Why has electrification not got further in the UK?

[tbtc]

I'm becoming convinced that "We need a rolling electrification scheme" is some sort of fundemental particle of RailUK threads - in that any thread on this website, left long enough, will eventually be reduced to that statement.

Of course it's very true that it would be a good idea, but would it really increase passenger numbers that much? I can't imagine so, especially not in the short term.

mods note - split from the part of this thread that was the most manageable!

Agreed.

Nobody is going to argue against a plan of rolling electrification , I don’t think anyone ought to be proud of the stop/start electrification we’ve had or the fact that “modern” EMUs are scrapped whilst Sprinters continue

BUT I wish they’d give more detail, e.g. how many miles would we need to wire a year? What’s your top five hundred miles to tackle?

If you want a rolling electrification program then does that mean abandoning most reopening projects, since you can only spend each pound one? Or should we have funded fewer rural routes?

We’ve had twenty years of Network Rail (in fact the Railtrack era was very short) so there’s nothing stopping it from happening, other than government funding; i just feel it’s a dodge/ deflect tactic, a kind of “oh, if it were up to me I’d simply have organised everything decades ago and not had to compromise and done everything with stable public funding and a cherry on top”

 

[yorksrob]

Agreed.

Nobody is going to argue against a plan of rolling electrification , I don’t think anyone ought to be proud of the stop/start electrification we’ve had or the fact that “modern” EMUs are scrapped whilst Sprinters continue

BUT I wish they’d give more detail, e.g. how many miles would we need to wire a year? What’s your top five hundred miles to tackle?

If you want a rolling electrification program then does that mean abandoning most reopening projects, since you can only spend each pound one? Or should we have funded fewer rural routes?

We’ve had twenty years of Network Rail (in fact the Railtrack era was very short) so there’s nothing stopping it from happening, other than government funding; i just feel it’s a dodge/ deflect tactic, a kind of “oh, if it were up to me I’d simply have organised everything decades ago and not had to compromise and done everything with stable public funding and a cherry on top”

Well, it's not rocket science - we were approaching if not a rolling programme, near enough one in the 1980's. Same in the 1960's until the blessed Doctor put a halt to it. It would be a better spend than subsidising roscos or keeping the private sector involved.

This is so true, right transport for right journey, if I'm going into central London from Norwich train is a no brainer. If I'm going to a sleepy Norfolk village then car is realistically the only method.

This is the confusion though, younger me would have taken the car everywhere, until you realise actually it's probably quicker by train and sitting there driving is a total waste of time.

Again there are many challenges and it's not always clear cut, if I go into the office in Milton Keynes, 2 hour drive or 3 hour by train ( WFH made this job a possibility old world would have been jump in car and commute locally), I can work on the train.

I'm lucky living in West Yorkshire as the train is a decent option in almost every direction.

 

[stuu]

Well, it's not rocket science - we were approaching if not a rolling programme, near enough one in the 1980's. Same in the 1960's until the blessed Doctor put a halt to it.

Source? You're own brain doesn't count. Beeching was very much pro electrification

 

[43074]

I'm becoming convinced that "We need a rolling electrification scheme" is some sort of fundemental particle of RailUK threads - in that any thread on this website, left long enough, will eventually be reduced to that statement.

Of course it's very true that it would be a good idea, but would it really increase passenger numbers that much? I can't imagine so, especially not in the short term.

If electrification wasn't proven to increase passenger numbers, the Southern Railway wouldn't have electrified as much of it's patch as it did in the 1920s and 1930s. Could also point to Leeds/Bradford - Skipton/Ilkley or Manchester/Liverpool to Blackpool schemes which are similar to many routes in the north still run by Sprinters as examples where electrification contributed to increased passenger numbers on the lines concerned.

The problem the industry has is the cost of doing electrification, but a rolling program would make that cheaper and that has been recognised in Scotland - where they are aiming for a cost of £1m per single track kilometre and have been quietly undertaking electrification for most of the last decade, in England the cost of electrification is around twice that.

 

[yorksrob]

Source? You're own brain doesn't count. Beeching was very much pro electrification

Think of all the electrification schemes of the sixties Kent, West Coast, East Anglia, Glasgow. These were all ordered and designed as part of the Modernisation plan. About the only ones I can think of to come after Beeching are Bournemouth and the Isle of wight - both important, but hardly amounting to an ongoing programme.

 

[stuu]

Think of all the electrification schemes of the sixties Kent, West Coast, East Anglia, Glasgow. These were all ordered and designed as part of the Modernisation plan. About the only ones I can think of to come after Beeching are Bournemouth and the Isle of wight - both important, but hardly amounting to an ongoing programme.

"I can think". So you made it up

 

[yorksrob]

"I can think". So you made it up

The history of all of those schemes is readily available, as is that of the Modernisation plan.

Of course, I acknowledge that I'm no expert, so please feel free to add any Beeching era electrification schemes I've missed out to the two I've mentioned.

 

[stuu]

The history of all of those schemes is readily available, as is that of the Modernisation plan.

Of course, so where is the evidence that Beeching stopped electrification?

 

[yorksrob]

Of course, so where is the evidence that Beeching stopped electrification?

He didn't stop electrification, he stopped the ongoing programme.

 

[stuu]

He didn't stop electrification, he stopped the ongoing programme.

Please provide a source for this, something, anything

 

[yorksrob]

Please provide a source for this, something, anything

The modernisation plan electrification schemes weren't replaced with new ones. Who was in charge when those schemes weren't being replaced ? Beeching. It's as simple as that (with the couple of exceptions I've already mentioned).

 

[43096]

The modernisation plan electrification schemes weren't replaced with new ones. Who was in charge when those schemes weren't being replaced ? Beeching. It's as simple as that (with the couple of exceptions I've already mentioned).

Have you thought that perhaps it was the Government that stopped further electrification schemes? Having seen the amount of money wasted in the modernisation plan, it wouldn't be surprising if the Treasury pulled the plug on any more such schemes. History repeating itself now: for modernisation plan, read Great Western electrification and IEP.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The modernisation plan electrification schemes weren't replaced with new ones. Who was in charge when those schemes weren't being replaced ? Beeching. It's as simple as that (with the couple of exceptions I've already mentioned).

It's not as simple as that.

The 1955 Modernisation Plan stipulated that the main lines north from both Kings Cross and Euston should be electrified as well as the suburban services from Kings Cross. Dr. Beeching did not stop electrification out of Kings Cross: it had never been started in the seven years between 1955 and his arrival at BRB.

Ernest Marples, not Dr. Beeching, did pause the electrification work on the WCML for a few months when it became clear that costs were higher than had been promised - although the sums were chicken feed compared with those of today. The Government later authorised the resumption and completion of the scheme to Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester.

Some of the electrification schemes circa 1960 ran into difficulties. A faulty transformer design shut down a suburban service in Glasgow and a shortage of EMUs for services out of Liverpool Street caused severe problems for months on end. Consequently, electrification became highly suspect in Westminster and Whitehall. The idea that this can all be blamed on Dr. Beeching makes no sense.

 

[yorksrob]

It's not as simple as that.

The 1955 Modernisation Plan stipulated that the main lines north from both Kings Cross and Euston should be electrified as well as the suburban services from Kings Cross. Dr. Beeching did not stop electrification out of Kings Cross: it had never been started in the seven years between 1955 and his arrival at BRB.

Ernest Marples, not Dr. Beeching, did pause the electrification work on the WCML for a few months when it became clear that costs were higher than had been promised - although the sums were chicken feed compared with those of today. The Government later authorised the resumption and completion of the scheme to Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester.

Some of the electrification schemes circa 1960 ran into difficulties. A faulty transformer design shut down a suburban service in Glasgow and a shortage of EMUs for services out of Liverpool Street caused severe problems for months on end. Consequently, electrification became highly suspect in Westminster and Whitehall. The idea that this can all be blamed on Dr. Beeching makes no sense.

Granted, Beeching was acting under those pressures at the time, but he was in charge when the Modernisation plan schemes weren't replicated. It certainly doesn't seem to have been his bag anyway

 

[Dai Corner]

Granted, Beeching was acting under those pressures at the time, but he was in charge when the Modernisation plan schemes weren't replicated. It certainly doesn't seem to have been his bag anyway

How could he replicate the schemes if the politicians wouldn't give him the money?

 

[yorksrob]

How could he replicate the schemes if the politicians wouldn't give him the money?

Well, he wasn't calling for a continuation of the electrification programme in his reports and publications from what I've read (admittedly the re-shaping ones). With Government, if you don't argue, you don't get.

In a way, I can see his point. We had a surplus of diesel locos and DMU's. Diesel was suited to freight - which was definitely one of his interests. Fuel supply wasn't an issue etc.

But my conclusion is that the comparative lack of electrification leaves our railway system in a worse position than other countries with greater coverage.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Precisely. Given the prices and journey times, nobody in their right mind would want to continue to travel four or five days a week to Central London from places like Tunbridge Wells, Leighton Buzzard, Ashford (Kent), Newbury, Haslemere, Bicester, Wellingborough or Witham. And these are only the places that had fast, frequent peak services, and thus encouraged this kind of long-distance commuting. Some places which are rather closer to London but which have poor journey times e.g. Bracknell or Greenhithe are also suffering.

These people are rather enjoying the missing £2 billion / year being in their collective pockets and not spent on train fares. There is no realistic hope of it returning. The money will have to be found from elsewhere, such as new markets.

I moved to Croydon to get away from a longer ordeal from Medway. I now cannot see how i put up with the shorter cheaper commute that followed. Commuting is a waste of money, time and health (stress).

To all the people claiming that local bus services are awful, if you ever have the chance, go to one of several cities in the continental European countries with a comparable per-capita GDP to Britain, and see how fantastic a properly run bus network with high-quality vehicles, dedicated infrastructure and well-designed integration with the rest of the network can actually be.

It's a world away from the free-for-all we have in this country where various disconnected operators run the cheapest spec buses ADL* can churn out down congested roads under the cloud-cuckoo-land illusion that the competition (which is mostly non-existent anyway) will magically improve the service.

*Alexander Dennis Limited, the largest manufacturer of buses in this country.

Integrated - one day !.

Hard to tell, you don't expect routes to stand on their own two feet over there, they understand the value of connecting people to rail. Buses fulfil a totally different role in European cities. So the bus almost certainly is subsidised but that isn't the full story - the bus gets you a train fare.

This reminds me of the argument for keeping branch lines open that help feed the core rail network. Not sure it was true or not ?. I am not disagreeing btw and it is certainly a factor that seems to be ignored in the UK.

One fare gets you from [residential area]-railway station-railway station-final destination? A bit like our Plusbus?

Plusbus is a clunky substitute I fear. I suppose I am spoilt as we have Oyster in London (train, tube, bus and tram).

Also most railway stations have bus stops or bus stations right next to them. What a radical idea. Cardiff used to have one but apparently some BBC office blocks were deemed to a better use of the land.

I know - every time I go to Cardiff I am reminded of the opportunity thrown away. I can only hope that they build a bus+coach station on the other (South) side of Cardiff Central station obliterating the car park. I suffer as my main destination is a walk down the river from Cardiff Central but a bit too far from the now non central Coach terminus for National Express, Meabus don't even share the same location.

We should have been having a rolling electrification scheme since the 1950's

Agreed.

Nobody is going to argue against a plan of rolling electrification , I don’t think anyone ought to be proud of the stop/start electrification we’ve had or the fact that “modern” EMUs are scrapped whilst Sprinters continue

BUT I wish they’d give more detail, e.g. how many miles would we need to wire a year? What’s your top five hundred miles to tackle?

If you want a rolling electrification program then does that mean abandoning most reopening projects, since you can only spend each pound one? Or should we have funded fewer rural routes?

We’ve had twenty years of Network Rail (in fact the Railtrack era was very short) so there’s nothing stopping it from happening, other than government funding; i just feel it’s a dodge/ deflect tactic, a kind of “oh, if it were up to me I’d simply have organised everything decades ago and not had to compromise and done everything with stable public funding and a cherry on top”

Cake and eat it !. I mean we rely on subsidy so have to put up with interference. I think we are stuck in a middle ground. Either subsidise PUBLIC TRANSPORT properly or butt out.

If electrification wasn't proven to increase passenger numbers, the Southern Railway wouldn't have electrified as much of it's patch as it did in the 1920s and 1930s. Could also point to Leeds/Bradford - Skipton/Ilkley or Manchester/Liverpool to Blackpool schemes which are similar to many routes in the north still run by Sprinters as examples where electrification contributed to increased passenger numbers on the lines concerned.

The problem the industry has is the cost of doing electrification, but a rolling program would make that cheaper and that has been recognised in Scotland - where they are aiming for a cost of £1m per single track kilometre and have been quietly undertaking electrification for most of the last decade, in England the cost of electrification is around twice that.

Could be cart before the horse. A route has to be busy enough to justify electrification. The sparks effect could arguably mean just releasing the pent up demand. But a rolling program of electrification certainly brings down the costs of doing the electrification so makes more possibilities attractive.

Surely privatisation has also increased the cost base - fragmentation of operations and train procurement, contracts between the various players with lawyers at every interface, the bureaucracy of delay attribution etc. How much of this can be removed under GBR (assuming it happens)?

It is true that we in the UK have created a convoluted free market competition based railway - and then have to subsidise it and put up with interference from those wo know very little about railways (Department for Roads Transport).

The modernisation plan electrification schemes weren't replaced with new ones. Who was in charge when those schemes weren't being replaced ? Beeching. It's as simple as that (with the couple of exceptions I've already mentioned).

Actually it might be the holder of the purse strings that would not let Beeching spend on electrification. The Beeching era was about cutting out severe loss making, improving chances for borderline cases and building on the existing strengths.

The figures speak for themselves. We need more recovery soon but, sadly for rail, I think Working From Home is here to stay.

Overall I think we are going to find it hard to justify the subsidy the UK railways get. I really think this is back to the Beeching era unfortunately. All the railways can do is keep their nose clean, make the best of the situation, get more efficient and hold on to what has the most potential.

If demand for longer distance commuting and business travel is so badly reduced we are going to see some cut backs. For example will Avanti need their 805s and 807s ?. Best discussed over here https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...heading-towards-a-period-of-austerity.237970/

 

[yorksrob]

I moved to Croydon to get away from a longer ordeal from Medway. I now cannot see how i put up with the shorter cheaper commute that followed. Commuting is a waste of money, time and health (stress).

Integrated - one day !.

This reminds me of the argument for keeping branch lines open that help feed the core rail network. Not sure it was true or not ?. I am not disagreeing btw and it is certainly a factor that seems to be ignored in the UK.

Plusbus is a clunky substitute I fear. I suppose I am spoilt as we have Oyster in London (train, tube, bus and tram).

I know - every time I go to Cardiff I am reminded of the opportunity thrown away. I can only hope that they build a bus+coach station on the other (South) side of Cardiff Central station obliterating the car park. I suffer as my main destination is a walk down the river from Cardiff Central but a bit too far from the now non central Coach terminus for National Express, Meabus don't even share the same location.



Cake and eat it !. I mean we rely on subsidy so have to put up with interference. I think we are stuck in a middle ground. Either subsidise PUBLIC TRANSPORT properly or butt out.

Could be cart before the horse. A route has to be busy enough to justify electrification. The sparks effect could arguably mean just releasing the pent up demand. But a rolling program of electrification certainly brings down the costs of doing the electrification so makes more possibilities attractive.

It is true that we in the UK have created a convoluted free market competition based railway - and then have to subsidise it and put up with interference from those wo know very little about railways (Department for Roads Transport).

Actually it might be the holder of the purse strings that would not let Beeching spend on electrification. The Beeching era was about cutting out severe loss making, improving chances for borderline cases and building on the existing strengths.

The figures speak for themselves. We need more recovery soon but, sadly for rail, I think Working From Home is here to stay.

Overall I think we are going to find it hard to justify the subsidy the UK railways get. I really think this is back to the Beeching era unfortunately. All the railways can do is keep their nose clean, make the best of the situation, get more efficient and hold on to what has the most potential.

If demand for longer distance commuting and business travel is so badly reduced we are going to see some cut backs. For example will Avanti need their 805s and 807s ?. Best discussed over here https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...heading-towards-a-period-of-austerity.237970/

I'm sure if Beeching had believed in continuing the electrification programme, he'd have let everyone know about it. Either way, we've had around sixty years since the Modernisation plan to electrify the lions share of the network, and we haven't made enough progress .

Have you thought that perhaps it was the Government that stopped further electrification schemes? Having seen the amount of money wasted in the modernisation plan, it wouldn't be surprising if the Treasury pulled the plug on any more such schemes. History repeating itself now: for modernisation plan, read Great Western electrification and IEP.

Perhaps they did. However, as I've said above if the Chairman had felt it was necessary, he would have argued for it.

 

[coppercapped]

Well, he wasn't calling for a continuation of the electrification programme in his reports and publications from what I've read (admittedly the re-shaping ones). With Government, if you don't argue, you don't get.

In a way, I can see his point. We had a surplus of diesel locos and DMU's. Diesel was suited to freight - which was definitely one of his interests. Fuel supply wasn't an issue etc.

But my conclusion is that the comparative lack of electrification leaves our railway system in a worse position than other countries with greater coverage.

You seem to have created an imaginary baddy to blame for your inability to travel to anywhere you want to in the country by, preferably electric, train[1].

Your 'baddy' was Chairman of BR for a mere four and a quarter years sixty years ago. That's two generations. Can you in all honesty continue to blame him for many of the existing real or imagined ills visited on the railway since then? Can you not accept that sufficient time has elapsed for others to have made the case for electrification — where there is a case to be made?

It is not helpful to demonise those that one disagrees with as it tends to mean that one can then avoid understanding the others' needs, requirements and constraints. If one cannot or will not see and understand the position of the other party then one is on a hiding to nothing if one is trying to convince them of the validity of one's own argument.

An argument such as 'Rolling electrification is good - all other possibilities are bad' will not convince anybody to fund one's pet project.

[1] Stage 2 of the South Clyde electrification to Gourock and Wemyss Bay was completed on 5 June 1967 and that to Bournemouth one month later in July 1967. Both schemes were approved by the BRB and the Treasury during Dr. Beeching's tenure.

Edit: Footnote[1] added

 

[yorksrob]

You seem to have created an imaginary baddy to blame for your inability to travel to anywhere you want to in the country by, preferably electric, train.

Your 'baddy' was Chairman of BR for a mere four and a quarter years sixty years ago. That's two generations. Can you in all honesty continue to blame him for many of the existing real or imagined ills visited on the railway since then? Can you not accept that sufficient time has elapsed for others to have made the case for electrification — where there is a case to be made?

It is not helpful to demonise those that one disagrees with as it tends to mean that one can then avoid understanding the others' needs, requirements and constraints. If one cannot or will not see and understand the position of the other party then one is on a hiding to nothing if one is trying to convince them of the validity of one's own argument.

An argument such as 'Rolling electrification is good - all other possibilities are bad' will not convince anybody to fund one's pet project.

There were two periods of extensive electrification - the modernisation plan and the period spanning the 1980's. They should have been continued but they weren't. Beeching, Marples, Major, various people in Railtrack and NR at the time bear responsibility for that.

BTW electrification isn't my pet project. Network Rail recognise the need, hence the call for no regrets schemes. It is perfectly possible for railway management to advocate something publicly to Government if they think its right.

 

[tbtc]

Well, it's not rocket science - we were approaching if not a rolling programme, near enough one in the 1980's

So no examples then? Why did the politicians/ nationalised NR not deliver things like the GWML electrification properly?

Same in the 1960's until the blessed Doctor put a halt to it. It would be a better spend than subsidising roscos or keeping the private sector involved.

Would you rather we bought all trains for cash, brand new, no amortisation?

And, if we did (would this make lots of schemes unaffordable, given the need to buy everything up front), how many extra miles of electrification would that buy us each year?

(P.s. better not Google things like English Electric Leasing and find that BR were leasing locomotives over fifty years ago)

Source? You're own brain doesn't count. Beeching was very much pro electrification

He was, keen to run an efficient railway full of MGRs and marshalling yards, something they electricifation would have helped but “haters gone hate” regardless of things like facts!

Surely privatisation has also increased the cost base - fragmentation of operations and train procurement, contracts between the various players with lawyers at every interface, the bureaucracy of delay attribution etc. How much of this can be removed under GBR (assuming it happens)?

Twenty years of Network Rail should have improved that though;

There were two periods of extensive electrification - the modernisation plan and the period spanning the 1980's. They should have been continued but they weren't. Beeching, Marples, Major, various people in Railtrack and NR at the time bear responsibility for that.

BTW electrification isn't my pet project. Network Rail recognise the need, hence the call for no regrets schemes. It is perfectly possible for railway management to advocate something publicly to Government if they think its right.

can’t blame delay attribution for GWML electrification problems

Have you thought that perhaps it was the Government that stopped further electrification schemes? Having seen the amount of money wasted in the modernisation plan, it wouldn't be surprising if the Treasury pulled the plug on any more such schemes. History repeating itself now: for modernisation plan, read Great Western electrification and IEP.

In “RobWorld”, all bad things happen because of politicians and their representatives , yet he seems determined on nationalisation

I agree that the GWML problems have hurt other schemes, e.g. not only have we not wired the gaps in the “MML” to Moorthorpe/ Doncaster, we’ve not even reached Leicester… heck, we’ve not even done the GWML to Oxford etc, but this will all (somehow!) be blamed on the ROSCO contacts from thirty years ago… magical thinking

 

[yorksrob]

So no examples then? Why did the politicians/ nationalised NR not deliver things like the GWML electrification properly?



Would you rather we bought all trains for cash, brand new, no amortisation?

And, if we did (would this make lots of schemes unaffordable, given the need to buy everything up front), how many extra miles of electrification would that buy us each year?

(P.s. better not Google things like English Electric Leasing and find that BR were leasing locomotives over fifty years ago)



He was, keen to run an efficient railway full of MGRs and marshalling yards, something they electricifation would have helped but “haters gone hate” regardless of things like facts!



Twenty years of Network Rail should have improved that though;


can’t blame delay attribution for GWML electrification problems



In “RobWorld”, all bad things happen because of politicians and their representatives , yet he seems determined on nationalisation

I agree that the GWML problems have hurt other schemes, e.g. not only have we not wired the gaps in the “MML” to Moorthorpe/ Doncaster, we’ve not even reached Leicester… heck, we’ve not even done the GWML to Oxford etc, but this will all (somehow!) be blamed on the ROSCO contacts from thirty years ago… magical thinking

Apologies, my top five as you requested:

1) The trans pennine network including main line, calder, and Scarborough/redcar lines.
2) third rail infill - Marshlink, Uckfield, north downs.
3) Full midland mainline - and join up with ECML at Moorthorpe
4) Harrogate loop
5) Extend GW electrification along the main lines to Plymouth/Swansea etc.

Actually, you make an interesting point regarding nationalisation. Arguably it contributed to the freeze after the modernisation plan whereas privatisation contributed to that after the 1980's.

 

[Magdalia]

It's not as simple as that.

The 1955 Modernisation Plan stipulated that the main lines north from both Kings Cross and Euston should be electrified as well as the suburban services from Kings Cross. Dr. Beeching did not stop electrification out of Kings Cross: it had never been started in the seven years between 1955 and his arrival at BRB.

Ernest Marples, not Dr. Beeching, did pause the electrification work on the WCML for a few months when it became clear that costs were higher than had been promised - although the sums were chicken feed compared with those of today. The Government later authorised the resumption and completion of the scheme to Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester.

Some of the electrification schemes circa 1960 ran into difficulties. A faulty transformer design shut down a suburban service in Glasgow and a shortage of EMUs for services out of Liverpool Street caused severe problems for months on end. Consequently, electrification became highly suspect in Westminster and Whitehall. The idea that this can all be blamed on Dr. Beeching makes no sense.

I have looked at a lot of the relevant papers in the National Archives.

The Modernisation Plan was a rolling programme. The intention was that Kings Cross Suburban would start immediately after the Chenford (Chingford/Enfield/Hertford/Stortford) scheme had been completed. At the beginning of 1960, when Marples and the Ministry of Transport paused WCML electrification, planning work had already started on electrifying GN suburban lines and was well advanced. When WCML electrification was resumed, it was on condition that the BTC/BRB concentrated resources on WCML and did not start any new electrification projects. Beeching implemented that, but it was a Marples and the Ministry of Transport decision.

And the transformer failures in Scotland also affected the Chenford EMUs, that's what caused the fleet shortage.

 

[tbtc]

Apologies, my top five as you requested:

1) The trans pennine network including main line, calder, and Scarborough/redcar lines.
2) third rail infill - Marshlink, Uckfield, north downs.
3) Full midland mainline - and join up with ECML at Moorthorpe
4) Harrogate loop
5) Extend GW electrification along the main lines to Plymouth/Swansea etc.

Thanks

Certainly GW electrification should have been completed to Oxford/ Bristol/ Swansea by the publicly owned Network Rail as part of the CP5 electrification, which is pretty close to a “rolling” program

If the state has delivered those CP5 commitments (Inc MML to Sheffield, Electric Spine, main TP routes) then the next projects fall into place fairly easily (Moorthorpe, Scarborough, Southern Region gaps)

 

[yorksrob]

Thanks

Certainly GW electrification should have been completed to Oxford/ Bristol/ Swansea by the publicly owned Network Rail as part of the CP5 electrification, which is pretty close to a “rolling” program

If the state has delivered those CP5 commitments (Inc MML to Sheffield, Electric Spine, main TP routes) then the next projects fall into place fairly easily (Moorthorpe, Scarborough, Southern Region gaps)

Once those are done, Chiltern and the cross country core to Bristol must be quite high up.

 

[JonathanH]

Once those are done, Chiltern and the cross country core to Bristol must be quite high up.

Both involve a lot of route mileage for relatively low frequency services. The issue is diminishing returns and whether all services can benefit.

 

[philosopher]

Both involve a lot of route mileage for relatively low frequency services. The issue is diminishing returns and whether all services can benefit.

Kidderminster to Leamington and Marylebone to High Wycombe could be electrified to cover the busier part of the Chiltern Mainline as a start.

 

[yorksrob]

Both involve a lot of route mileage for relatively low frequency services. The issue is diminishing returns and whether all services can benefit.

It's in the nature of such a programme that the low hanging fruit gets done first. That aside, with a rolling programme the cost should also come down.

Also, I don't think the Chiltern main line is all that low frequency - it must be at least half hourly.

The cross country route is a very big infill, but you could potentially increase the frequency.

This of course leads to the other cross country route through Oxford and the Hope valley. The list writes itself when you think about it.

Kidderminster to Leamington and Marylebone to High Wycombe could be electrified to cover the busier part of the Chiltern Mainline as a start.

And the Southern part serves Birmingham and Oxford (and the branch to Aylesbury).

 

[Dr Hoo]

I have looked at a lot of the relevant papers in the National Archives.

The Modernisation Plan was a rolling programme. The intention was that Kings Cross Suburban would start immediately after the Chenford (Chingford/Enfield/Hertford/Stortford) scheme had been completed. At the beginning of 1960, when Marples and the Ministry of Transport paused WCML electrification, planning work had already started on electrifying GN suburban lines and was well advanced. When WCML electrification was resumed, it was on condition that the BTC/BRB concentrated resources on WCML and did not start any new electrification projects. Beeching implemented that, but it was a Marples and the Ministry of Transport decision.

And the transformer failures in Scotland also affected the Chenford EMUs, that's what caused the fleet shortage.

Also worth noting that the Modernisation Plan didn't envisage electrification from Woking (well, Pirbright Junction) to Southampton and Bournemouth, so that was a Beeching add-on.

The Glasgow Suburban electrification had originally been based vaguely on the extensive Inglis Report proposals from as far back as 1951 but only the Airdrie-Helensburgh and South Side group of lines had actually been authorised. These were largely complete by the time that Beeching took over, having been started in 1958, so were very much 'winding down' rather than 'rolling'. However, Beeching did re-start the programme with the Glasgow-Gourock/Wemyss Bay scheme.

Sensible phasing of the King's Cross suburban routes indicated getting the Victoria Line and Finsbury Park-Moorgate routes sorted out first. Marples had given the go-ahead to the Victoria Line after pioneering use of cost-benefit analysis (a technique which Beeching also embraced). The scheme might have been authorised in the late 1960s after Beeching had gone but had to wait for the Heath government.

Beeching also presided over the tactical 1,500V dc extension from Sheffield Victoria/Rotherwood to the new Tinsley Marshalling Yard.

All very sound decisions in their day.

At a more general level it was patently obvious that with the haemorrhaging of traditional freight and passenger traffic in the face of road competition that BR had already (recently) ordered broadly enough diesel locomotives and DMUs to meet almost all of its 1960s traffic requirements on lines that were going to survive. There was little financial appeal in dumping this new kit that was then less than ten years old. The good old British Transport Commission had already made that mistake once with a large fleet of post-war new steam locomotives.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Both involve a lot of route mileage for relatively low frequency services. The issue is diminishing returns and whether all services can benefit.

The Chiltern Line has a far more intensive service frequency at the southern end than Manchester to Blackpool ever will. It is about the same as the WCML slows.