Midland Main Line Electrification Follow up to FOI201700618

The request was partially successful.

Dear Network Rail Limited,

You refused my previous request FOI201700618 which asked the following questions

“1. Please provide the locations of the four National Grid supply points that are proposed for the electrification of the Midland Main Line north of Bedford and the locations where power would switch from one to another.
2. How much land would typically be required for each supply point?
3. What is the maximum steady state current that could be supplied by each supply point?
4. Please supply any reports regarding the extent and details of work needed to upgrade the overhead and feeder stations on the section between London and Bedford to allow trains to travel at 125mph. “

I contacted your FOI team and explained that the reason I sought this information was to facilitate a comparison between the requirements for MML and those for HS2. I consider that there is a strong public interest in being able to make this comparison given the huge cost of HS2 and the implications it has for the rest of the railway network. I was advised that this might influence your opinion on the balance between disclosure and withholding the information I was seeking.

The reason for refusing my request on Q1 concluded by saying "we consider that the balance of the public interest lies in preventing harm to the security of the infrastructure, and in ensuring the safety of those individuals who work and travel on the network."

I do not require the precise location of the Grid supply points but I assume these would be located in reasonably close proximity to existing National Grid lines which are readily visible. You also acknowledge that the supply points would also be visible. You state that putting this information in the public domain "would or would be likely" to be used to disrupt the infrastructure. I think this greatly overstates the risk. As plans showing the location and size of the HS2 supply points have been published on the internet any risk has presumably been accepted for that scheme.

With regard to Q2 you state that my question is not a request for recorded information. This is presumably because I used the word "typically". I would therefore like to request the area of each supply point that I assume does appear in recorded information at this stage of the project. This is to facilitate a comparison between the area of the sites required to power MML with those needed for HS2. I would accept a figure for each site that does not identify which site it is or failing that a figure for the total area of all four sites if you wish to withhold the area of individual sites.

You did not reply to Q3. I assume that the MML project design has reached the stage where an estimate has been made of the maximum current that is required at each location and it appears in recorded information. HS2 Ltd have published the maximum current that can be drawn from the overhead line by each train and I believe a similar figure must exist in recorded information for the MML electrification project. With hindsight, this figure might be more helpful in drawing a comparison between the two projects although the maximum current provided by each substation would still be useful.

You did not provide any information in response to Q4. I am seeking information which was material to the decision to defer the project including an outline of the work needed and the estimated cost. The maximum speed envisaged for the MML is half that of HS2 and the increase of 15mph seems quite modest. There appears to be very little information on how electrification costs increase with speed or on the difficulties and cost of electrification and maintenance needed for very high speeds. While the upgrading of an existing route is not comparable with a brand new route I consider that it is in the public interest to have a greater awareness of the issues and costs for both.

Yours faithfully,

J Marriott

FOI, Network Rail Limited

Dear Sir/Madam

Our reference: FOI2017/00821

Thank you for your email of 6 July 2017.

As you have expressed dissatisfaction with our response to your request, we are treating this as a request for an internal review under our complaints procedure.

The purpose of the internal review procedure is to provide a fair, thorough and independent review of the handling of your request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).

In accordance with regulation 11(4) of the EIR, I will complete the review no later than 40 working days from the date of your complaint, in this case by 5 September.

If you have any queries, please contact me quoting the reference number above.

In the meantime, you may be interested in this press release from the National Grid dated 14 June 2017 about the proposed supply points for the line: http://media.nationalgrid.com/press-rele...

Yours faithfully

Colin Bendall
Information Officer – Compliance & Appeals
Freedom of Information Team
Network Rail
The Quadrant
Elder Gate
Milton Keynes
MK9 1EN

show quoted sections

J Marriott left an annotation ()

MML electrification now scrapped because tthe Government prefers to spend money on its HS2 vanity project rather than find out how to do electrification at a sensible price and in a way that doesn't look awful.

FOI, Network Rail Limited

1 Attachment

Dear Sir/Madam

Our reference: FOI2017/00821

Please find attached our response to your request for an internal review.

Yours faithfully

Colin Bendall
Information Officer – Compliance & Appeals
Freedom of Information Team
Network Rail
The Quadrant
Elder Gate
Milton Keynes
MK9 1EN