Even if 'the ban' was to be lifted, there is a substantial cost to installing electrification on these routes.
On that, does anyone have a figure for the capital cost of 121 miles of electrification using third rail between Worting Junction and Exeter St Davids?
And the Uckfield branch. And the Marshlink line. And I'm sure someone will have something to say about Wokingham-Redhill.
Can you cite examples of this please (I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm genuinely curious)? The latest I know of is the 1994 Redhill-Tonbridge electrification.
East London Line extensions
It’s the application of the Electricity At Work Regulations 1989. Either a change is needed to the regulations or a challenge to ORR’s interpretation of ALARP on a 3rd rail electrified railway.
This is the key point. The 2025 spending review was less than a year ago. Once HS2, Trans Pennine and East West Rail have takes their shares there isn't much left for other schemes. Most of what's left goes on improving commuting into fast growing cities outside London. The next spending review won't be much different, no 3rd rail electrification scheme is going to get anywhere near the top of the priority list.
There is zero case for any of these, whatever the financial circumstances. All of them will be electrified much more cheaply and much more safely with electric/battery bimode trains.
The use of Battery Trains is not electrification.
If there was a case for any of these, they would have been done by now.
Only if there was money available to do it.
A Battery train is an electric train that carries it's power with it. In electrified areas, it functions as a EMU. It just means you don't need to electrify every last inch of line to run an electric service.
The whole point of there being 'a case' is that it would justify the borrowing to pay for the upgrade.
So by that logic, a Class 220 is an Electric Train...
The continuing proliferation of DFBO (Design Finance Build Operate) contracts since the 1990s disagrees with this.
There is a common misconception that BEMUs will always be cheaper than token lengths of electrification. That's true if already have them lying around spare or getting new trains anyway.
No it isn't, because in an electrified area it doesn't pan up.
However, the economics change once again if doing a general fleet renewal to an all-BEMU fleet, where the majority are specified for 'limp mode' batteries but a sub-class are specified for full service range.
Well there is a 'case' to finish electrification in the Bristol area or the MML to Derby and Sheffield, but they are not being done are they...?
The economics may change, though I suspect there are a lot of hidden costs to running small restricted use sub-fleets that aren’t well captured. But the principles that supported extensions like Hastings and East Grinstead were based on commonality - something that gets destroyed when you build separate sub-fleets. The infill projects of Romney marsh and Uckfield should be so obvious as to not need discussion.
Peak power draw is only around 20% of the time (varies by route of course), remainder is maintaining speed, coasting, braking, stopped at stations etc).
Exactly, pre privatisation BR seemed to understand the costs and economic effects better (have they been forgotten over time?). Not just Hastings and East Grinstead lines, but can add Largs, Braintree, Romford-Barking, Solent lines via Fareham etc. All allowed more efficient diagrams and smaller overall fleet.
None of these are token lengths.
The use of battery trains is electrification. The power comes from the grid, the train doesn't have to generate its own power with an internal combustion engine.
They may have seemed obvious 40 years ago but they are not obvious now. The capability of an electric/battery bimode train was just a dream 40 years ago but it is fast becoming a reality now.
That may be, but the issue is also one of principle - replacing the current DMU fleets with restricted use sub-fleets is a seriously sub-optimal way of resourcing these lines. The objective should be to have a common fleet, and benefit from the economies of scale that supported the NSE & Scotrail 1980s electrifications.
A few years ago, the suggestion was that there would be enough charge but with very little contingency. There were also questions about the amount of power that would be required to be drawn on the climb from Croydon to Oxted to charge batteries on top of providing traction. There was also a question about the National Grid infrastructure's ability to provide a charge boost at the Uckfield end.
