COP26 and UK Railways: should we be electrifying more?

[Nicholas Lewis]

Perhaps i should be more optimistic Chris Heaton Harris written response to question from labour over electrification last week

To help deliver the government’s net zero commitment we will electrify most of the network and deploy battery and hydrogen trains on some lines, where it makes economic and operational sense. This is set out in our Traction Decarbonisation Plan.

We will continue to develop electrification schemes through the Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline process in the usual way, to ensure that they are affordable, deliverable, and represent value for money.

Thing is RNEP hasn't been updated for over two years and the IRP is always just coming.....

 

[Glenn1969]

Perhaps i should be more optimistic Chris Heaton Harris written response to question from labour over electrification last week


Thing is RNEP hasn't been updated for over two years and the IRP is always just coming.....

Last time I asked on here about IRP I was told early next week. Does anyone have an update or are they waiting til after COP in the hope that focus on the issue will go away with the delegates?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Last time I asked on here about IRP I was told early next week. Does anyone have an update or are they waiting til after COP in the hope that focus on the issue will go away with the delegates?

Andrew Stephenson responded to labour written answer last week with this

The Department intends to publish the Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) very soon. Given the scale and long-term significance of the plans that the IRP will set out, it is important that Government fully considers the evidence from the National Infrastructure Commission, representatives from the North and Midlands, and its own analysis, before finalising these plans.

Sounds like more delay to me but I suspect its actually ready to go they just to release it out on a day that suits there news needs!!

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps i should be more optimistic Chris Heaton Harris written response to question from labour over electrification last week


Thing is RNEP hasn't been updated for over two years and the IRP is always just coming.....

A verbal commitment is better than nothing for the timebeing I suppose.

Well done to Labour for pressing the issue.

 

[HSTEd]

Sounds like more delay to me but I suspect its actually ready to go they just to release it out on a day that suits there news needs!!

Or the Treasury has gutted the whole thing and its being rewritten again to put the best possible spin on this.

 

[Ken H]

Currently we need to decarbonise by a total of 50% of where we are currently by 2030. We can (without changing our grid electricity mix for what we currently have and any extra power coming from 0 carbon sources) get to about 40% of car emissions if every car was EV by 2030 (highly unlikely)

However that doesn't cover all transport, things like lorries are much harder.

As such we need people to use non car sources of travel in much greater numbers than currently.

Whilst rail (as an average) is broadly comparable to EV's, there's a need to reduce the current diesel use to improve this.

However having said that, if people switch to rail and in doing so walk and cycle more then their overall carbon emissions would be lower even without rail reducing its impact.

Currently for every 2-3 miles a ICE car drives it creates 1kg of carbon, that's believed to result in the melting of over 2,000kg of ice. Now whilst we've got lots and lots of ice, we (as a country) undertake billions of miles of travel by car.

As such for every mile we don't drive (or whatever else we do to reduce carbon output by 1kg) it helps to keep the ice that we do have. Whilst each thing we do individually doesn't make much difference, when we all do those things it makes enough of a difference.

The problem is, it would have been better if we all started doing this a few years ago, or better still a few decades ago. With some suggesting that we've already created too many greenhouse gases to limit temperature rises to 1.5 degrees.

Whilst that may sound like we might as well not bother, we certainly should. As even if we overshoot the less we do so by the more likely that things don't change too much more. Also it could be that we only overshoot for a shorter period of time (which could help stop things from going extinct).

I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years time the association with significant sources of carbon is viewed in a similar way to the way some view those associated with the slave trade today.

It's why, whilst COP-26 is an important step, we all should be taking steps to reduce our carbon emissions, and one of the best steps to doing so are actual steps.

There again when I was a kid we had trolleybuses in Bradford, and pop and milk bottles were re-used. The milk was delivered by a battery milk float. And mums groceries were delivered by a bloke on a bike, like Granville in Open All Hours. And people commuted (in Leeds) on the bus. I did till late 70's. But we weren't green.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The IRP went from in the future, to soon, to very soon, and the latest I heard was imminently. That sounds like progress. The betting money is on next week.

 

[Starmill]

I'm surprised none of them actively market where they operate electric trains, given the focus on low carbon emissions and cleanliness.

Many bus operators do indeed do that. To give just one example from many the Volt services from Go North East.

Lumo are the first railway operator I've seen doing it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Nov 2021 ==

The lack of electrification is hindering capacity growth in many parts of the country.

This is absolutely and undoubtedly true. And unfortunately it's going to get much worse.

 

[The Ham]

There is a lot of steel and concrete in OLE construction, especially with our over engineered solution nowadays, that needs vast amounts of energy to extract the raw materials and process them. Then there is cost and time to deliver electrification being ridiculously high if Bolton-Wigan is the new benchmark. So if your the govt your going to get more carbon reduction quicker by spending money on improving insulation of peoples homes than wiring up a few 10's miles.

Ive no confidence in Hydrogen full stop but BEMUs have a place and we just need to get on with converting as many secondary routes where part of the journey already runs over electrified sections. Then we need a multi year programme to electrify the remaining main lines by 2030 at the latest.

It's no longer a case of either/or but both/and to get the levels of reductions we need.

A lot of extra insulation on its own isn't going to cut our total emissions by 50% (not when household emissions are sub 30%).

Likewise just EV's just isn't going to cut it, as they'll only get us to 14% off the total emissions if every car was an EV by 2030 and any new grid mix was zero emissions. In reality we'll have only just brought in the ban on new ICE, so probably still a long way short of that sort of figure (even if grid mix was to be improved further).

EV's have a place, and there'll be debates about which is truly greener (I suspect that with more bimodals and trains with batteries added; in the short term EV and rail will continue to be a coin toss, however longer term with more electric traction used on the rail network it will edge ahead again.

However when compared to the average of car use rail will continue to be a clear leader.

Whilst infrastructure does have a large part to play in carbon emissions, there's already steps being taken to reduce the impact from using concrete.

The other factor to consider is that roads take up a lot more space than railways which carry the same numbers of people, as a single train can carry 500 people, with it easy to get 8tph going in each direction on a pair of lines. Whilst typically you'd need at least a dual carriageway with three lanes of traffic in each direction to match that. Then with a lot more space for major junctions.

 

[tomuk]

One quick win, without requiring further electrification, would be to remove diesel services running long distances "under the wires" or along 3rd rail routes. There are a lot of older emus going off lease that could be used for services to be replaced, rather than curtailed. Suggestions include:

• Ashford-Hastings run as a self-contained route, not extending further west
• Uckfield line trains to terminate at Oxted outside peak hours
• Amersham-Aylesbury to run as a self-contained shuttle except for some peak hour trains to/from Marylebone
• Manchester-Birmingham removed from XC and replaced with emus run by WMR/Northern
• Barrow services curtailed at Lancaster and not extending further south
• Leeds-Blackpool services curtailed at Preston
• Services on the ex-MR lines north/west of Skipton curtailed at Skipton
• XC services from Birmingham to Stansted Airport curtailed at Cambridge
• Manchester-Northwich-Chester services to start at Stockport
• Shrewsbury-Birmingham stopping services curtailed at Wolverhampton
• Local services from Newcastle to Morpeth/Alnmouth/Chathill run by emus

No complete and utter nonsense as usual. The direct reduction in emissions would be negligible and overall they would increase by pushing existing passengers to higher emission alternatives.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Nov 2021 ==

Many sectors can do the same with this statistics. Aviation claims to be responsible for 2% of global emissions, and no doubt on an aviation forum somewhere, someone is making the same point as you: look elsewhere.

That is the wrong thing to do, and as The Ham stated, we need to be doing everything we can. Electrification is a part of that.

Look elsewhere is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is a more holistic 'big picture' approach is needed. Schemes should by assed for proper Value for Money and for want of a better phrase Vale for Emissions.

Is spending millions on buying hydrogen trains for the West Highland Line better than spending the same elsewhere to increase services on a diesel line from 1tph to 2tph or 2tph to 4tph? Is spending billions electrifying a mainline more beneficial then spending the same on subsidising an integrated 'TfL Style' bus\rail network of timetable, fares and contacless payment for other regions?

And that is just within the transport sector, would the money be better spent on say a larger scrappage/incentive scheme to move to EV or Heatpumps?

 

[Purple Orange]

No complete and utter nonsense as usual. The direct reduction in emissions would be negligible and overall they would increase by pushing existing passengers to higher emission alternatives.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Nov 2021 ==


Look elsewhere is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is a more holistic 'big picture' approach is needed. Schemes should by assed for proper Value for Money and for want of a better phrase Vale for Emissions.

Is spending millions on buying hydrogen trains for the West Highland Line better than spending the same elsewhere to increase services on a diesel line from 1tph to 2tph or 2tph to 4tph? Is spending billions electrifying a mainline more beneficial then spending the same on subsidising an integrated 'TfL Style' bus\rail network of timetable, fares and contacless payment for other regions?

And that is just within the transport sector, would the money be better spent on say a larger scrappage/incentive scheme to move to EV or Heatpumps?

The answer is most of that.

 

[6Gman]

Does that really matter?

If it means that people just switch to their cars then yes, of course it does!

 

[JKF]

Electrification is not just about reducing the amount of carbon produced by the railways (1.4% or however small it is) It usually results in a step change in the quality of the service (better acceleration giving better timing, newer cleaner stock, better reliability) which will draw in people from more polluting modes such as cars, so takes out some of the emissions there too.

 

[6Gman]

What's wrong with the class 350/2 units?

The seating.

I am 5' 8" and 10 stone, so neither tall nor wide by general standards. My wife is shorter and thinner.

Even we find sitting next to each other on 350/2s uncomfortable.

To provide the main service between England's 2nd and 3rd cities with such stock seems inappropriate.

(Refurbish them as 2+2 and it might be ok)

 

[daodao]

No complete and utter nonsense as usual.

That is an abusive response to suggestions put forward in good faith, some of which I accept are more practicable than others.

Ok, let's go through this
- Marshlink: Yes there's space at Ashford and Hastings with the bay platforms
- Uckfield: Oxted bay platform is quite short and the layout is not conducive for terminating trains on the through platforms. If your plan is for a Curtailed Oxted-London bridge service that's 2 turnrounds per hour to fit around the existing 2/3tph East Grinstead service. Uckfield trains currently run at 230m, so if your solution is to limit train length where do all the rest of the passengers go? (Answer: in their cars).
- Amersham: Probably doable, but I'd be astonished if lack of all-day fast trains into London meant the net carbon shift was downwards as the entirety of the train patronage switch to their cars.
- Manchester Piccadilly and Birmingham have been covered before, in extensive depth. There's no way you'll run a self-contained service between Piccadilly and New Street.
- Putting lots of crossing moves at Lancaster will have a massive impact on WCML capacity as the junction margins are 4/5 mins depending on which moves your making and which overlaps you're blocking. Maybe the Barrow frequency is low enough to make it viable
- Preston bay platforms are between the fast lines, and it's only got 1 platform for each slow line. If you're splitting the services at Preston, even with platform sharing, you'll be blocking out one slow line or the other for a considerable portion of each hour
- Skipton doesn't have crossovers at the North end, so you'd need to shunt via the Leeds end in between the 8 moves per hour.
- Cambridge is already busy enough that they send trains through to Cambridge North to relieve pressure on the station.
- Stockport doesn't have south facing bays so you'd need to shunt across the fast lines (or terminate in the Up slow and use the shunt signal back from there). Additional crossing moves at Stockport or Heaton Norris Junction will have a big impact on the existing services.
- Wolverhampton is already full of Avanti services, and I think the north bay isn't signalled for passenger use
- Newcastle as I've mentioned is probably doable.

So, of your suggestions the only ones that could work are Marshlink, Amersham, Lancaster and Newcastle. That's assuming that splitting these services doesn't make everybody switch back to their cars be and IMO cause they now have much less convenient journeys. The ones that don't work are Uckfield, Manchester-Birmingham, Blackpool-Leeds, Skipton, Cambridge, Stockport and Wolverhampton.

A number of these could be resolved with additional crossovers or extra bays, but that's not a 'quick win' because any change to infrastructure involves changes to signalling and that requires lots of money to design, test, and block the line while you install them. Some of these would need infrastructure to the level that it'd be just as quick to electrify the line concerned.

Thank you for your considered response, to which I would make the following comments:

• Uckfield line trains terminate at Oxted on Sundays, so could do so at other off peak times
• Aylesbury trains used to terminate at Amersham on Sundays, so could do so at other off peak times - in the longer term, the service should be electrified and IMO become part of the Metropolitan line.
• I do not understand why an hourly self-contained emu service could not run between Birmingham New Street and Manchester, along with an hourly self-contained emu service between Birmingham New Street and Liverpool using similar rolling stock, given that previously the Birmingham-Liverpool service was half hourly and the terminating paths should still exist at New Street.
• About half the Barrow services already terminate at Lancaster, so the additional terminators would only be about 1 train every 2 hours. The Windermere line could also run as a self-contained shuttle to/from Oxenholme only.
• At Cambridge, the problem is shortage of platforms for trains arriving from the south. There are 2 terminating bay platforms [5/6] at the north end that are currently just used by the hourly Ipswich train, so there should be capacity for the hourly Birmingham train to terminate there. Alternatively, the hourly Ipswich train (which is now run by a bi-mode) could be extended to Stansted Airport in lieu of the Birmingham train.
• I accept that Skipton termination would be more difficult without an additional crossover at the north end of the station, so would not be a "quick win", although it could be practicable on Sundays with the current layout.
• I accept that terminating the Leeds-Blackpool train at Preston, and Mid Cheshire line trains at Stockport, would not be straightforward, and while possible, would impede significant through traffic flows. It could be done on Sundays at Stockport for the 2 hourly CLC line service, but would not reduce the need for 2 trains to be allocated for this service.
• I was not aware that the north end bay platform [6] at Wolverhampton, while short and not really suitable for more than a 2 coach train, was no longer available for passenger services. However, if the Shrewsbury-Birmingham stopping service could be terminated at Wolverhampton, it would reduce the number of diesel trains terminating at New Street.

 

[The Planner]

• Aylesbury trains used to terminate at Amersham on Sundays, so could do so at other off peak times - in the longer term, the service should be electrified and IMO become part of the Metropolitan line.
• I do not understand why an hourly self-contained emu service could not run between Birmingham New Street and Manchester, along with an hourly self-contained emu service between Birmingham New Street and Liverpool using similar rolling stock, given that previously the Birmingham-Liverpool service was half hourly and the terminating paths should still exist at New Street.
• I was not aware that the north end bay platform [6] at Wolverhampton, while short and not really suitable for more than a 2 coach train, was no longer available for passenger services. However, if the Shrewsbury-Birmingham stopping service could be terminated at Wolverhampton, it would reduce the number of diesel trains terminating at New Street.

Tfl are not going to extend the Met line out to Aylesbury, they will have no interest in it. We have done New St to Manchester to death, it is a wider problem than just terminating them at New St. Just because there was 2tph Liverpool doesn't mean that it can go 1tph Liverpool and 1tph Manchester, the paths split at Norton Bridge. P6 can take a passenger train, but there is no infrastructure to terminate there. You would have to terminate in P3 or P4, shunt to Crane St, reverse, go to the north of the station and reverse back in. The Shrewsbury services are still likely to end up at Kings Norton as part of the new Camp Hill stations so won't have an extended dwell.

 

[Mikey C]

Bimodes surely have to be part of the answer, whether ones with diesel or battery capability, to remove diesel operations under the wires.

Yes we need more wiring, but we also need to better use what's already there

 

[JKF]

Bimodes surely have to be part of the answer, where ones with diesel or battery capability, to remove diesel operations under the wires.

Yes we need more wiring, but we also need to better use what's already there

We need a cheap and cheerful bimode, HST power car on one end, class 91 on the other.

(yes I know, coach voltages etc.)

 

[tomuk]

However, if the Shrewsbury-Birmingham stopping service could be terminated at Wolverhampton, it would reduce the number of diesel trains terminating at New Street.

So you are going to disrupt peoples journeys and drive them to more GHG producing alternatives to save 12 miles of emissions.

Bimodes surely have to be part of the answer, whether ones with diesel or battery capability, to remove diesel operations under the wires

No they are more complicated, heavier, less efficient and more unreliable than either their pure diesel or electric counterparts. They should only be considered as part of new schemes where it is clear what the future rollout of electrification on that route will be. The only exception could be the XC Voyagers which run long distances 'under the wires' and are some of the worst polluters.