Diesel trains should be banned from terminating at trainshed/subsurface stations

[WestRiding]

A rediculous idea, without electrification of the wider network being taken seriously.

 

[AM9]

A rediculous idea, without electrification of the wider network being taken seriously.

What are you referring to as a "rediculous" idea?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I remember many times watching HSTs start up at Padd years ago when I used it a fair bit, did leaving engines idling at terminii become more prevalent? seems z bit of a legislative loophole really.

The way they tended to do it with HSTs was to leave only the front power car running, which would either be outside the trainshed or very close to it, and start the rear one just before departure. That doesn't work quite the same way with a DMU.

Same was true of New St - locos tended to be outside the trainshed, but a Voyager kicks out filth from every coach.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2021 ==

A rediculous idea, without electrification of the wider network being taken seriously.

Reducing particulate pollution in major cities is highly important.

I think the railway's hand will be forced by London-specific legislation soon enough. Arguably not soon enough - I'd set a date now, no more than 10 years away, for a total ban on the use of diesel engined vehicles (road or rail) within the ULEZ zone.

 

[WestRiding]

What are you referring to as a "rediculous" idea?

Banning diesel from terminating under a train shed station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Banning diesel from terminating under a train shed station.

Banning diesel propelled vehicles, road and rail, from major cities entirely will be along in due course and is not ridiculous at all. Electrification of the Chiltern line really does need to be started in force, as the last bastion of mucky diesels in the ULEZ. Everywhere else bi-modes can provide the immediate solution - and how much nicer is Paddington now the trainshed doesn't stink of fumes and human effluent?

 

[zwk500]

Surely a wet lease of three or four locos would be relatively manageable when the pressure to act builds up.

The ideal way to resolve it would be for DB (or other FOC) to have a pool of 90s/92s at Didcot, then GWR could just have a contract with them to provide the haulage. However for this to be viable will probably need Didcot-West Mids electrified.

 

[PTR 444]

Banning diesel from terminating under a train shed station.

The only reason this idea could be perceived as ridiculous is because in most cases, doing so would require terminating trains short of termini, which wouldn’t be necessary if whole mainlines were electrified. The Great Western, Chiltern, Midland, Cross Country and Transpennine lines should really have been done in full at least 20 years ago.

 

[BrianW]

Relatedly, but maybe another thread ...
I heard on Radio 4 this morning of the 'mothballing' of electric freight locos, to be replaced by diesel as it's cheaper!!
Not so much 'de-carbonisation' as recarbonisation, or deelectrification a bit like Manchester-Sheffield from Woodhead to Hope Valley?
So what hope a rolling programme of expensive electification ahead?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Relatedly, but maybe another thread ...
I heard on Radio 4 this morning of the 'mothballing' of electric freight locos, to be replaced by diesel as it's cheaper!!
Not so much 'de-carbonisation' as recarbonisation, or deelectrification a bit like Manchester-Sheffield from Woodhead to Hope Valley?
So what hope a rolling programme of expensive electification ahead?

This will need legislation to prevent. It is usually cheaper to disregard environmental concerns, but for a level playing field businesses should not be legally permitted to take that attitude, whether rail or not.

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

There is a thread.

Freightliner Class 90s Mothballed?

Anyone able to explain why Freightliner have stopped using 90s on their services out of Ipswich?

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[swt_passenger]

Aren't the former Eurostar platforms long?

No, they are only 12 car since 2017. They’re also on completely the wrong side of the station for west of England services (already pointed out).

 

[SeanG]

I think a practical solution would be to shut down engines when under cover, or indeed not, whenever possible. however this needs to be weighed up with the amount of pollutants created by an initial start up again. I saw 3x156s start from having their engines off at Glasgow Queen Street recently and it filled the whole place with smoke.

 

[A S Leib]

Electrification of the Chiltern line really does need to be started in force, as the last bastion of mucky diesels in the ULEZ

I agree that the Chiltern lines need to be electrified, but Marylebone's currently outside the ULEZ*. London Bridge and Waterloo are in though, so aren't the Uckfield and West of England line services diesels in the ULEZ as well?

*From the 25th, Marylebone, Paddington, Euston, St. Pancras, King's Cross and all accompanying diesels will be in.

Edit: didn't see that this point had been made in earlier posts

 

[yorksrob]

I think that there might be a case for doing something about the "underground carpark" stations with lots of diesel services such as New Street, and Man Vic. High train sheds such as Man Pic and Hull Paragon aren't really such a problem as fumes tend to dissipate more easily, so I'd wait for the necessary network wide reduction in diesel traction.

For London Victoria, perhaps any residual services such as Uckfield could be diverted into the Chatham line platforms.

I think the railway's hand will be forced by London-specific legislation soon enough. Arguably not soon enough - I'd set a date now, no more than 10 years away, for a total ban on the use of diesel engined vehicles (road or rail) within the ULEZ zone.

No arbitrary deadlines please. These just ensure that passengers are saved over when the Government and industry can't agree the necessary expenditure between them.

 

[BrianW]

I agree that the Chiltern lines need to be electrified, but Marylebone's currently outside the ULEZ*. London Bridge and Waterloo are in though, so aren't the Uckfield and West of England line services diesels in the ULEZ as well?

*From the 25th, Marylebone, Paddington, Euston, St. Pancras, King's Cross and all accompanying diesels will be in.

Edit: didn't see that this point had been made in earlier posts

So, how much 'gunk' does a 'typical' diesel train put out? How much per person?

How does that compare with this for cars etc: There is a £12.50 daily charge for driving within the ULEZ area if your vehicle doesn't meet the ULEZ emissions standards.

How much to convert a current diesel to some kind of compliant non-polluting arrangement, swapping over if necessary at the ULEZ border?

 

[zwk500]

For London Victoria, perhaps any residual services such as Uckfield could be diverted into the Chatham line platforms.

1. There are no regular diesel services at Victoria, because of the difficulties dispersing fumes from the Brighton side Platforms (there are still ventilation fans that can be turned on if required). All Uckfield trains go to London Bridge now.
2. You can't cross directly from the Fast Lines to the Chatham side. You'd need to either use Pouparts Jn and the Battersea Reversible or transition to the Slow lines at either at Battersea Park or Balham.

 

[yorksrob]

2. You can't cross directly from the Fast Lines to the Chatham side. You'd need to either use Pouparts Jn and the Battersea Reversible or transition to the Slow lines at either at Battersea Park or Balham.

Indeed, but it's an option.

 

[zwk500]

Indeed, but it's an option.

Not one conducive to a reliable or high-capacity timetable.

 

[Wolfie]

I think that there might be a case for doing something about the "underground carpark" stations with lots of diesel services such as New Street, and Man Vic. High train sheds such as Man Pic and Hull Paragon aren't really such a problem as fumes tend to dissipate more easily, so I'd wait for the necessary network wide reduction in diesel traction.

For London Victoria, perhaps any residual services such as Uckfield could be diverted into the Chatham line platforms.



No arbitrary deadlines please. These just ensure that passengers are saved over when the Government and industry can't agree the necessary expenditure between them.

You better believe that city dwellers will be increasing pressure on Govt for early action.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You better believe that city dwellers will be increasing pressure on Govt for early action.

And if the railway loses its environmental credential, it is ripe for severe, deep cuts.

 

[swt_passenger]

…For London Victoria, perhaps any residual services such as Uckfield could be diverted into the Chatham line platforms.

I think that was achieved in about 2005 by a move of the Uckfield line service to London Bridge…

 

[yorksrob]

And if the railway loses its environmental credential, it is ripe for severe, deep cuts.

Maintaining the railways environmental credentials is better achieved by rolling electrification.

 

[zwk500]

Maintaining the railways environmental credentials is better achieved by rolling electrification.

Agreed, but that is expensive and takes time. The railway needs solutions quicker than that. Luckily, it has 1 already (bi-modes) and another is developing rapidly in another industry (batteries, Car EV development is racing ahead). Both of these give the railways breathing room to get full-scale electrification done whilst reducing immediate output of emissions.

 

[bramling]

In general, this is true. However at the end of the day, 2 diesel trains per hour to a London terminus with semi-covered / spacious trainshed roofs like Waterloo and London Bridge are not too much of an issue. Marylebone should be higher up the priority list for electrification as all services there are currently diesel.

For Uckfield, some form of electrification or battery EMUs are probably the most appropriate. For Waterloo-Exeter, I would like to see full electrification, but bi-mode MUs are more likely. Commuter services into London will need to be maximum length with no space wasted on a locomotive.

With regards to diesel fumes in an enclosed space, Birmingham New Street is definitely up there. All those regional and long-distance XC and TfW services really ought to be electric or bimode, and I would expect this to happen when stock becomes end-of-life.

It has to be said it is surprising Chiltern hasn't been electrified by now. Even if one took out the Amersham side as being "too complex" due to the LU over-working, this would still replace a lot of diesels. Plenty of spare suitable EMUs to work it too, or at least there were until the leasing companies decided to start scrapping stuff.

 

[stj]

Assuming the downturn in passenger numbers is permanent, perhaps a few 80x bi-modes could be converted to sleeping car sets ?!! Although TBH one diesel-hauled train in the morning and one late at night, under a high roof as at Paddington, is not IMHO a major pollution or health hazard. London does pretty well for electric railways, there are many provincial cities far worse off. If there is one major priority for eliminating diesel traction as far as practical, that surely has to be Birmingham New St ?

Do we really need a sleeper service?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maintaining the railways environmental credentials is better achieved by rolling electrification.

Certainly. The Chiltern issue would be solved initially by wiring to High Wycombe which could be run with EMUs, then a fleet of bi modes for the rest of it as it works its way out.

 

[yorksrob]

It has to be said it is surprising Chiltern hasn't been electrified by now. Even if one took out the Amersham side as being "too complex" due to the LU over-working, this would still replace a lot of diesels. Plenty of spare suitable EMUs to work it too, or at least there were until the leasing companies decided to start scrapping stuff.

That's a fair point. I suspect it's more that you're looking at the whole line to Birmingham, rather than a self contained service.

 

[xotGD]

You can't fool me. This is just yet another thread for those desperate to remove Class 68s from Trans-Pennine Express services.

Hands off!

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a fair point. I suspect it's more that you're looking at the whole line to Birmingham, rather than a self contained service.

The 165 fleet is getting old, so a good opportunity to get some new bimodes in and scrap the 165s. The 168/170s would be snapped up - every regional TOC wants them. Once the wires reach Brum, buy new EMUs and cascade the bimodes.

Aylesbury is a bit of a nuisance, but I can't see why it would be difficult to build a bimode that also had third and fourth rail shoes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2021 ==

You can't fool me. This is just yet another thread for those desperate to remove Class 68s from Trans-Pennine Express services.

Hands off!

While it isn't clear it will actually happen, the long term plan for the Mk5a was to use an electric locomotive.

 

[yorksrob]

The 165 fleet is getting old, so a good opportunity to get some new bimodes in and scrap the 165s. The 168/170s would be snapped up - every regional TOC wants them.

Or electrify the MML and transfer Grayling's bi-modes.