Treasury Blocking electrification plans

[RT4038]

So the consensus is that electrification itself in the UK, ie stringing the wires, disregarding the add on cost in this country of bridge rebuilds etc due to our loading gauge, is no more expensive than the norm for other countries?

Any additional costs in the UK come from our desire to completely modernise the railway in question at the same time? Is the Forum jury also confident that when analysed, the cost of each of those add ons is comparable?

Using the word 'desire' makes it sound optional. A lot of the modernising is essential if you want the line electrified. You can't just 'disregard' the loading gauge issues.

 

[furnessvale]

Using the word 'desire' makes it sound optional. A lot of the modernising is essential if you want the line electrified. You can't just 'disregard' the loading gauge issues.

"Disregard" was perhaps the wrong term. "accepting" would be better. I know that the UK has costs in this area that other railways do not, and this has to be taken into account when making comparisons.

I am still trying to find out if comparing UK electrification to world averages would show our costings, on a like for like basis are comparable, or are we more expensive or even cheaper.

 

[Ken H]

How much are factory made assemblies used? I remember reading long ago how the east coat electrification teams would have a pre-assembled headspan assembly and would string it up quickly.
Making stuff in a shed away from trains has to be the way forward.

 

[Mikey C]

So the consensus is that electrification itself in the UK, ie stringing the wires, disregarding the add on cost in this country of bridge rebuilds etc due to our loading gauge, is no more expensive than the norm for other countries?

Any additional costs in the UK come from our desire to completely modernise the railway in question at the same time? Is the Forum jury also confident that when analysed, the cost of each of those add ons is comparable?

On the grounds that the majority of comparable countries (e.g. mainland Europe) electrified the vast majority of their network years/decades ago, it's quite difficult to make a current comparison of cost!

Maybe if the likes of France or the Netherlands were having to electrify busy urban lines now, they'd find it a lot more expensive than 60 years ago?

 

[507020]

So the consensus is that electrification itself in the UK, ie stringing the wires, disregarding the add on cost in this country of bridge rebuilds etc due to our loading gauge, is no more expensive than the norm for other countries?

Any additional costs in the UK come from our desire to completely modernise the railway in question at the same time? Is the Forum jury also confident that when analysed, the cost of each of those add ons is comparable?

Not necessarily desire, we have allowed out infrastructure to become severely dated and most of it is currently in what was 1980s condition with 30+ years of decay. There may be quite a significant requirement with most electrification to modernise simultaneously or beforehand, rather than electrify the line like for like and risk it stilbeing unworkable after all the money is spent

On the grounds that the majority of comparable countries (e.g. mainland Europe) electrified the vast majority of their network years/decades ago, it's quite difficult to make a current comparison of cost!

Maybe if the likes of France or the Netherlands were having to electrify busy urban lines now, they'd find it a lot more expensive than 60 years ago?

And that’s a lot more expensive even adjusting for inflation!

 

[RT4038]

"Disregard" was perhaps the wrong term. "accepting" would be better. I know that the UK has costs in this area that other railways do not, and this has to be taken into account when making comparisons.

I am still trying to find out if comparing UK electrification to world averages would show our costings, on a like for like basis are comparable, or are we more expensive or even cheaper.

I suspect what you are trying to find out is a 'will o' the wisp'. There are just too many variables - for instance what exactly is the additional 'gauging' cost? Tunnels and bridges, but also costs of line closures because 'red zone' working is not safe on our gauging? How many lines, not already electrified, in comparable economies have the frequency of services as ours, and the legacy signalling systems that need immunisation? I am not sure that this like for like comparison can ever be anything but a theoretical exercise.

 

[furnessvale]

On the grounds that the majority of comparable countries (e.g. mainland Europe) electrified the vast majority of their network years/decades ago, it's quite difficult to make a current comparison of cost!

Maybe if the likes of France or the Netherlands were having to electrify busy urban lines now, they'd find it a lot more expensive than 60 years ago?

Perhaps I will await the result of this exercise on German railways which seem to have lines that still require wires.

This article calls for more electrification on German railways to enable rail to meet climate change targets.

VDV calls for focus on electrification

The Association of German Transport Companies has called for more electrification in Germany to enable rail to meet climate targets.

www.railjournal.com

I suspect what you are trying to find out is a 'will o' the wisp'. There are just too many variables - for instance what exactly is the additional 'gauging' cost? Tunnels and bridges, but also costs of line closures because 'red zone' working is not safe on our gauging? How many lines, not already electrified, in comparable economies have the frequency of services as ours, and the legacy signalling systems that need immunisation? I am not sure that this like for like comparison can ever be anything but a theoretical exercise.

It seems a sad state of affairs that we are unable to analyse what in our system is increasing the cost of electrification in the UK, if indeed that is the case. So far, no one has been able to help me discover if we are even in the ball park viz a viz others, although talk about GWML costs seems to indicate something isn't right.

 

[Starmill]

So the consensus is that electrification itself in the UK, ie stringing the wires, disregarding the add on cost in this country of bridge rebuilds etc due to our loading gauge, is no more expensive than the norm for other countries?

Any additional costs in the UK come from our desire to completely modernise the railway in question at the same time? Is the Forum jury also confident that when analysed, the cost of each of those add ons is comparable?

I don't think it's anything like as settled as that to be honest.

On the former point, it may be a little bit more expensive, but what I was really getting at was that it's very tricky to compare. It'll be cheaper in countries where labour costs are lower. In some countries they're potentially higher. It will also be cheaper where there's a consistent programme of works because more staff will be able to be funded to train up to do the work.

On the latter point I think that it's not completely that we want to modernise everything in sight, it's just that we've got an enormous amount of work 'stored up' because of decades of secondary routes being either allowed to decline or put into manged decline deliberately, and those changes are expensive to reverse. Other countries deal with that by various means, including having fewer secondary and rural routes.

To take my favourite example, let's consider Ayr - Stranraer. If we were to accept that maybe rail isn't the answer for Stranraer we could put together a business case for electrification between Ayr and Girvan, perhaps including a provision for a station at Ayr Hospital, and a bus replacement service between Girvan and Stranraer. This would allow direct hourly EMU services between Girvan and Glasgow Central with a bus to Cairnryan and Stranraer. It would be significantly cheaper to operate and attract far more passengers and thus revenue. Unfortunately without accommodating the closure you don't really get the same magnitude of cost savings. There is some quid pro quo here and in my view we should be recognising that.

 

[RT4038]

It seems a sad state of affairs that we are unable to analyse what in our system is increasing the cost of electrification in the UK, if indeed that is the case. So far, no one has been able to help me discover if we are even in the ball park viz a viz others, although talk about GWML costs seems to indicate something isn't right.

I should imagine that deciding what incremental costs are due to 'gauging' (in its broadest sense) is so woolly that whatever answer you want on the base costs of electrification can be come to.

I doubt that any line still to be electrified in Germany comes anything close in comparison to the GWML or indeed any other of our main or suburban lines still to be electrified, in terms of traffic density, legacy signalling and gauging.

 

[Annetts key]

Poor maintenance combined with only doing the minimum required work just stores up problems for the future.

Past practice of designing and providing previous signalling schemes that are suitable only for diesel (or coal) trains (because it’s cheaper and at the time of the decision being made, there was no prospect of electrification of these areas) means that these need extensive work doing.

With these systems, it often makes sense to provide a brand new system rather than spending large amounts of money to alter the existing system, even if it is not life exprired.

You can only do limited amount of changes to signalling systems while the railway is open.

Just the signalling alterations alone are rather expensive.

The existing copper based telecom network also often needs looking at. Induced voltage from the OHL is not going to be appreciated by a telephone user…

Then there is the physical problems, like the gauge clearance. Stations, bridges, tunnels, viaducts, signals, aqueducts, other structures all may need changes. And some of these may be listed structures.

In addition, embankments may need to be stabilised before the OHL structures are erected. Drains checked or diverted. The list is quite extensive.

Unfortunately some work is often required after the OHL has been installed. On the GWML a number of signals needed to be renewed, as there was no longer enough clearance for staff safety if an electric train passed by (clearance to the pantograph).

This is vastly different to a line originally constructed with the future intention of providing OHL at some point. Or an existing line that has had work done, or systems provided with the future intention of providing OHL at some point.

 

[Mikey C]

I should imagine that deciding what incremental costs are due to 'gauging' (in its broadest sense) is so woolly that whatever answer you want on the base costs of electrification can be come to.

I doubt that any line still to be electrified in Germany comes anything close in comparison to the GWML or indeed any other of our main or suburban lines still to be electrified, in terms of traffic density, legacy signalling and gauging.

Indeed. While Germany might have a few fairly quiet rural lines to electrify, we have major inter city lines to do (MML, Cross Country etc) AND busy commuter lines into major stations (Marylebone, Snow Hill etc)

 

[The exile]

A lot will also depend on what the people preparing the figures have been told to prove: Is the new footbridge “electrification” or “access for all”; is resignalling a couple of years before it falls over completely “S&T” or “electrification” etc etc. A propos signalling, there were German electrified main lines still with semaphore signalling into the 1990s….

 

[Annetts key]

A propos signalling, there were German electrified main lines still with semaphore signalling into the 1990s….

But it’s a bit hard for induced voltage (from AC OHL) to affect mechanical signalling…

 

[The exile]

But it’s a bit hard for induced voltage (from AC OHL) to affect mechanical signalling…

Indeed - the point was more about comparing apparent electrification costs. Their eventual resignalling costs wouldn’t have featured anywhere in the cost arguments for electrification

 

[furnessvale]

Indeed. While Germany might have a few fairly quiet rural lines to electrify, we have major inter city lines to do (MML, Cross Country etc) AND busy commuter lines into major stations (Marylebone, Snow Hill etc)

Which, per track mile, should be cheaper to electrify than a simple single or double track route, given that assets are shared on multi track routes.

 

[The exile]

Which, per track mile, should be cheaper to electrify than a simple single or double track route, given that assets are shared on multi track routes.

A simple double track route in open country - particularly with level crossings rather than overbridges - is likely to be much cheaper per track mile than a multi-track urban route with multiple overbridges, all carrying the full set of services - although I accept that this can be skewed in individual cases by varying need for additional supply connections etc. Add the more generous loading gauge and the lower voltage (so presumably lesser clearances needed), and that is likely to make the cost of our outstanding potential schemes look expensive in comparison. I'm guessing also that all post 1945 structure rebuilds in Germany were done with eventual electrification in mind - and lets face it for various reasons there were an awful lot of those.

 

[BayPaul]

Which, per track mile, should be cheaper to electrify than a simple single or double track route, given that assets are shared on multi track routes.

In addition to the exile's points above, higher speed mainlines are presumably more expensive to electrify, both because of the additional robustness of the OHLE needed, and because of the higher power needed to be supplied to larger /faster /more frequent trains.

 

[furnessvale]

A simple double track route in open country - particularly with level crossings rather than overbridges - is likely to be much cheaper per track mile than a multi-track urban route with multiple overbridges, all carrying the full set of services - although I accept that this can be skewed in individual cases by varying need for additional supply connections etc. Add the more generous loading gauge and the lower voltage (so presumably lesser clearances needed), and that is likely to make the cost of our outstanding potential schemes look expensive in comparison. I'm guessing also that all post 1945 structure rebuilds in Germany were done with eventual electrification in mind - and lets face it for various reasons there were an awful lot of those.

Once again you are adding in the extra costs associated with our restricted loading gauge which I have accepted on several occasions are a factor in UK costs being higher.

 

[BayPaul]

Once again you are adding in the extra costs associated with our restricted loading gauge which I have accepted on several occasions are a factor in UK costs being higher.

I think you are trying to establish a number that doesn't really exist - the cost to electrify a mile of straight plane line running across a field with perfect ground conditions. At a guess, that would be pretty similar in the UK as elsewhere. Since nowhere can it be found, it isn't possible to establish, or useful if it was.

 

[quantinghome]

The biggest source of additional costs is the lack of a rolling programme. Constant stop-start of projects means lessons are forgotten and experience dispersed, only to be relearned / reassembled at great cost years later.

 

[RT4038]

The biggest source of additional costs is the lack of a rolling programme. Constant stop-start of projects means lessons are forgotten and experience dispersed, only to be relearned / reassembled at great cost years later.

On the assumption that there are substantial additional costs, taking into account gauging, infrastructure condition and traffic differences?

 

[quantinghome]

On the assumption that there are substantial additional costs, taking into account gauging, infrastructure condition and traffic differences?

Those are issues to be sure, but it's more the approach to the task. Discrete projects approved by the treasury are treated as one-offs and that leads to a certain engineering approach - engineering design becomes bespoke rather than standard. What we need is a production line. Still the same problems to overcome, but a far more efficient way of doing it.

 

[JonasB]

On the grounds that the majority of comparable countries (e.g. mainland Europe) electrified the vast majority of their network years/decades ago, it's quite difficult to make a current comparison of cost!

You could look at Denmark that has started the process of electrifying their network.

 

[Nottingham59]

You could look at Denmark

Or Scotland, which seems to have a much better planning regime for these things. It would be interesting to see the figures of how electrification costs compare north and south of the border.

 

[furnessvale]

I think you are trying to establish a number that doesn't really exist - the cost to electrify a mile of straight plane line running across a field with perfect ground conditions. At a guess, that would be pretty similar in the UK as elsewhere. Since nowhere can it be found, it isn't possible to establish, or useful if it was.

Given that electrification in the UK has virtually ground to a halt following horrendous costs on GWML and elsewhere, "at a guess" just doesn't cut the mustard.

It seems no-one has the answer, and if the railway industry as a whole, seems unable to grapple with the problem, I fear rail is liable to remain an afterthought in UK transport policy.

Thanks all.

You could look at Denmark that has started the process of electrifying their network.

Thanks for that most helpful suggestion.

It appears that Denmark is electrifying for around £650,000 per single track km. This includes structural clearance work for the wires. Yes, they have taller bridges but they also have taller rail vehicles.

More recent UK electrifications have come in at between x2 and x4 that figure. The report appended below states that structural works in UK are 30-40% of costs. All in all, this report says there is room for improvement and UK costs could fall by 50%, which would bring us more in line with what Denmark is achieving, allowing for our differing conditions.

British electrification costs could be cut by 50%, says report

THE cost of delivering main line electrification projects in Britain could be reduced by 33-50%, according to a report published on March 14.

www.railjournal.com

 

[45517]

Those are issues to be sure, but it's more the approach to the task. Discrete projects approved by the treasury are treated as one-offs and that leads to a certain engineering approach - engineering design becomes bespoke rather than standard. What we need is a production line. Still the same problems to overcome, but a far more efficient way of doing it.

Absolutely. Our approach doesn't enable long-term planning and execution. We prevent continuity and efficiency rather than promote it. We don't build a centre of excellence, and don't re-use experience. often in the name of 'competition'.

 

[JonasB]

Thanks for that most helpful suggestion.

It appears that Denmark is electrifying for around £650,000 per single track km. This includes structural clearance work for the wires. Yes, they have taller bridges but they also have taller rail vehicles.

More recent UK electrifications have come in at between x2 and x4 that figure. The report appended below states that structural works in UK are 30-40% of costs. All in all, this report says there is room for improvement and UK costs could fall by 50%, which would bring us more in line with what Denmark is achieving, allowing for our differing conditions.

Denmark probably also saves a bit of money by doing it all at once instead of small bits now and then. When you think about it is a pretty impressive project to electrify the country in a decade. A small country though.

 

[Annetts key]

The stop start approach also affects resignalling works. It likely affects other engineering as well…

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

How much are factory made assemblies used? I remember reading long ago how the east coat electrification teams would have a pre-assembled headspan assembly and would string it up quickly.
Making stuff in a shed away from trains has to be the way forward.

Yup we would take a block of all roads and have the men up very tall ladders to get the headspan pulled across all four lines between trains. Unfortunately that method of working is no longer deemed safe (and it wasn't then but until someone got seriously hurt it was never challenged by the RI of the day as their focus was railway safety not construction safety) and also the problem with headspans is a dewirement on one line invariable impacts the other roads. So yes it was a lot more cost effective and BR had to work within the financial constraints it had imposed upon them at the time when the railways weren't seen as part of supporting the countries economy.

Post GW there is a big use of standard structures and fittings now but my observations is foundations are still limiting rate of progress.

 

[Ken H]

Yup we would take a block of all roads and have the men up very tall ladders to get the headspan pulled across all four lines between trains. Unfortunately that method of working is no longer deemed safe (and it wasn't then but until someone got seriously hurt it was never challenged by the RI of the day as their focus was railway safety not construction safety) and also the problem with headspans is a dewirement on one line invariable impacts the other roads. So yes it was a lot more cost effective and BR had to work within the financial constraints it had imposed upon them at the time when the railways weren't seen as part of supporting the countries economy.

Post GW there is a big use of standard structures and fittings now but my observations is foundations are still limiting rate of progress.

I dont understand how a massive cantilever is cheaper than more traditional methods. A pair of lighter foundations and a simple rsj mast for each track. Or a portal gantry for 4 tracks. A cantilever needs a massive foundation.