Network Rail's Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy published

[Domh245]

It's partly that I think it is wasteful to remove (and scrap) one lot of diesel engines while manufacturing another lot of diesel engines for a new fleet. Remembering that manufacturing anything will involve carbon emissions.

Rail engines don't exist in a vacuum though. The MTU engines fitted to the 80x are used in a whole variety of other sectors including oil & gas drilling, and static power generation. Engines removed from the trains can be reconditioned by MTU and reused elsewhere. I wouldn't even be overly surprised if some of the engines used in the trains are reconditioned units from elsewhere, a google image search for the engine model reveals several sites offering second hand ones

If taking the engines off the IEP fleets and putting those second-hand engines under new trains is easier than swapping the carriages (complete with engines in the case of the old carriages) then I'd be happy with that too to a degree. My proposal above for swapping carriages has the added effect of enabling the GWML, ECML and MML to move (back) towards longer fixed-formation sets rather than multiple working of non-gangwayed 5-car units.

I would like to think that swapping the engines out is far easier than reforming the trains. The IEP TTS specifically requires bi-mode units to be "capable of being readily modifiable to an Electric IEP unit at a future date by the removal of Self Power Sources from one or more IEP vehicles" and "capable of being readily modified (so far as reasonably practicable) to utilise a different type of fuel and/or Self Power Source without the replacement or addition of any IEP Vehicles." - the other 80x units, utilising the same architecture will be similarly convertible. Granted it is also a requirement for the units to also be able to accommodate formation changes, but given the simplicity of simply pulling the genset and fuel tank out from underneath with a forklift and blanking off any holes, I fail to see the attraction of shuffling vehicles around and the complications that follow from discrepant ages, interior fit, etc.

As for the point about moving back to longer fixed formation sets, if it was advantageous to do that, do you not think we'd already be seeing it? Of course, in idealist-land we'd run full length units the whole time, but there isn't a need to, and the operational disadvantages from running 2 sets coupled aren't outweighed by the advantages. Not to mention of course that we should be right-sizing, there's no point running a train twice as long as it needs to be if you don't have to - sure if they're all electric and everything is powered from renewables (and hence zero carbon) you've still got the wear on the infrastructure/unit to consider as well as plain old entropy.

The key thing to me is not to manufacture any more diesel engines, except perhaps for regional bi-mode trains capable of no more than 100mph in either mode.

Don't hang up on diesel engines too much, the key thing is to reduce carbon emissions, preferably sooner than later, and in the most cost efficient way. If the best way to do that is quickly introduce a whole bunch of bimodes with fresh engines, then so be it. If for example a decision had to be made tomorrow, Hitachi could get a full fleet of bi-modes out and onto the XC network long before wires reach Nottingham/Sheffield/Bristol/Swansea/Plymouth etc. The extra carbon from producing those MTU engines would be more than offset by electric running that the bi-modes would be doing, and long before the bonkers cascade-everything-to-XC-and-build-new plan came to fruition.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Have I missed something? People seem to be talking as if this report has a chance of being implemented.

Having seen many such reports come and go, I will hold fire until at least the frozen bits of MML and GWML are restarted before getting too excited.

After Grayling scrapped alot of electrification, I seem to recall some reports suggesting that Network Rail weren't particularly keen on wires anymore. Assuming it was true to start with, that reluctance within Network Rail appears to have gone now which is great news. Also as I understand it the report was produced to a request from the government to recomend how we could decarbonise the railway. That the rail industry have NOT given the government the answer assume the government wanted (hydrogen/battery nearly everywhere) is a big win in my view. The government may decide that they don't want to decarbonise the railway, but otherwise they will need to authorise electrification and hopefully cannot hide behind an excuse that hydrogen/battery will do the job anymore.

You are correct that the report is, at this stage, just a recomendation, but I'd say it has a chance of being implemented at least in part. It's not certain by any means, but resumption of electrification now seems alot more likely to me than it did a few weeks ago.

Rail engines don't exist in a vacuum though. The MTU engines fitted to the 80x are used in a whole variety of other sectors including oil & gas drilling, and static power generation. Engines removed from the trains can be reconditioned by MTU and reused elsewhere. I wouldn't even be overly surprised if some of the engines used in the trains are reconditioned units from elsewhere, a google image search for the engine model reveals several sites offering second hand ones

Fair enough, if reconditioned engines could be used for a new fleet that might not be so bad (since it might not reduce the age of the yougest diesel engines on the network) but I'd still rather not increase the total number of diesel-equiped LHDS vehicles on the network.

Of course, in idealist-land we'd run full length units the whole time, but there isn't a need to, and the operational disadvantages from running 2 sets coupled aren't outweighed by the advantages. Not to mention of course that we should be right-sizing, there's no point running a train twice as long as it needs to be if you don't have to

There's no point running a 10-car train when a 9-car one has a similar capacity either. I'm not doubting the operational advantages, but what about the passenger experience? In my view dividing a non-gangwayed train in-service is a minus on the passenger experience. I also think a LDHS service (or a regional express for that matter) should avoid the need for passengers to stand at any time if at all possible. Given that a line has to be pretty busy to justify upgrading it to 125mph, I have serious doubts as to whether a 5-car set could get through a whole day's diagram without passengers having to stand. Sure, there will be parts of journeys where 5-car is ample, and maybe even some off-peak turns where it can go in/out of London without standees; but at some point it's going to work a peak-time turn in/out of somewhere like Oxford or Nottingham. Said peak service into Oxford/Nottingham is unlikely to be as busy as a peak service in London, so wouldn't need a 9/10-car set, but still too busy for a 5-car set is my assumption. I might be less concerned about the 5-car sets if I knew the actual loadings on every service and if the only splits took place at the terminus in order to park peak-strengthening units in the sidings during the off-peak period.

Don't hang up on diesel engines too much, the key thing is to reduce carbon emissions, preferably sooner than later, and in the most cost efficient way. If the best way to do that is quickly introduce a whole bunch of bimodes with fresh engines, then so be it. If for example a decision had to be made tomorrow, Hitachi could get a full fleet of bi-modes out and onto the XC network long before wires reach Nottingham/Sheffield/Bristol/Swansea/Plymouth etc.

The wires wouldn't need to reach all those places to get some bi-modes to XC. Just getting the MML wires to Nottingham and Sheffield would be enough to send the 810s to XC. Yes Hitachi could build new bi-modes sooner, but how much sooner? Since the 810s are due in 2022, my guess would be 2023 for new XC stock. MML wires? Who knows, maybe, 2028. So you get some bi-modes 5 years earlier by buying them new rather than waiting for a cascade, but do you scrap the Voyagers at only 25 years old? If you wait for the Voyagers to reach 30 then the MML wires should be up and I guess it then comes down to whether building a new fleet of EMUs for the MML or a new fleet of bi-modes for XC is the better option - the EMUs would be cheaper at least. I suppose scrapping the Voyagers at 25 and replacing with new bi-modes might be more benificial than my gut reaction of "that looks wasteful" would suggest.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The wires wouldn't need to reach all those places to get some bi-modes to XC. Just getting the MML wires to Nottingham and Sheffield would be enough to send the 810s to XC.

Not until the diversionary routes - Nottingham via Oakham and Sheffield via Ilkeston are wired. When every route previously operated by the Class 810 fleet is wired, then you replace them with an EMU design.

To be brutally honest, chucking a bit of cash the way of the ROSCOs to compensate them for some stock coming out of service a few years early will hardly be the end of the world anyway, given the rest of the costs involved and the savings available.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I am getting tempted to start a thread in the speculative ideas thread about the order of everything then we can look back and see what priorities really are.

 

[The Ham]

I am getting tempted to start a thread in the speculative ideas thread about the order of everything then we can look back and see what priorities really are.

Would be interesting to get some ideas of others, probably frequency/number of coaches would play a part, as would freight (possibly more so than passenger services if my reading between the lines is right).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Well indeed. Freight absolutely has to be electric so commonsense says pick those freight routes with huge synergies with the passenger networks.

 

[Domh245]

but I'd still rather not increase the total number of diesel-equiped LHDS vehicles on the network.

Again, this focus on the number of diesel engines (which if anything stays neutral as the new bimodes replace the voyagers, one in, one out). If increasing the number of diesel LDHS means reducing the number of diesel elsewhere (or indeed increasing the number and running them half as often) then it is the better thing to do. The aim is to reduce carbon emissions, not reduce the number of diesel LHDS on the network (albeit there is a link)

There's no point running a 10-car train when a 9-car one has a similar capacity either. I'm not doubting the operational advantages, but what about the passenger experience? In my view dividing a non-gangwayed train in-service is a minus on the passenger experience. I also think a LDHS service (or a regional express for that matter) should avoid the need for passengers to stand at any time if at all possible. Given that a line has to be pretty busy to justify upgrading it to 125mph, I have serious doubts as to whether a 5-car set could get through a whole day's diagram without passengers having to stand. Sure, there will be parts of journeys where 5-car is ample, and maybe even some off-peak turns where it can go in/out of London without standees; but at some point it's going to work a peak-time turn in/out of somewhere like Oxford or Nottingham. Said peak service into Oxford/Nottingham is unlikely to be as busy as a peak service in London, so wouldn't need a 9/10-car set, but still too busy for a 5-car set is my assumption. I might be less concerned about the 5-car sets if I knew the actual loadings on every service and if the only splits took place at the terminus in order to park peak-strengthening units in the sidings during the off-peak period.

With the 810s, it's been calculated that there's enough for about half of the trains in service to be run at double length, and because of the diagrams those working the morning peak into St Pancras also work those leaving St Pancras in the evening. The people ordering and operating the trains have the passenger numbers for each service, and I at least have confidence in them to arrange their stock in the best way, although discussing long vs short train is getting off topic!

The wires wouldn't need to reach all those places to get some bi-modes to XC. Just getting the MML wires to Nottingham and Sheffield would be enough to send the 810s to XC. Yes Hitachi could build new bi-modes sooner, but how much sooner? Since the 810s are due in 2022, my guess would be 2023 for new XC stock. MML wires? Who knows, maybe, 2028. So you get some bi-modes 5 years earlier by buying them new rather than waiting for a cascade, but do you scrap the Voyagers at only 25 years old? If you wait for the Voyagers to reach 30 then the MML wires should be up and I guess it then comes down to whether building a new fleet of EMUs for the MML or a new fleet of bi-modes for XC is the better option - the EMUs would be cheaper at least. I suppose scrapping the Voyagers at 25 and replacing with new bi-modes might be more benificial than my gut reaction of "that looks wasteful" would suggest.

Those dates seem about right. 5 years of bi-mode operation shouldn't be sniffed at: each Manchester service would gain ~100 miles of electric running, each Edinburgh service ~200 miles, some quick back of the envelope calculations show about 8000 daily miles that could go over to electric running using the current wires. Over those 5 years, that's 14 million miles not run on diesel and that's before considering that the diesel miles will themselves will have a much lower emission of CO2

Scrapping voyagers is without a doubt the right thing to do. They're done their time, and have no further use. Remove the engines (again, Cummins QSK19 is a versatile engine that can be put to work in all manner of sectors) and scrap them. 25 years is by no means a bad innings

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The one thing Rhydgaled is forgetting, and which complicates all of the TDNS outputs, is the need for quite a lot of resignalling and the desire to move to ETCS when resignalling is being undertaken.

The industry is not going to fit ETCS signalling equipment to the majority of diesel rolling stock, be it commuter, regional or long distance stock - the absolute minimum number of diesel units will be fitted with ETCS.

Electrification can't proceed on a significant number of route miles until resignalling is completed, so the idea of pure electric EMUs is a distinct non-starter for at least some of those route miles.

There will be resignalling which proceeds on the basis of installing ETCS compatible, 25kV immunised components but doesn't switch from trackside signals, but for a number of other routes, it will be ETCS which is deployed during resignalling. That pretty much demands either the limited diesel stock fitted with ETCS, or bi-mode stock which can run on diesel after delivery and during resignalling works, can switch to using ETCS signalling whilst still running on diesel, and can then run on electric when electrification is completed.

 

[The Ham]

With the 810s, it's been calculated that there's enough for about half of the trains in service to be run at double length, and because of the diagrams those working the morning peak into St Pancras also work those leaving St Pancras in the evening. The people ordering and operating the trains have the passenger numbers for each service, and I at least have confidence in them to arrange their stock in the best way, although discussing long vs short train is getting off topic!

The other thing to bear in mind is that with the type of train still being ordered (especially if there's an order for XC which would likely eat into a LOT of that 30% of diesel use under wires), then there's still scope to purchase additional middle coaches over the next few years if demand increases.

Now if that demands increases and there's been more Electrification then there's scope to order them as EMU coaches and then reform the existing middle coaches into longer bimodal units.

Whilst that might result in a mismatch between interiors, that's less obvious (due to being in different coaches) than when individual seats get repaired due to them being damaged. As such few would notice and even fewer would care.

However if by getting more bimodal trains it allows the deferment of some lines to be electrified (as they only have, say, XC & GWR long distance services running on them) then that would allow other lines to be electrified earlier and then then having just straight EMU's.

 

[Legolash2o]

Quick question. In central Wales (mixed Hydrogen areas), does it say what the alternative to Hydrogen is?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No, as the ‘resources’ for those project have long since gone on to other projects. Albeit they can come back.

It might be worth an explanation of what ‘electrification resource’ is. Much of it is actually resource used normally for other disciplines - civils for structure alterations and putting masts up, signalling for immunisation, power engineers for the distribution kit. The bit that is bespoke to OLE is the erecting the small part steel work and the wires themselves, which is about 20-30% of s typical electrification project. The people who tend to do this are rather nomadic and always have been. Much of the recent scottish electrification was wired by Italians.

In terms of plant, a fair bit of what is used to erect the catenary is then subsequently transferred to the maintenance teams. Indeed the same has applied to some of the OLE construction gangs in Scotland, some are now maintaining it.

Whilst there is no doubt that a rolling programme is much more efficient, the training and competence is only a relatively small part of the issue. It’s more about contracting (avoiding repeat tendering), avoiding long pauses between projects (which burn money without output), and economies of scale.

From what I can recall, NR had 4 main electrification contractors for the CP5 projects.
The only live major one now is the SPL Powerlines contract for the MML, which is nearing its end.
I think Amey, who did the main part of the GW wiring, are also set up to do the Valley Lines work in South Wales (as part of the Keolis Amey contract with TfW).
The other two major contractors, Balfour Beatty (NW, Crossrail, Severn Tunnel etc) and ABC (Alstom Babcock Costain JV - EGIP and West Mids) appear to have finished their work, although ABC may be working on the next wiring project in Scotland.
There's foreign interests in most of these contractors, including Spain (Amey) and Austria (Powerlines).

Other NR electrification work in progress is the continuing GEML upgrade and the startup of the NPR project at the York end.
Projects like the King's Cross remodelling also need extensive OLE work.
There's also the HS2 work looming, still at the bidding stage.

 

[Bald Rick]

I should have added.

NR has an overall view of industry OLE resource, at detail level. It holds details of every piece of critical OLE plant, and every ‘linesman’ (AIUI they all are men), their availability and what jobs they are on. In principle this is to ensure resource isnt over committed on busy weekends, but it can also be used to manage forward workload.

 

[hwl]

Quick question. In central Wales (mixed Hydrogen areas), does it say what the alternative to Hydrogen is?

"Mixed" detail in page 220 onwards.
There is detail in some cases but not really in others e.g. Wales (p234).

It will vary on a line by line basis.

With Hydrogen there is the option to run on OHLE if it is available, e.g. electrifiying some distance west of Shrewsbury that the power supply for the other lines could also support and but avoid any structure clearance (level crossings galore here). The result is that the Hydrogen refuelling interval is increased (especially as Hydrogen MUs have reasonable sized batteries too so they can be charged).

Craven Arms - Morlais Jn: the question here is whether you would want to retain it as freight route (and electrify) or not.

 

[Legolash2o]

"Mixed" detail in page 220 onwards.
There is detail in some case but not really in others e,g, Wales (p234).

It will vary on a line by line basis.

With Hydrogen there is the option to run on OHLE if it is available, e.g. electrifiying some distance west of Shrewsbury that the power supply for the other lines could also support and but avoid any structure clearance (level crossings galore here). The result is that the Hydrogen refuelling interval is increased (especially as Hydrogen MUs have reasonable sized batteries too so they can be charged).

Craven Arms - Morlais Jn: the question here is whether you would want to retain it as freight route (and electrify) or not.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

From what I can recall, NR had 4 main electrification contractors for the CP5 projects.

SPL Powerlines was formerly the Carillion Powerlines JV - it was Carillion Powerlines who completed most of the North West electrification when Balfour Beatty realised a calculator and not an crystal ball was the correct tool for determining costs. Volker covered Phase 3 (Preston to Blackpool North).

 

[Rhydgaled]

Again, this focus on the number of diesel engines (which if anything stays neutral as the new bimodes replace the voyagers, one in, one out). If increasing the number of diesel LDHS means reducing the number of diesel elsewhere (or indeed increasing the number and running them half as often) then it is the better thing to do. The aim is to reduce carbon emissions, not reduce the number of diesel LHDS on the network (albeit there is a link)


Those dates seem about right. 5 years of bi-mode operation shouldn't be sniffed at: each Manchester service would gain ~100 miles of electric running, each Edinburgh service ~200 miles, some quick back of the envelope calculations show about 8000 daily miles that could go over to electric running using the current wires. Over those 5 years, that's 14 million miles not run on diesel and that's before considering that the diesel miles will themselves will have a much lower emission of CO2

Scrapping voyagers is without a doubt the right thing to do. They're done their time, and have no further use. Remove the engines (again, Cummins QSK19 is a versatile engine that can be put to work in all manner of sectors) and scrap them. 25 years is by no means a bad innings

Some fair points there. I guess I'm still clouded by my gut reaction that scrapping trains before they are 30 years old is wasteful. Also I remain concerned that increased numbers of LDHS bi-modes will result in 'bi-mode blight' with the LDHS routes remaining unwired and, at best, some regional routes being wired first instead. Does an extra 15-20 years of diesel use between Derby and Birmingham/Bristol/Plymouth offset the large diesel saving you get between Derby and Scotland by deploying bi-modes?

The one thing Rhydgaled is forgetting, and which complicates all of the TDNS outputs, is the need for quite a lot of resignalling and the desire to move to ETCS when resignalling is being undertaken.

Good point, as you suggest I had overlooked signalling immunisation. Is there a map anywhere that shows which routes have immunised signalling? I expect the most recent resignallings, and anywhere which is still 100% mechanical, would be ok, but not early colour-lights.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

——Balfour Beatty realised a calculator and not an crystal ball was the correct tool for determining costs.

I love this

 

[hwl]

I love this

A good site survey before hand is always useful for improving the numbers being typed into the calculator.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A good site survey before hand is always useful for improving the numbers being typed into the calculator.

GIGO? As in garbage in garbage out perchance?

 

[Elecman]

GIGO? As in garbage in garbage out perchance?

Quite!!

 

[quantinghome]

A good site survey before hand is always useful for improving the numbers being typed into the calculator.

Very true. There's an oft-used quote among geotechnical engineers: “You pay for a site investigation whether you have one or not.”

 

[hwl]

Very true. There's an oft-used quote among geotechnical engineers: “You pay for a site investigation whether you have one or not.”

I very nearly added that at the time of writing!

Two thoughts for mix:

1) The potential 3rd rail depending on ORR /RSSB risk assessment review - If it heads towards 3rd rail this is largely independent of the OHLE workstreams and could be delivered relatively quickly. If it does get a potential nod as the way to go the key thing is to make sure all track renewals use enough sleepers with 3rd rail fitting holes when doing track renewals before you actually get round to doing the electrification to make it quicker and easier when you do.

2) Getting sensibly sized fleets of diesel and battery Bimode units for <100mph services that are ETCS capable and have SDO etc so they have future go anywhere capability would really help as regards a rolling programme where the biggest challenge to roll out isn't intercity services.

 

[nlogax]

I've just spent an hour and a half listening to Gareth Dennis' views on this entire document via his podcast. Needless to say I'm a bit more clued up about this than I was at the start.

My one overriding thought.. what's the likelihood of this happening in a sustained, rolling manner that something of this scope demands?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

That is the $64,000 question. Finances shot at post COVID - will the politicians see sense and look long term.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

That is the $64,000 question. Finances shot at post COVID - will the politicians see sense and look long term.

Negative interest rates coming if you believe some of the newspapers this week, so government effectively paid to borrow money.

It's not as if a rolling program is particularly costly either, just needs to be sensibly designed.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Negative interest rates coming if you believe some of the newspapers this week, so government effectively paid to borrow money.

It's not as if a rolling program is particularly costly either, just needs to be sensibly designed.

Indeed I think I remember a max figure of 47 billion quid From the report. So round up to 60 billion by 2050 so 30 years so 2 billion per year - not as costly as you would think.

 

[The Ham]

Indeed I think I remember a max figure of 47 billion quid From the report. So round up to 60 billion by 2050 so 30 years so 2 billion per year - not as costly as you would think.

In the last few years we'd been spending double that (about £4bn/year) on enhancements. Assuming we don't need as many with passenger numbers reversing (I've previously suggested 10-15%, so rolling back upto 5 years).

As such, there's likely to be some spare capacity in spending terms (but probably more importantly engineers' time) to make a start on electrification before needing to look at enchantments which would have otherwise been needed (although there's an argument that we should perhaps look to implement such enhancements so that there's capacity ready for future growth when passenger numbers start to overtake what we had before, but that's another discussion).

 

[Philip Phlopp]

...before needing to look at enchantments...

I know it's a typo, but it so fits in with what DfT, councils and some of the more insane user groups expect.

 

[Bald Rick]

As such, there's likely to be some spare capacity in spending terms

To enable this will mean cancelling the planned budgeted enhancements, of which the biggest two are Transpennine upgrade and MML electrification...

 

[paul1609]

To enable this will mean cancelling the planned budgeted enhancements, of which the biggest two are Transpennine upgrade and MML electrification...

Realistically post covid the most realistic plan to decarbonisation would most likely be cancelling all rail investment and using the funds to switch to non carbon road transport and home heating. Rail is a niche polluter its relatively low levels can come in 20 years time.