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

[fowler9]

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.

Not sure you are entirely correct here. Yes the main spine of the WCML but the spurs off it serve most if not all of the biggest cities in the country outside London. Also huge stretches of the route up to perhaps Preston and Lancaster are much more densly populated than the ECML.

 

[Western Lord]

Not sure you are entirely correct here. Yes the main spine of the WCML but the spurs off it serve most if not all of the biggest cities in the country outside London. Also huge stretches of the route up to perhaps Preston and Lancaster are much more densly populated than the ECML.

Last time I checked trains from London to Glasgow did not stop at places off of the through route, thus trains from London to Glasgow have to survive on the end to end traffic plus what there is to/from intermediate points. London to Edinburgh trains also serve major traffic objectives en-route (which is why London-Edinburgh via the ECML is more frequent than London-Glasgow via the WCML).

 

[gsnedders]

Last time I checked trains from London to Glasgow did not stop at places off of the through route, thus trains from London to Glasgow have to survive on the end to end traffic plus what there is to/from intermediate points. London to Edinburgh trains also serve major traffic objectives en-route (which is why London-Edinburgh via the ECML is more frequent than London-Glasgow via the WCML).

From anecdotal evidence, as well as what has previously been published (by NR?), very little of the London to Glasgow trains is end-to-end traffic. They often get quieter the further north they get; the majority of people get off at Lancaster and Preston if I'm not mistaken, though I presume many are travelling on further.

 

[uglymonkey]

Wasn't Diesels supposed to be a stop gap prior to total electrification? Also lack of investment, short term government thinking - roads are investment, railways are subsidy. For a long time, railways were in long term decline ( Managed decline I think BR called it), starved of funds - why then invest huge amounts of money in electrification when the industry is in decline anyway? I'm sure our restrictive loading gauge can't have helped either. We also tend to "gold plate" everything, not just do enough ( Happened to the GWR electrification) which makes it so ruinously expensive the government curtails it piecemeal.

 

[AM9]

Wasn't Diesels supposed to be a stop gap prior to total electrification? Also lack of investment, short term government thinking - roads are investment, railways are subsidy. For a long time, railways were in long term decline ( Managed decline I think BR called it), starved of funds - why then invest huge amounts of money in electrification when the industry is in decline anyway? I'm sure our restrictive loading gauge can't have helped either. We also tend to "gold plate" everything, not just do enough ( Happened to the GWR electrification) which makes it so ruinously expensive the government curtails it piecemeal.

The GWR electrification has been specified to enable reliable 225km/h operation. That requires a contact wire at a higher tension with better control on vertical and lateral deflection. The hardware used is of a better standard than on other previous installations in order to reduce maintenance costs. Just look how often the ECML MKIIIb wiring fails causing large disruption charges. Similarly, the much enhanced WCML wiring is still subject to expensive maintenance and like the East Coast route, is only subjected to 200km/h running. OLE may have a life expectancy exceeding 50 years. Over a life that long, low running costs can more than compensate for higher initial outlays.

 

[Abpj17]

Common across a number of UK industries

• UK was an early adopter
• Lots of legacy infrastructure
• High population density

Those that started later, or space/opportunity to almost restart have found the upgrade path a lot easier (and a more difficult investment challenge).

 

[AndrewE]

Common across a number of UK industries

• UK was an early adopter [of railways]
  
• Lots of legacy infrastructure
• High population density

Those that started later, or space/opportunity to almost restart have found the upgrade path a lot easier (and a more difficult investment challenge).

Do you mean an easier investment challenge? i.e. less difficult, so cheaper to do and therefore less investment needed to achieve the same goal?

 

[muddythefish]

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

If shouting down opinions that you don't agree with, also guilty

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Last time I checked trains from London to Glasgow did not stop at places off of the through route, thus trains from London to Glasgow have to survive on the end to end traffic plus what there is to/from intermediate points. London to Edinburgh trains also serve major traffic objectives en-route (which is why London-Edinburgh via the ECML is more frequent than London-Glasgow via the WCML).

You make it sound like the WCML has less traffic than the ECML.
The timetable says otherwise (9tph out of Euston versus 6tph out of King's Cross).
Last time I looked VT had 2tph Euston-Scotland (one running via Birmingham), the same as LNER from King's Cross.
The long term plan is for Edinburgh to be served from Euston via HS2/WCML.

 

[Western Lord]

You make it sound like the WCML has less traffic than the ECML.
The timetable says otherwise (9tph out of Euston versus 6tph out of King's Cross).
Last time I looked VT had 2tph Euston-Scotland (one running via Birmingham), the same as LNER from King's Cross.
The long term plan is for Edinburgh to be served from Euston via HS2/WCML.

I was not talking about the WCML vs ECML, but about London-Glasgow vs London-Edinburgh. The London-Birmingham-Glasgow trains are not intended for through passengers, but are Birmingham-Glasgow trains linked to London services for operational convenience.
As for London-Edinburgh HS2 trains running up the northern section of the WCML, I have always thought that was a stupid idea (especially with not-titling trains) as it would be quicker to run them via HS2 to York and the ECML. This would give a longer run on the high speed line and higher line speeds on to Edinburgh.

 

[Craig2601]

From anecdotal evidence, as well as what has previously been published (by NR?), very little of the London to Glasgow trains is end-to-end traffic. They often get quieter the further north they get; the majority of people get off at Lancaster and Preston if I'm not mistaken, though I presume many are travelling on further.

To what I’ve seen, the quietest section seems to be between Preston/Lancaster and Carlisle, trains seem to fill up at Carlisle a lot of time (especially in the morning peaks).

 

[fowler9]

To what I’ve seen, the quietest section seems to be between Preston/Lancaster and Carlisle, trains seem to fill up at Carlisle a lot of time (especially in the morning peaks).

The Trans Pennine service I got from Lockerbie to Preston the other week was far from quiet. I was sharing the space by the doors with about 10 people. Of course if you mean that on other parts of the route people are stacked on top of each other you are probably right.

 

[apk55]

Another reason why the UK is slow to electrify is the way things are costed and taxed abroad. For example in Germany diesel used in trains must have duty paid instead of duty free in the UK. If train operators here had to pay double for fuel they would think differently and make more steps to reduce fuel consumption by more electrification and using existing electrification more (such as electric freight)

 

[Craig2601]

The Trans Pennine service I got from Lockerbie to Preston the other week was far from quiet. I was sharing the space by the doors with about 10 people. Of course if you mean that on other parts of the route people are stacked on top of each other you are probably right.

It has been a fair while since I was last on a TP express service although from what I can remember it gets really busy from Preston onwards to Piccadilly especially so on the train from Glasgow central that leaves at around 7 in the morning!

 

[Bald Rick]

Another reason why the UK is slow to electrify is the way things are costed and taxed abroad. For example in Germany diesel used in trains must have duty paid instead of duty free in the UK. If train operators here had to pay double for fuel they would think differently and make more steps to reduce fuel consumption by more electrification and using existing electrification more (such as electric freight)

Except... the government pays for electrification, therefore the government rules about business cases apply... and one of the factors is net effect on HM Treasury revenue, part of which is tax on fuel.

So actually it would makelittle difference.

 

[Hetlana]

At a bare minimum all the mainlines are trunk routes should have been electrified as well as all suburban commuter routes.
By Mainline I mean:

• Midland Main line
• Chiltern
• GWML down to Penzance
• Cross Country
• All Transpenine Express routes
• Edinburgh- Aberdeen and Edinburgh to Inverness
• South Wales Main Line
• North Wales Coast Line

The fact that all of the above have been neglected is quite frankly unforgivable and both major political parties are to blame.

 

[AndrewE]

At a bare minimum all the mainlines are trunk routes should have been electrified as well as all suburban commuter routes...
The fact that all of the above have been neglected is quite frankly unforgivable and both major political parties are to blame.

I suspect it's not just the political parties though, the Treasury have always been against railway investment (or have grudgingly released only part of what has been needed.) You could say that is the fault of the politicians in the Westminster bubble, not forcing through improvements mainly for the benefit of the rest of the country.
However we have to admit that when programmes are running so late and over-budget then it's no surprise that rail is not trusted with money.
This might go right back to the 1950s, but a lot of the problem is because of the regular premature curtailment of schemes, followed by a gap, after which there is all the rebuilding of project teams, retraining of staff, new mistakes made on top of old ones simply because of the loss of expertise.

The GWR electrification has been specified to enable reliable 225km/h operation. That requires a contact wire at a higher tension with better control on vertical and lateral deflection. The hardware used is of a better standard than on other previous installations in order to reduce maintenance costs. Just look how often the ECML MKIIIb wiring fails causing large disruption charges. Similarly, the much enhanced WCML wiring is still subject to expensive maintenance and like the East Coast route, is only subjected to 200km/h running. OLE may have a life expectancy exceeding 50 years. Over a life that long, low running costs can more than compensate for higher initial outlays.

It's good to hear the claim that the GWR electrification is to such a high standard that it won't go wrong!

 

[richieb1971]

To be fair rail was he poor man's transport after 1950. Now it's the rich man's transport. That on its own has changed a lot.

 

[aylesbury]

Whenever I travel to Glasgow the train is always busy for the entire journey and the return always has a queue waiting at the barrier plus at every stop there is a decent number of passengers waiting to board .

Last time I checked trains from London to Glasgow did not stop at places off of the through route, thus trains from London to Glasgow have to survive on the end to end traffic plus what there is to/from intermediate points. London to Edinburgh trains also serve major traffic objectives en-route (which is why London-Edinburgh via the ECML is more frequent than London-Glasgow via the WCML).

 

[B&I]

To be fair rail was he poor man's transport after 1950. Now it's the rich man's transport. That on its own has changed a lot.

Hasn't bus really been the poor person's transport since the 1930s on ?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

At a bare minimum all the mainlines are trunk routes should have been electrified as well as all suburban commuter routes.
By Mainline I mean:

• Midland Main line
• Chiltern
• GWML down to Penzance
• Cross Country
• All Transpenine Express routes
• Edinburgh- Aberdeen and Edinburgh to Inverness
• South Wales Main Line
• North Wales Coast Line

The fact that all of the above have been neglected is quite frankly unforgivable and both major political parties are to blame.

It's not unforgivable at all for the vast majority of people in this country.

Railways are not run for the amusement of railway enthusiasts. Electrification has to be paid for and the sums involved are enormous. The railway industry does not generate the necessary funds so the poor, ever-exploited taxpayer is expected to cough up. A very large percentage of those taxpayers will look at, for example, the more than adequate service Chiltern is providing, will notice that all Chiltern seems to need are three coach trains, and ask why should our money be spent electrifying this route?

Similar questions would be asked about the other routes in your Christmas list.

 

[richieb1971]

More money should be spent on stopping people commuting then.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Electrification has to be paid for and the sums involved are enormous. The railway industry does not generate the necessary funds so the poor, ever-exploited taxpayer is expected to cough up.

The sums involved are indeed eyewatering, though not so large that money couldn't be found if it were a government priority to do so - a few tens of billions over a few decades. But the economics of doing it work out, as multiple studies over the last 80 years or so have found, with a return on investment generally around the 7% mark. Not brilliant, but not too shabby either.

As a very rough rule of thumb, if a line sees more than about 20 carriages per hour (between both directions), it's almost certainly worth electrifying; if it sees between 10 and 20, it's worth looking in to. If it sees less than 10, it probably isn't going to be worthwhile.

 

[Gareth Marston]

It's not unforgivable at all for the vast majority of people in this country.

Railways are not run for the amusement of railway enthusiasts. Electrification has to be paid for and the sums involved are enormous. The railway industry does not generate the necessary funds so the poor, ever-exploited taxpayer is expected to cough up. A very large percentage of those taxpayers will look at, for example, the more than adequate service Chiltern is providing, will notice that all Chiltern seems to need are three coach trains, and ask why should our money be spent electrifying this route?

Similar questions would be asked about the other routes in your Christmas list.

Whats your alternative then tarmac and concrete the entire country at untold cost that makes Mainline rail electrification costs look like peanuts as advocated by the fantasists at the Taxpayers Alliance?

Is that your real agenda? - you always hate any investment proposals in the railway - how dare it take the money for road building!

 

[frodshamfella]

I have just finished reading an interesting book about electrification of lines in Liverpool and Manchester region's. What struck is the UK has actually dismantled and closed some electric lines. Thinking of Southport to Crossens a section from Bury to a place I can't quite recall. Also the woodhead line Manchester to Shefield and of course the Liverpool Overheard although there was gantry problems with that line.

 

[furnessvale]

I have just finished reading an interesting book about electrification of lines in Liverpool and Manchester region's. What struck is the UK has actually dismantled and closed some electric lines. Thinking of Southport to Crossens a section from Bury to a place I can't quite recall. Also the woodhead line Manchester to Shefield and of course the Liverpool Overheard although there was gantry problems with that line.

Bury to Tottington, but to be fair, it was electrified more to prove the system rather than a serious electrification for traffic purposes.

 

[edwin_m]

I have just finished reading an interesting book about electrification of lines in Liverpool and Manchester region's. What struck is the UK has actually dismantled and closed some electric lines. Thinking of Southport to Crossens a section from Bury to a place I can't quite recall. Also the woodhead line Manchester to Shefield and of course the Liverpool Overheard although there was gantry problems with that line.

Bury to Holcombe Brook - I think it was more of a demonstrator for the technology than a route with passenger numbers justifying electrification. You could also mention Lancaster to Morecambe - closed because there were two routes and the other one had better connections at Lancaster.

 

[AM9]

... It's good to hear the claim that the GWR electrification is to such a high standard that it won't go wrong!

It's disappointing to see yet another daft misunderstanding/deliberate misquoting of another post* on a serious forum subject.
* whichever is the most appropriate

 

[geoffk]

The sums involved are indeed eyewatering, though not so large that money couldn't be found if it were a government priority to do so - a few tens of billions over a few decades. But the economics of doing it work out, as multiple studies over the last 80 years or so have found, with a return on investment generally around the 7% mark. Not brilliant, but not too shabby either.

As a very rough rule of thumb, if a line sees more than about 20 carriages per hour (between both directions), it's almost certainly worth electrifying; if it sees between 10 and 20, it's worth looking in to. If it sees less than 10, it probably isn't going to be worthwhile.

A priority then is to get the cost of electrification down and this means getting the ORR to be pragmatic about overhead clearances where the cost of rebuilding bridges etc. to their standard would be prohibited. This means not gold-plating EU regulations which we tend to do in Britain. This is probably why there is so much Euro-scepticism.

 

[AndrewE]

It's good to hear the claim that the GWR electrification is to such a high standard that it won't go wrong!

It's disappointing to see yet another daft misunderstanding/deliberate misquoting of another post* on a serious forum subject.
* whichever is the most appropriate

How else to interpret the following then?

The GWR electrification has been specified to enable reliable 225km/h operation. That requires a contact wire at a higher tension with better control on vertical and lateral deflection. The hardware used is of a better standard than on other previous installations in order to reduce maintenance costs. Just look how often the ECML MKIIIb wiring fails causing large disruption charges. Similarly, the much enhanced WCML wiring is still subject to expensive maintenance and like the East Coast route, is only subjected to 200km/h running. OLE may have a life expectancy exceeding 50 years. Over a life that long, low running costs can more than compensate for higher initial outlays.