Maidenhead passengers still transported in worse conditions than cattle

[whole diary]

[IndustryInsider]

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!

[moonrakerz]

.....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^▸ (Member of Parliament)........OTC

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

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 !

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

OTC

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^▸ (West Coast Main Line) 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^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) 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 !

[Tim]

"Electric trains have zero emissions at the point of use" [/i] 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 !

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^▸ (Great Western Main Line) makes sense today because the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) 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. 

 

[devon_metro]

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.

[moonrakerz]

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),

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.

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.

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 !

[IndustryInsider]

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...

[IndustryInsider]

Don't get me wrong ! Electric trains are great in the right place, HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) 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 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^▸ (Great Western Main Line) 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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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.

[Phil]

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

[onthecushions]

Moonrakerz:

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

The Network Rail RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) figures are facts - they were prepared with sceptic stakeholders notorious for hanging on to their money (and anyone else's). Government and DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) 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^▸ (Great Western) 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?)

[IndustryInsider]

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.

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

[inspector_blakey]

...out on it alongside Half Size Trains that need two locos, 140 t, just to haul on the level, eight lightweight trailers.

Putting my devil's advocate hat on here... An HST^▸ (High Speed Train) 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!

[moonrakerz]

...out on it alongside Half Size Trains that need two locos, 140 t, just to haul on the level, eight lightweight trailers.

Putting my devil's advocate hat on here... An HST^▸ (High Speed Train) 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.

[moonrakerz]

Moonrakerz:

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

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 !

[IndustryInsider]

Last time I was on an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) with only one power car working we were informed it was only capable of 100 mph.

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.

[eightf48544]

Putting my devil's advocate hat on here... An HST^▸ (High Speed Train) 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!

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^▸ (Inter City) 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^▸ (South West Trains) 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.