Long distances under wires should not be covered by diesel trains

[Bikeman78]

Moderator note: split from

First Rail Stirling (Lumo) Rolling Stock

The current Apprentice Customer Driver vacancies for First Stirling, operating under Lumo, state that applicants successful will be required to drive 222 units. Is this a stopgap whilst 80X stock are obtained? Further information can be found here...

www.railforums.co.uk

For the purposes of this application, electrification is not available North of Crewe, particularly around Weaver Junction.

There is simply not enough power in the existing infrastructure to support additional services, so the route is essentially not electrified for open access and other new services.

Then it's probably best not to run any more services until the power supply is upgraded.

Do we really want diesels running over 400 miles on a fully electrified route?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Then it's probably best not to run any more services until the power supply is upgraded. Do we really want diesels running over 400 miles on a fully electrified route?

Surely we might as well have the services and let the passenger flow get established while we wait for the power supply and new trains.

 

[Narrowgauge725]

Actually the customer comes first so yes we do want trains running. Long term they should be electric but get the service up and running asap.

 

[NSE]

I understand your point, but in terms of going green, in the last 10/15 years we’ve seen
- London Overground eliminate diesel traction.
- TPE take on electric traction.
- EMR take on electric traction for one route.
- LNER, TPE, GWR, Hull Trains and Avanti all taking on IC trains that eliminate diesel running under wires.
- GA picking up a bi mode fleet that eliminates diesel running on local lines.
- Electrification in the Welsh valleys allowing the introduction of bi modes and tram trains (not my neck of the woods so can’t remember the precise details).
- Electrification across the Great Western, Scottish, West Midlands and Northern networks.
- Phasing out Pacers and Sprinters and introducing stock like 196’s to allow those diesel trains that are running to be more efficient.

So, yeah, it is a pain having a diesel running all the way on the engines, especially when so much is under wires, but we have removed a lot of diesel running. And, additionally, as other posters have said, get the route up and running and then focus on gaining bi mode traction when available.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

On the WCML it'd be a much bigger benefit to have all freight electrically hauled: pathing would be easier and reliability improved.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

On the WCML it'd be a much bigger benefit to have all freight electrically hauled: pathing would be easier and reliability improved.

Yes. Many people forget about the freight angle.

 

[stevieinselby]

Surely we might as well have the services and let the passenger flow get established while we wait for the power supply and new trains.

And a diesel train is still greener than all those people driving or flying. Better to have a diesel train than no train.

 

[Brubulus]

Could batteries at feeder stations be used as a strategy to enable power supply upgrades by allowing more power to be supplied to the railway while not increasing peak load on the grid?
Agree that freight electrification is particularly important on WCML and needs to be pursued more broadly across the network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And a diesel train is still greener than all those people driving or flying.

22x are so heavy, inefficient and polluting that this is not necessarily true, particularly not compared to a fully occupied modern petrol car or worse an EV. These filthy fume belchers basically ruin Lumo's environmental credentials entirely. They should be scrapped ASAP.

 

[HSTEd]

And a diesel train is still greener than all those people driving or flying. Better to have a diesel train than no train.

This is no longer as true as it might have been.

Modern cars (let alone EVs) achieve quite good fuel efficiency these days.

 

[AndrewE]

And a diesel train is still greener than all those people driving or flying. Better to have a diesel train than no train.

except that we don't want any diesel trains in city centres. Especially Brum. And as others have said, some diesel units have appalling fuel efficiency. Maybe they should relegate Voyagers to work Plymouth to Penzance and similar (what other lines are almost all rurual and could use some more stock?)

Could batteries at feeder stations be used as a strategy to enable power supply upgrades by allowing more power to be supplied to the railway while not increasing peak load on the grid?

The trouble is that in addition to a big battery you need a big inverter. I suspect that it is another good idea which would be put in the "pending" tray as too complicated and an additional expense, which would upset the Treasury. They don't recognise the value of decarbonisation, or better health from getting polluting things out of cities and encouraging active transport, or even reducing congestion by getting people onto public transport...
They seem to only be able to see "the price of everything" but never recognise "the value of anything." Unless there is a benefit in or near Westminster or Whitehall, of course.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

22x are so heavy, inefficient and polluting that this is not necessarily true, particularly not compared to a fully occupied modern petrol car or worse an EV. These filthy fume belchers basically ruin Lumo's environmental credentials entirely. They should be scrapped ASAP.

The options:
A)
- 222s operate and they start to build a passenger base
- 222s are replaced by 80x in a few years time
B)
- Freight companies who don't use their electric paths have the power access taken away
- Lumo start with refurbished EMUs (e.g. 350/2s)
C)
No trains.

A has clearly been chosen, and while I would be a fan of a use it or lose it for freight train's electric rights, I don't see B happening and I think C is just the worst option becuase less trains (although EMR would probably be happy if they got to keep their 222s for a bit longer)

 

[Zomboid]

I personally agree with the principle that we shouldn't be running diesels under wires, but bi-modes are relatively new in this context and we're still in the transition period.

 

[xotGD]

I personally agree with the principle that we shouldn't be running diesels under wires, but bi-modes are relatively new in this context and we're still in the transition period.

Cross Country services were essentially bimodes back in the day. A 47 as far as New St, then an 86 forward.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The options:
A)
- 222s operate and they start to build a passenger base
- 222s are replaced by 80x in a few years time
B)
- Freight companies who don't use their electric paths have the power access taken away
- Lumo start with refurbished EMUs (e.g. 350/2s)
C)
No trains.

A has clearly been chosen, and while I would be a fan of a use it or lose it for freight train's electric rights, I don't see B happening and I think C is just the worst option becuase less trains (although EMR would probably be happy if they got to keep their 222s for a bit longer)

I'd go with C. The WCML falls over so often that some spare paths are a good thing, and I remain unconvinced of the benefits of open access anyway.

 

[dk1]

Can’t say it bothers me too much. In a perfect world it would be but that’s not the way we do things in the UK.

 

[stevieinselby]

22x are so heavy, inefficient and polluting that this is not necessarily true, particularly not compared to a fully occupied modern petrol car or worse an EV.

This is no longer as true as it might have been.

Modern cars (let alone EVs) achieve quite good fuel efficiency these days.

Environmental friendliness isn't just about tailpipe emissions. Rail corridors require less landtake than roads with equivalent capacity, which is better for the environment for a start, and they don't need large areas of both roadway and parking to be covered in tarmac, which means less carbon is produced in constructing them and they make less contribution to the urban heat island effect.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Environmental friendliness isn't just about tailpipe emissions. Rail corridors require less landtake than roads with equivalent capacity, which is better for the environment for a start, and they don't need large areas of both roadway and parking to be covered in tarmac, which means less carbon is produced in constructing them and they make less contribution to the urban heat island effect.

In practice when it comes to Lumo it basically is about tailpipe emissions. Five or thereabouts 6-car 22x per day is not going to have any practical inroad (!) whatsoever into whether any more roads need to be built.

Your argument is valid for building HS2, it isn't really valid for determining whether a primarily abstractive Ryanair-style rail service needs to be allowed to operate diesels under the wires on a 200+ mile route.

 

[Fenchurch SP]

How does it work with the track access charges and electric trains? Is there a higher charge for electric trains to pay for the electricity consumption? Could it be priced to encourage train companies to use more electric trains and therefore not have to pay for diesel?

 

[mike57]

I think the answer to the topic is "In an ideal world we would use electric traction where ever possible"

But, we are not in an ideal world, we have an infrastructure which was in gerneral designed on the cheap, and then requires expensive and slow uprades everytime a capacity increase is needed. There was a similar situation (may still be) on the ECML north of Newcastle where TPE had to run their bi-modes on diesel because power supply wasn't adequate.

So you either run with diesel or you dont run.

If you dont run then people will (not) switch modes, with flying probably being favoured for London Scotland journeys. I assume if the route is a success Lumo will look at some form of 8xx unit, maybe a bi-mode similar to Hull Trains. When (if) that happens then I assume there will be sections where it is diesel powered because of power supply constraint. How long would they be?

Longer term what about current electrification programs, TPE, MML, has anything been learned, or is still the cheapest (relative, given cost overruns...) just big enough to cope with current requirements solution.

Not running 'because they are diesel' feels like greenwashing, as any 'mode shifters' would probably fly instead.

I dont know what proportion of UK emissions are contributed by railways directly i.e. diesel powered stuff, freight and passenger, but I suspect it is a small proportion of the total, and to be honest throwing large sums of money just to reduce emmisions seems pointless unless there other benefits (Yes routes like the far north line with a few trains per day come to mind), if you want to make progress go for the big hitters, which I suspect with transport is still road vehicles of all sizes and types. Rail is inherently more efficent anyway, steel wheel on steel rail using a few large engines is better than rubber tyre on asphalt with lots of smaller engines, a proportion of which are probably old, worn, and generally out of tune anyway. Electic vehicle technology still hasn't reached the point where its the ideal choice for something like London - Scotland.

 

[HSTEd]

if you want to make progress go for the big hitters, which I suspect with transport is still road vehicles of all sizes and types. Rail is inherently more efficent anyway, steel wheel on steel rail using a few large engines is better than rubber tyre on asphalt with lots of smaller engines, a proportion of which are probably old, worn, and generally out of tune anyway. Electic vehicle technology still hasn't reached the point where its the ideal choice for something like London - Scotland.

Railway engines are considerably older and more worn than road vehicle engines, on average.

 

[Mike Machin]

if you want to make progress go for the big hitters, which I suspect with transport is still road vehicles of all sizes and types. Rail is inherently more efficent anyway, steel wheel on steel rail using a few large engines is better than rubber tyre on asphalt with lots of smaller engines, a proportion of which are probably old, worn, and generally out of tune anyway.

Travelling by coach is generally quite a lot greener than rail. Trains, even modern electric ones, are relatively heavy so there's a lot of weight and mass to be moved. Coaches are disproportionately lighter than trains and are more efficient, benefitting from the latest engine technology. The electric coach is also now finding favour on shorter routes with even greater efficiencies than rail, with the latest coaches having a realistic usable range of 300 miles between charges.

Private EVs are also generally more environmentally friendly than rail. Unless there's a dramatic up-scaling of electrification in the UK, together with corresponding progress with the introduction of more energy efficient trains, rail is in danger of becoming the 'dirty option.'

 

[Snow1964]

Cross Country services were essentially bimodes back in the day. A 47 as far as New St, then an 86 forward.

Actually back in late 1970s and throughout 1980s many changed at Coventry (only those reversing at New Street ran diesel under the wires between the two).

But in late 1970s BR had about 250 electric locos (including the electro diesels), the idea before HSTs that you ran long distance on electrified lines with diesels was unimaginable. To some extent HSTs set up the bad trend.

 

[mike57]

Travelling by coach is generally quite a lot greener than rail.

But in terms of a London - Scotland journey I would have thought most would choose between flying or train due to journey time. The budget market might consider coach but an ~8.5 hr journey time will put a lot off.

Railway engines are considerably older and more worn than road vehicle engines, on average.

But will efficency be badly affected? Larger engines tend to be more efficent anyway.

 

[HSTEd]

But will efficency be badly affected? Larger engines tend to be more efficent anyway.

Engine efficiency in cars has now improved quite a lot.

Diesel rail operations, which mostly resorts to old diesel engines built to old designs, are getting emissions closer to those of modern internal combustion hatchbacks, even if only a single person is in it.
TfW as a whole manages 85g/passenger-km, a modern hatchback can manage around 100g/km.

And within a decade or two, the road vehicle number will start to crater because they will be increasingly electric and diesel trains will still be diesel trains.

Finally, cars will also emit far less in the way of other pollutants by virtue of complying with more modern emissions standards.

 

[renegademaster]

Railway engines are considerably older and more worn than road vehicle engines, on average.

You only have 6 of them vs 300, abd you could always just force Euro 6 standards on them

 

[Zomboid]

diesel trains will still be diesel trains

But will they? In 20 years time I would be very surprised if there were many pure diesel passenger trains running on the UK network. Plenty of bi-modes and BEMUs, but Sprinters and Turbostars and that 1980-2005 era of train will mostly be wrapped around baked beans by then.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But will they? In 20 years time I would be very surprised if there were many pure diesel passenger trains running on the UK network. Plenty of bi-modes and BEMUs, but Sprinters and Turbostars and that 1980-2005 era of train will mostly be wrapped around baked beans by then.

Unfortunately the short-sighted construction of three large fleets of CAF Civity DMUs (which should really have been bi-modes) has put its spanner in that particular works. No way will those only get 20 years' use.

 

[Zomboid]

Unfortunately the short-sighted construction of three large fleets of CAF Civity DMUs (which should really have been bi-modes) has put its spanner in that particular works. No way will those only get 20 years' use.

They'll probably be hanging on, but I don't see many other pure diesel trains being around in 20+ years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They'll probably be hanging on, but I don't see many other pure diesel trains being around in 20+ years.

I'd probably agree that the CAFs and 231s* are likely to be the only pure diesels left in say 25 years, yes, but we could really do without those too, if nothing else they will further the idea that branch lines should be replaced by electric buses.

* If not fitted with a pantograph, which I believe TfW is looking at.