So where are we with electification?

[fflint]

Can I throw some remarks made by Mr. Maynard the junior rail minister, about the decision not to go ahead with the Selby - Hull electrification, into the pot.

In his letter to MPs, Mr Maynard points to First Hull Trains’s decision to spend £60m on ‘bi-mode’ trains which can operate on both diesel and electric power. Mr Maynard said the Azuma trains soon to be brought into service by Virgin Trains would cut journey times to London while Arrival Rail North will introduce “new or refurbished trains” on services connecting Hull to Doncaster and Sheffield. The minister said the promised loan would have been repayable by the Government when the upgrade was complete, making the project “fully publicly funded”. Passengers in areas where electrification work had gone ahead had experienced “months of either complete line closure or mid-week nights and weekend closure”. “He added: “Given the number of passenger benefits already being delivered without electrification, there is almost no further benefit to justify further publicly funded investment and the disruption electrification would bring.”

N.B. the piece in red that seems to nail the excuses to be used in the future.
I would say that through luck and not judgement the fact that Hitachi's trains can be duel powered gives them a get out of jail card to reduce other electrification projects in the future. The traveling public doesn't generally care about electrification, they will be happy with the new trains as long as they can get a seat. The government will get the kudos and the extra costs will be hidden from them.

 

[superkev]

Today's announcement of more investment in roads is to me confirmation the government has lost faith in the railway electrification industry who it probably sees as untrustworthy with regards to timescales and excessive costs.
I suspect that like the APT they are pulling the plug just when the industry seems belatedly to be getting its act together.
K

 

[absolutelymilk]

Today's announcement of more investment in roads is to me confirmation the government has lost faith in the railway electrification industry who it probably sees as untrustworthy with regards to timescales and excessive costs.
I suspect that like the APT they are pulling the plug just when the industry seems belatedly to be getting its act together.
K

Not sure that's a fair remark, Transpennine and MML electrification are still to come once the current schemes are finished, which are still fairly big schemes.

 

[Chester1]

Not sure that's a fair remark, Transpennine and MML electrification are still to come once the current schemes are finished, which are still fairly big schemes.

Yes I agree. With the existing teams mostly busy for the next 7 years it makes sense to cancel Hull electrification because it cannot be done for a long time. I very much doubt it is the end of investment in electrication which needs to be mostly done by 2050 to meet climate change targets. The shortage of DMUs is worst for commuter lines and electrifying these is lower profile and therefore has less politcal risk. Its bad for Hull but its good for the CLC route between Manchester and Liverpool or the Caldervale line or the lines running into Leeds.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Today's announcement of more investment in roads is to me confirmation the government has lost faith in the railway electrification industry who it probably sees as untrustworthy with regards to timescales and excessive costs.
I suspect that like the APT they are pulling the plug just when the industry seems belatedly to be getting its act together.
K

I'm sure the railway has done itself no favours with its inability to deliver electrification for the time/cost expected.
But I suspect current government decisions are based on rail being half-way through its 5-year plan (which it can't deliver), and with nothing being "shovel ready", unlike some road schemes.
Rail plans are likely to concentrate on HS2/NPR, which don't require immediate funding and don't involve Network Rail (much).

I also see that the infrastructure fund will have Scottish/Welsh devolved chunks, and the SG/WG might choose rail over road (or not!).

 

[superkev]

Not sure that's a fair remark, Transpennine and MML electrification are still to come once the current schemes are finished, which are still fairly big schemes.

What's to stop the government cutting back on these. Trans pennine must be high cost with all those hills.
Those bimodes must look attractive to politicians.
K

 

[Phil.]

"So where are we with electrification"?

Overspent and way behind schedule with an end result which won't significantly improve journey times, no significant amount of extra seats available but will - for many but not all - deliver new trains.

That's where we are.

 

[47802]

What's to stop the government cutting back on these. Trans pennine must be high cost with all those hills.
Those bimodes must look attractive to politicians.
K

But those AT300's are supposedly quite expensive to run on diesel especially on full power rather than IEP mode, so I would think is still merit for electrification on the highest priority routes.

 

[HowardGWR]

I presume the environmental case can be slipped into the discussion? Once electrified, it just needs that juice to be generated from renewables for the case to be much stronger.

There is no evidence coming from government that electrification is any more than delayed, due to problems that were not foreseen (well ventilated on the GW thread). On the contrary, ministers have said nothing else than that.

 

[Phil.]

I presume the environmental case can be slipped into the discussion? Once electrified, it just needs that juice to be generated from renewables for the case to be much stronger.

There is no evidence coming from government that electrification is any more than delayed, due to problems that were not foreseen (well ventilated on the GW thread). On the contrary, ministers have said nothing else than that.

Do you really believe that solar farms and windmills will generate enough electrickery for a main line railway?

 

[John S2]

Do you really believe that solar farms and windmills will generate enough electrickery for a main line railway?

The whole bundle of renewable options could quite easily produce enough electricity for a railway network with a greater number of miles electrified than at present.

 

[D365]

The whole bundle of renewable options could quite easily produce enough electricity for a railway network with a greater number of miles electrified than at present.

On a good day.

 

[Phil.]

The whole bundle of renewable options could quite easily produce enough electricity for a railway network with a greater number of miles electrified than at present.

...as long as the sun is shining (10/10 cloud here in Cornwallicus this morning) and the wind is blowing - but not too hard.

 

[59CosG95]

...as long as the sun is shining (10/10 cloud here in Cornwallicus this morning) and the wind is blowing - but not too hard.

Meanwhile, it's bucketing down here in the West Midlands...ah if only there was a way to harness the rainfall!

 

[superkev]

On a good day.

Interestingly the Aussies had a huge power cut the other week due to too much wind risking damaging the many wind turbines there.
As for here we have biomass and nuclear but with successive governments putting off new power stations keeping the lights on here may become a problem.
Not really on topic but if the rush to electric vehicles gains momentum I fear for the capacity of the local distribution as well. London's new 51 electric single deckers needed a new sub station and 11kv feed for charging. Think of if everyone had an electric car and plugged them all in at the same time. (Eg A Nissan leaf has a 28kw battery)
K

 

[TheKnightWho]

Do you really believe that solar farms and windmills will generate enough electrickery for a main line railway?

Wind is, as I write this, generating 5.25GW, which is a mite under 12% of production; solar 590MW, which is a bit over 1.3%. Together that's about what we get from coal these days, and not much less than nuclear. The days of renewables generating negligible power (at least in the case of wind) are long over.

 

[Phil.]

Wind is, as I write this, generating 5.25GW, which is a mite under 12% of production; solar 590MW, which is a bit over 1.3%. Together that's about what we get from coal these days, and not much less than nuclear. The days of renewables generating negligible power (at least in the case of wind) are long over.

Wind = 5.25 Gw. Are you sure of that figure? Have you had it authenticated? I ask because just yesterday Christopher Booker mentioned in his column in the Sunday Torygraph that according to some well-researched figures the true amount that renewables fed into the grid last year was just 5.4% - and that was given perfect weather conditions. This is of course a yearly mean and I suspect that you're quoting a daily figure which could appear high during perfect conditions which rarely occur. Gas, coal and nuclear (those non-weather dependant producers) will happily churn out reliable dependant power day after day. Drax alone is good for 3,900+ gigawatts.
The figures that you're quoting are suspiciously similar to the 15% that the UK agreed with to the EU for non-renewable power.
But, as has oft been mentioned when the wind doesn't blow or it blows too hard then you're snookered. Renewables as we know them will never, ever match coal and gas fired stations which is why sensible countries are still building them.
Incidentally, what are all of those emergency diesel powered generators that have been installed around the country for? Answers on a postcard marked "emergency generators in case of power demand overload in winter" to the Green Party, c/o never never land.

 

[snowball]

Wind = 5.25 Gw. Are you sure of that figure? Have you had it authenticated?

He probably got it from this site, which shows moment-by-moment figures:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

I would be wary of believing anything written by Booker about energy.

 

[Phil.]

Interestingly the Aussies had a huge power cut the other week due to too much wind risking damaging the many wind turbines there.
As for here we have biomass and nuclear but with successive governments putting off new power stations keeping the lights on here may become a problem.
Not really on topic but if the rush to electric vehicles gains momentum I fear for the capacity of the local distribution as well. London's new 51 electric single deckers needed a new sub station and 11kv feed for charging. Think of if everyone had an electric car and plugged them all in at the same time. (Eg A Nissan leaf has a 28kw battery)
K

Don't worry, the greenies will find a way of banning electric cars (the mining for the precious metals required for the batteries is turning parts of Canada into a moonscape).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Drax alone is good for 3,900+ gigawatts.

In the interests of accuracy, I think you are 1000 times too big.
3900 Megawatts I believe (3.9GW).

 

[rebmcr]

Tidal is much more reliable and has a much higher power output. Unfortunately it's hella expensive to install.

 

[HowardGWR]

Do you really believe that solar farms and windmills will generate enough electrickery for a main line railway?

I've just caught up with your question and see my post already generated a million responses. Still, you asked me, and my answer is 'I spoke of renewables, not any specific form'.

There is a lot of research and development in this area and there are many avenues being pursued. They will have to succeed. There is no other choice over the next 100 years (for all nations) and so I know they will, or it's, er, curtains.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Renewables as we know them will never, ever match coal and gas fired stations which is why sensible countries are still building them.

Wow - what a statement. Reliable storage would change all that - huge capacitors - not sure. To say "never ever" is just plain wrong.

 

[Flying Phil]

Meanwhile, it's bucketing down here in the West Midlands...ah if only there was a way to harness the rainfall!

...Well in the hilly parts of the country it is - and it is called Hydro-electric.

 

[aylesbury]

I have been following electrification in the UK very closely and have read many articles by experts and rail people.The DFT comes out as being totally inept and unable to control any project on rail and probably road .The actual delivery of the wires has been botched and even specialist kit ie wiring trains are not a success. Cost control is non existant as seen by the figures coming out from the bunker.I feel sorry for GWR who now have a poisoned chalice and will be on the receiving end of angry customers waiting for new trains and services.NR has to be restructured so as to provide an organisation that provides results on new projects as well as maintaining the network.Perhaps a new organisation dedicated to new infrastructure working closely with the maintnance sector. Overall I think that the UK is a failing place when it comes to major projects and a root and branch change to this sector is required.

 

[CdBrux]

Some thoughts / questions.

Assuming bi-modes work and can change to/from electric 'on-the-fly' then maybe the economics for electrification prioritization changes. Does it shift the economics in favour of ensuring heavily used sections of track are electrified first? Taken with air quality concerns in large stations / cities (how much do trains really contribute to general city pollution?) then is the better idea to concentrate electrification onto a cities commuter belt so that the local services can change to EMU and inter-city / regional services are bi-mode. Second priority to then infill easy, short and well used sections between the cities.

Of course bi-modes suffer from hauling around underused diesel engines and fuel when in electric mode and as a result are heavier, but how does their weight compare vs diesel units they would be replacing in todays fleet?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Taken with air quality concerns in large stations / cities (how much do trains really contribute to general city pollution?) then is the better idea to concentrate electrification onto a cities commuter belt ------

I can see that - so Birmingham NS- Water Orton only - then start filling in the rest. So Bristol TM would get done - even as far as Weston-S-M. I cant think off hand what else would get done - but yes not a bad idea.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Wind = 5.25 Gw. Are you sure of that figure? Have you had it authenticated? I ask because just yesterday Christopher Booker mentioned in his column in the Sunday Torygraph...

Drax alone is good for 3,900+ gigawatts.

But, as has oft been mentioned when the wind doesn't blow or it blows too hard then you're snookered. Renewables as we know them will never, ever match coal and gas fired stations which is why sensible countries are still building them.

Incidentally, what are all of those emergency diesel powered generators that have been installed around the country for? Answers on a postcard marked "emergency generators in case of power demand overload in winter" to the Green Party, c/o never never land.

You get your expert opinion on energy from Christopher Booker? Dear oh dear. I would suggest starting with somebody like Dieter Helm to give an economic perspective, or the ETI's for a system-level engineering view.

Drax has partially converted to biomass. Whilst this is pretty wasteful because so much heat goes up the chimney, it is renewable(ish).

In terms of production cost, the lowest cost new plant is onshore wind. Costs have also tumbled in offshore wind and load factors are heading towards 50%. "Sensible" countries like... e.g. the USA, Germany, China are all investing huge amounts in renewables. Energy storage (batteries) will almost certainly be a game-changer. Again, costs are tumbling.

And the car-park generators you're talking about were either already there, because many commercial organisations need uninterruptible power supplies, or, were funded because UK made a pig's ear of the design of the capacity market. The whole thing was supposed to be jigged in favour of gas turbines, but I don't think any are actively being constructed.

 

[glbotu]

While this thread is veering spectacularly off topic, I'll just leave this here, for those who don't believe renewable energy can produce meaningful power.

I'd like to use facts to put this to bed, volume of energy is not a problem with renewable sources anymore. The real issue is control over supply (also known as "peaking"). Solar and Wind especially, as has been put forward, only produce energy when it's daytime (not specifically sunny) and windy respectively. The amount of power produced is therefore not controlled. This is why, in the UK at least, we love our Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power (CCGT). Because a CCGT plant can be turned on and off in as little as 43s (as of 2012), and when off, it costs only the pay of the operators to run. This means that functionally, supply is almost entirely linked to demand, provided that demand can be predicted within 43 s of accuracy (and we've gotten good at it).

Nuclear can, in fact, do the same (you just retract the fuel rods, which can be done in as little as 11 s - that's functionally instantaneous, you could automate this process). The problem is that your Uranium is still fissioning when you retract the rods, you're just not capturing the heat generated in your steam cycle, so it's not economically beneficial to anyone. This is why nuclear is generally used as baseline power (except in France, where they just use it for almost everything, they're up to 80% of total power from Nuclear now).

This is why we generate over 60% of our power from CCGT, we like control over our fluctuating power demands and it's cheaper than using nuclear to do it. We also really don't have much space for storage*** or hydro, because we don't have any mountain ranges with appropriate damming locations (I think there's a quite high capacity storage system in Wales and some small scale hydro plants in Scotland, but nothing on the scale we need).

I hope this diversion has been interesting, if you're wondering where I get it from, this was worth about 20-odd percent of my degree, so I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about. If you want a more provable citation, please go read "Without Hot Air", by the late Dr David McKay. Which can be downloaded for free, or purchased from Amazon. This is a scientifically rigorous work, written in layman's terms.

***Pump water up hill when demand is low, release it when demand is high.

 

[59CosG95]

...Well in the hilly parts of the country it is - and it is called Hydro-electric.

Ahh, very true. Somehow I think Cross-City line users would object if I turned the Five Ways tunnels into a massive series of dams and turbines.