• 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!

What I think is wrong with current OHLE electrification practice

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
3,354
Location
Nottingham
Okay, I think this is pretty fair overall - but I do have a couple of further questions?

1. would you de-electrify routes?
Unlikely, even in a future world where all EMUs had at least minimal traction battery back up. The capital has already been spent, and any "redundant" OHLE could still be useful for shifting battery recharge loads to times and to locations with spare grid capacity. I wouldn't expect the extra ongoing maintenance and unreliability costs of OHLE to be significant enough to warrant removing any existing electrification.

2. would you electrify short sections like Didcot - Oxford which would enable better use of existing stock?
Not in general (though Didcot Oxford is a special case in that much of the capital needed has already been spent). Certainly not for short routes like Windermere or Tweedbank. They are perfect for BEMU operation.

At Oxford, I would start with wiring the platforms (plus any reversing sidings used by terminating services), with relatively cheap contact bar or tram-wire OHLE and fed from an SFC with BESS battery boost. This is what I understand TPE is proposing for Saltburn and Scarborough. That would make Oxford a useful recharge point for BEMU services to Paddington, Marylebone and Bedford, without needing a massive connection to the National Grid.

Same for Tweedbank and Skegness and Grimsby/Cleethorpes etc. But that approach needs a proper National Batterification strategy that has been updated to take account of the major developments in battery technology that have occurred over the past ten years.

3. why not try and find a way of cutting OHLE costs - as you say the GWML kit in particular is completely over specced but other European countries manage it!
That would be great wouldn't it? The railway industry set itself a cost-reduction challenge some years ago and as far as I can see has completely failed to deliver.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Class15

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2021
Messages
4,192
Location
North London or Mildmay line
Im inclined, unfortunately, to agree with most of what you’ve said. In particular, using a single trolley wire - I cannot understand why this wasn’t done at places like Wembley and Basford Hall yards!
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,667
Location
Northampton
Im inclined, unfortunately, to agree with most of what you’ve said. In particular, using a single trolley wire - I cannot understand why this wasn’t done at places like Wembley and Basford Hall yards!
Wembley Yard certainly uses very simple OLE for the actual sidings. And IIRC The OLE from Wolves to Oxley Depot is not mainline spec, as the trains don't get up to the speeds to require it.

Never seen Basford Hall Yard properly so can't comment on it.
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
3,354
Location
Nottingham
Never seen Basford Hall Yard properly so can't comment on it.
This image suggests that through lines (two tracks, left centre) are wired with catenary, and the electrified sidings (five tracks right centre, with empty flats) have tram-wire overheads.

 

Peter Wilde

Member
Joined
14 Oct 2019
Messages
149
Location
Surrey
I suggest a lot of the argument on this thread has not paid enough attention to freight. Very different requirements to occasional, light passenger trains on branch lines.

Can we really believe that the rest of Europe has got this issue entirely wrong?

Spent some time in Germany recently and more than 50% of the trains passing (on a busy line that also carries many ICEs and local EMUs) seemed to be freight, often long container trains, travelling fast, at maybe 10 minute intervals. Surely the present state of battery tech is some long way away from being able to power that sort of traffic?

There is also the point that with road traffic (HGVs) still diesel the railway ought to be taking the opportunity to grab more freight traffic and grow its market.

Of course it's insane (in green terms) for electrification to cost so much - and even worse, for Government to allow freight traffic to be put off from using electric traction when under the wires by high prices for electricity. Correct sums about costs and benefits - including environmental ones) have not been done. Oh yes, of course, this is the UK ....!!
 

Class 317

Member
Joined
7 Jul 2020
Messages
578
Location
Cotswolds
I suggest a lot of the argument on this thread has not paid enough attention to freight. Very different requirements to occasional, light passenger trains on branch lines.

Can we really believe that the rest of Europe has got this issue entirely wrong?

Spent some time in Germany recently and more than 50% of the trains passing (on a busy line that also carries many ICEs and local EMUs) seemed to be freight, often long container trains, travelling fast, at maybe 10 minute intervals. Surely the present state of battery tech is some long way away from being able to power that sort of traffic?

There is also the point that with road traffic (HGVs) still diesel the railway ought to be taking the opportunity to grab more freight traffic and grow its market.

Of course it's insane (in green terms) for electrification to cost so much - and even worse, for Government to allow freight traffic to be put off from using electric traction when under the wires by high prices for electricity. Correct sums about costs and benefits - including environmental ones) have not been done. Oh yes, of course, this is the UK ....!!
Use of BEMU'S for passenger service doesn't rule out electrification for freight. Indeed if the programme is well thought out a lot of the necessary lines for freight could form the basis of a core network for both electric and battery services.

You can't really compare the situation in Germany as most lines would have been electrified before battery technology was even remotely similar to now.

Looking ahead battery technology will play an increasing part in converting services to electric operations but quite a bit of route mileage will still be electrified.

A core network of main lines electrified might see Bristol to Birmingham, Birmingham to Doncaster, Basingstoke to Reading, Didcot to WCML etc which would facilitate a lot of freight moving to electric operations particularly with last mile battery capability whilst also facilitating conversion of many additional services to BEMU operation.

Use of BEMU'S will increase the BCR of future schemes massively by extending the area covered at low additional costs.
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
3,354
Location
Nottingham
on a busy line that also carries many ICEs and local EMUs) seemed to be freight, often long container trains, travelling fast, at maybe 10 minute intervals.
Sounds a bit like the WCML. Any line carrying 6tph freight throughout the day would pass the test for continuous electrification. But there are precious few of those in GB that meet that level of use.

Even the Felixstowe branch only carries around 1tph freight, with an operational constraint of 2tph each way.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,380
Can we really believe that the rest of Europe has got this issue entirely wrong?
A lot of European countries have more electrification than Britain, but that is not the same as saying that the optimum level of electrification starting now would be that high.

Spent some time in Germany recently and more than 50% of the trains passing (on a busy line that also carries many ICEs and local EMUs) seemed to be freight, often long container trains, travelling fast, at maybe 10 minute intervals. Surely the present state of battery tech is some long way away from being able to power that sort of traffic?
It probably could do so if the locomotive was designed and built from scratch.

And even at ten million pounds each, developing and building such locomotives would probably be cheaper than any meaningful electrification.
There is also the point that with road traffic (HGVs) still diesel the railway ought to be taking the opportunity to grab more freight traffic and grow its market.
Electric HGVs probably aren't that far away. The charger connection bottlenecks will be overcome eventually.

Most HGV hauls are very short after all.
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
3,973
Location
Newport
An interesting statistic from Rail Engineer (link below)
Despite a large proportion of the core freight network being electrified, in Britain a mere 2.8% of rail freight traction energy consumption is from electricity.
And from the Chartered Institute of Transport & Logistics (second link) -
The research reveals that only 800 miles of additional electrification is needed in the UK to enable 95% of rail freight to be electrically hauled.



Rail electrification possible for 95% of UK freight trains, CILT(UK) research reveals - CILT
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
3,354
Location
Nottingham
Electric HGVs probably aren't that far away.

Maybe they're already here. The IEA says Electric truck sales doubled in 2025 to reach 9% of truck sales worldwide.

"One in four trucks sold in China in 2025 was electric, as momentum continued to build thanks to operational cost advantages as well as declining battery costs. As highlighted in the Global EV Outlook 2025, battery electric HFTs in China have already reached total cost of ownership (TCO) parity with diesel trucks in certain cases after 5 years of ownership."

 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
4,189
Well everything on the railway seems to be expensive these days!

My understanding is that all the steelwork and associated parts are gone. There are some pilings in the ground but as far as I know not much other work was done. Even without having to pay for bridge lifts or anything like that, its going to cost a lot of money.

Additionally, the work was postponed a long time ago now, back in 2016, so we must ask if the bridge clearances were done to the old BR specification or the EU backed one that the ORR imposed? Adjusting work done to the former requirements to the latter ones caused no end of problems on the Edinburgh-Glasgow projects at the time.
I agree that it will cost a significant amount, but you don't have to put it through GRIP or any other environmental approval process presumably.
If some minor modifications need to be done to the design to align with updated standards, that's one thing, but we aren't starting afresh here.
Even if we had a pile of money to start today, it is probably unlikely that we can deliver much before the 2030s regardless!
These things take time, and I doubt much design work was done for much of the current unelectrified track beyond the Oxford segment where work actually started.
We now have under 40 months until the 2030s commence.
Wasn't the design fully completed before postponement? I thought it was part of the GWML electrification program.
The through services could restart once the BEMUs are delivered.
My understanding is that the Cowley Branch is to be operated as part of a through service at Marylebone, so charging infrastructure installed there could possibly support it.

If the East West Rail service ever starts, that can probably be provided with charging services in the vicinity of Aylesbury in the interim.
No through services until the BEMUs are delivered is absurd, and I don't think local politicians would be very happy to see it pushed back further.
I highly doubt Chiltern will receive any BEMUs before the mid 2030s, so that basically means Chiltern will have to operate the service with their existing DMUs. Do they have any slack in the fleet, in terms of utilisation?
By Aylesbury I assume you mean somewhere like Steeple Claydon.
I would wholeheartedly support running a very intensive London-Birmingham service from the earliest opportunity, however this seems unlikely to happen at this time.
They've also recently reduced the requirement for power on HS2 by eliminating ATO, which drops us from 18 paths to 17.

In any case, if they did want to do that, it would likely still be cheaper to modify the HS2 substation designs for a slightly higher rating (after all, they are still far from complete!) and still use them to support the Chiltern route than to electrify it from scratch.

On the Aylesbury via Amersham line - I would prefer to simply make a case for transferring the line wholesale to London Underground (contracting for operation), removing the pedestrian level crossings and electrifying it with fourth rail in accordance with London Underground's well established risk management practices. ORR has apparently accepted the risk management case that LU made, as they have no live working and no level crossings.

If this is impossible, I think battery with charging on the shared Metropolitan Line section, backed up by charging at Aylesbury, would be my preferred choice.

Unfortunately, we have now returned to the interest rates of the pre 2008 era, so capital has become expensive.
The era of <1% Central Bank rates and cheap borrowing appears to be over.
I agree re Aylesbury to Amersham - transfer it to LU and it also frees up capacity at Marylebone for more lucrative medium to long distance services better suited to the station.
17tph instead of 18tph on HS2 is a shame, but an intensive OOC to Birmingham still has the potential to take a lot of passengers off the frequent Flixbus/National Express services if Advance tickets are sold at appropriate prices. You could also perhaps run a through ticketed shuttle Birmingham Airport - HS2 services to OOC - Heathrow in cooperation with BA to fill seats, but that's for another thread.
Is there any reason that HeX has to use Electrostars rather than any generic BEMU or EMU that fits in the tunnels?
There isn't, but there's also the investment cost of fitting several new safety systems on a brand new BEMU for a service that has an uncertain future. It's not a convincing prospect for investment.
It continues to amaze me that, almost 5 years after Russia invaded Ukraine, this still doesn't sink in with so many contributors here.

There are two main factors:

  • cost of construction has gone up much more rapidly than general inflation: part of that is cost of raw materials, things like concrete and steel are very energy intensive to produce, part of it is employment costs, especially the impact of the big minimum wage and National Insurance increases
  • cost of finance has gone up hugely, it now costs the government more than 6% interest per annum to borrow 30 year money: any capital investment project that needs a lot of expenditure up front and takes a long time to deliver benefits has got very very expensive.
I completely understand that the cost of materials has rapidly increased over the last 10 years due to a range of factors, but, even with this in mind, the sparks effect on passenger number, especially with the massive increase in housebuilding along the line that shows no sign of slowing, makes this a very good candidate to invest in.
Local DMU operated services just won't be able to keep pace with the passenger levels, let alone the benefits to intercity/freight services etc.
I also take your point about finance, but this is relevant to the provision of new BEMU stock if electrification is permanently cancelled anyway.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,380
I agree that it will cost a significant amount, but you don't have to put it through GRIP or any other environmental approval process presumably.
If some minor modifications need to be done to the design to align with updated standards, that's one thing, but we aren't starting afresh here.


Wasn't the design fully completed before postponement? I thought it was part of the GWML electrification program.
My understanding was that electrification work on Oxford itself didn't start, pending the eventual completion of the station reconstruction.
Although I may be wrong and design work may have been completed.

However, given the cost overruns seen in the GWML project, I'm not sure any design developed by it is going to do well on economics. Or at least whether the people holding the money can be persuaded that it is.

No through services until the BEMUs are delivered is absurd, and I don't think local politicians would be very happy to see it pushed back further.
Even if the electrification designs are complete and usable, its still going to be 2-3 years before such a project can be completed. If any of the work proves to be unusable due to standards changes or environmental approval delays (saying it was approved a decade ago so it should be approved now may not go down well with regulators!) it will be longer.

If they just placed an order for battery trains now they'd probably not arrive that much later.

I highly doubt Chiltern will receive any BEMUs before the mid 2030s, so that basically means Chiltern will have to operate the service with their existing DMUs. Do they have any slack in the fleet, in terms of utilisation?
By Aylesbury I assume you mean somewhere like Steeple Claydon.
Well HS2 is adjacent to Chiltern lines in several places in the vicinity of Aylesbury, but I'd suggest feeding from Stoke Mandeville (onto the Princess Risborough branch) or Quainton.
There is a bit of slack on Chiltern at the moment, because East West Rail is unlikely to start soon.

As for BEMU deliveries, they could be delivered sooner if someone actually placed an order for them, I think that's more of a political failing from a government unwilling to commit than anything.

There isn't, but there's also the investment cost of fitting several new safety systems on a brand new BEMU for a service that has an uncertain future. It's not a convincing prospect for investment.
The future of HEx will probably be decided before a decision on fitting said systems to the trains has to be made in any case, and those costs only represent a small portion of the total cost.
I also take your point about finance, but this is relevant to the provision of new BEMU stock if electrification is permanently cancelled anyway.
Well at ~£1.8m per carriage and ~£2.5-4m per single track kilometre for electrification, the capital costs of replacing ALL of the ~2,870 diesel passenger vehicles on the railway would pay for about 1,290 to 2,060km of electrified track. This doesn't account for every BEMU carriage avoiding the need to buy a EMU carriage until it is eventually life expired. We have a relative surplus of EMU carriages but the supply is not infinite.
That's ~650-1,030km of twin track railway, the Chiltern Main Line alone would be 180km or so.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,667
Location
Northampton
An interesting statistic from Rail Engineer (link below)
That's not that surprising when you consider the operational issues with electrified terminals. Especailly ones loading overhead or handling fuel cargoes. The problems could all be overcome, of course (there do exist electrified terminals in the UK) but it's all additional costs in a fairly low-margin industry.
And from the Chartered Institute of Transport & Logistics (second link) -
Again, this is kind of dependent on which miles are being wired.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
5,719
Location
Hope Valley
Again, this is kind of dependent on which miles are being wired.
Precisely. The freight ‘shopping list’ might include the Felixstowe branch, Haughley Junction-Ely-Peterborough-Leicester-Nuneaton-Birmingham and the ‘Joint’ line via Lincoln for example. None of these are really prime passenger/InterCity routes.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,437
Location
The Fens
I also take your point about finance, but this is relevant to the provision of new BEMU stock if electrification is permanently cancelled anyway.
If battery bimodes have lower up front cost than electrification, and deliver benefits more quickly, them they are the way forward. That matters hugely when interest rates are high. The high up front cost of electrification, and the time it takes to deliver benefits, means borrowing more money for longer, with far higher interest costs.
 

Top