• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Windermere line electrification progress

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,164
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Might I just nudge this report over a few of your's way.

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/inves...o-cancel-three-rail-electrification-projects/

In January 2017, the Department assessed the benefit–cost ratio of the project as 0.9:1, representing poor value for money. Costs to electrify had risen from £16 million in 2014 to £35 million in March 2017 (cash prices).

Electrifying the route was part of the Department’s franchise commitment for the line. The Department recognised that there could be financial implications from cancelling the project as it would need to subsidise the operator to cover any additional costs. The Department acknowledged that there could be costs associated with providing alternative rolling stock to ensure that through trains from Manchester Airport to the Lake District could continue to run.

Oxenholme to Windermere
4.7 The main passenger benefits of electrifying Oxenholme to Windermere were to provide a through train to the Lake District from Manchester Airport and to reduce journey times. When he cancelled the project, the Secretary of State said that from May 2018 there would be double the number of direct services from Manchester Airport and that there would be brand new trains with more seats, better on-board facilities including air-conditioning, toilets, free Wi-Fi and plug sockets, subject to business case. 22 Part Four Investigation into the Department for Transport’s decision to cancel three rail electrification projects

4.8 The current Northern franchise, which includes this route, started in April 2016 and the franchise infrastructure assumptions said the line would be electrified by the end of 2017. At the time the Department awarded the franchise, it recognised that Network Rail would not deliver electrification in time to meet the franchise commitment. It is not clear why this was the case. To ensure that direct services from Manchester Airport to the Lake District could continue to run, the franchise operator proposed to fit some of its electric trains with diesel engines. The train operator planned to introduce these from May 2018, although they are now likely to be introduced later this year.

4.9 These bi-mode trains would not, however, provide the passenger benefits promised in the franchise or the Secretary of State’s announcement in July 2017. In January 2018, the Department advised that the operator should be permitted to buy new or cascaded diesel trains for the route in order to meet standards set out in the franchise around quality of rolling stock. In the longer term, the Secretary of State has asked the train operator to explore the possibility of using alternative fuel trains such as hydrogen or battery trains, on the route by 2021.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,096
Thanks for that, I have downloaded the full report. A search in Adobe Acrobat for "National Park" does not show it occurring even once in the document.
As I said, has anyone seen any evidence that the National Park Authority opposes the electrification of the line? After all, someone introduced Grayling's claim in post #4 and repeated it in #29!
 
Last edited:

Grumpy

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2010
Messages
1,067
Might I just nudge this report over a few of your's way.

s/
The figure quoted of £35m gives a cost per single track Kilometre almost as high as GWML and three times the cost of Shotts
 

Joseph_Locke

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2012
Messages
1,878
Location
Within earshot of trains passing the one and half
The figure quoted of £35m gives a cost per single track kilometre almost as high as GWML and three times the cost of Shotts

Rather a lot of bridge clearance issues to sort, several level crossings that require upgrade and all this on a single line, so automatically more expensive per stkm than the equivalent twin-track railway. It also included the costs associated with gauge clearing the class 331, IIRC.

It was also prepared after the rest of NWEP had learned a lot of lessons, so far more likely to be accurate.

A BCR of 0.9 to 1 isn't bad for an electrification project, BTW, particularly as the most desperate WEB items wouldn't have been included.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,652
Location
Mold, Clwyd
This was in Chris Grayling's announcement to the Commons about cancelling the Windermere electrification, on 20 July 2017:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/rail-update-bi-mode-train-technology
We have listened to concerns about electrification gantries spoiling protected landscapes. Northern, the train operator, will therefore begin work to explore the possibility of deploying alternative-fuel trains on the route by 2021, improving comfort and on-board facilities for passengers whilst protecting the sensitive environment of this World Heritage Site.
This trial will pilot an alternative-fuelled train, removing the need to construct intrusive wires and masts in this National Park.
Journeys between Windermere and Manchester Airport will be improved sooner and with less disruption to services and local communities.
This replaces plans to electrify the line between Windermere and Oxenholme

I'm afraid what the SoS says and does trumps the opinions of local newspapers and MPs, and even forum members at times.
It's entirely possible that the "concerns about electrification gantries spoiling protected landscapes" is the fallout from the residents' opposition to GW electrification in the Thames Valley, which was vehement at the time (and still unresolved, I think).

PS
This is a link to the Chilterns AONB site, where it says that Network Rail has funded landscaping work in the Thames Valley to mitigate the appearance of the electrification kit, to the tune of £3.75m.
https://www.chilternsaonb.org/conservation-board/planning-development/rail-electrification.html
Network Rail convened an Overhead Line Electrification within the AONB Advisory Group, which included the Chilterns AONB planner and North Wessex Downs AONB planner. The main purpose was to provide specialist technical advice to help with the review of alternative design options for the gantries. This work is still ongoing with the publication of the Phase 3 final report expected in the coming weeks. Even though replacement is not feasible for the Great Western electrification project here, the lessons learned have already resulted in better designs being installed through the Cotswolds AONB. Network Rail has developed new guidelines to ensure that protected landscapes are considered carefully in future rail electrification projects
 
Last edited:

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,096
This was in Chris Grayling's announcement to the Commons about cancelling the Windermere electrification, on 20 July 2017:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/rail-update-bi-mode-train-technology
Perhaps I should write to him with a few forensic questions asking for the original sources then...
The quote is a classic bit of "Yes Minister," aka devious civil servant helping deceitful politician to abandon one promise by conflating(?) it with an issue somewhere else.
I can fully understand the people around Pulteney Gardens in Bath being appalled by the battleship robustness of the OLE equipment around Bristol Parkway. It's completely OTT, and if the WCML can cope with its original structures not being replaced but simply moved closer together through the wind tunnels in the eastern lake district, I fail to see why such massively over-engineered structures are needed on the GWML.
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,758
Location
Yorkshire
Can we please stick to the electrification of the Windermere line in this thread please, thanks :)
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,096
Given that there is no progress at all, everything is now off-topic, so grumbling about a discussion about the validity of the justification for abandoning the job is a bit rich!
What do you think we could legitimately discuss here? Maybe the topic should have been locked until a further development is announced?
 

themiller

Member
Joined
4 Dec 2011
Messages
1,062
Location
Cumbria, UK
As the electrification has already completed the tie-in to the WCML and wired through the station area this should bring the cost of wiring the line down. Also, a company has developed a method of achieving clearance through brick bridges without demolition and providing new. Could this have brought the benefit cost ratio within acceptable levels?
 

VT 390

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2018
Messages
1,366
As the electrification has already completed the tie-in to the WCML and wired through the station area this should bring the cost of wiring the line down. Also, a company has developed a method of achieving clearance through brick bridges without demolition and providing new. Could this have brought the benefit cost ratio within acceptable levels?
How is the clearance achieved without rebuilding the bridge?
 

themiller

Member
Joined
4 Dec 2011
Messages
1,062
Location
Cumbria, UK
How is the clearance achieved without rebuilding the bridge?
The centre section brickwork is released from the sides and jacked up. The gap is the filled (with more brickwork, I think) and the roadway then adjusted. Others on this forum may have a better description and/or more details. I believe that this method was developed with the Windermere Line in mind.
 

Joseph_Locke

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2012
Messages
1,878
Location
Within earshot of trains passing the one and half
... and bridge jacking was part of the study NR did. it wasn't developed for the Windermere Branch, but for raising masonry arch bridges in general. The biggest issue with it is that you still need to deal with any services in the bridge and highway profiles over them. A lot of OXW ended up as track lowers, plus a few complete bridge removals.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,884
Location
Nottingham
The centre section brickwork is released from the sides and jacked up. The gap is the filled (with more brickwork, I think) and the roadway then adjusted. Others on this forum may have a better description and/or more details. I believe that this method was developed with the Windermere Line in mind.
I have my doubts about whether that is actually cheaper than replacing the bridge, although it may be more appropriate for heritage structures.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,096
I have my doubts about whether that is actually cheaper than replacing the bridge, although it may be more appropriate for heritage structures.
...especially farm / occupation bridges out in the countryside which are highly unlikely to have any services over them. I believe the Crewe to Chester line is bedevilled by the listed bridges, which is why it can't be wired economically. It beats me... however if a public sector body can find the money to tie the arch springers and then jack the whole thing up to pack it underneath I shan't complain. (Apart from the delay already caused.)
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,176
The figure quoted of £35m gives a cost per single track Kilometre almost as high as GWML and three times the cost of Shotts

I need to call that out. The cost of Shotts was just over £2m per single track km.
For Windermere, at £35m, it comes out at just over £2m per single track km.
 

td97

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2017
Messages
1,298
4/14 bridges required reconstruction (1 of which a footbridge). Track lowering/skewing and parapet works on another 8.
A591 and 1 fb only required parapet works
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,717
Location
North
I need to call that out. The cost of Shotts was just over £2m per single track km.
For Windermere, at £35m, it comes out at just over £2m per single track km.
That still only makes it £20m and could be less if the branch was closed for the duration until work is completed a la Blackpool.

Sorry just realised it is track km not miles. That is expensive and kills that argument.
 

Grumpy

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2010
Messages
1,067
I need to call that out. The cost of Shotts was just over £2m per single track km.
For Windermere, at £35m, it comes out at just over £2m per single track km.
Fair comment. I checked the source I used, which was Figure 8 on page 22 of the RIA cost challenge report. However on re-reading this I realise I missed the note to the effect that the figures they used excluded some significant elements such as route clearance and S&T work, which no doubt are in the £2m
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,176
Fair comment. I checked the source I used, which was Figure 8 on page 22 of the RIA cost challenge report. However on re-reading this I realise I missed the note to the effect that the figures they used excluded some significant elements such as route clearance and S&T work, which no doubt are in the £2m

For Shotts, there was minimal S&T work in the project cost, as that was almost entirely picked up by Motherwell resignalling.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,176
But did include bridge lifting, platform lengthening and a degree of trackwork?

No track to speak of, but I gather it did include quite a few bridges, many other clearance issues, some platforms, a station rebuild or two (including Briech!) and a lot of fencing. Having said all that, it was all rather straightforward compared to most electrification projects - pretty much a straight up and down railway and no feeder station to build - so I suspect it is at the cheaper end of the scale.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,390
No track to speak of, but I gather it did include quite a few bridges, many other clearance issues, some platforms, a station rebuild or two (including Briech!) and a lot of fencing. Having said all that, it was all rather straightforward compared to most electrification projects - pretty much a straight up and down railway and no feeder station to build - so I suspect it is at the cheaper end of the scale.
Yep, not a good scheme to use for bench-marking at high level just crudely going on total cost / stkm as it was an easy scheme. Good for benchmarking use at a granular level though.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,933
I guess a Paisley Canal style electrification scheme is still out of the question?
 

mcmad

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2015
Messages
979
It was done on the cheap with clearances cut to the bone. Seemed like a good idea at the time but time has shown there were a lot of things cut too far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top