Electrification scrapped.

[Ivo]

On the GW aren't the OLEs being extended to Reading for Cross Rail? Makes sense to extend even further, especially when there is a +ve business case. I understand one of the main benefits (which is rarely mentioned) is the current cost of diesel engine replacement, which is where the TOC/ROSCO benefits.

That's assuming Crossrail makes it to Reading in the end; the way the railways have been treated of late - e.g. the rest of this article (!) - they'll probably end up diverting them all to Heathrow to avoid "unnecessary" electrification costs outside of the central area, which would be... interesting. How many crashes per hour would there be? (P.S.: I made that up. It's just to prove the point.)

Whilst I'm a huge supporter of high-speed rail and would like to see it, I think this is a bad decision to build HS2 and not electrification or other small schemes in urban areas which really need to go ahead. Given the limited pot of money I'd rather electrification rather than HS2 until we've got the money sorted out.

Yes but the post-2000 argument is to increase capacity first, no matter how stupid, as that is always best. Oh wait a sec, that's not true is it? Where there is no need, noting i done. Where there is need, um, they improve the layout at certain stations to speed things up in bottlenecks.

"We changed the way we do things at First Great Western by putting our customers at the centre of everything. In many ways we have become victims of our own success because we are reaching maximum capacity on many of our busiest roots."

Sounds like the compost is too rich

 

[starrymarkb]

Blame the Journo for that one - Shows spelling isn't just the Grauniad's weak spot

 

[caughtonatrain]

Judging by the election result most people don't agree and would rather have that money in their pockets. I agree that electrification is desirable, but HS2 is a total vanity project, not benefitting most people. And don't forget that this income tax rise you speak of would be paid for by everyone.

I didn't say I was in the majority. I'm realistic enough to realise that personal greed will outvote social need most days. I'm afraid to say (again, I'm the minority here) that I would have to be forced to pay a hell of a lot more income tax before I would complain, especially if it was used to fund a decent publicly-owned railway. Income tax is fairer than VAT, which we'll all end up paying instead. This is only the start. Tories will destroy railways, because they basically hate them. Along with greed, such hate's in their bloodstream.

 

[starrymarkb]

I wouldn't say they hated the railways any more or less then any other party. Neither Labour or Conservatives have a good track record. There are good and bad ministers on both sides of the house.

 

[PhilipW]

This whole thread is based on a simple paragraph or two from "The Sun". I hope we are not carried away as it may not be true.

I can well see the new government delaying the electrification. I find it harder to believe that it will cancel it.

Yes, I know one can play with words - a "delay" of 10 years is nearly the same as a "cancellation". Announcing that the scheme will be delayed for 3 or 4 years might be way out for them. The new Thameslink stock is running late and the release of redundant 319s is a key part of the scheme anyway. Letting the HSTs run fir a few more years without having to buy new mainline stock now might seem like a good option to the DfT now.

I suspect the project will "slip" or be "delayed" or any other adjective without actually being "cancelled".

 

[Failed Unit]

I wouldn't say they hated the railways any more or less then any other party. Neither Labour or Conservatives have a good track record. There are good and bad ministers on both sides of the house.

I guess when you look at past governments then as you say they are about the same.

1979 - 1997
Pacers (Don't know if that was good or bad)
Sprinters (basically an overhaul of regional railways)
Electrifcation to Norwich, Cambridge, Kings Lynn, Edinburgh, Leeds, Bradford, Wharfdale lines, (3rd rail routes but can't remember where - Weymouth)
IC225
Networkers
Lots of station re-openings
Privatisation
Total route modernisation of Chiltern
Line re-openings including Glenrothes, Bathgate, Birmingham Snow Hill (I am sure others)

1997 - 2010
Replacement of mk1's
HS1 (although this was in planning under Major)
Pendo's and Voyagers

Rolling stock-wise we are probably about the same between the two governments. Electrification was a no-go under labour. Rail and station re-openings were rare in England. I think the railway has had a worse time under Blair and Brown then it did under Thatcher and Major. Although she did attempt to kill many lines most survived.

 

[4SRKT]

I didn't say I was in the majority. I'm realistic enough to realise that personal greed will outvote social need most days. I'm afraid to say (again, I'm the minority here) that I would have to be forced to pay a hell of a lot more income tax before I would complain, especially if it was used to fund a decent publicly-owned railway. Income tax is fairer than VAT, which we'll all end up paying instead. This is only the start. Tories will destroy railways, because they basically hate them. Along with greed, such hate's in their bloodstream.

I'm not so sure. I'm no lover of the Tories, but the times have changed and nobody can afford to hate the railways anymore. Definitely their track record isn't good: my childhood haunted by the spectre of the Serpell Report (when not too busy worrying about that other Tory-inspired bogeyman, global nuclear war!), and the botch of privatisation.

Sadly I think we'll have to pay more income tax, although this is as you point out, better than VAT. Can't see it being used to fund railway developments in the near future though: more likely to be poured into some black hole somewhere (or maybe used to bail out BP...........).

 

[jon0844]

Given the quality of the HST refurbishments and the Mk4s, these trains can still go on for quite a few more years can they not?

I can see a lot of things being delayed, but I'd hope that work still continues on planning schemes so they can be resumed when things pick up.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

The problem is where is the electric stock going to come from to replace the DMUs?

Even if you electrified two of those & built 24 EMUs you's still have loads of money left out of the GWML electrification pot, even FGW have stated that they'd like to see the Reading - Gatwick service turned over to EMUs to release the Turbos.

 

[Donny Dave]

I guess when you look at past governments then as you say they are about the same.

1979 - 1997
Pacers (Don't know if that was good or bad)
Sprinters (basically an overhaul of regional railways)
Electrifcation to Norwich, Cambridge, Kings Lynn, Edinburgh, Leeds, Bradford, Wharfdale lines, (3rd rail routes but can't remember where - Weymouth)
IC225
Networkers
Lots of station re-openings
Privatisation
Total route modernisation of Chiltern
Line re-openings including Glenrothes, Bathgate, Birmingham Snow Hill (I am sure others)

I've edited out the Labour years, but you missed the tram networks in Nottingham, Sheffield and Manchester from your Conservative list.

Overall, I think the Conservatives are better for the railways compared to Labour. Labour in the last 13 years have a history of promising much, delivering little, achieving huge cost over runs and basically screwing the railways (and trams networks) over.

 

[Failed Unit]

Labour in the last 13 years have a history of promising much, delivering little, achieving huge cost over runs and basically screwing the railways (and trams networks) over.

Looking at Edinburgh maybe they were right about trams after all

 

[daccer]

'delay' and cancellation can mean the same thing!

The big worry is that we were just starting to see some joined up thinking on railway investment - one thing naturally leading to another but to pick bits of the puzzle and delay them makes others then implausable. If we delay electrification we wont see the cascades of dmus and therefore Pacers remain. If we delay ordering Thameslink emu's what is the point in electrifying Man-Liv if we have no units for it.

Also no IEP then what happens to GWML electrification and MML also. So one small slippage in the investment programme leads to a multitude of problems. On top of this is the need to effect modal change for emissions and green reasons and the age of the fleet. I actually pity NR as they have stringent punctuality targets to meet and yet the fleet running around will be getting older by the day. Also the scrap man is going to be struggling to find much to cut in the years ahead - Pacers running at age 35 - most probably!!

 

[thefab444]

Whilst I'm a huge supporter of high-speed rail and would like to see it, I think this is a bad decision to build HS2 and not electrification or other small schemes in urban areas which really need to go ahead. Given the limited pot of money I'd rather electrification rather than HS2 until we've got the money sorted out.

Fully agree. HS2 is the sort of premium service you could justify if we were on a good economic footing, but as we aren't, electrification and new stock would be far better.

I shouldn't be suprised if HS2 is canned as well.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

HS2 is absolutely NOTHING without the necessary feeder routes & connections, some of which aren't electrified.

So therefore you need to do the little bits first before doing the major trunk, so on opening day you have everything working as it should. No feeders/connections then HS2 is a massive & very expensive white elephant.

 

[asylumxl]

I wonder if the MPs will get a discount on HS2....

The government should can HS2, definetly.

 

[455driver]

We should be having HS2 AND electrification. And if I have to pay an extra penny or two in the pound in tax (Income tax NOT regressive VAT) then so be it.

Stick it on VAT then everyone does pay it, by putting it on income tax you are hitting the workers again.

And don't forget that this income tax rise you speak of would be paid for by everyone.

Not by everyone, only by the workers, not by students or job dodgers!

The government should can HS2, definitely.

Agreed.

 

[Techniquest]

If this is true, then all I can think of is 'Oh dear'. Cancelling the GWML electrification cannot be a good thing, as others have said. Indeed, I can only echo most posters' views really.

Especially when it comes to cancelling HS2 if it means we get the electrification that we were virtually promised only a few months ago. Improve what we have now, and when the economy can support grand construction schemes again, we should only start on HS2 then.

Either way, sadly I can't say I'm overly surprised if the electrification does get cancelled.

 

[mumrar]

Starrymarkb posted a couple of links, one of which was quoted as saying 'The project was a key part of Labour's transport policy and would
slash rail journey times between Bristol and the capital by as
much as an hour.' The slowest direct service from Bristol to Paddington is for 2hrs, and the fastest 1hr38min, so what train is electrification going to shave an hour off?? 119mph average speed will certainly be impressive, particularly with a top speed of 125mph.

 

[Aictos]

Bin HS2, the government ought to work on electrification of routes which need it rather then this vanity project.

The likes of:

Reading to Basingstoke/Reading to Redhill would present SWT with a diversonary route via Reading if needed not forgetting a new though service between Basingstoke and Waterloo via Reading using the existing 458s from the Waterloo to Reading terminators.
Ely to Peterborough would present FCC with a diversonary route not forgetting East Coast as well, not forgetting freight as well.
Peterborough to Doncaster via Ely would be a good diversonary route for East Coast as well as freight.
Blackpool to Preston
Wrexham to Bidston

Etc...

Skipton etc..should have their existing OHL upgraded to take 91s rather then just HSTs.

 

[Proud Salopian]

HS2 will suck all the money out of the country's transport budget for about 2 decades to come, just so businessmen can get from B'ham to London 20 minutes quicker. Brilliant.

 

[caughtonatrain]

HS2 will suck all the money out of the country's transport budget for about 2 decades to come, just so businessmen can get from B'ham to London 20 minutes quicker. Brilliant.

But surely the point is that these things have to start somewhere - the intention would be a wider network (basically an extension of trans European HS rail network). Agreed Brum-London provides marginal benefits but it provides a launching point for something bigger. The Motorway network wasn't built overnight (various little spurs and bypasses like Preston etc came first) . And don't underestimate the importance of symbolic capital to countries' economies over the much longer terms - witness Spanish AVE and even Italy's new line, symbolic of modern progressing European countries. These things are of course difficult to quantify but they definitely have an impact over and above the narrow transport cost benefit analysis. Rail is too big and too important to be left to the private sector, because it needs 15-25 year investment planning horizons and can't be expected to offer early returns on investment. For a truly effective capitalist economy, the state must provide decent infrastructure, and the public (and business) must pay for it through taxation IMHO.

 

[Geezertronic]

HS2 will suck all the money out of the country's transport budget for about 2 decades to come, just so businessmen can get from B'ham to London 20 minutes quicker. Brilliant.

That's a typical naive comment to make regarding HS2. Whether it gets built or not, it was never purely about London to Birmingham under Labour's plans and will not purely be about London to Birmingham under the current Government. That's the sort of comment I would expect from a NIMBY.

I would direct you to the DfT documents on HS2 so you could do research but since they are obsolete now, there's no point.

As far as Electrification goes, I would like to wait to hear something more concrete from the Government.

 

[Proud Salopian]

Not a NIMBY, just someone (who's not alone) who thinks that spending tens of billions of pounds on a single railway line between two cities that already have good railway links, in a time of tight public (and private) spending and also at a time when the existing railway network needs investment across the board, is perhaps not the wisest way to invest in the railways.

(As it appears we've lowered ourselves to calling one another acronyms, I see you're from B'ham... perhaps a case of IMBYism on your part? )

I'd rather re-open countless lines and stations across the UK, together with expanding tram networks in various cities, with the money. Anyone else with me on this one?

(I will point out now that I'm generally in favour of building high speed lines, but if we are to do it let's build a genuine country-wide network and let's do it well planned and with the existing network not put aside. Yes that would require a lot of money and political will, but it's the only serious way of doing it. At least doing it properly..)

 

[A60K]

A countrywide network has to start somewhere. SNCF started with Paris to Lyon, since the classic line between the two was saturated. This line has since been extended to Valence and to Marseille, and other lines added.

London to Birmingham is almost the exact parallel of Paris to Lyon, apart from being a bit shorter.

Yes, reopen lines and stations, but if we're going to have a high speed network then London to Birmingham is probably the best possible route to start with.

 

[Crossforth]

The benefit with going ahead with these schemes is not just the 20 min quicker journey between B'ham and London but think of the jobs it would create for construction workers.

By creating jobs, you allow people to start spending freely again therefore boosting confidence in the economy and reducing gov deficit and then more people may also be able to afford high speed travel.

I do agree though that gaps need filling in, with electrification, such as Leeds - York.
It would provide a diversionary route and (providing suitable rolling stock is found) take certain diesels out of the equation.

 

[LE Greys]

Are they really serious about this? Electrification, if done properly, vastly increases passenger numbers as well as making trains faster and cleaner, especially for commuter networks. The West Coast scheme did just that, providing not only electric expresses, but electric suburban services in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow. Filling in the gaps would be very helpful. The East Coast version hardly provided for any suburban traffic in West Yorkshire or Tyne & Wear. Even just doing that would be an improvement. The 'sparks effect', almost always generates extra passengers, thus paying for itself in a decade or two.

This makes no sense.

 

[Drsatan]

The benefit with going ahead with these schemes is not just the 20 min quicker journey between B'ham and London but think of the jobs it would create for construction workers.

By creating jobs, you allow people to start spending freely again therefore boosting confidence in the economy and reducing gov deficit and then more people may also be able to afford high speed travel.

I agree, although many of the technical specialists involved in the construction of HS2 would probably be foreign nationals from other countries with more developed high speed networks (China, France, Japan) due to Britain's comparative lack of expertise. They wouldn't pay taxation in the UK and so their wages wouldn't benefit the British economy.

However, given China's newly acquired expertise in the construction of high-speed lines (Chinese-lead consortium is bidding to build a high-speed line from San Diego to Sacramento via San Francisco and Los Angeles), it might be worthwhile for the PRC to support the construction and operation of HS2. At least there wouldn't be any delays in construction or budget overruns!

I don't see why more intermediate stations should be added between the 'hub' at Old Oak Common and Birmingham, otherwise HS2 will solely be for travel between London and Birmingham ignoring other communities (e.g. Aylesbury). I'd suggest building a spur to Oxford with HS2 trains running onto Banbury (and since Oxford-Banbury would have to be electrified it would make sense to wire up the GWML as well, which might not happen), to reduce overcrowding on FGW trains to Oxford and Chiltern trains to Banbury

In todays Times there's a very good opinion piece outlining the case for a tax on land valuation. Since Britain's total land value stands at £5 billion even a levy of 0.5 on land valuation could raise £25 billion

 

[mumrar]

Is that comment about workers nationalities borne out with evidence from the construction of HS1. This is not flaming, a genuine question.

 

[Drsatan]

Is that comment about workers nationalities borne out with evidence from the construction of HS1. This is not flaming, a genuine question.

It's a guess. Because HS1 was the first high speed line to be built in the uk I'd have thought many of the technical staff would have had previous experience on other high speed lines, and thus would have come from countries with existing high speed networks like France

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It's a guess. Because HS1 was the first high speed line to be built in the uk I'd have thought many of the technical staff would have had previous experience on other high speed lines, and thus would have come from countries with existing high speed networks like France

Its equally likely that preferred contracts would be granted to companies currently building electrified lines in the UK, with the intention to provide continuity - as one contract moves towards completion, another moves from planning to site work.

And that would surely be the team who are currently working on the Airdrie-Bathgate link. (That's Balfour Beattie, Jarvis and ten or so other contractors all working together as a team).
(Its not high speed, but it does require the vast majority of skills necessary to design, negotiate, specify, procure, construct and manage a significant rail construction project.