Grumpy Git
On Moderation
............... and additional track wear.
-
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!
Cost of bi-modes v's wiring-up
- Thread starter Grumpy Git
- Start date
- Status
............... and additional track wear.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Annetts key
Established Member
Costs of an OHL programme also depend on the infrastructure company and their primary contractors getting all the details correct when working out the ground conditions, stability of embankments and cuttings, bridge and tunnel details (so that they can be altered or rebuilt) etc. Make assumptions without getting the details correct and the extra costs when you actually try to do the work will cause problems.
Unfortunately the programme on the Western made lots of mistakes and that has contributed to both the cost and the delays.
Unfortunately the programme on the Western made lots of mistakes and that has contributed to both the cost and the delays.
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Coupling up a diesel (or other self-powered unit) at the limit of electrification (Leeds, Newark, Newbury, Edinburgh/ whatever) would save dragging the extra weight about where it's not needed. Used to be done every hour at Rickmansworth, Bournemouth, and other places very slickly. And is still done at Edinburgh six nights a week. However, legend has it that a loco change at Crewe was botched once when someone influential was on board, and the rest is history. The problem was apparently trying to get a 1960s diesel to talk to a 21st century Pendolino.
18t (if it is 18t - there's only 4 extra gensets on a 9 car bimode compared to an 800) in the context of a 9 car train is not that huge - it's around 240 passengers (about a third seated capacity) or somewhere around 4% the weight of the train. It's still significant and obviously should be avoided if possible, but it's not the end of the world, plus of course with regenerative braking it's much less of an issue as a lot of that wasted energy from accelerating the diesel engines is recovered back again. Track wear is the bigger issue
tbtc
Veteran Member
I appreciate that it's extra weight on the tracks (and extra fuel) but the alternatives also have negatives.
For example, if you are looking at the MML, do you:
a) order bi-modes for the partially electrified services (i.e. to Nottingham/ Sheffield)?
b) cut the Nottingham/ Sheffield services at Kettering (until the wires reach all the way to Sheffield)?
c) continue to run pure diesel trains from London to Nottingham,/ Sheffield until the wires reach all the way to Sheffield (thus continuing the air pollution at London)?
d) drags north of Kettering (so getting something like a 68 to haul a Sheffield - London EMU as far as Kettering, where it'd uncouple and haul the next northbound EMU to Sheffield)?
(I'm assuming that you have pure EMUs for the Corby services, and plan to eventually wire up the line to Sheffield in the medium/long term, but what do you do whilst we wait for the wires to complete the whole route?)
Everything has drawbacks/ costs - a "68" hauling the EMU is more damaging on the track than the relatively distributed weight of a bi-mode 810.
And the MML example is a lot simpler than the GWML/ ECML - given the complications of "branches" with infrequent services (Lincoln, Harrogate, Hull, Sunderland, Inverness, Penzance, Milford Haven etc) - how do you handle that? And the fact that bi-modes allow interworking, rather than a southbound Sunderland/ Lincoln service having to wait to form the next northbound Sunderland/ Lincoln service? Or do you trim the service pattern back to only electrified locations? Or have a 68 sat idle on Tyneside for long periods in between hauling a Sunderland service as far as Newcastle and then waiting for the next London - Sunderland service to haul it back to Wearside? (and the same for Lincoln services at Newark, Inverness services at Edinburgh etc)
In the context of that, the additional weight of bi-modes seems a necessary evil IMHO (not saying it's perfect, just cheaper/better than the alternatives)
Presumably a lot easier to do at Waverley in the middle of the night than trying to arrange at regular intervals during the whole day (e.g. if the Aberdeen/Inverness services were "dragged" north of Edinburgh then where does the loco go in between times - given that platforms etc have been rationalised since the 1980s - we don't have a lot of head shunts and middle roads these days)
And lower reliability of the hardware.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Oh don't quote MML when the 810's will run diesel under the wires to Bedford stick the pan up for 50 miles than revert back to diesel even more farcical than GWR. As i say like your idea that BiModes are deployed on routes being electrified so you can take advantage early on as sections are completed but MML with a limited routes was a far better proposition for wholesale electrification than GWR with all its permutations as you describe.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
I have to say that I think that bi-modes are really useful. Most trains carry lots of 'capability' around that isn't being used at any particular moment. The empty cab at the other end being an obvious example but also, of course, the empty seats most of the time. But because rolling resistance is pretty low and trains are energy efficient this isn't a big deal. And it is a lot cheaper than constantly turning uni-directional trains round, splitting off and adding coaches at every station and so forth.
An early job on the Southern (there's a clue in my name) brought it home to me just how useful the electro-diesels were. Although South Eastern yards often had modern electric wires for pure electric freight locomotives (even at relatively insignificant places like Faversham, Snowdown and Tovil) these soon fell out of use and were removed as the 'E-Ds' were just so handy.
Having had to preside over various shambles with major third rail power failures, iced-up conductor rails, displaced conductor rails and so on it would have been marvellous if trains could have kept moving, even at limited speed. And obviously some routes like Ashford-Hastings or Tonbridge-Redhill suffered from not normally being able to have through trains to London.
Electrification is a great longer term aim but the un-electrified Joint Line, 'Old Road', Manton Line, Castle Donington line, Erewash Valley, S&C, Tyne Valley, Cotswold Line, Scarborough line, etc. will be with us for a long time to come.
An early job on the Southern (there's a clue in my name) brought it home to me just how useful the electro-diesels were. Although South Eastern yards often had modern electric wires for pure electric freight locomotives (even at relatively insignificant places like Faversham, Snowdown and Tovil) these soon fell out of use and were removed as the 'E-Ds' were just so handy.
Having had to preside over various shambles with major third rail power failures, iced-up conductor rails, displaced conductor rails and so on it would have been marvellous if trains could have kept moving, even at limited speed. And obviously some routes like Ashford-Hastings or Tonbridge-Redhill suffered from not normally being able to have through trains to London.
Electrification is a great longer term aim but the un-electrified Joint Line, 'Old Road', Manton Line, Castle Donington line, Erewash Valley, S&C, Tyne Valley, Cotswold Line, Scarborough line, etc. will be with us for a long time to come.
tbtc
Veteran Member
If it were up to me, we'd have wired the MML years ago - much simpler than the multi-branched GWML. Other than the token amount of Leeds services (which were just to get the HSTs to/from the East Midlands) and a minor amount of route learning/diversionary resilience via Melton Mowbray/ Alfreton, the MML services could have been wired without much change to services (stick a DMU on the summer weekend trips to Scarborough if you insist) - whereas the GWML was much messier with all of the branches (what do you do about Hereford/ Weston/ Newquay/ Penzance etc?).
But, if you don't want bi-modes, what's the alternative? I've listed a few options, I'm happy to take others - but anything involves some degree of compromise - whether that means scrapping through trains to "lesser" destinations or running diesel trains hundreds of miles under the wires or trying to arrange "drags" (with all of the additional hammering on the track that a locomotive will do)
The MML south of Bedford situation seems daft, but then remember that there are some ECML services that run on electric from York to Chathill on electric mode and then drop the pan so that they run Chathill to Edinburgh on diesel mode - seventy five miles of diesel mode entirely under the wires - because the power supply isn't strong enough - it's not just the MML that suffers from this (but AIUI the MML situation will be resolved at some stage?)
The power supply on the ECML will be resolved before the OLE spec south of Bedford. But yes, both will be solved.
Annetts key
Established Member
Apparently there are draft plans for OHL between BTM and Taunton including WsM. Not likely to see light of day for a long while now...
Makes you wonder if any other lines on the GWR network were being considered...
Makes you wonder if any other lines on the GWR network were being considered...
Last edited:
paul1609
Established Member
..when Network Rail hit 500% overbudget on what had been completed.
Strictly - not ‘over budget’. Over the price that DfTs consultants said it should cost.
paul1609
Established Member
Obviously network rail had vociforously complained that it was going to cost 600%? , 700%? more than the rail industry consultants estimates?
O L Leigh
Established Member
A somewhat separate issue.
As I recall, the statement at the time went along the lines of now that we have these whizzy new bi-mode trains, passengers need not suffer the inconvenience of electrification works. As such, those responsible for making such decisions were happy to use bi-mode stock as an excuse for cutting back electrification projects as I mentioned above. Please note there is a difference in the meaning of “excuse” and “reason”.
That the GW wiring ended up costing more than it ought is not under dispute. However, I don’t think that this undermines the principle of electrification nor does it indicate that it is unaffordable. I certainly haven’t been hearing the same budgetary grumbles about the MML scheme, so I can only assume that this is coming in somewhat closer to the estimate at the time the scheme was begun.
I have also gone on record bemoaning the entire bi-mode concept and how the very need for it does not herald a step into a brighter carbon-free future but rather stands as a sad epitaph to the failures of governments of all hues to properly invest in the future of rail services in the UK, something that will become ever more glaringly obvious as we supposedly follow a decarbonisation policy and show the UK as a leader in green technologies (or so Boris would have us believe). If bi-mode is allowed to go on being the excuse to constantly put electrification back there is a risk that we shall never shake ourselves from our torpor and we shall remain wedded to diesel for many decades to come, certainly beyond the point when we shall be able to choose internal combustion of any type for private road transport. Bi-mode doesn’t even become a realistic alternative in those large parts of the network where electrification still has not penetrated, and neither will battery electric unless battery technology advances far enough to permit an entire day’s operation on a single charge and the ability to recharge in only a few hours.
I’m sorry to say it, but the choice is not simply between bi-mode or electrification on cost grounds. The picture is far bigger than that.
Annetts key
Established Member
But part of the problem here is the political angle of the government, and hence Network Rail, and the way that these projects are awarded and managed.
The schemes are put together as separate projects. Each with a predefined budget. So each project will have set up costs and close down costs. As each is managed separately, often by different companies, there will also be different people on each project. Hence it is more likely that lessons learned previously (on earlier projects) will be forgotten and then the same or similar mistakes made repeatability.
And poor project management is also to blame. The number of bags of cement (and I mean pallets full here) that were abandoned by the line over the past five years is unbelievable. There are also various steel foundation units lying about. And that’s just the waste that is visible...
Of course there has to be financial budgets, but I think the U.K. railway would be better with far less big promises, and instead of these “flag waving” projects, instead we have a ten to twenty year long continuous rolling programme of electrification.
That then enables a proper full time team to be put together. And creates lots of full time jobs rather than short term contacts.
The schemes are put together as separate projects. Each with a predefined budget. So each project will have set up costs and close down costs. As each is managed separately, often by different companies, there will also be different people on each project. Hence it is more likely that lessons learned previously (on earlier projects) will be forgotten and then the same or similar mistakes made repeatability.
And poor project management is also to blame. The number of bags of cement (and I mean pallets full here) that were abandoned by the line over the past five years is unbelievable. There are also various steel foundation units lying about. And that’s just the waste that is visible...
Of course there has to be financial budgets, but I think the U.K. railway would be better with far less big promises, and instead of these “flag waving” projects, instead we have a ten to twenty year long continuous rolling programme of electrification.
That then enables a proper full time team to be put together. And creates lots of full time jobs rather than short term contacts.
Grumpy Git
On Moderation
Hear hear.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
But presumably, on a modern train with regenerative braking, you get a lot of that energy back, at least for the bits of the route where the train is on electric power? (I realise you still have the issue of extra track wear though).
Not in public.
Grumpy Git
On Moderation
Did the consultants hand their fees back.....?
You do get some energy back, but because no system can be 100% efficient, it's still overall more energy than a lighter unit would be. A lower total weight needs less total energy.
I suspect they weren't contracted to agree with NR, so probably not.
Bi modes have their place in the few places were it is long distance and very infrequent but its stupid that the MML isn't being electrified, its a busy mainline, not a quiet line in the middle of nowhere with trains only 2 or 3 hours.
The UK really needs a rolling electrification program, the start stop seperate electrification programmes (worsened by the programmes then being started and stopped a few times by the DfT) is going to be very expensive.
The UK really needs a rolling electrification program, the start stop seperate electrification programmes (worsened by the programmes then being started and stopped a few times by the DfT) is going to be very expensive.
Totally agree, but to do that you need to change the fundamentals of how the government conceptualises infrastructure spending (on all aspects, not just rail). The fact that everything is it's own project, and how that process is structured, makes it extremely difficult to secure a rolling programme. Changing that requires a complete mindset change at Whitehall.
Grumpy Git
On Moderation
It bet it makes for some nice little earners though "management fees", (i.e. normally endless meetings which achieve the sum total of zero in productivity terms, but mitigate getting blamed for anything)?
It's more about the treasury not being placed in a position where it either has to throw money at a project to finish it off, or refuse to hand over any more money and be left with a half-finished white elephant. I suspect this is part of the reasons bi-modes found such popularity - ending a scheme in the middle of nowhere when the money runs out still gives a usable benefit to Bi-modes that wouldn't be achievable with pure EMUs.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
The only thing you need in government is the will to do it ie HS2, Aircraft Carriers etc not because it has got a business case. NR totally screwed up GWEP and im not sure they've apologised for it, nobody fell on there sword, no contractor or consultant suffered losses so its no wonder the Dept of Transport are behaving the way they are and im not sure the industry constantly banging on about a rolling electrification programme is helping change that mindset.
The govt has a national policy to decarbonise transport and electrification is primary route to achieve that. They know that but they will only agree to it when it suits the political narrative and benefits them so expect something in advance of COP26 is my forecast.
I would have thought that the main advantage of bi-modes is in the enforced division of the railway into "infrastructure provider" and "train operator", where it's the infrastructure provider who can cleverly descope the project and just say to the operator "hey, you've got bi-modes, use those", without there being any comeback.
It's notable how use has crept forward from, as I recall it, a "last mile" approach at the start, to quite lengthy runs beyond the wires (eg to Inverness, or particularly to Penzance), and then overcoming power supply shortfalls on fully electrified lines (eg TPE on Newcastle to Edinburgh), all saving infrastructure provider costs. And I'm still wondering why I regularly find units in Paddington with the engines running. Then there's this thing that it takes the engine so long to warm up that it has to be wastefully started at the station before the end of the wires. I wonder how you determine how much fuel the train needs at the start of the day.
It's notable how use has crept forward from, as I recall it, a "last mile" approach at the start, to quite lengthy runs beyond the wires (eg to Inverness, or particularly to Penzance), and then overcoming power supply shortfalls on fully electrified lines (eg TPE on Newcastle to Edinburgh), all saving infrastructure provider costs. And I'm still wondering why I regularly find units in Paddington with the engines running. Then there's this thing that it takes the engine so long to warm up that it has to be wastefully started at the station before the end of the wires. I wonder how you determine how much fuel the train needs at the start of the day.
No but the firm in question did a lot less rail work after that...
It could be described as some what "reputationally damaging".
Notably the GW electrification managed both of these.
As I understand the original idea for great western was the 21 9 car units (originally 801s so electric with 1 backup generator) would be used to service the fully electrified services to South Wales, the 5 car units would run as 10 car but would later split and use the diesel engines to serve more destinations.
- Status