Infrastructure Investment That Looks Less Necessary Since Covid

[tbtc]

@Kite159 made an interesting point in the thread about stations with awkward platform numbers, which I thought warranted a proper response (and I’d probably already gone off topic in that thread by discussing Platform 0 at Doncaster which was intended to accommodate the Scunthorpe stoppers, freshly cut from being through Sheffield services, but these hourly trains to North Lincolnshire have been replaced by a bus every two/three hours, with seemingly no urgency in bringing them back… call it unlucky, call it poor coordination between different branches of the public sector, but the result appears to be spending lots of money on a facility that doesn’t seem quite so necessary - some Hull stoppers use Platform 0 at Donny, in fairness, but it’s not the same level of service that it used to be either, so Platform 0 gets gaps of two hours when it was intended to have a half hourly DMU)

There are probably many other examples of infrastructure investment for service patterns pre Covid which since timetable cuts sees little benefit. I.e. Loop at Alvechurch, useful when it was 3tph for Redditch, now it's cut to 2tph sees no trains passing there on a normal timetable.

I’ve seen a few posters announce that they feel that Covid means that investment in HS2 no longer seems quite so important (albeit often these were people who were always against HS2, so the fact that they’ve latched into shorter reason to complain about it shouldn’t surprise me…), but I’ve not seen many people suggest that investment on the “traditional” network looks less urgent due to service reductions (or the abandoning of planned service improvements in the short/medium term)

Maybe some people will say that “investment in classic lines is always a good thing” or that we need to speculate on future growth (Field Of Dreams etc) or that it’s better to waste money on my backwater route than spend it on London commuters, or that their local line is getting over 100% off pre-Covid numbers, or it will be shortly…

… but is anyone brave enough to say something like “the quiet ditching of planned ECML increases over the next five years means I no longer think Darlington requires additional platforms“ or that “with XC in no hurry to reinstate a second Birmingham - Reading service each hour, I’m now lukewarm on the need for electrification from Coventry to the Thames Valley”, or even to criticise investment that did take place which no longer looks like it was quite so necessary in hindsight?

(I’m not blaming anyone for decisions taken pre-Covid, just looking for examples of infrastructure that felt like a good idea at the time but less so now, e.g. grade separation of a junction to aid freight, only for the flow to end shortly afterwards)

 

[baffobear]

I'll be honest I don't think there's anything that's of significance that isn't necessary (freight excluded)- in fact the country as a whole is still needing to playing catch-up in terms of infrastructure upgrades.

This is particularly the case more in England than Scotland or wales

I think of projects like the electric spine, electrification of east west rail stage 1 and Acton wells where there would be additional passenger benefits even if the infrastructure requirements are largely freight focussed.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I think of projects like the electric spine, electrification of east west rail stage 1 and Acton wells where there would be additional passenger benefits even if the infrastructure requirements are largely freight focussed.

For sure but given reduced train km it would make sense to divert some money from renewals into these sort of projects to reflect reduced wear and tare on the network

 

[Bletchleyite]

While I am still on balance in favour of it, HS2. The south WCML peak service Phase 1 was primarily designed to relieve is being cut slightly (but improved in connectivity and in terms of becoming properly clockface including the peaks) in December due to reduced demand, and there is still scope to increase capacity considerably by way of more 12 car trains.

 

[waverley47]

@Kite159 made an interesting point in the thread about stations with awkward platform numbers, which I thought warranted a proper response (and I’d probably already gone off topic in that thread by discussing Platform 0 at Doncaster which was intended to accommodate the Scunthorpe stoppers, freshly cut from being through Sheffield services, but these hourly trains to North Lincolnshire have been replaced by a bus every two/three hours, with seemingly no urgency in bringing them back… call it unlucky, call it poor coordination between different branches of the public sector, but the result appears to be spending lots of money on a facility that doesn’t seem quite so necessary - some Hull stoppers use Platform 0 at Donny, in fairness, but it’s not the same level of service that it used to be either, so Platform 0 gets gaps of two hours when it was intended to have a half hourly DMU)




I’ve seen a few posters announce that they feel that Covid means that investment in HS2 no longer seems quite so important (albeit often these were people who were always against HS2, so the fact that they’ve latched into shorter reason to complain about it shouldn’t surprise me…), but I’ve not seen many people suggest that investment on the “traditional” network looks less urgent due to service reductions (or the abandoning of planned service improvements in the short/medium term)

Maybe some people will say that “investment in classic lines is always a good thing” or that we need to speculate on future growth (Field Of Dreams etc) or that it’s better to waste money on my backwater route than spend it on London commuters, or that their local line is getting over 100% off pre-Covid numbers, or it will be shortly…

… but is anyone brave enough to say something like “the quiet ditching of planned ECML increases over the next five years means I no longer think Darlington requires additional platforms“ or that “with XC in no hurry to reinstate a second Birmingham - Reading service each hour, I’m now lukewarm on the need for electrification from Coventry to the Thames Valley”, or even to criticise investment that did take place which no longer looks like it was quite so necessary in hindsight?

(I’m not blaming anyone for decisions taken pre-Covid, just looking for examples of infrastructure that felt like a good idea at the time but less so now, e.g. grade separation of a junction to aid freight, only for the flow to end shortly afterwards)

Darlington still needs extra platforms as is, the current layout means that platform reoccupation times are a bit longer than you'd like for the ECML, it's a lot of pointwork to maintain, and shuffling the Bishop Auckland stoppers across the mainline isn't that easy, especially with the not unlikely possibility of 2tph each way. Splitting this at Darlington would actually arguably be worse, as then you'd be terminating on a through platform twice an hour, which won't make the timetabling department happy.

Thames valley wiring is in the category of inevitable anyway, as it's a (albeit quiet) main line, linking two other electrified main lines, and switching over allows a freight an uninterrupted run under the knitting from Reading to pretty much any terminal north of Birmingham (third rail and unwired terminals notwithstanding).

A lot of the planned upgrades that have gone out to consultation are already funded, and are too late to stop. Furthermore, the vast, vast majority of these planned upgrades are on main lines.

It's these main line problems that's still need upgrades post-covid. Long distance, intercity journeys are the ones that show the most bounce back and future growth. They also tend to have the most freight services, the growth of which also shows no signs of slowing down.

Would you for example say that Perth Station remodelling is now no longer needed? Or Woking Junction? Would there be wiring routes completed in the last decade that you would argue are no longer needed? Or station remodellings, like Liverpool Lime Street or Reading?*

Sure, growth forecasts have taken a hit, but piecemeal investment offer decades mean that investments made now are fixing problems that were known about decades ago, or even made worse by not fixing them earlier.



*The former is rebuilding a station that is falling apart, massive and windswept, and overall a terrible experience for passengers. It also has a major train depot in the middle of it, and needs rebuilding for wiring.

The latter is a timetabling headache that impacts the entire SWML, from half Waterloo station as far afield as Weymouth and Exeter.

 

[Watershed]

Darlington still needs extra platforms as is, the current layout means that platform reoccupation times are a bit longer than you'd like for the ECML

The reoccupation times are - at least on paper - no higher than any of the other ECML stations: 3 minutes. That value might have a little bit less "padding" in it than, say, Newcastle - but it's still achievable.

it's a lot of pointwork to maintain

Absolutely. The diamond crossover at Darlington South Jn must be a nightmare - can't think of many other 90mph ones! To be fair, not all that many trains pass over it at full whack.

shuffling the Bishop Auckland stoppers across the mainline isn't that easy, especially with the not unlikely possibility of 2tph each way

Indeed. They have to be very carefully timed as it stands.

Splitting this at Darlington would actually arguably be worse, as then you'd be terminating on a through platform twice an hour, which won't make the timetabling department happy.

Not necessarily. It all depends on how the exact timings work out, but if you can for example make it parallel with a train passing on the Down or Up Main, that's a win.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

On the other hand, we have things like Huddersfield which after the rebuild will only have one bay pointing in the Deighton direction, as opposed to the two (and arguably three, if we count that end of P4) it currently has. Fine for the current post-coof service of an hourly Leeds and bi-hourly Bradford, but not a whole lot of room for growth or for the return of the Wakefield/Castleford.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

TDNS in full still seems like money well spent if spread over say 30 years in spite of COVID-19

 

[yorksrob]

TP electrification is still necessary, however I'm not sure that the whole remodelling of Huddersfield station is required, especially as the centre through platform seems under-utilised these days.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

TP electrification is still necessary, however I'm not sure that the whole remodelling of Huddersfield station is required, especially as the centre through platform seems under-utilised these days.

Annoyingly P4 is used by the Manchester Piccadilly stopper at the 'B' end (hourly); the Bradford at the 'A' end (bi-hourly), and the teatime extra to Sheffield which runs through so needs the whole platform. Meaning the Leeds stopper (which carries far more than the Bradford) has to use P6 which is a longer walk from the subway and is a bit exposed as winter draws in. I'd much rather the Leeds use P4a (as it used to) with the Bradford switching to P6.

I wouldn't say P4 is under-utilised though, as it's the only platform that can turn back services from the Manchester direction.

 

[SuperNova]

Platform 0 at Doncaster which was intended to accommodate the Scunthorpe stoppers, freshly cut from being through Sheffield services, but these hourly trains to North Lincolnshire have been replaced by a bus every two/three hours, with seemingly no urgency in bringing them back…

I've been told these services are set to return from December

On the other hand, we have things like Huddersfield which after the rebuild will only have one bay pointing in the Deighton direction, as opposed to the two (and arguably three, if we count that end of P4) it currently has. Fine for the current post-coof service of an hourly Leeds and bi-hourly Bradford, but not a whole lot of room for growth or for the return of the Wakefield/Castleford.

Huddersfield will have 4 through platforms, not all used at the same time, so those terminating at Huddersfield will simply use one of those. Plus, give TPE were (and set to again) run the Manchester stoppers through to Wakefield and beyond which takes two terminating services out of the equation. I believe original plans did have two bay platforms, but this couldn't happen without buying additional land.

TP electrification is still necessary, however I'm not sure that the whole remodelling of Huddersfield station is required, especially as the centre through platform seems under-utilised these days.

It most certainly is. Given the two bay platforms cause massive capacity constraints and Platform 4 is used hourly.

 

[CdBrux]

Could a GBR lead review of services to avoid duplications and/or accepting longer trains at slightly reduced frequency mean less infrastructure interventions would be required?

 

[edwin_m]

Croydon remodelling is all about London peak commuter capacity. I read somewhere that it's being looked at to see if it can be re-purposed to deliver wider benefits.

 

[DelW]

On SWR, a lot of money was spent extending all the metro area platforms to 10 coach length. Unfortunately the class 456s which provided the ninth and tenth coaches (when added to 2 x 455 4-car sets) have now gone for scrap and everything is back to 8 coaches.

When (if?) the class 701s eventually enter service, they may operate as 2 x 5-car, but whether that extra capacity will ever be fully used will depend on how well commuter numbers recover. At present many services are at half their pre-covid frequency as well as being shorter, so the omens aren't good.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Could a GBR lead review of services to avoid duplications and/or accepting longer trains at slightly reduced frequency mean less infrastructure interventions would be required?

Thats an essential output in my view to get costs under control whilst they develop appropriate interventions to respond to changes in demand that are cost effective.

Croydon remodelling is all about London peak commuter capacity. I read somewhere that it's being looked at to see if it can be re-purposed to deliver wider benefits.

The best benefit to improve the Selhurst/Norwood/East Croydon triangle would be to invest in ARS to relieve signaller workload which is all on panel 1 at Three Bridges so easy for the signaller to overlook trains with the amount of crossing moves at Selhurst/Windmill Bridge/Cottage/norwood Jcns

 

[swt_passenger]

When (if?) the class 701s eventually enter service, they may operate as 2 x 5-car, but whether that extra capacity will ever be fully used will depend on how well commuter numbers recover. At present many services are at half their pre-covid frequency as well as being shorter, so the omens aren't good.

60 of the 90 units (600 of 750 vehicles, ie 80% of the total capacity) will have to operate as 10 car by default though...

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Thats an essential output in my view to get costs under control whilst they develop appropriate interventions to respond to changes in demand that are cost effective.

The best benefit to improve the Selhurst/Norwood/East Croydon triangle would be to invest in ARS to relieve signaller workload which is all on panel 1 at Three Bridges so easy for the signaller to overlook trains with the amount of crossing moves at Selhurst/Windmill Bridge/Cottage/norwood Jcns

That's already happening, the ARS part.

 

[DelW]

60 of the 90 units (600 of 750 vehicles, ie 80% of the total capacity) will have to operate as 10 car by default though...

Oh yes, was forgetting that so many are permanent 10 car sets . Overall the capacity issues will be the same though.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

That's already happening, the ARS part.

Good to hear that will certainly be a no regrets scheme

 

[30907]

I am not sure that there are many projects which are so commuter-focused that they will bite the dust (even Croydon, which is/was busy enough off peak), but some may well drop back a few years as the pressure is off for a while. OTOH there is something to be said for NOT deferring too long!

 

[Mikey C]

The cost overruns on Crossrail 1 would have made it unaffordable for the time being, but Covid has certainly reduced the case for Crossrail 2

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Could a GBR lead review of services to avoid duplications and/or accepting longer trains at slightly reduced frequency mean less infrastructure interventions would be required?

Thats an essential output in my view to get costs under control whilst they develop appropriate interventions to respond to changes in demand that are cost effective.

Yes, that would be a good move imho

 

[Neptune]

I've been told these services are set to return from December

Yes the Scunthorpe stopper will return in December 2022. As will peak time Castleford - Huddersfield services.

 

[Wynd]

I'll be honest I don't think there's anything that's of significance that isn't necessary (freight excluded)- in fact the country as a whole is still needing to playing catch-up in terms of infrastructure upgrades.

This is particularly the case more in England than Scotland or wales

The premise of the thread is one I would refute entirely. The UK, it can be fairly easily argued, isn't even engaged in the bare minimum of infrastructure investment required of a modern G7 state.

What qualifies you to make the second statement? Scotland's infrastructure is miles from where it needs to be. It also very far short of its peers in terms of infrastructure as far as small northern European nations go. Investment here is far, far lower than it needs to be. Or could have been in other circumstances, but that's a political argument.

To put some meat on the bones.

Electrify all route miles.
Move massive volumes of freight on to the network, meaning a drastic increase in new route miles of track.

Urban travel needs wholesale reform, meaning more active travel for short journeys, getting heavy traffic off our streets and once again making them pedestrian and cycle ways, as they largely were once upon a time before the car.

That's just transport.

Hospitals, schools, public service employment, moves to increase private investment, the list is near endless.

Few are fully aware of what a perilous situation the UK is presently in, probably because they don't want to be.

There needs to be serious economic growth, and it needs to happen soon. If it doesn't, if no one gets serious about investment and growth in the UK economy, we will have a balance of payments crisis, and the UK will go backwards. https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/uk-economy-grew-same-previously-thought-q1-2022-2022-06-30/

Sterling Dollar parity is now a very real prospect, and that will only drive massive increases in the cost of everything.

We must invest, heavily. We must grow the economy. Investment is crucial.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes the Scunthorpe stopper will return in December 2022. As will peak time Castleford - Huddersfield services.

Peak time Huddersfield - Castleford doesn't cut it for me as I usually used it off peak.

Anyway, it's running a peak service now, albeit RRB.

 

[Neptune]

Peak time Huddersfield - Castleford doesn't cut it for me as I usually used it off peak.

And I bet it was full every time you used it.

 

[yorksrob]

And I bet it was full every time you used it.

Very rarely actually.

But since when has being full all the time been a prerequisite for running a train service ?

 

[Neptune]

Very rarely actually.

But since when has being full all the time been a prerequisite for running a train service ?

It isn’t, however it just seems very rare that you ever travel on a quiet train on a lightly used route when trying to justify additional services.

Anyway if anybody asks about whether a route is resuming services after a period of inactivity for whatever reason and I can provide the answer I shan’t bother in future for fear of it being inconvenient to you. I’ll let people find out for themselves instead, I mean I wouldn’t have provided this information if I’d have known it wasn’t the right answer for 1 forum member.

Any problems with the 2 hourly Scunthorpe - Doncaster service restarting?

 

[yorksrob]

It isn’t, however it just seems very rare that you ever travel on a quiet train on a lightly used route when trying to justify additional services.

Anyway if anybody asks about whether a route is resuming services after a period of inactivity for whatever reason and I can provide the answer I shan’t bother in future for fear of it being inconvenient to you. I’ll let people find out for themselves instead, I mean I wouldn’t have provided this information if I’d have known it wasn’t the right answer for 1 forum member.

Any problems with the 2 hourly Scunthorpe - Doncaster service restarting?

I was expressing dissatisfaction at the situation rather than your post. Unless you are responsible for Northern Rail/DfT policy ?

 

[Neptune]

I was expressing dissatisfaction at the situation rather than your post.

Fair enough. One day a service might be up to your expectations which I hope you would equally share with us.

Unless you are responsible for Northern Rail/DfT policy ?

Of course not. By the way Northern Rail hasn’t existed since 2016