Electrification Teams -speculation

[GRALISTAIR]

Electrification Teams
OK I admit this is speculative and due to my lack of patience. Mods feel free to merge/delete etc.
I know the Electrification RUS update will probably come out in the next 6 months then it will be followed by the HLOS early 2017. However, I think many have realized that you need CPs but many schemes will overlap CPs. I am not trying to be a crayonista BTW. One suggestion by BR in their latter days was that 4 teams were needed for electrification. It can of course be argued we already have that
1. Scotland
2. Midlands-Bromsgrove etc
3. North
4. GWML
It seems to me (always subject to money and budgets of course) that this is fairly close to ideal. So I suggest what is needed going forward after the RUS is released is 4 electrification teams suitably staffed “knowing” there is a satisfying career ahead of them – not just short term thinking. My suggestion for the 4 teams is thus as follows: Or should it be 5?
1. Scotland – rolling programme – pretty much taken care of until 2040 – up Stirling, then Perth, Dundee, Fife Circle, Tay Bridge, Forth Bridge, Highland Main Line, Aberdeen plus infills etc.

2. Midlands-Bromsgrove etc – carry on south to Bristol – carry on North to Derby, Birmingham- Leicester, etc – plenty of work until 2040.


3. North -complete all current work and approved including TP North – then start with the recommendations of the all-party committee on priorities for North including Calder Valley etc – plenty of work until 2040. http://www.railnorth.org/electrification/

4. GWML -+ Thames Valley Branches + Swansea + Welsh Valleys + work south to Exeter – plenty of work until 2040

5. All other stuff including some love for freight – they were called type B gaps in the 2009 Electrification RUS. North Downs, DC-AC Conversion etc – plenty of work until 2040.

Am I talking out of my you know where or does this make sense?

 

[Harbornite]

Don't forget the MML.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

DC-AC conversion of the lines out of Waterloo at some point in the future be one team initially with extra teams needed as a route branches away?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If the electrification programme was regionalised, then what you say would make a lot of sense.
But I think it is being centrally run at the moment, and with a mix of industry and political direction.
There are 5 projects on the go actually, GOBLIN (quite a big project, if quite short) is the 5th.

Network Rail let regional framework contracts for electrification (after letting individual project contracts for GW and NW).
But I don't see much evidence of these contracts working, and it's all up in the air with cost overruns and delays anyway.
It seems to be an "all hands to the pump" setup at the moment.

It's easy to see the MML team (when it gets going again on the ground) carrying on up to Leeds and across to Birmingham.
The GWML team can just keep going west/north.
The NW team, if it ever gets up a head of steam, can do TP.
Scotland has its own programme which seems well mapped out for CP6.
It's harder to map out what the Midlands team will do (both its current projects are small), or the "London" team - although there's the awkward bits around Acton Wells to do.
Devolution will also have an effect. Every region will want its protected budget and priority (Welsh Valleys etc).

And what will Balfour Beatty do after they finish Crossrail?
Despite irritation in the north west, they seem to be delivering a successful project there, with none of the HOPS issues of the main GW project.

HS2 is another factor. It will suck up key engineering resources for a couple of decades when it gets going.
I'm not expecting much from the next electrification RUS.
Anything specific (eg route priorities) that NR says is likely to be overtaken by economic and political events (eg "Northern Powerhouse" and the others).
The last one was also spectacularly wrong on costs.
But an update on electrification technology would be useful.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is it possible that the electric spine and DC-AC conversion could end up being bumped a couple of CPs further along if HS2 takes up too many electrification teams?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Is it possible that the electric spine and DC-AC conversion could end up being bumped a couple of CPs further along if HS2 takes up too many electrification teams?

HS2 won't electrify the route in the same way as electrification works on the current routes - if it's done the same way as the LGV Sud Atlantique route, the piling and masts will be up, possibly with SPS fitted, before the sleepers and track go down.

The only thing which is done using rail vehicles is the running of the contact and catenary wires, everything else is done using full size, completely conventional piling rigs which can push on and get dozens (maybe hundreds) of piles done every day.

 

[coppercapped]

Electrification Teams
OK I admit this is speculative and due to my lack of patience. Mods feel free to merge/delete etc.
I know the Electrification RUS update will probably come out in the next 6 months then it will be followed by the HLOS early 2017. However, I think many have realized that you need CPs but many schemes will overlap CPs. I am not trying to be a crayonista BTW.

<SNIPPED good stuff to save space>

Am I talking out of my you know where or does this make sense?

These issues have already been recognised - and the ramifications go wider than simply electrification to cover ALL enhancement projects which overlap one or more Control Periods. The Shaw Report of this last March has the following to say (R5:15):

The report team also advocates re-aligning rail investment decisions with standard public sector timetables, and moving away from fixed five year spending periods which are often unsuitable for rail enhancement projects. Meeting these aims will mean fully separating enhancements planning from the settlement process for operations, maintenance and renewals (OMR) – the DfT has already indicated its intentions in this space, in response to the Bowe Review.

The Shaw Report is worth reading. At the current state of play it looks as if (a) Network Rail will be set up on a route basis by the end of this Control Period so it operates on a more local basis and (b) the Control Periods will cover ONLY Operations, Maintenance and Renewal and (c) enhancement will be separately managed rather like the rebuild of Reading station and its approaches which was on time, on budget and caused very little disruption.

This means the electrification teams would then operate in a manner more responsive to local needs and it could be that if an HLOS is published next year it may not follow the usual format. After all, the Shaw report (R5:12) states:

The Shaw Report has recommended empowering routes to operate, maintain and renew the railway in a way which reflects and responds to the needs and priorities of customers, passengers and freight shippers. This same principle is also applied to the planning, funding and delivery of rail enhancement projects. To continue to build on work begun by Colette Bowe and the DfT in the new world of infrastructure management described in this report, customers and end users should be far more involved in planning and delivering enhancements in the future.

This clearly is intended to reduce the significance of central diktats, aka HLOS!

 

[Lurpi]

One small problem with this idea is of course that electrification is contracted out on a per project/programme basis. Until NR decides to take electrification or indeed enhancements in general in-house, I don't see how anyone can ensure that any kind of standing army is maintained.

That's assuming the Treasury would ever allow NR to scrap the use of competitive tendering for enhancement projects, which I severely doubt. It's not like NR's reputation for cost control is high at the moment, and before someone pipes up and says "yes but this would allow them to get a firmer grip on costs etc etc", it's not me you have to convince, it's the Treasury. That would be the same Treasury which thought the London Underground public-private partnership was a good idea because anything was better than letting TfL spend public money directly on projects.

A simpler way of ensuring that the electrification supply chain is maintained is to do what the infrastructure industry constantly cries out for from government: have a clear pipeline of projects, communicate it properly, do them steadily, not too many at a time, not too few, do them when you say you'll do them, make sure the funding is there to do them, and keep the pipeline up to date.

 

[clc]

A simpler way of ensuring that the electrification supply chain is maintained is to do what the infrastructure industry constantly cries out for from government: have a clear pipeline of projects, communicate it properly, do them steadily, not too many at a time, not too few, do them when you say you'll do them, make sure the funding is there to do them, and keep the pipeline up to date.

I'm a layman but I get the impression this is already happening in Scotland.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm a layman but I get the impression this is already happening in Scotland.

Yes, but their rule is "one line at a time", and the SG has complete control over priorities and funding.
The clash in Scotland is between various capital projects.
Electrification was delayed/descoped more than once, apparently because of spend on roads (new Forth Bridge, A9 dualling etc).
The Borders Railway project also had an impact, and there is considerable overspend, though not of GW proportions.

No government is going to give Network Rail carte blanche to do what it wants, at its pace, no questions asked.
There are budgets to meet, national priorities to be set, and those darned MPs from all over the country kept satisfied.

A reorganisation of NR is coming, but I'm not sure it will have much impact on the CP6/HLOS planning cycle (a legal requirement), which has already started.
This means a 5-year plan for 2019-24 will be confirmed over the next 18 months, including electrification.
The last one had development of the "electric spine" as a prominent feature, but is now barely mentioned in despatches.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Which commuter routes out of any London terminal station that aren't currently being electrified or are already electrified would see the most benefit from electrification (assuming AC)?

 

[ianhr]

What about the impact of Brexit on all this?

If there is an economic downturn public spending will be cut. Government borrowing is now more expensive because of the loss of AAA rating.

How many components have to be imported? These are presumably now 10% more expensive because of a weaker pound.

 

[YorkshireBear]

What about the impact of Brexit on all this?

If there is an economic downturn public spending will be cut. Government borrowing is now more expensive because of the loss of AAA rating.

How many components have to be imported? These are presumably now 10% more expensive because of a weaker pound.

Last recession loads of railway upgrades were authorised....

 

[Philip Phlopp]

What about the impact of Brexit on all this?

If there is an economic downturn public spending will be cut. Government borrowing is now more expensive because of the loss of AAA rating.

How many components have to be imported? These are presumably now 10% more expensive because of a weaker pound.

The AAA rating went years ago with all but one of the ratings agencies.

Government borrowing is cheaper than before. Gilt yields are around -1.5%, investors are effectively paying the UK Government money for the privilege of lending the UK Government money.

Imported components form a tiny percentage of the overall cost, the bulk of the cost is man power and Schedule 4 payments, all GBP costs.

 

[swt_passenger]

Which commuter routes out of any London terminal station that aren't currently being electrified or are already electrified would see the most benefit from electrification (assuming AC)?

That's a short list. Marylebone? Depends how you define commuter routes in terms of distance. As you get people commuting further and further it has to include the MML, but that is wired to Bedford.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Which commuter routes out of any London terminal station that aren't currently being electrified or are already electrified would see the most benefit from electrification (assuming AC)?

Marylebone with electrification of the Chiltern Main Line is the obvious route to focus on at some point, given Banbury to Leamington Spa forms part of the Electric Spine project.

 

[Altnabreac]

Yes, but their rule is "one line at a time", and the SG has complete control over priorities and funding.
The clash in Scotland is between various capital projects.
Electrification was delayed/descoped more than once, apparently because of spend on roads (new Forth Bridge, A9 dualling etc).
The Borders Railway project also had an impact, and there is considerable overspend, though not of GW proportions.

No government is going to give Network Rail carte blanche to do what it wants, at its pace, no questions asked.
There are budgets to meet, national priorities to be set, and those darned MPs from all over the country kept satisfied.

A reorganisation of NR is coming, but I'm not sure it will have much impact on the CP6/HLOS planning cycle (a legal requirement), which has already started.
This means a 5-year plan for 2019-24 will be confirmed over the next 18 months, including electrification.
The last one had development of the "electric spine" as a prominent feature, but is now barely mentioned in despatches.

Not entirely one line at a time. There are 2 electrification schemes under way in Scotland being managed separately.

The EGIP electrification and it's follow up on the Dunblane and Alloa lines is one distinct project.

Shotts line electrification is being managed separately. Shotts line is quite a good example with the Structures clearance being done well in advance (3-4 years) of the proposed electrification date and the actual wiring and piling work may be more integrated with the main EGIP / rolling electrification programme in future.

I think there is definite value in producing a list of lines / ranked priorities for the next 20 years and then having the structures teams just work their way along these providing clearance in advance of the actual wiring.

 

[Harbornite]

Marylebone with electrification of the Chiltern Main Line is the obvious route to focus on at some point, given Banbury to Leamington Spa forms part of the Electric Spine project.

It would be worth extending the wires north of Leamington to Moor Street or Snow Hill (if not Kidderminster) so the Chiltern mainline services to Brum and some LM local services can go electric. However, I understand that this is long term due to the fact that the 172s are quite new.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I think there is definite value in producing a list of lines / ranked priorities for the next 20 years and then having the structures teams just work their way along these providing clearance in advance of the actual wiring.

The new bridges we're fitting for structure clearance work all benefit from proper parapet restraint systems, some benefit from being single carriageway bridges which remove traffic control over a single file bridge, and others benefit from weight restrictions being removed, or from having footpaths for the first time.

The parapets meeting current restraint standards improve safety enormously for the railway below, whilst removing traffic control, adding pavements, lighting and lifting weight restrictions can be a massive benefit to local communities. It doesn't really matter if the clearance is five or ten years before electrification occurs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would be worth extending the wires north of Leamington to Moor Street or Snow Hill (if not Kidderminster) so the Chiltern mainline services to Brum and some LM local services can go electric. However, I understand that this is long term due to the fact that the 172s are quite new.

Chiltern Main Line electrification on its own would essentially be Marylebone to Banbury/Bicester Village and maybe Leamington Spa to Birmingham Moor Street and could still work out that way, although Birmingham to Leamington Spa could just as easily be a Birmingham extension/infill project.

Banbury to Leamington Spa electrification is pencilled in as Electric Spine, and Bicester Village to Oxford electrification being an East West Rail project.

The reality is Electric Spine for Banbury to Leamington Spa could be rolled up into Chiltern Main Line electrification in much the same way Basingstoke to Reading has been rolled up into GWep, if Chiltern Main Line is to be one project for the full length of the route.

 

[Harbornite]

Chiltern Main Line electrification on its own would essentially be Marylebone to Banbury/Bicester Village and maybe Leamington Spa to Birmingham Moor Street and could still work out that way, although Birmingham to Leamington Spa could just as easily be a Birmingham extension/infill project.

Banbury to Leamington Spa electrification is pencilled in as Electric Spine, and Bicester Village to Oxford electrification being an East West Rail project.

The reality is Electric Spine for Banbury to Leamington Spa could be rolled up into Chiltern Main Line electrification in much the same way Basingstoke to Reading has been rolled up into GWep, if Chiltern Main Line is to be one project for the full length of the route.

It makes sense to focus on these, seeing as they are more strategically important and that there's less demand for new stock on the Snow Hill commuter services.

In theory, electrifying to Snow Hill allows all Chiltern services to go electric, but you would still need DMUs for all London Midland and Chiltern services to Kidderminster, Worcester and Stratford. Therefore, it should be the long term aim to electrify the North Warks line and Snow Hill to Worcester, the latter route would require a major resignalling but could tie in with electrification from Bromsgrove, which means that you could have a diversionary route for electric stock (not really necessary for Brum- Bristol if bi modes are ordered). However, this doesn't benefit Hereford services which would remain diesel, depending on how strong the case is for wiring that route.

Either way, it's all very interesting and as part of the electrification from Marylebone to Snow Hill, it would be good if the disused island platforms at Solihull and Olton were reopened, but this would obviously depend on traffic levels.

 

[clc]

I think there is definite value in producing a list of lines / ranked priorities for the next 20 years and then having the structures teams just work their way along these providing clearance in advance of the actual wiring.

Am I right in thinking that TS is developing an electrification strategy which will be announced later this year?

 

[Altnabreac]

The new bridges we're fitting for structure clearance work all benefit from proper parapet restraint systems, some benefit from being single carriageway bridges which remove traffic control over a single file bridge, and others benefit from weight restrictions being removed, or from having footpaths for the first time.

The parapets meeting current restraint standards improve safety enormously for the railway below, whilst removing traffic control, adding pavements, lighting and lifting weight restrictions can be a massive benefit to local communities. It doesn't really matter if the clearance is five or ten years before electrification occurs.

Agreed. You've mentioned it before but for anyone who missed it a good case study example of this sort of improvement is Benhar Road in Shotts:
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/benhar-bridge-demolition-back-on-track
http://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=32620

Before

After:

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Am I right in thinking that TS is developing an electrification strategy which will be announced later this year?

As I understand it they will set out their views on priority ordering within CP6/CP7 as a response to the Scotland Route Study findings from NR. Whether that is anything quite as grand as a "Strategy" is another matter.

The overarching strategy is still that set out in the Strategic Transport Projects Review with Phases 1-2 nearly complete and Phases 3-5 to be carried out in future.

With Dunblane - Dundee (Phase 4) now favoured by NR above Fife circle (Phase 3) I suppose TS will need to consult a little on this potential re-ordering.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Which commuter routes out of any London terminal station that aren't currently being electrified or are already electrified would see the most benefit from electrification (assuming AC)?

Marylebone with electrification of the Chiltern Main Line is the obvious route to focus on at some point, given Banbury to Leamington Spa forms part of the Electric Spine project.

That's a short list. Marylebone? Depends how you define commuter routes in terms of distance. As you get people commuting further and further it has to include the MML, but that is wired to Bedford.

You beat me to it - London Marylebone is the last one - I would think it was not exactly straight forward either. Definitely a solid commuter route and would release quite a few DMU diagrams.

 

[clc]

As I understand it they will set out their views on priority ordering within CP6/CP7 as a response to the Scotland Route Study findings from NR. Whether that is anything quite as grand as a "Strategy" is another matter.

The overarching strategy is still that set out in the Strategic Transport Projects Review with Phases 1-2 nearly complete and Phases 3-5 to be carried out in future.

With Dunblane - Dundee (Phase 4) now favoured by NR above Fife circle (Phase 3) I suppose TS will need to consult a little on this potential re-ordering.

I found the source:

http://www.parliament.scot/parliame...&ReferenceNumbers=S4W-26874&ResultsPerPage=10

It states plans for Edinburgh - Aberdeen will be included in the announcement so it must be looking quite far ahead.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It's (like everything electrification related) really rather complicated.

The route through Fife is really complicated thanks to the two bridges (both Grade A listed, one a World Heritage site, both have to withstand quite significant wind loadings) and the series of tunnels (one of which could do with being rebuilt, all of which need slab tracked, new drainage etc).

There's also the signalling to contend with through Fife too, the electrification round Edinburgh Airport needs a bit of thought (though not quite as much as being planned for) and there's the Levenmouth re-opening, Rosyth and the route towards Longannet to consider.

The plan is that over CP6-CP9, the route will be brought up to a state where it can be electrified, all clearance and preparatory works completed.

It makes Dunblane to Perth and onto Dundee the easy win, and leaves both Perth to Inverness and Dundee to Aberdeen as follow on options (which they are) whilst Fife 'benefits' from the disruption needed for electrification.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It's (like everything electrification related) really rather complicated.

It makes Dunblane to Perth and onto Dundee the easy win, and leaves both Perth to Inverness and Dundee to Aberdeen as follow on options (which they are) whilst Fife 'benefits' from the disruption needed for electrification.

And I am sure you have said in another thread the logical place for the National Grid feed point would be Ladybank Junction thereabouts.

 

[QueensCurve]

Don't forget the MML.

Assuming MML survives Brexit cutbacks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Imported components form a tiny percentage of the overall cost, the bulk of the cost is man power and Schedule 4 payments, all GBP costs.

What about Cariff Valleys/Swansea electrification which is EU grant-aided?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Assuming MML survives Brexit cutbacks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What about Cariff Valleys/Swansea electrification which is EU grant-aided?

What Brexit cutbacks would those be ?

EU grant funding doesn't cease until we leave the EU, which at this rate will be never.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I was doing quite a bit of reading this weekend as my wife is back in the UK. One fairly recent document said there was approximately 4000 miles of un-electrified railway. It said 50 miles had been electrified 2010-2015 (still trying to verify where they got this number from). So I like round numbers. That is 10 miles per year so 4000/10 would take 400 years. I am obviously grossly over simplifying.

Put another way, I think 100 route miles per year is not unreasonable it terms of cost spread, resources etc. Even that means 4000/100 = 40 years for the railway to get electrified not counting renewals an AC-DC conversion. That is a long time.

Of course with all that is currently in progress, the 10 miles per year should very quickly improve. I hope. I know I need to be patient.

Source SNO5907 PDF 2dn July 2015 House of Commons Library Louise Butcher

"Summary
This briefing paper explains the rail electrification schemes planned by the Labour, Coalition and Conservative governments and where things currently stand with each one.
Less than half of the British rail network is electrified. Since 1997 roughly 60 miles of existing track have been electrified – 50 of them since 2010.
Towards the end of its time in office in 2009, Labour announced a large scale electrification programme for the railways, including the Great Western Main Line and various schemes in the North West. The Coalition took up these proposals after 2010 (with some modification) and expanded them to include the Midland Main Line and other schemes.
Network Rail is responsible for delivering these schemes, which are funded as part of its multi-year quinquennial settlement. Most of these schemes were due to progress in Control Period 5 (CP5) between 2014 and 2019. However, in June 2015 the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Midland Main Line and TransPennine electrification schemes would be ‘paused’. He insisted that NR’s focus should be on delivering the Great Western upgrade to time and on budget.
Information on other rail-related issues and infrastructure schemes, such as HS2, Crossrail and Thameslink can be found on the Railways Topical Page of the Parliament website. "

 

[HowardGWR]

Gralistair makes cogent points. I often find, when I follow up a report about a distant railway in the EU, that the rural single line involved is OLE equipped, never mind the main lines.

I wonder when the deficit originated. My money is on the mid fifties.