What implications does the latest battery train results have on future UK electrification ?.

[BerkshireRails]

Running an hourly service to Gunnislake is a waste of resources. The line sees an average of 25 passengers per train journey, there is nowhere near enough demand or potential to justify an increase in frequency, it would be money down the drain.

The hourly Gunnislake Branch service might only go as far as Bere Ferrers where it would terminate or Bere Alstom then contuine on to Tavistock. Making Gunnislake hourly would improve the usefulness of St Budeax, Dockyards, Devonport and Keynsham stations. Which is the main justification for doing the frequency upgrade.

The IETs that run the Oxford fasts and Cotswolds services are diesel bi-modes and have another 30 years in service, so unless the diesel generators can be swapped out for battery packs that would be sufficient to run Didcot to Hereford and back or they can be swapped out to other services, those trains will still be running on diesel for some/all of the route.
The Oxford to Didcot shuttles really want to be re-joined to the London to Didcot services that are run by 387s – if those were switched out for battery bi-modes then yes, there would be a small number of 165s that could be binned, but there would be a lot more 387s that have many years of life left in them that would become surplus to requirements and that would only be sensible if they could be redeployed elsewhere.

Rather than converting the IETs to battery, what about order a new fleet of battery 397s for the last mile workings off the OLE like Bristol, Bedwyn and Oxford. This would then allow the diesel units to be used to strengthen other services. Lets say these battery 397s are the class 396s. The 387s would obviously move to Southern or Great Northern. I would see the freed-up 165s being used to improve capacity rather than being binned off, until there is a replacement fleet for the 15Xs, 16Xs and possibly the 387s for fleet commonality reasons.

Even if you didn't upgrade any existing trains, having this for all new builds going forward would still make a huge difference in the years ahead. Depending on how GB Railways wants to do things, imagine the huge order for new battery trains (possibly with OHLE/third rail capabilities too) across the country to replace all those ageing DMUs.

Chances are you'll be looking at more lines getting signalling upgrades, so that's another reason why some older trains may just be better off going for scrap.

Would it be possible to modify the software to allow the auxiliary batteries on units like the 387s to be used for traction in emergencies? I get you might have to slightly enlarge the battery and maybe limit power output to notch 1 and 5-15mph.

 

[PTR 444]

Yes, there will need to be intermediate OLE. Cogload Jn/Taunton to Exeter is an obvious place due to the higher service levels, extending that through to Newton Abbot or Plymouth would have obvious advantages for power over the most severe gradients.

You would also need to take into account the Waterloo - Exeter services, which will be running on unelectrified track for over 100 miles each way. I’d imagine Exeter - Honiton would need to be wired at the very least for this service, to enable sufficient charge for battery operation on the unelectrified sections of the WofE line.

 

[BerkshireRails]

You would also need to take into account the Waterloo - Exeter services, which will be running on unelectrified track for over 100 miles each way. I’d imagine Exeter - Honiton would need to be wired at the very least for this service, to enable sufficient charge for battery operation on the unelectrified sections of the WofE line.

I would target Exeter to Pinhoe as stage 1 because of the 1 in 37 grade.

 

[martin butler]

I would target Exeter to Pinhoe as stage 1 because of the 1 in 37 grade.

If money was available, I would electrify the entire Waterloo to Exeter line from Basingstoke, and the route from Bristol to Exeter as a first step possibly re doubling the line from Salisbury back to full double track, along with the Basingstoke to Reading line, this would enable faster services, and through trains from Reading to Salisbury possibly allowing the waterloo to exeter to become limited stop say Woking Basingstoke Salisbury with the reading services calling at all stations,

 

[PTR 444]

If money was available, I would electrify the entire Waterloo to Exeter line from Basingstoke, and the route from Bristol to Exeter as a first step possibly re doubling the line from Salisbury back to full double track, along with the Basingstoke to Reading line, this would enable faster services, and through trains from Reading to Salisbury possibly allowing the waterloo to exeter to become limited stop say Woking Basingstoke Salisbury with the reading services calling at all stations,

But there isn’t unlimited money available, hence why the most likely method of electrifying our rail network will be in the form of battery operation with charging on OHLE/third rail. I agree Salisbury - Exeter should be fully double track though.

 

[WAO]

Returning to the original theme, I suspect that the GWR trials will not affect electrification much either way. The present Government favours trams for political reasons, even though they are five times as costly as OLE and limit mobility to an urban district, rather than extending it nationwide, like heavy rail. Batteries will only come, as large foreign manufacturers choose to offer products, based on experience elsewhere. Decarbonising the railway will have only incidental priority because of the excuse that it is insignificant in UK terms (although the UK is insignificant in world terms).

I think that the UK railway administration, whatever it may then be called, will in a year or so, find modest OLE extensions worth approval by DfT/Treasury, such as Oxford, Leicester and perhaps Rochdale, probably in conjunction with BEMU operation, so the creep will resume!

I'm sorry for Vivirail/GWR, (whose creative achievements deserved better) as a large fleet of redundant D78 stock was purchased with serial conversion definitely in mind, following on from the prototypes.

WAO

 

[Bald Rick]

I think that the UK railway administration, whatever it may then be called, will in a year or so, find modest OLE extensions worth approval by DfT/Treasury

Not for this spending review period. There’s no money. I don’t think many people understand the dire straits that this country is in with respect to public sector finances and borrowing.

 

[Annetts key]

Not for this spending review period. There’s no money. I don’t think many people understand the dire straits that this country is in with respect to public sector finances and borrowing.

With all due respect, since WWII this country has spent more time in "dire straits" economically than in a good state. We were in an even worse position for example during and just after WWII.

The current problems are thanks to all political parties that have been in power running up debts over the years while failing to invest enough in infrastructure such as the railways (and other things, like public housing, school buildings, hospital buildings, the military).

There are solutions, the biggest problem is that politicians box themselves in by making promises that they then find limit their options when things don't go to the (over optimistic) plan...

Compared to overall government spending, the cost of extending the existing OHLE sections at a steady rate each year is a drop in the ocean. Especially on lines that have already had all or most of the preparation work done. It's always cheaper overall to carry out construction work in the near term, putting it off just increases the costs.

 

[Bald Rick]

With all due respect, since WWII this country has spent more time in "dire straits" economically than in a good state. We were in an even worse position for example during and just after WWII.

The current problems are thanks to all political parties that have been in power running up debts over the years while failing to invest enough in infrastructure such as the railways (and other things, like public housing, school buildings, hospital buildings, the military).

There are solutions, the biggest problem is that politicians box themselves in by making promises that they then find limit their options when things don't go to the (over optimistic) plan...

Compared to overall government spending, the cost of extending the existing OHLE sections at a steady rate each year is a drop in the ocean. Especially on lines that have already had all or most of the preparation work done. It's always cheaper overall to carry out construction work in the near term, putting it off just increases the costs.

I don’t disagree, however almost every item of capital expenditure that Government could pay for is a drop in the ocean, and all those drops add up. And here we are with the third highest sovereign borrowing costs, and sixth highest sovereign debt levels of world advanced economies.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Not for this spending review period. There’s no money. I don’t think many people IN THIS FORUM understand the dire straits that this country is in with respect to public sector finances and borrowing.

I've amended your post. Many, many people in this country are fully aware of the problem with public finances. There is some disagreement about the causes and also about possible remedies, but those in denial are the minority.

 

[Topological]

Although we are drifting wildly here there are very many choices made by government that impact the ability to borrow.

Rather like us as individuals, it is just about what the lender sees and adjusts their expectations of repayment based upon.

We can debate the ethics forever (and should not, this is a discussion of electrification), but if the markets do not like something (such as Truss tax cutting) then the borrowing costs rise and the policy is cut back. Essentially we are beholden to the market.

IF the market saw electrification of the railways as a solid generator of future security then there would be no problem at all raising bonds tied to the project. I think it is a common misperception that all borrowing is somehow equal.

Going back to the individual borrowing analogy, we get credit to buy certain unsecured items (cars are a good example because of how quickly they depreciate once driven) but do not get credit to buy others (some goods we do through companies like Very, but the credit rates are extortionate) and general credit cards are not secured (also having much higher rates).

 

[Annetts key]

I don’t disagree, however almost every item of capital expenditure that Government could pay for is a drop in the ocean, and all those drops add up. And here we are with the third highest sovereign borrowing costs, and sixth highest sovereign debt levels of world advanced economies.

And buying new trains is also a capital expenditure. The last thing we need is to buy more ICE trains or get BEMU that may turn out not to be suitable long term. There have been various discussions on these forums about EMUs that have not been kept in operation but which are not life expired. The network has a patchwork of different stock, all of which makes moving them around to to replace stock or provide additional services much more difficult than it should be.

And as I said earlier, the batteries used in trains that use traction battery systems will have a lifespan considerably less than that of the train they are fitted in. Maybe five to ten years. So, what "pot" does the replacement cost of batteries come from? Capital expenditure? Maintenance? Or ongoing leasing costs?

Yes, providing OHLE infrastructure does cost money. As does maintaining it. And then there is the cost of the energy. But then, the costs of new electric trains is lower compared to ICE or battery systems. And electric trains are cheaper to maintain compared to ICE stock.

As I have said before, I'm in favour of battery powered trains. But I believe we also need to extend the coverage of OHL beyond the current limits. And not just providing "recharging islands".

 

[eldomtom2]

Although we are drifting wildly here there are very many choices made by government that impact the ability to borrow.

Exactly. If the government saw rail investment as a priority, it could raise taxes or cut spending in other areas. Of course, in practice I don't think the government does see rail spending as a priority, but it's important context.

 

[jon0844]

With all due respect, since WWII this country has spent more time in "dire straits" economically than in a good state. We were in an even worse position for example during and just after WWII.

The current problems are thanks to all political parties that have been in power running up debts over the years while failing to invest enough in infrastructure such as the railways (and other things, like public housing, school buildings, hospital buildings, the military).

There are solutions, the biggest problem is that politicians box themselves in by making promises that they then find limit their options when things don't go to the (over optimistic) plan...

Compared to overall government spending, the cost of extending the existing OHLE sections at a steady rate each year is a drop in the ocean. Especially on lines that have already had all or most of the preparation work done. It's always cheaper overall to carry out construction work in the near term, putting it off just increases the costs.

I agree we need more infrastructure investment, which boosts the economy and gives people work (and most people that aren't super rich will spend that money so it goes back into the economy, not sent abroad etc). However, I'd sooner build new trains and reopen lines or build new lines than use our resources on wiring up places where a battery train could operate instead.

We will never have unlimited resources or manpower and batteries to power things will be our next industrial revolution, given they can now run factories and heavy machinery etc.

 

[Bald Rick]

We will never have unlimited resources or manpower and batteries to power things will be our next industrial revolution, given they can now run factories and heavy machinery etc.

Indeed so. Steering us back towards topic, if not squarely on it, a new Grid Scale battery storage facility started construction in Nottinghamshire a few weeks ago. It is 360MW / 720MWh, and is costing about £70m. Whilst the architecture of the battery systems is very different, that quantity of energy storage is roughly enough to give every 80x EMU (including the 810s) 3MWh of battery, and that would be enough for almost every duty they do off the wires.

When you can get that much energy storage for the price of electrificying 3/4 of the way from Bolton to Wigan, you can see how the economics is moving very rapidly.

 

[Magdalia]

Not for this spending review period. There’s no money. I don’t think many people understand the dire straits that this country is in with respect to public sector finances and borrowing.

Many, many people in this country are fully aware of the problem with public finances.

There are lots of people on this forum who frequently need to be reminded.

I first studied economics in the 1970s, and have followed the fortunes of the UK economy ever since. The public finances have not been in a weaker state since the 1970s.

If the government saw rail investment as a priority, it could raise taxes or cut spending in other areas. Of course, in practice I don't think the government does see rail spending as a priority, but it's important context.

We know the government's spending priorities, they were set out in the spending review only a few weeks ago.

If the public finances turn out to be a bit better than expected, then any spare money is unlikely to come in the direction of the railway. On the other hand, if the public finances turn out to be a worse than expected, then the railway could get hit, especially if it can't keep its costs under control.

The hideous things about traditional OHL electrification in the current financial circumstances are that it is very binary (it either happens or it doesn't) and has lots of up front costs. Furthermore, those costs are very lumpy, especially feeders from the grid and wiring big complicated stations.

The thing I love about batteries is flexibility. Batteries can give us electric traction without the need to invest a lot up front on the OHL infrastructure. Furthermore, it opens up the opportunity to sweat the assets of the electrifications that are already done. Every existing feeder station that isn't being used to capacity can charge some battery trains, either while standing still or on the move.

Where there is OHL for part of the route, battery trains can charge on the move. What I'd really like to know is what percentage of route needs to be OHL for a train to run all day without static charging? If there isn't quite enough OHL for that, then there is the option of a bit of discontinuous electrification, or having more trains with longer turnrounds to include periods of static charging. I suspect that, in most cases, the latter will be the cheaper option. But if more grid feeders and/or OHL are needed, the flexibility of batteries will mean that feeders can be where they are relatively cheap to build, and discontinuous OHL can be on the easiest and cheapest bits of track to do.

I think that there is now an unstoppable move away from traditional OHL electrification and into batteries. Last week's experiment doesn't change that, but what it has done is to help to change the terms of the debate, as demonstrated here.

Wearing my economist's hat, my biggest concern is the supply chain for batteries. In a competitive global market, can the UK get what it needs at reasonable cost?

 

[HSTEd]

And buying new trains is also a capital expenditure. The last thing we need is to buy more ICE trains or get BEMU that may turn out not to be suitable long term. There have been various discussions on these forums about EMUs that have not been kept in operation but which are not life expired. The network has a patchwork of different stock, all of which makes moving them around to to replace stock or provide additional services much more difficult than it should be.

And as I said earlier, the batteries used in trains that use traction battery systems will have a lifespan considerably less than that of the train they are fitted in. Maybe five to ten years. So, what "pot" does the replacement cost of batteries come from? Capital expenditure? Maintenance? Or ongoing leasing costs?

Yes, providing OHLE infrastructure does cost money. As does maintaining it. And then there is the cost of the energy. But then, the costs of new electric trains is lower compared to ICE or battery systems. And electric trains are cheaper to maintain compared to ICE stock.

The entire diesel passenger rolling stock fleet is something like 3,000 vehicles.
Even if you replaced them all with brand new battery trains the cost of that would not buy very much electrification.

 

[Annetts key]

There are lots of people on this forum who frequently need to be reminded.

I first studied economics in the 1970s, and have followed the fortunes of the UK economy ever since. The public finances have not been in a weaker state since the 1970s.

Primarily due to the maintenance of debt payments.

We know the government's spending priorities, they were set out in the spending review only a few weeks ago.

If the public finances turn out to be a bit better than expected, then any spare money is unlikely to come in the direction of the railway. On the other hand, if the public finances turn out to be a worse than expected, then the railway could get hit, especially if it can't keep its costs under control.

The hideous things about traditional OHL electrification in the current financial circumstances are that it is very binary (it either happens or it doesn't) and has lots of up front costs. Furthermore, those costs are very lumpy, especially feeders from the grid and wiring big complicated stations.

The thing I love about batteries is flexibility. Batteries can give us electric traction without the need to invest a lot up front on the OHL infrastructure. Furthermore, it opens up the opportunity to sweat the assets of the electrifications that are already done. Every existing feeder station that isn't being used to capacity can charge some battery trains, either while standing still or on the move.

But we already have feeder stations sitting there gradually degrading doing nothing that have already been paid for, not supplying anything at the moment or only supplying a partial load due to an OHLE scheme having been paused indefinitely.

And in some places, relatively short extensions of existing OHLE systems could enable electric only trains to operate. Whereas, otherwise BEMUs will need to be manufactured and bought to replace the existing DMUs. With the cost benefit calculations, the results from these very much depends on the timeframe and other variables that you use.

Not all feeder stations / electrified lines will have enough capacity to support fast battery charging while a train is also drawing traction current. So operating battery trains in these areas may involve the additional cost of upgrading these systems.

Where there is OHL for part of the route, battery trains can charge on the move. What I'd really like to know is what percentage of route needs to be OHL for a train to run all day without static charging? If there isn't quite enough OHL for that, then there is the option of a bit of discontinuous electrification, or having more trains with longer turnrounds to include periods of static charging. I suspect that, in most cases, the latter will be the cheaper option. But if more grid feeders and/or OHL are needed, the flexibility of batteries will mean that feeders can be where they are relatively cheap to build, and discontinuous OHL can be on the easiest and cheapest bits of track to do.

I agree with most of what you say, however, for best efficiency and best operational use, the best places to wire will be stations where the trains are scheduled to stop. And a mile or so either side. That's also often the most complex and expensive place to install OHLE (compared with a similar distance of plain line).

I think that there is now an unstoppable move away from traditional OHL electrification and into batteries. Last week's experiment doesn't change that, but what it has done is to help to change the terms of the debate, as demonstrated here.

Do you think that battery operation is suitable for fast 125MPH long distance limited stop passenger services (complete with heating and air conditioning systems)?

Wearing my economist's hat, my biggest concern is the supply chain for batteries. In a competitive global market, can the UK get what it needs at reasonable cost?

And what about the on-going cost of batteries in the future? The price may be dropping at the moment, but at some point, it will level off. And then may go up. We have absolutely no idea on what future demand may be or what the production capability will be.

As I keep saying, battery powered trains will be the solution in some areas, on some lines. But in other places, I still think that more electrification is needed.

 

[eldomtom2]

On the other hand, if the public finances turn out to be a worse than expected, then the railway could get hit, especially if it can't keep its costs under control.

The railway is hardly the only field in Britain where things are more expensive than they are in other Western European countries. I'm not sure how much the railway itself is to blame for high costs as opposed to external factors. The railway can probably be blamed for not really trying to find out, though.

What I'd really like to know is what percentage of route needs to be OHL for a train to run all day without static charging?

That will surely depend on the route and the service? Gradients, number of stops, top speeds, train weight (for freight trains), etc. will all have an impact on how much energy is needed.

 

[Magdalia]

Primarily due to the maintenance of debt payments.

The interest payments are a product of the high debt level and the interest rates charged by lenders.

It doesn't help that there is a significant amount of index linked debt where the interest payments are linked to RPI.

we already have feeder stations sitting there gradually degrading doing nothing that have already been paid for

So let's use that capacity to charge battery trains.

best efficiency and best operational use, the best places to wire will be stations where the trains are scheduled to stop. And a mile or so either side. That's also often the most complex and expensive place to install OHLE (compared with a similar distance of plain line).

The most complex and expensive places to install OHL are the places not to do it.

All through railway history, with steam and diesel power, the ability to take fuel in busy stations has been the exception, not the rule.

There is no reason why battery trains can't run ecs out of a station and charge in a nearby place where the infrastructure can be installed much more cheaply.

The best places to install OHL will be where it is cheap to do so. Batteries open up the flexibility of not needing to do OHL where it is most complex and expensive.

Do you think that battery operation is suitable for fast 125MPH long distance limited stop passenger services (complete with heating and air conditioning systems)?

Not yet, but it will come, and nobody knows how long it will take. Many routes that need that capability have OHL already.

With the cost benefit calculations, the results from these very much depends on the timeframe and other variables that you use.

We have absolutely no idea on what future demand may be or what the production capability will be.

Indeed, which is why cost benefit isn't a particularly useful tool when there is lots of uncertainty.

As I keep saying, battery powered trains will be the solution in some areas, on some lines. But in other places, I still think that more electrification is needed.

More grid power is the key factor, with batteries that means that there doesn't have to be lots more OHL too.

Lots more OHL, especially lots of expensive complex OHL, isn't going to happen because there is no money for it.

 

[Bald Rick]

What I'd really like to know is what percentage of route needs to be OHL for a train to run all day without static charging?

Well, that varies, but the percentage will be reducing ss battery capability improves and cost reduces. A conservative rule of thumb is that a train needs to be on the juice for 50% of it’s diagram. But that will be reducing.

Wearing my economist's hat, my biggest concern is the supply chain for batteries. In a competitive global market, can the UK get what it needs at reasonable cost?

Absolutely nothing to worry about there. Batteries in the rail application is a tiny fraction of the annual battery supply in this country. I did the maths for another post a few months back. But, essentially, UK consumers buying around 0.5GWh of automotive EV batteries every week just for full EVs (ie not including hybrids). And that figure is rising every month. There’s about the same again being installed every month into our electricity system, either at grid scale, local scale (as art of solar farms) or at consumer level.

There’s roughly 1100 DMUs in this country. If they were all replaced with BEMUs with a generous 2MWh* of battery that would be about a month‘s worth of equivalent automotive EV batteries. And realisitically, it will take well over a decade to replace all the DMUs. (And it will, of course, need some additional charging faciltites, whether that OLE extensions / islands, or more bespoke solutions).

* 2MWh in a 2 car BEMU would power a typical Northern local service for most of the day without a need to recharge.

Primarily due to the maintenance of debt payments.

That is part of it. The main issue is the persistent and high level of structural budget deficit. And that results from either making promises that haven’t been properly costed, or not taking the ‘hard decisions’ necessary.

Do you think that battery operation is suitable for fast 125MPH long distance limited stop passenger services (complete with heating and air conditioning systems)?

With intermttenet electrification, yes. The HVAC load is noise in the system at this level though.

 

[WAO]

The railway is a £25Bn/year business of which half has at present to come from government. This should reduce (gradually but not quickly enough) as fare income recovers, franchises end and privatisation costs are revealed and eliminated.

In a year or two, I predict, a few cautious, small scale, cost effective OLE schemes will emerge, as finances stabilise. In the meantime, we can expect big cuts across the board (including the large LRT program) and little progress even with batteries. Old equipment will just have to work on.

WAO

 

[Magdalia]

The railway is a £25Bn/year business of which half has at present to come from government. This should reduce (gradually but not quickly enough) as fare income recovers, franchises end and privatisation costs are revealed and eliminated.

In a year or two, I predict, a few cautious, small scale, cost effective OLE schemes will emerge, as finances stabilise. In the meantime, we can expect big cuts across the board (including the large LRT program) and little progress even with batteries. Old equipment will just have to work on.

WAO

There is no money for any schemes that are not in the spending review.

If the railway financial position improves, then the government will reduce funding, and spend the money saved somewhere else.

 

[Bald Rick]

The only prospect of any electrification over and above what is already committed is if a rolling stock order relies on some OLE islands, and that is somehow wrapped into the leasing deal. Even then, I would expect HMT to spend a long time assessing it.

 

[BayPaul]

The railway is a £25Bn/year business of which half has at present to come from government. This should reduce (gradually but not quickly enough) as fare income recovers, franchises end and privatisation costs are revealed and eliminated.

In a year or two, I predict, a few cautious, small scale, cost effective OLE schemes will emerge, as finances stabilise. In the meantime, we can expect big cuts across the board (including the large LRT program) and little progress even with batteries. Old equipment will just have to work on.

WAO

The rail industry has lost the ability to deliver cost effective OLE schemes. Why would any government dump hundreds of millions into an OLE project, that is almost guaranteed to go massively over budget and time, whilst not achieving a significant benefit for passengers.

If the rail industry wants to electrify in the short-medium term (and it needs to, as road transport absolutely will) batteries are the only way ahead.

 

[Trainbike46]

The interest payments are a product of the high debt level and the interest rates charged by lenders.

It doesn't help that there is a significant amount of index linked debt where the interest payments are linked to RPI.

Why would the government use RPI rather than a better measure of inflation, like CPI or CPIH?

There is no reason why battery trains can't run ecs out of a station and charge in a nearby place where the infrastructure can be installed much more cheaply.

That's going to be very expensive staffing-wise as you're introducing lots of ECS movements; just electrify whatever sections of line make most sense, and charge on the move. In some situations, that will involve wiring around stations, in others it will not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2025 ==

That is part of it. The main issue is the persistent and high level of structural budget deficit. And that results from either making promises that haven’t been properly costed, or not taking the ‘hard decisions’ necessary.

The UK has had a party who claimed to be "competent economic managers" in power for the last 15 years, and they've proven themselves anything but that, repeatedly.

There is no money for any schemes that are not in the spending review.

If the railway financial position improves, then the government will reduce funding, and spend the money saved somewhere else.

And here you show perfectly why the current set-up disincentivises saving money. It's not limited to railways, my sector does this too. The most feared thing is a budget underspend, and if it looks like there could be money left over, ways are found to ensure every last penny is spent. If you don't, not only do you lose* the money you didn't spend this year, but it is cut from your budget for all future years.

It guarantees there will never be an underspend, while doing nothing to prevent an overspend.

*Usually this is expressed as "those insert expletive in central management will take our money away"

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2025 ==

The rail industry has lost the ability to deliver cost effective OLE schemes. Why would any government dump hundreds of millions into an OLE project, that is almost guaranteed to go massively over budget and time, whilst not achieving a significant benefit for passengers.

If the rail industry wants to electrify in the short-medium term (and it needs to, as road transport absolutely will) batteries are the only way ahead.

By the sounds of it, Scotland has brought costs back to normal levels, but by applying methods that will never be allowed by the treasury (and politicians) in England, such as not repeatedly cancelling, reinstating, and redesigning project.

 

[BayPaul]

By the sounds of it, Scotland has brought costs back to normal levels, but by applying methods that will never be allowed by the treasury (and politicians) in England, such as not repeatedly cancelling, reinstating, and redesigning project.

Even at normal levels, can it reasonably be considered value for money, especially in comparison to batteries?

 

[Trainbike46]

Even at normal levels, can it reasonably be considered value for money, especially in comparison to batteries?

Given the Scottish approach involves just putting the OHLE up where you need it to charge batteries, that isn't really an answerable question

 

[JamesT]

Why would the government use RPI rather than a better measure of inflation, like CPI or CPIH?

The government has been issuing index linked gilts since 1981, long before CPI was invented.

 

[Magdalia]

That's going to be very expensive staffing-wise as you're introducing lots of ECS movements; just electrify whatever sections of line make most sense, and charge on the move. In some situations, that will involve wiring around stations, in others it will not.

A few ECS moves are likely to be less expensive than big station electrification.

And here you show perfectly why the current set-up disincentivises saving money.

I was thinking that when I wrote it!

Why would the government use RPI rather than a better measure of inflation, like CPI or CPIH?

The government has been issuing index linked gilts since 1981, long before CPI was invented.

I am old enough to remember the days before CPI was invented. If I remember rightly the RPI was produced by the Department of Employment. It dates back to the 1950s and uses a methodology that was suitable for the days when computers didn't exist.

The methodology used in CPI only became feasible with technological advance.

The main places where RPI is still used is where it is specified in legislation, which would require parliament to make amendments to use CPI instead.