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

[Indigo Soup]

#roadlobby

You seem very certain of yourself without providing any facts

It's probably nearer the truth that recent governments don't really like building anything. Not that past ones liked it much either of course!

The British approach to infrastructure of any kind seems to be that as long as it's not creaking at the seams, it doesn't need attention. And if it is creaking at the seams, then apply the quickest, cheapest fix that will avoid the immediate problem.

 

[richieb1971]

In my lifetime the only thing near me that had benefited me is the A 421 upgrade and the OHLE from Bedford going south. The town centre of Bedford is choking with traffic and the trains are at a point of delivering a less than stellar service with high cost tickets, a car park that is no longer fit for purpose and homes only built here that are "affordable" for people on £50000+ a year. I should be careful what I wish for next, I may just get it and a whole lot more.

 

[Western Lord]

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.

The reason that the WCML (and other routes) curve so much is that when they were built it was vital to avoid steep gradients as the steam locomotives of the day were pretty feeble things. Going in a straight(ish) line would have involved massive expenditure in tunnels and viaducts. In contrast the eastern side of the country is pretty flat (which is why it got covered in airfields during WW2) and so easier to lay out long straight stretches.

 

[richieb1971]

I always thought the more places to connect the more corners you had to make. Ecml has less places of note compared to the west side

 

[WymoWanderer]

In my lifetime the only thing near me that had benefited me is the A 421 upgrade and the OHLE from Bedford going south. The town centre of Bedford is choking with traffic and the trains are at a point of delivering a less than stellar service with high cost tickets, a car park that is no longer fit for purpose and homes only built here that are "affordable" for people on £50000+ a year. I should be careful what I wish for next, I may just get it and a whole lot more.

The station car park is in desperate need of an upgrade. The capacity is just too low.
You forgot to mention the "wonderful" western Bedford bypass. Wonderful if you like roundabouts.

 

[absolutelymilk]

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

Page 73 of this should help.

I'm not sure how they worked that one out, total government funding was £4.2 billion in 2016/17, and TfL government funding wasn't that big! http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/25757/rail-finance-statistical-release-2016-17.pdf
EDIT: Ah, appears to be due to including loans to Network Rail.

 

[The Ham]

I'm not sure how they worked that one out, total government funding was £4.2 billion in 2016/17, and TfL government funding wasn't that big! http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/25757/rail-finance-statistical-release-2016-17.pdf
EDIT: Ah, appears to be due to including loans to Network Rail.

Total government spend is the total that they pay out, including all costs for NR, TfL, etc.

Total government funding is the net value after all the income from all sources has been taken into account.

The first could be £2 trillion and nothing would matter if the latter stays broadly the same.a

 

[Western Lord]

I always thought the more places to connect the more corners you had to make. Ecml has less places of note compared to the west side

The WCML, as a through route from London to Glasgow, does not go through anywhere of great importance, whereas the ECML goes through the major city of Newcastle upon Tyne and the tourist hot spot of York.

 

[duesselmartin]

A new arguement.
Could it be that traffic volumes for "transit-countries" such as Germany or France were simply higher? While BR only served a domestic market, mainland countries always had international traffic to deal with.

Another factor could be ecomomic. Many western European countries had an unprecedented boom in the 1960s which left extra cash for subsidies. The 1970s oil crisis sharpened the need for alternative energy for countries not profiting from North Sea oil.

 

[muddythefish]

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.

#railsmartarse

Figures show increased rail spending over the past 5 years (hurrah for the Tories a first) which while welcome still has a long way to go to make up for the chronic lack of investment (compared to roads) over the previous 50.

In my area in my lifetime we've lost 2 railway lines to closure and seen the 3rd (main) line slowly decline through lack of investment until very recently. Meanwhile the local and national road network in the county has expanded beyond recognition, solving very little as the roads are often gridlocked. Getting to the nearest big town takes twice the time of 20 years ago - and there is no alternative because they shut the railway line.

So to get back to the title of the thread - as stated previously the lack of electrification (and other railway investment) is down to government preferring to spend money on roads.

.

 

[richieb1971]

The WCML, as a through route from London to Glasgow, does not go through anywhere of great importance, whereas the ECML goes through the major city of Newcastle upon Tyne and the tourist hot spot of York.

Your talking about the WCML spine obviously. Yes, its not serving much. Its serves MKC now which is great and its a pity more WCML spine towns haven't grown to City status. It would make a big difference. If HS2 steals a bunch of business from the WCML, the WCML will need revenue from these places to keep it afloat.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Figures show increased rail spending over the past 5 years (hurrah for the Tories a first) which while welcome still has a long way to go to make up for the chronic lack of investment (compared to roads) over the previous 50.
So to get back to the title of the thread - as stated previously the lack of electrification (and other railway investment) is down to government preferring to spend money on roads.

The history since the 2nd world war has shown more railway gets electrified under conservative governments (by a long long way) than others.

 

[richieb1971]

The history since the 2nd world war has shown more railway gets electrified under conservative governments (by a long long way) than others.

History will likely show labour spent the most money (overall) when they were in charge. Obviously railways not their forte.

 

[Bald Rick]

#railsmartarse

If providing facts to support an argument results in that, guilty as charged.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

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.

South of Darlington, yes. Between Darlington and Edinburgh, the ECML is not especially straight.

 

[jyte]

So wibbly wobbly in fact that it has been proposed at least once to use tilting trains north of Darlington to improve line speeds....

 

[Marton]

Don’t think the desire if the post war governments to support mining has been mentioned.

 

[edwin_m]

Don’t think the desire if the post war governments to support mining has been mentioned.

I've already posted at least once that coal would have been the main energy source for an electric railway as well as a steam railway - but not for a diesel railway. So if protecting the coal industry was the prime objective we would have gone straight from steam to electric.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I've already posted at least once that coal would have been the main energy source for an electric railway as well as a steam railway - but not for a diesel railway. So if protecting the coal industry was the prime objective we would have gone straight from steam to electric.

Yes nuclear did not really come until the late 50s

 

[snowball]

Yes nuclear did not really come until the late 50s

Indeed, the first nuclear power station was connected to the grid in 1956, the second in 1959, and the next two in 1962.

 

[edwin_m]

Even within the last decade nearly half of the UK's electricity was generated from coal, albeit mostly imported since the virtual demise of domestic mining in the 1990s. Some interesting graphs here abeit only updated to 2012: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24823641

And here the change in energy mix has been more dramatic. In 1970, coal accounted for about two-thirds of all electricity. Last year, it accounted for less than half, although for a number of years prior to that it made up one-third.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The WCML, as a through route from London to Glasgow, does not go through anywhere of great importance, whereas the ECML goes through the major city of Newcastle upon Tyne and the tourist hot spot of York.

The original WCML (1838) was built to connect London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool.
The northern extension (1847) connected all these with Glasgow and Edinburgh (and on to Aberdeen).
The Rugby-Stafford and Winwick-Golborne sections were short cuts enabling faster journeys between the main termini.
Nowhere of great importance...

HS2 is of course due to take over the long distance functions of the WCML, MML and ECML, concentrating services at Euston, as was the case until 1852.
Plus ça change!

 

[geoffk]

So to get back to the title of the thread - as stated previously the lack of electrification (and other railway investment) is down to government preferring to spend money on roads.

Denmark has also been slow to electrify its rail network (outside the Copenhagen metropolitan area). A political decision to electrify the main lines was made only in the late 1970s. Copenhagen - Helsingør was electrified in 1986, followed by the main line to Odense and the German border. Of course, there was also the need to replace the train ferries linking the main islands with bridges or tunnels and perhaps this was seen as a greater priority than electrification.

 

[JonasB]

Denmark has also been slow to electrify its rail network (outside the Copenhagen metropolitan area). A political decision to electrify the main lines was made only in the late 1970s. Copenhagen - Helsingør was electrified in 1986, followed by the main line to Odense and the German border. Of course, there was also the need to replace the train ferries linking the main islands with bridges or tunnels and perhaps this was seen as a greater priority than electrification.

True, it is basically just an electrified transit line between Germany and Sweden at the moment, but after the IC4 disaster the plan is now to electrify a lot more.

 

[edwin_m]

Denmark has also been slow to electrify its rail network (outside the Copenhagen metropolitan area). A political decision to electrify the main lines was made only in the late 1970s. Copenhagen - Helsingør was electrified in 1986, followed by the main line to Odense and the German border. Of course, there was also the need to replace the train ferries linking the main islands with bridges or tunnels and perhaps this was seen as a greater priority than electrification.

I would have thought replacement of ferries by tunnels would be a reason for electrification, not an alternative.

 

[geoffk]

I would have thought replacement of ferries by tunnels would be a reason for electrification, not an alternative.

Yes, of course.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

To be fair, it's only relatively recently that pollution from diesels has become a significant issue in people's minds. Certainly, back in the 50s and 60s, I doubt many people thought about the issue - and if they did then, well diesels were a lot less polluting than the steam locos they would have replaced. If my understanding of history is correct, to the extent that pollution in cities was a political issue, it would have been smog etc. caused by burning coal. Next to that diesel pollution would have been trivial. So you can't really blame people (or politicians) at the time for not being aware of the ecological consequences of diesel trains.

In fact, come to think of it, I'm not too sure what the reasons for electrifying would have been in the 1950s and 60s? Faster acceleration and better performance up hills I guess. Was there anything else at the time?

 

[AM9]

To be fair, it's only relatively recently that pollution from diesels has become a significant issue in people's minds. Certainly, back in the 50s and 60s, I doubt many people thought about the issue - and if they did then, well diesels were a lot less polluting than the steam locos they would have replaced. If my understanding of history is correct, to the extent that pollution in cities was a political issue, it would have been smog etc. caused by burning coal. Next to that diesel pollution would have been trivial. So you can't really blame people (or politicians) at the time for not being aware of the ecological consequences of diesel trains.

In fact, come to think of it, I'm not too sure what the reasons for electrifying would have been in the 1950s and 60s? Faster acceleration and better performance up hills I guess. Was there anything else at the time?

Weren't most of the '50s and '60s schemes focused on high density lines, e.g. GE outer suburban, WCML and south Manchester (called the LMR Western lines at the time), SR Kent main line, LT&S, all except WCML having large commuter flows, where the infrastructure costs are spread across many frequent electric trains.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Weren't most of the '50s and '60s schemes focused on high density lines, e.g. GE outer suburban, WCML and south Manchester (called the LMR Western lines at the time), SR Kent main line, LT&S, all except WCML having large commuter flows, where the infrastructure costs are spread across many frequent electric trains.

Yes, almost completely so. The reason being that electrifying an intensely used commuter railway paid for itself by reducing operating costs substantially. I believe the electrification from Woking Junction to Bournemouth in the '60s was also sanctioned simply because it was at such a low cost: £15 million - eat your heart out Network Rail! - but projected to give B. R. a £2.5 million a year return.

Anyone really interested in a good summary of the whys and wherefores of electrification up to 1970 should try to get hold of G. Freeman Allen's book British Rail After Beeching. The chapter on electrification is essential reading.

 

[coppercapped]

To be fair, it's only relatively recently that pollution from diesels has become a significant issue in people's minds. Certainly, back in the 50s and 60s, I doubt many people thought about the issue - and if they did then, well diesels were a lot less polluting than the steam locos they would have replaced. If my understanding of history is correct, to the extent that pollution in cities was a political issue, it would have been smog etc. caused by burning coal. Next to that diesel pollution would have been trivial. So you can't really blame people (or politicians) at the time for not being aware of the ecological consequences of diesel trains.

In fact, come to think of it, I'm not too sure what the reasons for electrifying would have been in the 1950s and 60s? Faster acceleration and better performance up hills I guess. Was there anything else at the time?

Quite so.
I was at college in London in the early 1960s and experienced the last great smog in the winter of 1962/3, see here for a description. The stink of sulphur was like living at the gates of Hades and losing your way when trying to cross a road because you couldn't see the other side was scary - I still remember it.

Diesels were clean compared to all those millions of chimneys burning coal and all those steam locomotives in London - of BR's 15,000-odd steam locomotives five or six thousand were in or near London.

People faffing today about diesel pollution - and vehicles have catalytic exhaust treatment now - are wimps!

The advantages of electric traction for suburban services were clear - rapid acceleration compared to six-coupled steam locomotives, no need to replace the locomotive at each end of the journey and reduction in smoke and fumes in the roofed-over terminal stations. For longer distance journeys 2,000 to 2,500bhp diesel locomotives were a considerable improvement over the average steam express passenger locomotives - not all of them were A4s, Duchesses or Kings, most were Black 5s, or Halls, B1s or N15s - and the diesel maintenance costs were a lot lower. At the time longer distance traffic was being lost to the airlines - the Motorway network was far from completion - and it was by no means clear that faster trains would make a significant difference to the overall number of passengers carried. Also electrification required a massive capital investment several years before any benefit was apparent - the whole route had to be electrified before the passenger noticed much difference. BR used to change traction at Crewe and then Nuneaton as the West Coast electrification slowly worked its way South so the time gained on the electric stretch was lost in the traction change. Buying diesels meant the improvement was immediate - even though the Deltics were a year late in delivery. (Sounds familiar...?)