Written evidence submitted by the Campaign to Electrify Britain’s Railway (TFF0012)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This letter constitutes the response from the Campaign to Electrify Britain’s Railway to the above call for evidence issued in April 2019 by the Transport Select Committee. We would also welcome to discuss the submission with the Transport Committee.
1.2 CEBR also want to take this opportunity to state that all rail transport is good. The railways, like all public transport link communities and help people to travel to work and education. A diesel train is still a significant improvement over a car lead alternative. Any review into the railway, need to keep the overall positive benefits of the railway in mind.
2. BACKGROUND TO THE CAMPAIGN TO ELECTRIFY BRITAIN’S RAILWAY (CEBR)
2.1 CEBR was established in early 2018 following the cancellation of railway electrification projects across the UK. CEBR was primarily formed to support rail User Groups in their individual campaigns to electrify their rail routes, and to provide a coordination role in linking regional campaigns together.
2.2 CEBR has over 500 members, and it is purely a volunteer organisation. At our recent annual conference in Birmingham (April 2019), over 100 likeminded people gathered to discuss the campaign.
3. FORMAT OF OUR SUBMISSION
3.1 As requested, the structuring our submission as a single document based on the views of our members.
4. TRACTION POWER
4.1 Rolling stock traction power is inextricably linked to costs, passenger benefits and decarbonisation. Thus the choices made on how to power trains are an essential part of making trains ‘fit for the future’.
4.2 For busy or mainline railways electrification remains the only solution to decarbonise the UK railways. For other areas where there is not a business case for electrification then alternative solutions may be required, such as discrete or discontinuous electrification combined with batteries, or hydrogen fuel cells.
4.3 To ensure trains are fit for the future, the core of the UK railway need to be electric. There will be a case for alternative forms of traction power, in areas. However, it is essential that there is a plan what needs to be electrified and what is not.
5. Alternative Fueled Rolling Stock
5.1 At the CEBR annual conference in April 2019, Birmingham University’s Centre for Rail Research and Education (BCRRE) presented their case of alternative fuels. BCRRE are developing the UK’s first hydrogen train. However, they stated that ‘electrification is the ultimate answer to powering the railway’. Furthermore, they presented a simple example of how to choose where electrifications should be carried out namely: on railways where there is or will be 100mph+ operation and where there are 6 or more trains an hour. Where there are more trains an hour or where these are mainline trains the only technology other than diesel is electrification.
5.2 In addition to the criteria above, there are many infill schemes which enable trains to run under full electric onto mainline or busy railways. Thus any programme of electrification needs to also understand the impact on passengers and the UK rail system.
5.3 There will be a case where alternative fuels will be the most expedient or cost-effective way of decarbonising the railway. However, for the mainline or busy railways electrification is the only way to decarbonise and make the trains fit for the future.
6. Benefits of Electrification
6.1 There a several benefits to passengers, train procurement and infrastructure from the electrification of railways:
• Capacity Crunch: Electric trains have more seats than all other forms of traction power including: diesel, bi-mode, hydrogen and battery. For trains of the same length a fully electric train will have greater capacity without the need for lengthening platforms, as they do not need to carry fuel or batteries. This means more seats for passengers.
• Journey Time: Electric trains are faster than diesel, bi-mode, hydrogen and battery trains. They have superior braking and acceleration is quicker. This makes journey times shorter for passengers and increased route capacity, allowing more trains and passenger seats. For example when electrification allowed the introduction of Class 385 EMUs in Scotland, they had twice the acceleration of the diesel vehicles they replaced. This allows for better, faster journeys.
• Train Purchase Costs: Full electric trains are cheaper to purchase than any other form of train. The long term maintenance cost is also cheaper than any other form of train, with bi-mode being the most expensive. Electric trains are approximately 30% cheaper to maintain than a diesel train and approximately 50% cheaper than a diesel bi-mode train. For example, on Great Western the bi-mode IEP fleet costs £4m per coach extra to maintain over the 27-year contract compared to a full electric IEP fleet. Thus for 369 coaches on the Great Western IEP fleet, the additional cost is over £1bn, over the 27-year contract.
• Track Maintenance: Track maintenance costs are approximately 10% cheaper on a full electric route than on any route where a train carries the fuel. This is due to lighter axel loads on electric trains. The result is less track maintenance works and better track reliability. Batteries and hydrogen themselves have a considerable weight.
• Train Reliability: Electric trains are more reliable than other forms of trains, even taking into account increased infrastructure. Improved reliability means fewer cancelled trains. A modern electric train (EMU) is more than twice as reliable as a diesel train (DMU). Figures from the LTPRSS.
6.2 A good synopsis of the benefits of electrification is within the Long Term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy (LTPRSS) produced by RDG: “Over time, electric trains have generally proved to be more reliable, efficient, environmentally friendly and cheaper”.
6.3 There is also a considerable environmental improvement from electrification over other forms of traction power. Electrification is simply by far the most efficient way to power trains. For example, with hydrogen fuel cells the hydrogen is needed to be produced by electricity. Due to the losses in production 2.4 x more electricity is needed to run a hydrogen fuel cell compared to an electric train. To power a rail network by hydrogen would need a dramatic increase in the power consumption of the railway. Batteries have very low power density, roughly 2.5% of diesel. Thus to run a train on the equivalent of fuel tank of diesel would need 40x the space. A mainline train would need carriages of batteries to power it for the day.
7. UK compared to Germany
7.1 In March 2019 the Rail Industry Association published the Electrification Cost Challenge Report. The report included the graph below that was produced by CEBR. The graph demonstrates that Germany has had a steady rolling programme of rail electrification at 200km a year, compared to the UK’s ‘boom and bust’ approach.
7.2 Since the graph was developed by CEBR the situation in German has continued to evolve. The German Government has announced that by 2025 it wants 70% of all lines electrified in order to meet their environmental targets and decarbonise their railway. In order to achieve this, Germany would need to increase the rolling programme from 200km a year to 400km. Germany is developing a national plan to implement this, their rolling programme is based on a national strategy.
7.3 The maps below show the German programme. The maps shows the rail network in Germany. The map on the left shows the current situation, the lines in bold red are those that are currently un-electrified. Predominately these are slower regional lines, as almost the entire mainline German network is electrified. The lines in light grey are those electrified. The map on the right shows the plan for 2025 in Germany. The lines in bold green are those that Germany plans to electrify between now and 2025 in the 400km per year rolling programme. The lines in bold red are those that will require other solutions, as there is not the business case to electrify these. This may include discontinuous and discrete electrification combined with batteries, as well as other technical solutions such as hydrogen.
7.4 Germany demonstrates that there is a case for long term plans, with clear direction from the government. It does not leave different technologies fighting, but provides direction for train manufactures as well as government train procurement teams. This leads to long term investment and lowers costs. The RIA Electrification Cost Challenge Report demonstrates that the costs of electrification in Germany is significantly lower than the UK and that long term plans support this efficiency.
7.5 Long term plans such as in Germany support passengers and train procurement. The long life cycle of a train means that long term planning is essential, the UK ‘boom and bust’ approach is to the detriment of rolling stock.
8. Freight Network
8.1 It is important to note that the UK rail network rail also has a significant amount of freight trains, decarbonisation of a freight train presents even more challenges than a passenger train due to the significantly greater weight of a freight train.
8.2 For the rail freight network there is no viable option for alternatives to electrification, except diesel. A full electric freight train requires around 2.5 MW of power. There is not hydrogen or battery technology that can support this for a long distance freight route.
8.3 The rail freight industry has already examined the case for a rolling programme of electrification and what would be required for the freight industry to begin to procure electric freight trains. The map below shows the output from the CILT Rail Freight Forum proposal.
8.4 The proposal would be a modest rolling programme of 30 miles per year. This would include 175 miles of in-fill schemes. Additionally electrification of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton route of 145 miles. This would allow that by 2030 up to 75% of all freight trains to be electrified. Furthermore, the commitment of electrification would allow them to begin purchasing electric trains. If the rolling programme continued until 2040 then 85% of the freight network would be electrified.
8.5 Rail freight is keen to use electric trains, but there needs to be a commitment from the government before rail freight companies would commit to train procurement.
9. Vehicle Cascade
9.1 The introduction of diesel/electric bi-modes from cancelled electrifications schemes has had one benefit, it has allowed for a cascade of trains to be deployed on routes that are only partially electrified.
9.2 Currently, the LTPRSS states that by 2029 there will be surplus EMUs. These electric trains can in turn be cascaded down to fully electrified routes. A rolling programme of electrification allows the long term planning of train cascades, slowly shrinking the amount in pure diesel.
9.3 The Rail Industry Association have published a chart showing the ‘boom and bust’ in UK rolling stock orders. The chart is shown below. Long term planning are essential to bring benefits from rail investment and a rolling programme of electrification allows for this. For instance long term orders for UK manufacturing, long term use of apprentices as well as growing passenger benefits.
9.4 Rolling stock has a useful economic life of around 30-35 years, thus long term national plans are critical.
10. Vehicle Cascade
10.1 The introduction of diesel/electric bi-modes from cancelled electrifications schemes has had one benefit, it has allowed for a cascade of trains to be deployed on routes that are only partially electrified.
11. CONCLUSIONS
11.1 The railway is of huge importance to the UK and to everyone who travels on it. Ensuring that trains are fit for the future is essential to make sure the UK is fit for the future.
11.2 To ensure trains are fit for the future it is essential that the government implements a national strategy to electrify the majority of the UK’s railway, in a rolling programme. In particular for all mainline and busy railways. There is a role for alternative fuels, where there is not a business case for rail electrification.
11.3 The government should instruct Network Rail to implement a Decarbonisation Route Utilisation Strategy, similar to that undertaken in Germany. Planning where to electrify between now and 2040 in a rolling programme. Then how to deal with the remaining network with alternative fuels.
11.4 A rolling programme will be cover approximately 300km per year. That rolling programme should also consider how rail freight can be electrified. The programme must also outline how electrification can be delivered regionally, thus local regional teams can build up skills and capabilities.
11.5 New projects such as East West Rail need to be electrified and not rely on technology that does not exist being in place in the future.
May 2019