• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Electrification Teams -speculation

Status
Not open for further replies.

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,902
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I was doing quite a bit of reading this weekend as my wife is back in the UK. One fairly recent document said there was approximately 4000 miles of un-electrified railway. It said 50 miles had been electrified 2010-2015 (still trying to verify where they got this number from).

Airdrie-Bathgate-Edinburgh is 35 miles (2010).
Paisley Canal 5 miles (2012)
Springburn-Cumbernauld 12 miles (2014)
Rutherglen-Coatbridge/Whifflet 9 miles (2015)

Liverpool-Manchester, Huyton-Wigan 45 miles (2013-5)
The odd 10 miles pre-2010 is Kidsgrove-Crewe (2002), for WCRM.

I think the report's 60 miles 1997-2015 is probably Kidsgrove plus Bathgate, Paisley Canal and Cumbernauld.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,992
Location
K
What Brexit cutbacks would those be ?

EU grant funding doesn't cease until we leave the EU, which at this rate will be never.

The cutbacks that are necessary following the 4X overspend on GW electrification that are blamed on Brexit? the brake is already on a lot of previously EU funded schemes away from the railway by the way...
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,157
The brake is already on a lot of previously EU funded schemes away from the railway by the way...

Not really a surprise though is it.

Of all the accusations I've heard levelled at GWeP, "Brexit" has never been one of them.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
10,474
Location
Preston Lancs
So at the moment I count 5 teams in action actively involved in electrification projects
1. Birmingham area Bromsgrove area
2. EGIP etc
3. Goblin
4. GWML
5. Northwest

Outstanding- am I missing any
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,902
Location
Mold, Clwyd
So at the moment I count 5 teams in action actively involved in electrification projects
1. Birmingham area Bromsgrove area
2. EGIP etc
3. Goblin
4. GWML
5. Northwest

Outstanding- am I missing any

GWML is actually 2 teams, Crossrail as far as Maidenhead (BB) and GWML West (Amey).
EGIP might also be more than one team - I think the main E&G project uses a different team to the Cumbernauld/Whifflet lines (and now Shotts).
 

Magicake

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
130
I believe that ABC Electrification are also involved with the western end of the GWML so 3 teams.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,424
Location
Salt & Vinegar
GWML is actually 2 teams, Crossrail as far as Maidenhead (BB) and GWML West (Amey).
EGIP might also be more than one team - I think the main E&G project uses a different team to the Cumbernauld/Whifflet lines (and now Shotts).

EGIP and Shotts were two separate teams but I believe they may recently have been merged into one team. Still 2 distinct workstreams though.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
10,474
Location
Preston Lancs
Whichever way you look st it I am still highly please we have all these projects ongoing simultaneously. It really gives me hope even though some schemes are running behind schedule and a little over budget.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
What about the impact of Brexit on all this?

If there is an economic downturn public spending will be cut. Government borrowing is now more expensive because of the loss of AAA rating.

How many components have to be imported? These are presumably now 10% more expensive because of a weaker pound.

The Treasury will be building contingency funds which will be required sooner rather than later, so yes there will be an impact on spending across all departments, not just the railways. The economic hit is yet to come, and until it is known what form it might take it will not be a dominant factor in spending decisions.
 
Last edited:

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
I expect there will be some changes coming up around organisation of the teams.

There are more pointers to Electrification having been de-prioritised in the list of desirables, and it is going to be harder for NR get funding for even the smaller schemes going forward.
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
3,570
Location
Lancashire
And that short sighted attitude will lead to these experienced teams being disbanded and the inevitable loss of experience for the future, the best way for electrification is an ongoing rolling program rather than Big Bang schemes just like in Scotland.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
And that short sighted attitude will lead to these experienced teams being disbanded and the inevitable loss of experience for the future, the best way for electrification is an ongoing rolling program rather than Big Bang schemes just like in Scotland.

A significant contribution to the problems demonstrated is that the teams are not experienced enough.

The re-factoring will be to ensure there is due diligence undertaken, along with robust planning. That will impact the cadence of deliverables and contribute to further cost increases.

That will factor through to fewer proposals being financially viable.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,897
And that short sighted attitude will lead to these experienced teams being disbanded and the inevitable loss of experience for the future, the best way for electrification is an ongoing rolling program rather than Big Bang schemes just like in Scotland.

I would think increasing use of bi-mode helps in this respect, as a rolling programme of extensions can mean that increased use is made of the electric mode as wiring progresses, without the need for a fully completed electrification scheme before the first electric train can run.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
3,486
Location
Over The Hill
I would think increasing use of bi-mode helps in this respect, as a rolling programme of extensions can mean that increased use is made of the electric mode as wiring progresses, without the need for a fully completed electrification scheme before the first electric train can run.

Thank goodness someone has their glass half full on this forum!
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
3,570
Location
Lancashire
Indeed so, as I say a rolling program would also allow more and more electric running as the wiring proceeds without having to wait for completion if a Big Bang scheme. As long as the politicians/treasury/DaFT Civil Servants also see this rather than bi modes being the end of any electrification for the next 3 decades. Even more do if the bimodes are designed for quick and cheap removal of the diesel engines and associated fuel ranks (except for perhaps 1 as a last mile / get you home engine on each set)
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
Indeed so, as I say a rolling program would also allow more and more electric running as the wiring proceeds without having to wait for completion if a Big Bang scheme. As long as the politicians/treasury/DaFT Civil Servants also see this rather than bi modes being the end of any electrification for the next 3 decades. Even more do if the bimodes are designed for quick and cheap removal of the diesel engines and associated fuel ranks (except for perhaps 1 as a last mile / get you home engine on each set)

Unfortunately from a funding point of view, electrification after bi-modes have been made available is unjustifiable; Treasury would in effect be buying the end-product twice over.
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
3,570
Location
Lancashire
Not at all, riding diesel costs and environmental pressures will force an eventual return to electrification. Bi modes are a good stopgap if use properly as posted by others above to maximise the use of electrification as it extends in a rolling program.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,019
Location
St Albans
Not at all, riding diesel costs and environmental pressures will force an eventual return to electrification. Bi modes are a good stopgap if use properly as posted by others above to maximise the use of electrification as it extends in a rolling program.

That practice could be emphasised by moving the bi-mode fleet on to the next electrification rather than proliferating a train type that allows procrastination at the end of an electrification programme. There is no need for trains to be 'owned' by a particular line when they could be redeployed to a more appropriate role.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,031
I would hope that the TOCs would keep reminding the DfT that the more they use the diesel engines the more that costs them, as chances are the engines will be on lease based on the number of hours that the engines are in use.

I also think that with all the pressure over air quality, at least in our large cities, the will be ongoing pressure to keep electrification going. Also it is worth remembering that although there have been several bimodal orders recently they are mostly focused on Intercity services. As such there is still going to be a lot of local DMUs needed going forward if electrification doesn't continue.

As such it is likely that going forward there is an electrification budget with schemes being progressed on the basis of those that being the biggest benefits. Probably akin to the new stations funding.

That way, there could still be political pressure to do certain schemes, but there could well be all those useful (but boring) projects also progressing. This could then a lot of DMUs to be realesed to be used where they are still need.

It would also likely mean that projects where signaling and bridge works have already be done for other reasons (such as Basingstoke to Salisbury) being the larger projects that get the go ahead as the level of risk is significantly reduced.

Of course with railways being broadly cost neutral at present (£71 million loss on an income of £19bn) then it is likely that there will be ongoing investment in the railways. With the larger pool of EMUs available, where capacity is an issue electrification is a cheaper way of providing extra seats than getting more DMUs in the long term.

Assuming the old guidance of £110,000 per DMU coach and £100,000 per EMU coach, that would mean that where there is need for longer trains (I.e. longer than 5 coach trains) the costs of electrification could be paid back fairly quickly

As an example, for each 5 coach diagram that would be £0.5 million per year of savings just in lease costs for the TOC. As such on a service that is running under wires for 45 minutes and away from the wires for 15 minutes on a half hour frequency would return savings of at least £2 million a year. It would probably be more than that with the need for sister units, lower maintenance and fuel costs, as well as potentially removing the need for a micro fleet of DMUs. A good example would be if electrification removed the need for DMUs at Southern.
 

dviner

Member
Joined
7 Oct 2010
Messages
246
<a lot of really good stuff that I won't sully with the following flippant reply>

As an example, for each 5 coach diagram that would be £0.5 million per year of savings just in lease costs for the TOC.

£0.5 million per year of savings? That could easily be swallowed up by the increased requirement for lemon-soaked paper napkins.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
Not at all, riding diesel costs and environmental pressures will force an eventual return to electrification. Bi modes are a good stopgap if use properly as posted by others above to maximise the use of electrification as it extends in a rolling program.

Environmental considerations would not be sufficient on their own, nor for that matter would increased fuel costs - unless there was a pronounced and long-term rise in the costs - to justify a rolling electrification program as previously envisioned.

There are benefits to maintaining expertise and capability, but each section of line, including those postponed, is going to have to go back through a hardened financial justification process.

First though, NR is going to have to pursued the ORR, the DfT and The Treasury that it has got the costs and deliverability of schemes under control. This it has not done, and it is apparent that there are still problems that it has not addressed. Time is running out for NR to re-establish confidence in it's abilities prior to the start of the CP6 funding cycle. Until that has been achieved, any further electrification works are going to be a very hard slog through process and committee.

So overall the unit costs of delivery are expected to be significantly high than at the start of CP5, and the cadence of deliveries is expected to be lower. That clear indicates that fewer schemes will be justifiable than had previously been assumed.

So for example, the wider availability of bi-modes to GWR means that some of the postponed schemes may be 'axed' until the route is next uplifted - perhaps near the end-of-life of those new vehicles. The increased unit costs may also impact the MML proposals.

There is also the case that in the last year, one group of companies has indicated that they are looking at bringing up to production standards an alternative that may undermine the case for electrification in the medium term. We shall see.


Besides those issues, the goals have shifted to providing the more immediate increases in capacity and reliability of service. The Digital Railway initiative provides a more direct way of delivering on these goals and thus why it is now the focus of funding.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
...
Of course with railways being broadly cost neutral at present (£71 million loss on an income of £19bn) then it is likely that there will be ongoing investment in the railways.
...

NR has not met it's objectives on cost reductions and improved productivity set out for CP5. There will be renewed pressure on NR to make up for this, and to recover over expenditure in the CP6 funding round. So in short, capital investment will continue, but this will go hand-in-hand with significant OpeEx reductions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top