Network North Electrification Projects

[LNW-GW Joint]

Piecing together the announcements at the Tory conference, I think the following have been authorised, detailed in the following paper.
It's impossible to extract a simple paragraph, there are so many separate but important points and decisions made.

Network North

A £36 billion plan to improve the transport that people use every day.

www.gov.uk

North Wales Main Line - presumably Warrington (Acton Grange)/Crewe-Chester-Holyhead (16+21+84=121 miles, plus Llandudno branch 3 miles) - total 124 miles.
(the Halton curve will also need wiring to get EMUs to Liverpool)
Hope Valley line: Dore-Chinley-Hazel Grove (presuming MML wiring covers Derby-Sheffield) - 24 miles. Would you leave out diesel lines via Romiley - another 16 miles?
Sheffield-Leeds (Moorthorpe) - 16 miles
Leeds (Micklefield)-Selby-Hull (presuming TRU picks up Leeds-Micklefield) - 42 miles. Micklefield-Selby is a re-authorisation after truncation of original CP5 scheme).
Sheffield (Swinton)-Doncaster-Goole-Gilberdyke - about 33 miles
Chippenham-Bath-Bristol TM-Filton (re-authorised after being paused in 2015) - 35 miles. Nothing said about the missing Didcot-Oxford line, or Cardiff-Swansea

Further electrification is implied in the commitments to Bradford for new links to Huddersfield and Manchester.

So that's close on 300 route miles of wiring, some of it quite complex.
And that presumes wiring of MML to Sheffield, and TRU Manchester-York are givens.

Rolling this lot out would reinforce Northern's plan to acquire bi-modes capable of EMU conversion.
TfW will need bi-modes to make sense of the North Wales electrification, as well as EMUs for Holyhead/Llandudno-Manchester/Crewe services.
.
How long will it take to get these projects into a funded rollout plan?
Which project will be the first to test the firmness of Rishi's promises?
I would guess it might take a year or so for the detail to emerge. - just in time for the next general election
ORR and Network Rail somehow have to work this into the context of the CP7 budget now in its final stages of approval, not to mention the deletion of much HS2-related work.

 

[YorkRailFan]

The TRU should pick up Leeds-Micklefield as York-Church Fenton is being done at present and it makes sense to link up Church Fenton-Leeds (linking up Micklefield-Leeds in the process) while Leeds-Manchester is being done.

 

[DarloRich]

None of these ideas are "committed" or "approved" or "authorised".

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The TRU should pick up Leeds-Micklefield as York-Church Fenton is being done at present and it makes sense to link up Church Fenton-Leeds (linking up Micklefield-Leeds in the process) while Leeds-Manchester is being done.

While all true, there is no schedule for the missing links (and Dewsbury-Huddersfield isn't formally approved yet).

All electrification schemes involve route upgrades of some kind, which won't have been considered in yesterday's announcements.
Some of the routes listed still have low-capacity manual signalling for instance (eg around Bangor, and Chinley).
Fixing all that in parallel with electrification will increase the cost and delay the rollout.

None of these ideas are "committed" or "approved" or "authorised".

But they do have a public government (PM) commitment in print, with specific funding attached.
How you call that off via the DfT against detailed Network Rail plans is of course another matter.
But don't you have to get on and test the water, before the money evaporates?
Is the Network Rail dead hand going to sniff and say they don't want to do any of this?

 

[DarloRich]

But they do have a public government (PM) commitment in print, with specific funding attached.

Like HS2 was?

 

[19Gnasher69]

I thought that I was hearing a firm commitment but it was drowned out by the sounds of cans being kicked down the road.
Very little, if any, of this can happen during the lifetime of this Parliament. But we can all look forward to the promise of tax cuts to ease the burden of ticket cost increases for train services that the Government doesn’t want us to use.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I thought that I was hearing a firm commitment but it was drowned out by the sounds of cans being kicked down the road.

I love the comment -cynical but---

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The GW electrification extensions should be straightforward as they were designed before the project was canned.
What a pity Network Rail sold off all the steelwork it had stockpiled for the work...
At least all the resignalling and track upgrade has been done.

GWR can plan for electric working between Cardiff and Bristol TM.
Maybe they can also test whether the diesel rafts on some of their 80x bi-modes can be removed as no longer needed.

 

[Mikey C]

Even if there was a genuine intention to go all that work, what there isn't is a timescale for it.

It's akin to when politicians (of all colours) make promises about things like Net Zero by 2050. It's easy to make promises with a deadline decades away, as they won't be around to be accountable for that decision. Or actually have to do anything themselves anyway.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The GW electrification extensions should be straightforward as they were designed before the project was canned.
What a pity Network Rail sold off all the steelwork it had stockpiled for the work...
At least all the resignalling and track upgrade has been done.

It will be revisited but as you say, it will not start from scratch - as quite a bit of the work has been done.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

None of these ideas are "committed" or "approved" or "authorised".

Apparently nobody in government even bothered to consult Network Rail about these announcements - any of them. The Prime Minister simply announced them.

I would rate the chances of anything happening at somewhere between "low" and "zero".

 

[adamedwards]

Remember the 40 new hospitals promised by Boris Johnson which then had to be turned into any new building at any hospital to try to get to 40? I sadly do not believe any of these lists of anything we can think of. Afterall, if they were such good projects, the current government have had 13 years to do them.

I was really hoping to see Windermere on the list, but I assume left off as that's a LibDem seat (Tim Farron) so not useful for votes.

 

[Bob Price]

If you look closely you will see two things:

1. The word could is used a lot
2. All the projects are subject to a business case. None of them are guaranteed. In fact I would say very few will have a positive BCR. For example Leamside has already been dropped.

They announced some projects that are already complete.

And the money is not available, its money that would be borrowed for HS2. So what we have is a commitment to look at a number of schemes and, if the BCR is positive, borrow a load of money to build them.

It's all been done on the back of a fag packet.

 

[nr758123]

But they do have a public government (PM) commitment in print, with specific funding attached.

I used to think that an announcement of a public government commitment was at least slightly better than the lack of an announcement. I now observe that it isn't.

 

[InTheEastMids]

If you look closely you will see two things:

1. The word could is used a lot
2. All the projects are subject to a business case. None of them are guaranteed. In fact I would say very few will have a positive BCR. For example Leamside has already been dropped.

They announced some projects that are already complete.

And the money is not available, its money that would be borrowed for HS2. So what we have is a commitment to look at a number of schemes and, if the BCR is positive, borrow a load of money to build them.

It's all been done on the back of a fag packet.

Apparently nobody in government even bothered to consult Network Rail about these announcements - any of them. The Prime Minister simply announced them.

I would rate the chances of anything happening at somewhere between "low" and "zero".

Entirely agree. Can I suggest this thread moves to the "Speculative Ideas" section.
the plans may have been drawn with Goldman-Sachs branded crayons, but they are still drawn in crayon...

Edit: Note other schemes on the list are now being deleted or walked back e.g. Leamside line, Bristol Metro etc, further supporting the idea that this is just a list of nonsense to try to distract from the utter shambles of Sunak cancelling HS2.

 

[Chris 76]

If I could challenge some of the cynicism and negativity....
The proposed or suggested electrification schemes are logical extensions to current schemes. When Midland Mainline electrification reaches Sheffield and Transpennine upgrade is done, the short sections from Sheffield-Moorthorpe/Doncaster will be no-brainer electrification infills. Leeds-Selby-Hull electrification has also been a likely prospect given its potential to electrify a range of local, trans-pennine and high speed Hull-London services.
Sheffield-Hull, included in the Network North report, is more of a surprise, but let's see what comes of it. Same with Hope Valley, which doesn't make much sense without Manchester-Warrington-Liverpool (Cheshire Lines) electrification. That's not mentioned at all in Network North, but you'd think could be bunged in to the £12bn Liverpool-Manchester package.
North Wales main line is the big surprise. Once the Welsh government has got over being snubbed and not consulted about the post-HS2 wishlist, it should support this and hold future governments to commit to it. I'm not convinced North Wales should be a priority over, for example, electrifying the core cross-country network north of Bristol and Reading, or Peterborough-Felixstowe. But I guess the government felt it had to give something big to Wales, and it ticks the helping deprived coastal communities box.

 

[30907]

If I could challenge some of the cynicism and negativity....
The proposed or suggested electrification schemes are logical extensions to current schemes.

Yes, they are sensible proposals in themselves, and would form part of a rolling electrification programme.
It's the context that makes me cynical.

 

[HSTEd]

It would take a miracle to get to Holyhead for £1bn, but that is what the leader has commanded.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It would take a miracle to get to Holyhead for £1bn, but that is what the leader has commanded.

It's 400 stkm (125 route miles of nearly all double track).
NR is trying to meet a £1m/stkm, so that's £400m.
But there will be resignalling and some route upgrades on top.
Apart from Chester, with its large layout and Merseyrail DC corner, there aren't too many complications.
Low bridges might be interesting east of Chester - much of the rest used to be 4 tracked so already has suitable bridges.
Conwy and Britannia listed structures will be challenging, but we do have discontinuous solutions now.

 

[thelem]

Chippenham-Bath-Bristol TM-Filton (re-authorised after being paused in 2015) - 35 miles.

The document doesn't commit to anything specific in the Bristol area. The commitment is:

We will boost funding to the West of England Combined Authority by £100 million.

It then continues with some ideas on projects they might like to spend money on:

The funding could be used for an extension of MetroWest to the south – covering Weston-super-Mare, Taunton/Exeter, and Worle/Weston-super-Mare Parkway. The authority could also start Temple Meads passenger and capacity enhancements, step-free access across the network and complete electrification between Temple Meads, Bristol Parkway and Chippenham.

There's no indication of costs for any of the above, or what the priorities of the West of England Combined Authority would be.

 

[YorkRailFan]

While all true, there is no schedule for the missing links (and Dewsbury-Huddersfield isn't formally approved yet).

All electrification schemes involve route upgrades of some kind, which won't have been considered in yesterday's announcements.
Some of the routes listed still have low-capacity manual signalling for instance (eg around Bangor, and Chinley).
Fixing all that in parallel with electrification will increase the cost and delay the rollout.


But they do have a public government (PM) commitment in print, with specific funding attached.
How you call that off via the DfT against detailed Network Rail plans is of course another matter.
But don't you have to get on and test the water, before the money evaporates?
Is the Network Rail dead hand going to sniff and say they don't want to do any of this?

I expect for York-Leeds and Manchester-Huddersfield to be built and for the Government to quietly drop Dewsbury-Huddersfield, along with any new station shown in the Network North proposal.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

If I could challenge some of the cynicism and negativity....
The proposed or suggested electrification schemes are logical extensions to current schemes. When Midland Mainline electrification reaches Sheffield and Transpennine upgrade is done, the short sections from Sheffield-Moorthorpe/Doncaster will be no-brainer electrification infills. Leeds-Selby-Hull electrification has also been a likely prospect given its potential to electrify a range of local, trans-pennine and high speed Hull-London services.
Sheffield-Hull, included in the Network North report, is more of a surprise, but let's see what comes of it. Same with Hope Valley, which doesn't make much sense without Manchester-Warrington-Liverpool (Cheshire Lines) electrification. That's not mentioned at all in Network North, but you'd think could be bunged in to the £12bn Liverpool-Manchester package.

The North West electrification (Liverpool/Manchester/Preston/Blackpool) was a no-brainer in-fill scheme and was a natural follow-on from completion of the WCML, in 1974! So it only took 40 years to do the obvious. As long as we keep electing governments so disinterested in rail it is foolish to consider any railway extension scheme as being actually likely to go ahead. Given what happened to the GWEP I would suggest schemes being curtailed even during their delivery is more likely. ECML electrification north of Newcastle very nearly didn't happen and even today suffers from barely sufficient power feed. The cynicism and negativity may be a little unpleasant and disheartening but it is fully justified based on historical precedent.

 

[HSTEd]

It's 400 stkm (125 route miles of nearly all double track).
NR is trying to meet a £1m/stkm, so that's £400m.
But there will be resignalling and some route upgrades on top.
Apart from Chester, with its large layout and Merseyrail DC corner, there aren't too many complications.
Low bridges might be interesting east of Chester - much of the rest used to be 4 tracked so already has suitable bridges.
Conwy and Britannia listed structures will be challenging, but we do have discontinuous solutions now.

NR is trying to meet £1m/stkm but is incredibly unlikely to actually meet it.

This budget only works if you assume that the runaway costs of modern railway projects in the UK will magically stop because Sunak wills it.

Even the RIA puts electrification projects well north of £1.5m/stkm.

NWEP managed to breach £2.5m/stkm, and there will be years of inflation and cost growth before this project starts.

As many Welsh politicians have pointed out £1.5bn is far more likely and I think still too optimistic.

EDIT: Discontinuous schemes will put the cost of rolling stock through the roof since you can't just use surplus 25kV EMUs any more.

 

[Arkeeos]

No doubt all of these proposals will have a worse business case than phase 2a, but it will be a decade before a single business case is published so who cares!

 

[Bob Price]

If you were serious about electrifying Wales then there are better places to spend your money. Cardiff to Swansea, Vale of Glamorgan, Maesteg, Ebbw Vale etc.

The North Wales line is totally political. It's not a case of the Welsh Government getting over it, it's the fact that they, Network Rail, any transport authority, local government or metro mayor was consulted. Already the ads are out that 'Cardiff Bay don't care about you, but we do".

One by one, these schemes will disappear and all that will be left is the road schemes.

And a whole new fleet of bi modes as Chester to Warrington isn't included, with a large number of 197's becoming surplus. As I say, does that look like a joined up plan to you?

 

[Bald Rick]

Piecing together the announcements at the Tory conference, I think the following have been authorised, detailed in the following paper.

Nothing is authorised. This lot has the same status as electrification of Cardiff - Swansea, the Thames Valley Branches, the electric spine etc. did a decade or so ago.

NR is trying to meet a £1m/stkm, so that's £400m.

Source required!

NWEP managed to breach £2.5m/stkm, and there will be years of inflation and cost growth before this project starts

Edinburgh - Glasgow was more than that, and that was nearly a decade ago. The current MML (on budget, on programme, lots of cost savings) is nearer £4m/ stk.

Crewe - Holyhead is around 340 stk. Some of it is tricky (tubular bridges, for example)

“Do the Math”

 

[HSTEd]

Edinburgh - Glasgow was more than that, and that was nearly a decade ago. The current MML (on budget, on programme, lots of cost savings) is nearer £4m/ stk.

Crewe - Holyhead is around 340 stk. Some of it is tricky (tubular bridges, for example)

“Do the Math”

Sunak secretly announced singling of North Wales Main Line!

With 400m trains less capacity will be needed.

I will get my coat.

 

[td97]

It's 400 stkm (125 route miles of nearly all double track)

Lostock to Wigan, 6.5 miles (20 stkm), taking 3.5 years from authorisation in 09/2021 to expected completion in 06/2025. Absolutely dismal progress.
NR need a new approach to even be given the opportunity to electrify 400 stkm.

 

[Chris 76]

The North West electrification (Liverpool/Manchester/Preston/Blackpool) was a no-brainer in-fill scheme and was a natural follow-on from completion of the WCML, in 1974! So it only took 40 years to do the obvious.

Sure, but rail privatisation has a lot to do with the electrification time lag. British Rail steadily electrified as much as it could afford in a logical order, but privatisation put long term rail investment planning on hold for 20 years. At least Manchester/Liverpool/Blackpool got done and showed Northern politicians what they should be wishing for.

 

[Meerkat]

Does Sheffield-Hull have to be via Goole - it could be Doncaster-Selby (which would make more sense so London trains could use it)? Northern battery bimodes could then do Hull-Goole-Doncaster
Was any reusable work done for Hull electrification - it was looked at both for Transpennine and a private Hull Trains deal wasn’t it?