Why aren't all lines electrified?

[30907]

Ask the Swiss, though admittedly they did it so long ago that it was the high cost of steam vs. the low cost of electricity. Bring in other technologies like diesel, hybrids and batteries, and the case soon fails.

There was only one line in Switzerland that had trains at West Highland frequency, in a remote part of the Jura mountains (Glovelier-Saignelegier), and even that is fully part of the hourly Taktfahrplan now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Historically always high density commuter rich traffic justifying electric traction.

The Southern's predecessors were also responding to tram and tube competition. The Great Eastern Railway, however, decided to use intensive steam services, which became known as the Jazz, which delayed electrification out of Liverpool Street for a generation.

 

[johnnychips]

Idea for a separate topic - how many routes could we leave unelectrified in the hands of 172s for another thirty years? (e.g. the Heart Of Wales only requires two DMUs a day at the moment, half a dozen for the Far North/Kyle beyond Dingwall, a couple for Leeds - Morecambe, one or two for Blaenau Ffestiniog, one or two for Stranraer., a couple for the Cornish branches with the worst business cases, a couple for Whitby.. you could probably run thousands of miles of rural routes with the current number of 172s until almost the 2050s... by which time technology will probably be unrecognisable to that of today - "bi mode" may be as standard as "Super Low Floor" buses are today)

A really excellent post tbtc which I didn't quote in full. Maybe by 2050 battery technology might be good enough to run trains on non-electrified routes.

 

[Requeststop]

In 30-50 years time, diesel fuel will become so rare and expensive that the rail network will have to become electrified. If not, then the rail network will be slashed so greatly it would look as if the Beeching cuts of the 60's was minor.

I know that this view is mighty unpopular in these forums, but I'd rather the monies spent on HS-2 was spent on electrifying the greater part of the UK rail network to something akin to the Swiss model. The operative word is "greater", not all.

 

[PaulLothian]

Why were the Southern Railway so keen upon electrified lines in comparison to the other large railway companies?

Complexity of network compated with most companies, quicker turnround at terminii (no need for running round/spare locos to take trains back), ability to serve more destinations by splitting trains, and to easily adjust size of train to varying demand - in short all the reasons we now have for use of multiple units rather than LHCS! Had current levels of knowledge and technology existed in the Grouping days about diesel MUs, I wonder if the Southern network would have developed the same way.

 

[quantinghome]

The govt recently announced a £15bn road building programme so in spite of some investment in rail in recent years you can see where transport priorities continue to lie.

Not really: http://blog.railnews.co.uk/?p=239

 

[Bletchleyite]

There was only one line in Switzerland that had trains at West Highland frequency, in a remote part of the Jura mountains (Glovelier-Saignelegier), and even that is fully part of the hourly Taktfahrplan now.

If the West Highland Line was used to the potential of the Swiss scenic routes, with panoramic tourist trains with restaurant cars and the likes and heavy promotion, I expect that too would at least manage two-hourly "im Takt".

That would leave the Far North, but that's just a low demand rural railway that will probably never justify the wires.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A really excellent post tbtc which I didn't quote in full. Maybe by 2050 battery technology might be good enough to run trains on non-electrified routes.

I would say it already is, or very near it, for short branches where there is either a mainline station to sit and charge in, or through running under the wires before the branch.

In particular I think it would probably suit services to Barrow (but not round the coast beyond), once much around it is wired.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In 30-50 years time, diesel fuel will become so rare and expensive that the rail network will have to become electrified. If not, then the rail network will be slashed so greatly it would look as if the Beeching cuts of the 60's was minor.

Alternatives will be developed - you don't see road traffic going away, do you? Really?

Neil

 

[muddythefish]

Not really: http://blog.railnews.co.uk/?p=239

Disagree with that article. What it doesn't mention is that alot of the current investment is merely catching up from the paucity of rail investment over the past 35 years or so compared to roads.

 

[Kneedown]

It will always be more cost effective to electrify any line than to run diesels indefinitely.
The crunch is the time taken to recoup the cost of the investment. It will take a lot longer for a lightly used branch line to recover those costs, than a busy commuter route or mainline.
We shouldn't wince at the thought of electrifying more local routes though, as these are generally more subsidised than main lines, and electrification, IMHO is the key to reducing that subsidy, albeit over a longer term, and even starting to make a profit.

 

[QueensCurve]

On the plus side, there are three hydro stations along the line with spare generating capacity.

All single track, except passing loops, so half the installation costs with double the traffic of double track.

Perhaps slightly more than half given the costs of supply infrastructure.

Lower than average overbridges per mile. With single track arch bridges track lowering is cheaper than bridge raising to accommodate the pan and wire as the arch is symmetrical with the track.

Better acceleration and hill climbing to reduce journey time would have to be balanced against the cost of improving track to achieve same time reduction.

I think the West Highland Line would have a very good business case for electrification considering Glasgow-Craigendoran is already wired. 75mph Class 86/6s on the sleepers anyone?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could be a case, but relatively few trains to benefits. I doubt I will live to see it.:cry:


I concur entirely.

 

[NotATrainspott]

In 30-50 years time, diesel fuel will become so rare and expensive that the rail network will have to become electrified. If not, then the rail network will be slashed so greatly it would look as if the Beeching cuts of the 60's was minor.

I know that this view is mighty unpopular in these forums, but I'd rather the monies spent on HS-2 was spent on electrifying the greater part of the UK rail network to something akin to the Swiss model. The operative word is "greater", not all.

In the HS2 timeframe, there won't be a vast amount of the network left unelectrified. Any parts that remain are going to be significantly cheaper than any lines before them - e.g. electrifying the West Highland will be significantly easier and cheaper than wiring the GWML to Plymouth due to the much lower levels of traffic. This work will be done at the same speed regardless of what is happening on HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

Perhaps slightly more than half given the costs of supply infrastructure.

Actually less than half as traffic density is so low as to remove the need for additional supply infrastructure. Single end feed from the south end

 

[edwin_m]

It will always be more cost effective to electrify any line than to run diesels indefinitely.
The crunch is the time taken to recoup the cost of the investment. It will take a lot longer for a lightly used branch line to recover those costs, than a busy commuter route or mainline.
We shouldn't wince at the thought of electrifying more local routes though, as these are generally more subsidised than main lines, and electrification, IMHO is the key to reducing that subsidy, albeit over a longer term, and even starting to make a profit.

On some lightly used routes the time to pay off the cost of the electrification will be longer than the life of the OLE, so it won't pay for itself. Exactly which routes this applies to depends on factors such as the price of diesel fuel relative to electricity, and on route characteristics such as the number and length of trains and the length of the route.

 

[Kneedown]

On some lightly used routes the time to pay off the cost of the electrification will be longer than the life of the OLE, so it won't pay for itself. Exactly which routes this applies to depends on factors such as the price of diesel fuel relative to electricity, and on route characteristics such as the number and length of trains and the length of the route.

I don't know what the life of the OHLE is so I can neither rufute, nor agree with your comment. I'm pretty sure the equipment has a long lifespan though, longer than the trains that run under it?
Cost of diesel fuel is only one factor. There is diesel unit maintenence, replacement parts, leasing costs, delay costs, availability..... all favour electric traction.
The "Sparks" effect is also a factor.
I also believe that local routes should be combined with "Inter City" franchises so any remaining losses incurred from local routes would be offset by revenue from the more profitable routes.
Replacing diesels with more diesels is just throwing more good money after bad though, and does nothing to modernise local routes. Indeed, it may isolate them even more in the future unless Bi-mode becomes more mainstream.

 

[gerryuk]

Could you put together a business case for electrifying rural lines such as the West Highland Line?

I am sure there is a lot of wind on these rural routes. Is there a case for putting up wind turbines to electrify these sort of routes? I don’t know how many turbines would be required to completely electrify a line like the West Highland, but in this day and age it’s got to be worth a look?
Anybody in the know, how many wind turbines would it take to completely power the entire rail network?
Network rail have a lot of land lying idle. Surely they / we should be looking to a future without petrol / diesel. Just a thought.

 

[deltic08]

On some lightly used routes the time to pay off the cost of the electrification will be longer than the life of the OLE, so it won't pay for itself. Exactly which routes this applies to depends on factors such as the price of diesel fuel relative to electricity, and on route characteristics such as the number and length of trains and the length of the route.

Considering there are no moving parts apart from tensioning, what is there to wear out?

 

[quantinghome]

I don't know what the life of the OHLE is so I can neither rufute, nor agree with your comment. I'm pretty sure the equipment has a long lifespan though, longer than the trains that run under it?
Cost of diesel fuel is only one factor. There is diesel unit maintenence, replacement parts, leasing costs, delay costs, availability..... all favour electric traction.
The "Sparks" effect is also a factor.
I also believe that local routes should be combined with "Inter City" franchises so any remaining losses incurred from local routes would be offset by revenue from the more profitable routes.
Replacing diesels with more diesels is just throwing more good money after bad though, and does nothing to modernise local routes. Indeed, it may isolate them even more in the future unless Bi-mode becomes more mainstream.

I think it's pretty clear there's some sort of trade-off between the higher capital costs of electrification (with associated maintenance and renewal) and the higher running costs of diesel. Network Rail's forthcoming electrification strategy document will hopefully answer these questions and identify the limits of the trade-off.

It's interesting to note that only Switzerland has a fully electric railway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_transport_network_size
Other European countries who have had a more consistent approach to electrification have about 50-70% of their network electrified. Presumably if the economics were there to fully electrify, they would have already done so.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Considering there are no moving parts apart from tensioning, what is there to wear out?

Pantograph contact strips?

The cables themselves (constant contact with the pans will wear the contact wire down over time)?

HV electrical equipment also has a safety life?

Fatigue life of the overhead structures?

Stuff doesn't have to be moving to become life expired.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Because the Government is not willing to pay for it.

...because the Government is penny wise & pound foolish!! lol!

The spending on electrification schemes should be doubled imo.
If part of a route is electrified the other part/s can become disadvantaged.
eg Blackpool lost its through trains to London when the WCML was electrified.
The same for instance could happen to Plymouth / Penzance etc.

 

[quantinghome]

Pantograph contact strips?

The cables themselves (constant contact with the pans will wear the contact wire down over time)?

HV electrical equipment also has a safety life?

Fatigue life of the overhead structures?

Stuff doesn't have to be moving to become life expired.

Corrosion of steel structures - even if galvanised, it will eventually rust. This applies to reinforcement in concrete too.

 

[Kneedown]

Pantograph contact strips?

I stand to be corrected, but probably akin to changing brake blocks on a loco/unit. Frequent occurrence and basic maintenance.

The cables themselves (constant contact with the pans will wear the contact wire down over time)?

Again, I stand to be corrected, but a simple task, if infrequent?

HV electrical equipment also has a safety life?

True. Point conceded, although I would again venture this is maintenance to be carried out at lengthy intervals?

Fatigue life of the overhead structures?

Plenty of 60's vintage structures around Stoke, and 50's era between Manchester and Hadfield/Glossop.

 

[edwin_m]

Considering there are no moving parts apart from tensioning, what is there to wear out?

Copper wire wears with passing pantographs (though this will be less on lightly used routes). If subject to regular changes of stress it will also eventually work-harden and become brittle. Ferrous components will rust and insulators may break down. Tensioning pulleys may cease to rotate. Supports may go out of alignment due to poor ground conditions. Switchgear etc will have a finite life too.

Typical OLE life will indeed be around 50 years, with some maintenance including monitoring of its condition. I think someone mentioned back up the thread that as a rule of thumb there need to be a couple of trains per hour that can be converted to EMU before it is worth electrifying.

 

[HSTEd]

This all depends on the rate of return on the capital required for the project.

 

[L&Y Robert]

Copper wire wears with passing pantographs (though this will be less on lightly used routes). If subject to regular changes of stress it will also eventually work-harden and become brittle. Ferrous components will rust and insulators may break down. Tensioning pulleys may cease to rotate. Supports may go out of alignment due to poor ground conditions.

I noted in several places that the older steel masts were out of vertical, inclining away from the railway. I don't think they were installed out of the vertical, and assumed that over time, the passage of traffic was squeezing the formation downwards, gradually pushing the upper layers of the ground outward, but not the deeper layers. Result - masts out of the vertical. Am I right? - first that they ARE out of vertical, and second my diagnosis of the cause?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Copper wire wears with passing pantographs (though this will be less on lightly used routes). If subject to regular changes of stress it will also eventually work-harden and become brittle. Ferrous components will rust and insulators may break down. Tensioning pulleys may cease to rotate. Supports may go out of alignment due to poor ground conditions.

I noted in several places that the older steel masts were out of vertical, inclining away from the railway. I don't think they were installed out of the vertical, and assumed that over time, the passage of traffic was squeezing the formation downwards, gradually pushing the upper layers of the ground outward, but not the deeper layers. Result - masts out of the vertical. Am I right? - first that they ARE out of vertical, and second my diagnosis of the cause?
"The Ground as a Structural Member" - it's a book which should be written!

 

[edwin_m]

I noted in several places that the older steel masts were out of vertical, inclining away from the railway. I don't think they were installed out of the vertical, and assumed that over time, the passage of traffic was squeezing the formation downwards, gradually pushing the upper layers of the ground outward, but not the deeper layers. Result - masts out of the vertical. Am I right? - first that they ARE out of vertical, and second my diagnosis of the cause?
"The Ground as a Structural Member" - it's a book which should be written!

They can go out of vertical, but I think it's due to poor ground conditions and inadequate foundation though vibration from passing trains, and the civil engineers topping up the ballast from time to time, may have something to do with it. Up to a point this can be corrected by adjusting the position of the wire relative to the support, but I guess once the support goes out of vertical its weight is unbalanced and will tend to tip it further in the same direction.

See this report into an accident in the Fens. It appears ground movement from the embankment towards a nearby ditch had tipped the supports back, this wasn't picked up by monitoring and eventually resulted in a dewirement.

http://raib.gov.uk/latest_news/news_archive/news_archive_2013/130520_pn_littleport.cfm

There's a whole engineering discipline called geotechnics which deals with this sort of stuff.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This all depends on the rate of return on the capital required for the project.

That's another factor. Business cases for the UK government are supposed to use a discount rate of 3.5% over 60 years IIRC.

 

[ironstone11]

They can go out of vertical,...
See this report into an accident in the Fens. .... this wasn't picked up by monitoring and eventually resulted in a dewirement.

http://raib.gov.uk/latest_news/news_archive/news_archive_2013/130520_pn_littleport.cfm

It depends on what you mean by "this wasn't picked up by monitoring". The traces which show the problem are published in the RAIB report. It was just that nobody bothered to look at them.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Something to consider for electrification is that the national grid is currently so heavily loaded that they are using locomotive sized diesel engines (1-2MW each, Valenta-size-ish) to supplement the big generating stations during periods of peak demand. These diesels are more efficient than the oldest big stations, so used in preference to them.

So, during peak demand, a modern diesel loco under power is actually more efficient than an electric, in a round about way, as it doesn't have long distance transmission losses from a very similar engine. Where the electric always wins out is at zero or low power demand, where a diesel loco is less efficient. The bottom line is that it's sometimes a much narrower green margin between a modern diesel and an electric. During periods of low demand on the grid, of course, it's better.

The case where electric can almost always win out for classic UK loading gauge is total power. Electric can push out up to around 6000hp, but max diesel is around 3500hp. Max power isn't everything though, as 4500hp will do a record of 147mph after ETH loss, or normal 125mph after ETH; or 3000hp-ish works fine for a lot of UK freight.

Diesel generators are for emergency use only. Ie an unexpected cold snap increases demand beyond prediction or a generator trips out, needing an emergency balance on the system. They are only used short term until something far more efficient can come on stream.

Normal peak demand on the diurnal cycle and TV pick ups would be satisfied by hydro, some spare gas capacity and pumped storage like Dinorwig.

Also a peak day would place less demand that it would've 10 years ago. The switch to compact fluorescent lighting, more energy efficient household appliances and more energy efficient IT has meant that we use less. Some gas fired generating stations have been mothballed because of this, as they are no longer efficient enough to earn their keep.

Also transmission losses at high voltage are low when you step back down. That's the whole reason you step up to transmit. Most losses are not in the transmission networks, but are in the local LV distribution networks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Corrosion of steel structures - even if galvanised, it will eventually rust. This applies to reinforcement in concrete too.

Cathodic protection will deal with that!

 

[apk55]

There are some 85 year old portal OHL structures outside my house. Ok the electrification system has changed (1.5KV 25KV & 750V) and the wires replaced at least twice.

 

[balne-wonderer]

Electric trains are faster eccellerating, more reliable, and cheaper to build and run than diesel equivalents. The reason all lines arnt electrified currently is part historical; in the 1950s investment was made in diesel more than electric; and the cost and will to electrify lines. It can be expensive or very expensive to electrify a line depending on how many bridges and tunnels need to be resized to fit the cables. It may therefore take 40-50 years to get back the money invested, depending in part on how busy the line is. As the decision to electrify a line is also a political one, the govement of the time has to think its a good idea as well before any investment can take place.

So to answer your question, some lines have been considered worth the investment and others have not either because they weren't considered worth the investment, or there wasn't the money available to make the investment.

To be fair, there is a huge emphasis being put on 'spend to save' or 'invest to save' schemes in many industries at the moment.

Hopefully the rail network will figure highly in that way of thinking.

Electric to Hull would be excellent as we've covered many times on here.

 

[deltic08]

Pantograph contact strips?

The cables themselves (constant contact with the pans will wear the contact wire down over time)?

HV electrical equipment also has a safety life?

Fatigue life of the overhead structures?

Stuff doesn't have to be moving to become life expired.

Can you honestly say that carbon contact strips on the pan comes under infrastructure and not stock maintenance. TOCs pay for it as they pay for brake pad replacement. In fact there is less brake pad wear on electric trains particularly on a route like he West Highland.. Pan head wear is no more on a single, lightly trafficked line than any other.

Wear to the contact wire is proportional to the number of trains/pans passing and not time sensitive so will not need replacing any quicker than heavily trafficked lines. In fact it could be argued 3 pans on one service on a 12 car set in the southeast is uneconomical at three times more contact wire than it should be. Do 700s have just one pan?

Contact wire replacement is not that expensive in time and equipment and the old copper wire is sold for melting down into new wires.

National Grid transmission lines were erected across my family farm in 1938. The pylons are still there, unloved, after 75 years with no corrosion or fatigue supported in concrete foundations just as 25kv infrastructure is. If overheads are failing now it is the way they were installed/designed and not the fault of the structure per se.

The HV sub station installed when the power station situated on these transmission lines was commissioned in 1938 has not been renewed to my knowledge even when the power station closed in 1962.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Cathodic protection will deal with that!

May I be pedantic please? ICCP - Impressed Current Cathodic Protection will deal with that, Galvanized steel - zinc coating -is cathodic protection - it is SACP - Sacrificial Anode Cathodic Protection.