Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
End of through trains
Bristol to Waterloo?

 
Please sign our petition
(more information)
 
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 04:35 20 Oct 2021
- Government urged to make a decision on HS2 route
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 today - SWR / Trowbridge meeting
27/10/21 - Railfuture on Cirencester
20/11/21 - Railfuture on Saltford
09/12/21 - Award Event - CRN
Random Image
Train RunningCancelled
04:57 Plymouth to Gunnislake
05:42 Gunnislake to Plymouth
10:10 Par to Newquay
11:12 Newquay to Par
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
October 20, 2021, 04:50:11 am *
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
[122] RISK OF DAMAGE - BBC Points West, Breakfast Time, 20th October...
[96] Trimode cl 769 to operate Reading to Oxford and Gatwick.
[73] 20th October 2021 - Special Rail Users meeting, Trowbridge, on...
[48] The passengers are BACK!
[28] Porkway Partway
[19] South Western Railways Waterloo - Bristol services axed
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13]
  Print  
Author Topic: Trimode cl 769 to operate Reading to Oxford and Gatwick.  (Read 62242 times)
PrestburyRoad
Full Member
***
Posts: 57


View Profile
« Reply #180 on: September 13, 2021, 05:12:08 pm »


Quote
How many years of active National Rail service do we think that the 15x and 16x units have left in them, and how many more years do we think it will be considered acceptable to continue to run diesel trains in general on the National Rail network, given how markedly attitudes have changed even over the past few years towards all things diesel from a Climate Emergency perspective?
I've been wondering: what's the relative carbon footprint between
  • The energy used operating a unit over its lifetime of say 40 years - such as the diesel it burns
  • The energy used in manufacturing the unit in the first place - such as getting the steel/aluminium from ore, minus any energy saved in recycling the materials from eventual scrapping
The balance between these can affect whether it's worth keeping old units running even if they are less fuel-efficient.
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 8878


View Profile
« Reply #181 on: September 13, 2021, 05:33:45 pm »

How many years of active National Rail service do we think that the 15x and 16x units have left in them, and how many more years do we think it will be considered acceptable to continue to run diesel trains in general on the National Rail network, given how markedly attitudes have changed even over the past few years towards all things diesel from a Climate Emergency perspective?

I would say around 20 years more service could be achieved with Turbos fairly easily.  The same with other units of a similar era - 158/9s specifically, perhaps a bit less for 150/3/5/6 units. 

Whether demand for diesel units will mean that happens is a whole other matter.  I would expect the change to battery/electric to be a more gradual one than with cars - but at exactly what pace will be deemed suitable and/or achievable I’d be much less confident in forecasting.
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 34634



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #182 on: September 13, 2021, 05:40:48 pm »

Working this out while others posted - what I think is a complete list of pure diesel passenger train (original build dates) running scheduled services on the national network these days that are pure diesel.

 47   1962-8 (converted to 57 - GWR (Great Western Railway) sleeper locos)
253   1975-82
D78   1978-? (converted to 230)
150   1984-7
155   1986-7 (most converted to 153)
156   1987-9
158   1989-92 (some converted to 159)
165   1990-2
166   1992-3
168   1998-2004
170   1998-2005
175   1999-2001
180   2000-1
220   2000-1
221   2001-2
171   2003-4
222   2003-5
185   2005-6
172   2010-1
195   2017-20
196   2019-
197   2021-
231   t.b.a.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2021, 05:52:51 pm by grahame » Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1470


View Profile WWW
« Reply #183 on: September 16, 2021, 03:00:23 pm »

I've been wondering: what's the relative carbon footprint between
  • The energy used operating a unit over its lifetime of say 40 years - such as the diesel it burns
  • The energy used in manufacturing the unit in the first place - such as getting the steel/aluminium from ore, minus any energy saved in recycling the materials from eventual scrapping
The balance between these can affect whether it's worth keeping old units running even if they are less fuel-efficient.
So have I. The least-fuel-efficient units appear to be the early-privatisation ones (170s, 175s and 185s) with Sprinters (150-159) and the latest diesels (195-197) both getting through less fuel per mile I think. I'm not sure there's much in it between a 195 and a 158, the different ratio of 3-car to 2-car units makes it hard to make a fair comparison.

I believe the energy used in manufacturing is quite significant, but how significant? Is it better to scrap a diesel train after 26yrs service in order to replace it with a new battery/hydrogen-electric bi-mode or to get the full 35-40 years life out of the diesel train before incuring the carbon cost of manufacturing the new fleet?
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).
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4015


View Profile
« Reply #184 on: September 16, 2021, 03:19:44 pm »

I believe the energy used in manufacturing is quite significant, but how significant? Is it better to scrap a diesel train after 26yrs service in order to replace it with a new battery/hydrogen-electric bi-mode or to get the full 35-40 years life out of the diesel train before incuring the carbon cost of manufacturing the new fleet?

That is a really good question and also what is the feasibility and carbon implications of retractioning these diesel units to give them longer life?
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4394



View Profile
« Reply #185 on: September 16, 2021, 05:15:16 pm »

The best thing to do with old diesel units IMHO (in my humble opinion) is to store them as a reserve fleet for for breakdowns or exceptional passenger flows. The fuel consumption is of relatively little importance if used thus rather than than in intensive daily use.

New trains should preferably be either OHLE or for secondary routes perhaps battery powered. All new electric trains should include either a diesel engine or a battery for proceeding at much reduced performance to the next station when the wires come down, or for on board services if unable to proceed.
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 (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1470


View Profile WWW
« Reply #186 on: September 18, 2021, 12:27:31 pm »

I believe the energy used in manufacturing is quite significant, but how significant? Is it better to scrap a diesel train after 26yrs service in order to replace it with a new battery/hydrogen-electric bi-mode or to get the full 35-40 years life out of the diesel train before incuring the carbon cost of manufacturing the new fleet?

That is a really good question and also what is the feasibility and carbon implications of retractioning these diesel units to give them longer life?
My gut feeling is that retractioning the diesel units is likely to be by far the best option in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, I fear the feasibility of retractioning the recent diesel orders (classes 195, 196 and 197) is pretty much non-existant because the following would be required:
  • Hacking a hole or two in the roof to install pantograph(s)
  • Replacing the entire (mechancial) traction system with traction motors etc.
  • Installing a traction power bus between vehicles so that current collected from the pantograph on one vehicle can reach the traction motors on other vehicles
This is likely to require all existing electrical systems to be stripped out while the work is ongoing partly due to the possibility of sensitive electrical equipment being fried during welding in the pantograph wells (I think these are aluminium bodied) and partly because there're going to have to find somewhere to put the traction power bus.
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).
RichT54
Full Member
***
Posts: 71



View Profile
« Reply #187 on: Yesterday at 09:29:37 pm »

Recent posts on RailUK forums have discussed rumours that the introduction of the 769s will be delayed another 12 months, although not all insiders seem to agree.

Quote
    800 Driver said:
    Hearing from multiple sources that the 769s have failed their fault free running and the project has been put back at least 12 months .....

Clarence Yard said
That doesn’t make any sense.

Fault free running is specific to the unit being accepted, not the class as a whole. The class authorisation is done through the NR» (Network Rail - home page) type acceptance programme which, unless GWR (Great Western Railway) have recently discovered an EMC (ElectroMagnetic Compatibility) or another serious issue to effectively negate it, has already been completed.

Recent delays to the programme have been mainly around ASLEF» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) not accepting the units as fit for their members. The cab seats and desks have been the latest areas of contention.

Can anyone here confirm the rumours?
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 8878


View Profile
« Reply #188 on: Yesterday at 09:48:44 pm »

I can confirm that Clarence Yard is an extremely reliable source of information.  However that doesn’t mean the 769s will be entering service any time soon!
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
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 ... 11 12 [13]
  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 a customer 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). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page