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

[DEE-DE]

I seem to remember having read something about certain countries applying fuel taxes to railway diesel as well. Think it was Germany that did and the UK didn't.

 

[B&I]

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.

Although the damage caused only a temporary detour to 'Von Ryan's Express'

 

[B&I]

L

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.

Although the damage caused only a temporary detour to 'Von Ryan's Express'

 

[Gareth Marston]

L


Although the damage caused only a temporary detour to 'Von Ryan's Express'

The % success rate of RAF Bomber Command and the US Army Air Forces daylight B17 raids was very low. High altitude bombing was highly inaccurate in the 1940's which is why they tried to carpet bomb areas - even this achieved poor results. Most of bombing caused collateral damage often even miles away from the intended target.

 

[RLBH]

Most of bombing caused collateral damage often even miles away from the intended target.

What did for the rail networks wasn't strategic bombing, but operational and tactical bombing carried out in direct support of planned operations. By way of example, in the run-up to Operation NEPTUNE, considerable effort was put in to dismantling the railway network in northern France to prevent movement of reinforcements.

 

[JonasB]

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.

Those were probably the main reasons for electrifying in Sweden, where the first electric railway opened in 1895 and SJ started electrifying the main lines in the 1910s.

But it wasn't the only reason, environmental concerns was also part of it. Steam locos were noisy and polluting compared to electric. And electric locos required less maintenance.

 

[mallard]

It's yet another symptom of the overwhelming short-termism that plauges British politics.

Diesels allowed a rapid "improvement" cheaply in the short-term, even though they're far more expensive and ecologically disasterous in the long-term.

Elecrification of any significant route usually takes longer than a parliamentary term, costs more in the short-term and causes short-term disruption (which upsets local residents, affecting the next election), even though it results in a cheaper to run, far less ecologically damaging and generally "better" (faster, more reliable) rail system in the long-term.

Since politicians and voters rarely base their decisions on anything beyond a roughly 12-month "window" (6 months in the past, 6 months in the future), long-term improvments don't win votes and thus don't motivate politicians.

 

[DarloRich]

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?

I suspect it is a combination of factors:

1. Not having a "reset" caused by bombing after the second world war
2. Steam continuing here longer than elsewhere ( but that kept miners working)
3. Desire of central government to invest
4. investment monies not used as well as possible ( Modernisation plan v common carrier)
5. lack of strategic direction
6. bad choices

 

[The Ham]

It's yet another symptom of the overwhelming short-termism that plauges British politics.

Diesels allowed a rapid "improvement" cheaply in the short-term, even though they're far more expensive and ecologically disasterous in the long-term.

Elecrification of any significant route usually takes longer than a parliamentary term, costs more in the short-term and causes short-term disruption (which upsets local residents, affecting the next election), even though it results in a cheaper to run, far less ecologically damaging and generally "better" (faster, more reliable) rail system in the long-term.

Since politicians and voters rarely base their decisions on anything beyond a roughly 12-month "window" (6 months in the past, 6 months in the future), long-term improvments don't win votes and thus don't motivate politicians.

Quite, in a different matter 9 years ago MP's said that the three mile walk distance for 8 year olds for going to school was too big and needed reviewing. Yet nothing had happened.

Likewise the government has said that they should also look to remove diesel trains from the network by 2040 like they have said for cars. Yet there's no long term plan for electrification.

 

[Gareth Marston]

What did for the rail networks wasn't strategic bombing, but operational and tactical bombing carried out in direct support of planned operations. By way of example, in the run-up to Operation NEPTUNE, considerable effort was put in to dismantling the railway network in northern France to prevent movement of reinforcements.

True though only in certain places though- planned around impeding German reinforcements/supply and/or facilitating allied advance. It did leave a patchwork of totally unusable and relatively intact parts of networks.

 

[richieb1971]

Just like everything we do, we take our foot off the gas. We invent something, let others take the idea and make it better and then fall behind. I Can't think of a single thing that we invented and still make the best of it.

Personally I'd rather have Britain built a HS2 about 50 years ago rather than wait until now. All these minor upgrades have taken us to this point. Whilst OHLE brings benefits, the curves in the tracks are limiting our speed limit to 125mph or less which is NEVER going to give us a competitive edge. If the LNER was LNWR on the west coast of the country our HS2 would already have been built, since a straight line up north to the west country would have been an ideal platform for HS2. I always hear stuff like "You can only save 1.5 minutes by putting OHLE in place". Well thats because once you hit the ceiling of 125mph, you have to slow down eventually and you can't speed up more. If the trains in the world go to 400mph, we won't be buying any of them, and even if we did we would only get into 2nd gear in them.

We also take pride in charging ourselves in multiple for the same amount of work done elsewhere. 1 mile of OHLE would definitely cost the most in the UK compared to anywhere else in the world, if not it would definitely be in the top 2 or 3 countries.

I would also argue that in the past 50 years all the OHLE built is going into London. North of the EW axis of London there is very little if anything OHLE going East/West. The current EWR plan was to be built with OHLE in mind, but guess what, its cancelled.

Of course quite a lot of what is said by me is with the advantage of hindsight. Nobody invests in a project which will see losses based on statistics. But the railways have surprised people by becoming a profitable tour de force and a viable way to get to London. However, I feel the customers are funnelled into this choice as its the only viable one left. Traffic is at an all time high on the roads, you have congestion charges and parking fee's through the roof. The train bypasses all of this at a cheaper cost.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Besides comparing to countries that were on "our side" of the Iron Curtain it's perhaps also worth looking at the former Eastern-Bloc countries such as Poland and Czechia. The latter has a fair amount of electrification (whilst not to the near-100% of The Netherlands and Belgium). I don't know enough about the damage that was done in WW2 in that area to know whether that's a factor, but the present-day situation is far more environmentally friendly than our own railway away from the Capital. It could well be the case that lines such as Prague-Plzen-Cheb were electrified after the end of the cold war and the split of Czechoslovakia, but either way the Czech (or Czechoslovakian) state sanctioned that investment whilst successive UK governments were reluctant to make similar commitments. Short-termism seems to be a peculiarly British disease.

 

[richieb1971]

Its because those countries had a low capita of people that could afford a brand new car most likely. The UK was not a country reliant on trains in the 50's and the government would like to think this way today.

 

[urbophile]

If the LNER was LNWR on the west coast of the country our HS2 would already have been built, since a straight line up north to the west country would have been an ideal platform for HS2. .

Can you explain this please? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me.

 

[richieb1971]

The LNER is very straight. If the west coast line was as straight it could have been hs2 upgraded rather than building a new line.

 

[AM9]

The LNER is very straight. If the west coast line was as straight it could have been hs2 upgraded rather than building a new line.

So your assertion is that the WCML, passing through all the centres that the Victorians thought important enough to justify having stops on their trunk route, would be a suitable candidate for a 300Km/H railway? Even if the centres that the ECML passes through would justify a high speed railway, I doubt that much of it would follow the classic route. High-speed lines don't mix well with urban (or even suburban) areas, - in the UK, with the protected green space around settlements and the obsession with property values, there is little chance of a high-speed line following even the best classic lines.

 

[richieb1971]

Higher speeds would be easier to sustain in general. As it stands we need hs2 bypassing half the country stops. 150 years of train evolution is admittedly a long time.

 

[6Gman]

Its because those countries had a low capita of people that could afford a brand new car most likely. The UK was not a country reliant on trains in the 50's and the government would like to think this way today.

I think it was !

 

[richieb1971]

Reliance and believing its the best, must have been a hard choice in them days. What year did cars come to be No1?

 

[urbophile]

The LNER is very straight. If the west coast line was as straight it could have been hs2 upgraded rather than building a new line.

But it wouldn't have been much use because it would hardly have served any cities. And the west side of the country is hillier anyway.

 

[Ianno87]

The LNER is very straight. If the west coast line was as straight it could have been hs2 upgraded rather than building a new line.

Physical geography and land ownership are the reasons for the relative curvaceousness of the WCML. Even then today's main line misses Birmingham*, Liverpool and Manchester ).

*Via Birmingham being the first main line, the Trent Valley coming later as a cut-off bypass to avoid congestion.

The alignment through Warrington also being the result of the Grand Junction railway joining onto the middle of the Liverpool & Manchester as the first connection to these cities, and the route north following after that.

 

[Bald Rick]

Dragging us back on topic...

The proportion of the network electrified is around 35% of route kms, and slightly more in track km terms.

The proportion of passenger km carried by electric trains (in electric mode, pedants) is not published anywhere I can find, but looks to be in the region of 60%, which feels much better.

Whilst the former number will edge up to around 40% in the coming years with the current electrification programme, the latter will go to over 70% in the next couple of years as a result of the electrification programme and the increasing use of bi-modes. My back of fag packet calcs suggest that the Western electrification alone will increase electrically hauled passenger km (ehpkm) by over 5%.

Personally I think the objective should be well over 80% ehpkm, and this should be achievable in the next decade or so, with more bi/tri modes, and more electrification (eg the Valley lines, Trans Pennine, and I’ll have a fiver on Chiltern getting some wires up in the next franchise.)

 

[Bald Rick]

The LNER is very straight. If the west coast line was as straight it could have been hs2 upgraded rather than building a new line.

Presumably why the ECML is being upgraded to 350km/h south of York, rather than building a branch off HS2 to serve Yorkshire and the North East.

Oh hang on...

 

[AndrewE]

Its because those countries had a low capita of people that could afford a brand new car most likely. The UK was not a country reliant on trains in the 50's and the government would like to think this way today.

I think you may be mistaken. In the 1950s road transport was still very limited (and a lot of the economy was still locally-based.) I remember a local cattle market, butchers with their own abbatoirs, BRS lorries - quite few in number - bread baked behind the shop.
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/transportissues/uktp_history.shtml is a bit dated now but has some relevant bits. What is conspicuous on pictures (on other websites) from then is how traffic-free the roads are.

 

[muddythefish]

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?

Simple.

Governments of all colours would rather spend money on roads rather than railways.

 

[Bald Rick]

Simple.

Governments of all colours would rather spend money on roads rather than railways.

#brokenrecord.

No doubt that was the case in the past. But absolutely not in the past two decades. Please check your facts and change your tune.

 

[muddythefish]

#brokenrecord.

No doubt that was the case in the past. But absolutely not in the past two decades. Please check your facts and change your tune.

#roadlobby

You seem very certain of yourself without providing any facts

 

[Bald Rick]

#roadlobby

You seem very certain of yourself without providing any facts

https://assets.publishing.service.g...tachment_data/file/629926/PESA_2017_print.pdf

Page 73 of this should help.

I build railways for a living; the very livelihood of my family depends on continued investment for the rail sector. I’m hardly going to be part of the roads lobby. I do, however, like to see these (generally useful and informative) pages contain information that is correct.

 

[richieb1971]

Presumably why the ECML is being upgraded to 350km/h south of York, rather than building a branch off HS2 to serve Yorkshire and the North East.

Oh hang on...

The ECML is a better designed railway in terms of making it high speed. Many of the curves I've seen just split fields in a certain way and could easily be aligned for straighter track alignment. Of course there is the level crossings. Places like Wolverton station, Old Linslade and Queensville Curve on the WCML would only server a high speed railway if they were at stations where everything stopped. And none of them are and thats just the 3 that came to the top of my head.

All this moving people around nonsense will soon be old hat anyway, tech finds a way and it often makes current tech obsolete. Just like if you have a phone you don't need a watch, a compass, a map. Eventually tech will over ride what is pre existing and it doesn't matter how much OHLE there is in the country, it will be obsolete. Will people need to travel to London when Virtual reality hits full swing and its actually like being there? I could do my job at home already. Sure a job exists in London that pays double my salary, but there is no reason I can't do that job from home either. Its just that someone out there doesn't like the idea of working from home yet. Once that bites the next generation trains will be empty. Just like all these chain stores opening and malls etc, people buy online now. A majority of people don't want to shop where they can easily be mugged.

Anyway, back to spending billions on OHLE.

 

[The Ham]

All this moving people around nonsense will soon be old hat anyway, tech finds a way and it often makes current tech obsolete. Just like if you have a phone you don't need a watch, a compass, a map. Eventually tech will over ride what is pre existing and it doesn't matter how much OHLE there is in the country, it will be obsolete.

Technology may reduce the need to travel, however it is unlikely to replace it totally.

For instance most of my rail travel has always been for lesure or for site visits which will always be required for my job regardless of what technology exists. Likewise my wife works in a science lab, that's not going to be something that can be done remotely. Not least because the cost associated with buying some of the scientific equipment and the need for it to be housed in climate controlled facilities to ensure that temperature isn't a variable in the results obtained.

Likewise if I'm going to see family that's not going to be something that I can replace with technology. Especially my children and their cousins playing on the beach together.

You also seem to forget that a significant number of people work for companies which have 250 staff or less. Such companies are unlikely to invest a lot of money in technology. As such there's likely to be still some business travel for some time (until the tech is cheap enough that they can justify it almost for personal reasons and/or until a client says that they won't pay for business travel).

Even with shopping there a big move towards click and collect as it enables people to buy things online whilst still having the advantage of not having to wait for it to be delivered or the associated delivery charges.

Yes technology is likely to change how we do things, but for the time being rail is still going to be part of the way people travel. In fact with the possible rise of automated electric vehicles which people don't own it could well be that rail sees an increase in use.