Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 19:55 28 Mar 2024
* Easter getaways hit by travel disruption
- Where Baltimore bridge investigation goes now
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Passengers pleaded with knifeman during attack
- Family anger at sentence on fatal crash driver, 19
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1992)
MOD Kineton tour, branch line society (*)

Train RunningCancelled
17:57 London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street
18:08 London Paddington to Frome
18:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
19:23 Reading to Gatwick Airport
19:33 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill
19:35 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
19:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
20:16 Frome to Westbury
20:20 Reading to Shalford
20:49 Newbury to Bedwyn
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
21:16 Bedwyn to Newbury
21:30 Shalford to Reading
21:53 Newbury to Bedwyn
22:25 Bedwyn to Newbury
22:47 Newbury to Bedwyn
Short Run
15:03 London Paddington to Penzance
16:03 London Paddington to Penzance
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
16:35 London Paddington to Plymouth
16:50 Plymouth to London Paddington
17:03 London Paddington to Penzance
17:30 London Paddington to Taunton
17:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
17:50 Gloucester to Salisbury
18:03 London Paddington to Penzance
18:19 Reading to Gatwick Airport
18:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
18:54 Reading to Gatwick Airport
18:59 Gatwick Airport to Reading
19:04 Paignton to London Paddington
19:06 London Paddington to Bedwyn
19:13 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
19:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
20:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
20:11 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
20:42 Bedwyn to London Paddington
21:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
Delayed
16:15 Penzance to London Paddington
Additional 17:17 Exeter St Davids to Penzance
Additional 17:26 Castle Cary to Penzance
19:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
An additional train service has been planned to operate as shown 19:40 Redhill to Reading
19:54 Reading to Gatwick Airport
19:59 Gatwick Airport to Reading
23:04 Reading to Bedwyn
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 20:08:01 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[118] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[116] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[89] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[46] Return of the BRUTE?
[38] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[28] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Is rail electrification the future, or the past  (Read 23534 times)
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5190


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2017, 19:07:27 »

Stick with the electricity. With more new build nuclear, and increased wind/solar, to generate it.

Can't agree about nuclear. Wind, solar and other renewables, backed by storage, will very soon be producing electricity at a fraction of the stated cost of nuclear. And the stated cost is an infinitesimal fraction of the true cost, which tends to infinity given that you have to store the waste, at a cost, forever.
Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2017, 19:19:26 »

Is C Grayling, and obviously his DfT» (Department for Transport - about) team, right? or should we still be installing overhead power system, upgrading tunnels, etc?

He's just kicking the can down the road. The idea that spare energy from wind and solar can be used to produce hydrogen or charge batteries would be fine if there was any spare energy from wind and solar. There is no moment in time that gas or nuclear are not topping up renewables - as I write, the top-up amounts to 75% of the total electricity being used in the UK (United Kingdom). Wind is chipping in 8%, and it's dark, so no solar. Most of the rest is provided by our interconnector with France, our off-shore nuclear plant.

Batteries would power slower local stoppers, but they are heavy, and need recharging, which demands significant power at the terminus unless you want to trickle charge overnight. Hydrogen isn't heavy, but the infrastructure to support the idea doesn't exist to a sufficient size to make anything other than a token contribution. Look what happened to the hydrogen powered ferry in Bristol as soon as the Green City circus left town.

Why use power to charge batteries and produce hydrogen when the power could be delivered to the train directly by OHLE? You lose the pollution from the cities and cut out the middle man, and the consequent energy losses, if you string up cables, and the technology is tried and tested.

What we really need is a transport minister who will grow a pair, and crack on with electrification. All this talk of batteries and hydrogen will simply mean, at the rate of adoption of new technology in railways outside London, that we will still be riding around on diesel trains 50 years from now - probably the same ones we are riding on today. The HSTs (High Speed Train) were supposed to be a stop-gap until electrification could be done. We should now continue electrification as a stop-gap measure until we have the next generation technology, whatever it may be. If we are going to have anything powered by battery, it would make sense to start with road vehicles.
Logged

Now, please!
Noggin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 514


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2017, 23:04:19 »

I recently heard Chris Grayling questioning the need for electrification for Cardiff-Swansea and London Midland line. Whilst initially fuming, firmly believing we should electrify the whole network over 20-30 years, he then commented on new technologies including battery trains and hydrogen power.

At this point, my firm belief in electrification evaporated, why should we spend billions of pounds when stopping services can be powered by battery, and log distance services can powered by hydrogen? Both offer clean power, electrical tractiona n and performance.

Is C Grayling, and obviously his DfT» (Department for Transport - about) team, right? or should we still be installing overhead power system, upgrading tunnels, etc?

Bear in mind that electrification per-se is not necessarily particularly expensive. The expensive bit is resignalling and sorting out the trackbed and civil engineering of a 150 year old, intensively used railway, that has been largely maintained on a "make-do-and-mend" basis since the outbreak of WW2. This is compounded by the fact that electrification is usually accompanied by a programme of capacity improvement with track and station improvements, often putting back capacity that was rationalised out in the BR (British Rail(ways))-era, Filton Bank and Huyton & Roby re-quadrupling being a case in point. This has been compounded by an implementation of electrical safety rules that impose clearances much greater than is justified by physics and experience. Finally, where civil engineering is required, e.g. bridge replacements, the planning system, Network Rail and utilities often make bridge replacement more expensive than is strictly necessary.

Electric rolling stock is simpler, cheaper, lighter, does less damage to track, is faster to accelerate, quieter, does not pollute its immediate surroundings, is preferred by the traveling public. Everyone's a winner. OHLE is not particularly expensive to maintain once it has been installed, the Government is in a position to borrow cheaply on a long-term basis and be paid back over long time-frames. On that basis a long-term rolling programme of electrification seems like a very sensible idea.
 
Logged
Henry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 369


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2017, 07:48:36 »


 Being an 'old southern man' I still favour the 3rd Rail option.

 Less obtrusive, but not liked by trespasser's on the line.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2017, 08:05:05 »


 Being an 'old southern man' I still favour the 3rd Rail option.

Less obtrusive, but not liked by trespasser's on the line.

Quite apart from the safety considerations.  The cost of the substations is far more because the transmission power losses are higher, which means that you need substations much more frequently along the line, and because it uses DC (Direct Current). Even then the power losses are greater.  The trains are also non-standard and more expensive. 

Unless you went for the old L&Y side contact (not used anywhere in the UK (United Kingdom) now) ice is the perennial problem in Winter.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2017, 08:58:15 »

I recently heard Chris Grayling questioning the need for electrification for Cardiff-Swansea and London Midland line. Whilst initially fuming, firmly believing we should electrify the whole network over 20-30 years, he then commented on new technologies including battery trains and hydrogen power.

At this point, my firm belief in electrification evaporated, why should we spend billions of pounds when stopping services can be powered by battery, and log distance services can powered by hydrogen? Both offer clean power, electrical tractiona n and performance.

Is C Grayling, and obviously his DfT» (Department for Transport - about) team, right? or should we still be installing overhead power system, upgrading tunnels, etc?

Bear in mind that electrification per-se is not necessarily particularly expensive. The expensive bit is resignalling and sorting out the trackbed and civil engineering of a 150 year old, intensively used railway, that has been largely maintained on a "make-do-and-mend" basis since the outbreak of WW2. This is compounded by the fact that electrification is usually accompanied by a programme of capacity improvement with track and station improvements, often putting back capacity that was rationalised out in the BR (British Rail(ways))-era, Filton Bank and Huyton & Roby re-quadrupling being a case in point. This has been compounded by an implementation of electrical safety rules that impose clearances much greater than is justified by physics and experience. Finally, where civil engineering is required, e.g. bridge replacements, the planning system, Network Rail and utilities often make bridge replacement more expensive than is strictly necessary.

Electric rolling stock is simpler, cheaper, lighter, does less damage to track, is faster to accelerate, quieter, does not pollute its immediate surroundings, is preferred by the traveling public. Everyone's a winner. OHLE is not particularly expensive to maintain once it has been installed, the Government is in a position to borrow cheaply on a long-term basis and be paid back over long time-frames. On that basis a long-term rolling programme of electrification seems like a very sensible idea.
 
It could... but I was having a (totally non-railway) discussion with someone recently who opined that Margaret Thatcher's greatest legacy was the prevalent opinion that governments should borrow as little as possible.
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
Henry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 369


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2017, 09:07:08 »


 Was that before or after she started selling off Britains asset's ?
Logged
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5190


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2017, 10:12:49 »

There is no moment in time that gas or nuclear are not topping up renewables - as I write, the top-up amounts to 75% of the total electricity being used in the UK (United Kingdom). Wind is chipping in 8%, and it's dark, so no solar. Most of the rest is provided by our interconnector with France, our off-shore nuclear plant.

That's true. As I write, we're meeting 9% of demand from solar and wind; yesterday we were getting 31%. But the scope for growing renewables is enormous, makes economic sense, and is likely to continue apace with or without political backing. At the moment the cost per kWh of solar is half the contracted cost per kWh for Hinkley C. Not much use when it's dark, as you've pointed out, but here's the thing: within two years the cost of solar backed by batteries will be less than the contracted cost of Hinkley power. Even setting aside my not entirely tongue-in-cheek assertion that the true cost of nuclear electricity is infinite, you'd have to have nonlinear priorities to go ahead with Hinkley.

I have met people who genuinely don't think there's enough solar energy impinging on this island to meet our energy needs. Even when you point out that without the sun, the temperature here would be -271oC, they're unmoved. There's no convincing some people...
Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2017, 10:24:32 »

Of course the sun is simply the ultimate in off-shored, outsourced nuclear power.  Cheesy
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
simonw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 589


View Profile Email
« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2017, 10:25:42 »

This country is blessed with multiple forms of natural power, and whilst I am advocate of nuclear power, I am not an advocate of nuclear power at any price.

Until the Nuclear industry can price its product correctly, as a country we should invest in solar, tidal and wind power, and look at short term methane storage when we have an excess.

Whilst I am not sure if we every produce more natural power than we need, it must be close in the small hours of the night.
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2017, 10:26:09 »

The approach ought to be to do the Cost:Benefit analysis and electrify when the benefits outweigh the costs.  When there is alternative technology then the C:B analysis will give a different answer.

Logged
chrisr_75
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1019


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2017, 14:48:36 »

Is C Grayling, and obviously his DfT» (Department for Transport - about) team, right? or should we still be installing overhead power system, upgrading tunnels, etc?

He's just kicking the can down the road. The idea that spare energy from wind and solar can be used to produce hydrogen or charge batteries would be fine if there was any spare energy from wind and solar. There is no moment in time that gas or nuclear are not topping up renewables - as I write, the top-up amounts to 75% of the total electricity being used in the UK (United Kingdom). Wind is chipping in 8%, and it's dark, so no solar. Most of the rest is provided by our interconnector with France, our off-shore nuclear plant.

Batteries would power slower local stoppers, but they are heavy, and need recharging, which demands significant power at the terminus unless you want to trickle charge overnight. Hydrogen isn't heavy, but the infrastructure to support the idea doesn't exist to a sufficient size to make anything other than a token contribution. Look what happened to the hydrogen powered ferry in Bristol as soon as the Green City circus left town.

Why use power to charge batteries and produce hydrogen when the power could be delivered to the train directly by OHLE? You lose the pollution from the cities and cut out the middle man, and the consequent energy losses, if you string up cables, and the technology is tried and tested.

What we really need is a transport minister who will grow a pair, and crack on with electrification. All this talk of batteries and hydrogen will simply mean, at the rate of adoption of new technology in railways outside London, that we will still be riding around on diesel trains 50 years from now - probably the same ones we are riding on today. The HSTs (High Speed Train) were supposed to be a stop-gap until electrification could be done. We should now continue electrification as a stop-gap measure until we have the next generation technology, whatever it may be. If we are going to have anything powered by battery, it would make sense to start with road vehicles.

But let's not forget that batteries and, perhaps to a lesser degree, H power generation could be remote and do not necessarily need to be installed within individual vehicles if we had the means to subsequently distribute the power generated from or stored within. I agree that stringing a few poles and wires up at relatively modest cost, can surely only be a good thing? IMHO (in my humble opinion) it would make much more sense to continue electrifying as many routes as possible and canning HS2 (The next High Speed line(s)), rather than the other way round. For the cost of HS2 the entire network could probably be wired up with a few £billion leftover in small change.
Logged
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5190


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2017, 15:22:22 »

...perhaps to a lesser degree, H power generation could be remote and do not necessarily need to be installed within individual vehicles

Think of hydrogen as a way of storing energy, rather than as a fuel, and bear in mind that you lose about 80% of the energy you started with. The main advantage of hydrogen is that it has a good energy density and is fairly portable. Hydrogen is a bit like electric steam locomotives - not completely bonkers, but only appropriate in special circumstances:



Image: Douglas Self
Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4356


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2017, 17:08:20 »

Railway electrification is the long term answer; what is needs is a 20 - 30 year strategy with correct delivery and funding plan and not the recent political knee jerk we get every time a general election comes along.

That way the railway industry can plan the build and introduction of electrification
Logged

Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2017, 19:09:03 »

Electric rolling stock is simpler, cheaper, lighter, does less damage to track, is faster to accelerate, quieter, does not pollute its immediate surroundings, is preferred by the traveling public. Everyone's a winner.
Exactly. The reduced track wear is probably down to the reduced weight, which also will reduce the amount of energy needed to move the train. Battery trains would presumably have the same advantages over diesel in terms of acceleration, sound and pollution on and around the railway, but not the weight saving. A battery EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) is probably simpler than a DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit), but more complicated than a normal EMU. Plus the useful life of the batteries is likely to be significantly less than the useful life of the train, so you have an additional cost replacing the batteries when the first lot can no longer hold a full charge.

Railway electrification is the long term answer; what is needs is a 20 - 30 year strategy with correct delivery and funding plan
Agreed. We do not currently appear to have the means to electrify the railway quickly, but spread over 30 years (longer if the entire network, even the West Highland and Heart Of Wales Line, is to be done eventually) it should be acheivable.
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page