• 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!

Northern's targets for diesel, electricity and water usage reduction

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Northern's problems are compounded when they are confronted with their eco targets to reduce diesel, electricity and water use. They are challenging in the extreme.

Reducing water use would be a very difficult one. The only thing I can think of is waterless urinals on stations and retrofitting urinals to trains as well as the cubicles, reducing flushes. Or reduce driver tea supply...but then that would result in an all out strike :D :D :D

Edit: are waterless female urinals perhaps worthy of consideration (Google them)? That might both reduce water consumption and queues in the Ladies'.

Reducing diesel use is easy - stop running the things under the wires. But that would of course increase electricity use - does it balance at all? Is reducing diesel prioritised over electricity?

Longer, less frequent trains would reduce the use of both as doubling the length doesn't double the fuel consumption because the air resistance isn't doubled.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

kieron

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2012
Messages
3,048
Location
Connah's Quay
Shorter, less frequent trains would reduce them even more (and there's nothing like a frequency cut to thin out the passenger numbers). It all depends on what these targets actually are, not to mention what other commitments Northern have.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,807
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
In my opinion it is always a sensible thing to go for low hanging fruit first. Stop or massively reduce diesel under the wires first.

two car trains banned through Castlefield corridor and other pinch points. If that helps increase train lengths over the entire northern network
 

Bovverboy

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
1,930
In my opinion it is always a sensible thing to go for low hanging fruit first. Stop or massively reduce diesel under the wires first.

two car trains banned through Castlefield corridor and other pinch points. If that helps increase train lengths over the entire northern network

Could you tell me which services traversing the Castlefield corridor are currently operated by two-car sets?
 

td97

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2017
Messages
1,292
Could you tell me which services traversing the Castlefield corridor are currently operated by two-car sets?
Quite a few boxes ticked for DMU short-forms today:
✅ Wigan - Alderley Edge
✅ CLC stopper
✅ Lime Street - Crewe (+1 as this is booked EMU)
❌ Blackpool North - Airport
❌ CLC Express (Airport - Lime Street)
❌ Cumbria
❌ Hazel Grove - Blackpool

All are booked 3-4 carriages but the fact is there isn't a single day of the week that Northern can send 4 out for every service, let alone every service booked EMU as an EMU. That would be a start. As would the appearance of 769s.

Reducing diesel usage for project works (generators, plant etc.) can be done with some inspiration from Network Rail.
Network Rail said:
A project led by the Network Rail and Colas Rail has used solar lighting and power generation to prove the viability of a sustainable ‘Site of the Future’, achieving 97% diesel-free operation in support of a major rail renewal project at Llanwern, South Wales.
 

kieron

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2012
Messages
3,048
Location
Connah's Quay
Indeed so increasing train length where possible seems a better way.
Maybe, maybe not. If you slash the number of services, you may simply not need trains which are "as long as possible". People who no longer have a convenient train for their journey may simply find another way to travel.
 

Bovverboy

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
1,930
Could you tell me which services traversing the Castlefield corridor are currently operated by two-car sets?

Quite a few boxes ticked for DMU short-forms today

Short-forms are something we are always at the mercy of, but when I saw Gralistair's post I was immediately conscious of how few journeys through the Castlefield corridor are actually diagrammed for 2-car units. A very small number of the TfW journeys are diagrammed for 2-car, the bulk are 3-car 175/1, and there are four return journeys booked for 4-car (double 2-car, or LHCS). The CLC stoppers I'm never sure of, there is so much short-forming that I really don't know whether any journeys are booked 2-car or not.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Reducing water use would be a very difficult one. The only thing I can think of is waterless urinals on stations and retrofitting urinals to trains as well as the cubicles, reducing flushes. Or reduce driver tea supply...but then that would result in an all out strike :D :D :D

Some stations already have rainwater capture and storage to provide brown water for flushing toilets. The other thing that's a cheap fix is replacing the automated timed flushes of urinals every X minutes with ones using light sensors that detect when someone stands in front of them.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,812
Location
Sheffield
Water involves a lot of leaky taps and faulty valves on very old plumbing in exposed installations in hundreds of locations where bursts in the mains can occur. A tap here, a tap there, they all add up. Carriage washing is a small part of the grand total. Adding any more public toilets at stations, something passengers often demand, would add extra water consumption.

Electricity means all stations going over to LED lighting and then traction savings. Use of solar where possible will help. There's not much else.

Diesel is the big challenge when users are demanding more trains and more carriages. Pacers use less fuel than 195s. Electrification is outside Northern's direct control. Use of 769s won't make much immediate difference, but they may lead to more new bimode trains to take advantage of more electrified lines that eventually appear.

I saw the targets at a recent presentation and they looked incompatible with the demands for services, the rolling stock available, the lack of electrified track miles and the time scale being set. Once the refurbs and new stock are all in service there'll be real pressures to cut diesel use.
 
Joined
20 Mar 2018
Messages
103
How can there be a water shortage up north? That is just deranged. Britain doesn't have a water shortage, it has water infrastructure shortage.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Some stations already have rainwater capture and storage to provide brown water for flushing toilets. The other thing that's a cheap fix is replacing the automated timed flushes of urinals every X minutes with ones using light sensors that detect when someone stands in front of them.

An even cheaper fix (which results in zero water usage) is getting those things that sit over the "plughole" and turn a regular urinal into a waterless one. To be fair, several TOCs have already done this.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Water involves a lot of leaky taps and faulty valves on very old plumbing in exposed installations in hundreds of locations where bursts in the mains can occur. A tap here, a tap there, they all add up. Carriage washing is a small part of the grand total. Adding any more public toilets at stations, something passengers often demand, would add extra water consumption.

It wouldn't, it'd just move it between the station and the train, or between a nearby pub/shopping centre and a train. Short of blokes using a bush, people don't go to the toilet more or less often based on provision, they go when they need to go. So that is a nonsense argument - compliant with the letter but not the spirit of things.

Providing the toilets but designing them for reduced water consumption is clearly the way to go - waterless urinals, potentially female urinals, and quite a few motorway services have air-pressure flush toilets (not the same as vacuum) to reduce water consumption further so those could be adopted.
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
5,812
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
An even cheaper fix (which results in zero water usage) is getting those things that sit over the "plughole" and turn a regular urinal into a waterless one. To be fair, several TOCs have already done this.

All well and good if they are maintained properly and regularly. Bad odours can be released and undiluted urine can corrode old pipes etc.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
In my experience the waterless ones filters are always blocked with loo roll or chewing gum.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,812
Location
Sheffield
It wouldn't, it'd just move it between the station and the train, or between a nearby pub/shopping centre and a train. Short of blokes using a bush, people don't go to the toilet more or less often based on provision, they go when they need to go. So that is a nonsense argument - compliant with the letter but not the spirit of things.

Providing the toilets but designing them for reduced water consumption is clearly the way to go - waterless urinals, potentially female urinals, and quite a few motorway services have air-pressure flush toilets (not the same as vacuum) to reduce water consumption further so those could be adopted.

Adding anything extra to a Northern station involves very careful appraisal of ongoing maintenance costs. Trouble with toilets is that every one is a potential source of leaks. The jammed flushing mechanism, the grit stuck in a valve causing water to flow continously, not to mention damage by vandalism and abuse.

If everyone was careful and respected property it would help, but in your own home (especially with metered water) you notice a leak and get it fixed. Leaks on railway property can go unreported and in need of repair for weeks. Not my job! Lost in the chain of command.

In the good old days with manned stations, the gents being in the open air, a strong smell of disinfectant would pervade the air. I doubt meters were an issue, but faults would be noticed quickly and the local plumber probably called.

However, health, safety and public hygiene regulations are bad enough, but vandalism and loitering in station toilets makes them a liability for TOCs, just ask EMT about their Nottingham experience!
 

syorksdeano

Member
Joined
7 Jan 2011
Messages
725
I all honesty Northern might be right in that they are going to reduce diesel, water and electricity usage. After all if and when the franchise is stripped then they will have reduced the usage down to zero
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Adding anything extra to a Northern station involves very careful appraisal of ongoing maintenance costs. Trouble with toilets is that every one is a potential source of leaks. The jammed flushing mechanism, the grit stuck in a valve causing water to flow continously, not to mention damage by vandalism and abuse.

Very true. My point was simply that if the objective is to reduce water usage, simply closing toilets for that purpose is ticking the box without considering the ethos of the situation/following the letter rather than spirit of the rule, because it won't reduce usage at all (the passenger will still use the toilet, just a different one somewhere else - you use the toilet when you need it - lower provision doesn't make you use it less often).

Indeed, it might increase it, because if they go at home before leaving for the station instead they'll almost certainly use a flush toilet, which may be older and so use more water, as almost nobody has a home urinal.
 

Chris999999

Member
Joined
22 Jun 2010
Messages
238
Reducing the speed of trains would reduce their consumption of diesel. This has the additional benefit in that the trains would also not be able to travel so far in a day, thus further reducing diesel consumption. Trains would in addition not wear out so quickly. Plenty of benefits.

There are the minor disadvantages in that journey times would be much longer, and trains would be much less frequent, though if journey times are significantly increased, then there may not be the demand for so many trains.
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,400
How can there be a water shortage up north? That is just deranged. Britain doesn't have a water shortage, it has water infrastructure shortage.

Britain is not immune to drought, all it takes is a couple of consecutive hot dry summers interspersed with a dry winter a-la 1975-6. A persistent blocked weather pattern will do it, and is what happened recently in 2018, although it wasn't as bad as 1976 because a couple of months in autumn 2017 and spring 2018 were wetter than average.

You are probably right that droughts very rarely, if ever, affect the entire UK at once, so it should be theoretically possible to build water infrastructure to transport water from regions where rainfall and water is abundant, to those under drought conditions. I think this happened between Lancashire and Yorkshire in the hot summer of 1995. Whether there would be political issues with having a national water grid (e.g. moans about Southerners stealing our water) that would make a national water grid impossible I don't know (although no-one has a problem with a national electricity grid). It would kind of make sense to do so, because you have one region with a high population density which has limited stored water due to lack of significant topography (SE England), and you have regions with big hills and valleys (or glens) which both amplify rainfall and store it in lakes (NW England/Scotland). Drought conditions in SE England can be coincident with wet conditions in Scotland due to a northward displaced and stationary jet stream steering low pressure systems, so in such a situation, it would make sense to have the ability to move water from the wet areas to the dry areas.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,812
Location
Sheffield
Very true. My point was simply that if the objective is to reduce water usage, simply closing toilets for that purpose is ticking the box without considering the ethos of the situation/following the letter rather than spirit of the rule, because it won't reduce usage at all (the passenger will still use the toilet, just a different one somewhere else - you use the toilet when you need it - lower provision doesn't make you use it less often).

Indeed, it might increase it, because if they go at home before leaving for the station instead they'll almost certainly use a flush toilet, which may be older and so use more water, as almost nobody has a home urinal.

However, as you suggest, Northern will hit their target to reduce water use if travellers go at home, use the toilets at a nearby shop, museum, pub or restaurant - or it may hit the overall usage target if they find a convenient bush! And Northern, like almost all companies today, has to produce an environmental audit. I haven't found it online but it is being done; https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/corporate/environment

They also have challenging targets for disposal of waste from stations and depots. Very difficult when we stuff litter in the nearest bin however it's labelled!
 

mark-h

Member
Joined
14 Jan 2015
Messages
374
An even cheaper fix (which results in zero water usage) is getting those things that sit over the "plughole" and turn a regular urinal into a waterless one. To be fair, several TOCs have already done this.
It is necessary to balance the reduction in water use would be with the increased use of chemicals to stop the urinals from blocking/smelling.
 

option

Member
Joined
1 Aug 2017
Messages
636
And Northern, like almost all companies today, has to produce an environmental audit. I haven't found it online but it is being done; https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/corporate/environment

They also have challenging targets for disposal of waste from stations and depots. Very difficult when we stuff litter in the nearest bin however it's labelled!

They will likely start with their own waste, so from back offices, staff depots etc. Loads of offices have recycling bins.
Then move onto station tenants.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,812
Location
Sheffield
They will likely start with their own waste, so from back offices, staff depots etc. Loads of offices have recycling bins.
Then move onto station tenants.

I gather they've done the easy bits in depots and offices with good results. Getting staff to sort their litter is difficult, but the travelling public is almost impossible. Many don't use a bin at all, but those who do are most likely to chuck everything into the nearest bin they pass, whatever the colour or signage.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
I gather they've done the easy bits in depots and offices with good results. Getting staff to sort their litter is difficult, but the travelling public is almost impossible. Many don't use a bin at all, but those who do are most likely to chuck everything into the nearest bin they pass, whatever the colour or signage.
Nearly all waste can be separated out to be recycled, or sent to be burnt. This is common from business waste contracts. Even without any form of separation, the more the company pays, the more they will be able to recycle. Separating it might make it slightly cheaper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top