Rail decarbonisation: What are the solutions?

[Bletchleyite]

I want to see full electrification. In all honesty I avoid cars, and one reason I do NOT have a car or license is because I don’t quite fit in them, I’m too tall. So I am stuck with the railway.

Not every car is the same, I'm tall and broad and fit some but not others (and it's not just a simple case of fitting the largest and not the smallest). I'm sure you'd find one to suit.

 

[greatvoyager]

Not every car is the same, I'm tall and broad and fit some but not others. I'm sure you'd find one to suit.

I could do, but I would much rather leave driving to others. Sitting on a train is fine as I just have to disembark at my stop.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I for one, certainly believe we should be electrifying as much of a rail network as possible, as soon as possible.

Me too, certainly the 'as soon as possible bit'. There is room for debate around the margins of what should be electrified versus using battery or hydrogen units but broadly speaking I think the TDNS has it right or almost right. So, 100% of the network run by EMU/battery/hydrogen ASAP please, plus massive modal shift from cars to buses, from cars to trains and from lorries to rail freight. Reductions in travel demand wouldn't go amiss either.

I know people are getting fed up about me going on about the 197s, but I see them as making 'as soon as possible' impossible.

 

[greatvoyager]

Me too, certainly the 'as soon as possible bit'. There is room for debate around the margins of what should be electrified versus using battery or hydrogen units but broadly speaking I think the TDNS has it right or almost right. So, 100% of the network run by EMU/battery/hydrogen ASAP please, plus massive modal shift from cars to buses, from cars to trains and from lorries to rail freight. Reductions in travel demand wouldn't go amiss either.

I know people are getting fed up about me going on about the 197s, but I see them as making 'as soon as possible' impossible.

As soon as possible is going to take time though, in terms of getting electrification and developing the batteries or other technology.

 

[JamesT]

The overarching point is that total electrification is something we should do, and something we should have started 70 years ago, and that profitability shouldn't really be the major consideration.
There was some resistance to full electrification as a possibility in previous posts on this thread, and while I don't expect it to happen soon either, it is possible, and what stands in the way is that our economy demands private returns on public investments.


As far as I can see, this government isn't in the business of penalising electric car use, and I don't think EV adoption will be as explosive as some people seem to expect due to the huge electricity demands, but I do obviously agree on the last point.

A profitable railway by definition is one that has less call on finance from the government, where it's competing with the much more electorally friendly schools and hospitals.
Although full electrification is possible, it starts running into diminishing returns the further you go. As per my previous post, diesel rail transport is a relatively minor part of the UK's emissions. Wiring up say the Far North Line might cost in the order of £270m (£1m/km), which sorts out 12 diesel services a day. Or instead the government could use the same money to encourage more use of electric buses in large cities, which would likely cut emissions by a far greater amount.

Currently government subsidise acquiring electric cars, partly through the large amounts of revenue they collect from taxes on ICE vehicles and the fuel they use. If that revenue drops through widespread adoption of electric vehicles, they'll be looking for alternative sources of revenue. Combined with the increasing awareness of the environmental downsides of electric vehicles (particulates from brakes and tyres, road wear, contributing to congestion), it's likely that there will be increased taxation on electric cars to nudge people towards public transport rather than just switching petrol/diesel for electric on a one-for-one basis.

 

[Rhydgaled]

As soon as possible is going to take time though, in terms of getting electrification and developing the batteries or other technology.

Indeed, it will take time but the average rate of electrification (single track kilometrers per year) given in the TDNS for the rail industry to reach net-zero by 2050 looks achievable (net-zero by 2040 would require a heroic rate of electrification that is likely not deliverable). Assuming that means all the electrification in the TDNS can be delivered by 2050, we need to be able to eliminate DMUs before then.

Currently government subsidise acquiring electric cars, partly through the large amounts of revenue they collect from taxes on ICE vehicles and the fuel they use. If that revenue drops through widespread adoption of electric vehicles, they'll be looking for alternative sources of revenue. Combined with the increasing awareness of the environmental downsides of electric vehicles (particulates from brakes and tyres, road wear, contributing to congestion), it's likely that there will be increased taxation on electric cars to nudge people towards public transport rather than just switching petrol/diesel for electric on a one-for-one basis.

Currently government seem to be more interested in making space for increasing numbers of cars rather than nudging people towards public transport. That's something else that needs to change ASAP.

 

[doorhanger93]

As per my previous post, diesel rail transport is a relatively minor part of the UK's emissions. Wiring up say the Far North Line might cost in the order of £270m (£1m/km), which sorts out 12 diesel services a day.

That's true, but when you start talking about the kinds of modal shifts we'd actually want in a rapid climate action plan, there's more services running, and you do start to realise that DMUs are generally more carbon intensive per passenger-mile than electric cars, which isn't a good calculus for penalising EV use over rail. And if you think of it in terms of tax revenue, the government would be much happier to put some kind of mileage tax on electric cars but have them keep paying it rather than move them onto rail services which are generally subsidised. Currently rail emissions are so disproportionately low because they're a more or less minor fraction of passenger-km and tonne-km.
More services on the lines will also increase benefits of electrification.
Without those modal shifts, we're kinda screwed, as I pointed out, the national grid simply does not and will not for years have the capacity to support a sunset on ICE vehicles. Expanding the grid that much is a task larger than any rail electrification project.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Apr 2021 ==

Currently government seem to be more interested in making space for increasing numbers of cars rather than nudging people towards public transport. That's something else that needs to change ASAP.

road jams ---> increase capacity ---> more people drive on the road ---> road jams.
rinse and repeat, and get more road tax, and subsidies to your buddies with concrete businesses

 

[greatvoyager]

Currently government seem to be more interested in making space for increasing numbers of cars rather than nudging people towards public transport. That's something else that needs to change ASAP.

Unless that’s their strategy to move people away from public transport so that they can justify not investing much in it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Currently government seem to be more interested in making space for increasing numbers of cars rather than nudging people towards public transport. That's something else that needs to change ASAP.

Do they? There are major public transport projects on the go such as HS2 and EWR, but road capacity seems limited to tweaking, e.g. hard shoulder running and variable speed limits. The East West Expressway project has for example been canned entirely.

 

[lachlan]

Do they? There are major public transport projects on the go such as HS2 and EWR, but road capacity seems limited to tweaking, e.g. hard shoulder running and variable speed limits. The East West Expressway project has for example been canned entirely.

There's many projects on the go though they do vary in size.

List of road projects in the UK - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's many projects on the go though they do vary in size.

List of road projects in the UK - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Thanks. All fairly minor when compared to HS2 and EWR - perhaps more equivalent to say the Okehampton reopening.

The Mottram-in-Longdendale bypass...I'll believe that when I drive on it!

 

[JamesT]

There's many projects on the go though they do vary in size.

List of road projects in the UK - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Though that's somewhat of a reversal of policy from the previous 20 years. Roads for Prosperity was cancelled in 1996 and there hasn't been a general push to expand road capacity since.

 

[Mikey C]

Thanks. All fairly minor when compared to HS2 and EWR - perhaps more equivalent to say the Okehampton reopening.

The Mottram-in-Longdendale bypass...I'll believe that when I drive on it!

And 2 of the biggest projects are new crossings of the lower Thames, which is a horrendous bottleneck for road traffic (including buses who will have a lane of the Silvertown tunnel).

In recent years an incredible number of new rail crossings have been built east of Tower Bridge, so it can't be said that rail users haven't been well catered for
Jubilee Line (twice)
2 separate branches of the DLR (Lewisham and Woolwich)
HS1
Crossrail
Plus the transformation of the East London line from a minor line into a key part of the Overground

 

[lachlan]

At this point I feel we should only build roads where the current setup is dangerous, such as flat junctions on 70 mph dual carriageways. Road building makes the care more convenient vs public transport, which is not what we want if we're trying to reduce car use.

As for rail decarbonisation, electrifying as fast as we can now while hydrogen or battery technology improves. I agree with other posters that the emissions from say, the Far North Line, must be so small that it's not worth worrying about right now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for rail decarbonisation, electrifying as fast as we can now while hydrogen or battery technology improves. I agree with other posters that the emissions from say, the Far North Line, must be so small that it's not worth worrying about right now.

The Far North Line and similar might as well run on biodiesel or whatever. But I'd certainly say that anything with an hourly service or better should be under serious consideration of getting the wires up. If tunnels etc cause an excessively expensive issue, discontinuous electrification with batteries provides a solution. And the idea of non-electrified urban and suburban commuter services (e.g. Rose Hill Marple, the Atherton line, the Snow Hill lines and for that matter Chiltern) belongs firmly in the bin.

 

[doorhanger93]

And 2 of the biggest projects are new crossings of the lower Thames, which is a horrendous bottleneck for road traffic (including buses who will have a lane of the Silvertown tunnel).

Although, as they say, you can't build your way out of congestion. If you get rid of a bottleneck, there'll just be a new weakest link in the chain, because a road can only carry as much as its entrances and exits can carry, and if there's a concentration of traffic trying to get in or out in one place, you're still screwed. Not to mention the fact that while traffic is finding somewhere else to back up, you're going to funnel more traffic from the surrounding area through your new road expansions, especially in a city as congested as London, so there won't actually be an increase of available capacity on the new road. This cycle happens again and again, and it's how you see those huge LA traffic scenes even on gigantic multi-lane highways.



Bus lanes are almost always good though, so at least there's that.

 

[HSTEd]

Although, as they say, you can't build your way out of congestion. If you get rid of a bottleneck, there'll just be a new weakest link in the chain, because a road can only carry as much as its entrances and exits can carry, and if there's a concentration of traffic trying to get in or out in one place, you're still screwed.

The problem of this argument is it doesn't mean that building more transport capacity is good.

Because it is.
It just gets swallowed up by Jevon's paradox - also note that LA is not a good example because until relatively recently LA was an insane boomtown.

If we were to build a two-lane each way with hard shoulder motorway under the Pennines between Manchester and Sheffield, it is extremely unlikely we would be worse off than we are now.
Even a congested dual carriageway is far better than the mess we have on that route now.

 

[Mikey C]

Although, as they say, you can't build your way out of congestion. If you get rid of a bottleneck, there'll just be a new weakest link in the chain, because a road can only carry as much as its entrances and exits can carry, and if there's a concentration of traffic trying to get in or out in one place, you're still screwed. Not to mention the fact that while traffic is finding somewhere else to back up, you're going to funnel more traffic from the surrounding area through your new road expansions, especially in a city as congested as London, so there won't actually be an increase of available capacity on the new road. This cycle happens again and again, and it's how you see those huge LA traffic scenes even on gigantic multi-lane highways.

View attachment 95151

Bus lanes are almost always good though, so at least there's that.

But there are specific issues that the tunnels are addressing

The northbound Blackwall tunnel for example is a historic twisty Victorian structure designed for the horse and cart, which should have been replaced years ag, in the way inadequate rail infrastructure HAS been replaced or rebuilt in London. It's cramped and dangerous, and impossible to use both ways so that if there's maintenance in one of the tunnels or a vehicle breaks down in one of the tunnels, there's complete gridlock with traffic diverted miles out of the way to Tower Bridge or Dartford. Double decker buses can't use the Blackwall tunnel, meaning the bus network is more or les chopped in two by the river.

The new Kent crossing alleviates the concentration of all the road traffic crossing the Thames at one pinch point in Dartford

 

[Rhydgaled]

road jams ---> increase capacity ---> more people drive on the road ---> road jams.
rinse and repeat, and get more road tax, and subsidies to your buddies with concrete businesses

Yup, and sometimes they don't even wait for the jams. Sometimes it just goes increase capacity (subsidy for concrete buddies) ---> more people drive on the road ---> increase capacity (subsidy for concrete buddies). In the public inquires for the A40 projects I was working against last year, the promoter's case indicated that the current road had sufficient capacity and if I understood correctly they were even arguing that building three new lanes (the existing road is two lanes, the new road would use a new alignment and add an overtaking lane in one direction over most of the scheme length) is not an increase in capacity (because there would still be two-lane bottlenecks).

Do they? There are major public transport projects on the go such as HS2 and EWR, but road capacity seems limited to tweaking, e.g. hard shoulder running and variable speed limits. The East West Expressway project has for example been canned entirely.

East West Rail has been descoped and there are question marks over the eastern arm of HS2, but even if they were both going ahead in full and the government was ploughing money into making public transport more attractive across the board it doesn't change the fact that significant public expenditure is going in to road projects which make car use more attractive and counteract the public transport improvements that are happening.

There are plenty of projects on the Wikipedia link above that are far more than hard shoulder running or a variable speed limit.

Though that's somewhat of a reversal of policy from the previous 20 years. Roads for Prosperity was cancelled in 1996 and there hasn't been a general push to expand road capacity since.

The government have been calling their 'Road Investment Strategy' 'the biggest road building programme since the Romans' and boasting of the £27bn 'investment' for the current 5 year period. If that's not 'a general push to expand road capacity' then it is at least an attempt to appear to be one.

Returning to rail decarbonisation, the TDNS recommends 13,000 STK of electrification. At £1m/STK to £2.5m/STK that would be a total of £13bn to £32.5bn over the life of the electrification programme - let's say 27 years (2023 to 2050). If the Road Investment Strategy continues at £27bn every five years that will total £145.8bn over 27 years.

At this point I feel we should only build roads where the current setup is dangerous, such as flat junctions on 70 mph dual carriageways. Road building makes the care more convenient vs public transport, which is not what we want if we're trying to reduce car use.

That is exactly my point. The A40 schemes I mentioned above actually fall into both categories - the current setup is dangerous for all road users at one junction and for pedestrians on another section but rather than fix the issues (and reducing the speed limit would go along way to achieving that) they want to build a new alignment for over three miles with an overtaking lane - making the car psychologically far more convenient than it is now despite the actual reduction in journey time being only a few seconds.

The Far North Line and similar might as well run on biodiesel or whatever. But I'd certainly say that anything with an hourly service or better should be under serious consideration of getting the wires up. If tunnels etc cause an excessively expensive issue, discontinuous electrification with batteries provides a solution. And the idea of non-electrified urban and suburban commuter services (e.g. Rose Hill Marple, the Atherton line, the Snow Hill lines and for that matter Chiltern) belongs firmly in the bin.

My logic (for lines used solely by passenger services - freight complicates matters) is that any route with 5 carriages per direction per hour should be on the long-list for the rolling programme of electrification to get to at some point. Less than 5 carriages per hour is a bit more marginal, but potentially still worth consideration if you have an hourly service. As you say, the idea of non-electrified suburban networks belongs firmly in the bin which is a further reason the possible existence of 161 suburban DMUs (195/196/197) in 2050 irks me so much (I don't care what anyone else says - they have four 1300mm wide doors per carriage - they are firmly suburban units).

 

[lachlan]

But there are specific issues that the tunnels are addressing

The northbound Blackwall tunnel for example is a historic twisty Victorian structure designed for the horse and cart, which should have been replaced years ag, in the way inadequate rail infrastructure HAS been replaced or rebuilt in London. It's cramped and dangerous, and impossible to use both ways so that if there's maintenance in one of the tunnels or a vehicle breaks down in one of the tunnels, there's complete gridlock with traffic diverted miles out of the way to Tower Bridge or Dartford. Double decker buses can't use the Blackwall tunnel, meaning the bus network is more or les chopped in two by the river.

The new Kent crossing alleviates the concentration of all the road traffic crossing the Thames at one pinch point in Dartford

The modelling for the Lower Thames Crossing predicted that with that built and the Silvertown Tunnel, there will still be more crossings of the Thames than there would be if we did nothing. So perhaps you'll reduce congestion, but it facilitates more and more car journeys across the Thames.

 

[HSTEd]

The modelling for the Lower Thames Crossing predicted that with that built and the Silvertown Tunnel, there will still be more crossings of the Thames than there would be if we did nothing. So perhaps you'll reduce congestion, but it facilitates more and more car journeys across the Thames.

Is more car journeys actually a bad thing?

Especially with electric cars starting to become available in significant numbers.

 

[JamesT]

The government have been calling their 'Road Investment Strategy' 'the biggest road building programme since the Romans' and boasting of the £27bn 'investment' for the current 5 year period. If that's not 'a general push to expand road capacity' then it is at least an attempt to appear to be one.

Returning to rail decarbonisation, the TDNS recommends 13,000 STK of electrification. At £1m/STK to £2.5m/STK that would be a total of £13bn to £32.5bn over the life of the electrification programme - let's say 27 years (2023 to 2050). If the Road Investment Strategy continues at £27bn every five years that will total £145.8bn over 27 years.

Yes, that is. But my point is there hasn't been such a thing for most of the last 20 years until now. There's also a bit of re-announcing going on, Stonehenge Tunnel was announced as part of the RIS for the last 5 year period. How much of that £27bn is new, and how much will actually get built? There's also quite a bit of the RIS which is actually maintenance/replacement of existing structures, which isn't really investment at all.

Roads are also important for public transport. My nearest rail station is 5 miles away, I will be using the road system to get there, whether that's by car, bike or bus. Decent provision for the latter two are going to make a much bigger improvement than electrifying every tiny branch line.

There's also the question of population growth. The UK's population has grown from 56m to 67m in the last 40 years. Surely there has to be some provision for that? In the same way we don't keep the rail network in aspic but look to provide additional capacity, there has to a recognition that at least some road-building will be required?

 

[Purple Orange]

Is more car journeys actually a bad thing?

Especially with electric cars starting to become available in significant numbers.

Yes it is a bad thing. More time in traffic jams, more electricity consumed, more congestion on our roads and with that the sheer number of fatalities that cars bring with them compared to rail. Less space for cycling and walking, where we should be seeing to pedestrianise more of our city centre streets,

 

[doorhanger93]

The problem of this argument is it doesn't mean that building more transport capacity is good.

But there are specific issues that the tunnels are addressing

And that's not really the point of the argument. It's not to suggest that roadbuilding is bad, just that it does not significantly reduce congestion, which is so often the supposed justification for roadbuilding and road-expansion schemes. There's plenty of specific reasons and justifications as to why you might want to expand road capacity that don't relate to congestion, old or dangerous infrastructure, etc. Still, generally, we should be moving as many people as reasonable to public transport, which would change the focus of these schemes.

making the car psychologically far more convenient than it is now despite the actual reduction in journey time being only a few seconds.

The car fundamentally suffers from a severe tragedy of the commons. Everyone wishes they could use a bus lane to save themselves a minute, but that lane wouldn't be empty if it wasn't reserved for buses in the first place, and everyone in the bus would be as late for work as you. It's an individualist and alienating mode of transport, shame it's just so damn convenient (and profitable).

As you say, the idea of non-electrified suburban networks belongs firmly in the bin

You'd think this sort of thing would be behind us ever since we got rid of the steam tram, but, alas, apparently not.

Is more car journeys actually a bad thing?

Especially with electric cars starting to become available in significant numbers.

Yes. Passenger cars are the biggest source of pollution in the UK, and as I've explained, the grid physically cannot handle the electrification of just current road traffic without a power generation and transmission capacity expansion that would utterly dwarf even the most ambitious of rolling rail electrification programs. Rail just uses much less energy than towing 2 tonnes of car around with every 1.6 people, running in stop-start traffic on rubber tires, whether those 2 tonnes are battery or ICE. The absolute last thing you want is more car journeys.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes. Passenger cars are the biggest source of pollution in the UK, and as I've explained, the grid physically cannot handle the electrification of just current road traffic without a power generation and transmission capacity expansion that would utterly dwarf even the most ambitious of rolling rail electrification programs. Rail just uses much less energy than towing 2 tonnes of car around with every 1.6 people, running in stop-start traffic on rubber tires, whether those 2 tonnes are battery or ICE. The absolute last thing you want is more car journeys.

If the grid can't handle electric car charging duties, then the entire transition is completely stuffed, given that that is not even the largest extra load we are going to be placing upon it in the near future!

Even if all cars were electric, we are still talking about only ~100TWh of electricity, which is less than a third of current expenditure, and less than a third of the quantity that will be required for synthetic aviation fuel, plastics and marine bunker fuels.

 

[doorhanger93]

If the grid can't handle electric car charging duties, then the entire transition is completely stuffed, given that that is not even the largest extra load we are going to be placing upon it in the near future!

Even if all cars were electric, we are still talking about only ~100TWh of electricity, which is less than a third of current expenditure, and less than a third of the quantity that will be required for aviation synthetic fuel/plastics and marine bunker fuels.

Doesn't this not just exemplify the point? Electricity is going to be very high demand if we're serious about saving the world, we can't afford to just waste it on inefficient and dangerous modes of transport like mass personal automobiles. Energy efficiency is the most efficient and effective way of reducing carbon emissions, and even low-carbon sources aren't zero-carbon sources. 100TWh is still an entire third of the current grid power, a grid that's been reducing output for years and is reliant on gas for any rapid expansion, (although by my calculations the actual energy needs will be closer to 150-200TWh when accounting for losses and surges and commercial vehicles being more energy-intensive that a Tesla) not to mention all the infrastructural development needed to deal with delivering that power to areas where many EVs, especially heavier or commercial vehicles, may be charging at any one time.
And even then, talking about electric cars as if they're already somehow in mass adoption isn't the best framing. There's actually a tiny market penetration as of yet. Cars are still the major source of pollution and will be for multiple years, at least until UK power generation suddenly pulls an about-turn from its current slow decline.
Public transport also has the benefit of just being a better, fairer way of moving people around and building more human environments. Look at the american cities that were built around the car - they're 60% parking space.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Doesn't this not just exemplify the point? Electricity is going to be very high demand if we're serious about saving the world, we can't afford to just waste it on inefficient and dangerous modes of transport like mass personal automobiles.

What's less efficient?

One man, his dog and his bicycle in a two-tonne electric car, or one man, his dog and his bicycle in a 70-tonne DMU?

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[HSTEd]

e actual energy needs will be closer to 150-200TWh when accounting for losses and surges and commercial vehicles being more energy-intensive that a Tesla

Why are you adding in commercial vehicles?
That's an entirely different category of vehicle?

200TWh for cars is a rather silly assumption, given that would mean grid-to-battery efficiency of only about 45%!

Public transport also has the benefit of just being a better, fairer way of moving people around and building more human environments.

Does it?

People restricted to travel at the convenience of operators who don't really care because they have no meaningful competition in your glorious post car world?

There's actually a tiny market penetration as of yet.

And there is tiny penetration of public transport and any expansion will be colossally expensive?

 

[lachlan]

What's less efficient?

One man, his dog and his bicycle in a two-tonne electric car, or one man, his dog and his bicycle in a 70-tonne DMU?

Be careful what you wish for.

That DMU (hopefully in future an EMU) would be running regardless of whether one person chooses to drive or not. And it needs to be there to ensure non-drivers can get about. If you look at it from this angle, the man will greatly reduce his environmental impact if he chooses to take the train rather than drive

 

[Bletchleyite]

That DMU (hopefully in future an EMU) would be running regardless of whether one person chooses to drive or not. And it needs to be there to ensure non-drivers can get about.

Well, it doesn't, because the non-driver could have a subsidised taxi fare.

The private car has and always will have its purposes. Another example is that a modern petrol family car with all seats taken is an extremely efficient mode of transport environmentally and in terms of use of road space, an electric one even more so. In other words, suggesting people don't take family holidays by car is plain silly.

It's cities where we really need to deprecate the single and double-occupancy car.