My proposal to get rid of 3rd rail and convert routes to overhead lines

[Bletchleyite]

The 377/2 only stop to change over because the former Southern Driver Standards Manager didn’t trust his drivers to do it on the move, specifically raising and lowering the pantograph in the correct location. The MITRAC doesn’t need the train stationary to swap voltages; They are perfectly capable of doing it on the move, as their sister units do several times an hour, in the same place, on London Overground services. Occasionally an LO driver does forget to drop the pantograph, as the various marks on Westway bridge testify.

Interestingly they don't only stop, but they completely shut the train down - lights off, complete silence and everything, which sometimes alarms people who haven't used it before. The PIS then tends not to be reset so shows "Electrostar" for the rest of the journey.

I assume that too is unnecessary - if so, why is that being done?

 

[Bald Rick]

Interestingly they don't only stop, but they completely shut the train down - lights off, complete silence and everything, which sometimes alarms people who haven't used it before. The PIS then tends not to be reset so shows "Electrostar" for the rest of the journey.

I assume that too is unnecessary - if so, why is that being done?

That’s the MITRAC resetting. Can be done on the move, and is on the 378s.

 

[paul1609]

That’s the MITRAC resetting. Can be done on the move, and is on the 378s.

Understand that the only component of MITRAC on pre 377/6 that is common with the 377/6 on models is the Human Machine Interface which was kept the same to reduce driver training. Pre 377/6 think of Windows 95, limited memory, limited connectivity between units. Apparently an upgrade has been looked at but was prohibitively expensive because of the need to install amend all the interfaces. Allegedly if you change over on the move without resetting MITRAC in the earlier models stuff like alarms and OTDR tend to get spiked and not function.

 

[DJ_K666]

That’s not true. The business case didn’t work simply because there wasn’t enough passenger demand. The business case was tested with level crossings, and was worse, as the whole life cost of a new highway level crossing on a new line is more than a bridge.

There wasn't allowed to be enough. remember there were vested interests at the time that kept it that way. After the report (and the Jacobs rehash), there was a consulatation into a gyratory system in Uckfield which was incompatible with the railway, although they payed lip service to reopening 'If and when' in reality it would have been very difficult and a case of 'Well we've done it now, why change it already?' as well as ESCC querying their own written undertaking to provide a bridge on the A22. It is things like this that make me have absolutely no trust in a single word of the 2008 business case.
Not to do down what you're saying, that there was no passenger demand however having seen what happened and the way certain councillors acted, as well as what they were sitting on, however it leads me to utterly disbelieve absolutely everything about it. What I do believe is that the demand is there, it just wants to go to Brighton. A turnback siding at Lewes is inadequate in this regard hence the poor 'demand' And short of driving a bulldozer through Tesco, tempting as that would be, the 1858 route and a tunnel through the Downs towards Falmer would work. And it would have kept the football crowd away from me on match days so there's a bonus there too lol. (I can't stand football, A load of prima donnas kicking a bag of wind. Why should my journey be inconvenienced by it?)

After the consultation into the gyratory scheme showed an overwhelming response wanting the railway put back through ESCC realised they would be committing political suicide if they went ahead with it, thus a meeting was called with the Wealden Line Campaign, Wealden District Council, ESCC and Network Rail and they all analysed what had gone wrong and where and hashed out a way to do it all so everyone got what they wanted and thus BML2 was born.

The reports are all there to be read on the WLC site

 

[mr_jrt]

I think the tunnel "option" is always going to be a non-starter, and there's no need to bulldoze large chunks of the town either (though you can't deny that would give the best routing). You simply can't miss out Lewes. You're far better off putting in a tight loop just east of Lewes to swing back and rejoin the line to Brighton just west of Lewes.

It's an old idea and there are existing illustrations people have made, a-la:

 

[Bald Rick]

There wasn't allowed to be enough. remember there were vested interests at the time that kept it that way.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘vested interests’, but I can assure you the demand was properly assessed.

 

[zwk500]

I think the tunnel "option" is always going to be a non-starter, and there's no need to bulldoze large chunks of the town either (though you can't deny that would give the best routing). You simply can't miss out Lewes. You're far better off putting in a tight loop just east of Lewes to swing back and rejoin the line to Brighton just west of Lewes.

The tunnel will never justfiy a Business case for a secondary route, it'd probably be just as expensive to buy up the houses in the way through the town either (and it wouldn't give the best routing, the curve and junction on the old route is ridiculously tight). The loop is ruled out every time because it'd be too slow, too noisy, not enough capacity, and cost too much maintenance on the trains using it. Not to mention Lewes is now in a National Park.

Best option, budget notwithstanding, would be to build a new alignment avoiding Isfield and running via Ringmer to join the East Coastway line at Glynde. Avoids the National Park rather neatly, avoids the village with a tourist asset, and serves a settlement of 5,000+ people a large number of whom commute to Lewes, Brighton, Croydon and London for work or school.

 

[DJ_K666]

I think the tunnel "option" is always going to be a non-starter, and there's no need to bulldoze large chunks of the town either (though you can't deny that would give the best routing). You simply can't miss out Lewes. You're far better off putting in a tight loop just east of Lewes to swing back and rejoin the line to Brighton just west of Lewes.

It's an old idea and there are existing illustrations people have made, a-la:

That's the Railfuture scheme there, which wouldn't work. The idea is to have a spur from the line through the tunnel to serve Lewes. Tunelling methods have come on a lot and are comparable to the build cost of a motorway and better for the environment. I am guessing any tunnel would be done by a rotary TBM and most of the spoil would be chalk In deference to being in a National Park the portals could easily be brick built to match the others found in the area. These blend in with the landscape rather than impose upon it, rather like railways blend in. A brick viaduct over the A27 would do the same, make it like the one at Moulsecoomb, just better built. https://www.bml2.co.uk/bml2-route-plans

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘vested interests’, but I can assure you the demand was properly assessed.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree there. the study was done within its parameters certainly, what those parameters were are debatable. I will never, ever trust its conclusions.
The vested interests were certain councillors (I won't name them) sitting on plans for their gyratory scheme in Uckfield, which would have had to be changed to accommodate the railway and refusing to acknowledge massive house building plans for the area (before it became a national park). I still say the study was a forgone conclusion. Anyone can produce a business case showing low demand. especially when they have other plans.

I just want to get it open again so I can visit my family in Barcombe (I think there should be a station there) without having to drive and not be able to drink.

 

[Bald Rick]

I just want to get it open again so I can visit my family in Barcombe (I think there should be a station there) without having to drive and not be able to drink.

Seems a little selfish to want the taxpayer to spend several hundred million quid so you can get somewhere without having to drive. Can I suggest the train to Lewis and a taxi? It will be about £12.

I still say the study was a forgone conclusion.

I can assure you it wasn’t.

 

[mr_jrt]

That's the Railfuture scheme there, which wouldn't work.

At least say why you think that.

The loop is ruled out every time because it'd be too slow, too noisy, not enough capacity, and cost too much maintenance on the trains using it. Not to mention Lewes is now in a National Park.

I'm not sure I see the problem with the National Park status - the loop would run past a works and alongside a large road. The curvature doesn't look any worse than what is already in place for the existing lines, and it's just outside a station - trains aren't exactly going to be going at 100mph that close to Lewes, so I'm not sure why it needs to be on a faster alignment. Noise-wise, maybe, but what is nearby? A works and a college? Doesn't seem to be that big a problem given they'll already have some noise from the existing railway.

 

[DJ_K666]

Seems a little selfish to want the taxpayer to spend several hundred million quid so you can get somewhere without having to drive. Can I suggest the train to Lewis and a taxi? It will be about £12.



I can assure you it wasn’t.

Believe me I have very definite ideas how the railways ought to be and the current crop of privatised reprobates known as Southern aren't it. In my view they aren't even fit to say that name.

Selfish isn't the word. Had BML2 been in place a few years ago it would have been massive help when i was coming back from London and some unfortunate soul decided to end it all at Horley. (Quite why they get driven to this is a complex matter for another thread)
VIC - East Grinstead train to Oxted, a BML2 train to Brighton or Lewes and then home from there would have helped a lot of people massively that night. Instead we all had to get a bus.

I don't think it's selfish to not want to drink and drive at all. I just find taxis very vomit making when I've had a few.The BML2 scheme already has funding lined up and the Government has put it to the next stage in the "Accelerating Existing Scemes" category so someone over ESCC's head appears to think it has some merit. From crayons to oil pastels, it would seem. If the scheme had been done properly it would have considered how to create demand rather than say w demand and chuck it in the bin. This is why it keeps coming up despite studies that are billed as settling the score. It's that enough people simply do not believe a word ESCC say, and having had to drive through some of their schemes as part of my job I count myself among them.

At least say why you think that.


I'm not sure I see the problem with the National Park status - the loop would run past a works and alongside a large road. The curvature doesn't look any worse than what is already in place for the existing lines, and it's just outside a station - trains aren't exactly going to be going at 100mph that close to Lewes, so I'm not sure why it needs to be on a faster alignment. Noise-wise, maybe, but what is nearby? A works and a college? Doesn't seem to be that big a problem given they'll already have some noise from the existing railway.

The loop would be sharper than the lines out of Lewes, which are already down to 10mph. Plus it would go through the site of the priory so that'd be popular. The flange squeal would be noisy big time. And knowing Southern's reliability trains would get stuck around there while people watch their connecting services go without them.

IIRC the Ringmer option was one of the original alignments considered when the idea of a railway from Brighton to London was first mooted. I believe it was Robert Stephenson's preferred line of route. I think it would be too much out of the way though. Ringmer is a big village but not really big enough (Great butcher's there though) and it has a 10 minute frequency bus service into Lewes and on to Brighton. I have actually driven that route for overtime when I was there.

 

[Bald Rick]

The BML2 scheme already has funding lined up

No it hasn’t, because ....

Government has put it to the next stage in the "Accelerating Existing Scemes" category so someone over ESCC's head appears to think it has some merit.

... if it did, why would it be asking Government?

Selfish isn't the word. Had BML2 been in place a few years ago it would have been massive help when i was coming back from London

Sounds like you want to spend lots of taxpayers money to help yourself, which seems selfish to me.

I don't think it's selfish to not want to drink and drive at all.

I agree, and didn’t say that. I said it seems a little selfish to want to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayers money so that you can have a drink (several drinks perhaps) in a certain part of the country, when there’s other ways you can get there, cheaply. If taxis are too difficult for you, the it’s an hour’s walk to Cooksbridge down s9me pleasant country lanes.

 

[DJ_K666]

No it hasn’t, because ....



... if it did, why would it be asking Government?

They put in for it because it represents the best chance to produce a case to get the line opened again.

Well, thats one of my reasons. Those lanes are lethal in the pitch black and the train service to and from Cooksbridge is pathetic.

Thee other main reason is the avoidance of the rail replacement buses on so many weekends and other times of disruption. Does anyone really like them? I used to drive them when I was down there. I saw the chaos it caused. People would still be getting the train from London to Brighton with this in place and they'd all avoid it too. The buses would still be on for places like Preston Park and Hassocks etc, they'd be far less crowded and much more pleasant (Unless it's the bus that person did a number 2 at the back of one time. That was a laugh...)

I am sure you've read this article

GOVERNMENT BOOST FOR BRIGHTON MAIN LINE 2

The opportunity for significant funding towards BML2’s transport and economic case is being offered by the DfT

bml2.co.uk

 

[zwk500]

IIRC the Ringmer option was one of the original alignments considered when the idea of a railway from Brighton to London was first mooted. I believe it was Robert Stephenson's preferred line of route. I think it would be too much out of the way though. Ringmer is a big village but not really big enough (Great butcher's there though) and it has a 10 minute frequency bus service into Lewes and on to Brighton. I have actually driven that route for overtime when I was there.

You think Ringmer isn't big enough but Barcombe is? Also worth pointing out Barcombe Mills station is a good mile or more from the village down a very narrow country lane with no room on either side for responsible pedestrians, let alone ones who've been in the pub. (Barcombe station, actually in the village, is on the line that is now the Bluebell).

They put in for it because it represents the best chance to produce a case to get the line opened again.

Well, thats one of my reasons. Those lanes are lethal in the pitch black and the train service to and from Cooksbridge is pathetic.

Thee other main reason is the avoidance of the rail replacement buses on so many weekends and other times of disruption. Does anyone really like them? I used to drive them when I was down there. I saw the chaos it caused. People would still be getting the train from London to Brighton with this in place and they'd all avoid it too. The buses would still be on for places like Preston Park and Hassocks etc, they'd be far less crowded and much more pleasant (Unless it's the bus that person did a number 2 at the back of one time. That was a laugh...)

I certainly don't like them, and when Lewes-Haywards Heath is closed lots of people will drive direct to Haywards Heath instead of take the bus. Given NR aren't allowed to close the lines on weekdays, having a secondary route that doesn't involve a reversal would really help manage day trippers.

I am sure you've read this article

GOVERNMENT BOOST FOR BRIGHTON MAIN LINE 2

The opportunity for significant funding towards BML2’s transport and economic case is being offered by the DfT

bml2.co.uk

If they get any funding it will only cover a feasibility study. The problem with projects this scale is that nobody wants to commit to actual funding without a good idea of what it'll cost and when they'll get the return. As you can't run a physical trial without building the railway, they'll need to do economic, engineering, technical rail and wider timetable studies to make sure that once it's built it will have an imapct.
A 1.5mile tunnel, 3 junctions, a remodelling a rail-over-rail bridge and rail-over-Dual Carriageway bridge is not a particularly good spend of money. 10 miles of brand new alignment + 1 new junction probably wouldn't be far off the costs, given the legal process for any option will cost an absolute fortune.

I'm not sure I see the problem with the National Park status - the loop would run past a works and alongside a large road. The curvature doesn't look any worse than what is already in place for the existing lines, and it's just outside a station - trains aren't exactly going to be going at 100mph that close to Lewes, so I'm not sure why it needs to be on a faster alignment. Noise-wise, maybe, but what is nearby? A works and a college? Doesn't seem to be that big a problem given they'll already have some noise from the existing railway.

The problem is that the planning process will take longer, because althgouh there are already visual eyesores there, another one is still considered to impact the visual appeal of the area. Look at your map, the curvature is a lot worse than the existing lines, which are already 10mph on the Brighton Side. It needs to be on an alignment that permits trains to clear the junctions quickly enough to avoid casuing conflict between trains travelling between 5 different routes. Noise-wise, one of those colleges is a Performing Arts College, which already struggles with noise in the rehearsal and practice spaces, and the wider College also needs to be able to meet the noise level standards for classroom teaching. Existing noise is already borderline, increasing the noise isn't going to help anybody.

 

[DJ_K666]

You think Ringmer isn't big enough but Barcombe is? Also worth pointing out Barcombe Mills station is a good mile or more from the village down a very narrow country lane with no room on either side for responsible pedestrians, let alone ones who've been in the pub. (Barcombe station, actually in the village, is on the line that is now the Bluebell).


I certainly don't like them, and when Lewes-Haywards Heath is closed lots of people will drive direct to Haywards Heath instead of take the bus. Given NR aren't allowed to close the lines on weekdays, having a secondary route that doesn't involve a reversal would really help manage day trippers.

If they get any funding it will only cover a feasibility study. The problem with projects this scale is that nobody wants to commit to actual funding without a good idea of what it'll cost and when they'll get the return. As you can't run a physical trial without building the railway, they'll need to do economic, engineering, technical rail and wider timetable studies to make sure that once it's built it will have an imapct.
A 1.5mile tunnel, 3 junctions, a remodelling a rail-over-rail bridge and rail-over-Dual Carriageway bridge is not a particularly good spend of money. 10 miles of brand new alignment + 1 new junction probably wouldn't be far off the costs, given the legal process for any option will cost an absolute fortune.


The problem is that the planning process will take longer, because althgouh there are already visual eyesores there, another one is still considered to impact the visual appeal of the area. Look at your map, the curvature is a lot worse than the existing lines, which are already 10mph on the Brighton Side. It needs to be on an alignment that permits trains to clear the junctions quickly enough to avoid casuing conflict between trains travelling between 5 different routes. Noise-wise, one of those colleges is a Performing Arts College, which already struggles with noise in the rehearsal and practice spaces, and the wider College also needs to be able to meet the noise level standards for classroom teaching. Existing noise is already borderline, increasing the noise isn't going to help anybody.

Yes regarding Barcombe I can get a lift, I tend to eat before drinking to avoid getting too inebriated (A king size mars bar has surprising anti drunkenness properties) but yes that road is another lethal one. And it floods. My family members who I would be visiting actually own a part of the former Bluebell trackbed at Knowlands Wood, Knowlands Farm is where I would be heading. And trying not to fall in the big pond (again) too lol. It;'s north of the other Barcombe (Cross?) station which is now a very nice house


I think the only way to know for sure is to see what solutions are proposed for each of these things and how if demand is a bit low, see how they would try to raise that demand.. Much of the engineering side of the study is already done. Like I said they are working on the designs at the moment

Performing Arts College, which already struggles with noise in the rehearsal

Why does strangling cats come to mind?

Sorry about the typos btw I am posting in the dark to avoid waking my daughter

 

[Bald Rick]

I am sure you've read this article

GOVERNMENT BOOST FOR BRIGHTON MAIN LINE 2

The opportunity for significant funding towards BML2’s transport and economic case is being offered by the DfT

bml2.co.uk

No, because almost all of what is written on that website is fantasy. Mind you, it is only one of several similar websites / campaigns of a similar ilk. I don’t read them either.

 

[30907]

I am sure you've read this article

GOVERNMENT BOOST FOR BRIGHTON MAIN LINE 2

The opportunity for significant funding towards BML2’s transport and economic case is being offered by the DfT

bml2.co.uk

Thanks for the link. It sadly gives little ground for thinking that the secondary route via Uckfield aka BML2 will be reinstated.

 

[DJ_K666]

Thanks for the link. It sadly gives little ground for thinking that the secondary route via Uckfield aka BML2 will be reinstated.

No although it gives us an idea of what's going to land on the Secretary of State's desk once a business case has been established, which I do believe is possible. Remember every single scheme starts off at the Crayonism stage so lets see what happens.

 

[Bald Rick]

Remember every single scheme starts off at the Crayonism stage so lets see what happens.

A common misconception. Almost all schemes start with a problem statement, that says ‘what is the best way to solve x?’

And that’s the issue with this. No one has ever defined a reasonable problem where the best answer is “build a new line between Lewes to Uckfield”.

 

[mr_jrt]

I do think there is value in reinstating Uckfield-Lewes, but only as a regional direct route connecting Lewes and Tunbridge Wells. If you want to relieve the BML there are better options, which means Uckfield-Lewes can only really be valued on the strength of linking Brighton & Seaford to Uckfield and on to Tunbridge Wells via Lewes, saving a long diversion via Hastings.

 

[MarkyT]

I do think there is value in reinstating Uckfield-Lewes, but only as a regional direct route connecting Lewes and Tunbridge Wells. If you want to relieve the BML there are better options, which means Uckfield-Lewes can only really be valued on the strength of linking Brighton & Seaford to Uckfield and on to Tunbridge Wells via Lewes, saving a long diversion via Hastings.

A low-cost battery powered railway is really the only hope. You wouldn't want to run the long Uckfield commuter trains through to Lewes or beyond, just the Brighton-Tunbridge Wells locals, so could get away with short platforms and light rail principles for level crossings. In fact, tram-train type vehicles might be appropriate, which could open up alternative options for crossing Lewes and entering Tunbridge Wells, while also being able to share tracks with other heavy rail services where expedient.

 

[mr_jrt]

Why wouldn't you want to run the long commuter trains all the way? No-one without good reason would use them from Lewes to London (longer, slower, etc), so it'd just be an operational convenience, essentially the Thameslink/Crossrail principle of having multiple services linked together through a hub (in this case, Lewes). Especially given the distance is so short.

 

[MarkyT]

Why wouldn't you want to run the long commuter trains all the way? No-one without good reason would use them from Lewes to London (longer, slower, etc), so it'd just be an operational convenience, essentially the Thameslink/Crossrail principle of having multiple services linked together through a hub (in this case, Lewes). Especially given the distance is so short.

If Lewes - Uckfield trains were forming a local service from Brighton - to Tunbridge Wells, most of the local connectivity will already be catered for. London trains going beyond Uckfield would just be duplication tying up rolling stock and would prevent light rail principles being employed where that might be expediant.

 

[A0wen]

The Class 484 trains will be retired long before we ever think about replacing third rail.

I think you're mistaken, assuming a 25 year working life for the 484s.

I suspect in the next decade we'll see the first 3rd rail to OHLE conversion, most likely on the SWML - the demand being driven by a need to electrify freight and the chances are Cross Country using bi-mode units, which would put too much drain on the 3rd rail.

The Class 444s and 458s are nearly 20 years old now, so will almost certainly be up for replacement in the next 10 years - so dual voltage units would be their replacement.

The new Aventras being delivered now should be dual voltage capable.

 

[Bigfoot]

The Class 444s and 458s are nearly 20 years old now, so will almost certainly be up for replacement in the next 10 years - so dual voltage units would be their replacement.

Careful now. Anytime I suggest this I am shot down in flames! They will last forever! How dare you consider they wont last one million years! And I laugh into my screen at how silly they sound.

Siemens signed up for 25 years of maintenance. They have an idea how long their stuff will be good for before it becomes a pain in the bum...

 

[A0wen]

Careful now. Anytime I suggest this I am shot down in flames! They will last forever! How dare you consider they wont last one million years! And I laugh into my screen at how silly they sound.

Siemens signed up for 25 years of maintenance. They have an idea how long their stuff will be good for before it becomes a pain in the bum...

Well I realise for some posters the 442s still have another 30 years in them as well. But the reality is *most* rolling stock has a 20-30 year life before it starts becoming costly to run and the passengers start complaining about "clapped out old rolling stock".

Just because BR managed to make some EMUs last 40 years doesn't mean it's either sensible or desirable to do so.

 

[Iliketrains123]

I think you're mistaken, assuming a 25 year working life for the 484s.

I suspect in the next decade we'll see the first 3rd rail to OHLE conversion, most likely on the SWML - the demand being driven by a need to electrify freight and the chances are Cross Country using bi-mode units, which would put too much drain on the 3rd rail.

The Class 444s and 458s are nearly 20 years old now, so will almost certainly be up for replacement in the next 10 years - so dual voltage units would be their replacement.

The new Aventras being delivered now should be dual voltage capable.

Will there be a demand to replace the rest of the country's third rail for anything other than "safety"? Especially since it is grandfathered in and accepted.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Will there be a demand to replace the rest of the country's third rail for anything other than "safety"? Especially since it is grandfathered in and accepted.

Is it possible to challenge grandfather rights in a Court of Law or do those same rights have any legally known protection against the possibility of a legal challenge?

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

It is, of course, a historical accident that the Southern ended up a third rail system. They could have chosen the LBSCR low-frequency, high-voltage AC system, but I can understand why it was dropped. By the time of the Grouping, there was much more third rail mileage, and the LBSCR system was expensive, dependent on foreign components that had been unavailable during WW1, and technically rather complicated, essentially being some years ahead of its time. Also, apparently, the motors on the trains needed a very high starting voltage, and the resulting jolt when they pulled away from stations was enough to give you whiplash.

Given that the Southern wanted to electrify quickly and cheaply, they made the right decision at the time, but the system then became a victim of its own success. It became one of the biggest electric networks in the world, and changing or mixing systems would have become incredibly difficult and expensive to do.

The Southern considered 25kV for the Bournemouth line, but baulked when they realised how complex and expensive the knitting would have been going into Waterloo. Remember as well this was a good decade before BR's first-ever dual voltage trains appeared.

I agree third rail is obsolete and needs to go, but unfortunately getting rid of it is a huge job! Island Line was probably perfect for battery trains, and I'm not convinced the decision to keep the third rail was a great idea, but I guess the ship has sailed on that one. De-electrification is a bad look, I suppose.

Don't forget the need to be compatible with the District Railway (in 1912, Wimbledon - East Putney, for instance).
Pat

 

[HSTEd]

I suspect in the next decade we'll see the first 3rd rail to OHLE conversion, most likely on the SWML - the demand being driven by a need to electrify freight and the chances are Cross Country using bi-mode units, which would put too much drain on the 3rd rail.

Lots of people always seem to say that third rail has reached its limit and cannot be upgraded further.......
And then it is upgraded further.

Given that Class 92s exist, it is highly unlikely that 25kV conversion will be necessary to allow electrification of freight operations any time soon. Ultimately a Class 66 has only 2,240kW at rail, which is not much more than a single modern unit, let alone 200+m trains of them.

Oh, and the only reason that mass-conversion was ever considered at all was because Network Rail was using absurdly low numbers for the cost of 25kV electrification, which then turned out to be nonsensical.

If you use the real cost of 25kV electrification, the business case will fall to pieces.