Network Rail Electrification Strategy

[whole diary]

[Lee]

With much of my time currently being spent on TransWilts issues, I havent got round to looking in detail at Network Rail's recently-published electrification stategy - http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2009/05/sparks-rus-shows-what-weve-lost.html

I would be interested to read the initial thoughts of members who have had a look at it.

[Electric train]

It's a meaty document, I have skimmed through it a lot of the technical stuff on how electrification is very well put in layman's terms.

The optionearing seems to be well though through giving several ways forward eg post Crossrail electrify Maidenhead Oxford and the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) to Bristol or Maidenhead to Bristol and then do Didcot to Oxford etc

It will take a lot of reading as it is important not to just concentrate on the Western as the document is a National RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) and not a regional RUS

[John R]

Firstly, hi Lee, good to see you posting again.

I'm going to be provocative, and play devil's advocate, as I am hugely in favour of electrification. If I read this report and wanted to be cynical I'd ask this:-

There is a group of services that run wholly over electrified routes. Each year there are 15m vehicle miles on these routes that could be run by electric services with not one penny of infrastrucutre improvement.

According to the benefits table, this would result in around ^3m of fuel savings, ^3m of lower maintenance, and ^1m of lower leasing costs. And there would be the benefits of improved journeys, no underfloor engines etc.

So if there isn't even a business case to replace these by electric stock, why on earth would you consider it for services where you will need to string the wires etc.

It is of course, the Birmingham - Scotland services.

[Btline]

The reason why VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchises) are not bothered about running diesels under the wires is that the Voyagers are cheaper to run than the Pendolinos, and they have similar acceleration.

Of course, looking from a national scale, it should be done, so the Voyagers can go to XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)), and so the Virgin services can be longer.

But I am afraid that I am still very pessimistic about future UK^▸ (United Kingdom) electrification. Recent events such as the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and Xrail confirm in my eyes that electrification is not being looked at seriously enough.

[paul7575]

But I am afraid that I am still very pessimistic about future UK^▸ (United Kingdom) electrification. Recent events such as the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and Xrail confirm in my eyes that electrification is not being looked at seriously enough.

Surely the draft strategy is evidence that they are looking at electrification seriously. I don't think it was written on the off chance, it has too much detail. 

Paul

[John R]

The reason why VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchises) are not bothered about running diesels under the wires is that the Voyagers are cheaper to run than the Pendolinos, and they have similar acceleration.

Have you read the report? It's very clear that diesel trains are more expensive to run than their electric equivalent, hence where I got my figures for savings per vehicle per mile from.  So if it were that clear cut, then Virgin would build a fleet of shortened Pendolinos.

The reason they haven't is that there was only 5 years to go on the franchise, so it is not worth their while. Or more to the point, the DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) didn't specify it.

Oh, and as well as the financial benefits, it would reduce carbon emissions by 6,500 tons pa by switching to electric on this route.

[Btline]

I read that Voyagers were cheaper to run than Pendolinos.

Perhaps changing oil prices has "put paid" to this claim. (no pun intended)

[bemmy]

But I am afraid that I am still very pessimistic about future UK^▸ (United Kingdom) electrification. Recent events such as the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and Xrail confirm in my eyes that electrification is not being looked at seriously enough.

Surely the draft strategy is evidence that they are looking at electrification seriously. I don't think it was written on the off chance, it has too much detail. 

Paul

But at the end of the day the decisions rest with the government, who are happy to spend millions on comprehensive reports on every subject by all kinds of experts which they then proceed to ignore. They will baulk at the cost of electrification even though it will save taxpayers money in the long run -- politicians are only interested in the short term.

[eightf48544]

But I am afraid that I am still very pessimistic about future UK^▸ (United Kingdom) electrification. Recent events such as the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and Xrail confirm in my eyes that electrification is not being looked at seriously enough.

Surely the draft strategy is evidence that they are looking at electrification seriously. I don't think it was written on the off chance, it has too much detail. 

Paul

But at the end of the day the decisions rest with the government, who are happy to spend millions on comprehensive reports on every subject by all kinds of experts which they then proceed to ignore. They will baulk at the cost of electrification even though it will save taxpayers money in the long run -- politicians are only interested in the short term.

I am afraid I tend to agree with BTline that large reports are  at the very least a way of postponing decisions it until circumstances change and the report becomes irrelevant and requires rewrtting and Bemmy is right politians only think short term.

Although even the Tories have to acknowledge that it was Atlee and Bevan that set the NHS and although they try and reduce it's coverage they daren't tamper with the principles.

So maybe if Brown was to start a large electrification programme today Cameron would probably have to go along with at least the first stages.   

So where to start, Coventry Nuneaton could have wires up in 9 months followed by Nuneaton Birmingham (diversions for when Coventry to Birmingham upgraded) and Walsall Rugely. This gets some unecessary DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) working off the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line). This team would then go to do the Snow Hill lines.

Hopefully other teams would spin off from this group to get mainline electrification going.

You would have a separate third rail team to do Ashord Ore, Oxted Uckfield, Basingstoke, Southampton Eastleigh to Salisbury and the infills around Kew.

Hopefully TFL^▸ (Transport for London) could be persuaded to do Gospel Oak to  Barking.

Oh dear I just realised I'm dreaming again must stop taking naps in the day!

[Electric train]

One of the legacies of John Majors vandalism of British Rail was first the disaggregation of the DM&EE (Director of Mechanical & Electrical Engineering) that is splitting M&EE infrastructure and traction, then came the privatisation now this did affect all infrastructure departments, however the world of Electrification is very small compared to track and S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph).

It has taken about 5 years for Network Rail to rebuild a group of Electrification Engineers, some skilled engineers have retired in the last 10 or so years but the private sector was not very good at training new engineers that costs money from the Opex money spent from Opex means less bubbly for the share holders.

It will take a while to build a strong OHLE delivery base there are quite a few site engineers etc filtering out of the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and more will come out of the GE rewire these teams will form the bases of future OHLE electrification teams, the start is likely to be infill's especially around Brum, the NW and London leading on the route electrification.   DC^▸ (Direct Current) third rail is less of an issue as the skill base is there at the moment caring out renewals and enhancements of existing substations etc.

The document produced by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) is a 30 year strategy for electrification, we as a Nation can not unfortunately afford the big bang do the lot in 5 to 10 years and quite frankly we would never have sufficient skilled staff to deliver it.

[Btline]

Exactly. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that the Uckfield - Lewes line is needed and would reap huge rewards:

Network Rail spent goodness knows how much on reports etc.

But surprise surprise, despite almost everyone being for it, the main county council are not supporting it and NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s report said "no".

Why? They don't want to spend the cash. They are not looking ahead at all: The Brighton line is FULL, and Thameslink is coming, which is going to put pressure on the existing lines. The South Coast commuters are already fed up with the deterioration in their service, which is only going to get worse.

REMEMBER, THIS WAS A PROFITABLE LINE THAT WAS ONLY SHUT DUE TO A BYPASS. BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) acknowledged its closure was a big mistake; Uckfield station sold more southbound tickets than north bound tickets before the axe!

If this line can't be re-opened, it's bad news for the rest of us.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Hmm.  Whilst the events are years apart, there are sadly some interesting comparisons to be made with the situation now on the TransWilts line (particularly regarding Melksham) there ... 

[Zoe]

Hopefully TFL^▸ (Transport for London) could be persuaded to do Gospel Oak to  Barking.

It's not up to tfl though, they are interested but it's Network Rail's decision.

[Electric train]

Hopefully TFL^▸ (Transport for London) could be persuaded to do Gospel Oak to  Barking.

It's not up to tfl though, they are interested but it's Network Rail's decision.

If it were Network Rails decision I would be working flat out Project Engineering vast swaths of the country with new electrification but instead I am Engineering renewals of 60 year old electrification equipment (still needs to be done though).

Had an Electrification & Plant briefing this week the Network Rail Electrification Strategy document is "Stake holders discussion document" that is Network Rail have produced the engineering feasibility and some optionering it is now up to the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s n FOC^▸ (Freight Operating Company)'s NR^» (Network Rail - home page) Ops and DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to decide what schemes are the cost effective ones.  It is almost certain that a lot of the infills will be done this reduces the amount of different roiling stock TOC's n FOC's have also some that have a good business case as a diversion route.  NR are keen for whole route schemes such as GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about).  NR are now working on reducing the per Km cost working with suppliers to achieve this