Rail electrification scrapped / 'suspended'?

[158756]

I am puzzled about the response of the highways to the (currently being tested in public) driverless horseless carriages. Those who claim to be "in the know" have been telling us years that this innovation is coming literally down the pike in a few years. We do not really know what sort of highways these things are likely to require. Yet highways are still being proposed and constructed despite the risk these will be "stranded assets" in light of driverless cars. And yes, highway schemes over run on cost at least as much as those on railways.

Yet when the equally unknown quantity of bi-modes emerges, this is takes as reason to cancel electrification. Bi-modes are at least known to benefit from electrification.

Perhaps a consistent logic is required across modes?

A road is a road. New build roads are generally of much higher standard than the average existing road. Driverless cars will have to be designed almost entirely for the roads which already exist - we are not going to rebuild the entire road network for them, unless you want to implement the Serpell Report to fund it.

'We shouldn't build roads because driverless cars are coming' is nonsense. They are still cars and are not in themselves likely to radically change the need for roads to exist.
'We shouldn't electrify railways because of new technologies' makes rather more sense. Bi-modes, batteries, whatever else would make wires redundant to a greater or lesser extent, and more importantly deliver better value for money, the government hopes, reasoning nothing could be worse than electrification. In the nowadays rare cases where a new road is built it is deemed a better investment than the alternatives.

 

[John S2]

Premature death has very little cost. Ill health, on the other hand.

It depends on whether a cost is attached when considering the Economics.

 

[edwin_m]

Conssitent logic across modes? Be careful what you wish for. Current government income from highway users far exceeds the expenditure. Meanwhile, for railways, it's the other way round. Bear in mind that highway expenditure is taxed at almost every point. Fuel duty. VAT on fuel. Vehicle excise duty. New car tax. VAT on new cars. Etc etc. In contrast, no government income from any of this for railways.

Depends how you count it. A lot of road-related costs aren't readily identifiable including policing and healthcare related to accidents, and when this was last discussed on here I think it was said that the taxation on motorists roughly balanced the spend on roads when considered on this broader basis.

There are two further factors. It will cost a lot of money to sort out pollution and climate change, much of which is attributable to road transport and isn't being spent now so won't appear in the figures. Secondly as electric cars spread fuel tax receipts will fall as there's no way of taxing electricity for a car without taxing all electricity for other uses. So unless the government finds a way of imposing new taxes on car use that are politically difficult and could discourage a move to electric cars, motoring-related tax receipts will fall short of road spending in the future.

 

[squizzler]

A road is a road. New build roads are generally of much higher standard than the average existing road. Driverless cars will have to be designed almost entirely for the roads which already exist - we are not going to rebuild the entire road network for them, unless you want to implement the Serpell Report to fund it.

'We shouldn't build roads because driverless cars are coming' is nonsense. They are still cars and are not in themselves likely to radically change the need for roads to exist.
'We shouldn't electrify railways because of new technologies' makes rather more sense. Bi-modes, batteries, whatever else would make wires redundant to a greater or lesser extent, and more importantly deliver better value for money, the government hopes, reasoning nothing could be worse than electrification. In the nowadays rare cases where a new road is built it is deemed a better investment than the alternatives.

This might be true, it might not be. You implicitly assume that these self driving cars, if they come, will fail to offer benefits in highway capacity over that of current cars and streets. Will one possibility of small electric "pods" which glide along at modest speeds require such wide roads, shallow bends, long sight lines of traditional gas guzzlers?

And as for those who might wish for spending money on inner-city multi-storey car parks and roadside service stations, well you might as well be a 1950s rail manager investing in large scale marshalling yards!

 

[furnessvale]

Conssitent logic across modes? Be careful what you wish for. Current government income from highway users far exceeds the expenditure. Meanwhile, for railways, it's the other way round. Bear in mind that highway expenditure is taxed at almost every point. Fuel duty. VAT on fuel. Vehicle excise duty. New car tax. VAT on new cars. Etc etc. In contrast, no government income from any of this for railways.

When it comes to spending, there's Crossrail, HS2, electrification of GWR, in Lancashire, Scotland, etc. Meanwhile there hasn't been a new motorway in England for years.

Diesel fuel for rail use is subject to duty, admittedly not at the rate applied to roads, but then again road (freight) does not pay a per vehicle/km track access charge.

 

[edwin_m]

This might be true, it might not be. You implicitly assume that these self driving cars, if they come, will fail to offer benefits in highway capacity over that of current cars and streets. Will one possibility of small electric "pods" which glide along at modest speeds require such wide roads, shallow bends, long sight lines of traditional gas guzzlers?

And as for those who might wish for spending money on inner-city multi-storey car parks and roadside service stations, well you might as well be a 1950s rail manager investing in large scale marshalling yards!

That may be so for small electric pods but it seems to me that if the current ownership model continues, a large proportion at least of electric cars will need to be suitable for that occasional long trip and therefore similar in size and speed to existing cars. As the braking distance and therefore the spacing between cars depends on speed and laws of physics this implies that road design is likely to stay much the same as now, unless speed limits are to be significantly lower for all vehicles on "new" roads. There may be some capacity gain if enough self-driving cars have the facility to drive in closely-spaced "platoons".

If these cars can drop commuters in the city in the morning and drive to somewhere else to park until the evening, that creates a near-doubling of traffic on the most congested streets...

 

[HowardGWR]

Fuel Duty, VAT, and vehicle excise duty have nothing to do with the budget for road building, railway building, or anything else, anymore than the duties on tobacco or alcohol are. They are simply taxes.

These arguments have no role in investment in public transport infrastructure, whether for roads, railways or anything else.

One could argue that current COBA calculations do not express the costs / benefits of environmental damage or some social costs (such as noise and ill health), but the DfT hasn't included them in COBA and so are pro memorie at present (i.e. sadly, one or two lines in an Inspector's Report to a Minister).

 

[route:oxford]

And as for those who might wish for spending money on inner-city multi-storey car parks and roadside service stations.

The electric vehicles will need to be stored somewhere. The fact that they can be stored mere mm apart in parking garages will probably be helpful. Residential side roads will then merely need to be wide enough to accommodate a driverless refuse wagon.

I'm intrigued by your notion that driverless cars will need to do without roadside service stations though. Are you predicting automatic catheterisation of or integrated commodes for passengers?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That may be so for small electric pods but it seems to me that if the current ownership model continues

I just don't think it will. Why would you own a car and have all the hassle of maintaining it when a taxi would be dirt cheap because of not having to pay the driver?

Ownership being desirable would be limited to enthusiasts, really.

 

[eastdyke]

The electric vehicles will need to be stored somewhere. The fact that they can be stored mere mm apart in parking garages will probably be helpful. Residential side roads will then merely need to be wide enough to accommodate a driverless refuse wagon.

I'm intrigued by your notion that driverless cars will need to do without roadside service stations though. Are you predicting automatic catheterisation of or integrated commodes for passengers?

Get real! Emergency service vehicles - esp fire and rescue, removal vehicles, utilities vehicles, our beloved caravans and all manner of other stuff!

 

[Taunton]

I just don't think it will. Why would you own a car and have all the hassle of maintaining it when a taxi would be dirt cheap because of not having to pay the driver?

What, you mean like OPO trains are dirt cheap (or half dirt cheap) because you don't have to pay the guard ...?

 

[fflint]

I thought this thread was about RAIL electrification not CARS ETC.

 

[squizzler]

I thought this thread was about RAIL electrification not CARS ETC.

Why, yes it is. Railways do not operate in a vacuum after all (that would be Hyperloop).

 

[Bletchleyite]

What, you mean like OPO trains are dirt cheap (or half dirt cheap) because you don't have to pay the guard ...?

The cost structure of the railway is very different (more expensive) than road. And in any case yes DOO does save a lot of money. What happens to that money is another question

 

[squizzler]

Am I the only one to notice an impressively well organised pushback against the cancelling / deferment of electrification this week? I get the impression is that it took a month to process the news, to organise and hone arguments and strategy. Now big hitters are beginning to break cover. This week has seen Northern commuters call for a "day of moaning", Andy Burnham and George Osbourne are making the case in the press. Sorry about reliance on Guardian links, but just search "northern rail" or "northern powerhouse" on your favoured news source to witness an effective campaign in motion.

All this is setting the stage nicely for the Northern Powerhouse summit in leads today. Expect further agitation in the public arena as the week progresses.

So much for the North, but how about the Southwest and Wales? Together we are stronger, right? How about a national campaign called "Regional Railways Resisting Renewal Rollback"?

 

[HSTEd]

But none of these people control the purse strings

 

[Gareth Marston]

Stephen Doughty‏Verified account @SDoughtyMP

Backing @CPJElmore and all @WelshLabour colleagues opposing Tory failures on #rail in #Wales - our joint letter today:
9:07 AM - 22 Aug 2017

https://twitter.com/SDoughtyMP

 

[ScotGG]

Am I the only one to notice an impressively well organised pushback against the cancelling / deferment of electrification this week? I get the impression is that it took a month to process the news, to organise and hone arguments and strategy. Now big hitters are beginning to break cover. This week has seen Northern commuters call for a "day of moaning", Andy Burnham and George Osbourne are making the case in the press. Sorry about reliance on Guardian links, but just search "northern rail" or "northern powerhouse" on your favoured news source to witness an effective campaign in motion.

All this is setting the stage nicely for the Northern Powerhouse summit in leads today. Expect further agitation in the public arena as the week progresses.

So much for the North, but how about the Southwest and Wales? Together we are stronger, right? How about a national campaign called "Regional Railways Resisting Renewal Rollback"?

Grayling is a disaster and that's becoming apparent country wide. His latest line directly contradicts his view when he blocked TfL taking on SE Metro despite support across the political spectrum and from business. Even within London his actions are hitting resistance from his own party.

You can add SE London and NW Kent to the areas he is very disliked (even by Tories) and you're right - the South West too needs far more investment. The UK population is rising sharply yet govt still regard infrastructure and transport as an afterthought.

Grayling is costing the Tories votes pretty much everywhere.

 

[eastdyke]

Grayling is costing the Tories votes pretty much everywhere.

But perhaps not as many votes as the party would lose by putting up taxes to pay for seemingly uncontrolled spending? Just saying.
There may be 'better news' from said Grayling at a later stage in the electoral cycle.

And a money tree would be of no use to Labour to pay for their aspirational alternatives, they would need a money forest.

 

[L+Y]

Grayling is costing the Tories votes pretty much everywhere.

I say this as a rail enthusiast and a Conservative Party activist- I'm afraid this just isn't true. Where rail issues are mentioned to me, working in a "swing" constituency in Northern commuter-land, it's either a) opposition to HS2 (the capacity argument is simply not understood) or b) unhappiness with car parking spilling out from railway stations (for context we knock around 500 doors around the constituency twice a week). I don't really buy the argument that the general public is particularly switched on to or generally informed about transport issues.

Now, you can perhaps make the argument that electrification cutbacks feed into a general perception that the Tories are ignoring the North in favour of London and the SE- but that perception existed in 2014/15 when "Northern Powerhouse" was at its height, and I don't think is going to be shifted at all easily.

Finally, if you went down a street in "my" constituency and asked who Chris Grayling was, I'd be very surprised if more than one in twenty households could give you an answer.

 

[Greybeard33]

Am I the only one to notice an impressively well organised pushback against the cancelling / deferment of electrification this week? I get the impression is that it took a month to process the news, to organise and hone arguments and strategy. Now big hitters are beginning to break cover. This week has seen Northern commuters call for a "day of moaning", Andy Burnham and George Osbourne are making the case in the press. Sorry about reliance on Guardian links, but just search "northern rail" or "northern powerhouse" on your favoured news source to witness an effective campaign in motion.

All this is setting the stage nicely for the Northern Powerhouse summit in leads today. Expect further agitation in the public arena as the week progresses.

Steve Rotherham (Liverpool metro mayor) was on the BBC North West News this morning, emphasising the united front between the City Regions on the issue.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I say this as a rail enthusiast and a Conservative Party activist- I'm afraid this just isn't true. Where rail issues are mentioned to me, working in a "swing" constituency in Northern commuter-land, it's either a) opposition to HS2 (the capacity argument is simply not understood) or b) unhappiness with car parking spilling out from railway stations (for context we knock around 500 doors around the constituency twice a week). I don't really buy the argument that the general public is particularly switched on to or generally informed about transport issues.

Now, you can perhaps make the argument that electrification cutbacks feed into a general perception that the Tories are ignoring the North in favour of London and the SE- but that perception existed in 2014/15 when "Northern Powerhouse" was at its height, and I don't think is going to be shifted at all easily.

Finally, if you went down a street in "my" constituency and asked who Chris Grayling was, I'd be very surprised if more than one in twenty households could give you an answer.

Absolutely, they believe what they read in the papers... So obviously they don't know anything and are incredibly mis-informed.

 

[L+Y]

Absolutely, they believe what they read in the papers... So obviously they don't know anything and are incredibly mis-informed.

I think that's maybe a bit harsh- why would you take the time to read up on something that you're not especially interested in, in any area? We can't all be experts, and I'm sure we all resort to misinformed stereotyping about areas we're not ourselves enormously concerned about on a day-to-day basis.

 

[HowardGWR]

I think that's maybe a bit harsh- why would you take the time to read up on something that you're not especially interested in, in any area? We can't all be experts, and I'm sure we all resort to misinformed stereotyping about areas we're not ourselves enormously concerned about on a day-to-day basis.

Yes I'm sure you are right. In fact just look back a few posts and you will see that even people here cannot spell Osborne's name correctly.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I think that's maybe a bit harsh- why would you take the time to read up on something that you're not especially interested in, in any area? We can't all be experts, and I'm sure we all resort to misinformed stereotyping about areas we're not ourselves enormously concerned about on a day-to-day basis.

I don't think it's harsh at all. I think it is true. I wasn't suggesting they should be informed, or that it was somehow a reflection on their intelligence. Simply what I said as a standalone fact.

I completely agree, and I am sure I do it for other areas of interest.

 

[CdBrux]

His latest line directly contradicts his view when he blocked TfL taking on SE Metro despite support across the political spectrum and from business..

Could you explain please? TfL wanted to RUN the trains? The suggestion is that TfN come up with costed ideas for what improvements they want and see of the government will pay. They seem quite different things to me

 

[superkev]

Traditionally the Transport Secretary post is usually filled by either someone on their way up or failures on there way down.
My own thought is that like Allister Darling being remembered for derailing the Leeds and other light rail schemes Grayling will be remembered for axing the Leeds trolleybus, northern electrification while pushing ahead with London crosstalk 2.
K

 

[Mikey C]

I say this as a rail enthusiast and a Conservative Party activist- I'm afraid this just isn't true. Where rail issues are mentioned to me, working in a "swing" constituency in Northern commuter-land, it's either a) opposition to HS2 (the capacity argument is simply not understood) or b) unhappiness with car parking spilling out from railway stations (for context we knock around 500 doors around the constituency twice a week). I don't really buy the argument that the general public is particularly switched on to or generally informed about transport issues.

Now, you can perhaps make the argument that electrification cutbacks feed into a general perception that the Tories are ignoring the North in favour of London and the SE- but that perception existed in 2014/15 when "Northern Powerhouse" was at its height, and I don't think is going to be shifted at all easily.

Finally, if you went down a street in "my" constituency and asked who Chris Grayling was, I'd be very surprised if more than one in twenty households could give you an answer.

But then the cancellations have taken place after the recent election, at a time when most people are happy to take a breather from politics and politicians!

I'm sure that when the next election comes (which may not be far away), this will be brought up as an example of "the Tories not caring about the north", which may have electoral consequences.

 

[Greybeard33]

Traditionally the Transport Secretary post is usually filled by either someone on their way up or failures on there way down.
My own thought is that like Allister Darling being remembered for derailing the Leeds and other light rail schemes Grayling will be remembered for axing the Leeds trolleybus, northern electrification while pushing ahead with London crosstalk 2.
K

While I am no fan of Grayling, in the interests of accuracy the Leeds trolleybus was"axed" in May 2016, long before he acquired the Transport portfolio.

 

[Chester1]

TfN actually deciding on a scheme would be helpful. No point whinging about Crossrail 2 when you have had plenty of time and money to design a Crossrail for the north but haven't yet.