Network Rail upgrade delayed by government (BBC News Article)

[Senex]

The main problem is that they were trying to cram into less than 10 years electrification projects that would more sensibly have been spread evenly across the last 40 - 50 years.

40 - 50 years seems a bit much. Look, for example, at how much track DB wired up in the three decades from 1950.

 

[yorksrob]

Let's not forget Network Rail led the charge for electrification, with key support from ATOC.
They produced the RUS with indicative (optimistic) costings, and persuaded the sceptical civil servants in DfT and the Treasury that it was the right time for a big push on electrification.
With a rail-savvy minister on side (Andrew Adonis), the GW and NW schemes were authorised on the NR template, in 2009.
The Coalition government, after a 6-month review hiatus, re-approved both schemes and then piled on more, first TP in 2011 and then for the 2012 HLOS added MML, electric spine and the rest, within the £38.5 billion tag for CP5.

It's been going wrong ever since the first spade went in in the NW in 2012.
If you believe the ORR, all the projects started from a "blank sheet of paper" rather than progressively learning from the earlier projects.
You can't help but hold NR responsible for the project failures.

What's worse is that NR is now a busted flush with the DfT and Treasury (just like the railways always have been).
NR's hard-earned reputation for being good engineers and project managers (eg Dawlish, Reading) has just gone down the pan, just as Railtrack's did over WCRM.
They somehow have to rebuild their reputation by rescuing the projects now in limbo.
Not an easy task, when you have alienated your customers and suppliers big time.
Patrick McLoughlin got a rough ride in parliament yesterday. He is going to take that out on somebody.
The political damage is immense, to things like Northern Powerhouse and all the local promises made about improvement in services.
I thought Mark Carne got off lightly. Not sure about his support organisation though (eg Infrastructure Projects). I'd expect some "collateral damage".

Also don't forget that another tranche of NR enhancement projects, not as visible to the public, is also under fire for being too expensive and late.
These are resignalling projects where again there are severe skills shortages.
The GW scheme still faces difficulties on things like 4-tracking Filton Bank and remodelling Temple Meads, regardless of the wiring problems.
The CP5 enhancement projects update due next week will make interesting reading (or will it - all the milestones will say TBA...).

Meanwhile, at least the Norton Bridge flyover is coming on well!

I don't really see how Mr Carne can have been expected to completely turn around a huge organisation in the short time he's been there.

Mr McLaughlin is right to point out the lack of progress on electrification (or anything else on the railway) under labour.

However, when it comes to cost overruns and the expense of projects, we've known since the WCML that the vertical non-integration of the railway and the contractual arrangements involved tend to magnify this expense, therefore as a representative of his party and ideology, Mr McLoughlin must bear some of the responsibility for that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The thing about enthusiasts is that they can always find an excuse for new infrastructure.

• That town has a regular bus service to the nearest city? That’s evidence of demand; we should open a railway.
• That town has no bus service to the nearest city? We need to build a railway to provide this unmet link in this public transport "desert".
• That town is rich with lots of jobs? We need a railway to serve these wealthy commuters.
• That town is poor with few jobs? We need a railway to improve social mobility and tackle depravation.

...in short, the answer is always “a railway” (if you ask enthusiasts).

I know this is one of your favourite hobby horses, but I really don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at all, given that this a comparison between different infrastructure projects, all of which have been seen as strategically important, and have passed the benefit:cost analysis as required.

Since no-one at present is planning to close or replace any of these routes, isn't it fair to say that the answer in all of these cases is "a railway" to everyone except for the 'tarmac over the rails' brigade ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nobody is going to argue in favour of “more fragmentation and more bureaucracy” – that’s just rhetoric...

...but funnily enough if you change the word to “devolution”, people suddenly like the idea of “fragmentation”.

If the Government announce a Yorkshire division of Network Rail that chooses how to spend its allocated monies, people will swing round to the idea (rightly or wrongly).

A rather oversimplistic assessment of the situation IMO. There's a difference between "fragmentation" in the sense of having separate organisations communicating through contracts and lawyers, and "devolution" in which you have one organisation, but in which decisions for different areas are taken by the relevant people in that area, as opposed to in the centre. It is the latter we should be aiming for, rather than the former.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Your continued complaining about HS2 on a thread that has nothing to do with HS2 would sound better if you moved on from the “I don’t like HS2; it won’t serve my home town” level of debate.

It won’t serve central Sheffield either, but I can deal with the fact and accept that Sheffield (whilst bigger then Derby) isn’t big enough to warrant diverting the high speed line through the middle of.

It's a reasonable concern though.

HS2 has been sold to railway users on the basis that we will forever be living in some 'land of milk and honey' in which there will always be adequate capital to invest in all levels of the railway, be it HS2, classic main line or regional.

For those of us who suspect that this isn't how the world works, it's perfectly sensible to wonder whether this is just a delay in the development of these projects, all of which have passed the traditional benefit:cost analysis, or will this be the beginning of a long decline for the regional railway.

 

[Crundles]

Considering Labour's poor track record of rail investment during their time in power (did they do any significant electrification?), it's a bit rich for them to suddenly take an interest because a different governing party tried to do much more than they ever dreamed of.

Don't have the exact figures to hand but I thought railway investment increased quite a lot after 1997? ...not that all of it might have been spent wisely, mind.

 

[yorksrob]

There seems to be a lot of confusion/ hypocrisy here.

One minute HSTs are The Greatest Trains Ever and IEP is boring/ plastic/ Voyager-clone that won’t even be able to make a decent cappuccino... the next minute people are complaining that the MML is being saddled with these dreadful old HSTs and not getting the 21st century stock that it needs.

Whilst I know that we will need new trains at some stage, The InterCity 125 is indeed the greatest train ever, and I know from experience that newer trains are rarely an improvement in terms of comfort over that they replace.

I won't be crying into my pint if we have to keep them a little longer than expected.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't have the exact figures to hand but I thought railway investment increased quite a lot after 1997? ...not that all of it might have been spent wisely, mind.

In terms of projects and infrastructure there didn't seem to be that many. Compared to the electrifications, route modernisations and reopenings that occurred between 1984 and 1994. As you imply, a lot of that might be down to expense.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 'Leeds First' by Railtrack was an unmitigated disaster, being 9 months late and there was a period of about 1 month when Leeds station was virtually unusable. Step forward Robin Gisby (I think it was him) to advise on TV just before Christmas that year [when the switchover to new track was to take place] that the project was on schedule and the rumours it was late and wouldn't work were rubbish. So it's not just a recent phenomenon and the same guys keep making the same mistakes.

I was commuting through Leeds for the main part of this time, and it did indeed seem to take a long time and was a pain. In terms of the outcome though, the station we have now is a considerable improvement.

 

[Haydn1971]

Haydn, HS2 is of no use to anyone currently using the MML unless you live within 5 miles of either Meadowhall or Toton. Other than that your best bet for getting to London and in between is the MML. Even the DfT and Network Rail have stated that this is the case. MML users best hope is that 125 mph units are built as loco hauled stock would be a disaster.

As been as you've posted this again, I'll pick up on this - on the face of it, I'll accept that it would appear that London bound passengers from places not served by HS2 will be worse off - however, my counter to that is that intermediate destinations will benefit enormously in that the less paths you have full of Birmingham and London bound passengers from Leeds, Meadowhall, Toton etc, the more space you have for things like Chesterfield to Birmingham, who won't be any worse off to intermediate destinations or Birmingham. Meanwhile, back in Chesterfield, if you need to go to London, depending on where they live, some will drive to Meadowhall, more will continue to travel to Chesterfield to catch a connecting service to Toton.

To suggest that HS2 is of no use unless you live within 5 miles is quite simply Daily Mail style sensationalism, I travel almost 10 miles to catch my daily sprinter to Manchester, I used to travel nearly 8 miles to catch the morning 185 to Manchester and Pacer to Leeds - my current journey with a 10 minute platform wait is 80 minutes, my previous to Leeds was 70 minutes. There are quicker options, but then I can't get parked at Dore/Meadowhall when these run, I could catch a CrossCountry to Leeds more quickly, but then pay £15 to park at Sheffield or suffer a 40 minute tram ride - what we have currently doesn't work, what HS2 brings are journey savings for many and opens up opportunities on classic lines for many more.

 

[47802]

As been as you've posted this again, I'll pick up on this - on the face of it, I'll accept that it would appear that London bound passengers from places not served by HS2 will be worse off - however, my counter to that is that intermediate destinations will benefit enormously in that the less paths you have full of Birmingham and London bound passengers from Leeds, Meadowhall, Toton etc, the more space you have for things like Chesterfield to Birmingham, who won't be any worse off to intermediate destinations or Birmingham. Meanwhile, back in Chesterfield, if you need to go to London, depending on where they live, some will drive to Meadowhall, more will continue to travel to Chesterfield to catch a connecting service to Toton.

To suggest that HS2 is of no use unless you live within 5 miles is quite simply Daily Mail style sensationalism, I travel almost 10 miles to catch my daily sprinter to Manchester, I used to travel nearly 8 miles to catch the morning 185 to Manchester and Pacer to Leeds - my current journey with a 10 minute platform wait is 80 minutes, my previous to Leeds was 70 minutes. There are quicker options, but then I can't get parked at Dore/Meadowhall when these run, I could catch a CrossCountry to Leeds more quickly, but then pay £15 to park at Sheffield or suffer a 40 minute tram ride - what we have currently doesn't work, what HS2 brings are journey savings for many and opens up opportunities on classic lines for many more.

Indeed so I live 25 miles North of Meadowhall but near the Motorway, if HS2 existed now I would probably drive to Meadowhall as a more convenient option than driving or catching public transport to the centre of Wakefield or Leeds.

 

[Martin222002]

Its also worth mentioning here that somewhere on the HS2 threads you yourself have stated that the East Midlands is of minor significance in the HS2 grand scheme of things and I happen to agree with you. Hence my feelings that either side of HS2 infrastructure on the MML needs to be not just maintained to the same standards but improved, those improvements including electrification.

Haydn, HS2 is of no use to anyone currently using the MML unless you live within 5 miles of either Meadowhall or Toton. Other than that your best bet for getting to London and in between is the MML. Even the DfT and Network Rail have stated that this is the case. MML users best hope is that 125 mph units are built as loco hauled stock would be a disaster.

As been as you've posted this again, I'll pick up on this - on the face of it, I'll accept that it would appear that London bound passengers from places not served by HS2 will be worse off - however, my counter to that is that intermediate destinations will benefit enormously in that the less paths you have full of Birmingham and London bound passengers from Leeds, Meadowhall, Toton etc, the more space you have for things like Chesterfield to Birmingham, who won't be any worse off to intermediate destinations or Birmingham. Meanwhile, back in Chesterfield, if you need to go to London, depending on where they live, some will drive to Meadowhall, more will continue to travel to Chesterfield to catch a connecting service to Toton.

To suggest that HS2 is of no use unless you live within 5 miles is quite simply Daily Mail style sensationalism, I travel almost 10 miles to catch my daily sprinter to Manchester, I used to travel nearly 8 miles to catch the morning 185 to Manchester and Pacer to Leeds - my current journey with a 10 minute platform wait is 80 minutes, my previous to Leeds was 70 minutes. There are quicker options, but then I can't get parked at Dore/Meadowhall when these run, I could catch a CrossCountry to Leeds more quickly, but then pay £15 to park at Sheffield or suffer a 40 minute tram ride - what we have currently doesn't work, what HS2 brings are journey savings for many and opens up opportunities on classic lines for many more.

I have to say I agree with both of you, and understand where both of you are coming from. As someone who currently lives in Chesterfield, I really don't see that I will gain much from using HS2 to get to either London or Birmingham, and agree that the MML should not be downgraded as a result of HS2 being built. In my opinion HS2 should act as an addition to the services on the MML to London and in the XC route to Birmingham, Leeds and the North East.

What we can be thankful for is that the MML is still going to see the capacity enhancements that it needs to operate more services, including the full 4 tracking between Bedford and Kettering, and the straightening of the line through Market Harbourgh. I see this as an indication that the MML isn't just going to be left as it is to be 'replaced' by HS2. The only thing which is a big issue in the short term is what is going to happen about the MML HSTs come 2020, and any possible extra stock that might be needed to run additional services and add capacity in the near future.

 

[LLivery]

As been as you've posted this again, I'll pick up on this - on the face of it, I'll accept that it would appear that London bound passengers from places not served by HS2 will be worse off - however, my counter to that is that intermediate destinations will benefit enormously in that the less paths you have full of Birmingham and London bound passengers from Leeds, Meadowhall, Toton etc, the more space you have for things like Chesterfield to Birmingham, who won't be any worse off to intermediate destinations or Birmingham. Meanwhile, back in Chesterfield, if you need to go to London, depending on where they live, some will drive to Meadowhall, more will continue to travel to Chesterfield to catch a connecting service to Toton.

To suggest that HS2 is of no use unless you live within 5 miles is quite simply Daily Mail style sensationalism, I travel almost 10 miles to catch my daily sprinter to Manchester, I used to travel nearly 8 miles to catch the morning 185 to Manchester and Pacer to Leeds - my current journey with a 10 minute platform wait is 80 minutes, my previous to Leeds was 70 minutes. There are quicker options, but then I can't get parked at Dore/Meadowhall when these run, I could catch a CrossCountry to Leeds more quickly, but then pay £15 to park at Sheffield or suffer a 40 minute tram ride - what we have currently doesn't work, what HS2 brings are journey savings for many and opens up opportunities on classic lines for many more.

I still don't buy it either. If we look at other nations HS Lines, all major cities, even Ingolstadt use the station in the city centre which was already there. HS fares will be more expensive too (you can't argue against that - in every country in the world they are more expensive). I honestly don't believe HS2 will have a big impact on the MML, everyone doesn't just travel to London and many who do will still use the current service. I'll be living in Nottingham soon and there is no chance I would go all the way to the countryside to get a more expensive train. You also have to remember the current Midland stations have connections to many more local regional lines, city buses and trams than Toton and Meadowhall. I don't expect even half London passengers in Sheffield and Nottingham to use HS2. We all have different opinions but remember how many people they said would be using the Channel Tunnel by now? People still use the flipping ferry!

In short, MML growth will continue, the MML will still need upgrading and the MML will still have Nottingham trains because people in towns and cities along the route go Nottingham!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have to say I agree with both of you, and understand where both of you are coming from. As someone who currently lives in Chesterfield, I really don't see that I will gain much from using HS2 to get to either London or Birmingham, and agree that the MML should not be downgraded as a result of HS2 being built. In my opinion HS2 should act as an addition to the services on the MML to London and in the XC route to Birmingham, Leeds and the North East.

What we can be thankful for is that the MML is still going to see the capacity enhancements that it needs to operate more services, including the full 4 tracking between Bedford and Kettering, and the straightening of the line through Market Harbourgh. I see this as an indication that the MML isn't just going to be left as it is to be 'replaced' by HS2. The only thing which is a big issue in the short term is what is going to happen about the MML HSTs come 2020, and any possible extra stock that might be needed to run additional services and add capacity in the near future.

Agreed

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I still don't buy it either. If we look at other nations HS Lines, all major cities, even Ingolstadt use the station in the city centre which was already there. HS fares will be more expensive too (you can't argue against that - in every country in the world they are more expensive). I honestly don't believe HS2 will have a big impact on the MML, everyone doesn't just travel to London and many who do will still use the current service. I'll be living in Nottingham soon and there is no chance I would go all the way to the countryside to get a more expensive train. You also have to remember the current Midland stations have connections to many more local regional lines, city buses and trams than Toton and Meadowhall. I don't expect even half London passengers in Sheffield and Nottingham to use HS2. We all have different opinions but remember how many people they said would be using the Channel Tunnel by now? People still use the flipping ferry!

In short, MML growth will continue, the MML will still need upgrading and the MML will still have Nottingham trains because people in towns and cities along the route go Nottingham!

I agree, Toton will only be more easily accessible to people who live on the East side of Derby or Long Eaton, or in the Western suburbs of Nottingham via the tram from Beeston or Chilwell to Toton. For anyone living in the North, South or East side of Nottingham then Midland station will remain the most accessible railway station becausethe tram lines From Hucknall in the North to Clifton in the south meet at the station.

 

[Bantamzen]

This announcement is nowt to do with HS2, however much people want to drag it into the argument.

You're missing my point, the more opposition to HS2 the more pressure will be exerted on politicians to scale back or even cancel HS2. Most voters don't give a hoot about how each project is managed or financed.

You know that the MML is also “pointing London bound”?

An electrified Yorkshire– East Midlands – London would benefit “the North and the Midlands” (and not the capital), but an electrified HS2 running Yorkshire – East Midlands – London would only benefit London?

Again you are missing the point. I am talking about the public's perception on what's happening. Like it or not, voter opinion does have an effect on how policies goes. The government are looking to make huge cuts in the budgets across the board. HS2 is not exempt from this. If enough pressure is exerted, it is far from inconceivable that this project could cut be scaled back or cut. And these announcements are going to pile the pressure on.

 

[Senex]

What we can be thankful for is that the MML is still going to see the capacity enhancements that it needs to operate more services, ...

What about capacity at St Pancras?

 

[Martin222002]

What about capacity at St Pancras?

Network Rail want to improve the MML infrastructure so that it can support 6 long distance paths an hour out of St Pancras. Currently there are only 6 tph between 17:00 and 18:00 peak, with 5 tph throughout the rest of the day.

 

[northwichcat]

There seems to be a lot of confusion/ hypocrisy here.

One minute HSTs are The Greatest Trains Ever and IEP is boring/ plastic/ Voyager-clone that won’t even be able to make a decent cappuccino... the next minute people are complaining that the MML is being saddled with these dreadful old HSTs and not getting the 21st century stock that it needs.

One minute people are complaining that HS2 is a “London” scheme, since it’s all about faster journeys from Yorkshire to the capital... then next they are complaining that Yorkshire will lose out due to the pause on MML electrification because we won’t see faster journeys to London (i.e. journey improvements on HS2 only benefit London whilst faster speeds on an electrified MML benefit Yorkshire?)

I don't always keep track of who says what on here but I do think some people don't always consider the alternatives before complaining.

When the Northern/TPE consultation came out there were two options put forward:
A. Split South TPE and Northern keep Barton Humber.
B. Don't split South TPE but transfer Barton Humber to EMT.

People responding seemed to ignore the bit in italics so when DfT announced option B will be taken up there were complaints about it as people felt a timetable recast of Barton Humber under EMT may be less favourable than the existing timetable under Northern.

Personally I think that progressing with GW electrification as the number 1 priority is the right thing to do for the following reasons:
1. Hitachi are working on an order of new electric trains for FGW. No new electric trains have been ordered for EMT or TPE.
2. Future rolling stock plans for Scotrail are based on HSTs arriving from FGW. No one has agreed a deal to take on 185s from TPE or 222s or HSTs from EMT.
3. The Pacer replacement plans relies on having Sprinters freed up by FGW and Scotrail, as well as Turbostars freed up by Scotrail. Would people in Sheffield rather have the 222s and HSTs for a few extra years, or would they rather have Pacers for a few extra years?

I notice now there's a proposal for some 319s to remain on London commuter services after being released from Thameslink that some people think the 319s aren't the perfectly good trains they were a couple of months ago.

 

[LLivery]

You're missing my point, the more opposition to HS2 the more pressure will be exerted on politicians to scale back or even cancel HS2. Most voters don't give a hoot about how each project is managed or financed.



Again you are missing the point. I am talking about the public's perception on what's happening. Like it or not, voter opinion does have an effect on how policies goes. The government are looking to make huge cuts in the budgets across the board. HS2 is not exempt from this. If enough pressure is exerted, it is far from inconceivable that this project could cut be scaled back or cut. And these announcements are going to pile the pressure on.

Exactly. There are people complaining that Thameslink and Crossrail are still going head even though they're more than 50% complete! If I had a pound for every time people criticised a government decision/the rail network by using reason that makes zero sense/completely unrelated I'd be a trillionaire.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What about capacity at St Pancras?

More of a reason to electrify to Corby asap and run through Thameslink. Have it take over the half hourly London Bridge to Caterham - that would do me a huge favour

 

[johnw]

This has to be joke, surely ?

The Corby service is a joke with most commuters driving to Kettering. Luton, Bedford, Wellingboroug and Kettering passengers lost an half hourly north bound service due to this.

 

[Haydn1971]

What about capacity at St Pancras?

St Pancras isn't the problem, the track to the north is - if EMT can't turnaround 5 trains per hour using four platforms then then need a rocket up their backside.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The main problem is that they were trying to cram into less than 10 years electrification projects that would more sensibly have been spread evenly across the last 40 - 50 years.

That's how I see it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We can not change the past but you are so correct. I have said many times on this forum if in the early 1990s we had just kept going at a nice steady pace when the ECML was finished and you had all trained teams and engineers etc it would have been great. No need to rush, no need to throw money at it. After ECML, you could have done Edin - Falk High -Glas. Then come down and done Leeds - York and then the MML. Then Sheffield - York/Doncaster/Leeds. Then Derby -Birmingham. Spread the cost, keep engineering teams together and other expertise - God I wish I had had the power of God back then.

I see it that way. There was such waste of experience and equipment by not having a rolling program of electrification. I feel that in the UK we really under value practical experience and training. An example is how many useful people for Signalling and Telecoms work left the UK after the railways were privatised. It is probably a bigger problem than the skills gap for electrification and of course most electrification schemes are dependant on re-signalling. These engineers are not going to bring their families back to the UK just in case the respect for technical people has changed - no sign of it changing btw.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

WCML electrification didn't reach Preston until 1973. Euston to Liverpool/Manchester was completed in 1976, but going further North was "paused" until 1970. Glasgow was reached in 1974 but redeployment of the teams to Manchester/Preston/Blackpool in 1974 was again "paused".

.....

Not sure about your dates ?. Surely Manchester was reached way before 1976 ?. Maybe Preston was 1963 and Manchester/Liverpool 1966 ?. That would then mean Glasgow was 11 years after Preston not 1 year after.

I remember the class 50 locomotives were built to take to take the West coast intercity trains beyond Preston to Glasgow, Carlisle etc.

EDIT :- My mistake - looks more likely that the 50s were for Crewe to North of Weaver-Junction/Scotland judging by the dates below. A bit of my memory agrees and APT was so soon after completion !. end EDIT.

Just found this on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Main_Line#British_Rail_era
Digested completeion/service dates are
1960 Crewe - Manchester,
1962 Crewe - Liverpool,
1965/66 Crewe - London,
1967 London - Birmingham,
1974 Weaver Junction (North of Crewe-Liverpool) - Glasgow.

So Glasgow was reached 8-9 years after London got connected to Liverpool & Manchester.

I forgot the truth - that the WCML electrification started in the North (of England) rather than working North from London. So it worked South from the "Northern Powerhouse". Scotland came last though.

Mind you the Glasgow suburbs were electrified way before the London trains arrived behind electric locomotives. They had state of the art () sliding door trains (class 303 "blue trains") introduced in 1960 while us English had to wait decades for the slam door stock to start to disappear - forty years to completely disappear in the case of London !.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Just looking at what stock EMT currently uses:
* HSTs: Probably haven't got too many years life left, the engines may have been replaced but how many years life has the rest of them realistically got?
* Mk3s: Could have the same done as what Chiltern done with their Mk3s, would need to source suitable locos from somewhere
* 153s: afaik they've structural issues so might have to go in the next few years
* 156s: Not aware of any issues but not suitable for high-speed work
* 158s: Not aware of any issues but no way enough capacity to replace the HSTs
* 222s: Won't go anywhere

Looking at that will the DfT have to order something to replace the HSTs? Would a fleet of 800s be a viable replacement for the HSTs? Also will they need new units to replace the 153s? Will we see a "14x and 15x crunch" at some point?

 

[yorksrob]

That's how I see it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I see it that way. There was such waste of experience and equipment by not having a rolling program of electrification. I feel that in the UK we really under value practical experience and training. An example is how many useful people for Signalling and Telecoms work left the UK after the railways were privatised. It is probably a bigger problem than the skills gap for electrification and of course most electrification schemes are dependant on re-signalling. These engineers are not going to bring their families back to the UK just in case the respect for technical people has changed - no sign of it changing btw.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not sure about your dates ?. Surely Manchester was reached way before 1976 ?. Maybe Preston was 1963 and Manchester/Liverpool 1966 ?. That would then mean Glasgow was 11 years after Preston not 1 year after.

I remember the class 50 locomotives were built to take to take the West coast intercity trains beyond Preston to Glasgow, Carlisle etc.

Just found this on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Main_Line#British_Rail_era
Digested completeion/service dates are
1960 Crewe - Manchester,
1962 Crewe - Liverpool,
1965/66 Crewe - London,
1967 London - Birmingham,
1974 Weaver Junction (North of Crewe-Liverpool) - Glasgow.

So Glasgow was reached 8-9 years after London got connected to Liverpool & Manchester.

I forgot the truth - that the WCML electrification started in the North (of England) rather than working North from London. So it worked South from the "Northern Powerhouse". Scotland came last though.

Mind you the Glasgow suburbs were electrified way before the London trains arrived behind electric locomotives. They had state of the art () sliding door trains (class 303 "blue trains") introduced in 1960 while us English had to wait decades for the slam door stock to start to disappear - forty years to completely disappear in the case of London !.

Absolutely spot on, regarding the absence of a rolling electrification programme and the order of WCML electrification. (Can't agree with sliding doors being state of the art though ).

 

[AM9]

....(Can't agree with sliding doors being state of the art though ).

Given that the LNER designed functionally similar 3-car sets before the 2nd World War (except that they were 1500VDC OLE powered) - namely what became class 306* and class 506 which were introduced about 10 years before the 303s. Now they were state of the art!

* The 306s were even converted to ac and had another 20+ years in service to be replaced by the 315s.

 

[Kettledrum]

Just looking at what stock EMT currently uses:
* HSTs: Probably haven't got too many years life left, the engines may have been replaced but how many years life has the rest of them realistically got?
* Mk3s: Could have the same done as what Chiltern done with their Mk3s, would need to source suitable locos from somewhere

The glut of HST and other rolling stock being available to cascade from the GWML electrification probably means that this is not being seen as a big problem. Lots of spares will be available.

From what I have seen the East Midlands HSTs look to be in much better nick than the XC ones. They probably don't take much of a hammering operating between London and Nottingham or London and Leeds, often well below their designed maximum speed and loading constraints.

The MK3s could do with plug doors and electric sockets for laptops etc but the refurbishment would be easier to organise than brand new electric trains.

 

[Mojo]

Don't have the exact figures to hand but I thought railway investment increased quite a lot after 1997? ...not that all of it might have been spent wisely, mind.

In terms of new infrastructure on the ground, we got very little post-97 compared to before it. Look at the electrification, masses of station (re)openings, Light rail projects and so on that were funded and started/completed in the 80s and early 90s compared to after it.

Some of that may be down to privatisation and the inflated costs of actually doing anything (and they told us that it would make the railway more efficient...:roll

 

[ainsworth74]

About the only significant things, in terms of infrastructure, post-97 was, I believe, WCML route modernisation(-ish) and HS1 (though even HS1 got its start pre-97 but shovels didn't impact earth until after).

It was a real famine between 1997 and 2009 for infrastructure.

 

[HSTEd]

Between the start of the current North Western projects there had been about seven miles of electrification committed since privatisation. (Part of the WCRM project IIRC).

Last BR projects being Cross-City and Heathrow Express, the latter of which was committed under BR but completed by Railtrack.
There were also the various bits of third rail electrification associated with the Eurostar/Channel Tunnel at about the same time.

 

[3270]

Just looking at what stock EMT currently uses:
* HSTs: Probably haven't got too many years life left, the engines may have been replaced but how many years life has the rest of them realistically got?
* Mk3s: Could have the same done as what Chiltern done with their Mk3s, would need to source suitable locos from somewhere

Basically the Mark 3 coaches are good for another 20 years:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/hsts-are-good-to-2035.html

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Between the start of the current North Western projects there had been about seven miles of electrification committed since privatisation. (Part of the WCRM project IIRC).

Last BR projects being Cross-City and Heathrow Express, the latter of which was committed under BR but completed by Railtrack.
There were also the various bits of third rail electrification associated with the Eurostar/Channel Tunnel at about the same time.

Most infrastructure money over that period, other than WCRM, went into replacing huge lengths of rail on main lines after Hatfield, and the installation of TPWS after Southall/Ladbroke Grove.
I remember John Prescott's "money is no object" remark about safety upgrades. He was spending the money otherwise earmarked for enhancements.
HS1 part 2/St Pancras got built, plus the almost completely pointless North London line upgrade for Regional Eurostar (though we now have the new LO services via NLL/WLL as a by-product).
At the time, even Railtrack/Network Rail was against electrification as "one more interface to go wrong", in John Armitt's words.
The Kidsgrove-Crewe electrification was purely to keep the WCML running while Stafford-Crewe was rebuilt.

 

[Mark62]

Why are people even surprised by this cancellation? The tories were obviously going to do this as soon as they won power with a majority. They can't balance the books any other way. And obviously HS2 will go ahead as this represents a massive public handout ofmoney to the private sector. The people who bankrolled the tories want their payback. Government partiality is not reserved just for the tories. In the 60s there were some terrible rail closure decisions and reversals. A prime example is what Barbara Castle did with the Woodhead route.
So please don't be surprised at this. To expect integrity from any government is incredibly naive.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why are people even surprised by this cancellation? The tories were obviously going to do this as soon as they won power with a majority. They can't balance the books any other way. And obviously HS2 will go ahead as this represents a massive public handout ofmoney to the private sector. The people who bankrolled the tories want their payback. Government partiality is not reserved just for the tories. In the 60s there were some terrible rail closure decisions and reversals. A prime example is what Barbara Castle did with the Woodhead route.
So please don't be surprised at this. To expect integrity from any government is incredibly naive.

For once, I don't see any nefarious activity from HMG in this.
The funding is still in place, within the cap placed on the CP5 HLOS..
Ask NR why they can't deliver the goods.

 

[Olaf]

And yet no cancellation of HS2

That story is yet to come. The MPA has reported three times that there are serious problems with the affordability of the entirety of the proposals, with spill-over costs a most likely scenario. However it is a pet project, in part to inject funds into capital investment, so it's not likely to be de-railed in the near future.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Will this impact on future projects such as Cross Rail 2, which is still in the design stage I believe.

Would it be possible to make infrastructure changes that were cheaper to put in or is that a false economy?

If the MML is not electrified, how does that impact o rolling stock and rolling stock contracts and/or cascades?

There would be no direct impact. Possibilities might be changes to process for reporting and auditing. The NR Electrification fiasco has cost the DfT more than GBP 2 Billion, so expect more stringent program and cost control. Other than that, I do not expect any impact. Crossrail2 is not at as advanced stage - it is still not yet authorised, funded, nor has it allocated funds other than for the preparatory analysis.

 

[yorksrob]

It's all well and good calling the electrification scheme a fiasco, but the reality is that specialist supply chains don't grow on trees. There's also the issue of how to set up a rolling electrification scheme to achieve benefits of scale, when the reality is that publicly accountable organisations have to go out to procurement for everything down to a pack of toilet rolls, meaning in all likelihood, different costs, different contractors and different supply chain issues for every project - and that's before you get down to whether the winning contractor actually does what it said it was going to do.