• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Treasury Blocking electrification plans

Status
Not open for further replies.

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,259
They were very much managed down to a price though. The ECML wasn't electrified from Leeds to York, the wires between Newcastle and Edinburgh aren't very good in windy conditions. Other lines could have been electrified in BR days and weren't, almost certainly because the costs weren't affordable.
I doubt Leeds to York was ever really considered part of the ECML, especially at the time it was being wired.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
I doubt Leeds to York was ever really considered part of the ECML, especially at the time it was being wired.
Then as now it wasn't really a part of any ECML service groups. Some places could have been though, such as Newcastle - Metrocetre. If that had been a part of the original intention along with Heaton Depot and various other small bits and pieces, a tiny fleet of EMUs could have been procured to run Morpeth - Darlington / Metrocetre. Alas it wasn't so done, and now we're stuck with nonsense.

Then that scope creep should be costed and funded separately. Tweaking signalling to make it work with electrification is an electrification cost. Wholesale resignalling certainly isnt.
But choosing to fund them together comes with significant economies overall.
 
Last edited:

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,644
Location
West is best
Tweaking signalling to make it work with electrification is an electrification cost. Wholesale resignalling certainly isnt.
Depending on the existing signalling system design, it may not be practical or cost effective to modify it to make it compatible with electrification.

For example, on the GWML a lot of the existing signalling was never designed to be compatible with electrification, because when it was installed in the 1970s, BR had no money for electrification of this route and there was no likelihood of funding for electrification to be forthcoming in the near or medium term.

When the government did announce the GWML electrification programme, Network Rail engineering staff had to consider how to sort out the problem of the existing signalling being totally incompatible with electrification. One reason that they decided to renew most of the signalling was because the existing signalling was considered either to be life expired, or near the end of its design life. Also the enormous cost of trying to extensively modify the existing signalling was a consideration. It was considered to be better to renew most of the signalling instead.

Even with the knowledge of the electrification scheme, the positions of some new and existing signal structures were found to be outside the acceptable limits once the OHL wires had been erected. Hence more money was needed to replace these signal structures and the signal heads and other equipment on them.

Only if the existing signalling was designed originally to be compatible with electrification is it ‘easy’ to ‘tweak’ it.
 
Joined
7 Feb 2008
Messages
285
Rishi; although 'not struggling' himself, the man knows what it's like. Hmm. He's married to a woman wealthier than the Queen.
He's low tax too, and tells us so minutes after announcing the largest tax rise in 70 years.

He's 'right behind' the effort to move to Net Zero too yet cuts the only sensible plan for Railways to address it.

Are we being conned?
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,644
Location
West is best
Rishi; although 'not struggling' himself, the man knows what it's like. Hmm. He's married to a woman wealthier than the Queen.
He's low tax too, and tells us so minutes after announcing the largest tax rise in 70 years.

He's 'right behind' the effort to move to Net Zero too yet cuts the only sensible plan for Railways to address it.

Are we being conned?
Yes. Typical spin from certain conservative politicians.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,835
I expect its hidden somewhere on the various threads already, but to play devils advocate if you were the treasury and were comparing the carbon produced via the railway vs other modes or power generation or any number of carbon producers, would it be high up your list? If you got a percentage out of cars and onto trains there is still a carbon reduction for example. We need to electrify more, but as an outsider would you look at it the same way?
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
Rishi; although 'not struggling' himself, the man knows what it's like. Hmm. He's married to a woman wealthier than the Queen.
He's low tax too, and tells us so minutes after announcing the largest tax rise in 70 years.

He's 'right behind' the effort to move to Net Zero too yet cuts the only sensible plan for Railways to address it.

Are we being conned?

The operative part is NET zero - in other words, not all modes of transport need to be zero, because if more zero emission electricity is being produced and sold elsewhere, then there's the 'Net'.

Too many people are overlooking the aim is 'net' zero not 'absolute' zero.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
The operative part is NET zero - in other words, not all modes of transport need to be zero, because if more zero emission electricity is being produced and sold elsewhere, then there's the 'Net'.

Too many people are overlooking the aim is 'net' zero not 'absolute' zero.

It's not good enough if the argument then moves to "the railways are less carbon efficient then other modes, why are we keeping them open"

It's a cut-throat environment and the railway needs to compete on environmental benefit.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,047
It's not good enough if the argument then moves to "the railways are less carbon efficient then other modes, why are we keeping them open"

It's a cut-throat environment and the railway needs to compete on environmental benefit.
I believe that the railway should be electrified. However it is beyond rich that someone demanding ridiculous levels of operating subsidies to keep open non-viable by every meaningful measure routes then demands massive capital expenditure too...
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
It's not good enough if the argument then moves to "the railways are less carbon efficient then other modes, why are we keeping them open"

It's a cut-throat environment and the railway needs to compete on environmental benefit.

And if you think anything more than penny numbers of people choose to travel by train because of its environmental credentials, then you are deluded.

Only 100,000 people in a country of 70 million buy the Guardian - that's the kind of person who chooses to travel by train because it's green.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I believe that the railway should be electrified. However it is beyond rich that someone demanding ridiculous levels of operating subsidies to keep open non-viable by every meaningful measure routes then demands massive capital expenditure too...

I'm not demanding ridiculous levels of subsidy at all. Infact the type of ratios of public support for rail I'm demanding are similar to many other western nations. It only seems to be loony free-market anglo-saxon types that expect a passenger railway to pay for itself through the fare box.

What I do demand though is that the industry, government and regulators work together to control the cost of electrification (such as not banning third rail extensions/infill)

And if you think anything more than penny numbers of people choose to travel by train because of its environmental credentials, then you are deluded.

Only 100,000 people in a country of 70 million buy the Guardian - that's the kind of person who chooses to travel by train because it's green.

But that wouldn't stop the anti-rail hawks jumping on the bandwagon and using lack of carbon savings as an excuse to cut rail.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
I believe that the railway should be electrified. However it is beyond rich that someone demanding ridiculous levels of operating subsidies to keep open non-viable by every meaningful measure routes then demands massive capital expenditure too...
Electrification of lightly use lines is largely a peripheral issue. The problem is that the Treasury's attitude will keep main lines, busy regional routes and commuter networks unelectrified.

Even the schemes which are going ahead - Transpennine and MML - we're still looking at bare minimum electrification schemes with no strategic thought put in to extending them to gain much greater benefit - e.g. Birmingham-Derby, Sheffield-Leeds.

We need to move away from a 'big project' philosophy to a much more efficient production-minded approach. This article talk about the differences between "project engineering" and "production engineering":

Saving the planet: The Engineer’s challenge - Issuu

The production engineer focuses on simplified and repeatable installation; they abhor variation and one off ‘specials’. The project engineer focuses on honouring the bespoke client specification.

The production engineer is focussed on minimising non-productive financial overhead and worries less about timescales. The project engineer’s number one priority is milestones as the high level of financial overhead quickly blows the budget when time slippage occurs. The production engineer embraces mistakes as it informs process improvement and drives tomorrow’s efficiencies through proven tools such as Six Sigma and Kanban. The project engineer adds process to avoid mistakes as there is generally only one ‘bite of the cherry’. The lessons of any mistakes are lost between projects and often repeated next time.

The production engineer clears the factory of other products and focuses solely on the product, knowing that it will ‘sell’ if it is functional with a low unit cost. The project engineer seeks to get the stakeholders and end-user to design the one-off undertaking. They are forced to accept and include peripheral renewals and upgrades as it is a one-off opportunity for all. The production engineer starts with a low volume high-cost unit but then sees volume increase and unit cost decrease rapidly. The project engineer starts with a budget and a contingency sum and then justifies a re-authority and uplift of the original budget.

The problem we have is that the Treasury's approach to electrification of approving bespoke projects one at a time will exacerbate the cost problem.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,671
Location
Leeds
The operative part is NET zero - in other words, not all modes of transport need to be zero, because if more zero emission electricity is being produced and sold elsewhere, then there's the 'Net'.

Too many people are overlooking the aim is 'net' zero not 'absolute' zero.
Yes but there's always the fear that offsetting schemes are likely to be more or less scams. The demand for offsetting from businesses and governments wanting to portray themselves as green is likely to exceed the world's capacity for genuine offsetting.
 
Last edited:

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
So we make commitments at COP26 then head in a potentially different direction?
I'm not sure exactly what commitments we made at COP26 but either they didn't say anything meaningful on transport or we are not implementing them, because we are still heading in the same direction as we were prior to COP26. That direction being AWAY from a zero-carbon transport system.

Doesn't surprise me. It's sad really but let's be honest, what the UK does won't really have any effect globally.

I would like to see hybrid battery diesel (with adblue systems and maybe running biofuels) ordered to replace the 150/3/6 fleets (with AC options where necessary) as there will be a lot of more rural lines where full electrification won't reach.
Assuming the rest of the word went net-zero and the UK carried on as currently, would the UK's emissions be within the safe limit for the world as a whole? I wouldn't be surprised either way.

Have you studied the map in the TDNS? Because, if anything approaching that were to be implemented, an AC (or 3rd rail) mode would be necessary virtually everywhere (and there are more than enough 195s and 196s already to cover the few areas where it's not). My view is that a large fleet of bi-mode units should be ordered to replace classes 155-159 with deliveries spread over 2024-2030 with all units having AC OHLE capability and some also having 3rd rail for Cardiff-Portsmouth and Waterloo-Exeter (potential for pantographs to be left off a subfleet for that route). Away from electrified routes, these could be hybrid battery diesel, hydrogen or just plain battery depending on the route, but given where we are with the TDNS the hybrid battery diesel option is probably going to be the most widely suitable. Class 150s (other than the TfW ones being replaced by the new Metro units) in my view should be dealt with through cascades of 195s/196s/197s driven largely by TPE electrification (included in the IRP) releasing 185s.

they need to get on with authorising either conversions or retrofits as the technology is well proven.
Agreed, diesel-battery-hybrids appear to be a lower-carbon option than hydrogen at present and converting existing units makes a lot more sense to me than building a new fleet that doesn't have at least passive provision for a pantograph.

My suspicion is that it could have been the implied attitude of 'we need the money, everything needs to be electrified, if you don't give us the money we'll accuse you of not caring about the planet' that p***ed off the treasury. A more nuanced plan might have fared better. And the S&C was just one standout example, there were an awful lot of lines with similar issues, or with other potential solutions. I wouldn't be surprised if it was possible to reduce the required new wires by around a third and still fully decarbonise (very rough guess, I'm sure I'll be proved wrong!)
I'm not sure it is possible to 'fully decarbonise' anything - net-zero is a different story and if you can find enough land to leave to forest for carbon sequestration then you could potentially do it with the current pitiful extent of electrification. Problem is you are competing with many other emitters for that forest. I've not read the thing cover-to-cover, but from the bit of the TDNS I'm looking at right now, even with routes such as the S&C wired up, they would still need some diesel locos for freight work with a further 2,100 STK of electrification (costing an additional £3bn-£4bn) required to eliminate that. So, although ambitious, the TDNS isn't quite 'everything needs to be electrified'.

The problem with hydrogen is that electricity is needed to ‘make’ it. As converting electricity to hydrogen and then back to electricity is less efficient than distributing and directly using electricity, that means we need even more electrical generation. You also have to transport and distribute the hydrogen.
There are other ways to make hydrogen, I think one is called something like 'steam methane reforming', but they have an even bigger greenhouse gas footprint. Electrification is still the most-efficient way to run a railway other than a few of the most lightly-used branches.

Arguably the principal fault here lies with Sunak. He is a dangerous fiscal hawk with zero regard to climate change funding.
Why single out Sunak? Much of the government (not just the current one, but for decades) seem to have a dangerous disregard for decarbonisation.

Some people would say that it's reasonable for a Government to question why electrification costs are so high (especially when battery technology means that we could have trains using the electricity through Manchester meaning no pollution in the city centre)

Not @yorksrob though, he's found a conspiracy, where the Government is run by Beeching throwbacks - it couldn't just be because the railway industry has made even modest schemes unaffordable as far as politicians are concerned - no - the blame must lie with the Government...
Aye, it's reasonable to question why costs are so high, with a view to reducing them on future schemes. But to suggest that £30bn over the best part of 30 years is unaffordable when not long ago the Government were boasting (and will probably do so again with another re-announcement at some point) of spending £30bn on the motorway and trunk road network over just five years is nonsense. Yes it would be nice if it was cheaper, but if the Government was serious about decarbonisation they could raise enough money through cutting schemes that damage the climate to pay for it.

Kiss goodbye to a lot of branch lines then (where it'd be better for the environment if every passenger went in a taxi than a DMU chugging along at a couple of miles to the gallon)

Is that what you want?

Because that's what'll happen...
Not sure about taxis but, if we could replace certain lightly-used branches with regular bus services 19 hours a day, 7 days per week AND get people to use said buses rather than switch to private cars then maybe closing the odd branch wouldn't be a bad idea.

I expect its hidden somewhere on the various threads already, but to play devils advocate if you were the treasury and were comparing the carbon produced via the railway vs other modes or power generation or any number of carbon producers, would it be high up your list? If you got a percentage out of cars and onto trains there is still a carbon reduction for example. We need to electrify more, but as an outsider would you look at it the same way?
Modal shift from diesel cars to diesel trains and buses would certainly be a carbon reduction; it might be interesting to compare that with a change from diesel train to electric train. This could, potentially, be valid reason for not electrifying the railways (if you can achieve the necessary reduction in GHG emissions at lower cost through modal shift to diesel trains) but that isn't the suituation at the moment. We're not seeing the Treasury saying "we won't electrify the railways because it's cheaper to get everyone to switch from cars to buses and we'll save at least as much carbon that way", instead getting people out of cars is largely ignored, in fact getting more people into cars is still being encouraged with £30bn on road investments!

Yes but there's always the fear that offsetting schemes are likely to be more or less scams. The demand for offsetting from businesses and governments wanting to portray themselves as green is likely to exceed the world's capacity for genuine offsetting.
An important point that: there is a finite amount of offseting that can be done. It would be interesting to know what the world's capacity for genuine offsetting is - ie. what is the maximum CO2e that can be emmitted each year globably for the world to be 'net-zero'?
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,644
Location
West is best
The problem we have is that the Treasury's approach to electrification of approving bespoke projects one at a time will exacerbate the cost problem.
And this also applies to lots of other projects (especially the expensive ones) within the U.K. railway system. Including resignalling schemes and junction renewals.

Each chunk is done as a separate project. Often with gaps in between. The start - stop nature, including the temporary works required an the end of one stage, but before the next stage eat up money and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

And in between, workers move to another project somewhere else, either elsewhere in the U.K. or to another country.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
I'm not demanding ridiculous levels of subsidy at all. Infact the type of ratios of public support for rail I'm demanding are similar to many other western nations. It only seems to be loony free-market anglo-saxon types that expect a passenger railway to pay for itself through the fare box.

What I do demand though is that the industry, government and regulators work together to control the cost of electrification (such as not banning third rail extensions/infill)

Right - so you want a higher level of subsidy and you want costs reduced.

How would *you* propose such costs are reduced ? Let's take electrification as an example, there are going to be the following costs:

- Surveys to ensure the line is suitable for electrification. Not sure how you'd reduce the costs of a survey, unless you simply don't do such a thorough one or use a less experienced person to survey it which would be lower cost and lower quality.

- Connection to the National Grid. I guess that National Grid has a standard set of costs for such connections - why should the railways not pay the market rate for such a connection?

- Materials for electrification, so substations, cabling, con-rail etc. Presumably all such materials are subject to a tender process to ensure value ? So how do you reduce costs there ? No different to a personal purchase - if you want a 50" Sony TV this Christmas a brand new one is going to cost you around £ 750. If you want it 20% cheaper, you're going to be out of luck, because the price of the item from the supplier is more than that. So you have a choice of buying a different set or buying second hand / refurbed. And you accept you won't be getting a brand new set. That's the same on the procurement of the materials.

- Labour to install, test and commission - well each person is paid 'x' amount, so you can either (i) pay them less or (ii) make them work harder.

So come on then - what would *you* do if it's so simple ?

But that wouldn't stop the anti-rail hawks jumping on the bandwagon and using lack of carbon savings as an excuse to cut rail.

Paranoid tinfoil hat nonsense of the highest order.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Right - so you want a higher level of subsidy and you want costs reduced.

How would *you* propose such costs are reduced ? Let's take electrification as an example, there are going to be the following costs:

- Surveys to ensure the line is suitable for electrification. Not sure how you'd reduce the costs of a survey, unless you simply don't do such a thorough one or use a less experienced person to survey it which would be lower cost and lower quality.

- Connection to the National Grid. I guess that National Grid has a standard set of costs for such connections - why should the railways not pay the market rate for such a connection?

- Materials for electrification, so substations, cabling, con-rail etc. Presumably all such materials are subject to a tender process to ensure value ? So how do you reduce costs there ? No different to a personal purchase - if you want a 50" Sony TV this Christmas a brand new one is going to cost you around £ 750. If you want it 20% cheaper, you're going to be out of luck, because the price of the item from the supplier is more than that. So you have a choice of buying a different set or buying second hand / refurbed. And you accept you won't be getting a brand new set. That's the same on the procurement of the materials.

- Labour to install, test and commission - well each person is paid 'x' amount, so you can either (i) pay them less or (ii) make them work harder.

So come on then - what would *you* do if it's so simple ?



Paranoid tinfoil hat nonsense of the highest order.

I have faith that the railway engineers will be able to drive down costs. They have done so in the past.

Regulators need to play their part by reversing policies that have driven up costs - for example the recent increase in clearance requirements for OLE and as I've already mentioned, the ban on third rail.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,644
Location
West is best
Yes but there's always the fear that offsetting schemes are likely to be more or less scams. The demand for offsetting from businesses and governments wanting to portray themselves as green is likely to exceed the world's capacity for genuine offsetting.

An important point that: there is a finite amount of offseting that can be done. It would be interesting to know what the world's capacity for genuine offsetting is - ie. what is the maximum CO2e that can be emmitted each year globably for the world to be 'net-zero'?
There are a number of problems with offseting. One is how to keep track of it and police it. Two is that a tree grown now will take a significant number of years before it actually captures a significant amount of carbon. And of course, we need land to do this offseting. At the same time we need more land for food production. And as climate change affects the climate, the area of the deserts is increasing and the amount of land that is affected by flooding will also increase.

I don’t believe that offseting is the answer to burning fossil fuels. Especially when there are alternatives. The aim is to very significantly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
At the moment, the rate of carbon dioxide being released is still increasing!

And yes, the amount of carbon dioxide released by the U.K. does make a significant difference.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Why single out Sunak? Much of the government (not just the current one, but for decades) seem to have a dangerous disregard for decarbonisation.
Simply ss the person who is most responsible for the current specifics.
 

hxlly17

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2021
Messages
5
Location
Crewe
so does this mean the midland main line won’t be getting electrified christ this government is shockingly bad.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
I have faith that the railway engineers will be able to drive down costs. They have done so in the past.

Regulators need to play their part by reversing policies that have driven up costs - for example the recent increase in clearance requirements for OLE and as I've already mentioned, the ban on third rail.

So basically you want to lower safety standards, on the grounds it "used to be OK" - does that extend to other things e.g. home electricals, cars, aircraft or is it, once again, only rail which should be allowed to use standards which are not considered safe today ?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,628
Ultimately the railway has repeatedly failed to deliver electrification on time and on budget.

Should we be surprised when the Treasury no longer believes the numbers?

If third rail truly is off the table after the current review then I think the railway is simply finished.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
There are a number of problems with offseting. One is how to keep track of it and police it. Two is that a tree grown now will take a significant number of years before it actually captures a significant amount of carbon. And of course, we need land to do this offseting. At the same time we need more land for food production. And as climate change affects the climate, the area of the deserts is increasing and the amount of land that is affected by flooding will also increase.

I don’t believe that offseting is the answer to burning fossil fuels. Especially when there are alternatives. The aim is to very significantly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
At the moment, the rate of carbon dioxide being released is still increasing!

And yes, the amount of carbon dioxide released by the U.K. does make a significant difference.

Fine - but absolute zero (which is what you're aiming for) would lead to a lifestyle which is unacceptable to most people, so good luck with selling that vision.

Off-setting may not be perfect, but it does at least allow progress in a way many people will accept.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,047
I have faith that the railway engineers will be able to drive down costs. They have done so in the past.

Regulators need to play their part by reversing policies that have driven up costs - for example the recent increase in clearance requirements for OLE and as I've already mentioned, the ban on third rail.
Re your second para so where do we draw the line in weakening safety? Just because something was done one way years ago that doesn't automatically mean that it should be allowed now. What would be acceptable? Lower levels of vehicle level crossing safety? Increased use of track level pedestrian crossings?

Ultimately the railway has repeatedly failed to deliver electrification on time and on budget.

Should we be surprised when the Treasury no longer believes the numbers?
The bottom line.

So basically you want to lower safety standards, on the grounds it "used to be OK" - does that extend to other things e.g. home electricals, cars, aircraft or is it, once again, only rail which should be allowed to use standards which are not considered safe today ?
Agreed.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
So basically you want to lower safety standards, on the grounds it "used to be OK" - does that extend to other things e.g. home electricals, cars, aircraft or is it, once again, only rail which should be allowed to use standards which are not considered safe today ?

We need to look at why something has been deemed unsafe.

In the case of OHLE, the UK carried out its own extensive testing to establish safe clearances. To my knowledge, they were never de-bunked or proven to be unsafe, they were just replaced by a different standard produced internationally. That doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to abandon the original standard to me.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,628
So basically you want to lower safety standards, on the grounds it "used to be OK" - does that extend to other things e.g. home electricals, cars, aircraft or is it, once again, only rail which should be allowed to use standards which are not considered safe today ?
If top contact third rail is off the table, given the catastrophically bad economics of actual 25kV costs, then we may have to consider introducing another railway electrification standard (bottom contact third rail), because otherwise simply have no chance of getting any electrification done.

SUre its operationally suboptimal, but the development and standardisation costs of a bottom contact third rail solution are insignificant next to the billions required for an electrification scheme.
But ultimately that is for speculative ideas!
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Re your second para so where do we draw the line in weakening safety? Just because something was done one way years ago that doesn't automatically mean that it should be allowed now. What would be acceptable? Lower levels of vehicle level crossing safety? Increased use of track level pedestrian crossings?

In the case of something like third rail, which isn't deemed dangerous enough to remove, we should not be banning infill or extension.

I can't really envisage a situation where we would open more track level pedestrian crossings on the existing railway.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
so does this mean the midland main line won’t be getting electrified christ this government is shockingly bad.
The answer to your question is not clear (or maybe it would be if I had paid to read the full article...) but yes the Government is shockingly bad on transport decarbonisation; whether or not the MML is still 'on' the fact remains that things like Didcot-Oxford and Derby-Birmingham-Didcot are very much 'off' by the sound of it.

Fine - but absolute zero (which is what you're aiming for) would lead to a lifestyle which is unacceptable to most people, so good luck with selling that vision.

Off-setting may not be perfect, but it does at least allow progress in a way many people will accept.
The point is that we cannot offset everything, we can offset X tonnes of CO2 a year but are still emitting X+Y tonnes. Unfortunately I have no idea what the value for X is and what we can continue to do within that headroom.

In the case of something like third rail, which isn't deemed dangerous enough to remove, we should not be banning infill or extension.
Apparently, "A piece of strategic work is currently underway between Network Rail, RSSB and the ORR to establish the feasibility of providing a modern-day conductor rail system for these areas. This will report in late 2021." (TDNS, page 84).
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
We need to look at why something has been deemed unsafe.

In the case of OHLE, the UK carried out its own extensive testing to establish safe clearances. To my knowledge, they were never de-bunked or proven to be unsafe, they were just replaced by a different standard produced internationally. That doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to abandon the original standard to me.

Except having international standards actually reduces cost - because the equipment being produced for OHLE for example will only need to comply to a single standard, rather than having to get accreditation for each different standard - that much I'd have thought was obvious.

Your view of keeping a unique / different set of standards would actually end up costing *more* not least because some manufacturers might not bother to get their equipment UK accredited and therefore wouldn't be used, when they may actually be the most cost effective solution.

If top contact third rail is off the table, given the catastrophically bad economics of actual 25kV costs, then we may have to consider introducing another railway electrification standard (bottom contact third rail), because otherwise simply have no chance of getting any electrification done.

SUre its operationally suboptimal, but the development and standardisation costs of a bottom contact third rail solution are insignificant next to the billions required for an electrification scheme.
But ultimately that is for speculative ideas!

I'm not sure the National Rail network actually needs another contact rail electrification solution. Given the progress of battery / hybrid technology increasingly the areas which are not suited to 25kv OHLE (due to clearances or other factors) will be more than covered by these alternatives.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Except having international standards actually reduces cost - because the equipment being produced for OHLE for example will only need to comply to a single standard, rather than having to get accreditation for each different standard - that much I'd have thought was obvious.

Your view of keeping a unique / different set of standards would actually end up costing *more* not least because some manufacturers might not bother to get their equipment UK accredited and therefore wouldn't be used, when they may actually be the most cost effective solution.

Surely if it were more cost effective to buy OHLE to a less generous international clearance standard, that would come out in procurement anyway, without the need to change our own standard ? Infact wouldn't that be a better way of balancing off the potentially cheaper cost of foreign equipment against the increased cost of raising structures etc ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top