Great Western Electrification Progress

[Class 170101]

It is best to electrify lines that either have been re-signalled fairly recently with immune equipment, or are due for re-signalling so that new immune equipment can be installed.

Thats why Blckpool is being done this way the way it is and not finished until sometime in 2017 as I recall?

 

[HowardGWR]

Surely the case for extension of wiring schemes has to be justified by the fact of nearly all trains being subsequently electrically driven, whereas if the reverse is the case, then it's a lot of capital expenditure for very little benefit. Westbury to Bath, as suggested above, might provide an emergency diversion facility but not much else. A chord reinstatement at Holt junction could be good for the bi-modes in such circumstances, I suppose.

 

[Olaf]

It's really stupid to do it at a later date, as it will cost more than if it's included in the original project as its a case of having to start all of the designers, project management, machinery and materials back to the areas and then there's the increased disruption and inconvenience as well.

The cost of civils are also expected to rise by 20% to 25% over the next two years after exiting the recession, but the work can not proceed until money is made available, allocated, and committed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because you're dealing with the short-sightedness of a privatised industry.

Well, to start with the DfT, ORR, and NR are now all public sector bodies.

The actual reasons will be due to the terms of the public funding, the intended service patterns, and the details of the planning decisions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because it is not Network Rail's concern to minimise the cost of running the railway as it would have been in the BR era.

If diesel traction is used over that part of the route it is not their problem.

That is incorrect; NR's remit includes a clause to significantly reduce costs; ask the signallers for a start.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think most on this board would agree. UK Politicians (and let us not kid ourselves it comes down to them in the end) do not think sensibly and long term.

In 1974 after WCML Weaver Jct - Glasgow had been completed, common sense would have said do Carstairs-Edinburgh after. But no, that had to wait until many years later. I could go on and on. Commonsense would have also said do Preston-Blackpool, Wigan-Liverpool, Euxton Jct - Manchester as part of the WCML electrification extension. So much cheaper and easier in the long run.

It's not about common sense; common sense would tell you that it is itself a myth.

Politicians, Government Agencies, and Private Operators can only do what is legally possible; they can not spend money that they do not have.

Re 1974; don't forget that the UK's finances, like now, were on the verge of collapse and the country ended up having to be bailed-out by the IMF. The terms of the bail-out killed off a large number of spending plans across all public sector bodies.

 

[snowball]

Surely the case for extension of wiring schemes has to be justified by the fact of nearly all trains being subsequently electrically driven, whereas if the reverse is the case, then it's a lot of capital expenditure for very little benefit. Westbury to Bath, as suggested above, might provide an emergency diversion facility but not much else. A chord reinstatement at Holt junction could be good for the bi-modes in such circumstances, I suppose.

Surely the case for electrifying a route depends on the number of train-miles, vehicle-miles or tonne-miles per year that will be able to convert from diesel to electric traction as a result. The number that will remain diesel is irrelevant, contrary to what people often say on here.

Obviously it's better if more can convert. But a route with 3 million train-miles convertible and 4 million not convertible is more worth electrifying than a line with 2 million convertible and 1 million not, even though the second line has a much higher percentage convertible. (Other things being equal, of course, which they usually are not.)

 

[edwin_m]

Surely the case for electrifying a route depends on the number of train-miles, vehicle-miles or tonne-miles per year that will be able to convert from diesel to electric traction as a result. The number that will remain diesel is irrelevant, contrary to what people often say on here.

Obviously it's better if more can convert. But a route with 3 million train-miles convertible and 4 million not convertible is more worth electrifying than a line with 2 million convertible and 1 million not, even though the second line has a much higher percentage convertible. (Other things being equal, of course, which they usually are not.)

That is true, with the proviso that some of the miles convertible to electric traction may not be on the route proposed for conversion. But on either criterion Westbury to Bath scores poorly. The only trains that might be convertible are the locals from Bristol that turn back at Westbury, and then only if their diagrams can be re-arranged to avoid any non-electrified routes.

It's very difficult to justify electrification on the basis of diversions, and even more so when the electric fleet includes a significant number of bi-modes. Of recent/current schemes, I think it was a major factor only for Crewe to Kidsgrove, which was a very short section that unlocked a much longer diversionary route.

 

[NX]

It bleedin' well should be of concern. They haven't got an unlimited credit card at their disposal. If they're not careful, they might find that the banks & creditors call time on the colossal amount of debt that NR has.

And where would that leave NR & the rail networik as a whole?

****ed

NX

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Re 1974; don't forget that the UK's finances, like now, were on the verge of collapse and the country ended up having to be bailed-out by the IMF. The terms of the bail-out killed off a large number of spending plans across all public sector bodies.

Yes, even the first Channel Tunnel got cancelled.

 

[HSTEd]

That is incorrect; NR's remit includes a clause to significantly reduce costs; ask the signallers for a start.

Yes, reduce NR's costs.
Network Rail doesn't pay for diesel used by the train operators - or the extra maintenance required by diesel trains.

 

[HowardGWR]

****ed

NX

Yes, people do not seem to understand that the 'debt' is in fact NR's capital and cannot be cashed, unless the government sells the NR (to whom?).

Getting back to the thread, the incremental investment in electrification on the former GWR has to compete with the demand for it on other lines. It seems to me that the Midland line gives a much better payback than some of the suggestions above. I would think Bristol to Brum would have better credentials than Westbury to Bath too.

 

[HSTEd]

Those debts will be in the form of bonds with specified expiry dates.
The creditors can't simply wake up one day and demand that NR pay the entire sum right then.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I would think Bristol to Brum would have better credentials than Westbury to Bath too.

Totally agree - but would be good to see the numbers though Bristol-derby via Brum makes even more sense and could probably be justified on a business case basis.

 

[Chris125]

Has this RTM interview been mentioned before? It's with Martin Jurkowski, responsible for NR's 'North of England Programme' and among other details of the work mentions the issue with the wiring train:

The work has not been incident-free, unfortunately. A new wiring train is out of service for modification following an accident in which a wire broke, though luckily no-one was seriously injured. Jurkowski said: “We’re addressing that and making sure that kind of incident is either very unlikely or can’t happen again.”

Chris

 

[Ploughman]

Yes, even the first Channel Tunnel got cancelled.

And the second.

 

[snowball]

Has this RTM interview been mentioned before? It's with Martin Jurkowski, responsible for NR's 'North of England Programme' and among other details of the work mentions the issue with the wiring train:

The link doesn't work. It doesn't contain a web address.

 

[59CosG95]

Totally agree - but would be good to see the numbers though Bristol-derby via Brum makes even more sense and could probably be justified on a business case basis.

Of course, north of Derby depends on MML wiring...and Leeds-York connection infills...

 

[ironstone11]

The link doesn't work. It doesn't contain a web address.

Try this:-

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/north-of-england-programme

 

[edwin_m]

Of course, north of Derby depends on MML wiring...and Leeds-York connection infills...

Leeds-York is being done as part of Transpennine and I've not heard any suggestion of cancelling that. Do you mean Sheffield-Doncaster/Wakefield?

 

[Class 170101]

I think it was a major factor only for Crewe to Kidsgrove, which was a very short section that unlocked a much longer diversionary route.

But presumably that involved just some poles and wires no expensive feeder stations or similar structures?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Of course, north of Derby depends on MML wiring...and Leeds-York connection infills...

Well Leeds - York is supposed to be happening as part of Trans-Pennine. But I agree - Sheffield -Leeds and Sheffield -York would then need to get done.

 

[snowball]

Try this:-

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/north-of-england-programme

Thanks.

 

[Olaf]

Yes, people do not seem to understand that the 'debt' is in fact NR's capital and cannot be cashed, unless the government sells the NR (to whom?).

NR is being lined up to be sold into the insurance and fund management sector - there is no change there.

In terms of the debt; bond holders do not demand repayment, they sell the debt in the market. If the value of the debt falls in the market because of concerns about the UK Governments ability to repay the debt, then the yield on future debt issues goes up until the Government has to cut back its level of borrowing.

As it stands, the UK borrowing is out of control and is at risk of a downgrade. NR's level of debt, before it was merged into the UK Government balance sheet was close to it's maximum limit and when NR is privatised it is not clear if it will be able to continue funding large projects beyond the end of CP6. However, since it now counts against Government spending it is liable to get cuts imposed before the end of CP5.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Has this RTM interview been mentioned before? It's with Martin Jurkowski, responsible for NR's 'North of England Programme' and among other details of the work mentions the issue with the wiring train:

The work has not been incident-free, unfortunately. A new wiring train is out of service for modification following an accident in which a wire broke, though luckily no-one was seriously injured. Jurkowski said: “We’re addressing that and making sure that kind of incident is either very unlikely or can’t happen again.”

Chris

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/north-of-england-programme

Thanks. I had speculated that the vehicle would require modification after the outcome of the legal case.

 

[HSTEd]

UK Government borrowing is not 'out of control' or at particularily dangerous levels.
We could keep goign like this for another five years or more without serious risk of default.

 

[HowardGWR]

UK Government borrowing is not 'out of control' or at particularily dangerous levels.
We could keep goign like this for another five years or more without serious risk of default.

Yes, of course you are correct. It is a pity that people keep trying to bring in national politics. All we were discussing was that, given limited resources, which bits of electrification would be most attractive to tack on. As well as that, we were discussing whether the construction train has problems or not.

These issues have nothing to do with national deficit / debt, except that all government expenditure has this relationship.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It is a pity that people keep trying to bring in national politics. All we were discussing was that, given limited resources, which bits of electrification would be most attractive to tack on.

Attractive though (commonsense??) sadly means some politics. If you take the view that "the regions" are now getting some love and not just London and the Southeast, then how long before the Southwest says "How about some electrification here" so politics sadly always plays a part.

To me - Bristol-Derby via Brum makes huge sense - it means cross-country is getting electrified. I do agree that this makes even more sense when combined with Sheffield - York , Leeds and Doncaster but I have read many places these are being considered anyway. The grand hope surely is that by the time these are done, the economy will be be in better shape, we will have a hugely experienced electrification teams (s) and they say OK - well lets now do Bristol-Exter etc, etc.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

To me - Bristol-Derby via Brum makes huge sense - it means cross-country is getting electrified. I do agree that this makes even more sense when combined with Sheffield - York , Leeds and Doncaster but I have read many places these are being considered anyway. The grand hope surely is that by the time these are done, the economy will be be in better shape, we will have a hugely experienced electrification teams (s) and they say OK - well lets now do Bristol-Exter etc, etc.

Bristol-Derby went to the back of the queue when the route got new diesel trains (Voyagers). Just like The Snow Hill lines when they got their 172s.
GW is being electrified mainly because the HSTs (and signalling) are life expired and have to be replaced anyway (plus the Thames Valley diesel fleet is overwhelmed).
MML is an odd one, because its fleet is not life expired (not the 222s anyway).
Every electrification project has to look at the cascades as it is key to the business case. What would you do with the Voyagers?
Bristol-Derby will keep failing that test until more of the XC route is wired by other projects.
The coffers are only so deep anyway, and NR and contractor resources are fully stretched with the current work.
It may be a long time before the next major route electrification is approved (maybe the 2017 HLOS).
Unless Mr Osborne can produce a rabbit out of the hat in the next 6 months, to pacify the Tory marginals.

 

[BantamMenace]

Bristol-Derby went to the back of the queue when the route got new diesel trains (Voyagers). Just like The Snow Hill lines when they got their 172s.
GW is being electrified mainly because the HSTs (and signalling) are life expired and have to be replaced anyway (plus the Thames Valley diesel fleet is overwhelmed).
MML is an odd one, because its fleet is not life expired (not the 222s anyway).
Every electrification project has to look at the cascades as it is key to the business case. What would you do with the Voyagers?
Bristol-Derby will keep failing that test until more of the XC route is wired by other projects.
The coffers are only so deep anyway, and NR and contractor resources are fully stretched with the current work.
It may be a long time before the next major route electrification is approved (maybe the 2017 HLOS).
Unless Mr Osborne can produce a rabbit out of the hat in the next 6 months, to pacify the Tory marginals.

dust off the old eVoyager plans

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Unless Mr Osborne can produce a rabbit out of the hat in the next 6 months, to pacify the Tory marginals.

-I told ya that politics is always involved

 

[59CosG95]

dust off the old eVoyager plans

And eMeridians...

 

[The Planner]

Bristol-Derby will keep failing that test until more of the XC route is wired by other projects.

Bristol Brum might come later but Brum Derby and Brum Nuneaton is fairly high up the study list.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Bristol Brum might come later but Brum Derby and Brum Nuneaton is fairly high up the study list.

And yet there are hardly any of today's services which would benefit from those two.
You'd end up with a lot of splitting at New St which isn't very clever.
Nuneaton would relieve the Coventry route though, but you'd have to go on to Wigston to get any real benefit.
Maybe it ties in with the plan for Tamworth locals.