Rail electrification scrapped / 'suspended'?

[GRALISTAIR]

In the 1950's the country was strapped for foreign exchange, there was absolutely no chance of buying diesel locos from overseas. The nearest we got to that was probably the Warships which were built under licence.

Don't want to stray too far OT, but also (I know Wikipedia isn't always an accurate reliable source) but it was also to use British coal (not foreign oil-diesel etc) and employ British miners etc that was one reason for steam staying so long. We also won the war so we did not have as much infrastructure rebuild totally necessitated by war destruction as Europe did.

Here is an extract from the Wikipedia article -I notice it does not cite references.

By the start of the 1950s, British Railways were making a working profit, albeit a small one. However, Britain had fallen well behind the rest of Europe in terms of dieselisation and electrification of its railways. There were political as well as practical reasons behind the resistance to dieselisation in particular: the Labour Government of Clement Attlee did not want to significantly reduce the demand for domestically-produced coal in favour of imported oil, thus both affecting the balance of payments and potentially causing unemployment.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In the 1950's the country was strapped for foreign exchange, there was absolutely no chance of buying diesel locos from overseas. The nearest we got to that was probably the Warships which were built under licence. They were 'scaled down' from the West German originals due to, a common theme for differences with our Continental counterparts, the loading gauge. Apart from HS1/2 we continue to be so limited on our legacy infrastructure.

The government weren't to blame for BR(W) charging down the diesel hydraulic dead end and trying to do things differently.
It also made poor progress on resignalling and long-welding track.
Rolling stock design remained ancient until Mk2 in 1964 and continued with vacuum brakes and steam heating into the 1970s.

The WCML electrification (which was over-engineered) was cut back leaving a legacy of manual signal boxes, some of which are still operating around Stockport.

Generally, these were technical/business management issues stemming from a failure to integrate BR as one organisation rather than 5/6 Regions derived from the Big 4.

 

[Taunton]

In the 1950's the country was strapped for foreign exchange, there was absolutely no chance of buying diesel locos from overseas.

This old chestnut again.

General Motors were perfectly amenable to having their designs built under licence in various countries in the 1950s. Nobody else had much foreign exchange either. Nohab in Sweden built main line GM locos for Denmark and Norway, SNCB in Belgium had them built locally by SAFB, etc. A very extensive set of GM designs were locally built in Australia by Clyde, a former mainstream steam loco builder, which completely wiped the floor with the initial UK diesel imports they had got there. All that was imported from the USA was the initial drawings (which these builders then extensively modified).

GM and Alco (who had comparable licence-built arrangements in India and the Soviet Union) both sent periodic teams over to propose such arrangements (GM used Nohab in Sweden as their agents), I believe North British were approached before they got into hydraulics, but they were rebuffed at every stage.

a failure to integrate BR as one organisation rather than 5/6 Regions derived from the Big 4

. It depended. A lot of loco designs were ordered across multiple regions. The Class 08 shunter was universal, so was Mk 1 coaching stock and the standard freight wagons. There was more national standardisation than is often given credit for. The wide range of diesel types was actually BR/government policy, to give the various loco builders "a good chance" to get into the export market, likewise all the different manufacturers of electric power equipment.

Rolling stock design remained ancient until Mk2 in 1964

You should have seen what Continental designs were offering in the 1950s. Some standard class seating, even long distance, was not even fully upholstered, just a seat cushion and a small pad behind the head, the rest in wood. There was still significant open end platform stock around into the 1960s there (and 4-wheeled coaches as well), which had disappeared from Britain long before.

 

[MarkRedon]

... and 4-wheeled coaches as well, which had disappeared from Britain long before.

But we reintroduced these in't'frozzen North and the neglected South-West, where Pacers still lurk!

 

[coppercapped]

This old chestnut again.

General Motors were perfectly amenable to having their designs built under licence in various countries in the 1950s. Nobody else had much foreign exchange either. Nohab in Sweden built main line GM locos for Denmark and Norway, SNCB in Belgium had them built locally by SAFB, etc. A very extensive set of GM designs were locally built in Australia by Clyde, a former mainstream steam loco builder, which completely wiped the floor with the initial UK diesel imports they had got there. All that was imported from the USA was the initial drawings (which these builders then extensively modified).

GM and Alco (who had comparable licence-built arrangements in India and the Soviet Union) both sent periodic teams over to propose such arrangements (GM used Nohab in Sweden as their agents), I believe North British were approached before they got into hydraulics, but they were rebuffed at every stage.

. It depended. A lot of loco designs were ordered across multiple regions. The Class 08 shunter was universal, so was Mk 1 coaching stock and the standard freight wagons. There was more national standardisation than is often given credit for. The wide range of diesel types was actually BR/government policy, to give the various loco builders "a good chance" to get into the export market, likewise all the different manufacturers of electric power equipment.

You should have seen what Continental designs were offering in the 1950s. Some standard class seating, even long distance, was not even fully upholstered, just a seat cushion and a small pad behind the head, the rest in wood. There was still significant open end platform stock around into the 1960s there (and 4-wheeled coaches as well), which had disappeared from Britain long before.

DB was still using 6 wheel coaches in trains around Ulm when I moved there in 1974 - and they ran for at least another 8 or 10 years. Wooden seats - but very well shaped and surprisingly comfortable!

 

[coppercapped]

Don't want to stray too far OT, but also (I know Wikipedia isn't always an accurate reliable source) but it was also to use British coal (not foreign oil-diesel etc) and employ British miners etc that was one reason for steam staying so long. We also won the war so we did not have as much infrastructure rebuild totally necessitated by war destruction as Europe did.

Here is an extract from the Wikipedia article -I notice it does not cite references.

QUOTE[By the start of the 1950s, British Railways were making a working profit, albeit a small one. However, Britain had fallen well behind the rest of Europe in terms of dieselisation and electrification of its railways. There were political as well as practical reasons behind the resistance to dieselisation in particular: the Labour Government of Clement Attlee did not want to significantly reduce the demand for domestically-produced coal in favour of imported oil, thus both affecting the balance of payments and potentially causing unemployment. ] END QUOTE

Whoever wrote that Wiki piece has not really understood the dynamics of the period. Government's interest in the railways stretched as far as nationalisation of inland transport. What happened after that was of no concern.

Unemployment was not an issue at all until the mid-1960s - there was in fact a shortage of labour from the end of the war right through the 1950s, this was part of the reason for the Empire Windrush.

Anyway, this topic has been done to death in various threads in the Railway History & Nostalgia forum!

 

[jayah]

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?

They aren't banning diesel trains any more than fuel powered planes so this is irrelevant.

The dash to battery will only sink more nails into the electrification coffin - it is already totally obsolete for trams saving a fortune on new schemes which is actually a good thing. With discontinuous electrification you could wire 2m from each major station and get 80% of the benefit for 10% of the cost.

It is only Uncle Roger and the 1960s Luddites who told us we could and should electrify every inch from London to Swansea for £500k per stkm that are behind the curve. Now they are casting blame left right and centre.

Why would you want to, even the cost wasn't creeping closer to £5m? Think what else you could get for that money!

 

[Chester1]

How many areas of government spending would be allowed to go 4 times over budget without ministers intervening and reducing scope? Some of the comments make it sound like there was a conspiracy against electrification. NR has wasted collasal sums, the government won't give it more or allow it to borrow more so the electrification projects have been scaled back to reflect what the budget might actually stretch to. That looks like the rest of Paddington-Cardiff, Bedford-Kettering/Corby and depending on cost of those and local funding contributions Didcot-Oxford, Lostock Junction-Wigan, Manchester-Leeds and Valleys Lines.

 

[HSTEd]

The dash to battery will only sink more nails into the electrification coffin - it is already totally obsolete for trams saving a fortune on new schemes which is actually a good thing. With discontinuous electrification you could wire 2m from each major station and get 80% of the benefit for 10% of the cost.

I have yet to see a single serious tram scheme that has no direct electrical supply to the rolling stock throughout the route. At least outside of China where endless mad and deadend schemes are pushed all the time.
This is like one vehicle-to-grid charging, which is seized upon by renewable enthusiasts desperate to find any way out of the energy storage problems they have walked into.

And more like 50% of the benefit for 80% of the cost, depending on what electrification standard you choose.

You will need enormous GSPs to support charging mainline stock during platform stops.

There is virtually no reason to prefer batteries over diesel engines with SCR systems fitted. The latter have far far superior operational flexibility, cost less to procure and have negligibly higher fuel costs (once battery inefficiencies are accounted for).

Why would you want to, even the cost wasn't creeping closer to £5m? Think what else you could get for that money!

I don't think it has got that high yet!
And at that point we would just go back to third rail or whatnot.

 

[jayah]

It is not great news that electrification has been cancelled. But this is primarily an issue for engineers - the passengers/taxpayers who use and pay for the railway don't care how their trains are powered, aside from when they're stood next to an HST at New Street. To most people, new bi-modes, or straight diesels, are basically equivalent to new electric trains, with a trade off of a 1-2 minute time saving versus billions on the national debt.

If the concept of a bi mode train didn't exist, the Great Western project would, given that realistically locomotive changes are out, mean cutting numerous through services or having loads of diesels running on the electrified section, both of which would significantly dent the business case for electrification in the first place, and given the true costs said business case is likely flimsy or non existent anyway.

If electric only trains had been ordered, they'd be spending years rotting in sidings, whilst the government poured endless amounts of public funding down the drain to one day eventually provide tracks they could run on. The MML needs new trains to replace the HSTs at least. Without the bi modes, we'd now have to be ordering diesels, which would only be able to run on diesel for the next 40 years, and I don't believe that Network Rail would be anywhere near capable of ensuring there isn't work for a 125mph diesel in 40 years time, maybe even on the MML.

The electrification Luddites are busy blaming the DfT, Network Rail, the EU and just about anyone for the spectacular policy failure of spending £3bn on electrification beyond Oxford and Didcot that brings virtually zero benefit. The only surprise and disappointment is that it has taken so much time and money before the penny dropped.

They will be banning batteries, fuel cells, super capacitors, bi-modes and anything else that might see their utopia of thousands of miles of metal pylons criss crossing the country finally put out to grass.

 

[jayah]

Sorry but I've been told by someone who has over 30 years of experience in the railways and has an engineering degree that some years back the idea of a bi-mode was floated in the corridors of power at the DFT and suddenly it became their new thing which they had to have and that everything would be planned around them. What should have happened was that electrification was properly planned with electric trains ordered for service when it was completed. My source told me that electrification would be scrapped ages ago and thus has been proven true. Despite certain people on here saying it would not be. And now bi-modes will be virtually everywhere there is some major doubt as to when electrification will start again in earnest. The politicians don't care as they will get their PR from new trains. Saying the Government would be pouring money down the drain getting electrification done is completely disingenuous. Once it's done it's done. Using bi-modes and putting it off is just kicking the can down the road.

There was also Project Thor and would have seen the Voyagers extended by 1 coach which would have been a pantograph car to use under the many existing wires on their routes. A crying shame it didn't go forward.

 

[HSTEd]

They will be banning batteries, fuel cells, super capacitors, bi-modes and anything else that might see their utopia of thousands of miles of metal pylons criss crossing the country finally put out to grass.

With the exception of the bi-mode, none of those things can possibly provide significant benefit over conventional diesel trains with SCR and similar.

Super-capacitors and batteries will require an enormous ultra-high power charging infrastructure be built, with huge power supply requirements with major costs in terms of grid efficiency and stability

Fuel cells are just a more expensive and fragile way of turning a fuel into electricity, at which point why are we not using diesel or petrol engines instead? Proven and reliable technology?

And before anyone suggests having battery banks at the charging puts..... 70% battery cycle done twice means you lose half the energy in transit.

Rather puts the losses of third rail into perspective doesn't it?

 

[jayah]

I have yet to see a single serious tram scheme that has no direct electrical supply to the rolling stock throughout the route. At least outside of China where endless mad and deadend schemes are pushed all the time.
This is like one vehicle-to-grid charging, which is seized upon by renewable enthusiasts desperate to find any way out of the energy storage problems they have walked into.

And more like 50% of the benefit for 80% of the cost, depending on what electrification standard you choose.

You will need enormous GSPs to support charging mainline stock during platform stops.

There is virtually no reason to prefer batteries over diesel engines with SCR systems fitted. The latter have far far superior operational flexibility, cost less to procure and have negligibly higher fuel costs (once battery inefficiencies are accounted for).



I don't think it has got that high yet!
And at that point we would just go back to third rail or whatnot.

It is over halfway there about halfway into the Project.

Many extensions of the Birmingham system are going to be catenary free. Given buses can now do 500km between charges it is very much possible and could be transformational for trams and urban transport which is held back by the huge cost of catenary.

Like Project Thor - just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't possible. Thankfully not everyone is a follower.

 

[najaB]

And before anyone suggests having battery banks at the charging puts..... 70% battery cycle done twice means you lose half the energy in transit.

From a carbon point of view, if the source is carbon neutral then efficiency isn't that much of a concern.

 

[notlob.divad]

How many areas of government spending would be allowed to go 4 times over budget without ministers intervening and reducing scope?

Roll out of (Failed) universal credit IT system

The government has increased its initial write-off of a failed IT system for universal credit by £6m to £40.1m, but acknowledged that a further £90m of software is likely to be written down in its value over the next five years.

2012 Olympics £2.4bn (original cost submitted during bid phase) -> £9.3 bn (Total public funding)

Just a couple of examples, it is certainly not unheard of. Issue with the above two versus Electrification, neither of them reduced future operating costs, neither of them removed NO2 producing machine from our major stations and neither gave us the opportunity to power our public transport by greener forms of energy.

 

[HSTEd]

It is over halfway there about halfway into the Project.

The electrification? Or the route modernisation?

Many extensions of the Birmingham system are going to be catenary free.

So the fever dreams of councillors?
Can you give some examples of expansions of the 'Birmingham system' (I assume you mean Midland Metro?) that will not have overhead equipment?
ALl the committed projects I am aware of are strictly conventional, with one potential tram train scheme.

Given buses can now do 500km between charges it is very much possible and could be transformational for trams and urban transport which is held back by the huge cost of catenary.

The cost of overhead line equipment is negligible compared to the cost of all the other infrastructure for a tram.

Like Project Thor - just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't possible. Thankfully not everyone is a follower.

Being a 'visionary' does not allow you to escape physics.

From a carbon point of view, if the source is carbon neutral then efficiency isn't that much of a concern.

At which point we might as well just use electrolysis plants (development of ones that are near 100% efficient on an LHV basis are now well underway) and get far far cheaper storage.

 

[jayah]

The electrification? Or the route modernisation?

So the fever dreams of councillors?
Can you give some examples of expansions of the 'Birmingham system' (I assume you mean Midland Metro?) that will not have overhead equipment?
ALl the committed projects I am aware of are strictly conventional, with one potential tram train scheme.

The cost of overhead line equipment is negligible compared to the cost of all the other infrastructure for a tram.

Being a 'visionary' does not allow you to escape physics.

At which point we might as well just use electrolysis plants (development of ones that are near 100% efficient on an LHV basis are now well underway) and get far far cheaper storage.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/rio-light-rail-transit-system-rio-de-janeiro/

Catenary free tram in Rio, running now charging supercapacitors from third rail installed at the stations.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...be-converted-for-catenary-free-operation.html

Retrofitting of batteries to trams and catenary free extensions in Birmingham.


http://www.spanishrailwaysnews.com/noticias.asp?not=30

Ultracapacitors in Seville.

 

[jayah]

With the exception of the bi-mode, none of those things can possibly provide significant benefit over conventional diesel trains with SCR and similar.

Super-capacitors and batteries will require an enormous ultra-high power charging infrastructure be built, with huge power supply requirements with major costs in terms of grid efficiency and stability

Fuel cells are just a more expensive and fragile way of turning a fuel into electricity, at which point why are we not using diesel or petrol engines instead? Proven and reliable technology?

And before anyone suggests having battery banks at the charging puts..... 70% battery cycle done twice means you lose half the energy in transit.

Rather puts the losses of third rail into perspective doesn't it?

You had better tell this to HMG as it is all guns blazing towards battery powered cars and charging points for cars. The battery powered bus order book is stacking up - nobody will touch diesel buses before long.

Supercapacitors and ultracapacitors are already being used in many tram systems across different continents.

Fuel cell 'zero emission' buses are also being sold all over the world. Why would you do this - well the clue is in the name.

You are in danger of sounding like a Luddite, rubbishing even the proven technologies!

 

[HSTEd]

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/rio-light-rail-transit-system-rio-de-janeiro/

Catenary free tram in Rio, running now charging supercapacitors from third rail installed at the stations.

So a system with an average speed of ~10mph and enormously expensive APS supplies at stations?
And an average station spacing of a few hundred metres.
Hardly comparable to the systems in the UK

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...be-converted-for-catenary-free-operation.html

Retrofitting of batteries to trams and catenary free extensions in Birmingham.

Wow, in return for an eternal 7 yearly battery replacement operation on 30+ vehicles.... they save £650k in capital costs.
Such economics!

You had better tell this to HMG as it is all guns blazing towards battery powered cars and charging points for cars. The battery powered bus order book is stacking up - nobody will touch diesel buses before long.

Which it is doing in a desperate attempt to make its clean air plan look something other than hopelessly week.
Not because of economics.

Supercapacitors and ultracapacitors are already being used in many tram systems across different continents.

In very short distance, low speed scenarios where the primary motivation is aesthetics, not economics.

Fuel cell 'zero emission' buses are also being sold all over the world. Why would you do this - well the clue is in the name.

And represent a tiny fraction of buses sold, and there is little to stop you feeding hydrogen into a conventional Otto cycle engine for a fraction of the cost.
How do you think LNG and CNG buses work?

You are in danger of sounding like a Luddite, rubbishing even the proven technologies!

Proving at being useful for political photo ops you mean?

 

[jayah]

Roll out of (Failed) universal credit IT system



2012 Olympics £2.4bn (original cost submitted during bid phase) -> £9.3 bn (Total public funding)

Just a couple of examples, it is certainly not unheard of. Issue with the above two versus Electrification, neither of them reduced future operating costs, neither of them removed NO2 producing machine from our major stations and neither gave us the opportunity to power our public transport by greener forms of energy.

The NO2 removed from our cities is pretty trivial compared to buses and lorries, especially since much rail transport is not even at ground level. Retrofitting existing fleets as Bi-Mode would have saved more city centre emissions than Great Western electrification and would have cost far less. There are plenty of city centre stations wedged with diesel trains that actually have the wires already.

Guess what - when the truck engine goes battery or fuel cell, even high performance DMUs will be able to follow suit. They currently use the same engines!

 

[HSTEd]

Guess what - when the truck engine goes battery or fuel cell, even high performance DMUs will be able to follow suit. They currently use the same engines!

BUt why is a lorry going to use a fuel cell?
They have few advantages beyond looking space-agey over an otto cycle gas engine. Especially with all the 'turbosteamer' work going on.

 

[jayah]

So a system with an average speed of ~10mph and enormously expensive APS supplies at stations?
And an average station spacing of a few hundred metres.
Hardly comparable to the systems in the UK

Wow, in return for an eternal 7 yearly battery replacement operation on 30+ vehicles.... they save £650k in capital costs.
Such economics!


Which it is doing in a desperate attempt to make its clean air plan look something other than hopelessly week.
Not because of economics.

In very short distance, low speed scenarios where the primary motivation is aesthetics, not economics.

And represent a tiny fraction of buses sold, and there is little to stop you feeding hydrogen into a conventional Otto cycle engine for a fraction of the cost.
How do you think LNG and CNG buses work?

Proving at being useful for political photo ops you mean?

The APS system goes over 1km between charges, and like all this technology is improving all the time, something I suspect some people are not ready to accept. This is already plenty for many applications, as demonstrated by the fact it has many applications. The UK doesn't have many tram systems, mainly because they are too expensive to get off the easel.

It is a pity you are now rubbishing the clean air agenda as well as the technology that will and must be found to usher out the diesel era. The public will no longer tolerate smog and poisonous fumes - the country has turned a corner in the past 12 months and it will not be turning back. Cars, vans, buses and lorries will all be going zero emissions or they will be banned from built up areas and it will happen my lifetime. Once it is scaled to the lorry it is already de-facto scaled to the long distance Intercity DMU.

This will all happen much faster than a rolling programme of UK mainline electrification.

 

[jayah]

BUt why is a lorry going to use a fuel cell?
They have few advantages beyond looking space-agey over an otto cycle gas engine. Especially with all the 'turbosteamer' work going on.

I am not interested in debating the finer aspects of the vast number of already proven technologies over each other.

There will be zero emissions lorries in the short to medium term and when there are when it comes to rail electrification you won't be able to see the coffin for the nails.

 

[notlob.divad]

The NO2 removed from our cities is pretty trivial compared to buses and lorries, especially since much rail transport is not even at ground level. Retrofitting existing fleets as Bi-Mode would have saved more city centre emissions than Great Western electrification and would have cost far less. There are plenty of city centre stations wedged with diesel trains that actually have the wires already.

Guess what - when the truck engine goes battery or fuel cell, even high performance DMUs will be able to follow suit. They currently use the same engines!

Not denying that. And i dont think the bi-modes are a bad idea, i think they are good in certain circumstances. That does not however mean I think electrification should be scrapped.

All the time you arw carrying batteries, engine, fuel tanks etc, it is extra weight you are accelerating and decelerating. Thus wasting energy. The way we have historically gone about electrification in peaks and troughs, is stupid. There should be a rolling program with bi-modes used where they must to plug the gaps.

 

[HSTEd]

The APS system goes over 1km between charges,

Firstly APS is absolutely nothing to do with supercapacitors and has been used for years on tram systems in the south of France, and has developed a reputation for being very very expensive.

and like all this technology is improving all the time, something I suspect some people are not ready to accept. This is already plenty for many applications, as demonstrated by the fact it has many applications. The UK doesn't have many tram systems, mainly because they are too expensive to get off the easel.

But getting rid of the traction supply ironwork does not significantly reduce the cost.
Even in the Midland Metro system example, where they are singular gaps and the charging will be provided on the move by existing overhead equipment - the saving is negligible.

If you move to an entirely supercapacitor based system with point charging you have to provide enormously overrated power supplies in the stations to enable enough power to be provided to charge the vehicle in the time available.
Rather than gradually providing the power to the train over its journey.
See the feederless system pioneered b Portland Streetcar as an example of the benefits in reducing peak-power demand.

It is a pity you are now rubbishing the clean air agenda

When did I do that?
I criticised the government's policy as being a kneejerk attempt to kill bad headlines.
Which it is.

as well as the technology that will and must be found to usher out the diesel era. The public will no longer tolerate smog and poisonous fumes - the country has turned a corner in the past 12 months and it will not be turning back.

Where do you get that from?
Outside of actual environmentalists noone cares.
People still buy diesel cars for god's sake.

This will all happen much faster than a rolling programme of UK mainline electrification.

Only because of ORR kneejerk banning of third rail primarily.

 

[squizzler]

I think the optimum system is certainly not going to be unproven "self power" technologies and as such expect to see power being provided where the trains spend their time and draw their current. Which is on the road between stations via overhead lines. Maybe if we had 1950's country branch lines to deal with, where the train sits half an hour whilst the guard drinks tea with the station master, porter and station cat, one passenger gets on, they faff about with tokens before heading off a couple of miles to repeat the process, it would make sense to use this time to charge up the tank-engine outlined battery electric loco on a bit of third rail.

Having said the above, I do think that "gappy" electrification with neutral sections over junctions, under low bridges and the like, coupled with a low capacity but fast retrieve energy store (e.g. super-caps, flywheel) on the vehicles, makes sense, as does "last mile" power in locos. I reach this conclusion based on how we can hold our breath for short periods, enabling us to dive underwater or evacuate from rooms where somebody farted. This evolutionary adaption seems eminently sensible to apply to electric rail vehicles, because I understand capacitors (or flywheels) don't wear out in use like batteries, and will not contribute so much to vehicle mass either.

 

[dggar]

I think the optimum system is certainly not going to be unproven "self power" technologies and as such expect to see power being provided where the trains spend their time and draw their current. Which is on the road between stations via overhead lines. Maybe if we had 1950's country branch lines to deal with, where the train sits half an hour whilst the guard drinks tea with the station master, porter and station cat, one passenger gets on, they faff about with tokens before heading off a couple of miles to repeat the process, it would make sense to use this time to charge up the tank-engine outlined battery electric loco on a bit of third rail.

Having said the above, I do think that "gappy" electrification with neutral sections over junctions, under low bridges and the like, coupled with a low capacity but fast retrieve energy store (e.g. super-caps, flywheel) on the vehicles, makes sense, as does "last mile" power in locos. I reach this conclusion based on how we can hold our breath for short periods, enabling us to dive underwater or evacuate from rooms where somebody farted. This evolutionary adaption seems eminently sensible to apply to electric rail vehicles, because I understand capacitors (or flywheels) don't wear out in use like batteries, and will not contribute so much to vehicle mass either.

Isn't the nature of flywheels that they have a large mass and I'm sure capacitors age and fail.

 

[squizzler]

My understanding is flywheels can be made light relative to the contained energy by spinning at immense rpm, in a vacuum to minimise friction, possibly on magnetic bearings. Containment strong enough to hold the pieces in the event it fails becomes a significant part of the weight. I believe flywheels were used in F1 for a bit as so-called KERS Kinetic Energy Recovery System and are a different animal to the "appropriate technology" style units on the Parry People Mover.

Somebody with better knowledge will have to advise on limitations of big capacitors but I think they last longer in practice.

 

[doa46231]

What I dont understand, as a complete ignoramous in these matters, is why no other Nations seem to be adopting the same attitude towards electrification. France just opened TWO high speed lines on one day, both I belive electrified.
Denmark has embarked on a programme to electrify its whole system.
And even in the good old USA, they are starting to electrify the Caltrain route from San Francisco to San Jose.
Why dont they all come to us to tell them how to save all that money by, in the words of Mark Carne 'skipping a technology'!

 

[DarloRich]

How many areas of government spending would be allowed to go 4 times over budget without ministers intervening

have you never read Private Eye? Here are just a selected few:

• The e-borders programme ( that cock up cost us £200m in damages)
• Digital Media Initiative cost the BBC £98m and didn't work
• NHS national IT programme - £10bn of tax payers money wasted
• A £56m Ministry of Justice back-office project cancelled after the department realised the Cabinet Office had a system doing the same thing
• Department for Transport Shared Services Centre went £81m over budget
• Common Agricultural Policy Delivery Programme was originally forecast to cost £155 million, but the programme has ended up costing more like £215 million
• The MOD spent £1bn on a tank programme that produced no tanks!
• Defence Information Infrastructure: The Ministry of Defence’s secure military network was built to help British troops operate more effectively around the world. The MoD gave parliament a figure of £2.3 billion, but a report by MPs has shown that they knew that the project would cost
  at least £5.8 billion. The true figure has since risen to at least £7.1 billion.

lets not look at the Universal Credit shambles. It is running at £12.8bn cost v a £2.2bn estimate....................