What lines should we NOT electrify?

[Domh245]

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)

Your point being? Doing anything at all (even sitting here posting on the forum) will have some level of carbon emissions, the trick is choosing the one that'll emit the fewest. Doing that accurately is a very difficult task as there is seldom a clear beginning from which you can start your calculations.

 

[Clip]

Your point being? Doing anything at all (even sitting here posting on the forum) will have some level of carbon emissions, the trick is choosing the one that'll emit the fewest. Doing that accurately is a very difficult task as there is seldom a clear beginning from which you can start your calculations.

My point being is that it is not as low carbon usage as the poster i quoted was making out. The bigger picture is one of quite high carbon usage so their claim was false

 

[HSTEd]

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)

The emissions from the production of steel are much smaller than burning an equivalent weight of coal or oil.

Steelmaking only manages to account for 4-5% of global emissions.
In the current environment it is a rounding error.

The government wants batteries and hydrogen trains because they are for the most part desperate Thatcherites, like those that got us into this mess in the first place, and are desperately hoping that some magical energy storage technology will appear to prevent them having to actually spend the money required to fix the problem.
Luckily for everyone else, reality now appears to be setting in, as the amount of track to be electrified continues to climb and the use cases of hydrogen and (to a lesser extent) batteries continues to shrivel.

We are now at the point where it seems utterly pointless to expend the massive amounts of money on the R&D programme for a couple of thousand track kilometres.

 

[Energy]

The emissions from the production of steel are much smaller than burning an equivalent weight of coal or oil.

Steelmaking only manages to account for 4-5% of global emissions.
In the current environment it is a rounding error.

The government wants batteries and hydrogen trains because they are for the most part desperate Thatcherites, like those that got us into this mess in the first place, and are desperately hoping that some magical energy storage technology will appear to prevent them having to actually spend the money required to fix the problem.
Luckily for everyone else, reality now appears to be setting in, as the amount of track to be electrified continues to climb and the use cases of hydrogen and (to a lesser extent) batteries continues to shrivel.

We are now at the point where it seems utterly pointless to expend the massive amounts of money on the R&D programme for a couple of thousand track kilometres.

Batteries aren't the future in trains for 95% in my opinion, they could work for small bits but a lot of energy goes into making a battery and they aren't cheap, hydrogen makes more sense for most routes IMO if full electrification isn't an option.

 

[Domh245]

Batteries aren't the future in trains for 95% in my opinion, they could work for small bits but a lot of energy goes into making a battery and they aren't cheap, hydrogen makes more sense for most routes IMO if full electrification isn't an option.

Hydrogen requires batteries too, and the materials that go into fuel cells and hydrogen storage aren't exactly eco-friendly either. The main advantage of Hydrogen over battery is that you can get more range and refill quicker, but all the environmental drawbacks carry over as well, to some extent. And that's before considering the hydrogen generation/distribution system.

 

[Energy]

Hydrogen requires batteries too, and the materials that go into fuel cells and hydrogen storage aren't exactly eco-friendly either. The main advantage of Hydrogen over battery is that you can get more range and refill quicker, but all the environmental drawbacks carry over as well, to some extent. And that's before considering the hydrogen generation/distribution system.

The best option is electrification for most routes with few not being worth electrification in terms of their carbon footprint, those are usually quite short and would be fine with batteries to be honest, Hydrogen is a temporary solution.

 

[59CosG95]

One thing about the West Highland Line is, of course, Rannoch Moor. The peat bogs crossed by the track would probably mean piles the length of a Class 156 would need to be installed to have even any hope of putting masts up. Cast in-situ concrete would also be a non-starter as a result; it'd just sink.
And that's before the feeding arrangements are even considered.
Perhaps the only viable option is discontinuous OLE, over parts of the route, using bi-modal battery-electric stock, but these would all need to be connected by various cables linked to a small no. of feeders, or have a feeder for each section (even more prohibitively expensive).

 

[furnessvale]

One thing about the West Highland Line is, of course, Rannoch Moor. The peat bogs crossed by the track would probably mean piles the length of a Class 156 would need to be installed to have even any hope of putting masts up. Cast in-situ concrete would also be a non-starter as a result; it'd just sink.
And that's before the feeding arrangements are even considered.
Perhaps the only viable option is discontinuous OLE, over parts of the route, using bi-modal battery-electric stock, but these would all need to be connected by various cables linked to a small no. of feeders, or have a feeder for each section (even more prohibitively expensive).

Although unsightly and not normally required on a single line, portal frames could probably solve the ground issue.

 

[DB]

I was told that many years ago a proposal to electrify the Hope Valley line was scuppered early in the design stage by the National Park Authority and the local planning department due to overheads having a detrimental effect on the look of the valley. So despite its importance maybe this shouldn't be electrified to preserve the views.

Isn't the operational railway exempt from normal planning rules and procedures? In which case, it wouldn't be up to the park authority. It's also difficult to see much logic in electrifying that line anyway unless the MML had already been done.

 

[59CosG95]

Although unsightly and not normally required on a single line, portal frames could probably solve the ground issue.

They could (indeed, that's how the Netherlands do pretty much all their structures), certainly for open route structures, but I've yet to see how this would work for anchor structures.

 

[HSTEd]

How much track is on Rannoch Moor.

How many anchor structures are actually required?
Is the speed limit even high enough to require tensioned OLE?

 

[trebor79]

The downside to that is that 3 carriages (or even two) will always be overkill for the line- so if you electrify you still end up with either a micro fleet of 1/2-car electric units, or massive overcapacity with extended turnarounds. As battery technology improves, simply replacing the small diesel generator with a battery and motor to start the flywheel would make more sense.

If you had a battery you'd get rid of the flywheel completely. There's no point transferring energy from one storage device (battery) to another (flywheel) before using it as you just introduce losses at each stage.

 

[furnessvale]

They could (indeed, that's how the Netherlands do pretty much all their structures), certainly for open route structures, but I've yet to see how this would work for anchor structures.

Off the top of my head, if a simple box arrangement wouldn't do, I would look at bracing adjacent anchor structures off each other.

 

[59CosG95]

How much track is on Rannoch Moor.

How many anchor structures are actually required?
Is the speed limit even high enough to require tensioned OLE?

Temperature is the main factor in specifying auto-tensioned OLE, rather than fixed-tension. It can get pretty wintry on the moors, so you'd want to have a system that can cope with thermal expansion & contraction.
The value of tension is where the speed comes in. AIUI, 11kN is the minimum tension for OLE nowadays (in both conductors); Series 1 uses 13kN on catenary & 16.5kN on contact.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you had a battery you'd get rid of the flywheel completely. There's no point transferring energy from one storage device (battery) to another (flywheel) before using it as you just introduce losses at each stage.

Indeed. The flywheel is just a means of doing "regen" on a DMU, basically, for a unit designed when battery tech was nowhere near good enough. Though to be honest for a unit that does 20mph for a short distance a few times an hour, you could probably have happily got away with lead-acid batteries for that.

 

[Energy]

Indeed. The flywheel is just a means of doing "regen" on a DMU, basically, for a unit designed when battery tech was nowhere near good enough. Though to be honest for a unit that does 20mph for a short distance a few times an hour, you could probably have happily got away with lead-acid batteries for that.

Well the heathrow pods are lead acid and do similarly short distances at a similar speed.

 

[Clip]

The emissions from the production of steel are much smaller than burning an equivalent weight of coal or oil.

Steelmaking only manages to account for 4-5% of global emissions.
In the current environment it is a rounding error.

You need to understand that the carbon footprint of anything is bigger than you think

 

[HSTEd]

You need to understand that the carbon footprint of anything is bigger than you think

As someone who is literally paid to do climate change research, especially with regards energy systems. I have a fairly good idea of the scale of carbon emissions and about lifecycle analysis.

Steel, and indeed concrete, use is not the problem - it is largely greenwash designed to look like something is being done without substantively changing anything.

On essentially all railway lines in the UK carbon emissions associated with the construction and installation of electrification equipment is going to be small compared to the operation of the diesel railway service. Especially since essentially all electrification equipment is delivered to the worksite by rail for obvious reasons.

Carbon emissions have functionally zero discounting due to the extraordinarily long lifetime of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

How much track is on Rannoch

Probably 12 miles of track after the West Highland Railway deviates away from the A82 in the vicinity of Achallder viaduct (3.5 miles north of Bridge of Orchy station) and thence across the moor via Gortan to Rannoch station.

 

[Trainician]

I think we shouldn't electrify the following
Marston Vale Line
Corby to Oakham line

 

[Energy]

I think we shouldn't electrify the following
Marston Vale Line
Corby to Oakham line

Why? The Marston Vale Line is part of East West Rail and the rest of the Oakham to Kettering line (Corby to Kettering) is getting electrified as part of MML electrification.

 

[Domh245]

Corby to Oakham is getting electrified as part of MML electrification.

No it isn't - Kettering-Corby is getting wired, but they aren't going any further than that. That said, there's no massive challenges to electrify that section, but the distinct lack of passenger traffic (or any traffic really!) would make it low priority!

That said, if the rest of the MML is wired then this would be the only stretch of line blocking the 804s from conversion to EMUs which would possibly see it moved up the list (or the 'through' IC services dropped!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think we definitely should electrify the MV. Diesel islands aren't helpful. The same line in Northernland wouldn't justify the wires, but like with St Albans there is a lot to be said for just keeping it all the same and operated by one fleet.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think we shouldn't electrify the following
Marston Vale Line
Corby to Oakham line

Good lord you are having a laugh - these would be in my top 10 priorities. Part of F2N - well almost and part of East West rail.

 

[hst43102]

Slightly off topic, but....how many trains DO use the Corby-Oakham line?

 

[Energy]

No it isn't - Kettering-Corby is getting wired, but they aren't going any further than that.

I have already updated my post to be more accurate.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

One thing about the West Highland Line is, of course, Rannoch Moor. The peat bogs crossed by the track would probably mean piles the length of a Class 156 would need to be installed to have even any hope of putting masts up. Cast in-situ concrete would also be a non-starter as a result; it'd just sink.

How was the Liverpool-Manchester line across Chat Moss (which presumably has broadly similar ground conditions to Rannoch Moor?) electrified?

 

[Domh245]

How was the Liverpool-Manchester line across Chat Moss (which presumably has broadly similar ground conditions to Rannoch Moor?) electrified?

Either sizeable steel piles or several concrete ones acting together. I can't say if Chat Moss is similar to Rannoch Moor in terms of ground conditions though

Electrifying Liverpool-Manchester | Rail Engineer

www.railengineer.co.uk

One of the biggest challenges facing Stephenson, apart from unruly landowners and farmers opposed to the railway construction, was the infamous Chat Moss, described by the writer Samuel Smiles as “an immense bog of about twelve square miles, a mass of spongy vegetable pulp”. Stephenson armed his work force with planks strapped to their feet to stop them sinking into the Moss – the closest thing to PPE for the time.

Over its five mile stretch, the peat can reach up to six metres deep and was a formidable obstacle for Stephenson. After trying to backfill the area for several months to provide a stable base, preference was turned to ‘floating’ the railway across the area using heather bundles, brushwood mattresses and timber hurdles, each about 2.5 metres long and 1.2 metres wide, placed in layers to form a raft. This proved to be successful, and victory went to the famous engineer.

Stephenson’s technique, however, posed a significant challenge to today’s engineers as the timber layer installed by Stephenson was not to be damaged during construction. Careful survey work was carried out to position foundations away from the areas where the raft existed. This, however, resulted in foundations being placed anything up to eight metres from the running edge.

The Chat Moss stretch of the line required two different solutions for the electrification structure foundations: deep tubular steel piles of up to 14 metres in depth, and a mini-pile arrangement for areas where the presence of underlying rock made it impossible to drive the steel piles. There are approximately 120 mini-pile arrangements and 200 deep steel piles throughout the five mile stretch of railway across the moss, each with its own unique topographical and sub-strata issues, making this one of the railway’s most challenging geotechnical hurdles.

Deep steel piles, made from two halves connected together by high strength bolts, were first vibrated then hammered into position using rail-mounted plant. This was a very quick and economical solution and a number of piles could be installed during a single night-time possession.

The mini-pile solution was used when rock was identified from ground investigation boreholes or when the distance from running edge was beyond five metres (this being the maximum physical distance a deep steel pile could be installed using the on-track plant employed on this project). The mini-pile system consists of four or six concrete piles topped off with a concrete slab to which the steel mast is connected. The piles are generally anchored into the rock and provide a push/pull support arrangement for stability.

 

[HSTEd]

With modern earthmoving, you would probably just dig out the moor, it is only 6m deep!

Replace with foam geopolymer fill blocks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Either sizeable steel piles or several concrete ones acting together. I can't say if Chat Moss is similar to Rannoch Moor in terms of ground conditions though

Electrifying Liverpool-Manchester | Rail Engineer

www.railengineer.co.uk

Cheers for that - fascinating. I do remember that in the days of uk.railway this was a classic "can't do" - it was felt to be impossible - so well done to Network Rail for achieving it.