ORR published its draft Determination of Network Rail ’s revenue for the next Control Period on June 5. This was too late for me to read all 377 pages of the document and try to make sense of it for this month’s column. Never mind, I’m sure you won’t mind waiting a month for the pleasure.
Meanwhile, the Government’s U-turn on electrification has now made a full 180 degrees, but Network Rail’s challenge to the Regulator cutting back the funding it says it needs is a reminder that, however strong the business case, you still have to find the money to put the wires up out of the general pot.
Anyway, speaking to an environmental conference, at the same time as I was quizzing the ORR team, Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly said that the business and environmental case for electrification ‘is growing fast’. She added ‘we are going to step up our efforts through a cross-industry working group to re-examine the business case for electrification, explore how costs can be brought down much further and agree priority schemes’ with the aim of completing the work later this year.
Priority schemes agreed this year! And in a subsequent statement to the House of Lords the Government’s transport spokesman identified the Midland Main Line and Great Western as having good cases. According to Informed Sources this was also in the first draft of Ruth Kelly’s speech but was taken out before presentation to avoid favouring rail at a general conference.
So wouldn’t you expect everyone in industry to be putting their shoulders to the bandwagon. Sadly, not. Under new Chairman Mike Alexander, ATOC has gone agnostic. New Chief Executive Michael Roberts is equally off-programme.
This emerged in an editorial in Rail where Alexander was quoted as saying that ATOC ‘should have no public opinion on how (extra) capacity should be delivered’. Publication of this view got ATOC spinning furiously, but the follow up letter to the editor showed, at best, a lukewarm commitment to the cause.
What can you say when the Chairman of a powerful industry grouping says that he is ‘not against electrification’ and adds ‘in fact, I would be a supporter if/when we identify that this is the best economic and technical solution to provide a better railway for passengers’.
‘If/when’? That question was answered in 1981 and verified by the more recent series of studies – including an economic analysis by DfT Rail. Talk about a fifth column
DfT Rail has now issued the high level procurement documentation for the new Thameslink train fleet. It is an absolute shocker – even by DfT Rail standards.
What really got me going is the totally unrealistic delivery schedule, combined with the usual exotic specification. According to DfT it is ‘essential’ that the first trains are in service for the start of Thameslink Key Output 1 (KO1) in February 2012.
With the contract due to be signed ‘Summer’ 2009, that leaves 30 months to design and deliver DfT Rail’s dream machine. How many trains are required for KO1? Based on the numbers in the Rolling Stock Plan I make it around 100 vehicles. When I checked with the DfT Press office the answer was that the number was fluid, but at least one 12-car train. More units will be introduced through 2012.
To provide a much needed reality check I compared the notional Thameslink timescale with the actual delivery plan for the new Francilien articulated, wide bodied commuter trains Bombardier is supplying for the
But note that the Thameslink KO1 service date is ‘essential’ only if the ‘essential’ technical requirements can be met by that ‘essential’ best value for money date of
Thameslink is not an easy application, with its combination of long outer-suburban runs and crush loaded operation in the central core between St Pancras and Blackfriars. As if that wasn’t enough, the Technical specification includes a range of improbable requirements, like 32 tonne vehicle weights and on-board energy storage to allow regenerative braking if the 750V DC supply is not receptive.
Reliability is required to be at least equal to the ‘best in class’ EMUs on the network. So 50,000 miles per 5 min delay (MP5MD) or 33,500 if you take an average across the top fleets.
This makes the KO1 requirement even more improbable, since even repeat orders take time to shake down. I provide some examples.
But if the new trains aren’t available for KO1 where does Thameslink find another 100 or so vehicles. Before the New Generation EMU was brought forward, the idea was to convert some of Southern’s existing Class 377s and replace them with more Electrostars.
But in that case, why not order 1100 Electrostar or Desiro Evolutions in the first place? As I point out in the column, Boeing has just put development of its 737 replacement on hold because the new technology available won’t provide the major step forward in cost, performance and emissions the airlines need.
Similarly, there is no magic EMU technology which will meet DfT Rail’s specification. But, of course, no manufacturer dare tell the DfT that!
However, as I was writing this the news came in that DfT Rail’s Thameslink trains industry seminar, which would have focused on ‘emerging technical and infrastructure specification issues’ and was due to have been held last week, isn’t going ahead.
Make of that news what you will. The most extreme interpretation could be an outbreak of common sense.
Talking of common sense, back in the April 2008 Column I described how the sudden appearance of a 250km/h option in an Appendix to the Intercity Express Programme Invitation to Tender had, according to one Informed Source, ‘spooked’ the bidders. DfT Rail promised me a copy of Appendix C after the bids had gone in on 6 May. And despite the closing date being put back to 30 June they kept their word.
Appendix C was an attempt to give bidders an indication of how their offers would be adjusted if they beat, or fell short of, key aspects of the specification. It lists the monetary values used for such adjustments and covers seating and standing capacity, journey times, quality, energy consumption and track wear and tear.
In the case of journey time savings bidders specify journey times for their design of train on each IEP route. Two sets of timing are required, one at line speed and the other including a specified number of signal stops and Temporary Speed Restrictions to indicate the train’s ability to recover from service perturbations.
So far, so sensible. But Appendix C also included a section headed ‘Speeds over 125 mile/h’. This applied to the ‘desirable requirement’ for electric IEP trains to be capable of higher speeds ‘to allow for possible line speed upgrades or new lines with higher speed limits being available’.
And what spooked the bidders was the enhanced line speed profile for the East Coast Main Line, which was based on a misconception. A footnote to the ECML speed profile claims ‘In fact, much of the route shown in Annex A as being cleared for 155 mile/h was earlier cleared for 160 mile/h’.
Oh no it wasn’t. Speeds of 140mile/h and above were permitted only for testing under possession plus the 3hr 29min London-Edinburgh demonstration run, for which the track was specially fettled.
Bidders are also struggling with another bizarre requirement. According to the Technical Specification: ‘It is an essential requirement that for “Train unable to proceed under main power source” mode, the train shall be capable of "limited movement".
How ‘Limited’? Accelerating up to ‘a minimum speed of 30mile within 5 minutes’ apparently. Plus climbing any gradient encountered on the route, but not necessarily at 30mile/h.
I calculate that we are looking at a 200hp diesel generator set in each train. And I explore some of the operational consequences.
I reckon my old chum Roger Kemp came up with the ideal solution - the Spearfish torpedo power pack which runs on various nasty chemicals but bangs out 1300hp from a package only 21 inches in diameter. Every electric train should have one!
Last month’s e-preview left me heading for a week’s holiday in
In all this, I somehow also managed to submit my latest application to become one of Network Rail’s Public Members on time. Network Rail’s reply says it is ‘pleased’ to have received my application. I confidently await my third standard rejection letter despite having one of the Railway Lords as my referee.
Last week I had a day at the Future of Rail conference which was a combination of informative presentations and meeting Informed Sources in the breaks. Transport Minister Tom Harris gave the keynote address and, I sensed, got a bit stroppy when a chum asked if Crossrail really was going to happen this time. The money’s there, said Tom, conveniently overlooking that legislation is still required before the additional business rate, which will help pay for the scheme, can be charged.
Meanwhile, the main them of the conference was that we need to start developing schemes now if the 30 year capacity aspirations in last year’s White Paper are to be met. Ian Brown. Managing Director London Rail is already pressing for Crossrail 2 (Chelsea-Hackney for older subscribers).
Next month on 1 July is time for the Modern Railways/Railway Forum innovation awards again – much more fun now that you can go round the displays of the shortlisted entries and get into the detail. Then on the 15th Angel have a reception at the House of Commons, where I expect that IEP and Thameslink will be hot topics, not to mention the change of ownership.
Next day I am giving a paper at the Waterfront conference ‘Reducing rail’s carbon footprint – where are we now?’ No prizes for guessing the subject of my presentation ‘The case for further electrification of the railways’
Coincidentally, there is a two day conference the following week with the title ‘Greener rail’. There are some interesting papers, especially the down to earth Porterbrook double act on traction developments and Gerry McFadden of Southern on regenerative braking.
That’s all for now.
Roger