Treasury Blocking electrification plans

Bald Rick · 15 Dec 2021

LNW-GW Joint said:
If "Gridwatch" is accurate, its wind figures don't seem to get above 14GW, and most recently somewhat less.
Having looked at figures over a couple of years, the gas figure remains stubbornly high, and there are too many calm, cloudy spells for comfort (I think we are just starting one now).
The interconnectors are important, when they work, but they are also allowed to export energy as well as importing it.
At this moment we appear to be a net exporter of power to Europe, as France is taking 2GW.

Gridwatch underestimates wind. Go to Drax Electric insights for better info. https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/homepage?&_k=u1v3d2

France seems to have some about 7GW of nuclear off line Compared to this time last year. hence we are exporting (as is Germany, lots).

RailUK Forums

A0wen · 15 Dec 2021

matacaster said:
Lowering safety standards sounds bad, but there should be a debate about what is a reasonable level of safety, rather than a gold plated version which no other walk of life embraces. There is also the issue of personal responsibility versus corporate responsibility.

If a child walks out into the road, which is very easily done, and is killed or maimed, do we immediately insist on barriers being erected on all roads? NO.
We expect parents and children (fairly or unfairly) to take personal responsibility.
There was a case where EWS was fined because someone cut through their metal wire fencing and managed to hurt themselves. They knew they shouldn't have been their, but why aren't the road and rail standards the same? The rail industry keeps pushing for higher safety standards, but ends up with enormous costs and reluctance of govt to invest when road transport embodies very few real safety standards. Imagine if the rail inspectorate was asked to do a risk assessment on roads - they'd nearly all be closed immediately.

BIB - presumably for the same reason that road and rail standards aren't the same as aviation standards or maritime standards. They aren't the same, each have their own different risks and each need to be treated accordingly.

Arguing that road should have the same standards as rail or that it's somehow bias towards roads because the standards are different shows a monumental lack of understanding about how risk is assessed and responsibilities.

DerekC · 15 Dec 2021

Anyone who wants to be informed about electrification costs should read the RIA Electrification Cost Challenge - highlighted by @quantinghome in post 237. I will repeat the link here for convenience with the summary page below:

https://www.riagb.org.uk/RIA/Newsroom/Stories/Electrification_Cost_Challenge_Report.aspx

The Electrification Cost Challenge (ECC) report uses examples from the UK and internationally to show that the high costs seen on recent projects, including the Great Western Electrification Programme, can be avoided in the future. It suggests that significant increase in cost on some past projects like Great Western should be seen as a one-off, caused by an unrealistic programme of work, unpreparedness in using novel technologies resulting in poor productivity and a ‘feast and famine’ electrification policy.

The purpose of the report is to:

Set out the benefits of electrification for passengers and customers, and how it supports the Government’s Decarbonisation Challenge;

Summarise UK electrification strategy since 2007;

Discuss the Great Western Electrification Project (GWEP) and the reasons that it failed;

Highlight the lessons that have been learnt; and

Highlight evidence that electrification can be, and is being, delivered for between 33%-50% of the costs of some recent projects using examples from around the UK and internationally.

The report calls for the industry to come together with Government to ensure mistakes aren’t repeated and urges Government to renew its commitment to electrification, following the cancellation of a number of schemes in July 2017, by establishing a ten-year rolling programme, which will build up capabilities amongst rail businesses, thereby lowering long-term costs

Taunton · 15 Dec 2021

It suggests that significant increase in cost on some past projects like Great Western should be seen as a one-off, caused by an unrealistic programme of work, unpreparedness in using novel technologies resulting in poor productivity and a ‘feast and famine’ electrification policy.

That's not really true, is it? The (Swiss) "expert" overhead suppliers came from a country where there are no electrification programmes - because they did the whole lot long ago. Sure there is maintenance of it, but there is here as well. The mass overbuild of supports, thoroughly messy, has not been done elsewhere, so why here.

The High Output Train which didn't perform was a classic "seemed like a good idea at the time", but there were comments about it being a poor concept from the start.

Not knowing where the Slough lineside signal cable was buried, which caused so much disruption when it was repeatedly broken by mechanical plant, should have been identified from the start - even if it was necessary to hand dig along its length to find it. I believe it had been buried deep to overcome cable thefts and there was no documentation available on where it had been put, but that is an issue very many engineering projects are faced with; it was not unique to this one. Incidentally, the Edinburgh Tram gross cost and time overrun was also significantly attributed to this, not knowing where the underground plant was.

quantinghome · 15 Dec 2021

Taunton said:
That's not really true, is it? The (Swiss) "expert" overhead suppliers came from a country where there are no electrification programmes - because they did the whole lot long ago. Sure there is maintenance of it, but there is here as well. The mass overbuild of supports, thoroughly messy, has not been done elsewhere, so why here.

The High Output Train which didn't perform was a classic "seemed like a good idea at the time", but there were comments about it being a poor concept from the start.

Not knowing where the Slough lineside signal cable was buried, which caused so much disruption when it was repeatedly broken by mechanical plant, should have been identified from the start - even if it was necessary to hand dig along its length to find it. I believe it had been buried deep to overcome cable thefts and there was no documentation available on where it had been put, but that is an issue very many engineering projects are faced with; it was not unique to this one. Incidentally, the Edinburgh Tram gross cost and time overrun was also significantly attributed to this, not knowing where the underground plant was.

The report states that the extraooooordinarily long piling design was the root cause of most of the cost and programme overrun.

Box · 15 Dec 2021

A0wen said:
BIB - presumably for the same reason that road and rail standards aren't the same as aviation standards or maritime standards. They aren't the same, each have their own different risks and each need to be treated accordingly.

Arguing that road should have the same standards as rail or that it's somehow bias towards roads because the standards are different shows a monumental lack of understanding about how risk is assessed and responsibilities.

Could you explain the differences between road and rail then please

Bald Rick · 15 Dec 2021

Box said:
Could you explain the differences between road and rail then please

I will.

Roads are public highways, and with the exception of motorways and a small number of other roads, Joe Public- Pedestrian is allowed on them to cross and walk where they please. The duty of care is on the individual.

Railways are not Public, except at strictly defined locations (stations, level crossings). The duty of care is on the railway to maintain a secure separation.

Therefore, on the railway Where there is trespass, via an (unofficial) access point, where the railway either knew about the access point and did not make an assessment of the risk , or didn’t know it was there because inspection procedures had not been followed, then it will find itself in trouble if there is an incident. The same applies on Motorways, although trespass through the fence is, I suspect, much less of an issue.

yorksrob · 15 Dec 2021

LNW-GW Joint said:
Hmm.
There was the NLL conversion/extension from 3rd rail to 25kV (largely for Eurostar regional services which never started).
Heathrow branch and the first 12 miles out of Paddington.
Much of the WCML was rewired/rebuilt for WCRM. plus Crewe-Kidsgrove.
HS1.

Some of these were BR schemes that carried over into the Railtrack/NR era.
Some of them were authorised specifically because of privatisation and the provision of external funding.
WCRM and Thameslink 2000 were authorised as part of the privatisation of BR into Railtrack, to guarantee a workflow and as a basis for franchising.

Much expertise did disappear with Railtrack/NR's anti-electrification stance (until 2007), some of it to contractors who were delivering schemes in Europe/Asia.
Much expertise has since been imported by the CP5 contractors (from Spain, Austria, Switzerland etc).
It's a global market with construction industry pricing and resources.

A bit thin though, really. Particularly compared to the 80's.

Box · 15 Dec 2021

Bald Rick said:
I will.

Roads are public highways, and with the exception of motorways and a small number of other roads, Joe Public- Pedestrian is allowed on them to cross and walk where they please. The duty of care is on the individual.

Railways are not Public, except at strictly defined locations (stations, level crossings). The duty of care is on the railway to maintain a secure separation.

Therefore, on the railway Where there is trespass, via an (unofficial) access point, where the railway either knew about the access point and did not make an assessment of the risk , or didn’t know it was there because inspection procedures had not been followed, then it will find itself in trouble if there is an incident. The same applies on Motorways, although trespass through the fence is, I suspect, much less of an issue.

Ah, thank you, that does make perfect sense. Although given that they are both fundamentally to enable travel for the public it does seem to make a rather uneven playing field.

yorksrob · 15 Dec 2021

Bald Rick said:
To be fair, as I have posted on another thread some time ago, the skills needed for electrification in this country have been, largely, maintained throughout. All the associated non electrification work (Civils, Track, Buildings, signalling) is done by the same people who do it for renewals / enhancements. The Power engineers have been very busy buying and installing transformers across the south, and on West Coast, and East Coast, and in Anglia, over that time. It’s also a skill easily transferred from the power industry.

OLE installers have as others have said, been well employed on renewals across the board, plus on other projects like HS1. It is true to say more were needed when the peak of work came in for GW, NW, West Mids and Scotland, but not that many more. It is an international trade now, much of Scotland was wired by Italians.

It's nice that it's an international trade, but not that good for a rolling programme !

GRALISTAIR said:
Yes Lilian Greenwood admitted (I will try and find the twitter reference for you) that it was a mistake that nothing/very little got done 1997-2010 when Labour were in office,

Ah cheers. I suppose they did see the error eventually with Lord Adonis.

paul1609 · 15 Dec 2021

Bald Rick said:
Gridwatch underestimates wind. Go to Drax Electric insights for better info. https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/homepage?&_k=u1v3d2

I believe that Drax and Gridwatch use the same data it's just that Gridwatch is instantaneous with a 5 min delay and 5 min up date intervals whereas Drax is an average over 30 minutes about 2 hours previously.

HSTEd · 15 Dec 2021

yorksrob said:
Ah cheers. I suppose they did see the error eventually with Lord Adonis.

Did they?

I've increasingly come to the conclusion that most of the late labour rail investment was merely intended as a poison pill for David Cameron rather than representing a big change of heart in government.

Goldfish62 · 15 Dec 2021

HSTEd said:
Did they?

I've increasingly come to the conclusion that most of the late labour rail investment was merely intended as a poison pill for David Cameron rather than representing a big change of heart in government.

Such as?

yorksrob · 15 Dec 2021

HSTEd said:
Did they?

I've increasingly come to the conclusion that most of the late labour rail investment was merely intended as a poison pill for David Cameron rather than representing a big change of heart in government.

I'm sure they didn't deliberately hide all those buried cables and abandoned mine workings !

Hellzapoppin · 15 Dec 2021

Taunton said:
That's not really true, is it? The (Swiss) "expert" overhead suppliers came from a country where there are no electrification programmes - because they did the whole lot long ago. Sure there is maintenance of it, but there is here as well. The mass overbuild of supports, thoroughly messy, has not been done elsewhere, so why here.

The High Output Train which didn't perform was a classic "seemed like a good idea at the time", but there were comments about it being a poor concept from the start.

Not knowing where the Slough lineside signal cable was buried, which caused so much disruption when it was repeatedly broken by mechanical plant, should have been identified from the start - even if it was necessary to hand dig along its length to find it. I believe it had been buried deep to overcome cable thefts and there was no documentation available on where it had been put, but that is an issue very many engineering projects are faced with; it was not unique to this one. Incidentally, the Edinburgh Tram gross cost and time overrun was also significantly attributed to this, not knowing where the underground plant was.

The cable in question, which incidentally was only hit once, was known about and the drawings showing such were available. It wasn't deep buried just the standard 2 ft 6.
Let's just say that the trial hole process was somewhat lacking.

Bald Rick · 15 Dec 2021

paul1609 said:
I believe that Drax and Gridwatch use the same data it's just that Gridwatch is instantaneous with a 5 min delay and 5 min up date intervals whereas Drax is an average over 30 minutes about 2 hours previously.

They do use most of the same data, but there is definitely wind missing from Gridwatch. Also they account for exports differently - I think Drax counts export as extra demand, whereas Gridwatch doesn’t.

JamesT · 15 Dec 2021

Bald Rick said:
They do use most of the same data, but there is definitely wind missing from Gridwatch. Also they account for exports differently - I think Drax counts export as extra demand, whereas Gridwatch doesn’t.

I think Gridwatch has exports as negative supply rather than additional demand.

HSTEd · 15 Dec 2021

Goldfish62 said:
Such as?

After not approving any significant new railway infrastructure investment in a decade, they suddenly, in the space of a few months, decide to propose a hugely expensive rail modernisation/electrification programme and a hugely expensive high speed rail project - with the high speed rail line adopting a shape that seemed tailored to cover as many electoral districts as possible?

Just at the time they are a year from an election and 20 points behind and it is clear they will not be in government beyond said election?

It was designed to cause as much political damage to the Tories from cancelling it, or driving it through, as possible.

Bald Rick · 15 Dec 2021

Ah ok, same result via a different route.

BrianW · 15 Dec 2021

DerekC said:
Anyone who wants to be informed about electrification costs should read the RIA Electrification Cost Challenge - highlighted by @quantinghome in post 237. I will repeat the link here for convenience with the summary page below:

https://www.riagb.org.uk/RIA/Newsroom/Stories/Electrification_Cost_Challenge_Report.aspx

Well, the RIA would say that, so it is dismissed out of hand: these words actually IN that report

“Government partially accepts this recommendation. In making decisions about whether an enhancement should progress through the pipeline we will consider whether it provides the best outcomes for passengers using the seven Principles for Investment set out in the RNEP. This means that Government will remain agnostic on how the outcome can best be achieved. The RNEP makes clear that all rail enhancements must be led by the needs that they are fulfilling rather than the methods by which they propose to fulfil them.

“We do not, therefore, expect proposals for new enhancements to begin with a pre-defined solution or input, such as electrification, but rather to set out the case for making an intervention to support a desired outcome. The RNEP sets out a rolling programme of investment in rail enhancements, including relevant and value for money electrification schemes. This approach only commits to take a project forward to the next stage when we have an appropriate understanding of how much it will cost, how long it will take, and the benefits it will deliver. This will avoid the problems of the past, where funding was committed before schemes were fully developed.

Rail and electrification enthusiasts need to 'smell the coffee'. They need people who will be seen as impartial to gain the right ears to be even invited to 'present a case', let alone get a genuine hearing, or money!!
The ultimate test must be that you would invest your own money in your 'no-brainer', esp 'at this challenging time'.
As I see it, the best to be hoped for just now is to retain something broadly close to the status quo.

Annetts key · 15 Dec 2021

Hellzapoppin said:
The cable in question, which incidentally was only hit once, was known about and the drawings showing such were available. It wasn't deep buried just the standard 2 ft 6.
Let's just say that the trial hole process was somewhat lacking.

CAT scanners will not always detect signalling cables. And are extremely poor at picking up copper telecommunications cables. And have no chance of detecting fibre optic cables.

Strangely enough, after the mentioned cable got hit, the various local S&T maintenance technicians were asked about their knowledge of cables and cable routes and did they have any plans showing the cables and cable routes. Most of the time, for planned cable routes, BR did keep reasonable records.

Incidentally, this was not the first time that a main signalling cable has been damaged by engineering works. It’s one on a list that is far, far too long

quantinghome · 15 Dec 2021

HSTEd said:
After not approving any significant new railway infrastructure investment in a decade, they suddenly, in the space of a few months, decide to propose a hugely expensive rail modernisation/electrification programme and a hugely expensive high speed rail project - with the high speed rail line adopting a shape that seemed tailored to cover as many electoral districts as possible?

Just at the time they are a year from an election and 20 points behind and it is clear they will not be in government beyond said election?

It was designed to cause as much political damage to the Tories from cancelling it, or driving it through, as possible.

It's common for political parties to throw out offers prior to an election, but this theory is ridiculous.

The outline plan for HS2 simply connects the main conurbations along the main trunk of population in the country in an efficient way, so of course it's bound to cover many electoral districts. Given that not many people were actually bothered about high speed rail one way or the other, I doubt the Tories would have lost much support by cancelling it in 2010. But they didn't. Indeed they expanded on the idea. And given HS1 had just been successfully opened at the time there was no obvious reason that HS2's development and construction would have been much of a problem.

Electrification was proposed in response to the massive increases in fossil fuel prices in the second half of the 2000s and the plans weren't particularly ambitious compared to other countries. We know from the post-mortem reports that they could have been successful if they were better managed. And you're forgetting that the Tories actually significantly expanded the electrification programme - remember the 'electric spine'?

If they'd wanted to deliver a poison pill, Labour would have announced the electrification of the entire rail network, or a motorway through a national park.

You're also forgetting that the Tories canned investment plans which were a lot closer to home for most people, such as the "Building School for the Future" programme. Cancelling HS2 and electrification would have been electorally painless by comparison.

GRALISTAIR · 15 Dec 2021

yorksrob said:
Ah cheers. I suppose they did see the error eventually with Lord Adonis.

Correct and it could be argued he is the true architect of waht has happened in the last 10 years or so. Give or take a few bits - GOBLIN for example.

HSTEd said:
Did they?
I've increasingly come to the conclusion that most of the late labour rail investment was merely intended as a poison pill for David Cameron rather than representing a big change of heart in government.

Hmm I never thought of it that way.

matacaster · 15 Dec 2021

A0wen said:
BIB - presumably for the same reason that road and rail standards aren't the same as aviation standards or maritime standards. They aren't the same, each have their own different risks and each need to be treated accordingly.

Arguing that road should have the same standards as rail or that it's somehow bias towards roads because the standards are different shows a monumental lack of understanding about how risk is assessed and responsibilities.

There is a nearby road junction to me. It has a lot of accidents and could do with traffic lights. The local council won't do that as they say not enough people have been seriously injured or died YET. Risk is risk wherever and whatever it is.

Starmill · 15 Dec 2021

Bald Rick said:
It did though, I did some of it!

not much, admittedly.

I always have a special feeling whenever I'm on an electric train between Crewe and Kidsgrove.

GRALISTAIR · 15 Dec 2021

Starmill said:
I always have a special feeling whenever I'm on an electric train between Crewe and Kidsgrove.

One of the most logical infill electrification schemes of all time imho.

Annetts key · 15 Dec 2021

Bald Rick said:
France seems to have some about 7GW of nuclear off line Compared to this time last year. hence we are exporting (as is Germany, lots).

We appear to be importing electricity from France again.

It’s not only France that has some reactors off line. eDF in this country are reporting:

Number of reactors in service: 8 of 13

quantinghome · 15 Dec 2021

Annetts key said:
It’s not only France that has some reactors off line. eDF in this country are reporting:

Number of reactors in service: 8 of 13

Good ol' AGRs. They've had their life extended but most will be shut in the next few years:

The Planner · 15 Dec 2021

GRALISTAIR said:
One of the most logical infill electrification schemes of all time imho.

A scheme to allow route mod to happen. The instigator is still around.

paul1609 · 15 Dec 2021

quantinghome said:
Good ol' AGRs. They've had their life extended but most will be shut in the next few years:

View attachment 107051

Dungeness last generated in 2018 the decision to not restart was made in the summer. I believe that Hunterston B is now only generating on one reactor which will close in January.

Treasury Blocking electrification plans

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member