Return to Archive -by date - by topic - 2001 Archive.
Years ago this column prophesied that diesel traction would dominate the post-modern privatised railway: now it's official
When Captain Deltic got all excited and wrote in this column that internal combustion was the traction power of the future, at least in Britain , a broad cross section of readers got upset. Some remarked, pityingly, that it was just an old diesel-head fantasising; others assumed it was another case of ‘he only does it to annoy because he knows it teases' and a few got genuinely cross that a serious magazine should publish such traction pornography.
But it wasn't a wind-up. I saw it as the logical end-result of the privatisation process. In 21 st Century Britain extension of railway electrification is both difficult to implement and hard to pay for and in no one's commercial interest.
Consider, say, extension of the Midland Main Line electrification onward from Bedford . Railtrack would have to pay compensation for the disruption during the work and borrow to fund the equipment and its installation.
After three or four or five years, or eventually, Railtrack would have an electrified infrastructure ready to take trains. But this would be no interest to Midland Main Line which would have to replace its diesel multiple units perhaps a third of the way through their life and pay more in track access charges to use the new electric traction. The financiers buying the new electric trains would want higher rentals because the residual value is less than a go-anywhere diesel. Freight wouldn't want to uncouple its Class 66s for a brief electric interlude, even assuming anyone would buy some electric locomotives.
So, electrification is in no one's commercial interest. But what about the strategic interest – assuming there is one? W ho might be expected to take the strategic long term view on future electrification policy?
Not the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, with the Treasury's hand up the back of its glove puppet. So it's down to the Strategic Rail Authority and yes, as you might have suspected its time to groan – or cheer, if you support the Friends of Ackroyd Stewart.
Because a chum who asked the SRA about the prospects for electrification has sent me a copy of the official reply. And it makes grim/encouraging reading.
Forget any strategic values, the SRA is clear that future electrification is likely to depend on comparative prices of energy and maintenance costs. In which case, the strategic case for extension of electrification is ‘weak'.
To the SRA what matters are the benefits delivered to passenger and freight customers not the form of traction used. And in this connection the SRA claims that anything electric traction can do, diesel power can do as well, without all capital costs of electrification, the maintenance of the overhead knitting and risk of dewirement.
It argues this case with considerable vehemence which puts it well to the right of Captain Deltic. When I suggested out to an SRA chum that high speed trains might be a bit easier with electric traction he pointed to HST (he's an old old-BR chum) and the current generation of 125mile/h diesel multiple units.
To support this view, the SRA claims that 'new diesel trains such as Turbostar', have similar performance characteristics as electric trains, including low emissions, while avoiding the ‘huge fixed costs of catenary, signalling immunisations and electrical power supply'.
Indeed, the SRA claims diesel trains have recently proved more reliable than electric when introduced into service. Good grief!
Take something basic in terms of electric traction, like a CEP or a VEP. They will give you 60,000 miles per casualty. While we shouldn't get too excited about EMUs on airport duties, the Class 332s on Heathrow Express are topping 80,000 miles/casualty. The newer Class 460s on Gatwick Express are starting to build statistically significant mileage and in January were a smidgeon short of their contractual 46,875 miles per service affecting failure.
In contrast, a Turbostar, which has more fleet experience than either of these two electrics, gives between 4,500 and 5,000 miles/casualty. This figure is even beaten by the under-developed Networker EMUs which come in at around 12,000 miles.
But what about the joint British Rail/ Department of Transport review of electrification in 1981? Sorry, showing my age. This established the case for a rolling programme of main mile electrification and the East Coast Main Line electrification duly followed.
Well, the SRA says that the balance between electricity and oil prices has changed since the review in favour of oil. So the only cost savings for electrification relate to train maintenance which is offset by ‘the high cost of traction current supply and distribution'.
But what about all those countries on the other side of the channel? Poor fools, they electrified in the 1950s and 1960s when the new enlightenment of privatisation had not revealed the sheer extravagance of electrification.
Mind you, while the SRA is not working on a ‘general presumption' of the benefits of electrification, it acknowledges that where ‘deep tunnels and stations' are involved, such as Crossrail, extension of electrification is required. It also points to other areas, ‘such as the Thames Valley and approaches to Paddington' where extensions to electrification will have to be considered - taking into account the cost and benefits, of course.
The case for electrification of railways on a strategic national basis appears to be weak compared with the last major study (Rail Policy Review) undertaken by British Rail in 1991 SSRA November 2000 |
Now you and I might think that a national strategy would look beyond fuel price and consider the long term operational flexibility of, say, running the wires from Leeds to St Pancras or Birmingham into Paddington. But, apparently not, leaving Captain Deltic dreaming of Super HSTs with 4,000 hp locos at each end. Vroom, vroom.