Dft cuts - where?

[Wyvern]

But the same situation applies with oil and gas supplies, as least with electrification ultimately you are not dependent on foreign petroleum..

But it is dependent on foreign gas. Unless you use coal and then there is pollution to consider. Although various remedies are being trumpeted I dont see how they can be very practical.

 

[Metroland]

Well that's why the only solution longer term is using renewables, and you cannot power a fraction of what we have with those. So moving freight and passengers by less energy intensive modes and planning cities around walking and cycling, not out of town shopping and sprawling suburbs is critical.

Of course we have a paradox in this country where:

- Planning has not considered walking and cycling
- The less energy intensive modes (bus and rail) have got much more expensive in real terms, and the more energy intensive ones (such as private cars, road freight and air) have got cheaper.

This is another reason there is no magic bullet.

 

[Old Timer]

The energy electricity requirement even if the whole of the network were electrified is tiny, and during power restrictions certain infrastructure, including railways, are prioritised..

Whilst that may be true, the point I was making is that every extra demand, no matter how small, simply adds up the total demand level that cannot be satisfied.

The power cuts when they do occur, will of course happen at times of peak demand, e.g. evenings which will be disruptive to the social and leisure activities of everyone, and will no doubt lead to considerable debate as to whether "leiure and public facilities" should be disconnected, as against domestic properties. Who knows what will win the battle for the greatest public benefit.

Back in the 70s we just went to bed earlier, especially as TV went into shut down mode from 2300 onwards. Now of course we have 24 hour TV and internet, as well as shopping.

One area where I do forsee a quick win in terms of energy consumption is that of street lighting. Firstly I am convinced that maybe as many as 1 in 5 street lights could be switched off without detriment, and in any case why do we need to light the streets throughout the night anyway ?

Street lighting was originally intended to reduce instances of injuries to pedestrians and road vehicles, years ago I recall the lights went out at night, with improved vehicle frontal lighting it begs the question as to whether the current levels of street lighting are now wholly necessary or whether they are just installed against some simple formula against which the bureaucratic mind cannot think beyond ?

Maybe we will see individual households buying small generators ? What then Global Warming ?

 

[gordonthemoron]

some people, myself included, cannot see well in the dark. If there are street lights, then I can drive OK, without street lights, it's pretty scary

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Rather interesting debate because some councils have recently experimented with switching off streetlamps at midnight or 01.00 in some quite large areas and in none of those areas have accidents or crime increased and in quite a few of those areas crime actually decreased quite sharply.

I don't have the figures to hand; I'll have to e-mail someone ( from home later ) who I know will have the figures available but it might take a few days to get them.

 

[455driver]

GosdonTheMoron,
that statement you made begs the question, if your eyes are so bad, should you be driving and have you notified DVLA of this problem?

 

[gordonthemoron]

455, I can see perfectly well in daylight and the wife drives at night, I can't remember the last time I drove in the dark

 

[ukrob]

455, I can see perfectly well in daylight and the wife drives at night, I can't remember the last time I drove in the dark

Well it is a complete non-issue then.

And people who can't see properly in the dark should not be driving in the dark (as you rightly don't).

I would also say OT's 1 in 5 is extremely conservative. 1 in 2 would be a good place to start.

 

[WatcherZero]

I hear now that £50m of the £100m Network Rail cut will be the 10 worst stations improvement program. And I regularly use two of those 10, So Victorias new roofs now off again as well.

 

[Metroland]

Whilst that may be true, the point I was making is that every extra demand, no matter how small, simply adds up the total demand level that cannot be satisfied.

The power cuts when they do occur, will of course happen at times of peak demand, e.g. evenings which will be disruptive to the social and leisure activities of everyone, and will no doubt lead to considerable debate as to whether "leiure and public facilities" should be disconnected, as against domestic properties. Who knows what will win the battle for the greatest public benefit.

Back in the 70s we just went to bed earlier, especially as TV went into shut down mode from 2300 onwards. Now of course we have 24 hour TV and internet, as well as shopping.

One area where I do forsee a quick win in terms of energy consumption is that of street lighting. Firstly I am convinced that maybe as many as 1 in 5 street lights could be switched off without detriment, and in any case why do we need to light the streets throughout the night anyway ?

Street lighting was originally intended to reduce instances of injuries to pedestrians and road vehicles, years ago I recall the lights went out at night, with improved vehicle frontal lighting it begs the question as to whether the current levels of street lighting are now wholly necessary or whether they are just installed against some simple formula against which the bureaucratic mind cannot think beyond ?

Maybe we will see individual households buying small generators ? What then Global Warming ?

Well there's nothing to stop the railways having their own power supply generation, as they do in Switzerland and Germany, and until not long ago, for London Underground.

Nevertheless there is already a list of who gets discontented first, and the railways are near the bottom of the lineup.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rather interesting debate because some councils have recently experimented with switching off streetlamps at midnight or 01.00 in some quite large areas and in none of those areas have accidents or crime increased and in quite a few of those areas crime actually decreased quite sharply.

I don't have the figures to hand; I'll have to e-mail someone ( from home later ) who I know will have the figures available but it might take a few days to get them.

Years ago (before my time) I understand street lights were turned off overnight, certainly they were in gas light days. It was rumoured where I used to live that 'someone at the post office' had the magic switch and used to turn it just after midnight. All before the days of light sensitive switches built into lamps, no doubt.

 

[gordonthemoron]

perhaps they should turn off traffic lights at less busy road junctions overnight?

 

[Dreadnought]

perhaps they should turn off traffic lights at less busy road junctions overnight?

That'll be like the 'Part time' traffic signals you see on some roundabouts, which are invariably now in use 24 hours a day :roll:

 

[ukrob]

That'll be like the 'Part time' traffic signals you see on some roundabouts, which are invariably now in use 24 hours a day :roll:

And would also save nothing compared to one out of five street lights out.

 

[Dreadnought]

And would also save nothing compared to one out of five street lights out.

Quite agree, I would go further and turn off 1 in every 2 or 3 lights on motorways except in the area within a mile of a junction.

If you go north of J19 on the M1 there are larges stretches of motorway that aren't lit at all so do not see why you need so much lighting the further south you go.

 

[ukrob]

Quite agree, I would go further and turn off 1 in every 2 or 3 lights on motorways except in the area within a mile of a junction.

If you go north of J19 on the M1 there are larges stretches of motorway that aren't lit at all so do not see why you need so much lighting the further south you go.

Indeed - As I said above I would start at one in two, I only mentioned one in five as that is how the discussion started

 

[WatcherZero]

There was an experiment down south on the motorway wasnt there, they switched off 2 in 3 lights and saved somehing like £17,000 a year. Reeks of desperation however playing with lives for so little reward.

 

[ukrob]

There was an experiment down south on the motorway wasnt there, they switched off 2 in 3 lights and saved somehing like £17,000 a year. Reeks of desperation however playing with lives for so little reward.

Firstly, how is it playing with lives when it has been shown that it is just as safe?

Secondly, it isn't about saving money.

 

[Greenback]

Firstly, how is it playing with lives when it has been shown that it is just as safe?

Secondly, it isn't about saving money.

Quite right. Despite the howls of protest in Wales when some councils did away with street lights, either by switching them off after a certian time, or by switching off a set ratio, there has not been any increase in accidents or muggings.

There are far too many street lights, wasting precious resources to little effect and contributing to light pollution which gives the sky an unnatural orange glow!

 

[Edvid]

Also no new rolling stock orders that arent already signed and sealed in 2010 or 2011. (so no IEP or Thameslink)

On Railway Eye:
The Department will not be going forward in 2010-11 with planned spend on the HLOS rolling stock schemes that have not already been contractualised.

Which means planned expenditure during this financial year only will not happen. Therefore the major rolling stock projects in question are being deferred, not cancelled outright...at least for the time being. Otherwise we'd be talking about several £billion, not £683m.

 

[WatcherZero]

Because its been proven that Lights reduce road accidents by 65%, true their was no increase in the rate of accidents during this trial but I call fluke of people driving slower for the first few moneths due to changes in conditions, after a year the accident rate will rise to reflect its true impact.

 

[ukrob]

Because its been proven that Lights reduce road accidents by 65%, true their was no increase in the rate of accidents during this trial but I call fluke of people driving slower for the first few moneths due to changes in conditions, after a year the accident rate will rise to reflect its true impact.

You got a link for that?

There are loads of roads I can think of from minor through to motorway without lights - they do not have more accidents that sections of road with lights.

 

[WatcherZero]

On Railway Eye:
The Department will not be going forward in 2010-11 with planned spend on the HLOS rolling stock schemes that have not already been contractualised.

Which means planned expenditure during this financial year only will not happen. Therefore the major rolling stock projects in question are being deferred, not cancelled outright...at least for the time being. Otherwise we'd be talking about several £billion, not £683m.

In the Dft figures theirs actually no saving at all from postponing rolling stock, this will all be in the budget in a month or so, The Thameslink alone this year is 1bn and the IEP also due for decision making this year is billions.

 

[ukrob]

In the Dft figures theirs actually no saving at all from postponing rolling stock, this will all be in the budget in a month or so, The Thameslink alone this year is 1bn and the IEP also due for decision making this year is billions.

There can be if contracts and costs are renegotiated.

 

[jon0844]

The future of street lighting will surely be the use of modern LED lighting, which is now a serious alternative to what we have, and sensors to be able to turn lights on/off when there's actually a need to have them on (empty roads won't need them, for example). They start instantly, which gives them a BIG benefit over the current lights. I know trials have been done with lights that only come on when sensors pick up vehicles.

In towns, where we need lighting for pedestrians that may not carry torches or trigger sensors, the power consumption is hugely reduced. The lights don't even have to be incredibly bright, as our eyes can adjust quite well to low-light. It's nice to see many bus stop signs and shelters now using LEDs, for example.

At the moment, LED lighting is simply too expensive to be used widely - but when it becomes cost effective, they should start appearing everywhere.

We're also onto the next generation of solar-powered LED cat's eyes - so these can also reduce the need for street lighting on some roads and make other roads much safer, such as country roads with lots of bends. You'd never be able to put street lighting on all of these, and the reflective paint they use now fades and isn't always visible in bad weather.

Just think how much energy would be saved if all offices turned off not only their lights at night but got all staff to shut down (or at least put into standby) the computers and other equipment. My office Mac probably consumes 200W and we've got loads, but I'm about the only person that ever puts it into standby (I'd shut it down totally if I didn't sometimes need to access it remotely).

It always shocks me how much SERIOUS energy saving we could achieve straight away - just as we could reduce the congestion on public transport by encouraging more people to work from home occasionally, have meetings by phone/video conferencing and so on.. yet when I attended an event with TfL and others, it was quite clear that people in power want people to move around as much as possible. They don't want people staying home!

 

[Metroland]

That's one of the great myths home working is more environmentally freindly:

Whilst the quality of their working life may be improved, the quality of the environment isn’t. In fact contrary to popular claims home workers could actually be contributing to global warming.

Independent consultants WSP Environmental found that home workers typically produce almost a third more CO2 in a year than employees based in the office.

The results highlight the fact that whereas office workers share their electricity and heating, staff working at home are generating a lot of energy for just one person. For instance, during the colder months, home workers might heat up a whole house whilst only occupying a single room, thereby wasting a significant amount of energy. They also might waste electricity by boiling a kettle of water for one person rather than several employees. What’s more, as a further environmental concern, the more people work from home the greater number of computers there will be.

The study will have disappointed top industry and governmental figures who saw home working as a way for businesses to reduce their environmental impact and ease the strain on the UK’s ailing transport network.

http://www.agreeneroffice.co.uk/working-from-home-better-for-environment.html

Concerns over the Internet’s carbon footprint are growing exponentially with the ever increasing demands of energy for the soaring online industry. The costs of maintaining and serving the billions of web pages on the Internet are rising and has swollen carbon emissions by 10-percent each year, to a level that’s overtaking the air travel industry.

Apparently a study by Rich Brown— energy analyst at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in California, for the US environmental protection agency, revealed that US servers consumed a whopping 61 billion KWh of energy in 2006. That’s quite enough to supply the whole of the UK for two months …

Read more: http://www.greenpacks.org/2009/05/06/alarming-trends-the-internets-carbon-footprint/#ixzz0oxENq6lV

Another myth is living in the country is better for the environment

The image of cities is often traffic-clogged, polluted and energy-guzzling, but a new study has shown that city dwellers have smaller carbon footprints than national averages.

The report by London-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) looked at 11 major cities on four continents, including London, Tokyo, New York and Rio de Janeiro.

It found per capita greenhouse gas emissions for a Londoner in 2004 were the equivalent of 6.2 tonnes of CO2, compared with 11.19 for the UK average.

The rural northeast of England, Yorkshire and the Humber, were singled out for having the highest footprints per capita in the UK.

In the US, New Yorkers register footprints of 7.1 tonnes each, less than a thrid of the US average of 23.92 tonnes.

The use of public transport and denser housing are two of the reasons for urbanites' comparatively low carbon footprints, the authors said, adding that the design of cities significantly affects their residents' emissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/23/city-dwellers-smaller-carbon-footprints

 

[mallard]

The UK is the only country still trying to do high speed with diesels.

Erm, that's simply not true, both the German ICE-TD and Denmark's IC4 are 125mph (200kph) diesels, with the IC4's still being in the process of being fully introduced and the ICE-TD's around 10 years old.

The USA has also had non-electric high-speed trains, using gas turbine engines.
don't see what would be wrong with an updated Voyager/Meridian design, with diesel, electric and electro-diesel versions for different routes.

Failing that, how about getting Siemens to develop a "Velaro UK" range, paralleling the "Desiro UK" products.

 

[gordonthemoron]

However, the ICE-TD has been a bit of a fiasco. Due to Germany charging DB the full cost of diesel to run them on the german network, DB have chosen to run them to/from Denmark so they can fill up with cheaper fuel

 

[jon0844]

I am not saying working from home will reduce the carbon footprint, but it helps reduce congestion and could even allow a reduction in services, or the length of trains or whatever. At worst, it just makes a journey more pleasant as there are less people. Nobody running public transport wants that though, do they!

Of course, as I have a season ticket and pay either way, I bet the TOCs would LOVE it for me to work from home once or twice a week - and have loads of other people doing the same.

And people WANT to live in the country. Obviously not all, and it changes during your life (when I was young, living in London was everything). When you have kids or get older, you want more space - and unless you're rich, you aint getting that in town!

Working from home, or remotely, doesn't solve everything and I would never pretend otherwise - but there are many examples of where it just doesn't make any sense to have everyone in an office. Likewise, people want social contact - so working from home ALL the time is a recipe for disaster for most.

One idea that is being looked at is regenerating local communities where people can work from home, but not IN their home. Let's say I live in a village and would normally commute into London - with many others - but could work from home, I could instead work from a local 'office' (a converted pub, community hall or whatever) and still have that social contact - albeit with people who work for another company.

It can't and won't work for all trades, but I write and could be sitting absolutely anywhere in the world for my work. I could be on a beach with a laptop. As long as I have an Internet connection and mobile, I'm done. Many other people are going to be in a similar situation.

The other big obstacle was that bosses simply won't trust workers to work if they're not being watched. Sadly, I believe that too many people would skive off. That's probably the main reason businesses aren't happily letting people work away from the office on occasion.

 

[gordonthemoron]

why a 'converted pub'? why not a real pub?

 

[jon0844]

It was based around reopening what used to be a pub - given how many close each year.

No harm in using your local pub, or Starbucks etc - but you could do that now anyway! Then you can either overdose on caffeine or get p***ed!!