Climate Change Committee says rail "off track" to meet decarbonisation goals

[eldomtom2]

The Climate Change Committee have released their latest report to Parliament. Among many, many other criticisms of current policy are their statements on rail:

(p.127)
Progress:
• DfT and Innovate UK ran a First of a Kind innovation competition in 2022 focusing on technology ideas to decarbonise the railway, awarding £5 million total to 24 innovators.
• Great Western Railway will begin a trial of a fully battery-electric train on the branch line between West Ealing and Greenford later this year.
• Electrification work has started on the Wigan-Bolton line, with completion due in 2024. Preliminary work has also begun on electrification of the Transpennine Route and the Midland Mainline, although completion timescales are less certain and longer-term.
To be addressed:
• The Government has not yet produced a plan for how its targets of removing diesel from passenger rail use by 2040 or achieving a Net Zero railway network by 2050 will be achieved. This is needed to ensure that funding commitments and network planning are appropriately directed and consistent with what will be required (recommendation R2022-283).
• Only 2.2 km of track was electrified in 2021/22. This is symptomatic of the current stop-start nature of network electrification, which is failing to deliver the infrastructure upgrades required. The plan should include establishing a rolling programme of electrification rather than planning and tendering each portion of track as a separate electrification project.

(p.419)
Recommendation R2022-283
Publish a comprehensive plan setting out how the Government's target of removing diesel passenger trains from the railway by 2040 and achieving a Net Zero rail network by 2050 or earlier will be achieved.
Primary responsibility: DfT

The recommendation was made in last year's report as well; the DfT have failed to produce any such plan and the committee has marked the recommendation's fulfillment as "overdue".
It is hard to escape the feeling that in addition to the many failures of the government, there is at least in some parts of the industry a complacency and fatalism about both rail's ability to decarbonise and its ability to act as a replacement for higher-carbon modes of travel like aviation.

 

[SynthD]

I think the industry is limited by funding, not their own choices or actions. What makes you think there’s complacency?

 

[Irascible]

"The industry" does have to fully include the DfT these days. There's your "some parts". Although the rail industry is definitely fairly conservative in nature - this is not a bad thing if your improvements are well thought out incremental changes, but well...

 

[tomuk]

"The industry" does have to fully include the DfT these days. There's your "some parts". Although the rail industry is definitely fairly conservative in nature - this is not a bad thing if your improvements are well thought out incremental changes, but well...

And also the Treasury who are funding the whole thing or not as the case appears to be.

 

[lammergeier]

".
It is hard to escape the feeling that in addition to the many failures of the government, there is at least in some parts of the industry a complacency and fatalism about both rail's ability to decarbonise and its ability to act as a replacement for higher-carbon modes of travel like aviation.

Really? Care to share any examples from within the industry? We are being stymied by DfT/Treasury. There is a sense of fatalism but it's regarding the inept and frankly reckless management of the industry by government, not about rail's ability to decarbonise and act as a replacement for higher carbon forms of travel. I'm not sure where you have seen complacency, I'd genuinely like to see some examples.

 

[43096]

Really? Care to share any examples from within the industry? We are being stymied by DfT/Treasury. There is a sense of fatalism but it's regarding the inept and frankly reckless management of the industry by government, not about rail's ability to decarbonise and act as a replacement for higher carbon forms of travel. I'm not sure where you have seen complacency, I'd genuinely like to see some examples.

That conveniently avoids the railway industry’s institutional inability to manage costs. The Great Western electrification fiasco is a prime example and it’s hardly surprising that the Treasury has said no to putting more money into electrification after that profligacy.

The railway ought to be the easiest form of transport to decarbonise, yet in the UK the industry insists on making it very hard for itself.

 

[D869]

Rail's carbon footprint improved today:
"Carbon emissions from UK rail travel lower than previously thought"

https://archive.ph/TFjMG#selection-1297.29-1297.42

 

[fandroid]

Rail's carbon footprint improved today:
"Carbon emissions from UK rail travel lower than previously thought"

https://archive.ph/TFjMG#selection-1297.29-1297.42

IIRC Roger Ford was saying in Modern Railways June edition that the calculation of the carbon footprint used for rail travel was bizarrely over the top, so grossly distorting any comparisons with other modes of transport. Perhaps the RDG have picked up on that and belatedly started blowing rail's trumpet as a very low carbon transport mode. Rail reducing its carbon footprint is a good thing, but not half as much a good thing as modal shift to rail is for transporting just about anything.

 

[Horizon22]

I think the industry is limited by funding, not their own choices or actions. What makes you think there’s complacency?

I agree - the document clearly states "Responsibility: DfT" and if electrification options aren't to be progressed nor other alternatives, that will because of lack of funding to do so via the Treasury & DfT to the industry, not because of a huge desire to do so.

 

[43066]

The industry has bigger fish to fry at the moment than this, and cannot afford the luxury of climate change virtue signalling (pun intended).

 

[tomuk]

IIRC Roger Ford was saying in Modern Railways June edition that the calculation of the carbon footprint used for rail travel was bizarrely over the top, so grossly distorting any comparisons with other modes of transport. Perhaps the RDG have picked up on that and belatedly started blowing rail's trumpet as a very low carbon transport mode. Rail reducing its carbon footprint is a good thing, but not half as much a good thing as modal shift to rail is for transporting just about anything.

I haven't read the Roger Ford article but the Guardian story is somewhat misleading. The 'bad' figures used before the new calculator are the average across the industry taking the total energy in divided by the total distance travelled. The example from the new calculator providing the new 'good' figure is for a specific electrically power journey from London to Edinburgh on the ECML. The figure for a Euston to Glasgow by Voyager or Reading to Edinburgh also by Voyager would look a lot worse.

 

[Wyrleybart]

I haven't read the Roger Ford article but the Guardian story is somewhat misleading. The 'bad' figures used before the new calculator are the average across the industry taking the total energy in divided by the total distance travelled. The example from the new calculator providing the new 'good' figure is for a specific electrically power journey from London to Edinburgh on the ECML. The figure for a Euston to Glasgow by Voyager or Reading to Edinburgh also by Voyager would look a lot worse.

The question to maybe ask is why do the DfT want to run XC diesel trains between Edinburgh and Glasgow when there are enough electric ones travelling from Kings Cross etc ?
It is purely a statement or a commitment that the "railway" have to provide ? I cannot recall how many years ago it was now, but XC between Glasgow and Edinburgh was quite rare.

 

[Topological]

So many cases of diesels under wires because it is what is always done. Cross country between Manchester and Birmingham being a prime example. Meanwhile, there are EMUs that have not got a home to go to.

In the Edinburgh case my understanding is that it is more than just allocations because of the power draw between Newcastle and Edinburgh. However, fixing so that there were no Voyagers north of York would also be a good start.

These days the DfT is no doubt involved, but would sending Voyagers off lease be really so expensive? In the Manchester case Birmingham to Manchester could presumably use 350s when those go off lease meaning there is enough knowledge of driving them already in the area. The service can even be run by the same franchise instead of XC.

So whether these are "railway" decisions is unclear.

 

[squizzler]

IIRC Roger Ford was saying in Modern Railways June edition that the calculation of the carbon footprint used for rail travel was bizarrely over the top, so grossly distorting any comparisons with other modes of transport.

You didn't remember correctly. It was a guest piece written by one David Shirres, editor of Rail Engineer.

 

[Bald Rick]

IIRC Roger Ford was saying in Modern Railways June edition that the calculation of the carbon footprint used for rail travel was bizarrely over the top, so grossly distorting any comparisons with other modes of transport. Perhaps the RDG have picked up on that and belatedly started blowing rail's trumpet as a very low carbon transport mode. Rail reducing its carbon footprint is a good thing, but not half as much a good thing as modal shift to rail is for transporting just about anything.

As above, it wasn’t Uncle Rog., but David Shirres. Unfortunately for him, some of his assumptions were somewhat adrift. It doesn’t change the ranking (air worst, car middle, train best), but it does change the magnitude of the emissions per passenger.

 

[josh-j]

The industry has bigger fish to fry at the moment than this, and cannot afford the luxury of climate change virtue signalling (pun intended).

Not sure what you mean but climate change means we should be expanding rail travel very substantially. Whatever you think about it, transport decarbonisation should be a massive benefit to the railway.

The only reason it hasn't worked like that so far is that we have an utterly terrible government.

 

[sprinterguy]

So many cases of diesels under wires because it is what is always done.

Nah, it's just because it's what can currently be done for the lowest cost with the available traction.

British Rail had an excellent "bi-mode" solution in place for 25 years for Manchester - Southern England Crosscountry services that involved loco changes to electric traction wherever they could be used, but Virgin concluded that such a thing wasn't possible with the fixed formation, multiple unit consists that they desired based on the technology available at the time.

There was a higher proportion of electric haulage of both passenger and freight services over the electrified routes that existed thirty years ago than there is today.

 

[Falcon1200]

So many cases of diesels under wires because it is what is always done. Cross country between Manchester and Birmingham being a prime example. Meanwhile, there are EMUs that have not got a home to go to.

In the Edinburgh case my understanding is that it is more than just allocations because of the power draw between Newcastle and Edinburgh. However, fixing so that there were no Voyagers north of York would also be a good start.

Not for the passengers who need through trains between Scotland and the North East, and the East Midlands, Birmingham and the South West! That is why diesel trains run under the wires, to provide direct links with places not on electrified routes. Hopefully future developments will address the issue, with more electrification, bi-mode trains, or maybe (but unlikely) even loco changes. It will take time, but Cross Country's fleet will have to be replaced, eventually.

 

[Topological]

Direct trains is something of a controversial area.

I think that if there are sufficiently well designed connections that the problem of not having direct is somewhat mitigated. In the case of XC we are emerging from a period where the Manchester service was halved and the connections to the South West via Bristol were terrible. That would have been a perfect time to have put in the EMU between Manchester and Birmingham rather than bringing back the diesel. We survived without direct trains and could again.

The mention of loco changes is fine, but that is a different age and not something that is likely to come back any time soon. I am not sure that the carriages sitting in Birmingham while the engine changes is necessarily that great anyway. Yes you do not need to move your suitcase, but most travellers will look at the time taken.

It maybe that "the railway" is creating the problem by not ordering bi-mode for XC. It seems a no brainer that XC would work better with 80x. However, the splitting using EMU seems more attainable. To my mind the traction on the XC routes is a railway decision either way.

I am not expecting agreement, rather pointing out there are things that can be done with stock that is available which would reduce emissions. The popularity of climate change adjustments is never 100%.

 

[Class 170101]

Nah, it's just because it's what can currently be done for the lowest cost with the available traction.

British Rail had an excellent "bi-mode" solution in place for 25 years for Manchester - Southern England Crosscountry services that involved loco changes to electric traction wherever they could be used, but Virgin concluded that such a thing wasn't possible with the fixed formation, multiple unit consists that they desired based on the technology available at the time.

There was a higher proportion of electric haulage of both passenger and freight services over the electrified routes that existed thirty years ago than there is today.

The skills for detaching and attaching locomotives aren't there anymore in the way they were previously. ECML drags more in recent times took some 20 to 30 minutes to attach and detach Class 67s as where as I'm sure it didn't take that to change locos from 47s to 86s at Birmingham New Street or Preston (or elsewhere).

Perhaps more fundamentally though we are running more trains and services now than we did back then. Shunting and changing locomotives around just isn't an efficient use of capacity.

 

[Master29]

Really? Care to share any examples from within the industry? We are being stymied by DfT/Treasury. There is a sense of fatalism but it's regarding the inept and frankly reckless management of the industry by government, not about rail's ability to decarbonise and act as a replacement for higher carbon forms of travel. I'm not sure where you have seen complacency, I'd genuinely like to see some examples.

Exactly this. How can someone be talking about decarbonising with this feckless government. The planet some people seem to live on beggars belief.

 

[43066]

Not sure what you mean but climate change means we should be expanding rail travel very substantially. Whatever you think about it, transport decarbonisation should be a massive benefit to the railway.

The only reason it hasn't worked like that so far is that we have an utterly terrible government.

I don’t disagree with what you say, but this thread appears to be intended to moan specifically about railway decarbonisation, which is a strange thing to worry about given how the industry is already extremely “green” compared to other sectors.

No surprise; the OP appears to have a bee in his bonnet about this subject and has two similar threads running.

 

[Class15]

There was a higher proportion of electric haulage of both passenger and freight services over the electrified routes that existed thirty years ago than there is today.

Absolutely correct. Freight has gone down even in the last five years with the downfall of Freightliner’s 86s and DB’s 92s.

 

[eldomtom2]

I don’t disagree with what you say, but this thread appears to be intended to moan specifically about railway decarbonisation, which is a strange thing to worry about given how the industry is already extremely “green” compared to other sectors.

This is a railway forum. It makes sense that the sections of the report focused on the railway would be posted here.

I think the industry is limited by funding, not their own choices or actions. What makes you think there’s complacency?

As I said, at least from this forum you often see complacency from people who are in the industry about decarbonisation or modal shift. Of course I'm not saying they're necessarily representative of the industry as a whole.

 

[MattRat]

I don’t disagree with what you say, but this thread appears to be intended to moan specifically about railway decarbonisation, which is a strange thing to worry about given how the industry is already extremely “green” compared to other sectors.

Well unfortunately we have to prove that to environmentalists, and ignoring them is just going to cause them to block more rail projects, which we don't want, especially as it gives the government more excuses not to do things.

 

[43066]

This is a railway forum. It makes sense that the sections of the report focused on the railway would be posted here.

If there’s complacency it’s probably because, if you asked a hundred railway stakeholders what was wrong with the railway at the moment, not being green enough would be unlikely to rate very highly. It’s just a complete non issue.

The other thing to remember about climate change committee recommendations is that few people in the real world are going to vote for “green” policies that make their lives harder and more expensive hence, although lip service will be paid, few of them are likely to be adopted by government.

For the same reason it’s easy for governments to impose arbitrary target dates decades in the future - removing diesel by 2040 being a case in point - which they know full well they won’t have to worry about implementing.

 

[squizzler]

As above, it wasn’t Uncle Rog., but David Shirres. Unfortunately for him, some of his assumptions were somewhat adrift. It doesn’t change the ranking (air worst, car middle, train best), but it does change the magnitude of the emissions per passenger.

What Roger ford did include in his column is that only passenger growth will improve the railway finances, since it is a fixed cost industry. So if there are no financial benefits from trying to cut services, we might as well get more bums in those seats which will naturally reduce the CO2 per passenger (since train emissions are fixed, regardless whether they are full or not), eliminate any carbon from alternative modes they might have used, and improve the financial situation. This all can be done tomorrow, before we get round to electrification.

As I said, at least from this forum you often see complacency from people who are in the industry about decarbonisation or modal shift. Of course I'm not saying they're necessarily representative of the industry as a whole.

I doubt that individuals on the industry are complacent, although the complex of industry and government seem unable to be as agile as we want them to be.

However it is the amateur followers of transport policy who seem to relish bashing things on every opportunity. By contrast, as a rail enthusiast I see it as my duty to be enthusiastic about rail, and am quite bullish still. As others have said, there is no mechanically powered form of mobility - that also keeps the rain off - that comes even close to rail on emissions.

 

[snowball]

Well unfortunately we have to prove that to environmentalists, and ignoring them is just going to cause them to block more rail projects, which we don't want, especially as it gives the government more excuses not to do things.

Which rail projects have been blocked by environmentalists?

 

[Class 317]

I need to declare a personal interest in battery technology working in software to optimise their use and I'm involved in work relating to some current rolling stock replacement tenders but can't say more as I'm bound by NDA's.

The rail versus road emissions numbers are likely to move quite dramatically over the next decade as EV's increasingly replace ICE cars, buses, coaches, vans, lorries etc and offer road dramatically reduced whole life emission levels.
This will slash road based emissions per person or tonne in comparison to today to something much closer to rails particularly as the grid continues to have a higher % of renewables which will quickly erode rails emissions advantage. Indeed once the grid is virtually 100% renewable it will have eroded that advantage almost completely except that embedded emissions in rail would likely be less.
If rail doesn't respond with decarbonisation then it risks being seen as a dirty form of transport in the medium term.

A limited electrification programme could rapidly reduce freight emissions via electrification of very little route miles and provision of Bi mode loco's as appropriate. In the medium term batteries are likely to be able to provide last couple of mile running in freight terminals.

In the passenger sector continuing to electrify main routes and Al's starting the roll out of battery units for secondary and rural services offers large opportunities to reduce emissions. Any electrification programme needs to be specced to take ful advantage of battery and bi mode capabilities to electrify the sections where it will reduce emissions most.
A focus on the rapid deployment of battery units with limited electrification of terminal stations would offer the best reduction of emissions for the limited amount of available resources.

The capabilities in both range, recharge time and implementation costs are lower for battery electric trains than many think. In Germany they are seeing operating costs versus traditional overhead electric trains being in the same ball park.
The range v speed v charging time equation is now at a level where any service of less than 60 miles can easily be operated by battery units with only the electrification of terminal stations and shorter routes of less than 30 miles by charging only at 1 end by Stradler Flirt units in Germany. This is likely to improve rapidly over the next few years.

Modal shift for freight with last mile delivery via electric vans or trucks is also something that should be being encouraged in a big way as the hardest part to decarbonise is the long truck haul. Parcel delivery via rail then electric van would reduce the emissions of the likes of Amazon dramatically but I fear rail only has 5 or so years to take advantage of this capability before electric lorries erode it's advantages.

If rail continues to rest on it's laurels it risks becoming increasingly out of touch.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Given that rail is low carbon anyway, the ultimate question is how many more passengers can I carry without massive investment into new lines.