UK Government publishes National Rolling Stock strategy.

[fat_boy_pete]

Great British Railways (GBR) has published the first national rolling stock strategy since privatisation, setting out plans for battery-electric trains, level boarding, greater fleet standardisation and a more integrated approach to depots, maintenance and infrastructure.

The new Rolling Stock & Infrastructure Strategy, published on 28 September, applies to the former franchised operators in England but not open access, concessioned, devolved or freight operators.

Rolling stock and infrastructure strategy

Sets out how Great British Railways (GBR) will plan passenger trains, infrastructure, depots and maintenance as one system in the UK.

www.gov.uk

I haven't seen another thread discussing this, but happy for Mods to move if I have missed it. To me this reads as a glass half full/half empty situation. I would be interested in the views of others.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Oct 2026 ==

Summary from the strategy, apologies it's an image from the PDF. The original text can be obtained directly from the PDF via the links on the government website above.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's actually posted in the "GBR Efficiency" thread in the Speculation section (from post #39), despite being important government policy.

What efficiencies could GBR bring?

The scale didn't change between Railtrack and Network Rail, there was still only one national organisation in both cases, so I'm not sure why you would think economies of scale would be relevant to that? 1789639237 This isn't quite true. If you have private operation there's a profit layer...

www.railforums.co.uk

It must actually be one of the most important documents from DfT about GBR policy, but generally seems to have been ignored since publication on September 28.
Despite being very generic and without any practical examples (except possibly the recent TPE order for BEMUs), it does shape the future for GB rolling stock.

My take on it is that DfT is gradually boxing in GBR to simply implement policies set by DfT at the outset, before the "professional railway" can set its own agenda.
The "looking at train purchasing" has been overdone in the media, with many fleets already destined to be leased and maintained for up to 20 years based on current contracts (eg the Hitachi/Agility IEP contracts for the 800/801 fleets).

 

[fat_boy_pete]

It's actually posted in the "GBR Efficiency" thread in the Speculation section (from post #39), despite being important government policy.

What efficiencies could GBR bring?

The scale didn't change between Railtrack and Network Rail, there was still only one national organisation in both cases, so I'm not sure why you would think economies of scale would be relevant to that? 1789639237 This isn't quite true. If you have private operation there's a profit layer...

www.railforums.co.uk

It must actually be one of the most important documents from DfT about GBR policy, but generally seems to have been ignored since publication on September 28.
Despite being very generic and without any practical examples (except possibly the recent TPE order for BEMUs), it does shape the future for GB rolling stock.

My take on it is that DfT is gradually boxing in GBR to simply implement policies set by DfT at the outset, before the "professional railway" can set its own agenda.
The "looking at train purchasing" has been overdone in the media, with many fleets already destined to be leased and maintained for up to 20 years based on current contracts (eg the Hitachi/Agility IEP contracts for the 800/801 fleets).

I think it's so significant, it needs a dedicated thread for discussion rather than be hidden as part of Speculation. Mods, could the relevant posts from that thread be moved to this standalone thread please?

 

[3RDGEN]

It must actually be one of the most important documents from DfT about GBR policy, but generally seems to have been ignored since publication on September 28.

If it actually said anything worth reading then yes it would be important but it doesn't, it's just pointless generic waffle.

 

[JonathanH]

I think it's so significant, it needs a dedicated thread for discussion rather than be hidden as part of Speculation. Mods, could the relevant posts from that thread be moved to this standalone thread please?

A lot of the discussion it generates is by its very nature speculative though, because of how it is fairly vague, and forum users will read what they want to see from its pages, until there is concrete action from the policy.

It is very much a document saying 'these are the things we would ideally like to see, but we recognise there are barriers and it will take most of the next cycle of fleet replacement to get there'.

 

[fat_boy_pete]

Well I've never seen an official Government report say this about electrification before. Dare I say it's recommending a 'Rolling Programme' with the new TPU fleet an example of this sequencing of Rolling Stock procurement and Electrification commissioning? Image sourced from Page 17 of the PDF.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I could hardly read the text but what seemed to be use of a phrase like ‘what form it should take’ was simply a euphemism for fitting batteries to everything for routes not already electrified with a minimal amount of additional wiring, e.g. over platforms at Hull or Exeter to charge them.

 

[fat_boy_pete]

I could hardly read the text but what seemed to be use of a phrase like ‘what form it should take’ was simply a euphemism for fitting batteries to everything for routes not already electrified with a minimal amount of additional wiring, e.g. over platforms at Hull or Exeter to charge them.

I think the key phrase is "GBR will use
detailed route-level analysis to determine
the right level of electrification to support
the removal of diesel traction. This will
generally require around a quarter of
the currently non-electrified railway to
be energised, or an equivalent level of
capability provided through alternative
battery charging technologies."

Electrifying 25% of the non-electrified network by 2050 does not seem a minimal amount of additional wiring!

 

[QSK19]

I think the key phrase is "GBR will use
detailed route-level analysis to determine
the right level of electrification to support
the removal of diesel traction. This will
generally require around a quarter of
the currently non-electrified railway to
be energised, or an equivalent level of
capability provided through alternative
battery charging technologies."

Electrifying 25% of the non-electrified network by 2050 does not seem a minimal amount of additional wiring!

There’ll have to be an awful lot of new stock orders and/or conversion from diesel engines to battery traction for that to happen. Leaving 75% of the non-electrified network as-is is a big chunk of railway.

Take the EMR Regional services running long distances over non-electrified lines. Not only are they significant in distance, but raise low levels of revenue (hence no business case for investment in stock or electrification).

But supposing the DfT did want to do something about those services, will battery range ever get to a high enough level to be able to function on those routes? Presumably only if charging them up at termini like Doncaster or Peterborough is possible.

 

[fat_boy_pete]

There’ll have to be an awful lot of new stock orders and/or conversion from diesel engines to battery traction for that to happen. Leaving 75% of the non-electrified network as-is is a big chunk of railway.

Take the EMR Regional services running long distances over non-electrified lines. Not only are they significant in distance, but raise low levels of revenue (hence no business case for investment in stock or electrification).

But supposing the DfT did want to do something about those services, will battery range ever get to a high enough level to be able to function on those routes? Presumably only if charging them up at termini like Doncaster or Peterborough is possible.

Like the TRU, you would assume core routes and terminals are electrified leaving the rest as is. Battery range is 90 miles today, but it's not unreasonable, given the development trajectories of car and truck batteries in China, that twice or three times that range will become available in 5 to ten years.

There's approximately 6,000 route miles of non electrified track. If we assume that the core 25% of those routes are normally double track, that's about 4,800 single track kilometres to do by 2050. Or just under 200 STK a year .In England, a STK has cost somewhere around £3m to electrify, but in the Scottish rolling programme it's about £1.5m.

So assuming the cost efficiency of a rolling programme that's about £7.2b in current money over 25 years or just under £300m a year. That's compared to the current annual expenditure of £7b on HS2. Or the annual spend of £1.5b on new roads, plus the £1.5b annual spend on the Lower Thames Crossing for the next 8 years.

So it's affordable and doable if there's the political will to allocate the funding.

That's the key question.

 

[RailWonderer]

There’ll have to be an awful lot of new stock orders and/or conversion from diesel engines to battery traction for that to happen. Leaving 75% of the non-electrified network as-is is a big chunk of railway.

Take the EMR Regional services running long distances over non-electrified lines. Not only are they significant in distance, but raise low levels of revenue (hence no business case for investment in stock or electrification).

But supposing the DfT did want to do something about those services, will battery range ever get to a high enough level to be able to function on those routes? Presumably only if charging them up at termini like Doncaster or Peterborough is possible.

This whole national rolling stock strategy plan will only be significant if it means a calendar is published for the rolling replacement of every type of train that needs new rolling stock or cascades, along with a realistic timeline of when a tender will be put out etc, so nothing stays well beyond its service life. I think to write off bi-modes is a bad idea, with this wishful thinking 25% electrification. It's so expensive and time consuming to carry out (I see at most 10% more electrification by 2050) that there's no way battery trains can replace everything. The only modern DMUs with service life left are the 170s and 185s. Any DMUs newer have a home for the foreseeable.

 

[The exile]

There’ll have to be an awful lot of new stock orders and/or conversion from diesel engines to battery traction for that to happen. Leaving 75% of the non-electrified network as-is is a big chunk of railway.

Take the EMR Regional services running long distances over non-electrified lines. Not only are they significant in distance, but raise low levels of revenue (hence no business case for investment in stock or electrification).

But supposing the DfT did want to do something about those services, will battery range ever get to a high enough level to be able to function on those routes? Presumably only if charging them up at termini like Doncaster or Peterborough is possible.

Although it would be putting operations before existing traffic flows, there’s nothing to stop some routes being rejigged to include more time under existing wires, as well as adding a few extra “islands”.

 

[JonathanH]

Take the EMR Regional services running long distances over non-electrified lines. Not only are they significant in distance, but raise low levels of revenue (hence no business case for investment in stock or electrification).

Those services are destined to be class 170s for a long period from now, with the possibility of more 170s finding their way to those routes in due course, as the strategy notes that rolling stock cascades will see older stock concentrated in fewer locations. They could be where 195s / 196s see out their last days.

 

[fat_boy_pete]

This whole national rolling stock strategy plan will only be significant if it means a calendar is published for the rolling replacement of every type of train that needs new rolling stock or cascades, along with a realistic timeline of when a tender will be put out etc, so nothing stays well beyond its service life.

That's exactly what is proposed in the strategy. It's called the Fleet & Infrastructure Plan or FIP.

As that will effectively be a timetable for spending money, I expect it's publication (and revised versions) will be aligned with the Public Expenditure plans published by DfT once the bean counters in the Treasury have had a go.

 

[sharpener]

Like the TRU, you would assume core routes and terminals are electrified leaving the rest as is. Battery range is 90 miles today, but it's not unreasonable, given the development trajectories of car and truck batteries in China, that twice or three times that range will become available in 5 to ten years.

I think that's rather optimistic expectation. Lithium battery chemistry is a pretty mature technology.

Some 4 years ago I bought an EV with a range of 300 miles. I would have expected improvements in range to have trickled down to smaller cars by now. But looking to replace it with something a little smaller, cheaper and easier to park there is still disappointingly little choice https://ev-database.org/

Yes there will continue to be incremental improvements in range and energy density but I think you are looking at/for a novel chemistry to provide a step change of "two or three times".

 

[fat_boy_pete]

I think that's rather optimistic expectation. Lithium battery chemistry is a pretty mature technology.

Some 4 years ago I bought an EV with a range of 300 miles. I would have expected improvements in range to have trickled down to smaller cars by now. But looking to replace it with something a little smaller, cheaper and easier to park there is still disappointingly little choice https://ev-database.org/

Yes there will continue to be incremental improvements in range and energy density but I think you are looking at/for a novel chemistry to provide a step change of "two or three times".

Er no, batteries doubling capacity by changing chemistry and thus range are starting production in China now, with availability in the UK next year. Obviously will start at top range models, but will soon percolate to others. That's not to mention the development of HGV batteries, which will soon account for half HGV sales in China.

New type of lithium battery developed in China can double EV range

Researchers say new battery can be used in vehicles and drones meant for high altitudes

uk.finance.yahoo.com

In fact, the proposed range of 90 miles from Alsthom of TRU BEMU's is almost certainly based on current available battery technology. When they start building and testing in 2029, I would have a small wager that actually the range will be at least 50% greater if not more, due to the rapid pace of battery chemistry development.

 

[edwin_m]

In fact, the proposed range of 90 miles from Alsthom of TRU BEMU's is almost certainly based on current available battery technology. When they start building and testing in 2029, I would have a small wager that actually the range will be at least 50% greater if not more, due to the rapid pace of battery chemistry development.

I suspect it's more likely they will take the cost saving from fitting fewer batteries so the range stays the same.

 

[andyjhatton]

Even with BEMUs there needs to be infill electrification.
There's currently nothing on Chiltern (112 miles Marylebone to Moor St)

Cardiff to Crewe (en route to Manchester) is 90 something miles so right at the limit.

Birmingham Snow Hill line to Worcester and on to Hereford there's nothing to charge.

The South West has plenty of long and hilly routes, miles away from electrification.

I'm sure there are others.

 

[hwl]

I think that's rather optimistic expectation. Lithium battery chemistry is a pretty mature technology.

Some 4 years ago I bought an EV with a range of 300 miles. I would have expected improvements in range to have trickled down to smaller cars by now. But looking to replace it with something a little smaller, cheaper and easier to park there is still disappointingly little choice https://ev-database.org/

Yes there will continue to be incremental improvements in range and energy density but I think you are looking at/for a novel chemistry to provide a step change of "two or three times".

Plenty of novel chemistries coming through which will help on spec and price but i'd expect late 2028 into 2029 before it comes market changing with products tackling both.

For smaller cars i'd expect Sodium ion to be the main product but the focus will on low price first helped by the low future price of cells and that cell performance is much less impacted by temperature and cell age far less per cycle so they can fit small packs with effectively guaranteed performance initially with pack size then increasing over time.

 

[3RDGEN]

In fact, the proposed range of 90 miles from Alsthom of TRU BEMU's is almost certainly based on current available battery technology. When they start building and testing in 2029, I would have a small wager that actually the range will be at least 50% greater if not more, due to the rapid pace of battery chemistry development.

Alstom are only quoting 80km (50miles) for the TPE units, the only people quoting 90 miles appears to be TPE.

"https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/britain-awards-first-mainline-battery-electric-fleet-contract/" - "Alstom told IRJ that the trains can "reliably achieve" a range of 80km in battery mode, taking into consideration extreme weather and service perturbations. "

 

[hwl]

I suspect it's more likely they will take the cost saving from fitting fewer batteries so the range stays the same.

Yep that what i'd expect a big focus for the next 3 to 4 years will be on getting vehicle price down to grow EV market share

 

[JonathanH]

Even with BEMUs there needs to be infill electrification.
There's currently nothing on Chiltern (112 miles Marylebone to Moor St)

Will the ultimate answer just be fast charging at either end of the route, and progress in battery technology? There may be 10 years before Chiltern come to fleet replacement on their longer routes.

 

[hwl]

Alstom are only quoting 80km (50miles) for the TPE units, the only people quoting 90 miles appears to be TPE.

There is a difference between what the units can do and the minimum they need to do, all those numbers can be true, equivalent to comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Er no, batteries doubling capacity by changing chemistry and thus range are starting production in China now, with availability in the UK next year. Obviously will start at top range models, but will soon percolate to others. That's not to mention the development of HGV batteries, which will soon account for half HGV sales in China.

New type of lithium battery developed in China can double EV range

Researchers say new battery can be used in vehicles and drones meant for high altitudes

uk.finance.yahoo.com

In fact, the proposed range of 90 miles from Alsthom of TRU BEMU's is almost certainly based on current available battery technology. When they start building and testing in 2029, I would have a small wager that actually the range will be at least 50% greater if not more, due to the rapid pace of battery chemistry development.

Alstom will be committed to the battery technology selected for the contract which was quoted as NMC (Nickel Manganese Cobalt) battery chemistry on Green Signals this week but not seen anything specific quoted in the press release. They suggested that due to the weight penalty of LTO (Lithium Titanate) chemistry, largely used in other BEMUs, was the reason as they needed to maximise range.

From the rolling stock strategy they now need to establish a common set of operational principles over recharging arrangements and what battery capacity needs to be reserved for operational incidents.

 

[fat_boy_pete]

Even with BEMUs there needs to be infill electrification.
There's currently nothing on Chiltern (112 miles Marylebone to Moor St)

Cardiff to Crewe (en route to Manchester) is 90 something miles so right at the limit.

Birmingham Snow Hill line to Worcester and on to Hereford there's nothing to charge.

The South West has plenty of long and hilly routes, miles away from electrification.

I'm sure there are others.

I think that's why the Strategy said full electrification for intense Metro services and freight routes and BEMU elsewhere. So for Chiltern I could see Marylebone to Oxford and Leamington Spa to Kidderminster with full electrification and BEMU everywhere. No doubt someone will have to work out the minimum necessary electrification miles for a full BEMU route before the Treasury approves any scheme.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I think that's why the Strategy said full electrification for intense Metro services and freight routes and BEMU elsewhere. So for Chiltern I could see Marylebone to Oxford and Leamington Spa to Kidderminster with full electrification and BEMU everywhere. No doubt someone will have to work out the minimum necessary electrification miles for a full BEMU route before the Treasury approves any scheme.

Perhaps not an ideal example. Surely Didcot-Oxford-Banbury-Leamington-Coventry-Nuneaton-etc. will be needed for freight?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Electrifying 25% of the non-electrified network by 2050 does not seem a minimal amount of additional wiring!

The TDNS iirc called for 60%.

 

[fat_boy_pete]

Perhaps not an ideal example. Surely Didcot-Oxford-Banbury-Leamington-Coventry-Nuneaton-etc. will be needed for freight?

Possibly. Or they revive the Electric Spine concept, doing Didcot-Oxford-Bletchey, as most that is planned with East-West rail anyway. Add Bletchley-Bedford and then the MML onto Doncaster via Sheffield and you suddenly kill lots of birds with one stone. Especially as most of the design work is done already.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Possibly. Or they revive the Electric Spine concept, doing Didcot-Oxford-Bletchey, as most that is planned with East-West rail anyway. Add Bletchley-Bedford and then the MML onto Doncaster via Sheffield and you suddenly kill lots of birds with one stone. Especially as most of the design work is done already.

IIRC, quite a few were shocked that the Electric Spine strategy was prioritised over F2N/F2MN.

 

[fat_boy_pete]

The TDNS iirc called for 60%.

Alas it didn't get funded. Perhaps Hendy thinks 25% is most financially justifiable to the Treasury.