Nottingham59
Established Member
In the past, it was necessary to electrify a whole line, or a whole section of a line to a teminating station (e.g. Bedford-Corby) before you could realise the economic benefits of electrification. Now that bimode passenger trains are available for almost all types of journey, I'm interested in how this affects the economics of electification projects.
It seems to me that you can now do electrification in much smaller chunks and still get the benefit, as Network Rail acknowledge in their description of the Colton Jn to Church Fenton scheme here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...rade/york-to-church-fenton-improvement-scheme. (NR say "Fully electrifying the line will allow bimode trains to use electric traction, reducing emissions.") I don't know how many trains per hour use that section, but it must be quite busy.
There are other places where electrification is (probably) going ahead, such as Kettering to Market Harborough, but the economics appear only to work because of the feeder station at Braybrooke. Mkt Harborough to Wigston has the same four trains per hour. Does that not justify electrification? How many trains per hour do you need to give a BCR greater than say 2.0? How much difference do station stops make, with their need for acceleration back up to line speed? And if you do electrify to Wigston, would it be worth electrifying Leicester station as well? Or is that a whole load of extra cost for very little benefit?
So I guess I'm asking, where should be electrified next? Does electrification now give a higher returns for suburban services, or for high speed lines? And given that rolling stock can be cascaded around the country in less time than the 15-20 years that electrification schemes take to get built, current rolling stock should not constrain electrification decisions. My nomination is the line through Birmingham Moor St from Stourbridge to Tysley - six trains per hour and lots of station stops. Are there any non-electrified lines with more traffic and better economics than that?
It seems to me that you can now do electrification in much smaller chunks and still get the benefit, as Network Rail acknowledge in their description of the Colton Jn to Church Fenton scheme here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...rade/york-to-church-fenton-improvement-scheme. (NR say "Fully electrifying the line will allow bimode trains to use electric traction, reducing emissions.") I don't know how many trains per hour use that section, but it must be quite busy.
There are other places where electrification is (probably) going ahead, such as Kettering to Market Harborough, but the economics appear only to work because of the feeder station at Braybrooke. Mkt Harborough to Wigston has the same four trains per hour. Does that not justify electrification? How many trains per hour do you need to give a BCR greater than say 2.0? How much difference do station stops make, with their need for acceleration back up to line speed? And if you do electrify to Wigston, would it be worth electrifying Leicester station as well? Or is that a whole load of extra cost for very little benefit?
So I guess I'm asking, where should be electrified next? Does electrification now give a higher returns for suburban services, or for high speed lines? And given that rolling stock can be cascaded around the country in less time than the 15-20 years that electrification schemes take to get built, current rolling stock should not constrain electrification decisions. My nomination is the line through Birmingham Moor St from Stourbridge to Tysley - six trains per hour and lots of station stops. Are there any non-electrified lines with more traffic and better economics than that?