Potentially massive delays in electrification program

DynamicSpirit · 5 Dec 2014

There seems to be an awful lot of discussion in this thread based on little more than speculation. The only information I can see is what jcollins wrote in the initial post.

jcollins said:
Based on what's been said by rail journalists and in Transport Select Committee meetings it seems apparent Network Rail are refusing to commit to timescales for electrification projects. Apparently they won't give a yes or no answer for Chat Moss being complete by the time Manchester Airport station reopens in February.

In terms of North TPE things are much worse. Apparently the main reason for the Northern/TPE ITTs not being issued this month as scheduled is because Network Rail wouldn't commit to a date for Manchester-York/Selby electrification. It now sounds like Network Rail want to add 30 months on to the North TPE timescale, which will give a completion date in 2021 unless they start work early.

Although there are some suggested sources there, it all looks to me somewhat speculative. Would it not be wiser to await some more solid confirmation of what is going on before passing judgement on Network Rail's competence?

RailUK Forums

pemma · 5 Dec 2014

DynamicSpirit said:
There seems to be an awful lot of discussion in this thread based on little more than speculation. The only information I can see is what jcollins wrote in the initial post.

Although there are some suggested sources there, it all looks to me somewhat speculative. Would it not be wiser to await some more solid confirmation of what is going on before passing judgement on Network Rail's competence?

Modern Railways (December) edition said the delay in issuing the ITTs was due to Network Rail refusing to agree timescales for projects.

A Rail Technology magazine article published today confirms that: http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...er-talks-and-electrification-overruns-drag-on

The 2021 date for TPE electrification is what Tony Miles (from Modern Railways) posted on wnxx after hearing it from a colleague at Modern Railways.

When did Network Rail formally announce Chat Moss wouldn't be electrified in time? I don't think they did, the media picked up on it and it's public knowledge anyway.

MidlandMainlie · 5 Dec 2014

ianhr said:
There will be another election next May and so it is almost certain that the same thing will happen again and work will be halted for another 18 months.

As far as I am aware no wiring contracts have been let beyond Edge Hill-Earlestown/Wigan and GW mainline to Bristol (and possibly Cardiff?).
It is my bet that there will be no more electrification beyond these schemes for which work is already under way and rolling stock earmarked.

Ordsall-Preston-Blackpool, TPE North and MML may never happen and the North of England will be expected to carry on with clapped out DMUs and like it or lump it. They have had ~2 years now to get started on the easy part of TPE East (Neville Hill-Colton Jct/Selby) and NOTHING has happened.

It would be a very brave Labour government that choses to cancel all those electrifcation schemes, just look what happened when Labour leadership looked like they were withdrawing support for HS2.

RichmondCommu · 6 Dec 2014

ianhr said:
There will be another election next May and so it is almost certain that the same thing will happen again and work will be halted for another 18 months.

As far as I am aware no wiring contracts have been let beyond Edge Hill-Earlestown/Wigan and GW mainline to Bristol (and possibly Cardiff?).
It is my bet that there will be no more electrification beyond these schemes for which work is already under way and rolling stock earmarked.

Ordsall-Preston-Blackpool, TPE North and MML may never happen and the North of England will be expected to carry on with clapped out DMUs and like it or lump it. They have had ~2 years now to get started on the easy part of TPE East (Neville Hill-Colton Jct/Selby) and NOTHING has happened.

A lot of preparation work has already been completed between Bedford and Kettering in preparation for the planned electrification of the MML. Network Rail would not be making that kind of investment if they had long term doubts about the electrification of the route.

Xenophon PCDGS · 6 Dec 2014

jcollins said:
Modern Railways (December) edition said the delay in issuing the ITTs was due to Network Rail refusing to agree timescales for projects.

This is exactly the same source that I used, as Modern Railways usually have a more measured approach to matters and "the ears" of many senior personages in the railway industry.

47802 · 6 Dec 2014

ianhr said:
There will be another election next May and so it is almost certain that the same thing will happen again and work will be halted for another 18 months.

As far as I am aware no wiring contracts have been let beyond Edge Hill-Earlestown/Wigan and GW mainline to Bristol (and possibly Cardiff?).
It is my bet that there will be no more electrification beyond these schemes for which work is already under way and rolling stock earmarked.

Ordsall-Preston-Blackpool, TPE North and MML may never happen and the North of England will be expected to carry on with clapped out DMUs and like it or lump it. They have had ~2 years now to get started on the easy part of TPE East (Neville Hill-Colton Jct/Selby) and NOTHING has happened.

The exception is of course Scotland where the Paisley Canal, Cumbernauld and Whifflet lines have been quietly converted to EMU operation on time within budget and with no fuss whatsoever, and contracts have now been let for Edinburgh-Glasgow via Falkirk.

I suspect that NR are inherently conservative, over cautious, risk averse and deeply committed to the minimalist thinking that prevailed in the industry from the late 1980s until the past few years and they cannot adjust to the recent (post A. Adonis) change of heart at DfT. I agree with others that the run down of skills during the Major and Blair Governments, along with privatisation and "lets use DMUs for EVERYTHING we can get away with" has not helped. Remember that only a few years ago they were considering DE-WIRING the ECML north of Newcastle and even now there are parts of the electrified network that see minimal or even no use (ECML north of Newcastle 1 tph? and Stockport-Hazel Grove 0!).

I doubt any government will back out of already commited scheme's of course after that it may be a different story, and given the potential numbers of spare emu's kicking about at the very least they would need to complete Blackpool, and far as the MML goes I think they would at least need to complete electrification to Corby to bring additional capacity to the MML.

Aictos · 6 Dec 2014

Just for comparison purposes, how much was electrified in Scotland versus England in the period of 1997 to 2012?

LNW-GW Joint · 6 Dec 2014

HLE 13 said:
Just for comparison purposes, how much was electrified in Scotland versus England in the period of 1997 to 2012?

Edinburgh to Airdrie, 30 miles 2010
Corkerhill-Paisley Canal 4 miles 2012
Springburn-Cumbernauld 14 miles with the Gartcosh triangle 2013
Rutherglen-Coatbridge/Whifflet 9 miles 2014

While only the 9 miles from Crewe to Kidsgrove (2002) was newly wired in England, the WCML fast lines were completely rewired south of Crewe, and much of the GE main line out to Shenfield was also rewired.
Not to mention HS1 (70 miles) and Heathrow T5.

Kettledrum · 6 Dec 2014

ianhr said:
There will be another election next May and so it is almost certain that the same thing will happen again and work will be halted for another 18 months........

Ordsall-Preston-Blackpool, TPE North and MML may never happen and the North of England will be expected to carry on with clapped out DMUs and like it or lump it. They have had ~2 years now to get started on the easy part of TPE East (Neville Hill-Colton Jct/Selby) and NOTHING has happened.

I suspect that NR are inherently conservative, over cautious, risk averse and deeply committed to the minimalist thinking that prevailed in the industry from the late 1980s until the past few years and they cannot adjust to the recent (post A. Adonis) change of heart at DfT. I agree with others that the run down of skills during the Major and Blair Governments, along with privatisation and "lets use DMUs for EVERYTHING we can get away with" has not helped.

There are lots of labour votes in the North and lots of marginal seats along the Midland Main Line, so it would be a strange political decision, not to mention a strange business decision. Electrification of the Midland Main Line had such a strong business case, it was surprising it took so long to approve... and any U-turn to electrify the northern routes would just give another problem. i.e. the need to procure new diesel rolling stock.

Aictos · 6 Dec 2014

LNW-GW Joint said:
Edinburgh to Airdrie, 30 miles 2010
Corkerhill-Paisley Canal 4 miles 2012
Springburn-Cumbernauld 14 miles with the Gartcosh triangle 2013
Rutherglen-Coatbridge/Whifflet 9 miles 2014

While only the 9 miles from Crewe to Kidsgrove (2002) was newly wired in England, the WCML fast lines were completely rewired south of Crewe, and much of the GE main line out to Shenfield was also rewired.
Not to mention HS1 (70 miles) and Heathrow T5.

Sorry I should have said not counting rewiring already electrified routes.

Hophead · 6 Dec 2014

But, as I understand things, whatever is committed and funded for CP5 must be delivered, no matter what happens after the election. Them's the rules. That includes electrification for Great Western Main Line, North-West & Midland Main Line. Presumably Trans-Pennine, too.

CP6? Now, that's another matter entirely. The planning and funding will be occurring after May 2015. I can't see it committing to anything like the current ambitions. For electrification, it could be more a case of delivering what we've already started and then a few easy and obvious extensions (unless the politicians start getting involved).

LNW-GW Joint · 6 Dec 2014

Hophead said:
But, as I understand things, whatever is committed and funded for CP5 must be delivered, no matter what happens after the election. Them's the rules. That includes electrification for Great Western Main Line, North-West & Midland Main Line. Presumably Trans-Pennine, too.

CP6? Now, that's another matter entirely. The planning and funding will be occurring after May 2015. I can't see it committing to anything like the current ambitions. For electrification, it could be more a case of delivering what we've already started and then a few easy and obvious extensions (unless the politicians start getting involved).

Not quite. Things can be added to or subtracted from CP5 under the ORR reviews.
But I agree the government would not remove things on a whim, especially if NR has started serious work.
Letting a construction contract is usually the point of no return.
"Poor value for money" is another weasel phrase they use to axe projects.
That's why NR can't just shrug its shoulders about electrification costs.
The one electrification scheme which must be dodgy is the Basingstoke-Southampton DC-AC conversion - it has no proper costs or plan.
Nuneaton-Oxford is probably also a bit iffy until there are better plans.

WatcherZero · 6 Dec 2014

First 6 months of Cp5 NR aren't doing too bad, £60m over budget or so which in an annual budget of billions is a rounding error, they cited extra investment in punctuality as the reason for going over budget.

Andyjs247 · 7 Dec 2014

LNW-GW Joint said:
Not quite. Things can be added to or subtracted from CP5 under the ORR reviews.
But I agree the government would not remove things on a whim, especially if NR has started serious work.
Letting a construction contract is usually the point of no return.
"Poor value for money" is another weasel phrase they use to axe projects.
That's why NR can't just shrug its shoulders about electrification costs.
The one electrification scheme which must be dodgy is the Basingstoke-Southampton DC-AC conversion - it has no proper costs or plan.
Nuneaton-Oxford is probably also a bit iffy until there are better plans.

I attended one of the recent level crossing briefings for East West rail in November where Network Rail had a display showing an overview of the electric spine. I'm afraid I don't have a copy of the map but if I remember rightly I'm fairly sure that Network Rail will be prioritising the Leamington-Coventry section along with Oxford-Bletchley. The rest of the route between Southampton and Reading, Oxford - Leamington, Coventry - Nuneaton and Bletchley - Bedford - Sheffield -Wakefield/Doncaster was still shown on the map with a solid line, but in a different colour. I might be making some assumptions but I guess that it's those priority bits indicated which could be delivered in CP5. It seems that the other parts will be delivered later (but are still committed).

Interestingly Felixstowe - Nuneaton - Birmingham and also Derby - Birmingham Bristol were also shown but with a dotted line which I took to mean under investigation in some way but not yet committed.

snowball · 7 Dec 2014

Just in case there's anyone reading this thread who doesn't follow the Manchester-Liverpool thread, LDECRexile has posted, as a photographic attachment to post #3168 there, a report from the Sunday Times, possibly partly based on the opening post of this thread, but also talking about new DMUs to plug the gap. I'd repost it here if I knew how, but anyway, here's a link to LDEC's post:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1997129&postcount=3168

Class 170101 · 7 Dec 2014

Its possible to view part of the Sunday Times article online for free. I have posted it in the Manchester to Liverpool Electrification thread here.
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1997317&postcount=3173

Doesn't exactly look promising does it.

EDIT not sure how you can 'blow' up the thumbnail in order to read the newspaper article.

KingBBoogaloo · 7 Dec 2014

TP electrification has been deffered to CP6 due to costs.

So dont expect any electrics across the Pennines untill at least 2021.

Probably explanes the delays in the refranchising of the TPE franchies.

Haydn1971 · 7 Dec 2014

Says who ?

Bletchleyite · 7 Dec 2014

If true, it's definitely time for some more DMUs to be procured.

Neil

7Pinza · 7 Dec 2014

Just been reported on BBC local news in Yorks (Look North) - but can't see anything official

LewFinnis · 7 Dec 2014

There was an article in The Sunday Times that suggested that the cost overruns on GW and Midland electrifications would have an impact and suggested that new DMUs might have to be ordered.

kevconnor · 7 Dec 2014

LewFinnis said:
There was an article in The Sunday Times that suggested that the cost overruns on GW and Midland electrifications would have an impact and suggested that new DMUs might have to be ordered.

Hmm, a requirement for a cheap DMU with an intention that it may cover a short term shortfall in rolling stock...

Pacers anyone????

Bletchleyite · 7 Dec 2014

kevconnor said:
Hmm, a requirement for a cheap DMU with an intention that it may cover a short term shortfall in rolling stock...

With the best will in the world, TPE overcrowding will not be solved using D-Trains, Pacers or anything like that. A 3x23m Class 172 style unit is probably needed (I imagine based on a newer Alstom, Siemens or Hitachi product).

If the wires will go up later, a bi-mode could be worth a go.

Neil

snowball · 7 Dec 2014

There's already a thread about this in the Infrastructure & Stations forum, here. Started 3 days ago.

Bletchleyite · 7 Dec 2014

Andyjs247 said:
I attended one of the recent level crossing briefings for East West rail in November where Network Rail had a display showing an overview of the electric spine. I'm afraid I don't have a copy of the map but if I remember rightly I'm fairly sure that Network Rail will be prioritising the Leamington-Coventry section along with Oxford-Bletchley. The rest of the route between Southampton and Reading, Oxford - Leamington, Coventry - Nuneaton and Bletchley - Bedford - Sheffield -Wakefield/Doncaster was still shown on the map with a solid line, but in a different colour.

Personally I think there is a good case for wiring Bedford-Bletchley to allow it to be used for relieving congestion in the event of serious issues on the WCML/Thameslink, and to remove an island of diesel operation which is a barrier to the proposed new "West Coast Connect" franchise being all-350.

Neil

pemma · 8 Dec 2014

KingBBoogaloo said:
TP electrification has been deffered to CP6 due to costs.

So dont expect any electrics across the Pennines untill at least 2021.

Probably explanes the delays in the refranchising of the TPE franchies.

Haydn1971 said:
Says who ?

The 2021 date has been mooted by Roger Ford which I thought was due to Network Rail not wanting to get in to trouble if the next TPE franchise obtains EMUs for December 18 and has nowhere to use them, so they added 30 months on to the expected duration of work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Neil Williams said:
With the best will in the world, TPE overcrowding will not be solved using D-Trains, Pacers or anything like that. A 3x23m Class 172 style unit is probably needed (I imagine based on a newer Alstom, Siemens or Hitachi product).

If the wires will go up later, a bi-mode could be worth a go.

Personally I think there are 2 options:
1. 3 x 23m DMUs - mainly for Northern.
2. 4/5 car regional bi-mode mainly for TPE as class 185 replacement.

3 x 23m car trains for Northern would allow something to directly replace 2 x 142 formations and provide extra capacity on services which are currently 2 car and don't really need to be 4 car yet.

Regional bi-mode for TPE would mean another operator could take on 185s indirectly allowing some Pacers to be withdrawn and once some TPE routes are fully electric the bi-mode trains can be cascaded to partially electrified lines.

Taunton · 8 Dec 2014

I still have not seen any explanation of what the issues with the electrification plan actually are. Why is it that costs are up 50% (GWML) or 100% (MML) on what was stated a year or two ago when it first started. Do there need to be double the man hours originally estimated, and why? Did the estimators make a complete hash of it? Did the designers get it all completely wrong? Certainly going down the Paddington line the extent of work is absolutely minimal so far, yet there were all the press releases a year or two ago about "high output depots", etc. Maybe the project has only taken on PR people and no engineers. Maybe the new bases should have been called "low output depots".

Senex · 8 Dec 2014

Taunton said:
Why is it that costs are up 50% (GWML) or 100% (MML) on what was stated a year or two ago when it first started.

The 100% rise within such a short period that's being quoted for the Midland line seems utterly incredible. Either the first figure was just plucked out of the air to make the case look good when seeking authorisation (rather than being based on any real survey of the work to be done) or else we are once again seeing a typical British gold-plating pushing up the costs to the point where something become unaffordable.

Or is it schemes like Derby and Leicester capacity expansion and resignalling and Market Harborough realignment are now being charged to the electrification budget, even though the first represents taking the opportunity of a planned resignalling to make changes, the second is really part of the East-West Freight Route capacity expansion, and the third is a long-overdue Midland-line improvement that will benefit a diesel railway just as much as an electric railway?

class26 · 8 Dec 2014

Senex said:
The 100% rise within such a short period that's being quoted for the Midland line seems utterly incredible. Either the first figure was just plucked out of the air to make the case look good when seeking authorisation (rather than being based on any real survey of the work to be done) or else we are once again seeing a typical British gold-plating pushing up the costs to the point where something become unaffordable.

Or is it schemes like Derby and Leicester capacity expansion and resignalling and Market Harborough realignment are now being charged to the electrification budget, even though the first represents taking the opportunity of a planned resignalling to make changes, the second is really part of the East-West Freight Route capacity expansion, and the third is a long-overdue Midland-line improvement that will benefit a diesel railway just as much as an electric railway?

One reason the MML is running over budget is that originally the budget was from Bedford - north but only later was it realised that the wires from Bedford - south were not capable of 125 mph running so would need changing. I think the same applies at the Paddington end of the GWML

Taunton · 8 Dec 2014

class26 said:
One reason the MML is running over budget is that originally the budget was from Bedford - north but only later was it realised that the wires from Bedford - south were not capable of 125 mph running so would need changing. I think the same applies at the Paddington end of the GWML

That seems an extraordinarily fundamental point to have missed, and with such a gross overspend resulting I hope those who did the costings are no longer in that role.

Is it that they are physically unable to support such speeds, or is it just they don't have the right "certificates" to do so, or that the "not invented here" engineers have dominated the pragmatists? What would be the impact on journey times if speeds were limited to 100 mph south of Bedford? On the 45 miles from Bedford to say West Hampstead the difference seems to be about 7 minutes, assuming no other restrictions; is the difference worth doubling the overall cost?

Potentially massive delays in electrification program

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member