Most cost effective improvement?

[aavm]

What's the most cost effective improvement to the railway?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Cost efficient in what way?
Low Cost / Low Gain (e.g. GWR Battery 230s) and High Cost / High Gain (e.g. HS2) are very different but may be worth about the same when you calculate it (examples not to be taken literally, the 230 is just a trial, and HS2 isn't being built in full).

 

[telstarbox]

How about banning cash payments. Disproportionately used for small fares and a security risk too.

 

[SteveM70]

Some might argue about whether it was an improvement, but driver only operation / getting rid of the secondman role might be the most cost effective change

 

[aavm]

I was thinking of things like missing stations where 2 lines cross (e.g. near Petts Wood where the Victoria-Chatham line crosses the London Bridge - Tunbridge line), longer trains, fly-overs, missing sections of doubled or quadrupled track, simpler fares, etc.

 

[gingertom]

I was thinking of things like missing stations where 2 lines cross (e.g. near Petts Wood where the Victoria-Chatham line crosses the London Bridge - Tunbridge line), longer trains, fly-overs, missing sections of doubled or quadrupled track, simpler fares, etc.

I've often thought that Jordanhill could/should have platforms on the Anniesland line. Similarly Thornton for Glenrothes is screaming for the station to be located inside the triangle serving all the lines.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Centralisation of all customer functions such as call centers, delay repay, passenger assist etc. Initial bang to set it up but a lot of savings to be made longer term as standards vary hugely from operator to operator and many of these have further outsourced it to a third party contractor and you have to be on your toes with it especially if using services such as passenger assist which really should be consistent but is not

 

[telstarbox]

I was thinking of things like missing stations where 2 lines cross (e.g. near Petts Wood where the Victoria-Chatham line crosses the London Bridge - Tunbridge line), longer trains, fly-overs, missing sections of doubled or quadrupled track, simpler fares, etc.

Building a station at a physically difficult location with no catchment to serve unproven demand between two existing lines doesn't scream good value to me?

 

[aavm]

Building a station at a physically difficult location with no catchment to serve unproven demand between two existing lines doesn't scream good value to me?

What does scream good value to you?

 

[Topological]

Keeping old units in service until a capacity uplift is provided by the new ones.

For example, TfW still have 175s on lease and sitting in sidings while the 197s are far from ready. Had there been a way to keep them going (from Landore or otherwise) that would seem like a big improvement for capacity with low cost. As is we are still crowded onto Manchester trains and 15x are still making the full trip almost a year on from the TfW being warned for failing to maintain their 175s.

(Before anyone tries to take me to task for daring to criticise TfW, the link is here: ORR Rulings March 2023 and the text is as follows:

Notice issued to Transport for Wales Rail Limited on 17 March 2023​

• Issue date: 17 March 2023
• Compliance date: 17 September 2023
• Status: Complied
• Public register ID: l/ RJB/17032023/ROGS19

Description:

Transport for Wales Limited as the Train Operator have failed to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that passengers and employees are not exposed to the risk of harm. Three fires have occurred within a one month period between February and March 2023 onboard class 175 trains whilst in passenger service. The operator has failed to implement effective arrangements for the organisation, control and monitoring for the maintenance of the class 175 fleet needed to ensure the safe operation of the transport system.

 

[zwk500]

I was thinking of things like missing stations where 2 lines cross (e.g. near Petts Wood where the Victoria-Chatham line crosses the London Bridge - Tunbridge line)

Unless there's a town nearby, these are likely to represent poor value, especially if trains on branches fulfill the connectivity role.

longer trains,

If the platforms are there, or can be relatively easily extended AND the trains are spare this is a good value improvement. If you need to spend a bit more money it can still be worth it, if less cost-effective,

fly-overs, missing sections of doubled or quadrupled track

These are not cheap, and only represent good cost-effectiveness if they release substantial amounts of new paths for services in high demand.

simpler fares, etc.

Be careful what you wish for - it may be cost-effective for "the railway" but much less so to the end customer.

Personally I feel the most cost-effective improvement would almost always be to get rid of a speed restriction in an otherwise fast stretch of track. Although again it depends on what needs to be done for it - if you need a bridge or two to get rid of some level crossings it's not too bad, but if you need to completely realign a sharp curve then it gets expensive very quickly.
Sometimes a crossover or extra bay platform can represent an extremely quick and cheap improvement, or even putting in a new station on a line where the service doesn't need any changes to accept it. But everything is very site-specific.

 

[Haywain]

What's the most cost effective improvement to the railway?

1. Electrification.

2. Getting rid of speed restrictions which eat capacity on busy main lines. For example, speed restriction on crossovers out of loops on main lines (yes, I read about it in Modern Railways recently). These can be seen as marginal gains if they are done at the same time as renewals and maintenance.

 

[Turtle]

How about banning cash payments. Disproportionately used for small fares and a security risk too.

I see where you're coming from but if one's thinking along these lines then the whole question of cash as a medium of exchange has to be brought into question.

 

[telstarbox]

Quite right.

 

[Nottingham59]

What's the most cost effective improvement to the railway?

Start charging supplementary track access charges for every distinct path in the timetable over congested infrastructure, (during the hours when the congestion occurs). The mechanism for doing this has always existed, but so far has never been used.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Management-of-Congested-Infrastructure-Code-of-Practice-June-2021.pdf

4.4.1 Schedule 3 of the Regulations permits a scarcity charge to be levied for the use of congested infrastructure, where this charge has been set out in the applicable Network Statement. ... Network Rail does not levy such a charge.

It wouldn't have to be very much to flush out all those freight paths that are very rarely used but eat up capacity.

 

[renegademaster]

Throwing freight under the bus a bit on the WCML. Free up quite a few paths

20 lorries on the road for 200 cars off the road.

 

[bspahh]

A recent video with Richard Bowker

discusses how it costs £200 to cut down a diseased Ash tree, if you do it early enough so you can climb the tree, or £5000 if wait until it has decayed too much. If the railway needs to clear some vegetation, they have to replant within the boundary of the railway. It would be cheaper, to clear the vegetation from near the railway and recreate the habitat, somewhere where it would be cheaper to maintain.

 

[The Planner]

1. Electrification.

2. Getting rid of speed restrictions which eat capacity on busy main lines. For example, speed restriction on crossovers out of loops on main lines (yes, I read about it in Modern Railways recently). These can be seen as marginal gains if they are done at the same time as renewals and maintenance.

Still an enhancement which isnt renewals funded the vast majority of the time.

Throwing freight under the bus a bit on the WCML. Free up quite a few paths

20 lorries on the road for 200 cars off the road.

Frees little up as they are on the slows anyway.

 

[AlastairFraser]

What's the most cost effective improvement to the railway?

Extension of 3rd rail on networks that are nearly all electrified (i.e. Southern's routes from London to Uckfield - electrification needed from Hurst Green onwards, the North Downs line from Wokingham to Ash/Guildford to Reigate with transfer to SWR from GWR after completion, and the Marshlink from Ore to Ashford).

I'll discount Merseyrail from this (perhaps apart from Ellesmere Port - Helsby), as the battery solution is a decent plan once they are bedded in, and gives more flexibility, as there are many extensions possible, not all which will justify investment in 3rd rail extensions.

It's a stupid decision to tie those operators into having a diesel-powered microfleet, and the ORR need to realise that the overall impact of the 3rd rail extensions on safety is not negative in a wider context of removing emissions and pollution in general from urban areas.

While instead of third rail elsewhere, in the medium term I'd electrify SWR's West of England line at 25kv too, from Worting jcn outside Basingstoke to Exeter, and Eastleigh/Redbridge (between Southampton and Bournemouth) to Salisbury.
This should allow SWR to deploy bimode 25kv/third rail units and enhance the service.
Of course they could just order trimode diesel/25kv/3rd rail Stadler FLIRTs, and replace the diesel generator packs with batteries as and when electrification happened.

 

[deltic08]

Still an enhancement which isnt renewals funded the vast majority of the time.

Frees little up as they are on the slows anyway.

What slows north of Preston?

 

[The Planner]

What slows north of Preston?

I wasnt aware this was geographically restricted?

 

[Haywain]

I'll discount Merseyrail from this (perhaps apart from Ellesmere Port - Helsby), as the battery solution is a decent plan once they are bedded in, and gives more flexibility, as there are many extensions possible, not all which will justify investment in 3rd rail extensions

But batteries are additional expense when procuring the trains, additional maintenance expense and additional weight which means greater wear on the infrastructure which in turn increases costs. A short extension to the third rail (Headbolt Lane) would eliminate all of these and the need to manage a small microfleet to operate the service.

 

[zwk500]

Extension of 3rd rail on networks that are nearly all electrified (i.e. Southern's routes from London to Uckfield - electrification needed from Hurst Green onwards, the North Downs line from Wokingham to Ash/Guildford to Reigate with transfer to SWR from GWR after completion, and the Marshlink from Ore to Ashford).

I'll discount Merseyrail from this (perhaps apart from Ellesmere Port - Helsby), as the battery solution is a decent plan once they are bedded in, and gives more flexibility, as there are many extensions possible, not all which will justify investment in 3rd rail extensions.

if anything it's the other way round, Merseyrail should be getting 3rd rail extensions, and the Southern should get batteries.

It's a stupid decision to tie those operators into having a diesel-powered microfleet, and the ORR need to realise that the overall impact of the 3rd rail extensions on safety is not negative in a wider context of removing emissions and pollution in general from urban areas.

If they're such tiny microfleets, their impact in urban areas on air quality will be minimal.

While instead of third rail elsewhere, in the medium term I'd electrify SWR's West of England line at 25kv too, from Worting jcn outside Basingstoke to Exeter, and Eastleigh/Redbridge (between Southampton and Bournemouth) to Salisbury.
This should allow SWR to deploy bimode 25kv/third rail units and enhance the service.

While beneficial, probably not especially cost-effective until after Reading-Basingstoke and Westbury are also wired, and even then it's doubtful.

Of course they could just order trimode diesel/25kv/3rd rail Stadler FLIRTs, and replace the diesel generator packs with batteries as and when electrification happened.

Again, beneficial but not really cost-effective. Especially as it'd create the same microfleet problems you moaned about above.

 

[AlastairFraser]

But batteries are additional expense when procuring the trains, additional maintenance expense and additional weight which means greater wear on the infrastructure which in turn increases costs. A short extension to the third rail (Headbolt Lane) would eliminate all of these and the need to manage a small microfleet to operate the service.

Preston, Southport via Burscough, Wigan Wallgate, Wrexham, and Helsby are all extensions that could make use of the battery solution. Funding to make all of those 3rd rail would be incredibly difficult to find. Battery makes it a lot easier.
Headbolt Lane is just the start. The only extension I'd complete on 3rd rail is potentially the Outer Circle, but the track isn't there yet to enable that.

if anything it's the other way round, Merseyrail should be getting 3rd rail extensions, and the Southern should get batteries.

Disagreed, with reasoning detailed above.

If they're such tiny microfleets, their impact in urban areas on air quality will be minimal

A minimal impact on an extremely densely populated area, like a large chunk of South London, is contributing to pollution in areas where the level is already critically high, and will cause significant excess deaths.

While beneficial, probably not especially cost-effective until after Reading-Basingstoke and Westbury are also wired, and even then it's doubtful.

Agreed - this is why I said in the medium term (i.e. after 10-15 years by my definition in context of UK railway planning periods), because the need is only going to become more acute with the end of the Class 158/159 service life.

Again, beneficial but not really cost-effective. Especially as it'd create the same microfleet problems you moaned about above.

Depends how much the maintenance of Cl158/159s costs in the mid 2030s.
And anything replacing both Sprinter classes wouldn't be a microfleet - there's 37 of them with SWR, in comparison to only 17 Cl171s with Southern.

 

[Haywain]

Preston, Southport via Burscough, Wigan Wallgate, Wrexham, and Helsby are all extensions that could make use of the battery solution. Funding to make all of those 3rd rail would be incredibly difficult to find. Battery makes it a lot easier.

As things stand, I can't see any of tjose getting the finance for 3rd rail or new battery fleets, regardless of battery being easier. And any new battery fleet ordered now will be different to the 777s so it will just increase the number of microfleets.

Headbolt Lane is just the start.

Right. I'll wager that nothing more will have happened in the next 5 or even 10 years.

 

[Gaelan]

Centralisation of all customer functions such as call centers

The National Rail Enquiries call center exists now, and it’s bloody useless if you want anything that isn’t readily available on the NRE website. (And perhaps I’m the exception here, but if I call a TOC, it’s always because I need something not available on the website.)

 

[AlastairFraser]

As things stand, I can't see any of tjose getting the finance for 3rd rail or new battery fleets, regardless of battery being easier. And any new battery fleet ordered now will be different to the 777s so it will just increase the number of microfleets.

Right. I'll wager that nothing more will have happened in the next 5 or even 10 years.

You could fit batteries to more of the existing 777s, no? If you didn't have enough, they could order more 777s if they wanted to.
As for nothing happening, we'll have to wait and see. There's a strong case for at least 2 of the extensions I have mentioned.

 

[A0wen]

Throwing freight under the bus a bit on the WCML. Free up quite a few paths

20 lorries on the road for 200 cars off the road.

However the revenue from the freight operators will be much higher than the farebox revenue from the extra passenger workings. And passenger trains cost more to run than freight.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Right. I'll wager that nothing more will have happened in the next 5 or even 10 years.

The one I wouldn't be surprised to see is Wrexham, as there's a not unreasonable chance that TfW might cough up because it'd allow them to scrap the woefully unreliable 230s and release a 197 for something else, and be able to stop worrying about a line that is really more than a little bit of a nuisance to them.

As things stand, I can't see any of tjose getting the finance for 3rd rail or new battery fleets, regardless of battery being easier. And any new battery fleet ordered now will be different to the 777s so it will just increase the number of microfleets.

I don't think that's correct. I'm almost certain the Merseyrail order included an option for additional units (about 10 if I recall) though I don't remember when it expires. And the Stadler Metro product is still offered.

 

[py_megapixel]

I don't think that's correct. I'm almost certain the Merseyrail order included an option for additional units (about 10 if I recall) though I don't remember when it expires. And the Stadler Metro product is still offered.

Was it not the Merseyrail order which had an enormous allowance for follow-on orders - the theoretical number of extras actually being slightly larger than the initial batch?