• 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!

MML electrification included in draft Northern RUS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,303
interesting :) but it doesnt mean anythign yet

It does mean that during the preparation of what is a 'consultation draft', the DfT as one of the sponsors, has allowed it to be mentioned.

The Northern RUS process has been overseen and
directed by the Stakeholder Management Group
which comprises representatives from the Train
Operating Companies (TOCs), Freight Operating
Companies (FOCs), the Department for Transport
(DfT), Network Rail, the Association of Train
Operating Companies (ATOC), Passenger Focus,
the Passesnger Transport Executives (PTEs) and
the ORR (as observers).

The original link is to a news article, the 128 page document is here - but AFAICT it hardly mentions anything new:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/rus%20generation%202/northern/northern%20rus%20draft%20for%20consultation.pdf
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
It does kind of chime with rumours that the government is planning to cancel GWML electrification and instead reinstate MML electrification.

The RUS makes sorry reading for how much lengthening or extra services it says are required and the chance that we will actually get new stock in the short-mid term. It speculates that efficency savings could be had from including a order for the replacement of the Merseyrail DC units with a new AC units order to serve electrification/lengthening on top of the cascade and speculates a Pacer/Sprinter replacement may have better performance charachteristics. In fact perhaps due to ecomic climate theirs very little infrastructure works proposed in it for the next 30 years bar lancashire Trangle and later Transpennine electrification, Northern Hub and Leeds Station.
 

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,125
Location
Birmingham
It might be worth seriously considering Bombardier's suggestion of the panto coach(es) in the 22x sets so the 222's can be "converted" if the MML gets electrified.
 

ukrob

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Messages
1,810
It does kind of chime with rumours that the government is planning to cancel GWML electrification and instead reinstate MML electrification.

The RUS makes sorry reading for how much lengthening or extra services it says are required and the chance that we will actually get new stock in the short-mid term. It speculates that efficency savings could be had from including a order for the replacement of the Merseyrail DC units with a new AC units order to serve electrification/lengthening on top of the cascade and speculates a Pacer/Sprinter replacement may have better performance charachteristics. In fact perhaps due to ecomic climate theirs very little infrastructure works proposed in it for the next 30 years bar lancashire Trangle and later Transpennine electrification, Northern Hub and Leeds Station.

It is however, the most realistic RUS (draft or otherwise) I have ever seen.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
As I said, it reflects the economy, the sorry reading comment was more about all the extra services and lengthening it said was needed and the chances we would actually get that in the next 5-10 years.
 

PhilipW

Member
Joined
6 Feb 2008
Messages
761
Location
Fareham, Hants
Worth pointing out that RUS documents are just 'talking shop' documents. They are commitments to nothing.

I wonder what the point of them is. They probably make the DfT and railway industry feel god that they have produced such nice documents.

As to their benefits, that's highly debatable. Still the railway industry likes to keep on spending lots of much but achieving very little.

How many man hours and how much money spent developing this RUS ? Lots, I fear. Benefits --> practically zero.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,060
Location
Reston City Centre
Worth pointing out that RUS documents are just 'talking shop' documents. They are commitments to nothing.

I wonder what the point of them is. They probably make the DfT and railway industry feel god that they have produced such nice documents.

As to their benefits, that's highly debatable. Still the railway industry likes to keep on spending lots of much but achieving very little.

How many man hours and how much money spent developing this RUS ? Lots, I fear. Benefits --> practically zero.

I imagine the point is that it allows local "Stakeholders" to have a forum to campaign for their own "wishlists", regardless of the fact that they are unlikely to happen.

I never expect much of them to actually happen (in the short/ medium term), but it does give an indication into the kind of things that are on the table.

I don't know whether to be encouraged by this modest RUS or depressed that things are so desperate that we are having to get excited about really low-key changes.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,718
Worth pointing out that RUS documents are just 'talking shop' documents. They are commitments to nothing.

Trouble is though, if you come up with a scheme and it doesnt make it into the RUS, you are all but knackered.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,303
I imagine the point is that it allows local "Stakeholders" to have a forum to campaign for their own "wishlists", regardless of the fact that they are unlikely to happen.

I never expect much of them to actually happen (in the short/ medium term), but it does give an indication into the kind of things that are on the table.

If you go back and look at some older RUSs such as 'Cross London', you'll find that a fair proportion, probably a majority, of the proposed service and infrastructure changes have happened, or are happening soon.

The problem is, people are so used to things being talked about for years without anything happening that they are conditioned to be highly suspicious of these shopping lists. My suggestion is to wait a few years, as they deal with things 5 or 10 years before they happen...

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Trouble is though, if you come up with a scheme and it doesnt make it into the RUS, you are all but knackered.

Exactly - in the sense that they list what is possible, they are a good starting point - and although they are written up by NR, they do include DfT policy makers on the management board...
 
Last edited:

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,060
Location
Reston City Centre
If you go back and look at some older RUSs such as 'Cross London', you'll find that a fair proportion, probably a majority, of the proposed service and infrastructure changes have happened, or are happening soon.

The problem is, people are so used to things being talked about for years without anything happening that they are conditioned to be highly suspicious of these shopping lists. My suggestion is to wait a few years, as they deal with things 5 or 10 years before they happen...

That sounds like the kind of "health warning" that should come with these, to stop us getting excited about any short term improvements.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,303
That sounds like the kind of "health warning" that should come with these, to stop us getting excited about any short term improvements.

Good point - I mean, look how often in the past we have seen/read franchise announcements of new services and timetables, and in the detailed stuff we then see that they come in SLC2, perhaps two years away.

Or when the platform lengthening is finished in 2013-14...

Or stock overhauls 'over the length of the franchise' or whatever...

Yet you can bet within six months someone will post here complaining that such and such a change hasn't happened yet... :roll:

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Worth pointing out that RUS documents are just 'talking shop' documents. They are commitments to nothing.

Especially so as this one is only a draft. Once they become established and are approved by ORR they are the policy. To assume they have no relevance whatsoever to future happenings is quite wrong.

As a recent example - look at the announcement of Gatwick's new platform. Then go and look it's business case up in the Sussex RUS - if it wasn't in there it wouldn't be happening at all...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top