Rail electrification scrapped / 'suspended'?

[coppercapped]

In fact I have had to have a fuel tank changed, half way through the 16-year life of a car.

However I agree that fuel tanks was a poor analogy, but I think that batteries and wheelsets are a good one. You know that both will need changing during the life of the vehicle, both are recyclable (fully, I hope, with money back on the re-usable content) and I just don't see why changing a battery set is a show-stopper... Why do you assume batteries are non-starters simply because they will need changing at some point?

The battery analogy is the appropriate one as both the fuel tank and the battery contain the chemical energy to propel the train. The other items are consumables and have to be replaced whatever the source of the traction energy.

Batteries are non-starter because they are a VERY EXPENSIVE way to store energy. It doesn't matter one iota if they are recyclable or not - recycling also costs money and energy and also gives rise to emissions of one sort or another. The rebate on a new battery may not be as large as one would wish. There are also losses involved in charging batteries - they get hot - and losses involved in discharging batteries - they get hot. Unless you spill the diesel over your feet while fuelling the losses are minimal - some electricity for running the pumps.

The emissions argument does not hold water - any new train has to meet Euro Stage 3B so to compare a future diesel with today's units is missing the point.

There will certainly be some niche applications where using batteries makes sense - but for general use I cannot understand why anyone would plan a new train knowing that its running costs will almost certainly be higher than an equivalent new diesel unit.

Battery technology is also improving - some more capacity will be possible in a given weight and manufacturing costs will fall further. But the fundamental chemistry that batteries use was fixed 13.8 billion years ago and cannot be altered.

 

[delticdave]

Thanks for dismissing an entire profession there. Much appreciated.

Not an entire profession, the retired electrification engineers must be wondering just what was wrong with their 50+ years old 25kV AC installations.

FWIW, I was around & taking a keen interest in the N.East London & initial West Coast schemes &, since the OHLE is still in service, I'm wondering why
it was felt necessary to start again from scratch.

If it's all about higher speeds, the (French inspired?) OHLE on HS1 seems to be
quite simple, without over-designed steel-work, albeit with closer spaced masts.

Confuzzled, as always...........

 

[delticdave]

There are several aspects to the third rail issue.

Firstly, insofar as the ORR is a safety regulator (its largest but by no means only job) it has to interpret, apply and enforce safety law - Health & Safety at Work, Electricity at Work Regulations, etc., etc. ORR doesn't write or make up the law itself.

Secondly, concepts of 'reasonable practicability' and 'as low as reasonably practicable' are quite stiff 'tests'. They certainly don't mean that just because something was accepted as safe in 1917 it still is now. Given that no other 'main line' railway in the world is finding it necessary to use third rails on new electrification schemes it is far from clear that they are the 'only solution' in Britain.

Thirdly, the fact that in recent years there has been a rapid increase in the number of train (and tram) designs with dual voltage, bi-mode or now battery capability means that even extensions of third rail areas, such as Uckfield, no longer 'have to' be third rail.

In my rail career I was quite relaxed about working with third rails in North London, on Merseyside and then south of the Thames. However, there was then a sad coincidence of events. I had to deal with a 9-year-old who was killed after getting onto the line through a hole in the fence made by rail staff to create a shortcut to a depot. Then I was standing right next to a member of track staff who was electrocuted after a section was livened up in error. (Fortunately they survived.) The lesson I learnt was that you can have all the signs and rules you want but having socking great high-current dc conductors on the ground in easy reach of people will eventually catch you out.

The Siemens test track in Germany was fitted with BR/SR 3rd rail (to test 3rd rail trains....) but it seems to be covered in an insulating material excepting the top contact surface.
Would such a concept satisfy today's regulations?

DC

 

[AndrewE]

There will certainly be some niche applications where using batteries makes sense - but for general use I cannot understand why anyone would plan a new train knowing that its running costs will almost certainly be higher than an equivalent new diesel unit.

How about because (for a battery/OHLE hybrid) you avoid getting involved in all the messy refuelling, lubricant changing, and all the other dirty stuff that goes with diesel power units, whereas your battery/OHLE hybrid end-of-line EMU stays in clean depots & only needs 1 sort of engineer! This is in the context of the discussion about the Windermere Branch.

For long-distance trains I cannot understand the proposals for most bi-modes: You are always dragging round either the transformer (off the wires) or a diesel engine and all its anciliary stuff (fuel and cooling etc)when in electric mode - with pathetic performance off the wires to boot. Not a recipe for the efficient use of energy.

Give me the WCML-as-was, with loco changes where appropriate. It is only the obsession with apparent costs (i.e. not employing people) that causes the amount of diesel-under the wires we suffer from now A second driver moving the loco back onto the train... and a shunter to couple it up as well? Outrageous!
(- except where HSTs are the mainstay of an electrified main line, but the ECML never really was up to scratch. )

 

[D365]

Thanks for dismissing an entire profession there. Much appreciated.

You are more than welcome.

I thought that we were supposed to be inspiring (future) engineers to take a passion in their industry? Or are we simply taking a "mythical bird of the galaxies" approach by damning the engineers when any one failure occurs, but not acknowledging any contribution when impressive feats are achieved?

 

[D365]

Give me the WCML-as-was, with loco changes where appropriate. It is only the obsession with apparent costs (i.e. not employing people) that causes the amount of diesel-under the wires we suffer from now A second driver moving the loco back onto the train... and a shunter to couple it up as well? Outrageous!
(- except where HSTs are the mainstay of an electrified main line, but the ECML never really was up to scratch. )

We really don't need to get into this argument again it's been done to death for years.

 

[AndrewE]

We really don't need to get into this argument again it's been done to death for years.

...except that in the light of the thread title it is relevant again - and technology might have moved on since it was last discussed.

If we can't have more wires (but we all want better performance etc) then we have to understand the options. Dragging either a non-working feeble diesel (with fuel and coolants) or a switched-off 25kV transformer around on every train all the time strikes me as barmy.

 

[najaB]

For long-distance trains I cannot understand the proposals for most bi-modes: You are always dragging round either the transformer (off the wires) or a diesel engine and all its anciliary stuff (fuel and cooling etc)when in electric mode - with pathetic performance off the wires to boot. Not a recipe for the efficient use of energy.

I keep seeing this (or similar) claim without any evidence to back it up. My understanding is that 800s will run to HST timings with the engines in their derated mode. I'd really appreciate if you could provide an authoritative source that says otherwise. Thanks.

 

[delticdave]

As a resident of Marshlink you'll not be surprised to find that I share your disappointment that the through Ashford to Brighton service is being truncated but....
a) a through service to St Pancras is more beneficial for the local economy
b) 15 years after the Thumpers were replaced by inadequate 2 car trains there is still no prospect of them being increased to the now necessary 4 cars
c) combination of the Ore tunnel closures and the various industrial Southern disputes has caused the lines revenue to collapse and is probably back to pre 171 days.

As i see it:
a) responsibility for the line resting with Southeastern is likely to be a positive in securing the Marshlink HS. The rail industry is quite anti this scheme when it could be introduced within a few years with one crossover at Ashford and a follow on order of bi mode trains.
b) the cost of the crossover could be mitigated by removing unnecessary through lines at Tonbridge, Paddock Wood, Headcorn and Ashford. Ashford needs alterations to the signalling to support LZB for the Eurostar services anyway.
c) the obvious lines to start a transfer from dc to ac are in any case in Kent not Hampshire with a marshland ac scheme as an add on because the existing rolling stock is compatible and there are easily accessible feds from the national grid.
The Ashford to Brighton service needs a bid from an open access operator, it needs to start back from at least Canterbury West (if not Margate) to capture the student market and it needs to have enough coaches on to stop at Falmer and probably not Polegate!

Just one new crossover at Ashford to get a train from Marshlink to HS1?
I assume that a Marshlink train would still need a station stop / platform at Ashford?

 

[yorksrob]

As a resident of Marshlink you'll not be surprised to find that I share your disappointment that the through Ashford to Brighton service is being truncated but....
a) a through service to St Pancras is more beneficial for the local economy
b) 15 years after the Thumpers were replaced by inadequate 2 car trains there is still no prospect of them being increased to the now necessary 4 cars
c) combination of the Ore tunnel closures and the various industrial Southern disputes has caused the lines revenue to collapse and is probably back to pre 171 days.

As i see it:
a) responsibility for the line resting with Southeastern is likely to be a positive in securing the Marshlink HS. The rail industry is quite anti this scheme when it could be introduced within a few years with one crossover at Ashford and a follow on order of bi mode trains.
b) the cost of the crossover could be mitigated by removing unnecessary through lines at Tonbridge, Paddock Wood, Headcorn and Ashford. Ashford needs alterations to the signalling to support LZB for the Eurostar services anyway.
c) the obvious lines to start a transfer from dc to ac are in any case in Kent not Hampshire with a marshland ac scheme as an add on because the existing rolling stock is compatible and there are easily accessible feds from the national grid.
The Ashford to Brighton service needs a bid from an open access operator, it needs to start back from at least Canterbury West (if not Margate) to capture the student market and it needs to have enough coaches on to stop at Falmer and probably not Polegate!

All fair points, I just think you could have the through Ashford - Brighton service and St Pancras to Hastings far more easily with the third rail, particularly as the conversion to AC is more distant a prospect than ever.

There's no reason why South Eastern couldn't run the London service while Southern ran the Coastway.

 

[AndrewE]

I keep seeing this (or similar) claim without any evidence to back it up. My understanding is that 800s will run to HST timings with the engines in their derated mode. I'd really appreciate if you could provide an authoritative source that says otherwise. Thanks.

for a start, Wikipedia says

125 mph (200 km/h)(140 mph, 225 km/h using ETCS in-cab signalling) [but only] 100 mph, (160 km/h) with diesel-power only

 

[HSTEd]

I keep seeing this (or similar) claim without any evidence to back it up. My understanding is that 800s will run to HST timings with the engines in their derated mode. I'd really appreciate if you could provide an authoritative source that says otherwise. Thanks.

Well HST timings are pretty pathetic by modern standards.

A 222 or 180 will leave them for dead.

 

[Olaf]

Has anyone noticed that after the 2015 election the Conservatives announced delays in electrifying the Midland Main Line and other lines and they deliberately waited until after the election.

Its now been just over a month since the last election and they have announced this, I think again they deliberately waited until after the election again.

The announcement was delayed to the end of the Parliamentary session, but decision was based on NR being unable to get control of the delivery; in short NR has blown all trust in it program management capabilities, and the final cost due to it's failures are still not known.

 

[absolutelymilk]

for a start, Wikipedia says

However 800s have much better acceleration, so it is possible the two balance out.

 

[Olaf]

Abject Failure dressed up - a British speciality - see Dunkirk!

Talk about polishing a Turd!

Would that include failure to understand why this has come about?

 

[najaB]

for a start, Wikipedia says

First off, Wikipedia isn't authoritative. Secondly, top speed isn't everything - it's acceleration that really matters.

Other than the MML there really isn't that much sustained >100mph running out there for a higher top speed to make a difference.

 

[Olaf]

Bi-modes are being used as the excuse.

Bi-modes are a fortunate contingency that came good.

 

[Olaf]

In different financial circumstances, or with different political will, bi-modes could be used to facilitate electrification, by allowing the wires to be extended along a route, or onto branch routes, at whatever pace was practicable, without having to be coordinated with the introduction of new trains.

That will still happen, provided projects return an adequate Cost/Benefit after taking into account the the more realistic costings for implementation.

 

[najaB]

A 222 or 180 will leave them for dead.

With the 220 chewing up the track in the process.

 

[Olaf]

I have to say this is the most short sighted, politically dubious decision among many.

What Network Rail and the country as a whole needs is a continuous rolling program of electrification. .

It is not essential to providing the required level of service, something which the Digital Railway initiative is expected to deliver more effectively.

 

[Olaf]

With the world now looking to rapidly developing electric cars and buses. The UK puts its faith in diesel. It's a wonder we ever stopped building steam engines or abandoned the horse as our principle form of motive power.

With the evolution of electric and autonomous control of road vehicles it is possible that we have passed or are about to pass the peak in recent growth in commuter rail, with a shift back to road transport which gives users more freedom. Still a value in longer distance travel for now, but is investment of such large sums by Government the most effective way of going forward?

 

[Olaf]

One thing to worry about is we are going to have a good 3-4 year gap after the current crop of electrification projects are finished and before any work is needed on HS2 (and around another 5 years before NPR/Hs2 phase 2) so back to the old issue of skills and equipment disappearing from lack of use.

That is the cost of failing to deliver on agreed commitments - it throws everything up in the air.

 

[Olaf]

The country is not poor.
The country is not going to be poor.
The country can easily afford a billion or two that buys improvements in the balance of payments (replacing expensive liquid fuels with cheap power station fuel, be it uranium, gas, coal or petcoke)

It is not the absolute cost that has caused this halt, but rather the concern that the cost increases are open ended, and that there is no confidence the time-scales to completion.

In terms of additional cost (across all NR output); it is running at about GBP 6 Billion over-spend due to budgeted costs, and/or non-delivery within the agreed time-scales. That figure has not been finalised because NR STILL has not got its costs and delivery program under control, it has made no progress on selling assets to recover opver-spend, and there are still two years to run of CP5.

The Minister therefore had no option but to protect the Tax payer especially after the damning report from the Labour-lead Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in March (IIRC).

Electrification is not dead, but the analysis and regulation of any enhancements work going forward will be substantially more stringent. Nothing can go forward however until a report is delivered on the investigation into the rail enhancements program to look at how program delivery can be brought under control.

P.S.
With the demands on additional funds from the likes of the NHS, Police, the Armed Services, Local Services, etc, etc, the Program Management Team at NR should be ashamed of itself.

 

[Olaf]

The sad news in all this is the fact that teams which have reached a peak level of performance and experience will be broken up and we will very quickly return to square one. again.



this! and especially b

I beg your pardon, but if any of the teams are de-resourced it is because they have NOT reached even an adequate level of performance.

 

[AndrewE]

First off, Wikipedia isn't authoritative. Secondly, top speed isn't everything - it's acceleration that really matters.

http://www.ieptrain.co.uk/technical-configuration/ says
"5 car trains have generators under 3 of the carriages" - so that's 3 x 560 kW, a total of 1680 kW for 5 coaches, HSTs have something like 3300 kW available for 10 vehicles, so not a bad comparison...
Voyagers are 560 kW per car, or 2800 kW for 5 coaches! I don't know the rating of the transformer on an IEP, or how many axles are powered in 25kV mode, but it could be 40% more kW altogether.

 

[AndrewE]

With the evolution of electric and autonomous control of road vehicles it is possible that we have passed or are about to pass the peak in recent growth in commuter rail, with a shift back to road transport which gives users more freedom. Still a value in longer distance travel for now, but is investment of such large sums by Government the most effective way of going forward?

How does an autonomous vehicle not cause or suffer from congestion? I would have thought that staying within the law and obeying every rule (and taking no risks) they might be less efficient users of road-space than the ordinary cars they might replace.
It's the same as when people propose drones and helicopters for replacing road transport: If the roads can't cope with demand (and are much less safe than rail-guided transport) how the hell can anyone propose helicopters to combat congestion when they don't even have lane markings to guide them?

 

[Olaf]

Wish I'd voted in the Green Party or Liberal Democrats they would have continued these projects and introduced electrification to the far South West.

Those loonies would never have got around to it; they would have been too busy chasing fairies and unicorns.

 

[Olaf]

Gotta love all those who ridiculed anyone for suggesting bi-modes would cause electrification to be cancelled backtracking wildly. If pure off the shelf electric trains had been ordered they would have had to complete the damn thing. Bi-modes have directly facilitated them being able to cancel electrification with little consequence. Therefore bi-modes are directly part of the problem that electrification is in tatters. Well bi-mode fans I hope you are happy.....

The bi-modes were a fortunate contingency that cae good; the program has failed and that is why these projects were cancelled - that would have happened if the bi-modes were not available with operators resorting to life extensions on HSTs.

 

[Darandio]

with operators resorting to life extensions on HSTs.

The froth would be even more unbearable.

 

[Olaf]

Would it be now worth pressing for the following bits to be done as 3rd rail?

* Waterloo-Exeter, at least as far as Salisbury
* Marshlink Line
* North Downs Line
* Uckfield Line

or will absolutely all new electrification projects (either 3rd rail or OLE) now be on indefinite hold?

Anything not currently committed for delivery in CP5 goes back into the melting pot and must go through the new process, whatever that will be, to compete for available funding, whatever that may be.