INFORMED SOURCES e-Preview September 2021
INFORMED SOURCES e-Preview September 2021
This month’s Informed sources is very busy, with a mix of bad news and good news.
Hardware hamstrings ECML 2022 timetable plans
Transport Decarbonisation – now show us the money
Transport Decarbonisation – India shows the way
Transport Decarbonisation– can Network Rail deliver?
Hitachi cracking woes worsen
Starting with the bad news, we have another case of ‘the curse of the Modern Railways front cover’. This is when we splash a major development all over the cover and it promptly goes pear-shaped.
In the August issue we featured a detailed report on the new East Coast Main Line timetable for May 2022. A few days after the magazine went on sale Network Rail, wrote to the Department for Transport, Transport Scotland and Transport for the North recommending that the change should be deferred to May 2023 ‘or beyond’.
Five ‘risks’ to the introduction of the timetable were identified, all unlikely to be resolved in the time remaining. I analyse these risks in detail in the column, but they include both external technical issues and concerns over the timetable itself.
Technical concerns are the uncertainty over the availability of the LNER Azuma train fleet, pending a decision on the rectification programme for the fatigue cracking. Added to this, late in the day, Network Rail has been unable to get derogations from the Distribution Network Operator to upgrade one traction power feeder-station to its nominal maximum output.
As for the timetable itself, Network Rail has pulled out the stops with its performance modelling, with the results available well in advance of the date when operators submit their bids. However, the results have raised doubts over the reliability of the Timetable.
Modelling has compared the performance and deliverability of the proposed new timetable against the December 2019 timetable. This showed an aggregate reduction in Average Minutes Lateness (AML) across the service day. However, this excluded freight and other workings.
A further caveat is that the average performance during the first three months of the December 2019 timetable, effectively before lockdown, was, according to Network Rail, ‘lower than is broadly deemed acceptable by the industry, stakeholders and passengers’. LNER’s Public Performance Measure (PPM) during the three months averaged 80.8%, compared to 91.6% for the current reduced timetable in force during the first three months of 2021.
Meanwhile, the new timetable is with Network Rail’s Capacity Planning function for further development and validation. Multiple issues still require resolution.
Last of the five risks is the response to the public consultation on the timetable, which closed on 5 August. As reported in our news pages, some stakeholders have gone public with their objections.
In its letter, Network Rail suggests that ‘funders’ should use the deferral as ‘an opportunity to review the train service specification for the ECML, informed by the outputs of the performance modelling and consultation’. It’s worth repeating that the service specification for the ECML services had its genesis in the access applications six years ago.
Electrification stars in Decarbonising Transport plan
Published on 14 July, the Government’s Decarbonising Transport plan marks a dramatic reversal of Chris Grayling’s ‘anything but electrification’ policy in the aftermath of the Great Western aberration. ‘We will deliver an ambitious, sustainable, and cost-effective programme of electrification guided by Network Rail’s Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy’ is as relatively weasel-proof a commitment as we are likely to get.
For more good cheer, DfT has also bought into this columns’ mantra that an electric railway is a better railway however you define ‘better’. According to the Plan ‘Electrification does not merely decarbonise existing rail journeys; it has a clear record of attracting new passengers to rail, the so called "sparks effect", thus also decarbonising journeys previously done by road’.
There’s more. Back in April 2018 Modern Railways published Julian Worth’s analysis of the potential for electric freight haulage. This included a list of electrification ‘in-fill’ schemes. Totalling around 300 route miles, if Felixstowe-Nuneaton were to be included, these short lengths of wiring would result in up to 75% of freight being electrically hauled.
DfT has adopted the ‘Worth Doctrine. The Plan explains, ‘The geography of rail freight has subsequently changed, with the consolidation of rail freight on already partially electrified routes. This means that relatively short stretches of new infill electrification could allow a significant rise in the electric haulage of freight. We will pursue such electrification to maximise the benefits gained from rail freight’.
So all we need now is the commitment to fund the start of the rolling programme. I say ‘all, but this, critically, is linked to the ability of the industry to deliver electrification at an affordable price.
Indian Railways electrification lessons
An article in the July issue of Railway Gazette International coincided with publication of the Decarbonising Transport plan. Written by the Indian Railway Board’s Executive Director Railway Electrification, it contained statistics which were, literally, impossible to grasp.
Of course, with India, you are always talking big numbers. The broad gauge (1,676mm) network covers 64,689 route km. This is almost exactly four times the length of the UK network.
In 2014, the Indian government decided to make rail decarbonisation a pillar of it climate change mitigation strategy and launched ‘Mission 100% electrification’. Electrification of the broad gauge network reached 40% by 2017. Today, it is around 71%.
In the financial year ending 31 March 2021, 6,015 route km of electrification was commissioned. And, no, I can’t get my brain round that number either.
Of course, I am not going to suggest that we get an Indian Railways team over here to knock off the outstanding 11,000 stkm of electrification proposed in the TDNS in time for the next election. Too much is different between the two railways, from access and disruption to gauging and clearances.
But what we can learn from is the Indian Railways approach and organisation. Indian Railways response to the Government’s policy was to go into ‘Mission mode’ on electrification. At the IR Board, the Railway Electrification Directorate has been responsible for planning, prioritisation, overall coordination and monitoring of the rolling programme.
I suspect that what Indian Railways is doing on the ground is not that much different to UK techniques. The real difference lies in the focused approach to managing their rolling programme. Which brings me to the next item.
Continuing concern over electrification costs
One of my ‘housekeeping’ tasks is monitoring the Network Rail Board Meeting minutes. Catching up on the March board I found this:
“Traction decarbonisation network strategy
The Programme Business Case (PBC) for this strategy was published in November 2020. However, it was clear that the PBC did not accurately reflect either the impact of ‘infrequently complex’ areas of infrastructure nor the lead time to build up to the long-run efficient rates quoted”
And as a consequence, “initial high profile and complex schemes such as TRU and MMLE are not meeting the cost ranges assumed in the PBC. Further work was in hand to understand the likely impacts of these two elements”.
This was a useful corrective to the optimism induced by the Decarbonising Transport plan’s endorsement of electrification. It also chimed with feedback from Informed Sources.
While Midland Main line Phase 2 (Informed Sources April) and the current activity in the Transport Scotland rolling programme are around half the £3bn per single track km (stkm) of the Great Western Electrification Programme (GWEP), the governments’ paymasters still need to see costs coming down further.
And this is proving a struggle. Not least because of the risk aversion resulting from GWEP and other previous cost and timescale over-runs. This is reflected in the crippling overhead, made up of risk, contingency and further risk on top of that.
For example, in broad terms, the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade (TRU) started off with a £3bn budget. The customer (DfT) is proposing some additional provisions – increased scope in project-speak – which could add another billion.
But with overheads of up to 150%, you could be approaching a £10bn project. And we thought that 60% optimism bias was punitive.
Looking from the inside outwards, if you can save a pound on actual electrification costs, you are effectively knocking £2.50 off the bill. Yes, I know it’s a mad world.
There seems to a feeling in some quarters that the Government’s need to meet decarbonisation targets or ‘level up’ the Northern economy, gives the railway bargaining power on electrification costs. ‘Pay the price or you’ll be responsible for drowning the polar-bear or letting Labour rebuild a new Red Wall’. As the Board minute shows, this wishful thinking is not shared by the top brass.
Last July, the GWEP Interim Completion Report proclaimed ‘the onus falls upon Network Rail and its industry partners to demonstrate that electrification is both useful and affordable. The lessons and legacy presented within this report show that Network Rail has gained valuable experience that equip it to deliver future electrification with greater certainty of cost and schedule.
That noble aspiration doesn’t seem to be reflected in the Board Minute quoted earlier when it comes to the costs of the TRU and MML electrification schemes.
With the Government committed to electrification, DfT and Network Rail need to appoint a hard-nosed cross-industry electrification ginger-group of experienced engineers and managers to get in among the TRU and MML teams and drive costs down to what the customer can afford. Getting a rolling programme authorised now depends on delivering at an acceptable cost. We all expect authorisation of MML Phase 3 to mark the start of the rolling programme – but that does not mean the Treasury will splash the cash at any price.
Hitachi cracking woes worsen
In recent months, readers could have been forgiven for assuming that the name of this column had changed to ‘Fatigue cracking monthly (incorporating Informed Sources). And here we go again.
A further notification was issued in July, following the discovery of cracking in a third location in Hitachi 800 Series vehicles. These latest cracks are in the lower face of coupler support plates and confirmed to be another case of stress corrosion, similar to that found in the jacking points.
Auto-couplers on the end vehicles and the fixed couplers between intermediate vehicles are attached to the vehicle by four 30mm diameter bolts which pass through the support plate and the body-shell itself. Subsequent Finite Element Analysis (FEA) has demonstrated that the securing bolts, plus the welding of the support plate to the car body, would prevent detachment or catastrophic failure of the support plate. As a result trains can remain in service with defective support plates, pending a long-term proposal for repair and prevention of further cracking.
As with the jacking points, the mechanism of the cracking is puzzling. The proof-loadings on coupler attachments will have been determined by crashworthiness requirements – around 150 tonnes. In contrast traction and braking forces between motored and un-motored vehicles are much lower.
I asked Hitachi for an update on the cracking. All they could say is that all parties are working together and progress is being made, with the solution still being developed with the customers. However, a spokesman did confirm a report that it was expected to take a day out of service to rectify a vehicle.
According to Informed Sources a decision on the repair and rectification programme is likely in September when the results of the strain gauge testing and the associated FEA are available. Pressure from operators for early commitment by Hitachi to the definitive programme is likely to grow as returning passenger traffic sees pre-Covid timetables restored, requiring increased available from the IET fleets.
Roger’s Blog
Writing Informed Sources has a steady monthly rhythm. A couple of weeks research, note taking and analysis for the topics I’m planning to cover, plus the occasional interview or briefing, followed by a gradual increase in writing activity, culminating in my press day. As I say, fairly routine.
But every now and then there’s a jolt of adrenaline when a big story arrives and I have to clear the decks and get stuck in afresh. So, this month I was getting ready to write up my interview with Siemens on their new approach to conventional resignalling, when the ECML timetable deferral news arrived. Then it was flat-out, revisiting the background in my archive -it’s been going on for six years – getting reactions and so on before starting writing.
Superimposed on the monthly schedule are specials, such as the Golden Spanners awards. Another of these is ‘The Modern Railway’, our annual review and directory. My contribution includes an introduction setting the scene for the year ahead.
Each year has a theme. For 2021 I predicted a year of upheaval following a year of turmoil. But 2022 is going to be the hardest year to call since TMR was first published in 2008. With so many loose ends in the Williams-Shapps Plan and uncertainty over ridership recovery, I will have to turn my crystal ball up to 11.
Meanwhile, the next task is an interview for a feature in our COP26 feature in the November issue. We’ve been covering related subjects for some years now, but for the Conference we’ll be pulling the various threads together. If your company is interested in getting involved in this timely feature, contact james.farrell@keypublishing.com.
So plenty to keep me busy.
Roger
