Pacing of Electrification - Past vs Present

[TrainViation]

Why is it that, for example, it took only four years to fully electrify between Weaver Junction and Glasgow Central in 1970-1974. Yet a vastly smaller project takes the same time to electrify 20-odd STKs.

The only factors that are different now that I can think of are:

• Safety Protocols and Procedures
• Size of Workforce
• Improvement of Technology in the last 50 years
• Type of Electrification (structures, feeding equipment etc.)
• Cost and Willingness to Fund such a Project

I do also understand that the West Coast Mainline was and still is such an important route, and so it was inevitable that it would be wired.
Compared to other smaller routes that still hold a good amount of importance, yet they receive much longer infrastructure timelines compared.

 

[Polarbear]

It’s likely a combination of all the bullet points you’ve set out, weighted depending on circumstance.

With more recent advances in bi-mode & battery technologies, I’d expect to see funding for full electrification being scaled back. It’s not ideal & for me, that boxes the network into a less flexible position going forward.

 

[The Pelican]

Two significant factors are surely
1. Weaver Junction to Glasgow had already been planned 10-20 years before, when the London to Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester electrification was happening.
2. Planning Permission was generally less of a problem in the 1960s and 1970s for this kind of project, and Weaver Junction to Glasgow has huge distances which are very sparsely populated- roughly Preston or Lancaster to Motherwell! Comparing it to the high costs of the Goblin (Gospel Oak-Barking) electrification, which required a lot of building work to clear bridges for electrification.

 

[zwk500]

Why is it that, for example, it took only four years to fully electrify between Weaver Junction and Glasgow Central in 1970-1974. Yet a vastly smaller project takes the same time to electrify 20-odd STKs.

When are you counting each project as 'starting' and 'ending'?

 

[N1]

The availability of the line for electrification works is a significant difference. Before Weaver Junction to Glasgow electrification, there were 5 daily Euston-Glasgow services, 1 daily Birmingham-Glasgow and a handful of Liverpool/Manchester to Scotland services. After electrification there was something like 15 daily services between Preston and Glasgow (and some of these still went via Glasgow South Western). Now it is over double that between Preston and Glasgow. There was also diversionary capacity on the WCML, which at the time made a lot less difference to journey times than they do now that the electrification and line speed improvements of electrification have been achieved. Lots more day work with cheaper labour in the 70s.

Also worth noting that slow and steady (in Scotland anyway) is what has allowed SPL to bring down costs by effectively matching delivery to a small but competent team that are steadily employed and a consistent plant requirement.

 

[Transilien]

Also, the Weaver Junction to Glasgow section was only approved because of a by-election in Ayr in 1970 in which Labour was in danger of losing. So electrification was approved despite this post-modernisation plan period that had weaning investment.

 

[WAO]

L#b##r were happy to approve the Weaver Jn - Glasgow electrification because they were not likely to have to fund it (Heath's T#ry Govt was elected in 1970). Just the same thing happened in 2009/10 with Lord Adonis's announcement of a basket of electrification schemes which his party would not have to fund (and which unbalanced NR's ability to deliver). Thatcher's (i.e Nick Ridley and David Mitchell)'s electrification schemes by contrast were delivered, even if limited in scope by post-privatisation standards. The latest MMLEP (and Warrington CLC EP) pause was true to type.


TPU is arguably very protracted, particularly York - Leeds but that is I think because it forms part of a much larger project. Its end point is some time away so components may be fitted separately in to the Gantt chart conveniently for wider considerations. The actual installation is now quite quick, although testing and approval can take time.

WAO

 

[Falcon1200]

Methods of working have changed! One of my ex-colleagues had worked on the Scottish part of the WCML electrification and told how staff could be working on the overheads with the line below open, at line speed; When a train approached the guys on the ground would simply remove any ladders, leaving their mate up in the air.

In Scotland also it was possible to close the WCML during the day and divert via Dumfries and Kilmarnock; As per Post # the level of service facilitated this.

 

[yorksrob]

L#b##r were happy to approve the Weaver Jn - Glasgow electrification because they were not likely to have to fund it (Heath's T#ry Govt was elected in 1970). Just the same thing happened in 2009/10 with Lord Adonis's announcement of a basket of electrification schemes which his party would not have to fund (and which unbalanced NR's ability to deliver). Thatcher's (i.e Nick Ridley and David Mitchell)'s electrification schemes by contrast were delivered, even if limited in scope by post-privatisation standards. The latest MMLEP (and Warrington CLC EP) pause was true to type.

From watching documentaries about the time, I get the impression that Wilson was seen as being a bit too complacent in his campaigning for the 1970 election and that Heath's victory was a bit of a shock to labour.

 

[WAO]

From watching documentaries about the time, I get the impression that Wilson was seen as being a bit too complacent in his campaigning for the 1970 election and that Heath's victory was a bit of a shock to labour.

I can remember my Sheffield - Leeds Paytrain (30p single!) call at Darton, the morning of the 1970 result and the comments of both driver and signalman. They blamed the result on the women's vote!
WAO

 

[Peter Wilde]

The extent of any gaps between one project being completed and the next one starting is crucial, too. When the Southern Railway was engaged in its steady electrification of the suburban network in the 1920s - 30s, one of the reasons for the significant rate of progress was being able to keeping their teams together. No gaps for key staff to go on to other work, no corporate loss of know-how, and a much reduced training bill as fewer new recruits would be required. Now contrast all that with the sorry mess on the GWR electrification … !

 

[eldomtom2]

The extent of any gaps between one project being completed and the next one starting is crucial, too. When the Southern Railway was engaged in its steady electrification of the suburban network in the 1920s - 30s, one of the reasons for the significant rate of progress was being able to keeping their teams together. No gaps for key staff to go on to other work, no corporate loss of know-how, and a much reduced training bill as fewer new recruits would be required. Now contrast all that with the sorry mess on the GWR electrification … !

With this I suspect both the loss of institutional knowledge during privatisation and the almost total lack of electrification during the second half of the 1990s and the entirety of the 2000s played a major role.