Why has electrification not got further in the UK?

[Ken H]

I think you misunderstand the nature of business direction.

A board of directors has to be as objective as possible in its decisions, it does not matter if one 'favours' a course of action or not. The decision made depends on the careful weighing up of all the factors involved. For those items that cannot be precisely quantified an allowance has to be made under the heading of 'risk'.

As you say, it is irrelevant if he was 'in favour' of the generic concept of 'electrification' or not. If a case could be made for a change which would improve the railways' finances then he would support it whether it was the development of the Liner Train or Merry-Go-Round freight services or the electrification of the two passenger routes under discussion.

Regarding the extension of electrification in Europe in the 1950s and 1960s compared to the UK in terms of percentage of the network covered another important, probably more important, statistic to be considered is the percentage of traffic carried by the electrified network. Using this parameter the UK is not so far out of line with other countries due to the predominance of traffic around London, the bulk of which is electrically hauled. Only Paris and Madrid have such a unique centralised position in the rest of Europe.

In any event differing political, economic, demographic, legal and financial frameworks play a significant rôle in such decisions. One has to be very careful to make a like-for-like comparison. For example in my post #92 above I showed how the post-war German experience was very different to that of the UK. Apart from that Germany was experiencing the "Wirtschaftswunder", the rapid growth in its economy from the nadir at the end of the War when, following Ludwig Erhard's reforms of 1948, its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose by 8% per year from 1951 to 1961. This was double the rate for Britain and the United States and nearly double that of France.

It was not surprising that the country could afford to electrify its railways.

During WW2 he UK borrowed from the US. After WW2 hey wanted their $$$ back. So cash was sucked out of the UK, But Germany was given Marshall Aid to rebuild. We didn't stop paying the US back for WW2 debt till the 60's.
So much of industry and infrastructure was in a poor state, and struggling to compete.
So money for UK electrification between 1945 and the mid 60's just wasn't there.

 

[Magdalia]

Whilst looking unsuccessfully for something else (the energisation date for Colchester-Clacton) I found, in Railway Observer September 1959, a report on a recently published BTC reappraisal of the Modernisation Plan. This just predates the 1959 General Election and subsequent appointment of Marples as Minister of Transport.

Railway Observer September 1959 helpfully reproduces, from that reappraisal, a list of revised completion dates for electrification schemes which is as follows. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether it constitutes a rolling programme, and if so, who stopped it from rolling.

LMR

09/60 Crewe-Manchester​

09/61 Crewe-Liverpool​

1964 Euston-Birmingham-Crewe (subject to review)​

ER

09/60 Liverpool Street-Southend/Chelmsford dc to ac conversion​

09/60 Liverpool Street-Chingford/Enfield/Hertford/Stortford​

06/61 London Tilbury and Southend line​

03/62 Chelmsford-Colchester​

1962/63 Moorgate (Northern City line)-Hertford North​

1963/64 Kings Cross-Hitchin-Letchworth​

after 1964 Colchester-Ipswich/Harwich​

after 1964 Lea Valley line and Stortford-Cambridge​

after 1964 (With NER) Kings Cross-Leeds/York​

ScR

1960 Helensburgh/Balloch/Milngavie-Queen St-Airdrie​

1961 Glasgow Central-Cathcart Circle/Neilston/Kirkhill​

1963/64 further routes south of River Clyde​

SR

1961/62 Kent Coast phase 2 Sevenoaks-Dover/Ramsgate​

 

[Bald Rick]

probably more important, statistic to be considered is the percentage of traffic carried by the electrified network. Using this parameter the UK is not so far out of line with other countries

That is a very good point. IIRC 74% of all vehicle miles, and well over 80% of passenger miles are conveyed by electric traction (in electric mode before anyone asks!)

(Edited from 72% to 74% to reflect 2021/22 figures)

 

[Struner]

That is a very good point. IIRC 72% of all vehicle miles, and well over 80% of passenger miles are conveyed by electric traction (in electric mode before anyone asks!)

But what about freight? Usually it needs more energy.

 

[Bald Rick]

But what about freight? Usually it needs more energy.

Diesel use for freight at 161m litres for 2021/22 is 41% of diesel use for passenger (391m litres).

Disel use for freight will also fall noticeably when the 93s and 99s enter service.

 

[coppercapped]

During WW2 he UK borrowed from the US. After WW2 hey wanted their $$$ back. So cash was sucked out of the UK, But Germany was given Marshall Aid to rebuild. We didn't stop paying the US back for WW2 debt till the 60's.
So much of industry and infrastructure was in a poor state, and struggling to compete.
So money for UK electrification between 1945 and the mid 60's just wasn't there.

There still seems to be a lot of confusion about these matters, so stand by for a 'too long, didn't read' rant...!

A succinct account of Lend-Lease is given by the US Official Historian in < https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/lend-lease >:

In December 1940, Churchill warned Roosevelt that the British were no longer able to pay for supplies. On December 17, President Roosevelt proposed a new initiative that would be known as Lend-Lease. The United States would provide Great Britain with the supplies it needed to fight Germany, but would not insist upon being paid immediately. Instead, the United States would “lend” the supplies to the British, deferring payment. When payment eventually did take place, the emphasis would not be on payment in dollars. The tensions and instability engendered by inter-allied war debts in the 1920s and 1930s had demonstrated that it was unreasonable to expect that virtually bankrupt European nations would be able to pay for every item they had purchased from the United States. Instead, payment would primarily take the form of a “consideration” granted by Britain to the United States. After many months of negotiation, the United States and Britain agreed, in Article VII of the Lend-Lease agreement they signed, that this consideration would primarily consist of joint action directed towards the creation of a liberalized international economic order in the postwar world.

Concerning repayment when Lend-Lease terminated, Wikipedia < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease > adds:

Congress had not authorized the gift of supplies delivered after the cutoff date, so the U.S, charged for them, usually at a 90% discount. Large quantities of undelivered goods were in Britain or in transit when Lend-Lease terminated on 2 September 1945. Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. In 1946, the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the U.S.[1] Lend-Lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend-Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest. The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years), was made on 29 December 2006 (the last working day of the year). After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Ed Balls, formally thanked the U.S. for its wartime support.

Tacit repayment of Lend-Lease by the British included several valuable technologies, including those related to radar, sonar, jet engines, nuclear weapons, antitank weaponry, rockets, superchargers, gyroscopic gunsights, submarine detection, self-sealing fuel tanks, and plastic explosives. Many of these were transferred by the Tizard Mission. The official historian of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, James Phinney Baxter III, wrote: "When the members of the Tizard Mission brought the cavity magnetron to America in 1940, they carried the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores."

Regarding Marshall Aid, do check your history - you are, quite simply, wrong.

Just after the War the USA introduced Marshall Aid to assist in the recovery of war damaged Europe. Between 1948 and 1951 Britain received some over $3 billion in aid in then dollars. Britain was the single biggest recipient, receiving twice as much as West Germany. The trouble was - it was wasted. Little was invested in business as in Germany through the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau and its predecessors as a rolling fund but absorbed in general government revenues.

To emphasise this, I quote from Norman Davies' book 'Europe - A History' (Pimlico 1997) page 1064: 'On 5 June 1947, at a Harvard Commencement speech, Truman's Secretary of State, General George Marshall, unveiled plans for a European Recovery Program. "It is logical", he declared, "that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace". In contrast to the 1920s, the USA was offering to finance Europe's recovery in the interests of the common good. The Marshall Plan ran for four years, from 1948 to the end of 1951. It dispensed a total of $12,500 billion to 16 participating members. To manage the funds, it required the establishment of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which insisted that recipients increase production, expand trade, and make 'counterpart contributions' of their own. Although one quarter of Marshall Aid was earmarked for Britain and one-fifth for France, it was available to allies, neutrals, and ex-enemies alike. It has no peer in the history of enlightened self-interest.'

Note that Britain received ONE QUARTER of all the Marshall Aid. The money was there for investment in the railways and other infrastructure and other countries in Europe showed how it could be done. But the economic ignoramuses in then Government blew it.

It is high time this myth of lack of money and others getting Marshall Aid was put to death.


[1] This loan enabled Britain to buy the Lend-Lease items which were in transit or already in Britain after the end of Lend-Lease. Not quite the way you describe the situation, nothing demanding re-payment for materiel supplied during the war. The US asked for payment for those things shipped AFTER the end of the war. It was back to business as usual.

 

[Bevan Price]

Which changes were these?

The minimum distance specified between the overhead lines (25 kV in UK) and locations where people might be present. The distances used by UK on WCML, ECML, etc. for many years needed to be increased to meet the new EU regulations on any new schemes.

 

[Master29]

I think you misunderstand the nature of business direction.

A board of directors has to be as objective as possible in its decisions, it does not matter if one 'favours' a course of action or not. The decision made depends on the careful weighing up of all the factors involved. For those items that cannot be precisely quantified an allowance has to be made under the heading of 'risk'.

As you say, it is irrelevant if he was 'in favour' of the generic concept of 'electrification' or not. If a case could be made for a change which would improve the railways' finances then he would support it whether it was the development of the Liner Train or Merry-Go-Round freight services or the electrification of the two passenger routes under discussion.

Regarding the extension of electrification in Europe in the 1950s and 1960s compared to the UK in terms of percentage of the network covered another important, probably more important, statistic to be considered is the percentage of traffic carried by the electrified network. Using this parameter the UK is not so far out of line with other countries due to the predominance of traffic around London, the bulk of which is electrically hauled. Only Paris and Madrid have such a unique centralised position in the rest of Europe.

In any event differing political, economic, demographic, legal and financial frameworks play a significant rôle in such decisions. One has to be very careful to make a like-for-like comparison. For example in my post #92 above I showed how the post-war German experience was very different to that of the UK. Apart from that Germany was experiencing the "Wirtschaftswunder", the rapid growth in its economy from the nadir at the end of the War when, following Ludwig Erhard's reforms of 1948, its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose by 8% per year from 1951 to 1961. This was double the rate for Britain and the United States and nearly double that of France.

It was not surprising that the country could afford to electrify its railways.

That's a good point about Germany's growth after WW2. I think Britain was almost bankrupt at the end of the war so our growth wouldn't have been near the levels of Germany. Thanks for clearing up some points.

 

[Energy]

The minimum distance specified between the overhead lines (25 kV in UK) and locations where people might be present. The distances used by UK on WCML, ECML, etc. for many years needed to be increased to meet the new EU regulations on any new schemes.

Some of the clearance is to allow the wire to move as well as arcing. With the special non conductive paint the clearance needed for the wire is greater than for arcing.

 

[stuu]

That's a good point about Germany's growth after WW2. I think Britain was almost bankrupt at the end of the war so our growth wouldn't have been near the levels of Germany. Thanks for clearing up some points.

With hindsight our mistake after WW2 was to attempt to maintain our superpower status and empire, which meant spending vast sums on the military which did no good in the long run. France did the same, although to a lesser extent. Germany was able to rebuild its industries rather than spend on nuclear weapons and controlling rebellious natives

 

[coppercapped]

With hindsight our mistake after WW2 was to attempt to maintain our superpower status and empire,

But we didn't - another myth.

Indian independence occurred in August 1947 and the Gold Coast became Ghana ten years later. The bulk of the countries in terms of population had gained their independence by the 1960s.

There were, certainly, goofs such as the Anglo-French-Israeli attempt to take over the Suez Canal in 1956 but the direct financial expenditure was not great as it was all over so quickly. The aftershocks rumbled on for some time though...

which meant spending vast sums on the military which did no good in the long run.

The bulk of the military spending after the war was aimed at countering the threat from the Soviet Union - hence the thousands of troops stationed in Germany, the British Army Of the Rhine. Sound familiar?

And the whole point of nuclear weapons was they were a damn sight cheaper than the number of men who would be needed permanently under arms as a counter to the armies of the Warsaw Pact countries. We paid for the defence of Germany - not the Germans.

France did the same, although to a lesser extent. Germany was able to rebuild its industries rather than spend on nuclear weapons and controlling rebellious natives

We could have rebuilt our industries as well, except the Government decided on New Towns instead.

 

[BrianW]

I think you misunderstand the nature of business direction.

A board of directors has to be as objective as possible in its decisions, it does not matter if one 'favours' a course of action or not. The decision made depends on the careful weighing up of all the factors involved. For those items that cannot be precisely quantified an allowance has to be made under the heading of 'risk'.

As you say, it is irrelevant if he was 'in favour' of the generic concept of 'electrification' or not. If a case could be made for a change which would improve the railways' finances then he would support it whether it was the development of the Liner Train or Merry-Go-Round freight services or the electrification of the two passenger routes under discussion.

Regarding the extension of electrification in Europe in the 1950s and 1960s compared to the UK in terms of percentage of the network covered another important, probably more important, statistic to be considered is the percentage of traffic carried by the electrified network. Using this parameter the UK is not so far out of line with other countries due to the predominance of traffic around London, the bulk of which is electrically hauled. Only Paris and Madrid have such a unique centralised position in the rest of Europe.

In any event differing political, economic, demographic, legal and financial frameworks play a significant rôle in such decisions. One has to be very careful to make a like-for-like comparison. For example in my post #92 above I showed how the post-war German experience was very different to that of the UK. Apart from that Germany was experiencing the "Wirtschaftswunder", the rapid growth in its economy from the nadir at the end of the War when, following Ludwig Erhard's reforms of 1948, its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose by 8% per year from 1951 to 1961. This was double the rate for Britain and the United States and nearly double that of France.

It was not surprising that the country could afford to electrify its railways.

At risk of being a bit controversial ... not surprising that GDP grew greatly in Germany at that time- it was growing from brickdust with assistance from the Marshall Plan, while UK was repaying Lend Lease. Just sayin'.

Anyway ... priorities would have looked very different 'back in the day'. harder to have been a NIMBY back then I would have imagined.

And Britain's politicians had eneough on their plate adjusting to a post-Imperial world, retreating as graciously as could be done from east of Suez

Today- electrify railways or more nurses or higher taxation or ... tough call?? Even '40 new hospitals'?

 

[coppercapped]

At risk of being a bit controversial ... not surprising that GDP grew greatly in Germany at that time- it was growing from brickdust with assistance from the Marshall Plan, while UK was repaying Lend Lease. Just sayin'.

Why don't people read what has been posted earlier? The UK was not paying back Lend-Lease at the time, a least not in cash. Please read my post #126 above for the details. Don't take my word for it, there are many authoritative accounts in the history books.

There was no reason why Britain could not have grown its economy more rapidly than it did at the time. The trouble was that it didn't have somebody with the economic and political understanding of Ludwig Erhard but had a government bent on centralisation.

The big lesson from the Second World War for Britain was that Government planning and control was a successful model - it brought D-Day and VE Day less than a year later. Britain decided it wanted more of it.

The big lesson from the Second World War for Germany was that Government planning and control was a disaster - it brought Stalingrad, D-Day and VE Day less than a year later. Germany decided that it never wanted anything like that again.

I ask, which country has the most successful economy now?

Anyway ... priorities would have looked very different 'back in the day'. harder to have been a NIMBY back then I would have imagined.

And Britain's politicians had eneough on their plate adjusting to a post-Imperial world, retreating as graciously as could be done from east of Suez

Today- electrify railways or more nurses or higher taxation or ... tough call?? Even '40 new hospitals'?

 

[BrianW]

Why don't people read what has been posted earlier? The UK was not paying back Lend-Lease at the time, a least not in cash. Please read my post #126 above for the details. Don't take my word for it, there are many authoritative accounts in the history books.

There was no reason why Britain could not have grown its economy more rapidly than it did at the time. The trouble was that it didn't have somebody with the economic and political understanding of Ludwig Erhard but had a government bent on centralisation.

The big lesson from the Second World War for Britain was that Government planning and control was a successful model - it brought D-Day and VE Day less than a year later. Britain decided it wanted more of it.

The big lesson from the Second World War for Germany was that Government planning and control was a disaster - it brought Stalingrad, D-Day and VE Day less than a year later. Germany decided that it never wanted anything like that again.

I ask, which country has the most successful economy now?

Thank you Coppercapped; I share your hope regarding reading back and recognise that I have on this occasion fallen short and fallen victim to the common conception regarding Lend Lease. So thank you for bringing that to my attention. In 'defence' of all who fail to read back, I note that often many contributions have been posted in the time since last 'checking in'. As I say, I try to stay 'up-to-date' and probably 'spend' more time than is in many ways sensible or best use of my time. TI was responding to your post #120 rather than #126, or #131. I've clearly strayed into an area, and era, about which you know a lot, so thank you for your corrections.

I'm calling to mind the words attributed to Churchill that history would be kind to him as he proposed to write it- which he did. I have alot of sympathy, and more than many, for politicians seeking to serve the 'common good' amongst a lot of conflicting good ideas. I think it quite likely that many decisions being taken today will be looked at askance with the benefits of hindsight and expenditures of time and energy. Keeping upiu with Rail Forum postings is quite time-consuming enough. I may try to limit my time, or leave- after all we have little to no effect. Mere bluster, esp as all we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history, as rail 'accidents' also testify to.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Thank you Coppercapped; I share your hope regarding reading back and recognise that I have on this occasion fallen short and fallen victim to the common conception regarding Lend Lease. So thank you for bringing that to my attention. In 'defence' of all who fail to read back, I note that often many contributions have been posted in the time since last 'checking in'. As I say, I try to stay 'up-to-date' and probably 'spend' more time than is in many ways sensible or best use of my time. TI was responding to your post #120 rather than #126, or #131. I've clearly strayed into an area, and era, about which you know a lot, so thank you for your corrections.

I'm calling to mind the words attributed to Churchill that history would be kind to him as he proposed to write it- which he did. I have alot of sympathy, and more than many, for politicians seeking to serve the 'common good' amongst a lot of conflicting good ideas. I think it quite likely that many decisions being taken today will be looked at askance with the benefits of hindsight and expenditures of time and energy. Keeping upiu with Rail Forum postings is quite time-consuming enough. I may try to limit my time, or leave- after all we have little to no effect. Mere bluster, esp as all we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history, as rail 'accidents' also testify to.

Nah, just take it all as a learning experience. The day you stop learning is the day you are dead. I learn, and sometimes forget. Some of what you learn rubs off on others. As indeed Coppercapped knowledge may well have enhanced your knowledge and also enhanced the knowledge of others reading the same thread.

So has the UK government learned anything that would favour electrification ?.

 

[Ken H]

So has the UK government learned anything that would favour electrification ?.

All politicians are interested in is 'will this make me look good? Will i get to cut a ribbon in front of a shiny train? How many column inches in the daily Mail?
Electrification has a lead time longer than a parliament. So there is the quite large risk the other lot will get the credit for you taking the risk. If it goes all wrong, then you will get the blame even though you are now opposition.
Cynical? Moi?