Electrification - do we really want more?

[70014IronDuke]

I full admit I used to be an enthusiast for further 25 kV electrification, but in the past year or two, I've got serious doubts.

How many times a week do we see posts on this forum along the lines of: Wires down on xxxx main line - disruption expected to the end of services - tickets may be used on yyy and zzz services.

If it's not the ECML, or the WCML it's Bedford-St Pancras.

I really do now question whether the whole shebang is worth pursuing. Maybe, just maybe, Newbury and Oxford - Paddington (for the commuter traffic), but i truly wonder about the rest. Coupled with the fact that electrification is so darned inflexible. If you electrify to Newbury, but not beyond, you are setting the services in stone for the next 10-15-20 years, unless you get bi-mode units - but there again, why bother? Ditto St Pancras-Corby.

Yes, I realise in theory that, if traffic is heavy, overhead electrification can be justified on grounds of lower cost, but in the end, with all the extra hassle involved, is it really lower cost?

Why not avoid the massive capital cost and just stick with diesel units - they are far more flexible if you want to change the service on offer (eg extend Newbury to Trowbridge, or ) and they don't have wires to bring down, nor signalling to immunise etc etc.

I really do wonder if it's not politically better PR to electrify, and that's why these decisions have been taken to go ahead with GWR and MML electrification, rather than further develop high-speed diesel units.

 

[HSTEd]

At the current capital cost being achieved in England - ~£2.5m/st.km - I also have serious doubts.
But I still believe the electric railway is inherently superior to the diesel one. [Especially in terms of air quality and noise etc]
The question is how to get costs under control - although it now appears the government has turned against electrification again thanks to the disaster unfolding on the GWML. So the point is moot anyway.

 

[tbtc]

How many times a week do we see posts on this forum along the lines of: Wires down on xxxx main line - disruption expected to the end of services - tickets may be used on yyy and zzz services.

If it's not the ECML, or the WCML it's Bedford-St Pancras

That may be an effect of reading sites like this, where every disruption becomes highlighted - things that would have passed you by otherwise (because they affect lines far from where you live, and weren't significant enough to warrant mention in a monthly railway magazine).

Same goes for the kind of confirmation bias you can get about things like level crossing "incidents" or Unions balloting members about pay rises - once you start noticing these things you can convince yourself they are a daily occurrence.

Why not avoid the massive capital cost and just stick with diesel units - they are far more flexible if you want to change the service on offer (eg extend Newbury to Trowbridge, or ) and they don't have wires to bring down, nor signalling to immunise etc etc

DMUs are more flexible (albeit more expensive). But what do you do about air quality (which will become a bigger and bigger issue in urban areas)? What do you do about variable fuel prices?

I still believe in electrification (though I've had my faith tested by recent problems) - the two issues ought to be getting things delivered on time/ on budget (which Network Rail seems to have a problem with...) and introducing stock that can cope with disruptions/ extensions/ diversions (bi-mode).

 

[najaB]

How many times a week do we see posts on this forum along the lines of: Wires down on xxxx main line - disruption expected to the end of services - tickets may be used on yyy and zzz services.

About half a time per week. Or one incident every two weeks or so.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Yes we do want more -Scotland seems to think so too and I have not heard of any project being cancelled there yet.
I started a thread a while back – “Electrification is not just about electrification”.
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=136891
I have extracted some points from it to illustrate.

1. Electrification usually results in quite a lot of infrastructure being maintained and renewed which is getting close to end of life anyway. Re-boring and renewing the Farnworth tunnel is one excellent example. Some will point to this as a reason for high costs but if the infrastructure needs maintaining /renewing anyway it is not really so.
2. Electrification results in faster acceleration, journey time improvements along with capacity improvements
3. Electrification results in lower maintenance cost with less wear and tear on the track etc.
4. Electrification allows us to go to a lower carbon strategy/economy and thus more “green”.
5. Electrification weans us off crude oil which means we are less dependent on world trouble spots such as the Middle East.
6. Electrification totally of certain areas such as Birmingham New Street (all services) will get rid of diesel particulates which have been shown to be troublesome.
9. It reduces noise pollution. (Onboard too)

 

[takno]

How many times a week do we see posts on this forum along the lines of: Wires down on xxxx main line - disruption expected to the end of services - tickets may be used on yyy and zzz services.

If it's not the ECML, or the WCML it's Bedford-St Pancras

To be fair it's mostly the ECML. The overhead there is pretty rubbish compared to the stuff that's going up now, which is a large part of the reason the new stuff is so expensive. Long story short, it won't be a significant issue on newly electrified lines, and broadly isn't on older ones apart from the ECML.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

To be fair it's mostly the ECML. The overhead there is pretty rubbish compared to the stuff that's going up now, which is a large part of the reason the new stuff is so expensive. Long story short, it won't be a significant issue on newly electrified lines, and broadly isn't on older ones apart from the ECML.

The Modernisation plan stuff - especially Manchester - Crewe and Liverpool - Crewe is very robust and was some say - over-engineered. It very rarely has problems. The WCML gets extremely intense use too.

 

[HSTEd]

The ECML stuff isn't that unreliable.
It is still far superior to a diesel railway in my opinion.

If someone said I could wake up to universal electrification tommorow, but it would all be ECML standard, I would take it in a heartbeat.

 

[Deepgreen]

About half a time per week. Or one incident every two weeks or so.

Timing is everything! From the Southern web site a few minutes ago :

"A fault with the electric third rail between Hastings and Eastbourne

Train services running between Eastbourne and Ashford International via Hastings are subject to delay alteration and cancellation.

The 13:50 Hastings to Charing Cross has stalled at St Leonards Warrior Square due to the train losing all the equipment that the train uses to make contact with the electric third rail which supplies the train with power to move.

There is currently a limited service between Eastbourne and Ashford International.

Buses are being mobilized to operate between Ashford International and Hastings and between Hastings and Eastbourne.

Brighton & Hove buses are accepting Southern tickets between Brighton and Eastbourne.

Southeastern are also affected by this problem."

 

[BestWestern]

I too have pondered this point. My issue is whether we will see significant progress in wiring only as the whole concept starts to look rather obselete. Perhaps the railway ought to be jumping on the bandwagon and investing in alternative means of powering trains instead? Or at least whether there is something other then erecting thousands of tons of cumbersome, eye-wateringly expensive metalwork every few yards. Battery trains with rapid charge at stations, for example? The kit is in use with urban bus systems. It can't be impossible to develop it for rail use, surely? All sorts of things are happening everywhere else in a very real sense now with power sources, leaving the railways looking somewhat behind the game.

 

[najaB]

Timing is everything! From the Southern web site a few minutes ago...

To be fair, that's a broken down train rather than a fault with the electrification.

 

[Deepgreen]

To be fair, that's a broken down train rather than a fault with the electrification.

I agree (and DC rather than OHLE), but it still seemed well timed.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I full admit I used to be an enthusiast for further 25 kV electrification, but in the past year or two, I've got serious doubts.

My issue is whether we will see significant progress in wiring only as the whole concept starts to look rather obsolete.
Perhaps the railway ought to be jumping on the bandwagon and investing in alternative means of powering trains instead?

I do not think at the moment there is an appetite for risk. So any unproven technology or newer technology for example. Hell – take a look at the infamous HOPS train. Supposed to be the savior and new technology. It wasn’t and became part of the problem and not the solution.

Or at least whether there is something other than erecting thousands of tons of cumbersome, eye-wateringly expensive metalwork every few yards. Battery trains with rapid charge at stations, for example? The kit is in use with urban bus systems. It can't be impossible to develop it for rail use, surely?

Of course it is not impossible long term but there are limits and again – new technology – unproven – which as I state above – there will not be the appetite for. You would need a feed to get all that charge into the batteries which will still be infrastructure upgrade. Does not get you freight trains decarbonized either.

All sorts of things are happening everywhere else in a very real sense now with power sources, leaving the railways looking somewhat behind the game.

Only seems to be the UK in parts. Crossrail is all electric. London Underground is all electric. I have no doubt that Crossrail 2, 3 , HS2 etc will be all electric. We are a long way off for a mass transport system -unless the politicians say screw the climate and lets continue to burn fossil fuels.

 

[fflint]

Yes I do but sadly I think the great western scheme fiasco has put the politicians in a position where it's likely that only the schemes that have boots on the ground now have a chance of being finished. I hope I'm wrong but after reading some of the coded messages coming from rail ministers and our beloved leader (re electrification to Swansea), I wouldn't bet my house on it.

 

[J-2739]

Electricity (25kv 50hz) is the future. We can't lose hope in it.

Electrification allows many benefits such as faster, cleaner and more frequent trains to run. So yes, we do need more.

Do we see other countries loosing faith in such grand schemes like this?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

At the end of the day we are all speculating. None of us know what will happen. The REALLY KEY LITMUS TEST - will be the May 2017 HLOS. From that we will get huge clues as to the direction forward.

 

[BestWestern]

Electricity (25kv 50hz) is the future. We can't lose hope in it.

Do we see other countries loosing faith in such grand schemes like this?

Are there many/any other countries playing catch-up with previously non-electrified lines to the level that we are?

 

[Macwomble]

Are there many/any other countries playing catch-up with previously non-electrified lines to the level that we are?

Probably not....but they did waste 50/60 years running diesel. WE should have gone straight to leccy from steam.

 

[modernrail]

The situation with GW should have been foreseen - that is my biggest gripe. NR did not have the skills or experience in-house and clearly did not bring in the right skills or experience. I am lost as to why they had so much blind faith in their ability to competently roll out a major scheme with no recent heritage in similar schemes. It is a really frustrating example of over-confidence leading to arrogance, and it has cost the taxpayer and railway user a huge amount of money.

Personally, I am interested to see how bi-modes operate but believe there are certain routes that should without doubt be electrified. I am thinking in particular of the Transpennine line (7 ish trains per hour in each direction plus freight), the Caldervale line and the Harrogate line. There may be others around Birmingham and Manchester that people think fall into the same category as the Harrogate Line. I also like the idea of tram-trains in the right place (for instance Castleford five towns area to Leeds) and would prefer that these are a mix of OH and battery.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Probably not....but they didn't waste 50/60 years running diesel. WE should have gone straight to leccy from steam.

Correct -we started with modernisation plan 1955 then lost our balls over the years.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

I certainly want to see the Calder Valley, Huddersfield, York & Selby and Pontefract lines being sparked up along with the Wessex Mainline, Heart of Wessex, the line between Temple Meads and New Street and New Street to Doncaster / Moorthorpe.

Put it this way:

- Grand Central can ditch their 180's and go electric.

- GWR can get shut of the 150's and replace the 158's on the Cardiff - Pompey / Brighton services with 387's. The 150's get scrapped and the 158's can be shifted to the East Midlands. Turbo's take over the Devon and Cornwall lines

- As with GWR, Northern can get rid of the 150's, 153's, 155's and the 2 car 158's and replace with class 377 hand me downs from Southern. The class 156's and three car 158's are retained to fill sections that aren't electrified e.g. the Knottingley-Goole, York-Sheffield via Ponte, Leeds - Sheffield via Barnsley and the Penistone lines.

- The Crosscountry Voyagers can be replaced with ECML hand-me-downs 9 car class 91's which in turn can see the Voyagers being tarted up to work Sheffield to Scarborough.

- It'd offer oppotunities for more services e.g. LDS to WSB via New Street.

 

[coppercapped]

The situation with GW should have been foreseen - that is my biggest gripe. NR did not have the skills or experience in-house and clearly did not bring in the right skills or experience. I am lost as to why they had so much blind faith in their ability to competently roll out a major scheme with no recent heritage in similar schemes. It is a really frustrating example of over-confidence leading to arrogance, and it has cost the taxpayer and railway user a huge amount of money.

I posted a potted history in the Great Western Electrification thread yesterday which explains how this came about. http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2856981&postcount=4324

'Arrogant' is not a word I would have used.

 

[modernrail]

I posted a potted history in the Great Western Electrification thread yesterday which explains how this came about. http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2856981&postcount=4324

'Arrogant' is not a word I would have used.

I have just read your post with interest. I accept that higher standards lead to higher costs but this should not lead to costs being above budget. I use the word arrogance because people involved in decision making should have been clear they were procuring to relevant standards and that was the basis for the budget. I can not imagine approving a construction on any other basis. I would expect both the DfT and NR to expect to be held to this standard, especially as they are playing with huge amounts of our money, whether as tax payers or passengers.

 

[BestWestern]

Put it this way:

- Grand Central can ditch their 180's and go electric.

- GWR can get shut of the 150's and replace the 158's on the Cardiff - Pompey / Brighton services with 387's. The 150's get scrapped and the 158's can be shifted to the East Midlands. Turbo's take over the Devon and Cornwall lines.

387s on Pompey - Cardiff? Yikes, no thanks!

Who will make use of the 180s? They are a long way off being life expired.

 

[J-2739]

Are there many/any other countries playing catch-up with previously non-electrified lines to the level that we are?

Hmmm, I do suppose we are a special case.

Is it down to us investing more in private roads back then compared to our continental cousins, who were a bit less drastic on the rails?

 

[coppercapped]

Yes we do want more -Scotland seems to think so too and I have not heard of any project being cancelled there yet.
I started a thread a while back – “Electrification is not just about electrification”.
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=136891
I have extracted some points from it to illustrate.

1. Electrification usually results in quite a lot of infrastructure being maintained and renewed which is getting close to end of life anyway. Re-boring and renewing the Farnworth tunnel is one excellent example. Some will point to this as a reason for high costs but if the infrastructure needs maintaining /renewing anyway it is not really so.
2. Electrification results in faster acceleration, journey time improvements along with capacity improvements
3. Electrification results in lower maintenance cost with less wear and tear on the track etc.
4. Electrification allows us to go to a lower carbon strategy/economy and thus more “green”.
5. Electrification weans us off crude oil which means we are less dependent on world trouble spots such as the Middle East.
6. Electrification totally of certain areas such as Birmingham New Street (all services) will get rid of diesel particulates which have been shown to be troublesome.
9. It reduces noise pollution. (Onboard too)

Could I pick up on your points as they do not tell the whole story? I assume you are discussing overhead electrification as third rail has effectively been ruled out for significant extensions.

1. Electrification usually results in quite a lot of infrastructure being maintained and renewed which is getting close to end of life anyway. Re-boring and renewing the Farnworth tunnel is one excellent example. Some will point to this as a reason for high costs but if the infrastructure needs maintaining /renewing anyway it is not really so.

Renewal, etc., may well happen. But it is not a pre-requisite for electrification except where clearance need to be improved for the overhead.

2. Electrification results in faster acceleration, journey time improvements along with capacity improvements

This implies that one is comparing future electric traction with current, that is up to 40 year old, diesel traction. Performance is a question of power-to-weight ratios. Modern diesel power plants can supply sufficient oomph for most purposes for speeds of up to about 200kph. Above this speed, and at the current state-of-the-art with diesel engines, the increase in air resistance demands an external electric power supply.

In practice, capacity - in terms of the number of trains which can be run - is more a question of terminal capacity, signalling, pinch points, etc., than it is about the type of energy supply to the trains.

3. Electrification results in lower maintenance cost with less wear and tear on the track etc.

This ain't necessarily so! The maintenance costs of the overhead are ignored in this statement - the total civils and fixed infrastructure costs will increase. Electric traction will almost certainly bring a reduction in rolling stock maintenance costs. Theoretically electric trains should be lighter than a diesel of equivalent performance as they don't have to carry the mass of the prime mover and, also theoretically, this should bring a reduction in track wear and tear. However suspension design also plays a very important role - the electric Desiros on the South West Trains network were responsible for significant track wear until a different design of suspension bush was fitted.

Mass is not everything!

4. Electrification allows us to go to a lower carbon strategy/economy and thus more “green”.

I agree with the first part of this statement, but the second part, assuming one can agree on the definition of 'green', is not necessarily a consequence of the first.

5. Electrification weans us off crude oil which means we are less dependent on world trouble spots such as the Middle East.

I don't know how often I have to say this - but the quantity of oil used by the railways in the UK is insignificant compared to that used by road transport. If all the trains in the country were electric the reduction in the quantity of oil used would be lost in the noise. Do the maths - for a start there are 28 million motor cars registered in this country. All the HGVs, Transit vans, buses and so on bring the total up to some 35 million vehicles. Against this there are some 3,000 diesel rail vehicles the last time I counted. A drop in the ocean - more so since the rolling resistance of rail vehicles is so much lower than for those with rubber tyres so they get more bang for the barrel!

This is not to say that we should not become less dependent on oil - but electrifying the railways is not an effective way to go about it.

6. Electrification totally of certain areas such as Birmingham New Street (all services) will get rid of diesel particulates which have been shown to be troublesome.

How may of these noisome trains have power units which meet Euro Stage 3B, or even 3A? Many were built before any emissions regulations applied to rail vehicles. It is entirely possible to improve matters with exhaust treatment - using 20 year old and more diesel technology as an example is not, of itself, an argument for electric traction.

9. It reduces noise pollution. (Onboard too)

Sort of. Externally - possibly. But have you stood near a modern German diesel locomotive? These can be really quiet - even when accelerating. Multiple units with 3-phase drives are noisier inside over the traction gubbins than are the insides of a Mk3 coach in an HST.

Not proven!

There are good arguments for electrification - but its enthusiasts should be clear in their own minds that it is not a panacea.

 

[HSTEd]

UK Rail oil consumption is something like 570,000t per annum and increasing as increase in traffic overwhelms marginal improvements in efficiency (old units are not being removed from service and new units are rare).

So that is far from negligible, that is something 11,000bbl a day, which is something like 5% of UK Oil Imports.

 

[coppercapped]

Hmmm, I do suppose we are a special case.

Is it down to us investing more in private roads back then compared to our continental cousins, who were a bit less drastic on the rails?

What do you men by 'private roads'?

I would point out that Italy started building Autostrada in the 1920s and Germany started a few years later building the Autobahnen. France built practically nothing until the 1950s/early 60s when de Gaulle set up concessions to build the French network.

The electrification of the continental railways had a lot more to do with the costs of getting coal to the far-flung ends of the specific countries - there's no coal in south west France or anywhere south of about Köln in Germany. Switzerland has no indigenous coal. In the UK the coalfields were widely spread so the only areas where transport costs started to become significant were East Anglia and Devon and Cornwall.

Choices which are made almost always have a logical reason.

 

[J-2739]

What do you men by 'private roads'?

I would point out that Italy started building Autostrada in the 1920s and Germany started a few years later building the Autobahnen. France built practically nothing until the 1950s/early 60s when de Gaulle set up concessions to build the French network.

The electrification of the continental railways had a lot more to do with the costs of getting coal to the far-flung ends of the specific countries - there's no coal in south west France or anywhere south of about Köln in Germany. Switzerland has no indigenous coal. In the UK the coalfields were widely spread so the only areas where transport costs started to become significant were East Anglia and Devon and Cornwall.

Choices which are made almost always have a logical reason.

Oops! I meant private vehicles for public roads!

Some most interesting points you've made!

 

[HSTEd]

Mountainous terrain also tends to lead to electric traction as steam engines struggle with long steep slopes.