|
broadgage
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2021, 18:30:18 » |
|
Does anyone know what network rail are charging for traction current AT PRESENT, I thought that it is 12.5 pence a unit, but stand to be corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU▸ is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
|
|
|
|
stuving
|
|
« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2021, 19:47:12 » |
|
Does anyone know what network rail are charging for traction current AT PRESENT, I thought that it is 12.5 pence a unit, but stand to be corrected.
That's the rate for operators that have chosen to pay the fixed rate. Some have not, and are paying a market-based rate. They pay via NR» either way, as they in effect operate the distribution network. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
broadgage
|
|
« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2021, 20:02:20 » |
|
In that case, the fixed price should be cheaper than diesel power.
The variable price, is variable but could well be more expensive than diesel power at times, I would be very surprised if diesel remained cheaper than electricity for any significant time.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU▸ is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #18 on: October 14, 2021, 08:46:29 » |
|
I suspect that electricity meters will soon become a network rail requirement for new or refurbished electric locomotives and multiple units.
Network rail have operated a metered traction power service for ten years. There is a standard metering data interface, and users are charged for power consumed plus an addition for distribution costs and losses. The alternative is for power consumption to be worked out based on simulations, using the same distance and load data as for variable track charges. I can't find any data on how much traction power is metered, but I expect the simulated rates will be set a little high, which will encourage its use. yes using spot market charges possibly suits FoC's there use of electric traction is not as predictable as a ToC where their energy use is much more predictable so they are able to negotiate favorable tariffs with an energy supplier. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
Bmblbzzz
|
|
« Reply #19 on: October 14, 2021, 13:32:10 » |
|
The RMT▸ words refer to "electricity charges to rail freight operators", saying they will suddenly be tripled, which does stretch one's credulity a bit. This rate was set for 2021/22 by this letter sent out in March 2021. It says "a 200% increase" which might be journalese for "doubled". Or am I being unduly cynical?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
|
|
|
|
PhilWakely
|
|
« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2021, 14:07:40 » |
|
The RMT▸ words refer to "electricity charges to rail freight operators", saying they will suddenly be tripled, which does stretch one's credulity a bit. This rate was set for 2021/22 by this letter sent out in March 2021. It says "a 200% increase" which might be journalese for "doubled". Or am I being unduly cynical? Have I got the wrong end of the stick, but it appears that somebody has their maths wrong  A 200% increase is equivalent to 'tripled' |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bmblbzzz
|
|
« Reply #21 on: October 14, 2021, 14:51:43 » |
|
The RMT▸ words refer to "electricity charges to rail freight operators", saying they will suddenly be tripled, which does stretch one's credulity a bit. This rate was set for 2021/22 by this letter sent out in March 2021. It says "a 200% increase" which might be journalese for "doubled". Or am I being unduly cynical? Have I got the wrong end of the stick, but it appears that somebody has their maths wrong A 200% increase is equivalent to 'tripled' I'm saying that journalists often misuse figures and mathematical expressions, occasionally deliberately but often through ignorance or carelessness. Thus if the information is "the price has doubled", this might sometimes be reported as "a 200% increase". I'm not saying this is what has actually happened here, as I haven't seen the prices, just reacting to Stuving's comment about the rise "stretching one's credulity". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
|
|
|
|
PhilWakely
|
|
« Reply #22 on: October 14, 2021, 17:57:15 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stuving
|
|
« Reply #23 on: October 14, 2021, 18:25:06 » |
|
If you look at the graph of wholesale market rates per kWh, it was 7p early in the year and slowly rose to 10p by August, which is the same as locked rate for the year. Since then it has been higher and more erratic, spiking up to 54p for a day, then down to 16p before another lower spike. So one factor in producing the very high rate being charged to "unlocked" FOCs▸ is the way NR» fix this rate based on the daily rate on one day. Normally that doesn't make much difference, with small gains and losses that average out in the longer term. This month it has produced a rate much higher - perhaps double - than it would have been a few days either way. This is obviously an artifact; the general rise is really there in the market. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
