Discussion:
Government response to the Electrification campaign e-Petition...should we be excited/
(too old to reply)
Rob Wilson
2009-01-09 15:57:51 UTC
Permalink
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17955

Rob.
tim.....
2009-01-09 16:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Wilson
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17955
The big problem here is that they simply aren't going to act fast enough.

For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up with
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.

Unless they are going to do both lines at the same time, which will almost
certainly be impossible due to lack of qualified staff, we need to be
starting now.

tim
Rob Wilson
2009-01-09 17:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
Post by Rob Wilson
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17955
The big problem here is that they simply aren't going to act fast enough.
For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up with
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
Unless they are going to do both lines at the same time, which will almost
certainly be impossible due to lack of qualified staff, we need to be
starting now.
tim
Yes I agree with that. They do need to make the decisions in parallel.
Diesel IEP or straight electric traction.

Rob.
Peter Masson
2009-01-09 17:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up with
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
GWML electrification can't really get going until after Crossrail, say 2017,
though decisions need to be taken soon so that preparatory work at Reading
can take place as part of the Reading remodelling. So MML electrification
needs to be completed as that GWML follows on smoothly. The main
Cross-Country routes also need to be electrified - at least Bristol -
Leeds - York, Sheffield - Doncaster, and Birmingham/Coventry - Reading and
Basingstoke.

With this, and electric operation of Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh via
WCML, there should be enough 180 and 22x stock for the remaining
diesel-worked Inter City services - ECML north of Edinburgh, GW and XC west
of Bristol, and Chester/North Wales.

Can enough HSTs be kept working until around 2020, and can a business case
be made for this programme?

Peter
Tim Fenton
2009-01-09 19:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Masson
Can enough HSTs be kept working until around 2020, and can a business case
be made for this programme?
Well, the IC125 power cars were originally meant for a 15 year life, and
they're still around after twice that time.

Given the recent refurbishment, I reckon they can get pretty close to 2020.
--
Tim

Selective killfiling - because life's too short

http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net
New(ish) pics from Rome and Berlin
tim.....
2009-01-10 00:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Masson
Can enough HSTs be kept working until around 2020, and can a business case
be made for this programme?
Do you mean "program of keeping the 125s going"

or program of Electrifications?

You can make an economic case for the electrification of any intensively
used, high speed (or intensive commuter) line, on the basis of future saved
running costs, provided that you electrify all of it and don't have little
bits that you have to have special trains (and special depots) for.

The biggest problem is "what do you do with Plymouth-Penzance", especially
if you electrify Cross Country and thus don't a high speed, long distance
diesel fleet already at Plymouth to share. I can see the solution to this
being that Penzance loses its London trains and just become a long Cornish
branch line (not that I want that).

tim
Roland Perry
2009-01-10 12:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
The biggest problem is "what do you do with Plymouth-Penzance", especially
if you electrify Cross Country and thus don't a high speed, long distance
diesel fleet already at Plymouth to share. I can see the solution to this
being that Penzance loses its London trains and just become a long Cornish
branch line (not that I want that).
At the time of rail privatisation someone with Polson/Hansonesque
certainty (I forget who, or which online forum) loudly bet me that
Penzance would completely lose its service as a result of privatisation
within five (? or similar) years, whereas I said that privatisation
wouldn't have such dire consequences.

I seem to have won this bet.

On the other hand, I can't see why it would be such an imposition to
change trains at Plymouth. I typically have to change trains twice just
to get *to* Plymouth (from the East Midlands) and don't really see a
case for keeping a through service for a few molly-coddled Cornishmen
just because of a historical accident.
--
Roland Perry
i***@aol.com
2009-01-10 12:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
On the other hand, I can't see why it would be such an imposition to
change trains at Plymouth. I typically have to change trains twice just
to get *to* Plymouth (from the East Midlands) and don't really see a
case for keeping a through service for a few molly-coddled Cornishmen
just because of a historical accident.
--
Roland Perry
Politically it's not going to happen. The Government will be portrayed
as abandoning a poor and isolated region - look at the fuss when the
direct sleeper service was going to be withdrawn.
Roland Perry
2009-01-10 14:58:31 UTC
Permalink
In message
Post by i***@aol.com
Post by Roland Perry
On the other hand, I can't see why it would be such an imposition to
change trains at Plymouth. I typically have to change trains twice just
to get *to* Plymouth (from the East Midlands) and don't really see a
case for keeping a through service for a few molly-coddled Cornishmen
just because of a historical accident.
Politically it's not going to happen. The Government will be portrayed
as abandoning a poor and isolated region - look at the fuss when the
direct sleeper service was going to be withdrawn.
It's still a historical accident that needs some sort of resolution. Sad
that government would be persuaded that the only place a Cornishman
*needs* a direct train to is London.
--
Roland Perry
Tony Polson
2009-01-10 15:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Sad
that government would be persuaded that the only place a Cornishman
*needs* a direct train to is London.
Shouldn't that be "to Truro"?
Roland Perry
2009-01-10 19:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
It's still a historical accident that needs some sort of resolution. Sad
that government would be persuaded that the only place a Cornishman
*needs* a direct train to is London.
What's sad about it?
Because it demonstrates a view that "the only place anyone wants to get
to is London".
From such a service you get a one change access to
great swathes of the country by changing at the appropriate place.
I'm suggesting that place is Plymouth.
Given there isn't enough traffic to warrent more than one long-distance
through service it makes sense to provide it to the largest and most
popular available destination.
ie Plymouth.
--
Roland Perry
i***@aol.com
2009-01-10 19:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roland Perry
It's still a historical accident that needs some sort of resolution. Sad
that government would be persuaded that the only place a Cornishman
*needs* a direct train to is London.
What's sad about it?
Because it demonstrates a view that "the only place anyone wants to get
to is London".
From such a service you get a one change access to
great swathes of the country by changing at the appropriate place.
I'm suggesting that place is Plymouth.
Given there isn't enough traffic to warrent more than one long-distance
through service it makes sense to provide it to the largest and most
popular available destination.
ie Plymouth.
--
Roland Perry
The Cornish County Council will fight like a tiger if direct London
services are withdrawn:

From their website:

'The County Council considers it essential to the economy and well-
being of the County that long-distance public transport passenger
links between Cornwall and key destinations in the UK should be kept
at least at the present level. Through train services to London,
including the sleeper service, and the Newquay-London air link which
provides connections to world-wide services will continue to be
supported.'
Roland Perry
2009-01-11 08:27:54 UTC
Permalink
In message
Post by i***@aol.com
The Cornish County Council will fight like a tiger if direct London
I'm sure they would, but it doesn't make it any more desirable that the
rail network runs HSTs with ten people aboard, west of Plymouth. There
has to be a better way.
--
Roland Perry
tim.....
2009-01-11 18:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
In message
Post by i***@aol.com
The Cornish County Council will fight like a tiger if direct London
I'm sure they would, but it doesn't make it any more desirable that the
rail network runs HSTs with ten people aboard, west of Plymouth. There has
to be a better way.
I don't think you'll find that the trains are particularly lightly loaded,
just that few of the pax started at London.

tim
Roland Perry
2009-01-11 19:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
Post by Roland Perry
Post by i***@aol.com
The Cornish County Council will fight like a tiger if direct London
I'm sure they would, but it doesn't make it any more desirable that the
rail network runs HSTs with ten people aboard, west of Plymouth. There has
to be a better way.
I don't think you'll find that the trains are particularly lightly loaded,
just that few of the pax started at London.
I'm trying to remember how loaded the HST was when I went down to
Plymouth a year ago (that leg of my journey started at Reading). I'm
pretty sure almost everyone had got off by the time we got to Plymouth.
The return trip was on a 4-car Voyager, which was about half full (in
Standard) when it arrived from Penzance, and pretty much became
over-full at Plymouth.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2009-01-10 20:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roland Perry
It's still a historical accident that needs some sort of resolution. Sad
that government would be persuaded that the only place a Cornishman
*needs* a direct train to is London.
What's sad about it?
Because it demonstrates a view that "the only place anyone wants to get
to is London".
Now you are sounding like the Mad Middlesbrough Merchant :-) Surely it
demonstrates an admittance that the most likely far-away place a Cornishman
will want to go to, once he's plucked up the courage to cross the Tamar, is
London. If you admit the political necessity for a long distance through
service of some description then London is the most practical option.
Post by Roland Perry
From such a service you get a one change access to
great swathes of the country by changing at the appropriate place.
I'm suggesting that place is Plymouth.
That restricts your one-change options.
Post by Roland Perry
Given there isn't enough traffic to warrent more than one long-distance
through service it makes sense to provide it to the largest and most
popular available destination.
ie Plymouth.
Cornwall to Plymouth hardly qualifies as long-distance.
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Roland Perry
2009-01-11 08:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
If you admit the political necessity for a long distance through
service of some description then London is the most practical option.
I'm not convinced that even if London was the most popular place to head
for by train from Penzance, that it's where the majority of people are
heading for, from Penzance. What's needed are opportunities to change to
services covering the whole country.
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
From such a service you get a one change access to
great swathes of the country by changing at the appropriate place.
I'm suggesting that place is Plymouth.
That restricts your one-change options.
Slightly, yes. It would still be one-change to London, Manchester,
Bristol, Birmingham and all points via Sheffield to Edinburgh.

But why are we so precious about Penzance - it's two changes to get from
Portsmouth to Nottingham [other than via Cardiff]. Are there really more
people trying to get from Penzance to Nottingham than Portsmouth to
Nottingham, and who absolutely must have only one change [at Birmingham
or Derby, currently, from Penzance].
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
Given there isn't enough traffic to warrent more than one long-distance
through service it makes sense to provide it to the largest and most
popular available destination.
ie Plymouth.
Cornwall to Plymouth hardly qualifies as long-distance.
It's two hours, even if the distance isn't huge. Changing trains after
two hours isn't that much of an imposition, especially when it's
currently tying up a long distance train that would be much more
usefully employed east of Plymouth (east of Exeter, even, but I'm not
being that radical).
--
Roland Perry
tim.....
2009-01-11 19:00:41 UTC
Permalink
(east of Exeter, even, but I'm not being that radical).
It wouldn't matter if you were.

As the depot's in Plymouth (and presumably for electrification to be cost
effective, these facilities will need to stay there) some of the diagrams
are going to have to go there.

tim
Graeme Wall
2009-01-11 19:16:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
(east of Exeter, even, but I'm not being that radical).
It wouldn't matter if you were.
I wasn't, it was Roland.
Post by tim.....
As the depot's in Plymouth (and presumably for electrification to be cost
effective, these facilities will need to stay there) some of the diagrams
are going to have to go there.
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Graeme Wall
2009-01-10 17:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
In message
Post by i***@aol.com
Post by Roland Perry
On the other hand, I can't see why it would be such an imposition to
change trains at Plymouth. I typically have to change trains twice just
to get *to* Plymouth (from the East Midlands) and don't really see a
case for keeping a through service for a few molly-coddled Cornishmen
just because of a historical accident.
Politically it's not going to happen. The Government will be portrayed
as abandoning a poor and isolated region - look at the fuss when the
direct sleeper service was going to be withdrawn.
It's still a historical accident that needs some sort of resolution. Sad
that government would be persuaded that the only place a Cornishman
*needs* a direct train to is London.
What's sad about it? From such a service you get a one change access to
great swathes of the country by changing at the appropriate place. Given
there isn't enough traffic to warrent more than one long-distance through
service it makes sense to provide it to the largest and most popular
available destination.
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
John B
2009-01-10 13:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
The biggest problem is "what do you do with Plymouth-Penzance", especially
if you electrify Cross Country and thus don't a high speed, long distance
diesel fleet already at Plymouth to share.  I can see the solution to this
being that Penzance loses its London trains and just become a long Cornish
branch line (not that I want that).
I did the sums on this (a bit back-of-envelope-ish-ly) on a post about
a month ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.railway/msg/65736eedbf81a699

If you electrify the obvious mainline bits, then there are enough high-
speed DMUs/DEMUs to cover not only the outlying services after HSTs
are retired, but to increase them above current levels *with through
trains to London running under the wires*. Including London-Penzance
via the B&H.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
tim.....
2009-01-10 13:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
The biggest problem is "what do you do with Plymouth-Penzance", especially
if you electrify Cross Country and thus don't a high speed, long distance
diesel fleet already at Plymouth to share. I can see the solution to this
being that Penzance loses its London trains and just become a long Cornish
branch line (not that I want that).
I did the sums on this (a bit back-of-envelope-ish-ly) on a post about
a month ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.railway/msg/65736eedbf81a699

If you electrify the obvious mainline bits, then there are enough high-
speed DMUs/DEMUs to cover not only the outlying services after HSTs
are retired, but to increase them above current levels *with through
trains to London running under the wires*. Including London-Penzance
via the B&H.

But who's going to want to travel Penzance to London in a poxy DMU?

tim
Tony Polson
2009-01-10 14:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
But who's going to want to travel Penzance to London in a poxy DMU?
And just think of all the apoplectic trainspotters who will be howling
with anguish on uk.railway because diesel trains are running under their
precious wires?
John B
2009-01-10 14:51:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Polson
Post by tim.....
But who's going to want to travel Penzance to London in a poxy DMU?
And just think of all the apoplectic trainspotters who will be howling
with anguish on uk.railway because diesel trains are running under their
precious wires?
Only from London to Reading; this is probably OK.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
tim.....
2009-01-10 17:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Polson
Post by tim.....
But who's going to want to travel Penzance to London in a poxy DMU?
And just think of all the apoplectic trainspotters who will be howling
with anguish on uk.railway because diesel trains are running under their
precious wires?
Only from London to Reading; this is probably OK.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not envisaging only London to Reading.

If you're not going to electrify Cross Country it might make sense to
terminate GWR electrification at Bristol.

But it Cross Country is done as well, it's a nonsense not to do
Bristol-Plymouth. And having decided to do that, it's got to be cost
effective to do the B&H, so it will be "under the wires" all the way to
Plymouth.

tim
Neil Williams
2009-01-10 14:24:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:27:59 -0000, "tim....."
Post by John B
If you electrify the obvious mainline bits, then there are enough high-
speed DMUs/DEMUs to cover not only the outlying services after HSTs
are retired, but to increase them above current levels *with through
trains to London running under the wires*. Including London-Penzance
via the B&H.
Or, alternatively, you build IEP as LHCS and bang a diesel on the
front at Plymouth/Edinburgh/whatever.

Or, you design whatever EMUs get built to work like that. It works
for the Pendolino - the problem with that was that it was designed for
occasional use. Design it for day-to-day use and make it more robust
and there's no reason it shouldn't work.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
John B
2009-01-10 14:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Williams
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:27:59 -0000, "tim....."
Post by John B
If you electrify the obvious mainline bits, then there are enough high-
speed DMUs/DEMUs to cover not only the outlying services after HSTs
are retired, but to increase them above current levels *with through
trains to London running under the wires*. Including London-Penzance
via the B&H.
No he didn't, I did!
Post by Neil Williams
Or, alternatively, you build IEP as LHCS and bang a diesel on the
front at Plymouth/Edinburgh/whatever.
You can, but why bother when we can use the 22x-es and the 180s for
another 30 years or so?
Post by Neil Williams
Or, you design whatever EMUs get built to work like that.  It works
for the Pendolino - the problem with that was that it was designed for
occasional use.  Design it for day-to-day use and make it more robust
and there's no reason it shouldn't work.
It could work - but the great thing is, if we get MML and GWML done,
it isn't /necessary/ to make it work. Which means IEP is a relatively
simple electric train project, which is good for both deliverability
and budget.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
John B
2009-01-10 14:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
Post by John B
If you electrify the obvious mainline bits, then there are enough high-
speed DMUs/DEMUs to cover not only the outlying services after HSTs
are retired, but to increase them above current levels *with through
trains to London running under the wires*. Including London-Penzance
via the B&H.
But who's going to want to travel Penzance to London in a poxy DMU?
The people who use SWT's 159s to go to Waterloo? ;-)

But by DMUs/DEMUs here, I'm talking 22x-es and 180s. If they're good
enough for Penzance-Aberdeen and Holyhead-London, they're good enough
for Penzance-London...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
EE507
2009-01-10 15:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by tim.....
Post by John B
If you electrify the obvious mainline bits, then there are enough high-
speed DMUs/DEMUs to cover not only the outlying services after HSTs
are retired, but to increase them above current levels *with through
trains to London running under the wires*. Including London-Penzance
via the B&H.
But who's going to want to travel Penzance to London in a poxy DMU?
The people who use SWT's 159s to go to Waterloo? ;-)
Well, I would consider SWT from Plymouth in the absence of cheap FGW
first class tickets, as I won't travel in tombstone class. It's a sad
state state of affairs when a 159 is preferable to most other types of
inter-city rolling stock.
Post by John B
But by DMUs/DEMUs here, I'm talking 22x-es and 180s. If they're good
enough for Penzance-Aberdeen and Holyhead-London, they're good enough
for Penzance-London...
They're not good enough for those routes. They're there, but they're
not good enough. Fortunately there are enough HST turns on the SW-NE
axis now to avoid the darn things.

Let's hope the good ol' solution of changing locos at the limit of
electrification is examined seriously. I have no problem with running
under the wires Reading-London.

I was wondering whether there are any suitable modern European locos
we could import, either new build or second hand. My assumption is
that everything is too big, so we would require slim jim custom
versions of TRAXX, Taurus loks, etc.
Roland Perry
2009-01-10 14:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
But who's going to want to travel Penzance to London in a poxy DMU?
The ones who travel equivalent distances in a Voyager?
--
Roland Perry
Peter Fox
2009-01-10 07:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Masson
Post by tim.....
For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up
with
Post by tim.....
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
GWML electrification can't really get going until after Crossrail, say 2017,
Nonsense. It could and will start soon.

Peter Fox
Jeremy Double
2009-01-10 13:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Fox
Post by Peter Masson
GWML electrification can't really get going until after Crossrail, say 2017,
Nonsense. It could and will start soon.
... and if the Chancellor is intending to stimulate the economy, then
investment in infrastructure is probably the best way of doing this,
considering the long-term benefits.

I think the current economic climate makes electrification (and other
infrastructure projects) more likely.
--
Jeremy Double <***@btinternet.com> {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/
Tony Polson
2009-01-10 13:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Fox
Post by Peter Masson
Post by tim.....
For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up
with
Post by tim.....
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
GWML electrification can't really get going until after Crossrail, say 2017,
Nonsense. It could and will start soon.
It won't start until at least 2014, the start of Network Rail's next
Control Period, because there is no budget for electrification in the
current Control Period.

So let's not get too excited, shall we?

(some hope)
tim.....
2009-01-10 16:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Polson
Post by Peter Fox
Post by Peter Masson
Post by tim.....
For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up
with
Post by tim.....
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
GWML electrification can't really get going until after Crossrail, say 2017,
Nonsense. It could and will start soon.
It won't start until at least 2014, the start of Network Rail's next
Control Period, because there is no budget for electrification in the
current Control Period.
But this is the whole point of the discussion

It should be funded out of the "emergency" works that are going to be
authorised to create jobs during the recession

tim
Tony Polson
2009-01-10 17:20:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
Post by Tony Polson
It won't start until at least 2014, the start of Network Rail's next
Control Period, because there is no budget for electrification in the
current Control Period.
But this is the whole point of the discussion
It should be funded out of the "emergency" works that are going to be
authorised to create jobs during the recession
Why? Because some OHLE-obsessed trainspotters say it should?

It definitely shouldn't start before 2014, because that is the point at
which security of electricity supply will be at its lowest. All the
warnings of blackouts by then are serious, and valid. Adding the demand
from one or two electrified main line railways (GWML and MML) at that
time would be madness.

2014 is also the point at which the CO2 emissions per kWh of electricity
generated will be around their highest, because near-zero carbon nuclear
stations are closing and will need to be replaced in the short term by
new capacity from new-build gas- or coal-fired stations.

Don't forget that one of the reasons given by the protagonists for rail
electrification is a reduction in CO2 emissions, so tapping into the
National Grid when CO2 production per kWh will be at its peak makes no
sense whatsoever. It makes sense to wait.

The first new near-zero carbon nuclear capacity probably won't come on
stream until 2019-20, and the amount of wind power coming on stream
won't replace more than a tiny fraction of the nuclear capacity that
will be lost to the Grid through closures of Magnox and AGR stations. So
starting electrification during the 2014-2019 period might even be a
little premature, unless it doesn't get switched on much before the end
of that period.

But you are probably thinking "Let's throw all those environmental
considerations to one side, and electrify anyway, because it will help
to keep a few trainspotters happy".

Priorities, eh?
Cod Roe
2009-01-10 19:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Polson
Don't forget that one of the reasons given by the protagonists for rail
electrification is a reduction in CO2 emissions, so tapping into the
National Grid when CO2 production per kWh will be at its peak makes no
sense whatsoever. It makes sense to wait.
In fact it is only the monetary value attached to the CO2 reduction
which would seem to be giving OHLE anything like a sensible cost benefit
ratio over diesels. That reduction is very sensitive to generating mix
as the RSSB admit in their study, they used:

"Gas 40%, Nuclear 19%, Coal 33%, Hydro 1%, Oil 1%, Imports 2.5% and
Others 3.5%"

With Nuclear falling as you point out, North Sea gas being of finite
supply and the Russian's swiftness to shut the valves I can see the use
of Coal growing at least in the short term, and with it the CO2 benefit
drops.

The report makes interesting reading, I'll include a few highlights that
are very pertinent to the discussions here:

"The costs estimated for the IEP study assume the same cost of a train
when comparing electric and diesel trains with the same number of cars.
Therefore the default value assumes that there is no differential
between the capital cost of diesel and electric trains."


"A maintenance cost of 38 pence per vehicle mile for electric trains and
43 pence per vehicle mile for diesel trains was assumed. These rates
were used for Inter-city, Regional Commuting and Local Commuting."

Now Virgin XC in 2005/6 did 18707820 miles according to
http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/gogreener/tandc.aspx giving a maintenance
saving of £935 391 across the whole Voyager fleet in a year, that isn't
even going to pay for a thunderbird fleet to tidy up when the wires go
down. Of course OHLE needs to be maintained, and the RSSB tell us that
"Electrification equipment maintenance 5068 £/km/year" (renewal costs
ignored), so our rolling stock saving lets us maintain 115 miles of
OHLE, which of course is far short of the 1550 route miles the XC
network extends over.


Then we have the energy savings, again the RSSB give some useful figure:

"For electric domestic intercity trains current good practice is not
more than 0.035 kWh/seat-km"

"Future good practice on diesel-powered passenger railways is that a
train should not have a fuel consumption greater than 0.8 litres/100
seat-km. This would represent a shift towards a more energy efficient
approach than recent practice. Many post privatisation diesel trains
exceed this figure by around 20% and a review of the design objectives
for diesel passenger trains is therefore needed."

It difficult to find what the railway pay for electricity (generation
and grid distribution costs), so I'll guesstimate at £0.06 per kWh
(large rapidly fluctuating single phase loads at peak times):

0.035 kWh/seat-km * £0.06 per kWh = 0.0021 £/seat-km

and diesel at £0.37 per litre (of which £0.0769 per litre is duty so the
treasury get that back) which is what is in the RSSB report:

0.8 litres/100 seat-km * £0.37 per litre = 0.00296 £/seat-km

Again from http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/gogreener/tandc.aspx the
Voyager fleet on XC and WC in 2005/6 used 99,000,000 litres of gas oil:

So the saving of using electric trains on XC would be around: 99,000,000
litres * £0.37 per litre - 0.0021/0.00296 * 99,000,000 litres * £0.37
per litre = £10.6 million.

The OHLE has to erected in the first place, and the RSSB give the
figure: "capital costs of electrifying an existing route range from
£550k to £650k per single track kilometre." Disruption compensation
payments need to be added to this. They have done a sensitivity
analysis on this, and come up with the most sensitive items being:

OLE average span length (distance between support structures)
Foundation, mast, single track cantilever (multiple)
Foundations (2 off), 4 track portal, 4 off single track cantilevers
(multiple)
Remove along track equipment including catenary, contact, droppers,
return conductor
Supply & Install along track equipment including catenary, contact,
droppers, return
conductor
Auto transformers
ESI grid connection @ Feeder stations for AT system including civil site
works
Contractor's Preliminaries
Over bridges
On-costs – both Client and Contractors

Lets take 600k per single track kilometre, and assume 1000 route miles
of double track out of the 1550 miles on XC need new OHLE, then that is
capital costs of 1.93BN, they charge me 3.8% interest on my student
loan, so I'll put interest on the capital at that, giving a first year
interest payment of 73.3million, dwarfing our 10.6million energy cost
saving.

This leads to the question of how does one get the cost-benefit ratios
trumpeted by Modern Railways? The answer all lies in how the "social
benefits" are quantified and monetised in the economic model. For XC
for example the environmental costs of the carbon emission are believed
to be worth £21,329,002, so I hope we are absolutely spot on with the
whole global warming issue. Interestingly for Nuclear, they don't
include decommissioning costs or the environmental impact of radioactive
waste, they just subtract the CO2 saving, which I believe is a
significant flaw in the analysis.

Apparently an electric XC would have an improvement in journey ambiance
worth £12,373,841, but then Passenger Focus tell us the Voyagers have
been a great success.

On the noise front they conclude "A typical modern electric train (a
Pendolino) is 3.1 dB quieter than a typical modern diesel train (a
Voyager), and in addition a Pendolino has a far greater capacity, so
requires fewer train movements to carry the same number of passengers.
However, noise modelling carried out for this study suggests that there
is not a significant difference in the noise impacts of diesel or
electric traction, in large part because relatively few residential
properties are sufficiently near to railway lines where trains are
accelerating from slow speeds to experience noise above a threshold level."

Also on XC they have put all the "Consumers user benefits: travel time
saving" as £0, which would seem to me to be an admission of electric
trains not having a performance advantage (which is unsurprising with a
390 and 220 having similar powers per vehicle), but in the GW analysis
they have put it down as £50,375,891.

So the arguments seems to be all in the social benefits, and quite
frankly I think many parts of their analysis are contradictory and
flawed as the few examples above detail.
Capt. Deltic
2009-01-11 18:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cod Roe
Post by Tony Polson
Don't forget that one of the reasons given by the protagonists for rail
electrification is a reduction in CO2 emissions, so tapping into the
National Grid when CO2 production per kWh will be at its peak makes no
sense whatsoever.  It makes sense to wait.
In fact it is only the monetary value attached to the CO2 reduction
which would seem to be giving OHLE anything like a sensible cost benefit
ratio over diesels.  That reduction is very sensitive to generating mix
"Gas 40%, Nuclear 19%, Coal 33%, Hydro 1%, Oil 1%, Imports 2.5% and
Others 3.5%"
With Nuclear falling as you point out, North Sea gas being of finite
supply and the Russian's swiftness to shut the valves I can see the use
of Coal growing at least in the short term, and with it the CO2 benefit
drops.
The report makes interesting reading, I'll include a few highlights that
"The costs estimated for the IEP study assume the same cost of a train
when comparing electric and diesel trains with the same number of cars.
Therefore the default value assumes that there is no differential
between the capital cost of diesel and electric trains."
"A maintenance cost of 38 pence per vehicle mile for electric trains and
43 pence per vehicle mile for diesel trains was assumed. These rates
were used for Inter-city, Regional Commuting and Local Commuting."
Now Virgin XC in 2005/6 did 18707820 miles according tohttp://www.virgintrains.co.uk/gogreener/tandc.aspxgiving a maintenance
saving of £935 391 across the whole Voyager fleet in a year, that isn't
even going to pay for a thunderbird fleet to tidy up when the wires go
down.  Of course OHLE needs to be maintained, and the RSSB tell us that
"Electrification equipment maintenance 5068 £/km/year" (renewal costs
ignored), so our rolling stock saving lets us maintain 115 miles of
OHLE, which of course is far short of the 1550 route miles the XC
network extends over.
"For electric domestic intercity trains current good practice is not
more than 0.035 kWh/seat-km"
"Future good practice on diesel-powered passenger railways is that a
train should not have a fuel consumption greater than 0.8 litres/100
seat-km. This would represent a shift towards a more energy efficient
approach than recent practice. Many post privatisation diesel trains
exceed this figure by around 20% and a review of the design objectives
for diesel passenger trains is therefore needed."
It difficult to find what the railway pay for electricity (generation
and grid distribution costs), so I'll guesstimate at £0.06 per kWh
0.035 kWh/seat-km * £0.06 per kWh = 0.0021 £/seat-km
and diesel at £0.37 per litre (of which £0.0769 per litre is duty so the
0.8 litres/100 seat-km * £0.37 per litre = 0.00296 £/seat-km
Again fromhttp://www.virgintrains.co.uk/gogreener/tandc.aspxthe
So the saving of using electric trains on XC would be around: 99,000,000
litres * £0.37 per litre - 0.0021/0.00296 * 99,000,000 litres * £0.37
per litre = £10.6 million.
The OHLE has to erected in the first place, and the RSSB give the
figure: "capital costs of electrifying an existing route range from
£550k to £650k per single track kilometre."  Disruption compensation
payments need to be added to this.  They have done a sensitivity
OLE average span length (distance between support structures)
Foundation, mast, single track cantilever (multiple)
Foundations (2 off), 4 track portal, 4 off single track cantilevers
(multiple)
Remove along track equipment including catenary, contact, droppers,
return conductor
Supply & Install along track equipment including catenary, contact,
droppers, return
conductor
Auto transformers
works
Contractor's Preliminaries
Over bridges
On-costs – both Client and Contractors
Lets take 600k per single track kilometre, and assume 1000 route miles
of double track out of the 1550 miles on XC need new OHLE, then that is
capital costs of 1.93BN, they charge me 3.8% interest on my student
loan, so I'll put interest on the capital at that, giving a first year
interest payment of 73.3million, dwarfing our 10.6million energy cost
saving.
This leads to the question of how does one get the cost-benefit ratios
trumpeted by Modern Railways?  The answer all lies in how the "social
benefits" are quantified and monetised in the economic model.  For XC
for example the environmental costs of the carbon emission are believed
to be worth £21,329,002, so I hope we are absolutely spot on with the
whole global warming issue.  Interestingly for Nuclear, they don't
include decommissioning costs or the environmental impact of radioactive
waste, they just subtract the CO2 saving, which I believe is a
significant flaw in the analysis.
Apparently an electric XC would have an improvement in journey ambiance
worth £12,373,841, but then Passenger Focus tell us the Voyagers have
been a great success.
On the noise front they conclude "A typical modern electric train (a
Pendolino) is 3.1 dB quieter than a typical modern diesel train (a
Voyager), and in addition a Pendolino has a far greater capacity, so
requires fewer train movements to carry the same number of passengers.
However, noise modelling carried out for this study suggests that there
is not a significant difference in the noise impacts of diesel or
electric traction, in large part because relatively few residential
properties are sufficiently near to railway lines where trains are
accelerating from slow speeds to experience noise above a threshold level."
Also on XC they have put all the "Consumers user benefits: travel time
saving" as £0, which would seem to me to be an admission of electric
trains not having a performance advantage (which is unsurprising with a
390 and 220 having similar powers per vehicle), but in the GW analysis
they have put it down as £50,375,891.
So the arguments seems to be all in the social benefits, and quite
frankly I think many parts of their analysis are contradictory and
flawed as the few examples above detail.
Er, the figures quoted in Modern Railways are business cases and do
not take social or carbon benfits into account.
tim.....
2009-01-11 19:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cod Roe
Post by Tony Polson
Don't forget that one of the reasons given by the protagonists for rail
electrification is a reduction in CO2 emissions, so tapping into the
National Grid when CO2 production per kWh will be at its peak makes no
sense whatsoever. It makes sense to wait.
In fact it is only the monetary value attached to the CO2 reduction
which would seem to be giving OHLE anything like a sensible cost benefit
ratio over diesels. That reduction is very sensitive to generating mix
"Gas 40%, Nuclear 19%, Coal 33%, Hydro 1%, Oil 1%, Imports 2.5% and
Others 3.5%"
With Nuclear falling as you point out, North Sea gas being of finite
supply and the Russian's swiftness to shut the valves I can see the use
of Coal growing at least in the short term, and with it the CO2 benefit
drops.
The report makes interesting reading, I'll include a few highlights that
"The costs estimated for the IEP study assume the same cost of a train
when comparing electric and diesel trains with the same number of cars.
Therefore the default value assumes that there is no differential
between the capital cost of diesel and electric trains."
"A maintenance cost of 38 pence per vehicle mile for electric trains and
43 pence per vehicle mile for diesel trains was assumed. These rates
were used for Inter-city, Regional Commuting and Local Commuting."
Now Virgin XC in 2005/6 did 18707820 miles according
tohttp://www.virgintrains.co.uk/gogreener/tandc.aspxgiving a maintenance
saving of £935 391 across the whole Voyager fleet in a year, that isn't
even going to pay for a thunderbird fleet to tidy up when the wires go
down. Of course OHLE needs to be maintained, and the RSSB tell us that
"Electrification equipment maintenance 5068 £/km/year" (renewal costs
ignored), so our rolling stock saving lets us maintain 115 miles of
OHLE, which of course is far short of the 1550 route miles the XC
network extends over.
"For electric domestic intercity trains current good practice is not
more than 0.035 kWh/seat-km"
"Future good practice on diesel-powered passenger railways is that a
train should not have a fuel consumption greater than 0.8 litres/100
seat-km. This would represent a shift towards a more energy efficient
approach than recent practice. Many post privatisation diesel trains
exceed this figure by around 20% and a review of the design objectives
for diesel passenger trains is therefore needed."
It difficult to find what the railway pay for electricity (generation
and grid distribution costs), so I'll guesstimate at £0.06 per kWh
0.035 kWh/seat-km * £0.06 per kWh = 0.0021 £/seat-km
and diesel at £0.37 per litre (of which £0.0769 per litre is duty so the
0.8 litres/100 seat-km * £0.37 per litre = 0.00296 £/seat-km
Again fromhttp://www.virgintrains.co.uk/gogreener/tandc.aspxthe
So the saving of using electric trains on XC would be around: 99,000,000
litres * £0.37 per litre - 0.0021/0.00296 * 99,000,000 litres * £0.37
per litre = £10.6 million.
The OHLE has to erected in the first place, and the RSSB give the
figure: "capital costs of electrifying an existing route range from
£550k to £650k per single track kilometre." Disruption compensation
payments need to be added to this. They have done a sensitivity
OLE average span length (distance between support structures)
Foundation, mast, single track cantilever (multiple)
Foundations (2 off), 4 track portal, 4 off single track cantilevers
(multiple)
Remove along track equipment including catenary, contact, droppers,
return conductor
Supply & Install along track equipment including catenary, contact,
droppers, return
conductor
Auto transformers
works
Contractor's Preliminaries
Over bridges
On-costs – both Client and Contractors
Lets take 600k per single track kilometre, and assume 1000 route miles
of double track out of the 1550 miles on XC need new OHLE, then that is
capital costs of 1.93BN, they charge me 3.8% interest on my student
loan, so I'll put interest on the capital at that, giving a first year
interest payment of 73.3million, dwarfing our 10.6million energy cost
saving.
This leads to the question of how does one get the cost-benefit ratios
trumpeted by Modern Railways? The answer all lies in how the "social
benefits" are quantified and monetised in the economic model. For XC
for example the environmental costs of the carbon emission are believed
to be worth £21,329,002, so I hope we are absolutely spot on with the
whole global warming issue. Interestingly for Nuclear, they don't
include decommissioning costs or the environmental impact of radioactive
waste, they just subtract the CO2 saving, which I believe is a
significant flaw in the analysis.
Apparently an electric XC would have an improvement in journey ambiance
worth £12,373,841, but then Passenger Focus tell us the Voyagers have
been a great success.
On the noise front they conclude "A typical modern electric train (a
Pendolino) is 3.1 dB quieter than a typical modern diesel train (a
Voyager), and in addition a Pendolino has a far greater capacity, so
requires fewer train movements to carry the same number of passengers.
However, noise modelling carried out for this study suggests that there
is not a significant difference in the noise impacts of diesel or
electric traction, in large part because relatively few residential
properties are sufficiently near to railway lines where trains are
accelerating from slow speeds to experience noise above a threshold level."
Also on XC they have put all the "Consumers user benefits: travel time
saving" as £0, which would seem to me to be an admission of electric
trains not having a performance advantage (which is unsurprising with a
390 and 220 having similar powers per vehicle), but in the GW analysis
they have put it down as £50,375,891.
So the arguments seems to be all in the social benefits, and quite
frankly I think many parts of their analysis are contradictory and
flawed as the few examples above detail.
Er, the figures quoted in Modern Railways are business cases and do
not take social or carbon benfits into account.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this is why I think it should be moved up the list for "emergency"
spending. It is a good use of capital expenditure on a pure cash accounting
basis. Building new roads (or whatever) is not.

I can understand HMG's line that they don't want to spend an extra 1 billion
in fiscal 2009-10 and 10-11 on optional items, but given that they are now
of the view that they should, IMHO this should be it.

tim
Tony Polson
2009-01-11 21:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
And this is why I think it should be moved up the list for "emergency"
spending. It is a good use of capital expenditure on a pure cash accounting
basis.
Good grief. This discussion has proved entirely the opposite!

And given that the very dubious claims made for CO2 reductions in the
Atkins report have been completely blown out of the water by a simple
analysis of sources of electricity generation over the next 10 years,
the whole idea should be put on the shelf and not dusted off until then.

Trust a trainspotter to draw a conclusion that is completely at variance
with the facts!
j***@googlemail.com
2009-01-11 22:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
And this is why I think it should be moved up the list for "emergency"
spending.  It is a good use of capital expenditure on a pure cash accounting
basis.
Good grief.  This discussion has proved entirely the opposite!  
And given that the very dubious claims made for CO2 reductions in the
Atkins report have been completely blown out of the water by a simple
analysis of sources of electricity generation over the next 10 years,
the whole idea should be put on the shelf and not dusted off until then.
Trust a trainspotter to draw a conclusion that is completely at variance
with the facts!
Polson, you are a trainspotter! Who else stands on platform ends
taking unremarkable pictures of class 319 units and then posts them on
the web. Since the number is included in the photograph title but not
legible in the picture I assume you wrote it down in your spotters
notebook?
tim.....
2009-01-12 00:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Polson
Post by tim.....
And this is why I think it should be moved up the list for "emergency"
spending. It is a good use of capital expenditure on a pure cash accounting
basis.
Good grief. This discussion has proved entirely the opposite!
And how has it done that?
Post by Tony Polson
And given that the very dubious claims made for CO2 reductions in the
Atkins report have been completely blown out of the water by a simple
analysis of sources of electricity generation over the next 10 years,
the whole idea should be put on the shelf and not dusted off until then.
And you'll have to explain this to me as well.

How can generating 6000W of power at a diesel powered generating station
(the worst possible way, I believe) for indirect use by an electric train,
be any different in its CO2 emissions, from generating 6000W of power direct
from a diesel generator in the loco?

I have made no claims that electric trains will reduce CO2 emissions and
having them do so is not part of my reason for supporting electrification
(which is entirely financial).
Post by Tony Polson
Trust a trainspotter to draw a conclusion that is completely at variance
with the facts!
Which facts are these?

The only fact that I have used in my analysis is that the TCO over a 35-40
year "life of the train" payback period, shows that the capital cost of
electrification, plus buying and operating electric trains, is less than the
cost of buying and operating diesel trains for certain usage profiles.
(Ergo: the justification for electrifying that part of the our railway that
has already be converted). The reason why HMG came up with the opposite
analysis is because they insisted that the payback period to be used should
be a 15 year TOC franchise.

I believe (BICBW) that the usage profile for GWR to Swanse and Plymouth
(both routes), MML to Sheffield via Derby and Nottingham and the infill
NE-SW Cross Country (plus TPX) fit the required usage profile (but again I
could be wrong about some of the extremities, and am happy to discuss that
objectively, without being insulted).

Of course, my analysis only works if you are at the point of having to buy
new diesel trains, which is why it is imperative that we discuss this now
(because we shortly will be at that point)!

tim
Cod Roe
2009-01-11 20:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Capt. Deltic
Er, the figures quoted in Modern Railways are business cases and do
not take social or carbon benfits into account.
In which case I suggest you read the RSSB report "Study on further
electrification of Britain 's railway network":

http://www.rssb.co.uk/pdf/reports/research/T633_rpt_final.pdf

The Great Western Mainline analysis starts in C4 so flick to page 123.
They put both Consumer and Business travel time savings as monetary
equivalent £50,351,086 and £105,096,685 respectively, but on page 159
they say:

"acceleration rates based on the technical specs for the Voyager were
used for IEP trains" in the Electrification Model column under Train
Performance.

Therefore, the time savings would also result from using 22x type diesel
traction, and this can be seen further by the fact they have attributed
£0 in this column against XC. Comparing a modern electric with the
current diesel has taken place (what a flawed study, but then Atkins has
a vested interest), rather than with modern diesel.

They have put Vehicle opcost, at £0 since they conclude no significant
maintenance benefit for electric traction.

In Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits:

Greenhouse gases (s): £64,118,681
Journey ambience (incl. rolling stock quality, station quality and
crowding) £105,019,726
Accidents (incl. safety) -£7,455,711
Consumer users (sub-total 1, Table 1) £50,375,891 (the time savings we
could also get from 22x type diesels)
Business users and providers (sub-total 5, Table 1) £105,310,132 (the
time savings we could also get from 22x type diesels)
Reliability (incl. performance & reliability) £5,525,068 (a reliability
saving smaller than the greater risk of accidents interestingly).

For this they finally give the cost-benefit ratio as 2.20, the value
which appeared in Modern Railways, and so does include
"social or carbon benefits". Check it for yourself in the report.
j***@googlemail.com
2009-01-11 23:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cod Roe
Post by Capt. Deltic
Er, the figures quoted in Modern Railways are business cases and do
not take social or carbon benfits into account.
In which case I suggest you read the RSSB report "Study on further
http://www.rssb.co.uk/pdf/reports/research/T633_rpt_final.pdf
The Great Western Mainline analysis starts in C4 so flick to page 123.
They put both Consumer and Business travel time savings as monetary
equivalent £50,351,086 and £105,096,685 respectively, but on page 159
"acceleration rates based on the technical specs for the Voyager were
used for IEP trains" in the Electrification Model column under Train
Performance.
Therefore, the time savings would also result from using 22x type diesel
traction, and this can be seen further by the fact they have attributed
£0 in this column against XC.  Comparing a modern electric with the
current diesel has taken place (what a flawed study, but then Atkins has
a vested interest), rather than with modern diesel.
They have put Vehicle opcost, at £0 since they conclude no significant
maintenance benefit for electric traction.
Greenhouse gases (s): £64,118,681
Journey ambience (incl. rolling stock quality, station quality and
crowding) £105,019,726
Accidents (incl. safety) -£7,455,711
Consumer users (sub-total 1, Table 1) £50,375,891 (the time savings we
could also get from 22x type diesels)
Business users and providers (sub-total 5, Table 1) £105,310,132 (the
time savings we could also get from 22x type diesels)
Reliability (incl. performance & reliability) £5,525,068 (a reliability
saving smaller than the greater risk of accidents interestingly).
For this they finally give the cost-benefit ratio as 2.20, the value
which appeared in Modern Railways, and so does include
"social or carbon benefits".  Check it for yourself in the report.
No maintenance benefit for electric traction? A modern diesel takes
more time to maintain and needs maintaining more often then even a
mature electric unit! How on earth can anyone conclude that a vehicle
with far more moving parts be anywhere near as efficient maintenance
wise? If one took for example a Voyager, which is a modern DEMU, in
very simple tems it is in effect an EMU, deriving it's power from a
heavy onboard diesel engine, so it requires the majority of the checks
applicable to the EMU PLUS The engine and fuel systems require daily
maintenance, the cooler groups require checking, and the depots
berthing these things need to store vast quantities of fuel, lube, and
coolant plus the ability to move such pollutants safely from their
storage areas to the unit. Reliability of electric traction is not
affected by carbon build up in the air systems which permeates through
the system from compressors driven by diesel traction. Oil, fuel and
coolant leaks which occur regularly due to pipes failing through
vibration, undetectable internal failure, or ballast flying up.
Electric units are far more predictable in their operation, suffer
fewer system failures (and there a fewer systems to fail) and can be
serviced far more quickly in simpler depots.
This impacts on the services provided by an operator, no matter how
large the depot or the number of staff put to servicing there are
tasks on DMUs that take hours to complete so only so many can be
serviced at any one time. EMUs require less downtime and more can be
serviced overnight. Meaning fewer cancelations and short formed sets.
Even if one was to re-engine the 22x series with the latest MAN or CAT
product, they still use diesel, lube and coolant, they still have many
more moving parts, and they will still have to be maintained in large,
expensive depots with more staff than a smaller depot would need to
maintain a larger emu fleet.
Cod Roe
2009-01-11 23:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@googlemail.com
No maintenance benefit for electric traction?
That isn't what the RSSB said, they said no significant saving from
maintenance.
Post by j***@googlemail.com
How on earth can anyone conclude that a vehicle
with far more moving parts be anywhere near as efficient maintenance
wise?
The RSSB have quantified it at £0.05 a mile, which seems pretty
reasonable to me, its just that even with the Virgin XC 18707820 miles
in 2005/6 that only amounts to £935 391, which as they rightly conclude
isn't significant.
tim.....
2009-01-12 00:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cod Roe
Post by j***@googlemail.com
No maintenance benefit for electric traction?
That isn't what the RSSB said, they said no significant saving from
maintenance.
Just because they said it, it doesn't mean that they are right (who are RSSB
anyway?)

tim
j***@googlemail.com
2009-01-12 01:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cod Roe
Post by j***@googlemail.com
No maintenance benefit for electric traction?
That isn't what the RSSB said, they said no significant saving from
maintenance.
Post by j***@googlemail.com
How on earth can anyone conclude that a vehicle
with far more moving parts be anywhere near as efficient maintenance
wise?
The RSSB have quantified it at £0.05 a mile, which seems pretty
reasonable to me, its just that even with the Virgin XC 18707820 miles
in 2005/6 that only amounts to £935 391, which as they rightly conclude
isn't significant.
and electric trains complete far more miles in any given period than
diesels, because they are not being stopped for fuel and exams
anywhere near as frequently. One only has to look at the mileage
figures across the fleets to see what averages units are achieving.
You read the reports you take your choice, simple fact is electric
trains are lighter, use energy more efficiently, do not cause
pollution at point of use, can be inspected and serviced within a
fraction of the time required for the diesel, and are massively more
reliable.
j***@googlemail.com
2009-01-12 02:48:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cod Roe
Post by j***@googlemail.com
No maintenance benefit for electric traction?
That isn't what the RSSB said, they said no significant saving from
maintenance.
Post by j***@googlemail.com
How on earth can anyone conclude that a vehicle
with far more moving parts be anywhere near as efficient maintenance
wise?
The RSSB have quantified it at £0.05 a mile, which seems pretty
reasonable to me, its just that even with the Virgin XC 18707820 miles
in 2005/6 that only amounts to £935 391, which as they rightly conclude
isn't significant.
Per unit, per vehicle? per seat mile?

Below taken from the same report, note the exam mileages.

Rolling Stock Operating Costs
Electric traction maintenance frequency is driven by pan head and
brake pad wear
with depot visits at A Exam, typically 15,000 miles/28 days whereas
diesel traction
maintenance is driven by fuelling – every other day (extra time /
transportation /
storage / environmental cost), service checks – fuel, lube oil,
coolant – 1 to 3 days
and brake pad wear – A exam. It should be noted however, that both
electric and
diesel passenger services both require toilet emptying and water
refilling on a two /
three day regime.
Electric traction has the potential for lower brake pad wear with the
use of
regenerative / rheostatic braking. This will reduce material cost/
service time and
potential for longer service intervals and, where regenerative braking
is used, traction
energy savings of 10 to 15% may be realised. Rheostatic braking can
also be used
on diesel trains with electric motors and in future hybrid trains are
likely to be
developed whereby regeneration can supply auxiliary loads or be used
to charge
energy storage devices (i.e. batteries).
In addition to train maintenance, the cost of operating electric
traction from the
operator's perspective lies primarily in the cost of train paths that
include for both
traction energy used and the additional cost of provision and
maintenance of the
supply infrastructure. The cost of traction energy supply is
currently calculated by
modelling for a particular train type and route and with an allowance
for regenerative
braking where implemented. However, there is a project, being led by
ATOC, looking
at fitting energy meters on trains which would enable the operator to
benefit from
energy saving driving techniques.
The cost of operating diesel traction from the operator’s perspective
lies primarily in
the cost of the fuel and in the use of train paths for trains/
locomotives to return to
maintenance depots for re-fuelling and coolant top ups.
Fuel is an additional load that non-electric trains have to carry.
The power to weight
ratio generally improves the performance of electric traction. This
has the potential to
improve operating performance and increase capacity. In addition, the
lighter electric
vehicles result in reduced track damage.
Compared to electric traction, the main additional cost drivers for
diesel from the
operator’s perspective are:
• Train paths for fuelling transit moves.
• Provision of fuel storage and fuelling equipment on depots.
• Arranging to keep fuel storage supplied (by road).
• Provision of staff to carry out fuelling.
• Planning staff and traction diagrams to allow for fuelling.
• Shore supplies.
• Monitoring fuel consumption to avoid trains running out of fuel,
etc.
Water coolant is always associated with any fuelling facility and
should also be
identified with diesel train operating costs.
The handling and management of diesel fuel carries the risk of
polluting the
environment. Punitive fines have been imposed on some operators where
fuel
spillages have occurred amounting to many thousands of pounds.

The RSSB has also published a more recent report in line with the UK's
commitment to the UIC Emissions Monitoring Programme. Trials have
shown that the use of fuel compliant with the new regulations means
engines will produce significantly lower power, increased fuel
consumption as well as costing approximately 2.7 to 5p more per litre.
Engines will require examinations and overhauls far more often. I work
at a depot servicing 12-14 HSTs and 14 two and three car DMU's every
day. Not the busiest diesel depot but still issuing over 500,000
litres every 20 days or so. It is a significant cost, even if the
fuel, as in our case comes by the trainload rather than road. Now put
those costs over the life of the train. It's significant.

Toilet flushing can be accomplished between turns at depots very
quickly. Every time a DMU visits a fuelling point it has to undergo an
exam, and that in itself takes longer than simply inspecting an EMU on
a "crap drop"
j***@googlemail.com
2009-01-12 22:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@googlemail.com
Post by Cod Roe
Post by j***@googlemail.com
No maintenance benefit for electric traction?
That isn't what the RSSB said, they said no significant saving from
maintenance.
Post by j***@googlemail.com
How on earth can anyone conclude that a vehicle
with far more moving parts be anywhere near as efficient maintenance
wise?
The RSSB have quantified it at £0.05 a mile, which seems pretty
reasonable to me, its just that even with the Virgin XC 18707820 miles
in 2005/6 that only amounts to £935 391, which as they rightly conclude
isn't significant.
Per unit, per vehicle? per seat mile?
Below taken from the same report, note the exam mileages.
Rolling Stock Operating Costs
Electric traction maintenance frequency is driven by pan head and
brake pad wear
with depot visits at A Exam, typically 15,000 miles/28 days whereas
diesel traction
maintenance is driven by fuelling – every other day (extra time /
transportation /
storage / environmental cost), service checks – fuel, lube oil,
coolant – 1 to 3 days
and brake pad wear – A exam.  It should be noted however, that both
electric and
diesel passenger services both require toilet emptying and water
refilling on a two /
three day regime.
Electric traction has the potential for lower brake pad wear with the
use of
regenerative / rheostatic braking.  This will reduce material cost/
service time and
potential for longer service intervals and, where regenerative braking
is used, traction
energy savings of 10 to 15% may be realised.  Rheostatic braking can
also be used
on diesel trains with electric motors and in future hybrid trains are
likely to be
developed whereby regeneration can supply auxiliary loads or be used
to charge
energy storage devices (i.e. batteries).
In addition to train maintenance, the cost of operating electric
traction from the
operator's perspective lies primarily in the cost of train paths that
include for both
traction energy used and the additional cost of provision and
maintenance of the
supply infrastructure.  The cost of traction energy supply is
currently calculated by
modelling for a particular train type and route and with an allowance
for regenerative
braking where implemented.  However, there is a project, being led by
ATOC, looking
at fitting energy meters on trains which would enable the operator to
benefit from
energy saving driving techniques.
The cost of operating diesel traction from the operator’s perspective
lies primarily in
the cost of the fuel and in the use of train paths for trains/
locomotives to return to
maintenance depots for re-fuelling and coolant top ups.
Fuel is an additional load that non-electric trains have to carry.
The power to weight
ratio generally improves the performance of electric traction.  This
has the potential to
improve operating performance and increase capacity.  In addition, the
lighter electric
vehicles result in reduced track damage.
Compared to electric traction, the main additional cost drivers for
diesel from the
• Train paths for fuelling transit moves.
• Provision of fuel storage and fuelling equipment on depots.
• Arranging to keep fuel storage supplied (by road).
• Provision of staff to carry out fuelling.
• Planning staff and traction diagrams to allow for fuelling.
• Shore supplies.
• Monitoring fuel consumption to avoid trains running out of fuel,
etc.
Water coolant is always associated with any fuelling facility and
should also be
identified with diesel train operating costs.
The handling and management of diesel fuel carries the risk of
polluting the
environment.  Punitive fines have been imposed on some operators where
fuel
spillages have occurred amounting to many thousands of pounds.
The RSSB has also published a more recent report in line with the UK's
commitment to the UIC Emissions Monitoring Programme. Trials have
shown that the use of fuel compliant with the new regulations means
engines will produce significantly lower power, increased fuel
consumption as well as costing approximately 2.7 to 5p more per litre.
Engines will require examinations and overhauls far more often. I work
at a depot servicing 12-14 HSTs and 14 two and three car DMU's every
day. Not the busiest diesel depot but still issuing over 500,000
litres every 20 days or so. It is a significant cost, even if the
fuel, as in our case comes by the trainload rather than road. Now put
those costs over the life of the train. It's significant.
Toilet flushing can be accomplished between turns at depots very
quickly. Every time a DMU visits a fuelling point it has to undergo an
exam, and that in itself takes longer than simply inspecting an EMU on
a "crap drop"
Right I've now read it in it's entirety, and it is worth noting codroe
has simply cherry picked parts of just one report which is meant to be
combined wth several others. In answer to my own question, the saving
in maintenance costs mentioned by Codroe is 5p per VEHICLE MILE. So on
a 10 vehicle train that is 50p per mile plus one needs to take into
account that electric trains achieve far higher mileages between
exams. Those pennies mount up. As stated in the report this 5p
differential applied whether the train was a Pendolino or an
Electrostar being compared to a diesel equivalent, presumably to keep
it fairly simple. In reality a 180 or a 22x type DMU would show a
greater difference given their appetite for fuel and oil. Now I
suspect the mileage figures he provided were an aggregation of 13
periods mileage supplied by the TOC. If it is, then those are most
likely unit, not vehicle mileages, as it is unit mileages TOCs supply
to ATOC. I will check the NFRIP mileages later, I would suggest that
those 5p pieces amount to a significant amount .

Paul Scott
2009-01-10 22:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
Post by Tony Polson
It won't start until at least 2014, the start of Network Rail's next
Control Period, because there is no budget for electrification in the
current Control Period.
But this is the whole point of the discussion
It should be funded out of the "emergency" works that are going to be
authorised to create jobs during the recession
Like the recently announced (pre budget statement) works for the NLL to help
create jobs etc, that won't start until after the Olympics?

Paul
Capt. Deltic
2009-01-11 18:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Masson
Post by tim.....
For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up
with
Post by tim.....
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
GWML electrification can't really get going until after Crossrail, say 2017,
though decisions need to be taken soon so that preparatory work at Reading
can take place as part of the Reading remodelling. So MML electrification
needs to be completed as that GWML follows on smoothly. The main
Cross-Country routes also need to be electrified - at least Bristol -
Leeds - York, Sheffield - Doncaster, and Birmingham/Coventry - Reading and
Basingstoke.
With this, and electric operation of Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh via
WCML, there should be enough 180 and 22x stock for the remaining
diesel-worked Inter City services - ECML north of Edinburgh, GW and XC west
of Bristol, and Chester/North Wales.
Can enough HSTs be kept working until around 2020, and can a business case
be made for this programme?
Peter
IC125s will run to 2020 with no problem - and beyond, if necessary,
subect to derogation from some disabled access regulations.
i***@aol.com
2009-01-11 18:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Capt. Deltic
Post by Peter Masson
Post by tim.....
For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up
with
Post by tim.....
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
GWML electrification can't really get going until after Crossrail, say 2017,
though decisions need to be taken soon so that preparatory work at Reading
can take place as part of the Reading remodelling. So MML electrification
needs to be completed as that GWML follows on smoothly. The main
Cross-Country routes also need to be electrified - at least Bristol -
Leeds - York, Sheffield - Doncaster, and Birmingham/Coventry - Reading and
Basingstoke.
With this, and electric operation of Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh via
WCML, there should be enough 180 and 22x stock for the remaining
diesel-worked Inter City services - ECML north of Edinburgh, GW and XC west
of Bristol, and Chester/North Wales.
Can enough HSTs be kept working until around 2020, and can a business case
be made for this programme?
Peter
IC125s will run to 2020 with no problem - and beyond, if necessary,
subect to derogation from some disabled access regulations.
So what the latest 'informed' rumour about the announcement date?
j***@googlemail.com
2009-01-11 22:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@aol.com
Post by Capt. Deltic
Post by Peter Masson
Post by tim.....
For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up
with
Post by tim.....
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
GWML electrification can't really get going until after Crossrail, say 2017,
though decisions need to be taken soon so that preparatory work at Reading
can take place as part of the Reading remodelling. So MML electrification
needs to be completed as that GWML follows on smoothly. The main
Cross-Country routes also need to be electrified - at least Bristol -
Leeds - York, Sheffield - Doncaster, and Birmingham/Coventry - Reading and
Basingstoke.
With this, and electric operation of Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh via
WCML, there should be enough 180 and 22x stock for the remaining
diesel-worked Inter City services - ECML north of Edinburgh, GW and XC west
of Bristol, and Chester/North Wales.
Can enough HSTs be kept working until around 2020, and can a business case
be made for this programme?
Peter
IC125s will run to 2020 with no problem - and beyond, if necessary,
subect to derogation from some disabled access regulations.
So what the latest 'informed' rumour about the announcement date?
I'm puzzled by this "one at a time" approach. I'm sure BR managed more
than one electrification project at a time. I seem to remember
Paddington, Cambridge to Kings Lynn, Leeds area and Cross City
projects overlapping each other timescale wise in the early 1990s. It
would actually be easier these days as many clearance problems are
dealt with whenever track renewal takes place. There are plenty of
construction workers and electrical engineers looking for work plus
associated industries working below capacity. January 19th is the
current announcement rumour.
tim.....
2009-01-12 00:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@aol.com
Post by Capt. Deltic
Post by Peter Masson
Post by tim.....
For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up
with
Post by tim.....
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
GWML electrification can't really get going until after Crossrail, say 2017,
though decisions need to be taken soon so that preparatory work at Reading
can take place as part of the Reading remodelling. So MML
electrification
needs to be completed as that GWML follows on smoothly. The main
Cross-Country routes also need to be electrified - at least Bristol -
Leeds - York, Sheffield - Doncaster, and Birmingham/Coventry - Reading and
Basingstoke.
With this, and electric operation of Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh via
WCML, there should be enough 180 and 22x stock for the remaining
diesel-worked Inter City services - ECML north of Edinburgh, GW and XC west
of Bristol, and Chester/North Wales.
Can enough HSTs be kept working until around 2020, and can a business case
be made for this programme?
Peter
IC125s will run to 2020 with no problem - and beyond, if necessary,
subect to derogation from some disabled access regulations.
So what the latest 'informed' rumour about the announcement date?
I'm puzzled by this "one at a time" approach. I'm sure BR managed more
than one electrification project at a time. I seem to remember
Paddington, Cambridge to Kings Lynn, Leeds area and Cross City
projects overlapping each other timescale wise in the early 1990s. It
would actually be easier these days as many clearance problems are
dealt with whenever track renewal takes place. There are plenty of
construction workers and electrical engineers looking for work plus
associated industries working below capacity. January 19th is the
current announcement rumour.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's the availability of signalling engineers that's the problem.
As you electrify a line you have to isolate the signalling (or whatever
precisely it is that you have to do) so you have to have a gang of
signalling engineers following along behind the grunts.

tim
j***@googlemail.com
2009-01-12 01:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@googlemail.com
Post by i***@aol.com
Post by Capt. Deltic
Post by Peter Masson
Post by tim.....
For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up
with
Post by tim.....
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
GWML electrification can't really get going until after Crossrail, say 2017,
though decisions need to be taken soon so that preparatory work at Reading
can take place as part of the Reading remodelling. So MML electrification
needs to be completed as that GWML follows on smoothly. The main
Cross-Country routes also need to be electrified - at least Bristol -
Leeds - York, Sheffield - Doncaster, and Birmingham/Coventry - Reading and
Basingstoke.
With this, and electric operation of Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh via
WCML, there should be enough 180 and 22x stock for the remaining
diesel-worked Inter City services - ECML north of Edinburgh, GW and XC west
of Bristol, and Chester/North Wales.
Can enough HSTs be kept working until around 2020, and can a business case
be made for this programme?
Peter
IC125s will run to 2020 with no problem - and beyond, if necessary,
subect to derogation from some disabled access regulations.
So what the latest 'informed' rumour about the announcement date?
I'm puzzled by this "one at a time" approach. I'm sure BR managed more
than one electrification project at a time. I seem to remember
Paddington, Cambridge to Kings Lynn, Leeds area and Cross City
projects overlapping each other timescale wise in the early 1990s. It
would actually be easier these days as many clearance problems are
dealt with whenever track renewal takes place. There are plenty of
construction workers and electrical engineers looking for work plus
associated industries working below capacity. January 19th is the
current announcement rumour.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
I think it's the availability of signalling engineers that's the problem.
As you electrify a line you have to isolate the signalling (or whatever
precisely it is that you have to do) so you have to have a gang of
signalling engineers following along behind the grunts.
tim
Immunisation from electrical interference is what you are referring to
I believe. This is not the problem it was in years gone by as modern
standards take electrification into account. I still believe that
supply of labour will not be a problem given the skills being added to
the unemployed at the moment.
j***@googlemail.com
2009-01-11 22:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Capt. Deltic
Post by Peter Masson
Post by tim.....
For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up
with
Post by tim.....
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
GWML electrification can't really get going until after Crossrail, say 2017,
though decisions need to be taken soon so that preparatory work at Reading
can take place as part of the Reading remodelling. So MML electrification
needs to be completed as that GWML follows on smoothly. The main
Cross-Country routes also need to be electrified - at least Bristol -
Leeds - York, Sheffield - Doncaster, and Birmingham/Coventry - Reading and
Basingstoke.
With this, and electric operation of Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh via
WCML, there should be enough 180 and 22x stock for the remaining
diesel-worked Inter City services - ECML north of Edinburgh, GW and XC west
of Bristol, and Chester/North Wales.
Can enough HSTs be kept working until around 2020, and can a business case
be made for this programme?
Peter
IC125s will run to 2020 with no problem - and beyond, if necessary,
subect to derogation from some disabled access regulations.
We've been told that they are expected to last until 2024, but not on
the routes they work at present. FGW even ran one to Portsmouth last
week, so a good train for use elsewhere when the wires go up. So much
more fuel efficient than those newer pretenders.
i***@batten.eu.org
2009-01-09 18:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
otherwise we end up with
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
Not necessarily. The ROSCOs had said very clearly that they were not
prepared to invest in 30-year lifespan diesel powered assets. And
that was when they still had money and could make the choice. Today
the ROSCOs will struggle to raise the finance to buy stock they want
to buy, never mind the stuff they don't want. There's no one
currently prepared to fund diesel IEP unless the government wants to
buy them directly. It's not impossible they might do that, but it's
not likely either.
Tony Polson
2009-01-09 19:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@batten.eu.org
Post by tim.....
otherwise we end up with
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
Not necessarily. The ROSCOs had said very clearly that they were not
prepared to invest in 30-year lifespan diesel powered assets. And
that was when they still had money and could make the choice. Today
the ROSCOs will struggle to raise the finance to buy stock they want
to buy, never mind the stuff they don't want. There's no one
currently prepared to fund diesel IEP unless the government wants to
buy them directly. It's not impossible they might do that, but it's
not likely either.
I completely disagree. If DfT Rail is prepared to guarantee the lease
payments, perhaps for a longer period than now, there will be no
shortage of leasing companies prepared to take on diesel IEPs.

It's a commercial, not an ideological decision. The key component is
the ongoing DfT Rail guarantee on the leasing charges.

If Hitachi are going to be announced as the preferred bidder for IEP,
which seems to have been widely suggested, they will also have a greater
choice of sources of finance than just the UK's ROSCOs.
i***@aol.com
2009-01-09 19:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
otherwise we end up with
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
Not necessarily.   The ROSCOs had said very clearly that they were not
prepared to invest in 30-year lifespan diesel powered assets.  And
that was when they still had money and could make the choice.  Today
the ROSCOs will struggle to raise the finance to buy stock they want
to buy, never mind the stuff they don't want.  There's no one
currently prepared to fund diesel IEP unless the government wants to
buy them directly.  It's not impossible they might do that, but it's
not likely either.
I completely disagree.  If DfT Rail is prepared to guarantee the lease
payments, perhaps for a longer period than now, there will be no
shortage of leasing companies prepared to take on diesel IEPs.  
It's a commercial, not an ideological decision.  The key component is
the ongoing DfT Rail guarantee on the leasing charges.
If Hitachi are going to be announced as the preferred bidder for IEP,
which seems to have been widely suggested, they will also have a greater
choice of sources of finance than just the UK's ROSCOs.
Diesel IEPs for GWML are now an unfunded option i.e. they're not going
to happen.

I expect an initial order for electric IEPs for ECML, WCML (South) and
Kings Lynn followed by further orders once GWML and MML
electrification are announced.
Tony Polson
2009-01-09 20:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@aol.com
Diesel IEPs for GWML are now an unfunded option i.e. they're not going
to happen.
I expect an initial order for electric IEPs for ECML, WCML (South) and
Kings Lynn followed by further orders once GWML and MML
electrification are announced.
Is this just your personal opinion, or is it based on some verifiable
information? If the latter, what?
i***@aol.com
2009-01-09 20:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Polson
Post by i***@aol.com
Diesel IEPs for GWML are now an unfunded option i.e. they're not going
to happen.
I expect an initial order for electric IEPs for ECML, WCML (South) and
Kings Lynn followed by further orders once GWML and MML
electrification are announced.
Is this just your personal opinion, or is it based on some verifiable
information?  If the latter, what?
Both - try Railtalk and Informed Sources in January's Modern Railways.

The diesel IEP isn't going to happen!
Tony Polson
2009-01-09 21:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@aol.com
Post by Tony Polson
Is this just your personal opinion, or is it based on some verifiable
information?  If the latter, what?
Both - try Railtalk and Informed Sources in January's Modern Railways.
Ah, yes, Roger Ford thinking that
Post by i***@aol.com
The diesel IEP isn't going to happen!
Ah, yes, Roger Ford thinking that if he says it often enough, it really
isn't going to happen.

So it's just your biased personal opinion, backed up by someone else's
biased personal opinion - best ignored in favour of waiting for facts.
i***@aol.com
2009-01-10 12:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Polson
Post by i***@aol.com
Post by Tony Polson
Is this just your personal opinion, or is it based on some verifiable
information?  If the latter, what?
Both - try Railtalk and Informed Sources in January's Modern Railways.
Ah, yes, Roger Ford thinking that
Post by i***@aol.com
The diesel IEP isn't going to happen!
Ah, yes, Roger Ford thinking that if he says it often enough, it really
isn't going to happen.
So it's just your biased personal opinion, backed up by someone else's
biased personal opinion - best ignored in favour of waiting for facts.
Roger Ford has much better contacts in the Rail Industry and
Government than you or me. His views, together with recent Government
statements on electrification and electric trains strongly suggest
that GWML will be electrified from around 2015 onwards. Since the
diesel IEP was to be delivered for GWML on the same timescale, it
doesn't take much to work out that the Government is going to finance
an electrification programme rather than spend billions on 39 new 10
coach diesel IEPs. What happens to the 41 5 coach 'bi-mode' IEPs for
GWML in the original plan is anyone's guess..
Tony Polson
2009-01-10 14:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@aol.com
Roger Ford has much better contacts in the Rail Industry and
Government than you or me.
He also has an agenda that I definitely don't have.

I can't speak for you.
j***@googlemail.com
2009-01-10 22:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@aol.com
Post by Tony Polson
Post by i***@aol.com
Post by Tony Polson
Is this just your personal opinion, or is it based on some verifiable
information?  If the latter, what?
Both - try Railtalk and Informed Sources in January's Modern Railways.
Ah, yes, Roger Ford thinking that
Post by i***@aol.com
The diesel IEP isn't going to happen!
Ah, yes, Roger Ford thinking that if he says it often enough, it really
isn't going to happen.
So it's just your biased personal opinion, backed up by someone else's
biased personal opinion - best ignored in favour of waiting for facts.
Roger Ford has much better contacts in the Rail Industry and
Government than you or me. His views, together with recent Government
statements on electrification and electric trains strongly suggest
that GWML will be electrified from around 2015 onwards. Since the
diesel IEP was to be delivered for GWML on the same timescale, it
doesn't take much to work out that the Government is going to finance
an electrification programme rather than spend billions on 39 new 10
coach diesel IEPs. What happens to the 41  5 coach 'bi-mode' IEPs for
GWML in the original plan is anyone's guess..
...and the doubters figure per km of plain track electrification
quoted were based not only on electrification but new signalling also!
Network Rail using newer and higher quality materials than previously
employed in the UK, are quoting £220,000 to electrify per passenger km
where existing signalling is immunised and not replaced. as the PM
stated the funding for the infrastructure improvements, which MAY
include one or more main line electrification projects are to come
from reserves and therefore not reliant on control periods laid down
during more benign economic times. Under the previous management the
DFT briefed that electrification was only possible with new
signalling. Thereby pushing the price up and thereby an excuse to do
nothing, especially when the argument is embellished with an
artificially low oil price.
Shortage of labour? What is involved in electrification? Steel masts.
There are thousands of steel erectors looking for work in the UK,
steel plants running below capacity along with groundworkers, cement
companies and civil engineering concerns looking for projects such as
increasing the height of the odd low bridge. Stringing the wires on
the high output trains can be done quickly and actually does not
require huge numbers of skilled people. The sub stations etc, again
smallish teams of highly skilled people. Training such staff for PTS
etc. does not take more than a couple of weeks. The other skills they
have already.
John Maynard Keynes is in the driving seat now.
Capt. Deltic
2009-01-11 18:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
otherwise we end up with
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
Not necessarily.   The ROSCOs had said very clearly that they were not
prepared to invest in 30-year lifespan diesel powered assets.  And
that was when they still had money and could make the choice.  Today
the ROSCOs will struggle to raise the finance to buy stock they want
to buy, never mind the stuff they don't want.  There's no one
currently prepared to fund diesel IEP unless the government wants to
buy them directly.  It's not impossible they might do that, but it's
not likely either.
I completely disagree.  If DfT Rail is prepared to guarantee the lease
payments, perhaps for a longer period than now, there will be no
shortage of leasing companies prepared to take on diesel IEPs.  
It's a commercial, not an ideological decision.  The key component is
the ongoing DfT Rail guarantee on the leasing charges.
If Hitachi are going to be announced as the preferred bidder for IEP,
which seems to have been widely suggested, they will also have a greater
choice of sources of finance than just the UK's ROSCOs.
But Tony, the IEP was originally a 30 year PFI deal until the Treasury
pointed out that this would put the funding on its books.

I'm sure I read that in some monthly magazine :-)
tim.....
2009-01-10 00:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
otherwise we end up with
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
Not necessarily.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand your comment here (relative to the bit of mine that
you've left).

If HSTs aren't replaced with High powered diesel locos plus rake of
carriages (plus DVT), what are they going to be replaced with?

If we don't electrify before HSTs need replacing, the only alternative is
High Speed EMU and they will have even less alternative uses.

tim
Paul Scott
2009-01-10 22:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@batten.eu.org
Post by tim.....
otherwise we end up with
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
Not necessarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand your comment here (relative to the bit of mine that
you've left).
If HSTs aren't replaced with High powered diesel locos plus rake of
carriages (plus DVT), what are they going to be replaced with?
The IEP literature (DfT website) suggests the diesel IEP has end vehicles
with generators, but distributed electric motors throughout the train. So
that ultimately the diesel power can be binned and a conventional driving
car used instead.

IIRC Roger Ford referred to it as a 'power house' - and criticised the fact
that as specced it couldn't move under its own power...

Paul
Roy Badami
2009-01-09 22:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up with
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
The HSTs might be old but I'm puzzled by how their life is going to
expire... Most of the fleet has nearly new engines these days, and
interiors can easily be refurbished where they haven't been already.

Which other parts are expected to expire any time soon, that can't
economically be repaired or replaced?

(Or, to paraphrase - what is the IEP *for*? Aren't the HSTs and IC225s
still the best trains in the fleet? :-)

-roy
Peter Masson
2009-01-09 22:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Badami
The HSTs might be old but I'm puzzled by how their life is going to
expire... Most of the fleet has nearly new engines these days, and
interiors can easily be refurbished where they haven't been already.
Which other parts are expected to expire any time soon, that can't
economically be repaired or replaced?
Slam doors, and toilets that discharge on the track, are already well past
their use by date. Inter City trains should have sealed gangways and
passenger information systems. Because of their other advantages retention
for a few more years is tolerable, but retrofitting all the above items is
not cost-effective, especially if they can be replaced with electric trains.
Isn't there a deadline by which existing stock will be required to comply
with Rail vehicle Access Regulations?

Peter
Tony Polson
2009-01-09 23:15:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Badami
Post by tim.....
For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up with
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
The HSTs might be old but I'm puzzled by how their life is going to
expire... Most of the fleet has nearly new engines these days, and
interiors can easily be refurbished where they haven't been already.
Which other parts are expected to expire any time soon, that can't
economically be repaired or replaced?
Body corrosion is the main problem at the moment. Fatigue will
increasingly become a problem.
Jeremy Double
2009-01-10 13:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Tony Polson wrote:
[Re: limits on HST life]
Post by Tony Polson
Body corrosion is the main problem at the moment. Fatigue will
increasingly become a problem.
I agree that the main determinant of HST life is likely to be economic
repair of corrosion damage.

However, metal fatigue may or may not become a problem: it depends
whether the components are stressed above the fatigue limit of steel.

Aluminium alloys don't have a fatigue limit (i.e. a stress level below
which metal fatigue will not occur), so aircraft and aluminium alloy
vehicles will eventually fail due to fatigue. That's why aircraft have
a specified maximum service life.

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_Limit )

OTOH, HSTs are of steel construction, so, depending on how they were
designed, fatigue might not be a problem.
--
Jeremy Double <***@btinternet.com> {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/
Roland Perry
2009-01-10 12:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up with
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
Diesels under the wires might (according to some) be sub-optimal, but
they aren't "useless". For example the HSTs south of Bedford, today.
--
Roland Perry
tim.....
2009-01-10 13:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
For there to be the most cost benefit, we really need to electrify MML and
GWR to coincide with IC125s becoming life expired, otherwise we end up with
a fleet of new diesel locos which are useless for any other service.
Diesels under the wires might (according to some) be sub-optimal, but they
aren't "useless". For example the HSTs south of Bedford, today.
The problem is the quantity that you have.

If we have enough sets to run the complete MML and GRW network (however many
that will be) what services are there left that will need a high speed, high
powered diesel loco after the core of those routes are electrified?

You might find enough work for 5 sets but not for 30.

And if we run them under the wires for our core routes, it buggers up the
CBA for electrification.

tim
Tony Polson
2009-01-09 17:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Wilson
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17955
Only 456 signatures. Quite disappointing.
Joyce Whitchurch
2009-01-09 23:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Polson
Post by Rob Wilson
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17955
Only 456 signatures. Quite disappointing.
In fairness, most supporters of electrification probably signed up to
Captain Deltic's petition in 2007, which ended up with 3,713 signatures
(see <http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page12872>).
--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================
Definitely old enough to remember
the 1981 joint DoT/BR 'Review of
main line electrification'.
Loading...