• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Rail electrification scrapped / 'suspended'?

Status
Not open for further replies.

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
10,492
Location
Preston Lancs
I like the description ;)

But, yes, on a big project you definitely do need hard-nosed, blunt, know-how-to-use-a-spade project management who can tell if they're getting the whole story from their subordinates instead of what they think the boss wants to hear. Those sort of managers don't come cheap, but they're worth it.

Agreed - Mr. Hard Nose rather than Mr. Brown Nose is definitely what is needed. :)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,915
Location
Mold, Clwyd
A very perceptive piece.
He's right about electrification being about rolling stock cascades.
When Andrew Adonis approved GW wiring (ahead of MML) it was because the plan was to cascade 319s there (and to the NW area).
MML doesn't have the same potential for onward cascades.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,261
you definitely do need hard-nosed, blunt, know-how-to-use-a-spade project management who can tell if they're getting the whole story from their subordinates instead of what they think the boss wants to hear. Those sort of managers don't come cheap, but they're worth it.
Sir Peter Hendy fitted that description to a T for many years, but since joining Network Rail he seems to have gone to ground completely. I'm surprised Grayling has not asked for his resignation.

Overall, it's the right decision for the government, who have seen their money just ******ed up against a wall. Enough is enough.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
8,144
Location
Leeds
A report that Britain to ban sale of all diesel and petrol cars and vans from 2040:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...all-diesel-and-petrol-cars-and-vans-from-2040

Anushka Asthana Political editor and Matthew Taylor

Tuesday 25 July 2017 22.38 BST
Last modified on Tuesday 25 July 2017 22.44 BST

As part of a government strategy to improve air quality, Britain is to ban all new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2040 amid fears that rising levels of nitrogen oxide pose a major risk to public health.

The commitment, which follows a similar pledge in France, is part of the government’s much-anticipated clean air plan, which has been at the heart of a protracted high court legal battle.

The government warned that the move was needed because of the unnecessary and avoidable impact that poor air quality was having on people’s health. Ministers believe it poses the largest environment risk to public health in the UK, costing up to £2.7bn in lost productivity in one recent year.

Ministers have been urged to introduce charges for vehicles to enter a series of “clean air zones”. However, the government only wants taxes to be considered as a final resort amid a backlash against any move that punishes motorist.

“Poor air quality is the biggest environmental risk to public health in the UK and this government is determined to take strong action in the shortest time possible,” a government spokesman said.

“That is why we are providing councils with new funding to accelerate development of local plans, as part of an ambitious £3bn programme to clean up dirty air around our roads.”

The final plan, which was due by the end of July, comes after a draft report that environmental lawyers described as “much weaker than hoped for”.

The environment secretary, Michael Gove, will be hoping for a better reception when he publishes the final document on Wednesday following months of legal wrangling.

A briefing on parts of the plan, seen by the Guardian, repeats the heavy focus on the steps that can be taken to help councils improve air quality in specific areas where emissions have breached EU thresholds.

Measures to be urgently brought in by local authorities that have repeatedly breached EU rules include retrofitting buses and other public transport, changing road layouts and altering features such as roundabouts and speed humps.

Reprogramming traffic lights will also be included in local plans, with councils being given £255m to help accelerate their efforts. Local emissions hotspots will be required to layout their plans by March 2018 and finalise them by the end of the year.

A targeted scrappage scheme is also expected to be included.

Some want the country-wide initiative to follow in the footsteps of London, which is introducing a £10 toxic “T-charge” that will be levied on up to 10,000 of the oldest, most polluting vehicles every weekday.

Sources insisted that while the idea of charges were on the table, there was no plan to force councils to introduce them, and that other measures would be exhausted first.

They hope the centrepiece of Wednesday’s strategy to be put forward by Gove, will be the plan to ban diesel and petrol sales completely by 2040 in line with Emmanuel Macron’s efforts across the Channel.

The French president took the steps to help his country meet its targets under the Paris climate accord, in an announcement that came a day after Volvo said it would only make fully electric or hybrid cars from 2019 onwards.

That decision was hailed as the beginning of the end for the internal combustion engine’s dominance of motor transport after more than a century.

Nicolas Hulot, France’s ecology minister, called the move towards a ban a “veritable revolution”, describing it as a “tough” objective for carmakers but insisted the industry was well equipped to make the switch.

“Our [car]makers have enough ideas in the drawer to nurture and bring about this promise ... which is also a public health issue.”

Prof David Bailey, an automotive industry expert at Aston University, said: “The timescale involved here is sufficiently long term to be taken seriously. If enacted it would send a very clear signal to manufacturers and consumers of the direction of travel and may accelerate a transition to electric cars.”

Britain’s air quality package also includes £1bn in ultra-low emissions vehicles including investing nearly £100m in the UK’s charging infrastructure and funding the Plug in Car and Plug in Grant schemes.

There will also be £290m for the national productivity investment fund, which will go towards the retrofitting, and money towards low emission taxis.

The report will also include an air quality grant for councils, a green bus fund for low carbon vehicles, £1.2bn for cycling and walking and £100m to help air quality on the roads.

The strategy comes amid warnings that the UK’s high level of air pollution could be be responsible for 40,000 premature deaths a year.

A judge had said the government’s original plans on tackling the issue, which included five clean air zones, were so poor as to be unlawful. The government had been asked to present a new draft policy to tackle air pollution from diesel traffic before the election.

The government was then called to court to explain why it had made a last-minute application late last Friday to delay publication of a draft policy to tackle air pollution until after the election.

James Eadie QC, representing the government, said the policy was ready to be published but it would be controversial and should therefore be withheld until after the election.

“If you publish a draft plan, it drops all the issues of controversy into the election … like dropping a controversial bomb,” he said, adding that it could risk breaching rules about civil service neutrality and lead to the policy being labelled a Tory plan.

However, judges said the government did have to publish a draft plan with the final version needed by the end of July.

May’s draft contained few concrete proposals and did not specify the cities and towns where polluting vehicles might face charges, the level of any charges or the scope or value of any scrappage scheme.

Instead, the plan puts the onus for action on local authorities: “Local authorities are already responsible for improving air quality in their area, but will now be expected to develop new and creative solutions to reduce emissions as quickly as possible, while avoiding undue impact on the motorist.”

Analysis in the documents showed increasing the number of clean air zones (CAZ) from the current six planned to 27 would make by far the greatest impact in cutting pollution and provide cost benefits of over £1bn. The CAZ policy would cut more than 1,000 times more NO2 than a scrappage scheme, even if that scheme required old diesels to be replaced by electric cars.

But it required local authorities to exhaust all other options before introducing CAZ charging for diesel vehicles such as removing speed bumps and retrofitting buses.

At the time Thornton said: “The plan looks much weaker than we had hoped for. The court ordered the government to take this public health issue seriously and while the government says that pollution is the largest environmental risk to public health, we will still be faced with illegal air quality for years to come under these proposals.”

ClientEarth, the campaign group that has successfully pursued the government through the courts over the UK’s air pollution crisis, gave a cautious welcome to the announcement but said ministers must take action now to tackle the UK’s air pollution crisis.

“The government has trumpeted some promising measures with its air quality plans, but we need to see the detail,” said CEO James Thornton. “A clear policy to move people towards cleaner vehicles by banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars and vans after 2040 is welcome, as is more funding for local authorities.

“However, the law says ministers must bring down illegal levels of air pollution as soon as possible, so any measures announced in this plan must be focused on doing that.”

London mayor Sadiq Khan has been calling for tougher measures to tackle air pollution which kills 9,000 people a year in the capital.

A City Hall source was sceptical about the government’s announcement.”We need to look at the full details but what Londoners suffering from the terrible health impacts of air pollution desperately need is a fully-funded diesel scrappage fund – and they need it right now.”

Areeba Hamid, clean air campaigner at Greenpeace, said: “The high court was clear that the government must bring down toxic air pollution in the UK in the shortest possible time. This plan is still miles away from that.
The government cannot shy away any longer from the issue of diesel cars clogging up and polluting our cities, and must now provide real solutions, not just gimmicks. That means proper clean air zones and funding to support local authorities to tackle illegal and unsafe pollution.”
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,335
Location
Greater Manchester
There is a difference between present and future tense; I am not expecting it to remain wholly within NR's remit.

Whatever the organisational structure, the Digital Railway will undoubtedly involve substantial changes to Network Rail's infrastructure and operations, and require the expertise of Network Rail specialists, especially signalling engineers and timetable planners. Unlike electrification, it will also involve new and untested technology, with the consequent risk that its advocates will over-hype the benefits and underestimate the challenges to an even greater extent.

If the plan is to parachute in external project managers and consultants who lack previous rail industry experience, I am not convinced that that is a magic wand to transform Network Rail's enhancement project delivery performance.
 

Sceptre

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
187
Location
Leeds
The Wednesday front pages announcing the ban on diesel cars from 2040 convinces me that this is more a political decision than a financial one.

In effect, Osborne thought that electrification was good, so May thinks it's automatically bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
8,144
Location
Leeds
I think the cars stuff is driven by the legal actions against the goverment about pollution control rather than by the rail electrification stuff.
 

muddythefish

On Moderation
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
1,581
So the govt announces we will all be driving electric cars within 25 years in the same week it announces the cancellation of railway electrification schemes in favour of bimode diesels.

Classic British bodge
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
I am utterly speechless at this Government. Days after announcing they are scrapping most electrification schemes because they want the almighty bi-mode everywhere around the country they have the bare faced cheek to announce they want to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040.
 
Last edited:

MarlowDonkey

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2013
Messages
1,860
Days after announcing they are scrapping most electrification schemes because they want to almighty bi-mode everywhere around the country they have the bare faces cheek to announce they want to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040.

It's a policy that has to survive at least 4 General Elections.

If you have a decent sized detached house with room for a couple of cars on the drive, installing solar panels and charge leads is feasible. I would have thought that if you are proposing a trip of more than 100 miles, it's only hybrids that are plausible.

There's a little bit of connected thinking there. Renewable energy will generate power when you don't really need it. So what to do with the excess? Store it in vehicles. That already happens with petrol and diesel reserves. We drive around with them.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,309
But your vehicle is not always available to be charged, it can also only accept small amounts of energy at one time. [Its operational capacity is only a few kWh, since people will not want to drive around with a battery at 10% charge or something]
 
Last edited:

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
It's a policy that has to survive at least 4 General Elections.

If you have a decent sized detached house with room for a couple of cars on the drive, installing solar panels and charge leads is feasible. I would have thought that if you are proposing a trip of more than 100 miles, it's only hybrids that are plausible.

There's a little bit of connected thinking there. Renewable energy will generate power when you don't really need it. So what to do with the excess? Store it in vehicles. That already happens with petrol and diesel reserves. We drive around with them.

So why have they signed agreements for trains that will be running on diesel well into the 2040's because they have scrapped all the electrification that would have got them off of diesel power? This is utterly insane! On one hand scrap electrification and use bi-mode trains that waste energy constantly but then tell the electorate they aren't allowed to purchase petrol or diesel cars in 20 yrs time. Cancellation of electrification was inevitable the moment the bi-mode was rolled out in this country but this is utter hypocrisy.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
8,254
So why have they signed agreements for trains that will be running on diesel well into the 2040's because they have scrapped all the electrification that would have got them off of diesel power? This is utterly insane! On one hand scrap electrification and use bi-mode trains that waste energy constantly but then tell the electorate they aren't allowed to purchase petrol or diesel cars in 20 yrs time. Cancellation of electrification was inevitable the moment the bi-mode was rolled out in this country but this is utter hypocrisy.

The focus on future electrification will probably be urban areas for pollution reduction benefits where the problems are greatest.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,499
Location
Cheshire
My heart sank when I read the phrase "Digital Railway". Don't get me wrong, I'm all for any solutions that increase capacity and improve performance, but don't be entirely fooled into thinking that when the government uses the word digital that they actually mean implementing technical solutions. I can't say too much about this, but believe me when I say there are teams all across the public sector busily working under the title "Digital xxxxxxx" yet few are actually dedicated to actually implementing digital solutions. The word digital has become a buzz word designed to look like something is happening, when in reality many of these teams haven't a clue how you would actually do this. But they are quite good at presenting presentations and designing logos & rhetoric for websites. So much so I have developed my own phrase, "Digital On Paper" which just about sums up how I feel about it. Not so long ago a manager of one of these "Digital" teams said this to me which really summed it all up, "You're a coder aren't you? Coders intimidate me.......". So don't believe everything you read, even if the digital railway concept gets beyond PowerPoint, there's a whole team of financial analysts waiting in the wings to tell you why it cant be done......

As for the proposed diesel ban, I'm sorry to say but this was inevitable. Not only because of the pollution issues and potentially linked deaths, but oil is a finite commodity that will run out. But even before it does we have to face the reality that many of the oil producing countries are unstable, and that future supply & cost is unpredictable as a result. So if we can at least move some of our dependence away from it, in this case our transport needs then that at least means that future supplies can be concentrated on the myriad of other production uses it has. Of course eventually we will have to move away from oil all together, whether we want to or not.

And the point has already been made but is worth making again. As the government announces a future ban on diesel, over on the rail network they are planning to scale back electrification and keep using diesel. You really couldn't make it up. It pretty much sums this country up at the moment, disjointed and confused.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,642
Location
Nottingham
I imagine what is in mind for Piccadilly, assuming for the moment this government is capable of coherent policy or presentation, is some form of transmission-based train control (TBTC). This is capable of reducing the re-occupancy time of platforms by allowing a second train to approach within the limits of braking distance from the speed it is doing, rather than being constrained by the position of fixed signals. On the TBTC Underground lines if a train is held in a platform the next one can approach to within a few tens of metres. Crossrail and Thameslink central sections have something similar.

However this does require all the trains in question to have the complex on-board equipment needed for fine supervision of speed, and probably also automatic train operation. Fitting this, especially to the older trains that will still operate through Picadilly for many years yet, is a significant risk as well as a cost, and if Piccadilly and Oxford Road are the only reasons to do this (as it likely as there are no plans or real need for it elsewhere in the NW) then it is quite likely to be more expensive as well as more risky than just enlarging the stations.

I'd also mention that with the low speed and closing up signals already provided at Piccadilly, train headways are about as good as they can get with conventional signalling so the benefits of going to TBTC could be quite small. TBTC could allow any non-stopping trains to run faster, but the curvature in the platforms prevents this anyway. The problem at Piccadilly is probably more about the unpredictable arrival times of trains from either direction due to the many nearby junction conflicts, rather than the actual ability of the platforms to handle trains in quick succession. In all options there is also a problem with passenger congestion ultimately limiting train throughput.
 
Last edited:

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,902
So why have they signed agreements for trains that will be running on diesel well into the 2040's because they have scrapped all the electrification that would have got them off of diesel power? This is utterly insane! On one hand scrap electrification and use bi-mode trains that waste energy constantly but then tell the electorate they aren't allowed to purchase petrol or diesel cars in 20 yrs time. Cancellation of electrification was inevitable the moment the bi-mode was rolled out in this country but this is utter hypocrisy.

I would hope, but without too much conviction, that in a few years a rolling programme of extensions to electrification can restart, but this time kept within the capabilities of NR to deliver.

Using bi-modes, such a programme would enable the diesel engines to be progressively removed as the wires reached further, leaving the trains as straight electrics.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
7,335
I am utterly speechless at this Government. Days after announcing they are scrapping most electrification schemes because they want the almighty bi-mode everywhere around the country they have the bare faced cheek to announce they want to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040.

...and they are presiding over (causing) the biggest collapse of bus services ever! More public transport of all types, more bikes and more walking have got to be the way forward, but all we get is contradictory or token policies. Off(this)-topic, I know, but it's part of the wider picture.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,499
Location
Cheshire
...and they are presiding over (causing) the biggest collapse of bus services ever! More public transport of all types, more bikes and more walking have got to be the way forward, but all we get is contradictory or token policies. Off(this)-topic, I know, but it's part of the wider picture.

Its not entirely off-topic. Having a cohesive and joined up strategy is key to making this work. So when on the one hand you are saying get rid od road diesel based transport, and on the other hand slowing and in some cases cancelling electrification projects to do the same on the rails, you know there's a problem. And if the bus network not only doesn't offer a joined up system with the trains, but is as you say starting to fall apart how the hell do you go about trying to reduce road traffic where walking or cycling isn't a viable option? Its depressing yet altogether entirely predictable.

It has been alluded to earlier in the thread, but if NR are struggling with electrification projects and budgets why aren't they encouraged to seek skills from further afield where these projects have and do go ahead? Just because the way they have been managed has not been to expectations doesn't mean the concept is flawed. Rather than seeing it as an issue, why not deal with the management and any regulation causing problems? It seems to me that a combination of underestimating the required engineering, combined with several layers of unnecessary and ill-informed regulation is costing this country dear.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,614
I would hope, but without too much conviction, that in a few years a rolling programme of extensions to electrification can restart, but this time kept within the capabilities of NR to deliver.

Using bi-modes, such a programme would enable the diesel engines to be progressively removed as the wires reached further, leaving the trains as straight electrics.

I'd hope this too. It's also a reason I'm happy to accept discontinuous Electrification. Over time the problematic structures will inevitably have work done, allowing gaps to be closed, until the cost/benefit the next fleet of trains means that it makes more sense to close the remaining gaps and order EMUs.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,327
Location
Reading
Its not entirely off-topic. Having a cohesive and joined up strategy is key to making this work. So when on the one hand you are saying get rid od road diesel based transport, and on the other hand slowing and in some cases cancelling electrification projects to do the same on the rails, you know there's a problem. And if the bus network not only doesn't offer a joined up system with the trains, but is as you say starting to fall apart how the hell do you go about trying to reduce road traffic where walking or cycling isn't a viable option? Its depressing yet altogether entirely predictable.

It has been alluded to earlier in the thread, but if NR are struggling with electrification projects and budgets why aren't they encouraged to seek skills from further afield where these projects have and do go ahead? Just because the way they have been managed has not been to expectations doesn't mean the concept is flawed. Rather than seeing it as an issue, why not deal with the management and any regulation causing problems? It seems to me that a combination of underestimating the required engineering, combined with several layers of unnecessary and ill-informed regulation is costing this country dear.

My bolding! A significant problem. These Quangos are intended to protect people's bottoms, not get the job done.

I have a theory (which I don't know how to test!) is that people who are interested by process become bureaucrats in one form or another and people who are interested in product make things[1]. The latter try to ignore the former, or try to work round them, and the former keep trying to control the latter. At the moment Process seems to be in the ascendancy...

The mind sets are very different.

[1] The Things can hardware, software, films, music, selling stuff (bread, shoes, transport services, insurance, shipping, etc.) - in other words the people who get the money in.
 
Last edited:

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,183
Location
Oxford
So why have they signed agreements for trains that will be running on diesel well into the 2040's because they have scrapped all the electrification that would have got them off of diesel power? This is utterly insane! On one hand scrap electrification and use bi-mode trains that waste energy constantly but then tell the electorate they aren't allowed to purchase petrol or diesel cars in 20 yrs time. Cancellation of electrification was inevitable the moment the bi-mode was rolled out in this country but this is utter hypocrisy.

If bimodes didn't exist we simply would have seen a lot more diesel running under the wires. Do you really think the government would have happily funded billions more in electrification if bimodes didn't exist?
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
8,253
Air quality in urban areas is the main issue driving the switch to electric cars, so presumably this will affect electrification projects going forward.

Maybe on the MML, for example, they'll concentrate on the tracks going through the major urban areas first, and leave the lines running though open countryside until later?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,909
Location
Fenny Stratford
It has been alluded to earlier in the thread, but if NR are struggling with electrification projects and budgets why aren't they encouraged to seek skills from further afield where these projects have and do go ahead? Just because the way they have been managed has not been to expectations doesn't mean the concept is flawed. Rather than seeing it as an issue, why not deal with the management and any regulation causing problems? It seems to me that a combination of underestimating the required engineering, combined with several layers of unnecessary and ill-informed regulation is costing this country dear.

Do you honestly think no one has thought of that? May I recommend one or all of the Bowe, Hendy or Shaw reviews to you?

Sadly it isnt as easy as writing a list of bodies to be done away with and shouting make it so. If it were we could start with the government............

My bolding! A significant problem. These Quangos are intended to protect people's bottoms, not get the job done.

I have a theory (which I don't know how to test!) is that people who are interested by process become bureaucrats in one form or another and people who are interested in product make things[1]. The latter try to ignore the former, or try to work round them, and the former keep trying to control the latter. At the moment Process seems to be in the ascendancy...

The mind sets are very different.

[1] The Things can hardware, software, films, music, selling stuff (bread, shoes, transport services, insurance, shipping, etc.) - in other words the people who get the money in.

However to much movement the other way and the problem is then reversed. The makers (lets call them engineers) can exert little control over their project. They agree to change because they consider it the right thing to do rather than the best thing to do to deliver on time, change the scope on the fly, change materials, agree contracts on a shake of the hand and let the costs go up because they aren't interested in that kind of thing. They simply want to deliver regardless of cost. You need to have decent controls (or a process) over a project to help ensure a timely and cost effective delivery.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top