Rail electrification possible for 95% of UK freight trains, CILT research reveals

[416GSi]

The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, today released a paper suggesting that 95% of Freight trains could be run by electric traction, with only a comparative small additional mileage to be put under the wires.
The map is especially interesting.

I would be interested to hear the views of people on this forum to this paper.

https://ciltuk.org.uk/Portals/0/RailElectrification_Spreads.pdf

Transport produces over a quarter of UK carbon emissions and moving freight over longer distances presents a particular challenge.
Electrified rail transport is a fully mature, proven green technology which has been in use for over 60 years. The UK lags behind the rest of Europe and, partly for historical reasons, only about 10% of British freight trains are hauled by electric locomotives. Rail freight now follows the electrified main lines much more closely and around two thirds of the core c.2000-mile rail freight network is already electrified, or soon will be. Only about 800 miles of electrification is needed to allow c.95% of rail freight to be electrically hauled.

The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) has produced the accompanying map to illustrate an electrification strategy. Trunk haulage by electric rail allied to regional and local distribution by battery HGVs would offer a multimodal solution, allowing supply chains to be almost fully decarbonised......

 

[The exile]

"Access blocked" - or is it just me?

 

[zwk500]

That link didn't work for me, this one did though: https://ciltuk.org.uk/Portals/0/RailElectrification_Spreads.pdf?ver=2023-03-01-101049-347

Key quote for me is this:

800 miles of electrification is needed to allow 95% of rail freight to be electrically hauled

800 Miles is London to Glasgow, and Back.

 

[Peterthegreat]

"Access blocked" - or is it just me?

me too.

 

[zwk500]

"Access blocked" - or is it just me?

me too.

Does the link I've posted work?

 

[Peterthegreat]

Does the link I've posted work?

Yes thanks.

 

[The exile]

Does the link I've posted work?

Yes it does, thanks. The "800 miles" is hardly "comparatively small". Not sure where the direct route from Chippenham to the Berk and Hants avoiding Trowbridge has come from - might be a minor error, but not one that inspires confidence in the accuracy of anything else stated!

 

[AndrewE]

https://www.railway-technology.com/...ication-possible-for-95-of-uk-freight-trains/ works for me.

95% of Freight trains could be run by electric traction

are the weasel words... I bet that is almost the case now (maybe not,) but the commercial need to cut time and costs, i.e. not spend money on 2 locos for 1 train, or pay a shunter to uncouple 1 loco and couple another, means that actually trying to maximise the amount of miles behind electric traction is probably at odds with the companies' (legal) obligations to maximise profits.

It's why transport infrastructure and service delivery shouldn't be in the private sector.

 

[higthomas]

Whilst I think the chances of the government electrifying 800miles for freight alone are low, a large number of those lines would be pretty useful to passenger as wel(e.g. Bromsgrove - Bristol, Derby - Doncaster)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Treasury says no, will be the answer. Sorry to be cynical.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Until it's made a lot cheaper, it ain't going to happen, unfortunately.

We've read so many stories over the last few years of ways in which costs can be cut, from less deep piles, not needing to demolish bridges, cheaper (and more visually acceptable) steelwork, but I don't sense it's yet making much difference in the overall cost (except that maybe the grotesque overspend of the GWML scheme hasn't been repeated). And in fact there's so little being electrified with a few piecemeal schemes, that it's probably quite hard to evidence any improvement. Another problem with electrification based on freight use is that any financial benefit goes to the freight operators, so there's a reluctance to put govt money in when it doesn't see any of the benefit.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Until it's made a lot cheaper, it ain't going to happen, unfortunately.

We've read so many stories over the last few years of ways in which costs can be cut, from less deep piles, not needing to demolish bridges, cheaper (and more visually acceptable) steelwork, but I don't sense it's yet making much difference in the overall cost (except that maybe the grotesque overspend of the GWML scheme hasn't been repeated). And in fact there's so little being electrified with a few piecemeal schemes, that it's probably quite hard to evidence any improvement. Another problem with electrification based on freight use is that any financial benefit goes to the freight operators, so there's a reluctance to put govt money in when it doesn't see any of the benefit.

In practice the competitive nature of the freight market means that the operators will 'bid the surplus' to customers to try and win their business. Hence the fact that larger wagons, heavier axle-loads, longer trains and more powerful locomotives led to reduced rates for coal haulage from the old BR Merry-go-Round model (for example). The profit margins for the freight operators are very small.

Nothing wrong for the overall UK economy in being more 'efficient', winning traffic from road, reduced emissions and so forth though.

 

[HSTEd]

"If you give us huge piles of money for 800 miles of electrification, we will reduce diesel use in a tiny portion of the national freight market! This will also depend on the freight operators spending unprecedented sums on electric rolling stock and operational changes!"

And add to it this gem:

CILT is working with colleagues in engineering institutes to identify lower cost methods of electrifying freight routes and it is already clear that this will cost considerably less than electrification of high-speed intercity routes. Freight train speeds are much lower, meaning that a simpler form of wiring can be used, and there are credible grounds for expecting the cost of freight electrification to be less than half the cost of higher speed passenger routes.

So they are demanding 800 route miles of electrification of a type that will be useless for passenger operations!
Which will also magically cost less than half as much.

Billions of pounds to prop up a freight industry that pays ~£50m a year in infrastructure charges.....

 

[AngusH]

https://www.railway-technology.com/...ication-possible-for-95-of-uk-freight-trains/ works for me.

are the weasel words... I bet that is almost the case now (maybe not,) but the commercial need to cut time and costs, i.e. not spend money on 2 locos for 1 train, or pay a shunter to uncouple 1 loco and couple another, means that actually trying to maximise the amount of miles behind electric traction is probably at odds with the companies' (legal) obligations to maximise profits.

Probably so, but there are some oddities that might encourage them to do something else.

Profit maximisation is not necessarily legally obligated, a 'green' investment fund shareholder might support switching to electric traction to reduce pollution rather than maximise absolute profits. This might get more investors and increase the fee income for the investment fund
or the fees might be higher because they are a 'green' fund.

Or the operator might see a competitive advantage in getting customers from (say) a supermarket by polishing its green credentials. It might even be able to charge a premium to, say, tesco for using only electric traction...

(Maybe)

 

[Annetts key]

Treasury says no, will be the answer. Sorry to be cynical.

Sorry, a bit off topic, but is it actually possible to defund the treasury? That is, could parliament pass a law to divert all government tax income and other income directly to another department?

If people think this is worthwhile discussing, a new topic would be best

Another problem with electrification based on freight use is that any financial benefit goes to the freight operators, so there's a reluctance to put govt money in when it doesn't see any of the benefit.

Electric traction does have advantages for the infrastructure company. If all trains are electric, then there is less damage/wear of the track and formation. Hence reduced track maintenance costs. Of course, some of these are offset by the maintenance requirements of the OHL infrastructure.

The problem here is not electrification. But the way that we do infrastructure projects. As I have said before, we really need to get away from the big number overall total cost budget system.

Instead allocate a minimum spend per year, and then employ full time permanent employees to carry out the work. As they iron out the problems and learn better ways of working, the amount that can be done (per year) should, in theory increase in the early years (then it will likely level off).

But you do need good project management as well. Not people who are using it just as a ladder to higher paid jobs.

 

[Trainbike46]

But you do need good project management as well. Not people who are using it just as a ladder to higher paid jobs.

This is pretty key actually. I'm currently going through Strategic Project Management and Leadership training, and if what I'm getting taught is representative, it's no wonder everything goes over budget...

I really hope the project managers in engineering (I'm not an engineer and never will be) get taught better than I do

seriously though, I think a better name for the training I'm in would be "how to climb the corporate ladder to better jobs ASAP"

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

https://www.railway-technology.com/...ication-possible-for-95-of-uk-freight-trains/ works for me.

are the weasel words... I bet that is almost the case now (maybe not,) but the commercial need to cut time and costs, i.e. not spend money on 2 locos for 1 train, or pay a shunter to uncouple 1 loco and couple another, means that actually trying to maximise the amount of miles behind electric traction is probably at odds with the companies' (legal) obligations to maximise profits.

It's why transport infrastructure and service delivery shouldn't be in the private sector.

It was privatised FOCs who grew freight from the doldrums of the BR era. In particular getting rid of the idea that it was "a passenger railway, shouldn't be running freight" (quoting a moron in Eastleigh Panel in 1998).
Pat

 

[Trainbike46]

Treasury says no, will be the answer. Sorry to be cynical.

I'm not at all expecting them to fund 800 miles of electrification either (though I'd be really happy if they did!).

But, of the 5 easy wins, the 4 where I can actually figure out what it is they're proposing (London gateway, Felixstowe branch, seaforth docks, Birmingham-Nuneaton) seem pretty sensible to do soon, so hopefully the DfT/Treasury could be persuaded to do those at least.

For other routes, were there are benefits for both passengers and freight we can then move forward further, with extra bits for freight where relevant (for example, wiring to the Mendips when electrifying further to the Southwest)

 

[Annetts key]

It was privatised FOCs who grew freight from the doldrums of the BR era. In particular getting rid of the idea that it was "a passenger railway, shouldn't be running freight" (quoting a moron in Eastleigh Panel in 1998).

Hmm, I think it depends on where you are. In some areas, freight traffic has increased, while in other areas, it has decreased.

The railways attitude to freight has also changed over the years. Not always to the better (loss of the Royal Mail trains for example).

And some urgent high priority freight trains did indeed have a higher priority than some passenger trains (a gas train used to run, back when we exported gas, as it had to get to a port, if it missed its scheduled time, as I understand it, the delay was costly, as the ship had to wait for the next tide).

In the late 1980s, once, while waiting for access to work on the line at night, we had to wait for fourteen freight trains to go through.

I’ve not seen a similar number of freight trains on that line in recent years.

Now, I don’t know if some of the trains in the earlier case were diverted, and the above is obviously very far from the big picture (if anyone knows how BR in the late 1980s compares to today, I would welcome you posting the figures).

Oh, and we often appear to get people short of a few brain cells saying stupid things. As well as saying things like "a passenger railway, shouldn't be running freight", we also have people saying that the only time that engineering work can be done is during the night. Ignoring that fact that there are overnight passenger trains and a lot of freight trains run at night. Not to mention all the ECS moves to and from train maintenance depots… Hence some lines are actually busier during the night compared to during the day…

I'm not at all expecting them to fund 800 miles of electrification either (though I'd be really happy if they did!).

Why not?
Excluding complex junction areas, if the network could manage an average of around ¼ mile per day, it would only take ten years for all the plain line sections.

 

[HSTEd]

Excluding complex junction areas, if the network could manage an average of around ¼ mile per day, it would only take ten years for all the plain line sections.

Has the railway demonstrated it can maintain that pace?

And note that this report demands the creation of a new electrification standard for low speed operation that would render it of very little value to passenger operations.

 

[Trainbike46]

And note that this report demands the creation of a new electrification standard for low speed operation that would render it of very little value to passenger operations.

I don't think that would be a good idea, as passenger services also need to decarbonise. best to get the most out of one set of infrastructure

Why not?
Excluding complex junction areas, if the network could manage an average of around ¼ mile per day, it would only take ten years for all the plain line sections.

Because I have very little fate in our current government, and not that much fate in a future labour government (assuming the next government will be labour under Starmer)

As I said, I do support electrifying way more lines

 

[Class15]

My opinions on this:

The ones in red are exactly right, and must be electrified immediately.
I would add Acton Bank and Wentloog to this list.

I think a lot of this doesn’t need to be done, for example Peterborough to Doncaster can be avoided simply by diverting freight down the ECML.

 

[The Planner]

My opinions on this:

The ones in red are exactly right, and must be electrified immediately.
I would add Acton Bank and Wentloog to this list.

I think a lot of this doesn’t need to be done, for example Peterborough to Doncaster can be avoided simply by diverting freight down the ECML.

Makes Werrington a waste of cash then...

 

[Class15]

Makes Werrington a waste of cash then...

I accept that most freight is probably diesel-hauled anyway that uses this curve, but some, such as London Gateway to Doncaster Freightliners, could be electric* by going via the ECML.

*Only by doing the terminals at each end.

 

[HSTEd]

I think a lot of this doesn’t need to be done, for example Peterborough to Doncaster can be avoided simply by diverting freight down the ECML.

Unless your proposal involves purchases of very large numbers of 100mph container flats or intermodal multiple units, you are going to run into some serious capacity issues trying that!

 

[zwk500]

I think a lot of this doesn’t need to be done, for example Peterborough to Doncaster can be avoided simply by diverting freight down the ECML.

If you divert freight via the ECML you'll need to change all the wagons as it's not W10 cleared.

 

[Snow1964]

And note that this report demands the creation of a new electrification standard for low speed operation that would render it of very little value to passenger operations.

There is probably some compromise here, and maybe will focus minds.

There are plenty of lines where top speed is limited, so don't really need 100-125mph standards on a curving line where not going to exceed 60-90mph. Perhaps we need 3 or 4 tiers of overhead standards depending on line speed.

But it works both ways, some lines have speed capacity for electric passenger trains, but the supply is too weak for regular freight trains. On a mixed traffic line need both.

Using one of the reports lines as an example, Berks and Hants Newbury - Frome / Mendips. There are some slow sections where it was rebuilt from various branch lines so don't need GWR style 125-140mph wiring, something cheaper will do, but do need to be able to handle 6MW trains, maybe even double headed ones.

We seem to go barmy with over engineering masts (has anyone ever heard of a mast pole breaking), all the failures are in bits hung from it.

 

[92002]

I'm not at all expecting them to fund 800 miles of electrification either (though I'd be really happy if they did!).

But, of the 5 easy wins, the 4 where I can actually figure out what it is they're proposing (London gateway, Felixstowe branch, seaforth docks, Birmingham-Nuneaton) seem pretty sensible to do soon, so hopefully the DfT/Treasury could be persuaded to do those at least.

For other routes, were there are benefits for both passengers and freight we can then move forward further, with extra bits for freight where relevant (for example, wiring to the Mendips when electrifying further to the Southwest)

A particularly busy freight route to electrify would be Coventry to Reading and onwards to Southampton and no doubt the bit to Weymouth and Basingstoke to Waterloo for passenger too.

 

[zwk500]

A particularly busy freight route to electrify would be Coventry to Reading and onwards to Southampton and no doubt the bit to Weymouth and Basingstoke to Waterloo for passenger too.

Minor detail, but Waterloo-Basingstoke-Weymouth is already electrified

I personally can't see Waterloo-Basingstoke ever being converted to OLE, it will just be too problematic. However I think there will come a point where Basingstoke-Southampton-Weymouth does get converted. As the intense service drops off the advantages of AC OLE over DC 3rd rail start to stack up, and as the interoperability factor sways toward OLE there will come a tipping point. 3rd Rail would probably end at St Denys on the Netley route, with a flying change just outside Easteligh.
OLE on Basingstoke-Southampton then removes a major headache for Salisbury and the WoE.

 

[92002]

Minor detail, but Waterloo-Basingstoke-Weymouth is already electrified

I personally can't see Waterloo-Basingstoke ever being converted to OLE, it will just be too problematic. However I think there will come a point where Basingstoke-Southampton-Weymouth does get converted. As the intense service drops off the advantages of AC OLE over DC 3rd rail start to stack up, and as the interoperability factor sways toward OLE there will come a tipping point. 3rd Rail would probably end at St Denys on the Netley route, with a flying change just outside Easteligh.
OLE on Basingstoke-Southampton then removes a major headache for Salisbury and the WoE.

However no new 3rd rail electrification is allowed. So it will need to convert at some stage and will need to be replaced.