Potentially as simple as after opening they realised there were blind spots in the lighting design or they then had the cash to expand beyond that specified and budgeted for in the design.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Found a working (not final) copy of the electrification task force report it is in two parts and dated 5th and 10th December but was published 24th January and I believe it to be final or near final form agreed that week at the final meeting of the task force to be submitted to the Secretary of State. The report version 5.0 final and 5.2 'revised to reflect task force increased emphasis on economic benefits'.
Firstly couple of changes in remit since the start, originally to meet 'monthly or more frequently' changed to 'every 2-3 months'. Original membership 'The Steering Group will consist of senior officials from DfT, Rail North and Network Rail.' became 'The Task Force will consist of a three MPs from the North of England (nominated through the existing All-Party Parliamentary Rail in the North Group), two local authority Leaders nominated by the Rail North consortium, and senior officials from Network Rail and DfT. The Task Force will elect its own chair/co-chair, or may choose an independent person to chair.' Two other objectives were added;
*Considering the interdependence of service planning and the impact of making changes
* Defining an overarching objective for choosing or prioritising electrification projects – e.g. is it cost/environmental issues/supporting or stimulating economic growth/reducing journey speeds?
Part 1 (14 pages) baseline criteria
Part 2 (12 pages) prioritisation criteria
To summarise prioritisation conclusion is to reject standard cost benefit ratio criteria as not capturing wider social and economic benefits and prejudging the do-minimum requirement by focusing purely on cost and financial return, disregarding cost allows consideration of the opportunity to improve not just the benefit. Second criterion will be that used in the NR electrification refresh which is diesel km replaced however it will be supplemented with another criteria which is rolling stock replaced to align it with the political and economic aims of One North. More effort should be devoted to electrification resources if this process is to lead to a tangible increase in electrification and public perception of electrification (i.e. for political gain routes with higher public perception should be prioritised) it should be an ongoing process through CP6 recognising synergy between schemes and the efficient use of resources, industry capacity to deliver and availability of appropriate rolling stock.
They say there is currently the industry capacity to electrify 50-60 double track km per year but there is 2000-2500km needing electrification which would take 40 years unless resources are increased. It wants the rate of electrification to be stepped up through CP6 and CP7 to coincide with rolling stock replacement dates with a lot requiring replacement within 10 years time.
Currently available electric rolling stock is 4 car and replacing 2xDMU formations offers little to no increase in capacity and may be overprovision in offpeak, they also offer very poor acceleration (emphasised) as they are used to operating in outer suburban flat country and wont be able to cope with Northern line gradients.
Suggested evaluation criteria:
Economic impact, decongestion, commuter improvement to be summed and normalised through the proxy of Route kms electrified with a score of 0-8
0-2 will be awarded for imput to economic improvement aspirations.
Total economic 10 points
Impact on costs, services and environment through diesel vehicle km divided by electrification track kms and grouped by percentiles 0-10 points
Rolling stock enhancement and replacement; diesel vehicles replaced, overcrowding by end of CP6 and age/quality of rolling stock, 0-10 points
Weighting to generate a score out of 100 for scheme comparison
Economic 5.0
Impact on Services 2.0
Rolling stock enhancement and replacement 3.0
First part of the report deals with geographic scope, lists all projects in progress at (various development stages) and three projects outside the NR RUS process and reports remit; Temple Hirst Junction – Selby - Hull (funding for business case, political backing, no commitment), Leeds – Harrogate – York (business case developed by local business, no commitment), Manchester – Bradford – Leeds & Hall Royd Junction – West Coast Mainline (Preston-Leeds with Rochdale line to Manchester as a spur, outline business cases and inclusion in Leeds local plan).
Finally groups the remaining unelectrified lines into service groups though emphasises the service groups wouldn't be evaluated as distinct or complete entitities.
So ultimately they've agreed an evaluation and prioritisation formula but any specific scheme development would come from the NR Electrification refresh.
