I've just enjoyed quite a few hours reading through this thread; very interesting.
I'd like to add a few thoughts/etc.
Firstly, a lot of the anger towards Grayling in the Derby/Nottingham area results from a video interview when he was canvassing for Amanda Salloway in the Derby North constituency during the 2017 general election; when asked, he specifically stated that the only way to guarantee the electrification of the MML was to vote Tory!
Secondly, costs of electrics v bi-modes. There was a very brief disagreement between Mark Spencer (Con, Sherwood) and Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North) at the end of East Midlands edition of 'Sunday Politics' on 10th December 2017; Spencer said it was a waste of money, Williamson was all for it, arguing that when higher capital costs and maintenance costs of bi-modes were taken into account, electrification was the better option.
So I decided that I would try to see who was right; and over a 25 year period, Chris Williamson does seem to be on a “simple” cost comparison basis.
Based upon EMT's current fleet, I've assumed that the “new” fleet will comprise 242 vehicles formed into 19 x 9-car and 16 x 5-car sets; EMT currently has a mixture of 'Meridians' and sufficient HST trailers to form 12 x 8-car sets, giving a total of 239 vehicles (I've ignored the Grand Central sets from my calculations).
Using published contract values for the CAF built class 397s and the class 802 bi-modes for Hull Trains, the average cost per car is £400k more for each bi-mode; this equates to an additional capital cost of £96.8m for a fleet of 242 vehicles.
This isn't a great deal when compared against the declared saving of £1bn from cancellation of electrification, but the additional maintenance costs are something else altogether. There's a report on one website recording an analysis of the prices being paid for IEP maintenance over the 27 year life of that contract, and this has concluded that an extra £4m per car is being paid for bi-modes over electrics; this equates to roundly £148k per year, so for a fleet of 242 vehicles the extra maintenance cost equates to £900m over a 25 year project life.
Then there's usage charges; I've had to concoct some, as none have yet been published for electric/bi-mode IEPs or class 397s. By using charges available, I've assumed that a 9-car bi-mode running as a diesel will incur usage charges approximately 10% higher than a 9-car straight electric, and one running as an electric approximately 25% higher per mile (both of the electric rates include Network Rail's asset usage charge for the use of the 25kv AC overhead). I won't go into a lot of boring calculations and explanations about assumptions, methodology, etc, but I've estimated that additional usage charges to the tune of £24m will be incurred over 25 years.
Again, assumptions have had to be made regarding fuel v electricity; using various sources, I've estimated that, over a 25 year period and using current fuel prices, bi-modes will cost about £75m more than electrics. This is probably way off the mark, but it does give an indication as to how much more a bi-mode will cost.
The “sparks effect” is widely acknowledged, and reductions in journey times result in revenue growth; if you work to the basic assumption that electrification will result in just one extra Anytime First and one extra Anytime Standard return tickets being sold each day between each of Sheffield, Chesterfield, Derby, Nottingham, East Midlands Parkway, Loughborough, Leicester and London, with an identical growth northbound to these destinations from London, using current ticket prices this equates to roundly £3m per annum. This again isn't substantial, but over 25 years it rises to £75m.
So adding all of these together, the additional cost of procuring/maintaining/operating bi-modes (and not earning extra revenue) is just over £1.17bn; 17% more than the claimed saving from cancelling electrification.
I tried to be conservative when calculating these extra costs. For example, I've used class 395 usage charges, but these have the greatest weight per metre of all EMUs running in GB and are mounted on 'H' framed bogies; if a MML electric was mounted on lightweight inside framed bogies, the usage charge could potentially drop considerably – a class 172 'Turbostar' usage charge is less than 60% of that for a class 170 one.
With access to more accurate figures, a better calculation would be possible; but this “rough-and-ready” estimate confirms that cancellation MAY be the worst option. Moreover, it hasn't included other costs which the split between electrics and bi-modes will cause; depot costs for maintenance of the EMUs south of Corby are an example.
Of course the main difference between electrification and bi-modes is that the cost of electrification is up-front and has to be born by government through a Network Rail grant, whereas most of the bi-mode additional costs are in the future and will be charged to TOCs; so - bearing in mind the Hansford review – couldn't a financing mechanism such as sale and leaseback be considered as an option for the electrification? The initial cost would still be borne by government, but the cost incurred would then be recovered by it through the sale of the OHL, and the leasing costs would be borne by Network Rail and recovered by them from TOCs through asset/track usage charges. However, this still leaves the costs of raising bridges, etc; could this be eliminated with “dead” sections through restricted areas? As trains are likely to be EMUs, is non-continuous electrification possible (remember, class 395s have two pantographs, and although they only usually run with one raised, could both be up and in contact with the overhead at somewhere like Leicester where an electrical supply is desirable when departing southbound)?
Can anyone please explain why bi-mode journey times and enhanced speeds haven't been discussed more in this thread?
From information published in 'Modern Railways' and 'Rail', we've seen that IEPs can't keep up with HSTs; they're quicker off the mark, but after a while a HST goes flying past. The fact that HSTs are inferior in performance to Meridians has been mentioned, but both can capitalise upon the enhanced speed limits for HSTs on the MML, and there are many of them; however, IEPs aren't listed in the Sectional Appendices as being able to take advantage of enhanced speeds marked for HSTs. This isn't really a problem on the GW main line as very few are marked for HSTs, but there are some for MUs; as IEPs aren't excluded from the MU category in the Sectional Appendices, I presume they can operate at the enhanced speeds so marked on the GW main line. Anyone have any knowledge about this?
Sorry to have rambled on!
)?
