Electrification of GWML: some uncomfortable truths

[j0hn0]

I don;t think anyone can really dispute that human actions, particularly since the Industrial Revolution, have contributed to environmental chanegs, and probably global climate change as well. I don;t think anyone can really dispute the fact that fossil fuels will become more expensive as supplies fall and demands continues to increase. Unfortunately, it's then a massive and unconvincing leap to conclude that GWML electrifiation is a waste of time because it won't solve either issue on its own.

As Yorkie said, it;s not relevant relly to compare a total route modernisation and upgrade with the GW electrification proposals. Why not compare the East Anglian or East Coast electrification schemes with GW instead?

I can, and will

So since the industrial revolution, how much of a change in climate have you seen yourself?

For me, the air has gone from smokey and smoggy with life expectancy at about 29 I think in Bradford, to clean and fragrant with life expectancy in the 70's

At what point are you measuring man-made impacts on the climate from? Because a century is like a nanosecond in the life of a planet

 

[Greenback]

I can, and will

So since the industrial revolution, how much of a change in climate have you seen yourself?

For me, the air has gone from smokey and smoggy with life expectancy at about 29 I think in Bradford, to clean and fragrant with life expectancy in the 70's

At what point are you measuring man-made impacts on the climate from? Because a century is like a nanosecond in the life of a planet

Fair enough!

I conclude that the amount of noxious fumes pumped into the atmosphere between, say, the 1840's and the 1950's will have had an effect on the atmosphere. I can't prove that msyelf, as I am not a scientist and haven't lived for 170 years! What about the killer smogs of the post war years? As they had a pretty noticeable effect on people, can we say they didn't affect anything else?

Granted, life expectancy has increased a lot. Most of this is to do with better hygeine, improved medical knowledge and facilities, better health and safety requirements at work, and the eliimination of many previously fatal diseases. There are undoubtedly other factors as well, but these will do as examples.

Yes, a century is only a very short time in comparison with the age of this planet. Yet for millions of years human activity has been on a very small scale. Although species have become extinct in the past, it's only fairly recently that humans have been cutting down large areas of rain forest for example, as well as disposing of toxic waste, nuclear waste etc.

I must say that my opinion is that you can interpret the evidence and statistics that have been collated to support either viewpoint. I just can't see how all of this activity can NOT have had an effect!

 

[j0hn0]

Fair enough!

I conclude that the amount of noxious fumes pumped into the atmosphere between, say, the 1840's and the 1950's will have had an effect on the atmosphere. I can't prove that msyelf, as I am not a scientist and haven't lived for 170 years! What about the killer smogs of the post war years? As they had a pretty noticeable effect on people, can we say they didn't affect anything else?

Granted, life expectancy has increased a lot. Most of this is to do with better hygeine, improved medical knowledge and facilities, better health and safety requirements at work, and the eliimination of many previously fatal diseases. There are undoubtedly other factors as well, but these will do as examples.

Yes, a century is only a very short time in comparison with the age of this planet. Yet for millions of years human activity has been on a very small scale. Although species have become extinct in the past, it's only fairly recently that humans have been cutting down large areas of rain forest for example, as well as disposing of toxic waste, nuclear waste etc.

I must say that my opinion is that you can interpret the evidence and statistics that have been collated to support either viewpoint. I just can't see how all of this activity can NOT have had an effect!

In terms of cutting down the trees, I am with you on that one, we need them to soak up greenhouse gases.

I also agree that people will use whatever facts they want to portray their point of view, but in my opinion, being an "environmentalist" means that you have to buy in to all the doomsday scenario bull**** related to CO2 that just means that we are being taxed more (1 example, road tax)

We should stop wasting so much and recycle more, use the methane from landfills, stop cutting down trees, use renewable power sources, use nuclear powersources, create integrated, low emissions rapid transport systems in ALL UK cities with sequenced traffic lights (less emissions) etc etc etc.

What I am saying is, is that I love the planet and country just as much as anyone else and agree with measures that will help us look after it better. I just do not agree that we are all going to die in 2050 because there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

The CO2 argument is just to try and stop China and India usurping the major global powers in economic terms.

Also, demand for oil is not outstripping supply, this is merely being controlled by OPEC so that they can get a maximum amount for their oil barrels. There is basically loads of oil left, but we have to find a way of fuelling our trucks with something different so as not to pollute so much.

Shanghai for example is the most disgustingly polluted city I have ever visited, probably not far off from where we were about 50 years ago, but on the roads, there are millions of knackered old trucks spewing out crap into the atmosphere. On a local level this is bad, but globally, it is just a minute amount of the total emissions attributed to global warming.

a question, if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, would this not stimulate flora and fauna?

 

[thegrich37423]

It is common knowledge that the GWML was part of Labour's pledge to drive down the UK's carbon emissions, hence why the GWML is solely to reduce man's effect on climate change.

Do I need to spell it out any clearer?

 

[gordonthemoron]

whatever

All UK rail lines need to be electrified as a matter of urgency, before the price of oil goes through the roof

 

[Geezertronic]

It is common knowledge that the GWML was part of Labour's pledge to drive down the UK's carbon emissions, hence why the GWML is solely to reduce man's effect on climate change.

Do I need to spell it out any clearer?

You need to provide "concrete proof" rather than waffle on without proving your statements as you have done with every statement you have made.

Whether Labour made it a pledge or not, it makes no odds for the reasons already given by other members of this forum

 

[j0hn0]

It is common knowledge that the GWML was part of Labour's pledge to drive down the UK's carbon emissions, hence why the GWML is solely to reduce man's effect on climate change.

Do I need to spell it out any clearer?

I gotta admire your persistence, no matter how misguided and ill-informed you are.

So what you are saying is that there are NO OTHER REASONS other than averting mythical AGW (anthropogenic global warming) for electrifying the GWML?

Really, I think someone needs locking back up

 

[Greenback]

In terms of cutting down the trees, I am with you on that one, we need them to soak up greenhouse gases.

I also agree that people will use whatever facts they want to portray their point of view, but in my opinion, being an "environmentalist" means that you have to buy in to all the doomsday scenario bull**** related to CO2 that just means that we are being taxed more (1 example, road tax)

We should stop wasting so much and recycle more, use the methane from landfills, stop cutting down trees, use renewable power sources, use nuclear powersources, create integrated, low emissions rapid transport systems in ALL UK cities with sequenced traffic lights (less emissions) etc etc etc.

What I am saying is, is that I love the planet and country just as much as anyone else and agree with measures that will help us look after it better. I just do not agree that we are all going to die in 2050 because there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

The CO2 argument is just to try and stop China and India usurping the major global powers in economic terms.

Also, demand for oil is not outstripping supply, this is merely being controlled by OPEC so that they can get a maximum amount for their oil barrels. There is basically loads of oil left, but we have to find a way of fuelling our trucks with something different so as not to pollute so much.

Shanghai for example is the most disgustingly polluted city I have ever visited, probably not far off from where we were about 50 years ago, but on the roads, there are millions of knackered old trucks spewing out crap into the atmosphere. On a local level this is bad, but globally, it is just a minute amount of the total emissions attributed to global warming.

a question, if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, would this not stimulate flora and fauna?

I agree with almost all of your comments! I don't buy into any of this global catastrophe in 2050 stuff, nor do I believe that any changes human activity has made to Earth are catastrophic (nature has a great ability to heal!). Neither is demand for oil outstripping supply. It will at some point in the future if things don't change, as it is a finite resource!

In my posts I have been trying to point out to Richard that his argument is essentially 2+2=6. Or, put another way, he sees the commitment to electrify the GWML as concrete evidence for the fact that the government secretly recognised that the world will end in or around 2050 without significant cuts in carbon emmissions. This is the only evidence he needs, as he is convinced that climate change is apocalyptic, imminent and needs much more action than has been suggested so far. With this belief established, Richard then cites the lack of any consulation as further evidenc ein support of his views, despite the fact that councils have been clamouring for the route to be electrified for many years!

An alternative point of view is that under a pro rail Transport Minister, and desperate for votes/popularity, Labour finally accepted that electrification was the best value for money for the route, and then sought to sell the costs of the project to floating voters as having huge environmental benefits.

I know which I think is the more likely scenario!

 

[37401]

If we don't stop the current unsustainable increase in demand for oil, then in the future we will not be able to make plastic. But, long before that happens, plastic will become rather unaffordable.

Good news then

 

[DaveNewcastle]

In my posts I have been trying to point out to Richard that his argument is essentially 2+2=6. Or, put another way, he sees the commitment to electrify the GWML as concrete evidence for the fact that the government secretly recognised that the world will end in or around 2050 without significant cuts in carbon emmissions. This is the only evidence he needs, as he is convinced that climate change is apocalyptic, imminent and needs much more action than has been suggested so far. With this belief established, Richard then cites the lack of any consulation as further evidenc ein support of his views, . . . .

Exactly! A very good analysis.

Its an error of reasoning - nothing to do with railways, politicians, scientists or other commentators. He's displaying what some of us call "lack of intellectual rigour" and as a consequence, when he tries to express his good intentions and well-meant concerns, he is ridiculed for his errors of fact.
But as you've just pointed out, Greenback, its not so much the facts that are in question (and we haven't had many of them!), its the application of logic with due regard for the limitations of human reason.

 

[thegrich37423]

In my posts I have been trying to point out to Richard that his argument is essentially 2+2=6. Or, put another way, he sees the commitment to electrify the GWML as concrete evidence for the fact that the government secretly recognised that the world will end in or around 2050 without significant cuts in carbon emmissions. This is the only evidence he needs, as he is convinced that climate change is apocalyptic, imminent and needs much more action than has been suggested so far. With this belief established, Richard then cites the lack of any consulation as further evidenc ein support of his views, despite the fact that councils have been clamouring for the route to be electrified for many years!

Possibly, but I think you'll find that its the government's argument for the electrification of the GWML which is full of this 2+2=6 logic. It's also the government's belief that the world will face dramatic changes in climate by 2050 based on evidence and accounts from varying sources. I am only citing what the government has told Joe Public.

I thank you though for trying to attribute both ideas to any original thinking on my behalf.

 

[jon0844]

Actually, @thegrich37423, the Government hasn't been telling you everything. Although the classified information won't be released for another 40-50 years, I happen to know that they're expecting a serious catastrophe by as soon as 2012.

The sign of impending doom will be the arrival of five mysterious coloured rings in East London.

 

[Greenback]

Possibly, but I think you'll find that its the government's argument for the electrification of the GWML which is full of this 2+2=6 logic. It's also the government's belief that the world will face dramatic changes in climate by 2050 based on evidence and accounts from varying sources. I am only citing what the government has told Joe Public.

I thank you though for trying to attribute both ideas to any original thinking on my behalf.

Yes, well, the government was trying to win support and votes! An alternative explanation for any utterance they may have made about dramatic (not catastrophic) climate changes by 2050, and one favoured by many people, is that they were also looking to justify increasing taxes.

You are still mistaken in putting together climate change, GWML electrification and concluding that because the latter will not in itself cure the former, it is therefore not worth proceeding with. That is just your opinion, and you are entitled to hold it and to express it, yet your reasoning to reach the conclusion you have reached remains flawed.

 

[tbtc]

Regardless of 2050/ Carbon/ Governments/ Tinfoil Hats/ Concrete

1. We are running out of stuff to burn

2. The GWML will soon have forty year old trains on it

3. If you're going to build new trains then it makes sense to electrify the line

4. If electrification meant trains that can cope with Shap/ Beatock on the WCML, then I think any mild gradients in Swindon will be a walk in the park

5. I'm only writing this because the Government/ Illuminati/ Opus Dei told me to

 

[Greenback]

Regardless of 2050/ Carbon/ Governments/ Tinfoil Hats/ Concrete

1. We are running out of stuff to burn

2. The GWML will soon have forty year old trains on it

3. If you're going to build new trains then it makes sense to electrify the line

4. If electrification meant trains that can cope with Shap/ Beatock on the WCML, then I think any mild gradients in Swindon will be a walk in the park

5. I'm only writing this because the Government/ Illuminati/ Opus Dei told me to

Very succinctly put. All quite true, except possibly the last one! Or maybe it is - cue spooky X FIles music

 

[LE Greys]

Regardless of 2050/ Carbon/ Governments/ Tinfoil Hats/ Concrete

1. We are running out of stuff to burn

2. The GWML will soon have forty year old trains on it

3. If you're going to build new trains then it makes sense to electrify the line

4. If electrification meant trains that can cope with Shap/ Beatock on the WCML, then I think any mild gradients in Swindon will be a walk in the park

5. I'm only writing this because the Government/ Illuminati/ Opus Dei told me to

Real 5: Electric trains accelerate out of stations quicker, thus cutting journey times without having to increase maximum speed (which is expensive). They are also more reliable and cheaper to maintain.

6: Passenger numbers tend to go up after electrification, it's called the 'sparks effect'

7: I am under pressure from the 'Electric Mafia', who will zap me into oblivion with 25,000V unless I agree with them!!!

 

[Aictos]

With Reading to Gatwick, that should be 3rd rail as it's basically a infill scheme with 3rd rail already installed at either end.

With the Thames Valley and Oxford services, these should be electrified at 25kV OHL which would free up the 165s/166s to Devon/Cornwall/Bristol which in turn might lead to the retirement of everyone's favourite - The Pacers!!!

 

[royaloak]

With Reading to Gatwick, that should be 3rd rail as it's basically a infill scheme with 3rd rail already installed at either end.

And the line will then be handed over to Southern or SWT to run, unless FGW are going to have a small fleet of 3rd rail EMUs just for this line!
Can't see anybody being happy about this unless FGW are compensated for the lost revenue and who-ever takes it on are given some more units to operate the route.
Okay not insurmountable by any stretch but just shows how a simple infill job can get very complicated very quickly.

 

[tbtc]

And the line will then be handed over to Southern or SWT to run, unless FGW are going to have a small fleet of 3rd rail EMUs just for this line!
Can't see anybody being happy about this unless FGW are compensated for the lost revenue and who-ever takes it on are given some more units to operate the route.
Okay not insurmountable by any stretch but just shows how a simple infill job can get very complicated very quickly.

...it'll be years away when it happens, and it'll be written into the franchises, in the way that other things are planned (e.g. Northern "lost" the Oldham loop)

 

[Aictos]

Just give it to SWT as they run the Waterloo to Reading services, they have 3rd rail trains so makes sense to let them have it.

Plus I know a certain somebody would probably be amongst the first to go for the route learning!

 

[LE Greys]

Just give it to SWT as they run the Waterloo to Reading services, they have 3rd rail trains so makes sense to let them have it.

Plus I know a certain somebody would probably be amongst the first to go for the route learning!

Other than the stock used, why on Earth did it ever go to FGW in the first place? IIRC, NSE had plans to electrify it in the mid-1990s, when they also wanted to do Oxted-Uckfield and Ashford-Hastings. Those lines would have got Turbos as well as a stopgap measure.

 

[Aictos]

Don't know why it went to FGW, you be far better off asking the DfT/Treasury that!

 

[starrymarkb]

It went to Thames under NSE - then remained with the Thames franchise until it was merged into Greater Western

 

[455driver]

It is a diesel route in an electrified network so it made sense to give it to the diesel operator in the area.

 

[tripleseis]

North Downs electrification means possible through services between Oxford/Reading and Brighton via Gatwick using dual-voltage sets. It's silly that it's been left so long.

And while we're at it, why not electrify Reading to Basingstoke too, opening up paths using dual-voltage sets down to the south coast. Paddington to Bournemouth/Poole/Weymouth, anyone?

 

[455driver]

Far too simple and sensible, these 2 things have no place on a "modern" railway system. It is far better to wait for the hydrogen powered hover trains to work these services

 

[Helvellyn]

Regardless of 2050/ Carbon/ Governments/ Tinfoil Hats/ Concrete

1. We are running out of stuff to burn

Oh I don't know, if this thread keeps going and going the amount of brown stuff in it will provide a consistent and steady supply of methane.

 

[krus_aragon]

Oh I don't know, if this thread keeps going and going the amount of brown stuff in it will provide a consistent and steady supply of methane.

I'll have to trust you on that, as I'm no expert on the consistency of brown stuff.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Is the GWML electrification still actually going ahead? I know the Dept for Transport is facing some spending cuts.

 

[anthony263]

Is the GWML electrification still actually going ahead? I know the Dept for Transport is facing some spending cuts.

haven't heard anything stating otherwise so it could be