Why is Electrification in England progressing much slower ?

[snowball]

According to transport scotland , from 2010-2019, "The Scottish Government has maintained a consistent policy of investment in electrification and in the last ten years in Scotland we have invested around £1 billion in some 441 (track) kilometres of electrification and associated infrastructure improvements"
Not sure if they really started in 2010 but that's roughly 44km/yr at a cost of £2.2m/stk. If they plan to do 1800 stk by 2035, that's maybe about £4bn, though they'll need to go a bit faster.

I think the last of the 2010 generation of electrification schemes in Scotland was completed in early 2019 or thereabouts? There was a gap of about 3 years before they got going again on the programme published in 2020. It has probably set them back by about 4 years compared with where they would have been if they had had schemes set up ready to carry straight on in 2019.

I don't think they'll achieve 1800 stk of actual electrification by 2035, but by beginning with partial electrification and BEMUs on some lines they could get most of the network decarbonised by then.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Windermere was announced in Aug 2013 and Lostock-Wigan in Dec 2013.

Yes, I remember now.
This was when Patrick McLoughlin could be bullied into adding to his (not necessarily Network Rail's) list of schemes to placate local MPs.
I think Newbury-Bedwyn was another, not to mention the Thames Valley branches and Acton bank.
They mostly fell into the black hole created by Chris Grayling when he paused electrification in 2017.

 

[Bald Rick]

invested around £1 billion in some 441 (track) kilometres of electrification and associated infrastructure improvements

“Around £1billion” gives them a lot of leeway! Let’s just say it was £1.x bn, and that is on a cash basis, ie you need to apply 4-10 years of construction inflation just to get to now, plus more construction inflation to get to whenever the future works will be delivered.

 

[snowball]

I think Newbury-Bedwyn was another, not to mention the Thames Valley branches and Acton bank.

Drifting further OT but I don't think Bedwyn was ever in except as a point to terminate bi-modes. There's a Dec 2013 discussion from #132 here.

 

[paul1609]

I don’t think Scotland can be held up as a great example. As pointed out above, the costs are no better than England. Pace of delivery is nothing to write home about either. My local line (Glasgow Central to East Kilbride) was scheduled for electrification but has been pushed down the pecking order with Barrhead now being done first. The structural clearance work is done, most of the OLE masts are in place and wiring has started yet it is scheduled to take until December to complete the remaining six, double track miles and begin to run services. Not exactly an ambitious programme.

That's a heroic timescale, my line was earmarked to be electrified in 1940 but cancelled due to WW2. Work has since been started twice and cancelled twice.

 

[eldomtom2]

Agreed, political will is the main reason, but this country has seemingly transcended the need for electrification, a few years ago hydrogen trains were going to be our saviour now its battery trains and discontinuous electrification that is going to be our saviour, I'm sure in the next 5 years its going to be perpetual motion powered trains or whatever. And we will have spent all our time dawdling with all this overly complex nonsense instead of just knuckling down and getting lines electrified.

Oh, absolutely. Bionic duckweed is a big problem, though not one exclusive to Britain. For a country that's got it even worse, look at America...

 

[Hophead]

I confidently predict that a politician will, in the next few years, announce that they have "saved" taxpayers money by not installing trackside electrification infrastructure, relying instead on onboard equipment. Thereby ignoring the decades of cheaper running costs foregone by not electrifying the network over the preceding 75 years.

 

[Starmill]

Never mind all the climate-change clap-trap, rhetoric and pseudo-commitments - THE COUNTRY CAN’T AFFORD GRANDIOSE SCHEMES such as yet more electrification right now, and probably won’t be able to do so for at least the next decade.

Damaging climate breakdown isn't 'claptrap', it's a conclusion based on hard evidence about changing conditions as a result of a changed atmosphere. You're mistaken to minimise it, or to imply that it's not real. Writing in all capitals with the intention of shouting other people down is also quite bad manners. Please could you reconsider your ideas and approach to posting? I think that would help us all get along better.

Even if you don't make lowering net emissions of atmospheric carbon a goal, everyone recognises that diesel produces lots of damaging emissions harmful to human health. Replacing diesel trains with battery or electric is a good solution.

 

[Krokodil]

The pro-rail / pro-electrification lobby amazes me - always calling for more major electrification schemes, always wanting more add-ons and infills. There’s already massive investment going into rail, not least of which is the huge cost of HS2. And yet they want more - they don’t seem to be able to grasp the idea that the country can‘t afford it, at least not at the moment. There are other projects in the UK that need investment too, but there’s only a finite budget. Never mind all the climate-change clap-trap, rhetoric and pseudo-commitments - THE COUNTRY CAN’T AFFORD GRANDIOSE SCHEMES such as yet more electrification right now, and probably won’t be able to do so for at least the next decade. One of the main reasons why I was pleased to see BoJo go was that I hoped his successor would take a more realistic approach to what this country could afford, as opposed to BoJo’s approach of signing up for whatever he felt would allow him to grandstand on the world stage.Clearly the jury is still out on our current PM, but at least he’s a financier rather than a showman, which is step in the right direction given the current dire economic climate.

Cancelling the GWML electrification beyond Chippenham has cost an absolute fortune because GWR (i.e. Johnny Taxpayer) had to pay Hitachi to fit diesel engines to all of its 801s and rearrange depots to accommodate the extra fuelling and maintenance requirements. Other posters have illustrated how much more it costs to run and maintain diesel engines compared with having the traction power fed through a pantograph and transformer. The extra acceleration has long been proven to massively boost ridership and hence revenue. Capital investment today reduces current expenditure tomorrow.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

------- that diesel produces lots of damaging emissions harmful to human health. Replacing diesel trains with battery or electric is a good solution.

Not to mention all the horrible geopolitics and wars that go alongside anything petroleum based!

Capital investment today reduces current expenditure tomorrow.

And benefits a few generations into the future too.

 

[73128]

Fife circle, Bristol, Manchester suburban areas, Birmingham Snow Hill lines, for starters.

and probably continuing southwards into Marylebone

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2023 ==

Cancelling the GWML electrification beyond Chippenham has cost an absolute fortune because GWR (i.e. Johnny Taxpayer) had to pay Hitachi to fit diesel engines to all of its 801s and rearrange depots to accommodate the extra fuelling and maintenance requirements. Other posters have illustrated how much more it costs to run and maintain diesel engines compared with having the traction power fed through a pantograph and transformer. The extra acceleration has long been proven to massively boost ridership and hence revenue. Capital investment today reduces current expenditure tomorrow.

Certainly true but bi-modes have their advantages in running via B&H or Gloucester during engineering works or unplaned incidents. And GWR is good at diverting trains instead of putting people onto buses...

 

[zwk500]

and probably continuing southwards into Marylebone

Difficult one because the service drops off as you get further out from London. If you had bi-modes then Marylebone-High Wycombe would probably be near the top of the list. However with only pure DMUs, the effectiveness of the OLE is blunted unless you can convert entire diagrams to EMUs, so you'd probably need to go to Oxford, which increases the costs for lesser return.

Certainly true but bi-modes have their advantages in running via B&H or Gloucester during engineering works or unplaned incidents. And GWR is good at diverting trains instead of putting people onto buses...

Avanti and LNER both regularly divert when able. GWR has the advantage of having much more choice of routing, I wouldn't say the management is any more averse to buses than the other big IC operators.

 

[LUYMun]

When GWML style cost overruns, and Crossrail style delays, stop happening, then the taps will be turned on. HS2, MML and TRU are perfect opportunities to demonstrate that lessons have been learned.

TRU?

 

[zwk500]

TRU?

Transpennine Route Upgrade.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

The biggest issue with electrification is that end to end has to be done for emu benefit realisation so it either a big project or not at all. Accepted that's now changing with bimodes but that restricts the reduced maintenance costs as you have a diesel generator to maintain.

 

[Krokodil]

Certainly true but bi-modes have their advantages in running via B&H or Gloucester during engineering works or unplaned incidents.

BR used to divert WCML trains. They would attach a diesel locomotive on the front and the train could run via Chester, via the S&C, or via the G&SW.

But someone in the DfT saw a 57+390 refusing to work with one another at Crewe once and decided that carrying diesel engines under the wires should be the answer instead. Never mind that it was only playing up because coupling 57s and 390s was only a design afterthought.

If I had my way, Bristol would be wired by now and masts would be starting to appear in the Gloucester area.

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately the electro-diesel genie will not go back in the bottle.

It has, to a large extent, killed the network effect. Given this reality, and the prospensity of bionic duckweed fuels (or hydrogen, which is even stupider) to be proposed every five minutes, I would not expect any more serious electrification beyond the projects already committed.

The railway has simply botched too many schemes too badly.

 

[Meerkat]

Ultimately the electro-diesel genie will not go back in the bottle.

It has, to a large extent, killed the network effect. Given this reality, and the prospensity of bionic duckweed fuels (or hydrogen, which is even stupider) to be proposed every five minutes, I would not expect any more serious electrification beyond the projects already committed.

The railway has simply botched too many schemes too badly.

However the bi-mode has enabled progressive electrification - ie the Midland Main Line being done without having to wait until the end to replace the trains, and being able to be done in stages rather than one huge risky block of work and finance.
If XC went bi-mode then lots of schemes get more purpose without the entire XC network being electrified.

 

[zwk500]

However the bi-mode has enabled progressive electrification

This is indeed a major benefit of Bi-Modes, even if the government are squandering the opportunity to get enough electrification in place for full EMUs at next replacement cycle.

 

[Trainbike46]

Ultimately the electro-diesel genie will not go back in the bottle.

It has, to a large extent, killed the network effect. Given this reality, and the prospensity of bionic duckweed fuels (or hydrogen, which is even stupider) to be proposed every five minutes, I would not expect any more serious electrification beyond the projects already committed.

The railway has simply botched too many schemes too badly.

I think you are being somewhat unfairly pessimistic, tbh.

Though there is a need to get on with it, and get more lines electrified for lower cost

 

[Mikey C]

This is indeed a major benefit of Bi-Modes, even if the government are squandering the opportunity to get enough electrification in place for full EMUs at next replacement cycle.

No chance would it be possible to electrify EVERY bit of track cross country operate on within the next 10 - 15 years or so.

 

[mrmartin]

I think battery trains change the equation entirely, and battery costs are likely to come down even further. I imagine discontinuous electrification like on the valley lines will be the future model, perhaps with intercity lines continuing with full electrification. Even if you have an EMU with only a few km of battery capacity it can save millions upon millions of complex bridge rebuilds, or miss out areas with poor earth quality for masts etc.

So my long term guess is "electrification" actually speeds up massively as it will just be the cheap, easy areas electrified and battery will cover the gaps. It could be that batteries improve in cost and capacity so much that the electrification isn't actually needed further into the future, especially for shorter commuter lines.

 

[HSTEd]

Though there is a need to get on with it, and get more lines electrified for lower cost

Noone has yet managed to get the cost of electrification down, at best the rate of climb has slowed somewhat.

I don't see any evidence that meaningful reductions in cost are going to be attainable, given the current structure of the industry, without some drastic changes in approach that are likely politically untenable.

(Close the line outright for a year or two whilst the work proceeds, as an example).

 

[zwk500]

No chance would it be possible to electrify EVERY bit of track cross country operate on within the next 10 - 15 years or so.

Cross country don't have bi-modes, and the current bi-modes are going to last a lot longer than 10-15 years.

But, for example, with GWR - 2 ways to Bristol, Swansea, Gloucester and Oxford in the next 30 years is achievable and gives GWR a base service to order all-electric (or electric with rescue option) rather than full bi-mode options for the core service. Even better if you can get to Exeter while you're at it.

 

[Tobbes]

Fife circle, Bristol, Manchester suburban areas, Birmingham Snow Hill lines, for starters.

1. Chiltern Lines from Marylebone (lots of diesels to replace, and lots of housing near the line and the stations. If the Birmingham lines are electrified, then it would be a bit perverse to electrify to High Wycombe or Bicester and then not to fill in the gap.)

2. Once Ely is sorted out, Felixstowe - Ipswich; Haughley Junction - Peterborough (ensuring continuous double track throughout) - Werrington - Nuneaton for frieght.

3. Remainder of MML (Market Harborough - Sheffield - ECML)

4. Perth - Inverness; Fife Circle - Aberdeen - Inverness

5. B&H and Bristol TM to Plymouth as discussed above

6. Cardiff - Swansea

7. NW Coast - Holyhead

8. East West Rail

9. With 2 complete, then Newmarket East Junction (? not sure of its proper name) - Cambridge along with redoubling is a sensible add (as well as reinstating the West-North chord at Newmarket, please - for future Cambs - Mildenhall new town services).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I think battery trains change the equation entirely, and battery costs are likely to come down even further. I imagine discontinuous electrification like on the valley lines will be the future model, perhaps with intercity lines continuing with full electrification. Even if you have an EMU with only a few km of battery capacity it can save millions upon millions of complex bridge rebuilds, or miss out areas with poor earth quality for masts etc.

So my long term guess is "electrification" actually speeds up massively as it will just be the cheap, easy areas electrified and battery will cover the gaps. It could be that batteries improve in cost and capacity so much that the electrification isn't actually needed further into the future, especially for shorter commuter lines.

Battery costs are actually rising due to the massive demand for materials that are required to manufacture them rising in price. For example the key ingredient Lithium is up 5 fold and supply increases are failing to keep up with demand and we haven't even got going on decarbonisation yet. Also there has been no real progress with battery capacity measured by volume or weight for some years and teh various laboratory trials of improved battery chemistry have yet to make there way into mass manufacturing so for today we are limited on capacity that can be installed under a carriage. That said there are dozens of routes of diesel under the wires that could be converted to BEMU and if DfT wont approve more electrification schemes they need approve a national build of BEMUs to minimise diesel under the wire running and driver up further passengers transported by leccy.

 

[najaB]

There are other projects in the UK that need investment too, but there’s only a finite budget.

Unless you're a chum of the government and want to shift some dodgy PPE...

 

[zwk500]

Unless you're a chum of the government and want to shift some dodgy PPE...

only a finite budget for PPE as well, hence all of it going to government's closest Chums and not anybody who, you know, might have supplied PPE before.

 

[mrmartin]

Battery costs are actually rising due to the massive demand for materials that are required to manufacture them rising in price. For example the key ingredient Lithium is up 5 fold and supply increases are failing to keep up with demand and we haven't even got going on decarbonisation yet. Also there has been no real progress with battery capacity measured by volume or weight for some years and teh various laboratory trials of improved battery chemistry have yet to make there way into mass manufacturing so for today we are limited on capacity that can be installed under a carriage. That said there are dozens of routes of diesel under the wires that could be converted to BEMU and if DfT wont approve more electrification schemes they need approve a national build of BEMUs to minimise diesel under the wire running and driver up further passengers transported by leccy.

There's always going to be fluctuations in price in the short/medium term, but I would be amazed if batteries are not cheaper and higher capacity in the longer term - say 10 to 20 years.

 

[YourMum666]

Just like maglevs, i don’t think batteries are going to become the main form of powering our railways, but i can make a prediction that at least all the mainlines will be electric in the next 20 years, i’d love to see how we work around it