Why has electrification not got further in the UK?

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe, but that certainly wasn't the case thirty years ago.



I'd like to have seen a more logical replacement of rolling stock for starters - with cascades of fleets to newly electrified routes - as was done on a smaller scale in the North West a few years back.

I still find it a bit bizarre that we've scrapped vast fleets of EMU's which arguably could have lasted longer, thinking of the sliding door fleets from North London in particular. Was that really the best use of money on the railway ? Even without new electrification, why have we scrapped so many fleets that Southern Railway has had to cut back its timetable for example ?

It was a poor political decision in the late 1990's not to continue to electrify.

Sliding door EMUs? 319s? They are knackered, trust me, we have a few.

 

[coppercapped]

The Netherlands and Germany spring to mind.

My knowledge of the Dutch railways is not great, but I can give you some of the background about the situation in Germany after the Second World War.

There were two main factors in play: the division of the country into East and West and the massive destruction of Germany's transport infrastructure.

The first factor meant that the railway had to be totally re-orientated North-South, the lines radiating from Berlin being cut at the border[1] and the political situation meaning that travel collapsed anyway. This re-orientation was a mammoth task and even to the mid/late 1960s a section of the main North-South route from Hannover was still single track where a branch line had suddenly become the main line to Munich.

As so much of the network had to be rebuilt to cope with a completely different traffic pattern, this work getting under way seriously from 1950 onwards, it made sense to build the routes and repair the infrastructure to the most modern standards possible. Speed limits were generally quite low as curvy secondary routes became main lines, typically 140kph, sometimes 150kph, so to achieve reasonable running times trains with good acceleration were needed. And that meant electric traction given the limits of diesel power units at the time.

The first sections to be electrified were in the southern parts of the country, being furthest away from the coal fields and building on the electrified stretch of the main line between Stuttgart and Munich[2]. This was the Geislinger Steige, where the railway climbs from the Fils valley to the plateau of the Swabian Alp in only 6km rising some 110 metres in that distance with some very sharp curves limiting speed to 70kph. Until the new high speed line between Stuttgart and Ulm comes into service it remains a bottleneck. It was an early candidate for electrification which was completed in 1933.

By the end of the 1950s more and more stretches in the centre of Germany were electrified, mostly the main lines. There was little electrification in the flat lands of the north until the then Chancellor Gerhard Schröder announced the wiring of the Hamburg Lübeck route, essentially as an election bribe. This caught DB by surprise as they had no plans for this route so the work took a considerable time - however it didn't help as Schröder lost the 2005 election anyway.

Essentially the German railways were electrified out of necessity - the entire orientation of the system in what was known as West Germany had to be shifted by 90 degrees. This set of circumstances never existed here and although the railways were worn out by the war they still functioned and London remained in the same country.

[1] Before some bright spark tells me that trains still ran over the border, yes they did, but only through the transit corridors to West Berlin. Intermediate travel was not possible so demand slumped.

[2] This was never built as a mainline connecting two large cities as the Kingdom of Bavaria's main routes west went to Lake Constance and the line through Württemberg was built from Heilbronn, the end of the navigable portion of the Neckar, through to Lake Constance. They were only joined together as a through route after 1871.

 

[Bikeman78]

But how reliable is the traction supply of electrics, compared to the fuelling of diesel units? Never hear of lines coming to a standstill for hours on end due to a split fuelling hose, or ruptured fuel storage tanks? Not sure that services on diesel worked lines are less reliable than those on electric.....

Actually fuel is another good point. A 150 needs to be fuelled every three days or so. An EMU can run for thousands of miles, pretty much until they break or need a scheduled exam. Granted the toilet tanks need emptying nowadays but a full toilet doesn't stop the train.

The reliability of the OHL does seem to vary from route to route. But there must be some advantages to electrified routes otherwise why would we have bothered with all the routes that have been done?

 

[Energy]

Granted the toilet tanks need emptying nowadays but a full toilet doesn't stop the train.

The 701s are being fitted with bio reactors, they only put out (and possibly recycle?) clean water with the waste only needing emptying once a month.

 

[Master29]

Please look at the footnote in my post #19 above, where I point out that both Stage 2 of the Glasgow South electrification and the Bournemouth electrification were approved by the BRB and the Treasury during Dr Beeching's tenure.

In addition #Dr Hoo in post #29 above makes the important point that the Bournemouth electrification was not included in the 1955 Modernisation Plan. This is a pure Beeching-era scheme.

I rest my case, m'Lud.

Hardly worthy of being "in favour of electrification" considering the era Europe wise.

 

[Trainbike46]

This is rubbish.

There is a cost associated with any asset, the great thing about privatisation is that it made the railway's accounts transparent. Whether the London & Birmingham Railway owned the asset, or BR or a demonised ROSCO — these costs exist.

Whether you like it or not as long as an asset continues to be used after the income generated by it has paid off the initial construction costs there will continue to be costs involved is ensuring its continued operation in a safe manner. This may require re-engineering some or all of the asset at some or several points in its career. This costs.

These costs may be hidden, as in the case of the BTC, or in the sectorised days of BR becoming more visible through to nearly full transparency after 1993 — but they existed then and still exist now. They are not now suddenly 'an additional revenue burden for the industry'. BR also did mid-life updates of some of its assets, both infrastructure and rolling stock and these costs were, even then, a 'revenue burden'. Someone had to pay. As long as an asset is in use there are other costs involved than simply those of employing the operating staff, cleaning the thing and changing the oil and brake pads regularly. It is delusional to think otherwise.

Clearly ROSCOs price in a lot of genuine costs, from building the trains to financing to midlife reviews etc. One of these costs is the risk of the asset being retired early (as has happened to some EMUs recently). One problem with the current set-up is that it doesn't promote good risk-management to reduce/avoid the risk of early retirement.

Hello, I'm the nobody who will. I think there are few routes left which justify electrification, and those few don't justify anything like a "rolling plan of electrification." It sounds like a massive expense over a very long time for no benefit.

I can think of quite a few sections that would justify electrfication (and aren't currently authorised yet):
- The remaining bits of London-Bristol TM (both routes)
- The Chiltern lines out of Marylebone
- The Snow hill lines in Birmingham
- The great Western (at least to Exeter)
- The diesel islands in southern land (probably 3rd rail, though for the quieter ones batteries may be an option)
- Felixstowe-West midlands (for freight)
- The busier lines up north
- Undoubtedly other lines I'm less familiar with

Clearly we can't do all of them at the same time, so a rolling programme seems sensible to me.

It would take a big push to convert 750 DC third rail to 25kV AC overhead. Although 25kV AC progresses in stages courtesy of Bi-Modes. But do we have enough spare EMUs that are dual voltage ?.

Any electrification programme will be so glacial that there'll be plenty of time to order the appropriate trains.

And all recently built 3rd rail EMUs are in fact dual voltage (701s/707s/700s).

Not that I think changing 3rd rail to OHLE should be a priority, but lack of dual-voltage stock definitely isn't an impediment

Actually fuel is another good point. A 150 needs to be fuelled every three days or so. An EMU can run for thousands of miles, pretty much until they break or need a scheduled exam. Granted the toilet tanks need emptying nowadays but a full toilet doesn't stop the train.

The reliability of the OHL does seem to vary from route to route. But there must be some advantages to electrified routes otherwise why would we have bothered with all the routes that have been done?

There's quite a few, an incomplete list:
- EMUs are cheaper to build and maintain
- Electricity is a cheaper fuel than diesel
- Regenerative braking is possible, further reducing energy use (and cost)
- Electrics typically accelerate more quickly
- the 'sparks effect', where passenger numbers (and revenue) increase post-electrification
- Electric trains are quieter, have much lower carbon emissions and have fewer negative effects on air pollution

 

[Mikey C]

In the 2000s the lack of electrification was disappointing, but worth noting that HS1 was built in that decade, the sort of major new railway not seen for 100 years.

Germany is ~60%, UK is about ~37% electrified, Netherlands is ~75%.

The UK does have some way to go though distance alone isn't a good indicator. The Netherlands is very flat so electrification will be cheaper. Germany's railways had to be rebuilt after WW2 so the infrastructure is a lot younger (id expect some provision for electrification to have been put in at the time as well).

Lines like the heart of Wales, far north line etc. add a lot of distance but not many services so reflect badly on the percentage.

Passenger miles are a more important percentage, as long lines through the countryside with few services are unimportant in terms of emissions, passenger numbers etc

Indeed that's one benefit of Bimodes in the short term, removing diesel under wire operations, for trains that only need to run in diesel mode for a short distance at one end.

 

[BrianW]

In the 2000s the lack of electrification was disappointing, but worth noting that HS1 was built in that decade, the sort of major new railway not seen for 100 years.


Passenger miles are a more important percentage, as long lines through the countryside with few services are unimportant in terms of emissions, passenger numbers etc

Indeed that's one benefit of Bimodes in the short term, removing diesel under wire operations, for trains that only need to run in diesel mode for a short distance at one end.

There was a pause in GB electrification until 2017, but we're not doing too badly now.
Since 2017-18, we've been averaging 400 track km per year, as shown by the ORR data here:

Table 6320 - Infrastructure on the mainline | ORR Data Portal

dataportal.orr.gov.uk

Table 6320 - Infrastructure on the mainline

Nation	Financial year	Track kilometres	Of which electrified	New electrification projects track km (see note 2)
Great Britain	1985-86	:	:	:
	2012-13	31,075	12,810​	10​
	2013-14	31,092	12,887​	61​
	2014-15	31,120	13,034​	177​
	2015-16	31,194	13,063​	7​
	2016-17 (b)	31,221	13,046	0
	2017-18	31,038	13,729​	291​
	2018-19	31,091	14,074​	883​
	2019-20 (r)	31,218	14,486​	252​
	2020-21	31,251	14,518​	179​

Currently we've got active electrification ongoing at:

• Kettering-Wigston
• South Wales Metro
• Chuch Fention-Colton Jn
• Victoria-Stalybridge
• Wigan-Bolton
• Polmadie-Barrhead/East Kilbride
• Haymarket-Dalmeny
• Levenmouth

Details from: https://railmap.azurewebsites.net/Public/ElectrificationMap
We are also upgrading power supplies on the ECML, Southern MML and parts of the WCML, plus others I don't know about.

Looking ahead, we seem to have electrification committed for the following:

• The rest of MML (Wigston-Sheffield)
• The rest of TRU (Stalybridge-Dewsbury? plus Neville Hill-Colton?)
• HS/2 (Euston-Crewe at least)
• Parts of the Fife Circle
• Several other lines in Scotland

I don't know how many track-km per year that amounts to. Perhaps someone could calculate it for us? But to my eye, it seems like quite a lot of electrification at the moment.

Glass indeed half-full.

Shortage of skilled labour; increaesd costs; uncertain economic future; covid-legacy ... time to maximise use of current 'resource'.

 

[RT4038]

Really ? I don't recall the 1980's as being the land of milk and honey in terms of the Nation's finances, infact if anything the 90's were better economically than much of the 1980's, so overall economic outlook doesn't explain why we were able to undertake so much electrification in the 1980's and so little in the late 1990's.

If that is right, then (A) is obviously the reason. [There were other priorities for the money].. (B) is presumably some of the reason now.

 

[Nottingham59]

Hello, I'm the nobody who will. I think there are few routes left which justify electrification, and those few don't justify anything like a "rolling plan of electrification." It sounds like a massive expense over a very long time for no benefit.

I agree. As far as I can tell from published business cases, full continuous OHLE is only worth doing for lines that carry 6-8tph in each direction. So financially worth it for Manchester-Leeds, but not many other places on the network. (Maybe Ipswich-Felixstowe, but I've not seen business cases for freight.)

Much of the cost of OHLE comes from rebuilding bridges and tunnels etc. to give the required clearances. So battery [passenger] trains, recharged where necessary from limited OHLE on the easiest sections of the route, should have a very strong financial case as the fastest and cheapest route to decarbonise the rail network.

 

[coppercapped]

Hardly worthy of being "in favour of electrification" considering the era Europe wise.

Eh?

The man was Chairman for just over four years during which time two significant electrification schemes were authorised. Certainly these could be treated as the start of a rolling programme - but he was resigned by the new Government before 'Developing the Trunk Routes' report could be implemented.

Sorry, I can't parse the last part of your sentence.

 

[A0wen]

The Liverpool Street-Southend dc to ac conversion and the Chenford scheme were done by November 1960, with Chelmsford-Colchester (and the LTS) following in early 1962. It all precedes Beeching.

The pioneer of 25kv AC was Colchester-Clacton in March 1959.

Not sure you're right on the bit in bold - the Morecambe line was done before that and the Styal line was also electrified at 25kv in 1958 -

1st Generation - The AC Locomotive Group

We are the UK's only dedicated AC electric locomotive preservation society.

www.aclocogroup.co.uk

"The first stretch of the WCML equipped with the 25kV supply was the Styal line, a loop off the Manchester branch of the WCML, avoiding Stockport. This was energised in 1958, long before any of the production locomotives were ready for use. For driver training purposes, a Western Region Gas Turbine test locomotive (18100) was converted into an electric locomotive (E1000 - later E2001) and put to use on test trains on this line."

And not all the DC - AC was to 25kv - some was to 6,250v because of clearance concerns and wasn't uprated to 25kv until some years later.

 

[Magdalia]

Not sure you're right on the bit in bold - the Morecambe line was done before that and the Styal line was also electrified at 25kv in 1958 -

Morecambe was not 25kV, it was 6.6kV.

Styal may have been energised in 1958 but only for tests. The first 25kV passenger trains were Colchester-Clacton. Electric passenger trains between Manchester and Crewe started in September 1960.

And not all the DC - AC was to 25kv - some was to 6,250v because of clearance concerns and wasn't uprated to 25kv until some years later.

Most was to 6.25kV, I think only Shenfield-Chelmsford went direct from DC to 25kV AC.

 

[Grecian 1998]

The other route from London to Exeter is largely irrelevant - otherwise those passengers would already be using it.

OT, but as I've said before, Waterloo - Exeter is a small market. The major markets using services between Exeter and Salisbury are Yeovil Jct / Sherborne / Gillingham - Waterloo and Axminster / Honiton - Exeter. Exeter - South Coast via Salisbury is probably also a bigger market than Waterloo - Exeter.



To answer the question directly, I have long been of the view that the First Past the Post system we use in Parliamentary elections heavily favours short-termism as it gives parties complete power for short periods of time. Quick win solutions are favoured over tedious long-term planning that someone else might get the credit for. The lack of long-term planning when it comes to railway electrification, is also visible in many other sectors such as energy, health and education. The logical approach would be for various stakeholders to work out what the country requires from the sector in question and devise a consistent long term plan, but that isn't a guaranteed vote winner so no-one wants to do it.

Another problem is that electrification seems to go through boom and bust patches. Governments suddenly decide it is a Good Thing and authorise it. Due to lack of experience, the project costs more than expected and takes longer. Governments baulk at the cost and cancel or massively scale it back. Some years later, governments decide it's a Good Thing and restart it. Most of the individuals involved with the last tranche have retired or moved abroad to work on other projects. Due to lack of experience, the project costs more than expected and takes longer. Governments baulk at the cost and cancel or massively scale it back. Repeat ad nauseum...

The smart approach is a rolling programme where costs can gradually be brought down as skill sets increase. But again it doesn't translate into votes.

That said, there seems to have been more planning for short and medium - distance routes than now. BR seemed to have a fairly clear priority order for electrification of the NSE area up to privatisation. They were also quite good at tying in commuter route electrification with the WCML and ECML electrification schemes around Manchester and Leeds.

The bigger problem seems to have been planning intercity route electrification. The WCML was paused after completing the routes to Liverpool and Manchester for some years before Crewe - Glasgow was approved. The ECML didn't get done until the late 1980s and was done on a rather tight budget, meaning it doesn't cope well with high winds. The GWR route has been paused indefinitely west of Chippenham or Cardiff and north of Didcot. The MML electrification is still some way short of Leicester.

 

[Bevan Price]

The Treasury is the cause of most delays to railway projects, either directly, or via its puppet, DfT (formerly Ministry of Transport). It has long favoured road transport, probably because it gets so much income from fuel & vehicle taxes. It is probably wondering how to replace the fuel tax income when use of fossil fuels has to cease.

The Government - probably including DfT - must take some blame for failing to block EU changes in regulations about "clearances" for overhead electrical wiring - which inevitably added unnecessary costs to future electrification schemes.

As for future electrification - almost everything apart from lines with only a few trains per day (so nothing north of Inverness, West Highland, Central Wales, Cambrian Coast, Whitby, Stranraer, etc., for example). Priority would be to complete current projects that are "unfinished" due to Treasury/DfT "interference", so:
MML via Derby & Nottingham to Sheffield, Doncaster & Wakefield
Western lines to Swansea, Bristol & Oxford.

then, for example, (over 10-20 years)
Manchester to Leeds (both routes), continuing to York & Hull
Sheffield - Leeds via Barnsley & Castleford.
Manchester - Liverpool South Parkway (CLC line)
Crewe & Warrington - Chester & Holyhead
Preston - Hebden Bridge
Bolton - Blackburn - Clitheroe
Manchester - Atherton - Wigan - Southport.

"Business cases" should be regarded as secondary to fossil fuel removal; whilst some lines might be considered for battery operation, I prefer full electrification to simplify stock requirements & uniformity.

 

[Bald Rick]

It does beg the question though, during the mid to late 1990's when the country was, if not booming, definitely not in recession, we didn't pick up the electrification programme.

Following the authorisation of the Kings Lynn line electrification (which went horribly over budget), all investment cash at BR was spent on upgrades connected with the Channel Tunnel, and post Clapham essential safety Projects. There was simply no more cash.

Then the main reason: post privatisation (mid 90s) it was not in the interest of any industry ‘party’ to electrify. Government stood back from improvement projects: they were all funded by local authorities, private third parties, or TOCs with longer franchises. But electrification is a long term investment. Railtrack just saw extra costs and (wrongly) performance risk. TOCs would have to buy new fleets and not get the pay back over the franchise length.

(Although I do claim to have been responsible for the first stretch of electrification authorised post privatisation).

As it turns out, the whole moving block signalling thing turned out to be a blind alley, so whith the benefit of hindsight perhaps something less ambitious and expensive could have been done instead, but the renewal had to be a priority.

Which is exactly what happened. WCRM was almost entirely a renewal project combined with a new trains project. That it delivered a 125mph railway was almost a by product.

Improvement and de-carbonisation of critical infrastructure is one of the better reasons to shake the magic money tree.

Agreed, and if the tree was shaken, decarbonisation of critical infrastructure would be at the top of my list. Insulating peoples homes for example, putting PV and thermal Solar panels on every public building, and building an extensive local network of energy storage systems. Then followed by an incentive programme to rapidly convert motor transport to battery vehicles and convert domestic heating away from gas. Only after all that would I tackle the comparatively minute level of carbon emissions that diesel rail traffic produces. There may be other reasons to electrify, of course, reduced maintenance costs and fuel bills for example, but these benefits are higher for routes with frequent services of long or heavy trains. Typically you want 10+ coaches an hour in each direction.

The UK does have some way to go though distance alone isn't a good indicator. The Netherlands is very flat so electrification will be cheaper. Germany's railways had to be rebuilt after WW2 so the infrastructure is a lot younger (id expect some provision for electrification to have been put in at the time as well).

electrification doesn’t get cheaper because it is flat. What helps in Europe is that their loading gauge is sufficiently generous that they don’t have to rebuild bridges and station canopies to allow for the wires. That alone adds around 50% to electrification costs in this country.

Not sure that services on diesel worked lines are less reliable than those on electric.....

on average, diesel worked services are indeed less reliable.

 

[XAM2175]

The Government - probably including DfT - must take some blame for failing to block EU changes in regulations about "clearances" for overhead electrical wiring - which inevitably added unnecessary costs to future electrification schemes.

Which changes were these?

 

[Energy]

electrification doesn’t get cheaper because it is flat.

However flatter terrain will have less mountains and tunnels. Though bridges are a more frequent problem.

 

[43096]

Then the main reason: post privatisation (mid 90s) it was not in the interest of any industry ‘party’ to electrify. Government stood back from improvement projects: they were all funded by local authorities, private third parties, or TOCs with longer franchises. But electrification is a long term investment. Railtrack just saw extra costs and (wrongly) performance risk. TOCs would have to buy new fleets and not get the pay back over the franchise length.

Railtrack presumably saw it as taking on performance risk (OHLE failures) whilst the TOCs got the benefit of more reliable trains that cost less to maintain - in other words the risk was with Railtrack and the opportunity was with the TOCs.

 

[yorksrob]

Agreed, and if the tree was shaken, decarbonisation of critical infrastructure would be at the top of my list. Insulating peoples homes for example, putting PV and thermal Solar panels on every public building, and building an extensive local network of energy storage systems. Then followed by an incentive programme to rapidly convert motor transport to battery vehicles and convert domestic heating away from gas. Only after all that would I tackle the comparatively minute level of carbon emissions that diesel rail traffic produces. There may be other reasons to electrify, of course, reduced maintenance costs and fuel bills for example, but these benefits are higher for routes with frequent services of long or heavy trains. Typically you want 10+ coaches an hour in each direction.

I'm not sure I'd be happy to allow the motor industry to steal such a march in terms of electrification. People don't tend to look at the logic of the comparatively small volume of emissions coming from trains. They'll wonder why we have so many dirty diesel trains when the cars have been made electric.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm not sure I'd be happy to allow the motor industry to steal such a march in terms of electrification.

Are you suggesting that the motor industry should be held back from going electric? It’s happening right before us, with very little public money…

 

[yorksrob]

Are you suggesting that the motor industry should be held back from going electric? It’s happening right before us, with very little public money…

Clearly not. I'm suggesting we need to get the rolling electrification going.

 

[Bald Rick]

Clearly not. I'm suggesting we need to get the rolling electrification going.

Sorry I misunderstood then.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that we should have a longer pipeline for electrification (noting that it is pretty long already), I do struggle with the concept of electrifying some little used lines when that money could generate far more environmental, social and user benefit by, say, buying fleets of electric buses to replace existing diesel buses.

for example electrifying Ashford Hastings would be unlikely to cost less than £100m. For that you could buy 250 electric buses, which would deliver much higher benefits all round.

 

[Mikey C]

electrification doesn’t get cheaper because it is flat. What helps in Europe is that their loading gauge is sufficiently generous that they don’t have to rebuild bridges and station canopies to allow for the wires. That alone adds around 50% to electrification costs in this country.

Indeed, and a major reason why the "Southern" 3rd rail network is so comprehensive when compared to the OHLE network elsewhere. The civil engineering costs AND disruption of dealing with bridges and tunnels are far lower.

I would also add that rail expenditure, like other "discretionary" expenditure is affected by events. If the country goes into recession, and tax revenue plummets, any government will HAVE to look for savings, and the same applies to the road network too, where many roads were built at a far lower spec than initially planned in the 60s and 70s, or not at all.

 

[Bald Rick]

Railtrack presumably saw it as taking on performance risk (OHLE failures) whilst the TOCs got the benefit of more reliable trains that cost less to maintain - in other words the risk was with Railtrack and the opportunity was with the TOCs.

Sort of. At strategic level there was no easy way to pull together a business case for the investment decision, as the costs and benefits spread across multiple parties. Don’t forget that at that time, infrastructure maintenance was contracted out.

 

[Master29]

Eh?

The man was Chairman for just over four years during which time two significant electrification schemes were authorised. Certainly these could be treated as the start of a rolling programme - but he was resigned by the new Government before 'Developing the Trunk Routes' report could be implemented.

Sorry, I can't parse the last part of your sentence.

Doesn't infer if he was in favour or not. He may or may not have been which isn't really relevant. It Just means he may have authorised it as you pointed out. I think it's obvious what I meant with the last point as electrification had been increasing Europe wide for years at this time.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, and a major reason why the "Southern" 3rd rail network is so comprehensive when compared to the OHLE network elsewhere. The civil engineering costs AND disruption of dealing with bridges and tunnels are far lower.

I would also add that rail expenditure, like other "discretionary" expenditure is affected by events. If the country goes into recession, and tax revenue plummets, any government will HAVE to look for savings, and the same applies to the road network too, where many roads were built at a far lower spec than initially planned in the 60s and 70s, or not at all.

And another good reason to enable the third rail islands to be electrified as third rail.

Sort of. At strategic level there was no easy way to pull together a business case for the investment decision, as the costs and benefits spread across multiple parties. Don’t forget that at that time, infrastructure maintenance was contracted out.

The lack of electrification progress during the 1990's and later was indeed a dis-benefit of privatisation.

 

[Trainbike46]

Sorry I misunderstood then.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that we should have a longer pipeline for electrification (noting that it is pretty long already), I do struggle with the concept of electrifying some little used lines when that money could generate far more environmental, social and user benefit by, say, buying fleets of electric buses to replace existing diesel buses.

That really depends on what you think is a little used line. Clearly very few people would think it's value for money to electrify the far north line (I certainly don't), but at the same time someone was arguing earlier that the chiltern route was lightly used, and with 9 tph from marylebone that seems like a stretch in the opposite direction.

If you go with the 10+ coaches an hour per direction you mentioned earlier, there is a lot of routes that would still be up for electrification and aren't currently planned for it.

For example 10+ coaches an hour is reached on the GWML all the way to penzance with 5/9/10 coaches from london an hour, plus 4 coaches an hour in the Castle HSTs from south wales.

for example electrifying Ashford Hastings would be unlikely to cost less than £100m. For that you could buy 250 electric buses, which would deliver much higher benefits all round.

Bus electrification and other improvements are clearly needed too, though to achieve them we probably need to expand things like bus franchising further, because just trusting first/stagecoach to do the right thing doesn't seem like a great strategy

 

[Bald Rick]

For example 10+ coaches an hour is reached on the GWML all the way to penzance with 5/9/10 coaches from london an hour, plus 4 coaches an hour in the Castle HSTs from south wales.

Penzance is an interesting one - the London trains aren’t hourly all day, but on average the total is probably around 10-12 coaches an hour each way for all services. (It’s an average of 11 coaches an hour today). I can certainly see a case for getting as far west as Plymouth, and beyond that I suspect battery hybrids would be the way to go with opportunity charging along the way.

 

[coppercapped]

Doesn't infer if he was in favour or not. He may or may not have been which isn't really relevant. It Just means he may have authorised it as you pointed out. I think it's obvious what I meant with the last point as electrification had been increasing Europe wide for years at this time.

I think you misunderstand the nature of business direction.

A board of directors has to be as objective as possible in its decisions, it does not matter if one 'favours' a course of action or not. The decision made depends on the careful weighing up of all the factors involved. For those items that cannot be precisely quantified an allowance has to be made under the heading of 'risk'.

As you say, it is irrelevant if he was 'in favour' of the generic concept of 'electrification' or not. If a case could be made for a change which would improve the railways' finances then he would support it whether it was the development of the Liner Train or Merry-Go-Round freight services or the electrification of the two passenger routes under discussion.

Regarding the extension of electrification in Europe in the 1950s and 1960s compared to the UK in terms of percentage of the network covered another important, probably more important, statistic to be considered is the percentage of traffic carried by the electrified network. Using this parameter the UK is not so far out of line with other countries due to the predominance of traffic around London, the bulk of which is electrically hauled. Only Paris and Madrid have such a unique centralised position in the rest of Europe.

In any event differing political, economic, demographic, legal and financial frameworks play a significant rôle in such decisions. One has to be very careful to make a like-for-like comparison. For example in my post #92 above I showed how the post-war German experience was very different to that of the UK. Apart from that Germany was experiencing the "Wirtschaftswunder", the rapid growth in its economy from the nadir at the end of the War when, following Ludwig Erhard's reforms of 1948, its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose by 8% per year from 1951 to 1961. This was double the rate for Britain and the United States and nearly double that of France.

It was not surprising that the country could afford to electrify its railways.