What if the DfT gave £1 billion a year for electrification?

[HSTEd]

The line through Rotherham Central may not have many scheduled long-distance trains through it, but it's got a passenger train each way every 20 minutes, and is an obvious candidate for electrification as both a short diversionary route and an opportunity to run electric local trains if MML electrification was extended to Leeds and Doncaster. None of that would have seemed like a particularly unreasonable plan at the point the project was set up. In any case part of the costs were paid for specifically on the basis that it would be test-bed for further shared-use schemes, which may well have been electrified already.

It is definitely not a freight line.

The section south of the chord connecting Rotherham Central to the main line north of Sheffield is predominantly a freight line.
Between said chord and the proposed tram terminus at Parkgate is a distance of approximately 1800m, on a twin track alignment.

Even if 25kV was going to be installed soon on the line through Rotherham Central, they would only save roughly a maximum of ~£5-6m compared to simply gas axing down the tram equipment and installing 25kV equipment from scratch. And that assumes twin track goes all the way to the Parkgate stop which is probably unlikely given that it is a terminus of a relatively low intensity service only a few hundred metres north of Central.

The problem with short diversionary routes is, that although they tend to be cheaper to provide, they also only bypass a relatively short section of track and as such the chances that they will be in action whilst the route they bypass will not also falls significantly.

And I am well aware that it is a test-bed scheme, however this does raise the question as to what situation do they expect to use such equipment in in the future?
Can you name many places where a line that is not currently electrified but will be need to be electrified at 25kV, but currently has no business case for and thus will need to be electrified at 750Vdc in the interim?

There really aren't many such places.
Its an incredibly niche technology which has cost an awful lot to develop, but has almost no actuall applicability in the real world.

 

[bringbackcrouc]

Just the odd 000.

To be fair... NR must have made the same mistake when costing the GWR electrification scheme.

 

[Chester1]

I think the new Wales and Borders franchise shows the future with a mixture light rail conversion, bi modes and tri modes (in this instance bi modes with batteries). It does make sense to put a small battery in every new regional EMU so that bridges and tunnels do not need to be wired unless there is insufficient clearance for a neutral section (to avoid lowering and raising pantographs repeatedly). Hopefully success in South Wales will breath life back into tram-train plans for Manchester (although 750v DC not 25kv AC).

 

[squizzler]

I don't know about a nice round figure like £1 billion, but with regard to DfT traction policy, a resumption to the programme of electrification starts to look inevitable, despite the delays and costs of the last round.

We will still have a glut of cascaded EMUs in the next few years. The class 769 seems to be taking a lot longer than we were told, suggesting the fitments of gensets to those EMU's is not as easy as they thought. The jury still seems to be out on the class 800 performance under diesel. That delayed electrification is affecting the new northern timetable means the public are starting to connect poor rail quality with government apathy towards electrification.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill on democracy: "Electrification is the worst option, except for all the others that have been tried".

 

[bringbackcrouc]

Thanks for all your replies. A lot of very interesting discussion.

If Lord Adonis got appointed SoS for Transport and decided to go all guns blazing with 25k volt; how many years would it take? 10, 20 ... 50?

How long did Switzerland take to electrify their whole network?

 

[twpsaesneg]

I was referring to the disaster that is the Rotherham Tram Train trial, where Network Rail decided on insisting on future conversion capability to 25kVac - despite the fact that the section of track to be utilised in the trial is highly unlikely to ever have a business case for electrification, at least not inside the 30 year horizon.

It is a freight line with minor diversionary use that is north of Sheffield and thus would not be included in any likely MML scheme, even if the whole-MML scheme wasn't dead.
This forced massive delays and a lot of very expensive, and totally unnecessary design work.

Do you have a source for this?

I understood that the Network Rail requirements were for a product approved system that could be installed over their metals, which is part of the normal asset protection procedures in place. The existing PA for the Tyne & Wear Metro system is very specific to Tyne & Wear (and is pretty much obsolete now anyway, some parts are tricky to get hold of) and there was nothing else close to 750DC equipment. Fortuitously the Bonomi Cantilever as used on Series 2 and now UKMS was derived from an italian design for 3kV DC anyway, so should have been the easiest option to amend the PA for, as that had signoff for 25kV use at the time. This appears to have been what was adopted in the end.

The required design life for structures is 80 years minimum so it would be incredibly short-sighted to allow wholesale installation of OLE structures designed so as not to allow future conversion if necessary. One of the major costs of OLE is the structure installation, and it's horrendously expensive to remove and replace foundations to provide higher loadings.

If the tram-train project went in on the assumption that normal tramway systems would be allowed (which for one thing allow structures to be much closer to the rolling stock and may well have different design life standards on Supertram) then that's not "unnecessary design work", it's prudent protection of a NR asset.

 

[HSTEd]

Do you have a source for this?

I understood that the Network Rail requirements were for a product approved system that could be installed over their metals, which is part of the normal asset protection procedures in place.

This NAO report, final page (excluding the rear cover) - the text at the bottom is the most obvious example I can come up with at short notice, but I have read news articles where Network Rail was bragging about how nothing like that exists anywhere in the world.

The existing PA for the Tyne & Wear Metro system is very specific to Tyne & Wear (and is pretty much obsolete now anyway, some parts are tricky to get hold of) and there was nothing else close to 750DC equipment. Fortuitously the Bonomi Cantilever as used on Series 2 and now UKMS was derived from an italian design for 3kV DC anyway, so should have been the easiest option to amend the PA for, as that had signoff for 25kV use at the time. This appears to have been what was adopted in the end.

But they've designing a system for AC high voltage and LV DC without major modification - which is something that exists nowhere in the world and for which there is no practical demand.
The Tyne and Wear system is unlikely to be ripped down in the near future, so Network Rail/Tyne and Wear Metro will have to source parts for it anyway - therefore the parts becoming difficult to source is essentially irrelevant.

Instead we create this new system, used nowhere else, for which parts will have to be sourced - adding yet another technology to the zoo.

The required design life for structures is 80 years minimum so it would be incredibly short-sighted to allow wholesale installation of OLE structures designed so as not to allow future conversion if necessary. One of the major costs of OLE is the structure installation, and it's horrendously expensive to remove and replace foundations to provide higher loadings.

But the design work appears to have far more expensive than simply gas axing down the entire tram electrification installation and installing 25kV from scratch.
This whole thing is a textbook example of pound foolish and penny wise.

Given that there will be no electrification within 30 years at the least, the cost of gas axing it down will be even lower then thanks to discounting, and it was already a terrible deal to design this all singing and all dancing new equipment for which there is no other use.

Installation of mast bases might be expensive, but design and validation work is even more expensive.

 

[twpsaesneg]

This NAO report, final page (excluding the rear cover) - the text at the bottom is the most obvious example I can come up with at short notice, but I have read news articles where Network Rail was bragging about how nothing like that exists anywhere in the world.

Hmm. I suspect that NR may have been overegging the pudding with this to be honest with you.

The Tyne and Wear system is unlikely to be ripped down in the near future, so Network Rail/Tyne and Wear Metro will have to source parts for it anyway - therefore the parts becoming difficult to source is essentially irrelevant.

Instead we create this new system, used nowhere else, for which parts will have to be sourced - adding yet another technology to the zoo.

Sourcing spares is a whole different ball-game to designing and installing a whole new system in with it - I only brought it up as it's the only similar type of application, and Product Approving what is essentially a system design with grandfather rights to use on T&W Metro areas only would be fraught with difficulty - it's difficult to get tests arranged on obsolete equipment that needs to be made specially.

Edit - from a practical point of view, the "new" system will effectively be proving that do 25kV rated insulators work for 750V DC at a far higher current, and that the cantilevers work with the higher mechanical loads normally imparted by DC equipment, plus making sure the structures will take loads of typical AC or DC designs with additional allowances for the ancillary conductors required by AC.

But the design work appears to have far more expensive than simply gas axing down the entire tram electrification installation and installing 25kV from scratch.
This whole thing is a textbook example of pound foolish and penny wise.

Given that there will be no electrification within 30 years at the least, the cost of gas axing it down will be even lower then thanks to discounting, and it was already a terrible deal to design this all singing and all dancing new equipment for which there is no other use.

Installation of mast bases might be expensive, but design and validation work is even more expensive.

The apparent £5m additional "design" work (which I suspect will be actually related to validating existing products for use on 750DC overhead) would be a drop in the ocean compared to the demolition, re-design and install works for putting in new structures. Honestly.

Normally NR are completely focused on a project to the exclusion of any other useful value for money options - as you say "pound foolish and penny wise". However I think in this instance the right decisions for long term were made. I'm not saying mistakes weren't made by individual parts of the railway organisations, but I believe NR have demonstrated good asset stewardship here.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Forgive this, doubtless stupid question. Why can you not instal 25kV kit and simply energise it at a lower voltage for tram-trains. I can see this is over engineered but it would be off the peg. I must have missed something.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Forgive this, doubtless stupid question. Why can you not instal 25kV kit and simply energise it at a lower voltage for tram-trains. I can see this is over engineered but it would be off the peg. I must have missed something.

Actually off the top of my head that does not seem a bad idea.

 

[exile]

The 25kV programme is essentially dead.
They completely blew the budget delivering an overspecced electrification settup using untested designs and untested equipment.

You won't get a billion pounds a year to ressuscitate it.

Honestly if you want major expansion in electrification, given ORRs decision to deny permission for new top contact third rail installations..... its going to be bottom contact third rail or tram electrification - and NR managed to even bodge the latter of those by insisting absurdly that a minor freight diversionary route be prepared for full 25kV electrification.... for some reason.

NR's obsession with future proofing and overspeccing has rendered electrification undeliverable.

I'm looking forward to HST running on third rail

 

[158756]

I don't know about a nice round figure like £1 billion, but with regard to DfT traction policy, a resumption to the programme of electrification starts to look inevitable, despite the delays and costs of the last round.

We will still have a glut of cascaded EMUs in the next few years. The class 769 seems to be taking a lot longer than we were told, suggesting the fitments of gensets to those EMU's is not as easy as they thought. The jury still seems to be out on the class 800 performance under diesel. That delayed electrification is affecting the new northern timetable means the public are starting to connect poor rail quality with government apathy towards electrification.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill on democracy: "Electrification is the worst option, except for all the others that have been tried".

The delays to the Northern improvements have been caused by electrification, not the lack of it. The cancelled or delayed projects would be nowhere near completion now. Continuing electrification means many more years of disruption and more delays. By the time any new schemes are finished most of the redundant EMUs will be scrapped or rusted away.

 

[twpsaesneg]

Forgive this, doubtless stupid question. Why can you not instal 25kV kit and simply energise it at a lower voltage for tram-trains. I can see this is over engineered but it would be off the peg. I must have missed something.

I've not had any involvement with that scheme, but from photos I've seen that appears to have been effectively what has been done. However, the equipment would need to be tested and accepted for use with 750DC, as although lower voltage will run at far higher current.

It should work, the Bonomi equipment is designed for DC originally in Italy, but would need the relevant acceptance in place (e.g. testing certification etc.).

If a project assumed that off the peg tramway kit could be used but then had to do a redesign after being told no, this would explain a lot of delay and cost. But I'm sure there was more to it than that as there usually is!

 

[B&I]

The delays to the Northern improvements have been caused by electrification, not the lack of it. The cancelled or delayed projects would be nowhere near completion now. Continuing electrification means many more years of disruption and more delays. By the time any new schemes are finished most of the redundant EMUs will be scrapped or rusted away.

What are these other improvements which have been delayed by electrification ? I'm not aware of any proposed improvements to the north's railways, planned for any point in the near future, other than electrification

 

[CdBrux]

What are these other improvements which have been delayed by electrification ? I'm not aware of any proposed improvements to the north's railways, planned for any point in the near future, other than electrification

I assume delays to the implementation of the new timetable not being helped by overrunning electrification projects was what was meant. Yes there is some disruption with electrification, like any rebuild of rail or road, but if better planned and executed they would be a lot less then currently experienced.

 

[Rhydgaled]

With regard to the topic tile BR's 1981 electrification proposals are of interest. The fast options were 500 single track miles per year with up to 7,710 miles electrified in total by the year 2000. The slow version of the 7,710 mile option (at 300 single track miles per year) would have been finished by 2010. Just think about it; an electric train could have been working the Aberdeen to Penzance service eight years ago instead of a Voyager. Holyhead and Swansea would also have been electrified, whereas we are still waiting for electrified track on the national rail network in Wales.

Can you name many places where a line that is not currently electrified but will be need to be electrified at 25kV, but currently has no business case for and thus will need to be electrified at 750Vdc in the interim?

There really aren't many such places.
Its an incredibly niche technology which has cost an awful lot to develop, but has almost no actuall applicability in the real world.

Personally, I think Swansea should have a tram-train system as part of the South East Metro (which, it its current guise, is only a Cardiff & Newport Metro in my opinion). One of the routes that I think might be good for a tram-train system in Swansea would be City Centre - Sketty - Dunvant - Gowerton - Llanelli. This would share tracks with trains from just west of Gowerton station to just east of Llanelli's (I envisage low-floor tram-trains like the Sheffield ones, perhaps even a subclass of the class 399, so the rail platforms would not be used). The stretch between Gowerton and Llanelli would in that case be electrified (initially) just for the trams; but if electrification ever reached Carmarthen the trains would need to use it too.

However, despite that, I can't see why you would electrify at 750v DC in the interim...

Forgive this, doubtless stupid question. Why can you not instal 25kV kit and simply energise it at a lower voltage for tram-trains. I can see this is over engineered but it would be off the peg. I must have missed something.

If you're installing 25kv spec kit for the trams, why bother energising it at 750V anyway? The class 399s are dual-voltage anyway, so why not just electrify at 25kv. The class 399s can use it right away and if the surrounding rail routes are electrified at a later date the trains can start using it too without any changes required. That's what I'd suggest for my Swansea tram-train ideas; 750v DC on light-rail sections and 25kv AC on heavy-rail sections regardless of whether anything other than the trams would use the wires initally. Might be a stupid question, but why electrify at 750v DC with passive provision for 25kv AC rather than just electrifying at 25kv AC to begin with?

 

[HSTEd]

Might be a stupid question, but why electrify at 750v DC with passive provision for 25kv AC rather than just electrifying at 25kv AC to begin with?

Because the 25kV power supply provisions will likely be somewhat problematic.
They would have to get a derogation for a very weak 25kV installation and hope they can persuade the DNO to play ball with a megawatt scale pure single phase load.

Much easier to electrify DC

At this poitn however, almost anywhere I can think of that would ever be electrified at 25kV and that would need a tram train service on it would be adjacent to a 25kV zone already and can thus draw supply from that.
As such it is a very niche thing.

 

[The Ham]

A rolling program of electrification could work well.

I would suggest that if there was an extra charge for running under the wires, something small enough that it was still cost effective to use an EMU rather than a DMU. Ideally the charge wood be applied to any train, so as to encourage the use of EMU's and electric locos when it's possible.

If this money was ring fenced to provide new electrification on top of an annual amount, then the more electrification that there is the more that can be provided in following years.

It would also stop complaints about the North not getting a fair amount of the funding as a lot of the top up figure would come from the electrified south and would need (given the lack of route miles available in the South East which need electrification) to be spent in other regions.

It would also help with the fact that as the extra miles become more costly there would be more money to spend.

The problem is that for the first 5-10 years of doing so it would mean lower premium payments to the government, but over time at the costs of running trains reduces the premiums should go up again.

 

[a_c_skinner]

If you're installing 25kv spec kit for the trams, why bother energising it at 750V anyway? The class 399s are dual-voltage anyway, so why not just electrify at 25kv. The class 399s can use it right away and if the surrounding rail routes are electrified at a later date the trains can start using it too without any changes required. That's what I'd suggest for my Swansea tram-train ideas; 750v DC on light-rail sections and 25kv AC on heavy-rail sections regardless of whether anything other than the trams would use the wires initally. Might be a stupid question, but why electrify at 750v DC with passive provision for 25kv AC rather than just electrifying at 25kv AC to begin with?

Sorry to be late with a reply to a polite response to my question. I'd not registered that the current tram-trains are dual voltage and your reply makes a deal of sense. It does re-raise the question of why we needed to spend a fortune on a new OHLE design if the class 399s can simply use 25kV, which is what I was wondering in the first place.

 

[squizzler]

I'm pleased to see that a new outfit calling themselves Campaign to Electrify Britain's Railway have appeared to pick up the baton in agitating for more electrification. It's early days and their site, while professional looking, is still rather bare, but they already have a factsheet to print out and leave on your train to work and you can sign up for the newsletter.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A new outfit calling themselves Campaign to Electrify Britain's Railway have appeared to pick up the baton in agitating for more electrification. It's early days and their site is still rather bare, but they already have an A4 factsheet to print out and leave on your train to work and you can sign up for the newsletter.

Subscribed

 

[D365]

I'm looking forward to HST running on third rail

Thanks for pointing this out. Fed up to the back teeth of those who seem to make out that third rail DC is any semblance of a viable technology for a mainline railway. The existing network south of London is as much a headache for NR as GWEp has been.

 

[HSTEd]

Thanks for pointing this out. Fed up to the back teeth of those who seem to make out that third rail DC is any semblance of a viable technology for a mainline railway.

Given that multiple "main line" railways exist and operate with third rail DC - it clearly is a viable technology.

The existing network south of London is as much a headache for NR as GWEp has been.

Really, I wasn't aware that the network south of London is an unmitigated disaster that consumes billions of pounds a year more money than expected.

And the fact that even NR now admit that DC railway electrification is cheaper in at least some circumstances than 25kV is a drastic about face for people who were claiming it was cheaper to rip it out and start again than do renewals not so long ago.

 

[D365]

Given that multiple "main line" railways exist and operate with third rail DC - it clearly is a viable technology.

Railways that were by and large electrified before we were pushing the now life-expired DC infrastructure to its limits. When was the last time that a totally independent DC mainline electrification took place, not linked to an existing system.

Really, I wasn't aware that the network south of London is an unmitigated disaster that consumes billions of pounds a year more money than expected.

It's a ticking time bomb, to paraphrase. Kent electrification, to give a simple example, has been a major concern when it comes to options for Networker replacement.

And the fact that even NR now admit that DC railway electrification is cheaper in at least some circumstances than 25kV is a drastic about face for people who were claiming it was cheaper to rip it out and start again than do renewals not so long ago.

Maybe for a 60-75mph metro, but that really isn't an NR speciality. Tell me why Crossrail has not been electrified at DC voltages.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Maybe for a 60-75mph metro, but that really isn't an NR speciality. Tell me why Crossrail has not been electrified at DC voltages.

I really don’t think even the most ardent 750V DC enthusiast would advocate for anything other than 25kV AC OHLE for new build such as Crossrail. However, to convert a Victorian system away from diesel is a different proposition potentially. And trust me I am a total 25kV AC enthusiast.

 

[HSTEd]

Railways that were by and large electrified before we were pushing the now life-expired DC infrastructure to its limits. When was the last time that a totally independent DC mainline electrification took place, not linked to an existing system.

Saying it is not preferable in a clean sheet situation is not the same as saying it is not viable.
We are not living in a country with 0% railway electrification.

Indeed the last 25kV electrification that was not connected to an existing electrification scheme I can think of is the Heathrow project just before privatisation, and indeed I am not sure if that was separate (is there a WLL connection somewhere there?)

EDIT:
Heathrow was not separate because it was attached to the existing electrified track into the North Pole depot via the WLL.
So MML maybe, assuming there is no NLL or similar hookup?

Either way its been a long time since a standalone electrification project of any type has occurred.

Maybe for a 60-75mph metro, but that really isn't an NR speciality. Tell me why Crossrail has not been electrified at DC voltages.

Why would you electrify a brand new line at 750Vdc when all the advantages of 25kV are available (on a route that will be densely trafficked enough to make use of them), especially since the trains will have to interoperate with 25kV systems anyway?

This is not a situation that prevails in many other places.
And I am not sure I would define the Marshlink Line as a metro system - and NR itself estimates £100-250m for DC electrification or £250-£500m for 25kV (Kent Route Study Draft for Consultation, Page 65/77)

And although third rail might be a "ticking timebomb" it is one that has been ticking for years and yet still fails to explode. Every time they say we've finally reached the limit they manage to push it further, and with improvements in power electronics recently this could continue for a very long time.

 

[furnessvale]

And although third rail might be a "ticking timebomb" it is one that has been ticking for years and yet still fails to explode. Every time they say we've finally reached the limit they manage to push it further, and with improvements in power electronics recently this could continue for a very long time.

You have almost convinced me about third rail extension.

The DfT have certainly over egged the pudding with regard to OHL clearances. Maybe they have done the same with safety on third rail and some (limited) expansion, such as infills could be permitted?

 

[HSTEd]

You have almost convinced me about third rail extension.

The DfT have certainly over egged the pudding with regard to OHL clearances. Maybe they have done the same with safety on third rail and some (limited) expansion, such as infills could be permitted?

Whether or not third rail can be justified as SFAIRP depends on how the costs line up and what risk modelling you use.
However there are various methods that could be used to substantially reduce the risk of electrocutions and the like from third rail - such as use of the more advanced solid state switches and the better PLCs we have to isolate the track that is not in use, like at night.

We can also set up track in stations where the rail through the platform could be isolated except when a train wanted to take power to depart and for whatever reason had one of it's shoes missing and was thus gapped.
(Ie. have a section of dead rail slightly shorter than the normal train length through the platform with a switch provided with a key on the platform to enable a guard or the dispatcher to re-enable it as required for a train to depart).

Or a polymer insulating coating on the sides of the third rail so that only a strip at the top was exposed, reducing the risk of people coming into contact with it and getting a shock accidentally.

 

[furnessvale]

Whether or not third rail can be justified as SFAIRP depends on how the costs line up and what risk modelling you use.
However there are various methods that could be used to substantially reduce the risk of electrocutions and the like from third rail - such as use of the more advanced solid state switches and the better PLCs we have to isolate the track that is not in use, like at night.

We can also set up track in stations where the rail through the platform could be isolated except when a train wanted to take power to depart and for whatever reason had one of it's shoes missing and was thus gapped.
(Ie. have a section of dead rail slightly shorter than the normal train length through the platform with a switch provided with a key on the platform to enable a guard or the dispatcher to re-enable it as required for a train to depart).

Or a polymer insulating coating on the sides of the third rail so that only a strip at the top was exposed, reducing the risk of people coming into contact with it and getting a shock accidentally.

The problem with routinely dead rails in stations is that it convinces the idiots that ALL such rails are routinely dead, even out in the country.

 

[The Ham]

Thinking out loud, the big problem with 3rd rail (in terms of capacity) is the need for frequent substations. This is fine where there's lots of settlements, but less good in more rural locations.

As such could there could be a policy where if there was a good case for 3rd rail infill that it would have to be paired with a 25kv conversion which when combined reduced the amount of track miles of 3rd rail electrification.

It could even be a reduction ratio, say 2:1 or 3:1, so that for every 1 mile of third rail installed 2 or 3 miles were removed from the network. That would reduce the risk whilst still allowing more electrification to the network.

Obviously there would need to be suitable routes which struggle with providing enough power with 3rd rail (the obvious one is Poole to Weymouth).