Electrification of GWML: some uncomfortable truths

[Bill EWS]

I really couldn't believe this rubbish and gave up before half way through and did a bit of speed reading. Did the East Coast, Midland and Lomdon Midland lines have any electrification prior to full electification. Aren't there any towns and cities on thes eliens wehere consideraton had to eb given for design of the OHL. OHL may require a central power station to feed them but compared to the amount of diesel trains they do away with that probably balances out in the green' stakes.

The GW mainline has the advanatge of having been bullt in the Broad guage and apart from bridge & tunnel heights, it isn't a major problem to get over.

I ask myself, "Why was this threat produced and what was it's motives"? It stumped me.

 

[TGV]

I really couldn't believe this rubbish and gave up before half way through and did a bit of speed reading.

Painful wasn't it?

 

[Metroland]

One of the reasons IEP is so damn expensive is because, as I've pointed out, nobody really runs high speed diesel trains apart from the UK. You could equally argue, the additional costs associated with designing and procuring a very one off train is not good value, and it's far better to proceed with a course of electrification and purchase something more 'off the shelf'.

On the subject of manmade global warming, it always amuses me who people with no qualifications in the subject make up their mind about something they probably know little to nothing about - the main reason usually is because it doesn't suit their belief systems. I couldn't possibly say whether its a valid theory or not, but either way it has very little to do with the OHL scheme anyway. It just happens to be a offshoot 'benefit' of such a scheme. Electrification has been pursed by railway companies for at least 100 years, first on the SR because of competition from Tramways, and later (especially on the LNER and later the LMR of BR) because of the systems potential for raw horsepower.

Switzerland electrified early because they have very little fossil fuel deposits, and during the second world war suffered serious restrictions in coal supply. The solution was to dam a number of lakes and rivers, of which there are plenty, with the added benefit electric locos made easy work of some of their very fiercely graded routes (notably Lotschberg and Gotthard).

The principal benefit of such a scheme is a decrease in journey times and replacement of worn out HSTs.

Nevertheless the UK has to look at alternative fuel systems, and association delivery infrastructure such as electrification, because we are now a net importer of energy, and will become increasingly so.

Importing fuel doesn't help security (energy is used as a political weapon, and supply cannot be guaranteed form various parts of the world hostile to the UK) its also very expensive (especially when Sterling is weak) and doesn't do our balance of payments any good either.

 

[thegrich37423]

The thread was produced to outline genuine concerns that the government are withholding crucial information regarding the electrification of the GWML scheme. Each 'truth' that is being withheld, with demonstrable evidence, has already been outlined above.
I have read most of the replying posts and it is clear that many people do not like the truth, choosing only instead to believe what is written in public through the various forms of media. When you think about it, there is absolutely no need to provide counter-evidence that the GWML scheme will have NO impact environmentally when it is clear that pre-existing electrified lines, whilst claiming they significantly reduce carbon emissions, still produce the same about of carbon as a standard petrol-engine car.
I am trying to debate here the rationale for electrifying the GWML, kicking off the debate with a genuine claim of government's secretly withholding their own rationale for announcing such a scheme in the first place. Why does a line such as the GWML, west of Heathrow, need electrification? How will the topography/geography affect positioning of the OHLE? How extensive is the electrification scheme going to be? Surely they are not thinking about electrifying lines such as the Looe Branch? What about existing structures such as the Severn Tunnel or the Brunel Bridge? We need answers to these problems which, as I have explained above, the government have but are choosing not to tell the public.

 

[90019]

when it is clear that pre-existing electrified lines, whilst claiming they significantly reduce carbon emissions, still produce the same about of carbon as a standard petrol-engine car.

Please provide scientific, peer reviewed evidence to back up your claims.

Until you do, you are only stating opinions. Saying there's demonstrable evidence doesn't prove anything.
I could say there's demonstrable evidence that the French are about to mount an invasion of the moon, but that doesn't mean it's true

 

[TGV]

Demonstrable evidence - WHERE?

I'm not believing any media. Don't be patronising. I have a good brain and I'm using it.

The answers to most of the "problems" you outline are common to any infrastructure project. Why does the line need electrifying? Progress. Why aren't we all still riding horses? Please go and do some RESEARCH in fossil fuel production, oil refinery, nuclear energy, power transmission, electric machines and their efficiency... in fact - can you please look up what efficiency means from a technical stand point?

I'm still interested to know more about this unusual compressed air widget you say MTU have fitted to their engines that lower the efficiency (thermal efficiency? volumetric efficiency?). You've kinda glazed over that one...

 

[Metroland]

The thread was produced to outline genuine concerns that the government are withholding crucial information regarding the electrification of the GWML scheme. Each 'truth' that is being withheld, with demonstrable evidence, has already been outlined above.
I have read most of the replying posts and it is clear that many people do not like the truth, choosing only instead to believe what is written in public through the various forms of media. When you think about it, there is absolutely no need to provide counter-evidence that the GWML scheme will have NO impact environmentally when it is clear that pre-existing electrified lines, whilst claiming they significantly reduce carbon emissions, still produce the same about of carbon as a standard petrol-engine car.
I am trying to debate here the rationale for electrifying the GWML, kicking off the debate with a genuine claim of government's secretly withholding their own rationale for announcing such a scheme in the first place. Why does a line such as the GWML, west of Heathrow, need electrification? How will the topography/geography affect positioning of the OHLE? How extensive is the electrification scheme going to be? Surely they are not thinking about electrifying lines such as the Looe Branch? What about existing structures such as the Severn Tunnel or the Brunel Bridge? We need answers to these problems which, as I have explained above, the government have but are choosing not to tell the public.

I've just answered your question in full about the 'rationale'. It's to replace worn out HSTs with something better in terms of power.

As for carbon, and typical electric intercity train in the UK (eg Pendolino or IC225) has emisions of about 30 g/co2/pass km. That's about 1/4 of a typical car, with one person in, 1/5th of an aircraft (not including radiative forcing) 1/3 of a bus and about the same as a coach - yet it travels 2-3 times the speed.

 

[jon0844]

The original post was easily the biggest load of bollocks I've read all year. Well done sir. A fine work of fiction. It was uncomfortable alright - uncomfortable to read.

I read it and thought it was a joke, then noticed the lack of a smiley!

I reckon the OP is also concerned about the Government conspiracy to control our minds with chemtrails.

 

[yorksrob]

How extensive is the electrification scheme going to be? Surely they are not thinking about electrifying lines such as the Looe Branch? What about existing structures such as the Severn Tunnel or the Brunel Bridge? We need answers to these problems which, as I have explained above, the government have but are choosing not to tell the public.

It's an interesting point to consider. Certainly from what I've seen of the current plans, the idea is to concentrate on South Wales/Bristol to London, although as I've suggested before I think it'll be worth adding in feeder routes as the rolling stock displaced might be easier to cascade. That said, the Devon main line is pretty heavy duty all the way down to Plymouth, and if you added the left hand side of the triangle up to Birmingham you'd be able to electrify cross country services all the way up to Scotland as well (and at this point you may as well go all the way to Penzance for ease of operation).

With regard to the engineering problems of electrification, they must have encountred awkward bridges and tunnels in previous electrification schemes before. The bit around Dawlish may be tricky though.

 

[starrymarkb]

Only compressed thing I can think of would be common rail, if they use it. Mercedes (MTU's Parent at the time of design) preferred Pressure Line Delivery. In a common rail the fuel is kept at a very high pressure and then metered into the cylinder by injectors fed directly from the high pressure rail. With PLD each Cylinder has an individual high pressure pump with a short line to the injector. Most modern Diesels have a similar setup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_rail

Air is compressed before combustion anyway as that is how a diesel engine works - suck - squeeze - bang - blow (or in a GM squeeze-bang), a turbo does compress the air further before it enters the cylinders, but the Valenta was also turbocharged (the scream was from the Turbocharger), Turbos give more power for a given displacement (ie the VW Polo D was a 1.9l engine, the more powerful TD was a 1.4l turbocharged engine - this is what is in the Bluemotion which does 80mpg!), they work like a jet engine but with out the conbustion chamber, air from the exhuast passes through the turbine blades which drives the compressor blades - http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo

As for Dawlish, its been done before in Scotland - near Largs (Saltcoates is it?) - you use 50kV insulation

 

[yorksrob]

As for Dawlish, its been done before in Scotland - near Largs (Saltcoates is it?) - you use 50kV insulation

Ah, many thanks. I thought there would be a technical fix.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

many people do not like the truth, choosing only instead to believe what is written in public

No. Lots of us don't like the truth. But we know when we're faced with something we don't like when its staring us clearly in the face.
So that's what you'll have to give us - clear evidence.
But please, please stop confusing "like" with "reason".

Also, you're not providing the logical connections - the connection that links your "evidence" with your conclusion.
That's the connection between the 3 matters of your disputed "evidence" (which you havn't seen in the public domain) and your conclusions (which appear to be a numerical evaluation).
So you'll need to provide us with some numbers so that we can follow your reasoning. Numbers will easily overcome the hurdle of your adversaries' "chosing instead to believe" whatever they like.

You've got 2 duties:-
Provide evidential bases for your 3 arguments.
Show the logical progression from those numbers to your conclusion that the GWML need not be electrified.

This should be easy to explain, for someone who clearly understands the 3 issues of:
Fuel consumption/energy production and the impact of their emissions
Turbocharging of diesel-burning engines
Topography of Bristol and environs.

Thanks

 

[the sniper]

How will the topography/geography affect positioning of the OHLE?

For me this is the oddest point of your whole post. Seeing as the Great Western Main Line was built to accommodate broad gauge, in theory it should present less of a challenge to electrify then the West and East Coast mainlines did, as they have much more limited clearances in many areas.

You're speaking as if electrification is something new to the world...

 

[Aictos]

Indeed, quite a lot of track got uplifted on the East Coast to cater for OHL, I'm referring to Huntingdon to Holme which used to be 4 tracks now reduced to 3 apart from a section of 4 tracking in the Connington area and Fletton to Peterborough station used to be 4 tracks as well, it's only 4 tracks from the junction with the East Coast and NVR.

So seeing as the GWML was built to a larger gauge then the rest of the UK, I fail to see any problems other then Dawlish which has been solved by using 50kV OHL rather then 25kV OHL.

As to the branches, I guess the routes which can be used as though diversionary routes could be done as I'm sure the 166s and 165s are heading west once Crossrail gets finished if it ever does!!!

 

[bnm]

I'll refrain from getting into the technical aspects of of the OP, as others have managed to debunk them quite sucessfully.

All I will say is that it would appear that Dr Dionysius Lardner is alive and well! :roll:

 

[bluebottle]

We need answers to these problems which, as I have explained above, the government have but are choosing not to tell the public.

How do you know about them then?

Utter bilge of the lowest order of arse water.

 

[jon0844]

Give him a break. He clearly knows the truth about everything, including 9/11 and the fact that 7/7 didn't really happen - it was a set up by MI5. We should embrace his knowledge, knowing that if the Government really WAS covering all this stuff up - his posts, this forum and probably everyone he knows, would no longer be here.

 

[thegrich37423]

It's obvious that the government are choosing to withhold information on this. They demonstrated that they were incapable of providing the general public with evidence of MMGW by failing to declare in the recent email scandal, vital proof under the Freedom of Information Act. Now, they choose to withhold information demonstrating how electrification projects do not solve the current problem with the UK's carbon emissions. I do not need to know this. I read between the lines, and in the latest article on the electrification proposals for the GWML in Modern Railways, its plain to see that their reasoning behind the project's benefits is flawed.
Going back to the HST locomotive problem, one of the uncomfortable truths withheld by the government is the fundamental problem with the MTU design. They need to address this problem and realise, in a eureka moment, that actually the MTU's engine design does not solve the HST's age crisis but rather curtails their lifespan considerably. The Paxman Valenta engine at least was designed to provide the HST locomotive with a decent innings at the modern UK railway crease. Fundamental mechanical and engineering knowledge is not needed here since it'll only be a longer way round of proving my point of the flaws of the MTU design.
I cannot believe that people on here are choosing to accept that the electrification of the GWML is without its flaws. Clearly, it isn't and worringly, more of the fundamental concerns are being held back then some on here would like us to believe. It's all about distinguishing truth from conspiracy.

 

[O L Leigh]

I have been following this thread with mounting interest and so far the only thing that can be reliably verified is that you are exhibiting behaviour consistent with an internet "troll". You are making bold claims and failing to provide a shred of supporting evidence, claiming instead that there has been a massive cover-up and that it will all become obvious to us if only we think on it a while longer and that we don't need any technical expertise to understand it.

Unfortunately, even without any support your reasoning is flawed. Yes the UK needs to look at how it meets it's increasing requirements for energy and to consider what other "green" options may be available, but you fail to see one very important benefit of an electrified network. While a diesel train will always be reliant on fossil fuels, an electric train gets it's energy from whatever energy generating technology is used. If the UK were to switch to entirely renewable methods such as wind, wave, solar and the emerging infra-red technology, the entire electrified network would become carbon-neutral at a stroke. By persisting with diesel and opposing electrification you are denying that opportunity.

But as I'm feeling in a good mood I'd like to give you an opportunity to have another stab at proving your point about the flaw with the MTU engine (your other two main points having already been comprehensively debunked). Simply stating that it uses "compressed air" tells us nothing as it is not clear what this is used for or why it should be seen as a disadvantage.

O L Leigh

 

[starrymarkb]

Fundamental mechanical and engineering knowledge is not needed here since it'll only be a longer way round of proving my point of the flaws of the MTU design.

errr WTF? If a design has flaws then surely mechanical knowledge is required... and would quicken any explanation. ie I think 4 small turbochargers are less efficient then a giant screaming Napier turbo because....

Also say IEP and Electrification were to be cancelled then what happens? Do you re-life extend the HSTs? and how long for 10,20 or 30 years?? Do you think the UK should be using 70 year old technology?! Or do you order Voyagers with their huge maintenance costs (9 coach train has 171l of engine, 63 pistons, at least 9 turbochargers (there's the compressed air again ) at least 126 valves and associated timing gear), 9 exhaust systems, 9 oil changes?) Or do you reduce the GWML to a 100mph railway using Turbostars? That would still have all the complications of the Voyagers but with slower journeys

If Electrification is so bad, why don't you put forward a better suggestion?

 

[j0hn0]

It's obvious that the government are choosing to withhold information on this. They demonstrated that they were incapable of providing the general public with evidence of MMGW by failing to declare in the recent email scandal, vital proof under the Freedom of Information Act. Now, they choose to withhold information demonstrating how electrification projects do not solve the current problem with the UK's carbon emissions. I do not need to know this. I read between the lines, and in the latest article on the electrification proposals for the GWML in Modern Railways, its plain to see that their reasoning behind the project's benefits is flawed.
Going back to the HST locomotive problem, one of the uncomfortable truths withheld by the government is the fundamental problem with the MTU design. They need to address this problem and realise, in a eureka moment, that actually the MTU's engine design does not solve the HST's age crisis but rather curtails their lifespan considerably. The Paxman Valenta engine at least was designed to provide the HST locomotive with a decent innings at the modern UK railway crease. Fundamental mechanical and engineering knowledge is not needed here since it'll only be a longer way round of proving my point of the flaws of the MTU design.
I cannot believe that people on here are choosing to accept that the electrification of the GWML is without its flaws. Clearly, it isn't and worringly, more of the fundamental concerns are being held back then some on here would like us to believe. It's all about distinguishing truth from conspiracy.

Compared to keeping it as a diesel line, there are no flaws. At least with electricity there is the possibility of using renewables to create it, whereas for diesel there is none. (I have previously debunked your theory of using bio-fuel in old engines)

You are simply ignoring everything everyone is saying on here which debunk all of your ill-informed claims.

Why not either a) accept what people who are much more informed than you or b) just give up

Actually given your tactic of repeating something ad nauseum to try and make something true, I would say that you are using the exact tactics of the government.

How does that sit in your little world?

 

[ChrisCooper]

The Napier Turbo chargers were one of the main problems for the Valentas in terms of emissions, as they have such a long spool up, during which time the engine isn't getting enough air. This is even more true as old fuel control systems would just begin dumping more fuel into the cylinders with no regard for if the conditions were right for it to burn. That's why old engines clag on applying power, Valentas in particular. Driver applies power, fuel system chucks more diesel into the cylinders which are too cold and can't pull enough air in to burn it, and the result is a fair amount of unburnt hydrocarbons, partially burned fuel, Carbon Monoxide and foaming enthusiasts. As I said before though, CO2 emmisions arn't effected. The most efficient engine will just make sure all the carbon in the fuel gets turned into CO2. Modern engines like the MTU (and the VP185) have multiple, smaller turbos which have much less lag. Some use variable vanes too for even more efficiency (not sure if any railway types do). That is combined with modern fuel injection systems which make sure the right amount of fuel is injected for almost complete combustion, and you've got a slightly more efficient (since more fuel get's burned and converted into useful energy, not just blasted out of the exhaust and turned into enthusiast porn), and much "greener" (from the point of view of particulates and HC emmisions) engine.

Just another thing regarding the MTUs and Electrification. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the railway emmision rules (road vehicles are another matter), but it was mentioned on the GC MTU discussion that the MTUs from next year would not be able to attain the standards for new engines, hence why GC are rushing to get all their powercars done. This oviously would rule out the MTU for a future Diesel HST replacement. Developing a brand new engine would push up the cost dramatically. There is also the question of the QSK19s which are the ovious choice for an underfloor engine high speed DMU, being fitted to 22X, 180 and 185s. The smaller engines on most DMUs are far more economic to develop to keep up with changing emmisions standards, not only being far more common on local and regional DMUs, but also being similar or identical to those used in the road industry. The same applies to the big, low speed lumps used in freight locos, as well as power generation and shipping. Engine choice could play a very big role in the choice of HST replacement. Electrification of the high speed sections would deal with that problem. Sourcing a suitable engine for hauling trains off the wires (that didn't need dragging dead under the wires) where speeds would be lower (100mph max) would be far easier.

 

[starrymarkb]

The QSK-19 is also out from an emissions view point. One for the reasons the 185 lengthening fell through.

MTU and Cummins have new compliant models, however if you use those you then have a small fleet with different engines to the main batch with all the complications that brings

 

[TGV]

...I do not need to know this. I read between the lines,

I'm starting to see your problem here... Seriously do yourself a favour and stop! You're losing credibility by the minute.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Just another thing regarding the MTUs and Electrification. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the railway emmision rules (road vehicles are another matter), but it was mentioned on the GC MTU discussion that the MTUs from next year would not be able to attain the standards for new engines, hence why GC are rushing to get all their powercars done. This oviously would rule out the MTU for a future Diesel HST replacement.

I believe the root of the urgency is due to the requirement for heavy duty non-road machinery including rail engines, to have emissions control catalysts and a diesel particulate filter by the start of 2012. This is to satisfy the requirements of European Stage IIIB regulations for non-road machinery.

As I understand it the next generation 4000 series MTU engine will be too big to fit into the existing power cars. Not a problem for broad gauge continental locos but a problem for our own.

This pdf explains all - the new unit will have a catalysed soot filter, diesel oxidation catalyst and in common with the current MTU 16V 4000, common rail injection technology will reduce fuel consumption, CO2 and NOx emissions without the need for selective catalytic oxidation. The current engines do not have aftertreatment systems.

http://www.mtu-online.com/fileadmin/fm-dam/mtu-global/pdf/mtureport/1001/1001_MTU-Report_On_track_for_the_future.pdf

 

[90019]

I cannot believe that people on here are choosing to accept that the electrification of the GWML is without its flaws. Clearly, it isn't and worringly, more of the fundamental concerns are being held back then some on here would like us to believe. It's all about distinguishing truth from conspiracy.

The only conspiracy so far in this thread is coming from your posts. Until you post actual evidence to back up your claims, what you say is nothing more than an opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You're losing credibility by the minute.

He had credibility?!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Fundamental mechanical and engineering knowledge is not needed here since it'll only be a longer way round of proving my point of the flaws of the MTU design.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, and don't want to have to admit it.

 

[TGV]

I think he's just winding us all up...

 

[CarterUSM]

I have to agree, whilst a lot of(other peoples) the posts have been of a qualititive nature, I think he is just looking for reactions. I wouldn't rise to it, nor waste my time.

 

[moonrakerz]

On the subject of manmade global warming, it always amuses me who people with no qualifications in the subject make up their mind about something they probably know little to nothing about - the main reason usually is because it doesn't suit their belief systems.

I don't think there actually are any "qualifications" in MMGB. the whole area is festooned with self-appointed "experts" (we all know the definition of expert !) who support the "cause" for either political or financial reasons.

Al Gore being the prime example - didn't he do well out of it ?

 

[Greenback]

I have to agree, whilst a lot of(other peoples) the posts have been of a qualititive nature, I think he is just looking for reactions. I wouldn't rise to it, nor waste my time.

Quite. I suppose we must be grateful that the OP has led to some quality postings on this thread, sadly none of their posts are amongst them!