Does national net zero require zero emissions of trains?
-
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!
Chiltern tender for 20 - 70 units
- Thread starter Snow1964
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Snow1964
Established Member
No,
It is a net sum, so if have something else eg solar panels on depot roof feeding electricity into grid because make more than you use, then they are offset.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 17,059
In a decarbonised economy you won't be able to use solar panels to gain offsets, because decarbonised electricity production will mean that no carbon saved.
The only way to gain carbon offsets in such a system is carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere.
Trainbike46
Established Member
Not technically, because you could balance out remaining railway emissions with negative emissions / carbon dioxide removal elsewhere. However, in practice the likely answer is yes, because:
- There will be limited ability to do negative emissions, so their balancing should be used for sectors where there aren't well-developed technologies for zero-emissions operation. The railway is not one of these.
- Negative emissions are likely to be expensive, making the financial case relative to electrifying or BEMUs harder.
- The railway's main contribution to net zero / fighting climate crisis / climate change mitigation will be in taking over passengers and freight from harder to electrify transport sectors, especially road and air. This requires a railway that will attract more passengers/freight and is able to handle them. Electrification helps with both, due to enabling faster accelleration, larger maximum mass (for freight), lower maintenance needs, etc. If we're going to get somewhere on that, the railway needs to get better, quickly
For anyone reading, the climate crisis is real, it is serious, and it is caused by human societies. Whether you believe net zero goals are likely to be met, doesn't change anything about the fact that ordering new trains that can't be used for more than ~ half their lifespan if the goals are met is foolhardy to say the least. Especially when it is likely to be more expensive, if only because of the risk pricing ROSCOs will put in due to this scenario existing.
Up until this post you were arguing against Bimodes, Trimodes and BEMUs - on the grounds that they are unlikely to see wires in the first half of their life. And is this the key point, trains are bought for 35-45 years, not just the next decade. specifying the trains so they can continue to be used on the chilterns if/when it gets electrified, or so that they have reuse value elsewhere on the network is smart forward planning, and refusing to consider it because you don't believe in it is foolhardy and leads to terrible investment decisions
In short, there are already more Diesel-only trains on the network than we can use in the long term. We shouldn't be expanding that problem by ordering diesel-only trains for Chiltern. Personally, the last diesel-only trains should have been the 168/170/172s
Last edited:
12LDA28C
Established Member
No, I wasn't. I was simply stating that the Chilterns are unlikely to be wired within the next generation so ordering units with pantographs, or even passive provision for such, is likely to add unnecessary cost to any newbuild units with a predicted life of service on Chiltern routes.
renegademaster
Member
Theirs so many places begging for their sprinters to be replaced It would be easy to offload any diesels that would get made for the Chiltern line. This idea that if their was electrification would mean they would have to get binned is silly. It's not that long until turbostars will need replacing either, some lines will never justify electrification and having some non ancient diesels around is good insurance in case battery technology doesn't improve
Last edited:
Trainbike46
Established Member
you say you want something diesel powered WITHOUT a pantograph or passive provision for one; that excludes bimodes, trimodes and BEMUs, so you are arguing against those.
This appears to be based on a unevidenced assertion that this would be cheaper, despite:
- The fact that ROSCOs will likely see a diesel-only unit as riskier than a bimode, due to the higher risk of early retirement. This will lead to them pricing in this risk, and higher lease charges (and therefore costs) - suggesting that diesel-only trains are likely to be more expensive, not cheaper.
- The fact that other operators are using bimodes even on routes that don't actually use the bimode ability at present, suggesting any premium they paid, if one existed at all, was small and balanced out by the flexibility it gives. This may not currently be a plus on chiltern, but it would be a plus if chiltern ever gets partially or fully electrified, or the units get cascaded.
- As others have pointed out, something is seriously wrong if no steps get taken to decarbonise the chiltern railway in the next 20 years, let alone the 40 years new trains would last.
Both GWR and Northern (and allegedly Scotrail) are in the process of procuring new trains to replace their sprinters - by the time Chiltern would potentially be cascading anything, the sprinters would be long gone.
And how many trains are actually needed for the lines that will never justify electrification? Not that many, due to their low service frequency. The 19x fleet is more than capable of covering all these lines country wide.
There are already more diesel only trains than the network needs long-term - we shouldn't be worsening that by ordering even more
12LDA28C
Established Member
As I've already suggested, diesel-battery hybrid is surely more likely to be the route taken with no current prospect of electrification.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Conjecture but that points to something like the 756 with the pantograph being added later if its deemed so unlikely to be useful. But the ROSCO might prefer the pantograph to be there (or at least tested on a few units like two of the 717s were) just to make the sets more versatile for any future market.
How does Chiltern compare to GA in terms of required range - don’t the 755s have smaller fuel tanks than sprinters etc?
Peter Sarf
Established Member
That is going to be the counter argument. Something future proofed but has a cost up front (to build) and operating cost (range, weight).
In fact I would suggest Chiltern would probably start with something like the 231 so no batteries. Then swap one or more of the four engine modules for a battery module as more wiring appears. But I think the pressing need is to drift in and out of Marylebone quietly so possibly one battery module from start.
Trainbike46
Established Member
That is correct - from reports from @dk1 they can just about do one day in service if starting with a full tank - on the GA services, with the pantographs up during layovers at stations.
the 756 is of course different as it isn't intended to use its diesel engine much at all - it is effectively a BEMU with a back-up diesel
A diesel-battery hybrid WITHOUT a pantograph or passive provision for one, as @12LDA28C is apparently calling for, would be a completely new design, I can't think of anything in the UK that comes particularly close to that. And that is only one reason I think that is a highly unlikely outcome, but if it happens it would be a new design.
pokemonsuper9
Established Member
TfW's 230s are Diesel Battery Hybrids and I'm pretty sure the D-Stock don't have pantograph wells.
12LDA28C
Established Member
I'd imagine there would be some risk involved in having a pantograph fitted from new but not being used for potentially decades. It would be an additional item of on-train equipment which would need to be gauge-cleared for the route but is never used but still needs to be maintained / inspected at regular intervals.
Or maybe a development of the Class 168 diesel/battery hybrid which was recently trialled on Chiltern routes perhaps?
Trainbike46
Established Member
Fair point, though I excluded it as it isn't a new train (and of course, vivarail is very much no longer with us - so it seems unlikely Chiltern will be getting 230s / D-trains)
Wasn't that an enormous failure? In any case, it's not a new-built, and you couldn't order more 168s/170s anyway
Still, no remotely recent new-builds are diesel-battery hybrids without a pantograph or passive provision for one, which makes sense, because if you're including batteries the most obvious way to charge these is via 3rd, 4th rail electrification or OHLE, depending on what is available on the route. if you were ordering a new train without (passive provision for) a pantograph, this would require a new design, whereas designs exist for ones that do have (passive provision for) a pantograph (and if a new design was made, it would have applications for orders on other TOCs, instead of being Chiltern-specific)
The fact that there aren't even new build 3rd rail units without passive provision for a pantograph should be an indication that the passive provision is the very least that is needed nowadays
You still need a way to charge the batteries. Yes, as per your other responses, you could use a diesel engine to do that but that is still a problem regarding emissions. Far better to electrify large parts of the network and use the OHLE/3rd rail to charge the batteries, as Network Rail's TDNS recommended.
While you do make a good point there, the fact that we are unlikely to electrify means we are unlikely to save nature from climate collapse. It's so very irresponsible not to allow for a future where we actually manage to save ourselves. I agree that fitting the pantographs from day one would incur unecessary maintainance for a component that won't be used for many years. So yes, leave the pantograph off by all means; but for all our sakes make sure to have provision to add it later.
Almost all those lines with Sprinters also need units with a pantograph (if building new) or cascaded DMUs from somewhere that's being electrified. Even today, I expect there are a huge number of DMU diagrams that spend part of the day under the wires (or on 3rd rail lines). My go-to example is Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton - with a planned service of at least 3 trains per hour, some with four coaches, it is plenty busy enough to justify electrification in my view. However, the current stock would need to be replaced with EMUs (in the case of West Mids. services) and bi-modes (for TfW services) for electrification of that stretch to actually have much (if any) benefit.
I've said it before and was about to say it again, but Trainbike46 already has (see following quote):
We do need to order new units to replace Sprinters etc., and they will almost certainly need to have diesel engines, but the class 19x DMUs with their hydromechanical transmissions are a huge mistake. They should have been DEMUs, where the diesel engines are generating electricity to power motors, and (unlike the Voyager family DEMUs which, for example, don't have the necessary wiring to share traction power between vehicles) the design should have allowed for future conversion to electric operation. The Chiltern procurement (and all other current/future procurement) needs to learn those lessons and not repeat the mistakes of the likes of 19x and 22x.
I disagree with this statement, given the limited enthusiasm by government to electrify the network. By 2035, there will likely have been very little additional electrification on the national railway network other than the already committed projects on the Transpennine and Midland Mainlines. By 2035, all those Sprinters and Network Turbos will need to have been replaced and without significant electrification in progress, I don't see diesel or battery bi-modes making sense.
ASX_Terranova
Member
Given the Met Line trains to Amersham, etc... use 4th Rail, would having a unit compatible with that not be a good idea. You could extend it to Aylesbury if you wanted as well.
Trainbike46
Established Member
Say new trains come into service in 2030-2035 - they would be in service for 35-40 years, so until 2065-2075 - many routes will be (partially) electrified well before then, and the few lowest-frequency routes across the country that don't touch electrification anywhere, could be served by the 19x fleet. Diesel certainly won't be acceptable anymore long before 2060, I'd not even be surprised if diesel in Urban areas becomes societally unacceptable by 2040 - so any new units need to be designed to remain useful by making adaptation to BEMU or EMU (or something else) easy - the 80x fleet, and the FLIRTs both do this in slightly different ways. the 19x fleet, on the other hand, is designed in a way where it can't realistically change traction system - meaning that an end to diesel would require replacing the unit. ordering many more units like that, when the 19x by themselves already have more than the quietest routes could ever require is foolhardy, as it could lead to many units requiring early retirement.
I'm not saying early retirement is guaranteed to happen - however, the fact that it could means a few things, just like the last generation of steam trains constructed was a mistake.
Of course the ROSCOs aren't stupid, and they will recognise the risk of the trains being retired early. That means they'll price in the risk, leading to higher lease charges. Whereas with a bimode, or a DMU that could easily be turned into an EMU, that risk is much lower, so there will be less risk premium to pay.
On top of that, a bimode works perfectly fine running on diesel all day, and some operators already do that - alternatively you could go the route of a diesel unit designed to be easy to adapt to bimode or EMU work, an example of which is class 231. That is a much lower risk approach than ordering new diesel-only trains that can't be adapted for changing needs.
On top of that, any route where diesels run under the wire/over third should cascade or scrap their diesel units and replace them with bimodes, so that diesel usage can fall sharply and the existing infrastructure can be used better. Avanti is doing that by replacing the 221s with 805s and 807s, non-IC operators should do the same, using the sprinter and turbo replacement as a good opportunity to do exactly this on GWR and Northern - and they appear to be doing that from their procurement plans.
Units should be bought considering their entire lifespan, not just what the situation will be on their first day.
12LDA28C
Established Member
No, you couldn't. It's extremely unlikely that any extension of 3rd/4th rail electrification would be sanctioned.
Chiltern's new units are planned to be in service by 2029 I believe, and they are needed sooner than that given the challenges faced in keeping an ageing fleet of 165s in service.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 17,059
The current presumption against approval of third rail installations from the ORR applies solely to Network Rail-operated third rail installations. It specifically excludes installations operated by London Underground under their working practices.
Transfer of the line to London Underground would allow fourth rail installation, although as previously noted, at that point just extend the Met and be done with it.
birchesgreen
Established Member
Return the Met back to Aylesbury indeed.
12LDA28C
Established Member
So you believe the concerns and considerations which would prevent the expansion of third rail operations on NR do not apply to LU infrastructure? Just because LU installations are excluded does not mean that any such expansion of the LU would meet with approval.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 17,059
That's what the ORR says in their documentation on their presumption.
At the time London Underground was able to make representations that convinced the ORR that the requirement to achieve SFAIRP compliant safety could be satisfied by their working practices.
Network Rail was not able to or did not make similarly convincing representations.
Without a presumption against, there is no reason to believe they would not grant such approval. Or they would have made a similar presumption against LU installations.
12LDA28C
Established Member
No thank you. If that's such a great idea why was the line only electrified as far as Amersham in the 1950s?
An extension of the Metropolitan line beyond Amersham is unlikely to happen for the justifications that the Met Railway was cut back to Amersham: sparse population, greater distances, and more trains required. An escalator being built to the moon is more likely to happen than this.
birchesgreen
Established Member
I didn't say it was a good idea or not (i have no view on it either way) but people mentioned extending the Met there i merely added it would be a return.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 17,059
Making a deal with TfL to extend the line back to Aylesbury is a much cheaper way to deal with the problem of the Aylesbury via Amersham line than attempting a 25kV or dual voltage electrification system.
Given the budgetary concerns at TfL, they are likely to have little choice but to make a deal to operate this service in return for additional funding if the government were to propose it.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
The Chiltern EWR units will see OHLE between Bletchley and Milton Keynes, with some prospects of wiring Bletchley-Calvert-Bicester-Oxford-Didcot.
12LDA28C
Established Member
Indeed, although we already know that Class 196 DMUs are being used on EWR at least initially, and I've seen no plans suggesting that Bletchley-Bedford will be wired when that section of EWR opens either.