Great Western Coffee Shop

I'm back commuting up to London from this week so I'm really hoping that eventually this situation will improve (maybe trains will become longer after refurbishment?)..

Twice I've got the 18.33 home.. On Monday it was an intercity which was very overcrowded and quite scary as there is no where to hold on to if you're standing in the middle of the door way bit and the trains lurches across the tracks before Maidenhead... On Wednesday it was a three car turbo and was packed to the point no one else could get on.. And there still aren't many more places to hold on.. Maybe for taller people this is ok I don't know, they might be able to reach places I can't  ;D

Tonight I decided that the 18.18 HAS to be emptier so left work earlier than I really should...I was wrong... It was even worse... I do know there was a fatality earlier this afternoon which disrupted the trains but I'm pretty sure that wasn't what caused my train to be so full as the trains had been running normally again for a while before then.. I think it might be because it's the first train out of Paddington fast to Maidenhead in about 35 minutes.. Which considering several hundred people got off at Maidenhead, I think perhaps we could do with another train in between (something I've told FGW many times since they cancelled the 18.06 departures stop at Maidenhead)...

However if someone knows that maybe they are running short at the moment and will eventually will be longer trains again, then I don't mind it so much. It certainly wouldn't be any fun in the summer though the way the overcrowding is at the moment.

At least it was nice and warm (and cosy!) on a very cold day  :)

Not much better in the morning the 07:03 is packed and standing made worse by people who want to take fold up bikes with them on the train

Trains do seem to have been busier than usual this week for some reason and I've also noticed more bad-temperedness amongst passengers. I was shocked to see a man barge a poor woman out of the way whilst boarding an HST at Maidenhead and when I asked a passenger sitting near me to use a handkerchief rather than sneeze over everyone he told me to f*** off! Then on Wednesday night the TM on my train home went off on a long rant over the PA about people boarding the train before it had been announced on the departure boards at Paddington. But if the train is in its usual platform correctly labelled up with less than 10 minutes to go before departure time can you really blame people for boarding before the announcement?

Next week it's half term and the evening trains will be full of buggies, oh joy...

.....and with HM's (present) loyal opposition threatening to look at electrification's "value for money" (again!), when they climb into the national cab, will someone here please explain it all to Theresa, MP........


OTC

The MP is Villiers not May of course.

Their policy document says that the big E is an "important priority.... within the constraints" (of affordabilty).

hmmm.

OTC

Railway electrification is of no use to their mates and sponsors in the road haulage industry

This evening was better but I expect that was because it was Friday and the Friday before half term..

Today though it was this mornings trains that was full to bursting as it was 2 carriages instead of 3. This was something they didn't think to tell us in advance although I think someone somewhere probaby knew  ;)

We all worked it out when it arrived and the people standing right at the front and the back of the platform lost out I think as they ended up being the last people on the train...

And yes, not just buggies next week.. Also families getting on the train in the middle of the rush hour and exclaiming loudly "This train's a bit full isn't it?" as if it were a surprise.. My favourite  ;D

They knew at Maidenhead that it was on 2 carriages there was a station announcement, that is if you are talking about the 07:11 departure from Maidenhead which is a Slough London only

Nope, unfortunately I travel later than that due to the school run first sadly (roll on next week when I don't have to travel after the school run  ;D).. This was actually the 9.03.. And I'm pretty sure they didn't announce anything about it while I was there.. Maybe it was exactly the same train though... :)

BBM, was this the 17:06 Westbury? From what I have heard the issue with that was the train was not cleaned properly due to the amount of customers who had already boarded. The cleaners couldn't get through within a reasonable time to do a proper clean. So at a guess the announcement would be to save any complaints re: cleanliness.

(If it wasn't the 17:06 you are on about apologies. But this can easily apply to any train from Paddington where people decide to board before it is ready)

Used to have loads of problems at Glasgow Queen Street with people trying to board as trains were being split or divided, and the people who boaded the rear set of a splitter who then moaned that they'd missed their train depite boarding one before it had been announced used to make me chuckle!

Yes it was the 17:06. Normally I'm very good and I do wait until the train is announced especially if the set in the usual platform doesn't have paper labels (although very few HSTs these days seem to be without destination labels). However on Wednesday at 16:58 the set in Platform 8 was correctly labelled so I didn't see why I couldn't board especially as other passengers were getting on. I just wanted to avoid the usual scrum which happens with last-minute announcements!

This is one of the problems of both the fixed formation train and the intensive use made of sets.

In the good old days when a set of coaches made one return trip to Bristol and back in a day. the train would be cleaned at OLD Oak and bought up to Paddington half an hour or so before departure probably with the reservations in place. It would go to Bristol be taken to carriage sidings and cleaned returned ready for departure to Padd where it would be taken back to OOC ready for tomorrow.

Now an HST set will make 3 or 4 round trips to Bristol in a day turning round in the terminii everytime. Thus the problems with getitng a train cleaned and the seat reservations in place with passengers already on board.

Now whilst not wishing to go back to bad old days, the IEP is not going to fix the problem being a costly fixed length unit which will have to be intensively used thus turning round at Paddington.

Now this is where Ian Walmsley idea of push pull train sets with an electric loco come into play. As they cost a thrid of the price of the IEP then you could in theory have 3 times as many.

However, if you had 2/3 spare sets every day then in the evening peaks you could have the very popular trains as start ups from Padd, whilst the stock normally used could go to Kensal Green and be cleaned and rewatered and come back ready to form a later departure this would then be a rolling changeover until trains arrivng say after 19:00 would not be required so could go back to OOC for heavy cleaning. Thus  trains would no longer have to be turned round in the platforms at Padd.

Of course Crossrail mucks this up by shutting off OOC.   

Electrification ISN'T the panacea that so many people make it out to be.
It certainly isn't greener, it just moves the pollution to someone else's back yard.
Electricity is becoming more expensive and (we are told) we are likely to run out of the stuff in the next few years.
It is hugely expensive to electrify a route AND buy new electric rolling stock.
On many routes, modern diesels ARE the "value for money" route - electrics certainly aren't !

A few snippets from the Network RUS Electrification (133) and elsewhere:

                                                    diesel/coach           electric/coach

Maintenance cost p/mile                        60                           40
Fuel cost p/mile                                    47                           26
Track cost p/mile                                    9.8                          8.5
Availability  %                                      88                           91
CO2 kg/mile                                           2.100                       1.644
Mile/casualty                                        11k                          21k
Loco weight t    (Cl 43/87)                      70                            85
Power at rail     (Cl 43/87)                   1770                         7870 (1 hr)

Other comments:

 "Superior acceleration reduces speed diff. between fast and stopping enabling more trains to
operate" (p39)

"Improvement of passenger product.." (p38)

Diesel and electricity costs have a fixed regression relation. (Fig 4.1 p35)

Still want a "green", "value for money" diesel?

OTC

 

Well said, OTC!

To try to argue that electrification of the railways is not worth the large investment is one thing, but to state that electric trains are no greener than diesel trains is frankly ludicrous!

I'm afraid the figures you quote generally don't withstand much scrutiny.

Lets just look at CO2 kg/mile:
A diesel is often the prime mover on a train: therefore the only efficiency losses are on the train: thermal losses, friction losses, etc etc.
An electric train is powered by electricity which is generated (at an efficiency loss) many miles away (mainly by burning carbon fuel) , there are transmission losses, there are efficiency losses in transferring the power to the train (sparking pantographs/3rd rails!), then voltage conversion losses within the train, plus all the other inefficiencies that any other type of propulsion would suffer from.

Generation alone: A Coal fired power station has a thermal efficiency of 40% (max), gas up to 50%. A modern diesel engine is 50%. The diesel is on the train, the power station is 200 miles away. When you don't need the diesel you can let it idle or shut it down; a power station HAS to be kept fully fired up - you can't just press the "start" button and open the throttle. (but of course the electric train proponent will say the power station "ain't my problem".)


"Improvement of passenger product" ??????????

Lets have FACTS please:  "Electric trains have zero emissions at the point of use" from a dft publication - just NOT true ! Just for a start, air conditioning packs produce large quantities of water vapour (look at the puddle under your car) which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 ! But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. AND the sparking I mentioned earlier produces lots of Ozone, which is a good thing hundreds of miles up, but NOT at ground level.

FINALLY: track costs!! The latest estimate to electrify Paddington- Cardiff is ^380 million. As the final estimate (they haven't finished adding up the figures yet !) for WCML upgrade is ^8 to ^10 BILLION !!  think of a final figure for Paddington - Cardiff and double it/triple it/quadruple it/etc/etc/etc............

Don't get me wrong ! Electric trains are great in the right place, HS 1 was a no brainer - but I get weary when I read statements saying that electrification is the answer to all the problems of the railway industry. I heard the same thing about replacing steam with diesel - what a disorganised shambles that turned into!  THAT was the time to electrify the routes that justified it - as most other countries did !
I will totally agree that most of this country's rail problems are caused by under investment. I was living in Scotland in 1974 when WCML electrification was completed: great! - 100 mph an hour trains, etc, etc. But it was done on the cheap - much of the infrastructure has had to be completely replaced as it wasn't up to the job.

Industry Insider: I am indeed trying to argue that much electrification is not worth the investment - but also that much of the hype about how green electric trains are, is also, I am afraid - ludicrous !

Not at ground level it isn't.  Water vapour is a greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere only. At and near ground level it contributes to fog and clouds which have a cooling effect. 

Electric traction isn't perfect. but you ignore some important facts:

1, Where the polutants are released can be important.  CO2 will contibute to the greenhouse effect wheeever it is released true, but acid gases and soot are better released at a power station where there may be scrubbers and will certainly be a tall chimney than under a station roof. 

2, for your diesel calculations you consider the efficiency of the engine only, but for electric trains you factor in losses in generating the fuel and transporting it.  Analogous losses also apply to diesel.  It costs energy to extract, pump, refine and distribute oil (think about those flares at oil refineries or those helecopters flying to North Sea rigs). 

It is true that the big picture is complicated and electric traction can be over-hyped (I am sceptical of Eurostars green crudentials for example - true they have eliminated paris-london aeroplanes but more people are encouranged to travel by their (usually) great service than ever flew and many of them drive to Ebfleet International.  But if a train is going to run, an electric train will generate about half the CO2 of an electric one.  Electric trains are just better anyway, cleaner, faster, more reliable. 

On the cost front,  if you take a long timescale (20 to 50 years, say) electric traction will pay for itself on many busy routes.  The problem is getting the policicians to think that far ahead.

You are right to say we should have electified more when steam was replaced.  Electrification absolutely needs to be tied to rolling stock replacement for it to be cost effective.  That is why electifiying the GWML makes sense today because the HST will need replacing soon.  A national electrifciation plan takes this kind of thing, along with deisel and electric traction cascades, into account in deciding what order to put the wires up in. 

 

I'm with OTC. Its all very well arguing the power losses in transferring electricity, however the pollution caused by transporting diesel & other fuels around causes pollution in itself (this issue seems to have been neglected by moonrakerz), and further worsens our energy supply problems.

We must also consider the ability for electric trains to easily transfer power back into the national grid when braking, whilst its potentially possible to store said power on a diesel - electric train, it probably wouldn't be worth the expense.

Far from it - we are importing much of our natural gas now - a lot of that by sea - so those costs are very similar for oil imports.


The amount of power produced by regenerative braking is miniscule comapared to that consumed ! AND I was comparing diesel not diesel electric - which introduces even more "on-train" losses anyway !

Tim: you say: "It is true that the big picture is complicated and electric traction can be over-hyped" -  that is exactly my point ! but regrettably (as with global warming, best eco friendly car, best football team) any point which is raised which even (just slightly) questions an entrenched  point of view is immediately met with howls of protest (and derision !) from the "opposing" camp.

I stand by my original statement:=  "Electrification ISN'T the panacea that so many people make it out to be" - which I think is pretty damn' close to what you said !

But do you stand by your other original statement that electric trains are no greener than diesel trains? Or to quote you exactly; "Electrification ISN'T the panacea that so many people make it out to be. It certainly isn't greener..." 

I don't doubt that figures are massaged a little if they are trying to prove a point - in this case the Government trying to prove that electrification is worthwhile - figures like that are massaged all the time, that's the way the world operates.

But I also stand by my original statement, which is to claim that electric trains are no greener than diesel trains is ludicrous and detracts from some of your other quite valid (albeit debatable) comments.  By the way, I don't think anyone's even mentioned the noise pollution from diesels yet...

I don't think many people (certainly on here) are saying it is the answer to all the problems in the rail industry.  However, in the case of the GWML the well thought out stock cascade from Thameslink in the form of Class 319's and the ability to change the spec of the new IEP trains to make better use of electric haulage (and the way all of those things fit in nicely with the Crossrail timetable and Reading rebuild) makes me a supporter of that particular scheme.

And there I was thinking re-nationalisation and a return to steam-hauled was the answer to all the problems in the rail industry ;)

Moonrakerz:

Greetings, you obviously have had bad railway vibes recently, I'm sorry.

The Network Rail RUS figures are facts - they were prepared with sceptic stakeholders notorious for hanging on to their money (and anyone else's). Government and DfT were never "pro-electric", advocating silly schemes such as hydrogen power in attempts to ward off technical truth. All the items and more that you have mentioned are factored in using methods carefully developed by the Industry over many years.

Most rail costs are infrastructural, so have been incurred before a wheel has turned. I am angry that the GW main line is wastefully abused by allowing 3-car Turbos, rural ramblers, out on it alongside Half Size Trains that need two locos, 140 t, just to haul on the level, eight lightweight trailers. With an electric Crossrail we will at least have 10-car emu's to replace the tiny turbos which can then be sent back to Hornby. Raising doubts about this now risks losing the lot.



Regards and bonnes voyages,

OTC

(PS - how much will the cleaning of Paddington's disgustingly oily, sooty roof cost?)

Hornby?  I thought they were going to Bristol...  ;)

Putting my devil's advocate hat on here... An HST will run quite happily on one powercar, it just loses time because the acceleration is clobbered.  And show me the loco that will haul 8 mk 3 trailers at 125 mph and keep to HST timings! ;)

Last time I was on an HST with only one power car working we were informed it was only capable of 100 mph.

I haven't really had bad railway vibes - well, no worse that anyone else !

I find that in so many areas the public is being misled - now whether this is deliberate or just through ignorance ....................  This could be about global warming, nuclear power, the nation's finances, the state of our railways................... you name it.

All I am attempting to do is just throw a little light on some of the "dark" arts that are being employed so that people can make an educated, reasoned response .  I referred earlier to a dft document which said: "Electric trains have zero emissions at the point of use" - I will say again, this is just NOT true !!!! This statement is grossly misleading - by accident or design ? You decide..............   I know what this glib statement actually means - but many people will assume from that, that an electric train is the greenest thing since..........(sliced bread ?)

I said initially that electrification will not solve the railway's problems - it may vastly improve the "experience" from Paddington to Temple Meads, but what about Bath to Portsmouth Harbour, Westbury to Weymouth and, of course we mustn't forget, Trowbridge to Chippenham !!!
I was in Norway last year, very impressive.  Even their version of the Pacer was very pleasant - but of course electricity comes cheap there !

Depends on the set really.  Some will get up to about 110-115mph if given long enough - it's more the general lack of acceleration that hits the timings.

Don't forget the HST is in fact two locos so 2*67 ougth to do the trick otherwise virtually any modern electric loco.

Bombadier TRAXX and similar. 220 KPM with a push pull 8 coach IC set of heavier continental coaches and they will probably out accelerate and out brake (regen) an HST.

Don't forget that once the wires are strung, running and maintenance costs (per train) are smaller,  reliabilty and availabilty are higher. See "onthecushions" post. So a "bean counters" dream. The problem is that nobody is prepared to wait 25 years for a return.

Could you imagine South Eastern, Southern and SWT being non elctrified and trying to run a diesel service to cater for their passenger numbers. Any profits they make are based on investments made up to 100 years ago when the first electric trains trains south of the Thames. Ironically the LBSC were the first to string wires, it was only that SWT and SECR had chosen third rail and had more mileage that the Southern standised on the third rail.

Look how much electrification they did in a much harsher recession than now and how much London post war and still today benefits from that investment.

Electrifcation now is for our children and grandchildren it is part of the "common wealth" of the country.

"Electric trains have zero emissions at the point of use"

I agree with you - this may be correct engineers' speak but it is misleading to the average (UK educated) person.

It is probably true that ALL rail travel has "zero emission" of CO2, at least, as the emission avoided (by suffering the train) is on average greater than that of even a smoky diesel. Every train (that is well used) is therefore "green" - they even look better in that colour as your marvellous photo of Tornado showed - thanks.

Electric trains are good for more than InterCity users. The West Coast system has spun off Strathclyde, Birmingham CrossCity and now the Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Blackpool links, in the flinty face of Government neglect. The East Coast system generated  North Leeds wiring (to Bradford FS, Keighley, Ilkley and Skipton - which now captures c75% of travel) and neither will end there.  Our GW scheme has taken in Oxford and Newbury to many's surprise.

Our 125's however still have more to give. Their balancing (level) speed with one power car out is 115mph but climbing is then a problem. Their present timings could probably be beaten by a 110 mph Class 87/90 as acceleration is often more important than top speed. Where they could be improved is by using the full output of the new MTU engines, alternator, control gear and TM's permitting. As the old Paxman-powered units could unofficially approach 140mph in service in the 1970's,  the present beasts could reach possibly 150mph, needing an extra signal aspect. Substitute a pantograph, transformer and PTL and you save a lot of public money....

OTC

Ok, so diesel is an 'obvious' polluter, electricity incurs major delivery inefficiencies (due to power loss en-route).  Simple answer - let's have little nuclear powered engines - no emissions, no polution, no inefficiencies of power wasteage.

Now, back to the original thread...

I've recently rejoined the morning cattle trucks from Maidenhead to Paddington and am already finding that I'm having to stand for the journey as there aren't sufficient seats.  Did ponder briefly about paying the first class premium in order to guarantee a seat but noticed that the first class seats are filling up too (with the overflow from the other carriages).  Does anyone think the extra ^100 per month to legitimately sit on a purple seat is worth it?

How about resurecting gas-turbine motive power?  :P ;) :D

Electrification is in fact "gas turbine" as we generate a lot of power through gas fired power stations. Whether that's right is another debate.

Gas turbines have been used for rail taction. The UP used large numbers in the late 50s and 60s but reverted to diesel power. This was mainly because their main attribute of very efficient running at constant revs makes them unsuitable for traction power with its varying demands on power.

Thus they are excellent for generating power, ships engines particulary as boosters in warships and jet engines where a constant power output is required for long periods but not for the constantly changing demands for power required by rail traction. 

Network Rail's contract with its electricity supplier (NR being one of the UK's largest electricity consumer) is for its energy to come from renewable and nuclear.  Electric traction has a far lower consumption of energy, they are lighter; require less maintenance than diesel powered.  Electrification is not the right answer for all routes but the Great Western Mainline, the route through Oxford and the onto the west midlands, Newbury and many of the South Wales lines electrification will allow the intensity of service to increase (because the lower maintenance cost means more units are viable)