• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Discontiuous electrification: is it really the best way forward?

Status
Not open for further replies.

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,340
Why did Hitachi, IIRC, install small diesel alternators in 80x's, in preference to batteries for emergency ETS?
Probably because they already had to procure and integrate the gnerators with the trains for the electrodiesel sets!
All the costs apart from the iron itself had already been paid.


The costs of electrification are in proportion to the extra track miles (TM) sparked, whereas the benefits are in proportion to the number of 20m cars (C) needed for the service. By finding the ratio of TM/C, for existing or your pet schemes, you will gain an idea of the relative attraction of electrification - high is bad, low is good! You can estimate the track miles/km from route length etc and add c5% for sidings etc. You could even make a family party game out of it, with a BEMU token as the trump card!
Given the cost increases in 25kV (reaching in some instances £4m/stkm), the amount of electrification that could be paid for by replacing a BEMU vehicle with a cheaper EMU vehicle is likely to be only a few times the length of the vehicle.
I don't think any length of non electrified railway has traffic densities high enough to be justified on that basis.


I think the discontinuous electrification scheme with the minimum additional electrified mileage is likely to be the most economic one.

I also agree with an earlier poster that the performance of a battery electric multiple unit built in the Shinkansen style (all or nearly all axles motored) would be utterly transformative for the railway. Especially if all passenger trains could do that - which is the endgame I expect.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

WAO

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2019
Messages
1,225
I'm still confused.

If BEMU's are cheaper and better in all situations and are in wide use abroad, when are we to see de-electrification of unnecessary, costly OLE in favour of batteries. Why is DfT continuing present OLE projects?

Need a mince pie,

WAO
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,340
I'm still confused.

If BEMU's are cheaper and better in all situations and are in wide use abroad, when are we to see de-electrification of unnecessary, costly OLE in favour of batteries. Why is DfT continuing present OLE projects?

Need a mince pie,

WAO
Well, how many OLE projects are actually underway at this time?

As far as I can think of, there is only a short segment in Scotland and a short segment on the MML?
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
8,012
Location
Surrey
Sprinters need replacing many run under the wires for part of their journeys so we should be procuring a BEMU replacement for the entire UK fleet with at least 50km range and then installing rapid charging where the route length is beyond that. This is quickest way to decarbonise the remainder of the UKs passenger operations on secondary routes. Remainder of ML routes should be electrified but we shouldn't be afraid of using discontinuous electrification where expensive structures work would be required.
 

goldisgood

Member
Joined
5 Mar 2018
Messages
446
I'd argue it's clear that any short to medium-term decarbonisation strategies will be using discontinuous electrification - past this, it will be a case-by-case argument for lines which will justify electrification. Those most likely to pass this test will be higher-speed lines (above 100mph most likely), those with freight traffic which is unlikely to be decarbonised any other way, lines with the most intensive services, and any upgrades to enabler battery operation. Many of these lines will be longer-term projects, but it's clear that BEMU vehicles offer the fastest path to decarbonisation for much of the UK. There are some particularly obvious candidates for this currently, notably GWR's Thames Valley services, certain North West commuter services (Buxton, Huddersfield, Southport, Rose Hill Marple, CLC), and Leeds commuter services (Harrogate line, Pontefract line, Sheffield).

As for where this leaves electrification projects? Past the Midland Main Line, I would argue Oxford and Bristol are two of the best targets for short-term electrification - both lines are almost ready to be electrified, and provide strategic routes for decarbonisation (including longer routes such as Cardiff-Portsmouth, and local services such as the Severn Beach Line which both could be operated by battery traction following these upgrades). After these various reports from the Railway Industry Association and Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport highlight what they view as other key routes - many of these building off from the Midland Main Line and completing the Great Western. Key priorities for electrification highlighted by these reports are Reading to Basingstoke, Birmingham to Leicester and East West Rail - all obvious candidates to continue from existing schemes underway, or the Great Western which should ideally be resumed. On top of this, Reading to the Mendip Quarries, and the longer Birmingham to Felixstowe corridor are highlighted as core freight routes requiring electrification, which would allow electrification for passenger services on these routes.

Obviously some further works will be required to continue decarbonisation further - but the rapid development of battery technology continues to reduce the amount of works required (for passenger services at the very least) - as far as passenger-focused projects go, Miles Platting to Rochdale looks to be an obvious win, allowing for many of the remaining diesel Manchester commuter services to be feasibly battery-operated (Atherton line, Clitheroe and Blackburn).

In any case an integrated strategy to replace life-expired rolling stock with battery-electric trains should be aimed for - which luckily looks to line up with the areas with highest potential for electrification. For GWR the seemingly obvious move would be a fleet of 20 or so BEMU units to cover Thames Valley services, allowing for Turbos to be moved West and replace Class 150 units. It would also be logical to cover East West Rail with this order, assuming Oxford electrification works are completed. For Northern, electrification between Miles Platting and Rochdale and an order for suburban BEMU units to run as many services as feasible should allow retirement of Class 150 units, and start to make headway towards replacing Class 155/156 units as well. The next units coming up for replacement would be Class 158 and Turbo units, and raises big questions over Chilter. Here I would anticipate discontinous electrification between Marylebone and Wycombe, much like the Valley Lines to help reduce the cost of electrifying expensive structures. By this point all services out as far as Aylesbury and Oxford could be moved across to BEMU units, with newer Turbostars continuing services to Birmingham. I suspect at this point, further electrification around Exeter might start to look appealing, allowing for local services to be converted to BEMU, and even providing continuous electrification towards to Bristol and Westbury with the higher speeds on these routes might look appealing. Depending on how fast-charging technology develops, this could present a solution for the Cornish branch lines. All in all, this probably takes us through the next 15 years or so of stock replacement and retirement of Sprinters and Turbos (probably with some cascades and shuffling of Class 170 and Class 185 routes and fleets to replace Class 158 units up north, and probably a new order for battery/bi-mode/dual-voltage regional units for the West of England).
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
8,012
Location
Surrey
I'd argue it's clear that any short to medium-term decarbonisation strategies will be using discontinuous electrification - past this, it will be a case-by-case argument for lines which will justify electrification. Those most likely to pass this test will be higher-speed lines (above 100mph most likely), those with freight traffic which is unlikely to be decarbonised any other way, lines with the most intensive services, and any upgrades to enabler battery operation. Many of these lines will be longer-term projects, but it's clear that BEMU vehicles offer the fastest path to decarbonisation for much of the UK. There are some particularly obvious candidates for this currently, notably GWR's Thames Valley services, certain North West commuter services (Buxton, Huddersfield, Southport, Rose Hill Marple, CLC), and Leeds commuter services (Harrogate line, Pontefract line, Sheffield).

As for where this leaves electrification projects? Past the Midland Main Line, I would argue Oxford and Bristol are two of the best targets for short-term electrification - both lines are almost ready to be electrified, and provide strategic routes for decarbonisation (including longer routes such as Cardiff-Portsmouth, and local services such as the Severn Beach Line which both could be operated by battery traction following these upgrades). After these various reports from the Railway Industry Association and Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport highlight what they view as other key routes - many of these building off from the Midland Main Line and completing the Great Western. Key priorities for electrification highlighted by these reports are Reading to Basingstoke, Birmingham to Leicester and East West Rail - all obvious candidates to continue from existing schemes underway, or the Great Western which should ideally be resumed. On top of this, Reading to the Mendip Quarries, and the longer Birmingham to Felixstowe corridor are highlighted as core freight routes requiring electrification, which would allow electrification for passenger services on these routes.

Obviously some further works will be required to continue decarbonisation further - but the rapid development of battery technology continues to reduce the amount of works required (for passenger services at the very least) - as far as passenger-focused projects go, Miles Platting to Rochdale looks to be an obvious win, allowing for many of the remaining diesel Manchester commuter services to be feasibly battery-operated (Atherton line, Clitheroe and Blackburn).

In any case an integrated strategy to replace life-expired rolling stock with battery-electric trains should be aimed for - which luckily looks to line up with the areas with highest potential for electrification. For GWR the seemingly obvious move would be a fleet of 20 or so BEMU units to cover Thames Valley services, allowing for Turbos to be moved West and replace Class 150 units. It would also be logical to cover East West Rail with this order, assuming Oxford electrification works are completed. For Northern, electrification between Miles Platting and Rochdale and an order for suburban BEMU units to run as many services as feasible should allow retirement of Class 150 units, and start to make headway towards replacing Class 155/156 units as well. The next units coming up for replacement would be Class 158 and Turbo units, and raises big questions over Chilter. Here I would anticipate discontinous electrification between Marylebone and Wycombe, much like the Valley Lines to help reduce the cost of electrifying expensive structures. By this point all services out as far as Aylesbury and Oxford could be moved across to BEMU units, with newer Turbostars continuing services to Birmingham. I suspect at this point, further electrification around Exeter might start to look appealing, allowing for local services to be converted to BEMU, and even providing continuous electrification towards to Bristol and Westbury with the higher speeds on these routes might look appealing. Depending on how fast-charging technology develops, this could present a solution for the Cornish branch lines. All in all, this probably takes us through the next 15 years or so of stock replacement and retirement of Sprinters and Turbos (probably with some cascades and shuffling of Class 170 and Class 185 routes and fleets to replace Class 158 units up north, and probably a new order for battery/bi-mode/dual-voltage regional units for the West of England).
Excellent template just need to get on with it and stop prevaricating if we are serious about decarbonisation.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,340
Excellent template just need to get on with it and stop prevaricating if we are serious about decarbonisation.
If we are serious about decarbonisation we would order a clean sheet BEMU with as much range as we can get.
It is likely possible to eliminate a rather large fraction of all remaining diesel operations with little additional new electrification infrastructure.

The additional infrastructure that would be required to achieve total completion is unlikely to be on routes that would be appealing in a non battery future.

Decarbonisation has to be done soon, there is no room for a 30 year rolling electrification programme or anything of that nature.

We have 6 years to the end of new pure ICE cars, 11 years to the end of all new non pure-electric cars.
Car travel will be almost entirely decarbonised inside 20 years - the passenger railway must be done by then or it will face some pretty severe consequences in political and thus financial terms.
Indeed, inside a decade petrol sales will be collapsing and things start to look dicey for the railways environmentalist credentials.

As for freight, it is likely possible to build a battery container train. But freight operators seem unlikely to want anything but continued Class 66 operations. Either nationalisation (which will require them to obey) or simply leaving them to reap what they sow in terms of public licence to operate are the only options.
 
Last edited:

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
3,334
Location
Nottingham
Either nationalisation (which will require them to obey) or simply leaving them to reap what they sow in terms of public licence to operate are the only options.
Or just introduce a universal carbon tax, set to whatever level is needed for the market to establish the route to decarbonisation in the most economically feasible manner.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,340
Or just introduce a universal carbon tax, set to whatever level is needed for the market to establish the route to decarbonisation in the most economically feasible manner.
Such a system is likely to lead to outcomes wildly out of kilter with the governments social and other agenda.

It would, amongst other things, drive gas and petrol prices into the stratosphere.

A large fraction of the population would end up ceasing the use of heating.

And given that the railway would simply pay it from increased subsidy, would not really help here.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,392
Location
The Fens
Or just introduce a universal carbon tax, set to whatever level is needed for the market to establish the route to decarbonisation in the most economically feasible manner.
Cast your mind back a bit less than 3 years, to when the wholesale price of gas rose sharply after the start of the war in Ukraine.

The "most economically feasible" policy response would have been to let retail prices rise to match demand with supply. The government of the day decided not to allow that because lots of people would not have been able to afford to heat their homes.

A universal carbon tax would also leave lots of people unable to afford to heat their homes. It won't happen.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,340
A universal carbon tax would also leave lots of people unable to afford to heat their homes. It won't happen.
Indeed the price of gas would likely rise to similar to that of electricity, on average. And both prices would be substantially higher than electricity is now, with electricity prices being subject to rapid and difficult to predict variations.
 

778

Member
Joined
4 May 2020
Messages
700
Location
Hemel Hempstead
we are serious about decarbonisation we would order a clean sheet BEMU with as much range as we can get.
It is likely possible to eliminate a rather large fraction of all remaining diesel operations with little additional new electrification infrastructure.
If battery technology advances in the future could lines be de-electrified with OLE and 3rd rail removed?
Car travel will be almost entirely decarbonised inside 20 years - the passenger railway must be done by then or it will face some pretty severe consequences in political and thus financial terms.
Not sure it is realistic to expect all diesel trains to be replaced in 20 years time, although I don't think any more DMUs or diesels locomotives should be built.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,340
If battery technology advances in the future could lines be de-electrified with OLE and 3rd rail removed?
Possibly yes, although that is a very long term consideration - given that a lot of EMUs will be running around for a long time yet.
Not sure it is realistic to expect all diesel trains to be replaced in 20 years time.
There are precious few diesel trains in operation today that are not going to be life expired, or very near to it, by then.

That more or less leaves us with the 19x and the 231s, I think doesn't it?
And the 231s are likely convertable into electrics, given that they are fundamentally FLIRTs.

Before considering spending billions on electrification, it is worth noting that there are only ~3000 pure diesel passenger rail vehicles in the fleet today.
 

WAO

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2019
Messages
1,225
Well, how many OLE projects are actually underway at this time?

As far as I can think of, there is only a short segment in Scotland and a short segment on the MML?
There's a lot going on between Manchester and York with no thought of discontinuity.

Also there are suspicious moves afoot at several spots North of Wigston on the MML.

I keep an open mind.

WAO
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,833
Why did Hitachi, IIRC, install small diesel alternators in 80x's, in preference to batteries for emergency ETS?

Because DfT specified that, when the specification was written for what became the Class 800s almost 20 years ago. Subsequently, some TOCs have specified larger batteries, eg Lumo on their 803s (non traction) and LNER on their new CAF units (traction).

If you are at loose end over Christmas, then here's a holiday activity.

Unfortunately, the railway never sleeps.
 
Joined
5 Aug 2015
Messages
913
Location
Norfolk
I've already written my rambling essay so I'll just leave this as a reminder - you can't beat the energy efficiency of not carrying your power plant on board. This is why the victorian kept trying to build cable and wierd vacuum pipe railways before electrification had been developed.

We all accept that MML should be wired "cus it's intensively used or something" but we need other railway lines to become intensivly used even if they don't currently reach whatever threshold for wiring you all have been agreeing on. We need those lines to increase their capacity because we need people to stop using cars whether they be ICE or EV. A like for like swap of engines to batteries will do little to improve the transport sector's sustainability. Cars do more damage than just their tailpipes. Likewise railway electrification is so much more than no longer having diesel engines on trains.

This thread (and tbh many more across transport discourse) seems to view OLE as a method of getting rid of tailpipe emissions on rail vehicles- which is a potential option but too much more expensive and disruptive than battery traction. This view ignores the circa 100 years before policymakers had any interest in climate anything where railways from fully private to fully public actively chosen to electrify. If no one cared about emissions, why did they do it?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,340
This view ignores the circa 100 years before policymakers had any interest in climate anything where railways from fully private to fully public actively chosen to electrify. If no one cared about emissions, why did they do it?
Because steam locomotives have/had frankly awful operational characteristics.

Outside various edge cases (captive railways for power stations etc), electrification became much more difficult to justify once modern diesel electric locomotives became available.

In the heydey of railway electrification it was either electricity or steam. Steam was so terrible that it was easy for electricity to win out.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,833
I've already written my rambling essay so I'll just leave this as a reminder - you can't beat the energy efficiency of not carrying your power plant on board.

And yet almost every form of transport does it, from cycling to flying.

There is also the point that the capital and material efficiency of installing electrification equipment on railways that will never see anything more than light use is questionable.
 
Last edited:

eldomtom2

On Moderation
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
2,386
In the heydey of railway electrification it was either electricity or steam.
What are you defining as the "heyday" of electrification? Most of the big schemes in the UK were conducted after the diesel locomotive had proven its viability.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
10,510
Location
Preston Lancs
Well, how many OLE projects are actually underway at this time?

As far as I can think of, there is only a short segment in Scotland and a short segment on the MML?
Transpennine?

There's a lot going on between Manchester and York with no thought of discontinuity.

Also there are suspicious moves afoot at several spots North of Wigston on the MML.

I keep an open mind.

WAO
Me too!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,340
What are you defining as the "heyday" of electrification? Most of the big schemes in the UK were conducted after the diesel locomotive had proven its viability.
I'd suggest the heydey of electrification was from the invention of practical electrification systems in the late 19th Century through to about 1955-1960 - when the diesel engine's dominance in rail traction became almost complete.

British railways were rather late to the electrification concept generally, but are also some of the most heavily trafficked railways in the world and were late to dieselisation.
 
Joined
5 Aug 2015
Messages
913
Location
Norfolk
Because steam locomotives have/had frankly awful operational characteristics.

Outside various edge cases (captive railways for power stations etc), electrification became much more difficult to justify once modern diesel electric locomotives became available.

In the heydey of railway electrification it was either electricity or steam. Steam was so terrible that it was easy for electricity to win out.
other than the strange case of north america, this is rather untrue. Almost all of the UK's AC electrification occurred with proven diesel traction as an option - it wasn't just extensions of third rail (which dried up by the 1960s) or other legacy systems. There are very few places in the UK where AC electric directly replaced steam without having gone through diesel first, East London/Essex and Glasgow commuter lines are the only minor examples I can think of.

And what about China and especially India. India have reached into the 90%s of AC OLE electrification which basically started less than 20 years ago - they don't have a mile of HSR (atm) so why did they bother doing that when there were perfectly good diesels around.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

And yet almost every form of transport does it, from cycling to flying.
It's a unique feature of rail vehicles. The only other modes that can do it are sailing boats and trolley buses.
There is also the point that the capital and material efficiency of instLlign electrification equipment on railways that will never see anything more than light use is questionable.
You could say the same thing about double track - especially if junction constraints at either side of a stretch of line make it impossible to run a frequency that needs double track (eg: Norwich-Ely). Also in Europe it's default for every two track railway to be fully bi-directionally signalled even if half the equipment never sees much use - i mean, I guess we don't do that here but you see what I mean.

But as I said, some railways which are lightly used today will need to become heavily used tomorrow if we are to make viable alternatives to driving.
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,340
other than the strange case of north america, this is rather untrue. Almost all of the UK's AC electrification occurred with proven diesel traction as an option - it wasn't just extensions of third rail (which dried up by the 1960s) or other legacy systems. There are very few places in the UK where AC electric directly replaced steam without having gone through diesel first, East London/Essex and Glasgow commuter lines are the only minor examples I can think of.
Third rail extensions in the UK continued all the way to the mid 1990s.....
As to electrification, mains frequency AC electrification was rather late to the party.

And what about China and especially India. India have reached into the 90%s of AC OLE electrification which basically started less than 20 years ago - they don't have a mile of HSR (atm) so why did they bother doing that when there were perfectly good diesels around.
India and China both have government policies that place enormous emphasis on gaining independence from imported oil resources.
This is primarily a result of their particular geopolitical circumstances, which don't really apply in many places.

Electrifications heydey was gone by the 1960s, but there were still reasonable traffic levels where it could be attractive, but it now appears batteries have taken a huge chunk out of the potential market.
Especially in the UK, where the electrification cost has climbed into the stratosphere.
 

Class15

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2021
Messages
4,154
Location
North London or Mildmay line
I don’t think discontinuous electrification is perfect. I think it has been used very well on the Cardiff Valley lines network, and it could work in some other places, but to do the Midland Mainline as discontinuous would not be a great idea IMO, and I’m very pleased they dropped the idea of ‘skipping’ Leicester station, one of the most important places en route.

To give another example:

If the Great Eastern was discontinuous, where would those electric freights be going?
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
3,186
Location
Way on down South London town
Good example. The cost of wiring up Chippenham - Bristol will be in the region of £2-300m

Playing devil’s advocate, we know that Hitachi have proved battery techonology on the 800 series trains, therefore it would seem possible to equip, say, a third or half of the fleet with batteries in place of their generator sets to operate the Bristol and Seansea services. If you can do that for less than £200m (and I rather think you can) then you have electric services for cheaper, no ?

But what about Commuter traffic, regional traffic, freight traffic?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,340
But what about Commuter traffic, regional traffic, freight traffic?
Freight traffic probably won't switch to electric, whatever happens.

The number of units for commuter and regional traffic is probably quite small, beyond the cost of the Hitachi units.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,576
Location
Torbay
It is unlikely freight operators will order brand new diesel-only locomotives, bi-modes can handle discontinuous electrification but class 90s and such like can’t. This might be problematic.
Bi(or more)mode freight locos will be able to use overhead wiring where it exists en route. Elsewhere they will use their engines or for short hops or last miles, batteries, if also equipped. If freight traffic or regional traffic in an area is heavy, that might be the tipping point for wiring the particular section. It might be a useful recharge section for battery regional trains sharing the section. Say in the Bristol area, Cardiff Portsmouth trains might use wires to Bathampton then switch to their batteries once past the junction. The Bath route had some considerable expenditure to accommodate wiring. Bath station, Box tunnel. I don't know if all required overbridge, tunnel and other structure modifications were completed. New 25kV compatible signalling controlled from TVSC is complete through to Bristol TM now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top