Treasury Blocking electrification plans

[Annetts key]

The government aims to have Offshore wind turbine capacity up to 40 GW by 2030.

From Wikipedia:

While the output from a single turbine can vary greatly and rapidly as local wind speeds vary, as more turbines are connected over larger and larger areas the average power output becomes less variable. Studies by Graham Sinden suggest that, in practice, the variations in thousands of wind turbines, spread out over several different sites and wind regimes, are smoothed, rather than intermittent. As the distance between sites increases, the correlation between wind speeds measured at those sites, decreases.

 

[WatcherZero]

You’re a bit out there old chap. Torness alone has a nameplate capacity of 1.36 GW. Even if it operates at only 50% capacity for the year, that’s still 6TWh.

Dogger Bank ‘A’ wind farm, under construction now, will have an installed capacity of 1.2 GW, and as with all deep offshore wind farms in the North Sea, is expected to have a capacity factor of around 40%. This will produce 4.2TWh of electricity a year. Therefore you need roughly half a Dogger Bank A to power the rest of the rail network if it was all electrified. That’s 48 turbines.

Fortunately there’s another two Dogger Banks (B and C) being delivered in the next 4-5 years. And plenty more elsewhere.

Ahh I see where your going wrong, your thinking an output of 6 terawatts over the year at 50% capacity. The two reactors at Torness combined have a nameplate of 1.36GW
The network is using around 4 Terrawats (4000 GW) AN HOUR! and we would need an extra 2,500 GW an hour.

Once Dogger Bank wind Farm is completed at a cost of £9bn and covering an area of 1,600 square kilometers (largest wind farm in the world) it will have a PEAK generating capacity of 3.6GW and generate about 5% of the UK energy demand, the actual generation margin is forecast to be 63% though with transmission losses through hundredes of kilometers of undersea cable its going to be more like an average of 50% of its rated capacity.

So if you wanted to meet the energy requirement of full network electrification with windpower you would need another 1.5 Dogger Banks to be built....

 

[Bald Rick]

The government aims to have Offshore wind turbine capacity up to 40 GW by 2030.

From Wikipedia:

Partly to prove the point on it always being windy somewhere (with the cororally that it can’t be wind6 everywhere) there is 24GW of installed wind capacity in this country, and the record for peak output (last Tuesday) is about 18.5GW.

Even when we had a long spell (3 weeks) of low wind in April, the average generated was 3GW.

 

[tbtc]

It only seems to be loony free-market anglo-saxon types that expect a passenger railway to pay for itself through the fare box

You really need to come up with something better than these straw man opponents

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

It's 2022 in a few days time - which means we are fast approaching the twenty year anniversary of the public sector Network Rail - if they've not got electrification costs down in these twenty years then when do you expect them to get round to it?

Oh, sorry, is it still privatisation's fault?

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

Yeah, I think that a lot of the people clutching "net zero" as the latest thing to justify spending huge sums of money on the railway, maybe not appreciating that the parsimony that would go with this (more like a return to the "essential journeys" of lockdown than a railway where you can galavant around ticking off rare track with bargain tickets etc)

 

[Bald Rick]

Ahh I see where your going wrong, your thinking an output of 6 terawatts over the year at 50% capacity.
The network is using around 4 Terrawats (4000 GW) AN HOUR! and we would need an extra 2,500 GW an hour.

Ahh, I see where your going wrong. Actually I don’t. I’ll try more simply:

The network uses 4TWh a year. That is the equivalent of about 450MW continuous.

If all the network was electrified, annual consumption would lift by around 50%, ie 2TWh a year, which is the equivalent of about 225MW continuous.

Dogger Bank A is rated at 1200MW; annualised capacity of 40% means that on average it puts out the equivalent of 480MW continuous. Therefore you need (roughly) half a Dogger Bank A to power the rest of the rail network if electrified.

Perhaps someone else can check my Maths to show I am (hopefully) not going wrong.

Edit: lukewarm off the Press is that Dogger Bank C (1.2GW) reached financial close two weeks ago and will now proceed to construction. Also Norfolk Boreas (1.8GW) was granted it’s Development Consent Order on Friday, and now proceeds to financing. Added to various other projects, there’s 6GW of offshore wind under construction, and another 10GW consented. All coming on line, progressively, in the next 6-7 years.

We possibly need a wind power thread...

 

[Starmill]

Glasgow Central to Barrhead & East Kilbride is nowhere near that advanced. There are bases and masts between Muirhouse and Kennishead but nothing done on the EK branch where most of the complexity lies. In fact, work on the ground seems to have stopped at the moment.

That's just the summary that I gleaned from the forum thread!

 

[snowball]

Is WatcherZero in his last couple of posts getting his units of power and energy swapped?

1 one-bar electric fire times 1 hour = 1 kilowatt times one hour = 1kWh = 1 unit on the meter

1 gigawatt for 1 year = 1 GW times 9000 hours (rounding up a bit) = 9000 GWh = 9 TWh

 

[quantinghome]

It's 2022 in a few days time - which means we are fast approaching the twenty year anniversary of the public sector Network Rail - if they've not got electrification costs down in these twenty years then when do you expect them to get round to it?

Oh, sorry, is it still privatisation's fault?

It's partly Network Rail's fault, partly privatisation, and partly government.

Privatisation resulted in proposed electrification schemes being canned. The engineering experience for electrification built up through the 1980s and early 1990s was dissipated as the people with the experience moved on and few engineers got trained up to replace them.

When we decided to restart electrification, politicians didn't understand that implications of a 15 year gap in experience of electrification projects, and neither apparently did Network Rail, so rather than build up slowly we went for a big bang approach which was doomed from the start. The engineering design was handed to engineering design consultancies as they were the only people with the relevant engineering knowledge, but crucially they too lacked real world experience. Previous engineering guidance was ditched (I'm unclear whether this was at the behest of Network Rail) and they decided to reinvent the wheel. Misapplication of new engineering standards resulted in designs with 15m long piles. Anyone with previous experience of electrification schemes would have known this was about three times too long but no-one in the engineering firms doing the designs, or Network Rail, had the experience to say this and when the design hit site, Mr Cock-up came to town.

The irony is that the mistakes made during GW electrification have caused lessons to be learned. Network Rail and its design consultants have essentially returned to the previously successful approach to design and all that's now needed is a commitment to a rolling programme to allow economies of scale to kick in. We can but hope that the schemes which have been approved have sufficient scope to enable cost savings to be demonstrated.

 

[yorksrob]

You really need to come up with something better than these straw man opponents



It's 2022 in a few days time - which means we are fast approaching the twenty year anniversary of the public sector Network Rail - if they've not got electrification costs down in these twenty years then when do you expect them to get round to it?

Oh, sorry, is it still privatisation's fault?



Yeah, I think that a lot of the people clutching "net zero" as the latest thing to justify spending huge sums of money on the railway, maybe not appreciating that the parsimony that would go with this (more like a return to the "essential journeys" of lockdown than a railway where you can galavant around ticking off rare track with bargain tickets etc)

Yes, that massive fifteen year gap in electrification at the start of privatisation when almost nothing was electrified and the industry was talking about de-electrifying the ECML North of Newcastle.

That would have had no effect whatsoever on the industry's capacity and expertise to electrify would it (sarcasm).

 

[Wynd]

Is it not the case that EGIP was roughly on time and budget? What are the principal differentiation to that project and GW electrification? Other than the size of course.


Is that 15 year gap above not the reason SG are going for this rolling electrification program? So skills are not lost?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is it not the case that EGIP was roughly on time and budget? What are the principal differentiation to that project and GW electrification? Other than the size of course.

Neither. And it cost more per single track km than the GWML.

 

[Wynd]

Are UK electrification's drastically more expensive than those in other European nations?

 

[Bald Rick]

Are UK electrification's drastically more expensive than those in other European nations?

The electrification kit, not significantly. All the other stuff that is needed because of the U.K. loading gauge, and to a lesser extent signalling, lots.

Also we tend to have much busier railways over here than in Europe - at least in terms of those being electrified - and it is therefore more disruptive to do the work, and thus more expensive.

 

[Wynd]

Are you saying there is lots more signalling or the signalling costs a lot more?

So capital costs are effectively increased due to compensation payments to operators for delays and cancellations?

 

[Bald Rick]

Are you saying there is lots more signalling or the signalling costs a lot more?

Yes! More the former.

So capital costs are effectively increased due to compensation payments to operators for delays and cancellations?

Yes, but for the planned disruption. Complicated subject though.

 

[Wynd]

Thanks for the insight.

 

[Starmill]

Neither. And it cost more per single track km than the GWML.

Although the Shotts line wasn't at all as bad.

 

[Bald Rick]

Although the Shotts line wasn't at all as bad.

Yeah, but they cheated

 

[Annetts key]

Are you saying there is lots more signalling or the signalling costs a lot more?

So capital costs are effectively increased due to compensation payments to operators for delays and cancellations?

The normal practice for mainland U.K. railways has been generally not to try to ‘future proof’ infrastructure works. Mainly because the extra cost could not be justified at the time. The railway having to try to offer maximum value for money at that point in time only.

Hence the majority of existing signalling systems are incompatible with electrification. In most cases, due to the age of the existing signalling system, it’s easier to install a new signalling system rather than spend large amounts of money altering an existing signalling system.

There is also an increased cost of trying to carry out work on an existing busy line. Most work has to been done at night between 23:00 and 05:00 or at weekends. Before the line can be returned to traffic, absolutely nothing can be left in a state that may endanger trains or staff. Hence you may not be able to start work on an item if you may not be able to finish before your allocated time is up.

There is also a ‘dead’ time during the taking of the T3 occupation and during hand back. So out of a 6 hour gap in train services, you may only get 4 to 5 hours of work done. That includes getting materials to site from the access point.

And the planning and work has to take account of normal routine maintenance work. At the same time the work on the signalling system has to take place as well.

All this significantly increases costs compared to working on a line not open to traffic.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yes, that massive fifteen year gap in electrification at the start of privatisation when almost nothing was electrified and the industry was talking about de-electrifying the ECML North of Newcastle.
That would have had no effect whatsoever on the industry's capacity and expertise to electrify would it (sarcasm).

Hmm.
There was the NLL conversion/extension from 3rd rail to 25kV (largely for Eurostar regional services which never started).
Heathrow branch and the first 12 miles out of Paddington.
Much of the WCML was rewired/rebuilt for WCRM. plus Crewe-Kidsgrove.
HS1.

Some of these were BR schemes that carried over into the Railtrack/NR era.
Some of them were authorised specifically because of privatisation and the provision of external funding.
WCRM and Thameslink 2000 were authorised as part of the privatisation of BR into Railtrack, to guarantee a workflow and as a basis for franchising.

Much expertise did disappear with Railtrack/NR's anti-electrification stance (until 2007), some of it to contractors who were delivering schemes in Europe/Asia.
Much expertise has since been imported by the CP5 contractors (from Spain, Austria, Switzerland etc).
It's a global market with construction industry pricing and resources.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, that massive fifteen year gap in electrification at the start of privatisation when almost nothing was electrified and the industry was talking about de-electrifying the ECML North of Newcastle.

That would have had no effect whatsoever on the industry's capacity and expertise to electrify would it (sarcasm).

To be fair, as I have posted on another thread some time ago, the skills needed for electrification in this country have been, largely, maintained throughout. All the associated non electrification work (Civils, Track, Buildings, signalling) is done by the same people who do it for renewals / enhancements. The Power engineers have been very busy buying and installing transformers across the south, and on West Coast, and East Coast, and in Anglia, over that time. It’s also a skill easily transferred from the power industry.

OLE installers have as others have said, been well employed on renewals across the board, plus on other projects like HS1. It is true to say more were needed when the peak of work came in for GW, NW, West Mids and Scotland, but not that many more. It is an international trade now, much of Scotland was wired by Italians.

 

[Annetts key]

The main contractor responsible for installing the new signalling system that was rolled out ahead of the GWML electrification definitely had problems getting and keeping qualified staff.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Yes, that massive fifteen year gap in electrification at the start of privatisation when almost nothing was electrified and the industry was talking about de-electrifying the ECML North of Newcastle.

That would have had no effect whatsoever on the industry's capacity and expertise to electrify would it (sarcasm).

Yes Lilian Greenwood admitted (I will try and find the twitter reference for you) that it was a mistake that nothing/very little got done 1997-2010 when Labour were in office,

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes Lilian Greenwood admitted (I will try and find the twitter reference for you) that it was a mistake that nothing got done 1997-2010 when Labour were in office,

It did though, I did some of it!

not much, admittedly.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It did though, I did some of it! not much, admittedly.

I adjusted/edited my post.

 

[matacaster]

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 ?

Lowering safety standards sounds bad, but there should be a debate about what is a reasonable level of safety, rather than a gold plated version which no other walk of life embraces. There is also the issue of personal responsibility versus corporate responsibility.

If a child walks out into the road, which is very easily done, and is killed or maimed, do we immediately insist on barriers being erected on all roads? NO.
We expect parents and children (fairly or unfairly) to take personal responsibility.
There was a case where EWS was fined because someone cut through their metal wire fencing and managed to hurt themselves. They knew they shouldn't have been their, but why aren't the road and rail standards the same? The rail industry keeps pushing for higher safety standards, but ends up with enormous costs and reluctance of govt to invest when road transport embodies very few real safety standards. Imagine if the rail inspectorate was asked to do a risk assessment on roads - they'd nearly all be closed immediately.

 

[quantinghome]

This makes for interesting reading: RIAECC.pdf (nsar.co.uk)

A key paragraph seems to be this one:

Great reliance was placed on the High Output System (the HOPS and the OLE) to deliver electrification quickly, efficiently and with the minimum possible disruption to passengers and freight. This was a very laudable objective, but the outputs assumed in the programme were not achieved in practice. The greatest difficulty was with the productivity of the piling system to which the overlong piles were a significant contributory factor. This is arguably the root cause of all cost and programme overrun on GWEP, once the piling output fell behind and gaps were left requiring return visits the programme, which lacked resilience, rapidly became unrecoverable.

The piling problems are explained here:

In 2012 the assumption on GWEP was that the majority of foundations would be 5m long steel piles placed using the ‘factory train’ (See Section 13). This approach was consistent with the long established ‘ORE/ OLEMI’ empirical design guidance which had been used on previous UK electrification schemes. However, when detailed design was started the ORE method was not used and a ‘first principles’ limit state design approach was adopted as the loads resulting from, amongst other things, higher wire tensions were considered to beyond the evidence base which underpinned the empirical rules. Not only that but different designers were responsible for the OLE system, the masts and the foundations. These interfaces, combined with some unduly onerous design assumptions including design life, resulted in designs for piles up to 12 to 15m long. Another factor as illustrated in Figure 12 was the decision to place piles further from the track to avoid buried cables which meant a significant loss in the power the piling equipment could apply due to the increased operating radius. This also meant the cantilevers or portals needed to be longer increasing the loading on the pile which meant it had to be longer still. Unsurprisingly the ‘factory train’ struggled to drive such long piles and productivity was very poor. Many piles were left protruding from the ground requiring de-design and/or repositioning. This resulted in inefficient multiple visits.

So it was a failure to identify potential problems as they arose and deal with them that led to the cost overrun and delay. All the designers were competent and had the necessary skills. What was lacking was the overall engineering experience to bring all the bits together and understand that there were going to be problems.

Subsequently, there has been a return to the empirical design method.

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 ?

Sometimes a new design based on more recent engineering standards turns out to be a massive overdesign, as was the case with the piling on GWEP. Fortunately sense has prevailed and the previous empirical methods have been reintroduced.

 

[MarkyT]

MML electrification would be beneficial in terms of removing diesels, as it allows the new Aurora bi-modes to be cascaded to (say) Crosscountry and replaced with more efficient electric-only traction.

More likely some or all of the modular diesel generator packs will be removed and perhaps partly replaced by battery packs for continued MML use with diversionary capability. All Hitachi IEP and derivative trains have been designed with this in mind.

 

[quantinghome]

More likely some or all of the modular diesel generator packs will be removed and perhaps partly replaced by battery packs for continued MML use with diversionary capability. All Hitachi IEP and derivative trains have been designed with this in mind.

Yes, good point. Especially as the Auroras are a somewhat bespoke design for the MML. I do question the rationale for battery packs on busy main lines though. Just wire the diversionary routes on the MML and have done with it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Partly to prove the point on it always being windy somewhere (with the corollary that it can’t be windy everywhere) there is 24GW of installed wind capacity in this country, and the record for peak output (last Tuesday) is about 18.5GW.
Even when we had a long spell (3 weeks) of low wind in April, the average generated was 3GW.

If "Gridwatch" is accurate, its wind figures don't seem to get above 14GW, and most recently somewhat less.
Having looked at figures over a couple of years, the gas figure remains stubbornly high, and there are too many calm, cloudy spells for comfort (I think we are just starting one now).
The interconnectors are important, when they work, but they are also allowed to export energy as well as importing it.
At this moment we appear to be a net exporter of power to Europe, as France is taking 2GW.