Why is only 38% of the UK rail network electrified?

[Frank Scully]

(Unsure if this should be filed under International instead...)

Why is only 38% of the UK rail network electrified? Looking at the stats here European Rail Electrification Stats, we fall well behind all our peer countries (we're even behind places like Turkey and Serbia fgs). It's not as if our peers decided to spend on electric rail instead of motorways either as the UK motorway network is also really cadaverous compared to our peers (and I know some German roads classified as autobahns are just dual carriageways), but our m'way route mileage also falls well behind Germany, France and Spain.

So what have we been spending all our infra money on over the last century? Is the UK terrible at project management? Is there endemic corruption? Where has all the money gone? On most measures of infra route length, the UK doesn't even hit the median.

 

[D365]

There’s simply no interest in fronting the expense, electrification also transfers maintenance liability onto the infrastructure owner.

 

[The Planner]

What percentage of overall rail services are using that 38% though? Europe has an average of 56.6% electrification according to the source you have used.

 

[stuu]

(Unsure if this should be filed under International instead...)

Why is only 38% of the UK rail network electrified? Looking at the stats here European Rail Electrification Stats, we fall well behind all our peer countries (we're even behind places like Turkey and Serbia fgs). It's not as if our peers decided to spend on electric rail instead of motorways either as the UK motorway network is also really cadaverous compared to our peers (and I know some German roads classified as autobahns are just dual carriageways), but our m'way route mileage also falls well behind Germany, France and Spain.

So what have we been spending all our infra money on over the last century? Is the UK terrible at project management? Is there endemic corruption? Where has all the money gone? On most measures of infra route length, the UK doesn't even hit the median.

We haven't spent much money on infrastructure of any kind. That's the fundamental problem

 

[bib]

What percentage of overall rail services are using that 38% though? Europe has an average of 56.6% electrification according to the source you have used.

From the RDG document in 2018 you can calculate 72% of trains were electric.

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/files/Publications/2018-03_long_term_passenger_rolling_stock_strategy_6th_ed.pdf

From the ORR emmissions data you can calculate 74% of passenger train vehicle train kms were by electric traction.

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/2112/rail-emissions-2021-22.pdf

I haven't seen any stats recently about the % of passenger journeys or passenger miles completed by electric/diesel, but assuming that electric trains are busier it would be >74% electric.
Did see another post quoting an Modern Railways article saying 80% of passenger miles are electric. Would be nice to see some official statistics.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/electrification-percentage-uk.202545/ post # 12

 

[The Planner]

So whilst we need to electrify more, we are fairly close to diminishing returns?

 

[A0wen]

(Unsure if this should be filed under International instead...)

Why is only 38% of the UK rail network electrified? Looking at the stats here European Rail Electrification Stats, we fall well behind all our peer countries (we're even behind places like Turkey and Serbia fgs). It's not as if our peers decided to spend on electric rail instead of motorways either as the UK motorway network is also really cadaverous compared to our peers (and I know some German roads classified as autobahns are just dual carriageways), but our m'way route mileage also falls well behind Germany, France and Spain.

So what have we been spending all our infra money on over the last century? Is the UK terrible at project management? Is there endemic corruption? Where has all the money gone? On most measures of infra route length, the UK doesn't even hit the median.

Perhaps one factor is size of network.

The UK's network is ~ 16,000 km, Serbia is 3,764 km - not really a valid comparison.

List of countries by rail transport network size - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On motorway network, it's worth noting that France is roughly double the size of the UK and Germany is even bigger. If you have a bigger country, it kinda follows that you'll have a bigger road network ?

 

[Frank Scully]

Double the landmass but not double the population or number of cars.

 

[Mikey C]

Of course the easiest way to improve the percentage of electrified lines in the UK would be to close many of the unelectrified lines

Don't worry, I wasn't suggesting Beeching 2, but it does show that it's not an entirely straightforward comparison. Yes most European countries do have more electrified lines than us full stop, and yes we need to electrify more lines, but if other countries had also been more ruthless in closing down quiet rural lines (e.g. their version of the Heart of Wales line) that would also improve their percentage figure.

 

[philosopher]

One possible reason that comes to mind is that the UK‘s rail network restrictive loading gauge makes overhead electrification more time consuming and costly compared to other European countries. Electrification of the railways in the UK therefore has poorer financial returns than in other European countries.

 

[eldomtom2]

One possible reason that comes to mind is that the UK‘s rail network restrictive loading gauge makes overhead electrification more time consuming and costly compared to other European countries. Electrification of the railways in the UK therefore has poorer financial returns than in other European countries.

I'm not sure that logic holds, considering America is well known for its generous loading gauges yet its freight railroads outright refuse to electrify (and its passenger railroads don't really think of it as an option).

 

[Nick Ashwell]

I'm not sure that logic holds, considering America is well known for its generous loading gauges yet its freight railroads outright refuse to electrify (and its passenger railroads don't really think of it as an option).

Where to start

The fright railroads don't want to spend more money, and busy passenger networks such as the North East Corridor are electrified.

They vast majority of track in the US is privately owned, meaning the ROI has to be there for shareholders.

It also ignores how little much of the states cares about decarbonisation, like it or not, doing things for green reasons still isn't a viable reason for large numbers of Americans

 

[eldomtom2]

Where to start

The fright railroads don't want to spend more money, and busy passenger networks such as the North East Corridor are electrified.

They vast majority of track in the US is privately owned, meaning the ROI has to be there for shareholders.

It also ignores how little much of the states cares about decarbonisation, like it or not, doing things for green reasons still isn't a viable reason for large numbers of Americans

I'm not disagreeing with you.

 

[Bevan Price]

(Unsure if this should be filed under International instead...)

Why is only 38% of the UK rail network electrified? Looking at the stats here European Rail Electrification Stats, we fall well behind all our peer countries (we're even behind places like Turkey and Serbia fgs). It's not as if our peers decided to spend on electric rail instead of motorways either as the UK motorway network is also really cadaverous compared to our peers (and I know some German roads classified as autobahns are just dual carriageways), but our m'way route mileage also falls well behind Germany, France and Spain.

So what have we been spending all our infra money on over the last century? Is the UK terrible at project management? Is there endemic corruption? Where has all the money gone? On most measures of infra route length, the UK doesn't even hit the median.

It is because we have a Treasury and a Department for Roads (a.k.a. DfT)

 

[Halifaxlad]

Because rolling stock procurement isn't integrated with infrastructure!

 

[D6130]

Don't worry, I wasn't suggesting Beeching 2, but it does show that it's not an entirely straightforward comparison. Yes most European countries do have more electrified lines than us full stop, and yes we need to electrify more lines, but if other countries had also been more ruthless in closing down quiet rural lines (e.g. their version of the Heart of Wales line) that would also improve their percentage figure.

The 'Ligne des Causses', from Beziers to Neussargues - which could well be considered the French equivalent of the Heart of Wales Line - was electrified way back in the 1920s....although the wires run out at a small rural junction in Cantal, where it connects with another sparsely-trafficked - but non-electrified - cross country branch line from Clermont Ferrand to Aurillac. A difference in national and local politics I think.

 

[Mikey C]

Where to start

The fright railroads don't want to spend more money, and busy passenger networks such as the North East Corridor are electrified.

They vast majority of track in the US is privately owned, meaning the ROI has to be there for shareholders.

It also ignores how little much of the states cares about decarbonisation, like it or not, doing things for green reasons still isn't a viable reason for large numbers of Americans

But how frequent are the US freight trains, when compared to the level of traffic European railways have?

 

[philosopher]

I'm not sure that logic holds, considering America is well known for its generous loading gauges yet its freight railroads outright refuse to electrify (and its passenger railroads don't really think of it as an option).

The United States is a huge country which would make electrification there expensive. The railroad companies I think would either have to build large numbers substations, often in very remote locations or put up with high transmission losses. I assume therefore for these companies it is more profitable to run very long but infrequent diesel powered trains rather than more frequent electric trains.

 

[Speed43125]

The United States is a huge country which would make electrification there expensive. The railroad companies I think would either have to build large numbers substations, often in very remote locations or put up with high transmission losses. I assume therefore for these companies it is more profitable to run very long but infrequent diesel powered trains rather than more frequent electric trains.

The Milwaukee Road would beg to differ on this.

 

[zwk500]

One possible reason that comes to mind is that the UK‘s rail network restrictive loading gauge makes overhead electrification more time consuming and costly compared to other European countries. Electrification of the railways in the UK therefore has poorer financial returns than in other European countries.

This would only apply if the European bridges were built with a structure gauge proportionately larger than the loading gauge. Is there any evidence that European countries did not have to rebuild their lines for electrification?

The loading gauge usually applies to Container clearance as the UK's loading gauge is more arched than the continental one and it's the corners that are the problem. But in electrification, it's the centre line that matters and there's no particular reason European railways would routinely build bridges with excess clearance for no reason.

I suspect the biggest reason is that the UK's coal reserves and expertise with steam locos, combined with the smaller distances it needed to cover (and therefore the lighter loads it tended to run) made electrification less beneficial when not a mature technology. This is amply exemplified by the quick electrification of suburban all-stopping trains early on but leaving the main lines to later, and the coalescence of Europe on less efficient formats like 1.5/3KV DC or 15KV 16.6(7)hz AC, rather than the eventual global standard of 25KV AC. In the 50s and 60s it was thought that the coal reserves could be used in power stations to enable Steam > Electric conversion directly (not sure if this was ever official policy) but the availability of Cheap Oil, first from USA then North Sea Oil meant dieselisation was a more cost-effective programme.

 

[RT4038]

The Milwaukee Road would beg to differ on this.

And where are they, and their electrification, now?

 

[Arkeeos]

(Unsure if this should be filed under International instead...)

Why is only 38% of the UK rail network electrified? Looking at the stats here European Rail Electrification Stats, we fall well behind all our peer countries (we're even behind places like Turkey and Serbia fgs). It's not as if our peers decided to spend on electric rail instead of motorways either as the UK motorway network is also really cadaverous compared to our peers (and I know some German roads classified as autobahns are just dual carriageways), but our m'way route mileage also falls well behind Germany, France and Spain.

So what have we been spending all our infra money on over the last century? Is the UK terrible at project management? Is there endemic corruption? Where has all the money gone? On most measures of infra route length, the UK doesn't even hit the median.

Because the UK does not value electrification, and has not valued it in the past, (expect for in the south east where, big shock! It’s nearly 100% electrified).

“The UK has rural lines” isn’t an argument when Germany exists, with higher electrification and more rural lines.

“The UKs rail network is big” the UKs population and economy is also big, not an excuse.

Why do you think east west rail is not being built electrified, because it is simply not valued.

 

[ac6000cw]

And where are they, and their electrification, now?

Quite.

(For those unfamiliar, the partial electrification - 650 miles out of 2300 - of the 'Pacific Extension' was abandoned in 1974, and the the whole railroad filed for bankruptcy in 1977 - for the third time in its history. But it became the 4th player (after GN, NP and UP) in the Midwest-Northwest market when the 'Pacific Extension' was opened in 1909 and traffic didn't develop as hoped - it probably should never have been built in the first place).

 

[eldomtom2]

In the 50s and 60s it was thought that the coal reserves could be used in power stations to enable Steam > Electric conversion directly (not sure if this was ever official policy)

Not only was it an idea that gained quite a deal of currency in the government, it had been around for a long time - there were a series of government reports investigating electrification, and generally being in favour of it, during the whole interwar period.

The United States is a huge country which would make electrification there expensive. The railroad companies I think would either have to build large numbers substations, often in very remote locations or put up with high transmission losses. I assume therefore for these companies it is more profitable to run very long but infrequent diesel powered trains rather than more frequent electric trains.

America isn't just the Rockies. And while passenger railroads in the US may not be explicitly opposed to electrification (unlike the freight railroads), it is shocking from a European standpoint just how much they don't see electrification as an option - they don't even dismiss it, it's just not something they consider.

 

[ac6000cw]

And while passenger railroads in the US may not be explicitly opposed to electrification (unlike the freight railroads), it is shocking from a European standpoint just how much they don't see electrification as an option - they don't even dismiss it, it's just not something they consider.

So the Amtrak New Haven to Boston electrification and and more recently the Caltrain San Francisco - San Jose electrification project are complete mirages are they?

America is well known for its generous loading gauges yet its freight railroads outright refuse to electrify.

Where have you seen that information - I've been interested in American railroading for more than 25 years and I've never read anything that states that?

Over the decades, several large railroads have looked at electrification but not gone any further because the economics have never worked out (I think the last time there was serious interest was during the 1970s oil price crisis). Back then, Conrail did look at extending the ex-Pennsy electrification further west from Harrisburg/Enola Yard to the Pittsburgh area, but with the transfer of most of the existing electrified route mileage to Amtrak and consequent re-routing of freight traffic away from it due to track access charges etc., it didn't make sense (and they eventually ceased electric operations altogether).

 

[Fleetmaster]

It obviously goes back to post war rebuilding, so the first failure was sticking with steam, because coal was in plentiful supply and we knew and loved those kettles on wheels.

Into the 60s and 70s, electricity was often in short supply and needed for domestic and industrial needs, but diesel was often cheap and diesel trains were easy to build. And of course, climate change, environmental and children's health weren't a thing yet.

Electrification was adopted solely where there was overwhelming benefit, and the timing was fortuitous since we were now able to build and operate electric traction reliably in ways we hadn't already done it (third rail commuting).

Into the 80s, the political climate simply would never have allowed such a huge state investment in a thing of the past, despite Thatcher being the first to identify climate change as a serious issue.

Into the 90s and on through to Covid, the absolute farce that was the WCML upgrade means that people just don't believe it is worth doing, even if it can be argued it is worth doing.

And quite obviously into the next century, vehicle level innovation, such as batteries and opportunity charging (or hydrogen) are the more logical choices, rather than the technology of the past that in most people's minds, rightly or wrongly, is the main reason the trains don't run in adverse weather or just, well, because.

Last but not least, anyone electrifying the UK railway today, has to explain where they would get the labour and materials as well as the access and the actual electricity, given alarm bells are already being sounded about our glaring lack of readiness for upgrading the generating capacity and the grid for the forthcoming explosion in domestic and industrial electricity consumption.

 

[zwk500]

It obviously goes back to post war rebuilding, so the first failure was sticking with steam, because coal was in plentiful supply and we knew and loved those kettles on wheels.

The primary reason for sticking with Steam was the locos were far cheaper to build and labour was cheap enough that the labour-intensity wasn't a big problem.

Into the 60s and 70s, electricity was often in short supply and needed for domestic and industrial needs, but diesel was often cheap and diesel trains were easy to build. And of course, climate change, environmental and children's health weren't a thing yet.

Electricity supply wasn't a problem foreseeable in 1968 when Steam traction ended. It was largely the fact that diesels could replace steam without significant infrastructure works, and therefore quickly that got them the nod..

Into the 80s, the political climate simply would never have allowed such a huge state investment in a thing of the past, despite Thatcher being the first to identify climate change as a serious issue.

So the ECML electrification didn't happen then?

Into the 90s and on through to Covid, the absolute farce that was the WCML upgrade means that people just don't believe it is worth doing, even if it can be argued it is worth doing.

The WCML didn't stop electrification, although the GWML upgraded didn't help.

And quite obviously into the next century, vehicle level innovation, such as batteries and opportunity charging (or hydrogen) are the more logical choices, rather than the technology of the past that in most people's minds, rightly or wrongly, is the main reason the trains don't run in adverse weather or just, well, because.

Batteries or other on-train power will only be part of the solution though. Electrification is still a viable rail technology.

Last but not least, anyone electrifying the UK railway today, has to explain where they would get the labour and materials as well as the access and the actual electricity, given alarm bells are already being sounded about our glaring lack of readiness for upgrading the generating capacity and the grid for the forthcoming explosion in domestic and industrial electricity consumption.

This is indeed a massive problem. Decades of successive governments kicking cans down roads have led to a critical point.

 

[eldomtom2]

So the Amtrak New Haven to Boston electrification and and more recently the Caltrain San Francisco - San Jose electrification project are complete mirages are they?

Considering that one is from the 90s (and Boston's commuter trains are still all diesel) and the other probably wouldn't have happened without CAHSR...

Where have you seen that information - I've been interested in American railroading for more than 25 years and I've never read anything that states that?

The AAR officially and explicitly completely opposes electrification.

 

[Mike Machin]

So the Amtrak New Haven to Boston electrification and and more recently the Caltrain San Francisco - San Jose electrification project are complete mirages are they?


Where have you seen that information - I've been interested in American railroading for more than 25 years and I've never read anything that states that?

Over the decades, several large railroads have looked at electrification but not gone any further because the economics have never worked out (I think the last time there was serious interest was during the 1970s oil price crisis). Back then, Conrail did look at extending the ex-Pennsy electrification further west from Harrisburg/Enola Yard to the Pittsburgh area, but with the transfer of most of the existing electrified route mileage to Amtrak and consequent re-routing of freight traffic away from it due to track access charges etc., it didn't make sense (and they eventually ceased electric operations altogether).

The large Freight Railroads in the USA could never justify electrification, as they have to return a profit and they have their shareholders to keep happy. The sheer scale of American railroading makes electrification a non-starter away from urban areas. The average US long-distance freight train can several miles in length, and the current draw to start some of these enormous loads would be immense.
In the more remote areas, access to trackside infrastructure could be problematic, as would climatic conditions - from the heat of the Arizona desert to the blistering cold of the North East in Winter would make great demands on the infrastructure.

In the UK, it can be a pain to dispatch maintenance teams to what we think of as remote areas, perhaps ten or twenty miles from a sizeable town and a mile or two from a main road. In the USA, a breakdown in the catenary could possibly be a hundred miles from civilisation and dozens of miles from a main highway, across a desert or in mountainous terrain.

Freight traffic in America is not only highly lucrative, but even the longest freight trains of around 100 cars often run fast and frequently is tightly scheduled and the shippers rely on near split-second 'just-in-time' deliveries. It's doubtful that such a reliable service could be provided using electric traction.

 

[eldomtom2]

Freight traffic in America is not only highly lucrative, but even the longest freight trains of around 100 cars often run fast and frequently is tightly scheduled and the shippers rely on near split-second 'just-in-time' deliveries. It's doubtful that such a reliable service could be provided using electric traction.

What is this nonsense? American railroads are infamous for being slow and unreliable, and most shippers will back me up on this. As for electric being more unreliable...!