80-90% of the rail network should be electrified

[Geogregor]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/mml-electrification-updates.110445/

My opinion is that modern railways don't need electrification everywhere, and that's as valid as yours is.

Sure.

But in country as densely populated as Britain, and with railways as intensely used as here, not electrified railways should should rather be exception, probably in some remote fringes of Highlands or Welsh mountains. 80-90% of British network should be electrified.

 

[Nottingham59]

80-90% of British network should be electrified

I'd say Electrified or battery. The prority has got to be electrifying lines that have 6 tph, and using bimodes wherever diesels are currently operating under the wires.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I'd say Electrified or battery. The prority has got to be electrifying lines that have 6 tph, and using bimodes wherever diesels are currently operating under the wires.

Exactly. There should be a hit list - and I bet there is somewhere!

 

[themiller]

Exactly. There should be a hit list - and I bet there is somewhere!

Probably more than one.
Scottish assembly.
Freight operators.
Regional political groups.
Pressure groups.
Network Rail.
Treasury.
DfT.
etc.etc.etc.

 

[snowball]

We know a good deal about the Scottish government list.

The Treasury and DfT ones are probably quite short.

It's almost 10 months since the UK government published "Decarbonising Transport", which was short on detail but included the "commitment"

"We will deliver an ambitious, sustainable, and cost-
effective programme of electrification guided
by Network Rail’s TDNS"

We're still waiting to see this programme. Also "guided by" is a bit vague.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/mml-electrification-updates.110445/



Sure.

But in country as densely populated as Britain, and with railways as intensely used as here, not electrified railways should should rather be exception, probably in some remote fringes of Highlands or Welsh mountains. 80-90% of British network should be electrified.

Until costs come down, which seems unlikely now raw materials are driving up the cost of steelwork and contact wire, there will be a view by DfT that other solutions can deliver net zero. Its perfectly practicably now to deliver battery or hydrogen solutions for 20-30 mile branch lines it just need commitment by government to spend the money on trains and not on infrastructure. At least they are doing neither now so maybe electrification has a chance.

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately once you have got all the high traffic portions of the rail system, ther eis little reason to not simply push to completion for the operational benefits.

A single uniform electric train fleet is infinitely preferable to a mess of diesels, electrodiesels and electrics.

One of the nice things about 25kV is on long rural routes without many tunnels or over bridges (like the Far North Line for example), it really is quite cheap, especially with modern static frequency converter substations.

The entire FNL could probably be fed from one small SFC substation at Thurso (fed from the Dounreay grid feeder) and from the rest of the network at Inverness.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I'd say Electrified or battery. The prority has got to be electrifying lines that have 6 tph, and using bimodes wherever diesels are currently operating under the wires.

Surely the priority has got to be to wires lines that are quick, cheap and easy to electrify whilst bringing the most back in benefits ?

Don't forget the government cancelled a lot of schemes due to cost!

Right now we need to demonstrate that lines can be electrified quickly and cheaply!

 

[Nottingham59]

Right now we need to demonstrate that lines can be electrified quickly and cheaply!

But unfortunately the railway industry seems unable to electrify lines cheaply or quickly. It certainly has failed so far to meet the RIA Cost Challenge as detailed in this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-has-there-been-in-driving-down-costs.232075/

My point about batteries is that there are lots of services that could be served by BEMUs right now without any further electrification at all. If a BEMU has a 50 mile range, and needs as much distance under the wires as off the wires to recharge, then it could serve routes like Paddington-Oxford, Uckfield, and Man Airport-Windermere today.

And when already committed schemes like MML are done, then routes like Liverpool-Nottingham can be served by battery trains too. There must be lots of others; I'll see if I can identify some more.

 

[Killingworth]

Of course other countries have done this differently. Two prosperous countries with very different railway networks come to mind.

As long ago as 1939 77 percent of the Swiss national rail network was electrically powered, usually cited as the best example of railway operations anywhere. They're using 90% hydroelectric power and are aiming for entirely renewable energy by 2025. It's a fairly small country with an intensive network, with many relatively short lines in mountainous terrain.

Norway also has many mountains, masses of hydroelectric power and plenty of money for big capital projects. In 2008 electric traction accounted for 90% of passenger kilometres, 93% of the tonne kilometres and 74% of the energy consumption of all trains running in Norway. There are long distances with infrequent trains.

To achieve 100% electric the cost would be enormous and financially unjustifiable. Services to places like Stranraer, Mallaig, Kyle of Lochalsh, Wick, Thurso and others on similar lines in England and Wales would be nearer closure than any likely wired electrification scheme if we aim for 100%.

The answer to the question isn't 100% as in Switzerland but is 80-90% on the Norwegian model - which is what we seem to aiming for in a rather stop-start confused way, eventually, unless a better idea shows up in the meantime. Given the timescales it well might. Good old British muddling through.

 

[Magdalia]

Surely the priority has got to be to wires lines that are quick, cheap and easy to electrify whilst bringing the most back in benefits ?

Don't forget the government cancelled a lot of schemes due to cost!

Right now we need to demonstrate that lines can be electrified quickly and cheaply!

That's how British Railways did electrification in the late 1980s/early 1990s. Look, for example, at the East Anglian electrifications of that era, and the ECML.

Lots of it had to be done again, but the quick and cheap approach delivered quick wins that grew revenue and helped to fund the later improvements.

 

[Halifaxlad]

That's how British Railways did electrification in the late 1980s/early 1990s. Look, for example, at the East Anglian electrifications of that era, and the ECML.

Lots of it had to be done again, but the quick and cheap approach delivered quick wins that grew revenue and helped to fund the later improvements.

Just to point out when I refer to cheap and quick I'm refering to lines without complicated structures that require expensive rectifications.

 

[stuu]

It's a yes from me.

Wasn't there talk at one point about trialling wooden poles for holding up the OLE on lightly used lines? Possibly just speculation in a magazine or something

 

[317 forever]

I feel that every line with at least a half-hourly service should be electrified.

I'm sure Network South East were electrifying most lines even with an hourly service, with inevitable exceptions such as on the Chiltern and Great Western lines.

 

[Trainbike46]

I feel that every line with at least a half-hourly service should be electrified.

I'm sure Network South East were electrifying most lines even with an hourly service, with inevitable exceptions such as on the Chiltern and Great Western lines.

This makes me wonder, why were the chiltern and GWR lines excluded under NSE?

 

[Nottingham59]

I feel that every line with at least a half-hourly service should be electrified.

There are plenty of unelectrified lines with 4tph or even 6tph that could be done first.

 

[JonathanH]

This makes me wonder, why were the chiltern and GWR lines excluded under NSE?

They just never got to it. The original incarnation of Crossrail would have seen Reading and Aylesbury electrified.

 

[Snow1964]

This makes me wonder, why were the chiltern and GWR lines excluded under NSE?

They couldn’t do them fast enough

I think the original plan for the 165s was to make shorter 2 and 3 car units so they could be lengthened to 4 car and an electric power car added, with diesel rafts removed.

NSE thought it better to convert all the remaining diesel pockets first, you have to remember they were still electrifying to places like Hastings, Maningtree, Cambridge, East Grinstead when NSE started.

They did add other lines eg Kings Lynn and Solent before programs stopped. Fairly sure there were plans to get to Uckfield and Milton Ernest too, and these even got on the new electric units destination blinds.