more and more outdated as a form of traction. I'm not convinced it can, or ever has been able to compete with electric traction for performance. Yet we rely on diesels for some of our main railway corridors.

AN

alexnick wrote:I'm not surprised that HS2 has taken precedence over the much more useful electrification programme. It's the prestige project. Unfortunately I'm not sure we really need HS2 that badly. Politicians seem to want it just to compete with the French and the Germans etc.

Diesel haulage for:
intercity expresses
commuter trains
(heavy) freight
looks more and more outdated as a form of traction. I'm not convinced it can, or ever has been able to compete with electric traction for performance. Yet we rely on diesels for some of our main railway corridors.

AN

True. Although when our good old HSTs are doing the job well on the ECML MML and GWML I don't see why we should need to try and compete. Especially when they can still pull off journeys like London to York in 2 hours.

And yes, the electrification would definitely be more useful. It also has the added advantage of diversionary routes and cross-covering of other unit types. E.g. at the moment mk4 couldn't avoid a failure on the ECML by running through Leeds, or a 323 can't step in if a 156 (or other DMU) fails on the Manchester-Liverpool and nothing else is available.

I would disagree with you about HSTs. Two 43s struggle to get 8 carriages to 125mph. If we look at, say a DB class 101, or even their predecessors, the 103s, they could easily maintain 125mph with 12+ carriage trains.

The benefit is not in top speed (it'll be hard to push beyond 125mph on conventional lines), but in acceleration, gradient performance and train length. (And on reliability averages and running costs - electrification costs notwithstanding).

I agree the ECML is mostly flat and fairly well suited to diesel haulage though (though a 91 does the same timing as an HST with a heavier load), and it'll be hard to improve on the HSTs timings.

AN

alexnick wrote:I would disagree with you about HSTs. Two 43s struggle to get 8 carriages to 125mph. If we look at, say a DB class 101, or even their predecessors, the 103s, they could easily maintain 125mph with 12+ carriage trains.

I would not say that they struggle to get to 125, I have got a couple to 128-130, fair enough they do take a while to get there.

alexnick wrote: The benefit is not in top speed (it'll be hard to push beyond 125mph on conventional lines), but in acceleration, gradient performance and train length. (And on reliability averages and running costs - electrification costs notwithstanding).

Acceleration and flexibility, are the real key things, getting to max speed, makes the timings quicker, and flexibility in train lengths, fixed formations are one of the reasons why we have overcrowding problems.

alexnick wrote: The benefit is not in top speed (it'll be hard to push beyond 125mph on conventional lines), but in acceleration, gradient performance and train length. (And on reliability averages and running costs - electrification costs notwithstanding).
AN

Exactly. Especially on the WCML where it's too bendy, although parts of the ECML are cleared for 140mph running with flashing green aspects which the mk4s are capable of, but the health and safety put paid to that one i think