What lines should we NOT electrify?

[Metal_gee_man]

But if we start finding more than 50% of the electrification in the UK is OHLE, where would that leave 3rd rail land in the south, Tyne and Wear and Liverpool, would that then become the tipping point where 3rd rail land gets changed over too.
The main reason I ask is the crazy amount of victorian infrastructure in 3rd rail land that'd be challenging, expensive and hugely disruptive to adapt I.e footbridges, road bridges tunnels and level crossings.
Much of any budget would be thrown at making adjustments.

 

[HSTEd]

But if we start finding more than 50% of the electrification in the UK is OHLE, where would that leave 3rd rail land in the south, Tyne and Wear and Liverpool, would that then become the tipping point where 3rd rail land gets changed over too.
The main reason I ask is the crazy amount of victorian infrastructure in 3rd rail land that'd be challenging, expensive and hugely disruptive to adapt I.e footbridges, road bridges tunnels and level crossings.
Much of any budget would be thrown at making adjustments.

Why would this be the case?
The third rail doesn't become magically cheaper to convert if the 25kV percent crosses some arbitrary threshold.

In switzerland, with near total electrification, they have multiple systems in common use, many restricted to only a single line.

It is extremely unlikely that third rail will ever be converted again, given the easy availability of dual voltage units and locomotives.
(As far as I am aware the last conversion project was for freight on the NLL in the 80s, as a result of problems with a dual electrification system)

 

[quantinghome]

None.

All lines should eventually be electrified. The question is more in the order. What has the most benefits to electrify now, and what can be left for, let's say, 50 years.

On what basis do you say this? If on environmental grounds, there is a significant carbon cost associated with electrification construction. At some point, when measured over the lifetime of the assets, the balance tips against electrification and towards self-powered battery or hydrogen. For long single track rural routes with an infrequent branch line service, the balance surely lies on the self-powered side. Imagine the Far North line - 167 miles long. Let's say you electrify to Dingwall to give Inverness on electrified local service. You then have about 150 miles to electrify, versus procuring hydrogen powered units for the 3 or 4 diagrams on the service.

Remember that rail contributes 2% of total UK transport emissions and about half a percent of total emissions. The investment represented in this sort of electrification scheme would be far better spent decarbonising homes and businesses.

We need to push for as comprehensive an electrification programme as possible. But that means putting our arguments into electrifying secondary routes such as Salisbury-Exeter, or Settle-Carlisle i.e. lines with 0.5tph to 2tph, not rural branches with a few trains a day.

 

[quantinghome]

Don't know if you saw this good news on the twitter feed of Noel Dolphin but --

Noel Dolphin on Twitter

“They are recommending to DfT that electrification increases from 40% of the UK rail network to 80%. That is roughly 11,000 single track KM of electrification to be delivered in next 30 years (2/3).”

twitter.com

Basically NR saying to the Dft there really is no alternative to electrification and recommending increasing the network move for 40% electrified to 80% - just amazing.

Great news if confirmed. I guess the lines in the "?" list can wait for the end of the rolling programme to see whether efficiencies have materialised to make them worthwhile.

 

[HSTEd]

On what basis do you say this? If on environmental grounds, there is a significant carbon cost associated with electrification construction. At some point, when measured over the lifetime of the assets, the balance tips against electrification and towards self-powered battery or hydrogen. For long single track rural routes with an infrequent branch line service, the balance surely lies on the self-powered side.

Electrification is not actually very carbon intensive.
I tried to do this calculation and concluded that any railway owned by Network Rail should have sufficient traffic for it to be worthwhile.

Remember that whilst there is a significant outlay in terms of carbon to build the equipment, most of that carbon has a very very long operational life.

 

[hst43102]

What kind of timescale is being talked about here? Electrification of virtually all lines in the country is best, but it has to be noted that many main lines are still un-electrified. Get the full GWML, Midland Mainline, ECML to Inverness, Cross Country Route done before small branches!

 

[Killingworth]

Electrification is not actually very carbon intensive.
I tried to do this calculation and concluded that any railway owned by Network Rail should have sufficient traffic for it to be worthwhile.

Remember that whilst there is a significant outlay in terms of carbon to build the equipment, most of that carbon has a very very long operational life.

Leaving aside carbon calculations I'm imagining the time it would take to wire up over Rannoch Moor and up to Sutherland, and through a host of inaccessible spots presumably requiring some line blockades. Then once installed the inevitable occasional wires down to repair in these isolated places. All trains stopped for days. Doesn't really matter as only a handful of folks use the trains anyway?

Given it will take 30 years at the present rate of progress to electrify even some of the busy routes I'd say there must be other solutions for routes like these. They should not be electrified using any system known to be available today. 25 years from now may well be different.

 

[HSTEd]

Given it will take 30 years at the present rate of progress to electrify even some of the busy routes I'd say there must be other solutions for routes like these.

The simple answer in that case is closure.

 

[Domh245]

On what basis do you say this? If on environmental grounds, there is a significant carbon cost associated with electrification construction. At some point, when measured over the lifetime of the assets, the balance tips against electrification and towards self-powered battery or hydrogen. For long single track rural routes with an infrequent branch line service, the balance surely lies on the self-powered side. Imagine the Far North line - 167 miles long. Let's say you electrify to Dingwall to give Inverness on electrified local service. You then have about 150 miles to electrify, versus procuring hydrogen powered units for the 3 or 4 diagrams on the service.

Of course, if you are going to the extent of including carbon costs during construction, you must also then consider the carbon cost of building and operating any infrastructure (and/or traction equipment) for your self-propelled vehicle.

 

[Purple Orange]

What kind of timescale is being talked about here? Electrification of virtually all lines in the country is best, but it has to be noted that many main lines are still un-electrified. Get the full GWML, Midland Mainline, ECML to Inverness, Cross Country Route done before small branches!

It is not neccarily the case that some main line routes will be prioritised over non-mainline routes. I.e. if 200 miles of line is to be electrified, should electrifying Edinburgh to Inverness or Birmingham to Bristol be prioritised over electrifying a series of shorter lines that may remove a greater number of diesel trains?

 

[Energy]

It is not neccarily the case that some main line routes will be prioritised over non-mainline routes. I.e. if 200 miles of line is to be electrified, should electrifying Edinburgh to Inverness or Birmingham to Bristol be prioritised over electrifying a series of shorter lines that may remove a greater number of diesel trains?

I think we should also prioritise lines which are more stop start or hilly as once a train is at speed it is very efficient.

 

[furnessvale]

The simple answer in that case is closure.

No. The simple answer is whatever solution is allowed for HGVs in similar circumstances.

If minor roads in the highlands are permitted to use diesel, then the same exemption should be allowed for rail.

 

[quantinghome]

Of course, if you are going to the extent of including carbon costs during construction, you must also then consider the carbon cost of building and operating any infrastructure (and/or traction equipment) for your self-propelled vehicle.

Yes, of course. You'd need to do an full carbon cost assessment of the entire lifecycle for all the options you are considering - construction of trains and infrastructure (including 'embedded' carbon of the materials - steel and concrete being carbon emitters during their manufacture), operation, maintenance. My gut feeling is that this would come out in favour of a self-propelled option where you have long lines with infrequent services.

 

[quantinghome]

It is not neccarily the case that some main line routes will be prioritised over non-mainline routes. I.e. if 200 miles of line is to be electrified, should electrifying Edinburgh to Inverness or Birmingham to Bristol be prioritised over electrifying a series of shorter lines that may remove a greater number of diesel trains?

There are many factors to consider. The key though is to have a rolling programme. This doesn't have to produce a huge amount of miles electrified in a single year, but it needs to be doing a decent amount continuously year after year.

 

[Purple Orange]

There are many factors to consider. The key though is to have a rolling programme. This doesn't have to produce a huge amount of miles electrified in a single year, but it needs to be doing a decent amount continuously year after year.

Yes this important, but it is vitally important to prioritise the lines that will give the greatest impact first.

 

[quantinghome]

Yes this important, but it is vitally important to prioritise the lines that will give the greatest impact first.

There are other things to consider though:

Is resignalling planned on a line?
Is major track realignment planned?
What if a major station rebuild is planned? You may end up replacing nearly brand new electrification equipment if a station rebuild happens.
What if the logistics of construction mean it's more efficient to electrify (say) a branch line following straight on from a previous scheme, before moving to another main line which has higher priority on paper?
Is diesel rolling stock up for renewal on a line? This may mean it's better to bring forward electrification of a route ahead of others with theoretically higher priority.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The simple answer in that case is closure.

You could close the Conwy Valley and nobody would notice bar enthusiasts. But the WHL is a bit different, it's a hellish coach journey.

 

[Clip]

Electrification is not actually very carbon intensive.

So all of the energy that the steel works would have to use in producing the equipment isnt carbon intensive?

 

[HSTEd]

So all of the energy that the steel works would have to use in producing the equipment isnt carbon intensive?

No, because very little steel is actually used in absolute terms.

Total embodied carbon, even using GWRM style overhead wiring is about 313 tonnes of CO2 per mile. Note that a simple calculation based on the numbers given in the article, and the article text implies that that is per route mile of twin track railway.

So a low density, largely single track railway will be much lower than that.
Especially as you won't need enormous anchor portals.

So about 150 tonnes of CO2 per track mile.

The averaged lifespan of the equipment will be very long, since the biggest deal is the foundations and mast, which can be shown to have lifespans well over 50 years from historical examples (see Greater Anglia and Manchester 1500V electrification).

So about 3 tonnes of CO2 per mile per year.

That is about burning about 1 tonne of diesel per mile per year.

Or about ~3.3L of diesel per day, assuming 365 day running. Call it 3.5L to account for blockades etc etc.
A two car Class 170 (according to T618 'Traction Energy Metrics') consumes about 0.94L per km, or 1.5L per mile.

So if a single track railway has traffic totalling more than about three two-car Turbostars over it a day, electrifying it (assuming zero carbon electricity is available) is worthwhile compared to diesel operation.

Note that that is trains travelling in one direction only, so somewhere between one and two round trips by two-car Turbostars is the carbon breakeven point.
I can think of very few railways (if any) in the Uk that do not meet that criterion.

(Biodiesel doesn't help here because we could potentially bury the biodiesel or carburise it and bury the carbon, so burning it is still a net emission relative to not burning it,)

Making things causes emissions of carbon, sure, but nothing emits carbon like burning carbon fuels.

 

[Purple Orange]

There are other things to consider though:

Is resignalling planned on a line?
Is major track realignment planned?
What if a major station rebuild is planned? You may end up replacing nearly brand new electrification equipment if a station rebuild happens.
What if the logistics of construction mean it's more efficient to electrify (say) a branch line following straight on from a previous scheme, before moving to another main line which has higher priority on paper?
Is diesel rolling stock up for renewal on a line? This may mean it's better to bring forward electrification of a route ahead of others with theoretically higher priority.

All reasons that can mean one line will have less of an impact over another.

 

[quantinghome]

No, because very little steel is actually used in absolute terms.

Total embodied carbon, even using GWRM style overhead wiring is about 313 tonnes of CO2 per mile. Note that a simple calculation based on the numbers given in the article, and the article text implies that that is per route mile of twin track railway.

So a low density, largely single track railway will be much lower than that.
Especially as you won't need enormous anchor portals.

So about 150 tonnes of CO2 per track mile.

The averaged lifespan of the equipment will be very long, since the biggest deal is the foundations and mast, which can be shown to have lifespans well over 50 years from historical examples (see Greater Anglia and Manchester 1500V electrification).

So about 3 tonnes of CO2 per mile per year.

That is about burning about 1 tonne of diesel per mile per year.

Or about ~3.3L of diesel per day, assuming 365 day running. Call it 3.5L to account for blockades etc etc.
A two car Class 170 (according to T618 'Traction Energy Metrics') consumes about 0.94L per km, or 1.5L per mile.

So if a single track railway has traffic totalling more than about three two-car Turbostars over it a day, electrifying it (assuming zero carbon electricity is available) is worthwhile compared to diesel operation.

Note that that is trains travelling in one direction only, so somewhere between one and two round trips by two-car Turbostars is the carbon breakeven point.
I can think of very few railways (if any) in the Uk that do not meet that criterion.

(Biodiesel doesn't help here because we could potentially bury the biodiesel or carburise it and bury the carbon, so burning it is still a net emission relative to not burning it,)

Making things causes emissions of carbon, sure, but nothing emits carbon like burning carbon fuels.

Thanks for the link - I was looking for just such a study. Embodied carbon in the materials is relatively easy to quantify. But there are a whole host of other contributors which are more difficult:

- Carbon emissions during construction. These increase the more remote the site. Transport of materials, construction plant, running construction sites etc all add to the carbon calculation.
- Operation and maintenance activities are not carbon free.

In addition, RSSB's embodied carbon calculation does not include:
- Grid connection
- Associated civils works (though likely to be less of an issue in remote rural locations)

Then all this needs to be compared to the zero carbon self-propelled options of battery or more probably hydrogen power for long distances.

 

[LancasterRed]

I can see the argument for electrifying the Cumbrian Coast, especially up to Barrow where electrics can run. However, suppose the whole line was electrified, how much time would be saved with, say, a 331's acceleration compared to the current operations? Given the stop-start nature of the line there might be scope to electrify given enough time savings.

 

[HSTEd]

In addition, RSSB's embodied carbon calculation does not include:
- Grid connection
- Associated civils works (though likely to be less of an issue in remote rural locations)

Remember that the Far North Line is actually in a good position with regards the grid.
The renewables in the North of Scotland have forced quite a lot of reinforcement work, and the lines that supported the breeder reactors at Dounreay are still in place.

And lines like the West Highland and such are relatively close to each other, so in extremis you could use a wooden pole line to cross feed between Fort William and Oban if the use of a single feeder was too janky for your taste.

EDIT:

Also batteries especially are likely to require even larger grid feedersdue to the inherently peakier nature of the load.

 

[quantinghome]

Remember that the Far North Line is actually in a good position with regards the grid.
The renewables in the North of Scotland have forced quite a lot of reinforcement work, and the lines that supported the breeder reactors at Dounreay are still in place.

Yes, I saw that - infrastructure in remote areas often follows the same route so there may be an efficiency to be had on some routes. But I was thinking more of the substations rather than significant extensions to the grid network.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Remember that the Far North Line is actually in a good position with regards the grid.
The renewables in the North of Scotland have forced quite a lot of reinforcement work, and the lines that supported the breeder reactors at Dounreay are still in place.

And lines like the West Highland and such are relatively close to each other, so in extremis you could use a wooden pole line to cross feed between Fort William and Oban if the use of a single feeder was too janky for your taste.

EDIT:

Also batteries especially are likely to require even larger grid feedersdue to the inherently peakier nature of the load.

As a general question - is there any more scope for more hydro-plants in the Highlands , I appreciate a lot of good work was done from the 1960's.

A conjecture also , with the high level of precipitation etc in the greater Snowdonia region, there must equally be some scope for more hydro generation there. Again , a good number of plants in existance - but more could perhaps be done. Early quarry electrifcation was applied to the internal NG lines ! .....

 

[HSTEd]

As a general question - is there any more scope for more hydro-plants in the Highlands , I appreciate a lot of good work was done from the 1960's.

A conjecture also , with the high level of precipitation etc in the greater Snowdonia region, there must equally be some scope for more hydro generation there. Again , a good number of plants in existance - but more could perhaps be done. Early quarry electrifcation was applied to the internal NG lines ! .....

Unfortunately virtually all the hydro capacity in the UK has been exploited.
Estimates vary from only a few hundred to 3000 more megawatts, but at quite low capacity factor and quite large environmental impacts.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Unfortunately virtually all the hydro capacity in the UK has been exploited.
Estimates vary from only a few hundred to 3000 more megawatts, but at quite low capacity factor and quite large environmental impacts.

Thank you for that. Useful.

 

[quantinghome]

Unfortunately virtually all the hydro capacity in the UK has been exploited.
Estimates vary from only a few hundred to 3000 more megawatts, but at quite low capacity factor and quite large environmental impacts.

That's what I heard too when I (briefly) worked on Glen Doe hydro.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

(Biodiesel doesn't help here because we could potentially bury the biodiesel or carburise it and bury the carbon, so burning it is still a net emission relative to not burning it,)

Making things causes emissions of carbon, sure, but nothing emits carbon like burning carbon fuels.

Quite - succinctly stated.

 

[Clip]

Making things causes emissions of carbon, sure, but nothing emits carbon like burning carbon fuels.

Like the burning of carbon fuel to get the ore from the ground and then to ship it from sites from around the world to our sites in the uk and then the burning of carbon fuel to make it then to transport it to site yes? And then the carbon footprint of the machinery use in an electrification programme and also that of getting the man power too and from site ( including those who work at a steel production plant)