Diesel Under The Wires?

[dickdarlington]

About to be shot down, but here goes...

What's the big deal about having diesels running under the wires if their destination doesn't have overhead power for the full length?

 

[bradders1983]

About to be shot down, but here goes...

What's the big deal about having diesels running under the wires if their destination doesn't have overhead power for the full length?

Because people like to moan about anything, it seems

 

[sprinterguy]

Because it’s an inefficient use of infrastructure and resources. Electrification isn’t cheap to carry out in the first place, and there’s often a lot of difficulty in pushing schemes through to the implementation stage to begin with. Hence it would be hoped that as many trains as possible running on an electrified route would use electric traction, with a loco change/drag/dual mode option if they have to come off the wires to reach their destination.

Diesel trains that run under the wires for only a short section of their route aren’t much of a problem, but when they are running on electrified lines for 50% or more of their journey then having that self-powered train burning fuel whilst ignoring the availability of OHLE is a pretty big inefficiency. Unfortunately, with the majority of trains being fixed formation multiple units with complicated coupling systems these days, diesels running under the wires for miles to reach a destination a few miles off the electrified network has become increasingly common.

 

[bradders1983]

Because it’s an inefficient use of infrastructure and resources. Electrification isn’t cheap to carry out in the first place, and there’s often a lot of difficulty in pushing schemes through to the implementation stage to begin with. Hence it would be hoped that as many trains as possible running on an electrified route would use electric traction, with a loco change/drag/dual mode option if they have to come off the wires to reach their destination.

Diesel trains that run under the wires for only a short section of their route aren’t much of a problem, but when they are running on electrified lines for 50% or more of their journey then having that self-powered train burning fuel whilst ignoring the availability of OHLE is a pretty big inefficiency. Unfortunately, with the majority of trains being fixed formation multiple units with complicated coupling systems these days, diesels running under the wires for miles to reach a destination a few miles off the electrified network has become increasingly common.

So if you were in charge, would you scrap the London-Inverness/Aberdeen direct trains and the sleepers?

 

[mumrar]

So if you were in charge, would you scrap the London-Inverness/Aberdeen direct trains and the sleepers?

The sleepers run with electric traction from London-Edinburgh, so on what grounds would you scrap them?

Diesel under the wires is a more recent bug-bear for people. We have a lot more short electrification schemes over the last 20 years or so and this can distort the way it looks, but consider this.

We now have Class 59s and 66s running trains heavier than hauled by 2x47 or 2x56 locos. People also never seemed to have a problem with the Euston-Holyhead services when ran by HSTs, but since it's gone over to Super Voyagers, it's a disgrace. I agree that passenger services spending their entirety under the wires is not good, such as the New St-Glasgow services, but it's not as bad as some people make out.

 

[sprinterguy]

So if you were in charge, would you scrap the London-Inverness/Aberdeen direct trains and the sleepers?

It's a thorny issue with no easy answer tbh. Whilst it is easy to lay down the facts of WHY diesels running under the wires is such a big deal, coming up with solutions for where it occurs is somehwat more difficult. Crosscountry services are a massive case in point here.

The sleepers are fine, they do use electric traction when they are under the wires. As regards the Inverness and Aberdeen direct trains, in an ideal world I'd make use of dragged 91+mk 4s north of Edinburgh. However that equals class 67s required, more 225 trains which aren't available, and hence higher costs and this isn't an ideal world, so it doesn't happen.

The big problem is that a lot of electrification projects reduce costs by leaving missing links unelectrified, which is why diesel services are required under the wires for large parts of their journeys. Diesels under the wires is an unwelcome compromise brought about by a lack of foresight during electrification schemes.

 

[bradders1983]

The sleepers run with electric traction from London-Edinburgh, so on what grounds would you scrap them?

Ok fair enough, didnt know that. What about the handful of Inverness/Aberdeen - London EC trains?

 

[MCR247]

When you have 221s running BHM - EDB/GLC which is completely under the wires it is annoying, as those 221s could help resolve XCs overcrowding

 

[Royston Vasey]

Diesels mostly or completely under wires is an underuse of infrastructure, probably yes.

However everyone assumes that diesel engines are dirtier and less efficient, but it isn't necessarily true. A coal fired power station (around 40% of UK generation) is around 30-40% thermally efficient, a gas fired power station perhaps 50% efficient (another 35% of UK power generation)

An MTU 16V4000 diesel engine is around 40% thermally efficient.

So overall, the energy and carbon efficiency picture is not as it may seem. Compare re-engineering all the HSTs to building a new fleet of electric trains and electrifying swathes of the network and the lifecycle carbon footprint may be much worse because you have to build new trains and use lots of energy to enable them.

Electric cleaner at point of use, yes. Cleaner/more efficient overall? Maybe not.

That said, electric trains can run off any electricity, they don't care how it was generated. Increase of nuclear, biomass, geothermal energy etc will cause no issues, electric is future proof. Bio-derived carbon-neutral synthetic diesel is on the way but is probably harder to ensure these are backwardly compatible with existing diesel engines.

Nevertheless, the transition from fossil to renewable will not happen for perhaps 30 years, we'll still depend on coal and gas for our power, we'll still drive cars (and trains) fuelled mostly by petroleum.

I will get shot down for this (!) but there isn't really the business case yet for investing in vast electricification projects in this country on existing lines (e.g. GWML) particularly in our parlous state. Of course, any new projects should and will be electric and in-fill electrification for operational reasons is the right thing to do.

 

[mumrar]

Crosscountry services are a massive case in point here.

Really, Penzance-Doncaster no wires (except Barnt Green-Proof House Jcn) New St-Stansted wires from Ely-Stansted. Cardiff-Nottingham no wires. New St-Bournemouth wires as far as Coventry and Readings go via Solihull so no wires at all. So, which 'massive case in point' are you referring to?

 

[43167]

Its an intresting point. One that will be debated for years.

Virgin were good on this with the Euston-Holyheads, Shrewsburys & occasionally Blackpools when no HST was available. The electric would work to Crewe or where ever for the Class 47 forward. Likewise with weekend diversions via Manchester, the S&C and the GSW route.

 

[sprinterguy]

Really, Penzance-Doncaster no wires (except Barnt Green-Proof House Jcn) New St-Stansted wires from Ely-Stansted. Cardiff-Nottingham no wires. New St-Bournemouth wires as far as Coventry and Readings go via Solihull so no wires at all. So, which 'massive case in point' are you referring to?

It was looking generally at the past, present and future of Crosscountry's main Intercity network, with reference to the electrified section of the ECML that XC use between Doncaster and Edinburgh (which has always been diesel operated even when trains were loco hauled), and the WCML from Birmingham-Glasgow/Edinburgh that used to be part of the XC network with a convenient loco change from diesel to electric at BHM. The electrification projects that are currently up in the air, namely the GWML and MML, if carried out, would still leave massive gaps in wiring for Crosscountry services, meaning that in order to efficiently make use of electric trains on Crosscountry services if these projects went ahead would be to hugely fragment the Crosscountry network. Would it make more efficient use of electrified lines where XC crossed their path? Yes. Would it be a realistic option to follow? Probably not.

 

[Chris125]

However everyone assumes that diesel engines are dirtier and less efficient, but it isn't necessarily true. A coal fired power station (around 40% of UK generation) is around 30-40% thermally efficient, a gas fired power station perhaps 50% efficient (another 35% of UK power generation)

An MTU 16V4000 diesel engine is around 40% thermally efficient.

That might be the case, but presumably this doesnt take into account the inneficiency of having to pull the considerable weight of underfloor engines and fuel around, along with much greater and frequent maintenance and various other consequences of using diesel traction long-term which require greater energy use.

Chris

 

[EWS 58038]

Using diesel under the wires is a crime against the planet.

 

[90019]

That might be the case, but presumably this doesnt take into account the inneficiency of having to pull the considerable weight of underfloor engines and fuel around, along with much greater and frequent maintenance and various other consequences of using diesel traction long-term which require greater energy use.

Chris

It doesn't take into account energey loss in the transmission of electricity either.

 

[Failed Unit]

I think most people have no problems with London - Inverness and Aberdeen. They have significant mileage away from the wires. Even services like the 0700 is ok with most people as it is a balancing working.

It is the other hst diagrams which are 100% under the wires - yes east coast has some but the have no choice as HSTs are the only 125mph stock the can use. Likewise Birmingham - Scotland attracts the same emotion as the diesels could be used elsewhere with cascades. Overcrowding is bad on diesel routes so of course it is seen as a waste when we have 158s on SWT which are running on EMU routes while sister company EMT has severe overcrowding and could use the 158s.

Why a new build of EMUs could not be built to cover East Coasts and Virgins diagrams which are totally under the wires who knows. Likewise why can't the 3rd rail build happen to free up some more 158s is a mystery. Remember EMUs are typically more reliable and have better performance so it makes little sense to run Diesil 100% under the wires.

 

[jopsuk]

If it wasn't for the obvious lack-of-stock issue, if there were a load more mrk4-sets (fantasy land) would swapping 91s for 67s at Edinburgh work for Inverness and Aberdeen? They might need longer dwells booked (as it is, they can cheerfully eat the dwell up with delays). Obviously, there's also the problem of loco release- though platform 7 would work OK.

 

[Failed Unit]

If it wasn't for the obvious lack-of-stock issue, if there were a load more mrk4-sets (fantasy land) would swapping 91s for 67s at Edinburgh work for Inverness and Aberdeen? They might need longer dwells booked (as it is, they can cheerfully eat the dwell up with delays). Obviously, there's also the problem of loco release- though platform 7 would work OK.

They can do it for the sleepers. At New Street it used to take about 10 mins. If you look at the 1200 to Inverness it takes 4h27 to Waverley. If a 91 and mk4 was used it could be reduce by 7 minutes or more so the faster speed on the mainline could negate the time lost swapping the loco. The 1200 stops at Peterborough, York and Newcastle. The 1500 stops more often but takes 12 minutes less. Even the 1100 is quicker with additional stops at Darlington and Berwick.

 

[LE Greys]

If it wasn't for the obvious lack-of-stock issue, if there were a load more mrk4-sets (fantasy land) would swapping 91s for 67s at Edinburgh work for Inverness and Aberdeen? They might need longer dwells booked (as it is, they can cheerfully eat the dwell up with delays). Obviously, there's also the problem of loco release- though platform 7 would work OK.

They can do it for the sleepers. At New Street it used to take about 10 mins. If you look at the 1200 to Inverness it takes 4h27 to Waverley. If a 91 and mk4 was used it could be reduce by 7 minutes or more so the faster speed on the mainline could negate the time lost swapping the loco. The 1200 stops at Peterborough, York and Newcastle. The 1500 stops more often but takes 12 minutes less. Even the 1100 is quicker with additional stops at Darlington and Berwick.

Simple solution is to stick the 91 on the "city" end. When going south, put the 67 in Platform 19, the 225 set pulls into Platform 2, 67 backs down, 91 uncouples, 67 departs with train, 91 runs off to one of the east-end platforms. Going north, the 67 pulls in and runs right through to Platform 2, 67 then comes off the train and runs somewhere out of the way, 91 then leaves the bay and hooks on, 67 ends up in another bay and 91 takes the train on to London. Either way, it should take no more than ten minutes, possibly as few as five if the 67s are fitted with buckeye couplers.

 

[Geezertronic]

Using diesel under the wires is a crime against the planet.

That's a rather sweeping statement to make, would you like to offer any evidence to back it up?

 

[RichW1]

The reason diesel under wires is so bad is not just inefficiency in this commercialised railway (for better or worse) it's also the fact that the network should be gearing up for the future as it takes a long time maybe a decade and more to be ready for a next generation railway. This means ERTMS allowing trains that have to ability to run faster doing so in the future. If you stick with the status quo, by the time ERTMS comes the secondary intercity network won't have the stock to support faster running anywhere, why? Because diesels have 125mph limit on their speed!

We all know diesels can run faster, but not economically for a company to want to. Therefore diesel under the wires as an choice rather than necessity means there is no focus on future capability in speed terms. This is about 15 years away before any quicker speeds could be considered using ERTMS but it will happen, I'm quite sure. WCML is geared and ready if ERTMS happened tomorrow. ECML is far from geared for anything quicker because of what has already been said about electrification not running to the end of the route, meaning until full electrification of the ECML diesels will just get in the way of trains that could potentially be running quicker from Tyne/Tees area, Humber and London and the continent. Ordering diesels now over electricfication working on 20years ahead would be a big mistake. Diesels are yesterdays speeds and news as far as intercity is concerned.

There is no doubt diesels have their uses and will do for many years but London-Aberdeen and Inverness? No way! 8 hours will not be acceptable (and isn't even now) to go that distance. Even with geographical limitations that speed with electric trains and ERTMS will be vastly improved and not to forsee that now and order any new disels for such routes I feel would be a serious error.

 

[YorkshireBear]

completely under wires = disgrace

partly under wires... some cases it has to be done... is there an alternative unless we do all the little infill which in turn may then make more services partly under wires and soon well have to electrifiy the whole network...

 

[Geezertronic]

Running Diesels completely under wires might be a disgrace, but in the case of Birmingham-Glasgow/Edinburgh, what other stock is there to do the job? Surely a DEMU is better than no train at all?

 

[RichW1]

Well yes obviously, I would just argue that for now it is a necessity but when ordering new trains, it should be the electric option that deals with the future.

 

[Zoe]

Running Diesels completely under wires might be a disgrace, but in the case of Birmingham-Glasgow/Edinburgh, what other stock is there to do the job? Surely a DEMU is better than no train at all?

Why not just order more 390s for this service?

 

[Geezertronic]

Why not just order more 390s for this service?

It would make sense while the additional coaches and four new 390s sets are being built to tag an order on for additional sets to replace the 221s (which could them be cascaded to XC with maybe some sets remaining for the North Wales services). But who would order them and who would pay for them (and how many would be needed)?

The existing 4 x 390s on order are to compliment the existing fleet (with 1 x 390 as a replacement for 390 033) and with the political games going on about whether a set (or few) will be comissioned on the ECML and uncertainty about the future of the WCML franchise, I doubt anyone would make the commitment

 

[jopsuk]

Simple solution is to stick the 91 on the "city" end. When going south, put the 67 in Platform 19, the 225 set pulls into Platform 2, 67 backs down, 91 uncouples, 67 departs with train, 91 runs off to one of the east-end platforms. Going north, the 67 pulls in and runs right through to Platform 2, 67 then comes off the train and runs somewhere out of the way, 91 then leaves the bay and hooks on, 67 ends up in another bay and 91 takes the train on to London. Either way, it should take no more than ten minutes, possibly as few as five if the 67s are fitted with buckeye couplers.

can do the same things on platform 7/11- and, either side, could do it with the sets the way round they are anyway. But lack of stock prevents it. No idea if the DVT controls would work with the 67 either. Mindyou, if the will had been there when the stock was built, I'm sure the platform/bay arangements, timetabling and loco-control (this would have per-67s) issues would have been sorted. In this "what if" world I'd guess the HSTs would have gone mainly to the Cross Country services of InterCity.
I'm sure something similar could have been arranged at Doncaster for the Hull run.

 

[OuterDistant]

However did we end up in a situation where Birmingham - Manchester services are operated entirely under the wires by diesels? Absolute insanity!

 

[DarloRich]

It is annoying that VAST sums of money are spent on putting the wires up and then not using them. However, the main problem, as touched on above, is the lack of suitable stock.

in the days of loco, DVT and stock BHM/GLA/EDIN services could run with an 86/7/90 on the top and use the wires all the way. Those days have gone.

We are stuck with the current arrangements until someone makes a dual power source Voyager, some new (decent!) EMU stock is ordered, more 390s appear (more than the 4 already on order) or loco and stock makes a comes back. None is on the cards right now for various issues such as HF timetables but mainly due to funding issues.

 

[Zoe]

We are stuck with the current arrangements until someone makes a dual power source Voyager, some new (decent!) EMU stock is ordered, more 390s appear (more than the 4 already on order) or loco and stock makes a comes back. None is on the cards right now for various issues such as HF timetables but mainly due to funding issues.

1. I remember a discussion recently about fitting pantographs to Voyagers.

2. Wait until the IEP, you never know.

3. Not likely for reasons discussed above.

4. No-one is prepared to build loco and stock.

So out of all the options, diesel/electric Voyagers seems to be the most likley.