Potentially massive delays in electrification program

[tbtc]

...and yet if the same (costs doubling, projects potentially delayed, poor assumptions used etc) had happened with a Guided Busway or a Tram then we'd see people on this Forum frothing at the mouth about how unsuitable such projects are...

From memory Crossrail was on budget and on time when it reached halfway point on the project (I've not seen any news about it recently though), so we are capable of building things.

The three things that worry me here aren't related to the actual delay in electrification (we may have to wait an extra year or two before we can scrap the last Pacer, not ideal but not the end of the world), they are:

• That when we build things, we do it on the cheap due to squeezed budgets (taking out passing loops, stringing the electrification up with the cheapest possible material etc)
• That the Government/DfT lose faith in Network Rail's ability to deliver and don't trust them with further projects (a badly managed rail project that goes overbudget and takes twice as long to complete is a great advert for the Government spending more money on Motorways instead)
• That it impacts upon HS2, which is going to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the railway (no more bodges based on tinkering with Victorian infrastructure etc)

An extra six months here and six months there in terms of current electrification is regrettable but not terminal. However, the longer term implications are the ones that concern me.

Hopefully this is just a bit of negotiation between the parties involved though (Network Rail asking for more money or laxer deadlines).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I can see delays creeping into the wider electrification programme, but not for singling out TP wiring for a long delay.
You would think that the schemes authorised later than TP would be but back as well.
That would put back MML and East West rather than TP.
The MML project is also very poor at releasing DMUs for cascade, unlike TP.
The Meridians on MML can keep going for another 3 years without any problems, whereas TP delay screws up both TPE and Northern's rolling stock and service development iplans.
East West is going to require incoming DMUs in the short term too.
TP, EGIP and Cardiff Valleys are "DMU rich" schemes which will mitigate (hopefully avoiding altogether) the need to buy new DMUs.

TP delay also brings Northern Hub into play.
For all sorts of reasons you need both projects in step.

On Network Rail's credibility, I remember a succession of RUSs telling us that MML electrification had such a good BCR that it was more expensive NOT to do it.
No wonder they have delayed the next electrification RUS.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I can see delays creeping into the wider electrification programme, but not for singling out TP wiring for a long delay.
You would think that the schemes authorised later than TP would be but back as well.
That would put back MML and East West rather than TP.
The MML project is also very poor at releasing DMUs for cascade, unlike TP.
The Meridians on MML can keep going for another 3 years without any problems, whereas TP delay screws up both TPE and Northern's rolling stock and service development iplans.
East West is going to require incoming DMUs in the short term too.
TP, EGIP and Cardiff Valleys are "DMU rich" schemes which will mitigate (hopefully avoiding altogether) the need to buy new DMUs.

TP delay also brings Northern Hub into play.
For all sorts of reasons you need both projects in step.

On Network Rail's credibility, I remember a succession of RUSs telling us that MML electrification had such a good BCR that it was more expensive NOT to do it.
No wonder they have delayed the next electrification RUS.

Given that Transpennine Electrifcation was authorised back in the 2011 Autumn Statement, it does make you wonder what Network rail have been doing for the last 3 years as they still haven't worked out the details.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...and yet if the same (costs doubling, projects potentially delayed, poor assumptions used etc) had happened with a Guided Busway or a Tram then we'd see people on this Forum frothing at the mouth about how unsuitable such projects are...

From memory Crossrail was on budget and on time when it reached halfway point on the project (I've not seen any news about it recently though), so we are capable of building things.

The three things that worry me here aren't related to the actual delay in electrification (we may have to wait an extra year or two before we can scrap the last Pacer, not ideal but not the end of the world), they are:

• That when we build things, we do it on the cheap due to squeezed budgets (taking out passing loops, stringing the electrification up with the cheapest possible material etc)
• That the Government/DfT lose faith in Network Rail's ability to deliver and don't trust them with further projects (a badly managed rail project that goes overbudget and takes twice as long to complete is a great advert for the Government spending more money on Motorways instead)
• That it impacts upon HS2, which is going to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the railway (no more bodges based on tinkering with Victorian infrastructure etc)

An extra six months here and six months there in terms of current electrification is regrettable but not terminal. However, the longer term implications are the ones that concern me.

Hopefully this is just a bit of negotiation between the parties involved though (Network Rail asking for more money or laxer deadlines).

I agree, a few projects slipping into CP6 and pacers kept going for a few more years is not the end of the world. My concern is if the DfT decide not to authorise any more electrification in CP6 due to NWR handling of the schemes authorised so far (remember the CP6 HLOS is due 2016/17).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

This is quite a reasonable summary of the Network Rail position described at the Select Committee last week:
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11320015.Trans_Pennine_rail_electrification_plan_in_jeopardy/

Now the organisation has admitted there is no firm cost for the scheme – and, therefore, a risk that it may yet have to be delayed or scrapped.
Asked if electrification will definitely go ahead, Paul Plummer, Network Rail’s strategy director, told the Commons transport select committee: “I can’t give you that absolute, categorical confirmation.”

It goes on the say that costs won't be confirmed until March 2015, and the DfT will then decide what to do in terms of scope and delivery.
The final DfT comment was:

The DfT sought to play down the possible threat to electrification, telling The Northern Echo: “We are very confident that what we have set out is deliverable.
“We look to the Office of Rail Regulation and Network Rail to ensure costs are kept to an acceptable level and offer value for money for the taxpayer.”

The axe does not seem to be in evidence yet.

 

[westv]

Will any of this have any affect on the Selby-Hull electrification which may or may not happen sometime in the future?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Will any of this have any affect on the Selby-Hull electrification which may or may not happen sometime in the future?

TBH I wouldn't be surprised if that gets done ahead the Transpennine core, given it is being financed privately by First Hull Trains and it is less complicated than the core route.

 

[Bevan Price]

For all we know, DfT might have quietly told NR to slow down projects so that spending is deferred, or spread over a longer period.

 

[deltic08]

TBH I wouldn't be surprised if that gets done ahead the Transpennine core, given it is being financed privately by First Hull Trains and it is less complicated than the core route.

Trans Pennine electrification should start at the York end and progress west to Leeds. There are only seven bridges to lift all between Church Fenton and Cross Gates and only seventeen route miles of overheads to install. Leeds-York stoppers could then become Bradford FS-Leeds-York stoppers as there is slack in electric diagramming since transfer of 322s from Scotland freeing up a west end bay platform. This would release Pacers/Sprinters for use elsewhere. More DMUs would be released earlier by continuing to Huddersfield than starting at Stalybridge and working eastward.

 

[Hophead]

Trans Pennine electrification should start at the York end and progress west to Leeds. There are only seven bridges to lift all between Church Fenton and Cross Gates and only seventeen route miles of overheads to install. Leeds-York stoppers could then become Bradford FS-Leeds-York stoppers as there is slack in electric diagramming since transfer of 322s from Scotland freeing up a west end bay platform. This would release Pacers/Sprinters for use elsewhere. More DMUs would be released earlier by continuing to Huddersfield than starting at Stalybridge and working eastward.

I'm sure I read a year or so ago that Network Rail were looking to make an early start on Leeds - Selby for these reasons. The number 2014 is one that's nagging away at the memory, but it may be that they were saying "We'll start in 2014 days".

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Trans Pennine electrification should start at the York end and progress west to Leeds. There are only seven bridges to lift all between Church Fenton and Cross Gates and only seventeen route miles of overheads to install. Leeds-York stoppers could then become Bradford FS-Leeds-York stoppers as there is slack in electric diagramming since transfer of 322s from Scotland freeing up a west end bay platform. This would release Pacers/Sprinters for use elsewhere. More DMUs would be released earlier by continuing to Huddersfield than starting at Stalybridge and working eastward.

Agreed - this makes total sense. Then when NW is totally complete, do Vic- Stalybridge and THEN onwards to the east.

 

[snowball]

I'm sure I read a year or so ago that Network Rail were looking to make an early start on Leeds - Selby for these reasons. The number 2014 is one that's nagging away at the memory, but it may be that they were saying "We'll start in 2014 days".

There were statements to that effect (ignoring the 2014 days bit) but they seem to have faded away. The CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan has the same dates for each of the three sections Stalybridge to Leeds, Leeds to York and Leeds to Selby, namely GRIP 3 complete March 2015, construction starts March 2016, completion Dec 2018.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think the detailed planning for TP electrification found it was dependent on a major new grid power supply point, which they have decided to put in at Stalybridge towards the tail end of the NW scheme.
The original TP plans said, in one of those long lists of assumptions that NR is so fond of, that no new power supply points were needed (ie west side would be run off the WCML source and the east side off the ECML source).
Grid supply points are expensive strategic installations* and have to fit in with the National Grid development plan.
I guess that bumped up the cost and prevented an early start.
On the plus side it should make the electrics more resilient and maybe will also feed Calder Valley wires one day, improving the business case for that line.

* 25-35% of the overall cost of an electrification scheme, according to the 2009 electrification RUS

 

[northwichcat]

I'm sure I read a year or so ago that Network Rail were looking to make an early start on Leeds - Selby for these reasons. The number 2014 is one that's nagging away at the memory, but it may be that they were saying "We'll start in 2014 days".

But if they want a 30 month extension then starting early will mean the finish date will be 2020 instead of 2021 if they start early.

Agreed - this makes total sense. Then when NW is totally complete, do Vic- Stalybridge and THEN onwards to the east.

Victoria-Stalybridge was added on to the North West program before North TPE electrification was announced.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Victoria-Stalybridge was added on to the North West program before North TPE electrification was announced.

I am not disagreeing (no dispute). York -Leeds first, then Manchester - Blackpool, then Manchester Vic-Stalybridge, then Stalybridge eastwards.

 

[Kettledrum]

I can see delays creeping into the wider electrification programme, but not for singling out TP wiring for a long delay.
You would think that the schemes authorised later than TP would be but back as well.
That would put back MML and East West rather than TP.
The MML project is also very poor at releasing DMUs for cascade, unlike TP.
The Meridians on MML can keep going for another 3 years without any problems, whereas TP delay screws up both TPE and Northern's rolling stock and service development iplans.
East West is going to require incoming DMUs in the short term too.
TP, EGIP and Cardiff Valleys are "DMU rich" schemes which will mitigate (hopefully avoiding altogether) the need to buy new DMUs.

TP delay also brings Northern Hub into play.
For all sorts of reasons you need both projects in step.

On Network Rail's credibility, I remember a succession of RUSs telling us that MML electrification had such a good BCR that it was more expensive NOT to do it.
No wonder they have delayed the next electrification RUS.

I agree with what you've said, except for the last bit. I'm not sure that anything has happened that suggests the relative positions of the BCRs have changed or that the broad conclusion of the BCR was so wrong. There's so many assumptions behind financial models and business cases that they should be used with great care, and it is a bit unfair to criticise Network Rail on this point.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

TBH I wouldn't be surprised if that gets done ahead the Transpennine core, given it is being financed privately by First Hull Trains and it is less complicated than the core route.

Regarding the Selby-Hull electrification - is anyone else worried that the private funding for this will vanish because of the proposals by Stagecoach and Virgin in their successful East Coast franchise bid?

Will it give First Hull Trains cold feet?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Regarding the Selby-Hull electrification - is anyone else worried that the private funding for this will vanish because of the proposals by Stagecoach and Virgin in their successful East Coast franchise bid?

Will it give First Hull Trains cold feet?

As I understand it in return for funding the electrification First Hull Trains will get paths on the ECML guaranteed for a number of years (carn't remember how many) so it is in their interest to get the deal sorted as it ensures their opetation for years to come.

 

[edwin_m]

I agree with what you've said, except for the last bit. I'm not sure that anything has happened that suggests the relative positions of the BCRs have changed or that the broad conclusion of the BCR was so wrong. There's so many assumptions behind financial models and business cases that they should be used with great care, and it is a bit unfair to criticise Network Rail on this point.

In the 2009 RUS MML didn't have a BCR because the savings from running electric trains instead of diesels over a 60 year appraisal period (brought to Net Present Value) paid for the capital and maintenance costs of the electrification. So "C" was effectively negative and it was worth doing regardless of "B".

If the costs have increased then this may no longer be the case. Unfortunately on a quick skim the 2009 document doesn't give enough detail even to guesstimate what this might have done to the business case.

 

[deltic08]

I think the detailed planning for TP electrification found it was dependent on a major new grid power supply point, which they have decided to put in at Stalybridge towards the tail end of the NW scheme.
The original TP plans said, in one of those long lists of assumptions that NR is so fond of, that no new power supply points were needed (ie west side would be run off the WCML source and the east side off the ECML source).
Grid supply points are expensive strategic installations* and have to fit in with the National Grid development plan.
I guess that bumped up the cost and prevented an early start.
On the plus side it should make the electrics more resilient and maybe will also feed Calder Valley wires one day, improving the business case for that line.

* 25-35% of the overall cost of an electrification scheme, according to the 2009 electrification RUS

The advantage of starting at the York end is that York-Leeds can be supplied by Poppleton feeder point that is only operating at 70%. Not sure how Micklefield-Selby would be fed. Probably from the same point via the ECML at Hambleton Junction.

 

[petersi]

The advantage of starting at the York end is that York-Leeds can be supplied by Poppleton feeder point that is only operating at 70%. Not sure how Micklefield-Selby would be fed. Probably from the same point via the ECML at Hambleton Junction.

Does IEP need upgraded power supplies as there will be more electric trains

 

[swt_passenger]

Does IEP need upgraded power supplies as there will be more electric trains

Yes it does. There is a specific ECML Power upgrade project for IEP in the CP5 enhancements, as well as a gauging and station changes project.

 

[RichmondCommu]

• That it impacts upon HS2, which is going to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the railway (no more bodges based on tinkering with Victorian infrastructure etc)

From what I understand, the message from the DfT has always been that HS2 funding would be ring fenced and would not have an impact on other transport projects. If this is not the case one wonders whether HS2 and other rail infrastructure projects might be in real trouble.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

For all we know, DfT might have quietly told NR to slow down projects so that spending is deferred, or spread over a longer period.

Can a change of Government at the next General Election, noting the reality of the budget defecit and of all parties currently letting "future public spending cuts" be a part of their pre-election statements, really do anything where finance for large projects of any type are concerned?

 

[Grumpy]

Trans Pennine electrification should start at the York end and progress west to Leeds. There are only seven bridges to lift all between Church Fenton and Cross Gates .

Has that been published anywhere? The biggest problem might be between Cross Gates and Neville Hill-the extremely busy ring road bndge just to the west of Cross Gates station looks somewhat tight

 

[deltic08]

Has that been published anywhere? The biggest problem might be between Cross Gates and Neville Hill-the extremely busy ring road bndge just to the west of Cross Gates station looks somewhat tight

That is one of the seven. When the ring road was widened to dual carriageway, the new bit was a flat deck to electrification standards. The original bridge is an arch over what was originally four tracks as all the overbridges are from Cross Gates to Micklefield despite only two tracks being laid. This will have to be replaced unless both tracks are slewed into the middle of the formation but that will mean altering platform faces. There is talk of quadrifying to Micklefield, that is why the M1 extension bridge span is so long, so the bridge will most likely be raised.

The A1(M) bridge at Micklefield has already been done with road upgrading a decade ago. All bridges north of Church Fenton are flat deck as is the bridge immediately to the south of the station except the down Leeds line that is a single track arch.

There are no overbridges on the unelectrified section west of Cross Gates apart from a footbridge.

One bridge between Church Fenton and Micklefield is a high arch as the line is in a deep cutting.

I am not familiar with the Micklefield-Selby line.

 

[snowball]

There are no overbridges on the unelectrified section west of Cross Gates apart from a footbridge.

OS maps and Google Maps show 3 or 4 footbridges on this stretch. I don't know what they're like.

I am not familiar with the Micklefield-Selby line.

I think this was discussed recently. There are very few.

 

[deltic08]

OS maps and Google Maps show 3 or 4 footbridges on this stretch. I don't know what they're like..

From memory, one is just an unsupported pipe but will check tomorrow or Friday. Footbridges are no problem with these new plastic ones as long as the supports are sound and at the right height

 

[Grumpy]

That is one of the seven. When the ring road was widened to dual carriageway, the new bit was a flat deck to electrification standards. The original bridge is an arch over what was originally four tracks as all the overbridges are from Cross Gates to Micklefield despite only two tracks being laid. This will have to be replaced unless both tracks are slewed into the middle of the formation but that will mean altering platform faces. .

Very interesting. Thanks.

 

[snowball]

From memory, one is just an unsupported pipe but will check tomorrow or Friday. Footbridges are no problem with these new plastic ones as long as the supports are sound and at the right height

There's one bridge between Neville Hill and Cross Gates that looks like a former road bridge now restricted to pedestrians and cyclists.

 

[ianhr]

It seems generally agreed that Colton Jct/Selby-Neville Hill could be wired relatively easily and bring significant stand alone benefits with stock utilisation etc.i.e. a quick gain ( and BR did a few small schemes like this). I wonder if the reason that it has not been progressed is because it is being treated as an integral part of the larger TP scheme to Stalybridge and this involves more complex engineering and decisions about more expensive options (Dewsbury Loops, Heaton Lodge, Huddersfield, Standedge etc.)

Many posts on the Forum have implied that the route will be electrified with the EXISTING track layouts which are clearly inadequate, hence the current inherent unreliability with the present intensive service. It has been suggested that electrification alone will bring improvements ..."because electric trains have better acceleration". I have always disputed this assertion because there will still be a chronic lack of capacity on what will still be a 2-track railway with very high frequencies and a mix of fast and stopping trains with few passing loops. There ARE a number of options and all have cost implications and perhaps this is what is delaying the decisions.

If TPE insist on 6tph with short trains with the existing track capacity then it seems the smaller stations will lose any semblance of a decent service. There is an alternative to this in that TPE could be REQUIRED to run 2 or 3 fast trains per hour of SENSIBLE and ADEQUATE LENGTH i.e. 8-car. Otherwise the only way to satisfy all demand is more track: an UP loop at Dewsbury, 4 track Thornhill Jct-Heaton Lodge, and 4 track Marsden-Diggle and I imagine this was not budgeted for in the original TP electrification proposal.

 

[northwichcat]

If TPE insist on 6tph with short trains with the existing track capacity

It's DfT who insist rather than TPE. Part of the reason is Joe Public doesn't want TPE services going to Victoria instead of Piccadilly due to lost connections, so the proposed semi-fasts are a compromise.