Examples Where Projects Could Have Delivered Significantly More Without Spending More Than "5%" More

[Glenn1969]

Why can they not make it electric and run it through to Berwick? Is it not possible to turn anything round at Berwick station? Also I have wondered if East Linton and Reston might make people think of a Newcastle to Edinburgh stopper that could replace this service?

 

[A0]

In that case:

Isn't there an unelectrified turnback siding at Morpeth that's preventing the Newcastle - Anmouth local from going electric ?

Aren't the Morpeth services covered using the same units as the Tyne Valley - it's part of the same diagram ? And since the Tyne Valley isn't wired, it has to be DMUs.

 

[zwk500]

It seems a shame that for such a small length of knitting, they could use one of the many fleets of redundant electric stock being retired !

If it's such a small length of knitting why not set up a crowdfunder to pay for the extra mast and hundred meters of wire?

Why can they not make it electric and run it through to Berwick? Is it not possible to turn anything round at Berwick station? Also I have wondered if East Linton and Reston might make people think of a Newcastle to Edinburgh stopper that could replace this service?

Crew, Units and Demand I imagine. If you need to pay an extra driver or 2, you need at least some revenue to cover that cost. I suspect Morpeth hasn't been chosen by accident. It is perfectly possible to turn services round at Berwick, yes. Either reverse in the platform and use the crossover south of the station or duck into the Up Goods Loop.

With Reston being built, I wouldn't expect a Newcastle-Edinburgh all stations, but Newcastle-Berwick and Berwick-Edinburgh is possible (but I really have no idea)

 

[Anvil1984]

Why can they not make it electric and run it through to Berwick? Is it not possible to turn anything round at Berwick station? Also I have wondered if East Linton and Reston might make people think of a Newcastle to Edinburgh stopper that could replace this service?

As i mentioned further up thread ECML electrification actually killed the stopper to Berwick in 1991 (and 1988 to 1991 saw a decrease in the Chathill services) which also saw some Edinburgh services even further in the past. A rare occasion of electrification killing local services. I'm lead to believe that Berwick used to have a bay platform to service this but can't find a picture, I can't imagine the powers that be liking a unit sat on the platform even for a few minutes the way things are

 

[yorksrob]

Aren't the Morpeth services covered using the same units as the Tyne Valley - it's part of the same diagram ? And since the Tyne Valley isn't wired, it has to be DMUs.

It does seem a lot of unnecessary running under the wires, in this age of clean air legislation, carbon savings and DMU shortages ! Perhaps they should split the service and have done with it.

If it's such a small length of knitting why not set up a crowdfunder to pay for the extra mast and hundred meters of wire?

If I was going to crowdfund anything, it would be to extend the Huds - Cass stopper to York !

 

[Glenn1969]

They could split the service and send the Carlisle unit to Durham Coast work which I thought happened some of the time anyway? Or should Durham Coast be wired all the way to Middlesborough at some point anyway?

 

[zwk500]

They could split the service and send the Carlisle unit to Durham Coast work which I thought happened some of the time anyway? Or should Durham Coast be wired all the way to Middlesborough at some point anyway?

Getting rather off the 5% budget saving/spending in the OT. Pelaw-Middlesbrough was wired for the T&W Metro, and it would have cost a lot more than 5% of that budget to make Newcastle-Middlesborough available to heavy rail electrics.

 

[Anvil1984]

It does seem a lot of unnecessary running under the wires, in this age of clean air legislation, carbon savings and DMU shortages ! Perhaps they should split the service and have done with it.

But to bring in 3 just 3 units (1 for the Morpeth Shuttles, 1 for the Chathill's which then sits around all day and a spare) the costs associated with training traincrew (roughly 85 drivers and at least 60 conductors) and depot staff along with probably needing extra wiring in the depot probably outweigh the benefits of splitting the service and getting and EMU

 

[A0]

It does seem a lot of unnecessary running under the wires, in this age of clean air legislation, carbon savings and DMU shortages ! Perhaps they should split the service and have done with it.

Well, that only works if you have somewhere for the DMU to go - unless it can sit around at Newcastle Central and not get in the way until it's next due out. And suitable EMUs to work the service to Morpeth.

It also means separating the crews as you'll need to train drivers and guards to cover different types of stock. And it probably just introduces a micro-fleet to Northern at Heaton.

One of those where operationally it makes more sense to leave it alone until the various 15xs in the North East are up for replacement and to replace them with something like the Stadlers which GA have gone for that can operate as diesel or electric.

 

[scrapy]

I don't have many specific examples to mind, but I can't help thinking there must be a large-ish number of stations that have been newly opened or largely rebuilt within the last 20-30 years without any significant shelter from rain etc. on the platforms, and where a small increase in budget would've provided some canopies and perhaps a few more seats, and therefore made the station a much more attractive place to wait for trains. Morecambe is perhaps an obvious example of that - brand new station with - if I recall correctly - no shelter at all when the ticket office is shut.

And talking of Morecambe - I assume it was when the station was moved and the new station opened that the double-track branch was converted essentially to two single-track independent lines. How much was saved by doing that? I'm guessing a pretty small amount for a substantial loss of flexibility in timetabling plus some confusion at Bare Lane of which train goes from which platform. Without that small saving, would it have been easier to attract more passengers by running a more clockface timetable on the line, even without running any more trains?

The layout of the two single lines on the Morecambe branch doesn't stop there being a clock face timetable, it would be quite possible to run even a clock face service every 15 minutes using the current set up assuming unlimited paths into Lancaster. The reason there isnt a clock face timetable is generally due to pathing on the West Coast Mainline, including irregular freight and maintenance train paths, and with there not being a train crew depot at Lancaster, crews need to take breaks between runs so that's why there's gaps in services as it would be too expensive and time consuming to send crews from elsewhere to cover. Which is why an approximately half hourly service can run in an evening (non Covid) as paths are available and breaks have already been covered.

 

[D6975]

How much would Colton Jn - Neville Hill have cost as a fraction of the North ECML electrification? It struck me as madness that it wasn't done at the time.

 

[geoffk]

Looking at recently reopened lines, extra double track on the Ebbw Vale and Borders lines to cater for anticipated traffic growth. I believe that TfW has plans to run Ebbw Vale to Newport but so far has been hampered by lack of rolling stock (there is another thread on this) and doubling more of the line will of course mean a possession and bus replacement. The Borders route has some passive provision for redoubling, but many bridges, including that on the A7 at Falahill, can take only a single track and would need major reconstruction which could have been avoided if provision had been made at the outset for two tracks.

 

[zwk500]

Looking at recently reopened lines, extra double track on the Ebbw Vale and Borders lines to cater for anticipated traffic growth. I believe that TfW has plans to run Ebbw Vale to Newport but so far has been hampered by lack of rolling stock (there is another thread on this) and doubling more of the line will of course mean a possession and bus replacement. The Borders route has some passive provision for redoubling, but many bridges, including that on the A7 at Falahill, can take only a single track and would need major reconstruction which could have been avoided if provision had been made at the outset for two tracks.

Does the borders route need double track for the demand on services? Because it's only a false economy as outlined by the OP if it ends up costing more to replace/convert/upgrade later. If that part of the line has no effective chance of being doubled within the lifetime of the bridge, it would be a wasted expense to build the bridge wider than necessary.

To me, one that doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet is EWR having Electrification de-scoped. All the difficult work is being done as part of the W12 gauge clearance, and presumably the signal placement will be with OLE gantries in mind so most of the substantial costs have been swallowed, but the extra to actually put the wires up has been declined in favour of Hydrogen, which is not projected to be able to meet the requirements of the route by the time it opens. Given Oxford-Didcot is still on the cards (although kicked quite far down the road, I understand), it really does seem a false economy given the cost of disruption necessary to retrofit it later.

 

[Glenn1969]

I think some XC infill wiring should have been done. Thinking of Oxford-Didcot, Birmingham-Derby, Leeds- York and Hemsworth- Sheffield (maybe)

 

[zwk500]

I think some XC infill wiring should have been done. Thinking of Oxford-Didcot, Birmingham-Derby, Leeds- York and Hemsworth- Sheffield (maybe)

What projects were these proposed as part of that they constitute a false economy of c.5% as outlined by the OP? Oxford-Didcot maybe as part of the GWML project, but then on it's own it adds precisely nothing to XC. Leeds-York again, possibly as part of the ECML wiring, but on it's own not of much help.

Also, how do those sections help XC without Basingstoke-Reading, Oxford-Birmingham, Derby-Sheffield and Swinton-Doncaster also being wired?

 

[Glenn1969]

Basingstoke- Reading maybe should also be part of GWML thinking. I forgot about Swinton- Doncaster and am not sure about Coventry- Oxford

 

[Doctor Fegg]

On it's own it doesn't give you anything - there was never going to be a passenger service over it, and any freight using that link runs on non-electrified track at one end or the other (or both). Somebody who knows more about freight flows than me will be able to say if Felixstowe <> Bristol/Cardiff is sufficient to justify electrification, but bear in mind you'd also probably want to do Acton Wells - Willesden No 7 (for Wembley Yard) at the same time. I don't know if the aggregates flows to Acton Yard from the South East area are ever likely to go over to Class 92 haulage (I doubt it) but you'd possibly want to wire the Acton Wells-WLL link as well for good measure.

There have been passenger proposals for that route - in particular, BAA announced plans in 1999 for a Heathrow–St Pancras connection that would have gone that way. But yes, for freight you'd need a couple of extra bits of knitting.

 

[zwk500]

Basingstoke- Reading maybe should also be part of GWML thinking. I forgot about Swinton- Doncaster and am not sure about Coventry- Oxford

Nothing runs from Basingstoke to Paddington, or Vice versa, why would it be part of any GWML project? What about Birmingham-Leamington via Tyseley? XC run that route as well as via Coventry.

You still haven't answered the question as to which, much larger, projects these schemes were originally considered in (or should have been so) that they got left out of/cut from to save less than 5% of the budget?

I'm all for discussing how XC should be wired, but it'd be on a different thread (no doubt there's already one). The question asked by the OP was about small aspects of larger schemes that didn't/won't see the light of day for the sake of a small fraction of the total budget.

There have been passenger proposals for that route - in particular, BAA announced plans in 1999 for a Heathrow–St Pancras connection that would have gone that way. But yes, for freight you'd need a couple of extra bits of knitting.

Interesting, didn't know that! Wouldn't happen now, of course, because the NLL is chock-full but interesting what might have been. An 'Outer Crossrail' perhaps?

 

[jfisher21]

Not sure how much Crossrail to Tring would cost. Certainly not a lot of track needed!

 

[swt_passenger]

Nothing runs from Basingstoke to Paddington, or Vice versa, why would it be part of any GWML project? What about Birmingham-Leamington via Tyseley? XC run that route as well as via Coventry.

You still haven't answered the question as to which, much larger, projects these schemes were originally considered in (or should have been so) that they got left out of/cut from to save less than 5% of the budget?

I'm all for discussing how XC should be wired, but it'd be on a different thread (no doubt there's already one). The question asked by the OP was about small aspects of larger schemes that didn't/won't see the light of day for the sake of a small fraction of the total budget.

Interesting, didn't know that! Wouldn't happen now, of course, because the NLL is chock-full but interesting what might have been. An 'Outer Crossrail' perhaps?

Basingstoke to Reading was once in a combined GW branches electrification project, (along with Windsor and Henley), presumably in order to use EMUs on most of the local stoppers. By the March 2019 CP5 enhancements summary the project had split off Southcote Jn to Basingstoke into a separate project from the other branches.

 

[Nottingham59]

EWR having Electrification de-scoped

If the current expectation is to have just 2 tph between Oxford and MKC at first, then electrification may not be financially justified at this time.

But you don't necessarily have to install the OHLE to make the big savings. What you do need is to do the design work, and then make sure that pile sites and mast foundations are marked out on the plans and on the ground so that the current construction is done absolutely ready for electrification.

In an ideal world, you would put in the piles at this time and then add the masts and catenaries and power feeds when traffic has built up enough to justify that delayed investment. And install anchor bolts in tunnels etc, so that you can add the conductors later.

Or even just dig an inspection pit at each proposed mast site, and then mark it so that current construction crews don't build anything in the way.

I really hope the EWR are planning to do something along these lines, but sadly I would expect that any such suggestion would be "value-engineered" out of the scope of work.

 

[zwk500]

Basingstoke to Reading was once in a combined GW branches electrification project, (along with Windsor and Henley), presumably in order to use EMUs on most of the local stoppers. By the March 2019 CP5 enhancements summary the project had split off Southcote Jn to Basingstoke into a separate project from the other branches.

Makes sense for it to be in a TV branches group, as it makes sense for it to be a standalone project to try and attract different funding sources. It'd still be a tad more than 5% of the cost of Windsor and Henley though, I reckon.

If the current expectation is to have just 2 tph between Oxford and MKC at first, then electrification may not be financially justified at this time.

I think the expectation is still to have 2tph Oxford-MKC and 1tph Oxford-Bedford, with the Marston vale continuing as is. The finances depend quite heavily on what rolling stock operates before it's electrified. If you're ordering new-build 'bionic duckweed' units, and then order new-build electrics 10 years later, you've really not saved any money at all.

But you don't necessarily have to install the OHLE to make the big savings. What you do need is to do the design work, and then make sure that pile sites and mast foundations are marked out on the plans and on the ground so that the current construction is done absolutely ready for electrification.
<SNIP>
I really hope the EWR are planning to do something along these lines, but sadly I would expect that any such suggestion would be "value-engineered" out of the scope of work.

This is all true, and a very good point. I really hope they include provision of this kind as well. Hopefully the detailed design had gone far enough with OLE at least possible that the version as built will be easily compatible.

 

[Halish Railway]

It wouldn’t just be a case of ordering 2 more, it’d either need platform lengthening if they were to eventually operate as 4 cars (and I can’t possibly see the money being available for both at the time), or three sets would have had to remain as 3 cars. The 321/9s had only been in service something like 5 years when the 333s were ordered, I doubt anyone seriously entertained ordering a replacement then.

The 331/1s that currently operate along the route are two meters longer than the 333s in their 4 coach guise. Moreover, the introduction of 4 coach 333s did require a few platform extensions, most notably at Frizinghall. I can’t think of any other examples.

 

[Spartacus]

The 331/1s that currently operate along the route are two meters longer than the 333s in their 4 coach guise. Moreover, the introduction of 4 coach 333s did require a few platform extensions, most notably at Frizinghall. I can’t think of any other examples.

Most, if not all of the WY local platforms needed extending to accommodate the 331s on the Doncaster route.

 

[tbtc]

It definitely was considered, and proposed as a follow on stage. No idea why it wasn’t delivered; possibly because the wiring crews moved on to the (much more important) ECML? In snooker terminology it was ‘a bad miss’.



Two things here. Firstly, MetroCentre didn’t exist when the ECML wiring was authorised in 1984.

Secondly, the ECML electrification was proposed by BR originally, to only go as far as Newcastle. That was submitted to DfT for approval in 1983. Whilst it was being considered, the new InterCity sector waded in and proposed extending the wires to Edinburgh, and buying new trains (rather than just locos). Carstairs came later still, and was a fine example of BR accounting engineering. So, arguably, they got extra money for extensions already, and probably didn’t want to push their luck.

Ah, I hadn't considered that the GEML "team" moved onto the ECML (in which case it makes perfect sense)

It's a shame that the ECML project (which finished in 1991?) didn't get to fill in some of the associated branches (given that the Metro Centre opened in 1986) but I guess that this is the problem we'll always face - once the scope of the project is delivered and the teams disbanded, it's very hard to deliver even a tiny further improvement - I'd shudder to think of the cost of wiring a hundred metres at Morpeth, since you'd need to start a project from scratch, be appropriating all costs to this rather than spreading them over a much bigger project.

"Do it all at the time or forever hold your peace", I guess.

I wonder whether the practicality of operating the branch using electrics was the problem ? Not sure the platform lengths on the branch are 4 car, yet the EMUs working to / from Ipswich in those days would have been all 4 car - 312s then 321s whereas Ipswich TMD already had DMUs based there to cover Cambridge and Lowestoft services as well as Felixstowe. There are also a couple of bridges in Ipswich itself which don't look particularly generous space wise.

The bigger 'miss' for me, though it would have been more difficult, is Sudbury - that was a real diesel island - the unit would have had to come from either Ipswich or Stratford ? And in NSE days wasn't it run with a Regional Railways unit ?

That's a good point - given the general lack of two coach EMUs - replacing DMUs with a three/four coach EMU would be quite an upgrade on routes that only had short DMUs

Does the borders route need double track for the demand on services? Because it's only a false economy as outlined by the OP if it ends up costing more to replace/convert/upgrade later. If that part of the line has no effective chance of being doubled within the lifetime of the bridge, it would be a wasted expense to build the bridge wider than necessary

I can't see the Borders line ever needing more than a half hourly service (and it seems to cope fine with the current infrastructure - no chance of freight etc), so additional expenditure would either be the kind of "gold plating just in case of fairly rare disruption" or "spending huge sums just so we can accommodate a handful of charter trains a year without having to cancel regular scheduled services" - both of which seem luxuries when the money could be spent on other things. I think they made the right decision at the time.

 

[The Planner]

Not sure how much Crossrail to Tring would cost. Certainly not a lot of track needed!

Binned off ages ago as no one wanted to pay for it. Also, the Old Oak Common layout doesnt allow for it now.

 

[YorksLad12]

If memory serves, Leeds 1st cost around £245m in 1999-2001. To save money, the proposed southern entrance was descoped. Fifteen years later it arrived at a cost of over £17m. In the interim the area around the proposed entrance had been redeveloped, making construction more difficult and time-consuming (and thus more costly). Looks nice though.

 

[chris_in_salop]

Of course it's been done to death on this forum, but the redevelopment of Newport station (south Wales).

A more practical and useable station facility (from a passenger perspective) could have been achieved for the same budget if only money hadn't been wasted on an 'iconic' footbridge and other irrelevant bling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course it's been done to death on this forum, but the redevelopment of Newport station (south Wales).

A more attractive and useable station facility (from a passenger perspective) could have been achieved for the same budget if only money hadn't been wasted on an 'iconic' footbridge.

That station is awful, it's like a tin shed. Literally nothing gained over doing something more conventional.

 

[Horizon22]

I think its been mentioned but electrification of the Thames Valley branch lines, especially the Windsor branch. You've got turbos running around from West Ealing, Slough, Maidenhead & Twyford which would much easier be 387 4-cars to have a unified fleet and allow turbos to be cascaded further west, and improve loadings as required. The extra cost must not have been that prohibitive for the overall gain.