Electrification Taskforce Final Report

[lejog]

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


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!

So where is this wonderful methodology published, so comparisons between the two may be objectively and independently analyzed? Your description makes it appear totally inward-looking, which to me sums up all that's wrong with the rail industry.

To different eyes the chosen lines appear to be the output from an inept bureaucracy making life easy for itself, rather than considering the economic requirements of the North. A classic case of imposing solutions rather than first looking at requirements.

And the report doesn't contain pie in the sky, wouldn't be it nice ideas, it has defined requirements and a process by which results are to be evaluated against those requirements, then gone through the exercise of evaluation. And produced a list of recommendations for further work on detailed business cases. So if the results are pie in the sky they will be shown up at the next stage, but at least the options are the result of a rational analysis exercise.

I may be wrong, but unless Network Rail/ DfT tell us how their chosen list came about, the Task Force will have the upper hand in that they have been transparent about the way they have gone about things. Really, just like Sir Humphrey, these "we've got the experience and we know best" arguments are on extremely shaky ground.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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).

I agree with this, but of course the task force, as anyone experienced in politics or business should know, has in my view been wise in establishing in what may be thought of as a extreme negotiating stance, that will be whittled down. They are likely to get a better deal than that on the table to start with.

That to me is entirely sensible and practical, even if some take their negotiating stance literally:roll:

 

[TheKnightWho]

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


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!

"Common sense" doesn't beat out statistical methods, unfortunately for you.

This is a report that looks at the economic cases for each line. Trying to make out like this is some amateur local group with a vested interest is disingenuous. Just because it challenges what seems obvious to you doesn't make it wrong.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

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

Agreed

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?

I totally agree

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

Let us hope so.

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

Capital Sir Humphrey

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).

This is absolutely true. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

-- at least the options are the result of a rational analysis exercise.That to me is entirely sensible and practical, even if some take their negotiating stance literally:roll:

Yes

 

[DarloRich]

So where is this wonderful methodology published, so comparisons between the two may be objectively and independently analyzed?

Look at the publically available GRIP process documentation. it is all there

Your description makes it appear totally inward-looking, which to me sums up all that's wrong with the rail industry.

Your view. Not mine – I would suggest it is based o na pragmatic assessment of what can, actually, be delivered.

To different eyes the chosen lines appear to be the output from an inept bureaucracy making life easy for itself, rather than considering the economic requirements of the North. A classic case of imposing solutions rather than first looking at requirements.

Again your view. A more reasoned stance could be a look at what is actually achievable with the available finance, man power and within an acceptable deliverability timescale. What is the point of promising to deliver lots of work and failing? That helps no one

It is far from perfect, but may be what can, actually, be delivered.

And the report doesn't contain pie in the sky, wouldn't be it nice ideas, it has defined requirements and a process by which results are to be evaluated against those requirements, then gone through the exercise of evaluation. And produced a list of recommendations for further work on detailed business cases. So if the results are pie in the sky they will be shown up at the next stage, but at least the options are the result of a rational analysis exercise.

It has flimsy requirements that deliver very little other than a nice list of ideas that seeks to please everyone. Few will actually happen.

I may be wrong, but unless Network Rail/ DfT tell us how their chosen list came about, the Task Force will have the upper hand in that they have been transparent about the way they have gone about things. Really, just like Sir Humphrey, these "we've got the experience and we know best" arguments are on extremely shaky ground.

They have been transparent but their workings are flimsy and contain no substance. They have offered no suggestion as to how they propose to fund even the tier one improvements nor have they offered any real timescales.

I agree with this, but of course the task force, as anyone experienced in politics or business should know, has in my view been wise in establishing in what may be thought of as a extreme negotiating stance, that will be whittled down. They are likely to get a better deal than that on the table to start with.

That to me is entirely sensible and practical, even if some take their negotiating stance literally:roll:

Agreed – I ma not taking their proposal as literal but in negotiating it is pointless to have a list of simply throw away items that get struck out for no return. They simply get in the way of discussing and agreeing the key points. The tier one suggestions need real scrutiny and development. Why waste time talking about things that are so low down the pecking order as to be almost invisible.

let’s get key network enhancements delivered as quickly and as efficiently as possible

"Common sense" doesn't beat out statistical methods, unfortunately for you.

This is a report that looks at the economic cases for each line. Trying to make out like this is some amateur local group with a vested interest is disingenuous. Just because it challenges what seems obvious to you doesn't make it wrong.

no it doesnt look at the economic case for each line, far from it.

 

[snowball]

"Common sense" doesn't beat out statistical methods, unfortunately for you.

This is a report that looks at the economic cases for each line. Trying to make out like this is some amateur local group with a vested interest is disingenuous. Just because it challenges what seems obvious to you doesn't make it wrong.

It actually says it doesn't attempt to make an economic justification for each line. Its priorities are based only on the benefits, not the costs.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It actually says it doesn't attempt to make an economic justification for each line. Its priorities are based only on the benefits, not the costs.

Granted, but the point is that it looks at it in a holistic way, which is something that NR don't seem to be capable of doing. Just because a line seems important (Manchester-Sheffield) doesn't necessarily mean you get all that much out of electrifying it.

 

[Bald Rick]

It actually says it doesn't attempt to make an economic justification for each line. Its priorities are based only on the benefits, not the costs.

The benefits to my family of having a much bigger house, with a nice garden and pool are high. Doesn't mean we'll get it though. Someone has to pay!

 

[northwichcat]

The benefits to my family of having a much bigger house, with a nice garden and pool are high. Doesn't mean we'll get it though. Someone has to pay!

Ah but a bigger house always costs more to run and maintain. Electric trains are supposedly cheaper to operate once the wires are paid for.

A better analogy might be you have an old 30" TV and would like a new 42" TV which uses less energy than your old 30" TV, despite being bigger.

Network Rail will have to provide costings and then a Benefit:Cost Ratio for each line can be worked out.

 

[po8crg]

The benefits to my family of having a much bigger house, with a nice garden and pool are high. Doesn't mean we'll get it though. Someone has to pay!

Indeed so. The benefits of a brand-new car, and of a first-class holiday every year would be high too. But if you could afford only one, then you'd have to choose between the three.

 

[deltic08]

Ah but a bigger house always costs more to run and maintain. Electric trains are supposedly cheaper to operate once the wires are paid for.

A better analogy might be you have an old 30" TV and would like a new 42" TV which uses less energy than your old 30" TV, despite being bigger.

Network Rail will have to provide costings and then a Benefit:Cost Ratio for each line can be worked out.

Benefit cost analysis for electrifying the Harrogate Loop was done two years ago. It came out as 3.61 at a cost of £93m. It is an easy one to do being all plain line except at Horsforth, Harrogate and Knaresborough. Leeds and York are already wired with feeder points at Kirkstall and Poppleton with capacity.

 

[northwichcat]

Benefit cost analysis for electrifying the Harrogate Loop was done two years ago. It came out as 3.61 at a cost of £93m. It is an easy one to do being all plain line except at Horsforth, Harrogate and Knaresborough. Leeds and York are already wired with feeder points at Kirkstall and Poppleton with capacity.

Unless it was done at estimated CP6 costs using standard AC overheads it'll need to be worked out again.

It usually needs to be better than 2 for Network Rail to approve but sometimes schemes with a figure of over 5 get ignored by Network Rail, which ones with low ratios in Scotland are known to get implemented e.g. re-opening the Borders line where the costs aren't outweighed by benefits.

 

[jimm]

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.

Quote:
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;

You seem to have missed the words "will include". The list of eight was:

a. Not exhaustive - as should be obvious just looking at it and bearing in mind that none of the lines listed is a self-contained island operationally anyway
b. Not proscriptive. The DfT announcement began with the following line, which would be hard to surpass for vagueness

A joint taskforce will explore where next for electrification in the North.

so to suggest that the DfT was giving any kind of steer about any particular routes is reading too much into things from where I'm sitting. Especially when the terms of reference were as follows - taken from the report (page 49)

The North of England Rail Electrification Task Force is remitted to identify and recommend to Government a programme for the development and implementation of rail electrification schemes in the North of England (the area covered by the Rail North consortium of Local Authorities) taking account of all relevant factors including:

See the report for the factors and here is a map showing the Rail North area, just in case you think they were looking at routes they shouldn't have - they actually ignored the northern bit of the Midlands for the report - http://www.railnorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Rail-North-Lines-and-stations.pdf
c. The task force had representatives from DfT and Network Rail on it, the following is from the terms of reference in the report. Reports like this do not appear without all-round agreement, it's not some sort of parliamentary committee where MPs who don't like a committee's findings issue a dissenting view, so the idea that the MPs and councillors imposed their will on DfT and NR is silly - as will probably be clear once the new Network Rail electrification study appears any time now.

Membership
The Task Force will consist of three MPs from the North of England (nominated through the existing All-Party Parliamentary Rail in the North Group), two local authority Leaders nominated by the Rail North consortium, and senior officials from Network Rail and DfT. The Task Force will elect its own chair/co-chair, or may choose an independent person to chair.

 

[snowball]

One thing that surprised me was that the report was published by Rail North. It was on their website. The DfT website had an item reporting that the SoS had "received" the report. Yet the Dec 2013 press release gives the impression it was a DfT-led exercise and only mentions Rail North in passing.

 

[WatcherZero]

Was done by an independant committee of MP's appointed to the task by Government, Rail North as the backer was the publisher. Normally House of Commons library would be the publisher.

 

[snowball]

One thing that surprised me was that the report was published by Rail North. It was on their website.

And currently saying "bandwidth exceeded".

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And currently saying "bandwidth exceeded".

I know it is a pain. I will log on tonight at 22.00 EDT (or try) which will be 02.00 Greenwich and should have bandwidth back by then.

 

[WatcherZero]

Some hosts do server bandwidth allowances in Month increments, i.e. unless they intervene to find a new host/extend their bandwidth it might be as late as April before its back. Its Leeds Council that were providing the admin resources for the group, I must say ive never seen a public sector website run out of bandwidth before.

 

[lejog]

You seem to have missed the words "will include". The list of eight was:

a. Not exhaustive - as should be obvious just looking at it and bearing in mind that none of the lines listed is a self-contained island operationally anyway
b. Not proscriptive. The DfT announcement began with the following line, which would be hard to surpass for vagueness so to suggest that the DfT was giving any kind of steer about any particular routes is reading too much into things from where I'm sitting. Especially when the terms of reference were as follows - taken from the report (page 49)

Whatever the wording, the initial list was seen as prescriptive when the original press release was issued and there was an immediate reaction from local authorities, MPs and Rail User Groups (e.g, see here). There was an Early Day Motion passed in the Commons requesting the Calder Valley line to be added to the list. here.

Presumably someone higher up in the government got the message as a result of lobbying and the task force led by DfT/Network Rail quietly became a task force led by MPs/Rail North with TOC/NR/DfT involvement and its remit became to compare all lines in the North. This is what I meant by MPs/council leaders usurping the DfT/Network Rail. It appears that the DfT lost out because of their apparent arrogance in releasing a press release which could be read as we are going to set up a task force to look at this for a year, but we've already decided the results (perhaps I've been watching too much Yes Minister!).

See the report for the factors and here is a map showing the Rail North area, just in case you think they were looking at routes they shouldn't have - they actually ignored the northern bit of the Midlands for the report - http://www.railnorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Rail-North-Lines-and-stations.pdf
c. The task force had representatives from DfT and Network Rail on it, the following is from the terms of reference in the report. Reports like this do not appear without all-round agreement, it's not some sort of parliamentary committee where MPs who don't like a committee's findings issue a dissenting view, so the idea that the MPs and councillors imposed their will on DfT and NR is silly - as will probably be clear once the new Network Rail electrification study appears any time now.

I didn't mean to imply that the MPs/council leaders imposed their will on the results of the task force at all. IIRC the steering group only met 4 times and I don't suppose did much more than review the methodology to be used against their remit and requirements, progress and then the results (then wrote the introduction for the report). The work and the actual scoring (and therefore the results) and the writing of the report was carried out by the "officers" of the task force - from Rail North/ToCs/DfT and Network Rail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Look at the publically available GRIP process documentation. it is all there

I havent looked at the GRIP documentation in some time, but from what I recall its a fairly standard methodology for delivering projects and has no relevance whatsoever to exercises like this, where the remit was to establish the priorities of the taxpayer who will be funding this investment.

Indeed the output of the study is a list of recommended projects that should go forward to the initial stages of the GRIP process.

You still haven't provided any insight as to how the DfT/Network Rail came up with the 8 lines they listed in their initial press release. However they drew up the list, it seems to have cost them the leadership of the task force. To me this is the very opposite of common sense, more like naivety.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You still haven't provided any insight as to how the DfT/Network Rail came up with the 8 lines they listed in their initial press release. However they drew up the list, it seems to have cost them the leadership of the task force. To me this is the very opposite of common sense, more like naivety.

Okay, I'm replying to myself here but the quote below appears to summarise the main differences between the rail industry's methodology and that of the task force. Its not surprising that if you change the prime objective from diesel kms replaced per kms of electrification to impact on the regional economy, that results are different!

As a said before a change from the inward looking view of the rail industry to what taxpayers want for their investment.

Network Rail (NR) have used the diesel kms replaced per km of electrification as their core indicator of priority in work for the Electrification RUS refresh. In that work they have continuously recalculated this for each route, as they progress down a ranked list, on the basis that electrification of higher ranking routes has already been carried out. This tends to improve the priority for some lines from lower down the list, where services also operate on the higher ranked routes, as the diesel kms replaced for each km of electrification needed for the lower ranked line is greater.

As noted earlier this indicator covers a broad range of issues. However it does not directly address the local objectives for the rail network in the North of England (as set out in the LTRS), which are:

• Supporting sustainable economic growth;
• Enhancing service quality, improving the appeal of rail and, by encouraging more rail use, reducing environmental impacts and carbon emissions; and
• Improving efficiency, reducing the cost per passenger and per tonne of freight carried.

To better, and more explicitly, address these objectives three separate prioritisation criteria are suggested:

• The primary criterion should be the impact on the regional economy. This should take into account both the immediate benefits from replacing diesel with electric traction on a like for like basis and also the more far reaching benefits of seeing electrification as a catalyst for the transformation of both the quality and frequency of many local services. This takes electrification as the enabler for all the wider changes that are needed - journey time improvements, frequency augmentation and quality enhancements – and so looks forward to the benefits against the current base which could accrue from this wider package of change as an indicator of priority.
• The diesel kms replaced per km of electrification (Impact on services) indicator is suggested as the secondary criterion, but at a more disaggregate level than has been hitherto reported by Network Rail. As noted previously, this will act as good proxy for a range of other indicators (including core environmental benefits) which capture the benefit derived by the North of England from electrification. It captures two of the core objectives – enhancing quality and improving efficiency – and so is a simple measure of the impact of the scheme on the rail service.
• Finally, the requirement for replacement of rolling stock which cannot be economically ‘life extended’ and the enhancement of the fleet is brought to bear, taking into account the options for cascading stock, either diesel or electric, from elsewhere. This criterion should also include consideration of the additional rolling stock capacity required on each line, both now and in the future, in line with the economic aspirations emerging from One North: A Proposition for an interconnected North and the current high levels of dissatisfaction with overcrowding.