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

[MarkyT]

AIUI, the MML has cost more per single track km than the GWML. But not as much as Ediinburghh - Glasgow.

Possibly because the MML in particular devolved to became a comparatively tiny project, but with large fixed overheads nonetheless (pun not intended).

 

[Bald Rick]

Possibly because the MML in particular devolved to became a comparatively tiny project, but with large fixed overheads nonetheless (pun not intended).

More bridges to clear I think.

 

[yorksrob]

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

But not as much as Ediinburghh - Glasgow.

Possibly because the MML in particular devolved to became a comparatively tiny project, but with large fixed overheads nonetheless (pun not intended).

Or because of the new OLE clearance regulations.

 

[gavin1985]

Cut fares by three quarters if you want to build the world you imagine. And abolish idiotic railcards.

This is mainly the sole reason why I rather drive from Edinburgh to almost anywhere in the UK, because the cost of a train ticket is not justified to "ditch" the car. The idea of getting cheaper fares if you spend another £30 for a railcard is plain stupid.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for trying to help with climate change etc, but with the fares being overly priced compared to jumping in the car needs to change. If the train tickets were same price or better yet slightly cheaper than the car (petrol costs and parking) then to me it would be a no brainer to get the train where is it plausible.

 

[Bald Rick]

Or because of the new OLE clearance regulations.

Which all the projects complied with!

 

[coppercapped]

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?

That type of response has become the railway equivalent of Godwin's Law.

From those who consider the matter carefully, there are very few who would deny that the climate is changing. However the climate has *always* been changing, and that without any help from Man. The evidence is in the geological records. The two issues which are really being debated at the moment are:

• 'How much of the measured increase in temperature and atmospheric CO2 is due to man-made activities?' and
• 'How much money should we spend to try to stop or reverse these changes?'

There also seems to be an assumption that climate change is a 'bad thing'. It is also possible to consider that it might have benefits - warmer weather in our latitudes could make farming more productive and would lead to a reduction in the use of energy needed to keep houses warm in winter.

The UK is lucky in that wind farms around the coasts will be able to supply much of our electricity - there's nearly always a wind at sea - so the UK's consumption of fossil fuels will fall, indeed it has already fallen. But other, more land-locked, countries don't have this advantage. CO2 emissions in these places will be much, much harder to reduce so even if the use of diesel fuel on the railways in Britain falls from the current value of about 580,000 tonnes per year to zero (if everything is electrified) - do you honestly think the ensuing reduction in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would even register on a European or global level? An indicator: according to Eurostat the total consumption of oil products in the 28 member states of the EU was a shade under 400 million tonnes a year in 2017 - the railways in Britain used 0.145% of this total.

It would be a better use of capital to make the railways more competitive with road travel - so encouraging a modal shift towards public transport - by spending the money which would be used for electrifying lines with low traffic densities, such as that over Rannoch Moor, to speed up routes and remove pinch points. Such a programme would reduce overall emissions even if the trains remained diesel operated.

This is not to say that NOx levels and fine particulates should not be minimised - but claiming the situation now is bad and essentially irretrievable and scaremongering on the basis of statistics of predicted deaths is not warranted. I would suggest that such a position is in fact counter-productive; over the years I have lived through many such scary periods - nuclear weapons will be used and result in an arctic winter and we will all perish; if the UK joins the EU the wheels will fall off the economy and we'll all be unemployed; HIV will spread uncontrolledly and much of the world's population will be infected and die.

Guess what happened?

A little bit more reflection and analysis and less emotion would not come amiss.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So "yes" then, in other words. I think our views are so diametrically opposed that there is little point in continuing this between us, other than that I do agree with increasing capacity - with EMUs cheaper, longer-lasting and more reliable than DMUs electrification is an excellent way of achieving this.

 

[HSTEd]

Well a lot of pinch points will dissapear if all trains are high power electrics with identical performance characteristics.

 

[coppercapped]

So "yes" then, in other words.

How the hell you get to that conclusion is beyond me. Did I not write that there are few that deny climate is changing? Did I write that I was among those?

No? Thought not.

I classify you as someone who only sees what he wants to see.

 

[Kingspanner]

Steady on everyone. I must say coppercapped I wasn't sure what you were saying in post 95 at first. I would agree that we have to find ways that preserve lifestyles where possible and are affordable, I would disagree about about the climate always changing in the sense that there is no evidence that it has ever changed this quickly before (albeit that historic climate proxies are not always very sensitive to rapid fluctuations). The real issue with climate change is not only warming. Ask any passing physicist what will happen if you add energy to a chaotic system - it will become locally more extreme. Plus there is no upside to sea level rise or, for example, a sudden change in the range of mosquitos, or sudden desperate human migrations forced by drought or crop failure etc.

 

[coppercapped]

Steady on everyone. I must say coppercapped I wasn't sure what you were saying in post 95 at first. I would agree that we have to find ways that preserve lifestyles where possible and are affordable, I would disagree about about the climate always changing in the sense that there is no evidence that it has ever changed this quickly before (albeit that historic climate proxies are not always very sensitive to rapid fluctuations). The real issue with climate change is not only warming. Ask any passing physicist what will happen if you add energy to a chaotic system - it will become locally more extreme. Plus there is no upside to sea level rise or, for example, a sudden change in the range of mosquitos, or sudden desperate human migrations forced by drought or crop failure etc.

I am a passing physicist...!

The point I was trying to make was that even if much money were to be spent on electrifying every last metre of track in the UK, at the most it would reduce diesel oil consumption by a maximum of 500,000 tonnes a year. This is about 0.15% of the current European annual total. On a European or global scale this reduction will make a minute difference to the total quantities of CO2 in the air - any change will be lost in the noise.

If one wants to spend this amount of money in protecting the environment it would be more effective in getting people off the roads - and reducing fossil fuel consumption - if the rail service offer were improved in terms of speed, frequency and routing choices even if some of the services remain diesel operated.

I well understand the other issues - but originally this thread was about Mr Shapps wanting to get rid of diesel trains in the UK by some nominal date; it was not concerned with wider effects of global temperature increases.

 

[HSTEd]

I am a passing physicist...!
If one wants to spend this amount of money in protecting the environment it would be more effective in getting people off the roads - and reducing fossil fuel consumption - if the rail service offer were improved in terms of speed, frequency and routing choices even if some of the services remain diesel operated.

High performance diesels are a lot better than they used to be, but they still cannot possibly hope to achieve the speed of electric trains.

Compare a Turbostar to a Class 395 as an example of a diesel suburban unit and a high performance electric one.
Even if the 395 traction system is stuffed in a gangwayed 100mph unit, the different in performance would allow a mixed stopping and semi fast service to be replaced with a simpler and easier to timetable stopping service that is as fast as the semi fast.

Each 20m vehicle in a Class 395 has ~750 traction horsepower, it has more at wheel horsepower than even a Voyager vehicle! And yet weighs less.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

High performance diesels are a lot better than they used to be, but they still cannot possibly hope to achieve the speed of electric trains.

I'm sure that's true. But even so, would it really be good value to electrify - say - the Far North Line? I'd strongly disagree with @coppercapped about his reservations on climate change, but I'm pretty sure he's correct that there comes a point at which, if money is available to improve the rail network, you'll get far better value for money, and much greater CO2 reductions by using that money to improve capacity or speeds in some capacity-restricted built up area then you would by electrifying long bits of track that only see a few trains per day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure that's true. But even so, would it really be good value to electrify - say - the Far North Line? I'd strongly disagree with @coppercapped about his reservations on climate change, but I'm pretty sure he's correct that there comes a point at which, if money is available to improve the rail network, you'll get far better value for money, and much greater CO2 reductions by using that money to improve capacity or speeds in some capacity-restricted built up area then you would by electrifying long bits of track that only see a few trains per day.

I'd agree with that, having suggested a line with 1tph is probably the level we should get to with the wires. But what of the Far North? Replace with electric buses, or find some other way like hydrogen?

 

[muddythefish]

I'm sure that's true. But even so, would it really be good value to electrify - say - the Far North Line? I'd strongly disagree with @coppercapped about his reservations on climate change, but I'm pretty sure he's correct that there comes a point at which, if money is available to improve the rail network, you'll get far better value for money, and much greater CO2 reductions by using that money to improve capacity or speeds in some capacity-restricted built up area then you would by electrifying long bits of track that only see a few trains per day.

I've travelled around Norway, Sweden and Finland. Most of their long distance lines are single track and not used that intensively. All of them are electrified.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm sure that's true. But even so, would it really be good value to electrify - say - the Far North Line?

Electrification of the Far North Line is likely to be much cheaper than electrifying further south, for example due the scarcity of structures that will need gauge clearance. And the lightweight power supply requirements.
Railways with comparable traffic densities are electrified abroad, in Norway and the like.

Especially if we can take a note out of the book of American electric railroads and use telephone poles instead of steel masts.....

In all honesty I would have to see a study tailored to the line.
And we are a long long way from that.

 

[option]

I agree completely, but we also need a solution for the routes where electrification doesn't have a business case - otherwise @158756 will be right!

Though any individual routes business case is affected by whats happening outside of that route.

It's cheaper to electrify branches whilst your doing a mainline than to leave them as separate projects.

 

[AndrewE]

Though any individual route's business case is affected by what's happening outside of that route.

Whose "business case?" I will repeat, a business case is just another cost-benefit analysis, and what you get out depends on the weightings you give the various factors.
For example, if there was another oil crisis (global shortage) then being able to keep cities moving by running trains on electricity generated from other fuels might be given an extremely high rating, equally if public opinion had reached boiling point about pollution (and consequent disease and premature deaths) in cities then eliminating diesel working through conurbations and bigger towns might also be seen as a high priority - so again you give it a high weighting, whereas currently the spineless shower in Westminster and Whitehall seem not care at all about death rates beyond their immediate neighbourhood.

It's cheaper to electrify branches whilst you're doing a mainline than to leave them as separate projects.

Of course it is, and it's also cheaper to work them into the future... why do you think the St Alban's and Bedford branches off the WCML (and Coventry to Nuneaton, for that matter) are still unwired?

 

[hwl]

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...

The whole point of Teeside is that there is plenty of non-green hydrogen and it is cheap. They don't care about green which would cost more!

Hydorgen is also very inefficient overall (circa 1/3rd of battery) and battery is a far better decarbonsiation option for "off the wires" passenger services.

If OHLE is done properly there is very little de-wirement

 

[hwl]

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

But not as much as Ediinburghh - Glasgow.

How much of that MML cost is for:
a) renewing /upgrading south of Bedford
b) rebuilding bridges north of Market Harborough and no longer needed
d) re-quadrification north of Sharnbrook
e) resignalling north of Bedford
f) re-doubling to Corby

 

[Bald Rick]

How much of that MML cost is for:
a) renewing /upgrading south of Bedford
b) rebuilding bridges north of Market Harborough and no longer needed
d) re-quadrification north of Sharnbrook
e) resignalling north of Bedford
f) re-doubling to Corby

AIUI, in the analysis of electrification costs, none, except for elements of resignalling needed specifically for electrification, of which there was not much (as the Leicester psb area was signalled ‘electrification ready’ when it was done in the late 80s.) The MML had a higher than average amount of route clearance works though - bridges etc.

 

[Bald Rick]

Of course it is, and it's also cheaper to work them into the future... why do you think the St Alban's and Bedford branches off the WCML (and Coventry to Nuneaton, for that matter) are still unwired?

Umm, the St Albans Abbey branch has been electrified for 30 years...

 

[coppercapped]

High performance diesels are a lot better than they used to be, but they still cannot possibly hope to achieve the speed of electric trains.

The key to the overall speed[1] of a journey is not going slowly...

[1] That is, the length of time needed for a journey.

(Do these things always need to be spelled out?)

 

[option]

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?

A perfect application for discontinuous techniques then.

I wonder how far you can get on batteries?

It's ~520metres from platform ends to tunnel, then the tunnel is ~1.6km. Then 110metres over the WCML, & another tunnel of 630metres.
So, 2.4km on batteries?

 

[yorksrob]

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)

So you're saying that the "Sparks Effect" only works when there's a parallel improvement in service quality.

Rather like replacing 2 carriage 150's and 142's with 4 carriage 319's on Northern then.

Which all the projects complied with!

Explains them both being quite pricey then.

 

[Bald Rick]

So you're saying that the "Sparks Effect" only works when there's a parallel improvement in service quality.

Rather like replacing 2 carriage 150's and 142's with 4 carriage 319's on Northern then.

That’s correct. The Chiltern enjoyed a ‘Sparks effect’ following total route modernisation in the early 90s.

 

[HSTEd]

Of course it is, and it's also cheaper to work them into the future... why do you think the St Alban's and Bedford branches off the WCML (and Coventry to Nuneaton, for that matter) are still unwired?

Wait, isn't the St Albans Abbey branch electrified?

 

[squizzler]

I have to say that your opening assertion that the UK railway network is in a 'laughable state' does not bode terribly well for the credibility of your response. You do however make valid points which I will attempt to address.

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.

I agree that we will be more parsimonious in future and use local production to a greater extent than at present.

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.

Nobody wants to return to a world of scarcity but it is pretty much inevitable. Many believe that the climate emergency requires a WW2 style total mobilisation of the economy, and we will just have to make do with less if the human race would like a future on the planet.

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.

HS2 and NPR are a good start to the new rail network you envision, so we are getting there with passenger services. You do actually propose an interesting solution for freight...

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

Now you're getting more into the sprit of things! Trolley wires over the streets: a gloriously retro project that would be immediately familiar to Herr Siemens if he was whisked forward in time to the present day. And to think you accused me of turning the clock back!

I presume speeds of this system are low, since the brochure makes no mention of passenger vehicles.

As for your concerns on ownership and culture of rail businesses, presumably eHighway lorries could be renationalised to work efficiency as a vertically integrated system. You could call it British Road Services.

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.

Low voltage third rail electrification: more late 19th century electrical engineering technology to compliment the trolley wires on the motorways :P

 

[AndrewE]

Umm, the St Albans Abbey branch has been electrified for 30 years...

Sorry, so it has, but it's a long time since I was up it, as they say.

So you're saying that the "Sparks Effect" only works when there's a parallel improvement in service quality.

Don't forget that (in the UK anyway) train services will have had a spell - if not years - of reduced and slowed-down services while the work was being done, so almost any new electric service will be an improvement on what had been offered in the recent past...

 

[HSTEd]

Nobody wants to return to a world of scarcity but it is pretty much inevitable.

Do you know how you propose to win an election on that basis?
"Vote so you will not be permitted to travel anywhere easily and will not be able to buy a wide variety of goods"

Many believe that the climate emergency requires a WW2 style total mobilisation of the economy

And I am one of those people, as this is central to the topic of my PhD studies.

, and we will just have to make do with less if the human race would like a future on the planet.

Humanity will survive whatever happens.
It won't be pleasant, but humanity is not going to go extinct.

HS2 and NPR are a good start to the new rail network you envision, so we are getting there with passenger services. You do actually propose an interesting solution for freight...

We aren't.
NPR is vapourware and HS2 is a bit of a joke, with the arguments over platform heights and all the rest of the mess going on.

Now you're getting more into the sprit of things! Trolley wires over the streets: a gloriously retro project that would be immediately familiar to Herr Siemens if he was whisked forward in time to the present day. And to think you accused me of turning the clock back!

Given that Siemens actually has spent an awful lot of money on that work, and has a prototype, they aren't doing too badly.
And you can get half of all Large Goods Vehicles mileage by putting one lane in each direction on the roads of the Strategic Road Network, which is actually a rather small fraction of the total road network.

It slashes road freight fuel consumption without the astronomical sums required to transfer it to rail.

I presume speeds of this system are low, since the brochure makes no mention of passenger vehicles.

The whole point is LGV traffic, which by law is limited to 90kph within the EU now.

As for your concerns on ownership and culture of rail businesses, presumably eHighway lorries could be renationalised to work efficiency as a vertically integrated system. You could call it British Road Services.

Why would nationalisation be required?
A lorry woud just have an electricity meter built into the existing tachy assembly, with equally harsh penalties for tampering.

Low voltage third rail electrification: more late 19th century electrical engineering technology to compliment the trolley wires on the motorways :P

As opposed to the 30/40/50s technology of high voltage AC railway electrification?
It's hardly much newer.