In the case of Brookmans Park, I believe the plan once all inners are 717 operated is to go back to all station services with no stations taken out to simplify the operation. If this happened in December it would be very possible that Grant claims to have done this without doing anything at all!
-
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!
Grayling Out - Shapps In
- Thread starter Neen Sollars
- Start date
- Status
In the case of Brookmans Park, I believe the plan once all inners are 717 operated is to go back to all station services with no stations taken out to simplify the operation. If this happened in December it would be very possible that Grant claims to have done this without doing anything at all!
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I still think it will happen. TfL is currently funding the extra equipment for the Oyster/CPC readers up to WGC and the NCL stations are being refreshed. Obviously the logistical issues need to be sorted but otherwise it pretty much is as easy as new vinyls and job done.
Not if the system is designed properly for the local environment it operates in. Look at Scandinavia which has to contend with great extremes of weather. Most route km are electric in Sweden (75%), Norway (62%), and Finland (55%). Denmark is surprisingly low at 25% though.
Possibly, although it really depends on how and where the Lib-Dem vote plays out. I'd say the middle prediction is probably a situation similar to now but with a few Tories replaced with Brexit Party people, a couple gained from Labour and 10-20 lost to the Lib-Dems, meaning nobody is remotely in a position to form a stable government. Given how unusual the polls are though, anything is possible between an absolute Tory majority and Lib-Dems / SNP being the largest grouping.
For what purpose though? There is nothing left for them to do that can’t be easily achieved by anyone else. They’re not exactly covering themselves in glory on the existing London Overground routes either so can’t see any benefit by TfL running it over a franchise other than yet more orange on the map..
Cant see any reason why this government would want to effectively give it over to a Labour mayor.
Unless we cancel it I can't see it not being the most important and possibly the only thing on the agenda for the next 5-10 years. It would certainly be nice if anybody had time for actual policies and making things a bit nicer though
I can see Tory/Brexit Party splitting votes in some seats leading to neither winning.
You wouldn't need much of a shift to end up with a 3 way coalition between Labour, SNP & Lib Dems.
Thinking the exact same thing.
I agree, but still think it will happen! People are getting so excited about the Oyster/CPC acceptance without realising that in many cases fares will go up.
Grant wanted it and had loads of support for it, as I think people want it. TfL great, GTR bad. So he gets cheers when doing it regardless of whether it makes any difference. The difference comes from the new stock.
Of course Grant wasn't there then, so may do differently to what he said before...
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
I can't see restarting electrification being very high on DfT's priority list.
It's much easier to order more bi-modes and get quicker benefits.
Another important thing is whether Andrew Jones stays on as rail minister under Shapps.
He is just getting stuck into the job, which I don't think Boris's brother Jo ever did.
More short term thinking setting UK rail back another decade or two.
I suppose it you thought that battery and charging technology would eventually allow you to replace diesel fuel tanks with batteries and get a similar range and performance, you could argue that this is actually very good forward planning.
But we know the real motivation of course.
It's clearly important to spend money on all those things, and given that the other items are not capital expenditure it's not like it's possible to spend on them first and then do the railways later. If you're going to do them all then sooner or later you're going to have to do them all at once. All it really takes is to not do anything stupid on the tax side and not tanking the economy and they are all affordable anyway. Obviously both of those are probably a lot to ask from Boris's government of all the idiots, but we can hope
As to the current cost of electrification, we know it's nothing like as high as the amount that was spent on Great Western, because we know it won't be over-specified for 140mph running, and we know that Network Rail have learned a lot over the last few years about how to do it at a decent price-point. We also know that the costs achieved recently in Scotland are on-the-high-side at worst, and certainly not obscene. Given that the government at least pay lip service to emissions targets, there are plenty of lines where we could and probably should start electrifying now so that we are in a better position to meet them.
Quite.
First logical thing to do would be announce a firm committment that GWR will be wired to Temple Meads for certain. Swansea the other obvious one.
MML I hope it's not too late what with the franchise having a committment to bi-mode trains now?
ashkeba
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2019
- Messages
- 2,171
Maybe Grant is correct to assess that people will pay a bit more not to have to queue at ticket offices or deal with those shoddy ticket vending machines?
StaffsWCML
Member
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 221
Hopefully they look at ditching the current round of franchising until after the Williams review is complete.
Not sure if it was under Graylings instruction but Andrew Jones always seems very adamant the DfT were correct over franchising and that the process was a fair and watertight process. I couldn't disagree more. Hence the reason we have what we currently have.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
i love how most of the posters here think the Transport brief is a TOP cabinet job. It really isnt. It is a reward to an unimportant supporter, a staging post on a career on the rise or a finishing post for someone on the slide. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, enters politics to be Transport Secretary.
Oh and Shapps is a barmpot.
Oh and Shapps is a barmpot.
Last edited:
Instead of being a threat, Bi-modes could be seen as an opportunity to carry out a rolling programme of progressive electrification, without the pressure of a fleet renewal deadline. Even while still carrying their diesel gen sets, every mile saved on diesel is engine hours and fuel saved, with maintenance and off wire range implications, so gradual extension of electrification can still makes sense. As the proportion of off wire running in typical diagrams decreases, the practicality of replacing many if not all of the bi-modes' diesel power packs with moderately sized battery packs increases, so they could continue to be able to run through short gaps in wiring where provision would be very difficult or expensive. Pennine tunnels are an example. The alchemy will then be in optimising the size of the on board batteries (and any remaing self powered engine modules) to the characteristics of the diagrams served. The modular nature of the AT300 trains seems to lend itself to this kind of evolution over its service life.
I can see that for a battery train which meets environmental criteria, but where every mile off the wires takes the form of a battery you can take or leave off. The need for diesel bi-modes capable of getting to line speed while not under wires means that you are carrying most of the weight and expense anyway, and makes the economics of wiring a lot of routes much more patchy.
Goldfish62
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,047
In total agreement on all that.
CentralTrainer
Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 359
I wonder what Sebastian Fox thinks of the appointment?
There's no problem theoretically starting and getting up to linespeed under a moderately sized battery, just in repeating that exercise many times and sustaining prolonged high speed running. You could get to the point, say where only 10% of a route remained unwired, when battery storage alone could suffice to cover the gaps. What I'm suggesting is that while in the process of achieving that, operators could still save fuel and engine hours by exploiting new sections of wiring as they are gradually energised.
Orange on a map alone is enough to boost passengers. It an instantly recognised brand. Shouldn't underestimate that.
And they get the basics much better like obvious lit up visible roundels on busy streets. The amount of NR stations that can't get simple marketing right is huge.
Actually it's the present perfect.
Sorry, didn't mean to suggest that battery trains couldn't get up to line speed - they are certainly a good choice for impossible gaps. I'm just more concerned that with diesel hybrids you have to have the full weight and cost installed to do even a mile off the wires, so the economic case for filling a gap of 30 miles further up the track is less. For battery-backed trains, if you can reduce the unpowered section down to 1 or 2 miles you can remove all but a small number of the expensive heavy battery packs, so the case for electrifying the 30 mile section further down the track is much stronger
Nowadays, it's as fair and watertight as DfT can make it. Still, there are always going to be judgement calls and likely someone will feel aggrieved. I doubt whether any competitive tender can get around that. I can't see that as the root of all the problems with UK Rail.
But that the problem. Bi-modes are not being used as a way of progressively completing electrification. They are being used as an excuse NOT to electrify. Instead we are getting this nonsense about replacing the diesel engines in bi-modes with hydrogen and batteries. Constant sicking plasters on a gaping wound. Plus turning diesel engines on/off/on/off is not efficient! If you are going to have a diesel train then keep it running at optimum power with whacking great cooling radiators. All this nonsense about discontinuous electrification is yet another piecemeal attempt to paper over the cracks that we need to get on with the tasks of getting it done. There was an MP who said his greatest achievement in Parliament was to delay CrossRail by 50 years. A project that the capital has sorely needed for decades. Full electrification has been needed for well over a decade in this country and yet we are still talking about ways we can get around not doing it.
Battery technology is a law of diminishing returns. There is only so much energy you can store in batteries per kilogram in weight of the battery itself. Roger Ford had an excellent breakdown of the physics in a recent MR mag. You need to use a certain percentage of the energy stored in the battery to accelerate its own weight. Overhead wires you have no such problem! The only issue you face is maintaining the voltage drop in the wires when you get increasing amounts of trains drawing more current. But more feeder stations from the grid solve that! Once sensible standards are put in place so that don't have to build structures that you could moor cruise liners to then costs become more reasonable.
We seem to be drifting off topic with all this talk of wires Vs bi-mode Vs hydrogens Vs battery.
That said, I'm actually surprised there isn't a thread about what the Net zero carbon emissions target for 2040 means for the railways and electrification.
That said, I'm actually surprised there isn't a thread about what the Net zero carbon emissions target for 2040 means for the railways and electrification.
- Status