Peer review: Andrew Boagey
Chairman, Railway Engineers’ Forum
It is strangely reassuring to read Philip Haigh’s review of the ‘on-off’ nature of electrical investments in the past. His detailed article chronicles the difficult decisions to invest in electrification, including during times when the value of clean, modern rolling stock must have presented a very compelling public argument compared with the noise and pollution of steam locomotion.
Pressure in the past to ‘pause’ or ‘unpause’ a project has to be seen in its own historical context, because what makes rail electrification particularly difficult is that it requires predictions in both the transport sector and the energy sector, where short-term arguments often obscure the long-term logic. For example, Network Rail makes a commendable decision to engage in a ten-year deal to buy its electricity from nuclear sources. Meanwhile, diesel prices are at historically low levels on the local forecourt. This is not straightforward decision-making territory.
But surveying the long-term arguments in the energy sector in the 21st century, we have to account for security of supply, as well as the need for a global shift towards sources that are in phase with our obligations to support international carbon reduction targets. Electrification is part of that national strategy to decarbonise transportation, which accounts for 28% of all UK carbon emissions. Long-range electric power remains elusive for road vehicle users (and is unattainable for airlines!), but is efficient, achievable and well-established technology for rail travellers.
The long-term transport policy arguments are also quite diverse. Rail electrification forms part of a procurement strategy that engages international rolling stock suppliers, serving a growing world market for this type of traction. With this competition comes continual improvement and innovation - regenerative braking saves energy and lighter vehicles cause less track damage per passenger mile. Both should find their way into the business case.
Of course, each project still has to be supported by its own evaluation of specific benefits and costs. Philip is right to point out the risk to each project’s credibility as costs escalate. Cost increases offer an opportunity for short-term arguments to win over long-term logic. Teams delivering the UK’s electrification schemes cannot expect the Treasury to keep replacing the fuse wire without wanting to know the source of the short-circuit! It would be good to hear more about the challenges these projects are facing and how they are overcome.
Rail electrification projects are technically complex. And they are not all about electricity - there are miles of civil engineering foundation work, bridges to be replaced, and complex interfaces to signalling that have to be managed. Large-scale electrification affects routes and branches. In the end, it only works once all the train diagrams, from depot to terminus and back, are electrified. This can become a monumental challenge for planners and project managers, especially as possession times vary throughout the network. Economies of scale can quickly evaporate. And designs have to account for future increases in service patterns beyond the length of the current operating franchise.
Development of a Network Rail Master Series for electrification designs surely represents a logical strategic approach, as modern materials and methods can now be brought into each designer’s portfolio.
