20 Reasons for electrifying Wales rail network

[raspberry-blower]

Here's an interesting article for all those who have gone to Wales or are planning to over there. (Do PSers in Wales live near a railway station?)

As the UK Government considers whether to electrify the railway from Swansea and Bristol to London, transport writer Rhodri Clark argues that electrification of the main line and Valley Lines is justified not by two or three benefits – but 20

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... -27576605/

Unfortunately, the cost side isn't taken into account in this article - given the cutbacks and agenda of the coalition it is unlikely that this will go ahead.

[JohnB]

The line doesn't end at Swansea!

I can hear, but not see, steam trains from my house, but they only run a couple of miles!

[adam2]

Electrification is a great idea in theory, and should be supported on enviromental grounds.

In practice though I can forsee a number of pitfalls

1) 10 years of disruption and buses at weekends whilst the work is done
2) The wires will blow down in windy weather, and stretch in hot weather, making it a fair weather only railway
3) The electric trains will either be newly built, and therefore shorter than existing ones, or will be suburban ones recycled from London, with an unsuitable seating layout for long distance travel.
4) Totally reliant on grid power, not exactly improving resiliance.
5) in the near term an electricity shortage seems at least as likely as an oil shortage, though at least oil can be stored.
6) Will the NIMBYS allow it ? overhead electrification masts are as "bad" as wind turbines and cellphone masts, but far more numerous.

From a personal point of view, I would not welcome electrification of the Great western main line* since it would almost certainly mean new, shorter trains with high density bus seats, minimal luggage space, reduced cycle spaces and no restaurant.

*The O/P refers to Wales, but the two routes are closely connected.

[adam2]

Partial electrification is now being considered, and is disscussed in more detail in this very lengthy thread on a rail forum
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffe ... pic=5066.0

It remains to be seen what trains will be used, but class 319 multiple units (ex thameslink) are likely for the suburban parts, these have the advantage of being cheap as they already exist, but are from reliable, esp in adverse weather.
They are 4 car, and whilst they can be used in multiple for 8 or 12 car trains, this appears unlikely in practice.

For the longer distance parts it appears regreatably likely that something based on the "succesful" Virgin voyager trains will be used, but with duel diesel/electric power.
Such trains have a poor record of reliability, have very limited luggage space, mainly bus seats, no restaurant, and are shorter than existing trains. Not a step forward !
The original idea was for proper intercity trains, with a choice of electric or diesel power.

[caspian]

We're still waiting for news of whether our former station (St Clears, Carmarthenshire) will ever get the go-ahead to reopen. With recent budget cutbacks it seems unlikely. Pity, because St Clears is a reasonable sized town and is at least as busy as Whitland (5 miles away), which does have a station.

[rue_d_etropal]

Most modern electric trains run from overhead power, but most of SE englands on 3rd rail, and had been doind so for many years. It would be a lot cheaper to install, and is it really necessary to have inter city journey times cut by a few minutes, when something could be up and running in less time and cheaper.
Electric railways need not be dependant on national electric grid, as I believe much of London electric service used local power stations(all be it coal powered, but local power could work on Wales main line). I would also think the Welsh valley lines would suit a simple 3rd(or 4th) rail system.

[JohnB]

Most modern electric trains run from overhead power, but most of SE englands on 3rd rail, and had been doind so for many years. It would be a lot cheaper to install, and is it really necessary to have inter city journey times cut by a few minutes, when something could be up and running in less time and cheaper.
Electric railways need not be dependant on national electric grid, as I believe much of London electric service used local power stations(all be it coal powered, but local power could work on Wales main line). I would also think the Welsh valley lines would suit a simple 3rd(or 4th) rail system.

From Wikipedia

However as third rail systems present the hazard of electric shock, higher system voltages (above 1500 v) are not considered safe. Very high currents are therefore used, resulting in considerable power loss in the system, and requiring relatively closely spaced feed points (sub-stations).

The presence of an electrified rail also makes it extremely dangerous for a person to fall into the tracks. This, however, can be avoided using platform screen doors or the risk minimized by ensuring that the conductor rail is on the side of the track away from the platform.

Furthermore, third rail systems must either be fully grade-separated, or, if they operate at-grade, they must implement some kind of mechanism to effectively stop pedestrians from walking onto the tracks at grade crossings. A famous 1992 Supreme Court of Illinois decision affirmed a $1.5 million verdict against the Chicago Transit Authority for failing to stop an intoxicated person from walking onto the tracks at a grade crossing and attempting to urinate on the third rail.[1]

The end ramps of conductor rails (where they are interrupted, or change sides) present a practical limitation on speed due to the mechanical impact of the shoe, and 160 km/h (100 mph) is considered the upper limit of practical third-rail operation, however no testing over 100 mph has been attempted. The world speed record for a third rail train is 174 km/h (108 mph) attained on 11 April 1988 by a British Class 442 EMU.

Third rail systems using top contact are prone to accumulations of snow, and ice formed from refrozen snow, and this can interrupt operations. Some systems operate dedicated de-icing trains to deposit an oily fluid on the conductor rail to prevent the build-up.

Because of the gaps in the conductor rail (at level crossings and crossovers) it is possible for a train to stop in a position where all of its shoes are in gaps, so that no traction power is available. The train is said to be "gapped". In these circumstances a following train is brought up behind the stranded train to push it on to the conductor rail or a jumper cable is used to supply enough power to the train to get one of its contact shoes back on the third rail. On some systems this prevents the running of very short trains (which have fewer shoes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail

I think overhead electric allows higher voltages, higher speeds, and less safety issues. Whether this is necessary on a post PO public transport system may be debatable.

[Bandidoz]

Funnily enough I imagined that a 3rd rail system might be appropriate for rural Wales - where there are few trains running, none of them at high speed. Someone can quite easily attempt to piss on an overhead cable from a bridge.

.....they must implement some kind of mechanism to effectively stop pedestrians from walking onto the tracks at grade crossings. A famous 1992 Supreme Court of Illinois decision affirmed a $1.5 million verdict against the Chicago Transit Authority for failing to stop an intoxicated person from walking onto the tracks at a grade crossing and attempting to urinate on the third rail.

Now there's a candidate for the Darwin Awards

[adam2]

It is very unlikely that any more railways will be electrified on the third rail system (other than very minor additions to existing routes)

The elfansafety are opposed to a system that uses a lethal voltage at ankle height.
The lower voltage requires much more frequent substations at appreciable expense.
Live rails are vulnerable to being covered by snow and ice.

The original southern railway third rail system was much more extensive than is sensible for such a system. It was not planned but "just sort of grew"
Had the southern railway realised how big it it would grow they would probably have used a different system.
AFAIK the former Southern Railway is the largest in the world to use conductor rails, all other main lines use overhead wires, with conductor rail being confined to local metro type systems.

[RenewableCandy]

Apparently An Expert in 1906 said that 3rd-rail was a bad idea and should be on the way out.

[rue_d_etropal]

the East Lancs line from Manchester to Bury used a modified version of the 3rd rail, which I beleive was better. For all its faults the Southern system still works, even in freezing weather. In a world with plenty of fuel, the more expensive overhead powered system might be better, but localised substations might be better when power supplies are produced locally. One alternative testyed in Germany many yearsago was battery powered trains, which would only really be suitable for local routes.
Just because 3rd rail is out of fashion it doesn't mean it might not be better long term. The overhead powered systems in UK are not to the same standard as those used in mainland Europe.

[adam2]

Battery powered trains are certainly possible for branch line or secondary routes, especialy for shortish branches off an electrified main line.
Rail is an energy efficient mode of transport, therefore even cheap low-tech lead acid batteries would be suitable.
Regenerative braking is more easily achieved with a battery.

I dont feel that local generation of electricity for electric railways is a good idea except in the most unusaull cases.
The power demand is almost zero much of the time, when no train is in the track section supplied, requiring considerable standby losses.
When a train, or even 2 trains are in section, many hundreds, perhaps even thousands of KW are required, perhaps only for a few minutes.
This is almost the worst possible load to supply from any power plant, and in the early days was an argument against electric traction and in favour of steam locomotives.
The best source of power for an electric railway is an extensive grid system on which the widely fluctuating traction load is but a small percentage of the total.
The next best is a large central power station supplying an extensive railway network, such that the demand of any one train is a relatively small part of the total load. This entails a special railway transmission system at high voltage, with numerous substations.

[adam2]

In the present bad weather, 30 year old diesel powered HST are generally running fine.
Modern electric trains are fareing less well, sometimes due to the trains failing, and sometimes due to power supply problems.
The East Coast main line is closed at present due to the overhead wires coming down.
Local electric trains are badly disrupted, whilst diesel hauled freight appears to running as normal.

Not a good advert for electrification.

[JohnB]

Current railwaymen are wimps

http://railways.national-preservation.c ... press-1895

[biffvernon]

The next two pictures on that site are even better - no sight of the train itself!