Electrification - do we really want more?

[coppercapped]

UK Rail oil consumption is something like 570,000t per annum and increasing as increase in traffic overwhelms marginal improvements in efficiency (old units are not being removed from service and new units are rare).

So that is far from negligible, that is something 11,000bbl a day, which is something like 5% of UK Oil Imports.

Eh?

According to the Government statistics that I was looking at before I wrote my post, in 2015 the UK imported 50,480,000 tonnes of oil, produced another 45,698,000 tonnes off-shore and 853,000 tonnes on-shore. Not all was consumed in the country as some 33,000,000 tonnes were exported.

On these figures the 570,000 tonnes used by the railways per year amounts to 1.1% of the imports and 0.6% of total production.

My point stands.

 

[HSTEd]

Eh?

According to the Government statistics that I was looking at before I wrote my post, in 2015 the UK imported 50,480,000 tonnes of oil, produced another 45,698,000 tonnes off-shore and 853,000 tonnes on-shore. Not all was consumed in the country as some 33,000,000 tonnes were exported.

On these figures the 570,000 tonnes used by the railways per year amounts to 1.1% of the imports and 0.6% of total production.

My point stands.

Correction, 3-5% of net imports. The 570kT figure is also a few years old and I would expect it to be bigger now.
And net imports are the ones that matter since oil is largely (although not entirely) fungible.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

387s on Pompey - Cardiff? Yikes, no thanks!

Who will make use of the 180s? They are a long way off being life expired.

It'd speed up the boarding / alighting times at Temple Meads for starters, when I've down there there's always a scrum and there's never any seats which is why I thought it'd be nice to see 378's running the service once sparked up.

As for the 180's - Hull Trains, Arriva Trains Wales for the Manchester's and possibly Northern for the S&C.

 

[richieb1971]

Railways are so expensive these days.

Once HS2 gets off the ground hopefully that will mean anyone wanting a south-north / north - south fast service will take that. If HS1 is connected and its a complete through service from Paris to Scotland then even better.

But OHLE on heritage lines is kicking the can down the road, because eventually those tracks will have such tight bends for 140mph+ that someone in the future will have the further headache of re-alignments.

I think, that if your going to spend the kind of money the UK government is willing to spend, it needs to future proof us for 3 or 4 decades. Not just 1 decade.

So, my theory is put 25kV on straight tracks, let the old heritage lines stay put and see how we go.

 

[The Ham]

Could I pick up on your points as they do not tell the whole story? I assume you are discussing overhead electrification as third rail has effectively been ruled out for significant extensions.

1. Electrification usually results in quite a lot of infrastructure being maintained and renewed which is getting close to end of life anyway. Re-boring and renewing the Farnworth tunnel is one excellent example. Some will point to this as a reason for high costs but if the infrastructure needs maintaining /renewing anyway it is not really so.

Renewal, etc., may well happen. But it is not a pre-requisite for electrification except where clearance need to be improved for the overhead.

2. Electrification results in faster acceleration, journey time improvements along with capacity improvements

This implies that one is comparing future electric traction with current, that is up to 40 year old, diesel traction. Performance is a question of power-to-weight ratios. Modern diesel power plants can supply sufficient oomph for most purposes for speeds of up to about 200kph. Above this speed, and at the current state-of-the-art with diesel engines, the increase in air resistance demands an external electric power supply.

In practice, capacity - in terms of the number of trains which can be run - is more a question of terminal capacity, signalling, pinch points, etc., than it is about the type of energy supply to the trains.

3. Electrification results in lower maintenance cost with less wear and tear on the track etc.

This ain't necessarily so! The maintenance costs of the overhead are ignored in this statement - the total civils and fixed infrastructure costs will increase. Electric traction will almost certainly bring a reduction in rolling stock maintenance costs. Theoretically electric trains should be lighter than a diesel of equivalent performance as they don't have to carry the mass of the prime mover and, also theoretically, this should bring a reduction in track wear and tear. However suspension design also plays a very important role - the electric Desiros on the South West Trains network were responsible for significant track wear until a different design of suspension bush was fitted.

Mass is not everything!

4. Electrification allows us to go to a lower carbon strategy/economy and thus more “green”.

I agree with the first part of this statement, but the second part, assuming one can agree on the definition of 'green', is not necessarily a consequence of the first.

5. Electrification weans us off crude oil which means we are less dependent on world trouble spots such as the Middle East.

I don't know how often I have to say this - but the quantity of oil used by the railways in the UK is insignificant compared to that used by road transport. If all the trains in the country were electric the reduction in the quantity of oil used would be lost in the noise. Do the maths - for a start there are 28 million motor cars registered in this country. All the HGVs, Transit vans, buses and so on bring the total up to some 35 million vehicles. Against this there are some 3,000 diesel rail vehicles the last time I counted. A drop in the ocean - more so since the rolling resistance of rail vehicles is so much lower than for those with rubber tyres so they get more bang for the barrel!

This is not to say that we should not become less dependent on oil - but electrifying the railways is not an effective way to go about it.

6. Electrification totally of certain areas such as Birmingham New Street (all services) will get rid of diesel particulates which have been shown to be troublesome.

How may of these noisome trains have power units which meet Euro Stage 3B, or even 3A? Many were built before any emissions regulations applied to rail vehicles. It is entirely possible to improve matters with exhaust treatment - using 20 year old and more diesel technology as an example is not, of itself, an argument for electric traction.

9. It reduces noise pollution. (Onboard too)

Sort of. Externally - possibly. But have you stood near a modern German diesel locomotive? These can be really quiet - even when accelerating. Multiple units with 3-phase drives are noisier inside over the traction gubbins than are the insides of a Mk3 coach in an HST.

Not proven!

There are good arguments for electrification - but its enthusiasts should be clear in their own minds that it is not a panacea.

1- If you are having to re-bore a tunnel then the extra cost of doing so to allow electrification at a later date is tiny, so might as well be done. Especially if it also means that the is also flexibility to allow freight trains with higher load levels to maximise capacity.

2 - Modem diesel trains can match EMU acceleration, however that is no guarantee that moden diesels will be used. As such in general with the range of stock that we have now and going forward for the next ten years there it is most likely that electrification will provide better acceleration.

3 - maintenance costs of the OHLE are likely to relatively low compared to that of the reduced costs associated with running diesel trains. Therefore, even if you add a higher track access cost to cover the extra maintenance costs it would still be sufficiently cheaper for the TOC to use EMU's

4 - A reduction in oil use is a reduction in oil use. However it goes beyond just this. Replace a 3 coach DMU with a 4 coach EMU then there's more capacity for people to switch from road to rail. Also the cost to provide extra coaches is reduced and so is more likely to happen. A 3 coach DMU is something like £330,000 whilst a four coach EMU is something like £400,000 in lease costs. Meaning that the extra to run the extra capacity is easier to recoup in ticket sales. Extra capacity is likely to lead to more rail travel which reduces the demand on road travel, reducing the need for oil further.

5 - More passengers on the trains (see above) means less reliance on motor transport, resulting in less oil being used. The a problem with your logic is that one DMU will remove several cars from the road, as such the more capacity the railway provides the fewer cars that there are likely to be on the roads.

6 -even the most modern diesel trains will still provide suffice more particles of pollution than any EMU. Yes modern DMU's will help but they can never be the best solution.

9 - Again you are comparing some very good examples of diesel traction, the general experience in the units in use today will tend to favour tee statement given being true most of the time.

 

[najaB]

If HS1 is connected and its a complete through service from Paris to Scotland then even better.

A HS1/HS2 connection has been ruled out, largely due to the UK not being party to the Schengen agreement and Brexit makes it even less likely to happen.

So, my theory is put 25kV on straight tracks, let the old heritage lines stay put and see how we go.

I'm interested in your definition of 'old heritage lines'. Some examples would be nice.

 

[kylemore]

.
Do we see other countries loosing faith in such grand schemes like this?

Exactly!

The UK is a backwater now in Railway terms and largely a joke - 20 years to build a high speed line from London to Manchester!

The action now is in the East, and we hear surprisingly little about the amazing Rail developments there.

Are they developing their railways based on electrification?

That's far more important than whether a bunch of incompetents in a backwater like the UK have messed up a relatively small electrification scheme.

 

[Flying Phil]

Exactly!

The UK is a backwater now in Railway terms and largely a joke - 20 years to build a high speed line from London to Manchester!

The action now is in the East, and we hear surprisingly little about the amazing Rail developments there.

Are they developing their railways based on electrification?

That's far more important than whether a bunch of incompetents in a backwater like the UK have messed up a relatively small electrification scheme.

Having just googled "Chinese High Speed rail" I am totally in agreement with kylemore.....But I suspect this is one of the prices we have to pay for being a fairly densely populated democracy.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

--But I suspect this is one of the prices we have to pay for being a fairly densely populated democracy.

Dense populations IMHO make the case even more strongly for clean high speed electric train service - my 2 cents.

 

[najaB]

Dense populations IMHO make the case even more strongly for clean high speed electric train service - my 2 cents.

The focus (blame?) should be more on the fact we are a democracy than the population density.

It is a lot easier, cheaper and faster to complete major infrastructure projects when you don't have to bother with pesky things like consultations, compensation for landowners, getting planning permission or the health and safety of the workers.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The focus (blame?) should be more on the fact we are a democracy than the population density.

It is a lot easier, cheaper and faster to complete major infrastructure projects when you don't have to bother with pesky things like consultations, compensation for landowners, getting planning permission or the health and safety of the workers.

OK - now I get -sorry. Yes of course that is correct. The electrification clearance issues would not be an issue at all in a non-democracy for example.

 

[coppercapped]

1- If you are having to re-bore a tunnel then the extra cost of doing so to allow electrification at a later date is tiny, so might as well be done. Especially if it also means that the is also flexibility to allow freight trains with higher load levels to maximise capacity.

2 - Modem diesel trains can match EMU acceleration, however that is no guarantee that moden diesels will be used. As such in general with the range of stock that we have now and going forward for the next ten years there it is most likely that electrification will provide better acceleration.

3 - maintenance costs of the OHLE are likely to relatively low compared to that of the reduced costs associated with running diesel trains. Therefore, even if you add a higher track access cost to cover the extra maintenance costs it would still be sufficiently cheaper for the TOC to use EMU's

4 - A reduction in oil use is a reduction in oil use. However it goes beyond just this. Replace a 3 coach DMU with a 4 coach EMU then there's more capacity for people to switch from road to rail. Also the cost to provide extra coaches is reduced and so is more likely to happen. A 3 coach DMU is something like £330,000 whilst a four coach EMU is something like £400,000 in lease costs. Meaning that the extra to run the extra capacity is easier to recoup in ticket sales. Extra capacity is likely to lead to more rail travel which reduces the demand on road travel, reducing the need for oil further.

5 - More passengers on the trains (see above) means less reliance on motor transport, resulting in less oil being used. The a problem with your logic is that one DMU will remove several cars from the road, as such the more capacity the railway provides the fewer cars that there are likely to be on the roads.

6 -even the most modern diesel trains will still provide suffice more particles of pollution than any EMU. Yes modern DMU's will help but they can never be the best solution.

9 - Again you are comparing some very good examples of diesel traction, the general experience in the units in use today will tend to favour tee statement given being true most of the time.

Thank you for taking the trouble to respond!

You make several interesting points, and certainly to point 1 we are in agreement. My point was that works to re-build/update/whatever the infrastructure really should not be costed as part of an electrification scheme except for those parts which are clearly electrification specific, such as increasing clearances at bridges or removal of the edges of platform awnings. Strictly the incremental cost of, say, making the Farnworth Tunnel a couple of inches bigger to allow for the OHLE should be added to the electrification bill - but in practice the cost difference will probably two tens of not very much and can be safely ignored.

The point of this discussion was whether we want more electrification - but to do that one has to compare the same thing. It does not make sense to compare the performance of new electric trains with old diesel units - one has to compare like-with-like. If electrification is in the offing for any particular route then the implication is that what is currently there is no longer suitable and should be replaced. Therefore one has to compare state-of-the-art electric trains with state-of-the-art diesel trains to see which comes out as being the most economic - in the sense of capex and opex for both rolling stock and infrastructure and for any differences in income between the two models - before a decision is made. That there are few state-of-the-art diesel trains currently in the country is neither here nor there.

The pollution question, specifically the particulates issue, is one where diesel trains will always have the disadvantage at the point of use. The question is rather, whether modern diesel engines - using Stage 3B exhaust gas treatment and start-stop engine control - can be acceptable in situations such as New Street - which is almost unique in its ventilation issues and traffic density. Making a decision to electrify a lot of railway because one station lies in a ditch between two tunnels seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

It is not necessarily the case that trains can replace cars. The DfT publishes statistics on road use and both it and the ORR publish analyses of rail traffic and use. Most car journeys a less than 25 miles and the use peaks for 5 to 10 mile trips. These are, typically, home to work in another suburb, shopping trips, school runs, small town to larger town - in short rail does not compete for these journeys. More passengers on trains - which mostly serve the major flows - will have little significant impact on oil use for road transport. There has been a gentle fall in car use over the last decade or so - but it seems to be correlated with increased congestion in the medium and larger sized towns and cities. These tend to be well served by rail anyway.

 

[ffm]

Simple answer- yes

 

[70014IronDuke]

Yes we do want more -Scotland seems to think so too and I have not heard of any project being cancelled there yet.

I started a thread a while back – “Electrification is not just about electrification”.
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=136891
I have extracted some points from it to illustrate.

1. Electrification usually results in quite a lot of infrastructure being maintained and renewed which is getting close to end of life anyway. Re-boring and renewing the Farnworth tunnel is one excellent example. Some will point to this as a reason for high costs but if the infrastructure needs maintaining /renewing anyway it is not really so.
2. Electrification results in faster acceleration, journey time improvements along with capacity improvements
3. Electrification results in lower maintenance cost with less wear and tear on the track etc.
4. Electrification allows us to go to a lower carbon strategy/economy and thus more “green”.
5. Electrification weans us off crude oil which means we are less dependent on world trouble spots such as the Middle East.
6. Electrification totally of certain areas such as Birmingham New Street (all services) will get rid of diesel particulates which have been shown to be troublesome.
9. It reduces noise pollution. (Onboard too)

That's great. I used to fully subscribe to that. Now, unfortunately, I'd have to change each and every statement you made with the words

"Electrification, when it's working properly, allows/results etc etc .. "

Because, when it doesn't work properly, for whatever reason - be it because a pantograph drags down the wires, or a trampoline blows onto the line, or a yob flings something metal from a bridge .......... etc etc - all this typically results in a monumental breakdown in the service and delays of two hours or three or more.

 

[70014IronDuke]

That may be an effect of reading sites like this, where every disruption becomes highlighted - things that would have passed you by otherwise (because they affect lines far from where you live, and weren't significant enough to warrant mention in a monthly railway magazine).
...

To a certain extent, this is definitely true. However, not all incidents are reported even on this forum, for all its eagle-eyed set of observers.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I certainly want to see the Calder Valley, Huddersfield, York & Selby and Pontefract lines being sparked up along with the Wessex Mainline, Heart of Wessex, ...

the Heart of Wessex? It is single track for much of its length and has about 8 trains each way per day between Weymouth and Westbury. You surely can't be serious?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I certainly want to see the Calder Valley, Huddersfield, York & Selby and Pontefract lines being sparked up along with the Wessex Mainline, Heart of Wessex, the line between Temple Meads and New Street and New Street to Doncaster / Moorthorpe.

I would think the business case for Calder Valley would be reasonably robust.
Finish off Filton triangle and into BTM plus Didcot-Oxford and Thames Valley. Finish off MML. The rest I highly doubt.

 

[AndrewE]

the Heart of Wessex? It is single track for much of its length and has about 8 trains each way per day between Weymouth and Westbury. You surely can't be serious?

You haven't heard of the "sparks effect" then, or think that re-doubling lines to allow massively improved services might help wean the UK off its addiction to carbon-emitting car travel?

Lots of the UK would benefit from a massive investment in integrated (i.e. rail and bus) public transport. Would reduce pollution a lot in lots of places.

 

[muddythefish]

You haven't heard of the "sparks effect" then, or think that re-doubling lines to allow massively improved services might help wean the UK off its addiction to carbon-emitting car travel?

Lots of the UK would benefit from a massive investment in integrated (i.e. rail and bus) public transport. Would reduce pollution a lot in lots of places.

Intergrated transport - dream on! That would involve long term planning, political consensus and a complete reversal of transport policy of the past 40 years. Unfortunately we're not Switzerland and not Germany or even France - transport is this country is a fragmented mess and there's no sign it is likely to change.

 

[richieb1971]

For the record China has the most dense population in the world.

Never understood why farmers/land owners don't sell land. Its only 2 tracks wide and thats small when considering how big the field is. If I owned 20 hectares of land, I don't think a bit of land 20 feet wide going through my estate is going to hurt me some how.

Consultations should have 1 round when its in the national interest.

We need the best of the best to get the work done. Troopers. Network rail should be hiring SAS types that are clinical, fast and precise. That team needs to be in control of all OHLE projects. Teams that fail, get out! Go and get another job. We have at least 20 years of OHLE work so having this A team is paramount in my humble opinion.

The UK needs new rules of engagement, new people. We need to reinvent the wheel. We balls up OHLE and take other countries 2nd tier "hand me down" trains and charge at least twice as much for the privilege of riding on one of their 1st tier faster trains. Sometimes we need to downgrade to diesel power because someones calendar isn't in alignment with someone elses. What a shambles.

 

[superkev]

Doubters should have a look at a YouTube comparison of diesel and electric acceleration. https://youtu.be/LQu-nu3tbKU
Electric motors can for short bursts provide much more than there continuous rating.
K

 

[The Ham]

the Heart of Wessex? It is single track for much of its length and has about 8 trains each way per day between Weymouth and Westbury. You surely can't be serious?

Under current timetables if there were to be a Waterloo to Weymouth via Yeovil service it would be only slightly slower than the slower of the two services which go via Southampton, yet would have stopped at most stations on route after Basingstoke.

The faster if the two services isn't really worth comparing as it runs fast between Waterloo and Winchester, so although it's good for end to end journeys isn't any good for getting from anywhere that it doesn't call at. As such for most places along the route before Winchester it's basically 1tph to Weymouth. As such an increase, even with a 10-15 slower service, will lead to more usage.

Run it once every two hours and you'll double the frequency of the line, add in electrification and gurney times could be very close the existing route and so could then start to be a viable route from London for many.

 

[najaB]

For the record China has the most dense population in the world.

It's not good when the first line of a post is blatantly wrong. China's population density puts it way down the list - #79 on this site: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=21000

Note that the UK is #50.

 

[MatthewRead]

Please electrify the main line through Devon then some of the redundant conventional EMU's have a new home to go to

 

[squizzler]

With the modern structure clearance standards being cited as a major factor in making electrification unaffordable, can we look at a reduced voltage again? Especially if we drop out of the European Union and no longer have to comply with TSI's.

If we had to reinvent electrification from scratch engineers would probably choose direct current over the established single phase alternating current. The Russians did some interesting work with DC OLE at 6kv (close to the 6.25kv AC voltage considered for the tunnels of the 1960's WCML scheme), and later when power electronics improved again, 12kv DC. According to Wikipedia, "12 kV DC was claimed to have the same technical-economic advantages as 25 kV AC while costing less and putting a balanced load on the nation's AC power grid (there is no Reactive power problem to deal with). Opponents pointed out that it would create a third standard electrification system in the USSR."

Regarding the latter point, all electric stock would have to be dual voltage (as indeed would now be the case if the BR 6.25kv had been adopted in the 1960s). Unlike current dual voltage stock there will not need to be two separate current collectors, as all power will come via pantograph.

 

[Railsigns]

Regarding the latter point, all electric stock would have to be dual voltage (as indeed would now be the case if the BR 6.25kv had been adopted in the 1960s).

It was adopted in the 1960s and a.c. stock was dual voltage. The 6.25 kV sections have since been converted to 25 kV, however.

 

[najaB]

With the modern structure clearance standards being cited as a major factor in making electrification unaffordable...

But it isn't. Raising a bridge by 50cm costs basically the same as raising it by 75cm or even 1m. What has caused the massive cost inflation has been raising the same bridges *twice* - once to the old standard and again to the new.

The new standards might mean that some structures need alterations that wouldn't have been necessary under the old standards, but the side effect is that routes will be cleared to larger structures gauge than they would have been by squeezing OHLE into the existing infrastructure.

 

[squizzler]

But it isn't. Raising a bridge by 50cm costs basically the same as raising it by 75cm or even 1m. What has caused the massive cost inflation has been raising the same bridges *twice* - once to the old standard and again to the new.

The new standards might mean that some structures need alterations that wouldn't have been necessary under the old standards, but the side effect is that routes will be cleared to larger structures gauge than they would have been by squeezing OHLE into the existing infrastructure.

I guess you refer specifically the GWRM project which is in progress and is already destined to be 25kv.

The die might already be cast on Brunel's route, but could subsequent electrification schemes be more cost effective using a "goldilocks" DC voltage between the two common standards of 750v DC and 25kv AC? Even with dual voltage stock for the new routes taken into account? All off the peg European locos and most EMU's can be specified as multi voltage. The Class 800 could no doubt in future house its DC converters in the space currently occupied by the diesels

 

[najaB]

I guess you must be discussing the GWRM project which is in progress and is already destined to be 25kv.

Edinburgh-Glasgow electrification has been hit by this as well.

Maybe future electrification schemes could be more cost effective using a "goldilocks" DC voltage between the two common standards of 750v DC and 25kv AC?

Can't really see the advantage though. If you're going to go OHLE then you might as well use the highest voltage feasible - there was a thread posted not too long ago pointing out the significant benefits of going up to 50kV AC.

 

[squizzler]

Can't really see the advantage though. If you're going to go OHLE then you might as well use the highest voltage feasible - there was a thread posted not too long ago pointing out the significant benefits of going up to 50kV AC.

One could be forgiven for thinking that 25kv, let alone 50kv AC, is too high to be economically feasible in light of the modern clearance standards.