Why has electrification not got further in the UK?

[Starmill]

If that were true then there would be plenty of cheap advances available on GWR, but there aren't. So someone is buying them

I'm afraid that's not the case. The GWR services just have lots of unused capacity.

 

[Nottingham59]

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

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.

 

[JonathanH]

It is worth noting as well that the electrification on the Great Eastern Main Line has been replaced in the last few years as well.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ole-renewals-anglia-ge-lts-etc.205545/

 

[mmh]

Nobody is going to argue against a plan of rolling electrification

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.

 

[JonathanH]

It sounds like a massive expense over a very long time for no benefit.

Depends on the long term view of the carbon cost of burning diesel, creating steel or manufacturing batteries.

 

[Master29]

Source? You're own brain doesn't count. Beeching was very much pro electrification

Based on what?

 

[Peter Sarf]

The second point about diesel, I take to an extent. There certainly weren't the clean air/carbon concerns as much at the time.

But I still feel that it was a policy failure to allow the West Coast TRM to crowd out electrification projects, given the proven benefits of electrification from all previous decades.

So which would you have chosen West Coast TRM *OR* New electrification ?. Not both just one as there was only enough money for one.

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 hope the availability of spare EMUs might help reduce the costs. Plus it is getting to the stage where more infill electrification is tempting.

Depends on the long term view of the carbon cost of burning diesel, creating steel or manufacturing batteries.

That is the thing, will these approaches help or could they lead to us abandoning marginal diesel lines.

 

[Magdalia]

Other electrification included converting the GE from 1500v DC and extending to Colchester and Bishops Stortford

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.

 

[class26]

Apologies, my top five as you requested:

1) The trans pennine network including main line, calder, and Scarborough/redcar lines.
2) third rail infill - Marshlink, Uckfield, north downs.
3) Full midland mainline - and join up with ECML at Moorthorpe
4) Harrogate loop
5) Extend GW electrification along the main lines to Plymouth/Swansea etc.

Actually, you make an interesting point regarding nationalisation. Arguably it contributed to the freeze after the modernisation plan whereas privatisation contributed to that after the 1980's.

add in Brum to Bristol the you have half X country on the juice

 

[Ken H]

If yiu set aside the CO2 justification for electrification there is the particulates in exhausts that are as important.
But electric trains are simpler and need less maintenance.
And the quieter journeys together with better acceleration gives a benefit to the passenger too.

 

[yorksrob]

Railway financing (as with much else) has changed significantly in the last 30 years. If leasing is such a bad idea, why are the national operators in many countries in Europe increasingly using leased equipment?

Anyway, I thought your preference wasn't electrification, but to have a man with a flag riding horseback in front of trains.

Ideology I would have thought. I often wonder why European countries seem to have copied our bad ideas.

Actually - I've always been pro-electrification. I just preferred it when it came with EPB's.

add in Brum to Bristol the you have half X country on the juice

Indeed. I expect there are some others which would specifically benefit freight as well.

So which would you have chosen West Coast TRM *OR* New electrification ?. Not both just one as there was only enough money for one.

The reality is that there probably was enough money for both if the will had been there. Ultimately it was political decision.

 

[Peter Sarf]

............


The reality is that there probably was enough money for both if the will had been there. Ultimately it was political decision.

But which would you choose if you had to choose one - West Coast TRM *OR* New electrification ?.

 

[yorksrob]

But which would you choose if you had to choose one - West Coast TRM *OR* New electrification ?.

I think it's a false premise. The magic money tree has been shaken on various occasions since then.

That said, the WCML was certainly due for renewal - I used to use it quite often at the time and the service struggled. 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.

 

[RobShipway]

I think that it is also worth noting that 3rd rail routes around the South/Southeast England and I believe that it is the same on Merseyrail have had many updates over the last 20 years.

Not sure it it is correct but Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_electrification_in_Great_Britain that in 2003, 64% of the electrified network used the 25 kV AC overhead system, and 36% used the 660/750 V DC third-rail system.

Now I believe that where the systems were 660 V DC Third-rail, that these have been upgraded to 750 V DC third rail?

Within the above mentioned wiki page there is a comment about the future of third rail that apparently from Peter Dearman from Network Rail which states the following:

In June 2011 Peter Dearman of Network Rail suggested that the third-rail network will need to be converted into overhead lines. He stated: "Although the top speed is 100 mph (160 km/h), the trains cannot go over 80 mph (130 km/h) well and 25% of power is lost from heat." Agreeing that conversion would be expensive, he said that the third rail network is at the limit of its power capability, especially as trains become more advanced in technology.[15] The July 2012 Department for Transport High Level Output Specification for Network Rail Control Period 5 includes the conversion of the South West Main Line between Southampton Central and Basingstoke from 750 V DC third rail to 25 kV AC overhead as part of a scheme to improve rail freight capacity from Southampton Port. This conversion would be a pilot scheme to develop a business case for full conversion of the third-rail network.[16] The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has also stated that, on safety grounds, third-rail 750 V DC has a limited future.[17]

Now for me the routes that need electrification is as follows:

1) Basingstoke - Reading
2) Uckfield Line
3) Ore - Ashford
4) Crewe to Holyhead
5) Didcot Parkway to Bristol Temple Meads

 

[JonathanH]

I think it's a false premise. The magic money tree has been shaken on various occasions since then.

Equally a false premise. Just because the magic money tree is shaken for one thing doesn't automatically mean it should be shaken for another. Indeed, it makes the shaking more difficult the next time as the government is currently finding.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think that it is also worth noting that 3rd rail routes around the South/Southeast England and I believe that it is the same on Merseyrail have had many updates over the last 20 years.

Not sure it it is correct but Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_electrification_in_Great_Britain that in 2003, 64% of the electrified network used the 25 kV AC overhead system, and 36% used the 660/750 V DC third-rail system.

Now I believe that where the systems were 660 V DC Third-rail, that these have been upgraded to 750 V DC third rail?

Within the above mentioned wiki page there is a comment about the future of third rail that apparently from Peter Dearman from Network Rail which states the following:

In June 2011 Peter Dearman of Network Rail suggested that the third-rail network will need to be converted into overhead lines. He stated: "Although the top speed is 100 mph (160 km/h), the trains cannot go over 80 mph (130 km/h) well and 25% of power is lost from heat." Agreeing that conversion would be expensive, he said that the third rail network is at the limit of its power capability, especially as trains become more advanced in technology.[15] The July 2012 Department for Transport High Level Output Specification for Network Rail Control Period 5 includes the conversion of the South West Main Line between Southampton Central and Basingstoke from 750 V DC third rail to 25 kV AC overhead as part of a scheme to improve rail freight capacity from Southampton Port. This conversion would be a pilot scheme to develop a business case for full conversion of the third-rail network.[16] The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has also stated that, on safety grounds, third-rail 750 V DC has a limited future.[17]

Now for me the routes that need electrification is as follows:

1) Basingstoke - Reading
2) Uckfield Line
3) Ore - Ashford
4) Crewe to Holyhead
5) Didcot Parkway to Bristol Temple Meads

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 ?.

 

[yorksrob]

Equally a false premise. Just because the magic money tree is shaken for one thing doesn't automatically mean it should be shaken for another. Indeed, it makes the shaking more difficult the next time as the government is currently finding.

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

 

[Grumbler]

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.

 

[JonathanH]

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

Yes, but the fact it has been shaken for other things means that it won't be shaken for what you suggest.

 

[tbtc]

I think it's a false premise. The magic money tree has been shaken on various occasions since then

Railway history is littered with examples of compromise, do we order Express locomotives or suburban EMUs, because we’re can’t afford both…

…one success of privatisation was that it allowed each region to focus on its own needs rather than being in a heirarchy (e.g. Regional Railways/ Provincial had to chop up 155s to squeeze resources further and see around a hundred carriages of 158s “taken” by NSE)

So now Central could have 170s without it being “instead of” trains for elsewhere, FNW could have 175s etc

I’m guessing your answer to these kind of tough decisions will be that, instead of compromise, you’d simply find the money for everything all at once, but politics doesn’t work like that, and the railway has found itself without the money to continue funding lightly used services/ renewing infrastructure/ replacing unsafe stock/ investing in the lines that do justify it

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, but the fact it has been shaken for other things means that it won't be shaken for what you suggest.

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

Railway history is littered with examples of compromise, do we order Express locomotives or suburban EMUs, because we’re can’t afford both…

…one success of privatisation was that it allowed each region to focus on its own needs rather than being in a heirarchy (e.g. Regional Railways/ Provincial had to chop up 155s to squeeze resources further and see around a hundred carriages of 158s “taken” by NSE)

So now Central could have 170s without it being “instead of” trains for elsewhere, FNW could have 175s etc

I’m guessing your answer to these kind of tough decisions will be that, instead of compromise, you’d simply find the money for everything all at once, but politics doesn’t work like that, and the railway has found itself without the money to continue funding lightly used services/ renewing infrastructure/ replacing unsafe stock/ investing in the lines that do justify it

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.

 

[Energy]

The question has to be, why are we such an outlier in terms of similar European countries ?

Which country specifically? Switzerland has a lot more electrification because during WW1 onwards it struggled to get coal while it had lots of cheap hydroelectric so the business case was good.

 

[yorksrob]

Which country specifically? Switzerland has a lot more electrification because during WW1 onwards it struggled to get coal while it had lots of cheap hydroelectric so the business case was good.

The Netherlands and Germany spring to mind.

 

[coppercapped]

Based on what?

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.

 

[RobShipway]

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.

One of the reasons, for the cutbacks is the fact that Operators want to be using a common fleet for their services and in having a fleet that can be used for all their services, they can ask for lower costs for leasing that fleet. The more different types of fleets, the more cost the leasing will cost.

The other point is that many of the EMU fleets cut outside those used by Southern Railway, have been fleets that could only operate using 25KV and could not be converted easily without any great cost spent on them to work 3rd rail. If the units had been used, then you can bet that the leasing companies would add in the cost of conversion to the leasing costs for the units and make it such that operators such as Southern Railway, would then be paying high amounts for leasing those units.

For example, I am betting that the cost to GWR for leasing the class 768 units with their tri - mode capability is more expensive than say Northern leasing class 319's.

Whilst say units like class 350/2 are just class 450 units with a pantograph, third rail shoes would still need to be added to them and likewise class 379 units so that both could operate no different then say class 387 units with Great Northern/GWR/Gatwick Express and Heathrow Express. The adding of the third rail shoes costs and the continued maintenance of two electric sources to the units would add costs to the units being leased.

The costs today, whether it is trains, cars, lorries, is very different today with costs added in then it was 30 years ago. In the same way that prices of food in that same time period have gone up, so have leasing prices.

 

[Energy]

The Netherlands and Germany spring to mind.

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.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

This is true, but we still have too much of the core, main line network unelectrified.

 

[Bikeman78]

Why? Why? Why?

I tried in my previous post to point you in the direction of making a reasoned case for your position.

Electric trains are cheaper to maintain than diesels. Also more reliable, e.g. the class 317s were twice as reliable as the broadly similar class 150s, despite having more vehicles per unit. Electrics tend to be faster so there is often scope to run the service with fewer units. So the question is, does it cost more to maintain the OHL/third rail than is saved by running EMU instead of DMU?

The Netherlands and Germany spring to mind.

And Belgium. Only Charleroi to Couvin, Aalst to Burst and three routes out of Gent remain to be done. I think they will all be done by the time the class 41 DMUs are due for replacement in 15 years or so.

 

[coppercapped]

Electric trains are cheaper to maintain than diesels. Also more reliable, e.g. the class 317s were twice as reliable as the broadly similar class 150s, despite having more vehicles per unit. Electrics tend to be faster so there is often scope to run the service with fewer units. So the question is, does it cost more to maintain the OHL/third rail than is saved by running EMU instead of DMU?

This is not the only question. Another, but very important one, is to ask about the time required to install the necessary power feeds for the trains (whether overhead or third rail), the building of feeder points and sub-stations, connections to the National Grid or the Distribution Network Operator as necessary, works to ensure electrical clearances are sufficient and the design and installation railway's electrical control systems and immunisation of the signalling.

All this preparatory work takes time — at least a couple of years and possibly more — and time has a money cost. The capital consumed during the construction has to be serviced and this interest has to be paid even if the asset is not generating an income for said two or three years.

These factors add to the costs of electrification and have to be recognised.

Even if the Government pays for the work with a grant, this is still money that cannot then be used elsewhere. And the disappointed parties will certainly raise a racket about their pet project being delayed or cancelled.

And Belgium. Only Charleroi to Couvin, Aalst to Burst and three routes out of Gent remain to be done. I think they will all be done by the time the class 41 DMUs are due for replacement in 15 years or so.

 

[RT4038]

Electric trains are cheaper to maintain than diesels. Also more reliable, e.g. the class 317s were twice as reliable as the broadly similar class 150s, despite having more vehicles per unit.

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.....