Spending Review - Transport.

[whole diary]

[Henry]

http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=139837

[anthony215]

I have read on UK^▸ (United Kingdom) railforums and have spoken to a member of staff at FGW^▸ (First Great Western) who said that the case for electrification depends on the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) & Thameslink new stock order. Aparantly the government want Hitachi  to reduce the costs of the Carraiges.

I know i have one suggestion which is to just have a full electric version of the IEP and maybe FGW could use the class 57's to haul the IEP's between Exeter & Penzance if the wires get to Exeter which they should in my opinion.

I know having read a railway amagzine about a year ago ( Cant remember which one) one of the plans was to  use class 319's displaced from Thameslink by new rolling stock on Reading - Oxford & Reading - Newbury local services with some class 165/166's being displaced to  the Bristol area.
 
If the wires are run to Exeter could some class 319's be used on the Cardiff - Bristol - Taunton route thus displacing some class 143/150's down to the west country to boost capacity?

[Zoe]

I know i have one suggestion which is to just have a full electric version of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and maybe FGW^▸ (First Great Western) could use the class 57's to haul the IEP's between Exeter & Penzance if the wires get to Exeter which they should in my opinion.

There would be little point electrifying only as far as Exeter but not to Plymouth as very few service start or terminate at Exeter.

[Electric train]

Let me speculate, and this is just me speculating.  Crossrail will initially on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) operate only as far as Heathrow and Hayes for 2018/19, the extension West will be part of the GWML which will be the Thames (to Oxford) and Kennet (to Newbury) Valley with the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) saying they will look at Crossrail running to Reading for 2021/22 with further GWML electrification to South Wales and Bristol after that. 

Oh and the funding for it will have to predominately come from the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s / FOC^▸ (Freight Operating Company)'s and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) remember this is a Tory Government where the private sector knows best and market forces will dictate the level of service

[anthony215]

I know i have one suggestion which is to just have a full electric version of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and maybe FGW^▸ (First Great Western) could use the class 57's to haul the IEP's between Exeter & Penzance if the wires get to Exeter which they should in my opinion.

There would be little point electrifying only as far as Exeter but not to Plymouth as very few service start or terminate at Exeter.

Yes but the main problem with the electrification to Plymouth in my opinion will be the dawlish sea wall. I read today about global warming and that section will have to be closed at some point, maybe Network rail should look at building a new route in land

[woody]

I know i have one suggestion which is to just have a full electric version of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and maybe FGW^▸ (First Great Western) could use the class 57's to haul the IEP's between Exeter & Penzance if the wires get to Exeter which they should in my opinion.

There would be little point electrifying only as far as Exeter but not to Plymouth as very few service start or terminate at Exeter.

Yes but the main problem with the electrification to Plymouth in my opinion will be the dawlish sea wall. I read today about global warming and that section will have to be closed at some point, maybe Network rail should look at building a new route in land

I suspect that given the financial black hole the country is in for the foreseeable future and the governments attitude to rail infrastructure investment this far South-West that if the Dawlish sea wall route were ever to fall over big time,that would be it for rail links west of Exeter and government would except that Plymouth would become the first major UK^▸ (United Kingdom) city to loose its national rail link.It would be much cheaper in those circumstances to build a new parkway station at Exminster adjacent to the M5 for points west I suspect.Lets hope that scenario is never put to the test.

[Henry]

 Totally agree with you Woody.

 I think it is not a question of if, but when either the sea wall or the erosion of the cliff face
 at Dawlish/Teignmouth will affect services.
 Irrespective of the current financial climate, the costs involved maintaining or developing I think
 would be prohibitive. Also consecutive governments have always concentrated on road building.

 I am envious/bitter/ jealous when I travel to London/Kent and see the improvements.
 Looking at places like Ebbsfleet, already remarked as a 'white elephant' and built at a cost that would have
 'cured' our minor problems in the South West forever.

[eightf48544]

We could electrify tommorrow if Networkrail could issue tradeable Electrification Bonds.

25 year bonds +4% above base rate. Ideal for pension funds and captital repayment will disappear with inflation.

Has anyone heard whether Crossrail is going to go ahead as currently  planned with wires ending at Maidenhead with the need for the costly turnback sidings which hopefully would only be needed for couple years. 

[willc]

Ebbsfleet, already remarked as a 'white elephant' and built at a cost that would have
 'cured' our minor problems in the South West forever.

If the economy picks up, then there are an awful lot of new houses earmarked for the surrounding area, so all those parking spaces may well be needed. And unless Network Rail really does get its costs under control, providing any sort of alternative to Dawlish sea wall will likely take a touch more than the ^100m Ebbsfleet reportedly cost (inclusive of the connections to the North Kent line).

We could electrify tommorrow if Networkrail could issue tradeable Electrification Bonds.

It can't. The Government has made it clear it is no longer going to pretend that NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s debts are private and should not be counted on public sector balance sheets. Philip Hammond told the Commons Transport Select Committee the following in July:

Mr Hammond: We said in opposition that for practical purposes, regardless of how it was classified, we would conduct ourselves on the assumption that Network Rail^s debt was public debt. We will not hide behind an accounting convention. When we look at the macro-economic position, we are taking into the equation Network Rail^s debt because the reality is that ultimately the government stands behind that debt. While it is for others to decide how the debt is formally classified, from a practical, working point of view, we will assume that it is treated as public debt.

ie Network Rail can't just go issuing bonds without the nod from ministers in the current climate.

I suspect that given the financial black hole the country is in for the foreseeable future and the governments attitude to rail infrastructure investment this far South-West that if the Dawlish sea wall route were ever to fall over big time,that would be it for rail links west of Exeter and government would except that Plymouth would become the first major UK^▸ (United Kingdom) city to loose its national rail link.

Sorry, but that's just silly. Remind me, which political parties hold all but one seat in the House of Commons west of Exeter? I have a feeling they would like to hang on to them.

If the railway did close, how would you propose to move people in and out of the area? Extend the M5 across the heart of Dartmoor to Plymouth and make it 12 lanes from Exeter to Bristol to cope on summer Saturdays? But that would be silly too - and cost even more than either reopening Meldon-Bere Alston or the Teign Valley.

I believe sea levels in the West Country are predicted to rise by 15 inches or so by the 2080s, so I'm not sure inundation of the sea wall is such an imminent threat that the current government will have to make a decision in the next five years, nor any subsequent governments from some years yet.

[Electric train]

Other than the big ticket projects in rail already going ahead (Thameslink Crossrail Reading Station etc) I think we will find a slowing up if a stop on any new schemes while the Government waits for the economy to pick up and for the private sector to be able to finance any schemes on the bases that market forces are the best measure for where investment should be made, if the public sector (ie Government) see the need to improve a service or infrastructure they will seek private sector partners, this is the Conservative way they may have changed leaders over the years have not changed their spots

[paul7575]

What would be helpful would be to see a post CSR^▸ (Cab Secure Radio) update to the CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014) enhancement plan [1], marking up line by line through the contents list showing what remains. 

I'm being reasonably optimistic, because as we know to rework the HLOS^▸ (High Level Output Specification)/SofA allocations should require a review of the whole process - and they haven't flagged up such a thing - yet.

What they did announce was that they have allocated ^14bn from DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s overall sum to rail enhancements and renewals, and the entire CP4 budget was under ^8bn.

[1] not as unlikely as it seems, we've already had March, June and September versions this year...

Paul

[woody]

Sorry, but that's just silly. Remind me, which political parties hold all but one seat in the House of Commons west of Exeter? I have a feeling they would like to hang on to them.

Time for a reality check here I think. Firstly a day in politics is a long time. Secondly the cost of a new inland rail route around Dawlish would be astronomical today given the geography,well beyond the rail industries ability to fund. Back in 1937 the then Great Western railway were going to build a new inland route around Dawlish involving a 2 mile tunnel through the Halden hills http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5719.msg59366#msg59366. However that was because rail traffic levels (including freight,now virtually now nearly all on the roads), at that time demanded four tracks between Exeter and Newton Abbot which could not be accommadated on the Dawlish sea wall route. The scheme was to be funded by government interest free loans to the then Great Western Railway. Do you seriously believe that would happen now in South Devon which is so far removed from all the railway big money schemes that the coalition government has committed itself to.



Edit Note: Quote marks amended, for clarity. CfN.

[willc]

You say time for a reality check, then again fail to explain why precisely you believe a government -  the current one or any other - would just wash its hands of providing a rail connection from the rest of the country to the most heavily populated parts of Devon and the whole of Cornwall. When the time comes that this problem has to be addressed, I am quite sure it will be seen as being sufficiently important on a national strategic level to be made a top priority for funding.

If you disagree, would you perhaps explain why, instead of going on about schemes elsewhere that are being funded? Schemes which are designed to address current, pressing capacity problems around London and elsewhere. Schemes for which detailed planning has been done and where work is under way in some cases. None of these things can be said about bypassing Dawlish, because no-one at Network Rail appears to believe the sea wall is about to fall down.

[woody]

You say time for a reality check, then again fail to explain why precisely you believe a government -  the current one or any other - would just wash its hands of providing a rail connection from the rest of the country to the most heavily populated parts of Devon and the whole of Cornwall. When the time comes that this problem has to be addressed, I am quite sure it will be seen as being sufficiently important on a national strategic level to be made a top priority for funding.

If you disagree, would you perhaps explain why, instead of going on about schemes elsewhere that are being funded? Schemes which are designed to address current, pressing capacity problems around London and elsewhere. Schemes for which detailed planning has been done and where work is under way in some cases. None of these things can be said about bypassing Dawlish, because no-one at Network Rail appears to believe the sea wall is about to fall down.

Never said or implied that the sea wall is about to fall down."Indeed my initial remarks were in response to Anthony215" comments about any possible future electrification along the sea wall and the possibility of building an inland route instead.Indeed the following links says clearly that prevention is much better than the cure http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11601014 As the article says "Proactive planning for climate change adaption offers much better value for the taxpayer than bearing the huge costs when things go wrong."

[willc]

And I don't believe I ever said you had implied the sea wall was about to fall down. You wrote the following:

I suspect that given the financial black hole the country is in for the foreseeable future and the governments attitude to rail infrastructure investment this far South-West that if the Dawlish sea wall route were ever to fall over big time,that would be it for rail links west of Exeter and government would except that Plymouth would become the first major UK^▸ (United Kingdom) city to loose its national rail link.

You still haven't explained your justification for these 'suspicions', which was the point I have been trying to get at, because they seem utterly unfounded to me, so could you please explain the basis for them, rather than dodging the question and talking about all sorts of other things? Like history lessons, pointing out BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) articles, schemes that are being funded elsewhere...