ORR new emissions data, now split by Operator

[Bantamzen]

Will there?

Yes.

The average age of a car at scrapping is about 13. It's not much different for goods vehicles.

Very few cars on the road today will still be there in 20 years, it's highly likely that electric will be by far the dominant power source for motor vehicles.

We are not talking about cars here, although I'd be willing to bet there will still be ICE cars out there in 20 years.

Diesel train or electric bus/car is not a good look for the railway

Not a "good look"? You are kidding right? This isn't some trend on TikTok.

Look here's the thing. Oil based traction isn't just going to go away because some airheads decided they don't want it any more. The only remotely viable alternative to diesel rail traction is wiring. And that takes time and money.

Battery options have improved but they are nowhere near being able to replace everything even on rails, let alone everywhere else. And away from rails, say in the shipping industry, battery is still a long way from being a solution.

 

[Skymonster]

Battery technology is already good enough for the majority of diesel operations to be made into battery electric ones.

Maybe, but firstly plenty of diesel units are no where near end of life and retrofitting them will be infeasible (we’ve tried that and it hasn’t gone well). And more importantly the country and the rail industry can’t afford the cost of replacing all the diesel units and building the charging infrastructure.

Its reasonable that as the technology matures we should have a programme of rolling changes from diesel to battery power, but only where and when its cost justifiable - the setting of arbitrary target dates for such changes merely places unjustifiable and unnecessary economic burdens on the country.

 

[HSTEd]

Not a "good look"? You are kidding right? This isn't some trend on TikTok.

No, it is an industry sustained by many billions of pounds of public money a year.
A broad and positive opinion amongst the population towards the railway is essential for the railway's survival.

In 20 years it will be a choice between a diesel train or an electric vehicle. The railway has built the unparalleled happy time of the last two decades on its apparent environmentalist credentials. Once those are gone it will not be able to justify such largesse to the taxpayer unless it can make itself attractive in that new world. If it cannot it will slip into irrelevance, at which point it will become a go to area for cutbacks by governments looking for money to spend in more popular areas.

The only remotely viable alternative to diesel rail traction is wiring. And that takes time and money.

That simply isn't true, battery electric trains exist, battery electric vehicles exist.
In the UK context, affordable railway electrification no longer exists.

At £4m/stkm, virtually every piece of railway that could justify electrification has already been electrified.

In the 1950s a BEMU was built that had eight tonnes of traction batteries under each vehicle. Today, that would be something approaching 5MWh for a 3-car unit.
That would give a modern EMU a lot of range, and there are few very long journeys on the UK railway network that have neither any electrification at all or any opportunity for static charging.

Maybe, but firstly plenty of diesel units are no where near end of life and retrofitting them will be infeasible (we’ve tried that and it hasn’t gone well).

Are there that many units that are not near end of life?
The 19x series is the only pure diesel fleet ordered since the 172s in 2010 isn't it?
That totals ~161 units, something on order of 400 ish carriages.

By the end of this decade, every other diesel unit will be 20 years old or more and will be hurtling towards end of life.
And 400 carriages is something like 2.5% of the passenger rolling stock on the railway, which is around 16,000 vehicles.

And more importantly the country and the rail industry can’t afford the cost of replacing all the diesel units and building the charging infrastructure.

Well its either build the units or lose your market share to the electric public transport options that will be around in the 2030s, whether the railway wants to be part of it or not.

Its reasonable that as the technology matures we should have a programme of rolling changes from diesel to battery power, but only where and when its cost justifiable - the setting of arbitrary target dates for such changes merely places unjustifiable and unnecessary economic burdens on the country.

The limiting factor is that the loss of the railways environmental credentials will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to justify continuing to pour billions of pounds of subsidies into it when other, greener, transport options are available.
A "rolling programme" that takes 30 years will never complete because the railway will be an irrelevance long before that.

It is far too late for a rolling programme of anything, it is now a crash programme or die.

 

[railfan99]

The ORR has just published new report on train emissions.

What a huge waste of time, but bureaucrats in the UK must be identical to those in mine, possessing a love of virtue signalling.

Xi and Putin must love how the West ties itself in knots re such rubbish. Mainland China continues to build many new coal-fired power stations because the leadership (though immensely dictatorial) is rational. In contrast, Britain closes its coal fired power stations.

Maybe if they concentrated on removing barriers to the private sector so that the latter can invest, the UK and my distant nation would be better off.

Encouraging mass transit use through basics such as minimising cancellations (albeit challenging when the subsector lost staff during COVID-19, and training new drivers is a lengthy process) and where possible, increasing train frequencies (although latter requires government funding). Perhaps sack some of these compilers of such rubbish and instead (eventually) operate extra scheduled trains on the busier lines, assuming there's some spare track capacity and available rollingstock.

 

[Skymonster]

In 20 years it will be a choice between a diesel train or an electric vehicle. The railway has built the unparalleled happy time of the last two decades on its apparent environmentalist credentials. Once those are gone it will not be able to justify such largesse to the taxpayer unless it can make itself attractive in that new world.

I think you’re delusional. I don’t believe the vast majority of rail users use it because its green - they use it because its more convenient, or they don‘t drive, or they don’t have a car, or because the alternatives are too difficult / slow / costly. I know in my own case the green credentials of any transport I select have absolutely ZERO impact on the choices I make - there are far more important criteria. And aside from a few eco-warriors I think the majority of rail users are the same. So the attractiveness - or otherwise - of rail will remain, notwithstanding people being forced into modal shift by loony schemes like the wider London ULEZ.

Well its either build the units or lose your market share to the electric public transport options that will be around in the 2030s, whether the railway wants to be part of it or not.

As above - I don’t believe the majority of passengers choose rail over [say] bus because of rail’s green credentials, and I don’t believe wider deployment of electric buses will change things to any significant degree. Again, there are issues of convenience, speed and cost that will always trump greenness as far as most users are concerned.

The limiting factor is that the loss of the railways environmental credentials will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to justify continuing to pour billions of pounds of subsidies into it when other, greener, transport options are available.

Only if our politicians get suckered into reducing the funding for rail by the misguided green lobby. Now I accept that the current government sometimes seems to be looking for any excuse to reduce rail funding, and also that it has a track record of surrendering to outlying opinion rather than doing what’s right for the country and the economy. But I still hope that it will grow a backbone and ignore pressure groups with underhand agendas, especially as it is illogical and impractical to push more and more people off rail and onto the roads - simply because there isn’t enough road space.

 

[Bantamzen]

No, it is an industry sustained by many billions of pounds of public money a year.
A broad and positive opinion amongst the population towards the railway is essential for the railway's survival.

In 20 years it will be a choice between a diesel train or an electric vehicle. The railway has built the unparalleled happy time of the last two decades on its apparent environmentalist credentials. Once those are gone it will not be able to justify such largesse to the taxpayer unless it can make itself attractive in that new world. If it cannot it will slip into irrelevance, at which point it will become a go to area for cutbacks by governments looking for money to spend in more popular areas.

The railway network isn't going to lose subsidies because it will have a bunch of DMUs running around in 20 years. As I said further upthread, unless someone can come up with a vast amount of money to replace all diesel traction in all forms of transport, then diesel will still be used then even if in smaller numbers.

That simply isn't true, battery electric trains exist, battery electric vehicles exist.
In the UK context, affordable railway electrification no longer exists.

At £4m/stkm, virtually every piece of railway that could justify electrification has already been electrified.

In the 1950s a BEMU was built that had eight tonnes of traction batteries under each vehicle. Today, that would be something approaching 5MWh for a 3-car unit.
That would give a modern EMU a lot of range, and there are few very long journeys on the UK railway network that have neither any electrification at all or any opportunity for static charging.

Battery trains do exist, in ridiculously small numbers considering the amount of time the technology has existed. That in itself should be telling, if it were the best way forward why have so many countries gone with wires? I imagine cost is one factor if electric cars are anything to go by. Plus you still have to have the infrastructure to give them power.

As for the cost of wiring, well that's just a UK thing. There are far too many snouts in the public funded trough gorging themselves. Its time to focus on paying companies what the work is actually worth, not what is quoted after the consultants have inflated the figures. Its a very solvable problem, we just need the political will to cut out the dead wood in the system.

 

[HSTEd]

I think you’re delusional. I don’t believe the vast majority of rail users use it because its green - they use it because its more convenient, or they don‘t drive, or they don’t have a car, or because the alternatives are too difficult / slow / costly. I know in my own case the green credentials of any transport I select have absolutely ZERO impact on the choices I make - there are far more important criteria. And aside from a few eco-warriors I think the majority of rail users are the same. So the attractiveness - or otherwise - of rail will remain, notwithstanding people being forced into modal shift by loony schemes like the wider London ULEZ.

The railway doesn't run because you or other people pay to use it, ultimately.
The railway only runs because the Treasury provides billions a year to make it happen.

The farebox could never sustain current rail operations in the absence of transfers from the Treasury.
The political consensus for large scale transfers of money into the railway has already started crumbling, once road travel is largely electric it will collapse. And what the minority of the population who are regular rail users want then will be irrelevant.

It will become politically unsustainable to subsidise ancient diesel engines spewing pollution in the name of rail travel.

 

[lachlan]

The railway supports many journeys either impractical to make by road and/or impossible for non drivers. Whether electrified or not, it provides an essential public service both for commuting and leisure travel. If everyone were to take their car instead of the train congestion would be even worse.

It will always be more eco friendly to take the train that runs anyway than using your electric car, creating more tire particulates and using more energy. Even more so if relying on public transport allows one to ditch their car altogether. This is what the railway needs to focus on.

 

[slowroad]

The railway supports many journeys either impractical to make by road and/or impossible for non drivers. Whether electrified or not, it provides an essential public service both for commuting and leisure travel. If everyone were to take their car instead of the train congestion would be even worse.

It will always be more eco friendly to take the train that runs anyway than using your electric car, creating more tire particulates and using more energy. Even more so if relying on public transport allows one to ditch their car altogether. This is what the railway needs to focus on.

Not so for lightly used rural lines. Electric cars far more environmentally friendly, and little/no congestion benefits. Tyre particulates are mostly an issue only near roadsides in urban areas. (The worst place for particulates is a deep tube line.)

 

[lachlan]

Not so for lightly used rural lines. Electric cars far more environmentally friendly, and little/no congestion benefits. Tyre particulates are mostly an issue only near roadsides in urban areas. (The worst place for particulates is a deep tube line.)

But how will those without cars get to those stations? Yes electric buses could cover them but there are likely already bus services along viable road routes that in my experience don't serve the same places or are slower than the rail option. Or alternatively there's no bus option so the line will get replaced with a bus that could easily be withdrawn, or non drivers lose out.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Trains will be required for the foreseeable future as they are the only mass people movers, for example east London's roads couldn't cope with the thousands of people arriving in Liverpool Street every morning, just take the InterCity from Norwich I travel on, 600 extra cars for 1 train and there's 3 or 4 of them morning peak.

Diesel regional are a bit more nuanced but the 50 to 100 people train loads from Yarmouth into norwich suddenly become cars down the acle straight isn't going to work

 

[Dai Corner]

Diesel regional are a bit more nuanced but the 50 to 100 people train loads from Yarmouth into norwich suddenly become cars down the acle straight isn't going to work

About one car per minute. Is the road that close to capacity, especially given the reduction in travel into the cities for work and shopping we've been seeing?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe, but firstly plenty of diesel units are no where near end of life and retrofitting them will be infeasible (we’ve tried that and it hasn’t gone well). And more importantly the country and the rail industry can’t afford the cost of replacing all the diesel units and building the charging infrastructure.

Its reasonable that as the technology matures we should have a programme of rolling changes from diesel to battery power, but only where and when its cost justifiable - the setting of arbitrary target dates for such changes merely places unjustifiable and unnecessary economic burdens on the country.

Quite the opposite. Replacing quiet railways with electric buses would enjoy support and would save huge sums of money.

 

[Krokodil]

Your point was that de-carbonising rail would attract more passengers. My point was to bring in revenue and demonstrate demand for alternative traction you first need to make transport affordable and reliable, you know making a business case to spend money on increasing capacity, improving energy efficiency etc etc.

So you want the passenger numbers to rise before we invest in improving the service?

No. You are not going to boost passenger numbers on 150s rattling their way into Manchester. Slow and unreliable. Bring in some fast, reliable electric traction and you will significantly boost ridership.

virtually every piece of railway that could justify electrification has already been electrified.

Not by a long way.

The political consensus for large scale transfers of money into the railway has already started crumbling,

One helicopter-loving PM using a cheap slogan ("end the war on motorists") to make populist overtures to the right wing does not a summer make.

once road travel is largely electric it will collapse

If you make permanent cuts to the rail network then the country will grind to a halt. Not just the passenger numbers going into our cities but the freight too.

Replacing quiet railways with electric buses would enjoy support

Really? Perhaps you could write up a survey and consult the people: "we are considering closing your railway line and replacing it with a bus, do you support this?". I wonder what the response would be.

Quite a lot of rural train services are not as quiet as some might like to believe either, but bustitution is likely just to push people into driving lessons.

Railway services are fairly permanent of course. Bus services can almost be cut on a whim.

 

[Dai Corner]

Really? Perhaps you could write up a survey and consult the people: "we are considering closing your railway line and replacing it with a bus, do you support this?". I wonder what the response would be.

Quite a lot of rural train services are not as quiet as some might like to believe either, but bustitution is likely just to push people into driving lessons.

Railway services are fairly permanent of course. Bus services can almost be cut on a whim.

A more appropriate question might be "Would you rather keep your two hourly diesel train or replace it with hourly electric buses with additional fast peak journeys which will serve the new developments which have sprung up over the last century? Oh, and we'll throw in a new sports centre for the school open to the public evening and weekends, refurbish the hospital and build a bypass for the traffic-choked historic village. We'll safeguard the bus services in a similar way to the railway."

 

[renegademaster]

battery electric trains exist, battery electric vehicles exist.

The country who has the biggest take up of them has 18 whole BEMUs. They are the new hydrogen, expensive sticking plaster


On the point of people picking busses over trains if we don't get rid of the diesels , my gut feeling is that most people won't care. . Uber has an option where you can select your cab to only be a full electric car, if Uber published any statistics on this option we'd be able to awnser this question more accurately.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A more appropriate question might be "Would you rather keep your two hourly diesel train or replace it with hourly electric buses with additional fast peak journeys which will serve the new developments which have sprung up over the last century? Oh, and we'll throw in a new sports centre for the school open to the public evening and weekends, refurbish the hospital and build a bypass for the traffic-choked historic village. We'll safeguard the bus services in a similar way to the railway."

The Conwy Valley provides a good example here. "Would you rather a three hourly train, or an hourly electric bus AND a quality cycle path on the old formation" is an entirely viable question there.

 

[renegademaster]

Croydon solved this issue ages ago.
You replace your run down low frequency branch line with trams.

I wonder how feasible sometimes it would be to adapt an Enviro200 into a modern day pacer for ones that don't justify or can't support wires

 

[Dai Corner]

Croydon solved this issue ages ago.
You replace your run down low frequency branch line with trams.

I wonder how feasible sometimes it would be to adapt an Enviro200 into a modern day pacer for ones that don't justify or can't support wires

Fine for an urban area, but it's hard to justify maintaing a separate infrastructure in rural ones with low service frequencies.

 

[renegademaster]

Fine for an urban area, but it's hard to justify maintaing a separate infrastructure in rural ones with low service frequencies.

South Wales seem to be doing abeit at a glacial pace

Europe has a few bi mode tram trains too

 

[Dai Corner]

South Wales seem to be doing abeit at a glacial pace

Europe has a few bi mode tram trains too

Not in the Croydon sense. The Core Valley Lines are urban rather than rural in character and are remaining heavy rail, though there will be a few hundred metres of new tramway.

 

[Krokodil]

A more appropriate question might be "Would you rather keep your two hourly diesel train or replace it with hourly electric buses with additional fast peak journeys which will serve the new developments which have sprung up over the last century? Oh, and we'll throw in a new sports centre for the school open to the public evening and weekends, refurbish the hospital and build a bypass for the traffic-choked historic village. We'll safeguard the bus services in a similar way to the railway."

Presumably followed by the questions: "do you believe a politician will honour their promise?" and "would you like to buy a bridge?"

The Conwy Valley provides a good example here. "Would you rather a three hourly train, or an hourly electric bus AND a quality cycle path on the old formation" is an entirely viable question there.

Expect to see the paying ridership to drop dramatically if you do that. Most of the income is from tourists who are unlikely to consider a bus - and indeed may have chosen Betws over Llanberis on the basis that it is rail connected. The Swiss would probably have wired it by now and be running an hourly service.

 

[lachlan]

The Conwy Valley provides a good example here. "Would you rather a three hourly train, or an hourly electric bus AND a quality cycle path on the old formation" is an entirely viable question there.

From personal experience, my family will consider a train ride as part of a day out but as soon as you ask them to take a bus they'll drive, unless it's a busy city with a park and ride.

 

[Dai Corner]

Presumably followed by the questions: "do you believe a politician will honour their promise?"

Do you trust the politicians to fund a usable train service in perpetuity?

Expect to see the paying ridership to drop dramatically if you do that. Most of the income is from tourists who are unlikely to consider a bus - and indeed may have chosen Betws over Llanberis on the basis that it is rail connected. The Swiss would probably have wired it by now and be running an hourly service.

Should taxpayers be subsidising tourists? They don't subsidise airports*, airlines, hotels, heritage railways etc etc. In fact there is an anti-tourist element in north Wales and the Government are considering a tourist tax.

* Cardiff and no doubt some small island airports excepted.

 

[renegademaster]

A more appropriate question might be "Would you rather keep your two hourly diesel train or replace it with hourly electric buses with additional fast peak journeys which will serve the new developments which have sprung up over the last century? Oh, and we'll throw in a new sports centre for the school open to the public evening and weekends, refurbish the hospital and build a bypass for the traffic-choked historic village. We'll safeguard the bus services in a similar way to the railway."

If you asked, what do you want,your town to get a new electric bus, or a 3 new diesel busses for the same cost?

 

[Dai Corner]

If you asked, what do you want,your town to get a new electric bus, or a 3 new diesel busses for the same cost?

Are the whole-life costs that different? The climate lobby and Big Green are encouraging Governments to give operators free or subsidised electric buses and charging facilities so they might even work out cheaper from the operators' point of view?

At a focus group organised for my local bus company nobody expressed a preference for either type. Personally I'd like us to minimise our use of imported oil from countries which have poor human rights records or we are barely on speaking terms with.

 

[Krokodil]

Do you trust the politicians to fund a usable train service in perpetuity?

Well they're barely funding a usable train service now, what's different? The permanence of the infrastructure (unlike a bus stop where you just unbolt the sign from the lamppost) makes it harder to remove without the disused stations becoming an embarrassment. Legal safeguards are already in place too, so you aren't reliant upon a politician's pinkie promise that they'll put them in.

Should taxpayers be subsidising tourists?

Should taxpayers be subsidising office workers? Plenty of towns rely on the tourist pound. The numbers are quite substantial in the summer (it was the seasonal traffic that bought Prestatyn a reprieve from the Beeching Axe).

They don't subsidise airports*

They do, and not just in the direct funds sent to regional airports.

airlines

Airlines receive substantial tax breaks.

hotels

Isn't "subsidising tourists" as you put it ultimately subsidising the local hospitality industry?

the Government are considering a tourist tax

Ah yes, I have experience of these in Switzerland. Do you know what you get in return for your three francs per night? A public transport pass, valid on bus and rail services within the town/city you're staying in. I'm all in favour of that. Besides if you actually listen to the locals in North Wales, the complaints about tourists often revolve around cars, parking and traffic. How do you solve those issues? Oh yes, investing in the sort of public transport that people actually want to use. I notice that you've failed to answer the point made by a couple of us that there's a substantial chunk of the population who simply won't use buses, they'd be lost to cars.

 

[Skymonster]

It will become politically unsustainable to subsidise ancient diesel engines spewing pollution in the name of rail travel.

You’re putting far too much faith into this green revolution bandwagon that the government has jumped at the moment. Indeed, it will become politically unsustainable to continue banning or stopping things in the name of climate change, when such actions become too onerous or difficult to implement. Diesel rail Will be with us for many years, because the cost of replacing it will be unaffordable and the [political] consequences of shutting down the lines will be too great. Green ultimately won’t come into it. Most people will continue to ride diesel trains, there will be no boycott, just like airline travel continues to grow despite the eco-loonies campaigning for it to be reduced. And any artificial deadlines set for diesel rail will fall by the wayside and be put back, just like the proposed ban on the sale of new petrol / diesel cars has already been put back. THis green revolution / ideology will only go so far, and once further changes and alternatives become too expensive or too inconvenient or too politically unacceptable, overriding the bandwagon the politicians are currently on, it will slow down and maybe even stop.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2023 ==

Returning to the original subject - emissions data now published by TOC. I find it utterly bizarre that the government has wasted time and money producing such reporting. Firstly I don’t believe anyone chooses a specific train based on it being more or less environmentally friendly than an alternative train. If they’re travelling from A to B by train they make a choice based on timetable, ticket price and [maybe] route and onboard facilities. Whether its diesel or electric doesn’t come into the choice of TOC A or TOC B. So there’s no need for the report, except maybe to assuage the green lobby and give it more data to kick up a fuss about. Furthermore, in providing details by TOC the report could start to set up contentions between TOC managements keen to be seen to be green (or being criticised for not being green), but of course the TOCs can do little or nothing about the trains they use because replacement funding is controlled and restricted by the same government that produced the report.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you asked, what do you want,your town to get a new electric bus, or a 3 new diesel busses for the same cost?

This may be the case now, but won't be in the long term.

 

[Trainbike46]

If you asked, what do you want,your town to get a new electric bus, or a 3 new diesel busses for the same cost?

This may be the case now, but won't be in the long term.

In the Netherlands, Total Cost of Ownership of an electric bus is lower over its lifespan compared to a diesel one - It can't be that different here in the UK