Constraints to electrification programs

[northwichcat]

One question that seems to be posed by the public at consultations relating to electrification is always relating to reliability as the public are well aware that power cuts can occur. The rail authorities usually get around that by saying electric trains are less likely to develop faults part way through a journey so overall there's no greater probability of an electric train being late or cancelled opposed to a diesel.

Electrification of the North Wales Coast and North and South TPE have been suggested to look at by Network Rail and some people on here are strongly in favour. However, can these projects win the general public over? In these cases you're putting up electric wires in scenic areas - when electricity companies try to do that there is outrage so how can Network Rail overcome this issue?

 

[Greenback]

Other electrified lines pass through scenic areas. I'm not sure that the majority of residents of the North Wales caost (or anywhere else) will object to electrification on those grounds as they will be well aware of the beenfits that electrification brings in terms of cleaner and quieter trains, as well as faster journeys.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

I've said this before, but I will repeat it. The railway is a SYSTEM, of which the train is a sub-system. Whilst everyone acknowledges that electric TRAINS are more reliable than self-powered (diesel at present) ones, this over-simplification ignores the fixed systems that provide the electricity for the train to move.

It is a statistical FACT that the TOCs that suffer most CANCELLATIONS are those that operate primarily electric trains.

If this whole system approach were taken to reliability, rather than focussing on casualties at a sub-system (train) level, people might have a wholly different view on whether wholesale electrification is a good idea.

Furthermore, as a country, our electrical energy strategy is in disarray. We are not progressing the replacement of life-expired nuclear power stations anything like quickly enough, we are increasingly dependent upon dubious sources for gas and coal is seen as "dirty" power.

Yes, we are creating wind farms and solar energy is becoming more popular, but these still only account for around 8% of our CURRENT energy needs and take no account of the predicted increase in UK population of 16% (60 million to 70 million) over the next 30 years or so (less than the life span of a new train, if that sounds a long time).

I'm not saying that this problem doesn't also apply to our oil supplies, but I think we need to be more careful and consider more, before we career on with mass electrification.

 

[Chris125]

Eh?

Even if you electrify most of the network its not going to make a dramatic difference to national power consumption - realistically electrification is not going to greatly impact our ability to plug the energy gap.

Of course the TOC's that suffer most cancellations operate more electric services - most of the busiest lines in the country are electrified! With such a high percentage of train services operating either on the third rail or under 25kv that will always be a *fact*.

Chris

 

[imagination]

Also remember that electrifying one line can help alleviate problems on another.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Even if you electrify the whole country's rail network it isnt going to make a dramatic difference to power consumption - it shouldnt be used as an excuse not to do it. If we're looking at reliability, its mainly a result of train reliability which is much better with electrification, and the reliability of the infrastructure and the services which operate over it - as our busiest routes are also the ones electrified, they see the most disruption.

Chris

Chris, I accept your first point when taking rail as a consumer in isolation, but when we have to choose between the lights going out and heating homes, and providing rail services, I know which we'll choose.

On the second point, you're taking too narrow a view. Even in terms of percentage of services planned (rather than absolute numbers of trains), electrified lines see the most cancellations, so volume of traffic is not really relevant.

 

[Clip]

Chris, I accept your first point when taking rail as a consumer in isolation, but when we have to choose between the lights going out and heating homes, and providing rail services, I know which we'll choose.

On the second point, you're taking too narrow a view. Even in terms of percentage of services planned (rather than absolute numbers of trains), electrified lines see the most cancellations, so volume of traffic is not really relevant.

On your first point - If it ever comes to that then yes, heating and lighting of homes will come first. But I cant see that happening anytime soon.

On your second point - of course electrified lines will have more failures then non-electrified lines - I will stick my neck out and state there are more services running into victoria on a peak morning then there is anywhere else that is wholly non electrified traffic(possibly put together) so it is bound to happen as is the nature of the beast when one train fails the knock on effect is horrendous.

 

[ChrisCooper]

In terms of the visual impact, it's important to remember that OHLE is far lower than high voltage powerlines. 400kV pylons are around 40m high, OHLE masts are less than 10m. They are also running above a railway line which in itself is a scar on the natural landscape, wheras powerlines cut across open countryside. Modern OHLE is not greatly visually intrusive anyway, and modern pylons are also much better than old ones. It's not just the structures themselves but things like insulators, infact the Supergrid is recieving new insulators which are less visually intrusive than the old ones. In many scenic areas the lines are in and out of cuttings and tunnels anyway, or through wooded areas, so the OHLE is not going to be that visible anyway.

In terms of the energy issues, by the time we come to a point of choosing between lighting and heating homes or running electric trains, I doubt there will be much diesel left, so that's really a moot point. It wouldn't be an issue as all had the last government not made such a hash of it's Nuclear energy policy.

 

[northwichcat]

Nuclear energy is likely to be scaled back due anyway due to what happened in Japan. Hydrogen and renewable sources are likely to be the main sources in the future and it's likely hydrogen cars will replace petrol cars eventually opposed to electric cars as it's unlikely we'll ever be able to do a few hundred miles in an electric car and recharge in 15 minutes at service stations.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Nuclear energy is likely to be scaled back due anyway due to what happened in Japan. Hydrogen and renewable sources are likely to be the main sources in the future and it's likely hydrogen cars will replace petrol cars eventually opposed to electric cars as it's unlikely we'll ever be able to do a few hundred miles in an electric car and recharge in 15 minutes at service stations.

Which suggests that we ought to be putting more investment into researching hydrogen fuel cells for rail?

 

[northwichcat]

It is a statistical FACT that the TOCs that suffer most CANCELLATIONS are those that operate primarily electric trains.

Merseyrail, who operate a fleet of 100% 1970s electric trains, cancel less services than Northern Rail who operate a fleet of mainly 1980s diesel trains. However, that could also mean the 142s and 150s are in need of replacement sooner rather than later.

 

[WatcherZero]

Im sure there will be some hydogen cars, personally I think algae bio-diesel will takeover though, zero emmisions (100% is absorbed from the environment during production). However the same problem in any mobile power source, you need to condense the energy into a usable high density long distance form. So if its Hydrogen/Bio fuel you will still need Nuclear/wind/hydro or other power plants to produce the energy for the cars in the first place.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Merseyrail, who operate a fleet of 100% 1970s electric trains, cancel less services than Northern Rail who operate a fleet of mainly 1980s diesel trains. However, that could also mean the 142s and 150s are in need of replacement sooner rather than later.

You're right, just! For the last quarter that I have data for, the comparative stats are as follows: -

Merseyrail: 48,687 trains planned, 283 fully cancelled = 0.58%
Northern: 202,449 trains planned, 1,302 fully cancelled = 0.64%

However, contrast this with the following franchises who operate predominantly or completely electric services: -

SWT: 141,893 trains planned, 3,161 fully cancelled = 2.83%
Southeastern: 130,308 trains planned, 3,569 fully cancelled = 2.74%
Southern: 180,652 trains planned, 5,294 fully cancelled = 2.93%
First Capital Connect: 83,179 trains planned, 2,455 fully cancelled = 2.95%
Virgin Trains: 20,576 trains planned, 896 fully cancelled = 4.35%

Then contrast this again with the franchises that only operate diesel services:-

Arriva Trains Wales: 75,583 trains planned, 179 fully cancelled = 0.24%
Chiltern: 25,642 trains planned, 156 fully cancelled = 0.61%
East Midlands Trains: 34,929 trains planned, 222 fully cancelled = 0.64%
Trans Pennine Express: 23,883 trains planned, 156 fully cancelled = 0.65%
Crosscountry: 22,327 trains planned, 236 fullu cancelled = 1.06%
First Great Western: 112,848 trains planned, 1,796 fully cancelled = 1.59%

I think the data speaks for itself.

 

[WatcherZero]

Doesnt Merseyrail have like a third more units than they actually need for daily service?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Doesnt Merseyrail have like a third more units than they actually need for daily service?

I almost raised this myself, but didn't because the point I was making was related to the fixed sub-systems being an additional cause of cancellations.

However, as you have mentioned it, Merseyrail has 59 x 3-car units and only needs 50 to operate it's current timetable (Grand National week excepted!).

 

[WatcherZero]

Well it came to mind, especielly as they were thinking of reducing the size of the fleet when their replaced.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Well it came to mind, especielly as they were thinking of reducing the size of the fleet when their replaced.

That depends upon what services Merseytravel asks Merseyrail to operate. I reckon if they only needed to operate the existing timetable, then 54 x 4-car units would be sufficient.

However, I understand that additional services, as well as line speed improvements (particularly between Chester and the Wirral) are on the wish list.

Merseytravel is running a procurement process, which has invited expressions of interest for between 150 (50 x 3-cars) and 250 (83 and a bit x 3-car or maybe a mix of 3-car and 2-car) vehicles.

 

[anthony263]

Wasnt there some complaints in the Bath area about the GWML being electrified when the idea was put forward in 2007?

 

[ukrob]

That depends upon what services Merseytravel asks Merseyrail to operate. I reckon if they only needed to operate the existing timetable, then 54 x 4-car units would be sufficient.

However, I understand that additional services, as well as line speed improvements (particularly between Chester and the Wirral) are on the wish list.

Merseytravel is running a procurement process, which has invited expressions of interest for between 150 (50 x 3-cars) and 250 (83 and a bit x 3-car or maybe a mix of 3-car and 2-car) vehicles.

They couldn't operate the current timetable with four car units as six cars are needed in the peaks, and the underground stations are built for six cars. SDO would result in points being fouled in several locations.

A mix of 4 and 2 car units reduces flexibility. Merseyrails stock will be either three or six car trains - probably three, but with more six car services running.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

They couldn't operate the current timetable with four car units as six cars are needed in the peaks, and the underground stations are built for six cars. SDO would result in points being fouled in several locations.

A mix of 4 and 2 car units reduces flexibility. Merseyrails stock will be either three or six car trains - probably three, but with more six car services running.

Sorry, intended to type 3-car. The 250 cars in the OJEU is probably notional and 3-cars has only ever been the requirement.

 

[northwichcat]

I almost raised this myself, but didn't because the point I was making was related to the fixed sub-systems being an additional cause of cancellations.

However, as you have mentioned it, Merseyrail has 59 x 3-car units and only needs 50 to operate it's current timetable (Grand National week excepted!).

I thought it was now 52 units in use for daytime peak with a few peak time services marked in the timetable as: - subject to unit availability this service will be operated by 6 cars.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

First Capital Connect: 83,179 trains planned, 2,455 fully cancelled = 2.95%

Arriva Trains Wales: 75,583 trains planned, 179 fully cancelled = 0.24%

I think the data speaks for itself.

I think some other factors come in to play here. If a line is closed for 30 minutes due to a trespass incident on an ATW line it may result in one service delayed and none cancelled, while on a FCC line it may result in 3 services cancelled.

 

[boing_uk]

I've said this before, but I will repeat it. The railway is a SYSTEM, of which the train is a sub-system. Whilst everyone acknowledges that electric TRAINS are more reliable than self-powered (diesel at present) ones, this over-simplification ignores the fixed systems that provide the electricity for the train to move.

It is a statistical FACT that the TOCs that suffer most CANCELLATIONS are those that operate primarily electric trains.

If this whole system approach were taken to reliability, rather than focussing on casualties at a sub-system (train) level, people might have a wholly different view on whether wholesale electrification is a good idea.

SWT: 141,893 trains planned, 3,161 fully cancelled = 2.83%
Southeastern: 130,308 trains planned, 3,569 fully cancelled = 2.74%
Southern: 180,652 trains planned, 5,294 fully cancelled = 2.93%
First Capital Connect: 83,179 trains planned, 2,455 fully cancelled = 2.95%
Virgin Trains: 20,576 trains planned, 896 fully cancelled = 4.35%

Then contrast this again with the franchises that only operate diesel services:-

Arriva Trains Wales: 75,583 trains planned, 179 fully cancelled = 0.24%
Chiltern: 25,642 trains planned, 156 fully cancelled = 0.61%
East Midlands Trains: 34,929 trains planned, 222 fully cancelled = 0.64%
Trans Pennine Express: 23,883 trains planned, 156 fully cancelled = 0.65%
Crosscountry: 22,327 trains planned, 236 fullu cancelled = 1.06%
First Great Western: 112,848 trains planned, 1,796 fully cancelled = 1.59%

Yes, and do you note anything about those operators that you highlight? Its nothing to do with the electric services, but moreover WHERE they operate and their service pattern.

Lets look at Virgin; any problem between London to Rugby and Birmingham to Scotland is going to have an impact on their ability to run a service.

Or FCC. They dont run an hourly service, like TPE do. With TPE, its fairly easy for perturbation to be accomodated. With FCC you are quickly going to have services backing up behind each other, where cancellation of services is the only way to get the service back on track.

Furthermore, as a country, our electrical energy strategy is in disarray. We are not progressing the replacement of life-expired nuclear power stations anything like quickly enough, we are increasingly dependent upon dubious sources for gas and coal is seen as "dirty" power.

Yes, we are creating wind farms and solar energy is becoming more popular, but these still only account for around 8% of our CURRENT energy needs and take no account of the predicted increase in UK population of 16% (60 million to 70 million) over the next 30 years or so (less than the life span of a new train, if that sounds a long time).

I'm not saying that this problem doesn't also apply to our oil supplies, but I think we need to be more careful and consider more, before we career on with mass electrification.

As has been said, the railways arent a huge user of power. What we will see, long before the lights going out and trains stopping running are the larger industrial grid users being told to disconnect for progressively longer periods and I think we will see the private industrial users start construction of their own power plants when grid parity and network availability start to impact on their productivity.

The biggest problem for the railway is loss of power on the LV distribution network feeding the ancilliary places like signalling centres, switch/relay rooms and the like rather than the HV network that feeds the overheads. Loss of power even on the medium voltage network is fairly uncommon comparitively.

You are right though - the PTB are too slow in embracing new nuclear, which is really the only course of action given rising fossil fuel costs and of course the "carbon" impact, if you beleive in all that.

 

[bluenoxid]

You're right, just! For the last quarter that I have data for, the comparative stats are as follows: -

Merseyrail: 48,687 trains planned, 283 fully cancelled = 0.58%
Northern: 202,449 trains planned, 1,302 fully cancelled = 0.64%

However, contrast this with the following franchises who operate predominantly or completely electric services: -

SWT: 141,893 trains planned, 3,161 fully cancelled = 2.83%
Southeastern: 130,308 trains planned, 3,569 fully cancelled = 2.74%
Southern: 180,652 trains planned, 5,294 fully cancelled = 2.93%
First Capital Connect: 83,179 trains planned, 2,455 fully cancelled = 2.95%
Virgin Trains: 20,576 trains planned, 896 fully cancelled = 4.35%

Then contrast this again with the franchises that only operate diesel services:-

Arriva Trains Wales: 75,583 trains planned, 179 fully cancelled = 0.24%
Chiltern: 25,642 trains planned, 156 fully cancelled = 0.61%
East Midlands Trains: 34,929 trains planned, 222 fully cancelled = 0.64%
Trans Pennine Express: 23,883 trains planned, 156 fully cancelled = 0.65%
Crosscountry: 22,327 trains planned, 236 fullu cancelled = 1.06%
First Great Western: 112,848 trains planned, 1,796 fully cancelled = 1.59%

I think the data speaks for itself.

We only have full cancellations here (with no source). No delays, partial cancellations or the reasons for them. Any line blockage on several of the Electric TOC's has a significant impact on their operations as they are more likely to run an intensive service on a corridor whilst the mainly diesel operators are more likely to run sparse services. Northern could lose Manchester Victoria for the day and still post a respectable PPM value.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Yes, and do you note anything about those operators that you highlight? Its nothing to do with the electric services, but moreover WHERE they operate and their service pattern.

Lets look at Virgin; any problem between London to Rugby and Birmingham to Scotland is going to have an impact on their ability to run a service.

Or FCC. They dont run an hourly service, like TPE do. With TPE, its fairly easy for perturbation to be accomodated. With FCC you are quickly going to have services backing up behind each other, where cancellation of services is the only way to get the service back on track.

As has been said, the railways arent a huge user of power. What we will see, long before the lights going out and trains stopping running are the larger industrial grid users being told to disconnect for progressively longer periods and I think we will see the private industrial users start construction of their own power plants when grid parity and network availability start to impact on their productivity.

The biggest problem for the railway is loss of power on the LV distribution network feeding the ancilliary places like signalling centres, switch/relay rooms and the like rather than the HV network that feeds the overheads. Loss of power even on the medium voltage network is fairly uncommon comparitively.

You are right though - the PTB are too slow in embracing new nuclear, which is really the only course of action given rising fossil fuel costs and of course the "carbon" impact, if you beleive in all that.

These are all fair points and as a mere engineer, I clearly don't look at things from an operator's perspective as much as I should. I still maintain that the reliability of the electrification must have some impact on services, and this never seems to be considered when comparing diesel with electric traction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We only have full cancellations here (with no source). No delays, partial cancellations or the reasons for them. Any line blockage on several of the Electric TOC's has a significant impact on their operations as they are more likely to run an intensive service on a corridor whilst the mainly diesel operators are more likely to run sparse services. Northern could lose Manchester Victoria for the day and still post a respectable PPM value.

True, but if they dropped one at Platform 13 / 14 at M/c Piccadilly, the story would be very different.

The source was DfT (dubious I know, but there we are!) when answering a parliamentary question. You're right about the delays and part cancellations and I agree that this might give a different story.

I'll concede defeat on this argument I think, but I do wish that some people would acknowledge that electrification is a source of potential weakness and is not necessary the silver bullet that everyone thinks it is.

 

[mallard]

Also, even diesel trains are affected by powercuts. Nothing runs if the signals are black!

 

[Nym]

But most of the signals have batteries or other types of UPS...

 

[mallard]

Doesn't stop power cuts from being a semi-regular cause of disruption even in non-electrified areas though...

 

[Metroland]

Nuclear energy is likely to be scaled back due anyway due to what happened in Japan. Hydrogen and renewable sources are likely to be the main sources in the future and it's likely hydrogen cars will replace petrol cars eventually opposed to electric cars as it's unlikely we'll ever be able to do a few hundred miles in an electric car and recharge in 15 minutes at service stations.

Hydrogen is not a fuel source, it's a energy carrier, you have to make hydrogen from electricity/natural gas. It's not an especially efficient ways of doing things either, to power road transport alone you need to double the size of the grid, this assumes you keep the lights on as it is with the forthcoming energy gap.

Electrical demand for rail transport is very modest, in fact less than 1 power station or less than 1% of the current national grid, even if all lines were electrified it would still be less than 2%. 60 odd percent of pass KMs are by electric train already.

Swiss and Japanese railways are the most reliable in the world, and they are mostly electric, so I don't think electric trains are a performance issue if the engineering is got right.

I support electrification because it enables faster services, with a better ambience, proven to attract passengers. Moreover, crude oil is highly unlikely to be cheap again, and biofuels have their own problems in terms of cost/water use/land demand, so there's no magic bullet there either.

If you want to reduce energy demand in transport, the best way is modal shift to rail and, water where possible, and much more cycling and walking.

Finally, on power cuts, the railway has priority in terms of power outages, along with other essential services. Signalling systems are backed up by batteries and generators.

 

[Hydro]

Finally, on power cuts, the railway has priority in terms of power outages, along with other essential services. Signalling systems are backed up by batteries and generators.

Assuming the generators work, as experienced the other night at Trimley. Black aspects everywhere after a backup failed to kick in.

 

[tbtc]

I do wish that some people would acknowledge that electrification is a source of potential weakness and is not necessary the silver bullet that everyone thinks it is.

I accept that you have a point here.

However, part of my reason for supporting electrification is that it appears to be the only way that we will get rid of unfit DMUs.

Regardless of the rights/wrongs, the railway in 2011 is an environment where politicians/ ROSCOs daren't allow new DMUs to be built in significant number.

So, if we can't have DMUs (despite the well documented problems with Pacers, despite the lack of Voyagers, despite the two coach Sprinters on long distance routes etc) then my logic is that we need to electrify some lines to allow "spared" DMUs to move to other lines (it appears much easier to order new EMUs...).

So whilst I am in favour of electrification, its more from the perspective of "this is the only way to sort out the problems on diesel services" than any strong opinions about energy efficiency/ fewer cancellations.