DfT publishes its 2009-2014 plans

[DaveNewcastle]

The DfT report on its vision for the next five years was published yesterday - see http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rollingstock/rollingstockplan?page=1#a1000.

It mainly proposes a strategy for new rolling stock though not how it would be allocated. Of particular interest I thought, was paras 37 & 38 on considerations of further electrification and para 39 on the design of new under-floor-diesel-engined MUs.
Also the general design concepts of 35 & 36.
I was also staggered by the nos of passengers predicted for London bridge station (127thousand in the busiest 3 hours alone! More than Euston, KX, Padd & Victoria combined!).

 

[Kneedown]

Allocation of units here....

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rollingstock/rollingstockplan?page=2#a1002

As usual, EMT loses out! A whole THREE COACHES! wooOOOOOooow! hock:

Will they beeeeee........

3 x Dogbox's.....?

A 158 and a Dogbox.....?

A 3 car 158.....?

3 middle cars for 158's (That were ours in the first place!).....?

or EVEN...........

A 142 and a Dogbox!!!!!

Either way it's REALLY going to solve all our overcrowding problems!

When will the DafT wake up and realise that life doesn't end at Leicester, and begin again at Sheffield!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I see they're still in dreamland when they go on about "Biofuels" and "Hydrogen fuel cells".

They obviously havn't a clue that creating biofuel causes more damage to the envirionment than the worst diesels ever will!, and that hydrogen power is a long way off into the future, and thats BEFORE they have perfected it! What about safety? Anyone remember the Hindenburg?

Why the h*ll don't they accept the only sensible answer, bite the bullet, and get the wires up absolutely EVERYWHERE!

All they'd have to do to fund it is pull out of the EU, saving £25m per day, and stop all the overseas aid that merely serves to line the pockets of corrupt dictators!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

A whole THREE COACHES! wooOOOOOooow!

The notes below the table adds:-
5. East Midlands Trains would introduce additional DMU vehicles, cascaded from the Northern franchise, for use on services into Leicester and Nottingham. Alternatively, the Cross Country franchise would provide additional vehicles on services into Leicester.
and then:-
15. Northern would introduce new DMU and EMU vehicles not only to deliver additional capacity within the franchise but also to ensure existing DMU and EMU vehicles (class 323 units) can be cascaded. Other additional capacity in the franchise is likely to be provided by cascaded vehicles from the West Midlands franchise and the London rail concession.

So its more like musical chairs.

(Without the music.)
(Or the chairs.)
(But with a cascade)

 

[me123]

The following are the assumed actions which underlie the rolling stock numbers by TOC presented in this Appendix B. They are not intended to be prescriptive, or to limit the development process with the industry, and therefore the final outcome could well be different.

Thank goodness, but 6 carriages for XC? I think that's a bit short as well... and I wonder how that's going to be implemented given that HSTs and Viyagers are no longer being made...

WC franchise is getting more carriages (I think two per unit?), so that's a good thing anyway, but I have a feeling they'll flip-flop on this decision... As we've seen in the past.

RE Biofuels and Hydrogen powered trains, at least they're considering options. Biofuels used at a limited level certainly don't cause many problems, if you rotate crops and ensure a limited use. Hydrogen fuel may be a long way off (it is possible, not desirable on a train ATM) and there are safety issues that must be resolved, but at least they're thinking about it. Better too early than too late...

I agree, though, that the best short-term option is extending electrification. But not too far: Hydrogen fuel could be possible in the next, say, 100 years, so erecting pylons up to Mallaig isn't really worthwhile given the scenery on this route as well.

 

[djw1981]

But WC doesn't get the 2 extra carriages until after the franchise changeover - IIRC 2014 is mentioned, and it refers to the WC franchise, as opposed to in other situations where it refers to 'one', or NXEC, or EMT. Thus makes me think that DfT will have the carriages ready to handover to the new franchise operator who can have the fun or integrating them into the trains with the Train Management system, and differential maintenance schedules to cope with.

 

[me123]

^Assuming Virgin don't rebid and win again (unless for some reason that isn't possible?).

 

[Kneedown]

Thank goodness, but 6 carriages for XC? I think that's a bit short as well... and I wonder how that's going to be implemented given that HSTs and Viyagers are no longer being made...

WC franchise is getting more carriages (I think two per unit?), so that's a good thing anyway, but I have a feeling they'll flip-flop on this decision... As we've seen in the past.

RE Biofuels and Hydrogen powered trains, at least they're considering options. Biofuels used at a limited level certainly don't cause many problems, if you rotate crops and ensure a limited use. Hydrogen fuel may be a long way off (it is possible, not desirable on a train ATM) and there are safety issues that must be resolved, but at least they're thinking about it. Better too early than too late...

I agree, though, that the best short-term option is extending electrification. But not too far: Hydrogen fuel could be possible in the next, say, 100 years, so erecting pylons up to Mallaig isn't really worthwhile given the scenery on this route as well.

Why consider anything else when the answer is staring one in the face? Electrification is here, the technology is proven, and over a period of time would pay for itself with reduced maintenence costs, faster journies and better unit longevity. The environmental benefits are brilliant too. quieter trains, and if nuclear power, or sustainable generation provide the power, they are as close to carbon neutral as you can get!

It's a myth that the gantries and wires spoil the scenery. From a relatively short distance away you can actually hardly notice them.

 

[me123]

Fair enough, I appreciate your arguments, and I do think widespead electrification is the answer, but Hydrogen fuel is 100% renewable: I can't see renewable fuel for the electricity pylons coming through for a good few years yet and, until the UK is fully running on renewable energy, you're still burning fossil fuels.

Hydrogen should be investigated because, let's face it, road vehicles aren't going to start running on OHLE. If this is possible in a relatively short space of time following a major breakthrough, a safe version of Hydrogen fuel is the answer. Now, any organic chemists out there

 

[Kneedown]

Fair enough, I appreciate your arguments, and I do think widespead electrification is the answer, but Hydrogen fuel is 100% renewable: I can't see renewable fuel for the electricity pylons coming through for a good few years yet and, until the UK is fully running on renewable energy, you're still burning fossil fuels.

Hydrogen should be investigated because, let's face it, road vehicles aren't going to start running on OHLE. If this is possible in a relatively short space of time following a major breakthrough, a safe version of Hydrogen fuel is the answer. Now, any organic chemists out there

You're not burning fossil fuels with nuclear power, and although we hear all sorts of scaremongering about nuclear waste, the quantities are very small when compared to the waste produced br fossil fuels. Road vehicles certainly wont start running on OHLE, so even more reason to look to the railways to reduce emmissions.

I'm not saying that work on hydrogen fuel cells shouldn't take place, but that even if there was a major breakthrough tomorrow, perfection of the technology will be many years off, and then maybe we should look to applying it to roads, aviation and shipping, where OHLE is impractical?
We need to start changing things now, and employing clean technology, available immediately, where practicable, coupled with ongoing research into alternative methods, to be employed where current technology is impractible, is the answer IMHO.

 

[O L Leigh]

Hydrogen fuel is 100% renewable: I can't see renewable fuel for the electricity pylons coming through for a good few years yet and, until the UK is fully running on renewable energy, you're still burning fossil fuels.

Hydrogen should be investigated because, let's face it, road vehicles aren't going to start running on OHLE. If this is possible in a relatively short space of time following a major breakthrough, a safe version of Hydrogen fuel is the answer. Now, any organic chemists out there

Gah!! Hydrogen fuel cells and "zero emissions vehicles" are the biggest green scam out there.

Bulk quantities of hydrogen for commercial purposes comes from hydrocarbons (hence the involvement of the gas and oil companies) using a process known as "steam reforming". At very high temperatures (700-1100 celsius), steam reacts with natural gas with the aid of a metallic catalyst to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The resulting brew of gas then requires careful refining to remove the carbon monoxide which will "poison" most types of fuel cell leading to a drop-off in performance or even the need to replace the cell's electrolyte.

There are other process at the experimental stages which are more environmentally sound, but they are still a very long way off being able to produce bulk amounts of hydrogen at commercially sustainable costs. However, what seems to be inescapable is that you need a shedload of energy to get your hydrogen out and refined to an acceptable purity for use. Until then, the commercial production of hydrogen will continue to produce large quantities of carbon dioxide as a waste product both directly from the manufacturing process and indirectly from their energy requirements, which the industry continues to vent directly into the atmosphere.

For anyone seriously interested in green transport, it would be far better to take your wind turbine and use it to charge up your battery electric vehicle than to wait on commercially viable fuel cell vehicles. They may try and persuade us that they are zero emissions vehicles, but they are nothing of the sort. All they have done is to shift the pollution away from the point of use to the point of manufacture.

one TN

 

[me123]

You're not burning fossil fuels with nuclear power...

I didn't say you were, but Uranium is still finite I think you'll find.

We need to start changing things now, and employing clean technology, available immediately, where practicable, coupled with ongoing research into alternative methods, to be employed where current technology is impractible, is the answer IMHO.

I can only agree with this statement; whilst Diesel trains can be used (almost) everywhere, they aren't particaulrly clean. 37422 being a prime example...

I think too that the answer lies in OHLE, but a gradual approach, thus minimalising disruption and short-term costs. I'd also like to see some new units come out with both OHLE and Diesel capabilities, thus allowing optimal use of the wires where provided and, if electrification does occur on that route, an immediate conversion to OHLE running.

This could then prove an incentive to DFT to get a move on; after all why should they pay millions to electrify a line that won't see an regular electric train for a few years?

 

[Kneedown]

I didn't say you were, but Uranium is still finite I think you'll find.



I can only agree with this statement; whilst Diesel trains can be used (almost) everywhere, they aren't particaulrly clean. 37422 being a prime example...

I think too that the answer lies in OHLE, but a gradual approach, thus minimalising disruption and short-term costs. I'd also like to see some new units come out with both OHLE and Diesel capabilities, thus allowing optimal use of the wires where provided and, if electrification does occur on that route, an immediate conversion to OHLE running.

This could then prove an incentive to DFT to get a move on; after all why should they pay millions to electrify a line that won't see an regular electric train for a few years?

Absolutely right, Uranium IS finite, but you do get lots of power from very little, and with little waste, nasty though that waste is.

I also agree with the rest of your statement, in fact i do believe that the ICE programme has a requirement for hybrid propulsion? It has already been done with the class 73. All they need is a bigger diesel engine and panto!

Just a thought, do you, like me, believe that all those windturbans on the landscape are a bigger eyesore than the chunkiest of OHLE gantries?

Peterboro to Ely has loads of wind farms along the route now. Personally i think it gets windy enough over the fens without those great big fans making even MORE!!! :razz:

 

[O L Leigh]

Wind turbines: Pretty? No. But then I don't much like looking at bypasses, out-of-town retail parks, high-rise flats and any number of other things that some sections of the community seem to find desirable. However, they are going to become an increasingly common sight if we want to make good use of a properly renewable green source of energy. My own personally held view is that anyone who objects to them being erected really needs a good hard slap, but that's another matter altogether.

one TN

 

[Metroland]

Yes Hydrogen fuel has to be made; you need an input of other energy to make it. And I did hear a quote from a senior person from the US Department of energy, citing the need for 32,000 Nuclear power stations to replace *current* oil use - which wouldn’t do uranium reserves any good, although there are breeder reactors – good for bomb making though. The figure for the UK is around 100, or many thousands of wind turbines. Most hydrogen today is made from natural gas. Quite simply you might as well burn the gas, it’s a lot easier to store and transport. Hydrogen is so light it can pass through metal.

Biofuels are problematic, monocultures are not good for the environment and top soils have already been eroded heavily over the past 100 years. They also require a huge amount of water, in a world which is becoming increasingly water stressed. Algae is quite interesting, but there a number of problems making it cost effective. Corn ethanol is useless; you sometimes need more energy inputs than you get energy from it. And palm oil plantations are threatening rain forests. Land clearance is itself problematic with greenhouse gases. There is no where near enough viable land to grow biofuels and replace oil. Biofuels also have less BTUs per litre than petroleum products, and cake up at cold temperatures and some are highly corrosive. This is the main reason biofuels are not currently suitable for planes in a 100% mix and performance is a lot worse. In the case of trains, this could effect timetables.

The problem with this paper and documents like it, is some of the plans are based on things that are not commercially available in a large scale, or may be for some time. It's just like religion, wishful thinking.

The most effective source of power is OHL straight to 90% efficient traction motors, supplied from a sustainable source like tidal, wind, wave in this part of the world.

Rail doesn't need much power, in fact less than 2 nuclear power stations to supply the whole lot. Indeed, the current traction demand is equal to a smallish nuclear or medium sized coal fired station, or a wind farm like the proposed London Array.

 

[me123]

I like wind turbines! I don't think they look bad, and they look a damn-sight better than a coal power plant! But they are very noisy I've been told...

Although unaware of the full specs of ICE, I was hoping this would be a fantastic candidate for hybrid propulsion.

 

[Metroland]

Hmn, it's a pity the MOD doesn't like wind turbines...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3300814.ece

 

[Kneedown]

My own personally held view is that anyone who objects to them being erected really needs a good hard slap, but that's another matter altogether.

one TN

I personally think that all the wind turbans should be erected on a remote Scottish island and in the waters around it, and all the hippies who love them so much should be forced to go and live with them. That'd be beautiful man! :razz:

 

[me123]

In my experience people love the idea of wind turbines; they're clean and are fantastic for the environment. But when a wind farm is proposed, then they come up with the eye-sore argument, and the noise they (apparently) make.

I have theme near my school. They're too far away to hear any noise from them, but they don't look bad at all. Not exactly pretty, but not an eyesore either. Go to The Netherlands; they're all over the place and it doesn't take away the scenery.

They should really be placed at sea, though. They can be much more efficient with the greater winds. (Personally, I think the West of Scotland could be a fantastic candidate for wind turbines, but we're on oil and nuclear ATM, with Hunterston station still relatively young).

 

[djw1981]

Hmm... The issue with wind turbines in Scotland is quite simple. To out them out at sea, you need a cable to transfer the power back to the central belt / national Grid. The current main cable carrying all the Highland Hydro power down will not take the additional power from wind turbines as well, and is near to life expiry. The proposal was larger pylons able to carry more power, but the route runs through a national park, so the environmental lobby are against that. Running it underground, or under the sea would massively increase the cost and timescales, making the wind farms uneconomical as they couldn't repay that debt.

And for a good demolition of the ridiculous hydrogen cell ideas, look at Roger Ford's Informed Sources in modern Railways, about the middle of last year I think.

 

[Metroland]

I personally think that all the wind turbans should be erected on a remote Scottish island and in the waters around it, and all the hippies who love them so much should be forced to go and live with them. That'd be beautiful man! :razz:

One of the reasons the government is so keen on renewable energy is most of our cost effective indigenous sources of energy are exhausted. The UK is now a net importer of energy for the first time in it's history. There is some coal about, but most of it is very deep below Oxfordshire and Rutland. Most coal now is imported, but the price is due to double to to power outages in South Africa, and bad weather in Asia. Oil and natural gas are in permanent decline.

Both the UK and US governments have concluded it is a security risk importing oil and gas from countries that use these fuels as geopolitical weapons, or use the proceeds to fund terrorism or their war machine. Which is again, one of the reasons the Bush administration has gone a lot more 'green' of late.

Any true Brit would support increasing the renewable energy quota, and be careful with energy use as in some cases this is funding our enemies.

 

[Kneedown]

Totally agree, but the answer IMHO is to go nuclear, as currently, the energy output of the wind turbans is woefully disproportionate to the impact these monstrosities have on the environment, and until the technology improves to increase the output to a satisfactory level, we shouldn't be popping them up everywhere, but instead increasing the output and safety of nuclear power.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'd be more pro-nuclear (not that I'm against it at the moment) if Government and the scientific community would stop ****ing about with the waste disposal problem and decide on a rigourously safe disposal solution.

one TN

 

[me123]

^ That's the main problem I have with nuclear fuel. Everyone worries about Hunterston blowing up but, let's face it, we'd be dead so it doesn't matter really The waste is long-term and, although it's egoistic, I don't want to be left with millions of tonnes of radioactive waste (some of the by-products having a half-life of tens of thousands of years!) just because my parent's generation couldn't care less.

 

[P156KWJ]

woh. a whopping THREE vehicles. Woh, DafT, don't go NUTS!!! COZ I AM!!!!!!

 

[Kneedown]

I'd be more pro-nuclear (not that I'm against it at the moment) if Government and the scientific community would stop ****ing about with the waste disposal problem and decide on a rigourously safe disposal solution.

one TN

There's four ideal sites for dumping it here in Nottingham....

St Anns, Meadows, Hyson Green and Bulwell!

 

[me123]

Wish they'd dump some on Coatbridge: It can only do good

 

[Respite]

Hang on a second, did someone say the DFT has a plan??! When did that happen, I thought they just rolled dice for the results & then went to long lunches.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Re: Fuel types. (Nuclear, fossil, wind etc).
Although there's some pretty intersing and informed debate here, are we not missing the 2 special points about power types for rail?

1. Electrified track is part of the transmission system between fuel-burning engine and traction motor. Its "engines" are land-based.
In other words, an electric train doesn't need to carry a fuel-burning engine along the metals all day long - which are large, are heavy, carry a continuing requirement for maintenance, not to mention their noise and exhaust fumes. And that makes then much less demanding on fuel consumption! They simply don't need to carry large & heavy engines and fuel tanks around all day long. It also doesn't need to be refuelled anywhere. Ever!

2. Electric trains are neutral on the subject of power sources. You can design, test, build and deploy a fleet of electric trains/locomotives and switch the power sources as often as you like (between nuclear, wind, coal, oil whatever) without any change at all to the RS or locos or their maintenance procedures & inventories. Whatever reaons there are now or in the future to change fuel types will apply to all consumers and will be adopted where feasible - and rail will be included (automatically).

So electrified railways should be quite oblivious to the more general (and economic/ environmental / political) debate about fuel types.

I admit there are downsides to electrification, (but I reckon they are less significant that the benefits of not having to equip every train with fuel and an engine to burn it.). I can think of 3:- the power losses in the transmission system; the maintenance & integrity requirements of a wired rail-infrastructure; electrical safety. (okay. 4 downisdes. The 4th is the capital investment in the infrastructure - which is the ACTUAL problem electrification faces).

So, my argument is: can we separate the discussion about power types from the considerations of traction types (unless anyone wants to propose on-board uranium-burning reactors or solar panels ! ! ! )

 

[O L Leigh]

Hang on a second, did someone say the DFT has a plan??! When did that happen.

*Points and laughs*

I can't believe you fell for that one.

one TN

 

[Respite]

*Points and laughs*

I can't believe you fell for that one.

one TN

I've been reading too much fiction again....Duh! hock: