Railway Implications of the 2021 Elections

[ABB125]

View attachment 95898
"So apart from HS1 (rescued from collapse, and opened on time and budget), WCML (rescued from Railtrack bungling), Leeds station upgrade, removing commuting slam-door stock, restarting Crossrail (after being canned by the Tories), massive investment in London Underground, getting HST replacement underway, rebuilding Reading station, the London Overground, restarting large-scale electrification, and starting HS2, WHAT DID LABOUR EVER DO FOR THE RAILWAYS?"

You win the thread!

 

[Purple Orange]

Oh and going further back, didn’t the development & construction of both the Tyne & Wear metro and the modern day Merseyrail network take place during the late 1970s, during a period of a Labour government?

I’m not sure on the timelines of the HST, but didn’t that see development take place during a Labour government too?

 

[JamesT]

Oh and going further back, didn’t the development & construction of both the Tyne & Wear metro and the modern day Merseyrail network take place during the late 1970s, during a period of a Labour government?

I’m not sure on the timelines of the HST, but didn’t that see development take place during a Labour government too?

Most of the development, including the delivery of the prototype set happened during the early 70s and the Heath government.
Though how independent were the BR Board of the day? I assume they would have needed approval for ordering the production run, (which was presumably in advance of the first delivery in 1974), but would starting work on the project have needed the ministerial nod?

 

[urbophile]

The big difference could come from the "Union Connectivity Review" which could decide that HS2 should be extended to Glasgow/Edinburgh as a priority, which would be presented as part of the rationale for Scotland to stay in the UK.

By the same token, HS1 should have been part of the rationale for Britain to stay in the EU! Looks like the unionists are trying to have it both ways.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

TfL is a basket case mainly because the previous mayor (now who would that be?) agreed with DfT to end central funding. That had a far greater effect than the fares freeze, and contributed to DfT having TfL over a barrel when the revenues dried up due to Covid.

I'm sorry but that is completely wrong. George Osborne introduced a so-called "austerity" programme which involved substantial reductions in various items of Government expenditure (but certainly not in all) One area of expenditure he looked at was the transport grant given to London. The idea implied in your post that the Mayor of London could reject the Chancellor's decision is delusional. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a decision about Government expenditure and has the backing of his Prime Minister, no local politician has the power to resist it.

Although by any normal standards Boris Johnson was an appalling Mayor - although nothing like as bad as the current one - his one real achievement is that he kept London's and TfL's finances on an even keel. TfL did not become a financial basket case while Boris Johnson was Mayor despite losing the grant. On the contrary TfL was flush with funds and this prosperity was achieved by raising fares consistently, the exact opposite of what Sadiq Khan has done. It is unsurprising that Boris Johnson and his transport adviser, Andrew Gilligan, brought over from City Hall, take a very dim view of Khan's recklessness with TfL's finances.

 

[quantinghome]

TfL did not become a financial basket case while Boris Johnson was Mayor despite losing the grant. On the contrary TfL was flush with funds and this prosperity was achieved by raising fares consistently, the exact opposite of what Sadiq Khan has done. It is unsurprising that Boris Johnson and his transport adviser, Andrew Gilligan, brought over from City Hall, take a very dim view of Khan's recklessness with TfL's finances.

Without the grant TfL has become far more susceptible to economic shocks. Surely this is obvious? When times are good, TfL's finances are good. But when the pandemic hit this destroyed fare income. Hard to see how any Mayor could have avoided this, irrespective of fares policy.

 

[deltic]

I'm sorry but that is completely wrong. George Osborne introduced a so-called "austerity" programme which involved substantial reductions in various items of Government expenditure (but certainly not in all) One area of expenditure he looked at was the transport grant given to London. The idea implied in your post that the Mayor of London could reject the Chancellor's decision is delusional. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a decision about Government expenditure and has the backing of his Prime Minister, no local politician has the power to resist it.

Although by any normal standards Boris Johnson was an appalling Mayor - although nothing like as bad as the current one - his one real achievement is that he kept London's and TfL's finances on an even keel. TfL did not become a financial basket case while Boris Johnson was Mayor despite losing the grant. On the contrary TfL was flush with funds and this prosperity was achieved by raising fares consistently, the exact opposite of what Sadiq Khan has done. It is unsurprising that Boris Johnson and his transport adviser, Andrew Gilligan, brought over from City Hall, take a very dim view of Khan's recklessness with TfL's finances.

TfL flush with cash? Debt rose by £7.2bn during Johnson's time as Mayor - fare revenue forgone by the freeze was estimated at around £600m over 4 years which it is claimed was covered by efficiency savings. Ignoring Covid, TfL's financial position has been badly impacted by Crossrail delays which it would appear were unnoticed by both Johnson and Kahn. Johnson who is good at spending other people's money wasted huge sums on his New Bus for London - according to some sources they cost £100k each more than a conventional bus - so £100m extra for the 1000 buses he brought.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm sorry but that is completely wrong. George Osborne introduced a so-called "austerity" programme which involved substantial reductions in various items of Government expenditure (but certainly not in all) One area of expenditure he looked at was the transport grant given to London. The idea implied in your post that the Mayor of London could reject the Chancellor's decision is delusional. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a decision about Government expenditure and has the backing of his Prime Minister, no local politician has the power to resist it.

That is true in law, but he could have made a noise about it and made the case in the court of public opinion, as local authorities of other parties could do and indeed have done. So at least people would have known where the blame really lay.

 

[Mikey C]

Interesting times here in Oxfordshire. The Tories have lost nine seats on Oxfordshire County Council and the LibDems gained eight, bringing them to parity (with a little futzing around the edges thanks to a screwed-up declaration in a Banbury division). It's generally assumed that the LibDems will form part of the next administration and the Tories won't.

Couple of rail consequences from that.

First, the LibDems have been very vocal in supporting reopening the Oxford-Witney branch line. Obviously that's a long-term prospect but an interesting one.

Second, the former OCC administration was part of the North Cotswold Line Taskforce which put together an upgrade bid that meant a massive uplift for Hanborough station (from 1tph to 4tph!), while worsening the service for Charlbury and Kingham. OCC's representative on the NCLTF was, funnily enough, the Conservative councillor for Hanborough. He was backed by the Conservative leader, the adjoining councillor for Woodstock - who lost his seat today. The LibDems locally have campaigned against the NCLTF proposals. So it looks very plausible that OCC could withdraw its support unless the proposals are redrawn to also benefit Charlbury and Kingham.

Rail improvements are long term projects, whereas in the short term the Lib Dems can improve bus services in the County which were slashed in 2016

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Without the grant TfL has become far more susceptible to economic shocks. Surely this is obvious? When times are good, TfL's finances are good. But when the pandemic hit this destroyed fare income. Hard to see how any Mayor could have avoided this, irrespective of fares policy.

Yes, but so what? A responsible and competent Mayor will adapt to changing circumstances and will not freeze fares recklessly to buy votes. No-one is suggesting that any London Mayor could have guided TfL in such a way as to withstand the commercial consequences of the pandemic.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 May 2021 ==

TfL flush with cash? Debt rose by £7.2bn during Johnson's time as Mayor - fare revenue forgone by the freeze was estimated at around £600m over 4 years which it is claimed was covered by efficiency savings. Ignoring Covid, TfL's financial position has been badly impacted by Crossrail delays which it would appear were unnoticed by both Johnson and Kahn. Johnson who is good at spending other people's money wasted huge sums on his New Bus for London - according to some sources they cost £100k each more than a conventional bus - so £100m extra for the 1000 buses he brought.

There's nothing wrong about going into debt as long as two conditions are met: 1) The borrowed money must be spent wisely, and 2) the debt can be repaid in accordance with the agreed schedule. I went into debt to buy my house: one of the best decisions I ever made!

The point you are not addressing is that until Khan became Mayor, TfL was able to manage its debt despite Johnson's stupidity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 May 2021 ==

That is true in law, but he could have made a noise about it and made the case in the court of public opinion, as local authorities of other parties could do and indeed have done. So at least people would have known where the blame really lay.

Oh, come on! What effect has all the whingeing and snivelling and playing to the gallery by politicians like Nicola Sturgeon and Andy Burnham had? What's the point in trying to deflect blame? Most people in London knew what George Osborne's policies were.

 

[A0]

View attachment 95898
"So apart from HS1 (rescued from collapse, and opened on time and budget), WCML (rescued from Railtrack bungling), Leeds station upgrade, removing commuting slam-door stock, restarting Crossrail (after being canned by the Tories), massive investment in London Underground, getting HST replacement underway, rebuilding Reading station, the London Overground, restarting large-scale electrification, and starting HS2, WHAT DID LABOUR EVER DO FOR THE RAILWAYS?"


Can't help but admire this bold attempt at exonerating Railtrack. What next, the Star Wars prequels?


Refer back to @edwin_m's reply.

Let's deal with those in turn:

HS1 - the project didn't get under way until 1996 when the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act became law. So within 2 years the project was in distress - not sure Labour can lay claim to rescuing a project which was in distress after 2 years, half of it under their tenure.

Removing slam door commuter stock - except that before 1997, the commuter services from Paddington, Marylebone, Euston, St Pancras, Kings Cross and Moorgate were all sliding door, most of the services from Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street (some peak workings weren't) were also sliding door, as well as a good number on the Southern covered by Class 455, 456, 465, 466, 508. Outside of London slam door stock had been disappearing with the introduction of Class 323, second-gen DMUs (150,155,156,158,159) and various others.

Crossrail - OK, I'll give you that, but it had previously been floated in the 1990s and didn't have a viable business case.

HST replacement - any government would have done that, given the fleet was 25 years old by the year 2000 - in fact Labour didn't even publish the tender for it until 2007 (by which time the HST fleet was over 30 years old).

Restarting electrification - yes, OK , they announced it....... in 2009, one year before the election and having been in power for 14 years.

On London Underground - the biggest investment was in the S stock - again, replacing 40+ year old units, any government would have done that - it was in effect basic maintenance.

HS2 - again not done until 2009 - having been in power for 14 years. And that was only the preliminary 'assessment'.

 

[deltic]

There's nothing wrong about going into debt as long as two conditions are met: 1) The borrowed money must be spent wisely, and 2) the debt can be repaid in accordance with the agreed schedule. I went into debt to buy my house: one of the best decisions I ever made!

The point you are not addressing is that until Khan became Mayor, TfL was able to manage its debt despite Johnson's stupidity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 May 2021 ==

TfL was perfectly able to manage its debt until the delay with Crossrail and Covid. Crossrail delays started under Johnson but he was unaware of them as was Kahn. As far as I can see TfL's credit ratings moved in line with UK government's until the pandemic.

 

[quantinghome]

HS1 - the project didn't get under way until 1996 when the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act became law. So within 2 years the project was in distress - not sure Labour can lay claim to rescuing a project which was in distress after 2 years, half of it under their tenure.

Read this Briefing. The project was due to raise private finance, which by the end of 1997 it found it was unable to do. Can't see how you can possibly blame Labour for that as it happened mere months after them coming to office, all the arrangements having been set up by the previous regime. As soon as it was apparent the project could collapse John Prescott acted rapidly in January 1998 to refinance the project which allowed construction to start in September 1998. Labour could have decided to scrap the more expensive section from Ebbsfleet to St. Pancras and many at the time predicted they would do, but sensibly they committed to the project in its entirety. Let's hope the current government do the same with HS2.

Removing slam door commuter stock - except that before 1997, the commuter services from Paddington, Marylebone, Euston, St Pancras, Kings Cross and Moorgate were all sliding door, most of the services from Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street (some peak workings weren't) were also sliding door, as well as a good number on the Southern covered by Class 455, 456, 465, 466, 508. Outside of London slam door stock had been disappearing with the introduction of Class 323, second-gen DMUs (150,155,156,158,159) and various others.

The HSE recommended in 1992 that slam-door commuter stock should be replaced. The Conservatives had a full parliament to introduce regulations to put that into effect. They didn't. Labour did in 1999, pretty early into their time in office.

Crossrail - OK, I'll give you that, but it had previously been floated in the 1990s and didn't have a viable business case.

Crucially it lacked a big figure in government to support it. The political will was not there for it in the mid-90s; it was by the early-2000s.

HST replacement - any government would have done that, given the fleet was 25 years old by the year 2000 - in fact Labour didn't even publish the tender for it until 2007 (by which time the HST fleet was over 30 years old).

Some governments still think it's a good idea to run HSTs in public service, so no.

Restarting electrification - yes, OK , they announced it....... in 2009, one year before the election and having been in power for 14 years.

On London Underground - the biggest investment was in the S stock - again, replacing 40+ year old units, any government would have done that - it was in effect basic maintenance.

Basic maintenance eh? Don't make me use the Inigo Montoya Meme again...

We seem to have gone from 'there wasn't much' to 'yeah but any government would have done the same'

HS2 - again not done until 2009 - having been in power for 14 years. And that was only the preliminary 'assessment'.

Yes, should have been done earlier, but they didn't have to put the plan forward. They could have argued the WCML upgrade was enough. And of course it started with a preliminary assessment. That's how civil engineering works.

And lest you think I'm being terribly partisan, I do credit the current government for sticking with HS2 against opposition. Let's hope they continue to stick with it.

 

[Mikey C]

Labour also have to take the blame for imposing the disastrous PPP scheme on London. Metronet in particular cost London a lot of money, and made a mess of infrastructure renewal such as Queensway Station's lift replacement.

BBC News - 'Poor management' failed Tube firm Metronet

news.bbc.co.uk

It's often questionable to credit one party for investment decisions made, especially when you have devolved governments or authorities also involved in the decision making. And if Labour being credited for the S stock, surely the Tories be credited with the 95 and 96 stock? Or neither party...

 

[muddythefish]

Remember when the Conservative party was the party of road construction and friend of the motorist? To put that in context, they were the pro-European party then too, with the left being that which was sceptical of the open market basis of the European project.

I'm old enough to remember the infamous Ernest Marples, the Conservative transport minister and the man behind the Beeching report. Given the Conservatives' traditional disdain for public ownership I always thought Beeching was in part politically driven.

It's true that Labour closed many Beeching lines they promised to save but Barbara Castle did introduce the concept of the social railway which saved many lines from closure and game them a new purpose. She was described in this report as possibly the "best transport secretary we've had"

The best transport secretary we’ve had?

www.passengertransport.co.uk

​

 

[squizzler]

Returning to the original thread title, I posted in another thread that recent withdrawal of AT300s for inspection so soon after this major set of elections will ensure all these new councillors and mayors find rail matters will be near the top of their in-trays when they first hit their offices. One might almost suspect the rail industry manufactured the problem on purpose!

Of all the train types to lose, the AT300s probably have the biggest political impact. The loss of one type manages to deal a double whammy to British cohesion by simultaneously cutting off the capitals of Wales and Scotland from London, plus a nasty low blow to the Cornish peninsular which is already sensitive about the resilience of its rail connections from the Dawlish washout last decade. The importance of the railways in nation-building is has once again been highlighted and politicians are bound to be angling for a few quick announcements regarding their commitment to rail.

 

[tbtc]

View attachment 95898
"So apart from HS1 (rescued from collapse, and opened on time and budget), WCML (rescued from Railtrack bungling), Leeds station upgrade, removing commuting slam-door stock, restarting Crossrail (after being canned by the Tories), massive investment in London Underground, getting HST replacement underway, rebuilding Reading station, the London Overground, restarting large-scale electrification, and starting HS2, WHAT DID LABOUR EVER DO FOR THE RAILWAYS?"

The problem is that a significant number of enthusiasts can only quantify benefits in terms of "how many miles of old railway have been re-opened" - re-opening old lines is seen as an end in itself (rather than a way of solving a particular problem) - so the fact that Labour were so focussed on propping up Railtrack/ spending huge sums to fix all of the problems that became apparent post-Hatfield/ setting up Network Rail etc means that they were too focussed on big problems to worry about worrying about re-opening the branchline from Dibley to Ambridge

(I'm not trying to take sides here politically - I just get frustrated with the way that "investment" is often only seen as "how many miles of Beeching cuts did you reverse")

 

[Mikey C]

The problem is that a significant number of enthusiasts can only quantify benefits in terms of "how many miles of old railway have been re-opened" - re-opening old lines is seen as an end in itself (rather than a way of solving a particular problem) - so the fact that Labour were so focussed on propping up Railtrack/ spending huge sums to fix all of the problems that became apparent post-Hatfield/ setting up Network Rail etc means that they were too focussed on big problems to worry about worrying about re-opening the branchline from Dibley to Ambridge

(I'm not trying to take sides here politically - I just get frustrated with the way that "investment" is often only seen as "how many miles of Beeching cuts did you reverse")

But if you look at the miles of track electrified, or even started, Labour compares badly with the Thatcher government. Yes they inherited a mess with the shambles of Railtrack etc, but they were also in power when the UK economy was strong and there was plenty of money around.

 

[quantinghome]

But if you look at the miles of track electrified, or even started, Labour compares badly with the Thatcher government. Yes they inherited a mess with the shambles of Railtrack etc, but they were also in power when the UK economy was strong and there was plenty of money around.

Electrification is very important but it's not the be all and end all. Remember that electrification under Thatcher often went hand in hand with 'rationalising' tracks and station layouts, which have had to be expensively reversed.

Labour didn't get everything right on rail; far from it. But we need to look at it in the round, not cherry-pick one particular issue they didn't push as much as they should have.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

TfL was perfectly able to manage its debt until the delay with Crossrail and Covid. Crossrail delays started under Johnson but he was unaware of them as was Kahn. As far as I can see TfL's credit ratings moved in line with UK government's until the pandemic.

TfL's finances were in trouble before Covid 19. Towards the end of Johnson's time in office, the reduction in commuting on Fridays was becoming noticeable, making clear that financial caution would be ever more important. Instead of caution we got Sadiq Khan's self-serving recklessness.

 

[deltic]

TfL's finances were in trouble before Covid 19. Towards the end of Johnson's time in office, the reduction in commuting on Fridays was becoming noticeable, making clear that financial caution would be ever more important. Instead of caution we got Sadiq Khan's self-serving recklessness.

What was this recklessness? Freezing fares was covered by savings elsewhere. As far as I can recall Kahn has been incredibly cautious and not done anything that could be called remotely reckless - in all very disappointing in terms of delivering anything

 

[tbtc]

What was this recklessness? Freezing fares was covered by savings elsewhere. As far as I can recall Kahn has been incredibly cautious and not done anything that could be called remotely reckless - in all very disappointing in terms of delivering anything

I'm glad you asked that - I was wondering myself!

Other than the fare freeze and introducing the ability to start a second journey within the hour (which seems a pretty logical idea, and probably saves TfL a few quid in terms of allowing them to trim some routes back whilst still allowing passengers to complete the same journeys), I'm struggling to think of much you can really pin on Khan

His predecessor came up with various stunts and expensive proposals that didn't really deliver much (the expense of the bespoke NB4L, the cable car, the "Garden Bridge"), yet people portray Khan as someone who plays fast and loose with public finances... really?

 

[A0]

Returning to the original thread title, I posted in another thread that recent withdrawal of AT300s for inspection so soon after this major set of elections will ensure all these new councillors and mayors find rail matters will be near the top of their in-trays when they first hit their offices.

I *very* much doubt it. There might be a bit of noise in a couple of places, but don't forget Birmingham / West Mids, Manchester, Liverpool and others are largely unaffected by this.

And technically the number of people travelling is still much reduced due to Covid - many people are still under a directive from their employers to work from home.

More likely, their in trays will be full of the usual stuff - complaints about planning applications, police numbers, anti-social behaviour, potholes in roads, the state of the local hospital, litter and the multitude of other local issues they get embroiled in.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 May 2021 ==

Electrification is very important but it's not the be all and end all. Remember that electrification under Thatcher often went hand in hand with 'rationalising' tracks and station layouts, which have had to be expensively reversed.

Most of the time such 'rationalisation' was actually done to improve line speed and throughput in key locations and was done at the same time as electrification because it made sense to do it as one job, often along with signalling changes.

I can't think of any 1980s rationalisations which have caused a problem subsequently - plenty of 1960s ones where singling was done such as Salisbury - Exeter or Cotswold Line, but the main electrifications of the 1980s were the ECML, GEML, GN / West Anglia to Cambridge and Kings Lynn, Bournemouth - Weymouth and Hastings. The only one which really saw any rationalisation was Hastings, but that was because of long-standing problems with the tunnels being narrow and therefore singling through the tunnels was the only practical way forward short of a whole new rolling stock build just for that line.

 

[Roast Veg]

I can't think of any 1980s rationalisations which have caused a problem subsequently - plenty of 1960s ones where singling was done such as Salisbury - Exeter or Cotswold Line, but the main electrifications of the 1980s were the ECML, GEML, GN / West Anglia to Cambridge and Kings Lynn, Bournemouth - Weymouth and Hastings. The only one which really saw any rationalisation was Hastings, but that was because of long-standing problems with the tunnels being narrow and therefore singling through the tunnels was the only practical way forward short of a whole new rolling stock build just for that line.

Not electrification related per-se, but Leicester's 80's rationalisation has bitten it hard now. Additionally the ECML changes at Doncaster indirectly caused a lot of present-day headaches north of Sheffield.

 

[A0]

Not electrification related per-se, but Leicester's 80's rationalisation has bitten it hard now. Additionally the ECML changes at Doncaster indirectly caused a lot of present-day headaches north of Sheffield.

You'll have to be more specific than that.

Wasn't Leicester's work tied up with re-signalling and the decision was made to allow all platforms to be bi-directional where they weren't previously ? That builds flexibility where it didn't previously exist. And at the time the Midland Mainline was sending far fewer trains through Leicester than it does today - the uplift in services didn't happen until Midland Mainline introduced the Turbostars in 1998/99.

Not sure I get how changes in Doncaster causes problems around Sheffield ?

 

[quantinghome]

I can't think of any 1980s rationalisations which have caused a problem subsequently - plenty of 1960s ones where singling was done such as Salisbury - Exeter or Cotswold Line, but the main electrifications of the 1980s were the ECML, GEML, GN / West Anglia to Cambridge and Kings Lynn, Bournemouth - Weymouth and Hastings. The only one which really saw any rationalisation was Hastings, but that was because of long-standing problems with the tunnels being narrow and therefore singling through the tunnels was the only practical way forward short of a whole new rolling stock build just for that line.

I'm thinking of the ECML in particular and the reduction from 4 tracks to 3 north of Huntingdon, removal of a through line at Wakefield, rationalisation of platforms and tracks at York. There may have been others.

 

[A0]

I'm thinking of the ECML in particular and the reduction from 4 tracks to 3 north of Huntingdon, removal of a through line at Wakefield, rationalisation of platforms and tracks at York. There may have been others.

There is a previous thread about Huntingdon - Peterboro and it wasn't, as is often thought, 4 track which has been reduced apart from one short section.

Details here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/huntingdon-to-peterborough-2-3-or-4-tracks.61635/

 

[edwin_m]

You'll have to be more specific than that.

Wasn't Leicester's work tied up with re-signalling and the decision was made to allow all platforms to be bi-directional where they weren't previously ? That builds flexibility where it didn't previously exist. And at the time the Midland Mainline was sending far fewer trains through Leicester than it does today - the uplift in services didn't happen until Midland Mainline introduced the Turbostars in 1998/99.

Not sure I get how changes in Doncaster causes problems around Sheffield ?

I think the point was about Leicester area re-signalling not Leicester station. From south to north:

• Sharnbrook to Wellingborough reduced from four to three tracks - now reinstated.
• Wellingborough to Kettering reduced from four to two tracks - now reinstated (first one then the other)
• Kettering to Corby singled - now reinstated.
• Wigston Junction reduced to single lead - now reinstated.
• Wigston to Leicester reduced from four to two tracks - serious discussions about reinstatement.
• Leicester to Syston reduced from four to three tracks - serious discussions about reinstatement.

So there is a good case to say almost all of the trackwork removal under the Leicester scheme was a mistake. Indeed the service increased a few years later, but your statement that "I can't think of any 1980s rationalisations which have caused a problem subsequently" shows that your thinking was inaccurate.

The Sheffield line into Doncaster was singled, but I think this was at the time of Doncaster re-signalling in the 70s. A second track was added, not on the original path, in about 2000.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm thinking of the ECML in particular and the reduction from 4 tracks to 3 north of Huntingdon, removal of a through line at Wakefield, rationalisation of platforms and tracks at York. There may have been others.

Depends how you define "problem" - those coped with the service levels required over them for many years before now needing to be sorted.

 

[edwin_m]

Depends how you define "problem" - those coped with the service levels required over them for many years before now needing to be sorted.

The ECML suffered much less badly than the MML. Of the rationalisations made, only the eastern bore of Gasworks tunnel, the Sheffield curve at Doncaster I mentioned above and an extra short piece of track just south of York have had to be put back, although the bottleneck south of Peterborough remains. The other ECML capacity enhancements as Werrington, Allington, and the flyovers at Hitchin and north of Doncaster, were totally new rather than reinstated.