Any more DMUs?

[60163]

Simply put, will there ever be another order for a fleet of DMUs? Not counting bi-modes or anything. Or to cast the net further, for how many more years could there be cases for ordering more DMUs? There's probably a wealth of information I've bypassed through ignorance, forgive me. Cheers.

 

[The Ham]

Simply put, will there ever be another order for a fleet of DMUs? Not counting bi-modes or anything. Or to cast the net further, for how many more years could there be cases for ordering more DMUs? There's probably a wealth of information I've bypassed through ignorance, forgive me. Cheers.

Given that there are 21 classes of DMU's currently and no chance of electrifying nearly enough track to replace them all with EMU's there would need to be some form of replacement which could run away from the wires.

However whether bi-modals would replace "pure" DMU's is another matter.

 

[WatcherZero]

The ATOC rolling strategy acknowledged that over the next decades a couple of hundred more diesels will have to be ordered as the existing ones reach the end of their lives, theres also a suggestion that low cost, low running cost stock may be ordered for rural lines that its uneconomical to electrify, kind of like a modern Pacer concept.

 

[BananaRepublic]

There was a DfT programme to specify and procure 202 new DMU carriages (comprising 61 trains IIRC?).
Diesel Trains Ltd was a company set up to procure and fund these new DMU's, with a view to that company being sold off once the trains were delivered.

The reason the DfT got involved is broadly similar to the reason they got involved with HST2 (later to evolve into the InterCity Express Programme), in so far as it was clear that the industry, i.e. ROSCO's, Banks and TOC's, would not be in any position to provide for fleet renewal.

The uncertainty at the time over future electrification, meant there could be no financial provision for such a new fleet and the government therefore set out to underwrite a programme to ensure new trains would be provided in good time.

Once a decision was made on a rolling programme of electrification (starting with the GWML announcement in Autumn 2009), that spelt the death knell for the new DMU programme and it was promptly cancelled.
Diesel Trains Ltd lay dormant as a company until it was dissolved sometime last year.

Any plans to resurrect a DMU programme will inevitably meet with insurmountable funding problems, unless the government decide to fund or underwrite it.
Bi-Mode may be the best chance to get something off the ground.

 

[edwin_m]

One option might be a DMU that is based on a standard EMU design and could even be converted into an EMU if diesel operation was no longer necessary. In principle any of the current designs could have the pantograph/transformer car replaced by an engine/alternator car (probably above floor due to the size of engine needed) which could power the unmodified electric traction packages in the other cars. Sort of like a contemporary version of the Thumper.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The ATOC rolling strategy acknowledged that over the next decades a couple of hundred more diesels will have to be ordered as the existing ones reach the end of their lives, theres also a suggestion that low cost, low running cost stock may be ordered for rural lines that its uneconomical to electrify, kind of like a modern Pacer concept.

In that case I warn provincial cities to watch out !.

 

[Chris125]

While further orders of self-propelled vehicles will be needed, that ATOC document points out the problem with ordering conventional underfloor DMU's to do this:-

It is widely expected that present and future EC legislation regarding emissions from diesel engines...will increasingly make it difficult or even impossible to procure and operate new DMUs having underfloor diesel engines, with an affordable business case.

Indeed, EU consultation on possible tightening of the rules is now underway. Existing diesel trains can continue to operate for as long as necessary thanks to an amendment agreed in 2011.

Chris

 

[WatcherZero]

Though since then they have come up with compliant engine designs.

 

[The Ham]

One way around the engine problem, would be to take sone of them out of the bi-modal IEP's once enough wiring has been done (say after 10-15 years of life time) and then put them into a new DMU set. That way the enginees wouldn't need to adhear to the co2 emmission rules of the time.

 

[158722]

If you have a look at thread I set up about the effects of electrification and DMU fleets, you will see that by 2019, there seems to a possible plan to displace all the Pacers and 153/155s, plus every likelihood that the HSTs excluding the small XC fleet and any open access operators or additional services, will have gone too.

The possible wiring plans for CP6 are going to have big impact on South Wales, so the 150s start getting replaced directly and with likely projects to connect up the XC network, such as Bristol-Brum-Derby and Sheffield-Leeds\Doncaster, a double action of cascaded stock from 220/221s downward and direct replacement of 150/156 operated local services. 220s could end up on EMT Liverpool-Norwich and Brum-Stansted, displacing 158s/170s which start seeing off the 150/156s. Scotland could well be looking at the Fife circle in CP6, so again, there could be more 170s or 158s heading south. Basic message - by the end of CP6, the diesel fleet is down to 158/159, 165/166, 170/171, 175, 180 and the 22xs, with no need for new build.

Looking ahead into CP7, when the 158 and 165 types will be around 35 years old, things could be different however, where the rate of electrification might not be kept up or able to keep up with the DMU fleet reaching its 35-40 maximum lifespan. Projects which could see off DMUs will be getting fewer, but the two Southern outposts could get plugged and the biggest project I can foresee is one for Chiltern and Birmingham's Snow Hill routes out to Kidderminster and Stratford, plus Salisbury, Exeter, etc. If they all went ahead, perhaps there would be potential to see of a great deal of the 158 & 165 families off by 2030.

My suggestion is that only by the time that the 170s onwards come up for replacement will any thought be given to more DMUs, as by then, the cases for further wiring may not be as clear, thus retaining the need for diesel units - cases such as the scottish rural highland lines, Cumbrian coast and other northern branches, much of wales excluding the north wales coast perhaps, Devon and Cornish branches, etc all off which may not justify wiring. Off course, as I've said before, the cost of energy will weigh even more heavily on policy in 15-20 years time, so who knows, perhaps the wires will get extended or we will have battery or solar powered units on these lines!

 

[JamesRowden]

How about developing a new Bi-mode multiple unit that can do 100mph on AC/DC electrification and 75mph when self powered. It would also include at least one energy storage component (battery / supercapacitor / fly wheel) to act as a KERS by storing up and providing extra power when initially accelerating when self powered so that good performance is available without needing a powerful diesel generator or such a large fuel tank (which should save weight and so make the system more efficient). Of course the storage system would create some weight and produce new sources of losses and so an analysis would need to be done to calculate the actual savings. The energy storage system could be charged during the following periods:

• On electrified track
• Self powered
  • During braking
  • While running at a constant speed

 

[158722]

How about developing a new Bi-mode multiple unit that can do 100mph on AC/DC electrification and 75mph when self powered. It would also include at least one energy storage component (battery / supercapacitor / fly wheel) to act as a KERS by storing up and providing extra power when initially accelerating when self powered so that good performance is available without needing a powerful diesel generator or such a large fuel tank (which should save weight and so make the system more efficient). Of course the storage system would create some weight and produce new sources of losses and so an analysis would need to be done to calculate the actual savings. The energy storage system could be charged during the following periods:

• On electrified track
• Self powered
  • During braking
  • While running at a constant speed

I would agree that something along these lines would (sorry, should!) be on the cards for beyond 2025, instead of a new, pure DMU to replace the 158s onwards, as I tried to outline above.

 

[northwichcat]

There was a DfT programme to specify and procure 202 new DMU carriages (comprising 61 trains IIRC?).
Diesel Trains Ltd was a company set up to procure and fund these new DMU's, with a view to that company being sold off once the trains were delivered.

The reason the DfT got involved is broadly similar to the reason they got involved with HST2 (later to evolve into the InterCity Express Programme), in so far as it was clear that the industry, i.e. ROSCO's, Banks and TOC's, would not be in any position to provide for fleet renewal.

The uncertainty at the time over future electrification, meant there could be no financial provision for such a new fleet and the government therefore set out to underwrite a programme to ensure new trains would be provided in good time.

Once a decision was made on a rolling programme of electrification (starting with the GWML announcement in Autumn 2009), that spelt the death knell for the new DMU programme and it was promptly cancelled.
Diesel Trains Ltd lay dormant as a company until it was dissolved sometime last year.

The new diesel order was supposed to provide something like 10 x 4 car trains for TPE, 10 x 4 car trains for FGW (for Cardiff-Portsmouth) and 120 carriages in 2, 3 and 4 car formations for Northern by December 2012 which would all have been additional capacity for the respective operators and would have been alongside the cascades that followed after the class 172 introduction.

So it's really the North West electrification that cancelled the order - a new order of 40 DMU vehicles for FGW would have been too small but an order of 160 DMU vehicles for Northern and TPE would still have been large enough to go ahead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In that case I warn provincial cities to watch out !.

TfGM who were apparently against the Pacers in the 1980s, have spoken about looking at 'heavy trams' on lines such as the Marple and Atherton lines. With a 'heavy tram' meaning it's a hybrid that's not suitable for street running opposed to a 'tram-train' which should be suitable for both street running and National Rail running.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

If you have a look at thread I set up about the effects of electrification and DMU fleets, you will see that by 2019, there seems to a possible plan to displace all the Pacers and 153/155s, plus every likelihood that the HSTs excluding the small XC fleet and any open access operators or additional services, will have gone too.

The possible wiring plans for CP6 are going to have big impact on South Wales, so the 150s start getting replaced directly and with likely projects to connect up the XC network, such as Bristol-Brum-Derby and Sheffield-Leeds\Doncaster, a double action of cascaded stock from 220/221s downward and direct replacement of 150/156 operated local services. 220s could end up on EMT Liverpool-Norwich and Brum-Stansted, displacing 158s/170s which start seeing off the 150/156s. Scotland could well be looking at the Fife circle in CP6, so again, there could be more 170s or 158s heading south. Basic message - by the end of CP6, the diesel fleet is down to 158/159, 165/166, 170/171, 175, 180 and the 22xs, with no need for new build.

Looking ahead into CP7, when the 158 and 165 types will be around 35 years old, things could be different however, where the rate of electrification might not be kept up or able to keep up with the DMU fleet reaching its 35-40 maximum lifespan. Projects which could see off DMUs will be getting fewer, but the two Southern outposts could get plugged and the biggest project I can foresee is one for Chiltern and Birmingham's Snow Hill routes out to Kidderminster and Stratford, plus Salisbury, Exeter, etc. If they all went ahead, perhaps there would be potential to see of a great deal of the 158 & 165 families off by 2030.

My suggestion is that only by the time that the 170s onwards come up for replacement will any thought be given to more DMUs, as by then, the cases for further wiring may not be as clear, thus retaining the need for diesel units - cases such as the scottish rural highland lines, Cumbrian coast and other northern branches, much of wales excluding the north wales coast perhaps, Devon and Cornish branches, etc all off which may not justify wiring. Off course, as I've said before, the cost of energy will weigh even more heavily on policy in 15-20 years time, so who knows, perhaps the wires will get extended or we will have battery or solar powered units on these lines!

I agree routes like the West highland, Far North/Kyle of Lochalsh, Cumbrian Coast and Cambrian Coast* are unlikely to be considered for electrification but are 170's, 171, or 172's with 1/3 and 2/3 door layouts suitable for such routes over 156's and 158's with vestibules and end doors? Would a new build stock based on 158 design be better long term solution for such self contained rural routes?

*I don't know about the business case for electrifying the Cambrian Mainline itself an whether DMU stock should included in such an order or not.

The Cornish branches are relatively short and do have some through running so I think should be wired eventually.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would agree that something along these lines would (sorry, should!) be on the cards for beyond 2025, instead of a new, pure DMU to replace the 158s onwards, as I tried to outline above.

As largely self contained diesel routes there would be little under the wires running so Bi-mode stock wouldn't be needed

 

[HSTEd]

If the Cornish main Line was wired the St Ives branch becomes a ludicrously good way to eliminate a DMU since its so short.

And I think eventually all the railway lines will have to be electrified, since it is one way to signal a political commitment to improving them.
Also since I can see the politicians in the Highlands wanting more through workings from further south which will likely require electric power in the future.

 

[northwichcat]

And I think eventually all the railway lines will have to be electrified, since it is one way to signal a political commitment to improving them.

What if a newer better fuel method comes in to play or we have an electric shortage? Although, I suppose our country will continue to invest in the outdated method like they did with building faster steam locomotives when other countries had moved on to diesel.

 

[HSTEd]

What if a newer better fuel method comes in to play or we have an electric shortage? Although, I suppose our country will continue to invest in the outdated method like they did with building faster steam locomotives when other countries had moved on to diesel.

It is hard to imagine a technology which could be better than direct electric transmission to the train emerging in the future.
Especially with the work on Medium Frequency Power Electronic Transformer packs which are going to cut the weight of the transformer/rectifier combination in half.

Energy density of all feasible fuels is going to be unable to compete with that.

 

[D365]

What if a newer better fuel method comes in to play or we have an electric shortage? Although, I suppose our country will continue to invest in the outdated method like they did with building faster steam locomotives when other countries had moved on to diesel.

And then got rid of the lot (1968) before most others.

How about developing a new Bi-mode multiple unit that can do 100mph on AC/DC electrification and 75mph when self powered. It would also include at least one energy storage component (battery / supercapacitor / fly wheel) to act as a KERS by storing up and providing extra power when initially accelerating when self powered so that good performance is available...

A Super-PPM/[insert rolling stock manufacturer here] tie-up anybody? ;D

There was a DfT programme to specify and procure 202 new DMU carriages (comprising 61 trains IIRC?).
Diesel Trains Ltd was a company set up to procure and fund these new DMU's, with a view to that company being sold off once the trains were delivered.

The reason the DfT got involved is broadly similar to the reason they got involved with HST2 (later to evolve into the InterCity Express Programme), in so far as it was clear that the industry, i.e. ROSCO's, Banks and TOC's, would not be in any position to provide for fleet renewal.

The uncertainty at the time over future electrification, meant there could be no financial provision for such a new fleet and the government therefore set out to underwrite a programme to ensure new trains would be provided in good time.

Once a decision was made on a rolling programme of electrification (starting with the GWML announcement in Autumn 2009), that spelt the death knell for the new DMU programme and it was promptly cancelled.
Diesel Trains Ltd lay dormant as a company until it was dissolved sometime last year.

Because the government finally remembered that with Thameslink and Crossrail, a good number of [mid-life] Mk3 EMUs, and 315s, would be freed up by NXEMU 700 (much-delayed) /345 and wouldn't have much to do. This would of course be majorly controversial had it continued, even with new diesels; "Why do we still have the knackered Pacers and Sprinters when there's this stock rotting".

Of course when this electrification programme was finally announced, the cries promptly morphed to "Why are we getting London's cast-off stock, why don't we get the new stuff for once" whilst ignoring all the facts that this strategy is better for all... And then people move on to claiming £40bn could get you way more bang for the buck on our existing Victorian railways, without telling us how we can achieve this, realistically...

 

[Bevan Price]

Simply put, will there ever be another order for a fleet of DMUs? Not counting bi-modes or anything. Or to cast the net further, for how many more years could there be cases for ordering more DMUs? There's probably a wealth of information I've bypassed through ignorance, forgive me. Cheers.

Eventually - yes. Possibly two types.

1. A lightweight design for mostly rural branch lines. This could be an updated Pacer type - a bus-based design for (for example, Cornish branch lines, Middlesbrough - Whitby, etc. (Class 146 ??). Construction might commence circa 2019 if/when there is found to be insufficient cascaded stock to replace Class 142, etc. Alternatively, it might be a diesel version of a bogie tram chassis.

2. An updated 172 type design for busier lines that are not going to be electrified. I suspect we won't see many of these before about 2030, when the residual Class 15x units start to wear out.

I suggest we forget about cascading Voyager type trains to services like Liverpool ( or Nottingham) - Norwich, etc. . Apart from them being far too fuel-hungry for such services, many of them are likely to be getting a bit knackered by 2025 / 2030, having run at 100+ mph for around 30 years.

 

[northwichcat]

It is hard to imagine a technology which could be better than direct electric transmission to the train emerging in the future.
Especially with the work on Medium Frequency Power Electronic Transformer packs which are going to cut the weight of the transformer/rectifier combination in half.

Energy density of all feasible fuels is going to be unable to compete with that.

Just to point out you were earlier implying 100% of the rail lines in Britain will need to be electrified. Even if you just consider electric motors there are alternative ways which don't involve electrification of every single little branch - look at the Parry People Mover in Stourbridge or the Southport pier tram and I'm sure a type of locomotive has been developed that can run a few miles on a battery and be recharging the battery while connected to electrics.

The problem with electrification at present is that there isn't currently strong correlation between the amount of additional electricity that will be required and the amount of additional electricity that will be produced. So switching all diesel trains to electric isn't viable at the current time even if diesel is going to run out.

 

[HSTEd]

Just to point out you were earlier implying 100% of the rail lines in Britain will need to be electrified. Even if you just consider electric motors there are alternative ways which don't involve electrification of every single little branch - look at the Parry People Mover in Stourbridge or the Southport pier tram and I'm sure a type of locomotive has been developed that can run a few miles on a battery and be recharging the battery while connected to electrics.

The problem is currently battery electrics have serious issues which I don't expect to dissappear any time soon. (Charge cycling issues and the fact that you would need really rather heavy battery/supercapcitor packs to move anything)

The marginal cost of electrifying the Stourbridge branch or similar is tiny if the attached route is also electrified as there is no need for additional electrical supply works or similar.

The problem with electrification at present is that there isn't currently strong correlation between the amount of additional electricity that will be required and the amount of additional electricity that will be produced. So switching all diesel trains to electric isn't viable at the current time even if diesel is going to run out.

One nuclear power station would produce drastically more than the railways could ever hope to consume.
One more CCGT plant could quite easily do the same, so claiming that an impending electricity shortage is going to make any difference at all is a little silly.
REmember you could just burn the diesel in a special railway power station and still be ahead in energy consumption terms.

 

[northwichcat]

One nuclear power station would produce drastically more than the railways could ever hope to consume.
One more CCGT plant could quite easily do the same, so claiming that an impending electricity shortage is going to make any difference at all is a little silly.

It's not me who's claiming there is an impending electricity shortage but companies like Scottish Power, EDF Energy and EON.

A nuclear power plant takes 8-10 years to build and be operational once approval is granted and gaining approval isn't easy and will probably get even harder after what's happened in Japan. Currently Hinkley Point C had approval granted earlier this year but it's opening will coincide with the decommissioning of Hinkley Point B in 2023 and there are no current plans for any more nuclear power stations after Hinkley Point C.

By 2023 there will have been a lot of additional rail electrification work.

The problem is currently battery electrics have serious issues which I don't expect to dissappear any time soon. (Charge cycling issues and the fact that you would need really rather heavy battery/supercapcitor packs to move anything)

The marginal cost of electrifying the Stourbridge branch or similar is tiny if the attached route is also electrified as there is no need for additional electrical supply works or similar.

The issue with short branches is the electrification work would likely be done on the cheap* meaning it'd be less reliable so the fact that battery is less reliable won't be as relevant.

The Stourbridge branch may only be one little short branch but by the time you look at all the short branches in Britain and the cost of electrifying all of them combined then I think you'd get a budget required similar to that of the Northern Hub.

* Network Rail in their electrification RUS said an off-peak frequency of less than 2tph in each direction would usually deem standard electrification work too costly to be an effective use of capital. They've even questioned the viability of some lines with 2tph in each direction like Chester to Crewe due to the cost of preliminary work that would be required before any installation of overheads can be looked at - I think in this instance it was something like 25 bridges on the line (about 1 per mile) that gave an unfavourable cost:benefit ratio.

 

[rebmcr]

Support for nuclear power has increased since Fukushima, because it was a fantastic example of just how safe nuclear power is — even when a 40-year-old design goes almost competely wrong, virtually nothing bad happens (unless you're a TEPCO executive...).

The railway currently uses around 1.5% to 5% of grid capacity. Even if this increased fourfold, 6% to 20% is still a drop in the ocean compared to household consumption, which is what the energy companies are warning about.

We would see rolling blackouts in the domestic supply and selected low-importance industries, before they even started considering cutting off infrastructure (including railways) and most of industry.

 

[HSTEd]

It's not me who's claiming there is an impending electricity shortage but companies like Scottish Power, EDF Energy and EON.

I don't want to get into the politics of it but a lot of that is them simply manouevering to get insane subsidies through the new strike price regime.

For instance the EDF plant at Hinkley Point will generate £39bn in payments from billpapers over 15 years despite the fact the plant will still have 45 years life remaining afterwards and will cost at most £10bn to build.

The whole thing stinks.

The issue with short branches is the electrification work would likely be done on the cheap* meaning it'd be less reliable so the fact that battery is less reliable won't be as relevant.

Cheap electrification is going to be fairly reliable in the very low speed regime that is found on these branches.
Imagine Manchester Metrolink electrification equipment (from the newer extensions anyway) that just happens to have bigger insulators to handle 25kV.
I was more concerned with the fact the battery will die every couple of years and will need to have enormous overcapacity to handle all the hotel loads trains have these days.
A PPM doesn't have air con I don't believe for instance.

The Stourbridge branch may only be one little short branch but by the time you look at all the short branches in Britain and the cost of electrifying all of them combined then I think you'd get a budget required similar to that of the Northern Hub.

Well best guess for total electrification is roughly ~£20bn.
So it can't cost a ridiculously huge amount to do all these random branches considering the low speed and low power regimes they operate in.

* Network Rail in their electrification RUS said an off-peak frequency of less than 2tph in each direction would usually deem standard electrification work too costly to be an effective use of capital. They've even questioned the viability of some lines with 2tph in each direction like Chester to Crewe due to the cost of preliminary work that would be required before any installation of overheads can be looked at - I think in this instance it was something like 25 bridges on the line (about 1 per mile) that gave an unfavourable cost:benefit ratio.

Yes, but Network Rail was looking on a purely economic basis assuming that the world fuel market continues to function.
The geopolitical concerns are rather more serious, in terms of what happens if for whatever reason those five hundred and seventy thousands tonnes of oil used by the railways every year cannot be reliably sourced.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Support for nuclear power has increased since Fukushima, because it was a fantastic example of just how safe nuclear power is — even when a 40-year-old design goes almost competely wrong, virtually nothing bad happens (unless you're a TEPCO executive...).

And this despite endless scaremongering in the press.

 

[The Ham]

It's not me who's claiming there is an impending electricity shortage but companies like Scottish Power, EDF Energy and EON.

A nuclear power plant takes 8-10 years to build and be operational once approval is granted and gaining approval isn't easy and will probably get even harder after what's happened in Japan. Currently Hinkley Point C had approval granted earlier this year but it's opening will coincide with the decommissioning of Hinkley Point B in 2023 and there are no current plans for any more nuclear power stations after Hinkley Point C.

By 2023 there will have been a lot of additional rail electrification work.

The lines in question would likely be post 2023, so even if it takes a few years for approval for a new power station (which would provide power for more than just any extra electrification of the rail network), meaning that it's not really that much of a problem. Add to that the desire for more trains to have regenerative brakes, to reduce the need for quite so much power from where we are currently. Even if the amount of power being used on the network does go up it would be due to a lot of extra services.

The issue with short branches is the electrification work would likely be done on the cheap* meaning it'd be less reliable so the fact that battery is less reliable won't be as relevant.

The Stourbridge branch may only be one little short branch but by the time you look at all the short branches in Britain and the cost of electrifying all of them combined then I think you'd get a budget required similar to that of the Northern Hub.

* Network Rail in their electrification RUS said an off-peak frequency of less than 2tph in each direction would usually deem standard electrification work too costly to be an effective use of capital. They've even questioned the viability of some lines with 2tph in each direction like Chester to Crewe due to the cost of preliminary work that would be required before any installation of overheads can be looked at - I think in this instance it was something like 25 bridges on the line (about 1 per mile) that gave an unfavourable cost:benefit ratio.

If a branch is very short with very few bridges then the cost to wire it up when wiring up the main line would be very low. As the junction would need to be done anyway, as well as an end section. This would then mean that the extra costs would mostly be just the extra spans to reach the other end of the line. If the line is used intensively it may add to the need for another power supply point (but then that would make it more likely to justify the cost).

 

[ainsworth74]

Well best guess for total electrification is roughly ~£20bn.

Interestingly in a report from 1980 BR thought it could get about 50% of the networks total route miles for around £771m in 1978 money values starting work in 1981 and wrapping up by 2010 (the heaviest period of investment being 1981 - 2000 at about £45m per year in spending). That would have bought a network looking like this (click to make it bigger):

 

[HSTEd]

Interestingly in a report from 1980 BR thought it could get about 50% of the networks total route miles for around £771m in 1978 money values starting work in 1981 and wrapping up by 2010 (the heaviest period of investment being 1981 - 2000 at about £45m per year in spending). That would have bought a network looking like this (click to make it bigger):

View attachment 16192

Interesting that the Weymouth Line is not electrified in this proposal.
I assume this is because there was no idea that the "low cost" technology that made it feasible would be available less than a decade later?

 

[ainsworth74]

Interesting that the Weymouth Line is not electrified in this proposal.
I assume this is because there was no idea that the "low cost" technology that made it feasible would be available less than a decade later?

Yes there are some interesting gaps compared to what actually happened aren't there! I'm not sure why they didn't include Weymouth to be honest but I suspect that would be the reason. It seems like they didn't anticipate NSE's creeping program of electrification (not that I blame them for that) which it managed in the 80s as there are a few other gaps that were filled by NSE in that area that aren't on this map as far as I can tell.

If such a scheme had been authorised at this extent (the report actually had a number of options, this was the most extensive/expensive) it would be interesting to see what impact privatisation would have had about half way through the program. I would be surprised if it was anything other than negative!

The report also features by 2011 APT being built in large numbers (231 sets), there being only 900 DMU vehicles in service and that there would still be in excess of 3,500 loco hauled coaches in service (that would please enthusiasts on this website ). Personally I think the rolling stock numbers might be a bit shakey as I suspect if we got 'sparks effect' growth and the growth we saw in the 90s/00s in real life there would actually need to be even more vehicles than this report suggests (it's being written in 80/81 so passengers numbers are only just bottoming out let alone growing).

You can find the whole report here by the by.

 

[Harlesden]

Surely Class 172's could be run anywhere as a 2 car, 4 car or 6 car unit.
Please someone explain why this wouldn't work Genuinely curious.

 

[HSTEd]

The report also features by 2011 APT being built in large numbers (231 sets), there being only 900 DMU vehicles in service and that there would still be in excess of 3,500 loco hauled coaches in service (that would please enthusiasts on this website ). Personally I think the rolling stock numbers might be a bit shakey as I suspect if we got 'sparks effect' growth and the growth we saw in the 90s/00s in real life there would actually need to be even more vehicles than this report suggests (it's being written in 80/81 so passengers numbers are only just bottoming out let alone growing).

You can find the whole report here by the by.

Yeah, the fleet of EMUs and loco hauled carriages still drops over the review period, presumably because all the excess Mark 1 vehicles and associated multiple units were scrapped without replacement due to the previously projected fall in passenger numbers from when they were built?