News Desk

Network Rail proposals for Electrification out for consultation.

12th August 2009

Many readers will already have heard of Network Rail’s Route Utilization Strategy Programme. A Route Utilization Strategy (RUS) is a study of the likely demand for rail services in a particular area coupled with a review of the existing and planned infrastructure. The RUS makes recommendations about how service patterns and infrastructure need to be upgraded in order to maximize appropriate rail volume to meet demand. There are 18 of these regional RUSs, with 11 already established and the remainder variously in progress, out for consultation or scheduled.

The RUS programme was initiated by the Strategic Rail Authority when it became obvious that rail demand was expanding rapidly, rather than declining as was thought likely during privatization. There was no plan to deal with this situation, and it was obvious that the rail network would run out of capacity in the not too distant future, beginning at the pinch points. At first the process simply looked at how existing capacity could be better used, but the process became gradually more sophisticated and where enhancements were obviously going to be necessary these were also considered. When the SRA was abolished, responsibility was transferred to Network Rail, as infrastructure owner. Because Network Rail is a monopoly supplier of services, the Office of Rail Regulation altered Network Rail’s licence to require it to produce RUSs and to undertake the process in a particular way; it also has to approve (or ‘accept’) each RUS, but once it has been accepted it sets the regional policy towards service improvement and infrastructure upgrade. In addition to the regional RUSs there are two national ones. The first national RUS concerns the development of freight operations (established in March 2007), and the second one (central to this article) concerns network electrification policy, and it is to this we must now turn.

The Network RUS concerning electrification policy was issued for consultation in May 2009. It is important to understand that while Network Rail is responsible for managing the RUS process it does not have a free hand to publish what it likes. Input is overseen by a stakeholder group representing pretty much everyone who might have an interest in the outcome (these are listed at the end, but unsurprising includes DfT, TfL, passenger and freight operators, RosCos, Passenger Focus, and so on). This is quite a crowd to manage, especially as each would have had their own reasons for holding there own particular and not wholly reconcilable views.

The starting point is that at present about 40 per cent of the rail network is electrified on a track miles basis and these lines carry about half the passenger train miles operated but only 5 per cent of the freight miles. Two thirds of the electrified network is on the 25kV alternating current overhead live wire basis, and one third 3-rail direct current. English and Scottish governments wish to increase the usage of the network while lowering costs and minimising environmental impact. The question therefore turns to how, at what cost and with what benefits further electrification can help achieve objectives. An understanding of current and projected traffic flows needed also to be considered in the light of present gaps in the existing electrification network, and the impact that filling in those gaps would have on actual traction methods employed given nature of current fleets and when they might be replaced or redeployed (though there are presently a lot of aging diesel vehicles around). The RUS was concerned with whole industry costs rather than the impact of particular parties (though local impacts cannot necessarily be ignored in practice).

The first thing that was noted was that electric traction operation is cheaper than diesel. Maintenance was stated to be about 20p per mile lower and fuel costs (always difficult to predict) were presently in the range 19p-26p per mile lower. However the industry has conflicting government requirements to contend with. The industry is being persuaded to reduce CO2 emissions. On the other hand it has to reduce particulates from diesel engines, which for existing engines may require them to be retuned, increasing fuel consumption and hence CO2. In the future, new engine technology should retrieve this position, but further requirements will be imposed. There are more subtle savings caused by higher rates of acceleration which for a given level of service can result in better stock utilization (reduced leasing costs). Electric trains are more reliable at 21,000 miles per casualty against 11,000 miles for diesel, and this has a value (less need for ‘hot’ standby trains). Electric trains for certain given parameters have more seats, helping to address the overcrowding issue.

On the environmental front the existing UK rail network is responsible for 2 per cent of carbon emissions from all sources of transport, including cars. On the rail network, for a given number of passengers, CO2 emissions are 20-30 per cent less than a diesel equivalent. It is noted that electric trains are quieter than diesel and for modern and comparable trains an electric train is 3.1dB quieter. On the operations front, additional electrification will improve network utilization, provide additional journey opportunities and more diversionary routes, all of which are good to have. How these factors blend together to produce what is ultimately a better ‘product’ for both passenger and freight users is complex; it is accepted by most parties that the product will be better, and therefore more saleable, but it comes at a price and the trick is to produce a business case that looks and feels about right for the majority of the stakeholders.

The RUS development work began by considering the present electrified network. This was taken to include Great Western electrification between Airport Junction and Maidenhead (authorized by Crossrail), Barnt Green to Bromsgrove, Airdrie to Haymarket and the Glasgow Airport rail link which are already funded for implementation during the current control period.

Examination of the mode of operation of existing electric services showed that electric trains carried heavier loads than diesels, partly because trains tended to be longer. Thus an electric train mileage of 49 per cent (of total passenger train miles) lifted to 59 per cent of the ton miles that passenger trains represented (it is unusual to see passenger trains described in ton miles terms, but it is valid). Similarly with freight – five per cent of train miles became six per cent in ton miles terms. Worryingly it was thought that, overall, only about half the total services (ie passenger and freight) operating on electric routes were actually electric trains; the York-Newcastle section is the worst. This could be caused by several factors but the most common was that services started or finished off the electrified network so the entire journey had to be undertaken by diesel traction. This appeared to represent a huge area of opportunity, but there was a caution about the amount of spare power capacity that was actually available if more electric trains were run.

Electrification is not particularly cheap. Consultants W.S. Atkins were used by the DfT in 2007 to determine average electrification costs and concluded that representative costs would be of the order of £500,000-£650,000 per single track kilometre, depending on site-specific circumstances. Network Rail estimate the most significant components of this are clearance works on bridges and tunnels (30-40 per cent), electrical supply requirements from grid substation to line (25-30 per cent) and actual overhead line erection including junction works (25-30 per cent). The remaining costs are distributed over a whole host of minor works, including signalling and telecoms immunization. Costs do not include introduction of new electric vehicles and the strategy assumes that quite a few new vehicles are required anyway and that electrification proceeds on the basis that new diesel vehicles are not introduced that would later be found to be redundant before their normal life.

The impact on maintenance and renewal is a thorny area. In summary electrification infrastructure will put costs up as there is more equipment to maintain and renew. On the other hand, for a similar volume of service, electric trains are lighter (typically 42 tonnes per vehicle against 46 tonnes) so track maintenance and renewal costs fall, Network Rail estimate this as 1p per vehicle mile.

With 60 per cent of the rail network unelectrified some methodology was required in order to prioritize opportunities given that intensity of overall electric train mileage was likely to be the determinant in the business case for electrifying individual sections. Four categories of opportunity were identified:

Type A : where electrification may enable more efficient operation of passenger services;

This would describe routes (or electrification gaps) carrying over 1m tonnes per single track mile where a ‘significant’ proportion of passenger services would be electric. 81 schemes were investigated.

Type B : where electrification may enable more efficient operation of freight services;

These are routes where either significant freight traffic could be converted to electric, or where freight trains could be rerouted in order to utilize electric traction throughout route. 29 schemes were investigated.

Type C: where electrification could provide diversionary route capacity.

Self explanatory, but focusing on routes where ability to divert electric trains would be particularly valuable and save dieselized diversions or bustitution. 13 schemes were investigated.

Type D: where electrification could enable a new service to operate

This includes passenger and freight opportunities and could be by extension of existing services or by opening up new possibilities entirely. Six schemes were investigated.


The categorization is inevitably slightly arbitrary as some schemes could equally well fit into another category, or more than one. The actual categorization depends on the principle benefits, but in each case other headings were also considered. The Southampton/Eastleigh-Salisbury line, for example, fits all four criteria.

Of the 129 schemes examined, it was then necessary to consider options and identify financial justification. Clearly some options were likely to be a great deal more valuable than others, and some options worked better if grouped together. It was felt that the number of track miles to be electrified gave a broad indication of cost, while the number of vehicle miles converted from diesel to electric traction (wherever occurring) gave a broad indication of benefit. Dividing the benefit by the cost gave a crude indication of ‘worthwhileness’ (which, used with overall cost and availability of money, demonstrated a scheme’s affordability). ‘Worthwhileness’ is of course only an approximation, but it would be sufficient to indicate which schemes were too low a priority to pursue now and which were promising schemes that deserved more detailed evaluation. The most promising schemes have also been evaluated on a socio-economic basis which demonstrates value to the wider community and would help further to prioritize schemes were there to be competition for limited public funds (which is likely in many cases).

Results:

Category 1 options:
• Option A12.2c Electrify Reading to Cogload Junction following Paddington to Reading, and Bristol to Plymouth and Paignton. Convert London to West of England services to electric traction, with loco haulage for services west of Plymouth. Convert London to Newbury and Bedwyn, Exeter to Paignton and Cardiff to Taunton services to electric traction.
• Option A13.1a Electrify Great Western Main Line from Airport Junction to Oxford and Bristol via Bath. Run Paddington to Bristol service with Super Express trains as part of the Intercity Express Programme. Convert Paddington to Reading and Oxford suburban services to electric traction.
• Option A13.1d Electrify Didcot to Oxford following Great Western Main Line from Maidenhead to Bristol. Convert Paddington to Oxford services to electric traction.
• Option A13.2a Electrify Great Western Wootton Bassett Junction to Swansea, following Airport Junction to Bristol via Bath. Run Paddington to Cardiff and Swansea service with Super Express trains as part of the Intercity Express Programme. Split Cardiff to Taunton service at Bristol, and convert Cardiff to Bristol service to electric traction.
• Option A13.2b Electrify Great Western Main Line Bristol Parkway to Swansea, following Maidenhead to Bristol via Bath and Bristol Parkway. Run Paddington to Cardiff and Swansea service with Super Express trains as part of the Intercity Express Programme. Split Cardiff to Taunton service at Bristol, and convert Cardiff to Bristol service to electric traction.
• Option A13.5a Electrify Bromsgrove to Cheltenham and Standish Junction to Westerleigh Junction (Bristol Parkway) following Birmingham to Doncaster, Swindon to Cheltenham, Bristol to Cogload Junction and Reading to Plymouth and Paignton. Convert cross country services to the west country to electric traction with loco haulage for services west of Plymouth. Convert Bristol to Gloucester services to electric traction.
• Option A19.1 Electrify Midland Main Line and run St Pancras to Nottingham, Sheffield, Derby and Corby services with electric trains, using cascaded trains for the long distance services.
• Option A19.2 Electrify Doncaster to Sheffield, South Kirkby Junction (Moorthorpe) to Swinton, Derby to Birmingham and Wichnor Junction to Lichfield following GWML Midland Main Line and Birmingham / Coventry via Leamington to Oxford and Reading to Basingstoke. Convert cross country services from Edinburgh via ECML, Newcastle and Leeds to Reading and Southampton to electric traction. Convert Sheffield to Leeds via Moorthorpe and Birmingham to Nottingham services to electric traction.
• Option A20.2 Electrify Preston to Blackpool North following Euxton Junction to Manchester; Convert Manchester to Blackpool North service to electric traction.
• Option A22.1 Electrify Crewe to Chester. Convert Euston to Chester services to electric traction, with some rearrangement of destinations of Chester and North Wales services to separate electric and diesel diagrams.
• Option A23.1 Electrify Oxenholme to Windermere following Euxton Junction to Manchester; Convert Manchester to Windermere and Oxenholme to Windermere services to electric traction.
• Option A24.2 Electrify Carmuirs Junctions to Dunblane and Alloa following Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen Street. Convert Glasgow and Edinburgh to Dunblane and Alloa services to electric traction.
• Option A9.2 Electrify Thornaby to Sunderland following Northallerton to Middlesbrough. Convert London to Sunderland service to electric traction.


Category 2 Options
• Option A 9.1 Electrify from Northallerton to Middlesbrough and Thornaby to Sunderland. Reinstate through North cross Pennine services to Mibblesbrough, and convert London to Sunderland service to electric traction.
• Option A10.1a Electrify Guide Bridge to Leeds, Leeds to Colton Junction and Hull, and Temple Hirst to Selby following Manchester Deansgate to Liverpool (Edge Hill). Convert Hull to London and cross Pennine services to electric traction. Modify cross Pennine services so that they run between Liverpool and Manchester via the Chat Moss route, and so that through Middlesbrough services are split at York and Scarborough is served by services from Preston rather than by North cross Pennine services.
• Option A10.1b Electrify Guide Bridge to Leeds, Leeds to Colton Junction and Hull, Northallerton to Middlesbrough and Temple Hirst to Selby following Manchester Deansgate to Liverpool (Edge Hill).; Convert Hull to London and cross Pennine services to electric traction. Modify cross Pennine services so that they run between Liverpool and Manchester via the Chat Moss route, and so that Scarborough is served by services from Preston rather than by North cross Pennine services.
• Option A11.1 Electrify Newark Northgate to Lincoln. Convert projected London to Lincoln service to electric traction.
• Option A13.1b Electrify Great Western Main Line from Maidenhead to Oxford and Bristol via Bath and Bristol Parkway. Run Paddington to Bristol service with Super Express trains as part of the Intercity Express Programme. Convert Paddington to Reading and Oxford suburban services to electric traction.
• Option A13.1c Electrify Great Western Main Line from Maidenhead to Bristol via Bath, following Airport Junction to Maidenhead (electrified under Crossrail scheme). Run Paddington to Bristol service with Super Express trains as part of the Intercity Express Programme. Convert Paddington to Reading suburban services to electric traction.
• Option A13.5b Electrify Bromsgrove to Cheltenham and Standish Junction to Westerleigh Junction (Bristol Parkway) and Bristol to Plymouth and Paignton following GWML, Birmingham to Doncaster and Swindon to Cheltenham. Convert cross country services to the west country to electric traction with loco haulage for services west of Plymouth. Convert Bristol to Gloucester, Exeter to Paignton and Cardiff to Taunton services to electric traction. Reinstate through Cardiff to Taunton service and operate with electric traction.
• Option A16.1a Electrify Marylebone to Aynho Junction, and Aylesbury via High Wycombe, Hatton to Stratford upon Avon and Old Oak to Northolt following Oxford to Birmingham. Convert Marylebone to Birmingham and Marylebone to Aylesbury via High Wycombe services to electric traction.
• Option A16.3 Electrify Aylesbury to Claydon following Claydon to Bletchley reopening and electrification. Run new passenger service with electric traction.
• Option A20.1b Electrify Euxton Junction to Manchester and Preston to Blackpool North. Convert Manchester to Scotland and Blackpool North and Hazel Grove to Preston service to electric traction.
• Option A24.1b Electrify Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen Street via Falkirk High and Grahamston and Carmuirs Junctions to Dunblane and Alloa. Convert Edinburgh to Glasgow services and Glasgow and Edinburgh to Dunblane and Alloa services to electric traction.
• Option A26.3 Electrify Corkerhill to Paisley Canal. Convert Glasgow Central to Paisley Canal services to electric traction.
• Option A4.2 Electrify Salisbury to Exeter following Basingstoke to Salisbury. Convert Waterloo to Exeter service to electric traction.
• Option A5.2 Electrify Chippenham Junction (Newmarket) to Cambridge following Haughley Junction to Peterborough,. Convert Ipswich to Cambridge service to electric traction.
• Option A10.1d Combination of Option A10.1a with Option A20.4 2

Category 3 Options:
• Option A10.1c Electrify Guide Bridge to Leeds, Leeds to Colton Junction and Hull, Northallerton to Middlesbrough, York to Scarborough and Temple Hirst to Selby following Manchester Deansgate to Liverpool (Edge Hill). Convert Hull to London and cross Pennine services to electric traction. Modify cross Pennine services so that they run between Liverpool and Manchester via the Chat Moss route.
• Option A11.4a Electrify Meadowhall to Horbury Junction via Barnsley following Midland Main Line, Nottingham to Clay Cross Junction, Sheffield to Doncaster, Wakefield to Thornhill Junction and Wakefield to Leeds via Altofts. Convert Leeds–Barnsley–Sheffield–Nottingham services to electric traction.
• Option A12.2b Electrify Reading to Plymouth and Paignton and Bristol to Cogload Junction following Paddington to Reading. Convert London to West of England services to electric traction, with loco haulage for services west of Plymouth. Convert London to Newbury and Bedwyn Exeter to Paignton and Cardiff to Taunton services.
• Option A13.6 Electrify Gloucester to Severn Tunnel Junction following GWML, and cross country; Convert Cardiff to Birmingham and Nottingham services to electric traction.
• Option A19.3 Electrify Ambergate to Matlock following Midland Main Line. Convert Nottingham to Matlock service to electric traction.
• Option A2.1 Electrify Uckfield to Hurst Green with DC electrification. Convert Uckfield to London service to electric traction.
• Option A20.1a Electrify Euxton Junction to Manchester. Convert Manchester to Scotland and Hazel Grove to Preston services to electric traction.
• Option A20.5a Electrify Huyton to Wigan following Edge Hill to Manchester and Preston to Blackpool North. Convert Liverpool to Wigan and Blackpool North services to electric traction.
• Option A24.1a Electrify Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen Street via Falkirk High and Grahamston; Convert Edinburgh to Glasgow services to electric traction.
• Option A24.6 Electrify Ladybank to Hilton Junction (Perth) following Edinburgh and Glasgow to Dunblane and Dundee and Haymarket to Aberdeen. Convert Edinburgh to Perth services to electric traction.
• Option A4.1a Electrify Basingstoke to Salisbury. Convert Waterloo to Salisbury service to electric traction.
• Option A4.1b Electrify Basingstoke to Exeter. Convert Waterloo to Salisbury and Exeter service to electric traction.
• Option A4.4 Electrify Salisbury to Bathampton Junction (Bath) following Redbridge to Salisbury and GWML. Convert Cardiff to Portsmouth service to electric traction.
• Option A10.1e Combination of Option A10.1b with Option A20.4 3
• Option A10.1f Combination of Option A10.1c with Option A20.4 3

The Draft RUS makes the following points about these high ranking options:

The analysis of schemes in Scotland shows that the highest ranking Type A schemes are the electrification of the routes from Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen Street via Falkirk High and Grahamston and Carmuirs Junctions to Dunblane and Alloa (Option A24.1b) and Corkerhill to Paisley Canal (Option A26.3). As noted in section 2.3, these schemes are included in phases 1 and 2 of the electrification element of the Strategic Transport Projects Review.

For high ranking options (plus a selection of options sampled from lower tiers to confirm that the ratio analysis provides a robust indication of the strength of the business case) in England and Wales, socio-economic appraisal has been used to demonstrate potential value for money. The results of these appraisals are summarised in Table 6.5.

Of the detailed appraisals completed, Midland Main Line, Great Western Main Line (Maidenhead to Oxford, Bristol and Swansea), cross country, Basingstoke to Exeter St. Davids, Berks and Hants, and Manchester to Euxton Junction, Preston to Blackpool North and Oxenholme to Windermere all potentially offer high value for money. The North cross Pennine Option A10.1e has a BCR of 1.2. However this would increase to 5.8 if the option were treated as an add on to the cross country scheme, with the capital expenditure associated with Leeds to Colton Junction allocated to the cross country scheme instead.

The North cross Pennine appraisal reflects the financial impact of electrification upon all train operators, both franchised and open access. However, benefits to open access operators are not necessarily reflected in industry costs to Government in the same way as for franchised operators.


The high ranking options (classes 1-3 above) were additionally subjected to the full economic business case process. This resulted in the following outcomes (business cases evaluated over 60 years).

1. Positive business case on financial performance alone

Option A12.2c: Berks and Hants
Overhead AC electrification of Reading to Cogload Junction, following GWML electrification and cross country electrification to Plymouth.
This permits long distance West of England services from Paddington to convert to electric traction. Beyond Plymouth, the RUS assumes that through services will be maintained by attaching a diesel loco at Plymouth. London suburban services between Paddington and Newbury / Bedwyn are also assumed to convert to electric traction.

Option A13.1b and 13.2b - Great Western Main Line :
Overhead AC electrification from Maidenhead to Oxford, Bristol (via Bath and Westerleigh Junction.) and to Swansea. Electrification between Paddington and Maidenhead is assumed under Crossrail.
This enables conversion of the following services:
Long distance services from Paddington to Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea
London to Oxford services
Services from Paddington to Cheltenham and Worcester are assumed to be operated by IEP Bi-Mode trains, running under electric traction under the wires
Cardiff to Taunton services, splitting the service at Bristol Temple Meads.

Note for this scheme the financial performance alone is dependent on the exact Inter City Express programme cost assumptions but even with pessimistic assumptions the business benefit to cost ratio exceeds 2.

Option A19.1: Midland Main Line
Overhead AC electrification from Bedford to Corby, Nottingham and Sheffield.
Convert all long distance East Midlands services from St. Pancras to electric traction.


2. Positive business case exceeding 2.0

Option A4.1b: Basingstoke – Exeter
Overhead AC electrification from Basingstoke to Exeter, following cross country electrification to Plymouth. Option enables conversion of Waterloo to West of England services.
BCR 3.1

Options A13.4, A13.5b and A19.2: Cross country
Overhead AC electrification of the following track sections in three phases, following Great Western, North cross-Pennine and Midland Main Line electrification:
• Birmingham to Basingstoke via Coventry and Solihull, and north of Birmingham enabling access to Central Rivers depot (via Water Orton and Lichfield routes)
• Infilling the route between Central Rivers and the North East / Scotland, including the route to Derby, Doncaster to Sheffield, and Moorthorpe to Swinton
• Bromsgrove to Plymouth, including the short spur to Gloucester
Option permits the following services to convert to electric traction:
• Cross country long distance services to / from South Coast, South West, North West, North East and Scotland
• Reading-Basingstoke
• Oxford-Banbury
• Bristol Parkway / Temple Meads to Weston Super Mare / Taunton services, and reinstatement of Cardiff to Taunton services which were assumed to be split at Bristol following Great Western electrification
• Paignton to Exeter St. Davids
• Paddington to West of England services (including Weston Super Mare) which operate via Bristol Temple Meads
BCR 5.1
(Assuming Leeds to Colton Junction. Costs are also allocated to cross country scheme: BCR 3.4)

Option A20.1b and Option A23.1: Manchester to Preston, Blackpool North and Windermere
Overhead AC electrification of Manchester (Ordsall Lane Junction.) to Euxton Junction, Manchester Victoria to Salford Crescent (via Salford Central), Preston to Blackpool North, and Oxenholme to Windermere.
Services assumed to convert to electric traction are Manchester / Preston / Windermere / Scotland and Manchester Airport to Blackpool North trains, plus Manchester Victoria to Blackpool North and Hazel Grove to Preston services.
BCR 2.3


3. Positive business case of unity, but not exceeding 2.0

Option A17.1a:- Snow Hill Lines
Overhead AC electrification of Snow Hill lines (Hereford to Worcester, Droitwich Spa to Small Heath, and Tyseley South Junction. to Stratford-Upon-Avon), following cross country electrification to Leamington Spa.
Services assumed to convert to electric traction are Snow Hill lines services between Stratford-Upon-Avon and Dorridge (with Leamington Spa extensions) to Stourbridge Junction, Kidderminster and Worcester, plus Hereford to Birmingham New St. services.
BCR 1.0

Option A10.1e- North cross Pennine
Overhead AC electrification from:
• Liverpool to Manchester Oxford Road via St. Helens Junction.
• Guide Bridge to Leeds
• Leeds to Colton Junction.
• Micklefield to Hull
• Selby to Temple Hirst Junction.
• Northallerton to Middlesbrough
• Hambleton East to North, Hambleton South to West
Option permits the following services to convert to electric traction:
• Newcastle to Manchester Airport
• Hull to Manchester Piccadilly
• Middlesbrough to Manchester Airport
• Scarborough to Liverpool becomes a York to Liverpool service (via St. Helens Junction.), extending Blackpool North-York services to Scarborough
• Leeds to Huddersfield
• London to Hull (franchise and open access operators)
• Selby to Wakefield (splitting at Leeds)
• Liverpool Lime St. to Manchester Airport (via St. Helens)
• Liverpool – Warrington Bank Quay
• York – Selby / Hull
BCR 1.2 (includes financial benefits to open access operators)
(Assuming Leeds to Colton Junction costs are allocated to cross country scheme: BCR 5.8)


In addition to category A options there was a handful of others that justified the full cost benefit analysis.

Category B

Options B6.1 & B6.3: Gospel Oak to Barking and Thameshaven Branch
Overhead AC electrification Woodgrange Park to Gospel Oak, Harringay Park Junction. to Harringay Junction. and Junction Road Junction. to Carlton Road Junction and Ripple Lane sidings / Thameshaven Branch.
Conversion of Gospel Oak to Barking passenger services to electric traction.
BCR 2.4 (this excludes both revenue and user benefits generated from increased capacity)

Category D

Option D17.5: Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury
Overhead AC electrification from Oxley Junction. to Shrewsbury.
This appraisal assumes the following service pattern change:
• Extension of hourly West Coast Euston to Wolverhampton services through to Shrewsbury.
• Conversion of hourly Birmingham New Street to Shrewsbury services to electric.
• The services from Birmingham International to Machynlleth (for the Cambrian Coast) and North Wales, which together form an hourly Birmingham to Shrewsbury service, would start/terminate at Shrewsbury.
BCR 1.0

A few other schemes may deserve to be taken forward and will be taken account of in the Regional RUS process.

Given the outputs just described, a strategy begins to emerge. The report comments that the development of the strategy has considered a number of key factors, which when taken together impact on its value for money:
• prioritisation of those routes which have the strongest business cases
• reduction of diesel train operation on the electrified network
• identification of key infill schemes which would give early operational efficiency benefits
• exploitation of synergies with rolling stock replacement and cascade
• consideration of delivery factors, such as minimising disruption, taking advantage of the economies of scale of using factory train formations, making efficient use of each depot provided for them
• ramp up and sustaining delivery capability
• exploitation of synergies with other enhancement projects.

The emerging strategy needed to consider the special cases of two schemes that had particularly high businesses cases on a stand alone basis (meaning that the case was made independently of any other electrification work). These were the Midland main line electrification scheme (completely cash positive), and the Great Western main line scheme which could be cash positive but was certainly high value for money, depending on assumptions made about the cost assumptions made for the Inter City Express programme. Network Rail considered these schemes (which appeared likely to reduce costs over time) ought to be top priority. There were five other schemes which had a benefit to cost ratio of 2 or more (the current DfT ‘hurdle’ rate above which they represent good value for money) and which ought to become part of a rolling programme. An important point that is identified is the need for GW resignalling to be complete prior to electrification (the signalling is already due for renewal and replacement by an ERTMS Level 2 system.

The conclusion is to recommend the following:

Strategic Infill Schemes benefiting both passenger and freight services:
• Option B6.1 Woodgrange Park to Gospel Oak, Harringay Park Junction – Harringay Junction and Junction Road Junction to Carlton Road Junction.
• Option B6.2 Ripple Lane sidings and Thameshaven branch.

Main Line schemes:
• Option A13.1b Great Western Main Line: Maidenhead to Oxford and Bristol via Bath and Bristol Parkway.
• Option A13.2b Great Western Main Line: Bristol Parkway to Swansea.
• Option A19.1 Midland Main Line: Bedford to Sheffield via Derby, Trent Junction to Nottingham and Kettering to Corby

It was observed that the section from Bristol to Swansea was a relatively low value for money if examined in its own right. The main benefits of the GW main line options were achieved if electrification was phased properly with the Inter City Express programme avoiding the need to introduce a diesel-only variant. This thinking would also apply on the Midland main line which would also release the class 222 fleet for deployment elsewhere. A Matlock electrification was possible, but marginal. Network Rail was very keen to spread out the enabling works to accommodate other important activity such as gauge enhancement and other activity that could be undertaken within the same possessions.

Beyond the above specifics the RUS is less specific (it is after all in the consultation stage at the moment). There were also 15 Scottish schemes identified but as Transport for Scotland is taking a more proactive approach to electrification they won’t be dealt with here as Network Rail is likely to be following rather than leading the process. The English/Welsh schemes if adopted are expected to save over 20,000 tonnes of carbon per year, increase electrified track mileage to 46 per cent, and vehicle miles operated electrically to 72 per cent.

Readers are referred to the separate article on the go ahead for the Great Western and a Manchester-Liverpool scheme which is slightly at odds with the interim recommendation. More on this anon.

The whole 113-long report may be found at: Network RUS: Electrification