House of Commons Transport Committee "Trains fit for the future?" Report

[Master29]

This: https://www.investorschronicle.co.u...xpress-a-dependable-source-of-growing-income/

says that National Express have a fleet size of about 1700 coaches. If we assume 50 seats to a coach, that's 85,000 seats. So, £85,000,000 extra if it's £1,000 extra per seat.

I imagine the economics of coach travel and rail are very different though, so the two aren't really comparable.

Which potentially leaves the first point open as to why still the cheaper seats ? I'm sure there could be reasons.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The customer for a coach operator is the traveller. The customer for a rail franchisee is the civil servants at the DfT or other body which grants them the franchise. For subjective things like comfort, your best bet is if the civil servants will actually use the services they're controlling. To that end, it's best for rail operators that don't serve London to be managed by civil servants based outside London. ScotRail has always worked fine because the people in charge work in Glasgow and Edinburgh, while Northern and TPE were controlled by people far away.

The other factor is that coach services don't have to worry about standing passengers. If paying for better seats means that your coach ends up with a full passenger count of 50, then that's excellent. If it means that the coach becomes so popular that 60 people want to travel instead, then you can just price the bottom 10 people off the coach and pocket the increase in fares. Train operators just cannot do that. If 500 people turn up and there are only comfy seats for 450, then 50 people are going to have to stand. If this happens a lot, then these people will complain, and they'll end up pushing for a solution that gives them 500 less comfy seats instead. That's why the new Greater Anglia trains have 2+3 seating. There is too much political demand for a seat to be provided at all, rather than a smaller number of more comfy ones.

Mandatory seating reservations might help, but they're difficult to implement on services which are necessarily overcrowded unless you're happy with lots of standing passengers. Would you want the train with 450 comfy seats to leave 50 people behind, banned from even standing? Coaches and planes don't have to worry about this because they aren't allowed to take standing passengers regardless of how much they might complain about being left behind.

 

[Irascible]

There is some dreamland thinking about batteries. Yes, they will have some limited applications for relatively low speed / short distance lines. But, I predict that it will probably never be possible to get sufficient power for high speed long distance trains whilst having an acceptable weight of batteries. All batteries are dependent on types of chemical reaction, and there are scientific limits about the amount of energy that can be extracted from chemical reactions. In addition, some of the reactions producing the most energy are so fast and explosive that it seems implausible that they could ever be safely controlled for use in batteries.
(Think, for example, sodium + water, but even worse....)

I think @Bald Rick was saying Hitachi's trial install for an 80x weighs about the same as the diesel engine+tank & has enough juice to power the whole train for 30 mins - this is due for testing soon, not just in the planning stage. That sort of thing is a game changer provided there's infrastructure to get it recharged.

This: https://www.investorschronicle.co.u...xpress-a-dependable-source-of-growing-income/

says that National Express have a fleet size of about 1700 coaches. If we assume 50 seats to a coach, that's 85,000 seats. So, £85,000,000 extra if it's £1,000 extra per seat.

I imagine the economics of coach travel and rail are very different though, so the two aren't really comparable.

The enconomics of coach procurement seem to be different too - I had a quick look round at the second-hand coach market & there's ex NX coaches there only 6 years old. You're not going to be buying 1700 coaches in one go though, so you don't need to find £85m all at once. You do buy trains in batches ( although even then over a few years, generally ) so your borrowing would be a bit higher, but... so? a marginal increase in ticket prices like we're talking is not going to drive off your market even if it has to cover interest as well as the actual better seat. And who knows, maybe better seats will make the usage figures 4.1 avg per day. The real problem seems to be - as the post above says - it's run by civil servants.

My numbers were made up to illustrate the scale we're working with rather than being based on any particular reality, I've no idea what a seat actually costs.

 

[Wyrleybart]

I think @Bald Rick was saying Hitachi's trial install for an 80x weighs about the same as the diesel engine+tank & has enough juice to power the whole train for 30 mins - this is due for testing soon, not just in the planning stage. That sort of thing is a game changer provided there's infrastructure to get it recharged.

IMHO, irrespective of whether batteries are "good" or not, they do at least provide some short - medium term respite from trying to replace the internal combustion engine on board rail. There need to be a handful of testbed operations to build experience of battery +electric traction even with small scale operations. One of the ideal testbeds in my view is Glasgow Queen St - Anniesland which is currently operated by DMUs. A 25kV+battery electric unit testbed could be put in place relatively easily using the 25kV between each downhill journey from Cowlairs Jn down into Queen St. This would involve regen braking into the batteries. The dwell time at Queen St and the ascent to Cowlairs would also be under AC current, and the only real obstacle is to ensure the pan drops / raises at Cowlairs, then the unit runs the handful of miles to Anniesland using the batteries. I am assuming the bay platform At Anniesland which these trains use is not wired, but once again, as a testbed, there could be a charging wire "jumped" from the 25kV on the main platforms at Anniesland.

As a relatively cheap option I am sure a redundant Great Eastern class 321 could be converted into class 320/5 with maybe all the battery kit installed in the 4th car, assuming the platforms can accommodate 4 cars. This is because Scotrail operate their class 320s as 3 car units.

The point is that this kind of operation needs the working together of the infrastructure owner (NR) a TOC, a ROSCO and an engineering organisation.

 

[NotATrainspott]

IMHO, irrespective of whether batteries are "good" or not, they do at least provide some short - medium term respite from trying to replace the internal combustion engine on board rail. There need to be a handful of testbed operations to build experience of battery +electric traction even with small scale operations. One of the ideal testbeds in my view is Glasgow Queen St - Anniesland which is currently operated by DMUs. A 25kV+battery electric unit testbed could be put in place relatively easily using the 25kV between each downhill journey from Cowlairs Jn down into Queen St. This would involve regen braking into the batteries. The dwell time at Queen St and the ascent to Cowlairs would also be under AC current, and the only real obstacle is to ensure the pan drops / raises at Cowlairs, then the unit runs the handful of miles to Anniesland using the batteries. I am assuming the bay platform At Anniesland which these trains use is not wired, but once again, as a testbed, there could be a charging wire "jumped" from the 25kV on the main platforms at Anniesland.

As a relatively cheap option I am sure a redundant Great Eastern class 321 could be converted into class 320/5 with maybe all the battery kit installed in the 4th car, assuming the platforms can accommodate 4 cars. This is because Scotrail operate their class 320s as 3 car units.

The point is that this kind of operation needs the working together of the infrastructure owner (NR) a TOC, a ROSCO and an engineering organisation.

Anniesland isn't a particularly interesting testbed for battery EMU operation, since the section without wires is so short and requires such little power. It's not operationally necessary to electrify it yet as there are still enough DMUs floating around Queen Street HL. If there were a compelling reason to use EMUs on it, then it could be wired up fairly simply.

Transport Scotland are instead much more keen on using the Levenmouth reopening as their BEMU testbed. The existing Haymarket wiring will be extended up to Dalmeny and the new reopened Levenmouth branch will be electrified from the beginning. The gap without wires will include the whole Forth Bridge as well as the entire Fife Circle route. It will go beyond well beyond what was tested in the 379 BEMU trial as this won't be just a rural branch line. It will require purpose-built BEMU trains and in the likely event that it works, it will be a long-lasting solution for Fife Circle services.

 

[Irascible]

IMHO, irrespective of whether batteries are "good" or not, they do at least provide some short - medium term respite from trying to replace the internal combustion engine on board rail. There need to be a handful of testbed operations to build experience of battery +electric traction even with small scale operations.

Well it's not just that, it's that you also don't need wires everywhere - if it works then there's no point in wiring Bristol TM, for instance.

 

[mpthomson]

I welcome any positive long term strategy.

The last thing I want to see is a massive nationwide short-termist cost cutting exercise (as we appear to be seeing with Network Rail and the Army) to attempt to balance the books for Covid. Sure rail use might be reduced for now, but we have to keep a long term view.

Slightly OT, but Army spending (and defence generally) is increasing significantly. It's just that the people/tech ratio has changed somewhat to take into account the more hi-tech and cyber elements of modern warfare.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Well it's not just that, it's that you also don't need wires everywhere - if it works then there's no point in wiring Bristol TM, for instance.

Probably not. Batteries mean that you can wire up just the busiest section of a line, where the most trains will spend some time. It might be a more expensive job per track mile, but that money will go much further. It also means you only need to provide one large grid supply point which will have a relatively constant power draw, rather than a bunch of separate ones which are a bit more peaky. Batteries give you an excellent way to avoid the complex problem of getting power to the train even on the most challenging short stretches of a route, but they don't solve the problem of getting the energy.

 

[chiltern trev]

And the House of Commons Transport Committe has an email address - where yoiu can send you comments and views into - see page House of Commons Transport Committee - scroll down to the bottom for [email protected]

 

[BrianW]

Well it's not just that, it's that you also don't need wires everywhere - if it works then there's no point in wiring Bristol TM, for instance.

Presumably (?) it would be possible to carry out some kind of (rough and ready?) cost(/benefit) comparison between costs of wiring eg Bristol Temple Meads and those of accommodating and 'lugging around' batteries onboard. I'm calling to mind the early 'electro-diesels' and subsequent bi-modes (and tri-mode imminently).
I have a feeling that, despite the 'no-brainers' of electrification/decarbonisation and rolling programmes) the 'rail industry' is going to have to earn some trust back by delivering on time and in budget some 'low hanging fruit' aka 'no regret' schemes. Maybe the Government has kept the 'no-regrets' list secret so there will be no need to say what has NOT been approved, and thus reduce the bad PR of 'rejection'.
We don't hear much about a Rooseveltian 'New Deal' programme of major works these days. Indeed the Green Homes Grant Scheme was scrapped the day after Parliament shut for 'hols', and we hear a lot about reducing the deficit and debt. It's hard to be hopeful. Maybe we'll hear something in the lead up to COP26 in Glasgow in November (or G7 in Carbis Bay in June- maybe a carbon-free St Ives branch??).
I wonder where in the government's rolling programme of press releases the Shapps-Williams review features?

 

[Irascible]

Presumably (?) it would be possible to carry out some kind of (rough and ready?) cost(/benefit) comparison between costs of wiring eg Bristol Temple Meads and those of accommodating and 'lugging around' batteries onboard. I'm calling to mind the early 'electro-diesels' and subsequent bi-modes (and tri-mode imminently).
I have a feeling that, despite the 'no-brainers' of electrification/decarbonisation and rolling programmes) the 'rail industry' is going to have to earn some trust back by delivering on time and in budget some 'low hanging fruit' aka 'no regret' schemes. Maybe the Government has kept the 'no-regrets' list secret so there will be no need to say what has NOT been approved, and thus reduce the bad PR of 'rejection'.
We don't hear much about a Rooseveltian 'New Deal' programme of major works these days. Indeed the Green Homes Grant Scheme was scrapped the day after Parliament shut for 'hols', and we hear a lot about reducing the deficit and debt. It's hard to be hopeful. Maybe we'll hear something in the lead up to COP26 in Glasgow in November (or G7 in Carbis Bay in June- maybe a carbon-free St Ives branch??).
I wonder where in the government's rolling programme of press releases the Shapps-Williams review features?

If it weighs the same as the current diesel kit & there's no need for extra infrastructure ( "charging point" sections of OHLE or upgraded power supplies for sections ) then the BCA shouldn't really be worse than the current service - I'm not going to say it can't be because the whole maintenance chain for batteries might have a horrible set of costs attached in practice, I don't know & we won't know for sure how long the battery packs hold their charge within tolerances until we've used them. Much will depend on the costs attached to carbon emissions ( or any other emissions ) I guess but those will only go up ( not least because current politics is saying so ).

We had a huge debate about the technicalities of partial OHLE & batteries in a speculation thread ( my own conclusion was it's not really possible quite how I think it should be, and I can't see why not but it's certainly possible to wire easy bits & let batteries deal with the more complicated sections ) so I don't really think this is the right place, but I do feel that the railways shouldn't be subject to any headline news ( whether that's big investment or big reductions ) until battery tech has been tried & a fairly practical implementation - not only for rail, but HGV & PSVs too - has been worked out. We're rather in danger of repeating the 50s if we're not careful. Make plans for many eventualities, sure.

 

[Wyrleybart]

IMHO hub stations like Bristol Temple Meads definitely need OLE as the local train services if battery-electric need to charge whilst laying over. A lot of similar stations have this ability, York, Newcastle, Leeds, Doncaster, Machester Vic and Picc, Preston, Lime St etc etc. York and Newcastle were electrified well over 30 years ago so Temple Meads should not present a significant problem.

 

[Irascible]

IMHO hub stations like Bristol Temple Meads definitely need OLE as the local train services if battery-electric need to charge whilst laying over. A lot of similar stations have this ability, York, Newcastle, Leeds, Doncaster, Machester Vic and Picc, Preston, Lime St etc etc. York and Newcastle were electrified well over 30 years ago so Temple Meads should not present a significant problem.

The idea behind battery-EMU with partial electrification was that you charge it up *inbetween* stations, as that's the cheap bit to wire. If it's standing for long periods & you can't turn it off, you can plug it into a shore line.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The idea behind battery-EMU with partial electrification was that you charge it up *inbetween* stations, as that's the cheap bit to wire. If it's standing for long periods & you can't turn it off, you can plug it into a shore line.

Plugging it in isn't really viable unless you're expecting it to be there for hours. It would work for an overnight depot, but not for a station during the day.

The fact that trains only require one contact point to be supplied with electricity (as the rails can be the return conductor) means that pantographs and relatively simple overhead wiring works fine. So long as you know the pantograph is generally underneath a live section of overhead power, you can flip a switch and raise it whenever is convenient. Exact stopping points don't really matter, and you keep the high voltage electricity to recharge well away from any passengers or staff.

Major stations like Bristol TM are more than busy enough to justify full 25kV AC overhead wiring. It's on a mainline route where the cost-benefit of more wiring vs more battery use is very much in favour of extra wiring. Batteries will probably be used for long neutral sections on mainlines rather than completely unwired sections, as each raise and lower of the pantograph does have a cost.

It might be cheaper per route kilometre to wire up between stations, but to provide the same amount of charging energy you'll need to have a much longer stretch of wiring. A 5 minute station stop only requires enough overhead power to cover the station, while at 60mph it would require 5 miles.

Isolated sections of HVDC overhead charging are very likely to become commonplace at critical stopping points on rural routes. On the WHL you'll probably see them at Crianlarich, Oban, Fort William and Mallaig, with the 25kV AC wiring up to Craigendoran allowing charging as well on the Glasgow stretch. Assuming a max battery train length of 130m that means only just above a kilometre of overhead equipment for the whole route.

 

[snowball]

According to a recent issue of Modern Railways, Vivarail, of Class 230 D-train fame, have suggested charging points at key stations, using stretches of specially designed under-train third rail that is only live when a train is sitting over it. They used the WHL as an example and mentioned the same stations you did. There would be a large stationary battery at each charging point which would charge up slowly from the mains when no train was present, and then discharge quickly into the train's batteries while the train is calling at the station.