Campaign for Calder Valley Electrification

[RichmondCommu]

Great Western electrification is heading for £3bn and all UK fare income is only around £10bn per year. The amount spent on fuel and electric traction power is about £300m (each) per year.

It isn't possible or sensible to electrify very much at all.

I think you are perhaps getting confused between fixed cost capital investment and day to day running costs.

 

[edwin_m]

Great Western electrification is heading for £3bn and all UK fare income is only around £10bn per year. The amount spent on fuel and electric traction power is about £300m (each) per year.

It isn't possible or sensible to electrify very much at all.

We shouldn't accept that these figures are fixed in stone. Electrification cost less before and it costs less in other countries, and it ought to cost less on Network Rail. The Railway Industry Association is looking at ways to bring the cost down significantly from the GW rates, and I'd like to think that another electrification scheme is approved (possibly managed by someone other than NR) to demonstrate this before all the skills built up in the last few years dissipate again.

 

[Bantamzen]

We shouldn't accept that these figures are fixed in stone. Electrification cost less before and it costs less in other countries, and it ought to cost less on Network Rail. The Railway Industry Association is looking at ways to bring the cost down significantly from the GW rates, and I'd like to think that another electrification scheme is approved (possibly managed by someone other than NR) to demonstrate this before all the skills built up in the last few years dissipate again.

Exactly this. It is too often assumed that because previous projects have cost £xxx per mile that these costs can & should be projected forward and adjusted for inflation. Its quite clear even to a layperson that the current cost of much of our infrastructural improvements is way too high, and the government, in particular the DfT, need to take a close hard look at why costs have spiralled so. What is needed is more expertise inside the DfT from external sources, because quite often senior civil servants simply don't know or understand the industry for which they make decisions, including budgeting.

I feel certain that the cost could & should be brought down to a level where stalled schemes such as the North TP, GW & new schemes like the Calder could be restarted or costed for.

 

[jayah]

We shouldn't accept that these figures are fixed in stone. Electrification cost less before and it costs less in other countries, and it ought to cost less on Network Rail. The Railway Industry Association is looking at ways to bring the cost down significantly from the GW rates, and I'd like to think that another electrification scheme is approved (possibly managed by someone other than NR) to demonstrate this before all the skills built up in the last few years dissipate again.

I am afraid you are simply trying to imagine the world as you would like it to be rather than how it actually exists.

Exactly this. It is too often assumed that because previous projects have cost £xxx per mile that these costs can & should be projected forward and adjusted for inflation. Its quite clear even to a layperson that the current cost of much of our infrastructural improvements is way too high, and the government, in particular the DfT, need to take a close hard look at why costs have spiralled so. What is needed is more expertise inside the DfT from external sources, because quite often senior civil servants simply don't know or understand the industry for which they make decisions, including budgeting.

I feel certain that the cost could & should be brought down to a level where stalled schemes such as the North TP, GW & new schemes like the Calder could be restarted or costed for.

You are simply trying to reimagine the world in your own image rather than how it actually exists. There is nothing concrete behind any of these wish lists or aspirations.

There already exist EV buses with 600kwh batteries that can run all day and smaller batteries that charge in a few minutes at each route terminus. There is simply no justification for spending these sums delivering continuous power to the roof of a train which not add any capacity nor make it go any faster than any other modern train.

 

[Bantamzen]

You are simply trying to reimagine the world in your own image rather than how it actually exists. There is nothing concrete behind any of these wish lists or aspirations.

There already exist EV buses with 600kwh batteries that can run all day and smaller batteries that charge in a few minutes at each route terminus. There is simply no justification for spending these sums delivering continuous power to the roof of a train which not add any capacity nor make it go any faster than any other modern train.

You accuse me have having unjustifiable wish lists (which by the way are not that, they have all at some point been discussed officially) then suddenly imagine a infrastructure running around on a technology that hasn't even been proven on the rails yet?

It is not just about going a bit faster (although electrification can help achieve some improvements there), it is about the overall cost of running the network. Oil based fuel solutions will only get more expensive, as well as falling foul of future changes to environmental legislation, battery technology for large scale projects is still very much in its infancy and as yet cannot be shown to be the long term solution. This is why even in countries that take these things far more seriously, there are no massive changes to aspirations & that wired solutions remain firmly on the table.

 

[jayah]

You accuse me have having unjustifiable wish lists (which by the way are not that, they have all at some point been discussed officially) then suddenly imagine a infrastructure running around on a technology that hasn't even been proven on the rails yet?

It is not just about going a bit faster (although electrification can help achieve some improvements there), it is about the overall cost of running the network. Oil based fuel solutions will only get more expensive, as well as falling foul of future changes to environmental legislation, battery technology for large scale projects is still very much in its infancy and as yet cannot be shown to be the long term solution. This is why even in countries that take these things far more seriously, there are no massive changes to aspirations & that wired solutions remain firmly on the table.

Battery technology is proven and exists. You can go and ride these vehicles today. To say battery technology is in its infancy is to ignore the reality of the bus industry. As oil technology gets more expensive the pace of development in EV technology will only accelerate. Nobody is installing OHLE in city centres - the economics don't make sense.

 

[Bantamzen]

Battery technology is proven and exists. You can go and ride these vehicles today. To say battery technology is in its infancy is to ignore the reality of the bus industry. As oil technology gets more expensive the pace of development in EV technology will only accelerate. Nobody is installing OHLE in city centres - the economics don't make sense.

The bus industry isn't the rail industry, trains carry considerably more passengers, travel considerably longer distances and therefore require considerably more energy than buses. The UK cannot sit back and wait until developers arrive at solutions for rail over distances of far more than 40-50Km, improvements are needed now & in some cases where needed decades ago. And quite frankly battery technology is needed far more in the green energy production sector than it is for transport. What's the point in developing battery transport solutions when your energy is still being produced from carbon based methods? Concentrate on the important matter of generating, then storing en masse the energy produced from greener sources, then roll the technology down.

Maybe in a few decades we can dispense with wires for batteries, although it always needs to be kept in mind that batteries come at an expense in weight & therefore energy requirements. so such a technology should only ever be adopted when it can be shown that battery powered trains can not just achieve the specifications required of them from our network, but do so at less operating and energy cost. I suspect we are still a long way from being there.

 

[jayah]

The bus industry isn't the rail industry, trains carry considerably more passengers, travel considerably longer distances and therefore require considerably more energy than buses. The UK cannot sit back and wait until developers arrive at solutions for rail over distances of far more than 40-50Km, improvements are needed now & in some cases where needed decades ago. And quite frankly battery technology is needed far more in the green energy production sector than it is for transport. What's the point in developing battery transport solutions when your energy is still being produced from carbon based methods? Concentrate on the important matter of generating, then storing en masse the energy produced from greener sources, then roll the technology down.

Maybe in a few decades we can dispense with wires for batteries, although it always needs to be kept in mind that batteries come at an expense in weight & therefore energy requirements. so such a technology should only ever be adopted when it can be shown that battery powered trains can not just achieve the specifications required of them from our network, but do so at less operating and energy cost. I suspect we are still a long way from being there.

In fact urban and interurban trains are very similar to road applications and for diesel trains these often use truck engines readily transferred across. You mention weight - a 660kwh bus that can travel hundreds of km on one charge weighs less than the passengers in a commuter train carriage.

Given rail vehicles are already heavier and cost far more than new buses the battery technology is even better suited.

There are already thousands of battery buses in use and thousands more on order all over the globe. Any new electrification scheme will take years to come to fruition while battery tech is not going to be 'a few decades' off. Not at all.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

... unjustifiable wish lists (which by the way are not that, they have all at some point been discussed officially)

By who? Elected representatives clutching sharpened crayons but with no knowledge or grasp of the infrastructure and compliance issues, or experienced engineering types who have actually studied the infrastructure and understand what is required?

I suggest, in case of electrifying the Calder Valley, you are choosing to credit the former over the latter.

As to unit CAPEX outturns for electrification, the engineers are perfectly capable of bringing the costs down. My suggested menu of improvements:

1. Elected representatives should desist with the stop / start (boom / bust) policy for infrastructure works and bring some stability to the delivery teams, allowing investment and continuous improvement. They should do this by setting out a 30-year strategy for electrification of the UK AND THEN STICKING TO IT
   
2. Elected representatives should allow NR the time that NR says it needs to develop the schemes properly, at an early stage of development, rather than insisting on lunatic deadlines just to allow The Boiled Egg to grab a headline.
3. Declare an early (pre-Brexit) National departure from EU legislation and re-issue GL/RT1210 in a form that represents common sense
4. Non-elected representatives within the DfT should be actively excluded from the development and design phases of major to eliminate the iterations of development required to rebut their flights of fantasy and person hobby-horses. Once they have defined their question (and written it down, signed it and published it) they should not have any active part in detailed engineering design.
5. There should be a putsch within NCB aimed at bringing some pragmatism to their work - it appears that ALARP is poorly understood by them.

 

[Bantamzen]

In fact urban and interurban trains are very similar to road applications and for diesel trains these often use truck engines readily transferred across. You mention weight - a 660kwh bus that can travel hundreds of km on one charge weighs less than the passengers in a commuter train carriage.

Given rail vehicles are already heavier and cost far more than new buses the battery technology is even better suited.

There are already thousands of battery buses in use and thousands more on order all over the globe. Any new electrification scheme will take years to come to fruition while battery tech is not going to be 'a few decades' off. Not at all.

So with this in mind, where are all the long distance battery trains?

By who? Elected representatives clutching sharpened crayons but with no knowledge or grasp of the infrastructure and compliance issues, or experienced engineering types who have actually studied the infrastructure and understand what is required?

I suggest, in case of electrifying the Calder Valley, you are choosing to credit the former over the latter.

The North TP, Calder Valley etc were all planned or proposed works by DfT / NR.

As to unit CAPEX outturns for electrification, the engineers are perfectly capable of bringing the costs down. My suggested menu of improvements:

1. Elected representatives should desist with the stop / start (boom / bust) policy for infrastructure works and bring some stability to the delivery teams, allowing investment and continuous improvement. They should do this by setting out a 30-year strategy for electrification of the UK AND THEN STICKING TO IT
   
2. Elected representatives should allow NR the time that NR says it needs to develop the schemes properly, at an early stage of development, rather than insisting on lunatic deadlines just to allow The Boiled Egg to grab a headline.
3. Declare an early (pre-Brexit) National departure from EU legislation and re-issue GL/RT1210 in a form that represents common sense
4. Non-elected representatives within the DfT should be actively excluded from the development and design phases of major to eliminate the iterations of development required to rebut their flights of fantasy and person hobby-horses. Once they have defined their question (and written it down, signed it and published it) they should not have any active part in detailed engineering design.
5. There should be a putsch within NCB aimed at bringing some pragmatism to their work - it appears that ALARP is poorly understood by them.

1. I totally agree, and not just for infrastructural improvements. Sadly until the public start to demand this of the politicians en masse, politicians will continue to play the short term, headline grabbing game.
2. As the above.
3. I assume this is the legislation around wiring clearances? If so were their not exceptions that DfT could have used to keep costs down on previous projects, rather than rigidly sticking to legislation that even other EU countries may have more loosely interpreted? If so such exceptions should be used prior to any legislative changes being made to EU regulations adopted into UK law.
4. Totally agree, leave the engineers to engineer.

 

[B&I]

By who? Elected representatives clutching sharpened crayons but with no knowledge or grasp of the infrastructure and compliance issues, or experienced engineering types who have actually studied the infrastructure and understand what is required?

I suggest, in case of electrifying the Calder Valley, you are choosing to credit the former over the latter.

As to unit CAPEX outturns for electrification, the engineers are perfectly capable of bringing the costs down. My suggested menu of improvements:

1. Elected representatives should desist with the stop / start (boom / bust) policy for infrastructure works and bring some stability to the delivery teams, allowing investment and continuous improvement. They should do this by setting out a 30-year strategy for electrification of the UK AND THEN STICKING TO IT
   
2. Elected representatives should allow NR the time that NR says it needs to develop the schemes properly, at an early stage of development, rather than insisting on lunatic deadlines just to allow The Boiled Egg to grab a headline.
3. Declare an early (pre-Brexit) National departure from EU legislation and re-issue GL/RT1210 in a form that represents common sense
4. Non-elected representatives within the DfT should be actively excluded from the development and design phases of major to eliminate the iterations of development required to rebut their flights of fantasy and person hobby-horses. Once they have defined their question (and written it down, signed it and published it) they should not have any active part in detailed engineering design.
5. There should be a putsch within NCB aimed at bringing some pragmatism to their work - it appears that ALARP is poorly understood by them.

All sounds sensible. Presumably you will also need some sort of commission of experts to advise on the relative merits of electrification schemes so they can be programmed in a sensible order

 

[B&I]

In fact urban and interurban trains are very similar to road applications and for diesel trains these often use truck engines readily transferred across. You mention weight - a 660kwh bus that can travel hundreds of km on one charge weighs less than the passengers in a commuter train carriage.

Given rail vehicles are already heavier and cost far more than new buses the battery technology is even better suited.

There are already thousands of battery buses in use and thousands more on order all over the globe. Any new electrification scheme will take years to come to fruition while battery tech is not going to be 'a few decades' off. Not at all.

You of course don't need electrification because you travel round the country by hobby horse. Wherever electrification schemes are proposed, you'll be there, opposing them no matter what !

 

[RWill35396]

By who? Elected representatives clutching sharpened crayons but with no knowledge or grasp of the infrastructure and compliance issues, or experienced engineering types who have actually studied the infrastructure and understand what is required?

I suggest, in case of electrifying the Calder Valley, you are choosing to credit the former over the latter.

As to unit CAPEX outturns for electrification, the engineers are perfectly capable of bringing the costs down. My suggested menu of improvements:

1. Elected representatives should desist with the stop / start (boom / bust) policy for infrastructure works and bring some stability to the delivery teams, allowing investment and continuous improvement. They should do this by setting out a 30-year strategy for electrification of the UK AND THEN STICKING TO IT
   
2. Elected representatives should allow NR the time that NR says it needs to develop the schemes properly, at an early stage of development, rather than insisting on lunatic deadlines just to allow The Boiled Egg to grab a headline.
3. Declare an early (pre-Brexit) National departure from EU legislation and re-issue GL/RT1210 in a form that represents common sense
4. Non-elected representatives within the DfT should be actively excluded from the development and design phases of major to eliminate the iterations of development required to rebut their flights of fantasy and person hobby-horses. Once they have defined their question (and written it down, signed it and published it) they should not have any active part in detailed engineering design.
5. There should be a putsch within NCB aimed at bringing some pragmatism to their work - it appears that ALARP is poorly understood by them.

Now now, Joseph. We all know that a certain minister in a certain department is one short of a full set, but let's not insult boiled eggs. A boiled egg is incomparable to that idiot, by far. Humour aside, I totally agree with what you say.

 

[47802]

In fact urban and interurban trains are very similar to road applications and for diesel trains these often use truck engines readily transferred across. You mention weight - a 660kwh bus that can travel hundreds of km on one charge weighs less than the passengers in a commuter train carriage.

Given rail vehicles are already heavier and cost far more than new buses the battery technology is even better suited.

There are already thousands of battery buses in use and thousands more on order all over the globe. Any new electrification scheme will take years to come to fruition while battery tech is not going to be 'a few decades' off. Not at all.

Really where are they then? I talked to three people with Electric cars or Hybrids recently, the guy with Hybrid Yaris which I was interested in changing to gave me mpg figures which wern't much better that my 3 cylinder Turbo Petrol Fiesta, so I will stick with my Fiesta until the technology improves a lot, The Guy with the Tesla said it was good if expensive to buy but wasn't giving the practical range claimed by Tesla, while the guy with the Leaf ok not the latest version described it as Bl**dy useless. So as far as I can see the whole battery thing is still very much in its infancy and when it come to a train its a whole different ball game.

 

[Bevan Price]

So with this in mind, where are all the long distance battery trains?



The North TP, Calder Valley etc were all planned or proposed works by DfT / NR.

1. I totally agree, and not just for infrastructural improvements. Sadly until the public start to demand this of the politicians en masse, politicians will continue to play the short term, headline grabbing game.
2. As the above.
3. I assume this is the legislation around wiring clearances? If so were their not exceptions that DfT could have used to keep costs down on previous projects, rather than rigidly sticking to legislation that even other EU countries may have more loosely interpreted? If so such exceptions should be used prior to any legislative changes being made to EU regulations adopted into UK law.
4. Totally agree, leave the engineers to engineer.

Agree with much of the above, but-

1. Too many people are willing to believe everything they read in "the newspapers". Much of "the media" has vested interests in maintaining the "established order", mainly pro-Tory, and it takes special circumstances for that media to be willing to publicise widespread criticism of anything that disturbs "the system".

2. The Tories, much of the media, and the motoring lobby would whinge about increased tax to pay for more electrification. Indeed, many people believe the Tory lie about favouring tax reduction - when they only mean reducing income tax - but they are quite happy to increase VAT, and to allow above-inflation rises in council tax.

3. The dead hand of DfT needs to be swept away. In any progressive country, all the rail network would have been electrified 30 years ago (excluding the most remote & rural secondary lines, e.g. north of Inverness, Whitby, etc.) . The country needs a long-term policy for steady electrification with agreed finance, with no meddling by politicians interested only in the next election, and, particularly, the DfT being totally excluded from any decisions.

 

[adrock1976]

British Rail published an electrification report in 1980 that detailed which sections of the network to electrify, and with some infill schemes so as to have a continuous programme of rolling electrification.

I have had a read of the aforementioned report and it had stated that based on those plans, 85% of the network would be electrified by the year 2000. Needless to say, it turned into the present stop-start rather than a continuous rolling programme of electrification.

As BR done all of the detail of the electrification programme, the government could just simply dust it down and let Network Rail get on with it. No need for "consultants" at all.

 

[pemma]

FOUR groups of rail users are behind a major new push for electrification of the rail line running into Bradford Interchange, which would see the end of ageing diesel trains.

Do they not know that the ageing diesel trains are going anyway?

Indeed. Those wanting electrification because it'll mean newer trains need to be careful. They might get brand new 195s to replace their old DMUs which are in turn replaced by 323s or 365s.

 

[edwin_m]

I am afraid you are simply trying to imagine the world as you would like it to be rather than how it actually exists.

My point was about elecrification costs rather than the viability or otherwise of a Calder Valley scheme. But it seems it gets a response cut and pasted to/from a totally different point.

By who? Elected representatives clutching sharpened crayons but with no knowledge or grasp of the infrastructure and compliance issues, or experienced engineering types who have actually studied the infrastructure and understand what is required?

I suggest, in case of electrifying the Calder Valley, you are choosing to credit the former over the latter.

As to unit CAPEX outturns for electrification, the engineers are perfectly capable of bringing the costs down. My suggested menu of improvements:

1. Elected representatives should desist with the stop / start (boom / bust) policy for infrastructure works and bring some stability to the delivery teams, allowing investment and continuous improvement. They should do this by setting out a 30-year strategy for electrification of the UK AND THEN STICKING TO IT
   
2. Elected representatives should allow NR the time that NR says it needs to develop the schemes properly, at an early stage of development, rather than insisting on lunatic deadlines just to allow The Boiled Egg to grab a headline.
3. Declare an early (pre-Brexit) National departure from EU legislation and re-issue GL/RT1210 in a form that represents common sense
4. Non-elected representatives within the DfT should be actively excluded from the development and design phases of major to eliminate the iterations of development required to rebut their flights of fantasy and person hobby-horses. Once they have defined their question (and written it down, signed it and published it) they should not have any active part in detailed engineering design.
5. There should be a putsch within NCB aimed at bringing some pragmatism to their work - it appears that ALARP is poorly understood by them.

As I suggested earlier that someone other than NR should manage a future electrification scheme, I should perhaps clarify that I agree with most of the above and the reason for my suggestion was that a private company that commits to a price then charges extra for scope changes might be a harder target for the politicians than NR which is effectively under DfT control. I do realise this throws up a whole host of other issues...

I'd also point out that the electrication clearances issue is, as far as we can tell, a foul-up somewhere in the UK in not accepting a network-wide derogation that was on offer. Therefore it can be reversed within the UK with or without Brexit.

And ALARP does appear to have been surpassed by ERIC in some quarters - the need to justify Eliminating the risk before you consider just Reducing it (and so on to Isolating and Controlling). The two should go hand in hand, if elimination wouldn't be ALARP then reduction is OK.

 

[edwin_m]

In fact urban and interurban trains are very similar to road applications and for diesel trains these often use truck engines readily transferred across. You mention weight - a 660kwh bus that can travel hundreds of km on one charge weighs less than the passengers in a commuter train carriage.

Given rail vehicles are already heavier and cost far more than new buses the battery technology is even better suited.

There are already thousands of battery buses in use and thousands more on order all over the globe. Any new electrification scheme will take years to come to fruition while battery tech is not going to be 'a few decades' off. Not at all.

Buses have to be self-powered, except for the very few very busy routes where trolleybus or tram replacement is viable. Provision of electric power to a train is much more straightforward and if we weren't assuming a ridiculous capital cost based on GWR it would be viable for medium to heavily used railways as it is in practically every other country.

Battery buses can easily be parked up somewhere for charging during the day, taking advantage of the reduced vehicle requirement off-peak. Trains are often in use the whole day - most of the routes where there are big commuter peaks are already electrified. So widespread investment in battery trains would require more trains and more track to stand them on during charging. There's also the periodic replacement cost of the batteries and as mentioned the extra energy consumed dragging them around, plus that lost because the charge-recharge cycles is less efficient than supplying the energy directly.

 

[jayah]

You of course don't need electrification because you travel round the country by hobby horse. Wherever electrification schemes are proposed, you'll be there, opposing them no matter what !

Spending £500m achieving nothing but saving a few trifling co2 emissions is bad policy and a waste taxpayers money.

 

[jayah]

Buses have to be self-powered, except for the very few very busy routes where trolleybus or tram replacement is viable. Provision of electric power to a train is much more straightforward and if we weren't assuming a ridiculous capital cost based on GWR it would be viable for medium to heavily used railways as it is in practically every other country.

Battery buses can easily be parked up somewhere for charging during the day, taking advantage of the reduced vehicle requirement off-peak. Trains are often in use the whole day - most of the routes where there are big commuter peaks are already electrified. So widespread investment in battery trains would require more trains and more track to stand them on during charging. There's also the periodic replacement cost of the batteries and as mentioned the extra energy consumed dragging them around, plus that lost because the charge-recharge cycles is less efficient than supplying the energy directly.

Buses aren't self powered in some cities nor have they been in the past. Nor are trams for that matter.

If you researched what is going on you will find even sizeable batteries e.g. 80KWH are charged in a 6min not to mention the very large numbers of trains that are in fact idle outside the peaks. You already have practical applications of everything from once a day to once a stop charging and everything between.

 

[jayah]

All sounds sensible. Presumably you will also need some sort of commission of experts to advise on the relative merits of electrification schemes so they can be programmed in a sensible order

The commission of experts will conclude like Mr Grayling that there are dozens of better uses for taxpayers money that actually deliver tangible benefits to the population.

 

[Bantamzen]

Buses aren't self powered in some cities nor have they been in the past. Nor are trams for that matter.

If you researched what is going on you will find even sizeable batteries e.g. 80KWH are charged in a 6min not to mention the very large numbers of trains that are in fact idle in the peaks. You already have practical applications of everything from once a day to once a stop charging and everything between.

So how often & for how long would a high speed service, say a battery converted VTWC Pendolino from Euston To Glasgow, need to recharge if travelling at speeds of up to 140Mph (225Kmph)?

Edit: Sorry should have added that this is an 11 car unit capable of carrying 589 people, their luggage, catering etc...

 

[Joseph_Locke]

My point was about elecrification costs rather than the viability or otherwise of a Calder Valley scheme. But it seems it gets a response cut and pasted to/from a totally different point.

As I suggested earlier that someone other than NR should manage a future electrification scheme, I should perhaps clarify that I agree with most of the above and the reason for my suggestion was that a private company that commits to a price then charges extra for scope changes might be a harder target for the politicians than NR which is effectively under DfT control. I do realise this throws up a whole host of other issues...

I'd also point out that the electrication clearances issue is, as far as we can tell, a foul-up somewhere in the UK in not accepting a network-wide derogation that was on offer. Therefore it can be reversed within the UK with or without Brexit.

And ALARP does appear to have been surpassed by ERIC in some quarters - the need to justify Eliminating the risk before you consider just Reducing it (and so on to Isolating and Controlling). The two should go hand in hand, if elimination wouldn't be ALARP then reduction is OK.

No, ALARP is a measure of where you stop within ERIC. Let me elaborate.

OLE at stations is a specific hazard. This risk that this hazard becomes a problem can be physically mitigated. The best way is to increase the distance between the OLE (and all other live parts such as pantographs, etc.) until the possibility of anyone being to reach disappears completely (Eliminate). Many stations have a road bridge over them. This bridge places an upper limit on wire height. Raising the wires to eliminate the risk may now require removal of the bridge. This will have a cost. In some cases this cost will be pretty astronomical and disproportionate to the risk.

We could raise the wires and the bridge as far as possible; less costly, but with higher residual risk. We will still have reduced the risk (raising the wires by any amount does this, mathematically) - Reduce - job done. However, the cost of these works (Fishergate at Preston, Trinity Way at Bolton) may still be significant when they achieve little.

In this situation, Isolation is deeply impractical (clearing the platforms before turning the OLE back on and the reverse) and would introduce other risks, control in this case is similar.

Where would you stop? Surely the question is, what is the magnitude of the risk?

There has been (IIRC) one passenger death and a few minor injuries caused by persons legitimately using a platform and coming into contact with live OLE, in about 45 years. Even allowing for a massively inflated (x 10) value of preventing a fatality, that's about £160m (ignoring the span of time it covers, too). I suggest that this would go nowhere near eliminating the risk, reducing the risk significantly or funding any kind of control or isolation. In conclusion, GL/RT1210 imposes controls that go massively beyond ALARP and thus artificially inflate the cost of electrification schemes. Yes, BritGov failed to renew its National Exemption, but that doesn't mean we should continue to punish ourselves!

 

[B&I]

Spending £500m achieving nothing but saving a few trifling co2 emissions is bad policy and a waste taxpayers money.

A summary of the costs and benefits of electrification there which places rather more emphasis on brevity than accuracy

 

[jayah]

A summary of the costs and benefits of electrification there which places rather more emphasis on brevity than accuracy

And the benefits are what exactly?

 

[jayah]

So how often & for how long would a high speed service, say a battery converted VTWC Pendolino from Euston To Glasgow, need to recharge if travelling at speeds of up to 140Mph (225Kmph)?

Edit: Sorry should have added that this is an 11 car unit capable of carrying 589 people, their luggage, catering etc...

Not really relevant to a discussion about the Calder Valley route.

 

[jayah]

Really where are they then? I talked to three people with Electric cars or Hybrids recently, the guy with Hybrid Yaris which I was interested in changing to gave me mpg figures which wern't much better that my 3 cylinder Turbo Petrol Fiesta, so I will stick with my Fiesta until the technology improves a lot, The Guy with the Tesla said it was good if expensive to buy but wasn't giving the practical range claimed by Tesla, while the guy with the Leaf ok not the latest version described it as Bl**dy useless. So as far as I can see the whole battery thing is still very much in its infancy and when it come to a train its a whole different ball game.

Indeed they are expensive if you are talking about a £10k family car or even a £300k bus. When you are talking about a railway carriage starting at around £1.5m it is a different calculation.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Not really relevant to a discussion about the Calder Valley route.

True but say up hill winding terrain in a bitter cold mid winter - hopefully you get the drift.

 

[pemma]

A reminder of what the electrification task force found: https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/EFT_Report_FINAL_web.pdf Calder Valley got a weighted score of 84 which was the highest overall score. Although it did score lower on economic benefits than Chester to Stockport which surprisingly got the 4th highest overall score.