Electrification is not just about electrification

[GRALISTAIR]

Straw poll - is Post #4 on this thread useful? If so I will keep adding to it by edits etc.

 

[Domh245]

Straw poll - is Post #4 on this thread useful? If so I will keep adding to it by edits etc.

Yes! Very much so. Perhaps some tidying, for example sorting it into confirmed schemes, proposed schemes, general electrification, and hopefully before too long, finished schemes

 

[Wavertreelad]

if you can load or unload custainsiders you can load or unload containers ...

it's just rather easier if a fully compliant docking solution is too expensive / space limited to rely on unloading by counterbalance flt in open space ...

and of course loose loads regardless of what they are loaded into have to be unloaded manually / semi automated

I think you have touched on most of the excuses used against loading containers there in my experience but there are a lot more, so making the HGV king, but we are getting of subject.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I think you have touched on most of the excuses used against loading containers there in my experience but there are a lot more, so making the HGV king, but we are getting of subject.

to load rigid sided vehicles in a timely manner without doubling the staffing requirement requires a loading dock which allows the pallets to be driven into the rigid sided vehicle / container by a powered pallet truck / short LLOP - using the same one person and one machine equation as curtainsiders and a counterbalance FLT ... however a dock requires the space to have the dock and to to allow trucks to manouver onto the dock , plus the cost and maintaince associated with the docking system - whicvh can be quite costly if you have a powered system that can cope with double deckers, low datum, step frame 1250, 'coffin' 1250 1 and a half decker and UK standard 1250mm fifth wheel flat floor trailers

yes you can load a rigid sided vehicle with a counterbalalnce flt or a tailift but you need 2 operatives to do so in a timely manner ( one in and one out )

we'll ignore the issue that standard sized ISO containers and standard Pallet sizes are not entirely compatible, where as LGV trailers can be built to allow 2.4 m + clearance allowing 2 lines of pallets and minimal wasted space

 

[Wavertreelad]

to load rigid sided vehicles in a timely manner without doubling the staffing requirement requires a loading dock which allows the pallets to be driven into the rigid sided vehicle / container by a powered pallet truck / short LLOP - using the same one person and one machine equation as curtainsiders and a counterbalance FLT ... however a dock requires the space to have the dock and to to allow trucks to manouver onto the dock , plus the cost and maintaince associated with the docking system - whicvh can be quite costly if you have a powered system that can cope with double deckers, low datum, step frame 1250, 'coffin' 1250 1 and a half decker and UK standard 1250mm fifth wheel flat floor trailers

yes you can load a rigid sided vehicle with a counterbalalnce flt or a tailift but you need 2 operatives to do so in a timely manner ( one in and one out )

we'll ignore the issue that standard sized ISO containers and standard Pallet sizes are not entirely compatible, where as LGV trailers can be built to allow 2.4 m + clearance allowing 2 lines of pallets and minimal wasted space

I'm well aware what it takes to load and unload containers, the point I was making was that for a variety of reasons many companies prefer or simply cannot load or unload containers. Usual excuses are that they have no loading bay, or dock levellers, no ramp, no suitable forklift(s) which can double stack pallets inside the container. We crane load everything in and out of the factory, we don't have space in the yard, we cannot load/unload during the hours of darkness, the list is endless. What is surprising is that even some of the retail distribution centres will not unload containers which is why so many moved to third parties for devanning and palletising to a standard specification.

The question of the pallets has been in part been resolved in some markets by the use of 45ft high cube containers which are also 2.50 mtrs wide. This additional capacity allows three Euro pallets stowage or two UK pallets to be loaded side by side. These units, especially the reefer version is particularly popular in the Spanish and Portuguese markets because the cost of the movement is generally cheaper than a truck and are available all year round, whereas trucks tend to get very expensive in the run up to Xmas.

You are correct

 

[RichmondCommu]

Only within other engineering industries.

In what respect? The DB marshalling yards are full of Intermodal wagons so there is no way of telling what they are carrying.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If your reference to a new marshalling yard that is being built in Germany refers to the one at Halle, it should be noted that this will replace the one at Engelsdorf near Leipzig which will be closed so this will not be an additional yard.

Indeed it is however I'm sure you will agree that it represents a serious amount of investment in rail freight infrastructure by DB. It's also no coincidence that the second largest marshalling yard in the world serves Hamburg and its associated ports. It's important to understand that DBS is much more successful in shifting freight than say SNCF Fret which has lost a lot business over the last 20 years.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Post 4 has been further edited - also added Wiki entries etc

 

[GRALISTAIR]

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=137989

updated with the latest thread on electrification
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Updated with the excellent free PDF Overhead Line Electrification

Here is the thread discussing this

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=138230

 

[Dixie]

The lifetime of infrastructure being constructed, and rolling stock being purchased, now will probably extend into what may very well be quite a different transport landscape.

For example, driver-less vehicles may well be the norm, with vehicles users telling the car(?) where they want to go, and then being whisked off down guided roads and what were motorways, using, possibly, hydrogen power or some other form of power still to be developed, all being controlled by super computers, possibly at quite high speeds, with the passengers reading, working, watching media, sleeping etc during the journey. Indeed, people might no longer own their own vehicle and simply rent one for the specific journey they wish to make. Vehicles themselves might well be travelling in "trains" down the main routes, at a uniform high speed, effectively locked to the vehicle in front and behind until they leave the "main line" and head of towards their destination. Trucks may well be operated in a similar fashion, but perhaps on separate "roads". Imagine how many vehicles could travel down the M6 if they were all travelling coupled together at high speed, with computers constantly checking for problems with the vehicles themselves and the condition of the infrastructure.

Railways, as we know them, could be completely redundant, or might have been converted as additional routes for such vehicles.

Why install all the infrastructure for electrification with its massive costs when it within it's useful lifetime it may well become unnecessary.

With Google, Apple and others all throwing vast amounts of money at such projects, such a scenario might not be so far fetched.

 

[absolutelymilk]

The lifetime of infrastructure being constructed, and rolling stock being purchased, now will probably extend into what may very well be quite a different transport landscape.

For example, driver-less vehicles may well be the norm, with vehicles users telling the car(?) where they want to go, and then being whisked off down guided roads and what were motorways, using, possibly, hydrogen power or some other form of power still to be developed, all being controlled by super computers, possibly at quite high speeds, with the passengers reading, working, watching media, sleeping etc during the journey. Indeed, people might no longer own their own vehicle and simply rent one for the specific journey they wish to make. Vehicles themselves might well be travelling in "trains" down the main routes, at a uniform high speed, effectively locked to the vehicle in front and behind until they leave the "main line" and head of towards their destination. Trucks may well be operated in a similar fashion, but perhaps on separate "roads". Imagine how many vehicles could travel down the M6 if they were all travelling coupled together at high speed, with computers constantly checking for problems with the vehicles themselves and the condition of the infrastructure.

Railways, as we know them, could be completely redundant, or might have been converted as additional routes for such vehicles.

Why install all the infrastructure for electrification with its massive costs when it within it's useful lifetime it may well become unnecessary.

With Google, Apple and others all throwing vast amounts of money at such projects, such a scenario might not be so far fetched.

I agree with this to a certain extent, but remember that until *all vehicles* are autonomous then the increased capacity will not be realised. It will certainly have an impact on the rail industry however. In the short-term, increased numbers of trips will increase congestion on the roads so will probably increase peak-time rail trips but the low cost and ease of use of driverless cars outside of peak times will probably mean that many services outside of peak times become very lightly used, especially outside of the big cities.

In other words, I predict that commuter and intercity trains will be more heavily used, whereas rural lines will be less used.

 

[QueensCurve]

The lifetime of infrastructure being constructed, and rolling stock being purchased, now will probably extend into what may very well be quite a different transport landscape.

Come back Sir Alfred Sherman, all is forgiven.

 

[Olaf]

The problems with Electrification such as long time to delivery, and commitment of capital, without delivering the immediate needs of the end users is counting against it in the funding rounds.

Electrification is not an end in itself, and it has been realised that it will not achieve the needs of current and future customers within the available time-scales.

 

[doa46231]

Reading this discussion makes me proud to be British!
Yet again we can see into the future so that, as in the past we can make the right decisions re transport whereas others just blunder along regardless.
Time and again we have been proved to be right.
After the war when most European Countries were electrifying their railways, we opted for diesels.
The wisdom of this decision is being felt right now, as we can buy loads of bi-modes and scrap what little electrification we have except for in cities, whereas the rest of the world has to make do with expensive straight electrics.
Even now, without the foresight and clairvoyance of people like 'Dixie' they're still making the same mistakes!
Denmark has embarked on a programme to electrify its whole system, whereas if they had consulted us we could have explained that by the time they've got the wires up railways will be redundant because of autonomous cars and trucks!
Even in the USA which will be producing a huge chunk of these vehicles they're still modernising their railways.
BNSF are spending $millions upgrading their tracks and yards. What fools!

Yet again we're ahead of the game.

When other Nations were developing their railways, we were clever enough to spend most of the money on a superb motorway system, so that today we can drive around without the problems associated with outdated trains.
And but for a few luddites we could have closed most of the railways and built even more roads.

No, we always know the correct way to go, (forgive the pun) and watch the rest of the world flounder in our wake.

Just a couple of worries affect me though.
Firstly who would have thought 50 years ago that our railways would be carrying more passengers than ever 50 years hence.
And I have a worrying suspicion that once we've converted to all electric autonomous vehicles, someone will have developed small cheap hover and flying machines so that we'll be able to fly anywhere we like at the drop of a hat, so making our new electric roads redundant!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This is one of the most brilliant tongue in cheek replies I have ever seen. Well played sir

 

[Dixie]

Even now, without the foresight and clairvoyance of people like 'Dixie' they're still making the same mistakes!

Please don't get the idea that I am against electrification, as quite the opposite is true. I would like to see the entire network electrified. However, the fact is that we are in a time of change that is moving very fast relative to the life of the infrastructure we are building and might mean, for example, within 20 years the concept of transmitting electricity through OLE is redundant.

Regardless, if it was down to me, I would still be 100% behind network electrification, including freight.

What I don't want to see, though, is the likes of the Government and Network Rail getting it so wrong in so many ways, e.g. OLE equipment which is vastly over engineered for its particular purpose. Was it necessary to do the whole of GWR in series 1? Couldn't anything where the speed was going 100 mph or less have been built using the same equipment as is being used now in the North West and Scotland, or even that used on the recent sections of the WCML which is good for 125 mph, e.g. parts of the branch to Oxford, the line through Bath to Bristol, perhaps, or Filton Bank? Why wasn't the GWR equipment despec'd when it was decided trains wouldn't run at 140 mph, etc., etc.

 

[edwin_m]

However, the fact is that we are in a time of change that is moving very fast relative to the life of the infrastructure we are building and might mean, for example, within 20 years the concept of transmitting electricity through OLE is redundant.

That's what Roger Ford would call the liquid phlogiston or bionic duckweed argument, as put forward by DfT during the 2000s before they were (probably temporarily) convinced that traditional electrification was the way forward. It's basically an excuse to do nothing, because an unexpected technological development is always possible but by definition isn't expected.

There is currently a big push to provide alternative means of propulsion (batteries or possibly fuel cells) for the automotive market, but at the moment there's no sign of anything other than diesel being viable for a truck let alone something as big as a train. Even if batteries improved significantly on the ones fitted to an EMU a couple of years back, their range would still be limited and the problem of charging remains (less of a problem for cars that spend much of their time parked up). There is also the cost of replacement on a life cycle much shorter than that of a train (but similar to that of a road vehicle, so not something automotive development is likely to be looking to improve on). A battery might eventually be a similar weight and volume to the car engine it replaces, but it would increase the weight (hence the power consumption) and reduce passenger space compared with an electric train.

Any system that didn't require charging would involve some sort of fuel, which would involve building a supply infrastructure for a specific technology that might in turn be overtaken by something else. It could also be more expensive but forced on the railway by the need to do something in a hurry, as with gas-powered buses.

Electrification on the other hand is future-proof in the sense that any likely source of energy is probably going to be able to produce electricity, and a high voltage OLE system will be by far the most efficient way of transmitting it to the train where it is needed. Although costs are too high at present, they are relatively low compared to building a new railway and on a busy route should be repaid in time by the reduced costs of operating electrics compared with diesels. So although there may be a role for battery trains and in the long term for other propulsion systems, but I remain convinced that conventional overhead electrification is the best choice for most railway applications.

 

[NSEFAN]

Please don't get the idea that I am against electrification, as quite the opposite is true. I would like to see the entire network electrified. However, the fact is that we are in a time of change that is moving very fast relative to the life of the infrastructure we are building and might mean, for example, within 20 years the concept of transmitting electricity through OLE is redundant.

How else do you propose to power trains electrically without electrification? Wireless power is very lossy even compared to the existing 750V DC systems, and batteries are still nowhere near enough for fast/heavy trains over any significant distances.

There are definitely issues with electrification being badly managed, but from a technological perspective 25kV AC overhead is still one of the most suitable systems for the foreseeable future. I remember reading a quote from a Railtrack spokesperson, who claimed that hydrogen fuel cells would be making electrification redundant. For context, Railtrack hated electrification, as it was one more thing to go wrong in their eyes (although it wouldn't have been that way had spent more time on building/maintaining the railway and less on selling off land to make a quick buck :roll: ).

 

[class26]

Please don't get the idea that I am against electrification, as quite the opposite is true. I would like to see the entire network electrified. However, the fact is that we are in a time of change that is moving very fast relative to the life of the infrastructure we are building and might mean, for example, within 20 years the concept of transmitting electricity through OLE is redundant.

Regardless, if it was down to me, I would still be 100% behind network electrification, including freight.

What I don't want to see, though, is the likes of the Government and Network Rail getting it so wrong in so many ways, e.g. OLE equipment which is vastly over engineered for its particular purpose. Was it necessary to do the whole of GWR in series 1? Couldn't anything where the speed was going 100 mph or less have been built using the same equipment as is being used now in the North West and Scotland, or even that used on the recent sections of the WCML which is good for 125 mph, e.g. parts of the branch to Oxford, the line through Bath to Bristol, perhaps, or Filton Bank? Why wasn't the GWR equipment despec'd when it was decided trains wouldn't run at 140 mph, etc., etc.

Has it been decided NOT to run at 140 mph ? If so, I must have missed it.

 

[doa46231]

The Public accounts Committee report on the whole fiasco of the GW project comes to the conclusion that no line should be electrified if alternative ways of providing the same service could be applied.

In my judgement this will put a full stop to any further schemes.

The conclusion they should have reached is that the fault lies with Network Rail and the DfT, and not with electrification per se.

Therefore get someone else to do it!
Study how they manage to do it abroad.
Be far more aggressive when facing ludicrous new regulations which increase costs to taxpayer and passenger.
Consider environmental factors and not just upfront costs.

But, of course, being British we just say, too expensive, abandon the idea!
Mark Carne has said in future each mile is going to be subject to assessment to see if it's value for money.
Can you imagine the same rule being applied to motorways. Build a couple of miles and then say 'sorry chaps' the next couple of miles is too expensive, so abandon the whole project.
It is senseless, but that's how things are done here for railway infrastructure.

And still, nobody has accepted responsibility for this whole sorry mess.
Mr. Putnam still comes to the Transport committee and gets away with murder, because the members of that committee don't really have a clue about asking the right questions.

For what the DfT has cost the British taxpayer because of epic failures on their part, some heads should roll.

 

[mwmbwls]

The Public accounts Committee report on the whole fiasco of the GW project comes to the conclusion that no line should be electrified if alternative ways of providing the same service could be applied.

In my judgement this will put a full stop to any further schemes.

The conclusion they should have reached is that the fault lies with Network Rail and the DfT, and not with electrification per se.

Therefore get someone else to do it!
Study how they manage to do it abroad.
Be far more aggressive when facing ludicrous new regulations which increase costs to taxpayer and passenger.
Consider environmental factors and not just upfront costs.

But, of course, being British we just say, too expensive, abandon the idea!
Mark Carne has said in future each mile is going to be subject to assessment to see if it's value for money.
Can you imagine the same rule being applied to motorways. Build a couple of miles and then say 'sorry chaps' the next couple of miles is too expensive, so abandon the whole project.
It is senseless, but that's how things are done here for railway infrastructure.

And still, nobody has accepted responsibility for this whole sorry mess.
Mr. Putnam still comes to the Transport committee and gets away with murder, because the members of that committee don't really have a clue about asking the right questions.

For what the DfT has cost the British taxpayer because of epic failures on their part, some heads should roll.

I think you are referring to Mr Rutman and not Mr Putnam who IIRC is a film director.

Philip Rutnam joined the Department for Transport (DfT) as Permanent Secretary in April 2012
Career
Before joining DfT, Philip was the Director General, Business and Skills, at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). He was responsible for policy on industry and enterprise, including regional economic development and support for small business. Before joining BIS, Philip helped to establish Ofcom and then led its work on competition, economic regulation and use of the radio spectrum.

Responsible for the overall management of the department. The Permanent Secretary sits on the department’s board
The role of the department’s board is to:
ensure effective governance and properly manage risks
shape and direct a shared agenda for the department as a whole, both to deliver ministers’ priorities and to build capability
monitor performance and risk, making choices (or recommendations to ministers) on priorities/risk appetite

It is worth reading the PAC's conclusions in full. This is not a simple failure but stems from a number of causes. My particular Victor Meldrew "eyes to heaven" moment was stimulated by point number 2 -

Modernising the Great Western Railway
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/776/77605.htm
________________________________________
Conclusions and recommendations
.It is not clear whether the Great Western electrification project can be delivered to the revised target of December 2018 and budget of £2.8 billion. The estimated cost of electrification increased by £1.2 billion to £2.8 billion by the end of 2015 following Network Rail’s replanning of the project, which also identified delays to parts of the project of 18 to 36 months. The Department and Network Rail are confident that the project is now on track as important milestones have been met. But Network Rail admitted that there are still “very significant risks” to be managed and noted that “every single part of the programme is absolutely on the limit”.1 The most recent risk analysis indicates a financial exposure of £274 million, £49 million more than the £225 million of contingency currently available and risks still remain that costs could increase further.

Recommendation: Network Rail must ensure that all risks to the project are identified, monitored and controlled and use this information to identify with the Department the critical path for the whole modernisation programme, setting out how the infrastructure, new trains and planned services will interact with each other by March 2017.

2.Network Rail failed to plan the infrastructure work properly. Network Rail admits that the early stages of the project were not carried out in an appropriate way. The initial design was incomplete. The cost estimating was not good enough and it started construction before it had the necessary permits and consents in order to try to meet the schedule. Network Rail’s failure to put in place an adequate plan to obtain the more than 1,800 separate consents it needed from local authorities, such as permission for works that could affect protected species or listed buildings, led to higher costs. Network Rail could not explain why it had not sought to avoid these problems by obtaining an Order under the Transport and Works Act enabling the Secretary of State to have granted planning permission for the whole scheme.

Recommendation: Network Rail must improve its ability to produce realistic cost estimates, including making greater use of data from completed projects. Network Rail must make sure that robust and detailed plans, including a critical path, are in place for infrastructure projects before starting construction works and consider whether an Order under the Transport and Works Act would be preferable to multiple individual planning consents and other approvals.

3.The Department failed to challenge Network Rail’s plans effectively despite the very significant sums of public money at risk. Depite being liable to pay £400,000 per day to lease new trains that could not be used until the overhead electrification was complete, the Department did not adequately challenge Network Rail’s plans to carry out the infrastructure work. Instead, it left the role of scrutinising Network Rail’s plans to ensure they were both deliverable and the most efficient way of carrying out the work to the Office of Rail and Road. The Department accepts that this system was too complex, “much weaker and less reliable than [it] thought”, though it believes that it has since put in place a “very clear structure of accountability”.

Recommendation: The Department must ensure that it has obtained suitable assurance over cost and deliverability before taking decisions on infrastructure investment and other major decisions which depend on infrastructure being available. It must set out how it will continue to develop its own programme management expertise, and how it will use this to monitor Network Rail’s delivery.

4.The Department failed to integrate all the elements needed to deliver benefits for passengers successfully at the planning stage, and did not manage the programme in a joined-up way. Until 2015, the Department managed the different elements as separate but related projects, rather than as one single integrated project, even though improving services for passengers required all the elements to be completed on time. The Department should have had an integrated business case for the programme sooner than March 2015, bringing together the new infrastructure, new trains and service patterns. This would have allowed the Department to manage the interdependencies between the elements and the risks the programme faced. The Department built an 18-month buffer into the programme to allow for the infrastructure to be ready for new trains in advance but this was not based on the actual risks facing the programme. The Department’s new approach to infrastructure planning involves it specifying outputs and Network Rail providing options to meet them. These options will be reviewed by the Department, who will then make a decision based on costs, benefits and risks to delivery. The Department is also trying to align decisions about infrastructure improvements with franchise timetables, such as future improvements to the Midland Main Line. We are concerned that serious failings in planning and delivering this programme will affect the case for future investment in rail programmes.

Recommendation: The Department and Network Rail need to ensure that they plan major developments to rail services in a way which brings together trains, infrastructure work and the operation of services. As part of this, they should obtain independent assurance on the deliverability of their plans. We will expect to see this approach on forthcoming major programmes including the Midland Main Line and TransPennine upgrades.

5.The Department’s claim that nearly all the benefits for passengers can be achieved without full electrification of the route casts doubt on the value for money of this and other electrification schemes. The Department maintains that the decision to defer the electrification of sections of the route will have “little, if any, impact on the benefits of this programme to passengers” as many of the benefits, including more trains per hour, journey time savings and more seats, do not depend on electrification. The Department also considers that wider benefits, such as reduced operating costs and environmental benefits, will only be marginally impacted by the decision. However, the planned reallocation of diesel trains to increase capacity elsewhere on the network will be delayed. Some £130 million has been spent on infrastructure work to deliver electrification on the deferred sections, although Network Rail maintain that these costs will largely be recovered should electrification go ahead.

Recommendation: The Department needs to reassess the case for electrification on a section by section basis and fund schemes only where worthwhile benefits for passengers could not be achieved otherwise at lower cost. In its new business case for the Great Western programme, which it expects to complete by the end of March 2017, it should reassess the extent of electrification, and it should also look again at its plans for the Midland Main Line and TransPennine routes.

This would seem to support the hypothesis that building new lines is intrinsically less difficult than trying to resuscitate old ones. On this basis we could then see the NPR before Trans- Pennine electrification.

 

[snowball]

I think you are referring to Mr Rutman and not Mr Putnam who IIRC is a film director.

The Permanent Secretary at the DfT is Philip Rutnam. Philip Pullman is a famous children's writer. The film director is David Puttnam.

This would seem to support the hypothesis that building new lines is intrinsically less difficult than trying to resuscitate old ones.

Yes.

On this basis we could then see the NPR before Trans- Pennine electrification.

Very unlikely, I'd say. HS3/NPR is about 10 years behind HS2 Phase 1.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

QUOTE [ 2.Network Rail failed to plan the infrastructure work properly. Network Rail admits that the early stages of the project were not carried out in an appropriate way. The initial design was incomplete. The cost estimating was not good enough and it started construction before it had the necessary permits and consents in order to try to meet the schedule. Network Rail’s failure to put in place an adequate plan to obtain the more than 1,800 separate consents it needed from local authorities, such as permission for works that could affect protected species or listed buildings, led to higher costs. Network Rail could not explain why it had not sought to avoid these problems by obtaining an Order under the Transport and Works Act enabling the Secretary of State to have granted planning permission for the whole scheme.] END QUOTE

My guess is that NR were so delighted to be doing electrification again after many years that they just got stuck in without a plan.

 

[doa46231]

I cannot see what Mr Rutnams cv has to do with anything. It is his present job that should concern all taxpayers!

Incidentally a modicum of common sense would have indicated that the P was just a typing error for which I apologise.

Anyway the DfT has presided over not only the GW fiasco, but the cost overrun and truncation of the North West scheme, and the kicking into the long grass of the Transpennine scheme.
The MML electrification is a dead duck.
The tiny tram-train experiment in Sheffield is long overdue, over cost and still has no definite opening date, despite the trams for it having arrived some time ago.
Karlsruhe has had train-trams for 20 years at least. Why the blazes is Britain SO different?

We've ordered hundreds of bi-modes, when not one has yet turned a wheel in anger in the UK, yet Mr. Rutnam tells the TSC that we will get all the benefits of electrification without actually doing it!
Doesn't that sound varguely dishonest?

The disaster of the WCML franchise competition has wasted the taxpayer, ie. me
£millions.
Nobody at the DfT or NR has carried the can for this disgraceful situation, and neither will they when we have apologists falling over backwards to defend the indefensible.

 

[squizzler]

The recent Southwest franchise award demonstrates the relative markets for diesel and electric fleets.

On one hand the (already old) diesel 158 and 159 fleet are not proposed for renewal. This seems to be consistent with Rosco's being unwilling to order more diesel units so the only way any given route can get more is from the cold dead fingers of another operator

On the other hand the electric 707's only entering service are being dumped in favour of a new build fleet. This is consistent with a mature and dynamic market for electric units which presumably allow spot hire.

From the point of view of franchise competitions, on an electric railway the prospective operator seems willing to bid to run services knowing that it can find the required trains on the open market. On the diesel lines the bid is more about how to shuffle the finite number of existing units. The new SWT is an essay on both these outcomes on one franchise.

Electrification is expensive but opens up much more competitive market for units and frees up the operator to be marketing led rather than resource led.

 

[158756]

From the point of view of franchise competitions, on an electric railway the prospective operator seems willing to bid to run services knowing that it can find the required trains on the open market. On the diesel lines the bid is more about how to shuffle the finite number of existing units. The new SWT is an essay on both these outcomes on one franchise.

Electrification is expensive but opens up much more competitive market for units and frees up the operator to be marketing led rather than resource led.

This situation exists because no-one is willing to order new diesels. I think this is down to a combination of government unwillingness to buy trains for routes receiving lots of subsidies, and uncertainty over future demand for diesels caused by the enthusiasm for electrification and potential for battery powered trains. The surplus of EMUs will last only until the 317s,319s,321s are scrapped, which will now inevitably be long before the DMUs of the same age.

However at current prices I'd expect new fleets of diesels to be far cheaper than electrification. The day the government finally gives up on electrification may actually be a good one for passengers on unelectrified routes, if it allows operators more certainty in planning for the future. Someone will have to bite the bullet in the not too distant future - the Sprinters won't last forever.

 

[squizzler]

This situation exists because no-one is willing to order new diesels. I think this is down to a combination of government unwillingness to buy trains for routes receiving lots of subsidies, and uncertainty over future demand for diesels caused by the enthusiasm for electrification and potential for battery powered trains. The surplus of EMUs will last only until the 317s,319s,321s are scrapped, which will now inevitably be long before the DMUs of the same age.

Intentionally or not, you have identified that the only people who will buy brand new diesel trains is the government. A few years ago the state was considering starting its own diesel train rosco to boost numbers of DMU in circulation.

The reason that nobody is ordering diesels (except politically driven pacer replacement) is because the Rosco's and their money men are too savvy to order diesels, and this has been the case for about 15 years. I think we will come to see that Bi-mode has not in fact killed electrification. It's killed the garden DMU.

However at current prices I'd expect new fleets of diesels to be far cheaper than electrification. The day the government finally gives up on electrification may actually be a good one for passengers on unelectrified routes, if it allows operators more certainty in planning for the future. Someone will have to bite the bullet in the not too distant future - the Sprinters won't last forever.

Do you really think the government will publicly retract its encyclical electrification? Its either electrification or - to continue to the religious theme - continued purgatory.

So the binary choice before us is either that the Dft gets its hand dirty specifying, ordering and leasing diesels, or it can put money into electrification that will unleash the dynamic leasing market that already exists for electric stock onto more routes. Which do you think is better for the railway: The DfT investing in infrastructure to make the industry more competitive, or spending our taxpayer money to play at diesel RoSCO?

 

[158756]

Do you really think the government will publicly retract its encyclical electrification? Its either electrification or - to continue to the religious theme - continued purgatory.

As far as I know there is no commitment to electrification beyond 2019, and it would be foolish not to re-examine the business case now we know how much it actually costs. The government are already making noises about achieving the same benefits (ie journey times, new trains) without electrification.

So the binary choice before us is either that the Dft gets its hand dirty specifying, ordering and leasing diesels, or it can put money into electrification that will unleash the dynamic leasing market that already exists for electric stock onto more routes. Which do you think is better for the railway: The DfT investing in infrastructure to make the industry more competitive, or spending our taxpayer money to play at diesel RoSCO?

Given that all one of those options is an order of magnitude cheaper than the other, that ROSCOs presumably make a profit, and that all funding ultimately comes from the fare- or tax-payer (so we're paying the costs, and profits, of ROSCOs anyway), the latter.

The market is a farce when whatever the method of propulsion, rolling stock in the North, South West, Scotland and Wales will always be determined by how much the government is willing to pay. See the recent discussion of idle 319s and Northern's Liverpool-Wigan 156s. No dynamic market there.

 

[snowball]

Do you really think the government will publicly retract its encyclical electrification? Its either electrification or - to continue to the religious theme - continued purgatory.

As far as I know there is no commitment to electrification beyond 2019, and it would be foolish not to re-examine the business case now we know how much it actually costs. The government are already making noises about achieving the same benefits (ie journey times, new trains) without electrification.

Indeed, lots of people on here have been commenting in recent months on these "noises" as amounting to a big withdrawal by government from electrification, with some suggesting that there will be little done after the end of CP5, and for example that both approaches to Bristol will remain unwired! So squizzler is very much out on a limb here compared to the general drift of opinion on this forum.

Personally I still think most or all former CP5 proposals will be completed in CP6 but I could be wrong.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Personally I still think most or all former CP5 proposals will be completed in CP6 but I could be wrong.

With the exception of big chunk of the spine I would tend to agree - or as May 2020 approaches - a lot more will get promised. Now I am being cynical-realistic/optimistic - take your pick.

 

[squizzler]

Indeed, lots of people on here have been commenting in recent months on these "noises" as amounting to a big withdrawal by government from electrification, with some suggesting that there will be little done after the end of CP5, and for example that both approaches to Bristol will remain unwired! So squizzler is very much out on a limb here compared to the general drift of opinion on this forum.

Personally I still think most or all former CP5 proposals will be completed in CP6 but I could be wrong.

I understand this thread is intended to share the arguments in favour of electrification not to speculate on the UK programme which can be done elsewhere. Nonetheless I reckon there's plenty of reason to be bullish. Back in (I think) 2009, where the government remained averse to electrification, nobody was buying diesel units. What chance they will go to the manufacturers with chequebook in hand now that the government (in principle) is in favour of electrification?

Remember that electrification is, for all intents and purposes, a one-way street. Its advance may be slowed or even halted a while, but in the UK it is unlikely to significantly retreat. Upshot is even now you might buy an electric train in the expectation that more routes will get electrified. You will never buy diesels in the expectation that more routes will turn to diesel operation.

Finally, all the modern train platforms are electric or, in a few cases, bi-mode. As time goes on, the diesel units in the catalogues are increasingly based on legacy platforms.

So as I put elsewhere before deciding that I had an argument in favour of electrification I should share with this thread:

...The difference between a diesel and an electric railway is really starting to become night and day. Run electric, and there is now a mature market for spot hire of quality products both new and re-engineered. Run diesel, and you are having to account for the what diagram will be covered by which unit in ten yeas time. Rolling electrification seems inevitable despite the cost.​

In other words electrification opens up the opportunity for the operator to be responsive to the whims on the market. Stick with diesels and you are effectively locked into a DfT micro-managed production-led command economy. This is in my view the killer argument in favour of electrification: the hidden workings of the market enable the train operator is able to become more customer led.

Final thought, whilst we in the UK get our act together, what are the chances the Irish will grab the opportunity to electrify their Dublin - Cork mainline whilst money is cheap and the UK electrification contractors have a gap in the diary?