I'm afraid that's not the case. The GWR services just have lots of unused capacity.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.If that were true then there would be plenty of cheap advances available on GWR, but there aren't. So someone is buying them
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 |
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.Nobody is going to argue against a plan of rolling electrification
Depends on the long term view of the carbon cost of burning diesel, creating steel or manufacturing batteries.It sounds like a massive expense over a very long time for no benefit.
Based on what?Source? You're own brain doesn't count. Beeching was very much pro electrification
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 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.
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.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.
That is the thing, will these approaches help or could they lead to us abandoning marginal diesel lines.Depends on the long term view of the carbon cost of burning diesel, creating steel or manufacturing batteries.
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.Other electrification included converting the GE from 1500v DC and extending to Colchester and Bishops Stortford
add in Brum to Bristol the you have half X country on the juiceApologies, 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.
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.
add in Brum to Bristol the you have half X country on the juice
So which would you have chosen West Coast TRM *OR* New electrification ?. Not both just one as there was only enough money for one.
But which would you choose if you had to choose one - West Coast TRM *OR* New electrification ?.............
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 ?.
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.I think it's a false premise. The magic money tree has been shaken on various occasions since then.
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 ?.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
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.
Any electrification programme will be so glacial that there'll be plenty of time to order the appropriate trains.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 ?.
Yes, but the fact it has been shaken for other things means that it won't be shaken for what you suggest.Improvement and de-carbonisation of critical infrastructure is one of the better reasons to shake the magic money tree.
I think it's a false premise. The magic money tree has been shaken on various occasions since then
Yes, but the fact it has been shaken for other things means that it won't be shaken for what you suggest.
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
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 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.
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.Based on what?
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.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.
Germany is ~60%, UK is about ~37% electrified, Netherlands is ~75%.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.
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?Why? Why? Why?
I tried in my previous post to point you in the direction of making a reasoned case for your position.
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.The Netherlands and Germany spring to mind.
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.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?
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.
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.....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.