Cost of bi-modes v's wiring-up

[Grumpy Git]

In my 40 odd years in industry I come across "poorly managed" contacts all the time, (i.e. over promised and under delivered). Normally due to salesmen having top-down pressure (and wanting to get their bonus or commission or whatever) and the business not being able to meet the requirements of the job (either by not having the right equipment or by having no one in the business with the experience and/or nous).

It makes me want to cry at times and was one of the reasons I set-up my own engineering company over 25 years ago. I only offer quotes when I know I can 100% do the job and if the customer thinks I'm too expensive tough-luck, spend your money elsewhere. I have plenty of experience of removing inferior kit where I lost the job initially, only to get the job 12-24 months down the line. So the customer ended-up spending 2x more than necessary in the end!

 

[Carntyne]

Bi modes have their place in the few places were it is long distance and very infrequent but its stupid that the MML isn't being electrified, its a busy mainline, not a quiet line in the middle of nowhere with trains only 2 or 3 hours.

The UK really needs a rolling electrification program, the start stop seperate electrification programmes (worsened by the programmes then being started and stopped a few times by the DfT) is going to be very expensive.

Parts of the UK have begun their rolling programme already. Lots of focus on the GWEP project here, and not successes elsewhere - some balance please.

 

[stuu]

Then there's this thing that it takes the engine so long to warm up that it has to be wastefully started at the station before the end of the wires. I wonder how you determine how much fuel the train needs at the start of the day.

How long should a diesel engine take to warm up, in your opinion? How would this be achieved?

 

[Annetts key]

How long should a diesel engine take to warm up, in your opinion? How would this be achieved?

Do any of the bi-mode units that use a diesel engine have electric preheating for the water cooling system and a pump to circulate the coolant around the engine? The emergency fixed diesel generator sets that Network Rail use, have this so that they can start up and take the rated full load within about 30 seconds

 

[Bald Rick]

NR totally screwed up GWEP and im not sure they've apologised for it, nobody fell on there sword

Nobody ‘fell on their sword’, but plenty of people had one put through them.

Do any of the bi-mode units that use a diesel engine have electric preheating for the water cooling system and a pump to circulate the coolant around the engine?

Yes.

 

[Taunton]

In my 40 odd years in industry I come across "poorly managed" contacts all the time, (i.e. over promised and under delivered). Normally due to salesmen having top-down pressure (and wanting to get their bonus or commission or whatever) and the business not being able to meet the requirements of the job (either by not having the right equipment or by having no one in the business with the experience and/or nous).

It makes me want to cry at times and was one of the reasons I set-up my own engineering company over 25 years ago. I only offer quotes when I know I can 100% do the job and if the customer thinks I'm too expensive tough-luck, spend your money elsewhere. I have plenty of experience of removing inferior kit where I lost the job initially, only to get the job 12-24 months down the line. So the customer ended-up spending 2x more than necessary in the end!

Yes, true. And a lot of that comes from the prospective customer, saying they will decide by say the end of say May, which the salesman outlooks internally and allocates initial resources, then the customer says decision will be July, then September, then the client lawyer changes and they have a whole new set of questions, then the salesman's director asks why they have gone most of the year and wasted resources and no orders - so you'd better get it or else ...

 

[paul1609]

Notably the GW electrification managed both of these.

Didn't the reduced project actually achieve 95% plus of the benefits? The only drawbacks that I can see is it required a few more units to be bi mode to cater for the Wooton Basset to Bristol TMs, Didcot to Oxford and possibly Cardiff to Swansea sections to run on diesel power. None of these sections were or were planned to be particularly high speed. If you carried out a benefits analysis on the additional costs to finish off these projects it would have been incredibly low especially as it required the future resignalling of Bristol area, and the impending restructure of Oxford station.
You got the immediate reduction of emissions that the Tier 4 diesels in the IET brings over the MTUS in the HST. Ask TFL where all the polution that was being blamed on the A40 Westway in West London has now gone suddenly?
Presumably the Government is hoping that a rolling program of much lower cost schemes can be bought forward to fill the benefits gap when they are financially viable?

 

[Nottingham59]

the MML isn't being electrified, its a busy mainline

It's not that busy - there are only 4tph each way through Market Harborough, and only two of those stop. Electrification has a much better financial case on intensely used suburban routes with lots of accelerating away from stations.

 

[Mikey C]

One benefit of Bimodes, especially the Hitachi type, is that the engines can be removed if you enough electrification to make the diesel engines unnecessary, so ideal if you have a rolling electrification programme along a route

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Nobody ‘fell on their sword’, but plenty of people had one put through them.




Yes.

Not Bechtel nor the architects of GRIP which was supposed to prevent such an outcome.

It was evident within a matter of months of foundations starting that there was something seriously awry with the design of that element yet on they rolled with more and more half finished foundations along the route driven by Bechtel targets no doubt rather than common sense intervening to question what was going on.

Fortunately MML and the other projects have proven that the industry hasn't lost the ability to deliver well engineered cost effective electrification and im confident the Dept of Transport when it suits the political needs of the government will have the rest of MML authorised before the year is out.

 

[Mikey C]

Not Bechtel nor the architects of GRIP which was supposed to prevent such an outcome.

It was evident within a matter of months of foundations starting that there was something seriously awry with the design of that element yet on they rolled with more and more half finished foundations along the route driven by Bechtel targets no doubt rather than common sense intervening to question what was going on.

Fortunately MML and the other projects have proven that the industry hasn't lost the ability to deliver well engineered cost effective electrification and im confident the Dept of Transport when it suits the political needs of the government will have the rest of MML authorised before the year is out.

The politics of "levelling up" definitely helps the case for full electrification of the MML as well

 

[O L Leigh]

One benefit of Bimodes, especially the Hitachi type, is that the engines can be removed if you enough electrification to make the diesel engines unnecessary, so ideal if you have a rolling electrification programme along a route

If.

The problem is that we don't have a rolling programme of electrification, and neither is one likely. Quite honestly we should have had one 30 years ago and the case for bi-mode on anything except feeder services should never have existed.

It's not that busy - there are only 4tph each way through Market Harborough, and only two of those stop. Electrification has a much better financial case on intensely used suburban routes with lots of accelerating away from stations.

I don't disagree. I've said before that the best electrification schemes are the ones that also provide for electric suburban and local services that feed into the mainline at a hub, and that's something that has largely been lacking from schemes from the 1990s onwards. In this specific case, Market Harborough is getting wired not because it is an objective in itself but because, according to Railnews, it makes it easier to connect to a feeder station there.

Didn't the reduced project actually achieve 95% plus of the benefits? The only drawbacks that I can see is it required a few more units to be bi mode to cater for the Wooton Basset to Bristol TMs, Didcot to Oxford and possibly Cardiff to Swansea sections to run on diesel power. None of these sections were or were planned to be particularly high speed. If you carried out a benefits analysis on the additional costs to finish off these projects it would have been incredibly low especially as it required the future resignalling of Bristol area, and the impending restructure of Oxford station.
You got the immediate reduction of emissions that the Tier 4 diesels in the IET brings over the MTUS in the HST. Ask TFL where all the polution that was being blamed on the A40 Westway in West London has now gone suddenly?

Unfortunately this is precisely the sort of thinking that is hampering the DfT's ability to see far enough past the end of it's nose to make properly informed strategic decisions about the future of rail in the UK. The fact that bi-modes are "good enough" and "cheap enough" when compared to rail electrification means that future schemes will always face an uphill battle to get the go-ahead. It also smacks of "I'm alright, Jack" in that the benefits of rail electrification are not being felt universally but rather only by those lucky enough to have a pre-existing scheme on their doorstep.

Presumably the Government is hoping that a rolling program of much lower cost schemes can be bought forward to fill the benefits gap when they are financially viable?

I wouldn't bet on it. The government will be looking at the cost and thinking "why bother when we can deploy shiny new bi-modes to the route?".

 

[hwl]

Do any of the bi-mode units that use a diesel engine have electric preheating for the water cooling system and a pump to circulate the coolant around the engine? The emergency fixed diesel generator sets that Network Rail use, have this so that they can start up and take the rated full load within about 30 seconds

Yes they do but even with pre-heat they will not be operating optimally until the engine has fully warmed up rather than just to 40C+ with preheat.

 

[paul1609]

Unfortunately this is precisely the sort of thinking that is hampering the DfT's ability to see far enough past the end of it's nose to make properly informed strategic decisions about the future of rail in the UK. The fact that bi-modes are "good enough" and "cheap enough" when compared to rail electrification means that future schemes will always face an uphill battle to get the go-ahead. It also smacks of "I'm alright, Jack" in that the benefits of rail electrification are not being felt universally but rather only by those lucky enough to have a pre-existing scheme on their doorstep.

But it is logical thinking, the benefits of full electrification v bi mode on inter urban routes where the infrastructure is 100 mph or less is to say the least pretty marginal. Just renaming the project de-carbonisation rather relies on the UKs electrical generation being carbon free which is many years away from reality.

 

[O L Leigh]

But it is logical thinking, the benefits of full electrification v bi mode on inter urban routes where the infrastructure is 100 mph or less is to say the least pretty marginal. Just renaming the project de-carbonisation rather relies on the UKs electrical generation being carbon free which is many years away from reality.

No doubt it's logical. That wasn't my contention. My contention is that it fails to be strategic and address the needs of the network moving forwards.

It doesn't matter whether I call it decarbonisation or not when that is the stated aim of Government. Electrifying the railway does not decarbonise by itself, but it does bring it a step closer. Bi-mode does not aid this.

 

[tbtc]

Bi modes have their place in the few places were it is long distance and very infrequent but its stupid that the MML isn't being electrified, its a busy mainline, not a quiet line in the middle of nowhere with trains only 2 or 3 hours

The MML is busy - but bi-modes allow us to utilise the parts that are electrified whilst we get on with wiring the other parts

In contrast, ScotRail run the Glasgow - Aberdeen service and have some 1970s HSTs which are unable to benefit from the electrification between Queen Street and Dunblane - there'll be pollution at the Glasgow end of the route until the wires eventually get to Aberdeen

If they'd ordered bi-modes, they could have improved the air quality/ acceleration etc on the electrified sections of the route, as well as giving some immediate improvement as the wires eventually reached Perth/ Dundee/ Arbroath etc

So is the best option to keep running diesels on the MML whilst we wait for the whole thing to be wired? Or get some bi-modes in for now, with the option to either remove the diesel engines once the wires reach Sheffield or to cascade the 810s elsewhere and order some pure-electric replacements? I'd rather we did the latter

Didn't the reduced project actually achieve 95% plus of the benefits?

Unfortunately this is precisely the sort of thinking that is hampering the DfT's ability to see far enough past the end of it's nose to make properly informed strategic decisions about the future of rail in the UK. The fact that bi-modes are "good enough" and "cheap enough" when compared to rail electrification means that future schemes will always face an uphill battle to get the go-ahead. It also smacks of "I'm alright, Jack" in that the benefits of rail electrification are not being felt universally but rather only by those lucky enough to have a pre-existing scheme on their doorstep

If we can deliver 95% of the benefits for significantly less than 95% of the cost then I'm fine with that.

We'd then be in a position where the "x" million cost of filling in all of the branches (Bristol, Swansea, Oxford etc) has to be seen in the context of how much we could wire elsewhere for "x" million - how far up the MML could you do for the equivalent cost? Or the gaps in the main trans=pennine route?

The problem we have is that a lot of routes don't lend themselves to simple electrification, because the branches and service patterns (and inter-working - and fixation on direct services) mean that you have a messy combination where there's very little benefit until you complete everything.

Look at Moor Street - Snow Hill. You've got seven or eight passenger services per hour through centra Birmingham, but if we relied on pure EMUs, we wouldn't get much benefit from just wiring Stourbridge - Whitlocks End & Dorridge. All the disruption through the core but only a couple of diesel trains per hour replaced by electrics - so there's not much benefit until you've wired all the way from Worcester to Stratford. But wiring from Worcester to Stratford might look prohibitively expensive (and you'd have more councils etc to encourage/ convince). However, bi-modes plus electrification from Stourbridge to Tyseley would remove a lot of pollution from central Birmingham and allow services to cope better with acceleration on the "core" bit of the route.

If we keep insisting on the gold standard (and there's no point in doing "good enough" - we only want "perfect") then we're going to ensure that railway schemes are too expensive/ complicated/ long term to deliver the kind of affordable/ simple projects that Governments can be attracted by.

Put yourself in the toyshop. You can buy some small LEGO sets for five or ten pounds - the kind of "pocket money prices" that kids will be attracted to. The £50/£100 sets give much better value for money but you're not going to convince your parents to stump up for those each time you visit. However, having some small sets on sale means that parents can treat the kid without breaking the bank

If the railway insists on only the big projects then Governments are going to find it easy to say no. Especially as the trend seems to be to spread benefits around the country, spending a little in various areas. A hundred million here and a hundred million there might be attractive to a Government looking to share their munificence around. But insisting on the full "billion pound" bells and whistles projects will make rail too much to swallow.

Keep it simple, build some projects around what Governments can afford (just like LEGO base some of their set sizes on what kids can afford) - that way you've got a nice shopping list for them. But if you require them to electrify all the way to Hereford/ Swansea etc then you're making it easy for them to say no.

 

[Mikey C]

Agreed (not quoting the whole post!)

Hull trains ordering 802 is a perfect example where bimodes make a lot of sense, as they can use the wires all the way up the ECML, then only switch to diesel on the unelectrified part. The branch to Hull will get wired eventually, but will never be at the top of the priority list, so would be several years away, even with a better rolling programme of wiring.

And yes it's crazy that more electrification isn't being done on the GWR routes, the bimodes have at least taken diesels out of Paddington and West London, resulting in much better air quality

 

[Bald Rick]

The MML is busy - but bi-modes allow us to utilise the parts that are electrified whilst we get on with wiring the other parts

In contrast, ScotRail run the Glasgow - Aberdeen service and have some 1970s HSTs which are unable to benefit from the electrification between Queen Street and Dunblane - there'll be pollution at the Glasgow end of the route until the wires eventually get to Aberdeen

If they'd ordered bi-modes, they could have improved the air quality/ acceleration etc on the electrified sections of the route, as well as giving some immediate improvement as the wires eventually reached Perth/ Dundee/ Arbroath etc

So is the best option to keep running diesels on the MML whilst we wait for the whole thing to be wired? Or get some bi-modes in for now, with the option to either remove the diesel engines once the wires reach Sheffield or to cascade the 810s elsewhere and order some pure-electric replacements? I'd rather we did the latter





If we can deliver 95% of the benefits for significantly less than 95% of the cost then I'm fine with that.

We'd then be in a position where the "x" million cost of filling in all of the branches (Bristol, Swansea, Oxford etc) has to be seen in the context of how much we could wire elsewhere for "x" million - how far up the MML could you do for the equivalent cost? Or the gaps in the main trans=pennine route?

The problem we have is that a lot of routes don't lend themselves to simple electrification, because the branches and service patterns (and inter-working - and fixation on direct services) mean that you have a messy combination where there's very little benefit until you complete everything.

Look at Moor Street - Snow Hill. You've got seven or eight passenger services per hour through centra Birmingham, but if we relied on pure EMUs, we wouldn't get much benefit from just wiring Stourbridge - Whitlocks End & Dorridge. All the disruption through the core but only a couple of diesel trains per hour replaced by electrics - so there's not much benefit until you've wired all the way from Worcester to Stratford. But wiring from Worcester to Stratford might look prohibitively expensive (and you'd have more councils etc to encourage/ convince). However, bi-modes plus electrification from Stourbridge to Tyseley would remove a lot of pollution from central Birmingham and allow services to cope better with acceleration on the "core" bit of the route.

If we keep insisting on the gold standard (and there's no point in doing "good enough" - we only want "perfect") then we're going to ensure that railway schemes are too expensive/ complicated/ long term to deliver the kind of affordable/ simple projects that Governments can be attracted by.

Put yourself in the toyshop. You can buy some small LEGO sets for five or ten pounds - the kind of "pocket money prices" that kids will be attracted to. The £50/£100 sets give much better value for money but you're not going to convince your parents to stump up for those each time you visit. However, having some small sets on sale means that parents can treat the kid without breaking the bank

If the railway insists on only the big projects then Governments are going to find it easy to say no. Especially as the trend seems to be to spread benefits around the country, spending a little in various areas. A hundred million here and a hundred million there might be attractive to a Government looking to share their munificence around. But insisting on the full "billion pound" bells and whistles projects will make rail too much to swallow.

Keep it simple, build some projects around what Governments can afford (just like LEGO base some of their set sizes on what kids can afford) - that way you've got a nice shopping list for them. But if you require them to electrify all the way to Hereford/ Swansea etc then you're making it easy for them to say no.

Sensible post, as ever.

It is often forgotten that the ECML electrification north from Hitchin, when originally authorised, was only to Newcastle.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Sensible post, as ever.

It is often forgotten that the ECML electrification north from Hitchin, when originally authorised, was only to Newcastle.

And other bits got added. Not only Edinburgh but the link to Carstairs, North Berwick, Neville Hill from Leeds (not originally included!) and the Aire Valley routes also tacked on subsequently as additional business cases were honed.

 

[O L Leigh]

If we can deliver 95% of the benefits for significantly less than 95% of the cost then I'm fine with that.

I’m glad for you. As for the rest of your post, I have already understood all of these issues.

For clarity, my position is twofold. Firstly, I am disappointed that we find ourselves in a situation where bi-mode is considered necessary. I really feel that we should have had a greater proportion of our network wired by now than we have. However, this is where we find ourselves now.

Which brings me to my second point. Over 10 years ago I predicted on this forum that bi-mode would be used as an excuse not to electrify, and this was borne out by the DfT who said that the use of bi-mode trains would mean that passengers would not have to put up with the inconvenience of electrification works. This is the complete antithesis of a lot of what has been theorised about in this thread so far.

Yes, I can see that bi-mode can have a place as a useful transition while electrification is being carried out, but while we dither about getting the wires up it just looks like a great big white elephant. It’s good that the MML is finally getting the wires extended beyond Bedford, but it’s taken almost 40 years for them to reach the hardly considerable distance into the next county as far as Corby and Market Harborough. How much longer will it take before they reach somewhere useful like Nottingham or Derby, never mind all the way to Sheffield? And as for the GWEP, although various sections are now officially listed as “deferred”, how long do we expect this to remain the case?

And this really is the crux of my point. There’s been a lot of supposition and theorising about how bi-mode will be this or that, and I can see the value in all of what’s being said. I don’t disagree with it. What worries me is that the DfT lacks the strategic vision and will to actually do any of this stuff. As much as I agree with the supposition and theorising, the final say sits with the DfT and it is they, by their words and deeds, who will prove these theories and suppositions correct. Given their public pronouncements so far on the future of electrification and the role of bi- mode, I don’t hold out a lot of hope. That said, I would love them to prove me wrong and get the wires all the way to Sheffield within the life of the IET rolling stock.

On the decarbonisation front, this is a stated aim of Government for the economy as a whole and not just the railway. Boris wants us to be seen as world leaders in green technology. As such, it does seem somewhat jarring that a government department would be persisting with diesel and potentially committing us to a path where our reliance on it remains.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Whilst I get your frustration, O L Leigh, the whole industry has actually achieved quite a lot.

I've just been re-reading some of the documentation for Control Period 4 (2009-14). Essentially there was no 'plan' or momentum for any further electrification. Principally maintenance and renewal with a bit of ancillary stuff like receptivity for regeneration. Some early stirrings in Scotland for Edinburgh-Glasgow and Rutherglen-Coatbridge and 'what a rolling programme might look like'.

Lord Adonis came along after the whole planning and financing set-up had been fixed for five years and expected a rapid take-off from an industry and supply chain that was effectively un-prepared. So (with hindsight) there was little surprise that nobody (outside this forum, of course ) really 'knew' how much anything would cost, how long work would take, how rolling stock might be provided to take advantage of further wiring and so on.

As it is we have actually seen quite a lot of new wiring done and a worthwhile amount of diesel running under legacy wires converted thanks to bi-modes. I think that I have even seen it claimed that more wires were completed in a year during Chris Grayling's tenure as SoS that at any time previously (although I stand to be corrected on that).

Sadly, though, the money has run out.

[I have often thought of the programme as being like a university freshers' pub crawl. Some idealistic but naive individuals, who don't really know each other or the town they are in, decide to each chip in £50 to a kitty with the expectation that they can afford a pint in every pub in the place. Unfortunately, once in the first pub people get carried away ordering fancy and expensive cocktails and then get surprised and cross that the money runs out before they have got very far. There is a massive argument about whose fault it has been and some people start throwing punches in the hope that some others can be 'persuaded' to top up the kitty. Some people are 'forced' to finish the evening drinking from bargain cans in a leaky bus shelter.

The second pub crawl will have to have much better planning, discipline and restraint; and, just possibly, a bigger budget.]

 

[Bald Rick]

Whilst I get your frustration, O L Leigh, the whole industry has actually achieved quite a lot.

I've just been re-reading some of the documentation for Control Period 4 (2009-14). Essentially there was no 'plan' or momentum for any further electrification. Principally maintenance and renewal with a bit of ancillary stuff like receptivity for regeneration. Some early stirrings in Scotland for Edinburgh-Glasgow and Rutherglen-Coatbridge and 'what a rolling programme might look like'.

Lord Adonis came along after the whole planning and financing set-up had been fixed for five years and expected a rapid take-off from an industry and supply chain that was effectively un-prepared. So (with hindsight) there was little surprise that nobody (outside this forum, of course ) really 'knew' how much anything would cost, how long work would take, how rolling stock might be provided to take advantage of further wiring and so on.

As it is we have actually seen quite a lot of new wiring done and a worthwhile amount of diesel running under legacy wires converted thanks to bi-modes. I think that I have even seen it claimed that more wires were completed in a year during Chris Grayling's tenure as SoS that at any time previously (although I stand to be corrected on that).

Sadly, though, the money has run out.

[I have often thought of the programme as being like a university freshers' pub crawl. Some idealistic but naive individuals, who don't really know each other or the town they are in, decide to each chip in £50 to a kitty with the expectation that they can afford a pint in every pub in the place. Unfortunately, once in the first pub people get carried away ordering fancy and expensive cocktails and then get surprised and cross that the money runs out before they have got very far. There is a massive argument about whose fault it has been and some people start throwing punches in the hope that some others can be 'persuaded' to top up the kitty. Some people are 'forced' to finish the evening drinking from bargain cans in a leaky bus shelter.

The second pub crawl will have to have much better planning, discipline and restraint; and, just possibly, a bigger budget.]

An excellent post sir.

Although it doesn’t match my experience of freshers pub crawls. Turn up half cut, proceed to 120% cut, forgot the rest.

 

[Elecman]

Do any of the bi-mode units that use a diesel engine have electric preheating for the water cooling system and a pump to circulate the coolant around the engine? The emergency fixed diesel generator sets that Network Rail use, have this so that they can start up and take the rated full load within about 30 seconds

None of the Network Rail standby generators I have come across have any form of preheating either in the Signalling Supply Points or ROCs , they just start up fron Cold and switch over as soon as the voltage stabilises

 

[Annetts key]

None of the Network Rail standby generators I have come across have any form of preheating either in the Signalling Supply Points or ROCs , they just start up fron Cold and switch over as soon as the voltage stabilises

Strange. Maybe it was only a BR Western region requirement or a standard then. I’ve not been involved with them since privatisation. I assumed (yes, a very silly thing to do) that such a sensible arrangement would have been continued.

 

[XAM2175]

On the decarbonisation front, this is a stated aim of Government for the economy as a whole and not just the railway. Boris wants us to be seen as world leaders in green technology. As such, it does seem somewhat jarring that a government department would be persisting with diesel and potentially committing us to a path where our reliance on it remains.

That would be the Boris who, earlier this month, used a private helicopter owned by JCB to travel from London to Stourbridge for a brief PR appearance with Andy Street.

 

[Taunton]

Just renaming the project de-carbonisation rather relies on the UKs electrical generation being carbon free which is many years away from reality.

I thought that the approach was to pretend that all the electrons in the grid from nuclear etc power stations miraculously went to the railway, and all the ones from conventional power stations (mainly gas nowadays) went to "other people".

 

[Grumpy Git]

I thought that the approach was to pretend that all the electrons in the grid from nuclear etc power stations miraculously went to the railway, and all the ones from conventional power stations (mainly gas nowadays) went to "other people".

No need to pretend it's a "cast iron" fact!

 

[mike57]

Passenger experience also needs to come into the equation, as a poor experience for passengers will drive them towards other forms of transport, resulting in lower income, and therefore less money available going forwards

Whilst I agree the electification 'programmes' (I was trying to think of another word that conveys much less organisation and forethought but couldn't) are a mess, we need to look at where we are today.

Bi-Modes are more pleasent than the equivilent DMU, as anyone who has experienced the 180's to London on Hull trains will vouch for. For the majority of the journey no noisy diesel engine under the floor of your carriage.

Bi-Modes allow through services to unwired destinations, these are valuable to elderly, disabled, and those with heavy luggage, and those who dont fit these categories appreciate them for convenience.

Flexibility in times of disruption

The problem with electrification is that it is very disruptive whilst its in progress, and its a big up front cost, bi-modes get round this. Its probably the best solution for where we are now, the money for major electrification schemes isnt going to be available, and although long term costs may be higher, they are probably lower than staying diesel under wires.

As for environmental impact, at a national level I suspect that there is not much to choose as generating electricity creates various emmisions, even wind power uses resources in the construction. Locally air quality will be improved, e.g. major city centre stations, which are more likely to be wired.

So if you take where we are today we can afford bi-modes, we dont as a country have the appetite for major electrification, even although if you took the long view it may work out slightly cheaper. (although if you factor in all hidden costs it may not even be cheaper)

Maybe the solution is to find a cheaper/simpler/quicker to deliver electrification solution for non high speed lines (100mph max) but that would be a different thread. (some form of protected 3rd rail at 1200-1500v DC maybe, with modern electronics producing multi voltage rolling stock is simple to deliver). I agree 25kV overhead is the gold standard, but if you cant afford it you settle for something less. When shopping for a new car I will look longingly at something costing £200k, but settle for a £17k one because it does all I need of it, the same constraints apply at a national level.

 

[paul1609]

I thought that the approach was to pretend that all the electrons in the grid from nuclear etc power stations miraculously went to the railway, and all the ones from conventional power stations (mainly gas nowadays) went to "other people".

And despite the fact that the fast deminishing nuclear electricity is also included in n the calculations of low carbon energy edf sells to its domestic customers. Mind you as nearly every supplier is offering 100% renewable energy you do have wonder who is using the 85% of total generation that is non renewable this morning.

 

[Grumbler]

And despite the fact that the fast deminishing nuclear electricity is also included in n the calculations of low carbon energy edf sells to its domestic customers. Mind you as nearly every supplier is offering 100% renewable energy you do have wonder who is using the 85% of total generation that is non renewable this morning.

Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out that if the world does spend trillions to carry out the decarbonisation plan, it will make the planet cooler by only a tiny fraction of a degree by the end of the century. Furthermore, China has stated that it will continue to increase its carbon dioxide emissions for the foreseeble future, and it already produces more than any other country. So we need realistic alternatives. Advancements in nuclear technology (molten salt reactors, thorium), being developed now, promise to solve the energy problem within a few decades.