North Wales Coast Main Line Electrification

[absolutelymilk]

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/electrification-north-wales-rail-line-10421865

The cost of improving the whole of the main line would be more than £200m less than Welsh Government's £1bn relief road in Newport

A bid outlining the need to upgrade the Crewe to Holyhead line is in the process of being submitted to the Department for Transport (DfT) for funding.

Now the Daily Post has learnt Network Rail estimate electrifying the whole of the North Wales main line will cost just £764m.

This means the bill for electrifying more than 135km of track would cost hundreds of millions of pounds less than the Welsh Government’s £1bn planned M4 relief road on the M4, just 24km long.


Rebecca Maxwell, of NWEAB, said the electrification sum could be even less and was a ‘small amount’ to pay for the potential economic benefits for the region and the whole of Wales....

Electrification would cost £800 million apparently and the Welsh gov are pushing for it to happen before 2027 so that it links into a Crewe hub for HS2. What does everyone think, is this feasible and will it happen in CP6/7?

 

[ainsworth74]

I suspect a lot will depend on how much of what was supposed to be done in CP5 ends up being done in CP6. Right now I'd have to say CP6 is going to be filled up with over-running or pushed back CP5 work.

 

[snowball]

I doubt it will happen in CP6 now, given the time and cost overruns of other electrification schemes. Nevertheless I've always wanted to see it happen, ever since the WCML was done. Maybe early CP7?

There's a handy high-voltage substation adjacent to the line at Mochdre, west of Colwyn Bay. It would seem a perfect site for a feeder station.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.2...4!1srqDFLN9FsGseHG2WCx8yOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It's complicated - there's a very strong, unavoidable business case for Crewe to Chester electrification, but it destroys an already terrible business case for the entire route to Holyhead being wired.

The business case can be made 'less bad' but it needs additional trains to run, problem is there's probably not the demand for more trains.

The last figures I've looked at have Crewe to Holyhead BCR at 0.55:1, but Chester is anything from 4:1 to 6:1 depending on a few additional miles, overlap/run off protections and other bits and pieces needing done at the same time. They'll need looked at in light of current experience though, but won't change too much - as wiring schemes become more expensive, the benefits to a busier railway from electrification increase at much the same rate.

 

[DarloRich]

There is a case as far as Chester. I am not sure about the rest. Perhaps the Welsh will pay the costs and make it happen otherwise i doubt there will be central funding.

 

[ainsworth74]

It's complicated - there's a very strong, unavoidable business case for Crewe to Chester electrification, but it destroys an already terrible business case for the entire route to Holyhead being wired.

Perhaps I'm just not quite understanding but how would wiring Crewe to Chester harm the business case for the whole route to Holyhead being wired?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Perhaps I'm just not quite understanding but how would wiring Crewe to Chester harm the business case for the whole route to Holyhead being wired?

Holyhead to Chester has a BCR of 0.45:1 on its own, rising to 0.55:1 (I've seen 0.6:1, come to think of it) when done together as one scheme to Crewe.

If it's split off, you lose some synergies from doing it all in one go and it changes what services can be converted, what new services open up and so on.

 

[DarloRich]

Holyhead to Chester has a BCR of 0.45:1 on its own, rising to 0.55:1 (I've seen 0.6:1, come to think of it) when done together as one scheme to Crewe.

If it's split off, you lose some synergies from doing it all in one go and it changes what services can be converted, what new services open up and so on.

if it is to be done it must surely be done in one go - hence the issue i suppose!

 

[ainsworth74]

Holyhead to Chester has a BCR of 0.45:1 on its own, rising to 0.55:1 (I've seen 0.6:1, come to think of it) when done together as one scheme to Crewe.

If it's split off, you lose some synergies from doing it all in one go and it changes what services can be converted, what new services open up and so on.

Got it, thanks

 

[Class 170101]

I bet that £800m is a gross underestimate anyway.

Given GW has risen substanially I would suggest a figure nearer £1.6billion seems more plausible

 

[DarloRich]

I bet that £800m is a gross underestimate anyway.

Given GW has risen substanially I would suggest a figure nearer £1.6billion seems more plausible

Whilst I am sure you know best an understanding of why the costs of GW electrification has risen would be of use and how those alterations relate to the conditions in north Wales. Or just double everything.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Whilst I am sure you know best an understanding of why the costs of GW electrification has risen would be of use and how those alterations relate to the conditions in north Wales. Or just double everything.

I'd really like to know why £800m is wrong and why just doubling it fixes it.

 

[Class 170101]

Either I am cynical or realistic.

Don't forget MML, TP and NW wirings have risen too.

 

[DarloRich]

I'd really like to know why £800m is wrong and why just doubling it fixes it.

I don't think it is wrong and I certainly don't think doubling it fixes anything! All that does is take scare money away from other projects

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Either I am cynical or realistic.

Don't forget MML, TP and NW wirings have risen too.

Costs have risen as more work has been added to the programs, or other issues have been found. This is what I've spent much of today telling lots of people - the electrification work itself is to time and to budget, if we happen to hit a signal cable S&T assured us wasn't there, that's not Electrification's fault, that's S&T's fault.

If S&T had trained up some guys and gone out a year before the physical GWep works started, tidying up the mass of cables buried in the ballast on the GWML, electrification would be certainly running much closer to time and being on time is almost certainly around if not exactly on budget.

The costings teams now understand better than ever the issues that need to be dealt with, what budgets to put those costs under, and how to make sure the costs are accurate. Yes, most of it will be shouting at S&T to make sure they know where every last inch of wire with their name on it actually is.

 

[absolutelymilk]

This is what I've spent much of today telling lots of people - the electrification work itself is to time and to budget, if we happen to hit a signal cable S&T assured us wasn't there, that's not Electrification's fault, that's S&T's fault.

Can I ask what S&T is?

 

[DarloRich]

S&T = signals & telecoms

 

[Philip Phlopp]

GWep is so far behind because on the route which hasn't been re-signalled and re-wired, the guys on the ground were having to dig (manually, by hand) to check for cables before piling started.

It doesn't take long for the astronomical bills to start coming in when you've got possessions happening and all people are doing is digging holes, or occasionally making signals go blank across lots of route miles.

 

[krus_aragon]

GWep is so far behind because on the route which hasn't been re-signalled and re-wired, the guys on the ground were having to dig (manually, by hand) to check for cables before piling started.

It doesn't take long for the astronomical bills to start coming in when you've got possessions happening and all people are doing is digging holes, or occasionally making signals go blank across lots of route miles.

Given that, rather that Carwyn Jones' "it could be done in the next 5 years" fantasy, do it once the already planned NWCL resignalling is completed. This electrification isn't suddenly going to leap higher up the list than the SWML and Valleys projects, neither of which have particularly firm end dates at the moment.

 

[Domh245]

I am guessing that should it go ahead, it would use series 2 equipment, which should keep costs down?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Given that, rather that Carwyn Jones' "it could be done in the next 5 years" fantasy, do it once the already planned NWCL resignalling is completed. This electrification isn't suddenly going to leap higher up the list than the SWML and Valleys projects, neither of which have particularly firm end dates at the moment.

Or even start dates.
Hopefully the route would be quite straightforward to electrify. Largely simple double track, 100mph max, already resignalled (hopefully).
Maybe marshy ground conditions around Sandycroft and on Anglesey. Three substantial tunnels I think, and the odd rather important heritage feature.
Clearances are generally quite good in the former 4-track areas east of Llandudno Jn (maybe not that many bridges to raise).
Warrington/Crewe-Chester has the best business case, but probably higher clearance costs.
These two sections didn't come very high up the Northern Electrification Study priorities though, which doesn't help.
Devolution politics will play its part, and the lines have a higher priority in Wales than at the DfT.
Meanwhile, there has been no clarity on that other WG electrification project (Valleys), and the Welsh Office has been accusing the WG of not moving the project forward despite the funding deal.
I think we will have to wait until that project is seen to be delivering value for money before the WG embarks on another major project in the north.
Rolling stock decisions for the new franchise in 2018 may also have a bearing (eg a new diesel fleet would put off an electrification decision).
HS2 at Crewe might well be the trigger for something definite in CP7, but don't underestimate the WG propensity to worry about links to Cardiff before those to anywhere else..

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I am guessing that should it go ahead, it would use series 2 equipment, which should keep costs down?

I'd hope by end CP6/CP7 there would have been more movement on combining the two systems which would have a positive impact on costs.

If it's done after the resignalling is completed in North Wales, subsequent electrification stands an excellent chance of coming in on time and on budget, more especially if all the talk of electrification allows S&T to make a few inexpensive changes to cabinet locations, wire run locations and signal types/locations.

It might cost £5m to make some really simple and sensible changes, it'll save £45m against the cost of doing it all when electrification happens, so hopefully WAG might be prepared to fund any additional costs in the short term for the medium term gain.

 

[backontrack]

There's certainly a case from Crewe to Chester, and possibly from Shrewsbury to Chester too. As for the rest of the line, it will probably happen eventually, but it won't be quick; they'll likely start to Rhyl, then to Llandudno/Conwy, then Conwy to Bangor and eventually Bangor to Holyhead (and possibly even Caernarfon!).

 

[TDK]

There's certainly a case from Crewe to Chester, and possibly from Shrewsbury to Chester too. As for the rest of the line, it will probably happen eventually, but it won't be quick; they'll likely start to Rhyl, then to Llandudno/Conwy, then Conwy to Bangor and eventually Bangor to Holyhead (and possibly even Caernarfon!).

Crewe to Chester is an expensive project due to the structures preventing an easy upgrade, they surely would need to do the whole lot unless hybrid trains are used on the line initially for the North Wales Coast and where will the money come from for such trains?

 

[snowball]

As for the rest of the line, it will probably happen eventually, but it won't be quick; they'll likely start to Rhyl, then to Llandudno/Conwy, then Conwy to Bangor and eventually Bangor to Holyhead (and possibly even Caernarfon!).

I don't see that there would be any point in doing it in several sections, unless bi-mode trains were being used. The only intermediate destination that would be useful without bi-mode is Llandudno, as there are trains from there to Manchester.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Or even start dates.
Hopefully the route would be quite straightforward to electrify. Largely simple double track, 100mph max, already resignalled (hopefully).
Maybe marshy ground conditions around Sandycroft and on Anglesey. Three substantial tunnels I think, and the odd rather important heritage feature.
Clearances are generally quite good in the former 4-track areas east of Llandudno Jn (maybe not that many bridges to raise).
Warrington/Crewe-Chester has the best business case, but probably higher clearance costs.
These two sections didn't come very high up the Northern Electrification Study priorities though, which doesn't help.
Devolution politics will play its part, and the lines have a higher priority in Wales than at the DfT.
Meanwhile, there has been no clarity on that other WG electrification project (Valleys), and the Welsh Office has been accusing the WG of not moving the project forward despite the funding deal.
I think we will have to wait until that project is seen to be delivering value for money before the WG embarks on another major project in the north.
Rolling stock decisions for the new franchise in 2018 may also have a bearing (eg a new diesel fleet would put off an electrification decision).
HS2 at Crewe might well be the trigger for something definite in CP7, but don't underestimate the WG propensity to worry about links to Cardiff before those to anywhere else..

Officially the WG still want an hourly service from north wales to Cardiff which will have to be DMU operated. It doesn't help to make the business case to wire west of Chester does it?

 

[snowball]

Crewe to Chester is an expensive project due to the structures preventing an easy upgrade, they surely would need to do the whole lot

The figures given by Philip Plopp suggest otherwise.

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

Officially the WG still want an hourly service from north wales to Cardiff which will have to be DMU operated. It doesn't help to make the business case to wire west of Chester does it?

I don't see that adding unelectrifiable services to a line worsens the case for electrifying it. The benefit comes from those services that can be electrified. Adding other services doesn't reduce those benefits.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The figures given by Philip Plopp suggest otherwise.

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



I don't see that adding unelectrifiable services to a line worsens the case for electrifying it. The benefit comes from those services that can be electrified. Adding other services doesn't reduce those benefits.

However if a minor market (South to north Wales) sucks up capacity across the north wales coast it leaves less capacity for the trains to the major markets which are potential electrification candidates.

 

[Class 170101]

Given that, rather that Carwyn Jones' "it could be done in the next 5 years" fantasy, do it once the already planned NWCL resignalling is completed. This electrification isn't suddenly going to leap higher up the list than the SWML and Valleys projects, neither of which have particularly firm end dates at the moment.

But unfortunately that means more possessions. TOCs would argue why not do both tasks in the same possession.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The figures given by Philip Plopp suggest otherwise.

It's not that it's cheap, as such, just that the benefits are so large, it generates a big BCR.

Crewe to Chester will probably be (quick in head calculations) about £250m of the £780m of Crewe to Holyhead.