Transport Select Committee calls for cancelled electrification schemes to be reinstated

[edwin_m]

You could also tell the EU to lump it and adopt our original 25kV specification.

General concensus seems to be that that ball was dropped somewhere in London and not directly related to the EU.

Plenty of other countries manage to deliver 25kV schemes at far lower cost than recent ones in the UK.

 

[Class 170101]

There is no sense in spending £1bn on Kettering to Sheffield to deliver a very small operational cost saving and a trivial time saving. It is desperate times when £1bn has to be spend because of some absurd not thought through commitment to phase out diesel trains. When diesel trucks are phased out, then trains will follow as they are generally the same underfloor engines.

I think electrification will save you more than one minute in journey times overall, so I disagree with Grayling on that one. He needs to prove his point in an honerst way which he has failed to do.

Not all electrification projects have such a weak case. Doncaster to Hull, for example, if accompanied by re-signalling and track improvement, would save far more than a minute or two. It's utterly absurd that diesel trains run under the wires all the way from Kings Cross to Doncaster, then proceed across a flat landscape to Hull under a 75mph speed limit along mainly straight track with easy curves.

There might not be an issue with the topography Hills etc) however what is the land like to cross? If it is boggy then masts will sink without trace unless thought is put into their construction. Why do think parts of the Ely to Kings Lynn line are single now? The masts went onto the track bed to save money. Doubtless too there will be man made structures like bridges that will need changing / reconstruction.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

So it would need a Chat Moss type approach then?

 

[Class 170101]

We could do more than half electrification costs, but it would take tough and potentially politically impossible decision making.

You have me intrigued- care to expand a little?

You could, for example, set your basic safety objective type figure for third rail installations to a higher value which would force ORR to accept third rail installations as safe So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable.

You could also tell the EU to lump it and adopt our original 25kV specification.

Or you could adopt tram trains en-masse to replace essentially all regional services and electrify at 750Vdc overhead.

Or you could suspend existing line upgrades entirely and adopt a Shinkansen model - which honestly will likely deliver better results in the long term.



You got any suggestions beyond hope that the new kit that doesn't work miraculously starts working?

Once Brexit happens in March we will be able to tell the EU where to go with their standards as they will have no jurisdiction over us. Whether the ORR will is a different matter however.

I would have no problem in having infills of 3rd Rail such as between Reading and Gatwick, Uckfield and Ashford to Ore but no en mass electrification of this method should be accepted anymore on the Rail Network. However in terms of conversion from 750dc to 25kv overhead, forget it. The focus of limited money and resources should be on electrification of non-electrified routes not changing existing routes. I accept there are issues with 750vDC but there are also different issues with 25KCac electrification, neither is perfect.

The issues around CO2 and other emmissions isn't going away and generating traction power via electricity is better done at power stations with transmission losses, inefficient though they are, than via the combustion engine on trains which is even less efficient still. I have yet to see a train with a combustion engine that is more efficient and cleaner than generating electricity away from the railway via other means like wind solar and tidal or even the dirtier methods such oil, coal, gas and nuclear and until then its got to be electrification for me.

 

[Kneedown]

I think electrification will save you more than one minute in journey times overall, so I disagree with Grayling on that one. He needs to prove his point in an honerst way which he has failed to do.

Indeed, but if it purely about saving the odd minute here or there electrification would have been dead in the water years ago. There are many other advantages which deliver cost and efficiency savings. Less train maintenance, better reliability, more favourable track access charges, greater efficiency, cleaner air at the point of use resulting in better health.
Far more benefits than just saving a minute, and well worth the money.

 

[HSTEd]

General concensus seems to be that that ball was dropped somewhere in London and not directly related to the EU.

Yes, but the EU won't let us pick it back up again.

Plenty of other countries manage to deliver 25kV schemes at far lower cost than recent ones in the UK.

In huge loading gauges compared to what we have now, and at lower population densities and thus fewer overbridges and the like.

 

[jayah]

I think electrification will save you more than one minute in journey times overall, so I disagree with Grayling on that one. He needs to prove his point in an honerst way which he has failed to do.



There might not be an issue with the topography Hills etc) however what is the land like to cross? If it is boggy then masts will sink without trace unless thought is put into their construction. Why do think parts of the Ely to Kings Lynn line are single now? The masts went onto the track bed to save money. Doubtless too there will be man made structures like bridges that will need changing / reconstruction.

These aren't Grayling's personal views. These are reports made by civil servants. A Meridian is no slower than a long distance Electric train as proved by the Class 221.

 

[HSTEd]

These aren't Grayling's personal views. These are reports made by civil servants. A Meridian is no slower than a long distance Electric train as proved by the Class 221.

Good luck building a diesel powered train with almost all axles motored and ~28kW of traction motor power per metre. (Class 395)

A meridian manages a paltry ~425kW of traction power (although its hard to get good figures) per vehicle, or only 18.5kW. (It only has 560kW available total at the drive shaft and must incur generator losses and power auxiliaries like air con etc)

And rememebr the Class 395 is old tech now, we can probably do even better.

EDIT:

Some modern shinkansens have, like the earlier but small scale 500 Series Shinkansen, every single axle motored.

Acceleration performance of such a unit is likely to be incredible compared to diesel-electric units.

24*110kW motors is 3,470hp traction power in a 120m unit.
And that is before we get into modern permanent magnet motors that increase motor power still further.

(In essence, we can now build 125mph units that accelerate like tube trains)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

These aren't Grayling's personal views. These are reports made by civil servants.

That makes it worse imho. How many civil servants have degrees in Electrical or mechanical engineering?" How many hold C. Eng status - That don't impress me much. Apologies to Shania Twain.

 

[jayah]

That makes it worse imho. How many civil servants have degrees in Electrical or mechanical engineering?" How many hold C. Eng status - That don't impress me much. Apologies to Shania Twain.

If the report to Grayling said electrification will save one minute, that has been determined by more thorough analysis than anyone here is capable of matching.

As for the engineers, they seem to think 2.5t or the weight of 30 passengers should determine infrastructure investment on the whole railway for a generation.

 

[jayah]

Indeed, but if it purely about saving the odd minute here or there electrification would have been dead in the water years ago. There are many other advantages which deliver cost and efficiency savings. Less train maintenance, better reliability, more favourable track access charges, greater efficiency, cleaner air at the point of use resulting in better health.
Far more benefits than just saving a minute, and well worth the money.

Electrification is dead in the water. Only 10 years ago for some reason nobody seemes to realise a de rated Voyager can match a Pendolino, so apart from weight, fuel and externalities what is the point?

And the got sucked in by 'experts' telling them it would cost £500k per stkm.

 

[AndrewE]

, so apart from weight, fuel and externalities what is the point?

Cleaner, quieter, less vibration, the sparks effect for starters. If you had any concern about urban air pollution or the options to use renewable energy then you would realise that the externalities are the point.

 

[Non Multi]

What assurances can NR and the electrification lobby provide that there won't be another repeat of the GWEP, GOBLIN fiascos with any reinstated schemes?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

What assurances can NR and the electrification lobby provide that there won't be another repeat of the GWEP, GOBLIN fiascos with any reinstated schemes?

None other than they now have vastly more experience and have climbed a steeep learning curve. The Transport Select Committee recent report published elsewhere sort of acknowledges this if you read it all.

 

[jayah]

Cleaner, quieter, less vibration, the sparks effect for starters. If you had any concern about urban air pollution or the options to use renewable energy then you would realise that the externalities are the point.

Spending £bn to save a trivial amount of mainly rural out of town air pollution is not sensible. There are much more cost effective ways to save diesel emissions.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The most logical next steps for electrification are to complete the things which they didn't manage so far. Some of these are dependent on other work - the signalling works around Bristol and Oxford, or the plans for NPR - but there's enough uncomplicated work to keep the industry ticking over and able to demonstrate better control of costs. The industry is going to be very interested in the Cardiff scheme as it provides an opportunity to demonstrate cheaper electrification in a mainline-compatible way and with more freedom from NR control. I think it's also more likely that the ROSCOs will get involved in electrification if there's some special dependency on train technology too. For instance, if the industry looks at wiring up the remainder of the Birmingham suburban network with discontinuous 25kV AC (ideal for busy commuter services as well as enhancing the case for bi-modes on many regional and CrossCountry routes) that would require trains with battery requirements tuned exactly for the route.

Bi modes are the death knell of electrification because you run the same trains on the same track to the same timetable. The cost is diesel, 2.5 tonnes weight (~30pax) on every other vehicle and some externalities.

Logically then there's no reason to go beyond diesel-electric transmission. We may as well start de-wiring any sections of track to be served by new trains.

Even at the height of bionic duckweed fantasies, the WCRM went ahead with a mixture of electric Pendolinos and diesel Voyagers. You say in a later post that Voyagers can match Pendolino timings. Why didn't they just standardise on one type of diesel train, if the benefits of electrification are so small? The existing WCML electrification would be a sunk cost so its existence doesn't mean you have to pick a worse option for a the future.

Is it possible that there are actually other significant lifetime benefits to electrification which our fragmented railway system find hard to afford? Obviously back in the time of BR, they could easily justify upfront investment in electrification by their own cost savings in procuring and operating trains, and collecting ticket revenue from services. Nowadays the cost of electrification has to be borne by the state but the way it pays itself back becomes very unclear. It'll be cheaper for a TOC to lease new electric trains from a ROSCO and then run them than equivalent diesels, but these costs are merged in with other costs and profit sources when the government ranks different bids. Unless the TOCs provide line item comparisons of individual costs with and without electrification it's pretty hard to see where that investment went. Is that enough justification to stop it completely?

There is no sense in spending £1bn on Kettering to Sheffield to deliver a very small operational cost saving and a trivial time saving. It is desperate times when £1bn has to be spend because of some absurd not thought through commitment to phase out diesel trains. When diesel trucks are phased out, then trains will follow as they are generally the same underfloor engines.

What is the operational cost saving? You say it's small, but it's a cost over the lifetime of the electrification infrastructure.

You can only make a decision like this if you have full knowledge of 1. what is possible with different technologies and 2. what these options will really cost. The DfT still appears to believe that self-powered trains of equivalent performance to electric sets on MML InterCity runs are viable and affordable. So far the industry seems less confident about this, and they're the ones who'll understand this best. Electric trains are a known quantity with little risk. If the wires are going to be up, then the rail industry can easily promise a certain level of performance and capacity. If you're depending on speculative technologies, you're likely to face quite considerable problems.

And again, it's not Kettering to Sheffield. At this rate it'll be just south of Market Harborough to Clay Cross. There is precisely zero choice to be had in wiring up the whole of Clay Cross to Sheffield, as the specification for the classic-compatible trains which will use it has already been put out for tender. No bi-modes, no hydrogen, no batteries. Only full-blown TSI-compatible electrification will do.

 

[D365]

You could also tell the EU to lump it and adopt our original 25kV specification.

The clearance requirements that TSI representatives were more than happy to give us an exception for?

You got any suggestions beyond hope that the new kit that doesn't work miraculously starts working?

Where have the overheads not worked beyond commissioning?

 

[jayah]

The most logical next steps for electrification are to complete the things which they didn't manage so far. Some of these are dependent on other work - the signalling works around Bristol and Oxford, or the plans for NPR - but there's enough uncomplicated work to keep the industry ticking over and able to demonstrate better control of costs. The industry is going to be very interested in the Cardiff scheme as it provides an opportunity to demonstrate cheaper electrification in a mainline-compatible way and with more freedom from NR control. I think it's also more likely that the ROSCOs will get involved in electrification if there's some special dependency on train technology too. For instance, if the industry looks at wiring up the remainder of the Birmingham suburban network with discontinuous 25kV AC (ideal for busy commuter services as well as enhancing the case for bi-modes on many regional and CrossCountry routes) that would require trains with battery requirements tuned exactly for the route.



Logically then there's no reason to go beyond diesel-electric transmission. We may as well start de-wiring any sections of track to be served by new trains.

Even at the height of bionic duckweed fantasies, the WCRM went ahead with a mixture of electric Pendolinos and diesel Voyagers. You say in a later post that Voyagers can match Pendolino timings. Why didn't they just standardise on one type of diesel train, if the benefits of electrification are so small? The existing WCML electrification would be a sunk cost so its existence doesn't mean you have to pick a worse option for a the future.

Is it possible that there are actually other significant lifetime benefits to electrification which our fragmented railway system find hard to afford? Obviously back in the time of BR, they could easily justify upfront investment in electrification by their own cost savings in procuring and operating trains, and collecting ticket revenue from services. Nowadays the cost of electrification has to be borne by the state but the way it pays itself back becomes very unclear. It'll be cheaper for a TOC to lease new electric trains from a ROSCO and then run them than equivalent diesels, but these costs are merged in with other costs and profit sources when the government ranks different bids. Unless the TOCs provide line item comparisons of individual costs with and without electrification it's pretty hard to see where that investment went. Is that enough justification to stop it completely?



What is the operational cost saving? You say it's small, but it's a cost over the lifetime of the electrification infrastructure.

You can only make a decision like this if you have full knowledge of 1. what is possible with different technologies and 2. what these options will really cost. The DfT still appears to believe that self-powered trains of equivalent performance to electric sets on MML InterCity runs are viable and affordable. So far the industry seems less confident about this, and they're the ones who'll understand this best. Electric trains are a known quantity with little risk. If the wires are going to be up, then the rail industry can easily promise a certain level of performance and capacity. If you're depending on speculative technologies, you're likely to face quite considerable problems.

And again, it's not Kettering to Sheffield. At this rate it'll be just south of Market Harborough to Clay Cross. There is precisely zero choice to be had in wiring up the whole of Clay Cross to Sheffield, as the specification for the classic-compatible trains which will use it has already been put out for tender. No bi-modes, no hydrogen, no batteries. Only full-blown TSI-compatible electrification will do.

The problem is the term 'business case'. It is nothing of the sort. If the present value of cost savings and revenue gains are more than the present value of the costs, there is a financial case. A business case is not even needed.

Neither HS2, nor electrification have a financial case. In fact very little railway investment does.

The present value of the net cost (total cost - revenue and cost savings) is a £ value. Note your operating cost savings have already been used up.

Then the value of the intangibles, value of time saved and externalities is well made up. Noise, time value, air pollution, CO2 etc..

This is expressed as a ratio to the net cost. A good scheme generally needs 2.0 so may be £400m underwater financially but has £800m of intangibles behind it.

Electrification is such a dead duck the ratios are now coming in at less than 1. So even after cost savings the intangibles are less than the remaining financial losses.

De wiring is a pretty risible argument used to try and bolster the case for something that by any sound analysis is not a good use of public money.

 

[Aictos]

Spending £bn to save a trivial amount of mainly rural out of town air pollution is not sensible. There are much more cost effective ways to save diesel emissions.

I think the good people of Nottingham would disagree with you on that one, it was proved that levels of carbon nitrogen oxide were higher in and around Nottingham station then elsewhere in the city which is why the council are pressing for electrification to reduce these diesel emissions.

I also wouldn't say that Sheffield, Bristol Temple Meads, Nottingham etc are rural out of town stations, you might need to look up their locations in a atlas!

Electric trains are faster, more friendly to the environment as they don't discharge harmful levels of carbon nitrogen oxide, cheaper to run, far easier to maintain then diesels and have lower track access charges not to mention the sparks effect which is good for the economy.

Electrification is only a "dead duck" because the Govt and Grayling only see the short term view which will cost us more in the future to put right, by reinstating these "cancelled" electrification plans we not only will have a steady course of work for engineers who would otherwise lose these skills or move aboard but we would deliver a well needed boost to the economy both at local level and at national level.

 

[jayah]

I think the good people of Nottingham would disagree with you on that one, it was proved that levels of carbon nitrogen oxide were higher in and around Nottingham station then elsewhere in the city which is why the council are pressing for electrification to reduce these diesel emissions.

I also wouldn't say that Sheffield, Bristol Temple Meads, Nottingham etc are rural out of town stations, you might need to look up their locations in a atlas!

Electric trains are faster, more friendly to the environment as they don't discharge harmful levels of carbon nitrogen oxide, cheaper to run, far easier to maintain then diesels and have lower track access charges not to mention the sparks effect which is good for the economy.

Electrification is only a "dead duck" because the Govt and Grayling only see the short term view which will cost us more in the future to put right, by reinstating these "cancelled" electrification plans we not only will have a steady course of work for engineers who would otherwise lose these skills or move aboard but we would deliver a well needed boost to the economy both at local level and at national level.

If the Project Thor had been progressed Cross Country would already be connected to the wires in New Street and elsewhere.

The fact is that while stations may be unpleasant, so are a lot of other places most of the fuel burn happens well out of town. £1bn would go a lot further spent on road transport.

Electric trains aren't faster as proved by the de rated Class 221 on the WCML. If they weren't, then whole £1bn / per minute argument would look rather different.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The problem is the term 'business case'. It is nothing of the sort. If the present value of cost savings and revenue gains are more than the present value of the costs, there is a financial case. A business case is not even needed.

Neither HS2, nor electrification have a financial case. In fact very little railway investment does.

The present value of the net cost (total cost - revenue and cost savings) is a £ value. Note your operating cost savings have already been used up.

Then the value of the intangibles, value of time saved and externalities is well made up. Noise, time value, air pollution, CO2 etc..

This is expressed as a ratio to the net cost. A good scheme generally needs 2.0 so may be £400m underwater financially but has £800m of intangibles behind it.

Electrification is such a dead duck the ratios are now coming in at less than 1. So even after cost savings the intangibles are less than the remaining financial losses.

De wiring is a pretty risible argument used to try and bolster the case for something that by any sound analysis is not a good use of public money.

Noise, air pollution, CO2 do have concrete costs. They're negative externalities which result in reduced property values, reduced quality of life, and worse health outcomes. The world is looking at taxing CO2 and other emissions at a certain price per tonne to reflect these externalities.

If the Project Thor had been progressed Cross Country would already be connected to the wires in New Street and elsewhere.

The fact is that while stations may be unpleasant, so are a lot of other places most of the fuel burn happens well out of town. £1bn would go a lot further spent on road transport.

Electric trains aren't faster as proved by the de rated Class 221 on the WCML. If they weren't, then whole £1bn / per minute argument would look rather different.

Practically speaking there is a serious problem coming with diesel emissions in city centres, and particularly in stations with large numbers of trains idling under canopies for significant amounts of time. The health risks to railway staff in particular are going to become extremely costly. Just forcing the companies to pay a tax on the emissions isn't going to be enough - they're either going to have to reduce the amount of pollution produced in the first place, or find expensive and complicated ways to prevent it getting into people's lungs. The fact that much more pollution happens out in the open on tracks and roads is beside the point. The health impact to human beings has to be reduced, and that means major stations are affected first.

Again, if 221s are just as good as 390s, why did they order 390s?

 

[Kneedown]

Electric trains aren't faster as proved by the de rated Class 221 on the WCML. If they weren't, then whole £1bn / per minute argument would look rather different.

If we strapped a Saturn V rocket to a Pacer it would outrun an electric. Class 22X's use a horrendous amount of fuel to achieve that performance. Hardly a wise, or sustainable approach to persevere with. As has already been stated previously, speed and acceleration are just one advantage of electrification as there are benefits and cost savings to be had elsewhere. For me though, the overriding priority has to be cleaner air in towns, cities, and indeed all over the country, and also less noise pollution, especially important as we move towards a 24/7 society. The bottom line is, electrification is the only proven and perfected technology that will deliver this along with other economic benefits without many, many more years of reasearch and development.

 

[squizzler]

The interesting thing that seems to have happened with regard to the electrification is that there is a second wave of lobbying in its favour. The first wave was led by experts, as typified by that famous letter from the ATOC as I seem to recall in the late noughties. It laid out the merits of electrification in technical terms.

The current wave seems to be much more grassroots led. A couple of articles on the front page of Campaign for Better Transport are electrification related, and this is an organisation that represents the consumer, not the engineer. This second wave of agitation is driven by the users of individual lines whose services have been denied the benefits of electric service and will be much harder to resist.

 

[Aictos]

If the Project Thor had been progressed Cross Country would already be connected to the wires in New Street and elsewhere.

The fact is that while stations may be unpleasant, so are a lot of other places most of the fuel burn happens well out of town. £1bn would go a lot further spent on road transport.

Electric trains aren't faster as proved by the de rated Class 221 on the WCML. If they weren't, then whole £1bn / per minute argument would look rather different.

Point 1. Rail transport is more economic and that £1bn would be better off to continue to improve the railway.

Point 2. Rail transport emits even less CO2 then road transport even if the road transport takes a shorter route.

For example, I have a taxi and a train from London St Pancras to Nottingham and it clearly shows that even though the train travels further, it emits far less CO2 then the taxi.

0.01 tonnes: 174 km travelled by national rail
0.02 tonnes: 128 km travelled by taxi

This however is something that we can do even better at and by electrifying we can decease the CO2 emissions by rail even more.

Point 3. Electric trains ARE faster then Diesels as they have faster acceleration as they have unlimited power from the overheads compared to Diesels who are restricted to the diesel engine supplying the power.

As a note of interest, here is a YouTube video which compares a Diesel Networker with a Electric Networker and it clearly shows which one is faster!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQu-nu3tbKU

 

[edwin_m]

The problem is the term 'business case'. It is nothing of the sort. If the present value of cost savings and revenue gains are more than the present value of the costs, there is a financial case. A business case is not even needed.

Neither HS2, nor electrification have a financial case. In fact very little railway investment does.

The present value of the net cost (total cost - revenue and cost savings) is a £ value. Note your operating cost savings have already been used up.

Then the value of the intangibles, value of time saved and externalities is well made up. Noise, time value, air pollution, CO2 etc..

This is expressed as a ratio to the net cost. A good scheme generally needs 2.0 so may be £400m underwater financially but has £800m of intangibles behind it.

Electrification is such a dead duck the ratios are now coming in at less than 1. So even after cost savings the intangibles are less than the remaining financial losses.

De wiring is a pretty risible argument used to try and bolster the case for something that by any sound analysis is not a good use of public money.

MML electrification had a financial case when looked at in 2009. Taking the rail industry as a whole, the lower cost of buying and maintaining the electric trains paid for the capital and maintenance cost of the infrastructure.

There are of course several issues with this with hindsight.

Firstly, schemes have come in much more expensive than were expected in 2009. The answer to that is not to just accept it but to challenge the reasons behind it, which I think are a lot to do with steep learning curves and inappropriate standards.

Secondly, the costs accrue to Network Rail and the benefits accrue to the train operator. This ought to be captured by the franchise mechanism - when bidding a new franchise the bidders should pass on the savings via lower subsidy or higher premium, knowing they are in a competitive situation and if they try to bank the savings they will be underbid. But some tweaks may be needed to ensure this happens.

Thirdly is the advent of bi-modes. Where the business case was "spend on electrification Bedford to Nottingham/Sheffield and save on cheaper EMUs instead of diesels" it is now "spend on electrification Kettering or Market Harborough to Nottingham and Clay Cross, bring forward Clay Cross to Sheffield by 10 years, and save on cheaper EMUs instead of bi-modes." Nobody has worked out these figures despite making decisions which should have been informed by doing so.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I most probably have missed reading the correct postings on this website, but was there not a 2040 deadline date put forward by Government departments about a reduction in diesel fuel consumption and usage in modes of traction.

 

[D365]

I most probably have missed reading the correct postings on this website, but was there not a 2040 deadline date put forward by Government departments about a reduction in diesel fuel consumption and usage in modes of traction.

No formal legislation has been set, just the usual suspect MPs trying to make themselves sound good with far-field claims such as eliminating all diesel traction by 2040. This despite the fact that we are currently bringing brand new CAF diesels into service with an expected life of 30-40 years.

 

[HSTEd]

The clearance requirements that TSI representatives were more than happy to give us an exception for?

Were willing but no such exception exists and they are highly unlikely to grant onet now that the specification is complete.

Where have the overheads not worked beyond commissioning?

I was referring to the magical equipment like the HOPT that was going to slash the price and timescale for electrification.
But obviously didn't.

 

[Class 170101]

Point 3. Electric trains ARE faster then Diesels as they have faster acceleration as they have unlimited power from the overheads compared to Diesels who are restricted to the diesel engine supplying the power.

Power supply on Electric can be limited. I believe its been said on this board many times that 750vDC provides insufficient power for the newer trains with their air conditioing and various hotel power requirements and and the train is limited by the technology on how much power it can draw.

Even on 25KVac there are limits in some areas. 12 carriage operation to Cambridge from Kings Cross has only come into vogue in recent years. Due to the way BR electrified London to Cambridge routes in the 1980s as agreed by the Tory government of the time there was insufficient power east of Royston to allow 12 car operation in service. There still remain limits to the number of electric trains allowed to operate beyond Cambridge North Station to Kings Lynn.

Between Leeds and Skipton too there was a ban on Class 91 operation - again until recent years due to insufficient power in the overheads (Operation to Bradford Forster Square permitted).

 

[Railwaysceptic]

There might not be an issue with the topography Hills etc) however what is the land like to cross? If it is boggy then masts will sink without trace unless thought is put into their construction. Why do think parts of the Ely to Kings Lynn line are single now? The masts went onto the track bed to save money. Doubtless too there will be man made structures like bridges that will need changing / reconstruction.

I don't know what the soil conditions are like on that route, but I do know that the ECML skirts Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire and runs across the Vale Of York over a very similar landscape at 125mph. I'd be surprised to learn that between Doncaster and Hull the railway has worse conditions to contend with.

On a broader level, Parliament has agreed to spend countless billions on HS2 for which there is no business case and which will increase the total running costs of our national railway system. If higher speeds are so worthwhile, it would make more sense to invest serious money in removing speed restrictions in Eastern England where the land is flat and the railways are straight. These two YouTube videos, one in Yorkshire -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hVCAUSCeDE - and one in Lincolnshire -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4_gX8NxxLw - show what I mean.

If the earth is too soft and unstable for high speed running, then Network Rail and our society should bite the bullet and accept a blockade for several weeks in which the soil is removed and replaced by something more substantial. Obviously closing sections of the railway for weeks at a time would hugely inconvenience many people, but it would a once-only project bringing a permanent major improvement.