Government Spending Review

[Eagle]

Should point out that CP5 starts in nine months. Pretty much every current project is a CP5 plan.

 

[WatcherZero]

CP5 projects should essentially be locked in by the election due to the nature of Network Rail funding. Early announced CP6 projects could be open to alteration though.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As there is an election between now and the end of 2019 I don't think we can say for certain that CP5 plans won't get reviewed and revised after the next election.

Also some of the CP5 plans are a bit vague at present. For instance, will North TPE get new or cascaded EMUs and what about the soon to be newly electrified local routes around Huddersfield and Leeds?

CP5 in this sense is just the NR budget, so doesn't relate directly to services or rolling stock.
What I mean is the spending review may well not change it this week.
Partly that's because it is in a separate regulatory cycle (HLOS etc) which is almost complete.
To change it now would throw a lot up in the air again.
I expect the government (Treasury etc) are frying bigger fish this week.
Mind you, it would be nice if an A14 road upgrade was matched with a Felixstowe-Nuneaton electrification plan.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Like I said in my later post I was saying what I think they should do if they want to avoid new DMU orders in CP5 not what they will do.

Giving a new area relatively new class 172s on lines that aren't currently high priority for electrification would be an excellent way of getting the general public backing plans for electrification as otherwise users of lines not down for electrification will think they'll just get cast-offs until new diesel trains are ordered.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


As there is an election between now and the end of 2019 I don't think we can say for certain that CP5 plans won't get reviewed and revised after the next election.

Also some of the CP5 plans are a bit vague at present. For instance, will North TPE get new or cascaded EMUs and what about the soon to be newly electrified local routes around Huddersfield and Leeds?

As I thought it's a green eyed monster thing. no logic in wiring Snow Hill, we just want your shiny new DMUs!
To re-iterate and expand there is no point in wiring Snow hill lines until the layout and signalling is sorted at Worcester and you can wire to Hereford as there is so much interaction of train crew and rolling stock movements between Tyseley LMD and Worcester LMD to deliver services in the region.

 

[yorksrob]

As I thought it's a green eyed monster thing. no logic in wiring Snow Hill, we just want your shiny new DMUs!
To re-iterate and expand there is no point in wiring Snow hill lines until the layout and signalling is sorted at Worcester and you can wire to Hereford as there is so much interaction of train crew and rolling stock movements between Tyseley LMD and Worcester LMD to deliver services in the region.

Not necessarily a green eyed monster thing. Those DMU‘s are needed elsewhere, and since noone seems willing to build new one's, the Snow Hill route might berry most convenient to wire.

 

[Goatboy]

I love the way people here actually think the general public give a stuff whether there are wires or not. They generally don't unless the wires lead to lower prices through lower running costs (Which they don't) or increased capacity due to newer trains (Which they sometimes do).

Getting super excited about electrification as if its the holy grail of railways is mostly an enthusiast thing. Often it's just something else to foul up the evening commute when there is a problem..

 

[edwin_m]

The cheapest way to liberate DMUs is to electrify route sections carrying services which would otherwise run considerable distances under the wires. Snow Hill lines do poorly on that score, having zero under-the-wires running. Somewhere like Sheffield to Moorthorpe must come pretty high on the list if that is the way it is to be judged. Of course that only liberates 150s and Pacers, not shiny new 172s!

 

[swt_passenger]

As there is an election between now and the end of 2019 I don't think we can say for certain that CP5 plans won't get reviewed and revised after the next election.

People suggested in 2009 that a change of government might effect the CP4 plans. In hindsight nothing changed whatsoever, because the 2005 Railways Act would have had to be amended to alter the NR budget settlement.

AIUI that is still the situation now, as the Act hasn't been changed...

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Not necessarily a green eyed monster thing. Those DMU‘s are needed elsewhere, and since noone seems willing to build new one's, the Snow Hill route might berry most convenient to wire.

I have given reasons why the Snow Hill lines would not be the ideal choice for early electrification and for those reasons I would be shocked to the extreme if it were to happen.
As for the green eyed monster thing I would say that certain posters on this forum had never heard of/took no interest in the Snow Hill lines until the 172s came along. Are there people out there who would prefer nearly new 172s instead of extra routes in their own area being wired for whatever perverse reasoning.

 

[Darren R]

The Guardian mentions the A14, the Mersey Gateway (new road bridge east of Runcorn) and HS2 Phase 1 as the transport infrastructure projects 2014-20 to be approved on Thursday.
Somehow I don't think NR's CP5 plans will be changed.

Good ol' Grauniad - first with the news as ever: the Mersey Gateway bridge at Runcorn was confirmed by the Government last week. (At least according to the BBCs North West Tonight last Friday!)

 

[CockneySparrow]

Maybe new stations or reopening of old ones, round here there are two big cases being looked at

Soham, Fulbourn or Cherry Hinton not both (Cambridge)

Other projects that are being pushed is the reopening of the March to Wisbech line (less likely to be mentioned)

New rolling stock for Norwich to London

Ely North Junction new track layout (if not already given the green light)

 

[tbtc]

As for the green eyed monster thing I would say that certain posters on this forum had never heard of/took no interest in the Snow Hill lines until the 172s came along. Are there people out there who would prefer nearly new 172s instead of extra routes in their own area being wired for whatever perverse reasoning.

I think that the reason that the Snow Hill routes are mentioned on threads like this is because they appear to be a frequent DMU service (every ten minutes through the core).

Meanwhile we have a lot of DMUs running on other routes in the UK that are only on hourly (or so) services that have a poor business case for electrification.

So, it's appealing to wire up routes like Snow Hill to free up DMUs.

Obviously the far ends of the Snow Hill routes are less frequent (Stratford etc) which muddies things a little, but you'd free up more DMUs with a hundred miles of electrification on the Snow Hill corridor than you would wiring up several less frequent routes elsewhere in the country.

Bottom line is that a lot of lines will need a capacity increase over the next decade but it's increasingly hard to justify new builds of DMUs, so electrification becomes the best "means" to get to the "end" (of increased capacity).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

it would be nice if an A14 road upgrade was matched with a Felixstowe-Nuneaton electrification plan.

It would.

What annoys me with the political side of things is where the Government try to spread things around a lot (so that there's something in most regions), rather than spending the money where its best needed (e.g. it may well be that the A14 *and* the parallel railway both justify infrastructure upgrades, but there's more votes in only spending money on one East Anglian scheme and spending money on a project with a poorer business case in Lancashire/ Devon/ Humberside to try to win more votes).

Cynical, I know...

 

[CockneySparrow]

Mind you, it would be nice if an A14 road upgrade was matched with a Felixstowe-Nuneaton electrification plan.

This has actually been mentioned somewhere, I think by the passenger user group for the Ipswich to Cambridge/Ely have published something on this and given a year for it, sorry for being vague but working from memory I will look at their website in a bit, if it does become reality the section between Chippenham Junction and Cambridge through Newmarket and Dullingham will be done as well

One thing though it will be interesting to see if any possible electrification will travel as far as Felixstowe station as they are talking about closing the line to passengers between Ipswich and Felixstowe and replacing it with an express bus service

http://www.lowestoftjournal.co.uk/n...ce_hears_about_electrification_idea_1_1672627

 

[YorkshireBear]

I love the way people here actually think the general public give a stuff whether there are wires or not. They generally don't unless the wires lead to lower prices through lower running costs (Which they don't) or increased capacity due to newer trains (Which they sometimes do).

Getting super excited about electrification as if its the holy grail of railways is mostly an enthusiast thing. Often it's just something else to foul up the evening commute when there is a problem..

I suggest you research the sparks effect. What your saying is almost entirely false.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Electrification of the Snow Hill Lines only has a BCR of 1.0 so is unlikely to happen before CP6 when electrification could free up DMU's for 2024. Excluding the Gospel Oak to Barking line & Thames Haven Branch (BCR 2.4) I can't see any new scheme being approved without involving hundreds of miles of new electrification on top of what is already committed. (Basingstoke to Exeter has a BCR of 3.1 and Cross Country a BCR of 5.1 but is dependent upon completion of the GWML MML and North Transpennine).

 

[Eagle]

Personally I can't see the Snow Hill lines being done without the Chiltern Mainline, and vice versa.

If you did the Chiltern Mainline you'd need to go at least as far as Snow Hill, and you might as well continue to Worcester. And if you did the Snow Hill lines, then because of the electric spine you'd actually have wires from Birmingham all the way up to Aynho, so continuing to Marylebone wouldn't be too difficult.

 

[Goatboy]

I suggest you research the sparks effect. What your saying is almost entirely false.

I am familiar with it - the benefits of replacing steam locomotives with newer, cleaner and faster electric trains are considerably higher than the benefits of replacing modern diesel trains with electric trains.

The 'sparks effect' fades with time. These days people care little what powers the train provided it is clean, comfortable, reliable, reasonably quick and decent value. The main benefits of eletrification are to the industry rather than the passenger (Though I appreciate that, indirectly, what benefits the industry can lead to improvements for passengers).

Most passengers on a New Street service would probably think the servce had 'improved' if a 172 of the same length turned up one day vice a 323.

 

[DarloRich]

Maybe new stations or reopening of old ones, round here there are two big cases being looked at

Soham, Fulbourn or Cherry Hinton not both (Cambridge)

Other projects that are being pushed is the reopening of the March to Wisbech line (less likely to be mentioned)

New rolling stock for Norwich to London

Ely North Junction new track layout (if not already given the green light)

Unlikely that any of that will be announced, ESPECIALLY the opening of the Wisbech line.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Unlikely that any of that will be announced, ESPECIALLY the opening of the Wisbech line.

I agree that the Wisbech line won't get a mention, however I think its possible that stations might get mentioned if only in the term that "a certain amount of cash is put a side for new station projects"

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Lots of good discussion about wiring up lines, what is needed if this is to happen is a government commitment to underwrite the orders for loads of new EMUs as a matter of urgency.
We already had the Thameslink delay which will screw up the class 319 cascades to Northern and GW with the knock on effect of Turbos to elsewhere and so on.........
So lets hope that if anything positive comes out of this weeks political stuff it's the whole package not just wires with no pantographs attached to them!!!!!

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Personally I can't see the Snow Hill lines being done without the Chiltern Mainline, and vice versa.

If you did the Chiltern Mainline you'd need to go at least as far as Snow Hill, and you might as well continue to Worcester. And if you did the Snow Hill lines, then because of the electric spine you'd actually have wires from Birmingham all the way up to Aynho, so continuing to Marylebone wouldn't be too difficult.

I imagine that has a higher BCR than the snow hill lines alone but again is dependent upon the completion of electrification already committed too, so a probable scheme for CP6.

 

[IanXC]

Given where we are with Network Rail's funding schedule I can't see anything major for CP5. But if the Government are going to announce new infrastructure investment (which seems likely) my money would be on:
-an increase in the size of the New Stations Fund ("I am pleased to announce funding for all the bids received" -sounds tempting, and relatively cheap).
-some short extensions to existing wires (diversions, or perhaps some agreement in principle to Hull Trains wiring proposal).
-possibly further funds for level crossing removals (significant parts being bridges and roads which the wider constuction industry can be involved with).
-plus the preannounced schemes for further into the future mentioned further up the thread.

 

[northwichcat]

People suggested in 2009 that a change of government might effect the CP4 plans. In hindsight nothing changed whatsoever, because the 2005 Railways Act would have had to be amended to alter the NR budget settlement.

AIUI that is still the situation now, as the Act hasn't been changed...

It's not just what people suggested. The government paused all infrastructure projects (due to what they claimed the deficit being worst than the previous government omitted) and reviewed them 1 by 1. They confirmed North West electrification would happen before Thameslink.

 

[TheWalrus]

In terms of frequency it would make sense to wire Snow Hill as there is a 10 minute frequency in the core. This would free up many DMUs and also reduce the amount of diesel required considerably in comparison to other routes.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Agreed. I think Worcester through to Marylebone is inevitable as it kills two birds with one stone (the high density Snow Hill lines and the Chiltern mainline) but it is going to have to wait a while.

If for the sake of argument it does get completed within ten years, would it not make sense to electrify Worcester to Oxford too?

 

[Goatboy]

Agreed. I think Worcester through to Marylebone is inevitable as it kills two birds with one stone (the high density Snow Hill lines and the Chiltern mainline) but it is going to have to wait a while.

If for the sake of argument it does get completed within ten years, would it not make sense to electrify Worcester to Oxford too?

Lets just electrify everything and increase fares by 500% to fund it. Who cares about anything provided the trains are eletric?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

 

[RicP]

4 car test runs taking place next week (or the one after, can't quite remember what is for what) so the timing would be convenient...

Don't know where you have got this from, the users group would be the first to know. 4-car trains need quite a bit of infrastructure work, platforms, signals, stopping points etc., whereas using 3-car sets involves less capital expenditure, particularly as TfL's expansion priorities are for the East London and North London Lines, having ordered the 57 5th cars for the 378s.
Also wiring costs have been constantly over-inflated, again most professionals suggest £40m to £50m at the outside. Temporarily TfL could do a swap with Souhern to re-patriate 10 of their refurbished 313s, if TfL were to sponsor a few extra 377/6s to boost South London Services.

 

[Philip Elliott]

I suggest you research the sparks effect. What your saying is almost entirely false.

Simply throwing up the wires and replacing like for like (such as a 170 for a 377 or 150 for 318) won't make a jot of difference for passenger use. The so-called 'sparks effect' is the result of major timetable improvements that are usually done in line with electrification - usally faster and more frequent services run by new(er) rolling stock. When the West Coast was electrified in the '50s to '70s, the journey to Manchester was reduced by one hour and an hourly service was introduced for the first time - that was what produced the increased ridership. Similarly, TransPennine electrification will see the Liverpool - Newcastle journey reduce significantly and the frequency of Manchester - Leeds increased.

The best example of a boost in use without the need for electricity is the introduction of the Intercity 125 - often described as the 'saviour of BR'. Contrast that with the electrification of the ECML which turned out to be quite a damp squib...

 

[Goatboy]

Simply throwing up the wires and replacing like for like (such as a 170 for a 377 or 150 for 318) won't make a jot of difference for passenger use. The so-called 'sparks effect' is the result of major timetable improvements that are usually done in line with electrification - usally faster and more frequent services run by new(er) rolling stock. When the West Coast was electrified in the '50s to '70s, the journey to Manchester was reduced by one hour and an hourly service was introduced for the first time - that was what produced the increased ridership. Similarly, TransPennine electrification will see the Liverpool - Newcastle journey reduce significantly and the frequency of Manchester - Leeds increased.

The best example of a boost in use without the need for electricity is the introduction of the Intercity 125 - often described as the 'saviour of BR'. Contrast that with the electrification of the ECML which turned out to be quite a damp squib...

Exactly this. Passengers don't care about wires, they care about quality service and value for money. In the 60's and 70's wires appeared and replaced 'dirty, slow and old' steam trains with 'fast, clean and new' electric trains. Therefore 'Sparks Effect'.

Banging up wires everywhere in isolation does nothing but excite enthusiasts. I'm really not sure the average commuter is going to be suddenly impressed and appreciative that the fare increases they've suffered have gone towards the wonderful task of replacing the 165's they commute on with, from a passenger perspetive, largely identical 319's...

This forum is obsessed with 'getting the wires up'. As a regular traveller on a section of line that is currently unelectrified yet is often talked about here - the XC line to Bristol - I have no interest in 'wires going up', I just want value for money and better capacity. If that is a result of wiring the line then great but it's not like thats the only option either, is it? The main benefit of electrification is lower running costs but given this will never get passed to customers in the form of lower fares they largely won't benefit from it directly.