How to make the rails more economical?

[support-uk-rail]

In times of fuel prices which have peaked past previous reocords, eccentric tax rates and such an aweness of pollution and our CO2 emissions, it's time, as you, me and the transport companies well know, to start changing - become more ECO (economical and/or ecological).

So what should the railways be doing?

Making trains and platforms longer, taller, wider? Faster, slower?

In my opinion, it should be quite easy for TOCs to make some things more economical.

For example, on the high-speed FGW services from London-Plymouth that call at just Reading, Taunton, Exeter St Davids, Newton Abbot, Totnes and Plymouth - all fairly major, mainline stations, we could cut off two services by adding a further 2 or 3 coaches to the set.
Would this work?

 

[Mojo]

For example, on the high-speed FGW services from London-Plymouth that call at just Reading, Taunton, Exeter St Davids, Newton Abbot, Totnes and Plymouth - all fairly major, mainline stations, we could cut off two services by adding a further 2 or 3 coaches to the set.
Would this work?

I would say no, because it would amount to a reduction in frequency, which would make travelling by train less attractive. Certaintly if you take a look at how improving the frequency on CrossCountry services under Virgin you will find it created a huge increase in passenger numbers.

 

[45039]

How would this help co2 as dont forget 2-3 coaches requires more power/fuel to move and slows the service down.
And how much would it cost to fit the extra length trains in?.
IE paddington could probably take 2 coaches per train extra but what about the other stations ?.How much extra to upgrade these stations?

 

[Royston Vasey]

I think one of the best ways of reducing the carbon footprint of the railways is to introduce new trains, more electrics, maybe with regenerative braking, and replace old inefficient engines with newer more fuel-efficient and cleaner engines... oh.

Seriously though, the train is already the best option carbon-wise. Imagine a full HST or 225 load driving from London to Cardiff or London to Newcastle. Priority number ONE should be to encourage more people to use the train in the first place.

 

[45039]

The answer is double deck trains on all routes ,But the one thing we need to do is get rid of stupid underfloor diesel trains.
IE 5 car voyager 5 cars 56 tons each 750 bhp each car=3750bhp.
one loco in the case of a deltic 3300 bhp 100 tons can haul at least 15 coaches with more capacity ,less track wear and also with a modern engine a lot more fuel efficency.

 

[Phoenix]

Okay this may be slightly far-fetched but a good idea would definatly be to start using the good old 25KV more but............. produce the power for the lines using renewable energy sources such as hydro-electricity or even wind power.........Yes It may sound stupid but the railways needs to be independent and start producing it's own renewable energy for it's overhead lines.

 

[christopher]

How about getting rid of Voyagers that would get rid off Smoke Pollution and Chemical Pollution aswell as Smell Pollution

 

[Metroland]

It may sound stupid but the railways needs to be independent and start producing it's own renewable energy for it's overhead lines.

Not really, they always used to and still do in Germany. London Underground had its own power station until the 2002 at Lotts road.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lots_Road_Power_Station

With a bit of imagination the railway could run its own renewable schemes and sell excess power to the national grid.

RSSB commissioned a report into saving energy which is here

http://www.rssb.co.uk/pdf/reports/research/T618_traction-summary-rpt_final.pdf

the SRA did an emissions report which is here

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/researchtech/research/railemissionmodel

and ATOC did a national report which is here

http://www.atoc-comms.org/admin/userfiles/Energy & Emissions Statement - web version.pdf

 

[Royston Vasey]

The Network Rail/Hitachi hybrid-drive HST power car 43089 "Hayabusa" has been around for a couple of years now. Anyone know what the improvement in fuel economy actually is for this? It is of course paired with a Valenta still, with an MTU or similar it could be even better. Has the project actually got anywhere or been dumped??

emunit why do you think the railways need to be more independent from the rest of the grid? What strategic benefit would this bring other than PR, and at what cost? We need a national solution to our power generation, be it nuclear, wind, solar etc.

There are always biofuels, which are becoming quite controversial but later generations are on the way. Virgin successfully tested a Voyager on 20% biodiesel a couple of years ago. Blending biofuel into diesel has been done for some time in road fuel and is going to increase.

Then of course protecting the environment isn't just about reducing CO2, its everything else the power unit emits, so you have to look at catalytic converters and particulate filters for diesel exhausts, but as happened in the car industry this isn't going to happen without legislation because of the cost. Having said that, that legislation is inevitable.

 

[jopsuk]

The answer is double deck trains on all routes ,

To date, there has been one double decker train design tried in the UK, the Southern's 4DD

But our loading guage is too small for a decent double decker- we've far too many low bridges and tunnels- and the problem is worst in cities, which is where they're most needed.

In an ideal world, yes, we'd be able to upgrade our network to take the wider, taller passenger trains they use on the continent. But it's just not really feasible.

 

[rail-britain]

There aren't many cost, ecomomic or ecological savings, in the short-term, between converting routes from diesel powered trains to electric powered trains
Electric trains still need a power source, so all you are doing is moving the power source from on the train to a centralised point
However, none of the ecological figures include the transporting of the diesel fuel
Equally, the same applies to moving the fuel for the power station

I do agree that the main routes should see further electrification, irrespective of cost
These routes should also be upgraded to allow the future expansion of capacity and frequency
In effect the ECML and WCML should be able to handle one train every 45 seconds in each direction (fast and slow lines with 90 second spacing interval), however due to a number of restrictions both of these routes suffer from bottle necks which greatly affect service patterns

There should be greater emphasis on regional TOC operation and interaction with Network Rail
This would see greater use of the infrastructure, although it would see a reduction in through trains, but a return to the more traditional interchange station points

 

[mrcheek]

again, something you wont read in mainstream media:
the best way to reduce global warming would be to chop down ALL the worlds trees.

trees are dark, so absorb the suns heat. if they were removed, and left as scrubland, then the light coloured land would reflect more of the suns heat out. true.

so, next time someone bithces at you for taking you SUV down to the shops, tell them what to do with the trees.

as far as rail goes, how about we just let them do what they wanna do, instead of dictating.

 

[Royston Vasey]

again, something you wont read in mainstream media:
the best way to reduce global warming would be to chop down ALL the worlds trees.

trees are dark, so absorb the suns heat. if they were removed, and left as scrubland, then the light coloured land would reflect more of the suns heat out. true.

so, next time someone bithces at you for taking you SUV down to the shops, tell them what to do with the trees.

as far as rail goes, how about we just let them do what they wanna do, instead of dictating.

Helpful input mate, thanks

 

[Darandio]

again, something you wont read in mainstream media:
the best way to reduce global warming would be to chop down ALL the worlds trees.

trees are dark, so absorb the suns heat. if they were removed, and left as scrubland, then the light coloured land would reflect more of the suns heat out. true.

so, next time someone bithces at you for taking you SUV down to the shops, tell them what to do with the trees.

as far as rail goes, how about we just let them do what they wanna do, instead of dictating.

And what about the trees soaking up the carbon dioxide and producing oxygen? The main reason the planet is habitable in the first place.
Just a point.

 

[jopsuk]

again, something you wont read in mainstream media:
the best way to reduce global warming would be to chop down ALL the worlds trees.

trees are dark, so absorb the suns heat. if they were removed, and left as scrubland, then the light coloured land would reflect more of the suns heat out. true.

so, next time someone bithces at you for taking you SUV down to the shops, tell them what to do with the trees.

as far as rail goes, how about we just let them do what they wanna do, instead of dictating.

Do you have data for the relative emissivity coefficients of scrubland, fast-growing coniferous forest, mature temperate decidiuous woodland, tropical rainforest and desert? This figure is a measure of how "reflective" to heat the various areas are. And the results may well suprise you.

Of course, that doesn't take into the carbon capture abilities of trees (when compared to grasses), or for that matter the enormous release of methane and carbon dioxide that would be the reult of felling every tree tommorow- and what would we do with the wood?

As for letting the rail companies just do what they want- that would be madness, on so many levels.

 

[mrcheek]

Do you have data for the relative emissivity coefficients of scrubland, fast-growing coniferous forest, mature temperate decidiuous woodland, tropical rainforest and desert? This figure is a measure of how "reflective" to heat the various areas are. And the results may well suprise you.

Of course, that doesn't take into the carbon capture abilities of trees (when compared to grasses), or for that matter the enormous release of methane and carbon dioxide that would be the reult of felling every tree tommorow- and what would we do with the wood?

As for letting the rail companies just do what they want- that would be madness, on so many levels.

no, i dont have the data. it was all in The Economist a few months back. and the carbon capturing ability of trees was fully accounted for. what would we do with the wood? well, we can relay the deck on Weston pier to start with.

why would it be madness to let the rail companies do what they wanted? how about if they were run as proper businesses, able to provide the services they wanted (which presumably would be roughly akin to what public demand wanted, after all, theyre going to want to make money out of the deal), instead of being dictated to by politicians whose main consideration is to reward Labour voters up north by taking all of FGW's 158s and sending them to Northern.....

 

[Metroland]

Well there is a lot of crap in the Economist, so we'll take that with a pinch of salt. Deforestation is the second most climate changing activity behind Power stations.

I think what's really worrying, is the new A1 Pacific Tornado puts out 15,000 g co2 per km...Quite a lot of 1940s designed steam loco. Until you put 500 people behind her on a railtour, and it ends up at 30g CO2 per pass km, 5g less than a Pendolino with it's current average load (although admittedly, they could be 16g Co2 per pass km fully loaded).

 

[Royston Vasey]

no, i dont have the data. it was all in The Economist a few months back. and the carbon capturing ability of trees was fully accounted for. what would we do with the wood? well, we can relay the deck on Weston pier to start with.

why would it be madness to let the rail companies do what they wanted? how about if they were run as proper businesses, able to provide the services they wanted (which presumably would be roughly akin to what public demand wanted, after all, theyre going to want to make money out of the deal), instead of being dictated to by politicians whose main consideration is to reward Labour voters up north by taking all of FGW's 158s and sending them to Northern.....

There are a lot of conflicting scientific studies out there and I'm personally pretty sceptical about how much humankind has caused and how much we can do about it, but on the balance of evidence what you're suggesting is phoney science, pure and simple, sorry.

Do you think all those MPs from "up north" are enthusiastic trainspotters who are rubbing the hands at travelling on lovely lovely 158s, thinking "ooh this is a vote winner"?

You can't allow an industry to run itself without regulation or legislation, it's naive to suggest they'd immediately do whatever the passengers want them to, they'd do what was cheapest, they are not the same thing. And remember a large percentage of services in this country run with subsidy. They're a public service and the terms on TOCs' contracts reflect that, in my opinion they must be accountable to the people, and the only mechanism to do that is through the politicians you mention, for all the current lot's faults.

 

[Nick W]

again, something you wont read in mainstream media:
the best way to reduce global warming would be to chop down ALL the worlds trees.

Oh absolutely, no trees, no humans, no climate change.

trees are dark,

so absorb the sun's

light, for photophosphorylation, converting the light energy into chemical energy, in a series of endothermic reactions

if they were removed, and left as scrubland,

which contains the same pigments as trees and should not be any lighter

then the light coloured land would reflect more of the suns heat out. true.

Care to provide some pictures of such *light* coloured land?

so, next time someone bithces at you for taking you SUV down to the shops, tell them what to do with the trees.

Entirely within their freedom to do so, but don't expect any sympathy if there is a price to pay.

as far as rail goes, how about we just let them do what they wanna do, instead of dictating.

Because transport is a *public* service, like the health service and education.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
May I suggest, to make the rails more economical, we continue investment in a signalling system designed to "keep trains going", not stop them, similar to what they are trying and failing to do on motorways with variable speeds?

 

[NSEFAN]

Here's a thought. What about health and safety? Doesn't this cost a large amount of money?

Obviously safety precautions should never be abandoned, and it would be insane to do so. However, some of the newer rules that exist these days require a lot more money to be spent on projects which only cost more because new legislation says that more independent inspectors need to be hired. It just seems a bit excessive. Or does this actually save money?

I'm no expert, but some of the rules in place seem to be more for preventing the government from being sued than actually increasing safety. I imagine there are people on this forum who know a lot more than I do about all this. What I'm asking is that to increase efficiency, would the railways need a change in its attitude towards health and safety?

Note: I'm not saying abandon all health and safety legislation, just asking if maybe some changes are needed, whether its fewer rules or more rules?

 

[Pumbaa]

would the railways need a change in its attitude towards health and safety?

No - I don't think so, because no matter which way you argue it the current HSE and all the associated bumph have got work related accidents and problems etc to their lowest ever level. No matter how much you persuade politicians to look at it logically, they will argue the fact that the current attitude is working and has produced the safest environment to work in.

On that note, are the railways subject to more stringent HSE laws and rules than other establishments, as it's a high-risk work area?

 

[Nick W]

If you're talking about new railway projects, let us not remember the number of people the construction industry "murders" each year. This is why consultants take health and safety so seriously and spend a lot of money identifying risks. Remember, any deaths cost society a lot, more than just money. And if just the monetary costs are taken into account, you've got the policing and health service fees, compensation, loss of work, the need to train a new person.

And as for railway maintenance, I'll let Mr Wright tell us about the dangers of his work and why H&S is so important. IIRC 4 track workers have died already this year!

 

[Mojo]

A prime example is the cost of putting up a bus shelter adjacent to a road and the cost of putting up a bus-style shelter on a station platform.

I don't have the exact prices to hand, but the difference is astonishing!

Aside from the H&S requirements already mentioned, you've got to forget that the planning process in this country and the high land prices are also why building new lines can be rather more expensive in GB than elsewhere.