Pendolino - ECML

A321Pilot · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:35 pm

Haven't they talked about Electrifying the MML but said it isn't viable or something like that. As you said the 222's can go to XC and the HST could be used by a new Open Access Operator or something like that.

Alan Fry · **Joined:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:11 pm **Posts:** 971

Kevo00 wrote:

It's simply not worth electrifying Edinburgh - Inverness and Edinburgh - Aberdeen at perhaps £500m each to save a few millions on the marginal cost of some orders for new trains. Considering that Aberdeen only gets 4 ECML trains a day (one of which goes to Leeds and would also require Leeds-York electrification), and Inverness 1, this would simply be a huge displacement of resources for almost no gain. The ECML electrification itself was wasteful enough on that basis - almost no other trains apart from 91s use the overheads, and HSTs now seem to be used interchangeably on diagrams with 91s.

It would also be useful for Scotrail services

Alan Fry · **Joined:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:11 pm **Posts:** 971

Ameecher wrote:

The idea of a 91 on the GEML is laughable. The 90s are already a nightmare to timetable because they can't accelerate fast enough, a 91 will be even more of a lard arse off the line and it can't even run at higher speed to compensate. A better plan would be use them to replace HSTs & 222s on MML if you're going to bother moving them off the ECML, the 222s can then be used to augment the XC fleet.

Yes that might work as well, but they need to electrfy the MML for that to happen

47434 · **Posted:** Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:22 pm

There's also the fact that there are only 31 class 91s: already too few to run the full set of services on the core ECML to Edinburgh/Leeds. Leeds-York/Hull is earmarked for electrification as part of the North Trans-Pennine; but this probably won't include Doncaster-Hull, so there's no diesel services on the ECML that'd be able to be switched to electric traction anyway. Electrification on other branches of the ECML would therefore only be worthwhile whan it comes to replacing the core rolling stock fleet, be it with IEP or anything else. The bendydildos are only running on the ECML for testing, and this is at least partially at the behest of insurers who don't want two of the new 390s to collide with each other!

Kevo00 · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:42 am

Alan Fry wrote:

It would also be useful for Scotrail services

Between Edinburgh and Aberdeen and certainly if extended to the Fife Circle, yes. Though presumably Glasgow - Aberdeen services, which are almost half of Dundee - Aberdeen trains, would be left as diesel. For Inverness less so, because the Scotrail trains go via the Fife line and a lightly used link to Perth, while East Coast trains go via Stirling. The Scotrail trains are also only one every two hours and not really worth electrifying for.

I would tend to agree the Scottish govt aspiration to electrify north of Edinbrugh is a good one - but the traditional Edin - Glasgow route to Queen Street should probably be the priority (should really have been part of the original ECML scheme rather than the under-used Carstairs line).

Alan Fry · **Joined:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:11 pm **Posts:** 971

47434 wrote:

There's also the fact that there are only 31 class 91s: already too few to run the full set of services on the core ECML to Edinburgh/Leeds. Leeds-York/Hull is earmarked for electrification as part of the North Trans-Pennine; but this probably won't include Doncaster-Hull, so there's no diesel services on the ECML that'd be able to be switched to electric traction anyway. Electrification on other branches of the ECML would therefore only be worthwhile whan it comes to replacing the core rolling stock fleet, be it with IEP or anything else. The bendydildos are only running on the ECML for testing, and this is at least partially at the behest of insurers who don't want two of the new 390s to collide with each other!

So it is a good idea to electrify the remaining parts of the ECML and add class 390s to the EC/FHT/GC fleets so they operate an all electric fleet

Ameecher · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:34 am

Kevo00 wrote:

Alan Fry wrote:

It would also be useful for Scotrail services

Between Edinburgh and Aberdeen and certainly if extended to the Fife Circle, yes. Though presumably Glasgow - Aberdeen services, which are almost half of Dundee - Aberdeen trains, would be left as diesel. For Inverness less so, because the Scotrail trains go via the Fife line and a lightly used link to Perth, while East Coast trains go via Stirling. The Scotrail trains are also only one every two hours and not really worth electrifying for.

I would tend to agree the Scottish govt aspiration to electrify north of Edinbrugh is a good one - but the traditional Edin - Glasgow route to Queen Street should probably be the priority (should really have been part of the original ECML scheme rather than the under-used Carstairs line).

I suspect that Cupar to Perth would be electrified to avoid having a diesel island and would also be useful with the tay bridge is shut.

Kevo00 · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:33 pm

It would need the Perth-Dundee bit doing too then. Actually a quicker win all round would be getting rid of the mechanical signalling in that area and removing the single track bottlenecks at Perth and Montrose (though I know that would mean new bridges). Then electrification for the Glasgow-Edinburgh-Dundee-Aberdeen triangle could build on it.

Random fact: has anyone ever noticed that there is a short length of narrow gauge track beside the Perth-Dundee line at Kinfauns? Yet I've never seen its existence or use documented anywhere.

orudge · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:53 pm

My suggestion for the order in which we could electrify Edinburgh and Glasgow to Aberdeen:

Fife Circle Line
Edinburgh - Dundee
Dundee - Aberdeen (- Inverurie; maybe re-double the line from Aberdeen to Inverurie if we're playing wishful thinking)
Stirling - Perth
Perth - Dundee
Ladybank - Perth (at some point, perhaps)

On a tangent, it does seem rather stupid and short-sighted that so many lines were singled back in the days of Beeching. Obviously Aberdeen - Inverness was never double track throughout, but it did used to have a number of dual track sections, which mostly now do not exist. Ah, for our rail map to look like this again! (Although, practically speaking, I realise such a network would likely be quite expensive to run and many of the shorter branch lines would likely not make much money, if any.) I've spent many an hour poring over old maps on SABRE Maps, tracing the old railway lines. Quite sad that so many of them are gone today.

(I also figured out the other day that it'd take something like 5.5 hours to get from Banchory to St Andrews via railway in 1948 (changing in Aberdeen and Dundee), versus about 3.5 hours on the bus today, and 1.5-2 hours by car. So those railway lines wouldn't be especially efficient or practical if they were still operating in that manner today!)

Alan Fry · **Joined:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:11 pm **Posts:** 971

orudge wrote:

My suggestion for the order in which we could electrify Edinburgh and Glasgow to Aberdeen:

Fife Circle Line
Edinburgh - Dundee
Dundee - Aberdeen (- Inverurie; maybe re-double the line from Aberdeen to Inverurie if we're playing wishful thinking)
Stirling - Perth
Perth - Dundee
Ladybank - Perth (at some point, perhaps)

On a tangent, it does seem rather stupid and short-sighted that so many lines were singled back in the days of Beeching. Obviously Aberdeen - Inverness was never double track throughout, but it did used to have a number of dual track sections, which mostly now do not exist. Ah, for our rail map to look like this again! (Although, practically speaking, I realise such a network would likely be quite expensive to run and many of the shorter branch lines would likely not make much money, if any.) I've spent many an hour poring over old maps on SABRE Maps, tracing the old railway lines. Quite sad that so many of them are gone today.

(I also figured out the other day that it'd take something like 5.5 hours to get from Banchory to St Andrews via railway in 1948 (changing in Aberdeen and Dundee), versus about 3.5 hours on the bus today, and 1.5-2 hours by car. So those railway lines wouldn't be especially efficient or practical if they were still operating in that manner today!)

Let hope more of cuurenly closed lines will reopened, more singled lines doubled and more lines electrfied in Scotland and the rest of the UK

Kevo00 · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:56 pm

orudge wrote:

(I also figured out the other day that it'd take something like 5.5 hours to get from Banchory to St Andrews via railway in 1948 (changing in Aberdeen and Dundee), versus about 3.5 hours on the bus today, and 1.5-2 hours by car. So those railway lines wouldn't be especially efficient or practical if they were still operating in that manner today!)

This is what people forget about Beeching; he did not cut the railways so much as redistribute their resources to more efficient uses. Its better to run a point to point service between destinations that people want than a thinly spread system of slip coaches and branch trains that people don't want to use. Most branch lines were not built to carry passengers such so much as general freight and were effectively killed off when more flexible road transport by road became available after WW1. Some of the shortest lines were actually closed in the 1930s or early 1950s.

All that said, some of the track rationalization that's taken place happened post Beeching, in the 1970s-90s as BR sought to reduce running costs by de-investing in infrastructure as much as possible.

Alan Fry · **Joined:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:11 pm **Posts:** 971

Kevo00 wrote:

orudge wrote:

(I also figured out the other day that it'd take something like 5.5 hours to get from Banchory to St Andrews via railway in 1948 (changing in Aberdeen and Dundee), versus about 3.5 hours on the bus today, and 1.5-2 hours by car. So those railway lines wouldn't be especially efficient or practical if they were still operating in that manner today!)

This is what people forget about Beeching; he did not cut the railways so much as redistribute their resources to more efficient uses. Its better to run a point to point service between destinations that people want than a thinly spread system of slip coaches and branch trains that people don't want to use. Most branch lines were not built to carry passengers such so much as general freight and were effectively killed off when more flexible road transport by road became available after WW1. Some of the shortest lines were actually closed in the 1930s or early 1950s.

All that said, some of the track rationalization that's taken place happened post Beeching, in the 1970s-90s as BR sought to reduce running costs by de-investing in infrastructure as much as possible.

His plan made the decline of the railways even worse, we need to reopen lines in areas not currently served by the railways. We need to think of the railways less as a business and more a public service

GurraJG · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:23 pm

Alan Fry wrote:

His plan made the decline of the railways even worse, we need to reopen lines in areas not currently served by the railways. We need to think of the railways less as a business and more a public service

Whilst I agree about the public service bit, there are many places in which running a railway would be prohibitively expensive and would be better served by better road services, and buses that actually run on time!

Alan Fry · **Joined:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:11 pm **Posts:** 971

GurraJG wrote:

Alan Fry wrote:

His plan made the decline of the railways even worse, we need to reopen lines in areas not currently served by the railways. We need to think of the railways less as a business and more a public service

Whilst I agree about the public service bit, there are many places in which running a railway would be prohibitively expensive and would be better served by better road services, and buses that actually run on time!

What about people without cars?

As for Buses, no chance!

If they railway wants to be a alternative to the car, then it needs to serve areas not served by the railways and offer improved services

The UK railways will not make a profit for a long time because of the mess caused by governments and private transport companies

Ed, · **Joined:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:46 pm **Posts:** 14

The other problem is the bus and rail are seen as competitors an integrated solution would be far superior look at what the oyster card has done in London.

every single railway station should connect to the local bus network.

Alan Fry · **Joined:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:11 pm **Posts:** 971

Ed, wrote:

The other problem is the bus and rail are seen as competitors an integrated solution would be far superior look at what the oyster card has done in London.

every single railway station should connect to the local bus network.

with the bus network (outside London) in an even worse state than the railways, the railways are on their own

A321Pilot · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:00 pm

One thing I will say about re-opening Rail lines, The Manchester - Altrincham and Manchester - Bury lines that were converted to Light Rail (Manchester Metrolink) was a Disaster. Yes, it has improved ridership, because the stock is newer, however, the Capacity of the Trains is much lower, meaning the Trams are Over-crowded. They are also re-opening the Chorlton line which was a Rail Line. They should be converted back to Normal Rail lines.

Kevo00 · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:40 pm

Alan Fry wrote:

His plan made the decline of the railways even worse, we need to reopen lines in areas not currently served by the railways. We need to think of the railways less as a business and more a public service

Er, wot? Passenger numbers are now the highest ever, and infact were pretty flat throughout the BR period...I think holding 600m passengers on a network of 10,000 miles (c. 1970) is preferable to 700m on one of 14,000 (c. 1960).

Even if the railways were considered solely a public service they would still require managing to provide the best value for society. Why should we subsidise trains that run with less than 10% of their capacity used and where the carbon footprint per passenger is actually higher than driving? There's a reason that railways started in the coal industry...they are intended for bulk transport, not universal transport. I'm all for alternatives to the car, but rail isn't always the best, simply because it requires a big passenger flow to be going in one direction.

GurraJG · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:45 pm

There's a compromise that needs to be taken between providing a public service and providing the best value for money. There are many places where it is simply too expensive to run a railway network, but where other forms of public transportation, like buses, are a better and cheaper alternative. That being said, of course the bus network in this country needs a massive improvement, but the solution isn't to replace them with trains.

Griff · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:51 pm

Transport Tycoon Forums

Pendolino - ECML

Who is online