MML Electrification: is it going to be completed?

[Killingworth]

A doubling of passengers over 50 years means rail growth of 1.4% year on year.

That's way off what we've been getting of late, so doubling in that timeframe is unlikely.

In fact over a 50 year period to see a quadrupling of passengers (2.82%) is still well below what all bar one (London Overground) TOC saw in growth last year (each of the rest with a growth rate of over 4%, with the majority seeing growth of over 5%)

My local station is achieving nearer 10% pa! I'd expect doubling well within 10 years. However, I can't see it happening without major investment at major choke points.

To be more specific, 40 years ago I watched the singling of the lines between Sheffield and Manchester through Dore & Totley station in 1985. That followed reduction of the quadruple tracks from there into Sheffield. By 1995 Railtrack were realising the singling had been a mistake and started planning redoubling which should have been achieved by 2005 - but they went bust and it was paused.

10 years later the plans were being updated and included in the Manchester Hub proposals, slowly moving forward to a public inquiry in 2016. Whether there was any official pause or it was just normal rail project speed but it was finally completed in 2024.

The rationale was to add an extra fast train path between Sheffield and Manchester, improve paths for freight trains, and allow the stopping trains to run to all stations hourly. The first aim has not been achieved due to congestion around Manchester and Sheffield. The second may have been partially achieved, although the eastbound up hill Bamford loop is not too helpful for heavy aggregate and cement trains. The third aim was largely achieved in December 2022 before the scheme was completed by substituting Class 195s for Pacers!

What's happened with passenger numbers? 30% increase is possible in the 2024/25 year as lost ground after Covid is made up.


Reconfiguration down the Sheaf Valley into and at Sheffield was planned for HS2, with the addition of a 3rd track. It's largely the same work needed for MML electrification. That was intended to give more passenger capacity at the station as well as on the tracks. The wires were not the most essential or expensive part. Rebuilding bridges, replacing drainage, replacing points and track, then signalling and the ecology reports all add their millions.

Doubling passenger numbers within 10 years could be possible in some places. We've previously done that at Dore & Totley.

Pausing electrification is the headline but it's the delay, and possible total loss, of the other work that will have greater impact on provision of better passenger services.

 

[HSTEd]

A doubling of passengers over 50 years means rail growth of 1.4% year on year.

That's way off what we've been getting of late, so doubling in that timeframe is unlikely.

In fact over a 50 year period to see a quadrupling of passengers (2.82%) is still well below what all bar one (London Overground) TOC saw in growth last year (each of the rest with a growth rate of over 4%, with the majority seeing growth of over 5%)

Well over the last five years later we've still not managed to the pre coronavirus traffic peak.
We have a stagnant economy and slowing population growth.

I think suggesting a doubling or quadroupling of traffic over 50 years is exceptionally optimistic. In any case, the era of "predict and provide" in transport policy is long since over.

 

[The Ham]

Well over the last five years later we've still not managed to the pre coronavirus traffic peak.
We have a stagnant economy and slowing population growth.

I think suggesting a doubling or quadroupling of traffic over 50 years is exceptionally optimistic. In any case, the era of "predict and provide" in transport policy is long since over.

The thing is, even with a significant fall due to COVID, in the 15 years (2009-2024) rail growth has increased by 28% (with some sections, like London/North West seeing 47% and London/Scotland seeing number more than double). 1.67% growth per year over 15 years is 28%, and that's with COVID meaning that there's effectively 6 years of zero growth.

You don't need much growth at 3% per year to get the annual growth rate up (bear in mind London/East Midlands saw growth of 6.5% last year, and whilst that's still circa 15% below the peak, with 5 years of 3% growth and that peak is exceeded).

For example 5 years of 3% growth and the national average rises to 2% per year.

Some of that growth we've seen will be due to the Elizabeth Line, however not all.

Excluding London Overground (which saw a 0.5% fall) every TOC saw growth of over 4% (and then only two of those were below 5%).

The population hasn't been growing very fast, the average is around 1%, so rail growth hasn't been reliant on that.

For clarification though, whilst I'm keen to have plans for future growth, they should only be implemented if the growth happens.

Those who fail to plan, plan to fail - if we don't have options for what to do if growth continues then we're always going to be further behind than we need to be (which is likely to mean significant overcrowding).

 

[edwin_m]

Growth in post-Covid years isn't a good indicator of trends. Some of it is still likely to be recovery from that period and we don't yet know what the long-term trend will be when it settles down. Also, there is now similar or higher levels of leisure travel but less commuting and business travel, reducing the journeys that generate the most revenue and the most economic benefit (both of which contribute to the benefit-cost ratio that justifies, or not, public investment).

 

[Killingworth]

For clarification though, whilst I'm keen to have plans for future growth, they should only be implemented if the growth happens.

Those who fail to plan, plan to fail - if we don't have options for what to do if growth continues then we're always going to be further behind than we need to be (which is likely to mean significant overcrowding).

How long does it take to produce more rail capacity, trains, tracks, stations?

Having closely watched efforts to do that locally it seems over 30 years. Now the forecast and anticipated growth has happened there's still reluctance to cater for more. That 'more' very much includes the station infrastructure at and around Sheffield. MML Electrification now complicates the business case.

It's too late to start planning when the growth has already happened. The world moves on and away.

As an example, anyone from SE Northumberland will not be surprised by the success of the Ashington line. It's not a reopening insofar as trains never ran frequently into Newcastle Central from an area of modern private housing. The days of pit heaps, coal, terraces of miners cottages and occasional trains to Manors were a totally different world. It's a new line making use of a small part of the old basically freight infrastructure and it should have happened 25 years ago.

The Elizabeth line is another outstanding example. Building similar with a Thameslink equivalent through Manchester would have similar success.

There's no money, not enough to pay crews to operate what trains we have on Sundays on tracks that exist, a top day for leisure users.

I saw Lord Hendy at the Transport Select Committee. HS2 has effectively sucked the life out of many smaller schemes that would deliver shorter term benefits for many people.

I'll avoid how currently congested St Pancas could deal with doubled numbers! I'm sure someone has a plan.

 

[Bald Rick]

Growth in post-Covid years isn't a good indicator of trends. Some of it is still likely to be recovery from that period and we don't yet know what the long-term trend will be when it settles down. Also, there is now similar or higher levels of leisure travel but less commuting and business travel, reducing the journeys that generate the most revenue and the most economic benefit (both of which contribute to the benefit-cost ratio that justifies, or not, public investment).

Exactly this.

There is one caveat. Real fuel prices are just about as low as they have been for a generation. If there is a notable increase in them, and thus the cost of motoring*, it could well be the case that there is significant growth on the back of that.

*although the rise of the EV generstion will have the opposite effect, especially for mid distance and regionsl journies.

 

[NCT]

Electrodiesel was going to be part of the IEP programme already in 2010.
I have to wonder why the Midland Main Line project was not phased with electrodiesels in mind considering the concept had been around since 2010 and 80x series trains started testing in 2015.

I believe theres even posts from me on the forum from around then predicting we would ultimately end up here!

(Perhaps I am a prophet instead of a madman!)

Well... the railway industry had its opportunity to get an all new railway, fit for the future, and look how that went!

Back in 2017 when the franchise specification and MMLe business cases were being drawn up concurrently, the choices (for north of Kettering) were essentially:
- Continue with 222s (still young trains, plenty of life left with a refurbishment) - already getting as good a journey time as possible with those
- Full electrification and buy straight EMUs - yes there's a capex but you get the full opex savings and emission benefits

Electro-diesels were the worst of both worlds. You buy the most expensive, heaviest, and (as it has turned out) the most riskiest high-spec electrodiesel that will cost an arm and a leg to run (electric power to carry the GUs and tanks, diesel power to carry the transformers).

Once Grayling decided on electro-diesels (a very bad decision), the pure economically optimal decision would have been to stop electrification.

The decision to restart MML electrification was purely a political one to compensate for the cancellation of HS2 eastern leg.

That is not to say there is no long-term case for eventual full electrification, that there needs to be a full fleet replacement opportunity (e.g. Class 810 cascade) where you could bank the full benefits of straight EMUs and emissions. There is a clear opportunity staring us in the face with is to cascade the 810s to Cross Country, but that opportunity is a few years off (there are still some years left in the 220s and 221s).

Now that MML electrification extension had started the right thing is to continue for the continuity of the industry - that the work will be done for a handful of years before strictly needed is, given where we are, a minor concern. That 'there is no money' is again, a political choice and a poor one at that.

 

[Mikey C]

National passenger numbers aren't entirely meaningful anyway, as they are skewed by London commuter numbers, which will have been impacted by working from home. Other longer distance journeys have been far less impacted, and will keep growing.

 

[stevieinselby]

Once Grayling decided on electro-diesels (a very bad decision), the pure economically optimal decision would have been to stop electrification.

Electro-diesels without electrification are a far worse "worst of both worlds"!

Sure, I can see that with battery bi-modes, you may reach a point where further electrification stops having a business case because the batteries combined with extant electrification allow the trains to run in zero-emissions mode at all times – but with electro-diesel bi-modes, you don't ever get that, every mile of unelectrified track is a mile that you are still having to have the diesel generators running for.

You might then make the decision that you only care about air quality in London and not provincial cities like Sheffield, Derby, Nottingham and Leicester - you might then make the decision that you only care about journey time and comfort improvements for passengers travelling to London (and only once they got close to London), and not for those making their journeys north of Kettering. But if there is a business case for electrification at all then there is a business case for electrification at least as far as Long Eaton. It makes no sense to buy all that expensive kit and lug around that extra weight when less than half of the route is electrified, if you don't have plans to extend the wires at least as far as you are running 4tph.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

No steelwork or copper was ordered. Only design, surveys and enabling works(inc. route clearance) were authorised.

The lowest STK section is Syston to Trent and is less £2.7m/stk as it was the most developed route section noting STK rate is baselined at Q1 2019 and does not include inflation.

Thank you and welcome to the forum.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

I can’t read this article as it is locked behind a paywall, however the headline isn’t at all positive sounding.

Midland Main Line electrification teams to be stood down this year as project is paused​

The few lines you can read without paying say "preliminary work for future electrification will cease shortly". So no, no chance of RS2 by stealth. It's just that some structure work around RS2 was authorised before the announcement and so was too soon to cancel. Goes to show how unexpected and knee jerk the decision was, with absolutely no strategic decision making.

I don't believe hs2 will provide much relevant work to maintain electrification industry, not least because it won't be for a while, but because the kind of work is very different - working on a brand new alignment can be done with international workers easily. The skills are around dealing with the 200yr old infrastructure and all it's stuff still in place

 

[HSTEd]

Electro-diesels without electrification are a far worse "worst of both worlds"!

Sure, I can see that with battery bi-modes, you may reach a point where further electrification stops having a business case because the batteries combined with extant electrification allow the trains to run in zero-emissions mode at all times – but with electro-diesel bi-modes, you don't ever get that, every mile of unelectrified track is a mile that you are still having to have the diesel generators running for.

You might then make the decision that you only care about air quality in London and not provincial cities like Sheffield, Derby, Nottingham and Leicester - you might then make the decision that you only care about journey time and comfort improvements for passengers travelling to London (and only once they got close to London), and not for those making their journeys north of Kettering. But if there is a business case for electrification at all then there is a business case for electrification at least as far as Long Eaton. It makes no sense to buy all that expensive kit and lug around that extra weight when less than half of the route is electrified, if you don't have plans to extend the wires at least as far as you are running 4tph.

Well with electrodiesels there is no reason electrification has to linearly stretch out from one end of the route towards the other, with electrification only used at one end of the journey.

What air quality benefits to major cities does the section immediately north of Leicester to Long Eaton provide?

THe cost of the kit in the trains is a small fraction of the cost of the electrification equipment required to remove it.

As already noted above, we have demonstrated a drop in battery system for 80x series trains in a real world trial and improvements beyond that baseline performance are already expected.

You could probably make an air quality case for Sheffield area electrification.
I don't think you can make an air quality case for tens of track kilometres of electrification for Loughborough.

 

[deltic08]

Well with electrodiesels there is no reason electrification has to linearly stretch out from one end of the route towards the other, with electrification only used at one end of the journey.

What air quality benefits to major cities does the section immediately north of Leicester to Long Eaton provide?

THe cost of the kit in the trains is a small fraction of the cost of the electrification equipment required to remove it.

As already noted above, we have demonstrated a drop in battery system for 80x series trains in a real world trial and improvements beyond that baseline performance are already expected.

You could probably make an air quality case for Sheffield area electrification.
I don't think you can make an air quality case for tens of track kilometres of electrification for Loughborough.

Freight locos hauling 1600 tons cannot operate on batteries for more than a couple of miles on the flat. It has to be on OLE for max pulling power and diesel for shunting in unelectrified yards. We need more OLE now on freight flows and not in 30 years time.
Oxford station road under pass is costing £280 million. Pause that until there is more money available and continue with MML electrification to Derby and Nottingham. Use the work that has already been done if the route is almost ready for erecting masts and wires which is much less than £2.7m/stk. This is electrification on the cheap if 85% of the preparation has already been completed to Trent.
Billions have been wasted on overbudget HS2, Hinckley Point power station and dual carriageway bypasses that will not ease congestion only add to it at each end where it goes back to single carriageways. Why were they not paused?
The whole cancellation will waste £millions and is beyond reason..

 

[Bald Rick]

Freight locos hauling 1600 tons cannot operate on batteries for more than a couple of miles on the flat.

That depends on the size of the battery.

Oxford station road under pass is costing £280 million. Pause that until there is more money available

That money is almost all spent.

 

[HSTEd]

Freight locos hauling 1600 tons cannot operate on batteries for more than a couple of miles on the flat. It has to be on OLE for max pulling power and diesel for shunting in unelectrified yards. We need more OLE now on freight flows and not in 30 years time.

I don't think it is plausible that an economic case for electrification can be built for avoiding Class 99s (the only truly modern freight electric available) burning some diesel.

And with a large enough battery, many things are possible.

Oxford station road under pass is costing £280 million. Pause that until there is more money available and continue with MML electrification to Derby and Nottingham. Use the work that has already been done if the route is almost ready for erecting masts and wires which is much less than £2.7m/stk. This is electrification on the cheap if 85% of the preparation has already been completed to Trent.

Even if they achieve £2.7m/stk (2025 pounds) and none of that money has been spent, that will only get you a hundred track kilometres.
That isn't going to get you very far at all.

If, as suggested above [post #537], it is £2.7m/stkm (2019 pounds), it is actually more like £3.4m/stkm (2025 pounds), and you will get even less.

Billions have been wasted on overbudget HS2, Hinckley Point power station and dual carriageway bypasses that will not ease congestion only add to it at each end where it goes back to single carriageways. Why were they not paused?
The whole cancellation will waste £millions and is beyond reason..

Rail upgrades are just as cursed by induced demand as road upgrades.

 

[The Ham]

Growth in post-Covid years isn't a good indicator of trends. Some of it is still likely to be recovery from that period and we don't yet know what the long-term trend will be when it settles down. Also, there is now similar or higher levels of leisure travel but less commuting and business travel, reducing the journeys that generate the most revenue and the most economic benefit (both of which contribute to the benefit-cost ratio that justifies, or not, public investment).

Indeed, however that doesn't stop there being a plan for if x happens.

x may never happen, or it may happen next year (or somewhere between the two), however just assuming that x will never happen means that if it does then you're not going to do anything about it for at least a few years.

For example, if trains were very busy pre COVID, then it maybe the plan is to order more trains once passenger numbers reach within (say) 5% of the peak (and with rising growth, as long as it's rising faster than 2%), so that 2 to 3 down the line those new trains can ease the overcrowding which may be worse than it was.

The point being passenger numbers (and revenue) isn't likely to stay static and there should be plans for what should happen if growth continues.

If rail growth starts to fall again, then there should also be a plan for that - as that's just as important as planning for growth.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed, however that doesn't stop there being a plan for if x happens.

x may never happen, or it may happen next year (or somewhere between the two), however just assuming that x will never happen means that if it does then you're not going to do anything about it for at least a few years.

For example, if trains were very busy pre COVID, then it maybe the plan is to order more trains once passenger numbers reach within (say) 5% of the peak (and with rising growth, as long as it's rising faster than 2%), so that 2 to 3 down the line those new trains can ease the overcrowding which may be worse than it was.

The point being passenger numbers (and revenue) isn't likely to stay static and there should be plans for what should happen if growth continues.

If rail growth starts to fall again, then there should also be a plan for that - as that's just as important as planning for growth.

Yes you can plan, and there is obviously now a design sitting somewhere for extension of the electrification at least as far as Trent. But I was trying to clarify that posts such as "rail travel grew x% in 2022-23" won't carry much weight because that figure probably still includes post-COVID (or later on post-strike) recovery and probably isn't sustainable.

 

[deltic08]

That depends on the size of the battery.



That money is almost all spent.

How big can we go in the space and weight available in a loco body? Batteries however big cannot produce the pulling power of electricity over distance and how do you recharge them on the move without OHL? At the moment we do not have enough OHL, apart from WCML, to rely on battery power. Look at the large distances from Felixstowe, Tilbury, London Gateway and Southampton northwards to Birmingham, Sheffield, Wakefield, Leeds and Teesport that are unelectrified and unsuitable for battery locos.

Quick, think of some other large infrastructure project that could be paused to save money.

I don't think it is plausible that an economic case for electrification can be built for avoiding Class 99s (the only truly modern freight electric available) burning some diesel.

And with a large enough battery, many things are possible.

Even if they achieve £2.7m/stk (2025 pounds) and none of that money has been spent, that will only get you a hundred track kilometres.
That isn't going to get you very far at all.

If, as suggested above [post #537], it is £2.7m/stkm (2019 pounds), it is actually more like £3.4m/stkm (2025 pounds), and you will get even less.

Rail upgrades are just as cursed by induced demand as road upgrades.

According to Noel Dolphin from Furrer and Frey, the next two sections to Syston and Trent will be £2.7m/stk or less at to-days prices as 85% is complete and money has already been spent making it so. That leaves only the metal work and wires to fit. As metal work and wires are only £30% of the project I would say that is cheap electrification to finish to Trent.

!00 track kilometers is enough to reach Trent. However, I would be happy to just finish from Wigston to Leicester for now. At least Leicester to Trent will still be ready to unpause next year or later if an electrification team can be found. I think DfT will find that finishing in the countryside at Wigston will not be as convenient as predicted after a year or two. We shall see.

 

[Killingworth]

Part of the planning is based on ORR passenger numbers. I illustrated my post 571 with the figures for one small station showing excellent growrh over the 30 years it took to plan and deliver improvements. What is increasingly clear is that over the last 30 years the rail market has markedly changed. Stations differ greatly and each needs to be looked at carefully.

All stations from Edale towards Sheffield have seen big increases thanks to leisure. Heading towards Manchester from New Miills Central on the same line there have been big drops after Covid due to loss of commuters. (A significant factor in statistics may be the impact of split ticketing but that's another story.)

The planning and delivery periods are so long, from HS2 and MML electrification to the new station at White Rose. The world moves on.

30 years ago I'd be using the MML from Chesterfield to St Pancras, suited on expenses. I also attended offices in Bedford using direct trains. If I did that today it would be via 4 platforms at St P as well as the 2 at Bedford.

 

[Bald Rick]

How big can we go in the space and weight available in a loco body? Batteries however big cannot produce the pulling power of electricity over distance and how do you recharge them on the move without OHL?

As big as you want. Playing devil’s advocate (and as I have said before), for the first 140 years of railway operation many locomotives pulled around a separate wagon their energy storage, and there is no technical reason why the same couldn’t be done for battery locos. This is very crayony, but something the size of a 99 with batteries rather than an engine, semi permamently coupled to something the same size as a 99 but full of batteries, would have around 10MWh in the ‘tank’, and that’s enough to give you 5 hours plus off the wires.

They would recharge on OLE whem available, but also through regen braking (which is very generative for freight).

At the moment we do not have enough OHL, apart from WCML, to rely on battery power. Look at the large distances from Felixstowe, Tilbury, London Gateway and Southampton northwards to Birmingham, Sheffield, Wakefield, Leeds and Teesport that are unelectrified and unsuitable for battery locos.

Tilbury / Gateway to Birmingham, Wakefiled, Leeds and Teesport is almost entirely on the wires.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Whilst perusing Uniper's recent planning application for the demolition of Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station, I happened to notice that Network Rail also applied for consent to reconstruct Marle Pit Hill bridge in Sutton Bonington. Application was submitted on 5th July and is currently being considered by Rushcliffe Council. Reference is 25/01203/FUL.

something the size of a 99 with batteries rather than an engine, semi permamently coupled to somethignthe same size as a 99 but full of batteries, would have around 10MWh in the ‘tank’

Quite like this idea. The other thought is you might use the battery under the wires to flatten demand, meaning reduced impact on power distribution system (or more power at the rail).
My crayons got me to single-cabbed locos effectively coupled back to back - how Rail Adventures HST power cars sometimes work, but battery.

However, this lot would weigh 150-200 tonnes and be ~40 metres and I wondered what economic signals would be needed to persuade a FOC to go for this over Cl66; track access and/or differential in traction electricity/diesel prices. I guess the point is that if nobody's going to spend £billions on conventional electrification, then somebody might need to spend £millions on exotic new traction solutions.

 

[WAO]

Tilbury / Gateway to Birmingham, Wakefiled, Leeds and Teesport is almost entirely on the wires.

I'm not aware that these routes are brimming with spare paths or richly endowed with power supplies.
Batteries do need partial electrification and that is quite a lot more than we have now. Each route will need careful assessment for battery capacity, range and charging opportunities.

If one looks at the EMR system map alone, then it is very very evident that battery operation, (which will be much better than DMU's), through OLE charging needs the core route which many/most share to be wired, i.e the MML.

I actually quite sympathise with the pause because of the spending crunch. Unfortunately it is alienating an important region (the East Midlands) in a way that the other spending cuts (like York etc) will not. As both parties have now failed the E Mids, it's just votes for the new challenger.

WAO

 

[Mikey C]

It'll be Farage's turn next to promise MML full electrification - "for too long you have been let down" - before cancelling it after just another 10 miles have been done

 

[GraphitProjekt]

i think we all know farage would promise roads lol

 

[WAO]

Agreed, but that would take us through Leicester (if a semi-fast were ever on the cards) and reach Syston or thereabouts!

If a politician would keep a promise!

WAO

 

[HSTEd]

As big as you want. Playing devil’s advocate (and as I have said before), for the first 140 years of railway operation many locomotives pulled around a separate wagon their energy storage, and there is no technical reason why the same couldn’t be done for battery locos. This is very crayony, but something the size of a 99 with batteries rather than an engine, semi permamently coupled to something the same size as a 99 but full of batteries, would have around 10MWh in the ‘tank’, and that’s enough to give you 5 hours plus off the wires.

They would recharge on OLE whem available, but also through regen braking (which is very generative for freight).

Although we don't have proper cell stats in the public domain yet, the "long" variant of the next generation BYD 'Blade' batteries, reputedly in production this summer, claims 210Wh/kg and huge charge and discharge powers.

If we take a 20% credit for regeneration, and assume that a Class 60 engine always achieves its rated fuel efficiency, then enough batteries to match its 5200L fuel tank (about 17MWh worth) would mass "only" about 83 tonnes.

I think that is getting towards the point where a Co Co battery freight locomotive would be feasible. Although given the flexibility of battery placement compared to conventional locomotives, you could always go for Bo-Bo-Bo for its apparent track damage advantages.

 

[deltic08]

As big as you want. Playing devil’s advocate (and as I have said before), for the first 140 years of railway operation many locomotives pulled around a separate wagon their energy storage, and there is no technical reason why the same couldn’t be done for battery locos. This is very crayony, but something the size of a 99 with batteries rather than an engine, semi permamently coupled to something the same size as a 99 but full of batteries, would have around 10MWh in the ‘tank’, and that’s enough to give you 5 hours plus off the wires.

They would recharge on OLE whem available, but also through regen braking (which is very generative for freight).



Tilbury / Gateway to Birmingham, Wakefiled, Leeds and Teesport is almost entirely on the wires.

I could say that what I would want is bigger than the loading gauge would allow and weight heavier than bridges were designed for on 6 axles. What would be the weight of batteries filling a loco the size of a class 99 and how long would it take to recharge them?

To my knowledge there are only a couple of miles of OLE at Ely and Peterborough combined between Haughley Jnc and Doncaster via Lincoln for northern terminals and non between Peterborough and Birmingham via Nuneaton. How are trains from Southampton to Birmingham, Leeds and Wakefield almost entirely under the wires? Only Reading to Didcot. Please explain.

 

[WAO]

I think the Paul Hooper (Atkins) PWI video (below, From Dundee posts) gives a more balanced view of batteries versus OLE.

He was talking in greener times (2022) and cost/spending realities need to be factored in, so it would mean more batteries and less OLE at least in the short term. Clearly 11700 track km aren't going to be wired by 2050 (at £3M/stkm, but only c1/3 of hS2 cost!) but some are.

He mentioned that batteries, even modern ones, needed 13 times the space for a corresponding Diesel tank!

WAO

 

[InTheEastMids]

I think the Paul Hooper (Atkins) PWI video (below, From Dundee posts) gives a more balanced view of batteries versus OLE.

He was talking in greener times (2022) and cost/spending realities need to be factored in, so it would mean more batteries and less OLE at least in the short term. Clearly 11700 track km aren't going to be wired by 2050 (at £3M/stkm, but only c1/3 of hS2 cost!) but some are.

He mentioned that batteries, even modern ones, needed 13 times the space for a corresponding Diesel tank!

WAO

This recent presentation to the PWI by Garry Keenor seems like a fairly balanced illustration of the state of play and where things may go.
This was delivered just days before the cancellation of MMLE.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure I buy this argument that freight trains cannot use batteries over significant distances.

If we go to the published traction energy metrics (from 2019) a heavy haul freight train burns about 25.27kWh per 1000 gross tonne miles.
Intermodal trains are higher at about 38kWh per 1000 gross tonne miles but intermodal trains are way lighter so I doubt they are limiting here.

So a 4600t 'Jumbo' Mendips train travelling the 55 miles or so from a (randomly selected by me) quarry near Frome to the electrified railway at Newbury would rack up 253,000 tonne miles.
That's about 6.4MWh's worth. You could argue we should have an allowance from the outward leg, but these aggregate trians don't appear to be merry go around operations, so time is available for charging at the quarry.

But in any case, lets call it about 8MWh, I can't think of an obvious place that a heavy haul train runs a longer distance on unelectrified railways, at a train weight anything like that.

8MWh would require a first gen BYD 'Blade' battery pack with around ~17,700 cells, massing about 45 tonnes.
That is a big battery, but hardly seems an unreasonable imposition for a six or eight axle freight locomotive.

New battery technologies will be lighter still.