Are there any ‘Easy Win’ electrification projects that are worth looking at?

[eldomtom2]

Track. There's a reason sections equipped with both systems are kept as short as possible.

Then the obvious solution for replacing third rail with OHLE is bi-modes. Then you can gradually replace the third rail section by section.

 

[zwk500]

Then the obvious solution for replacing third rail with OHLE is bi-modes. Then you can gradually replace the third rail section by section.

It's a potential solution, it would depend on the strategy for both rolling stock and electrification conversion. Batteries are better if you're doing it section by section, bi-mode might be better if you plan to do complete lengths such as Southampton-Weymouth.

 

[gingertom]

What about thr Maryhill line, what no more than say 12/13 kilometres

unfortunately this line goes under the Forth & Clyde canal. Just like the Carmuirs tunnels on the Edinburgh & Glasgow line via Falkirk Grahamston, rebuilding that section of canal with an aqueduct makes for a very expensive 20m of electrification clearance. So not an easy win.

This is not the busiest of lines, 2TPH each way locals that could become EMUs. Also half a dozen West Highland, 1TPD sleeper, we don't know yet how these are to be decarbonised.

 

[D6130]

unfortunately this line goes under the Forth & Clyde canal.

Twice if we're electrifying the Anniesland branch as well.

Also half a dozen West Highland, 1TPD sleeper,

The Caledonian Sleeper is booked to run via Westerton and Queen Street Low level....although it does occasionally run via Maryhill on engineering works diversions, or for Very Short Term Planning contingencies.

 

[daodao]

I agree on good regional distribution, but Colne’s 1tph two car service must be at the bottom of the list. It interworks with Blackpool South and Ormskirk too - so those would need doing.

I just can’t see it - when CLC and Calder, or Crewe-Chester, remain unwired.

This is a speculative thread. If/when the Central Lancashire line from Preston to Rose Grove and Todmorden is electrified, it would be sensible to electrify the Colne branch too. The fact that the current service interworks to Colne with those to Blackpool South and Ormskirk is a non-sequitur; other arrangements may then be appropriate for these lines, e.g. the Kirkham to Squires Gate section could be made into an extension of Blackpool Tramway.

 

[Dinszy]

Shrewsbury to Chester line, so AWC can run more 805/7s through Birmingham, onto Wolverhampton, Shrewsbury, Gobowen and Wrexham, without looping down from above at Chester, as is currently planned?

This is, of course, entirely feasible for them to do with the new 805s, given sufficient pathways are available in the timetable and subject to rolling stock availability.

 

[zwk500]

Shrewsbury to Chester line, so AWC can run more 805/7s through Birmingham, onto Wolverhampton, Shrewsbury, Gobowen and Wrexham, without looping down from above at Chester, as is currently planned?

This is, of course, entirely feasible for them to do with the new 805s, given sufficient pathways are available in the timetable and subject to rolling stock availability.

Given neither Wolves-Shrewsbury or Crewe-Chester is wired, how do you feed this in a way that counts as an 'easy win'?

 

[Dinszy]

Given neither Wolves-Shrewsbury or Crewe-Chester is wired, how do you feed this in a way that counts as an 'easy win'?

Now that is a good question haha, and one I don't have a good answer to. In an ideal world, we'd see it all go under the wires from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury and beyond.

 

[The Ham]

An interesting article with some fairly good BCR's for some schemes (including Basingstoke Exeter and XC services):

R.I.P. Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (TDNS) - Rail Engineer

Listen to this article Two years ago, Network Rail published its Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (TDNS) which proposed a rolling electrification programme of 13,000 single track kilometres (stk). Although the Department for Transport (DfT) has not responded to TDNS, it used it to...

t.co

Two years ago, Network Rail published its Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (TDNS) which proposed a rolling electrification programme of 13,000 single track kilometres (stk). Although the Department for Transport (DfT) has not responded to TDNS, it used it to inform its Transport Decarbonisation Plan which states that “we will deliver an ambitious, sustainable, and cost-effective programme of electrification guided by Network Rail’s TDNS.”
Yet is difficult to reconcile this plan’s statement with comments made at recent conferences by Rich Fisher of the Great British Railways Transition Team (GBRTT) and Network Rail’s Andrew Haines, both of whom stated that the UK Government’s 2021 Comprehensive Spending Review considered TDNS to be unaffordable.
Thus, it seems that the UK Government has decided against a large-scale electrification programme. As a result, with only 46% of its tracks electrified, Britain will remain at the bottom end of the European electrification league table. In contrast, Scotland is committed to a rolling programme of electrification to decarbonise its railway by 2035. Transport Scotland’s view is it cannot afford not to electrify Scotland’s railway.
In this feature we consider why, in contrast to Europe and Scotland, the Westminster Government is reluctant to commit to electrification and whether rolling stock solutions are an effective decarbonisation option. To do so it is first necessary to consider some history.
Early electrification
In 1879 Werner von Siemens demonstrated the world’s first electric train in Berlin. This was a 150V DC locomotive hauling three small coaches. Its success inspired early electric railways which included the Volk’s Electric Railway in Brighton which opened in 1883 and is the world’s oldest operating electric railway.
Many railways were electrified in the first 20 years of the 20th century. With their power limited only by the capability of the supply, electric trains offered the high acceleration needed for suburban services and high power for heavy freight trains. Being inherently simpler and more efficient, electric trains also have lower maintenance and running costs.
During the interwar period, the Southern Railway adopted the 660V DC third rail system to electrify its suburban routes and lines to the South Coast. Largely as a result, Britain now has 4,536 stk of 650 DC third rail which now is 32% of the country’s electrified rail lines.
In 1932, a government committee decided that 1,500V DC overhead should be the UK standard, though few schemes were electrified in this way. These included Shenfield to Liverpool Street and the now closed Sheffield to Manchester line through Woodhead tunnel.

After the war
25kV AC electrification was introduced in Germany and France in the early 1950s. Its high voltage transmits a correspondingly higher power with lower transmission losses making it ideal for long distance railways that carry heavy traffic.
In 1956, British Railways (BR) adopted 25kV AC electrification except for third rail extensions. This was a brave decision given the constrained UK loading gauge and the lack of power semiconductors at the time which required the use of mercury arc rectifiers.
In 1960, Crewe to Manchester and the Glasgow suburban lines were electrified at this new standard. This was followed by lines from London to the West Midlands, Manchester, and Liverpool which were completed by 1967. This new electrified inter-city service was a spectacular success as passenger traffic increased by over 80%. This sparks effect was evident on subsequent BR electrification schemes.
This West Coast Main Line electrification was extended to Glasgow in 1974. A BR booklet commemorating its opening advised how electric traction was important “in these days of increased awareness of need to conserve world energy resources, notably oil”. At that time there was no mention of rail decarbonisation.
The 1970s energy crisis led to a system-wide electrification proposal which was rejected as railways did not have political support. Some electrification schemes such as Ayr, Bedford, and Kings Lynn were progressed around this time. This ensured that skilled electrification teams were not disbanded and available for BR’s largest electrification scheme, the East Coast Main Line. This was done in two phases, from London to Hitchin (1976 to 1978) and from Hitchin to Leeds and Edinburgh (1984 to 1991).
At 1983 prices, this cost £344 million of which £206 million was the electrification and the remainder for new trains. The project was only 3.8% over budget and eight weeks late on a seven-year programme. The cost of its electrification work at today’s prices was £668 million for 2,200 stk, or £0.3 million per stk, which is a fraction of current electrification costs. This is not an entirely fair comparison as since then there has been a significant increase in traffic and improvements in safe working practice. Nevertheless, much could be learnt from the way that the ECML electrification was delivered.
Electrification post privatisation
Though an average of 220 stk of electrification per year was delivered in BR’s final 15 years, the first 15 years of the privatised railway saw an average of 15 stk per year.

In 2007, the Government published its White Paper “Delivering a sustainable railway” which mentioned the need to reduce the railway’s carbon footprint. However, it considered that the case for electrification was not yet made, partly due to the possible development of low-carbon self-powered trains.
Three months later, the Chairman of the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), Adrian Shooter, and Chief Executive of Network Rail, Iain Coucher, signed a joint letter stating that they believed the Government’s approach to electrification was wrong. Their succinct three-page letter explained why it was inconceivable to contemplate a 30-year strategy for rail which does not foresee much more electrification.
This and other lobbying had the desired effect as, in 2009, a £1.1 billion programme of rail electrification was announced. The Great Western Electrification Programme (GWEP) from London to Oxford, Bristol, and Swansea was to be completed in 2016. Electrification of the Liverpool to Manchester line was also to be completed by 2013.
2010 saw the first significant electrification project for 14 years. This was part of the reopening of the Airdrie to Bathgate line which was completed to time and budget. As the line was electrified as it was built, its electrification was at a significantly reduced cost with no disruption.

Cost overruns
Unfortunately, GWEP and other electrification schemes were significantly delayed and over budget. By 2016, GWEP was expected to be up to three years late with costs increased from £1.6 billion in 2014 to £2.8 billion, or £3.4 million per stk.
In 2017, GWEP was curtailed by omitting Swansea, Oxford, and Bristol. The planned Midland Main Line electrification was also cancelled. The statement advising these electrification cutbacks advised that because bi-mode trains could seamlessly transfer from diesel to electric power, there is no longer a requirement to electrify every line.
Also, that year, Government announced that the new East West Rail link would not be electrified despite the low cost of electrifying a railway as it was built. Instead, the use of alternative green energy traction was to be explored.
Thus, Government support for a long-term electrification programme was lost as cost overruns forced it to conclude that electrification is the wrong technology.
One of the reasons for the high cost of electrification is evident from the graph showing the electrification mileage delivered each year. After many years with hardly any electrification, the industry had to ramp up to deliver 800 stk of electrification in 2018. This was inevitably costly and inefficient with mistakes made due to skills shortages. In 2012, Rail Engineer reported that the plan was to have no less than 11 simultaneous electrification projects by 2016. In the event, at the peak of the programme there were only five concurrent projects!
Nevertheless, much of the responsibility for these cost overruns is within the rail industry. For example, unduly onerous design assumptions significantly reduced installation productivity. Piles were designed to be 12 to 15 metres long whereas long established empirical design guidance showed that they only needed to be 3 to 4.5 metres long. The 2019 Railway Industry’s Association’s Electrification Cost Challenge Report provides a thorough study of electrification costs during this period.
In Scotland, electrification of the Edinburgh to Glasgow main line (EGIP) was also in difficulty. Yet here the response was to ensure that the lessons were learnt rather than cancel electrification schemes. Scotland now has a rolling electrification programme with recent projects delivered to time and budget.

Decarbonisation reports
In February 2018, the then Rail Minister, Jo Johnson called on the rail industry to advise how it will decarbonise. His speech focused on innovation and made it clear that alternatives to electrification had to be considered.
The Rail Industry Decarbonisation Taskforce submitted its initial 68-page report in January 2019. This emphasised the need to maximise use of the existing electrified network using batteries to bridge gaps and called for further research and innovation into green traction technologies.
Its final 68-page report was completed in July 2019. This reached the rather obvious conclusion that rail decarbonisation required a judicious mix of cost-effective electrification, battery, and hydrogen trains. The report noted that 4,000 route kilometres of electrification may be required but only on page 34. This key conclusion was not mentioned in the executive summary.
In July 2020, Network Rail published its Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy. This concluded that an additional 13,000 stk of electrification was required with hydrogen and battery trains operating on, respectively, 1,300 and 800 stk of the network. Its business case for various rates of electrification were appraised over a 90-year period as agreed with the DfT. One option to achieve net-zero carbon by 2050 required electrification of 355 stk per year. For this option, present value costs were between £6.3 and £9.7 billion and present value benefits were between £6.9 and £7.3 billion.
Hence, TDNS concluded that its net-zero by 2050 option had a net present value of between minus £2.8 billion and plus £1.0 billion. However, in accordance with DfT guidance, this does not include capital cost savings for cheaper electric trains. The capacity benefits of electric traction were also not considered.
In April 2021, the Railway Industry Association (RIA) published its ‘Why Rail Electrification Report’ which explained why electric traction is a future proof technology that will always be more efficient, powerful, and cheaper to operate than self-powered traction. This report was peer reviewed by members on the Institution of Mechanical Engineer’s Railway Division and sent to the Minister of Transport with a covering letter signed by 17 industry bodies.
Train costs
In March 2022, Britain’s passenger train fleet consisted of 15,277 vehicles worth roughly £25 billion. Yet there seems to be no strategic overview to get the best value from this asset.
The 2018 Long Term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy (LTPRSS) shows that, since 2014, the DfT and individual train operating companies have ordered 7,187 vehicles at a cost of £13.8 billion – an average vehicle cost of £1.9 million. In 2014, the fleet size was 12,647 vehicles so these orders increased the fleet size by 2,650 vehicles. Although some of the new vehicles replaced life expired vehicles, the 2018 LTPRSS shows they left 3,940 serviceable vehicles surplus to requirements. Of these 889 were built since 1994 including 487 AC EMUs that could have operated under the wires of cancelled electrification projects, enabling diesel trains to be cascaded elsewhere to reduce the requirement to build new diesel trains.
Thus, about a billion pounds has been wasted due to such large numbers of serviceable vehicles being surplus to requirements. Storing them would have required 19 kilometres of sidings with significant further expenditure to keep them in a serviceable condition. It is doubtful if the opportunity to use surplus serviceable EMUs was a factor in the decisions to cancel electrification projects.

Overlong GWEP piles that could not be driven in.
Cheaper electric trains
The 2014 LTPRSS considers that maintenance and leasing costs of electric trains are 37% less than those of diesel trains and that the annual electrification rolling stock savings from its high electrification scenario (equivalent to TDNS) would be £479 million.
In a recent presentation on ScotRail’s fleet strategy, the total operating costs per mile of electric and diesel vehicles were shown to be respectively £1.21 and £1.94 per mile. This is a 38% saving which is consistent with the LTPRSS figure.
Electric trains also have a higher maintenance availability. The LTPRSS also showed average availability for electric and diesel fleets to be respectively 91% and 88%. As a result, 3.8% fewer electric trains need to be purchased than diesel trains. Further fleet savings are possible with infill electrification that would allow electric fleets to be used more efficiently.
In recent times there has been a focus on rolling stock decarbonisation solutions to avoid the need for electrification including diesel bi-mode trains. These have duplicated traction systems which are more expensive to buy, maintain and operate. They also have less power when in diesel mode than conventional diesel trains and have higher track access charges as they are heavier than single power source trains.
Battery bi-modes also have a significant cost and weight penalty. An 8-car battery bi-mode on a half-electrified 250-kilometre route may require batteries weighing 9 tonnes costing £2.7 million as they are replaced every 5 to 10 years. These indicative figures are derived from having a battery of 60% of the 3,000kWh needed for Class 800/3 between London and Cardiff and rail traction batteries costing £1,500 per kWh and weighing 15kg per kWh. ScotRail consider’s that the per mile cost of a battery EMU is 18% more than a conventional EMU.
Why electrify?
Electric trains offer a future-proof technology as self-powered traction must carry its own fuel and convert it into electrical power with unavoidable efficiency losses. Furthermore, the power of electric trains is limited only by current that can be drawn from the overhead wire. For these reasons, the promotion of alternative self-powered traction to avoid electrification work is generally misguided.
This also explains why railways throughout the world consider electrification to be a worthwhile investment as it offers a more cost effective, higher performing railway. Hence, the 2009 Coucher / Shooter letter told Government that it was wrong not to be considering a long-term electrification programme.
This letter also advised that Network Rail was developing an Electrification Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) with a thorough technical, economic, and environmental assessment of the pros and cons of a wider electrification programme. This estimated the Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR) for its proposed electrification schemes which included a BCR of 3.1 for Basingstoke to Exeter and a BCR of 5.1 for Cross Country (Doncaster to Plymouth, Birmingham to Basingstoke).
Electrification also offers particular benefits for railfreight as electric locomotives are typically twice as powerful as diesel locomotives. Hence, it offers heavier and faster trains with increased network capacity by reducing the performance differential between freight and passenger trains. Currently, electricity provides only 4% of the energy for UK rail freight compared with 56% in continental Europe. Studies have shown that an electrification programme of around 700 stk (5% that proposed by TDNS) would enable about 70% of rail freight to be electrically hauled.
Decarbonisation is a relatively recent priority and should not be seen as the prime reason for electrification. Most of the world’s electric railways were authorised before carbon savings became an issue. Nevertheless, greenhouse gas (GHG) savings which are valued at £241 per tonne in the Treasury Green Book increase the profitability of electrification. Current railway diesel GHG emissions are 1.3 million tonnes CO2e per year, thus eliminating these is worth £313 million per year. Therefore, over 25 years, the average GHG saving per kilometre of the 13,000 stk TDNS electrification programme is £0.5 million per stk.

Scotland’s decarbonisation plan aims to deliver net-zero traction railway by 2035.
GBRTT’s plan
Having been told that the TDNS electrification plan is unaffordable, GBRTT is developing a decarbonisation plan which is a mix of targeted electrification and extensive use of diesel and, eventually, battery bi-mode traction. It recognises that this will not achieve the target of net-zero traction by 2050.
Phase 1a of this plan is delivery of 900 stk of currently committed electrification schemes and the procurement of diesel bi-mode trains to increase their vehicle mileage to 20% of the passenger fleet. This is estimated to save 55% of traction carbon emissions with minimal rail freight emission savings.
Bi-mode traction offers a relatively quick carbon reduction as it eliminates diesel traction under the wires. It also offers operational flexibility as routes are electrified and so is a useful decarbonisation transitional technology. However, it has higher capital and operational costs as well as poorer performance than electric traction.
In the final phase of the plan, possibly completed by 2070, there would be minimal use of diesel traction. This envisages 6,900 stk of electrification including freight infill lines and battery bi-modes accounting for 11% of passenger vehicle mileage. By this time, emissions will have been reduced by 80% with a 35% drop in freight emissions.
The Williams – Shapps report states that Great British Railways is being set up to take “strategic decisions that take a view across the whole system”. Yet GBRTT has not been allowed to do this for long-term traction policy which would help ensure a safe, cost-effective railway with the lowest possible emissions and sufficient capacity, reliability, and performance. Instead, by ruling out a rolling electrification programme, the UK Government has, in effect, decided what constitutes cost effective railway without any apparent analysis comparable to TDNS or Network Rail’s 2009 electrification RUS. This decision is likely to result in many poorer performing trains with significantly higher operational costs.
The history of UK rail electrification has had various ups and downs. One particularly noteworthy aspect was how, in 2007, the industry was able to convince Government to change its strategy after a letter from ATOC and Network Rail telling Government that its approach to electrification was wrong. This Coucher / Shooter letter stressed that electrification “is an area that, perhaps above all others in rail strategy, is deserving of a serious and dispassionate analysis of the commercial, economical, and environmental benefits of the options.”
Fifteen years later, these words are particularly appropriate.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A permanently live rail makes it far more dangerous to wildlife attempting to cross though. But that wasn't a main point of why third rail is no longer the only option, or an easy win.

Such as this one? https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1459237,0.2750872,3a,75y,246.5h,93.13t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQHtgZ9CbAbuk7qo8HAEo7Q!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=QHtgZ9CbAbuk7qo8HAEo7Q&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&w=203&h=100&yaw=66.33023&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192

Mmmmm - thats a big one

 

[zwk500]

Mmmmm - thats a big one

Tbf, it's also interescting the main pylon grid, so it's presumably also doing the distribution for the local housing alongside the railway. It's not quite a fair comparison to a usual 750V substation, which fit quite happily in the SR's beloved modest concrete structures.
This is a more normal substation in Third rail land: https://www.google.com/maps/@50.831...4!1s5DmZmRkbI9lexgwgPYC0KA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It's still a substantial structure, and it'd be interesting to compare a per-mile number of substations for each system to understand the average land take between them.

 

[raafif]

"Are there any ‘Easy Win’ electrification projects that are worth looking at?"​

The short answer is NO! Our Museum (in Oz) is looking at electrifying our tram (currently has a diesel gen.set on a towed trolley)-- £25,000 per tram for batteries, onboard wiring & will need to modify our c.1910 controllers. Finding someone to do the wiring to standard is hard (& they need to be paid, accommodation etc). We were quoted a few years ago £500,000. per Km for overhead & power house !!

Its easy for us down here as we already have the sun & solar panels installed but UK could still use mains electricity for recharging.
It has been done before, see https://byronbaytrain.com.au/

 

[Railwaysceptic]

It's still a substantial structure, and it'd be interesting to compare a per-mile number of substations for each system to understand the average land take between them.

I've always had the impression that on the ex Southern Region third rail routes, the substations were usually sited on land already in railway possession, such as railway triangles, e.g. Nunhead.

 

[Bald Rick]

Late to this, sorry…

And a larger scheme / AC - my top pick would be Marylebone to Oxford (ideally wired from Didcot). You'd be freeing up 8tph (2 stoppers, 2 Oxfords, each direction, more in peaks) which would seem the greatest frequency freed up by a scheme that I can see.

You’d get half the frequency changed for about a tenth of the cost by just doing Didcot - Oxford, and much of that work has already been done. That is the top pick, surely.

North Downs is trickier - in an Ideal world I'd convert Bracknell-Reading to AC and then electrify Wokingham-North Camp/Ash with OLE, with a small extension of the third rail to Shalford and then battery between Shalford and Reigate. However it may have to settle for just 3rd rail to the next station/a convenient point at the existing limits and batteries.

North Downs is perfect battery train territory.

Until these are solved, the tried and tested, resilient third rail is still the best solution.

They are solved, tried and tested, in Other countries, other applications (including transport) and even here in trams and (very soon) Cardiff and Merseyside. (The same laws of physics apply, even in Liverpool).

If you take Ore to Ashford, is Eastbourne to Ore enough supply to charge the battery.

Yes. Or, more strictly speaking, Ore - Eastbourne - Ore, 85 minutes on the juice, to cover 40 minutes off it before a quick boost at Ashford.

There is also the point that it is not a good green solution to introduce trains which are heavier, more complex and expensive to make and maintain

Heavier - possible - they would be a similar weight to AC units as no transformer, and many DC units (including Electostars) are ballasted with concrete to make then the same weight as their AC / Dual Voltage brethren so the Structural and suspension design is the same. We’re talking perhaps 8t of batteries in a train weighing 150t.

More expensive - yes, of course, more than offset by not paying for electrification kit.

But why more expensive to maintain? Traction batteries don’t need maintenance - ask any EV owner. When they are life expired, replace them.

 

[Annetts key]

But why more expensive to maintain? Traction batteries don’t need maintenance - ask any EV owner. When they are life expired, replace them.

Some types do. Depends on the actual cell/battery technology, how they are interconnected, and if there is automatic cell balancing. Of course, there is a difference between what the stated maintenance regulations are (or lack of) and what is actually found to be needed.

For example, sealed lead acid cells/batteries are often advertised/promoted as “maintenance free”. But that does not stop the terminals from corroding if used in damp or wet environments…

 

[zwk500]

Some types do. Depends on the actual cell/battery technology, how they are interconnected, and if there is automatic cell balancing. Of course, there is a difference between what the stated maintenance regulations are (or lack of) and what is actually found to be needed.

For example, sealed lead acid cells/batteries are often advertised/promoted as “maintenance free”. But that does not stop the terminals from corroding if used in damp or wet environments…

But that's no different to a standard EMU's vulnerability to corrosion if kept in adverse conditions.

 

[Energy]

Some types do. Depends on the actual cell/battery technology, how they are interconnected, and if there is automatic cell balancing. Of course, there is a difference between what the stated maintenance regulations are (or lack of) and what is actually found to be needed.

For example, sealed lead acid cells/batteries are often advertised/promoted as “maintenance free”. But that does not stop the terminals from corroding if used in damp or wet environments…

A proper battery pack (not lead acid) with a proper BMS should be able to manage it. Maintenance is still needed for corrosion but is needed much less compared to a DMU.

 

[Annetts key]

But that's no different to a standard EMU's vulnerability to corrosion if kept in adverse conditions.

Or indeed the electrical connections on any unit, car, carriage or locomotive.

A proper battery pack (not lead acid) with a proper BMS should be able to manage it. Maintenance is still needed for corrosion but is needed much less compared to a DMU.

Yes, there is significantly less maintenance compared to a DMU.

 

[cle]

You’d get half the frequency changed for about a tenth of the cost by just doing Didcot - Oxford, and much of that work has already been done. That is the top pick, surely.

Surely that's on hold - I didn't even consider it for this thread's question because it was announced etc and mostly completed - but then not. Doesn't feel net new. I did acknowledge that in my "ideally Oxford is already wired from Didcot" so yes I agree, it's table stakes for Chiltern/EWR.

Which 4tph? The 80x fasts and the Didcot terminators being extended back? I don't think Didcot-Oxford actually fully 'electrifies' / replaces any diesel services though.

 

[Bald Rick]

Which 4tph? The 80x fasts and the Didcot terminators being extended back? I don't think Didcot-Oxford actually fully 'electrifies' / replaces any diesel services though.

The fasts, and the Oxford -Didcot shuttles would be replaced by an extension of the Paddington - Didcot services.

 

[WAO]

While Bald Rick's "Top Pick" of Oxford must be the favourite, I wonder whether in view of the rapid progress on TP and MML, we may see much earlier completions than December 2024. Perhaps the long dates are there to emphasise speedy out-turns and the planned late final blockades may be serendipitously advanced.

WAO

 

[zwk500]

While Bald Rick's "Top Pick" of Oxford must be the favourite, I wonder whether in view of the rapid progress on TP and MML, we may see much earlier completions than December 2024. Perhaps the long dates are there to emphasise speedy out-turns and the planned late final blockades may be serendipitously advanced.

WAO

I highly doubt blockades that take a year or more to plan can be advanced in a matter of weeks. At least not without cancelling some other big piece of work.

 

[Bald Rick]

planned late final blockades may be serendipitously advanced.

No chance of that.

 

[snowball]

While Bald Rick's "Top Pick" of Oxford must be the favourite, I wonder whether in view of the rapid progress on TP and MML,

I can't think of a more inappropriate phrase for TP than "rapid progress".

 

[ABB125]

I can't think of a more inappropriate phrase for TP than "rapid progress".

How about "on budget"?

(Though of course, that depends on which version of the budget you use...)

 

[WAO]

I can't think of a more inappropriate phrase for TP than "rapid progress".

Agreed we're only looking at component parts but the progress reports elsewhere on this board do give cause for some cheer, even if the PR is near zero.

WAO

 

[zwk500]

Agreed we're only looking at component parts but the progress reports elsewhere on this board do give cause for some cheer, even if the PR is near zero.

WAO

I'd rather they did and not say than shout and not do.

 

[cle]

In simpler terms - will wires reach Oxford or Leicester stations first?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I can't think of a more inappropriate phrase for TP than "rapid progress".

How about "on budget"?

(Though of course, that depends on which version of the budget you use...)

LOL. Indeed

In simpler terms - will wires reach Oxford or Leicester stations first?

Leicester without question.

 

[Sealink]

Third rail in the South East - for example to Uckfield and the Ashford - Hastings line. Seems a no-brainer.