Is electrification needed to avoid a DMU order by 2020?

[po8crg]

Chancellor Osborne has just made an announcement in a speech in Derby (at Bombardier I believe)broadcast on BBC News that he has instructed Network Rail for electrification to be looked at between Bristol and Derby via Birmingham New Street.

Obviously a bit of an election stunt, but that's not a bad idea. It would free up a lot of 22x from XC (Swansea-Edinburgh would be entirely under the wires if all the other electrification is done, including Leeds-Sheffield). They'd only need diesels for the runs into the SW (and for their trains to Bournemouth/Southampton, but those don't use this line at all).

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Chancellor Osborne has just made an announcement in a speech in Derby (at Bombardier I believe)broadcast on BBC News that he has instructed Network Rail for electrification to be looked at between Bristol and Derby via Birmingham New Street.

Network Rail are struggling with current plans as it is.
How can they be expected to do this aswell?
This may result in a cut of direct services with Sheffield to Doncastet and Cardiff to Bristol not having wires put up at the same time.

 

[northwichcat]

Network Rail are struggling with current plans as it is.
How can they be expected to do this aswell?
This may result in a cut of direct services with Sheffield to Doncastet and Cardiff to Bristol not having wires put up at the same time.

Conservatives will probably add it to their manifesto and then if they are in government will confirm it as a CP7 project after the next election. While if Labour confirm it as a CP7 project after the next election they'll claim Labour are implementing their idea but are being too slow implementing it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Obviously a bit of an election stunt, but that's not a bad idea. It would free up a lot of 22x from XC (Swansea-Edinburgh would be entirely under the wires if all the other electrification is done, including Leeds-Sheffield). They'd only need diesels for the runs into the SW (and for their trains to Bournemouth/Southampton, but those don't use this line at all).

750DC is a possibility for the IEP/SET I believe, due to it being related to the Javelins.

Bimodes with shoes for XC, anyone?

 

[snowball]

Network Rail are struggling with current plans as it is.
How can they be expected to do this aswell?
This may result in a cut of direct services with Sheffield to Doncastet and Cardiff to Bristol not having wires put up at the same time.

I'm somewhat amazed to find myself defending anything said or done by Gideon, but forward planning is a good thing.

We need to have an idea of longer-distance routes that may be wired in the middle to latter part of CP6.

 

[AM9]

An argument people keep putting forward is LM got new 172s because they could afford them and Northern couldn't but given:
a) Subsidy figures aren't available on a line by line basis
b) The exact leasing costs of 142s and 172s are not known because they are commercially sensitive information
No-one can say for certain that the Snow Hill lines had a better case for new DMUs than the commuter routes around Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Bristol, Cardiff or any other city. (Well some people will know the exact figures but will likely have a contract of employment which forbids them from making those figures public.)

Given 50 x 170s should be off-lease from December 2018 it should be possible for bidders of the next Northern franchise to propose using the LM and LO 172s from December 2018. LO won't require 172s post-December 2018 while LM could take on Scotrail 170s as replacements, which could give them a more consistent fleet and reduce the need for them to operate 2 car 170s with a 153 tagged on the back.

If 172s have lower track and running costs, why should LM let them go and take on 170s. They (170S) don't have through corridors*, are heavier and I imagine have poorer acceleration. The next northern franchise bidders could just as easily take ex Scotrail 170s, plus they will have a pool of 156's that they can redistribute with the rest of their DMUs when the 319s replace them on what seems to be an ever increasing intake.
* Yes I know that the LO 172s dont have through corridors either, - they could replace the 150s on the Marston Vale line.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm somewhat amazed to find myself defending anything said or done by Gideon, but forward planning is a good thing.

We need to have an idea of longer-distance routes that may be wired in the middle to latter part of CP6.

We should also try and take the political grandstanding out of the process, which was part of the reason for the processes set up by the 2005 Railways Act.

This electrification 'section' was already in the original electrification RUS published in 2009, so Labour could argue that the Conservatives are simply 'keeping the pot boiling' anyway.

The idea that it is a sudden new idea drummed up for electioneering purposes doesn't really stand up.

 

[northwichcat]

If 172s have lower track and running costs, why should LM let them go and take on 170s.

Have you missed all recent rolling stock developments? Scotrail didn't choose to release the Eversholt 170s and TPE didn't choose to release to release the Porterbrook 170s. They lost them because their franchises and leases were coming to an end and another franchise were better placed to sign a long term deal for the rolling stock. The LM 172s are off-lease from 01/04/2016 and LM are unable to extend that because their franchise ends on the same date.

DfT are claiming they won't stand in the way of TOCs doing their own rolling stock deals so that should allow Northern or TPE to do something similar (to Chiltern and Southern) in the next 12 months if the finances work out. The lower track and running costs is exactly why Northern bidders may want to do that opposed to taking on the available Scotrail 170s.

In theory Northern and TPE could sign up the Scotrail 170s and all the LM/LO Turbostars. However, I was suggesting a more sensible and ethical solution.

 

[AM9]

Have you missed all recent rolling stock developments? Scotrail didn't choose to release the Eversholt 170s and TPE didn't choose to release to release the Porterbrook 170s. They lost them because their franchises and leases were coming to an end and another franchise were better placed to sign a long term deal for the rolling stock. The LM 172s are off-lease from 01/04/2016 and LM are unable to extend that because their franchise ends on the same date.

DfT are claiming they won't stand in the way of TOCs doing their own rolling stock deals so that should allow Northern or TPE to do something similar (to Chiltern and Southern) in the next 12 months if the finances work out. The lower track and running costs is exactly why Northern bidders may want to do that opposed to taking on the available Scotrail 170s.

In theory Northern and TPE could sign up the Scotrail 170s and all the LM/LO Turbostars. However, I was suggesting a more sensible and ethical solution.

"ethical solution"?

 

[Wolfie]

Chancellor Osborne has just made an announcement in a speech in Derby (at Bombardier I believe)broadcast on BBC News that he has instructed Network Rail for electrification to be looked at between Bristol and Derby via Birmingham New Street.

That'll be a study then.. zero actual commitment or timeline for implementation.. oh and the implication, given where he was giving the speech, that a certain firm might win the rolling-stock contract... anyone would think that there's an election coming up...

Have you missed all recent rolling stock developments? Scotrail didn't choose to release the Eversholt 170s and TPE didn't choose to release to release the Porterbrook 170s. They lost them because their franchises and leases were coming to an end and another franchise were better placed to sign a long term deal for the rolling stock. The LM 172s are off-lease from 01/04/2016 and LM are unable to extend that because their franchise ends on the same date.

DfT are claiming they won't stand in the way of TOCs doing their own rolling stock deals so that should allow Northern or TPE to do something similar (to Chiltern and Southern) in the next 12 months if the finances work out. The lower track and running costs is exactly why Northern bidders may want to do that opposed to taking on the available Scotrail 170s.

In theory Northern and TPE could sign up the Scotrail 170s and all the LM/LO Turbostars. However, I was suggesting a more sensible and ethical solution.

my bold

If Northern, which has publicly been described (whatever the rights and wrongs of that) as the most heavily subsidised TOC, takes rolling stock at greater cost from what has been de facto described as a more economically viable TOC, then I am afraid that the excrement will well and truly hit the fan. Being very cynical there are a lot more marginal constituencies in the Midlands than in the North too...

 

[The Ham]

Obviously a bit of an election stunt, but that's not a bad idea. It would free up a lot of 22x from XC (Swansea-Edinburgh would be entirely under the wires if all the other electrification is done, including Leeds-Sheffield). They'd only need diesels for the runs into the SW (and for their trains to Bournemouth/Southampton, but those don't use this line at all).

See the attached image which is XC's map with (most) of the electrification due by the end of 2019 shown in green.

With the latest bit as well it will make for quite a lot of their routes to be electrified.

The two bits which are missing which would free up a lot of units would be Sheffield to Wakefeild and Cardiff to Birmingham, the latter would allow all the Cardiff Central to Nottingham services to become EMU's.

 

[TheKnightWho]

See the attached image which is XC's map with (most) of the electrification due by the end of 2019 shown in green.

With the latest bit as well it will make for quite a lot of their routes to be electrified.

The two bits which are missing which would free up a lot of units would be Sheffield to Wakefeild and Cardiff to Birmingham, the latter would allow all the Cardiff Central to Nottingham services to become EMU's.

The bit from Southampton to Bournemouth is a bit misleading, as that will remain 750DC.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Network Rail are struggling with current plans as it is. How can they be expected to do this aswell?

Surely there has to be a way - hire more people - great for unemployment figures- subcontract a huge amount of the work. It just totally upsets me that for whatever reason we have governments of all shades wanting electrification- once in a lifetime - and the railways can not capitalize on this golden opportunity.

I'm somewhat amazed to find myself defending anything said or done by Gideon, but forward planning is a good thing.

We need to have an idea of longer-distance routes that may be wired in the middle to latter part of CP6.

My bold- AB-SO-LUTE-LY

We should also try and take the political grandstanding out of the process, which was part of the reason for the processes set up by the 2005 Railways Act.

This electrification 'section' was already in the original electrification RUS published in 2009, so Labour could argue that the Conservatives are simply 'keeping the pot boiling' anyway.

The idea that it is a sudden new idea drummed up for electioneering purposes doesn't really stand up.

I totally agree on all points

 

[HSTEd]

If the D78 works you could always try the same type of thing on the 313s - they might be convertable into some sort of stopgap electrodiesel unit (25kV/Diesel that is)

 

[Class 170101]

See the attached image which is XC's map with (most) of the electrification due by the end of 2019 shown in green.

With the latest bit as well it will make for quite a lot of their routes to be electrified.

The two bits which are missing which would free up a lot of units would be Sheffield to Wakefield and Cardiff to Birmingham, the latter would allow all the Cardiff Central to Nottingham services to become EMU's.

Actually the only bit missing between Cardiff and Birmingham would be Gloucester Yard Jn / Barnwood Jn to Severn Tunnel Jn assuming existing announcements are honoured and carried out. Arguably the service could be diverted via the Severn Tunnel and Bristol Parkway.

Sheffield to Doncaster, Sheffield to Wakefield Westgate and Sheffield to York via Pontefract should be all done as one scheme.

 

[po8crg]

See the attached image which is XC's map with (most) of the electrification due by the end of 2019 shown in green.

With the latest bit as well it will make for quite a lot of their routes to be electrified.

The two bits which are missing which would free up a lot of units would be Sheffield to Wakefeild and Cardiff to Birmingham, the latter would allow all the Cardiff Central to Nottingham services to become EMU's.

That shows the Chiltern Main Line and the Cherwell Valley Line as being electrified, which is news to me. I thought there was a gap somewhere between Oxford and Coventry even after EWR and GWML electrification.

Obviously Basingstoke-Bournemouth is third rail, but XC would need new electric trains anyway, so why not get dual-voltage? Unless that line gets converted to AC all the way to Bournemouth (or even Weymouth, which is where the third rail actually runs).

 

[northwichcat]

"ethical solution"?

LM won't have any capacity robbed off them if they retain at least the same number of Turbostar carriages and 170s also have nicer seating than 172s, so there would no disadvantage for LM passengers as a result of my suggested swap. This is very different to TPE getting 156s (which should have been providing extra capacity on Northern services) to replace Chiltern bound 170s and it also being likely some Northern services will be 142/150s from May instead of 156s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If Northern, which has publicly been described (whatever the rights and wrongs of that) as the most heavily subsidised TOC, takes rolling stock at greater cost from what has been de facto described as a more economically viable TOC, then I am afraid that the excrement will well and truly hit the fan. Being very cynical there are a lot more marginal constituencies in the Midlands than in the North too...

My point was Northern could take the Scotrail 170s but the 170s will likely cost more to operate than the 172s.

Alternatively, Northern could sign a deal for the LM/LO 172s and leave a number of Scotrail 170s for the next LM franchise. LM could also gain some extra Turbostar carriages and eliminate their 170+153 workings. So it could be potentially a good deal for both operators, even though a Midland MP in opposition might like to make a fuss about the North taking their new trains and the replacements being 10 years older.

If Northern have a franchise requirement to at least reduce the number of Pacers they operate (as expected) and Angel Trains still want to scrap them rather than make try and make them accessible then Northern will be forced to take on alternative rolling stock. Taking on 170/2s would provide a better case for keeping the subsidy down than taking on 185s.

 

[edwin_m]

That shows the Chiltern Main Line and the Cherwell Valley Line as being electrified, which is news to me. I thought there was a gap somewhere between Oxford and Coventry even after EWR and GWML electrification.

The electrification is to run from Oxford via Leamington to Coventry. The gap is between Leamington and Birmingham via Solihull. Some XC use this route but it's possible they could be diverted via Coventry instead, albeit with some detriment to local trains. Of course the Solihull route then becomes a possible infill, especially if combined with the Camp Hill and Sutton Park lines to give an electric freight route that avoids the Wolverhampton-Coventry section.

 

[Class 170101]

185s will doubtless have journey times penalties on some of Northern's routes cpmpared to 14x 15x and 170s if taken on.

 

[po8crg]

The electrification is to run from Oxford via Leamington to Coventry. The gap is between Leamington and Birmingham via Solihull. Some XC use this route but it's possible they could be diverted via Coventry instead, albeit with some detriment to local trains. Of course the Solihull route then becomes a possible infill, especially if combined with the Camp Hill and Sutton Park lines to give an electric freight route that avoids the Wolverhampton-Coventry section.

Ah, thanks. Have googled now, and I gather that Leamington - Coventry will be doubled as part of the same works, which means that the XC diversion shouldn't hurt local trains too badly.

 

[AM9]

LM won't have any capacity robbed off them if they retain the same number of Turbostar carriages and 170s also have nicer seating than 172s, so there would no disadvantage for LM passengers as a result of my suggested swap. This is very different to TPE getting 156s (which should have been providing extra capacity on Northern services) to replace Chiltern bound 170s and it also being likely some Northern services will be 142/150s from May instead of 156s.

I think that you've missed the point of all the horse trading that goes on between ROSCOs and TOCs under the watch of the DfT and their predecessors. The rolling stock part of the UK's railways since 'privatisation' has been all about three things:
1) to weaken the rail unions that operated when there was a single employer (BR)
2) to sell-off a national asset to business
3) to allow various commercial enterprises to generate profit from operating in a quasi-competitive non state-run railway
Passengers are just pawns in this game. There are no ethical values in the processes, except when there is an opportunity for the government of the day to score points with their intended voters. So arguments about the relative running costs of different train classes, how comfortable the seats are for certain types of service, whether one franchise (or it's passengers) have any presumed entitlement to certain types of stock etc. are just lost in the noise of maximising large international groups' profits.
The DfT are complicit in this farrago in protecting it's survival and when necessary jumping to the government of the day's political needs.

There, that's got it off my chest. You must believe that I honestly don't find the above anything less than scandalous, but this is the way it has been since the first privatisers in the '80s got that glint in their collective eyes.

So in my view, terms like 'robbing' and 'ethical' are not part of the process.

 

[The Ham]

The bit from Southampton to Bournemouth is a bit misleading, as that will remain 750DC.

I said that the line was electrified, not by what method. Duel voltage trains are not that difficult to produce if XC where to want to use EMU's.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I said that the line was electrified, not by what method. Duel voltage trains are not that difficult to produce if XC where to want to use EMU's.

Clearing the shoes over a large proportion of the network *is* more of a problem though.

 

[Chris125]

Ah, thanks. Have googled now, and I gather that Leamington - Coventry will be doubled as part of the same works, which means that the XC diversion shouldn't hurt local trains too badly.

IIRC only partial doubling is proposed, indeed one section has only ever been single track.

 

[po8crg]

Clearing the shoes over a large proportion of the network *is* more of a problem though.

Are retractable shoes possible?

 

[edwin_m]

Are retractable shoes possible?

The dual-voltage Electrostars already have them.

 

[northwichcat]

I think that you've missed the point of all the horse trading that goes on between ROSCOs and TOCs under the watch of the DfT and their predecessors. The rolling stock part of the UK's railways since 'privatisation' has been all about three things:
1) to weaken the rail unions that operated when there was a single employer (BR)
2) to sell-off a national asset to business
3) to allow various commercial enterprises to generate profit from operating in a quasi-competitive non state-run railway
Passengers are just pawns in this game. There are no ethical values in the processes, except when there is an opportunity for the government of the day to score points with their intended voters. So arguments about the relative running costs of different train classes, how comfortable the seats are for certain types of service, whether one franchise (or it's passengers) have any presumed entitlement to certain types of stock etc. are just lost in the noise of maximising large international groups' profits.
The DfT are complicit in this farrago in protecting it's survival and when necessary jumping to the government of the day's political needs.

There, that's got it off my chest. You must believe that I honestly don't find the above anything less than scandalous, but this is the way it has been since the first privatisers in the '80s got that glint in their collective eyes.

So in my view, terms like 'robbing' and 'ethical' are not part of the process.

What DfT wanted and what has happened recently have been 2 different things. The recent deals have been nothing like the ones following the introduction of the 172s where DfT specifically allocated each released carriage to a new operator.

DfT apparently wanted the TPE 170s to be freed up by electrification and then to transfer to Southern, even though Southern were expected to get released Turbostars in 2016 but TPE were expected to need them until 2018 - confusion at DfT isn't new!

However, DfT have also claimed they want to create a free rolling stock market and Chiltern (unlike Northern or TPE) don't have a franchise agreement stating they can't take on additional carriages unless approved by DfT. Therefore, Chiltern decided to take on 170s because the other alternative was loco-hauled and Chiltern's finances aren't as good as they should be so they needed a cheaper option.

DfT had no plans for TPE to forfeit stock as early as 2015 but have tried to make it sound like a good news announcement - highlighting 4 car 156s will replace 3 car 185s, omitting that on one evening peak working they'll be a 4 car 156 instead of a 6 car 185 and that some services will be operated by a 3 car 185 instead of a 4 car 170. And that's what DfT always do - highlight the good news from any rolling stock deals in a press release and hide the back news in a long detailed download available with the press release then most people won't bother reading.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The dual-voltage Electrostars already have them.

I wasn't aware this was a thing.

Unless Hitachi have already specified them as an option for the IEP I can't see it being worth it over the bimode for such short stretches, though. Currently you've got Southampton to Bournemouth and the occasional Reading to Guildford (over the very short stretch that's 3rd rail at that) that could benefit from it. Basingstoke to Southampton if the Electric Spine doesn't get done.

It doesn't really seem enough to make it worthwhile, even if you start adding in places like Brighton back into the mix. These places are ultimately destined to be converted OHLE, and so the bimodes can just use that if/when it happens within their lifetimes (i.e. before c. 2060).

 

[HSTEd]

The 395s have retractable shoes.
And its likely XC would go all electric before it goes bimode, they will probably retain the Voyagers until this is possible.
Also AC conversion is looking very shakey with all the electrification delays and DMU crunch meaning all 25kV construction resources are needed elsewhere.

 

[AM9]

What DfT wanted and what has happened recently have been 2 different things. The recent deals have been nothing like the ones following the introduction of the 172s where DfT specifically allocated each released carriage to a new operator.

DfT apparently wanted the TPE 170s to be freed up by electrification and then to transfer to Southern, even though Southern were expected to get released Turbostars in 2016 but TPE were expected to need them until 2018 - confusion at DfT isn't new!

However, DfT have also claimed they want to create a free rolling stock market and Chiltern (unlike Northern or TPE) don't have a franchise agreement stating they can't take on additional carriages unless approved by DfT. Therefore, Chiltern decided to take on 170s because the other alternative was loco-hauled and Chiltern's finances aren't as good as they should be so they needed a cheaper option.

DfT had no plans for TPE to forfeit stock as early as 2015 but have tried to make it sound like a good news announcement - highlighting 4 car 156s will replace 3 car 185s, omitting that on one evening peak working they'll be a 4 car 156 instead of a 6 car 185 and that some services will be operated by a 3 car 185 instead of a 4 car 170. And that's what DfT always do - highlight the good news from any rolling stock deals in a press release and hide the back news in a long detailed download available with the press release then most people won't bother reading.

None of the above true as it maybe, changes anything that I said in post #141.