On Feb 3, 4:14*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
That's territorial fighting. The UK freight resurgence is diesel-based
(the EMD Class 66 is the single best thing to happen to UK rail freight
in c.100 years: it's cheap and it Just Works) so there's no benefit to
freight operators in electrifying it. The only operator who'd benefit
is TfL, but they're not willing to pay the full cost without any
control over the infrastructure.

Very wrong; the 'resurgence' needn't be diesel-based,

But it *is* diesel-based.

Everyone, in every camp (except diesel trainbuilders), would like it if it
was electric-based, and the necessary bits of line were electrified to
make that possible, but that hasn't happened, and nobody feels like paying
for it, so it hasn't happened. So the growth of freight *is*, whether you
like it or not, diesel-based.

Not even that - it *had* to be diesel-based.

Freight is the one unequivocal, massive, resounding success of
privatisation[*], and it worked because suddenly a whole bunch of
people were in charge who were keen to promote freight traffic,
understood how it worked abroad, and were willing to take on trains
that were a bit basic as long as they worked. So there was enormous
organic growth in freight, despite the absence of any particularly
meaningful National Plan. And as you say, it was diesel-based because
you could buy reliable cheap off-the-shelf diesel locos that went
anywhere.

Any electrification B/CA done in 1996 would have completely missed the
point, because it would have been based on 1996 levels of freight
traffic. It's only now that freight traffic has grown to the extent
that it has, driven by privatisation and 66es, that electrification
for freight routes like the GOBLIN is even worth thinking about.
[*] well, freight and Chiltern. Wise investors, these Germans...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org