Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 20:15 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 (1988)
Woman found murdered on Orpington to London train (*)

Train RunningCancelled
17:57 London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street
18:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
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
19:59 Gatwick Airport to Reading
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
18:03 London Paddington to Penzance
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
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, 20:21:04 *
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: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
  Print  
Author Topic: Climate Change Emergency - Implications for UK Transport Strategy  (Read 22017 times)
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« on: May 11, 2019, 10:55:10 »

It is reported in the BBC» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)* that Dft believes that the recognition of a Climate Emergency by parliament (See BBC*) and the Committee on Climate Change recommendations for Net zero carbon by 2050 (See BBC*) means that the the UK (United Kingdom)'s aviation strategy may need to be reviewed.

Quote
In a letter to a tiny pressure group Plan B, the Department for Transport (DfT» (Department for Transport - about)) aviation head Caroline Low said: “It may be necessary to consider the CCC’s recommended policy approach for aviation.”

The article reports that Plan B - a pressure group is saying that this means that the decision on Heathrow expansion should be revisited. 

So what does this mean for UK Rail policy?

How about this for a start:

1) More urgency to high speed rail and other rail passenger improvements as an alternative to domestic air travel and car travel (see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=21574.0)
2) Cuts to long distance rail fares so that they are at least competitive with domestic air travel and cheaper if significantly slower that air travel (taking account of time spent at airports for security check in etc)
3) Promotion of, and incentivisation of use of rail for trunk parcel traffic in place of air


More generally:

4) A long term rolling programme of rail electrification
5) Promotion of rail passenger transport in place of car by provision of good services and integration with other public transport
6) A strategy for transferring most trunk freight traffic to rail

Anyone any other ideas?
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5398



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2019, 14:04:22 »

A couple of specific points to add to the above.

When planning or carrying out significant civil engineering works on or near the railway, make at least passive provision for considerable capacity enhancements in years to come.

New bridges over rail lines should allow for at least one, and preferably two extra tracks under the new bridge.
New or re-built stations and platforms should allow for future platform extensions to at least 150% of the present train length.

Think twice before building any more 100% diesel trains. We cant electrify the whole network overnight, but with a rolling programme of electrification, the existing fleet of diesel trains should be adequate.
All or almost all new trains to be electric or bi-mode.
To allow for growth, virtually all new trains to be 10 car or longer. I fully appreciate that shorter trains are sufficient for many services, but such needs could be met by cascading EXISTING shorter trains, not building more short units.

As is well known, I don't think much of the IETS, but that is due to the downgraded on board facilities. I have no objection to the PRINCIPLE of bi mode operation.

IMHO (in my humble opinion) all new electric trains should incorporate a small diesel engine, or a battery for use when the wires come down.

The railway industry owns or controls a great deal of property, and should set a good example by generating renewably as much electricity as possible.
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.
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2019, 15:42:38 »

When planning or carrying out significant civil engineering works on or near the railway, make at least passive provision for considerable capacity enhancements in years to come.

Agreed passive provision within reason.

New bridges over rail lines should allow for at least one, and preferably two extra tracks under the new bridge.

Now that's a bit more than passive provision.  I could design an over-bridge that could be extendable later with another span, but full provision at the start might price many improvements out of existence.

New or re-built stations and platforms should allow for future platform extensions to at least 150% of the present train length.

Yes within reason, but that might make finding a site for a new station impossible on some existing lines with the restrictions on curves and gradients nowadays. 

Think twice before building any more 100% diesel trains. We cant electrify the whole network overnight, but with a rolling programme of electrification, the existing fleet of diesel trains should be adequate. All or almost all new trains to be electric or bi-mode.

Agreed

To allow for growth, virtually all new trains to be 10 car or longer. I fully appreciate that shorter trains are sufficient for many services, but such needs could be met by cascading EXISTING shorter trains, not building more short units.

Not sure here - might be in danger of pricing these trains out of existence again! However, with some creativity they could be shorter trains that could be reformed into longer trains later. 

IMHO (in my humble opinion) all new electric trains should incorporate a small diesel engine, or a battery for use when the wires come down.

Not sure depends on cost implications and future reliability of power supplies. 

The railway industry owns or controls a great deal of property, and should set a good example by generating renewably as much electricity as possible.

Agreed, but how would that be generated?  Probably Solar - would refection for solar collectors near the line cause problems for drivers?
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5398



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2019, 15:55:45 »

And here is a specific proposal to reduce carbon emissions on the Waterloo to Exeter route, AND improve capacity.
This line is worked by class 158s and 159s, these have many years of useful life left and cant be readily converted to bi-mode operation.

Therefore consider building a small fleet of high powered DC (Direct Current) EMUs (Electric Multiple Unit), with every axle motored and about twice the power per ton of standard designs.
These designed to work in multiple with existing DMUs (Diesel Multiple Unit). On the electrified part of the route, the DMUs are to be hauled "dead" with the new electric unit hauling and powering on board services.
At the limit of the electrified area, the diesel engines are to be started and the electric unit detached.
The ample electricity supply from the conductor rail could pre-heat the diesel engines and fully charge the starter batteries so as to ensure quick and reliable starting.
The total train length should be maximum that Waterloo can handle.
This would give more capacity on the inner part of the route, and would eliminate diesel consumption on the electrified part of the route.
A bit like an updated version of the old REP units.

When the DMUs become life expired, consider replacing them with battery units that are hauled by the EMUs on the electrified part of the route.
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.
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2019, 15:58:25 »

All good stuff to allow for increased rail travel. But in the context of "climate emergency," increasing rail travel in itself is a bad thing; it's only a good thing if the travel is journeys that would be made anyway and have been transferred from road or air. So incentives to travel by rail would need to be accompanied by disincentives to other forms of travel and those disincentives would have to be stronger than the incentives; both because of people's habit inertia and because of the extra traffic generated by the cheaper, faster, more convenient train journeys. Even then, it's obviously not as much of a good thing as if those pre-existing journeys were somehow cancelled altogether.
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5398



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2019, 16:52:31 »

Agree. Rail is one of the best modes of transport WRT (with regard to ) carbon emissions, but nothing beats not travelling at all !

Rather than reducing the costs of rail travel, I would prefer to see the costs of road and air travel increased.

And for leisure travel, and for non urgent freight, we should make more use of coastal shipping and of inland waterways.
Canal barges use very little diesel fuel, and could be powered by batteries charged from solar energy.
A return to sail power is a distinct possibility for coastal shipping.
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.
Celestial
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 674


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2019, 17:28:00 »

Agree. Rail is one of the best modes of transport WRT (with regard to ) carbon emissions, but nothing beats not travelling at all !

And for leisure travel, and for non urgent freight, we should make more use of coastal shipping and of inland waterways.
Canal barges use very little diesel fuel, and could be powered by batteries charged from solar energy.
A return to sail power is a distinct possibility for coastal shipping.

Oh come, this is just absurd.  Even where inland waterways exist (say Bristol to Bath), who's going to spend at least three hours to do a journey that would take 15 minutes by rail (remember all those locks have to be got through). And for freight traffic the slow pace and limited capacity of each barge would mean that labour costs would be astronomical per tonne mile. And of course the current network and capacity of that network would be woefully inadequate for what you suggest.

Presumably you practise what you preach and never make leisure journeys?

The way to make rail more carbon efficient is to cram more seats in, do away with buffets and restaurant cars which are not space efficient, and have shorter sets so that trains aren't carting round lots of empty seats at the extremities of their journeys, and have capacity more tailored to the demand. I'm sure you'll be supportive of this for the greater good.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2019, 17:36:19 »

For leisure journeys, plenty of people already do use inland waterways in various ways. For freight, while the wider network has fallen out of use, a few specific routes do still carry freight. Obviously this only suits freight with long deadlines. The Rhine and Danube are two of the most important freight arteries in Europe.
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
Celestial
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 674


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2019, 17:41:24 »

For leisure journeys, plenty of people already do use inland waterways in various ways. For freight, while the wider network has fallen out of use, a few specific routes do still carry freight. Obviously this only suits freight with long deadlines. The Rhine and Danube are two of the most important freight arteries in Europe.

Yes but people use inland waterways for the pleasure of using them, not for getting from A to B.  And I don't think the cargo carrying capacity of barges that will fit on the Grand Union Canal is quite the same as those that use the Danube or Rhine.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2019, 19:06:07 »

The problem with slow freight is that it increases the amount of working capital a business needs to hold in stock as it is being transported for longer.  That is why express freight is so popular with business.
Logged
CyclingSid
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1918


Hockley viaduct


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2019, 07:14:31 »

Quote
Quote from: broadgage on Yesterday at 02:04:22 pm
New bridges over rail lines should allow for at least one, and preferably two extra tracks under the new bridge.

Now that's a bit more than passive provision.  I could design an over-bridge that could be extendable later with another span, but full provision at the start might price many improvements out of existence.

I get the impression that this is the reason that HST2 has gone back on its (and DfTs» (Department for Transport - about)?) original promise to retain and enhance existing cycle facilities along its routes.

The discussion over canals surely reflects the reasons for using road freight over rail freight, rail being perceived as slow.

The options for sustainable transport (public transport such as rail and bus) have to be made more attractive compared with the car somehow. Probably a combination reduced price and improved facilities for public transport are as important as increasing the cost and restricting the road spend for cars.

The biggest growth in road use in London is for delivery vans (all those Amazon orders etc.).

For leisure use and short distances active travel has to be encouraged more. Walking and cycling; and possibly horse (I am still thinking of Graham's comment on horses and wonder which transport fund will pay for a hitching rail outside Melksham station)
Logged
Lee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2019, 10:59:09 »

If this led to a more benign outlook, then I would probably put forward my proposal for a temporary reallocation of Road Investment Strategy funding to pay for a comprehensive rail line/station reopening programme. If that benign outlook continued, then I would look at a more permanent reallocation.

For something slightly more left-field, part of what I do is political scenario planning, and whether you are a fan or not, this is increasingly pointing towards a Corbyn-led government. For example, leaving aside the polls for the upcoming European Elections - which by any measure are Brexit Party-dominated - the latest polls for what would happen in a General Election, due to the simultaneous surge in support for both the Brexit Party and the Lib Dems, and a corresponding drop in support for both the Conservatives and Change UK (United Kingdom), would see Labour short of a majority by as little as 10 seats, which would certainly make viable a minority Labour government with either Lib Dem or SNP support, or even a formal coalition if they pledged a second referendum on either or both Membership of the EU» (European Union - about) or Scottish Independence.

Why is this specifically relevant? Well, although it has flown slightly under the radar due to our current Brexit-dominated political agenda, the idea of introducing Universal Basic Income (UBI) has gained a lot of traction in both Labour and Scottish Government circles, with both seemingly moving closer to endorsing UBI trials as a start point.

However, evidence from other countries has tended to show reluctance to fully roll out UBI after trials have been completed. Therefore, an alternative in the UK context has been put forward in the form of Universal Basic Services (UBS). This is based on providing universal access to 7 services, free at the point of use, which would be Healthcare, Education, Legal & Democracy, Shelter, Food, Transport and Information.

In terms of Transport, the UBS proposal prices 2 separate options, either universal access to free local bus services only, or universal access to free local bus services, plus local underground, tram, light rail and local train services too.

In terms of paying for the overall UBS package, the proposal advocates reducing the value of the personal allowance for income tax by £7,200, from its 2017-18 value of £11,500 to £4,300. According to the proposal, this would raise around £45bn, almost precisely offsetting the cost of providing the UBS services free at point-of-use.

Whilst most parties would probably baulk at doing this, a Labour government elected on a predominantly left-wing manifesto may well feel that it has been given a mandate to do so.

It would certainly be interesting to see what the effects of introducing either of the proposed UBS Transport options would be in practice.
Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5398



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2019, 11:39:59 »

Agree. Rail is one of the best modes of transport WRT (with regard to ) carbon emissions, but nothing beats not travelling at all !

And for leisure travel, and for non urgent freight, we should make more use of coastal shipping and of inland waterways.
Canal barges use very little diesel fuel, and could be powered by batteries charged from solar energy.
A return to sail power is a distinct possibility for coastal shipping.

Oh come, this is just absurd.  Even where inland waterways exist (say Bristol to Bath), who's going to spend at least three hours to do a journey that would take 15 minutes by rail (remember all those locks have to be got through). And for freight traffic the slow pace and limited capacity of each barge would mean that labour costs would be astronomical per tonne mile. And of course the current network and capacity of that network would be woefully inadequate for what you suggest.

Presumably you practise what you preach and never make leisure journeys?

The way to make rail more carbon efficient is to cram more seats in, do away with buffets and restaurant cars which are not space efficient, and have shorter sets so that trains aren't carting round lots of empty seats at the extremities of their journeys, and have capacity more tailored to the demand. I'm sure you'll be supportive of this for the greater good.

I see nothing absurd in my suggestion that some leisure travellers could use canals.
The much reduced speed is of little consequence if the journey is considered as part of the holiday or leisure trip rather than simply as a means of getting from one place to another.
Canals are already used for some leisure trips, I was suggesting that such use should be encouraged and expanded.
Virtually all canal boats are diesel powered, but solar looks viable in view of the modest speeds.

I do practice what I preach by not flying or driving, and limiting leisure trips by public transport. And also by minimising my use of fossil fuel at home (no oil central heating, no gas, normally no coal used)

I could not support "greening" trains by use of shorter trains, higher density seating, and removing catering. IMHO (in my humble opinion) trains need to be made MORE comfortable and attractive in other ways, so as to encourage train travel instead of flying or driving.
Trains are unlikely to be as convenient as driving door to door, nor to be as quick as flying. Therefore train travel needs to be made more attractive in other ways, including.
Trains long enough to seat everyone under all but exceptional circumstances.
Comfortable seating with good legroom.
A proper hot buffet on most long distance services, and a full restaurant on selected services where demand exists.

Promote train travel as being more comfortable than flying or driving.

"bacon rolls and fresh coffee served on our trains. we advise against cooking bacon whilst driving"
"enjoy a beer, or something stronger in our buffet and lounge car. We advise against drinking in your car"
"over half our seats are at full size tables, use your laptop in comfort. Please don't use a PC whilst driving"
"catch up on phone calls whilst on board (except in designated areas) You cant do that on a plane"

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.
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2019, 12:14:51 »

I see nothing absurd in my suggestion that some leisure travellers could use canals.

The much reduced speed is of little consequence if the journey is considered as part of the holiday or leisure trip rather than simply as a means of getting from one place to another.

Canals are already used for some leisure trips, I was suggesting that such use should be encouraged and expanded.

Virtually all canal boats are diesel powered, but solar looks viable in view of the modest speeds.

I have had some lovely holidays on the canals, with only a short journey from home to the starting point, and routes carefully chosen so that the journey, the company and the destination were all a real pleasure.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2019, 12:17:23 »

From Wired

A very interesting article looking at the green credentials of various modes but concluding ...

Quote
... believes the current trend towards more trips by train is happening despite the rail companies, not because of them. Although Eurostar offers through tickets to destinations in France, the Netherlands and Belgium, beyond that travelling internationally by rail is disjointed and fragmented process. “Rail needs to get its pricing and booking sorted,” Smith says. “They should make it as easy to book a train as booking a flight.”
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
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 ... 7
  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