Petition calling for continued investment in electrification

[jayah]

How about this - £2,000,000 to *try out* some advertising signs on the M5: http://roads.highways.gov.uk/projects/m5-fuel-price-indicator-trial/

Wasting money in one area isn't going to get me to sign a petition to waste far more money on something else. Road improvement schemes have a BCR many times greater than rail schemes so the general premise here is wrong.

 

[jayah]

2. GW Electrification will have taken what 10 years from the time it was first approved to somewhere being close to finished minus a few bits so in the remaining 22 years to 2040 your simply not going to electrify the whole network in that period, so if you want rid of Diesels then you are going to have to come up with some other alternatives.

Given you already have buses running hundreds of km between battery charging a lot of this technology is already on the shelf. Rail vehicles are far bigger and more expensive and with lower friction it makes even more sense than for road vehicles.

 

[jayah]

Signed. In ecological terms, how can we possibly justify the continued use of diesel-powered trains?
I cannot understand the political brou-haha to support the supposedly politically acceptable idea of bimode trainsets in place of proper electrification. The idea of lugging a whole tankful of diesel fuel + a clunky diesel engine around the network when a direct electricity supply could provide the vital pulse defies logic.
But the weakness of the electrification argument remains Network Rail's incapacity to install OHLE to budget: surely a bunch of solid electrical engineers could be trained to put up the knitting reliably and cost-effectively, moving from one project to the next and delivering quality provision at a reasonable cost?

There is still no solution yet for aviation or space heating both of which are doing far worse to the environment.

Nor is there a solution to the fact electrification requires a lot of expensive kit and a lot of building work, disrupting travel for months and years.

 

[bastien]

Wasting money in one area isn't going to get me to sign a petition to waste far more money on something else. Road improvement schemes have a BCR many times greater than rail schemes so the general premise here is wrong.

What 'general premise' is that?

 

[jayah]

What 'general premise' is that?

That money spent on the road network isn't getting value for money.

 

[bastien]

That money spent on the road network isn't getting value for money.

Two million quid for a report that says "yeah everyone uses petrolprices.co.uk mate". Fantastic BCR on that.

 

[deltic]

signed - up to 50 now

 

[47802]

And the biggest air polluter causing 50,000 premature deaths annually in the UK according to a recent WHO report. Is this acceptable?
What is your answer to that one?

The proposed Diesel and Petrol 2040 ban only applies to new Road Vehicles not existing so why should it be different for Rail? Now given the longer lifespan of Rail Vehicles it probably makes sense to look and banning the sale of New Diesel only trains by the mid 2020's and perhaps Diesel Bi-modes by about 2030, but to say that all Diesel Rail Vehicles should be removed by 2040 may well put an excessive economic burden on the rail industry especially when alternatives other than spending a fortune on increased electrification are in their infancy.

There are I believe over 30 million Cars alone in the UK compared to Diesel Rail Vehicles in the thousands which would suggest that Pollution from Rail Vehicles is insignificant in the grand scheme of things compared to Road Vehicles.

 

[jayah]

Two million quid for a report that says "yeah everyone uses petrolprices.co.uk mate". Fantastic BCR on that.

£2m wasted that shouldn't have been, but doesn't mean all money for roads is wasted.

Look at the Severn Bridge. The usage is more than Paddington station - 30m vehicles v.s 35m passengers each year. Like it or not, money spent improving the roads gets far more bang for buck.

 

[B&I]

How about a petition calling for people who are so heavily in favour of road transport to explain why they spend their time on rail forums opposing any form of investment in the railways?

 

[tbtc]

There was great resentment in Yorkshire and Northeast that it was awarded to Branson. I used East Coast a lot to London and Scotland under DOR but have used the car since in protest at Branson

Road Transport is the primary method of Transport in many parts of the country and is likely to remain so, unless Scotty beaming people up becomes a reality

And the biggest air polluter causing 50,000 premature deaths annually in the UK according to a recent WHO report. Is this acceptable?
What is your answer to that one?

Top tip. If you are going to get on your high horse about road pollution, it's probably best not to mention (on the Class 800 mega-thread - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-800.100841/page-227#post-3325726) that you've been driving "a lot" from Yorkshire to London/Scotland for the past few years just because you don't like Richard Branson.

Otherwise the environmental credentials (that you are claiming) might look a bit, well, what's the word? Imperfect?

(as for the rest of this thread - I'd love to see electrification done properly - but we don't seem to be able to do it well in this country - and the reasons are all due to bits of the public sector - Politicians chopping and changing, the ORR and DfT unable to agree to things, Network Rail's perennial problem's in spending efficiently within deadlines - it frustrates me a lot but we have to deal with the realities of the imperfect situation that we are in - would you trust this lot with even more money?)

 

[Flying Phil]

Yes it is annoying that Electrification projects in this country are expensive - but the reasons are complex and include keeping the system running, adapting Victorian infrastructure, complex regulations, multiple authorities etc etc - however electric trains are, I believe, still the most efficient, fast, safe, least polluting method of moving vast numbers of people from city centre to city centre. The source(s) of the electricity can be varied as technology evolves.
I hope we will be able to drive our EV to the station, take an electric train, then rent a (driverless?) EV to do the bit at the other end - we are getting close to that now.

 

[bastien]

£2m wasted that shouldn't have been, but doesn't mean all money for roads is wasted.

Look at the Severn Bridge. The usage is more than Paddington station - 30m vehicles v.s 35m passengers each year. Like it or not, money spent improving the roads gets far more bang for buck.

But you haven't said what the 'buck' is or was - what are we talking about here? Construction costs? Ongoing costs? The cost of the bridge? The cost of the entire M4? What?

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is still no solution yet for aviation or space heating both of which are doing far worse to the environment.

So does it not make sense to solve the problems that are solvable?

 

[bastien]

So does it not make sense to solve the problems that are solvable?

I'm sure the answer will be along the lines of "no, we should wait until {thisyear+3} for mega batteries and hyperloop". It always is.

 

[Llanigraham]

And where is all the electricity for all these schemes going to come from?
It is all well and good stating you want to electrify all lines, but until this country has a method of generating that power in a NON polluting way it is a waste of time.

Not signed.

 

[furnessvale]

There are I believe over 30 million Cars alone in the UK compared to Diesel Rail Vehicles in the thousands which would suggest that Pollution from Rail Vehicles is insignificant in the grand scheme of things compared to Road Vehicles.

Yet we now have regulations covering rail diesel locomotives that are so restrictive that a new build heavy haulage diesel is still a pipe dream.

For freight, we should move to a system of grams of pollutant per tonne/km moved, covering ALL forms of transport and tax accordingly. Using that measure, rail already has a three to one advantage over road, even using old dirty class 66 locos.

 

[higthomas]

Signed, although sadly I fear it is next to useless unless one gets some media traction behind it.

 

[alistairlees]

Perhaps the petition should suggest the sort of "rolling" electrification programme outlined on here, to make the best use of resources expertise.

Such a simple and logical idea, yet it never seems to reach the echelons of Whitehall and Government.

There are alternative options to "everything at once" and "none at all".

I have to agree with (and have often thought) the rolling electrification programme. It is the stop-start nature of projects, with teams being formed and disbanded that is very inefficient. Time and knowledge are lost every time this is done. And contractors have to factor in extra cost (i.e. charge a higher price) to allow for the uncertainty.

Far simpler and more efficient to:
- define an amount (e.g. 200 miles) of double track that there is budget to be electrified per year. On the wild guess that that is £10m per mile on average (depends on track complexity, signalling, bridges and tunnels etc) that would be £2bn per annum
- commit to this as part of control periods, with a forward view always for 5 years
- work with one, two or three partners (to be decided) to deliver this, with each providing their own team and able to make a fair return. Put appropriate incentives in play, but don't try and transfer all the risk of huge schemes onto smaller entities that can't manage (or insure against) this risk. With long term commitment on both sides you get a fairer price (for everyone) and should get a better result
- have a defined end goal for the programme (e.g. certain lines completed) after which it can be reduced in scope (or stopped)

Over 10 years you would get 2,000 miles of electrification, which would cover the GWR mainlines, CrossCountry, MML, TransPennine (all routes), Chiltern, various urban networks (Cardiff, Manchester, Bristol), and some secondary lines.

Obviously there are related challenges (infrastructure changes, rolling stock, etc.) but that's part of an overall strategy (assuming someone writes one), and it doesn't drive the general presumption that electrification is a good thing, should be done as part of a national plan, and shouldn't be constantly stopped / started according to issues with Network Rail, franchising, government, rolling stock plans generally etc.

The way we are going at the moment things will take so long to be improved that it will be pointless.

 

[squizzler]

I wonder if petitions for electrification in the past have built their argument from the point of view - not of the passengers or the train operators - but of the communities around the railway lines? I reckon a petition intended to appeal to those who live and work next to increasingly busy railway lines has two benefits:

1. There are still many numpties who have not yet got with the programme and started riding trains regularly. I think the priority is to sell the benefits of electrification to this group rather than to preach to the rail evangelising choir. For those living next to the railway lines and stations the benefits are better air quality, less noise and less road traffic.
2. Politicians may be more willing act on behalf of homeowners whose property is negatively affected than they seem to be for those who want a better rail service.

 

[47802]

Yet we now have regulations covering rail diesel locomotives that are so restrictive that a new build heavy haulage diesel is still a pipe dream.

For freight, we should move to a system of grams of pollutant per tonne/km moved, covering ALL forms of transport and tax accordingly. Using that measure, rail already has a three to one advantage over road, even using old dirty class 66 locos.

What regulations are these then I presume we are talking about Diesel Emissions are they not similar to those that apply to Road Vehicles. There were various spouting on here about not being able to build new DMU's because of the latest emission regulations somebody better tell CAF quick then!.

As for Electrification unless I am missing something are not the current Electrification Team's still preoccupied completing the GW and North West Schemes, then there is Electrification to Corby, continuing Electrification in Scotland and more could be authorised in due course, so Electrification hasn't exactly stopped and just because the Government has rightly in my view rained in a number of Electrification Scheme's because of Network Rail's massive overspend some people seems to want to throw the toys out of their pram about it.

 

[Domh245]

As for Electrification unless I am missing something are not the current Electrification Team's still preoccupied completing the GW and North West Schemes, then there is Electrification to Corby, continuing Electrification in Scotland and more could be authorised in due course, so Electrification hasn't exactly stopped and just because the Government has rightly in my view rained in a number of Electrification Scheme's because of Network Rail's massive overspend some people seems to want to throw the toys out of their pram about it.

I think that Corby has its own team which are starting up, separate to NW, Scotland and GW.

And at the moment, it looks like the only additional electrification that will be authorised is (bits of) Transpennine and Scotland, so whilst electrification hasn't stopped yet it looks like it might soon come juddering to a halt in England. The Government has reigned in electrification, but the concerning part is that they aren't saying "we'll electrify once we've got cost under control" - they're cancelling schemes (as opposed to indefinite postponement) and going around trumpeting bimodes and bionic duckweed alternative methods of propulsion.

 

[Busaholic]

Around 1990 a Labour local councillor in the far west of Cornwall started a petition to electrify the railway line between Penzance and Plymouth. He got a lot of publicity locally and a lot of signatures, given the population of the area. When the councillor brought copies of his petition to my bookshop expecting me to agree to display it for signatures, etc, he was surprised when I refused, until I explained my reasons, namely that electrifying the line to Plymouth and then expecting people travelling longer distances (i.e. the vast majority) to change to diesel would achieve absolutely nothing timewise or anythingelsewise. In fact, it would be an absolute nightmare, but he wasn't interested in my arguments, he just wanted re-election (he had no job and lived on 'expenses') which he duly achieved until his comparatively early death.

 

[frodshamfella]

Signed

 

[yorksrob]

What regulations are these then I presume we are talking about Diesel Emissions are they not similar to those that apply to Road Vehicles. There were various spouting on here about not being able to build new DMU's because of the latest emission regulations somebody better tell CAF quick then!.

As for Electrification unless I am missing something are not the current Electrification Team's still preoccupied completing the GW and North West Schemes, then there is Electrification to Corby, continuing Electrification in Scotland and more could be authorised in due course, so Electrification hasn't exactly stopped and just because the Government has rightly in my view rained in a number of Electrification Scheme's because of Network Rail's massive overspend some people seems to want to throw the toys out of their pram about it.

Well, that would be a reasonable argument, had MML electrification been paused, rather than cancelled.

 

[yorksrob]

Around 1990 a Labour local councillor in the far west of Cornwall started a petition to electrify the railway line between Penzance and Plymouth. He got a lot of publicity locally and a lot of signatures, given the population of the area. When the councillor brought copies of his petition to my bookshop expecting me to agree to display it for signatures, etc, he was surprised when I refused, until I explained my reasons, namely that electrifying the line to Plymouth and then expecting people travelling longer distances (i.e. the vast majority) to change to diesel would achieve absolutely nothing timewise or anythingelsewise. In fact, it would be an absolute nightmare, but he wasn't interested in my arguments, he just wanted re-election (he had no job and lived on 'expenses') which he duly achieved until his comparatively early death.

To be fair, he might have envisaged some sort of locomotive changeover, as at Preston in the old days.

 

[furnessvale]

What regulations are these then I presume we are talking about Diesel Emissions are they not similar to those that apply to Road Vehicles. There were various spouting on here about not being able to build new DMU's because of the latest emission regulations somebody better tell CAF quick then!.

Yes we are talking diesel emissions. The problem for UK rail is the difficulty in getting all the filters needed for a large loco engine within UK loading gauge.

Even before we start to add huge filters to a loco like a 66 or 70, the emissions per tonne/km moved are about one third of moving the equivalent freight by road. If the problem cannot be solved, (but I believe it will be eventually), we could be in the ridiculous situation in the UK of moving freight to road to avoid unachievable rail emissions targets, but simultaneously tripling the emissions caused.

That is why I favour the measure I proposed in message #47.

 

[jayah]

But you haven't said what the 'buck' is or was - what are we talking about here? Construction costs? Ongoing costs? The cost of the bridge? The cost of the entire M4? What?

I wasn't making a point about the cost of the bridge, I am trying to impress upon you why the road network is so important and why road schemes have far greater BCRs - because FAR more people use the roads.

I don't understand what point you were making about this silly £2m signage scheme.

 

[jayah]

Around 1990 a Labour local councillor in the far west of Cornwall started a petition to electrify the railway line between Penzance and Plymouth. He got a lot of publicity locally and a lot of signatures, given the population of the area. When the councillor brought copies of his petition to my bookshop expecting me to agree to display it for signatures, etc, he was surprised when I refused, until I explained my reasons, namely that electrifying the line to Plymouth and then expecting people travelling longer distances (i.e. the vast majority) to change to diesel would achieve absolutely nothing timewise or anythingelsewise. In fact, it would be an absolute nightmare, but he wasn't interested in my arguments, he just wanted re-election (he had no job and lived on 'expenses') which he duly achieved until his comparatively early death.

Unfortunately a lot of policy works like this. The member for Derby sees electric wires and Doncaster and demands to know why Derby doesn't have any.

But it isn't fair. Why has Doncaster all this investment? I demand Derby had these things too. Sometimes I doubt they care what it does, if they have helped secure £bn of spending in their area people might vote for them.

 

[jayah]

And the biggest air polluter causing 50,000 premature deaths annually in the UK according to a recent WHO report. Is this acceptable?
What is your answer to that one?

To put this in context there are barely 500,000 deaths each year in the UK. The researchers were even surprised by this result. They should not have been. It was the product of an all too common desktop regression analysis of 17 factors such as weight, diet etc... to try and decompose those that cause heart attacks, strokes etc... Of course there is no proven cause and effect other than data correlation.

Having said this, air pollution is nasty, dirty and unhealthy and is worth spending money cleaning up. However electrification of heavy rail must offer one of the worst possible returns for doing so.