Electrification Taskforce Final Report

[po8crg]

Well there is a third but I don't see there being a Somewhere-Manchester-Manchester Airport-Northwich-Wigan and beyond service.

Liverpool-Earlestown-Warrington BQ-Northwich-Manchester Airport-Manchester-somewhere as an extension of the Liverpool-Warrington BQ stopper? Bit of a long and winding route, but it might be a better connection to the airport from Warrington than Central via Manchester. Also, could be the Acton Bridge service, freeing Liverpool-Birmingham from serving that stop (though you could say the same for a Liverpool-Runcorn-ManAir train).

Also, I suppose, Crewe via Middlewich, which would get some Manchester-Crewe locals off the WCML. The trouble being that's only an hourly service anyway, and something has to serve Goostrey, Chelford and Holmes Chapel.

 

[TrickyHex]

I now see how the priority has been decided... Take a look at the make up if the task force board !

How the hell can Harrogate, Clitheroe abd Buxton be a greater priority that Sheffield-Manchester ? For that matter how can Whitby be on the same level as Sheffield-Manchester ? These guys need a boot up the backside !

It is hard not to be trifle cynical about the outcome of the report. Sure enough, there appears to be a systematic approach to this with the weighting system, however such approaches do sometimes lead to strange outcomes. It comes back to what I raised previously about if any sensitivity analysis had been done to see if using different weightling emphasis yielded a widely different set of priorities.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It comes back to what I raised previously about if any sensitivity analysis had been done to see if using different weightling emphasis yielded a widely different set of priorities.

The CEO of my company says that the problem with analysis is you get "Paralysis by analysis"

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, as part of a Tyne Tees Connectivity Study in 2006, and which was followed up by a detailed study in 2007 to look at reopening the Leamside Line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TyneTees_Express

Latest thinking seems to be that improving the service via the Coast would be better value than running via the Stillington line (as the Ferryhill-Stockton line is known). The Stillington route misses the important intermediate centres of Sunderland and Hartlepool and if combined with a Leamside line routeing it also misses Durham and therefore serves no major centres that the Coast line doesn't. If it doesn't run via Leamside then it would have capacity problems on the ECML.

 

[Greybeard33]

As I mentioned previously electrification of the Mid-Cheshire line wasn't included in Cheshire & Warrington LEP's local transport priorities. As Watcherzero pointed out it's TfGM and the Freight Operators Association who recommended the line for electrification. TfGM did previously say they thought heavy rail improvements would provide better value for money than tram-trains running beyond Altrincham.

I think the FOA sees the Mid-Cheshire, together with the Northwich to Sandbach branch, as a future strategic freight route, relieving the double track bottlenecks on the WCML (Sandbach to Stockport and Winsford to Hartford) as well as carrying Transpennine North (via Denton) and South (via Cheadle Heath) flows and westward flows from the Peak District quarries.

But I suspect they will want to see gauge clearance to W10 at the same time as electrification, increasing the project cost.

Also, I suppose, Crewe via Middlewich, which would get some Manchester-Crewe locals off the WCML. The trouble being that's only an hourly service anyway, and something has to serve Goostrey, Chelford and Holmes Chapel.

I believe Manchester Airport has a long-standing aspiration for direct services to Stoke via Crewe.

 

[Haydn1971]

It is hard not to be trifle cynical about the outcome of the report. Sure enough, there appears to be a systematic approach to this with the weighting system

Is that outlined in the 60 pages ? I've not had the enthusiasm to read through it word by word.

 

[TrickyHex]

The report sets out how they have done it but doesnt appear to mention anything about testing alternative weightings to see what effect these would have. It needs a lot of analysis and tabulation (which I havent done!) to compare the detail for each scheme against the others.

 

[TBY-Paul]

Latest thinking seems to be that improving the service via the Coast would be better value than running via the Stillington line (as the Ferryhill-Stockton line is known). The Stillington route misses the important intermediate centres of Sunderland and Hartlepool and if combined with a Leamside line routeing it also misses Durham and therefore serves no major centres that the Coast line doesn't. If it doesn't run via Leamside then it would have capacity problems on the ECML.

If the Tyne & Wear Metro was extended from South Hylton to the proposed Penshaw (Coxgreen Rd) station, that would create a connection to Sunderland. The proposed Station at Belmont would be beside the present Park & Ride site for Durham.

If Leamside was re-opened and the Stillington Line upgraded for passenger use it would not only create a faster route between Teesside and Newcastle but also create a faster route (faster than along the Coast route) from Newcastle to Skelton Jct that avoids the ECML.

 

[edwin_m]

If the Tyne & Wear Metro was extended from South Hylton to the proposed Penshaw (Coxgreen Rd) station, that would create a connection to Sunderland. The proposed Station at Belmont would be beside the present Park & Ride site for Durham.

But who is going to use a Metro connection out of Sunderland and a bus connection out of Durham when both would be slower than their respective city centre stations once the time for the connecting journey is added in?

If Leamside was re-opened and the Stillington Line upgraded for passenger use it would not only create a faster route between Teesside and Newcastle but also create a faster route (faster than along the Coast route) from Newcastle to Skelton Jct that avoids the ECML.

And why would anyone want to use that when all trains but one stop at Darlington and most at Durham? Leamside/Stillington would have a very slow exit from Newcastle and severe restrictions at Pelaw, Victoria Bridge and Stockton. It's possible as a freight bypass and perhaps a local passenger service to regenerate communities along the route, but no way will it ever be faster than the ECML.

 

[CdBrux]

And why would anyone want to use that when all trains but one stop at Darlington and most at Durham? Leamside/Stillington would have a very slow exit from Newcastle and severe restrictions at Pelaw, Victoria Bridge and Stockton. It's possible as a freight bypass and perhaps a local passenger service to regenerate communities along the route, but no way will it ever be faster than the ECML.

At the risk of drifting rather off topic I do remember that the OneNorth report from some months back, of which I think we are due an update in the coming weeks, did mention that such a re-opening could be a priority for them. Maybe that was just a concept stage and with further analysis it may not give enough benefits, however it does seem to be in their thinking, so I would assume there must be some merits to it?

 

[TBY-Paul]

But who is going to use a Metro connection out of Sunderland and a bus connection out of Durham when both would be slower than their respective city centre stations once the time for the connecting journey is added in?

Your making the assumption that that Passengers who use Darlington,Durham and Sunderland are not travelling to other places once they get off the train. How many passengers get off at Durham, jump on the park & ride Bus to pick-up their car for onward travel? or have someone pick them up from the Station?
The Same with Sunderland, How many will get off a train at Sunderland and then get on board a Metro train to there final destination?

Darlington is the same. With the latest timetable change, if your travelling from Thornaby-Saltburn to anywhere South, NRE suggests changing at York not Darlington!!!

When I travel, I have to check Trains from Thornaby, Eaglescliffe or Darlington all three give different "Total" journey times (from Home),and prices also vary significantly. It can be quicker and cheaper to travel by car to Darlington than get on at Thornaby.

And why would anyone want to use that when all trains but one stop at Darlington and most at Durham? Leamside/Stillington would have a very slow exit from Newcastle and severe restrictions at Pelaw, Victoria Bridge and Stockton. It's possible as a freight bypass and perhaps a local passenger service to regenerate communities along the route, but no way will it ever be faster than the ECML.

Of course it will never be faster than the ECML, I never said it would. But it would give you scope to maybe send an odd KGX-NCL stopper via this route or the odd TPE (NCL-Liverpool) which would free up capacity on ECML for KGX to EDB services

 

[glbotu]

Surely any re-opening of Leamside should focus on Washington first, followed by somewhere like Consett, which are areas without recognised rail links. I agree the Durham Coast Line needs a major frequency upgrade, even though Sunderland - Newcastle is very well served (5tph Metro + 1tph Northern).

 

[edwin_m]

Your making the assumption that that Passengers who use Darlington,Durham and Sunderland are not travelling to other places once they get off the train. How many passengers get off at Durham, jump on the park & ride Bus to pick-up their car for onward travel? or have someone pick them up from the Station?
The Same with Sunderland, How many will get off a train at Sunderland and then get on board a Metro train to there final destination?

A separate service via Leamside and/or Stillington, serving the small communities on that route, may well be worth doing and will save some people from driving to an existing railhead. But as far as I'm concerned it shouldn't be at the expense of Sunderland, Darlington, Durham and Hartlepool all of which serve larger communities that are mostly within walking distance of their stations.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It is hard not to be trifle cynical about the outcome of the report. Sure enough, there appears to be a systematic approach to this with the weighting system, however such approaches do sometimes lead to strange outcomes. It comes back to what I raised previously about if any sensitivity analysis had been done to see if using different weightling emphasis yielded a widely different set of priorities.

If an outcome seems surprising then it might be that what we consider generally "obvious" might be wrong, rather than instantly throwing into doubt their methodology...

 

[TrickyHex]

If an outcome seems surprising then it might be that what we consider generally "obvious" might be wrong, rather than instantly throwing into doubt their methodology...

Granted. However the report lacks the transparency to allow any cross checks. Whilst there is some info and data in the appendices, it is not sufficient to do the sums oneself. Without that it is difficult to have confidence in it. Having said that, it is not the first and certainly wont be the last example of this sort of analysis in transport or other areas of public policy. HS2 has had revised rates of return over time for example.

Enough of this however and back to following the threads covering the wiring which is actually happening (albeit more slowly than we would like)

 

[Olaf]

The capabilities, capacity, efficiency and effectiveness of NR's planning and project teams will have to be improved markedly in order for these proposals to get on the work list for CP6.

As it stands it has officially been acknowledged by the DfT that the CP5 electrification schemes are not deliverable, in full, within CP5:
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...-and-transpennine-electrification-are-delayed

Additional project and planning resources will be needed to deal with the delays, but we also need to see some people invited to leave the NR organisation; failure to deliver to plan is an unacceptable cardinal sin.

 

[Class 170101]

Additional project and planning resources will be needed to deal with the delays, but we also need to see some people invited to leave the NR organisation; failure to deliver to plan is an unacceptable cardinal sin.

Problem is all the experienced people have left and become consultants - working for companies employed by NR or as consultants directly for NR on higher pay than before.

I would suggest no lessons have been learnt during the previous re-organisations since Railtrack was created in mid 1990s.

 

[Olaf]

Problem is all the experienced people have left and become consultants - working for companies employed by NR or as consultants directly for NR on higher pay than before.

I would suggest no lessons have been learnt during the previous re-organisations since Railtrack was created in mid 1990s.

I think you're right.

 

[lejog]

Granted. However the report lacks the transparency to allow any cross checks. Whilst there is some info and data in the appendices, it is not sufficient to do the sums oneself. Without that it is difficult to have confidence in it.

Even as someone with a background in statistics, I think you're asking far too much at this stage, yes I hope those who actually did the donkey work have alternative spreadsheets using different weighting factors but publishing them now would only cloud the big picture.

Unless I'm confusing task forces, they have waved a couple of fingers at DfT/Network Rail and changed their own remit from looking at the rail industry's chosen eight lines to all lines in the North. And surprise, surprise only one of the rail industry's favoured lines comes in the top 5 - 2 of 8 are demoted to tier 2 and 5 new priorities identified (4 of these in the top 5).

Sir Humphrey in the DfT will not be pleased.

 

[CdBrux]

Interesting, we'll maybe find out just how committed the next government is to pushing decision making out from the centre!

 

[lejog]

Indeed, although I do find it encouraging that a cross-party group of MPs and council leaders have developed a back bone.

It has also occurred to me that rather than criticising the level of detail of the task force's statistical approach, it would be more appropriate to compare their approach to that of the rail industry in an attempt to explain and reconcile the two very different results. The task force have published their methodology in some detail, would anyone like to explain how the DfT and Network Rail came up with their list?

 

[po8crg]

Nice to have an engineer on the group too (Ian Swales MP). Makes them much harder to bull****. Is he the only one in the Commons?

 

[snowball]

Unless I'm confusing task forces, they have waved a couple of fingers at DfT/Network Rail and changed their own remit from looking at the rail industry's chosen eight lines to all lines in the North. And surprise, surprise only one of the rail industry's favoured lines comes in the top 5 - 2 of 8 are demoted to tier 2 and 5 new priorities identified (4 of these in the top 5).

Sir Humphrey in the DfT will not be pleased.

That's my impression too. They also seem to have proposed a much faster programme than DfT/NR had in mind. They seem to have effectively hijacked the task force set up by the DfT. I'm amazed DfT let them get away with it. The forthcoming electrification RUS Refresh may bring things back down to earth.

 

[TheKnightWho]

That's my impression too. They also seem to have proposed a much faster programme than DfT/NR had in mind. They seem to have effectively hijacked the task force set up by the DfT. I'm amazed DfT let them get away with it. The forthcoming electrification RUS Refresh may bring things back down to earth.

What are the chosen 8 in the north?

And frankly, why wouldn't the DfT want to reshape their priorities in lieu of this?

 

[lejog]

What are the chosen 8 in the north?

This was the announcement made in December 2013. What happened was rather different, Rail North and the all party Parliamentary Group for Rail in the North seemed to have usurped the Dft/Network Rail.

The Department for Transport is to establish a joint taskforce with infrastructure manager Network Rail to study options for further electrification in northern England.

Announcing the plan on December 13, DfT said the taskforce would work with train operators, local authorities including the Rail North consortium, the supply industry and local Members of Parliament to produce an interim report within 12 months setting out how the schemes can be progressed.

The routes to be examined will include:

Leeds - Harrogate - York;
Selby - Hull;
Sheffield - Leeds;
Sheffield - Doncaster;
East Coast Main Line - Middlesbrough;
Sheffield - Manchester;
Warrington - Chester;
Crewe - Chester;

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/taskforce-to-study-electrification-in-northern-england.html

And frankly, why wouldn't the DfT want to reshape their priorities in lieu of this?

Because the DfT (like the rest of Whitehall), are highly resistant to any form of decentralisation, its akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.

 

[TheKnightWho]

This was the announcement made in December 13. What happened was rather different, Rail North and the all party Parliamentary Group for Rail in the North seemed to have usurped the Dft/Network Rail.



http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/taskforce-to-study-electrification-in-northern-england.html



Because the DfT (like the rest of Whitehall), are highly resistant to any form of decentralisation, its akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.

Gotcha. At the end of the day, though, any suppression of this surely won't go down well. Decentralisation is also on the political agenda at the moment, and with Rail North already being politically supported as it is I can't see the DfT being able to do much about it. It also doesn't make sense for them to, unless Rail North are supposed to exist simply as yes-men.

You can't put the cat back in the bag, either with Rail North or what they've just published.

 

[WatcherZero]

You've misinterpreted, their terms of reference task them with identifying and creating a program of works. The 8 lines were those the Government asked them to include for political reasons.

http://www.railnorth.org/wp-content...-Rail-Electrification-Task-Force-v2-clean.pdf

 

[snowball]

The original DfT press release is here and was my original source of info about the taskforce. It doesn't overemphasize "Rail North".

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/road-and-rail-projects-to-boost-local-and-regional-transport--2

 

[DarloRich]

The forthcoming electrification RUS Refresh may bring things back down to earth.

Sadly for many, with a resounding thump!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

the...task force have published their methodology in some detail, would anyone like to explain how the DfT and Network Rail came up with their list?

By using some intelligence, understanding how thin the available resources are spread (both human and financial), understanding something of the vastly competing pressures on those resources, actually looking at what will offer best value for money in detail, looking at what will offer a return in an acceptable time frame and where passenger numbers can be grown to increase fare revenue rather than pie in the sky wouldn’t it be nice if..... type ideas!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Gotcha. At the end of the day, though, any suppression of this surely won't go down well. Decentralisation is also on the political agenda at the moment, and with Rail North already being politically supported as it is I can't see the DfT being able to do much about it. It also doesn't make sense for them to, unless Rail North are supposed to exist simply as yes-men.

You can't put the cat back in the bag, either with Rail North or what they've just published.

The Taskforce has offered priorities, but aren't paying the bills.
Rail North can't have control of the network without taking on the costs too, which is nowhere near agreed.
When the gate for more electrification opens, I expect it will be the same mix of political and economic factors which determines the list.
In the meantime, it's up to Network Rail to get meaningful metrics on costs, resourcing and timescales (currently not credible).