Diesel trains should be banned from terminating at trainshed/subsurface stations

[adrock1976]

As I've said before, class 769 redeployment to the Buxton services could solve that partially. Of course they're rather slow as it is... And they won't become available in time for next December in any case.

2tph to Buxton all with 150 pairs isn't good, but it isn't so bad.

Ideally, we should be looking at banning diesel trains from terminating in trainshed/subsurface stations as climate change and air quality are hot political potatoes at this moment in time, and will be for a while.

From north to south, the aforementioned types of stations from north to south I can think of are as follows:

Inverness (partial), Aberdeen (partial), Glasgow Central and Queen Street, Edinburgh Waverley, Newcastle Central, Carlisle, Leeds, Preston, Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Pic Platforms 1-12 and all of Victoria, Chester, Crewe, Birmingham New Street and Snow Hill, Norwich, Stansted Airport (I believe this is in a tunnel), all London mainline terminal stations, and any others I may have missed.

 

[Purple Orange]

Ideally, we should be looking at banning diesel trains from terminating in trainshed/subsurface stations as climate change and air quality are hot political potatoes at this moment in time, and will be for a while.

From north to south, the aforementioned types of stations from north to south I can think of are as follows:

Inverness (partial), Aberdeen (partial), Glasgow Central and Queen Street, Edinburgh Waverley, Newcastle Central, Carlisle, Leeds, Preston, Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Pic Platforms 1-12 and all of Victoria, Chester, Crewe, Birmingham New Street and Snow Hill, Norwich, Stansted Airport (I believe this is in a tunnel), all London mainline terminal stations, and any others I may have missed.

Sunderland is an underground station.

 

[Ianno87]

Ideally, we should be looking at banning diesel trains from terminating in trainshed/subsurface stations as climate change and air quality are hot political potatoes at this moment in time, and will be for a while.

I hate the term "no brainer", but Buxton is a "no brainer" for bi-modes.

 

[PTR 444]

London terminals with scheduled diesel trains and the easiest way to eliminate them:

Euston - Introduce the Class 805 and 807s ASAP
Kings Cross - Impose a condition on Grand Central that they must replace their diesel stock, or face being required to terminate short of London
London Bridge - Withdraw the Uckfield service from London and reduce it to a diesel shuttle from Oxted/Hurst Green.
Marylebone - electrify the trainshed and replace all existing Chiltern stock with bi-modes (tri-mode with tripcock for Amersham line)
Paddington - I mean come on, no IET should be using diesel power there!
St Pancras - Introduce the class 810s ASAP
Waterloo - Terminate the Exeter services short at Basingstoke, or have them attach onto the back of a Class 444 so they are hauled under electric power (is this allowed).

Charing Cross, Cannon Street, Fenchurch Street, Liverpool Street and Victoria have no scheduled diesel services AFAIK.

 

[6Gman]

Ideally, we should be looking at banning diesel trains from terminating in trainshed/subsurface stations as climate change and air quality are hot political potatoes at this moment in time, and will be for a while.

From north to south, the aforementioned types of stations from north to south I can think of are as follows:

Inverness (partial), Aberdeen (partial), Glasgow Central and Queen Street, Edinburgh Waverley, Newcastle Central, Carlisle, Leeds, Preston, Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Pic Platforms 1-12 and all of Victoria, Chester, Crewe, Birmingham New Street and Snow Hill, Norwich, Stansted Airport (I believe this is in a tunnel), all London mainline terminal stations, and any others I may have missed.

How many platforms roads* at Crewe are roofed?

* i.e. where trains actually stand rather than where the passengers stand.

 

[brad465]

London terminals with scheduled diesel trains and the easiest way to eliminate them:

Marylebone - electrify the trainshed and replace all existing Chiltern stock with bi-modes (tri-mode with tripcock for Amersham line)

Waterloo - Terminate the Exeter services short at Basingstoke, or have them attach onto the back of a Class 444 (is this allowed).

In the case of these two, the talk I've heard is for Chiltern to install battery packs to rolling stock that allows them to operate as hybrids, which would solve the Marylebone issue, where one class 168 has already been converted. As for Waterloo, I doubt terminating at Basingstoke will be popular, the only options I can see are designing a sequel to the class 73, either as a multiple unit or a loco hauling coaches, or electrifying the West of England mainline entirely and having EMUs for it, most likely a dual voltage type as I doubt that line would get 3rd rail over that distance. At the moment neither option seems to be anywhere near happening.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Waterloo - Terminate the Exeter services short at Basingstoke, or have them attach onto the back of a Class 444 so they are hauled under electric power (is this allowed).

Even if it was possible (which it isn’t), a 10 car 444 hauling a 6 car 159 would give a massive headache in terms of train length at Waterloo.

London Bridge - Withdraw the Uckfield service from London and reduce it to a diesel shuttle from Oxted/Hurst Green.

The OP said about remove trains from under full train sheds / sub surface, London Bridge Central platforms are neither of those - London Bridge platforms are under individual canopies which don’t span the running lines as per attached photo.

 

[JamesT]

London terminals with scheduled diesel trains and the easiest way to eliminate them:

Paddington - I mean come on, no IET should be using diesel power there!

What traction would you use for the Night Riviera? That currently uses Class 57 diesel locomotives.

 

[Grecian 1998]

Waterloo - Terminate the Exeter services short at Basingstoke, or have them attach onto the back of a Class 444 so they are hauled under electric power (is this allowed).

Apart from the sheer impracticality / unpopularity of this move, do 2 incoming / outgoing diesel services per hour really make that much difference to such a large station?


Other affected stations:

This would lead to Penzance being reduced to a single platform unless you demolished the trainshed. Could be tricky capacity-wise. Can't see any wiring along the sea wall to Marazion any time soon (although the Ayrshire coast line indicates this is possible).

Brighton technically counts although it must have the smallest proportion of diesel to electric trains anywhere in the country at 2 per day of the former. Whilst I suspect the Bristol - Brighton will one day soon be axed, it can't exactly have much effect on the air quality at Brighton.

You wouldn't be able to terminate trains on platforms 3 and 5 at Temple Meads which I suspect might annoy Crosscountry, although it's hardly insurmountable.

No commuter or late night services terminating at Frome from Bristol. Can't see that being popular.

 

[Irascible]

Even if it was possible (which it isn’t), a 10 car 444 hauling a 6 car 159 would give a massive headache in terms of train length at Waterloo.

And that doesn't say what to do about the 9 or 10 car 159s. If there's no wires via the GW route to Exeter you sure as hell aren't getting any down via Salisbury. I must show my appreciation to whoever suggested the idea of turfing 9 cars of uis out at Basingstoke to try and fit on the next electric though, thanks.

What exactly is the big problem at somewhere with a huge roof like Waterloo? is there really less air movement there than if each platform had a low canopy?

 

[ashkeba]

Even if it was possible (which it isn’t), a 10 car 444 hauling a 6 car 159 would give a massive headache in terms of train length at Waterloo.

Aren't the former Eurostar platforms long?

 

[zwk500]

Aren't the former Eurostar platforms long?

Yes but you won't be crossing a train from the wimbledon side across to the former international platforms unless you take out a lot of trains.

 

[furnessvale]

I hate the term "no brainer", but Buxton is a "no brainer" for bi-modes.

The diesel side of the bi-mode needs to be powerful for that route. Hazel grove to New Mills, Whaley Bridge to Beyond Dove Holes, and returning Buxton to Dove would all suffer timing wise from inadequately powered diesel legs.

 

[zwk500]

What exactly is the big problem at somewhere with a huge roof like Waterloo? is there really less air movement there than if each platform had a low canopy?

At any of the big steam era stations a handful of diesels an hour aren't a problem. Its places like St Pancras with low roofs or Marylebone with an all-diesel service that are troublesome.
The solution for 159s at Waterloo is bi-modes.

 

[PTR 444]

What traction would you use for the Night Riviera? That currently uses Class 57 diesel locomotives.

Completely forgot about the Night Riviera! For that I would have it hauled by an electric locomotive (don’t care which one) to Reading, then switch to a Class 57 from there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2021 ==

Even if it was possible (which it isn’t), a 10 car 444 hauling a 6 car 159 would give a massive headache in terms of train length at Waterloo.

I know it isn’t possible but theoretically could a 5-car 444 do the job (in terms of space at Waterloo)? Or even something like a Class 93?

The OP said about remove trains from under full train sheds / sub surface, London Bridge Central platforms are neither of those - London Bridge platforms are under individual canopies which don’t span the running lines as per attached photo.

View attachment 103992

Even so, the more diesel removed from densely populated Greater London the better.

 

[Falcon1200]

Completely forgot about the Night Riviera! For that I would have it hauled by an electric locomotive (don’t care which one) to Reading, then switch to a Class 57 from there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2021 ==


I know it isn’t possible but theoretically could a 5-car 444 do the job? Or even something like a Class 93?

Even so, the more diesel removed from densely populated Greater London the better.

Assuming the downturn in passenger numbers is permanent, perhaps a few 80x bi-modes could be converted to sleeping car sets ?!! Although TBH one diesel-hauled train in the morning and one late at night, under a high roof as at Paddington, is not IMHO a major pollution or health hazard. London does pretty well for electric railways, there are many provincial cities far worse off. If there is one major priority for eliminating diesel traction as far as practical, that surely has to be Birmingham New St ?

 

[Harpers Tate]

Shall we completely close Hull Paragon and Scarborough? Or just demolish the roof?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The main thing is them not sitting there idling, for which other countries' railways use shore supplies. Starting up a minute or so before departure isn't a great issue.

 

[NSEFAN]

Even so, the more diesel removed from densely populated Greater London the better.

In general, this is true. However at the end of the day, 2 diesel trains per hour to a London terminus with semi-covered / spacious trainshed roofs like Waterloo and London Bridge are not too much of an issue. Marylebone should be higher up the priority list for electrification as all services there are currently diesel.

For Uckfield, some form of electrification or battery EMUs are probably the most appropriate. For Waterloo-Exeter, I would like to see full electrification, but bi-mode MUs are more likely. Commuter services into London will need to be maximum length with no space wasted on a locomotive.

With regards to diesel fumes in an enclosed space, Birmingham New Street is definitely up there. All those regional and long-distance XC and TfW services really ought to be electric or bimode, and I would expect this to happen when stock becomes end-of-life.

 

[mike57]

Removing through services to London is going to be hugely unpopular, and is probably going to be counter productive long term, a bit like crass decisions by jobsworths have given "ealth n safety" a bad press. Other areas that loose connectivity as a result are also going to be very upset.

I think there needs to be some common sense applied, 1 diesel set every 2 hours (Grand Central) in an otherwise electric station like Kings Cross isnt going to create bad air quality. We travelled through Kings Cross last week and the transformation from the smoky grubby experience of pre ECML electrification is immense. With the mainly bi modes or pure electric services now the Grand Central services are the only diesel ones left. On the other hand Manchester Victoria is a disaster area, subjectivley this has the worst air quality of any station I have travelled through recently. However the fix, widespread electrification, is just not going to happen, the costs would be unsustainable. So perhaps the answer is address the worst cases in other ways. Manchester Piccadilly doesnt suffer the same issues because its more airy, even Leeds which is more enclosed seems to cope better.

Going forwards it raises the question of if any more diesel only sets should be bought, or if everything should be bi-mode or if destined for the SE tri-mode

 

[d9009alycidon]

Ideally, we should be looking at banning diesel trains from terminating in trainshed/subsurface stations as climate change and air quality are hot political potatoes at this moment in time, and will be for a while.

From north to south, the aforementioned types of stations from north to south I can think of are as follows:

Inverness (partial), Aberdeen (partial), Glasgow Central and Queen Street, Edinburgh Waverley, Newcastle Central, Carlisle, Leeds, Preston, Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Pic Platforms 1-12 and all of Victoria, Chester, Crewe, Birmingham New Street and Snow Hill, Norwich, Stansted Airport (I believe this is in a tunnel), all London mainline terminal stations, and any others I may have missed.

Glasgow Central is getting pretty close to all electric working, there is only the Barrhead, Kilmarnock/Carlisle and East Kilbride services left and Barrhead is as we know already underway. Interestingly I underatand that a Vivarail unit will be doing demonstration runs between Glasgow Central and Barrhead during the Cop-26 conference
https://railway-news.com/next-generation-battery-train-to-launch-at-cop26-climate-conference/

 

[Bletchleyite]

With regard to London specifically I can see them pushing for the ULEZ to be extended to other modes, so GC would do well to be investigating bi-modes at this point. Less so at a windy seaside terminus.

 

[Irascible]

The main thing is them not sitting there idling, for which other countries' railways use shore supplies. Starting up a minute or so before departure isn't a great issue.

I remember many times watching HSTs start up at Padd years ago when I used it a fair bit, did leaving engines idling at terminii become more prevalent? seems z bit of a legislative loophole really.

 

[30907]

As others have said, the priorities for air quality should be the low-roofed stations like New Street and Manchester Victoria - though there is also the more general issue of fossil fuel dependency.
I don't know Marylebone well enough to know whether air quality is an issue inside the trainshed - though it may be outside.

Going forwards it raises the question of if any more diesel only sets should be bought.

I would be very surprised if that happened - unless the suggested alternatives for long rural Scottish lines prove impractical.

 

[zwk500]

Completely forgot about the Night Riviera! For that I would have it hauled by an electric locomotive (don’t care which one) to Reading, then switch to a Class 57 from there.

Tbh the fact that this isn't currently done at least for the inward portion is pretty bad. Although I understand that GWR don't want to keep a pool of electrics for one train.

I know it isn’t possible but theoretically could a 5-car 444 do the job (in terms of space at Waterloo)? Or even something like a Class 93?

I don't think 444s and 159s have the same couplers, although they could of course be changed. Loco-haulage (even if in push-pull mode) is a non-starter for Wessex Route, the acceleration and dead space just can't keep up with demand.

Even so, the more diesel removed from densely populated Greater London the better.

Agree

 

[BrianW]

Ideally, we should be looking at banning diesel trains from terminating in trainshed/subsurface stations as climate change and air quality are hot political potatoes at this moment in time, and will be for a while.

From north to south, the aforementioned types of stations from north to south I can think of are as follows:

Inverness (partial), Aberdeen (partial), Glasgow Central and Queen Street, Edinburgh Waverley, Newcastle Central, Carlisle, Leeds, Preston, Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Pic Platforms 1-12 and all of Victoria, Chester, Crewe, Birmingham New Street and Snow Hill, Norwich, Stansted Airport (I believe this is in a tunnel), all London mainline terminal stations, and any others I may have missed.

Ideally ... we should be banning ALL diesel trains everywhere! However, pragmatically they exist so should be used wherever they do the least 'damage'. They have a lot of 'embodied energy' within them , for instance. It cannot be 'beyond the wit' to work out some kind of 'transition plan' if it weren't a hot potato bedevilled by political dither and indecision

 

[AM9]

With regard to London specifically I can see them pushing for the ULEZ to be extended to other modes, so GC would do well to be investigating bi-modes at this point. Less so at a windy seaside terminus.

That was exactly my thought on reading thios thread. As the ULEZ starts taking effect as it is intended, i.e. removing gross polluters from inside the North/South Circular roads, and in a few years time replacing most of other IC vehicles with EVs, the contrast between the street environment and the insides of terminii that still permit diesels to access will become embarassing to the railway. The routes into central London will also get attention as the geberal population becomes far less tolerant of pollution originating from IC exhaust systems.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2021 ==

Tbh the fact that this isn't currently done at least for the inward portion is pretty bad. Although I understand that GWR don't want to keep a pool of electrics for one train.

Surely a wet lease of three or four locos would be relatively manageable when the pressure to act builds up.

 

[snookertam]

Ideally, we should be looking at banning diesel trains from terminating in trainshed/subsurface stations as climate change and air quality are hot political potatoes at this moment in time, and will be for a while.

From north to south, the aforementioned types of stations from north to south I can think of are as follows:

Inverness (partial), Aberdeen (partial), Glasgow Central and Queen Street, Edinburgh Waverley, Newcastle Central, Carlisle, Leeds, Preston, Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Pic Platforms 1-12 and all of Victoria, Chester, Crewe, Birmingham New Street and Snow Hill, Norwich, Stansted Airport (I believe this is in a tunnel), all London mainline terminal stations, and any others I may have missed.

It would be simpler to dismantle the roofs…

In all seriousness, I don’t think there’s much in the way of residual poor air quality at either Glasgow Central or Queen Street due to diesel units terminating there. There’s also very little under canopy railway at either Inverness or Aberdeen.

I’ll give you the HSTs which use all the Scottish termini except Central, but then that arguably should never have happened anyway. They’ll likely be replaced with bi modes as soon as a UK wide regional bi mode product is available.

 

[gg1]

Marylebone - electrify the trainshed and replace all existing Chiltern stock with bi-modes (tri-mode with tripcock for Amersham line)

At the bare minimum any electrification of the Marylebone lines should be to High Wycombe and Aylesbury worked by a mix of bi-modes and pure EMUs.

Yes just electrifying the trainshed is cheaper but the impact on air quality and carbon emissions would be only marginally better than simply adopting a policy that engines are switched off on arrival and not switched on again until a train is ready to depart. After taking into account the extra fuel required from lugging the weight of the AC equipment around for 99%+ of every service, the net effect could actually be negative.

 

[Mikey C]

As others have said, the priorities for air quality should be the low-roofed stations like New Street and Manchester Victoria - though there is also the more general issue of fossil fuel dependency.
I don't know Marylebone well enough to know whether air quality is an issue inside the trainshed - though it may be outside.

I would be very surprised if that happened - unless the suggested alternatives for long rural Scottish lines prove impractical.

Marylebone air quality has never seemed a major issue, much of the platform area is fairly open anyway, and the nearby Marylebone Road is currently awful for air quality anyway

But as older diesels are removed by the ULEZ expansion - currently Marylebone Road is the boundary, so not included - road pollution will reduce, making diesel trains more of an embarrassment