Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Grayling explains scrapped rail electrification reasoning

Gospel Oak to Barking wiring 3x2

Transport secretary Chris Grayling has explained to MPs why the government went cold on rail electrification.

Giving evidence to the Commons transport select committee, Grayling explained how a better understanding of bi-mode train technology, which uses diesel and electric power, had helped change his mind on rail electrification.

“I suspect back in 2012 the electrification process seemed to be simpler and easier to achieve than it actually is,” he said.

In July last year, Grayling scrapped plans to fully electrify rail lines in South Wales, northern England and parts of the Midlands Mainline. Bi-mode trains will be introduced on these  routes instead.

“We are now in a position where we are seeing the level of hybrid technology working, doable, practical and offering options for us that officials probably didn’t think were there five or six years ago,” said Grayling.

Speaking about the Kettering to Sheffield electrification, he added: “I could not see the rationale for spending £1bn, saving a minute on the journey time to Sheffield, rather than spending the money on projects elsewhere on the network which could make a genuine capacity difference.”

However, rail experts have warned that bi-mode trains are expensive to maintain and environmentally unfriendly. In December, the Department for Transport (DfT) admitted full electrification of the Midlands Mainline would deliver £271M in greenhouse gas savings over 60 years compared to £11M for bi-mode trains.

Grayling had been summoned before the transport committee for a second time over the provision of benefit-cost ratio (BCR) analysis and business case details for the now-cancelled electrification programmes.

Committee chair Lilian Greenwood said: “It’s disappointing to me that the committee are having to recall you to answer further questions as that information could have been provided in correspondence as we asked.”


Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.