Are diesel powered or electric powered trains cheaper to run?

[fowler9]

At the end of the day diesel trains rely on fossil fuels which will run out before renewable electrical energy.

 

[Kneedown]

Electric trains will always be more economical than diesel. Less weight meaning less power needed to move, less moving parts so less things to go wrong and less maintenance. Much quicker off the mark than diesels less energy used im acceleration with shorter journey times.
The downside is the initial cost of putting the infrastructure in, which is horrendously expensive.
There is a misconception that some routes are too uneconomical to electrify. I don't subscribe to this theory as savings will be made from when the electrics start running, however the powers that be want to see a return on the initial investment in a reasonable time, and on some lower use routes it may take much longer for that return to arrive.

 

[pemma]

The downside is the initial cost of putting the infrastructure in, which is horrendously expensive.
There is a misconception that some routes are too uneconomical to electrify. I don't subscribe to this theory as savings will be made from when the electrics start running, however the powers that be want to see a return on the initial investment in a reasonable time, and on some lower use routes it may take much longer for that return to arrive.

Also worth remembering how ever good the infrastructure is, it will need servicing and things will need replacing. Is it possible that for some routes they'll be a need for things to be renewed before the cost of the electrification work has been recovered?

One other thing which I don't think has been mentioned - having non-electrified diversionary routes can result in operators wanting to use diesel trains on fully electrified services e.g. Virgin didn't want to consider replacing Birmingham-Scotland Voyagers with electric trains until Network Rail started providing diversionary electrified options.

 

[D365]

Essentially the ECML strategy vs. the GWML strategy — both of their bad points of course having been widely discussed on here.

Indeed - we are not going back to using headspans for good reason.

 

[Kneedown]

Also worth remembering how ever good the infrastructure is, it will need servicing and things will need replacing. Is it possible that for some routes they'll be a need for things to be renewed before the cost of the electrification work has been recovered?

A good point. One for someone with more letters after their name than me to calculate accurately although wouldn't have thought the maintenence aspect would make it prohibitive. The big, heavy stuff lasts a long time. Look at Ardwick to Hadfield still using original Woodhead gantries. I confess to not knowing the lifespan of a feeder station though.

 

[edwin_m]

That's effectively the reason why electrification isn't viable for lightly-used lines. Some maintenance and renewal depends on train frequency (for example the copper wires worn down by passing pantographs) but other tasks (like re-painting structures) need doing regardless of how many trains run. So the more the electric trains trains that can be run, the more economical electrification becomes. Especially if a short electrification allows replacement of diesel trains that run much further "under the wires". Bi-modes obviously change the economics of this somewhat.

 

[D365]

Bi-modes obviously change the economics of this somewhat.

Emphasis on the 'somewhat' - it's more about having a standardised fleet. If the electric units aren't already hybridised this means that microfleets can't be avoided.

 

[fowler9]

Bi modes seem a strange fit in the UK for me, it must be pretty expensive to pay for an electric train to drag around powerful diesel engines when lets face it, the south west, the Pennines, the Midland Mainline and West Wales aren't going to disappear any time soon. Very short term thinking.

 

[D365]

Bi modes seem a strange fit in the UK for me, it must be pretty expensive to pay for an electric train to drag around powerful diesel engines when lets face it, the south west, the Pennines, the Midland Mainline and West Wales aren't going to disappear any time soon. Very short term thinking.

More expensive than running diesel under existing wires?

 

[HSTEd]

Indeed - we are not going back to using headspans for good reason.

Because the amazing hyper reliable new equipment has killed the electrification programme outright?

 

[D365]

Because the amazing hyper reliable new equipment has killed the electrification programme outright?

You know as well as I do that it was not Series 1 that was the root of the problem.

 

[coppercapped]

You know as well as I do that it was not Series 1 that was the root of the problem.

Quite. The root of the problem was the DfT and Network Rail not agreeing what they wanted to do and needed to do until very late in the game. From the National Audit Office's report on Modernising the Great Western railway, document HC 781 SESSION 2016-17, 9 November 2016.

2.2 The Department’s aims changed several times between 2007 and 2014. In 2007, the Department required Network Rail to deliver the infrastructure improvements needed for the new trains that it had decided to commission for the Great Western route.
In 2009 the Department announced that the route would be electrified, significantly increasing the scope of Network Rail’s work. Network Rail did some preparatory work, but the Department changed the extent of electrification on the route several times between 2009 and 2012:
...

and

2.6 When the Department entered into a contract to buy the Intercity Express trains in July 2012, creating fixed deadlines for electrification, Network Rail had only just identified that it would need to develop a new type of electrification equipment (Figure 6 on pages 22 and 23). It is unlikely that either Network Rail or the Department had a good enough understanding of the work involved in developing and installing this new design, to be confident in the time it would take when the Department let the contract for the new trains. Under the Department’s contract with Agility Trains the Department would pay a penalty to Agility if these deadlines were missed. Between 2009 and 2012, there was a dialogue between the Department and Network Rail around the electrification specification, delivery arrangements and the timescales needed to meet these deadlines. In April 2012 Network Rail started design work on a new type of electrification, which was needed to meet European Union regulations, and because of performance concerns about equipment used on other routes. In its January 2013 Strategic Business Plan, Network Rail confirmed that it expected to complete electrification as the Department required. Paragraphs 3.5 to 3.10 of this report discuss the main reasons for subsequent cost increases and changes to the electrification schedule.

2.7 The Department and Network Rail did not agree a clear set of requirements for Network Rail until nearly two years after the Department had formally instructed Network Rail to electrify the route. This made it more difficult to deliver the programme to the planned timetable (Figure 7 on page 24). In December 2012, the Department issued an early outline of its requirements for the works on the Great Western Main Line, and in Wales. However, it was August 2014 before the Department and Network Rail agreed more detailed requirements for the infrastructure on the main line.

(The references are to Figures in the report).

 

[fowler9]

More expensive than running diesel under existing wires?

I really don't know. Is electrifying part of the network and paying for its upkeep and then paying for electric trains to drag around their own power generating system for part of the journey cheaper than just having diesel trains? If it is then fair play. I would guess that in the long run it is cheaper to just electrify the whole route unless you think part of it is going to stop existing. Given a long enough timeline electric will be cheaper will it not, at least for the big routes like Trans Pennine, the Midland Main Line, the South West etc.

 

[pemma]

More expensive than running diesel under existing wires?

We don't have a cheap to lease bi-mode option at the moment, so it's possible. Maybe they would change if someone ordered a large number of new 100mph bi-modes.

 

[D365]

It is operationally more efficient but certainly not worth the colossal expenditure needed to realise these gains.

Don't forget it is all paid for by debt and servicing debt costs serious money even at current interest rates.

If you choose to ignore facts because you simply don't like them, that is your business.

Do you have some kind of stake in the diesel industry? That’s the only justification I can imagine for your apparent anti-electrification views.

 

[jayah]

Do you have some kind of stake in the diesel industry? That’s the only justification I can imagine for your apparent anti-electrification views.

You have a stake in the diesel industry. When you go to the supermarket and see food from every continent on the planet brought to the shelves by lorry and plane, think about it.

Every day I read about the crisis in mental health services, 5m patients waiting for operations, we need 2m affordable homes, nurses eating from foodbanks, crime soaring.

And yet we are spending £3-4bn stringing up electric wires from London to Cardiff?

Why? What am I actually getting for this fantastic spending? The NHS for the whole of Bristol, North Somerset and South Glos runs for about 3 years for the cost of these wires!

Because I have shares in Shell?

 

[jayah]

Bi modes seem a strange fit in the UK for me, it must be pretty expensive to pay for an electric train to drag around powerful diesel engines when lets face it, the south west, the Pennines, the Midland Mainline and West Wales aren't going to disappear any time soon. Very short term thinking.

The design, build, maintain for 27.5 years of IEP was £4.5bn for GW and EC before the IC225s were included. Let's say £3.5bn for GW.

If GWEP comes in at £3.5bn you'll be jolly lucky so, where exactly are the benefits?

 

[jayah]

We don't have a cheap to lease bi-mode option at the moment, so it's possible. Maybe they would change if someone ordered a large number of new 100mph bi-modes.

The Class 802 is a fraction of the cost of the IET. Pendolinos aren't exactly cheap.

 

[jayah]

Electric trains will always be more economical than diesel. Less weight meaning less power needed to move, less moving parts so less things to go wrong and less maintenance. Much quicker off the mark than diesels less energy used im acceleration with shorter journey times.
The downside is the initial cost of putting the infrastructure in, which is horrendously expensive.
There is a misconception that some routes are too uneconomical to electrify. I don't subscribe to this theory as savings will be made from when the electrics start running, however the powers that be want to see a return on the initial investment in a reasonable time, and on some lower use routes it may take much longer for that return to arrive.

On the WCML Voyagers and Pendolinos have practically zero difference in speed. If you have a branch line that costs £1m to operate and takes £250k a year but £5m to electrify, even you must realise there comes a time it is simply madness to add more capital surely?

 

[jayah]

A good point. One for someone with more letters after their name than me to calculate accurately although wouldn't have thought the maintenence aspect would make it prohibitive. The big, heavy stuff lasts a long time. Look at Ardwick to Hadfield still using original Woodhead gantries. I confess to not knowing the lifespan of a feeder station though.

The cost of capital is such that if you pay now, anything received after year 30 is for the birds, even if foundations last 75 years and feeder stations 40 years.

 

[D365]

You have a stake in the diesel industry. When you go to the supermarket and see food from every continent on the planet brought to the shelves by lorry and plane, think about it.

As a supermarket customer, and somebody who commutes long daily, I don’t profit from the petroleoum industry. Diesel for me is merely a means to an end, if I had an electric EWR service available, I would 100% make use of it.

Every day I read about the crisis in mental health services

I live with this every day.

crime soaring.

Not quite sure about this one.

And yet we are spending £3-4bn stringing up electric wires from London to Cardiff?

Why? What am I actually getting for this fantastic spending? The NHS for the whole of Bristol, North Somerset and South Glos runs for about 3 years for the cost of these wires!

Not a very precise figure (I’m fairly sure it’s not the right one), and electrification lasts quite a lot longer than three years.

Do you really think that if £xx billion is not spent by Network Rail, it will be ploughed straight back into the NHS? (see Leave campaign bus)

Are you not forgetting as well the not insignificant environmental benefits to removing diesel trains?

Because I have shares in Shell?

Is this a question or a statement?

I get the feeling that going over the basics of why electrification is a good thing, is going to be a complete waste of time.

 

[edwin_m]

We need to separate the benefits of electric traction in principle, which are pretty much proven in many countries provided the route in question is reasonably well used, from the consequence of overspend on the GW in particular and possibly on other NR electrifications. Particularly if other scheme costs are also overrunning (is there any evidence of this?) then there is some justification in pausing the programme and not resuming until the overruns are understood and addressed. But this is not a reason to doubt the benefits of electrification in principle.

 

[HSTEd]

On the WCML Voyagers and Pendolinos have practically zero difference in speed. If you have a branch line that costs £1m to operate and takes £250k a year but £5m to electrify, even you must realise there comes a time it is simply madness to add more capital surely?

How much the line takes (as revenue) is of essentially no consequence.

If the line costs £1m to operate on diesel operation but would cost only £750k to operation using electric traction, then you save £250k a year by electrifying.
Which is a repayment period of 20 years, which is much less than the cost-weighted lifespan of the electrification equipment, considering that state funded capital rates are essentially zero (negative in real terms!)

Which means that by not electrifying you are essentially shovelling money onto a fire.

 

[jayah]

How much the line takes (as revenue) is of essentially no consequence.

If the line costs £1m to operate on diesel operation but would cost only £750k to operation using electric traction, then you save £250k a year by electrifying.
Which is a repayment period of 20 years, which is much less than the cost-weighted lifespan of the electrification equipment, considering that state funded capital rates are essentially zero (negative in real terms!)

Which means that by not electrifying you are essentially shovelling money onto a fire.

You won't save anything like 25% of the operating cost from electrification.

Electrification won't touch the crew costs, you will save a bit on the track, but the Class 800 axle weight is only 15% more for the powered cars and you will have more overheads maintaining the catenary. You will save on the train maintenance, but as shown with the IEP contract, the whole train, design, build and maintain for 27.5 years is about the same as the cost of the electrification.

Nobody would replace their double glazing for £10k to save 15% of their £700 gas bill, but in the crazy world of railway electrification anything goes it seems.

 

[jayah]

We need to separate the benefits of electric traction in principle, which are pretty much proven in many countries provided the route in question is reasonably well used, from the consequence of overspend on the GW in particular and possibly on other NR electrifications. Particularly if other scheme costs are also overrunning (is there any evidence of this?) then there is some justification in pausing the programme and not resuming until the overruns are understood and addressed. But this is not a reason to doubt the benefits of electrification in principle.

Nobody would try and argue the sort of unit costs advocated by Roger Ford (£500k per stkm) back in the days when GW Electrification had a business case are remotely realistic today. Every week brings news of more delays and overspends and the current £2.8bn figure is still going up and up.

 

[jayah]

As a supermarket customer, and somebody who commutes long daily, I don’t profit from the petroleoum industry. Diesel for me is merely a means to an end, if I had an electric EWR service available, I would 100% make use of it.



I live with this every day.



Not quite sure about this one.



Not a very precise figure (I’m fairly sure it’s not the right one), and electrification lasts quite a lot longer than three years.

Do you really think that if £xx billion is not spent by Network Rail, it will be ploughed straight back into the NHS? (see Leave campaign bus)

Are you not forgetting as well the not insignificant environmental benefits to removing diesel trains?



Is this a question or a statement?

I get the feeling that going over the basics of why electrification is a good thing, is going to be a complete waste of time.

The whole discipline of economics is based on scarcity. You can only spend £3-4bn once.
You get to choose between making a massive difference to the NHS or electric wires to Cardiff? Sorry if that sounds harsh but that is how it works. The country is crippled by debt £1.75tr and rising every minute. You can't go and borrow another £40bn because you like electric trains, you need a better reason.
The current debt pile is costing £46bn to service every year at 2.6%. Interest rates are rock bottom, if they increase to just 3% interest is £53bn a year.

It is all very well starting a thread on unit costs of diesel vs electric but spending £3-4bn on putting up wires to Cardiff for almost zero tangible benefit is madness when there are a hundred better ways of spending the same money.

 

[choochoopuff]

While £3-4bn for the NHS would be very welcome, you're offering in effect a one off capital payment, whereas it actually needs £3-4bn in yearly extra revenue payments. The country needs investment in its infrastructure. It is madness for our productivity to be the same as it was 10 years ago. That is a wholly unsustainable position and it needs to be addressed. Anyway, back to railways ...

 

[HSTEd]

You won't save anything like 25% of the operating cost from electrification.

Leaving aside that that was simply an example showing that farebox income is essentially irrelevant.
The only thing that matters is the delta of the costs.

Electrification won't touch the crew costs, you will save a bit on the track, but the Class 800 axle weight is only 15% more for the powered cars and you will have more overheads maintaining the catenary. You will save on the train maintenance, but as shown with the IEP contract, the whole train, design, build and maintain for 27.5 years is about the same as the cost of the electrification.

We are using Class 800s on a branch line now?
And who said anything about catenary? As is widely known on this forum I am not a particularily big fan of 25kV

And who said anything about new units?
We would be replacing existing diesel units with existing electric units - since we certainly don't have a shortage of either at this point.
A more valid example would be the cost of operating Class 319 versus the cost of operating Class 150s.
And crew costs are not really that big a fraction of the cost of operating the railways these days - despite what certain elements would have you believe.

And the life of electrification is much much longer than 27.5 years, hence a large fraction of the capital cost of several pre-war electrification systems is still intact [overhead stanchions, foundations and clearance works between Altrincham and Picadilly for example].

The whole discipline of economics is based on scarcity. You can only spend £3-4bn once.
You get to choose between making a massive difference to the NHS

In what absurd world would the NHS even notice a one off expenditure of £3-4bn?
They spend that every fortnight
It's peanuts.

The current debt pile is costing £46bn to service every year at 2.6%. Interest rates are rock bottom, if they increase to just 3% interest is £53bn a year

But the interest rates on the debt can't increase rapidly. [Even leaving aside that this is not a large amoutn considering that UK Government spending last year was something approaching eight hundred billion pounds]
That is not how the gilt market works - it is most certainly not a variable rate mortgage.

In addition, the interest rate on long term (~50 year) index-linked gilts is negative in real terms. They show negative real yields.
Which means the owners of the capital are paying the government to take it away.
Buying fixed capital of long life is a great way of making money for the public in this scenario.

 

[JamesRowden]

Table 4.7 – Assumptions of cost differential between, DMUs, EMUs and battery storage
Diesel (£) Electric (£) Battery storage (£)
Fuel or electricity – per vehicle mile 0.47 0.26 0.31
Variable Track Access Charges (VTAC) – per vehicle mile 0.10 0.085 0.094
Maintenance – per vehicle mile 0.60 0.40 0.40
Variable cost track access per vehicle mile 1.22 0.76 0.82
Vehicle leasing per year 110,000 90,000 90,000
Capital expenditure per single track km n/a Capital expenditure for
OHL and financing
costs
Potential additional
capital costs
Vehicle energy storage per annum n/a n/a 26,000 to 281,000

Using this data, if a 6-Car train does 100,000 miles a year:

• Diesel - £2.1M per year
• Electric - £1.44M per year
• Battery - £1.56M-£1.81M per year

 

[jayah]

Leaving aside that that was simply an example showing that farebox income is essentially irrelevant.
The only thing that matters is the delta of the costs.

We are using Class 800s on a branch line now?
And who said anything about catenary? As is widely known on this forum I am not a particularily big fan of 25kV

And who said anything about new units?
We would be replacing existing diesel units with existing electric units - since we certainly don't have a shortage of either at this point.
A more valid example would be the cost of operating Class 319 versus the cost of operating Class 150s.
And crew costs are not really that big a fraction of the cost of operating the railways these days - despite what certain elements would have you believe.

And the life of electrification is much much longer than 27.5 years, hence a large fraction of the capital cost of several pre-war electrification systems is still intact [overhead stanchions, foundations and clearance works between Altrincham and Picadilly for example].


In what absurd world would the NHS even notice a one off expenditure of £3-4bn?
They spend that every fortnight
It's peanuts.


But the interest rates on the debt can't increase rapidly. [Even leaving aside that this is not a large amoutn considering that UK Government spending last year was something approaching eight hundred billion pounds]
That is not how the gilt market works - it is most certainly not a variable rate mortgage.

In addition, the interest rate on long term (~50 year) index-linked gilts is negative in real terms. They show negative real yields.
Which means the owners of the capital are paying the government to take it away.
Buying fixed capital of long life is a great way of making money for the public in this scenario.

As I have explained £3-4bn would keep the whole NHS in Bristol, North Somerset and South Glos fully funded for around 3 years. It is NOT peanuts.

As I have also explained there is little point adding discounted cash flows after 30 years as they have very little NPV. Go ahead if you want, but it won't change the answer.

To spend £2.8bn at Network Rails 4.5% discount rate you need to find £200m in cash savings every year from year 3 to year 30. Miles wide of the mark. If you are struggling, start to think about how much farebox revenue there might be as a proxy for what sort of cost base there might be on a fairly profitable main line.

Interest rates are at an absolute rock bottom now, they will only rise from here. Be careful - I bet Greece, Italy and others that needed bail outs didn't expect rates to rise either.