• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Transport Select Committee calls for cancelled electrification schemes to be reinstated

Status
Not open for further replies.

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
Fuel & Diesel? Are they lugging around a whole tank of Diesel for fun? :P

Joking aside, the powerpack as fitted to the 80x (12V 1600 R80L) weighs in at 6.75t wet* but it is not clear if that includes the generator. Add in the 2.5t of fuel(s), and call it 10t (including the radiators, fans, etc) additional per diesel engine. Run the maths through and a pure EMU 801 (803?) comes in at very handy average 1.67ton/m (for reference an individual mk3 comes in at 1.43). Even with the IEP last mile engine fitted a 5 car 801 comes in at 1.75ton/m


*presuming that the high power one is the heaviest - not an unfair assumption

I stand corrected. The MR article (May) uses 7.4t per pack for the Class 800 including the fuel (1.3t). I make that 1.73t / m (247-22.2 / 130) if the weight of diesel traction were avoided.

However this doesn't change a great deal. 22.2t from 247t is still <10% and as shown the Class 800 Bi-Mode is still significantly lighter per metre than the Class 390, as well as the 7.4t being equivalent to roughly the seated passenger weight of the powered vehicle when full. None of this will touch the sides of a £1bn business case between Kettering and Sheffield, as evidenced by the lack of one, and subsequent cancellation.

Of course, were there a 5-10min time saving as well, which might have been true 50 years ago, the a lot of value of time and revenue aspects would come into play. But the Bi-Modes, as well as the more obvious example of Class 221 on the WCML and ECML show this isn't really the case.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
Isn't it obvious that the 390s are artificially limited to what the 221s can do? You don't want to have timetables which make it impossible for a 221 to stand in for a 390 without destroying timekeeping on the southern WCML.

For the third time, what was the point in ordering 390s if 221s could do the job just as well? What's the point ordering any electric trains if diesels are just as good? The pre-existence of OHLE infrastructure is not a sufficient reason.

If you already have the wires, it is cheaper to use them, than not. That is why the de electrification question is so absurd. But it is not worth spending £1bn on new wires to save 1min between Kettering and Sheffield and save less weight than that of the people on the train.

You are welcome to find some examples of late running Class 390 beating their SRTs on the WCML to prove they are capable of more.

I have explained this on more than one occasion already.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Class 390 contract to design build and maintain runs from 1999 to March 2022.

That's 23 years, not 27.

Anyway, the 221's had an initial lease that ran for less than this (i.e. it would have expired by now), however they are currently in service. Just because something has a shorter than 30 year lease it doesn't mean that the units will not be in service for longer than this.

Of course it could well be that until recently the leases on DMU's were shorter than the comparable EMU's as it was envisaged that electrification would reduce the need for DMU's as it progressed. There's also the fact that the government had hinted that maybe they should be phasing out pure DMU's circa 2040 and so that could also impact on lease costs.

It could be that the gap in lease costs between DMU and EMU's is decreasing from the historic 10%, however just because the build costs are the same it doesn't mean that the lease costs are the same. For instance an electric motor should last for a significantly longer time than an engine and would likely be more costly to do (even if such an engine could be obtained given the tougher and tougher emission requirements), as such the lease costs would likely need to bear in mind the replacement cost for that (even if it doesn't consider the maintenance costs of the engine/motor).

Even if all of that results in the lease cost being the same, the lease cost per usable unit is likely to be higher for a DMU as they require more maintenance which means less time running services.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
If you already have the wires, it is cheaper to use them, than not. That is why the de electrification question is so absurd.
This is not the experience of those freight operators who have replaced electric locos (which obviously only ran fully under the wire) with diesels, on efficiency grounds - to them.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I stand corrected. The MR article (May) uses 7.4t per pack for the Class 800 including the fuel (1.3t). I make that 1.73t / m (247-22.2 / 130) if the weight of diesel traction were avoided.

However this doesn't change a great deal. 22.2t from 247t is still <10% and as shown the Class 800 Bi-Mode is still significantly lighter per metre than the Class 390, as well as the 7.4t being equivalent to roughly the seated passenger weight of the powered vehicle when full. None of this will touch the sides of a £1bn business case between Kettering and Sheffield, as evidenced by the lack of one, and subsequent cancellation.

Of course, were there a 5-10min time saving as well, which might have been true 50 years ago, the a lot of value of time and revenue aspects would come into play. But the Bi-Modes, as well as the more obvious example of Class 221 on the WCML and ECML show this isn't really the case.

I'll defer to their reporting rather than my conjecture then! Out of interest, what sort of weight saving do you think would make it worth it, or is that unimportant to you?

Also, I can't remember if it was ever established how the 1 minute time saving was arrived at - would you happen to know? I'd still advise caution on using the 221 as an example of "a Bi-mode can match an electric" - we can't be sure that any future bi mode will actually match their performance, even if the DfT asked for it in the EM ITT (but when have the laws of physics ever stopped the DfT?)
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,331
This is not the experience of those freight operators who have replaced electric locos (which obviously only ran fully under the wire) with diesels, on efficiency grounds - to them.

Are there examples of "yard to yard" electrified routes that have moved to diesel traction?

There are, I agree, plenty of examples of flows that could be partially electric hauled, but the efficiency of undertaking the various shunt moves and having spare locos is somewhat different to the efficiency you're challenging here (much as I find the argument disagreeable).
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
For the third time, what was the point in ordering 390s if 221s could do the job just as well? What's the point ordering any electric trains if diesels are just as good? The pre-existence of OHLE infrastructure is not a sufficient reason.
The running costs of a diesel are significantly higher than those of an electric.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
The running costs of a diesel are significantly higher than those of an electric.

You also need to take into account the MTIN of the different unit types which can be seen on figure 10 (page 6) of the document below:

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf...anding-the-rolling-stock-costs-of-uk-tocs.pdf

For those that don't want to download the pdf, it shows that most DMU's fall below the 20,000 figure whilst most EMU's are above that figure. There's a few exceptions to this with one or two very high DMU's, however the general trend is fairly clear (regardless of age of unit)

As such you'd likely need more DMU's to run the same number of diagrams.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
You also need to take into account the MTIN of the different unit types which can be seen on figure 10 (page 6) of the document below:

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf...anding-the-rolling-stock-costs-of-uk-tocs.pdf

For those that don't want to download the pdf, it shows that most DMU's fall below the 20,000 figure whilst most EMU's are above that figure. There's a few exceptions to this with one or two very high DMU's, however the general trend is fairly clear (regardless of age of unit)

As such you'd likely need more DMU's to run the same number of diagrams.
The MTIN relates to how often the unit fails in service, so the result of the lower MTIN is more service failures which is obviously an issue but not the same issue.

What you are looking for is the availability - the proportion of the fleet that is available for service. This is tricky to pin down because it depends on things like what service duties are needed (eg all day or peak only). In general the availability of an electric should be higher than that of a diesel because the diesel needs fuelling and more maintenance - but if this can mostly be done when the units have nothing else to do (like the 159 fleet where there are several spare units in the depot off-peak) then lower availability may not affect the fleet size very much.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Private Eye have been scathing about the Swansea Tidal Lagoon project. IF they are right cancellation was entirely correct

I'm not defending the Swansea project - it was huge amounts of money for something that wouldn't actually create a lot of full term jobs (after the construction phase) - but cancelling it in the same week as approving Heathrow made for bad politics, especially given that Michael Gove's attempt to sell Brexit now seems to be along the lines of "it'll allow us to have much higher environmental standards", which is why I wondered if our Tory/DUP overlords would want to be seen to do something "green" (such as un-cancelling a rail project). Sadly that doesn't appear to be the case.

BTW - I don't expect any brexit dividend. There isnt one.

Agreed.

Considering the party involved I think that it would have to be Belfast - Londonderry.

:lol:

Good point - I look forward to the electrification masts being painted red/ white/ blue to match the kerbstones
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
I'll defer to their reporting rather than my conjecture then! Out of interest, what sort of weight saving do you think would make it worth it, or is that unimportant to you?

Also, I can't remember if it was ever established how the 1 minute time saving was arrived at - would you happen to know? I'd still advise caution on using the 221 as an example of "a Bi-mode can match an electric" - we can't be sure that any future bi mode will actually match their performance, even if the DfT asked for it in the EM ITT (but when have the laws of physics ever stopped the DfT?)
In terms of hp/T any BiMode could match the current long distance electrics depending how unmuzzled the engines are and if you went for 6-7/9 powered rather than 3/5 or 5/9. Voyagers of course have 5/5.

You would have to see the range of weights across multiple fleets and some reliable measure of track maintenance per ton mile to quantify. But something in the scale of the weight of passengers on the train and somewhat less than the weight of the tilting equipment if that is driving Class 390 weight, is a long way short.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
You are welcome to find some examples of late running Class 390 beating their SRTs on the WCML to prove they are capable of more.
Sit on an on time one with a stop watch and you will find that some SRTs are beaten every time and some not as they are rounded to half minutes.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
This is not the experience of those freight operators who have replaced electric locos (which obviously only ran fully under the wire) with diesels, on efficiency grounds - to them.
The are very few freight trains solely under the wires because of the cost of wiring terminals and the lack of long term stability in where traffic originates. You would end up with an inflexible micro fleet tied to a low proportion of flows or lots of engine changes. They are starting to move into BiMode traction now which will help.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
Sit on an on time one with a stop watch and you will find that some SRTs are beaten every time and some not as they are rounded to half minutes.
It is easy enough for you to provide some examples from real time trains of one running late and making up a significant amount of time over a number of timing points to back up this assertion.

I don't intend to spend the next month on the WCML with a stopwatch to prove your assertions for you.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
You don't need to, we do it for you, as do Virgin, as does every TOC if it suits them with stopwatches, OTMR etc etc. As per normal, you conveniently ignore parts of what I said, at no point did I say anything about making up time, I said that SRTs can be beaten and some cannot. Every single SRT for every traction is rounded to ½ minutes, therefore some SRTs will be beaten every time and some will be pretty much there and some won't, it is how timetables work.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
I very much doubt WCML timetabling exploits the full capability of any of the units involved due to the attempt to force a quart into a pint bottle.
Yes, they are. 221s and 390s have seperate and different SRTs.
Isn't it obvious that the 390s are artificially limited to what the 221s can do? You don't want to have timetables which make it impossible for a 221 to stand in for a 390 without destroying timekeeping on the southern WCML.
No, they are not. The difference between the two is small enough to not destroy the timetable.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
You don't need to, we do it for you, as do Virgin, as does every TOC if it suits them with stopwatches, OTMR etc etc. As per normal, you conveniently ignore parts of what I said, at no point did I say anything about making up time, I said that SRTs can be beaten and some cannot. Every single SRT for every traction is rounded to ½ minutes, therefore some SRTs will be beaten every time and some will be pretty much there and some won't, it is how timetables work.
The question is whether a Class 390 is significantly faster than a Class 221 or not. If the SRTs are correct they aren't as there is almost no difference over a very long distance. If so, the 1min claim Kettering to Sheffield is probably correct as was the decision to cancel.

For all this talk of the minutiae of SRTs I am still struggling to work out what point you are trying to make?
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
Did you not state "try to find examples of 390s beating their srts on the WCML" whereupon I have said there are various places where they will, regardless of whether it is "minutiae"?
 

Joseph_Locke

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2012
Messages
1,878
Location
Within earshot of trains passing the one and half
Did you not state "try to find examples of 390s beating their srts on the WCML" whereupon I have said there are various places where they will, regardless of whether it is "minutiae"?
To believe to the contrary is to suggest that a TOC would ever willingly agree to a hard-to-achieve SRT ... and the West Coast has 221/390 differential EPS speeds anyway?
 

gallafent

Member
Joined
23 Dec 2010
Messages
517
huge amounts of money for something that wouldn't actually create a lot of full term jobs

This reminds me of a mixing of motives which seems to happen quite a lot, particularly when there are motivations pulling in opposite directions on the same project, with one lobby having very different aims to another. Is the purpose of a tidal lagoon to (a) create jobs or (b) generate electricity? Surely one should hope that it can generate as much electricity as possible while employing the smallest possible number of people (making the electricity as cheap as possible once the system is complete and running in the steady state). Needing to employ more people to keep the thing running would be a negative.

Similarly, and off the top of my head, is the purpose of a railway (a) to employ as many railway staff as possible or (b) to transport passengers and freight at minimal cost with maximal efficacy? ………
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
This reminds me of a mixing of motives which seems to happen quite a lot, particularly when there are motivations pulling in opposite directions on the same project, with one lobby having very different aims to another. Is the purpose of a tidal lagoon to (a) create jobs or (b) generate electricity? Surely one should hope that it can generate as much electricity as possible while employing the smallest possible number of people (making the electricity as cheap as possible once the system is complete and running in the steady state). Needing to employ more people to keep the thing running would be a negative.

Similarly, and off the top of my head, is the purpose of a railway (a) to employ as many railway staff as possible or (b) to transport passengers and freight at minimal cost with maximal efficacy? ………

You're absolutely right.

We see it a lot on rail threads too - for example, if a Sprinter can do a couple of miles per gallon then a lightly loaded train carrying a couple of dozen passengers on a quiet line (however "socially necessary") isn't the environmentally friendly alternative to those people driving - it'd actually be better for the environment if those people drove (as long as they were doing so in relatively modern cars - doesn't have to be electric/hybrid, just relatively modern).

I'm not saying that "close quiet branch lines to help save the environment" would be a vote winner, of course. Such routes do exist though - e.g. I think the line from Burnley to Colne has an average of about twenty one passengers per journey.

But some people take the attitude that "the railway" must be the answer, no matter what. So we go from threads extolling the need to get people out of their cars to threads encouraging railway passengers to travel hundreds of miles on unnecessary leisure trips - if environmental sustainability is the goal then be careful what you wish for!

Some enthusiasts think that part of the purpose of the railway should be to own lots of retail space so that the profits can help subsidise train operation.

Some think that the purpose of the railway should be to maximise passenger miles, regardless of cost or efficiency.

Some think that we should spend a billion pounds a year on electrifying lines, just to keep skills up to date. What else - give the road budget sufficient to fund a new suspension bridge/ hundred miles of motorway each year, just to ensure that we have trained staff capable of doing such jobs when needed?

Same goes for the "employ as many staff as possible" example that you've given; those inside the industry have no incentive to try to reduce "manpower".

Maybe that could be a whole separate thread - explain the purpose of the railway in 280 characters or fewer (using that number as a benchmark since that's the length of one tweet).
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Well I honestly think we should be building bridges every year.... but thats just because bridges are almost always a good thing....
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
We see it a lot on rail threads too - for example, if a Sprinter can do a couple of miles per gallon then a lightly loaded train carrying a couple of dozen passengers on a quiet line (however "socially necessary") isn't the environmentally friendly alternative to those people driving - it'd actually be better for the environment if those people drove (as long as they were doing so in relatively modern cars - doesn't have to be electric/hybrid, just relatively modern).

I'm not saying that "close quiet branch lines to help save the environment" would be a vote winner, of course. Such routes do exist though - e.g. I think the line from Burnley to Colne has an average of about twenty one passengers per journey.

But some people take the attitude that "the railway" must be the answer, no matter what. So we go from threads extolling the need to get people out of their cars to threads encouraging railway passengers to travel hundreds of miles on unnecessary leisure trips - if environmental sustainability is the goal then be careful what you wish for!

Some enthusiasts think that part of the purpose of the railway should be to own lots of retail space so that the profits can help subsidise train operation.

Some think that the purpose of the railway should be to maximise passenger miles, regardless of cost or efficiency.

Some think that we should spend a billion pounds a year on electrifying lines, just to keep skills up to date. What else - give the road budget sufficient to fund a new suspension bridge/ hundred miles of motorway each year, just to ensure that we have trained staff capable of doing such jobs when needed?

Same goes for the "employ as many staff as possible" example that you've given; those inside the industry have no incentive to try to reduce "manpower".

Maybe that could be a whole separate thread - explain the purpose of the railway in 280 characters or fewer (using that number as a benchmark since that's the length of one tweet).

New thread started:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/what-are-the-railways-in-this-country-for.166779/
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
However the UK ought to have a rolling programme of electrification as it's disgraceful that in 2018 we still have busy mainlines wholly depending on diesel traction.

Over the next decade, a programme could see the following:

Didcot Parkway to Banbury and London Marylebone to Birmingham Snow Hill/Oxford
Leamington Spa to Nuneaton via Coventry
Birmingham Snow Hill to Worcester Foregate Street via Kidderminister
Bromsgrove to Cheltenham Spa direct and also via Droitwich Spa
Birmingham to Wakefield Westgate via Derby and Sheffield.
Birmingham to Cambridge
Didcot Parkway to Plymouth and Swansea via Bath Spa and Bristol Parkway
Bristol Temple Meads to Bromsgrove
York to Manchester via Leeds and Huddersfield
Leeds/Colne to Blackpool North/South via Bradford Interchange
Doncaster to Hull via Selby and Temple Hirst Junction
York to Hull via Selby
Manchester to Blackburn
Market Harborough to Sheffield via Derby and Nottingham
Sheffield to Leeds/Doncaster
Bletchley to Bedford
Oxted to Uckfield (DC)
Reading to Redhill (DC)
Ore to Ashford Int (DC)
Edinburgh to Perth including Fife Circle
Stirling to Perth
Crewe to Chester

These are the routes which ought to see electrification over the next decade, I haven't put every possible route as there some routes which I can't see being wired up however the majority of the routes above ought to be and with a rolling programme that ought to be possible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AndyW33

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2013
Messages
534
Tiny nitpick. You can't electrify Birmingham Snow Hill to Bromsgrove via Kidderminster because there is no railway between Kidderminster and Bromsgrove, and never has been. You'd need to electrify Kidderminster to Droitwich Spa, assuming the loop via Worcester off the Bristol Birmingham line is part of that project, otherwise to Worcester (or stop at Kidderminster).
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Tiny nitpick. You can't electrify Birmingham Snow Hill to Bromsgrove via Kidderminster because there is no railway between Kidderminster and Bromsgrove, and never has been. You'd need to electrify Kidderminster to Droitwich Spa, assuming the loop via Worcester off the Bristol Birmingham line is part of that project, otherwise to Worcester (or stop at Kidderminster).

Of course, thanks for pointing that out of course I meant Bromsgrove to Cheltenham Spa direct and also via Droitwich Spa, I also should have put Birmingham Snow Hill to Worcester Foregate Street via Kidderminister.

I also should have added Birmingham to Wakefield Westgate via Derby and Sheffield.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
However the UK ought to have a rolling programme of electrification as it's disgraceful that in 2018 we still have busy mainlines wholly depending on diesel traction.

Over the next decade, a programme could see the following:

Didcot Parkway to Banbury and London Marylebone to Birmingham Snow Hill/Oxford
Leamington Spa to Nuneaton via Coventry
Birmingham Snow Hill to Worcester Foregate Street via Kidderminister
Bromsgrove to Cheltenham Spa direct and also via Droitwich Spa
Birmingham to Wakefield Westgate via Derby and Sheffield.
Birmingham to Cambridge
Didcot Parkway to Plymouth and Swansea via Bath Spa and Bristol Parkway
Bristol Temple Meads to Bromsgrove
York to Manchester via Leeds and Huddersfield
Leeds/Colne to Blackpool North/South via Bradford Interchange
Doncaster to Hull via Selby and Temple Hirst Junction
York to Hull via Selby
Manchester to Blackburn
Market Harborough to Sheffield via Derby and Nottingham
Sheffield to Leeds/Doncaster
Bletchley to Bedford
Oxted to Uckfield (DC)
Reading to Redhill (DC)
Ore to Ashford Int (DC)
Edinburgh to Perth including Fife Circle
Stirling to Perth
Crewe to Chester

These are the routes which ought to see electrification over the next decade, I haven't put every possible route as there some routes which I can't see being wired up however the majority of the routes above ought to be and with a rolling programme that ought to be possible.

I would add to the above:

Basingstoke to Southampton via Salisbury with the line to Eastleigh included.

Salisbury to Yeovil

Exeter to Exmouth

From the mainline to Paignton

Between Salisbury and Bath (possibly including filling the gap between Westbury and Newbury as well as the would be few complications like junctions)

With those routes included you could have nearly all services into Waterloo as electric (other than 1tph, or maybe 1 train every two hours with a cross platform connection to a DMU service at Yeovil to serve Exeter, possibly with that DMU service running between Exeter and Westbury). The reason for the gap is so that redoubling can happen before it is electrified.

It would also allow part of the Devon metro services to be run with EMU's, with the rest potentially being either bimodal or battery units (with the latter you'd probably have to start the wires heading towards Okehampton/Barnstaple).

Finally it would allow the Cardiff/Portsmouth services to be run by EMU's, which with the above would nearly remove all DMU's from south of the GWML (excluding Devon and Cornwall), with the noticeable exception of the Brighton to Worcester services that extend to Great Malvern, services to Weymouth from Westbury, services which run West of Yeovil and services on the B&H (the latter would be fine until the 80x's are up for renewal, but would also need the mainline through Cornwall wiring up to remove the need for bimodals altogether on some of the services, as such the section between Westbury and Taunton would be fairly low priority).
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,820
Location
Yorks
You're absolutely right.

We see it a lot on rail threads too - for example, if a Sprinter can do a couple of miles per gallon then a lightly loaded train carrying a couple of dozen passengers on a quiet line (however "socially necessary") isn't the environmentally friendly alternative to those people driving - it'd actually be better for the environment if those people drove (as long as they were doing so in relatively modern cars - doesn't have to be electric/hybrid, just relatively modern).

I'm not saying that "close quiet branch lines to help save the environment" would be a vote winner, of course. Such routes do exist though - e.g. I think the line from Burnley to Colne has an average of about twenty one passengers per journey.

But some people take the attitude that "the railway" must be the answer, no matter what. So we go from threads extolling the need to get people out of their cars to threads encouraging railway passengers to travel hundreds of miles on unnecessary leisure trips - if environmental sustainability is the goal then be careful what you wish for!

Some enthusiasts think that part of the purpose of the railway should be to own lots of retail space so that the profits can help subsidise train operation.

Some think that the purpose of the railway should be to maximise passenger miles, regardless of cost or efficiency.

Some think that we should spend a billion pounds a year on electrifying lines, just to keep skills up to date. What else - give the road budget sufficient to fund a new suspension bridge/ hundred miles of motorway each year, just to ensure that we have trained staff capable of doing such jobs when needed?

Same goes for the "employ as many staff as possible" example that you've given; those inside the industry have no incentive to try to reduce "manpower".

Maybe that could be a whole separate thread - explain the purpose of the railway in 280 characters or fewer (using that number as a benchmark since that's the length of one tweet).

Owning lots of retail space to subsidise the railway isn't a core purpose of the railway, but if you have an estate with a large amount of land which can be used in this way to subsidise core railway operations, why on earth wouldn't you ?

The fact is, the more people move around, the more they tend to spend and the more the economy grows. The railway is a way of achieving this in as environmentally undamaging way as possible.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Owning lots of retail space to subsidise the railway isn't a core purpose of the railway, but if you have an estate with a large amount of land which can be used in this way to subsidise core railway operations, why on earth wouldn't you ?

The fact is, the more people move around, the more they tend to spend and the more the economy grows. The railway is a way of achieving this in as environmentally undamaging way as possible.

I would argue that in addition to the above by leasing out space which may otherwise be unused/under utilised you can get others to pay you to provide refreshments to your passengers which if you provided yourself on your trains would likely cost you money.

Even if you still need to provide refreshments on your services there's a reduced need making it possible for one trolly to serve a train of 500 people, when otherwise you would probably need more provision. This extra provision would be at the expense of more staff and/or loss of seating. With again the net impact being that you wouldn't receive as much money into the system.

Finally, even if you could in theory earn more by not leasing out the space the railways don't operate in a vacuum and so the retail units would just exist near to the stations with the lease money going to other land owners.

It should also be noted that some retail space which exists outside the gate lines is frequented by people who have no interest in using the trains at that time, sometimes in large numbers. As such those customers are subsidising those that use the railways.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I see Austria has just started electrification of a branch in Carinthia (Arnoldstein-Hermagor, 31km single track).
The cost is quoted at €61m, or €2m per single track km (stkm).
That's not out of line with the recent £1.5m per stkm mooted as the "going rate" for future projects in the UK (although it's twice the cost quoted in the NR 2009 RUS).
The line will also be closed for 4 and 5 month blocks this year and next, with significant route upgrades.
Austria has a rolling programme of electrification and has some big tunnelling projects on the go - this one is a tiddler by comparison.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ailtalbahn-electrification-gets-underway.html
The line is a typical rural ÖBB line, operating as part of the S-bahn from Villach.
It currently offers an hourly DMU service taking 40 minutes on the branch (66min from Villach).
We just need the confidence to get on with simple projects like this, without falling flat on the floor in the process with ground conditions and clearance issues.
I liked this comment:
The Land government envisages that all remaining lines in Kärnten will be electrified by 2025
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top