Shapps wants ‘earlier extinction of diesel trains’: suggestions welcome on how to achieve this

[Bald Rick]

It’s entirely feasible. Most new cars are ‘connected’ in some way. My next door neighbour has a ‘black box’ in his car for insurance reasons, and it can tell very precisely where, when and how fast he has been going. His insurance premium varies depending on these factors.

It would be very simple to scale this up, and have road pricing based on where and when. Rural roads - no charge any time. Town / City roads - high charge in peak, less so off peak or at night. Backed up with ANPR (which is pretty much everywhere already) for those without the black box. But you’d be incentivised to have one.

Charging this way would help to manage demand for road space; hell you could even have ‘advance purchase’ if you knew you were going to make a certain journey at a busy time - eg the A303 on a summer Saturday.

It’s coming. 10 years I reckon and it will be in.

 

[AM9]

It’s entirely feasible. Most new cars are ‘connected’ in some way. My next door neighbour has a ‘black box’ in his car for insurance reasons, and it can tell very precisely where, when and how fast he has been going. His insurance premium varies depending on these factors.

It would be very simple to scale this up, and have road pricing based on where and when. Rural roads - no charge any time. Town / City roads - high charge in peak, less so off peak or at night. Backed up with ANPR (which is pretty much everywhere already) for those without the black box. But you’d be incentivised to have one.

Charging this way would help to manage demand for road space; hell you could even have ‘advance purchase’ if you knew you were going to make a certain journey at a busy time - eg the A303 on a summer Saturday.

It’s coming. 10 years I reckon and it will be in.

It would be possible for a box to collect the distance/time covered at various rates, maybe storing a coded representation of specifically which locations locally. The upload would only include the totalised figures for charging purposes and the owner would have the ability to delete all of the geographical data. And yes, ANPR would become the stick with which sample locations can be checked as well as gathering data on where vehicles without the blackbox went thereby undermining their sense of avoiding the system and giving them a nudge to get a box.

 

[Rhydgaled]

So we're advocating shutting lines when we know carbon reduction solutions for such railways are available rather than lobbying strongly to employ those solutions. I think that's absurd.

I'm not advocating closing anything. I'm saying that's what will happen if the railway does not have a plan to eradicate all DMU use across the network by about 2030, by which time our bus networks are likely to be near 100% electric.

Northern, of course (and WMT and TfW alongside them) have been fools for ordering DMUs which can only have at most a 10-15 year life span if costly and possibly unsuccessful conversions are not completed. Whereas GA's bi-modes can at least have the engine module lopped out and become EMUs.

Advocating closing lines is one thing (which is NOT my position, yet). However, does it make sense to be advocating modal shift to rail on routes that will be DMU operated until the early 2050s?

I do not share your optimism that the motor trade will be able to switch everybody to battery cars, for two reasons:

• Where will the resources come from? There are probably not enough lithium ions to satisfy demand for all these battery cars. Even if there were, the national grid would probably not cope. Even if it did, the limited range of such machines means you can say goodbye to the ultra-high mileage sales rep in red braces tailgating everybody on the motorway (so a silver lining of sorts!).
• More importantly, where will the money to develop these amazing new products come from? We expect the motor trade to provide us with all these new trinkets at exactly the time we are no longer buying their products. Already people are holding off buying traditional cars whilst they wait for battery ones to become more cost effective (if they ever do). Car purchase figures show a trend of decline. There is a drying up of new motorists as they presumably wait for somebody to market a viable driverless horseless carriage, so driving test passes are down too. Like British Railways found out in the 1950's, declining revenue and a tougher market place can only mean something gotta give.

Optimism? I didn't say that I thought one-for-one replacement of petrol and diesel cars would be a good thing. Diesel buses/trains are more energy efficient than diesel cars so presumably electric public transport will still be better than electric cars. Also, as you say, the national grid may encounter serious issues if it happened. But I still fear that this is the way we are headed; if driverless cars happen the 'texting-addicts' who can't put their phones down may start motoring; particularly if it becomes door-to-door driverless with no human control and therefore no need for insurance.

In this case it could probably easily subsidise an hourly electric Trawscymru bus service rather than a train roughly every three hours. I don't want this to happen - but if the railway is still running on dirty diesel when every single bus is electric (which I think is a distinct possibility) it's yet another case not to bother fixing it up the next time it washes away.

It's not just a distinct possibility; it is Welsh Government policy. They are presiding over a franchise that has placed an order for 77 DMUs that (unless CAF's build quality if awful) won't be life-expired until the 2050s while presenting a low carbon delivery plan that includes a "bold ambition for a zero emission bus, taxi and private hire vehicle fleet by 2028".

If we really are going to achieve a step-change decrease in energy use (because just driving electric cars will not do anything like what is needed) then pretty some serious sticks - and the carrot of massive improvements in public transport - are essential.

I completely agree; electric cars will still demand energy and public transport (provided that it is also electric) will presumably remain a more efficient means of moving pepole than private vehicles. However, if in the 2040s and early 2050s the choice is an electric car or a DMU which should pepole be encouraged to use? Obviously the longer-term solution is to replace the DMUs with IPEMUs (battery units) or, if they don't have sufficient range for something like the Heart of Wales, hydrogen units. The problem is the long life of trains (which is normally a good thing) and the political desire to look good while minimising spending so buying lots of new DMUs which are presumably cheaper than bi-modes.

Electric cars don't put anything out of the exhaust, so shouldn't be taxed on emissions they don't produce

They don't produce exhaust, but they still use energy. That has to come from somewhere and even with renewables there will be emissions in the construction of wind turbines etc. The 2050 target is 'net zero' and not just plain 'zero': truly zero emmisions is just plain impossible but we need to minimise emmisions. So will still need to cut down on car use.

 

[najaB]

It's not just a distinct possibility; it is Welsh Government policy.

"Diesel" and "dirty" don't have to go hand in hand. Bio-derived fuel and more efficient particulate filtering can make a massive difference.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Off topic sorry, but my moan at a lady "recycling" her junk at the local recycling center last week went completely over her head. Her diesel Chelsea tractor was left ticking over for at least 15 minutes whilst she wrestled unloading her cargo into the various skips. When I politely asked her why she had not turned-off the engine, I got a load of abuse. Some people are so thick it beggars belief.

 

[HSTEd]

It’s entirely feasible. Most new cars are ‘connected’ in some way. My next door neighbour has a ‘black box’ in his car for insurance reasons, and it can tell very precisely where, when and how fast he has been going. His insurance premium varies depending on these factors.

It would be very simple to scale this up, and have road pricing based on where and when. Rural roads - no charge any time. Town / City roads - high charge in peak, less so off peak or at night. Backed up with ANPR (which is pretty much everywhere already) for those without the black box. But you’d be incentivised to have one.

Charging this way would help to manage demand for road space; hell you could even have ‘advance purchase’ if you knew you were going to make a certain journey at a busy time - eg the A303 on a summer Saturday.

It’s coming. 10 years I reckon and it will be in.

In other words, building a panopticon?
That is frankly terrifying.

 

[The Ham]

I completely agree; electric cars will still demand energy and public transport (provided that it is also electric) will presumably remain a more efficient means of moving pepole than private vehicles. However, if in the 2040s and early 2050s the choice is an electric car or a DMU which should pepole be encouraged to use? Obviously the longer-term solution is to replace the DMUs with IPEMUs (battery units) or, if they don't have sufficient range for something like the Heart of Wales, hydrogen units. The problem is the long life of trains (which is normally a good thing) and the political desire to look good while minimising spending so buying lots of new DMUs which are presumably cheaper than bi-modes.

Part of the cost, in terms of energy, of vehicles is terms of their production. For most cars they will require as much energy in their production as they use during their use.

It is part of the reason why if you are transporting 400 people in 5 buses or 200 cars then the cars produce 2.35 times more CO2e than the buses will. In fact you could have 11 buses and still be better off in terms of emissions.

Now where trains are an average of 5 times better (with a 30% load factor) as long as the trains are well loaded then chances are, even with DMU vs electric car it would be a close run thing if there's only one or two people in the car when you consider overall emissions.

As I've highlighted earlier the total emissions of the railways equates to circa 80kg per tax payer per year. With a bit more electrification and lower Coal and gas energy use in our power generation and that figure will fall further.

Given that both coal and gas use has fallen since 2010 and that renewables have grown faster over that timeframe than predicted it's likely that by 2040, even without further electrification, that baseline figure will have fallen further. With more electrification (especially if those lines where there's 10+ coaches an hour and either where there's lots of stop starts or very high speeds) there's the potential for it fall even further.

If you compare this with the 175kg produced for a car battery which may only last 3 years, it may well only need the baseline to fall to 60kg per tax payer.

As I've also pointed out before it's better to use a train which is going to be running anyway than use a car that is extra milage and therefore extra emissions.

The other thing to consider is that if someone uses a car for travel rather than in the fairly few DMU's which are (hopefully) going to be left by 2040 then they will continue to use their car for other purposes when they could be using EMU's or electric buses. When considered as party of that wider pattern of travel for the vast majority of people it's still going to be better not to drive their own car.

 

[The Ham]

With regards to dear that the grid (not the generation of power but the transfer of power) won't be able to cater for future demand, one thing to consider is that the total power use in 2018 was is lowest since 1994 and circa 50 terrawatt hours less than the peak of circa 375 terrawatt hours, meaning that there's capacity for 15% more energy use than is currently the case without the grid struggling too much.

That's before you consider that local power generation (i.e. solar panels on buildings) would be able to provide some of the power being used. For instance any cars at home or in offices near residential areas
during the day would take the local solar power and not need to be charged during times of peak demand. For a lot of people being able to be fully charged during the day is just as useful as being able to be fully charged over night.

By doing so it would reduce the peak evening loads and even reduce the need for as much power over night when solar appears not to generate that much power for some reason.

 

[RLBH]

They don't produce exhaust, but they still use energy. That has to come from somewhere and even with renewables there will be emissions in the construction of wind turbines etc. The 2050 target is 'net zero' and not just plain 'zero': truly zero emmisions is just plain impossible but we need to minimise emmisions. So will still need to cut down on car use.

The pollution created in generating their energy should be taxed through some appropriate mechanism - in terms of emissions, the fuel use for an electric car should be treated similarly to that used for a toaster, whilst that for an IC car should be treated similarly to that used for oil-fired heating. Taking up space on the road and causing problems simply by being a car is another matter altogether, and needs to be strongly disincentivised.

In a world with electric vehicles, the argument for public transport has to be based on something other than pollution - and especially on something other than CO2 emissions - because when everything is perceived as 'clean' the convenience factor of a car will start to win out. That 'something' is probably some combination of congestion and cost of ownership.

 

[Bald Rick]

In other words, building a panopticon?
That is frankly terrifying.

Well I had to look that up. And no.

To a certain extent the technology is already in use. Anyone with a mobile phone can be tracked (and the tracking data is regularly used by the authorities in criminal cases), and ANPR cameras are just about everywhere in towns, cities and on major roads. I don’t see what there is to be worried about.

Certain refinements of the technology would be necessary and a charging element added, but it’s really quite simple.

 

[AM9]

The pollution created in generating their energy should be taxed through some appropriate mechanism - in terms of emissions, the fuel use for an electric car should be treated similarly to that used for a toaster, whilst that for an IC car should be treated similarly to that used for oil-fired heating. Taking up space on the road and causing problems simply by being a car is another matter altogether, and needs to be strongly disincentivised.

In a world with electric vehicles, the argument for public transport has to be based on something other than pollution - and especially on something other than CO2 emissions - because when everything is perceived as 'clean' the convenience factor of a car will start to win out. That 'something' is probably some combination of congestion and cost of ownership.

So if a 'carrot & stick' approach is required to guide the minds of those who won't consider the bigger picture, there are cost impact incentives as you have indicated, and there are convenience nudges. Every time a major road is widened or a bypass is built, the usual argument of it reducing emissions would no longer really be relevant, and such improvements only serve to make new journey opportunities anyway which are counter to the (stated) intentions. We should assume that we have reached peak car road capacity and future road plans should be focused on the mode of transport beneficial to the general taxpayer, who (apart from the recent sop to car owners) has been the sole provider of the public highway.
Therefore priority for bus lanes, bus-only roads, bus priority at junctions and of course increased pedestrian priority over casual road traffic. Such measures, whilst unpopular with a few, will increasingly reshape the travelling habits of many and improve the environmental conditions for all.

 

[apk55]

One of the reasons why UK energy consumption has fallen has been the closure of a lot of manufacturing industry. But all this does is move energy consumption elsewhere. So we should be looking at putting energy consumption on the end user so for example I buy a foreign car the energy related to its manufacture is added to where I live, not where it is made.
This could lead to some interesting statistics, for example Newport (with its massive steel works) could end up quite green.

 

[RLBH]

Therefore priority for bus lanes, bus-only roads, bus priority at junctions and of course increased pedestrian priority over casual road traffic.

Along with things like narrowing traffic lanes to reduce speed, filters on residential streets to allow cycle and foot traffic whilst preventing motorists, and limiting the use of the public highway for car parking. I also rather like Richard Beeching's suggestion that car owners should be required to store their car off of the public highway at home, although implementing it would be close to impossible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In other words, building a panopticon?
That is frankly terrifying.

They already have it - ANPR is everywhere.

As evidence - I took out a new insurance policy on my car and the insurer failed to register it on the MID correctly (though the policy did exist and was valid). Within about 15 minutes of driving I had been stopped by the police (the only time in 22 years of driving that I have ever been stopped) on suspicion of having no insurance. Fortunately, that I did have insurance was confirmed by a phone call.

 

[AM9]

As an afterthought, the likely abandonment of some 'smart; motorways will also throttle traffic which once the users get fed up with queueing, some of them might change mode. Although Thatcher once said that traffic jams were a sign of a 'great car economy', the opening of the completed M25 in 1986 just accelerated the rush to private motoring. A series of targetted* throttling of roads will probably be needed to reverse this trend, which will reveal opportunities for public transport, and in terms of commutes, rail is likely to be a major part of the solution.
* there's no point in blanket reductions in road capacity (I can hear the clicking of keyboards typing what about rural commutes?), as clearly some interurban routes have a higher priority and rural reas may need subsidised bus services that are shaped to reduce the village to town/city centre commute, - a major problem for the built-up parts of bus routes competing for road space.

 

[HSTEd]

You think deliberately causing traffic jams for no reason than because the Government wants them is really going to fly politically?

 

[ABB125]

You think deliberately causing traffic jams for no reason than because the Government wants them is really going to fly politically?

Isn't deliberately causing traffic jams what happened in London about a decade ago (or so I'm told, I wasn't old enough to know or care at the time) under Ken Livingstone? Apparently it made pollution worse.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

You think deliberately causing traffic jams for no reason than because the Government wants them is really going to fly politically?

It didn't damage two successive Mayors in London, and the third is continuing along the same path.

 

[AM9]

You think deliberately causing traffic jams for no reason than because the Government wants them is really going to fly politically?

Who said that measures would be "for no reason than because the Government wants them"? It seems that you don't appreciate the situation we are in through 'building our way out of road congestion' for the last 50 years. Fortunately, younger voters seem to realise the folly of that and are not all rushing like lemmings to get cars.

 

[HSTEd]

Who said that measures would be "for no reason than because the Government wants them"? It seems that you don't appreciate the situation we are in through 'building our way out of road congestion' for the last 50 years. Fortunately, younger voters seem to realise the folly of that and are not all rushing like lemmings to get cars.

The term "throttling" implies that capacity would be deliberately reduced to cause traffic jams.
This is very different from simply not expanding capacity.

 

[AM9]

Isn't deliberately causing traffic jams what happened in London about a decade ago (or so I'm told, I wasn't old enough to know or care at the time) under Ken Livingstone? Apparently it made pollution worse.

You clearly don't understand the issue if you believe that the policy would be 'deliberately causing traffic jams'. There would be short-term increases in congestion until only the least observant drivers would realise that things were changing. The extra push would be that those routes would become more expensive for them with selective road charging.
For those who don't remember the changes, just reflect on howe all the nay sayers said that the following would lead to insurrection and/or the end of the world:

the 70mph speed limit in the '60s
ever tougher drink drive laws
prohibiting smoking in public spaces
congestion charges based on vehicle emissions​

and soon there will be:

bans on all IC engines in many parts of cities/towns
drastic restriction of off and on street parking
increased pedestrian zones in unrban areas
more roadspace turned over to cycle lanes​

As the screw tightens on climate change and emissions issues, most MPs will want to be on board the eco bus. There will always be UKIP for the dinosaurs.

 

[AM9]

The term "throttling" implies that capacity would be deliberately reduced to cause traffic jams.
This is very different from simply not expanding capacity.

Removing smart motorway arrangements could be described as throttling. Just imaginge, parts of the M25 and M1 will become 3-lane motorways with hard shoulders, - just like they were designed to be. Other smart motorways are available (to be throttled).

 

[HSTEd]

Removing smart motorway arrangements could be described as throttling. Just imaginge, parts of the M25 and M1 will become 3-lane motorways with hard shoulders, - just like they were designed to be. Other smart motorways are available (to be throttled).

But hard shoulders are pretty much redundant with modern vehicles.

So it is just taking away lanes for no reason.

 

[AM9]

But hard shoulders are pretty much redundant with modern vehicles.

So it is just taking away lanes for no reason.

That's why they are being reviewed after a few fatal accidents. They have been much criticised as a cheap fix to provide more queueing space on overcrowded motorways.
Since their inception in the UK, motorways have been hailed as the safest roads. The main reason is that they had (virtually) a continuous reserved lane for stoppages. Also, the emergency services had a readily available rapid access lane in times of need. Now, the lane's status changes whenever there is a stoppage. On so many occasions, the warnings have been inadequate and even if the traffic using it has seen the signals, forcing a rapid change of lane into a stream of heavy traffic created yet another hazard.
Queueing on an overcrowded road is relatively safe, - no vehicles moving so not much chance of a collision. Switching lanes, a well understood collision cause.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But hard shoulders are pretty much redundant with modern vehicles.

So it is just taking away lanes for no reason.

It remains to be seen what will be done with them - they may be made 4-lane no hard shoulder motorways instead. It's the part-time hard shoulder running which has been found to be unworkable, not the whole concept.

 

[Bald Rick]

Removing smart motorway arrangements could be described as throttling. Just imaginge, parts of the M25 and M1 will become 3-lane motorways with hard shoulders, - just like they were designed to be. Other smart motorways are available (to be throttled).

It remains to be seen what will be done with them - they may be made 4-lane no hard shoulder motorways instead. It's the part-time hard shoulder running which has been found to be unworkable, not the whole concept.

My understanding (having spoken to some people from Highways England) is that it is the variable hardshoulder bit that is abandoned, and it becomes permanent all lane running, ie no hard shoulder. This is all subject to the review of course.

 

[AM9]

My understanding (having spoken to some people from Highways England) is that it is the variable hardshoulder bit that is abandoned, and it becomes permanent all lane running, ie no hard shoulder. This is all subject to the review of course.

Which would make a breakdown exciting. I wonder what that will do to accident stats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which would make a breakdown exciting. I wonder what that will do to accident stats.

My understanding (having spoken to some people from Highways England) is that it is the variable hardshoulder bit that is abandoned, and it becomes permanent all lane running, ie no hard shoulder. This is all subject to the review of course.

New thread for this: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/proposed-abandonment-of-smart-motorways.194331/

 

[option]

Thanks for the link, and I fully agree on the larger scale, but the remaining diesel operations in urban areas (e.g. Marylebone approaches) are much more a public health particulates and NOx problem, rather than a significant part of the overall carbon issue. That factor might justify some additional targeted intervention above what the vehicle mileage thus converted represents purely in carbon terms. Noise can also be an issue in such urban areas and all these effects can be highly localised in the vicinity of the particular corridors, and particularly around stations, where clearly there are many people on foot milling around breathing the local poor air, many of whom happen to be rail customers.

Indeed

I'll use the Birmingham Snow Hill lines as an example;
electrification would remove diesel engines from a highly urbanised area, not just with the local trains, but in the future the long distance ones.
other works could enable an increase in frequency & train length (particularly the shorter services to Moor St).
that leads to an increase in capacity, which can help with the modal shift away from cars.
which, with other measures, could help buses to get through on the nearby roads, with less time sitting in traffic producing fumes, & make buses a better choice for other people.