Environmental impact of not electrifying the GWML

[AlexNL]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #32 originally in this thread.

If the DFT had a brain, then there was no need sprnd billions to electrify the GWML just to save 15 mins off Swansea to London (which incidentally matches the 1987 timetable). The world beating design was right there infront of them, the HST. Just re-design the HST to bring it into the 21st century (no slam doors, toilet retention tanks etc) saving billions on electrification and new and over complicated trains, no delays caused by electrification work or driver training.

However, not electrifying the GWML would have a significant environmental impact - especially in built-up areas. Exhaust fumes and particulate are known to be bad for humans, a bunch of diesel trains spewing their exhaust into the air doesn't contribute to a cleaner city.

 

[XDM]

However, not electrifying the GWML would have a significant environmental impact - especially in built-up areas. Exhaust fumes and particulate are known to be bad for humans, a bunch of diesel trains spewing their exhaust into the air doesn't contribute to a cleaner city.

Not politically correct I know. But almost every time an 800 or 387 driver draws maximum power, a power station, usually a gas turbine fossil fuel station, gulps down fuel oil or Drax type charcoal, in huge quantities.
People living down wind of these power stations, & some are in very populated areas, breath in exhaust fumes & wood particulates - an inconvenient truth.

I agree with "Thunderer", who posted earlier.
With Network Rail being incapable of electrifying economically or of signalling trains along the Paddington line efficiently, it would have been better & non disruptive to modernise the HSTs as he suggests.

Making those thousands of tons of galvanised steel to electrify the line must have put a great deal of carbon into the atmosphere too.

 

[bastien]

However, not electrifying the GWML would have a significant environmental impact - especially in built-up areas. Exhaust fumes and particulate are known to be bad for humans, a bunch of diesel trains spewing their exhaust into the air doesn't contribute to a cleaner city.

Electrifying it for 125 mph (100 into Bristol, Oxford etc) would have sorted it though. Let's face it, these trains are never going to run faster.

 

[Thunderer]

However, not electrifying the GWML would have a significant environmental impact - especially in built-up areas. Exhaust fumes and particulate are known to be bad for humans, a bunch of diesel trains spewing their exhaust into the air doesn't contribute to a cleaner city.

Emissions are far less these days as engines become more efficient. Electricity has to be generated and not all of that will be green. Its swings and roundabouts really.

 

[Meerkat]

The emissions are still very dangerous, and very concentrated.
Have you been to St Pancras EMT?

 

[AlexNL]

Emissions are far less these days as engines become more efficient.

Yes, but a diesel engine will still emit harmful exhaust fumes at the place of use. While engines are becoming more efficient and their exhaust reduced (due to better filters being installed), there will still be emissions. An electric train has 0 emission at the point of use.

Electricity has to be generated

That is correct, and it has to be transported (which incurs transmission losses).

and not all of that will be green.

That is true, but it can be made greener by replacing harmful coal-fired plants with other types: gas, nuclear, wind, hydro... the possibilities are endless.

Some examples:
The Austrian federal railways (ÖBB Infra) generate their own energy. As of July 2018, 100% of the energy used by electric trains in Austria comes from renewable sources such as solar and hydro.
German Railways (Deutsche Bahn) currently get 57% of their energy from renewable sources, the remainder comes from a mixture of coal, gas and nuclear energy.

Its swings and roundabouts really.

No, it's not.

Once a diesel train is built, you're stuck with it. You can do some tweaking (install better filters, or maybe even install a new engine) but there's only so much you can do to reduce its emissions. They will always be there, they will always be dirty, and the negative effects on the health of nearby people will always be there as well. Electric trains are cleaner (as they produce no emissions on the point of use), they are more cost efficient (as there's less parts to maintain, and they perform better) and they allow for an ever-increasing opportunity to become even greener.

While the electric train keeps operating, you can knock down all coal-fired power plants and replace them with nuclear plants - slashing all sorts of harmful exhaust gases without causing a minute of downtime to the railways.

That's not to say that all trains should be electric, sometimes the business case to electrify simply isn't there. This can be the case on quiet rural branch lines, they are perhaps better served by battery or hydrogen powered trains. But on a busy main line such as the GWML electrification is a no-brainer.

 

[ainsworth74]

Doesn't Network Rail source it's electricity for traction purposes from nuclear power anyway?

 

[Dai Corner]

Doesn't Network Rail source it's electricity for traction purposes from nuclear power anyway?

Yes.

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...ards-10-year-electricity-supply-contract.html

UK: Network Rail has awarded EDF Energy a 10-year contract to supply around 3·2 TWh of electricity a year for the rail network.

Network Rail procures electricity centrally for the rail industry, charging train operators for traction power supplied through overhead and third rail electrification.

In what Network Rail says is a 'ground-breaking arrangement', EDF Energy is offering the infrastructure manager the capability of purchasing its electricity requirements up to 10 years in advance, providing certainty over costs and reducing exposure to short-term volatility.

Under the EDF Energy Blue scheme, energy supplied to Network Rail will be 'matched' by low-carbon power from EDF Energy's eight nuclear power stations.

'Network Rail is the biggest single electricity customer in the UK, so this long term deal is a massive vote of confidence in our nuclear-backed energy', said EDF Chief Executive Vincent de Rivaz. 'Rail is already one of the least carbon-intensive ways to travel and the huge investment in electrification will be backed by a stable and affordable supply of low-carbon energy. The deal places nuclear energy at the heart of the UK's infrastructure for the next 10 years and serves to underline that nuclear power is part of everyday life in Britain.'

Of course, it's just a paper exercise. You can't say that the every watt-hour consumed by a train is generated by a nuclear power station. Transport for Wales say all their electricity will be renewable yet the Cardiff Valleys Lines will be interconnected with 'nuclear-powered' ones.

 

[ALAN BYRNE]

With you 100% Thunderer, this great route was never in need of electrification, simply a 21st Century HST would have given us everything, and more. Deluded Politicians with no real-life experience, surrendering to hysterical climate change dogma are ruining this country, and this been but a small example; the once beautiful GWR mainline has been ruined, to boot. Rant Over!

 

[aar0]

This thread has taken quite a surreal turn, but I'll lob my oar in...

there was no need sprnd billions to electrify the GWML just to save 15 mins off Swansea to London (which incidentally matches the 1987 timetable). The world beating design was right there infront of them, the HST. Just re-design the HST to bring it into the 21st century (no slam doors, toilet retention tanks etc) saving billions on electrification and new and over complicated trains, no delays caused by electrification work

Perhaps a larger reason for electrifying was in fact emissions - and compare the price for a full tank of diesel for an HST in 1976 and now... Additionally, if it's "world beating" how come it was only exported (as far as I know) to Australia?

However, not electrifying the GWML would have a significant environmental impact - especially in built-up areas. Exhaust fumes and particulate are known to be bad for humans, a bunch of diesel trains spewing their exhaust into the air doesn't contribute to a cleaner city.

Well quite. I work in the general field of environmental pollution and was saddened to plot the difference at Swansea station between full diesel and full electric...

 

[43096]

With you 100% Thunderer, this great route was never in need of electrification, simply a 21st Century HST would have given us everything, and more. Deluded Politicians with no real-life experience, surrendering to hysterical climate change dogma are ruining this country, and this been but a small example; the once beautiful GWR mainline has been ruined, to boot. Rant Over!

The GWML is a transport system, not a museum. I bet if Brunel was here now, he would be all for electrification.

Electrification - in its full form, not the half-baked, half-arsed scheme we have - was absolutely the right answer. One measure of the success of the HST was that it put off wiring for 40 years, when every other European country would have long since electrified such a route.

 

[Railperf]

The GWML is a transport system, not a museum. I bet if Brunel was here now, he would be all for electrification.

Electrification - in its full form, not the half-baked, half-arsed scheme we have - was absolutely the right answer. One measure of the success of the HST was that it put off wiring for 40 years, when every other European country would have long since electrified such a route.

The electrification debate is for another thread. HST was supposed to be a stop gap - but instead became the mainstay of Britain's Intercity service. Arguably it has carried more bums at higher speeds over longer distances at a higher frequency than any other train in the UK or the world. The 800's are its replacement but with a wider yet focused remit. Carry even more bums, be cleaner, greener, cheaper to run, offer a more frequent service to more places, and be more reliable. This is the new HST folks..get used to it.

 

[JN114]

The GWML is a transport system, not a museum. I bet if Brunel was here now, he would be all for electrification.

Electrification - in its full form, not the half-baked, half-arsed scheme we have - was absolutely the right answer. One measure of the success of the HST was that it put off wiring for 40 years, when every other European country would have long since electrified such a route.

The electrification debate is for another thread. HST was supposed to a stop gap - but instead became the mainstay of Britain's Intercity service. Arguably it has carried more bums at higher speeds over longer distances at a higher frequency than any other train in the UK or the world. The 800's are its replacement but with a wider yet focused remit. Carry even more bums, be cleaner, greener, cheaper to run and be more reliable. This is the new HST folks..get used to it.

Wow, needed to pinch myself when I read who penned those replies!

IET is a 21st Century HST; we’ve just moved on from powercars to distributed-drive, pure-Diesel to AC/Bi-Mode traction.

The interior spec was woeful, the procurement and operational contracts are a basket case, the costs have been eye-watering and reliability/availability isn’t where it should be. But that’s all secondary stuff really. And with money and political will fixable. The technology is worlds apart from HST. Bi-Mode allows them to be as “green” as possible while successive governments try to outdo each other’s intransigence on rail infrastructure investment. Distributed drive allows them to be amongst the best-performing high-speed EMUs in the country (on electric mode anyway!), while not encroaching on space available for the self-loading freight. The amount of data the train can stream out to maintenance staff, control staff and the like is enormous; and with time and understanding on staff’s part that data can be used to intervene before maintenance issues become a problem; to better the customer experience.

In this interim IET-pretending-to-be-HST phase we’re in at the moment the full benefits of the 80X units isn’t being realised. It will take full fleet delivery, completed (ish) electrification, new timetables for them to really show off their colours.

Various issues have conspired to push the tomorrow part of “Jam Tomorrow” further away - the blame shared pretty evenly between NR for under-delivering; GWR for over-promising/over-hyping; Hitachi for poor availability/reliability and the DfT for a basket case contract and poor specification - both for IEP and GWEP. But tomorrow will come. And there will be jam.

 

[Thunderer]

Not politically correct I know. But almost every time an 800 or 387 driver draws maximum power, a power station, usually a gas turbine fossil fuel station, gulps down fuel oil or Drax type charcoal, in huge quantities.
People living down wind of these power stations, & some are in very populated areas, breath in exhaust fumes & wood particulates - an inconvenient truth.

I agree with "Thunderer", who posted earlier.
With Network Rail being incapable of electrifying economically or of signalling trains along the Paddington line efficiently, it would have been better & non disruptive to modernise the HSTs as he suggests.

Making those thousands of tons of galvanised steel to electrify the line must have put a great deal of carbon into the atmosphere too.

Top Man...you get what I was trying to say. Electrification is not the "green" alternative that a lot of people think it is.

 

[Railperf]

Top Man...you get what I was trying to say. Electrification is not the "green" alternative that a lot of people think it is.

it depends on how you produce the electricity. In Norway they use mainly hydro electricity - 99% in fact - which is very green.

 

[43096]

Top Man...you get what I was trying to say. Electrification is not the "green" alternative that a lot of people think it is.

You're not thinking it through. The point of electrification is not just about green energy, but making the railway more efficient and, critically, fuel source independent. You can generate electricity however you want - from the most polluting to the greenest - and electrification means the railway is not dependent on how you do it. Finding alternatives to diesel engines such as batteries, hydrogen, bionic duckweed or whatever is never going to be as good a solution as electrifying.

 

[Thunderer]

Yes, but a diesel engine will still emit harmful exhaust fumes at the place of use. While engines are becoming more efficient and their exhaust reduced (due to better filters being installed), there will still be emissions. An electric train has 0 emission at the point of use.

That is correct, and it has to be transported (which incurs transmission losses).

That is true, but it can be made greener by replacing harmful coal-fired plants with other types: gas, nuclear, wind, hydro... the possibilities are endless.

Some examples:
The Austrian federal railways (ÖBB Infra) generate their own energy. As of July 2018, 100% of the energy used by electric trains in Austria comes from renewable sources such as solar and hydro.
German Railways (Deutsche Bahn) currently get 57% of their energy from renewable sources, the remainder comes from a mixture of coal, gas and nuclear energy.


No, it's not.

Once a diesel train is built, you're stuck with it. You can do some tweaking (install better filters, or maybe even install a new engine) but there's only so much you can do to reduce its emissions. They will always be there, they will always be dirty, and the negative effects on the health of nearby people will always be there as well. Electric trains are cleaner (as they produce no emissions on the point of use), they are more cost efficient (as there's less parts to maintain, and they perform better) and they allow for an ever-increasing opportunity to become even greener.

While the electric train keeps operating, you can knock down all coal-fired power plants and replace them with nuclear plants - slashing all sorts of harmful exhaust gases without causing a minute of downtime to the railways.

That's not to say that all trains should be electric, sometimes the business case to electrify simply isn't there. This can be the case on quiet rural branch lines, they are perhaps better served by battery or hydrogen powered trains. But on a busy main line such as the GWML electrification is a no-brainer.

Well, Nuclear is not the answer either. I have been into one of those power stations and its very unpleasant and there is still highly cancerous material as a bi-product, which can not be disposed of and is buried in sealed tubes fifteen foot in the ground under re-enforced concrete and glass. 1 second exposure to that material = instant cancer. Give me a coal fired power station and Diesel particulates any day over that dangerous and highly toxic stuff. I can remember being on Birmingham New Street in the 1980's - standing next to my namesake 50008 - lovely diesel fumes everywhere. The world has gone "green" mad, even though some of the "green" solutions are not that green.

 

[JamesRowden]

Top Man...you get what I was trying to say. Electrification is not the "green" alternative that a lot of people think it is.

A self powered train expends energy accelerating its power station and fuel. An electric train doesn't need to accelerate its power station. Having a few big power stations rather than loads of little ones makes it more economical (once you have the electrification and as long as you're running more than a tiny level of service).

 

[43096]

I can remember being on Birmingham New Street in the 1980's - lovely diesel fumes everywhere. The world has gone mad.

Think the diesel fumes might have had an effect on you....

 

[Dai Corner]

You're not thinking it through. The point of electrification is not just about green energy, but making the railway more efficient and, critically, fuel source independent. You can generate electricity however you want - from the most polluting to the greenest - and electrification means the railway is not dependent on how you do it. Finding alternatives to diesel engines such as batteries, hydrogen, bionic duckweed or whatever is never going to be as good a solution as electrifying.

Batteries are charged using electricity and hydrogen can be made by electrolysis of (passing electricity through) water so both offer the same fuel-independence as stringing up wires above the track.

 

[Thunderer]

Think the diesel fumes might have had an effect on you....

Ha ..hardly. We all breathe in far worse every day. Road Traffic fumes are a huge contributor to air pollution in urban areas, yet we have been breathing it in all our lives and we are still here. People are too "fragile" these days. A leaf drops on their head and they have concussion ha!

 

[43096]

Batteries are charged using electricity and hydrogen can be made by electrolysis of (passing electricity through) water so both offer the same fuel-independence as stringing up wires above the track.

But they weigh more - so you need more power for a given level of performance - cost more, and in the case of batteries have a much shorter range than what we have now and take much longer to re-fuel.

Technology may well be evolving, but if you take a car as an example, they have some way to go before you can drive one 400 miles on one charge, stop for 10 mins to re-charge and then go another 400 miles. Because that's what a petrol or diesel car can easily do now.

 

[td97]

But almost every time an 800 or 387 driver draws maximum power, a power station, usually a gas turbine fossil fuel station, gulps down fuel oil or Drax type charcoal, in huge quantities.

And when said class 800 driver is performing braking? I'll provide you with some quotes from published papers:

As an example, the commercially available wayside ESS, Sitras SES (Static Energy Storage) system marketed by Siemens is presented as a solution that can save nearly 30% of energy.

(ESS=Energy Storage System)

Bombardier has developed a system based on super capacitors, the EnerGstor, which is capable of offering 20% to 30% reduction in grid power consumption.

Khodaparastan, Mahdiyeh & A. Mohamed, Ahmed & Brandauer, Werner. (2018). Recuperation of Regenerative Braking Energy in Electric Rail Transit Systems.

It is also found that energy recovery reduces the overall power consumption by 20%, significantly improving the system energy efficiency.

J. Wang, H.A. Rakha / Applied Energy 193 (2017) 346–355

As a final conclusion, it can be said that, even though regenerative braking is a proven technology, its application in urban rail systems remains relatively unexploited.

Energy Conversion and Management 75 (2013) 374–388

Now then, I used regenerative braking as just 1 example of energy-saving technology on modern electric trains. 30% energy savings. What else could I start with? Timetable optimisation (this is often overlooked, but really is a big gain)? Efficient AC traction motors? Lower overall train mass? Reduced maintenance? Over the lifespan of the electrification infrastructure and trains themselves, its difficult to deny the energy-saving benefits of GWML electrification and similar schemes.

 

[Dai Corner]

But they weigh more - so you need more power for a given level of performance - cost more, and in the case of batteries have a much shorter range than what we have now and take much longer to re-fuel.

Technology may well be evolving, but if you take a car as an example, they have some way to go before you can drive one 400 miles on one charge, stop for 10 mins to re-charge and then go another 400 miles. Because that's what a petrol or diesel car can easily do now.

All true. It will depend on future technology, economics and politics.

 

[AlexNL]

Well, Nuclear is not the answer either. I have been into one of those power stations and its very unpleasant and there is still highly cancerous material as a bi-product, which can not be disposed of and is buried in sealed tubes fifteen foot in the ground under re-enforced concrete and glass. 1 second exposure to that material = instant cancer. Give me a coal fired power station and Diesel particulates any day over that dangerous and highly toxic stuff. I can remember being on Birmingham New Street in the 1980's - standing next to my namesake 50008 - lovely diesel fumes everywhere. The world has gone "green" mad, even though some of the "green" solutions are not that green.

Nuclear is just one of the many, many possible ways in which electricity can be generated. You can also use solar, hydro (if the landscape is beneficial for that), wind, biomass, or even a gigafactory full of hamsters (in their little wheels) and dynamos. For our current society's energy needs, nuclear is the most cost efficient option of generating the electricity that we need in order to be able to support our daily lives.

I mentioned nuclear because I am a proponent for nuclear energy myself - despite its downsides and risks, it is a very efficient and very clean way of generating electricity. The risks are small and are well-managed and the average layman won't ever get exposed to nuclear's potential toxicity.

Unlike diesel.

Ha ..hardly. We all breathe in far worse every day. Road Traffic fumes are a huge contributor to air pollution in urban areas, yet we have been breathing it in all our lives and we are still here. People are too "fragile" these days. A leaf drops on their head and they have concussion ha!

Air pollution, caused by road traffic fumes among others, are known to cause thousands of deaths on a yearly basis. The "dieselgate" scandal is known to cause at least 38,000 early deaths per year!

 

[TractiveEffort]

And when said class 800 driver is performing braking? I'll provide you with some quotes from published papers:

(ESS=Energy Storage System)

Khodaparastan, Mahdiyeh & A. Mohamed, Ahmed & Brandauer, Werner. (2018). Recuperation of Regenerative Braking Energy in Electric Rail Transit Systems.


J. Wang, H.A. Rakha / Applied Energy 193 (2017) 346–355


Energy Conversion and Management 75 (2013) 374–388

Now then, I used regenerative braking as just 1 example of energy-saving technology on modern electric trains. 30% energy savings. What else could I start with? Timetable optimisation (this is often overlooked, but really is a big gain)? Efficient AC traction motors? Lower overall train mass? Reduced maintenance? Over the lifespan of the electrification infrastructure and trains themselves, its difficult to deny the energy-saving benefits of GWML electrification and similar schemes.

I reckon 30% efficiency from regen braking is about as pie in the sky as VW’s emission figures or any car manufacturers MPG figures...... Theory and practice aren’t necessarily equal bedfellows.

 

[43096]

I reckon 30% efficiency from regen braking is about as pie in the sky as VW’s emission figures or any car manufacturers MPG figures...... Theory and practice aren’t necessarily equal bedfellows.

It might be handy if you provide some evidence, rather than just “I reckon”.

 

[samuelmorris]

This is becoming well off topic and everyone's entitled to their opinion but some of the points made on diesel vs electrification here are rather inaccurate as well as irresponsible.
There is no denying the ineptitude shown by NR, the DfT etc. with regard to electrification but it is undeniably the way forward. The only possible argument against concerns Hydrogen units which are a little suspect until mass adoption (not from a unit viability standpoint but from ensuring hydrogen is manufactured from large enough facilities to be sustainable, with a renewable power feed to run it).

Renewable power output increases all the time and as stated earlier, this has a direct impact on the carbon footprint of the railway without any railway infrastructure investment. Diesel trains purchased now will still be diesel trains in 30-40 years' time when they are retired, I almost guarantee it and new ones are only being commissioned where necessary. Sadly they all too often are still necessary at the moment - attitudes like those displayed in this thread towards electrification will not help. The intoxicating fumes from a 50 may be nostalgic and less irritant than ADBlue/DPF filtered emissions but there is no practical reason why we should ever consider them a positive. The automotive industry has a few excuses for why combustion engines should be retained and the aviation industry relies on carbon emissions for the next decade at least, but the railway has had a perfectly viable alternative for decades, the only barrier is infrastructure investment.

A disinterested austerity government is one thing but proposing diesel power is no less environmentally damaging than electrification is quite another.
The comments about nuclear are also inaccurate as more radiation gets into the environment from the trace elements in burning coal than from nuclear power (because if there are ever any mishaps, other than a full scale accident they're tiny). That's another story, however, as I think even worse issues have been encountered with new nuclear than with electrifying the railways in terms of cost overruns and mismanagement.
I've therefore no real desire (any longer, my opinion has changed on that in the past 5 years) to see new nuclear plants built but there are plenty of better alternatives nowadays. The best thing we can do with the railways is to reduce the use of small diesel engines wherever possible, and that's exactly why the 800s are bimode. If more manufacturers offered it, I'd have liked to see it elsewhere. The Stadler units in Anglia are a promising start since they offer this with less of the DfT-led shernanigans over contracts, interior spec etc.

On a more on-topic matter, I see no reason why the people campaigning for an 'HST2' could not have had it both ways. With slightly larger power cars I'm sure you could easily fit a pantograph and transformer in each unit and use the HST principle but maintain the ability to run Bimode.
The myriad of problems with the 800s and 802s, as far as I can see, aren't really because of the Bimode specification at all.

 

[Master29]

About a year ago diesel was fantastic. Move on a year, the government tell us what has been know for years about diesel pollution and now all of a sudden everyone who owns a diesel car or advocates diesel power needs to be burned at the stake. Histrionics quite frankly. We don`t realise how brainwashed we all are.

 

[sprinterguy]

On a more on-topic matter, I see no reason why the people campaigning for an 'HST2' could not have had it both ways. With slightly larger power cars I'm sure you could easily fit a pantograph and transformer in each unit and use the HST principle but maintain the ability to run Bimode.

As I recall that's exactly what Chinese company CRSE were offering a few years ago with their 'Polaris' trains.

And the original Hitachi IET spec was for a separate diesel power car at one end of the train on the bi-mode sets, before they switched to underfloor engines distributed along the train.