MML Electrification: progress updates

[Domh245]

Electrification may be the environmentally favoured way forward but boy, does it cause problems and additional costs, every single time the wires come down through weather or technical reasons these dreadful and evil diesels are going to have to come to the rescue if a service is to be provided

Which is why it is good to be installing 'over-engineered' OHLE such as the Series 1 kit going in on the GWML.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Which is why it is good to be installing 'over-engineered' OHLE such as the Series 1 kit going in on the GWML.

That's my line.

If the OLE is of a good design and is correctly maintained, it won't be falling down due to the weather.

Technical reasons for failure can be (and have been) engineered out of the current designs and they bring reliability up to levels well beyond that of any previous designs. The new UK Series 1 and the Series 2 'modernised' equipment provide such reliability that on an annualised delay basis, significantly more delay minutes will be accrued by diesel stock failing solely due to diesel traction components that will be accrued by electric stock being unable to operate due to OLE failures.

NR's decision that OLE should have mechanically independent registration will normally result in dewirements closing only one line for any length of time, with only safety checks needed before some or all adjacent lines can be re-opened (not just to diesel traction). Bi-directional capability also means that the adjacent lines can be used in either direction for services, allowing any sections with a dewirement to be bypassed, without having to resort to diesel traction.

Bi-di working, even over capacity restricted sections of track, is still significantly quicker than coupling and uncoupling a diesel locomotive to drag stock through a dewired section, and if necessary, running the diesel locomotive back light engine to repeat the process.

You will notice, looking at Switzerland, they don't have a fleet of diesel locomotives on stand-by to do endless drags, they're perfectly capable of stopping their OLE falling down, and re-routing electric traction when a rare dewirement occurs. Don't confuse our own mediocrity as being the norm, it isn't.

 

[Class 170101]

NR's decision that OLE should have mechanically independent registration will normally result in dewirements closing only one line for any length of time, with only safety checks needed before some or all adjacent lines can be re-opened (not just to diesel traction). Bi-directional capability also means that the adjacent lines can be used in either direction for services, allowing any sections with a dewirement to be bypassed, without having to resort to diesel traction.

What are the clearances like on the MML though if one of the centre lines on the four track was lost can it still be repaired with electric trains running on both sides or does it require adjacent lines to be isolated? The same on a two track section would the adjacent line need to be isolated? Issues exist this on the GEML (hence coasting with power restored in event of a stranded train) or the ECML (coasting with Class 67s for rescue).

Bi-di working, even over capacity restricted sections of track, is still significantly quicker than coupling and uncoupling a diesel locomotive to drag stock through a dewired section, and if necessary, running the diesel locomotive back light engine to repeat the process.

If you mean signalled Bi-Directional working I agree with you subject to the comments about OLE noted above and working electrically past a site of work. If you refer to Single Line Working I feel that depends where you are. In my experience some regions of NR are better at it and more prepared for it than others. (East Coast better than Anglia)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And here lies the age old problem with electrification, i.e. how many / which diversionary routes do you electrify and at what cost in terms of extra work if you do electrify or extra disruption if you don't.

In the West Midlands the New Street - Stafford route is an of example both scenarios in that if the line is blocked between New Street and Bushbury Junction trains (including electric) can be diverted via the Grand Junction route, subject to crew route knowledge. However, if the problem is between Bushbury Junction and Stafford electric trains cannot be diverted as there are no wires via either Hendesford or Shrewsbury.

Don't forget the Wolverhampton to Stafford problem will go away soon as the Chase Line is being wired between Walsall and Rugeley Trent Valley. Arguably you could reverse at New Street, go back to Rugby and reverse onto via the Trent Valley from there.

So the question is would it be worthwhile electrifying the route via Oakham?

I would say yes but arguably you would wire Corby / Peterborough to New Street via Oakham and Nuneaton.

A question for anyone OLE minded amongst us could you feed these routes from existing feeds on the ECML, WCML and when wired the MML or would these likely need new feeder stations? I ask as I believe these are the most expensive bits to OLE installation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Electrification may be the environmentally favoured way forward but boy, does it cause problems and additional costs, every single time the wires come down through weather or technical reasons these dreadful and evil diesels are going to have to come to the rescue if a service is to be provided

Bi-mode Meridians or new Bi-mode trains?

 

[richieb1971]

If you electrify the Oakham route you might as well electrify all the way to the ECML as well. Then if you do that you might as well electrify Leicester to Nuneaton.. and if you do that you might as well not stop electrifying until the whole country is done lol. Then you find out nobody wants diesel power anymore and everyone wants AC power, but all the freight AC power has been seconded to Europe lmao.

On a serious note, there should be nowhere left between London/Birmingham, London/Leicester that is not electrified by 2020. At least the main trunk routes are then done.

I believe in one project at a time. Get the GWR out of the way with all the manpower you got, then move them up to the MML. I am not sure if all that can be done by 2020. But that can't be more than 1 mile a week.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

What are the clearances like on the MML though if one of the centre lines on the four track was lost can it still be repaired with electric trains running on both sides or does it require adjacent lines to be isolated? The same on a two track section would the adjacent line need to be isolated? Issues exist this on the GEML (hence coasting with power restored in event of a stranded train) or the ECML (coasting with Class 67s for rescue).

If you mean signalled Bi-Directional working I agree with you subject to the comments about OLE noted above and working electrically past a site of work. If you refer to Single Line Working I feel that depends where you are. In my experience some regions of NR are better at it and more prepared for it than others. (East Coast better than Anglia)

Series 1 kit is designed for precisely this eventuality - it has a much smaller electrically energised footprint - the bits that are live are kept far closer to the catenary than previous designs. The other designs aren't brilliant in this respect, with far too much energised to easily safely work alongside. How it works in practice will of course remain to be seen.

SLW is single line working and that's something various people will need to get to grips with when their routes are electrified, I'm more interested at this point in signalled bi-di working, which makes use of the mechnically independent registration of the OLE to continue to provide an electric route during a dewirement.

 

[ExRes]

Bi-mode Meridians or new Bi-mode trains?

That's got to be the sensible way forward

 

[edwin_m]

That's got to be the sensible way forward

The "donkey engine" as fitted to electric SETs may be worthwhile, but I can't see any merit in bi-modes for MML because virtually nothing runs beyond the limits of proposed electrification and those that do are essentially stock positioning. Basing the main fleet in the Derby area and the Corby units in the London area would eliminate all these.

 

[Class 170101]

Off wire areas would include Corby to Leicester via Manton Jn, Derby to Trent Jn via Stenson Jn, Nottingham to Sheffield via Langley Mill and Beighton Jn and Nottingham to Lincoln. (Possibly also Sheffield to Scarbrough via various routes north of Sheffield)

All currently see service by EMT how would these be served or would route knowledge be withdrawn?

 

[edwin_m]

Off wire areas would include Corby to Leicester via Manton Jn, Derby to Trent Jn via Stenson Jn, Nottingham to Sheffield via Langley Mill and Beighton Jn and Nottingham to Lincoln. (Possibly also Sheffield to Scarbrough via various routes north of Sheffield)

All currently see service by EMT how would these be served or would route knowledge be withdrawn?

I doubt any of them would be served by London trains.

Corby to Leicester: stock positioning, no longer necessary with the EMU fleet based at the south end of the route, and by the numbers reported above not justifiable to run a special diesel service. Also a diversion, see below.

Nottingham to Sheffield and on to Leeds: stock positioning, no longer necessary with the long-distance electric fleet based in the Derby area. Some DMUs would have a longer working day to fill the gaps left by the HSTs and maintain service levels in the early morning and late evening when Liverpool-Norwich doesn't run in the respective directions.

Nottingham to Lincoln: With one working each way per day, and Lincoln-London faster via the ECML, it's unlikely to be worth maintaining a micro-fleet of high speed diesels or bi-modes just for this service. I would hope in a future timetable the Lincoln trains would connect with Nottingham-London trains in both directions. It may even be better to run the Lincoln line as an extension of XC from Birmingham/Cardiff with EMU shuttles between Nottingham and Leicester/Derby/Matlock.

The others are basically diversionary routes and I really doubt it would be worth the extra cost of bi-modes just for diversions, particularly as these should reduce once electrification works are done. There are other options such starting London trains from Chesterfield with XC and Liverpool-Norwich providing the link to Sheffield, or borrowing some of the regional DMU fleet (or even spot hiring LHCS) to provide connecting services.

 

[Townsend Hook]

Off wire areas would include Corby to Leicester via Manton Jn, Derby to Trent Jn via Stenson Jn, Nottingham to Sheffield via Langley Mill and Beighton Jn and Nottingham to Lincoln. (Possibly also Sheffield to Scarbrough via various routes north of Sheffield)

All currently see service by EMT how would these be served or would route knowledge be withdrawn?

Most of these would surely be covered by the 'local' fleet which will remain diesel-powered.

 

[ExRes]

Most of these would surely be covered by the 'local' fleet which will remain diesel-powered.

Most yes, but most certainly not London services that require diversion via Manton

 

[snowball]

Roger Ford's email preview has come out for his column in the next Modern Railways. I have posted a long quote in the TP Electrification thread, also relevant to this thread:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2334453#post2334453

It should be possible to join his mailing list by clicking a button on his website

http://www.alycidon.com

However I can't get through to it today.

 

[richieb1971]

Took these on the 21.10.15.

Pictures are of Sharnbrook Viaduct just a few miles north of Bedford. No network rail guys around but quite a few 3rd party contractors.

I would assume the bridge needs a repair or is due an upgrade due to the imminent arrival of OLE.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Took these on the 21.10.15.

Pictures are of Sharnbrook Viaduct just a few miles north of Bedford. No network rail guys around but quite a few 3rd party contractors.

I would assume the bridge needs a repair or is due an upgrade due to the imminent arrival of OLE.

Does the installation of OLE on any given bridge make much difference to the weight load of the bridge?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Does the installation of OLE on any given bridge make much difference to the weight load of the bridge?

It can do, in a complicated sort of way, but it's a case by case issue, and in terms of just weight, it's a fairly negligible issue. It's not to be ignored, but it would adjust the available axle loading by a few kg rather than tonnes.

The much larger issue is lateral wind deflection loads transferring into the structure of the bridge, which is why a relatively simple mast will be installed using a very large, heavy complicated bracket, and why tubular masts and portals, of the type fitted on the Sankey Viaduct are popular.

 

[38Cto15E]

I travelled on a 5 coach Meridian yesterday from St Pancras to Leicester in 62 minutes, surely electrification will not improve times for this journey a great deal?

Just a personal thought, could more time be saved at stations, especially with Meridians. The Train Manager/Guard has to be given the right away, then he/she closes the doors, then a confirmation before closing the final door.
With say 5/6 station stops if savings could be made this could save 5 minutes.

 

[glbotu]

I travelled on a 5 coach Meridian yesterday from St Pancras to Leicester in 62 minutes, surely electrification will not improve times for this journey a great deal?

Just a personal thought, could more time be saved at stations, especially with Meridians. The Train Manager/Guard has to be given the right away, then he/she closes the doors, then a confirmation before closing the final door.
With say 5/6 station stops if savings could be made this could save 5 minutes.

MML Electrification isn't really about journey times. The trains already run most of the way at 125mph. It's about capacity and slightly about acceleration (as Electric trains tend to accelerate better than Diesel, because they don't have all that pesky fuel on board) and about environmental impact and the fact it's getting harder and harder to get EU emissions compliant DMUs built. The HSTs, which currently provide an non-trivial portion of capacity aren't getting any younger and without significant refurbishment won't be PRM-TSI compliant in a few years. Scotrail are taking the hit on making them compliant, to offer an enhanced intercity service, but they're planning on shortening the HSTs anyway. The MML doesn't really want the HSTs anymore as they have terrible acceleration compared to Meridians. However as I say, no-one wants to take the hit on a new build of DMUs unless they have to, the HSTs need replacing anyway and there's all sorts of other benefits to electrification, so the MML is getting wired.

 

[edwin_m]

Just a personal thought, could more time be saved at stations, especially with Meridians. The Train Manager/Guard has to be given the right away, then he/she closes the doors, then a confirmation before closing the final door.
With say 5/6 station stops if savings could be made this could save 5 minutes.

This is indeed a significant factor although probably not as much as 1min per stop with Meridians. There is also the issue with HSTs that if passengers doesn't close their doors a member of staff may have to go to the far end of the train to do so.

There is a debate to be had (which has probably been mentioned here many times already) about whether some or all of the electric trains should be outer-suburban type EMUs which allow much quicker boarding and alighting.

 

[AM9]

Which is why it is good to be installing 'over-engineered' OHLE such as the Series 1 kit going in on the GWML.

All this talk of 'over engineered' is a bit misleading. 'Over Engineering' implies designing more than is necessary to meet the specification, i.e. 'Belts and Braces'. From what Philip Phlopp has said here, the specification includes the following new requirements:

the design is copmpatible with continuous service under higher speeds and multiple pantograph situations
the for impact of a failure to be as far as possibly limited to a single track's catenary/contact wire
in connection with that it also specifies a minimum amount of live components to make maintenance more efficient under contemporary health and safety standards
it should use a minimum number of unique parts that can be configured to meet the majority of installation needs
it shall have be designed for a long service life with low programmed maintenance requirements

None of that requires or has resulting in 'over engineering'. The MKIIIb system used on fast lines like the ECML and the southern MML is just not fit for purpose. It can't supply multi-pantograph trains at high speeds, it behaves badly in high winds and its (frequent) single-mode failures generally result in complete line closure for repairs. If we were staring from here, the ECML would be equipped with series 1 or equivalent kit, just as the GWML is, whether NIMBYs complained about their view or not.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

All this talk of 'over engineered' is a bit misleading. 'Over Engineering' implies designing more than is necessary to meet the specification, i.e. 'Belts and Braces'. From what Philip Phlopp has said here, the specification includes the following new requirements:

the design is copmpatible with continuous service under higher speeds and multiple pantograph situations
the for impact of a failure to be as far as possibly limited to a single track's catenary/contact wire
in connection with that it also specifies a minimum amount of live components to make maintenance more efficient under contemporary health and safety standards
it should use a minimum number of unique parts that can be configured to meet the majority of installation needs
it shall have be designed for a long service life with low programmed maintenance requirements

None of that requires or has resulting in 'over engineering'. The MKIIIb system used on fast lines like the ECML and the southern MML is just not fit for purpose. It can't supply multi-pantograph trains at high speeds, it behaves badly in high winds and its (frequent) single-mode failures generally result in complete line closure for repairs. If we were staring from here, the ECML would be equipped with series 1 or equivalent kit, just as the GWML is, whether NIMBYs complained about their view or not.

Absolutely.

The element of over engineering is preparing for 140mph running with multiple pantographs - the current line speeds and operating arrangements don't actually need that, but if we were to use a system that only suits the current methods of operation, it would provide very limited options for future growth and changing methods of operation.

 

[QueensCurve]

NR's decision that OLE should have mechanically independent registration will normally result in dewirements closing only one line for any length of time, with only safety checks needed before some or all adjacent lines can be re-opened (not just to diesel traction). Bi-directional capability also means that the adjacent lines can be used in either direction for services, allowing any sections with a dewirement to be bypassed, without having to resort to diesel traction.

Bi-di working, even over capacity restricted sections of track, is still significantly quicker than coupling and uncoupling a diesel locomotive to drag stock through a dewired section, and if necessary, running the diesel locomotive back light engine to repeat the process.

You will notice, looking at Switzerland, they don't have a fleet of diesel locomotives on stand-by to do endless drags, they're perfectly capable of stopping their OLE falling down, and re-routing electric traction when a rare dewirement occurs. Don't confuse our own mediocrity as being the norm, it isn't.

But that assumes that you do have bidirectional signalling.

In Switzerland it comes as standard, but for the greater part of the 2 track section of ECML and WCML signalling remains staunchly unidirectional.

Why is it that the British Railway is so resistant to "BiDi"?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

MML Electrification isn't really about journey times. The trains already run most of the way at 125mph. It's about capacity and slightly about acceleration (as Electric trains tend to accelerate better than Diesel, because they don't have all that pesky fuel on board) and about environmental impact and the fact it's getting harder and harder to get EU emissions compliant DMUs built. The HSTs, which currently provide an non-trivial portion of capacity aren't getting any younger and without significant refurbishment won't be PRM-TSI compliant in a few years. Scotrail are taking the hit on making them compliant, to offer an enhanced intercity service, but they're planning on shortening the HSTs anyway. The MML doesn't really want the HSTs anymore as they have terrible acceleration compared to Meridians. However as I say, no-one wants to take the hit on a new build of DMUs unless they have to, the HSTs need replacing anyway and there's all sorts of other benefits to electrification, so the MML is getting wired.

I though it had been "paused"?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

None of that requires or has resulting in 'over engineering'. The MKIIIb system used on fast lines like the ECML and the southern MML is just not fit for purpose. It can't supply multi-pantograph trains at high speeds, it behaves badly in high winds and its (frequent) single-mode failures generally result in complete line closure for repairs. If we were staring from here, the ECML would be equipped with series 1 or equivalent kit, just as the GWML is, whether NIMBYs complained about their view or not.

Will economies in persuit of getting electrification "unpaused" result in economies and future designs that are "not fit for purpose"?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But that assumes that you do have bidirectional signalling.
In Switzerland it comes as standard, but for the greater part of the 2 track section of ECML and WCML signalling remains staunchly unidirectional.
Why is it that the British Railway is so resistant to "BiDi"?

It usually gets binned when they try to get the resignalling costs down to the number they first thought of.
Another factor seems to be the restrictive view we take of maintaining one track while running trains on the other (which is also affecting the electrification projects).
This is common on the continent, even on weekdays, but H&S here demands the whole route is closed.

The ECML has SIMBIDS in some areas, but I don't know what use it gets.
The WCML has full bi-di Rugby-Lichfield and Sandbach-Cheadle Hulme - again, I don't know how useful this is.
No bi-di on the WCML 2-track sections north of Crewe, but I'm sure it will come at the next resignalling.

The new modular signalling has a bi-di component as standard.
It's installed between Nantwich and Shrewsbury, but I think you only get 2 reversible sections in 30 miles or so.

 

[AM9]

Will economies in persuit of getting electrification "unpaused" result in economies and future designs that are "not fit for purpose"?

The pursuit of economy is something that the UK govenment perpetually gets wrong. In my experience (megabucks but not rail related), the sequence goes something like this:

government (as customer) "can you bid for supplying equipment to this specification"
industry (as potential supplier) "here is our proposal for what you asked"
government "we didn't think that it would cost that much so we want a lower price"
industry "so where can you reduce the specification or quantity requirements you have placed on us?"
government "we want you to meet the requirement within the sum that we have in our budget"
industry "if you relax the specification here and here, we could reduce the overall cost"
government discussing with end user department"we think that you only need this or we can't afford to do anything, so go away and come back when you have a solution, (on paper)"
end user department presenting back to government "we think we can make it work if everything else gets funded OK and there are no major problems"
government to industry "here is your revised contract with reduced timetable and budget. please confirm the new programme of works."​

Contract then starts....

So when the unpaused programme re-starts on TPE and MML, increased costs force the customer to say, well, we've got away with cheaper OLE before, so lets see if we can manage to enhance (bodge) the design of the system that we use on the ECML.

Of course it may not go like that but that would be a rare occurrence!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

But that assumes that you do have bidirectional signalling.

In Switzerland it comes as standard, but for the greater part of the 2 track section of ECML and WCML signalling remains staunchly unidirectional.

Most of the ECML and WCML has mechanically independent registration on the two track sections, with traditional single track cantilevers.

The interest is four track railways with two pairs of lines, where headspans find considerable use on the ECML. The design of the Series 1 OLE clearly has one eye on the future, and the roll-out of bi directional signalling, but its primary purpose is to keep as many of the other three tracks open AND available to electric traction.

If we assume a dewirement on the 'Up Fast' line, it's of no real interest to us whether the 'Down Fast' or 'Down Relief' line has bi-di signalling, we're only specifically interested in keeping the 'Up Relief' available to electric traction, so that trains planned to use the 'Up Fast' can be diverted onto the 'Up Relief' to pass the section(s) affected by the dewirement.

I understand it's going to make signallers work easier and will improve overall performance if some of the Up trains can be diverted onto the 'Down Fast' or 'Down Relief' in addition to using the 'Up Relief' especially during a peak time when traffic flow is primarily in one direction, it could be possible to path all the Down traffic at that time on one line, and use the other Down line as the second Up line, but what we are specifically interested in today is not closing all four lines initially after a dewirement and then having a some sections of the route barred to electric traction across all four lines until repairs are effected.

ERTMS roll-out brings bi-di signalling by default, which is what the GWML and ECML are getting, and if it does what we're promised it will do, it will work very well with the new OLE in times of dewirements.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why is it that the British Railway is so resistant to "BiDi"?

Because it is do bloomin' expensive. Full bi-di is approx 50% more expensive per mile than uni-di. Given that it is used only rarely, the route would need to have rather valuable traffic to justify it, such as the WCML, ECML, and St Albans commuters

However, ETCS provides bi-di much more cheaply, basically the cost of a few signs and a more complex interlocking design.

 

[The Planner]

No bi-di on the WCML 2-track sections north of Crewe, but I'm sure it will come at the next resignalling.

Don't hold your breath on that.

 

[edwin_m]

Another factor seems to be the restrictive view we take of maintaining one track while running trains on the other (which is also affecting the electrification projects).
This is common on the continent, even on weekdays, but H&S here demands the whole route is closed.

I don't know how true it is, but I read somewhere that one of the problems is the spacing between tracks in the UK being less than on the Continent, which makes it harder to work with the adjacent line open. Network Rail has recently bought a works train which is like a giant inverted shoebox and among other things is intended to allow work on the track and even the nearer part of the "six-foot" while the solid (but adjustable) wall protects them from passing trains.

The ECML has SIMBIDS in some areas, but I don't know what use it gets.
The WCML has full bi-di Rugby-Lichfield and Sandbach-Cheadle Hulme - again, I don't know how useful this is.
No bi-di on the WCML 2-track sections north of Crewe, but I'm sure it will come at the next resignalling.

Bi-directional signalling in full or simplified form has been included in all the major re-signallings of two-track main lines that I can think of since about 1985.

Interestingly the first was Leicester, one of the last major relay interlocking schemes where extra interlocking functions translated directly into extra cost, and also a scheme where the specification was cut to (and arguably beyond) the bone but the bi-di survived on the double track part of the MML. It has however been used only very rarely - for a long time there were various safety concerns. In over 25 years of fairly regular travel on it I don't recall ever being put "bang road".

Since then the advent of processor-based interlockings means that bi-di is a matter of extra signals and some data preparation - not free but less of an extra cost. So we now have SIMBIDs on the whole of the ECML from Northallerton to the Scottish border dating from the re-signalling for electrification, and on large parts of the GE main line. Plus the two-track routes mentioned above that were part of WCML upgrade schemes. Is there any bi-di on the Bournemouth main line, where much of the double track parts were re-signalled in the last decade or so?

With four-track lines, as mentioned, there will be an alternative track available during most planned or unplanned blockages so bi-di is less justifiable. In fact the Trent Valley is the only section so fitted as far as I recall, with the middle two tracks having bi-di so that any two adjacent tracks can be closed and still leave a signalled track for each direction. If "adjacent line open" can be made workable and acceptable then there may be no need for any more installations like this one.

Does ERTMS Level 2 really allow bi-di as standard? I would have thought it still needs extra "signals", albeit now virtual ones, and interlocking functionality.

 

[Bald Rick]

For conventional bidi - It's not 'just' extra signals though. It's extra cables, extra troughing route, extra power supply, extra trackside modules, more track circuits / axle counters, TPWS, AWS, AWS suppressors, and the list goes on.

There are plenty of two track main lines resignal led without bidi : West Anglia ML, NLL, North Kent main line through Medway, Arun Valley, and those are just the ones I have been involved in.

With ETCS it is just new signs, and (in some cases) a few extra balises.

 

[richieb1971]

Making better use of the 4 track system the MML has will offer advantages over other lines. If the slows north of Bedford were upgraded and better aligned (Oakley curve) you could move the bottle neck as far north as Market Harborough.. and that has its advantages.

Does anyone know what the average top speed could be on the slows north of Bedford with all the upgrades it could have? Some of the turns are quite bendy.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I though it had been "paused"?

George Osborne decided to reverse that decision after Jeremy Corbyn announced that he would renationalise the railways if he got into power and perhaps George thought he would be losing political ground to Labour.