Shapps wants ‘earlier extinction of diesel trains’: suggestions welcome on how to achieve this

[Kingspanner]

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/teesside-could-home-first-fleet-16179606

The above suggests that Hydrogen trains "might" be trialled on Teesside "shortly". If the hydrogen is from a green source this decarbonises the trains without the expense, complexity and occasional dewiring issues of OHLE, and without the range anxiety of batteries. Of course, there are one or two other issues...

 

[coppercapped]

Faster trains are easier to provide and cheaper to run once the electrified infrastructure is in place than with diesels. Similarly, more frequent services using electric trains are cheaper to provide than with diesels. That's all before the travelling public realise that electric railways of almost any age are cleaner for both themselves and the environment than even the newest diesel operated line with the same service density.

I dispute that assertion, - see my comment above. You are also blurring the discussion by bringing in other route enhancements. Taking an existing route run with current diesel trains and compared to the same route run with equivalent age cascaded electric trains, there would be an uplift in patronage.

I am not. Simply replacing diesel trains with the same number of electric trains, even if they are marginally faster, will not, of itself, generate an increase in passenger numbers sufficient to cover the costs of the electric infrastructure. Even in this post-carbon age things still have to be paid for. Only a combination of speed and frequency will have a significant effect.

When the main trunk route to Manchester and Liverpool were electrified journey times were dramatically cut and it was easy to increase frequencies in those days as track occupancy was much lower - the jump in patronage was dramatic and British Eagle stopped flying from London to Liverpool. Electric operation on the East Coast did not lead to such a significant traffic increase as the West Coast because the route was already served by 125mph trains and frequencies were already higher.

These days with much higher frequencies the limits to train frequency are not so much the headways on plain line, but the lack of terminal capacity, pinch points at flat junctions and the difficulty in pathing a mixture of non-stop, stopping and freight trains on the same rails. If you are looking for a modal shift to rail, for those journeys where rail is a contender, the infrastructure will have be widened. Anything else is self-delusion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am not. Simply replacing diesel trains with the same number of electric trains, even if they are marginally faster, will not, of itself, generate an increase in passenger numbers sufficient to cover the costs of the electric infrastructure.

Did anyone say it would? The point is that we need to stop burning dead dinosaurs due to issues both relating to carbon and particulates. This is going to cost money, but it has to stop.

I'm not overly surprised you take this view based on previous postings, but it comes across rather as knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

 

[coppercapped]

Did anyone say it would? The point is that we need to stop burning dead dinosaurs due to issues both relating to carbon and particulates. This is going to cost money, but it has to stop.

I'm not overly surprised you take this view based on previous postings, but it comes across rather as knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

I don't need anybody to tell me about the dangers of air pollution. I was at college in London at the time of the last London Smog in 1962/3. It was not as bad as the Great Smog of 1952 but it still killed several hundred people directly. It was filthy; slightly frightening as one couldn't see more than a couple of arms lengths in the day and night time was impenetrable; it smelt of sulphur and soot and chemicals. It lasted three or four days and then the wind changed.

The pollution one sees today in the UK is minimal compared to that. That Smog killed, you could count the bodies. These days statistical calculations show that x thousand people a year die early, where the number of deceased varies depending on what value for the shorter life is selected, 3 months, 6 months or whatever. In 1952 the average life span in the UK was about 65, it is now around 79 (women live slightly longer) and that in spite of the current scares about pollution.

None of this should be taken to mean that we should not continue to try to reduce levels of harmful emissions. But the scaremongering has to stop - in general the situation is better now than it has been for several generations.

 

[HSTEd]

Use Parliamentary Supremacy to explicity exempt 750Vdc third rail installations from the Electricity at Work Regulations and order the ORR to permit the installation of such systems. (Subject to integral sheathing of the sides/bottom of the rail or other reasonable modifications)

Then start laying minimum specification third rail systems, specced to the actual timetable, on secondary routes.

More realistically.... just scrap the entire diesel fleet early and replace them all with a huge run of bi-mode trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

20 years would be plenty of time to electrify the majority of the UK network if desired. There's roughly 9,000 single-track km (stk) of non-electrified passenger railway in the UK so over 20 years that's 450stk per year.

Can someone give the reasons why Grayling held to his stated views about route electrification?

 

[AndrewE]

Can someone give the reasons why Grayling held to his stated views about route electrification?

Unfortunately he never even attempted to provide any justification whatsoever. Leads to the suspicion that it was just public spending outside the Southeast, so not worth bothering with...

 

[Bletchleyite]

The pollution one sees today in the UK is minimal compared to that. That Smog killed, you could count the bodies. These days statistical calculations show that x thousand people a year die early, where the number of deceased varies depending on what value for the shorter life is selected, 3 months, 6 months or whatever. In 1952 the average life span in the UK was about 65, it is now around 79 (women live slightly longer) and that in spite of the current scares about pollution.

None of this should be taken to mean that we should not continue to try to reduce levels of harmful emissions. But the scaremongering has to stop - in general the situation is better now than it has been for several generations.

Are you a climate change denyer, out of interest? As that side of things is not even mentioned in your reply, yet it is a strong reason to (a) electrify, and (b) move electricity generation to non-fossil fuels?

 

[AM9]

I don't need anybody to tell me about the dangers of air pollution. I was at college in London at the time of the last London Smog in 1962/3. It was not as bad as the Great Smog of 1952 but it still killed several hundred people directly. It was filthy; slightly frightening as one couldn't see more than a couple of arms lengths in the day and night time was impenetrable; it smelt of sulphur and soot and chemicals. It lasted three or four days and then the wind changed.

The pollution one sees today in the UK is minimal compared to that. That Smog killed, you could count the bodies. These days statistical calculations show that x thousand people a year die early, where the number of deceased varies depending on what value for the shorter life is selected, 3 months, 6 months or whatever. In 1952 the average life span in the UK was about 65, it is now around 79 (women live slightly longer) and that in spite of the current scares about pollution.

None of this should be taken to mean that we should not continue to try to reduce levels of harmful emissions. But the scaremongering has to stop - in general the situation is better now than it has been for several generations.

Diesel pollution is a local health issue. NOX levels are dangerously high, giving a rise in smog frequency. The pea-soupers of the 50s & 60s were caused by smoke from coal burning and the resulting higher levels of sulphur dioxide. That is nothing to do with the photochemical smog now being experienced in cities in the UK and elsewhere which is a much higher health hazard.
CO2 is a global issue, CO2 created anywhere in the world, adds to the total level so can't be dismissed as somebody else's problem.
So just because you can't see smog in the same density that it was in the middle of the 20th century, it doesn't mean that it isn't still there, indeed it is an a lot more dangerous. If you think otherwise then you are arguing along with the climate change deniers.

 

[Aictos]

Use Parliamentary Supremacy to explicitly exempt 750Vdc third rail installations from the Electricity at Work Regulations and order the ORR to permit the installation of such systems. (Subject to integral sheathing of the sides/bottom of the rail or other reasonable modifications)

Then start laying minimum specification third rail systems, specced to the actual timetable, on secondary routes.

I agree, with Oxted to Uckfield/Salisbury to Exeter Central/Wokingham to Ash (Aldershot South Junction) and Shalford Junction to Reigate which being electrified would make the most difference on the Southern Region.

 

[yorksrob]

Sadly, given Network Rail’s wholesale project management incompetence in delivering anything remotely near budget and timescales then that was the right decision at the time. Get that sorted out first and then restart the programmes.

To be fair, the industry would be more likely to get better at it with a rolling programme, rather than having to start all over everytime some here today, gone tomorrow Goverment has a change of heart.

It will be interesting to see what the MML scheme has cost. It might not be as expensive as some will have assumed, based on the GW experience.

We need a rolling electrification programme full stop. I'm not sure if the programme cut by Grayling really was a rolling one, it was GWML, MML, electric spine (whose cancellation wasn't even announced) and north-west + TPE. A fairly extensive programme to be sure but there was no authorisation or funding promised for any routes for the wiring teams to move onto once that lot was done.

It was all rather at the same time. However, a sensible Minister could have paused bits of it to follow on after other bits had been completed.

Use Parliamentary Supremacy to explicity exempt 750Vdc third rail installations from the Electricity at Work Regulations and order the ORR to permit the installation of such systems. (Subject to integral sheathing of the sides/bottom of the rail or other reasonable modifications)

Agree with this. Whilst they're at it, they can revert to the traditional OLE clearances at the same time.

 

[The Ham]

I am not. Simply replacing diesel trains with the same number of electric trains, even if they are marginally faster, will not, of itself, generate an increase in passenger numbers sufficient to cover the costs of the electric infrastructure. Even in this post-carbon age things still have to be paid for. Only a combination of speed and frequency will have a significant effect.

When the main trunk route to Manchester and Liverpool were electrified journey times were dramatically cut and it was easy to increase frequencies in those days as track occupancy was much lower - the jump in patronage was dramatic and British Eagle stopped flying from London to Liverpool. Electric operation on the East Coast did not lead to such a significant traffic increase as the West Coast because the route was already served by 125mph trains and frequencies were already higher.

These days with much higher frequencies the limits to train frequency are not so much the headways on plain line, but the lack of terminal capacity, pinch points at flat junctions and the difficulty in pathing a mixture of non-stop, stopping and freight trains on the same rails. If you are looking for a modal shift to rail, for those journeys where rail is a contender, the infrastructure will have be widened. Anything else is self-delusion.

Generally EMU's are longer than DMU's.

Take for instance the number of two coach EMU's and compare this to the number of 4 coach DMU's and they are equally rare.

Even 3 coach EMU's aren't that common and although 3 coach DMU's are reasonably common they are significantly out numbered by 2 coach units.

As such chances are EMU's are more likely to be longer (and therefore have more capacity) then any DMU's they replace. This would likely increase the numbers of passengers using those trains. Now given that the costs of running trains don't increase proportionally based on their length any increase in costs for longer trains wouldn't need to increase passenger numbers by the same percentage.

For instance increase from a 2 coach DMU to a 3 coach EMU and although you've got 1/3 more seats your lease costs would have typically increased by 27%, whilst your driver and guard costs typically don't increase at all.

This all ads up and would possibly mean only needing an extra 10-20% passengers to break even. That still leaves quite a few extra seats so the train feels more pleasant.

 

[MarkyT]

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/teesside-could-home-first-fleet-16179606

The above suggests that Hydrogen trains "might" be trialled on Teesside "shortly". If the hydrogen is from a green source this decarbonises the trains without the expense, complexity and occasional dewiring issues of OHLE, and without the range anxiety of batteries. Of course, there are one or two other issues...

There is no 'range anxiety' involved with batteries on rail with discontinuous electrification. You design the diagrams and the proportion of electrified route to match the range of the trains which just go about their scheduled activities charging and discharging en route as neccessary. Electrify a bit more route and remove some of the batteries if possible. Replace cells with better chemistry at next renewal and get more range...

Hydrogen could be the long term solution to finally eliminate longer distance diesels in far flung rural areas that will never justify wires, like the Scottish Highlands, once the diesel bi-modes on busier parts have had their generator sets removed in favour of batteries due to a progressive discontinuous electrification programme. Elsewhere, as a transport traction source for large scale use in busy areas, hydrogen is expensive and inefficient compared to batteries today over the whole manufacturing and distribution cycle (about EIGHT TIMES the price according to the video linked below). Of course energy is only one small part of total operating and maintenance costs, and rail and other planned public transport services have the particular advantage of having a network of service diagrams radiating from a common depot where a single supply point can be established. A hydrogen plant at Norwich Crown Point for example could supply the entire new cl.755 fleet, converted to fuel cell power to decarbonise the whole local East Anglian network.

The Truth about Hydrogen

 

[The Ham]

I don't need anybody to tell me about the dangers of air pollution. I was at college in London at the time of the last London Smog in 1962/3. It was not as bad as the Great Smog of 1952 but it still killed several hundred people directly. It was filthy; slightly frightening as one couldn't see more than a couple of arms lengths in the day and night time was impenetrable; it smelt of sulphur and soot and chemicals. It lasted three or four days and then the wind changed.

The pollution one sees today in the UK is minimal compared to that. That Smog killed, you could count the bodies. These days statistical calculations show that x thousand people a year die early, where the number of deceased varies depending on what value for the shorter life is selected, 3 months, 6 months or whatever. In 1952 the average life span in the UK was about 65, it is now around 79 (women live slightly longer) and that in spite of the current scares about pollution.

None of this should be taken to mean that we should not continue to try to reduce levels of harmful emissions. But the scaremongering has to stop - in general the situation is better now than it has been for several generations.

Air quality problems have changed over time, however things have improved.

Smog, Acid Rain, CO2.

As we realize that we've messed up with what we do we change what we do and improve the environment.

Chances are there'll be yet more things which we'll need to fix, but we've fixed a number of things before and we'll do it again.

 

[Tobbes]

I'm interested to see the cost/benefit of discontinuous electrification (given that it needs more complex trains), and the limitation it puts on existing fleets (no batteries, no go). For simplicity and ubiquity, my strong preference would be for conventional electrification on a rolling programme everywhere other than the most rural lines.

This is more about prioritisation than de minimus line drawing - let's start with the most polluting routes and those that affect the most people in terms of poor air quality (e.g., Chiltern is higher up the list than it may otherwise be because of London and Birmingham), and work out from there.

 

[MarkyT]

I'm interested to see the cost/benefit of discontinuous electrification (given that it needs more complex trains), and the limitation it puts on existing fleets (no batteries, no go). For simplicity and ubiquity, my strong preference would be for conventional electrification on a rolling programme everywhere other than the most rural lines.

This is more about prioritisation than de minimus line drawing - let's start with the most polluting routes and those that affect the most people in terms of poor air quality (e.g., Chiltern is higher up the list than it may otherwise be because of London and Birmingham), and work out from there.

I'd say as long as we're talking about batteries for powering through the gaps, there is no significant increase in complexity over a simple electric unit. It is mainly a question of where to accommodate the bulk and weight of the batteries, which should not be a problem if designed in from the start on a new train. With diesel or indeed hydrogen power on board there are many more difficulties, and safety issues over how and where to store the fuel. The FLIRTs in East Anglia could potentially accommodate batteries and fuel cells in the 'power pod' unit.

 

[squizzler]

This discussion just seems to assume rail will continue to compete against a motorcar fleet that remains largely the same as is, just gradually switch to various sorts of low emissions engines. And will continue to be used as such. Wrong! Even without a government mandated ban on traditional types of engine, the age of mass motoring is drawing to a close. I am willing to predict that resource scarcity, desire for better and safer public environments, and general apathy of young people towards the whole motoring experience will lead to a 'mass dieback' of cars in general. Ditto lorries.

Sure, there will still be cars and lorries about, but their usage will be more akin to that experienced in the age of rationing during the 1940's and 1950s. For the rest there will be public transport or trains.

Essentially, with a level playing field that mandates zero emission from all surface transport within a decade or so, rail traffic will multiply to the level that - of the current network - there will be virtually nowhere left that does not justify wiring of some description.

 

[The Ham]

I'd say as long as we're talking about batteries for powering through the gaps, there is no significant increase in complexity over a simple electric unit. It is mainly a question of where to accommodate the bulk and weight of the batteries, which should not be a problem if designed in from the start on a new train. With diesel or indeed hydrogen power on board there are many more difficulties, and safety issues over how and where to store the fuel. The FLIRTs in East Anglia could potentially accommodate batteries and fuel cells in the 'power pod' unit.

Indeed, even allowing for a half charged battery most gaps will require a battery with a range of a mile. Even from a standing start this wouldn't need to be very big.

 

[tbtc]

I am not. Simply replacing diesel trains with the same number of electric trains, even if they are marginally faster, will not, of itself, generate an increase in passenger numbers sufficient to cover the costs of the electric infrastructure

Did anyone say it would?

In fairness to @coppercapped , a lot of people on here over-egg the "sparks effect"... if you didn't know anything about railways then reading the posts on here would give the impression that simply changing the power source of a train would suddenly attract thousands of new passengers.

And it's not just the "sparks effect", people similarly go on about this massive "untapped demand", as if increasing the capacity on any line is all you need to do to replicate Operation Princess.

Most of the lines where passenger numbers went up significantly at the time of electrification were a combination of

• increased frequencies
• longer trains
• more comfortable/ better quality trains (please not yet another debate about seats though - please!)
• a long period of disruption due to electrification meaning that there was an apparent jump in passenger numbers once the line re-gained an all-day/all-week service
• a time of economic boom, meaning more commuter demand (e.g. the market for travel into booming Leeds in the early '90s, when previously very few people would have commuted all the way from places like Ilkley/ Keighley)

...but now that frequencies have been pretty much maxed out at major termini, there's a lot less scope for more departures (e.g. the planned EMR timetable will see just the same number of St Pancras departures for Leicester since there's no capacity to increase the paths due to the squeeze of Thameslink), we certainly aren't living in times of much economic boom any more either!

I'm all for wide eyed optimism but I think that we need to be more realistic about the effects of changing fuel on passenger numbers - there are good reasons for electrification (better air quality, more sustainable, cheaper to run trains, potentially running a four coach electric train at less than the cost of a two coach diesel train) but we don't need to exaggerate. I'd love to consign "Sparks Effect" into the Forum's swear filter

 

[Mikey C]

I'm interested to see the cost/benefit of discontinuous electrification (given that it needs more complex trains), and the limitation it puts on existing fleets (no batteries, no go). For simplicity and ubiquity, my strong preference would be for conventional electrification on a rolling programme everywhere other than the most rural lines.

This is more about prioritisation than de minimus line drawing - let's start with the most polluting routes and those that affect the most people in terms of poor air quality (e.g., Chiltern is higher up the list than it may otherwise be because of London and Birmingham), and work out from there.

Chiltern desperately needs longer trains. And indeed faster ones to replace the 165s. If they don't electrify part or all of the route, then realistically the only alternative is a large new fleet of DMUs which really wouldn't make much long term sense.

Batteries might be a partial solution, but surely the route will need significant electrification one way or another, we're not talking about a quiet branch line here.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Chiltern desperately needs longer trains. And indeed faster ones to replace the 165s. If they don't electrify part or all of the route, then realistically the only alternative is a large new fleet of DMUs which really wouldn't make much long term sense.

Batteries might be a partial solution, but surely the route will need significant electrification one way or another, we're not talking about a quiet branch line here.

That's going to be fun! Am I correct in guessing that the tunnels out of Marylebone are not tall enough to fit OHLE in? And that you couldn't rebuild them without closing Marylebone completely for several months?

 

[MarkyT]

That's going to be fun! Am I correct in guessing that the tunnels out of Marylebone are not tall enough to fit OHLE in? And that you couldn't rebuild them without closing Marylebone completely for several months?

A perfect application for discontinuous techniques then.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Chiltern desperately needs longer trains

Does it? Chiltern seem to be masters of cobbling together the precise formation length required from a random ensemble of shortish DMUs.

While you can't get 25kV 2-car EMUs, I could see them going for 3s and 4s, if electrified, allowing formation of 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12-car sets (or longer, though that would be unusual).

 

[Speed43125]

Chiltern desperately needs longer trains. And indeed faster ones to replace the 165s. If they don't electrify part or all of the route, then realistically the only alternative is a large new fleet of DMUs which really wouldn't make much long term sense.

Batteries might be a partial solution, but surely the route will need significant electrification one way or another, we're not talking about a quiet branch line here.

Obviously stadler have been moting a 745 with diesel generators, but that's not really likely here.

How does the performance of a Chiltern turbo compare with a turbostar? it won't provide any extra capacity, but are 170s any faster?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How does the performance of a Chiltern turbo compare with a turbostar? either way the capacity just won't exist, but are 170s any faster?

168s are Turbostars. The 165s perform vaguely similarly but only up to 75mph (I think).

 

[HSTEd]

Sure, there will still be cars and lorries about, but their usage will be more akin to that experienced in the age of rationing during the 1940's and 1950s. For the rest there will be public transport or trains.

Given the laughable state of the rail network and the enormous fare costs, this is only practical if people accept a drastic reduction in the quantity of goods they consume, including food and drink and everything else, and a drastic reduction in their personal mobility.

Frankly the rail network is far too expensive and totally unfit to bear a larger proportion of our transport needs, and expecting people to accept a return to the 1940s lifestyle is absurd.

Cut fares by three quarters if you want to build the world you imagine. And abolish idiotic railcards.
As for freight, moving any significant quantity of freight on the UK rail network would require essentially building an all new network - the existing one simply is not suitable in any real sense.
Trains are too short and too gauge restricted.

Essentially, with a level playing field that mandates zero emission from all surface transport within a decade or so, rail traffic will multiply to the level that - of the current network - there will be virtually nowhere left that does not justify wiring of some description.

It would be cheaper to embrace the Siemens eHighway than attempt to fix the rail system with it's current culture and ownership/operation structure

A perfect application for discontinuous techniques then.

A better option would be to note the relatively low traffic in and out of Marylebone and the close integration of the Chiltern infrastructure with London Underground and simply build the base of the Chiltern system as a third rail assembly.
But because of ORR intransigence.... we will get nothing instead.

 

[Mikey C]

Obviously stadler have been moting a 745 with diesel generators, but that's not really likely here.

How does the performance of a Chiltern turbo compare with a turbostar? either way the capacity just won't exist, but are 170s any faster?

The Chiltern 165s are 75mph units, which causes major headaches as some of them operate stopping services on the Mainline route. Often Mainline trains get stuck behind them.

There are still 2 car services operating in the rush hour also.

 

[Bald Rick]

AIUI, the MML has cost more per single track km than the GWML.

But not as much as Ediinburghh - Glasgow.

 

[MarkyT]

A better option would be to note the relatively low traffic in and out of Marylebone and the close integration of the Chiltern infrastructure with London Underground and simply build the base of the Chiltern system as a third rail assembly. But because of ORR intransigence.... we will get nothing instead.

Possibly the only kind of area where an extension of ground level DC might be justifiable I would have thought, due to the proximity of the existing Met electrification, and other characteristics of the route such as lack of level crossings and other access points. That wouldn't apply to the South Ruislip section beyond Neasden though, or north of Amersham, where transitions to OHLE would likely be required.

 

[Speed43125]

168s are Turbostars. The 165s perform vaguely similarly but only up to 75mph (I think).

Ah. well then. clearly limiting.