Why is so little of the British network electrified compared to other countries?

[urbophile]

The thread on pollution at Birmingham New Street prompted this question. New Street is one of the major interchanges (perhaps, London aside, the biggest) in the country and yet so many of the trains using it are diesel powered. It should be a no-brainer for any main lines through the heart of a major city to be pollution free.

By contrast, the railway system in Italy, apart from a few minor rural lines, is almost completely electrified. Genova, the city I know best there, is smaller than Birmingham, and geographically more peripheral to the rest of the country; nevertheless most trains run through the city in tunnel between the two main stations and all are electrically powered. Historically, and still today, Italy has had a weaker economy than the UK, so why the discrepancy?

As far as I know, the Netherlands and Belgium have also electrified virtually 100% of their networks, and other European countries a much higher proportion than we have. The reluctance to modernise obviously goes much further back than 21st century 'austerity', so what other explanations are there?

 

[Iskra]

The thread on pollution at Birmingham New Street prompted this question. New Street is one of the major interchanges (perhaps, London aside, the biggest) in the country and yet so many of the trains using it are diesel powered. It should be a no-brainer for any main lines through the heart of a major city to be pollution free.

By contrast, the railway system in Italy, apart from a few minor rural lines, is almost completely electrified. Genova, the city I know best there, is smaller than Birmingham, and geographically more peripheral to the rest of the country; nevertheless most trains run through the city in tunnel between the two main stations and all are electrically powered. Historically, and still today, Italy has had a weaker economy than the UK, so why the discrepancy?

As far as I know, the Netherlands and Belgium have also electrified virtually 100% of their networks, and other European countries a much higher proportion than we have. The reluctance to modernise obviously goes much further back than 21st century 'austerity', so what other explanations are there?

The networks you mention were almost wholly destroyed in WWII. They then rebuilt almost completely from scratch, including electrification.

Our network wasn't destroyed, but patched up a lot, so we've just done it here and there which is a more expensive approach.

It may also be to do with coal supply/prices in England- we had a plentiful supply, whereas the other countries didn't. Oil prices may have also had an effect- I think it only started getting expensive in the 70's from memory.

Also, the Italian railways have huge debts and lose a 7-figure sum every day.

 

[matacaster]

Its also easier to electrify if your loading gauge and clearances are much larger than those in UK.

 

[6Gman]

Good reasons already given. Add in:

1. In early post-war years there were heavy restrictions on supply of many of the materials needed.
2. UK is more US-orientated than mainland European countries and therefore tended more to the US way (of dieselisation).
3. From the mid-50s there was a rush to eliminate steam (for many reasons) and diesels were the quickest means to achieve this.
4. The first big main-line post-war scheme (the WCML) was plagued by overspending - and was nearly curtailed at one point.
5. Stop-start policies from Whitehall.
6. Escalating costs of doing pretty well anything.
7. Poor project delivery (GWML cough).

etc etc

 

[hooverboy]

straight answer is most of it was not bombed into oblivion after the last war.

the countries that got blown to bits also had the opportunity of starting with a blank canvas,whereas we are still hogtied by nostalgia and listed buildings.
same applies to standardised platform heights,straight tracks etc etc.

 

[30907]

One other factor is that mainline electrification in parts of mainland Europe was well under way pre WW2, compared with only the Southern here (IMO the Brighton and Portsmouth schemes are main line) - the rest, like Woodhead, was still on the drawing board in 1939. It therefore didn't make sense to revert to steam or divert to diesel.

@HooverBoy I think you overestimate the amount of change that WW2 "facilitated" - most lines remained on the same alignment as before!

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

It sounds like to me that the only other country in Europe that has a fully electrified network that wasn't linked to bombing is Switzerland. I think aside form heritage routes that entire network has 15kV overhead lines in the system. Everywhere else seems to have needed a rebuild after being blown up, least according to everyone else's answers.

 

[trash80]

Its also very stop start here, the WCML is done, then only small projects before the ECML and then a long period of nothing much. Expertise is lost and assets expire. If a steady programme had been followed since the 1960s then things would be a bit different now.

 

[Iskra]

@HooverBoy I think you overestimate the amount of change that WW2 "facilitated" - most lines remained on the same alignment as before!

I disagree with that view. Barely a bridge or junction was left usable, certainly in Italy at the end of WWII. Allied fighter bombers bombed the railways so much that they ran out of things to bomb. Anything left was destroyed in the land fighting or by retreating Axis forces.

They might have used the same alignment, but only after extensive repairs.

 

[6Gman]

Its also very stop start here, the WCML is done, then only small projects before the ECML and then a long period of nothing much. Expertise is lost and assets expire. If a steady programme had been followed since the 1960s then things would be a bit different now.

BR drew up more than one long-term programme (IIRC) for electrification. But the sustained long-term funding was never made available.

 

[Iskra]

BR drew up more than one long-term programme (IIRC) for electrification. But the sustained long-term funding was never made available.

That was probably down to the rise of the motor car.

Lots of reasons really, but mainly economics.

 

[edwin_m]

One other factor is that mainline electrification in parts of mainland Europe was well under way pre WW2, compared with only the Southern here (IMO the Brighton and Portsmouth schemes are main line) - the rest, like Woodhead, was still on the drawing board in 1939. It therefore didn't make sense to revert to steam or divert to diesel.

@HooverBoy I think you overestimate the amount of change that WW2 "facilitated" - most lines remained on the same alignment as before!

Fully agree. The French and Italians for example had electrified many lines before WW2. Although many junctions had been bombed, reinstating the overhead line would only have been a small part of the restoration work - and if the lines hadn't been electrified in the first place then limited resources would most likely have been devoted to restoring in the quickest way possible rather than electrifying as well.

It sounds like to me that the only other country in Europe that has a fully electrified network that wasn't linked to bombing is Switzerland. I think aside form heritage routes that entire network has 15kV overhead lines in the system. Everywhere else seems to have needed a rebuild after being blown up, least according to everyone else's answers.

Electrification in Switzerland was due to having plenty of hydropower but having to import coal or oil. This may also have been the case in other Alpine and Scandinavian countries.

Having large quantities of coal in the UK cuts both ways - it could be used to fuel steam locos but also to generate electricity. If indigenous energy sources were the dominant factor as they were in Switzerland, we ought to have gone straight from steam to electric rather than having so many diesels. So I think it's down to having other priorities for government spending in the 50s and 60s (the NHS and nuclear weaponry to name just two), combined with the dominant political view at the time that roads were the future. By the 70s the WCML had largely proved that large-scale electrification would make the railway relevant again for long-distance travel, but then the engineers came up with the HST as a way to achieve similar benefits without all that cost...

 

[Mag_seven]

It sounds like to me that the only other country in Europe that has a fully electrified network that wasn't linked to bombing is Switzerland. I think aside form heritage routes that entire network has 15kV overhead lines in the system. Everywhere else seems to have needed a rebuild after being blown up, least according to everyone else's answers.

The main reason why Switzerland has a fully electrified network is due to a lot of cheap hydro electricity.

 

[Chester1]

It sounds like to me that the only other country in Europe that has a fully electrified network that wasn't linked to bombing is Switzerland. I think aside form heritage routes that entire network has 15kV overhead lines in the system. Everywhere else seems to have needed a rebuild after being blown up, least according to everyone else's answers.

When you consider how much of a problem low bridges are to UK electrification projects its not surprising. Imagine if all of the ~35 bridges (many listed) between Chester and Crewe had been destroyed. I think most brits don't realise that the bombing of Europe was a level of magnitude higher than the German bombing of the UK due to enormous leaps in airplane capacity and production between the start of the war and the end.

Switzerland decided to electrify in the early 20th century because it is a neutral landlocked country with very little coal and no oil reverses but plenty of hydro electricity. It was about national security in an increasingly hostile international scene so in a different sort of way its WW2 related but preemptive.

 

[Iskra]

Fully agree. The French and Italians for example had electrified many lines before WW2. Although many junctions had been bombed, reinstating the overhead line would only have been a small part of the restoration work - and if the lines hadn't been electrified in the first place then limited resources would most likely have been devoted to restoring in the quickest way possible rather than electrifying as well.


Electrification in Switzerland was due to having plenty of hydropower but having to import coal or oil. This may also have been the case in other Alpine and Scandinavian countries.

Having large quantities of coal in the UK cuts both ways - it could be used to fuel steam locos but also to generate electricity. If indigenous energy sources were the dominant factor as they were in Switzerland, we ought to have gone straight from steam to electric rather than having so many diesels. So I think it's down to having other priorities for government spending in the 50s and 60s (the NHS and nuclear weaponry to name just two), combined with the dominant political view at the time that roads were the future. By the 70s the WCML had largely proved that large-scale electrification would make the railway relevant again for long-distance travel, but then the engineers came up with the HST as a way to achieve similar benefits without all that cost...

I don’t know much about the French railway, but to say many Italian lines were electrified before WWII is an exaggeration. Yes, some were and it was better than what we had achieved in Britain by the same point, but it definitely can’t be counted as ‘many.’ It was still only a very small part of their network.

 

[Western Lord]

Having large quantities of coal in the UK cuts both ways - it could be used to fuel steam locos but also to generate electricity. If indigenous energy sources were the dominant factor as they were in Switzerland, we ought to have gone straight from steam to electric rather than having so many diesels.

That was exactly what was originally envisaged after nationalisation. The Standard steam classes were intended to serve until electrification and that is why the LMS and Southern diesel projects were not followed up. Unfortunately by the mid fifties the railways were losing so much money that the modernisation plan was conceived, with diesels replacing steam as soon as possible.

 

[AndrewE]

I'm sorry to have to say that I think it's because of Treasury opposition to a sustained railway investment programme, the result of repeated failures to deliver and cost over-runs ever since the 1950s!

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Fully agree. The French and Italians for example had electrified many lines before WW2. Although many junctions had been bombed, reinstating the overhead line would only have been a small part of the restoration work - and if the lines hadn't been electrified in the first place then limited resources would most likely have been devoted to restoring in the quickest way possible rather than electrifying as well.


Electrification in Switzerland was due to having plenty of hydropower but having to import coal or oil. This may also have been the case in other Alpine and Scandinavian countries.

Having large quantities of coal in the UK cuts both ways - it could be used to fuel steam locos but also to generate electricity. If indigenous energy sources were the dominant factor as they were in Switzerland, we ought to have gone straight from steam to electric rather than having so many diesels. So I think it's down to having other priorities for government spending in the 50s and 60s (the NHS and nuclear weaponry to name just two), combined with the dominant political view at the time that roads were the future. By the 70s the WCML had largely proved that large-scale electrification would make the railway relevant again for long-distance travel, but then the engineers came up with the HST as a way to achieve similar benefits without all that cost...

The main reason why Switzerland has a fully electrified network is due to a lot of cheap hydro electricity.

When you consider how much of a problem low bridges are to UK electrification projects its not surprising. Imagine if all of the ~35 bridges (many listed) between Chester and Crewe had been destroyed. I think most brits don't realise that the bombing of Europe was a level of magnitude higher than the German bombing of the UK due to enormous leaps in airplane capacity and production between the start of the war and the end.

Switzerland decided to electrify in the early 20th century because it is a neutral landlocked country with very little coal and no oil reverses but plenty of hydro electricity. It was about national security in an increasingly hostile international scene so in a different sort of way its WW2 related but preemptive.

Wow! Such abundance of information in such a short period of time! I guess you learn something new every day. I mean it shouldn't be any surprise to me really since the Swiss love their hydroelectricity. It would also kind of explain why the air is so clean as well, since not only do you not have diesels blowing out black smoke and such, but it seems the lack of coal and oil use really plays a large part in the country as a whole. Either way it's certainly filling in the gap as to why it's wholly electrified without being bombed (not that bombing should be an incentive for electrification).

 

[RSA BOB]

I wonder when some of the towns and city's will tell the cov and network rail that ALL diesel engines will be banned to enter their area's under the clean air / health and safety acts as they will be trying to do this for all other transport.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

straight answer is most of it was not bombed into oblivion after the last war.

the countries that got blown to bits also had the opportunity of starting with a blank canvas,whereas we are still hogtied by nostalgia and listed buildings.
same applies to standardised platform heights,straight tracks etc etc.

The simplest answer I give on this and many similar topics is " Because Britain won the 2nd world war".

 

[Amstel]

As someone who was around in the 1950s and whose father worked on the railways, the predominant view of the railways was that we should switch from steam to electric, but the politicians decided diesel would be cheaper (are your ears burning, Grayling?).

The view in the general population was that cars would be predominant in the future (as they are), but Beeching made the mistake that they would replace railways, not that people would make additional journeys as well as rail journeys.

And finally there has always been the reluctance amongst politicians in this country to spend money on infrastructure (outside London, anyway). Instead of places like Manchester to Sheffield being connected by motorway, we have a road that Dick Turpin would recognise.

 

[urbophile]

The simplest answer I give on this and many similar topics is " Because Britain won the 2nd world war".

That, and the post-imperial reluctance to abandon the myth that we are different and 'superior' to the rest of Europe, and an obsession with America... all feeding into the disaster that is Brexit, and the paralysis that will put paid to any significant investment in the railway network or anything else for the foreseeable future.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The simplest answer I give on this and many similar topics is " Because Britain won the 2nd world war".

That, and the post-imperial reluctance to abandon the myth that we are different and 'superior' to the rest of Europe, and an obsession with America... all feeding into the disaster that is Brexit, and the paralysis that will put paid to any significant investment in the railway network or anything else for the foreseeable future.

Yes, IIRC USA gave Europe/loaned under the Marshall plan lots of money. Germany, Italy, France etc spent theirs on the infrastructure destroyed by Bomber Command et al. Britain spent its on growing a big dick and acquiring nuclear technology - not its infrastructure. And not to be too political but that was by Clement Atlee - a Labour Prime Minister. Conservatives under Churchill came up with the Modernisation plan.

 

[InOban]

Another factor was that we had lots of coal. France and Italy input in particular base very little.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Germany actually de-electrified in the Soviet sector after the war.
For reparations, the Soviets dismantled the existing electrified routes (wires and steelwork), and in many cases singled the track into the bargain.
DR in East Germany (DDR) was crippled for years before the track and wires gradually went back - some only after reunification.
The metal went into Soviet reconstruction.
The western allies had the same powers of post-war reparation in their sectors but hardly used them (except for technology like rocketry).

Other European countries also had state-controlled rail industries for longer and each had pretty much established one standard overhead system.

The autonomy of the BR Regions also played a part in slow electrification development in GB. ​

The "cheaper" Southern 3rd rail network clouded the wider electrification issue in GB in the 1950s (still does really), preventing a single interoperable standard.
If the Bournemouth and Kent Coast 3rd rail electrification had been OHLE schemes, we might be in a different place today.
The Western was never interested in wires.
We also concentrated on suburban electrification (GE, Mersey, Manchester, Tyne, Glasgow etc) rather than main line or linking systems together to form an extended network.
And the first main line we (or rather the LNER) chose to electrify was the GC through Woodhead!

 

[squizzler]

The best technology, 25kv AC, only was developed in the 1950's so not quite ready to deploy in the immediate aftermath of the second world war.

I think part of the problem might relate to the unplanned nature of the UK network, with several competing mainlines on the principle routes. The UK network was also extraordinarily dense back in the day. This must have made it difficult to pick the best route to electrify, and meant that any electrification would only serve some of the traffic on a given route.

That said, I think the failure of British strategic planning was the main cause.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

One other factor is that mainline electrification in parts of mainland Europe was well under way pre WW2, compared with only the Southern here (IMO the Brighton and Portsmouth schemes are main line) - the rest, like Woodhead, was still on the drawing board in 1939. It therefore didn't make sense to revert to steam or divert to diesel.

@HooverBoy I think you overestimate the amount of change that WW2 "facilitated" - most lines remained on the same alignment as before!

One of the issues "down south" was the poor access to local coalfields , (4 pits in Kent) , so loco coal had to be hauled from South Wales or the Yorks , Notts and Derby coalfield. This would have cost the SR a small fortune.

The obvious other thing in 3d rail land , was the great competition with tramways , an overall increasing metropolis and the suburban boom from 1900 onwards (as well as before) , high volumes and congested routes. Power stations for electric generation could be served by the fleet of Tyne Colliers to the Thameside and other Power stations. As the Underground system did.

 

[edwin_m]

Actually there was considerable co-operation in selecting the electrification system for the UK. See for example the 1927 committee report , chaired by HMRI and with members or contributors including Aspinall, Gresley, Herbert Jones of the Southern and someone from London Electric Railways (GWR, as ever, notable by its absence!).

Although no extension of the higher voltage (1,500) has been made, the Committee still consider that the higher voltage must be retained, especially for main line long distance working. They therefore recommend two "standards"
...
For the higher voltage, overhead collection with uninsulated return via the running rails.

So the "standardisation" of 1500V overhead goes back to the 1920s with the reservation that shorter-distance schemes could use 750V, which was obviously well established at the time. The report also notes the intention to discontinue the LBSCR overhead system. In 1927 there were 77 track-miles of 1500V electrification, unchanged from the previous report seven years earlier - this must be Newport-Shildon unless anyone can thing of anywhere else done that early!

There is a whole series of these reports viewable on the link below including those describing the adoption of 25kV.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/do...hor=all&publisher=all&published=all&submit=Go

 

[Gareth Marston]

......and we have to remember that British Railways was forced by law until 1963 (Railway and Canal Traffic Acts) to provide facilities to carry anything brought to it at any point. Half the modernization plan money was spent on marshaling yards and trip diesel locomotives instead of wring main lines/suburban networks and rural branches and secondary lines were over provided with facilities and staff increasing running costs because that was the consequence of what the law demanded.

 

[30907]

I disagree with that view. Barely a bridge or junction was left usable, certainly in Italy at the end of WWII. Allied fighter bombers bombed the railways so much that they ran out of things to bomb. Anything left was destroyed in the land fighting or by retreating Axis forces.

They might have used the same alignment, but only after extensive repairs.

I agree, and that was the point I was trying to make. I don't know either way whether having to rebuild overbridges gave an advantage, and possibly the availability of "cleared" land gave space for quadrupling and flyovers for the W German S-Bahn network?