Campaign for Calder Valley Electrification

jayah · 27 May 2018

Starmill said:
You're telling me that speed isn't a benefit and that people won't pay more for it? So, you would pay the same for a 57 minute journey between cities as you would for a 2 hour journey? Really?

No that isn't what I said.

If you look at the HS2 business case, the figure quoted for users value of time is of the order of £60bn at current prices - many years worth of total UK rail passenger fare income. Trying to charge the users a fraction of this would result in an empty railway. The fact it needs to be so high to get a B to C ratio of 2.0 tells you something about how far underwater HS2 is financially.

Sadly most people see a BCR of 2 and think it actually makes money, either for the operator or taxpayer, neither of which is close to being true.

RailUK Forums

Starmill · 27 May 2018

Why would anyone think that? And why would it matter if it makes money for the taxpayer or not? And why would we be worried if the operator, a private company didn't make money? That's not our objective here, is it? What's more I'm sure you're quite wrong about it not making money for the operator. Nobody would be bidding for it if they didn't think they would make any money, would they. Finally, why does it matter that it's many years of fares revenue? New assets like bridges and tunnels should last for at least 100 years.

I'm concerned that you don't really understand the political and economic influences on the railway.

Eric · 27 May 2018

Has there been any physical cost estimates for electrifying the Calder Valley line?

I know it has about 14 tunnels from Manchester to Bradford.

GRALISTAIR · 28 May 2018

To the best of knowledge no - nothing meaningful. I think most/all would agree the 2009 RUS BCRs were at the very best very poor estimates. They are the only figures I have seen. Although number 1 priority on the northern sparks report I don’t think it was as high on the NR etc list.

lejog · 28 May 2018

Starmill said:
Why would anyone think that? And why 4would it matter if it makes money for the taxpayer or not? And why would we be worried if the operator, a private company didn't make money? That's not our objective here, is it? What's more I'm sure you're quite wrong about it not making money for the operator. Nobody would be bidding for it if they didn't think they would make any money, would they. Finally, why does it matter that it's many years of fares revenue? New assets like bridges and tunnels should last for at least 100 years.

I'm concerned that you don't really understand the political and economic influences on the railway.

How do you think public investment works? To get public lnvestment money you have to prove to the Treasury that there will be a payback in terms of increased future taxation.

Its a process that may be internal to Whitehall between the Dft and the Treasury, but I can assure you no payback no investment.

A prime example of this is the Manchester Airport services "from everywhere" that so many people on this forum don'tunderstand. Part of the Northern Hub business case is to boost the Northern economy by £xbn and these services are part of this requirement. Thinking of them in pure rail terms is a small part of the big picture.

Starmill · 28 May 2018

I think you've missed the point. The wider economic benefits, including aims related to the labour market or to regeneration of particular areas, or even to support particular projects or developments are all part of the reason why investment in lines takes place. It is much, much more than the simple narrow view taken by Jayah that the criteria is that the railway company itself should make money. There is not much more I can say on the subject.

Fares revenue is significant but it's only part of the picture. In some cases it's not even a large part of what's justifying the enhancement. E.g introducing a Sunday service on the Cumbrian Coast line. How much extra fares revenue is that going to generate? Probably almost none. But that's not why it is being done, it's an improvement which fulfils other criteria.

lejog · 28 May 2018

GRALISTAIR said:
To the best of knowledge no - nothing meaningful. I think most/all would agree the 2009 RUS BCRs were at the very best very poor estimates. They are the only figures I have seen. Although number 1 priority on the northern sparks report I don’t think it was as high on the NR etc list.

Being my local line, I'm unaware of the existence of any either meaningful costs or benefit estimates.

One of the authors of the Northern Sparks report posted on this forum warning against quoting the results so precisely as line x came n th because the scoring algorithm wasnt that precise. If the report had been issued a few months later, the Calder Valley would have slid down the table as one of the parameters used was sprinters replaced and the new Northern franchise promised new trains.

The report did identify lines as high, medium or low priority and suggested further work on calculating benefits and cost for the high priority lines. AFAIK this has not started.
I

lejog · 28 May 2018

Starmill said:
I think you've missed the point. The wider economic benefits, including aims related to the labour market or to regeneration of particular areas, or even to support particular projects or developments are all part of the reason why investment in lines takes place. It is much, much more than the simple narrow view taken by Jayah that the criteria is that the railway company itself should make money. There is not much more I can say on the subject.

Fares revenue is significant but it's only part of the picture. In some cases it's not even a large part of what's justifying the enhancement. E.g introducing a Sunday service on the Cumbrian Coast line. How much extra fares revenue is that going to generate? Probably almost none. But that's not why it is being done, it's an improvement which fulfils other criteria.

I dont read Jayah's posts and am not really interested in points of your argument with him that I subsequently miss. However you wrote "why would it matter if the government makes money or not". In the case of public investment, which electrification is, the government wont invest if it doesn't think its money will be returned over time.

Yes sure all benefits which lead to increased government income will be considered. Fare revenue to the extent that the government expects to receive higher taxes/TOC payments in the future.

Sunday services in Cumbria do not involve capital investment and different considerations apply. If they are specified by the DfT then I'd expect the money is added to Northern's subsidy and comes out of general government spending, which is very different from government investment.

Starmill · 28 May 2018

lejog said:
I dont read Jayah's posts and am not really interested in points of your argument with him that I subsequently miss.

In which case it may be advisable not to post in them.
Doesn't seem difficult to me.

jayah · 1 Jun 2018

lejog said:
How do you think public investment works? To get public lnvestment money you have to prove to the Treasury that there will be a payback in terms of increased future taxation.

Its a process that may be internal to Whitehall between the Dft and the Treasury, but I can assure you no payback no investment.

A prime example of this is the Manchester Airport services "from everywhere" that so many people on this forum don'tunderstand. Part of the Northern Hub business case is to boost the Northern economy by £xbn and these services are part of this requirement. Thinking of them in pure rail terms is a small part of the big picture.

You don't have to prove this at all. There is no taxpayer benefit to HS2 even with wider economic benefits. The scheme is tens of £bn underwater.

Bevan Price · 1 Jun 2018

jayah said:
Small trains are a disease in this country. We should stop ordering the damn things. I see Northern are ordering a lot of 120 seat 2 car diesels not to mention equally inadequate 3 car electrics. Madness, but no justification for more expensive and pointless wires. We all agree Manchester Picc platform 13/14 are a bottleneck and keep shoving these pint sized trains at it when a pitcher is what is needed.

?

That is one of the few points where I agree with you. Toy-sized trains are a stupid idea for everywhere except a few very rural lines.

B&I · 2 Jun 2018

Bevan Price said:
That is one of the few points where I agree with you. Toy-sized trains are a stupid idea for everywhere except a few very rural lines.

Indeed. Any line which has no prospect of requiring more than a 2 car service would probably be better converted to light rail, assuming connections to the grown-up railway were possible at the terminus, whether or not using tram trains on heavy rail stretches

MarkRedon · 3 Jun 2018

I would argue that two principal factors saved "the railway" in Britain outside London in the eighties.

One was the successful introduction of the HST.

The other was "sprinterisation" (and the associated "pacerisation"). This second factor permitted relatively high frequencies and made rail useful and usable at a time when "everyone's" aspiration was to own a car and to use it for almost all trips. These factors enabled idiots like me never to have to own a car and led to the spectacular growth of rail into cities like Leeds, Manchester and to some degree Bradford.

It is still true that high frequency services are essential to keeping rail attractive. Please don't decry short trains - even 153s have their place(s).

We need to learn to deal even better with capacity constraints through busy urban corridors, by means such as fast and reliable coupling / uncoupling. This, and the so-called "digital railway" (e.g. dynamic rescheduling to respond with delay...), are the most hopeful way of dealing with issues like platforms 13/14 at Piccadilly.

We wouldn't even be talking about Calder Valley electrification if it wasn't for all the extra traffic that's been created over the years (Roses Rail link Preston services, Bradford - Huddersfield trains, good level of service at traffic-generating stations like Hebden Bridge...). All of this growth has been achieved with "little" trains.

Class 170101 · 3 Jun 2018

lejog said:
Sunday services in Cumbria do not involve capital investment and different considerations apply. If they are specified by the DfT then I'd expect the money is added to Northern's subsidy and comes out of general government spending, which is very different from government investment.

But do require reveue expenditure. If some of the boxes that were previously closed on Suinday are now open that incurs a cost in term of the signalbox itself and the signallers who need to be paid to work in them if the roster previously didn't include Sunday working. (It may also need more people to cover the whole 7 day week vice 6 day week).

Sceptre · 3 Jun 2018

jayah said:
Indeed. The railway is hostile to change, hostile to being challenged and set against genuine innovation. All over the world you see bus companies and local authorities embracing electric bus technology, but the railway wants to keep tapping that 1920s bolt into that 21st century hole.

Bi-mode has been tested and proven, but has managed only to become heresy amongst the so called 'opinion formers' on the grounds it diminishes their great lord and master who must be obeyed and honoured - electrification!

The £64,000 question that should be asked whenever alternatives to electrification are proposed is "would it be acceptable to use on Crossrail 2?"

Because obviously, Chris Grayling is not going to raise the ire of his constituents by mandating bi-modes in the CR2 core.

(The question also applies to that frankly stupid IEA report from a few years back that proposed paving over the permanent way and replacing it with busways)

jayah · 3 Jun 2018

Sceptre said:
The £64,000 question that should be asked whenever alternatives to electrification are proposed is "would it be acceptable to use on Crossrail 2?"

Because obviously, Chris Grayling is not going to raise the ire of his constituents by mandating bi-modes in the CR2 core.

(The question also applies to that frankly stupid IEA report from a few years back that proposed paving over the permanent way and replacing it with busways)

That is not really the question at all, given Crossrail would be far and away the most heavily trafficked non electrified line in the UK surrounded by existing electrification on all sides.

Equally we see precious little progress on diesel fumes in New Street and elsewhere thanks to not progressing Bi-Modes on Cross Country. It will be a very long time before Plymouth to York is ever electrified.

Sceptre · 3 Jun 2018

I'm not suggesting we rip up any wires or third rail; we just leave the core unwired. Because as we all know, electrification is expensive, and so is boring the required tunnels through Central London, and after all, aren't bi-modes more economical than electrification?

jayah · 3 Jun 2018

Sceptre said:
I'm not suggesting we rip up any wires or third rail; we just leave the core unwired. Because as we all know, electrification is expensive, and so is boring the required tunnels through Central London, and after all, aren't bi-modes more economical than electrification?

Electrification is a good deal cheaper on a new railway. Bi-Modes are not more economical and I haven't claimed they were. The problem is the benefits are small compared to a £bn scheme like the MML. Comparing Crossrail which in this case would be a fantastically heavily trafficked infill, to the Calder Valley is a bit bizarre to say the least.

edwin_m · 3 Jun 2018

Sceptre said:
I'm not suggesting we rip up any wires or third rail; we just leave the core unwired. Because as we all know, electrification is expensive, and so is boring the required tunnels through Central London, and after all, aren't bi-modes more economical than electrification?

I suspect you're being sarcastic, but will nonetheless point out that running a bi-mode through deep tube tunnels and stations raises many safety issues.

GRALISTAIR · 3 Jun 2018

IMHO all new build should be sparked up from the start and yes that includes East West rail

deltic08 · 4 Jun 2018

jayah said:
The point of BCR is that are getting a benefit (speed) that THEY value at x. Try and charge them half of x for it and they decide actually it is worth a quarter of x and won't wear it.

Conclusion - B doesn't exist, at least in the stated ballpark!

Rather late joining this thread but you seem to disregard many points including,

Bimodes are generally heavier trains carrying around unnecessary duplicate propulsion equipment.
Because they are heavier, use more power unnecessarily than pure electrics.
More electrification is building a 25kv system making bimodes obsolete in the future.
Electrification infrastructure on a railway excites the mind of the general public that it is a 'fast' railway.
Electric trains are less polluting.
Electifying a route usually means upgrading with better signalling, better junctions, easing curves. That is expensive. Look what is happening to Manchester-Blackpool and trans Pennine? Complete route modernisation.

Because electrification of the Windermere branch has been halted yet another train type has been introducedto the route, and inferior at that compared to new trains expected, instead of trying the standardise the fleet.

This all adds to overall operating costs, reliability and fares. Grayling is lumping costs onto TOCs instead of Government paying for improved infrastructure.

What has the number of passengers in a train got to do with the argument about bimodes?

GRALISTAIR · 4 Jun 2018

deltic08 said:
Because electrification of the Windermere branch has been halted yet another train type has been introduced
to the route, and inferior at that compared to new trains expected, instead of trying the standardise the fleet. This all adds to overall operating costs and fares. Grayling is lumping costs onto TOCs instead of Government paying for improved infrastructure.

Yes IMHO a little disingenuous of Grayling to say the least. He touts lower CAPEX because NR etc are over budget, disruptive, etc etc etc. but ignores higher Opex. IMHO Opex/Capex needs to be costed into the BCRs.

CAPEX (not just railways) benefits now and future generations.

deltic08 · 4 Jun 2018

GRALISTAIR said:
Yes IMHO a little disingenuous of Grayling to say the least.

I would definitely say so. He is so obvious about his disingenuosity too. Is that a word?

B&I · 4 Jun 2018

deltic08 said:
I would definitely say so. He is so obvious about his disingenuosity too. Is that a word?

From first-hand experience of the outworking of his ideas when he was at Justice I would suggest that a better explanation is that he isn't very bright

backontrack · 4 Jun 2018

deltic08 said:
I would definitely say so. He is so obvious about his disingenuosity too. Is that a word?

Disingenuousness?

Sceptre said:
The £64,000 question that should be asked whenever alternatives to electrification are proposed is "would it be acceptable to use on Crossrail 2?"

Because obviously, Chris Grayling is not going to raise the ire of his constituents by mandating bi-modes in the CR2 core.

That's an excellent way of looking at it!

jayah · 4 Jun 2018

deltic08 said:
Rather late joining this thread but you seem to disregard many points including,

Bimodes are generally heavier trains carrying around unnecessary duplicate propulsion equipment.
Because they are heavier, use more power unnecessarily than pure electrics.
More electrification is building a 25kv system making bimodes obsolete in the future.
Electrification infrastructure on a railway excites the mind of the general public that it is a 'fast' railway.
Electric trains are less polluting.
Electifying a route usually means upgrading with better signalling, better junctions, easing curves. That is expensive. Look what is happening to Manchester-Blackpool and trans Pennine? Complete route modernisation.

Because electrification of the Windermere branch has been halted yet another train type has been introduced
to the route, and inferior at that compared to new trains expected, instead of trying the standardise the fleet. This all adds to overall operating costs, reliability and fares. Grayling is lumping costs onto TOCs instead of Government paying for improved infrastructure.
What has the number of passengers in a train got to do with the argument about bimodes?

Is your real name Grayling by any chance?

Lots of people get excited about weight. I get that. The people saying we need to wire up every branch line are the same. The weight from the fuel and engine on a Bi-Mode is about 2.5t per powered vehicle.

The point about passengers is this. The average weight of a person net of luggage is about 80kg. Put 50 of them in a carriage and what do you get? Now make the train busy, say 100 per carriage. Think about the crockery, the weight of the soiled and fresh water in all those CET toilets. This 2.5t per vehicle really doesn't amount to much.

On the MML, waiting for electrification means waiting for new trains which can't operate until everything is wired, with Bi-Modes they get new trains without waiting for wires even to Corby.

If you want to improve a route, by all means sort out the track, the alignment the open crossings and everything else keeping rail travel in the 19th century. Then take the £400m you didn't spend on the Calder Valley or £1bn on MML and do it again.

jayah · 4 Jun 2018

GRALISTAIR said:
Yes IMHO a little disingenuous of Grayling to say the least. He touts lower CAPEX because NR etc are over budget, disruptive, etc etc etc. but ignores higher Opex. IMHO Opex/Capex needs to be costed into the BCRs.

CAPEX (not just railways) benefits now and future generations.

He doesn't ignore OPEX. Even with the intangibles like pollution and CO2 the benefits come nowhere near the cost hence a BCR <1. The 'cost' being Capex minus the lomg term saving from Opex as I explained earlier.

jayah · 4 Jun 2018

GRALISTAIR said:
IMHO all new build should be sparked up from the start and yes that includes East West rail

East West is not remotely heavily trafficked.

GRALISTAIR · 4 Jun 2018

jayah said:
East West is not remotely heavily trafficked.

Not in doubt but as much of it is new it removes the bs statement “ disruptive electrification”

jayah · 4 Jun 2018

GRALISTAIR said:
Not in doubt but as much of it is new it removes the bs statement “ disruptive electrification”

Well you need some traffic to ever make any OPEX savings to eat into £400m for Calder and probably more for East West as it is much further. Crossrail is probably 240 cars per direction per hour, Calder is maybe 10-12?

Campaign for Calder Valley Electrification

On Moderation

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation