Why we shouldn't electrify more of the UK

[Aictos]

We all know the benefits of electrifying more of the UK but why should we NOT consider electrifying more of the UK?

Discuss.....

 

[Legolash2o]

I'm not really a big fan of electrification as it's expensive, ugly and more things can go wrong. Quite a few of the delay reasons from the Darwin feeds suggest that quite a few issues are from overhead lines. I also believe that trains will become better negating the need for electrifications i.e. Hydrogen trains (eventually).

I would prefer the money to be spent on better signalling technologies as a large majority of the delays (according to the same Darwin feeds) suggest that signal failures are a big issue. Possibly even gauge clearances for double-decker trains for those busy lines.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

We all know the benefits of electrifying more of the UK but why should we NOT consider electrifying more of the UK?

Discuss.....

Parts of it would be economic nonsense e.g. Settle and Carlisle.
Also we do have Bionic Duckweed available

 

[AM9]

We all know the benefits of electrifying more of the UK but why should we NOT consider electrifying more of the UK?

Discuss.....

It will be a long time before they run out of lines that need electrification and have to do the unnecessary bits.

 

[Kite159]

Because Network Rail can't be trusted to deliver it on time or within budget?

 

[Starmill]

Because Network Rail can't be trusted to deliver it on time or within budget?

It does not have to be done by Network Rail.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Wearing my devil's advocate hat:

• Electrification is expensive - if the same money can be used to achieve greater benefits elsewhere, then spending it on railway electrification is unwise. This is particularly the case since costs seem to be out of control, and a relatively small proportion of traffic (both freight and passengers) travels by rail.
• Electrification causes disruption. With so much of the UK's rail network so heavily used, the economic impact of lengthy engineering works may be unacceptable.
• Modern technology (bi-modes, bionic duckweed, AC drives) allow much of the benefit of electrification to be gained for far less cost.
• Growth in telepresence, working from home, driverless cars or other new technologies may reduce demand for travel to the point where railways become obsolete.

Those are, I think, the main arguments against electrification.

 

[richieb1971]

I feel for one, that in the near future there will be a move towards "Working from home". As the population grows and grows, we simply cannot just keep expanding railways and building more roads. In fact I think its long overdue. My job has google chrome and you can use hangouts, you can use the phone, you can do sorts of I.T jobs without being present in the office. If all these people stayed at home the railways would be 50% less used than they are today.

The government gives very contradicting views on things. They get revenue from fuel taxes for cars and lorries, but then they have to invest all that in roads and infrastructure. Just look at suburban cul-de-sac roads without drive ways, its a nightmare. 2 way streets that act like a start stop slalom.

When you consider how much greener the Earth would be if 50% of employees just stayed at home. My managers do it 2 times a week and I think its a trend which will continue to roll out to technical staff as long as they are willing to make the trip to work on the basis they are needed on campus.

I personally think that HS2 at this stage is a very big risk, because once I.T and office jobs are WFH (Work from home) your only benefit is being face to face for meetings and such. Bob the builder isn't going to take a train via HS2 to go anywhere.

Once we get into an era where the new generation of boss's are playing with Virtual reality and seeing the benefits for everyone to stay at home, that will be the time it will become mainstream used technology like a satnav or smart phone is used today.

As for the branch lines and inter connecting lines, if the gaps can be filled with bi-modes i'm all for that.

I did come up with an idea to re-use the Engine and Tender idea. Where a diesel tender could be used on a OHLE locomotive and an Electric OHLE tender could be used in conjunction with a diesel locomotive. It makes perfect sense to me as it gives the best of both worlds. All you need to do is build into current gen locos a cable run between the 2. Surplus 92's and 60's could be guinea pigs since they are mostly rotting in sidings somewhere.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I did come up with an idea to re-use the Engine and Tender idea. Where a diesel tender could be used on a OHLE locomotive and an Electric OHLE tender could be used in conjunction with a diesel locomotive. It makes perfect sense to me as it gives the best of both worlds. All you need to do is build into current gen locos a cable run between the 2. Surplus 92's and 60's could be guinea pigs since they are mostly rotting in sidings somewhere.

In other words, supply every train with two locomotives working in multiple, except with the added complication of high-power jumper leads between the two. It would, I suppose, allow heavier trains to be started (since tractive effort would be roughly doubled) but you'd lose a couple of wagons (1-3, depending on load) off of the train to compensate for the weight of the second locomotive.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I've been working from home for years, it has reduced my car travel, but not my rail travel

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It does not have to be done by Network Rail.

It's mostly done by contractors today (Balfour Beatty, Amey and others).
But Network Rail retain the design rights and specify (or at least approve) construction plans, and manage the projects.
I can't see them giving that up, even though it led to the GWML issues (with different issues on other routes).
NR won't be doing HS2 though, although it will still be an arm of DfT in charge.

 

[Flying Phil]

Whilst Richieb and others think that more work will be done from home, there are still very many jobs that cannot be done from home - which is why there are now more people travelling further than ever before - by road, rail and air.
I can appreciate that the economics of OHLE render many lines unsuitable, however the overall benefits make further electrification much more desirable......so I disagree with the OP.

 

[K.o.R]

Let's not give those in charge any more excuses, okay?

 

[richieb1971]

In other words, supply every train with two locomotives working in multiple, except with the added complication of high-power jumper leads between the two. It would, I suppose, allow heavier trains to be started (since tractive effort would be roughly doubled) but you'd lose a couple of wagons (1-3, depending on load) off of the train to compensate for the weight of the second locomotive.

The tender on a steam locomotive was a lot smaller than the main engine part itself. And I would expect the same in a more modern variation.

For the diesel tender, it would just be the engine and generator. For the Electric tender it would just be a feeder and or conversion process. For a start neither would have cabs on both ends, or at best you would have a cab on the outside end of the tender. I am guessing the size of sulzer type 2.

The main reason I think its a good idea is that OHLE can be rolled out at a steady pace. No rushing around and fighting for cash, just put the work in when the cash is available. You could also make use of all the 90's, 92's in storage on places they would never see under their power. That opens up a lot of motive power that is otherwise restricted.

Of course it only benefits if the tenders are marginally cheaper than a potential new build loco.

 

[Aictos]

Thank you all, I am intending on giving a presentation on UK Rail Electrification so seeing various arguments AGAINST it helps me see the bigger picture so thank you all for your input.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

----Electrification causes disruption. With so much of the UK's rail network so heavily used, the economic impact of lengthy engineering works may be unacceptable.

It really is difficult - the lines needing electrifying the most are heavily trafficked - and thus by definition give the most disruption.

 

[richieb1971]

I think we are close enough in time to alternative technologies that would be cheaper than OHLE. Starting new long stretches of OHLE investment now seems about 50/50 on the silliness scale. Whilst OHLE does solve a few issues, it pushes bottlenecks elsewhere. For example, the 125mph speed limit on 90+% of our network due to signalling and bendy tracks etc. If you know capacity will rise and rise again, eventually you will start to realize that investment now just pushes us closer to the "Absolute maximum capacity" and where do you go from there.

This is why I think we should discourage people to travel.

 

[6Gman]

Thank you all, I am intending on giving a presentation on UK Rail Electrification so seeing various arguments AGAINST it helps me see the bigger picture so thank you all for your input.

Frozen conductor rails leading to self-evacuation of trains.

Wires down leading to ... well, major disruption.

And think of all those diversionary routes which suddenly become practical.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Diesel has to go - otherwise we will see swathes of line closures in favour of electric buses.

However, battery tech is improving, and could well become the solution for branch lines, hence there being no reason to shove the wires up there, particularly where the branch line is served by running through under the wires for a long journey then a short one on the branch, giving lots of charging time (think Windermere, Barrow and the likes).

I am however struggling to see a decent alternative to wiring the mainlines.

 

[deltic08]

I did come up with an idea to re-use the Engine and Tender idea. Where a diesel tender could be used on a OHLE locomotive and an Electric OHLE tender could be used in conjunction with a diesel locomotive. It makes perfect sense to me as it gives the best of both worlds. All you need to do is build into current gen locos a cable run between the 2. Surplus 92's and 60's could be guinea pigs since they are mostly rotting in sidings somewhere.

You wouldn't need to use it as a source of 25kv to feed the electric loco and a high voltage cable between. Something the size of a class 60 could work the train and electric loco on its own. Just outer cabs needed and control jumper cables between and permanently coupled.

Less complicated to just electrify than build hundreds of these. It is just Grayling and the DfT muddying the waters to save money and put the cost onto the TOCs and FOCs.

Yes, Germany is developing hydrogen cell and battery propulsion bimodes but not in preference to further electrification unlike here in the UK.

We are now paying the price for procrastinating during the 1960s-1990s instead of getting on with mainline electrification.

 

[muddythefish]

Travel throughout Europe and for the most part you see electrified lines - even single track branch lines in the mountains. It's what a modern economy has and does.

We're decades behind on this (as always) because the London Treasury won't pay for it, always looking for a cheaper option (bimodes etc etc) or preferably, build more roads.

Unless meaningful Transport powers are devolved to the regions, or the DfT and Treasury moved to Manchester or similar, nothing will happen.

 

[hexagon789]

We all know the benefits of electrifying more of the UK but why should we NOT consider electrifying more of the UK?

Discuss.....

Diesel sounds better?

But seriously, as with anything cost. If the choice is between no-electrification and say new trains/higher speeds/greater service frequency or electrification and only one of those things then it boils down to whether it's worth it overall.

It's definitely worth it in the long term though, but I think one has to weigh everything up first.

 

[Kneedown]

There are, literally, no good reasons not to electrify.
It's always beneficial and reduces long term operating costs. Much more reliable than diesel traction, with less moving parts, therefore less to go wrong, and less maintenance intensive. The only real negative is the large initial cost, but that should not be used as an excuse not to press on!

 

[hexagon789]

The only real negative is the large initial cost, but that should not be used as an excuse not to press on!

While I agree it shouldn't be, it often is, today and in the past. I maintain however that service improvements themselves can be more important than electrification if one is forced to choose.

 

[CdBrux]

There are, literally, no good reasons not to electrify.
It's always beneficial and reduces long term operating costs. Much more reliable than diesel traction, with less moving parts, therefore less to go wrong, and less maintenance intensive. The only real negative is the large initial cost, but that should not be used as an excuse not to press on!

So you would buy a house on a 30* salary mortgage?

 

[Daz28]

Battery trains, with 3rd rail at stations to provide a top-up charge will soon be very feasible.

Has anyone explored live running rail electrification? If the running rails were electrified and the wheels acted as the pickup shoes, it would negate many of the challenges of third rail in icy conditions.

 

[swt_passenger]

Has anyone explored live running rail electrification? If the running rails were electrified and the wheels acted as the pickup shoes, it would negate many of the challenges of third rail in icy conditions.

It wouldn’t be allowed for exactly the same reason new third rail wouldn’t be allowed.

 

[AM9]

It wouldn’t be allowed for exactly the same reason new third rail wouldn’t be allowed.

I think that Daz28 is confusing real railways with a 12VDC model railway.

 

[Camden]

The rush for electrification of all transport, not just rail, doesn't deal with the resilience of the electricity network. In future, natural disasters or malicious events may see people and goods stranded with no prospect of sufficient and sufficiently expedient recovery in time to prevent complete societal breakdown.

Other than that, I'm fine with it.

 

[Kneedown]

So you would buy a house on a 30* salary mortgage?

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make?
"30* salary" mortgage is a bit of a mystery?