• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Treasury Blocking electrification plans

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
5,996
Location
Surrey
I dont understand how a massive cantilever is cheaper than more traditional methods. A pair of lighter foundations and a simple rsj mast for each track. Or a portal gantry for 4 tracks. A cantilever needs a massive foundation.
Cantilevers never needed massive foundations on the electrification schemes I was involved in the 1980's. There maybe a few masts on the skew in places but my observation is 99.9% are still where we put them. The problem with all engineering today is standards keep being enhanced and its not just in OLE.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,469
Location
Glasgow
Denmark probably also saves a bit of money by doing it all at once instead of small bits now and then. When you think about it is a pretty impressive project to electrify the country in a decade. A small country though.
I think you might be overlooking the fact that the main "spine" of the network (Copenhagen - Odense - Fredericia, a significant proportion of its overall length) was already wired over twenty years ago!
 

Mollman

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2016
Messages
1,210
Absolutely. Our approach doesn't enable long-term planning and execution. We prevent continuity and efficiency rather than promote it. We don't build a centre of excellence, and don't re-use experience. often in the name of 'competition'.
Indeed, Network Rail have operated with preferred supplier frameworks in other areas so why not electrification. I.e. the network would be broken down into areas which would each have a single contractor who would have a rolling programme for that area.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Cantilevers never needed massive foundations on the electrification schemes I was involved in the 1980's. There maybe a few masts on the skew in places but my observation is 99.9% are still where we put them. The problem with all engineering today is standards keep being enhanced and its not just in OLE.
And lessons have been learned from the GWEP about keeping pile designs sensible while complying with the latest standards.

Regarding larger cantilevers, need to bear in mind that the structural dead load is pretty small - it's the wire tension and wind loadings that drive the design. Lateral pile capacity increases with the cube of the pile depth, so comparing single track and twin track cantilevers, the pile doesn't need to go that much deeper.
 

JonasB

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2016
Messages
921
Location
Sweden
I think you might be overlooking the fact that the main "spine" of the network (Copenhagen - Odense - Fredericia, a significant proportion of its overall length) was already wired over twenty years ago!

If any part of the Danish rail network can be called the spine it must be Copenhagen-Fredericia-Ålborg. But yes, the transit line between Sweden and Germany has been electrified for a while as well as a number of local routes around Copenhagen. But apart from that is has been diesel only. Which is comparable to the UK.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
2,595
Location
Somerset
If any part of the Danish rail network can be called the spine it must be Copenhagen-Fredericia-Ålborg. But yes, the transit line between Sweden and Germany has been electrified for a while as well as a number of local routes around Copenhagen. But apart from that is has been diesel only. Which is comparable to the UK.
I doubt however, whether either urban or rural topography is particularly comparable with large parts of the UK network.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Indeed, Network Rail have operated with preferred supplier frameworks in other areas so why not electrification. I.e. the network would be broken down into areas which would each have a single contractor who would have a rolling programme for that area.
That's exactly what NR did for the CP5 electrification, with every expectation that each contractor would move on to the next regional project.
But the failure of the GW and NW projects (in cost per mile terms) left some contractors high and dry as future projects were canned when the money ran out.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,446
Location
London
On the grounds that the majority of comparable countries (e.g. mainland Europe) electrified the vast majority of their network years/decades ago, it's quite difficult to make a current comparison of cost!

Maybe if the likes of France or the Netherlands were having to electrify busy urban lines now, they'd find it a lot more expensive than 60 years ago?

Yes and if we continue to put it off it will only get more expensive, so it gets put off again. And before we know it, it’s 50 billion not 30 billion!
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,672
Location
Leeds
Treasury Blocking electrification, here or in India?
Certainly not in India! They have an astonishingly rapid electrification programme. Though their power generation is still mostly fossil fuels.

What was the point of the question?
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
Denmark probably also saves a bit of money by doing it all at once instead of small bits now and then. When you think about it is a pretty impressive project to electrify the country in a decade. A small country though.

In addition how are Denmark wiring their lines?

27/54hr possessions
7hrs 45 minute possessions
Blockade
Something else?

For me personally I cannot see how anything other than a complete blockade would be cheaper as you only mobilise and demobilise once rather than several times with the other options?
 

Trog

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2009
Messages
1,546
Location
In Retirement.
I remember seeing men working off ladders adjusting the wires on the Midland Line electrification in the early 1980's between trains. When a train came into sight the lookout man took down the ladder and left the men standing on the contact wire. Done with a 20MPH TSR so obviously safety was being taken seriously.
 

Southsider

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2015
Messages
750
I remember seeing men working off ladders adjusting the wires on the Midland Line electrification in the early 1980's between trains. When a train came into sight the lookout man took down the ladder and left the men standing on the contact wire. Done with a 20MPH TSR so obviously safety was being taken seriously.
Standard practice, I was one of them although that was back in the dark ages of the 1970s!
 

JonasB

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2016
Messages
921
Location
Sweden
In addition how are Denmark wiring their lines?

27/54hr possessions
7hrs 45 minute possessions
Blockade
Something else?

For me personally I cannot see how anything other than a complete blockade would be cheaper as you only mobilise and demobilise once rather than several times with the other options?
I don't know, but there was a press release recently that they have started work on Fredericia-Århus. They have started installing foundations for catenary poles and it will be done at night. One track on the double track line will be closed 21-06 for the project while one is kept open.

The point is that once Fredericia-Århus is finished they will continue somewhere else.
 

Trog

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2009
Messages
1,546
Location
In Retirement.
Standard practice, I was one of them although that was back in the dark ages of the 1970s!

That is a relief as I was in two minds if I should post that recollection just in case I had imagined it. It being a long while ago and I have worked a very large number of very long night shifts since those halcyon days when BR's site staffs whole existence was a safety violation according to modern H&S standards.
 

modernrail

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,018
The economy is quite important. We should be spending to encourage economic activity, not to pacify environment activists with schemes which will achieve nothing but harm the economy and society.
My buildings insurance just went up from 2k to 8k for our 8 apartment block as the BGS has upgraded its assessment of subsidence risk in swathes of London including all of Lambeth. I had a row with the broker who told me, get used to it - real climate change costs are on the way and insurers are moving fast to understand risk having seen subsidence claims go up.

You and many others might say insurers would say that wouldn’t they - except I looked into it all and it is all correct.

I am still arguing with them on quantum obviously but people who think the economy will benefit or not be made worse from climate change should look at what is starting to drip through already and be very careful to dismiss most of the worlds scientists, our Government, the UN and the IPCC as ‘environmental activists’.

If you want a railway example, just go and look at the NR video taking about flooding events on the Conwy line, the incidence and severity of those events and the work they are having to do on the tunnel as a result.

I personally don’t think we need full electrification with OHL but we do need to figure out what we are doing with the rest. I suspect there will be several viable options once we have sorted through the various hydrogen, battery, hybrid demonstrator evidence.
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
2,253
Location
belfast
I personally don’t think we need full electrification with OHL but we do need to figure out what we are doing with the rest. I suspect there will be several viable options once we have sorted through the various hydrogen, battery, hybrid demonstrator evidence.

Isn't that exactly what the Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy was for? Looking at the evidence of available options and their suitability to different railway lines across England and Wales?
 

modernrail

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,018
Isn't that exactly what the Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy was for? Looking at the evidence of available options and their suitability to different railway lines across England and Wales?
Sorry, I don’t know enough about the purpose of the strategy to comment. However, I would have thought it was too early to draw useful conclusions on how well each of the alternatives might pitch against overhead electrification. There could be quite significant movement in performance and economics of each option.

There is a tendency to think we need a strategy now for everything. With decarbonisation in all sectors it is much more about no regrets type actions. I work on decarbonisation of heating and people get very caught up in needing to need the whole picture now. I personally think it is far more important to get projects in place where the economics already look good and then push out from there. For example, distributing heat from waste hear sources to big heat loads has great economics in certain configurations and challenging in others. Get the better ones in now, improve efficiency etc, and in parallel work out what you are going to do with the less easy stuff as information, data and innovation come through. It should be an exciting journey rather than an antagonistic one.

We made a historic mistake buying steam well after WWII. We made a second mistake going for diesel whilst throwing very young steam trains away. That is why we have the main East West route, that includes the oldest stretch of intercity track in the world, as a half arsed quarter if that electrified route. We need to eat some humble pie, learn from the mistakes of the past and get it right this time. Not everything needs to be answered on day 1. No intelligent organisation would think that.
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
2,253
Location
belfast
Sorry, I don’t know enough about the purpose of the strategy to comment.
Just in case you're interested, the strategy is available here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ess-Case.pdf&usg=AOvVaw22Lq4qUEgobjaf-kB0fVjC

We made a historic mistake buying steam well after WWII. We made a second mistake going for diesel whilst throwing very young steam trains away. That is why we have the main East West route, that includes the oldest stretch of intercity track in the world, as a half arsed quarter if that electrified route. We need to eat some humble pie, learn from the mistakes of the past and get it right this time. Not everything needs to be answered on day 1. No intelligent organisation would think that.
Absolutely agree with this. Unfortunately though in the UK many no-brainer electrification programmes are still not being done (the busy lines out of Marylebone for example). I think part of the aim of the strategy was to make clear that for a significant number of routes electrification is the best, cheapest option, and will remain so for the forseeable future. There is a bunch of lines where the conclusion is that it is currently unclear what the best option would be, but they tend to be quieter lines (such as Cambridge-Newmarket). However, it is important that uncertainty about the best option for some lines doesn't lead to delaying/cancelling/descoping the routes where electrification is obviously superior, as DfT and the Treasury have done over the last few years. We do really need to start making some progress.
 

modernrail

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,018
Just in case you're interested, the strategy is available here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjctv38z5D3AhVCoVwKHQ7eB_UQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Traction-Decarbonisation-Network-Strategy-Interim-Programme-Business-Case.pdf&usg=AOvVaw22Lq4qUEgobjaf-kB0fVjC


Absolutely agree with this. Unfortunately though in the UK many no-brainer electrification programmes are still not being done (the busy lines out of Marylebone for example). I think part of the aim of the strategy was to make clear that for a significant number of routes electrification is the best, cheapest option, and will remain so for the forseeable future. There is a bunch of lines where the conclusion is that it is currently unclear what the best option would be, but they tend to be quieter lines (such as Cambridge-Newmarket). However, it is important that uncertainty about the best option for some lines doesn't lead to delaying/cancelling/descoping the routes where electrification is obviously superior, as DfT and the Treasury have done over the last few years. We do really need to start making some progress.
Great, thanks for the link.

Fully agree. I am often disappointed at how well the industry acts on heat to convince Gov of no-brainier schemes. It is stuck in ‘react to tender’ mode. Not sure if the same is true for rail electrification but if it is, massive issue.

Treasury makes me pull my hair out, a lot. That said, on this particular subject I feel the industry could do a lot more to convince Government it can spend money well. Yes Government needs to approve a rolling programme to help industry plan and therefore produce efficiency, but industry also needs to do much better at showing how it will not revert to contractor type and screw the variations on each project rendering the rolling programme meaningless because budget is sucked up by contractors who said they would do it for x then find out, with all their supposed expertise, it will be 3x or 5x. If that is going to be how it is, maybe better for NR to develop and in-house delivery team as the private sector is adding nothing other than uncertainty.

I actually get quite angry when I think about the green shoots of innovation we have seen and think how much that could have saved on past schemes - the insulation paint job on the bridge is the one that always comes to mind. That said, is my frustration misguided and should be aimed at NR throwing out the wrong specs or specs without an innovation channel to allow for improvement? Don’t know enough about the inner workings to comment.

Feels like it needs some sort of Alliance contracting model to me.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,644
Location
West is best
The problem with NR doing a big project in house, is that NR is not one large company with tight overall control. Devolution means that each route makes the decisions. So even the works delivery organisations in each route are run differently from each other.

Plus NR works within its own annual budgets, although there is a five year control period.

To do a nationwide programme, the internal divisions need to be sorted out.
 

modernrail

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,018
The problem with NR doing a big project in house, is that NR is not one large company with tight overall control. Devolution means that each route makes the decisions. So even the works delivery organisations in each route are run differently from each other.

Plus NR works within its own annual budgets, although there is a five year control period.

To do a nationwide programme, the internal divisions need to be sorted out.
Couldn’t the routes all subcontract to a single specialist in-house SPV? If anything I would have thought that would help ensure a client - contractor relationship is in places with checks and balances but there is also the potential for a ‘one team’ mentality. Could be an interesting route if the private sector feels unable to pull its socks up/doesn’t care enough because it is making more money elsewhere.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
Just in case you're interested, the strategy is available here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjctv38z5D3AhVCoVwKHQ7eB_UQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Traction-Decarbonisation-Network-Strategy-Interim-Programme-Business-Case.pdf&usg=AOvVaw22Lq4qUEgobjaf-kB0fVjC


Absolutely agree with this. Unfortunately though in the UK many no-brainer electrification programmes are still not being done (the busy lines out of Marylebone for example). I think part of the aim of the strategy was to make clear that for a significant number of routes electrification is the best, cheapest option, and will remain so for the forseeable future. There is a bunch of lines where the conclusion is that it is currently unclear what the best option would be, but they tend to be quieter lines (such as Cambridge-Newmarket). However, it is important that uncertainty about the best option for some lines doesn't lead to delaying/cancelling/descoping the routes where electrification is obviously superior, as DfT and the Treasury have done over the last few years. We do really need to start making some progress.

Whenever I see "no brainer" being quoted, it usually seems to be a more apt description of the person that's suggesting something than the suggestion.

Marylebone isn't going to be simple - for one thing you've got the shared tracks with London Underground between Harrow on the Hill and Amersham. You've also got bridges and tunnels which weren't designed for electrification and haven't been reconstructed in many years. Arguably there are more benefits in dealing with the ex GW suburban services around Birmingham which are still being diesel run - virtually all the London suburban services are electric run (especially if you count the tube) whereas in Birmingham you've got 2 of the 3 main stations in the centre with only diesel services where heavy rail is concerned.

If you've got a magic solution to the challenges of doing the Marylebone lines, then I suggest you offer your services to Network Rail and whilst you're at it the government so it can be paid for.
 

modernrail

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,018
Whenever I see "no brainer" being quoted, it usually seems to be a more apt description of the person that's suggesting something than the suggestion.

Marylebone isn't going to be simple - for one thing you've got the shared tracks with London Underground between Harrow on the Hill and Amersham. You've also got bridges and tunnels which weren't designed for electrification and haven't been reconstructed in many years. Arguably there are more benefits in dealing with the ex GW suburban services around Birmingham which are still being diesel run - virtually all the London suburban services are electric run (especially if you count the tube) whereas in Birmingham you've got 2 of the 3 main stations in the centre with only diesel services where heavy rail is concerned.

If you've got a magic solution to the challenges of doing the Marylebone lines, then I suggest you offer your services to Network Rail and whilst you're at it the government so it can be paid for.
Bit/very rude to OP?
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
Bit/very rude to OP?

No more than saying something is a "no brainer" with the implication others are either thick or ignorant at not seeing that when there is no demonstrable evidence that such a suggestion is a "no brainer".
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
2,253
Location
belfast
Marylebone isn't going to be simple - for one thing you've got the shared tracks with London Underground between Harrow on the Hill and Amersham. You've also got bridges and tunnels which weren't designed for electrification and haven't been reconstructed in many years. Arguably there are more benefits in dealing with the ex GW suburban services around Birmingham which are still being diesel run - virtually all the London suburban services are electric run (especially if you count the tube) whereas in Birmingham you've got 2 of the 3 main stations in the centre with only diesel services where heavy rail is concerned.
The reason I suggested Marylebone is that it is a very busy line in an area where bad air quality is a serious problem. Obviously a detailed design would need to be made, taking into account the challenges such as tunnels and the overlap with the tube (and loads of others). As far as I'm aware, no serious attempt has ever been made to do that for these busy lines. In any case the point wasn't the specific scheme, but rather that schemes that should be obvious haven't been progressed, whether the obvious scheme is in London, Birmingham or elsewhere.

I didn't mention Birmingham as I don't really know anything about it, other than that New Street station is very unpleasant due to the diesel fumes.

Also, you could have made your point without immediately being pretty rude against someone you've never met!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top