West Cumbrian Mine gets go ahead

[najaB]

This reminds me of all the work that was done to upgrade the S & C to enable coal trains to run... ...where have all the trains gone?

Fortunately, the market for coal for power stations has all but disappeared. It's a terrible way to generate electricity if you care about homogenetic climate change.

 

[snowball]

This reminds me of all the work that was done to upgrade the S & C to enable coal trains to run. By all accounts the track and infrastructure were in a bad way and millions were invested and yet where have all the trains gone?

Or, more recently, the Shaftholme flyover.

 

[6Gman]

So what route would you use to get it to south Wales?

Coal to South Wales?

Never!

 

[RichmondCommu]

Fortunately, the market for coal for power stations has all but disappeared. It's a terrible way to generate electricity if you care about homogenetic climate change.

I concur. My point is all that money was spent for very little longer term return.

 

[jimm]

Carnforth to Settle Junction I think would need to be upgraded as at the moment there are no intermediate signals so its already quite busy. I think Network Rail is going to do it anyway though.

The single line sections between Sellafield and Maryport I think could pose a problem.

Upgraded for what?

Have you read my post on page 1, no 9, quoting directly from the mining company's brochure on proposed routes for the trains from the mine - Carnforth-Settle Junction is not going to be used and they have been talking to Network Rail for two years about what improvements may be needed on the Cumbrian Coast line.

Is it so hard to actually read the thread before wading in, when what you are talking about is a non-starter and already stated to be so?

I concur. My point is all that money was spent for very little longer term return.

Depends on how you judge value for money - while that coal traffic was running, there was no realistic alternative to sinking the money into the Settle and Carlisle - the WCML and ECML couldn't accommodate that volume of heavy coal trains - and much of the relaying work was undertaken back in 2006, so a good decade-worth of heavy use looks like a fairly long-term period of return on investment to me.

The southbound track is still getting some use from Blea Moor southwards from heavy stone trains from Arcow and Ribblehead quarries but should last for a fair time now that it is not taking a constant pounding from coal wagons. A few trains a week to Scunthorpe or Port Talbot are unlikely to change that.

 

[najaB]

Depends on how you judge value for money - while that coal traffic was running, there was no realistic alternative to sinking the money into the Settle and Carlisle - the WCML and ECML couldn't accommodate that volume of heavy coal trains - and much of the relaying work was undertaken back in 2006, so a good decade-worth of heavy use looks like a fairly long-term period of return on investment to me.

Indeed. If someone had said in the early 2000s that there was no need to do anything because the coal traffic would effectively disappear in a little over ten years they would have been laughed out of the room.

Everyone expected coal traffic to decline, but few people correctly anticipated the rate at which it would do so - the huge fleet of freight locos is as much testament to that as infrastructure enhancements.

 

[ItsGrimUpNorth]

In order to move coal beyond Cumbria to the port of Redcar (for coal export), Scunthorpe and Port Talbot (for coal use in UK steel plants), rail route planning was undertaken to ensure routes are available. The route to Redcar includes use of Bog Junction in Carlisle and the Tyne Valley railway via Tyne Yard, then to Redcar. The route to Scunthorpe is via the Settle and Carlisle line, avoiding Leeds station. The route to Port Talbot includes three variations, involving use of the Settle and Carlisle line, the West Coast Main Line and on to Port Talbot via Cardiff and Bridgend.

Given that the west end of the Tyne Valley is seeing a doubling in Passenger Traffic in the next couple of years, the addition of half a dozen extra freight (assume both ways as will travel back empty?) will see another significant increase in usage of the line!

 

[ac6000cw]

Given that the west end of the Tyne Valley is seeing a doubling in Passenger Traffic in the next couple of years, the addition of half a dozen extra freight (assume both ways as will travel back empty?) will see another significant increase in usage of the line!

Infrastructure is there to be used, otherwise it's just something that costs money to maintain for no benefit...

 

[RichmondCommu]

Depends on how you judge value for money - while that coal traffic was running, there was no realistic alternative to sinking the money into the Settle and Carlisle - the WCML and ECML couldn't accommodate that volume of heavy coal trains - and much of the relaying work was undertaken back in 2006, so a good decade-worth of heavy use looks like a fairly long-term period of return on investment to me.

I'd be surprised if there was a decade worth of heavy use given that the coal traffic had disappeared before the line was closed due to the landslip. I notice that you use the word "fairly", in the private sector you would surely be looking for a greater return on your money.

 

[ac6000cw]

Everyone expected coal traffic to decline, but few people correctly anticipated the rate at which it would do so - the huge fleet of freight locos is as much testament to that as infrastructure enhancements.

EWS specified the class 66 design as a 'mixed freight' loco, not heavy-haul (or what passes for it in the UK) design, because they thought that areas like intermodal had better long-term growth potential and hence they didn't want too many eggs in the heavy-haul basket. But I don't think 20 years ago they could have really predicted the public-opinion/politically-inspired sharp increase in carbon taxes etc. that is driving the recent steep decline in coal-fired power generation.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The southbound track is still getting some use from Blea Moor southwards from heavy stone trains from Arcow and Ribblehead quarries but should last for a fair time now that it is not taking a constant pounding from coal wagons. A few trains a week to Scunthorpe or Port Talbot are unlikely to change that.

As far as I know the sidings at Ribblehead do not see any regular services. From what I understood in terms of infrastructure renewal most of the money was spent north of Blea Moor. It would be great to see more heavy freight using the S & C, especially given all the money that has been spent on it but I shall believe it when I see it.

 

[edwin_m]

public-opinion/politically-inspired sharp increase in carbon taxes etc. that is driving the recent steep decline in coal-fired power generation.

You are Donald Trump and I claim my £5 reward.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Indeed. If someone had said in the early 2000s that there was no need to do anything because the coal traffic would effectively disappear in a little over ten years they would have been laughed out of the room.

Everyone expected coal traffic to decline, but few people correctly anticipated the rate at which it would do so - the huge fleet of freight locos is as much testament to that as infrastructure enhancements.

Those "few" people should have been listened to more carefully, in which case a lot of money could have perhaps been saved. Maybe they would have been laughed out of the room but they of course were right.

How much did the line betweeen Alloa and Kincardine cost to reinstate? Not to mention the flyover at Shaftholme Junction and all the money that was spent on the S & C. The work at Kirkby Thore alone must have cost a fortune.

 

[najaB]

Those "few" people should have been listened to more carefully, in which case a lot of money could have perhaps been saved. Maybe they would have been laughed out of the room but they of course were right.

Their prediction matched the eventuality, but that doesn't mean they should have been listened to. Big infrastructure spend should always be based on the most likely scenario, outlier-based planning leaves you with white elephants or gridlock.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Their prediction matched the eventuality, but that doesn't mean they should have been listened to. Big infrastructure spend should always be based on the most likely scenario, outlier-based planning leaves you with white elephants or gridlock.

And so what have we been left with? Two very expensive white elephants and an upgraded backwater. Of course they should have been listened to, how Network Rail thought they could ignore climate change is beyond me.

 

[najaB]

...[H]ow Network Rail thought they could ignore climate change is beyond me.

They didn't ignore climate change. What they didn't predict correctly was (a) the impact of non-conventional oil, and (b) the level of investment that China has made in renewables. Both of these combined to kill the market for coal-fired power generation about 10 years earlier than anyone had expected.

 

[RichmondCommu]

They didn't ignore climate change. What they didn't predict correctly was (a) the impact of non-conventional oil, and (b) the level of investment that China has made in renewables. Both of these combined to kill the market for coal-fired power generation about 10 years earlier than anyone had expected.

Nothing to do with the carbon tax then? The carbon tax that was introduced in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The carbon tax that has made coal fired power stations unprofitable?

 

[najaB]

The carbon tax that has made coal fired power stations unprofitable?

The intention of carbon taxation was always to make renewable energy more attractive. But it was expected that it would be a much more gradual process than it actually has turned out to be. It's not the long ago that oil was touching on $150/bbl and expected to go higher and solar panels were over $5/W.

In that market carbon capture and storage from coal-fired plants was the Next Big Thing™ and most plants were expected to have 10 to 20 years remaining life at the least.

The collapse in the price of oil to under $50/bbl and cheap solar panels flooding the market (well under $2/W now) was something completely unexpected by most in the energy industry.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The intention of carbon taxation was always to make renewable energy more attractive. But it was expected that it would be a much more gradual process than it actually has turned out to be. It's not the long ago that oil was touching on $150/bbl and expected to go higher and solar panels were over $5/W.

In that market carbon capture and storage from coal-fired plants was the Next Big Thing™ and most plants were expected to have 10 to 20 years remaining life at the least.

The collapse in the price of oil to under $50/bbl and cheap solar panels flooding the market (well under $2/W now) was something completely unexpected by most in the energy industry.

I'm not sure what the price of oil has to go to do with it. Aren't new power stations gas fired? I can't think of any coal fired power stations that have switched to oil. They've either closed or they now burn pellets. Who exactly expected carbon taxation to be more gradual? Network Rail?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Go back to 2006 and there were real capacity concerns over Anglo - Scottish coal via the GSW and the Settle line (which was closed on nights then) - both routes had money spent on IBS signals , partial redoubling around Annan etc etc. (some freight operators asked for passenger services to be thinned out !)

So - the Settle line got some relaying done (twice in some places due to a not very good ballast job done with steel sleepers) , basically the lights were kept on.

No one realised the speed of the coal run down. Period. The railway did not do a bad job with all this extra ton miles put on it as a result of global coal spot markets (and dare I say it - the social policy of running down UK coal deep mining industry by a one time resident of Grantham and East Finchley)

 

[najaB]

I'm not sure what the price of oil has to go to do with it. Aren't new power stations gas fired?

The price of a barrel of oil is a useful proxy for the price of energy generally. When oil was $150/bbl people were seriously looking at coal to gas conversions to provide feedstock for industrial processes. You would be making a huge loss on those processes today.

And that's ignoring the fact that shale oil is usually accompanied by a lot of natural gas.

Who exactly expected carbon taxation to be more gradual? Network Rail?

Everyone in the energy industry expected the modal shift impact of carbon taxation to be more gradual. If you look back to c. 2005, the hot new technology was carbon capture and storage as that was cheap when oil was well over $100/bbl and solar was not far off $10/W. If we were still in that environment then carbon tax would be a far smaller percentage of the cost of conventional power and stations like Longannet would still be open and the SAK line would be busy with coal trains.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Coal to South Wales?

Never!

South Wales has often imported coking coal and metallurgical coke for the steel industry.

As well as crap English house coal (for those not wishing to pay more for a superior local product) , well up to te late 1970's anyway when there was more of an open fire market., and before gas CH came into everyday use.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Go back to 2006 and there were real capacity concerns over Anglo - Scottish coal via the GSW and the Settle line (which was closed on nights then) - both routes had money spent on IBS signals , partial redoubling around Annan etc etc. (some freight operators asked for passenger services to be thinned out !)

So - the Settle line got some relaying done (twice in some places due to a not very good ballast job done with steel sleepers) , basically the lights were kept on.

No one realised the speed of the coal run down. Period. The railway did not do a bad job with all this extra ton miles put on it as a result of global coal spot markets (and dare I say it - the social policy of running down UK coal deep mining industry by a one time resident of Grantham and East Finchley)

But surely there is a difference between simple track relaying, IBS signals in a few places and spending all the money that they did? From memory they spent a small fortune at Kirkby Thore and yet now it seems such a waste.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The price of a barrel of oil is a useful proxy for the price of energy generally. When oil was $150/bbl people were seriously looking at coal to gas conversions to provide feedstock for industrial processes. You would be making a huge loss on those processes today.

And that's ignoring the fact that shale oil is usually accompanied by a lot of natural gas.

However what has any of that got to do with the closure of coal fired power stations?

How many large scale industrial sites are still fired by coal? Other than steel plants and the odd cement works I can't think of any others.

 

[najaB]

However what has any of that got to do with the closure of coal fired power stations?

As I said - shale oil is accompanied by a more than normal amount of shale gas. The two [low oil prices and abundance of gas] are inseparable.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Everyone in the energy industry expected the modal shift impact of carbon taxation to be more gradual. If you look back to c. 2005, the hot new technology was carbon capture and storage as that was cheap when oil was well over $100/bbl and solar was not far off $10/W. If we were still in that environment then carbon tax would be a far smaller percentage of the cost of conventional power and stations like Longannet would still be open and the SAK line would be busy with coal trains.

Who was everyone? Are you suggesting that no one in the energy industry was trying to second guess what Government policy might be going forward? I'm astonished that people were assuming that the price of oil would stay that high or that solar panels would not reduce in price.

 

[RichmondCommu]

As I said - shale oil is accompanied by a more than normal amount of shale gas. The two [low oil prices and abundance of gas] are inseparable.

So are you suggesting that's the only reason why all new power stations are gas fired?

 

[najaB]

I'm astonished that people were assuming that the price of oil would stay that high or that solar panels would not reduce in price.

Non-conventional oil production (fracking to you or me) had a massive and unforeseen transformative effect on the global oil market. In 2010 the consensus was that oil was never going back below $100/bbl.

As for the price of solar and other renewables, we're about 10 years ahead of where people thought we would be - thanks largely to the Chinese.

 

[najaB]

So are you suggesting that's the only reason why all new power stations are gas fired?

Gas is cleaner than coal so it was always favoured on a carbon basis, but remember how a few years ago we were talking about gas shortages and now we aren't? That's because there is a huge glut of natural gas on the market, thanks to fracking.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

But surely there is a difference between simple track relaying, IBS signals in a few places and spending all the money that they did? From memory they spent a small fortune at Kirkby Thore and yet now it seems such a waste.

I do not diasgree , but here was some pressure - the later pressure in the next Control Period was W12 clearance - handled a bit better , with some excellent and money saving results ....

Want to look at wasted freight investment - consider Sundon Loop....on the MML.