Dangerous Levels of Air Pollution at Birmingham New Street.

[edwin_m]

I am told the environmental performance of modern trains is poorer than the older trains that they replaced because modern trains use more energy. Can anyone confirm?

They are generally heavier with better acceleration and need more power for air conditioning etc. So it is likely that new diesels in particular will use more energy than older models - a more powerful engine with bigger fuel tanks increases the weight even more. In electrics this is partially (but probably not totally) offset by the ability of modern ones to use regenerative braking, which typically saves 15-20%.

 

[coppercapped]

I am told the environmental performance of modern trains is poorer than the older trains that they replaced because modern trains use more energy. Can anyone confirm?

It depends on what you mean by 'environmental performance'.

Do you mean energy 'consumed' per passenger-mile or freight ton-mile or are you referring to the smoke, soot, carbon oxides and nitrogen oxides levels in diesel engine exhausts?

In the second case modern engines are much cleaner than older ones (by which I mean anything more than about 10 or 15 years old) as the combustion processes are much better controlled and the exhaust gas treatment removes much of the pollutants. This is true both for dmus and locomotives.

The specific energy consumption per passenger-mile or per freight ton-mile depends on many factors, total train mass, the maximum speed attained and for how long, speed profile of the journey, number of seats or passengers in the train and so on and so forth. Modern trains often have air-conditioning which requires power which automatically makes modern trains use more energy as the air con runs all the time.

The total energy 'consumed' during a run is given by the area under the power-time curve, so a high power draw for a short time to a given speed may well use the same energy as a gentler acceleration which goes on for longer.

Each case has to be treated separately - there is no generic answer but generally lower mass will always reduce power demands and electric stock can use regenerative braking, in the case of the Class 390s this can save some 15% to 20% depending on the duty. One significant saving from electric braking is that brake pads last longer, so saving materials and meaning the train can stay in service for longer.

 

[Mikey C]

It depends on what you mean by 'environmental performance'.

Do you mean energy 'consumed' per passenger-mile or freight ton-mile or are you referring to the smoke, soot, carbon oxides and nitrogen oxides levels in diesel engine exhausts?

In the second case modern engines are much cleaner than older ones (by which I mean anything more than about 10 or 15 years old) as the combustion processes are much better controlled and the exhaust gas treatment removes much of the pollutants. This is true both for dmus and locomotives.

The specific energy consumption per passenger-mile or per freight ton-mile depends on many factors, total train mass, the maximum speed attained and for how long, speed profile of the journey, number of seats or passengers in the train and so on and so forth. Modern trains often have air-conditioning which requires power which automatically makes modern trains use more energy as the air con runs all the time.

The total energy 'consumed' during a run is given by the area under the power-time curve, so a high power draw for a short time to a given speed may well use the same energy as a gentler acceleration which goes on for longer.

Each case has to be treated separately - there is no generic answer but generally lower mass will always reduce power demands and electric stock can use regenerative braking, in the case of the Class 390s this can save some 15% to 20% depending on the duty. One significant saving from electric braking is that brake pads last longer, so saving materials and meaning the train can stay in service for longer.

Modern diesel engines aren't necessarily better on NOx though, as the VW scandal showed. The high temperature, high efficiency diesel engines seem to produce more NOx as a by product.

Overall, diesel trains aren't a major pollution issue, but in urban stations such as New Street especially, they are a genuine cause of public health issues.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Do many of the routes that run through New Street run a fair chunk of their distance under the wires?

 

[daodao]

Do many of the routes that run through New Street run a fair chunk of their distance under the wires?

Yes:

1. All the Manchester - Birmingham through trains. When the line was originally electrified, the engine was changed at New Street for journeys to the South-West/South Wales and the South Coast. I don't understand why LM don't run many of these services with the 350 class electric trains, as on the Liverpool route, with just a few trains (no more than 1 tph) left to Arriva XC.

2. The trains for the Shrewsbury line - previously the locals terminated at Wolverhampton and the Cambrian line/Wrexham trains terminated at New Street rather than running through to Birmingham International.

3. Many of the Walsall line trains, but this should change once the Walsall-Rugeley line is electrified.

4. I may be wrong, but aren't some of the Birmingham-Preston-Scotland trains run by Voyagers?

There is a similar issue around Manchester and Liverpool and it looks set to get worse despite NW electrification. For example, Manchester Airport should normally only be served by electric trains, with passengers from non-electrified routes changing at Piccadilly. That would still permit through trains to key destinations (Liverpool, Preston and in future Bolton/Blackpool/Windermere).

Running trains into the ex-GC platforms at Piccadilly and then out via Fog Lane to the Airport creates a bottleneck at the Piccadilly station throat.

 

[The Planner]

1. All the Manchester - Birmingham through trains. When the line was originally electrified, the engine was changed at New Street for journeys to the South-West/South Wales and the South Coast. I don't understand why LM don't run many of these services with the 350 class electric trains, as on the Liverpool route, with just a few trains (no more than 1 tph) left to Arriva XC.

What do you do for the bits from New St to Bristol and Bournemouth? I am assuming you are terminating and starting a new train therefore adding to capacity constraints at New St?

2. The trains for the Shrewsbury line - previously the locals terminated at Wolverhampton and the Cambrian line/Wrexham trains terminated at New Street rather than running through to Birmingham International.

Intrigued how you solve that one too, do you deprive people of the connectivity from Wales/Shrewsbury and again shove another terminator at New St or back at Wolves? The ATW was sent out to International for that reason.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Yes:

1. All the Manchester - Birmingham through trains. When the line was originally electrified, the engine was changed at New Street for journeys to the South-West/South Wales and the South Coast. I don't understand why LM don't run many of these services with the 350 class electric trains, as on the Liverpool route, with just a few trains (no more than 1 tph) left to Arriva XC.

2. The trains for the Shrewsbury line - previously the locals terminated at Wolverhampton and the Cambrian line/Wrexham trains terminated at New Street rather than running through to Birmingham International.

3. Many of the Walsall line trains, but this should change once the Walsall-Rugeley line is electrified.

4. I may be wrong, but aren't some of the Birmingham-Preston-Scotland trains run by Voyagers?

There is a similar issue around Manchester and Liverpool and it looks set to get worse despite NW electrification. For example, Manchester Airport should normally only be served by electric trains, with passengers from non-electrified routes changing at Piccadilly. That would still permit through trains to key destinations (Liverpool, Preston and in future Bolton/Blackpool/Windermere).

Running trains into the ex-GC platforms at Piccadilly and then out via Fog Lane to the Airport creates a bottleneck at the Piccadilly station throat.

Sounds like that's a lot of potential candidates for the eventual use of bi-modes

 

[coppercapped]

Modern diesel engines aren't necessarily better on NOx though, as the VW scandal showed. The high temperature, high efficiency diesel engines seem to produce more NOx as a by product.

You are correct in that the high combustion temperatures of high efficiency diesel engines produce more NOx, but they use less fuel. However, as I wrote, exhaust gas treatments will remove as much of the NOx, and other, pollutants, as they are specified and built to do.

The VW scandal has nothing to do with the general case of the efficiency of exhaust gas treatments. It was an attempt by VW to reduce the manufacturing cost of the vehicles by avoiding the costs of urea injection equipment and then trying to hide this by using the engine control software to modify the fuel injection timing when being tested to meet the specification.

Overall, diesel trains aren't a major pollution issue, but in urban stations such as New Street especially, they are a genuine cause of public health issues.

Exactly. As I wrote in another thread, there are some 30 million private cars on the road as well as something less than 500,000 goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes. This has to be set against around 1,000 diesel locomotives and around 2,500 dmu vehicles. The pollution caused by railway vehicles is lost in the noise - except for isolated instances like New Street (and the Burger King in Paddington... )

 

[Mikey C]

Exactly. As I wrote in another thread, there are some 30 million private cars on the road as well as something less than 500,000 goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes. This has to be set against around 1,000 diesel locomotives and around 2,500 dmu vehicles. The pollution caused by railway vehicles is lost in the noise - except for isolated instances like New Street (and the Burger King in Paddington... )

The issue with diesel pollution isn't about national levels, but rather about local "hotspots".

London's Oxford Street has NOx problems, caused mainly by buses (and a few taxis) as the buildings around it trap the pollutants. Busy road corridors like the Euston Road will also have serious issues.

Birmingham New Street is possibly unique in the rail network, due to its busyness, enclosed nature and number of DMUs. Indeed, with the higher levels of electrification in Europe, there can't be many such stations in the world!

 

[Sniffingmoose]

I have no hard evidence that some modern trains use more energy, but I have a friend who worked for Alstom on Pendolino testing when they were first introduced and he used to say that they consumed more energy than the longer locomotive hauled trains that they replaced. The high energy consumption was due to consumption from the auxiliaries (HVAC, Tilt, lighting etc) and not the traction power.

In addition, Roger Ford on car, train and plane energy efficiency (Modern Railways June 2004, pp30-31). Ford’s analysis, ‘suggests, that a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get’. He is talking about long distance journeys. Given that in theory ‘nothing can equal the steel wheel on steel rail for environmentally friendly transport’, what has gone wrong? A Voyager weighs 40% more per seat than an Intercity 125. Why? Second, faster trains use a lot more energy – cutting the London-Edinburgh time by 30 minutes increases energy consumption by one half. Is half an hour worth it? Third, he suggests new trains are badly engineered. The new Pendolino intercity trains use 14 times as much energy for lighting as the trains they replaced.

However, the best improvement to the New street environment though has been the electrification of the Cross City line in around 1994. Think of how many DMU's that the 323's replaced. And the 323's have regenerative breaking, I believe.

 

[The Ham]

I have no hard evidence that some modern trains use more energy, but I have a friend who worked for Alstom on Pendolino testing when they were first introduced and he used to say that they consumed more energy than the longer locomotive hauled trains that they replaced. The high energy consumption was due to consumption from the auxiliaries (HVAC, Tilt, lighting etc) and not the traction power.

In addition, Roger Ford on car, train and plane energy efficiency (Modern Railways June 2004, pp30-31). Ford’s analysis, ‘suggests, that a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get’. He is talking about long distance journeys. Given that in theory ‘nothing can equal the steel wheel on steel rail for environmentally friendly transport’, what has gone wrong? A Voyager weighs 40% more per seat than an Intercity 125. Why? Second, faster trains use a lot more energy – cutting the London-Edinburgh time by 30 minutes increases energy consumption by one half. Is half an hour worth it? Third, he suggests new trains are badly engineered. The new Pendolino intercity trains use 14 times as much energy for lighting as the trains they replaced.

However, the best improvement to the New street environment though has been the electrification of the Cross City line in around 1994. Think of how many DMU's that the 323's replaced. And the 323's have regenerative breaking, I believe.

There are a couple of reasons why a Voyager weighs more than a HST per seat.

Firstly they are different lengths, if the HST was 6+2 then it would probably be much closer.

Secondly the Voyager can get up to their top speed faster.

Thirdly some Voyagers can tilt which adds weight.

Finally there are less seats per coach which then adds to the weight per seat, this has a lot to do with the number of disabled toilets that the Voyagers have on board.

Also, although a family of 4 are "better" in a car that is only half the story. As if they drive their car that is extra milage that they otherwise wouldn't be doing. However if they go by train that energy is being expended anyway and so until extra trains are needed it is still better to use the train than the car.

 

[yorksrob]

I wonder, has anyone done any analysis of the proportion of car mileage that is fully loaded (4 people or more) ?

 

[Mikey C]

There are a couple of reasons why a Voyager weighs more than a HST per seat.

Firstly they are different lengths, if the HST was 6+2 then it would probably be much closer.

Secondly the Voyager can get up to their top speed faster.

Thirdly some Voyagers can tilt which adds weight.

Finally there are less seats per coach which then adds to the weight per seat, this has a lot to do with the number of disabled toilets that the Voyagers have on board.

Also, although a family of 4 are "better" in a car that is only half the story. As if they drive their car that is extra milage that they otherwise wouldn't be doing. However if they go by train that energy is being expended anyway and so until extra trains are needed it is still better to use the train than the car.

A lot depends on the journey. Few people are going directly from one place to another exclusively by train. To get to the station at either end they may have to drive, take a bus or a taxi.

And a reminder that the issues with New Street are about diesel pollutants not energy consumption. The unique underground geography of New Street means it's probably as much of a health risk as the congested roads of central Birmingham!

 

[The Ham]

I wonder, has anyone done any analysis of the proportion of car mileage that is fully loaded (4 people or more) ?

Fairly low, even more so during the peaks (genrally 10% of daily traffic occurs in the morning peak) even allowing for school runs.

I would be surprised if there was anyone on here that had more than 50% of all their households car journeys or 50% of theie car's miles were done with 4 or more people in the car, with the possible exception of those who have 4 children and who's main breadwinner commutes by train and/out they only ever drive long distances as a family so as to offset any shorter journeys they do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A lot depends on the journey. Few people are going directly from one place to another exclusively by train. To get to the station at either end they may have to drive, take a bus or a taxi.

They may be able to walk, but that is less likely. However if you are talking about long distance travel a few miles at each end is hardly going to make a big difference.

And a reminder that the issues with New Street are about diesel pollutants not energy consumption. The unique underground geography of New Street means it's probably as much of a health risk as the congested roads of central Birmingham!

I am aware of the problems at Birmingham I was responding to a specific post.

 

[yorksrob]

Fairly low, even more so during the peaks (genrally 10% of daily traffic occurs in the morning peak) even allowing for school runs.

I would be surprised if there was anyone on here that had more than 50% of all their households car journeys or 50% of theie car's miles were done with 4 or more people in the car, with the possible exception of those who have 4 children and who's main breadwinner commutes by train and/out they only ever drive long distances as a family so as to offset any shorter journeys they do.

Yes, that's what I would have expected. I wonder whether anyone's done a proper study though.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Surely, a top priority should be getting those services currently operated by Virgin Voyagers - under wires for entire journeys, switched to electric traction? Wonder how long it will take until the Cross Country routes that pass through Birmingham will be electric?

I totally agree - I know money is short - but Derby- Bristol in the next HLOS would be wonderful

The aforementioned events at Manchester Victoria are disappointing, if not to say the least. Surely we should be aiming towards a greener planet?

Absolutely - electrify baby, electrify (apologies to Sarah Palin )

Walsall Rugeley will remove a few, anything else will need a major scheme.

Derby -Bristol and Wolverhampton - Shrewsbury? Are there others?

Electric Spine is far from committed, and you would still need Derby Birmingham doing and that is in the same position.

Agreed see above

 

[The Ham]

Yes, that's what I would have expected. I wonder whether anyone's done a proper study though.

I know that there are lots of surveys if individual developments which show what each type of development generates in terms of movements (walking, cycle, car driver, car passenger, etc.) These are used in Transport reports to go with planning applications, it is normal for car drivers to our numbers car passengers often by 2:1, there are exceptions (such football training patches and crematoriums).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I totally agree - I know money is short - but Derby- Bristol in the next HLOS would be wonderful



Absolutely - electrify baby, electrify (apologies to Sarah Palin )



Derby -Bristol and Wolverhampton - Shrewsbury? Are there others?



Agreed see above

I am starting to think that if the DfT take the problem of Birmingham New Street seriously and XC think that doing away with Voyagers past Dawlish (due to the problems with storms stopping them), then we could see a substantial number of bimodal units as part of the next XC franchise.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

To keep on-topic and without starting a wish list , what would be needed sparks wise? Assume bi-modes -IEP etc.
OK- Derby - Bristol - does not need to be all the way to Penzance (assumes of course MML gets done).
I suppose you could just do Birmingham-Leicester if you have Bi-Modes and do all the way to Norwich at a later date.
You do not need Wolverhampton -Shrewsbury as change to diesel can be made at Wolves

What am I missing?

 

[The Ham]

To keep on-topic and without starting a wish list , what would be needed sparks wise? Assume bi-modes -IEP etc.
OK- Derby - Bristol - does not need to be all the way to Penzance (assumes of course MML gets done).
I suppose you could just do Birmingham-Leicester if you have Bi-Modes and do all the way to Norwich at a later date.
You do not need Wolverhampton -Shrewsbury as change to diesel can be made at Wolves

What am I missing?

Theoretically there shouldn't be the need for any infrastructure works (see London to Penzance by AT300's).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Theoretically there shouldn't be the need for any infrastructure works (see London to Penzance by AT300's).

Bi-modes are a double edged sword then. If they bought a fleet load then in theory no need for anymore electrification. :cry:

 

[The Ham]

Bi-modes are a double edged sword then. If they bought a fleet load then in theory no need for anymore electrification. :cry:

Yes and no

In theory until the bimodal units need replacing any routes which they are the only units on will need to be electrified.

However the engines will have a limited life compared to the rest if the train and it is likely that under wire running will allow faster speeds; so it is still beneficial to keep wiring routes up.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Yes and no

In theory until the bimodal units need replacing any routes which they are the only units on will need to be electrified.

However the engines will have a limited life compared to the rest if the train and it is likely that under wire running will allow faster speeds; so it is still beneficial to keep wiring routes up.

The task to be achieved, with bi-modes and limited new DMU orders is to complete electrification before those units are life expired. That means getting 35% to 45% of the network electrified in the next 35 years and a coherent plan on what to do with the fringe elements, if they're not to be wired.

As electrification plods along at a sensible rate, being able to switch from diesel to electric operation by scrapping life expired diesel units and reducing the diesel power pack usage on bi-mode stock is perfectly acceptable, and makes good solid sense.

 

[HowardGWR]

The task to be achieved, with bi-modes and limited new DMU orders is to complete electrification before those units are life expired. That means getting 35% to 45% of the network electrified in the next 35 years and a coherent plan on what to do with the fringe elements, if they're not to be wired.

As little as that? I thought current plans would see most of it electrified within half that time. Which routes am I forgetting?

 

[Class172]

As little as that? I thought current plans would see most of it electrified within half that time. Which routes am I forgetting?

Surely a percentage like that will vary greatly by which parameter it has been defined with: expressing electrification by mileage will give a different number to proportion of trains or even by passenger numbers.

 

[nidave]

Do modern DMU's not use Diesel Exhaust Fluid (AdBlue) to reduce the NOx ?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

As little as that? I thought current plans would see most of it electrified within half that time. Which routes am I forgetting?

That's in addition to the current electrified network, it'll take you to between 80% to 90% total electrification and nearly 100% of passenger route mileage.

 

[Geezertronic]

Are peoples opinion that the problem has got worse since the refurb or is it just as bad as it always has been at New Street?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The place has always stunk of exhaust fumes.

 

[HowardGWR]

That's in addition to the current electrified network, it'll take you to between 80% to 90% total electrification and nearly 100% of passenger route mileage.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I must admit I was scratching my head there!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The place has always stunk of exhaust fumes.

Indeed, even back when they came from smelly Class 5s and Jubilees.

It was the same at platforms 12 to 15 (old numbers) at Bristol TM, and was due to the type of coal burned I think.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I must admit I was scratching my head there!

Yes, poor wording on my part.

Start of CP7 baseline electrification should be somewhere in the region of 55 to 57% (prior to the reprofiling of GWep, MML and North TransPennine electrification delivery, the assorted smaller programmes, and postponement of Electric Spine between Reading and Basingstoke) the expectation was 51% electrification by 2021.

That's clearly not going to happen now, but the intention is to still add around 10% additional electrification by end CP6, plus adding in smaller additional schemes and picking up some of the postponed projects.

The inclusion of whatever works are possible before 2024 should see another 3 to 5% electrification progressed prior to the start of CP7, some of that will be rolling electrification in Scotland, additional schemes in England and possibly more works in Wales, perhaps Crewe to Chester, as examples.

That gives, in 2024, a baseline of around 55% to 57% electrification on which to progress over the next 25 to 30 years, a span for what would essentially be the life expectancy of new build DMU stock arriving in the next couple of years, and our IEP/AT300 stock.

The electrification of the remaining 43% to 45% of the network is doable, albeit at a cost, and is probably going to be a step too far, bearing in mind the additional demands on plant and equipment which will include platform extensions, additional track (double tracking, quad tracking in places) and signalling capacity enhancements.

A target of electrification for 90% of the network, by 2050 to 2055 is definitely attainable, it's realistic and it's financially viable (indeed, 100% electrification is likely to be increasingly viable towards 2050 in any case).

That means achieving around 6% to 7% additional electrification of the network in each control period, from CP7 onwards, which is roughly where we're going to average out at over CP5 and CP6.