British Rail early 90s Intercity Plan

[quantinghome]

I remember reading in some rail magazine many moons ago about Intercity's upgrade plans in the 90s once the ECML had been electrified. It went something like: Upgrade WCML, then electrify the GWML, then a further ECML upgrade including a bypass tunnel under York station. Was this an actual plan or is my memory playing tricks?

 

[zwk500]

There was certainly plans for the WCML, dubbed Intercity 250. The wikipedia article is quite good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterCity_250. I don't know about the GWML and ECML next steps, but electrification of the GW would seem logical (presumably HEx plans were being formulated around that time?)

One of the sources on the page is this booklet which is rather interesting: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BRB_Future001.pdf

 

[yorksrob]

As much as I admire sector era BR, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand what benefit a tunnel under York would bring !

 

[krus_aragon]

As much as I admire sector era BR, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand what benefit a tunnel under York would bring !

Excavating more finds for the Jorvik Centre?

 

[yorksrob]

Excavating more finds for the Jorvik Centre?

Yes, that would seem about the size of it !

 

[zwk500]

As much as I admire sector era BR, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand what benefit a tunnel under York would bring !

Depending on exactly where it starts, you'd be able to largely deconflict Skelton Jn and Skelton Bridge Jn, as well as removing the severe speed restriction for through traffic. Certainly helpful, but doubtful if it would be worth the money.

 

[yorksrob]

Depending on exactly where it starts, you'd be able to largely deconflict Skelton Jn and Skelton Bridge Jn, as well as removing the severe speed restriction for through traffic. Certainly helpful, but doubtful if it would be worth the money.

Quite. I think the key question would be "how much non freight through traffic are you expecting" !

I think pretty much all of the other grade separation schemes on the ECML would be more worthwhile.

 

[Helvellyn]

The WCML upgrade and IC250s would have seen the Mark 3 fleet cascaded to Anglia and CrossCiuntry, in turn allowing the Mark 2E/2F fleets to be withdrawn.

There was talk of a Class 48 to replace the 47s, and presumably the 87s would have gone to CrossCountry plus WCML Sleepers, with the 90s to Anglia (as a micro-fleet would have made sense).

As to what would come next, probably lots of aspirations but no definite plans.

 

[Bald Rick]

I remember reading in some rail magazine many moons ago about Intercity's upgrade plans in the 90s once the ECML had been electrified. It went something like: Upgrade WCML, then electrify the GWML, then a further ECML upgrade including a bypass tunnel under York station. Was this an actual plan or is my memory playing tricks?

GWML electrification was certainly looked at in the early 90s, and was to be the first application of auto transformers.

Never heard about a tunnel under York though (and I worked for IC back then).

It was all a bit fanciful though - there was basically zero investment committed in the early 90s.

 

[DustyBin]

The WCML upgrade and IC250s would have seen the Mark 3 fleet cascaded to Anglia and CrossCiuntry, in turn allowing the Mark 2E/2F fleets to be withdrawn.

There was talk of a Class 48 to replace the 47s, and presumably the 87s would have gone to CrossCountry plus WCML Sleepers, with the 90s to Anglia (as a micro-fleet would have made sense).

As to what would come next, probably lots of aspirations but no definite plans.

Somewhat ironic!

 

[gingerheid]

One of the sources on the page is this booklet which is rather interesting: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BRB_Future001.pdf

The European high speed rail network map in that document tells the start of the sad story of a country being increasingly left behind. Other countries have achieved ever so much since then.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I've seen documents suggesting GWML or MML electrification around the year 2000.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I've seen documents suggesting GWML or MML electrification around the year 2000.

Electrification was off the agenda (particularly at Railtrack/NR) from privatisation until 2006 at least.
Except for Heathrow Express and the NLL (for Channel Tunnel services that never started), and eventually HS1.
Crewe-Kidsgrove was wired around 2001 solely for WCML diversions while the Crewe-Stafford line was rebuilt.
The passenger TOCs went for diesels as they were deliverable during their franchise term.
Even the GW TOC wanted new diesels ("HST2") until Andrew Adonis insisted on electrification in 2009.
The GW scheme then had to wait until Crossrail was approved (to Maidenhead), followed by Thames Valley to Oxford/Newbury, and then Didcot-Bristol/Cardiff.
MML was part of the "electric spine" of 2012, but only got approval to Corby before the plug was pulled. They got new diesels anyway.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Electrification was off the agenda (particularly at Railtrack/NR) from privatisation until 2006 at least.
Except for Heathrow Express and the NLL (for Channel Tunnel services that never started), and eventually HS1.
Crewe-Kidsgrove was wired around 2001 solely for WCML diversions while the Crewe-Stafford line was rebuilt.
The passenger TOCs went for diesels as they were deliverable during their franchise term.
Even the GW TOC wanted new diesels ("HST2") until Andrew Adonis insisted on electrification in 2009.
The GW scheme then had to wait until Crossrail was approved (to Maidenhead), followed by Thames Valley to Oxford/Newbury, and then Didcot-Bristol/Cardiff.
MML was part of the "electric spine" of 2012, but only got approval to Corby before the plug was pulled. They got new diesels anyway.

I mean these were documents from like 1990 when privatisation wasn't set in stone

 

[Irascible]

The European high speed rail network map in that document tells the start of the sad story of a country being increasingly left behind. Other countries have achieved ever so much since then.

I'd also like to see a table comparing passenger numbers and "rail grant" vs the current subsidy - I knew 90s BR was doing pretty well but I did forget just how well. What a wreck privatisation made of this case.

 

[Bald Rick]

I've seen documents suggesting GWML or MML electrification around the year 2000.

MML was supposed to be in the 80s - Bedford was just ‘Stage 1’ but Sectorisation, the creation of InterCity as a business, and reprioritisation of the ECML saw to that. (Quite rightly)

 

[43096]

MML was supposed to be in the 80s - Bedford was just ‘Stage 1’ but Sectorisation, the creation of InterCity as a business, and reprioritisation of the ECML saw to that. (Quite rightly)

BR's plan/aspiration/whatever you want to call it in 1982 was that by the mid-1990s Great Western would have been electrified to Swansea and Plymouth (both via Bristol and Westbury), the ECML and MML would be wired, as would Bristol-Birmingham-Derby, Sheffield-Leeds and Didcot-Coventry.

 

[Helvellyn]

BR's plan/aspiration/whatever you want to call it in 1982 was that by the mid-1990s Great Western would have been electrified to Swansea and Plymouth (both via Bristol and Westbury), the ECML and MML would be wired, as would Bristol-Birmingham-Derby, Sheffield-Leeds and Didcot-Coventry.

Once GWML and MML electrification was done then the other CrossCountry elements become more viable as in-fill schemes.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

As much as I admire sector era BR, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand what benefit a tunnel under York would bring !

An elaborate train washing system? The city of York being known for (among many other things) frequently flooding.

 

[gg1]

BR's plan/aspiration/whatever you want to call it in 1982 was that by the mid-1990s Great Western would have been electrified to Swansea and Plymouth (both via Bristol and Westbury), the ECML and MML would be wired, as would Bristol-Birmingham-Derby, Sheffield-Leeds and Didcot-Coventry.

As it should have been.

Depressing that we'll almost certainly be heading into the 2030s with some or all of those key routes still not wired up.

 

[Wapps]

I'd also like to see a table comparing passenger numbers and "rail grant" vs the current subsidy - I knew 90s BR was doing pretty well but I did forget just how well. What a wreck privatisation made of this case.

Other than the TOCs, the rail network was renationalised almost 20 years ago. If the Labour, Coaliton and Conservative governments in that period wanted to prioritise electrification they could have done so. I suppose Labour was the worst party of government for electrification.

The truth is, prior to Net Zero, there seems to have been little incentive for a politician to deploy public capital into electrification whose return takes years to come back. The government has limited capacity to tax and borrow, and politicians will triage that capacity according to their politics and agenda, including easy wins. This is actually why privatisation is generally a good thing - it takes assets off the government’s balance sheet and allows for private sector players (who have the balance sheet to play with) to invest over the long term. Look at the TOCs to see all the new trains that we now have - I am certain that this would not happen if the TOCs were nationalised. Look also at the NHS, where room for private capital is severely blocked and so we have a system in perpetual crisis through lack of funding (that the government will never be able to satisfy!).

What we need to do is find a way to unlock more private sector capital into railway infrastructure, without the resulting debt (or guarantees) sitting on the government’s balance sheet. The government tried that with Railtrack and it failed, but there must be other ways. Private infra funds are awash with cash to invest!

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Other than the TOCs, the rail network was renationalised almost 20 years ago. If the Labour, Coaliton and Conservative governments in that period wanted to prioritise electrification they could have done so. I suppose Labour was the worst party of government for electrification.

The truth is, prior to Net Zero, there seems to have been little incentive for a politician to deploy public capital into electrification whose return takes years to come back. The government has limited capacity to tax and borrow, and politicians will triage that capacity according to their politics and agenda, including easy wins. This is actually why privatisation is generally a good thing - it takes assets off the government’s balance sheet and allows for private sector players (who have the balance sheet to play with) to invest over the long term. Look at the TOCs to see all the new trains that we now have - I am certain that this would not happen if the TOCs were nationalised. Look also at the NHS, where room for private capital is severely blocked and so we have a system in perpetual crisis through lack of funding (that the government will never be able to satisfy!).

What we need to do is find a way to unlock more private sector capital into railway infrastructure, without the resulting debt (or guarantees) sitting on the government’s balance sheet. The government tried that with Railtrack and it failed, but there must be other ways. Private infra funds are awash with cash to invest!

I’ve often thought that the current rail industry setup doesn’t give sufficient value to speculative land acquisition and development as part of business cases for rail investment. The old-school railway companies used to do this - look at the railway hotels, warehouses for commodities, and Metroland! An entire sector of Greater London that owes its existence to the Metropolitan Railway and no doubt greatly assisted in financing the development of the inner London network, as well as providing paying customers for trains. Is there some legislative reason why today Network Rail and TOCs side-businesses are limited to renting out kiosk space in stations and landlording the tenancies of existing space such as railway arches etc?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there some legislative reason why today Network Rail and TOCs side-businesses are limited to renting out kiosk space in stations and landlording the tenancies of existing space such as railway arches etc?

Two reasons:

1) railway underaking(s) are not usually permitted to compulsorily purchase land for use other than in the discharge of railway activities. Where it is attempted this is usually firmly slapped down by the relevant authorising route. The original HS2 (draft) bill had wide ranging powers for land acquisition, possibly for this purpose, and it didn’t get past first base.

2) NR is largely funded and financed by Government. Any purchase of land purely for property development would need Government financing, and thus be on the Governement books. As a rule Government is not in the market for purchasing land for property speculation, unless it is small parcels of land that would add to existing landholdings to make the whole bigger than the sum of the parts.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Other than the TOCs, the rail network was renationalised almost 20 years ago. If the Labour, Coaliton and Conservative governments in that period wanted to prioritise electrification they could have done so. I suppose Labour was the worst party of government for electrification.

Network Rail was only formally brought back into the public sector in 2014, and it took some time after that before DfT took real control of its finances.
Until then it could, and did, borrow on the commercial market for enhancement projects like WCRM, Thameslink and electrification.
The Treasury shut those doors (aka "cut up NR's credit card") and capped NR spend to its formal budget, hence the suspension/cancellation of some capital projects.
Nationalisation (in the sense of limited public funding) is not necessarily the answer to the railway's needs.

Labour spent a lot on the railway but much of it was invisible to the public (eg TPWS roll-out).
They also gave us HS1, kicked off Crossrail and HS2, and authorised GW and NW electrification (delivered in Tory years).
There was no industry demand for electrification - the TOCs were too busy ordering new diesels which could be delivered quickly.
The mantra was: "Passengers just want a seat, and don't know or care what powers the train".
Things changed from about 2007, when industry and government both shared the desire for more electrification.

 

[Western Sunset]

Interesting that the map with that document (mentioned in post #2) shows Nottingham as not being on any Inter-City lines, and the Liverpool Street to Colchester route isn't either, though beyond there it is. Inter-City was very London-centric, except for the Cross-Country route between Taunton and Derby, and Sheffield to Doncaster.

 

[LowLevel]

Interesting that the map with that document (mentioned in post #2) shows Nottingham as not being on any Inter-City lines, and the Liverpool Street to Colchester route isn't either, though beyond there it is. Inter-City was very London-centric, except for the Cross-Country route between Taunton and Derby, and Sheffield to Doncaster.

It doesn't quite show that - it shows to which business those lines/stations were allocated to for maintenance/operations.

Nottingham station and the lines running into it were allocated to Regional Railways and until the local Intercity and Regional operators were merged in 2007 continued to be managed by Central Trains (though curiously Midland Mainline ran the booking office).

It has always been more of a local hub than an Intercity one.

 

[nw1]

As it should have been.

Depressing that we'll almost certainly be heading into the 2030s with some or all of those key routes still not wired up.

When you think of the number of fairly secondary branches that are electrified in say Germany, it's amazing ours has been so much more limited.

A secondary regional line like Munich-Garmisch-Innsbruck would probably not be electrified in the UK, apart from the Munich suburban section. But it's not just that one even - the minor branch to Oberammergau and the branch at Garmisch to the west into Austria (Ehrwald and onwards, can't remember the name of the destination town) are both electrified. The latter has just a two-hourly service (or it did in 2009 and 2014, not sure about now) yet still electrification was considered viable.

I guess once you get over the initial costs, a mostly-electric network becomes simpler to operate (particularly if diesel 'islands' in a generally-electrified area can be avoided), which is presumably what Germany has realised.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Switzerland, Austria and parts of Germany and Italy committed to bulk electrification after WW1 when they realised they had limited access to coal and oil, but had plenty of Alpine hydro power.
We were wedded to unlimited coal until well after WW2, and then had North Sea oil.