MML Electrification: progress updates

[jayah]

The obsession with business cases is foolish, as you can change the assumptions to make radically different conclusions.
For example,

(1) the Kettering to Sheffield route includes some of the HS2 route between Chesterfield and Sheffield. The costs of electrifying this will no doubt have been included in Graying's latest business case to depress it down to 0.77, but none of the benefits that HS2 passengers will get will have been counted.
(2) there will have been questionable assumptions that passenger traffic from Nottingham and Derby will reduce significantly because of HS2, but no assumptions that traffic from further south might increase because passengers might want to travel North to get a connection to HS2.

You are dancing on pinheads here. 0.77 is a terrible BCR by any standard. He was quite clear HS2 is part of the assumption. But it won't to Sheffield until 2030 something so isn't going to pay for that relatively small bit unless MML stays BiMode.

Change the models on Nottingham and elsewhere and you trash the case for HS2 as well.

 

[jayah]

I suspect (more than suspect) that every mainline in UK has a better BCR if you just take it to reach the outer limits of commuting. The BCR from London to the end of the line will look good as a combined BCR, but not so good on its own from where the commuters get on, to the outer limit.

The MML electrification project was justified as a whole line one. Similarly, the GWML line was so justified.

This trick that the anti-electrification civil servants have come up with (not Grayling, they are just playing him along) has them chuckling to each other at the water cooler, I'll be bound.

It isn't a trick it is a fact.

The marginal BCR of say Didcot to Cardiff is probably terrible but as work has already started the decision won't be taken to axe it.

The con is adding more and more rubbish to a good scheme until it's head is only just above the water.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It isn't a trick it is a fact.

The marginal BCR of say Didcot to Cardiff is probably terrible but as work has already started the decision won't be taken to axe it.

The con is adding more and more rubbish to a good scheme until it's head is only just above the water.

However, the inherent compromises involved in bi-mode operation means that you can't just keep cutting back the extent of electrification to seek higher BCRs. If you do so, you can easily end up wiring nothing. Chasing a ratio means you ignore the absolute benefit, which will go down as you do less and less stuff. On our mainline railways there's little else we can really do other than electrification to improve them now. That reduction in absolute benefit might mean the money that is spent does relatively more, but unless there's another scheme which can now go ahead instead, the result will be less benefit for the railway.

Chris Grayling's primary motivation isn't the good planning of transport, but keeping political power. He's found a way of trying to blunt the fallout caused by previous political and transport bad decisions. Whether or not those new decisions are the best thing for transport isn't actually that important.

 

[furnessvale]

It isn't a trick it is a fact.

The marginal BCR of say Didcot to Cardiff is probably terrible but as work has already started the decision won't be taken to axe it.

The con is adding more and more rubbish to a good scheme until it's head is only just above the water.

Of course, the same could be said of the very existence of many lines leading to a terminus, let alone spending money on modernisation, new stock or electrification.

Taking my own line to Buxton, I'll wager leaving Buxton the trains don't fill to an acceptable level until at least Whaley Bridge, probably New Mills Newtown. We can solve that by curtailing the trains from Manchester at either of those locations. Sounds familiar? Serpell nearly got away with the same logic.

 

[jayah]

Chasing a ratio means you ignore the absolute benefit, which will go down as you do less and less stuff.

Not really sure what you are talking about. You measure the benefit, and you measure the cost. What benefit are you not measuring?

On our mainline railways there's little else we can really do other than electrification to improve them now.

This really is thin stuff. Timekeeping is terrible, most routes need money urgently spent on renewals. Speeds away from the London routes are slow, trains aren't long enough. There is no shortage of things that need money spending on them that actually deliver passenger benefits.

 

[jayah]

Takingmy own line to Buxton, I'll wager leaving Buxton the trains don't fill to an acceptable level until at least Whaley Bridge, probably New Mills Newtown. We can solve that by curtailing the trains from Manchester at either of those locations. Sounds familiar? Serpell nearly got away with the same logic.

There would be a huge time, economic and social cost to the current users, all of which would be captured. Dont try and use a flawed 1980s logic to justify spending £500m achieving no passenger benefit.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Not really sure what you are talking about. You measure the benefit, and you measure the cost. What benefit are you not measuring?

This really is thin stuff. Timekeeping is terrible, most routes need money urgently spent on renewals. Speeds away from the London routes are slow, trains aren't long enough. There is no shortage of things that need money spending on them that actually deliver passenger benefits.

BCR is benefit/cost. If you're planning to spend £100m on a scheme with a benefit of £220m, you have a BCR of 2.2. Some costs can be reduced without reducing benefits, so the BCR can be improved. However, if you start cutting away big essential chunks of the scheme, not only can your costs go down but so can the benefits. If you halve a scheme's cost down to £50m, but now it delivers £150m of benefit, then your BCR has gone up to 3. If you're optimising for BCR above all else, you could end up deciding to spend only £10m for £40m worth of benefit (BCR 4.0) and so on until you're doing essentially nothing at all. The final scheme might have a really high BCR, but the absolute amount of benefit being done is much lower than it was to begin with.

Now, this is fine if you've got other, better things to spend the money on. But, what's really driving Chris Grayling is not a determination to eke out every last bit of benefit, but to find a way to discreetly cut investment plans as costs have skyrocketed. The sorts of ideas he's suggesting as better ways to spend money aren't new things, but the sorts of things NR had needed or wanted to do anyway.

I'm not accusing him of some sort of Beeching-like scheme against the railway. He's just doing what's politically in their interests. Costs for enhancements have gone through the roof since initial planning and since that was mostly under a Conservative-led government, the blame naturally lies upon his own party among others.

There's a big question of whether not electrifying really will have no passenger-facing impact. No matter what your political beliefs are, it's pretty clear that it's easier to run a 125mph express railway if it's got 25kV AC electrification. Diesel trains have inherent limitations which can't be magicked away.

 

[jayah]

BCR is benefit/cost. If you're planning to spend £100m on a scheme with a benefit of £220m, you have a BCR of 2.2. Some costs can be reduced without reducing benefits, so the BCR can be improved. However, if you start cutting away big essential chunks of the scheme, not only can your costs go down but so can the benefits. If you halve a scheme's cost down to £50m, but now it delivers £150m of benefit, then your BCR has gone up to 3. If you're optimising for BCR above all else, you could end up deciding to spend only £10m for £40m worth of benefit (BCR 4.0) and so on until you're doing essentially nothing at all. The final scheme might have a really high BCR, but the absolute amount of benefit being done is much lower than it was to begin with.

Now, this is fine if you've got other, better things to spend the money on. But, what's really driving Chris Grayling is not a determination to eke out every last bit of benefit, but to find a way to discreetly cut investment plans as costs have skyrocketed. The sorts of ideas he's suggesting as better ways to spend money aren't new things, but the sorts of things NR had needed or wanted to do anyway.

I'm not accusing him of some sort of Beeching-like scheme against the railway. He's just doing what's politically in their interests. Costs for enhancements have gone through the roof since initial planning and since that was mostly under a Conservative-led government, the blame naturally lies upon his own party among others.

There's a big question of whether not electrifying really will have no passenger-facing impact. No matter what your political beliefs are, it's pretty clear that it's easier to run a 125mph express railway if it's got 25kV AC electrification. Diesel trains have inherent limitations which can't be magicked away.

Economics is about scarcity. Yes the total benefit is less, if you do less on one scheme, but you are trying to get the maximum benefit from a finite pot of money.

So you spend the money saved on something with a 2.0BCR ergo the total benefit is far greater. That is not political dogma, that is common sense.

Lower Opex from pure EMU operation is already in the BCRs, it hasn't been made to disappear it just isn't enough to justify spending £1bn. The fact it probably won't be diesel for the next 30 years is an added bonus which hasn't been included.

 

[IanXC]

Option A19 has a positive financial case, meaning that the cost part of the BCR is negative, hence the BCR is infinity.

However this includes the whole scheme including Corby which as Grayling points out all the benefit comes from, as well as the non electrification interventions. There were no sub options or BiModes evaluated in 2009.

Clearly there has been a more recent and detailed evaluation including KO2 (Kettering - Sheffield) on its own producing the 0.77 figure.

That's why I quoted this document, as it is based solely on electrification. So to quote Grayling, you're comparing apples with pears.

In the case of the MML it is hard to nail down comparable figures, as the Transport Select Committee found out. Do I believe that the scheme is actually as self financing as the original claims that it would be cheaper to electrify than not? Perhaps not. However I don't accept that full electrification isn't a good scheme.

I'm sure we will revisit this, either when one of the bidders shows that a private electrification scheme and EMUs is cheaper than Bimode, or as part of HS2 works when we will likely be talking about Kettering to just nonth of Derby.

 

[whhistle]

But as far as I'm aware Grayling hasn't said anything about capacity and I haven't heard any suggestion of extra signals.

Wasn't that his lead?
That the MML project is about capacity not electrification, hence no wires for the northern section...
Thus, my comments about double deck trains... to show [the MML project] isn't really about capacity.

 

[richieb1971]

I've been reading for years now and I understand that OHLE gives capacity benefits. Trains accelerate faster, give faster turnarounds which means you can slot another train in where you couldn't before. Meaning you have one extra train of capacity.

Grayling is offsetting the MML full OHLE program against HS2. He simply doesn't want to electrify 2 railways to give customers a choice of which electrified railway customers will take to London. Its always about London.

 

[Flying Phil]

I've been reading for years now and I understand that OHLE gives capacity benefits. Trains accelerate faster, give faster turnarounds which means you can slot another train in where you couldn't before. Meaning you have one extra train of capacity.

Grayling is offsetting the MML full OHLE program against HS2. He simply doesn't want to electrify 2 railways to give customers a choice of which electrified railway customers will take to London. Its always about London.

I think that he might actually want to electrify both the MML and have HS2 ...but simply cannot now afford both - and HS2 will provide more capacity albeit at a massive cost, but to cancel would also be political disaster.
New BiModes and wires to Corby will keep the East Mids relatively quiet....but if he had just said "MML electrification will continue but at a slower rolling rate - to minimise disruption(?!)" we would have been happy people.

 

[edwin_m]

Wasn't that his lead?
That the MML project is about capacity not electrification, hence no wires for the northern section...
Thus, my comments about double deck trains... to show [the MML project] isn't really about capacity.

The bi-modes won't give any extra capacity apart from the extra seating per train as I mentioned in my previous post. But capacity in terms of the number of passengers isn't really the main issue on the MML. Thameslink and the Corby service will relieve the southern end in the short term and HS2 will relieve further north in the long term. The real need is for journey time improvements (in the time it takes from St Pancras to Nottingham or Derby you can be in Doncaster from Kings Cross or Warrington from Euston). An extra path per hour north of Kettering would be good too, to enable a proper split of fast and slow service, so this is again driven by journey time more than capacity.

It looks like the performance of the bi-modes on diesel will be little or no better than the HSTs and 222s. The semi-fast trains will be quicker due to making fewer stops south of Kettering and any they do still make will benefit from better acceleration in electric mode. This benefits Kettering and Market Harborough and the extra Corby trains will benefit Bedford (though the denizens of that town don't seem to realise or appreciate it...) with Wellingborough being broadly neutral (similar number of trains, possibly slightly slower but longer). I can see virtually no journey time benefit to Leicester and further north since most London passengers will use the faster trains, which are already non-stop or with just a Market Harborough stop that can't be taken out.

 

[edwin_m]

I think that he might actually want to electrify both the MML and have HS2 ...but simply cannot now afford both - and HS2 will provide more capacity albeit at a massive cost, but to cancel would also be political disaster.
New BiModes and wires to Corby will keep the East Mids relatively quiet....but if he had just said "MML electrification will continue but at a slower rolling rate - to minimise disruption(?!)" we would have been happy people.

If he'd just said that it will continue when costs come down then people would not have been particularly happy but might at least have given him some credit for honesty. Completely cancelling the scheme sends a message that he doesn't care about the region, which may or may not have been his intention but certainly leaves the impression it was. And talking about 20min saving on MML services, when this can only be achieved by taking stops out of the slower ones, suggests he's either ignorant or devious.

 

[richieb1971]

The reason Bedfordians are not happy is because there is a class difference between the 700's and the 222's. Not to mention the timetables are changed. If some of the 700's were more classy like the 222's i'm sure they wouldn't moan at all.

222's you can reserve a seat
700's you cannot
222's have tables and added comfort
700's feel empty and boxey
222's go 125mph for certain sections of the track
700's only go 100mph.

 

[edwin_m]

The reason Bedfordians are not happy is because there is a class difference between the 700's and the 222's. Not to mention the timetables are changed. If some of the 700's were more classy like the 222's i'm sure they wouldn't moan at all.

222's you can reserve a seat
700's you cannot
222's have tables and added comfort
700's feel empty and boxey
222's go 125mph for certain sections of the track
700's only go 100mph.

As covered numerous times on other threads, much of your comment only applies until the electrification is as complete as it's going to be and the electric Corby workings (calling at Bedford) start to operate. Hopefully these will be formed of something faster and more comfortable than a 700.

 

[jayah]

That's why I quoted this document, as it is based solely on electrification. So to quote Grayling, you're comparing apples with pears.

In the case of the MML it is hard to nail down comparable figures, as the Transport Select Committee found out. Do I believe that the scheme is actually as self financing as the original claims that it would be cheaper to electrify than not? Perhaps not. However I don't accept that full electrification isn't a good scheme.

I'm sure we will revisit this, either when one of the bidders shows that a private electrification scheme and EMUs is cheaper than Bimode, or as part of HS2 works when we will likely be talking about Kettering to just nonth of Derby.

No bidder will bid to spend £1bn as it saves far less money than it costs and as discussed means introducing new trains LATER which is the opposite of a passenger benefit.

The document you quote is irrelevant as it is many years out of date, it didn't evaluate BiModes and didn't take KO2 in isolation which is the part of the scheme that was actually scrapped.

 

[jayah]

I think that he might actually want to electrify both the MML and have HS2 ...but simply cannot now afford both - and HS2 will provide more capacity albeit at a massive cost, but to cancel would also be political disaster.
New BiModes and wires to Corby will keep the East Mids relatively quiet....but if he had just said "MML electrification will continue but at a slower rolling rate - to minimise disruption(?!)" we would have been happy people.

Introducing high capacity EMUs to Corby adds capacity but not from faster acceleration because the KO2 saves all of 1min between Kettering and Sheffield. KO2 doesn't deliver anything worth £1bn.

 

[jayah]

If he'd just said that it will continue when costs come down then people would not have been particularly happy but might at least have given him some credit for honesty. Completely cancelling the scheme sends a message that he doesn't care about the region, which may or may not have been his intention but certainly leaves the impression it was. And talking about 20min saving on MML services, when this can only be achieved by taking stops out of the slower ones, suggests he's either ignorant or devious.

All electrification schemes have saved time principally by missing out stations. The journey time saving even against a HST is not that great.

 

[mr_jrt]

...and there was me thinking that one of the benefits of electrification is the superior acceleration meaning more stops can be added in without impacting the timetable, improving loadings and service flexibility...which also means major infrastructure improvements to increase maximum speeds are more irrelevant, as the existing profiles would still be in effect.

 

[jayah]

...and there was me thinking that one of the benefits of electrification is the superior acceleration meaning more stops can be added in without impacting the timetable, improving loadings and service flexibility...which also means major infrastructure improvements to increase maximum speeds are more irrelevant, as the existing profiles would still be in effect.

1min between Kettering and Sheffield.
0min between Cardiff and Swansea.

 

[mr_jrt]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? That the wires would only save 1 minute between Kettering and Sheffield and nothing between Cardiff and Swansea? ...because that's irrelevant to the point I was making. I was making the point that you could make a additional stop and accelerate away largely within the existing timetable thanks to the vastly superior acceleration electrification provides, not that it would cut a major chunk out of existing journey times.

 

[IanXC]

No bidder will bid to spend £1bn as it saves far less money than it costs and as discussed means introducing new trains LATER which is the opposite of a passenger benefit.

The document you quote is irrelevant as it is many years out of date, it didn't evaluate BiModes and didn't take KO2 in isolation which is the part of the scheme that was actually scrapped.

You're right tbh I was being facetious, in all reality they won't given the artificial stock deadlines that have been imposed. If we were looking at a 20 year franchise with no political interference then things would probably be different. (For the record I don't accept that "it saves far less money than it costs". Such an 'Evergeen' style scheme would be likely to achieve better costs if planned now than we have seen on other schemes, and then of course even in the original calculations on the costs of Diesel stock was compared with Electric stock, we know that bimode stock is more expensive than either of these options.)

All electrification schemes have saved time principally by missing out stations. The journey time saving even against a HST is not that great.

I can't really find words to disagree with you strongly enough here, that just patently isn't true.

Look at 319s in the North West for instance, where EMUs running at DMU timings they arrived not infrequently 5 minutes early at each stop.

I can't even think of a case where stops have been taken out post electrification!

 

[Kettledrum]

It isn't a trick it is a fact.

The marginal BCR of say Didcot to Cardiff is probably terrible but as work has already started the decision won't be taken to axe it.

The con is adding more and more rubbish to a good scheme until it's head is only just above the water.

There would be a huge time, economic and social cost to the current users, all of which would be captured. Dont try and use a flawed 1980s logic to justify spending £500m achieving no passenger benefit.

No bidder will bid to spend £1bn as it saves far less money than it costs and as discussed means introducing new trains LATER which is the opposite of a passenger benefit.

The document you quote is irrelevant as it is many years out of date, it didn't evaluate BiModes and didn't take KO2 in isolation which is the part of the scheme that was actually scrapped.

I could have quoted any one of a number of your posts here Jayah, but there is a common style to your prolific posting on this thread. You appear to view things as black and white and are somewhat dismissive of other people's views. With business cases like the electrification of the Midland Main Line, there are so many uncertainties and judgements and assumptions that you could make an argument either way from full electrification to partial to none at all.

Are you Grayling's Spin Doctor in disguise?

 

[InTheEastMids]

With business cases like the electrification of the Midland Main Line, there are so many uncertainties and judgements and assumptions that you could make an argument either way from full electrification to partial to none at all.

Are you Grayling's Spin Doctor in disguise?

Yes, you can make a business case produce pretty much whatever you want. A business case is always a projection, a model, an estimate. In most cases they are more suitable for comparing between different investment options, whether doing X or Y makes things better/more optimal or not, and what might be the impact if cost A, performance B or revenue C changes substantially.

You might not agree with it, but the model they've used must show that electrifying North of Kettering increases costs a lot without increasing benefits enough, and given capital constraints, it's a non-starter. However, a model is only a model. If it captured and predicted reality perfectly, then these modellers wouldn't be beavering away for DfT, they'd be too busy counting their winnings from the 3.30 at Kempton Park.

What *is* annoying is the lack of transparency. There could be significant flaws in either the methodology or the inputs, which we (Taxpayers, electorate) as Grayling's boss do not seem to be allowed to see (There might not be though). For example, in methodology, how have they tried to capture the "network benefits" - e.g. that doing Derby to Sheffield improves the case for doing Birmingham to Derby? On inputs, we don't know what £/km, CO2 price, fuel price forecasts, cost of capital on different elements etc... etc... they have used.

The development of batteries in particular, adds another level of risk to the business case. A whole-system model will be looking at the trade-off between increasing the weight of batteries on-board future (B)EMUs vs the increasing Capex of providing less-discontinuous electrification. It's a real game-changer because it allows you to completely re-think what an "electrified railway" could look like, and it's a lot more advanced from the bionic duckweed hypothesis of a decade ago. This is clearly playing into DfT/Grayling's thinking.

 

[jyte]

Are you Grayling's Spin Doctor in disguise?

Or the man himself.

 

[richieb1971]

Personally all the talk about Grayling and his decisions is getting tedious. He has blatantly stated he wants money spent elsewhere in preference to the MML. Until he is no longer the secretary of Transport its not going to change.

Perhaps if the conversation piece changed how to get the most out of bi-mode/hydrogen technology we might actually get to the point where we are grateful the wires didn't go up.

We are arguing a case of "Technology we know" vs " what technology is that?" and we only have Graylings word that Bi modes will support the MML as well as OHLE will.

After watching a video about a Toyota Hydrogen cell car I Can see the attraction of putting this tech into a train. Its quiet, accelerates reasonably well and the train will never be bogged down by bad weather like OHLE trains will be, well not until you get to Kettering anyway.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Has anyone calculated for us on this thread the likely actual performance of a pure electric on the MML?

Given that the HSTs can put in some intense performance, presumably an electric would make considerable real gains even within the present linespeeds etc?

This one from last night is a good example, albeit in perfect conditions:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C62062/2018/01/29/advanced

( Images are screenshots as the RTT link is time-limited and show the train gaining nine minutes between Wellingborough and St Pancras with an ultimate arrival 8 minutes early ).

 

[eastwestdivide]

That RTT schedule also include 6.5 mins of allowances between its last stop at Market Harborough and destination at St Pancras, so arriving 8 mins early isn't such a heroic performance for the HST.

 

[38Cto15E]

From Leicester to St Pancras in 1 hour 7 minutes with a Market Harborough stop is excellent.