COP26 and UK Railways: should we be electrifying more?

[grove]

As COP26 struggles to deliver meaningful results, is the government's real commitment to the process of moving away from carbon fuels demonstrated by no real plan to complete the electrification of the rail network?

Specifically, we are still pressing ahead with building a non-electrified East-West project. When does the tide turn?

 

[zwk500]

In the scheme of things, EWR is fairly small fry. It's probably still a net benefit to the environment to reduce car journeys even by diesel trains than to have no railway at all because electrification is out of budge. Where we need electrification is on core freight flows like Felixtowe-Nuneaton-Birmingham and on high-density commuter lines like the Birmingham Snow Hill, Manchester and southern Chilterns.

The tide turning depends on two things - the affordability of zero-carbon options, and the political consequences of acting vs doing nothing.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The COP26 targets are expressed in generalities, policies, percentages and target dates for decarbonisation.
Electrification of the railway, or other green alternatives, are a small part of that, with other sectors having a much bigger challenge.
How we actually plan to achieve the targets over time is a national matter, so it's not appropriate to go into any detail for COP26.
But it will be important to see how the government lays out its departmental plans for decarbonisation year by year, particularly for transport.
The first test will be the Integrated Rail Plan for which we have been waiting for many months.
That will define how much money will be spent on the railway over then next 3-5 years, hopefully including real steps to decarbonisation.
But it is obvious new technology (battery and hydrogen) has hogged the headlines during COP26.

 

[Starmill]

It depends a great deal on whether the goal is to decarbonise a national railway network more quickly, or to decarbonise all national transport more quickly.

 

[The Ham]

t depends a great deal on whether the goal is to decarbonise a national railway network more quickly, or to decarbonise all national transport more quickly.

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.

 

[tomuk]

1.4%
The railway was responsible for only 1.4% of the UKs GHG emissions in 2019. Shouldn't the government be concentrating on the other 98.6%?

If no further electrification was carried out or battery/hydrogen stock was introduced getting modal shift from cars and planes would be still be a huge net benefit. We should be concentrating on the convenience and capacity of the railway not it's decarbonisation.

 

[yorksrob]

Regardless of the comparatively small proportion of emissions coming from rail transport, the country needs to make progress with electrification.

The worst thing that could happen would be for rail's comparative proportion of emissions to grow because the rest of transport is decarbonising and rail isn't.

 

[NoRoute]

Rail's claim to be better for the environmental is weakening, rail passenger emissions are ~ 35.1g CO2 per km, which is the same as 56.5 g CO2 per mile.

Last year the average carbon intensity of electricity was a record low of 181g CO2 per kWh, a typical electric vehicle gives somewhere between 3 to 5 miles per kWh, so a carbon intensity of somewhere between 36g to 60 g per mile for the electric vehicle, add a second passenger to the EV and its already better than the rail average. So an efficient EV (5 miles /kWh) with a single person is already better than the rail average, add more people to the EV and they're all better than the rail average.

At some point public transport operators of diesel powered vehicles (trains, buses etc) are going to have to think about the implications of how they market public transport, because EVs are raising the bar and without electrification it isn't green any more. I'm surprised none of them actively market where they operate electric trains, given the focus on low carbon emissions and cleanliness.

Rail emissions
National Grid Carbon Intensity

 

[The Ham]

1.4%
The railway was responsible for only 1.4% of the UKs GHG emissions in 2019. Shouldn't the government be concentrating on the other 98.6%?

If no further electrification was carried out or battery/hydrogen stock was introduced getting modal shift from cars and planes would be still be a huge net benefit. We should be concentrating on the convenience and capacity of the railway not it's decarbonisation.

The problem is that we need to do everything that we can to reduce our carbon emissions.

Whilst a (say) 20% fall on that 1.4% isn't going to cut it by much, the thing we need to be doing is getting people to travel by:
- not traveling where it's not needed (or joining trips together)
- walking as much as possible
- cycling where it's too far to walk
- use public transport for most of what's left
- then and only then using cars

If we electrify more of the rail network then chances are trains would be longer (in part due to the lower lease and running costs), providing the capacity needed for more to travel by train.

 

[Purple Orange]

1.4%
The railway was responsible for only 1.4% of the UKs GHG emissions in 2019. Shouldn't the government be concentrating on the other 98.6%?

If no further electrification was carried out or battery/hydrogen stock was introduced getting modal shift from cars and planes would be still be a huge net benefit. We should be concentrating on the convenience and capacity of the railway not it's decarbonisation.

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.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, we have had a bonanza of spare electric stock in recent years which we haven't been able to put to good use because of the lack of electrified routes to run them on. The lack of electrification is hindering capacity growth in many parts of the country.

 

[daodao]

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

 

[fourtytwo]

Great idea for increasing electricity demand further that is going to come from where ?

 

[zwk500]

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 these services. Suggestions include:

A lot of these services provide important capacity on their 'under the wires' section that cannot easily be replaced by an EMU service today. E.g. removing Uckfield line services from Croydon-London bridge is removing 230m of train from a very busy section. Do you just tell people to lump it or are you proposing to replace the Uckfield line path with a 12-car service to Oxted only?
You'd also destroy patronage for a lot of these routes as they're cut off from major sources of traffic e.g. Ashford-Hastings not reaching Eastbourne, it should really go through to Brighton, or Manchester-Chester starting at Stockport.
There's also the little problem that most of your proposed termini simply don't have the platform space to accommodate a regular terminating service. Building new platforms isn't quick.

Local services around Newcastle being recast to maximise EMUs might be feasible, and would seem to be the most obvious improvement.

 

[yorksrob]

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

I very much agree with the last one. Should have been done years ago.

 

[daodao]

You'd also destroy patronage for a lot of these routes as they're cut off from major sources of traffic e.g. Ashford-Hastings not reaching Eastbourne

Does that really matter?

There's also the little problem that most of your proposed termini simply don't have the platform space to accommodate a regular terminating service.

Not true for many of my suggestions.

 

[yorksrob]

Does that really matter?

As someone who's used the Marshlink for many years, including when it was self-contained, I'd say it does matter because it would be a bit of a step backwards. Speaking to family members, they certainly regard getting the train that way as less of a chore than it used to be.

My preference would be for the route to be electrified and the through service to Brighton reinstated.

 

[Purple Orange]

If Birmingham-Manchester was to be removed from the XC network, would it be better to run the 3rd London-Birmingham on to Manchester, with an appropriate use of rolling stock? I’d argue that Birmingham-Manchester should be a part of the ICWC network, and I recall that it wasn’t too long ago that you could get a Pendolino service from New Street to Piccadilly, calling at the same stops as XC.

 

[daodao]

If Birmingham-Manchester was to be removed from the XC network, would it be better to run the 3rd London-Birmingham on to Manchester, with an appropriate use of rolling stock? I’d argue that Birmingham-Manchester should be a part of the ICWC network, and I recall that it wasn’t too long ago that you could get a Pendolino service from New Street to Piccadilly, calling at the same stops as XC.

A regional emu such as the class 350 is deemed good enough for the Birmingham-Liverpool service, so it should be good enough for Birmingham-Manchester services too.

 

[The Ham]

Rail's claim to be better for the environmental is weakening, rail passenger emissions are ~ 35.1g CO2 per km, which is the same as 56.5 g CO2 per mile.

Last year the average carbon intensity of electricity was a record low of 181g CO2 per kWh, a typical electric vehicle gives somewhere between 3 to 5 miles per kWh, so a carbon intensity of somewhere between 36g to 60 g per mile for the electric vehicle, add a second passenger to the EV and its already better than the rail average. So an efficient EV (5 miles /kWh) with a single person is already better than the rail average, add more people to the EV and they're all better than the rail average.

At some point public transport operators of diesel powered vehicles (trains, buses etc) are going to have to think about the implications of how they market public transport, because EVs are raising the bar and without electrification it isn't green any more. I'm surprised none of them actively market where they operate electric trains, given the focus on low carbon emissions and cleanliness.

Rail emissions
National Grid Carbon Intensity

Indeed, however you are comparing the best of road transport with the average of rail. Even if all EV's averaged 40g/mile and the remaining 10% miles traveled by ICE cars doing 60mpg then the average carbon emissions would still be comparable to current rail.

We are currently a long way from 90% of miles traveled by car being done by EV.

It's easy to say add another person and the emissions are lower, the problem is that the cast majority of miles traveled are done by a single person in their car.

Also, if someone is reliant on rail for most of their travel they are also more likely to walk/cycle short trips than those who own an EV. However with the fuel costs of EV's being low and the purchase cost being high there's little to discourage the use of them for trips which would be perfectly suitable for walking/cycling. As such it is likely that an EV user would be doing more miles than the rail user, which then tips the balance back the other way.

It's also worth noting that only considers the emissions from the use, it doesn't take into account the emissions from maintaing the infrastructure. Again rail wins out on that front, as it has lower emissions than that from National Highways (was Highways England), even though the Network Rail network is twice the length of the strategic road network.

It also doesn't take into account construction emissions of the vehicles, where EV's have very high rates due to the batteries that they have, and so require about 18,000 miles of travel before they brake even compared to the lower carbon emission required to build a traditional ICE car. Clearly not enough to make it bit worth swapping from ICE to EV, but not from rail to EV.

If we assume that rail is 60g/mile and cars are 40g/mile and ICE are 238g/mile then rather than the break even point being about 18,000 miles (ICE to EV) it's likely to be somewhere around the 150,000 mile range (rail to EV). However that assumes that a train is comparable per passenger mile in construction emissions as a ICE car (which is unlikely given that most trains make to over 30 and clock up hundreds of thousands of miles whilst few cars make it to 200,000).

 

[Grumpy Git]

A regional emu such as the class 350 is deemed good enough for the Birmingham-Liverpool service, so it should be good enough for Birmingham-Manchester services too.

A good service used regularly by myself, but unfortunately ruined when an awful 350/2 rocks-up.

 

[Purple Orange]

A regional emu such as the class 350 is deemed good enough for the Birmingham-Liverpool service, so it should be good enough for Birmingham-Manchester services too.

I don’t think that is a valid reason. A 350 should be used on a more frequent stopping pattern, but not one in the manner that XC currently operates between Brum & Manc. Post HS2, units like 350s should be all over the WCML, but between now and then a 9 or 11 car Pendolino would be the far better choice.

 

[daodao]

A good service used regularly by myself, but unfortunately ruined when an awful 350/2 rocks-up.

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

between now and then a 9 or 11 car Pendolino would be the far better choice.

Are there any spare? Would that not be an expensive option, and over-provision. Class 350/2 trains should be acceptable.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It also doesn't take into account construction emissions of the vehicles, where EV's have very high rates due to the batteries that they have, and so require about 18,000 miles of travel before they brake even compared to the lower carbon emission required to build a traditional ICE car. Clearly not enough to make it bit worth swapping from ICE to EV, but not from rail to EV.

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.

 

[Purple Orange]

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



Are there any spare? Would that not be an expensive option, and over-provision. Class 350/2 trains should be acceptable.

The 350/2 units are in 3+2 seating.

Anyhow, i’ll respond proper to this to the Brum-Manc stand alone service thread.

 

[NoRoute]

Indeed, however you are comparing the best of road transport with the average of rail. Even if all EV's averaged 40g/mile and the remaining 10% miles traveled by ICE cars doing 60mpg then the average carbon emissions would still be comparable to current rail.

We are currently a long way from 90% of miles traveled by car being done by EV.

But once someone buys an EV then 100% of their miles are electric ! And sales are ramping up sharply, particularly to businesses and company car drivers who tend to travel much more annually than private motorists, they also tend to be the more affluent groups targeted by rail. Over time the pool of EV owning motorists will grow and rail's low carbon argument weakens for many potential passengers.

It's also worth noting that only considers the emissions from the use, it doesn't take into account the emissions from maintaing the infrastructure. Again rail wins out on that front, as it has lower emissions than that from National Highways (was Highways England), even though the Network Rail network is twice the length of the strategic road network.

Is that total emissions, or emissions per passenger mile ? I suspect the highways network carries far more passenger and freight miles each year than rail.

It also doesn't take into account construction emissions of the vehicles, where EV's have very high rates due to the batteries that they have, and so require about 18,000 miles of travel before they brake even compared to the lower carbon emission required to build a traditional ICE car. Clearly not enough to make it bit worth swapping from ICE to EV, but not from rail to EV.

But people will be swapping from ICE to EV anyway, in 9 years you won't be able to buy a new ICE, and over the next years sales will be ramping up of new and used EVs.

If we assume that rail is 60g/mile and cars are 40g/mile and ICE are 238g/mile then rather than the break even point being about 18,000 miles (ICE to EV) it's likely to be somewhere around the 150,000 mile range (rail to EV). However that assumes that a train is comparable per passenger mile in construction emissions as a ICE car (which is unlikely given that most trains make to over 30 and clock up hundreds of thousands of miles whilst few cars make it to 200,000).

But it isn't a choice between rail or EV, most people either want or need to own a car and an increasing proportion of those will be EVs, then once they have an EV the environmental argument for rail travel is at best diminished and at worst removed all together.

What this discussion highlights is that with a transition to EVs, the rail industry is not only going to have to electrify to decarbonise, but it's also going to have to look at its arguments about it being the greener travel solution because increasingly, it won't be. It's going to need to come up with some better arguments and marketing if it is going to sell its green credentials in the future.

 

[zwk500]

Does that really matter?

Yes, because if people don't use the train you may as well withdraw the service.

Not true for many of my suggestions.

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 because 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.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

But it isn't a choice between rail or EV, most people either want or need to own a car and an increasing proportion of those will be EVs, then once they have an EV the environmental argument for rail travel is at best diminished and at worst removed all together.

What this discussion highlights is that with a transition to EVs, the rail industry is not only going to have to electrify to decarbonise, but it's also going to have to look at its arguments about it being the greener travel solution because increasingly, it won't be. It's going to need to come up with some better arguments and marketing if it is going to sell its green credentials in the future.

Ten years ago EVs were not a certain solution to decarbonise ICE cars and public transport would have been key in a decarbonised world. However, EVs are now readily available, if still expensive, so people can retain personal transportation and be carbon neutral (well this is what the marketing says!) so this is a real risk for rail. Until NR confronts head on the why its projects cost so much and take so long I can't see this govt supporting mass electrification.

 

[The Planner]

Does that really matter?

Quite clearly it does, as the journey time increase and changing will put punters off, reducing revenue and therefore detrimental to any recovery. If you want to run down the railways fine but that doesn't solve it.

 

[HSTEd]

Universal electrification would be nice.

But we won't get any significant amount of electrification beyond that already committed or de-facto committed in connection with HS2.

Bi-modes have killed the network effect and the vast majority of the railways heavily used enough for it to be worthwhile without the network effect are already done.