Decarbonisation of UK Rail Network

[najaB]

Deaths so far. Don't forget Japan. This is an unknown quantity and probably won't be known for years ahead.

Zero radiological deaths so far, estimates are between 100 and 1000 over the next 100 years.

 

[HSTEd]

Deaths so far. Don't forget Japan. This is an unknown quantity and probably won't be known for years ahead.

The radiation release from the Fukushima plant was dominated by release directly into the pacific - where it has now dispersed amongst a billion billion tonnes of seawater in the world ocean - most of which will never come anywhere near a human being.
Radiological effects will be an order of magnitude less than at Chernobyl - most casualties will be as a result of early deaths amongst those forced to evacuate by the state in a kneejerk reaction.
Immeasurable damage to the environment has been done by the villification of nuclear power at the hands of people like Helen Caldicott who are believed even though they present no real evidence for their insane claims.

The other thing I resent about nuclear is that it needs a strike price that seems to be far in excess of current market prices.

So does anything but CCGTs. And with nuclear this is purely a result of having them built by the private sector with private sector capital.

 

[AndrewE]

Zero radiological deaths so far, estimates are between 100 and 1000 over the next 100 years.

They probably said the same about Chernobyl too at the time. You have heard of the food chain? and how all sorts of contaminants get concentrated up it?

Enjoy your (Tuna) sashimi, or whatever the latest gimmick food is.
A

 

[najaB]

They probably said the same about Chernobyl too at the time. You have heard of the food chain? and how all sorts of contaminants get concentrated up it?

Actually, initial estimates after Chernobyl were for anything between 30,000 and 1,000,000 deaths. Then, as better measurements became available of the amount of radiation released, the estimates came down as well.

Enjoy your (Tuna) sashimi, or whatever the latest gimmick food is.
A

The majority of the radioactive material released was in the form of iodine 131. This has a half-life of about 10 days which means it is 99.9% gone already.

The caesium 137 is more problematic as it has a longer half-life (about 30 years) but not much of it was released. It does have the nasty habit of forming salts but that's more of a problem in fresh water than sea water. Besides, as already pointed out the Pacific ocean is very big and the particles released are very small. The odds of a single fish encountering more than a few of them is vanishingly small.

 

[furnessvale]

Given the number of freight trains pathed that never actually run it is not a matter of a single passenger train against a single freight train, it is a matter of a single freight train against several passenger trains carrying hundreds or thousands of passengers in total.

You mean like the off peak DMUs from Felixstowe to Ipswich, each one occupying a path that a 30 wagon Freightliner could fill tomorrow taking 60-90 HGVs off the roads?

 

[daikilo]

You mean like the off peak DMUs from Felixstowe to Ipswich, each one occupying a path that a 30 wagon Freightliner could fill tomorrow taking 60-90 HGVs off the roads?

There are two aspects to this question
1) is it truly either/or in which case it may make sense to run the freight and replace the passenger service by a bus/coach (or a few).
2) but, whilst we can be pretty certain that a load of freight not on a train will go on a lorry, we rarely have a clear view of what a train passenger would do if the train did not run, so calculating the carbon footprint of reality is difficult.

One aspect of decarbonisation which I believe does need intervention is freight under the wires; why is it acceptable to run diesel hauled block trains for large distances under the wires and what could be done to regulate it, especially as operators may even be in competition for haulage, one with diesel one with electric '&nd I won't even ask what the particulate matter count is for say a class 37 compared to a 68 at full power? Note that I find it a paradox that some of the cleanest deisels in the UK are operated by DRS, and we know who they are owned by!

 

[Taunton]

You mean like the off peak DMUs from Felixstowe to Ipswich, each one occupying a path that a 30 wagon Freightliner could fill tomorrow taking 60-90 HGVs off the roads?

Any sensible national rail policy would have doubled the Felixstowe branch long ago. To have the UK's largest port served by a single track twig is ridiculous.

Believe it or not, congestion from Felixstowe dock freight on this line was described in an article in an edition of Modern Railways more that half a century ago, in 1964.

 

[HSTEd]

You mean like the off peak DMUs from Felixstowe to Ipswich, each one occupying a path that a 30 wagon Freightliner could fill tomorrow taking 60-90 HGVs off the roads?

Yes, taking 60-90 HGVs off the road is better than a tiny DMU, but the railway doesn't end at Ipswich. Also assuming that a subsidised short sea hop would not be able to take them off the roads by shipping them direct to Trafford or other destination by sea.
The network is chock-a-block and the paths used by freight tend to run through places where trains would be quite well used.

How many freight paths are on the WCML for example? We could probably fill many more trains there.
Or the settle and carlisle that has been prevented from developing into a useful passenger railway because freight trains keep the average speed down
Or the Freight trains on the GWML that prevent Crossrail turning the GWML into a high intensity tube line by taking over the relief lines.

They probably said the same about Chernobyl too at the time. You have heard of the food chain? and how all sorts of contaminants get concentrated up it?

Most of the caesium and strontium will end up so deep in the Pacific that it will nevr come into contact with the kind of fish that are in a food chain that ends with humanity.
Additionally a significnat portion of the radioactive material released by Fukushima has already decayed away. 13% of the Caesium-137 is gone.
If radiological deaths were going to occur beyond marginal and tiny increases in cancer rates, they would already have happened.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

One aspect of decarbonisation which I believe does need intervention is freight under the wires; why is it acceptable to run diesel hauled block trains for large distances under the wires and what could be done to regulate it,....!

Agreed but not yet. Once more of the network is electrified and obvious pinch points like the Felixtowe branch are doubled and electrified too etc then there is a case for adding a cost penalty of xxx per mile under wire run.

 

[daikilo]

Agreed but not yet. Once more of the network is electrified and obvious pinch points like the Felixtowe branch are doubled and electrified too etc then there is a case for adding a cost penalty of xxx per mile under wire run.

Why wait? DRS will have their class 88 shortly and may be able to start imediately with or without "financial benefit". And again, it's not just fuel, it's polution.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Why wait? DRS will have their class 88 shortly and may be able to start imediately with or without "financial benefit". And again, it's not just fuel, it's polution.

Well yes if I was SoS I would do that - not easy as they are a private company but let them know legislation was on the way. The less diesel under the wire the better. I remember in BR days in the 1980s the lengths they would go to make sure very little diesel under the wires.

I hope - if the RUS Electrification refresh ever happens - that the updated diesel under the wires figure gets published.

 

[furnessvale]

Yes, taking 60-90 HGVs off the road is better than a tiny DMU, but the railway doesn't end at Ipswich. Also assuming that a subsidised short sea hop would not be able to take them off the roads by shipping them direct to Trafford or other destination by sea.
The network is chock-a-block and the paths used by freight tend to run through places where trains would be quite well used.

How many freight paths are on the WCML for example? We could probably fill many more trains there.
Or the settle and carlisle that has been prevented from developing into a useful passenger railway because freight trains keep the average speed down
Or the Freight trains on the GWML that prevent Crossrail turning the GWML into a high intensity tube line by taking over the relief lines.

You're not a closet member of the Railway Conversion League by any chance?

While we are at it we can put all those pesky passengers into express road coaches or aircraft for longer journeys and the job is done.

 

[HSTEd]

You're not a closet member of the Railway Conversion League by any chance?

No, I am the forum member who's answer to almost every problem is to build a Shinkansen.

While we are at it we can put all those pesky passengers into express road coaches or aircraft for longer journeys and the job is done.

Either option would imply significant increases in average journey time, increases in consumption of valuable liquid fuels or similar.
Passenger moving is what the modern railway does best, given the restrictions on British railways in train length, weight and loading gauge terms - freight is not really feasible outside of a limited number of scenarios.

It should concentrate on its strong points.
Or build a high capacity, high performance freight network that can actually compete with other methods - such as Short Sea Shipping, Large Canals or the Roads. [Reviving the idea of the Grand Contour Canal with modern canal barges and boat lifts is a particularily interesting idea].

 

[furnessvale]

No, I am the forum member who's answer to almost every problem is to build a Shinkansen.


Either option would imply significant increases in average journey time, increases in consumption of valuable liquid fuels or similar.
Passenger moving is what the modern railway does best, given the restrictions on British railways in train length, weight and loading gauge terms - freight is not really feasible outside of a limited number of scenarios.

It should concentrate on its strong points.
Or build a high capacity, high performance freight network that can actually compete with other methods - such as Short Sea Shipping, Large Canals or the Roads. [Reviving the idea of the Grand Contour Canal with modern canal barges and boat lifts is a particularily interesting idea].

The UK seems to be going down a route that suits both your ideals in that it is building a Shinkansen (HS2) and freeing classic capacity for freight.

 

[HSTEd]

freeing classic capacity for freight.

Without longer trains or double stack container freight simply can't compete over the distances involved without enormous subsidies.
Classic capacity would be better spent on more passenger services than maintaining a toy freight railway.

 

[Flying Phil]

Without longer trains or double stack container freight simply can't compete over the distances involved without enormous subsidies.
Classic capacity would be better spent on more passenger services than maintaining a toy freight railway.

Whilst I am no expert I would have - perhaps naively thought, that most passengers travel during the day so why cannot freight - containers move (Mostly) at night and mostly from ports to central distribution areas thus using the fixed railway infrastructure more fully? Surely the cost of 40 lorry drivers plus lorries etc, is not too dissimilar from train driver plus signallers etc? the energy saving ie decarbonisation, must also favour freight by rail.

 

[furnessvale]

Without longer trains or double stack container freight simply can't compete over the distances involved without enormous subsidies.
Classic capacity would be better spent on more passenger services than maintaining a toy freight railway.

Then you and I must differ.

I do find it ironic that your support for a passenger only railway is based on these mythical massive subsidies that the freight railway receives, as if there is no subsidy to road freight (currently 70% of costs), or the thought that the passenger railway is subsidy free!

Edited to add that this "toy freight railway" as you provocatively describe it, moves more than 50% of the container traffic out of Felixstowe when measured by the only worthwhile measure, tonnes/kms.

 

[najaB]

...a toy freight railway.

4.58 billion tonne kilometres in a quarter isn't bad for a toy railway.

 

[HSTEd]

Whilst I am no expert I would have - perhaps naively thought, that most passengers travel during the day so why cannot freight - containers move (Mostly) at night and mostly from ports to central distribution areas thus using the fixed railway infrastructure more fully?

Because the time at night is also needed for other things like critical network maintenance - and there is an ongoing move in society to move towards 24 hour transport, see the Night Tube and similar.

The railway not having to deal with freight trains at night would allow the passenger role to be performed better and less expensively.

Then you and I must differ.
Edited to add that this "toy freight railway" as you provocatively describe it, moves more than 50% of the container traffic out of Felixstowe when measured by the only worthwhile measure, tonnes/kms.

4.58 billion tonne kilometres in a quarter isn't bad for a toy railway.

And I should hope so, given the resources lavished upon it

I do find it ironic that your support for a passenger only railway is based on these mythical massive subsidies that the freight railway receives, as if there is no subsidy to road freight (currently 70% of costs), or the thought that the passenger railway is subsidy free!

When did I say either of those things?
Passenger railway is most certainly not subsidy free, but I believe the subsidies to be actually worth it.
Rail frieght has yet to make that demonstration.
It consumes huge resources and gets in the way of the efficient operation of a passenger railway.
Those subsidies could easily be used for something else that would generate superior return in terms of reducing traffic and environmental problems caused by road freight.

 

[Class 170101]

Because the time at night is also needed for other things like critical network maintenance - and there is an ongoing move in society to move towards 24 hour transport, see the Night Tube and similar.

I cannot see the railway ever moving (back) to a 24hr operation. Health and Safety requirements have seen to that. As I understand it postal traffic had passenger vehicles on some of them now they are gone NR won't allow night traffic back on new routes.

 

[HSTEd]

I cannot see the railway ever moving (back) to a 24hr operation. Health and Safety requirements have seen to that. As I understand it postal traffic had passenger vehicles on some of them now they are gone NR won't allow night traffic back on new routes.

If that is the case then the railway is set to become steadily less relevant as the years go by.

 

[najaB]

I cannot see the railway ever moving (back) to a 24hr operation. Health and Safety requirements have seen to that.

Could you expand on that? I can't see how H&S prevents a 24-hour railway.

 

[furnessvale]

I cannot see the railway ever moving (back) to a 24hr operation. Health and Safety requirements have seen to that. As I understand it postal traffic had passenger vehicles on some of them now they are gone NR won't allow night traffic back on new routes.

Given that NR is working towards a 24/7 railway for freight, I presume you are thinking passenger?

 

[Class 170101]

Could you expand on that? I can't see how H&S prevents a 24-hour railway.

No Single Line / Bi-Directional Working with the adjacent line live for OLE. How do you maintain OLE? NR used to do this until around 5 or so years ago. Not now.

Single Line Working skill set seems to be in short supply from what I observe with a strong preference for total blocks as its safer - just put people on buses, its easier.

 

[HSTEd]

Well that just makes night time operation more expensive, it does not prevent it.
For example the same logic that justifies enormously overbuilt overhead wiring systems on British rail would extend to overbuilding to an even greater degree to reduce maintenance blockages [I think the logic is slightly flawed but the railway obviously does not].

For example, in extreme cases, you could always go to Furrer and Frey style conductor bar over the entire line. Almost no fragile overhead parts to break then.

 

[najaB]

No Single Line / Bi-Directional Working with the adjacent line live for OLE. How do you maintain OLE? NR used to do this until around 5 or so years ago. Not now.

This isn't an impossible problem to solve - if only by deenergising the OLE and diesel-hauling anything that really needs to get through.

 

[HSTEd]

With the proliferation of bi-modes you could always just have them crawl through the deenergised section with the pony motor running flat out.

 

[Class 170101]

Coasting may work but mainly downhill.

 

[najaB]

Coasting may work but mainly downhill.

It's possible to coast for several miles on the level.

 

[Class 170101]

It's possible to coast for several miles on the level.

Alright but not uphill for any great distance.