DfT/Network Rail 'Future Electric Railway' strategy

[eldomtom2]

Japan is pretty much the only country where passenger services are profitable.

How are you defining "profitable passenger services" here? Is it only taking into account whether every single passenger service grouped together is profitable?

 

[aron2smith]

Ok then, which lines would you electrify first ?

Bearing in mind you have limited resources!

The limited resources is why you'd do a long term rolling plan of say 30 years.

Start with the long distance routes, especially Midland Mainline to Sheffield and everywhere Crosscountry goes.

I'd probably do the North and Midlands first and then work our way out west.
1. York to Leeds to Sheffield straight off of the back of the Northern Powerhouse electrification
2. Derby to Birmingham to Newport and Bristol via Gloucester
3. Coventry to Reading to Basingstoke
4. Nuneaton to Peterborough to Ely + Ely Junction Upgrades available in time for EWR reaching Cambridge.
5. Bristol to Plymouth
6. Plymouth to Penzance

At the same time, it would be expected Scotland would further electrify up to Aberdeen and Wales would electrify Cardiff to Swansea.
While GWR would coordinate electrification of Reading to Oxford and Reading to Taunton with 3. and 5. and time with the need for new rolling stock on both Crosscountry and GWR. Branches in the west could get hybrid battery trains as a medium term solution.

As each section is finishing, plan immediately for the next and next so those doing this work have something else to go on to.
Chiltern (+EWR) to Aylesbury and Oxford could be tied into the Reading to Coventry section after that section is finished.
Electrification via University towards Newport and Bristol could coordinate the remaining lines left to be electrified in the West Midlands. Like to Stourbridge Junction. The Section through Solihull and to Stratford Upon Avon completed at an earlier stage.

Same with TPE and Northern, if we electrify the TPE routes to Cleethorpes, Hull, Scarborough and Saltburn. At a devolved level, not much left in Liverpool, Manchester or across Yorkshire to do is there?

With Chiltern and the North Wales line also done in the end, no diesel trains anywhere in London and few and far between in the other cities.

It's not impossible, it just requires consensus, stable funding and a bit of planning. Same with opening new railways to places across the country that need them like Haverhill, Peterhead or Washington.

It seems a self-fulfilling prophecy, believe it will happen and it will but if there's doubts it won't. Many of the places I've said were planned to be electrified in the late 70s, we could've had all this by now if the doubts were replaced by a consensus.

 

[Class 317]

Any strategy needs to take into account the ability of mixed OLHE / battery schemes to achieve much higher BCR. The way they will do this is by allowing connecting services to be electrified at little cost to the base scheme but extending the benefits much wider.

For example extending the MML electrification north to Derby and Nottingham would create 3 electrification islands at Leicester, Derby and Nottingham for BEMU's. These island would facilitate turning local EMR, some Northern and most class 170 operated cross country routes to electric operations via BEMU'S spreading benefits throughout the East Midlands.

The quickest bang for the buck electrification would actually be to fit battery packs to all bi mode 80x to make full use of existing OHLE to power all or part of the off wire route sections.

So for me a strategy would be as follows:

1) Electric operations expanded via additional BEMU (eg North downs line / Ashford to Hastings etc) and bi mode conversion of 80x to maximise use existing OHLE to power them on non electrified route sections.

2) Concentrate on small OHLE additions for both electric freight (A higher BCR might be available than some are assuming if the freight converted operates faster on busy lines freeing up line capacity) and to create electrification islands at key network nodes to allow maximum benefits via use of BEMU'S on local services

I believe this would produce maximum benefits for expenditure and help to reduce operating costs.

 

[The Planner]

The limited resources is why you'd do a long term rolling plan of say 30 years.

Start with the long distance routes, especially Midland Mainline to Sheffield and everywhere Crosscountry goes.

I'd probably do the North and Midlands first and then work our way out west.
1. York to Leeds to Sheffield straight off of the back of the Northern Powerhouse electrification
2. Derby to Birmingham to Newport and Bristol via Gloucester
3. Coventry to Reading to Basingstoke
4. Nuneaton to Peterborough to Ely + Ely Junction Upgrades available in time for EWR reaching Cambridge.
5. Bristol to Plymouth
6. Plymouth to Penzance

At the same time, it would be expected Scotland would further electrify up to Aberdeen and Wales would electrify Cardiff to Swansea.
While GWR would coordinate electrification of Reading to Oxford and Reading to Taunton with 3. and 5. and time with the need for new rolling stock on both Crosscountry and GWR. Branches in the west could get hybrid battery trains as a medium term solution.

As each section is finishing, plan immediately for the next and next so those doing this work have something else to go on to.
Chiltern (+EWR) to Aylesbury and Oxford could be tied into the Reading to Coventry section after that section is finished.
Electrification via University towards Newport and Bristol could coordinate the remaining lines left to be electrified in the West Midlands. Like to Stourbridge Junction. The Section through Solihull and to Stratford Upon Avon completed at an earlier stage.

Same with TPE and Northern, if we electrify the TPE routes to Cleethorpes, Hull, Scarborough and Saltburn. At a devolved level, not much left in Liverpool, Manchester or across Yorkshire to do is there?

With Chiltern and the North Wales line also done in the end, no diesel trains anywhere in London and few and far between in the other cities.

It's not impossible, it just requires consensus, stable funding and a bit of planning. Same with opening new railways to places across the country that need them like Haverhill, Peterhead or Washington.

It seems a self-fulfilling prophecy, believe it will happen and it will but if there's doubts it won't. Many of the places I've said were planned to be electrified in the late 70s, we could've had all this by now if the doubts were replaced by a consensus.

You do the sections where you can remove the most DMUs first. Thats always going to be urban/metro areas. XC wouldn't be on the top of my list, especially not anywhere east of Leicester. Also, never forget the issues of feeding these schemes, its not just chucking up wires.

 

[The Ham]

You do the sections where you can remove the most DMUs first. Thats always going to be urban/metro areas. XC wouldn't be on the top of my list, especially not anywhere east of Leicester. Also, never forget the issues of feeding these schemes, its not just chucking up wires.

Whist XC only lines are certainly not going to be high up the list, if we're looking at what might be good to get done in the next 10 years (bearing in mind the 22x's will be about 35 years old at that point) you may consider some sections to facilitate a BEMU to be able to run XC services, at the very least (assuming 80x's with a basic battery pack replace 22x's) something like 20km around an area where there's some other services, which allows those local services to go to being battery units over a metro area being EMU rather than battery, is likely to be of higher priority.

That's likely to mean a greater number of schemes across a far wider geographical area than before, even if it means that the total stkm distances might be lower but still result if far more services no longer requiring diesel power.

 

[Class 317]

You do the sections where you can remove the most DMUs first. Thats always going to be urban/metro areas. XC wouldn't be on the top of my list, especially not anywhere east of Leicester. Also, never forget the issues of feeding these schemes, its not just chucking up wires.

Quite agree that if you want to both reduce costs and emissions as quickly as possible to target heavy DMU operating areas. For me it would be by creating electrified islands in locations which offer the cheapest while life costs.

 

[The Planner]

Whist XC only lines are certainly not going to be high up the list, if we're looking at what might be good to get done in the next 10 years (bearing in mind the 22x's will be about 35 years old at that point) you may consider some sections to facilitate a BEMU to be able to run XC services, at the very least (assuming 80x's with a basic battery pack replace 22x's) something like 20km around an area where there's some other services, which allows those local services to go to being battery units over a metro area being EMU rather than battery, is likely to be of higher priority.

That's likely to mean a greater number of schemes across a far wider geographical area than before, even if it means that the total stkm distances might be lower but still result if far more services no longer requiring diesel power.

Then in XCs case, Midlands Rail Hub takes care of the fast lines down to Longbridge with gives you 23 minutes of charging from Proof House including New St dwells. You then rely on GWR wires around Bristol so a 50 minute gap to use batteries on from Bromsgrove. MML electrification is going to get you charging time from Sheffield southwards. Similar for Coventry to Oxford, you need around 48-50 minutes capability.

 

[The exile]

Also, never forget the issues of feeding these schemes, its not just chucking up wires.

So - where are there likely to be suitable high voltage feeds?

Looking at my local area, completion of the GW scheme by both routes would mean a) less reliance on the diesels for IETs, b) ability to use 387s as crowd busters on the Swindon - Bath - Bristol corridor, c) the new Cardiff - Bristol stopper can be pure emu. Should presumably be reasonably easy to find a HV connection in the Bridgwater area (Hinckley Point!) and with another around Gloucester / Cheltenham that would be enough to turn a lot of the Bristol area stuff to battery bi-modes. Once there is something to bridge the gap between Birmingham and the ECML you’ve got the core XC network covered, which removes a heck of a lot of diesel under existing wires. Would suggest that if you add islands at, say, Salisbury, Exeter, Plymouth and Penzance (maybe an additional Newton Abbot to Paignton and also over the banks) and a few fast chargers à la Greenford for the branches, you’ve got everything in the South West covered. I’m assuming that those “islands” would be “as far as practical” not just station area - so Penzance would include enough of the St Ives branch to cope with the minimal turn arounds.

 

[The Ham]

So - where are there likely to be suitable high voltage feeds?

Looking at my local area, completion of the GW scheme by both routes would mean a) less reliance on the diesels for IETs, b) ability to use 387s as crowd busters on the Swindon - Bath - Bristol corridor, c) the new Cardiff - Bristol stopper can be pure emu. Should presumably be reasonably easy to find a HV connection in the Bridgwater area (Hinckley Point!) and with another around Gloucester / Cheltenham that would be enough to turn a lot of the Bristol area stuff to battery bi-modes. Once there is something to bridge the gap between Birmingham and the ECML you’ve got the core XC network covered, which removes a heck of a lot of diesel under existing wires. Would suggest that if you add islands at, say, Salisbury, Exeter, Plymouth and Penzance (maybe an additional Newton Abbot to Paignton and also over the banks) and a few fast chargers à la Greenford for the branches, you’ve got everything in the South West covered. I’m assuming that those “islands” would be “as far as practical” not just station area - so Penzance would include enough of the St Ives branch to cope with the minimal turn arounds.

If I recall, Hayle (Cornwall) had a power station and whist it's been long decommissioned there's a slight over supply of wind energy at times down that way (not as big as Scotland) so having uses down there could be useful and might be able to utilise existing infrastructure - assuming that it is still viable to use (I.e. do you centre it at Hayle and potentially stop it slightly short of Penzance, so the last few miles westwards are by battery, if that then gives you budget to extend in the London direction by a few miles then all the better).

 

[zwk500]

Quite agree that if you want to both reduce costs and emissions as quickly as possible to target heavy DMU operating areas. For me it would be by creating electrified islands in locations which offer the cheapest while life costs.

The obvious one to remove substantial amounts of DMUs is the Birmingham Snow Hill Lines from Leamington/Stratford to Kidderminster, with BEMUs for extensions beyond.

However the most cost-effective one would be Didcot-Oxford, as a fair amount of the work was already done and the services are ready to be joined back up. Although Banbury extensions would need to transfer to the IET service rather than the Semi-Fast.

 

[The exile]

If I recall, Hayle (Cornwall) had a power station and whist it's been long decommissioned there's a slight over supply of wind energy at times down that way (not as big as Scotland) so having uses down there could be useful and might be able to utilise existing infrastructure - assuming that it is still viable to use (I.e. do you centre it at Hayle and potentially stop it slightly short of Penzance, so the last few miles westwards are by battery, if that then gives you budget to extend in the London direction by a few miles then all the better).

Ideally you want termini to be wired as that’s where trains spend time (and also where emissions are locally significant- although that’s irrelevant for battery bi modes)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Apr 2026 ==

However the most cost-effective one would be Didcot-Oxford, as a fair amount of the work was already done and the services are ready to be joined back up. Although Banbury extensions would need to transfer to the IET service rather than the Semi-Fast.

Indeed - though it presumably needs to wait until the Oxford station area works have been completed.

 

[quantinghome]

How are you defining "profitable passenger services" here? Is it only taking into account whether every single passenger service grouped together is profitable?

Profitable as in you can take entire regions of passenger rail network and run them as any other private company, generating profits enabling dividends and long term reinvestment in the business, and not reliant on government support to subsidise operations.

 

[zwk500]

Profitable as in you can take entire regions of passenger rail network and run them as any other private company, generating profits enabling dividends and long term reinvestment in the business, and not reliant on government support to subsidise operations.

Worth pointing out that a reasonable proportion of Japan's railway revenue is not from the farebox.

Taking JR East as an example, their investment pages show approximately 1/3rd of the income come from Retail Sales at the stations or other property holdings:

2.1bn Yen from Transportation, 0.4bn from Retail & services, 0.5bn from Real Estate and Hotels

https://www.jreast.co.jp/en/company/business_strategy/finance_investment/

And according to their latest accounts, their combined operating expenses in 2024 was 2.3bn Yen.

https://www.jreast.co.jp/e/environment/pdf_2025/financialdata2025.pdf

I don't know how their retail services split between passengers and non-passengers, which would affect whether or not you could call their passenger services profitable by themselves. And acknowledging that the tables show different years so can't be directly subtracted from each other.

 

[quantinghome]

Good spot. But that still shows the farebox generates healthy earnings. If that was the UK rail network, the EBITDA for transportation would be around -1,000 not +475.

 

[HSTEd]

The Japanese passenger operation picture is quite complex. There are lots of hopelessly loss making railways, but then there are lines which print money. The Tokaido Shinkansen is something like 93% of JR Central's Farebox!

As for rolling electrification or similar - from this position a rolling programme would mean having to pay for quite a bit of very expensive electrification until the programme can deliver its promised cost savings, and those savings aren't actually guaranteed.

But battery technology appears to have advanced to the point where I'm not sure a programme of that sort of scale could ever be justified - there just isn't that much left that is worth electrifying that isn't already electrified or committed.

 

[zwk500]

But battery technology appears to have advanced to the point where I'm not sure a programme of that sort of scale could ever be justified - there just isn't that much left that is worth electrifying that isn't already electrified or committed.

There's plenty left worth electrifying. Completion of MML, GWR to Bristol and B&H to Exeter/Plymouth jump to mind on long-distance liens. Birmingham Snow Hill and Camp Hill lines, Manchester out to New Mills, Bristol Local and West/South Yorks all are very strong electrification cases for local services. And then there's the links like Birmingham-Derby/Nuneaton you'll need to make a BEMU squadron service viable.

 

[HSTEd]

There's plenty left worth electrifying. Completion of MML, GWR to Bristol and B&H to Exeter/Plymouth jump to mind on long-distance liens. Birmingham Snow Hill and Camp Hill lines, Manchester out to New Mills, Bristol Local and West/South Yorks all are very strong electrification cases for local services. And then there's the links like Birmingham-Derby/Nuneaton you'll need to make a BEMU squadron service viable.

In a world where BEMUs exist, I don't see much reason to complete more long distance electrification projects on comparatively lightly used routes.

Electrification islands in the likes of Sheffield, Plymouth, Exeter, Penzance etc would not consume that many track kilometres but combined iwth batteries get us pretty much all the benefits of a fully electrified route.

The roughly 10 route kilometres, much of which is single track, between Laira Junction and Saltash gets you ~15 minutes of charging on services passing through Plymouth, more for services turning around there.

And whilst the bridge at Saltash is likely to be inordinently expensive in per-track-metre terms, it probably comes out cheap in total minutes of charging provided per metre given its very low speed and single track nature.

 

[InTheEastMids]

There's plenty left worth electrifying. Completion of MML, GWR to Bristol and B&H to Exeter/Plymouth jump to mind on long-distance liens. Birmingham Snow Hill and Camp Hill lines, Manchester out to New Mills, Bristol Local and West/South Yorks all are very strong electrification cases for local services. And then there's the links like Birmingham-Derby/Nuneaton you'll need to make a BEMU squadron service viable.

Agree - It's worth noting that the biggest non-electrified section EWR is planning looks like about 30km between Tempsford and Hauxston Jnc. With Bicester-Bletchley being 25km, that's about 110 STK not electrified. Given that's saving hundreds of millions over route wide electrification, and is for a DCO, I assume it means that somebody's spent proper money on serious thinking to think that this is the Sensible Approach in terms of range that can be delivered by stock built in the early 2030s.

Let's just say battery tech is going to be much better in a few years time, perhaps the optimum point moves out to 50km. But that means that just to see off the 159s, somebody's got to sign off Area schemes to create power islands at maybe Salisbury, Yeovil and Exeter. Repeat that across the full spread of routes where current DMUs will be knackered before 2050 and I think you get quite a long list of what are small schemes in terms of STK but complex/expensive per STK because they're junctions, stations and urban areas with more constructability issues.

In a world where BEMUs exist, I don't see much reason to complete more long distance electrification projects on comparatively lightly used routes.

This message was posted whilst I was writing the above. I agree with it, but feel more cynical about whether there is the political will to pay for the electrified islands. So as a lot of the new regional trains may be diesel/battery EMU hybrids, the diesel engines will have much longer lifetimes than the PR might imply when they're ordered/unveiled. And the Net Zero railway will be achieved by some combination of greenwashing HVO, tree planting and carbon capture in other sectors.

 

[eldomtom2]

Profitable as in you can take entire regions of passenger rail network and run them as any other private company, generating profits enabling dividends and long term reinvestment in the business, and not reliant on government support to subsidise operations.

What about subsidies for capital investment? Even American freight railroads get that (plus labour law that stacks the deck heavily in the companies' favour). If just not requiring operational subsidy is the criteria here, then certainly you can find many examples worldwide, including many TOCs in the UK pre-COVID.

 

[brad465]

yes (between London and Worting Junction).

Does this mean power supply enhancements have happened on the SWML in recent years? I seem to recall that between Woking and Basingstoke, third rail consumption was pretty much at the limit, if diesel services were replaced by electric there'd be problems, which would presumably be exacerbated if charging batteries at the same time is thrown into the mix.

 

[quantinghome]

If just not requiring operational subsidy is the criteria here, then certainly you can find many examples worldwide, including many TOCs in the UK pre-COVID.

Not many TOCs once you allowed for government support to Network Rail. Maybe 1 or 2.

 

[Bald Rick]

Does this mean power supply enhancements have happened on the SWML in recent years? I seem to recall that between Woking and Basingstoke, third rail consumption was pretty much at the limit, if diesel services were replaced by electric there'd be problems, which would presumably be exacerbated if charging batteries at the same time is thrown into the mix.

No, it means there are fewer trains running now than in 2019.

 

[quantinghome]

Let's just say battery tech is going to be much better in a few years time, perhaps the optimum point moves out to 50km. But that means that just to see off the 159s, somebody's got to sign off Area schemes to create power islands at maybe Salisbury, Yeovil and Exeter. Repeat that across the full spread of routes where current DMUs will be knackered before 2050 and I think you get quite a long list of what are small schemes in terms of STK but complex/expensive per STK because they're junctions, stations and urban areas with more constructability issues.

We're already at 40km, based on the proposed part-electrification of borders railway. That will contain a decent margin I imagine.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Yes, that's ultimately what it comes down to. Rail freight is competitive over longer distances. Hence why even the road-addicted US transports 25% of freight by rail.


Based on personal experience, lorry drivers!


True, although India's roads are being rapidly modernised. 25 years ago the "golden quadrilateral" project aimed to connect up the main cities by dualling existing roads and was regarded as very ambitious. But now it's moved on to full-on greenfield motorway projects, with over 1000 km being added every year.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Apr 2026 ==


Maybe a bit, but the fundamentals probably matter more. We actually carry a decent amount of passenger traffic by rail. It's just that passenger traffic doesn't make money (and probably never really has). Freight has always been the moneymaker, but it's just not competitive against road until you get to distances over 300 miles, which rules out most of the UK market.

Which is probably why a fully private railway wouldn’t work in Britain. Like a neo-Big Four framework

 

[Halifaxlad]

In a world where BEMUs exist, I don't see much reason to complete more long distance electrification projects on comparatively lightly used routes.

Surely BEMUs remove the need to electrify short lines not long ones?

This idea that BEMUs are suitable for Hull which from Micklefield is about 50 miles eitherway, so it's either recharge in Hull subject to charging infrastructure or recharge at Leeds and if its running through to Halifax occupy platform space and cause uncesseary congestion!

I do think BEMUs on long lines that have already significant sections of lines electrified would work well.

 

[quantinghome]

Surely BEMUs remove the need to electrify short lines not long ones?

This idea that BEMUs are suitable for Hull which from Micklefield is about 50 miles eitherway, so it's either recharge in Hull subject to charging infrastructure or recharge at Leeds and if its running through to Halifax occupy platform space and cause uncesseary congestion!

I do think BEMUs on long lines that have already significant sections of lines electrified would work well.

Take a look at what is being proposed in Scotland. There are two planned schemes, with an island of electrification in Fife, and a few miles of electrification at the end of the borders line. The idea is to recharge on the move AND between diagrams at the terminus.

Applying that approach to Leeds-Hull, you'd probably see a few miles of electrification on the approach to Paragon station, and maybe an extension from Micklefield towards Selby if necessary. For Leeds through services, note that Leeds- Bradford interchange is down for electrification.

 

[Bald Rick]

and maybe an extension from Micklefield towards Selby if necessary

The wires already extend from Micklefield towards Selby…

 

[stevieinselby]

The wires already extend from Micklefield towards Selby…

There is no electrification from Micklefield towards Selby, and to the best of my knowledge there is no definite commitment for it, let alone spades in the ground to start the work.

 

[bluenoxid]

I think someone is playing on the words “to” and “towards”. Something can extends towards something and can not be to something.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is no electrification from Micklefield towards Selby, and to the best of my knowledge there is no definite commitment for it, let alone spades in the ground to start the work.

There very definitely was last week. Not very far towards Selby, granted. Perhaps 200 metres.