Network Rail's Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy published

[Pete_uk]

Nice to see Bristol to Birmingham getting the sparks with the line from Gloucester to Severn tunnel and Swindon to Standish Jn.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Indeed. Though pathway 4 looks yikes - up to 922 STKs in a year max - can’t see the treasury signing up for that.

Its also the only one with a chance in hell of being finished in time to matter.

Oh trust me I totally understand and I would love pathway 4. I just get the feeling there will be fudge and smudge and the politicians and treasury will get cold feet. The way it has been written though is clever imho -it gives the politicians options.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Oh trust me I totally understand and I would love pathway 4. I just get the feeling there will be fudge and smudge and the politicians and treasury will get cold feet. The way it has been written though is clever imho -it gives the politicians options.

Training will be the big issue for some of the more ambitious outputs.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Training will be the big issue for some of the more ambitious outputs.

Which is why I prefer a nice steady build up and when training is mature (I think that is a better word than complete) then accelerate the program.

 

[Bald Rick]

Which is why I prefer a nice steady build up and when training is mature (I think that is a better word than complete) then accelerate the program.

It’s not just training the installers, but the maintainers, operators, etc.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It’s not just training the installers, but the maintainers, operators, etc.

I understand. All the more reason to start sooner than later.

 

[Envoy]

I see that they would like to see Crewe to Newport and lines west of Cardiff as well as the north Wales coast electrified. Goodness knows if or when this would happen but Transport for Wales have ordered a large fleet of diesel trains from CAF (Class 197) for these routes to be delivered in 2022/3.

 

[The Ham]

I see that they would like to see Crewe to Newport and lines west of Cardiff as well as the north Wales coast electrified. Goodness knows if or when this would happen but Transport for Wales have ordered a large fleet of diesel trains from CAF (Class 197) for these routes to be delivered in 2022/3.

I suspect that they will still see at least 20 years of use, as the electrification of every line highlighted is likely to be a 30 year project and there's going to be a fair number of routes where other traction methods wouldn't be suitable.

Depending on how many bimodal trains are ordered between now and then depends on how long any straight diesel train lasts. However, unless there's a lot which can the be released to be used elsewhere (i.e. don't expect the 80x's to cover lines which until recently had Pacers) 20 years is probably about right.

 

[Envoy]

I suspect that they will still see at least 20 years of use, as the electrification of every line highlighted is likely to be a 30 year project and there's going to be a fair number of routes where other traction methods wouldn't be suitable.

Depending on how many bimodal trains are ordered between now and then depends on how long any straight diesel train lasts. However, unless there's a lot which can the be released to be used elsewhere (i.e. don't expect the 80x's to cover lines which until recently had Pacers) 20 years is probably about right.

Thanks for the swift response.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I have been trying to work out how many of the 13,040 STK of electrification proposed are classed as 'ancillary electrification' (ie. margin business cases and not likely to be approved by DfT). Unfortunately there isn't an easy source of STK data that I'm aware of, so I used Excel to estimate it as follows:

From	To	Miles	Chains	Route KMs	Number Of Tracks	Est. STK	Description
Exeter Central	Pinhoe	2.75	N/A	4.425685	2	8.85137	Salisbury - Exeter
Pinhoe	Yeovil Junction	46.25	N/A	74.431975	1	74.431975	Salisbury - Exeter
Yeovil Junction	Templecombe	10.68	N/A	17.1877512	2	34.3755024	Salisbury - Exeter
Templecombe	Salisbury	28.5	N/A	45.86619	1	45.86619	Salisbury - Exeter
Penzance	Exeter St. Davids	131.5	N/A	211.62821	2	423.25642
Newton Abbot	Paignton	8	7	13.01553725	2	26.0310745
Lincoln	Barnetby	29.25	N/A	47.073195	2	94.14639
Long Preston	Carlisle	75.5	N/A	121.50517	2	243.01034	Settle & Carlisle Line
Barrow-In-Furness	Carlisle	85.25	N/A	137.196235	2	274.39247	Cumbrian Coast Line
Newcastle	North Blyth (GBRF)	24	32	39.267896	1	39.267896	Blyth & Tyne Lines
Newsham L.C.	Morpeth	8	8	13.035654	1	13.035654	Blyth & Tyne Lines
Bedlington Nth. L.C.	Lynemouth Power Stn.	6	47	10.60152725	2	21.2030545	Blyth & Tyne Lines
Worcester Foregate Street	Great Malvern	7.93	N/A	12.7620662	2	25.5241324	Worcester - Hereford
Great Malvern	Hereford	20.78	N/A	33.4420852	1	33.4420852	Worcester - Hereford
Carmarthen	Clarbeston Road	26	N/A	41.84284	2	83.68568	Landsker Line
Clarbeston Road	Milford Haven	13.77	N/A	22.1606118	1	22.1606118	Pembrokeshire Branches
Clarbeston Road	Fishguard	15.75	N/A	25.347105	1	25.347105	Pembrokeshire Branches
Whitland	Pembroke Dock	27	32	44.095916	1	44.095916	Pembrokeshire Branches
Billingham	Newcastle	37.51	N/A	60.3663434	2	120.7326868	Durham Coast Line
Total		604.42	126	975.2519933	N/A	1652.856554

So, a total of roughly 1,652 STK of 'ancillary electrification' if I have got this right. Using the average rate of electrification for each of the pathways I get the following completion dates:

• Pathway 1 (259 STK/Year) - map electrification not completed by 2061
• Pathway 2 / Pathway 5 (303 STK/Year) - core electrification by 2058 or 2059
• Pathway 3 (355 STK/Year) - core electrification by 2053, full map by 2057
• Pathway 4 (658 STK/Year) - core electrification by 2038, full map by 2040

I see that they would like to see Crewe to Newport and lines west of Cardiff as well as the north Wales coast electrified. Goodness knows if or when this would happen but Transport for Wales have ordered a large fleet of diesel trains from CAF (Class 197) for these routes to be delivered in 2022/3.

I suspect that they will still see at least 20 years of use, as the electrification of every line highlighted is likely to be a 30 year project and there's going to be a fair number of routes where other traction methods wouldn't be suitable.

Depending on how many bimodal trains are ordered between now and then depends on how long any straight diesel train lasts. However, unless there's a lot which can the be released to be used elsewhere (i.e. don't expect the 80x's to cover lines which until recently had Pacers) 20 years is probably about right.

I note that Exeter-Penzance and Worcester-Hereford are marked as 'ancillary electrification', but everywhere else that currently sees 125mph-capable stock on a regularly timetabled basis year-round is core-electrification. Therefore I would expect the sensible thing is for all the 80x bi-modes to end up split between GWR and XC, with XC probably receiving some from GWR as part of that. One of the problems with the 197s is that Northern and WMR had already ordered 84 straight-diesels in the form of 195s and 196s. Throw in 77 class 197s as well and you would have 161 DMUs which won't be life-expired until around 2050 (a bit after in the case of the 197s) unless CAF have really built them on-the-cheap and they fall apart after less than 30 years service. If you didn't have to worry about having suitable locations for maintainance and could scatter-cascade these DMUs around the whole of Britain you might keep them busy. Factor in having to avoid micro-fleets though and I think you could keep either the 195s or the 197s busy, but not both. A fleet of around 25-30 class 197s could perhaps be cascaded fairly easily to Northern or GWR as 150/2 replacements when the north Wales coast gets wired, but 77 is too many in my view given that a large fleet of 195s already exists.

I guess we will need to wait until October to see how the routes are prioritised within the proposed rolling programme, but obviously the MML and TPE are near the top of the list. What comes next? Going with where electrification has been carried out recently (meaning there are trained teams in place), the Birmingham area and the GWML are other candidates. The Birmingham team could wire to Worcester or to Shrewsbury, the latter would mean about a third of Birmingham-Aberystwyth would be burning diesel under the wires. With 197s we would be stuck with that for many years, if they kept the 158s instead the stock would be life-expired and a case could be made for new bii-modes around 2030. Similarly the north Wales coast could be wired well ahead of the marches line if the Avanti bi-modes are needed for XC (the Voyagers will be getting to 30 years old in the early 2030s) which again eats into class 197 territory.

 

[hwl]

Oh trust me I totally understand and I would love pathway 4. I just get the feeling there will be fudge and smudge and the politicians and treasury will get cold feet. The way it has been written though is clever imho -it gives the politicians options.

Pathways 3,4 & 5 all produce the required reductions when it matters over time, it isn't just all about the final year end state.

TfL are / were the masters of options, the best one and a slightly worse than average one that results in the best preferred one getting chosen.

In my view Pathway 4 is there to make DfT aware that the self-inflicted 2040 (Jo-Jo) target (rather than CCC /international 2050 in various forms) costs also more and is unrealistic in practical terms - a wake up call to HMT to knock some sense into DfT.

Pathway 3 - net zero by 2050
Pathway 4 - net zero by 2040
Pathway 5 - 98% by 2060 (87% by 2050)

Pathways 3, 4, & 5 all have the same pace of decarbonisation (and work rate in this time period) till ~2030. recognises lack of spade ready projects and resources along with some big early wins (e.g. Scotland, TP, MML, GW and some small infill and local)
Pathway 5 - maintains the same pre 2030 pace of decarbonisation till 2050 and then slows when dealing with the last ~11% reduction till 2060 (only 98% decarbonisation). i.e. it recognises lots of work to do the long tail for reduced decarbonisation benefit.
Pathways 3 & 4 - pace of decarbonisation and work rate picks up from 2030-35 pace, beyond that pathway 3 broadly maintains the pace of work (slowing decarb rate, i.e. long tail again) where as pathway 4 retains the pace of decarbonisation but an increase in work rate (2035-40 sees the high annual work rates in pathway 4).

Pathways 3, 4 & 5 effectively help define a useful envelope for further thinking.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Pathways 3, 4, & 5 all have the same pace of decarbonisation (and work rate in this time period) till ~2030. recognises lack of spade ready projects and resources along with some big early wins (e.g. Scotland, TP, MML, GW and some small infill and local)

Do know if these 'early wins' include anything that uses the resources from the recent Bromsgrove and Chase Line electrification projects?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Do know if these 'early wins' include anything that uses the resources from the recent Bromsgrove and Chase Line electrification projects?

What are you terming resources ?

Personnel, plant or other ?

 

[Rhydgaled]

What are you terming resources ?

Personnel, plant or other ?

Personnel, plant and anything else needed for an electrification project other than the 'consumables' (for want of a better term, I'm refering to the masts, wires etc.). Basically I'm just interested to know whether there is anything else in the Birmingham area planned to follow on from the two schemes I menentioned above and, in particular, whether Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury is likely to be wired this side of 2040/2035/2030.

 

[hwl]

"Early wins" could quite easily include investing in some more bi-mode stock to reduce diesel running under the wires as you are looking at total carbon in the big picture. The West Midlands is one such area where this makes sense as quite a bit of electrification is need to increase electric only stock.
e.g. XC going for all Bimodes soonish would see some big reductions nationally. (As a comparison the Avanti 805/807 fleet will reduce their diesel usage by 85-90% in about 3 years time). XC have some services running under the wires for 280+miles continuously with other substanical runs like Piccadilly - New Street @ 80+ miles under the wires.

Some area will need bi-modes to break the chicken-egg type cycles of needing huge amounts of electrification before any of it could be used. (I include electric + diesel /battery as the other mode, plenty of quick local wins with battery post Transpennine for example)

 

[Senex]

On page 82: "The existing projects on the Midland Main Line and Transpennine provide a key delivery opportunity to provide further electrification of these routes. Continuation of current delivery will give a smooth programme of works that allows skills and experience to be retained for the large volume of electrification work required within the wider region. The deployment of further electrification in these areas is likely to feature as a high priority for delivery."
Is this plea for continuity by keeping teams together so as not to lose skills and experience quite a notable statement at long last of Network Rail's wish to press ahead with these two major projects? Maybe Roger Ford's regular reminders in Twitter to DfT that the MML project is spade-ready may yet bear fruit ...

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Personnel, plant and anything else needed for an electrification project other than the 'consumables' (for want of a better term, I'm refering to the masts, wires etc.). Basically I'm just interested to know whether there is anything else in the Birmingham area planned to follow on from the two schemes I menentioned above and, in particular, whether Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury is likely to be wired this side of 2040/2035/2030.

There's nothing spade ready, the only Birmingham project that could be progressed rapidly (and which will be needed for other projects in quick succession at a later point) would be wiring the remaining unwired track on the Cross-City line. There was a bit of preliminary design work done on the Coventry-Nuneaton Line when it was part of the old Electric Spine project (it didn't progress far, the line, at that point, needed resignalling before anything else could be considered).

 

[Rhydgaled]

allows skills and experience to be retained for the large volume of electrification work required within the wider region. The deployment of further electrification in these areas is likely to feature as a high priority for delivery."

Although this is referring to MML and TPE, the same presumably applies to the GWML and possibly around Birmingham, hence my question above whether the skills and experience from Bromsgrove and Chase Line electrification projects will be retained or whether that opportunity has already been missed (or indeed whether those projects were done using resources 'borrowed' from the MML project).

"Early wins" could quite easily include investing in some more bi-mode stock to reduce diesel running under the wires as you are looking at total carbon in the big picture. The West Midlands is one such area where this makes sense as quite a bit of electrification is need to increase electric only stock.

Fair point, Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury wouldn't be enough by itself to clear all the class 196s and Bromsgrove-Hereford is a long stretch including a section with only a marginal business case. The Snow Hill route (if you wanted to displace all the 172s) is quite long too. I don't suppose a battery/electric bi-mode (no diesel) would have sufficient range to get from Bromsgrove to Hereford and back. Does the HydroFlex retain OHLE mode, I think Modern Railways suggested it did but the TDNS suggests otherwise?

e.g. XC going for all Bimodes soonish would see some big reductions nationally. (As a comparison the Avanti 805/807 fleet will reduce their diesel usage by 85-90% in about 3 years time). XC have some services running under the wires for 280+miles continuously with other substanical runs like Piccadilly - New Street @ 80+ miles under the wires.

I'm quite worried about this one. You're correct that bi-modes for XC would cut large amounts of diesel mileage quickly, but if you do it by building more new bi-modes you have relatively new bi-modes on vitually all the high-speed (thus high-priority) routes which DfT can use as an excuse to kick electrification into the long grass. We already have nearly 200 Hitachi bi-modes (counting stock on-order) I believe, what is needed is to get the MML wired ASAP so that XC can have the class 810s. Wires to Bristol could release some GWR 800s to XC as well, and by 2035 Scotland will hopefully have cut LNER's requirement for 800s by about 10 (9-car) units, so XC can have those too*.

* The smart thing to do with the 800s, in my view, is to reform pairs of 5-car units into 8-car and 2-car units - this gets round the 800s being underpowered in diesel mode compared to 810s and Voyagers. XC would get the 8-car units (with 6 diesel engines on each) and the 'orphaned' driving vehicles (the 2-car units) could be used to create new EMUs by building new centre cars for them (saving the cost of cabs, probably the most expensive bit, on the new EMUs). In the case of LNER 9-car sets would be released from Scotland but those could presumably be used to replace 5-car bi-modes further south to avoid giving XC the underpowered 9-car sets with only 4 (or is it 5?) diesel engines.

Some area will need bi-modes to break the chicken-egg type cycles of needing huge amounts of electrification before any of it could be used.

Which is one of the reasons I'm concerned about the large order for class 197s. It means that you either have to cascade parts of the fleet (creating micro-fleets elsewhere that can't couple to anything expect perhaps 196s) leaving the bulk in Wales or you have to wire enough track to scrap 77 DMUs all at once. That is a huge amount of track to wire at once before you can make much use of the wires. The entire route from Newport to Crewe/Chester would see virtually nothing else in terms of passenger stock if all 77 were built. 20 odd 197s now plus 50 odd bi-modes later when more of the network has been wired would make much more sense, you could do this as the 158s and 175s aren't new so a case could be made to replace them with bi-modes.

 

[Domh245]

I'm quite worried about this one. You're correct that bi-modes for XC would cut large amounts of diesel mileage quickly, but if you do it by building more new bi-modes you have relatively new bi-modes on vitually all the high-speed (thus high-priority) routes which DfT can use as an excuse to kick electrification into the long grass. We already have nearly 200 Hitachi bi-modes (counting stock on-order) I believe, what is needed is to get the MML wired ASAP so that XC can have the class 810s. Wires to Bristol could release some GWR 800s to XC as well, and by 2035 Scotland will hopefully have cut LNER's requirement for 800s by about 10 (9-car) units, so XC can have those too*.

* The smart thing to do with the 800s, in my view, is to reform pairs of 5-car units into 8-car and 2-car units - this gets round the 800s being underpowered in diesel mode compared to 810s and Voyagers. XC would get the 8-car units (with 6 diesel engines on each) and the 'orphaned' driving vehicles (the 2-car units) could be used to create new EMUs by building new centre cars for them (saving the cost of cabs, probably the most expensive bit, on the new EMUs). In the case of LNER 9-car sets would be released from Scotland but those could presumably be used to replace 5-car bi-modes further south to avoid giving XC the underpowered 9-car sets with only 4 (or is it 5?) diesel engines.

I really don't get the obsession this forum has with cascading the bi-modes around from GWML/ECML/MML to XC. The GWML and ECML 800s and 801s are locked in to the GWML/ECML because of the nature of the IEP contracts. The MML units are a small fleet of a non-standard design specifically to fit 10 car units into St Pancras. All fleets are designed to have the engines removed as/when necessary, either because they can go to full EMU or because of a desire to move to Battery/whatever other self-power source they want.

The smart thing is to let XC get the new bi-modes (to the standard 80x design - electrify the Birmingham-Sheffield core and there's no need for 125mph diesel running) that they need rather than complicated cascades and reformations, with engines removed from the existing fleets as and when sufficient electrification is done.

Yes there is the risk that DfT can use it as an excuse to "kick electrification into the long grass" but given the need to decarbonise, it's a case of priorities for electrification, not postponement - when, not if. If that is the right strategic direction is to do the outer stretches of the intercity network last, then so be it.

 

[popeter45]

for electrification around Cheltenham/Gloucester i personally think they should start with the Golden valley line rather than the cross country line
it already has Bi mode stock on that would benefit far earlier than the new stock that would be needed on the cross country line and could quickly make usage for GWR 387's to replace the Swindon-Cheltenham turbostar

 

[Legolash2o]

This is what I've managed to do so far (click TDNS on the left). Sorry for those who are colour blind. I'm still working on it and if I get a chance, I will find a colourblind-friendly option.

Assumptions have been made in regards to OHLE and sidings/yards.

https://railmap.azurewebsites.net/Public/ElectrificationMap

 

[Bald Rick]

Do know if these 'early wins' include anything that uses the resources from the recent Bromsgrove and Chase Line electrification projects?

No, as the ‘resources’ for those project have long since gone on to other projects. Albeit they can come back.

It might be worth an explanation of what ‘electrification resource’ is. Much of it is actually resource used normally for other disciplines - civils for structure alterations and putting masts up, signalling for immunisation, power engineers for the distribution kit. The bit that is bespoke to OLE is the erecting the small part steel work and the wires themselves, which is about 20-30% of s typical electrification project. The people who tend to do this are rather nomadic and always have been. Much of the recent scottish electrification was wired by Italians.

In terms of plant, a fair bit of what is used to erect the catenary is then subsequently transferred to the maintenance teams. Indeed the same has applied to some of the OLE construction gangs in Scotland, some are now maintaining it.

Whilst there is no doubt that a rolling programme is much more efficient, the training and competence is only a relatively small part of the issue. It’s more about contracting (avoiding repeat tendering), avoiding long pauses between projects (which burn money without output), and economies of scale.

 

[hwl]

I really don't get the obsession this forum has with cascading the bi-modes around from GWML/ECML/MML to XC. The GWML and ECML 800s and 801s are locked in to the GWML/ECML because of the nature of the IEP contracts. The MML units are a small fleet of a non-standard design specifically to fit 10 car units into St Pancras. All fleets are designed to have the engines removed as/when necessary, either because they can go to full EMU or because of a desire to move to Battery/whatever other self-power source they want.

The smart thing is to let XC get the new bi-modes (to the standard 80x design - electrify the Birmingham-Sheffield core and there's no need for 125mph diesel running) that they need rather than complicated cascades and reformations, with engines removed from the existing fleets as and when sufficient electrification is done.

Yes there is the risk that DfT can use it as an excuse to "kick electrification into the long grass" but given the need to decarbonise, it's a case of priorities for electrification, not postponement - when, not if. If that is the right strategic direction is to do the outer stretches of the intercity network last, then so be it.

Agreed I also suspect that the right number of vehicles and configuration for XC is different to GWR/LNER/TP i.e. not 5 or 9 car. Some platforms at Reading also pose a challenge to XC train length.

The MML isn't likely to get much useful diversionary capability initially so bi-mode will be useful for a while.

"If that is the right strategic direction is to do the outer stretches of the intercity network last, then so be it." The outer stretches don't deliver that much decarbonisation on their own, plenty of mixed traffic routes deliver far more. I don't understand the overall obsession with IC over all else, especially as it doesn't add up.
As a rough estimate about 25% of diesel usage is for freight (inc engineering trains) and the other 75% split roughly equally between IC passenger and regional / local passenger till about 2018/2019 when IC started declining noticeably with IET introduction and GWR electrification. So regional / local passenger is now the dominant diesel user and this will increase (along with freight to a lesser extent) over the next few years as IC diesel use continues to decline with Avanti and EMR fleet replacement and "Corby" electrification coming on stream. Further MML electrification, un-pausing some GW, Transpennine and XC fleet replacement with bi-mode would produce further noticeable diesel reductions, hence there isn't much left for big easy wins from IC at that point.

The whole traffic picture suddenly becomes very important with big wins around the wider Manchester, Leeds (post TRU), Birmingham (needs bi-mode of some kind for breaking the chicken/egg cycle of a huge first step) and Bristol area; along with the Chiltern route

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This is what I've managed to do so far (click TDNS on the left). Sorry for those who are colour blind. I'm still working on it and if I get a chance, I will find a colourblind-friendly option.

Assumptions have been made in regards to OHLE and sidings/yards.

https://railmap.azurewebsites.net/Public/ElectrificationMap

Great start

 

[hwl]

This is what I've managed to do so far (click TDNS on the left). Sorry for those who are colour blind. I'm still working on it and if I get a chance, I will find a colourblind-friendly option.

Assumptions have been made in regards to OHLE and sidings/yards.

https://railmap.azurewebsites.net/Public/ElectrificationMap

Great start, as a thought the pink "mixed" bits in 3rd rail land are effectively "await ORR/RSSB review of 3rd rail electrification safety" that is going to start soon so possibly worth flagging as such in text? (Covered in the report)
(similar to the Scottish "alternative traction" aka probably hydrogen but we can sit on the fence for at least a decade!)

 

[Legolash2o]

Great start, as a thought the pink "mixed" bits in 3rd rail land are effectively "await ORR/RSSB review of 3rd rail electrification safety" that is going to start soon so possibly worth flagging as such in text? (Covered in the report)
(similar to the Scottish "alternative traction" aka probably hydrogen but we can sit on the fence for at least a decade!)

Thanks! I'll be sure to add that text.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Whilst there is no doubt that a rolling programme is much more efficient, the training and competence is only a relatively small part of the issue. It’s more about contracting (avoiding repeat tendering), avoiding long pauses between projects (which burn money without output), and economies of scale.

So, the idea of having an 'electrification team' in each area is not really a concern, the 'rolling programme' can start in one area then suddenly jump to a very different one (say, Bristol Parkway to Temple Meads followed by Ipswich to Felixstowe, then the remaining Liverpool-Manchester route) as long as you have appointed one contractor at the start to do the lot?

I really don't get the obsession this forum has with cascading the bi-modes around from GWML/ECML/MML to XC. The GWML and ECML 800s and 801s are locked in to the GWML/ECML because of the nature of the IEP contracts. The MML units are a small fleet of a non-standard design specifically to fit 10 car units into St Pancras. All fleets are designed to have the engines removed as/when necessary, either because they can go to full EMU or because of a desire to move to Battery/whatever other self-power source they want.

The smart thing is to let XC get the new bi-modes (to the standard 80x design - electrify the Birmingham-Sheffield core and there's no need for 125mph diesel running) that they need rather than complicated cascades and reformations, with engines removed from the existing fleets as and when sufficient electrification is done.

Yes there is the risk that DfT can use it as an excuse to "kick electrification into the long grass" but given the need to decarbonise, it's a case of priorities for electrification, not postponement - when, not if. If that is the right strategic direction is to do the outer stretches of the intercity network last, then so be it.

It's partly that I think it is wasteful to remove (and scrap) one lot of diesel engines while manufacturing another lot of diesel engines for a new fleet. Remembering that manufacturing anything will involve carbon emissions. If taking the engines off the IEP fleets and putting those second-hand engines under new trains is easier than swapping the carriages (complete with engines in the case of the old carriages) then I'd be happy with that too to a degree. My proposal above for swapping carriages has the added effect of enabling the GWML, ECML and MML to move (back) towards longer fixed-formation sets rather than multiple working of non-gangwayed 5-car units. The key thing to me is not to manufacture any more diesel engines, except perhaps for regional bi-mode trains capable of no more than 100mph in either mode.

 

[furnessvale]

Have I missed something? People seem to be talking as if this report has a chance of being implemented.

Having seen many such reports come and go, I will hold fire until at least the frozen bits of MML and GWML are restarted before getting too excited.

 

[Bald Rick]

So, the idea of having an 'electrification team' in each area is not really a concern, the 'rolling programme' can start in one area then suddenly jump to a very different one (say, Bristol Parkway to Temple Meads followed by Ipswich to Felixstowe, then the remaining Liverpool-Manchester route) as long as you have appointed one contractor at the start to do the lot?

You’d have more than one main contractor. But yes, the wiring teams can (and do) move around. It’s the same with most resource anyway. Not so long ago track renewals in the Western region were done by gangs from South Wales who travelled to wherever the work was. After learning a lesson the hard way the planners took care to make sure there were no big main line jobs immediately after a Wales England Rugby match.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

No, as the ‘resources’ for those project have long since gone on to other projects. Albeit they can come back.

It might be worth an explanation of what ‘electrification resource’ is. Much of it is actually resource used normally for other disciplines - civils for structure alterations and putting masts up, signalling for immunisation, power engineers for the distribution kit. The bit that is bespoke to OLE is the erecting the small part steel work and the wires themselves, which is about 20-30% of s typical electrification project. The people who tend to do this are rather nomadic and always have been. Much of the recent scottish electrification was wired by Italians.

In terms of plant, a fair bit of what is used to erect the catenary is then subsequently transferred to the maintenance teams. Indeed the same has applied to some of the OLE construction gangs in Scotland, some are now maintaining it.

Whilst there is no doubt that a rolling programme is much more efficient, the training and competence is only a relatively small part of the issue. It’s more about contracting (avoiding repeat tendering), avoiding long pauses between projects (which burn money without output), and economies of scale.

Very little to add - just a couple of ruminations for the benefit of others.

The overlap between electrification resources and other ongoing works on the network is profound, what will be vital in progressing electrification in the most cost-effective way possible is making sure we have those contractors working on other projects, such as access for all, working ahead of electrification, rather than following on behind resulting in some level of duplication of effort.

The transfer of personnel from OLE erection to maintenance needs careful thought too - the teams are generally very good and the quality of work has been generally excellent, but there is experience to be gained in the maintenance aspects too, and it won't do reliability any favours in training up a huge number of personnel, having them wire relatively few stkm each, then transferring many of them en mass to the maintenance. It would be preferable to have a gradual movement of teams across from erection to maintenance, so they can mix with the existing teams and get the tips and tricks on maintenance related tasks.

So, the idea of having an 'electrification team' in each area is not really a concern, the 'rolling programme' can start in one area then suddenly jump to a very different one (say, Bristol Parkway to Temple Meads followed by Ipswich to Felixstowe, then the remaining Liverpool-Manchester route) as long as you have appointed one contractor at the start to do the lot?

Yes and no - the best option would be to allocate teams to each of the NR regions. Staff do lead a nomadic existence, but it's out of necessity rather than choice and it impacts on recruitment for some roles, particularly the more skilled personnel.

There's less of an issue keeping teams in one region too, if there's going to be a significant number of stkm to electrify within that region (which there is) and if those same staff will continue in maintenance roles, the local knowledge they'll have from the installation works will easily be worth its weight in gold.

The trick, as ever, will be to manage the entire process, so that structure/route clearance, grid connection works, signalling immunisation or resignalling and tangentially related programs like access for all and enhancements like additional track installations/re-doublings are all going on at the correct time and in the correct order so the OLE structures teams can then proceed unhindered, closely followed by the wiring teams.

If it's done properly, you should have the relevant contractors and personnel doing their work pretty steadily over the next three decades really.