What if the DfT gave £1 billion a year for electrification?

bringbackcrouc · 15 Jun 2018

If the DfT gave NR a billion a year just for electrification for as long as it took to electrify the whole network, how many years would it take for 100% 25k voltage from Thurso to Penzance to Lowerstoft to Holyhead.

RailUK Forums

Mollman · 15 Jun 2018

bringbackcrouc said:
If the DfT gave NR a billion a year just for electrification for as long as it took to electrify the whole network, how many years would it take for 100% 25k voltage from Thurso to Penzance to Lowerstoft to Holyhead.

Still quite a lot. An electrification programme needs to be around resources not cost. You would probably want three or four teams max as we do at the moment really:
1x Great Western
1x Midlands
1x North (West)
1x Scotland

This means that you are creating ongoing employment directly and within the supply chain at a sustainable level - unlike what is happening with rolling stock which is a classic boom and bust cycle.

TwistedMentat · 15 Jun 2018

Ideally that's what would be happening. A known amount each year that you can then plan investments around. And if one bit takes a bit longer than expected *cough* GWML *cough* then the later plans are simply bumped back but are still the next to be done.

GRALISTAIR · 15 Jun 2018

You need a freight team too. F2N and spine immediately spring to mind.

DimTim · 15 Jun 2018

Why a freight team?

If there is a set budget each team a, b, c, d would be allocated to a projects be that electric spine or MML etc. Diluting the spend between more teams may restrict the amount of work each can achieve.

lejog · 15 Jun 2018

bringbackcrouc said:
If the DfT gave NR a billion a year just for electrification for as long as it took to electrify the whole network, how many years would it take for 100% 25k voltage from Thurso to Penzance to Lowerstoft to Holyhead.

Given the latest estimates of £2bn for the electrification (not upgrade) of 50 miles of TPE North, say about 25miles per year.

Mollman said:
Still quite a lot. An electrification programme needs to be around resources not cost. You would probably want three or four teams max as we do at the moment really:
1x Great Western
1x Midlands
1x North (West)
1x Scotland

This means that you are creating ongoing employment directly and within the supply chain at a sustainable level - unlike what is happening with rolling stock which is a classic boom and bust cycle.

Or if there are 4 teams, 6 miles each per year.

GRALISTAIR · 15 Jun 2018

DimTim said:
Why a freight team?

If there is a set budget each team a, b, c, d would be allocated to a projects be that electric spine or MML etc. Diluting the spend between more teams may restrict the amount of work each can achieve.

Exactly what I am trying to say. You need team A, B, C, D etc - not a GWML/MML/Northwest/Scotland/Little Slapton-on-the-marsh/

If you gave the NR 1 billion a year - getting freight off the road would have to be high priority. If it can be meshed well such that passengers benefit and freight - then great.

BTW -this is -IMHO -the way to do it. A nice steady rolling program agreed by all major parties free from political interference. Keeps the supply chain steady and not feast/famine.

CdBrux · 15 Jun 2018

Indeed, it would be interesting to hear what the TOC's saw as priorities for next investments and why. Not that I would necessarily take their list as the best thing to do but I think it would be a very interesting perspective, especially if the criteria for the choice was well scoped.

GRALISTAIR · 15 Jun 2018

CdBrux said:
Indeed, it would be interesting to hear what the TOC's saw as priorities for next investments and why. Not that I would necessarily take their list as the best thing to do but I think it would be a very interesting perspective, especially if the criteria for the choice was well scoped.

Agreed. Input from all interested parties is key.

Bertie the bus · 15 Jun 2018

lejog said:
Given the latest estimates of £2bn for the electrification (not upgrade) of 50 miles of TPE North, say about 25miles per year.

Or if there are 4 teams, 6 miles each per year.

I think you're being a bit optimistic. The people arguing for TransPennine electrification claim it's a no brainer because it's an easy one. Wait until they got to the difficult ones. You would probably be able to measure £1 billion in electrification in yards.

takno · 15 Jun 2018

Bertie the bus said:
I think you're being a bit optimistic. The people arguing for TransPennine electrification claim it's a no brainer because it's an easy one. Wait until they got to the difficult ones. You would probably be able to measure £1 billion in electrification in yards.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they should do the transpennine because it's easy. I've heard suggestions that it's not particularly long, has leccy at both ends of it, is intensively trafficked, and has steep gradients that would be easier to climb with the leccy. The closest I've heard to describing it as easy is that all the big stations on it are already wired, but then apart from Bristol and the MML I'm struggling to think of any major stations that aren't

Agent_Squash · 15 Jun 2018

Maybe Windermere electrification might finally be achieved?

a_c_skinner · 15 Jun 2018

How much per annum doesn't matter (within reason) what is important is that we get away from boom/bust electrification, maintain steady progress and keep hold of the expertise gained and lessons learned. The choice of routes should be to allow sensible gradual change over to electric rolling stock, so the lines running bi-modes might seem logical as first.

47802 · 15 Jun 2018

bringbackcrouc said:
If the DfT gave NR a billion a year just for electrification for as long as it took to electrify the whole network, how many years would it take for 100% 25k voltage from Thurso to Penzance to Lowerstoft to Holyhead.

Why should we give any more money for Electrification until Network Rail they can demonstrate they can do it on time, on budget and for a reasonable cost, I would also be tempted to give some electrification work directly to an outside contractor.

Pete_uk · 16 Jun 2018

Sure, but let companies bid for the money. TOCs and other national infrastructure companies bid.

D365 · 16 Jun 2018

47802 said:
Why should we give any more money for Electrification until Network Rail they can demonstrate they can do it on time, on budget and for a reasonable cost, I would also be tempted to give some electrification work directly to an outside contractor.

??? Network Rail does contract out the electrification work. How would “giving some work directly” be any different?

It’d be interesting to see what they could do when the supply chain doesn’t have to be built up from scratch after a 20 year drought, and when the ORR finally decides against changing the regulations at the most convenient moment and making them apply retrospectively to ongoing electrification.

Mordac · 16 Jun 2018

At railway prices, that should buy you about three gantries and a bridge raising.

Joe D · 16 Jun 2018

47802 said:
I would also be tempted to give some electrification work directly to an outside contractor.

Oh god no, the DfT awarding engineering contracts directly? On franchising, timetabling and engineering, everything seems to be converging on the problem ultimately being that the DfT has been cut so fast and so deep that they're incapable of acting as an "informed client". There may be problems in some of the organisations delivering the work, but there are bigger ones in the department authorising it.

DarloRich · 16 Jun 2018

47802 said:
Why should we give any more money for Electrification until Network Rail they can demonstrate they can do it on time, on budget and for a reasonable cost, I would also be tempted to give some electrification work directly to an outside contractor.

Becuase they absolutely always deliver on time and on budget. Always. Never late, never bail, never go bust or never ever ever drown client organisations in contractual variations seeking more money for everything. Just like they never ever knowingly underbid in order to buy work then seek to vary the contract at every opportunity in order to make the contract returns meet their internal profit measures

This argument is put forward time and again and it is clearly done by people with no idea

LNW-GW Joint · 16 Jun 2018

The CP5 budget for electrification was, I think, £6 billion (out of £11 billion overall enhancements).
NR blew that budget in spades, and undermined the business case they had developed based on £650m per stkm (single track km).
I think the current "best practice" estimates are now about £1.3m per stkm (not actually delivered anywhere yet).
It also takes up to 10 elapsed years to deliver an electrified route (GW/NW electrification will "complete" in 2019 after being authorised in 2009).
And finally, nobody believes NR's (or anybody else's) estimating or delivery planning capability for electrification projects.
DfT currently thinks that £1 billion a year is better spent on new train technology rather than masts and wire, and will deliver benefits sooner.
Or that the digital railway is the answer to everything, though it's very hard to see any benefits yet.
Even the Thameslink ATO people have gone very quiet since the operational meltdown.
By the way, in which business world do you give the contractor £1 billion a year and say "just get on with it"?

HSTEd · 16 Jun 2018

The 25kV programme is essentially dead.
They completely blew the budget delivering an overspecced electrification settup using untested designs and untested equipment.

You won't get a billion pounds a year to ressuscitate it.

Honestly if you want major expansion in electrification, given ORRs decision to deny permission for new top contact third rail installations..... its going to be bottom contact third rail or tram electrification - and NR managed to even bodge the latter of those by insisting absurdly that a minor freight diversionary route be prepared for full 25kV electrification.... for some reason.

NR's obsession with future proofing and overspeccing has rendered electrification undeliverable.

Kettledrum · 16 Jun 2018

pretty sure NR wouldn't get a billion per year, but a certain amount each year to enable a sustainable skilled team to be maintained with access to reliable tools and technology would be a good idea - instead of having a start and stop approach which loses all the skills and expertise almost as soon as you have built them up.

With bimodes running on many routes in the future, this would work really well and would enable incremental electrification.
We'd have to get away from the flawed approach of business cases though, which can be flipped on minor changes to a variety of assumptions.

swt_passenger · 16 Jun 2018

LNW-GW Joint said:
The CP5 budget for electrification was, I think, £6 billion (out of £11 billion overall enhancements).
NR blew that budget in spades, and undermined the business case they had developed based on £650m per stkm (single track km).
I think the current "best practice" estimates are now about £1.3m per stkm (not actually delivered anywhere yet).

Decimal point error I trust...

bringbackcrouc · 16 Jun 2018

How many single track miles exist which aren’t electrified?

If the whole network was electrified to the same standard would there be a crystallisation effect where the benefits of full electrification mean that full electrification has a better BCR.

Joseph_Locke · 16 Jun 2018

HSTEd said:
or tram electrification - and NR managed to even bodge the latter of those by insisting absurdly that a minor freight diversionary route be prepared for full 25kV electrification.... for some reason.

NR's obsession with future proofing and overspeccing has rendered electrification undeliverable.

NR doesn't have a standards suite for "tram electrification", though it does for 25kVAC fixed tension trolley wires, but the amount of work required for that and for "full" electrification wouldn't be fundamentally different. Are you suggesting that 750VDC overheads are the future?

GRALISTAIR · 16 Jun 2018

I hope not because the I squared R losses would be horrendous

LNW-GW Joint · 16 Jun 2018

swt_passenger said:
Decimal point error I trust...

Just the odd 000.

HSTEd · 16 Jun 2018

Joseph_Locke said:
NR doesn't have a standards suite for "tram electrification", though it does for 25kVAC fixed tension trolley wires, but the amount of work required for that and for "full" electrification wouldn't be fundamentally different. Are you suggesting that 750VDC overheads are the future?

I was referring to the disaster that is the Rotherham Tram Train trial, where Network Rail decided on insisting on future conversion capability to 25kVac - despite the fact that the section of track to be utilised in the trial is highly unlikely to ever have a business case for electrification, at least not inside the 30 year horizon.

It is a freight line with minor diversionary use that is north of Sheffield and thus would not be included in any likely MML scheme, even if the whole-MML scheme wasn't dead.
This forced massive delays and a lot of very expensive, and totally unnecessary design work.

Tram electrification is unfortunately the future given that 25kVac electrification is not going anywhere any time soon, especially with the clearance requirements, and it is a readily available technology that can be deployed today.
Given that almost all high traffic lines have been electrified already - we are left with routes where tram-train style operation would fit quite well, at which point 750Vdc overheads become a reasonable proposition.

Although personally I would prefer 1500Vdc bottom-contact third rail.

takno · 16 Jun 2018

HSTEd said:
I was referring to the disaster that is the Rotherham Tram Train trial, where Network Rail decided on insisting on future conversion capability to 25kVac - despite the fact that the section of track to be utilised in the trial is highly unlikely to ever have a business case for electrification, at least not inside the 30 year horizon.
It is a freight line with minor diversionary use that is north of Sheffield and thus would not be included in any likely MML scheme, even if the whole-MML scheme wasn't dead.
This forced massive delays and a lot of very expensive, and totally unnecessary design work.

Tram electrification is unfortunately the future given that 25kVac electrification is not going anywhere any time soon, especially with the clearance requirements, and it is a readily available technology that can be deployed today.
Given that almost all high traffic lines have been electrified already - we are left with routes where tram-train style operation would fit quite well, at which point 750Vdc overheads become a reasonable proposition.

Although personally I would prefer 1500Vdc bottom-contact third rail.

The line through Rotherham Central may not have many scheduled long-distance trains through it, but it's got a passenger train each way every 20 minutes, and is an obvious candidate for electrification as both a short diversionary route and an opportunity to run electric local trains if MML electrification was extended to Leeds and Doncaster. None of that would have seemed like a particularly unreasonable plan at the point the project was set up. In any case part of the costs were paid for specifically on the basis that it would be test-bed for further shared-use schemes, which may well have been electrified already.

It is definitely not a freight line.

GRALISTAIR · 16 Jun 2018

NR are in a no-win situation with some. If they build for the future they are wrong in some people’s eyes. If they do not plan for the future they are also wrong.

What if the DfT gave £1 billion a year for electrification?

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member