Tory MP says bi-modal trains 'second-best'

[Gareth Marston]

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-41175779

A former Welsh Secretary has criticised plans to run diesel-electric trains instead of electrifying the line between Cardiff and Swansea.

Conservative MP Stephen Crabb said it was a "second-best" solution.

Electrification to Swansea was scrapped in July. Ministers said faster journeys could be achieved without disruption.

Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns said the so-called bi-modal trains will mean that faster services can be provided to places that currently do not have them.

The UK government promised a fleet of trains that can run on electric power from London to Cardiff, and on diesel beyond that point. "It is true that the bi-mode trains are good," Mr Crabb said during Welsh Questions in the Commons on Wednesday, "but they are a second-best solution."

The MP for Preseli Pembrokeshire said there were "major questions to be asked" of Network Rail's ability to deliver projects on time and control their costs.

Well there under-powered DMU's and overweight EMU's its a no brainer.

 

[tbtc]

Well, yes, of course they aren't ideal compared to electrifying every line (or even every line that "the railway" was committed to electrifying in this Control Period).

But, as "the railway" cannot deliver all of this (for various well documented reasons) then we need some kind of compromise.

In the absence of a magic wand, what do you suggest? Cancel through services and force passengers to change from an EMU to a DMU at Cardiff? Run diesel trains hundreds of miles under the wires on several services (which means that the expensive disruptive electrification east of Cardiff won't bring so many benefits)?

I don't think that anyone is pretending that bi-modes are *perfect*, but they do seem the best compromise (or "least worst" option), given the railway's failure to electrify on budget and on time.

In a perfect world everything would have been electrified when it was expected to be, at the original price. We can complain about bi-modes not being ideal or we can deal with the reality of the situation and find something that works in the circumstances.

 

[snowball]

I don't think that anyone is pretending that bi-modes are *perfect*, but they do seem the best compromise (or "least worst" option), given the railway's failure to electrify on budget and on time

Since July 20 Grayling has been talking about them precisely as the new wonder discovery that solves all problems and renders electrification unnecessary. Sadly a lot of politicians who know no better may believe him.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Well, yes, of course they aren't ideal compared to electrifying every line (or even every line that "the railway" was committed to electrifying in this Control Period).

But, as "the railway" cannot deliver all of this (for various well documented reasons) then we need some kind of compromise.

In the absence of a magic wand, what do you suggest? Cancel through services and force passengers to change from an EMU to a DMU at Cardiff? Run diesel trains hundreds of miles under the wires on several services (which means that the expensive disruptive electrification east of Cardiff won't bring so many benefits)?

I don't think that anyone is pretending that bi-modes are *perfect*, but they do seem the best compromise (or "least worst" option), given the railway's failure to electrify on budget and on time.

In a perfect world everything would have been electrified when it was expected to be, at the original price. We can complain about bi-modes not being ideal or we can deal with the reality of the situation and find something that works in the circumstances.

The DfT Garyling and any other Tory Minister were spinning the line that bi modes were magic new technology and answer to life the universe and everything weren't they? So a bit go honesty wont go a miss so thumbs up to Stephen Crabb.

Given the plethora of locos and LHCS that could have been purchased at much lower cost than IEP we could have at least had the full benefits of electric trains under the wires. Coupling /uncoupling times were always a red herring as Daft pretended that the time 57's and Pendolinos which were designed as emergency couplers were standard.

 

[Spartacus]

Although the circumstances are (currently officially) different, I'll be honest I'm glad of the suggestion of continuing to use bi-modes after the York - Leeds - Manchester electrification (assuming it is completed to some extent) because at least then services will be able continue via alternative routes during the various forms of disruption we regularly see, such as the incident at Ravensthorpe on Monday. Although not duplicated in it's entirety, virtually every main section is duplicated, allowing some form of service to theoretically continue while any one part of the route is blocked, which wouldn't be the case if it went all electric.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't really believe labour would have done much different. The 'specialist advisers' in the DfT would still be completely apathetic towards electrification of their railway...

 

[squizzler]

Grayling has already antagonised those on Northern route with his ditching of electrification. Now it is the turn of South Wales. The revolt has begun to spread.

I myself remain bullish despite the bad news. I consider electrification to be something whose time has come. Sure we have had high profile cancellations, but bi modes offer a foot in the door for future electrification in small sections.

Consider the recent Hansford Review: "Unlocking rail investment – building confidence, reducing costs" which identifies how projects of the correct size might attract private finance and implementation. Now think how such an approach focusing on quick wins might drive incremental electrification which can be used as soon as it is commissioned if the trains are bi-modes.

As Churchill might have said, I do not think bi-modes and the recent announcements from the Minister represent the beginning of the end for electrification. Rather they represent the end of the beginning!

 

[Bertie the bus]

I don't really believe labour would have done much different. The 'specialist advisers' in the DfT would still be completely apathetic towards electrification of their railway...

People’s enthusiasm or apathy is pretty irrelevant if the railway is incapable of delivering. The DfT could be full of Keith Chegwinesque enthusiasm but it wouldn’t change Network Rail’s ability to deliver electrification schemes.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Stephen Crabb was involved, as Secretary of State for Wales, in the original Cameron plan for wiring Cardiff to Swansea and a 50% Westminster funding for Valleys electrification.
He would be wedded to the original scheme and isn't a disinterested Tory MP.

 

[47802]

The DfT Garyling and any other Tory Minister were spinning the line that bi modes were magic new technology and answer to life the universe and everything weren't they? So a bit go honesty wont go a miss so thumbs up to Stephen Crabb.

Given the plethora of locos and LHCS that could have been purchased at much lower cost than IEP we could have at least had the full benefits of electric trains under the wires. Coupling /uncoupling times were always a red herring as Daft pretended that the time 57's and Pendolinos which were designed as emergency couplers were standard.

Personally I think some people need to get out of the Dark ages pratting about coupling and uncoupling locomotives, which would have led to much less off wire services and probably more Diesel under the wires which IEP should reduce substancially. Yes IEP isn't perfect but I think the time of the Bi-mode has come and pratting about changing Loco's and having Loco's sat there waiting for the next train belongs to the 20th Century.,

As for Electrifying Cardiff to Swansea I'm sure there is a good case for it, but when you get an organisation which seems to have lost the plot in terms of costs of electrification its hardly surprising there isn't enough money to complete the job.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Stephen Crabb was involved, as Secretary of State for Wales, in the original Cameron plan for wiring Cardiff to Swansea and a 50% Westminster funding for Valleys electrification.
He would be wedded to the original scheme and isn't a disinterested Tory MP.

Hes also aware of the damage on the ground its doing with Dai Public and Labour/Plaid making hay out of it. As one Welsh Tory said to me "its our turn under the bus again"

 

[Gareth Marston]

Personally I think some people need to get out of the Dark ages pratting about coupling and uncoupling locomotives, which would have led to much less off wire services and probably more Diesel under the wires which IEP should reduce substancially. Yes IEP isn't perfect but I think the time of the Bi-mode has come and pratting about changing Loco's and having Loco's sat there waiting for the next train belongs to the 20th Century.,

As for Electrifying Cardiff to Swansea I'm sure there is a good case for it, but when you get an organisation which seems to have lost the plot in terms of costs of electrification its hardly surprising there isn't enough money to complete the job.

Cost overruns are part of the mess yeah we all know but the Hitachi bi mode was the most expensive option on the table as traction yet Daft wants to pat itself on the head and rub its tummy about how clever its been? Its OK to plough countless extra £ millions into something if your Daft but when someone else does it its a failure to be castigated?

The prating about as you put it would have kept the advantages of electric traction on the sections wired which are now diminished.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Grayling has already antagonised those on Northern route with his ditching of electrification. Now it is the turn of South Wales. The revolt has begun to spread.

I myself remain bullish despite the bad news. I consider electrification to be something whose time has come. Sure we have had high profile cancellations, but bi modes offer a foot in the door for future electrification in small sections.

Consider the recent Hansford Review: "Unlocking rail investment – building confidence, reducing costs" which identifies how projects of the correct size might attract private finance and implementation. Now think how such an approach focusing on quick wins might drive incremental electrification which can be used as soon as it is commissioned if the trains are bi-modes.

As Churchill might have said, I do not think bi-modes and the recent announcements from the Minister represent the beginning of the end for electrification. Rather they represent the end of the beginning!

Will Daft be proposing bi modes for HS2 & CrossRail 2? If not why not as their magic trains according to the spin..... Someone will be putting cantenary up in this country for years to come and it will probably become quite a well oiled process having learnt lessons from NR mismanagement of GWR wiring.

 

[47802]

Cost overruns are part of the mess yeah we all know but the Hitachi bi mode was the most expensive option on the table as traction yet Daft wants to pat itself on the head and rub its tummy about how clever its been? Its OK to plough countless extra £ millions into something if your Daft but when someone else does it its a failure to be castigated?

The prating about as you put it would have kept the advantages of electric traction on the sections wired which are now diminished.

I suspect that cost penalty of running a Bi-mode on Electric compared to a pure electric is minimal compared to the cost of running a Diesel under the Wires.

The cost of the initial batch of IEP's may have been expensive but later batch have been allegedly obtained at more reasonable prices. An option to Diesel Haul off the wires would not have been cheap with cost of buying the Locomotives and then the cost of Locomotives and Crew sitting around waiting for the next service, and I suspect only the very high traffic flow routes would have justified the cost of that and bearing mind that IEP is for other routes and not just for Bristol and South Wales. Didn't Dft do some analysis on that and concluded it would be more expensive than buying IEP's.

The DFT would have also had to carry on with some of the electrification rather than defer or cancel it despite Network Rails ridiculous cost escalation, and GWR would likely be in the crap without the Bi-modes.

 

[The Ham]

The problem with the analysis that said that 390's would have been cheaper was that was based on a per coach basis, whilst the 80x's have significantly more seats for the same length of train. A 9 coach 80x had 630 seats, compared with 469 for a 9 coach 390, even an 11 coach version only has 589 seats. As such you would have needed 12 coach 390's, which would have cost about 1/3 more than a 9 coach version.

When IEP was awarded the change point was going to be Oxford, well for now the change point is Didcot, which would have either meant more locos or fewer services or more 16x's being retained. Either way we'd have been in big trouble.

Personally, by having 80x's, I feel that we have dodged a bullet. Yes it may not be ideal, but we'd have been in a big hole with no way out (possibly robbing DMU's from Northern could have worked, but you'd have to be a brave MP to suggest that!!!).

 

[kieron]

Personally, by having 80x's, I feel that we have dodged a bullet. Yes it may not be ideal, but we'd have been in a big hole with no way out (possibly robbing DMU's from Northern could have worked, but you'd have to be a brave MP to suggest that!!!).

How would that have worked? Northern don't have any of the 125mph trains Reading commuters deserve. They have precious few which can go over 75mph, for that matter.

I get the feeling people are reading far too much into this article. Stephen Crabb hasn't suggested that the government should do one thing or another today. His comment on this point is little more than saying that an IEP running on diesel is less good in some way than an IEP running on electric. I believe this is largely correct.

His other point was to criticise Network Rail for the gap between what was promised for electrification (I don't know if he's talking specifically about the GWML, or if it's broader than that) and what has happened since then. Fortunately, there is plenty of blame to go around, so Stephen Crabb and Chris Grayling can also have their share.

 

[otomous]

People’s enthusiasm or apathy is pretty irrelevant if the railway is incapable of delivering. The DfT could be full of Keith Chegwinesque enthusiasm but it wouldn’t change Network Rail’s ability to deliver electrification schemes.

Let's no forget that it's long term government policies in the UK that have led to the stop start nature of electrification, leading to no accumulation of experience or knowledge ready to apply to the next scheme. Especially given some of the UK system quirks and the trashing of BR's archive by Railtrack. Network Rail were asked to do an unrealistic job and we may be back to square one at the end of all this.

 

[edwin_m]

With considerable regret I agree with Grayling that it was the right thing to stop the electrification, in view of the costs coming through on GW. But he would have sustained less political damage by announcing another indefinite deferment rather than a total cancellation, especially if he had quoted some current versus original cost projections showing that MML and Swansea were also going to be a lot more expensive than first thought. This would also have left some incentive to the industry to get costs down if they wanted any more work. The political damage was compounded by a clumsy attempt to spin it as a positive.

 

[43096]

The DfT Garyling and any other Tory Minister were spinning the line that bi modes were magic new technology and answer to life the universe and everything weren't they?

The magic new technology that the Southern Region first introduced in 1962...

 

[Gareth Marston]

A program of rolling electrification is still not the wrong option and has been made more pertinent by the dash to electric vehicles in a pan European policy shift. We have no idea what impact Europe's oil consumption dropping will have on world markers and production. As it involves a world market, investment decisions and long term planning we cant blithely assume that prices will drop in fact the opposite could happen as investment in the industry to open up new fields doesn't happen and existing sources start to dry up.This will be very bad news for the UK rail industry.

Bi-mode should be a sticking plaster to gain space not a solution. Whilst there's blame attached to NR a lot of the underpinning causes are consequences of Government policy failure. Theirs a parallel with the 1955 Modernization Plan here Government pretended it was badly let down by British Railways when the reality was it was forced by Government to buy the dodgy British diesels and the Marshaling Yards were a consequence of being hamstrung by Victorian legislation which Government continued to impose on the railways. It cant be allowed to wash its hands of electrification when its the right thing to do just so it can run away from problems of its own making.

 

[Mikey C]

Since July 20 Grayling has been talking about them precisely as the new wonder discovery that solves all problems and renders electrification unnecessary. Sadly a lot of politicians who know no better may believe him.

Grayling's announcement was done in summer, when most MPs would be away.

Now Parliament is returning, I suspect that there will be significant rumblings from Tory MPs in constituencies affected, worried about how this will play out electorally.

I'm sure Crabb won't be the only one expressing doubt

 

[snowball]

With considerable regret I agree with Grayling that it was the right thing to stop the electrification, in view of the costs coming through on GW.

As one of the columnists noted in a recent issue of Rail magazine, he cancelled muost of the electrification programme in England and Wales at just the point where NR have probably learned the lessons of the GW disaster and other recent problems, thus ensuring that the lessons will be forgotten again before the next electrification revival.

 

[47802]

A program of rolling electrification is still not the wrong option and has been made more pertinent by the dash to electric vehicles in a pan European policy shift. We have no idea what impact Europe's oil consumption dropping will have on world markers and production. As it involves a world market, investment decisions and long term planning we cant blithely assume that prices will drop in fact the opposite could happen as investment in the industry to open up new fields doesn't happen and existing sources start to dry up.This will be very bad news for the UK rail industry.

Bi-mode should be a sticking plaster to gain space not a solution. Whilst there's blame attached to NR a lot of the underpinning causes are consequences of Government policy failure. Theirs a parallel with the 1955 Modernization Plan here Government pretended it was badly let down by British Railways when the reality was it was forced by Government to buy the dodgy British diesels and the Marshaling Yards were a consequence of being hamstrung by Victorian legislation which Government continued to impose on the railways. It cant be allowed to wash its hands of electrification when its the right thing to do just so it can run away from problems of its own making.

I think most people would agree that further electrification is desirable but when NR go over budget to a level that would have paid for most of the other schemes on original costing its hardly surprising the government called a halt to. Yes there should be further electrification but on a smaller scale and NR proving they can sort their costs out. No Bi-modes are not a magic train but they can be a good solution in a number of situations including making staged electrification more viable, and in the case of VTEC substancially reducing Diesel under the wires running, offering a better service to off wire destinations, and a part fleet that can cope with off wire diversions on a route that has limited electrified diversionary routes. Where I would take issue with the Government is the idea they should be used as solution where bits of main TPE route are not electrified because they are difficult expensive bits.

In the case of GW electrification i'm sure there must be a strong case for being able to get EMU's into Oxford at some point, and electric only IEP's to Bristol as originally planned, but Cardiff Swansea wasn't on the original plan and maybe there are other routes with a stronger case for electrification at the moment

 

[DarloRich]

Stephen Crabb was involved, as Secretary of State for Wales, in the original Cameron plan for wiring Cardiff to Swansea and a 50% Westminster funding for Valleys electrification.
He would be wedded to the original scheme and isn't a disinterested Tory MP.

exactly - people are overlooking the internal machinations of a divided conservative party where people are starting to settle scores and position themselves for the next leadership.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The case to continue just gets stronger even before the ink was dry on Garyling's announcement. NR should already or should have soon a better handle on costs and how to estimate taking into account they don't have to engineer branch lines to High Speed Rail standards etc and making clear to the Politicians route upgrade costs will have to be done even if wires don't go up.

Lets re do the business case for MML with new info and see how it comes out- there's no need to lumber the MML with bi modes.

 

[The Ham]

How would that have worked? Northern don't have any of the 125mph trains Reading commuters deserve. They have precious few which can go over 75mph, for that matter.

I get the feeling people are reading far too much into this article. Stephen Crabb hasn't suggested that the government should do one thing or another today. His comment on this point is little more than saying that an IEP running on diesel is less good in some way than an IEP running on electric. I believe this is largely correct.

His other point was to criticise Network Rail for the gap between what was promised for electrification (I don't know if he's talking specifically about the GWML, or if it's broader than that) and what has happened since then. Fortunately, there is plenty of blame to go around, so Stephen Crabb and Chris Grayling can also have their share.

It would have worked by GWR retaining 16x's for Oxford services, which would have meant that more stock for around Bristol and the West County branch lines which could have been strengthened by Northern's 75mph units.

As I implied it wouldn't go down well, but then not would any of the options.

 

[DarloRich]

The case to continue just gets stronger even before the ink was dry on Garyling's announcement. NR should already or should have soon a better handle on costs and how to estimate taking into account they don't have to engineer branch lines to High Speed Rail standards etc and making clear to the Politicians route upgrade costs will have to be done even if wires don't go up.

Lets re do the business case for MML with new info and see how it comes out- there's no need to lumber the MML with bi modes.

there is one reason: Cash.

 

[squizzler]

People’s enthusiasm or apathy is pretty irrelevant if the railway is incapable of delivering. The DfT could be full of Keith Chegwinesque enthusiasm but it wouldn’t change Network Rail’s ability to deliver electrification schemes.

Chegwinesque Network Rail period finished about 2014. Since then Network Rail has a cupboard of new brooms and is, I get the impression from reading between the lines of the technical press, a very different organisation from three years ago.

With considerable regret I agree with Grayling that it was the right thing to stop the electrification, in view of the costs coming through on GW. But he would have sustained less political damage by announcing another indefinite deferment rather than a total cancellation, especially if he had quoted some current versus original cost projections showing that MML and Swansea were also going to be a lot more expensive than first thought. This would also have left some incentive to the industry to get costs down if they wanted any more work. The political damage was compounded by a clumsy attempt to spin it as a positive.

I understand nothing has changed on the GWR since last year when the electrification was descoped and Network Rail worked up a reasonable timescale and budget to finish the job. Consider how long it takes for certain bad decisions to work themselves through the pipeline. How long ago, does anyone think, the incorrectly designed equipment that compromised the GOBLIN possession had been ordered from the suppliers? Might be years ago, but only becomes apparent on the day workers get on site.

As one of the columnists noted in a recent issue of Rail magazine, he cancelled muost of the electrification programme in England and Wales at just the point where NR have probably learned the lessons of the GW disaster and other recent problems, thus ensuring that the lessons will be forgotten again before the next electrification revival.

The blunders of GW electrification were predominantly front loaded. Various goofs such as the choice of electrification method and what electrical clearance standards to adopt happened before the spades even went in the ground. Unfortunately the size of the damage only becomes more widely known as the various official post postmortems happen and Network Rail finds itself having to spend money to rectify what went wrong before. Even the best general won't be able to immediately turn round a war that is going badly and that is no reason to surrender although it might warrant a tactical retreat and retrenchment.

Grayling's announcement was done in summer, when most MPs would be away.

Now Parliament is returning, I suspect that there will be significant rumblings from Tory MPs in constituencies affected, worried about how this will play out electorally.

I'm sure Crabb won't be the only one expressing doubt

Exacly why I remain bullish. Electrification is a project whose time has come and Grayling is swimming against the tide. The Mayors of cities affected and MP's who see their constituencies put at a disadvantage are setting the agenda. Of course as the rail experts to those immediately around us it is surprising that sentiment on this forum often seems close to Graylinesque than to many of the political heavy hitters elsewhere in the country.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Electrification is a project whose time has come and Grayling is swimming against the tide.

Not at any price it hasn’t. Whilst the railway press and various people on forums like this think the railway is the most important thing in the world that isn’t the public’s view. Most passengers really aren't going to care what technology drives their train as long as they get to their destination. When the public sector pay cap still exists, there are constant stories about funding shortages at the NHS and we are still supposedly in a period of austerity it would take an absolute idiot of a politician to plough forward with large scale electrification projects until Network Rail have proved beyond any doubt they can keep costs under control.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Not at any price it hasn’t. Whilst the railway press and various people on forums like this think the railway is the most important thing in the world that isn’t the public’s view. Most passengers really aren't going to care what technology drives their train as long as they get to their destination. When the public sector pay cap still exists, there are constant stories about funding shortages at the NHS and we are still supposedly in a period of austerity it would take an absolute idiot of a politician to plough forward with large scale electrification projects until Network Rail have proved beyond any doubt they can keep costs under control.

and the Elephant in the room is Electric Vehicles - there introduction will distort the ecomic model for oil production and supply across the world as demand will fall. The railway cant be held ransom to a "declining mode of propulsion fuel".